Special section - Assessment of schemes for earthquake prediction. From precursors to prediction: A few recent cases from Greece

Bernard, P; Pinettes, P; Hatzidimitriou, PM; Scordilis, EM; Veis, G; Milas, P

dc.contributor.author	Bernard, P	en
dc.contributor.author	Pinettes, P	en
dc.contributor.author	Hatzidimitriou, PM	en
dc.contributor.author	Scordilis, EM	en
dc.contributor.author	Veis, G	en
dc.contributor.author	Milas, P	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:46:15Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:46:15Z
dc.date.issued	1997	en
dc.identifier.issn	0956540X	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/24868
dc.relation.uri	http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0031406652&partnerID=40&md5=b995c80b04142786022c9f933ae7a930	en
dc.subject	Earthquake precursors	en
dc.subject	Earthquake prediction	en
dc.subject	Greece	en
dc.title	Special section - Assessment of schemes for earthquake prediction. From precursors to prediction: A few recent cases from Greece	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.publicationDate	1997	en
heal.abstract	The two destructive earthquakes of 1995 in Greece, the May 13 Ms = 6.6 Kozani-Grevena and the June 15 Ms = 6.2 Aigion events, provide interesting material for analysing problems related to the identification of precursors and to the efficiency and usefulness of prediction. The Kozani earthquake was preceded, within 30 minutes of the main shock, by five foreshocks with magnitude greater than 3.5 (Papazachos et al. 1995). We relocated these events with respect to each other, showing that they are clustered within 2 km of one another, about 5 to 10 km to the SSW of the main-shock epicentre. This size of foreshock clustering correctly fits the correlation law with the main-shock magnitude obtained by Dodge, Beroza & Ellsworth (1996) for Californian earthquakes. These foreshocks led to people leaving their houses, which explains the absence of casualties, despite the partial destruction of several villages. The possibility of issuing predictions in this area from the observation of earthquake clustering is analysed in light of the seismicity observed during the last 15 years. A prediction was issued by the VAN group before this earthquake, based on SES signals (IOA station, 18-19 April 1995), which is considered by VAN as a success (Varotsos etal. 1996a), but is in fact a failure to predict (Geller 1996). This SES was also recorded by a magnetotelluric station installed by IPGP, a few kilometres from IOA (Gruszow et al. 1996). Gruszow et al. (1996) suggested an artificial origin for the SES, but could not track it. Simple amplitude estimates show that a local, natural source such as an electrokinetic effect is unlikely, and that a remote electrokinetic source in the epicentral area can be even more confidently rejected. Another SES on VAN's network (VOL station, 30 April 1995) led the VAN group to predict an earthquake outside the IOA sensitivity area (IOA did not record any anomaly), and to announce a success when the Aigion earthquake occurred (Varotsos et al. 1996a); however, this event was located inside the IOA sensitivity area, and the prediction was hence a failure (Wyss 1996; Geller 1996; Bernard et al. 1997). Furthermore, at the time of this SES, no tilt nor strain was observed above the noise level of a few 10-8 at the IPGP/NTUA Galaxidi geophysical observatory, 20 km from the hypocentre, leading Pinettes et al. (1996) to conclude that the electrical source of this SES was most probably located near VOL, 100 km away, whatever its correlation with the earthquake.	en
heal.journalName	Geophysical Journal International	en
dc.identifier.volume	131	en
dc.identifier.issue	3	en
dc.identifier.spage	467	en
dc.identifier.epage	477	en