Toni Kraft
Dear colleagues,
before everybody leaves for the end of the year break, we would like to
invite you to submit an abstract to our session on earthquake foreshocks
at this next years EGU and wish you happy holidays.
Submit your abstract here:
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2019/abstractsubmission/31893
Abstract submission deadline: 10 Jan 2019, 13:00 CET (12:00 UTC)
Best wishes from the conveners:
Toni Kraft
Christine Ruhl
Aitaro Kato
*Session description*
Over the past several years, interest in earthquake foreshocks has
experienced considerable growth. This can, on one side, be explained by
a largely improved observational database that spans all seismic scales.
A development that is driven by a growing number of permanent seismic
stations and large-scale campaign networks, the development of advanced
detection and analysis techniques, and by the improvement of laboratory
equipment and techniques. In addition, the ongoing endeavor to better
understand induced seismicity has been contributing to this upgrowth
with densely-monitored underground lab-scale experiments and enhanced
microseismic monitoring. On the other side, earthquake foreshocks are
widely perceived as one of the few and, as of now, most direct
observations of earthquake nucleation processes.
Foreshocks are generally thought to arise by one of two mechanisms:
cascading failure or preslip. The cascading model proposes that a
mainshock following a foreshock has an identical origin to that of
aftershocks. In this case, earthquake frequency-magnitude statistics
predict that occasionally an aftershock will be larger than the prior
event, which makes the prior event a foreshock only after the fact. The
mechanism proposed by the preslip model is that premonitory processes -
perhaps fault creep related to mainshock nucleation - result in stress
changes that drive the foreshock process. Seismologists have found no
agreement so far; this is made more difficult by two facts: that no
agreed-upon, universal strategy to identify foreshocks in a seismic
catalog exists and that data quality and quantity vary considerably over
spatial and temporal scales.
In this session, we want to bring together scientists from all
disciplines working on, or interested in, earthquake foreshock
occurrence. We invite reports on observational and theoretical studies
on all scales. This includes laboratory and deep underground
experimental earthquakes, as well as microseismic to megathrust
earthquakes. We also encourage submissions from colleagues working on
advanced detection and analysis techniques for improved foreshock
identification.
before everybody leaves for the end of the year break, we would like to
invite you to submit an abstract to our session on earthquake foreshocks
at this next years EGU and wish you happy holidays.
Submit your abstract here:
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2019/abstractsubmission/31893
Abstract submission deadline: 10 Jan 2019, 13:00 CET (12:00 UTC)
Best wishes from the conveners:
Toni Kraft
Christine Ruhl
Aitaro Kato
*Session description*
Over the past several years, interest in earthquake foreshocks has
experienced considerable growth. This can, on one side, be explained by
a largely improved observational database that spans all seismic scales.
A development that is driven by a growing number of permanent seismic
stations and large-scale campaign networks, the development of advanced
detection and analysis techniques, and by the improvement of laboratory
equipment and techniques. In addition, the ongoing endeavor to better
understand induced seismicity has been contributing to this upgrowth
with densely-monitored underground lab-scale experiments and enhanced
microseismic monitoring. On the other side, earthquake foreshocks are
widely perceived as one of the few and, as of now, most direct
observations of earthquake nucleation processes.
Foreshocks are generally thought to arise by one of two mechanisms:
cascading failure or preslip. The cascading model proposes that a
mainshock following a foreshock has an identical origin to that of
aftershocks. In this case, earthquake frequency-magnitude statistics
predict that occasionally an aftershock will be larger than the prior
event, which makes the prior event a foreshock only after the fact. The
mechanism proposed by the preslip model is that premonitory processes -
perhaps fault creep related to mainshock nucleation - result in stress
changes that drive the foreshock process. Seismologists have found no
agreement so far; this is made more difficult by two facts: that no
agreed-upon, universal strategy to identify foreshocks in a seismic
catalog exists and that data quality and quantity vary considerably over
spatial and temporal scales.
In this session, we want to bring together scientists from all
disciplines working on, or interested in, earthquake foreshock
occurrence. We invite reports on observational and theoretical studies
on all scales. This includes laboratory and deep underground
experimental earthquakes, as well as microseismic to megathrust
earthquakes. We also encourage submissions from colleagues working on
advanced detection and analysis techniques for improved foreshock
identification.
