the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An Updated, Homogeneous, and Declustered Earthquake Catalog for South Korea and Neighboring Regions
Abstract. The fundamental components for evaluating seismic hazards and forecasting earthquake events in a region include a complete and homogeneous earthquake catalog. Previously, a few studies were performed to combine earthquake databases from various sources to produce a unified earthquake catalog for the Korean Peninsula. To conduct seismic hazard assessments across these regions, this study proposes creating a comprehensive, up-to-date, and unified earthquake catalog for South Korea and its neighboring regions using data from multiple sources. We collected data from the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA), the International Seismological Centre (ISC), and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). The earthquake database covers the time-period from 1905 to 2023, and the geographical area spans 31°–43° N and 122°–132.5° E. As creating a new earthquake catalog entails combining information from many earthquake record sources, we avoided duplication of occurrences that may arise during the integration process by carefully analyzing the timing and location criteria for each earthquake event. To unify the magnitude scale and produce a homogeneous earthquake catalog, both global and regional empirical equations were used to convert the moment magnitude (MW) and other reported magnitude scales. The resulting homogeneous catalog comprises 63,298 earthquake events, with MW ranging from 2.0 to 7.9. Declustering of the homogeneous catalog was then conducted to remove dependent events, such as foreshocks and aftershocks, and to identify the mainshocks. Four declustering methods were used to compare and examine their individual influences on mainshock identification in the catalog. The resulting unified and declustered earthquake catalog provides a useful and dependable database for seismicity analysis, seismotectonic studies, and seismic hazard assessments in and around South Korea.
- Preprint
(5426 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(10866 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-197', Mirela-Adriana Anghelache, 19 Mar 2025
reply
Th study is very well articulated and concise, it provides valuable information and metodologies for assessing the seismic hazard and risk, having in view the seismic activity in the South Korean region and is neighboring. There are presented 4 widely used declusttering methods, a newly completed unified earthquake catalog for the Korean Peninsula and the adjacent regions and the assessment of its completeness. The electronic supplement is valuable too as it comprises: the homogegenous earthquake catalog, the declustered earthquake catalog based on each 4 methods and the completeness analysis results. I strongly recommend the article to be published, as important asset for the scientific community, with the mention that for a better view the figures 8, 9, 11, 13 to be a little more zoomed out.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-197-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-197', Ronnie Kamai, 24 Mar 2025
reply
Please see all comments in the attached file.
-
RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2024-197', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Apr 2025
reply
The study compiles an extensive earthquake catalog (1905–2023) using multiple reliable sources (KMA, ISC, JMA) and ensures consistency through magnitude conversion. It offers a robust seismicity assessment by applying four declustering methods and using Stepp’s method and CUVI for completeness analysis. The research highlights earthquake clustering in South-eastern Korea, aiding seismic hazard and risk assessments, and provides a strong foundation for microzonation and engineering applications. Its well-structured methodology enhances clarity and reproducibility. However, certain aspects require further point-by-point explanations:
- More recent literature on earthquake catalogs of the Korean Peninsula could be added to the introduction section to clarify how this study stands out in comparison.
- Figure 3 and 4, M represents various types of magnitude scales. If the magnitudes scales could be defined by separate colours it would be better.
- Annual reporting of earthquakes with magnitude (all types) ≥2.0 in the study region from the three major agencies: ISC, KMA and JMA database can be shown in a comparative plot for better understanding of the event counts and temporal variation.
- The study uses several magnitude conversion equations from past research. Were any validations performed on the converted magnitudes to check for biases or inconsistencies?
- This study shows a comparison between four different techniques for declustering of the events comprehensively. What do you think? Which one is the best in this case?
- The study applies four different declustering techniques to identify mainshocks and remove dependent events. Were foreshocks considered in the declustering process, or does the analysis focus only on aftershocks? If not, could these methods be adapted to distinguish foreshocks as well?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-197-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
124 | 25 | 9 | 158 | 13 | 9 | 7 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 25
- XML: 9
- Total: 158
- Supplement: 13
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1