Quantification relations between the sourc eparameters
- 2 Downloads
The various useful source-parameter relations between seismic moment and common use magnitude lg(M 0) andM s,M L,m b; between magnitudesMs andM L,M s andm b,M L andm b; and between magnitudeM s and lg(L) (fault length), lg (W) (fault width), lg(S) (fault area), lg(D) (average dislocation);M L and lg(f c) (corner frequency) have been derived from the scaling law which is based on an “average” two-dimensional faulting model of a rectangular fault. A set of source-parameters can be estimated from only one magnitude by using these relations. The average rupture velocity of the faultV r=2.65 km/s, the total time of ruptureT(s)=0.35L (km) and the average dislocation slip rateD=11.4 m/s are also obtained.
The seismic moment magnitude shows the strain and rupture size. It is the best scale for the measurement of earthquake size.
It is a quantity of absolute mechanics, and has clear physical meaning. Any size of earthquake can be measured. There is no saturation. It can be used to quantify both shallow and deep earthquakes on the basis of the waves radiated.
It can link up the previous magnitude scales.
It is a uniform scale of measurement of earthquake size. It is suitable for statistics covering a broad range of magnitudes. So the seismic moment magnitude is a promising magnitude and worth popularization.
Key wordsscaling law converting relation of magnitude source parameter moment magnitude
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chen, P. S., Gu, J. C., Li, W. X., 1977. A study of the earthquake faulting process and earthquake prediction in the light of fracture mechanics.Acta Geophysica Sinica,20, 185–202.Google Scholar
- Chen, P. S., Zhuo, Y. R., Jin, Y., Wang, Z. G., Huang, W. Q., Li, W. S. and Hu, R. S., 1978. The stress field of the Beijing-Tienjing-Tangshan-Zhangjiakou area before and after the Tangshan earthquake of July 28, 1976.Acta Geophysica Sinica,21, 34–58.Google Scholar
- Fletcher, J., Boatwright, J., Haar, L., Hanks, T. and McGarr, A., 1984. Source parameters for aftershocks of the Oroville, California, earthquake.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,74, 1101–1123.Google Scholar
- Geller, R. J., 1976. Scaling relations for earthquake source parameter and magnitude.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,66, 1051–1523.Google Scholar
- Gusev, A. A., 1983. Deseriptive statistical model of earthquake source radiation and its application to an estimation of short-period strong motion.Geophys. J. Roy. astr. Soc.,74, 787–808.Google Scholar
- Gupta, H. K. and Rastogi, B. R., 1972. Earthquakem b vs.M s relation and source multiplicity.Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc.,28, 65–89.Google Scholar
- Hanks, T. C. and Boore, D. M., 1984. Moment magnitude relations in theory and practice.J. Geophys. Res.,89, B7, 6229–6235.Google Scholar
- Joyner, W. B., 1984. A scaling law for the spectra of large earthquakes.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,74, 1167–1188.Google Scholar
- Kanamori, H. and Anderson, D. L., 1975. Theoretical basic of some empirical relation in seismology.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,65, 1037–1095.Google Scholar
- Madariaga, R., 1983. Earthquake source theory: A review.Proceeding of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course 85, North-Holland, Amsterdam. 1–44.Google Scholar
- Nuttli, O. W., 1983. A average source-parameter relations for mid-plate earthquakes.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,73, 519–535.Google Scholar
- Sato, R., 1979. Theoretical base on relationship between focal parameters and earthquake magnitude.J. Phys. Earth,27, 353–372.Google Scholar