中国地震台网数字化后与美国地震台网面波震级对比分析

使用中国地震台网全面完成数字化之后(2008—2012年)的观测资料,对中国地震台网和美国地震台网测定的面波震级从震级大小、震中距、震源深度和震中方位进行对比分析。从对比结果看:数字化之后,中国地震台网测定的MS及MS7同美国地震台网测定的MSZ之间存在一定系统偏差;震源深度对震级偏差基本没有影响;震中距对震级偏差有一定影响,具体表现为随着震中距的增加,中国地震随之偏大,尤其以震中距大于105°的地震明显;4象限分布对偏差有一定影响,具体表现为MS为第Ⅳ象限出现偏差异常,MS7为第Ⅲ象限出现偏差异常。     

云南地震台网与中国地震台网、美国地震台网测定震级的对比

利用云南地震台网全面数字化之后(2008—2017年)的记录资料,按照《地震震级的规定》(GB17740—2017)规定的测定方法,对云南地震台网记录的ML≥4. 0地震,重新人工测量其宽频带面波震级MS(BB)和矩震级Mw,与中国地震台网测定的MS7以及美国地震台网(NEIC)测定的MW(NEIC)进行对比分析。结果表明:①MS(BB)和MS7测量方法相同,量规函数相等,两者一致性最好。②对于面波震级与矩震级,当MW在3. 5左右时,MS7,MS(BB)与MW一致性最好; MW<3. 5时,MS7和MS(BB)均小于MW; MW> 3. 5时,MS7和MS(BB)大于MW。③MS(BB)与美国地震台网相比较,MS(BB)在5. 5和6. 0左右时,与MW(NEIC)一致性最好,几乎相等; MS(BB)<5. 5时,MS(BB) 6. 0时,MS(BB)> MW(NEIC)。④MW和MW(NEIC)之间存在偏差,MW整体小于MW(NEIC)。     

中国地震台网与美国地震台网测定震级的对比(Ⅰ)--体波震级

采用正交回归的方法,利用中国地震台网和美国地震台网1983——2001年的观测资料, 对中国地震局地球物理研究所（IGCEA）和美国地质调查局国家地震信息中心（NEIC）测定的体波震级进行了比较. 从正交回归得到的结果看,IGCEA测定的体波震级mb与NEIC测定的体波震级mb不存在系统差. 如果以NEIC测定的体波震级为基准, 对于3.5~4.5级之间的地震,IGCEA测定的震级比NEIC测定的震级偏高0.2～0.1级;对于5.0~5.5级之间的地震,IGCEA与NEIC测定的体波震级没有偏差;对于6.0级以上的地震,IGCEA比NEIC偏低小于0.2级. 而IGCEA测定的体波震级与国际数据中心（IDC）测定的体波震级结果基本一致.      

南京基准地震台与中国地震台网测定体波震级对比分析

以中国地震台网测定的综合体波震级为标准震级,采用正交回归方法,得到南京测震台（NJ2）体波震级与标准体波震级之间的关系式,并对震级偏差与震级大小、震中方位和震中距关系进行偏差分析,为台站分析人员提供指导.     

中国地震台网震级的对比

采用线性回归和正交回归方法,利用中国地震台网1983-2004年的观测资料,对中国地震局地球物理研究所测定的地方性震级ML、面波震级MS与MS7、长周期体波震级mB、短周期体波震级mb进行对比,给出了它们之间的经验关系式.研究结果表明:①由于不同的震级标度反映了地震波在不同周期范围内辐射地震波能量的大小,因此对于不同大小的地震,使用不同的震级标度更能客观地描述地震的大小.当震中距小于1 000 km时,用地方性震级ML可以较好地测定近震的震级.当地震的震级M＜4.5时,各种震级标度之间相差不大.当4.5＜M＜6.0时,mB＞MS,MS标度低估了较小地震的震级,因此用mB可以较好地测定较小地震的震级.当M＞6.0时,MS＞mB＞mb,mB与mb标度均低估了较大地震的震级,用MS可以较好地测定出较大地震(6.0＜M＜8.5)的震级.当M＞8.5时,MS出现饱和现象,不能正确地反映大地震的大小;②在我国境内,当震中距＜1 000 km时,ML与区域面波震级MS基本一致,在实际应用中无需对它们进行震级的换算;③虽然MS与MS7同为面波震级,但由于所使用的仪器和计算公式不同,MS比MS7系统地偏高0.2～0.3级;④对于长周期体波震级mB和短周期体波震级mb,虽然使用的计算公式相同,但由于使用的地震波周期不同,对于mB=4.0左右的地震,mB与mb几乎相等,而对于mB≥4.5的地震,则mB＞mb.     

山东数字化测震台网“十五”与“九五”系统震级测定的对比分析

本文较详细地介绍了山东数字化测震台网"十五"系统与"九五"系统在震级测定方面的研究成果。     

库尔勒地震台远震体波震级偏差分析

选取库尔勒地震台2008—2015年记录的数字地震资料,与中国地震台网测定的体波震级进行对比,从震级大小、震中距、震源深度以及震中方位,分析二者之间的关系。结果可知,库尔勒地震台计算震级相对偏大,其中mb平均偏差为0.1455,mB平均偏差为0.1941;震源深度在0—96km时,mb和mB震级偏差接近平均值;当震源深度h>96km时,测定震级和中国地震台网测定震级基本一致;地震发生在第三象限时,台站测定震级与中国地震台网测定震级基本一致。     

中国地震台网与美国地震台网测定震级的对比(Ⅱ) #8209;面波震级

采用正交回归方法， 利用中国地震局地球物理研究所（IGCEA）和美国地质调查局国家地震信息中心（USGS/NEIC）1983——2004年的观测资料，对这两个机构测定的面波震级进行了系统的比较，得到了中国地震台网与美国地震台网面波震级之间的关系式. 结果表明，由于使用的震级计算公式和观测仪器不同，IGCEA测定的面波震级总体上要比NEIC测定的结果偏高0.2级；对于3.5~4.5级的地震，IGCEA测定的震级比NEIC测定的震级偏高0.3级；对于5.0~6.5级的地震，IGCEA偏高0.2级；对于7.0级以上的地震，IGCEA偏高小于0.1级.      

Comparison between earthquake magnitudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph network (Ⅱ):Surface wave magnitude

By using orthogonal regression method, a systematic comparison is made between surface wave magnitudes determined by Institute of Geophysics of China Earthquake Administration (IGCEA) and National Earthquake Information Center of US Geological Survey (USGS/NEIC) on the basis of observation data collected by the two institutions between 1983 and 2004. A formula is obtained which reveals the relationship between surface wave magnitudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph network. The result shows that, as different calculation formulae and observational instruments are used, surface wave magnitude determined by IGCEA is generally greater by 0.2 than that determined by NEIC: for M=3.5～4.5 earthquakes, it is greater by 0.3;for M=5.0～6.5 earthquakes, it is greater by 0.2;and for M≥7.0 earthquakes, it is greater by no more than 0.1.     

Comparison between earthquake magnitudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph network （Ⅱ）： Surface wave magnitude

By using orthogonal regression method, a systematic comparison is made between surface wave magnitudes determined by Institute of Geophysics of China Earthquake Administration （IGCEA） and National Earthquake Information Center of US Geological Survey （USGS/NEIC） on the basis of observation data collected by the two institutions between 1983 and 2004. A formula is obtained which reveals the relationship between surface wave magnitudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph network. The result shows that, as different calculation formulae and observational instruments are used, surface wave magnitude determined by IGCEA is generally greater by 0.2 than that determined by NEIC： for M=3.5-4.5 earthquakes, it is greater by 0.3; for M=5.0-6.5 earthquakes, it is greater by 0.2; and for M≥7.0 earthquakes, it is greater by no more than 0.1.     

Comparison between earthquake magni-tudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph network (II): Surface wave magnitude

Introduction Earthquake magnitude is the most common measure of an earthquake′s size,and is one of the basic parameters of an earthquake.There are three most familiar scales of earthquake magnitude:ML(local earthquake magnitude),MS(surface wave magnitude)and mB/mb(body wave magni-tude).Richter(1935)introduced ML when studying earthquakes in Southern California.In1945,Gutenberg(1945a)put forward surface wave magnitude scale to determine earthquake magnitude(MS)using surface waves(20s)of s…     

Comparison between earthquake magnitudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph networks (I): Body wave magnitude

Introduction Gutenberg (1945a, b) introduced body wave magnitude based on P, PP and S waves (with a period of 0.5~12.0 s) of teleseismic events. Body wave magnitude includes mb determined with short-period seismograph and mB determined with middle- and long-period seismographs. Some-times it is written as m, which is referred to as unified earthquake magnitude. mb represents earth-quake magnitude measured with body wave amplitude around 1 s, while mB represents earthquake magnitude measured …     

Comparison between earthquake magnitudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph networks (Ⅰ): Body wave magnitude

By using orthogonal regression method, a systematic comparison is made between body wave magnitudes determined by Institute of Geophysics of China Earthquake Administration (IGCEA) and National Earthquake Information Center of US Geological Survey (USGS/NEIC) on the basis of observation data from China and US seismograph networks between 1983 and 2004. The result of orthogonal regression shows no systematic error between body wave magnitude mb determined by IGCEA and mb (NEIC). Provided that mb (NEIC) is taken as the benchmark, body wave magnitude determined by IGCEA is greater by 0.2～0.1 than the magnitude determined by NEIC for M=3.5～4.5 earthquakes; for M=5.0～5.5 earthquakes, there is no difference; and for M≥6.0 earthquakes, it is smaller by no more than 0.2. This is consistent with the result of comparison by IDC (International Data Center).     

Comparison between different earthquake magnitudes determined by China Seismograph Network

By linear regression and orthogonal regression methods, comparisons are made between different magnitudes (lo-cal magnitude ML, surface wave magnitudes MS and MS7, long-period body wave magnitude mB and short-period body wave magnitude mb) determined by Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, on the basis of observation data collected by China Seismograph Network between 1983 and 2004. Empirical relations between different magnitudes have been obtained. The result shows that: 1 As different magnitude scales reflect radiated energy by seismic waves within different periods, earthquake magnitudes can be described more objectively by using different scales for earthquakes of different magnitudes. When the epicentral distance is less than 1 000 km, local magnitude ML can be a preferable scale; In case M<4.5, there is little difference between the magnitude scales; In case 4.5MS, i.e., MS underestimates magnitudes of such events, therefore, mB can be a better choice; In case M>6.0, MS>mB>mb, both mB and mb underestimate the magnitudes, so MS is a preferable scale for deter-mining magnitudes of such events (6.08.5, a saturation phenomenon appears in MS, which cannot give an accurate reflection of the magnitudes of such large events; 2 In China, when the epicentral distance is less than 1 000 km, there is almost no difference between ML and MS, and thus there is no need to convert be-tween the two magnitudes in practice; 3 Although MS and MS7 are both surface wave magnitudes, MS is in general greater than MS7 by 0.2~0.3 magnitude, because different instruments and calculation formulae are used; 4 mB is almost equal to mb for earthquakes around mB4.0, but mB is larger than mb for those of mB≥4.5, because the periods of seismic waves used for measuring mB and mb are different though the calculation formulae are the same.     

单台测定M_B和M_S震级与CENC测定震级偏差分析

利用湟源地震台2004年7月至11月数字化地震仪记录到的MB震级66个、MS震级40个与中国地震台网中心测定的MB和MS震级进行了对比分析,利用M网-M台计算出了湟源地震台MB和MS震级的偏差,并从震中距、震源深度及方位等方面分析了产生偏差的原因,进而指出了解决的方法。     

单台测定MB和MS震级与CENC测定震级偏差分析

利用湟源地震台2004年7月至11月数字化地震仪记录到的MB震级66个、MS震级40个与中国地震台网中心测定的MB和MS震级进行了对比分析，利用M网-M台计算出了湟源地震台MB和MS震级的偏差，并从震中距、震源深度及方位等方面分析了产生偏差的原因，进而指出了解决的方法。