Determination of Mmax from Background Seismicity and Moment Conservation

V. L. Stevens; J.‐P. Avouac

doi:10.1785/0120170022

Article navigation

Research Article| September 26, 2017

Determination of Mmax from Background Seismicity and Moment Conservation

V. L. Stevens;

V. L. Stevens

^a

California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, California 91125, vstevens@caltech.edu

Search for other works by this author on:

GSW

Google Scholar

J.‐P. Avouac

^a

California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, California 91125, vstevens@caltech.edu

Search for other works by this author on:

GSW

Google Scholar

Author and Article Information

V. L. Stevens

^a

California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, California 91125, vstevens@caltech.edu

J.‐P. Avouac

^a

California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, California 91125, vstevens@caltech.edu

Publisher: Seismological Society of America

First Online: 27 Sep 2017

Online ISSN: 1943-3573

Print ISSN: 0037-1106

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2017) 107 (6): 2578–2596.

https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170022

Abstract

We describe a simple method to determine the probability distribution function of the magnitude $M_{\max}$ and return period $T_{R}$ of the maximum plausible earthquake on crustal faults. The method requires the background seismicity rate (estimated from instrumental data) and the rate of interseismic moment buildup. The method assumes that the moment released by the seismic slip is in balance with the moment deficit accumulated in between earthquakes. It also assumes that the seismicity obeys the Gutenberg–Richter (GR) law up to $M_{\max}$ ⁠. We took into account the aftershocks of large infrequent events that were not represented in the instrumental record, so that we could estimate the average seismicity rate over the entire fault history. We extrapolated the instrumental record, using the GR law to model the frequency of larger events and their aftershocks. This increased the frequencies of smaller events on average; when these smaller events were newly extrapolated, they predicted a higher frequency of larger events. We iterated this process until stability was reached, and then we assumed moment balance when we found the maximum magnitude; we have found this method to be appropriate in applications involving examples of fault with good historical catalogs. We then showed examples of applications to faults with no historical catalogs. We present results from nine cases. For the San Andreas fault system, we find $M_{\max} = 8.1 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 380_{120}^{950} yrs$ ⁠; for the North Anatolian fault, $M_{\max} = 8.0 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 275_{135}^{650} yrs$ ⁠; for the Main Himalayan thrust, $M_{\max} = 9.0 \pm 0.2$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 1200_{550}^{2700} yrs$ ⁠; for the Japan trench, $M_{\max} = 9.3 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 520_{220}^{1200} yrs$ ⁠; for the Sumatra–Andaman trench, $M_{\max} = 9.0 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 200_{80}^{450} yrs$ ⁠; for the Boconó fault, $M_{\max} = 7.3 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 160_{70}^{360} yrs$ ⁠; for the Altyn Tagh fault, $M_{\max} = 8.0 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 900_{400}^{2000} yrs$ ⁠; for the Dead Sea Transform, $M_{\max} = 7.8 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 1000_{450}^{2400} yrs$ ⁠; and for the Kunlun fault, $M_{\max} = 8.0 \pm 0.3$ ⁠, with $T_{R} 1000_{450}^{2000} yrs$ ⁠.