| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam
(GFZ)
Division 2: Physics of the Earth
Telegrafenberg E423
D-14473 Potsdam, Germany
(P.B.)
2 China Earthquake Network
Center
No. 63 Fuxing Avenue
Beijing 100036, People’s Republic of China
(R.L., X.R.)
3 Institute for Meteorology and
Geophysics
University of Vienna
Althanstrasse 14 UZA2
A 1090 Vienna, Austria
(R.G.)
4 Federal Institute for
Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR)
Stilleweg 2
30655 Hannover, Germany
(D.K.)
5 Università degli Studi di
Bologna
Dipartimento di Fisica, Settore di Geofisica
v. le C. B. Pichat 8
40127 Bologna, Italy
(S.C.)
We investigate the linear regression relationships between common seismic
magnitudes determined by the Chinese Earthquake Network Center
(CENC) and compare them with related magnitude
determinations for the same events at the U.S. Geological
Survey’s National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC).
Despite their generally good agreement
some systematic differences are revealed. These differences are due to
differences in seismograph response (shape and bandwidth), the time
window for measurement of maximum P-wave amplitudes, the period
and distance ranges used, and, in part, also the different calibration
functions applied. Chinese broadband body-wave magnitude
mB, compared with the NEIC
short-period P- wave magnitude mb, is much
less
prone to magnitude saturation. Thus it is more suitable to assess the
size of large earthquakes from P waves. Also, following
International Association of Seismology and Physics of the
Earth’s Interior (IASPEI)
recommendations of 1967, Chinese surface-wave magnitude
MS is determined in a wider distance (1°
< 
< 180°) and period range (3 sec
< T < 30 sec) than MS(20) at
NEIC (20° 
160° and 18 sec
T 22 sec, respectively). Chinese
MS for small and medium earthquakes at regional
distances between 2° < <
10° scales well with local magnitude ML. In
contrast, NEIC
MS(20) tends to underestimate the magnitude of
regional events when the IASPEI-recommended
MS calibration function by
Van
k et al.
(1962) is used. These findings support some of the new
standards
for magnitude measurements from digital data adopted at the
IASPEI meeting in 2005. They include,
complementary to band-limited mb and
MS(20), the determination of mB
and
MS(BB) measured on unfiltered broadband
records.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Bormann and J. Saul A Fast, Non-saturating Magnitude Estimator for Great Earthquakes Seismological Research Letters, September 1, 2009; 80(5): 808 - 816. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. B. S. Yadav, P. Bormann, B. K. Rastogi, M. C. Das, and S. Chopra A Homogeneous and Complete Earthquake Catalog for Northeast India and the Adjoining Region Seismological Research Letters, July 1, 2009; 80(4): 609 - 627. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Bormann, R. Liu, Z. Xu, K. Ren, L. Zhang, and S. Wendt First Application of the New IASPEI Teleseismic Magnitude Standards to Data of the China National Seismographic Network Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 2009; 99(3): 1868 - 1891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Bormann and J. Saul The New IASPEI Standard Broadband Magnitude mB Seismological Research Letters, September 1, 2008; 79(5): 698 - 705. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Castellaro and P. Bormann Performance of Different Regression Procedures on the Magnitude Conversion Problem Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 2007; 97(4): 1167 - 1175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
