Stress Drop, Slip Type, Earthquake Magnitude, and Seismic Hazard

Care must be taken to provide reliable antiseismic protection in earthquake-prone areas where the impact of a large earthquake in megacities with industrial facilities as well as in ordinary buildings is liable to cause massive loss of human life and to cripple the nation's economy. This protection needs to take into account not only vibratory ground motion but also permanent ground failure, and notably surface-faulting hazard, a fact tragically illustrated during the recent events of Turkey and Taiwan. The purpose of this contribution is to conduct a survey of our current state of knowledge concerning theoretical relationships between earthquake source parameters, such as moment magnitude (M, M w), surface wave magnitude ( M S), seismic moment ( M O), stress drop (Δσ), rupture length ( L ), and displacement on the fault ( D ). A relationship is proposed that links M S to L and Δσ: M S = 2 log L + 1.33 log Δσ + 1.66, using a simple rupture model. Earthquake data from all over the world for which the parameters of rupture length, fault width ( W ), fault displacement, and surface-wave magnitude are available have enabled stress drop values to be computed for each event using both geological observation (Δσ1) and the previously proposed equation (Δσ2). The results obtained tend to indicate that stress drop values increase versus fault width (depth) up to approximately 15 km (corresponding perhaps to the brittle-ductile boundary). This increase is more pronounced in the case of reverse faults than it is for those with strike-slip or normal mechanisms. An equation of the type Δσ = kW n has been used to fit the data, and preliminary values for k and n have been supplied for the three slip types. For depths in excess of 15 km the data do not display significant variation (Δσ < 100 bars). These results are in agreement with certain laboratory models of the continental lithosphere. Although more data, particularly in the large-magnitude range, are needed to ascertain whether it is the W or the L model that better describes earthquake scaling laws, stress drop does not appear to be fault-length dependent, thus being supportive of the L model. The risk of surface faulting is dependent on the dynamic environment of the fault, that is, the stress drop, the rupture length, and the fault width. Although statistics show that surface faulting appears in most instances at magnitudes of at least 6.1, data from certain regions indicate that seismicity at superficial depths is under certain conditions accompanied by significant surface faulting even for magnitudes as small as 5.5, suggesting a change in scaling law. The threshold magnitude for surface faulting is accordingly seen to depend on the rheology of materials in the fault area and on the stress environment. Manuscript received 31 May 2000.

[1]  Gail M. Atkinson,et al.  Source spectra for the 1988 Saguenay, Quebec, earthquakes , 1992 .

[2]  Michel Bouchon,et al.  The state of stress on some faults of the San Andreas system as inferred from near-field strong motion data , 1997 .

[3]  D. Helmberger,et al.  Source complexity of the October 1, 1987, Whittier Narrows earthquake , 1989 .

[4]  A. Michetti,et al.  First study of fault trench stratigraphy at Mt. Etna volcano, Southern Italy: understanding Holocene surface faulting along the Moscarello fault , 2000 .

[5]  A. T. Starr Slip in a crystal and rupture in a solid due to shear , 1928, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[6]  T. Mikumo Dynamic fault rupture processes of moderate-size earthquakes inferred from the results of kinematic waveform inversion , 1994 .

[7]  L. Knopoff Energy Release in Earthquakes , 1958 .

[8]  L. Reiter Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights , 1991 .

[9]  William R. Lettis,et al.  Empirical observations regarding reverse earthquakes, blind thrust faults, and quaternary deformation: Are blind thrust faults truly blind? , 1997, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[10]  W. F. Brace,et al.  Limits on lithospheric stress imposed by laboratory experiments , 1980 .

[11]  S. Kirby Tectonic stresses in the lithosphere: constraints provided by the experimental deformation of rocks. , 1980 .

[12]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  Generation and Propagation of G Waves from the Niigata Earthquake of June 16, 1964. : Part 2. Estimation of earthquake moment, released energy, and stress-strain drop from the G wave spectrum. , 1966 .

[13]  J. Boatwright,et al.  Earthquake source mechanics , 1986 .

[14]  R. Darragh,et al.  Interpretation of significant ground-response and structure strong motions recorded during the 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[15]  D. L. Anderson,et al.  Theoretical Basis of Some Empirical Relations in Seismology by Hiroo Kanamori And , 1975 .

[16]  J. Bommer,et al.  PREDICTION OF HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA IN EUROPE , 1996 .

[17]  Raul Madariaga,et al.  On the relation between seismic moment and stress drop in the presence of stress and strength heterogeneity , 1979 .

[18]  C. Richter An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale , 1935 .

[19]  Kojiro Irikura,et al.  Inversion of Source Parameters and Site Effects from Strong Ground Motion Records using Genetic Algorithms , 2000 .

[20]  D. Tocher,et al.  Earthquake energy and ground breakage , 1958 .

[21]  Charles S. Mueller,et al.  Source parameters of the 1980 Mammoth Lakes, California, earthquake sequence , 1982 .

[22]  Paul Somerville,et al.  Comparison of source scaling relations of eastern and western North American earthquakes , 1987 .

[23]  Barbara Romanowicz,et al.  Strike‐slip earthquakes on quasi‐vertical transcurrent faults: Inferences for general scaling relations , 1992 .

[24]  J. Cabrera,et al.  Surface rupture associated with a 5.3-mb earthquake: The 5 April 1986 Cuzco earthquake and kinematics of the Chincheros-Quoricocha faults of the High Andes, Peru , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[25]  C. Scholz Scaling relations for strong ground motion in large earthquakes , 1982 .

[26]  M. A. Chinnery Earthquake magnitude and source parameters , 1969 .

[27]  C. Chiarabba,et al.  From tomographic images to fault heterogeneities , 1994 .

[28]  A. Michetti,et al.  EVIDENCE FOR SURFACE FAULTING DURING THE SEPTEMBER 26, 1997, COLFIORITO (CENTRAL ITALY) EARTHQUAKES , 1998 .

[29]  J. Brune Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes , 1970 .

[30]  Hiroo Kanamori,et al.  Source complexity of the 1994 Northridge earthquake and its relation to aftershock mechanisms , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[31]  Christopher H. Scholz,et al.  Scaling laws for large earthquakes: Consequences for physical models , 1982 .

[32]  D. Wells,et al.  New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[33]  H. Kanamori The energy release in great earthquakes , 1977 .

[34]  Javier F. Pacheco,et al.  Changes in frequency–size relationship from small to large earthquakes , 1992, Nature.

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

[36]  R. Sibson,et al.  Frictional constraints on thrust, wrench and normal faults , 1974, Nature.

[37]  A. Simonelli,et al.  Ground effects and surface faulting in the September-October 1997 Umbria-Marche (Central Italy) seismic sequence , 2000 .

[38]  A. McGarr,et al.  Scaling of ground motion parameters, state of stress, and focal depth , 1984 .

[39]  Gregory C. Beroza,et al.  Source Scaling Properties from Finite-Fault-Rupture Models , 2000 .

[40]  Steven G. Wesnousky,et al.  Earthquake size as a function of fault slip rate , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[41]  C. Scholz The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting , 1990 .

[42]  K. Iida Earthquake energy and earthquake fault , 1959 .