Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimation of fractal dimension and b-value of earthquakes in the Himalayan region

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Himalayan belt is known for seismic activities; however, activities across this belt are not uniform due to various factors, including stress regime, heterogeneity of subsurface material, and the manner by which the major tectonic Indian plate is colliding with the Eurasian plate. In this study, three sample regions spanning northwest to northeast Himalayas (Kashmir, Nepal, and northeast Himalayan regions) were selected, and their b-values and fractal dimensions from the investigation period of 1973–2015 were calculated. Subsequently, the b-value was calculated via the Gutenberg–Richter relation and maximum likelihood method, whereas the fractal dimension or D-value was calculated using the correlation integral technique. Upon subdividing the time duration into six equal interval subsets, a variation in b-value can be observed over the years. The period 1973–2015 was selected to ensure the sufficiency of data in each subset and an adequate number of subsets for comparisons. From the low b-values, possible high-stress regions and asperities can be inferred, and the variation in stress and heterogeneity of material can be observed from the northwest to northeast Himalayas. An increase in b-value was observed on moving from the northwest to northeast Himalayas during the period of investigation. From the D-value, the extent of the epicentre cluster was observed, revealing that the epicentres were far more clustered to a point in Nepal Himalayas than in the two other regions. The spatial distribution of epicentres was more or less in 1D (fractal dimension) in the northeast and northwest Himalayas, indicating their distribution along particular geological linear features, such as major faults. Hence, a comparative study of the three regions was achieved. On the basis of the b-value, the types of fault and tectonics can be predicted, and the frequency of earthquakes in these Himalayan regions can be better understood.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b-value in the formula logN= a-bM and its confidence limits. B Earthq Res I Tokyo 43:237–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Aki K (1981) Source and scatering effects on the spectra of small local earthquakes. B Seismol Soc Am 71(6):1687–1700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann C, Wiemer S, Goertz-Allmann B, Woessner J (2012) Influence of pore-pressure on the event-size distribution of induced earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 39:L09302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak P, Tang C (1989) Earthquakes as a self-organized criticality phenomenon. J Geophys Res 94(B11):15635–15637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b-values for magnitude grouped data. B Seismol Soc Am 73:831–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CC, Wang WC, Chang YF, Wu YM, Lee YH (2006) A correlation between the b-value and the fractal dimension from the aftershock sequence of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Geophys J Int 167(3):1215–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimri V (1997) Application of fractals in seismology with reference to Koyna region. Lecture Notes of workshop on application of fractals in earth sciences, N.G.R.I. Hyderabad, India 119–126

