Advertisement

Acta Geophysica

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Hydrodynamic and seismic response to teleseismic waves of strong remote earthquakes in Caucasus

  • Tamaz ChelidzeEmail author
  • Giorgi Melikadze
  • Gennady Kobzev
  • Ia Shengelia
  • Nato Jorjiashvili
  • Ekaterine Mepharidze
Research Article - Solid Earth Sciences
  • 138 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to analyze the hydroseismic response of water level in boreholes during the passage of wave trains of remote strong earthquakes and the pattern of local seismic events, dynamically triggered by these earthquakes. As the exact type of forcing (certain phase of wave train) can be identified, the interpretation of hydroseismic effects is more straightforward and could render new important information on hydroseismic processes and, possibly, on the local stress state in a given block of the Earth crust. We tried to find out which parameter of the teleseismic wave dominates the hydroseismic response (susceptibility)—epicentral distance or velocity.

Keywords

Remote strong earthquakes Teleseismic waves Hydroseismic response Local seismic response Caucasus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation Grants FR/258/9-160/13, 2014 and #216732, 2017. The authors express their gratitude to the Seismic Monitoring Center of Ilia State University of Georgia, for rendering digital records.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Batzle M, Han D-H, Hofmann R (2006) Fluid mobility and frequency-dependent seismic velocity—Direct measurements. Geophysics 71(1):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2159053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biot MA (1962) Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media. J Appl Phys 33:1482–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bormann P (ed) (2012) New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice (NMSOP-2), IASPEI, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam. http://nmsop.gfz-potsdam.de
  4. Brodsky E, Roeloffs E, Woodcock D, Gall I, Manga M (2003) A mechanism for sustained groundwater pressure changes induced by distant earthquakes. J Geophys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro R, Gonzales-Huizar H, Wong V, Velasco A, Zuniga F (2015) Delayed dynamic triggered seismicity in northern Baja California, México caused by large and remote earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao K, Peng Z, Wu C, Tang C-C, Lin C-H (2012) Remote triggering of non-volcanic tremor around Taiwan. Geophys J Int 188:301–324.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05261.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chao K, Peng Z, Gonzalez-Huizar H, Aiken Ch, Enescu B, Kao H, Velasco A, Obara K, Matsuzawa T (2013) A global search for triggered tremor following the 2011 Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2B):1551–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chelidze T, Matcharashvili T, Lursmanashvili O, Varamashvili N, Zhukova N, Meparidze E (2010) Triggering and synchronization of stick-slip: experiments on spring-slider system. In: de Rubeis V et al (eds) Synchronization and Triggering: from Fracture to Earthquake Process. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 123–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chelidze T (2016) Underground water level/temperature response to seismic/tectonic transients: effects of poroelasticity. J Georgian Geophys Soc 19A:49–57Google Scholar
  10. Chelidze T, Shengelia I, Zhukova N, Matcharashvili T, Melikadze G, Kobzev G (2016) M9 Tohoku earthquake hydro- and seismic response in the Caucasus and North Turkey. Acta Geophys.  https://doi.org/10.1515/acgeo-2016-0022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costain J, Bollinger J (2010) Review: research results in hydroseismicity from 1987 to 2009. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:1841–1858.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dvorkin J, Nur A (1993) Dynamic poroelasticity: a unified model with the squirt and the Biot mechanisms. Geophysics 58:524–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gamkrelidze I, Giorgobiani T, Kuloshvili S, Lobzhanidze G, Shengelaia G (1998) Active deep faults map and catalogue for the territory of Georgia. Bull Georgian Acad Sci 157(1):80–85Google Scholar
  14. Gonzalez-Huizar H, Velasco A, Peng Zh, Castro R (2012) Remote triggered seismicity caused by the 2011, M9.0 Tohoku-Oki Japan earthquake. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gueguen Y, Bouteca M (2004) Mechanics of fluid-saturated rocks. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill D (2015) On the sensitivity of transtensional versus transpressional tectonic regimes to remote dynamic triggering by coulomb failure. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:339–1348Google Scholar
  17. Hill D, Prejean S (2009) Dynamic triggering. In: Kanamori H (ed) Earthquake seismology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 257–293Google Scholar
  18. Hill D, Peng Zh, Shelly D, Aiken Ch (2013) S-Wave Triggering of Tremor beneath the Parkfield, California, Section of the San Andreas Fault by the 2011 Tohoku, Japan, Earthquake: observations and Theory. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1541–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiang T, Peng Z, Wang W, Chen Q-F (2010) Remotely triggered seismicity in continental China following the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kane DL, Kilb D, Berg AS, Martynov VG (2007) Quantifying the remote triggering capabilities of large earthquakes using data from the ANZA seismic network catalog (southern California). J Geophys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ma Y, Huang F (2017) Coseismic water level changes induced by two distant earthquakes in multiple wells of the Chinese mainland. Tectonophysics 694:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parsons T, Segou M, Marzocchi W (2014) The global aftershock zone. Tectonophysics 18:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peng Zh, Hill D, Shelly D, Aiken Ch (2010a) Remotely triggered microearthquakes and tremor in central CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Peng Zh, Wang W, Chen Q-F, Jiang T (2010) Remotely triggered seismicity in north China following the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake. Earth Planets Space 62:893–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peng Zh, Wu C, Aiken C (2011) Delayed triggering of microearthquakes by multiple surface waves circling the earth. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pfohl A, Warren LM, Sit S, Brudzinski M (2015) Search for tectonic tremor on the central North Anatolian Fault. Turk Bull Seism Soc Am 105:1779–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pimienta L, Fortin J, Borgomano J, Gueguen Y (2016) Dispersions and attenuations in a fully saturated sandstone: experimental evidence for fluid flows at different scales. Lead Edge 35(6):936–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prejean S, Hill D (2009) Dynamic triggering of earthquakes. In: Meyers A (ed) Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. Springer, Berlin, pp 2600–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shapiro S, Rothert E, Rath V, Rindschwentner J (2002) Characterization of fluid transport properties of reservoirs using induced microseismicity. Geophysics 67(1):212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van der Elst N, Brodsky E (2010) Connecting near and farfield earthquake triggering to dynamic strain. J Geophys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Velasco A, Hernandes S, Parsons T, Pankow K (2008) Global ubiquity of dynamic earthquake triggering. Nat Geosci 1:375–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang C-Y, Manga M (2010) Earthquakes and Water. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang C-Y, Chia Y, Wang P-L, Dreger D (2009) Role of S waves and Love waves in coseismic permeability enhancement. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL037330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu C, Peng Zh, Wang W, Chen Q-F (2011) Dynamic triggering of shallow earthquakes near Beijing, China. Geophys J Int.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2011.05002.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang Y, Huang F (2011) Mechanism of different coseismic water-level changes in wells with similar epicentral distances in intermediate field. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:1531–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamaz Chelidze
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giorgi Melikadze
    • 1
  • Gennady Kobzev
    • 1
  • Ia Shengelia
    • 2
  • Nato Jorjiashvili
    • 2
  • Ekaterine Mepharidze
    • 1
  1. 1.M. Nodia Institute of GeophysicsI. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State UniversityTbilisiGeorgia
  2. 2.Ilia State UniversityTbilisiGeorgia

Personalised recommendations