Public Release of the ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900-2009)

Storchak, Dmitry A.; Giacomo, Domenico Di; Bondár, István; Engdahl, E. R.; Harris, James M.; Lee, William H. K.; Villaseñor, Antonio; Bormann, Peter

doi:10.1785/0220130034

Cited by 338 publications

(215 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

191

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result these inventories can yield A d estimates smaller than those from previous compilations, but our estimates may be more representative of the area affected by dense landsliding, which is of primary interest in terms of both hazard and erosion. For most earthquakes we have information about moment magnitude, hypocentral depth, and focal mechanism from the international seismological centre catalogue (Storchak et al, 2013), but no estimate of the mean asperity depth most relevant to describe the mean wave emission depth (Table 1). However, we have shown that for large earthquakes, A dp is not very sensitive to depth, while for small earthquakes we expect the hypocentral depth and mean asperity depth to be close to each other.…”

Section: Landslide Maps and Compilations Of Landslide Distribution Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of the area affected by earthquake-induced landsliding based on seismological parameters

Marc

Meunier

Hovius

2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present an analytical, seismologically consistent expression for the surface area of the region within which most landslides triggered by an earthquake are located (landslide distribution area). This expression is based on scaling laws relating seismic moment, source depth, and focal mechanism with ground shaking and fault rupture length and assumes a globally constant threshold of acceleration for onset of systematic mass wasting. The seismological assumptions are identical to those recently used to propose a seismologically consistent expression for the total volume and area of landslides triggered by an earthquake. To test the accuracy of the model we gathered geophysical information and estimates of the landslide distribution area for 83 earthquakes. To reduce uncertainties and inconsistencies in the estimation of the landslide distribution area, we propose an objective definition based on the shortest distance from the seismic wave emission line containing 95 % of the total landslide area. Without any empirical calibration the model explains 56 % of the variance in our dataset, and predicts 35 to 49 out of 83 cases within a factor of 2, depending on how we account for uncertainties on the seismic source depth. For most cases with comprehensive landslide inventories we show that our prediction compares well with the smallest region around the fault containing 95 % of the total landslide area. Aspects ignored by the model that could explain the residuals include local variations of the threshold of acceleration and processes modulating the surface ground shaking, such as the distribution of seismic energy release on the fault plane, the dynamic stress drop, and rupture directivity. Nevertheless, its simplicity and first-order accuracy suggest that the model can yield plausible and useful estimates of the landslide distribution area in near-real time, with earthquake parameters issued by standard detection routines.

show abstract

Section: Landslide Maps and Compilations Of Landslide Distribution Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of the area affected by earthquake-induced landsliding based on seismological parameters

Marc

Meunier

Hovius

2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Epicentres and magnitudes of pre-instrumental earthquakes between 1500 and 1899 are taken from the CERESIS catalogue (Askew & Algermissen 1985;Giesecke et al 2004). From 1900 to 2013 we use the ISC-GEM data (Storchak et al 2013). Later earthquakes are included by hand, that is, for the 2014 Iquique earthquake using Geersen et al (2015) and Schurr et al (2014) and for the 2015 Illapel earthquake using Tilmann et al (2016).…”

Section: Data Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing stress shadowing effects at the South American subduction zone

Roth¹,

Dahm²,

Hainzl³

2017

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S U M M A R YThe seismic gap hypothesis assumes that a characteristic earthquake is followed by a long period with a reduced occurrence probability for the next large event on the same fault segment, as a consequence of the induced stress shadow. The gap model is commonly accepted by geologists and is often used for time-dependent seismic hazard estimations. However, systematic and rigorous tests to verify the seismic gap model have often failed so far, which might be partially related to limited data and too tight model assumptions. In this study, we relax the assumption of a characteristic size and location of repeating earthquakes and analyse one of the best available data sets, namely the historical record of major earthquakes along a 3000 km long linear segment of the South American subduction zone. To test whether a stress shadow effect is observable, we compiled a comprehensive catalogue of mega-thrust earthquakes along this plate boundary from 1520 to 2015 containing 174 earthquakes with M w > 6.5. In our new testing approach, we analyse the time span between an earthquake and the last event that ruptured the epicentre location, where we consider the impact of the uncertainties of epicentres and rupture extensions. Assuming uniform boundary conditions along the trench, we compare the distribution of these recurrence times with simple recurrence models. We find that the distribution is in all cases almost exponentially distributed corresponding to a random (Poissonian) process; despite some tendencies for clustering of the M w ≥ 7 events and a weak quasi-periodicity of the M w ≥ 8 earthquakes, respectively. To verify whether the absence of a clear stress shadow signal is related to physical assumptions or data uncertainties, we perform simulations of a physics-based stochastic earthquake model considering rate and state-dependent earthquake nucleation, which are adapted to the observations with regard to the number of events, spatial extend, size distribution and involved uncertainties. Our simulations show that the catalogue uncertainties lead to a significant blurring of the theoretically peaked distribution, but the distribution would be still distinguishable from the observed one for M w ≥ 7 events. However, considering the stress transfer to adjacent fault segments and heterogeneous instead of constant stress drop within the rupture zone can explain the observed recurrence time distribution. We conclude that simplified recurrence models, ignoring the complexity of the underlying physical process, cannot be applied for forecasting the M w ≥ 7 earthquake occurrence at this plate boundary.

show abstract

“…The historical catalog of deep (≥ 300 km) earthquakes along the Izu-Bonin-Mariana (IBM) arc from 1900-2015 from the ISC-GEM (http://www.isc.ac.uk/iscgem; Storchak et al, 2013) The seismicity cross-sections in Fig. 1 indicate that the slab flattens near a depth of 550 km just 100 km north of the 2015 event, with a horizontally isolated M W 6.7 event in 1982 having a near-vertical nodal plane that may involve tearing of the plate.…”

Section: The Isolated 2015 Deep Eventmentioning

confidence: 99%

The isolated ∼680 km deep 30 May 2015 MW 7.9 Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands earthquake

Lay

Zhan

et al. 2016

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The isolated ~680 km deep 30 May 2015 MW 7.9 Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands earthquake Deep-focus earthquakes, located in very high-pressure conditions 300 to 700 km below the Earth's surface within sinking slabs of relatively cold oceanic lithosphere, are mysterious phenomena. The largest recorded deep-focus earthquake (M W 7.9) in the Izu-Bonin slab struck on 30 May 2015 beneath the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands, isolated from prior seismicity by over 100 km in depth, and followed by only a few small aftershocks. Globally, this is the deepest (680 km centroid depth) event with M W ≥ 7.8 in the seismological record. Seismicity indicates along-strike contortion of the Izu-Bonin slab, with horizontal flattening near a depth of 550 km in the Izu region and rapid steepening to near-vertical toward the south above the location of the 2015 event. This event was exceptionally well-recorded by seismic stations around the world, allowing detailed constraints to be placed on the source process. Analyses of a large global data set of P, SH and pP seismic phases using short-period back-projection, subevent directivity, and broadband finite-fault inversion indicate that the mainshock ruptured a shallowly-dipping fault plane with patchy slip that spread over a distance of ∼40 km with a multi-stage expansion rate (∼5+ km/s down-dip initially, ∼3 km/s up-dip later). During the 17 s total rupture duration the radiated energy was ∼3.3 × 10 16 J and the stress drop was ∼38 MPa. The radiation efficiency is moderate (0.34), intermediate to that of the 1994 Bolivia and 2013 Sea of Okhotsk M W 8.3 deep earthquakes, indicating that source processes of very large deep earthquakes sample a wide range of behavior from dissipative, more viscous failure to very brittle failure. The isolated occurrence of the event, much deeper than the apparently thermally-bounded distribution of Bonin-slab seismicity above 600 km depth, suggests that localized stress concentration associated with the pronounced deformation of the Izu-Bonin slab and proximity to the 660-km phase transition likely played a dominant role in generating this major earthquake.

show abstract

Public Release of the ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900-2009)

Cited by 338 publications

References 16 publications

Prediction of the area affected by earthquake-induced landsliding based on seismological parameters

Prediction of the area affected by earthquake-induced landsliding based on seismological parameters

Testing stress shadowing effects at the South American subduction zone

The isolated ∼680 km deep 30 May 2015 MW 7.9 Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands earthquake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About