Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2332202223> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2332202223 endingPage "222" @default.
- W2332202223 startingPage "211" @default.
- W2332202223 abstract "We estimate the a rms‐stress drop, ![Graphic][1] , (Hanks, 1979) using acceleration time records of 59 earthquakes from two earthquake sequences in eastern Honshu, Japan. These acceleration‐based static stress drops compare well to stress drops calculated for the same events by Baltay et al. (2011) using an empirical Green’s function (eGf) approach. This agreement supports the assumption that earthquake acceleration time histories in the bandwidth between the corner frequency and a maximum observed frequency can be considered white, Gaussian, noise. Although the ![Graphic][2] is computationally simpler than the eGf‐based ![Graphic][3] ‐stress drop, and is used as the “stress parameter” to describe the earthquake source in ground‐motion prediction equations, we find that it only compares well to the ![Graphic][4] at source‐station distances of ∼20 km or less because there is no consideration of whole‐path anelastic attenuation or scattering. In these circumstances, the correlation between the ![Graphic][5] and ![Graphic][6] is strong. Events with high and low stress drops obtained through the eGf method have similarly high and low ![Graphic][7] . We find that the inter‐event standard deviation of stress drop, for the population of earthquakes considered, is similar for both methods, 0.40 for the ![Graphic][8] method and 0.42 for the ![Graphic][9] , in log10 units, provided we apply the ∼20 km distance restriction to ![Graphic][10] . This indicates that the observed variability is inherent to the source, rather than attributable to uncertainties in stress‐drop estimates.Online Material: Earthquake catalog including additional source parameters. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-9.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-10.gif" @default.
- W2332202223 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2332202223 creator A5039159601 @default.
- W2332202223 creator A5063035701 @default.
- W2332202223 creator A5084849254 @default.
- W2332202223 date "2013-02-01" @default.
- W2332202223 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2332202223 title "Stable Stress‐Drop Measurements and their Variability: Implications for Ground‐Motion Prediction" @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1515101447 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1541243302 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1581094497 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1591150937 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1629132018 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1852221269 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1992626998 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1994553199 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1998445318 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W1999555122 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2009176497 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2009512626 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2014537082 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2021308529 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2040636216 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2053496294 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2077076159 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2088025788 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2110114457 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2125290000 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2126127244 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2128251347 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2147498525 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2148001002 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2148226676 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2149740738 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2157264936 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2164593824 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2184258182 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2185410891 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2258563751 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2286620461 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2343862836 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2990429106 @default.
- W2332202223 cites W2138428222 @default.
- W2332202223 doi "https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120161" @default.
- W2332202223 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
- W2332202223 type Work @default.
- W2332202223 sameAs 2332202223 @default.
- W2332202223 citedByCount "69" @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232013 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232014 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232015 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232016 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232017 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232018 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232019 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232020 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232021 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232022 @default.
- W2332202223 countsByYear W23322022232023 @default.
- W2332202223 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2332202223 hasAuthorship W2332202223A5039159601 @default.
- W2332202223 hasAuthorship W2332202223A5063035701 @default.
- W2332202223 hasAuthorship W2332202223A5084849254 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C13280743 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C165205528 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C21036866 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C2781345722 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C2988284105 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConcept C76155785 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C127313418 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C127413603 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C13280743 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C138885662 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C165205528 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C21036866 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C2781345722 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C2988284105 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C41895202 @default.
- W2332202223 hasConceptScore W2332202223C76155785 @default.
- W2332202223 hasIssue "1" @default.
- W2332202223 hasLocation W23322022231 @default.
- W2332202223 hasOpenAccess W2332202223 @default.
- W2332202223 hasPrimaryLocation W23322022231 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W1512572083 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W186983612 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W1997557671 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W1999217434 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W2006706231 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W2389393820 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W2393110273 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W2555058958 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W2796768569 @default.
- W2332202223 hasRelatedWork W3028840060 @default.
- W2332202223 hasVolume "103" @default.
!["We estimate the a rms‐stress drop, ![Graphic][1] , (Hanks, 1979) using acceleration time records of 59 earthquakes from two earthquake sequences in eastern Honshu, Japan. These acceleration‐based static stress drops compare well to stress drops calculated for the same events by Baltay et al. (2011) using an empirical Green’s function (eGf) approach. This agreement supports the assumption that earthquake acceleration time histories in the bandwidth between the corner frequency and a maximum observed frequency can be considered white, Gaussian, noise. Although the ![Graphic][2] is computationally simpler than the eGf‐based ![Graphic][3] ‐stress drop, and is used as the “stress parameter” to describe the earthquake source in ground‐motion prediction equations, we find that it only compares well to the ![Graphic][4] at source‐station distances of ∼20 km or less because there is no consideration of whole‐path anelastic attenuation or scattering. In these circumstances, the correlation between the ![Graphic][5] and ![Graphic][6] is strong. Events with high and low stress drops obtained through the eGf method have similarly high and low ![Graphic][7] . We find that the inter‐event standard deviation of stress drop, for the population of earthquakes considered, is similar for both methods, 0.40 for the ![Graphic][8] method and 0.42 for the ![Graphic][9] , in log10 units, provided we apply the ∼20 km distance restriction to ![Graphic][10] . This indicates that the observed variability is inherent to the source, rather than attributable to uncertainties in stress‐drop estimates.Online Material: Earthquake catalog including additional source parameters. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-9.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-10.gif"](?object=%22We%20estimate%20the%20a%20rms%E2%80%90stress%20drop%2C%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B1%5D%20%2C%20(Hanks%2C%201979)%20using%20acceleration%20time%20records%20of%2059%20earthquakes%20from%20two%20earthquake%20sequences%20in%20eastern%20Honshu%2C%20Japan.%20These%20acceleration%E2%80%90based%20static%20stress%20drops%20compare%20well%20to%20stress%20drops%20calculated%20for%20the%20same%20events%20by%20Baltay%20et%C2%A0al.%20(2011)%20using%20an%20empirical%20Green%E2%80%99s%20function%20(eGf)%20approach.%20This%20agreement%20supports%20the%20assumption%20that%20earthquake%20acceleration%20time%20histories%20in%20the%20bandwidth%20between%20the%20corner%20frequency%20and%20a%20maximum%20observed%20frequency%20can%20be%20considered%20white%2C%20Gaussian%2C%20noise.%20Although%20the%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B2%5D%20is%20computationally%20simpler%20than%20the%20eGf%E2%80%90based%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B3%5D%20%E2%80%90stress%20drop%2C%20and%20is%20used%20as%20the%20%E2%80%9Cstress%20parameter%E2%80%9D%20to%20describe%20the%20earthquake%20source%20in%20ground%E2%80%90motion%20prediction%20equations%2C%20we%20find%20that%20it%20only%20compares%20well%20to%20the%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B4%5D%20at%20source%E2%80%90station%20distances%20of%20%E2%88%BC20%E2%80%89%E2%80%89km%20or%20less%20because%20there%20is%20no%20consideration%20of%20whole%E2%80%90path%20anelastic%20attenuation%20or%20scattering.%20In%20these%20circumstances%2C%20the%20correlation%20between%20the%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B5%5D%20and%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B6%5D%20is%20strong.%20Events%20with%20high%20and%20low%20stress%20drops%20obtained%20through%20the%20eGf%20method%20have%20similarly%20high%20and%20low%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B7%5D%20.%20We%20find%20that%20the%20inter%E2%80%90event%20standard%20deviation%20of%20stress%20drop%2C%20for%20the%20population%20of%20earthquakes%20considered%2C%20is%20similar%20for%20both%20methods%2C%200.40%20for%20the%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B8%5D%20method%20and%200.42%20for%20the%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B9%5D%20%2C%20in%20log10%20units%2C%20provided%20we%20apply%20the%20%E2%88%BC20%E2%80%89%E2%80%89km%20distance%20restriction%20to%20!%5BGraphic%5D%5B10%5D%20.%20This%20indicates%20that%20the%20observed%20variability%20is%20inherent%20to%20the%20source%2C%20rather%20than%20attributable%20to%20uncertainties%20in%20stress%E2%80%90drop%20estimates.Online%20Material%3A%20Earthquake%20catalog%20including%20additional%20source%20parameters.%20%5B1%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-1.gif%20%5B2%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-2.gif%20%5B3%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-3.gif%20%5B4%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-4.gif%20%5B5%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-5.gif%20%5B6%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-6.gif%20%5B7%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-7.gif%20%5B8%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-8.gif%20%5B9%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-9.gif%20%5B10%5D%3A%20%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-10.gif%22){kind=link}