Earthquake Hazard Modelling and Forecasting for Disaster Risk Reduction

  • Alik Ismail-Zadeh
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)


Understanding of lithosphere dynamics, tectonic stress localization, earthquake occurrences, and seismic hazards has significantly advanced during the last decades. Meanwhile despite the major advancements in geophysical sciences, yet we do not see a decline in earthquake disaster impacts and losses. Although earthquake disasters are mainly associated with significant vulnerability of society, comprehensive seismic hazards assessments and earthquake forecasting could contribute to preventive measures aimed to reduce impacts of earthquakes. Modelling of lithosphere dynamics and earthquake simulations coupled with a seismic hazard analysis can provide a better assessment of potential ground shaking due to earthquakes. This chapter discusses a quantitative approach for simulation of earthquakes due to lithosphere dynamics that allows for studying the influence of fault network properties and regional movements on seismic patterns. Results of earthquake simulations in several seismic-prone regions, such as the Vrancea region in the southeaster Carpathians, the Caucasian region, and the Tibet-Himalayan, are overviewed. A use of modelled seismicity in a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is then discussed.


Lithospheric dynamics Faults Earthquake simulation Earthquake disasters 



The author acknowledges a support from the German Science Foundation (DFG grant IS-203/4-1).


  1. Allen CR, Edwards W, Hall WJ, Knopoff L, Raleigh CB, Savit CH, Toksoz MN, Turner RH (1976) Predicting earthquakes: a scientific and technical evaluation—with implications for society. Panel on Earthquake Prediction of the Committee on Seismology, National Research Council. U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoudia A, Ismail-Zadeh A, Romanelli F (2007) Buoyancy-driven deformation and contemporary tectonic stress in the lithosphere beneath Central Italy. Terra Nova 19(6):490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babayev G, Ismail-Zadeh A, Le Mouël J-L (2010) Scenario-based earthquake hazard and risk assessment for Baku (Azerbaijan). Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 10:2697–2712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer P, Thorpe A, Brunet G (2015) The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature 525:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijwaard H, Spakman W (2000) Non-linear global P-wave tomography by iterated linearized inversion. Geophys J Int 141:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilham R, Larson K, Freymueller J, Project Idylhim members (1997) GPS measurements of present-day convergence across the Nepal Himalayas. Nature 386:61–64Google Scholar
  7. Braile LW, Hinze WJ, Keller GR, Lidiak EG, Sexton JL (1986) Tectonic development of the New Madrid rift complex, Mississippi Embayment, North America. Tectonophysics 131:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 58:1583–1606Google Scholar
  9. Cutter S, Ismail-Zadeh A, Alcántara-Ayala I, Altan O, Baker DN, Briceño S, Gupta H, Holloway A, Johnston D, McBean GA, Ogawa Y, Paton D, Porio E, Silbereisen RK, Takeuchi K, Valsecchi GB, Vogel C, Wu G (2015) Pool knowledge to stem losses from disasters. Nature 522:277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis CA (2012) Loss functions for temporal and spatial optimizing of earthquake prediction and disaster preparedness. Pure appl Geophys 169(11):1989–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demetrescu C, Andreescu M (1994) On the thermal regime of some tectonic units in a continental collision environment in Romania. Tectonophysics 230:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann W, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. The World Bank, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forsyth DW, Lay T, Aster RC, Romanowicz B (2009) Grand challenges for seismology. EOS Trans AGU 90(41):361–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs K, Bonjer K, Bock G et al (1979) The Romanian earthquake of March 4, 1977. II. Aftershocks and migration of seismic activity. Tectonophysics 53:225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabrielov AM, Levshina TA, Rotwain IM (1990) Block model of earthquake sequence. Phys Earth Planet Inter 61:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geller RJ, Jackson DD, Kagan YY, Mulargia F (1997) Earthquakes cannot be predicted. Science 275:1616–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerstenberger MC, Wiemer S, Jones LM, Reasenberg PA (2005) Real-time forecasts of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California. Nature 435:328–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giardini D, Grünthal G, Shedlock KM, Zhang P (1999) The GSHAP global seismic hazard map. Ann Geofis 42:1225–1228Google Scholar
  19. Gupta HK, Purnachandra Rao N, Rastogi BK, Sarkar D (2001) The deadliest intraplate earthquake. Science 291:2101–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 34:185–188Google Scholar
  21. Ismail-Zadeh AT, Keilis-Borok VI, Soloviev AA (1999) Numerical modelling of earthquake flows in the southeastern Carpathians (Vrancea): effect of a sinking slab. Phys Earth Planet Inter 111:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ismail-Zadeh AT, Panza GF, Naimark BM (2000) Stress in the descending relic slab beneath Vrancea, Romania. Pure appl Geophys 157:111–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ismail-Zadeh A, Mueller B, Schubert G (2005) Three-dimensional modelling of present-day tectonic stress beneath the earthquake-prone southeastern Carpathians based on integrated analysis of seismic, heat flow, and gravity observations. Phys Earth Planet Inter 149:81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ismail-Zadeh AT, Le Mouël JL, Soloviev A, Tapponnier P, Vorobieva I (2007) Numerical modelling of crustal block-and-fault dynamics, earthquakes and slip rates in the Tibet-Himalayan region. Earth Planet Sci Lett 258:465–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ismail-Zadeh A, Schubert G, Tsepelev I, Korotkii A (2008) Thermal evolution and geometry of the descending lithosphere beneath the SE-Carpathians: an insight from the past. Earth Planet Sci Lett 273:68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ismail-Zadeh A, Aoudia A, Panza G (2010) Three-dimensional numerical modelling of contemporary mantle flow and tectonic stress beneath the Central Mediterranean. Tectonophysics 482:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ismail-Zadeh AT, Kossobokov VG (2011) Earthquake prediction M8 algorithm. In: Gupta H (ed) Encyclopaedia of solid earth geophysics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ismail-Zadeh A, Matenco L, Radulian M, Cloetingh S, Panza G (2012) Geodynamic and intermediate-depth seismicity in Vrancea (the south-eastern Carpathians): current state-of-the-art. Tectonophysics 530–531:50–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ismail-Zadeh A (2013) Earthquake prediction and forecasting. In: Bobrowsky PT (ed) Encyclopedia of natural hazards. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ismail-Zadeh A (2014) Extreme seismic events: from basic science to disaster risk mitigation. In: Ismail-Zadeh A, Urrutia Fucugauchi J, Kijko A, Takeuchi K, Zaliapin I (eds) Extreme natural hazards, disaster risks and societal implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ismail-Zadeh A, Cutter SL, Takeuchi K, Paton D (2017a) Forging a paradigm shift in disaster science. Nat Haz 86(2):969–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ismail-Zadeh A, Soloviev A, Sokolov V, Vorobieva I, Muller B, Schilling F (2017b) Quantitative modelling of the lithosphere dynamics, earthquakes and seismic hazard. Tectonophysics. Google Scholar
  33. Jackson J, Priestley K, Allen M, Berberian M (2002) Active tectonics of the South Caspian Basin. Geophys J Int 148:214–245Google Scholar
  34. Keilis-Borok VI, Kossobokov VG (1990) Premonitory activation of earthquake flow: algorithm M8. Phys Earth Planet Inter 61:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keilis-Borok V, Ismail-Zadeh A, Kossobokov V, Shebalin P (2001) Non-linear dynamics of the lithosphere and intermediate-term earthquake prediction. Tectonophysics 338(3–4):247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King GCP, Stein RS, Lin J (1994) Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 84:935–953Google Scholar
  37. Knopoff L (1999) Earthquake prediction is difficult but not impossible. Nature debates. Accessed on 28 Aug 2017
  38. Kondorskaya NV, Shebalin NV, Khrometskaya YA, Gvishiani AD (1982) New catalog of strong earthquakes in the USSR from ancient times through 1977, Report SE-31, World Data Center A for Solid Earth Geophysics, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 608 pGoogle Scholar
  39. Kossobokov VG (2013) Earthquake prediction: 20 years of global experiment. Nat Haz 69:1155–1177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lay T, Kanamori H (2011) Insights from the great 2011 Japan earthquake. Phys Today 64(12):33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lazaridou-Varotsos MS (2013) Earthquake prediction by seismic electric signals: the success of the VAN method over thirty years. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin M, Wenzel F, the CALIXTO working group (2006) High-resolution teleseismic body wave tomography beneath SE-Romania—II. Imaging of a slab detachment scenario. Geophys J Int 164:579–595Google Scholar
  43. McKenzie DP (1972) Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Geophys J Royal Astron Soc 30:109–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Molchan G, Romashkova L (2011) Gambling score in earthquake prediction analysis. Geophys J Int 184:1445–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panza GF (2017) NDSHA: Robust and reliable seismic hazard assessment. In: Proceedings, international conference on disaster risk mitigation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, September 23–24. arXiv:1709.02945
  46. Panza GF, Soloviev AA, Vorobieva IA (1997) Numerical modelling of block-structure dynamics: application to the Vrancea region. Pure appl Geophys 149:313–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Panza GF, Romanelli F, Vaccari F (2001) Seismic wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media: theory and applications to seismic zonation. Adv Geophys 43:1–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Panza GF, Irikura K, Kouteva M, Peresan A, Wang Z, Saragoni R (2010) Advanced seismic hazard assessment. Pure Appl Geophys 168.
  49. Philip H, Cisternas A, Gvishiani A, Gorshkov A (1989) The Caucasus: an actual example of the initial stages of continental collision. Tectonophysics 161:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raykova RB, Panza GF (2006) Surface waves tomography and non/linear inversion in the southeast Carpathians. Phys Earth Planet Inter 157:164–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reilinger R, McClusky S, Vernant P, Lawrence S, Ergintav S, Cakmak R, Ozener H, Kadirov F, Guliev I, Stepanyan R, Nadariya M (2006) GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. J Geophys Res 111:BO5411.
  52. Replumaz A, Tapponnier P (2003) Reconstruction of the deformed collision zone between Indian and Asia by backward motion of lithospheric blocks. J Geophys Res 108:2285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rundle PB, Rundle JB, Tiampo KF, Donnellan A, Turcotte DL (2006) Virtual California: fault model, frictional parameters, application. Pure appl Geophys 163:1819–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shebalin P, Keilis-Borok V, Gabrielov A, Zaliapin I, Turcotte D (2006) Short-term earthquake prediction by reverse analysis of lithosphere dynamics. Tectonophysics 413:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sokolov V, Ismail-Zadeh A (2015) Seismic hazard from instrumentally recorded, historical and simulated earthquakes: application to the Tibet-Himalayan region. Tectonophysics 657:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sokolov V, Ismail-Zadeh A (2016) On the use of multiple-site estimations in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 106(5):2233–2243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Soloviev AA, Gorshkov AA (2017) Modeling the dynamics of the block structure and seismicity of the Caucasus. Izv Phys Solid Earth 53(3):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Soloviev AA, Vorobieva IA, Panza GF (1999) Modeling of block-structure dynamics: parametric study for Vrancea. Pure appl Geophys 156:395–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soloviev AA, Vorobieva IA, Panza GF (2000) Modelling of block structure dynamics for the Vrancea region: source mechanisms of the synthetic earthquakes. Pure appl Geophys 157:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soloviev AA, Ismail-Zadeh AT (2003) Models of dynamics of block-and-fault systems. In: Keilis-Borok VI, Soloviev AA (eds) Nonlinear dynamics of the lithosphere and earthquake prediction. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 69–138Google Scholar
  61. Turcotte DL, Schubert G (2014) Geodynamics, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. UN (2017) Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. Accessed on 28 Aug 2017
  63. Varotsos P, Alexopoulos K, Nomicos K, Lazaridou M (1986) Earthquake predictions and electric signals. Nature 322:120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wortel MJR, Spakman W (2000) Subduction and slab detachment in the Mediterranean-Carpathian region. Science 290:1910–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wyss M (ed) (1991) Evaluation of proposed earthquake precursors. Special Publication 32. American Geophysical Union, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  66. Zechar JD, Jordan TH (2008) Testing alarm-based earthquake predictions. Geophys J Int 172:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang-li C, Pu-xiong L, De-yu H, Da-lin Z, Feng X, Zhi-dong W (1984) Characteristics of regional seismicity before major earthquakes. Earthquake Prediction. UNESCO, Paris, pp 505–521Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied Geosciences, Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations