On modeling seismicity in seismic hazard assessment problems
- Authors: Shebalin P.N.1,2, Baranov S.B.1,3, Vorobieva I.A.1,2, Grekov Е.M.1, Krushelnitskii К.V.1, Skorkina A.A.1, Selyutskaya О.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences
- Geophysical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences
- Kola Branch, Geophysical Survey, Russian Academy of Sciences
- Issue: Vol 515, No 1 (2024)
- Pages: 95-109
- Section: SEISMOLOGY
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2686-7397/article/view/265096
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S2686739724030121
- ID: 265096
Cite item
Abstract
Seismicity modeling is an important part of creating General Seismic Zoning maps within the framework of a probabilistic approach. We consider the main disadvantages of individual elements of the recent seismicity models. A variant of the methodology is proposed, which, due to the improvements of those elements, should provide more accurate estimates of the future seismicity. For the first time, a stochastic seismicity model has been proposed in the form of a synthetic earthquake catalog, generated for an arbitrary conditional period and reproducing the properties of the catalog of actual earthquakes, including spatiotemporal grouping. A methodology for verifying seismicity models is proposed to check the compliance of the models with the initial data, to assess the predictive efficiency of the models, and to compare efficiency of different models.
Full Text
About the authors
P. N. Shebalin
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Geophysical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences
Author for correspondence.
Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Corresponding Member of the RAS
Russian Federation, Moscow; MoscowS. B. Baranov
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Kola Branch, Geophysical Survey, Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow; Apatity
I. A. Vorobieva
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Geophysical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow
Е. M. Grekov
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow
К. V. Krushelnitskii
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow
A. A. Skorkina
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow
О. V. Selyutskaya
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow
References
- Wyss M., Nekrasova A., Kossobokov V. Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazard estimates // Natural Hazards. 2012. V. 62. I. 3. P. 927–935.
- Баранов С. В., Шебалин П. Н., Воробьева И. А., Селюцкая О. В. Автоматизированная оценка опасности афтершоков землетрясения в Турции 06.02.2023 г., M 7.8 // Физика Земли. 2023. № 6. С. 1–9.
- Шебалин П. Н., Гвишиани А. Д., Дзебоев Б. А., Скоркина А. А. Почему необходимы новые подходы к оценке сейсмической опасности? // Доклады Российской академии наук. Науки о Земле. 2022. Т. 507. № 1. С. 91–97.
- Cornell C. A. Engineering seismic risk analysis // Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1968. V. 58. Iss. 5. P. 1583–1606.
- Ulomov V. I. Seismic hazard of Northern Eurasia // Annali di Geofisica. 1999. V. 42. I. 6. P. 1023–1038.
- Helmstetter A., Werner M. J. Adaptive spatiotemporal smoothing of seismicity for long‐term earthquake forecasts in California // Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 2012. V. 102(6). 2518–2529. doi: 10.1785/0120120062.
- Frankel А. Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States // Seismological Research Letters. 1995. V. 66(4). P. 8–21. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.66.4.8.
- Keilis-Borok V.I., Kossobokov V. G., Mazhkenov S. A. On the similarity in the spatial distribution of seismicity. In: Vychisl. Seismologiya, Vyp. 22, Teoriya i algoritmy interpretatsii geofizicheskikh dannykh (Theory and Algorithms of Geo-physical Data Interpretation, vol. 22 of Computational Seismology), Moscow: Nauka, 1989. P. 40.
- Zelenin E., Bachmanov D., Garipova S., Trifonov V., Kozhurin A. The Active Faults of Eurasia Database (AFEAD): the ontology and design behind the continental-scale dataset // Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2022. V. 14, P. 4489–4503. doi: 10.5194/essd-14-4489-2022.
- Howarth J. D., Cochran U. A., Langridge R. M., Clark K., Fitzsimons S. J., Berryman K., et al. Past large earthquakes on the Alpine Fault: Paleoseismological progress and future directions // New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics. 2018. V. 61(3), P. 309–328. doi: 10.1080/00288306.2018.1464658.
- Wesnousky S. G. Crustal deformation processes and the stability of the Gutenberg‐Richter relationship // Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1999. V. 89(4). P. 1131–1137.
- Gardner J. K., Knopoff L. Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? // Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1974. V. 64. P. 1363–1367.
- Gerstenberger M. C., Marzocchi W., Allen T., Pagani M., Adams J., Danciu L., et al. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at regional and national scales: State of the art and future challenges // Reviews of Geophysics. 2020. V. 58. e2019RG000653. doi: 10.1029/2019RG000653.
- Vorobieva I., Gvishiani A., Dzeboev B., Dzeranov B., Barykina Y., Antipova A. Nearest neighbor method for discriminating aftershocks and duplicates when merging earthquake catalogs // Front. Earth Sci. 2022. V. 10, P. 820277. doi: 10.3389/feart.2022.820277.
- Shebalin P. N., Narteau C., Baranov S. V. Earthquake productivity law // Geophysical Journal International. 2020. V. 222. Is. 2. P. 1264–126913. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggaa252.
- Wessel P., Luis J. F., Uieda L., Scharroo R., Wobbe F., Smith W. H., Tian D. Generic mapping tools version 6 // Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2019. V. 20, P. 5556– 5564. doi: 10.1029/2019GC008515.
- Соловьев А. А., Гвишиани А. Д., Горшков А. И., Добровольский М. Н., Новикова О. В. Распознавание мест возможного возникновения землетрясений: методология и анализ результатов // Физика Земли. 2014. № 2. С. 3–20. doi: 10.7868/S0002333714020112.
- Hamling I. J., Hreinsdóttir S., Clark K., Elliott J., Liang C., Fielding E., et al. Complex multifault rupture during the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake, New Zealand // Science. 2017. V. 356(6334), eaam7194. doi: 10.1126/science.aam7194.
- Писаренко В. Ф., Ружич В. В., Скоркина А. А., Левина Е. А. Структура сейсмического поля Байкальской рифтовой зоны // Физика Земли. 2022. № 3. С. 37–55.
- Ogata Y. Statistical model for standard seismicity and detection of anomalies by residual analysis // Tectonophysics. 1989. V. 169. Issues 1–3. P. 159–174. ISSN0040–1951, https://doi.org/10.1016/0040–1951(89)90191–1.
- Zaliapin I., Ben-Zion Y. Earthquake clusters in southern California I: Identification and stability // J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth. 2013. V. 118. P. 2847–2864. doi: 10.1002/jgrb.50179.
- Zechar J. D., Gerstenberger M. C., Rhoades D. A. Likelihood-based tests for evaluating space-rate-magnitude forecasts // Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2010. V. 100(3). P. 1184–1195. doi: 10.1785/0120090192.
- Carafa M. M.C., Kastelic V. Earthquake rates inferred from active faults and geodynamics: The case of the External Dinarides // Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata. 2014. 55(1). P. 69–83. doi: 10.4430/bgta0112.