M. Herak, S. Markušić, D. Herak Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Science University of Zagreb, Zagreb.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
M w Estimation for Regional Seismic Events in the Friuli Area (NE Italy) Department of Earth Sciences, University of Trieste, Italy AUG, Trieste – February.
Advertisements

Real-Time Estimation of Earthquake Location and Magnitude for Seismic Early Warning in Campania Region, southern Italy A. Zollo and RISSC-Lab Research.
Group Velocity Dispersion Curves from Wigner-Ville Distributions Simon Lloyd 1, Goetz Bokelmann 1, Victor Sucic 2 1 University of Vienna 2 University of.
Ground Motions Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Steve Kramer
Earthquake Waves Chapter 6-2. Focus and epicenter Actual location of fault Up to 700 km below surface.
CROATIAN EARTHQUAKE CATALOG
M. Herak Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Science University of Zagreb, Zagreb.
For any given time series, g(t), the Fourier spectrum is: FOURIER SPECTRUM: Time Domain (TD)-Frequency-Domain (FD) and vice- versa Dr. Sinan Akkar Strong.
Coda attenuation analysis of Zagreb area, Croatia Iva Dasović, Marijan Herak and Davorka Herak Andrija Mohorovičić Geophysical Institute Department of.
Xi’an Jiaotong University 1 Quality Factor Inversion from Prestack CMP data using EPIF Matching Jing Zhao, Jinghuai Gao Institute of Wave and Information,
4. TESTS 5. CONCLUSIONS 2. METHOD We base the study on the method proposed by Zúñiga and Wyss (1995) which was originally intended for finding suitable.
Locating the Epicenter
The RSNI Seismic Network Laboratory of seismology, DISTAV - University of Genoa (Italy) RSNI STAFF RSNI STAFF : Spallarossa D.,
Wiener Deconvolution: Theoretical Basis The Wiener Deconvolution is a technique used to obtain the phase-velocity dispersion curve and the attenuation.
UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS Faculty of Geology and Geoenvironment Department of Geophysics and Geothermics A. Agalos (1), P. Papadimitriou (1), K. Makropoulos.
Average properties of Southern California earthquake ground motions envelopes… G. Cua, T. Heaton Caltech.
Earthquake Magnitude GE391. Why do we need to define the size of an earthquake? (1) We need some way to measure quantitatively the size of an earthquake.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Sources Based on a lecture by James Mori of the Earthquake Hazards Division, Disaster.
Studying Earthquakes. Seismology: the study of earthquakes and seismic waves.
1 Earthquake Magnitude Measurements for Puerto Rico Dariush Motazedian and Gail M. Atkinson Carleton University.
Seismicity around Lhasa Tsoja Wangmo 1), Norsang Gelsor 1) and Jens Havskov 2) 1) Jiangsu Road No 36 Lhasa, Tibet, PRC 2) University of Bergen, Department.
Section 12-2 Review Page 304 (1-5)
L Braile, 12/28/2006 (revised 9/14/08) Interpreting Seismograms
1 Earthquake Magnitude Measurements for Puerto Rico Dariush Motazedian and Gail M. Atkinson.
RAPID SOURCE PARAMETER DETERMINATION AND EARTHQUAKE SOURCE PROCESS IN INDONESIA REGION Iman Suardi Seismology Course Indonesia Final Presentation of Master.
Earthquakes (Chapter 8)
GROUND MOTION SCALING IN THE MARMARA REGION: ATTENUATION OF SEISMIC WAVES (1) M.B.SØRENSEN, (2) A. AKINCI, (2) L. MALAGNINI and (3) R. B. HERRMANN (1)
1 Fault Dynamics of the April 6, 2009 L'Aquila, Italy Earthquake Sequence Robert B. Herrmann Saint Louis University Luca Malagnini INGV, Roma.
26 July 2013 Símon Ólafsson, EERC
1 Automated Processing of Earthquake Swarm Records at Very Short Epicentral Distances José M. Cepeda Universidad Centroamericana, (UCA) San Salvador, El.
Crustal Structure, Crustal Earthquake Process and Earthquake Strong Ground Motion Scaling for the Conterminous U.S. R. B. Herrmann Otto Nuttli Professor.
RESOLVING FOCAL DEPTH WITH A NEAR FIELD SINGLE STATION IN SPARSE SEISMIC NETWORK Sidao Ni, State Key Laboratory of Geodesy and Earth’s Dynamics, Institute.
Magnitude and Completeness Assessment of the ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue ( ) D. Di Giacomo, I. Bondár, E.R. Engdahl, D.A.
The kinematic representation of seismic source. The double-couple solution double-couple solution in an infinite, homogeneous isotropic medium. Radiation.
CENA GMPEs from Stochastic Method Simulations: Review, Issues, Recent Work David M. Boore Blue Castle Licensing Project (BCLP) Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis.
Earthquake Measurement 10/23/14
Present-day tectonic stress determined from focal mechanisms in the seismoactive area Dobrá Voda V. Vavryčuk, L. Fojtíková.
Feb 19, John Anderson - CEE/GE 479/679 Earthquake Engineering GE / CEE - 479/679 Topic 9. Seismometry, Magnitude Scales, and Seismicity John G. Anderson.
Lg Q Across the Continental US Dan McNamara and Rob Wesson with Dirk Erickson, Arthur Frankel and Harley Benz.
Earthquake Waves Chapter 6-2. Focus and epicenter Actual location of fault Up to 700 km below surface.
An Assessment of the High-Gain Streckheisen STS2 Seismometer for Routine Earthquake Monitoring in the US ISSUE: Is the high-gain STS2 too sensitive to.
Seismographs Are instruments located at or near the surface of the Earth that record seismic waves.
Václav Vavryčuk Rosalia Daví Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences, Praha Seismic network calibration for retrieving accurate.
・ What is the Earthquake Source? Elastic Rebound Fault Slip  Double-couple Force ・ Seismic Moment Tensor ・ Models of Earthquake Faults ・ Earthquake Size.
Surface-wave Derived Focal Mechanisms in Mid-America R. B. Herrmann 1, C. J. Ammon 2 and H. M. Benz 3 1 Saint Louis University, 2 Pennsylvania State University,
HIGH FREQUENCY GROUND MOTION SCALING IN THE YUNNAN REGION W. Winston Chan, Multimax, Inc., Largo, MD W. Winston Chan, Multimax, Inc., Largo, MD Robert.
Near Fault Ground Motions and Fault Rupture Directivity Pulse Norm Abrahamson Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
P wave amplitudes in 3D Earth Guust Nolet, Caryl Michaelson, Ileana Tibuleac, Ivan Koulakov, Princeton University.
1 Wavefield Calibration Using Regional Network Data R. B. Herrmann Saint Louis University.
Earthquake source modelling by second degree moment tensors Petra Adamová Jan Šílený Geophysical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
1 Rosalia Daví 1 Václav Vavryčuk 2 Elli-Maria Charalampidou 2 Grzegorz Kwiatek 1 Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences, Praha 2 GFZ German Research.
Repeatable Path Effects on The Standard Deviation for Empirical Ground Motion Models Po-Shen Lin (Institute of geophysics, NCU) Chyi-Tyi Lee (Institute.
100+ years of instrumental seismology: the example of the ISC-GEM Global Earthquake Catalogue D.A. Storchak, D. Di Giacomo, and the International Team.
Seismology Dylan Mikesell April 5, 2011 Boise State University.
Alexandra Moshou, Panayotis Papadimitriou and Kostas Makropoulos MOMENT TENSOR DETERMINATION USING A NEW WAVEFORM INVERSION TECHNIQUE Department of Geophysics.
Locating Earthquakes. Seismic wave behavior ► P waves arrive first, then S waves, then L and R ► Average speeds for all these waves is known.
March 11, John Anderson: GE/CEE 479/679 Lecure 15 Earthquake Engineering GE / CEE - 479/679 Topic 15. Character of Strong Motion on Rock and Ground.
Jens Havskov and Mathilde B. Sørensen
Seismic phases and earthquake location
1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS USING MICROTREMORS Boğaziçi University Kandilli observatory and Earthquake Research Institute Department of Geophysics Korhan.
Analysis of ground-motion spatial variability at very local site near the source AFIFA IMTIAZ Doctorant ( ), NERA Project.
MAGNITUDE SCALES FOR VERY LOCAL EARTHQUAKES. APPLICATION FOR DECEPTION ISLAND VOLCANO (ANTARCTICA). Jens Havskov(1,2), José A. Peña(2), Jesús M. Ibáñez(2,
Site effect characterization of the Ulaanbaatar basin
Reappraisal of single station locations reported by the SANSN
Susan L. Beck George Zandt Kevin M. Ward Jonathan R. Delph.
ET: micro-earthquakes and seismic noise
Kinematic Modeling of the Denali Earthquake
Brazilian “Strong-Motion” Data Stéphane Drouet, ON, Rio de Janeiro Marlon Pirchiner, IAG/USP, São Paulo Marcelo Assumpção, IAG/USP, São Paulo Luis Carlos.
Earthquake Measurement
Earthquake Magnitude Ahmed Elgamal
Presentation transcript:

M. Herak, S. Markušić, D. Herak Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Science University of Zagreb, Zagreb

History and motivation... The first magnitude calibration in Croatia was done by D. Skoko in his Ph. D. dissertation in Two calibrating functions for recordings on 1000 kg Wiechert horizontal seismograph were derived – for distances of 2.2˚–20˚, and 20˚–170˚. In the ‘Balkan project’ (1974), a new formula was derived. It was retained even after introduction of electromagnetic and digital seismographs: After a significant enlargement of the network in the few first years of the 21st century, Futač (2007) checked its appropriatness, and concluded that data do not indicate the need for change. As digital high-quality data accumulated, it became clear that the formula does not work well for short distances, significantly underestimating the magnitude. This prompted recalibration of the M L -scale. The need to use moment magnitudes in hazard analyses, motivated efforts to routinely observe also M w thus initiating this work.

Goals and earthquakes Goals: Calibration of M L and M WA using recent digital data from the Croatian Seismographic Network, and Introduction of an automatic routine procedure for determination of M W using spectral analyses of local and regional earthquakes recorded by the Croatian Seismographic Network Selection of earthquakes: Events from the Croatian Earthquake Catalogue satisfying any of the following: Year > 2002 M > 2.5 & D < 200 km (for any station) M > 3.0 & D < 300 km (for any station) M > 3.5 & D < 400 km (for any station) M > 4.0 & D < 500 km (for any station) M > 5.0 & D < 700 km (for any station) component BB seimograms found!

Goals and earthquakes 1. Determination of seismic moment (M 0 ) and moment magnitude (M w ) The source displacement spectrum looks like: v – velocity of seismic waves f – frequency f 0 – corner frequency  – density frequency amplitude corner frequency, f 0 low frequency spectral level

M 0 and M w 1. Determination of seismic moment (M 0 ) and moment magnitude (M w ) Displacement spectrum at receiver at the epicentral distance  : If we know (or invert for!) attenuation ( , Q), and assume reasonable values representing the effects caused by the radiation pattern, free surface amplification and geometrical spreading, we can fit the formula to the observed spectrum and get the scalar seismic moment (M 0 ), and then compute the moment magnitude: M w = 2/3 log(M 0 ) – 6.07  – near surface attenuation Q – quality factor (for P or S-waves) R P – average radiation pattern coefficient (  0.6) F S – free surface amplification (  2 for SH) G = 1/g d – geometrical spreading function, g d – geodistance

M 0 and M w 1. Determination of seismic moment (M 0 ) and moment magnitude (M w ) 1.Determine theoretical onset times of Pg, Pn, Sg, Sn. 2.LP-filter, read max. S-wave amplitudes. 3.Wood-Anderson filter, read max. S-wave amplitudes 4.Determine the windows for: noise, P-waves, S-waves. 5.Compute spectra, smooth, correct for the instrument and noise. 6.Fitting theoretical curve to spectra for P- and S-waves yields estimates for: Q(f), , f 0, M 0, both for P- and S- waves 7.Compute M W as average of M W (P) and M W (S) 8.Save everything, next earthquake S-waves P-waves

M 0 and M w ; M L and M WA 2. Calibration of M L and the Wood-Anderson magnitude M WA 1.Compute M L and M WA for every recording (all stations) using the best calibrating function so far, in the form: 2.Compute representative earthquake magnitude for all events for which at least three magnitude estimates exist as the median of the station magnitudes. 3.Check if there is any distance dependence – if yes adjust coefficients observing all possible constraints (e.g. anchoring of M WA at 100 km). 4.Compute station corrections (SC) and start again... The best estimates are: A max is the trace amplitude in nm on the simulated Wood-Anderson seismograph (magnification 2080). This is the same M WA formula as obtained for Central Europe by Stange (2006).

 M = (Station magnitude) – (Earthquake magnitude) vs. time  M W  M L  M WA

 M = (Station magnitude) – (Earthquake mgnitude) vs. time

M 0 and M w – results M WS vs M WP Individual (station) magnitudes Earthquake magnitudes Corner frequency vs M W S-waves P-waves

M 0 and M w ; M L and M WA (Event magnitude) – (Station magnitude) (with added station corrections)

Relationships... Individual (station) magnitudes Earthquake magnitudes M W vs. M WA M W vs. M L M L vs. M WA

Station corrections Sta M L M WA M wS M wP KIJV CACV PTJ DBR STON STA NVLJ RIY ZAG SLUN UDBI BRJN SISC HVAR MORI ZIRJ OZLJ KALN RIC KSY SLNJ The largest (negative) station corrections are found on thick alluvium, in river valleys close to the Pannonian basin. Corrections for the moment magnitudes are smaller than for local magnitudes (  !) M L station corrections

Conclusions 1.Regression of M w vs. M L using both magnitudes determined independently on the same set of stations and earthquakes is far better than regressions of locally determined M L vs. M w determined (mostly for large and distant earthquakes!) by other agencies. 2.Proposed inversion of observed spectral shapes of local and regional earthquakes results in consistent M w estimation using data collected by the Croatian Seismographic Network. 3.New calibrating functions for local magnitudes (M L and M WA ) yield distance- independent estimates. 4.The correspondence between the three magnitudes is close to 1:1 relationship. This is encouraging, promising an easy conversion from M L to M W for older events. 5.Results obtained in studies done so far using M L as proxy for M W will most probably not significantly change after proper conversion.