Advertisement

Acta Seismologica Sinica

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 435–446 | Cite as

Quantification relations between the sourc eparameters

  • Peishan Chen
  • Tongxia Bai
Article

Abstract

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.

There are four strong points to measure earthquake size with the seismic moment magnitudeM w.
  1. (1)

    The seismic moment magnitude shows the strain and rupture size. It is the best scale for the measurement of earthquake size.

     
  2. (2)

    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.

     
  3. (3)

    It can link up the previous magnitude scales.

     
  4. (4)

    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 words

scaling law converting relation of magnitude source parameter moment magnitude 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aki, K., 1967. Scaling law of seismic spectrum.J. Geophys. Res.,72, 1217–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, P. S., Chen, H. T., 1989. Scaling law from two-dimensional faulting model.Acta Seismologica Sinica,11, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Console, R. and Rovelli, A., 1985. Statistical relations between source parameters for low and intermediate magnitudes (Friuli, 1976).Tectonophysics,118, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duda, S. J., 1978. Physical significance of the earthquake magnitude: the present state of interpretation of the concept.Tectonophysics,49, 3/4, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Geller, R. J., 1976. Scaling relations for earthquake source parameter and magnitude.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,66, 1051–1523.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Hanks, T. C. and Boore, D. M., 1984. Moment magnitude relations in theory and practice.J. Geophys. Res.,89, B7, 6229–6235.Google Scholar
  12. Joyner, W. B., 1984. A scaling law for the spectra of large earthquakes.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,74, 1167–1188.Google Scholar
  13. Kanamori, H. and Anderson, D. L., 1975. Theoretical basic of some empirical relation in seismology.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,65, 1037–1095.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Nuttli, O. W., 1983. A average source-parameter relations for mid-plate earthquakes.Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer.,73, 519–535.Google Scholar
  16. Nuttli, O. W., 1985. Average source-parameter relations for plate-margin earthquakes.Tectonophysics,118, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Purcaru, G. and Berckhemer, H., 1982. Quantitative relations of seismic source parameters and a classification of earthquakes.Tectonophysics,84, 57–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sato, R., 1979. Theoretical base on relationship between focal parameters and earthquake magnitude.J. Phys. Earth,27, 353–372.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Acta Seismologica Sinica 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peishan Chen
    • 1
  • Tongxia Bai
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of GeophysicsState Seismological BureauBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations