Volume 2, Issue 2 — Year 2025 — Article e100044

ISSN (Online): 3115-8129 Biannually

Seismic Hazard Assessment of Minab City using the Preliminary Gutenberg-Richter Method

Article Type: Research
Pages: e100044
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22034/CGEL.2.2.e100044
Crossmark
Open Access
Authors
Affiliations
  1. Department of Geology, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman 7616913439, Iran
Corresponding author
Email: fe.salaari@gmail.com
ORCID: 0009-0004-2896-0182
Received: 25 August 2025 / Accepted: 18 September 2025 / Published: 18 December 2025
Abstract

Iran is located on a seismically active belt, making earthquakes a frequent occurrence. Given the country's high seismicity and the potential for destructive earthquakes, understanding Iran’s seismic characteristics is crucial. Therefore, studying and assessing the seismic hazard in different regions of Iran is essential. This research evaluates the seismic hazard of Minab city using statistical-probabilistic and analytical methods. In the probabilistic approach, earthquake data from the 20th century within a 200 km radius of the study site were analyzed to estimate the probability of future earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.0 or higher. The study area, Minab County, is located in Hormozgan Province at coordinates 55°00′ to 57°00′ E longitude and 27°00′ to 28°00′ N latitude. For the analytical approach, aerial photographs and 1:100,000-scale geological maps of Minab and its surroundings were examined to identify fault structures. Using ArcMap software, fault segments within a 200km radius of Minab were mapped, and seismic parameters were evaluated. The statistical method was further employed to estimate earthquake probability and recurrence intervals for different magnitudes in the region. This study provides a comprehensive assessment of Minab's seismic hazard, contributing to better risk management and mitigation strategies.

Keywords

Seismic hazard assessment, Gutenberg-Richter method, Minab city, Geotechnics, Earthquake

