Gutenberg–Richter law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Gutenberg-Richter law)

Gutenberg–Richter law for b = 1

In seismology, the Gutenberg–Richter law[1] (GR law) expresses the relationship between

the magnitude and total number of earthquakes in any given region and time period of at least that
magnitude.

or

Where:

  is the number of events having a magnitude 

  and   are constants

Background
The relationship between earthquake magnitude and frequency was first proposed by Charles
Francis Richter and Beno Gutenberg in a paper published in 1956. [2] This relationship between
event magnitude and frequency of occurrence is remarkably common, although the values of a
and b may vary significantly from region to region or over time.
 GR law plotted for various b-values

The parameter b (commonly referred to as the "b-value") is commonly close to 1.0 in seismically
active regions. This means that for given a frequency of 4.0 event there will be 10 times as many
magnitude 3.0 quakes and 100 times as many magnitude 2.0 quakes. There is some variation of
b-values in the approximate range of 0.5 to 2 depending on the source environment of the
region.[3] A notable example of this is during earthquake swarms when b can become as high as
2.5, thus indicating a very high proportion of small earthquakes to large ones.
There is debate concerning the interpretation of some observed spatial and temporal variations
of b-values. The most frequently cited factors to explain these variations are: the stress applied
to the material,[4] the depth,[5] the focal mechanism,[6] the strength heterogeneity of the material,
[7]
 and the proximity of macro-failure. The b-value decrease observed prior to the failure of
samples deformed in the laboratory [8] has led to the suggestion that this is a precursor to major
macro-failure.[9] Statistical physics provides a theoretical framework for explaining both the
steadiness of the Gutenberg–Richter law for large catalogs and its evolution when the macro-
failure is approached, but application to earthquake forecasting is currently out of reach.
[10]
 Alternatively, a b-value significantly different from 1.0 may suggest a problem with the data
set; e.g. it is incomplete or contains errors in calculating magnitude.

Roll-off compared to ideal GR law with b=1

 Magnitude of the August 2016 Central Italy earthquake (red dot) and aftershocks (which
continued to occur after the period shown here)

There is an apparent b-value decrease for smaller magnitude event ranges in all empirical
catalogues of earthquakes. This effect is described as "roll-off" of the b-value, a description due
to the plot of the logarithmic version of the GR law becoming flatter at the low magnitude end of
the plot. This may in large part be caused by incompleteness of any data set due to the inability
to detect and characterize small events. That is, many low-magnitude earthquakes are not
catalogued because fewer stations detect and record them due to decreasing instrumental signal
to noise levels. Some modern models of earthquake dynamics, however, predict a physical roll-
off in the earthquake size distribution.[11]
The a-value is of less scientific interest and simply indicates the total seismicity rate of the
region. This is more easily seen when the GR law is expressed in terms of the total number of
events:

where

the total number of events.

Modern attempts to understand the law involve theories of self-organized criticality or self
similarity.

References
1. ^ Gutenberg and Richter, , pages 17–19 ("Frequency and energy of earthquakes").
2. ^ Gutenberg, B., Richter, C. F., 1956. Magnitude and Energy of Earthquakes. Annali di
Geofisica, 9: 1–15
3. ^ Bhattacharya et al, p. 120
4. ^ Scholz, C. H. (1968), the frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its
relation to earthquakes, BSSA, 58(1), 399–415.
5. ^ Mori, J., et R. E. Abercombie (1997), Depth dependence of earthquake frequency-
magnitude distributions in California: Implication for rupture initiation, Journal of Geophysical Research,
102(B7), 15081–15090.
6. ^ Schorlemmer, D., S. Wiemer, et M. Wyss (2005), Variations in earthquake-size distribution
across different stress regimes, Nature, 437, 539–542, doi: 10.1038/nature04094.
7. ^ Mogi, K. (1962), 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.
8. ^ Lockner, D. A., et J. D. Byerlee (1991), Precursory AE patterns leading to rock fracture, in
Vth Conf. AE/MS Geol. Str. and Mat., édité par Hardy, pp. 45–58, Trans Tech Publication, Germany, The
pennsylvania State University.
9. ^ Smith, W. D. (1981), The b-value as an earthquake precursor, Nature, 289, 136–139;
doi:10.1038/289136a0.
10. ^ Amitrano, D. (2012), Variability in the power-law distributions of rupture events, how and
why does b-value change, Eur. Phys. J.-Spec. Top., 205(1), 199–215, doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01571-9.
11. ^ Bhattacharya et al, pp. 119–121
Pelletier, pp. 34–36.

Bibliography
 Pathikrit Bhattacharya, Bikas K Chakrabarti, Kamal, and Debashis Samanta, "Fractal models
of earthquake dynamics", Heinz Georg Schuster (ed), Reviews of Nonlinear Dynamics and
Complexity, pp. 107–150 V.2, Wiley-VCH, 2009 ISBN 3-527-40850-9.
 B. Gutenberg and C.F. Richter, Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena, 2nd ed.
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1954).
 Jon D. Pelletier, "Spring-block models of seismicity: review and analysis of a structurally
heterogeneous model coupled to the viscous asthenosphere" Geocomplexity and the Physics of
Earthquakes, American Geophysical Union, 2000 ISBN 0-87590-978-7.