Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gutenberg–Richter’s b Value and Earthquake Asperity Models

  • Published:
Pure and Applied Geophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Gutenberg–Richter (G–R) relationship can be derived as the Gibbs distribution. For a given earthquake set (all earthquakes in a given region, time period, magnitude range, tectonic settings) the Gibbs probability density function for magnitudes, with a given b value in its exponent, is the most uniform distribution under the constraints of the magnitude range and mean value. Therefore, it represents our limited knowledge about the system output: the only pieces of information are the mean value and the magnitude range. Honest earthquake forecasts can be based on such a distribution, since it represents all and only available information about the seismic system. The b value can change among different earthquake sets (in time, space, magnitude ranges, or tectonic settings), since it is related to earthquake rupture dynamics, or seismic source characteristics. The relationship between the b value and the exponent \(\beta\) in the rupture area vs. maximum slip scaling, \(A\propto D^{\beta }\), results from viewing earthquake recurrence time in connection with the slip budget. This makes a link between earthquake statistics (the G–R law) and physics (fault characteristics). Specifically, the relationship enables us to explain different ranges of b values at megathrust faults, in dependence on interplate asperity and coupling distributions, as well as on amounts of sediments and fluids in subduction channels. The approach differs from common interpretations of the G–R law in that the b value becomes a field variable, not a constant. It is always the Gibbs distribution for a given magnitude range that we use due to our ignorance about the system outcome, and it is the b value that variates, depending on our knowledge about the system physics. This is important for seismic forecasts, which are mostly based on the G–R relationship. First, because the physical processes leading to the largest earthquakes can be revealed by observing the b value variations. Second, because earthquake generation process can be thought of as sampling with constraints, where the b value and the magnitude range are the constraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, T. I., & Hayes, G. P. (2017). Alternative rupture-scaling relationships for subduction interface and other offshore environments. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, 1240–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archuleta, R. J., & Ji, C. (2016). Moment rate scaling for earthquakes 3.3M5.3 with implications for stress drop. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 12004–12011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrill, J. B., & Davis, R. O. (1980). Maximum entropy and the magnitude distribution. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 70, 1823–1831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatwright, J. (1988). The seismic radiation from composite models of faulting. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 78, 489–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürgmann, R. (2018). The geophysics, geology and mechanics of slow fault slip. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 495, 112–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Isa, Z., & Eaton, D. W. (2014). Spatiotemporal variations in the b-value of earthquake magnitude–frequency distributions: Classification and causes. Tectonophysics, 615, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich, C., & Davis, S. D. (1993). Teleseismic b values; Or, much ado about 1.0. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, 631–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibowicz, S. J. (1973). Variations of the frequency–magnitude relation during earthquake sequences in New Zealand. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 63, 517–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gusev, A. A. (1988). Multiasperity fault model and the nature of short-period subsources. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 130, 635–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gusev, A. A. (2013). High-frequency radiation from an earthquake fault: A review and a hypothesis of fractal rupture front geometry. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 170, 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1942). Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 32, 163–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto, C., Noda, A., & Matsu’ura, M. (2012). The Mw 9.0 northeast Japan earthquake: Total rupture of a basement asperity. Geophysical Journal International, 189(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05368.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, G. P. (2017). The finite, kinematic rupture properties of great-sized earthquakes since 1990. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 468, 94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuret, A., Conrad, P., Funiciello, F., Lallemand, S., & Sandri, L. (2012). Relation between subduction megathrust earthquakes, trench sediment thickness and upper plate strain. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L05304. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaynes, E. T. (2007). Probability theory: The logic of science (edited by G. Larry Bretthorst). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. M., Fukuda, J., & Segall, P. (2012). Challenging the rate-state asperity model: Afterslip following the 2011 M9 Tohoku-oki, Japan, earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L20302. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagawa, T., Irikura, K., & Somerville, P. G. (2004). Differences in ground motion and fault rupture process between the surface and buried rupture earthquakes. Earth Planets Space, 56, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katayama, I., Iwata, M., Okazaki, K., & Hirauchi, K.-I. (2013). Slow earthquakes associated with fault healing on a serpentinized plate interface. Scientific Reports, 3, 1784. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennett, B. L. N., Gorbatov, A., & Kiser, E. (2012). Structural controls on the Mw 9.0 2011 Offshore-Tohoku earthquake. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310, 462–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lay, T., Kanamori, H., & Ruff, L. (1982). The asperity model and the nature of large subduction zone earthquake occurrence. Earthquake Prediction Research, 1, 3–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, J. P., & Meade, B. J. (2011). Spatial correlation of interseismic coupling and coseismic rupture extent of the 2011 MW = 9.0 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L17306. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main, I. G., & Burton, P. W. (1984). Information theory and the earthquake frequency–magnitude distribution. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74, 1409–1426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maury, J., Aochi, H., & Radiquet, M. (2014). Fault constitutive relations inferred from the 2009–2010 slow slip event in Guerrero, Mexico. Geophysical Research Letters,. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, M., Rosenau, M., & Oncken, O. (2010). 2010 Maule earthquake slip correlates with pre-seismic locking of Andean subduction zone. Nature, 467, 198–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanjo, K. Z., Hirata, N., Obara, K., & Kasahara, K. (2012). Decade-scale decrease in b value prior to the M9-class 2011 Tohoku and 2004 Sumatra quakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L20304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuannin, P., Kulhanek, O., & Persson, L. (2005). Spatial and temporal b value anomalies preceding the devastating off coast of NW Sumatra earthquake of December 26, 2004. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L11307. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, G. A., & Minadakis, G. (2016). Foreshock patterns preceding great earthquakes in the Subduction Zone of Chile. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 173, 3247–3271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Z., & Gomberg, J. (2010). An integrated perspective of the continuum between earthquakes and slow-slip phenomena. Nature Geoscience, 3, 599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, C. H. (1968). The frequency–magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58, 399–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, C. H. (1998). Earthquakes and friction laws. Nature, 391, 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, C. H., & Campos, J. (2012). The seismic coupling of subduction zones revisited. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, B05310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB009003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, C. H., & Small, C. (1997). The effect of seamount subduction on seismic coupling. Geology, 25, 487–490. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurr, B., Asch, G., Hainzl, S., Bedford, J., Hoechner, A., Palo, M., et al. (2014). Gradual unlocking of plate boundary controlled initiation of the 2014 Iquique earthquake. Nature, 512, 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senatorski, P. (2002). Slip-weakening and interactive dynamics of an heterogeneous seismic source. Tectonophysics, 344, 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senatorski, P. (2014). Radiated energy estimations from finite-fault earthquake slip models. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 3431–3437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senatorski, P. (2017). Effect of slip-area scaling on the earthquake frequency–magnitude relationship. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 267, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senatorski, P. (2019). Effect of slip-weakening distance on seismic–aseismic slip patterns. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176, 3975–3992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02094-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shcherbakov, R., Goda, K., Ivanian, A., & Atkinson, G. M. (2013). Aftershock statistics of major subduction earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103, 3222–3234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, P. Y., & Mansinha, L. (1983). On the principle of maximum entropy and the earthquake frequency–magnitude relation. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 74, 777–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soquet, A., Valdes, J. P., Jara, J., Cotton, F., Walpersdorf, A., Cotte, N., et al. (2017). An 8 month slow slip event triggers progressive nucleation of the 2014 Chile megathrust. Geophysical Research Letters,. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerville, P. G., Irikura, K., Graves, R., Sawada, S., Wald, D., Abrahamson, N., et al. (1999). Characterizing earthquake slip models for the prediction of strong ground motion. Seismological Research Letters, 70, 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassara, A., Soto, H., Bedford, J., Moreno, M., & Baez, J. C. (2016). Contrasting amount of fluids along the megathrust ruptured by the 2010 Maule earthquake as revealed by a combined analysis of aftershocks and afterslip. Tectonophysics, 671, 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uchida, N., & Matsuzawa, T. (2011). Coupling coefficient, hierarchical structure, and earthquake cycle for the source area of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake inferred from small repeating earthquake data. Earth Planets Space, 63, 675–679. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannucchi, P., Sage, F., Phipps Morgan, J., Remitti, F., & Collot, J.-Y. (2012). Toward a dynamic concept of the subduction channel at erosive convergent margin with implications for interplate material transfer. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 13, Q02003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannucchi, P., Spagnuolo, E., Aretusini, S., Di Toro, G., Ujiie, K., Tsutsumi, A., et al. (2017). Past seismic slip-to-the-trench recorded in Central America megathrust. Nature Geoscience, 10, 935–940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0013-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorobieva, I., Shebalin, P., & Narteau, C. (2016). Break of slope in earthquake size distribution and creep rate along the San Andreas Fault system. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 6869–6875. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, K., & Bilek, S. L. (2011). Do subducting seamounts generate or stop large earthquakes? Geology, 39, 819–822. https://doi.org/10.1130/G31856.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, L., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 974–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer, S., & Schorlemmer, D. (2007). ALM: An asperity-based likelihood model for California. Seismological Research Letters, 78, 134–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer, S., & Wyss, M. (1997). Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities: An improved technique to calculate recurrence times? Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 15115–15128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, L., Lay, T., & Kanamori, H. (2018). Global variations of large megathrust earthquake rupture characteristics. Science Advances, 4, eaao4915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., Huang, Z., Umino, N., Hasegawa, A., & Kanamori, H. (2011). Structural heterogeneity in the megathrust zone and mechanism of the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake (Mw 9.0). Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L17308. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Constructive comments by the Kojiro Irikura and the other Guest Editors, as well as three anonymous reviewers helped me to improve the manuscript. This work was partially supported within statutory activities no. 3841/E-41/S/2018 of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Ksiȩcia Janusza 64, 01-452, Warsaw, Poland

    Piotr Senatorski

Authors
  1. Piotr Senatorski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piotr Senatorski.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Senatorski, P. Gutenberg–Richter’s b Value and Earthquake Asperity Models. Pure Appl. Geophys. 177, 1891–1905 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02385-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02385-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation