Advertisement

Formalized Forecast of the Gutenberg-Richter Law Parameters by Geodynamic and Seismotectonic Data

  • Eugeny Bugaev
  • Svetlana KishkinaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences book series (SPEES)

Abstract

Earthquake recurrence intervals have been compared with their estimated forecasting limits. The estimation was made taking into account the main fractal dimensions of the site, deformation conditions and destruction nature. The selected model demonstrated that the nonlinear recurrence intervals are determined by geological and geomechanical factors. It is proved that the estimation of forecasting recurrence interval limits can be possible on the basis of geodynamic data and limit seismotectonic relations that reflect the dependence of the maximum magnitude on the earthquake focus dimensions and destruction nature. The estimations are based on the example of the Calaveras fault area (California, USA), where it is possible to distinguish between the segments characterized by different creep rates. The analysis of the obtained results shows that the earthquake recurrence graph parameters of the investigated area significantly depend on its typical geological and geotechnical factors as area maximum structure size, similarity coefficient, conditions and deformation rate, destruction nature.

Keywords

Seismotectonic Recurrence graph Deformation Fractal dimension 

Notes

Acknowledgements

In the part of database processing the studies were conducted within the framework of the State Assignment on Projects No. 0146-2019-0006.

References

  1. 1.
    Aki, K.: A probabilistic synthesis of precursory phenomena. In: Simpson, D., Richards, P. (eds) Earthquake Prediction. An International Review Manrice Ewing Ser, pp. 566–574 (1981)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amelung, F., King, G.: Earthquake scaling laws for creeping and non-creeping faults. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 507–510 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL00287ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bugaev, E., Kishkina, S.: Assessment long-term and current seismic hazard of NPP site on basis of materials of engineering researches. Nucl. Radiat. Saf. 3(80), 10–22 (2018). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bugaev, E.G.: On structured and diffuse seismicity, stiffness of earthquake foci, and nonlinearity of magnitude recurrence. Geodyn. Tectonophys. 2(3) (2011). (in Russian)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    El-Isa, Z., Eaton, D.W.: Spatio temporal variations in the b-value of earthquake magnitude-frequency distributions: classification and causes. Tectonophysics 615, 1–11 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kocharyan, G.G.: Scale effect in seismotectonics. Geodyn. Tectonophys. 5(2), 353–385 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.5800/GT2014520133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kocharyan, G., Kishkina, S., Ostapchuk, A.: Seismic picture of a fault zone. What can be gained from the analysis of fine patterns of spatial distribution of weak earthquake centers? Geodyn. Tectonophys. 1(4), 419–440 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Legrand, D.: Fractal dimensions of small, intermediate, and large earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 3318–3320 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mignan, A., Woessner, J.: Estimating the magnitude of completeness for earthquake catalogs. Commun. Online Resour. Stat. Seismic. Anal. 45 (2012)  https://doi.org/10.5078/corssa-00180805
  10. 10.
    Mogi, K.: Magnitude-frequency relationship for elastic shocks accompanying fractures of various materials and some related problems in earthquakes. Bull. Earthquake Res. 40, 831–883 (1962)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scholz, C.H.: The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schorlemmer, D., Wiemer, S., Wyss, M.: Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different strain regimes. Nature 437(7058), 539–542 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tormann, T., Wiemer, S., Mignan, A.: Systematic survey of high-resolution b value imaging along Californian faults: inference on asperities. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth. 119, 2029–2054 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JB010867ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vorobieva, I., Shebalin, P., Narteau, C.: Break of slope in earthquake size distribution and creep rate along the San Andreas Fault system. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 6869–6875 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069636ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waldhauser, F.: Near-real-time double-difference event location using long-term seismic archives, with application to Northern California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99, 2736–2848 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waldhauser, F., Schaff, D.: Large-scale relocation of two decades of Northern California seismicity using cross-correlation and double-difference methods. J. Geophys. Res. 113, B08311 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005479ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wyss, M., Sammis, C., Nadeau, R., Wiemer, S.: Fractal dimension and b-value on creeping and locked patches of the San Andreas Fault near Parkfield, California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 410–421 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiemer, S., Wyss, M.: Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities: an improved technique to calculate recurrence times? J. Geophys. Res. 102(15), 115–128 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1029/97JB00726CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific and Engineering Center for Nuclear and Radiation SafetyMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Sadovsky Institute of Geospheres Dynamics RASMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations