AASCIT - Journal - All Issues

ISSN: 2375-3870

International Journal of Modern Physics and Application

The Journal

Manuscript Information

Formalized Estimation of М_max and of Strong Earthquake Recurrence

International Journal of Modern Physics and Application
Vol.5 , No. 2, Publication Date: May 10, 2018, Page: 15-20

382 Views Since May 10, 2018, 265 Downloads Since May 10, 2018

Paper in PDF (394K)

Follow on

Authors

[1]	Bugaev Evgeny, Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety, Moscow, Russia.

Abstract

In estimating seismic hazard based on the Gutenberg-Richter law, the particular attention shall be paid to nonlinearity of the curve and justification of its restriction on the right or to unrestricted extrapolation to the region of rare events [1, 2]. These issues have been addressed based on the benchmarking study of recurrence curves of the strongest earthquakes, with the forecasting limits of the recurrence curves calculated based on the model that reflects the discrete properties of the block hierarchical structure of the earth crust, with the account of deformation conditions, possible changes in the deformation velocity, elastic limit and type of fracture. The study allowed to determine the geodynamic, geotechnical and seismotectonic factors, which influence on the curve’s shape and level, and to specify their parameters, which estimate the value and the recurrence of М_max.

Keywords

Earth, Model, Elastic Limit, Deformation Velocity, Recurrence Earthquakes

Reference

[01]	Holschneider, M., G. Zöller, and S. Hainzl (2011). Estimation of the maximum possible magnitude in the framework of a doubly truncated Gutenberg–Richter model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101, no. 4, 1649–1659.
[02]	Zöller, G., and Holschneider M. (2016). The earthquake history in a fault zone tells us almost nothing about Mmax, Seismol. Res. Lett. 87, no. 1, 132–137.
[03]	Gutenberg B., Richter C. F. Seismicity of the Earth and associated phenomena. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1954. 310 p.
[04]	Kasahara К. Earthquake mechanics. Mir, Moscow: 1985, p. 264.
[05]	Ulomov V. I., Shumilina L. S. Issues of Seismic Zoning of the Russian Federation Territory. OIFZ RAN. 1999, p. 55.
[06]	Sadovskii M. A. On the natural lumpiness of rocks // Report of the Academy of Sciences of USSR, 1979, vol. 247, no. 4, pp. 829–831.
[07]	Steinberg V. V., Ponomareva O. N. On the extents of strong earthquakes, // Strong Earthquakes and seismic impacts. Collection of papers. Engineering Seismology Issues, Moscow: Nauka, 1987, no. 28, pp. 63–72.
[08]	Bugaev E. G., Spivak A. A. Estimating the effective deformational and strength characteristics of the medium in earthquake sources. // Collection of papers in “Nonstationary Processes in the Upper and Lower Envelopes of the Earth: Geophysics of Strong Disturbances”, Moscow: 2002, pp. 77–85.
[09]	Bugaev E. G. On structured and diffuse seismicity, stiffness of earthquake foci, and nonlinearity of magnitude-recurrence curves // Geodynamics & Tectonophysics, 2011, issue 2, no. 3, pp. 244–265.
[10]	Rodionov V. N. Seismic Regime and Block Structure of the Earth’s crust // Geoecology. Engineering Geology. Hydrogeology. Geocryology. no. 3. 1994, pp. 76-81.
[11]	Sikosek B. and Vukasinovic M. Geological criteria in the preparation of a seismic zoning map // Proceedings of the seminar on seismic zoning maps, Skopje, 27 October - 4 November 1975, Vol. II, UNESCO, Skopje, 1976.
[12]	Bugaev E. G. Methods for estimating the maximum potential of platform earthquakes // Izvestiya, Phyisics of the Solid Earth, Vol. 35, No 2, 1999, pp. 35-51.
[13]	Bugaev E. G. Estimation jf the Seismic Potential of Geodynamically Active Zones of Platform Territories // Journal of Earthquake Prediction Research 8 (2000) 285 – 305.
[14]	Khromovskikh V. S. Seismogenic deformations of the Earth’s crust in the epicentral and pleistoseist zones of strong earthquakes // in Contemporary Dynamics of the Lithosphere, under the editorship of Logachev N. A., Khromovskikh V. S., Moscow: Nedra, 1995, pp. 440–503.
[15]	Rautian T. G. Determination and interpretation of parameters for earthquake sub-foci sources // Seismic Hazard Studies. Collection of papers in Engineering Seismology Issues, No. 29, 1988, pp. 21–29.
[16]	Bugaev E. G. On structured and diffuse seismicity, stiffness of earthquake foci, and nonlinearity of magnitude-recurrence curves // Geodynamics & Tectonophysics, 2011, issue 2, no. 3, pp. 244–265.
[17]	Shebalin N. V. Strong earthquakes. Selected works. Moscow: press of the Mining Science Academy, 1997, p. 543.
[18]	Wells D. L., Copersmith R. J. New empirical relationship among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement // Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. 1994. Vol. 84. P. 974-1002.
[19]	Riznichenko Yu. V. Dimensions of the core earthquake and seismic moment // Earthquakes Physics Studies. Moscow: Nauka, 1976, pp. 9-27.
[20]	Riznichenko Yu. V. Calculation of the maximum potential earthquakes and seismic shakeability. // Seismic Zoning of USSR. Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 59-69.
[21]	Riznichenko Yu. V. Selected works. Problems of Seismology. Moscow: Nauka, 1985, pp. 220-267.
[22]	Aki K. Study of Earthquake Sources from the Seismic Spectrum. Publ. Dominion Obs. - Canada, 1969.
[23]	Bugaev E. G. Assessment of the limits of magnitude–frequency relationship change for the development of risk-oriented safety regulation of nuclear power plants: A case study for some regions of the East European and North American platforms. // Engineering Seismology Issues. ISSN 0132 - 2826. Moscow: 2014. vol. 41. no. 3, pp. 37-54.
[24]	Bugaev E. G., Kishkina S. B., Seelev I. N. Formalization of the estimation of the radioactive waste burial site seismic regime parameters on seismological and geological data. Engineering Seismology Issues. 2015. vol. 42. no. 4. pp. 15-24.
[25]	Stevens V. L. and Avouac J.-P. Determination of Mmax from Background Seismicity and Moment Conservation // Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 107, No. 6, pp. 2578–2596, December 2017, doi: 10.1785/0120170022.