Advertisement

About Earthquake Forecasting by Markov Renewal Processes

  • Elsa GaravagliaEmail author
  • Raffaella Pavani
Article

Abstract

We propose and validate a new method for the evaluation of seismic hazard. In particular, our aim is to model large earthquakes consistently with the underlying geophysics. Therefore we propose a non-Poisson model, which takes into account occurrence history, improved with some physical constraints. Among the prevalent non-Poisson models, we chose the Markov renewal process, which is expected to be sufficient to capture the main characteristics, maintaining simplicity in analysis. However, due to the introduction of some physical constraint, our process differs significantly from others already presented in literature. A mixture of exponential + Weibull distributions is proposed for the waiting times and their parameters are estimated following the likelihood method. We validated our model, using data of earthquakes of high severity occurred in Turkey during the 20th century. Our results exhibit a good accordance with the real events.

Keywords

Earthquake prediction Semi Markov processes Renewal processes Mixture distributions 

AMS 2000 subject classification

60K20 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvarez E (2005) Estimation in stationary Markov renewal processes, with application to earthquake forecasting in Turkey. Journal of Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability 7:119–130 Springer, The NetherlandszbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Garavaglia E, Guagenti E, Petrini L (2007). The earthquake predictability in mixture renewal models, Proc. of Società Italiana di Statistica SIS Intermediate Conference 2007 Risk and Prediction, Venezia, June 6–8, 2007, Invited Section, Editor Società Italiana di Statistica, Ed. CLEUP, Venezia, I, 361–372Google Scholar
  3. Grandori G, Guagenti E, Petrini L (2006) Earthquake catalogues and modelling strategies. A new testing procedure for the comparison between competing models. J Seismol 10(3):259–269. doi: 10.1007/s10950-006-9015-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Guagenti Grandori E, Molina C, Mulas G (1988) Seismic risk analysis with predictable models. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 16:343–359. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290160305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guagenti Grandori E, Garavaglia E, Tagliani A (1990) Recurrence time distributions: a discussion, Proc. 9th ECEE Eur. Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Moscow, Sept. 1990Google Scholar
  6. Limnios N, Oprisan G (2001) Semi-Markov processes and reliability. Birkhauser, Boston-Basel-BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Shimazaki K, Nakata T (1980) Time predictable recurrence model for large earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 7:279–282. doi: 10.1029/GL007i004p00279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Wu SC, Cornell CA, Winterstain SR (1995) A hybrid recurrence model and its implication on seismic hazard results. Bull Seism Soc Am BSSA 85(1):1–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structural EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations