Spatial patterns of aftershocks of shallow focus earthquakes in California and implications for deep focus earthquakes

Abstract

Previous workers have pioneered statistical techniques to study the spatial distribution of aftershocks with respect to the focal mechanism of the main shock. Application of these techniques to deep focus earthquakes failed to show clustering of aftershocks near the nodal planes of the main shocks. To better understand the behavior of these statistics, this study applies them to the aftershocks of six large shallow focus earthquakes in California (August 6, 1979, Coyote Lake; May 2, 1983, Coalinga; April 24, 1984, Morgan Hill; August 4, 1985, Kettleman Hills; July 8, 1986, North Palm Springs; and October 1, 1987, Whittier Narrows). The large number of aftershocks accurately located by dense local networks allows us to treat these aftershock sequences individually instead of combining them, as was done for the deep earthquakes. The results for individual sequences show significant clustering about the closest nodal plane and the strike direction for five of the sequences and about the presumed fault plane for all six sequences. This implies that the previously developed method does work properly. Nonrandom behavior was also found about the slip directions, the P axis, the T axis, and the B axis, but this is probably caused by the lack of independence between these axes and the previously mentioned features of the focal mechanisms. Given that the method does work and that deep aftershocks were not shown to cluster about the main shock nodal planes, the shallow focus data were used to simulate the deep focus study. The goal is to determine if there are artificial factors that make clustering in the deep focus data unobservable. To more closely mimic the work on deep earthquakes, the largest aftershocks from each of the six sequences were combined and studied with respect to their respective main shock focal mechanisms. This reduced the significance of the clustering about the focal mechanism parameters, but not below 95% confidence. Gaussian noise was then added to the aftershock hypocenters in order to determine if the larger hypocentral and focal mechanism errors in the deep focus data could account for the previous negative result. The conclusion is that the following reasons are sufficient to explain the lack of clustering about the main shock nodal planes for the deep focus aftershocks: the need to combine aftershocks from several sequences, the size of the hypocentral location and focal mechanism errors, and the alignment of distant aftershocks with the Wadati‐Benioff zone.