Energy release and seismic flux

Main Article Content

J. M. Munuera


From the basic data and tlie previous results of priorpapers, we have made evaluations of the energy released and studied itsvariation. Its pulsative form is confirmed, which suggests several superposedperiods, perhaps of simple multiples of tlie undecenal of solar activity.For steps of a whole unity of m, the total approximated energy is computed.EN and Et may be compared, it being possible to replace one by the other,indifferently, from m = 5 up to m = 7.5. The compared variation of logEN with N demostrates they are not proportional.The tectonic flux is evaluated and we have the graphs for 5 and 15year lapses, from 1901 to I960, as well as another graph which correspondsto the representative average of these 60 years. A reduction of the mapof seismic activity attained through log (2 E)li2-. 60 x 2.5 is attached, whichrefers the annual flux for every 1000 sq km. This map is analyzed and thecomparative results with the zones of the first seismotectonic sketch publishedby Rey Pastor (1927) are considered. The conformity is checked andthe differences are shown.With Benioff's curve, expressed by 10u (erg)V2, we show the accumulationand release of the total elastic strain, S60 (S E)xh and (S JB)1/2 for everyyear of the instrumental period (1901-1960). The cumulative interval (halfa Century) coincides with the return period of the destructive earthquakes,which was estimated through other considerations.We have made a comparative sketch between seismic activity andthe admitted drawing of the Alpine Geosyncline on the Western Mediterreaneanand we suggest a possible rough-draft of the Oval regression at itsWestern end. The alignments of the intermediate shocks, in the AlboranSea and the Betican region, indicate active faults which might associated,perhaps, in a half-close as another oval connected to the Guadalquivir Faultand Southwards.

Article Details

How to Cite
Munuera, J. M. (1965) “Energy release and seismic flux”, Annals of Geophysics, 18(3), pp. 209–262. doi: 10.4401/ag-5504.