Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes

Abstract

The earthquake size distribution follows, in most instances, a power law1,2, with the slope of this power law, the ‘b value’, commonly used to describe the relative occurrence of large and small events (a high b value indicates a larger proportion of small earthquakes, and vice versa). Statistically significant variations of b values have been measured in laboratory experiments, mines and various tectonic regimes such as subducting slabs, near magma chambers, along fault zones and in aftershock zones3. However, it has remained uncertain whether these differences are due to differing stress regimes, as it was questionable that samples in small volumes (such as in laboratory specimens, mines and the shallow Earth's crust) are representative of earthquakes in general. Given the lack of physical understanding of these differences, the observation that b values approach the constant 1 if large volumes are sampled4 was interpreted to indicate that b = 1 is a universal constant for earthquakes in general5. Here we show that the b value varies systematically for different styles of faulting. We find that normal faulting events have the highest b values, thrust events the lowest and strike-slip events intermediate values. Given that thrust faults tend to be under higher stress than normal faults we infer that the b value acts as a stress meter that depends inversely on differential stress.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Plots of b against rake angle and range of rake angle.
Figure 2: b λ plots and b γ plots for the NCSN catalogue (a, b), the NEID Kanto-Tokai catalogue (c, d) and the NEID F-Net catalogue (e, f).

References

  1. 1

    Ishimoto, M. & Iida, K. Observations of earthquakes registered with the microseismograph constructed recently. Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ. 17, 443–478 (1939)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Gutenberg, B. & Richter, C. F. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34, 185–188 (1944)

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Wiemer, S. & Wyss, M. Mapping spatial variability of the frequency–magnitude distribution of earthquakes. Adv. Geophys. 45, 259–302 (2002)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Frohlich, C. & Davis, S. D. Teleseismic b values; or, much ado about 1.0. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 631–644 (1993)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Kagan, Y. Y. Universality of the seismic moment–frequency relation. Pure Appl. Geophys. 155, 537–574 (1999)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Bender, B. Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73, 831–851 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Shi, Y. & Bolt, B. A. The standard error of the magnitude–frequency b-value. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72, 1677–1687 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Utsu, T. Report of the Joint Research Institute for Statistical Mathematics Vol. 34, 139–157 (Institute for Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Hauksson, E. Crustal structure and seismicity distribution adjacent to the Pacific and North America plate boundary in southern California. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 13875–13903 (2000)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Mogi, K. Magnitude–frequency relations for elastic shocks accompanying fractures of various materials and some related problems in earthquakes. Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Univ. Tokyo 40, 831–853 (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Scholz, C. H. The frequency–magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58, 399–415 (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Wyss, M. Towards a physical understanding of the earthquake frequency distribution. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 31, 341–359 (1973)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Mori, J. & Abercrombie, R. E. Depth dependence of earthquake frequency–magnitude distributions in California: Implications for rupture initiation. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 15081–15090 (1997)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Gerstenberger, M., Wiemer, S. & Giardini, D. A systematic test of the hypothesis that the b value varies with depth in California. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 57–60 (2001)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Wyss, M. & Matsumura, S. Most likely locations of large earthquakes in the Kanto and Tokai areas, Japan, based on the local recurrence times. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 131, 173–184 (2002)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Kagan, Y. Y. Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results. Geophys. J. Int. 148, 520–541 (2002)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Amitrano, D. Brittle–ductile transition and associated seismicity: Experimental and numerical studies and relationship with the b value. J. Geophys. Res., B2044 (2003) (doi:10.1029/2001JB000680)

  18. 18

    Urbancic, T. I., Trifu, C. I., Long, J. M. & Young, R. P. Space-time correlations of b-values with stress release. Pure Appl. Geophys. 139, 449–462 (1992)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Wiemer, S., McNutt, S. R. & Wyss, M. Temporal and three-dimensional spatial analysis of the frequency-magnitude distribution near Long Valley caldera. California. Geophys. J. Int. 134, 409–421 (1998)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Hauksson, E. Earthquakes, faulting, and stress in the Los Angeles basin. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 15365–15394 (1990)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Amelung, F. & King, G. The difference between earthquake scaling laws for creeping and non-creeping faults. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 507–510 (1997)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Wiemer, S. & Wyss, M. Mapping the frequency–magnitude distribution in asperities: An improved technique to calculate recurrence times? J. Geophys. Res. 102, 15115–15128 (1997)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Schorlemmer, D., Wiemer, S. & Wyss, M. Earthquake statistics at Parkfield: 1. Stationarity of b-values. J. Geophys. Res. 109, B12307 (2004) (doi:10.1029/2004JB003234)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Schorlemmer, D. & Wiemer, S. Microseismicity data forecast rupture area. Nature 434, 1086 (2005)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Huang, J. & Turcotte, D. L. Fractal distributions of stress and strength and variations of b-value. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 91, 223–230 (1988)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Smith, W. D. The b-values as an earthquake precursor. Nature 289, 136–139 (1981)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Lei, X. et al. Detailed analysis of acoustic emission activity during catastrophic fracture of faults in rock. J. Struct. Geol. 26, 247–258 (2004)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Oglesby, D. D., Archuleta, R. J. & Nielsen, S. B. Dynamics of dip-slip faulting: Explorations in two dimensions. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 13643–13653 (2000)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Hauksson, D. Giardini, M. Mai, M. Gerstenberger, D. Jackson, J. Woessner and G. Hillers for discussions. We thank the Northern California Seismic Network, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, and the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, for the catalogue including phase data, and the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention for mechanism solutions of the Kanto-Tokai area.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danijel Schorlemmer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at npg.nature.com/reprintsandpermissions. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schorlemmer, D., Wiemer, S. & Wyss, M. Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes. Nature 437, 539–542 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04094

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links