The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The energy release in great earthquakes
Open accessAbstract
The conventional magnitude scale M suffers saturation when the rupture dimension of the earthquake exceeds the wavelength of the seismic waves used for the magnitude determination (usually 5–50 km). This saturation leads to an inaccurate estimate of energy released in great earthquakes. To circumvent this problem the strain energy drop W (difference in strain energy before and after an earthquake) in great earthquakes is estimated from the seismic moment M0. If the stress drop Δσ is complete, W = W0 = (Δσ/2μ)M0 ∼ M0/(2×104), where μ is the rigidity; if it is partial, W0 gives the minimum estimate of the strain energy drop. Furthermore, if Orowan's condition, i.e., that frictional stress equal final stress, is met, W0 represents the seismic wave energy. A new magnitude scale Mw is defined in terms of W0 through the standard energy-magnitude relation log W0 = 1.5Mw + 11.8. Mw is as large as 9.5 for the 1960 Chilean earthquake and connects smoothly to Ms (surface wave magnitude) for earthquakes with a rupture dimension of about 100 km or less. The Mw scale does not suffer saturation and is a more adequate magnitude scale for great earthquakes. The seismic energy release curve defined by W0 is entirely different from that previously estimated from Ms. During the 15-year period from 1950 to 1965 the annual average of W0 is more than 1 order of magnitude larger than that during the periods from 1920 to 1950 and from 1965 to 1976. The temporal variation of the amplitude of the Chandler wobble correlates very well with the variation of W0, with a slight indication of the former preceding the latter. In contrast, the number N of moderate to large earthquakes increased very sharply as the Chandler wobble amplitude increased but decreased very sharply during the period from 1945 to 1965, when W0 was largest. One possible explanation for these correlations is that the increase in the wobble amplitude triggers worldwide seismic activity and accelerates plate motion which eventually leads to great decoupling earthquakes. This decoupling causes the decline of moderate to large earthquake activity. Changes in the rotation rate of the earth may be an important element in this mechanism.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Back‐arc opening and the mode of subduction
Uyeda, S., & Kanamori, H. (1979) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth · doi:10.1029/jb084ib03p01049 · Cited by 1,286
Self-citationEvidence for Great Holocene Earthquakes Along the Outer Coast of Washington State
Atwater, B. F. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.236.4804.942 · Cited by 678
Depth of seismic coupling along subduction zones
Tichelaar, B. W., & Ruff, L. J. (1993) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth · doi:10.1029/92jb02045 · Cited by 458
Magnitude scale and quantification of earthquakes
Kanamori, H. (1983) · Tectonophysics · doi:10.1016/0040-1951(83)90273-1 · Cited by 372
Self-citationUtsu, T. (1999) · pure and applied geophysics · doi:10.1007/s000240050276 · Cited by 344
Metadata
- Authors
- Kanamori, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1977-07-10
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 2981-2987
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127150969
- Cited by
- 2,477
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The energy release in great earthquakes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/jb082i020p02981
- The paper
- Kanamori, H. (1977). The energy release in great earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/jb082i020p02981
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.