Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 174, Issue 9, pp 3331–3342 | Cite as

Surface Rupture Effects on Earthquake Moment-Area Scaling Relations

  • Yingdi LuoEmail author
  • Jean-Paul Ampuero
  • Ken Miyakoshi
  • Kojiro Irikura


Empirical earthquake scaling relations play a central role in fundamental studies of earthquake physics and in current practice of earthquake hazard assessment, and are being refined by advances in earthquake source analysis. A scaling relation between seismic moment (M 0) and rupture area (A) currently in use for ground motion prediction in Japan features a transition regime of the form M 0A 2, between the well-recognized small (self-similar) and very large (W-model) earthquake regimes, which has counter-intuitive attributes and uncertain theoretical underpinnings. Here, we investigate the mechanical origin of this transition regime via earthquake cycle simulations, analytical dislocation models and numerical crack models on strike-slip faults. We find that, even if stress drop is assumed constant, the properties of the transition regime are controlled by surface rupture effects, comprising an effective rupture elongation along-dip due to a mirror effect and systematic changes of the shape factor relating slip to stress drop. Based on this physical insight, we propose a simplified formula to account for these effects in M 0A scaling relations for strike-slip earthquakes.


Earthquake scaling relations surface rupture effects earthquake cycle model rate-and-state friction analytical dislocation model numerical crack model 



This study was based on the 2015 research project ‘Improvement for uncertainty of strong ground motion prediction’ by the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), Japan.


  1. Dalguer, L. A., Miyake, H., Day, S. M., & Irikura, K. (2008). Surface rupturing and buried dynamic rupture models calibrated with statistical observations of past earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98, 1147–1161. doi: 10.1785/0120070134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fujii, Y., & Matsu’ura, M. (2000). Regional difference in scaling laws for large earthquakes and its tectonic implication. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 157(11–12), 2283–2301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gallovič, F. (2008). Heterogeneous Coulomb stress perturbation during earthquake cycles in a 3D rate-and-state fault model. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(21).Google Scholar
  4. Hanks, T. C., & Bakun, W. H. (2002). A bilinear source-scaling model for M–log A observations of continental earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(5), 1841–1846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hanks, T. C., & Bakun, W. H. (2014). M–log A models and other curiosities. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(5), 2604–2610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hillers, G., Ben-Zion, Y., & Mai, P. M. (2006). Seismicity on a fault controlled by rate-and-state dependent friction with spatial variations of the critical slip distance. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B1), B01403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hillers, G., Mai, P. M., Ben-Zion, Y., & Ampuero, J. P. (2007). Statistical properties of seismicity of fault zones at different evolutionary stages. Geophysical Journal International, 169(2), 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Irikura, K., & Miyake, H. (2001). Prediction of strong ground motions for scenario earthquakes. Journal of Geography (Chigaku Zasshi), 110(6), 849–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Irikura, K., & Miyake, H. (2011). Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168(1–2), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanamori, H., & Anderson, D. L. (1975). Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 65(5), 1073–1095.Google Scholar
  11. Leonard, M. (2010). Earthquake fault scaling: Self-consistent relating of rupture length, width, average displacement, and moment release. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5A), 1971–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marone, C. (1998). Laboratory-derived friction laws and their application to seismic faulting. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 26(1), 643–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Matsu’ura, M., & Sato, T. (1997). Loading mechanism and scaling relations of large interplate earthquakes. Tectonophysics, 277(1), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miyakoshi, K., Irikura, K., & Kamae, K. (2015). Re-examination of scaling relationships of source parameters of the inland crustal earthquakes in Japan based on the waveform inversion of strong motion data. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, 15–7, 141–156. (in Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
  15. Murotani, S., Matsushima, S., Azuma, T., Irikura, K., & Kitagawa, S. (2015). Scaling relations of source parameters of earthquakes occurring on inland crustal mega-fault systems. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172(5), 1371–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Okada, Y. (1992). Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 82(2), 1018–1040.Google Scholar
  17. Romanowicz, B., & Rundle, J. B. (1993). On scaling relations for large earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 83(4), 1294–1297.Google Scholar
  18. Rubin, A. M., & Ampuero, J. P. (2005). Earthquake nucleation on (aging) rate and state faults. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 110(B11), B11312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scholz, C. H. (1982). Scaling laws for large earthquakes: consequences for physical models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 72(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  20. Scholz, C. H. (1998). Earthquakes and friction laws. Nature, 391(6662), 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shaw, B. E. (2009). Constant stress drop from small to great earthquakes in magnitude-area scaling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(2A), 871–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shaw, B. E., & Wesnousky, S. G. (2008). Slip-length scaling in large earthquakes: The role of deep-penetrating slip below the seismogenic layer. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(4), 1633–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Somerville, P., Irikura, K., Graves, R., Sawada, S., Wald, D., Abrahamson, N., et al. (1999). Characterizing crustal earthquake slip models for the prediction of strong ground motion. Seismological Research Letters, 70(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Song, S. G., Beroza, G. C., & Segall, P. (2008). A unified source model for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(2), 823–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Streit, J. E., & Cox, S. F. (2001). Fluid pressures at hypocenters of moderate to large earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 106(B2), 2235–2243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wells, D. L., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974–1002.Google Scholar
  27. Bodin, P., & Brune, J. N. (1996). On the scaling of slip with rupture length for shallow strike-slip earthquakes: Quasi-static models and dynamic rupture propagation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86(5), 1292–1299.Google Scholar
  28. Mai, P. M., & Beroza, G. C. (2000). Source scaling properties from finite-fault-rupture models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(3), 604–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Causse, M., & Song, S. G. (2015). Are stress drop and rupture velocity of earthquakes independent? Insight from observed ground motion variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(18), 7383–7389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yingdi Luo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean-Paul Ampuero
    • 1
  • Ken Miyakoshi
    • 2
  • Kojiro Irikura
    • 3
  1. 1.Seismological LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA
  2. 2.Geo-Research Institute (GRI)OsakaJapan
  3. 3.Aichi Institute of Technology (AIT)ToyotaJapan

Personalised recommendations