the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 19 Jul 2023
Global seismic energy scaling relationships based on the type of faulting
Abstract. We derived scaling relationships for different seismic energy metrics for earthquakes with MW > 6.0 from 1990 to 2022. The seismic energy estimations were derived with two methodologies, the first based on the velocity flux integration and the second based on finite-fault models. In the first case, we analyzed 3331 reported seismic energies derived by integrating far-field waveforms. In the latter methodology, we used the total moment rate functions and the approximation of the overdamped dynamics to quantify seismic energy from 231 finite-fault models (Emrt, and EO, EU, respectively). Both methodologies provide compatible energy estimates. The radiated seismic energies estimated from the slip models and integration of velocity records are also compared for different focal mechanisms by deriving converting scaling relations among the different energy types. Additionally, the behavior of radiated seismic energy (ER), energy-to-moment ratio (ER/M0), and apparent stress (τα) for different rupture types at a global scale is examined by considering depth variations of mechanical properties, such as seismic velocities and rock densities, and rigidities. For this purpose, we used a 1-D global velocity model. In agreement with previous studies, our results exhibit a robust variation of τα with the focal mechanism. These parameters are, on average largest for strike-slip earthquakes, followed by normal-faulting events, with the lowest values for reverse earthquakes for hypocentral depths < 180 km. On the contrary, at depths in the range of 180–240 km, τα for reverse earthquakes is higher than for normal-faulting events. Regarding the behavior of apparent stress with depth, our results agree with the existence of a bimodal distribution with two depth intervals where the apparent stress is maximum for normal-faulting earthquakes. Finite-fault energy estimations also support focal mechanism dependence of apparent stress, but only for shallow earthquakes (Z < 30 km). The population of slip distributions used was too small to conclude that finite-fault energy estimations support the dependence of average apparent stress on rupture type at different depth intervals.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(15378 KB)
-
Supplement
(18177 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15378 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(18177 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1357', Rodolfo Console, 02 Sep 2023
I appreciated the quality of this manuscript, which presents the results of analysis of the ratio between radiated energy and seismic moment of earthquakes taking into account different focal mechanism, depths and seismic regions. The results are expressed in terms of stress drop on the source.
The authors state that the results and their conclusions can be affected by uncertainties on the observation data and the used model.
In this respect, I would suggest to add a statistical analysis of the results in order to quantify the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis that the differences among the various cases may be caused just by random variations of the observations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1357-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Quetzalcoatl Rodríguez-Pérez, 12 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1357', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Oct 2023
This manuscript describes the detailed work by the authors to investigate energy released by earthquakes globally. They compare energy obtained through various approaches and investigate systematic variation of energy to moment ratio for different fault types and hypocentral depths. Furthermore, they develop conversion relationships between the different energy estimates. The work is consistent with previous studies, but a valuable contribution as a consistent approach is used to all earthquakes that are part of the study. The paper is well written (although consistency of tense should be checked) and the application of methods and results are sound. However, one issue is that it remains unclear whether the authors computed energy themselves - my understanding is that ER is taken from IRIS (which is fine), but that the other energy values are computed in this study - this should be clearer throughout the text.
I have the following more detailed comments that may help to improve the manuscript:
line 1: title - 'based on' does not seem correct, change to e.g. '...: Investigating dependence on type of faulting and hypocentral depth'
line 39: please check, what is difference between first and second radiated energy in this sentence?
line 53: dependence of ER
line 54: insert 'but' after ','
line 110: gCMT needs to be explained
line 116: Do I understand correctly that ER is taken from IRIS, and that EU and EO are computed in this study? This should be expressed more clearly throughout the text.
line 119: in case the results are taken from IRIS, this section is too detailed
line 120: change to 'we describe' - please check tense throughout the text, I give some more examples where I think it can be changed, but not for everything
line 121: which study? not clear so far if new calculations are done in this paper, or if results are taken from IRIS; if taken from IRIS perhaps not all equations are needed, unless important for the discussion.
line 185: show
line 195: show
line 206: insert apparent stress before tau (even though it is given above)
line 223: remove 'for strike-slip earthquakes' (as SS is given at start of sentence)
line 224: use 'higher depth'?
line 256: spell out symbol in ER E (Eu, Eo)
line 267: tsunami earthquake (rather than event)?
line 271: is 'seismogenic' correct here?
line 276: asperities or asperity patches
line 281: show
line 334: intense deformation - can you give example based on your results?
line 341: you focus on highest values as they are important in hazard context, but lowest values could also be interesting? overall, you could mention importance of results for seismic hazard
line 362: 'different types of faulting'
line 377: Our higher ER/M0 ....Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1357-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Quetzalcoatl Rodríguez-Pérez, 12 Nov 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1357', Simone Pilia, 19 Oct 2023
Dear authors,
many thanks for submitting your manuscript to Solid Earth.
