Journal of Seismology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 119–130 | Cite as

Probabilistic assessment of earthquake recurrence in the January 26, 2001 earthquake region of Gujrat, India



Kutch region of Gujrat is one of the most seismic prone regions of India. Recently, it has been rocked by a large earthquake (M w = 7.7) on January 26, 2001. The probabilities of occurrence of large earthquake (M≥6.0 and M≥5.0) in a specified interval of time for different elapsed times have been estimated on the basis of observed time-intervals between the large earthquakes (M≥6.0 and M≥5.0) using three probabilistic models, namely, Weibull, Gamma and Lognormal. The earthquakes of magnitude ≥5.0 covering about 180 years have been used for this analysis. However, the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) has been applied for computation of earthquake hazard parameters. The mean interval of occurrence of earthquakes and standard deviation are estimated as 20.18 and 8.40 years for M≥5.0 and 36.32 and 12.49 years, for M≥6.0, respectively, for this region. For the earthquakes M≥5.0, the estimated cumulative probability reaches 0.8 after about 27 years for Lognormal and Gamma models and about 28 years for Weibull model while it reaches 0.9 after about 32 years for all the models. However, for the earthquakes M≥6.0, the estimated cumulative probability reaches 0.8 after about 47 years for all the models while it reaches 0.9 after about 53, 54 and 55 years for Weibull, Gamma and Lognormal model, respectively. The conditional probability also reaches about 0.8 to 0.9 for the time period of 28 to 40 years and 50 to 60 years for M≥5.0 and M≥6.0, respectively, for all the models. The probability of occurrence of an earthquake is very high between 28 to 42 years for the magnitudes ≥5.0 and between 47 to 55 years for the magnitudes ≥6.0, respectively, past from the last earthquake (2001).


conditional probability earthquake hazards Gujrat probabilistic models recurrence parameters 


  1. Agrawal, P. N., 1991, Engineering Seismology, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  2. Auden, J.B., 1959, Earthquakes in relation to the Damodar valley project, Proc. Symp. Earthquake Engg. 1, Univ. Roorkee, Roorkee.Google Scholar
  3. Biswas, S.K., 1982, Rift basins in western margins of India and their hydrocarbon prospects with special reference to Kutch basin, Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 66, 1497–1513.Google Scholar
  4. Biswas, S.K., 1987, Regional tectonic framework, structure and evolution of the westtern marginal basins of India, Tectonophysics 135, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chung, W.-Y., and Gao, H., 1995, Source parameters of the Anjar earthquake of July 21, 1956, India, and its seismotectonic implications for the Kutch rift basin, Tectonophysics 242, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornell, C.A., 1968, Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 58, 1583–1606.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, P.M., Jackson, D.D., and Kagan, Y.Y., 1989, The longer it has been since the last earthquake, the longer the expected time till the next?, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 79, 1439–1456.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Gaur, V.K. and Chouhan, R.K.S., 1968, Quantitative measures of seismicity applied to Indian regions, Bull. Indian Soc. Earth Tech. 5, 63–78.Google Scholar
  10. Goes, S.D.B. and Ward, S.N., 1994, Synthetic seismicity for the San Andreas fault, Annali di Geofisica 37, 1495–1513.Google Scholar
  11. GSI, 2000, Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs, Geological Survey of India, Spec. Publ. no. 59, Kolkata.Google Scholar
  12. GSI, 2001, A preliminary geoseismoological report on Bhuj earthquake of 26 January, 2001, Geological Survey of India, Unpubl. Report, Kolkata.Google Scholar
  13. Hagiwara, Y., 1974, Probability of earthquake occurrence as obtained from a Weibull distribution analysis of crustal strain, Tectonophysics 23, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston, A.C. and Kanter, L.R., 1990, Stable continental earthquakes, Scientific American, 68–75.Google Scholar
  15. Kaila, K.L. and Rao, M., 1979, Seismic zoning maps of Indian subcontinent, Geophys. Res. Bull. 17, 293–301.Google Scholar
  16. Karanth, R.V., Sohoni, P.S., Mathew, G. and Khadkikar, A.S., 2001, Geological observations of the 26 January 2001 Bhuj Earthquake, J. Geol. Soc. India 58, 193–202.Google Scholar
  17. Kayal, J.R., De, R., Ram, S., Srirama, B.V. and Gonkar, S.G., 2002, Aftershocks of the 26 January, 2001 Bhuj earthquake in western India and its seismotectonic implications, J. Geol. Soc. India 59, 395–417.Google Scholar
  18. Khatri, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krishna, J., 1992, Seismic zoning maps of India, Current Science 62, 17–23.Google Scholar
  20. MacMurdo, J., 1824, Papers relating to the earthquake which occurred in India in 1819, Philosophical Magazine 63, 105–177.Google Scholar
  21. Mandal, P., Rastogi, B.K., Satyanarayana, H.V.S., Kousalya, M., Vijayraghavan, R., Satyamurty, C., Raju, I.P., Sarma, A.N.S. and Kumar, N., 2004, Characterization of the causative fault system for the 2001 Bhuj earthquake of M w 7.7, Tectonophysics 378, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malik, J.N., Sohoni, P.S., Karanth, R.V. and Merh, S.S., 1999, Modern and historic seismicity of Kachchh peninsula, western India, J. Geol. Soc. India 54, 545–550.Google Scholar
  23. Mogi, 1985, Earthquake Prediction, (Tokyo: Academic Press).Google Scholar
  24. Nishenko, S.P. and Bullard, R., 1987, A generic recurrence interval distribution for earthquake forecasting, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 77, 1382–1399.Google Scholar
  25. Oldham, R.D., 1926, The Cutch (Kachh) earthquake of the 16th June, 1819 with a revision of the great earthquake of the 12th June, 1897, India Geological Survey Memoir 46, 71–147.Google Scholar
  26. Paravez, I.A. and Ram, A., 1997, Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the north-east Indian peninsula and Hindukush regions, Pure Applied Geophys. 149, 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paravez, I.A. and Ram, A., 1999, Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the Indian subcontinent, Pure Applied Geophys. 154, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rajendran, C.P. and Rajendran, K., 2001, Characteristics of deformation and past seismicity associated with the 1819 Kutch earthquake, northwestern India, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 91, 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rajendran, C.P., Rajendran, K. And John, B., 1998, Surface deformation related to the 1819 Kachchh earthquake: Evidence for recurrent activity, Current Sci. 75, 623–626.Google Scholar
  30. Rajendran, K., Rajendran, C.P., Thakkar, M., and Tuttle, M.P., 2001, The 2001 Kutch (Bhuj) earthquake: Coseismic surface features and their significance, Current Sci. 80, 1397–1405.Google Scholar
  31. Richter, C.F., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman & Co., Inc., San Fran-cisco, California.Google Scholar
  32. Shaik M.A. and Srivastava S., 2003, Statistical parameters of Bhuj earthquake sequence of January 26th, 2001, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Earth Planet. Sci.) 112, 397–400.Google Scholar
  33. Shanker, R. and Pande, P., 2001, Geoseismological studies of Kutch (Bhuj) Earthquake of 26 January 2001, J. Geol. Soc. India 58, 203–208.Google Scholar
  34. Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F., 1954, Seismicity of the Earth, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 310 p.Google Scholar
  35. Rikitake, T., 1974, Probability of earthquake occurrence as estimated from crustal strain, Tectonophysics 23, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rikitake, T., 1991, Assessment of earthquake hazard in the Tokyo Area, Japan, Tectonophysics 199, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rikitake, T., 1999, Probability of a great earthquake to recur in the Tokai district, Japan: reevaluation based on newly-developed paleosiesmology, plate tectonics, tsunami study, micro-seismicity and geodetic measurements, Earth Planets Space 51, 147–157.Google Scholar
  38. Talwani, P. and Gangopadhyay, A., 2001, Tectonic framework of the Kachchh earthquake of January 26, 2001, Seis. Res. Lett. 72, 336–345.Google Scholar
  39. Tandon, A.N., 1959, The rann of Kutch earthquake of 21st July 1956, Indian Jour. Met. Geophys. 10, 137–146.Google Scholar
  40. Ustu, T., 1972a, 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
  41. Ustu, T., 1972b, Aftershocks and earthquake statistics (IV), Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University Series VII (Geophysics) 4, 1–42.Google Scholar
  42. Ustu, T., 1984, Estimation of parameters for recurrence models of Earthquakes, Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Univ. Tokyo 59, 53–66.Google Scholar
  43. Ward, S.N. and Goes, S.D.B., 1993, How regularly do earthquake recur? A synthetic seismicity model for the San Andreas fault, Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 2131–2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wesnousky, S.G., Scholz, C.H., Shimazaki, K. and Matsuda, T., 1984, Integration of geological and seismological data for the analysis of seismic hazard: Acase study of Japan, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 74, 687–708.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Planetary SciencesUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia

Personalised recommendations