IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Predicting crackling noise in
Comparing Gardner-Knopoff, Gruenthal, and compressional deformation
Leevi Viitanen, Markus Ovaska, Mikko J
Uhrhammer Earthquake Declustering Methods in Alava et al.

- Remarkable changes in the distribution of

Aceh, Indonesia the order parameter of seismicity before
mainshocks
P. A. Varotsos, N. V. Sarlis and E. S.
To cite this article: Juellyan et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1245 012010 Skordas

- Foreshocks and aftershocks of strong

earthquakes in the light of catastrophe
theory
A V Guglielmi
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 193.142.103.119 on 05/10/2023 at 15:30

The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

Comparing Gardner-Knopoff, Gruenthal, and Uhrhammer

Earthquake Declustering Methods in Aceh, Indonesia

Juellyan1,2, Bambang Setiawan3,*, Muttaqin Hasan4, Halida Yunita4, Munira

Sungkar4, Taufiq Saidi4
1
Doctoral Program, School of Engineering, Post Graduate Program, Universitas Syiah
Kuala, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia
2
Awardee, Program Riset Unggulan Universitas Syiah Kuala Percepatan Doktor
(PRUU-PD) Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (LPPM),
Universitas Syiah Kuala
3
Program Study of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Syiah
Kuala, Indonesia
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Syiah Kuala,
Indonesia

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstracts. The sudden release of energy from inside the earth, which generates seismic waves,
causes earthquakes on the earth's surface. Foreshock, mainshock, and aftershock are terms
commonly used in this subject. These phrases refer to the three stages of an earthquake event—
before the main event, the primary event, and after the main event. The earthquake data
catalogue, however, typically does not distinguish between mainshock data and
foreshocks/aftershocks. For seismic-related studies, justifying the mainshock is very crucial.
There are several methods for separating the mainshock of earthquake data from the
foreshocks/aftershocks. This study employs three declustering techniques, including Gardner-
Knopoff (1974), Gruenthal, and Uhrhammer (1986). The present study collected and analyzed
3543 earthquake events from 1971 to 2021 for Aceh region. In order to determine which method
provides the highest a-value and b-value outcomes for Aceh's seismicity conditions, this study
compares the aforementioned three approaches. The Uhrhammer method (1986) has an a-value
of 5.82, a b-value of 1.05, 1893 main shock events, 305 clusters, and 3.3 percent of the total
seismic moment generated at that location are the findings from this study. According to the
Gruenthal method, the results had an a-value of 4.53, a b-value of 0.823, 776 mainshock events,
304 clusters, and released 1.3 percent of the total seismic moment at that location. a-value of 5.1,
b-value of 0.929, 1097 main shock events, 319 clusters, and a release of 1.08 percent of the total
seismic moment at that location were the results of the Gardner-Knopoff method (1974). For
seismic hazard evaluation with the highest level of risk, the Uhrhammer (1986) technique is
appropriate. The Gruenthal approach is suggested for more conservative cases.
Keywords: Aceh, earthquake, mainshock, foreshock, declustering.

1. Introduction
The first step in performing a seismic hazard analysis is to justify the mainshock of the earthquakes.
Many declustering techniques, including the Gardner-Knopoff [1], Reasenberg [2], Zhuang [3],
Uhrhammer method [4], and others, have been proposed by earlier scholars. Each technique for
segregating seismic data has benefits and drawbacks. Stiphout [5] used earthquake data from southern

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

California and Japan with a time range of 1932–2010 to compare the declustering methods of
Reasenberg [2], Zhuang [3], and Gardner–Knopoff [1]. According to this study, using Reasenberg [2]
and Zhuang [3], declustering causes a slowdown for long events and a quick drop in time for brief
events. Furthermore, Stiphout [5] also suggested that estimations become redundant at close distances;
the Gardner-Knopoff technique [1] only eliminates occurrences that are close in space and time and is
not possible long-distance estimation. Using earthquake catalogue data from Turkey, Azak [6] attempted
to compare the approaches of Gardner-Knopoff [1], Reasenberg [2], and Zaliapin [7]. This study
indicated that none of the used approaches accurately identified events from the catalogue. The number
of clusters found using the Reasenberg [2] and Gardner-Knopoff [1] approaches differs significantly.
The Gardner-Knopoff [1] approach and the Zaliapin [7] method both produced results that were pretty
close [6]The present study attempted to compare the declustering approach, which has the same
principle as the windows method, as this is the simplest method for figuring out mainshock and
foreshocks/aftershocks. The largest earthquakes in a specific window of time and space are known as
the main earthquakes or main shocks, whereas the earthquakes that precede the main earthquake are
known as foreshocks [8]The aftershocks are earthquakes that follow the main earthquake. The Gardner-
Knopoff [1], the Gruenthal [9], and the Uhrhammer [4] methods are a few declustering techniques that
take advantage of this fundamental idea [10]

2. Declustering earthquake methods

As aforementioned, the precede shocks will be classified as a foreshock for every earthquake in the
catalogue with magnitude M if it takes place within a specific window of time and space. The earthquake
with the greatest magnitude in the sequence usually becomes the main shock. Within a specific window
of time and space, the subsequent shocks are classified as an aftershock for every earthquake in the
catalogue. Based on the abovementioned assertion, each declustering technique offers a mathematical
formula for the two determining factors, time and distance. The Gardner-Knopoff technique [1]
equations (1), (2), and (3) are used to calculate the mainshock and foreshock, whereas equations (4), (5),
and (6) are for the Gruenthal approach [9], which the author developed as an alternative to the Gardner-
Knopoff method. The final equations are (7) and (8), proposed by Uhrhammer [4] for the relationship
between time and distance [10]

Gardner-Knopoff method [1]

𝑡 = 100.032𝑀+2.7389 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑀 ≥ 6.5 (1)
𝑡 = 100.5409𝑀−0.547 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑀 < 6.5 (2)
𝑑 = 100.1238𝑀+0.983 (3)

Gruenthal method[9]
2
𝑡 = |𝑒 −3.95+(0.62+17.32𝑀) | 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑀 ≥ 6.5 (4)
𝑡 = 102.8+0.024𝑀 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑀 < 6.5 (5)
2
𝑑 = 𝑒 1.77+(0.037+1.02𝑀) (6)

Uhrhammer method[4]
𝑡 = 𝑒 −2.87+1.235𝑀 (7)
𝑑 = 𝑒 −1.024+0.804𝑀 (8)
where M is the earthquake magnitude (Mw), t is the time (days), and d is the distance (km).

2
The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

2.1. Maximum likelihood model

In order to obtain the most representative data, the maximum likelihood model can statistically calculate
earthquake activity characteristics and can eliminate magnitude gaps at specific intervals. This model's
output parameter is called b-value. The fragility of the rock will grow if the b-value is high. The area's
shear stress level will also be higher if the b-value is low [11]The equation provided by Utsu [12] can
be employed to determine b-values (equation 9) [13]The equation proposed by Wekner [14] can be used
to determine a-values (equation 10). The a-value is a parameter that is affected by the volume, time
window, and the number of earthquake events. In other words, it can be said that if the a-value is high,
the seismic activity is high [15]
1
𝑏= ̅ −𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑀
log 𝑒 (9)

𝑎 = log 𝑁(𝑀 ≥ 𝑀𝑜 ) + log (𝑏 ln 10) + 𝑀𝑜 𝑏 (10)

where, variable 𝑀 ̅ is the average magnitude; variable Mmin or Mo is the minimum magnitude contained
in the research data; N is the number of earthquake events that occur; a is the seismicity parameter that
depends on the number of earthquake events, volume, and time window; b is the parameter seismicity
related to the level of rock fragility or the level of shear stress.

3. Result and discussion

The study is being conducted in the Indonesian province of Aceh. Geographically, the study area lies
between latitudes 0.297 – 7.569 N and longitudes 93.208 – 97.822 E. There were 3543 earthquake
events recorded in the earthquake data from 1971 to 2021. This data was obtained from the USGS data
catalog [16]. The data is earthquake data with a minimum magnitude of 4 Mw. The location of the study
and the information used is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. The research location incorporated 3543 earthquake events recorded from 1971 to 2021

3
The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

3.1. Result
This study separates earthquake data using three techniques: Gruenthal [9], Uhrhammer [4], and
Gardner-Knopoff [1]. Table 1 below compares the number of earthquake events falling within a
particular scale range. The findings are then modeled with the maximum likelihood model to produce
the a-values and b-values, as shown in Table 2. The outcomes of maximum likelihood modeling for the
three approaches are shown in Figure 2. The outcomes of the three declustering techniques are shown
in Figure 3. The comparison of magnitude-to-time and magnitude-to-distance in each approach is shown
in Figure 4.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 2. Maximum likelihood recurrence model (a) Gardner-Knopoff method, (b) Gruenthal method,
(c) Uhrhammer method.

4
The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 3. Declustering earthquake data (a) Gardner-Knopoff method, (b) Gruenthal method, (c)
Uhrhammer method.

5
The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

Table 1. Number of earthquake events in each declustering method

Magnitude (M w )
Declustering method
4.00-5.00 5.01-6.00 6.01-7.00 7.01-8.00 8.00-8.30
Gardner-Knopoff (1974) 984 97 11 4 1
Gruenthal (1985) 675 86 10 4 1
Uhrhammer (1986) 1764 114 10 3 1

Table 2. Parameters a-value and b-value for each declustering method

Declustering method a b
Gardner-Knopoff (1974) 5.1 0.929
Gruenthal 4.53 0.823
Uhrhammer (1986) 5.82 1.05

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4. Comparison of magnitude-to-distance and magnitude-to-time (a) Gardner-Knopoff method
[1], (b) Gruenthal method[2], (c) Uhrhammer method[3], (d) combined graph of the three methods [1],
[4], [9].

6
The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

3.2. Discussion
The outcomes revealed some variations among the three techniques. The first comparison of how many
main shocks each method produced (see Table 1). The Uhrhammer technique [4], which included 1892
earthquake events, identified the highest number of main shocks after the declustering process. The
Gardner-Knopoff approach [1], which includes 1097 earthquake events, comes in second. Lastly,
Gruenthal approach [9] suggested 776 earthquake events. The outcomes of recurrence modeling using
the Gutenberg-Richter [1] approach provide the basis for the second comparison (see Table 2).
According to the results of the present study, as shown in Table 2, the Uhrhammer [4] method get the
highest a-value 5.82. It is followed by Gardner-Knopoff [1] approach with an a-value of 5.1. The
Gruenthal method [9]is the last one with a-value of 4.53. The level of seismic activity in a zone increases
with increasing a-value.
Additionally, the b-values for each technique are as follows: 0.929 for the Gardner-Knopoff [1],
0.823 for the Gruenthal method [9], and 1.05 for the Uhrhammer [4]. However, the more brittle the
rocks there are, the greater the b-value in a zone denotes a smaller shear stress experienced. Thus, using
the Gruenthal approach [9], it may be concluded that there is significant shear stress in the zone. Utilizing
the Uhrhammer method [4], the zone exhibits the highest level of rock fragility.
The Gardner-Knopoff method of declustering [1] produced 319 clusters, of which 2446 events (or
69.04 percent) were eliminated from 3543 earthquake occurrences (Figure 4a). As can be observed in
Table 1, the total mainshock contained by this method is 1097 occurrences, distributed throughout each
magnitude interval. This technique released 1.08 percent of the total seismic moment in the zone as
seismic energy. Gruenthal's approach [9] of declustering produced 304 clusters, of which 2767 events
(78.1%) were left out of the total of 3543 earthquake occurrences (Figure 4b). The distribution of the
776 total mainshock occurrences included in this manner for each magnitude interval is shown in table
1. The seismic moment that was released using this technique makes up 1.3% of the total seismic
moment in the zone. Following that, the Uhrhammer method [4] of declustering produced 305 clusters,
of which 1650 occurrences (or 46.57 percent of the total events) were eliminated from the 3543
earthquake events (Figure 4c). This technique contains 1893 mainshock events in total. 3.3 percent of
the total seismic moment was discharged using this way.

4. Conclusion
The present study suggests that the Uhrhammer [4] technique produces data with an a-value of 5.82, b-
value of 1.05, 1893 mainshock events, 305 clusters, and 3.3% of the total seismic moment released at
that location. With an a-value of 4.53, a b-value of 0.823, a total of 776 mainshock events, 304 clusters,
and 1.3 percent of the total seismic moment released at that location, the results of the Gruenthal [9]
method are presented. With an a-value of 5.1, a b-value of 0.929, 1097 main shock events, 319 clusters,
and a release of 1.08 percent of the total seismic moment at that location, the Gardner-Knopoff [1]
method produced findings. The Uhrhammer [4] approach is appropriate for assessing seismic hazards
with the highest level of risk. The Gruenthal[9] approach is advised in the meanwhile for outcomes that
are more conservative.

References
[1] J. K. Gardner and L. Knopoff, “Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with
aftershocks removed, Poissonian?,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 64,
no. 5, pp. 1363–1367, Oct. 1974, doi: 10.1785/BSSA0640051363.
[2] P. Reasenberg, “Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969-1982,” J Geophys
Res Solid Earth, vol. 90, no. B7, pp. 5479–5495, Jun. 1985, doi: 10.1029/JB090iB07p05479.
[3] G. Zhuang, A. S. L. Tsang, N. Zhou, F. Li, and J. A. F. Nicholls, “Impacts of situational factors
on buying decisions in shopping malls,” Eur J Mark, vol. 40, no. 1/2, pp. 17–43, Jan. 2006, doi:
10.1108/03090560610637293.
[4] Uhrhammer R, “Characteristics of northern and southern California seismicity,” Earthquake
Notes, vol. 57, p. 21, 1986.

7
The Second International Seminar on Earth Sciences and Technology (ISEST-2023) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1245 (2023) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1245/1/012010

[5] T. van Stiphout, J. Zhuang, • David Marsan, V. Stiphout, J. Zhuang, and D. Marsan, “Theme V-
Models and Techniques for Analyzing Seismicity Seismicity Declustering,” 2012, doi:
10.5078/corssa.
[6] T. Eroglu Azak, D. Kalafat, K. Şeşetyan, and M. B. Demircioğlu, “Effects of seismic declustering
on seismic hazard assessment: a sensitivity study using the Turkish earthquake catalogue,”
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 3339–3366, Aug. 2018, doi:
10.1007/s10518-017-0174-y.
[7] I. Zaliapin, A. Gabrielov, V. Keilis-Borok, and H. Wong, “Clustering Analysis of Seismicity and
Aftershock Identification,” Phys Rev Lett, vol. 101, no. 1, p. 018501, Jun. 2008, doi:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.018501.
[8] Y. Zhang et al., “Automatic Inversion of Rupture Processes of the Foreshock and Mainshock
and Correlation of the Seismicity during the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence,”
Seismological Research Letters, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 1556–1566, May 2020, doi:
10.1785/0220190343.
[9] G. Grünthal, “The up-dated earthquake catalogue for the German Democratic Republic and
adjacent areas - statistical data characteristics and conclusions for hazard assessment,” 1985.
[10] T. Van Stiphout, J. Zhuang, and D. Marsan, “Seismicity declustering,” Community Online
Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis, no. February, pp. 1–25, 2012, doi: 10.5078/corssa-
52382934.
[11] J. Woessner and S. Wiemer, “Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: Estimating the
magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 684–698, 2005, doi: 10.1785/0120040007.
[12] A. Kijko and A. Smit, “Estimation of the frequency-magnitude Gutenberg-Richter b-value
without level of completeness Fluid-Induced Seismicity in the Central Basin Area: Ground
Motion Prediction and the Development of an Early Warning System for Risk Reduction View
project,” 2018, doi: 10.5078/corssa.
[13] T. Utsu, “A Statistical Significance Test of the Difference in b-value between Two Earthquake
Groups,” Journal of Physics of the Earth, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 37–40, 1966, doi:
10.4294/jpe1952.14.37.
[14] C. H. Chen and S. D. Fassois, “Maximum likelihood identification of stochastic Weiner-
Hammerstein-type non-linear systems,” Mech Syst Signal Process, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 135–153,
Mar. 1992, doi: 10.1016/0888-3270(92)90061-M.
[15] S. Rohadi, H. Grandis, and M. A. Ratag, “Studi Variasi Spatial Seismisitas Zona Subduksi Jawa,”
Jurnal Meteorologi dan Geofisika, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 42–47, 2014, doi: 10.31172/jmg.v8i1.4.
[16] USGS, “USGS Earthquake Catalog,” Earthquake Catalog, 2021.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ (accessed May 17, 2022).