Source parameters of the 1980 Mammoth Lakes, California, earthquake sequence

Abstract

From the more than 1500 Mammoth Lakes earthquakes recorded on three‐component digital seismographs (Spudich et al., 1981), 150 were used in an analysis of the locations, mechanism, and source parameters. A composite fault plane solution of nine earthquakes 3.9 ≤ M ≤ 5.1 defines a right‐lateral strike slip mechanism on a steeply dipping nearly east‐west plane striking S75°E or left‐lateral strike slip on a nearly north‐south plane striking N10°E. Vertical cross sections of well‐located aftershocks indicate possibly three east‐west planes that coincide with the locations of the four largest earthquakes with ML ≥ 6.0. Using the spectral analysis of S waves (Brune, 1970), source parameters for 67 earthquakes were determined. Forty‐eight had magnitudes greater than or equal to 3.0. Seismic moments ranged from 9.20×1018 dyn cm to 2.33×1024 dyn cm. Earthquakes with seismic moment greater than about 1.0×1021 dyn cm had nearly constant stress drops (≃ 50 bars); earthquakes with seismic moment less than about 1.0×1021 dyn cm had stress drops that apparently decrease as seismic moment decreases.

A Method for Calibration of the Local Magnitude Scale Based on Relative Spectral Amplitudes, and Application to the San Juan Bautista, California, Area

“…A magnitude calibration with β 1:1 is consistent with previous calibrations of the local magnitude scale for small earthquakes (Bakun and Lindh, 1977;Archuleta et al, 1982;Bakun, 1984b, Fletcher et al, 1984. For comparison with this scaling, also plotted in Figure 7 is a line with β 1:5 (dashed curve), the slope expected for moment magnitudes M w .…”

“…It is thus unsurprising that the scaling between moment and catalog magnitude can vary somewhat with location and with the magnitude range considered (e.g., Bindi et al, 2005;Castello et al, 2007;Edwards et al, 2010;Gasperini et al, 2013). For instance, Wyss et al (2004) examined small earthquake moments near Parkfield, California, and found a scaling parameter β of 1.6 for duration magnitudes, larger than the β of 1.0-1.3 previously obtained for small events on the local magnitude (M L ) scale (Bakun and Lindh, 1977;Archuleta et al, 1982;Bakun, 1984b, Fletcher et al, 1984. Abercrombie (1996) found that β ≈ 1:0 near Cajon Pass when comparing with the Southern California Seismic Network magnitudes, and Ben-Zion and Zhu (2002) noted that β increased to 1.3 for M L > 3:5 earthquakes.…”

“…The M L scale had been previously compared with moment magnitudes obtained from spectral modeling. It was found that M 0 ∼ 10 1:0 to 1:3M L for small earthquakes (M L ≲4), and M 0 ∼ 10 1:3 to 1:5M L for larger events (M L ≳4) (Bakun and Lindh, 1977;Archuleta et al, 1982;Bakun, 1984b;Fletcher et al, 1984). Both the local M L and duration M D magnitude scales have evolved as regional stations were added and removed, but efforts have been made to retain temporal consistency (Uhrhammer et al, 1996(Uhrhammer et al, , 2011.…”

Scaling Relations of Local Magnitude versus Moment Magnitude for Sequences of Similar Earthquakes in Switzerland

“…Other studies, where the majority of magnitudes are below 4, find similar values. For example, Archuleta et al (1982) find M L ∼ 1:56 0:1M w for 3 ≤ M L ≤ 6, in a study of source parameters for 40 earthquakes within a sequence of 1500 events at Mammoth Lakes, California; Kim et al (1989) find M L ∼ 1:49 0:05M w for earthquakes in the magnitude range of 2 ≤ M L ≤ 5:2, in a study of source parameters for earthquakes in the Baltic Shield. Many other studies find values between 1 and 1.9 over various magnitude ranges (see Deichmann [2006] and Hanks and Boore [1984] for a compilation).…”

Source parameters and stress release of seismic sequences occurred in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Northeastern Italy) and in Western Slovenia

“…Most of the observational studies in the seismological literature investigated scaling relationships characterizing different seismic areas and different seismotectonic environments or some particular pattern of seismicity (Cocco and Rovelli, 1989;Somerville et al, 1987). An interesting application of source parameters estimation uses seismic sequences to investigate the stress levels, the radiated energy and the mechanism of stress release (Archuleta et al, 1982;Fletcher and Boatwright, 1991;Mori et al, 2003).…”