Background seismicity and seismic correlations

  • Bogdan Felix Apostol Institute of Earth's Physics, 0777125 Magurele, Romania
Article ID: 1592
131 Views , 129 PDF Downloads
Keywords: background seismicity; time-magnitude correlations; temporal correlations; foreshocks for forecasting

Abstract

The law of energy accumulation in the earthquake focus is presented, together with the temporal, energy and magnitude distributions of regular, background earthquakes. The background seismicity is characterized by two parameters—the seismicity rate and the Gutenberg-Richter parameter, which can be extracted by fitting the empirical earthquake distributions. Time-magnitude and temporal correlations are presented, and the information they can provide is discussed. For foreshocks the time-magnitude correlations can be used to forecast (with limitations) the mainshock. The temporal correlations indicate a decrease of the Gutenberg-Richter parameter for small magnitudes, in agreement with empirical observations for foreshocks. On the other hand, the aftershocks may be viewed as independent earthquakes with changed seismic conditions, so they may exhibit an increase of this parameter, also in accordance with empirical observations. The roll-off effect for small magnitudes and the modified Gutenberg-Richter distribution are discussed for temporal corralations, and the derivation of the Bath’s law is briefly reviewed.

References

[1]Apostol BF. A model of Seismic Focus and Related Statistical Distributions of Earthquakes. Phys. Lett. 2006; A357: 462–466. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2006.04.080

[2]Apostol BF. Elastic waves inside and on the surface of a half-space. Quart. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 2017; 70: 289–308.

[3]Apostol BF. An inverse problem in seismology: derivation of the seismic source parameters from P and S seismic waves. J. Seismol. 2019; 23: 1017–1030.

[4]Apostol BF. Correlations and Bath’s law. Results in Geophysical Sciences. 2021; 5: 100011.

[5]Apostol BF. Seismological problem, seismic waves and the seismic mainshock. Mathematics. 2023; 11: 3777.

[6]Utsu T, Seiki A. A relation between the area of aftershock region and the energy of the mainshock (Japanese). J. Seism. Soc. Japan. 1955; 7: 233–240.

[7]Gutenberg B, Richter C. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1944; 34: 185–188.

[8]Gutenberg B, Richter C. Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Annali di Geofisica. 1956; 9: 1–15.

[9]Utsu T. Aftershocks and earthquake statistics (I, II): Some parameters which characterize an aftershock sequence and their interaction. J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Univ. Ser. VII (Geophysics). 1969; 3: 129–266.

[10]Kanamori H. The energy release in earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 1977; 82: 2981–2987.

[11]Hanks TC, Kanamori H. A moment magnitude scale. J. Geophys. Res. 1979; 84: 2348–2350.

[12]Popa M, Chircea A, Dinescu R, et al. Romanian Earthquake Catalog. Available online: http://www.infp.ro/data/romplus.txt (accessed on 2 June 2024).

[13]Enescu B, Struzik Z, Kiyono K. On the recurrence time of earthquakes: insight from Vrancea (Romania) intermediate-depth events. Geophys. J. Int. 2008; 172: 395–404.

[14]Stein S, Wysession M. An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure. Blackwell. 2003.

[15]Udias A. Principles of Seismology. Cambridge University Press; 1999.

[16]Frohlich C, Davis SD. Teleseismic b values; or much ado about 1.0. J. Geophys. Res. 1993; 98: 631–644.

[17]Lay T, Wallace TC. Modern Global Seismology. Academic Press; 1995.

[18]Apostol BF, Cune LC. On the relevance of the foreshocks in forecasting seismic mainshocks. Ann. Geophys. 2023; 66: SE635.

[19]Apostol BF. Time-magnitude correlations and time variation of the Gutenberg-Richter parameter in foreshock sequences. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2024; 18: 27–36.

[20]Gulia L, Tormann T, Wiemer S, et. al. Short-term probabilistic earthquake risk assessment considering time-dependent b values. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016; 43: 1100–1108.

[21]Gulia L, Rinaldi AP, Tormann T, et al. The effect of a mainshock on the size distribution of the aftershocks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2018; 45: 13277–13287.

[22]Gulia L, Wiemer S. Real-time discrimination of earthquake foreshocks and aftershocks. Nature. 2019; 574: 193–199.

[23]Bhattacharya P, Chakrabarti CK, Kamal KD, et. al. Fractal models of earthquake dynamics. In: Schuster HG (editor). Reviews of Nolinear Dynamics and Complexity. Wiley; 2009. pp.107–150.

[24]Pelletier JD. Spring-block models of seismicity: review and analysis of a structurally heterogeneous model coupled to the viscous asthenosphere. In: Rundle JB, Turcotte DL, Klein W (editors). Geocomplexity and the Physics of Earthquakes. AGU press; 2000. Volume 120.

[25]Jones LM. Foreshocks, aftershocks and earthquake probabilities: accounting for the Landers earthquake. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1994; 84: 892–899.

Published
2025-01-03
How to Cite
Apostol, B. F. (2025). Background seismicity and seismic correlations. Journal of AppliedMath, 3(1), 1592. https://doi.org/10.59400/jam1592
Section
Article