Foreshock Explained

A foreshock is an earthquake that occurs before a larger seismic eventthe mainshockand is related to it in both time and space. The designation of an earthquake as foreshock, mainshock or aftershock is only possible after the full sequence of events has happened.[1]

Occurrence

Foreshock activity has been detected for about 40% of all moderate to large earthquakes,[2] and about 70% for events of M>7.0. They occur from a matter of minutes to days or even longer before the main shock; for example, the 2002 Sumatra earthquake is regarded as a foreshock of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with a delay of more than two years between the two events.[3]

Some great earthquakes (M>8.0) show no foreshock activity at all, such as the M8.6 1950 India–China earthquake.[4]

The increase in foreshock activity is difficult to quantify for individual earthquakes but becomes apparent when combining the results of many different events. From such combined observations, the increase before the mainshock is observed to be of inverse power law type. This may either indicate that foreshocks cause stress changes resulting in the mainshock or that the increase is related to a general increase in stress in the region.[5]

Mechanics

The observation of foreshocks associated with many earthquakes suggests that they are part of a preparation process prior to nucleation.[2] In one model of earthquake rupture, the process forms as a cascade, starting with a very small event that triggers a larger one, continuing until the main shock rupture is triggered. However, analysis of some foreshocks has shown that they tend to relieve stress around the fault. In this view, foreshocks and aftershocks are part of the same process. This is supported by an observed relationship between the rate of foreshocks and the rate of aftershocks for an event.[6] In practice, there are two main conflicting theories about foreshocks: earthquake triggering process (described in SOC models and ETAS-like models) and the loading process by aseismic slip (nucleation models). This debate about the prognostic value of foreshocks is well known as Foreshock Hypothesis.[7]

Earthquake prediction

An increase in seismic activity in an area has been used as a method of predicting earthquakes, most notably in the case of the 1975 Haicheng earthquake in China, where an evacuation was triggered by an increase in activity. However, most earthquakes lack obvious foreshock patterns and this method has not proven useful, as most small earthquakes are not foreshocks, leading to probable false alarms.[8] Earthquakes along oceanic transform faults do show repeatable foreshock behaviour, allowing the prediction of both the location and timing of such earthquakes.[9]

Examples of earthquakes with foreshock events

Foreshock Date
(Delay)
Magnitude
(Foreshock)
LocationDateDepthMagnitude
(Mainshock)
Intensity
(MMI)
NameTypeComments
April 4, 1904 (23 minutes)Blagoevgrad region, BulgariaApril 4, 190415 km7.0 X-XI1904 Kresna earthquakesNormal[10]
May 21, 1960 (1 day)Arauco Province, ChileMay 22, 196035 km9.5 XII1960 Valdivia earthquakeThrust
November 2, 2002 (2 years)Sumatra, IndonesiaDecember 26, 200430 km9.2 IX2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunamiThrust
October 20, 2006 (10 months)6.4 Ica Region, PeruAugust 15, 200735 km8.0 VIII2007 Peru earthquakeThrust[11]
January 23, 2007 (3 months)5.2 Aysén Region, ChileApril 21, 20076 km6.2 VII2007 Aysén Fjord earthquakeStrike-slip[12]
March 9, 2011 (2 days)7.3 Miyagi Prefecture, JapanMarch 11, 201130 km9.0 IX2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunamiThrust[13]
March 16, 2014 (15 days)6.7 Tarapacá Region, ChileApril 1, 201420.1 km8.2 VIII2014 Iquique earthquakeThrust[14]
April 14, 2016 (2 days)6.2 Kumamoto Prefecture, JapanApril 16, 201611 km7.0 IX2016 Kumamoto earthquakesStrike-slip
April 22, 2017 (2 days)4.8 Valparaíso Region, ChileApril 24, 201724.8 km6.9 VII2017 Valparaiso earthquakeThrust
July 4, 2019 (1 day)6.4 California, United StatesJuly 5, 201910.7 km7.1 IX2019 Ridgecrest earthquakesStrike-slip[15]
December 28, 2020 (1 day)5.2 Central CroatiaDecember 29, 202010 km6.4 IX2020 Petrinja earthquakeStrike-slip
March 5, 2021 (2 hours)7.4 Kermadec Islands, New ZealandMarch 5, 202155.6 km8.1 VIII2021 Kermadec Islands earthquakeThrust

