GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L11613, doi:10.

1029/2004GL019808, 2004

A generalized Omoris law for earthquake aftershock decay

Robert Shcherbakov
Center for Computational Science and Engineering, Departments of Physics and Geology, University of California, Davis, California, USA

Donald L. Turcotte
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California, USA

John B. Rundle
Center for Computational Science and Engineering, Departments of Physics and Geology, University of California, Davis, California, USA Received 24 February 2004; revised 25 April 2004; accepted 11 May 2004; published 12 June 2004.

[1] Earthquake aftershock sequences have been found to approximately satisfy three empirical scaling relations: i) the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling, ii) Baths law for the difference in the magnitude of a mainshock and its largest aftershock, and iii) the modified Omoris law for the temporal decay of aftershock rates. The three laws are incorporated to give a generalized Omoris law for aftershock decay rates that depend on several parameters specific for each given seismogenic region. It is shown that the characteristic time c, first introduced in the modified Omoris law, is no longer a constant but scales with a lower magnitude cutoff and a mainshock magnitude. The generalized Omoris law is tested against earthquake catalogs for the aftershock sequences of the Landers, Northridge, Hector Mine, and San Simeon I N DE X T E R M S : 3210 Mathematical earthquakes.
Geophysics: Modeling; 7209 Seismology: Earthquake dynamics and mechanics; 7215 Seismology: Earthquake parameters; 7223 Seismology: Seismic hazard assessment and prediction; 7260 Seismology: Theory and modeling. Citation: Shcherbakov, R., D. L. Turcotte, and J. B. Rundle (2004), A generalized Omoris law for earthquake aftershock decay, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L11613, doi:10.1029/2004GL019808.

cause their aftershocks could be readily identified and because of the high quality of the catalogs provided by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCSN catalog, http://www.data.scec.org/) and the Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCSN catalog, http://quake.geo. berkeley.edu/ncedc/).

2. Scaling Laws
[4] We first consider the frequency-magnitude scaling for aftershocks. Under a wide variety of conditions the number of earthquakes in a specified region and time window with magnitudes greater than m, N(!m), is well approximated by the relation
N ! m 10ab m : 1

1. Introduction
[2] Earthquakes are universally associated with aftershock sequences. An extensive review of the properties of aftershocks has been given by Kisslinger [1996]. Although there is considerable statistical variability associated with aftershocks, their behavior appears to satisfy several scaling laws to a reasonably good approximation. [3] In this letter, we will combine i) the GutenbergRichter frequency-magnitude relation, ii) Baths law, and iii) the modified Omoris law to give a generalized law for aftershock decay rates. This law will be compared with the aftershock sequences for four relatively large earthquakes that occurred in California: the m = 7.3 June 28, 1992 Landers earthquake, the m = 6.7 January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake, the m = 7.1 October 16, 1999 Hector Mine earthquake, and the m = 6.5 December 22, 2003 San Simeon earthquake. These earthquakes were selected beCopyright 2004 by the American Geophysical Union. 0094-8276/04/2004GL019808

This relation is known as Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) scaling [Gutenberg and Richter, 1954] and is valid for earthquakes both regionally and globally. The constant b or b-value is generally in the range of 0.8 < b < 1.2 and the constant a gives the logarithm of the number of earthquakes with magnitude greater than zero. Studies have shown that aftershocks also are in good agreement with G-R scaling equation (1) with b-values that are not statistically different from the values for mainshocks. [5] Another scaling law for aftershocks is Baths law. According to this law the difference in magnitude Dm between a mainshock with magnitude mms and its largest detected aftershock with magnitude mmax as
Dm mms mmax as 2

is approximately a constant independent of the mainshock magnitude, typically Dm % 1.2 [Bath, 1965]. A number of studies of the statistical variability of Dm have been carried out [Vere-Jones, 1969; Kisslinger and Jones, 1991; Tsapanos, 1990; Felzer et al., 2002; Console et al., 2003; Helmstetter and Sornette, 2003]. [6] A modified version of Baths law has been proposed by R. Shcherbakov and D. L. Turcotte (A modified form of Baths law, submitted to Bulletin of the Seismological
1 of 5

L11613

L11613

SHCHERBAKOV ET AL.: A GENERALIZED OMORIS LAW

L11613

same mainshock magnitude. If Baths law is applicable to the inferred values of m? we can write
Dm? mms m? ;
?

where Dm is approximately a constant. Substitution of equations (3) and (4) into equation (1) gives a modified G-R relation for aftershocks
N ! m 10b mms Dm
?
?

Figure 1. Cumulative numbers of aftershocks with magnitudes greater than m, N(!m), are given as functions of m for (a) the Landers and Northridge earthquakes, and (b) the Hector Mine and San Simeon earthquakes. The solid straight lines are our best fits of the modified G-R relation (5) to the data.

Society of America, 2004) and is based on an extrapolation of the G-R scaling for aftershocks. The magnitude of the largest aftershock consistent with G-R scaling for aftershocks is obtained by formally setting N(!m) = 1 in equation (1), with the result
a b m? ; 3

with b, mms, and Dm specified, the frequency-magnitude distribution of aftershocks can be determined using equation (5). [7] In Figure 1 the cumulative numbers of aftershocks with magnitudes greater than m, N(! m), are given as a function of m for the Landers, Northridge, Hector Mine, and San Simeon earthquakes. All earthquakes in square areas centered on the mainshock epicenter for prescribed time periods were considered to be aftershocks. For the Landers, Hector Mine, Northridge, and San Simeon earthquakes the areas were 1.1 1.1, 1.0 1.0, 0.6 0.6, and 0.9 0.9 respectively. In each case the linear size of the box was approximately taken to be about the aftershock zone L of the mainshock which scales with the magnitude of the mainshock mms as L = 0.02 100.5mms km [Kagan, 2002]. In each case a time period of T = 365 days following the mainshock was considered except for the San Simeon earthquake where data were available for 100 days after the mainshock. The least-squares fit to the data with aftershocks greater than m ! 2.0 was performed. For the Landers earthquake we have mms = 7.3 and mmax = 6.3 so that as Dm = 1.0. From the fit to the data with b = 0.98 0.02 the magnitude of the inferred largest aftershock m? = 6.2 0.05 was obtained so that Dm? = 1.10 0.05. For the Northridge earthquake we have mms = 6.7 and mmax = 5.9 so as that Dm = 0.8. The fit to the data with b = 0.91 0.02 gives m? = 5.90 0.05 so that Dm? = 0.8 0.05. For the Hector Mine earthquake we have mms = 7.1 and mmax = 5.8 so that as Dm = 1.3. From the fit to the data with b = 1.01 0.01 the magnitude of the inferred largest aftershock is m? = 5.75 0.05 so that Dm? = 1.35 0.05. And finally for the San Simeon earthquake the fit to the data gives the following values: mms = 6.5, mmax = 4.8, Dm = 1.7, b = as 1.00 0.03, m? = 5.40 0.05, and Dm? = 1.10 0.05. These results are tabulated in Table 1. [8] A third scaling relation (the modified form of Omoris law [Utsu, 1961]) describes the temporal decay of aftershock activity and is given in the form
rt; m  dN 1 ; dt t 1 t=cmp 6

where m? is the inferred magnitude of the largest aftershock for the given aftershock sequence. In general, this extrapolated value will differ from the mean value of the largest aftershock obtained by averaging over an ensemble of mainshock-aftershock sequences having the

where r(t, m)  dN/dt is the rate of occurrence of aftershocks with magnitudes greater than m per day, t is the time that has elapsed since the mainshock and t and c(m) are

Table 1. Summary of the Results

Mainshock Landers Northridge Hector Mine San Simeon mms 7.3 6.7 7.1 6.5 0.98 0.91 1.01 1.00 b 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 Dm 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.7 Dm 1.10 0.75 1.35 1.10
?

p 1.22 1.18 1.21 1.12 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 4.0 3.4 4.1 3.5

R 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2

b 1.20 1.06 1.23 1.09

c(m ), sec 33 23 32 55 10 10 10 10

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

2 of 5

L11613

SHCHERBAKOV ET AL.: A GENERALIZED OMORIS LAW

L11613

characteristic times. This law is a manifestation of temporal correlations in aftershock sequences which can be viewed as complex relaxation processes occurring after mainshocks. The analysis of earthquake data presented in the following section suggests that the value of c(m) is not a constant but scales with the lower magnitude cutoff m and the mainshock magnitude mms. [9] In order to relate the three aftershock scaling relations we compare the total number of aftershocks given by the modified form of Omoris law (6) to the total number of aftershocks given by the modified G-R relation (5) for a given time period T. The total number of aftershocks with magnitudes greater than m, N(!m), is obtained by integrating equation (6) with the result
ZT N ! m
0

mainshock, remain constant. This can be expressed mathematically as follows

Rt ) c; dm  rm1 rmi ... const ; rm2 rmn1 10

where the positive difference in magnitude cutoffs dm is kept fixed dm = m2 m1 = m3 m2 = . . . = mn+1 mn. Using equation (9) it is possible to show that in the limit of sufficiently large times, t ) c, the ratio of c(mn)/c(mn + dm) is
 1 cmn Rt ) c; dm p1 : cmn dm 10b dm 11

dt t 1 t=cmp if p 6 1 ; if p 1 : 7

o cm n 1 1 T =cm1p ; t p 1 > cm > : ln1 T=cm; t

8 > > <

If the modified form of Omoris law is assumed to be uniformly valid at all times, then the total number of aftershocks in the limit T ! 1 is finite only for p > 1. Equating equations (5) and (7) with p > 1 and T equal to the time interval used to estimate the b-value from G-R scaling and eliminating t, we obtain
rt; m p 1 10b mms Dm m 1 n o : 1p 1 t=cmp cm 1 1 T =cm
?

This solution shows that the characteristic time c(mn) scales with the lower magnitude cutoff mn. It remains constant only if R(t ) c, dm) = 10bdm. [11] It is seen from equation (11) that the characteristic times c(m) decrease with increasing magnitude cutoff which is also seen in the earthquake data shown in Figure 2. To find c(mn) for each magnitude cutoff mn one has to measure the ratio of rates R(t ) c, dm) from the seismic data. Then one has to fit the observed decay rates for a given magnitude cutoff m0 using equation (9). Finally, the rest of the values of cs for equally spaced magnitude cutoffs can be found recursively using equation (11). In our studies the value m0 = 3.0 was used assuming the earthquake catalog is complete for this magnitude cutoff even at short times after a mainshock. [12] To find an explicit dependence of c(m) on the mainshock magnitude mms and the lower magnitude cutoff m, we propose the following scaling for R
Rt ) c; dm 10b dm ; 12

For large values of T it is possible to approximate the rate of aftershock decay equation (8). Taking T ) 1 and p 6 1, we obtain
rt; m p 1 10b mms Dm cm
?

where b is a constant. Substituting equation (12) into equation (11) and taking into account the fact that m? m = n dm, we obtain scaling for c(m)
cm cm? 10p1 mms Dm
bb ?

1 : 1 t=cmp

13

This is our combined scaling law for aftershocks and gives the rate of occurrence of aftershocks with magnitudes greater than m as a function of time t. It includes the b-value from G-R scaling equation (1), the Dm? from the modified form of Baths law, equations (3) and (4), the magnitude of the mainshock mms that initiated the sequence, the characteristic time c(m), and the exponent p from the modified Omoris law (6).

where c(m?) is the characteristic time in equation (9) with m = m?. This value introduces a lower cutoff for cs and signifies that the proposed scaling equation (9) is no longer valid for m > m?. [13] Equation (9) also gives an upper limit on the ratio c(mn)/c(mn + dm). The definition of aftershock rates assumes that for all times the ratio of rates is r(t, mn)/r(t, mn + dm) > 1 for dm > 0. Particularly, at t = 0 we have r(0, mn)/r(0, mn + dm) = 10bdmc(mn + dm)/c(mn) > 1 from which we obtain
cmn < 10b dm : cmn dm 14

3. Tests of Generalized Scaling

[10] To check the applicability of the proposed scaling law (9) we study the dependence of aftershock activity on time following the Landers, Northridge, Hector Mine, and San Simeon earthquakes. The rates of occurrence of aftershocks, r(t, m) in number per day, larger than a specified magnitude m are shown in Figure 2 as a function of the time t since the mainshock occurred. It is seen from the figures that the ratios of rates for the equally spaced magnitude cutoffs, starting at sufficiently large times (t ) c) after the

[14] For each of the four earthquakes our fit of the generalized Omoris law (9) to the data is given for different magnitude cutoffs m1 = 1.5, m2 = 2.0, m3 = 2.5, m4 = 3.0, m5 = 3.5, and m6 = 4.0 with dm = 0.5 (Figure 2). For the Landers earthquake we have taken b = 0.98 0.02, mms = 7.3, Dm? = 1.1 0.05 from the analysis of data given in Figure 1a. The exponent p = 1.22 0.03 was used to fit the

3 of 5

L11613

SHCHERBAKOV ET AL.: A GENERALIZED OMORIS LAW

L11613

Figure 2. The rates of occurrence of aftershocks with magnitudes greater than m in number per day, r(t, m), are given for (a) the Landers, (b) Northridge, (c) Hector Mine earthquakes for 1460 days after a mainshock, and (d) San Simeon earthquake for 100 days after a mainshock. The same areas are used as in Figure 1. Lower magnitude cutoffs were taken to be m = 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. The value of c(m = 3.0) (dm = 0.5) was obtained from the best fit (solid line) using equation (9). The rest of cs were calculated using equation (11). Dashed lines represent the predicted rates.

power-law decay at times between 10 and 1000 days. The same time interval was used to estimate the mean ratio of rates R = 4.0 0.1. The value of the characteristic time c(m = 3.0) = 0.7 days was estimated from the best fit of equation (9) to the decay rate. The rest of the values of cs for the other magnitude cutoffs were calculated using equation (11). It is seen that the rate of occurrence of magnitude m1 = 1.5 and above aftershocks generally falls below the prediction, the rate of occurrence of magnitude m2 = 2.0 and above aftershocks falls below the prediction for the first $10 days, and the rate of occurrence of magnitude m3 = 2.5 and above aftershocks falls below the prediction for the first three days. We attribute these discrepancies to the undercounting of small aftershocks at short times. Evidence for the occurrence of many small aftershocks is lost in the seismic codas of larger aftershocks. [15] The same analysis has been performed for the Northridge earthquake where we have taken mms = 6.7, b = 0.91 0.02, Dm? = 0.75 0.05, p = 1.18 0.02, c(m = 3.0) = 0.09 days, and c(m?) = 23 10 sec. The value of R = 3.4 0.3 was used for the mean value of the ratio of aftershocks decay rates which is smaller than for the Landers earthquake. For the Hector Mine earthquake we have taken mms = 7.1, b = 1.01 0.01, Dm? = 1.35 0.05, p =

1.21 0.05, c(m = 3.0) = 0.25 days, and c(m?) = 32 10 sec. The value of R = 4.1 0.2 is basically similar to that for the Landers earthquake. We also applied our analysis of decay rates to the San Simeon earthquake for 100 days after the mainshock. The results are given in Figure 2d where we have taken mms = 6.5, b = 1.00 0.03, Dm? = 1.10 0.05, p = 1.12 0.02, c(m = 3.0) = 0.04 days, and c(m?) = 55 10 sec. The results are summarized in Table 1.

4. Discussion
[16] In this letter we have derived a generalized Omoris law for aftershock decay. To do this we have combined three empirical scaling laws for aftershocks. The aftershocks of an earthquake satisfy G-R frequency-magnitude scaling equation (1) in much the same way as mainshocks. The G-R scaling can be used to infer the largest expected aftershock. The assumption that the difference in magnitude Dm? between the mainshock and the largest inferred aftershock is a constant, is a modified form of Baths law. With values of Dm? and b prescribed we can use the modified G-R relation (5) to forecast the frequency-magnitude distribution of aftershocks once the mainshock magnitude mms is known.

4 of 5

L11613

SHCHERBAKOV ET AL.: A GENERALIZED OMORIS LAW

L11613

[17] The standard form of the modified Omoris law for aftershock decay can be expressed in terms of two characteristic times, t and c(m), and an exponent p as shown in equation (6). The total number of aftershocks with magnitudes greater than m, N(! m), obtained from the modified Omoris law, is equated to the same quantity from G-R scaling in order to eliminate t. This allows a generalized Omoris law to be expressed in terms of b, mms, Dm?, c(m), and p, equation (9). Analyses of aftershock decay rates of large California earthquakes suggests that the characteristic time c(m) scales with the lower magnitude cutoff m and the mainshock magnitude mms. The value of c(m) increases when the cutoff m is decreased. This suggests that the almost constant rate of seismic activity persists longer for smaller magnitude cutoffs and then starts to decrease. [18] Reasenberg and Jones [1989] used their generic California model for aftershocks to obtain the probability that a large aftershock will occur. They used the rate equation which depends on several parameters a0, c, and p to scale aftershock decay initiated by the mainshock of magnitude mms (equation (3) in their paper). Based on studies of 62 California aftershock sequences (mms ! 5.0) that occurred from 1933 to 1987, they found the following mean values and standard deviations with time measured in days: b = 0.90 0.02, p = 1.08 0.03, c = 0.05 days, and a0 = 1.67 0.07. Studying 27 aftershock sequences in Japan, Yamanaka and Shimazaki [1990] proposed an alternative set of values: b = 0.85, p = 1.3, c = 0.3 days, and a0 = 1.83. [19] Based on the results given in this letter, we can apply our generalized Omoris law to forecast the rate of aftershock occurrence once the mainshock magnitude is known, provided that we assume a model of a seismogenic region with given values of b, p, b, and Dm?.

[20] Acknowledgment. This work has been supported by NASA/JPL Grant 1247848 and US DOE Grant DE-FG03-03ER15380.

References
Bath, M. (1965), Lateral inhomogeneities in the upper mantle, Tectonophys ics, 2, 483 514. Console, R., A. M. Lombardi, M. Murru, and D. Rhoades (2003), Baths law and the self-similarity of earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 108(B2), 2128, doi:10.1029/2001JB001651. Felzer, K. R., T. W. Becker, R. E. Abercrombie et al. (2002), Triggering of the 1999 MW 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake by aftershocks of the 1992 MW 7.3 Landers earthquake, J. Geophys. Res., 107(B9), 2190, doi:10.1029/ 2001JB000911. Gutenberg, B., and C. F. Richter (1954), Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomenon, 2nd ed., Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J. Helmstetter, A., and D. Sornette (2003), Baths law derived from the Gutenberg-Richter law and from aftershock properties, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(20), 2069, doi:10.1029/2003GL018186. Kagan, Y. Y. (2002), Aftershock zone scaling, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 92, 641 655. Kisslinger, C. (1996), Aftershocks and fault-zone properties, in Advances in Geophysics, vol. 38, pp. 1 36, Academic, San Diego, Calif. Kisslinger, C., and L. M. Jones (1991), Properties of aftershock sequences in southern California, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 11,947 11,958. Reasenberg, P. A., and L. M. Jones (1989), Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in California, Science, 243, 1173 1176. Tsapanos, T. M. (1990), Spatial-distribution of the difference between the magnitudes of the mainshock and the largest aftershock in the circumPacific belt, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 80, 1180 1189. Utsu, T. (1961), A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks, Geophys. Mag., 30, 521 605. Vere-Jones, D. (1969), A note on the statistical interpretation of Bth's law, Bull. Seism. Am., 59, 1535 1541. Yamanaka, Y., and K. Shimazaki (1990), Scaling relationship between the number of aftershocks and the size of the mainshock, J. Phys. Earth, 38, 305 324.

J. B. Rundle and R. Shcherbakov, Center for Computational Science and Engineering, Departments of Physics and Geology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. (jbrundle@ucdavis.edu; rshcherbakov@ ucdavis.edu) D. L. Turcotte, Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. (turcotte@geology.ucdavis.edu)

5 of 5