Skip to main content

Recent developments of the Middle East catalog

Abstract

This article summarizes a recent study in the framework of the Global Earth model (GEM) and the Earthquake Model of the Middle East (EMME) project to establish the new catalog of seismicity for the Middle East, using all historical (pre-1900), early and modern instrumental events up to 2006. According to different seismicity, which depends on geophysical, geological, tectonic, and seismicity data, this region is subdivided to nine subregions, consisting of Alborz–Azerbaijan, Afghanistan–Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Caucasus, Central Iran, Kopeh–Dagh, Makran, Zagros, and Turkey (Eastern Anatolia; after 30° E). After omitting the duplicate events, aftershocks, and foreshocks by using the Gruenthal method, and uniform all magnitude to Mw scale, 28,244 main events remain for the new catalog of Middle East from 1250 B.C. through 2006. The magnitude of completeness (Mc) was determined as 4.9 for five out of nine subregions, where the least values of Mc were found to be 4.2. The threshold of Mc is around 5.5, 5.0, 4.5, and 4.0, for the time after 1950, 1963, 1975, and 2000, respectively. The average of teleseismic depths in all regions is less than 15 km. Totally, majority of depth for Kopeh–Dagh and Central Iran, Zagros, and Alborz–Azerbaijan, approximately, is 15, 13, and 11 km and for Afghanistan–Pakistan, Caucasus, Makran, Turkey (after 30° E), and Saudi Arabia is about 9 km.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

References

  1. Ambraseys NN (2001) Reassessment of earthquakes 1900–1999, in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Geophys J Int 145(2):471–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ambraseys NN (2009) Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East, a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ambraseys NN, Jackson JA (1998) Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Geophys J Int 133:390–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ambraseys NN, Jackson JA, Melville CP (2002) Historical seismicity and tectonics: the case of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, international handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, V.81A, Copyright ~ 2002 by the Int’l Assoc. Seismol. & Phys. Earth’s Interior, Committee on Education. ISBN: 0-12-440652-1

  5. Ambraseys NN, Melville CP, Adams RD (2005) The seismicity of Egypt, Arabia and the Red Sea: a historical review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ambrasys NN, Melville CP (1982) A history of Persian earthquake. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bayliss TJ, Burton PW (2007) A new earthquake catalogue for Bulgaria and the conterminous Balkan high hazard region. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:345–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen WP, Molnar P (1983) Focal depths of intracontinental and intraplate earthquakes and their implications for the thermal and mechanical properties of the lithosphere. J Geophys Res 88:4183–4214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen WP, Molnar P (1990) Source parameters of earthquakes and intraplate deformation beneath the Shilhong Plateau and northern Indoburman ranges. J Geophys Res 95:12,527–12,552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DeMets C, Gordon RG, Argus DF, Stein S (1994) Effects of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions. Geophys Res Lett 21:2191–2194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon JP, Stihler SD, Power JA, Tytgat G, Estes S, McNutt SR Catalog of earthquake hypocenters at Alaskan volcanoes: January 1 through December 31, 2005, USGS science for a changing world

  12. Engdahl ER, van der Hilst R, Buland R (1998) Global teleseismic earthquake relocation with improved travel times and procedures for depth determination. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:722–743

    Google Scholar 

  13. Engdahl ER, Jackson JA, Myers SC, Bergman EA, Priestley K (2006) Relocation and assessment of seismicity in the Iran region. Geophys J Int 167:761–778. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03127.x, GJI

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188

    Google Scholar 

  16. Havskov J (2000) Earthquake location, Institute of Solid Earth Physics. University of Bergen, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kennett BLN, Engdahl ER, Buland R (1995) Constraints on seismic velocities in the Earth from travel times. Geophys J Int 122:108–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maggi A, Jackson JA, McKenzie D, Priestley K (2000) Earthquake focal depths, effective elastic thickness, and the strength of the continental lithosphere. Geology 28(6):495–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Maggi A, Priestley K, Jackson J (2002) Focal depths of moderate and large size earthquakes in Iran. J Seismol Earthq Eng JSEE 4(No. 2&3):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mangino S, Priestley K, Ebel J (1999) The receiver structure beneath the China digital seismograph network stations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:1053–1076