Notes and References

  1. Book: Gates. A.. Ritchie. D.. Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanoes. 2006. Infobase Publishing. 978-0-8160-6302-4. 89. 29 November 2010.
  2. Book: National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Science of Earthquakes. Living on an Active Earth: Perspectives on Earthquake Science. https://archive.org/details/livingonactiveea0000unse/page/418. 29 November 2010. 2003. National Academies Press. Washington D.C.. 978-0-309-06562-7. 418. 5. Earthquake Physics and Fault-System Science.
  3. Vallée. M.. 2007. Rupture Properties of the Giant Sumatra Earthquake Imaged by Empirical Green's Function Analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 97. 1A. S103–S114. 10.1785/0120050616. 29 November 2010. 2007BuSSA..97S.103V. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20110723201958/http://mahabghodss.net/NewBooks/www/web/digital/nashrieh/bssa/2007/january%201%202007-%2097%20issue%201a/S103.pdf. 23 July 2011.
  4. Book: Kayal, J.R.. Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia. 29 November 2010. 2008. Springer. 978-1-4020-8179-8. 15.
  5. Book: Maeda, K.. Wyss M., Shimazaki K. & Ito A.. Seismicity patterns, their statistical significance and physical meaning. https://books.google.com/books?id=QIy6le4sCMAC&dq=foreshock&pg=PA381. 29 November 2010. Reprint from Pageoph Topical Volumes. 1999. Birkhäuser. 978-3-7643-6209-6. 381–394. Time distribution of immediate foreshocks obtained by a stacking method.
  6. Felzer. K.R.. Abercrombie R.E.. Ekström G.. 2004. A Common Origin for Aftershocks, Foreshocks, and Multiplets. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 94. 1. 88–98. 10.1785/0120030069. 29 November 2010. 2004BuSSA..94...88F. 3 July 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110703033726/http://128.197.153.21/rea/web_online/SSA03069_felzer_feb04.PDF. dead.
  7. The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis. Mignan. A.. 14 February 2014. 4 . 4099 . Scientific Reports. 10.1038/srep04099 . 24526224 . 3924212 . 2014NatSR...4E4099M .
  8. Web site: Earthquake Prediction. Ludwin. R.. 16 September 2004. The Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. 29 November 2010. 16 June 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20100616210148/http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/INFO_GENERAL/eq_prediction.html. dead.
  9. McGuire. J.J. . Boettcher M.S. . Jordan T.H.. 2005. Foreshock sequences and short-term earthquake predictability on East Pacific Rise transform faults. Nature. 434. 457–461. 10.1038/nature03377. 29 November 2010. 15791246. 7032. 2005Natur.434..457M . 4337369 .
  10. Meyer . B. . Armijo . R. . Dimitroy . D. . 2002 . Active faulting in SW Bulgaria: possible surface rupture of the 1904 Struma earthquakes . Geophysical Journal International . 148 . 2 . 246–255 . 10.1046/j.0956-540x.2001.01589.x. 2002GeoJI.148..246M . free .
  11. Web site: El Sismo del 20 de Octubre de 2006. es. IGP.
  12. Web site: Informe de sismo sensible. es. GUC.
  13. Web site: Magnitude 7.3 - NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN. USGS. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20110312171744/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usb0001r57/. 2011-03-12.
  14. Web site: Informe de sismo sensible. es. GUC.
  15. Web site: United States Geological Survey. July 4, 2019. July 9, 2019. M 4.0 - 11km SW of Searles Valley, CA.