A Power-Law Function for Earthquake Interarrival Time and Magnitude

The question of time-dependent seismic hazard models is still an open one. While most hazard studies assume stationarity of seismicity, there has been some debate on the relative merits of Poissonian and non-Poissonian recurrence models, and opinions about the viability of the seismic gap hypothesis also vary. Previous attempts to treat seismic hazard as time-dependent have, however, concentrated on large earthquakes, which do not always control the hazard at a site. In this study, earthquake interarrival times are studied for several regions in Japan and Greece. It is found that a lognormal distribution provides a good model and that seismicity can be represented by the equation ln IAT = a + b M ± c where ln IAT is the log interarrival time of earthquakes exceeding magnitude M and a, b , and c are regional constants. This power law is clearly related to the normal Gutenberg-Richter magnitude-frequency law, but actually contains more information. This law provides a basis for time-dependent seismic hazard analysis in which the whole earthquake catalog is used, rather than just the largest events. A question still remains as to whether c (the standard deviation) is significantly dependent on magnitude. Manuscript received 10 January 2000.

[1]  E. Papadimitriou,et al.  An application of the time- and magnitude-predictable model for the long-term prediction of strong shallow earthquakes in the Japan area , 1994 .

[2]  Allan G. Lindh,et al.  Preliminary assessment of long-term probabilities for large earthquakes along selected fault segments of the San Andreas fault system, California , 1983 .

[3]  C. Molina,et al.  Seismic risk analysis with predictable models , 1988 .

[4]  Stewart w. Smith,et al.  SOURCE PARAMETERS OF EARTHQUAKES, AND DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EARTHQUAKES AND NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS. , 1968 .

[5]  L. Knopoff,et al.  Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? , 1974, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[6]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Long-term earthquake clustering , 1991 .

[7]  Steven N. Ward,et al.  How regularly do earthquakes recur? A synthetic seismicity model for the San Andreas Fault , 1993 .

[8]  T. Levshina,et al.  Increased long‐range intermediate‐magnitude earthquake activity prior to strong earthquakes in California , 1996 .

[9]  Y. Kagan,et al.  Long‐term probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes , 1994 .

[10]  David D. Jackson,et al.  Seismic hazards in southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 , 1996 .

[11]  H. Lilliefors.  On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown , 1967 .

[12]  D. Sornette,et al.  The paradox of the expected time until the next earthquake , 1997, Bulletin of The Seismological Society of America (BSSA).

[13]  C. Cornell.  Engineering seismic risk analysis , 1968 .

[14]  Mihran S. Agbabian.  Terra Non Firma. Understanding and Preparing for Earthquakes , 1984 .

[15]  P. Reasenberg,et al.  Earthquake Hazard After a Mainshock in California , 1989, Science.

[16]  R. Musson.  Generalised Seismic Hazard Maps for the Pannonian Basin Using Probabilistic Methods , 2000 .

[17]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  The longer it has been since the last earthquake, the longer the expected time till the next? , 1989 .

[18]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Statistical search for non-random features of the seismicity of strong earthquakes , 1976 .

[19]  H. K. Acharya,et al.  Regional variations in the rupture-length magnitude relationships and their dynamical significance , 1979 .

[20]  B. Papazachos,et al.  Earthquakes in Greece , 1940, Nature.

[21]  Ch. Papaioannou,et al.  Long-term earthquake prediction in the Aegean area based on a time and magnitude predictable model , 1993 .

[22]  Steven N. Ward,et al.  Synthetic seismicity for the San Andreas fault , 1994 .

[23]  B. Papazachos.  A time-predictable model for earthquake generation in Greece , 1989 .