Annals 47, 1, 2004, 01/07def 133 ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 1, February 2004 Key words slip weakening – accelerated creep – short-term earthquake precursor – strain – spatial- temporal scale – mosaic pattern – teleseismic effects 1. Introduction Several fundamental problems are still un- solved in the problem of earthquake (EQ) pre- diction. Nevertheless, the optimistic point of view is supported by few successfully predicted destructive EQs (Raleygh et al., 1977; Hui et al., 1997; Sykes et al., 1999). On the other hand, the phenomena of Self-Organized Criti- cality (SOC) in the Earth’s crust (Bak et al., 1988) have no scale length, and hence any reli- able evaluation of the place, time, and intensity of an EQ is considered to be unlikely. The SOC concept actually denies any progress and brings the problem of EQ prediction back to its initial state (Geller, 1997). Further research is re- quired to clarify whether the SOC is an insur- mountable obstacle or it only indicates the in- adequacy of available data. Among various prediction problems, the feasibility of short-term prediction is the least studied and depends on the nature and scale of the aseismic nucleation phase of large EQs (Sykes et al., 1999). The stage of tertiary creep (or slip weakening), which precedes the brittle fracture of rocks, can be regarded as a mecha- nism of short-term precursor generation. Accel- erating strain considerably increases the signal- to-noise ratio of measurable geophysical pa- rameters, which is beneficial to the identifica- tion of the ductile failure stage in the source by measuring geophysical fields at the Earth’s sur- face. The creep process develops in an ava- lanche-like manner and acquires an important Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances Vitali A. Morgounov The Head of Tectono-Electromagnetic Laboratory, Schmidt United Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia Abstract The problem of short-term earthquake precursors is discussed. In contrast to the increasing number of reports on short-lived precursors of various types, direct strain measurements cannot detect clearly expressed preseismic anomalies, as follows from the aseismic nucleation mechanism. Based on previously published data and the as- sumption that the attenuation of the stress-strain field is proportional to r− 3, a possible scenario of the final stage of earthquake nucleation process is proposed on the basis of the slip weakening mechanism in the source and the associated mosaic pattern of precursors on the Earth’s surface. The formulas for estimating the maximum distance of precursor detection and minimum duration of the final stage of inelastic deformation preceding brit- tle failure of rocks are derived. The data of electromagnetic precursors are interpreted in terms of a skin-layer model. A considerable increase in strain rates at the final stage of the earthquake nucleation provides an oppor- tunity to explain teleseismic effects before strong earthquakes in terms of normalized epicenter distance. The modeling results are compared with in situ observations. Mailing address: Prof. Vitali A. Morgounov, The Head of Tectono-Electromagnetic Laboratory, Schmidt United Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Bolshaya Gruzinskaya 10, D-242, GSP-5, 123995 Moscow, Russia; e-mail: vam@ifz.ru 134 Vitali A. Morgounov property of irreversibility. This scenario of EQ development appears to be logically consistent. However, in spite of the encouraging exper- imental results of short-term precursor studies (Fleischer, 1981; Warwick et al., 1982; Oki et al., 1988; Rikitake, 1988; Roeloffs, 1988; Fras- er-Smith et al., 1990; Varotsos et al., 1993; Wakita et al., 1998; Uyeda et al., 2000; Meloni et al., 2001a,b; Tramutoli et al., 2001; Spichak, et al., 2002) and theoretical models of faulting according to which the rupture should be pre- ceded by a gradually accelerating slip (Press, 1965; Rice et al., 1979; Dieterich, 1992; Ohna- ka, 1993), the strain anomalies have not been reliably established by direct strain measure- ments before earthquakes in various regions of the Earth and in California in particular (John- ston et al., 1994; Wyatt et al., 1994; Abercrom- bie, 1995). The San Andreas sliding fault zone seems to be the most spectacular example of the contra- diction. Since the problem in question is of cru- cial importance, a brief review of in situ meas- urements in this region and the discussion of the related important features (the mosaic pat- tern of the strain field and teleseismic effects) are presented below. Along with controversial arguments, many authors report on preseismic irregular patterns observed in the San Andreas zone (O’Neil et al., 1981; Teng et al., 1981; Roeloffs, 1988; Ben-Zion, 1990; Fraser-Smith, 1990). Leary and Malin (1984) observed ground deformation events a few hours before the Homestead Valley sequence of EQs of 1979 in Southern California (4.7 < ML < 5.2); the observations were made at three separate points on the periphery of the Mojave block. These events manifested them- selves as anomalous water level variations and a creep step measured by a US Geological Sur- vey creepmeter. Dodge et al. (1996) found that foreshocks of the Landers EQ provide clear evidence for an extended aseismic nucleation process before some EQs. Harris (1998) came to the conclu- sion that aseismic creep controls the rupture process and the creep process is the key idea of EQ instability models. Wesson and Nicholson (1988) emphasized the importance of the creep loading mechanism and suggested, in particu- lar, that the Landers foreshock sequence may have been driven by aseismic creep. Johnston and Linde (2002) reviewed the surface observa- tions of episodic displacements on active faults and explained unsuccessful attempts to detect any indications of exponentially increasing strain (tertiary creep or slip weakening) by the fact that the scale of the initial failure must be small compared to the eventual rupture zone. Evidently, the interpretation of the experi- mental data is complicated due to such factors as the specific role of the surface layer or the mosaic pattern of the stress field. A significant example is the fact that no precursors were recorded by the strainmeters of the Pinyon Flat Observatory (PFO) at a distance of only 70 km from the epicenter of the Landers EQ (M = 7.3) (Wyatt et al., 1994; Abercrombie et al., 1995). The PFO and epicenter were located on the op- posite sides of the San Andreas Fault. Accord- ing to Mount et al. (1992), the San Andreas Fault Zone can be considered a weak fault, which in extreme case can be thought of as a free surface and acts as a stress refractor. Wes- son et al. (1988) consider the California crust not as an elastic half-space but as a mosaic of relatively rigid elastic plates or blocks separat- ed by relatively weak fault zones (this interpre- tation is similar to the model proposed by Bil- ham and Beavan, 1979). 1.1. Mosaic pattern of the stress field Water level anomalies during the Landers EQ can serve as a convincing example of a mo- saic structure of the strain field. In three of four boreholes in the PFO area, the water level dropped by 0.15 to 0.3 m at the time of the Lan- ders event. In the fourth well, located at a dis- tance of 100-250 m from the other three, the water level dropped over 5 m (Wyatt et al., 1994); i.e. observations made at points a few hundred meters apart differ by more than 10 times! It is noteworthy in this context that, ac- cording to Mogi (1981), many precursors tend to appear at singular points of tectonic struc- tures. These facts, as well as many other data, confirm the mosaic pattern of the strain field distribution associated with seismic events. It is 135 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances evident that a uniform model of the crust is gen- erally inadequate. Comparing various seismic regions, Mogi (1981) characterized Central California as a ho- mogeneous straight fault zone without any ap- preciable precursors, in contrast to Japan as a re- gion of complex structures of small dimensions producing noticeable precursors in relatively small areas and some parts of China as a region of complex continental structures of large di- mensions where remarkable precursors can be observed in large areas. This is consistent with laboratory experiments showing that the more inhomogeneous the specimen, the earlier the stage at which fracture precursors arise and agrees with the conclusion of Dodge et al., (1996) that the fault zone heterogeneity is an im- portant factor controlling the number of fore- shocks (i.e. the stronger the heterogeneity, the greater the number of foreshocks). A complicated mosaic pattern of the strain field was revealed before the North Palm Springs (M = 5.6) EQ of 1986 in California. No anom- alies were recorded at the Pinon Flat strain Ob- servatory (∼ 33 km from the epicenter) and by the PUBS dilatometer (∼ 95 km from the epicen- ter), whereas the XWR creepmeter (∼ 103 km from the epicenter and ∼ 10 km from the PUBS dilatometer) showed a sharp change in the slope of the creep records that leads the water level ex- cursion recorded by the Phelan water level mon- itor (∼ 65 km from epicenter). Ben-Zion et al. (1990) considered these records as a possible preseismic signal. However, during the Landers EQ of June 28, 1992 (the largest in California during the last 40 years; Mw 7.3), the borehole di- lational strainmeter PUBS (a sensitivity of less than a nanostrain) installed at the site about 100 km from 85 km-long Landers rupture and 135 km from the epicenter exhibited no indications of precursive strain at this location due to either precursive slip on the Landers rupture or local slip on the San Andreas (Johnston et al., 1994). 1.2. Short-term precursors at teleseismic distances The mosaic pattern of the strain field creates a specific obstacle to the detection of precurso- ry events and determination of the spatial scale of the preparation zone. Obviously, the size of the zone largely depends on the EQ magnitude. The first results on anomalous pre-seismic tilts at greater distances (Tomaschek, 1955) cannot be regarded as adequate because of imperfec- tions of the instruments used at that time. How- ever, these data cannot be ignored because sim- ilar reports on precursors of various types rec- orded at great distances were published later. Wideman and Major (1967) recorded strain steps in Colorado at great epicentral distances. Lomnitz et al. (1978) reported a radon anomaly preceding Tangshan event (M = 7.8) and rec- orded at a distance of 1800 km. Fleischer (1981) reviewed the geochemical responses to distant EQs and proposed a dislocation model. Preseismic anomalies were recorded by resis- tivity variometers at distances of more than 1000 km (Rikitake 1976; Yamazaki, 1983; Rik- itake and Yamazaki, 1985). Five observatories in the United States recorded an EM emission event a few days before the Great Chilean (M = = 8.5) EQ of 1960 at epicentral distances of about 10 000 km (Warwick et al., 1982). Based on satellite measurements Tramutoli et al. (2001) identified thermal infrared (TIR) anomalous ef- fects at a distance of 400 km from the epicenter of the M = 6.9 November 23, 1980 EQ in Italy. Teleseismic effects are recognizable from records of strong EQs. However, it is more ap- propriate to analyze these effects in relative (r/R*), rather than absolute distances (normal- ized to the radius of preparation zone R*), i.e. to compare geometrically similar EQs of different magnitudes. Then, high- and low-energy seis- mic events can be analyzed in the same terms. This paper is an attempt to consider some con- sequences of a scenario modeling the final stage of EQ nucleation based on the slip weak- ening mechanism. 2. Spatial scale of short-term seismic precursors The problems of the ultimate distance of short-lived precursor detection have been exten- sively studied and several empirical and theoret- ical formulas have been proposed for the esti- 136 Vitali A. Morgounov mation of the size (radius R*) of the preparation zone. Figure 1 illustrates the results of studying the relation R*(M) of various geophysical pa- rameters (resistivity, geochemical and electro- magnetic characteristics, water level, magnetic field, strain, tidal variations, etc.) within a wide range of the EQ energy (4 < M < 8). Wideman and Major (1967) made an at- tempt to find the response of the Earth’s crust to the nucleation process at teleseismic dis- tances; they derived the relation for the magni- tude dependence R*(M), (fig. 1) of strain steps Radius of preparation zone from Magnitude of EQ 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 4 5 6 7 8 M Log R * Wideman et al. (1967), (strain) Rikitake (1988), (complex) Yamazaki (1977), (resist) Ulomov (1987), (geochem, magn. field) Yoshino (1992), (EME) Morgounov (2001), (EM complex) Fig. 1. Log R*-M relationships for precursory anomalies in various fields: strain steps (Wideman et al., 1967); a summary of all available precursory data including strain, tilt, hydrogeochemical variations, microearthquakes, magnetic field, telluric currents, electromagnetic emission, and electrical resistivity (Rikitake, 1988); variome- ter data on the electrical resistivity (Yamazaki, 1977); geochemical and magnetic fields (Ulomov, 1987); elec- tromagnetic emission (Yoshino et al., 1992); and summarized electromagnetic data (Morgounov, 2001). measured in Colorado during distant EQs (3.5 < < M < 8.5). The results by Wideman and Major were criticized from various points of view and were generally considered erroneous in spite of the corroboration their results by other authors (Berger, 1973; Yamada, 1973). Note however that, among tens of cases listed in the catalog of strain steps collected by Yamada (1973), at least five were recorded few hours before EQs, and Rikitake (1976) concluded that these events «were clearly distinct as precursors». 137 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances The solution of this old seismological enig- ma is beyond the scope of the present paper. Wideman’s relation is plotted in the figure to demonstrate that this debatable relation gives distances of the same order of magnitude as the values obtained by other geophysical methods and apparently gives an upper limit of the pre- cursor detection range. Wideman and Major es- timated the amplitude of the observed strain at ε ∼ 10− 9. According to Rikitake et al. (1985), such a deformation could be responsible for the generation of precursory anomalies in the re- sistance of the upper layers of the crust. This value was used in our calculations. The results summarized in fig. 1 suggest that the variations in different parameters have the same origin, namely, the activation of the stress-strain state of the crust. Moreover, the similarity between the relations obtained for the so-called «propagating» fields, such as the elec- tromagnetic emission (EME) in the Earth-iono- sphere waveguide, and the «nonpropagating» fields (radon, electrical resistivity of rocks, groundwater level, etc.) is consistent with the idea that EM precursor sources (mechanical-to- electric energy converters) are located near the observation point in the skin-layer of the crust (Morgounov, 1985, 1991, 1995). 