JOURNALOl• GEOPHYSICALR•.s•.Aacn VOL. 72, No.

4 FEBaUAaY 15, 1967

Scaling Law of SeismicSpectrum

K•,ii•i Axi

Department o• Geology and Geophysics

MassachusettsInstitute oi Technology, Cambridge

The dependenceof the amplitude spectrumof seismicwaves on sourcesize is investigated

on the basis of two dislocationmodels of an earthquake source.One of the models (by N.
Haskell) is called the o•8 model, and the other, called the •2 model, is constructedby fitting
an exponentially decaying function to the autocorrelation function of the dislocation velocity.
The number of source parametersis reduced to one by the assumptionof similarity. We
found that the most convenientparameter for our purposeis the magnitude M,, defined for
surfacewaves with period of 20 sec. Spectral density curves are determined for given M,.
Comparisonof the theoretical curves with observationsis made in two different ways. The
observedratios of the spectra of seismicwaves with the same propagation path but from
earthquakesof different sizesare comparedwith the correspondingtheoretical ratios, thereby
eliminating the effect of propagation on the spectrum. The other method is to check the
theory with the empirical relation between different magnitude scales defined for differ-
ent waves at different periods.The •2 model gives a satisfactoryagreementwith such obser-
vations on the assumptionof similarity, but the •a model doesnot. We find, however,some
indicationsof departure from similarity. The efficiencyof seismicradiation seemsto increase
with decreasingmagnitudeif the Gutenberg-Richtermagnitude-energyrelation is valid. The
assumptionof similarity implies a constantstressdrop independentof sourcesize. A prelimi-
nary study of Love waves from the Parkfield earthquake of June 28, 1966, shows that the
stress drop at the source of this earthquake is lower than the normal value (around 100 bars)
by about 2 orders of magnitude.

INTRODUCTION longer-periodwaves are generated.In the early

Elaborate studies have been made in recentdays of seismologyin Japan, much attention
years to find seismicsourceparameterssuchas was given to the presenceof large long-period
fault length, rupture velocity,and stressdrop motion in P wavesfrom large local earthquakes
at the earthquakesourcefrom the spectrumof [cf. Matuzawa, 1964]. Analysesof seismicwaves
seismicwaves.Except for the geometricparam- by Jones[1938], Honda and Ito [1939], Gt•ten-
eters obtainedfrom fault plane studies,how- berg and Richter [1942], Byerly [1947], Kanai
ever,the magnitudeis the only physicalparam- et al. [1953], Asada [1953], Aki [1956], Kasa-
eter that specifiesmost earthquakes.A gap hara [1957], Matumoto [1960], and others
exists between the two approachescurrently have shownthat the period of the spectralpeak
used,onebasedon the useof spectrumand the for P waves,S waves, surfacewaves,and even
otheron amplitude.The purposeof the present for codawaves increaseswith earthquake mag-
nitude.
paper is to fill this gap by finding a first
approximation to the relation between seismicThe most convincingevidencefor the greater
spectrumand magnitudeof earthquakeson the efficiencyof generating long-period waves by
basisof somedislocationmodelsof earthquake larger earthquakesis probably given by Berck-
sources.For this purpose we must reduce to hemer [1962]. He comparedseismogramsob-
one the number of parametersspecifyinga tained at a station from two earthquakesof the
We shall make this reductionby same epicenter but of different size. We shall
dislocation.
assumingthat large and small earthquakes reproducehis result later.
satisfy a similarity condition. The magnitudeof an earthquakeis definedas
The relation betweenseismicspectrumand a logarithm of amplitude of a certain kind of
earthquakemagnitudeis not a new problem. seismicwave recordedby a certain type of
It has been well known that the greater the band-limited seismograph.If there is such a
size of an earthquake, the more efficiently size effect on seismic spectra as mentioned
1217
1218 KEIITI AKI

above,the unit of magnitudeobtainedfrom one 1

kind of wave recordedby one type of seismo- u0 - 4•rbr
cos
20sin•
graph may not correspondto that obtained
from another kind of wave recorded on another
instrument.In fact, Gutenbergand Richter
ßw ,t -- r- •/cøs
[1956a] discovered
a discrepancy
betweenthe where a and b are the velocities of P and S
magnitudescalebaseduponshort-period body waves,respectively.The aboveexpressions
have
wavesand that baseduponlong-periodsurface the foliowingcommonform:
waves.

It will be shownthat the theoretical

scaling V= P(r, O,,i:,,a, b)
law of the seismicspectrumderived from a
dislocationmodel of the earthquakesource ßw 15 ,t (3)
satisfactorilyexplainsthe above-mentioned
ob- ½

servations.
where c is the appropriatewave velocity.In
terms of the Fourier transform,the aboveform
THEORETICAL
MODELSOF THE EARTHQUAKE can be written as
SOURCE
U(o•)= P(r, O,'i:',a, b)A(co) (4)
FollowingHaskell [1966], we definea dislo- where
cation functionD(•, t) which is the displace-
ment discontinuityacrossa fault plane at a
point • and time t. The fault plane extends = u(O,at
along the /• axis, and D(•, t) is consideredas
the average dislocationover the width w of the
fault. Taking the starting point of the fault at
A(•o) = w e dt

the originof the (x, y, z) coordinates, and the

• axis along the x axis, we assumethat the ß ,t -r--cøsO
fault endsat • = L and the surrounding me-
dium is infinite, isotropic,and homogeneous.If the medim is dissipative,the equationcor-
Introducingpolar coordinates (r, O, •,) by the respondhgto (4) will be
relation
U(oo)
= Pit, O,•, a, b,oo,Q(½o)].
A(½o) (6)
x -'r cosO where Q(•o) is the dissipationcoefficient.The
above expressionshowsthat .wecan isolatethe
y = r sin 0 cos•v (1) propagationterm P((o) whichdoesnot, except
z = rsin 0sin•v for the directionof fault propagation, include
the fault motionparameters.Mathematically,
the displacementcomponentsof P and $ waves sucha simpleisolationis not permittedfor an
at long distances,corresponding
to a sourceof arbitrary heterogeneous medium.Practically,
longitudinalshear fault [Haskell, 1964] for however,this separationof propagationfactor
example,can be written as from sourcefactormay be permitted,at least
as a goodfirst approximation.In this paperwe
shall be concernedonly with the sourcefactor
U,.-- 4•rbr sin20sin• A((o), which can be calculatedfrom the disloca-
tionD (•, t) according
to (5).
'wfo ,t--r- cos
0) a
For comparisonwith observationswe shall
use seismicwavesobservedat a given station
fromdistantearthquakes
of thesameepicenter,
V• cos 0 cosqo thesamefocaldepth,andthesamefaultplane
solution,but of differentmagnitude.The ratio
of the Fourier transforms of two such seismo-
ßWfo r- cos
b grams may be directly comparedwith the
 SCALING LAW OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM 1219

theoretical ratio for the source factor A(o•),

becausethe propagation factor P((o) may be •(•, •) = •l•.ff_•
b(•,0 ff• B(•,
canceledin the observed ratio. This ingenious
method comes from Berckhemer [1962]. His ße•(•+')-•½•+•) dk &od• dt
theoreticalmodel,however,seemsunrealistic,be-
cause,from the point of dislocationtheory, his
model impliesthat the amount of dislocationis
I ff:•B(k,o•)B(--k--o•
4•-: '
constant,independentof the size of the fault. ße dk &o
Following the generalline of approachtaken
by Haskell [1966],we introduce the autocorrela- lB(k,o.,)l:
tionfunction•(•/, •) of •(•, t)' 4w2

ße dk &o

Comparingthis formula with (9), we get the

well-known relation
(7)
Putting the Fourier transform of •k(•, •') as •(k, o•)= lB(k,o•)[
•' (14)
•(k, o•),weget Finally, we get from (9), (13), and (14) the
relationbetweenthe amplitudespectraldensity
=ff •)e
-'•+'•"
d•d. (8)IA(•o)]and the Fouriertransformof the auto-
correlation function'

•(,, •) = • •(k,w)e'
•-'•"• dk (9) IA(w)["= w•[(w cosO)/c,w] (15)
On the other hand, A(w) can be re•tten by Thus,the sourcefactor]A(co)]of the amplitude
changingthe order of integration and putting spectral density is expressedin terms of the
t' = t --(r -- • cosO)/cin (5) as follows' autocorrelation
of dislocation
velocity/)(•, t).
We followed Haskell [1966] in deriving the
expressions above. Haskell, however,calculated
A(•)
=we-'"•fff•b(e, the energyspectraldensityfrom the autocorre-
lation function$(7, •) of dislocationacceleration
.e-•.•,+•.••o••/• dt• d• (10) /•(•, o.
In the above e•ression the integration fi•ts
•e extended
to i•ty by putting•(•, t) = 0
for • ( 0 and L ( •. Putt•g the Fourier trans-
(16)
formof •(•, t) asB(k, w),weobtain
The Fouriertransform
$(k, w) of t•s function
isrelated
to •(k, w)simply
by
s(•,•)=ff• b(e,t)e
-'"'*'•
dtde (•) $(•, •) = • f(•, •) (•7)
12ff•• •-• Thus, we obt•n
2

Then we have from (10) and (11) •(•)1• = • $[(• •o•0)/•,•] 0s)
' ,w (12) As shownabove,the amplitudespectralden-
c
sity of seis•c wavescan be expressedin te•
and of theautocogelation
functionof •(•, t) orthat
of •(•, t). The autocogelationfunction of
•(•, t) canbe detersnedif the absolu•value
I.a(•)[: = w•' c , •o (13) of the Fouriertramformof •(•, t) is •ven.
There •e an i•te number of space-time
On the other hand, we get from (7) and (11) f•ctio• that •ve a commonspectrMdeity
1220 KEIITI AKI

but have different phases.By specifyingan

autocorrelation,therefore, we are considering
an infinite group of space-timefunctions.The
model basedupon the autocorrelationfunction
//////
x%
//
is different from the deterministic one in this
respectand may be called 'statistical,'as was
doneby Haskell [1966].
Sincethe earthquakeis essentiallya transient -T 0 T
phenomenon,however,the autocorrelationfunc-
tion introduced here cannot be treated in the
samemanner as the one for the stationarytime
I!

series.The following figureswill schematically

i]lustrate what form may be expectedfor the
autocorrelation function for the dislocation
processat an earthquake source. Let the dis- -T _ " _• T ) z:
locationstart at • - 0 and propagatealongthe
• axis with a constantvelocityv; then the dis- "/ •, •,

locationat • will be zero for t • •/v and will

II
take a constantvalue D0(•) for t • T q- •/v. II
Ii
Ii
Ii

Figure I showsa schematicpictureof D(•, t) at

a given•. Thecorresponding/)(•,
t) and•(•, t) Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of autocorrelation
are alsoshownin Figure 1. Their autocorrelation functions of dislocation velocity and dislocation
functionsare shownschematicallyin Figure 2. accelerationat a given point • on a fault.
The dashedlinesin thesefiguresare for the case
in which the dislocation takes the form of a In ourfirst model,weassumethat the temporal
ramp function in time. We now construct two autocorrelationfunction of dislocationvelocity
earthquake source models by fitting'simple decreases exponentiallywith the lag r, that is
formulas to the two autocorrelation functions.

f_•b(•,t)b(•,
tq-r)at- •oe
-kr'•l(19)
O(S.t)
Our secondmodel is the one proposedby
Haskell. I-Ie assumes that the autocorrelation
r'
T function of dislocation acceleration takes the
followingform'

•/,,

b (%.t)
= (20)
We shall assumean identicalspatial correla-
tion f•ction for both models. The correlation
>t
betweenthe dislocation
velocityat $ and t and
II
that at $ + v andt' - t + V/v, that is

',,
ff.D(e,
t)D(e
+ de
• in, cate the degreeof pendency of fa•t
propagation.The pers•tency•1 decrease•th
ii
thedistance
v between
thetwopoints.FoHo•ng
•askell, we shahadopt the functionalform of
Fig. 1. Schematicdiagram of dislocationand its e-• •,• for t•s expression
,and•so for the co•e-
time derivativesat a given point • on a fault. sportingfunction
of •(•, 0.
 SCALING LAW OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM 1221

The above temporal and spatial autocorrela- we have

tion functions are expressedin a single form, if
we write %/4krkr•o
= wDoL (29)
k•,kL

Inserting this into (25), we get

= •oe-•'"'-•'•-"/" (21) IA½)I

for the first model,and __
wDoL

1+ co_s
c 0 2 o•2 {lq-(w/k•)2}
(30)
for our first model. Since the above function
decreasesproportionallyto oJ-'-for large oz,we
ße-•'•-"" (22)
shall call this the 'o>squaremodel.'
for the second model. Their Fourier transfo•s On the other hand, the sourcefactor of ampli-
are
tude spectral density for our secondmodel will
decrease proportionally to o•-• for large oJ.
4k•,kL,•o q•0is equalto L•D dkrk •,•/8, according
to Haskell.
•(•,•) = /• + (• --•/•)•}(•+ • Inserting this into (24) and (28), we obtain:
(23)

•(•,•) = /•:•+ (•8k•'kL'q•øa'2

wDoL
--•/•)•}(•+ • •
Using (15) and (23), we may obtain the
(•a)
{i-q-(
co-so
½ •)(•'-•'•)}
{1-•'(•)
2•02•/2 :•}
(31)
sourcefactor of amplitude spectral density for
our first model as follows' We shall call this the 'o>cube model.'

ASSUMPTION OF SIMILARITY

The straightforwardway of testing the earth-

w¾/4k•,kL
•o
quake sourcemodelsproposedabove is to com-

[k•2
+/.COS
0 •)2(,•2
]1/2+ (.1,)2)
1/2 pare the predicted spectrum directly with the
observed one. For this purpose, however, we
must know about such effects of the propaga-
To determinethe value of •o, we put •o = 0 in tion medium as dissipationand complexinter-
(10). Then ferenees on the seismic spectrum for a wide
frequencyrange. Although such knowledgehas
been accumulating,especially for long-period
waves [ef. Press, 1964], it does not yet satis-
(26) factorily cover the frequency range required

=w for the presentstudy.

As mentioned in the preceding section, we
Comparingthe aboveequationwith (25), we get will removethis difficulty by comparingseismic
waves having a common propagational path
but coming from earthquakesof different sizes.
%/4krkL
•o= w (27) Further, in order to specify an earthquakeby
a singlesourceparameter,'magnitude,'we must
If we define an averagedislocationby
reduce to one the number of parameters ap-
pearingin (30) and (31) by assumingthat they
Oo= Z (28) are related to each other in some manner.
1222 KEIITI AKI

The simplest of such assumptionsmay be

that large and small earthquakes are similar y(t)-- w (32)
phenomena.If any two earthquakesare geo-
metrically similar, the fault width w is propor- I
tional to the length L. If they are physically '" 42
similar, all the nondimensional productsformed
by the sourceparameterswill be the same.The
averagedislocationDo will be proportionalto L
and, consequently,to w. This implies that if an where•oois given by the equation
earthquakeis a Starr fracture, the pre-existing
stress or strength is constant and independent t - --(d$/dco)
.... (33)
of sourcesize [Tsuboi, 1956]. Since the wave If this approximationis valid, the trace ampli-
velocity is practically independent of source tude of waves with frequency • read directly
and may be consideredconstantfor our present on the recordwill be proportionalto the spec-
purpose,all the quantitieshaving the dimension tral density]Y(•)I. The quantityd•/&o" in
of velocity must also be constant and inde- (32) is the sum of a propagation term and a
pendent of source size. Thus, the similarity sourceterm. Sincethe propagationterm is pro-
assumptionsimply that the rupture velocity v portional to the travel distance, the source
is a constantand that all the quantitieshaving term may be neglectedat long distances.Thus,
the dimensionof time, suchas k•-• and (vkL)-•, we may assume that the trace amplitude of
are proportionalto L. surface waves with period of 20 sec is equal
For simplicity, we shall further assumethat to the amplitude spectral density of waveswith
cos 0 -- 0 and that vkL -- k•. A value of k• that period, except for a factor that is inde-
greaterthan vk• may be a more realisticchoice, pendent of the sourcesize. The validity of this
becausek• -• is related to the time required for assumptionis confirmedby comparingthe ratio
formation of fracture across the fault width, of traceamplitudes of Lovewaveswith a cer-
whereas (vk•) -• is related to the time required tain period from two aftershocksof the Kern
for propagationof fracture along the length of County earthquakewith the ratio of amplitude
the fault. We shall examine later the case in spectral densities at that period obtained by
which 10 vk• -- kr. Essentiallythe sameresult the Fourier analysismethod. Both ratios agree
as when vk• -- kr will be obtained,exceptfor well.
the value of k• correspondingto a sourcesize. Thus, the dependenceof amplitude spectral
density,IA(•)I, on the magnitudeM• will be
SCALING L•w OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM
suchthat log IA(o•)]at the periodof 20 secis
Under the assumptionsdescribedin the pre- equal to M• plus a constant.In other words,
cedingsection,we can expressthe sourcefactor two spectrum curves corresponding to two
of amplitude spectraldensityas a function of earthquakesizesdiffering by M• -- 1.0 will be
L, % and several nondimensionalconstants. separated by 1.0 along the ordinate at the
Taking L as a parameter,we shall obtain a periodof 20 sec,if the curveIA(•)I is drawn
group of curves of spectral density, each of on a logarithmic scale. Figures 3 and 4 shows
whichcorresponds to an earthquakeof a certain such groups of curves for the o•-squareand
size. In order to find which curve corresponds •-cube models,respectively.
to a given earthquakesize,we must have a scale The curves shown in each of these charts
to measure size. The most convenient scale for have an identical shape. The frequency that
our purposeis the surfacewavemagnitudescale, characterizesthe shape of the curve, such as
definedby Gutenbergand Richter [1936]. This k•, is proportionalto L -•, and the spectralden-
magnitude,designatedas Ms, is proportionalto sity at • -- k• is proportionalto L ', as can be
the logarithm of amplitude of teleseismicsur- found from (30) and (31) under the assump-
face waves with period of about 20 sec. Since tion of similarity. Therefore, the points cor-
at this period the waves are usually well dis- respondingto the characteristicfrequencylie
persed,we may expressthe wave train y(t) by on a straight line with gradient 3, as shownby
the stationaryphaseapproximation,as follows: dashedlines in Figures 3 and 4. As mentioned
 SCALING LAW OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM 1223
PERIOD IN SEC
nitudes.The magnitudeof earthquakesstudied
0.1 0.2 0.5 I 2 5 I0 20 50 I00 200 500 I000
by him coversthe range 4.5 to 8. After several
trials, we choosethe absolutevalue of magni-
tude that gives the best agreement between
tO-SQUARE MODEL '
theory and observation.The valuesassignedto
the curves in Figures 3 and 4 are determined
in this manner, and the correspondingtheo-
/ retical spectral ratios are shown in Figure 5,
together with the observedratios given by
Berckhemer.

LOVE WAVES FROM,Two CALIFORNIA SHOCKS

1 The applicability of the theoretical curves

of spectral densitiesobtained in the preceding
sectionis tested by the use of recordsof Love
waves from two aftershocks of the Kern
f-- 7.0 County, California, earthquake of 1952. The
epicentersof these two earthquakesare within
,/ 8.5 severalmiles of each other, accordingto Richter
[1955], and they show identical first motion
patterns, according to Bdth and Richter

/ ,
0.5 I 2
PERIOD
õ I0 20
IN SEC
50 I00 200 500 I000 5(300

03-CUBE MODEL

M,defined _ 8.o
FREQUENCY IN C/S ,

Fig. 3. I)eper•der•ceof amplitude spectra] den- '"'

sity of earthquake magnitude M, for the •-square /f •--- 7.5
model. • .

before,the spacingof curvesfor differentearth-

6.5
quake magnitudesis determinedby the deft-
nition of M,. The definitionalone,however,
cannotgivethe absolute
valueof magnitude
corresponding
If
to eachcurve.
we know the absolute value
the curves,the values for the rest are de-
for one of •,•
'Y' ,.o
terminedfrom the definitionof M•. First we 4.5
adopta trial valueof magnitude
for one of
the curvesand assignmagnitudevaluesto
other curves accordingto the definition. Then
we can find the ratio of spectral densitiesfor
two different magnitudesas a function of fre- 2,0 1.0 0.5 02 0.1 0.05 0•2 0.010005 OJ:)02 0.0006

quency or period. This ratio is comparedwith FREQUENCY IN C/S

the observedone given by Berckhemer [1962].
Fig. 4. Dependence.of amplitude spectral den-
letsdatainclude
sixsetsof twoearthquakes
sityonearthquake
magnitude
M, forthee-cube
with the same epicenter but of different mag- model.
1224 KEIITI AKI

AI /A2!
ß

IOO 8/6,5
.. AI/A21 8/7,5
80 - 6
ß / 5
60
4

40
/

!
20' ß

I I I I '-m I I I I i • ' -- T
i0 20 30 40 50 s IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 S

AI/A2•
AI/A21
7,4/6,5 50
7,5 / 6,5

20

20

I0

I I ] • •T , , ] , , , t
IO 20 30 40 I0 20 30 S

Ai/A2
AI/A21
300

3
200

IOO 6,2 / 5,7

, I I I • =T I I I I
5 IO 15 20 S 5 IO 15 20 S

Fig. 5. Comparisonof theoretical and observedspectral ratio, plotted against period, for
pairs of earthquakeshaving nearly the same epicenterbut different size. Observedvalues are
reproducedfrom Berclchemer[1962]. The numbers shown for each pair are the earthquake
magnitudefor the pair. Solid line denotes•-square model; dashedline denotes•-cube model.

[1958]. The Richter magnitude(M•,; localscale are obtainedby Berckhemer'smethod,in which

for southernCalifornia) of one of them is 6.1, the ratio is obtainedbetweenthe corresponding
and that of the other is 5.8. The difference of peaks of waves by directly reading amplitudes
0.3 correspondsto the maximum amplitude on the record. As shown in Figure 7, the cor-
ratio of 2 on the record of the standard Wood- respondenceof peaks and troughsbetween the
Andersonseismograph. two earthquakesis excellent,and there is no
The amplituderatiosof Love wavesfrom the difficulty in obtaining such ratios. Figure 8
two earthquakesobservedat Weston, Ottawa, showsthe ratio of the amplitude spectral den-
and ResoluteBay are shownin Figure 6. They sity obtained by the Fourier analysismethod.
 SCALING LAW OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM 1225

samespectraldensityat short periodsfor the

o ,so,u'r.,¾|
ß WESTON
I.
•'Ms 0.85
two earthquakesand doesnot explain the ob-
o•O servation.
A more general comparisonof the local
o7 _
magnitudescaleM•, and the surfacewavemag-
nitude scaleM, is difficult.The maximumampli-
tude recordedby the Wood-Andersonseismo-
graph would not be directly proportional to
the amplitude spectral density at any fixed
period,becausethe signaldurationand prevail-
// I
I0 20
•3model$0
ing period may change with the earthquake
sourcesize. The spectral ratio may be nearly
PERIOD IN SEC equalto the maximumamplituderatio for such
Fig. 6. Comparisonof theoreticaland observed earthquakeswith small differencein magnitude
spectral ratio for two aftershocksof the Kern as studiedin the presentsection,but the equal-
County, California,earthquakeof 1952.Observed ity cannothold for larger magnitudedifference.
ratios are obtained from trace amplitude. Further, the empiricalrelationbetweenM•, and
M,, with which the theoreticalrelation is to be
There is no significantdifferencebetweenthe
,
compared,has not yet beenstabilized[Richter,
results obtainedby the two methods,justify- 1958].
ing the simpleprocedureusedby Berckhemer.
The theoretical curves of spectral density RELATION BETWEEN ms AND M,
ratio for an earthquake pair with magnitudes
M, around 6.0 which best fit the observations On the other hand, the relation between the
are shown in these figures. It is remarkable magnitude scale mB, defined as the logarithm
that the observedratio is about 7 at the period of amplitude of teleseismicbody waves, and
of 20 sec; in other words,the differencein M, M, has been well establishedempirically by
between the two earthquakesis 0.85, about 3 Gutenbergand Richter [1965a]. Further, it is
timeslarger than the differencein M•, obtained well known that the usual record of teleseismic
by Richter. Our u-squaremodel explainsthis body waves,obtainedby a standard short-pe-
fact satisfactorily,becauseM•, must have been riod seismographsuch as Benioff's, shows a
measuredon waves with periods of lessthan 1 rather narrow spectral band around I c/s.
sec, and this model predicts a spectral density Therefore, we may correlate the amplitude of
ratio of about 2 at these periods.On the other bodywaveswith the spectraldensityat I c/s.
hand, the u-cube model predicts nearly the If our signal is a finite portion of a Gaussian

o)-• o)

b)•./

•1 MINUTE•

RESOLUTE
IE
WBAY IN
S
WESTON
S
IN
OTTAWA

Fig. 7. Love wavesfrom the Kern County aftershocks(no. 194 above,no. 141 below; num-
bersassigned
by Richter [1955]) recordedat Ottawa,Resolute,and Weston.
 1226 KEIITI AKI

M, for the to-squareand .to-cubemodel. The

o RESOLUTE
BAY
ß WESTON • Ms-----
0.85 shaded area indicatesthe range between the
i- 10
above-mentioned two extreme cases of the de-
n OTTAWA o
pendenceof spectraldensityon signalduration.
o '
The theoretical curve for the to-cube model does
not agree with the empirical one given by
•. 6
Gutenbergand Richter. On the other hand,the
agreementis excellentfor the to-squaremodel,
,•o4 • M•.=
Q3/,
/ exceptfor smallermagnitudes.Looking at the
o

o 2 -•'• • model originaldata from whichGutenbergand Richter

derived their empirical formula, we find that
•a modeI ....
the theoretical curve based on the to-square
0
5 I0 15 20 25 model better explainsthe observationsat small
PERIOD IN SEC magnitudesthan the empiricalcurve as shown
in Figure 10. This resultstronglysupportsthe
Fig. 8. Comparison of theoretical and observed
spectral ratio for two aftershocks of the Kern applicabilityof the scalelaw of seismicspec-
County, California, earthquake of 1952. Observed trum derived from the to-squaremodel on the
spectral ratios are obtained by Fourier analysis. assumptionof similarity.

RELATIONBETWEENFAULTLENGTHANDM,
noise, the amplitude spectral density will be
FORTHE (o-SQUAREMODEL
proportional to the square root of the signal
duration. On the other hand, if the signal is a In derivingthe scalinglaw of seismicspec-
finite portion of a coherent sinusoidaloscilla- trum we assumed that the characteristic fre-
tion, the spectral density will be proportional quency k• is proportional to L -'. We can check
to the signal duration. We may assumethat this assumption
againstgeological
or geodetic
the actual seismic signal has an intermediate observations
on an earthquakefault of known
nature betweenthe above two extremes.Then, magnitudeM,. The valueof k• for a givenM,
we may write the spectral density at I e/s as is found from the theoretical curves for the
follows: to-squaremodel shownin Figure 3. Then k•-'
shouldbe proportional
to L, if the assumption
A(1) = c0nstX A= X tø"•z'ø (34) of similarity holds.Figure 11 showsthe rela-
whereA., is the maximumtrace amplitudeand
t is the signalduration. me
According to GutenbergandRichter [1956b], 8 , , ,

log t is relatedto m• by the empiricalformula •)- squa

log t = --1.9 -]- 0.4m• (35)

•-cube model •
Insertingthisequationinto (34), we obtain 7

log A(1) = cons•-]- (1.2-,• 1.4)ms (36)

From this equation and the charts of spectral
density curves given in Figures 3 and 4, we
can obtain the theoretical relation between m•
6
'ms=0,63Ms+ 2,5
/ (Gutenberg-Richter. 1956)
and M, on the basis of the to-squareand to-cube
models.The constantin (36) is determinedin
such a way that m• and M, agree at 6.75, in
accordance with the Gutenberg-Richter em- 5 ,

5 6 7 8 Ms
pirical formula
Fig. 9. Theoretical relation between ms and
mB= 6.75 + 0.6a(M,- 6.75) (37) M, based upon the •-square and •o-cubemodels,
as comparedwith the Gutenberg-Richterempiri-
Figure 9 showsthe relationbetweenrns and cal formula.
 SCALING LAW OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM 1227

Ms-Ms

f[ [ I I I [ • I I • [ [ I ] i [ [
1.21• 0f,•)- squar e moclel Ms FROM
SURFACE
WAVES -
,
' [ o• M•Me =0.4(Ms-7) A KERN
COUNTY,
195Z
.Sr•• o o 0 AVERAGES
.4- • -• o••oo

2- • • • ••o• o• o
' o •••• o o •o o o
0- • oo o •m• o
- oo

-.4-
•6-
o o• o

ß•8- o -

[ t i I [ i I I I I I I I I I I I
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.o Ms

Fig. 10. Theoretical relation between ms and M, based upon the •-square model, as com-
pared with that observedby Gutenbergand Richter [1965a].

tion betweenTo -- 2,rk•-• and L for the earth-

• To sec
I0 2.0 50 I00 200 500 I000
quake fault given in Toeher'slist [Tocher,
1960]. A linear relationshipholdsbetweenL
/
and To,if earthquakes smallerthan magnitude
/
5OO 6.5 are excluded. In the case of small earth-
quakes,the surfaceevidencemay not revealthe
/
/ o
true fault lengthat the earthquakefocus.There
2OO
/ is alsosuchan ambiguitywith the magnitudeof
o
smallearthquakesthat the magnitudegiven in
I00 o Tocher'slist may or may not be taken as M,.
Consideringthesefacts,we may concludefrom
oo •/ o o /
Figure 11 that geologicaldata do not exclude
,,/'•'"---L: CONST.
XTO the assumptionof similarity.
The characteristictime To for a given M, as
z 20
o/p/o shownin Figure 11 may seema little too large.
/
It is possibleto reducethis value without af-
D
•o /
/
fecting significantlythe conclusionsobtained
above. If we assume that k• -- 10 vk•. instead
of k• = vkL,and if we determinea set of spec-
o
tral density curves using the data of Berck-
hemer and others as given above,we find that
the value of To becomes about one-third that
o
given in Figure 11. The agreementbetween
t I theory and observationis as goodas that shown
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 ---• Ms
in Figures5, 6, and.8, and we find again that
the to-squaremodel explains the relation be-
Fig. 11. Relationbetweenthe lengthof earth-
quake fault measuredby geologicalor geodetic tween ms and M, and that the to-cube model
means and the characteristic time of the earth- does not.
quake determined from its magnitude on the
basis of the •-square model. A linear relation EFFICIENCY OF SEISMIC RADIATION
between them supportsthe assumptionof simi-
larity. Let us now examinethe efficiencyof seismic
1228 KEIITI AKI

energy radiation, which must be independent tributed to a difference in the assumed source
of earthquakesourcesizeif the similaritycon- model. As mentioned before, the model of
dition holdsstrictly. We definethe efficiency Berckhemer, if interpretedby dislocation
theory,
as the ratio of the energyradiatedin the form is the one in which the dislocation is constant
of seismicwavesto the elasticenergyreleased and independentof sourcesize,but the disloca-
by the formationof an earthquakefault. If an tion in our modelis proportionalto the linear
earthquakeis a Starr fracture [Starr, 1928], dimension of the source.
the fault-released
elasticenergyis proportional
DEPARTURE i•ROM SIMILARITY
to DolL. Under the assumption of similarity,
this energywill be proportionalto L 3. If we As mentionedbefore,the assumptionof simi-
knowthe energyfor a certainvalueof Ms, we larity implies a constant stress drop in all
can determinethe value for any M8 from the earthquakes.If the stressdrop differs for two
scalinglaw givenin the preceding section.As- earthquakes,our scalinglaw will not apply. If
sumingthat log E is 23.7 for M, ---- 7.5 from the stressdrop varies systematicallywith re-
the resultof the writer'sstudyon the Niigata spect to such environmental factors as focal
earthquake[Aki, 1966], we get the released depth, orientation of fault plane, and crust-
strain energyfor variousM, as shownin Table mantle structure, we may construct different
1. The energy radiated in the form of seismic scaling laws for different environments. Such
wavesis evaluatedby the Gutenberg-Richter a study of the seismicspectrummay eventually
formula reveal the distributionof stressdrop or strength
of material in the earth's crust and mantle. For
log E = 11.4 + 1.5M, (38) sucha study,however,we shall needmore pre-
and is also shownin Table I togetherwith its cise measurements of spectrum over wider
ratio to the strain energy.The ratio definitely rangesof frequency than are now available, as
increases with decreasingmagnitude. Thus, well as detailed knowledgeof the propagation
starting with the assumptionof similarity, we factor of the spectrum.
have endedby denyingit. Even with the present limited knowledgeof
It is, however,not impossiblethat a further the propagation factor, however, we may
demonstrate remarkable differences in stress
refinementof the magnitude-energyrelation
(38) may eventually support the assumption drops betweensome earthquakesby the use of
of similarity with regard to the radiation ef- long-period surface waves. The earthquakesto
ficiency, because(38) is based upon several be comparedhere are the Niigata earthquake
simplifiedassumptions. of June 16, 1964, and the Parkfield (California)
It should be noted here that Bdth and Duda earthquakeof June28, 1966.
[1964], usingBerckhemer's result [Berckhemer, The stress drop in the Niigata earthquake
1962], reached an entirely different conclusion was obtainedby the following procedure[Aki,
on the radiationeffciency.They found that the 1966]. The geometry of fault movement was
efficiencyincreaseswith increasingmagnitude determined from the radiation patterns of P
of the earthquake.This differencemay be at- waves,$ waves[Hirasawa,1966], and G waves.
The spectraldensity of displacementdue to G
waves was estimated for periods of 50 to 200
TABLE 1. ReleasedStrain Energy, Seismic
Wave Energy and Efficiencyof see, corrected for dissipation and geometric
Seismic Radiation spreading,and comparedwith the theoretical
excitation function [Haskell, 1964; Ben-Mena-
log E,,t log E,,,* Ew[E,t hem and Harkrider, 1964] correspondingto a
sourceof that geometry.From this comparison
8.5 26.7 24.2 0.003 we estimatedthe•product of rigidity g, area $
8.0 25.2 23.4 0.016 of fault surface, and average dislocationAu,
7.5 23.7 22.7 0.10
which correspondsto the moment Mo of the
7.0 22.5 21.9 0.25
6.5 21.6 21.2 0.40 component couple of the equivalent doublet
[Maruyama, 1963; Burridgeand Knopof],1964;
* log E,. = 11.4 q- 1.5 M.. Haskell, 1964]. The value of Mo (-- 1• AuS)
 SCALING LAW OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM 1229

for the Niigata earthquake was 3 X 10• dynes Parkfield earthquake. Consideringthat the ef-
cm. All the near field evidence (echo-sound- feet of finite size was significantfor the Niigata
ing survey,aftershockepicenters,and Tsunami earthquake (about a factor of % at a period
source area) indicated a fault length, L, of of 70 see) but probably not for the Parkfield
about 100 kin. The focal depths of the main earthquake,we estimate the ratio of the source
shockand aftershocksindicated a fault width, momentMo for the Parkfield earthquaketo that
w, of about 20 kin. Assumingthat p -- 3.7 X for the Niigata earthquake as 1/250. Thus, we
10• dynes cm-•, correspondingto a shear ve- get a moment value of about 1 x 10• dynes
locity of 3.6 kin/see and densityof 2.85 g/cm•, for the Parkfieldearthquake.
we obtainedthe value of the averagedislocation Using the same rigidity value as for the
as 400 cm by inserting the valuesof L, w, and Niigata earthquake and the observedvalues of
p into the equationMo -- 1• Au ß Lw. This fault length and dislocationmentionedbefore,
value agreeswell with thoseobservedby echo- we get a fault width of about 13 km from the
soundingsurveys made just before and after above value of moment. This value of fault
the earthquake[Mogi et al., 1965]. Finally, the width gives us an extremely low estimate of
stress drop was estimated as about 125 bars strain release.Since Knopoff's fracture model
with the aid of Starr'stheory [Starr, 1928]. is more appropriate for a strike slip than
Now, let us comparethe Niigata earthquake Starr's, we estimate the strain releaseby the
with the Parkfield earthquake.The Parkfield formula e -- Au/2w [Knopo#, 1958]. We get
earthquaketook place right on the San Andreas a value of • of 2 X 10-6 and a corresponding
fault near Cholame and Parkfield. The PDE stressdrop of about 0.7 bar, which is indeeda
card of the Coast and GeodeticSurvey reports remarkably low value. Even if there is an order
the epicenter as (35.9øN, 120.5øW), and the of magnitudeerror in estimatingthe value of
origin time as 04:26:12.4 GCT, June 28, 1966. moment,the stressdrop is still severalbars.
The magnitudeis 5.8, 5.5, and 6• as givenby As mentionedbefore, if the stress drop. is
the Pasadena,Berkeley, and Palisadesstations, differentbetweentwo earthquakes,the scaling
respectively.Accordingto a personalcommuni- law derivedin the presentpaper will not apply
cation from Clarence R. Allen and Stewart W. to them. We found some indication of violation
Smithof the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology, of the scaling law when we compared the
the near field measurements revealed a strike Parkfieldearthquakewith oneof the aftershocks
slip fault associatedwith this earthquake,its of the Kern Countyearthquake.
length being about 38 km and its offset about The magnitude of the Parkfield earthquake
5 cm. given by local stationsis 5.5 (Berkeley) ,• 5.8
G2 waves from this earthquake are clearly (Pasadena). The surface wave magnitude Ms
recordedby long-periodseismographs at Reso- of this earthquake, calculated from the Love
lute (A = 40ø) and at Ottawa (A = 35ø). The wave amplitude at a period of 20 see recorded
peak-to-peak amplitudes on the records at a at Ottawa, is 6•. This value agrees with the
period of 70 see are a little over 1 mm at both magnitudegivenby the Palisadesstation.
stations.This correspondsto a spectraldensity On the other hand, the magnitude of num-
of ground displacementof about 0.04 em seeat ber 141 aftershock[Richter, 1955] of the Kern
that period. County earthquake is 6.1. Ms for this earth-
The G2 waves from the Niigata earthquake quake, calculatedalso from Love wave ampli-
at, the epicentraldistanceof 35ø to 40ø showa tude at a period of 20 seerecordedat Ottawa,
spectraldensityof about 1.6 em seeat a period is 6.2.
of 70 see for a certain radiation azimuth. If the Since the variability of seismicamplitudes is
Niigata earthquakesourceis a strike slip fault very large, it is dangerousto draw any conclu-
like the Parkfield earthquake, and if we ob- sions from measurements at a few stations.
served G waves in the direction of maximum However, the magnitudevalues above suggest
radiation,we wouldexpecta spectraldensityof that the spectral density for the Parkfield
about 5 em see at a period of 70 see for G2 earthquake may be greater than that for the
waves at A -- 35 ø • 40 ø. This value is about Kern County aftershock at long periods, and
125 times as large as that observedfrom the smallerat short periods.If so, the two spec-
1230 KEIITI AKI

trum curvesmust crosseachother, violating the Berckhemer,H., Die Ausdehnungder Bruchfiiche

scalinglaw. This result is expectedif the stress i'm Erdbebenherd und ihr Einfiussauf dasseis-
drop in the Parkfieldearthquakeis lower than mische Wellenspektrum, Getlands• Beitr. Geo-
phys.,71, 5-26, 1962.
that in the Kern County aftershock.The reduc- Burridge, R., and L. Knopoff, Body force equiva-
tion of stressdrop is equivalentto the reduction lents. for seismic dislocations, Bull. $eismol.
of Do in (30), and it will shift the spectrum $oc. Am., 54, 1875-1888,1964.
curves in Figure 3 downward parallel to the Byefly, P., The periodsof local earthquakewaves
in central California, Bull. $eismol. $oc. Am.,
ordinate,causingan intersection
with the origi- 37, 291-298, 1947.
nal curve in the manner described above.
Gutenberg, B., and C. F. Richter, On seismic
As we haveseenabove,there is a possibility waves, Getlands Beitr. Geophys., 47, 73-131,
that the stressdrop in an earthquakemay vary 1936.

greatly accordingto its geologicalenvironment. Gutenberg,B., and C. F. Richter,Earthquake

magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration,
We shall probablyhave to assigndifferentscal- Bull. $eismol. $oc. Am., 32, 163-191, 1942.
ing lawsto differentenvironments. This implies Gutenberg, B., and C. F. Richter, Earthquake
that a singleparameter,such as magnitude, magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration,
cannotdescribean earthquakeevenas a rough 2, Bull $eismol. $oc. Am., 46, 105-145, 1956a.
measure.The measurementof seismicspectral Gutenberg, B., and C. F. Richter, Magnitude and
density rather than amplitude will becomein- energy of earthquakes, Ann. Geof•s. Rome, 9,
1-15, 1956b.
creasingly important. To understand the ob- Haskell, N., Total energy and energy spectral
servedspectrumin terms of the physicsof the density of elastic wave radiation from propa-
earthquakesource,however,we shall have to gating faults, Bull. $eismol. $oc. Am., 54, 1811-
knowmoreaboutthe effectof the propagation 1842, 1964.
mediaon the spectrumthan we do now. Haskell, N., Total energy and energy spectral
density of elastic wave radiation from propa-
Acknowledgments. I should like to thank Dr. gating faults, 2, A statistical sourcemodel, Bull.
J. H. Hodgson for making the Ottawa and Reso- $eismol. $oc. Am., 56, 125-140, 1966.
lute recordsof the Parkfieldearthquakeavailable Hirasawa, T., Source mechanismof the Niigata
to me.
earthquake of June 16, 1964, as derived from
This researchwas supportedby the Advanced analysisof body waves, J. Phys. Earth, 14, in
ResearchProjectsAgencyand was monitoredby press,1966.
the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Honda, H., and H. Ito, On the period of the P
contract AF49 (638)-1632. waves and the magnitude of the earthquake,
•EFERENCES Geophys.Mag., 13, 155-160, 1939.
Jones, A. E., Empirical studies of some of the
Aki, K., Corre]ogram
analysisof seismograms
by seismic phenomena of Hawaii, Bull. $eismol.
meansof a simpleautomaticcomputer,J. •hys. Soc.Am., 28, 313-338, 1938.
Earth, 4, 71-79, 1956.
Kanai, K., K. Osada,and S. Yoshizawa,The re-
Aki, K., Generationand propagationof G waves lation between the amplitude and the period
from the Niigata earthquakeof June 16, 1964, of earthquake motion, Bull. Earthquake Res.
2, Estimation of earthquakemoment, released Inst. Tokyo Univ., 31, 45-56, 1953.
energy, and stress-straindrop from the G wave
Kashara, K., The nature of seismicorigin as in-
spectrum,Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo ferred from seismologicaland geodetic obser-
Univ., 44, 73-88, 1966.
vations, 1, Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo,
Asada,T., On the relation betweenthe predomi- 35, 747-532, 1957.
nant period and maximum amplitude of earth-
quake motions,J. $eismol.$oc. Japan,$er. 2, Knopoff, L., Energy releasein earthquakes,Geo-
6, 69-73, 1953. phys. J., 1, 44-52, 1958.
B•th, M., and S. J. Duda, Earthquakevolume, Maruyama, T., On the force equivalentsof dy-
namic elastic dislocations with reference to the
fault plane area, seismicenergy, strain, defor-
mation, and related quantities, Ann. Geofis. earthquake mechanism,Bull. Earthquake Res.
Rome, 17, 353-368, 1964. Inst. Tokyo Univ., 41, 467-486, 1963.
Bath, M., and C. F. Richter, Mechanism of the Matumoto, T., On the spectral structure of earth-
aftershocksof the Kern County, California, quakewaves,Bull. EarthquakeRes.Inst. Tokyo,
earthquakeof 1952,Bull. $eismol.$oc. Am., 48, 38, 13-28, 1960.
133-146, 1958. Matuzawa,T., Study of earthquakes,OhO$hoten,
Ben-Menaham, A., and D. G. Itarkrider, Radia- Tokyo, pp. 45, 207, 1964.
tion patterns of seismic surface waves from Mogi, A., B. Kawamura, and Y. Iwabuchi,Sub-
buffed dipolar point sources in a fiat stafffled marine crustal movement due to the Niigata
earth, J. Geophys.Res., 69, 2605-2620,1964. earthquake in 1964, in the environs of the Awa
 SCALING LAW OF SEISMIC SPECTRUM 1231
Shima Island, Japan Sea, J. Geodetic. •oc. Starr, A. T., Slip in a crystal and rupture in a
Japan, 10, 180-186, 1965. solid due to shear, Proc Cambridge Phil. Soc.,
Press,F., Long period waves and free oscillations 24, 489-500, 1928.
of the earth, in Researchin Geophysics,vol. 2, Tocher, D., Movement on faults, Proc. 2nd World
chapter 1, pp. 1-26, The M.I.T. Press, Cam- Conf. Earthquake Engineering, 1, 551-564, 1960.
bridge, Mass., 1964. Tsuboi, C., Earthquake energy, earthquake vol-
Richter, C. F., Foreshocksand aftershocks,Earth- ume, aftershock area, and strength of the earth's
quakesin Kern County, California, during 1952, crust, J. Phys. Earth, 4, 63-66, 1956.
Calif Dept. Nat. Resources,Div. Mines, Bull.
171, 177-198, 1955.
Richter, C. F., Elementary Seismology,p. 347,
W. tI. Freeman and Co., San Francisco,1958. (Received September 17, 1966.)