Earthquake faults interact with each other in many different ways and hence earthquakes cannot be treated as individual independent events. Although earthquake interactions generally lead to a complex evolution of the crustal stress field, it does not necessarily mean that the earthquake occurrence becomes random and completely unpredictable. In particular, the interplay between earthquakes can rather explain the occurrence of pronounced characteristics such as periods of accelerated and depressed seismicity (seismic quiescence) as well as spatiotemporal earthquake clustering (swarms and aftershock sequences). Ignoring the time-dependence of the process by looking at time-averaged values – as largely done in standard procedures of seismic hazard assessment – can thus lead to erroneous estimations not only of the activity level of future earthquakes but also of their spatial distribution. Therefore, it exists an urgent need for applicable time-dependent models. In my work, I aimed at better understanding and characterization of the earthquake interactions in order to improve seismic hazard estimations. For this purpose, I studied seismicity patterns on spatial scales ranging from hydraulic fracture experiments (meter to kilometer) to fault system size (hundreds of kilometers), while the temporal scale of interest varied from the immediate aftershock activity (minutes to months) to seismic cycles (tens to thousands of years). My studies revealed a number of new characteristics of fluid-induced and stress-triggered earthquake clustering as well as precursory phenomena in earthquake cycles. Data analysis of earthquake and deformation data were accompanied by statistical and physics-based model simulations which allow a better understanding of the role of structural heterogeneities, stress changes, afterslip and fluid flow. Finally, new strategies and methods have been developed and tested which help to improve seismic hazard estimations by taking the time-dependence of the earthquake process appropriately into account. / Erdbeben interagieren in vielfältiger Weise miteinander, weshalb sie nicht als einzelne, unabhängige Ereignisse behandelt werden können. Obwohl diese Erdbebenwechselwirkungen in der Regel zu einer komplexen Entwicklung des Spannungsfelds führen, bedeutet dies nicht zwangsläufig, dass Erdbeben rein zufällig und völlig unberechenbar auftreten. Insbesondere kann das Zusammenspiel zwischen Erdbeben zu ausgeprägten Charakteristiken wie Phasen beschleunigter Aktivität, seismischer Ruhe sowie raumzeitlichen Erdbebenanhäufungen (Schwärme und Nachbebensequenzen) führen. Die Vernachlässigung der Zeitabhängigkeit des Erdbebenprozesses kann somit zu fehlerhaften Einschätzungen nicht nur des zukünftigen Aktivitätsniveaus, sondern auch der räumlichen Verteilung führen. Daher besteht ein dringender Bedarf an geeigneten zeitabhängigen Seismizitätsmodellen. Meine Arbeit zielt auf ein verbessertes Verständnis und Charakterisierung der Interaktionen von Erdbeben ab, um Abschätzungen der Erdbebengefährdung zu verbessern. Zu diesem Zweck untersuche ich Seismizitätsmuster auf den räumlichen Skalen von hydraulisch induzierten Öffnungsbrüchen (Meter bis Kilometer) bis zu Verwerfungssystemen (Hunderte von Kilometern), während die zeitlichen Skalen von Nachbebenaktivität (Minuten bis Monate) bis zu seismischen Zyklen (bis zu mehrere tausendend Jahre) reichen. Meine Studien ergeben eine Reihe neuer Merkmale von Fluid- und Spannungs-induzierten Erdbeben. Ergänzend zur reinen Datenanalyse der Erdbeben- und Deformationsdaten liefern statistische und Physik-basierte Modellsimulationen ein besseres Verständnis der Rolle von strukturellen Heterogenitäten, Spannungsänderungen und postseismischen Prozessen. Schließlich konnten neue Strategien und Methoden entwickelt und getestet werden, mit denen die Erdbebengefährdung besser eingeschätzt werden kann, indem die Zeitabhängigkeit des Erdbebens Prozess angemessen berücksichtigt wird.

Deep non-volcanic tremor is a newly discovered seismic phenomenon with low amplitude, long duration, and no clear P- and S-waves as compared with regular earthquake. Tremor has been observed at many major plate-boundary faults, providing new information about fault slip behaviors below the seismogenic zone. While tremor mostly occurs spontaneously (ambient tremor) or during episodic slow- slip events (SSEs), sometimes tremor can also be triggered during teleseismic waves of distance earthquakes, which is known as "triggered tremor". The primary focus of my Ph.D. work is to understand the physical mechanisms and necessary conditions of triggered tremor by systematic investigations in different tectonic regions. These include Taiwan, California, southwest Japan, Alaska and the Aleutian Arc, Cascadia, and New Zealand. In the first chapter of my dissertation, I conduct a systematic survey of triggered tremor beneath the Central Range (CR) in Taiwan for 45 teleseismic earthquakes from 1998 to 2009 with Mw ≥ 7.5. Triggered tremors are visually identified as bursts of high-frequency (2-8 Hz), non-impulsive, and long-duration seismic energy that are coherent among many seismic stations and modulated by the teleseismic surface waves. A total of 9 teleseismic earthquakes has triggered clear tremor in Taiwan. The peak ground velocity (PGV) of teleseismic surface waves is the most important factor in determining tremor triggering potential, with an apparent threshold of ~0.1 cm/s, or 7-8 kPa. However, such threshold is partially controlled by the background noise level, preventing triggered tremor with weaker amplitude from being observed. In addition, I find a positive correlation between the PGV and the triggered tremor amplitude, which is consistent with the prediction of the 'clock-advance' model. This suggests that triggered tremor can be considered as a sped-up occurrence of ambient tremor under fast loading from the passing surface waves. Finally, the incident angles of surface waves also play an important rule in controlling the tremor triggering potential. The next chapter focuses on a systematic comparison of triggered tremor around the Calaveras Fault (CF) in northern California (NC), the Parkfield-Cholame section of the San Andreas Fault (SAF) in central California (CC), and the San Jacinto Fault (SJF) in southern California (SC). Out of 42 large (Mw ≥7.5) earthquakes between 2001 and 2010, only the 2002 Mw 7.9 Denali fault earthquake triggered clear tremor in NC and SC. In comparison, abundant triggered and ambient tremor has been observed in CC. Further analysis reveal that the lack of triggered tremor observations in SC and NC is not simply a consequence of their different background noise levels as compared to CC, but rather reflects different background tremor rates in these regions. In the final chapter, I systematically search for triggered tremor following the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake in the regions where ambient or triggered tremor has been found before. The main purpose is to check whether triggered tremor is observed in regions when certain conditions (e.g., surface wave amplitudes) are met. Triggered tremor is observed in southwest Japan, Taiwan, the Aleutian Arc, south-central Alaska, northern Vancouver Island, the Parkfield-Cholame section of the SAF in CC and the SJF in SC, and the North Island of New Zealand. Such a widespread triggering of tremor is not too surprising because of the large amplitude surface waves (minimum peak value of ~0.1 cm/s) and the associated dynamic stresses (at least ~7-8 kPa), which is one of the most important factors in controlling the triggering threshold. The triggered tremor in different region is located close to or nearby the ambient tremor active area. In addition, the amplitudes of triggered tremor have positive correlations with the amplitudes of teleseismic surface waves among many regions. Moreover, both Love and Rayleigh waves participate in triggering tremor in different regions, and their triggering potential is somewhat controlled by the incident angles. In summary, systematically surveys of triggered tremor in different tectonic regions reveal that triggered tremor shares similar physical mechanism (shear failure on the fault interface) as ambient tremor but with different loading conditions. The amplitude of the teleseismic surface wave is one of the most important factors in controlling the tremor triggering threshold. In addition, the frequency contents and incident angles of the triggering waves, and local fault geometry and ambient conditions also play certain roles in determining the triggering potential. On the other hand, the background noise level and seismic network coverage and station quality also could affect the apparent triggering threshold. Because triggered tremor occurs almost instantaneously during the teleseismic surface waves, and the tremor amplitude is somewhat controlled by the amplitude of the triggering waves, the occurrence time and the size of the triggered tremor could be somewhat predictable, so long as we know the amplitude and period of surface waves and associated time-varying dynamic stresses. Hence, further analysis of triggered tremor may provide important new clues on the nucleation and predictability of seismic events.

Although there exist some consensus regarding seismic soil liquefaction assessment of free field soil sites, estimating the liquefaction triggering potential beneath building foundations still stays as a controversial and difficult issue. Assessing liquefaction triggering potential under building foundations requires the estimation of cyclic and static stress state of the soil medium. For the purpose of assessing the effects of the presence of a structure three-dimensional, finite difference-based total stress analyses were performed for generic soil, structure and earthquake combinations. A simplified procedure was proposed which would produce unbiased estimates of the representative and maximum soil-structure-earthquake-induced iv cyclic stress ratio (CSRSSEI) values, eliminating the need to perform 3-D dynamic response assessment of soil and structure systems for conventional projects. Consistent with the available literature, the descriptive (input) parameters of the proposed model were selected as soil-to-structure stiffness ratio, spectral acceleration ratio (SA/PGA) and aspect ratio of the building. The model coefficients were estimated through maximum likelihood methodology which was used to produce an unbiased match with the predictions of 3-D analyses and proposed simplified procedure. Although a satisfactory fit was achieved among the CSR estimations by numerical seismic response analysis results and the proposed simplified procedure, validation of the proposed simplified procedure further with available laboratory shaking table and centrifuge tests and well-documented field case histories was preferred. The proposed simplified procedure was shown to capture almost all of the behavioral trends and most of the amplitudes. As the concluding remark, contrary to general conclusions of Rollins and Seed (1990), and partially consistent with the observations of Finn and Yodengrakumar (1987), Liu and Dobry (1997) and Mylonakis and Gazetas, (2000), it is proven that soil-structure interaction does not always beneficially affect the liquefaction triggering potential of foundation soils and the proposed simplified model conveniently captures when it is critical.