Comparison of Earthquake Parameters and Interpretation using ISC

Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid Data

A DISSERTATION

submitted towards the partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree

of

INTEGRATED MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

in

GEOPHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY

by

Sahil Gawande
19411026

Under the guidance of

Prof. Vipul Silwal

DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROORKEE

ROORKEE – 247667, INDIA

 DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP

I hereby declare that the work which is presented in this dissertation report titled
“Comparison of Earthquake Parameters and Interpretation using ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid Data” in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
undergraduate degree in Geophysical Technology, submitted to the Department of Earth
Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee is an authentic record of my own work
carried out from January 2024 to April 2024 under the supervision of Prof. Vipul Silwal,
Assistant Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. I
have not submitted the matter embodied in this report for the award of any other degree.

Date – May 2024 Sahil Gawande 19411026

Place – IIT Roorkee 5th year, Geophysical Technology

Department of Earth Sciences

IIT Roorkee

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I wish him great success in life and future endeavors.

Date – May 2023 Prof. Vipul Silwal

Place – IIT Roorkee Assistant Professor

Department of Earth Sciences

IIT Roorkee
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I, Sahil Gawande, hereby solemnly declare that the dissertation entitled “Comparison of
Earthquake Parameters and Interpretation using ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid
Data” is being submitted by me for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award
of an undergraduate degree is a record of my own work and that I have not copied the work of
any other person(s), including published literature and material from any website.

Wherever the work of other(s) has been used, it has been duly acknowledged and quoted with
proper reference to the original work.

I fully understand the implications of plagiarism and that if at any stage the above statement
made by me is found to be incorrect, I shall be fully responsible for my actions.

Sahil
Gawande
19411026
5th Year
IMT Geophysical Technology
Department of Earth Sciences
IIT Roorkee
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am forever grateful to God for his mercy and blessings which enabled me to write this
dissertation.

Then, I am extremely grateful to my guide and mentor, [Link] Silwal, Assistant Professor,
Department of Earth Sciences, IIT Roorkee, for his guidance and teachings. He has been an
amazing mentor who has guided me throughout my work and helped me steer through the
challenges. Words fail to express my gratitude towards him. During the course of my
dissertation, I have vastly improved my knowledge and skills, and it is all thanks to him. I
hope to be able to do justice to her mentorship through this dissertation.

I am highly grateful to Prof. Anand Joshi, Head of Department of Earth Sciences Department
of Earth Sciences, IIT Roorkee, for helping me with all the required equipment and
administrative support needed for the fulfillment of this work.

Furthermore, I would be amiss if I didn’t mention Miss Nivika, PhD Scholar under Prof.
Vipul Silwal. She has been the friend I needed while guiding and enabling me to complete
this work. I would discuss my doubts and difficulties with her, and her cheery nature and
amazing skills and knowledge always helped solve the challenges. I will always keep her
mentorship and guidance in my heart.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and batchmates who have been by my side and
supported me.
 ABSTRACT

Seismic activity along major plate boundaries serves as a pivotal aspect in comprehending
earthquake dynamics, essential for enhancing hazard mitigation endeavors. This study delves
into earthquake characteristics along three pivotal plate boundary types: transform,
subduction, and divergent. Leveraging data from the International Seismological Centre (ISC)
portal and the Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) project, we undertake an extensive
analysis spanning the timeframe of 1976 to 2016.

Our investigation categorizes major regions situated along subduction zones, encompassing
South America and Nazca, the Indian Subcontinent, the Arabian Plate, the Indo-Australian
Plate, and the Aleutian Island Arc, Kuril, and Japan Trench. Transform plate boundaries that
include the Alpine Fault, San Andreas Fault, and Queen Charlotte Fault. Divergent
boundaries feature prominently with the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, East Pacific Rise, Mid-Indian
Ridge, Southwest Indian Ridge, Southeast Indian Ridge, and Pacific Antarctic Ridge.

Examining a spectrum of earthquake parameters such as hypocenter location, centroid

attributes, depth, magnitude, azimuth, and temporal occurrence, we deploy PyGMT for
visualization, yielding insightful plots illustrating spatiotemporal trends and rupture
phenomena along these plate boundaries.

Our scrutiny unveils discernible seismic behaviors unique to each plate boundary type.
Subduction zones exhibit profound seismicity at considerable depths, underscored by intricate
rupture mechanisms, whereas transform faults predominantly manifest shallow seismic
events. Divergent boundaries present an amalgamation of shallow to moderate-depth
earthquakes along mid-oceanic ridges.

This endeavor advances our comprehension of earthquake dynamics along major plate
boundaries, fostering improved seismic hazard assessment strategies and fortifying disaster
preparedness and mitigation measures.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP….............................................................. 2
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION...................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................4
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................5
TABLE OF CONTENTS….................................................................................. 7
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................8
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................10
1.1. OBJECTIVES…......................................................................................11
2. AREA OF STUDY........................................................................................12
3. LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................. 15
4. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................19
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................... 21
6. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................48
7. REFERENCES…..........................................................................................50
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Name Page Number

Figure 1 ISC Hypocentre location

Figure 2 ISC Hypocentre location of 21

MOR

Figure 3 Histogram of distance and linear 22

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for MOR Region

Figure 4 Plot for time difference for 22

MOR region

Figure 5 Plots for location parameters for 22

MOR Region

Figure 6 ISC Hypocentre location of Mid 23

Indian Ridge

Figure 7 Histogram of distance and linear 23

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for Mid Indian Ridge
Region

Figure 8 Plot for time difference for Mid 24

Indian Ridge region

Figure 9 Plots for location parameters for 24

Mid Indian Ridge Region

Figure 10 ISC Hypocentre location of 25

Pacific Antarctic Range

Figure 11 Histogram of distance and linear 25

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for Pacific Antarctic
Range Region

Figure 12 Plot for time difference for 26

Pacific Antarctic Range region

Figure 13 Plots for location parameters for 27

Pacific Antarctic Range Region

Figure 14 ISC Hypocentre location of 28

Southwest Indian ridge

Figure 15 Histogram of distance and linear 28

regression plot of distance vs
 magnitude for Southwest Indian
ridge Region

Figure 16 Plot for time difference for 29

Southwest Indian ridge region

Figure 17 Plots for location parameters for 29

Southwest Indian ridge Region

Figure 18 ISC Hypocentre location of 30

Arabian Plate

Figure 19 Histogram of distance and linear 30

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for Arabian Plate
Region

Figure 20 Plot for time difference for 31

Arabian Plate region

Figure 21 Plots for location parameters for 31

Arabian Plate Region

Figure 22 ISC Hypocentre location of 32

Indian Sub

Figure 23 Histogram of distance and linear 32

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for Indian Sub
Region

Figure 24 Plot for time difference for 33

Indian Sub region

Figure 25 Plots for location parameters for 33

Indian Sub Region

Figure 26 ISC Hypocentre location of 34

South America and Nazca

Figure 27 Histogram of distance and linear 34

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for South America
and Nazca Region

Figure 28 Plot for time difference for 35

South America and Nazca
region

Figure 29 Plots for location parameters for 35

South America and Nazca
Region
Figure 30 ISC Hypocentre location of 36
Alpine Region

Figure 31 Histogram of distance and linear 36

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for Alpine Region

Figure 32 Plot for time difference for 37

Alpine region

Figure 33 Plots for location parameters for 37

Alpine Region

Figure 34 ISC Hypocentre location of San 38

Andreas

Figure 35 Histogram of distance and linear 38

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for San Andreas
Region

Figure 36 Plot for time difference for San 39

Andreas region

Figure 37 Plots for location parameters for 39

San Andreas Region

Figure 38 ISC Hypocentre location of 40

Queen Charlotte

Figure 39 Histogram of distance and linear 40

regression plot of distance vs
magnitude for Queen Charlotte
Region

Figure 40 Plot for time difference for 41

Queen Charlotte region

Figure 41 Plots for location parameters for 41

Queen Charlotte Region
 INTRODUCTION

Earthquakes, as natural phenomena, are profoundly influenced by the dynamic interactions

occurring along Earth's tectonic plate boundaries. Understanding the intricacies of seismic
activity along these boundaries is paramount for mitigating the associated hazards and
enhancing resilience to potential disasters. This research endeavors to dissect the
characteristics of earthquakes along three primary types of plate boundaries—transform,
subduction, and divergent—across various regions worldwide. By scrutinizing seismic
parameters such as hypocenter location, centroid characteristics, depth, magnitude, azimuth,
and temporal occurrence, we aim to unravel the nuanced dynamics of seismicity along these
boundaries. Leveraging data spanning from 1976 to 2016 sourced from reputable repositories
like the International Seismological Centre (ISC) portal and the Global Centroid Moment
Tensor (GCMT) project, our analysis offers insights into the rupture processes and
spatial-temporal distribution of earthquakes within each boundary type. Through
comprehensive visualization techniques facilitated by geographic information systems, we
endeavor to present a holistic depiction of seismic patterns, thereby contributing to a deeper
understanding of earthquake dynamics and facilitating informed decision-making in seismic
hazard assessment and disaster management
The hypocenter and centroid of an earthquake represent distinct aspects of its source and
rupture characteristics. The hypocenter, also known as the focus, signifies the precise point
within the Earth where the seismic rupture or fault slip originates. It is defined by its depth
below the Earth's surface and its geographical coordinates in terms of latitude and longitude.
Determining the hypocenter involves analyzing seismic waves recorded by monitoring
stations to pinpoint the earthquake's initiation location. In contrast, the centroid of an
earthquake represents the average position of the rupture area or fault slip distribution. It
provides a summary measure of the earthquake's source properties, including its size,
orientation, and overall energy release. Obtaining centroid solutions involves sophisticated
analysis of seismic waveforms, often using techniques such as moment tensor inversion.
While the hypocenter indicates the point of origin of the earthquake, the centroid offers
insights into the spatial distribution of fault slip and seismic energy release, providing
valuable information for seismic hazard assessment and understanding earthquake source
processes.
1.1 Objectives
This dissertation compares the catalogues from GCMT and ISC and looks at source qualities
depending on the parameters in each catalogue. The primary source of data utilised for
earthquake hypocentering is the ISC catalogue, which mostly comprises data from different
regional databases. On the other side, the GCMT catalogue offers details on the earthquake's
centroid and source mechanism..

Specifically, the following objectives will be addressed:

● Obtain the ISC and GCMT datasets, then look for similar occurrences. Comparing the
locations of the hypocenter and centroid is our main goal here. We are aware that the sites
were determined using a 1D velocity model, and that a 3D model and better technique
may yield even better results. As of right now, we take it for granted that the locations are
precise enough to perform comparisons and, at the very least, to set up the workflow.
● In order to examine variations based on tectonic areas, we divide the dataset into several
regions and carry out convergent, divergent, and transform fault analyses for each distinct
tectonic zone.
● Establish workflow for comparison of datasets
• depth differences
• time-differences
• location differences
• Magnitude distance relation
• Distance - time difference
● Condense the results into major discussion points and finding we observe
 AREA OF STUDY

This research focuses on analyzing seismic activity along major tectonic plate boundaries,
categorized into three distinct types: subduction, transform, and divergent.

Subduction Type Plate Boundaries:

South America and Nazca Plate Boundary: This region is characterized by the subduction of
the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate, resulting in significant seismic activity.
Indian Subcontinent: Subduction along the boundaries of the Indian Plate with neighboring
plates, particularly beneath the Eurasian Plate, leads to notable seismic events.
Arabian Plate: Seismic activity along the Arabian Plate boundary, including interactions with
the African and Eurasian Plates, contributes to the geological dynamics of the region.
Indo-Australian Plate: The convergence of the Indo-Australian Plate with neighboring plates,
such as the Eurasian and Pacific Plates, generates seismicity in this area.
Aleutian Island Arc, Kuril Islands, and Japan Trench: These regions are characterized by
subduction zones along the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate,
resulting in frequent earthquakes and volcanic activity.
Transform Type Plate Boundaries:
Alpine Fault: This transform boundary runs along the South Island of New Zealand,
accommodating the movement between the Pacific and Australian Plates.
San Andreas Fault: A prominent transform boundary in California, USA, facilitating lateral
movement between the Pacific and North American Plates.
Queen Charlotte Fault: Located off the coast of British Columbia, Canada, this transform
boundary separates the Pacific Plate from the North American Plate.
Divergent Type Plate Boundaries:
Mid-Oceanic Ridge (MOR): This extensive divergent boundary runs along the ocean floor,
where new crust is continuously formed as tectonic plates diverge.
East Pacific Rise: A major divergent boundary in the Pacific Ocean, characterized by the
spreading of the Pacific Plate and the Nazca Plate.
Mid-Indian Ridge: A divergent boundary in the Indian Ocean, where the African Plate and
the Indo-Australian Plate are moving apart.
Southwest Indian Ridge and Southeast Indian Ridge: These divergent boundaries in the
Indian Ocean are associated with the separation of the African Plate and the Indo-Australian
Plate.
Pacific Antarctic Ridge: Stretching across the Southern Ocean, this divergent boundary marks
the separation between the Pacific Plate and the Antarctic Plate.
This research examines seismic events within these specified regions, aiming to understand
the characteristics and dynamics of earthquakes along different types of plate boundaries.

Figure 1. Location of ISC Earthquake Hypocentre from 1976 to 2016

Dataset

SUBDUCTION
LOWER
NAME UPPER LEFT UPPER RIGHT RIGHT LOWER LEFT
South America
and Nazca (10,-85) (10,-55) (-55,-55) (-55,-85)
Indian Sub. (37,73) (37,89) (25,89) (25,73)
Arabian Plate (42,20) (42,62) (20,62) (25,20)
TRANSFORM
Alpine (-41.5,172) (-44,173) (-46,170.5) (-43.5,168)
San Andreas (43,-123) (43,-114) (32,-114) (32,-124)
Queen Charlotte
Fault (56,-137) (56,-130) (52,-130) (52,-137)
DIVERGENT
MOR (Part A) (70,-50) (70,0) (0,0) (0,-50)
(Part B) (0,-50) (0,0) (-50,0) (-50,-30)
Mid Indian Ridge (10,50) (10,70) (-15,70) (-15,50)
Southwest Indian
Ridge (-50,-4) (-15,60) (-35,70) (-60,0)
Pacific Antarctic
Ridge (-45,138) (-45,-120) (-65,-120) (-65,138)
 LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to determine seismic hazards, it is essential to comprehend earthquake ruptures.

Proper estimation of rupture parameters is limited by the use of traditional rupture analysis
techniques such as moment tensor inversion and hypocenter determination. Comparing the
positions of the centroid and hypocenter in recent research has shed light on the features of
fault rupture. Technological developments that have advanced our knowledge of earthquake
ruptures include reliable Earth models and waveform data processing. The usefulness of these
techniques in determining the direction, length, and bilateral versus unilateral rupture
behaviour is illustrated by case examples. There are still issues, though, such as model
uncertainty and location mistakes. Improved Earth models and event localization techniques
should be the main emphasis of future research to improve seismic hazard assessment.
(Smith, G. P. et al., 1997)

Utilising finite-source rupture models, investigate the scaling characteristics of earthquake

ruptures. They examine 31 slip models from 18 earthquakes, concentrating on how fault slide
varies at various sizes. They discover that although big strike-slip events demonstrate a
breakdown of scale invariance, dip-slip events display self-similar scaling. Large strike-slip
events exhibit an increase in slip with increasing fault length despite the saturation of rupture
breadth, indicating a nonlinear connection between average displacement and fault length.
This finding casts doubt on length- or breadth-only scaling models and shows that fault width
has a significant impact on displacement. The study emphasises how crucial it is to take
complicated stress distribution and fault heterogeneity into account when doing rupture
analysis.
Several models have been presented in the past to explain the scaling aspects of earthquake
ruptures that have been seen. For strike-slip earthquakes, some research propose a W-model
in which slip saturation happens only in very big occurrences. Some advocate for self-similar
scaling regardless of fault type, while others prefer models with linear or continuous
stress-drop scaling. The understanding of scaling connections is further complicated by
variability in rupture propagation and loading processes.
These results have consequences for the understanding of seismic hazards because, for big
strike-slip earthquakes, the continuous rise in mean slip with rupture length predicts higher
displacements and stronger near-source ground motion. It is essential to comprehend the scale
characteristics of earthquake ruptures in order to precisely assess seismic danger and create
robust infrastructure. (P. Martin Mai et al., 2000)

ISC catalog
Phase readings and additional earthquake bulletin data are gathered by the ISC from more
than 130 international institutions. The ISC database can only interpret data from stations that
are listed in the International Registry of Seismograph Stations. Every sufficiently big
earthquake will have a worldwide seismicity catalogue prepared by the International
Seismological Centre (ISC), which aims to provide a thorough description of hypocenters and
phase readings. The term "sufficiently large" lacks a clear meaning, and the completion
criterion changes depending on the context [Willemann, 1999]. However, the initial goal was
to save seismologists from having to repeat calculations and collect data from various sources
for particular research projects. Thus, the ISC strives to at least cover all earthquakes in its
Bulletin that may be captured by many networks that are run separately. Thus, as data
collecting grows increasingly extensive, so has the ISC's mission. (Storchak et al., 2017)

link to ISC catalog: [Link]

GCMT Catalog
The CMT inversion method (Dziewonski et al., 1981) is based on the linear relationship that
exists between the six independent elements of the zeroth-order moment tensor describing the
earthquake source and the elastic vibrations of the Earth generated by the earthquake. This
relationship holds as long as the earthquake source dimension is small relative to the
wavelength of the seismic wave considered and the duration of the source is small relative to
the period of the seismic wave. An additional component of the CMT algorithm is the
estimation of the source centroid, which represents the spatial and temporal center of the
seismic moment or energy released by the earthquake.
The CMT concept is general and can in principle be used with any recorded seismogram,
given that the point-source approximation holds. A necessary condition is, of course, that
synthetic waveforms corresponding to the observed seismograms can be generated with
sufficient fidelity to allow a quantitative comparison. In the CMT algorithm, complete
seismograms are compared in a least squares sense, requiring that the phase and amplitude of
the waveforms can be matched very well. In their original paper, Dziewonski et al. (1981)
used normal-mode summation for a spherical Earth to generate the synthetic seismograms
necessary to retrieve the moment-tensor elements and the earthquake centroid. They found
that the body-wave portion of long-period (T > 45 s) seismograms could be fit well using
spherical-Earth synthetic waveforms, but that surface waves, which are significantly distorted
by propagation through Earth's laterally heterogeneous shallow structure, could not be fit
well. (G. Ekström, 2015)

link to GCMT catalog: [Link]

 METHODOLOGY

Data Collection: The first step involved gathering earthquake data from two
primary sources: the ISC (International Seismological Centre) catalogue for
hypocenter information and the GCMT (Global Centroid Moment Tensor)
catalogue for centroid data. The ISC catalogue provides comprehensive data on
earthquake hypocenters, typically sourced from various regional seismic
networks worldwide. In contrast, the GCMT catalogue focuses on providing
information about the source mechanism, including centroid locations, moment
tensors, and focal mechanisms.
Data Filtering: After collecting the earthquake data from both catalogues, the
next step was to filter the dataset to identify common earthquakes between the
ISC and GCMT datasets. This filtering process was crucial for ensuring
consistency and comparability between the datasets. The filtering criteria
included imposing a maximum distance threshold of 200 kilometers and a
maximum origin time difference of 60 seconds. By applying these criteria, only
earthquakes that met these distance and time constraints were retained for
further analysis. This step aimed to ensure that the earthquakes selected for
comparison were spatially and temporally close enough to be considered as
common events in both datasets. Additionally, the study focused on
earthquakes occurring within a specific time frame, spanning from 1976 to
2016.

Regional Analysis: Once the common earthquakes were identified, the dataset
was further analyzed regionally. Regions along major plate boundaries were
delineated and marked for detailed investigation. This regional analysis allowed
for a more focused examination of seismic activity in specific tectonic settings.
By segmenting the dataset based on plate boundaries, the study aimed to
explore variations in earthquake characteristics and source properties across
different tectonic regions.

Data Interpretation: With the filtered dataset in hand, the earthquake data
underwent thorough interpretation to discern patterns and trends. This involved
analyzing various parameters such as earthquake magnitudes, depths, focal
mechanisms, and spatial distributions. Insights derived from the interpreted
data were used to draw conclusions regarding seismic activity patterns along
plate boundaries. By interpreting the earthquake data, the study aimed to gain a
deeper understanding of the underlying processes driving seismicity in different
tectonic regions.

Mapping: Finally, the findings from the data analysis and interpretation were
visualized and presented on a map using the PyGMT (Python Geographic
Mapping Tools) package. Mapping the earthquake data allowed for the spatial
representation of earthquake distribution and patterns. By plotting the
earthquake locations and associated parameters on a map, such as magnitude
and depth, the study provided a visual depiction of seismic activity along plate
boundaries. This mapping facilitated easier interpretation of the results and
enabled researchers to identify spatial trends and correlations within the
earthquake dataset.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

DIVERGENT: -

MOR (Observations)

Figure2: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 3.2x + -10.4 for x in [5.06, 6.65] Line 2: y = 15.7x + -98.8 for x in [6.65, 7.11]

Figure 3: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of Distance
vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre
Figure 4: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)

Figure 5: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid
The data is primarily within the distance range of 3-6 km from the hypocenter, where the maximum
frequency of earthquakes occurs. These earthquakes typically range in magnitude from 5 to 7, with most
falling between 5.50 to 6.25. Both magnitudes reported by the Global Centroid Moment Tensor
(GCMT) and ISC match closely. The depth difference for the majority of earthquakes is between 0-1
km and 5-6 km, while the time difference typically ranges from 15 to 17 seconds. Additionally, the
azimuth of earthquake occurrences is concentrated between 0 to 45 degrees. Analysis of earthquake
depth difference versus magnitude reveals that most earthquakes occur within a depth difference of 0-5
km, corresponding to the previously mentioned magnitude range. Similarly, earthquakes within the
distance range of 3-6 km typically exhibit a time difference of 15 to 25 seconds. Finally, a linear
regression analysis on distance versus magnitude provides predictive insights into earthquake
magnitudes based on their distances.

MID INDIAN RIDGE

Figure 6: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 0.2072x + 4.6259 for x in [5.46, 6.10] Line 2: y = 29.0349x + -171.4612 for x in [6.10, 7.54]
Figure 7: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of Distance
vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre

Figure 8: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)

Figure 9: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid
The analysis reveals that earthquakes occur most frequently within a distance range of 2-4 km from the
hypocenter, with magnitudes typically ranging between 5 and 6, occasionally reaching 6-7 for distances
between 3-4 km. Both GCMT and ISC magnitudes correlate closely. Majority of earthquakes cluster
within a 10 km radius, primarily within 0-4 km, and have magnitudes ranging from 5.50 to 6. Depth
differences between ISC and GCMT are predominantly within 0-1 km, while time differences cluster
around 20-21 seconds. Depth differences within 0-5 km typically correspond to magnitudes of 5.50 to
5.75. Azimuth analysis indicates a prevalent occurrence in the southeast and northwest direction. For
earthquakes within 2-4 km, time differences are typically under 25 seconds. A linear regression analysis
on distance versus magnitude aids in predictive modeling of earthquake magnitudes based on distance.

PACIFIC ANTARCTIC RIDGE

Figure 10: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 2.9116x + -8.8235 for x in [5.03, 7.23] Line 2: y = 52.9726x + -377.1347 for x in [7.23, 7.78]
Figure 11: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre

Figure 12: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)
Figure 13: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid

The analysis reveals that earthquakes peak in frequency at distances of 3-5 km from the hypocenter,
with magnitudes ranging from 5 to 7, predominantly falling between 5.50 to 6.5. Both GCMT and ISC
magnitudes exhibit close agreement. The majority of earthquakes occur within a 10 km radius,
primarily within 0-8 km, with magnitudes ranging from 5.50 to 6.5. Depth differences between ISC and
GCMT are concentrated within 0-1 km. Time differences cluster around 16-17 sec, 35-37 sec, and
40-41 sec, with a frequency of 18. A majority of depth differences fall within 0-10 km, corresponding to
magnitudes of 5.50 to 6.5. Azimuth distribution is predominant in the northwest direction
(45-135degrees). Most earthquakes are located within 2-8 km, with time differences under 40 sec.
Lastly, a linear regression model predicts earthquake magnitudes based on distance.
SOUTHWEST INDIAN RIDGE

Figure 14: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 1.9378x + -3.8294 for x in [4.95, 5.95]

Line 2: y = 6.2384x + -31.1094 for x in [5.95, 7.01]

Figure 15: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre
Figure 16: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)

Figure 17: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid
The maximum frequency of earthquakes occurs within a distance range of 2-5 km from the hypocenter,
with magnitudes typically falling between 5-6, considered moderate, and occasionally reaching 6-7 for
distances between 1-8 km. The magnitudes reported by both GCMT and ISC align closely. Most
earthquakes cluster within an 8 km radius, primarily between 2-6 km, with magnitudes ranging from
5.50 to 6.5. The depth difference between ISC and GCMT data is predominantly within 0-1 km. The
majority of earthquakes exhibit a time difference of 24-26 seconds, with a frequency of 9 occurrences.
Analysis of depth difference versus magnitude reveals that earthquakes typically occur within a depth
difference of 0-5 km, corresponding to the aforementioned magnitude range. The azimuth of earthquake
occurrences is concentrated between 0-90 degrees (NW direction), as confirmed by latitude-longitude
plots. Most earthquakes are located within a distance range of 2-5 km, with time differences under 40
seconds. Additionally, a linear regression analysis on distance versus magnitude offers predictive
insights into earthquake magnitudes based on their distances.

TABLE 1: Key Insights for Divergent Plate Boundaries

Region peak mag-dist lat_dif lon_di peak peak tdiff distance-t

distance relation f ff depth_diff (sec) diff
(km) (km) relation
y = 3.2x + -10.4 , x in
(5.06 < x < 6.65) y = 0.05x +
MOR 4.5 -0.13 -0.14 -4.50 15.50
3.12
y = 15.7x + -98.8, in
(6.65 < x < 7.11)

Mid 2.5 y=0.2x +4.6, x in -0.09 -0.03 0.50 20.50 y=0.12x

(5.46<x<6.10 +0.02
Indian
Ridge y=29x+-171, x in
(6.10<x<7.54

Pacifi 3.5 y=2.9x + -8.8, x in -0.06 -0.44 0.50 16.50 y=0.02x

(5.03<x<7.23) +4.46
c
Antar y=52.9x+-377.1,x
in (7.23<x<7.78)
ctic
Range

South 3.5 y=1.9x + -3.8, x in -0.13 -0.11 0.50 24.50 y=0.04x +

(4.95<x<5.95) 3.11
west
Indian y=6.2x + -31.1, x
in (5.95<x<7.01)
ridge
CONVERGENT PLATE BOUNDARY: -

ARABIAN PLATE: -(few major quakes (7-8)

Figure 18: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 0.6568x + 2.5388 for x in [4.96, 6.04]

Line 2: y = 7.2042x + -37.4886 for x in [6.04, 7.57]

Figure 19: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre
Figure 20: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)

Figure 21: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid

The earthquake data analyzed indicates that the highest frequency of occurrences is within a distance
range of 0-2 km from the hypocenter, corresponding to earthquakes with magnitudes typically between
5 to 6. Both the magnitudes reported by the Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) and ISC closely
align. The majority of earthquakes are concentrated within a distance of 7 km, primarily falling within
the 0-5 km range, with magnitudes ranging from 5 to 6. Depth differences between ISC and GCMT are
predominantly within 0-1 km. Time differences exhibit two peaks, with the majority occurring between
10-11 seconds and another set between 13-17 seconds. Analysis of depth difference versus magnitude
reveals that earthquakes mostly occur within a depth difference of 0-15 km, with magnitudes ranging
from 5.50 to 6.5, occasionally reaching higher magnitudes. The azimuth rose plot verifies a
concentration of earthquake occurrences between 180-225 degrees. Additionally, earthquakes within the
distance range of 0-2 km typically exhibit time differences under 25 seconds. Lastly, a linear regression
analysis on distance versus magnitude offers predictive insights into earthquake magnitudes based on
their distances.

INDIAN SUBCONTINENT: -

Figure 22: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 3.0716x + -9.4058 for x in [4.96, 7.56]
Line 2: y = 65.9177x + nan for x in [7.56, 7.88]
Figure 23: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre

Figure 24: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)
Figure 25: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid

The seismic activity recorded by ISC primarily occurs within a distance range of 3-4 km from the
hypocenter, with the highest frequency observed in this range and earthquakes typically ranging in
magnitude from 5 to 6. The magnitudes reported by both the Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT)
and ISC show a good match. A majority of earthquakes are concentrated within a distance of 7.5 km,
mostly within 0-5 km, and exhibit magnitudes ranging from 5 to 5.5. The depth difference between ISC
and GCMT measurements is predominantly within 0-1 km. Time differences between seismic events
are primarily observed in two clusters, with the majority falling within 23-24 seconds and another set
within 26-27 seconds. Analysis of depth difference versus magnitude shows that most earthquakes fall
within a depth difference of 0-8 km and exhibit magnitudes ranging from 5 to 5.75, with some reaching
higher magnitudes up to 8. The azimuth of earthquake occurrences is concentrated between 135 to 180
degrees, verified by latitude-longitude plots. Furthermore, earthquakes within the distance range of 3-4
km typically exhibit time differences under 30 seconds. Finally, a linear regression analysis on distance
versus magnitude provides predictive insights into earthquake magnitudes based on their distances.
SOUTH AMERICA AND NAZCA

Figure 26: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 2.2137x + -5.1008 for x in [4.96, 7.28]

Line 2: y = 35.0770x + -249.3694 for x in [7.28, 8.27]

Figure 27: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre
Figure 28: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)

Figure 29: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid

The analysis indicates that earthquakes are most frequent within a distance range of 3-6 km from the
hypocenter, corresponding to moderate magnitudes of 5-6, with occasional stronger events ranging from
6-7 at distances of 1-10 km, albeit with lower frequency. Both Global Centroid Moment Tensor
(GCMT) and ISC magnitudes align closely. The majority of earthquakes occur within a distance of 10
km, primarily between 0-8 km, with magnitudes ranging from 5 to 7. Depth differences between ISC
and GCMT are typically within 0-1 km. Time differences are concentrated around 20-21 seconds and
17-18 seconds. The depth difference between ISC and GCMT data is mainly within 0-25 km, with
magnitudes ranging from 5 to 7, occasionally higher. Azimuth distribution shows a prevalence between
225-270 degrees. The majority of earthquakes fall within a distance of 0-5 km, with time differences
under 40 seconds. A linear regression analysis on distance versus magnitude offers predictive insights
into earthquake magnitudes.

TABLE 2: Key Insights for Convergent Plate Boundaries

Region peak mag-dis lat_diff lon_diff peak peak distance-

distance t depth_di tdiff (sec) tdiff
(km) relation ff (km) relation

Arabian 0.50 y=0.65x 0.04 0.01 0.50 10.50 y=0.01x+2.8

+2.5, x in
(4.96<x<6.04
)

y=7.2x +
-37.4, x in
(6.04<x<7.57
)

Indian 3.50 y=3.07x + -0.02 -0.01 0.50 23.50 y=0.06x+3.03

-9.4, x in
Sub. (4.96<x<7.56
)

y=65.9x +
nan, x in
(7.56<x<7.88
)

South 4.50 y=2.2x +- 0.02 0.03 0.50 20.50 y=0.03x +4.12

5.1, x in
America (4.96<x<7.28
& Nazca )

y=35.0x +
-249.36, x in
(7.28<x<
8.27)
TRANSFORM:

ALPINE

Figure 30: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 2.3542x + nan for x in [5.51, 6.88]

Line 2: y = 49.9858x + -336.9417 for x in [6.88, 7.82]
Figure 31: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre
Figure 32: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)

Figure 33: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid

The maximum frequency of earthquakes occurs within a distance range of 3-4 km from the hypocenter,
with magnitudes typically ranging from 5 to 6. Both the magnitudes reported by the Global Centroid
Moment Tensor (GCMT) and ISC show a close match. Most earthquakes are concentrated within a
distance of 5 km. Analysis of depth differences between GCMT and ISC indicates a majority falling
within the range of 1-2 km. Time differences between earthquakes are most common at 13-14 seconds
and 19-20 seconds, each with a frequency of 3. The depth difference between GCMT and ISC
earthquakes within 0-2 km is typically associated with magnitudes ranging from 5.5 to 6. A rose plot of
azimuth between 135 to 350 degrees confirms earthquake occurrences in that direction. Additionally,
earthquakes within a distance range of 0-5 km typically exhibit time differences under 20 seconds.
Finally, a linear regression analysis on distance versus magnitude provides predictive insights into
earthquake magnitudes based on their distances.

SAN-ANDREAS:

Figure 34: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 1.9067x + -3.6984 for x in [4.97, 6.89]
Line 2: y = 32.4548x + -217.9580 for x in [6.89, 7.28]
Figure 35: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre

Figure 36: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)
Figure 37: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid

The ISC records earthquakes most frequently within a distance range of 1-4 km from the hypocenter,
where earthquake magnitudes typically range from 5 to 6. The magnitudes reported by both the Global
Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) and ISC are closely matched. The majority of earthquakes occur
within a distance of 8 km, primarily in the range of 1-6 km, with magnitudes ranging from 5 to 6. The
depth difference between ISC and GCMT data is typically within 0-1 km. The time difference between
earthquake occurrences is predominantly 6-7 seconds. Analysis of earthquake depth difference versus
magnitude reveals that most earthquakes occur within a depth difference of 0-7 km, with magnitudes
ranging from 5 to 6.25, occasionally higher. A rose plot of azimuth confirms earthquake occurrences
between 225-270 degrees. Additionally, earthquakes within a distance range of 1-4 km typically exhibit
a time difference of under 10 seconds. Finally, a linear regression analysis on distance versus magnitude
offers predictive insights into earthquake magnitudes based on their distances.

QUEEN CHARLOTTE FAULT

Figure 38: Plot of ISC Hypocentre

Line 1: y = 2.1004x + -5.3529 for x in [5.46, 7.48]
Line 2: y = 71.7716x + nan for x in [7.48, 7.77]

Figure 39: a. Histogram of distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Piecewise Linear Regression of
Distance vs magnitude of ISC hypocentre

Figure 40: a. Histogram of time difference between origin time of ISC hypocentre and GCMT centroid b. Scatter plot of
Distance between ISC hypocentre and GCMT Centroid vs Time difference between the origin time of ISC hypocentre and
GCMT centroid (time-difference, velocity)
Figure 41: a. Histogram of Latitude difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid b. Histogram of Longitude
difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid c. Histogram of Depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and
GCMT Centroid d. Azimuth frequency rose plot of direction from ISC hypocentre to GCMT Centroid

The ISC's earthquake data analysis reveals several key findings: earthquakes occur most frequently
within a distance range of 3-65 km from the hypocenter, with magnitudes predominantly falling
between 5-6, occasionally reaching 6-7, particularly within the 4-5 km range albeit with lower
frequency. The magnitudes reported by both GCMT and ISC align closely. Most earthquakes cluster
within a 7 km distance, primarily within 0-5 km, and exhibit magnitudes ranging from 5.50 to 6. Depth
differences between ISC and GCMT data typically fall within 0-1 km. The majority of earthquakes
exhibit a time difference of 5-6 seconds. Depth differences within 0-5 km and magnitudes ranging from
5 to 6.25 are common. Analysis of azimuth reveals a concentration between 180-225 degrees.
Additionally, earthquakes predominantly occur within a 0-5 km distance range, with time differences
typically under 20 seconds. Finally, a linear regression model predicts earthquake magnitudes based on
distance.
TABLE 3: Key Insights for Transform Plate Boundarie

Region peak mag-di lat_diff lon_dif peak peak tdiff distance-td

distance st f depth_dif (sec) iff relation
(km) relatio f (km)
n

Alpine 3.50 y=2.3x + 3, -0.12 -0.01 -1.50 13.50 y=0.45x + -5.53

x in
(5.51<x<6.8
)

y=49.9x +
-336.9, x in
(6.88<x<
7.82)

San 1.50 y=1.9x -0.09 -0.08 0.50 6.50 y=0.02x + 3.37

+-3.6, x in
Andreas (4.97<x<6.8
9)

y=32.4x+
-217.9, x in
(6.89<x<7.2
8)

Queen 4.50 y=2.1x -0.07 0.03 0.50 5.50 y=-0.01x + 5.92

+-5.3, x in
Charlotte (5.46<x<7.4
8)

y=71.7x +
3, x in
(7.48<x<7.7
7)

Discussion:
It's important to consider the methodologies used in the study and explore possibilities for future
improvements. Our analysis has relied on seismic data and a framework based on the 1D velocity
model for determining earthquake locations. While this model has provided valuable insights
into the relationships between ISC hypocenters and GCMT centroids, it's essential to
acknowledge its limitations and consider potential enhancements for future investigations.
One significant limitation of our current approach is the reliance on the 1D velocity model,
which may not fully capture the complexities of seismic wave propagation through
heterogeneous geological structures. Inaccuracies inherent in the 1D model could potentially
compromise the precision of earthquake locations and centroid determinations. Therefore, an
area for improvement lies in adopting more advanced and consistent models, such as 3D wave
models, which offer a more comprehensive representation of subsurface geological features. By
incorporating 3D models into our analysis, we can achieve higher-resolution seismic imaging and
more precise earthquake locations, thereby enhancing the reliability and accuracy of our results.

Furthermore, while our study assumes the precision of earthquake locations derived from the ISC
and GCMT catalogues, the use of more sophisticated models could yield even better outcomes.
By leveraging state-of-the-art technologies and methodologies, future research endeavors can
refine our understanding of seismic activity and its associated parameters. The integration of
advanced modeling techniques holds promise for uncovering new insights into earthquake
dynamics and improving our ability to assess seismic hazards effectively.

Importantly, the framework developed in this study serves as a valuable foundation for future
research in earthquake seismology. The methodology employed herein can be adapted and
applied to analyze seismic data from various regions and time periods, providing a versatile
framework for investigating seismic activity across diverse geological settings. By continuing to
refine and expand upon this framework, researchers can contribute to the advancement of
earthquake science and enhance our capacity to mitigate seismic risks and safeguard vulnerable
communities.

In summary, while our current study has provided valuable insights into the relationships
between hypocenters and centroids, there is ample opportunity for further refinement and
enhancement. By embracing advancements in modeling techniques and methodologies, we can
strive towards achieving greater precision and accuracy in earthquake location determinations.
Moreover, the framework developed in this study lays the groundwork for future research
endeavors, offering a robust foundation for continued exploration and discovery in earthquake
seismology.
 CONCLUSION

The distance between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid is not more than 5km for all the
selected regions.
The depth difference between ISC Hypocentre and GCMT Centroid is within 1 km but for
MOR it is -4.5km and for Alpine it is -1.5km which indicates that the centroid is located at
deeper depths compared to hypocenter and reasons behind this could be several:-
MOR:-

[Link] Processes:-If seismic activity is concentrated deeper beneath the ridge axis due to
mantle processes, the centroid may be located at a deeper depth compared to the shallow

hypocenters associated with immediate crustal deformation.

b. Fault Complexity :- Although the Mid Oceanic Ridges are generally characterized by
extensional regime and shallow earthquakes, fault can be complex. Some segments may have
deep-seated faults or fractures that contribute to seismic activity at greater depths. In such
cases the centroid may reflect the average depth of seismic activity across the entire fault.
[Link] Wave Propagation:-Seismic waves generated by earthquakes at mid-ocean ridges
can travel through the oceanic crust and upper mantle. The propagation of these waves can be
influenced by the structure and composition of the Earth's interior. If seismic waves travel
more efficiently through deeper layers, they may result in a centroid that is located deeper

than the hypocenter.

[Link] Flexure:-Mid-ocean ridges experience significant flexure and deformation as tectonic

plates diverge. This flexure can extend into the mantle beneath the ridge axis. If seismic
activity associated with this flexure occurs at greater depths, it could contribute to a deeper
centroid compared to the hypocenter depths associated with shallower crustal deformation.
Alpine:-
[Link] Complexity:-a major strike-slip fault, meaning that the movement between the two
tectonic plates (the Pacific Plate and the Indo-Australian Plate) is predominantly horizontal.
However, the fault system is not uniform along its entire length. It consists of various
segments and branches, some of which may have deeper-seated faults or fractures
contributing to earthquake activity at greater depths. In such cases, the centroid may reflect
the average depth of seismic activity across the fault system.
[Link] Limitations:- We had very limited earthquake data for the analysis along the Alpine
Fault. The accuracy of earthquake locations, particularly in remote or inaccessible areas, can
be influenced by factors such as the density of seismic monitoring stations and the quality of
seismic data. Inaccuracies in hypocenter depths or incomplete earthquake catalogs may affect
interpretations of centroid depths.

Time difference observed between isc hypocentre (initial rupture) and centroid is very short,
typically of the order of second. As per our conclusions on an average is least for transform
and maximum for divergent plate [Link] time difference reflects the duration and
complexity of the seismic rupture as it spreads across the fault [Link] nature of this time
difference can vary among different types of tectonic boundaries: transform, divergent, and
convergent boundaries, each having distinct tectonic activities that influence the earthquake
mechanisms.
The time difference for continental earthquakes is relatively lower than oceanic earthquakes.
 REFERENCES

● Di Giacomo, D., E.R. Engdahl and D.A. Storchak (2018). The ISC-GEM Earthquake
Catalogue (1904–2014): status after the Extension Project, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10,
1877-1899, doi: 10.5194/essd-10-1877-2018.
● Dziewonski, A. M., T.-A. Chou and J. H. Woodhouse, Determination of earthquake
source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity, J.
Geophys. Res., 86, 2825-2852, 1981. doi:10.1029/JB086iB04p02825
● Ekström, G., M. Nettles, and A. M. Dziewonski, The global CMT project 2004-2010:
Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 200-201, 1-9,
2012. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.04.002
● P. Martin Mai, Gregory C. Beroza; Source Scaling Properties from Finite-Fault-Rupture
Models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2000;; 90 (3): 604–615. doi:
[Link]
● Smith, G. P., & Ekström, G. (1997). Interpretation of earthquake epicenter and CMT
centroid locations, in terms of rupture length and direction. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, 102(1-2), 123-132. [Link]
● Storchak, D.A., D. Di Giacomo, I. Bondár, E.R. Engdahl, J. Harris, W.H.K. Lee, A.
Villaseñor and P. Bormann (2013). Public Release of the ISC-GEM Global Instrumental
Earthquake Catalogue (1900-2009). Seism. Res. Lett., 84, 5, 810-815, doi:
10.1785/0220130034
● Storchak, D.A., D. Di Giacomo, E.R. Engdahl, J. Harris, I. Bondár, W.H.K. Lee, P.
Bormann and A. Villaseñor (2015). The ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake
Catalogue (1900-2009): Introduction, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 239, 48-63, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2014.06.009.
● Wessel, P., Luis, J., Uieda, L., Scharroo, R., Wobbe, F., Smith, W. H. F., & Tian, D.
(2019). The Generic Mapping Tools Version 6. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems ,
20 (11), 5556–5564. [Link]