Intensity Attenuation Model Evaluation for Bangladesh with Respect to the Surrounding Potential Seismotectonic Regimes
- 27 Downloads
An effort has been made through this study to evaluate the existing intensity attenuation model (IPE) for the potential seismotectonic regimes in and around Bangladesh. To reach the goal, the seismicity of the concerned tectonic regimes has been analyzed. Apart from evaluating the appropriate intensity model, this research has also assessed the predictive performance of epicentral intensity estimation. Different magnitude types have been made uniform by converting into moment magnitude and subsequently into the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MMI). The epicentral intensity conversion following Li in Chinese Earthquakes (Seismological Press, Beijing, 1980) fits best for the study area among the utilized four predictive equations. The epicentral intensity conversion from the moment magnitude shows that small to moderate earthquakes get significantly overestimated. Suitable attenuation models have been applied to the different tectonic regimes based on the criteria of using the IPEs. Among all the utilized IPEs, the relation of Bakun et al. (Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:190–202, 2003) exhibits the highest standard deviation (σ = 1.61) in attenuation with distance. Although the Szeliga et al.’s (Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(2):570–584, 2010) attenuation relation has a standard deviation of 1.22, the intensity decay is little even for the greater distance (~ 800–900 km). Up to Mw 7.0, the IPE of Bindi et al. (Geophys J Int 187(1):327–337, 2011) shows realistic attenuation scenario (with σ = 1.3); however, at lower magnitude range (< Mw 7.0), the intensity starts to decay sharply. Still, the IPE of Bindi et al. (2011) is more realistic in comparison of the shakemaps of the past and in terms of convincible intensity decay with greater distance (~ 500–900 km). However, the intensity close to the epicenter gets very high MMI (XI or larger) value for the major events (Mw ≥ 8.5). Although the IPE of Chandler and Lam (J Asian Earth Sci 20(7):775–790, 2002) has distance constraints, its performance is acceptable considering the attenuation scenario with distance along with the lowest standard deviation (~ 0.92). Considering the seismic events from the only strike-slip Churachandpur Mao fault of the study area, Bakun and Wentworth (Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(6):1502–1521, 1997) relation has been applied to determine the attenuation pattern.
KeywordsIntensity attenuation model epicentral intensity potential seismotectonic zones attenuation model selection criteria
- Aki, K. (1965). Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a − b M and its confidence limits. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, 43, 237–239.Google Scholar
- Allen, T. I., & Wald, D. J. (2009). Evaluation of ground-motion modeling techniques for use in global ShakeMap—a critique of instrumental ground-motion prediction equations, peak ground motion to macroseismic intensity conversions, and macroseismic intensity predictions in different tecto. U.S. geological survey open-file report, 2009 (1047). Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1047/pdf/OF09-1047.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
- Ambraseys, N. N. (2004). Three little known early earthquakes in India. Current Science, 86(4), 506–508.Google Scholar
- Baker, J. W. (2008). An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/Publications/Baker_(2008)_Intro_to_PSHA_v1_3.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2019.
- Bakun, W. H., & Wentworth, C. M. (1997). Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 87(6), 1502–1521.Google Scholar
- Bender, B. (1983). Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73, 831–851.Google Scholar
- Bilham, R. (2004). Historical studies of earthquakes in India. University of Colorado Boulder, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
- Bormann, P. (2009). New manual of IASPEI seismological observatory practice. New manual of IASPEI seismological observatory practice (NMSOPM), 1 Chapter (2002) (Vol. 1162). https://doi.org/10.2312/GFZ.NMSOP.
- Campbell, K. W., & Bozorgnia, Y. (2006). Next generation attenuation (NGA) empirical ground motion models: can they be used in Europe. First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, (3–8 September, paper no. 458) (Vol. 10). Retrieved from http://peer.berkeley.edu/products/nga_selected_publications/1ECEES_NGA_Campbell_Paper_458.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
- Christophersen, A. K. B., & Litchfield, N. (2015). The GEM faulted earth project. GEM Technical Report, vol. 02. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.725.5675&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 31 May 2019.
- Cua, G., Wald, D. J., Allen, T. I., Garcia, D., Worden, C. B., Gerstenberger, M., Marano, K. (2010). “Best Practices” for using macroseismic intensity and ground motion intensity conversion equations for hazard and loss models in GEM1. GEM Technical Report, 10 (September 2017).Google Scholar
- Dowrick, D. J., & Rhodes, D. A. (2005). Revised models for attenuation of modified Mercalli Intensity in New Zealand earthquakes. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 38, 185–214.Google Scholar
- Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC. ISBN 0-412-04231-2.Google Scholar
- GOB. (2009). Time-predictable fault modeling of Bangladesh. A scientific report prepared by Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme of Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (GOB).Google Scholar
- Grünthal, G. (1998). Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie: Volume 15–European Macroseismic Scale 1998. European Center for Geodynamics and Seismology. Retrieved from http://www.franceseisme.fr/EMS98_Original_english.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2019.
- Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 34, 185–188.Google Scholar
- Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1945). Seismicity of the earth. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 56(6), 603–667. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1945)56%5b603:SOTE%5d2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Islam, M. S., Huda, M. M., Al-noman, M. N., & Al-hussaini, T. M. (2010). Attenuation of earthquake intensity in Bangladesh. In Proceedings, 3rd international earthquake symposium, Bangladesh, Dhaka, March 5–6 2010.Google Scholar
- Krammer, S. L. (1994). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0-13-374943-6.Google Scholar
- Kumar, S., Wesnousky, S. G., Jayangondaperumal, R., Nakata, T., Kumahara, Y., & Singh, V. (2010). Paleoseismological evidence of surface faulting along the northeastern Himalayan front, India: Timing, size, and spatial extent of great earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1(4), 1–30.Google Scholar
- Li, S. B. (1980). Chinese earthquakes. Beijing: Seismological Press.Google Scholar
- Singh, N. N., Deviprasad, B. S., Kumar, G. K., & Hari Krishna, P. (2015). Analysis of earthquake catalogue for seismic hazard analysis of Warangal city. Discovery, 41, 136–142.Google Scholar
- Stepp, J. C. (1972). Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on microzonazion, Seattle (Vol. 2, pp. 897–910).Google Scholar
- Stirling, M., & Goded, T. (2012). Magnitude scaling relationships. Report produced for the GEM faulted earth & regionalisation global componets, GNS science miscellaneous series (Vol. 42).Google Scholar
- Trauth, M. H., Gebbers, R., & Marwan, N. (2007). MATLAB recipes for earth sciences, 2nd edition. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72749-1.
- Wells, D. L., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974–1002.Google Scholar
- Wood, H. O., & Neumann, F. (1931). Modified Mercalli Intensity scale of 1931. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 21(4), 277–283.Google Scholar
- Yu, W., & Sieh, K. (2013). Active tectonic features that pose a seismic threat to Bangladesh. A report published by Comprehensive Disaster Management ProgrammeGoogle Scholar