Theoretical Basis for the Observed Break in ML/Mw Scaling between Small and Large Earthquakes

Abstract For a set of earthquakes in a perfectly elastic medium and provided that stress drop and rupture velocity do not vary systematically as a function of magnitude and that the instrument response has been corrected for, M L ∝ M w over the entire range for which M L can be determined. In practice, however, we observe that M L and M w deviate from this 1:1 scaling relation. Detailed analysis of a natural earthquake sequence and of a case of induced seismicity show that, for small events (in general, for M w below 2–3), M L ∝1.5  M w , in agreement with the results of other studies. This behavior can be reproduced with synthetic earthquake source time functions convolved with a causal Q operator using independently determined Q ‐values. A key result of both the data analysis and the modeling exercise is that, for small events below a certain magnitude, observed pulse widths and equivalently corner frequencies remain practically constant. Thus, in an attenuating medium, the signals of small earthquakes constitute essentially the impulse response of the medium, scaled by the seismic moment. A simple theoretical demonstration shows that under these circumstances the observed proportionality of 1.5 between M L and M w is a necessary consequence of the intrinsic scaling properties of amplitude and duration of the moment‐rate function versus seismic moment, as well as of the frequency response of an attenuating medium. As a consequence of this and of the bias introduced by the response of the Wood–Anderson seismometer for the larger events, the Gutenberg–Richter relation based on M L loses its physical justification and, with respect to M w , leads to different b ‐values for small and large events. Electronic Supplement: Figures of hypocenter locations of the induced seismicity below Basel and of seismograms showing the degree of similarity among signals.

[1]  K. Aki Scaling law of seismic spectrum , 1967 .

[2]  J. Boatwright,et al.  The effect of rupture complexity on estimates of source size , 1984 .

[3]  P. Martin Mai,et al.  Scaling Relations of Local Magnitude versus Moment Magnitude for Sequences of Similar Earthquakes in Switzerland , 2011 .

[4]  Michael Krystek,et al.  A weighted total least-squares algorithm for fitting a straight line , 2007 .

[5]  D. Giardini,et al.  A New Empirical Magnitude Scaling Relation for Switzerland , 2011 .

[6]  Benjamin Edwards,et al.  Automatic computation of moment magnitudes for small earthquakes and the scaling of local to moment magnitude , 2010 .

[7]  Nicholas Deichmann,et al.  Local Magnitude, a Moment Revisited , 2006 .

[8]  N. Deichmann Far-field pulse shapes from circular sources with variable rupture velocities , 1997, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[9]  L. Chiaraluce,et al.  On the Relationship between Mw and ML for Small Earthquakes , 2016 .

[10]  Donat Fäh,et al.  Earthquakes in Switzerland and surrounding regions during 2006 , 2007 .

[11]  Domenico Giardini,et al.  Earthquakes Induced By the Stimulation of an Enhanced Geothermal System Below Basel (Switzerland) , 2009 .

[12]  P. Martin Mai,et al.  Seismic wave attenuation from borehole and surface records in the top 2.5km beneath the city of Basel, Switzerland , 2012 .

[13]  F. Walter,et al.  Full, constrained and stochastic source inversions support evidence for volumetric changes during the Basel earthquake sequence , 2015, Swiss Journal of Geosciences.

[14]  David M. Boore,et al.  Moment‐magnitude relations in theory and practice , 1984 .

[15]  Markus Häring,et al.  Characterisation of the Basel 1 enhanced geothermal system , 2008 .

[16]  Nicholas Deichmann,et al.  Identification of faults activated during the stimulation of the Basel geothermal project from cluster analysis and focal mechanisms of the larger magnitude events , 2014 .

[17]  G. Dresen,et al.  Source Parameters of Picoseismicity Recorded at Mponeng Deep Gold Mine, South Africa: Implications for Scaling Relations , 2011 .

[18]  Nicholas Deichmann,et al.  High-precision relocation and focal mechanism of the injection-induced seismicity at the Basel EGS , 2014 .

[19]  H. Kanamori,et al.  A moment magnitude scale , 1979 .

[20]  Frank D. Stacey,et al.  Anelastic degradation of acoustic pulses in rock , 1974 .

[21]  B. Edwards The Influence of Earthquake Magnitude on Hazard Related to Induced Seismicity , 2015 .

[22]  J. Douglas,et al.  Magnitude scaling of induced earthquakes , 2014 .

[23]  D. Giardini,et al.  Earthquakes in Switzerland and surrounding regions during 2011 , 2012, Swiss Journal of Geosciences.

[24]  Malcolm C. A. White,et al.  Analysis of earthquake body wave spectra for potency and magnitude values: implications for magnitude scaling relations , 2016 .

[25]  W. Bakun,et al.  Seismic moments, local magnitudes, and coda-duration magnitudes for earthquakes in central California , 1984 .

[26]  Dietrich Stromeyer,et al.  The unified catalogue of earthquakes in central, northern, and northwestern Europe (CENEC)—updated and expanded to the last millennium , 2009 .

[27]  Tamao Sato,et al.  Seismic radiation from circular cracks growing at variable rupture velocity , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[28]  Benjamin Edwards,et al.  Attenuation of seismic shear wave energy in Switzerland , 2011 .

[29]  C. Cauzzi,et al.  Seismic monitoring and analysis of deep geothermal projects in St Gallen and Basel, Switzerland , 2015 .

[30]  Tomowo Hirasawa,et al.  Body wave spectra from propagating shear cracks. , 1973 .

[31]  A. Frankel,et al.  Reply to K. Aki's “Comment on ‘microearthquake spectra from the Anza, California seismic network: Site response and source scaling’” , 1989, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.