Updated earthquake Catalogue for South America suitable for PSHA: Time window pre-1964

Abstract

On the frame of SARA (The Seismic Risk in South America), the task 4 project goal was to compile an earthquake catalogue for South America, homogeneous as far as possible, in terms of Mw. The methodology has been development of a critical inventory of all public studies related to earthquakes of South America, incorporating the CERESIS available data, recent national and international studies and analysis conducted during the project. The main problem of the catalogue is the need to express the values of magnitude in terms of Mw. This task was performed: i) adopting the Mw values already available from ISC-GEM, other catalogues and few macroseismic studies; ii) converting to Mw the available Ms and mb values, by making use of global empirical relationships and relation for Brazil (low magnitudes) published in literature; iii) using the method of Bakun and Wentworth calibrated regionally for some events that have a sufficient number of macroseismic data, based on what already has been worked out in Ecuador, Venezuela and recently in Colombia which was developed in SARA project iv) determining Mw(Intensity) relationships to Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Chile, for those earthquakes which do not have magnitude assessment but a value of maximum intensity or epicentral intensity is available. Finally, earthquake parameters are assessed for 2556 earthquakes in the time-window 1513-1963; the lower threshold is Mw=5[-0.2] for the Andean region. For Brazil is not applying a lower threshold. We have still more than 1700, low size earthquakes, for which the Mw(Intensity) relationships could not be applied, while for more than 200 earthquakes no size assessment is available.

Full text

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
Paper N° 1332
Registration Code: S-J1464705314
UPDATED EARTHQUAKE CATALOGUE FOR SOUTH AMERICA:
TIME WINDOW PRE-1964
A.A. Gómez-Capera(1), M. Stucchi(2), M. Arcila(3), M. Bufaliza(4), J. Choy(5), E. Minaya(6), L. Leyton(7) ,
M. Pirchiner(8), H. Rendón(9), L. Rodriguez(10), A. Sarabia(3), H. Tavera (11), H. Yepes (12)
(1)Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, sezione di Milano, Italia
(2) Eucentre, Pavía, Italia
(3)Servicio Geológico Colombiano, Bogotá, Colombia
(4)Instituto Nacional de Prevención Sismica, San Juan, Argentina
(5)Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias, Laboratorio de Geofísica, Mérida-Venezuela.
(6)Observatorio de San Calixto, La Paz, Bolivia
(7) Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
(8)Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil
(9)FUNVISIS, Caracas, Venezuela
(10)CERESIS, Lima, Perú
(11)Instituto Geofísico del Perú, Lima, Perú
(12)Instituto Geofísico de la Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
Abstract
On the frame of the project SARA (The South America Risk Assessment), the goal of task 4 (T4 from now on) is
to compile an earthquake catalogue for South America, in terms of Mw building on the CERESIS available data,
recent national and international studies and analysis conducted during the project. In particular, they include
the latest versions of catalogue CERESIS-91 prepared for the Pan American Institute of Geography and History
(PAIGH), which was later employed by the same CERESIS in linking the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment
Programme (GSHAP); the determination of parameters by recent studies, including those proposed by the ISC-
GEM catalogue, and where available, the national catalogues that meet the criteria of transparency required by
the project. The activities describe here refer to the pre-1964 time window.
The first phase of the study has been the development of a critical inventory of all public studies related to
earthquakes of South America. Studies for the same event have been associated with each other from the
comparison of the time, of the epicentre coordinates and the size of the earthquake. For each event, a set of
parameters considered reliable has been preliminarily selected.
The main problem of the catalogue is the need to express the values of magnitude in terms of Mw. Currently,
few studies on earthquakes provide that value. For many events, values in terms of Ms and mb are available;
although for most cases, because of the time of occurrence of these events, the magnitude values were calculated
from macroseismic data. For these earthquakes we have used empirical conversion relationships published in
literature (Mw / Ms and Mw / mb).
There are also events for which a value of Imax or Io is available, only. For these events, Mw/Io regional
relationships have been determined, using the most reliable and recent data terms of Mw and Io.
In a second phase, for some events that have a sufficient number of macroseismic data, the source parameters
have been determined using the method of Bakun and Wentworth, regionally calibrated, based on what already
has been worked out in Ecuador, Venezuela in literature and Colombia in the present project.
Keywords: earthquakes; catalogue; South America

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
1. Introduction
South America has a long tradition of intensive historical earthquake investigation [1]. The Regional Centre for
Seismology for South America (CERESIS) published a first continental scale earthquake catalogue in 1985, built
on the first published set of macroseismic data points in the world [2]. Investigation continued on a national
basis, mostly with reference to large earthquakes.
The South America Risk Assessment (SARA) project was a regional programme promoted by the Global
Earthquake Model (GEM) initiative which lasted between 2013 and 2015. The project aimed to calculate seismic
hazard and seismic risk, and to estimate the compounding social and economic factors that increase the physical
damage and decrease the post-event capacities of populations to respond to and recover from damaging
earthquake events in South America, by involving local experts from the region. On the frame of seismic hazard
component of SARA project, the task 4 project (T4 entry) goal was to compile a new earthquake catalogue for
South America, homogeneous as far as possible, in terms of Mw, building upon the methods, implementations
and products released by the GEM Global components (ISC-GEM catalogue [3] and Global Earthquake History
[4]), and the most updated public material available at CERESIS [5], at the national agencies and in the scientific
institutions of the region.
A critical inventory of all public studies related to earthquakes of South America has been compiled,
incorporating the CERESIS available data, recent national and international studies and analysis conducted
during the project. The main problem of the catalogue is the need to express the values of magnitude in terms of
Mw. This task was performed: i) adopting the Mw values already available from ISC-GEM, other catalogues and
a few macroseismic studies; ii) converting to Mw the available Ms and mb values, by making use of the
Scordilis [6], plus an ad-hoc, Brazilian relationship [7] for Brazil to events with low magnitudes; iii) using the
method of Bakun and Wentworth [8] calibrated regionally for some events that have a sufficient number of
macroseismic data, based on what already has been worked out in Ecuador, Venezuela and recently in Colombia
which was developed in SARA project [9] using macroseismic data from Colombian Geological Survey [10] iv)
determining regional Mw(Intensity) linear relations to Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Chile for those
earthquakes which do not have magnitude assessment but a value of maximum intensity or epicentral intensity is
available [9].
At the end, earthquake parameters have been assessed for 2556 earthquakes in the time-window 1513-1963. The
lower threshold is Mw=5(-0.2) for the Andean region: we did not use a lower threshold for Brazil. We have still
more than 1700, low size earthquakes, for which the Mw(Intensity) relationships could not be applied, while for
more than 200 earthquakes no size assessment is available at all.
2. Data sources
We first considered the following, public items available at a continental scale
• CERESIS [5] that is the catalogue of South America compiled for GSHAP;
• Engdahl and Villaseñor [11], that is the “Centennial Earthquake Catalog”;
• Storchak et al. [3, 12, 13], that is, the ISC-GEM instrumental earthquake catalogue.
The first South American catalogue was published in 1985 by CERESIS [2], that has been also
considered, to get information on the available macroseismic data points (MDPs).
Next, national current catalogues made available by the partners of this project have been considered. Tab.
1 summarizes the data sources considered and their contribution, while Fig. 1-3 show the distribution of
the entries.
In addition, we have consulted a number of earthquake studies (Tab. 1); only part of them were considered
by the compilers of the national catalogues. For the large earthquakes (M ≥ 7.0), the inventory compiled in
the frame of the GEM-GEH project [4, 14] has been an important source.
2

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
Table 1- Main data sources considered and relevant number of entries
Code
Short Reference
(for the complete one see the References)
Number of
entries
Continental scale data sources
CERES985
CERESIS (1985) [2]
2399
CERES995
CERESIS (1995) [5]
7669
ENGVI002
Engdahl and Villaseñor (2002) [11]
252
ISCGE015
Storchak et al. (2013; 2015) [3, 12, 13]
216
National, current parametric catalogues
OSC013
OSC (2013) [15]
246
BSB012
Catalogo Sismico Brasileiro (2012) [16]
203
SGC014
SGC (2014) [17]
148
ECU014
ECU (2014) [18]
134
FUN014
FUN (2014) [19]
513
INPRE015
INPRES (2015) [20]
48
LEYAL009
Leyton et al. (2009) [21]
484
TAVAL001
Tavera ed. (2001) [22]
3554
Earthquake studies
34 studies published between 1979-2015
[22 to 52]
295
The entries related to the same event have then been clustered. This operation has been performed in two steps:
first, automatically, then manually. The last one has allowed to detect and eliminate several duplications, mainly
inside CERESIS [5], with respect to border earthquakes. In figures 3b and 3c is presented the earthquake history
of Bolivian and Chilean catalogues, to give an idea of the time-distribution of the events.
Fig. 1 - Epicentres in the time-window before 1964
a) by CERESIS (1985); b) by CERESIS (1995)
3

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
Fig. 2 - Epicentres in the time-window before 1964
a) by Engdahl and Villaseñor (2002) b) Storchak et al. (2013; 2015)
Fig. 3 – a) National catalogues epicentres in the time-window before 1964 b) Earthquake history (before 1964)
of Bolivia (OSC, 2013); c) Earthquake history (before 1964) of Chile (Leyton et al., 2009)
4

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
3. Time, location and depth
One entry for each earthquake has been selected as “preferred” with reference to time, location and depth.
Priority was given according to the following order:
• Storchak et al. [3, 12, 13]
• Engdahl and Villaseñor [11]
• recent earthquake studies [23 to 53]
• national catalogues [15 to 22]
• CERESIS catalogue [5]
• CERESIS, SISRA Project [2]
However, when entries from national catalogues clearly coincided with the one from CERESIS [5], the last one
was selected, as it was the root of them and it gives references.
After compiling this material it is possible to say that, in the time-window before 1964, the CERESIS catalogue
[5] contains more entries than the national catalogues which have been submitted to the SARA project
(Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile), or found in websites (Argentina, Peru). It appears that,
in many countries, some entries from CERESIS [5] were not included in the national catalogue because of size
threshold. On the other hand, some entries unknown to CERESIS [5] have been found in some national
catalogues.
Finally, for each earthquake we compiled a row, T4 entry, adopting time, location and depth from the preferred
one.
4. Earthquake size
4.1 The earthquake size in the data sources
The data sources considered provide varied type of magnitude (M). CERESIS [5] entries come with a variety of
magnitude types and values; for some entries several M values of varied type are given. We decided to adopt one
magnitude value according to the following priority scheme:
Mw, Ms, mb, ML, other M.
In addition, CERESIS [5] provides intensity values. The situation in the time-window before 1964, after
adopting the magnitude priority scheme, is the following:
Table 2 - Type of size in CERESIS (1995) and relevant numbers
Country Time-window
N of
entries
Mw Ms mb
M
(other)
Without
M
Argentina
1692-1963
554
111
146
3
294
Bolivia
1650-1963
202
47
123
10
22
Brazil
1720-1963
268
24
207
1
36
Chile
1520-1963
1247
4
254
86
4
899
Colombia
1566-1963
783
705
20
2
56
Ecuador
1541-1963
721
70
78
167
406
Peru
1471-1963
3544
8
180
202
16
3138
Venezuela
1530-1963
348
54
32
67
195
Total
Bef. 1964
7667
12
1445
894
270
5046
Engdahl and Villaseñor [11], too, provide varied types and values of magnitude, including some of unknown
type (UK). Storchak et al. [3, 12, 13] provide Mw. The most updated national catalogues provide varied types of
magnitude. Bolivia gives Ms and mb; Brazil gives mainly mb; Colombia and Ecuador gives M of varied types;
Chile gives Ms; Peru mostly Ms and some Mw; Venezuela gives M (to be interpreted as Ms). As for the
earthquake studies, the modern ones gives Mw of macroseismic origin, mainly assessed with the Bakun and
Wentworth method [8]. Magnitudes not assessed in terms of Mw, Ms or mb have been converted to Ms or mb
5

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
according to [2, 5, 11, 17, 23, 24, 54]. The magnitude of the T4 entries have been compiled selecting the most
reliable value available, according to the above mentioned priority scheme: Mw, Ms, mb, (ML), other M.
In addition, if we have two or more Mw values, or two or more Ms, from two entries referred to the same
earthquake, we selected one of them according to expert judgement. As a general rule we prefer M values the
origin of which is known. At this stage, we had Mw values available for 34% of the entries: we had therefore the
task of determining Mw for about 66% entries.
4.2 Converting Ms or mb to Mw
We considered a number of conversion relationships, summarized in Tab. 3, while Fig. 4a and 4b show them
graphically. We preferred Scordilis relations [6], which gives values similar to the ones proposed by ISC-GEM
[12, 13] in addition, it provides uncertainty. We also considered Contreras Luarte [55] for Chile, but its range of
definition is very limited, and Assumpção et al. [7] for Brazil. Only this one shows a different behaviour;
therefore we adopted it for Brazil, only.
Table 3 - Magnitude conversions considered
Source
Relation
Range
σ
Scordilis [6]
Mw = 0.67(±0.005)Ms+2.07(±0.03)
3.0 ≤Ms ≤6.1
0.17
Scordilis [6]
Mw = 0.99 (±0.02)Ms+0.08(±0.13)
6.2 ≤Ms ≤8.2
0.20
Scordilis [6]
Mw = 0.85 (±0.04)mb+1.03 (±0.23)
3.5 ≤mb ≤6.2
0.29
ISC-GEM [12]
Mw = 0.67 Ms + 2.13
Ms ≤6.47
ISC-GEM [12]
Mw = 1.10 Ms- 0.67
Ms > 6.47
ISC-GEM [12]
Mw = e(-4.66+0.86mb)+ 4.56
4.5 ≤mb ≤6.0
Assumpção et al. [7]
Mw = 1.21 mb-0.76
1.6≤mb≤5.5
0.32
Contreras Luarte [55]
Mw = 1.32mb-1.56
5.0≤mb≤5.5
-
Contreras Luarte [55]
Mw = 1.00Ms+0.07
5.6≤Ms≤7.5
-
Lolli et al. [58]
Mw = exp(2.133+0.063Ms)-6.205
Ms≤5.5
0.17
Lolli et al. [58]
Mw = exp(-0.109+0.229Ms)+2.586
Ms>5.5
0.15
Lolli et al. [58]
Mw = exp(0.741+0.210mb)-0.785
3.6≤mb≤7.2
0.33
Fig. 4 - Comparison among a) varied Ms to Mw relationship;
b) varied mb to Mw relationships
6

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
5. Determining Mw from macroseismic data
At this stage we still had hundreds of entries without Mw, half of them from Peru. For all the entries we had Io
given by CERESIS catalogue [5]. The best would be to determine Mw from the macroseismic data points
(MDPs), making use of repeatable procedures such as the models proposed Bakun and Wentworth [8] or
Gasperini et al. [56, 57], as it has already been done for some earthquakes in Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador
[1, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38 41, 45]. However, this requires MDPs, which are not always available, and the
determination of the regional coefficients of the models:
• to Colombia through a calibration process; this process was developed by T4 [9] using the method of
Bakun and Wentworth [8] calibrated regionally for some events of 20-21st century that have a sufficient
number MDPs from Colombian Geological Survey [10] and it was applied to 29 historical earthquakes
of Colombian territory;
• to Venezuela and Ecuador, the strategy adopted was to use Mw/I empirical relationships available from
literature [29, 41] (Tab. 4)
• to Peru-Chile, Colombia, Bolivia and Argentina from Mw/I linear empirical relationships determined in
the present study (Tab.5)
Table 4 - Magnitude as a function of I from intensity attenuation relations selected
Table 5 - Relations Mw/I obtained for the areas of Peru-Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Argentina
Area Dataset M = f(I)
N of
eq.
Mw
range
Intens.
range
Time-
window
σ
BO
CERES995
Bolivian Catalogue
Mw = 3.9438+0.292 I 18 4.94-6.47 4-8
1650-
1928
0.20
PE
CL
CERES995
ISCGE015
*IGP015
Mw = 4.513+0.286 I 42 5.42-8.19 5-11 1906-
2014 0.47
CO
SGC013
ISCGE015
*RSNC
Mw = 2.761+0.425 I 18 4.30-7.11 4-10 1917-
2015 0.35
AR
CERES995
ISCGE015
INPRES015
Mw = 2.901+0.4287 I 24 4.86-7.45 5-9 1903-
2002 0.37
*IGP= Instituto Geofísico del Perú [59]; *RSNC: Red Sismológica Nacional de Colombia [60]
For sake of homogeneity we have assessed the final Mw uncertainty as equal to 0.60 unit, that correspond to the
mean of 95% confidence level to one intensity data point following the Bakun and Wentworth method [8, 61].
Country Source Mw/Intensity attenuation relations M = f(I)
VE
Palme et al. [41]
I = -2.2237+1.6684 Mw-0.041214x
x is the epicentral distance in km and
x ≤ 120km
Mw = 1.3328+0.5993 I
EC
Beauval et al. [29]
I= -0.85+2.41 Mw-5.39 logΔ
h
Δh is the hipocentral distance in km
Δh = (x2+h2)0.5
h is the focal depth fixed to10km
Mw = 2.58921+0.41494 I
7

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
6. Results and conclusion
We have established the lower Mw threshold at 5 (-0.2) for the areas of the Andean region; for Brazil, no lower
threshold has been established. In such a way we got 2556 events, the distribution of which by data sources is
presented in Fig. 5a, while the relevant count is given in Tab. 6.
Table 6 - Data sources and relevant number of entries
Short Reference
(for the complete one see the
References)
Number of
entries
Short Reference
Number of
entries
CERESIS (1985)
12
Storchak et al. (2013; 2015)
214
CERESIS (1995)
1968
National catalogues
241
Engdahl and Villaseñor (2002)
47
Earthquake Studies
74
Total 2556
Having now determined Mw for all these earthquakes, for the first time we can see the seismicity plotted in
terms of Mw (Fig. 5b). We can also show the earthquake history before 1964 (Fig. 6). In Fig. 7 we also show a
comparison between the T4 catalogue and the ISC- GEM [3, 12, 13]. This comparison shows the large
improvement that this work introduces in the coverage of historical events in South America.
We have still 1766 events with size below the adopted threshold, for most of which the Mw to other parameters
regressions cannot be applied, because they are out of reliability range. In addition, we have 227 without any
size.
8

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
Fig. 5 - Distribution of epicentres in T4 a) by data source ; b) by class of Mw (Mw ≥ 5.0)
Fig. 6 - Earthquake history before 1964 (Mw ≥ 5.0) of South America
Fig. 7 - Comparison of the T4 (red circles) and ISC-GEM catalogues (1900-1963)
9

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
7. References
[1] Giesecke A, Gómez Capera AA, Leschiutta I, Migliorini E (2004): The CERESIS earthquake catalogue and
database of the Andean Region: Background, characteristics and examples of use. Annals of Geophysics, 47, 2/3,
421-435.
[2] CERESIS, Centro Regional de Sismología para América del Sur (1985): Destructive earthquakes of South America
1530-1894, Earthquake Mitigation Program in the Andean Region, SISRA Project, Lima, 14 vols.
[3] ISC-GEM (2015): V 2.0 of the ISC-GEM Catalogue, http://www.isc.ac.uk/iscgem/update_log/
[4] GEH, Global Earthquake History (2013): The GEM Global Historical Earthquake Catalogue (1000-1903).
Available at: http://www.globalquakemodel.org/what/global-projects/historical-catalogue/
[5] CERESIS, Centro Regional de Sismología para América del Sur (1995): Catalogue for South America and he
Caribbean prepared in the framework of GSHAP, http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/static/gshap/ceresis/.
[6] Scordilis EM (2006): Empirical global relations converting Ms and mb to moment magnitude, J. Seismol, 10, 225-
236.
[7] Assumpção M, Ferreira J, Barros L, Bezerra H, França GS, Barbosa JR, Menezes E, Carlos Ribotta L, Pirchiner M,
Nascimento A, and Dourado JC (2014): Intraplate seismicity in Brazil. In Intraplate Earthquakes, pages 50–71,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781139628921, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139628921.004.
[8] Bakun WH, and Wentworth CM (1997): Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity
data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 87, 1502–1521.
[9] Gómez-Capera AA, Stucchi M, with the collaboration of Arcila M, Bufaliza M, Choy J, Leyton L, Pirchiner M,
Rendon H, Rodriguez Valverde L, Sarabia AM, Tavera H, and Yepes H (2016): The T4 working catalogue before
1964 of the SARA project. The South America Risk Assessment – SARA, Global Earthquake Model [GEM], 38p.
[10] Servicio Geológico Colombiano (2013): Sismicidad Histórica de Colombia. Disponible en: http://agata.
sgc.gov.co:9090/SismicidadHistorica/ (consulta:15.02.2014).
[11] Engdahl ER and Villaseñor A (2002): Global Seismicity: 1900–1999, In: W.H.K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P.C.
Jennings, and C. Kisslinger (eds), International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Academic
Press, Part A, Chapter 41, pp. 665–690. (Data from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/centennial/)
[12] Storchak DA, Di Giacomo D, Bondár I, Harris J, Engdahl ER, Lee WHK, Villaseñor A, Bormann P, and Ferrari G
(2012): ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (19009-2009), Final Scientific Report, 99p.
Consulta: 2014.02.15, http://www.globalquakemodel.org/what/seismic-hazard/ instrumental-catalogue.
[13] Storchak DA, Di Giacomo D, Bondár I, Engdahl ER, Harris J, Lee WHK, Villaseñor A and Bormann P (2013):
Public Release of the ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900-2009), Seism. Res. Lett., 84, 5,
810-815.
[14] Albini P, Musson RMW, Rovida A, Locati M, Gómez-Capera AA, Viganó D (2014): The Global Earthquake
History. Earthquake Spectra, 30, 2, 607-627, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
[15] Observatorio San Calixto (2013): Catálogo OSC revisado del 1650 al 2001 final, archivo provisorio al task4.
[16] Catalogo Sismico Brasileiro (2012): Available in: http://goo.gl/lNTtVk
[17] Servicio Geológico Colombiano (2014): Catálogo de terremotos de Colombia; archivo provisorio al task4.
[18] Ecuador (2014): Catalogo de terremotos del Ecuador (archivo provisorio al task4), developed by Beauval et al.
(2013).
[19] FUNVISIS (2014): Catalogo de terremotos del Venezuela, (in progress) archivo provisorio al task4.
[20] INPRES, Instituto Nacional de Prevencion Sismica (2015): Terremotos históricos de la República Argentina.
http://www.inpres.gov.ar/seismology/historicos.php.
[21] Leyton, F., Ruiz S., and Sepúlveda A.A. (2009): Preliminary re-evaluation of probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment in Chile: from Arica to Taitao Peninsula, Adv. Geosci., 22, 147-153.
10

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
[22] Tavera, H. ed. (2001): Catálogo Sísmico del Perú 1471 – 1982, Versión Revisada y Actualizada, Instituto
Geofísico del Perú, Direccion de Sismologia, Lima, 547p. At: http://www.igp.gob.pe/ (consulta 14.12.2015).
[23] Abe K (1979): Size of Great Earthquakes of 1837-1974 Inferred From Tsunami Data, 84, B4, Journal Of
Geophysical Research.
[24] Abe K and Noguchi S (1983): Determination of magnitude for large shallow earthquakes 1898-1917, Physics of
the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 32, 45-59.
[25] Alvarado P, and Beck S (2006): Source characterization of the Sam Juan (Argentina) crustal earthquakes of 15
January 1944 (Mw 7.0) and 11 June 1952 (Mw 6.8), Earth and Planetary Science Letters 243, 615-631.
[26] Alvarado P, Barrientos S, Saez M, Astroza M, Beck S (2009): Source study and tectonic implications of rhe
historic 1958 Las Melosas crustal earthquake, Chile, compared to earthquake damage, Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, 175, 26-36.
[27] Audemard FM (1999): Nueva percepcion de la sismicidad historica del segmento en tierra de la Falla El Pilar,
Venezuela Nororiental, a partir de primeros resultados paleosismicos. Mem. VI congreso Venez. Sismologia e
Ingenieria Sismica (CD-ROM), Merida, Venezuela.
[28] Beauval C, Yepes H, Palacios P, Segovia M, Alvarado A, Font Y, Aguilar J, Troncoso L and Vaca D (2013): An
Earthquake Catalog for Seismic Hazard Assessment in Ecuador, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 103, 2A,773-786.
[29] Beauval C, Yepes H, Bakun WH, Egred J, Alvarado and Singaucho JC (2010): Locations and magnitudes of
historical earthquake in the Sierra of Ecuador (1587-1996). Geoph. Journ. Intern., 181,1613-1633.
[30] Choy JE, Palme C, Guada C. Morandi M and Klarica S (2010): Macroseismic Interpretation of the 1812
Earthquake in Venezuela Using Intensity Uncertainties and A Priori Fault-Strike Information, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am., 100, 1, 241-255.
[31] Cisternas M (2012): El terremoto de Chile central de 1647 como un evento intra-placa, XIII Congreso Geológico
Chileno, Antofagasta, Chile, Libro de resúmenes, 1037-1039.
[32] Dimaté C, Rivera L and Cisternas A (2005): Re-visiting large historical earthquakes in the Colombian Eastern
Cordillera, J. Seismol., 9, 1-22.
[33] Dorbath A, Cisternas A, and Dorbath C (1990): Assessment of the size of large and great historical earthquakes in
Peru, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 80, 3, 551-576.
[34] Dorel J (1981): Seismicity and seismic gap in the Lesser Antilles arc and earthquake hazard in Guadeloupe,
Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 67, 679–695.
[35] Egred J (2004): El terremoto de Riobamba del 4 de febrero de 1797, in Investigaciones en Geociencias, vol. 1, pp.
67-86, eds Alvarado A, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Mothes P., Segovia M, IRD-Instituto Geofísico, Corporación Editora
Nacional, Municipio del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito.
[36] Espinosa Baquero A. (2003): Historia Sísmica de Colombia. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y
Naturales, Universidad del Quindío, Bogotá. CD-ROM.
[37] Gómez-Capera AA, Cifuentes H, Sarabia A, Bindi D, Choy J, Galan R, Pirchiner M, Rodriguez LM, Sanchez A,
Salcedo Hurtado E (2014): Parámetros del terremoto de Cúcuta del 1875 a partir de intensidades macrosísmicas,
IASPEI-LASCS (Asamblea Regional Comisión Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Sismología) Regional Assembly
2014 July 23-25, Bogotá Colombia, Proc. in Earth. Sci. Res. J. Vol. 18 Special Issue, p. 199 (July. 2014).
[38] Gómez-Capera AA, Salcedo-Hurtado E de J, Bindi D, Choy JE, García Peláez J (2014): Localización y magnitud
del terremoto del 1785 en Colombia a partir de intensidades macrosismicas. Revista de la Academia Colombiana
de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, 38,147, 206-217.
[39] Lomnitz, C (2004): Major Earthquakes of Chile: A Historical Survey, 1535-1960, Seismological Research Letters,
75, 3, 368-378.
[40] Mocquet A (2007): Analysis and interpretation of the October 21, 1766 earthquake in the Southeastern Caribbean,
J. Seismol., 11, 381-403.
[41] Palme de Osechas C, Morandi M, and Choy JE (2005): Re-evaluación de las intensidades de los grandes sismos
históricos de la región de la cordillera de Mérida utilizando el método de Bakun & Wentworth, Revista Geográfica
Venezolana, número especial, 233-253.
11

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
[42] Palme C, Choy J, y Guada C. (2009): Wilhalm Sievers y el Terremoto del 29-oct-1900 reflexiones preliminares, V
Jornadas Venezolanas de Sismología Histórica y VI Simposio Venezolano de Historia de las Geociencias, 25-28
de Junio, Mérida, 145-150.
[43] Rengifo M and Lafaille J (2000): Reevaluación del sismo del 28 de abril de 1894, Acta Científica Venezolana, 51,
160-175.
[44] Salcedo Hurtado E de J, Romero Vergara MD, Vallejo Chocué MA (2007), Contribución al análisis macrosísmico
del terremoto del 7 de junio de 1925: principales efectos en la ciudad de Cali, Revista de la Academia Colombiana
de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, 31, 379-394.
[45] Salcedo Hurtado E de J y Gómez-Capera AA (2013): Estudio macrosísmico del terremoto del 18 octubre del 1743
en la región central de Colombia, Boletín de Geología, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga 35, 1,
111-313.
[46] Salcedo Hurtado E de J, y Castaño AN (2011): Reevaluación macrosísmico del terremoto del 12 de julio de 1785
en Colombia, Boletín de Geología, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga, 33, 2, 15-32.
[47] Sarabia Gómez AM, Cifuentes Avendaño HG, y Robertson K (2010): Análisis histórico de los sismos ocurridos en
1785 y 1917 en el centro de Colombia, Revista Colombiana de Geografía, Bogotá, 19, 153-162.
[48] Sarabia AM, y Cifuentes H (2011): Sismicidad Histórica de Colombia: Estudios macrosísmicos 1644-2008 (en
línea), Bogotá. At:http://aplicaciones1.sgc.gov.co/sicat/html/ConsultaBasica.aspx (consulta: 15.02 2014)
[49] Sismología Histórica de Venezuela (2011): At the Universidad de Los Andes, http://sismicidad.ciens.ula.ve/
[50] Sismicité historique de la France, Antilles-Guyane-Mer des Caraïbes, SisFrance-Antilles (2015): histoire et
caractéristiques des séismes ressentis aux Antilles françaises et dans l’archipel des Caraibes,
http://www.sisfrance.net/Antilles/index.asp
[51] Tanner JG, and Shepherd JB (1997): Seismic hazard in Latin America and the Caribbean, Seismic Hazard in Latin
America and the Caribbean, vol. 1. Final Report to the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa,
Canada, Instituto Panamericano de Geografia y Historia, Mexico, D.F., 142 pp.
[52] Tello G, y Pérez I (2005): El Terremoto de 1894: Investigación Histórica. INSUGEO, Serie Correlación
Geológica, 19, 23-40.
[53] Udías A, Madariaga R, Buforn E, Muñoz D. and Ros M (2012): The Large Chilean Historical Earthquakes of
1647, 1657, 1730, and 1751 from Contemporary Documents, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 102, 4, 1639–1653.
[54] Abe K (1981): Magnitudes of large shallow earthquakes from 1904 to 1980, Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors, 27, 72-92.
[55] Contreras Luarte VA (2009): Curvas de atenuación espectrales para sismos chilenos. Memoria para optar el titulo
de Ingeniero Civil, Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Departamento de Ingeniería
Civil, Santiago de Chile, 204p.
[56] Gasperini P, Bernardini F, Valensise G, and Boschi E (1999): Defining seismogenic sources from historical felt
reports, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 89, 94–110.
[57] Gasperini P, Vannucci G, Tripone D, and Boschi E (2010): The location and sizing of historical earthquakes using
attenuation of macroseismic intensity with distance, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 100, 2035–2066.
[58] Lolli B, Gasperini P. and Vannucci G (2014): Empirical conversión between teleseismic magnitudes (mb and Ms)
and moment magnitude (Mw) at the Global, Euro-Mediterranean and Italian scale, Geophys. J. Int. (2014), 199,
805-828.
[59] Instituto Geofísico del Perú (2015): Boletines sísmicos, http://www.igp.gob.pe/portal/
[60] Red Sismológica Nacional de Colombia (2015): Boletines de sismicidad, catálogo de sismicidad instrumental del
Servicio Geológico Colombiano, http://seisan.sgc.gov.co/RSNC/index.php/boletines-de-sismicidad
[61] Bakun WH, and Wentworth CM (1999): Erratum to Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic
intensity data, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 89, 557.
12