Evaluation of earthquake potential in China

I present three earthquake potential estimates for magnitude 5.4 and larger earthquakes for China. The potential is expressed as the rate density (that is, the probability per unit area, magnitude and time). The three methods employ smoothed seismicity-, geologic slip rate-, and geodetic strain rate data. I test all three estimates, and another published estimate, against earthquake data.; I constructed a special earthquake catalog which combines previous catalogs covering different times. I estimated moment magnitudes for some events using regression relationships that are derived in this study. I used the special catalog to construct the smoothed seismicity model and to test all models retrospectively. In all the models, I adopted a kind of Gutenberg-Richter magnitude distribution with modifications at higher magnitude. The assumed magnitude distribution depends on three parameters: a multiplicative “ a-value,” the slope or “b-value,” and a “corner magnitude” marking a rapid decrease of earthquake rate with magnitude. I assumed the “b-value” to be constant for the whole study area and estimated the other parameters from regional or local geophysical data.; The smoothed seismicity method assumes that the rate density is proportional to the magnitude of past earthquakes and declines as a negative power of the epicentral distance out to a few hundred kilometers. I derived the upper magnitude limit from the special catalog, and estimated local “a-values” from smoothed seismicity. I have begun a “prospective” test, and earthquakes since the beginning of 2000 are quite compatible with the model.; For the geologic estimations, I adopted the seismic source zones that are used in the published Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Project (GSHAP) model. The zones are divided according to geological, geodetic and seismicity data. Corner magnitudes are estimated from fault length, while fault slip rates and an assumed locking depth determine earthquake rates. The geological model fits the earthquake data better than the GSHAP model.; By smoothing geodetic strain rate, another potential model was constructed and tested. I derived the upper magnitude limit from the Special catalog, and assume local “a-values” proportional to geodetic strain rates. “Prospective” tests show that the geodetic strain rate model is quite compatible with earthquakes.; By assuming the smoothed seismicity model as a null hypothesis, I tested every other model against it. Test results indicate that the smoothed seismicity model performs best.