Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture character

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

Abstract

The main objective of the paper is to develop a new method to estimate the maximum magnitude (M max) considering the regional rupture character. The proposed method has been explained in detail and examined for both intraplate and active regions. Seismotectonic data has been collected for both the regions, and seismic study area (SSA) map was generated for radii of 150, 300, and 500 km. The regional rupture character was established by considering percentage fault rupture (PFR), which is the ratio of subsurface rupture length (RLD) to total fault length (TFL). PFR is used to arrive RLD and is further used for the estimation of maximum magnitude for each seismic source. Maximum magnitude for both the regions was estimated and compared with the existing methods for determining M max values. The proposed method gives similar M max value irrespective of SSA radius and seismicity. Further seismicity parameters such as magnitude of completeness (M c ), “a” and “ b ” parameters and maximum observed magnitude (M obsmax ) were determined for each SSA and used to estimate M max by considering all the existing methods. It is observed from the study that existing deterministic and probabilistic M max estimation methods are sensitive to SSA radius, M c , a and b parameters and M obsmax values. However, M max determined from the proposed method is a function of rupture character instead of the seismicity parameters. It was also observed that intraplate region has less PFR when compared to active seismic region.

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

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anbazhagan P, Smitha CV, Kumar A, Chandran D (2013) Seismic hazard Assessment of NPP site at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India. Nucl Eng Des 259:41–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Smitha CV, Kumar A (2014) Representative seismic hazard map of Coimbatore, India. Eng Geol 171:81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JG, Wesnousky SG, Stirling MW (1996) Earthquake size as a function of slip rate. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:683–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion predictions for Eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2181–2205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayliss JT, Paul W (2013) Burton Seismic Hazard across Bulgaria and neighboring areas: regional and site-specific maximum credible magnitudes and earthquake perceptibility. Nat Hazards 68:271–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaser L, Kruger F, Ohrnberger M, Scherbaum F (2010) Scaling relations of earthquake source parameter estimates with special focus on subduction environment. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2914–2926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger GA, Davison FC, Sibol MS, Birch JB (1989) Magnitude recurrence relations for the southeastern U.S. and its subdivisions. Geophys Res 94:2857–2873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boominathan A (2011) Seismic Hazard Assessment for the proposed 2×500 Mw Fast Breeder Reactor -1×2, Kalpakkam. Draft Report, A, IIT Madras, June 2011

  • Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR, Suganthi A, Maheswari RU (2008) Seismic hazard assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):853–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budnitz RJ, Apostolakis G, Boore DM, Cluff LS, Coppersmith KJ, Cornell CA, Morris PA (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis—guidance on uncertainty and use of experts: Washington, D.C., U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR–6372, 2 v: 1-109

  • Cao AM, Gao SS (2002) Temporal variation of seismic b-values beneath northeastern Japan island arc. Geophys Res Lett 29(9):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EERI committee on seismic risk (1984) Glossary of terms for probabilistic seismic risk and hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra 1:33–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangopadhyay A, Talwani P (2003) Symptomatic features of intraplate earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 74(6):863–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gupta ID (2006) Delineation of probable seismic sources in India and neighborhood by a comprehensive analysis of seismotectonic characteristics of the region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:66–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1942) Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 32:163–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1956) Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 46:105–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin A, Aki K (1988) Spatial and temporal correlation between coda Q and seismicity in China. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:741–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi GC, Sharma ML (2008) Uncertainties in the estimation of Mmax. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):671–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaila KL, Sarkar D (1978) Atlas of isoseismal maps of major earthquakes in India. Geophys Res Bull 16:234–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A (2004) Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude Mmax. Pure Appl Geophys 161:1655–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A, Singh M (2011) Statistical tool for maximum possible earthquake magnitude estimation. Acta Geophys 59:674–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar P, Yuan X, Ravi KM, Kind R, Li X, Chadha RK (2007) The rapid drift of the Indian. Tectonic Plate Nat 449:894–897

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2013) Seismic Hazard Analysis of Luckhnow considering local and active seismic gaps. Nat Hazards 69:327–350. doi:10.1007/s11069-0.13-0712-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandal P, Rastogi BK (1998) A frequency-dependent relation of coda Qc for Koyna Warna region India. Pure Appl Geophys 153:163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark RK (1977) Application of linear statistical model of earthquake magnitude versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes. Geology 5:464–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markropoulos KC, Burton PW (1983) Seismic risk of circum-pacific earthquakes I. Strain energy release. PAGEOPH 121(2):247–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markropoulos KC, Burton PW (1985) Seismic hazard in Greece I. Magnitude recurrence. Tectonophysics 117:205–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell BJ, Cong L (1998) Lg Coda Q and its relation to structure and evolution of continents—a global perspective. Pure Appl Geophys 153:655–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov IB, Zang C, Duenow JN, Morozova EA, Smithson SB (2008) Frequency dependence of coda Q, part I: numerical modeling and examples from peaceful nuclear explosions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(6):2615–2628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath SK, Thingbaijam KKS (2011) Peak ground motion predictions in India: an appraisal for rock sites. J Seismol 15:295–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NDMA (2010) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India. Technical report by National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India

  • Nowroozi AA (1985) Empirica1 re1ations between magnitudes and fault parameters for earthquakes in Iran. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:1327–1338

    Google Scholar 

  • NUREG-0800 (2007) Standard review plan for the review of safety analysis reports for nuclear power plants. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

  • Nuttli OW (1981) On the problem of the maximum magnitude of earthquakes, in Hays, W.W., ed., Evaluation of regional seismic hazards and risk—Proceedings of Conference XIII: U.S.. Geological Survey Open-File Report 1981–437:111–123

  • Ramanna CK, Dodagoudar GR (2012) Seismic hazard analysis using the adaptive kernel density estimation technique for Chennai city. Pure Appl Geophys 169:55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy SM (2006) Remote sensing and active tectonics of south India. Int J Remote Sens 27(20):4397–4431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao BR, Rao PS (1984) Historical seismicity of peninsular India. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(6):2519–2533

    Google Scholar 

  • Risk Engineering Inc., Geomatrix Consultants Inc., Woodward-Clyde Consultants, and Cygna Corporation (1988) Seismic hazard methodology for the central and eastern United States. Volume 1, Part 2—Methodology (Revision 1): Palo Alto, California, Seismicity Owners Group and Electric Power Research Institute report NP–4726A, v. 1, 308 p.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEISAT (2000) Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its environs. Geological Survey of India, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y, Bolt BA (1982) The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b-value. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:1667–1687

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh SK, Bazan E, Esteva L (1980) Expected earthquake magnitude from a fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:903–914

    Google Scholar 

  • Sreevalsa K, Sitharam TG, Vipin KS (2011) Spatial variation of seismicity parameters across India and adjoining area. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9898-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Sreevalsa K, Sitharam TG, Vipin KS (2012) Deterministic Seismic Hazard macrozonation of India. J Earth Syst Sci 121(5):1351–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepp JC (1972) Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard. In: Proceeding of the International conference on microzonation, vol 2. Seattle, USA: 897–910

  • Taylor DWA, Snoke JA, Sacks IS, Takanami T (1990) Nonlinear frequency-magnitude relationship for the Hokkaido corner, Japan. Bull Seism Soc Am 80:340–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhrhammer RA (1986) Characteristics of northern and central California seismicity. Earthquake Notes 1:21

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 4(84):975–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • WGCEP (Working Group on Central California Earthquake Probabilities) (1995) Seismic hazard in Southern California: probable earthquakes 1994 to 2024. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:379–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler RL (2009) Methods of Mmax estimation east of the Rocky Mountains.U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1018 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1018/pdf/OF09-1018.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2013

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woessner J, Stefan W (2005) Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(2):684–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding Research group NO.(RG -1435-09).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

    Anbazhagan P. & Ketan Bajaj

  2. Geology and Geophysics Department, Faculty of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia

    Anbazhagan P., Sayed S. R. Moustafa & Nassir S. N. Al-Arifi

  3. Seismology Department, National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG), Cairo, 11421, Egypt

    Sayed S. R. Moustafa

Authors
  1. Anbazhagan P.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ketan Bajaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sayed S. R. Moustafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nassir S. N. Al-Arifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anbazhagan P..

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Table EM1

(DOCX 21 kb)

Table EM2

(DOCX 40 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anbazhagan P., Bajaj, K., Moustafa, S.S.R. et al. Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture character. J Seismol 19, 695–719 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-015-9488-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-015-9488-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation