Research Article| September 11, 2018 Casualty Estimates in Repeat Himalayan Earthquakes in India Max Wyss; Max Wyss aInternational Centre for Earth Simulation Foundation, 8 Chemin du Vent‐Blanc, 1223 Cologny, Geneva, Switzerland, max@maxwyss.chwyss.adh@gmail.com Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Sushil Gupta; Sushil Gupta bRisk Modeling and Insurance Division, RMSI Private Limited, A‐8, Sector 16, Noida 201301, India Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Philippe Rosset Philippe Rosset aInternational Centre for Earth Simulation Foundation, 8 Chemin du Vent‐Blanc, 1223 Cologny, Geneva, Switzerland, max@maxwyss.chwyss.adh@gmail.com Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Max Wyss aInternational Centre for Earth Simulation Foundation, 8 Chemin du Vent‐Blanc, 1223 Cologny, Geneva, Switzerland, max@maxwyss.chwyss.adh@gmail.com Sushil Gupta bRisk Modeling and Insurance Division, RMSI Private Limited, A‐8, Sector 16, Noida 201301, India Philippe Rosset aInternational Centre for Earth Simulation Foundation, 8 Chemin du Vent‐Blanc, 1223 Cologny, Geneva, Switzerland, max@maxwyss.chwyss.adh@gmail.com Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 11 Sep 2018 Online Issn: 1943-3573 Print Issn: 0037-1106 © Seismological Society of America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2018) 108 (5A): 2877–2893. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170323 Article history First Online: 11 Sep 2018 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Max Wyss, Sushil Gupta, Philippe Rosset; Casualty Estimates in Repeat Himalayan Earthquakes in India. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2018;; 108 (5A): 2877–2893. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170323 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of the Seismological Society of America Search Advanced Search Abstract Quantitative estimates of casualties calculated in models of future earthquakes are essential for realistic preparation for earthquake disasters and for risk reduction. We estimate the number of casualties and strongly affected people (living in the area of intensities MMI [modified Mercalli intensity] = VI+) in case the 1555 and the 1505 Himalayan earthquakes should repeat with similar magnitudes and locations. The source areas, magnitudes, and depths of our scenario earthquakes are derived from parameters given in the literature. Before calculating scenario losses, we validate the loss estimation software QLARM for the area by matching observed intensities and fatality counts, given the source parameters of five historic ruptures: the 2011 M 6.9 Sikkim, the 2005 M 7.6 Kashmir, the 1999 M 6.6 Chamoli, the 1991 M 6.8 Uttarkashi, and the 1905 M 7.8 Kangra earthquakes. Based on the quality of matches, we use somewhat stronger than average attenuation for the scenario loss estimates. Choices of parameters that keep our loss estimates low are hypocentral depths deeper and rupture lengths shorter than values that could also be assumed. For a repeat of the 1555 earthquake, we offer two scenario estimates with M 7.6 and 8. Assuming M 8.0, we estimate 221,000 fatalities, 884,000 injured, and 94 million strongly affected people. For a repeat of the 1505 earthquake, our two scenarios assume M 8.7, and the depths are assumed as 15 and 20 km, respectively. Using a depth of 15 km, we estimate that an earthquake similar to that of 1505 may result in 599,000 fatalities, 1.1 million injured, and 78 million strongly affected people. Our order of magnitude estimates are more quantitative but agree in general with two other loss estimates for Himalayan earthquakes based on different scenarios and methods. To cope with disasters of this scale, great efforts and careful planning are required. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wyss et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: