Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/8635
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorallGasperini, P.; Università di Bolognaen
dc.contributor.authorallLolli, B.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallVannucci, G.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italiaen
dc.contributor.authorallBoschi, E.; Università di Bolognaen
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-17T07:53:29Zen
dc.date.available2013-04-17T07:53:29Zen
dc.date.issued2012en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/8635en
dc.description.abstractWith the goal of constructing a homogeneous data set of moment magnitudes (Mw) to be used for seismic hazard assessment, we compared Mw estimates from moment tensor catalogues available online. We found an apparent scaling disagreement between Mw estimates from the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) of the US Geological Survey and from the Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) project. We suspect that this is the effect of an underestimation ofMw > 7.0 (M0 > 4.0 × 1019 Nm) computed by NEIC owing to the limitations of their computational approach. We also found an apparent scaling disagreement between GCMT and two regional moment tensor catalogues provided by the ‘Eidgen¨ossische Technische Hochschule Z¨urich’ (ETHZ) and by the European–Mediterranean Regional Centroid Moment Tensor (RCMT) project of the Italian ‘Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia’ (INGV). This is probably the effect of the overestimation of Mw < 5.5 (M0 < 2.2 × 1017 Nm), up to year 2002, and of Mw < 5.0 (M0 < 4.0 × 1016 Nm), since year 2003, owing to the physical limitations of the standard CMT inversion method used by GCMT for the earthquakes of relatively low magnitude. If the discrepant data are excluded from the comparisons, the scaling disagreements become insignificant in all cases. We observed instead small absolute offsets (≤0.1 units) for NEIC and ETHZ catalogues with respect to GCMT whereas there is an almost perfect correspondence between RCMT and GCMT. Finally, we found a clear underestimation of about 0.2 units of Mw magnitudes computed at the INGV using the time-domain moment tensor (TDMT) method with respect to those reported by GCMT and RCMT. According to our results, we suggest appropriate offset corrections to be applied to Mw estimates from NEIC, ETHZ and TDMT catalogues before merging their data with GCMT and RCMT catalogues. We suggest as well to discard the probably discrepant data from NEIC and GCMT if other Mw estimates from different sources are available for the same earthquakes. We also estimate approximately the average uncertainty of individual Mw estimates to be about 0.07 magnitude units for the GCMT, NEIC, RCMT and ETHZ catalogues and about 0.13 for the TDMT catalogue.en
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Union research project SHARE (Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe), within the ambit of Task 3.1 ‘European Earthquake Database’en
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.publisher.nameWiley-Blackwellen
dc.relation.ispartofGeophysical Journal Internationalen
dc.relation.ispartofseries/190 (2012)en
dc.subjectEarthquake source observations; Statistical seismologyen
dc.titleA comparison of moment magnitude estimates for the European–Mediterranean and Italian regionsen
dc.typearticleen
dc.description.statusPublisheden
dc.type.QualityControlPeer-revieweden
dc.description.pagenumber1733-1745en
dc.subject.INGV05. General::05.01. Computational geophysics::05.01.04. Statistical analysisen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05575.xen
dc.description.journalTypeJCR Journalen
dc.description.fulltextrestricteden
dc.relation.issn0956-540Xen
dc.relation.eissn1365-246Xen
dc.contributor.authorGasperini, P.en
dc.contributor.authorLolli, B.en
dc.contributor.authorVannucci, G.en
dc.contributor.authorBoschi, E.en
dc.contributor.departmentUniversità di Bolognaen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversità di Bolognaen
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextrestricted-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptUniversità di Bologna-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italia-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-5314-0563-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-4186-9055-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-0918-0784-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.classification.parent05. General-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
10_Gasperini_Lolli_Vannucci_Boschi_2012 GJI.pdfMain article493.05 kBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

31
checked on Feb 10, 2021

Page view(s) 20

349
checked on Apr 17, 2024

Download(s)

27
checked on Apr 17, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric