1986
DOI: 10.1007/bf01904051
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating ground motions using recorded accelerograms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
52
0
3

Year Published

1991
1991
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
7
52
0
3
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%
“…where l and w denote the length and width of the fault (Heaton et al, 1986). Below a depth of 6.0 km, the material properties on the fault surface are nearly uniform, so we use the shear modulus from a depth of 6.0 km in equation (14).…”
Section: Application To Strike-slip Faultmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regional moment tensor solutions still require complete broadband waveforms, and so require complete time series recovery before the inversion can commence. Though this means the M w cannot be computed as rapidly as with other magnitudes, an automated moment tensor solution can provide an improved estimate of magnitude that is less prone to saturation than magnitude scales based on limited frequency bandwidths (Kanamori, 1977;Heaton et al, 1986), though essentially the two scales should theoretically be equal (Deichmann, 2006). In addition, the moment tensor solution also documents the fault characteristics and constrains the depth, giving insight into the tectonic setting of the event.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%