Journal of Seismology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 715–724 | Cite as

Earthquake source parameters in Norway determined with empirical Green’s functions

  • Andrea DemuthEmail author
  • Norunn Tjåland
  • Lars Ottemöller
Original Article


Norway experiences low to intermediate seismicity, mainly caused by ridge push of the Mid-Atlantic ridge. To gain a better understanding of local tectonics and fundamental physics, we used the empirical Green’s function (EGF) method to obtain earthquake source parameters in Norway. We validated our findings against earthquake source parameters obtained from spectral analysis. Between January 1990 and May 2018, we found 263 earthquake pairs eligible for the EGF method. The local magnitudes of the 107 master events range between 1.3 and 3.4. Based on the Brune (J Geophys Res 75(26):4997–5009, 1970) source model, we obtained stress drops between 0.4 and 355 bar. We observed an increase of stress drop with earthquake size in southern Norway and the Svalbard archipelago. Calculated fault radii between 80 and 320 m suggest that larger magnitudes are caused more by increase in slip than by increase in fault dimension. Hence, our results indicate that smaller earthquakes in southern Norway and the Svalbard archipelago deviate from the assumption of self-similarity. Stress drops obtained for northern Norway show only weak correlation with seismic moment and therefore fit into the theory of earthquake self-similarity.


Source parameter Empirical Green’s function Norway NNSN 



We thank Jens Havskov and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This work was carried out under the NNSN project that is financially supported by the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association.


  1. Abercrombie RE (1995) Earthquake source scaling relationships from -1 to 5 ML using seismograms recorded at 2.5-km depth. J Geophys Res 100(B12):24,015–24,036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abercrombie RE (2015) Investigating uncertainties in empirical Green’s function analysis of earthquake source parameters. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120:4263–4277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abercrombie RE, Bannister S, Ristau J, Doser D (2017) Variability of earthquake stress drop in a subduction setting, the Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Geophys J Int 208:306–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aki K (1967) Scaling law of seismic spectrum. J Geophys Res 72(4):1217–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ammon CJ (1991) The isolation of receiver effects from teleseismic P waveforms. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81(6):2504–2510Google Scholar
  6. Atakan K, Lindholm CD, Havskov J (1994) Earthquake swarm in Steigen, northern Norway: an unusual example of intraplate seismicity. Terra Nova 6:180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boatwright J (1980) A spectral theory for circular seismic source; simple estimates of source dimension, dynamics stress drop, and radiated seismic energy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1–27Google Scholar
  8. Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75(26):4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bungum H, Vaage S, Husebye ES (1982) The Meløy earthquake sequence, northern Norway: source parameters and their scaling relations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72(1):197–206Google Scholar
  10. Bungum H, Olesen O, Pascal C, Gibbons S, Lindholm C, Vestøl O (2010) To what extent is the present seismicity of Norway driven by post-glacial rebound?. J Geol Soc 167:373–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choy GL, Boatwright JL (1995) Global patterns of radiated seismic energy and apparent stress. J Geophys Res 100(B9):18,205–18,228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clayton RW, Wiggins RA (1976) Source shape estimation and deconvolution of teleseismic bodywaves. Geophys J R astr Soc 47:151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deichmann N (2006) Local magnitude, a moment revisited. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(4A):1267–1277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demuth A, Ottemöller L, Keers H (2018) QLg wave tomography beneath Norway. Journal of Seismology.
  15. Eshelby JD (1957) The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc R Soc Lond 241(1226):376–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fejerskov M, Lindholm C (2000) Crustal stress in and around Norway: an evaluation of stress-generating mechanisms. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 167:451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frankel A, Wennerberg L (1989) Microearthquake spectra from the Anza, California, seismic network: site response and source scaling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(3):581–609Google Scholar
  18. Hardebeck JL, Aron A (2009) Earthquake stress drops and inferred fault strength on the Hayward fault, east San Francisco Bay, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(3):1801–1814. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartzell SH (1978) Earthquake aftershocks as Green’s functions. Geophys Res Lett 5(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hasegawa HS (1983) Lg spectra of local earthquakes recorded by the Eastern Canada Telemetered Network and spectral scaling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(4):1041–1061Google Scholar
  21. Havskov J, Ottemöller L (2010) Routine data processing in earthquake seismology. Springer, Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hicks EC, Bungum H, Lindholm CD (2000) Seismic activity, inferred crustal stresses and seismotectonics in the Rana region, nothern Norway. Quat Sci Rev 19:1423–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ide S, Beroza GC, Prejean SG, Ellsworth WL (2003) Apparent break in earthquake scaling due to path and site effects on deep borehole recordings. J Geophys Res 108 (B5):2271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanamori H (1977) The energy release in great earthquakes. J Geophys Res 82(20):2981–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanamori H, Allen CR (1986) Earthquake repeat time and average stress drop. Earthquake Source Mechanics. Geophys Monogr Ser 37:227–235Google Scholar
  26. Kanamori H, Anderson DL (1975) Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(5):1073–1095Google Scholar
  27. Kane DL, Kilb DL, Vernon FL (2013) Selecting empirical Green’s function in regions of fault complexity: a study of data from the San Jacinto fault zone, Southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103 (2A):641–650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaneko Y, Shearer PM (2014) Seismic source spectra and estimated stress drop derived from cohesive-zone models of circular subshear rupture. Geophys J Int 197:1002–1015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kvamme LB, Hansen RA, Bungum H (1995) Seismic-source and wave-propagation effect of Lg waves in Scandinavia. Geophys J Int 120:525–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kwiatek G, Plenkers K, Dresen G, Group JR (2011) Source parameters of picoseismicity recorded at Mponeng deep gold mine, South Africa: implications for scaling relations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(6):2592–2608. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Madariaga R (1976) Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66(3):639–666Google Scholar
  32. Malagnini L, Mayeda K, Nielsen S, Yoo SH, Muafo I, Rawles C, Boschi E (2014) Scaling transition in earthquake source: a possible link between seismic and laboratory measurements. Pure Appl Geophys 171:2685–2707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meirova T, Hofstetter A (2017) Source parameters of regional earthquakes recorded by Israel Seismic Network: implications for earthquake scaling. Bull Earthq Eng 15:3417–3436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mori J, Abercrombie RE, Kanamori H (2003) Stress drops and radiated energies of aftershocks of the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. J Geophys Res 108(B11):2545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mueller CS (1985) Source pulse enhancement by deconvolution of an empirical Green’s function. Geophys Res Lett 12(1):33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ottemöller L, Havskov J (2003) Moment magnitude determination for local and regional earthquakes based on source spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(1):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ottemöller L, Voss P, Havskov J (2010) Seisan earthquake analysis softwareGoogle Scholar
  38. Ottemöller L, Tjåland N, Shiddiqi HA, Kim WY (2017) Stress drop characteristics of the 2008-2016 Storfjorden earthquake sequence. In: IASPEI Symposium / IASPEI01. Seismological Observation and Interpretation /S01. Open sessionGoogle Scholar
  39. Pirli M, Schweitzer J, Ottemöller L, Raeesi M, Mjelde R, Atakan K, Guterch A, Gibbons SJ, Paulsen B, Debski W, Wiejacz P, Kværna T (2010) Preliminary analysis of the 21 February 2008 Svalbard (Norway) seismic sequence. Seismol Res Lett 81(1):63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prieto GA, Shearer PM, Vernon FL, Kilb D (2004) Earthquake source scaling and self-similarity estimation from stacking P and S spectra. J Geophys Res 109:B08, 310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scholz CH, Aviles CA, Wesnousky SG (1986) Scaling differences between large interplate and intraplate earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 76(1):65–70Google Scholar
  42. Shearer PM, Prieto GA, Hauksson E (2006) Comprehensive analysis of earthquake source spectra in southern California. J Geophys Res 111:B06,303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shi J, Kim WY, Richards PG (1998) The corner frequencies and stress drops of intraplate earthquakes in the northeastern United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(2):531–542Google Scholar
  44. Viegas G, Abercrombie RE, Kim WY (2010) The 2002 M5 Au Sable Forks, NY, earthquake sequence: source scaling relationships and energy budget. J Geophys Res 115:B07, 310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth ScienceUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations