11.07.2015 Views

Historical Seismograms - Evidence from the AD 2000 Izu Islands ...

Historical Seismograms - Evidence from the AD 2000 Izu Islands ...

Historical Seismograms - Evidence from the AD 2000 Izu Islands ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

~~228 M. DeBecker and T. CamelbeeckTable 2. Stations and Parameters Used for Locationof <strong>the</strong> Earthquake of April 3, 1949 at 12h 33mStations A PN 0-C residues(km)HEEPARSTRBASSTUNEUJRSZURRAVCHU140.9216.7308 .a411.7412.3437.5468.4474.4499.7566.212h 34m 6.0s12h 34m 15.0s12h 34m 30.0s12h 34m 39.2s12h 34m 38.5s12h 34m 42.1s12h 34m 47.0s12h 34m 46.9s12h 34m 50.0s12h 34m 58.9s-0.10-0.45+3.17-0.33-1.10-0.61+0.48-0.37-0.40+0.30Magnitudes were determined in two ways: 1) Ms <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Prague formula(KQrnik, 1969); and 2) mbLg <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> maximum amplitude of <strong>the</strong> vertical componentof <strong>the</strong> Lg-waves (Camelbeeck, 1985), or <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> vector sums of <strong>the</strong> maximumamplitudes of <strong>the</strong> Lg-waves recorded on <strong>the</strong> horizontal components when nodata are available <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> vertical component (in this case <strong>the</strong> amplitude value isdivided by a factor 2.5).t n b = ~ ~ 2.60 + 0.833 loglo (A/lO) + 0.0011A + log,, A(A) (2)The values of <strong>the</strong> function .(A) given in Table 3 are derived <strong>from</strong> KArnik (1969).Period and amplitude data for <strong>the</strong> earthquake of 11 June 1938 are summarized inTable 4. Table 5 shows <strong>the</strong> limits of distance and period within which <strong>the</strong> Pragueformula holds.It is interesting to compare <strong>the</strong> values of magnitude obtained <strong>from</strong> different stations.The scatter of both Ms and mbLg values <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> mean and <strong>the</strong> variation ofMs with epicentral distance are plotted in Figure 3. Considering <strong>the</strong> date at which<strong>the</strong> records were made, <strong>the</strong> scatter is gratifyingly small.Figure 4 shows <strong>the</strong> maximum ground displacements for Lg-waves of one secondperiod as a function of epicentral distance for both events, toge<strong>the</strong>r with curvesfor shocks of different magnitude. There does not appear to be any systematicdependence on epicentral distance, suggesting that historical seismograms can bemade to produce consistent results for studies of this kind, and <strong>the</strong>refore have aspecial value for <strong>the</strong> study of regions with low seismicity.Table 3. a(A) for LgHA" I 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 9.0U(A) 1 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.7 4.80 4.86

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!