Converting magnitudes based on the temporal stability of a- and b-values in the Gutenberg-Richter law

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Volumn 102, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 2116-2127

  Zuniga F R ^a   Figueroa Soto, A ^a  

^a CENTRO DE FÍSICA APLICADA Y TECNOLOGÍA AVANZADA   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

B VALUE; DATA SETS; GEOGRAPHICAL AREA; GUTENBERG-RICHTER LAW; LIMITED DATA; LINEAR RELATION; MAGNITUDE DATA; MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION; MAGNITUDE SCALE; SEISMIC RECORDS; TEMPORAL STABILITY; TEST CASE; TIME INTERVAL;

SURFACE WAVES;

SEISMOLOGY;

BODY WAVE; MAGNITUDE; SEISMIC DATA; TEMPORAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84867081644     PISSN: 00371106     EISSN: 19433573     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1785/0120110228     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Aki, K. (1965). Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a-b M and its confidence limits, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. 43, no. 2, 237-239.
2. Bath, M. (1967). Handbook on Earthquake Magnitude Determinations, Seismological Institute, Uppsala, Sweden, 158 pp.
3. Bender, B. (1987). Effects of observational errors in relating magnitude scales and fitting the Gutenberg-Richter parameter, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 77, no. 4, 1400-1428.
4. Bormann, P., R. Liu, X. Ren, R. Gutdeutsch, D. Kaiser, and S. Castellaro (2007). Chinese national network magnitudes, their relation to NEIC magnitudes, and recommendations for new IASPEI magnitude standards, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, no. 1B, 114-127, doi: 10.1785/ 0120060078.
5. Cao, A. M., and S. S. Gao (2002). Temporal variation of seismic b-values beneath northeastern Japan island arc, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, no. 9, 1-3, doi: 10.1029/2001GL013775.
6. Castellaro, S., and P. Bormann (2007). Performance of different regression procedures on the magnitude conversion problem, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, no. 4, 1167-1175, doi: 10.1785/0120060102.
7. Castellaro, S., F. Mulargia, and Y. Y. Kagan (2006). Regression problems for magnitudes, Geophys. J. Int. 165, no. 3, 913-930, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02955.x.
8. Chung, D. H., and D. L. Bernreuter (1981). Regional relationships among earthquake magnitude scales, Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 19, no. 4, 649-663.
9. Deichmann, N. (2006). Local magnitude, a moment revisited, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, no. 4A, 1267-1277, doi: 10.1785/0120050115.
10. Draper, N. R., and H. Smith (1998). Applied Regression Analysis, Third Ed., Wiley, New York, ISBN: 0-471-17082-8.
11. Gasperini, P. (2002). Local magnitude revaluation for recent Italian earthquakes (1981-1996), J. Seismol. 6, no. 4, 503-524, doi: 10.1023/ A:1021173407620.
12. w-based earthquake catalog for central, northern and northwestern Europe using a hierarchy of magnitude conversions, J. Seismol. 7, no. 4, 507-531, doi: 10.1023/B:JOSE.0000005715.87363.13.
13. Gutdeutsch, R., S. Castellaro, and D. Kaiser (2011). The Magnitude conversion problem: Further insights, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101, no. 1, 379-384, doi: 10.1785/0120090365.
14. Gutenberg, B., and C. F. Richter (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34, no. 4, 185-188.
15. Habermann, R. E. (1991). Seismicity rate variations and systematic changes in magnitudes in teleseismic catalogs, Tectonophysics 193, no. 4, 277-289, doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(91)90337-R.
16. Ishimoto, M., and K. Iida (1939). Observations sur les seismes enregistres par le microsismographe construit dernierement. (I), Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. 17, no. 2, 443-478 (in Japanese).
17. Richter, C. F. (1958). Elementary Seismology, Freeman, San Francisco, California, 768 pp.
18. Rydelek, P. A., and I. S. Sacks (1989). Testing the completeness of earthquake catalogs and the hypothesis of self-similarity, Nature 337, no. 19, 251-253.
19. s, using a global network, Geophys. J. Int. 155, no. 2, 379-390, doi: 10.1046/ j.1365-246X.2003.02024.x.
20. Storchak, D. A., and M. Bolton (2006). Summary of the ISC Bulletin of Events of 2003, in 100th Anniversary of 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Conference, Seismol. Res. Lett., Vol. 77, no. 2, 224 pp.
21. w-based earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe. J. Seismol. 8, no. 1, 143-153, doi: 10.1023/ B:JOSE.0000009503.80673.51.
22. Utsu, T. (1999). Representation and analysis of the earthquake size distribution: a historical review and some new approaches, Pure Appl. Geophys. 155, no. 2-4, 509-535, doi: 10.1007/s000240050276.
23. Utsu, T. (2002). Relationships between magnitude scales, in International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A, W. H. K. Lee, P. Jennings, C. Kisslinger, and H. Kanamori (Editors), Academic Press, London, San Diego, 733-747, doi: 10.1016/S0074-6142 (02)80247-9, ISBN 13: 978-0-12-440652-0.
24. Wessel, P., andW. H. F. Smith (1998). New, improved version of the Generic Mapping Tools Released, EOS Trans. AGU 79, no. 47, 579.
25. Wiemer, S., and M. Wyss (2000). Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the western US and Japan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, no. 4, 859-869, doi: 10.1785/ 0119990114.
26. Woessner, J., and S. Wiemer (2005). Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogs: Estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, no. 2, 684-698, doi: 10.1785/ 0120040007.
27. Zúñiga, F. R., and S. Wiemer (1999). Seismicity patterns: Are they always related to natural causes? Pure Appl. Geophys. 155, no. 2-4, 713-726.
28. Zúñiga, F. R., and M. Wyss (1995). Inadvertent changes in magnitude reported in earthquake catalogs: Influence on b-value estimates, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85, no. 6, 1858-1866.
29. Zúñiga, F. R., M. Reyners, and P. Villamor (2005). Temporal variations of the earthquake data in the catalog of seismicity of New Zealand. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 38, no. 2, 87-107.