GDGDG

Moment magnitude scale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
To use "Mw" in Wikipedia see Template:M.
For a review of different magnitude scales, see seismic magnitude scales.
Part of a series on
Earthquakes
Types[show]
Causes[show]
Characteristics[show]
Measurement[show]
Prediction[show]
Other topics[show]
Earth Sciences Portal
Category Related topics
vte
The moment magnitude scale (MMS; denoted explicitly with Mw or Mw, and generally
implied with use of a single M for magnitude[1]) is a measure of an earthquake's
magnitude ("size" or strength) based on its seismic moment (a measure of the "work"
done by the earthquake[2]), expressed in terms of the familiar magnitudes of the
original "Richter" magnitude scale.
Moment magnitude (Mw) is considered the authoritative magnitude scale for ranking
earthquakes by size[3] because it is more directly related to the energy of an
earthquake, and does not saturate. (That is, it does not underestimate magnitudes
like other scales do in certain conditions.[4]) It has become the standard scale
used by seismological authorities (such as the U.S. Geological Survey[5]),
replacing (when available, typically for M > 4) use of the ML (Local magnitude) and
Ms (surface-wave magnitude) scales. Subtypes of the moment magnitude scale (Mww?,
etc.) reflect different ways of estimating the seismic moment.
Contents
1 History
1.1 "Richter" scale: the original measure of earthquake magnitude
1.2 Single couple or double couple
1.3 Dislocation theory
1.4 Seismic moment
1.5 Introduction of an energy-motivated magnitude Mw
1.6 Moment magnitude scale
2 Current use
3 Definition
4 Relations between seismic moment, potential energy released and radiated
energy
5 Comparative energy released by two earthquakes
6 Subtypes of Mw
7 See also
8 Notes
9 Sources
10 External links
History
"Richter" scale: the original measure of earthquake magnitude
Main article: Richter magnitude scale
At the beginning of the twentieth century, very little was known about how
earthquakes happen, how seismic waves are generated and propagate through the
earth's crust, and what they can tell us about the earthquake rupture process; the
first magnitude scales were therefore empirical.[6] The initial step in determining
earthquake magnitudes empirically came in 1931 when the Japanese seismologist Kiyoo
Wadati showed that the maximum amplitude of an earthquake's seismic waves
diminished with distance at a certain rate.[7] Charles F. Richter then worked out
how to adjust for epicentral distance (and some other factors) so that the
logarithm of the amplitude of the seismograph trace could be used as a measure of
"magnitude" that was internally consistent and corresponded roughly with estimates
of an earthquake's energy.[8] He established a reference point and the now familiar
ten-fold (exponential) scaling of each degree of magnitude, and in 1935 published
his "magnitude" scale, now called the Local magnitude scale, labeled ML?.[9]
The Local magnitude scale was developed on the basis of shallow (~15 km (9 mi)
deep), moderate-sized earthquakes at a distance of approximately 100 to 600 km (62
to 373 mi), conditions where the surface waves are predominant. At greater depths,
distances, or magnitudes the surface waves are greatly reduced, and the Local
magnitude scale underestimates the magnitude, a problem called saturation.
Additional scales were developed[10] � a surface-wave magnitude scale (Ms) by Beno
Gutenberg in 1945[11], a body-wave magnitude scale (mB) by Gutenberg and Richter in
1956,[12] and a number of variants[13] � to overcome the deficiencies of the ML?
scale, but all are subject to saturation. A particular problem was that the Ms?
scale (which in the 1970s was the preferred magnitude scale) saturates around Ms?
8.0, and therefore underestimates the energy release of "great" earthquakes[14]
such as the 1960 Chilean and 1964 Alaskan earthquakes. These had Ms? magnitudes of
8.5 and 8.4 respectively but were notably more powerful than other M 8 earthquakes;
their moment magnitudes were closer to 9.6 and 9.3.[15]
Single couple or double couple

The study of earthquakes is challenging as the source events cannot be observed
directly, and it took many years to develop the mathematics for understanding what
the seismic waves from an earthquake can tell us about the source event. An early
step was to determine how different systems of forces might generate seismic waves
equivalent to those observed from earthquakes.[16]
The simplest force system is a single force acting on an object. If it has

sufficient strength to overcome any resistance it will cause the object to move
("translate"). A pair of forces, acting on the same "line of action" but in
opposite directions, will cancel; if they cancel (balance) exactly there will be no
net translation, though the object will experience stress, either tension or
compression. If the pair of forces are offset, acting along parallel but separate
lines of action, the object experiences a rotational force, or torque. In mechanics
(the branch of physics concerned with the interactions of forces) this model is
called a couple, also simple couple or single couple. If a second couple of equal
and opposite magnitude is applied their torques cancel; this is called a double
couple.[17] A double couple can be viewed as "equivalent to a pressure and tension
acting simultaneously at right angles".[18]
The single couple and double couple models are important in seismology because each
can be used to derive how the seismic waves generated by an earthquake event should
appear in the "far field" (that is, at distance). Once that relation is understood
it can be inverted to use the earthquake's observed seismic waves to determine its
other characteristics, including fault geometry and seismic moment.[19]
In 1923 Hiroshi Nakano showed that certain aspects of seismic waves could be
explained in terms of a double couple model.[20] This led to a three-decade long
controversy over the best way to model the seismic source: as a single couple, or a
double couple?[21] While Japanese seismologists favored the double couple, most
seismologists favored the single couple.[22] Although the single couple model had
some short-comings, it seemed more intuitive, and there was a belief � mistaken, as
it turned out � that the elastic rebound theory for explaining why earthquakes
happen required a single couple model.[23] In principle these models could be
distinguished by differences in the radiation patterns of their S-waves, but the
quality of the observational data was inadequate for that.[24]
The debate ended when Maruyama (1963), Haskell (1964), and Burridge & Knopoff
(1964) showed that if earthquake ruptures are modeled as dislocations the pattern
of seismic radiation can always be matched with an equivalent pattern derived from
a double couple, but not from a single couple.[25] This was confirmed as better and
more plentiful data coming from the World-Wide Standard Seismograph Network (WWSSN)
permitted closer analysis of seismic waves. Notably, in 1966 Keiiti Aki showed that
the seismic moment of the 1964 Niigata earthquake as calculated from the seismic
waves on the basis of a double couple was in reasonable agreement with the seismic
moment calculated from the observed physical dislocation.[26]
Dislocation theory
A double couple model suffices to explain an earthquake's far-field pattern of
seismic radiation, but tells us very little about the nature of an earthquake's
source mechanism or its physical features.[27] While slippage along a fault was
theorized as the cause of earthquakes (other theories included movement of magma,
or sudden changes of volume due to phase changes[28]), observing this at depth was
not possible, and understanding what could be learned about the source mechanism
from the seismic waves requires an understanding of the source mechanism.[29]
Modeling the physical process by which an earthquake generates seismic waves

required much theoretical development of dislocation theory, first formulated by
the Italian Vito Volterra in 1907, with further developments by E. H. Love in 1927.
[30] More generally applied to problems of stress in materials,[31] an extension by
F. Nabarro in 1951 was recognized by the Russian geophysicist A. V. Vvedenskaya as
applicable to earthquake faulting.[32] In a series of papers starting in 1956 she
and other colleagues used dislocation theory to determine part of an earthquake's
focal mechanism, and to show that a dislocation � a rupture accompanied by slipping
� was indeed equivalent to a double couple,[33]
In a pair of papers in 1958, J. A. Steketee worked out how to relate dislocation

theory to geophysical features.[34] Numerous other researchers worked out other
details,[35] culminating in a general solution in 1964 by Burridge and Knopoff,
which established the relationship between double couples and the theory of elastic
rebound, and provided the basis for relating an earthquake's physical features to
seismic moment.[36]
Seismic moment
Seismic moment � symbol M0? � is a measure of the work accomplished by the faulting
of an earthquake.[37] Its magnitude is that of the forces that form the
earthquake's equivalent double couple. (More precisely, it is the scalar magnitude
of the second-order moment tensor that describes the force components of the
double-couple[38].) Seismic moment is measured in units of Newton meters (N�m) or
Joules, or (in the older CGS system) dyne-centimeters (dyn-cm).[39]
The first calculation of an earthquake's seismic moment from its seismic waves was
by Keiiti Aki for the 1964 Niigata earthquake.[40] He did this two ways. First, he
used data from distant stations of the WWSSN to analyze long-period (200 second)
seismic waves (wavelength of about 1,000 kilometers) to determine the magnitude of
the earthquake's equivalent double couple.[41] Second, he drew upon the work of
Burridge and Knopoff on dislocation to determine the amount of slip, the energy
released, and the stress drop (essentially how much of the potential energy was
released).[42] In particular, he derived a now famous equation that relates an
earthquake's seismic moment to its physical parameters:
M0 = �u�S
with � being the rigidity (or resistance) of moving a fault with a surface areas of
S over an average dislocation (distance) of u�. (Modern formulations replace u�S
with the equivalent D�A, known as the "geometric moment" or "potency".[43].) By
this equation the moment determined from the double couple of the seismic waves can
be related to the moment calculated from knowledge of the surface area of fault
slippage and the amount of slip. In the case of the Niigata earthquake the
dislocation estimated from the seismic moment reasonably approximated the observed
dislocation.[44]
Seismic moment is a measure of the work (more precisely, the torque) that results
in inelastic (permanent) displacement or distortion of the earth's crust.[45] It is
related to the total energy released by an earthquake. However, the power or
potential destructiveness of an earthquake depends (among other factors) on how
much of the total energy is converted into seismic waves.[46] This is typically 10%
or less of the total energy, the rest being expended in fracturing rock or
overcoming friction (generating heat).[47]
Nonetheless, seismic moment is regarded as the fundamental measure of earthquake

size,[48] representing more directly than other parameters the physical size of an
earthquake.[49] As early as 1975 it was considered "one of the most reliably
determined instrumental earthquake source parameters".[50]
Introduction of an energy-motivated magnitude Mw

Most earthquake magnitude scales suffered from the fact that they only provided a
comparison of the amplitude of waves produced at a standard distance and frequency
band; it was difficult to relate these magnitudes to a physical property of the
earthquake. Gutenberg and Richter suggested that radiated energy Es could be
estimated as
{\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx 4.8+1.5M_{S},} {\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx

4.8+1.5M_{S},}
(in Joules). Unfortunately, the duration of many very large earthquakes was longer
than 20 seconds, the period of the surface waves used in the measurement of Ms?.
This meant that giant earthquakes such as the 1960 Chilean earthquake (M 9.5) were
only assigned an Ms? 8.2. Caltech seismologist Hiroo Kanamori[51] recognized this
deficiency and he took the simple but important step of defining a magnitude based
on estimates of radiated energy, Mw?, where the "w" stood for work (energy):
{\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2} {\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2}

Kanamori recognized that measurement of radiated energy is technically difficult
since it involves integration of wave energy over the entire frequency band. To
simplify this calculation, he noted that the lowest frequency parts of the spectrum
can often be used to estimate the rest of the spectrum. The lowest frequency
asymptote of a seismic spectrum is characterized by the seismic moment, M0?. Using
an approximate relation between radiated energy and seismic moment (which assumes
stress drop is complete and ignores fracture energy),
{\displaystyle E_{s}\approx M_{0}/(2\times 10^{4})} {\displaystyle E_{s}\approx