3. Short-term precursors and slip weakening Earthquake precursors recorded on the Earth’s surface are an indirect response of up- per crust rocks to the strain evolution in the fo- cal zone. Geological scales of the processes in the crust and its subcritical stress state require that the actual rheology of rocks, characterized by clearly expressed ductile properties, be tak- en into account. At the final stage of the EQ nucleation process, the conditions in the focal zone are fa- vorable for the development of tertiary creep characterized by well-pronounced self-regula- tion properties. An accelerated inelastic defor- mation in the focal volume, eventually results in a rupture whose dimension is controlled by its accumulated elastic energy (M). Beginning from a certain time of plastic flow, strains and strain rates in surface layers attain values that can be detected by geophysical instruments. Many authors considered slip weakening (or creep) as a possible mechanism of EQ genera- tion (Benioff, 1951; Kranz and Scholz, 1977; Lockner and Byerlee, 1978). Rice and Rudnic- ki (1979) defined the precursor time as the du- ration of «self-maintained accelerating creep.» It is evident that a real rock massif is not uniform. A fundamental property of the geo- physical medium is the fact that it consists of a system of interacting heterogeneities (blocks and fractures) that constitute a strictly defined, discrete hierarchy of sizes of its elements. Due to the inadequate knowledge of the real crustal structure, unknown initial conditions of the de- formation process, and the vague mechanism of EQ nucleation, an exact solution of the problem cannot be obtained at present. A deterministic description of such a medium is a problem un- solvable even statistically. Therefore, the medi- um should be characterized by generalized pa- rameters in accordance with its scale factors (Sadovsky et al., 1987). From this point of view, the heterogeneity of a rock massif does not seem to be an insuperable obstacle for the prognostic tasks. Therefore, we use the assumption of a for- mally uniform half-space, and nominal strain value ε (t, r) keeping in mind that the strain val- ue is a qualitative (measured on the order of magnitude) characteristic of the mosaic second- ary response of local dislocations to the gener- al quasi-elastic large-scale strain field. It meets the assumption of Benioff (1954) that elastic stresses can have a planetary scale. He substan- tiated the assumption by the regularity that the strongest earthquakes occur successively in dif- ferent parts of the world (Turkey, Taiwan, and Greece: 1999; Algeria, Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan: May, 2003; etc.). To describe phenomenologically the gener- al relations between spatial and temporal scales of the nucleation, we make the following addi- tional assumptions: a) creep mechanism; b) an r− 3 attenuation of the stress-strain field; and c) calculations in terms of the normalized distance rs /R* for the purpose of obtaining general regu- larities applicable to EQs of various magni- tudes. Given constant loading conditions (F = 138 Vitali A. Morgounov = const), the tertiary creep in rocks of the focal zone can be described by the power function of relative strain εf = ∆l/l t tf f m f 0 = +f f f∆]g (3.1) where εf (t) and ε f0 are the current and initial strain values in the focal zone, t is time, and ∆εf is the strain increment. The deformed volume can be divided into two at least main parts (fig. 2): the nucleation (focal) zone of radius rf in which the nonlinear creep process (governed by eq. (3.1)) develops and the surrounding rocks with quasi-elastic properties described by the equation r r r r n 1 2 2 1=f f^ ^ _h h i (3.2) where r1 and r2 are the distances from the source to the points of measurement. Taking into account the rheology of the real medium, the term «quasi-elastic sur- rounding medium» means here that a rock mass is able to transmit elastic stresses through the preparation region but possesses inelastic properties giving rise to surface pre- cursors such as anomalous disturbances in electrical resistivity (ρ), electromagnetic emission (EME), Acoustic Emission (AE), and others. Given constant loading condi- tions, the following notation is used below (fig. 3): t fe and tse, the time of EQ in the source (f) and at the surface (s); ts0, the onset time moment of the anomaly at the surface; tf 0, the reference time of inelastic deforma- tions in the source; τ, the duration of the anomalous surface signal; T, the duration of the tertiary creep in the focal zone. Thus, we have t ts e s 0 = -x and .T t tf e f 0 = - (3.3) Taking, in the first approximation, tfe = tse and setting tf0 = 0, we obtain .T ts 0 = -x (3.4) Also, the following notation is used below: εf 0 and εf e, initial and final strain values in the focal zone; εs0 , initial measurable strain (or strain-de- Fig. 2. A schematic layout of the earthquake nucle- ation zone: R* is the ultimate distance of the prepara- tion zone; rf is the radius of the seismic source; re is the epicentral distance from the point of measurement; rs is the hypocentral distance, and V is the source volume. Fig. 3. Diagram illustrating the tertiary creep stage in the focal zone and at the Earth’s surface. The fol- lowing notation is used: tf e and ts e, time moments of an earthquake in the source ( f ) and at the surface (s); ts 0, time moment of the anomaly appearance at the sur- face; tf 0, reference time of inelastic deformations in the source; τ, duration of the anomalous surface signal; T, duration of the tertiary creep in the source zone; εf 0 and εf e, initial and final strain values in the source zone; εs0, initial surface strain at which anomalies of geophysical parameters can be recorded; rf, character- istic size of the source or the radius of the focal zone; rs, hypocentral distance. 139 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances pendent parameter) at the surface; rf, character- istic size of the source (the radius of the focal zone); rs, hypocentral distance (rs ≥ rf). We have εf 0 = ε0 at the time t = 0 and εf e = = ∆εfT m + ε0 at t = T. Equation (3.1) yields .t t Tf f e m 0 0= - +f f f f] _ _g i i (3.5) According to (3.2) and (3.5), the strain at the surface (r = rs) at its initial time t = ts0 is found from the conditions , .t r t T r rs s s f e s m f s n 0 0 0 0 0= - +f f f f^ _ _ _h i i i9 C (3.6) Then, .t r r Ts s s f n m f e m 0 0 0 0 1 1 = - -f f f f - _ _i i9 C& 0 (3.7) The substitution of (3.7) into (3.4) gives the fol- lowing expression for the precursor duration τ depending on the epicentral distance and EQ energy .T= - r rs s f n f e m 0 0 0 1 1 - -x f f f f - 1 _a _i k i: D' 1 (3.8) 4. Ultimate distance of precursor detection The condition τ = 0 determines the ultimate distance rsmax = R* at which the precursor can be detected. This condition and eq. (3.8) yield .R rf f e s n 0 1 ) = f f_ i (4.1) The duration of inelastic deformation in the source is controlled by the initial strain εf 0, which depend on the sensitivity of the method in use and is actually a reference value. Ac- cording to estimates given in (Yamazaki, 1977, 1983; Rikitake et al., 1985), preseismic anom- alies recorded by an electrical resistivity vari- ometer comply with a surface strain not small- er than εs0 = 10– 9. This value is taken here as an initial value of the tertiary creep process in the focal zone. This provides certain constraints on the du- ration of the deformation process in the source. Taking into account the level of natural noise and the sensitivity of the method in use and Dambara’s (1966) way to evaluate the size of the focal zone rf, we assume εf 0= εs0 . Numerical order-of-magnitude estimates can be made as follows. According to various authors (in particular, Rikitake, 1976), the rup- ture of rocks occurs at εf e ∼ 10− 4. Equation (4.1) at n = 3 gives R*/rf ∼ 50. The source size rf be- ing strongly dependent on the magnitude M, numerical estimates of rf can be derived from the formula (Dambara, 1966) .2 27- km .r . f M0 5 = 10] g (4.2) Using the statistics of data for geophysical pre- cursors of 13 types, Rikitake (1988) obtained a general empirical formula relating the maxi- mum distances D (i.e. radius of the earthquake preparation zone, D = R*) within which the pre- cursors are detectable and the earthquake mag- nitude: M = − 0.87 + 2.6 1og D. Dividing this relation by eq. (4.2), we obtain R*/rf = 138, 106, 81, and 62 for the respective magnitudes M = 4, 5, 6, and 7, with the average value being R*/rf ∼ ∼ 96 for M = 4-7. Consequently, the maximum range of the precursor detection can be approx- imately hundred times as large as the source size. Data of Yamazaki’s variometer (Rikitake and Yamazaki, 1985) provide the following es- timates for the ultimate normalized distances of a short-term precursor (see no. 5, 8, and 21 in table I, and eq. (4.2)): rs / rf = 85.7, 92.7 and 86.5. Therefore, the estimate R*/rf ∼ 50, ob- tained above for εf e ∼ 10− 4 and εs0 ∼ 10− 9, is in- consistent with the experimental data. Thus, the value R*/ rf ∼102 is more adequate to in situ measurements .10+= 3 rf f e s 0 2) f f 1 R _ i (4.3) Hence, we have (εf e/εs0 ) ∼ 106. This can increase the known estimates of the in situ ultimate strain to the value εf e ∼ 10− 3, which is consistent with data of direct measurements of the break- ing strain in rocks under laboratory conditions (Kasahara, 1981). (Note that the value R*/rf ∼ ∼ 102 with εf e∼ 10− 4 is consistent with εs0 ∼ 10−10). Thus, the value R*/ rf ∼ 102 complies with data of the in situ resistivity observations by Ya- mazaki. Then, considering eqs. (4.2) and (4.3), 140 Vitali A. Morgounov Table I. 30 earthquakes that were preceded by preseismic resistivity variations (Rikitake and Yamazaki, 1985) and their calculated parameters. Note: M – magnitude; h – depth; re – epicentral distance; rs – hypocentral dis- tance; τ – precursor duration; R* – maximum size (radius) of the preparation zone; rf – characteristic size (ra- dius) of the focal zone; rs /R* – normalized hypocentral distance. No. Data M h (km) re (km) rs (km) τ (hour) R* (km) rs /R* rf (km) 1 16.05.1968 7.9 0 935 935 2 4786 0.195 47.9 2 01.07.1968 6.1 50 127 136 3-4 h 45 min 603 0.226 06.0 3 12.08.1969 7.8 30 1094 1094 4 4266 0.330 42.7 4 09.09.1969 6.6 0 320 320 2 h 15 min 1072 0.299 10.7 5 06.01.1971 5.5 40 256 259 0.5 302 0.858 03.0 6 23.07.1971 5.3 10 100 100 5 240 0.417 02.4 7 02.08.1971 7.0 60 1004 1005 7 1698 0.592 01.7 8 12.08.1971 4.8 60 110 125 0.5 135 0.927 01.35 9 06.10.1972 5.5 30 174 177 0.5 302 0.586 03.02 10 04.12.1972 7.2 50 337 341 2-7 2138 0.159 21.4 11 27.03.1973 4.9 60 66 89 3 151 0.588 01.51 12 30.09.1973 5.9 50 147 155 1 479 0.324 04.79 13 03.03.1974 6.1 60 160 171 3 603 0.284 06.03 14 09.05.1974 6.9 10 144 144 4 1514 0.095 15.14 15 27.09.1974 6.4 60 311 317 2-10 851 0.372 08.51 16 16.10.1974 6.1 40 215 219 2 603 0.363 06.03 17 30.10.1974 7.6 420 673 792 4-9 3388 0.234 33.90 18 02.04.1975 5.8 40 194 198 5-11 427 0.464 04.27 19 20.02.1978 6.7 50 461 464 3.5 1202 0.386 12.00 20 07.04.1978 6.1 30 160 163 1 603 0.271 06.03 21 13.08.1978 4.7 80 67 104 1 h 15 min 120 0.865 01.20 22 03.12.1978 5.4 20 50 54 5.5 269 0.201 02.69 23 11.07.1979 5.9 40 223 227 1 479 0.474 04.79 24 28.10.1979 5.5 90 104 138 6 302 0.457 03.02 25 12.03.1980 5.6 80 85 117 1 339 0.345 03.39 26 08.05.1980 5.7 60 104 120 6 h 45 min 380 0.316 03.80 27 29.06.1980 6.7 10 45 46 0.5-5 1202 0.038 12.00 28 25.09.1980 6.1 80 69 106 1 603 0.176 06.03 29 21.02.1982 6.7 0 230 230 8 1202 0.191 12.00 30 23.07.1982 7.0 10 241 241 3.5 1698 0.142 17.00 141 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances the following formula can be obtained for esti- mating the ultimate radius of the strain sensitiv- ity (preparation) zone (fig. 1): .0 27- km .R . M0 5) = 10] g (4.4) For example, eq. (4.4) yields R* ∼ 1700 km for M = 7 and R* ∼ 5400 km for M = 8; i.e. the strain-sensitivity zone can extend over consid- erable distances from the epicenter. This ap- proach explains, in particular, the long-range effects of strain-related precursors, including «strange» (in terms of Rikitake and Yamazaki, 1985) precursors in rocks recorded at epicentral distances longer than 103 km. The stereotypes associated with the proper- ty of EM waves to propagate over large dis- tances dominated the early model concepts of the EM precursor range. However, the exam- ples presented above show that the waveguide propagation model of an EM signal fails to ac- count for the long-range effect of strain-related resistivity precursors recorded at epicentral dis- tances of up to a thousand kilometers, and the same is true of geochemical, hydrodynamic, and other precursory phenomena (Lomnitz and Lomnitz, 1978; Fleischer, 1981; Warwick et al., 1982; Tramutoli et al., 2001). In particular, the preparation zone radius of the Chilean earthquake of 1960 (M = 8.5) is es- timated at R* ∼ 9550 km according to (4.4). This agrees with the data of Warwick et al. (1982), who recorded radiowave precursors of this earthquake at distances of up to 104 km (the formula of Rikitake (1988) gives R* ∼ 4075 km for this magnitude, fig. 1). Note once more that Tomaschek (1955) re- ported special tilts of about 0.1 s that were recorded in Japan at an epicentral distance of ∼ 1800 km 20 h before the Taiwan earthquake of M = 7. In this case, the relation (4.4) gives a similar value for the ultimate radius of prepara- tion zone (∼ 1700 km). Is this coincidence acci- dental? The answer requires additional in situ data in order to perform independent detailed analysis. Such EQ parameters as the magnitude, depth and epicentral distance allow the estima- tion of the nominal strain value at an observa- tion point. At the epicentral distance rs, eqs. (4.1) and (4.2) yield (εf e =10− 3) .9 81- .r . s M s 1 5 3 =f -10] g (4.5) Table II presents the values R* and εs estimated by eqs. (4.4) and (4.5). Rikitake (1976) report- ed preseismic strain anomalies that enabled such estimation (case no. 1, 2, and 3 in table II). Case no. 4 illustrates the estimated strain value εs at the observation point and the value of R* in the case of the preseismic EM event recorded by Warwick et al. (1982) at five US stations be- fore the Great Chilean earthquake of May 22, 1960 at distances of up to 10 000 km. Event no. Table II. Examples of calculated values εs, R*, and rs /R* in comparison with parameters of some earthquakes that were preceded by precursory variations. No. M ∆ km h km ε (in situ) ε (calcul.) R* km rs /R* References 1 7.0 94 70 2.5 ⋅ 10− 6 3.0 ⋅10− 6 1700 0.068 Rikitake (1976) 2 6.0 250 N 4.0 ⋅ 10− 8 1.0 ⋅10− 8 537 0.46 Rikitake (1976) 3 3.0 5 N 3.0 ⋅ 10− 8 3.9 ⋅10− 8 17 0.29 Rikitake (1976) 4 8.5 10 000 N 0.9 ⋅10− 9 9549 ∼ 1 Warwick (1982) 5 6.6 368 16 1.7 ⋅ 10− 8 1071 0.34 Eftaxias (2002) 6 5.9 359 N 2.0 ⋅ 10− 9 478 0.75 Eftaxias (2002) 7 6.5 192 N 1.2 ⋅ 10− 7 955 0.20 Eftaxias (2002) 142 Vitali A. Morgounov 5, 6 and 7 represent a few recent EQs in Greece, including the destructive earthquake of Septem- ber 7, 1999 (M = 5.9) in Athens. A distinct pre- seismic EME signal was recorded by Eftaxias et al. (2002) at a distance of ∼ 370 km (event no. 6 is yielded a nearly ultimate value of the normalized radius, rs /R* = 0.75). Table II shows that all precursors (including those recorded at great distances) were ob- served within the preparation zone of radius R* eq. (4.4). Obviously, the uncertainty of the pre- cursor detection increases with distances ap- proaching the ultimate value (only 10% of all the events, table I). It is natural that more reli- able detection of precursors can be expected closer to the epicentral zone where the strain values are higher. For example, in the case of ε ∼ 10− 6 the «effective» radius of the prepara- tion zone eff ) R is determined by the expression .km10 . .M0 5 1 27 eff ) - R = ] g (4.6) 5. Creep duration and normalized precursor time Undoubtedly, the determination of main in- variant relationships in the space-time distribu- tion of short-term precursors is a key point in solving the prediction problem. Published data Fig. 4a,b. Synchronous development of anomalous disturbances in the variometer record of electrical resistiv- ity and EME in Japan at points 50 km apart one from the other and 70 km apart from the epicenter. a) Example of an electrical resistivity variation before an M = 6.1 earthquake (Kanto area) at the epicentral distance re = 69 km (September 25, 1980). The symbol «P» and the dotted arrow indicate the onset of the anomaly. The solid ar- row indicates the onset moment of the earthquake. The time scale is shown in the top left corner (Yamazaki, 1983). b) EME level at a frequency of 81 kHz from observations at the Suginami seismic station near Tokyo be- fore the same earthquake (Gokhberg et al., 1982). a b 143 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances are mainly episodic measurements related to in- dividual seismic events. In this context, well- documented long-term data recorded by Ya- mazaki’s variometer (ρ) over 30 years (1968- 1998) provide a good opportunity for testing the model described above. Yamazaki (1977, 1983) subdivided seismic anomalies into preseismic and coseismic types. The data on preseismic anomalies are still the subject of vivid discussions or mistrust. Ya- mazaki (1977, 1983) and Rikitake and Yamaza- ki (1985) presented 14-year data (1968-1982) in the form of records of preseismic ρ anom- alies for 30 EQs with magnitudes of 4.7-7.9 that occurred in the region; they also presented the duration of the anomalies, their relative ampli- tudes, epicentral distances, and focal depths. Yoshino et al. (1998) questioned the relia- bility of these data because, in their opinion, the successive records of 1982-1997 revealed no precursors. This obvious contradiction requires an explanation. Undoubtedly, the preseismic anomaly pre- sented in fig. 4a (Yamazaki, 1983) is debatable from the standpoint of an independent expert. However, it is important to note that this particu- lar «questionable» anomaly recorded at the Abu- ratsubo Observatory (Yamazaki, 1983) coincides in the times of arrival, duration, and completion with the EME anomaly independently recorded at the Suginami Observatory (Yoshino et al., 1992) before the same seismic event (fig. 4b). Comparative analysis of published data reveals several coincidences of this kind. After the first EME measurements made by Morgounov, Yoshino and Tomizawa in 1980 in Japan (Gokhberg et al., 1982), Yoshino et al. (1992) published the statistics of EME precur- sors over the period from 1985 through 1990. The joint analysis of data published in Yoshino et al. (1992, 1998) showed that at least ten anomalous resistivity disturbances recorded in this period coincided in time with EME precur- sors (Yoshino et al., 1992), and these coinci- dences cannot be considered accidental. In oth- er words, the resistivity anomalies reported in Yamazaki (1977, 1983), Rikitake and Yamazaki (1985) and Rikitake (1988) are actually precur- sory anomalies due to the earthquake nucleation process and deserve a more detailed analysis. Similar to precursory anomalies of other types, the duration of ρ precursors is invariably irregular as a function of the epicentral distance. Figure 5a illustrates this with 30 cases recorded in 14 years (see table I) (Rikitake et al., 1985). In order to estimate the minimum duration of the rock failure process in the focal zone, only the anomalies that developed monotonically pri- or to an EQ were chosen from table I. By analogy with the notion of «canonical» creep, which is a deformation process gradual- ly developing under a constant load, we intro- duce the term «canonical» for a precursor that continuously develops until earthquake onset. Nearly 80% of all cases from table I meet this condition. In six cases (20%), anomalous dis- turbances ended before the earthquake onset (no. 7, 10, 15, 17, 18, and 26 in table I). These cases are shown as stars in fig. 5a. As is evident from the diagram (fig. 5b) showing the distribution of the duration times of «canonical» precursors as a function of the hypocentral distance rs normalized to the radius of preparation zone R* (eq. (4.4)), the chaotic set of points in fig. 5a is transformed into a group of points bounded by the straight line fitting the maximum duration values τmax of canonical pre- cursors in ρ recorded at various normalized dis- tances rs/R* from epicenter (fig. 5b). These maximum values are of particular interest. The precursor durations τ that are smaller than the critical value τmax (the points below the straight line in fig. 5b) can be natu- rally interpreted in terms of an indistinct, in- adequate manifestation of precursors due to the mosaic space-time pattern of the deforma- tions, nonuniformity of the stress field, vary- ing strain sensitivity at the observation point, or specific features of a particular earthquake mechanism. The regression line approximating the maxi- mum values τ max (no. 6, 21, 24, and 29 in table I; open circles in fig. 5b) is τ = 9.83 − 9.88 (rs/R*) with λ2= 0.96. Within a reasonable accuracy, this gives the following empirical formula: )T r Rs0,x 1 -_ i (5.1) where T0 ∼ 10 h. 144 Vitali A. Morgounov Thus, one can evaluate empirically the duration of slip stage of rocks in the source. When dis- tance to the focal zone decreases, i.e. at rs → rf, we have τ → T0. Data by Yamazaki (1977, 1983) yield T0 = 9.885 ≅ 10 h as an empirical estimate of the ductile failure duration in the source. As seen from fig. 5b, four precursory events (only ∼ 13% of all cases) were observed in the imme- diate vicinity of the normalized ultimate epi- central distances. Empirical formula (5.1) complies with theo- retical formula (3.8). Since εf e/εs0 ≅ 105− 106 > > 1 1.25 5 6 t =8 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3log rs log x (hours) 6 8 5 1.25 9.8 8.6 9.3 11.05 t = 9.83 - 9.88 (r s /R*) R 2 = 0.96 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1rs /R* x (hour) Fig. 5a,b. a) Time of the electrical resistivity precursor (log τ) versus the logarithm of the hypocentral distance (log rs) (Rikitake and Yamazaki 1985). The triangles and circles are precursors that continuously developed un- til the earthquake onset (i.e. «canonical» cases). The stars are precursors that terminated before an earthquake (no. 7, 10, 15, 17, 18, and 26). The circles indicate the events with τmax in terms of the normalized distance rs / R*. The numbers near circles indicate the duration of the precursors in hours. b) Duration of a precursor and a fail- ure process in the focal zone as a function of the hypocentral distance normalized to the size of preparation zone R*. The triangles and open circles indicate the «canonical» cases (see table I). Open circles (no. 6, 21, 24, and 29) indicate the events with τmax estimated in terms of the normalized distance rs / R*. Solid circles are duration times of the fracture process in the source calculated from eq. (5.1) for the events with the precursors shown as open circles. a b 145 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances and m = n = 3, we have (rs / rf)3 > > 1, and this agrees with the in situ observed distances for which rs / rf > 2-3. Substitution of these values into (3.8) gives formula (5.1). The agreement between theoretical formula (3.8) and empirical formula (5.1) suggests that the process of tertiary creep in form (3.1) can be considered, to a first approximation, as a mech- anism responsible for the fracture of the source rock mass. It also confirms the validity of Ya- mazaki’s precursors (Yamazaki, 1983; Rikitake et al., 1985). Equations (3.8) and (5.1) can be transform- ed into the form suitable for estimating the min- imum time of the ductile failure T0 in the source (rs ≠ R*) ) .T r Rs 1 = x - 1 -_ i (5.2) For cases 6, 21, 24, and 29 (table I; solid circles in fig. 5b), we obtain T0 = 9.8, 8.6, 11, and 9.3, respectively. The dotted line in fig. 5b is the regression line approximating the T0 values for τmax at dif- ferent normalized distances. This regression line indicates that the rate of creep at its final stage apparently has a limiting value (T0 ∼ 10 h) that is independent of the earthquake magnitude (at lease in the range M = 4.7-6.7 of the cases 6, 21, 24, and 29). Naturally, the T0 value is determined by the onset time tf0 of the plastic deformation that in turn depends on the sensitivity of the method εs0. Therefore, the duration of the fracture monitoring can generally be extended with the use of more perfect instrumentation. It is obvious that there exists a natural threshold of detection of seismo- genic anomalies due to natural noises (tides, tem- perature, local geodynamic processes, etc.). 6. Discussion The agreement between the empirical (5.1) and theoretical (3.8) relations is remarkable and suggests that the initial assumption on the creep mechanism can be consistent with the natural process, at least, as regards the events consid- ered. The conclusion on the invariance of T0 complies with the known evidence on the smallness of the scale factor during plastic de- formations (McClintock, 1976). Studying the scale factor in rocks under laboratory condi- tions, Mogi (1988) came to the same conclu- sion that the dimension effect on the strength of rock samples is insignificant. Several authors noted that, with the energies of earthquakes covering a range of a few orders of magnitude, the amplitudes of variations in precursors vary insignificantly, and this sup- porting the fundamental hypothesis of Tsuboi (1956), according to which a rock volume is characterized by an ultimate strength, implying that the ratio of elastic energy to the seismic source volume is a global characteristic and, in a first approximation, is independent of rock properties. The inference of the present work stating that T0 is invariant, i.e. that the minimum time of the creep-type failure (under a quasi- constant load) in the seismic source (eq. (3.7)) is independent of the magnitude (M), is also consistent with the Tsuboi hypothesis and ex- tends the latter to the duration of the ductile failure stage. Within the framework of the tertiary creep under constant load conditions, the strain rate increases up to the fracture value. In practice, an earthquake can occur during the period of relatively smooth development of an anomaly, with no intensity peaks preceding the main shock. Moreover, many earthquakes occur dur- ing the decay period of a bay-like anomalous disturbance or after its completion, during the so-called quiescence period of the signal. In this case, the usual model of avalanche creep under a constant load cannot serve as a direct analogy of the fracture development. The uniaxial loading of a sample under lab- oratory conditions differs from in situ condi- tions in that the load applied to an in situ de- formed rock mass does not remain constant during the process of plastic flow but decreases because due to considerable creep strain and the fact that this process proceeds in the environ- ment of surrounding rocks contributing to the load redistribution. The mechanism of creep failure under load relaxation conditions provides an explanation for various precursory signatures, as well as 146 Vitali A. Morgounov signal-quiescence earthquakes and precursors of the oscillatory type. The deceleration of the failure process, i.e. an increase in the precursor duration (several hours, a few days) and signal instability degree, can be interpreted in terms of the mechanism of stress relaxation during the deformation of the focal zone volume (the re- laxation creep model: Morgounov, 2001). Events 7, 10, 15, 17, 18, and 26 (see table I), which have been excluded from the analysis un- der the F=const condition, have features char- acteristic of the failure of the relaxation type. The generation of anomalous disturbances un- accompanied by an earthquake (silent, or slow earthquakes) seems to be a natural element of the nucleation process (false alarm) and can be regarded as a consequence of the relaxation creep mechanism. The quiescent phase of re- laxation creep could be the reason why preseis- mic anomalies could not be detected when measurements were made immediately (a few minutes or hours) before a shock. The creep mechanism is effective under conditions of either pure compression (exten- sion) or pure shear (Benioff, 1951). Therefore, this model can be applied to the results obtained in seismically active regions dominated by shear deformations (the San Andreas and Ana- tolian faults), subduction zones (Kuril-Kam- chatka and Japan islands), or continental areas of China subjected to compression. The value T0∼10 h was obtained using data from the sub- duction zone of Japan. Analysis of experimen- tal data from other regions can provide con- straints on the variability of this value. 7. Conclusions Johnston and Linder (2002) noted that ob- servations of crustal strain in high sensitivity zones near large earthquakes during the final stages before the rupture are unfortunately rare, and the knowledge of the timescale and mechanics of failure is therefore limited. This is largely due to a relatively low recurrence of earthquakes and sparseness of adequate instru- mental networks. The discrepancy between the results of the strain measurements, and the other geophysical disciplines, and expected theoretical values sug- gests that blocks can concentrate regional stress- es at a relatively small portion of their perime- ters. Then, the average stress on block bound- aries can be relatively low. Thus, the observation of aseismic deformation preceding earthquakes is consistent with the block tectonics (Leary et al., 1984). Such secondary local mosaic effects could explain why direct stress measurements at a given point have a low probability to detect preseismic anomalies. In other words, this prob- ability depends on the number of stations and/or the detection of a sensitive point of stress con- centration. From this point of view, taking into account elements of SOC phenomena, the problem of the epicenter location seems to be more unreliable than the determination of the time interval (from the similarity of temporal scales) and the magni- tude (from spatial scales) of the pending shock. Exact calculations of the strain of a impending earthquake in such a medium are problematic. Nevertheless, the calculations in a formal uni- form half-space can be useful for the qualitative estimation of the possible (maximal) secondary mosaic response of a fractal rock mass near the surface to the seismogenic strain evolution in the nucleation volume. Thus, the main problem is not the absence of precursory anomalies (they do exist!) but the nonadequate response of a fractal crust to the source fracture process. Does this mean the in- solvability of the prediction task? The response of local dislocations to a field of a larger scale re- flects, to an extent, the general nucleation creep process in the source. Under favorable condi- tions, the measurements mirror the nucleation process in the source that resulted in successful predictions in the past (Raleygh et al., 1977; Hui et al., 1997). A considerable increase in the strain rate be- fore the failure significantly raises the signal-to- noise ratio, which is beneficial to the identifica- tion of short-lived precursors and provides an op- portunity to explain published data on preseis- mic anomalous disturbances recorded at ultimate (teleseismic) distances during strong earth- quakes. The relative (normalized) epicentral dis- tance is beneficial to the comparison of geo- metrically similar earthquakes of different mag- 147 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances nitudes. This concept makes it possible to ana- lyze a «telesesmic equivalent» of seismic events of a lower energy. For example, the ulti- mate radius of an M ∼ 5.0 preparation zone is approximately R*=150 km (eq. (4.4)), i.e. the distance 150 km for an M = 5 event is equivalent to the telesesmic distance R*= 5400 km of a strong, M = 8.0 EQ. In both cases r/R*∼1. Thus, the phenomena of teleseismic precursory ef- fects does not seem to be abnormal and can be measured in exceptional cases under favorable conditions (Tomaschek, 1955; Wideman et al., 1967; Lomnitz et al., 1978; Warwick et al., 1982; Yamazaki, 1983; and others). The real strain field is a superposition of the complicated strain field of the source and het- erogeneous geological structures and topogra- phy, giving rise to an intricate pattern of stress- strain state controlled by fault structures. The satellite image of thermal infrared anomalies demonstrated by Tramutoli et al. (2001) illus- trates this natural mosaic distribution of precur- sors associated with the strain field. These pat- terns are the possible reason strain-metering in- struments fail to record short-lived precursors at a given point, and why more «integral» meth- ods (like EME) are more efficient than point- wise strain measurements. Returning to the question whether SOC is an insurmountable obstacle for EQ prediction, it is appropriate to note the conclusion by Sykes et al., (1999) that this issue does not de- pend on the SOC nature of seismicity. It de- pends on whether there exists a precursory phase of instability that can be reliably detect- ed from instrumental observations. Numerous studies performed in various countries, including the positive experience of a «negative results», is a good reason for re- served optimism with respect to future re- search. Acknowledgements The author would like to express sincere thanks to M.J.S. Johnston for helpful discus- sions regarding the problem of the creep-strain measurements and V. Lapenna for reviewing the manuscript and valuable comments. REFERENCES ABERCROMBIE, R.E., D.C. AGNEW and F.K. WYATT (1995): Testing a model of earthquake nucleation, Bull. Seis- mol. Soc. Am., 85 (6), 1873-1878. BAK, P., C. TANG and K. WIESENFIELD (1988): Self-organ- ized criticality, Phys. Rev. A, 38, 364-374. BENIOFF, H. (1951): Earthquake and rock creep, Bull. Seis- mol. Soc. Am., 41 (1), pp. 30-62. BENIOFF, H. (1954): Evidence for world strain readjustment following the Kamtshatka earthquake of November 4, 1952, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 44 (3), 543-. BEN-ZION, Y., T.L. HENYEY, P.C. LEARY and S.P. LUND (1990): Observations and implications of water well and creepmeter anomalies in the Mojave segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 80 (6), 1661-1676. BERGER, I. (1973): Application of laser techniques to geo- desy and geophysics, in Advances in Geophysica, edit- ed by H.E. LANDSBERG and J. VAN MIEGHEM (Academ- ic Press, New York), vol. 16, 1-56. BILHAM, R.G. and R.J. BEAVAN (1979): Strain and tilts on crustal blocks, Tectonophysics, 52, 123-138. DAMBARA, T. (1966): Vertical movements of the earth’s crust in relation to the Matsushiro earthquake, J. Geod. Soc. Jpn., 12, 18-25. DIETERICH, J.H. (1992): Earthquake nucleation on faults with rate- and state-dependent trength, Tectonophysics, 211, 115-134. DODGE, D.A., G.C. BEROZA and W.L. ELLSWORTH (1996): Detailed observations of Valifornia foreshock se- quences: implications for the earthquake initiation process, J. Geophys. Res., 101 (B10), 22371-22392. EFTAXIAS, K., P. KAPIRIS, E.J. DOLOGLOU, J. KOPANAS, N. BOGRIS, G. ANTONOPOULOS, A. PERATZAKIS and V. HADJICONTIS (2002): EM anomalies before the Kozani earthquake:a study of their behavior through laborato- ry experiments, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29 (8), 69,1-69,4. FLEISCHER, R.L. (1981): Dislocation model for radon re- sponse to distant earthquakes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 8 (5), 477-480. FRASER-SMITH, A.C., A. BERNANDI, P.R. MC-GILL, M.E. LADD, R.A. HELLIWELL and O.G. VILLARD JR. (1990): Low-frequency magnetic field measurements near the epicenter of the Ms 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake, Geo- phys. Res. Lett., 17 (9), 1465-1468. HARRIS, R.A. (1998): Introduction to special section: stress triggers, stress shadows, and amplification for seismic hazard, J. Geophys. Res., 103 (B10), 24347-24358. HUI, LI and R. KERR (1997): Warning precede Chinese tem- blors, Science, 276 (5312), p. 526. GELLER, R.J. (1997): Earthquakes: thinking about the un- predictable, EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 78, 63- 67. GOKHBERG, M.B., V.A. MORGOUNOV, T. YOSHINO and I. TOMIZAWA (1982): Experimental measurements of electromagnetic emissions possibly related to earth- quakes in Japan, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 7824-7888. JOHNSTON, M.J.S. and A.T. LINDER (2002): Implications of crustal strain during conventional, slow, and silent earthquakes, Int. Handb. Earthquake Eng. Seismol., 81A, 589-605. JOHNSTON, M.J.S., A.T. LINDER and D.C. AGNEW (1994): 148 Vitali A. Morgounov Continuous borehole strain in the San Andreas Fault Zone before, during, and after the 28 June 1992, Mw 7.3 Landers, California, Earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84 (3), 799-805. KASAHARA, K. (1981): Earthquake Mechanics (Cambridge Earth Science Series, Cambridge Univ. Press), pp. 250. KRANZ, R.L. and C.H. SCHOLZ (1977): Critical dilatant vol- ume of rocks at the onset of tertiary creep, Geophys. Res., 82 (30), 4893-4898. LEARY, P.S. and P.E. MALIN (1984): Ground deformation events preceding Homesead Valley earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 74 (5), 1799-1817. LOCKNER, D. and J. BYERLEE (1978): Development of frac- ture planes during creep in granite, in 2nd Conference on Acoustic Emission, «Microseismic Activity in Geo- logic Structures and Materials», Pennsylvania State University, 11-25. LOMNITZ, C. and L. LOMNITZ (1978): Tangshan 1976: a case history in earthquake prediction, Nature, 171, 109-111. MCCLINTOCK, F.A. (1976): Engineering Foundations and Interactions with the External Environment (Mir, Moscow), pp. 262. MELONI, A., D. PATELLA, F. VALLIANATOS and B. ZOLESI (2001a): 2nd International Workshop Magnetic Elec- tric and Electromagnetic Methods in Seismology and Volcanology, Chania, Greece, September 22-24, 1999, Ann. Geofis., 44 (2), pp. 297. MELONI, A., D. DI MAURO, G. MELE, P. PALANGIO, T. ERNST, and R. TEISSEYRE (2001b): Evolution of magnetotel- luric, total magnetic field, and VLF field parameters in Central Italy: relations to local seismic activity, Ann. Geofis., 44 (2), 383-394. MOGI, K. (1981): Earthquake prediction program in Japan, in Earthquake Prediction: an International Review, edited by D.W. SIMPSON and P.G. RICHARDS (AGU, Washington, D.C.), Maurice Ewing Ser. 4, 635-666. MOGI, K. (1988): Earthquake Prediction (Tokyo, Academ- ic), pp. 382. MORGOUNOV, V.A. (1985): Electromagnetic emission prior to seismic activity, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Fiz. Zemli, 3, 220-226. MORGOUNOV, V.A. (1991): Creep processes in geodynam- ics, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 317 (3), 1347-1352. MORGOUNOV, V.A. (1995): Tertiary creep in focal zone and immediate time earthquake prediction, J. Earthquake Pred. Res., 5 (2), 155-181. MORGOUNOV, V.A. (2001): Relaxation creep model of im- pending earthquake, Ann. Geofis., 44 (2), 369-381. MOUNT, V.S. and J. SUPPE (1992): Present-day orientations adjacent to active strike-slip faults: California and Sumatra, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 11995-12013. OHNAKA, M. (1993): Critical size of the nucleation zone of earthquake rupture inferred from immediate foreshock activity, J. Phys. Earth, 41, 45-56. OKI, Y. AND S. HIRAGA (1988): Groundwater monitoring for earthquake prediction by an Amateur Network in Japan, Pure Appl. Geophys., 126 (2-4), 211-240. O’NEIL, J.R. and C. KING (1981): Variations in stable-iso- tope ratios of ground waters in seismically active re- gions of California, Geophys. Res. Lett., 8 (5), 429-432. PRESS, F. (1965): Displacements, strains, and tilts at teleseis- mic distances, J. Geophys. Res., 70 (10), 2395-2412. RALEYGH, B., G. BENNET, H. CREYG, P. MOLNAR, T. HANKS, A. NUR, F. WU, J. SAVAGE, C. SCHOLZ and R. TURNER (1977): Prediction of the Haycheng earthquake, EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 58 (5), 236-272. RICE, J.R. and J.W. RUDNICKI (1979): Earthquake precurso- ry effects due to pore fluid stabilization of a weakening fault zone, J. Geophys. Res., 84 (B5), 2177-2193. RIKITAKE, T. (1976): Earthquake Prediction (Elsevier Sci- entific Publishing Company, Amsterdam-Oxford-New- York), pp. 388. RIKITAKE, T. (1988): Earthquake prediction: an empirical approach, Tectonophysics, 148 (3-4), 195-210. RIKITAKE, T. and Y. YAMAZAKI (1985): The nature of resis- tivity precursor, J. Earthquake Pred. Res., 3, 559-570. ROELOFFS, E.A. (1988): Hydrologic precursors to earthquakes: a review, Pure Appl. Geophys., 126 (2-4), 177-209. SADOVSKII, M.A., L.G. BOLKHOVITINOV and V.F. PIS- ARENKO, (1987): Deformatsiya Zemnoi Kory i Seis- micheskii Protsess (Nauka, Moscow), pp. 100. SPICHAK, V.V., E.B. FAINBERG and Y.P. SIZOV (Editors) (2002): III International Workshop on Magnetic, Electric and ElectroMagnetic Methods in Seismology and Volcanology (MEEMSV-2002), Scientific Pro- gram and Abstracts, Moscow, pp. 257. SYKES, L.R., B.E. SHAW and C.H. SCHOLZ (1999): Re- thinking earthquake prediction, Pure Appl. Geophys., 155, 207-232. TENG, T., L. SUN and J.K. MCRANEY (1981): Correlation of groundwater radon anomalies with earthquakes in the Greater Palmdale Bulge area, Geophys. Res. Lett., 8 (5), 441-444. TOMASCHEK, R. (1955): Earth tilts in the British islands connected with far distant earthquakes, Nature, 176 (4470), 24-25. TRAMUTOLI, V., G. DI BELLO, N. PERGOLA and S. PISCITEL- LI (2001): Robust satellite techniques for remote sens- ing of seismicalli active areas, Ann. Geofis., 44 (2), 295-312. TSUBOI, C. (1956): Earthquake energy, earthquake vol- ume, aftershock area, and strength of the earth’s crust, J. Phys. Earthquake, 4 (2), 63-66. ULOMOV, V.I. (1987): On the relation of the sizes of focus and preparation zone of earthquakes, Dokl. Usbek Acad. Sci., 9, 39-40. UYEDA, S., T. NAGAO, Y. ORIHARA and I. TAKAHASHI (2000): Geoelectric potential changes; possible pre- cursors to earthquakes in Japan, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 97, 4561-4566. VAROTSOS, P., K. ALEXOPOULOS and M. LAZARIDOU (1993): Latest aspects of EQ prediction in Greece based on seismic electric signals, Tectonophysics, 224, 1-38. WAKITA, H., Y. NAKAMURA and Y. SANO (1998): Short- term and intermediate-term geochemical precursors, Pure Appl. Geophys., 126 (2-4), 267-278. WARWICK, J.W., C. STOKER and T.R. MAYER (1982): Radio emission associated with rock fracture: possible ap- plication to great Chilean earthquake of May 22, J. Geophys. Res., 4, 2851-2859. WESSON, R.L. and C. NICHOLSON (1988): Intermediate-term pre-earthquake phenomena in California, 1975-1986, and preliminary forecast of seismicity for the next decade, Pure Appl. Geophys., 126 (2-4), 407-446. WIDEMAN, C.J. and M.W.MAJOR (1967): Strain steps asso- 149 Slip weakening, strain and short-term preseismic disturbances ciated with earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 57 (6), 1429-1444. WYATT, F.K., D.C. AGNEW and M. GLADVIN (1994): Con- tinuous measurements of crustal deformation for the 1992 landers earthquake sequence, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84 (3), 768-779. YAMADA, J. (1973): A water-tube tiltmeter and its applica- tions to crustal movement studies, Spec. Bull. Earth- quake Res. Inst., Univ. Tokyo, 10, part 1. YAMAZAKI, Y. (1977): Tectonoelectricity, Geophys. Surv., 3, 123-142. YAMAZAKI, Y. (1983): Pre-seismic resistivity changes recorded by the resistivity variometer, Bull. Earth- quake Res. Inst., Univ. Tokyo, 58, part 2, 477-525. YOSHINO, T., I. TOMIZAWA and T. SIGIMOTO (1992): Results of statistical analysis of LF seismogenic emissions as precursors to the earthquake and volcanic eruptions, Res. Lett. Atmos. Electr., 12, 203-210. YOSHINO, T., H. UTADA and T. YUKUTAKE (1998): Variations in Earth resistivity at Aburatsubo, Central Japan (1983- 1997), Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Univ. Tokyo, 73, part 1, 1-72.