Empirical conversion between teleseismic magnitudes (mb and Ms) and moment magnitude (Mw) at the Global, Euro-Mediterranean and Italian scale

Geophysical Journal International

Volumn 199, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 805-828

  Lolli, B ^a   Gasperini, P ^b   Vannucci, G ^a  

^a ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI GEOFISICA E VULCANOLOGIA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Earthquake source observations; Statistical seismology

Indexed keywords

REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEISMOLOGY;

CURVILINEAR MODEL; EARTHQUAKE SOURCE OBSERVATIONS; EXPONENTIAL MODELS; ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES; ORTHOGONAL REGRESSION; REGRESSION METHOD; STATISTICAL SEISMOLOGIES; THEORETICAL VALUES;

LEAST SQUARES APPROXIMATIONS;

EARTHQUAKE CATALOGUE; EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; MOMENT TENSOR; SEISMIC SOURCE; SEISMOLOGY; TELESEISMIC WAVE;

ITALY; MEDITERRANEAN REGION;

EID: 84916905336     PISSN: 0956540X     EISSN: 1365246X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggu264     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aki, K., 1965. Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula logN = a - bM and its confidence limits, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ. 43, 237-239.
2. Baruah, S., Baruah, S., Bora, P.K., Duarah, R., Kalita, A., Biswas, R., Gogoi, N. & Kayal, J.R., 2012. Moment magnitude-local magnitude relationship for the earthquakes of the Shillong-Mikir plateau, Northeastern India Region: a new perspective, Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk, 3/4, 573-563.
3. Bethmann, F., Deichmann, N. & Mai, P.M., 2011. Scaling relations of local magnitude versus moment magnitude for sequences of similar earthquakes in Switzerland, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 101, 515-534.
4. Bondar, I. & Storchak, D., 2011. Improved location procedures at the International Seismological Centre, Geophys. J. Int., 186, 1220-1244.
5. Bormann, P., Liu, R., Ren, X., Gutdeutsch, R., Kaiser, D. & Castellaro, S., 2007. Chinese national network magnitudes, their relation to NEIC magnitudes, and recommendations for new IASPEI magnitude standards, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 97(1B), 114-127.
6. Bormann, P., Liu, R., Xu, Z., Ren, K., Zhang, L. & Wendt, S., 2009. First application of the new, IASPEI teleseismicmagnitude standards to data of the China National Seismographic Network, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 99(3), 1868-1891.
7. Bormann, P., Wendt, S. & Di Giacomo, D., 2013. Seismic sources and source parameters, in New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice 2 (NMSOP2), pp. 1-259, ed. Bormann, P., Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ.
8. Braunmiller, J., Kradolfer, U., Baer, M. & Giardini, D., 2002. Regional moment tensor determination in the European-Mediterranean area-initial results, Tectonophysics, 356, 5-22.
9. Castellaro, S. & Bormann, P., 2007. Performance of different regression procedures on the magnitude conversion problem, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 97, 1167-1175.
10. Castellaro, S., Mulargia, F. & Kagan, Y.Y., 2006. Regression problems for magnitudes, Geophys. J. Int., 165, 913-930.
11. Das, R., Wason, H.R. & Sharma, M.L., 2011. Global regression relations for conversion of surface wave and body wave magnitudes to moment magnitude, Nat. Hazards, 59, 801-810.
12. Das, R., Wason, H.R. & Sharma, M.L., 2012. Homogenization of earthquake catalog for Northeast India and adjoining region, Pure appl. Geophys., 169, 725-731.
13. Deniz, A. & Yucemen, M.S., 2010. Magnitude conversion problem for the Turkish earthquake data, Nat. Hazards, 55, 333-352.
14. Draper, N. & Smith, H., 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, John Whiley & Sons, pp. 709.
15. Dziewonski, A.M., Chou, T.-A. & Woodhouse, J., 1981. Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity, J. geophys. Res., 86, 2825-2852.
16. Ekström, G. & Dziewonski, A.M., 1988. Evidence of bias in estimation of earthquake size, Nature, 332, 319-323.
17. Ekström, G., Nettles, M. & Dziewonski, A.M., 2012. The global CMT project 2004-2010: centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 200, 1-9.
18. Fuller, W.A., 1987. Measurement Error Models, Wiley, 440 pp.
19. Gasperini, P. & Lolli, B., 2013. Comment on 'Magnitude conversion problem using general orthogonal regression' by H.R. Wason, Ranjit Das and M.L. Sharma (Geophys. J. Int., 190, 1091-1096), Geophys. J. Int., 196, 626-627.
20. Gasperini, P., Lolli, B., Vannucci, G. & Boschi, E., 2012. Calibration of moment magnitude estimates for the European-Mediterranean and Italian regions, Geophys., J. Int., 190, 1733-1745.
21. Gasperini, P., Lolli, B. & Vannucci, G., 2013a. Empirical calibration of local magnitude data sets versus moment magnitude in Italy, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 103/4, 6422-7222.
22. Gasperini, P., Lolli, B. & Vannucci, G., 2013b. Body wave magnitude mb is a good proxy of moment magnitude Mw for small earthquakes (mb<4.5-5.0), Seismol. Res. Lett., 84(6), 932-937.
23. Grünthal, G. & Wahlström, R., 2012. The European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalog (EMEC) for the last millennium, J. Seismol., 16, 535-570.