M_{0}/(2\times 10^{4})}
(where E is in Joules and M0? is in N {\displaystyle \cdot } \cdot m), Kanamori
approximated Mw? by
{\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-9.1)/1.5} {\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-

9.1)/1.5}
The formula above made it much easier to estimate the energy-based magnitude Mw?,
but it changed the fundamental nature of the scale into a moment magnitude scale.
Caltech seismologist Thomas C. Hanks noted that Kanamori's Mw? scale was very
similar to a relationship between ML? and M0? that was reported by Thatcher & Hanks
(1973)
{\displaystyle M_{L}\approx (\log M_{0}-9.0)/1.5} {\displaystyle M_{L}\approx (\log
M_{0}-9.0)/1.5}
Hanks & Kanamori (1979) combined their work to define a new magnitude scale based
on estimates of seismic moment
{\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5} {\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5}

where {\displaystyle M_{0}} {\displaystyle M_{0}} is defined in newton meters
(N�m).
Although the formal definition of moment magnitude is given by this paper and is
designated by M, it has been common for many authors to refer to Mw? as moment
magnitude. In most of these cases, they are actually referring to moment magnitude
M as defined above.
Current use
Moment magnitude is now the most common measure of earthquake size for medium to
large earthquake magnitudes,[52][scientific citation needed] but in practice,
seismic moment, the seismological parameter it is based on, is not measured
routinely for smaller quakes. For example, the United States Geological Survey does
not use this scale for earthquakes with a magnitude of less than 3.5,[citation
needed] which includes the great majority of quakes.
Current practice in official[who?] earthquake reports is to adopt moment magnitude

as the preferred magnitude, i.e., Mw? is the official magnitude reported whenever
it can be computed. Because seismic moment (M0?, the quantity needed to compute
Mw?) is not measured if the earthquake is too small, the reported magnitude for
earthquakes smaller than M 4 is often Richter's ML?.
Popular press reports most often deal with significant earthquakes larger than M ~
4. For these events, the official[who?] magnitude is the moment magnitude Mw?, not
Richter's local magnitude ML?.
Definition
The symbol for the moment magnitude scale is Mw?, with the subscript "w" meaning
mechanical work accomplished. The moment magnitude Mw? is a dimensionless value
defined by Hiroo Kanamori[53] as
{\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {w} }={\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}(M_{0})-10.7,} M_{\mathrm

{w} }={\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}(M_{0})-10.7,
where M0? is the seismic moment in dyne�cm (10-7 N�m).[54] The constant values in
the equation are chosen to achieve consistency with the magnitude values produced
by earlier scales, such as the Local Magnitude and the Surface Wave magnitude.
Thus, a magnitude zero microearthquake has a seismic moment of approximately
1.2�109 N�m, while the Great Chilean earthquake of 1960, with an estimated moment
magnitude of 9.4�9.6, had a seismic moment between 1.4�1023 N�m and 2.8�1023 N�m.
Relations between seismic moment, potential energy released and radiated energy
Seismic moment is not a direct measure of energy changes during an earthquake. The
relations between seismic moment and the energies involved in an earthquake depend
on parameters that have large uncertainties and that may vary between earthquakes.
Potential energy is stored in the crust in the form of elastic energy due to built-
up stress and gravitational energy.[55] During an earthquake, a portion
{\displaystyle \Delta W} \Delta W of this stored energy is transformed into
energy dissipated {\displaystyle E_{f}} E_{f}in frictional weakening and inelastic

deformation in rocks by processes such as the creation of cracks
heat {\displaystyle E_{h}} E_{h}
radiated seismic energy {\displaystyle E_{s}} E_{s}.
The potential energy drop caused by an earthquake is related approximately to its
seismic moment by
{\displaystyle \Delta W\approx {\frac {\overline {\sigma }}{\mu }}M_{0}}

where {\displaystyle {\overline {\sigma }}} {\displaystyle {\overline {\sigma }}}
is the average of the absolute shear stresses on the fault before and after the
earthquake (e.g., equation 3 of Venkataraman & Kanamori 2004) and {\displaystyle
\mu } \mu is the average of the shear moduli of the rocks that constitute the
fault. Currently, there is no technology to measure absolute stresses at all depths
of interest, nor method to estimate it accurately, and {\displaystyle {\overline
{\sigma }}} {\displaystyle {\overline {\sigma }}} is thus poorly known. It could
vary highly from one earthquake to another. Two earthquakes with identical
{\displaystyle M_{0}} M_{0} but different {\displaystyle {\overline {\sigma }}}
{\displaystyle {\overline {\sigma }}} would have released different
{\displaystyle \Delta W} \Delta W.
The radiated energy caused by an earthquake is approximately related to seismic

moment by
{\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }\approx \eta _{R}{\frac {\Delta \sigma _{s}}

{2\mu }}M_{0}} {\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }\approx \eta _{R}{\frac {\Delta
\sigma _{s}}{2\mu }}M_{0}}
where {\displaystyle \eta _{R}=E_{s}/(E_{s}+E_{f})} {\displaystyle \eta _{R}=E_{s}/
(E_{s}+E_{f})} is radiated efficiency and {\displaystyle \Delta \sigma _{s}}
{\displaystyle \Delta \sigma _{s}} is the static stress drop, i.e., the difference
between shear stresses on the fault before and after the earthquake (e.g., from
equation 1 of Venkataraman & Kanamori 2004). These two quantities are far from
being constants. For instance, {\displaystyle \eta _{R}} \eta _{R} depends on
rupture speed; it is close to 1 for regular earthquakes but much smaller for slower
earthquakes such as tsunami earthquakes and slow earthquakes. Two earthquakes with
identical {\displaystyle M_{0}} M_{0} but different {\displaystyle \eta _{R}} \eta
_{R} or {\displaystyle \Delta \sigma _{s}} {\displaystyle \Delta \sigma _{s}} would
have radiated different {\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }} E_{\mathrm {s} }.
Because {\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }} E_{\mathrm {s} } and {\displaystyle M_{0}}

M_{0} are fundamentally independent properties of an earthquake source, and since
{\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }} E_{\mathrm {s} } can now be computed more directly
and robustly than in the 1970s, introducing a separate magnitude associated to
radiated energy was warranted. Choy and Boatwright defined in 1995 the energy
magnitude[56]
{\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {E} }=\textstyle {\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}E_{\mathrm

{s} }-3.2} {\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {E} }=\textstyle {\frac {2}{3}}\log
_{10}E_{\mathrm {s} }-3.2}
where {\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }} E_{\mathrm {s} } is in J (N�m).
Comparative energy released by two earthquakes

Assuming the values of s�/� are the same for all earthquakes, one can consider Mw?
as a measure of the potential energy change ?W caused by earthquakes. Similarly, if
one assumes {\displaystyle \eta _{R}\Delta \sigma _{s}/2\mu } {\displaystyle \eta
_{R}\Delta \sigma _{s}/2\mu } is the same for all earthquakes, one can consider Mw?
as a measure of the energy Es radiated by earthquakes.
Under these assumptions, the following formula, obtained by solving for M0? the
equation defining Mw?, allows one to assess the ratio {\displaystyle E_{1}/E_{2}}
{\displaystyle E_{1}/E_{2}} of energy release (potential or radiated) between two
earthquakes of different moment magnitudes, {\displaystyle m_{1}} m_{1} and
{\displaystyle m_{2}} m_{2}:
{\displaystyle E_{1}/E_{2}\approx 10^{{\frac {3}{2}}(m_{1}-m_{2})}.} {\displaystyle
E_{1}/E_{2}\approx 10^{{\frac {3}{2}}(m_{1}-m_{2})}.}
As with the Richter scale, an increase of one step on the logarithmic scale of
moment magnitude corresponds to a 101.5 � 32 times increase in the amount of energy
released, and an increase of two steps corresponds to a 103 = 1000 times increase
in energy. Thus, an earthquake of Mw? of 7.0 contains 1000 times as much energy as
one of 5.0 and about 32 times that of 6.0.
Subtypes of Mw
Various ways of determining moment magnitude have been developed, and several
subtypes of the Mw? scale can be used to indicate the basis used.[57]
Mwb � Based on moment tensor inversion of long-period (~10 � 100 s) body-waves.

Mwr � From a moment tensor inversion of complete waveforms at regional distances (~
1,000 miles). Sometimes called RMT.
Mwc � Derived from a centroid moment tensor inversion of intermediate- and long-
period body- and surface-waves.
Mww � Derived from a centroid moment tensor inversion of the W-phase.
Mwp (Mi) � Developed by Seiji Tsuboi[58] for quick estimation of the tsunami
potential of large near-coastal earthquakes from measurements of the P-waves, and
later extended to teleseismic earthquakes in general.[59]
Mwpd � A duration-amplitude procedure which takes into account the duration of the
rupture, providing a fuller picture of the energy released by longer lasting
("slow") ruptures than seen with Mw?.[60]
See also
Earthquake engineering
Lists of earthquakes
Seismic magnitude scales
Notes
These are normally not bolded. In the technical literature a single bolded "M" �
with or without italicization � is used for several related concepts.
Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013, pp. 14, 177.
Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013, p. 86.
The "USGS Earthquake Magnitude Policy" for reporting earthquake magnitudes to the
public as formulated by the USGS Earthquake Magnitude Working Group was implemented
January 18, 2002, and posted at
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/docs/020204mag_policy.php. That page was
removed following a web redesign; a copy is archived at the Internet Archive.
Miyake 2017, p. 112.
Suzuki 2001, p. 121. See also Figure 2-22 in Richter 1958 (copy in Bormann, Wendt
& Di Giacomo 2013, p. 60), which replicates Wadati's curves.
Gutenberg & Richter 1956a.
Richter 1935.
See Bormann & Saul 2009 for an overview.
Gutenberg 1945a.
Gutenberg 1945b, Gutenberg & Richter 1956b.
See Seismic magnitude scales.
Kanamori 1977, p. 2981.
ISC-EHB Event 879136 [IRIS]; ISC-EHB Event 869809 [IRIS].
Miyake 2017, pp. 112-113; Stauder 1962, p. 39.
Miyake 2017, p. 115.
Ben-Menahem 1995, p. 1210; Maruyama 1963, p. 484.
Shearer 2009, p. 245.
Ben-Menahem 1995, p. 1210.
Miyake 2017, p. 115.
Miyake 2017, p. 115. See Byerly 1960 for a contemporary account of why many
seismologists favored a single couple model.
Miyake 2017, pp. 116, 117.
Pujol 2003b, p. 164.
Pujol 2003b, p. 165; Miyake 2017, pp. 117�118.
Aki 1966b, p. 84; Pujol 2003b, p. 167.
Julian, Miller & Foulger 1998, �2.2.1.
Miyake 2017, p. 114, 117; Maruyama 1963, p. 483.
Miyake 2017, p. 112.
Miyake 2017, p. 117.
Steketee 1958b, pp. 1168-1169.
Stauder 1962, p. 42; Aki & Richards 2002, p. 48.
Honda 1962, pp. 32, 65, and see bibliography; Ben-Menahem 1995, p. 1212; Ud�as
1991, p. 90; Maruyama 1963, p. 467.
Miyake 2017, p. 467; Steketee 1958a, 1958b.
Ud�as 1991 provides a partial overview.
Pujol 2003b, pp. 165, 167; Miyake 2017, p. 118.
Aki 1966b, p. 73; Kassaras & Kapetanidis 2018, p. 410.
Beroza & Kanamori 2015, p. 5.
Dziewonski, Chou & Woodhouse 1981, p. 2826; Aki 1966b.
Aki 1966a, pp. 24, 36.
Aki 1966a, p. 24.
Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013, p. 12, equation 3.1.
Aki 1966b, p. 84.
Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013, p. 14; Bormann & Di Giacomo 2011, p. 412.
Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013, pp. 39�40.
Deichmann 2006, p. 1268.
Abe 1982, p. 322.
Kanamori & Anderson 1975, p. 1076.
Kanamori 1977.
Boyle 2008.
Kanamori 1977.
Hanks & Kanamori 1979.
Kostrov 1974; Dahlen 1977.
Choy & Boatwright 1995
USGS Technical Terms used on Event Pages.
Tsuboi et al. 1995.
Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013, �3.2.8.2, p. 135.
Bormann, Wendt & Di Giacomo 2013, �3.2.8.3, pp. 137�128.
Sources
Abe, Katsuyuki (1982), "Magnitude, seismic moment and apparent stress for major
deep earthquakes", Journal of Physics of the Earth, 30: 321�330,
doi:10.4294/jpe1952.30.321, ISSN 1884-2305.
Aki, Keiiti (1966a), "Generation and propagation of G waves from the Niigata
earthquake of June 14, 1964. Part 1. A statistical analysis" (PDF), Bulletin of the
Earthquake Research Institute, 44: 23�72.
Aki, Keiiti (1966b), "Generation and propagation of G waves from the Niigata
earthquake of June 14, 1964. Part 2. Estimation of earthquake moment, released
energy and stress-strain drop from G wave spectrum" (PDF), Bulletin of the
Aki, Keiiti (April 1972), "Earthquake Mechanism", Tectonophysics, 13 (1�4):
423�446, Bibcode:1972Tectp..13..423A, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(72)90032-7.
Aki, Keiiti; Richards, Paul G. (2003), Quantitative Seismology (2nd ed.), ISBN 0-
935702-96-2.
Ben-Menahem, Ari (August 1995), "A Concise Hiistory of Mainstream Seismology:
Origins, Legacy, and Perspectives" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 85 (4): 1202�1225.
Beroza, G. C.; Kanamori, Hiroo (2015), "4.01 Earthquake Seismologoy: An
Introduction and Overview", in Schubert, Gerald (ed.), Treatise on Geophysics, 4:
Earthquake Seismology (2nd ed.), doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00069-5, ISBN
9780444538024.
Bormann; Di Giacomo (2011), "The moment magnitude Mw and the energy magnitude Me:
common roots and differences", Journal of Seismology, 15 (2): 411�427,
doi:10.1007/s10950-010-9219-2.
Bormann, Peter; Saul, Joachim (2009), "Earthquake Magnitude" (PDF), Encyclopedia of
Complexity and Applied Systems Science, 3, pp. 2473�2496.
Bormann, Peter; Wendt, Siegfried; Di Giacomo, Dominico (2013), "Chapter 3: Seismic
Sources and Source Parameters" (PDF), in Bormann (ed.), New Manual of Seismological
Observatory Practice 2 (NMSOP-2), doi:10.2312/GFZ.NMSOP-2_ch3.
Boyle, Alan (May 12, 2008), Quakes by the numbers, MSNBC, retrieved 2008-05-12,
That original scale has been tweaked through the decades, and nowadays calling it
the "Richter scale" is an anachronism. The most common measure is known simply as
the moment magnitude scale..
Byerly, Perry (20 May 1960), "Earthquake Mechanisms", Science, 131 (3412):
1493�1493, doi:10.1126/science.131.3412.1493.
Choy, George L.; Boatwright, John L. (10 September 1995), "Global patterns of
radiated seismic energy and apparent stress", Journal of Geophysical Research, 100
(B9): 18205�28, Bibcode:1995JGR...10018205C, doi:10.1029/95JB01969.
Dahlen, F. A. (February 1977), "The balance of energy in earthquake faulting",
Geophysical Journal International, 48 (2): 239�261, Bibcode:1977GeoJ...48..239D,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1977.tb01298.x.
Deichmann, Nicholas (August 2006), "Local Magnitude, a Moment Revisited", Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (4a): 1267�1277,
doi:10.1785/0120050115.
Dziewonski; Chou; Woodhouse (April 10, 1981), "Determination of earthquake source
parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity" (PDF),
Journal of Geophysical Research, 86 (B4): 2825�2852, doi:10.1029/JB086iB04p02825.
Dziewonski, Adam M.; Gilbert, Freeman (1976), "The effect of small aspherical
perturbations on travel times and a re-examination of the corrections for
ellipticity", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 44 (1): 7�17,
Bibcode:1976GeoJ...44....7D, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1976.tb00271.x.
Gutenberg, Beno (January 1945a), "Amplitudes of surface Waves and magnitudes of
shallow earthquakes" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 35
(1): 3�12.
Gutenberg, Beno (April 1945b), "Amplitudes of P, PP, and S and magnitude of shallow
earthquakes" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 35 (2):
57�69.
Gutenberg, Beno; Richter, Charles F. (April 1956a), "Earthquake magnitude,
intensity, energy, and acceleration (Second Paper)" (PDF), Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 46 (2): 105�145.
Gutenberg, Beno; Richter, Charles F. (1956b), "Magnitude and energy of
earthquakes", Annali di Geofisica, 9 (1): 1�15.
Hanks, Thomas C.; Kanamori, Hiroo (May 10, 1979), "A Moment magnitude scale" (PDF),
Journal of Geophysical Research, 84 (B5): 2348�50, Bibcode:1979JGR....84.2348H,
doi:10.1029/JB084iB05p02348, Archived from the original on August 21, 2010.
Honda, Hirokichi (1962), "Earthquake Mechanism and Seismic Waves", Journal of
Physics of the Earth, 10: 1�98.
International Seismological Centre, ISC-EHB Bulletin, Thatcham, United Kingdom,
http://www.isc.ac.uk/.
Julian, Bruce R.; Miller, Angus D.; Foulger, G. R. (November 1998), "Non-Double-
Couple Earthquakes 1. Theory", Reviews of Geophysics, 36 (4): 525�549.
Kanamori, Hiroo (July 10, 1977), "The energy release in great earthquakes" (PDF),
Journal of Geophysical Research, 82 (20): 2981�2987, Bibcode:1977JGR....82.2981K,
doi:10.1029/jb082i020p02981.
Kanamori, Hiroo (February 2, 1978), "Quantification of Earthquakes" (PDF), Nature,
271 (5644): 411�414, Bibcode:1978Natur.271..411K, doi:10.1038/271411a0.
Kanamori, Hiroo; Anderson, Don L. (October 1975), "Theoretical basis of some
empirical relations in seismology" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 65 (5): 1073�1095.
Kassaras, Ioannis G.; Kapetanidis, Vasilis (2018), "Resolving the Tectonic Stress
by the Inversion of Earthquake Focal Mechanisms. Application in the Region of
Greece. A Tutorial", in D'Amico, Sebastiano (ed.), Moment Tensor Solutions: A
Useful Tool for Seismotectonics, pp. 405�452, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77359-9_19,
ISBN 978-3-319-77358-2.
Kostrov, B. V. (1974), "Seismic moment and energy of earthquakes, and seismic flow
of rock [in Russian]", Izvestiya, Akademi Nauk, USSR, Physics of the solid earth
[Earth Physics], 1: 23�44 (English Trans. 12�21).
Maruyama, Takuo (January 1963), "On the force equivalents of dynamical elastic
dislocations with reference to the earthquake mechanism", Bulletin of the
Miyake, Teru (October�December 2017), "Magnitude, moment, and measurement: The
seismic mechanism controversy and its resolution", Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science, 65�66: 112�120, doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.02.002.
Pujol, Jos� (March�April 2003b), "The Body Force Equivalent to an Earthquake: A
Tutorial", Seismological Review Letters, 74 (2): 163�168.
Richter, Charles F. (January 1935), "An Instrumental Earthquake Magnitude Scale"
(PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 25 (1): 1�32.
Richter, Charles F. (1958), Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman, ISBN 978-
0716702115, LCCN 58-5970.
Stauder, William (1962), "The Focal Mechanisms of Earthquakes", in Landsberg, H.
E.; Van Mieghem, J. (eds.), Advances in Geophysics, 9, doi:10.1016/S0065-
2687(08)60527-0, LCCN 52-1226.
Steketee, J.A. (1958a), "On Volterra's dislocations in a semi-infinite elastic
medium", Canadian Journal of Physics, 36 (2): 192�205, doi:10.1139/p58-024.
Steketee, J.A. (1958b), "Some geophysical applications of the elasticity theory of
dislocations", Canadian Journal of Physics, 36 (9): 1168�1198, doi:10.1139/p58-123.
Suzuki, Yasumoto (June 2001), "Kiyoo Wadati and the path to the discovery of the
intermediate-deep earthquake zone", Episodes, 24 (2): 118�123.
Thatcher, Wayne; Hanks, Thomas C. (December 10, 1973), "Source parameters of
southern California earthquakes", Journal of Geophysical Research, 78 (35):
8547�8576, Bibcode:1973JGR....78.8547T, doi:10.1029/JB078i035p08547.
Tsuboi, S.; Abe, K.; Takano, K.; Yamanaka, Y. (April 1995), "Rapid Determination of
Mw from Broadband P Waveforms", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
85 (2): 606�613.
Ud�as, Agust�n (1991), "Source Mechanism of Earthquakes", Advances in Geophysics,
33: 81�140, doi:10.1016/S0065-2687(08)60441-0.
Utsu, T. (2002), Lee, W.H.K.; Kanamori, H.; Jennings, P.C.; Kisslinger, C. (eds.),
"Relationships between magnitude scales", International Handbook of Earthquake and
Engineering Seismology, International Geophysics, Academic Press, A (81), pp.
733�46.
Venkataraman, Anupama; Kanamori, H. (11 May 2004), "Observational constraints on
the fracture energy of subduction zone earthquakes" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical
Research, 109 (B05302): B05302, Bibcode:2004JGRB..109.5302V,
doi:10.1029/2003JB002549.
External links
USGS: Measuring earthquakes
Perspective: a graphical comparison of earthquake energy release � Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center
vte
Seismic scales
Modern scales
Intensity scales
Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI) European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) Liedu
(Chinese) Medvedev�Sponheuer�Karnik (MSK) Modified Mercalli (MM) PHIVOLCS
Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS) Shindo (Japanese)
Magnitude scales
Body wave magnitude Duration magnitude Local magnitude (Richter scale) Moment
magnitude Surface wave magnitude Energy class (K-class)
Historical scales
GEOFIAN Mercalli�Cancani�Sieberg (MCS) Mercalli�Wood�Neuman (MWN) Omori Rossi�Forel
Categories: Seismic magnitude scalesGeophysicsLogarithmic scales of measurement
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView
historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
???????
?????
Catal�
Ce�tina
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
????????
Espa�ol
Esperanto
Euskara
?????
Fran�ais
Galego
???
???????
??????
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
?????
???????
Krey�l ayisyen
??????????
?????????
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
???
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Portugu�s
Rom�na
???????
Scots
Simple English
Slovencina
Sloven�cina
Suomi
Svenska
?????
???
T�rk�e
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Edit links
This page was last edited on 18 July 2019, at 23:22 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia� is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie
statementMobile viewWikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
Part of a series on
Earthquakes
Types[show]
Causes[show]
Measurement[show]
Prediction[show]
Other topics[show]
vte
Contents
1 History
1.4 Seismic moment
2 Current use
3 Definition
energy
6 Subtypes of Mw
7 See also
8 Notes
9 Sources
10 External links
History

Dislocation theory

seismic moment.[36]
Seismic moment
M0 = �u�S
dislocation.[44]


estimated as

4.8+1.5M_{S},}


M_{0}/(2\times 10^{4})}
approximated Mw? by

9.1)/1.5}
(1973)

M_{0}-9.0)/1.5}

(N�m).
M as defined above.
Current use

Definition

{w} }={\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}(M_{0})-10.7,

seismic moment by


moment by

\sigma _{s}}{2\mu }}M_{0}}

magnitude[56]

_{10}E_{\mathrm {s} }-3.2}


E_{1}/E_{2}\approx 10^{{\frac {3}{2}}(m_{1}-m_{2})}.}
Subtypes of Mw

See also
Notes
Miyake 2017, p. 112.
Richter 1935.
Gutenberg 1945a.
Kanamori 1977, p. 2981.
Miyake 2017, p. 115.
Shearer 2009, p. 245.
Miyake 2017, p. 115.
Miyake 2017, pp. 116, 117.
Pujol 2003b, p. 164.
Aki 1966b, p. 84; Pujol 2003b, p. 167.
Miyake 2017, p. 112.
Miyake 2017, p. 117.
Steketee 1958b, pp. 1168-1169.
1991, p. 90; Maruyama 1963, p. 467.
Aki 1966a, pp. 24, 36.
Aki 1966a, p. 24.
Aki 1966b, p. 84.
Abe 1982, p. 322.
Kanamori 1977.
Boyle 2008.
Kanamori 1977.
Tsuboi et al. 1995.
Sources
doi:10.4294/jpe1952.30.321, ISSN 1884-2305.
935702-96-2.
America, 85 (4): 1202�1225.
9780444538024.
doi:10.1007/s10950-010-9219-2.
1493�1493, doi:10.1126/science.131.3412.1493.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1977.tb01298.x.
doi:10.1785/0120050115.
(1): 3�12.
57�69.
doi:10.1029/jb082i020p02981.
America, 65 (5): 1073�1095.
ISBN 978-3-319-77358-2.
0716702115, LCCN 58-5970.
2687(08)60527-0, LCCN 52-1226.
85 (2): 606�613.
33: 81�140, doi:10.1016/S0065-2687(08)60441-0.
733�46.
doi:10.1029/2003JB002549.
External links
Warning Center
vte
Seismic scales
Modern scales
Intensity scales
Magnitude scales
Historical scales
Navigation menu
historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
???????
?????
Catal�
Ce�tina
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
????????
Espa�ol
Esperanto
Euskara
?????
Fran�ais
Galego
???
???????
??????
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
?????
???????
Krey�l ayisyen
??????????
?????????
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
???
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Portugu�s
Rom�na
???????
Scots
Simple English
Slovencina
Sloven�cina
Suomi
Svenska
?????
???
T�rk�e
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Edit links
Part of a series on
Earthquakes
Types[show]
Causes[show]
Measurement[show]
Prediction[show]
Other topics[show]
vte
Contents
1 History
1.4 Seismic moment
2 Current use
3 Definition
energy
6 Subtypes of Mw
7 See also
8 Notes
9 Sources
10 External links
History


Dislocation theory


seismic moment.[36]
Seismic moment
M0 = �u�S
dislocation.[44]


estimated as

4.8+1.5M_{S},}


M_{0}/(2\times 10^{4})}
approximated Mw? by

9.1)/1.5}
(1973)

M_{0}-9.0)/1.5}

(N�m).
M as defined above.
Current use

Definition

{w} }={\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}(M_{0})-10.7,

seismic moment by


moment by

\sigma _{s}}{2\mu }}M_{0}}

magnitude[56]

_{10}E_{\mathrm {s} }-3.2}


E_{1}/E_{2}\approx 10^{{\frac {3}{2}}(m_{1}-m_{2})}.}
Subtypes of Mw

See also
Notes
Miyake 2017, p. 112.
Richter 1935.
Gutenberg 1945a.
Kanamori 1977, p. 2981.
Miyake 2017, p. 115.
Shearer 2009, p. 245.
Miyake 2017, p. 115.
Miyake 2017, pp. 116, 117.
Pujol 2003b, p. 164.
Aki 1966b, p. 84; Pujol 2003b, p. 167.
Miyake 2017, p. 112.
Miyake 2017, p. 117.
Steketee 1958b, pp. 1168-1169.
1991, p. 90; Maruyama 1963, p. 467.
Aki 1966a, pp. 24, 36.
Aki 1966a, p. 24.
Aki 1966b, p. 84.
Abe 1982, p. 322.
Kanamori 1977.
Boyle 2008.
Kanamori 1977.
Tsuboi et al. 1995.
Sources
doi:10.4294/jpe1952.30.321, ISSN 1884-2305.
935702-96-2.
America, 85 (4): 1202�1225.
9780444538024.
doi:10.1007/s10950-010-9219-2.
1493�1493, doi:10.1126/science.131.3412.1493.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1977.tb01298.x.
doi:10.1785/0120050115.
(1): 3�12.
57�69.
doi:10.1029/jb082i020p02981.
America, 65 (5): 1073�1095.
ISBN 978-3-319-77358-2.
0716702115, LCCN 58-5970.
2687(08)60527-0, LCCN 52-1226.
85 (2): 606�613.
33: 81�140, doi:10.1016/S0065-2687(08)60441-0.
733�46.
doi:10.1029/2003JB002549.
External links
Warning Center
vte
Seismic scales
Modern scales
Intensity scales
Magnitude scales
Historical scales
Navigation menu
historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
???????
?????
Catal�
Ce�tina
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
????????
Espa�ol
Esperanto
Euskara
?????
Fran�ais
Galego
???
???????
??????
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
?????
???????
Krey�l ayisyen
??????????
?????????
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
???
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Portugu�s
Rom�na
???????
Scots
Simple English
Slovencina
Sloven�cina
Suomi
Svenska
?????
???
T�rk�e
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Edit links

GDGDG

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GDGDG

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Moment magnitude scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Single couple or double couple

The simplest force system is a single force acting on an object. If it has

Modeling the physical process by which an earthquake generates seismic waves

In a pair of papers in 1958, J. A. Steketee worked out how to relate dislocation

Nonetheless, seismic moment is regarded as the fundamental measure of earthquake

Introduction of an energy-motivated magnitude Mw

{\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx 4.8+1.5M_{S},} {\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx

{\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2} {\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2}

{\displaystyle E_{s}\approx M_{0}/(2\times 10^{4})} {\displaystyle E_{s}\approx

{\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-9.1)/1.5} {\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-

{\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5} {\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5}

Current practice in official[who?] earthquake reports is to adopt moment magnitude

{\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {w} }={\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}(M_{0})-10.7,} M_{\mathrm

energy dissipated {\displaystyle E_{f}} E_{f}in frictional weakening and inelastic

{\displaystyle \Delta W\approx {\frac {\overline {\sigma }}{\mu }}M_{0}}

The radiated energy caused by an earthquake is approximately related to seismic

{\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }\approx \eta _{R}{\frac {\Delta \sigma _{s}}

Because {\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }} E_{\mathrm {s} } and {\displaystyle M_{0}}

{\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {E} }=\textstyle {\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}E_{\mathrm

Comparative energy released by two earthquakes

Mwb � Based on moment tensor inversion of long-period (~10 � 100 s) body-waves.

Single couple or double couple

Modeling the physical process by which an earthquake generates seismic waves

Nonetheless, seismic moment is regarded as the fundamental measure of earthquake

Introduction of an energy-motivated magnitude Mw

{\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx 4.8+1.5M_{S},} {\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx

{\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2} {\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2}

{\displaystyle E_{s}\approx M_{0}/(2\times 10^{4})} {\displaystyle E_{s}\approx

{\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-9.1)/1.5} {\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-

{\displaystyle M_{L}\approx (\log M_{0}-9.0)/1.5} {\displaystyle M_{L}\approx (\log

{\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5} {\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5}

Current practice in official[who?] earthquake reports is to adopt moment magnitude

{\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {w} }={\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}(M_{0})-10.7,} M_{\mathrm

energy dissipated {\displaystyle E_{f}} E_{f}in frictional weakening and inelastic

{\displaystyle \Delta W\approx {\frac {\overline {\sigma }}{\mu }}M_{0}}

The radiated energy caused by an earthquake is approximately related to seismic

{\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }\approx \eta _{R}{\frac {\Delta \sigma _{s}}

Because {\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }} E_{\mathrm {s} } and {\displaystyle M_{0}}

{\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {E} }=\textstyle {\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}E_{\mathrm

Comparative energy released by two earthquakes

{\displaystyle E_{1}/E_{2}\approx 10^{{\frac {3}{2}}(m_{1}-m_{2})}.} {\displaystyle

Mwb � Based on moment tensor inversion of long-period (~10 � 100 s) body-waves.

Single couple or double couple

The simplest force system is a single force acting on an object. If it has

Modeling the physical process by which an earthquake generates seismic waves

In a pair of papers in 1958, J. A. Steketee worked out how to relate dislocation

Nonetheless, seismic moment is regarded as the fundamental measure of earthquake

Introduction of an energy-motivated magnitude Mw

{\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx 4.8+1.5M_{S},} {\displaystyle \log E_{s}\approx

{\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2} {\displaystyle M_{w}=2/3\log E_{s}-3.2}

{\displaystyle E_{s}\approx M_{0}/(2\times 10^{4})} {\displaystyle E_{s}\approx

{\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-9.1)/1.5} {\displaystyle M_{w}=(\log M_{0}-

{\displaystyle M_{L}\approx (\log M_{0}-9.0)/1.5} {\displaystyle M_{L}\approx (\log

{\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5} {\displaystyle M=(\log M_{0}-9.05)/1.5}

Current practice in official[who?] earthquake reports is to adopt moment magnitude

{\displaystyle M_{\mathrm {w} }={\frac {2}{3}}\log _{10}(M_{0})-10.7,} M_{\mathrm

energy dissipated {\displaystyle E_{f}} E_{f}in frictional weakening and inelastic

{\displaystyle \Delta W\approx {\frac {\overline {\sigma }}{\mu }}M_{0}}

The radiated energy caused by an earthquake is approximately related to seismic

{\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }\approx \eta _{R}{\frac {\Delta \sigma _{s}}

Because {\displaystyle E_{\mathrm {s} }} E_{\mathrm {s} } and {\displaystyle M_{0}}