Natural Hazards

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 549–562

Estimation of seismic hazard and risks for the Himalayas and surrounding regions based on Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes

  • Imtiyaz A. Parvez
  • Anastasia Nekrasova
  • Vladimir Kossobokov
Original Paper

Abstract

To estimate seismic hazard, the basic law of seismicity, the Gutenberg–Richter recurrence relation, is applied in a modified form involving a spatial term: \(\log N\left( {M,\;L} \right) = A - B\left( {M - 5} \right) + C\log L\), where N(M,L) is the expected annual number of earthquakes of a certain magnitude M within an area of linear size L. The parameters A, B, and C of this Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes (USLE) in the Himalayas and surrounding regions have been studied on the basis of a variable space and time-scale approach. The observed temporal variability of the A, B, and C coefficients indicates significant changes of seismic activity at the time scales of a few decades. At global scale, the value of A ranges mainly between −1.0 and 0.5, which determines the average rate of earthquakes that accordingly differs by a factor of 30 or more. The value of B concentrates about 0.9 ranging from under 0.6 to above 1.1, while the fractal dimension of the local seismic prone setting, C, changes from 0.5 to 1.4 and larger. For Himalayan region, the values of A, B, and C have been estimated mainly ranging from −1.6 to −1.0, from 0.8 to 1.3, and from 1.0 to 1.4, respectively. We have used the deterministic approach to map the local value of the expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) from the USLE estimated maximum magnitude or, if reliable estimation was not possible, from the observed maximum magnitude during 1900–2012. In result, the seismic hazard map of the Himalayas with spatially distributed PGA was prepared. Further, an attempt is made to generate a series of the earthquake risk maps of the region based on the population density exposed to the seismic hazard.

Keywords

Himalayas Seismic hazard Unified Scaling Law Seismic risk 

References

  1. Auden JB (1959) Earthquakes in relation to the Damodar Valley Project. Proc Symp Earthquake Engineering, 1st University of Roorkee, RoorkeeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bak P, Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T (2002) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett 88:178501–178504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatia SC, Chetty TRK, Filimonov M, Gorshkov A, Rantsman E, Rao MN (1992) Identification of potential areas for the occurrence of strong earthquakes in Himalayan arc region. Proc Indian Acad Sci (Earth Planet Sci) 101(4):369–385Google Scholar
  4. Bhatia SC, Kumar R, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geophys 42:1153–1164Google Scholar
  5. Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T, Bak P (2002) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(suppl. 1):2509–2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis C, Keilis-Borok V, Kossobokov V, Soloviev A (2012) Advance prediction of the March 11, 2011 Great East Japan earthquake: a missed opportunity for disaster preparedness. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 1:17–32. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deshikachar SV (1974) A review of the tectonic and geological history of eastern India in terms of ‘plate tectonics’ theory. J Geol Soc India 15:137–149Google Scholar
  8. Gansser A (1964) Geology of the Himalayas. Interscience, New York, p 289Google Scholar
  9. Gansser A (1977) The great suture zone between Himalaya and Tibet: a preliminary account. In: Jest C (ed) Himalaya: Science de la Terre, Colloq. Int. CNRS, 268: 181–192Google Scholar
  10. Gaur VK, Chouhan RKS (1968) Quantitative measures of seismicity applied to Indian regions. Bull Indian Soc Earthq Technol 5:63–78Google Scholar
  11. Gorshkov A, Kossobokov V, Soloviev A (2003) 6. Recognition of earthquake-prone areas. In: Keilis-Borok VI, Soloviev AA (eds) nonlinear dynamics of the lithosphere and earthquake prediction. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 239–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorshkov A, Parvez IA, Novikova O (2012) Recognition of earthquake-prone areas in the Himalaya: validity of the results. International J Geophys 2012, Article ID 419143, p 5. doi:10.1155/2012/419143
  13. Gridded Population of the World, Version 3 (GPWv3) (2005) Palisades, NY: Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Columbia University. Available at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw. 2012.05.29
  14. Kaila KL, Rao M (1979) Seismic zoning maps of Indian subcontinent. Geophys Res Bull 17:293–301Google Scholar
  15. Keilis-Borok VI (1990) The lithosphere of the Earth as a nonlinear system with implications for earthquake prediction. Rev Geophys 28(1):19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keilis-Borok VI, Kossobokov VG, Mazhkenov SA (1989) On similarity in spatial distribution of seismicity. In: Theory and algorithms of interpretation of geophysical data. Nauka, Moscow, pp 28–40 (Computational Seismology 22, in Russian)Google Scholar
  17. Khattri KN (1987) Great earthquakes, seismicity gaps and potential for earthquake disaster along the Himalaya plate boundary. Tectonophysics 138:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khattri KN, Rogers AM, Perkins DM, Algermissen ST (1984) A seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Tectonophysics 108:93–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kossobokov VG (1984) General features of the strongest (with M ≥ 8.2) earthquake-prone areas in the non-Alpine zone of the Transasian seismic belt. In: Keilis-Borok VI, Levshin AL (eds) Logical and computational methods in seismology (Comput Seismol 17). Nauka, Moscow, pp 69–72Google Scholar
  20. Kossobokov VG (2012) Earthquake prediction: 20 years of global experiment. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0198-1 Google Scholar
  21. Kossobokov VG, Mazhkenov SA (1988) Spatial characteristics of similarity for earthquake sequences: fractality of seismicity. Lecture notes of the workshop on global geophysical informatics with applications to research in earthquake prediction and reduction of seismic risk (15 Nov–16 Dec., 1988), ICTP, Trieste, p 15Google Scholar
  22. Kossobokov VG, Mazhkenov SA (1994) On similarity in the spatial distribution of seismicity. Computational Seismology and Geodynamics. Am. Geophys. Un., The Union, Washington, DC, 1:6–15Google Scholar
  23. Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova A (2003) Generalized Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law. Geophysical research abstracts, 5, abstracts of the contributions of the EGS-AGU-EGU Joint Assembly, Nice, France, 06–11 April, 2003 (CD-ROM): EAE03- A-06597Google Scholar
  24. Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova AK (2005) Temporal variations in the parameters of the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes in the eastern part of Honshu Island (Japan). Doklady Earth Sci 405:1352–1356Google Scholar
  25. Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova A (2007) Unified scaling law for earthquakes: implications for seismic hazard and risk assessment. In: IUGG2007, July 2–13, 2007, Perugia, Italy. Abstracts, SS002–65Google Scholar
  26. Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova AK (2012) Global seismic hazard assessment program maps are erroneous. Seism Instrum 48(2):162–170. doi:10.3103/S0747923912020065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krishnan MS (1968) Geology of India and Burma. Higginbothams, Madras, p 536Google Scholar
  28. Lyubushin A, Parvez IA (2010) Map of seismic hazard of India using Bayesian approach. Nat Hazards 55:543–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, New York, p 488Google Scholar
  30. Molchan G, Kronrod T, Panza GF (1997) Multi-scale seismicity model for seismic risk. Bull Seism Soc Am 87:1220–1229Google Scholar
  31. Nekrasova A (2008) Unified scaling law for earthquakes: application in seismic regions worldwide. PhD Thesis, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, p 200 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  32. Nekrasova AK, Kosobokov VG (2006) General law of similarity for earthquakes: evidence from the Baikal region. Doklady Earth Sci 407A(3):484–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V (2002) Generalizing the Gutenberg-Richter scaling law. EOS Trans AGU 83(47), Fall Meet Suppl, abstract NG62B-0958, 2002Google Scholar
  34. Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V (2003) Generalized Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law: global map of parameters. Geophysical research abstracts, 5, abstracts of the contributions of the EGS–AGU–EGU Joint Assembly, Nice, France, 6-11 April, 2003 (CD-ROM): EAE03-A-03801Google Scholar
  35. Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V, Peresan A, Aoudia A, Panza GF (2011) A multiscale application of the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes in the Central Mediterranean area and Alpine region. Pure Appl Geophys 168:297–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panza G, Irikura K, Kouteva-Guentcheva M, Peresan A, Wang Z, Saragoni R (eds) (2011) Advanced seismic hazard assessment. Pure Appl Geophys 168(1–4):752Google Scholar
  37. Parvez IA (2007) On the Bayesian analysis of the earthquake hazard in the north–east Indian peninsula. Nat Hazards 40:397–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parvez IA, Ram A (1997) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the north–east Indian Peninsula and Hidukush region. Pure Appl Geophys 149:731–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parvez IA, Ram A (1999) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the Indian subcontinent. Pure Appl Geophys 154:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parvez IA, Gusev AA, Panza GF, Petukhin AG (2001) Preliminary determination of the interdependence among strong motion amplitude, earthquake magnitude and hypocentral distance for the Himalayan region. Geophys J Int 144:577–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parvez IA, Vaccari F, Panza GF (2003) A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. Geophys J Int 155:489–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turcotte DL (1997) Fractals and chaos in Geology and Geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turcotte DL (1999) Seismicity and self-organized criticality. Phys Earth Planet Int 111:275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wadia DN (1975) Geology of India. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, p 508Google Scholar
  45. Wyss M, Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V (2012) Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazard estimates. Nat Hazards 62(3):927–935. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0125-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imtiyaz A. Parvez
    • 1
  • Anastasia Nekrasova
    • 2
  • Vladimir Kossobokov
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.CSIR Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer SimulationBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical GeophysicsRASMoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.Institut de Physique du Globe de ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations