Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 167, Issue 6–7, pp 801–818 | Cite as

Repeated Intermittent Earthquake Cycles in the San Francisco Bay Region

  • Mark S. Bebbington
  • David S. Harte
  • Steven C. Jaumé


Forecasts of future earthquake hazard in the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR) are dependent on the distribution used for the possible magnitude of future events. Based on the limited observed data, it is not possible to statistically distinguish between many distributions with very different tail behavior. These include the modified and truncated Gutenberg–Richter distributions, and a composite distribution assembled by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. There is consequent ambiguity in the estimated probability of very large, and hence damaging, events. A related question is whether the energy released in earthquakes is a small or large proportion of the stored energy in the crust, corresponding loosely to the ideas of self-organized criticality, and intermittent criticality, respectively. However, the SFBR has experienced three observed accelerating moment release (AMR) cycles, terminating in the 1868 Hayward, 1906 San Andreas and 1989 Loma Prieta events. A simple stochastic model based on elastic rebound has been shown to be capable of producing repeated AMR cycles in large synthetic catalogs. We propose that such catalogs can provide the basis of a test of a given magnitude distribution, via comparisons between the AMR properties of the real and synthetic data. Our results show that the truncated Gutenberg–Richter distribution produces AMR behavior closest to the observed AMR behavior. The proviso is that the magnitude parameters b and m max are such that a sequence of large events that suppresses activity for several centuries is unlikely to occur. Repeated simulation from the stochastic model using such distributions produces 30-year hazard estimates at various magnitudes, which are compared with the estimates from the 2003 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities.


Earthquake magnitude accelerating moment release truncated Gutenberg–Richter tail behavior hazard estimates 



This work was supported by the Marsden fund, administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand.


  1. Andrews, D.J. and Schwerer E. (2000), Probability of rupture of multiple fault segments, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, 1498–1506Google Scholar
  2. Bakun, W.H. (1999), Seismic activity of the San Francisco Bay region, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89, 764–784Google Scholar
  3. Bebbington, M. (2008), Estimating rate- and state-friction parameters using a two-node stochastic model for aftershocks. Tectonophysics 457, 71–85Google Scholar
  4. Bebbington, M. and Harte, D. (2001), On the statistics of the linked stress release process, J. Appl. Probab. 38A, 176–187Google Scholar
  5. Bebbington, M. and Harte, D. (2003), The linked stress release model for spatio-temporal seismicity: Formulations, procedures and applications, Geophys. J. Int. 154, 925–946Google Scholar
  6. Benioff, H. (1951), Earthquakes and rock creep, Part 1: Creep characteristics of rocks and the origin of aftershocks. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 41, 31–62Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Zion, Y. and Lyakhovsky, V. (2002), Accelerated seismic release and related aspects of seismicity patterns on earthquake faults, Pure Appl. Geophys. 159, 2385–2412Google Scholar
  8. Ben-Zion, Y. and Lyakhovsky, V. (2006), Analysis of aftershocks in a lithospheric model with seismogenic zone governed by damage rheology, Geophys. J. Int. 165, 197–210Google Scholar
  9. Bird, P., Kagan, Y.Y. and Jackson, D.D. (2000), Frequency–magnitude distribution, effective lithosphere thickness, and seismic efficiency of oceanic transforms and spreading ridges, EOS Trans. AGU 81, (abstract) WP147Google Scholar
  10. Borovkov, K. and Bebbington, M. (2003), A stochastic two-node stress transfer model reproducing Omori’s law, Pure Appl. Geophys. 160, 1429–1455.Google Scholar
  11. Bowman, D.D., Ouillon, G., Sammis, C.G., Sornette, D. and Sornette, A. (1998), An observational test of the critical earthquake concept, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24,359–24,372Google Scholar
  12. Bufe, C.G. and Varnes, D.J. (1993), Predictive modeling of the seismic cycle in the greater San Francisco Bay region, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 9871–9883Google Scholar
  13. Burroughs, S.M. and Tebbens, S.F. (2002), The upper-truncated power law applied to earthquake frequency–magnitude distributions: Evidence for a time-independent scaling parameter, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 2983–2993.Google Scholar
  14. Daley, D.J. and Vere-Jones, D., An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes, volume 1, second edition (Springer, New York 2003)Google Scholar
  15. Ellsworth, W.L., Lindh, A.G., Prescott, W.H. and Herd, D.G., The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the seismic cycle, In Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, Maurice Ewing volume 4 (eds. Simpson, D.W. and Richards, P.G.)(AGU, Washington DC 1981) pp. 126–140Google Scholar
  16. Geller, R.J., Jackson, D.D., Kagan, Y.Y., and Mulargia, F. (1997), Geoscience - Earthquakes cannot be predicted, Science 275, 1616–1617Google Scholar
  17. Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F. (1956), Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 46, 105–145Google Scholar
  18. Hardebeck, J.L., Felzer, K.R. and Michael, A.J. (2008), Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant, J. Geophys. Res. 113, B08310, doi: 10.1029/2007JB005410
  19. Harte, D. (2009), PtProcess: Time Dependent Point Process Modelling. R package version 3.1-3. Statistics Research Associates, Wellington. URL:
  20. Jaumé, S.C., Changes in earthquake size-frequency distributions underlying accelerating seismic moment/energy release, In GeoComplexity and the Physics of Earthquakes, AGU Geophysical Monograph 120 (eds. Rundle, J.B., Turcotte, D.L. and Klein, W.) (AGU, Washington DC 2000) pp. 199–210Google Scholar
  21. Jaumé, S.C. and Bebbington, M.S. (2004), Accelerating seismic release from a self-correcting stochastic model, J. Geophys Res. 109, B12301, doi: 10.1029/2003JB002867
  22. Jaumé, S.C. and Sykes, L.R. (1999), Evolving towards a critical point: A review of accelerating seismic moment/energy release prior to large and great earthquakes, Pure Appl. Geophys. 155, 279–305Google Scholar
  23. Kagan, Y.Y. (1991), Seismic moment distribution, Geophys. J. Int. 106, 123–134Google Scholar
  24. Kagan, Y.Y. (1994), Observational evidence for earthquakes as a nonlinear dynamic process, Physica D 77, 160–192Google Scholar
  25. Kagan, Y.Y. (1997), Seismic moment-frequency relationship for shallow earthquakes; Regional comparisons, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 2835–2852Google Scholar
  26. Kagan, Y.Y. (2002), Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results, Geophys. J. Int. 148, 520–541Google Scholar
  27. Kagan, Y.Y. and Schoenberg, F. (2001), Estimation of the upper cutoff parameter for the tapered Pareto distribution, J. Appl. Probab. 38A, 158–175Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, P.A.W. and Shedler, G.S. (1976), Simulation of non-homogeneous Poisson processes with loglinear rate function, Biometrika 63, 501–506Google Scholar
  29. Main, I.G. (1999), Applicability of time-to-failure analysis to accelerated strain before earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, Geophys. J. Int. 139, F1–F6Google Scholar
  30. Mignan, A. (2008), The stress accumulation model: Accelerating moment release and seismic hazard, Adv. Geophys. 49, 67–201Google Scholar
  31. Mignan, A., King, G.C.P. and Bowman, D.D. (2007), A mathematical formulation of accelerating moment release based on the stress accumulation model, J. Geophys. Res. 112, B07308, doi: 10.1029/2006JB004671
  32. Ogata, Y. (1981), On Lewis’ simulation method for point processes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory IT-30, 23–31Google Scholar
  33. Ogata, Y. (1998), Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences, Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. 50, 379–402Google Scholar
  34. Pollitz, F., Bakun, W.H. and Nyst, M. (2004), A physical model for strain accumulation in the San Francisco Bay region: Stress evolution since 1838, J. Geophys. Res. 109, B11408, 2004Google Scholar
  35. Pollitz, F. and Nyst, M. (2005), A physical model for strain accumulation in the San Francisco Bay region, Geophys. J. Int. 160, 302–317Google Scholar
  36. Robinson, R., Zhou, S., Johnston, S. and Vere-Jones, D. (2005), Precursory accelerating moment release (AMR) in a synthetic seismicity catalog: A preliminary study, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L07309Google Scholar
  37. Sammis, C.G. and Smith, S.W. (1999), Seismic cycles and the evolution of stress correlation in cellular automaton models of finite fault networks, Pure Appl. Geophys. 155, 307–334Google Scholar
  38. Song, S.G., Beroza, G.C. and Segall, P. (2008), A unified source model for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 823–831Google Scholar
  39. Sornette, D. and Sornette, A. (1999), General theory of the modified Gutenberg–Richter law for large seismic moments, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89, 1121–1130Google Scholar
  40. Sykes, L.R. and Jaumé, S.C. (1990), Seismic activity on neighboring faults as a long-term precursor to large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area, Nature 348, 595–599Google Scholar
  41. Thatcher, W., Marshall, G. and Lisowski, M. (1997), Resolution of fault slip along the 470-km-long rupture of the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake and its implications, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 5353–5367Google Scholar
  42. Varnes, D.J. (1989), Predicting earthquakes by analyzing accelerating precursory seismic activity, Pure Appl. Geophys. 130, 661–686Google Scholar
  43. Vere-Jones, D. (1978), Earthquake prediction: a statistician’s view, J. Phys. Earth 26, 129–146Google Scholar
  44. Vere-Jones, D., Robinson, R. and Yang, W. (2001), Remarks on the accelerated moment release model: Problems of model formulation, simulation and estimation, Geophys. J. Int. 144, 517–531Google Scholar
  45. Wald, D.J., Kanamori, H., Helmberger, D.V. and Heaton, T.H. (1993), Source study of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 981–1019Google Scholar
  46. Ward, S.N. (2000), San Francisco Bay Area earthquake simulations: a step towards a standard physical earthquake model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, 370–386Google Scholar
  47. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003), Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002–2031, USGS Open-File Report 03-214Google Scholar
  48. Zheng, X. and Vere-Jones, D. (1991), Applications of stress release models to earthquakes from North China, Pure Appl. Geophys. 135, 559–576Google Scholar
  49. Zheng, X. and Vere-Jones, D. (1994), Further applications of the stochastic stress release model to historical earthquake data, Tectonophysics 229, 101–121Google Scholar
  50. Zhou, S., Johnston, S., Robinson, R. and Vere-Jones, D. (2006), Tests of the precursory accelerating moment release using a synthetic seismicity model for Wellington, New Zealand, J. Geophys. Res. 111, B05308, doi: 10.1029/2005JB003720

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser / Springer Basel AG 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark S. Bebbington
    • 1
  • David S. Harte
    • 2
  • Steven C. Jaumé
    • 3
  1. 1.IFS-StatisticsMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  2. 2.Statistics Research AssociatesThorndonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Geology and Environmental GeosciencesCollege of CharlestonCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations