Advertisement

Acta Geophysica

, Volume 66, Issue 6, pp 1359–1373 | Cite as

Declustering of Iran earthquake catalog (1983–2017) using the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model

  • Nader Davoudi
  • Hamid Reza Tavakoli
  • Mehdi Zare
  • Abdollah Jalilian
Research Article - Solid Earth Sciences

Abstract

The main goal of this article is to decluster Iranian plateau seismic catalog by the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model and compare the results with some older methods. For this purpose, Iranian plateau bounded in 24°–42°N and 43°–66°E is subdivided into three major tectonic zones: (1) North of Iran (2) Zagros (3) East of Iran. The extracted earthquake catalog had a total of 6034 earthquakes (Mw > 4) in the time span 1983–2017. The ETAS model is an accepted stochastic approach for seismic evaluation and declustering earthquake catalogs. However, this model has not yet been used to decluster the seismic catalog of Iran. Until now, traditional methods like the Gardner and Knopoff space–time window method and the Reasenberg link-based method have been used in most studies for declustering Iran earthquake catalog. Finally, the results of declustering by the ETAS model are compared with result of Gardner and Knopoff (Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367, 1974), Uhrhammer (Earthq Notes 57(1):21, 1986), Gruenthal (pers. comm.) and Reasenberg (Geophys Res 90:5479–5495, 1985) declustering methods. The overall conclusion is difficult, but the results confirm the high ability of the ETAS model for declustering Iranian earthquake catalog. Use of the ETAS model is still in its early steps in Iranian seismological researches, and more parametric studies are needed.

Keywords

Declustering Earthquake catalog Seismotectonic provinces of Iran Windowing methods ETAS model 

Abbreviations

Re

Reasenberg

Uh

Uhrhammer

G-K

Gardner and Knopoff

Gr

Gruenthal method

ETAS

Epidemic-type aftershock sequence model

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the funding support of Babol Noshirvani University of Technology through Grant No. BUT/388011/97. We wish to appreciate Mohammad Shahvar for his help in providing the earthquake catalog and magnitude conversation relations used in this article.

Authors’ contributions

HRT proposed the initial idea and guided us in the analysis. ND analyzed the data completed all experiments and wrote the manuscript. 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.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amini H (2014) Comparing Reasenberg and Gruenthal declustering methods for north of Iran. In Second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismologyGoogle Scholar
  2. Bottiglieri M, Lippiello E, Godano C, de Arcangelis L (2009) Identification and spatiotemporal organization of aftershocks. J Geophys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005941 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burkhard M, Grünthal G (2009) Seismic source zone characterization for the seismic hazard assessment project PEGASOS by the Expert Group 2 (EG1b). Swiss J Geosci 102(1):149–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis SD, Frohlich C (1991) Single-link cluster analysis, synthetic earthquake catalogs, and aftershock identification. Geophys J Int 104:289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frohlich C, Davis SD (1990) Single-link cluster analysis as a method to evaluate spatial and temporal properties of earthquake catalogs. Geophys J Int 100:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367Google Scholar
  7. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Measurement error models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  8. Hainzl S, Scherbaum F, Beauval C (2006) Estimating background activity based on interevent-time distribution. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang WQ, LiWX Cao XF (1994) Research on the completeness of earthquake data in the Chinese mainland (I)North China. Acta Seismol Sin 7(3):351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jalilian A, Zhuang J (2016) ETAS: modeling earthquake data using ETAS model. R package version 0.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ETAS
  11. Kagan Y, Jackson D (1991) Long-term earthquake clustering. Geophys J Int 104(1):117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanamori H (1977) The energy release in great earthquakes. J Geophys Res 82(20):2981–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karimiparidari S, Zare M, Memarian H, Kijko A (2013) Iranian earthquakes, a uniform catalog with moment magnitudes. J Seismol 17(3):897–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luen B, Stark PB (2012) Poisson tests of declusteredcatalogs. Geophys J Int 189(1):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marsan D, Lengline O (2010) A new estimation of the decay of aftershock density with distance to the mainshock. J Geophys Res [Solid Earth].  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB007119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mirzaei N, Gao MT, Chen YT, Wang J (1997) A uniform catalog of earthquakes for seismic hazard assessment in Iran. Acta Seismol Sin 10(6):713–726.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11589-997-0003-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Molchan G, Dmitrieva O (1992) Aftershock identification: methods and new approaches. Geophys J Int 109:501–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mousavi-Bafrouei SH, Mirzaei N, Shabani E (2015) A declustered earthquake catalog for the Iranian Plateau. Ann Geophy.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ogata Y (1998) Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Ann Inst Stat Math 50(2):379–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ommi S, Zafarani H, Zare M (2016) Aftershock decay rates in the Iranian plateau. Pure Appl Geophys 173(7):2305–2324 (Springer Basel Switzerland) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity. 1969–1982. J Geophys Res 90:5479–5495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Savage WU (1972) Microearthquake clustering near fairview peak, Nevada, and in the Nevada seismic zone. J Geophys Res 77(35):7049–7056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shahvar MP, Zare M, Castellaro S (2013) A unified seismic catalog for the Iranian plateau (1900–2011). Seismol Res Lett 84(2):233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uhrhammer R (1986) Characteristics of northern and central California seismicity. Earthq Notes 57(1):21Google Scholar
  25. Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity declustering, Community online resource for statistical seismicity analysis.  https://doi.org/10.5078/corssa-52382934. Available at http://www.corssa.org
  26. Vere-Jones D (1970) Stochastic models for earthquake occurrence. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol) 32(1):1–62Google Scholar
  27. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002Google Scholar
  28. Wiemer S (2001) A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett 72:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zafarani H, Soghrat M (2012) Simulation of ground motion in the Zagros region of Iran using the specific barrier model and the stochastic method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(5):2031–2045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 (Springer) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhuang J (2011) Next-day earthquake forecasts for the Japan region generated by the ETAS model. Earth Planets Space 63(3):5 (Springer Japan) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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, NY, pp 275–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringBabol Noshirvani University of TechnologyBabolIran
  2. 2.Department of SeismologyInternational Institute of Earthquake Engineering and SeismologyTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsRazi UniversityKermanshahIran

Personalised recommendations