24. Grünthal, G., Stromeyer, D. & Wahlström, R., 2009. Harmonization check of Mw within the central, northern, and north-western European earthquake catalog (CENEC), J. Seismol., 13, 613-632.
25. Gutenberg, B. & Richter, C.F., 1944. Frequency of earthquakes in California, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 34, 185-188.
26. Gutenberg, B. & Richter, C.F., 1956. Magnitude and energy of earthquakes, Ann. Geofis., 9, 1-15.
27. Heaton, T., Tajima, F. & Mori, A., 1986. Estimating ground motions using recorded accelerograms, Surv. Geophys., 8, 25-83.
28. Helffrich, G.R., 1997. How good are routinely determined focal mechanisms? Empirical statistics based on a comparison of Harvard, USGS and ERI moment tensors, Geophys. J. Int., 131, 741-750.
29. International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI), 2005. Summary of Magnitude Working Group recommendations on standard procedures for determining earthquake magnitudes from digital data, Available at: http://www.iaspei.org/commissions/ CSOI.html (last accessed August 2014).
30. Johnston, A.C., 1996. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions: I. Instrumental seismicity, Geophys. J. Int., 124, 381-414.
31. Kagan, Y.Y., 2002. Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results, Geophys. J. Int., 148, 520-541.
32. Kagan, Y.Y., 2003. Accuracy of modern global earthquake catalogs, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 135(2-3), 173-209.
33. Kanamori, H. & Anderson, D.L., 1975. Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 65/5, 5901-3701.
34. Krystek, M. & Anton, M., 2007. A weighted total least-squares algorithm for fitting a straight line, Meas. Sci. Tech., 22, 3438-3442.
35. Lolli, B. & Gasperini, P., 2012. A comparison among general orthogonal regression methods applied to earthquakes magnitude conversions, Geophys. J. Int., 190, 1135-1151.
36. Margottini, C., Ambraseys, N.N. & Screpanti, A., 1993. La magnitudo dei terremoti italiani del XX Secolo, E.N.E.A. Internal Publication, 57 pp. (in Italian).
37. Pondrelli, S., Morelli, A., Ekström, G., Mazza, S., Boschi, E. & Dziewonski, A.M., 2002. European-Mediterranean regional centroid-moment tensors: 1997-2000, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 130, 71-101.
38. Pondrelli, S., Salimbeni, S., Morelli, A., Ekström, G., Postpischl, L., Vannucci, G. & Boschi, E., 2011. European-Mediterranean Regional Centroid Moment Tensor catalog: solutions for 2005-2008, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 185, 74-81.
39. Richter, C.F., 1935. An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale, Bull. seismol. Soc. Am., 25, 1-31.
40. Ristau, J., 2009. Comparison of magnitude estimates for New Zealand earthquakes: moment magnitude, local magnitude, and teleseismic body-wave magnitude, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 99/3, 2581-1481.
41. Russeeuw, P.J & Croux, C., 1993. Alternatives to the median absolute deviation, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 88, 1273-1283.
42. Scognamiglio, L., Tinti, E. & Michelini, A., 2009. Real-time determination of seismic moment tensor for the Italian region, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 99, 2223-2242.
43. Scordilis, E.M., 2006. Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude, J. Seismol., 10, 225-236.
44. Sipkin, S.A., 1982. Estimation of earthquake source parameters by the inversion of wave-form data: synthetic waveforms, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 30, 242-259.
45. Sipkin, S.A., 1994. Rapid determination of global moment-tensor solutions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21(16), 1667-1670.
46. Storchak,D.A. et al., 2013. ISC-GEM, Global Instrumental EarthquakeCatalogue (1900-2009) final scientific report.Available at: http://www.nexus. globalquakemodel.org/global-instrumental-earthquake-catalogue/posts/ final-scientific-report-of-the-isc-gem-instrumental-earthquake-catalogue/ at_download/attachment (last accessed August 2014).
47. Stromeyer, D., Grünthal, G. & Wahlström, R., 2004. Chi-square regression for seismic strength parameter relations, and their uncertainties, with applications to an Mw based earthquake catalog for central, northern and north-western Europe, J. seismol., 8(1), 143-153.
48. Vanek, J., Zatopek, A., Karnik, V., Kondorskaya, N.V., Riznichenko, Y.V., Savarensky, E.F., Soloviev, S.L. & Shebalin, N.V., 1962. Standardization of magnitude scales, Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR Geophys. Ser., 108-111.
49. Wang, Q., Jackson, D.D. & Kagan, Y.Y., 2009. California earthquakes, 1800- 2007: a unified catalog with moment magnitudes, uncertainties, and focal mechanisms, Seismol. Res. Lett., 80/3, 754-644.
50. Wason, H.R., Das, R. & Sharma, M.L., 2012. Magnitude conversion problem using general orthogonal regression, Geophys. J. Int., 190, 1091-1096.
51. Wells, D.L. & Coppersmith, K.J., 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 84, 974-1002.
52. Zúñiga, F.R. & Figueroa-Soto, A., 2012. Converting magnitudes based on the temporal stability of a- and b-values in the Gutenberg-Richter law, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 102, 2116-2127.