@article{MaghsoudiHainzlCescaetal.2014,
  author    = {Maghsoudi, Samira and Hainzl, Sebastian and Cesca, Simone and Dahm, Torsten and Kaiser, Diethelm},
  title     = {Identification and characterization of growing large-scale en-echelon fractures in a salt mine},
  series = {Geophysical journal international},
  volume    = {196},
  journal   = {Geophysical journal international},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0956-540X},
  doi       = {10.1093/gji/ggt443},
  pages     = {1092 -- 1105},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The spatiotemporal seismicity of acoustic emission (AE) events recorded in the Morsleben salt mine is investigated. Almost a year after backfilling of the cavities from 2003, microevents are distributed with distinctive stripe shapes above cavities at different depth levels. The physical forces driving the creation of these stripes are still unknown. This study aims to find the active stripes and track fracture developments over time by combining two different temporal and spatial clustering techniques into a single methodological approach. Anomalous seismicity parameters values like sharp b-value changes for two active stripes are good indicators to explain possible stress accumulation at the stripe tips. We identify the formation of two new seismicity stripes and show that the AE activities in active clusters are migrated mostly unidirectional to eastward and upward. This indicates that the growth of underlying macrofractures is controlled by the gradient of extensional stress. Studying size distribution characteristic in terms of frequency-magnitude distribution and b-value in active phase and phase with constant seismicity rate show that deviations from the Gutenberg-Richter power law can be explained by the inclusion of different activity phases: (1) the inactive period before the formation of macrofractures, which is characterized by a deficit of larger events (higher b-values) and (2) the period of fracture growth characterized by the occurrence of larger events (smaller b-values).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WangHainzlZoeller2014,
  author    = {Wang, Lifeng and Hainzl, Sebastian and Z{\"o}ller, Gert},
  title     = {Assessment of stress coupling among the inter-, co- and post-seismic phases related to the 2004 M6 Parkfield earthquake},
  series = {Geophysical journal international},
  volume    = {197},
  journal   = {Geophysical journal international},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0956-540X},
  doi       = {10.1093/gji/ggu102},
  pages     = {1858 -- 1868},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Due to large uncertainties and non-uniqueness in fault slip inversion, the investigation of stress coupling based on the direct comparison of independent slip inversions, for example, between the coseismic slip distribution and the interseismic slip deficit, may lead to ambiguous conclusions. In this study, we therefore adopt the stress-constrained joint inversion in the Bayesian approach of Wang et al., and implement the physical hypothesis of stress coupling as a prior. We test the hypothesis that interseismic locking is coupled with the coseismic rupture, and the early post-seismic deformation is a stress relaxation process in response to the coseismic stress perturbation. We characterize the role of stress coupling in the seismic cycle by evaluating the efficiency of the model to explain the available data. Taking the 2004 M6 Parkfield earthquake as a study case, we find that the stress coupling hypothesis is in agreement with the data. The coseismic rupture zone is found to be strongly locked during the interseismic phase and the post-seismic slip zone is indicated to be weakly creeping. The post-seismic deformation plays an important role to rebuild stress in the coseismic rupture zone. Based on our results for the stress accumulation during both inter- and post-seismic phase in the coseismic rupture zone, together with the coseismic stress drop, we estimate a recurrence time of M6 earthquake in Parkfield around 23-41 yr, suggesting that the duration of 38 yr between the two recent M6 events in Parkfield is not a surprise.},
  language  = {en}
}