The b-value, a critical parameter characterising seismic activity and crustal stress states, shows notable temporal variations within earthquake sequences before and after major events. Investigating these variations is vital for unravelling the processes of crustal stress accumulation and release, thus contributing to seismic hazard assessment and earthquake forecasting. This study focused on three major earthquake sequences: the 2011 Tohoku Pacific Coast earthquake, the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake (Japan), and the 2015 Chilean western coast offshore earthquake. We utilised authoritative earthquake catalogues (JMA for Japan, USGS for Chile), processed magnitude homogenisation to unify types (primarily MW) by screening inconsistent records, applied the Gutenberg-Richter relation, and estimated b-values via the maximum likelihood method with a two-year sliding window to capture temporal dynamics. Key results revealed pre-seismic b-value decreases: Tohoku from 0.8 to 0.4 in 3 months, Kumamoto from 1.0 to 0.6 in 4 months, and Chile from 1.0 to 0.6 in 1 month. Post-seismically, values rebounded to 0.8 (Tohoku in 3 months), 1.0 (Kumamoto in 9 months), and 0.95 (Chile in 11 months). Japan showed more pronounced recovery (0.4–0.5 increase) than Chile (0.3–0.4), reflecting tectonic differences. These variations indicate that pre-earthquake decreases are associated with stress accumulation, whereas post-seismic increases correspond to stress release and adjustment. A systematic comparison reveals that regional tectonic differences exert an influence on the magnitude and duration of such variations, thereby enhancing the utility of b-value analysis in characterising stress states within global seismic zones.
ZuoZRWuJPWuZL. Analysis of the Foreshock Sequence of the 1975 Haicheng Ms7.3 Earthquake. Acta Seismol Sin1995; 4: 493–498.
2.
GutenbergBRichterCF. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am1944; 34: 185–188.
3.
BoraDKBorahKMahantaR, et al. Seismic b-values and its correlation with seismic moment and Bouguer gravity anomaly over Indo-Burma ranges of northeast India: tectonic implications. Tectonophysics2018: 130–141.
4.
HazarikaDKayalJR. Recent felt earthquakes (Mw 5.0–5.9) in Mizoram of north-east India region: seismotectonics and precursor appraisal. Geol J2022; 57: 5284–5293.
5.
WangGHLiuSWZhuWJ. Temporal distribution characteristics of seismic activity and b-value in Southeast Asia. Geol J China Univ2022; 28: 776–786.
6.
BoraNBiswasR. Delineation of subsurface profiles beneath the Kopili fault zone in northeast India utilizing coda portion. J Asian Earth Sci2019; 173: 237–249.
7.
ChenXZLiYEChenLJ. Abnormal characteristics of b values before the Tangshan M_S7.8 Earthquake. Chin J Geophys2021; 64: 3612–3618.
8.
LiWPWangY. Variation of b values before and after the December 26, 2004, Sumatra-Andaman M9.0 Earthquake. J Inst Disaster Prev Sci Technol2007; 1: 36–41.
9.
ZhuSB. Characteristics of the deformation field between and before the 2011 Tohoku, Japan Earthquake (M_W=9.0) and Its Implications for Strong Earthquake Prediction. Chin J Geophys2020; 63: 427–439.
10.
Dascher-CousineauKLayTBrodskyEE. Reply to “Comment on ‘Two Foreshock Sequences Post Gulia and Wiemer (2019)’ by Kelian Dascher-Cousineau, Thorne Lay, and Emily E. Brodsky” by Laura Gulia and Stefan Wiemer. Seismol Res Lett2021; 92: 3251–3258.
11.
HanksTCKanamoriH. A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res1979; 84: 2348–2350.
12.
YunNYHamadaM. Evacuation behavior and fatality rate during the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and tsunami. Earthq Spectra2015; 31: 1237–1265.
13.
WuGZhouQRanHL. Estimation of b-value in the magnitude-frequency relation by the maximum likelihood method and analysis of its influencing factors. Seismol Geol2019; 41: 21–43.
14.
GaoYJSunYQLuoG. Seismic b-value and stress field temporal evolution characteristics in the Taiwan Region before and after the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake. Chin J Geophys2022; 65: 2137–2152.
15.
UtsuT. A statistical significance test of the difference in b-value between two earthquake groups. J Phys Earth1966; 14: 37–40.
16.
WiemerS. Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am2000; 90: 859–869.
17.
WoessnerJWiemerS. Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. Bull Seismol Soc Am2005; 95: 684–698.
18.
WiemerS. A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett2001; 72: 373–382.
19.
LiuJWWangZMXieFR. Seismic disaster and hazard assessment in the Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan Region. Chin J Geophys2010; 53: 318–325.
20.
LiZFZhouBG. Discussion on the method of identifying asperities on fault zones using low b-values—taking Longmenshan Fault Zone and Xianshuihe Fault Zone as examples. Technol Earthquake Disaster Prev2014; 9: 213–225.
21.
AmitranoD. Brittle-ductile transition and associated seismicity: experimental and numerical studies and relationship with the b value. J Geophys Res Solid Earth2003; 108: 2044.
22.
KunFVargaILennartz-SassinekS, et al.Approach to failure in porous granular materials under compression. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys2013; 88: 062207.
23.
MainIGMeredithPGSammondsPR. Temporal variations in seismic event rate and b-values from stress-corrosion constitutive laws. Tectonophysics1992; 211: 233–246.
24.
NuanninPOtaKPerssonLK. Variation of b-values before the great earthquakes in the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone. J Asian Earth Sci2012; 61: 237–242.
25.
ScholzC. The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am1968; 58: 399–415.
26.
ScholzHC. On the stress dependence of the earthquake b value. Geophys Res Lett2015; 42: 1399–1402.
27.
SchorlemmerD. Earthquake statistics at Parkfield: 1. Stationarity of b values. J Geophys Res Solid Earth2004a; 109: B12307.
28.
SchorlemmerD. Earthquake statistics at Parkfield: 2. Probabilistic forecasting and testing. J Geophys Res Solid Earth2004b; 109: B12308.
29.
WiemerSBenoitJP. Mapping the b-value anomaly at 100 km depth in the Alaska and New Zealand Subduction Zones. Geophys Res Lett2013; 23: 1557–1560. doi:10.1029/96GL01233
30.
SharonMKurzonIWetzlerN, et al.Variations of the seismic b-value along the Dead Sea transform. Front Earth Sci2022; 10: 1074729.
HartwigMEPinheiroVSFardimBR, et al.Geological and structural controls on marble quarrying and aesthetic patterns: Espírito Santo State (Brazil). Appl Earth Sci Trans Inst Min Metall2024; 134: 31–43.
33.
GengNG. Progress of b-value simulation experiment and the start of b-value simulation experiment in China. Acta Seismol Sin1986; 3: 330–333.
34.
GeffersGMMainIGNaylorM. Biases in estimating b-values from small earthquake catalogues: how high are high b-values?Geophys J Int2022; 229: 1840–1855.
35.
PanHLiJC. Research on the b-value and ν4 uncertainty of the Seismogenic Zone. Technol Earthquake Disaster Prev2006; 3: 218–224.
36.
MengZTLiuJWXieZJ, et al.The association analysis between the temporal distribution characteristics of b-value and the seismic hazard. Prog Geophys2021; 36: 30–38.
37.
MousaviSM. Mapping seismic moment and b-value within the continental-collision orogenic-belt region of the Iranian Plateau. J Geodyn2017; 103: 26–41.
