ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Source parameters and scaling relations for small

earthquakes in Kumaon Himalaya, India
K. Sivaram & Dinesh Kumar & S. S. Teotia &
S. S. Rai & K. S. Prakasam
Received: 19 December 2011 / Accepted: 10 October 2012 / Published online: 28 October 2012
#Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract We investigate the scaling relationships
among earthquake source parameters using more than
300 good quality broad band seismograms from 30
small earthquakes in the Kumaon Himalaya from the
spectral analysis of P and S waves. The average ratio
of P/S wave corner frequency is found to be 1.13,
which is suggestive of shift in the corner frequency.
The estimated seismic moment range from 1.610
13

5.810
15
Nm, while the stress drop varies from 0.6 to
16 bars with 80 % of the events below 10 bars. An
analysis of stress drop and apparent stress drop indi-
cates the partial stress drop mechanism in the region.
The source radii are between 0.17 and 0.88 km. The
total seismic energy varies from 1.7910
8
to 7.30
10
11
J. We also observe the variation in seismic energy
for a given seismic moment. The scaling relation be-
tween the seismic moment and stress drop suggests the
breakdown of constant stress drop scaling for the
range of seismic moments obtained here for the re-
gion. This shows the anomalous behavior of small
earthquakes in the region. The study indicates that
the stress drop is the dominant scaling factor for the
moments studied here.
Keywords Source parameters
.
Kumaon Himalaya
.
Small earthquakes
.
Scaling relations
1 Introduction
The Kumaon Himalaya region of the Himalayas is one
of the youngest orogenic belts of the world, which has
resulted by continuous tectonic collision of Indian
plate with Eurasian plate since early Eocene. The
arcuate Himalayan formation extends from the north-
east to the northwest over a distance of about
2,500 km. The study region, in the state of Uttarak-
hand, India, falls in the central seismic gap between
rupture zones of 1905 and 1934 great earthquakes
(Khattri and Tyagi 1983; Khattri 1987). In addition,
Bilham et al. (1997, 2001) suggest significant seismic
potential for the Himalayan region between the west-
ern Nepal and Western Himalaya. For the proper eval-
uation of the seismic hazard potential in a region,
determination of earthquake source parameters such
as the seismic moment, stress drop, radiated seismic
energy, corner frequency, and rupture dimension pro-
vides the basic building blocks. The ambient stress
conditions and ranges of stress drop may vary for
different regions. Therefore, the regional scaling rela-
tions, instead of available global relations, are appro-
priate to estimate the values of stress drop and fault
dimensions. The developed scaling relations provide
the information whether the stress drop is constant or
not for the given range of seismic moments. A number
J Seismol (2013) 17:579592
DOI 10.1007/s10950-012-9339-y
K. Sivaram (*)
:
S. S. Rai
:
K. S. Prakasam
CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute,
Hyderabad, India
e-mail: sivaramk@ngri.res.in
D. Kumar
:
S. S. Teotia
Department of Geophysics, Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra, India
of studies have been done to investigate the region-
specific scaling of earthquakes, especially at lower
magnitudes. (e.g., Abercrombie 1995; Prejean and
Ellsworth 2001). In the Himalayan regions, Sharma
and Wason (1994) have investigated the scaling rela-
tions using 18 low magnitude, local events recorded
by five vertical-component and two three-component
stations for Lower Himalayan regions. Using the
2
source model, Sriram et al. (2005) have provided
insights of earthquakes in some parts of Himachal
Himalaya, whereas Kumar et al. (2006) have provided
source parameter estimation for the 1999 chamoli
earthquakes and nine of its aftershocks in Uttarakhand
Himalaya using band-limited accelerograms. Kumar et
al. (2008) suggested the self similar nature of Himala-
yan earthquake sources with seismic moments in the
range 1.410
16
1.710
19
Nm. Their analysis is based
on the 80 band-limited accelerograms of 12 earth-
quakes in the Himalayan region.
The study by Dysart et al. 1988 found different
scaling relations for the small and large earthquakes
in the same region. The purpose of this study is to
determine the source parameters and investigate the
possible self-similarity of small earthquakes for
Kumaon Himalaya region using spectral analysis of
the digital broadband waveforms of 30 earthquakes
recorded over a seismograph network operated by
the CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute,
from April 2005 to June 2008. The
2
scaling model
(Aki 1967; Brune 1970, 1971; Houston and Kanamori
1986; Boore 1986) has been used for this purpose in
the present study. In the following sections, we first
describe the geological framework and seismotecton-
ics of the study region, followed by dataset preparation
and methodology of spectral analysis, the source
parameters and scaling relations, and finally the
conclusions.
2 Geological framework and seismotectonics
of the study region
The Kumaon Himalayan region (latitude, 29 N
31 N; longitude, 78 E81 E) forms a part of the
Himalayas, which has resulted from a long geolog-
ical evolution, after the closure of the Tethys Ocean
and the underthrusting of the Indian with the Eur-
asian continental plate. Figure 1 shows the surface
trace of major tectonic features of the region that
includes the Southern Tibetan Detachment (STD),
the Main Central Thrust (MCT), the Main Bound-
ary Thrust (MBT), and the Main Frontal Thrust
(MFT). The Lower Himalaya is structurally
bounded by MBT and MCT, consists mainly of
Precambrian clastic sediments. The greater Hima-
laya is bounded by MCT and STD and comprises
of early Cambrian metasedimentary rocks. Over the
past 200 years, nearly half of the Himalayan belt
has ruptured in at least six great earthquakes that
occurred in 1803, 1833, 1897, 1905, 1934, and
1950. Various seismo-tectonic models have been
proposed for explaining the evolution and seismic-
ity of the Himalayas (Seeber and Armbuster 1981;
Ni and Barazangi 1984; Molnar and Chen, 1982;
Yin and Harrison 2000). It is a well-accepted fact
that most of the earthquakes recorded here tend to
be shallow and restricted to a seismogenic zone
within the upper ~25 km of the crust. Whereas
the study region is experiencing low to moderate
seismicity, a few recent moderate earthquakes being
the Uttarkashi (M6.6, 1991), Chamoli (M6.3, 1999)
earthquakes, the adjoining Himalayan regions have
experienced bigger earthquakes (Kashmir, M7.6,
2005, and Wenchuan, M8.0, 2008). Due to the
varying ambient stress conditions and absence of a
large magnitude seismic event in the region for a
long time, the seismic risk potential is enhanced
across Kumaon Himalaya region.
3 Data set
The study is based on the broad band seismograms
recorded during April 2005June 2008 at a broadband
seismograph network operated in Kumaon Himalaya re-
gion by the CSIR- National Geophysical Research Insti-
tute, under a project grant by Department of Science and
Technology, New Delhi, India (Ashish et al 2009;
Mahesh et al. 2013). Figure 1 shows the seismic network
of the study stations along with the major tectonic features
and the epicenters of the earthquakes. Table 1 shows the
details of the earthquakes considered in this study. The
seismograph stations were equipped with Guralp CMG-
3T triaxial broadband seismometer [with a flat velocity
response in the frequency range of 0.0083 Hz (120 s
period) to 50 Hz] coupled to 24-bit Reftek RT-130/1
digital data acquisition system and synchronized by glob-
al positioning system (GPS). The stations used in the
580 J Seismol (2013) 17:579592
study were located on rock profiles and observed to have
minimum noise interference. The data have been
recorded at a sampling rate of 50 samples/s, and all the
stations were synchronized to operate in a continuous
mode. The earthquakes with focal depth <25 km and
which are recorded over minimum of five stations have
been used in the present study.
4 Methodology adopted
The recorded waveforms have been analyzed by mod-
eling the spectra of P and S waves independently using

2
model. The velocity seismograms were corrected for
instrument response and baseline correction. The onset
times of P and S arrival were selected from vertical
component and EW components, respectively. We
estimated parameters for the time windows of length
3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 s, and found stable result for
length 4.0 s. Considering this time window from
onset time for both P and S waves, we computed
the Fourier transform after applying 10 % cosine
taper at both the ends. The displacement spectra of
selected windows have been obtained from veloc-
ity spectra by integration and fitting Brune spectra
to the corrected observed spectra of P and S
waves using the relation (Brune 1970, 1971):
D f ; R

0
GSRe
pf t
Q

1
f
f
c
_ _
2
_ _ 1
where D(f) is displacement spectrum, f is frequen-
cy in Hertz, t is travel time, GS(R) is geometrical
Fig. 1 Tectonic map of the region along with the locations of events and stations. STDSouthern Tibetan Detachment, MT Munsiyari Thrust,
MCT Main Central Thrust, MBT Main Boundary Thrust, MFT Main Frontal Thrust
J Seismol (2013) 17:579592 581
spreading,
0
is long period spectral level, Q is
quality factor, f
c
is corner frequency, and R is
source receiver distance. GS(R) 0R
1
for RR
y
and GS(R)0(RR
y
)
0.5
for R>R
y
. R
y
may be taken
as twice the thickness of crust (Herrmann and
Kijko 1983). In this study R
y
has been taken as
100 km corresponding to a crustal thickness of
50 km (Singh et al. 2002; Rai et al. 2009) for
the Himalaya. Our frequency analysis lies in the
wider frequency band 0.220 Hz, as the maximum
cut-off frequency for the seismometer is 50 Hz.
We recognize here that we are neglecting the high
frequency decay parameter in Eq. (1), for which,
the spectra have been fitted in the frequency band
of 0.210 Hz. Another reason for this choice, as
discussed below, is that the constant Q model has
been preferred in the present analysis.
The term exp (ft/Q) represents the attenua-
tion of seismic waves (Dainty 1981; Fletcher
1995). A constant Q model, considered as path
averaged Q, has been adopted for the relatively
narrow frequency band of 0.210 Hz. The model
has been found to be satisfactory in many studies
(e.g., Kjartansson 1979; Masuda and Suzuki 1982;
Archuleta 1982; Archuleta and Hartzell 1981;
Anderson and Hough (1984); De Natale et al.
Table 1 The earthquakes and
the number of recording stations
used in the present study
Event number Latitude
( N)
Longitude
( E)
Depth
(km)
mb
(USGS)
Number of recording
stations used for analysis
1 31.56 79.57 12.6 3.5 9
2 30.44 79.25 13.4 4.6 8
3 30.38 79.31 20.0 3.8 9
4 30.53 81.40 11.0 3.9 7
5 30.3 80.95 4.6 4.9 13
6 30.32 80.96 4.6 3.8 14
7 30.45 79.23 19.3 5.3 12
8 30.47 79.23 14.4 3.7 13
9 30.36 80.13 11.6 4.9 16
10 30.41 80.15 17.6 4.5 16
11 30.37 80.10 13.8 3.6 17
12 31.74 77.20 4.5 3.9 18
13 29.44 76.54 25.3 4.3 17
14 32.31 77.78 18.5 4.2 18
15 31.49 78.50 17.9 4.0 19
16 31.48 78.46 6.0 3.5 19
17 31.52 78.43 3.2 3.5 15
18 30.02 80.52 20.5 3.8 19
19 27.77 76.39 14.0 3.8 19
20 31.13 80.21 14.6 3.9 21
21 31.84 78.87 3.3 4.7 20
22 31.24 77.80 9.5 4.1 17
23 29.59 81.27 7.6 4.6 19
24 30.93 78.28 4.4 3.9 20
25 32.1 76.93 1.4 4.3 19
26 30.33 80.31 3.6 3.9 12
27 30.83 78.41 8.4 5.1 9
28 30.94 78.26 3.1 3.8 10
29 28.76 77.37 8.0 4.7 21
30 31.38 77.35 8.9 3.4 18
582 J Seismol (2013) 17:579592
1987; Menke et al. 1995; Abercrombie 1995;
Prejean and Ellsworth 2001; Kumar et al. 2006;
Tomic et al. 2009). Anderson and Hough (1984)
have shown that the model of a frequency-
independent Q for the shallow crust is consistent
with a
2
Brune source model. The fitting of the
Brunes model to the observed spectra, as dis-
cussed below, shows adequacy of constant Q
model in the frequency range of 0.210 Hz for
the region.
Three parameters
0
, Q, and f
c
are required to
define the source spectrum described by Eq. (1). The
simultaneous estimation of these three parameters may
lead to biasness because of tradeoff between Q and f
c
as well as between
0
and Q. Therefore, the corner
frequency has been estimated separately, in the wider
frequency band, and other two parameters
0
and Q
have been determined using the grid search method.
Many methods have been proposed to estimate the
critical parameter f
c
(Brune 1970; Andrews 1986;
Snoke 1987; Margaris and Boore 1998; Shi et al.
1998). The Snokes method (Snoke 1987) requires
two parameters: long period spectral level
0
and the
energy flux J (integral of square of the ground
velocity). The value of
0
may be estimated either
from the known seismic moment of the earthquake
or by the visual inspection of the displacement
spectrum. The Andrewss approach (Andrews
1986) requires two spectral parametersJ and K
(integral of square of ground displacement)to
determine the corner frequency. Garca et al.
(2004) have found that both approaches provide
similar values. In order to avoid the possible error
due to visual inspection of
0
, the corner frequen-
cy in the present study has been determined using
Andrews (1986) approach. This approach helps
significantly minimizing the error associated with
the visual estimation of corner frequency, fc, given
by:
f
c

S
V
2
S
D
2
_ _
_
2p
2
where S
V2
and S
D2
are evaluated using the follow-
ing integrals:
S
V
2
_
1
0
V
2
f df 3
And
S
D
2
_
1
0
D
2
f df 4
where V(f) and D(f) are the velocity and displacement
spectra, respectively, and V
0
(f) and D
0
(f) are the cor-
rected velocity and displacement spectra, respectively,
as described below. The corner frequency has been
estimated using the wider frequency band (0.220 Hz)
of the spectra.
A two-step search procedure for determining the
optimum values of the parameters
0
and Q has been
applied while adopting the corner frequency obtained
as noted above (Kumar et al. 2006). In the first step,
the values of the parameters
0
and Q are allowed to
vary over the search space. Ten trial values per decade
were chosen for
0
and Q was allowed to vary from
100 to 2,000. In the next step, a search was conducted
for
0
around the value obtained in the previous
search while keeping the value of Q obtained in the
first step. The updated value of
0
thus obtained was
used for further analysis. A least square error function,
E is defined between the fitted Brune spectra, D(f) and
the observed spectra, D
0
(f):
E
1
n

log Df log D
0
f
2
5
where n is the number of spectral values of the dis-
placement spectra.
The values of f
c
and
0
obtained from the best-
fitted Brune spectra are used to estimate the source
parameters at the recording stations. The seismic mo-
ment (M
0
), source radius (r), stress drop (), and
moment magnitude (M
w
) of an earthquake at the re-
cording stations have been obtained using the expres-
sions (Keilis-Borok 1960; Haskell 1964; Brune 1970,
1971; Hanks and Kanamori 1979):
M
0
p s =

4pv
3
FPR
f
_ _

p s =
0
6
r
p s =

Kv
2pf
p s =
c
7

p s =

7
16
M
p s =
0
r
3
p s =
8
J Seismol (2013) 17:579592 583
M
p s =
w

log
10
M
p s =
0
_ _
1:5
10:7 9
where M
p s =
0
,
p s =
0
, r
p/s
,f
p s =
c
,
p/s
, and M
p s =
w
are seismic
moment, long period spectral level, source radius, cor-
ner frequency, stress drop, and moment magnitude of
the P or S waves, respectively; is the average density
(02.67 g/cm
3
); P is partition of energy (01/2); K is the
constant (2.34 for S waves and 1.92 for P waves); v is the
shear wave velocity (03.46 km/s) or P wave velocity
(06.07 km/s), F is the free surface effect (02) and R
is the average radiation pattern (00.52 for P waves and
00.63 for shear waves). The radiated seismic energy has
been estimated from moment rate spectra using the fol-
lowing relation (Vassiliou and Kanamori 1982):
E
R
A
_
1
0
2pfM
p
0
f
_
2
df B
_
1
0
2pfM
s
0
f
_
2
df
10
where A0(15
5
)
1
and B0(10
5
)
1
. The P and S
wave radiated seismic energy have been estimated from
the first and second term of above equation.
Table 2 Earthquake source parameters obtained from the analysis of P waves
Event
number
f
c
(P)
(Hz)
SD Mo
(P) (Nm)
SD r(P)
(m)
SD
(P) (bars)
SD M
w
SD Q
p
SD E
p
(J) SD
1 1.998 0.094 1.47E+14 0.257 1118.60 0.094 0.461 0.349 3.399 0.022 1225.08 0.054 3.45E+07 0.313
2 3.083 0.115 7.19E+14 0.319 821.34 0.122 5.675 0.653 3.856 0.025 1144.45 0.110 3.01E+09 0.487
3 3.097 0.122 4.50E+14 0.201 721.50 0.122 5.243 0.434 3.724 0.016 1096.90 0.092 1.20E+09 0.319
4 2.549 0.118 1.39E+14 0.227 876.70 0.118 0.903 0.423 3.379 0.029 1190.87 0.059 6.38E+07 0.325
5 1.493 0.161 3.41E+14 0.279 154.90 0.161 0.559 0.983 3.617 0.060 927.81 0.160 7.71E+07 0.631
6 2.021 0.099 4.84E+14 0.196 958.20 0.099 2.408 0.451 3.745 0.015 601.52 0.117 3.86E+08 0.324
7 2.682 0.097 4.90E+15 0.122 731.60 0.097 54.785 0.327 4.416 0.008 779.61 0.156 9.23E+10 0.226
8 3.511 0.140 2.87E+14 0.245 599.10 0.140 5.839 0.382 3.592 0.020 706.81 0.091 7.09E+08 0.313
9 2.407 0.105 2.46E+15 0.128 1010.00 0.109 10.430 0.424 4.216 0.009 997.99 0.236 1.68E+10 0.276
10 2.781 0.092 1.07E+15 0.294 826.20 0.092 8.282 0.519 3.972 0.021 808.57 0.183 4.89E+09 0.407
11 3.112 0.112 2.23E+14 0.342 749.20 0.112 2.322 0.571 3.515 0.030 1112.42 0.152 2.99E+08 0.456
12 4.582 0.084 4.72E+13 0.326 560.60 0.084 1.173 0.299 3.067 0.030 1274.54 0.045 4.27E+07 0.313
13 2.601 0.106 1.06E+14 0.107 804.00 0.106 0.891 0.360 3.306 0.009 1337.52 0.030 3.92E+07 0.234
14 2.542 0.112 4.42E+13 0.157 755.70 0.112 0.465 0.234 3.052 0.015 1254.30 0.046 6389871 0.195
15 2.566 0.169 5.92E+13 0.266 840.30 0.169 0.437 0.870 3.114 0.061 1015.14 0.108 1.18E+07 0.568
16 2.838 0.153 1.35E+14 0.434 807.60 0.153 1.123 0.733 3.366 0.040 1232.08 0.056 8.32E+07 0.583
17 2.732 0.148 1.17E+14 0.139 904.90 0.126 0.692 0.491 3.335 0.012 1122.69 0.129 5.57E+07 0.315
18 2.722 0.130 5.47E+13 0.404 913.10 0.130 0.314 0.238 3.106 0.037 1043.08 0.130 1.20E+07 0.324
19 2.094 0.164 1.41E+14 0.241 853.80 0.164 0.389 0.293 3.386 0.020 1210.83 0.060 3.62E+07 0.267
20 3.249 0.506 1.49E+14 0.242 850.40 0.155 1.061 0.505 3.403 0.021 1039.07 0.101 1.52E+08 0.373
21 2.254 0.149 1.03E+14 0.184 1092.40 0.149 0.344 0.593 3.295 0.016 1056.81 0.182 2.40E+07 0.389
22 3.367 0.091 2.11E+14 0.308 636.70 0.091 3.580 0.518 3.502 0.026 1269.15 0.065 3.39E+08 0.413
23 2.956 0.158 1.17E+14 0.385 624.90 0.158 2.089 0.390 3.323 0.040 1379.40 0.014 6.98E+07 0.387
24 3.922 0.199 8.88E+13 0.263 550.10 0.199 2.334 0.763 3.252 0.023 680.19 0.368 9.48E+07 0.513
25 3.607 0.302 1.39E+13 0.164 912.10 0.302 0.449 0.776 2.717 0.017 1127.88 0.072 672677.4 0.470
26 2.593 0.180 3.49E+13 0.311 658.60 0.182 0.535 0.468 2.978 0.034 1109.56 0.118 1.29E+07 0.390
27 3.761 0.156 7.69E+15 0.251 998.90 0.156 33.740 0.357 4.540 0.027 1210.83 0.060 8.42E+10 0.304
28 1.927 0.154 1.83E+14 0.45 761.60 0.152 1.812 0.340 3.454 0.039 994.34 0.051 9.85E+07 0.395
29 2.454 0.136 1.83E+14 0.249 829.00 0.136 1.403 0.351 3.461 0.021 1298.46 0.024 5.65E+07 0.300
30 2.042 0.191 5.04E+13 0.231 752.00 0.191 0.519 0.377 3.089 0.022 1155.42 0.043 6844693 0.305
584 J Seismol (2013) 17:579592
The average values () and standard deviations SD
(log ) of seismic moment, source radius, stress drop,
and seismic energy have been obtained using the fol-
lowing expressions (Archuleta et al. 1982):
y anti log
1
N
s

N
s
i1
log y
i
_ _
11
SD logy
1
N
s
1

N
s
i1
log y
i
logy
2
_ _
1
2
12
where N
s
is number of stations used for analysis. The
average values have been obtained using P and S
waves separately for each of the 30 events used in
the analysis.
5 Results and discussion
Table 1 shows the details of the earthquakes consid-
ered in this study. The average values of parameters
estimated from the analysis of P and S waves are given
in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. Figure 2 shows the
Table 3 Earthquake source parameters obtained from the analysis of S waves
Event
number
f
c
(S)
(Hz)
SD Mo
(Nm)
SD r(S)
(m)
SD (S)
(bars)
SD M
w
SD Q
s
SD E
s
(J) SD
1 1.826 0.112 1.09E+14 0.130 610.2 0.113 1.369 0.238 3.190 0.012 1319.844 0.028 1.44E+08 0.239
2 2.437 0.091 6.27E+14 0.458 467.7 0.091 22.929 0.463 3.766 0.036 1023.130 0.232 1.95E+10 0.598
3 2.461 0.115 3.75E+14 0.190 476.1 0.115 12.162 0.322 3.606 0.015 1235.850 0.040 6.28E+09 0.333
4 2.637 0.032 8.99E+13 0.132 450.6 0.032 1.943 0.138 3.028 0.013 1400.000 0.000 1.42E+08 0.176
5 1.508 0.149 2.98E+14 0.327 202.6 1.416 3.785 0.585 3.557 0.026 1101.510 0.089 1.05E+09 0.593
6 2.125 0.158 3.21E+14 0.081 531.7 0.158 4.566 0.510 3.420 0.007 1156.600 0.100 1.11E+09 0.384
7 2.23 0.155 4.20E+15 0.419 534.0 0.155 100.686 0.705 4.312 0.029 1276.060 0.039 6.38E+11 0.731
8 2.881 0.085 2.53E+14 0.139 362.7 0.085 20.177 0.191 3.517 0.012 1228.910 0.066 5.42E+09 0.215
9 2.166 0.085 1.65E+15 0.282 552.3 0.123 21.856 0.486 3.903 0.021 757.540 0.170 3.37E+10 0.499
10 2.626 0.109 5.75E+14 0.236 461.0 0.109 3.699 0.378 3.232 0.021 1086.820 0.076 5.82E+08 0.399
11 2.913 0.221 1.67E+14 0.334 482.5 0.221 4.294 0.595 3.312 0.029 1022.080 0.138 1.41E+09 0.604
12 3.149 0.109 6.32E+13 0.174 384.1 0.109 6.11 0.269 3.221 0.016 1274.540 0.045 9.16E+08 0.288
13 2.107 0.077 1.86E+14 0.329 543.0 0.064 7.286 0.426 3.569 0.026 1252.560 0.053 3.11E+09 0.491
14 1.755 0.069 1.08E+14 0.320 836.0 0.069 1.293 0.718 3.443 0.027 1109.560 0.119 7.55E+08 0.675
15 2.347 0.090 8.23E+13 0.135 537.3 0.090 2.975 0.329 3.304 0.012 983.800 0.088 6.73E+08 0.302
16 2.56 0.134 1.21E+14 0.192 535.4 0.134 3.047 0.376 3.307 0.017 1133.600 0.106 8.98E+08 0.369
17 2.409 0.142 9.05E+13 0.369 560.0 0.142 1.592 0.297 3.153 0.033 845.150 0.174 2.67E+08 0.433
18 2.423 0.135 4.80E+13 0.122 658.8 0.135 0.632 0.384 3.033 0.012 1065.420 0.082 1.13E+08 0.329
19 2.087 0.106 1.05E+14 0.118 314.0 0.106 1.307 0.272 3.182 0.011 1144.720 0.080 2.03E+08 0.254
20 2.91 0.145 1.11E+14 0.199 566.6 0.145 1.769 0.621 3.199 0.018 1232.080 0.056 6.24E+08 0.533
21 1.963 0.130 1.01E+14 0.287 678.5 0.130 1.332 0.504 3.271 0.026 1062.170 0.089 3.48E+08 0.515
22 3.079 0.113 1.96E+14 0.152 388.8 0.113 13.447 0.326 3.460 0.013 1377.990 0.026 4.46E+09 0.311
23 2.56 0.114 2.00E+14 0.059 413.8 0.114 17.463 0.392 3.591 0.005 1134.430 0.141 6.28E+09 0.293
24 3.255 0.178 8.23E+13 0.164 433.9 0.178 4.056 0.487 3.190 0.013 1147.560 0.097 9.26E+08 0.423
25 2.435 0.203 1.57E+13 0.464 619.6 0.203 4.954 0.289 2.774 0.047 1244.980 0.045 2.08E+07 0.489
26 3.046 0.160 5.72E+13 0.217 487.0 0.160 3.011 0.376 3.221 0.019 1013.720 0.076 8.37E+08 0.386
27 2.066 0.123 5.78E+15 0.325 526.7 0.123 115.893 0.132 4.345 0.022 1053.540 0.101 6.19E+11 0.297
28 2.43 0.123 1.28E+14 0.511 657.8 0.125 1.11 0.269 3.186 0.041 972.800 0.060 3.53E+08 0.507
29 1.853 0.125 2.78E+14 0.280 540.3 0.068 11.194 0.364 3.667 0.022 849.930 0.128 4.15E+09 0.418
30 2.848 0.163 5.07E+13 0.351 340.0 0.163 3.493 0.517 3.088 0.034 1210.830 0.060 2.82E+08 0.564
J Seismol (2013) 17:579592 585
fitting of Brune displacement spectra obtained
from estimated parameters to the observed spectra
as an example. The agreement between the Brune
spectra and the observed spectra, in general, is
good for the frequencies up to about 10 Hz, be-
yond which the observed spectra show a more
rapid fall off. This represents the characteristic fall
off of source spectrum (Hanks 1981). The ob-
served spectra are higher as compared to the
Brune spectra in narrow frequency bands at some
stations. These are possibly caused by the site
amplifications. Overall, the agreement between
the observed and estimated spectra indicates that
the estimated parameters are well constrained.
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
A
M
P
L
I
T
U
D
E


S
P
E
C
T
R
A
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
A
M
P
L
I
T
U
D
E


S
P
E
C
T
R
A
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
ALI
BNK
GTH
HLG
FREQUENCY (Hz)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
A
M
P
L
I
T
U
D
E


S
P
E
C
T
R
A
1 10 100 1 10 100
1 10 100 1 10 10
1 10 100 1 10 100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
KSL
KTD
Fig. 2 Examples of fitting
of Brune displacement
spectra obtained from esti-
mated parameters to the ob-
served spectra
586 J Seismol (2013) 17:579592
Figure 3 shows the comparison between the es-
timated P and S wave corner frequencies. The
estimated values of P wave corner frequency,
f
c
(P), are in the range of 1.494.58 Hz, while those
of S wave corner frequency, f
c
(S), vary from 1.51
to 3.26 Hz. The ratios of P wave corner frequency
to S wave corner frequency, f
c
(P)/f
c
(S), are within
the range of 0.721.46 with an average of 1.13.
This is lower than the ratio / expected for simple
source model. This may be due to nondouble cou-
ple source and/or specific takeoff angle of observa-
tion. For more than 80 % of events studied here,
the ratio is >1 and bounded between the lines
f
c
(P) 0f
c
(S) and f
c
(P)0(/)f
c
(S) (Fig. 3). Similar
observations have been made in a number of stud-
ies and is attributed to enrichment of P waves in
high frequency compared to the S waves for the
same earthquake (e.g., Furuya, 1969; Masuda and
Takagi 1978; Hanks 1981; Majer and McEvilly
1979; Fletcher 1980; Somerville et al. 1980; Prieto
et al. 2004). Based on the analysis of spectra of
earthquakes in the magnitude range of 0.54.5,
Molnar et al. (1973) observed that the corner fre-
quency for P waves is systematically larger than
that for S waves for the physically reasonable dis-
location models. Upadhyay and Duda (1980) found
that the corner frequencies for P waves are about
twice those for S waves for Himalayan earthquakes.
This phenomenon of corner frequency shift has
been reported even when attenuation is accounted
for (Hanks 1981; Fletcher and Boatwright 1991;
Abercrombie 1995; Garca et al. 2004). Hanks
(1981) concluded on the basis of spectral analysis
and time-domain modeling that the corner frequen-
cy shift is the manifestation of an intrinsic prop-
erty of earthquakes, source finiteness. The average
values of source radii vary from 179 to 885 m.
The mean ratio r(P)/r(S) is found to be 1.5, sim-
ilar to those obtained by Garca et al. 2004. The
difference in the estimated values of source radii
from P and S waves may be due to corner fre-
quency shift.
The seismic moments estimated from P waves,
M
0
(P), range from 1.3910
13
to 7.6910
15
Nm and
those from S waves, M
0
(S), range from 1.5710
13
to
5.7810
15
Nm. The corresponding moment magni-
tudes range from 2.98 to 4.54 for P waves and from
2.77 to 4.35 for S waves. The average ratio M
0
(P)/
M
0
(S) is 1.04 (Fig. 4). The agreement between the
seismic moments estimated from two waves indicates
the validity of the procedure adopted in this study.
The total seismic energy, estimated for the frequen-
cy band 0.210 Hz, varies from 2.1510
7
to 7.30
10
11
J. We note here that the total seismic energy may
be underestimated here due to the limited frequency
band used. Figure 5 shows the correlation between P
1 2 3 4 5
S-wave corner frequency, f
c
(S), (Hz)
1
2
3
4
5
P
-
w
a
v
e

c
o
r
n
e
r

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,

f
c

(
P
)
,

(
H
z
)f
c
(
P
)
/
f
c
(
S
)
=
1
.
7
f c
(
P
)
/
f c
(
S
)

=

1
Fig. 3 Comparison between P and S waves corner frequencies.
The solid lines represent different scaling factors
1E+013 1E+014 1E+015 1E+016
seismic moment M
0
(S) N-m
1E+013
1E+014
1E+015
1E+016
s
e
i
s
m
i
c

m
o
m
e
n
t

M
0

(
P
)

N
-
m
Fig. 4 Correlation between the seismic moments estimated
from P and S waves along with the least square fitted line
J Seismol (2013) 17:579592 587
and S wave energy with the lines of equal energy
ratios. We note that that almost all the events lies
between the energy ratio E(P)/E(S) of 0.011. Similar
results are obtained by Fletcher and Boatwright 1991;
Garca et al. 2004.
The mean stress drop varies from 0.6 to
16 bars. More than 80 % of the events analyzed
here show the average stress drop values <10 bars.
The apparent stress has been obtained from the
seismic moment and radiated seismic energy as
a0E
R
/Mo (Wyss and Brune 1968; Wyss 1970),
and is the modulus of rigidity. This states that
the apparent stress is proportional to E
R
/Mo,
which is important parameter to know if larger
events radiate more seismic energy than the
smaller ones. In addition, apparent stress is model
independent and does not require any high fre-
quency decay assumption.
Using the static stress drop and the apparent
stress
a
, a parameter has been defined as fol-
lows by Ziga (1993) to investigate the possible
variations in the stress drop mechanism:
"

a


2
_ _ _ 13
An <1 indicates a partial stress drop mechanism
and >1 implies that frictional overshoot has oc-
curred. In the partial stress drop mechanism, the final
stress is greater than the frictional stress. In the fric-
tional overshoot mechanism, the final stress reaches a
lower value than that of frictional stress. We estimate
the parameter for the earthquakes analyzed here and
observe that the values of varies from 0.33 to 1.11
with an average of 0.73. About 90 % of the events
show <1, indicating the partial stress drop mecha-
nism as characteristic to the Kumaon Himalaya region
(Fig. 6). Brune et al. (1986) has pointed out that low
and partial stress drop might occur when the fault
locks itself soon after the rupture is over or when the
stress release is not uniform and coherent over the
whole fault plane. We note that Sharma and Wason
(1994) have reported low stress drop for the shallow
focus earthquakes in the Garhwal Himalaya in close
vicinity of our study region.
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the seis-
mic moment and static stress drop given by
log M
0
0:83 log 31:85 14
We note that stress drops increase with the seismic
moment. This implies the breakdown in constant
1E+006 1E+007 1E+008 1E+009 1E+010 1E+011 1E+012
radiated energy, E
R
(S)-J
1E+004
1E+005
1E+006
1E+007
1E+008
1E+009
1E+010
1E+011
1E+012
r
a
d
i
a
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

E
R
(
P
)
-
J
E
R
(
P
)
/
ER
(
S
)
=
1
E
R
(
P
)
/
E
R
(
S
)
=
0
.
1
E
R
(
P
)
/
E
R
(
S
)
=
0
.
0
1
Fig. 5 Correlation between
the P and S wave energy.
The solid red lines indicate
the constant E
R
(P)/E
R
(S)
ratios
588 J Seismol (2013) 17:579592
stress drop scaling for small earthquakes in the region.
A decrease in stress drop with decreasing seismic
moment has been found to be a scaling relation for
small earthquakes (e.g., Archuleta et al. 1982; Haar et
al. 1984; Dysart et al. 1988; Abercrombie 1995; Garca
et al. 2004; Ide et al. 2003; Mayeda et al. 2005;
Venkataraman et al. 2006). The plot of source radius with
seismic moment is shown in Fig. 8 along with the lines of
constant stress drop. We note that most of the events
(>70 %) analyzed here lie in the stress drop values
1E+013 1E+014 1E+015 1E+016
Seismic moment (N m)
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
Z
u
n
i
g
a

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
Partial Stress drop
Frictional Overshoot
Fig. 6 Ziga parameter, ,
for the events with respect to
moment. The corresponding
event numbers are indicated
below the solid blue circles
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
stress drop (bars)
1E+13
1E+14
1E+15
1E+16
s
e
i
s
m
i
c

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
N
-
m
)
Fig. 7 Relation between seismic moment and static stress drop
along with the least square fitted line
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
source radius (m)
1E+013
1E+014
1E+015
1E+016
s
e
i
s
m
i
c

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
N

m
)

1
b
a
r
(
0
.1
M
P
a
)
1
0
b
a
r
(
1
M
P
a
)
4
0
b
a
r
(
4
M
P
a
)
Fig. 8 Seismic moment versus source radius along with the
lines of constant stress drop
J Seismol (2013) 17:579592 589
between 1 and 10 bars. The source radius appears to be
uncorrelated with the moment in this analysis, and there is
a scatter in the values of source radius for the same
moment. This observation, together with the observed
increase in stress drop with seismic moment for Kumaon
Himalaya, is evidence for the breakdown of the concept of
similarity among smaller earthquakes. This breakdown of
similarity may be attributed to the anomalous behavior of
small earthquakes that shows the corner frequencies are
independent of moment/magnitude (e.g. Frankel 1981;
Takeo 1983; Dysart et al. 1988; Mayeda et al. 2005;
Venkataraman et al. 2006). Studies citing similar results
by Okada et al. 1981 and Takeo (1983) reported a group
of earthquakes with moments differing by up to a factor of
1,000 but with essentially identical corner frequencies.
Aki (1984) interpreted these events as examples of
barrier-type earthquakes where stable regions on the fault
plane can limit the extent of fracture but allow variable
slip. However, the role of site effects needs to be investi-
gated especially, in the light of the variation of source radii
for the events of similar moments in the region.
Kumar et al. (2008) suggested the self-similar na-
ture of Himalayan earthquake sources with seismic
moments in the range of 1.410
16
1.710
19
Nm.
Their analysis is based on the 80 accelerograms of
12 earthquakes in the Himalayan region. The present
analysis suggests the breakdown of similarity of the
earthquakes with seismic moments in the range 1.6
10
13
5.810
15
Nm in the Kumaon Himalaya.
Figure 9 shows the plot of the total seismic
energy versus seismic moment along with the lines
of constant apparent stress drop. This shows the
energy may vary for a given seismic moment.
Garca et al. 2004 have found the similar observa-
tion for the earthquakes in the region of Granada
Basin (Southern Spain).
6 Conclusions
Based on the source parameters estimated from the
spectral analysis of P and S wave digital broad-
band records of 30 events from Kumaon Hima-
laya, we draw the following inferences. The
agreement between the seismic moments from P
and S waves and good fitting of theoretical Brune
spectra to the observed one justifies robustness of
the methodology. One of the important findings of
present analysis is the breakdown of the constant
stress drop scaling for the earthquakes with seis-
mic moments in the range of 1.610
13
5.810
15
N
m in the region. The low stress drop values esti-
mated in the study can be explained by partial
stress drop mechanism in the region. A phenome-
non of corner frequency shift has been observed in
the region in consistent with the similar studies of
other active regions. The estimated source radii are
found to be uncorrelated with the seismic moments
showing the corner frequency independence of
seismic moments for the small earthquakes ana-
lyzed here. The increase in stress drop with in-
creasing moment and noncorrelation of source
radius with seismic moment shows that the stress
drop is the dominant scaling factor for moments
1.0E+7 1.0E+8 1.0E+9 1.0E+10 1.0E+11 1.0E+12
Seismic Energy (J)
1.0E+11
1.0E+12
1.0E+13
1.0E+14
1.0E+15
1.0E+16
1.0E+17
1.0E+18
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
N
-
m
)
0
.
5
b
a
r
1
0
b
a
r
Fig. 9 Total seismic energy
versus seismic moment
along with the lines of ap-
parent stress drop. These
lines show the range of en-
ergy variation for a given
seismic moment
590 J Seismol (2013) 17:579592
considered here. This has important bearing on the
estimates of seismic hazard in the region as the stress
drop controls the high frequency ground motions.
Acknowledgments The above project was sanctioned from
the grants by the Department of Science & Technology, India
to CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI),
Hyderabad, India (Research grant: DST/MMS-2/SU/2003).
The authors acknowledge the support of NGRI, Hyderabad,
and Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, India. The authors
are grateful to Grzegorz Kwiatek, an anonymous reviewer, and
the associate editor for their extremely constructive comments,
which helped us to improve the manuscript significantly.
References
Abercrombie RE (1995) Earthquake source scaling relationships
from 1 to 5 ML using seismograms recorded at 2.5 km
depth. J Geophys Res 100:2401524036
Aki K (1967) Scaling law of seismic spectrum. J Geophys Res
72:12171231
Aki K (1984) Asperities, barriers, characteristics earthquakes
and strong motion prediction. J Geophys Res 89:5867
5872
Anderson JG, Hough SE (1984) A model for the shape of the
Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high fre-
quencies. Bull Seism Soc Am 74:19691993
Andrews DJ (1986) Objective determination of source
parameters and similarity of earthquakes at different
size, In: Das S, Boatwright J, Scholz CH (eds) Earth-
quake source mechanics. Proceedings of the 5th Maur-
ice Ewing Symposium, American Geophysical Union,
Washington, pp 259267
Archuleta RJ, Hartzell SH (1981) Effects of fault finiteness
on near-source ground motion. Bull Seism Soc Am
71:939957
Archuleta RJ, Cranswick E, Muller C, Spudich P (1982) Source
parameters of the 1980 Mammoth Lakes, California, earth-
quake sequence. J Geophys Res 87:45954607
Ashish, Amit P, Rai SS, Gupta S (2009) Seismological evidence
for shallow crustal melt beneath the Garhwal High Hima-
laya, India: implications for the Himalayan Channel flow.
Geophys J Int 177:11111120. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
246X.2009.04112.x
Bilham R, Larson K, Freymuller J, Project Idylhim members
(1997) GPS measurements of present day convergence
across the Nepal Himalaya. Nature 386:6164
Bilham R, Gaur VK, Molnar P (2001) Himalayan seismic haz-
ard. Science 293:14421444
Boore DM (1986) Short period P- and S-wave radiation from
large earthquakes: implications for spectral scaling rela-
tions. Bull Seism Soc Am 76:4364
Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and spectra of shear waves
from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75:49975009
Brune JN (1971) Correction. J Geophys Res 76:5002
Brune JN, Fletcher J, Vemon F, Haar L, Hanks T, Berger J (1986)
Low stress-drop earthquakes in the light of new data from
Anza, California telemetered digital array. In: Das, S,
Boatwright J, Scholz CH (eds) Earthquake source mechanics.
Proceedings of the 5th Maurice Ewing symposium, American
Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 237245
Dainty AM (1981) A scattering model to explain seismic Q
observations in the lithosphere between 1 and 30 Hz. Geo-
phys Res Lett 8:11261128
De Natale, Iannaccone G, Martini M, Zollo A (1987) Seismic
sources and attenuation properties at the Campi Flegrie
Volcanic Area. Pure Appl Geophys 125:883917
Dysart PS, Snoke JA, Sacks IS (1988) Source parameters and
scaling relations for small earthquakes in the Matsushiro
region, Southwest Honshu, Japan. Bull Seism Soc Am
78:571589
Fletcher JB (1980) Spectra from high dynamic range digital
recordings of Oroville, California aftershocks and their
source parameters. Bull Seism Soc Am 70:735755
Fletcher JB (1995) Source parameters and crustal Q for four
earthquakes in South Carolina. Seismol Res Lett 66:4458
Fletcher JB, Boatwright J (1991) Source parameters of Loma
Prieta aftershocks and wave propagation characteristics along
the San Francisco Peninsula from a joint inversion of digital
seismograms. Bull Seism Soc Am 81(5):17831812
Frankel A (1981) Source parameters and scaling relationships of
small earthquakes in the northeastern Caribbean. Bull
Seism Soc Am 71:11731190
Furuya I (1969) Predominant period and magnitude. J Phys
Earth 17:119126
Garca JMG, Romacho MD, Jimnez A (2004) Determination of
near surface attenuation, with parameter, to obtain the
seismic moment, stress drop, source dimension and seismic
energy for micro earthquakes in the Granada basin (South-
ern Spain). Phy Earth Plan Int 141:926
Haar LC, Fletcher JB, Mueller CS (1984) The 1982 Enola,
Arkansas, swarm and scaling of ground motion in the
eastern United States. Bull Seism Soc Am 74:24632482
Hanks TC (1981) The corner frequency shift, earthquake source
models and Q. Bull Seism Soc Am 71:597612
Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J
Geophys Res 84:23482350
Haskell N (1964) Total energy and energy spectral density of
elastic wave radiation from propagating faults. Bull Seism
Soc Am 54:18111841
Herrmann RB, Kijko A (1983) Modelling some empirical vertical
component Lg relations. Bull Seism Soc Am 73:157171
Houston H, Kanamori H (1986) Source spectra of great earth-
quakes: teleseismic constraints on rupture process and
strong motion. Bull Seism Soc Am 76:1942
Ide S, Beroza GC, Prejean S, Ellsworth W (2003) Apparent
break in earthquake scaling due to path and site effects
on deep borehole recordings. J Geophys Res 108:2271.
doi:10.1029/2001JB001617
Keilis-Borok VI (1960) Investigation of the mechanism of earth-
quakes. American Geophysical Union Consultants Bureau,
New York, p 201, Sov Res Geophys 4 (English translation)
Khattri KN (1987) Great earthquakes, seismicity gaps, and
potential for earthquake disaster along the Himalaya plate
boundary. Tectonophysics 138:7992
Khattri KN, Tyagi AK (1983) Seismicity patterns in the Himalayan
plate boundary and identification of the areas of high seismic
potential. Tectonophysics 96:281297
J Seismol (2013) 17:579592 591
Kjartansson E (1979) Constant Q-wave propagation and atten-
uation. J Geophys Res 84:47374748
Kumar D, Sriram V, Khattri KN (2006) A study of source
parameters, site amplification functions and average effec-
tive shear wave quality factor Q
seff
from analysis of accel-
erograms of 1999 Chamoli earthquake, Himalaya. Pure
Appl Geophys 163:13691398
Kumar D, Sriram V, Sarkar I, Teotia SS (2008) An estimate of a
scaling law of seismic spectrum for earthquakes in Hima-
laya. Indian Miner 6162(34/14): 8392
Mahesh P, Rai SS, Sivaram K, Ajay P, Gupta S, Rajagopala S,
Gaur VK (2013) One Dimensional Reference Velocity
Model and Precise locations of earthquakes in the
Kumaon-Garhwal Himalaya. Bull Seismol Soc Am. doi:
10.1785/0120110328
Majer EL, McEvilly TV (1979) Seismological investigations in
the Geysers geothermal field. Geophysics 44:246269
Margaris BN, Boore DM (1998) Determination of and 0
from response spectra of large earthquakes in Greece. Bull
Seism Soc Am 88:170182
Masuda T, Suzuki Z (1982) Objective estimation of source
parameters and local Q values by simultaneous inversion
method. Phy Earth Planet Int 30:197208
Masuda T, Takagi A (1978) Source parameter estimates for
small earthquakes, Sci Rep Tohoku Univ Ser 5, Geophys-
ics 25: 3954
Mayeda K, Gok R, Walter WR and Abraham H (2005) Evidence
for non-constant energy/moment scaling from coda derived
source spectra. Geophy Res Lett 32. doi:10.1029/
2005GL022405
Menke W, Vadim L, Sethi R (1995) Seismic attenuation in the
crust at the mid-Atlantic plate boundary in south-west Ice-
land, Geophys. J Int 122:175182
Molnar P, Chen W-P (1982) Seismicity and mountain building.
In: Hsu KJ (ed) Mountain building processes. Academic,
New York, pp 4157
Molnar P, Tucker BE, Brune JN (1973) Corner frequencies of P
and S waves and models of earthquake surces. Bull Seism
Soc Am 63:20912104
Ni J, Barazangi M (1984) Seismotectonics of the Himalayan
collision zone: geometry of the underthrusting Indian plate
beneath the Himalaya. J Geophys Res 89:11471163
Okada H, Watanabe H, Yamashita H, Yokoyama I (1981) Seis-
mological significance of the 19771978 eruptions and the
magma intrusion process of Usu Volcano, Hokkaido. J
Volcanol Geotherm Res 9:311334
Prejean SG, Ellsworth WL (2001) Observations of Earthquake
Source Parameters at 2 kmDepth in the Long Valley Caldera,
Eastern California. Bull Seism Soc Am 91(2):165177
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:B08310. doi:10.1029/
2004JB003084
Rai SS, Ashish, Padhi A, Sarma PR (2009) High crustal seismic
attenuation in Ladakh-Karakoram. Bull Seism Soc Am 99
(1):407415
Seeber L, Armbuster JG (1981) Great detachment earthquakes
along the Himalayan arc and long-term forecasts. In: Simp-
son DW, Richards PG (eds) Earthquake prediction: an
international review. Maurice Ewing series 4, Am. Geo-
phys. Union, Washington, pp 259279
Sharma ML, Wason HR (1994) Occurrence of low stress drop
earthquakes in the Garhwal Himalaya region. Phy Earth
Planet Int 85:264272
Shi J, Kim WY, Richards PG (1998) The corner frequencies and
stress drops of intraplate earthquakes in the northeastern
United States. Bull Seism Soc Am 88(2):531542
Singh SK, Mohanty V, Bansal BK, Roonwal GS (2002) Ground
motion in Delhi from future large/great earthquakes in
central seismic gaps of the Himalayan arc. Bull Seism
Soc Am 92:555569
Somerville MR, Peppin WA, VanWormer JD (1980) An earth-
quake sequence in the Sierra Nevada-Great Basin bound-
ary zone: diamond valley. Bull Seism Soc Am 70:1547
1555
Snoke JA (1987) Stable determination of (Brune) stress drops.
Bull Seism Soc Am 77(2):530538
Sriram V, Kumar D, Khattri KN (2005) The 1986 Dharamsala
earthquake of Himachal Himalayaestimates of source
parameters, average intrinsic attenuation and site amplifi-
cation functions. J Seismol 9:473485
Takeo M (1983) Source mechanism of Usu volcano, Japan,
earthquakes and their tectonic implications. Phys Earth
Planet Inter 32:241264
Tomic J, Abercrombie RE, Nascimento AF (2009) Source
parameters and rupture velocity of small M 2.1 reservoir
induced earthquakes. Geophys J Int 179:10131023.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04233.x
Upadhyay SK, Duda SJ (1980) Source parameters of
earthquakes from the Himalayan region. J Geophys
48:6779
Vassiliou MS, Kanamori H (1982) The energy release in earth-
quakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 72:371387
Venkataraman A, Beroza GC, Ide S, Imanishi K, Ito H, Iio Y
(2006) Measurements of spectral similarity of microearth-
quakes in western Nagano, Japan. J Geophys Res 111:
B03303. doi:10.1029/2005JB003834
Wyss M (1970) Stress estimates for South American shallow
and deep earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75:15291544
Wyss M, Brune JN (1968) Seismic moment, stress, and source
dimensions for earthquakes in the California-Nevada re-
gion. J Geophys Res 73:46814694
Yin A, Harrison TM(2000) Geologic evolution of the Himalayan
Tibetan orogen. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 28:211280
Ziga FR (1993) Frictional overshoot and partial stress drop,
which one? Bull Seism Soc Am 83:939944
592 J Seismol (2013) 17:579592