JDR Vol.18 No.4 pp. 308-318
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2023.p0308


Seismicity Based Maximum Magnitude Estimation of Subduction Earthquakes in Peru

Juan Carlos Tarazona*,† ORCID Icon, Zenon Aguilar* ORCID Icon, Nelson Pulido**, Carlos Gonzales* ORCID Icon, Fernando Lazares* ORCID Icon, and Hiroe Miyake***

*Japan Peru Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and Disaster Mitigation (CISMID), National University of Engineering (UNI)
Av. Tupac Amaru 1150, Lima 15333, Peru

Corresponding author

**National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED)
Tsukuba, Japan

***Earthquake Research Institute, The University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan

January 8, 2023
April 6, 2023
June 1, 2023
maximum magnitude, subduction earthquakes, seismogenic sources, interface and intraslab earthquakes, seismic zonation

In seismic design, intensity parameters that represent seismic demand are commonly used. A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment is an accurate way of assessing seismic demand, based on a set of parameters that represent the seismicity of a region. However, because some regions lack sufficient information, the selection of these parameters can be controversial. In Peru, selecting a maximum earthquake magnitude (Mmax) for regional seismic hazard assessments has proven to be a challenging task due to the limited available information concerning of large-magnitude events. This study evaluated the Mmax for subduction earthquakes using scaling relationships, empirical evidence, and the extreme value statistics (Kijko and Bayesian) approach. The seismic catalog was updated to February 2022 and divided into 19 subduction seismic sources (5 interface and 14 intraslab). The results showed that the obtained Mmax are within the range of Mw 8.7–9.0 for the interface and Mw 7.6–8.1 for the intraslab sources, which unlike the Mmax values established in previous regional seismic hazard assessments, are more consistent with the historical and instrumental seismicity and rupture models.

Cite this article as:
J. Tarazona, Z. Aguilar, N. Pulido, C. Gonzales, F. Lazares, and H. Miyake, “Seismicity Based Maximum Magnitude Estimation of Subduction Earthquakes in Peru,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.18 No.4, pp. 308-318, 2023.
Data files:
  1. [1] J. Baker, B. Bradley, and P. Stafford, “Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis,” Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  2. [2] J. L. Castillo Aedo and J. E. Alva Hurtado, “Seismic Hazard in Peru,” Bachelor’s Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, National University of Engineering, 1994 (in Spanish).
  3. [3] A. M. Bolaños Luna and O. M. Monroy Concha, “Uniform Seismic Hazard Spectra,” Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, 2004 (in Spanish).
  4. [4] C. A. Gamarra Rivera and Z. Aguilar Bardales, “New seismogenic sources for seismic hazard assessment and generation of uniform hazard spectra in Peru,” Bachelor’s Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, National University of Engineering, 2009 (in Spanish).
  5. [5] H. Tavera et al., “Re-evaluation of the probabilistic seismic hazard for Peru,” Geophysical Institute of Peru, 2014 (in Spanish). [Accessed November 30, 2022]
  6. [6] M. Á. Roncal Castro and Z. Aguilar Bardales, “Determination of the seismic hazard in the national territory and development of a web application,” Bachelor’s Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, National University of Engineering, 2017 (in Spanish).
  7. [7] E. S. Ferro, “Historia de los sismos más notables ocurridos en el Perú (1513-1974),” Boletín No.3, Serie C: Geodinámica e Ingeniería Geológica, Instituto de Geología y Minería, 1978 (in Spanish). [Accessed November 30, 2022]
  8. [8] S. L. Beck and L. J. Ruff, “Great earthquakes and subduction along the Peru trench,” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., Vol.57, Nos.3-4, pp. 199-224, 1989.
  9. [9] L. Dorbath, A. Cisternas, and C. Dorbath, “Assessment of the size of large and great historical earthquakes in Peru,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol.80, No.3, pp. 551-576, 1990.
  10. [10] E. A. Okal, J. C. Borrero, and C. E. Synolakis, “Evaluation of tsunami risk from regional earthquakes at Pisco, Peru,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol.96, No.5, pp. 1634-1648, 2006.
  11. [11] N. Pulido et al., “Estimation of a source model and strong motion simulation for Tacna City, South Peru,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.6, pp. 925-930, 2014.
  12. [12] N. Pulido et al., “Scenario source models and strong ground motion for future mega-earthquakes: Application to Lima, Central Peru,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol.105, No.1, pp. 368-386, 2015.
  13. [13] H. Tavera, “May 26, 2019 Lagunas earthquake (M8.0): Seismological aspects,” Geological, Mining and Metallurgical Institute, 2019 (in Spanish). [Accessed November 30, 2022]
  14. [14] R. L. Wheeler, “Methods of Mmax Estimation East of the Rocky Mountains,” Open-File Report 2009-1018, United Status Geological Survey, 2009.
  15. [15] A. Kijko and M. A. Sellevoll, “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., Vol.79, No.3, pp. 645-654, 1989.
  16. [16] A. Kijko, “Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, mmax,” Pure Appl. Geophys., Vol.161, No.8, pp. 1655-1681, 2004.
  17. [17] A. C. Johnston, K. J. Coppersmith, L. R. Kanter, and C. A. Cornell, “The Earthquakes of Stable Continental Regions: Vol.1: Assessment of Large Earthquake Potential,” TR-102261-V1, Electric Power Research Institute, 1994.
  18. [18] “Technical Report: Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, and Electric Power Research Institute, 2012.
  19. [19] F. O. Strasser, M. C. Arango, and J. J. Bommer, “Scaling of the source dimensions of interface and intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with moment magnitude,” Seismol. Res. Lett., Vol.81, No.6, pp. 941-950, 2010.
  20. [20] T. I. Allen and G. P. Hayes, “Alternative rupture-scaling relationships for subduction interface and other offshore environments,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol.107, No.3, pp. 1240-1253, 2017.
  21. [21] E. M. Scordilis, “Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude,” J. Seismol., Vol.10, No.2, pp. 225-236, 2006.
  22. [22] M. Pagani, K. Johnson, and J. G. Pelaez, “Modelling subduction sources for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis,” Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ., Vol.501, pp. 225-244, 2020.
  23. [23] G. P. Hayes et al., “Slab2, a comprehensive subduction zone geometry model,” Science, Vol.362, No.6410, pp. 58-61, 2018.
  24. [24] M. E. Pasyanos, T. G. Masters, G. Laske, and Z. Ma, “LITHO1.0: An updated crust and lithospheric model of the Earth,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, Vol.119, No.3, pp. 2153-2173, 2014.
  25. [25] G. Ekström, M. Nettles, and A. M. Dziewoński, “The global CMT project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes,” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., Vols.200-201, pp. 1-9, 2012.
  26. [26] J. K. Gardner and L. Knopoff, “Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol.64, No.5, pp. 1363-1367, 1974.
  27. [27] R. A. Uhrhammer, “Characteristics of northern and central California seismicity,” Earthq. Notes, Vol.57, No.1, pp. 21-37, 1986.
  28. [28] J. C. Stepp, “Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard,” Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Microzonazion for Safer Construction Research and Application, Vol.2, pp. 897-910, 1972.
  29. [29] G. Ameri et al., “On the choice of maximum earthquake magnitude for seismic hazard assessment in metropolitan France – Insight from the Bayesian approach,” 9ème Colloque National AFPS, 2015.
  30. [30] National Library of Chile, “Los terremotos en Chile (1570-2010),” Chilean Memory (in Spanish). [Accessed July 12, 2022]
  31. [31] L. Ye, T. Lay, H. Kanamori, and K. D. Koper, “Energy release of the 2013 Mw 8.3 Sea of Okhotsk earthquake and deep slab stress heterogeneity,” Science, Vol.341, No.6152, pp. 1380-1384, 2013.
  32. [32] J. C. Villegas-Lanza et al., “Active tectonics of Peru: Heterogeneous interseismic coupling along the Nazca megathrust, rigid motion of the Peruvian Sliver, and Subandean shortening accommodation,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, Vol.121, No.10, pp. 7371-7394, 2016.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Sep. 29, 2023