Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recent seismicity in Northeast India and its adjoining region

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Seismology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent seismicity in the northeast India and its adjoining region exhibits different earthquake mechanisms – predominantly thrust faulting on the eastern boundary, normal faulting in the upper Himalaya, and strike slip in the remaining areas. A homogenized catalogue in moment magnitude, M W, covering a period from 1906 to 2006 is derived from International Seismological Center (ISC) catalogue, and Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) database. Owing to significant and stable earthquake recordings as seen from 1964 onwards, the seismicity in the region is analyzed for the period with spatial distribution of magnitude of completeness m t, b value, a value, and correlation fractal dimension D C. The estimated value of m t is found to vary between 4.0 and 4.8. The a value is seen to vary from 4.47 to 8.59 while b value ranges from 0.61 to 1.36. Thrust zones are seen to exhibit predominantly lower b value distribution while strike-slip and normal faulting regimes are associated with moderate to higher b value distribution. D C is found to vary from 0.70 to 1.66. Although the correlation between spatial distribution of b value and D C is seen predominantly negative, positive correlations can also be observed in some parts of this territory. A major observation is the strikingly negative correlation with low b value in the eastern boundary thrust region implying a possible case of extending asperity. Incidentally, application of box counting method on fault segments of the study region indicates comparatively higher fractal dimension, D, suggesting an inclination towards a planar geometrical coverage in the 2D spatial extent. Finally, four broad seismic source zones are demarcated based on the estimated spatial seismicity patterns in collaboration with the underlying active fault networks. The present work appraises the seismicity scenario in fulfillment of a basic groundwork for seismic hazard assessment in this earthquake province of the country.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N=a-bM and its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 43:237–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Aki K (1981) A probabilistic synthesis of precursor phenomena. In: Simpson DW, Richards PG (eds) Earthquake Prediction, Maurice Ewing Series 4, AGU 566–574

  • Aviles CA, Scholz CH, Boatwright J (1987) Fractal analysis applied to characteristic segments of the San Andreas fault. J Geophys Res 92:331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton DJ, Foulger GR, Henderson JR, Julian BR (1999) Frequency-magnitude statistics and spatial correlation dimensions of earthquakes at Long Valley caldera. California. Geophys J Int 138:563–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Menahem A, Aboodi E, Schild R (1974) The source of the great Assam earthquake–an interplate wedge motion. Phys Earth and Planet Int 9:265–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia SC, Ravi Kumar M, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann di Geofis 42:1153–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R, England P (2001) Plateau ‘ pop up’ in the great 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature 410:806–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIS (2002) IS 1893–2002 (Part 1): Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1–general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann P, Liu R, Ren X, Gutdeutsch R, Kaiser D, Castellaro S (2007) Chinese national network magnitudes, their relation to NEIC magnitudes, and recommendations for new IASPEI magnitude standards. Bull Seism Soc Am 97:114–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunmiller J, Deichmann N, Giardini D, Wiemer S (2005) Homogeneous moment-magnitude calibration in Switzerland. Bull Seism Soc Am 95:58–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brune J, Engen G (1969) Excitation of mantle love waves and definition of mantle wave magnitude. Bull Seism Soc Am 57:1355–1365

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Kagan YY (2006) Regression problems for magnitudes. Geophys J Int 165:913–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Molnar P (1977) Seismic moments of major earthquakes and average rate of slip in Central Asia. J Geophy Res 82:2945–2969

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernick MR (1999) Bootstrap methods: a practitioner’s guide, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta S, Pande P, Ganguly D, Iqbal Z, Sanyal K, Venaktraman NV, Dasgupta S, Sural B, Harendranath L, Mazumadar K, Sanyal S, Roy A, Das LK, Misra PS, Gupta H (2000) Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environs. Geological Survey of India, Calcutta, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann N (2006) Local magnitude, a moment revisited. Bull Seism Soc Am 96:1267–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grassberger P, Procaccia I (1983) Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors. Physica D 9:189–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B (1945a) Amplitudes of surface waves and magnitudes of shallow earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 35:3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B (1945b) Magnitude determination for deep-focus earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 35:117–130

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1956) Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Ann Geofis 9:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scales. J Geophysis Res 84:2348–2350

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaton TH, Tajima F, Mori AW (1986) Estimating ground motion using recorded accelerograms. Surv Geophys 8:25–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JR, Main IG, Pearce RG, Takeya M (1992) Seismicity in North eastern Brazil: fractal clustering and the evolution of the b value. Geophys J Int 116:217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISC (2007) On-line Bulletin, http://www.isc.ac.uk/Bull, Internatl. Seis. Cent., Thatcham, United Kingdom

  • Kagan YY (2003) Accuracy of modern global earthquake catalogs. Phys Earth Planet Inter 135:173–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan YY (2007) Earthquake spatial distribution: the correlation dimension. Geophys J Int 168:1175–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan YY, Knopoff L (1980) Spatial distribution of earthquakes: the two point correlation function. Geophys JR Astr Soc 62:303–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanamori H (1977) The energy release in Great Earthquakes. J Geophy Res 82:2981–2987

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanamori H (1983) Magnitude scale and quantification of earthquakes. Tectonophys 93:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot BB (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogi K (1962) Magnitude-frequency relationship for elastic shocks accompanying the fractures of various materials and some related problems in earthquakes. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 40:831–883

    Google Scholar 

  • Nandy DR (2001) Geodynamics of north eastern India and the adjoining region, 1st edn. ACB publications, Kolkata

    Google Scholar 

  • Narenberg MAA, Essex C (1990) Correlation dimension and systematic geometric effects. Phys Rev A 42:7065–7074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuannin P, Kulhanek O, Persson L (2005) Spatial and temporal b value anomalies preceding the devastating off coast of NW Sumatra earthquake of December 26, 2004. Geophys Res Lett 32:L11307 DOI 10.1029/2005GL022679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oncel AO, Wilson TH (2002) Space-time correlations of seismotectonic parameters: example from Japan and from Turkey preceding the Izmith earthquake. Bull Seism Soc Am 92:339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oncel AO, Wyss M (2000) The major asperities of the 1999 M 7.4 Izmit earthquake, defined by the microseismicity of the two decades before it. Geophys J Int 143:501–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter CF (1935) An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. Bull Seis Soc Am 25:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Ristau J, Rogers GC, Cassidy JF (2005) Moment magnitude–local magnitude calibration for earthquakes in western canada. Bull Seism Soc Am 95:1994–2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rong Y (2002) Evaluation of Earthquake Potential in China, PhD. Dissertation, Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles

  • Schorlemmer D, Neri G, Wiemer S, Mostaccio A (2003) Stability and significance tests for b value anomalies: example from the Tyrrhenian Sea. Geophys Res Lett 30:1835 DOI 10.1029/2003GL017335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholemmer D, Wiemer S, Wyss M (2005) Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes. Nature 437:539–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz CH (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 58:399–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude. J Seis 10:225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromeyer D, Grünthal G, Wahlström R (2004) Chi-square regression for seismic strength parameter relations, and their uncertainties, with applications to an Mw based earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe. J Seis 8:143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suyehiro S, Asada T, Ohtake M (1964) Foreshocks and aftershocks accompanying a perceptible earthquake in central Japan: on the peculiar nature of foreshocks. Pap Meteorol Geophys 19:427–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Thenhaus PC, Campbell W (2003) Seismic hazard analysis. In: Chen WF, Scawthorn C (eds) Earthquake engineering handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Turcotte DL (1986) A fractal model for crustal deformation. Tectonophysics 132:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utsu T (1965) A method for determining the value of b in the formula log N=a-bM showing the magnitude–frequency relation for the earthquakes. Geophys Bull Hokkaido Univ 13:99–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Utsu T (1999) Representation and analysis of the earthquake size distribution: a historical review and some new approaches. Pageoph 155:509–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesnouski SG, Scholz CH, Shimazaki K, Matsuda T (1983) Earthquake frequency distribution and the mechanics of faulting. J Geophys Res 88:9331–9340

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemann RJ, Storchak DA (2001) Data collection at the international seismological centre. Seis Res Lett 72:440–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo G (1996) Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard area source modeling. Bull Seism Soc Am 86:353–362

    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. Bull Seism Soc Am 94:410–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

    Kiran Kumar Singh Thingbaijam, Sankar Kumar Nath, Abhimanyu Yadav, Abhishek Raj, M. Yanger Walling & William Kumar Mohanty

Authors
  1. Kiran Kumar Singh Thingbaijam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sankar Kumar Nath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abhimanyu Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abhishek Raj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Yanger Walling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William Kumar Mohanty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sankar Kumar Nath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thingbaijam, K.K.S., Nath, S.K., Yadav, A. et al. Recent seismicity in Northeast India and its adjoining region. J Seismol 12, 107–123 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-007-9074-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-007-9074-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation