Search

The little-known work by Ludwig Heinrich Jeitteles (1830–1883) on the 1858 Žilina strong earthquake in the Carpathian Mountains is commemorated and analysed. Besides his detailed macroseismic analysis of the earthquake — including the construction of isoseismal lines according to local macroseismic reports — Jeitteles was the first to superimpose the macroseismic field over a generalized geological map, which enabled him to describe the earthquake effects in relation to the geological structure of the affected region. These achievements allow us to acknowledge L.H. Jeitteles as one of founding fathers of seismological research of midnineteen century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As large destructive seismic events are not frequent in Algeria, anexhaustive knowledge of the historical seismicity is required to have arealistic view of seismic hazard in this part of the world. This research workpresents a critical reappraisal of seismicity in the north-eastern Algeria forseismotectonic and seismic hazard purposes. This part of work focuses onthe seismicity of pre-1900 period for the area under consideration[33°N-38°N, 4°E-9.5°E]. By going back tothe available documentary sources and evaluating and analysing the eventsin geographical, cultural and historical context, it has been possible toidentify 111 events, from 1850–1899, which are not reported in therecent Algerian catalogue. Several spurious events, reported in standardlistings, have been deleted and nine unknown events have been discovered.It is quite clear that macroseismic information derived from press reportsand published documents in Algeria, under certain conditions, is veryincomplete, even for destructive earthquakes, located in the countrysideaway from communication centres. One of the reasons for this iscensorship, noticeable during the colonisation period. Critical analysis ofnewly collected information has allowed the determination and/or theimprovement of the macroseismic parameters of each event, such aslocation, maximum epicentral intensity and magnitude to produce anearthquake catalogue as homogeneous and complete as the available data,for the zone under study. The criteria used in this research are explainedand eight historical earthquakes have been the subject of retrospectivemacroseismic field construction.The investigation of historical earthquakes is one of the most important taskin studying seismotectonic for seismic hazard evaluation purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides a procedure for assessing seismic hazardand uncertainties in regions that are characterised by a large non-instrumental earthquakedatabase and a seismic and tectonic behaviour which doesn't allow an evident seismic zonation.This procedure is a synthesis of the non-zoning or non-parametric methodology (using extremevalues distribution functions as proposed by Epstein and Lomnitz, 1966) and the zoning orparametric methodology (using the theorem of total probability as proposed by Cornell, 1968)via a logic tree procedure taking into consideration the advantages offered by each of these.Taking the area which we shall describe as the east coast of Spain and surrounding inland areas,an application was made and a specific logic tree was developed in order to solve the problems anduncertainties related to the evaluation of the seismic hazard using both methodologies. The use of thelogic tree allowed the systematisation of a large number of solutions obtained. A number of relevantresults were obtained which show that in some cases there are great differences in the seismichazard results provided by the non-zoning and the zoning methodologies. In these cases, mean value andstandard deviation of the obtained results provide an intermediate solution to the over-conservativeestimation provided by the non-zoning methodology and the lowest results provided by the zoningmethodology. In other cases results provided by both methodologies are significantly closer.In any case, synthesis among both methodologies gives a wider knowledge of the uncertaintiesassociated with the seismic hazard results. Finally uncertainties increase with the decreaseof the annual probability of exceedence and in sites with a seismic history of large size earthquakes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we present magnitude (Ms) – magnitude(mb) and magnitude-intensity relationships which areconsidered the most adequate in the Ibero-Maghrebianregion. This work is based on selected samples ofrecently revised events with magnitude mb assigned bythe Instituto Geográfico Nacional (I.G.N.) and Msassigned by I.S.C and N.E.I.C., and isoseismal mapsfrom 142 events. Using these data, we have obtainedone magnitude (Ms) – magnitude (mb) relationship, twomagnitude (mb and Ms) assignment relationships viaepicentral intensity (I0), and ten magnitude (mb andMs) assignments relationships via macroseismicinformation: four using Ambraseys' methodology (1985)and six using the isoseismal area of degree III, IV and VI. According to the obtained results it could be concluded that historical magnitude assignment with lesser uncertainties are those obtained via macroseismic information using magnitude-intensity relationships with Ambraseys' methodology (1985). The magnitude-isoseismal area assignment relationships have, in most cases, great differences depending on the degree of the isoseismal area used. Magnitude assignments via epicentral intensity have the highest uncertainties. Geographic regionalization of the relationshipshas been studied but the highest correlations and statistical significance are obtained when we fit all the Ibero-Maghrebian region data. Finally we have used the results obtained in this workto assign magnitude to some important historicalearthquakes in the Ibero-Maghrebian region: the 1755Lisbon earthquake, the 1680 Málaga earthquake, the1829 Torrevieja earthquake and the 1884 Arenas del Reyearthquake. According to our relationships andmethodology we have assigned an Ms value of 9.3 ±0.6 to the 1755 Lisbon earthquake (its mb magnitudecannot be estimated due to the saturation of the mbscale), an mb value of 6.3 ±0.4 and an Ms valueof 6.9 ± 0.6 to the 1829 Torrevieja earthquake, anmb value of 6.2 ± 0.4 and an Ms value of 6.4 ±0.6 to the 1680 Málaga earthquake and an mb valueof 6.1 ± 0.4 and an Ms value of 6.5 ± 0.6 tothe 1884 Arenas del Rey earthquake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]