1992
DOI: 10.1038/355071a0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in frequency–size relationship from small to large earthquakes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
189
1
5

Year Published

1993
1993
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 381 publications
(210 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
15
189
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The lithosphere consists of two layers: the seismogenic upper layer, or schizosphere, characterized by elastobrittle deformation, and the aseismic lower layer, or plastosphere (Scholz, 1982(Scholz, , 1990, in which ductile deformation is predominant. The seismogenic layer along the San Andreas Fault Zone in California, for example, features an average thickness of about 15 km (Scholz, 1990;Pacheco et al, 1992). The results obtained in this study indicate that the seismogenic layer in central-western China reaches, on average, a depth of about 20 km.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…The lithosphere consists of two layers: the seismogenic upper layer, or schizosphere, characterized by elastobrittle deformation, and the aseismic lower layer, or plastosphere (Scholz, 1982(Scholz, , 1990, in which ductile deformation is predominant. The seismogenic layer along the San Andreas Fault Zone in California, for example, features an average thickness of about 15 km (Scholz, 1990;Pacheco et al, 1992). The results obtained in this study indicate that the seismogenic layer in central-western China reaches, on average, a depth of about 20 km.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…For example, the maximum earthquake magnitude that any given fault can generate may be subject to different interpretations of, for example, fault length, seismogenic depth, and slip rate. More generally, different frequency-magnitude curves can be envisioned to conform to either a modified G-R relationship in which the b-value is greater for larger earthquakes (Pacheco et al, 1992;Sornette and Virieux, 1992;Romanowicz and Rundle, 1993;Kagan, 1999;Pisarenko and Sornette, 2004) or a characteristic model for the largest earthquake (Wesnousky, 1994;Kagan, 2002b). If hazard analysis is based on the seismic moment (M 0 =l LWD) of potential earthquakes, then values and associated uncertainties for first-order parameters such as rupture length (L), width (W), shear modulus (l), and average slip (D) must be provided.…”
Section: Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recent data compilation of Romanowicz [1992] shows that the scaling relation log(P) --(3/2) log(A) + const breaks down also for large strike-slip earthquakes. While the break in the scaling log(P) --(3/2) log(A) + const for large strike-slip earthquakes (rela.ted to the change from b --1 for small events to b = 1.5 for large ones [Rundle, 1989;Pacheco et al, 1992]) is readily understood as a consequence of a predominantly 1-D rupture propagation for long and narrow faults, we cannot offer an explanation for the scaling log(P) = log(A) + const of our simulated small events.…”
Section: 129mentioning
confidence: 99%