Seismic moment distribution revisited: II. Moment conservation principle

By Y. Kagan. 2002

142 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Geophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3eb2d8f3ea5a0dfb495ca9a2c7cbf1a36d9fb271

How researchers see this paper

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

In Geophysics

1. Tom Parsons
2. D. Jackson
3. Eric L. Geist
4. S. Castellaro
5. F. Mulargia
6. Y. Kagan
7. A. Haines
8. Corne Kreemer

Citations in the corpus

• Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results (2002, background): “In a companion paper (Kagan 2002) we discuss the seismic moment conservation principle and draw conclusions by comparing the tectonic moment rate and seismicity parameters.”
• Probabilistic Analysis of Tsunami Hazards* (2006, methodology): “To determine tsunami recurrence rates and probabilities, a seismic zonation scheme is developed based on fault structure and tectonics that can include both far-field and local sources (e.g., Ward, 1994; Kagan, 2002a).”
• An integrated global model of present‐day plate motions and plate boundary deformation (2003, methodology): “After initial findings by Kagan (1999, 2002) that there appears to be a strong global correlation between tectonic moment rate and the number of events above a cut-off magnitude along subduction zones, Kreemer et al. (2002) performed a more rigorous analysis using the strain rate model presented…”
• Tohoku earthquake: a surprise? (2011, methodology): “…scalar seismic moment: (a) the truncated Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) or equivalently truncated Pareto distribution, in which the upper magnitude parameter is the maximum magnitude, and (b) the gamma distribution (Kagan, 2002a; 2002b), in which the upper magnitude parameter is the corner magnitude mcg.”
• Aftershock Zone Scaling (2002, methodology): “The seismic moment is distributed according to the power law; the Gutenberg–Richter relation is a logarithmic transformation of the law (Kagan, 2002a).”
• Regression problems for magnitudes (2006, methodology): “In order to verify whether the exponential distribution of earthquake magnitudes, which has an upper and lower cutoff (cf. Kagan, 2002a), induces a bias in magnitude vs. magnitude regressions according to different scales, we simulate magnitude-frequency relations, add errors, remove events below…”
• Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time‐Independent Model (2014, unknown): “Kagan, Y. Y. (2002b).”