IASPEI - Picture Gallery
IASPEI - Picture Gallery IASPEI - Picture Gallery
IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-13, 2007 Perugia, Italy (S) - IASPEI - International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior JSS009 Oral Presentation 2039 Precursors of geomagnetic anomaly and earthquake locations Prof. Jann-Yenq Liu National Central University ISS, National Central University IAGA Chieh-Hung Chen, Horng-Yuan Yen Geomagnetic anomalies associated with major earthquakes have been reported by many scientists. When an earthquake occurs, its location, magnitude, and onset time are reported. The location of an earthquake with a latitude, longitude, and depth is named the hypocenter while its vertical projection on the Earths surface is called the epicenter. Scientists found that the chance of observing the anomalies is proportional to the magnitude of fore coming earthquakes but inversely to the distance from the magnetometer station to the epicenter (the epicenter system). However, sometimes geomagnetic anomalies might not be observed even when some major earthquakes occurred nearby geomagnetic stations. On the other hand, other scientists found that the conductivity and/or current along a fault (or slip plane), which could be significantly changed during the earthquake preparation period, disturb nearby geomagnetic field strengths. Therefore, they employed the earthquake fault instead of the epicenter to be a reference for studying the geomagnetic anomalies (the fault system). Similarly, magnetometers near faults sometimes might also fail to register any geomagnetic anomalies before large earthquakes. Both success and failure cases suggest that the epicenter and fault reference systems need be reconsidered. In this paper, we construct new a reference system, by taking the epicenter and fault into account, examining the relationship between geomagnetic anomalies and M>=5.0 earthquakes occurred in during 1988-2001. Keywords: seismo geomagnetic, earthquake, magnetometer
IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-13, 2007 Perugia, Italy (S) - IASPEI - International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior JSS009 Oral Presentation 2040 Multi-parametric monitoring of crustal stress propagation in a very active tectonic area such as the Cephallonia island (Greece) Dr. Maurizio Poscolieri Giovanni P. Gregori, Evangelos Lagios, Matteo Lupieri, Gabriele Paparo, Issaak Parcharidis, Vassilis Sakkas Since 2003 both ground-based and spaceborne techniques were applied for monitoring crustal deformations in the Cephallonia Island located in a seismically active area of Western Greece. In particular, ground deformation studies based on Differential GPS (DGPS) and Differential Interferometric SAR (DInSAR) analyses were extended to all Central Ionian Islands. Local GPS networks were installed in Cephallonia (2001), Ithaca (2004) and Zakynthos (2005). The Cephallonian network was re-measured five times and Zakynthos' once as of July 2006. The studies yielded detailed information regarding both local and regional deformations that are occurring in the area. For Cephallonia Island, DInSAR analysis (1995 to 1998) indicated ground deformation up to 28 mm located in small sections of the island. DGPS measurements for a subsequent period (2001 to 2006) revealed a clockwise rotation of the island with respect to a centrally located station in Aenos Mount. The horizontal component of deformation generally ranged from 6-34 mm, with the largest values at the western and northern parts of the island. Considering the vertical deformation, two periods are distinguished. The first one (2001 to 2003) is consistent with anticipated motions associated with the main geologic al and tectonic features of the island. The second one (2003 to 2006) has been tentatively attributed to dilatancy in which relatively small uplift (20-40 mm) has occurred along the southern and south-eastern parts of the island, while larger values (>50 mm) happened at the western part (Paliki Peninsula). These large magnitudes of uplift over an extended area (>50 km), in conjunction with an accelerated Benioff strain determined from the analysis of the seismicity in the broader region, are consistent with dilatancy. This effect started some time after 2003 and is probably centred in the area between Zakynthos and Cephallonia. If this interpretation is correct, it may foreshadow the occurrence of a very strong earthquake(s) in the above designated region during 2007-2008. In order to support this inference, Acoustic Emission data at high (200 kHz, HF AE) and low (25 kHz, LF AE) frequencies were collected in a ground station working since February 2003 in the centre of Cephallonia Island. Such point-like AE records, with high temporal resolution, provided: (i) relative time variation of the applied stress intensity, envisaging the amount of stress that affects some crustal portion, on a scale size which depends on the specific tectonic setting. (ii) the state of fatigue of stressed crustal slab, which is characterised by the typical time series of the released AE signals. Such aspect was examined by applying the fractal analysis to the AE records temporal sequence. This can provide information about the temporal evolution of the system in terms of increasing fatigue, eventually addressed towards a paroxysmal crisis (e.g. the seismic shock). The preliminary results concerning the HF AE showed a clear annual variation, whose regularity envisages some likely astronomical modulation. Such annual variation resulted during 2004 clearly in phase with other HF AE time series collected in the Italian peninsula. It proves, therefore, a planetary phenomenon, which shows up as a periodic stress wave regularly crossing the Mediterranean area. As far as the LF AE data are concerned, a conspicuous crisis of crustal stress seems to cross the broader area of Cephallonia, appearing just like one well defined soliton lasting from about April 2004 through the beginning of 2005. Some other perturbation could have been more recently started. The entire area appeared involved in some remarkable seismic activity during such soliton crossing. In addition, this multi-parametric study utilizes ancillary information obtained by analyzing digital topographic data
- Page 297 and 298: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 299 and 300: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 301 and 302: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 303 and 304: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 305 and 306: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 307 and 308: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 309 and 310: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 311 and 312: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 313 and 314: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 315 and 316: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 317 and 318: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 319 and 320: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 321 and 322: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 323 and 324: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 325 and 326: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 327 and 328: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 329 and 330: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 331 and 332: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 333 and 334: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 335 and 336: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 337 and 338: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 339 and 340: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 341 and 342: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 343 and 344: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 345 and 346: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 347: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 351 and 352: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 353 and 354: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 355 and 356: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 357 and 358: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 359 and 360: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 361 and 362: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 363 and 364: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 365 and 366: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 367 and 368: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 369 and 370: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 371 and 372: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 373 and 374: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 375 and 376: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 377 and 378: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 379 and 380: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 381 and 382: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 383 and 384: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 385 and 386: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 387 and 388: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 389 and 390: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 391 and 392: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 393 and 394: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 395 and 396: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
- Page 397 and 398: IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-1
IUGG XXIV General Assembly July 2-13, 2007 Perugia, Italy<br />
(S) - <strong>IASPEI</strong> - International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's<br />
Interior<br />
JSS009 Oral Presentation 2039<br />
Precursors of geomagnetic anomaly and earthquake locations<br />
Prof. Jann-Yenq Liu<br />
National Central University ISS, National Central University IAGA<br />
Chieh-Hung Chen, Horng-Yuan Yen<br />
Geomagnetic anomalies associated with major earthquakes have been reported by many scientists.<br />
When an earthquake occurs, its location, magnitude, and onset time are reported. The location of an<br />
earthquake with a latitude, longitude, and depth is named the hypocenter while its vertical projection on<br />
the Earths surface is called the epicenter. Scientists found that the chance of observing the anomalies is<br />
proportional to the magnitude of fore coming earthquakes but inversely to the distance from the<br />
magnetometer station to the epicenter (the epicenter system). However, sometimes geomagnetic<br />
anomalies might not be observed even when some major earthquakes occurred nearby geomagnetic<br />
stations. On the other hand, other scientists found that the conductivity and/or current along a fault (or<br />
slip plane), which could be significantly changed during the earthquake preparation period, disturb<br />
nearby geomagnetic field strengths. Therefore, they employed the earthquake fault instead of the<br />
epicenter to be a reference for studying the geomagnetic anomalies (the fault system). Similarly,<br />
magnetometers near faults sometimes might also fail to register any geomagnetic anomalies before<br />
large earthquakes. Both success and failure cases suggest that the epicenter and fault reference<br />
systems need be reconsidered. In this paper, we construct new a reference system, by taking the<br />
epicenter and fault into account, examining the relationship between geomagnetic anomalies and<br />
M>=5.0 earthquakes occurred in during 1988-2001.<br />
Keywords: seismo geomagnetic, earthquake, magnetometer