Seismic wave attenuation and magnitude relations for eastern North America

Nuttli, Otto W.

doi:10.1029/jb078i005p00876

Cited by 556 publications

(250 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

237

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reported value of y for Lg waves at 1 Hz in the central United States (Nuttli, 1973) and southeastern United States (Bollinger, 1979) is 0.0006 km-'. Chun et al (1987) reported…”

Section: Determination Of Low-frequency Spectral Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional spectral scaling relations of source parameters for earthquakes in the Baltic Shield

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

slight increase with increasing seismic moment in the range 3 x 10" to 5 x 10" dyn cm, while the increase is more rapid for larger events. Baltic Shield earthquakes show increasing stress drops, ranging from about 0.1 to 10 bars, for increasing seismic moment. The relatively low stress drops could, in part, be explained by bias due to band-limited analog data.The slope of the curve relating seismic moment to comer frequency is steeper than -3, which suggests a departure from a constant stress drop scaling relation proposed for large earthquakes. The derived relationship between the seismic moment (Mc) and magnitude (ML) is: log M,, = 16.93 + 1.01 M, (for 2 d M, < 5.2).

show abstract

“…The reported value of y for Lg waves at 1 Hz in the central United States (Nuttli, 1973) and southeastern United States (Bollinger, 1979) is 0.0006 km-'. Chun et al (1987) reported…”

Section: Determination Of Low-frequency Spectral Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional spectral scaling relations of source parameters for earthquakes in the Baltic Shield

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The geometrical spreading considered for a given method can have direct trade-offs with Q (Atkinson and Mereu, 1992;Bowman and Kennett, 1991). Nuttli (1973) and Campillo et al (1985) model the geometrical spreading exponent (γ, in this study) in the time domain to be 5/6 (~0.83). However, Yang (2002) shows that a more appropriate time domain assumption when measuring the Lg rms amplitude is 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional Attenuation in Northern California: A Comparison of Five 1D Q Methods

Ford

Dreger

Mayeda

et al. 2008

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The determination of regional attenuation Q -1 can depend upon the analysis method employed. The discrepancies between methods are due to differing parameterizations (e.g., geometrical spreading rates), employed datasets (e.g., choice of path lengths and sources), and the methodologies themselves (e.g., measurement in the frequency or time domain). Here we apply five different attenuation methodologies to a Northern California dataset. The methods are: (1) coda normalization (CN), (2) two-station (TS), (3) reverse two-station (RTS), (4) sourcepair/receiver-pair (SPRP), and (5) coda-source normalization (CS). The methods are used to measure Q of the regional phase, Lg (Q Lg ), and its power-law dependence on frequency of the form Q 0 f η with controlled parameterization in the well-studied region of Northern California using a high-quality dataset from the Berkeley Digital Seismic Network. We investigate the difference in power-law Q calculated among the methods by focusing on the San Francisco Bay Area, where knowledge of attenuation is an important part of seismic hazard mitigation. This approximately homogeneous subset of our data lies in a small region along the Franciscan block. All methods return similar power-law parameters, though the range of the joint 95% confidence regions is large (Q 0 = 85 ± 40; η = 0.65 ± 0.35). The RTS and TS methods differ the most from the other methods and from each other. This may be due to the removal of the site term in the RTS method, which is shown to be significant in the San Francisco Bay Area. In order to completely understand the range of power-law Q in a region, it is advisable to use several methods to calculate the model. We also test the sensitivity of each method to changes in geometrical spreading, Lg frequency bandwidth, the distance range of data, and the Lg measurement window. For a given method, there are significant differences in the power-law parameters, Q 0 and η, due to perturbations in the parameterization when evaluated using a conservative pairwise comparison. The CN method is affected most by changes in the distance range, which is most probably due to its fixed coda measurement window. Since, the CS method is best used to calculate the total path attenuation, it is very sensitive to the geometrical spreading assumption. The TS method is most sensitive to the frequency bandwidth, which may be due to its incomplete extraction of the site term. The RTS method is insensitive to parameterization choice, whereas the SPRP method as implemented here in the time-domain for a single path has great error in the power-law model parameters and η is strongly affected by changes in the method parameterization. When presenting results for a given method it is best to calculate Q 0 f η for multiple parameterizations using some a priori distribution.

show abstract

“…ML magnitudes are listed for events with depths less than 70 km. 4°~ D~ 30° (4) as proposed by Nuttli (1973) for North America east of the Rocky Mountains, where A/T is expressed in micrometers per second, calculated from the vertical-component 1-second Lg waves, and D is the distance in geocentric degrees.…”

Section: United States Earthquakes 1985mentioning

confidence: 99%

United States earthquakes, 1985

Stover¹,

Brewer²

1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic wave attenuation and magnitude relations for eastern North America

Cited by 556 publications

References 6 publications

Regional spectral scaling relations of source parameters for earthquakes in the Baltic Shield

Regional spectral scaling relations of source parameters for earthquakes in the Baltic Shield

Regional Attenuation in Northern California: A Comparison of Five 1D Q Methods

United States earthquakes, 1985

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About