    Google Scholar 

  22. McClusky S, Balassanian S, Barka A, Demir C, Ergintav S, Georgiev I, Gurkan O, Hamburger M, Hurst K, Kahle H, Kasten K, Kekelidze G, King RW, Kotzev V, Lenk O, Mahmoud S, Mishin A, Nadariya M, Ouzoumis A, Paradissis D, Peter Y, Prilepin M, Reilinger R, Sanli I, Seeger H, Tealeb A, Toksöz MN, Veis G (2000) GPS constraints on plate motions and deformations in eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. J Geophys Res 105:5695–5719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McKenzie D, Fairhead D (1997) Estimates of the effective elastic thickness of the continental lithosphere from Bouguer and free air gravity anomalies. J Geophys Res 102:27 523–27 552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mignan A, Woessner J (2012) Estimating the magnitude of completeness for earthquake catalogs. Estimating the magnitude of completeness for earthquake catalogs. CORSSA. doi:10.5078/corssa-00180805, Available at http://www.corssa.org

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mirzaei N, Mengtan G, Yantai C, Wangi J (1997) A uniform catalog of earthquakes for hazard assessment in Iran seismic. Acta Seismol Sin 10(No. 6):713–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mirzaei N, Mengtan G, Yantai C (1998) Seismic source regionalization for seismic zoning of Iran: major seismotectonic provinces. J Earthq Prediction Res 7:465–495

    Google Scholar 

  27. Molchan G, Dmitrieva O (1992) Aftershock identification: methods and new approaches. Geophys J Int 109:501–516, 6, 9, 11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Molnar P, Lyon-Caen H (1989) Fault plane solutions of earthquakes and active tectonics of the Tiebetan plateau and its margins. Geophys J Int 99:123–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Myers SC, Shultz CA (2001) Statistical characterization of reference event accuracy. Seismol Res Lett 72:244

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nelson MR, McCaffrey R, Molnar R (1987) Source parameters for 11 earthquakes in Tien Shan, Central Asia, determined by P and SH waveform inversion. J Geophys Res 92:12 629–12 648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pakistan Meteorological Department and NORSAR Norway (2007) Seismic hazard analysis and zonation for Pakistan, Azad Jammu and Kashmir

  32. Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–82. J Geophys Res 90(5479–5495):3–18

    Google Scholar 

  33. Richter CF (1958) Elementary seismology, Freeman, 768 pp

  34. Rydelek PA, Sacks IS (1989) Testing the completeness of earthquake catalogs and the hypothesis of self-similarity. Nature 337:251–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting Ms and mb to moment magnitude. J Seismol 10:225–236. doi:10.1007/s10950-006-9012-4

  36. Sipkin SA, Person WJ, Presgrave BW (2000) Earthquake bulletins and catalogs at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center

  37. Stucchi M, Rovida A, Gomez Capera AA, Alexandre P, Camelbeeck T, Demircioglu MB, Gasperini P, Kouskouna V, Musson RMW. Radulian M, Sesetyan K, Vilanova S, Baumont D, Bungum H, Fäh D, Lenhardt W, Makropoulos K, Martinez Solares JM, Scotti O, Živčić M, Albini P, Batllo J, Papaioannou C, Tatevossian R, Locati M, Meletti C, Viganò D, Giardini D, springer, publish online, 2012, The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899, J Seismol. doi:10.1007/s10950-012-9335-2

  38. Sweeney, J.J., 1996, Accuracy of teleseismic event locations in the Middle East and North Africa, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL- ID-125868.

  39. Sweeney JJ (1998) Criteria for selecting accurate event locations from NEIC and ISC bulletins, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-JC-130655

  40. Talebian M, Jackson J (2004) A reappraisal of earthquake focal mechanisms and active shortening in the Zagros mountains of Iran. Geophys J Int 156:506–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tatar M, Hatzfeld D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M (2004) Tectonis of the central Zagros (Iran) deduced from microearthquake seismicity. Geophys J Int 156:255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tavakoli F (2007) Present-day deformation and kinematics of the active faults observed by GPS in the Zagros and east of Iran, PHD Thesis

  43. Uhrhammer R (1986) Characteristics of northern and southern California seismicity. Earthq Notes 57:21

    Google Scholar 

  44. Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity declustering. CORSSA. doi:10.5078/corssa- 52382934, Available at http://www.corssa.org

    Google Scholar 

  45. Vernant P, Nilforoushan F, Hatzfeld D, Abbassi MR, Vigny C, Masson F, Nankali H, Martinod J, Ashtiani A, Bayer R, Tavakoli F, Chéry J (2004) Present-day crustal deformation and plate kinematics in the Middle East constrained by GPS measurements in Iran and northern Oman. Geophys J Int 157:381–398. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02222.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang Q, Zhang PZ, Freymueller JT, Bilham R, Larson KM, Lai X, You X, Niu Z, Wu J, Li Y, Liu J, Yang Z, Chen Q (2001) Present-day crustal deformation in China by Global Positioning System measurements. Science 294:574–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wiemer S (2001) A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett 72:373–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wyss M, Wiemer S, Zuniga R (2001) ZMAP a tool for analyses of seismicity patterns, typical applications and uses: a cookbook

  49. Yunatci AA (2010) GIS Based seismic hazard mapping of Turkey. Thesis submitted to the graduate school of natural and applied sciences of Middle East technical university

Download references

Acknowledgement

This article was a result of the Global Earth Model (GEM); and the Earthquake Model of the Middle East (EMME) project and was performed in IIEES as a partner of EMME project, as of (Work package-1-WP1) based on an internal research project of IIEES (No;IIEES/EMME:2010) conducted by the first (corresponding) author of this project. The support of the IIEES president (Prof Tasnimi) and Dr A. Ansari, are strongly appreciated. These thanks go to all partners of the project in the region.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehdi Zare.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

The New Catalog of the Middle East (XLS 7606 kb)

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1 The main sources of data for the Middle East Earthquakes

International sources

Generally, the information and database of the international catalogs are available on their internet websites. Here, we are going to briefly introduce those international sources which we used in this project;

The mission of the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) is to determine rapidly the location and size of all destructive earthquakes worldwide. This center was established in 1966 by the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA). In 1940, the first Preliminary Determination of Epicenters (PDE) was published. In 1970, NEIC transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and in 1973, transferred to the US Geological Survey (USGS).

The International Seismological Center (ISC) was formed in Edinburgh in 1964, to continue the work of the International Seismological Summary (ISS), which was the first gathering of all observations of earthquakes worldwide.

The Engdahl et al. (1998; EHB) algorithm has been used to significantly improve routine hypocenter determinations made by the ISS, ISC and PDE.

Regional sources

Beside the international sources we used for collecting the earthquakes data, there are some local and regional catalogs which were given through the meetings for this project:

The Armenian catalogs are reporting only mb as the magnitude value. The chosen name for the source of these data in our final catalog in “Armenia.”

Regarding their report, they had used the data from the new catalog of strong earthquake in USSR (NCUSSR) for the events up to 1975. The other source of data is the Russian Space System Cooperation (RSSC) catalog.

The main mentioned sources for Georgia data are SMCG and EDIG which were kept intact in our final catalog.

Iran, with three different sources of data, improved the catalog within its area. The International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), by enhancing the Iranian National Seismic Network (INSN), developed a catalog for the twenty-first century. The Iranian Seismological Center (IRSC), whose seismological network in Iran is the largest one, started to work in 1995 via the Geophysical Institute of Tehran University. The other organization who publish earthquake catalog for Iran is The Building and Housing Research of Iran (BHRC).

The National Center of Geophysical Research (NCGR) was established in 1975 by the National Council of Scientific Research (CNRS) in Lebanon. Nowadays, the seismic national network of this country with title of “Geophysical Research Arrays of Lebanon (GRAL)” is expanding.

The main source of all Turkey’s records is “ISK.”

More than 20 short period digital stations which account as the Syrian National Seismological Network (SNSN) were established in 1995.

Egyptian National Seismograph Network (ENSN) has started its work in 2003.

Kuwait National Seismic Network (KNSN) was established in 1996 and has started to monitor the seismicity of this small country.

In this project, just one of his books’ parametric historical catalogs; “The seismicity of Egypt, Arabia and the Red sea” had been transferred to an Excel file format. This catalog is referenced by the term “Amb” in our final historical catalog.

Appendix 2 Relationship between different magnitudes in this region

Relations were derived from earthquakes recorded in the Middle East region. Results of this relations present in equations from Eqs. (1) to (7) and Figs. 19, 20, and 21, total information collect in Table 9. These comparisons made us to believe in the correlation between different magnitudes in our catalog’s records and use it for further conversions instead of any other formula from other authors.

Conversion relation between mb and Mw

A relation was derived from those records that had both mb and Mw. Figure 19 shows this relation and its trend line in comparison to what was obtained by Scordilis in 2006 for the correlation of about 39,000 global records from NEIC and ISC (1965–2003).

This correlation was obtained as below;

$$ \begin{array}{l} Mw=0.8744 mb+0.8277;\kern0.5em 3.5\le mb\le 6.0\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em {R}^2=0.8803\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em n=16752\\ {}\end{array} $$
(1)

While the Scordilis relation is:

$$ Mw=0.85\left(\pm 0.04\right) mb+1.03\left(\pm 0.23\right);\kern0.5em 3.5\le mb\le 6.2\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em {R}^2=0.53\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em n=39784\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em \sigma =0.29 $$
(2)
Fig. 19
figure19

The correlation between mb and Mw. Left The earthquake catalog of this project for the Middle East (1900–2010). Right the earthquake catalog of NEIC and ISC for the World (1965–2003)

Conversion relation between Ms and Mw

For determining Mw from Ms, a relation was derived from those records that had both Ms and Mw. Figure 20 shows this relation and its trend line in comparison to what was obtained by Scordilis in 2006 for the correlation of about 26,000 global records from NEIC and ISC with depth of ≤70 km (1978–2003). This correlation shows a dual behavior with the turning point on about Ms = 6.1, therefore, we are facing with two formulas. (note: in our case, the depth of the events is not considered);

$$ Mw=0.6633 Ms+2.1117;\kern0.5em 2.8\le Ms\le 6.1\kern0.5em \&\kern0.5em {R}^2=0.9425\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em n=4123 $$
(3)
$$ Mw=0.9307 Ms+0.4491;\kern0.5em 6.1\le Ms\le 8.2\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em {R}^2=0.88\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em n=129 $$
(4)

While the Scordilis relations are:

$$ Mw=0.67\left(\pm 0.005\right) Ms+2.07\left(\pm 0.03\right);\kern0.5em 3.0\le Ms\le 6.1\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em {R}^2=0.77\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em \sigma =17\kern0.5em n=23921 $$
(5)
$$ Mw=0.99\left(\pm 0.02\right) Ms+0.08\left(\pm 0.13\right);\kern0.5em 6.2\le Ms\le 8.2\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em {R}^2=0.81\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em \sigma =2\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em n=2382 $$
(6)
Fig. 20
figure20

The correlation between Ms and Mw. Left The earthquake catalog of this project for the Middle East (1900–2009). Right the earthquake catalog of NEIC and ISC for the world (1978–2003)

Conversion relation between Ml and Mw

Many authors have studied the correlation between Ml and Mw but their ideas do not converge, partly due to the different effective magnification of Wood-Anderson Seismographs and distance corrections. As Scordilis (2006) says, it is not possible to define unique global relations connecting Ml to Mw or to other magnitude scales. Therefore, we could only trust the internal correlation which exists in about 2,000 records with both Mw and Ml. This correlation for 2,271 records and for the time period of 1975 to 2010 is shown in Fig. 21. The divergence or distribution of the points is minimum and the R 2 = 0.98 is also convincing to pick up this relation at this stage.

$$ Mw=1.0136 Ml-0.0502;\kern0.5em 4.0\le Ml\le 8.3\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em {R}^2=0.9805\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em n=2271 $$
(7)
Fig. 21
figure21

The correlation between Ml and Mw in the earthquake catalog of this project for the Middle East

Table 9 Relationship between Ms, Ml, mb, and Mw in the Middle East region by comparing the recorded magnitude of the events

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zare, M., Amini, H., Yazdi, P. et al. Recent developments of the Middle East catalog. J Seismol 18, 749–772 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-014-9444-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Seismicity
  • Catalog
  • Middle East
  • Depth
  • Historical
  • Instrumental
  • Magnitude