RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES VOL. 8, ES1001, doi:10.2205/2005ES000195, 2006
![]() |
Figure 2 |
![]() |
Figure 3 |
[9] Even a brief examination of the isoseismal maps reveals some incoherencies. Though magnitudes of the 1930 and 1949 earthquakes are almost the same (3.9 and 4.0), the felt area of the first one is larger. It is also much larger (more than 2 times) the area contoured by the intensity IV isoline (regardless to which version of the isoseismal map of the 1930 earthquake we compare with the 1949 map). This could hardly be attributed to different attenuations of seismic waves radiated by both earthquakes, because the distance between their epicenters is about 20 km, so the source-locality travel paths are almost the same for both earthquakes. An explanation could be the assumption of a deeper source for the 1930 earthquake. But a deeper source of the 1930 earthquake will become in contradiction with equal magnitudes and epicentral intensities ( I0=5 ) for both earthquakes. According to equation (1) and (2), the epicentral intensity, magnitude and felt area of the 1949 earthquake are coherent with the assumption of a relatively shallow source (10-15 km), so the discrepancy between these parameters for the 1930 event has to be solved. For this purpose we have to verify both macroseismic and instrumental data.
Citation: 2006), Macroseismic and instrumental data comprehensive analysis: Earthquake of June 2, 1930 in Catalonia (Spain), Russ. J. Earth Sci., 8, ES1001, doi:10.2205/2005ES000195.
Copyright 2006 by the Russian Journal of Earth Sciences (Powered by TeXWeb (Win32, v.2.0).