Estimation of the Gutenberg-Richter relation allowing for individual earthquake magnitude uncertainties

Tectonophysics

Volumn 258, Issue 1-4, 1996, Pages 71-83

  Rhoades, D A ^a  

^a CALLAGHAN INNOVATION   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKE CATALOGUE; EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE; GUTENBERG-RICHTER RELATION; GUTENBERG-RICHTER RELATIONSHIP; SEISMICITY; UNCERTAINTY;

NEW ZEALAND;

EID: 0030473101     PISSN: 00401951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0040-1951(95)00182-4     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Aki, K., 1965. Maximum likelihood estimation of b in the formula log N = a - bM and its confidence limits. Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ., 43: 237-239.
2. Anon, 1991. New Zealand Seismological Report 1987. DSIR Geol. Geophys. Wellington, Seismol. Obs. Bull. E-171, 141 pp.
3. Bender, B., 1984. Incorporating acceleration variability into seismic hazard analysis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 74: 1451-1462.
4. Chambers, J.M. and Hastie, T.J., 1992. Statistical Models in S. Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, 608 pp.
5. Chung, K.L., 1968. A Course in Probability Theory. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, NY, 331 pp.
6. DeGroot, M.H., 1970. Optimal Statistical Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 489 pp.
7. Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M. and Rubin, D.B., 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 39: 1-38.
8. Freedman, H.W., 1967. Estimating earthquake magnitude. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 57: 747-760.
9. Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F., 1944. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 34: 185-188.
10. Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., 1993. Methods for regression analysis of strong-motion data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 83: 469-487.
11. Kijko, A., 1988. Maximum likelihood estimation of Gutenberg-Richter b parameter for uncertain magnitude values. Pure Appl. Geophys., 127: 573-579.
12. Kijko, A. and Sellevoll, M.A., 1989. Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part 1, Utilization of extreme and incomplete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 79: 645-654.
13. Rhoades, D.A., Van Dissen, R.J. and Dowrick, D.J., 1994. On the handling of uncertainties in estimating the hazard of rupture on a fault segment. J. Geophys. Res., 99: 13,701-13,712.
14. Ringdal, F., 1975. On the estimation of seismic detection thresholds. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 65: 1631-1642.
15. Ringdal, F., 1976. Maximum-likelihood estimation of seismic magnitude. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 66: 787-802.
16. Tinti, S. and Mulargia, F., 1985a. Effects of magnitude uncertainties on estimating the parameters in the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude law. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 75: 1681-1697.
17. Tinti, S. and Mulargia, F., 1985b. Application of the extreme value approaches to the apparent magnitude distribution of the earthquakes. Pure Appl. Geophys., 123: 199-220.
18. Tukey, J.W., 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 688 pp.
19. Utsu, T., 1966. A statistical significance test of the difference in b-value between two earthquake groups. J. Phys. Earth, 14: 37-40.
20. Weichert, D.H., 1980. Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameter for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 70: 1337-1346.