Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 167, Issue 11, pp 1331–1342 | Cite as

Probabilistic Assessment of Earthquake Recurrence in Northeast India and Adjoining Regions

  • Ram Bichar Singh Yadav
  • Jayant Nath Tripathi
  • Bal Krishna Rastogi
  • Mridul Chandra Das
  • Sumer Chopra


Northeast India and adjoining regions (20°–32° N and 87°–100° E) are highly vulnerable to earthquake hazard in the Indian sub-continent, which fall under seismic zones V, IV and III in the seismic zoning map of India with magnitudes M exceeding 8, 7 and 6, respectively. It has experienced two devastating earthquakes, namely, the Shillong Plateau earthquake of June 12, 1897 (M w 8.1) and the Assam earthquake of August 15, 1950 (M w 8.5) that caused huge loss of lives and property in the Indian sub-continent. In the present study, the probabilities of the occurrences of earthquakes with magnitude M ≥ 7.0 during a specified interval of time has been estimated on the basis of three probabilistic models, namely, Weibull, Gamma and Lognormal, with the help of the earthquake catalogue spanning the period 1846 to 1995. The method of maximum likelihood has been used to estimate the earthquake hazard parameters. The logarithmic probability of likelihood function (ln L) is estimated and used to compare the suitability of models and it was found that the Gamma model fits best with the actual data. The sample mean interval of occurrence of such earthquakes is estimated as 7.82 years in the northeast India region and the expected mean values for Weibull, Gamma and Lognormal distributions are estimated as 7.837, 7.820 and 8.269 years, respectively. The estimated cumulative probability for an earthquake M ≥ 7.0 reaches 0.8 after about 15–16 (2010–2011) years and 0.9 after about 18–20 (2013–2015) years from the occurrence of the last earthquake (1995) in the region. The estimated conditional probability also reaches 0.8 to 0.9 after about 13–17 (2008–2012) years in the considered region for an earthquake M ≥ 7.0 when the elapsed time is zero years. However, the conditional probability reaches 0.8 to 0.9 after about 9–13 (2018–2022) years for earthquake M ≥ 7.0 when the elapsed time is 14 years (i.e. 2009).


Probabilistic models cumulative probability conditional probability earthquake hazard 



The authors are thankful to the Department of Science and Technology and Ministry of Earth Science, Government of India for providing financial support. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. A. Kijko, Editor PAGEOPH and two anonymous reviewers for their generous comments and thorough review of this manuscript, which has improved the quality significantly.


  1. Abe, K. (1981), Magnitudes of large shallow earthquakes from 1904 to 1980, Phys. Earth Planet Inter. 27, 72–92.Google Scholar
  2. Ambraseys, N. and Bilham, R. (2003), MSK isoseismal intensities evaluated for the 1897 Great Assam Earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 93(2), 655–673.Google Scholar
  3. Auden, J. B. (1959), Earthquake in relation to the Damodar valley project, Proc. Symp. Earthq. Eng. 1, University of Roorkee, Roorkee.Google Scholar
  4. Bhatia, S. C., Kumar, M. R., and Gupta, H. K. (1999), A probabilistic hazard map of India and adjoining regions, Ann. Geofis. 42, 1153–1164.Google Scholar
  5. Bilham, R. and England, P. (2001), Plateau pop-up during the great 1897 Assam earthquake, Nature 410, 806–809.Google Scholar
  6. BIS. (2002), Is 1893 (part 1)2002: indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1general provisions and buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  7. Chandra, U. (1992), Seismotectonics of Himalaya, Curr. Sci. 62(1&2), 40–71.Google Scholar
  8. Cornell, C. A. (1968), Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 58, 1583–1606.Google Scholar
  9. Das, S, Gupta, V. K., and Gupta, I. D. (2005), Codal provisions of seismic hazard in Northeast India, Curr. Sci. 89(12), 2004–2008.Google Scholar
  10. Das, S., Gupta, I. D., and Gupta, V. K. (2006), a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of northeast India, Earthq. Spectra 22(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  11. Dutta, T. K. (1964), Seismicity of Assam-zone of tectonic activity, Bull. Nat. Geophys. Res. Inst., 2, 152–163.Google Scholar
  12. Ellsworth, W. L., Mattews, M. V., Ndeau, R. M., Nishenko, S. P., Reasenberg, P. A., and Simpson, R. W. (1999), A physically based earthquake recurrence model for estimation of long-term earthquake probabilities. Workshop on Earthquake recurrence: State of the art and directions for the future, Istituto Nazionale de Geofisica, Rome, Italy, 22–25 February, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. Fedotov, S. A. (1968), On the seismic cycle, the possibilities for quantitative seismic zoning and long range seismic prediction. Seismic zoning in the USSR, Moscow, Nauka, 121–150 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  14. Gaur, V. K. and Chauhan, R. K. S. (1968), Quantitative measures of seismicity applied to Indian regions, Bull. Indian Soc. Earth. Tech. 5, 63–78.Google Scholar
  15. GSI. (2000), Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs, Geological Survey of India, Spec. Publ. no. 59, Kolkata. Google Scholar
  16. Gupta, H. K., Rajendran, K., and Singh, H. N. (1986), Seismicity of the northeast India region: Part I: The data base, J. Geol. Soc. India 28, 345–365.Google Scholar
  17. Hagiwara, Y. (1974), Probability of earthquake occurrence as obtained from a Weibull distribution analysis of crustal strain, Tectonophysics 23, 313–318.Google Scholar
  18. Kaila, K. L. and Rao, M. (1979), Seismic zoning maps of Indian sub-continent, Geophys. Res. Bull. 17, 293–301.Google Scholar
  19. Kelleher, J., Savino, J., Rowlett, H., and MacConn, W. (1974), Why and where great thrust earthquakes occur along Island arcs? J. Geophys. Res. 79, 4889–4899.Google Scholar
  20. Khattri, K. N., Rogers, A. M., Perkins, D. M., and Algermissen, S. T. (1984), A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas, Tectonophysics 108, 93–134.Google Scholar
  21. Mogi, K. (1968), Sequential occurrences of recent great earthquakes, J. Phys. Earth 16, 30–36.Google Scholar
  22. Nandy , D. R. (1986), Tectonic, seismicity and gravity of Northeastern India and adjoining region, Mem. Geol. Surv. India 119, 13–16.Google Scholar
  23. Nishenko, S. P. and Bullard, R. (1987), A generic recurrence interval distribution for earthquake forecasting, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 77, 1382–1399.Google Scholar
  24. Oldham, T. (1883), A catalogue of Indian earthquakes from the earliest time to the end of A.D. 1869, Mem. Geol. Surv. India 19(3), pp 53.Google Scholar
  25. Parvez, I. A. and Ram, A. (1997), Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the north-east Indian peninsula and Hindukush regions, Pure Appl. Geophys. 149, 731–746.Google Scholar
  26. Parvez, I. A. and Ram, A. (1999), Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the Indian subcontinent, Pure Appl. Geophys. 154, 23–40.Google Scholar
  27. Rikitake, T. (1976), Recurrence of great earthquakes at subduction zones, Tectonophysics 35, 305–362.Google Scholar
  28. Rikitake, T. (1991), Assessment of earthquake hazard in the Tokyo area, Japan, Tectonophysics 199, 121–131.Google Scholar
  29. Rikitake, T. (1999), Probability of a great earthquake to recur in the Tokai district, Japan: reevaluation based on newly-developed paleoseismology, plate tectonics, tsunami study, micro-seismicity and geodetic measurements, Earth Planet Space 51, 147–157.Google Scholar
  30. Shanker, D. and Papadimitriou, E. E. (2004), Regional time-predictable modeling in Hindukush-Pamir-Himalayas region, Tectonophysics 390, 129–140.Google Scholar
  31. Shanker, D. and Sharma, M. L. (1998), Estimation of seismic hazard parameters for the Himalayas and its vicinity from complete data files, Pure Appl. Geophys. 152, 267–279.Google Scholar
  32. Sharma, M. L. and Malik, S. (2006), Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and estimation of spectral strong ground motion on bed rock in north east India, 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, October 12–13, Paper No. 015.Google Scholar
  33. Tandon, A. N. and Srivastava, H. N. (1974), Earthquake occurrences in India, Earthquake Engineering, Jai Krishna Volume, Sarita Prakashan (publ.), 1–48.Google Scholar
  34. Tripathi, J. N. (2006), Probabilistic assessment of earthquake recurrence in the January 26, 2001 earthquake region of Gujarat, India, J. Seismol. 10 119–130.Google Scholar
  35. Utsu, T. (1972), Large earthquakes near Hokkaido and the expectancy of the occurrence of a large earthquake of Nemuro, Report of the Coordinating Committee for Earthquake Prediction 7, 7–13.Google Scholar
  36. Utsu, T. (1984), Estimation of parameters for recurrence models of earthquakes, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst., Univ. Tokyo 59, 53–66.Google Scholar
  37. Wesnousky, S. G., Scholz, C. H., Shimazaki, K., and Matsuda, T. (1984), Integration of geological and seismological data for the analysis of seismic hazard: A case study of Japan, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 74, 687–708.Google Scholar
  38. Yadav, R. B. S., Tripathi, J. N., Rastogi, B. K., and Chopra, S. (2008), Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard in Gujarat and adjoining region of India, Pure Appl. Geophys. 165, 1813–1833.Google Scholar
  39. Yadav, R. B. S., Bormann, P., Rastogi, B. K., Das, M. C., and Chopra, S. (2009), A homogeneous and complete earthquake catalog for northeast India and the adjoining region, Seism. Res. Lett. 80(4), 609–627.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser / Springer Basel AG 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ram Bichar Singh Yadav
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jayant Nath Tripathi
    • 2
  • Bal Krishna Rastogi
    • 1
  • Mridul Chandra Das
    • 3
  • Sumer Chopra
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Seismological Research (ISR)GujaratIndia
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Planetary SciencesUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia
  3. 3.Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration LtdAgartalaIndia
  4. 4.Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services, Ministry of Earth Science, Government of IndiaOcean ValleyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations