GLOBAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SEISMIC FAULT PARAMETERS AND MOMENT MAGNITUDE OF EARTHQUAKES

PDF
Published: Jan 1, 2004
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/bgsg.16538
B. C. Papazachos
Geophysical Laboratory, School of Geology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
E. M. Scordilis
Geophysical Laboratory, School of Geology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
D. G. Panagiotopoulos
Geophysical Laboratory, School of Geology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
C. B. Papazachos
Geophysical Laboratory, School of Geology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
G. F. Karakaisis
Geophysical Laboratory, School of Geology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Abstract

The most reliable of the globally available relative data have been used to derive empirical formulas which relate the subsurface fault length, L, the fault area, S, and fault width, w, with the moment magnitude, M. Separate such formulas have been derived for earthquakes generated by strike-slip faulting, by dip-slip faulting in continental regions and by dip-slip faulting in lithospheric subduction regions. The formula which relates the fault area with the magnitude is combined with the definition formulas of seismic moment and moment magnitude to derive also relations between the fault slip, u, and the moment magnitude for each of the three seismotectonic regimes. For a certain magnitude, the fault length is larger for strike-slip faults than for dip-slip faults, while the fault width is small for strike-slip faults, larger for dip-slip faults in continental regions and much larger for dip-slip faults in regions of lithospheric subduction. For a certain magnitude, fault slip is about the same for strike-slip faults and dip-slip faults in continental regions and smaller for dip-slip faults in regions of lithospheric subduction.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Seismology
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Aki K. 1966. Generation and propagation of G-waves from the Niigata earthquake of June 16,1964. 2. Estimation of earthquake movement, released energy and stress-strain drop from G spectrum. Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst., 44, 23-88.
Ambraseys N.N. 1988. Magnitude - fault length relationships for earthquakes in the Middle East, In: Historical Seismograms and Earthquakes of the World, Lee, W.H., Meyers, H. & Shimazaki, K. eds, Acad. Press Inc., 309-310.
Bonilla M., Mark R. & Lienkaemper J. 1984. Statistical relations among earthquake magnitude, surface length and surface fault displacements. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 74, 2379-2411.
Fujii Y. & Matsu'ura M. 2000. Regional difference in scaling laws for large earthquakes and its tectonic implication. Pure Appi. Geophys., 157, 2283-2302.
Hanks T.C. & Kanamori H. 1979. A moment magnitude scale. J. Geophys. Res., 84, 2348-2350.
Henry C. & Das S. 2001. Aftershocks zones of large shallow earthquakes: fault dimensions, aftershock area expansion and scaling relations. Geophys. J. Int., 147, 272-293.
Kagan Y.Y. 2002. Aftershock zone scaling. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 92, 641-655.
Kanamori H. & Anderson D.C. 1975. Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 65, 1073-1096.
Papazachos B.C. & Papazachou C.B. 2003. The earthquakes of Greece. Ziti Publications, Thessaloniki, 273pp.
Pegler G. & Das S. 1996. Analysis of the relationship between seismic moment and fault length for large crustal strike-slip earthquakes between 1977-92. Geophys. Res. Letters, 23, 905-908.
Romanowicz B. 1994. Comments on A Reappraisal of Large Earthquake Scaling by C. Scholz. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 84, 1675-1676.
Scholz C.H. 1994a. A reappraisal of large earthquake scaling. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 84, 215-218.
Scholz C.H. 1994b. Reply on comments on Reappraisal of Large Earthquake Scaling by C. Scholz. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 84, 1677-1678.
Smith G.C. & Stock Ch. 2000. Evidence for different scaling of earthquake source parameters for large earthquakes depending on faulting mechanism, Geophys. J. Int., 143, 157-169.
Stock C. & Smith E.G.C. 2000. Evidence for different scaling of earthquake source parameters for large earthquakes depending on faulting mechanism. Geophys. J. Int., 143, 157-162.
Tocher D. 1958. Earthquake energy and ground breakage. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 48, 147-153.
Utsu T. & Seki A. 1954. A relation between the area of aftershock region and the energy of mainshock. J. Seism. Soc. Japan, 7, 233-240.
Wang J.H. & Ou S.S. 1998. On scaling of earthquake faults. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 88, 758-766.
Wells D.L. & Coppersmith K.J. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bull. Seism Soc. Am., 84, 974-1002.
Wesnousky S.G. 1986. Earthquake, quaternary faults and seismic hazard in California. J. Geophys. Res., 91, 12587-12631.
Most read articles by the same author(s)