2014
DOI: 10.1785/0120140087
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Self-Consistent Earthquake Fault-Scaling Relations: Update and Extension to Stable Continental Strike-Slip Faults

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
112
0
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 131 publications
(150 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
1
112
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The best fit regressions of average coseismic displacement versus rupture length recently put forth by Leonard [2010Leonard [ , 2014 for interplate dip-slip events indicate that an earthquake producing an average of 11.3 ± 3.5 m offset will on average display a rupture length of 450 to >800 km. Similar regressions between rupture length and M w imply that an earthquake producing a 450 to >800 km rupture length will on average be M w 8.6 to >9 [Blaser et al, 2010;Leonard, 2014;Strasser et al, 2010]. If one asserts that the 11.3 ± 3.5 offset at Damak is a measure of the maximum rather than average slip and assumes, for example, that average offset was closer to~5.5 m, the same scaling laws lead to best estimates of rupture length > 250 km and M w > 8.2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The best fit regressions of average coseismic displacement versus rupture length recently put forth by Leonard [2010Leonard [ , 2014 for interplate dip-slip events indicate that an earthquake producing an average of 11.3 ± 3.5 m offset will on average display a rupture length of 450 to >800 km. Similar regressions between rupture length and M w imply that an earthquake producing a 450 to >800 km rupture length will on average be M w 8.6 to >9 [Blaser et al, 2010;Leonard, 2014;Strasser et al, 2010]. If one asserts that the 11.3 ± 3.5 offset at Damak is a measure of the maximum rather than average slip and assumes, for example, that average offset was closer to~5.5 m, the same scaling laws lead to best estimates of rupture length > 250 km and M w > 8.2.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…We acknowledge that this empirical relationship derived from tectonic earthquake data may not be applicable to induced earthquakes at shallow depths (in part as a result of the lower effective crustal rigidity changing the relationship between seismic moment, rupture area, and fault displacement), but there are currently no equivalent relationships available for such events. The same procedure proposed here could equally be applied with another empirical relationship between magnitude and rupture dimensions (e.g., Clark et al, 2014;Leonard, 2014;Stafford, 2014). To account for the variability in that empirical relationship, we used an equivalent five-point distribution based upon equating moments and using GaussHermite quadrature (Miller and Rice, 1983).…”
Section: Residuals Of Local Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The change in volume within a fault jog due to the action of an earthquake of certain magnitude can be calculated using well-established earthquake fault scaling relationships between fault width and length, co-seismic slip and earthquake magnitude (Leonard, 2014).…”
Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the updated empirical scaling relations for strike-slip earthquakes from Leonard (2014), the rupture length (L) is given by:…”
Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation