Journal of Seismology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 623–647 | Cite as

Seismic magnitude conversion and its effect on seismic hazard analysis

  • P. AnbazhaganEmail author
  • A. Balakumar
Original Article


The aim of this study is to demonstrate the bias created in the seismic hazard studies due to the choice of magnitude scaling equations without any statistical basis. The earthquake catalogue of Tripura, India, has been used for the purpose of this study. The catalogue was homogenized using the various scaling equations suitable for the region. Then, the bias created on parameters, like the magnitude of completeness (Mc), a and b values of the Gutenberg–Richter recurrence relation, maximum magnitude (Mmax), and peak ground acceleration, was demonstrated. The standard deviations of Mc, a, and b parameters were observed to be 0.23, 0.27, and 0.037 respectively. The maximum variations in the Mmax and ground motion estimates were found to be 0.7 magnitude units and 0.2 g respectively. Then, the robustness of the regional rupture characters in overcoming the observed variations has been demonstrated. The trend of the rupture behavior of the seismic sources seems to be unaffected by the change in the magnitude scaling equations. The Mmax calculated from the rupture-based procedure was observed to be higher than that calculated from the probabilistic method. This variation in Mmax estimation has been utilized to critically assess the suitability of the magnitude scaling equations for the particular study area.


Seismicity Magnitude scaling equations Mmax Regional rupture characters 


Funding information

The “Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS),” Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India funded the project titled “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Vizag and Tarapur considering regional uncertainties  & Studies of Tripura Earthquake and Liquefied Soil” (Ref No. Sanction No. 36(2)/14/16/2016-BRNS-36016 dated July 1st, 2016 ).


  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions: with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, vol 55. Dover publications, New York, p 886Google Scholar
  2. Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Patel S (2015a) Seismic hazard maps and spectrum for Patna considering region-specific seismotectonic parameters. Nat Hazards 78(2):1163–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anbazhagan P, Bajaj K, Moustafa SS, Al-Arifi NS (2015b) Maximum magnitude estimation considering the regional rupture character. J Seismol 19(3):695–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson JG, Wesnousky SG, Stirling MW (1996) Earthquake size as a function of fault slip rate. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(3):683–690Google Scholar
  5. Baruah S, Baruah S, Bora PK, Duarah R, Kalita A, Biswas R, Gogoi N, Kayal JR (2012) Moment magnitude (MW) and local magnitude (ML) relationship for earthquakes in Northeast India. Pure Appl Geophys 169(11):1977–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(3):831–851Google Scholar
  7. Bora DK (2016) Scaling relations of moment magnitude, local magnitude, and duration magnitude for earthquakes originated in northeast India. Earthq Sci 29(3):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Kagan YY (2006) Regression problems for magnitudes. Geophys J Int 165(3):913–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Das R, Wason HR, Sharma ML (2011) Global regression relations for conversion of surface wave and body wave magnitudes to moment magnitude. Nat Hazards 59(2):801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das R, Wason HR, Sharma ML (2012a) Homogenization of earthquake catalog for northeast India and adjoining region. Pure Appl Geophys 169(4):725–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das R, Wason HR, Sharma ML (2012b) Temporal and spatial variations in the magnitude of completeness for homogenized moment magnitude catalogue for northeast India. J Earth Syst Sci 121(1):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das R, Sharma ML, Wason HR (2016) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for northeast India region. Pure Appl Geophys 173(8):2653–2670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dasgupta S, Narula PL, Acharyya SK, Banerjee J (2000) Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs. Geol Surv IndiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367Google Scholar
  15. Gasperini P, Lolli B, Vannucci G, Boschi E (2012) A comparison of moment magnitude estimates for the European—Mediterranean and Italian regions. Geophys J Int 190(3):1733–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grünthal G, Wahlström R (2003) An M w based earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe using a hierarchy of magnitude conversions. J Seismol 7(4):507–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34(4):185–188Google Scholar
  18. Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 84(B5):2348–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurukawa N, Maung Maung P (2011) Two seismic gaps on the Sagaing Fault, Myanmar, derived from relocation of historical earthquakes since 1918. Geophys Res Lett 38(1)Google Scholar
  20. IS 1893-Part 1 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  21. Jin A, Aki K (1988) Spatial and temporal correlation between coda Q and seismicity in China. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(2):741–769Google Scholar
  22. Kijko A, Sellevoll MA (1989) Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part I. Utilization of extreme and complete catalogs with different threshold magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(3):645–654Google Scholar
  23. Kijko A, Singh M (2011) Statistical tool for maximum possible earthquake magnitude estimation. Acta Geophys 59:674–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolathayar S, Sitharam TG, Vipin KS (2012) Spatial variation of seismicity parameters across India and adjoining areas. Nat Hazards 60(3):1365–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice–Hall international series in civil engineering and engineering mechanics. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. Last M, Rabinowitz N, Leonard G (2016) Predicting the maximum earthquake magnitude from seismic data in Israel and its neighboring countries. PloS One 11(1):e0146101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lolli B, Gasperini P, Vannucci G (2014) Empirical conversion between teleseismic magnitudes (mb and Ms) and moment magnitude (M w) at the Global, Euro-Mediterranean and Italian scale. Geophys J Int 199(2):805–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nath SK, Vyas M, Pal I, Sengupta P (2005) A seismic hazard scenario in the Sikkim Himalaya from seismotectonics, spectral amplification, source parameterization, and spectral attenuation laws using strong motion seismometry. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 110(B1)Google Scholar
  29. NDMA (2010) Development of probabilistic seismic hazard map of India; technical report by National Disaster Management Authority, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Omori F (1894) On the after-shocks of earthquakes. J Coll Sci Imp Univ Tokyo 7:111–200Google Scholar
  31. Osher B (1996) Statistical estimation of the maximum magnitude and its uncertainty from a catalogue including magnitude errors. In: Earthquake hazard and risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 25-37Google Scholar
  32. Pandey AK, Chingtham P, Roy PNS (2017) Homogeneous earthquake catalogue for northeast region of India using robust statistical approaches. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 8(2):1477–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhoades DA (1996) Estimation of the Gutenberg-Richter relation allowing for individual earthquake magnitude uncertainties. Tectonophysics 258(1–4):71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richter CF (1935) An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. Bull Seismol Soc Am 25(1):1–32Google Scholar
  36. Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting M S and m b to moment magnitude. J Seismol 10(2):225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sil A, Sitharam TG, Kolathayar S (2013) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Tripura and Mizoram states. Nat Hazards 68(2):1089–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sitharam TG, Sil A (2014) Comprehensive seismic hazard assessment of Tripura and Mizoram states. J Earth Syst Sci 123(4):837–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stromeyer D, Grünthal G, Wahlström R (2004) Chi-square regression for seismic strength parameter relations, and their uncertainties, with applications to an M w based earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe. J Seismol 8(1):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Yadav A, Raj A, Walling MY, Mohanty WK (2008) Recent seismicity in northeast India and its adjoining region. J Seismol 12(1):107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tinti S, Mulargia F (1985) Effects of magnitude uncertainties on estimating the parameters in the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude law. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(6):1681–1697Google Scholar
  42. Uhrhammer RA (1986) Characteristics of northern and central California seismicity. Earthq Notes 57(1):21Google Scholar
  43. Wason HR, Das R, Sharma ML (2012) Magnitude conversion problem using general orthogonal regression. Geophys J Int 190(2):1091–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002Google Scholar
  45. Woessner J, Wiemer S (2005) Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(2):684–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yin A, Harrison TM (2000) Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 28(1):211–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringThiagarajar College of EngineeringMaduraiIndia

Personalised recommendations