Bulletin of the SeismologicalSociety of America. Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 433~151.

April, 1976

A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR E A R T H Q U A K E S BASED ON T H E ELASTIC

REBOUND MODEL

BY MITIYASU OHNAKA

ABSTRACT

The elastic rebound model explaining seismological data quantitatively is

derived by developing the original elastic rebound theory proposed by H. F. Reid.
Assuming that the dislocation front propagates in one direction along the long
axis of the fault plane, the shear strain drop An, the earthquake volume V, the
stiffness of the fault, the mass of inertia, and the seismic energy radiated E s are
evaluated in terms of the fault-plane dimensions, the dislocation D, the
propagating velocity of dislocation v, and the shear-wave velocity. The elastic
strain energy released is evaluated in terms of V, An, and the initial shear strain.
It is shown that the order of magnitude of Es is virtually given by/~ WD 2, where
p is the rigidity and W is the fault width. The order of magnitude of the initial
slip acceleration is estimated by making use of the formula derived in a previous
paper. The moment of the elastic rebound force is calculated. The maximum
amplitude of the far-field wave motion is in proportion to vMo/L, where M o is the
seismic moment and L is the fault length: this predicts that log (Mo/L) is linearly
related to the magnitude M, if v is assumed to be almost constant for actual earth-
quakes. The good linear relation, log (Mo/L) = 1.2M+ 11.7 (Mo/L in dynes), is
found empirically over a wide range of M (2 < M < 8.5). The directly
proportional relationship between the logarithm of seismic moment per unit area
and the magnitude seems to hold empirically.

INTRODUCTION

It is in general thought that an earthquake is a release of tectonic strain energy stored

up in a volume of the Earth's Crust. The physical processes of large earthquakes are well
explained by the elastic rebound theory first proposed by Reid (Reid, 1911 ; Fitch and
Scholz, 1971; Scholz, 1972). Tectonic movements result in a steady, slow, buildup of
elastic strain within certain portions of the crust. When these strains reach the maximum
supportable level, an elastic rebound (an earthquake) occurs in such a way as to release
the stored strain energy, accompanied by a shear dislocation on the fault plane. The
intensity of the elastic rebound is governed primarily by the elastic stiffness of the medium
surrounding the fault, as is easily understood from the analogy of the rebound of leaf
spring. Laboratory experiments on stick-slip show that the stiffness of the loading system
influences not only the slip amplitude, but the slipping time corresponding to the rise
time of the fault-slip time function of an earthquake (Ohnaka, 1973b) This indicates that
the elastic stiffness of an earthquake fault is an important factor controlling the fault-slip
motion caused by an elastic rebound.
In addition, frictional characteristics of the fault surfaces are important factors to be
considered in the light of the fact that an earthquake source is a shear dislocation.
Kanamori (1974) classified earthquakes into three principal types (Figure 1) as follows:
type A, an earthquake having a source dislocation that takes place within a relatively
short time ( < 10 sec) and in which short-period seismic waves predominate; type B,
an earthquake having a source dislocation that occurs over a long period of time
433
434 MITIYASU OHNAKA

(10 2 ~' 103 sec) and in which long-period waves predominate; and type C, an earthquake
characterized by a fault creep deformation of extremely long duration ( > 103 sec) and
with few radiating seismic waves. The existence of such different types of earthquake as
classified above implies the importance of frictional characteristics of the fault surfaces.
The abnormal slow deformation at the source of types B and C earthquakes suggests
that viscous friction on the fault surfaces is a dominant factor controlling the dislocation
motion. For type A earthquakes, solid friction is an important factor to be considered
insofar as an earthquake source is a shear dislocation.
Accumulating seismological evidence indicates that the strain energy release is effected
by a propagating rupture induced by an elastic rebound over a finite fault plane. Follow-
ing Haskell (1964), we assume in this paper that a dislocation (or rupture) front propa-
gates with the average velocity v in the direction along the long axis of a fault plane which
is rectangular with length L in the direction of propagation and width W in the transverse
direction.
T=l~lOsec

A D ~ " ~-
F
~T'=-I0~ I03 sec
'
B
,1
, T = I O 3 ~ oo sec ,~

Short- Longer-
period period
Fault-slip motion
(l~lOsec) (~20sec)

Seismic waves
Fio. 1. Three main types of earthquake (after Kanamori, 1974). T is the rise time of the fault-slip time
function.

The fault-slip motion caused by the elastic rebound was represented by (Ohnaka,
1973a and 1974)
D(t) = DoC,(t), (1)

whereif0 < p < 1, i = 1; ifp = 1, i = 2; and i f p > 1, i = 3 ; a n d

I 1 - e x p [-(p/z)t](cos [(1-p2)l/Z/zlt+ [p/(1 _p2)1/21 sin [(1-p2)l/Z/z]t}

f [0 <_ t <_ nz/(1 __p2)1/2],

Ll+ex~ (--n[p/(l-p2)l/2]} {7~z/(1-p2) 1/2 < t],

Gz(t) = 1 - e x p ( - t / r ) ( 1 +t/z) (0 < t), (2)
G3(t) = 1 - e x p [-(p/r)t]{cosh [(pZ 1)!/2/r]t+ [p/(p2_ 1)1/2] sinh [ ( p 2 1)1/2/~]t)
(0 < t),
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELASTIC REBOUND MODEL 435

In these expressions, p is a parameter defined by the relation p = ?/2(mk) 1/2, 7 being

viscous friction per unit velocity on the fault surfaces, k is the elastic stiffness of the
medium surrounding the fault, and m is the mass of inertia. The parameter p stands for
the magnitude of viscous component of friction. It seems likely in the case of actual
earthquakes that the fault-slip motion which commences according to D(t) is forced to
stop incompletely at t = T (T, rise time) for some reason before it stops owing to fric-
tional characteristics of the fault surfaces. Kanamori (1972) pointed out that fault plane
irreguiarities may be a dominant factor in preventing the slip motion. The fault-surface
roughness and the bounded nature of the fault also may be dominant factors in prevent-

0
- vto ~.
i
13to

~ ~ Fault
D/2 Dislocation
front

/
l/
FIG. 2. Map view showing seismic deformation near the dislocation front. The heavy broken lines show
the seismic deformation due to elastic rebound force.

ing the motion. If we consider the effect of these factors on the slip motion, then we have
the seismic dislocation
D - - D ( T ) = DoGi(T), (4)

where 0 < G~(T) =< 1 +exp { - n i p / ( 1 _p2)~/2]} and 0 < Gi(T ) < 1(i - 2, 3). The shear
stress drop Aa is related to D by (Maruyama, 1966)

Aa = (8K/~)IID/W, (5)

where K is (2 +/2)/(2 + 2/~) for a transverse shear fault and ½ for a longitudinal shear fault,
2 and # being Lam6's constants (/z = rigidity). The elastic stiffness k is given by
(Ohnaka, 1973a)
k = (8K/rc)pVto, (6)

where to is of the order of the time during which the fault is dislocated at the dislocation
front on the fault plane. If we assume that the dislocation pulse propagates with the shear-
wave velocity fl i n t h e direction perpendicular to the fault plane, then the mass of inertia
is given by (Figure 2)
m = ½pW(vto)(flto) , (7)

where p is the density. It has been suggested (Ohnaka, 1973a and 1973b) that the rise
436 MITIYASUOHNAKA

time T of the fault-slip time function is directly proportional to z = (m/k) 1/z. Let T be
represented by (Ohnaka, 1974)
r =- c~, (8)

where c is a numerical parameter which may depend on factors such as fault-plane

irregularities and fault-surface roughnesses. From (3), (6) and (7), if t o is put equal to z,
we obtain
z = (~/16K) W/ft. (9)

Substituting this into (6) and (7) we find

k = ½(v/fl)/~W, (10)

m = ½0z/16K)2(v/fl)p W 3 . (11)

From (10) and (11), we can estimate the stiffness of the medium surrounding the fault
and the mass of inertia for an earthquake.

SHEAR STRAIN DROP, EARTHQUAKEVOLUME, AND ELASTICSTRAIN ENERGY RELEASED

During the rise-time interval T, since a shear dislocation pulse propagates with shear-
wave velocity fl perpendicular to the dislocation surface, the pulse reaches the distance

d - - fiT (12)

from the dislocation surface. The distance d may be called the critical distance. The
seismic-wave energy radiated is connected with the elastic strain energy released within
the critical distance d from the dislocation surface. The quantity

Ae = (D/2)/d (13)

gives the average shear strain drop in the source region. The shear strain drop Ae was
estimated for many earthquakes and is listed in Table 1. It is found from Table 1 that
the order of magnitude of Ae is equal to or less than 10 -4. The earthquake volume V
whose concept was first proposed by Tsuboi (1956) is well defined for the present fault
model as
V = LW(2d). (14)

For earthquakes whose rise time, in addition to other source parameters, has already
been estimated on the basis of seismological data, the parameter c was estimated from (8)
and (9), and is listed in Table 1. We find from Table 1 that e = 1 ,,~ 2 for most earth-
quakes, although there is an extreme exception (Kamchatka earthquake). In order to
estimate the order of magnitude of d, Ae, and V, if we assume that c _~ l, we then have

d = (~/16K)W, (15)

Ae = ( 8 K / ~ ) D / W , (16)

V = O z / S K ) L W 2, (17)

from which the critical distance, the strain drop and the earthquake volume can be
estimated, respectively. The relation (16) predicts that D~ W is of the order of the strain
drop (~< 10-4) in a source region. In fact, Kasahara (1975) pointed out that the relation
D / W <~ 10 . 4 holds for many earthquakes.
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELASTIC REBOUND MODEL 437

The elastic strain energy released by the formation of a long shear fault is given by
(Maruyama, 1966)
E = ~/ 4;K \ )ktLL ,2 "~_
1+ X
g, (18)

where
0" 2 /32

0"i /31

TABLE 1
ESTIMATES OF THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF /~8, c, AND [)i,~it

Earthquake L W D ~ T <D> AE c G(p,c) "~

No. Date, Mag. (km) (km) (m) (bars) (see) (m/see) _n~

1 San Fernando 19 i) 14 D 1.4 I) ~50 i) 0.8 i) 1.70 2.5xi0 -4 0.69 0.11-0.08 450-580
1971, 6.6

Parkfield ~ 37 2) 3 2) 0.6 z) 76 0.6 3) 1.00 1.4xlO -4 1.77 0.33-0.24 790-1090

2 1966, 5.8 I 20 ~) 6 4) 1 . 2 0 76 0.7 4) 1.71 2.5xi0 -4 1.04 0.19-0.14 710-950

5),6) 5116)
3 Niigata 80-100 20 4 6) 126 s) 3 s) 1.33 1.8x10 -4 1.85 0.34-0.25 220-300
1964, 7.5

4 Tottori 33 7) 13 7) 2.5 7) 83 7) 3 7) 0.83 7) 1.2xi0-4 2.06 0.38-0.28 150-210

1943, 7.4

5 Nishi-Saitama 20 8) i0 8) 1 s) 43 a) 2 8) 0.50 s) 0.71xi0-4 1.77 0.33-0.24 120-160

1931, 7.0

6 Fukui 30 9) 13 o) 2.5 9) 83 9) 2.5 9) 1.00 9) 1.4xi0-4 1.71 0.32-0.23 180-250

1948, 7.3
Eehlzen-
7 misaki-oki 20 I0) 8 I0) 0.6 I0~ 32 I0) 2 i0) 0.3 i0) 0.43xi0-4 2.20 0.40-0.29 90-120
1963, 6.9

8 Saitama-chubu 6 ii) i0 ii) 0.9211) I00 ii) 1 ii) 0.9211) 1.0xlO -4 1.43 0.27-0.19 350-480
1968, 6.1

9 Sanriku 185 iz) i00 12) 3.3 lZ) 39 12) i0 12) 0.33 0.36xi0 -4 1.55 ~0.21 ~19
1933, 8.3

i0 Kamchatka 700 13) 60 lt0 5 lS) 74 30 14) 0.17 0.18x10 -4 5.82 ~0.62 ~15
1952, 8.25

p=2~3 is assumed.
I) Mikumo(1973a ), 2) Aki(1968), 3) Kawasaki(in preparatlon), 4) Trifunac and Udwadia(1974), s) Hirasawa(1965), 6) Aki
(1966), 7) Kanamori(1972b), s) Abe (1974), 0) Kanamori(1973), 10) Abe(1973a), 1 )) Abe (1973b), 12) Kanameri(1971a),
13) Ben-Mena~em and Toksbz (1963), 14) Heskel I (1964), 15) B~th and Benioff (1958).

and where 0-1 is the shear stress necessary to initiate seismic dislocation, 0.2 is the residual
shear stress after the earthquake, and ei is the shear strain related to 0.z by/3i = 0.d/~
(i = 1, 2). Eliminating' D, L and Wfrom (16), (17) and (18), we obtain

g = k,uA/32V . I + Z (19)
1-Z
or
E = ~/~el2V(1-X2), (19')

where the relation Ae = /31- e2 has been used. In particular, if the initial shear strain/31
is released completely to zero (/3z = 0), then (19') reduces to

E = ½#/312V. (20)

This is the equation used by Tsuboi (1956) when he estimated the upper limit of the total
radiated energy of the largest possible earthquake. In general, since it is unlikely insofar
as an earthquake source is a shear dislocation that the initial shear stress is released
438 MITIYASU OHNAKA

completely to zero by the formation of seismic dislocation, the elastic strain energy
released, E, should be represented as (19) or (19').

SEISMIC ENERGY RADIATED

Haskell (1964) derived the expression for the total wave energy radiated b y a propa-
gating fault. If we adopt the coordinate and the fault-plane geometry defined by Haskell
and consider that the fault-slip motion caused by an elastic rebound is represented by
equation (1), then the total seismic energy radiated E~ is given by

E~ = pflW2D2O/32gz, (21)
where

O = {G(p, g)}2 Oa +O~ , (22)

f GI(T) = 1 - e x p (-pc){cos (1 -p2)'/2c

+ [p/(1 _pZ)i/2] sin (1 -pZ)l/Ze},
where 0 < c < n/(1 _p2)1/2 (O=<p < 1),
a(p, c) =_ 6 , ( T ) = (23)
G2(T ) = 1 - e x p (-c)(1 +c) (p = 1),
G3(T ) = 1 - e x p (-pc){cosh ( p 2 _ 1)1/2 c
[ + [p/(pZ_ 1)i/z] sinh ( p 2 _ 1)1/2 c} (p > 1),

= I °l sin 2 20" sin 0 f~ sin z 20.sin 0

~)o~ JO ~ O S ~ 2 H(A~;p,c)dO+I(p,c) 01 (a_cos0) 2 dO

fo2 (cos 2 20+cos z 0) sin 0 H(Ap

O~ = o ( b - c o s 0) 2 ;p, c)dO (24)
+I(p, c ) f '~ (c°s2 20+COS20) sin
05 ( b - c o s 0) 2 0 dO
for a longitudinal shear fault and

= fol sin 5 0 f~ sin 5 0

®" J® (a--cos-O) 2 H(A,;p, c)dO+I(p, e) oi ( a - c o s 0) 2 dO
(25)
o2 (1 +cos 2 O)sin 3 0 n(Ap; p, c)dO+ I(p, c) f'~ (1 +cos 2 O)sin 3 0
Oa =
f 0
( b - c o s 0) 2 02 ( b - c o s 0) 2 dO

for a transverse shear fault. In these expressions

(~T/L < a-1),

01 = io s -1 (a-otT/L) (a-1 < ctT/L < a+ 1),
(c~T/L > a+ 1),
(26)
I0 (fiT/L < b - 1 ) ,
02 = ~ cos -1 (b-fiT/L) (b-1 < fiT/L < b+ 1),
(fiT/L > b + 1),
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELASTIC REBOUND MODEL 439

( 2 c - sin 2c)(1 - c o s A ) - ( 1 +cos 2c) sin A+2A cos A (p = 0),

1
- [1 - J l , +exp (PA){Jll cos (I --p2)l/2A
P
- [ p / ( 1 - p 2 ) l / q J l a sin (1-pZ)'/ZA}-exp (-pA)
x {cos (1 -p2)l/2A + [p/(1 _p2)1/2] sin (1 -pZ)*/ZA}]
(0 < p < 1),
H(A ; p, c) = (27)
1 - J 2 1 +exp (A)(J21 - A J z 2 ) - e x p (-A)(1 +A) (p = 1),
1
- [1 -J31 +exp (pA){J31 cosh (pZ_ 1)1/2A
P
_ [p/(p2_ 1)1/2]j32 sinh (p2_ 1)a/ZA} - e x p (-pA)
x {cosh (p2_ 1)1/2A + [p/(pZ_ 1)l/z] sinh (p2_ 1)1/2A}]
(p > 1),

2 e - sin 2c (p = 0),

1 (1-Jll) (0 < p < 1),

P (28)
1-J21 (p = I),

1
~p ( 1 - J 3 , ) (p > 1),

Jll = exp (-2pc){1 + [p/(1 _p2)1/2] sin 2 (1 __p2)1/2 C

+2[p/(1 _p2)1/212 sin 2 (1 _p2)1/2 c},
J21 = exp (-2e)[1 +2c+2e2],
J31 = exp (-2pc){1 + [p/(p2 _ 1)1/2] sinh 2 (p2_ 1)1/2 c
+2[p/(p2_ l)1/212 sinh 2 (p2_ 1)l/z c}, (29)
J12 = exp (-2pc){cos 2 (1 _p2)1/2 c+ [p/(1 _pZ)l/2] sin 2 (1 _pZ)l/z e},
J22 = exp (-2e)[1 +2e],
,/32 = exp (-2pc){cosh 2 (p2_ 1)l/z c+ [p/(p2_ 1)1/2]sin h 2 (p2_ 1)1/2 e},

A~ - (L/~r)(a-cos 0), Ap =- (L/flz)(b-cos 0),

a = e/v, and b =fl/v,

where c~ is the compressional-wave velocity and the spherical coordinate system

(r, O, ~b) with polar axis in the direction of fault propagation has been used. Using (9)
we rewrite (21) as
Es = (K®/2~z2)'# WD z (30)
and
c~T/L = (re~16K)(c/h)(a/b), flT/L = Qc/16K)(e/h),
A, = (16K/Tr)(b/a)h(a- cos 0), Ap = (16K/rOh(b-cos 0),
 440 MITIYASU O H N A K A

where h =- L / W and the relation pfl2 # has been used. The quantity (9 is the function
----

o f the parameters; a, b, c, h and p. However, equation (30) shows that E s is in direct

proportion to I~WD 2 when (9 is virtually regarded as constant. If we assume a = V'3b
(or 2 = #), b = 1.29, e = 1, h > 1.4 and 0 < p < 3, then (9 takes a value ranging

TABLE 2
EARTHQUAKESOURCEDATA

IMo L W D N2 ~WD2 References

No. Date Location M (dyn.cm) (km) (km) (m) (dyn/em) (erg)

1 1964,Mar.28 Alaska 8.5 7.5xi029 500 300 7 7xlO II 1.0xlO 25 Kanamori(1970b)

2 1933,Mar. 3 Sanriku,Japan 8.3 4~3xi028 185 i00 3.3 7x1011 7.6xi023 Kanamori(1971a)
Kanamori and
3 1960,May 22 Chile 8.3 2~7xi030 800 200 24 7x10 II 8.1x1024
Cipar(1974)
4 1952,Nov. 4 Kamchatka 8.25 1.5xlO 29 700 60 5 7xlO II l.lxl024 i Ben-Menahem and
Toksoz(1963),
Haskell(1964) and
BSth and Benioff(1958)
5 1963,Oct.13 Kurile Islands 8.2 7.5xi028 250 150 3 7x10 II 9.5xi023 Kanamori(1970a)
6 1946,Dec.20 Nankaido,Japan 8.1 1.5x1028 120 80 3.1 5x10 II 3.8xi023 Kanamori(1972a)
7 1944,Dec. 7 Tonankai,Japan 8.0 1.5x1028 120 80 3.1 5x10 II 3.8xi023 Kanamori(1972a)
8 1923,Sep. 1 Kanto, Japan 7.9 7.6x1027 130 70 2.1 4xlO II 1.2xlO 23 Kanamori(1971b)
Wu and
9 1965,Feb. 4 Rat Island 7.9 1.2x1029 450 150 2.6 7x10 II 7.1x1023 Kanamori(1970)*
10 1968,May 16 Tokachi-oki, 7.9 2.8xi028 150 i00 4.1 4.5xi0 II 7.6xi023 Kanamori(1971c)
Japan
ii 1970,May 31 Peru 7.6 1.0xl028 130 70 1.6 7x10 II 1.3x1023 Abe(1972c)
12 1964,June16 Niigata,Japan 7.5 3 x 1027 i00 20 4 3.7xi0 II 1.2xlO 23 Aki(1966)
13 1965,Mar.30 Rat Island 7.5 3.4xi027 80 50 1.2 7xlO II 8.1x1022 Abe(1972b)
14 1966,Oct.17 Peru 7.5 2.0x1028 140 80 2.6 7x10 II 3.8x1023 Abe(1972c)
15 1943,Sep.10 Tottori,Japan 7.4 3.6xi026 33 13 2.5 3.4x10 II 2.8xi022 Kanamori(1972b)
South Sandwich 7.4 6.2xi027 80 31 3.5 7x10 ll 2.7xi023 Abe(1972a)
16 1964,May 26 Islands
17 1948,June28 Fukui, Japan 7.3 3.3x1026 30 13 2.5 3.4x10 II 2.8x1022 Kanamori(1973)
Fukao and
18 1971,Sep. 5 Off Sakhalin 7.1 9.5xi026 70 25 1.5 3.7xi0 II 2.1x1022 Furumoto(1975)
19 1931,Sep.21 Nishi-Saitama,
Japan 7.0 6.8xi025 20 i0 1 3.4x10 II 3.4xi021 Abe(1974)
{ Fukao and
20 1940,Aug. 1 Shakotan-oki, 7.0 4.2xi027 170 50 i.i 4.5x10 II 2.7x1022 Furumoto(1975)
Japan
21 1963,Mar.27 Echizen-mfsaki, 6.9 3.3x1025 20 8 0.6 3.4x10 II 9.8xi020 Abe(1973a)
Japan
Fukao and
22 1964,May 7 Oga-oki,Japan 6.9 4.3xi026 50 20 1.2 3.7xi0 II l.lxl022 { Furumoto(i975)

23 1964,0ct.18 Banda Sea 6.9 5.8xi026 40 8 1.5 1.2x1012 2.2xi022 Fukao(1970)

24 1964,Jan.20 Melanesia 6.8 3.0xi026 29 17 0.87 6.5xi0 II 8.4xi021 Mikumo(1971)
25 1964,Apr.24 New Guinea 6.8 1.8x1026 33 9 1.25 6.5xi011 9.1x1021 Mikumo(1971)
26 1974,May 9 Izu, Japan 6.8 l.lxl026 25 15 1 3 x 1011 4.5x1021 Ando and Mikumo(1974)
27 1969,Sep. 9 Gifu, Japan 6.6 4.3xi025 20 10 0.72 3 x i0 II 1.6xlO 21 Mikumo(1973b)
28 1971,Feb. 9 San Fernando 6.6 1.1xl026 19 14 1.4 3 x 1011 8.2x1021 Mikumo(1973a)
Tonga-Kermadec 6.5 1.9x1026 34 13 0.66 6.5x10 II 3.7x1021 Mikumo(1971)
29 1963,July 4 Islands
30 1966,Feb. 4 Melanesia 6.3 1.6xi026 32 12 0.65 6.6xi0 II 3.3xi021 Mikumo(1971)
31 1970,0ct.16 Akita, Japan 6.2 2.2x1025 14 8 0.65 3 x i0 II 1.0xl021 Mikumo(1974)
Saitama-chubu, 6.1 1.9x1025 6 i0 0.92 3.4xi0 II 2.9xi021 Ahe(1973b)
32 1968,July 1 Japan li4x1025 37 3 0.6 3 x 1011 3.2x1020 {Aki(1968) and
Tsai and Aki(1969)
33 1966,June28 Parkfield 5.8 { Trifunae and
4.4xi025 20 6 1.2 3 x i0 II 2.6xi021
gdwadia(1974)

* Data from Table 3 in the paper of Abe(1972c).

from about 13 to 16 for a longitudinal shear fault and 7.8 to 9.3 for a transverse shear
fault. Hence the approximate relation
(K®/2~ 2) ~
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELAsTIc REBOUND MODEL 441

holds for both longitudinal shear and transverse shear faults. For the purpose of roughly
estimating the order of magnitude of E~, the quantity ® will be considered constant: this
is not an unreasonable assumption to the first-order approximation. The above approxi-
mate relation indicates that the order of magnitude of E~ is virtually given by ~tWD2/3.
In order to examine whether or not the relation Es "~ f l W D 2 holds for actual earth-
quakes, the reliable data on source parameters of earthquakes obtained by means of
detailed seismological analyses were selected. They are summarized in Table 2. The
deformation of an earthquake source estimated from geodetic data may involve such a
deformation with a time constant longer than several minutes as does not contribute to
the generation of seismic waves, whereas the source dislocation D estimated from
seismological data is associated with the seismic-wave radiation. For this reason, the
data listed in Table 2 are restricted to only the results determined from seismological

rOs5 I I I 0 • -
/
/
/
/
I0 24
./&
•//•,
A
/
~I0 23 /
%
/,

1022

I0 21 •

logEs= 11.8+ [.SM

/
iO 2o I i L
5 6 7 8 9
MQgnitude

FIG. 3. Earthquake magnitude versus the product of rigidity 11, fault width W and the square of
the seismic slippage D. The broken line shows Gutenberg-Richter's energy versus magnitude relation;
loges = 1.5M+11.8.

data. Thirty-three shocks are included in the list. In Figure 3,/~ W D 2 is plotted against the
magnitude M for these events. The broken line in the figure indicates the Gutenberg and
Richter energy-magnitude relationship; log Es = 1.5M+ 11.8. Figure 3 shows that the
approximate relation
Es ,.~ ] . t W O 2

provides a satisfactory fit to the up-to-date set of data used here. It is interesting that the
order of magnitude of the seismic energy radiated is virtually given by/~ WD 2.
As is seen from the above description, the theoretical result differs from the empirical
result estimated from the Gutenberg and Richter energy-magnitude relationship by a
442 MITIYASU OHNAKA

factor of about 3. This discrepancy may be due to over-simplification of the assumed

model and it can be corrected by assuming partial incoherence for the model (Haskell,
1964). It should be noted, however, that the discrepancy of a factor of 3 or so is not
necessarily significant because of the uncertainty in the energy-magnitude empirical
relationship.

FAULT-SLIP ACCELERATION

Taking the time derivatives of equation (1), we obtain the fault-slip velocity and
acceleration. The maximum slip velocity bin, x, the average slip velocity ( / ) ) and the
initial slip acceleration hi,jr are given by (Ohnaka, 1974)

Di.Jt - G(p, c) ~- = 4 D--o (33)

O" ~ (7"1 - - O"0

Act D
- - a(p, c)
6 DO
where ~0 is the kinetic frictional stress in solid friction, and concrete forms of the
functions F(p, c), f(p, q), and g(p, c) are given in a previous paper (Ohnaka, 1974). Ifit
is assumed that the slip motion occurs equally on both sides of the fault plane, the initial
particle acceleration is
Uinit ~1D "'i n i t .

Recently the average (or the maximum) slip velocity, in addition to other source
parameters such as the fault size, slippage, and stress drop, has been estimated for many
earthquakes on the basis of seismological data. For these earthquakes, the parameter c
is determined from (32) or (31); hence the initial slip acceleration on the fault plane can
be estimated from (33) ifp is appropriately assumed.
According to Trifunac and Hudson (1971), the Pacoima Dam strong-motion recordings
of the San Fernando earthquake, February 9, 1971, represent the strongest ground
shaking yet recorded from an earthquake. The ground accelerations during the
earthquake at the Pacoima Dam site are shown in Figure 4 (after Trifunac and Hudson,
1971). The origin of the time scale coincides with the triggering of the instrument, which
was probably caused by the initial P waves from the hypocenter (Trifunac and Hudson,
1971). The largest accelerations exceeded I g at around 8.0 sec. These high-frequency later
motions are difficult to explain by a simple, smoothly propagating fault, whereas the
longer-period motions around 2.0 to 4.0 sec are clearly related to the faulting (or initial
rupture) process (Boore and Zoback, 1974). From Figure 4 the longer-period ground
accelerations around 2.0 to 4.0 sec are roughly estimated to be 400 to 600 gal. If the
order of magnitude of the initial particle acceleration is assumed nearly equal to 400 to
600 gal for the San Fernando earthquake, it is found from (33) that p takes a value
ranging from about 2 to 3.
In Table 1 the order of magnitude of the initial particle acceleration dTin~tderived from
(33) for many earthquakes whose source parameters such as slip velocity, stress drop and
slippage have been estimated is tabulated, where p = 2 ~ 3 has been assumed for all the
 A PHYSICALBASIS FOR EARTHQUAKESBASED ON ELASTICREBOUNDMODEL 443

earthquakes listed. T h e values of kt and/~ were taken from an original paper from which
data on source parameters for each earthquake were cited: when the values of/~ and/~
were not given in the original paper, appropriate values were assumed for p and ft.
As is seen from Table 1, the initial acceleration of the principal dislocation motion on the
fault plane is of a range of the order of 102 to 103 gal for most earthquakes: it is of the
order of 10 to 20 gal, exceptionally small values, for the Sanriku earthquake of March 3,
1933 and for the Kamchatka earthquake of November 4, 1952. The estimates of the initial
acceleration from (33) depend greatly upon such source parameters as slip velocity,
slippage, stress drop, and p. Therefore, there may be a large uncertainty in the accelera-
J

GROUND ACCELERATION

~ °

GROUND ACCELERATION

%
uE

o I10 15T

GROUND ACCELERATION
iooo

==
_J

,I~ ,;
seconds
FIG. 4. Ground acceleration for each of the three components of the Pacoima Dam accelerogram--
San Fernando earthquake February 9, 1971 (reproduced from Trifunac and Hudson, 1971).
tion estimates due to the uncertainty in the source parameters. In spite of the uncertainty
in the acceleration estimates, however, the initial accelerations for the Sanriku and the
Kamchatka earthquakes seem to be significantly different from those for the other earth-
quakes, although this may suggest that the assumption t h a t p is constant for all the earth-
quakes listed in Table 1 is incorrect.

SEISMIC MOMENT
We consider the seismic moment on the basis of the elastic rebound model (Figure 5).
 444 MITIYASUOHNAKA
We use a Cartesian coordinate system with the (x, z) plane being the fault plane and the
y axis normal to the fault plane. Let the dislocation front be propagated along the
x axis. Let the heavy solid line in Figure 5 be pre-seismie deformation, on a greatly
exaggerated scale, of a line initially normal to the fault trace: the deformation is the
result of a long period of strain accumulation. Let r/be the distance between the fault
plane and the point where the relation t u / @ = 0 may be considered to hold, and let
u+, and u_, be the displacements in the x direction at y = r/ and y = - q, respectively.
Let
D --- u + - u _
be the shear dislocation resulting from the elastic rebounds of the sides of the fault plane,
where u+ and u_ are the displacements in the x direction for a point having been at
origin before the elastic rebounds, on the surfaces of the plus and minus sides, respec-
tively, of the fault after the rebounds (cf. Figure 5). In general D # u + ~ - u _ , b e c a u s e
friction on the fault plane may produce such a residual strain as shown by the heavy
broken lines in Figure 5. We can determine the moment of the elastic rebound forces.
For such a cage as shown in Figure 5, a shear force ryx per unit area on the (x, z) plane
acts in the x direction; its moment about the z axis is y(~yx/3y)dy. Hence the total

~T
u+q "r +--Y~d,, •
yx ~y
r~--"
aT_..
',~,
Y i i

" ~ u Y q y y+dy

u-q

FIG. 5. Deformation due to elastic rebound force. The heavy solid line gives deformation of a line
initially normal to the fault plane during a period of strain accumulation. The heavy broken lines show
seismic deformation due to elastic rebound force. The arrows indicate the elastic rebound motion.
Seismic moment per unit area on the volume element 1 x dy x 1 about z axis is y@rrx/~y)dy.

moment of the forces per unit area is, immediately before the earthquake,
y ay = r,,-,-(,]', - (" .(I)A, CG~/(1)
,, ey <.-.x-, j_ ~...z=- -,#-~y Uy=-~(u+e-u_,), (34)

where the superscript (1) denotes "immediately before the earthquake". Similarly, the
total moment per unit area immediately after the earthquake is

fr/ y ~(2)
_u~.,
_ d y = lY~yx
Y
~y~ . l - , - ,fit_ ~y~
~ (z)l, .(z).~.,
.;. = - fq ]'/ ~/2(2)
~Y-Y dy = -Ix(u+ , - u _ , - D), (35)
- iI rl rl

where the superscript (2) denotes "immediately after the earthquake". Subtracting (35)
from (34), we have

f ~ . y ~y3 rr(i)-r(Z)ldy
= , __y,y ~. -/xD. (36)

The right-hand side of equation (36) is nothing but the seismic moment per unit area.
We investigate the relation between the total seismic moment M o ( = txDLW) and the
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELASTIC REBOUND MODEL 445

earthquake magnitude M for actual earthquakes. Figure 6 shows the relation between
M° and M. The data used here is for 116 shocks occurring worldwide: in addition to the
33 earthquakes listed in Table 2 in this paper, we used the following earthquake data:
3 shocks listed in Table 10 in the paper of Hanks and Wyss (1972), 10 shocks listed in
Table 3 in Ishida's (1974) paper, 60 shocks belonging to quality A (all quantities well
defined) selected out of the earthquakes listed in Table 1 in the paper of Thatcher and
Hanks (1973), 8 shocks whose fault dimension is estimated, selected out of the earthquakes
listed in Table 1 in the paper of Wyss and Brune (1968), and 2 shocks whose fault
:51

/
[ I I l I I I i

50
i/
A/A I
29
/;',
"p,g I
28
• 7~,. ,'
27
~// iI
0

~' 26

25

-~ z4 °o 08
°
25

22

21 /o
oO
/
20
o/°°
19 I "l I I I J I I
2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
M
FIG. 6. Plot of the logarithm o f seismic m o m e n t M o against earthquake magnitude M. 0 , the earth-
quakes occurring in and near Japan; ©, U.S.A.; A, Kurile and Aleutians; ~, Iran and Turkey; ~', New
Guinea to Fuji Islands; v, South America and South Sandwich Islands.

dimension is estimated, selected out of the earthquakes listed in Table 1 in the paper
of Wyss and Molnar (1972). These earthquakes fall in the magnitude range 2.0 to 8.5.
The relationship between Mo and M has been expressed by the following empirical
equation (Wyss and Brune, 1968; Thatcher and Hanks, 1973; Kasahara, 1975)

log Mo = aiM+b1, (37)

446 M1TIYASU OHNAKA

where aa and b I are constants. From Figure 6, however, the correlation of equation (37)
is found to be unsatisfactory for large earthquakes with M > 7: if examined in detail,
it is found from Figure 6 that the slope A(log M o ) / A M increases systematically with the
increase in M, particularly for M > 7.
In the data used here, three different kinds of magnitudes are included : M L (Richter's
local magnitude), MffM a (Tsuboi's magnitude) and M s (surface-wave magnitude).
Although ML and M s were originally constructed to be in agreement between magnitudes
6 and 7 (Richter, 1958), later investigations indicated that M s is smaller than ML for
California local shocks with M < 6 (Richter, 1958; Wyss and Brune, 1968). Often ML
is used for shocks with M < 6 and M s is for M > 6. In spite of these facts and an
uncertainty in magnitudes due to the mixture of different magnitudes, however, it seems
significant that the slope A(log M o ) / A M increases systematically with the increase in M
for larger earthquakes (M > 7), and this can be explained on clear physical ground, as
described below.
The tendency that the slope A(log M o ) / A M increases systematically with the increase
in M for larger earthquakes is based on the following two facts : (1) an actual earthquake
source is not a point source, but a source with finite fault dimensions, and in general the
larger the earthquake magnitude is, the larger fault dimensions the source has, and (2)
in reality the fault dislocation is not established instantaneously over the fault plane,
but propagates with a finite velocity over the finite fault plane. If an earthquake source
is a point source, the curve of the observations of log M o versus M is expected to be linear,
as expressed by (37). However, an actual earthquake source is a finite propagating source.
Therefore, there is the time lag between the dislocation pulses generated at different
points on the fault plane. For this reason, the maximum amplitude of the far-field wave
motion is not linearly related to the seismic moment M o, especially in the case of great
earthquakes with extremely large fault dimensions such as the Chile earthquake of
May 22, 1960 and the Alaska earthquake of March 28, 1964. It follows that the nonlinear
relation between log M o and M is observed, as shown in Figure 6.
We wish to show that the maximum amplitude of the far-field wave displacement is in
proportion to VMo/L, and that log(Mo/L) is linearly related to M. The far-field displace-
ment in an infinite homogeneous medium is in proportion to (Haskell, 1964)

vl~DW
s, = ~ w b ( ¢ , t - r/a) d~ - [~(r)-,eft-t,)], (38)
1 - ( V / s ) cos 0

where
D(~, t) = D ` e ( t - ~ / v ) ,

r = ro-~cosO,

Y = t-ro/C~ ,

t~ = ( L / v ) ( 1 - (v/a) cos 0).

In these expressions `e(t) is a normalized source-time function satisfying the conditions

`e=0 (t < 0),

`e = 1 ( T < t ) ,

and ~ is a coordinate of the point of integration on the fault plane, and ro is the distance
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELASTIC REBOUND MODEL 447

from the source origin. We have from (38)

[ vl~DW
(T < t,),
r 1 - ( v / a ) cos 0
(39)
] vltDW
'v(t,) (T > t~),
[ 1 -(v/a)cos 0
where 0 < W(t~) < 1. A similar expression holds for Jp with fl replacing a. Hence we find
from (39) that the maximum amplitude of the far-field displacement is proportional to
vl~DW = v(Mo/L). (40)

25

22

21
/
20
:4:

o ~/~

o
olO~ °
~7
0 (

16

J5
°Oo°-I0g(Mo/L/:J2M+,,7
I I I I I I
142 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
M
FIG. 7. Plot of the logarithm of seismic moment per unit length MolL against earthquake magnitude M.
See Figure 6 for an explanation of the symbols used.

The quantity vktD W has the physical meaning that it is the seismic moment for the area
v Wswept on the fault plane by the dislocation front per unit time.
If it is assumed that the propagating velocity of dislocation (rupture velocity) is almost
constant for actual earthquakes, then the above result shows that log(MolL ) should be
linearly related to M. In Figure 7, log (MolL) is plotted against M for the same earthquake
data used in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows that the good linear relation between log (MolL)
448 MITIYASU OHNAKA

and M holds for actual earthquakes over the wide range of M: the result is
loglo (MolL)= 1.2M+ 11.7. (41)
The relation (41) shows that the seismic moment per unit length is directly proportional
to the 1.2 power of the maximum amplitude of the ground motion t this is the empirical
result. Theoretically, however, the ground-motion amplitude should be in direct propor-
tion to the moment. If we assume a two-dimensionally propagating fault model (i.e., a
dislocation initiates at a point and the dislocation front propagates radially on the fault
plane at a constant speed v, forming a circular dislocation surface), we can find that the

[6 I I I I I I

/ v
15 J
/
/ A A/
- % ,,t:
~4 / °~ o'

-2 @ @ •
E
~L3 /
._c
/
/
o3
/o /
/
~12 /
/ --O~o8,o~ /
v
o ° Iog(Mo/S) oc M
o / 0 0 /
/
/
/
IO /
/

8 L I I I I J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
M
FIG. 8. Plot of the logarithm of seismic moment per unit area Mo/Sagainst earthquake magnitude M.
See Figure 6 for an explanation of the symbols used.

far-field displacement in an infinite homogeneous medium is in proportion to

v(Mo/R),
where R is the radius of the circular fault. The quantity vMo/(2R) is equivalent to
vMo/L, which is given in (40). Hence, the:laterally (or one-dimensionally) propagating
fault model used here is not the reason why the coefficient of M in equation (41) is not
unity, but 1.2. Further detailed investigation is necessary to solve the discrepancy in the
coefficient of M between the theoretical and the empirical results: this will be left for a
future study.
In Figure 8 the logarithm of the seismic moment per unit area is plotted against M
for all the earthquakes whose fault area is estimated, selected out of the data used in
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELASTIC REBOUND MODEL 449

F i g u r e 6. The empirical relation

log (Mo/S) oc M

(S, fault area) seems to h o l d (Figure 8).

In conclusion, we s u m m a r i z e as follows; the correlation o f e q u a t i o n (37) is n o t neces-
sarily reasonable f r o m the physical viewpoint a n d does n o t p r o v i d e a satisfactory fit to
the observations, especially to those m a d e u p o n large m a g n i t u d e earthquakes. It should
be n o t e d that the coefficient a 1 in equation (37) d e p e n d s u p o n the fault dimension.
The relation p r e d i c t e d theoretically between M o a n d M is o f the f o r m

log ( M o l l ) = a 2 M + b 2 (42)
or
log Mo = a 2 M + b2 + l o g L , (42')

where a 2 a n d b 2 are constants. The relation (42) is a g o o d fit to the actual e a r t h q u a k e

d a t a ( F i g u r e 7). The following relation

log (Mo/S) = M + b 3 (43)

or
IogM o = M + b 3+log S (43')

(b3, a constant) also seems to h o l d empirically.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is grateful to Dr. Takuo Maruyama for stimulating and helpful discussions on many aspects
of this work. In finding the relation that the maximum amplitude of the far-field displacement is linearly
related to vMo/L, the author benefited from discussions with Drs. T. Maruyama and Yoshimitsu Okada.
Dr. T. Maruyama kindly checked some of the results.

REFERENCES
Abe, K. (1972a). Focal process of the south Sandwich Islands earthquake of May 26, 1964, Phys. Earth
Planet. Interiors 5, 110-122.
Abe, K. (1972b). Lithospheric normal faulting beneath the Aleutian trench, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors
5, 190-198.
Abe, K. (1972c). Mechanisms and tectonic implications of the 1966 and 1970 Peru earthquakes, Phys.
Earth Planet. Interiors 5, 367-379.
Abe, K. (1973a). Fault motion of the Echizen-misaki Oki earthquake of 1963, Abstract, Spring Annual
Meeting of Seism. Soe. Japan, p. 128 (in Japanese).
Abe, K. (1973b). Focal process of the Saitama-chubu earthquake of 1968, Abstract, Fall Annual Meeting
ofSeism. Soc. Japan, p. 112 (in Japanese).
Abe, K. (1974). Seismic displacement and ground motion near a fault: The Saitama earthquake of
September 21, 1931, J. Geophys. Res. 79, 4393-4399.
Aki, K. (1966). Generation and propagation of G waves from the Niigata earthquake of June 16, 1964.
Part 2. Estimation of earthquake moment, released energy, and stress-strain drop from the G wave
spectrum, Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 44, 73-88.
Aki, K. (1968). Seismic displacements near a fault, J. Geophys. Res. 73, 5359-5376.
Ando, M. and T. Mikumo (1974). Source mechanism of the Izu earthquake of May 9, 1974, Abstract,
Fall Annual Meeting of Seism. Soc. Japan, p. 21 (in Japanese).
450 MITIYASU OHNAKA

B~tth, M. and H. Benioff (1958). The aftershock sequence of the Kamchatka earthquake of November 4,
1952, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 48, 1-15.
Ben-Menahem, A. and M. N. Toks6z (1963). Source mechanism from spectrums of long-period surface
waves. 2. The Kamchatka earthquake of November 4, 1952, J. Geophys. Res. 68, 5207-5222.
Boore, D. M. and M. D. Zoback (1974). Two-dimensional kinematic fault modeling of the Pacoima Dam
strong-motion recordings of the February 9, 1971, San Fernando earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.
64, 555-570.
Fitch, T. J. and C. H. Scholz (1971). Mechanism of underthrusting in southwest Japan: A model of
convergent plate interactions, J. Geophys. Res. 76, 7260-7292.
Fukao, Y. (1970). Focal process of a deep focus earthquake as deduced from long period P and S waves,
Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 48, 707-727.
Fukao, Y. and M. Furumoto (1975). Mechanism of large earthquakes along the eastern margin of the
Japan Sea, Tectonophysics 25, 247-266.
Hanks, T. C. and M. Wyss (1972). The use of body-wave spectra in the determination of seismic-source
parameters, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 62, 561-589.
Haskell, N. A. (1964). Total energy and energy spectral density of elastic wave radiation from propagating
faults, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 54, 1811-1841.
Hirasawa, T. (1965). Source mechanism of the Niigata earthquake of June 16, 1964, as derived from
body waves, J. Phys. Earth 13, 35-66.
Ishida, M. (1974). Determination of fault parameters of small earthquakes in the Kii Peninsula, J. Phys.
Earth 22, 177-212.
Kanamori, H. (1970a). Synthesis of long-period surface waves and its application to earthquake source
studies--Kurile Islands earthquake of October 13, 1963, J. Geophys. Res. 75, 5011-5027.
Kanamori, H. (1970b). The Alaska earthquake of 1964: Radiation of long-period surface waves and
source mechanism, J. Geophys. Res. 75, 5029-5040.
Kanamori, H. (1971a). Seismological evidence for a lithospheric normal faulting--The Sanriku earth-
quake of 1933, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors 4, 289-300.
Kanamori, H. (1971 b). Faulting of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923 as revealed by seismological data,
Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 49, 13-18.
Kanamori, H. (1971c). Focal mechanism of the Tokachi-oki earthquake of May 16, 1968: Contortion
of the lithosphere at a junction of two trenches, Tectonophysics 12, 1-13.
Kanamori, H. (1972a). Tectonic implications of the 1944 Tonankai and the 1946 Nankaido earthquakes,
Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors 5, 129-139.
Kanamori, H. (1972b). Determination of effective tectonic stress associated with earthquake faulting.
The Tottori earthquake of 1943, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors 5, 426-434.
Kanamori, H. (1973). Mode of strain release associated with major earthquakes in Japan, Ann. Rev. Earth
Planet. Sci. 1,213-239.
Kanamori, H. (1974). A new view of earthquakes, Physics of the Earth, Maruzen, Tokyo, 261-282 (in
Japanese).
Kanamori, H. and J. J. Cipar (1974). Focal process of the great Chilean earthquake May 22, 1960, Phys.
Earth Planet. Interiors 9, 128-136.
Kasahara, K. (1975). Standard values for fat]It parameters, Abstract, Spring Annual Meeting of Seism.
Soc. Japan, p. 8 (in Japanese).
Kawasaki, I. (in preparation). On the dynamical process of the Parkfield earthquake of June 28, 1966.
Maruyama, T. (1966). On two-dimensional elastic dislocations in an infinite and semi-infinite medium,
Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 44, 811-871.
Mikumo, T. (1971). Source process of deep and intermediate earthquakes as inferred from long-period
P and S wave forms. I. Intermediate-depth earthquakes in the southwest Pacific region, J. Phys.
Earth 19, 1-19.
Mikumo, T. (1973a). Faulting process of the San Fernando earthquake of February 9, 1971 inferred
from static and dynamic near-field displacements, Bull. Seism. Soe. Am. 63, 249-269.
Mikumo, T. (1973b). Faulting mechanism of the Gifu earthquake of September 9, 1969, and some related
problems, J. Phys. Earth 21,191-212.
Mikumo, T. (1974). Some considerations on the faulting mechanism of the southeastern Akita earthquake
of October 16, 1970, J. Phys. Earth 22, 87-108.
Ohnaka, M. (1973a). A physical understanding of the earthquake source mechanism, J. Phys. Earth 21,
39-59.
Ohnaka, M. (1973b). Experimental studies of stick-slip and their application to the earthquake source
mechanism, J. Phys. Earth 21,285-303.
 A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR EARTHQUAKES BASED ON ELASTIC REBOUND MODEL 451

Ohnaka, M. (1974). A physical understanding of the earthquake source mechanism. Part II. The fault-
slip velocity and acceleration, J. Phys. Earth 22, 383-394.
Reid, H. F. (1911). The elastic-rebound theory of earthquake, Univ. Calif. Publ., Bull. Dept. Geol. 6,
413-444.
Richter, C. F. (1958). Elementary Seismology, Freeman, San Francisco, p. 347.
Scholz, C. H. (1972). Crustal movements in tectonic areas, Tectonophysics 14, 201-217.
Thatcher, W. andT. C. Hanks (1973). Source parameters of southern California earthquakes, J. Geophys.
Res. 78, 8547-8576.
Trifunac, M. D. and D. E. Hudson (1971). Analysis of the Pacoima Dam accelerogram--San Fernando,
California, earthquake of 1971, Bull. Seisrn. Soc. Am. 61, 1393-141 I.
Trifunac, M. D. and F. E. Udwadia (1974). Parkfield, California, earthquake of June 27, 1966: A three-
dimensional moving dislocation, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 64, 511-533.
Tsai, Y.-B. and K. Aki (1969). Simultaneous determination of the seismic moment and attenuation of
seismic surface waves, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 59, 275-287.
Tsuboi, C. (1956). Earthquake energy, earthquake volume, aftershock area, and strength of the earth's
crust, ar. Phys. Earth 4, 63-66.
Wu, F. T. and H. Kanamori (1970). Body and surface waves source mechanisms of the 1965 Rat Island
earthquake, Abstract, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 51, p. 355.
Wyss, M. and J. N. Brune (1968). Seismic moment, stress, and source dimensions for earthquakes in the
California-Nevada region, J. Geophys. Res. 73, 4681-4694.
Wyss, M. and P. Molnar (1972). Efficiency, stress drop, apparent stress, effective stress, and frictional
stress of Denver, Colorado, earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res. 77, 1433-1438.

EARTHQUAKERESEARCHINSTITUTE
UNIVERSITYOF TOKYO
BUNKYO-Ku, TOKYO
JAPAN

Manuscript received August 6, 1975.