Statistical Detection and Characterization of a Deviation from the Gutenberg-Richter Distribution above Magnitude 8

Abstract — We present a quantitative statistical test for the presence of a crossover c0 in the Gutenberg-Richter distribution of earthquake seismic moments, separating the usual power-law regime for seismic moments less than c0 from another faster decaying regime beyond c0. Our method is based on the transformation of the ordered sample of seismic moments into a series with uniform distribution under condition of no crossover. A simulation method allows us to estimate the statistical significance of the null hypothesis H0 of an absence of crossover (c0=infinity). When H0 is rejected, we estimate the crossover c0 using two different competing models for the second regime beyond c0 and the simulation method. For the catalog obtained by aggregating 14 subduction zones of the Circum-Pacific Seismic Belt, our estimate of the crossover point is log(c0)=28.14 ± 0.40 (c0 in dyne-cm), corresponding to a crossover magnitude mW=8.1 ± 0.3. For separate subduction zones, the corresponding estimates are substantially more uncertain, so that the null hypothesis of an identical crossover for all subduction zones cannot be rejected. Such a large value of the crossover magnitude makes it difficult to associate it directly with a seismogenic thickness as proposed by many different authors. Our measure of c0 may substantiate the concept that the localization of strong shear deformation could propagate significantly in the lower crust and upper mantle, thus increasing the effective size beyond which one should expect a change of regime.

[1]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Seismic moment‐frequency relation for shallow earthquakes: Regional comparison , 1997 .

[2]  R. Jarrard Relations among subduction parameters , 1986 .

[3]  D. Sornette,et al.  General theory of the modified Gutenberg-Richter law for large seismic moments , 1999 .

[4]  Douglas A. Wiens,et al.  The Flinn-Engdahl Regionalisation Scheme: The 1995 revision , 1996 .

[5]  G. Dargahi‐Noubary A method for predicting future large earthquakes using extreme order statistics , 1986 .

[6]  V. Pisarenko,et al.  Statistical estimation of seismic hazard parameters: Maximum possible magnitude and related parameters , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[7]  Masajiro Imoto,et al.  3-D Spatial Variation of b-Values of Magnitude-Frequency Distribution Beneath the Kanto District, Japan , 1991 .

[8]  D. Sornette,et al.  Rank‐ordering statistics of extreme events: Application to the distribution of large earthquakes , 1995, cond-mat/9510035.

[9]  E. R. Engdahl,et al.  Seismic and Geographical Regionalization , 1974, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[10]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Analysis of the theory of extremes as applied to earthquake problems , 1977 .

[11]  Barbara Romanowicz,et al.  On the variation of b-values with earthquake size , 1994 .

[12]  B. Gutenberg,et al.  Seismicity of the Earth and associated phenomena , 1950, MAUSAM.

[13]  John B. Rundle,et al.  Derivation of the complete Gutenberg‐Richter magnitude‐frequency relation using the principle of scale invariance , 1989 .

[14]  Javier F. Pacheco,et al.  Seismic moment catalog of large shallow earthquakes, 1900 to 1989 , 1992, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[15]  I. Main Apparent Breaks in Scaling in the Earthquake Cumulative Frequency-Magnitude Distribution: Fact or Artifact? , 2000 .

[16]  Richard G. Gordon,et al.  Effect of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions , 1994 .

[17]  John B. Rundle,et al.  On scaling relations for large earthquakes , 1993, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[18]  Y. Y. Kagan,et al.  Estimation of the upper cutoff parameter for the tapered Pareto distribution , 2001, Journal of Applied Probability.