2006
DOI: 10.1007/s10950-006-9012-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Empirical Global Relations Converting M S and m b to Moment Magnitude

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
194
0
9

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 519 publications
(245 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
14
194
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence these data were converted to a common scale of moment magnitude (M w ). The local magnitudes were converted Heaton et al (1986), the body wave and surface wave magnitude were converted using the relations suggested by Scordilis (2006) and the intensity values were converted using the empirical relation (M=(2/3) I +1), where I is the earthquake intensity value. A declustering algorithm was used to remove the dependent events from this catalogue.…”
Section: Seismicity Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence these data were converted to a common scale of moment magnitude (M w ). The local magnitudes were converted Heaton et al (1986), the body wave and surface wave magnitude were converted using the relations suggested by Scordilis (2006) and the intensity values were converted using the empirical relation (M=(2/3) I +1), where I is the earthquake intensity value. A declustering algorithm was used to remove the dependent events from this catalogue.…”
Section: Seismicity Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the relations of M L ∼ mM w , the scale factor m varies between 0.97 and 2.25, depending on magnitude range, geographical region, and algorithm for the calculation of M w . Moreover, an attempt to define a global relationship failed due to varying magnification of different WoodAnderson (WA) instruments (Scordilis, 2006) and different calibration of local magnitude scales.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The final catalog contains 3293 earthquakes within the period January 1973-April 2013 for events greater than M w 3.0, and this seismicity is illustrated in Figure 1. The data were homogenized to the moment magnitude (M w ) scale using equations E Q -T A R G E T ; t e m p : i n t r a l i n k -; ; 5 5 ; 1 2 5 Scordilis, 2006). The K-means data-partitioning method of Hartigan (1975) has made it possible to partition such a regional seismicity into clusters of earthquakes and even into seismic zones (e.g., Greece; Weatherill and Burton, 2009).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%