I have now received evaluations by two expert reviewers that provided detailed comments. They are both fairly positive about the scientific significance of your manuscript and clarity of the writing. They have, however, raised a number of important issues that need to be addressed for further processing of your manuscript.
I hope you will find the reviews constructive, and look forward to seeing a revised version of the manuscript.
All the best,
Simone.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1357-EC1 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Quetzalcoatl Rodríguez-Pérez, 12 Nov 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1357', Rodolfo Console, 02 Sep 2023
I appreciated the quality of this manuscript, which presents the results of analysis of the ratio between radiated energy and seismic moment of earthquakes taking into account different focal mechanism, depths and seismic regions. The results are expressed in terms of stress drop on the source.
The authors state that the results and their conclusions can be affected by uncertainties on the observation data and the used model.
In this respect, I would suggest to add a statistical analysis of the results in order to quantify the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis that the differences among the various cases may be caused just by random variations of the observations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1357-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Quetzalcoatl Rodríguez-Pérez, 12 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1357', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Oct 2023
This manuscript describes the detailed work by the authors to investigate energy released by earthquakes globally. They compare energy obtained through various approaches and investigate systematic variation of energy to moment ratio for different fault types and hypocentral depths. Furthermore, they develop conversion relationships between the different energy estimates. The work is consistent with previous studies, but a valuable contribution as a consistent approach is used to all earthquakes that are part of the study. The paper is well written (although consistency of tense should be checked) and the application of methods and results are sound. However, one issue is that it remains unclear whether the authors computed energy themselves - my understanding is that ER is taken from IRIS (which is fine), but that the other energy values are computed in this study - this should be clearer throughout the text.
I have the following more detailed comments that may help to improve the manuscript:
line 1: title - 'based on' does not seem correct, change to e.g. '...: Investigating dependence on type of faulting and hypocentral depth'
line 39: please check, what is difference between first and second radiated energy in this sentence?
line 53: dependence of ER
line 54: insert 'but' after ','
line 110: gCMT needs to be explained
line 116: Do I understand correctly that ER is taken from IRIS, and that EU and EO are computed in this study? This should be expressed more clearly throughout the text.
line 119: in case the results are taken from IRIS, this section is too detailed
line 120: change to 'we describe' - please check tense throughout the text, I give some more examples where I think it can be changed, but not for everything
line 121: which study? not clear so far if new calculations are done in this paper, or if results are taken from IRIS; if taken from IRIS perhaps not all equations are needed, unless important for the discussion.
line 185: show
line 195: show
line 206: insert apparent stress before tau (even though it is given above)
line 223: remove 'for strike-slip earthquakes' (as SS is given at start of sentence)
line 224: use 'higher depth'?
line 256: spell out symbol in ER E (Eu, Eo)
line 267: tsunami earthquake (rather than event)?
line 271: is 'seismogenic' correct here?
line 276: asperities or asperity patches
line 281: show
line 334: intense deformation - can you give example based on your results?
line 341: you focus on highest values as they are important in hazard context, but lowest values could also be interesting? overall, you could mention importance of results for seismic hazard
line 362: 'different types of faulting'
line 377: Our higher ER/M0 ....Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1357-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Quetzalcoatl Rodríguez-Pérez, 12 Nov 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1357', Simone Pilia, 19 Oct 2023
Dear authors,
many thanks for submitting your manuscript to Solid Earth.
I have now received evaluations by two expert reviewers that provided detailed comments. They are both fairly positive about the scientific significance of your manuscript and clarity of the writing. They have, however, raised a number of important issues that need to be addressed for further processing of your manuscript.
I hope you will find the reviews constructive, and look forward to seeing a revised version of the manuscript.
All the best,
Simone.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1357-EC1 - AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Quetzalcoatl Rodríguez-Pérez, 12 Nov 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 276 | 103 | 22 | 401 | 30 | 13 | 13 |
- HTML: 276
- PDF: 103
- XML: 22
- Total: 401
- Supplement: 30
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Quetzalcoatl Rodríguez-Pérez
F. Ramón Zúñiga
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15378 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(18177 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper