Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70037569

Variable-period surface-wave magnitudes: A rapid and robust estimator of seismic moments

Abstract

We demonstrate that surface-wave magnitudes (Ms), measured at local, regional, and teleseismic distances, can be used as a rapid and robust estimator of seismic moment magnitude (Mw). We used the Russell (2006) variable-period surface-wave magnitude formula, henceforth called Ms(VMAX), to estimate the Ms for 165 North American events with 3.2 <Mw < 6.5 at distances ranging from 48 to 5268 km. Of the 7370 event-station pairs, more than half (4051) of the measurements were at distances less than 1000 km. Mw estimated from broadband waveform modeling (Herrmann et al., 2008) were regressed against Ms(VMAX). Mw can be estimated from Ms (VMAX) using the relationship: Mw = 1.91 + 0.66Msx (VMAX) for 2 <Ms < 6. The observed scatter of the Mw[Ms(VMAX)] with respect to Mw[Waveform Modeling] was approximately ??0.2 magnitude units (m.u). The residuals between Mw [Ms(VMAX)] and Mw [Waveform Modeling] show a significant focal mechanism effect, especially when strike-slip events are compared with other mechanisms. Validation testing of this method suggests that Ms(VMAX)-predicted Mw's can be estimated within minutes after the origin of an event and are typically within ??0.2 m.u. of the final Mw[Waveform Modeling]. While Mw estimated from Ms(VMAX) has a slightly higher variance than waveform modeling results, it can be measured on the first short-period surface-wave observed at a local or near-regional distance seismic station after a preliminary epicentral location has been formed. Therefore, it may be used to make rapid measurements of Mw, which are needed by government agencies for early warning systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. Bonner, R. Herrmann, H. Benz. 2010-09-20. Variable-period surface-wave magnitudes: A rapid and robust estimator of seismic moments. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090388

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