Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Strasser 2010
Strasser 2010
Strasser 2010
DATABASE
The database used here is primarily based on the SRCMOD
database compiled by Martin Mai and co-workers (Mai 2004;
2007), from which subduction-type events have been extracted.
These data have been supplemented by a number of recent
studies describing the rupture process of individual events.
In addition to published articles (Barrientos 1988; Choy and
Dewey 1988; Satake 1995; Delouis et al. 1997; Courboulex et
al. 1997; Kikuchi and Yamanaka 2001; Pritchard et al. 2007;
Ichinose et al. 2004; 2006; Takeo et al. 1993; Morikawa and
Sasatani 2004; Quintanar et al. 1999;Yamamoto et al. 2002;
Aoi et al. 2005; Delouis and Legrand 2007; Valle et al. 2003),
these individual studies included the slip models posted on the
Web sites of the database of slip maps of recent large earthquakes from the California Institute of Technology (http://
www.tectonics.caltech.edu/slip_history/) as well as finitefault model inversions by the US Geological Survey (USGS)
(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/historical.php)
and GeoAzur (http://geoazur.oca.eu/spip.php?rubrique57).
The rupture dimensions derived from re-evaluated 1-day
aftershock distributions by Henry and Das (2001) were also
included. The interface dataset was furthermore supplemented
by the subduction events in the dataset compiled by Fujii and
Matsuura (2000), which consists of a reappraised selection of
events from previous compilations by Wells and Coppersmith
(1994), Purcaru and Berckhemer (1982), and Sato (1989).
In order to derive a meaningful scaling relation from observational data, it is important to ensure that the parameters used
in the regression have been derived in a consistent manner. This
is particularly an issue for the rupture dimensions, which can
be estimated using various methods. Wells and Coppersmith
(1994) favored the extent of the best-defined aftershock zone to
define the source dimensions, although they acknowledged that
the ruptures defined by early aftershocks may be slightly larger
than the actual co-seismic rupture zone, following Mendoza
REGRESSION
The average values compiled in the database described above
were used as input for regression analyses using ordinary least-
squares regression. For the relations between rupture dimensions (L, W, A) and moment magnitude (Mw), the functional
form adopted was the same as in previous studies (Wells and
Coppersmith 1994; Mai and Beroza 2000):
log 10 ( X )= a + bM W (1)
and
M W = a + b log 10 ( X ) (2)
Individual studies
Interface
102
MW
Interface
103
102
101
106
101
10
W (km)
103
102
10
10
10
MW
Intraslab
102
MW
101
10
106
Interface
104
104
MW
Intraslab
A (km2)
105
A (km2)
105
103
103
102
101
W (km)
101
Intraslab
L (km)
103
L (km)
103
102
6
MW
101
10
MW
Figure 1. Datasets from which the average values of rupture dimensions and moment magnitude used in the regression analysis
were derived.
TABLE 1
Regression results for relations between rupture dimensions, rupture area, and moment magnitude, for interface events.
s.e. denotes the standard error of the coefficient under consideration, R 2 the coefficient of multiple determination, and N the
total number of points used in the regression.
log10 (L) = a+b Mw
log10 (W ) = a+b Mw
log10 (A) = a+b Mw
Mw = a+b log10 (L)
Mw = a+b log10 (W )
Mw = a+b log10 (A)
s.e. (a)
s.e. (b)
R2
2.477
0.882
3.476
4.868
4.410
4.441
0.222
0.226
0.397
0.141
0.277
0.179
0.585
0.351
0.952
1.392
1.805
0.846
0.029
0.029
0.051
0.069
0.151
0.046
0.180
0.173
0.304
0.277
0.392
0.286
0.814
0.634
0.805
0.814
0.634
0.805
95
85
85
95
85
85
TABLE 2
Regression results for relations between rupture dimensions, rupture area, and moment magnitude, for intraslab events.
s.e. denotes the standard error of the coefficient under consideration, R 2 the coefficient of multiple determination, and N the
total number of points used in the regression.
log10 (L) = a+b Mw
log10 (W ) = a+b Mw
log10 (A) = a+b Mw
Mw = a+b log10 (L)
Mw = a+b log10 (W )
Mw = a+b log10 (A)
s.e. (a)
s.e. (b)
R2
2.350
1.058
3.225
4.725
3.407
4.054
0.453
0.217
0.598
0.274
0.317
0.288
0.562
0.356
0.890
1.445
2.511
0.981
0.064
0.031
0.085
0.164
0.217
0.093
0.146
0.067
0.184
0.234
0.178
0.193
0.813
0.893
0.874
0.813
0.893
0.874
20
18
18
20
18
18
Interface
104
L (km)
103
L (km)
103
102
102
101
1
Intraslab
104
101
MW
103
103
102
102
101
101
MW
MW
105
105
A (km2)
106
A (km2)
106
104
104
103
102
W (km)
104
W (km)
104
MW
103
MW
102
MW
Figure 2. Regression results for the prediction of rupture dimensions as a function of moment magnitude. The dashed lines indicate
the 95% confidence intervals for the mean, and the heavy gray line indicates the best fit when self-similar scaling is assumed. The
values shown for the individual data points are averaged over all models in the database in the case of multiple models being available
for the same event.
103
102
101
10
Moment Magnitude, Mw
Figure 3. Comparison of the log10 (L)-Mw relation with existing relations derived predominantly from data from crustal earthquakes
(dashed when extended beyond the limits of the underlying dataset).
103
102
101
10
Moment Magnitude, Mw
Figure 4. Comparison of the log10 (W )-Mw relation with existing relations derived predominantly from data from crustal earthquakes
(dashed when extended beyond the limits of the underlying dataset).
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
10
Moment Magnitude, Mw
Figure 5. Comparison of the log10 (A)-Mw relation with existing relations derived predominantly from data from crustal earthquakes,
and the relation derived for subduction earthquakes by Somerville et al. (2002). The relations are shown using a dashed line when they
are extended beyond the limits of the underlying dataset.
TABLE 3
Comparison of the rupture dimensions predicted for an Mw 8.0 interface event by various scaling relations. The number in
brackets indicates the ratio between the value predicted by the relation derived in the present study, and that estimated by
the relation under consideration.
L (km)
This studyInterface
Wells and Coppersmith (1994)All
Wells and Coppersmith (1994)Reverse
Mai and Beroza (2000)All
Mai and Beroza (2000)Dip-slip
Somerville et al. (2002)
160
[1.00]
191
[0.84]
166
[0.96]
147
[1.09]
195
[0.82]
A (km 2)
W (km)
85
[1.00]
35
[2.38]
47
[1.81]
67
[1.27]
104
[0.81]
13734
[1.00]
6166
[2.23]
7079
[1.94]
10765
[1.28]
20207
[0.68]
26062
[0.53]
TABLE 4
Comparison of the Mw values predicted for a given rupture lengths by various scaling relations.
This studyInterface
Wells and Coppersmith (1994)All
Wells and Coppersmith (1994)Reverse
L=50 km
L=100 km
L=200 km
7.23
7.05
6.90
7.65
7.40
7.24
8.07
7.75
7.58
CONCLUSIONS
Source scaling relations to estimate the dimensions of the
rupture of interface and intraslab earthquakes at subduction
zones based on their moment magnitude have been derived.
The results show significant differences in scaling compared to
relations for crustal relations, in particular in terms of rupture
width and hence rupture area and aspect ratio.
Rupture lengths, on the other hand, are broadly comparable to the subsurface rupture lengths of crustal events of similar
magnitude. Rupture widths of intraslab events have also been
found to be on average 30% smaller for intraslab events than
for interface events of the same magnitude. These relations
reveal a departure from self-similar scaling, particularly noticeable for interface events. In combination with the differences
in scaling coefficients, this indicates that the use of equations
derived from crustal events is probably not appropriate for use
to predict the rupture dimensions of subduction-zone events.
POSTSCRIPT
At the stage of proof checking of this paper, it came to our
attention that another set of scaling relationships for subduction earthquakes has been produced by a team at the University
of Potsdam (Blaser et al. 2010), and we would like to alert the
reader to that model as well since this alternative provides a
means of addressing epistemic uncertainty in such empirical
relationships between magnitude and rupture dimensions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented here was considerably facilitated by the
efforts of Martin Mai and co-workers in collating a database
of uniformly determined parameters of slip models, and by the
willingness of the authors of these and other such models to
making digital versions of their slip models openly available.
The second author was funded by the Alan program of the
European Union, as well as the Colfuturo program; this financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors further
wish to thank Martin Mai, two anonymous reviewers, as well
as Seismological Research Letters Editor Luciana Astiz, whose
insightful comments on the manuscript led to considerable
improvements.
REFERENCES
Aoi, S., H. Sekiguchi, T. Kunugi, N. Morikawa, R. Honda, and H.
Fujiwara (2005). Ground motion and rupture process of the 2003
Off-Miyagi earthquake obtained from strong motion data of
K-NET and KiKnet. Chikyu Monthly 27, 2934 (in Japanese).
Astiz, L., H. Kanamori, and H. Eisler (1987). Source characteristics of
earthquakes in the Michoacan seismic gap in Mexico. Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America 77 (4), 1,3261,346.
Atkinson, G. M., and D. M. Boore (2003). Empirical ground-motion
relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to
Cascadia and other regions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 93 (4), 17031729. Erratum, 98 (4), 2,5672,569.
Atkinson, G. M., and M. Macias (2009). Predicted ground motions
for great interface earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction Zone.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99 (3), 1,5521,578.
Barrientos, S. E. (1988). Slip distribution of the 1985 central Chile earthquake. Tectonophysics 145 (3), 225241.
Blaser, L., F. Krger, M. Ohrnberger and F. Scherbaum, F. (2010). Scaling
Relations of Earthquake Source Parameter Estimates with Special
Focus on Subduction Environment. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 100 (6), in press.
Byrne, D., D. Davis, and L. Sykes (1988). Loci and maximum size of
thrust earthquakes and the mechanics of the shallow region of subduction zones. Tectonics 7 (4), 833857.
Chiou B., and R. R. Youngs (2006). ChiouYoungs PEER-NGA empirical ground motion model for the average horizontal component of
peak acceleration and pseudo-spectral acceleration for spectral periods of 0.01 to 10 seconds. PEER Report Draft, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 219 pp.
Seismology Unit
Council for Geoscience
Private Bag X112
Pretoria 0001, South Africa
fstrasser@geoscience.org.za
(F. O. S.)