  • Enescu B, Ito K, Radulian M, Popescu E, Bazacliu O (2005) Multifractal and chaotic analysis of Vrancea (Romania) intermediate-depth earthquakes-Investigation of the temporal distribution of events. Pure Appl Geophys 162(2):249–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enescu B, Enescu D, Ito K (2009) Values of b and p: their variations and relation to physical processes for earthquakes in Japan and Romania. Rom J Physiol 56(3–4):590–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell J, Husen S, Smith R (2009) Earthquake swarm and b-value characterization of the Yellowstone volcano-tectonic system. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 188:260–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenberger M, Wiemer S, Giardini D (2001) Asystematic test of the hypothesis that the b-value varies with depth in California. Geophys Res Lett 28:57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosal A, Ghosh U, Kayal JR (2012) A detailed b-value and fractal dimension study of the March 1999 Chamoli earthquake (Ms 6.6) aftershock sequence in western Himalaya. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 3(3):271–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris RA (2003) Introduction to special section: Stress triggers, stress shadows, and seismic hazard. J Geophys Res 103:24,347–24,358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-6142(03)80187-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson J, Main IG, Pearce RG, Takeya M (1994) Seismicity in the North-Eastern Brazil: fractal clustering and the evolution of the b-value. Geophys J Int 116:217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JR, Barton DJ, Foulger GR (1999) Fractal clustering of induced seismicity in the Geysers geothermal area, California. Geophys J Int 139(2):317–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata T (1989a) Fractal dimension of fault systems in Japan: fractal structure in rock fracture geometry at various scales. Pure Appl Geophys 131:157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata T (1989b) A correlation between the b-value and the fractal dimension of earthquakes. J Geophys Res 94:7507–7514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Sofyan H, Affan M (2019) Integrated model for earthquake risk assessment using neural network and analytic hierarchy process: Aceh province, Indonesia. Geosci Front 11:613–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2019.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Al-Amri A, Sofyan H (2020) Seismic hazard and risk assessment: a review of state-of-the-art traditional and GIS models. Arab J Geosci 13(2):50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan Y (1993) Statistics of characteristic earthquakes. B Seismol Soc Am 83:7–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan Y (1994) Observational evidence for earthquakes as a nonlinear dynamic process. Physical D 77:160–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khilyuk LF, Chilingar GV, Robertson JO, Endres JB (2000) Chapter 14 - Progress in Developing a Forecasting System, Preferential Precursors, and Monitoring Network. Gas Migration 2000:209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-088415430-3/50015-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knopoff L (2000) The magnitude distribution of declustered earthquakes in Southern California. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:11880–11884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S (2012) Seismicity in the NW Himalaya, India: fractal dimension, b-value mapping and temporal variations for hazard evaluation. Geosci Res 3(1):83–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Sushil R, Joshi D (2011) Fractal dimension and b-VALUE Mapping in the NW Himalaya and Adjoining Regions, India. Adv Geosci 12:83–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Rai S, Joshi A, Mittal H, Sachdeva R, Kumar R, Ghangas V (2013) The b-value and fractal dimension of local seismicity around Koyna Dam (India). Earthq Sci 26(2):99–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamessa G, Mammo T, Raghuvanshi TK (2019) Homogenized earthquake catalog and b-value mapping for Ethiopia and its adjoining regions. Geoenvironmental Disasters 6:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandal P, Rastogi BK (2005) Self-organized fractal seismicity and b value of aftershocks of the 2001 Bhuj earthquake in Kutch (India). Pure Appl Geophys 162(1):53–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyamura S (1962) Magnitude–frequency relation of earthquakes and its bearing on geotectonics. Proc Jpn Acad 38:27–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mori J, Abercrombie RE (1997) Depth dependence of earthquake frequency-magnitude distributions in California: implications for the rupture initiation. J Geophys Res 102:15081–15090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okal EA, Romanowicz BA (1994) On the variation of b-values with earthquake size. Phys Earth Planet Inter 87:55–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco JF, Scholtz CH, Sykes LR (1992) Changes in frequency-size relationship from small to large earthquakes. Nature 355:71–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of Central California seismicity, 1969–1982. J Geophys Res 90(7):5479–5495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz C (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of micro fracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. B Seismol Soc Am 58:399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh C (2016) Spatial variation of seismic b-values across the NW Himalaya. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 7(2):522–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WD (1981) The b-value as an earthquake precursor. Nature 289:136–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS (2018) Advanced national seismic system comprehensive catalog and important caveats, provided by USGS earthquake archives http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/. Assessed on 14 Mar

  • Utsu T (1965) A method for determining the value of b in a formula log n = a – Bm showing the magnitude-frequency relation for earthquakes. Geophys B13:99–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Utsu T (1966) A statistical significance test of the difference in b-value between two earthquake groups. J Phys Earth 14:34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity declustering, community online resource for statistical seismicity analysis. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5078/corssa-52382934.

  • Wang KL, Lin ML (2010) Development of shallow seismic landslide potential map based on Newmark’s displacement: the case study of Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan. Environ Earth Sci 60(4):775–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weichert DH (1980) Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. B Seismol Soc Am 70(4):1337–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997a) Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities: an improved technique to calculate recurrence times. J Geophys Res 102:15115–15128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997b) Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities: an improved technique to calculate recurrence times? J Geophys Res-Sol Ea 102(B7):15115–15128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western United States and Japan. B Seismol Soc Am 90:859–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyss M (1973) Towards a physical understanding of the earthquake frequency distribution. Geophys J Int 31:341–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyss M, Sammis CG, Nadeau RM, Wiemer S (2004) Fractal dimension and b-value on creeping and locked patches of the San Andreas fault near Parkfield, California. B Seismol Soc Am 94(2):410–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the University of Technology Sydney that provided the financial support and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments to improve the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the Centre for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information Systems (CAMGIS), Faculty of Engineering & IT, in the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information System, School of Information, Systems and Modelling, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, NSW 2007, Ultimo, Australia

    Ratiranjan Jena & Biswajeet Pradhan

  2. School of Earth, Ocean and Climate Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Argul, 752050, Khordha, Odisha, India

    Tahani Abdul Aziz Ghansar

  3. Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences (CORAL), Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

    Abhishek Kumar Rai

Authors
  1. Ratiranjan Jena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tahani Abdul Aziz Ghansar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Biswajeet Pradhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abhishek Kumar Rai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biswajeet Pradhan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Amjad Kallel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jena, R., Ghansar, T.A.A., Pradhan, B. et al. Estimation of fractal dimension and b-value of earthquakes in the Himalayan region. Arab J Geosci 14, 867 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07271-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07271-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation