Journal of Seismology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 127–135 | Cite as

Gutenberg-Richter b-value maximum likelihood estimation and sample size

  • F. A. Nava
  • V. H. Márquez-Ramírez
  • F. R. Zúñiga
  • L. Ávila-Barrientos
  • C. B. Quinteros
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

The Aki-Utsu maximum likelihood method is widely used for estimation of the Gutenberg-Richter b-value, but not all authors are conscious of the method’s limitations and implicit requirements. The Aki/Utsu method requires a representative estimate of the population mean magnitude; a requirement seldom satisfied in b-value studies, particularly in those that use data from small geographic and/or time windows, such as b-mapping and b-vs-time studies. Monte Carlo simulation methods are used to determine how large a sample is necessary to achieve representativity, particularly for rounded magnitudes. The size of a representative sample weakly depends on the actual b-value. It is shown that, for commonly used precisions, small samples give meaningless estimations of b. Our results give estimates on the probabilities of getting correct estimates of b for a given desired precision for samples of different sizes. We submit that all published studies reporting b-value estimations should include information about the size of the samples used.

Keywords

Gutenberg-Richter b-value Maximum likelihood estimation Aki/Utsu method 

References

  1. Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log(N) = a - bM and its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res Inst Tokio Univ 43:237–239Google Scholar
  2. Aki K (1981) A probabilistic synthesis of precursory phenomena In: Simpson DW Richards PG (eds) Earthquake prediction: an international review (vol. 4). American Geophysical Union, Washington, p 566–574Google Scholar
  3. Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data. Bull Seism Soc Am 73:831–851Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya P, Majumdar R, Kayal J (2002) Fractal dimension and b-value mapping in northeast India. Curr Sci 82:1486–1491Google Scholar
  5. Enescu B, Ito K (2001) Some premonitory phenomena of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake: seismicity, b-value and fractal dimension. Tectonophysics 338:297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein B, Lomnitz C (1966) A model for the occurrence of large earthquakes. Nature 211:954–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghosh A, Newman A, Amanda M, Thomas A, Farmer G (2008) Interface locking along the subduction megathrust from b-value mapping near Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Geophys Res Lett 35:L01301. doi:10.1029/2007GL031617 Google Scholar
  8. Gutenberg B, Richter C (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  9. Ishimoto M, Iida K (1939) Observations sur les seisms enregistrés par le microseismograph construit dernièrement (I). Bull Earthquake Res Inst Univ of Tokyo 17:443–478Google Scholar
  10. Kamer Y, Hiemer S (2015) Data-driven spatial b-value estimation with applications to California seismicity: to b or not to b. doi: 10.1002/2014JB011510.
  11. Khan P (2005) Mapping of b-value beneath the Shillong plateau. Gondwana Res 8:271–276. doi:10.1016/S1342-937X(05)71126-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kijko A (1988) Maximum likelihood estimation of Gutenberg-Richter b parameter for uncertain magnitude values. PAGEOPH 127:573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kijko A, Selevoll M (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull Seism Soc Am 79:645–654Google Scholar
  14. Kijko A, Selevoll M (1992) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part II. Incorporation of magnitude heterogeneity. Bull Seism Soc Am 82:120–134Google Scholar
  15. Lomnitz C (1966) Statistical prediction of earthquakes. Rev Geophys 4:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lomnitz C (1974) Global tectonics and earthquake risk. Elsevier Sc. Pub. Co., CH.Google Scholar
  17. Márquez-Ramírez V. (2012) Análisis multifractal de la distribución espacial de sismicidad y su posible aplicación premonitora. Exploración de un posible mecanismo para la fractalidad mediante modelado semiestocástico. PhD Thesis, Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias de la Tierra, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Baja California, México.Google Scholar
  18. Márquez-Ramírez V, Nava F, Zúñiga F (2015) Correcting the Gutenberg-Richter b-value for effects of rounding and noise. Earthq Sci 28:129–134. doi:10.1007/s11589-015-0116-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Montuori C, Falcone G, Murru M, Thurber C, Reyners M, Eberhart-Phillips D (2010) Crustal heterogeneity highlighted by spatial b-value map in the Wellington region of New Zealand. Geophys J Int 183:451–460. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04750.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richter C (1958) Elementary seismology. W H Freeman and Co, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Scholz C (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:399–415Google Scholar
  22. Shaw E, Carlson J, Langer J (1992) Patterns of seismic activity preceding large earthquakes. J Geophys Res 97(B1):479–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shi Y, Bolt B (1982) The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:1677–1687Google Scholar
  24. Singh C, Singh S (2015) Imaging b-value variation beneath the Pamir-Hindu Kush region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:808–815. doi:10.1785/0120140112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh C, Singh A, Chadha R (2009) Fractal and b-value mapping in Eastern Himalaya and Southern Tibet. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3529–3533. doi:10.1785/0120090041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tinti S, Mulargia F (1987) Confidence intervals of b-values for grouped magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:2125–2134Google Scholar
  27. Utsu T (1965) A method for determining the value of b in a formula 329 log n = a - bM showing the magnitude-frequency relation for 330 earthquakes. Geophys Bull Hokkaido Univ 13:99–103Google Scholar
  28. Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997) Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities: an improved technique to calculate recurrence times? J Geophys Res 102(B7):15115–15128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wiemer S, Wyss M (2002) Mapping spatial variability of the frequency-magnitude distribution of earthquakes. Adv Geophys 45:259–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wyss M, Wiemer S (2000) Change in the probability for earthquakes in southern California due to the Landers magnitude 7.3 earthquake. Science 290:1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zúñiga R, Wyss M (2001) Most-and least-Likely locations of large to great earthquakes along the Pacific coast of Mexico estimated from local recurrence times based on b-values. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:1717–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. A. Nava
    • 1
  • V. H. Márquez-Ramírez
    • 2
    • 3
  • F. R. Zúñiga
    • 2
  • L. Ávila-Barrientos
    • 1
  • C. B. Quinteros
    • 1
  1. 1.SismologíaCentro de investigación Cientifica y de Educación Superior de EnsenadaEnsenadaMexico
  2. 2.Centro de GeocienciasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoJuriquillaMexico
  3. 3.SisVoc, CUCUniversidad de GuadalajaraPuerto VallartaMexico

Personalised recommendations