Journal of Seismology

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 107–123 | Cite as

Recent seismicity in Northeast India and its adjoining region

  • Kiran Kumar Singh Thingbaijam
  • Sankar Kumar Nath
  • Abhimanyu Yadav
  • Abhishek Raj
  • M. Yanger Walling
  • William Kumar Mohanty
Original article


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.


b value a value Correlation fractal dimension Northeast India Seismicity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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 43:237–239Google Scholar
  2. Aki K (1981) A probabilistic synthesis of precursor phenomena. In: Simpson DW, Richards PG (eds) Earthquake Prediction, Maurice Ewing Series 4, AGU 566–574Google Scholar
  3. Aviles CA, Scholz CH, Boatwright J (1987) Fractal analysis applied to characteristic segments of the San Andreas fault. J Geophys Res 92:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 138:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data. Bull Seism Soc Am 73:831–851Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Menahem A, Aboodi E, Schild R (1974) The source of the great Assam earthquake–an interplate wedge motion. Phys Earth and Planet Int 9:265–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhatia SC, Ravi Kumar M, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann di Geofis 42:1153–1166Google Scholar
  8. Bilham R, England P (2001) Plateau ‘ pop up’ in the great 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature 410:806–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 97:114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braunmiller J, Deichmann N, Giardini D, Wiemer S (2005) Homogeneous moment-magnitude calibration in Switzerland. Bull Seism Soc Am 95:58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brune J, Engen G (1969) Excitation of mantle love waves and definition of mantle wave magnitude. Bull Seism Soc Am 57:1355–1365Google Scholar
  13. Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Kagan YY (2006) Regression problems for magnitudes. Geophys J Int 165:913–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen W, Molnar P (1977) Seismic moments of major earthquakes and average rate of slip in Central Asia. J Geophy Res 82:2945–2969Google Scholar
  15. Chernick MR (1999) Bootstrap methods: a practitioner’s guide, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Deichmann N (2006) Local magnitude, a moment revisited. Bull Seism Soc Am 96:1267–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grassberger P, Procaccia I (1983) Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors. Physica D 9:189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutenberg B (1945a) Amplitudes of surface waves and magnitudes of shallow earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 35:3–12Google Scholar
  20. Gutenberg B (1945b) Magnitude determination for deep-focus earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 35:117–130Google Scholar
  21. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seism Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  22. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1956) Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Ann Geofis 9:1–15Google Scholar
  23. Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scales. J Geophysis Res 84:2348–2350Google Scholar
  24. Heaton TH, Tajima F, Mori AW (1986) Estimating ground motion using recorded accelerograms. Surv Geophys 8:25–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 116:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirata T (1989a) A correlation between the b value and the fractal dimension of earthquake. J Geophys Res 94:7507–7514Google Scholar
  27. Hirata T (1989b) Fractal dimension of fault systems in Japan: fractal structure in rock fracture geometry at various scales. Pageoph 131:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ISC (2007) On-line Bulletin,, Internatl. Seis. Cent., Thatcham, United Kingdom
  29. Kagan YY (2003) Accuracy of modern global earthquake catalogs. Phys Earth Planet Inter 135:173–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kagan YY (2007) Earthquake spatial distribution: the correlation dimension. Geophys J Int 168:1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kagan YY, Knopoff L (1980) Spatial distribution of earthquakes: the two point correlation function. Geophys JR Astr Soc 62:303–320Google Scholar
  32. Kanamori H (1977) The energy release in Great Earthquakes. J Geophy Res 82:2981–2987Google Scholar
  33. Kanamori H (1983) Magnitude scale and quantification of earthquakes. Tectonophys 93:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mandelbrot BB (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 40:831–883Google Scholar
  36. Nandy DR (2001) Geodynamics of north eastern India and the adjoining region, 1st edn. ACB publications, KolkataGoogle Scholar
  37. Narenberg MAA, Essex C (1990) Correlation dimension and systematic geometric effects. Phys Rev A 42:7065–7074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 92:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 143:501–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richter CF (1935) An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. Bull Seis Soc Am 25:1–31Google Scholar
  42. Ristau J, Rogers GC, Cassidy JF (2005) Moment magnitude–local magnitude calibration for earthquakes in western canada. Bull Seism Soc Am 95:1994–2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rong Y (2002) Evaluation of Earthquake Potential in China, PhD. Dissertation, Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scholemmer D, Wiemer S, Wyss M (2005) Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes. Nature 437:539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scholz CH (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 58:399–415Google Scholar
  47. Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude. J Seis 10:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 8:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 19:427–435Google Scholar
  50. Thenhaus PC, Campbell W (2003) Seismic hazard analysis. In: Chen WF, Scawthorn C (eds) Earthquake engineering handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–43Google Scholar
  51. Turcotte DL (1986) A fractal model for crustal deformation. Tectonophysics 132:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 13:99–103Google Scholar
  53. Utsu T (1999) Representation and analysis of the earthquake size distribution: a historical review and some new approaches. Pageoph 155:509–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wesnouski SG, Scholz CH, Shimazaki K, Matsuda T (1983) Earthquake frequency distribution and the mechanics of faulting. J Geophys Res 88:9331–9340Google Scholar
  55. 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 90:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Willemann RJ, Storchak DA (2001) Data collection at the international seismological centre. Seis Res Lett 72:440–453Google Scholar
  57. Woo G (1996) Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard area source modeling. Bull Seism Soc Am 86:353–362Google Scholar
  58. 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 94:410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kiran Kumar Singh Thingbaijam
    • 1
  • Sankar Kumar Nath
    • 1
  • Abhimanyu Yadav
    • 1
  • Abhishek Raj
    • 1
  • M. Yanger Walling
    • 1
  • William Kumar Mohanty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeophysicsIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations