Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

DOI 10.1007/s11069-010-9557-y
ORIGINAL PAPER

Probabilities for the occurrences of medium to large

earthquakes in northeast India and adjoining region
R. B. S. Yadav J. N. Tripathi D. Shanker B. K. Rastogi
M. C. Das Vikas Kumar

Received: 2 September 2008 / Accepted: 9 May 2010 / Published online: 25 June 2010
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The return periods and occurrence probabilities related to medium and large
earthquakes (Mw 4.07.0) in four seismic zones in northeast India and adjoining region
(2032N and 87100E) have been estimated with the help of well-known extreme
value theory using three methods given by Gumbel (1958), Knopoff and Kagan (1977) and
Bury (1999). In the present analysis, the return periods, the most probable maximum
magnitude in a specified time period and probabilities of occurrences of earthquakes of
magnitude M C 4.0 have been computed using a homogeneous and complete earthquake
catalogue prepared for the period between 1897 and 2007. The analysis indicates that the
most probable largest annual earthquakes are close to 4.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 and 5.8 in the four
seismic zones, namely, the Shillong Plateau Zone, the Eastern Syntaxis Zone, the Himalayan Thrusts Zone, the Arakan-Yoma subduction zone and the whole region, respectively.
The most probable largest earthquakes that may occur within different time periods have
been also estimated and reported. The study reveals that the estimated mean return periods

R. B. S. Yadav  B. K. Rastogi  V. Kumar

Institute of Seismological Research (ISR), Raisan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382009, India
Present Address:
R. B. S. Yadav (&)
Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS), Ministry of Earth Science,
Government of India, Near ALEAP, Pragathi Nagar, Near JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, India
e-mail: rbsybhu@rediffmail.com; rbsyiitr@indiatimes.com
J. N. Tripathi
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Allahabad, Allahabad 211002, India
D. Shanker
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttaranchal
247667, India
M. C. Das
Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Ltd, Agartala, India

123

146

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

for the earthquake of magnitude Mw 6.5 are about 67 years, 910 years, 5978 years,
72115 years and 88127 years in the whole region, the Arakan-Yoma subduction zone,
the Himalayan Thrusts Zone, the Shillong Plateau Zone and the Eastern Syntaxis Zone,
respectively. The study indicates that Arakan-Yoma subduction zone has the lowest mean
return periods and high occurrence probability for the same earthquake magnitude in
comparison to the other zones. The differences in the hazard parameters from zone to zone
reveal the high crustal heterogeneity and seismotectonics complexity in northeast India and
adjoining regions.
Keywords Extreme value theory  Seismic hazard  Earthquake probability 
Return periods

1 Introduction
The earthquake hazard is estimated as the probability of occurrence of an earthquake with
magnitude larger or equal to a particular value within a specified region and a given time
period. The seismic hazard assessment of any region is of great importance to minimize the
seismic risk and to predict earthquakes accurately. The seismic hazard due to an earthquake can be minimized to implement the building codes in developing countries like India
and losses of human lives and properties due to the hazardous earthquakes can be prevented. The seismic hazard can be evaluated from the statistical analysis of the seismic
history of region by estimating the probabilities of occurrences of an earthquake in a given
region within a certain time period. Although there is not just one single method for the
evaluation of earthquake hazard, yet several researchers of the world have made efforts for
systematic application of statistical methods. A number of statistical models are being
suggested and their properties are being used to estimate the recurrence intervals and
probabilities of occurrences of earthquakes in different regions in the world (Lomnitz
1974; Utsu 1972, 1984; Rikitake 1976, 1991; Hagiwara 1974; Shanker and Singh 1997;
Shanker et al. 2007; Yadav et al. 2010).
The extreme value theory is a well-known and commonly used method to assess the
seismic hazard parameters like return periods and probability of earthquake occurrences. It
has major advantage that it requires only the extreme value magnitude. The extreme value
theory was proposed by Gumbel (1935) for the flood analysis and applied by various
workers in the world for the estimation of seismic hazard parameters. Nordquist (1945)
attempted this theory first time for the earthquakes in southern California and for the
largest earthquakes in the world. After that a number of researchers of the world applied
this method in different regions (Gayskiy and Katok 1965 in Soviet Union; Epstein and
Lomnitz 1966 in America; Dick 1965 in New Zealand; Milne and Devenport 1969 in
Canada; Karnik and Hubernova 1968 and Schenkova and Karnik 1970 in Europe; Shakal
and Willis 1972 in North Circum-Pacific seismic belt; Rao and Rao 1979; Goswami and
Sarmah 1983; Shanker and Singh 1997 and Shanker et al. 2007 in India and adjoining
ztrurk et al. 2008 for Turkey region).
region; Bayrak et al. 2005 and O
In the present study, the earthquake probabilities have been estimated in the whole
region of northeast India and adjoining region divided into four different major seismic
zones. We used the methods given by Gumbel (1958), Knopoff and Kagan (1977) and
Bury (1999) and a comparison of estimated results of return periods, most largest earthquakes and occurrence probabilities has been carried out with the help of a homogeneous
and complete earthquake catalogue covering time period of 1897 to 2007.

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

147

2 Regional seismotectonics and zonation of the study region

The northeast India and adjoining region bounded by latitude 2032N and longitude 87
100E, which includes Eastern Syntaxis of Himalaya, the Arakan-Yoma subduction belt,
the Naga thrust fold belts, the Shillong Plateau, the Main Central Thrust (MCT) and Main
Boundary Thrust (MBT) of the Himalayan Frontal Arc has been considered as study region
(Fig. 1). The Himalayan province of the northeast India has been characterized by a series
of north-vergent thrust faults. The important thrusts among these are the Main Boundary
Thrust (MBT) and the Main Central Thrust (MCT). The Himalayan orogenic belts overthrust the down-flexed Indian plate constituting the GangaBrahmaputra foredeep, along
the Himalayan Frontal Fault (HFF). It is divided into four major litho-tectonic units
from its southern distinction above the plains to the Indus-Tsangpo suture, namely, the

Fig. 1 The map shows northeast India and adjoining region, which has been adopted as the study region in
the present investigation. The map is showing several faults, thrusts, lineament and structural features of the
study region. The area of four active major seismogenic source zones: Zone-I (the Eastern-Syntaxis
Himalaya), Zone-II (the Arakan-Yoma subduction zone), Zone-III (the Shillong Plateau) and Zone-IV (the
Himalayan Thrusts zone) are also shown with light-yellow region (modified from Gupta et al. 1986; Yadav
et al. 2009, 2010)

123

148

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

Siwalik-Himalaya, the Lesser Himalaya, the Higher or Central Himalaya, and the Tethys or
Tibetan Himalaya and is marked by four major thrusts or fault systems (Nandy 1986). The
eastern Himalaya is a part of the collision boundary between India and Asia, which is
characterized by the NE vergent thrusts belt such as MBT (Eastern region), MFT, Lohit
Thrust, Mishmi Thrust and Bame Tuting Fault. The Burmese arc is characterized by SE
heading thrusts, chief among which are the Naga and Disang thrusts. The Shillong plateau
(SP), source area of the 1897 great earthquake of Mw 8.1, has a complex tectonic model.
The dominating thrust/strike-slip faulting earthquakes in the western plateau could be
explained by the pop-up tectonic model (Bilham and England 2001). The E-W trending
Himalaya and the NS trending Arakan-Yoma subduction belt has been developed as a
consequence of the collision between Indian and Eurasian plates and subduction of Indian
plate within Burmese plate (GSI 2000).
This region is one of the most seismic active regions of the Himalayan seismic belt and
has experienced two great earthquakes of magnitude Mw 8.1 (fatalities 1542) and 8.5
(fatalities 1526) in 1897 at Shillong and in 1950 at Assam, respectively (Bilham 2004). The
June 12, 1897 earthquake has occurred in the vicinity of Shillong Plateau on a steep SSEdipping reverse fault beneath the northern edge of the central Shillong Plateau (Bilham and
England 2001). The earthquake almost totally destroyed settlements and small towns on
the western part of the Plateau, and caused heavy damage in surrounding districts, mainly
due to the extensive liquefaction of the ground (Ambraseys and Bilham 2003). The Assam
earthquake of August 15, 1950 has occurred in the vicinity of India-China border and it
was the earthquake for which instrumentally determined magnitude 8.6 was measured by
Gutenberg (Abe 1981). In addition to these two great earthquakes, this region has experienced several dozen large earthquakes, which have caused loss of human lives and
destroyed buildings (Fig. 2).
The northeast India and adjoining region can be divided into four main seismogenic
source zones following Dutta (1964) and Gupta et al. (1986), namely, the Eastern Syntaxis
(Zone-I), the Arakan-Yoma subduction belt (Zone-II), the Shillong Plateau (Zone-III) and
the Main Central Thrust (MCT) and the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) of the Himalayan
Thrusts Zone (Zone-IV). It is very difficult to demarcate straightforward boundaries for these
major seismogenic source zones due to unavailability of detail mapping of neotectonic
structural features and micro-seismicity studies of the region. The causes of seismic activity
of these major source zones may be related to each other, and seismic activity of one zone
may influence the seismic activity of other. Therefore, the Zone-II and Zone-III are overlapping to the some parts of Zone-I, and Zone-III is overlapping to the some parts of Zone-II
and Zone-IV. These zones are the major tectonic elements of this region as described by
Yadav et al. (2009) and shown in Fig. 1. These major seismic zones have been delineated on
the basis of three fundamental parameters: the active tectonic structures, focal mechanism of
earthquakes and seismicity level. However, a detail delineation of seismic zones needs
several parameters such as complete and homogeneous instrumental as well as historical
seismicity, detailed mapping of neotectonic faults, geology and history of paleoseismology
of the considered region. It is not always possible to get all these information for certain
seismic regions of the world and seismogenic source zones are divided on the basis of
seismicity level, focal mechanism and tectonics of the region. The Zone-I of this region (the
Eastern Syntaxis) have NWSE trending several thrust faults (e.g. Lohit Thrust, Mishmi
Thrust) which are dipping towards NE direction as evidenced from focal mechanism of
earthquakes occurred in this zone. This zone is devastated by a great earthquake of magnitude Mw 8.5 in 1950 which caused heavy damage in the region. The Zone-II (The ArakanYoma subduction zone) is the region where Indian plate subducts within the Burmese plate,

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

149

Fig. 2 Epicentral map of earthquakes in the considered region during the period 1897 to 2007 for all
magnitude range (Mw) showing the concentration of seismic activity along the tectonic trends of the region

and several thrust belts dipping towards east have been developed. The occurrences of
earthquakes in this zone are shallow as well as intermediate in nature, and the seismic
productivity of this zone is high when compared to others. The focal mechanism of earthquakes indicates NS striking nodal planes dipping towards east. The Zone-III (the Shillong
Plateau) is situated within the Indian plate and away from the plate collision boundary of
Indian and Eurasian plates. The intraplate shallow seismicity of this region is mainly due to
the differential movement/uplifting of the Shillong plateau along major thrust/strike slip
Dauki fault (Bilham and England 2001). The focal mechanism of earthquakes in this region
shows strike-slip motion with small amount of thrust component. The complex tectonic
regime of the region surrounding this zone reveals that the region has experienced great
compressive stresses and resulting distortions due to northward and eastward slow movement of the Indian plate (Bilham and England 2001). The Zone-IV (the Himalayan Thrusts
Zone) is related to the continentcontinent collision boundary of Indian plate with Eurasian
plate. The seismicity of this region is mainly related to major thrust faults of Main Boundary
Thrust (MBT) and the Main Central Thrust (MCT). The focal mechanism of earthquakes
occurred in this zone shows E-W striking nodal planes dipping northward.

123

150

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

3 The applied method

The extreme value theory was originally proposed by Gumbel (1935, 1958) for flood
analysis and widely used in earthquake hazard parameters estimation by various
researchers of the world. It is based on the random variable function. In the present study,
we applied the first type asymptotic distribution of extreme values. This theory assumes
that if earthquake magnitude is unlimited, if activity rate decreases with increase in size of
earthquakes and pattern of occurrence of earthquake is random (Yadav 2009), then the
probability of non-exceedance of earthquake of magnitude m in one year will be
Gm expaexpbm

This is the cumulative distribution function of the largest annual magnitude. Here a
and b are constants, which may be estimated from the least-square fit of the relationship:
ln ln G ln a  bm

The above equation can be estimated by taking double logarithms of Eq. 1. The term a
exp (-bm) of Eq. 1 is the expected number of earthquakes, Nm, in a given year which have
magnitude exceeding m (Epstein and Lomnitz 1966). It can be written as:
ln(Nm lna  bm

which is as same form as the widely used empirical relationship of Gutenberg and Richter
(1956):
Log10 Nm a  bm
The parameters a and b are related to a and b as follows:
a ln a= ln 10

and b b= ln 10

In addition to Eq. 3, several other useful formulas can be obtained from the model
expressed by Eq. 1. For example, the most probable or most frequently observed annual
maximum magnitude (u) can be estimated in terms of a and b as:
u ln a=b

The most probable earthquake magnitude, ut, in t year periods can be written as:
ut lnat=b u ln t=b

The mean return period (i.e. mean interval in years) between earthquakes is defined as
the expected time interval for the occurrence of an earthquake with magnitude greater than
or equal to m and is given by:
Tm 1=Nm expbm=a

The occurrence probability of earthquakes, Pt (m), the most important result of this
theory, can be estimated for a particular magnitude, m, in t year period by:
Pt m 1  expat: expbm

For the estimation of constants (a and b) of Eq. 1, the largest annual earthquake
magnitude m1, m2, m3,, mN taken from N-sets are arranged in increasing size. Then the
observed probability of each mi may be written as (Gumbel 1958):
G i=N 1

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

151

where, i varies from 1 to N. According to Knopoff and Kagan (1977), the above estimate is
biased for larger earthquakes. Since, we are interested in obtaining the best fit for high
magnitudes and long return periods, therefore, Knopoff and Kagan (1977) suggested
another method for the estimation of observed probability:
G i  0:5=N

Recently, a more sophisticated formula was suggested by Bury (1999) which approximates the median of the distribution-free estimate of the sample variate and, even for
small value of N, it produces parameters estimations comparable to the results obtained by
maximum likelihood estimations:
G i  0:3=N 0:4

10

The main objective to apply the method of Gumbels extreme value expressed by Eq. 1
in this study is to estimate the earthquake hazard parameters for the northeast India and
adjoining region. The earthquake hazard will be calculated in terms of the expected time
interval for the occurrence of an earthquake, the most probable largest magnitude of
earthquakes in a given time period and the occurrence probability of earthquakes in a
specified time interval. For this purpose, the Eqs. 37 of above method will be used for the
estimation of hazard parameters for four different major seismogenic source zones and
whole region of northeast India and adjoining region.

4 Homogeneous and complete seismicity database

A homogenous and complete earthquake catalogue is one of the most important inputs in
the seismology to estimate seismic hazard of any region of the world. In order to prepare
the seismicity database for present investigation, various existing earthquake catalogues
and lists (historical and recent) pertaining to the region have been considered. In their
present form, however, they are inhomogeneous, inadequate and not arranged in proper
fashion for more detailed seismological investigation and seismic hazard assessment.
Although temporary networks have been operated in recent decades in the wider area under
investigation, and these have revealed many important details for better understanding of
the causes and peculiarities of the regional seismicity, their data usually do not meet the
long-term coverage and stability criteria needed for seismic hazard assessment. Therefore,
for NE India the most accurate, complete, and more or less homogeneous data, especially
with respect to magnitudes, come from permanent global seismic network observations and
related parameter reports in the International Seismological Summary (ISS 19221963) as
well as the follow-up reports or bulletins of global seismological data centres since the
early 1960s. The latter are the International Seismological Centre in the United Kingdom
(ISC, since 1964; http://www.isc.ac.uk/search/bulletin), the NEIC (since 1963;
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic-global.htm), and the HRVD (since 1976; now operated
as the Global Centroid-Moment-Tensor project at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
(LDEO) of Columbia University; http://www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html). Therefore,
supplementation and revision of our catalogue for the time span 19632007 is based
exclusively on magnitude data from these three international data centres. With respect to
moment magnitudes, 186 Mw,HRVD (Mw given by HRVD) values between 4.7 and 7.2,
pertaining to earthquakes in the study region, have been available for the period 1976 to
2007. Only for three events with Mw between 5.6 and 5.8, we have taken the respective
values from the NEIC.

123

152

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

For the period 1897 to 1962, Gupta et al. (1986) compiled all available seismicity data
after critical examination of several existing catalogues and assessment of the detection
capabilities of older seismological networks. Descriptions of historic earthquakes prior to
1897 have been added to their catalogue. In total, the Gupta et al. (1986) catalogue includes
502 events with magnitude C4.0, yet magnitude values are given for only 316 events. We
adopted this catalogue for the period 1897 to 1962. Comparing it with Chandra (1992) and
ISC data, we found that the magnitudes M reported by Gupta et al. (1986) are equivalent to
ISC surface wave magnitudes MS. Therefore, we take M values prior to 1964 as proxies for
MS,ISC (Ms reported by ISC).
The whole catalogue has been homogenized for moment magnitude Mw with the help of
different regression relationships developed among various magnitude scales (mb, Ms and
Mw) given by different agencies. A detail description of compilation, homogenization and
completeness of earthquake catalogue is prearranged by Yadav et al. (2009) and Bormann
and Yadav (2010). The final earthquake catalogue consists of 3001 earthquakes of magnitude Mw C 3.0 during the period 1897 to 2007.
The Gumbel extreme value theory requires the independent sets of extremes. For this
purpose, 1-year interval of extreme has been considered to make extremes independent to
each other. If the interval is shorter or longer than 1 year then it makes the data discontinuous (Shanker and Singh 1997). In the present analysis, the earthquake data is distributed for the period 19542007 in whole region, the period 1964 to 2007 in Eastern
Syntaxis Zone (Zone-I), 19612007 in the Arakan-Yoma subduction Zone (zone-II), 1982
2007 in the Shillong Plateau Zone (Zone-III) and 19582007 in the Himalayan Thrusts
Zone (Zone-IV).

5 Results and discussion

The extreme value theory has been applied to estimate the earthquake hazard parameters
for the whole area of northeast India and adjoining regions as well as for each of the four
sub-zones. For this purpose, three different methods given by Gumbel (1958), Knopoff and
Kagan (1977) and Bury (1999) have been applied for the estimation of constants a and b of
this model. The whole study region has been divided into four major seismogenic source
zones on the basis of seismicity level, tectonics and focal mechanism of earthquakes. A
homogeneous and complete seismicity database prepared by Yadav et al. (2009) during the
period 1897 to 2007 has been used to evaluate the most probable largest magnitudes, the
mean return periods and probabilities of occurrences of different magnitudes in different
time. A comparative study of estimated hazard parameters estimated by three different
methods of Gumbel (1958), Knopoff and Kagan (1977) and Bury (1999) has been carried
out to see the susceptibility of the whole region and each zone.
We calculated the constants (a and b) of Gumbels extreme value distribution by
estimating observed probabilities (G) using three methods of Gumbel (1958), Knopoff and
Kagan (1977) and Bury (1999) written in Eqs. 810, respectively. These constants can also
be estimated with the help of famous Gutenberg and Richter relationship (1956) and
related to its constants a and b by equations a = (ln a/ln 10) and b = (b/ln10). However,
the constants, estimated using approach of Gumbels extreme value distribution, are more
significance and they are better related to the tectonics of the study region (Makropoulos
ztrurk et al. 2008). A plot of largest annual
and Burton 1984; Tsapanos and Burton 1991; O
magnitude (m) versus observed probability (G) estimated by three approaches can be seen
in Fig. 3ao for whole region, Zone-I (Eastern syntaxis), Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

(b) 2.00

2.00

-1.00
-2.00
-3.00

0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00

-4.00

-4.00

-5.00

-5.00
6.0

7.0

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

8.0

ln(-lnG) = 16.014 -2.7584M

5.0

G=i/(N+1) analysis

ln(-lnG) = 16.292 -3.196M

5.5

6.0

-3.00

6.5

7.0

5.0

7.5

5.5

6.0

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00

ln(-lnG) = 17.699 -3.468M

6.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

ln(-lnG)

G=i/(N+1) analysis

-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
ln(-lnG) = 12.093 -2.1971M

4.0

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

-2.00
-3.00
ln(-lnG) = 13.046 -2.3669M

6.0

7.0

4.0

8.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

ln(-lnG)

-1.00
-2.00
ln(-lnG) = 10.759 -2.3152M

-3.00
-4.00
4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

-2.00
-3.00

ln(-lnG) =11.989 -2.5745M

ln(-lnG)

ln(-lnG) = 16.919 -3.2311M

-4.00

-4.00
4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

4.0

6.0

4.5

6.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Magnitude

1.00
G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
ln(-lnG) = 18.151 -3.4633M

G=(i-0.3)/(N+0.4) analysis

0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00

ln(-lnG) =17.595 -3.3585M

-4.00
-5.00

-5.00

5.5

Magnitude

ln(-lnG) = 11.424 -2.4554M

(o) 2.00

0.00

-4.00

-5.00
5.0

-2.00
-3.00

1.00

-2.00

8.0

G=(i-0.3)/(N+0.4) analysis

0.00

-5.00

(n) 2.00

-1.00

7.0

-1.00

Magnitude

G=i/(N+1) analysis

6.0

2.00

-4.00
4.0

1.00

4.5

5.0

1.00

-1.00

6.0

(m) 2.00

-3.00

ln(-lnG) =12.613 -2.2898M

4.0

(l)
G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

0.00

Magnitude

0.00

-3.00

Magnitude

1.00

G= i/(N+1) analysis

6.5

-2.00

8.0

(k) 2.00

1.00

6.0

G=(i-0.3)/(N+0.4) analysis

Magnitude

(j) 2.00

5.5

-5.00

Magnitude

0.00

5.0

0.00

ln(-lnG)

5.0

4.5

-1.00

-4.00

-5.00

4.0

7.5

Magnitude

-1.00

-4.00

-5.00

7.0

ln(-lnG)=17.056 -3.3437M

(i) 2.00
1.00

0.00

6.5

G=(i-0.3)/(N+0.4) analysis

1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00

6.5

(h) 2.00
1.00

-4.00

6.0

Magnitude

(g) 2.00
1.00
0.00

5.5

Magnitude

ln(-lnG)

5.0

ln(-lnG) =15.548 -2.6792M

-4.00

(f) 3.00
2.00

3.00
2.00
1.00

Magnitude

ln(-lnG)

-2.00

-4.00
-5.00

4.5

G=(i-0.3)/(N+0.4) analysis

0.00

ln(-lnG)

ln(-lnG)

ln(-lnG)

(e)

4.0

ln(-lnG)

1.00

-1.00

Magnitude

(d) 3.00
2.00

ln(-lnG)

2.00

-5.00

Magnitude

1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00

ln(-lnG)

0.00

5.0

(c)

1.00

G=i/(N+1) analysis

ln(-lnG)

1.00

ln(-lnG)

ln(-lnG)

(a)

153

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Magnitude

6.5

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

Magnitude

Fig. 3 Gumbels extreme value distribution of observed probability (G) by three different methods,
namely, Gumbel (1958); Knopoff and Kagan (1977) and Bury (1999) for whole region (a, b, c); Zone-I (d, e,
f); Zone-II (g, h, i); Zone-III (j, k, l) and Zone-IV (m, n, o)

subduction zone), Zone-III (Shillong Plateau) and Zone-IV (Himalayan Thrusts Zone). The
least-square method has been applied to estimate the constants a and b of Eq. 1 which are
listed in Table 1 for three methods. The parameters a and b are useful to estimate the most
probable largest magnitudes, the mean return periods and probabilities of occurrences of
different magnitudes in different time in this region. The minor deviation in the estimated
parameters can be observed in three methods which suggest the biasing nature of Gumbels
(1958) approach (Shanker et al. 2007) and Knopoff and Kagan (1977) method. The median
values of these parameters are estimated by Bury (1999) method among these three

123

154

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

Table 1 Calculated values of ln

a and b for different zones

Zones

Methods

Hazard parameters
Ln a

Whole region

Zone-I

Zone-II

Zone-III

Zone-IV

G = i/(N ? 1)

14.982

2.58

G = (i - 0.5)/N

16.014

2.76

G = (i - 0.3)/(N ? 0.4)

15.548

2.68

G = i/(N ? 1)

16.292

3.19

G = (i - 0.5)/N

17.699

3.47

G = (i - 0.3)/(N ? 0.4)

17.056

3.34

G = i/(N ? 1)

12.093

2.20

G = (i - 0.5)/N

13.046

2.37

G = (i - 0.3)/(N ? 0.4)

12.613

2.28

G = i/(N ? 1)

10.759

2.32
2.57

G = (i - 0.5)/N

11.989

G = (i - 0.3)/(N ? 0.4)

11.424

2.46

G = i/(N ? 1)

16.919

3.23

G = (i - 0.5)/N

18.151

3.46

G = (i - 0.3)/(N ? 0.4)

17.595

3.36

methods suggests the better method to estimate the hazard parameters of the study region.
The equations of probability distribution for non-exceedance of magnitude m can be
estimated from Eq. 1 for the whole region and four seismic zones using three methods and
can be written as:
Whole region
Gm exp3210701:48 exp2:58m by P i=N 1
Gm exp9011390:98 exp2:76m

by P i  0:5=N

Gm exp5654713:48 exp2:68m by P i  0:3=N 0:4

Zone-I (Eastern Syntaxis Zone)
Gm exp11899417:41 exp3:19m by G i=N 1
Gm exp48593483:72 exp3:47m

by G i  0:5=N

Gm exp25546222:08 exp3:34m by G i  0:3=N 0:4

Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma Subduction Zone)
Gm exp178617:16 exp2:20m

by G i=N 1

Gm exp463239:74 exp2:37m by G i  0:5=N

Gm exp300438:99 exp2:28m

by G i  0:3=N 0:4

Zone-III (Shillong Plateau Zone)

Gm exp47051:59 exp2:32m

by G i=N 1

Gm exp160974:30 exp2:57m by G i  0:5=N

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

155

Gm exp91491:38 exp2:46m

by G i  0:3=N 0:4

Zone-IV (Himalayan Thrusts Zone)

Gm exp22275545:05 exp3:23m by G i=N 1
Gm exp76362324:68 exp3:46m

by G i  0:5=N

Gm exp43793676:82 exp3:36m by G i  0:3=N 0:4

The cumulative probability distribution curves for non-exceedance, G(m), and
exceedance, (1 - G(m)), estimated using three methods are presented in Fig. 4ao for the
whole region and four different seismic zones. These figures show that the cumulative
probability distribution for non-exceedance, G(m), of magnitudes B5.9 is B50%, whereas

(b)1.20

0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20

1.00
0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20

5.0

6.0

7.0

4.0

8.0

5.0

(e) 1.20

G=i/(N+1) analysis

1.00
0.80
G(m)

0.60

1-G(m)

0.40
0.20

Probability

0.00
6.0

7.0

(f) 1.20

0.80
G(m)

0.60

1-G(m)

0.40
0.20

0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20

5.0

6.0

7.0

7.0

(i)

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20

0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20

Probability

(k) 1.20

G=i/(N+1)analysis

5.0

6.0

7.0

6.0

7.0

0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20

0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20
0.00

Probability

(n) 1.20

0.80

5.0

6.0

7.0

6.0

Magnitude

7.0

8.0

8.0

G=(i-0.3)/(n+0.4) analysis

0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20

5.0

8.0

G=(i-0.3)/(n+0.4) analysis
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20
4.0

(o)

1.00
0.80
G(m)
1-G(m)

0.40

7.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Magnitude

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

0.60

6.0

0.00

8.0

0.20

G=(i-0.3)/(n+0.4) analysis
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60

G(m)

0.40

1-G(m)

0.20
0.00

0.00

5.0

7.0

1.00

Magnitude

1.00

6.0

1.20

4.0

(l)

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

4.0

8.0

G=i/(N+1) analysis

4.0

5.0

Magnitude

1.00

Magnitude

(m)1.20

1-G(m)

0.20

8.0

0.00

0.00
5.0

G(m)

0.40

Magnitude

1.00

4.0

0.60

0.00

4.0

Magnitude

(j) 1.20

0.80

Magnitude

1.00

8.0

8.0

G=(i-0.3)/(n+0.4) analysis

4.0

Probability

6.0

7.0

1.00

8.0

0.00

0.00

6.0

0.00

4.0

(h)1.20

G=i/(N+1) analysis

5.0

5.0

Magnitude

1.00

4.0

1-G(m)

0.20

Magnitude

1.00

8.0

Probability

(g) 1.20

G(m)

0.40

4.0

Probability

5.0

0.60

8.0

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

Magnitude

probability

7.0

0.00

4.0

Probability

6.0

Probability

Probability

(d)1.20

0.80

Magnitude

Magnitude

Probability

4.0

G=(i-0.3)/(n+0.4) analysis

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Probability

(c) 1.20

G=(i-0.5)/N analysis

Probability

G=i/(N+1) analysis

1.00

Probability

Probability

(a)1.20

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Magnitude

8.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Magnitude

Fig. 4 Cumulative Probability distribution curves of non-exceedance [G(m)] and exceedance [1 - G(m)]
for whole region (a, b, c); zone-I (d, e, f); zone-II (g, h, i); zone-III (j, k, l) and zone-IV (m, n, o)

123

156

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

cumulative probability distribution for exceedance, (1 - G(m)), of those magnitudes is

C50% in whole region estimated by three methods. The opposite cumulative probability
distributions are observed for magnitude [5.9. The same cumulative probability distributions are estimated for magnitudes 5.2, 5.7, 4.8 and 5.3 in Zone-I, Zone-II, Zone-III and
Zone-IV, respectively, for three methods. These magnitude values for whole region and
each zone, where cumulative probability distribution of non-exceedance and exceedance is
50%, are closely related to the most probable largest annual magnitudes (u). Table 2 shows
the most probable annual maxima of largest earthquakes (u) estimated by three different
methods. The largest annual magnitude of earthquakes have been estimated as 5.8, 5.1, 5.5,
4.7 and 5.2 by Bury (1999) method in whole region and Zone-I, Zone-II, Zone-III and
Zone-IV, respectively. It is observed that there is no significant difference in estimated
values using either method. Rao and Rao (1979) estimated most probable annual maxima
for Assam and NE India region as 5.8 and 6.0, respectively using Gumbels extreme value
method with the help of earthquake catalogue covering period 1926 to 1971. Goswami and
Sarmah (1983) estimated annual earthquake maxima as 5.5 in northeast India using
Gumbels extreme value method with the help of earthquake catalogue during the period
1929 to 1978. Our estimate of largest annual maxima of earthquake is closely related to
these previous studies for the considered region. The most probable largest magnitudes of
earthquakes for different time (ut) have also been estimated and listed in Table 3. Rao and
Rao (1979) and Goswami and Sarmah (1983) estimated most probable 50 years largest
earthquake magnitude for northeast India as 8.5 and 8.6 which is much larger than our
estimate of 7.3. The last earthquake of magnitude 8.5 has occurred in 1950 in this region
and according to these previous studies this 50 years return period for magnitude 8.5 has
been elapsed. Therefore, our estimate of 50 years largest earthquake magnitude of 7.3 is
realistic. Yadav et al. (2010) have estimated more than 50% probability for the occurrences
of earthquakes of magnitudes C7.0 in 50 years in this region by three probabilistic models
namely, Weibull, Gamma and Lognormal using same earthquake catalogue used for this
analysis.
The yearly expected number of earthquakes (Nm) and mean return periods (Tm) of
magnitude C4.0 using Eqs. 3 and 6 are estimated and listed in Tables 4 and 5 for the whole
region and four different zones estimated with the help of three different methods. The
mean return period is one of the most important hazard parameters of any region. The
mean return period curves for whole region and four different zones are plotted in Fig. 5
for three different used methods. It is observed that Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma subduction
zone) has higher expected number of earthquakes and smaller mean return periods in
comparison to other three zones for a particular earthquake magnitude. Thus, Zone-II is
seismically more active and vulnerable to future moderate earthquakes in comparison to
the other three zones. The Zone-II is the most seismically active and highly productive
zone in the study region, where seismicity is mainly related to the subduction of Indian
plate beneath Burmese plate. Gupta and Srivastava (1990) estimated return periods of
3.974.44 years for magnitude 6.0 in Arakan-Yoma subduction zone. Shanker and Sharma
Table 2 Most probable annual maxima in whole region and each zone
Methods

Whole region

Zone-I

Zone-II

Zone-III

Zone-IV

P = i/(N ? 1)

5.8

5.1

5.5

4.6

5.2

P = (i - 0.5)/N

5.8

5.1

5.5

4.6

5.2

P = (i - 0.3)/(N ? 0.4)

5.8

5.1

5.5

4.7

5.2

123

Methods

Methods

5.8

6.4

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.7

10

15

25

50

75

100

125

150

7.6

7.6

7.5

7.4

7.2

7.0

6.8

6.6

6.4

5.8

7.7

7.6

7.5

7.4

7.3

7.0

6.8

6.7

6.4

5.8

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.1

5.9

5.8

5.6

5.1

6.5

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.2

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.6

5.1

G = i/ G = (i G = (i - G = i/ G = (i (N ? 1) 0.5)/N
(N ? 1) - 0.5)/ 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)
N

Zone-I

6.6

6.5

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.1

5.9

5.8

5.6

7.8

7.7

7.6

7.5

7.3

7.0

6.7

6.6

6.2

5.5

7.6

7.6

7.5

7.3

7.2

6.9

6.7

6.5

6.2

5.5

7.7

7.6

7.5

7.4

7.2

6.9

6.7

6.5

6.2

5.5

6.8

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.3

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.3

4.6

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.2

5.9

5.7

5.6

5.3

4.7

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.3

4.7

6.8

6.7

6.7

6.6

6.4

6.2

6.1

5.9

5.7

5.2

6.7

6.6

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.9

5.7

5.2

G = (i - G = i/ G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 1) 0.5)/N
(N ? 0.4)

G = (i - G = i/ G = (i (N ? 1) 0.5)/N
0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

G = (i - G = i/ G = (i (N ? 1) 0.5)/N
0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)
5.1

Methods

Zone-IV

Methods

Zone-III

Methods

Zone-II

Most probable largest earthquake magnitude for different periods in whole region and each zone estimated by three methods

Years Whole region

Table 3

6.7

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.9

5.7

5.2

G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

157

123

123

36.37

8.02

2.20

0.60

0.16

0.04

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

0.036

0.14

0.57

2.30

9.15

144.60

29.13

4.5

0.041

0.155

0.590

2.25

8.60

32.84

125.36

0.002

0.01

0.05

0.27

1.36

6.75

33.38

0.001

0.007

0.04

0.25

1.43

8.109

45.92

0.002

0.009

0.049

0.259

1.38

7.35

39.17

0.03

0.11

0.33

1.00

3.02

9.08

27.23

0.03

0.09

0.31

1.02

3.35

10.96

35.81

0.03

0.10

0.32

1.01

3.20

10.06

31.62

0.004

0.01

0.04

0.13

0.44

1.40

4.47

0.002

0.008

0.03

0.11

0.41

1.49

5.42

0.003

0.01

0.03

0.12

0.42

1.45

4.96

0.003

0.01

0.08

0.42

2.14

10.79

54.30

0.002

0.01

0.07

0.40

2.30

13.01

73.54

G = (i - G = i/ G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 1) 0.5)/N
(N ? 0.4)

G = (i - G = i/ G = (i (N ? 1) 0.5)/N
0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

G = (i - G = i/ G = (i (N ? 1) 0.5)/N
0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

G = (i - G = i/ G = (i (N ? 1) 0.5)/N
0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

G = i/ G = (i (N ? 1) 0.5)/N

Methods

Methods

Methods

Zone-IV

Methods

Zone-III

Methods

Zone-II

Zone-I

Whole region

4.0 105.84

Table 4 Estimated annual number of earthquakes (Nm) in whole region and each zone

0.002

0.01

0.07

0.41

2.23

11.96

64.14

G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

158
Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

7.9 days

27.3 years

24.7 years

6.5 years

88.4 years

437 years

20.6 years

3.9 years

264.7 days

49.7 days

9.3 days

G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

33.3 days

10.2 days

G = (i 0.5)/N

36.3 days

11.5 days

G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

259.6 days

81.6 days

G = i/
(N ? 1)

Methods

Zone-III

2.9 years

718.3 years 585.8 years 26.8 years

33.9 years

10.4 years

3.2 years
30.4 years

9.7 years

3.1 years

361.7 days 354.9 days 358 days

115 years

31.8 years

8.8 years

2.4 years

243.7 days

67.3 days

G = (i 0.5)/N

93.3 years

27.3 years

8.0 years

2.3 years

250.9 days

73.5 days

G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

59.3 years

11.8 years

2.3 years

170 days

33.8 days

6.7 days

G = i/
(N ? 1)

Methods

Zone-IV

78.3 years

13.9 years

2.5 years

158.4 days

28 days

4.9 days

G = (i 0.5)/N

69.1 years

12.9 years

2.4 years

163.5 days

30.5 days

5.7 days

G = (i 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

232.2 years 416.8 years 318.6 years 298.5 years 442.3 years 370.4 years

72.9 years

22.9 years

7.2 years

120.6 days 108.7 days 113.9 days 2.3 years

40.2 days

13.4 days

G = i/
(N ? 1)

Methods

Zone-II

126.8 years 109.9 years 8.9 years

6.8 years

7.0 21.7 years

17.8 years

6.5 5.9 years

1.7 years

22.4 years

267.2 days 254.9 days

45 days

1.7 years

42.4 days

10.9 days

54 days

6.0 1.6 years

39.8 days

5.0 45.5 days

11.1 days

3.9 years

10 days

G = (i 0.5)/N

5.5 165.3 days 158.5 days 161.9 days 3.6 years

2.5 days

4.5 12.5 days

2.9 days

Methods

G = i/
(N ? 1)

G = i/
(N ? 1)

G=
(i - 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

Methods

G=
(i - 0.5)/
N

Zone-I

Whole region

4.0 3.4 days

Table 5 Estimated return period (Tm) in whole region and each zone

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

159

123

160

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 5 Plots of mean return period (Rt) curves for whole region (a); zone-I (b); zone-II (c); zone-III (d);
and zone-IV (e) estimated by three methods

(1998) also estimated return periods of 57 years for this region for same magnitude. Our
estimate of return periods of 2.93.1 years for magnitude 6.0 in this zone is closely
comparable to these previous studies. Small difference in values of return periods is
obvious due to the different earthquake dataset, source zone size and observation time
period. The Zone-I (Eastern syntaxis) has smaller expected number of earthquakes and
larger return periods in comparison to the other zones, suggesting less vulnerable to future
moderate earthquakes when compared to others. However, this zone has experienced a
devastating great earthquake of magnitude Mw 8.5 in 1950 which caused a huge loss of
lives and properties (Gupta et al. 1986; Bilham 2004; Yadav et al. 2009, 2010). The ZoneIV (Himalayan Thrusts Zone) is second seismically active zone after Zone-II (ArakanYoma subduction zone) in terms of return periods. The mean return periods for magnitude
6.0 are estimated as 1214 years in this zone. Sharma and Malik (2006) estimated return
period as 16.4 years for this zone which was based on about 99 earthquakes occurred in
this region. Our result is analogous and the difference in return period is due to the
difference in period of observation, number of earthquakes used and source zone size. The
Zone-III (the Shillong Plateau) is the third seismically active zone of the study region with

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

Table 6 Probabilities of occurrences of earthquakes, Pt(m), for
different magnitude (m) and time
periods (t)

161

Methods
Rt (m)

G = i/
(N ? 1)

G = (i - 0.5)/
N

G = (i - 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

R1 (5.0)

1.00

1.00

1.00

R1 (5.5)

0.89

0.90

0.89

R1 (6.0)

0.46

0.44

0.45

R2 (6.0)

0.70

0.69

0.69

R5 (6.0)

0.95

0.94

0.95

R10 (6.0)

1.00

1.00

1.00

R10 (6.5)

0.81

0.77

0.79

R20 (6.5)

0.96

0.95

0.95

R10 (7.0)

0.37

0.31

0.33

R20 (7.0)

0.60

0.52

0.56
0.75

Whole region

Zone-I (Eastern Syntaxis)

R1 (5.0)

0.74

0.76

R5 (5.5)

0.75

0.72

0.73

R10 (5.5)

0.94

0.92

0.93

R20 (6.0)

0.67

0.59

0.63

R50 (6.0)

0.94

0.89

0.92

R100 (6.5)

0.68

0.55

0.61

R20 (7.0)

0.04

0.03

0.03

R50 (7.0)

0.11

0.07

0.08

R400 (7.0)

0.60

0.43

0.50

Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma subduction)

R1 (5.0)

0.95

0.97

0.96

R1 (5.5)

0.64

0.64

0.64

R5 (5.5)

0.99

0.99

0.99

R5 (6.0)

0.81

0.79

0.80

R10 (6.0)

0.97

0.96

0.96

R20 (6.5)

0.89

0.85

0.87

R10 (7.0)

0.31

0.26

0.28

R20 (7.0)

0.53

0.45

0.48

R50 (7.0)

0.85

0.77

0.81
0.46

Zone-III (Shillong Plateau)

R5 (5.5)

0.50

0.43

R5 (6.0)

0.20

0.15

0.17

R10 (6.0)

0.35

0.27

0.31

R20 (6.0)

0.58

0.47

0.52

R50 (6.0)

0.89

0.79

0.84

R50 (7.0)

0.19

0.11

0.15

R100 (7.0)

0.35

0.21

0.27

Zone-IV (Himalayan Thrusts Zone)

R1 (5.0)

0.88

0.90

0.89

R1 (5.5)

0.35

0.33

0.34

123

162

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

Table 6 continued

Methods
Rt (m)

G = i/
(N ? 1)

G = (i - 0.5)/
N

G = (i - 0.3)/
(N ? 0.4)

R5 (5.5)

0.88

0.87

0.88

R10 (5.5)

0.99

0.98

0.98

R5 (6.0)

0.35

0.30

0.32

R10 (6.0)

0.57

0.51

0.54

R20 (6.0)

0.82

0.76

0.79

R50 (6.0)

0.99

0.97

0.98

R50 (7.0)

0.15

0.11

0.13

R100 (7.0)

0.28

0.20

0.24

return periods of 2332 years for moderate size earthquake of magnitude 6.0. This region
has experienced a great earthquake of magnitude Mw 8.1 in 1897 which caused huge loss of
lives and properties and it is susceptible for the occurrences of such large earthquakes in
near future (Bilham and England 2001). Sharma and Malik (2006) estimated return period
of 10.323.9 years for this zone, which is analogous to our results. In our study, the mean
return periods of magnitude 6.5 are observed about 67 years, 910 years, 5978 years,
72115 years and 88127 years in whole region, Arakan-Yoma subduction zone (Zone-II),
Himalayan Thrusts Zone (Zone-IV), Shillong Plateau Zone (Zone-III) and Eastern Syntaxis
zone (Zone-I), respectively. Goswami and Sarmah (1983) estimated return periods of
1.9 years for magnitude 6.0 in northeast India region from both methods of Gumbel (1958)
and Knopoff and Kagan (1977) using Gumbels extreme value theory type-I. Our estimate
of return period of 1.61.7 years for magnitude 6.0 in whole region is as good as with the
results of Goswami and Sarmah (1983).
The probabilities, Pt(m), have been estimated for the whole region and four major
seismogenic source zones for certain magnitude (m) and time period (t). Table 6 provides
the information about probabilities of occurrences of earthquakes for different magnitudes
(m) and periods (t). It is observed that occurrence probability is higher in Zone-II (ArakanYoma subduction zone) than other three zones for the occurrences of same medium to
large earthquake magnitude. The earthquake hazard curves (expressed in terms of the
probability expected for earthquakes with the maximum observed magnitudes, and plotted
for magnitudes and for the time span of 25-, 50-, and 100-years) for whole region and each
zone is shown in Fig. 6. From these hazard curves, it is clearly observed that probability of
occurrence of an earthquake with magnitude m C 6.0 in 25-, 50- and 100-year return
periods decreases exponentially with magnitude in all four seismogenic zones. Spatial
variation of earthquake probabilities in next 100 years for magnitude range 6.06.5 and
6.67.0 are shown in Fig. 7a and b, respectively, for four major seismogenic source zones
of considered region. From Fig. 7a, it is observed that Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma subduction
zone) has highest probability (1.00) for the occurrence of an earthquake of magnitude 6.0
6.5 in next 100 years, whereas Zone-I (the Eastern Syntaxis) and Zone-III (the Shillong
Plateau) show lowest probabilities (0.610.97) among four Zones. But, in general, the
probability of occurrences of such magnitude earthquakes in next 100 years is more than
61% in all zones. Similarly, from Fig. 7b, it is observed that the probability of occurrences
of earthquakes of magnitude 6.67.0 in next 100 years is still high (0.971.00) in Zone-II
(Arakan-Yoma subduction zone), whereas other three zones show probability less than

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

163

Fig. 6 Probability-magnitude curves for whole region (a), Zone-I (b), Zone-II (c), Zone-III (d) and ZoneIV (e) for the 25-, 50- and 100-year return periods

60% except Zone-IV (the Himalayan thrusts zone) where it exceeded up to 64%. The
lowest probability (0.160.49) is observed for Zone-I (the Eastern Syntaxis). From above
discussion, it is clear that Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma subduction zone) has high probability

123

164

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

165

b Fig. 7 a Map view of probabilities of occurrences of earthquakes for magnitude range 6.06.5 in the next
100 years in the four major seismogenic source zones of northeast India and adjoining region. Legend at
lower-right corner of map shows the probabilities ranges for each zone. b Map view of probabilities of
occurrences of earthquakes for magnitude range 6.67.0 in the next 100 years in the four major seismogenic
source zones of northeast India and adjoining region. Legend at lower-right corner of map shows the
probabilities ranges for each zone

([95%) of occurrences of earthquakes of magnitude 6.07.0 in next 100 years among four
major seismogenic source zones of northeast India and adjoining region.
Generally, the statistical methods need a large number of observations to estimate
recurrence periods. In this analysis, 26 to 54 years data have been taken to estimate the
seismic hazard parameters. Since, the values of model parameters a and b, which are used
to estimate the probability of occurrences and return periods, do not affect much for short
or long duration of the seismicity data (Shanker and Singh 1997). Therefore, the study may
be considered to be consistent and estimated return periods and probabilities may be used
as quantitative measure of seismicity.

6 Conclusions
The northeast India and adjoining region is one of the most active regions in the Himalayan
seismic belt, which is the triple-junction of three plates, namely, Indian plate, Eurasian
plate and Burmese plate. This region has experienced two great earthquakes of magnitude
Mw 8.1 in 1897 and Mw 8.5 in 1950 and several moderate to large earthquakes, which
caused widespread destructions in this region. It is a surprising thing that such two great
earthquakes have occurred in such a short-time period in the region. Therefore, this region
is most vulnerable to moderate and large earthquakes in near future. In the present study,
the earthquake hazard parameters (most probable largest earthquake magnitudes in t-years,
return periods and probabilities of occurrences of earthquakes of certain magnitude in
certain time period) for moderate to large earthquakes (4.07.0) have been estimated in
northeast India and adjoining region using method of extreme value theory given by
Gumbel (1935, 1958). For this purpose, a homogeneous and complete earthquake catalogue covering time period 1897 to 2007 and prepared by Yadav et al. (2009, 2010) is used.
This study introduces a comparative study of four zones by considering different
datasets using three methods of Gumbel (1958); Knopoff and Kagan (1977) and Bury
(1999). From the analysis, it can be concluded that three methods give almost same results
for the lower magnitudes but for larger magnitudes, Gumbel (1958) method overestimates,
Knopoff and Kagan (1977) method underestimates and the Bury (1999) method gives
average-estimate than other two methods, suggesting the better approach than other two.
The results of this study clearly indicate that Arakan-Yoma subduction zone (Zone-II) has
low mean return periods and high occurrence probability for the occurrences of moderate
to large magnitude earthquakes (6.07.0) in comparison to other three zones. The largest
annual earthquake magnitudes are close to 4.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 and 5.8 in the Shillong Plateau
Zone (Zone-III), the Eastern Syntaxis Zone (Zone-I), the Himalayan Thrusts zone (zoneIV), the Arakan-Yoma subduction zone (Zone-II) and the whole region, respectively. The
Zone-I (the Eastern Syntaxis Zone), Zone-III (the Shillong Plateau Zone) and Zone-IV (the
Himalayan Thrusts Zone) have low probabilities and large mean return period for higher
magnitude earthquakes when compared to Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma subduction zone). It is
observed that Zone-II (Arakan-Yoma subduction zone) has high probability ([95%) of
occurrences of earthquakes of magnitude 6.07.0 in next 100 years among four major

123

166

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

seismogenic source zones of northeast India and adjoining region. The return periods and
probability of occurrences of very large earthquake ([7.0) cannot be established using the
approach used in this study due to the biasing of estimates in higher magnitude range. This
is the limitation of this method.
These results have potentially useful implications in the probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment for moderate to large earthquakes (4.07.0) in the considered region. The
reliability of results of seismic hazard parameters estimation in a given region depends on
the methodology and information input used. Here, we applied a proposed approach in
general way which is derived from the commonly accepted assumptions and constraints
related to earthquake occurrences. In the present study a reliable, homogeneous and
complete seismicity database is used to estimate the hazard parameters, thus, results may
be used as quantitative measures of seismicity for the considered region. The seismic
potentiality presented in this study for four major seismogenic zones of northeast India and
adjoining region can be interpreted as long-term seismic hazard assessment only.
Acknowledgment We are thankful to the Department of Science and Technology and Ministry of Earth
Science, Government of India for providing financial support. First author is thankful to the Director,
INCOIS and HoD, ASG, INCOIS for their support. Sumer Chopra and A. P. Singh helped in preparation of
the manuscript. We acknowledge thoughtful comments and suggestions by Editor-In-Chief Dr. Thomas
Glade and anonymous reviewers which enhanced the quality of manuscript significantly.

References
Abe K (1981) Magnitudes of large shallow earthquakes from 1904 to 1980. Phys Earth Planet Inter 27:
7292
Ambraseys N, Bilham R (2003) MSK Isoseismal intensities evaluated for the 1897 Great Assam Earthquake. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(2):655673
ztrurk S (2005) Relationships between fundamental seismic hazard parameters
Bayrak Y, Yilmazturk A, O
for the different source regions in Turkey. Nat Hazards 36:445462
Bilham R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann Geophys
47(2/3):839858
Bilham R, England P (2001) Plateau pop-up during the great 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature 410:806809
Bormann P, Yadav RBS (2010) Reply to Comments of R. Das and H. R. Wason on A Homogeneous and
Complete Earthquake Catalog for Northeast India and the Adjoining Region by R. B. S. Yadav, P.
Bormann, B. K. Rastogi, M.C. Das and S. Chopra by R. Das and H. R. Wason. Seism Res Lett
81(2):235240
Bury K (1999) Statistical distributions in engineering, Cambridge University Press. ISBN0 521 63506 3
Chandra U (1992) Seismotectonics of Himalaya. Curr Sci 62(1 & 2):4071
Dick ID (1965) Extreme value theory and earthquakes. Proc World Conf Earthq Engg, 3rd, New Zealand
1:4553
Dutta TK (1964) Seismicity of Assam-zone of tectonic activity. Bull Nat Geophy Res Inst 2:152163
Epstein B, Lomnitz C (1966) A model for the occurrence of large earthquakes. Nature 211:954956
Gayskiy VN, Katok AP (1965) Primeneniye teorii extremalnykh znacheniy dlya ocenki povtoryayemosti
silnykh zemletryaseniy, sbornikDinamika zemnoy kory AN SSSR, Nauka, Moskva, p 9
Goswami HC, Sarmah SK (1983) A comparison of the estimated earthquake probabilities in the northeast
Indian region. Tectonophysics 95:9199
GSI (2000) Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs. Geological Survey of India, Spec. Publ. no. 59,
Kolkata, India
Gumbel EJ (1935) Les valeurs extremes des distribution statistiques. Ann Inst H Poincare 5:815826
Gumbel EJ (1958) Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New York, p 375
Gupta GD, Srivastava HN (1990) On earthquake risk assessment in the Himalayan region. Memoir Geological Society of India 23:173199
Gupta HK, Rajendran K, Singh HN (1986) Seismicity of the northeast India Region: Part I: The data base.
Jour Geol Soc India 28:345365
Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1956) Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Annali di Geofisica 9:115

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 56:145167

167

Hagiwara Y (1974) Probability of earthquake occurrence as obtained from a Weibull distribution analysis of
crustal strain. Tectonophysics 23:313318
Karnik V, Hubernova Z (1968) The probability of occurrence of largest earthquakes in the European area.
Pure Appl Geophys 70(1):6173
Knopoff L, Kagan Y (1977) Analysis of the theory of extremes as applied to earthquake problems.
J Geophys Res 82:56475657
Lomnitz C (1974) Global tectonics and earthquake risk. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 320
Makropoulos KC, Burton PW (1984) Greek tectonics and seismicity. Tectonophysics 106:273304
Milne WG, Devenport AG (1969) Distribution of earthquake risk in Canada. Bull Seism Soc Am 59:
729754
Nandy DR (1986) Tectonic, seismicity and gravity of Northeastern India and adjoining region. Mem Geol
Surv India 119:1316
Nordquist JM (1945) Theory of largest values applied to earthquake magnitudes. Trans Am Geophy Un
26-I:2939
ztrurk S, Bayrak Y, Cinar H, Koravos GC, Tsapanos TM (2008) A quantitative appraisal of earthquake
O
hazard parameters computed from Gumbel I method for different regions in and around Turkey. Nat
Hazards 47:471495
Rao PS, Rao BR (1979) Estimated earthquake probabilities in the northeast India and Andman-Nicobar
Island. Mausam 550.341.5:267273
Rikitake T (1976) Recurrence of great earthquakes at subduction zones. Tectonophysics 35:305362
Rikitake T (1991) Assessment of earthquake hazard in the Tokyo area, Japan. Tectonophysics 199:121131
Schenkova Z, Karnik V (1970) The probability of occurrence of largest earthquakes in the European area
Part II. Pure Appl Geophys 80:152161
Shakal AF, Willis DE (1972) Estimated earthquake probabilities in the north circum-Pacific area. Bull Seism
Soc Am 62:13971410
Shanker D, Sharma ML (1998) Estimation of seismic hazard parameters for the Himalayas and its vicinity
from complete data files. Pure Appl Geophys 152:267279
Shanker D, Singh VP (1997) Seismic risk Analysis for the occurrence of medium size earthquakes in Kangra
region of Himachal Pradesh, India. Proc Indian Nat Sci acad 63(A(2)):197202
Shanker D, Yadav RBS, Singh HN (2007) On the seismic risk in the Hindukush-Pamir-Himalaya and their
vicinity. Curr Sci 92:16251630
Sharma ML, Malik S (2006) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and estimation of spectral strong ground
motion on bed rock in north east India. In: 4th international conference on earthquake engineering,
Taipei, Taiwan, Oct 1213, Paper No. 015
Tsapanos TM, Burton PW (1991) Seismic hazard evaluation for specific seismic regions of the world.
Tectonophysics 194:153169
Utsu T (1972) Large earthquakes near Hokkaido and the expectancy of the occurrence of a large earthquake
of Nemuro. Report of the coordinating committee for earthquake prediction 7:713
Utsu T (1984) Estimation of parameters for recurrence models of earthquakes. Bull Earthquake Res Inst
Univ Tokyo 59:5366
Yadav RBS (2009) Seismotectonic modeling of NW Himalaya: A perspective on future seismic hazard.
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, India, pp 124
Yadav RBS, Bormann P, Rastogi BK, Das MC, Chopra S (2009) A homogeneous and complete earthquake
catalog for northeast India and the adjoining region. Seism Res Lett 80(4):609627
Yadav RBS, Tripathi JN, Rastogi BK, Das MC and Chopra S (2010) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake
recurrence in Northeast India and adjoining region, Pure Appl Geophys. doi: 10.1007/s00024010-0105-1

123