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within article. No publicly archived dataset was generated.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Highlights
  • Seismic hazard in Minab assessed using probabilistic methods
  • Fault mapping identifies regional seismic risks
  • Results support risk mitigation and planning
References
  1. Abdalla J.A., Al-Homoud A.S. (2004). Seismic hazard assessment of United Arab Emirates and its surroundings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(06), 817-837.
  2. Aglia G., Wijaya M., Raharjo P.P. (2023, May). The Study of Seismic Hazard in Near-Fault Areas Using Probabilistic and Deterministic Approach. Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum, 9(2), 117-126.
  3. Ansari A., Zahoor F., Rao K.S., Jain A.K. (2022). Seismic hazard assessment studies based on deterministic and probabilistic approaches for the Jammu region, NW Himalayas. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15(11), 1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10330-z.
  4. Ayele A., Woldearegay K., Meten M. (2021). A review on the multi-criteria seismic hazard analysis of Ethiopia: with implications of infrastructural development. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 8(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-020-00175-7.
  5. Azarafza M., Ghazifard A., Asghari-Kaljahi E. (2019). Earthquake hazard assessment in Assalouyeh area based on NGA seismicity model. Journal of Natural Environmental Hazards, 7(18), 131-147.
  6. Beauval, C., Yepes, H., Palacios, P., Segovia, M., Alvarado, A., Font, Y., Vaca, S. (2013). An earthquake catalog for seismic hazard assessment in Ecuador. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(2A), 773-786. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120270.
  7. Bommer J.J. (2002). Deterministic vs. probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: an exaggerated and obstructive dichotomy. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 6(spec01), 43-73.
  8. Boominathan A., Dodagoudar G.R., Suganthi A., Uma Maheswari R. (2008). Seismic hazard assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects. Journal of Earth System Science, 117, 853-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0072-4.
  9. Elnashai A.S., Di Sarno L. (2015). Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering: From Source to Fragility (2nd Edition). Wiley, New Jersey, USA.
  10. Foyouzati A., Rofooei F.R. (2024). Seismic hazard assessment studies based on developed deterministic and probabilistic approaches for the central-east of Iran region. World Journal of Engineering, 21(6), 1108-1120. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-04-2023-0100.
  11. Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration of Iran, GSI (2012). Geology map and report for Minab region. The Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration of Iran press, Tehran, Iran.
  12. Ghanbarian M.A., Yassaghi A., Derakhshani R. (2021). Detecting a sinistral transpressional deformation belt in the Zagros. Geosciences, 11(6), 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11060226.
  13. Godano C., Lippiello E., de Arcangelis L. (2014). Variability of the b value in the Gutenberg–Richter distribution. Geophysical Journal International, 199(3), 1765-1771. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu359.
  14. Ismail-Zadeh A., Kumar A. (2021). Deterministic, probabilistic, and data-enhanced models of seismic hazard assessments with some applications to Central Asian regions. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 97, 1508-1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-021-1906-9.
  15. Ko W., Yu C. (2009). Application of Gutenberg-Richter relation in AE data processing. International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 7(1), 69-78.
  16. Kossobokov V.G., Nekrasova A.K. (2012). Global seismic hazard assessment program maps are erroneous. Seismic Instruments, 48, 162-170. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0747923912020065
  17. Krinitzsky E.L. (2003). How to combine deterministic and probabilistic methods for assessing earthquake hazards. Engineering Geology, 70(1-2), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00269-7.
  18. Lapajne J., Motnikar B.S., Zupancic P. (2003). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment methodology for distributed seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93(6), 2502-2515. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020182.
  19. Loi D.W., Raghunandan M.E., Swamy V. (2018). Revisiting seismic hazard assessment for Peninsular Malaysia using deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(9), 2387-2408. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2387-2018.
  20. Lukk A.A., Popandopoulos G.A. (2012). Reliability of determining the parameters of Gutenberg-Richter distribution for weak Earthquakes in Garm, Tajikistan. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 48, 698-720. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1069351312090017.
  21. Magrin A., Peresan A., Kronrod T., Vaccari F., Panza G.F. (2017). Neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment and earthquake occurrence rate. Engineering Geology, 229, 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.09.004.
  22. Marmureanu G., Cioflan C.O., Marmureanu A., Ionescu C., Manea E.F. (1993). Bridging the Gap Between Nonlinear Seismology as Reality and Earthquake Engineering. Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, pp. 409-428.
  23. McCalpin J.P. (2009). Application of paleoseismic data to seismic hazard assessment and neotectonic research. International Geophysics, 95, 1-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-6142(09)95009-4.
  24. Meletti C., Galadini F., Valensise G., Stucchi M., Basili R., Barba S., Boschi E. (2008). A seismic source zone model for the seismic hazard assessment of the Italian territory. Tectonophysics, 450(1-4), 85-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.01.003.
  25. Musson R.M. (2000). The use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment in the UK. Annals of Geophysics, 43(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3617.
  26. Nath S.K., Thingbaijam K.K.S. (2012). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India. Seismological Research Letters, 83(1), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.83.1.135.
  27. Nava F.A., Márquez-Ramírez V.H., Zúñiga F.R., Ávila-Barrientos L., Quinteros C.B. (2017). Gutenberg-Richter b-value maximum likelihood estimation and sample size. Journal of Seismology, 21, 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-016-9589-1.
  28. Nikoobakht S., Azarafza M., Safaei H. (2018). Estimation of Seismicity Parameters and Hazard Assessment of Maragheh City, Iran. Çankaya University Journal of Science and Engineering, 15(1), 1-14.
  29. Ordaz M.G., Cardona O.D., Salgado-Gálvez M.A., Bernal-Granados G.A., Singh S.K., Zuloaga-Romero D. (2014). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment at global level. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.05.004.
  30. Ornthammarath T., Warnitchai P., Worakanchana K., Zaman S., Sigbjörnsson R., & Lai, C. G. (2011). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Thailand. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9, 367-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9197-3.
  31. Panza G.F., Bela J. (2020). NDSHA: A new paradigm for reliable seismic hazard assessment. Engineering Geology, 275, 105403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105403.
  32. Parashar A.K. (2023). Seismic hazard assessment and significance of ground motion prediction equations: a deterministic approach. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(3), 607-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-022-00521-0.
  33. Park S., Hong T.K., Rah G. (2021). Seismic hazard assessment for the Korean Peninsula. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 111(5), 2696-2719. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200261.
  34. Pei W., Zhou S., Zhuang J., Xiong Z., Piao J. (2022). Application and discussion of statistical seismology in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment studies. Science China Earth Sciences, 65, 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-021-9824-0.
  35. Rundle J.B. (1989). Derivation of the complete Gutenberg‐Richter magnitude‐frequency relation using the principle of scale invariance. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 94(B9), 12337-12342. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB094iB09p12337.
  36. Sawires R., Peláez J.A., Santoyo M.A. (2023). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Western Mexico. Engineering Geology, 313, 106959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106959.
  37. Scholz C.H. (2019). The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK.
  38. Tavakoli B., Ghafory-Ashtiany M. (1999). Seismic hazard assessment of Iran. Annals of Geophysics, 42(6), 1013-1021. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3781.
  39. Urban P., Lasocki S., Blascheck P., Do Nascimento A.F., Van Giang N., Kwiatek G. (2016). Violations of Gutenberg–Richter relation in anthropogenic seismicity. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 173(5), 1517-1537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1188-5.
  40. Verma M., Bansal B.K. (2013). Seismic hazard assessment and mitigation in India: an overview. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 102, 1203-1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-013-0882-8.
  41. Vilanova S.P., Fonseca J.F. (2007). Probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment for Portugal. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1702-1717. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050198.
  42. Wang Z. (2011). Seismic hazard assessment: issues and alternatives. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168, 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0148-3.
  43. Zhang Y., Romanelli F., Vaccari F., Peresan A., Jiang C., Wu Z., Panza G.F. (2021). Seismic hazard maps based on Neo-deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment for China Seismic Experimental Site and adjacent areas. Engineering Geology, 291, 106208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106208.
How to cite
Salari, F. (2025). Seismic Hazard Assessment of Minab City using the Preliminary Gutenberg-Richter Method. Civil and Geoengineering Letters, 2(2), e100044. https://doi.org/10.22034/CGEL.2.2.e100044
Note: Please verify the citation against your preferred style guide.
Share
X LinkedIn Facebook Email Mendeley
Article Metrics
1119 Readers
821 Downloads
N/A Citations
PDF XML Back to Issue