Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70219452

Earthquake magnitudes from dynamic strain

Abstract

Dynamic strains have never played a role in determining local earthquake magnitudes, which are routinely set by displacement waveforms from seismic instrumentation (e.g., M L ⁠ ). We present a magnitude scale for local earthquakes based on broadband dynamic strain waveforms. This scale is derived from the peak root‐mean‐squared strains ( ⁠ A ⁠ ) in 4589 records of dynamic strain associated with 365 crustal earthquakes and 77 borehole strainmeters along the Pacific‐North American plate boundary on the west coast of the United States and Canada. In this data set, catalog moment magnitudes range from 3.5≤ M w ≤ 7.2 ⁠ , and hypocentral distances range from 6≤ R ≤500 km . The 1D representation of geometrical spreading and attenuation of A common to all strain data is log A 0 ( R )=−0.00072R−1.45log(R) . After correcting for instrument gain, site terms, and event terms, the magnitude scale, M DS =log A −log A 0 ( R )−log(3×10−9) ⁠ , scales as ≈0.92 M w with a residual standard deviation of 0.19. This close association with M w holds for events east of the −124° meridian; west of this boundary, however, a constant correction of 0.41 is needed to adjust for additional along‐path attenuation effects. As a check on the accuracy of this magnitude scale, we apply it to dynamic strain records from three strainmeters located in the near field of the 2019 M 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes. Results from these six records are in agreement to within 0.5 magnitude units, and five out of six records are in agreement to within 0.34 units.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 31.80289258670676° to 51.998410382390325° latitude; -129.814453125° to -116.19140625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andrew J. Barbour, John O. Langbein, Noha Sameh Ahmed Farghal. 2021-03-23. Earthquake magnitudes from dynamic strain. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200360

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