HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by SIBOL, M. S. Articles by BIRCH, J. B. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Estimation of magnitudes in central and eastern North America using intensity and felt area

SEISMOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24061
DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24061

Abstract

Over 480 earthquakes from central and eastern North America having instrumental m_b magnitudes and maximum Modified Mercalli intensities (I₀) were examined using exploratory data analysis techniques and modeled with robust estimation methods (91 of those earthquakes also have felt area data). A previously undocumented distinct offset of magnitudes is observed between Modified Mercalli intensities VI and VII in both the central and eastern North America data set and a separate western North American catalog of earthquakes. The offset is most probably a characteristic of the Modified Mercalli scale and brings into question the often assumed linear relationship between magnitude and intensity. (In particular, linear regression models could not accurately estimate magnitudes for larger, I₀ = VII or VIII, events.) Instead, robust estimates of center and spread for individual intensity interval distributions are recommended. In studies where conversion of intensity to magnitude for groups of earthquakes is required (e.g., studies involving the Gutenberg-Richter recurrence relation), the underlying distribution of magnitudes (or its approximation) for each intensity should be used.

Linear regression models using I₀ and/or felt area (and several transformations were tested. The robust linear regression models

(where FA is felt area in square kilometers) proved to be the most accurate magnitude estimation models for central and eastern North America earthquakes. A comparison of regional felt area models indicates that regional differences in attenuation of seismic waves may exist between central and eastern North America that becomes apparent only for events of sufficient magnitude. Those differences appear as larger felt areas for earthquakes of central North America as compared to earthquakes of eastern North America.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Gasperini, F. Bernardini, G. Valensise, and E. Boschi Defining seismogenic sources from historical earthquake felt reports Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1999; 89(1): 94 - 110. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Suter, M. Carrillo-Martinez, and O. Quintero-Legorreta Macroseismic study of shallow earthquakes in the central and eastern parts of the trans-Mexican volcanic belt, Mexico Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1996; 86(6): 1952 - 1963. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Cavallini and A. Rebez Representing earthquake intensity-magnitude relationship with a nonlinear function Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1996; 86(1A): 73 - 78. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Boschi, P. Gasperini, and F. Mulargia Forecasting where larger crustal earthquakes are likely to occur in Italy in the near future Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1995; 85(5): 1475 - 1482. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. A. BOLLINGER, M. C. CHAPMAN, and M. S. SIBOL A comparison of earthquake damage areas as a function of magnitude across the United States Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1993; 83(4): 1064 - 1080. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. DENGLER and R. MCPHERSON The 17 August 1991 Honeydew earthquake, North Coast California: A case for revising the Modified Mercalli scale in sparsely populated areas Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1993; 83(4): 1081 - 1094. [Abstract] [PDF]