Omori law

•  The modified Omori law

•  Omori law for foreshocks
•  Aftershocks of aftershocks
•  Physical aspects of temporal clustering
 Omori law: the modified Omori law

Omori law (Omori, 1894):

˙ C1
N (t) = ,
t
the modified Omori law (Utsu, 1961):
C1
N˙ (t) = p
,
€ (C 2 + t )
and its cumulative form (for p=1):
t # t &
N(t) = ∫ N˙ (t)dt = C1 ln% + 1( ,
€ 0 $ C2 '
where t is time, N is earthquake count, C1, C2 and p are fitting
coefficients. The decay exponent, p, is commonly referred to as
the “p-value”.
€
Why study aftershocks?
 Omori law: Aftershocks around the world

1995 Mw 6.9 Kobe, Japan

duration

background
 Omori law: Aftershocks around the world

1979 Mw 6.6 Imperial Valley, CA

 Omori law: Aftershocks around the world

1989 Mw 7.1 Loma Prieta, CA

 Omori law: Aftershocks of small mainshocks
The traditional approach is to consider as mainshocks only
earthquakes that are large and infrequent. Recent studies show
that small-to-moderate earthquakes also enhance the seismicity
in their vicinity.

•  Aftershocks of aftershocks also decay according to the modified Omori

law.
 Omori law: Aftershocks of small mainshocks

When analyzing spatio-temporal clustering with respect to small

earthquakes, it is useful to construct a composite catalog of
stacked aftershock sequences.

A recipe for analysing aftershocks of microearthquakes:

•  We consider each earthquake as a potential mainshock, and for

each such mainshock compute its rupture dimensions.

•  Calculate lag-times and distances between each potential

mainshock and all later earthquakes within the study area.

•  Stack mainshock-aftershock pairs with an inter-event distance

that is less than twice the mainshock radius to get a “composite
catalog”.
 Omori law: Aftershocks of small mainshocks

•  Micro-earthquakes during “background activity” also trigger

aftershocks that decay according to the modified Omori law.
 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

N˙ (Izmit + 10 days) − N˙ (Izmit - 100 days)

The Mw7.4 Izmit (Turkey): N˙ (1985 - 2002)

Mw5.8
Two weeks later
 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

N˙ (Izmit + 10 days) − N˙ (Izmit - 100 days)

N˙ (1985 - 2002)
cumulative Omori law

(See also Brodsky et al., 2000.)

•  The decay of remote aftershocks follows the modified Omori law!

 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

The decay of M7.4 Izmit

aftershocks throughout Greece
is very similar to the decay of
M5.8 Athens aftershocks in
Athens area (just multiply the
vertical axis by 2).
 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

N˙ (Landers + 10 days) − N˙ (Landers - 100 days)

N˙ (1985 - 2002)

days since mainshock

 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

ΔCFF(t) = Δσ S (t) − µΔσ N (t) ,

•  The magnitude of static

stress changes decay as
disatnce-3.
•  The magnitude of the peak
dynamic stress changes
decay as distance-1.
•  At great distances from the
rupture, the peak dynamic
stresses are much larger than
the static stresss.

Figure from Kilb et al., 2000

 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

Instantaneous No triggering
triggering
Stress

Time Time
 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

Indeed, distant aftershocks are observed during the passage of

the seismic waves emitted from the mainshock rupture.

Izmit aftershocks in Greece.

Brodsky et al., 2000

Omori law: Remote aftershocks
 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

A major aftershock (magnitude 7.1) can be seen at the closest

stations starting just after the 200 minutes mark. Note the relative
size of this aftershock, which would be considered as a major
earthquake under ordinary circumstances, compared to the
mainshock.
 Omori law: Remote aftershocks

•  Dynamic stress changes trigger aftershocks that rupture during

the passage of the seismic waves.

•  But the vast majority aftershocks occur during the days, weeks
and months after the mainshock.

•  Dynamic stress changes cannot trigger “delayed aftershocks”,

i.e. those aftreshocks that rupture long after the passage of the
seismic waves emitted by the mainshock.

•  It is, therefore, unclear what gives rise to delayed aftershocks in

regions that are located very far from the mainshock.
 Omori law: Aftershocks of aftershocks and the origin of remote
aftershocks

The mainshock index quantifies the degree to which the triggering

effect of a given aftershock is locally more important than the
mainshock. The mainshock index of event i is defined as:
N (Δt i < t ≤ 2Δt i ,r < 2Ri )
λi = .
N (0 < t ≤ Δt i ,r < 2Ri )

•  t is time measured from the mainshock time

•  Δt is the€lag time between the mainshock and aftershock I

•  r is inter-event distance

•  R is the rupture radius

Omori law: Aftershocks of aftershocks and the origin of remote
aftershocks

Mainshock index
Omori law: Aftershocks of aftershocks and the origin of remote
aftershocks

λ in north1
•  λi>1 is indicative of seismicity
rate increase in the vicinity of
the aftershock in question,
suggesting that the triggering
effect of that aftershock in that
region is stronger than the
triggering effect of the
mainshock and the previous
aftershocks.
 Omori law: Aftershocks of aftershocks and the origin of remote
aftershocks

Comparison with a mainshock index of a sequence decaying

locally according to the Omori law:
2Δt i
C1
∫ (C2 + t i ) p
dt
Δt i
λOmori
i = Δt i ,
C1
∫ (C2 + t i ) p
dt
0

which has the properties:

€ For Δt → 0 , λOmori
i →1



and

For Δt → ∞ , λOmori
i →0 .




Omori law: Aftershocks of aftershocks and the origin of remote
aftershocks

Comparison with theoreticalA.λZiv

•  In conclusion, most (if
not all) Landers remote
aftershocks were not
directly triggered by
landers, but are
aftershocks of previous
aftershocks.

Figure 6. Percentage of k ! kth (p ! 1) as a func-

tion of the threshold magnitude for earthquakes that
occurred during the 100 days after the Landers earth-
quake within regions North1 (solid) and North2
(dashed). Earthquakes that occurred during the first
24 hr were excluded from this analysis.
Omori law: Aftershocks of aftershocks and the origin of remote
aftershocks

Hector Mine aftershocks

 Omori law: Aftershocks of aftershocks and the origin of remote
aftershocks
Note that:
•  The sequence consists On the Roleof
of Multiple Interactions in Remote Aftershock Triggering: The Landers and the Hector Mine Case Studies

several sub-sequences, Hector Mine aftershocks

and the onset of activity
migrated southward.
•  Many of the quakes that
occurred between 33N
and 33.5N are aftershocks
of a M4.3 that ruptured 10
minutes after the
mainshock.
•  M4.37 that occurred 2.4
days after the mainshocks
Figure 8. Time-space diagram for the Hector Mine aftershocks in area South. The
triggered a burst of size of the circles is proportional to the earthquake magnitude. The vertical dashed
seismicity near latitude lines indicate the timing of the three largest earthquakes.

33N.
 Omori law: Foreshocks

•  The increase in
foreshock rate too
follows an Omori law,
with t being the time to
the mainshock.

From Jones and Molnar, 1979

 Omori law: Physical aspects

Implications of static-kinetic friction on earthquake timing:

The “clock advance” does NOT depend on the time of the stress
application.
 Omori law: Physical aspects

Implications of rate-and-state friction on earthquake timing:

The “clock advance”

depends on the time of the
stress application.
 Omori law: Physical aspects

Implications of the friction law on temporal clustering:

 Summary:
•  Not only aftershocks of large quakes, but also aftershocks of
aftershocks decay according to the modified Omori law.

•  Micro-earthquakes during “background activity” also trigger

aftershocks that decay according to the modified Omori law.

•  The decay of remote aftershocks follows the modified Omori law.

•  Most (if not all) Landers remote aftershocks were not directly
triggered by the Landers earthquake, but are aftershocks of
previous aftershocks.

•  The increase in foreshock rate too follows an Omori law, with t

being the time to the mainshock.

•  Stress perturbation applied on a population of faults governed by

static-kinetic friction cannot give rise to seismicity rate change.
 Further reading:

•  Scholz, C. H., The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, New-

York: Cambridge Univ. Press., 439 p., 1990.
•  Ziv, A., On the Role of Multiple Interactions in Remote Aftershock
Triggering: The Landers and the Hector Mine Case Studies, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am., 96(1), 80-89, 2006.