Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT Differences in stress-drop estimates among groups of scientists for the same earthquakes suggest disagreement in the shape of the source spectra that are used to measure corner frequency. A critical step in characterizing source spectra involves applying empirical corrections for site effects and the loss of high-frequency energy that occurs along the source–receiver path. As part of the Ridgecrest stress-drop validation study, we compare path-corrected source spectra among different methods for two nearly collocated M 3 earthquakes and investigate whether systematic differences in the applied path corrections are affecting corner-frequency estimates. We find substantial disagreements in the path corrections, which are well approximated with a simple exponential function related to the strong ground motion parameter κ. These κ differences are strongly correlated with corner-frequency estimates for path-corrected spectra, suggesting they are a large source of systematic differences in corner frequency (and inferred stress drop) among the methods, reflecting varying trade-offs between the source and path contributions to observed spectra. Because each method presumably fits the data it uses sufficiently well, these results indicate the limitations of existing purely empirical techniques to estimating path corrections and the need for new approaches.
Shearer et al. (Fri,) studied this question.