Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Aftershock probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bushehr province in Iran using ETAS model

  • 81 Accesses


Aftershock probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (APSHA) has a key role in risk management after a major earthquake. The main goal of the current study is to assess aftershock hazard in a strategic and earthquake-prone region of Iran (Bushehr province). Bushehr province is a strategic region in the Middle East due to its major petroleum export facilities, industrial corridors and the Bushehr nuclear power plant. To prepare APSHA for Bushehr province, a seismic source is selected which surrounds the active faults in the study area. A uniform earthquake catalog is collected which contains information on a total of 1143 earthquakes (Mw > 4) occurred in the study area from 1900 to 2018. Aftershock parameters are calculated using the epidemic-type aftershock sequence model. Aftershock sequences follow a non-homogenous Poisson’s process, and their magnitude and location depend on the size and location of the mainshock. In this study, APSHA is performed for the intervals of 1, 7 and 30 days after the mainshock, by assuming occurrence of mainshocks with return periods of 475 and 2475 years. The results show that the aftershock hazard curve is greater than that of the mainshock hazard curve.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Availability of data and materials

The R package ETAS is available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ETAS and GitHub at https://github.com/jalilian/ETAS (under GPL 2 license). The earthquake catalog is extracted from the data center of International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (http://www.iiees.ac.ir/fa/eqcatalog/).



Epidemic-type aftershock sequence


Aftershock probabilistic seismic hazard analysis


Moment magnitude scale


  1. Abrahamson N, Silva W (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24(1):67–97. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924360

  2. Amiri GG, Mahdavian A, Dana FM (2007) Attenuation relationships for Iran. J Earthquake Eng 11(4):469–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601034049

  3. Baker JW (2008) An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. White Paper, Version 1.3. http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/Publications/Baker-(2008)-Intro-to-PSHA-v1-3.pdf

  4. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434

  5. Boyd OS (2012) Including foreshocks and aftershocks in time independent probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(3):909–917

  6. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):139–171. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857546

  7. Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 24(1):173–215. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894832

  8. Davoudi N, Tavakoli HR, Zare M, Jalilian A (2018) Declustering of Iran earthquake catalog (1983–2017) using the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model. Acta Geophys 66(6):1359–1373

  9. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367

  10. Guo Z, Ogata Y (1997) Statistical relations between the parameters of aftershocks in time, space, and magnitude. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 102(B2):2857–2873

  11. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Measurement error models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188

  12. Harte DS (2017) Probability distribution of forecasts based on the ETAS model. Geophys J Int 210(1):90–104

  13. Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Polidoro B (2014) Sequence based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(2):1006–1012

  14. Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H (2017) Seismic risk assessment considering cumulative damage due to aftershocks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(3):369–389

  15. Jalilian A (2019) ETAS: an R package for fitting the space-time ETAS model to earthquake data. J Stat Softw 88(CN 1):1–39

  16. Jalilian A, Zhuang J (2016) ETAS: modeling earthquake data using ETAS model. R package version 0.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ETAS

  17. Kanamori H (1977) The energy release in great earthquakes. J Geophys Res 82(20):2981–2987. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB082i020p02981

  18. Karimiparidari S, Zare M, Memarian H, Kijko A (2013) Iranian earthquakes, a uniform catalog with moment magnitudes. J Seismol 17(3):897–911

  19. Kijko A, Sellevoll MA (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(3):645–654

  20. Luen B, Stark PB (2012) Poisson tests of declusteredcatalogs. Geophys J Int 189(1):691–700

  21. Marzocchi W, Lombardi AM (2009) Real time forecasting following a damaging earthquake. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040233

  22. Mirzaei N, Gao M, Chen YT (1999) Delineation of potential seismic sources for seismic zoning of Iran. J Seismol 3(1):17–30

  23. Moinfar AA, Naderzadeh A, Nabavi MH (2012) New Iranian seismic hazard zoning map for new edition of seismic code and its comparison with neighbor countries. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering

  24. Ogata Y (1998) Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Ann Inst Stat Math 50(2):379–402

  25. Ogata Y, Katsura K (2006) Immediate and updated forecasting of aftershock hazard. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025888

  26. Omi T, Ogata Y, Hirata Y, Aihara K (2013) Forecasting large aftershocks within one day after the main shock. Sci Rep Nat 3:2218. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02218

  27. Omi T, Ogata Y, Hirata Y, Aihara K (2015) Intermediate term forecasting of aftershocks from an early aftershock sequence: Bayesian and ensemble forecasting approaches. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120(4):2561–2578

  28. Ommi S, Zafarani H (2018) Probabilistic aftershock hazard analysis, two case studies in West and Northwest Iran. J Seismol 22(1):137–152

  29. Ommi S, Zafarani H, Zare M (2016a) Aftershock decay rates in the Iranian plateau. Pure Appl Geophys 173(7):2305–2324

  30. Ommi S, Zafarani H, Smirnov VB (2016b) Bayesian estimation of the Modified Omori Law parameters for the Iranian plateau. J Seismol 20(3):953–970

  31. R Core Team (2016) The R package of ETAS from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ETAS. https://github.com/jalilian/ETAS

  32. Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity 1969–1982. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 90:5479–5495

  33. Shahvar MP, Zare M, Castellaro S (2013) A unified seismic catalog for the Iranian plateau (1900–2011). Seismol Res Lett 84(2):233–249

  34. Tavakoli B, Ghafory-Ashtiany M (1999) Seismic hazard assessment of Iran. Ann Geophys. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3781

  35. Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity declustering. Community Online Resour Stat Seism Anal. https://doi.org/10.5078/corssa-52382934

  36. Wiemer S (2000) Introducing probabilistic aftershock hazard mapping. Geophys Res Lett Solid Earth 27(20):3405–3408. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL011479

  37. Wiemer S, Katsumata K (1999) Spatial variability of seismicity parameters in aftershock zones. J Geophys Res [Solid Earth] 104(B6):13135–13151. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JB900032

  38. Yazdi P, Santoyo MA, Gaspar-Escribano JM (2018) Analysis of the 2012 Ahar-Varzeghan (Iran) seismic sequence: insights from statistical and stress transfer modeling. Glob Planet Change Sci Direct 161:121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.12.007

  39. Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2005) Stochastic characterization and decision bases under time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake engineering, PEER Report 2005/13. College of Engineering, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

  40. Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2009) A probabilistic framework for quantification of aftershock ground motion hazard in California: methodology and parametric study. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(1):45–60

  41. Zare M, Amini H, Yazdi P, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Kalafat D, Erdik M, Giardini D, Asif Khan M, Tsereteli N (2014) Recent developments of the Middle East catalog. J Seismol 18(4):749–772

  42. Zhuang J (2011) Next-day earthquake forecasts for the Japan region generated by the ETAS model. Earth, Planets and Space 63(3):5

  43. Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat As 97(458):369–380

  44. Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2004) Analyzing earthquake clustering features by using stochastic reconstruction. J Geophys Res [Solid Earth]. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002879

  45. Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2006) Diagnostic analysis of space-time branching processes for earthquakes. In: Baddeley A, Gregori P, Mateu J, Stoica R, Stoyan D (eds) Case studies in spatial point process modeling, Lecture notes in statistics, vol 185. Springer, New York, pp 275–292

Download references


We wish to thank Mohammad Shahvar for his help in providing the magnitude conversation relations. We also acknowledge the help of R. Goodarzi and S.M. Hosseini in editing of figures.


This research was funded by the Babol Noshirvani University of Technology under the Grant No. BUT/388011/97.

Author information

ND analyzed the data, completed all experiments and wrote the manuscript. HRT proposed the initial idea and guided us in the analysis. MZ directed us to create a seismic catalog and seismic zoning. AJ developed the ETAS model code. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Correspondence to Hamid Reza Tavakoli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davoudi, N., Tavakoli, H.R., Zare, M. et al. Aftershock probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Bushehr province in Iran using ETAS model. Nat Hazards 100, 1159–1170 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03854-8

Download citation


  • Aftershock
  • Mainshock
  • Seismic hazard analysis
  • Bushehr province of Iran
  • ETAS model