Seismic moment and volume change of a spherical source
© Kumagai et al.; licensee Springer. 2014
Received: 14 December 2013
Accepted: 25 March 2014
Published: 7 April 2014
A spherical source, one of the simplest seismic sources, has been represented in various ways in the literature. These representations include a spherical source with outward radial expansion (S1), a spherical crack source with outward and inward crack wall motions along the spherical surface (S2), an isotropic source represented by three mutually perpendicular vector dipoles (S3) or three mutually perpendicular tensile cracks (S4), and a spherical source undergoing a transformational expansion (S5). We systematically examined these sources and their static displacement fields to clarify how these representations are mutually related. We also considered the sources in a bimaterial medium, in which the source material is different from the surrounding medium, as a model of a magma or hydrothermal reservoir. Our examinations show that the source volume change of a spherical source (S1) (actual volume) can be uniquely determined from the seismic moment of an isotropic source (S3) regardless of our assumption of the source medium and that the actual volume of S1 is related to the seismic moment of S3 through the equivalence of the displacement fields due to these two sources. The seismic moment of S3 is also related through another equation to the source volume change of three tensile cracks (S4), which is equal to the source volume changes defined in S2 and S5. This relation has different forms, depending on the source medium and source process. This study provides a unified view for quantifying a spherical source using the seismic moment of an isotropic source determined from waveform inversion analysis.
where λ and μ are Lamé’s constants and ΔVs and ΔVf are two different definitions of source volume changes (see below). The recent volcano seismology literature has used Equation 1 (e.g., Kawakatsu and Yamamoto 2007; Kumagai 2009; Chouet 2013), whereas earlier studies generally used Equation 2 (e.g., Chouet 1996; Julian et al. 1998; Dreger et al. 2000; Nishimura and Iguchi 2011).
According to Kawakatsu and Yamamoto (2007), the volume change in Equation 2 (ΔVf) corresponds to the stress-free volume, introduced by Eshelby (1957), whereas the actual volume in Equation 1 (ΔVs) may be smaller than the stress-free volume because of the confining pressure of the surrounding medium. Kawakatsu and Yamamoto (2007) also noted that the actual volume corresponds to the volume change used in the Mogi model (e.g., Mogi 1958).
Müller (2001) noted that the discrepancy between Equations 1 and 2 could not be resolved, and he interpreted these two forms to correspond to the limits of the actual volume of the source. Wielandt (2003) discussed the discrepancy and noted that the source volume change depends on the source geometry. Richards and Kim (2005) argued that each relationship is based on a different definition of volume changes at the source and that Equation 1 is preferred for characterizing underground explosions.
It is not clear why a spherical source has been represented in different ways and how these representations, including the two seismic moment equations, are mutually related. In Eshelby’s operations and Müller’s spherical crack, the source material is assumed to be the same as the surrounding medium. In volcanic regions, sources may be filled with magmatic or hydrothermal fluids. No examinations have been made on a spherical source in such bimaterial media, although the source representation of fault slip on a bimaterial interface has been discussed in various studies (e.g., Ampuero and Dahlen 2005).
In this paper, we first review the spherical source representations mentioned above and then derive the static displacement fields due to these sources in an infinite medium and in a half-space. We compare the analytical forms of these displacements to clarify the relationships among these representations. We further examine a spherical source in a bimaterial medium, which is of fundamental importance as a model of a magma or hydrothermal reservoir.
where ΔVs = 4π R2Δs.
Here, ΔVi = 3ΔVc, where ΔVc is the incremental change in the volume of each crack.
Finally, we consider an Eshelby spherical source following Aki and richards (2002) (S5, Figure 2a). A spherical volume with radius R removed from its surroundings expands to R+Δa with stress-free volumetric strain. We apply the surface traction that will restore the volume source to its original radius R, put the volume back in its hole, and weld the material across the cut. We release the applied traction, which results in the source volume expanding to R+Δs. The volume defined as ΔVf = 4π R2Δa is the stress-free volume, and the volume defined as ΔVs = 4π R2Δs is the actual volume or Mogi volume. We define the seismic moment using the stress-free volume as
where ur is the radial displacement. We denote the regions inside and outside the sphere with radius R as regions 1 and 2, respectively. Equation 11 has two solutions: ur = A r and ur = B/r2, where A and B are constants. The former is the interior solution for region 1 (r ≤ R), and the latter is the exterior solution for region 2 (r ≥ R).
where ΔVs = 4π R2Δs.
Spherical crack source
Here, ΔVD = 4π R2Ds.
Eshelby spherical source
We note that δ P is the applied pressure, which may correspond to the stress glut (Backus and Mulcahy 1976), and ΔP is the pressure after the equilibrium state.
Sources in a bimaterial medium
We consider a bimaterial medium, in which Lamé’s constants are λ′ and μ′ in region 1 and λ and μ in region 2. This medium may be viewed as a model of a magma or hydrothermal reservoir, and its source representations are critically important to understand volcanic processes.
For a spherical source (S1), no assumption is made on region 1, and the boundary conditions at r = R in a bimaterial medium are given as those in a homogeneous medium (Equations 12 and 13). Therefore, the displacement field is the same as in a homogeneous medium given in Equation 15.
For an isotropic source, three vector dipoles (S3) can be represented as three tensile cracks (S4). For the moment tensor of each tensile crack, no assumption is made for the material inside a tensile crack, and we may not able to define an isotropic source in a bimaterial medium.
Results and discussion
where ΔVf = 4π R2Δa = 4π R2Ds. We see from Equations 50 and 51 that ΔVi = ΔVf: the sum of three tensile crack volumes is equal to a spherical crack volume or stress-free volume. Therefore, the two seismic moment equations (Equations 1 and 2) can be understood as follows: the first equation from the equivalence of the displacement fields due to a spherical source (S1) and an isotropic source (S3) (Equation 49) and the second equation from the equivalence of three tensile crack volumes and a spherical crack volume or stress-free volume (Equations 50 and 51). The first equation can be used to estimate the actual volume from the seismic moment of an isotropic source (S3).
As shown in Subsection 'Sources in a bimaterial medium’, no assumption is made on region 1 for a spherical source (S1), and its source parameter is given as ΔVs in both homogeneous and bimaterial media (Figure 5a). Thus, we may use Equation 49 with in a homogeneous medium to estimate ΔVs, regardless of the assumption on the medium.
These results suggest that the source estimation in region 1 depends on our interpretation, whereas we can uniquely estimate the source parameter of ΔVs in region 2 from .
In volcano seismological studies, waveform inversions have been performed to determine moment tensor solutions. If one interprets the isotropic source determined by waveform inversion to be spherical, then Equation 49 can be used to estimate the actual volume ΔVs. In volcano geodetic studies, the Mogi model has been used to interpret volcano deformations. Because the Mogi model is based on a spherical source, ΔVs is estimated directly. On the other hand, Okada (1992) model uses an isotropic source. Thus, if one estimates the seismic moment of an isotropic source by using Okada’s model, the relation given in Equation 49 should be used to estimate the volume change due to the corresponding spherical source or Mogi model.
From Equations 57 and 58, we see that Equation 65 becomes Equation 15 for the displacement field due to a spherical source. Therefore, Equation 65 may be regarded as the general form of the equation for the displacement field due to a spherical source represented by ΔP and Δs.
We systematically examined the following seismic sources and their static displacement fields: a spherical source (radius R) with outward radial expansion (R + Δs) (S1), a spherical crack source with outward and inward crack wall motions along the spherical surface with displacement discontinuity Ds (S2), an isotropic source represented by three mutually perpendicular vector dipoles (S3) or three tensile cracks (S4), and an Eshelby spherical source undergoing a transformational expansion (R + Δa) (S5) or strain-free stress (δ P) (S6). Our examinations show that the static radial displacement fields due to these sources except for an isotropic source are given as ΔVs/(4π r2), where ΔVs = 4π R2Δs is the actual volume. The equivalence of these fields and that due to an isotropic source (S3) gives , where is the seismic moment of an isotropic source. The actual volume ΔVs may be uniquely determined from in homogeneous and bimaterial media. We see that the source volume change for an isotropic source defined by three tensile cracks (S4) is equal to the spherical crack volume (4π R2Ds) and stress-free volume (4π R2Δa). We then obtain , where ΔVf is the spherical crack or stress-free volume. This relation depends on our interpretation of the source process. If we consider an Eshelby spherical source with strain-free stress (S6), is related to δ P. We obtain a different estimation of ΔVf or δ P in a bimaterial medium. This study provides a unified view for quantifying a spherical source using the seismic moment of an isotropic source determined from waveform inversion analysis in volcano seismological studies.
We thank Mare Yamamoto, Minoru Takeo, and Shiro Hirano for their useful discussions. This work was supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST).
- Aki K, Richards PG: Quantitative seismology, 2nd edn. Sausalito: University Science Books; 2002.Google Scholar
- Ampuero JP, FA Dahlen: Ambiguity of the moment tensor. Bull Seism Soc Am 95 2005, 390–400.Google Scholar
- Backus G, Mulcahy M: Moment tensors and other phenomenological descriptions of seismic sources–I. Continuous displacements. Geophys J R Astr Soc 1976, 46: 341–361. 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1976.tb04162.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chouet B: A seismic model for the source of long-period events and harmonic tremor. In Volcanic seismology. Edited by: Gasparini P, Scarpa R, Aki K. Berlin: Springer; 1996:133–156.Google Scholar
- Chouet B: Introduction to quantitative volcano seismology: fluid-driven sources. In Modeling volcanic processes the physics and mathematics of volcanism. Edited by: RMC, Lopes, TKP, Gregg, Fragents SA, Gregg , TKP , Lopes , RMC . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013:331–358.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dreger D, Johnston M, Tkalčić H: Dilational processes accompanying earthquakes in the Long Valley Caldera. Science 2000, 288: 122–125. 10.1126/science.288.5463.122View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eshelby JD: The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc Roy Soc Ser A 1957, 241: 376–396. 10.1098/rspa.1957.0133View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fukuyama E, Takeo M: Analysis of the near-field seismogram observed during the eruption of Izu-Oshima Volcano on November 16. Bull Volcanol Soc Jpn 1987, 35: 283–297.Google Scholar
- Julian BR, Miller AD, Foulger GR: Non-double-couple earthquakes 1. Theory. Rev Geophys 1998, 36: 525–549. 10.1029/98RG00716View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kanamori H, Given J, Lay T: Analysis of seismic body waves excited by the Mount St. Helens eruption of May 18,. J Geophys Res 1980, 89: 1856–1866.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kawakatsu H, Yamamoto M: Volcano seismology. In Kamanori H (ed) Treatise on geophysics volume 4—earthquake seismology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007:389–420.Google Scholar
- Kumagai H: Source quantification of volcano seismic signals. In Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. Edited by: Mayers RA, Mayers RA . New York: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
- Kumagai H, Placios P, Ruiz M, Yepes H, Kozono T: Ascending seismic source during an explosive eruption at Tungurahua volcano. Ecuador Geophys Res Lett 2011., 38: L01306 doi:10.1029/2010GL045944 L01306 doi:10.1029/2010GL045944Google Scholar
- Legrand D, Kaneshima S, Kawakatsu H: Moment tensor analysis of near-field broadband waveforms observed at Aso volcano, Japan. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 2000, 101: 155–169. 10.1016/S0377-0273(00)00167-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Maeda M, Takeo M: Take very-long-period pulses at Asama volcano, central Japan, inferred from dense seismic observations. Geophys J Int 2011, 185: 265–282. 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04938.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mogi K: Relation between the eruptions of various volcanoes and the deformations of the ground surfaces around them. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 1958, 36: 99–134.Google Scholar
- Müller G: Volume change of seismic. Bull Seism Soc Am 2001, 91: 880–884. 10.1785/0120000261View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nishimura T, Iguchi M: Volcanic earthquakes and tremor in Japan. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto 2011.Google Scholar
- Ohminato T, Takeo M, Kumagai H, Yamashina T, Oikawa J, Koyama E, Tsuji H, Urabe T: Vulcanian eruptions with dominant single force components observed during the Asama 2004. volcanic activity in Japan Earth Planets Space 2006, 58: 583–593.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Okada Y: Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull Seism Soc Am 1992, 82: 1018–1040.Google Scholar
- Richards PG, Kim WY: Equivalent volume sources for explosions at depth: theory and observations. 2005, 95: 401–407.Google Scholar
- Sezawa K: The plastico-elastic deformation of a semi-infinite solid body due to an internal force. 1931, 9: 398–406.Google Scholar
- Tameguri T, Iguchi M, Ishihara K: Mechanism of explosive eruptions from moment tensor analyses of explosion earthquakes at Sakurajima volcano, Japan. Bull Volcanol Soc Jpn 2002, 47: 197–216.Google Scholar
- Uhira K, Takeo M: The source of explosive eruptions of Sakurajima volcano, Japan. J Geophys Res 1994, 99: 17775–17789. 10.1029/94JB00990View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wielandt E: On the relationship between seismic moment and source volume. 2003.http://www.geophys.uni-stuttgart.de/~erhard/skripte/ew/isomoment/ Accessed May 30 2003Google Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.