Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coulomb stress change in the neighboring region and faults imparted by Anchorage Mw7.0 earthquake in Alaska

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Anchorage Mw7.0 earthquake on November 30, 2018, was the most extensively felt event in the region since the 1964 Alaska Mw9.2 earthquake. Based on published data of source fault model, we performed a preliminary analysis on the Coulomb stress change produced by Anchorage earthquake in the neighboring region and faults. The

results show that the mainshock has triggered subsequent aftershocks, most of which are located in stress-increased region. The Anchorage earthquake also imparts Coulomb stress change on the Castle Mountain fault, with different fault segment ranging from − 2 × 105 to 3.27 bar. Similarly, on the Border Range fault, this stress ranges from − 0.71 to 3.31 bar despite being inactive fault on present knowledge. Furthermore, on nodal planes I and II of the Anchorage Mw7.0 earthquake, the Coulomb stress change imparted by the 1964 Mw9.2 earthquake ranges from 2.490 to 3.968 bar and from 3.283 to 5.140 bar, respectively. These results indicate that the 1964 Mw9.2 earthquake produces a large amount of Coulomb stress on the seismogenic fault plane of the Anchorage Mw7.0 earthquake and promote it more closer to failure. These results contribute to our understanding of the seismic hazard in the region and on fault segments where the Coulomb stress has been sharply changed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

taken from Wilson et al. (2015). The red and black lines indicate active and inactive faults, respectively. The gray circle and lightly shaded region indicate the epicentral location and rupture zone of the 1964 Mw9.2 Alaskan earthquake, respectively (Benz et al. 2011). The red and black beach balls represent focal mechanisms from the USGS and GCMT from 1967 and 2018, respectively, with M ≥ 6. The yellow star indicates the mainshock. The base map is a color relief map from STRM15plus (http://topex.ucsd.edu/www_html/srtm30_plus.html)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

source fault model from He et al. (2020). The gray circles represent the aftershocks and subsequent shocks surrounding the mainshock. The calculation depth is set to 46.7 km where the earthquake was initiated. The receiver fault in panels (a), (c), and (e) is nodal plane I with strike = 6°, dip = 28°, and rake =  − 93°, and that in panels (b), (d), and (f) is nodal plane II with strike = 189°, dip = 62°, and rake =  − 88°. The effective coefficients of friction in panels (a) and (b), (c) and (d), and (e) and (f) are 0.0, 0.4, and 0.8, respectively. The dCFS indicates that the Coulomb failure stress. The gray circles represent aftershocks and/or subsequent shocks following the mainshock with M ≥ 2.5 according to USGS. Those abbreviations of DF, CMF, and BRF represent the Denali fault, Castle Mountain fault, and Border Range fault, respectively

Fig. 6
Fig. 7

source is from USGS

Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson G, Ji C (2003) Static stress transfer during the 2002 Nenana Mountain-Denali Fault Alaska, earthquake sequence. Geophys Res Lett 30:1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur G, George P, Reuben K (1964) Alaska’s Good Friday earthquake, March 27, 1964, a preliminary geologic evaluation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, p 491

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz HM, Dart RL, Villaseñor A, Hayes GP, Tarr AC, Furlong KP, Rhea S (2011) Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 Aleutian arc and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-B, scale 1:5,000,000

  • Doser DI, Ratchkovski NA, Haeussler P, Saltus R (2004) Changes in crustal deformation rates associated with the 1964 Great Alaska earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:320–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhart-Phillips D, Haeussler PJ, Freymueller JT (2003) The 2002 Denali fault earthquake, Alaska: a large magnitude slip-partitioned event. Science 300:1113–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler PJ (1998) Surficial geologic map along the Castle Mountain Fault between Houston and Hatcher Pass Road, Alaska Center for Integrated Data Analytics. Wisconsin Science Center

  • Haeussler PJ, Plafker G (2004) Earthquakes in Alaska: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-624 ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1995/0624/)

  • Hansen WR, Eckel EB, Schaem WE, Lyle RE, George W, Chance G (1966) The Alaska Earthquake of March 27, 1964; field investigations and reconstruction effort: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 541, p 111. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0541/

  • Harris RA (1998) Introduction to special section: stress triggers, stress shadows, and implications for seismic hazard. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 103:24347–24358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes GP (2018) M 7.0–14km NNW of Anchorage, Alaska. Finite Fault(https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ak20419010/finite-fault)

  • Hayes GP, Moore GL, Portner DE, Hearne M, Flamme H, Furtney M, Smoczyk GM (2018) Slab2, a comprehensive subduction zone geometry model. Science 362(6410):58–61. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He P, Wen Y, Chen Y, Xu C, Ding K (2020) Coseismic rupture geometry and slip rupture process during the 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage, south central Alaska earthquake: intraplate normal faulting by slab tear constrained by geodetic and teleseismic data. Earth Space Sci. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ichinose G, Somerville P, Hong KT, Graves R, Dan OC (2007) Rupture process of the 1964 Prince William Sound, Alaska, earthquake from the combined inversion of seismic, tsunami, and geodetic data. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jibson RW, Grant ARR, Witter RC, Allstadt KE, Thompson EM, Bender AM (2020) Ground failure from the Anchorage, Alaska, earthquake of 30 November 2018. Seismol Res Lett 91:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King GCP, Stein RS, Jian L (1994) Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 78:935–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei DN, Wu JC, Yang G (2019) Coseismic Coulomb stress changes imparted by the 1996 Minahasa Mw7.9 earthquake on the 2018 Palu Mw7.5 earthquake and expected seismicity rate changes. Terra Nova. https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin J, Stein RS (2004) Stress triggering in thrust and subduction earthquakes and stress interaction between the southern San Andreas and nearby thrust and strike-slip faults. J Geophys Res 109:B02303

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, Lay T, Xie Z, Xiong X (2019) Intraslab deformation in the 30 November 2018 Anchorage, Alaska, MW 7.1 earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 46:2449–2457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada Y (1992) Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half space. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(2):1018–1040

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppert NA, Nayak A, Thurber CH, Richards C (2020) Aftershock analysis of the 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage, Alaska, earthquake: relocations and regional moment tensors. Seismol Res Lett 91:114–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silwal V, Tape C, Lomax A (2018) Crustal earthquakes in the Cook Inlet and Susitna region of southern Alaska. Tectonophysics 745:245–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein RS (1999) The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature 402:605. https://doi.org/10.1038/45144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein RS (2003) Earthquake conversations. Sci Am 288:72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein RS, King GCP, Lin J (1992) Change in failure stress on the southern san andreas fault system caused by the 1992 magnitude = 7.4 landers earthquake. Science 258:1328–1332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein RS, King GCP, Lin J (1994) Stress triggering of the 1994 M = 6.7 Northridge, California, earthquake by its predecessors. Science 265(5177):1432–1435

  • Toda S, Jian L, Meghraoui M, Stein RS (2008) 12 May 2008 M=7.9 Wenchuan, China, earthquake calculated to increase failure stress and seismicity rate on three major fault systems. Geophys Res Lett 4:814–819

    Google Scholar 

  • Toda S, Lin J, Stein RS (2011) Using the 2011 Mw 9.0 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake to test the Coulomb stress triggering hypothesis and to calculate faults brought closer to failure. Earth Planets Space 63:39

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells D, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel P, Smith WHF (1995) New version of the generic mapping tools released. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 76(3):329–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis JB, Haeussler PJ, Bruhn RL, Willis GC (2007) Holocene slip rate for the western segment of the Castle Mountain fault, Alaska. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1019–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson FH, Hults CP, Mull CG, Karl SM comps (2015) Geologic map of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3340, pamphlet 197, p. 2 sheets, scale 1:1584000 https://doi.org/10.3133/sim3340

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study is financially supported by the Scientific Research Fund of Institute of Seismology and Institute of Crustal Dynamics, China Earthquake Administration (Grant No.IS 2018126278). Many thinks must be given to the reviewer Dr. Wei Xiong and Dr. David McNamara as topic editor for their constructive comments on manuscript and this improve the paper greatly. We are extremely grateful to Dr. Shinji Toda for providing us with the source model. The figures were partially drawn by Generic Mapping Tools (GMT) (Wessel and Smith 1995).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Earthquake Geodesy, Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Wuhan, 430071, China

    Dongning Lei & Gang Yang

  2. Wuhan Institute of Earthquake Engineering Co., Ltd., Wuhan, 430071, China

    Dongning Lei & Gang Yang

  3. State Key Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510640, China

    Wei Dan

  4. CAS Center for Excellence in Deep Earth Science, Guangzhou, 510640, China

    Wei Dan

Authors
  1. Dongning Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Dan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongning Lei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, D., Dan, W. & Yang, G. Coulomb stress change in the neighboring region and faults imparted by Anchorage Mw7.0 earthquake in Alaska. Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) 110, 1169–1180 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-021-02010-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-021-02010-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation