Does apparent stress vary with earthquake size?

By Satoshi Ide, Gregory C. Beroza. 2001

470 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3aa51eecf00225c6cc8ef7ab41597744bb01f758

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Geophysics

Citations in the corpus

Rupture characteristics of major and great (Mw ≥ 7.0) megathrust earthquakes from 1990 to 2015: 1. Source parameter scaling relationships (2016, background): “…size increases [e.g., Abercrombie, 1995; Kanamori et al., 1993; Abercrombie and Rice, 2005; Walter et al., 2006], while others find no dependence of apparent stress on seismic moment [e.g., McGarr, 1999; Ide and Beroza, 2001; Pérez-Campos and Beroza, 2001; Ide et al., 2003; Baltay et al., 2014].”
The physics of earthquakes (2001, background): “Ide and Beroza (2001) suggested that many of the published ẽ versus Mw relations could be biased to have decreased ẽ for small events because of inadequate corrections for path effects or the limited instrumental pass-band.”
Variability in earthquake stress drop and apparent stress (2011, background): “These four sequences follow the same scatter and mean as those of Baltay et al. [2010] for sequences in the Western US as well as the compilation of Ide and Beroza [2001] .”
Confidence intervals for earthquake source parameters (2007, background): “…has been supported by some studies (e.g. Kanamori et al. 1993; Mayeda & Walter 1996; Mori et al. 2003), while other studies have suggested scale independence (e.g. McGarr 1999; Ide & Beroza 2001; Ide et al. 2003), finding no evidence of increasing stress drop or apparent stress with magnitude.”
Preslip and cascade processes initiating laboratory stick slip (2014, result): “In general, we find that the AE stress drops are consistent with other AE and laboratory-generated earthquakes [Sellers et al., 2003; McLaskey et al., 2014], as well as natural earthquakes of all sizes [e.g., Abercrombie, 1995; Ide and Beroza, 2001; Imanishi and Ellsworth, 2006].”
Apparent break in earthquake scaling due to path and site effects on deep borehole recordings (2003, methodology): “In this calculation we added missing energy above 180 Hz by extrapolation of the omega square model [Ide and Beroza, 2001].”
On the Use of Response Spectral-Reference Data for the Selection and Ranking of Ground-Motion Models for Seismic-Hazard Analysis in Regions of Moderate Seismicity: The Case of Rock Motion (2004, unknown): “As the discussion of the recent literature demonstrates (e.g., Ide and Beroza, 2001), several factors such as magnitude-dependent stress drop and geometrical spreading variation, could explain why ground-motion models based on weak motion records cannot be used directly for strong ground-motion…”
Earthquake source scaling and self-similarity estimation by stacking P and S spectra (2004, methodology): “Such a strong dependence on M0 is not supported by our results over the limited size range of our data (our best fitting scaling is M0 0.08±0.10).”
Criteria for Selecting and Adjusting Ground-Motion Models for Specific Target Regions: Application to Central Europe and Rock Sites (2006, background): “However, because of the large uncertainties in the measurements, whether ˜ is scale independent or not has been vigorously debated (e.g., Ide and Beroza, 2001 ), and the problem remains unresolved.”