HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by SUYEHIRO, S. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Difference between aftershocks and foreshocks in the relationship of magnitude to frequency of occurrence for the great Chilean earthquake of 1960

CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TERRESTRIAL MAGNETISM, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Abstract

When a relatively small perceptible earthquake occurred near a tripartite net of high sensitivity in central Japan, a substantial difference was found between its 25 foreshocks and 173 aftershocks in the relation of frequency of occurrence and magnitude. For that study the coefficient "b" in the magnitude versus frequency equation is 0.35 for the former and 0.76 for the latter.

A similar investigation has been carried out on the great Chilean earthquake of 1960, also accompanied by many foreshocks and aftershocks. Using four sensitive and suitably located U.S.C.G.S. stations, Eureka, Tucson, South Pole, and Byrd, foreshocks and aftershocks were located in addition to those reported by U.S.C.G.S. or B.C.I.S. Forty-five foreshocks and 250 aftershocks were found in a period of 33 hours before and 33 hours after the main shock. The same characteristic found for the Japanese earthquake was also found for the Chilean earthquake; i.e. the foreshocks showed a different picture from the aftershocks for the frequency of occurrence, and an appreciably smaller value seems to be valid for "b" of the foreshocks.

Footnotes

On leave from Japan Meteorological Agency

This article has been cited by other articles:

				The Maximum Likelihood Estimator of b-Value for Mainshocks Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2003; 93(5): 2082 - 2088.

				M. NIAZI and Y. BOZORGNIA The 1990 Manjil, Iran, earthquake: Geology and seismology overview, PGA attenuation, and observed damage Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1992; 82(2): 774 - 799. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. D. MORGAN, G. WADGE, J. LATCHMAN, W. P. ASPINALL, D. HUDSON, and F. SAMSTAG The earthquake hazard alert of September 1982 in Southern Tobago Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1988; 78(4): 1550 - 1562. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. ISHIDA and M. OHTAKE Seismicity and waveforms of the microearthquakes before and after the Shizuoka-Seibu earthquake, central Japan Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1984; 74(2): 605 - 620. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. LOMNITZ and F. A. NAVA The predictive value of seismic gaps Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1983; 73(6A): 1815 - 1824. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. SHI and B. A. BOLT The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1982; 72(5): 1677 - 1687. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. MCGARR and R. W. E. GREEN Microtremor sequences and tilting in a deep mine Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1978; 68(6): 1679 - 1697. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. A. NOWROOZI Seismicity of the mendocino escarpment and the aftershock sequence of June 26, 1968: Ocean bottom seismic measurements Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1973; 63(2): 441 - 456. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. LAHR and P. W. POMEROY The foreshock-aftershock sequence of the March 20 1966 earthquake in the Republic of Congo Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1970; 60(4): 1245 - 1258. [Abstract] [PDF]