Correction: Kim, H.; Et Al. Geospatial Assessment of the Post-Earthquake Hazard of the 2017 Pohang Earthquake Considering Seismic Site Effects

Home , Gyeongju, Kim (Korean surname), Pohang

International Journal of Geo-Information

Correction Correction: Kim, H.; et al. Geospatial Assessment of the Post-Earthquake Hazard of the 2017 Pohang Earthquake Considering Seismic Site Effects. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 375

Han-Saem Kim 1 , Chang-Guk Sun 2,* and Hyung-Ik Cho 1

1 Earthquake Research Center, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Daejeon 305-350, Korea; [email protected] (H.-S.K.); [email protected] (H.-I.C.) 2 Geological Research Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Daejeon 305-350, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-42-868-3265

Received: 21 January 2019; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 29 January 2019

We have recently been made aware of errata and omissions in the introduction section for describing the seismological characteristics of the 2017 Pohang earthquake as stated in the title of this article, which was recently published in ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. [1]. The seismological characteristics (epicenter, depth, magnitude) of 2017 Pohang Earthquake, which was a great matter for the Korean seismologist, have been researched by a seismologist. Thus, we thought that there is a high probability of citation related to the errata because unsuitable quotes induce the different conclusions for seismologist. Thus, we changed the errata to consider the officially published information by the Korean government and to avoid confusion with other results. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers by these changes. This study established a post-earthquake survey framework for the rapid earthquake damage estimation, correlated with seismic site effects, in order to identify the influence of site-specific effects for 2017 Pohang Earthquake. Seismic zonation was determined on the basis of seismic site effect by classifying sites using the multivariate site classification system. We believe that our changes are to clarify the introduction of epicenters considering the officially published information by the Korean Meteorological Administration [2]. Thus, the minor changes of epicenter of mainshock (also aftershocks) have no material impact on the conclusions of our paper. The authors wish to make the following six corrections to this paper [1]:

1. Change in the First Paragraph of Introduction The authors wish to supplement the citation, which was existing references (reference #1 and #2 in the changed manuscript), to clarify the reference of major events of 2017 Pohang Earthquake, as follows: Original text: “The 2017 Pohang earthquake occurred on 15 November 2017, in Heunghae, Pohang in the North Gyeongsang Province in South Korea. [ ... ] The clusters of epicenters were located along an unknown branch of the fault system as well as distributed across the Heunghae basin. Although the degree of seismic ampliﬁcation of the 2017 Pohang earthquake was lower than that of the 2016 Gyeongju earthquake, the Pohang earthquake damage was more severe as its epicenters were spatially concentrated on unconsolidated Quaternary sediments (alluvial fans and granite wash).” to the correct version, as follows: Revised text: “The 2017 Pohang earthquake occurred on 15 November 2017, in Heunghae, Pohang in the North Gyeongsang Province in South Korea [1]. [ ... ] The clusters of epicenters were located along

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 62; doi:10.3390/ijgi8020062 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijgi ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 6

Gyeongju earthquake, the Pohang earthquake damage was more severe as its epicenters were spatially concentrated on unconsolidated Quaternary sediments (alluvial fans and granite wash).” to the correct version, as follows: Revised text: “The 2017 Pohang earthquake occurred on 15 November 2017, in Heunghae, Pohang in the North Gyeongsang Province in South Korea [1]. […] The clusters of epicenters were located along

ISPRSan unknown Int. J. Geo-Inf. branch2019, 8of, 62 the fault system as well as being distributed across the Heunghae basin2 [2]. of 7 Although the degree of seismic amplification of the 2017 Pohang earthquake was lower than that of the 2016 Gyeongju earthquake, the Pohang earthquake damage was more severe as its epicenters anwere unknown spatially branch concentrated of the faulton unconsolidated system as well Quat as beingernary distributed sediments across(alluvial the fans Heunghae and granite basin wash) [2]. Although[2].” the degree of seismic ampliﬁcation of the 2017 Pohang earthquake was lower than that of the 2016 Gyeongju earthquake, the Pohang earthquake damage was more severe as its epicenters were spatially2. Change concentrated in Figure 1 onof Introduction unconsolidated Quaternary sediments (alluvial fans and granite wash) [2].”

2. ChangeFigure in 1 Figuredescribed 1 of the Introduction epicenters and fault-plane solutions of major events of the 2017 Pohang Earthquake,Figure 1 and described also visual the epicentersized the spatial and fault-plane distribution solutions of all aftershock of major eventsepicenter of the(until 2017 July Pohang 2017) Earthquake,without the correct and also reference. visualized The the epicenters spatial distribution and fault-plane of all solutions aftershock were epicenter uncertain (until and July needed 2017) without the correct reference. The epicenters and fault-plane solutions were uncertain and needed further research by the seismologist. Thus, the correct epicenter of major events (1 mainshock and 6 further research by the seismologist. Thus, the correct epicenter of major events (1 mainshock andaftershocks) 6 aftershocks) was revised was revisedas Figure as Figure1 using 1the using officially the ofﬁcially published published information information by the Korean by the KoreanMeteorological Meteorological Administration Administration (reference (reference #1 in the #1changed in the changedmanuscript) manuscript) [2]. Additionally, [2]. Additionally, the high- theresolution high-resolution satellite imagesatellite with image shaded with by shaded terrain by (D terrainEM) was (DEM) applied. was The applied. author The wishes author to wishesmake the to makefollowing the followingcorrection correction to this paper to this [1].paper Due to [1 the]. Due errata, to the replace: errata, replace:

Figure 1. Epicenters and fault-plane solutions of the 2017 Pohang earthquake [2]. with

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 62 3 of 7 ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 6

Figure 2.1. Epicenters of major events of the 2017 Pohang earthquake [1].

3. Change in Table 11 ofof IntroductionIntroduction We have found the corresponding error in Table 1, likewise, in Figure 1. Table 1 and Figure 1 provideWe onlyhave the found seismological the corresponding information error of majorin Table events 1, likewise, of the 2017 in Figure Pohang 1. Earthquake.Table 1 and ToFigure apply 1 theprovide correct only time the of seismological occurrence, theinformation coordinate of of major the epicenter, events of depth,the 2017 magnitude Pohang Earthquake. (ML), Table To 1 should apply be changed. The modiﬁcation of Table 1 (Figure 1) was ofﬁcially published information by the Korean the correct time of occurrence, the coordinate of the epicenter, depth, magnitude (ML), Table 1 should Meteorological Administration (reference #1 in the changed manuscript) [2]. be changed. The modification of Table 1 (Figure 1) was officially published information by the Korean Meteorological AdministrationTable 1. (referenceMajor events #1 ofin thethe 2017 changed Pohang manuscript) earthquake [1].[2].

Table 1. Major events of the 2017 PohangEpicenter earthquake [1]. Magnitude Earthquake Date and Time of Occurrence (KST) Depth (km) Latitude Longitude M M Epicenter Depth MagnitudeL w Earthquake Date and Time of Occurrence (KST) Mainshock 15 November 2017 14:29:32 36.1073Latitude 129.3686Longitude (km) 4.0 ML 5.5Mw 5.4 Aftershock1Mainshock 15 November 15 November 2017 2017 16:49:31 14:29:32 36.1103 36.1073 129.3647 129.3686 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.6 5.4 4.3 Aftershock2Aftershock1 16 November 15 November 2017 2017 09:02:43 16:49:31 36.1149 36.1103 129.3851 129.3647 5.5 2.0 4.6 3.8 4.3 3.6 Aftershock3Aftershock2 19 November 16 November 2017 2017 23:45:48 09:02:43 36.1148 36.1149 129.3770 129.3851 2.0 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.5 Aftershock4Aftershock3 20 November 19 November 2017 2017 06:05:16 23:45:48 36.1385 36.1148 129.3748 129.3770 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.6 Aftershock5Aftershock4 25 December 20 November 2017 2017 16:19:23 06:05:16 36.1077 36.1385 129.3629 129.3748 3.7 5.6 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 Aftershock6 11 February 2018 05:03:04 36.0798 129.3340 4.3 4.8 4.6 Aftershock5 25 December 2017 16:19:23 36.1077 129.3629 5.6 3.8 3.5 Aftershock6 11 February 2018 05:03:04 36.0798 129.3340 4.3 4.8 4.6 to the correct version, asas follows:follows:

Table 1. Major events of the 2017 Pohang earthquake [1].

Date and Time of Epicenter Depth Earthquake ML Occurrence (KST) Latitude Longitude (km) Mainshock 2017-11-15 14:29:31 36.11 129.37 7.0 5.4 Aftershock1 2017-11-15 16:49:30 36.12 129.36 10.0 4.3 Aftershock2 2017-11-16 09:02:42 36.12 129.37 8.0 3.6 Aftershock3 2017-11-19 23:45:47 36.12 129.36 9.0 3.5 Aftershock4 2017-11-20 06:05:15 36.14 129.36 12.0 3.6 Aftershock5 2017-12-25 16:19:22 36.11 129.36 10.0 3.5 Aftershock6 2018-02-11 05:03:03 36.08 129.33 9.0 4.6

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 62 4 of 7

Table 2. Major events of the 2017 Pohang earthquake [1].

Epicenter Earthquake Date and Time of Occurrence (KST) Depth (km) ML Latitude Longitude Mainshock 2017-11-15 14:29:31 36.11 129.37 7.0 5.4 Aftershock1 2017-11-15 16:49:30 36.12 129.36 10.0 4.3 Aftershock2 2017-11-16 09:02:42 36.12 129.37 8.0 3.6 Aftershock3 2017-11-19 23:45:47 36.12 129.36 9.0 3.5 Aftershock4 2017-11-20 06:05:15 36.14 129.36 12.0 3.6 ISPRSAftershock5 Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, x FOR 2017-12-25 PEER REVIEW 16:19:22 36.11 129.36 10.0 4 3.5 of 6 Aftershock6 2018-02-11 05:03:03 36.08 129.33 9.0 4.6 4. Change in Figure 3 4. Change in Figure 3 In Figure 3, the spatial distribution of all aftershock epicenters was also visualized. This In Figure 3, the spatial distribution of all aftershock epicenters was also visualized. This modificationmodification corresponds corresponds with with changes changes #2 #2 and and #3. #3. Thus, Thus, the the epicenters epicenters of of seven seven major major events events were were alsoalso modified. modified. Additionally, Additionally, five five multi-layered multi-layered geo-da geo-datata were were visualized visualized on on the the same same area area to to help help to to understandunderstand the the spatial spatial modeling modeling of of geo-data. geo-data.

FigureFigure 3. 3. ExtendedExtended and and target target areas areas for for spatia spatiall modeling modeling of of geo-data geo-data in in Pohang. Pohang. toto the the correct correct version, version, as as follows: follows:

Figure 3. Extended and targeted areas for spatial modeling of geo-data in Pohang.

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 6

4. Change in Figure 3

In Figure 3, the spatial distribution of all aftershock epicenters was also visualized. This modification corresponds with changes #2 and #3. Thus, the epicenters of seven major events were also modified. Additionally, five multi-layered geo-data were visualized on the same area to help to understand the spatial modeling of geo-data.

Figure 3. Extended and target areas for spatial modeling of geo-data in Pohang. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 62 5 of 7 to the correct version, as follows:

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 6 FigureFigure 3. 4. ExtendedExtended and and targeted targeted areas areas for for spat spatialial modeling modeling of of geo-data geo-data in in Pohang. Pohang. 5. Change in Figure 9

5. Change in Figure 9 Figure 9 shows the spatial comparison between TG-based seismic zonation and earthquake Figure 9 shows the spatial comparison between TG-based seismic zonation and earthquake damagedamage categorycategory of of buildings. buildings. Additionally, Additionally, the the spatial spatial distribution distribution of all of aftershockall aftershock epicenter epicenter was alsowas visualizedalso visualized on the on spatial the spatial comparison comparison map to map help to reader help reader to understand to understand the epicenter. the epicenter. Thus, the Thus, correct the epicentercorrect epicenter of major of events major (corresponding events (corresponding changes ch toanges Figure to 1Figure and Table 1 and 1) Table was also 1) was modiﬁed. also modified.

FigureFigure 5.9. Spatial comparison between TTGG-based-based seismic seismic zonation zonation and and earthquake earthquake damage damage category category of ofbuildings. buildings.

to the correct version, as follows:

Figure 9. Spatial comparison between TG-based seismic zonation and earthquake damage category of buildings.

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 6

5. Change in Figure 9

Figure 9 shows the spatial comparison between TG-based seismic zonation and earthquake damage category of buildings. Additionally, the spatial distribution of all aftershock epicenter was also visualized on the spatial comparison map to help reader to understand the epicenter. Thus, the correct epicenter of major events (corresponding changes to Figure 1 and Table 1) was also modified.

Figure 9. Spatial comparison between TG-based seismic zonation and earthquake damage category of ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 62 6 of 7 buildings. toto thethe correctcorrect version,version, asas follows:follows:

FigureFigure 6.9. Spatial comparison between TTGG-based-based seismic seismic zonation zonation and and earthquake earthquake damage damage category category of ofbuildings. buildings.

6. Change in References (Reference #2) The accessed date of reference #1 in the reference list should be changed to apply the up-to-date earthquake record. And reference #2 in the reference list should be modiﬁed to clarify the correct English title, which is the Korean report (reference #2 in the changed manuscript) [3]. Original Reference #1 and #2:

1. Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA). Earthquake: Notice, Korea Meteorological Administration. Available online: http://www.kma.go.kr/weather/earthquake_volcano/ (accessed on 17 April 2018). 2. Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM). Brochure for Korean Peninsula Southeastern Earthquake; KIGAM: Daejeon, Korea, 2018. to the correct version, as follows: Revised Reference #1 and #2:

1. Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA). Earthquake: Notice, Korea Meteorological Administration. Available online: http://www.kma.go.kr/weather/earthquake_volcano/ (accessed on 28 January 2019). 2. Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM). Earthquakes in the Southeast Korean Peninsula: Focusing on the 2016 Gyeongju and the 2017 Pohang Earthquakes; KIGAM: Daejeon, Korea, 2018. (In Korean) ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 62 7 of 7

References

1. Kim, H.S.; Sun, C.G.; Cho, H.I. Geospatial assessment of the post-earthquake hazard of the 2017 Pohang earthquake considering seismic site effects. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 375. [CrossRef] 2. Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA). Earthquake: Notice, Korea Meteorological Administration. Available online: http://www.kma.go.kr/weather/earthquake_volcano/ (accessed on 28 January 2019). 3. Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM). Earthquakes in the Southeast Korean Peninsula: Focusing on the 2016 Gyeongju and the 2017 Pohang Earthquakes; KIGAM: Daejeon, Korea, 2018. (In Korean)

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).