Category Archives: Indonesia

Earthquake Report: M 7.1 Indonesia

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday on my way home from a Phil & Graham Lesh show, I got a tsunami notification alert from the National Tsunami Warning Center. There was a magnitude M 6.9 earthquake offshore of Indonesia and there was no tsunami threat for the west coast of the US.

I pulled over to investigate and searched the USGS earthquakes page to locate this earthquake. At that time, there were two events spaced closely in time and space. I suspected that there was probably only one earthquake.

Shortly, that turned out to be true (within minutes). There was a M 7.1 earthquake north of the islands of Bali and Lombok, part of Indonesia.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000krjx/executive

There was a series of earthquakes in this area a few years ago, which came to my mind. However, this M 7.1 was much deeper.

This M 7.1 earthquake was quite deep (over 500 km!). Those earlier events were shallower and appear to have been related to the Flores thrust fault. Read more about these shallower earthquakes here.

This part of the world is geologically dominated by the convergent plate margin between the Australia and Eurasia plates. This convergent plate margin is part of the Alpide belt, a convergent plate margin that spans almost half the globe (from the northern tip of Australia to the western tip of Portugal). The Alpide belt is responsible for building the tallest mountains in the world (the Asian Himalayas and the European Alps).

Here, in Indonesia, the Australia plate dives beneath the Australia plate forming a subduction zone and a deep sea trench (the Java trench). Earthquakes along this megathrust subduction zone fault have generated strong ground shaking, generated tsunami, and triggered landslides in the past.

In this part of the world, the Eurasia plate is subdivided into a sub-plate called the Sunda plate (so one might see maps with either name labeling this plate).

As the Australia plate subducts it starts out dipping shallowly beneath Java, Bali, Lombok, and the other islands.

The oceanic crust has water within it that helps generate melt in the magma that exists above the Australia plate and beneath the Sunda plate. When this magma melts, its density decreases and the magma rises until it erupts forming the volcanoes that comprise these islands.

As the Australia plate subducts further, the angle that it dips down into the Earth gets steeper. During this process the plate bends and gets exposed to higher pressures (and temperatures).

These physical processes change the stresses within and surrounding the plate. These changes in stress can cause earthquakes like the M 7.1.

Even though this earthquake was large in magnitude, it was so deep so that the shaking intensity was smaller.

The shaking intensity is often reported using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. People (anyone with internet access) can report their observations on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” web page for this earthquake.

These observations are then used to estimate the shaking intensity felt by those people. Reports from this earthquake show that people on these nearby islands felt intensities around MMI 4 to MMI 5 or so.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1922-2022 with magnitudes M ≥ 3.0 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

    I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below. In some of these inset figures I place a blue star to locate the M 7.1 earthquake on these figures.

  • In the upper right corner is a map showing historic seismicity and tectonic plate boundaries.
  • Below that map is a low angle oblique view of a cut away of the Earth along the subduction zone in Java, Indonesia from EOS.
  • In the upper left corner are maps that show the seismic hazard and seismic risk for Indonesia. I spend more time explaining this below.
  • To the right of these hazard and risk maps is a map that shows earthquake intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale.
  • Above the map is a plot that shows the same intensity (both modeled and reported) data as displayed on the map. Note how the intensity gets smaller with distance from the earthquake.
  • In the lower right corner is a cross section showing earthquake hypocenters (3-D locations) from Darman et a. (2012).
  • To the left of the Darman (2012) plot is a cross section of seismicity presented by Hengresh and Whitney (2016).
  • In the lower center I plot USGS seismicity from the past century. I describe this further below.
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


  • Here is the plot with a century’s seismicity plotted.
  • These data are limited to within the region shown on the map and i highlight the M 7.1 in orange.
  • These are USGS hypocenters and epicenters for earthquakes between 1923 and 2023 for magnitudes M≥5.
  • One may observe the seismicity within the Australia plate as the plate subducts downwards. The top of the crust is above these seismicity trends.
  • If one looks closely, they will notice a horizontal line of earthquakes at about 30km. These are all with a default depth of 33 km. There is also a row of seismicity with a default depth of 10km. These are depths assigned to events prior to a location assigned with greater certainty. It is highly likely that the depths for these events is different than 10 or 33 km.


Other Report Pages

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • Below is a map showing historic seismicity (Jones et al., 2014). Cross sections B-B’ and C-C’ are shown. The seismicity for the cross sections below are sourced from within each respective rectangle.


    • Here are the seismcity cross sections.


      •

    • Here is the map from McCaffrey and Nabelek (1987). They used seismic reflection profiles, gravity modeling along these profiles, seismicity, and earthquake source mechanism analyses to support their interpretations of the structures in this region.


      • Tectonic and geographic map of the eastern Sunda arc and vicinity. Active volcanoes are represented by triangles, and bathymetric contours are in kilometers. Thrust faults are shown with teeth on the upper plate. The dashed box encloses the study area.

    • Here is the Audley (2011) cross section showing how the backthrust relates to the subduction zone beneath Timor. I include their figure caption in blockquote below.


      • Cartoon cross section of Timor today, (cf. Richardson & Blundell 1996, their BIRPS figs 3b, 4b & 7; and their fig. 6 gravity model 2 after Woodside et al. 1989; and Snyder et al. 1996 their fig. 6a). Dimensions of the filled 40 km deep present-day Timor Tectonic Collision Zone are based on BIRPS seismic, earthquake seismicity and gravity data all re-interpreted here from Richardson & Blundell (1996) and from Snyder et al. (1996). NB. The Bobonaro Melange, its broken formation and other facies are not indicated, but they are included with the Gondwana mega-sequence. Note defunct Banda Trench, now the Timor TCZ, filled with Australian continental crust and Asian nappes that occupy all space between Wetar Suture and the 2–3 km deep deformation front north of the axis of the Timor Trough. Note the much younger decollement D5 used exactly the same part of the Jurassic lithology of the Gondwana mega-sequence in the older D1 decollement that produced what appears to be much stronger deformation.

    • This are the seismicity cross sections from Hangesh and Whitney (2016). These are shown to compare the subduction zone offshore of Java and the collision zone in the Timor region.


      • Comparison of hypocentral profiles across the (a) Java subduction zone and (b) Timor collision zone (paleo-Banda trench). Catalog compiled from multiple reporting agencies listed in Table 1. Events of Mw>4.0 are shown for period 1815 to 2015.

    • Below are the maps and cross sections from Darman et al., 2012.
    • Here is the map in the interpretive poster above.


      • Tectonic map of the Lesser Sunda Islands, showing the main tectonic units, main faults, bathymetry and location of seismic sections discussed in this paper.

    • Here is the seismicity cross section in the interpretive poster above.


      • This plot shows the earthquake localizations on a South-North cross section for the lat -14°/-4° long 114°/124° quadrant corresponding to the Lesser Sunda Islands region. The localizations are extracted from the USGS database and corresponds to magnitude greater than 4.5 in the 1973-2004 time period (shallow earthquakes with undetermined depth have been omitted.

    • Here is their interpretations of seismic data used to interpret the tectonics of the subduction zone and Flores thrust.


      • Six 15 km deep seismic sections acquired by BGR from west to east traversing oceanic crust, deep sea trench, accretionary prism, outer arc high and fore-arc basin, derived from Kirchoff prestack depth migration (PreSDM) with a frequency range of 4-60 Hz. Profile BGR06-313 shows exemplarily a velocity-depth model according to refraction/wide-angle
      seismic tomography on coincident profile P31 (modified after Lüschen et al, 2011).

    • Here is a figure showing the regional geodetic motions (Bock et al., 2003). I include their figure caption below as a blockquote.


      • Topographic and tectonic map of the Indonesian archipelago and surrounding region. Labeled, shaded arrows show motion (NUVEL-1A model) of the first-named tectonic plate relative to the second. Solid arrows are velocity vectors derived from GPS surveys from 1991 through 2001, in ITRF2000. For clarity, only a few of the vectors for Sumatra are included. The detailed velocity field for Sumatra is shown in Figure 5. Velocity vector ellipses indicate 2-D 95% confidence levels based on the formal (white noise only) uncertainty estimates. NGT, New Guinea Trench; NST, North Sulawesi Trench; SF, Sumatran Fault; TAF, Tarera-Aiduna Fault. Bathymetry [Smith and Sandwell, 1997] in this and all subsequent figures contoured at 2 km intervals.

    • In addition to the orientation of relative plate motion (that controls seismogenic zone and strain partitioning), the Indo Australia plate varies in crustal age (Lasitha et al., 2006). I include their figure caption below as a blockquote.


      • Tectonic sketch map of the Sumatra–Java trench-arc region in eastern Indian Ocean Benioff Zone configuration. Hatched line with numbers indicates depth to the top of the Benioff Zone (after Newcomb and McCann13). Magnetic anomaly identifications have been considered from Liu et al.14 and Krishna et al.15. Magnitude and direction of the plate motion is obtained from Sieh and Natawidjaja11. O indicates the location of the recent major earthquakes of 26 December 2004, i.e. the devastating tsunamigenic earthquake (Mw = 9.3) and the 28 March 2005 earthquake (Mw = 8.6).

    • Below are the 4 figures from Koulani et al., 2016. First is the plate tectonic map. I include their figure captions in block quote.


      • Seismotectonic setting of the Sunda-Banda arc-continent collision, East Indonesia. Major faults (thick black lines) [Hamilton, 1979]. Topography and bathymetry are from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (http://topex.ucsd.edu/www_html/srtm30_plus.html). Focal mechanisms are from the Global Centroid Moment Tensor. Blue mechanisms correspond to earthquakes with Mw>7 (brown transparent ellipses are the corresponding rupture areas for Flores 1992 and Alor 2004 earthquakes), while the green focal mechanism shows the highest magnitude recorded in Sumbawa. Red dots indicate the locations of major historical earthquakes [Musson, 2012].

    • This figure shows their estimates for plate motion relative velocities as derived from GPS data, constrained by the fault geometry in their block modeling.


      • GPS velocities determined in this study with respect to Sunda Block. Uncertainty ellipses represent 95% confidence level. The inset figure corresponds to the area of the dashed rectangle in the map. Light blue arrows show the velocities for East and West Makassar Blocks.

    • This figure shows their estimates of slip rate deficit along all the plate boundary faults in this region.


      • Relative slip vectors across block boundaries, derived from our best fit model. Arrows show motion of the hanging wall (moving block) relative to the footwall (fixed block) with 95% confidence ellipses. The tails of arrows is located within the “moving” block. Black thick lines show well-defined boundaries we use as active faults in our model and dashed lines show less well-defined boundaries (green : free-slipping boundaries and black: fixed locked faults) . Principal axes of the horizontal strain tensor estimated for the SUMB, EMAK, and EJAV are shown in pink. The thick pink arrow shows the relative motion of Australia with respect to Sunda (AUST/SUND). Abbreviations are Sumba Block (SUMB), West Makassar Block (WMAK), East Makassar Block (EMAK), East Java Block (EJAV), and Timor Block (TIMO). The background seismicity is from the International Seismological Centre catalog with magnitudes ≥5.5 and depths <40 km.

    • Here is their figure that shows the slip deficit along the plate boundary faults.


      • Fault slip rate components: (a) fault normal (extension positive) and (b) fault parallel (right-lateral positive).

    Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

    • These are the two maps shown in the map above, the GEM Seismic Hazard and the GEM Seismic Risk maps from Pagani et al. (2018) and Silva et al. (2018).

      • The GEM Seismic Hazard Map:




      • The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Global Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1) depicts the geographic distribution of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, computed for reference rock conditions (shear wave velocity, VS30, of 760-800 m/s). The map was created by collating maps computed using national and regional probabilistic seismic hazard models developed by various institutions and projects, and by GEM Foundation scientists. The OpenQuake engine, an open-source seismic hazard and risk calculation software developed principally by the GEM Foundation, was used to calculate the hazard values. A smoothing methodology was applied to homogenise hazard values along the model borders. The map is based on a database of hazard models described using the OpenQuake engine data format (NRML). Due to possible model limitations, regions portrayed with low hazard may still experience potentially damaging earthquakes.
      • Here is a view of the GEM seismic hazard map for Indonesia.


        •

      • The GEM Seismic Risk Map:




      • The Global Seismic Risk Map (v2018.1) presents the geographic distribution of average annual loss (USD) normalised by the average construction costs of the respective country (USD/m2) due to ground shaking in the residential, commercial and industrial building stock, considering contents, structural and non-structural components. The normalised metric allows a direct comparison of the risk between countries with widely different construction costs. It does not consider the effects of tsunamis, liquefaction, landslides, and fires following earthquakes. The loss estimates are from direct physical damage to buildings due to shaking, and thus damage to infrastructure or indirect losses due to business interruption are not included. The average annual losses are presented on a hexagonal grid, with a spacing of 0.30 x 0.34 decimal degrees (approximately 1,000 km2 at the equator). The average annual losses were computed using the event-based calculator of the OpenQuake engine, an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk analysis developed by the GEM Foundation. The seismic hazard, exposure and vulnerability models employed in these calculations were provided by national institutions, or developed within the scope of regional programs or bilateral collaborations.
    • Here is a view of the GEM seismic risk map for Indonesia.


      •

    Tsunami Hazard

    • Here are two maps that show the results of probabilistic tsunami modeling for the nation of Indonesia (Horspool et al., 2014). These results are similar to results from seismic hazards analysis and maps. The color represents the chance that a given area will experience a certain size tsunami (or larger).
    • The first map shows the annual chance of a tsunami with a height of at least 0.5 m (1.5 feet). The second map shows the chance that there will be a tsunami at least 3 meters (10 feet) high at the coast.


      • Annual probability of experiencing a tsunami with a height at the coast of (a) 0.5m (a tsunami warning) and (b) 3m (a major tsunami warning).

    References:

    Basic & General References

  • Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
  • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
  • Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
  • Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
  • Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
  • Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
  • Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
  • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
  • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
  • Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
  • Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
  • 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), Seismol. Res. Lett., 84(5), 810–815, doi:10.1785/0220130034.
  • Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

    • Specific References

  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 1986. Rates of Neogene and Quaternary tectonic movements in the Southern Banda Arc based on micropalaeontology in: Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 143, 1986, pp. 161-175.
  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 2011. Tectonic post-collision processes in Timor, Hall, R., Cottam, M. A. &Wilson, M. E. J. (eds) The SE Asian Gateway: History and Tectonics of the Australia–Asia Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 355, 241–266.
  • Baldwin, S.L., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Webb, L.E., 2012. Tectonics of the New Guinea Region in Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., v. 41, p. 485-520.
  • Benz, H.M., Herman, Matthew, Tarr, A.C., Hayes, G.P., Furlong, K.P., Villaseñor, Antonio, Dart, R.L., and Rhea, Susan, 2011. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 New Guinea and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-H, scale 1:8,000,000.
  • Darman, H., 2012. Seismic Expression of Tectonic Features in the Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia in Berita Sedimentologi, Indonesian Journal of Sedimentary Geology, no. 25, po. 16-25.
  • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
  • Hangesh, J. and Whitney, B., 2014. Quaternary Reactivation of Australia’s Western Passive Margin: Inception of a New Plate Boundary? in: 5th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archeoseismology (PATA), 21-27 September 2014, Busan, Korea, 4 pp.
  • Hayes, G.P., Wald, D.J., and Johnson, R.L., 2012. Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries in, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B01302, doi:10.1029/2011JB008524
  • Jones, E.S., Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, F.K., Furlong, K.P., Benz, H.M., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2014. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Java and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-N, 1 sheet, scale 1:5,000,000, https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20101083N.
  • Koulali, A., S. Susilo, S. McClusky, I. Meilano, P. Cummins, P. Tregoning, G. Lister, J. Efendi, and M. A. Syafi’i, 2016. Crustal strain partitioning and the associated earthquake hazard in the eastern Sunda-Banda Arc in Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 1943–1949, doi:10.1002/2016GL067941
  • Krabbenhoeft, A., Weinrebe, R.W., Kopp, H., Flueh, E.R., Ladage, S., Papenberg, C., Planert, L., and Djajadihardja, Y., 2010. Bathymetry of the Indonesian Sunda margin-relating morphological features of the upper plate slopes to the location and extent of the seismogenic zone in NHESS, v. 10, p. 1899-1911, doi:10.5194/nhess-10-1899-2010
  • McCaffrey, R., and Nabelek, J.L., 1984. The geometry of back arc thrusting along the Eastern Sunda Arc, Indonesia: Constraints from earthquake and gravity data in JGR, Atm., vol., 925, no. B1, p. 441-4620, DOI: 10.1029/JB089iB07p06171
  • Okal, E. A., & Reymond, D., 2003. The mechanism of great Banda Sea earthquake of 1 February 1938: applying the method of preliminary determination of focal mechanism to a historical event in EPSL, v. 216, p. 1-15.
  • Silver, E.A., Breen, N.A., and Prastyo, H., 1986. Multibeam Study of the Flores Backarc Thrust Belt, Indonesia, in JGR., vol. 91, no. B3, p. 3489-3500
  • Zahirovic, S., Seton, M., and Müller, R.D., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: Banda Sea

Posted on by
Reply

Early morning (my time) there was an intermediate depth earthquake in the Banda Sea.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us70009b14/executive
This earthquake was a strike-slip earthquake in the Australia plate. There are analogical earthquakes in the same area in 1963, 1987, 2005, and 2012 that appear to have occurred on the same fault.
In June 2019 there was an earthquake nearby with a similar mechanism.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past 3 months, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1920-2020 with magnitudes M ≥ 6.5.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

    Global Strain

  • In a map below, I include a transparent overlay of the Global Strain Rate Map (Kreemer et al., 2014).
  • The mission of the Global Strain Rate Map (GSRM) project is to determine a globally self-consistent strain rate and velocity field model, consistent with geodetic and geologic field observations. The overall mission also includes:
    1. contributions of global, regional, and local models by individual researchers
    2. archive existing data sets of geologic, geodetic, and seismic information that can contribute toward a greater understanding of strain phenomena
    3. archive existing methods for modeling strain rates and strain transients
  • The completed global strain rate map will provide a large amount of information that is vital for our understanding of continental dynamics and for the quantification of seismic hazards.
  • The version used in the poster(s) below is an update to the original 2004 map (Kreemer et al., 2000, 2003; Holt et al., 2005).

    I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

  • In the upper right corner is a map showing historic seismicity, fault lines, and the global strain rate map (red shows area of higher tectonic strain).
  • In the lower right corner is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plate configuration (Pownall et al., 2014).
  • In the upper left corner are maps that show the seismic hazard and seismic risk for Indonesia. I spend more time explaining this below.
  • In the center top-left is a map that shows earthquake intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale.
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


    •

  • Here is the poster from the nearby earthquake in June of 2019.


    •

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • Here is a tectonic map for this part of the world from Zahirovic et al., 2014. They show a fracture zone where the M 7.3 earthquake happened. I left out all the acronym definitions (you’re welcome), but they are listed in the paper.


    • Regional tectonic setting with plate boundaries (MORs/transforms = black, subduction zones = teethed red) from Bird (2003) and ophiolite belts representing sutures modified from Hutchison (1975) and Baldwin et al. (2012). West Sulawesi basalts are from Polvé et al. (1997), fracture zones are from Matthews et al. (2011) and basin outlines are from Hearn et al. (2003).

  • This is a great visualization showing the Australia plate and how it formed the largest forearc basin on Earth (Pownall et al., 2014).
  • The maps on the left show a time history of the tectonics. The low angle oblique view on the right shows the dipping crust (north is not always up, as in this figure).
  • In the lower right, they show how there is strike-slip faulting along the Seram trough also (I left out the figure caption for E).


    • Reconstructions of eastern Indonesia, adapted from Hall (2012), depict collision of Australia with Southeast Asia and slab rollback into Banda Embayment. Yellow star indicates Seram. Oceanic crust is shown in purple (older than 120 Ma) and blue (younger than 120 Ma); submarine arcs and oceanic plateaus are shown in cyan; volcanic island arcs, ophiolites, and material accreted along plate margins are shown in green. A: Reconstruction at 15 Ma. B: Reconstruction at 7 Ma. C: Reconstruction at 2 Ma. D: Visualization of present-day slab morphology of proto–Banda Sea based on earthquake hypocenter distribution and tomographic models

  • Here is a map and some cross sections showing seismic tomography (like C-T scans into the Earth using seismic waves instead of X-Rays). The map shows the location of the cross sections (Spakman et al., 2010).


    • The Banda arc and surrounding region. 200 m and 4,000 m bathymetric contours are indicated. The numbered black lines are Benioff zone contours in kilometres. The red triangles are Holocene volcanoes (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/). Ar=Aru, Ar Tr=Aru trough, Ba=Banggai Islands, Bu=Buru, SBS=South Banda Sea, Se=Seram, Sm=Sumba, Su=Sula Islands, Ta=Tanimbar, Ta Tr=Tanimbar trough, Ti=Timor, W=Weber Deep.


    Tomographic images of the Banda slab. Vertical sections through the tomography model along the lines shown in Fig. 1. Colours: P-wave anomalies with reference to velocity model ak135 (ref. 30). Dots: earthquake hypocentres within 12 km of the section. The dashed lines are phase changes at ~410 km and ~660 km. The sections are plotted without vertical exaggeration; the horizontal axis is in degrees. The labelled positive anomalies are the Sunda (Su) and Banda (Ba) slabs: BuDdetached slab under Buru, FlDslab under Flores, SDslab under Seram, TDslab under Timor. a, The Sunda slab enters the lower mantle whereas the Banda embayment slab is entirely in the upper mantle with the change under Sulawesi. b–e, Banda slab morphology in sections parallel to Australia plate motion shows a transition from a steep slab with a flat section (fs) (b) to a spoon shape shallowing eastward (c–e).

  • Here is the tectonic map from Hengesh and Whitney (2016)


    • Illustration of major tectonic elements in triple junction geometry: tectonic features labeled per Figure 1; seismicity from ISC-GEM catalog [Storchak et al., 2013]; faults in Savu basin from Rigg and Hall [2011] and Harris et al. [2009]. Purple line is edge of Australian continental basement and fore arc [Rigg and Hall, 2011]. Abbreviations: AR = Ashmore Reef; SR = Scott Reef; RS = Rowley Shoals; TCZ = Timor Collision Zone; ST = Savu thrust; SB = Savu Basin; TT = Timor thrust; WT =Wetar thrust; WASZ = Western Australia Shear Zone. Open arrows indicate relative direction of motion; solid arrows direction of vergence.

  • Here is the Audley (2011) cross section showing how the backthrust relates to the subduction zone beneath Timor. I include their figure caption in blockquote below.


    • Cartoon cross section of Timor today, (cf. Richardson & Blundell 1996, their BIRPS figs 3b, 4b & 7; and their fig. 6 gravity model 2 after Woodside et al. 1989; and Snyder et al. 1996 their fig. 6a). Dimensions of the filled 40 km deep present-day Timor Tectonic Collision Zone are based on BIRPS seismic, earthquake seismicity and gravity data all re-interpreted here from Richardson & Blundell (1996) and from Snyder et al. (1996). NB. The Bobonaro Melange, its broken formation and other facies are not indicated, but they are included with the Gondwana mega-sequence. Note defunct Banda Trench, now the Timor TCZ, filled with Australian continental crust and Asian nappes that occupy all space between Wetar Suture and the 2–3 km deep deformation front north of the axis of the Timor Trough. Note the much younger decollement D5 used exactly the same part of the Jurassic lithology of the Gondwana mega-sequence in the older D1 decollement that produced what appears to be much stronger deformation.

  • Here is a figure showing the regional geodetic motions (Bock et al., 2003). I include their figure caption below as a blockquote.


    • Topographic and tectonic map of the Indonesian archipelago and surrounding region. Labeled, shaded arrows show motion (NUVEL-1A model) of the first-named tectonic plate relative to the second. Solid arrows are velocity vectors derived from GPS surveys from 1991 through 2001, in ITRF2000. For clarity, only a few of the vectors for Sumatra are included. The detailed velocity field for Sumatra is shown in Figure 5. Velocity vector ellipses indicate 2-D 95% confidence levels based on the formal (white noise only) uncertainty estimates. NGT, New Guinea Trench; NST, North Sulawesi Trench; SF, Sumatran Fault; TAF, Tarera-Aiduna Fault. Bathymetry [Smith and Sandwell, 1997] in this and all subsequent figures contoured at 2 km intervals.

  • Whitney and Hengesh (2015) used GPS modeling to suggest a model of plate blocks. Below are their model results.


    • Plate boundary segments in the Banda Arc region from Nugroho et al (2009). Numbers inside rectangles show possible micro-plate blocks near the Sumba Triple Junction (colored) based on GPS velocities (black arrows) with in a stable Eurasian reference frame.

  • Here is the conceptual model from Whitney and Hengesh (2015) that shows how left-lateral strike-slip faulting can come into the region.


    • Schematic map views of kinematic relations between major crustal elements in the Sumba Triple Junction region. CTZ= collisional tectonic zone. Red arrow size designates schematic plate motion relations based on geological data relative to a fixed Sunda shelf reference frame (pin).

Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

  • These are the two maps shown in the map above, the GEM Seismic Hazard and the GEM Seismic Risk maps from Pagani et al. (2018) and Silva et al. (2018).

    • The GEM Seismic Hazard Map:




    • The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Global Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1) depicts the geographic distribution of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, computed for reference rock conditions (shear wave velocity, VS30, of 760-800 m/s). The map was created by collating maps computed using national and regional probabilistic seismic hazard models developed by various institutions and projects, and by GEM Foundation scientists. The OpenQuake engine, an open-source seismic hazard and risk calculation software developed principally by the GEM Foundation, was used to calculate the hazard values. A smoothing methodology was applied to homogenise hazard values along the model borders. The map is based on a database of hazard models described using the OpenQuake engine data format (NRML). Due to possible model limitations, regions portrayed with low hazard may still experience potentially damaging earthquakes.
    • Here is a view of the GEM seismic hazard map for Indonesia.


      •

    • The GEM Seismic Risk Map:




    • The Global Seismic Risk Map (v2018.1) presents the geographic distribution of average annual loss (USD) normalised by the average construction costs of the respective country (USD/m2) due to ground shaking in the residential, commercial and industrial building stock, considering contents, structural and non-structural components. The normalised metric allows a direct comparison of the risk between countries with widely different construction costs. It does not consider the effects of tsunamis, liquefaction, landslides, and fires following earthquakes. The loss estimates are from direct physical damage to buildings due to shaking, and thus damage to infrastructure or indirect losses due to business interruption are not included. The average annual losses are presented on a hexagonal grid, with a spacing of 0.30 x 0.34 decimal degrees (approximately 1,000 km2 at the equator). The average annual losses were computed using the event-based calculator of the OpenQuake engine, an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk analysis developed by the GEM Foundation. The seismic hazard, exposure and vulnerability models employed in these calculations were provided by national institutions, or developed within the scope of regional programs or bilateral collaborations.
  • Here is a view of the GEM seismic risk map for Indonesia.


    •

    Social Media

    References:

    Basic & General References

  • Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
  • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
  • Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
  • Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
  • Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
  • Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
  • Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
  • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
  • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
  • Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
  • Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
  • Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

    • Specific References

  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 1986. Rates of Neogene and Quaternary tectonic movements in the Southern Banda Arc based on micropalaeontology in: Journal of fhe Geological Society, London, Vol. 143, 1986, pp. 161-175.
  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 2011. Tectonic post-collision processes in Timor, Hall, R., Cottam, M. A. &Wilson, M. E. J. (eds) The SE Asian Gateway: History and Tectonics of the Australia–Asia Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 355, 241–266.
  • Baldwin, S.L., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Webb, L.E., 2012. Tectonics of the New Guinea Region in Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., v. 41, p. 485-520.
  • Benz, H.M., Herman, Matthew, Tarr, A.C., Hayes, G.P., Furlong, K.P., Villaseñor, Antonio, Dart, R.L., and Rhea, Susan, 2011. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 New Guinea and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-H, scale 1:8,000,000.
  • Given, J. W., and H. Kanamori (1980). The depth extent of the 1977 Sumbawa, Indonesia, earthquake, in EOS Trans. AGU., v. 61, p. 1044.
  • Gusnman, A.R., Tanioka, Y., Matsumoto, H., and Iwasakai, S.-I., 2009. Analysis of the Tsunami Generated by the Great 1977 Sumba Earthquake that Occurred in Indonesia in BSSA, v. 99, no. 4, p. 2169-2179, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080324
  • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
  • Hangesh, J. and Whitney, B., 2014. Quaternary Reactivation of Australia’s Western Passive Margin: Inception of a New Plate Boundary? in: 5th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archeoseismology (PATA), 21-27 September 2014, Busan, Korea, 4 pp.
  • Okal, E. A., & Reymond, D., 2003. The mechanism of great Banda Sea earthquake of 1 February 1938: applying the method of preliminary determination of focal mechanism to a historical event in EPSL, v. 216, p. 1-15.
  • Osada, M. and Abe, K., 1981. Mechanism and tectonic implications of the great Banda Sea earthquake of November 4, 1963 in Physics of the Earth and Plentary Interiors, v. 25, p. 129-139
  • Pownall, J.M., Hall, R., Armstrong,, R.A., and Forster, M.A., 2014. Earth’s youngest known ultrahigh-temperature granulites discovered on Seram, eastern Indonesia in Geology, v. 42, no. 4, p. 379-282, https://doi.org/10.1130/G35230.1
  • Spakman, W. and Hall, R., 2010. Surface deformation and slab–mantle interaction during Banda arc subduction rollback in Nature Geosceince, v. 3, p. 562-566, https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO917
  • Whitney, B.B. and Hengesh, J.V., 2015. A new model for active intraplate tectonics in western Australia in Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient Pacific 6-8 November 2015, Sydney, Australia, paper number 82
  • Zahirovic, S., Seton, M., and Müller, R.D., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.


Earthquake Report: Halmahera, Indonesia

Posted on by
Reply

Well, yesterday I was preparing some updates to the Ridgecrest Earthquake following my field work with my colleagues at the California Geological Survey (where I work) and the U.S. Geological Survey. We spent the week documenting surface ruptures associated with the M 6.4 and M 7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence. (it is currently named the Searles Valley Earthquake Sequence, but I am calling it the Ridgecrest Earthquake)

I was just about done with these new maps and getting ready to start writing them up in an updated earthquake report when I noticed that there was an interesting earthquake, with few historic analogues, along the Western Australia Shear Zone offshore of northwestern Australia. I probably won’t get to that earthquake, but I started downloading some material and reviewing my literature for the region. I considered doing both of these tasks on Sunday (today). That was not to be as I awakened to an email about this magnitude M 7.3 earthquake in Halmahera, Indonesia. I have several earthquake reports for the Molucca Strait, west of Halmahera. So, I have some background literature and knowledge about this region already.

There was an earthquake along Molucca Strait that I could not work on due to my field work. So I will briefly mention that quake here. There was also a recent earthquake to the south, in the Banda Sea (here is my earthquake report for that event). The June earthquake had the same magnitude as today’s shaker, M = 7.3. However, the earlier quake was too deep to cause a tsunami (unlike today’s temblor). Earthquakes along the Molucca Strait have generated tsunami with wave heights of over 9 meters (30 feet) according toe Harris and Major, 2016.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us70004jyv/executive

The Molucca Strait is a north-south oriented seaway formed by opposing subduction zone / thrust faults (convergent plate boundaries). See the “Geologic Fundamentals” section below for an explanation of different fault types. On the west of the Molucca Strait is a thrust fault that dips downwards to the west. On the east, there is a thrust fault that dips down to the east (beneath the island of Halmahera).

There is a major east-west trending (striking) strike-slip fault that comes into the region from the east, called the Sorong fault. There are multiple strands of this system. A splay of this Sorong fault splays northwards through the island of Halmahera. There may be additional details about how this splay relates to the Sorong fault, but I was unable to locate any references (or read the details) today. According to BMKG, the fault that is associated with this earthquake is the Sorong-Bacan fault.
Today’s M 7.3 Halmahera earthquake is a strike-slip earthquake (the plates move side-by-side, like the San Andreas or North Anatolia faults). Often people don’t think of tsunami when a strike-slip earthquake happens because there is often little vertical ground motion. Many people are otherwise familiar with thrust or subduction zone earthquakes, which can produce significant uplift and subsidence (vertical land motion), that can lead to significant tsunami.

However, there is abundant evidence that strike-slip earthquakes do cause tsunami, though often of much smaller size than their thrust/subduction siblings. The main difference is that these strike-slip generated tsunami are much smaller in size.
For example, the 1999 Izmit and 2012 Wharton Basin earthquakes provided empirical evidence of strike-slip earthquake triggered tsunami. More recently, the 28 September 2018 magnitude M 7.5 Dongalla-Palu earthquake caused a tsunami in Palu Bay, Sulawesi, Indonesia that exceeded 10 meters (33 feet) in wave height (wave run up elevation)!!! I just got an email from Dr. Lori Dengler who is an a conference where people claim that the earthquake is possibly singlehandedly responsible for this large wave. Previously people thought that there may have been submarine landslides that contributed to the size.
Here is the tide gage record from a gage near today’s M 7.3 earthquake. The earthquake epicenter appears to be on land, so the tsunami is possibly smaller because of this. Indonesia operates a network of tide gages throughout the region here. The gage data below are from the island of Gebe, about 50 miles to the east of the M 7.3 epicenter.


Here is a quote from the Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) website:

Impact of Earthquake
Based on community reports, it was shown that shocks were felt in Bitung and Manado with the intensity of IV-V MMI (felt by almost all residents, many people built), and in Ternate III-IV MMI (felt by many people in the house). Until now there have been no reports of damage due to a strong earthquake shock in northern Maluku last night. The impact of the North Maluku earthquake only caused a tremendous panic among the people. In the city of Manado, some of the houses of the walls had cracks in the building walls of the building with very light categories.

Now I can get back to working on a Ridgecrest update… stay tuned. (the maps are already made)

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

I plot the seismicity from the past month, with color representing depth and diameter representing magnitude (see legend).

I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange). Due to the high rate of seismicity in this region, I do not have an historic seismicity poster for this event.

  • I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend on the poster. There is more material from the USGS web sites about moment tensors and focal mechanisms (the beach ball symbols). Both moment tensors and focal mechanisms are solutions to seismologic data that reveal two possible interpretations for fault orientation and sense of motion. One must use other information, like the regional tectonics, to interpret which of the two possibilities is more likely.
  • I also include the shaking intensity contours transparently on the map. These use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI; see the legend on the map). This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations. The MMI is a qualitative measure of shaking intensity. More on the MMI scale can be found here and here. This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations.
  • I include the slab 2.0 contours plotted transparently (Hayes, 2018), which are contours that represent the depth to the subduction zone fault. These are mostly based upon seismicity. The depths of the earthquakes have considerable error and do not all occur along the subduction zone faults, so these slab contours are simply the best estimate for the location of the fault.

    Magnetic Anomalies

  • In the map below, I include a transparent overlay of the magnetic anomaly data from EMAG2 (Meyer et al., 2017). As oceanic crust is formed, it inherits the magnetic field at the time. At different points through time, the magnetic polarity (north vs. south) flips, the North Pole becomes the South Pole. These changes in polarity can be seen when measuring the magnetic field above oceanic plates. This is one of the fundamental evidences for plate spreading at oceanic spreading ridges (like the Gorda rise).
  • Regions with magnetic fields aligned like today’s magnetic polarity are colored red in the EMAG2 data, while reversed polarity regions are colored blue. Regions of intermediate magnetic field are colored light purple.

    I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

  • In the upper left corner is a plate tectonic map showing major fault lines for the Molucca Strait and Halmahera region (Waltham et al., 2008). I place a blue star in the general location of today’s M 7.3 earthquake.
  • In the lower left corner is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plates in this region (Hall, 2011). The view is from the southeast looking into the Earth towards the northwest.
  • In the lower right corner are the tide gage data from the tide gage at Pulau Gebe. These data were provided by the Indonesian Government here. These appear to be tsunami waves, they lasted over 5 hours and had a small wave height of 12 centimeters..
  • In the upper right corner is a part of the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) seismic hazard map that uses cool colors to represent a lower level of shaking intensity than warm colors (Silva et al., 2018). The units are in g (gravitational acceleration). 1 g = Earth’s gravity, so hypothetically, “rocks can get thrown in the air at 1g.” This map is prepared based on the chance an area will have earthquakes of a given size based on a combination of many different seismic hazard models. The region where today’s earthquake happened is colored yellow and has a 10% chance of shaking that 0.2g to 0.35 g (or stronger) over the next 50 years.
  • Below the hazard map is the GEM seismic risk map presents the geographic distribution of average annual loss (USD) due to ground shaking in the residential, commercial and industrial building stock, considering contents, structural and non-structural components. Warmer colors represent larger loss over time. Risk is the overlap of hazard and population. If there are no people, but there is seismic hazard, there is no seismic risk.
  • To the left of the GEM maps is a map of Halmahera and some surrounding islands. The color shows the level of seismic hazard for these islands (Zulkifli et al.,l 2017). The color shows the estimated Peak level of ground shaking for a period of 500 years (i.e. 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). The units are the same (g). The M 7.3 earthquake generated up to ~.25 g, which is higher than the model would suggest (between 0.03 and 0.06 g).
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


    •

  • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted. In the future I hope to get around to plotting earthquake mechanisms on this map. Yellow fault lines are from the Coordinating Committee Geoscience East-Southeast Asia consortium (CCOF). Red fault lines are from the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation.


    •

Other Report Pages

Shaking Intensity and Potential for Ground Failure

  • Below are a series of maps that show the shaking intensity and potential for landslides and liquefaction. These are all USGS data products.

    • There are many different ways in which a landslide can be triggered. The first order relations behind slope failure (landslides) is that the “resisting” forces that are preventing slope failure (e.g. the strength of the bedrock or soil) are overcome by the “driving” forces that are pushing this land downwards (e.g. gravity). The ratio of resisting forces to driving forces is called the Factor of Safety (FOS). We can write this ratio like this:

    FOS = Resisting Force / Driving Force

    When FOS > 1, the slope is stable and when FOS < 1, the slope fails and we get a landslide. The illustration below shows these relations. Note how the slope angle α can take part in this ratio (the steeper the slope, the greater impact of the mass of the slope can contribute to driving forces). The real world is more complicated than the simplified illustration below.


    Landslide ground shaking can change the Factor of Safety in several ways that might increase the driving force or decrease the resisting force. Keefer (1984) studied a global data set of earthquake triggered landslides and found that larger earthquakes trigger larger and more numerous landslides across a larger area than do smaller earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause landslides because the seismic waves can cause the driving force to increase (the earthquake motions can “push” the land downwards), leading to a landslide. In addition, ground shaking can change the strength of these earth materials (a form of resisting force) with a process called liquefaction.
    Sediment or soil strength is based upon the ability for sediment particles to push against each other without moving. This is a combination of friction and the forces exerted between these particles. This is loosely what we call the “angle of internal friction.” Liquefaction is a process by which pore pressure increases cause water to push out against the sediment particles so that they are no longer touching.

    An analogy that some may be familiar with relates to a visit to the beach. When one is walking on the wet sand near the shoreline, the sand may hold the weight of our body generally pretty well. However, if we stop and vibrate our feet back and forth, this causes pore pressure to increase and we sink into the sand as the sand liquefies. Or, at least our feet sink into the sand.

    Below is a diagram showing how an increase in pore pressure can push against the sediment particles so that they are not touching any more. This allows the particles to move around and this is why our feet sink in the sand in the analogy above. This is also what changes the strength of earth materials such that a landslide can be triggered.


    Below is a diagram based upon a publication designed to educate the public about landslides and the processes that trigger them (USGS, 2004). Additional background information about landslide types can be found in Highland et al. (2008). There was a variety of landslide types that can be observed surrounding the earthquake region. So, this illustration can help people when they observing the landscape response to the earthquake whether they are using aerial imagery, photos in newspaper or website articles, or videos on social media. Will you be able to locate a landslide scarp or the toe of a landslide? This figure shows a rotational landslide, one where the land rotates along a curvilinear failure surface.


    Here is a map with landslide probability on it (Jessee et al., 2017). Please head over to that report for more information about the USGS Ground Failure products (landslides and liquefaction). Basically, earthquakes shake the ground and this ground shaking can cause landslides. We can see that there is a low probability for landslides. However, we have already seen photographic evidence for landslides and the lower limit for earthquake triggered landslides is magnitude M 5.5 (from Keefer 1984)


    Nowicki Jessee and others (2018) is the preferred model for earthquake-triggered landslide hazard. Our primary landslide model is the empirical model of Nowicki Jessee and others (2018). The model was developed by relating 23 inventories of landslides triggered by past earthquakes with different combinations of predictor variables using logistic regression. The output resolution is ~250 m. The model inputs are described below. More details about the model can be found in the original publication. We modify the published model by excluding areas with slopes <5° and changing the coefficient for the lithology layer "unconsolidated sediments" from -3.22 to -1.36, the coefficient for "mixed sedimentary rocks" to better reflect that this unit is expected to be weak (more negative coefficient indicates stronger rock).To exclude areas of insignificantly small probabilities in the computation of aggregate statistics for this model, we use a probability threshold of 0.002.

    Here is an excellent educational video from IRIS and a variety of organizations. The video helps us learn about how earthquake intensity gets smaller with distance from an earthquake. The concept of liquefaction is reviewed and we learn how different types of bedrock and underlying earth materials can affect the severity of ground shaking in a given location. The intensity map above is based on a model that relates intensity with distance to the earthquake, but does not incorporate changes in material properties as the video below mentions is an important factor that can increase intensity in places.

    Here is a map showing liquefaction susceptibility (Zhu et al., 2017).


    Zhu and others (2017) is the preferred model for liquefaction hazard. The model was developed by relating 27 inventories of liquefaction triggered by past earthquakes to globally-available geospatial proxies (summarized below) using logistic regression. We have implemented the global version of the model and have added additional modifications proposed by Baise and Rashidian (2017), including a peak ground acceleration (PGA) threshold of 0.1 g and linear interpolation of the input layers. We also exclude areas with slopes >5°. We linearly interpolate the original input layers of ~1 km resolution to 500 m resolution. The model inputs are described below. More details about the model can be found in the original publication.

Here is a map that shows a comparison of modeled shaking intensity for both the M 6.9 Molucca Strait (the left panel) and M 7.3 Halmahera (the right panel) earthquakes. The legend shows the MMI scale, which I discuss above.


    Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

  • These are the two maps shown in the map above, the GEM Seismic Hazard and the GEM Seismic Risk maps from Pagani et al. (2018) and Silva et al. (2018).

    • The GEM Seismic Hazard Map:



    • The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Global Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1) depicts the geographic distribution of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, computed for reference rock conditions (shear wave velocity, VS30, of 760-800 m/s). The map was created by collating maps computed using national and regional probabilistic seismic hazard models developed by various institutions and projects, and by GEM Foundation scientists. The OpenQuake engine, an open-source seismic hazard and risk calculation software developed principally by the GEM Foundation, was used to calculate the hazard values. A smoothing methodology was applied to homogenise hazard values along the model borders. The map is based on a database of hazard models described using the OpenQuake engine data format (NRML); those models originally implemented in other software formats were converted into NRML. While translating these models, various checks were performed to test the compatibility between the original results and the new results computed using the OpenQuake engine. Overall the differences between the original and translated model results are small, notwithstanding some diversity in modelling methodologies implemented in different hazard modelling software. The hashed areas in the map (e.g. Greenland) are currently not covered by a hazard model. The map and the underlying database of models are a dynamic framework, capable to incorporate newly released open models. Due to possible model limitations, regions portrayed with low hazard may still experience potentially damaging earthquakes.

    • The GEM Seismic Risk Map:



    • The Global Seismic Risk Map (v2018.1) presents the geographic distribution of average annual loss (USD) normalised by the average construction costs of the respective country (USD/m2) due to ground shaking in the residential, commercial and industrial building stock, considering contents, structural and non-structural components. The normalised metric allows a direct comparison of the risk between countries with widely different construction costs. It does not consider the effects of tsunamis, liquefaction, landslides, and fires following earthquakes. The loss estimates are from direct physical damage to buildings due to shaking, and thus damage to infrastructure or indirect losses due to business interruption are not included. The average annual losses are presented on a hexagonal grid, with a spacing of 0.30 x 0.34 decimal degrees (approximately 1,000 km2 at the equator). The average annual losses were computed using the event-based calculator of the OpenQuake engine, an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk analysis developed by the GEM Foundation. The seismic hazard, exposure and vulnerability models employed in these calculations were provided by national institutions, or developed within the scope of regional programs or bilateral collaborations. This global map and the underlying databases are based on best available and publicly accessible datasets and models. Due to possible model limitations, regions portrayed with low risk may still experience potentially damaging earthquakes.

Tsunami Hazard

  • Here are two maps that show the results of probabilistic tsunami modeling for the nation of Indonesia (Horspool et al., 2014). These results are similar to results from seismic hazards analysis and maps. The color represents the chance that a given area will experience a certain size tsunami (or larger).
  • The first map shows the annual chance of a tsunami with a height of at least 0.5 m (1.5 feet). The second map shows the chance that there will be a tsunami at least 3 meters (10 feet) high at the coast.


    • Annual probability of experiencing a tsunami with a height at the coast of (a) 0.5m (a tsunami warning) and (b) 3m (a major tsunami warning).

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • Here is a tectonic map for this part of the world from Zahirovic et al., 2014. They show a fracture zone where the M 7.3 earthquake happened. I left out all the acronym definitions (you’re welcome), but they are listed in the paper.


    • Regional tectonic setting with plate boundaries (MORs/transforms = black, subduction zones = teethed red) from Bird (2003) and ophiolite belts representing sutures modified from Hutchison (1975) and Baldwin et al. (2012). West Sulawesi basalts are from Polvé et al. (1997), fracture zones are from Matthews et al. (2011) and basin outlines are from Hearn et al. (2003).

  • Here are maps showing the regional tectonics (Smoczyk et al., 2013).


    • Along its western margin, the Philippine Sea plate is associated with a zone of oblique convergence with the Sunda plate. This highly active convergent plate boundary extends along both sides the Philippine Islands, from Luzon in the north to Sulawesi in the south. The tectonic setting of the Philippines is unusual in several respects: it is characterized by opposite-facing subduction systems on its east and west sides; the archipelago is cut by a major transform fault, the Philippine Fault; and the arc complex itself is marked by volcanism, faulting, and high seismic activity. Subduction of the Philippine Sea plate occurs at the eastern margin of the archipelago along the Philippine Trench and its northern extension, the East Luzon Trough. The East Luzon Trough is thought to be an unusual example of a subduction zone in the process of formation, as the Philippine Trench system gradually extends northward (Hamburger and others, 1983).

  • This shows Global Positioning System (GPS) velocities at various locations. These plate motions are represented as vectors in mm/yr. (see legend) Here note how the vector labeled phil/eura (for the motion of the PSP relative to the Eurasia plate) is oblique to the plate margin along the Philippine trench (i.e. the PSP is not subducting perpendicular to the megathrust fault). The oblique relative motion seems to lead to strain partitioning, leading to a forearc sliver fault (the Philippine fault, shown in maps above). Below I include the text from the original figure caption in blockquote.


    • Topographic and tectonic map of the Indonesian archipelago and surrounding region. Labeled, shaded arrows show motion (NUVEL-1A model) of the first-named tectonic plate relative to the second. Solid arrows are velocity vectors derived from GPS surveys from 1991 through 2001, in ITRF2000. For clarity, only a few of the vectors for Sumatra are included. The detailed velocity field for Sumatra is shown in Figure 5. Velocity vector ellipses indicate 2-D 95% confidence levels based on the formal (white noise only) uncertainty estimates. NGT, ew Guinea Trench; NST, North Sulawesi Trench; SF, Sumatran Fault; TAF, Tarera-Aiduna Fault. Bathymetry [Smith and Sandwell, 1997] in this and all subsequent figures contoured at 2 km intervals

  • This is one of my favorite figures of all time (Hall, 2011). Read below for more details.


    • 3D cartoon of plate boundaries in the Molucca Sea region modified from Hall et al. (1995). Although seismicity identifies a number of plates there are no continuous boundaries, and the Cotobato, North Sulawesi and Philippine Trenches are all intraplate features. The apparent distinction between different crust types, such as Australian continental crust and oceanic crust of the Philippine and Molucca Sea, is partly a boundary inactive since the Early Miocene (east Sulawesi) and partly a younger but now probably inactive boundary of the Sorong Fault. The upper crust of this entire region is deforming in a much more continuous way than suggested by this cartoon.

  • Here is a map and cross section presented by Waltham et al. (2008). They use a variety of data sources as a basis for their interpretations (seismic reflection data, gravity data). Note how the Molucca Sea plate subducts both to the west and to the east. Below I include the text from the original figure caption in blockquote.


    • (A) Location and major tectonic features of the Molucca Sea region. Small, black-fi lled triangles are modern volcanoes. Bathymetric contours are at 200, 2000, 4000, and 6000 m. Large barbed lines are subduction zones, and small barbed lines are thrusts. (B) Cross section across the Halmahera and Sangihe Arcs on section line B. Thrusts on each side of the Molucca Sea are directed outward toward the adjacent arcs, although the subducting Molucca Sea plate dips east beneath Halmahera and west below the Sangihe Arc. (C) Inset is the restored cross section of the Miocene–Pliocene Weda Bay Basin of SW Halmahera on section line C, fl attened to the Pliocene unconformity, showing estimated thickness of the section

  • Early work done in the region was presented by McCaffrey et al. (1980). Here is a map showing seismic refraction lines that they used to constrain the structures in this region. Below I include the text from the original figure caption in blockquote.


    • Map of the Molucca Sea, eastern Indonesia, showing I~tions of seismic refraction lines (solid straight lines) and gravity traverses (duhed-dotted lines). Thrust faults are shown with teeth on hanging wall. Triangles represent active volcanoes defining the Sangihe and Halmahera magmatic arcs. Isobath interval is 1 km from Mammericks et al. [1976].

  • Here is a cross section that shows the gravity model they used to interpret this region.


    • Gravity model for the central Molucca Sea. (II) Crustal model with layers designated by their density contrasts and refraction control points by open circles and vertical bars. (b) Mantle structure used in modeling the gravity profiles in the central Molucca Sea. Figure 124 fits into the small box at the apex of the inverted-V-ehaped lithosphere. Slab dimensions are controlled by earthquake foci (dots) from Hlltherton 11M Dickinaon [1969J, and mantle densities are taken from Grow 11M Rowin [1975J. The column at the left shows assumed densities for the range of depths between the tick marks. The small v pattern represents oceanic crust, and island arc crust is designated by a short parallel line pattern. East is to the right of the figure.

  • Here is another tectonic map showing the Sorong fault and some splay faults (dashed lines running along Halmahera), one of which may be involved in today’s earthquake.


    • Location map and active faults of the Molucca Sea region. Fault colours: blue, convergence; red, transvergence; yellow, divergence; grey, uncertain motion. Fault abbreviations: CF, Catabato Fault; GF, Gorontalo Fault; NST, North Sulawesi Trench; PKF, Palu-Koro Fault; SF, Sorong Fault.

  • This is a geologic map for the islands in the region (Hall et al., 1988).


    • Sketch geological map of Halmahera based on Apandi & Sudana (1980), Silitonga et al. (1981), Supriatna (1980) & Yasin (1980) and modified after our own observations. Note in particular the absence of thrusting in the NE arm and the major NE-SW fault (the Subaim Fault) running parallel to the south side of Kau Bay.

Geologic Fundamentals

  • For more on the graphical representation of moment tensors and focal mechanisms, check this IRIS video out:

  • Here is a fantastic infographic from Frisch et al. (2011). This figure shows some examples of earthquakes in different plate tectonic settings, and what their fault plane solutions are. There is a cross section showing these focal mechanisms for a thrust or reverse earthquake. The upper right corner includes my favorite figure of all time. This shows the first motion (up or down) for each of the four quadrants. This figure also shows how the amplitude of the seismic waves are greatest (generally) in the middle of the quadrant and decrease to zero at the nodal planes (the boundary of each quadrant).


    •

  • Here is another way to look at these beach balls.

  • There are three types of earthquakes, strike-slip, compressional (reverse or thrust, depending upon the dip of the fault), and extensional (normal). Here is are some animations of these three types of earthquake faults. The following three animations are from IRIS.

    • Strike Slip:

    Compressional:

    Extensional:

  • This is an image from the USGS that shows how, when an oceanic plate moves over a hotspot, the volcanoes formed over the hotspot form a series of volcanoes that increase in age in the direction of plate motion. The presumption is that the hotspot is stable and stays in one location. Torsvik et al. (2017) use various methods to evaluate why this is a false presumption for the Hawaii Hotspot.


    • A cutaway view along the Hawaiian island chain showing the inferred mantle plume that has fed the Hawaiian hot spot on the overriding Pacific Plate. The geologic ages of the oldest volcano on each island (Ma = millions of years ago) are progressively older to the northwest, consistent with the hot spot model for the origin of the Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount Chain. (Modified from image of Joel E. Robinson, USGS, in “This Dynamic Planet” map of Simkin and others, 2006.)

  • Here is a map from Torsvik et al. (2017) that shows the age of volcanic rocks at different locations along the Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain.


    • Hawaiian-Emperor Chain. White dots are the locations of radiometrically dated seamounts, atolls and islands, based on compilations of Doubrovine et al. and O’Connor et al. Features encircled with larger white circles are discussed in the text and Fig. 2. Marine gravity anomaly map is from Sandwell and Smith.

  • Here is a great tweet that discusses the different parts of a seismogram and how the internal structures of the Earth help control seismic waves as they propagate in the Earth.

    References:

  • Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
  • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
  • Hall., R., Audley-Charles, M.G., Banner, F.T., Hidayat, S., Tobing, S.L., 1988. Basement rocks of the Halmahera region, eastern Indonesia: a Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary arc and fore-arc in Journal of the Geological Society, v. 145, p. 65-84
  • Harris, R. and Major, J., 2016. Waves of destruction in the East Indies: the Wichmann catalogue of earthquakes and tsunami in the Indonesian region from 1538 to 1877 in Cummins, P. R. & Meilano, I. (eds) Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 441, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP441.2
  • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
  • Highland, L.M., and Bobrowsky, P., 2008. The landslide handbook—A guide to understanding landslides, Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1325, 129 p.
  • Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
  • Horspool, N., Pranantyo, I., Griffin, J., Latief, H., Natawidjaja, D. H., Kongko, W., Cipta, A., Bustaman, B., Anugrah, S. D., and Thio, H. K., 2014. A probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment for Indonesia, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 3105-3122, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-3105-2014, 2014.
  • Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
  • Keefer, D.K., 1984. Landslides Caused by Earthquakes in GSA Bulletin, v. 95, p. 406-421
  • Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
  • Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
  • Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
  • McCaffrey, R., Silver, E.A., and Raitt, R.W., 1980. Crustal Structure of the Molucca Sea Collision Zone, Indonesia in The Tectonic and Geologic Evolution of Southeast Asian Seas and Islands-Geophysical Monograph 23, p. 161-177.
  • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
  • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
  • Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
  • Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
  • Smoczyk, G.M., Hayes, G.P., Hamburger, M.W., Benz, H.M., Villaseñor, Antonio, and Furlong, K.P., 2013. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Philippine Sea plate and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-M, 1 sheet, scale 1:10,000,000.
  • Waltham et al., 2008. Basin formation by volcanic arc loading in GSA Special Papers 2008, v. 436, p. 11-26.
  • Zahirovic et al., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014.
  • Zulkifli, M., Rudyanto, A., and Sakti, A.P., 2016. The View of Seismic Hazard in The Halmahera Region in proceedings from International Symposium on Earth Hazard and Disaster Mitigation (ISEDM) 2016 AIP Conf. Proc. 1857, 050004-1–050004-7; doi:10.1063/1.4987082

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.


Earthquake Report: Indonesia

Posted on by
Reply

I had been making an update to an earthquake report on a regionally experienced M 5.6 earthquake from coastal northern California when I noticed that there was a M 7.3 earthquake in eastern Indonesia.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us600044zz/executive

This earthquake is in a region of strike-slip faulting (if in downgoing plate for example) or subduction thrusting, so I thought it may or may not produce a tsunami. There are also intermediate depth quakes here (deeper than subduction zone megathrust events), like this earthquake (which reduces the chance of a tsunami). While we often don’t think of strike-slip earthquakes as those that could cause a tsunami, they can trigger tsunami, albeit smaller in size than those from subduction zone earthquakes or locally for landslides. But, I checked tsunami.gov just in case (result = no tsunami locally nor regionally). I also took a look at the tide gages in the region here and here (result = no observations).

South of this earthquake is a convergent plate boundary, where the Australia plate dives northwards beneath a part of the Sunda plate (Eurasia) forming the Java and Timor trenches (subduction zones). Far to the west, on 2 June 1994 there was a subduction zone megathrust earthquake along the Java Trench. Earlier, on 19 August 1977 there was an M 8.3 earthquake, but it was not a subduction zone thrust event, but an extensional earthquake in the downgoing Australia plate (Given and Kanamori, 19080). Both 1977 and 1994 events are shown on one of the maps below. The 1977 earthquake was tsunamigenic, creating a wave observed on tide gages at Damier, Hampton, and Port Hedland in Australia (Gusman et al., 2009).

To the north of the subduction zone, there is a parallel fault system that dips in the opposite direction as the subduction zone. This is referred to as a backthrust fault (it is a thrust fault and “backwards” to the main fault). The Wetar and Flores faults are both part of this backthrust system. In July and August of 2018 there was a series of earthquakes near the Island of Flores associated with this backthrust. Here is my final of 3 reports on those earthquakes.

The Timor trough wraps around to the north on its eastern end and eventually forms the Seram Trench, which dips to the south. The shape of these linked trenches forms a “U” shape with the open part of the U pointing to the west. Recently it has been published that the basin formed by these fault systems is the deepest forearc basin on Earth (Pownall et al., 2016). There was a subduction zone earthquake in 1938, called the Great Banda Sea Earthquake. Okal and Reymond (2003) prepared an earthquake mechanism for this M 8.5 earthquake.

To complicate matters, there is a large strike-slip system that comes into the area from the east (Papua New Guinea) and bisects the crest of the “U” shape. This strike slip system feeds into the backthrust so that the backthrust is both a thrust fault and a strike-slip fault. There are probably separate faults that accommodate these different senses of motion. There have been a series of strike-slip earthquakes in the 20th century associated with the strike-slip motion along this boundary. For example, Osada and Abe (1981) uses seismologic records (e.g. from seismometers) to prepare an earthquake mechanism for this M 8.1 earthquake. They found that it was an oblique strike-slip earthquake. The depth was pretty shallow compared to the M 7.3 earthquake I am reporting about today.

On 17 June 1987 there was another relatively shallow M 7.1 strike-slip earthquake on this strike-slip fault system.

However, there is also a deeper strike-slip fault within the Australia plate. This fault is probably what ruptured on 2 March 2005 (M 7.1) and 10 December 2012 (M 7.1). The M 7.3 earthquake from a day ago had a similar magnitude, depth, mechanism, and location as these earlier quakes. These may have all ruptured the same fault (or not).

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

I plot the seismicity from the past month, with color representing depth and diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1919-2019 with magnitudes M ≥ 7.0 in one version.
I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes. Some earthquakes have older focal mechanisms plotted in black and white.

  • I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend on the poster. There is more material from the USGS web sites about moment tensors and focal mechanisms (the beach ball symbols). Both moment tensors and focal mechanisms are solutions to seismologic data that reveal two possible interpretations for fault orientation and sense of motion. One must use other information, like the regional tectonics, to interpret which of the two possibilities is more likely.
  • I also include the shaking intensity contours on the map. These use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI; see the legend on the map). This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations. The MMI is a qualitative measure of shaking intensity. More on the MMI scale can be found here and here. This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations.
  • I include the slab 2.0 contours plotted (Hayes, 2018), which are contours that represent the depth to the subduction zone fault. These are mostly based upon seismicity. The depths of the earthquakes have considerable error and do not all occur along the subduction zone faults, so these slab contours are simply the best estimate for the location of the fault.

    Magnetic Anomalies

  • In the map below, I include a transparent overlay of the magnetic anomaly data from EMAG2 (Meyer et al., 2017). As oceanic crust is formed, it inherits the magnetic field at the time. At different points through time, the magnetic polarity (north vs. south) flips, the North Pole becomes the South Pole. These changes in polarity can be seen when measuring the magnetic field above oceanic plates. This is one of the fundamental evidences for plate spreading at oceanic spreading ridges (like the Gorda rise).
  • Regions with magnetic fields aligned like today’s magnetic polarity are colored red in the EMAG2 data, while reversed polarity regions are colored blue. Regions of intermediate magnetic field are colored light purple.
  • We can see the roughly east-west trends of these red and blue stripes in the Caroline and Australia plates. These lines are parallel to the ocean spreading ridges from where they were formed. The stripes disappear at the subduction zone because the oceanic crust with these anomalies is diving deep beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia), so the magnetic anomalies from the overlying Sunda plate mask the evidence for the Australia plate.

    Global Strain

  • In a map below, I include a transparent overlay of the Global Strain Rate Map (Kreemer et al., 2014).
  • The mission of the Global Strain Rate Map (GSRM) project is to determine a globally self-consistent strain rate and velocity field model, consistent with geodetic and geologic field observations. The overall mission also includes:
    1. contributions of global, regional, and local models by individual researchers
    2. archive existing data sets of geologic, geodetic, and seismic information that can contribute toward a greater understanding of strain phenomena
    3. archive existing methods for modeling strain rates and strain transients
  • The completed global strain rate map will provide a large amount of information that is vital for our understanding of continental dynamics and for the quantification of seismic hazards.
  • The version used in the poster(s) below is an update to the original 2004 map (Kreemer et al., 2000, 2003; Holt et al., 2005).

    I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

  • In the upper left corner, I include a map from Benz et al. (2011) that shows historic earthquake locations (epicenters) along with some of the plate boundary faults. Note the strike slip fault (with the opposing black arrows) that cross the location of the 1938 earthquake (labeled in yellow on that map). I placed a blue star in the location of the M 7.3 quake. There is a cross section to the right of the map that shows how earthquakes dive down with a westward trend (following the plate down the subduction zone). The cross section location is shown on the map (B-B’).
  • In the upper right corner is a larger scale tectonic map from Audley (2011) showing the major thrust faults and the large forearc basin is labeled “Weber Deep.”
  • Hangesh and Whitney (2016) did lots of work on the faulting in the region to the south of the M 7.3. They show block boundaries and relative plate motion arrows in white. Note how they extend strike-slip motion along the Timor trough. This may be in addition to the strike-slip along the backthrust.
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted. I included MMI contours from a recent M 6.3 earthquake in PNG, which led to a sequence of additional M~6 quakes to the southeast of that main shock. I won’t be writing a report for those quakes, even though it is interesting (check it out!). Sorry to have misspelled Hengesh as Hangesh.


    •

  • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity (M ≥ 7.0) plotted.


    •

  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity (M ≥ 0.5) plotted with the Global Strain data plotted. We can see the 2018 Flores swarm show up here.


    •

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • Here is a tectonic map for this part of the world from Zahirovic et al., 2014. They show a fracture zone where the M 7.3 earthquake happened. I left out all the acronym definitions (you’re welcome), but they are listed in the paper.


    • Regional tectonic setting with plate boundaries (MORs/transforms = black, subduction zones = teethed red) from Bird (2003) and ophiolite belts representing sutures modified from Hutchison (1975) and Baldwin et al. (2012). West Sulawesi basalts are from Polvé et al. (1997), fracture zones are from Matthews et al. (2011) and basin outlines are from Hearn et al. (2003).

  • This is a great visualization showing the Australia plate and how it formed the largest forearc basin on Earth (Pownall et al., 2014).
  • The maps on the left show a time history of the tectonics. The low angle oblique view on the right shows the dipping crust (north is not always up, as in this figure).
  • In the lower right, they show how there is strike-slip faulting along the Seram trough also (I left out the figure caption for E).


    • Reconstructions of eastern Indonesia, adapted from Hall (2012), depict collision of Australia with Southeast Asia and slab rollback into Banda Embayment. Yellow star indicates Seram. Oceanic crust is shown in purple (older than 120 Ma) and blue (younger than 120 Ma); submarine arcs and oceanic plateaus are shown in cyan; volcanic island arcs, ophiolites, and material accreted along plate margins are shown in green. A: Reconstruction at 15 Ma. B: Reconstruction at 7 Ma. C: Reconstruction at 2 Ma. D: Visualization of present-day slab morphology of proto–Banda Sea based on earthquake hypocenter distribution and tomographic models

  • Here is a map and some cross sections showing seismic tomography (like C-T scans into the Earth using seismic waves instead of X-Rays). The map shows the location of the cross sections (Spakman et al., 2010).


    • The Banda arc and surrounding region. 200 m and 4,000 m bathymetric contours are indicated. The numbered black lines are Benioff zone contours in kilometres. The red triangles are Holocene volcanoes (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/). Ar=Aru, Ar Tr=Aru trough, Ba=Banggai Islands, Bu=Buru, SBS=South Banda Sea, Se=Seram, Sm=Sumba, Su=Sula Islands, Ta=Tanimbar, Ta Tr=Tanimbar trough, Ti=Timor, W=Weber Deep.


    Tomographic images of the Banda slab. Vertical sections through the tomography model along the lines shown in Fig. 1. Colours: P-wave anomalies with reference to velocity model ak135 (ref. 30). Dots: earthquake hypocentres within 12 km of the section. The dashed lines are phase changes at ~410 km and ~660 km. The sections are plotted without vertical exaggeration; the horizontal axis is in degrees. The labelled positive anomalies are the Sunda (Su) and Banda (Ba) slabs: BuDdetached slab under Buru, FlDslab under Flores, SDslab under Seram, TDslab under Timor. a, The Sunda slab enters the lower mantle whereas the Banda embayment slab is entirely in the upper mantle with the change under Sulawesi. b–e, Banda slab morphology in sections parallel to Australia plate motion shows a transition from a steep slab with a flat section (fs) (b) to a spoon shape shallowing eastward (c–e).

  • Here is the tectonic map from Hengesh and Whitney (2016)


    • Illustration of major tectonic elements in triple junction geometry: tectonic features labeled per Figure 1; seismicity from ISC-GEM catalog [Storchak et al., 2013]; faults in Savu basin from Rigg and Hall [2011] and Harris et al. [2009]. Purple line is edge of Australian continental basement and fore arc [Rigg and Hall, 2011]. Abbreviations: AR = Ashmore Reef; SR = Scott Reef; RS = Rowley Shoals; TCZ = Timor Collision Zone; ST = Savu thrust; SB = Savu Basin; TT = Timor thrust; WT =Wetar thrust; WASZ = Western Australia Shear Zone. Open arrows indicate relative direction of motion; solid arrows direction of vergence.

  • Here is the Audley (2011) cross section showing how the backthrust relates to the subduction zone beneath Timor. I include their figure caption in blockquote below.


    • Cartoon cross section of Timor today, (cf. Richardson & Blundell 1996, their BIRPS figs 3b, 4b & 7; and their fig. 6 gravity model 2 after Woodside et al. 1989; and Snyder et al. 1996 their fig. 6a). Dimensions of the filled 40 km deep present-day Timor Tectonic Collision Zone are based on BIRPS seismic, earthquake seismicity and gravity data all re-interpreted here from Richardson & Blundell (1996) and from Snyder et al. (1996). NB. The Bobonaro Melange, its broken formation and other facies are not indicated, but they are included with the Gondwana mega-sequence. Note defunct Banda Trench, now the Timor TCZ, filled with Australian continental crust and Asian nappes that occupy all space between Wetar Suture and the 2–3 km deep deformation front north of the axis of the Timor Trough. Note the much younger decollement D5 used exactly the same part of the Jurassic lithology of the Gondwana mega-sequence in the older D1 decollement that produced what appears to be much stronger deformation.

  • Here is a figure showing the regional geodetic motions (Bock et al., 2003). I include their figure caption below as a blockquote.


    • Topographic and tectonic map of the Indonesian archipelago and surrounding region. Labeled, shaded arrows show motion (NUVEL-1A model) of the first-named tectonic plate relative to the second. Solid arrows are velocity vectors derived from GPS surveys from 1991 through 2001, in ITRF2000. For clarity, only a few of the vectors for Sumatra are included. The detailed velocity field for Sumatra is shown in Figure 5. Velocity vector ellipses indicate 2-D 95% confidence levels based on the formal (white noise only) uncertainty estimates. NGT, New Guinea Trench; NST, North Sulawesi Trench; SF, Sumatran Fault; TAF, Tarera-Aiduna Fault. Bathymetry [Smith and Sandwell, 1997] in this and all subsequent figures contoured at 2 km intervals.

  • Whitney and Hengesh (2015) used GPS modeling to suggest a model of plate blocks. Below are their model results.


    • Plate boundary segments in the Banda Arc region from Nugroho et al (2009). Numbers inside rectangles show possible micro-plate blocks near the Sumba Triple Junction (colored) based on GPS velocities (black arrows) with in a stable Eurasian reference frame.

  • Here is the conceptual model from Whitney and Hengesh (2015) that shows how left-lateral strike-slip faulting can come into the region.


    • Schematic map views of kinematic relations between major crustal elements in the Sumba Triple Junction region. CTZ= collisional tectonic zone. Red arrow size designates schematic plate motion relations based on geological data relative to a fixed Sunda shelf reference frame (pin).

Geologic Fundamentals

  • For more on the graphical representation of moment tensors and focal mechanisms, check this IRIS video out:

  • Here is a fantastic infographic from Frisch et al. (2011). This figure shows some examples of earthquakes in different plate tectonic settings, and what their fault plane solutions are. There is a cross section showing these focal mechanisms for a thrust or reverse earthquake. The upper right corner includes my favorite figure of all time. This shows the first motion (up or down) for each of the four quadrants. This figure also shows how the amplitude of the seismic waves are greatest (generally) in the middle of the quadrant and decrease to zero at the nodal planes (the boundary of each quadrant).


    •

  • Here is another way to look at these beach balls.

  • There are three types of earthquakes, strike-slip, compressional (reverse or thrust, depending upon the dip of the fault), and extensional (normal). Here is are some animations of these three types of earthquake faults. The following three animations are from IRIS.

    • Strike Slip:

    Compressional:

    Extensional:

  • This is an image from the USGS that shows how, when an oceanic plate moves over a hotspot, the volcanoes formed over the hotspot form a series of volcanoes that increase in age in the direction of plate motion. The presumption is that the hotspot is stable and stays in one location. Torsvik et al. (2017) use various methods to evaluate why this is a false presumption for the Hawaii Hotspot.


    • A cutaway view along the Hawaiian island chain showing the inferred mantle plume that has fed the Hawaiian hot spot on the overriding Pacific Plate. The geologic ages of the oldest volcano on each island (Ma = millions of years ago) are progressively older to the northwest, consistent with the hot spot model for the origin of the Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount Chain. (Modified from image of Joel E. Robinson, USGS, in “This Dynamic Planet” map of Simkin and others, 2006.)

  • Here is a map from Torsvik et al. (2017) that shows the age of volcanic rocks at different locations along the Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain.


    • Hawaiian-Emperor Chain. White dots are the locations of radiometrically dated seamounts, atolls and islands, based on compilations of Doubrovine et al. and O’Connor et al. Features encircled with larger white circles are discussed in the text and Fig. 2. Marine gravity anomaly map is from Sandwell and Smith.

  • Here is a great tweet that discusses the different parts of a seismogram and how the internal structures of the Earth help control seismic waves as they propagate in the Earth.

    Social Media

    References:

  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 1986. Rates of Neogene and Quaternary tectonic movements in the Southern Banda Arc based on micropalaeontology in: Journal of fhe Geological Society, London, Vol. 143, 1986, pp. 161-175.
  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 2011. Tectonic post-collision processes in Timor, Hall, R., Cottam, M. A. &Wilson, M. E. J. (eds) The SE Asian Gateway: History and Tectonics of the Australia–Asia Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 355, 241–266.
  • Baldwin, S.L., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Webb, L.E., 2012. Tectonics of the New Guinea Region in Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., v. 41, p. 485-520.
  • Benz, H.M., Herman, Matthew, Tarr, A.C., Hayes, G.P., Furlong, K.P., Villaseñor, Antonio, Dart, R.L., and Rhea, Susan, 2011. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 New Guinea and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-H, scale 1:8,000,000.
  • Given, J. W., and H. Kanamori (1980). The depth extent of the 1977 Sumbawa, Indonesia, earthquake, in EOS Trans. AGU., v. 61, p. 1044.
  • Gusnman, A.R., Tanioka, Y., Matsumoto, H., and Iwasakai, S.-I., 2009. Analysis of the Tsunami Generated by the Great 1977 Sumba Earthquake that Occurred in Indonesia in BSSA, v. 99, no. 4, p. 2169-2179, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080324
  • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
  • Hangesh, J. and Whitney, B., 2014. Quaternary Reactivation of Australia’s Western Passive Margin: Inception of a New Plate Boundary? in: 5th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archeoseismology (PATA), 21-27 September 2014, Busan, Korea, 4 pp.
  • Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
  • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
  • Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
  • Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
  • Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
  • Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
  • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
  • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
  • Okal, E. A., & Reymond, D., 2003. The mechanism of great Banda Sea earthquake of 1 February 1938: applying the method of preliminary determination of focal mechanism to a historical event in EPSL, v. 216, p. 1-15.
  • Osada, M. and Abe, K., 1981. Mechanism and tectonic implications of the great Banda Sea earthquake of November 4, 1963 in Physics of the Earth and Plentary Interiors, v. 25, p. 129-139
  • Pownall, J.M., Hall, R., Armstrong,, R.A., and Forster, M.A., 2014. Earth’s youngest known ultrahigh-temperature granulites discovered on Seram, eastern Indonesia in Geology, v. 42, no. 4, p. 379-282, https://doi.org/10.1130/G35230.1
  • Spakman, W. and Hall, R., 2010. Surface deformation and slab–mantle interaction during Banda arc subduction rollback in Nature Geosceince, v. 3, p. 562-566, https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO917
  • Whitney, B.B. and Hengesh, J.V., 2015. A new model for active intraplate tectonics in western Australia in Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient Pacific 6-8 November 2015, Sydney, Australia, paper number 82
  • Zahirovic, S., Seton, M., and Müller, R.D., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.


Earthquake Report: Sulawesi, Indonesia

Posted on by
Reply

Today I awoke to the USGS earthquake notification service email about an earthquake offshore of Sulawesi, Indonesia. There was an earthquake with a magnitude M 6.8 to the southeast of the Donggala/Palu earthquake from 28 September 2018. Here is the comprehensive earthquake report for the Donggala/Palu earthquake, landslides, and tsunami.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us700034xq/executive
Just like the September quake, today’s event was a strike-slip earthquake, where the crust moves side-by-side (like the San Andreas fault).
This region of the world is complicated and special. There are subduction zone and transform plate boundaries. I use several maps below to present how these plate boundaries control the types of earthquakes. First I plot the earthquakes from the past year, then for the past century. Of course, let’s remember that seismometers are not that old, so the first half of the 20th century, there were not many seismometers. So, the earthquake record before the 1950s is generally composed of earthquakes with larger magnitude.
There are many many faults in this region, overlapping each other, offsetting each other. And, there have been earthquakes along many of these systems over the past year and past century that represent these different systems and how they interact.

The M 6.8 temblor is strange because it is oriented in a way that is different from the mapped faults in the region. The mainshock/aftershock sequence suggests a northeast-southwest oriented fault (making this a right-lateral strike slip earthquake). The mapped faults with this orientation are instead left-lateral faults.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

I plot the seismicity from the past month, with color representing depth and diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1918-2018 with magnitudes M ≥ 4.5 and M ≥ 7.5 in different versions.
I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.

  • I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend on the poster. There is more material from the USGS web sites about moment tensors and focal mechanisms (the beach ball symbols). Both moment tensors and focal mechanisms are solutions to seismologic data that reveal two possible interpretations for fault orientation and sense of motion. One must use other information, like the regional tectonics, to interpret which of the two possibilities is more likely.
  • I also include the shaking intensity contours on the map. These use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI; see the legend on the map). This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations. The MMI is a qualitative measure of shaking intensity. More on the MMI scale can be found here and here. This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations.
  • I include the slab 2.0 contours plotted (Hayes, 2018), which are contours that represent the depth to the subduction zone fault. These are mostly based upon seismicity. The depths of the earthquakes have considerable error and do not all occur along the subduction zone faults, so these slab contours are simply the best estimate for the location of the fault.

    Magnetic Anomalies

  • In the M 7.5 map below, I include a transparent overlay of the magnetic anomaly data from EMAG2 (Meyer et al., 2017). As oceanic crust is formed, it inherits the magnetic field at the time. At different points through time, the magnetic polarity (north vs. south) flips, the North Pole becomes the South Pole. These changes in polarity can be seen when measuring the magnetic field above oceanic plates. This is one of the fundamental evidences for plate spreading at oceanic spreading ridges (like the Gorda rise).
  • Regions with magnetic fields aligned like today’s magnetic polarity are colored red in the EMAG2 data, while reversed polarity regions are colored blue. Regions of intermediate magnetic field are colored light purple.
  • We can see the roughly east-west trends of these red and blue stripes. These lines are parallel to the ocean spreading ridges from where they were formed.

    I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

  • In the upper right corner is an overview map from Zahirovic et al. (2014) that shows the major plate boundary faults and tectonic plates. I placed a blue star in the general location of yesterday’s M 6.8 temblor.
  • The map in the upper left corner shows one interpretation of these faults as presented by Bellier et al. (2006). The M 6.8 quake happened somewhere in the intersection of the Batui thrust (an extension of the Molucca Collision) and the Sorong fault. There are half a dozen different interpretations for the tectonics here, this is but one.
  • The map in the lower left corner is a map from Cipta et a. (2006) that shows the relative seismic hazard for Sulawesi. Compare this map with the Bellier map above. Note how the seismic hazard is directly related to the known earthquake faults.
  • In the lower right corner is a low-angle oblique view of the plates and their boundaries in this part of the world (Hall, 2011). I present this figure alone below to highlight the details of how these faults interact near the M 6.8 quake.
  • Here is the map with a year’s seismicity plotted for quakes M ≥ 4.5.
    • Earthquakes from the past year represent well many of the plate boundaries here. Notably is the Donggala/Palu sequence, with all the aftershocks, that align with the trend of the Palu-Koro fault as it connects to the south tot he Sorong fault system.
    • There are several quakes along the Java trench (the Sunda subduction zone), showing thrust quakes (e.g. 2.18, 8.28, and 10.1 in 2018 and 1.21 and 1.22 in 2019). The Lombok sequence of 2018 is also evidence of this north-south convergence.
    • As the Australia plate dives deep beneath the Sunda plate, the slab (the oceanic crust) pulls downwards, causing extension. The 2018.07.28 M 6.0 and 2019.04.06 normal fault earthquakes (orange arrows) are great examples of this. Intermediate depth earthquakes are not completely understood, but we learn more every year. For example, sometimes there are compressional quakes (thrust/reverse) that happen at these depths, e.g. the 2018.08.17 M 6.5 quake.
    • One of the more active regions is the Molucca Strait, where there are subduction/convergent zones that oppose each other. The 2019.01.06 M 6.6 shaker is a good example of what can happen here (and does rather frequently).
    • Further north is the subduction zone that forms the Philippine trench. There was a M 7.0 earthquake on 2018.12.29 that shows evidence of the subduction zone megathrust.

  • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted for quakes M ≥ 7.5.
    • The USGS earthquake catalog includes additional examples of larger quakes over the past century that represent the range of plate boundary types in the region. The global earthquake catalog is better after 1950 due to the increase in seismic monitoring during the cold war (monitoring for nuclear weapons testing).
    • Evidence for subduction along the Sunda subduction zone include subduction zone earthquakes (1977.08.19 M 8.3, 1994.06.02 M 7.8). Also, evidence for down-dip slab-pull extension as evidenced by the 1996.06.17 M 7.9 temblor. similar to the 2018 Lombok sequence, there are also examples of the backthrust to the subduction zone (e.g. 1992.12.12 M 7.8 and 2004.11.11 M 7.5).
    • The Molucca Strait thrust earthquakes are evidence for this bivergent convergence (e.g. 1986.08.14 M 7.5 and 2007.01.21 M 7.5).
    • There is also a subduction zone on the north side of Sulawesi, with several good example earthquakes (e.g. 1990.04.18 M 7.5, 1991.06.20 M 7.5, and 1996.01.01 M 7.9, which was tsunamigenic).
    • There was a strike-slip earthquake on 1998.11.29 that is related to the Sorong fault system, a magnitude M 7.7 shaker.

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • This is the small scale tectonic map of the region (Zahirovic et al., 2014). This gives us the overview we need so we can understand the wide variety of plate boundary faults and how they interact with each other.


    • Regional tectonic setting with plate boundaries (MORs/transforms = black, subduction zones = teethed red) from Bird (2003) and ophiolite belts representing sutures modified from Hutchison (1975) and Baldwin et al. (2012). West Sulawesi basalts are from Polvé et al. (1997), fracture zones are from Matthews et al. (2011) and basin outlines are from Hearn et al. (2003). ANI – Andaman and Nicobar Islands, BD– Billiton Depression, Ba – Bangka Island, BI – Belitung (Billiton) Island, BiS – Bismarck Sea, BP – Benham Plateau, CaR – Caroline Ridge, CS – Celebes Sea, DG– Dangerous Grounds, EauR – Eauripik Ridge, FIN – Finisterre Terrane, GoT – Gulf of Thailand, GR– Gagua Ridge, HAL– Halmahera, HBa – Huatung Basin, KB–Ketungau Basin, KP – Khorat Platform, KT – Kiilsgaard Trough, LS – Luconia Shoals, MacB – Macclesfield Bank, ManTr – Manus Trench, MaTr – Mariana Trench, MB– Melawi Basin, MDB– Minami Daito Basin, MG– Mangkalihat, MIN – Mindoro, MN– Mawgyi Nappe, MoS – Molucca Sea, MS– Makassar Straits, MTr – Mussau Trench, NGTr – New Guinea Trench, NI – Natuna Islands, ODR– Oki Daito Ridge, OJP –Ontong Java Plateau, OSF – Owen Stanley Fault, PAL – Palawan, PhF – Philippine Fault, PT – Paternoster Platform, PTr – Palau Trench, PVB – Parece Vela Basin, RB – Reed Bank, RMF– Ramu-Markham Fault, RRF – Red River fault, SEM– Semitau, ShB – Shikoku Basin, Sol. Sea – Solomon Sea, SPK – Sepik, SPT – abah–Palawan Trough, STr – Sorol Trough, Sul – Sulawesi, SuS – Sulu Sea, TPAA– Torricelli–Prince Alexander Arc, WB–West Burma, WCT–W Caroline Trough, YTr –Yap Trough.

  • Here is the tectonic map from Bellier et al., 2006. I include their caption below in blockquote. Note how the Molluca Collision faults trend towards the Batui thrust. However, when we look more closely at the faulting on a local scale, things get much more complicated.



    • Regional geodynamic sketch that presents the present day deformation model of Sulawesi area (after Beaudouin et al., 2003) and four main deformation systems around the Central Sulawesi block, highlighting the tectonic complexity of Sulawesi. Approximate location of the Central Sulawesi block rotation pole (P) [compatible with both GPS measurements (Walpersdorf et al., 1998a) and earthquake moment tensor analyses (Beaudouin et al., 2003)], as well as the major active structures are reported. Central Sulawesi Fault System (CSFS) is formed by the Palu–Koro and Matano faults. Arrows correspond to the compression and/or extension directions deduced from both inversion and moment tensor analyses of the focal mechanisms; arrow size being proportional to the deformation rate (e.g., Beaudouin et al., 2003).We also represent the focal mechanism provided by the Harvard CMT database [CMT data base, 2005] for the recent large earthquake (Mw=6.2; 2005/1/23; lat.=0.928S; long.=120.108E). The box indicates the approximate location of the Fig. 6 that corresponds to the geological map of the Palu basin region. The bottom inset shows the SE Asia and Sulawesi geodynamic frame where arrows represent the approximate Indo-Australian and Philippines plate motions relative to Eurasia.

  • Here is the larger scale map showing the fault configuration in this region (Bellier et al., 2006). I include this so we can see how the Sorong fault system extends and relates to the Palu-Koro system.



    • Sketch map of the Cenozoic Central Sulawesi fault system. ML represents the Matano Lake, and Leboni RFZ, the Leboni releasing fault zone that connects the Palu–Koro and Matano Faults. Triangles indicate faults with reverse component (triangles on the upthrown block). On this map are reported the fault kinematic measurement sites (geographic coordinates in Table 3).

  • Here is the low-angle oblique view of this region. Note the left-lateral strike-slip fault bisecting Sulawesi. Note the Sorong fault system that trends towards this system. The Sorong fault ends in a convergent plate boundary in eastern Sulawesi (the Batui thrust). There is a small north-south fault linking these two systems on the western part of hte N Banda Sea. The M 6.8 earquake happened in this area. We will look at more detailed maps of this area.


    • 3D cartoon of plate boundaries in the Molucca Sea region modified from Hall et al. (1995). Although seismicity identifies a number of plates there are no continuous boundaries, and the Cotobato, North Sulawesi and Philippine Trenches are all intraplate features. The apparent distinction between different crust types, such as Australian continental crust and oceanic crust of the Philippine and Molucca Sea, is partly a boundary inactive since the Early Miocene (east Sulawesi) and partly a younger but now probably inactive boundary of the Sorong Fault. The upper crust of this entire region is deforming in a much more continuous way than suggested by this cartoon.

  • Here is another interpretation showing how these faults map interact in the region (Simandjuntak and Barber, 1996). Yesterday’s M 6.8 quake happened southwest of Banggai.


    • Talaud orogeny in the North Moluccas. Line of section illustrated in Fig. 9 is indicated.

  • This is larger scale, showing details for the Sulawesi region (Simandjuntak and Barber, 1996).


    • Sulawesi orogeny. Line of section illustrated in Fig. 9 is indicated.

  • Below are a couple maps from Watkinson et al. (2011) that show detailed mapping in this area.
  • First here is a fault tectonic map based on new (2011) interpretations. These interpretations are based on detailed seismic reflection data, as well as high resolution multibeam mapping (detailed information about the surface of the seafloor).


    • Map of the same area as Figure 1, and drawn largely after the same sources, but modified in the light of the present study. Revised faults are shown in red. Principal differences include the absence of a through-going Sula Thrust, the Sorong Fault as a plate boundary which does not reach the surface, and connection of the Poh Head fault to the region of dextral transpression in the west of the study area. Sources of deformation in the region are indicated by regions of colour.

  • Here is a regional map showing multibeam bathymetry along with fault line interpretations. This is “figure 3; note the extent for “figure 8,” which is the figure i present next.


    • (a) Shaded relief map of the multibeam data. See inset map for location. Illumination from the NW. (b) Interpreted structural map, showing fault kinematics, basin areas, and fields of debris derived from the collapsing slope in the south. Locations of subsequent figures shown.

  • Here is the detailed map of the seafloor geomorphology (Watkinson et al., 2011). This map is northeast of the island of Banggai, but it informs us about the northeast oriented faults, along with the northwest oriented faults. Note that the northwest oriented faults are right lateral (opposite sense of motion compared to the Sorong fault system, which makes interpreting the M 6.8 more complicated). Also, north how the northwest striking (oriented) faults are left-lateral strike-slip systems. This is also opposite the sense of motion for the M 6.8 earthquake (and also for the 1999.08.12 M 6.2 quake (see the year’s seismicity interpretive poster above).
  • So, we have a mystery. What fault system is responsible for the 2019.04.12 M 6.8 and 1999.08.12 M 6.2 quakes. So exciting!


    • Multibeam image showing details of the region of dextral transpression in the west of the study area. See Figure 3b and inset map for location. Antiformal hinge lines marked by black dashed lines, thrusts marked by white dashed lines. Strike-slip faults marked by double half arrows. Maximum horizontal stress orientations for various structures shown in top right.

  • Next, lets look at the evidence for subduction along the Sunda subduction zone. Below is a map showing historic seismicity (Jones et al., 2014). Cross sections B-B’ and C-C’ are shown. The seismicity for the cross sections below are sourced from within each respective rectangle.


  • Here are the seismcity cross sections.


    •

  • Below are the maps and cross sections from Darman et al., 2012.


    • Tectonic map of the Lesser Sunda Islands, showing the main tectonic units, main faults, bathymetry and location of seismic sections discussed in this paper.

  • Here is the seismicity cross section in the interpretive poster above.


    • This plot shows the earthquake localizations on a South-North cross section for the lat -14°/-4° long 114°/124° quadrant corresponding to the Lesser Sunda Islands region. The localizations are extracted from the USGS database and corresponds to magnitude greater than 4.5 in the 1973-2004 time period (shallow earthquakes with undetermined depth have been omitted.

  • Here is their interpretations of seismic data used to interpret the tectonics of the subduction zone and Flores thrust.


    • Six 15 km deep seismic sections acquired by BGR from west to east traversing oceanic crust, deep sea trench, accretionary prism, outer arc high and fore-arc basin, derived from Kirchoff prestack depth migration (PreSDM) with a frequency range of 4-60 Hz. Profile BGR06-313 shows exemplarily a velocity-depth model according to refraction/wide-angle
    seismic tomography on coincident profile P31 (modified after Lüschen et al, 2011).

Geologic Fundamentals

  • For more on the graphical representation of moment tensors and focal mechanisms, check this IRIS video out:

  • Here is a fantastic infographic from Frisch et al. (2011). This figure shows some examples of earthquakes in different plate tectonic settings, and what their fault plane solutions are. There is a cross section showing these focal mechanisms for a thrust or reverse earthquake. The upper right corner includes my favorite figure of all time. This shows the first motion (up or down) for each of the four quadrants. This figure also shows how the amplitude of the seismic waves are greatest (generally) in the middle of the quadrant and decrease to zero at the nodal planes (the boundary of each quadrant).


    •

  • Here is another way to look at these beach balls.

  • There are three types of earthquakes, strike-slip, compressional (reverse or thrust, depending upon the dip of the fault), and extensional (normal). Here is are some animations of these three types of earthquake faults. The following three animations are from IRIS.

    • Strike Slip:

    Compressional:

    Extensional:

  • This is an image from the USGS that shows how, when an oceanic plate moves over a hotspot, the volcanoes formed over the hotspot form a series of volcanoes that increase in age in the direction of plate motion. The presumption is that the hotspot is stable and stays in one location. Torsvik et al. (2017) use various methods to evaluate why this is a false presumption for the Hawaii Hotspot.


    • A cutaway view along the Hawaiian island chain showing the inferred mantle plume that has fed the Hawaiian hot spot on the overriding Pacific Plate. The geologic ages of the oldest volcano on each island (Ma = millions of years ago) are progressively older to the northwest, consistent with the hot spot model for the origin of the Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount Chain. (Modified from image of Joel E. Robinson, USGS, in “This Dynamic Planet” map of Simkin and others, 2006.)

  • Here is a map from Torsvik et al. (2017) that shows the age of volcanic rocks at different locations along the Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain.


    • Hawaiian-Emperor Chain. White dots are the locations of radiometrically dated seamounts, atolls and islands, based on compilations of Doubrovine et al. and O’Connor et al. Features encircled with larger white circles are discussed in the text and Fig. 2. Marine gravity anomaly map is from Sandwell and Smith.

  • Here is a great tweet that discusses the different parts of a seismogram and how the internal structures of the Earth help control seismic waves as they propagate in the Earth.

    Social Media

    References:

  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 1986. Rates of Neogene and Quaternary tectonic movements in the Southern Banda Arc based on micropalaeontology in: Journal of fhe Geological Society, London, Vol. 143, 1986, pp. 161-175.
  • Audley-Charles, M.G., 2011. Tectonic post-collision processes in Timor, Hall, R., Cottam, M. A. &Wilson, M. E. J. (eds) The SE Asian Gateway: History and Tectonics of the Australia–Asia Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 355, 241–266.
  • Baldwin, S.L., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Webb, L.E., 2012. Tectonics of the New Guinea Region in Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., v. 41, p. 485-520.
  • Bellier, O., Se´brier, M., Seward, D., Beaudouin, T., Villeneuve, M., and Putranto, E., 2006. Fission track and fault kinematics analyses for new insight into the Late Cenozoic tectonic regime changes in West-Central Sulawesi (Indonesia) in Tectonophysics, v. 413, p. 201-220.
  • Benz, H.M., Herman, Matthew, Tarr, A.C., Hayes, G.P., Furlong, K.P., Villaseñor, Antonio, Dart, R.L., and Rhea, Susan, 2011. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 New Guinea and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-H, scale 1:8,000,000.
  • Cipta, A., Robiana, R., Griffin, J.D., Horspool, N., Hidayati, S., and Cummins, P., 2016. A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Sulawesi, Indonesia in Cummins, P. R. &Meilano, I. (eds) Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 441, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP441.6
  • Darman, H., 2012. Seismic Expression of Tectonic Features in the Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia in Berita Sedimentologi, Indonesian Journal of Sedimentary Geology, no. 25, po. 16-25.
  • Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
  • Gómez, J.M., Madariaga, R., Walpersdorf, A., and Chalard, E., 2000. The 1996 Earthquakes in Sulawesi, Indonesia in BSSA, v. 90, no. 3, p. 739-751
  • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
  • Hangesh, J. and Whitney, B., 2014. Quaternary Reactivation of Australia’s Western Passive Margin: Inception of a New Plate Boundary? in: 5th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archeoseismology (PATA), 21-27 September 2014, Busan, Korea, 4 pp.
  • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
  • Jones, E.S., Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, F.K., Furlong, K.P., Benz, H.M., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2014. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Java and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-N, 1 sheet, scale 1:5,000,000, https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20101083N.
  • Koulali, A., S. Susilo, S. McClusky, I. Meilano, P. Cummins, P. Tregoning, G. Lister, J. Efendi, and M. A. Syafi’i, 2016. Crustal strain partitioning and the associated earthquake hazard in the eastern Sunda-Banda Arc in Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 1943–1949, doi:10.1002/2016GL067941
  • Lin, J., and R. S. Stein (2004), Stress triggering in thrust and subduction earthquakes and stress interaction between the southern San Andreas and nearby thrust and strike-slip faults, J. Geophys. Res., 109, B02303, doi:10.1029/2003JB002607.
  • Lüschen, E., Müller, C., Kopp, H., Engels, M., Lutz, R., Planert, L., Shulgin, A., Djajadihardja, Y. S., 2011. Structure, evolution and tectonic activity of the eastern Sunda forearc,Indonesia from marine seismic investigations, Tectonophysics, 508, p. 6-21
  • McCaffrey, R., and Nabelek, J.L., 1984. The geometry of back arc thrusting along the Eastern Sunda Arc, Indonesia: Constraints from earthquake and gravity data in JGR, Atm., vol., 925, no. B1, p. 441-4620, DOI: 10.1029/JB089iB07p06171
  • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
  • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
  • Okal, E. A., & Reymond, D., 2003. The mechanism of great Banda Sea earthquake of 1 February 1938: applying the method of preliminary determination of focal mechanism to a historical event in EPSL, v. 216, p. 1-15.
  • Silver, E.A., Breen, N.A., and Prastyo, H., 1986. Multibeam Study of the Flores Backarc Thrust Belt, Indonesia, in JGR., vol. 91, no. B3, p. 3489-3500
  • Simandjuntak, T.O. and Barber, A.J., 1996. Contrasting tectonic styles in the Neogene orogenic belts of Indonesia in Hall, R. & Blundell, D. (eds), 1996, Tectonic Evolution of Southeast Asia, Geological Society Special Publication No. 106, pp. 185-201.
  • Socquet, A., Simons, W., Vigny, C., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Sarsito, D., Ambrosius, B., and Spakman, W., 2006. Microblock rotations and fault coupling in SE Asia triple junction (Sulawesi, Indonesia) from GPS and earthquake slip vector data, J. Geophys. Res., 111, B08409, doi:10.1029/2005JB003963.
  • Walpersdorf, A., Rangin, C., and Vigny, C., 1998. GPS compared to long-term geologic motion of the north arm of Sulawesi in EPSL, v. 159, p. 47-55.
  • Watkinson, I.M. Hall, R., Ferdian, F., 2011. Tectonic re-interpretation of the Banggai-Sula–Molucca Sea margin, Indonesia in Hall, R., Cottam, M. A. &Wilson, M. E. J. (eds) The SE Asian Gateway: History and Tectonics of the Australia–Asia Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 355, 203–224. http://doi.org/10.1144/SP355.10
  • Watkinson, I.M. and Hall, R., 2017. Fault systems of the eastern Indonesian triple junction: evaluation of Quaternary activity and implications for seismic hazards in Cummins, P. R. & Meilano, I. (eds) Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 441, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP441.8
  • Zahirovic, S., Seton, M., and Müller, R.D., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.


Earthquake Report: 2018 Summary

Posted on by
3

Here I summarize Earth’s significant seismicity for 2018. I limit this summary to earthquakes with magnitude greater than or equal to M 6.5. I am sure that there is a possibility that your favorite earthquake is not included in this review. Happy New Year.
However, our historic record is very short, so any thoughts about whether this year (or last, or next) has smaller (or larger) magnitude earthquakes than “normal” are limited by this small data set.
Here is a table of the earthquakes M ≥ 6.5.


Here is a plot showing the cumulative release of seismic energy. This summary is imperfect in several ways, but shows how only the largest earthquakes have a significant impact on the tally of energy release from earthquakes. I only include earthquakes M ≥ 6.5. Note how the M 7.5 Sulawesi earthquake and how little energy was released relative to the two M = 7.9 earthquakes.

Below is my summary poster for this earthquake year

  • I include moment tensors for the earthquakes included in the reports below.
  • Click on the map to see a larger version.


This is a video that shuffles through the earthquake report posters of the year

2018 Earthquake Report Pages

Other Annual Summaries

2018 Earthquake Reports

    General Overview of how to interact with these summaries

    • Click on the earthquake “magnitude and location” label (e.g. “M 6.9 Fiji”) to go to the Earthquake Report website for any given earthquake. Click on the map to open a high resolution pdf version of the interpretive poster. More information about the poster is found on the Earthquake Report website.
    • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with color representing depth and diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1918-2018 with magnitudes M ≥ 7.5 in one version.
    • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.

    Background on the Earthquake Report posters

    • I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend on the posters. There is more material from the USGS web sites about moment tensors and focal mechanisms (the beach ball symbols). Both moment tensors and focal mechanisms are solutions to seismologic data that reveal two possible interpretations for fault orientation and sense of motion. One must use other information, like the regional tectonics, to interpret which of the two possibilities is more likely.
    • I also include the shaking intensity contours on the maps. These use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI; see the legend on the map). This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations. The MMI is a qualitative measure of shaking intensity. More on the MMI scale can be found here and here. This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations.
    • I include the slab 2.0 contours plotted (Hayes, 2018), which are contours that represent the depth to the subduction zone fault. These are mostly based upon seismicity. The depths of the earthquakes have considerable error and do not all occur along the subduction zone faults, so these slab contours are simply the best estimate for the location of the fault.li>

    Magnetic Anomalies

    • In the maps below, I include a transparent overlay of the magnetic anomaly data from EMAG2 (Meyer et al., 2017). As oceanic crust is formed, it inherits the magnetic field at the time. At different points through time, the magnetic polarity (north vs. south) flips, the north pole becomes the south pole. These changes in polarity can be seen when measuring the magnetic field above oceanic plates. This is one of the fundamental evidences for plate spreading at oceanic spreading ridges (like the Gorda rise).
    • Regions with magnetic fields aligned like today’s magnetic polarity are colored red in the EMAG2 data, while reversed polarity regions are colored blue. Regions of intermediate magnetic field are colored light purple.

2018.01.10 M 7.6 Cayman Trough

Just a couple hours ago there was an earthquake along the Swan fault, which is the transform plate boundary between the North America and Caribbean plates. The Cayman trough (CT) is a region of oceanic crust, formed at the Mid-Cayman Rise (MCR) oceanic spreading center. To the west of the MCR the CT is bound by the left-lateral strike-slip Swan fault. To the east of the MCR, the CT is bound on the north by the Oriente fault.
Based upon our knowledge of the plate tectonics of this region, I can interpret the fault plane solution for this earthquake. The M 7.6 earthquake was most likely a left-lateral strike-slip earthquake associated with the Swan fault.

  • Plotted with a century’s earthquakes with magnitudes M ≥ 6.5


  • Plotted with a century’s earthquakes with magnitudes M ≥ 3.5


    •

  • There were two observations of a small amplitude (small wave height) tsunami recorded on tide gages in the region. Below are those observations.


    •

2018.01.14 M 7.1 Peru

We had a damaging and (sadly) deadly earthquake in southern Peru in the last 24 hours. This is an earthquake, with magnitude M 7.1, that is associated with the subduction zone forming the Peru-Chile trench (PCT). The Nazca plate (NP) is subducting beneath the South America plate (SAP). There are lots of geologic structures on the Nazca plate that tend to affect how the subduction zone responds during earthquakes (e.g. segmentation).
In the region of this M 7.1 earthquake, two large structures in the NP are the Nazca Ridge and the Nazca fracture zone. The Nazca fracture zone is a (probably inactive) strike-slip fault system. The Nazca Ridge is an over-thickened region of the NP, thickened as the NP moved over a hotspot located near Salas y Gomez in the Pacific Ocean east of Easter Island (Ray et al., 2012).
There are many papers that discuss how the ridge affects the shape of the megathrust fault here. The main take-away is that the NR is bull dozing into South America and the dip of the subduction zone is flat here. There is a figure below that shows the deviation of the subducting slab contours at the NR.


Well, I missed looking further into a key update paper and used figures from an older paper on my interpretive poster yesterday. Thanks to Stéphane Baize for pointing this out! Turns out, after their new analyses, the M 7.1 earthquake was in a region of higher seismogenic coupling, rather than low coupling (as was presented in my first poster).
Also, Dr. Robin Lacassin noticed (as did I) the paucity of aftershocks from yesterday’s M 7.1. This was also the case for the carbon copy 2013 M 7.1 earthquake (there was 1 M 4.6 aftershock in the weeks following the M 7.1 earthquake on 2013.09.25; there were a dozen M 1-2 earthquakes in Nov. and Dec. of 2013, but I am not sure how related they are to the M 7.1 then). I present a poster below with this in mind. I also include below a comparison of the MMI modeled estimates. The 2013 seems to have possibly generated more widespread intensities, even though that was a deeper earthquake.

2018.01.23 M 7.9 Gulf of Alaska

  • 2018.01.23 M 7.9 Gulf of Alaska UPDATE #1
  • 2018.01.24 M 7.9 Gulf of Alaska UPDATE #2

    • This earthquake appears to be located along a reactivated fracture zone in the GA. There have only been a couple earthquakes in this region in the past century, one an M 6.0 to the east (though this M 6.0 was a thrust earthquake). The Gulf of Alaska shear zone is even further to the east and has a more active historic fault history (a pair of earthquakes in 1987-1988). The magnetic anomalies (formed when the Earth’s magnetic polarity flips) reflect a ~north-south oriented spreading ridge (the anomalies are oriented north-south in the region of today’s earthquake). There is a right-lateral offset of these magnetic anomalies located near the M 7.9 epicenter. Interesting that this right-lateral strike-slip fault (?) is also located at the intersection of the Gulf of Alaska shear zone and the 1988 M 7.8 earthquake (probably just a coincidence?). However, the 1988 M 7.8 earthquake fault plane solution can be interpreted for both fault planes (it is probably on the GA shear zone, but I don’t think that we can really tell).
    This is strange because the USGS fault plane is oriented east-west, leading us to interpret the fault plane solution (moment tensor or focal mechanism) as a left-lateral strike-slip earthquake. So, maybe this earthquake is a little more complicated than first presumed. The USGS fault model is constrained by seismic waves, so this is probably the correct fault (east-west).
    I prepared an Earthquake Report for the 1964 Good Friday Earthquake here.

    • The USGS updated their MMI contours to reflect their fault model. Below is my updated poster. I also added green dashed lines for the fracture zones related to today’s M 7.9 earthquake (on the magnetic anomaly inset map).


      •

    • These are the observations as reported by the NTWC this morning (at 4:15 AM my local time).


      •

    • Large Scale Interpretive Map (from update report)


      •

    As a reminder, if the M 7.9 earthquake fault is E-W oriented, it would be left-lateral. The offset magnetic anomalies show right-lateral offset across these fracture zones. This was perhaps the main reason why I thought that the main fault was not E-W, but N-S. After a day’s worth of aftershocks, the seismicity may reveal some north-south trends. But, as a drama student in 7th grade (1977), my drama teacher (Ms. Naichbor, rest in peace) asked our class to go stand up on stage. We all stood in a line and she mentioned that this is social behavior, that people tend to stand in lines (and to avoid doing this while on stage). Later, when in college, professors often commented about how people tend to seek linear trends in data (lines). I actually see 3-4 N-S trends and ~2 E-W trends in the seismicity data.
    So, that being said, here is the animation I put together. I used the USGS query tool to get earthquakes from 1/22 until now, M ≥ 1.5. I include a couple inset maps presented in my interpretive posters. The music is copyright free. The animations run through twice.
    Here is a screenshot of the 14 MB video embedded below. I encourage you to view it in full screen mode (or download it).


    2018.02.16 M 7.2 Oaxaca, Mexico

    There was just now an earthquake in Oaxaca, Mexico between the other large earthquakes from last 2017.09.08 (M 8.1) and 2017.09.08 (M 7.1). There has already been a M 5.8 aftershock.Here is the USGS website for today’s M 7.2 earthquake.
    The SSN has a reported depth of 12 km, further supporting evidence that this earthquake was in the North America plate.
    This region of the subduction zone dips at a very shallow angle (flat and almost horizontal).
    There was also a sequence of earthquakes offshore of Guatemala in June, which could possibly be related to the M 8.1 earthquake. Here is my earthquake report for the Guatemala earthquake.
    The poster also shows the seismicity associated with the M 7.6 earthquake along the Swan fault (southern boundary of the Cayman trough). Here is my earthquake report for the Guatemala earthquake.

    • Here is the same poster but with the magnetic anomalies included (transparent).


      •

    2018.02.25 M 7.5 Papua New Guinea

  • 2018.02.26 M 7.5 Papua New Guinea Update #1

    • This morning (local time in California) there was an earthquake in Papua New Guinea with, unfortunately, a high likelihood of having a good number of casualties. I was working on a project, so could not immediately begin work on this report.
    This M 7.5 earthquake (USGS website) occurred along the Papua Fold and Thrust Belt (PFTB), a (mostly) south vergent sequence of imbricate thrust faults and associated fold (anticlines). The history of this PFTB appears to be related to the collision of the Australia plate with the Caroline and Pacific plates, the delamination of the downgoing oceanic crust, and then associated magmatic effects (from decompression melting where the overriding slab (crust) was exposed to the mantle following the delamination). More about this can be found in Cloos et al. (2005).

  • The same map without historic seismicity.



    • The aftershocks are still coming in! We can use these aftershocks to define where the fault may have slipped during this M 7.5 earthquake. As I mentioned yesterday in the original report, it turns out the fault dimension matches pretty well with empirical relations between fault length and magnitude from Wells and Coppersmith (1994).
    The mapped faults in the region, as well as interpreted seismic lines, show an imbricate fold and thrust belt that dominates the geomorphology here (as well as some volcanoes, which are probably related to the slab gap produced by crust delamination; see Cloos et al., 2005 for more on this). I found a fault data set and include this in the aftershock update interpretive poster (from the Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes in East and Southeast Asia, CCOP).
    I initially thought that this M 7.5 earthquake was on a fault in the Papuan Fold and Thrust Belt (PFTB). Mark Allen pointed out on twitter that the ~35km hypocentral depth is probably too deep to be on one of these “thin skinned” faults (see Social Media below). Abers and McCaffrey (1988) used focal mechanism data to hypothesize that there are deeper crustal faults that are also capable of generating the earthquakes in this region. So, I now align myself with this hypothesis (that the M 7.5 slipped on a crustal fault, beneath the thin skin deformation associated with the PFTB. (thanks Mark! I had downloaded the Abers paper but had not digested it fully.

    • Here is the “update” map with aftershocks


      •

    2018.03.08 M 6.8 New Ireland

    We had an M 6.8 earthquake near a transform micro-plate boundary fault system north of New Ireland, Papua New Guinea today. Here is the USGS website for this earthquake.
    The main transform fault (Weitin fault) is ~40 km to the west of the USGS epicenter. There was a very similar earthquake on 1982.08.12 (USGS website).
    This earthquake is unrelated to the sequence occurring on the island of New Guinea.
    Something that I rediscovered is that there were two M 8 earthquakes in 1971 in this region. This testifies that it is possible to have a Great earthquake (M ≥ 8) close in space and time relative to another Great earthquake. These earthquakes do not have USGS fault plane solutions, but I suspect that these are subduction zone earthquakes (based upon their depth).
    This transform system is capable of producing Great earthquakes too, as evidenced by the 2000.11.16 M 8.0 earthquake (USGS website). This is another example of two Great earthquakes (or almost 2 Great earthquakes, as the M 7.8 is not quite a Great earthquake) are related. It appears that the M 8.0 earthquake may have triggered teh M 7.8 earthquake about 3 months later (however at first glance, it seemed to me like the strike-slip earthquake might not increase the static coulomb stress on the subduction zone, but I have not spent more than half a minute thinking about this).

    Main Interpretive Poster with emag2


    Earthquakes M≥ 6.5 with emag2


    2018.03.26 M 6.6 New Britain

    The New Britain region is one of the more active regions in the world. See a list of earthquake reports for this region at the bottom of this page, above the reference list.
    Today’s M 6.6 earthquake happened close in proximity to a M 6.3 from 2 days ago and a M 5.6 from a couple weeks ago. The M 5.6 may be related (may have triggered these other earthquakes), but this region is so active, it might be difficult to distinguish the effects from different earthquakes. The M 5.6 is much deeper and looks like it was in the downgoing Solomon Sea plate. It is much more likely that the M 6.3 and M 6.6 are related (I interpret that the M 6.3 probably triggered the M 6.6, or that M 6.3 was a foreshock to the M 6.6, given they are close in depth). Both M 6.3 and M 6.6 are at depths close to the depth of the subducting slab (the megathrust fault depth) at this location. So, I interpret these to be subduction zone earthquakes.

    2018.03.26 M 6.9 New Britain

    Well, those earthquakes from earlier, one a foreshock to a later one, were foreshocks to an earthquake today! Here is my report from a couple days ago. The M 6.6 and M 6.3 straddle today’s earthquake and all have similar hypocentral depths.

    2018.04.02 M 6.8 Bolivia

    A couple days ago there was a deep focus earthquake in the downgoing Nazca plate deep beneath Bolivia. This earthquake has an hypocentral depth of 562 km (~350 miles).
    We are still unsure what causes an earthquake at such great a depth. The majority of earthquakes happen at shallower depths, caused largely by the frictional between differently moving plates or crustal blocks (where earth materials like the crust behave with brittle behavior and not elastic behavior). Some of these shallow earthquakes are also due to internal deformation within plates or crustal blocks.
    As plates dive into the Earth at subduction zones, they undergo a variety of changes (temperature, pressure, stress). However, because people cannot directly observe what is happening at these depths, we must rely on inferences, laboratory analogs, and other indirect methods to estimate what is going on.
    So, we don’t really know what causes earthquakes at the depth of this Bolivia M 6.8 earthquake. Below is a review of possible explanations as provided by Thorne Lay (UC Santa Cruz) in an interview in response to the 2013 M 8.3 Okhotsk Earthquake.

    2018.05.04 M 6.9 Hawai’i

    There has been a swarm of earthquakes on the southeastern part of the big island, with USGS volcanologists hypothesizing about magma movement and suggesting that an eruption may be imminent. Here is a great place to find official USGS updates on the volcanism in Hawaii (including maps).
    Hawaii is an active volcanic island formed by hotspot volcanism. The Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain is a series of active and inactive volcanoes formed by this process and are in a line because the Pacific plate has been moving over the hotspot for many millions of years.
    Southeast of the main Kilauea vent, the Pu‘u ‘Ö‘ö crater saw an elevation of lava into the crater, leading to overtopping of the crater (on 4/30/2018). Seismicity migrated eastward along the ERZ. This morning, there was a M 5.0 earthquake in the region of the Hilina fault zone (HFZ). I was getting ready to write something up, but I had other work that I needed to complete. Then, this evening, there was a M 6.9 earthquake between the ERZ and the HFZ.
    There have been earthquakes this large in this region in the past (e.g. the 1975.1.29 M 7.1 earthquake along the HFZ). This earthquake was also most likely related to magma injection (Ando, 1979). The 1975 M 7.1 earthquake generated a small tsunami (Ando, 1979). These earthquakes are generally compressional in nature (including the earthquakes from today).
    Today’s earthquake also generated a tsunami as recorded on tide gages throughout Hawaii. There is probably no chance that a tsunami will travel across the Pacific to have a significant impact elsewhere.

    This version includes earthquakes M ≥ 3.5 (note the seismicity offshore to the south, this is where the youngest Hawaii volcano is).

    Below are a series of plots from tide gages installed at several sites in the Hawaii Island Chain. These data are all posted online here and here.

    • Hilo, Hawaii


    • Kawaihae, Hawaii


      •

    Temblor Reports:

    • Click on the graphic to see a pdf version of the article.
    • Click on the html link (date) to visit the Temblor site.
    2018.05.05 Pele, the Hawai’i Goddess of Fire, Lightning, Wind, and Volcanoes
    2018.05.06 Pele, la Diosa Hawaiana del Fuego, los Relámpagos, el Viento y los Volcanes de Hawái

    2018.08.05 M 6.9 Lombok, Indonesia

    Yesterday morning, as I was recovering from working on stage crew for the 34th Reggae on the River (fundraiser for the non profit, the Mateel Community Center), I noticed on social media that there was an M 6.9 earthquake in Lombok, Indonesia. This is sad because of the likelihood for casualties and economic damage in this region.
    However, it is interesting because the earthquake sequence from last week (with a largest earthquake with a magnitude of M 6.4) were all foreshocks to this M 6.9. Now, technically, these were not really foreshocks. The M 6.4 has an hypocentral (3-D location) depth of ~6 km and the M 6.9 has an hypocentral depth of ~31 km. These earthquakes are not on the same fault, so I would interpret that the M 6.9 was triggered by the sequence from last week due to static coulomb changes in stress on the fault that ruptured. Given the large difference in depths, the uncertainty for these depths is probably not sufficient to state that they may be on the same fault (i.e. these depths are sufficiently different that this difference is larger than the uncertainty of their locations).
    I present a more comprehensive analysis of the tectonics of this region in my earthquake report for the M 6.4 earthquake here. I especially address the historic seismicity of the region there. This M 6.9 may have been on the Flores thrust system, while the earthquakes from last week were on the imbricate thrust faults overlying the Flores Thrust. See the map from Silver et al. (1986) below. I include the same maps as in my original report, but after those, I include the figures from Koulani et al. (2016) (the paper is available on researchgate).

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    2018.08.15 M 6.6 Aleutians

    Well, yesterday while I was installing the final window in a reconstruction project, there was an earthquake along the Aleutian Island Arc (a subduction zone) in the region of the Andreanof Islands. Here is the USGS website for the M 6.6 earthquake. This earthquake is close to the depth of the megathrust fault, but maybe not close enough. So, this may be on the subduction zone, but may also be on an upper plate fault (I interpret this due to the compressive earthquake fault mechanism). The earthquake has a hypocentral depth of 20 km and the slab model (see Hayes et al., 2013 below and in the poster) is at 40 km at this location. There is uncertainty in both the slab model and the hypocentral depth.
    The Andreanof Islands is one of the most active parts of the Aleutian Arc. There have been many historic earthquakes here, some of which have been tsunamigenic (in fact, the email that notified me of this earthquake was from the ITIC Tsunami Bulletin Board).
    Possibly the most significant earthquake was the 1957 Andreanof Islands M 8.6 Great (M ≥ 8.0) earthquake, though the 1986 M 8.0 Great earthquake is also quite significant. As was the 1996 M 7.9 and 2003 M 7.8 earthquakes. Lest we forget smaller earthquakes, like the 2007 M 7.2. So many earthquakes, so little time.

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a centuries seismicity plotted for earthquakes M ≥ 6.6.


      •

    2018.08.18 M 8.2 Fiji

    We just had a Great Earthquake in the region of the Fiji Islands, in the central-western Pacific. Great Earthquakes are earthquakes with magnitudes M ≥ 8.0.
    This earthquake is one of the largest earthquakes recorded historically in this region. I include the other Large and Great Earthquakes in the posters below for some comparisons.
    Today’s earthquake has a Moment Magnitude of M = 8.2. The depth is over 550 km, so is very very deep. This region has an historic record of having deep earthquakes here. Here is the USGS website for this M 8.2 earthquake. While I was writing this, there was an M 6.8 deep earthquake to the northeast of the M 8.2. The M 6.8 is much shallower (about 420 km deep) and also a compressional earthquake, in contrast to the extensional M 8.2.
    This M 8.2 earthquake occurred along the Tonga subduction zone, which is a convergent plate boundary where the Pacific plate on the east subducts to the west, beneath the Australia plate. This subduction zone forms the Tonga trench.

    • Here is the map with a centuries seismicity plotted with M ≥ 7.5.


      •

    2018.08.19 M 6.9 Lombok, Indonesia

    This ongoing sequence began in late July with a Mw 6.4 earthquake. Followed less than 2 weeks later with a Mw 6.9 earthquake.
    Today there was an M 6.3 soon followed by an M 6.9 earthquake (and a couple M 5.X quakes).
    These earthquakes have been occurring along a thrust fault system along the northern portion of Lombok, Indonesia, an island in the magamatic arc related to the Sunda subduction zone. The Flores thrust fault is a backthrust to the subduction zone. The tectonics are complicated in this region of the world and there are lots of varying views on the tectonic history. However, there has been several decades of work on the Flores thrust (e.g. Silver et al., 1986). The Flores thrust is an east-west striking (oriented) north vergent (dipping to the south) thrust fault that extends from eastern Java towards the Islands of Flores and Timor. Above the main thrust fault are a series of imbricate (overlapping) thrust faults. These imbricate thrust faults are shallower in depth than the main Flores thrust.
    The earthquakes that have been happening appear to be on these shallower thrust faults, but there is a possibility that they are activating the Flores thrust itself. Perhaps further research will illuminate the relations between these shallower faults and the main player, the Flores thrust.

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is an updated local scale (large scale) map showing the earthquake fault mechanisms for the current sequence. I label them with yellow numbers according to the sequence timing. I outlined the general areas that have had earthquakes into two zones (phases). Phase I includes the earthquakes up until today and Phase II includes the earthquakes from today. There is some overlap, but only for a few earthquakes. In general, it appears that the earthquakes have slipped in two areas of the Flores fault (or maybe two shallower thrust faults).


      •

    • Here is the interpretive posted from the M 6.4 7/28 earthquake, with historic seismicity and earthquake mechanisms.


      •

    2018.08.21 M 7.3 Venezuela

    We just had a M 7.3 earthquake in northern Venezuela. Sadly, this large earthquake has the potential to be quite damaging to people and their belongings (buildings, infrastructure).
    The northeastern part of Venezuela lies a large strike-slip plate boundary fault, the El Pilar fault. This fault is rather complicated as it strikes through the region. There are thrust faults and normal faults forming ocean basins and mountains along strike.
    Many of the earthquakes along this fault system are strike-slip earthquakes (e.g. the 1997.07.09 M 7.0 earthquake which is just to the southwest of today’s temblor. However, today’s earthquake broke my immediate expectations for strike-slip tectonics. There is a south vergent (dipping to the north) thrust fault system that strikes (is oriented) east-west along the Península de Paria, just north of highway 9, east of Carupano, Venezuela. Audenard et al. (2000, 2006) compiled a Quaternary Fault database for Venezuela, which helps us interpret today’s earthquake. I suspect that this earthquake occurred on this thrust fault system. I bet those that work in this area even know the name of this fault. However, looking at the epicenter and the location of the thrust fault, this is probably not on this thrust fault. When I initially wrote this report, the depth was much shallower. Currently, the hypocentral (3-D location) depth is 123 km, so cannot be on that thrust fault.
    The best alternative might be the subduction zone associated with the Lesser Antilles.

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted, along with USGS earthquakes M ≥ 6.0.


      •

    2018.08.24 M 7.1 Peru

    Well, this earthquake, while having a large magnitude, was quite deep. Because earthquake intensity decreases with distance from the earthquake source, the shaking intensity from this earthquake was so low that nobody submitted a single report to the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website for this earthquake.
    While doing my lit review, I found the Okal and Bina (1994) paper where they use various methods to determine focal mechanisms for the some deep earthquakes in northern Peru. More about focal mechanisms below. These authors created focal mechanisms for the 1921 and 1922 deep earthquakes so they could lean more about the 1970 deep earthquake. Their seminal work here forms an important record of deep earthquakes globally. These three earthquakes are all extensional earthquakes, similar to the other deep earthquakes in this region. I label the 1921 and 1922 earthquakes a couplet on the poster.
    There was also a pair of earthquakes that happened in November, 2015. These two earthquakes happened about 5 minutes apart. They have many similar characteristics, suggest that they slipped similar faults, if not the same fault. I label these as doublets also.
    So, there may be a doublet companion to today’s M 7.1 earthquake. However, there may be not. There are examples of both (single and doublet) and it might not really matter for 99.99% of the people on Earth since the seismic hazard from these deep earthquakes is very low.
    Other examples of doublets include the 2006 | 2007 Kuril Doublets (Ammon et al., 2008) and the 2011 Kermadec Doublets (Todd and Lay, 2013).

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted, along with USGS earthquakes M ≥ 7.0.


      •

    2018.09.05 M 6.6 Hokkaido, Japan

    Following the largest typhoon to strike Japan in a very long time, there was an earthquake on the island of Hokkaido, Japan today. There is lots on social media, including some spectacular views of disastrous and deadly landslides triggered by this earthquake (earthquakes are the number 1 source for triggering of landslides). These landslides may have been precipitated (sorry for the pun) by the saturation of hillslopes from the typhoon. Based upon the USGS PAGER estimate, this earthquake has the potential to cause significant economic damages, but hopefully a small number of casualties. As far as I know, this does not incorporate potential losses from earthquake triggered landslides [yet].
    This earthquake is in an interesting location. to the east of Hokkaido, there is a subduction zone trench formed by the subduction of the Pacific plate beneath the Okhotsk plate (on the north) and the Eurasia plate (to the south). This trench is called the Kuril Trench offshore and north of Hokkaido and the Japan Trench offshore of Honshu.
    One of the interesting things about this region is that there is a collision zone (a convergent plate boundary where two continental plates are colliding) that exists along the southern part of the island of Hokkaido. The Hidaka collision zone is oriented (strikes) in a northwest orientation as a result of northeast-southwest compression. Some suggest that this collision zone is no longer very active, however, there are an abundance of active crustal faults that are spatially coincident with the collision zone.
    Today’s M 6.6 earthquake is a thrust or reverse earthquake that responded to northeast-southwest compression, just like the Hidaka collision zone. However, the hypocentral (3-D) depth was about 33 km. This would place this earthquake deeper than what most of the active crustal faults might reach. The depth is also much shallower than where we think that the subduction zone megathrust fault is located at this location (the fault formed between the Pacific and the Okhotsk or Eurasia plates). Based upon the USGS Slab 1.0 model (Hayes et al., 2012), the slab (roughly the top of the Pacific plate) is between 80 and 100 km. So, the depth is too shallow for this hypothesis (Kuril Trench earthquake) and the orientation seems incorrect. Subduction zone earthquakes along the trench are oriented from northwest-southweast compression, a different orientation than today’s M 6.6.
    So today’s M 6.6 earthquake appears to have been on a fault deeper than the crustal faults, possibly along a deep fault associated with the collision zone. Though I am not really certain. This region is complicated (e.g. Kita et al., 2010), but there are some interpretations of the crust at this depth range (Iwasaki et al., 2004) shown in an interpreted cross section below.

    • Here is the map with a centuries seismicity plotted.


      •

    Temblor Reports:

    • Click on the graphic to see a pdf version of the article.
    • Click on the html link (date) to visit the Temblor site.
    2018.09.06 Violent shaking triggers massive landslides in Sapporo Japan earthquake

    2018.09.09 M 6.9 Kermadec

    Today, there was a large earthquake associated with the subduction zone that forms the Kermadec Trench.
    This earthquake was quite deep, so was not expected to generate a significant tsunami (if one at all).
    There are several analogies to today’s earthquake. There was a M 7.4 earthquake in a similar location, but much deeper. These are an interesting comparison because the M 7.4 was compressional and the M 6.9 was extensional. There is some debate about what causes ultra deep earthquakes. The earthquakes that are deeper than about 40-50 km are not along subduction zone faults, but within the downgoing plate. This M 6.9 appears to be in a part of the plate that is bending (based on the Benz et al., 2011 cross section). As plates bend downwards, the upper part of the plate gets extended and the lower part of the plate experiences compression.

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a centuries seismicity plotted.


      •

    2018.09.28 M 7.5 Sulawesi

  • 2018.10.16 M 7.5 Sulawesi UPDATE #1

    • Well, around 3 AM my time (northeastern Pacific, northern CA) there was a sequence of earthquakes including a mainshock with a magnitude M = 7.5. This earthquake happened in a highly populated region of Indonesia.
    This area of Indonesia is dominated by a left-lateral (sinistral) strike-slip plate boundary fault system. Sulawesi is bisected by the Palu-Kola / Matano fault system. These faults appear to be an extension of the Sorong fault, the sinistral strike-slip fault that cuts across the northern part of New Guinea.
    There have been a few earthquakes along the Palu-Kola fault system that help inform us about the sense of motion across this fault, but most have maximum magnitudes mid M 6.
    GPS and block modeling data suggest that the fault in this area has a slip rate of about 40 mm/yr (Socquet et al., 2006). However, analysis of offset stream channels provides evidence of a lower slip rate for the Holocene (last 12,000 years), a rate of about 35 mm/yr (Bellier et al., 2001). Given the short time period for GPS observations, the GPS rate may include postseismic motion earlier earthquakes, though these numbers are very close.
    Using empirical relations for historic earthquakes compiled by Wells and Coppersmith (1994), Socquet et al. (2016) suggest that the Palu-Koro fault system could produce a magnitude M 7 earthquake once per century. However, studies of prehistoric earthquakes along this fault system suggest that, over the past 2000 years, this fault produces a magnitude M 7-8 earthquake every 700 years (Bellier et al., 2006). So, it appears that this is the characteristic earthquake we might expect along this fault.
    Most commonly, we associate tsunamigenic earthquakes with subduction zones and thrust faults because these are the types of earthquakes most likely to deform the seafloor, causing the entire water column to be lifted up. Strike-slip earthquakes can generate tsunami if there is sufficient submarine topography that gets offset during the earthquake. Also, if a strike-slip earthquake triggers a landslide, this could cause a tsunami. We will need to wait until people take a deeper look into this before we can make any conclusions about the tsunami and what may have caused it.

    • There have been tsunami waves recorded on a tide gage over 300 km to the south of the epicenter, at a site called Mumuju. Below is a map and a plot of water surface elevations from this source.




      •

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a centuries worth of seismicity plotted.


      •

    Here is a map that shows the updated USGS model of ground shaking. The USGS prepared an updated earthquake fault slip model that was additionally informed by post-earthquake analysis of ground deformation. The original fault model extended from north of the epicenter to the northernmost extent of Palu City. Soon after the earthquake, Dr. Sotiris Valkaniotis prepared a map that showed large horizontal offsets across the ruptured fault along the entire length of the western margin on Palu Valley. This horizontal offset had an estimated ~8 meters of relative displacement. InSAR analyses confirmed that the coseismic ground deformation extended through Palu Valley and into the mountains to the south of the valley.

    My 2018.10.01 BC Newshour Interview

    InSAR Analysis

    Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is a remote sensing method that uses Radar to make observations of Earth. These observations include the position of the ground surface, along with other information about the material properties of the Earth’s surface.
    Interferometric SAR (InSAR) utilizes two separate SAR data sets to determine if the ground surface has changed over time, the time between when these 2 data sets were collected. More about InSAR can be found here and here. Explaining the details about how these data are analyzed is beyond the scope of this report. I rely heavily on the expertise of those who do this type of analysis, for example Dr. Eric Fielding.

    • I prepared a map using the NASA-JPL InSAR data. They post all their data online here. I used the tiff image as it is georeferenced. However, some may prefer to use the kmz file in Google Earth.
    • I include the faults mapped by Wilkinson and Hall (2017), the PGA contours from the USGS model results. More on Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) can be found here. I also include the spatial extent of the largest landslides that I mapped using post-earthquake satellite imagery provided by Digital Globe using their open source imagery program.


    M 7.5 Landslide Model vs. Observation Comparison

    Landslides during and following the M=7.5 earthquake in central Sulawesi, Indonesia possibly caused the majority of casualties from this catastrophic natural disaster. Volunteers (citizen scientists) have used satellite aerial imagery collected after the earthquake to document the spatial extent and magnitude of damage caused by the earthquake, landslides, and tsunami.
    Until these landslides are analyzed and compared with regions that did not fail in slope failure, we will not be able to reconstruct what happened… why some areas failed and some did not.
    There are landslide slope stability and liquefaction susceptibility models based on empirical data from past earthquakes. The USGS has recently incorporated these types of analyses into their earthquake event pages. More about these USGS models can be found on this page.
    I prepared some maps that compare the USGS landslide and liquefaction probability maps. Below I present these results along with the MMI contours. I also include the faults mapped by Wilkinson and Hall (2017). Shown are the cities of Donggala and Palu. Also shown are the 2 tide gage locations (Pantoloan Port – PP and Mumuju – M). I also used post-earthquake satellite imagery to outline the largest landslides in Palu Valley, ones that appear to be lateral spreads.

    • Here is the landslide probability map (Jessee et al., 2018). Below the poster I include the text from the USGS website that describes how this model is prepared.


    Nowicki Jessee and others (2018) is the preferred model for earthquake-triggered landslide hazard. Our primary landslide model is the empirical model of Nowicki Jessee and others (2018). The model was developed by relating 23 inventories of landslides triggered by past earthquakes with different combinations of predictor variables using logistic regression. The output resolution is ~250 m. The model inputs are described below. More details about the model can be found in the original publication. We modify the published model by excluding areas with slopes <5° and changing the coefficient for the lithology layer "unconsolidated sediments" from -3.22 to -1.36, the coefficient for "mixed sedimentary rocks" to better reflect that this unit is expected to be weak (more negative coefficient indicates stronger rock).To exclude areas of insignificantly small probabilities in the computation of aggregate statistics for this model, we use a probability threshold of 0.002.

    • Here is the liquefaction probability (susceptibility) map (Zhu et al., 2017). Note that the regions of low slopes in the valleys and coastal plains are the areas with a high chance of experiencing liquefaction. Areas of slopes >5° are excluded from this analysis.
    • Note that the large landslides (yellow polygons) are not in regions of high probability for liquefaction.


    Zhu and others (2017) is the preferred model for liquefaction hazard. The model was developed by relating 27 inventories of liquefaction triggered by past earthquakes to globally-available geospatial proxies (summarized below) using logistic regression. We have implemented the global version of the model and have added additional modifications proposed by Baise and Rashidian (2017), including a peak ground acceleration (PGA) threshold of 0.1 g and linear interpolation of the input layers. We also exclude areas with slopes >5°. We linearly interpolate the original input layers of ~1 km resolution to 500 m resolution. The model inputs are described below. More details about the model can be found in the original publication.

    Temblor Reports:

    • Click on the graphic to see a pdf version of the article.
    • Click on the html link (date) to visit the Temblor site.
    2018.09.28 The Palu-Koro fault ruptures in a M=7.5 quake in Sulawesi, Indonesia, triggering a tsunami and likely more shocks
    2018.10.03 Tsunami in Sulawesi, Indonesia, triggered by earthquake, landslide, or both
    2018.10.16 Coseismic Landslides in Sulawesi, Indonesia

    2018.10.10 M 7.0 New Britain, PNG

    In this region of the world, the Solomon Sea plate and the South Bismarck plate converge to form a subduction zone, where the Solomon Sea plate is the oceanic crust diving beneath the S.Bismarck plate.
    The subduction zone forms the New Britain Trench with an axis that trends east-northeast. To the east of New Britain, the subduction zone bends to the southeast to form the San Cristobal and South Solomon trenches. Between these two subduction zones is a series of oceanic spreading ridges sequentially offset by transform (strike slip) faults.
    Earthquakes along the megathrust at the New Britain trench are oriented with the maximum compressive stress oriented north-northwest (perpendicular to the trench). Likewise, the subduction zone megathrust earthquakes along the S. Solomon trench compress in a northeasterly direction (perpendicular to that trench).
    There is also a great strike slip earthquake that shows that the transform faults are active.
    This earthquake was too small and too deep to generate a tsunami.

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    Temblor Reports:

    • Click on the graphic to see a pdf version of the article.
    • Click on the html link (date) to visit the Temblor site.
    2018.10.10 M 7.5 Earthquake in New Britain, Papua New Guinea

    2018.10.22 M 6.8 Explorer plate

    This region of the Pacific-North America plate boundary is at the northern end of the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ). To the east, the Explorer and Juan de Fuca plates subduct beneath the North America plate to form the megathrust subduction zone fault capable of producing earthquakes in the magnitude M = 9 range. The last CSZ earthquake was in January of 1700, just almost 319 years ago.
    The Juan de Fuca plate is created at an oceanic spreading center called the Juan de Fuca Ridge. This spreading ridge is offset by several transform (strike-slip) faults. At the southern terminus of the JDF Ridge is the Blanco fault, a transtensional transform fault connecting the JDF and Gorda ridges.
    At the northern terminus of the JDF Ridge is the Sovanco transform fault that strikes to the northwest of the JDF Ridge. There are additional fracture zones parallel and south of the Sovanco fault, called the Heck, Heckle, and Springfield fracture zones.
    The first earthquake (M = 6.6) appears to have slipped along the Sovanco fault as a right-lateral strike-slip earthquake. Then the M 6.8 earthquake happened and, given the uncertainty of the location for this event, occurred on a fault sub-parallel to the Sovanco fault. Then the M 6.5 earthquake hit, back on the Sovanco fault.

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    2018.10.25 M 6.8 Greece

    Before I looked more closely, I thought this sequence might be related to the Kefallonia fault. I prepared some earthquake reports for earthquakes here in the past, in 2015 and in 2016.
    Both of those earthquakes were right-lateral strike-slip earthquakes associated with the Kefallonia fault.
    However, today’s earthquake sequence was further to the south and east of the strike-slip fault, in a region experiencing compression from the Ionian Trench subduction zone. But there is some overlap of these different plate boundaries, so the M 6.8 mainshock is an oblique earthquake (compressional and strike-slip). Based upon the sequence, I interpret this earthquake to be right-lateral oblique. I could be wrong.

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the tide gage data from Katakolo, which is only 65 km from the M 6.8 epicenter.


      •

    Temblor Reports:

    • Click on the graphic to see a pdf version of the article.
    • Click on the html link (date) to visit the Temblor site.
    2018.10.26 Greek earthquake in a region of high seismic hazard

    2018.11.08 M 6.8 Mid Atlantic Ridge (Jan Mayen fracture zone)

    There was a M = 6.8 earthquake along a transform fault connecting segments of the Mid Atlantic Ridge recently.
    North of Iceland, the MAR is offset by many small and several large transform faults. The largest transform fault north of Iceland is called the Jan Mayen fracture zone, which is the location for the 2018.11.08 M = 6.8 earthquake.

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the large scale map showing earthquake mechanisms for historic earthquakes in the region. Note how they mostly behave well (are almost perfectly aligned with the Jan Mayen fracture zone). There are a few exceptions, including an extensional earthquake possibly associated with extension on the MAR (2010.06.03 M = 5.6). Also, 2 earthquakes (2003.06.19 and 2005.07.25) are show oblique slip (not pure strike-slip as they have an amount of compressional motion) near the intersection of the fracture zone and the MAR.


      •

    2018.11.30 M 7.0 Alaska

    Today’s earthquake occurred along the convergent plate boundary in southern Alaska. This subduction zone fault is famous for the 1964 March 27 M = 9.2 megathrust earthquake. I describe this earthquake in more detail here.
    During the 1964 earthquake, the downgoing Pacific plate slipped past the North America plate, including slip on “splay faults” (like the Patton fault, no relation, heheh). There was deformation along the seafloor that caused a transoceanic tsunami.
    The Pacific plate has pre-existing zones of weakness related to fracture zones and spreading ridges where the plate formed and are offset. There was an earthquake in January 2016 that may have reactivated one of these fracture zones. This earthquake (M = 7.1) was very deep (~130 km), but still caused widespread damage.
    The earthquake appears to have a depth of ~40 km and the USGS model for the megathrust fault (slab 2.0) shows the megathrust to be shallower than this earthquake. There are generally 2 ways that may explain the extensional earthquake: slab tension (the downgoing plate is pulling down on the slab, causing extension) or “bending moment” extension (as the plate bends downward, the top of the plate stretches out.

  • Temblor Report
    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    Temblor Reports:

    • Click on the graphic to see a pdf version of the article.
    • Click on the html link (date) to visit the Temblor site.
    2018.11.30 Exotic M=7.0 earthquake strikes beneath Anchorage, Alaska
    2018.12.11 What the Anchorage earthquake means for the Bay Area, Southern California, Seattle, and Salt Lake City

    2018.12.05 M 7.5 New Caledonia

    There was a sequence of earthquakes along the subduction zone near New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands.
    This part of the plate boundary is quite active and I have a number of earthquake reports from the past few years (see below, a list of earthquake reports for this region).
    But the cool thing from a plate tectonics perspective is that there was a series of different types of earthquakes. At first view, it appears that there was a mainshock with a magnitude of M = 7.5. There was a preceding M 6.0 earthquake which may have been a foreshock.
    The M 7.5 earthquake was an extensional earthquake. This may be due to either extension from slab pull or due to extension from bending of the plate. More on this later.
    Following the M 7.5, there was an M 6.6 earthquake, however, this was a thrust or reverse (compressional) earthquake. The M 6.6 may have been in the upper plate or along the subduction zone megathrust fault, but we won’t know until the earthquake locations are better determined.
    A similar sequence happened in October/November 2017. I prepared two reports for this sequence here and here. Albeit, in 2017, the thrust earthquake was first (2017.10.31 vs. 2017.11.19).
    There have been some observations of tsunami. Below is from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    2018.12.20 M 7.4 Bering Kresla

  • 2018.12.20 M 7.3 Bering Kresla UPDATE #1

    • A large earthquake in the region of the Bering Kresla fracture zone, a strike-slip fault system that coincides with the westernmost portion of the Aleutian trench (which is a subduction zone further to the east).
    This earthquake happened in an interesting region of the world where there is a junction between two plate boundaries, the Kamchatka subduction zone with the Aleutian subduction zone / Bering-Kresla Shear Zone. The Kamchatka Trench (KT) is formed by the subduction (a convergent plate boundary) beneath the Okhotsk plate (part of North America). The Aleutian Trench (AT) and Bering-Kresla Shear Zone (BKSZ) are formed by the oblique subduction of the Pacific plate beneath the Pacific plate. There is a deflection in the Kamchatka subduction zone north of the BKSZ, where the subduction trench is offset to the west. Some papers suggest the subduction zone to the north is a fossil (inactive) plate boundary fault system. There are also several strike-slip faults subparallel to the BKSZ to the north of the BKSZ.

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted, including the age of the crust.


      •

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted, with earthquakes M ≥ 6.0, including the age of the crust.


      •

    UPDATE #1

    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted, with earthquakes M ≥ 6.0.


      •

    2018.12.29 M 7.0 Philippines

    This magnitude M = 7.0 earthquake is related to the subduction zone that forms the Philippine trench (where the Philippine Sea plate subducts beneath the Sunda plate). Here is the USGS website for this earthquake.
    The earthquake was quite deep, which makes it less likely to cause damage to people and their belongings (e.g. houses and roads) and also less likely that the earthquake will trigger a trans-oceanic tsunami.
    Here are the tidal data:

    • Here is the map with a century’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    Geologic Fundamentals

    • For more on the graphical representation of moment tensors and focal mechnisms, check this IRIS video out:

    • Here is a fantastic infographic from Frisch et al. (2011). This figure shows some examples of earthquakes in different plate tectonic settings, and what their fault plane solutions are. There is a cross section showing these focal mechanisms for a thrust or reverse earthquake. The upper right corner includes my favorite figure of all time. This shows the first motion (up or down) for each of the four quadrants. This figure also shows how the amplitude of the seismic waves are greatest (generally) in the middle of the quadrant and decrease to zero at the nodal planes (the boundary of each quadrant).


      •

    • Here is another way to look at these beach balls.

    • There are three types of earthquakes, strike-slip, compressional (reverse or thrust, depending upon the dip of the fault), and extensional (normal). Here is are some animations of these three types of earthquake faults. The following three animations are from IRIS.

      • Strike Slip:

      Compressional:

      Extensional:

    • This is an image from the USGS that shows how, when an oceanic plate moves over a hotspot, the volcanoes formed over the hotspot form a series of volcanoes that increase in age in the direction of plate motion. The presumption is that the hotspot is stable and stays in one location. Torsvik et al. (2017) use various methods to evaluate why this is a false presumption for the Hawaii Hotspot.


      • A cutaway view along the Hawaiian island chain showing the inferred mantle plume that has fed the Hawaiian hot spot on the overriding Pacific Plate. The geologic ages of the oldest volcano on each island (Ma = millions of years ago) are progressively older to the northwest, consistent with the hot spot model for the origin of the Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount Chain. (Modified from image of Joel E. Robinson, USGS, in “This Dynamic Planet” map of Simkin and others, 2006.)

    • Here is a map from Torsvik et al. (2017) that shows the age of volcanic rocks at different locations along the Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain.


      • Hawaiian-Emperor Chain. White dots are the locations of radiometrically dated seamounts, atolls and islands, based on compilations of Doubrovine et al. and O’Connor et al. Features encircled with larger white circles are discussed in the text and Fig. 2. Marine gravity anomaly map is from Sandwell and Smith.

    Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

    Earthquake/Landslide/Tsunami Report: Donggala Earthquake, Central Sulawesi: UPDATE #1

    Posted on by
    Reply

    We continue to learn more each day as people collect additional information. Here is my initial Earthquake Report for this M 7.5 Donggala Earthquake.

    In short, there was an earthquake with magnitude M = 7.5 on 2018.09.28. Minutes after the earthquake there was a tsunami that hit the coasts of Palu Bay. Possibly during the earthquake, kilometer scale landslides were triggered along the floor of Palu Valley.

    These three natural disasters would be devastating on their own, but when considered in their totality, this trifecta has led to considerable suffering in central Sulawesi, Indonesia.

    • Pre- and post-earthquake remote sensing data have been used to estimate the deformation from the earthquake.
    • A collaboration between the Indonesian Government and Japanese tsunami experts (from a variety of universities) have produced a summary report from their field investigation of tsunami inundation and size.
    • Landslide experts have chimed in about how they interpret the landslides in Palu Valley.

    I will attempt to summarize some of what we have learned in the past couple of weeks. I will begin with the earthquake observations, then discuss the tsunami and landslides.

    M 7.5 Doggala Earthquake

    The M=7.5 Donggala earthquake struck along the most active and seismically hazardous fault on the island of Sulawesi (Celebes), Indonesia. The Palu-Koro fault has a slip rate of 42 mm per year (Socquet et al., 2006), has a record of M=7-8 prehistoric earthquakes (Watkinson and Hall, 2017), as well as a record of M>7 earthquakes in the 20th century (Gómez et al., 2000). The seismic hazard associated with this fault was well evidenced prior to the earthquake (Cipta et al., 2016).

    • Here is the interpretive poster from my initial earthquake report. Go to the report page for more information about the seismotectonics of the region.


      •

    According to the National Disaster Management Authority (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, BNPB), there were around 2.4 million people exposed to earthquake intensity MMI V or greater. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is a measure of how strongly the ground shaking is from an earthquake. MMI V is described as, “Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.” However, the closer one is to the earthquake source, the greater the MMI intensity. There have been reported observations as large as MMI VIII.

    Here is a map that shows the updated USGS model of ground shaking. The USGS prepared an updated earthquake fault slip model that was additionally informed by post-earthquake analysis of ground deformation. The original fault model extended from north of the epicenter to the northernmost extent of Palu City. Soon after the earthquake, Dr. Sotiris Valkaniotis prepared a map that showed large horizontal offsets across the ruptured fault along the entire length of the western margin on Palu Valley. This horizontal offset had an estimated ~8 meters of relative displacement. InSAR analyses confirmed that the coseismic ground deformation extended through Palu Valley and into the mountains to the south of the valley.


    My 2018.10.01 BC Newshour Interview

    Optical Analysis

    Perhaps some of the most phenomenal results from remote sensing analyses are coming from the work of Dr. Sotiris Valkaniotis. Dr. Valkaniotis has been using the open source softare mic-mac to compare pre- and post-earthquake satellite imagery. I will call this “pixel matching” analysis, or optical analysis.

    Pixels are “picture elements” that comprise what a raster is created out of. Consider a television or computer monitor. The screen is displaying rows and columns of colored light. Each cell of this “raster” display is called a pixel.

    Basically, the software compares the patterns in the compared imagery to detect changes. If a group of pixels in the image move relative to other pixels, then this motion is quantified. This type of analysis is particularly useful for strike-slip earthquakes as the ground moves side by side.

    Dr. Valkniotis has used a variety of imagery types. Below are a couple products that they have shared on social media. Please contact Dr. Valkaniotis for more information!

    • This was one of the first images, showing a large displacement near the coastline in western Palu.


    • Here is another way of looking at this displacement. Valkaniotis plotted the gradient (the slope of the mic-mac displacement) to show the localized deformation from the earthquake.


      •

    • Others have used this analysis too. Here is an example from Johann Champenois who used Sentinel 2-B satellite imagery.


      •

    • Here is an example that was prepared using Landsat satellite imagery conducted by Hawkeye Seismo. Here is their tweet. The left step in the Palu-Koro fault at the southern part of Palu Valley is clearly evident in this map.


      • Landsat-8 pixel tracking results (old school with Ampcor!) show a nice stepover in the Indonesia earthquake. This event gives a good perspective on why the valley in which Palu rests even exists in the first place

    • Here is a compilation from Valkaniotis, based upon Sentinel 2 imagery.


      •

    InSAR Analysis

    Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is a remote sensing method that uses Radar to make observations of Earth. These observations include the position of the ground surface, along with other information about the material properties of the Earth’s surface.
    Interferometric SAR (InSAR) utilizes two separate SAR data sets to determine if the ground surface has changed over time, the time between when these 2 data sets were collected. More about InSAR can be found here and here. Explaining the details about how these data are analyzed is beyond the scope of this report. I rely heavily on the expertise of those who do this type of analysis, for example Dr. Eric Fielding.
    Below are a series of different InSAR analytical results.

    • This is the result from Dr. Xiaohua Xu, prepared on 2018.10.15


      • Line-of-sight deformation from ALOS-2 for the Palu earthquake (data provided by JAXA, processed using GMTSAR). Unwrapping is challenging for this earthquake! Some near-fault region is too decorrelated to be trustworthy.

    • Below are 2 results from Dr. Fielding.


      • #InSAR map of range or line-of-sight deformation of #PaluEarthquake from NASA Caltech-JPL analysis of JAXA ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 data acquired last week. Red areas moved west or down in this unwrapped interferogram, unreliable phase masked out. Star USGS epicenter.


      #InSAR map of range or line-of-sight deformation of #PaluEarthquake from NASA Caltech-JPL analysis of JAXA ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 data acquired last week. Red areas moved west or down in this unwrapped interferogram, unreliable phase masked out. Star USGS epicenter.

    • I prepared a map using the NASA-JPL InSAR data. They post all their data online here. I used the tiff image as it is georeferenced. However, some may prefer to use the kmz file in Google Earth.
    • I include the faults mapped by Wilkinson and Hall (2017), the PGA contours from the USGS model results. More on Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) can be found here. I also include the spatial extent of the largest landslides that I mapped using post-earthquake satellite imagery provided by Digital Globe using their open source imagery program.


    Tsunami

    There have been observations of tsunami waves recorded by tide gages installed at Pantoloan Port and Mumuju, Sulawesi. Locations are shown on the map above. A tsunami with a 10 cm wave height was recorded at Mumuju tide gage and a wave with a height of about 1.7 meters was recorded at Pantoloan tide gage. Learn more about the tsunami here.
    Tsunami can be caused by a variety of processes, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and meteorological phenomena. Earthquakes, eruptions, and landslides cause tsunami when these processes displace water in some way. We may typically associate tsunami with subduction zone earthquakes because these earthquakes are the type that generate vertical land motion along the sea floor. However, we know that strike-slip earthquakes can also generate tsunami (e.g. the 1999 Izmit, Turkey earthquake). But strike-slip earthquakes typically generate tsunami that are smaller in size.

    • Here is a great illustration of how a subduction zone earthquake can generate a tsunami (Atwater et al., 2005).



    When landslides generate tsunami, they are often localized relative to the location of the landslide. The tsunami size can be rather large near the landslide and the size diminishes rapidly with distance from the landslide. An example of a landslide generated tsunami is the 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunami (an earthquake triggered a landslide, causing a “larger than expected” tsunami to inundate the land there. The size of the tsunami was very large near the landslide.
    Based on post-earthquake satellite imagery from Digital Globe, the overwhelming majority of tsunami damage is localized within Palu Bay. The severity of damage is worse in southern Palu Bay where tsunami inundation is on the order of 300 feet. While at the northern part of the bay, inundation is on the order of 50 feet. In the north, most of the buildings that were destroyed by the tsunami were built over the water, though not entirely. While in the south, building damage extends further inland where buildings have been destroyed that were not built over the water. North of the mouth of the bay, there is less evidence for tsunami inundation, but there is localized damage in places.
    There was a tsunami recorded at the Pantoloan Port tide gage with an amplitude of about 1 meter. At this location is also a 50 long ship that was lifted up onto a dock at the port. More details about the observations made by the joint Indonesia/Japan post-tsunami survey team cab be found at Temblor here.

    Here is my plot of the Pantoloan Port tide gage.


    • Here is a map that shows the preliminary results from the field survey. These elevation data are better explained in their report.


    M 7.5 Landslide Model vs. Observation Comparison

    Landslides during and following the M=7.5 earthquake in central Sulawesi, Indonesia possibly caused the majority of casualties from this catastrophic natural disaster. Volunteers (citizen scientists) have used satellite aerial imagery collected after the earthquake to document the spatial extent and magnitude of damage caused by the earthquake, landslides, and tsunami.

    While remote sensing methods are useful to locate damage in the region, field observations will be key in the effort to analyze the landscape response to these natural disasters. The Indonesian government and international researchers are already surveying the region and collecting these important observational details.

    There are many different ways in which a landslide can be triggered. The first order relations behind slope failure (landslides) is that the “resisting” forces that are preventing slope failure (e.g. the strength of the bedrock or soil) are overcome by the “driving” forces that are pushing this land downwards (e.g. gravity). The ratio of resisting forces to driving forces is called the Factor of Safety (FOS). We can write this ratio like this:

    FOS = Resisting Force / Driving Force

    When FOS > 1, the slope is stable and when FOS < 1, the slope fails and we get a landslide. The illustration below shows these relations. Note how the slope angle α can take part in this ratio (the steeper the slope, the greater impact of the mass of the slope can contribute to driving forces). The real world is more complicated than the simplified illustration below.


    Landslide ground shaking can change the Factor of Safety in several ways that might increase the driving force or decrease the resisting force. Keefer (1984) studied a global data set of earthquake triggered landslides and found that larger earthquakes trigger larger and more numerous landslides across a larger area than do smaller earthquakes.

    Earthquakes can cause landslides because the seismic waves can cause the driving force to increase (the earthquake motions can “push” the land downwards), leading to a landslide. In addition, ground shaking can change the strength of these earth materials (a form of resisting force) with a process called liquefaction.

    Sediment or soil strength is based upon the ability for sediment particles to push against each other without moving. This is a combination of friction and the forces exerted between these particles. This is loosely what we call the “angle of internal friction.” Liquefaction is a process by which pore pressure increases cause water to push out against the sediment particles so that they are no longer touching.

    An analogy that some may be familiar with relates to a visit to the beach. When one is walking on the wet sand near the shoreline, the sand may hold the weight of our body generally pretty well. However, if we stop and vibrate our feet back and forth, this causes pore pressure to increase and we sink into the sand as the sand liquefies. Or, at least our feet sink into the sand.

    Below is a diagram showing how an increase in pore pressure can push against the sediment particles so that they are not touching any more. This allows the particles to move around and this is why our feet sink in the sand in the analogy above. This is also what changes the strength of earth materials such that a landslide can be triggered.


    Below is a diagram based upon a publication designed to educate the public about landslides and the processes that trigger them (USGS, 2004). Additional background information about landslide types can be found in Highland et al. (2008). There was a variety of landslide types that can be observed surrounding the earthquake region. So, this illustration can help people when they observing the landscape response to the earthquake whether they are using aerial imagery, photos in newspaper or website articles, or videos on social media. Will you be able to locate a landslide scarp or the toe of a landslide? This figure shows a rotational landslide, one where the land rotates along a curvilinear failure surface.


    A lateral spread is a translational landslide that occurs over gentle slopes or flat terrain. The failure surface is more planar and less curvy than for rotational slides. The spread is usually caused when a confined layer of sediment is transformed from a solid into a liquid state. In the lateral spread figure below, it is the water that exists in the “silt and sand” deposits that has an increase in pore pressure to generate liquefaction, causing the failure. The overlying sediment is more cohesive, which is why we may have seen landslides move as coherent blocks across the landscape. However, these landslide blocks may disaggregate as they move, sometimes turning into a flow. This entire range of behavior can be seen in the post-earthquake aerial imagery of Palu Valley.


    Here is an excellent educational video from IRIS and a variety of organizations. The video helps us learn about how earthquake intensity gets smaller with distance from an earthquake. The concept of liquefaction is reviewed and we learn how different types of bedrock and underlying earth materials can affect the severity of ground shaking in a given location. The intensity map above is based on a model that relates intensity with distance to the earthquake, but does not incorporate changes in material properties as the video below mentions is an important factor that can increase intensity in places.

    If we look at the map at the top of this report, we might imagine that because the areas close to the fault shake more strongly, there may be more landslides in those areas. This is probably true at first order, but the variation in material properties and water content also control where landslides might occur.

    There has been a large amount of videos posted online via social media and professional news organizations showing the impact of these landslides. Perhaps one of the best places to seek an expert informed view of landslide processes, of all types, is from Dr. David Petley and his blog, The Landslide Blog. Petley has presented a couple summaries of these observations of coseismic (during the earthquake) landslides as triggered by ground shaking from the M=7.5 Donggala earthquake.

    The company Digital Globe provides high resolution satellite imagery for a fee, but they distribute imagery for free via their open data program following natural disasters. This imagery is available for noncommercial use including disaster impact analysis. Many of the preliminary analyses of impact presented on social media by subject matter experts has been based upon this imagery. Another source of fee based imagery is from Planet Lab that also provides imagery in support of peoples’ response to natural disasters via their disaster data program.

    Most of the entire Palu Valley has previously been mapped as susceptible to liquefaction due to (1) the underlying materials are sediments and (2) a shallow ground water table (lots of water in the sediment, reaching close to the ground surface). The northern part of the valley is a river delta full of loose and water saturated sediments. Yet, only a small portion of the entire valley failed as these km scale lateral spreads.

    Why is this? This is probably due to a combination of factors, but the biggest factor may be the heterogeneity of the underlying earth materials. These sediments probably have variation in material properties: strength (“angle of internal friction“), stickiness (“cohesion“), and porosity (spaces between sediment particles that can be filled with water).

    Below is the liquefaction susceptibility map prepared in 2012. I just noticed that one of the 2 largest landslides actually happened outside of these liquefaction zones.


    It is also possible that the earthquake intensity (ground shaking and seismic wave energy), that was directed in different directions, may have caused different amounts of “seismic loading” of these slopes.

    Knowing how these material properties vary spatially is difficult to know as the materials in the subsurface are generally not in plain view (buried under ground). People can drill and sample the material properties (an engineering geologist) and then calculate the strength of these materials (engineer) on a site by site basis.

    Until these landslides are analyzed and compared with regions that did not fail in slope failure, we will not be able to reconstruct what happened… why some areas failed and some did not.

    There are landslide slope stability and liquefaction susceptibility models based on empirical data from past earthquakes. The USGS has recently incorporated these types of analyses into their earthquake event pages. More about these USGS models can be found on this page.

    I prepared some maps that compare the USGS landslide and liquefaction probability maps. Below I present these results along with the MMI contours. I also include the faults mapped by Wilkinson and Hall (2017). Shown are the cities of Donggala and Palu. Also shown are the 2 tide gage locations (Pantoloan Port – PP and Mumuju – M). I also used post-earthquake satellite imagery to outline the largest landslides in Palu Valley, ones that appear to be lateral spreads.

    • Here is the landslide probability map (Jessee et al., 2018). Below the poster I include the text from the USGS website that describes how this model is prepared.


    Nowicki Jessee and others (2018) is the preferred model for earthquake-triggered landslide hazard. Our primary landslide model is the empirical model of Nowicki Jessee and others (2018). The model was developed by relating 23 inventories of landslides triggered by past earthquakes with different combinations of predictor variables using logistic regression. The output resolution is ~250 m. The model inputs are described below. More details about the model can be found in the original publication. We modify the published model by excluding areas with slopes <5° and changing the coefficient for the lithology layer "unconsolidated sediments" from -3.22 to -1.36, the coefficient for "mixed sedimentary rocks" to better reflect that this unit is expected to be weak (more negative coefficient indicates stronger rock).To exclude areas of insignificantly small probabilities in the computation of aggregate statistics for this model, we use a probability threshold of 0.002.

    • Here is the liquefaction probability (susceptibility) map (Zhu et al., 2017). Note that the regions of low slopes in the valleys and coastal plains are the areas with a high chance of experiencing liquefaction. Areas of slopes >5° are excluded from this analysis.
    • Note that the large landslides (yellow polygons) are not in regions of high probability for liquefaction.


    Zhu and others (2017) is the preferred model for liquefaction hazard. The model was developed by relating 27 inventories of liquefaction triggered by past earthquakes to globally-available geospatial proxies (summarized below) using logistic regression. We have implemented the global version of the model and have added additional modifications proposed by Baise and Rashidian (2017), including a peak ground acceleration (PGA) threshold of 0.1 g and linear interpolation of the input layers. We also exclude areas with slopes >5°. We linearly interpolate the original input layers of ~1 km resolution to 500 m resolution. The model inputs are described below. More details about the model can be found in the original publication.

      References:

    • Atwater, B.F., Musumi-Rokkaku, S., Satake, K., Tsuju, Y., Eueda, K., and Yamaguchi, D.K., 2005. The Orphan Tsunami of 1700—Japanese Clues to a Parent Earthquake in North America, USGS Professional Paper 1707, USGS, Reston, VA, 144 pp.
    • Cipta, A., Robiana, R., Griffin, J.D., Horspool, N., Hidayati, S., and Cummins, P., 2016. A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Sulawesi, Indonesia in Cummins, P. R. &Meilano, I. (eds) Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 441, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP441.6
    • Gómez, J.M., Madariaga, R., Walpersdorf, A., and Chalard, E., 2000. The 1996 Earthquakes in Sulawesi, Indonesia in BSSA, v. 90, no. 3, p. 739-751
    • Highland, L.M., and Bobrowsky, P., 2008. The landslide handbook—A guide to understanding landslides, Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1325, 129 p.
    • Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
    • Keefer, D.K., 1984. Landslides Caused by Earthquakes in GSA Bulletin, v. 95, p. 406-421
    • Socquet, A., Simons, W., Vigny, C., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Sarsito, D., Ambrosius, B., and Spakman, W., 2006. Microblock rotations and fault coupling in SE Asia triple junction (Sulawesi, Indonesia) from GPS and earthquake slip vector data, J. Geophys. Res., 111, B08409, doi:10.1029/2005JB003963.
    • USGS, 2004. Landslide Types and Processes, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3072
    • Watkinson, I.M. and Hall, R., 2017. Fault systems of the eastern Indonesian triple junction: evaluation of Quaternary activity and implications for seismic hazards in Cummins, P. R. & Meilano, I. (eds) Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 441, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP441.8
    • Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, doi: 0.1785/0120160198

    Earthquake Report: Sulawesi (Celebes), Indonesia

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Well, around 3 AM my time (northeastern Pacific, northern CA) there was a sequence of earthquakes including a mainshock with a magnitude M = 7.5. This earthquake happened in a highly populated region of Indonesia.

    This area of Indonesia is dominated by a left-lateral (sinistral) strike-slip plate boundary fault system. Sulawesi is bisected by the Palu-Kola / Matano fault system. These faults appear to be an extension of the Sorong fault, the sinistral strike-slip fault that cuts across the northern part of New Guinea.

    There have been a few earthquakes along the Palu-Kola fault system that help inform us about the sense of motion across this fault, but most have maximum magnitudes mid M 6.

    GPS and block modeling data suggest that the fault in this area has a slip rate of about 40 mm/yr (Socquet et al., 2006). However, analysis of offset stream channels provides evidence of a lower slip rate for the Holocene (last 12,000 years), a rate of about 35 mm/yr (Bellier et al., 2001). Given the short time period for GPS observations, the GPS rate may include postseismic motion earlier earthquakes, though these numbers are very close.

    Using empirical relations for historic earthquakes compiled by Wells and Coppersmith (1994), Socquet et al. (2016) suggest that the Palu-Koro fault system could produce a magnitude M 7 earthquake once per century. However, studies of prehistoric earthquakes along this fault system suggest that, over the past 2000 years, this fault produces a magnitude M 7-8 earthquake every 700 years (Bellier et al., 2006). So, it appears that this is the characteristic earthquake we might expect along this fault.

    Based on what we know about strike-slip fault earthquakes, the portions of the fault to the north and south of today’s sequence may have an increased amount of stress due to this earthquake. Stay tuned for a Temblor.net report about this earthquake where I discuss this further.

    There are reports of a local tsunami with a run-up about 2 meters. However, the UNESCO Sea Level Monitoring Facility (website) does not show any tsunami observations on tide gage data in the region.

    Most commonly, we associate tsunamigenic earthquakes with subduction zones and thrust faults because these are the types of earthquakes most likely to deform the seafloor, causing the entire water column to be lifted up. Strike-slip earthquakes can generate tsunami if there is sufficient submarine topography that gets offset during the earthquake. Also, if a strike-slip earthquake triggers a landslide, this could cause a tsunami. We will need to wait until people take a deeper look into this before we can make any conclusions about the tsunami and what may have caused it.

    Did you feel this earthquake? If so, fill out the USGS “Did You Feel It?” form here. If not, why not? Probably because you were too far away. The closer to an earthquake, the more strong the shaking intensity and the larger chance of infrastructure damage (roads, houses, etc.). The USGS PAGER alert for this earthquake shows that there are ~282,000 people living in Palu, a city near the epicenter. The estimate for shaking intensity is a MMI VI, which could result in light damage for resistant structures and moderate damage for vulnerable structures. More about USGS PAGER alerts here. There exists a possibility that there were more than 100 fatalities from this earthquake.

    UPDATE 2018.09.28 23:00

    • There have been tsunami waves recorded on a tide gage over 300 km to the south of the epicenter, at a site called Mumuju. Below is a map and a plot of water surface elevations from this source.



    UPDATE 2018.09.29 07:00

    I awakened this morning (my time, obviously) to find that there are over 380 reported deaths from this earthquake and tsunami. More on this later in the day (clouds are preparing to our and i need to put some of my stuff under tarps).

    I prepared a report for Temblor where we present results of static coulomb stress modeling. Here is that report.

    UPDATE 2018.09.29 10:45

    Here is a (200 MB) video that I edited slightly. Download here. This was originally posted here.

    UPDATE 2018.09.30 17:00

    Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

    I plot the seismicity from the past month, with color representing depth and diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1918-2018 with magnitudes M ≥ 6.0 in one version.

    I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.

    • I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend on the poster. There is more material from the USGS web sites about moment tensors and focal mechanisms (the beach ball symbols). Both moment tensors and focal mechanisms are solutions to seismologic data that reveal two possible interpretations for fault orientation and sense of motion. One must use other information, like the regional tectonics, to interpret which of the two possibilities is more likely.
    • I also include the shaking intensity contours on the map. These use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI; see the legend on the map). This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations. The MMI is a qualitative measure of shaking intensity. More on the MMI scale can be found here and here. This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations.
    • I include the slab 2.0 contours plotted (Hayes, 2018), which are contours that represent the depth to the subduction zone fault. These are mostly based upon seismicity. The depths of the earthquakes have considerable error and do not all occur along the subduction zone faults, so these slab contours are simply the best estimate for the location of the fault.

      Magnetic Anomalies

    • In the map below, I include a transparent overlay of the magnetic anomaly data from EMAG2 (Meyer et al., 2017). As oceanic crust is formed, it inherits the magnetic field at the time. At different points through time, the magnetic polarity (north vs. south) flips, the north pole becomes the south pole. These changes in polarity can be seen when measuring the magnetic field above oceanic plates. This is one of the fundamental evidences for plate spreading at oceanic spreading ridges (like the Gorda rise).
    • Regions with magnetic fields aligned like today’s magnetic polarity are colored red in the EMAG2 data, while reversed polarity regions are colored blue. Regions of intermediate magnetic field are colored light purple.
    • We can see the roughly east-west trends of these red and blue stripes. These lines are parallel to the ocean spreading ridges from where they were formed. The stripes disappear at the subduction zone because the oceanic crust with these anomalies is diving deep beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia), so the magnetic anomalies from the overlying Sunda plate mask the evidence for the Australia plate.

      I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

    • In the upper left corner is a map from Bellier et al. (2016) that shows the plate boundary faults in the region. Relative senses of motion across these faults is shown as red arrows. The M 7.5 epicenter is shown as a blue star (as in other figures).
    • In the upper right corner is a larger scale map showing the strike-slip fautls that transect the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia (Bellier, et al., 2006)
    • In the lower right corner is a low angle oblique view of the subducting plates in this region (Hall, 2011). Note the orientation of the Sorong fault and the Sulawesi faults.
    • In the lower left corner is a large scale map showing detailed versions of these fault systems in Sulawesi. Earthquake fault mechanisms are plotted for historic earthquakes. Today’s M 7.5 occurred just to the north of the spatial extent of this map.
    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a centuries worth of seismicity plotted.


      •

    Other Report Pages

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • Here is the low angle oblique view of the plate boundaries in this region (Hall., 2011).


      • 3D cartoon of plate boundaries in the Molucca Sea region modified from Hall et al. (1995). Although seismicity identifies a number of plates there are no continuous boundaries, and the Cotobato, North Sulawesi and Philippine Trenches are all intraplate features. The apparent distinction between different crust types, such as Australian continental crust and oceanic crust of the Philippine and Molucca Sea, is partly a boundary inactive since the Early Miocene (east Sulawesi) and partly a younger but now probably inactive boundary of the Sorong Fault. The upper crust of this entire region is deforming in a much more continuous way than suggested by this cartoon.

    • Here is the map from Bellier et al. (2006) that shows the plate boundary faults, along with some other tectonic information.


      • Regional geodynamic sketch that presents the present day deformation model of Sulawesi area (after Beaudouin et al., 2003) and four main deformation systems around the Central Sulawesi block, highlighting the tectonic complexity of Sulawesi. Approximate location of the Central Sulawesi block rotation pole (P) [compatible with both GPS measurements (Walpersdorf et al., 1998a) and earthquake moment tensor analyses (Beaudouin et al., 2003)], as well as the major active structures are reported. Central Sulawesi Fault System (CSFS) is formed by the Palu–Koro and Matano faults. Arrows correspond to the compression and/or extension directions deduced from both inversion and moment tensor analyses of the focal mechanisms; arrow size being proportional to the deformation rate (e.g., Beaudouin et al., 2003).We also represent the focal mechanism provided by the Harvard CMT database [CMT data base, 2005] for the recent large earthquake (Mw=6.2; 2005/1/23; lat.=0.92° S; long.=120.10° E). The box indicates the approximate location of the Fig. 6 that corresponds to the geological map of the Palu basin region. The bottom inset shows the SE Asia and Sulawesi geodynamic frame where arrows represent the approximate Indo-Australian and Philippines plate motions relative to Eurasia.

    • The is the larger scale map showing the general layout of the strike-slip faults in Sulawesi (Bellier et al., 2006).


      • Sketch map of the Cenozoic Central Sulawesi fault system. ML represents the Matano Lake, and Leboni RFZ, the Leboni releasing fault zone that connects the Palu–Koro and Matano Faults. Triangles indicate faults with reverse component (triangles on the upthrown block). On this map are reported the fault kinematic measurement sites.

    • Here is a spectacular photo/sketch pair that demonstrates the excellent geomorphic evidence for this strike-slip fault (Bellier et al., 2006).The stream channels that flow down the alluvial fan in this photo are typical of the features that were used to evaluate the Holocene slip rate. There is a modest amount of vertical motion across this fault in places, causing the formation of basins like the Palu Palu Basin (a graben). The city of Palu is in the center of the Palu Palu Basin.


      • West-looking view of the Palu–Koro fault escarpment SSW of the Palu basin showing faceted spurs and a left-lateral offset of an alluvial fan. At the bottom, sketch of the photograph where white arrows point to the fault trace and black arrows point to the cumulate fan offset along the fault traces.

    • This map shows how Palu is situated relative to this fault system (Bellier et al., 2006).


      • Simplified geological map of the Palu domain (modified after Sukamto, 1973) where are reported the locations of fission-track samples. 1 — Holocene alluvial deposits; 2 — Quaternary coral reef terraces; 3 — Mio-quaternary molasses, 4 — Mio-quaternary granitic rocks and granodiorites, 5 — Middle to Upper Eocene Tinombo Formation metamorphism, 6 — Tinombo Formation magmatism, 7 and 8 — metamorphic bedrock (7 — Cretaceous Latimonjong Formation; 8 — Triassic-Jurassic Gumbasa Formation).

    • Some early GPS analysis was conducted by Waldpersdorf et al. (1998). Below is a map showing the location of these GPS observations relative tot he Palu-Koro fault.


      • The area of convergence of the Eurasian, Philippine and Australian plate is characterized by the Sula block motion. Active block boundaries are the North Sulawesi trench *(1)., the Palu-Koro (2), and the Matano (3) faults. The Palu transect is indicated buy the box, with a zoom presented in the inset. Furthermore, the two largest earthquakes (CMT) occurring during the observation period are indicated.

    • Here is a map that shows the GPS velocities as vectors in the region of Palu, Indonesia (Waldpersdorf et al., 1998).


      • Velocities of the Palu transect stations, with respect to the PALU station. Error ellipses correspond to formal uncertainties of the global solution with a confidence level of 90%.

    • Here are the Waldpersdorf et al. (1998) velocities plotted on a chart.


      • Transect station velocity components parallel to the fault, with the co-seismic deformation due to the Jan. 1996 earthquake removed. They are indicated in function of their distance to the fault. The dark grey line shows best model values (5.5 cm/yr total velocity, 12 km locking depth). Lighter grey lines correspond to locking depths of 8 and 16 km, marking an uncertainty of +-4 km.

    • Below are updated results from GPS and block model analyses from Socquet et al. (2006). Arrows are vectors that represent plate motion velocity in mm/yr (scale in upper right corner). Note how the velocities are different on either side of the Palu-Koro fault.


      • GPS velocities of Sulawesi and surrounding sites with respect to the Sunda Plate. Grey arrows belong to the Makassar Block, black arrows belong to the northern half of Sulawesi, and white arrows belong to non-Sulawesi sites (99% confidence ellipses). Numbers near the tips of the vectors give the rates in mm/yr. The main tectonic structures of the area are shown as well.

    • This map shows models plate motion velocities as informed by their block model.


      • Rotational part of the inferred velocity field in the Sulawesi area (relative to the Sunda Plate) as predicted by the Euler vectors of the best fit model (model 2). Error ellipses of predicted vectors show the 99% level of confidence. Also shown are poles of rotation and error ellipses (with respect to the Sunda Plate) from the best fit model. Curved arrows indicate the sense of rotation, and numbers indicate the rotation rate. MAKA, Makassar Block; MANA, Manado Block; ESUL, East Sula Block; NSUL, North Sula Block.

    • Here is a map that shows the plate boundary slip velocities as color (Socquet et al., 2006).


      • Best fit block model derived from both GPS and earthquakes slip vector azimuth data. Center: Observed (red) and calculated (green) velocities with respect to the Sunda Block (shown are 20% confidence ellipses, after GPS reweighting; see text). The slip rate deficit (mm/yr) for the faults included in the model is represented by a color bar. The profile of Figure 7 is located by the dashed black line. The black rectangles around Palu and Gorontalo faults localize the insets. Top right and bottom left insets show details of the measured and modeled velocities across the Gorontalo and Palu faults. The bottom right inset shows residual GPS velocities with respect to the model. The value of the coupling ratio, j, for the faults included in the model is represented by the color bar. Light blue dots represent the locations of the fault nodes where the coupling ratio is estimated. Nodes along the block boundaries are at the surface of the Earth, and the others are at depth along the fault plane. In this model, j is considered uniform along strike and depth for all the faults, except for Palu Fault and Minahassa Trench, where it is allowed to vary along strike.

    • This plot is similar to the one above, which shows how different GPS observations have different plate motion velocities relative to the faults in the area (Socquet et al., 2006).


      • Velocity profile across Makassar Trench, Palu Fault, and Gorontalo Fault (profile location in Figure 6) in Sunda reference frame. Observed GPS velocities are depicted by dots with 1-sigma uncertainty bars, while the predicted velocities are shown as curves. The profile normal component (approximately NNW) (i.e., the strike-slip component across the NW trending faults) is shown with black dots and solid line, while the profile-parallel component (normal or thrust component across the fault) is shown with grey dots and a dashed line. Where the profile crosses the faults and blocks is labeled.

    • Here are their results plotted on a map (Socquet et al., 2006).


      • (top) GPS velocities in Palu area relative to station WATA. STRM topography is used as background. (bottom) Four parallel elastic dislocations that fit best the velocities in the Palu fault zone. The fault-parallel component of the GPS velocities (with 1-sigma error bars) is plotted with respect to their distance to the main fault scarp, in the North Sula Block reference frame. The black curve represents the fault-parallel modeled velocity of the four strand model. For comparison, the fault-parallel modeled velocity predicted by the single fault model is also plotted (grey dashed curve). The location of the modeled dislocation is represented as vertical bars for each model (black and dashed grey lines, respectively).

    • Here is the fault map from Watkinson and Hall (2017).


      • Central Sulawesi overview digital elevation model (SRTM), CMT catalogue earthquakes, 35 km depth and structures that show geomorphic evidence of Quaternary tectonic activity. Rivers marked in white. Illumination from NE.

    • Here is another fantastic view of the geomorphology associated with the Palu-Koro fault (Watkinson and Hall, 2017). The hanging valley is evidence for normal displacement (extension) along this fault. Wine glass canyons are evidence for differential uplift.


      • (a) The Palu and Sapu valleys showing structures that with geomorphic evidence of Quaternary tectonic activity, plus topography and drainage. Mountain front sinuosity values in bold italic text. For location, see Figure 4. Major drainage basins for Salo Sapu and Salo Wuno are marked, separated by uplift at the western end of the Sapu valley fault system. (b) View of the Palu–Koro Fault scarp from the Palu valley, showing geomorphic evidence of Quaternary tectonic activity.

    • In this case, we can see how the river meanders are controlled by the fault. Places where stream offsets were used to measure slip rate are also shown (Watkinson and Hall, 2017).


      • Evidence of a cross-basin fault system within the Palu valley Quaternary fill. (a) Overview ASTER digital elevation model draped with ESRI imagery layer. Illumination from NW. Palu River channels traced from six separate images from 2003 to 2015. Inset shows fault pattern developed in an analogue model of a releasing bend, modified after Wu et al. (2009), reflected and rotated to mimic the Palu valley. Sidewall faults and cross-basin fault system are highlighted in the model and on the satellite imagery. (b, c) Laterally confined meander belts, interpreted as representing minor subsidence within the cross-basin fault system. (d) Laterally confined river channels directly along-strike from a Palu–Koro Fault strand seen to offset alluvial fans in the south of the valley. (c, d, e) showESRI imagery.

    Geologic Fundamentals

    • For more on the graphical representation of moment tensors and focal mechnisms, check this IRIS video out:

    • Here is a fantastic infographic from Frisch et al. (2011). This figure shows some examples of earthquakes in different plate tectonic settings, and what their fault plane solutions are. There is a cross section showing these focal mechanisms for a thrust or reverse earthquake. The upper right corner includes my favorite figure of all time. This shows the first motion (up or down) for each of the four quadrants. This figure also shows how the amplitude of the seismic waves are greatest (generally) in the middle of the quadrant and decrease to zero at the nodal planes (the boundary of each quadrant).


      •

    • Here is another way to look at these beach balls.

    • There are three types of earthquakes, strike-slip, compressional (reverse or thrust, depending upon the dip of the fault), and extensional (normal). Here is are some animations of these three types of earthquake faults. The following three animations are from IRIS.

      • Strike Slip:

      Compressional:

      Extensional:

    • This is an image from the USGS that shows how, when an oceanic plate moves over a hotspot, the volcanoes formed over the hotspot form a series of volcanoes that increase in age in the direction of plate motion. The presumption is that the hotspot is stable and stays in one location. Torsvik et al. (2017) use various methods to evaluate why this is a false presumption for the Hawaii Hotspot.


      • A cutaway view along the Hawaiian island chain showing the inferred mantle plume that has fed the Hawaiian hot spot on the overriding Pacific Plate. The geologic ages of the oldest volcano on each island (Ma = millions of years ago) are progressively older to the northwest, consistent with the hot spot model for the origin of the Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount Chain. (Modified from image of Joel E. Robinson, USGS, in “This Dynamic Planet” map of Simkin and others, 2006.)

    • Here is a map from Torsvik et al. (2017) that shows the age of volcanic rocks at different locations along the Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain.


      • Hawaiian-Emperor Chain. White dots are the locations of radiometrically dated seamounts, atolls and islands, based on compilations of Doubrovine et al. and O’Connor et al. Features encircled with larger white circles are discussed in the text and Fig. 2. Marine gravity anomaly map is from Sandwell and Smith.

      References:

    • Bellier, O., Sebrier, M., Beaudouin, T., Villenueve, M., Braucher, R., Bourles, D., Siame, L., Putranto, E., and Pratomo, I., 2001. High slip rate for a low seismicity along the Palu-Koro active fault in central Sulawesi (Indonesia) in Terra Nova, v. 13, No. 6, p. 463-470
    • Bellier, O., Sebrier, M., Seward, D., Beaudouin, T., Villenueve, M., and Putranto, E., 2006. Fission track and fault kinematics analyses for new insight into the Late Cenozoic tectonic regime changes in West-Central Sulawesi (Indonesia) uin Tectonophysics, v. 413, p. 201-220, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2005.10.036
    • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
    • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
    • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. doi:10.7289/V5H70CVX
    • Socquet, A., W. Simons, C. Vigny, R. McCaffrey, C. Subarya, D. Sarsito, B. Ambrosius, and W. Spakman (2006), Microblock rotations and fault coupling in SE Asia triple junction (Sulawesi, Indonesia) from GPS and earthquake slip vector data, J. Geophys. Res., 111, B08409, doi:10.1029/2005JB003963.
    • Watkinson, I.M. and Hall, R., 2017. Fault systems of the eastern Indonesian triple junction: evaluation of Quaternary activity and implications for seismic hazards in Cummins, P. R. &Meilano, I. (eds) Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 441, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP441.8,
    • Walpersdorf, A., Rangin, C., and Vigny, C., 1998. GPS compared to long-term geologic motion of the north arm of Sulawesi in EPSL, v. 159, p. 47-55
    • Zahirovic, S., Seton, M., and Müller, R.D., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014


    Earthquake Report: Lombok, Indonesia

    Posted on by
    2

    Well well.
    After a pretty seismically quiet first half of 2018, we have been catching up rapidly. The ultra deep Great Earthquake in Fiji. And now the Lombok sequence continues.

    https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us1000gda5/executive

    The inhabitants and tourists in the Lombok, Indonesia region have been experiencing quite a few deadly and damaging earthquakes.

    This ongoing sequence began in late July with a Mw 6.4 earthquake. Followed less than 2 weeks later with a Mw 6.9 earthquake.

    Today there was an M 6.3 soon followed by an M 6.9 earthquake (and a couple M 5.X quakes).

    These earthquakes have been occurring along a thrust fault system along the northern portion of Lombok, Indonesia, an island in the magamatic arc related to the Sunda subduction zone. The Flores thrust fault is a backthrust to the subduction zone. The tectonics are complicated in this region of the world and there are lots of varying views on the tectonic history. However, there has been several decades of work on the Flores thrust (e.g. Silver et al., 1986). The Flores thrust is an east-west striking (oriented) north vergent (dipping to the south) thrust fault that extends from eastern Java towards the Islands of Flores and Timor. Above the main thrust fault are a series of imbricate (overlapping) thrust faults. These imbricate thrust faults are shallower in depth than the main Flores thrust.

    The earthquakes that have been happening appear to be on these shallower thrust faults, but there is a possibility that they are activating the Flores thrust itself. Perhaps further research will illuminate the relations between these shallower faults and the main player, the Flores thrust.
    There are 2 main ways that earthquakes may be triggered by a previous earthquake.

    1. Dynamic Triggering is when seismic waves are traveling through the crust from an earlier earthquake and these seismic waves increase the stress on a second or the same fault, causing a second (or more) earthquake.
    2. Static Triggering is when an earlier earthquake slips and deforms the crust/lithosphere surrounding the earthquake. These changes can impart changes in static coulomb stress in the adjacent crust. These changes can lead to increases or decreases of stress along faults in that adjacent part of the crust (e.g. Lin & Stein, 2004).

    Both types of triggering impart a very very small amount of increased stress on a given fault or fault system. This means that the way for an earthquake to be triggered in this manner, the potentially triggered fault will need to be on the verge of rupturing on its own. The stresses released by earthquakes are much larger than those stresses imparted by dynamic or static triggering, so the faults need to be “ready to go” if they are to be triggered.

    I presented this on my earlier earthquake report, but this still holds true. People had been asking me if we might expect another large or larger earthquake in this region. So, here is what I have told them:

    • It is difficult to say if there will be a larger or another large earthquake or not.
    • Based upon historic seismicity, the M 6.9 is probably the mainshock in this sequence. But the historic record is short (100 yrs +-), so may not be a perfect sample of what could happen.
    • The M 6.9 probably ruptured the Flores thrust fault, a back thrust to the subduction zone.
    • There is probably a small chance that the Flores thrust fault (east west fault dipping to the south) to the east and west of the M 6.9 has an increased amount of stress imparted upon it from the M 6.9 (small amount, so if the fault was almost ready to go, this change might make it go). but this is a small possibility (but still possible). (i.e. Bali). (Today’s M 6.9 is evidence that the fault saw an increase in stress from the earlier earthquakes.)
    • There is also a small chance that the subduction zone (south of the islands, dipping to the north) also has an increased amount of stress from this M 6.9 earthquake. but this is probably less likely than the other example (due to the distance between the M .6.9 and the subduction zone fault.
    • Though there will probably be earthquakes up to M 5 or mid M 5 as aftershocks… and as time passes, the chance of a larger earthquake diminish to the background risk of such an earthquake. by the time it is Sept through Dec, we will probably have passed the increased risk due to the M 6.9 sequence. (Though today we saw two M > 6 earthquakes)
    • But we must always remember, we cannot absolutely know what will happen. our observational history is only a few centuries and seismometers are only a century old (and modern ones, with a global network, maybe 50 years). so it is challenging to think that we know about how this region (or any region) behaves tectonically.

    Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

    I plot the seismicity from the past month, with color representing depth and diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1918-2018 with magnitudes M ≥ 6.0 in one version.

    I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes. The focal mechanism from the 1977.08.19 M 8.3 earthquake came from Lynnes and Lay, 1988.

    • I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend on the poster. There is more material from the USGS web sites about moment tensors and focal mechanisms (the beach ball symbols). Both moment tensors and focal mechanisms are solutions to seismologic data that reveal two possible interpretations for fault orientation and sense of motion. One must use other information, like the regional tectonics, to interpret which of the two possibilities is more likely.
    • I also include the shaking intensity contours on the map. These use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI; see the legend on the map). This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations. The MMI is a qualitative measure of shaking intensity. More on the MMI scale can be found here and here. This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations.
    • I include the slab contours plotted (Hayes et al., 2012), which are contours that represent the depth to the subduction zone fault. These are mostly based upon seismicity. The depths of the earthquakes have considerable error and do not all occur along the subduction zone faults, so these slab contours are simply the best estimate for the location of the fault.

      Magnetic Anomalies

    • In the map below, I include a transparent overlay of the magnetic anomaly data from EMAG2 (Meyer et al., 2017). As oceanic crust is formed, it inherits the magnetic field at the time. At different points through time, the magnetic polarity (north vs. south) flips, the north pole becomes the south pole. These changes in polarity can be seen when measuring the magnetic field above oceanic plates. This is one of the fundamental evidences for plate spreading at oceanic spreading ridges (like the Gorda rise).
    • Regions with magnetic fields aligned like today’s magnetic polarity are colored red in the EMAG2 data, while reversed polarity regions are colored blue. Regions of intermediate magnetic field are colored light purple.
    • We can see the roughly east-west trends of these red and blue stripes. These lines are parallel to the ocean spreading ridges from where they were formed. The stripes disappear at the subduction zone because the oceanic crust with these anomalies is diving deep beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia), so the magnetic anomalies from the overlying Sunda plate mask the evidence for the Australia plate.

      I include some inset figures.

    • In the upper right corner is a low angle oblique view of the Sunda subduction zone beneath Java, Bali, Lombok, and Sumbawa (from Earth Observatory Singapore). I place a blue star in the general location of today’s earthquake’s epicenter (as for all figures here). The India-Australia plate is subducting northwards beneath the Sunda plate (part of the Eurasia plate). I include a blue star in the general location of today’s M 6.9 earthquake (as in other inset figures).
    • In the upper left corner is a plate tectonic map showing the major fault systems, volcanic arc islands, and oceanic plateaus and basins of the region (Darman, 2012). The map shows the Flores thrust extending as far west as Lombok. Compare the complicated tectonics in the eastern portion of this region compared to the western portion of this region.
    • In the lower left corner is a cross section showing earthquake hypocenters (3-D locations) from Darman et a. (2012).
    • To the right of the Darman et al. (2012) map is a figure from Lin and Stein (2004). Their paper discusses changes in static coulomb stress imparted by earthquakes in different configurations. The upper panel is a map view of how a thrust fault earthquake imparts changes in stress in the adjacent crust. Warm colors = increases in stress. Cool colors indicate decreases in stress. The fault in this example is an east-west thrust fault. Note how the region above the fault sees a decrease in stress while the region surrounding the ruptured fault sees an increase in stress. This is probably what is happening in Lombok right now. The 7/28 M 6.4 earthquake likely increased the stress in the adjacent crust, leading to the 8/5 M 6.9 earthquake. This (and the other earthquakes) also led to increased stress in the adjacent crust, probably triggering the M 6.9 earthquake from today. There is no reason to think that this won’t continue to the east or to the west. But we cannot really know if there will be a continued “unzipping” of these Flores thrust related faults. While the historic seismologic records are incredibly short (a century or less), there are no good analogues to this happening in this region (there are in other regions of the Earth).
    • In the lower right corner is a surface deformation map prepared by Dr. Eric Fielding, from NASA JPL. This map shows the result of modeling surface deformation using interferrometric Radar (InSAR). Basically, using Radar data from time periods before and after an earthquake, one can subtract the two data sets from each other to estimate how much the ground deformed during the earthquake. Note that there is approximately 40 cm of overall deformation from this 8/5 M 6.9 earthquake. Here is the technical definition of what this interferrogram is (from Dr. Fielding): an “interferogram is [a] measurement of displacement in the radar line-of-sight (LOS) direction, not a model. The LOS for this measurement is up and east.”
    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a centuries’ seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is an updated local scale (large scale) map showing the earthquake fault mechanisms for the current sequence. I label them with yellow numbers according to the sequence timing. I outlined the general areas that have had earthquakes into two zones (phases). Phase I includes the earthquakes up until today and Phase II includes the earthquakes from today. There is some overlap, but only for a few earthquakes. In general, it appears that the earthquakes have slipped in two areas of the Flores fault (or maybe two shallower thrust faults).


      •

    • Here is the 8/5 M 6.9 earthquake map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the 8/5 M 6.9 earthquake map with a centuries’ seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the interpretive posted from the M 6.4 7/28 earthquake, with historic seismicity and earthquake mechanisms.


      •

    Other Report Pages

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • Below is a map showing historic seismicity (Jones et al., 2014). Cross sections B-B’ and C-C’ are shown. The seismicity for the cross sections below are sourced from within each respective rectangle.


    • Here are the seismcity cross sections.


      •

    • Below are the maps and cross sections from Darman et al., 2012.
    • Here is the map in the interpretive poster above.


      • Tectonic map of the Lesser Sunda Islands, showing the main tectonic units, main faults, bathymetry and location of seismic sections discussed in this paper.

    • Here is the seismicity cross section in the interpretive poster above.


      • This plot shows the earthquake localizations on a South-North cross section for the lat -14°/-4° long 114°/124° quadrant corresponding to the Lesser Sunda Islands region. The localizations are extracted from the USGS database and corresponds to magnitude greater than 4.5 in the 1973-2004 time period (shallow earthquakes with undetermined depth have been omitted.

    • Here is their interpretations of seismic data used to interpret the tectonics of the subduction zone and Flores thrust.


      • Six 15 km deep seismic sections acquired by BGR from west to east traversing oceanic crust, deep sea trench, accretionary prism, outer arc high and fore-arc basin, derived from Kirchoff prestack depth migration (PreSDM) with a frequency range of 4-60 Hz. Profile BGR06-313 shows exemplarily a velocity-depth model according to refraction/wide-angle
      seismic tomography on coincident profile P31 (modified after Lüschen et al, 2011).

    • Here is the map from McCaffrey and Nabelek (1987). They used seismic reflection profiles, gravity modeling along these profiles, seismicity, and earthquake source mechanism analyses to support their interpretations of the structures in this region.


      • Tectonic and geographic map of the eastern Sunda arc and vicinity. Active volcanoes are represented by triangles, and bathymetric contours are in kilometers. Thrust faults are shown with teeth on the upper plate. The dashed box encloses the study area.

    • Here is the Audley (2011) cross section showing how the backthrust relates to the subduction zone beneath Timor. I include their figure caption in blockquote below.


      • Cartoon cross section of Timor today, (cf. Richardson & Blundell 1996, their BIRPS figs 3b, 4b & 7; and their fig. 6 gravity model 2 after Woodside et al. 1989; and Snyder et al. 1996 their fig. 6a). Dimensions of the filled 40 km deep present-day Timor Tectonic Collision Zone are based on BIRPS seismic, earthquake seismicity and gravity data all re-interpreted here from Richardson & Blundell (1996) and from Snyder et al. (1996). NB. The Bobonaro Melange, its broken formation and other facies are not indicated, but they are included with the Gondwana mega-sequence. Note defunct Banda Trench, now the Timor TCZ, filled with Australian continental crust and Asian nappes that occupy all space between Wetar Suture and the 2–3 km deep deformation front north of the axis of the Timor Trough. Note the much younger decollement D5 used exactly the same part of the Jurassic lithology of the Gondwana mega-sequence in the older D1 decollement that produced what appears to be much stronger deformation.

    • This are the seismicity cross sections from Hangesh and Whitney (2016). These are shown to compare the subduction zone offshore of Java and the collision zone in the Timor region.


      • Comparison of hypocentral profiles across the (a) Java subduction zone and (b) Timor collision zone (paleo-Banda trench). Catalog compiled from multiple reporting agencies listed in Table 1. Events of Mw>4.0 are shown for period 1815 to 2015.

    • Here is a map of the same general area from Silver et al. (1986), used here to locate the following large scale map.


      • Location of SeaMARC II survey (Plate 1 and Figures 2) and geographic features discussed in text. Triangles on upper plates of thrust zones.

    • This is the large scale map showing the detailed thrust fault mapping (Silver et al., 1986).


      • Bathymetry, faults, and mud diapirs of the central Flores thrust zone, based on interpretation of SeaMARC II data and seismic reflection profiles. Shown also are locations (circled numbers) of all seismic profiles. Mud diapirs are solid black. Triangles on upper plates of thrust faults.

    • Here is the tectonic map from Hangesh and Whitney (2016).


      • Illustration of major tectonic elements in triple junction geometry: tectonic features labeled per Figure 1; seismicity from ISC-GEM catalog [Storchak et al., 2013]; faults in Savu basin from Rigg and Hall [2011] and Harris et al. [2009]. Purple line is edge of Australian continental basement and fore arc [Rigg and Hall, 2011]. Abbreviations: AR = Ashmore Reef; SR = Scott Reef; RS = Rowley Shoals; TCZ = Timor Collision Zone; ST = Savu thrust; SB = Savu Basin; TT = Timor thrust; WT =Wetar thrust; WASZ = Western Australia Shear Zone. Open arrows indicate relative direction of motion; solid arrows direction of vergence.

    • Here are some focal mechanisms from earthquakes in the region from Hangesh and Whitney (2016). Symbol color represents depth.


      • (a) Focal mechanism solutions for the study region. The focal mechanisms are classified based on depth intervals to illustrate the style of faulting within the different structural domains. Note (b) sinistral reverse motion along Timor trough, (c) subduction related pattern along Java trench, and dextral solutions along the western Australia extended margin (Figure 4a) north of 20°S. Centroid moment tensor (CMT) solutions [Dziewonski et al., 1981] are from the CMT project [Ekström et al., 2012; http://www.globalcmt.org/CMTcite.html] for events of Mw>5.0 for the period 1976 onward.

    • This map from Hangesh and Whitney (2016) shows the GPS velocities in this region. Note the termination of the Flores thrust and the north-northeast striking (oriented) cross fault between Lombok and Sumbawa.


      • GPS velocities of Sunda and Banda arc region. Large black and grey arrow shows motion of Australia relative to Eurasia [DeMets et al., 1994]. Thin black arrows show GPS velocities of Sunda and Banda arc regions relative to Australia [Nugroho et al., 2009]. Seismicity from ISC-GEM catalog [Storchak et al., 2013]. Note reduction of station velocities from west to east indicating progressive coupling of the Banda arc to the Australian plate compared to the area along the Sunda arc.

    • Below are the 4 figures from Koulani et al., 2016. First is the plate tectonic map. I include their figure captions in block quote.


      • Seismotectonic setting of the Sunda-Banda arc-continent collision, East Indonesia. Major faults (thick black lines) [Hamilton, 1979]. Topography and bathymetry are from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (http://topex.ucsd.edu/www_html/srtm30_plus.html). Focal mechanisms are from the Global Centroid Moment Tensor. Blue mechanisms correspond to earthquakes with Mw>7 (brown transparent ellipses are the corresponding rupture areas for Flores 1992 and Alor 2004 earthquakes), while the green focal mechanism shows the highest magnitude recorded in Sumbawa. Red dots indicate the locations of major historical earthquakes [Musson, 2012].

    • This figure shows their estimates for plate motion relative velocities as derived from GPS data, constrained by the fault geometry in their block modeling.


      • GPS velocities determined in this study with respect to Sunda Block. Uncertainty ellipses represent 95% confidence level. The inset figure corresponds to the area of the dashed rectangle in the map. Light blue arrows show the velocities for East and West Makassar Blocks.

    • This figure shows their estimates of slip rate deficit along all the plate boundary faults in this region.


      • Relative slip vectors across block boundaries, derived from our best fit model. Arrows show motion of the hanging wall (moving block) relative to the footwall (fixed block) with 95% confidence ellipses. The tails of arrows is located within the “moving” block. Black thick lines show well-defined boundaries we use as active faults in our model and dashed lines show less well-defined boundaries (green : free-slipping boundaries and black: fixed locked faults) . Principal axes of the horizontal strain tensor estimated for the SUMB, EMAK, and EJAV are shown in pink. The thick pink arrow shows the relative motion of Australia with respect to Sunda (AUST/SUND). Abbreviations are Sumba Block (SUMB), West Makassar Block (WMAK), East Makassar Block (EMAK), East Java Block (EJAV), and Timor Block (TIMO). The background seismicity is from the International Seismological Centre catalog with magnitudes ≥5.5 and depths <40 km.

    • Here is their figure that shows the slip deficit along the plate boundary faults.


      • Fault slip rate components: (a) fault normal (extension positive) and (b) fault parallel (right-lateral positive).

    • Here are some figures from Lin and Stein (2004).
    • This first figure shows the geometry of thrust faults and also shows the range of parameters for earthquakes used in their analysis.


      • Depth of burial as a function of fault length/width (L/W) ratio for some well-studied thrust faults. Burial depth is normalized by the vertical extent of the fault, as shown in the inset. Large subduction earthquakes tend to locate in the upper right; moderate size continental thrust faults tend to locate to the left. Sources are listed in the paper.

    • This second figure shows the results from a cross section view for earthquakes used in their analysis. Increase in stress is represented by warm color.


      • Cross sections (left) through the center and (right) beyond the end of the fault of a 45°-dipping thrust source fault. Optimally oriented receiver thrust planes are shown in areas of increased Coulomb stress. Both the 1971 San Fernando and 1994 Northridge faults dip about 45°. (a) The surface cutting thrust (Mw = 7.0) drops the stress in the upper crust, (b) whereas a blind thrust (Mw = 6.8) increases the stress over much of the upper crust, despite its smaller magnitude. Near-surface regions of stress increase are sometimes relieved by secondary surface faulting, as occurred in the Northridge shock. (c) Stress changes caused by blind and surface fault slip. (d–f ) Beyond the ends of the faults the stress distribution is relatively insensitive to whether the thrust is surface-cutting or blind, where the along strike projection of faults is dotted.

    • This first figure shows the geometry of thrust faults and also shows the range of parameters for earthquakes used in their analysis.


      • Stress change caused by the 1 October 1987 Mw = 6.0 Whittier Narrows earthquake. (a) Map view of maximum stress change for depth range of 10.0–14.4 km, with seismicity (1 October 1987 to 31 December 1994, M ≥ 1.0, horizontal error <0.5 km) from Shearer [1997] for the same depth range. The source fault model, shown by the black inscribed line, has tapered thrust slip on a 4.5 X 4.5 km fault with strike 270°, dip 25°, and rake 90°, following Lin and Stein [1989]; receiver faults are assumed to have the same parameters. (b) Coulomb stress change in cross section cutting the center of the fault. The resulting stress component is shown in the top left-hand corner. (c) Normal stress change. Unclamping is positive. There were no earthquakes recorded during 1975–1987 at the minimum catalog magnitude of M ≥ 0.8 [Richards-Dinger and Shearer, 2000], and so the aftershock pattern is more likely a response to the stress changes imparted by the main shock than a continuation of the background seismicity.

    • This is another cross sectional view of changes in stress imparted by a thrust fault earthquake. The upper panel shows the results for thrust “receiver faults.” Receiver faults are the faults that potentially are triggered through this process.


      • Cross-sectional areas across the midpoint of a thrust fault, showing stresses imparted by a 30°-dipping blind thrust source fault on nearby (a, b) reverse and (c, d) strike-slip receiver faults. The pattern of stress change on strike-slip receiver faults differs markedly for long (Figure 5c) and short (Figure 5d) source faults. Strike-slip faulting is also enhanced above a blind thrust fault (Figure 5d). These cross sections can be compared with the map view for the same cases in Figure 4.

    • Here is the InSAR result from Eric Fielding at NASA, the files are available here.
    • These data are from a change in position between 2018.07.30 and 2018.08.05, so they compare the ground motion of only the M 6.9 earthquake (generally speaking).


    • From Dr. Fielding

      • Deformation of Lombok Island, Indonesia due to 5 August 2018 earthquake shows uplift of northwest corner due to fault slip at depth, measured with #InSAR of Copernicus Sentinel-1 radar images processed by Caltech-JPL ARIA project. Data at https://go.nasa.gov/2OlbxY6
      Black contours are 5 cm (2 inches). Copernicus Sentinel-1 data acquired on 30 July and 5 August 2018. White areas where measurement not possible, largely due to dense forests.
      Measurements with #InSAR are in direction towards satellite, so not purely vertical or horizontal. Mostly vertical in this case.
      My preliminary interpretation is that uplift is due to a north-dipping blind thrust fault that would project to the surface near the “zero” level of the interferogram, but a south-dipping thrust fault is also possible with down-dip end of rupture beneath the “zero” line

    • These two InSAR images allow us to compare ground deformation from these two earthquakes. Rusi P presents these results on twitter here. This tweet is also posted below in the Social Media section.
    • This is the analysis for the M 6.4 earthquake. This interferogram is made from SAR data collected on 7/18 and 7/30.


    • This is the analysis for the M 6.9 earthquake. This interferogram is made from SAR data collected on 7/30 and 8/05.


      •

    Geologic Fundamentals

    • For more on the graphical representation of moment tensors and focal mechnisms, check this IRIS video out:

    • Here is a fantastic infographic from Frisch et al. (2011). This figure shows some examples of earthquakes in different plate tectonic settings, and what their fault plane solutions are. There is a cross section showing these focal mechanisms for a thrust or reverse earthquake. The upper right corner includes my favorite figure of all time. This shows the first motion (up or down) for each of the four quadrants. This figure also shows how the amplitude of the seismic waves are greatest (generally) in the middle of the quadrant and decrease to zero at the nodal planes (the boundary of each quadrant).


      •

    • There are three types of earthquakes, strike-slip, compressional (reverse or thrust, depending upon the dip of the fault), and extensional (normal). Here is are some animations of these three types of earthquake faults. The following three animations are from IRIS.

      • Strike Slip:

      Compressional:

      Extensional:

    • This is an image from the USGS that shows how, when an oceanic plate moves over a hotspot, the volcanoes formed over the hotspot form a series of volcanoes that increase in age in the direction of plate motion. The presumption is that the hotspot is stable and stays in one location. Torsvik et al. (2017) use various methods to evaluate why this is a false presumption for the Hawaii Hotspot.


      • A cutaway view along the Hawaiian island chain showing the inferred mantle plume that has fed the Hawaiian hot spot on the overriding Pacific Plate. The geologic ages of the oldest volcano on each island (Ma = millions of years ago) are progressively older to the northwest, consistent with the hot spot model for the origin of the Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount Chain. (Modified from image of Joel E. Robinson, USGS, in “This Dynamic Planet” map of Simkin and others, 2006.)

    • Here is a map from Torsvik et al. (2017) that shows the age of volcanic rocks at different locations along the Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain.


      • Hawaiian-Emperor Chain. White dots are the locations of radiometrically dated seamounts, atolls and islands, based on compilations of Doubrovine et al. and O’Connor et al. Features encircled with larger white circles are discussed in the text and Fig. 2. Marine gravity anomaly map is from Sandwell and Smith.

      References:

    • Audley-Charles, M.G., 1986. Rates of Neogene and Quaternary tectonic movements in the Southern Banda Arc based on micropalaeontology in: Journal of fhe Geological Society, London, Vol. 143, 1986, pp. 161-175.
    • Audley-Charles, M.G., 2011. Tectonic post-collision processes in Timor, Hall, R., Cottam, M. A. &Wilson, M. E. J. (eds) The SE Asian Gateway: History and Tectonics of the Australia–Asia Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 355, 241–266.
    • Baldwin, S.L., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Webb, L.E., 2012. Tectonics of the New Guinea Region in Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., v. 41, p. 485-520.
    • Benz, H.M., Herman, Matthew, Tarr, A.C., Hayes, G.P., Furlong, K.P., Villaseñor, Antonio, Dart, R.L., and Rhea, Susan, 2011. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 New Guinea and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-H, scale 1:8,000,000.
    • Darman, H., 2012. Seismic Expression of Tectonic Features in the Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia in Berita Sedimentologi, Indonesian Journal of Sedimentary Geology, no. 25, po. 16-25.
    • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
    • Hangesh, J. and Whitney, B., 2014. Quaternary Reactivation of Australia’s Western Passive Margin: Inception of a New Plate Boundary? in: 5th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archeoseismology (PATA), 21-27 September 2014, Busan, Korea, 4 pp.
    • Hayes, G.P., Wald, D.J., and Johnson, R.L., 2012. Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries in, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B01302, doi:10.1029/2011JB008524
    • Jones, E.S., Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, F.K., Furlong, K.P., Benz, H.M., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2014. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Java and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-N, 1 sheet, scale 1:5,000,000, https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20101083N.
    • Koulali, A., S. Susilo, S. McClusky, I. Meilano, P. Cummins, P. Tregoning, G. Lister, J. Efendi, and M. A. Syafi’i, 2016. Crustal strain partitioning and the associated earthquake hazard in the eastern Sunda-Banda Arc in Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 1943–1949, doi:10.1002/2016GL067941
    • Lin, J., and R. S. Stein (2004), Stress triggering in thrust and subduction earthquakes and stress interaction between the southern San Andreas and nearby thrust and strike-slip faults, J. Geophys. Res., 109, B02303, doi:10.1029/2003JB002607.
    • Lüschen, E., Müller, C., Kopp, H., Engels, M., Lutz, R., Planert, L., Shulgin, A., Djajadihardja, Y. S., 2011. Structure, evolution and tectonic activity of the eastern Sunda forearc,Indonesia from marine seismic investigations, Tectonophysics, 508, p. 6-21
    • McCaffrey, R., and Nabelek, J.L., 1984. The geometry of back arc thrusting along the Eastern Sunda Arc, Indonesia: Constraints from earthquake and gravity data in JGR, Atm., vol., 925, no. B1, p. 441-4620, DOI: 10.1029/JB089iB07p06171
    • Okal, E. A., & Reymond, D., 2003. The mechanism of great Banda Sea earthquake of 1 February 1938: applying the method of preliminary determination of focal mechanism to a historical event in EPSL, v. 216, p. 1-15.
    • Silver, E.A., Breen, N.A., and Prastyo, H., 1986. Multibeam Study of the Flores Backarc Thrust Belt, Indonesia, in JGR., vol. 91, no. B3, p. 3489-3500
    • Zahirovic, S., Seton, M., and Müller, R.D., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014


    °
    ≥

    Earthquake Report: Lombok, Indonesia: Update #1

    Posted on by
    1

    Yesterday morning, as I was recovering from working on stage crew for the 34th Reggae on the River (fundraiser for the non profit, the Mateel Community Center), I noticed on social media that there was an M 6.9 earthquake in Lombok, Indonesia. This is sad because of the likelihood for casualties and economic damage in this region.

    However, it is interesting because the earthquake sequence from last week (with a largest earthquake with a magnitude of M 6.4) were all foreshocks to this M 6.9. Now, technically, these were not really foreshocks. The M 6.4 has an hypocentral (3-D location) depth of ~6 km and the M 6.9 has an hypocentral depth of ~31 km. These earthquakes are not on the same fault, so I would interpret that the M 6.9 was triggered by the sequence from last week due to static coulomb changes in stress on the fault that ruptured. Given the large difference in depths, the uncertainty for these depths is probably not sufficient to state that they may be on the same fault (i.e. these depths are sufficiently different that this difference is larger than the uncertainty of their locations).

    I present a more comprehensive analysis of the tectonics of this region in my earthquake report for the M 6.4 earthquake here. I especially address the historic seismicity of the region there. This M 6.9 may have been on the Flores thrust system, while the earthquakes from last week were on the imbricate thrust faults overlying the Flores Thrust. See the map from Silver et al. (1986) below. I include the same maps as in my original report, but after those, I include the figures from Koulani et al. (2016) (the paper is available on researchgate).

    UPDATE 2018.08.08

    Based on Eric Fielding and JD Dianala’s interpretation of the InSAR data, the M 6.4 and M 6.9 earthquakes could possibly have a similar hypocentral depth. See Social Media update below.
    Find out more about InSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar) here.
    In addition, as Dr. Anthony Lomax pointed out, the USGS depth uncertainty is large enough for these earthquakes that they may be along the same fault.

    Dr. Fielding uses the InSAR data (see update below) to interpret the fault geometry.

    UPDATE 2018.08.12

    People have been asking me if we might expect another large or larger earthquake in this region. So, here is what I have told them:

    • It is difficult to say if there will be a larger or another large earthquake or not.
    • Based upon historic seismicity, the M 6.9 is probably the mainshock in this sequence. But the historic record is short (100 yrs +-), so may not be a perfect sample of what could happen.
    • The M 6.9 probably ruptured the Flores thrust fault, a back thrust to the subduction zone.
    • There is probably a small chance that the Flores thrust fault (east west fault dipping to the south) to the east and west of the M 6.9 has an increased amount of stress imparted upon it from the M 6.9 (small amount, so if the fault was almost ready to go, this change might make it go). but this is a small possibility (but still possible). (i.e. Bali).
    • There is also a small chance that the subduction zone (south of the islands, dipping to the north) also has an increased amount of stress from this M 6.9 earthquake. but this is probably less likely than the other example (due to the distance between the M .6.9 and the subduction zone fault.
    • Though there will probably be earthquakes up to M 5 or mid M 5 as aftershocks… and as time passes, the chance of a larger earthquake diminish to the background risk of such an earthquake. by the time it is Sept through Dec, we will probably have passed the increased risk due to the M 6.9 sequence.
    • But we must always remember, we cannot absolutely know what will happen. our observational history is only a few centuries and seismometers are only a century old (and modern ones, with a global network, maybe 50 years). so it is challenging to think that we know about how this region (or any region) behaves tectonically.

    UPDATE 2018.08.19

    Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

    I plot the seismicity from the past month, with color representing depth and diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1918-2018 with magnitudes M ≥ 6.0 in one version.
    I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.

    • I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend on the poster. There is more material from the USGS web sites about moment tensors and focal mechanisms (the beach ball symbols). Both moment tensors and focal mechanisms are solutions to seismologic data that reveal two possible interpretations for fault orientation and sense of motion. One must use other information, like the regional tectonics, to interpret which of the two possibilities is more likely.
    • I also include the shaking intensity contours on the map. These use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI; see the legend on the map). This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations. The MMI is a qualitative measure of shaking intensity. More on the MMI scale can be found here and here. This is based upon a computer model estimate of ground motions, different from the “Did You Feel It?” estimate of ground motions that is actually based on real observations.
    • I include the slab contours plotted (Hayes et al., 2012), which are contours that represent the depth to the subduction zone fault. These are mostly based upon seismicity. The depths of the earthquakes have considerable error and do not all occur along the subduction zone faults, so these slab contours are simply the best estimate for the location of the fault.

      Magnetic Anomalies

    • In the map below, I include a transparent overlay of the magnetic anomaly data from EMAG2 (Meyer et al., 2017). As oceanic crust is formed, it inherits the magnetic field at the time. At different points through time, the magnetic polarity (north vs. south) flips, the north pole becomes the south pole. These changes in polarity can be seen when measuring the magnetic field above oceanic plates. This is one of the fundamental evidences for plate spreading at oceanic spreading ridges (like the Gorda rise).
    • Regions with magnetic fields aligned like today’s magnetic polarity are colored red in the EMAG2 data, while reversed polarity regions are colored blue. Regions of intermediate magnetic field are colored light purple.
    • We can see the roughly east-west trends of these red and blue stripes. These lines are parallel to the ocean spreading ridges from where they were formed. The stripes disappear at the subduction zone because the oceanic crust with these anomalies is diving deep beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia), so the magnetic anomalies from the overlying Sunda plate mask the evidence for the Australia plate.

      I include some inset figures.

    • In the upper right corner is a low angle oblique view of the Sunda subduction zone beneath Java, Bali, Lombok, and Sumbawa (from Earth Observatory Singapore). I place a blue star in the general location of today’s earthquake’s epicenter (as for all figures here). The India-Australia plate is subducting northwards beneath the Sunda plate (part of the Eurasia plate).
    • In the upper left corner is a map from Koulali et al. (2016) that presents a plate tectonic map for this region. They present earthquake mechanisms for some historic earthquakes. These authors favor the interpretation that the Flores thrust fault system extends to eastern Java.
    • To the right of the Koulali et al. (2016) map is a cross section of seismicity presented by Hengresh and Whitney (2016). These authors argue for a north vergent Flores thrust in this region, though most of their work was on the subduction/collision zone.
    • In the lower right corner is another Koulali et al. (2016) map that shows the relative amount of motion across these plate boundary fault systems as modeled in their analysis. Based on their modeling, there is about 10-20 mm/yr of strain accumulating on the Flores thrust system north of Lombok, Indonesia.
    • In the lower left corner is a Koulali et al. (2016) that shows their estimate of this strain accumulation (via fault slip deficit) for the Flores thrust fault.
    • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the map with a centuries’ seismicity plotted.


      •

    • Here is the interpretive posted from last week, with historic seismicity and earthquake mechanisms.


      •

    Other Report Pages

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • Below is a map showing historic seismicity (Jones et al., 2014). Cross sections B-B’ and C-C’ are shown. The seismicity for the cross sections below are sourced from within each respective rectangle.


    • Here are the seismcity cross sections.


      •

    • Here is the map from McCaffrey and Nabelek (1987). They used seismic reflection profiles, gravity modeling along these profiles, seismicity, and earthquake source mechanism analyses to support their interpretations of the structures in this region.


      • Tectonic and geographic map of the eastern Sunda arc and vicinity. Active volcanoes are represented by triangles, and bathymetric contours are in kilometers. Thrust faults are shown with teeth on the upper plate. The dashed box encloses the study area.

    • Here is the Audley (2011) cross section showing how the backthrust relates to the subduction zone beneath Timor. I include their figure caption in blockquote below.


      • Cartoon cross section of Timor today, (cf. Richardson & Blundell 1996, their BIRPS figs 3b, 4b & 7; and their fig. 6 gravity model 2 after Woodside et al. 1989; and Snyder et al. 1996 their fig. 6a). Dimensions of the filled 40 km deep present-day Timor Tectonic Collision Zone are based on BIRPS seismic, earthquake seismicity and gravity data all re-interpreted here from Richardson & Blundell (1996) and from Snyder et al. (1996). NB. The Bobonaro Melange, its broken formation and other facies are not indicated, but they are included with the Gondwana mega-sequence. Note defunct Banda Trench, now the Timor TCZ, filled with Australian continental crust and Asian nappes that occupy all space between Wetar Suture and the 2–3 km deep deformation front north of the axis of the Timor Trough. Note the much younger decollement D5 used exactly the same part of the Jurassic lithology of the Gondwana mega-sequence in the older D1 decollement that produced what appears to be much stronger deformation.

    • This are the seismicity cross sections from Hangesh and Whitney (2016). These are shown to compare the subduction zone offshore of Java and the collision zone in the Timor region.


      • Comparison of hypocentral profiles across the (a) Java subduction zone and (b) Timor collision zone (paleo-Banda trench). Catalog compiled from multiple reporting agencies listed in Table 1. Events of Mw>4.0 are shown for period 1815 to 2015.

    • Here is a map of the same general area from Silver et al. (1986), used here to locate the following large scale map.


      • Location of SeaMARC II survey (Plate 1 and Figures 2) and geographic features discussed in text. Triangles on upper plates of thrust zones.

    • This is the large scale map showing the detailed thrust fault mapping (Silver et al., 1986).


      • Bathymetry, faults, and mud diapirs of the central Flores thrust zone, based on interpretation of SeaMARC II data and seismic reflection profiles. Shown also are locations (circled numbers) of all seismic profiles. Mud diapirs are solid black. Triangles on upper plates of thrust faults.

    • Here is the tectonic map from Hangesh and Whitney (2016).


      • Illustration of major tectonic elements in triple junction geometry: tectonic features labeled per Figure 1; seismicity from ISC-GEM catalog [Storchak et al., 2013]; faults in Savu basin from Rigg and Hall [2011] and Harris et al. [2009]. Purple line is edge of Australian continental basement and fore arc [Rigg and Hall, 2011]. Abbreviations: AR = Ashmore Reef; SR = Scott Reef; RS = Rowley Shoals; TCZ = Timor Collision Zone; ST = Savu thrust; SB = Savu Basin; TT = Timor thrust; WT =Wetar thrust; WASZ = Western Australia Shear Zone. Open arrows indicate relative direction of motion; solid arrows direction of vergence.

    • Here are some focal mechanisms from earthquakes in the region from Hangesh and Whitney (2016). Symbol color represents depth.


      • (a) Focal mechanism solutions for the study region. The focal mechanisms are classified based on depth intervals to illustrate the style of faulting within the different structural domains. Note (b) sinistral reverse motion along Timor trough, (c) subduction related pattern along Java trench, and dextral solutions along the western Australia extended margin (Figure 4a) north of 20°S. Centroid moment tensor (CMT) solutions [Dziewonski et al., 1981] are from the CMT project [Ekström et al., 2012; http://www.globalcmt.org/CMTcite.html] for events of Mw>5.0 for the period 1976 onward.

    • Here is a figure showing the regional geodetic motions (Bock et al., 2003). I include their figure caption below as a blockquote.


      • Topographic and tectonic map of the Indonesian archipelago and surrounding region. Labeled, shaded arrows show motion (NUVEL-1A model) of the first-named tectonic plate relative to the second. Solid arrows are velocity vectors derived from GPS surveys from 1991 through 2001, in ITRF2000. For clarity, only a few of the vectors for Sumatra are included. The detailed velocity field for Sumatra is shown in Figure 5. Velocity vector ellipses indicate 2-D 95% confidence levels based on the formal (white noise only) uncertainty estimates. NGT, New Guinea Trench; NST, North Sulawesi Trench; SF, Sumatran Fault; TAF, Tarera-Aiduna Fault. Bathymetry [Smith and Sandwell, 1997] in this and all subsequent figures contoured at 2 km intervals.

    • This map from Hangesh and Whitney (2016) shows the GPS velocities in this region. Note the termination of the Flores thrust and the north-northeast striking (oriented) cross fault between Lombok and Sumbawa.


      • GPS velocities of Sunda and Banda arc region. Large black and grey arrow shows motion of Australia relative to Eurasia [DeMets et al., 1994]. Thin black arrows show GPS velocities of Sunda and Banda arc regions relative to Australia [Nugroho et al., 2009]. Seismicity from ISC-GEM catalog [Storchak et al., 2013]. Note reduction of station velocities from west to east indicating progressive coupling of the Banda arc to the Australian plate compared to the area along the Sunda arc.

    • Below are the 4 figures from Koulani et al., 2016. First is the plate tectonic map. I include their figure captions in block quote.


      • Seismotectonic setting of the Sunda-Banda arc-continent collision, East Indonesia. Major faults (thick black lines) [Hamilton, 1979]. Topography and bathymetry are from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (http://topex.ucsd.edu/www_html/srtm30_plus.html). Focal mechanisms are from the Global Centroid Moment Tensor. Blue mechanisms correspond to earthquakes with Mw>7 (brown transparent ellipses are the corresponding rupture areas for Flores 1992 and Alor 2004 earthquakes), while the green focal mechanism shows the highest magnitude recorded in Sumbawa. Red dots indicate the locations of major historical earthquakes [Musson, 2012].

    • This figure shows their estimates for plate motion relative velocities as derived from GPS data, constrained by the fault geometry in their block modeling.


      • GPS velocities determined in this study with respect to Sunda Block. Uncertainty ellipses represent 95% confidence level. The inset figure corresponds to the area of the dashed rectangle in the map. Light blue arrows show the velocities for East and West Makassar Blocks.

    • This figure shows their estimates of slip rate deficit along all the plate boundary faults in this region.


      • Relative slip vectors across block boundaries, derived from our best fit model. Arrows show motion of the hanging wall (moving block) relative to the footwall (fixed block) with 95% confidence ellipses. The tails of arrows is located within the “moving” block. Black thick lines show well-defined boundaries we use as active faults in our model and dashed lines show less well-defined boundaries (green : free-slipping boundaries and black: fixed locked faults) . Principal axes of the horizontal strain tensor estimated for the SUMB, EMAK, and EJAV are shown in pink. The thick pink arrow shows the relative motion of Australia with respect to Sunda (AUST/SUND). Abbreviations are Sumba Block (SUMB), West Makassar Block (WMAK), East Makassar Block (EMAK), East Java Block (EJAV), and Timor Block (TIMO). The background seismicity is from the International Seismological Centre catalog with magnitudes ≥5.5 and depths <40 km.

    • Here is their figure that shows the slip deficit along the plate boundary faults.


      • Fault slip rate components: (a) fault normal (extension positive) and (b) fault parallel (right-lateral positive).

    UPDATE 2018.08.08

    NASA InSAR

    • Here is the InSAR result from Eric Fielding at NASA, the files are available here.
    • These data are from a change in position between 2018.07.30 and 2018.08.05, so they compare the ground motion of only the M 6.9 earthquake (generally speaking).


    • From Dr. Fielding

      • Deformation of Lombok Island, Indonesia due to 5 August 2018 earthquake shows uplift of northwest corner due to fault slip at depth, measured with #InSAR of Copernicus Sentinel-1 radar images processed by Caltech-JPL ARIA project. Data at https://go.nasa.gov/2OlbxY6
      Black contours are 5 cm (2 inches). Copernicus Sentinel-1 data acquired on 30 July and 5 August 2018. White areas where measurement not possible, largely due to dense forests.
      Measurements with #InSAR are in direction towards satellite, so not purely vertical or horizontal. Mostly vertical in this case.
      My preliminary interpretation is that uplift is due to a north-dipping blind thrust fault that would project to the surface near the “zero” level of the interferogram, but a south-dipping thrust fault is also possible with down-dip end of rupture beneath the “zero” line

    Rusi P InSAR

    • These two InSAR images allow us to compare ground deformation from these two earthquakes. Rusi P presents these results on twitter here. This tweet is also posted below in the Social Media section.
    • This is the analysis for the M 6.4 earthquake. This interferogram is made from SAR data collected on 7/18 and 7/30.


    • This is the analysis for the M 6.9 earthquake. This interferogram is made from SAR data collected on 7/30 and 8/05.


      •

    Geologic Fundamentals

    • For more on the graphical representation of moment tensors and focal mechnisms, check this IRIS video out:

    • Here is a fantastic infographic from Frisch et al. (2011). This figure shows some examples of earthquakes in different plate tectonic settings, and what their fault plane solutions are. There is a cross section showing these focal mechanisms for a thrust or reverse earthquake. The upper right corner includes my favorite figure of all time. This shows the first motion (up or down) for each of the four quadrants. This figure also shows how the amplitude of the seismic waves are greatest (generally) in the middle of the quadrant and decrease to zero at the nodal planes (the boundary of each quadrant).


      •

    • There are three types of earthquakes, strike-slip, compressional (reverse or thrust, depending upon the dip of the fault), and extensional (normal). Here is are some animations of these three types of earthquake faults. The following three animations are from IRIS.

      • Strike Slip:

      Compressional:

      Extensional:

    • This is an image from the USGS that shows how, when an oceanic plate moves over a hotspot, the volcanoes formed over the hotspot form a series of volcanoes that increase in age in the direction of plate motion. The presumption is that the hotspot is stable and stays in one location. Torsvik et al. (2017) use various methods to evaluate why this is a false presumption for the Hawaii Hotspot.


      • A cutaway view along the Hawaiian island chain showing the inferred mantle plume that has fed the Hawaiian hot spot on the overriding Pacific Plate. The geologic ages of the oldest volcano on each island (Ma = millions of years ago) are progressively older to the northwest, consistent with the hot spot model for the origin of the Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount Chain. (Modified from image of Joel E. Robinson, USGS, in “This Dynamic Planet” map of Simkin and others, 2006.)

    • Here is a map from Torsvik et al. (2017) that shows the age of volcanic rocks at different locations along the Hawaii-Emperor Seamount Chain.


      • Hawaiian-Emperor Chain. White dots are the locations of radiometrically dated seamounts, atolls and islands, based on compilations of Doubrovine et al. and O’Connor et al. Features encircled with larger white circles are discussed in the text and Fig. 2. Marine gravity anomaly map is from Sandwell and Smith.

      References:

    • Audley-Charles, M.G., 1986. Rates of Neogene and Quaternary tectonic movements in the Southern Banda Arc based on micropalaeontology in: Journal of fhe Geological Society, London, Vol. 143, 1986, pp. 161-175.
    • Audley-Charles, M.G., 2011. Tectonic post-collision processes in Timor, Hall, R., Cottam, M. A. &Wilson, M. E. J. (eds) The SE Asian Gateway: History and Tectonics of the Australia–Asia Collision. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 355, 241–266.
    • Baldwin, S.L., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Webb, L.E., 2012. Tectonics of the New Guinea Region in Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., v. 41, p. 485-520.
    • Benz, H.M., Herman, Matthew, Tarr, A.C., Hayes, G.P., Furlong, K.P., Villaseñor, Antonio, Dart, R.L., and Rhea, Susan, 2011. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 New Guinea and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-H, scale 1:8,000,000.
    • Darman, H., 2012. Seismic Expression of Tectonic Features in the Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia in Berita Sedimentologi, Indonesian Journal of Sedimentary Geology, no. 25, po. 16-25.
    • Hall, R., 2011. Australia-SE Asia collision: plate tectonics and crustal flow in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2011; v. 355; p. 75-109 doi: 10.1144/SP355.5
    • Hangesh, J. and Whitney, B., 2014. Quaternary Reactivation of Australia’s Western Passive Margin: Inception of a New Plate Boundary? in: 5th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archeoseismology (PATA), 21-27 September 2014, Busan, Korea, 4 pp.
    • Hayes, G.P., Wald, D.J., and Johnson, R.L., 2012. Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries in, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B01302, doi:10.1029/2011JB008524
    • Jones, E.S., Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, F.K., Furlong, K.P., Benz, H.M., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2014. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Java and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-N, 1 sheet, scale 1:5,000,000, https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20101083N.
    • Koulali, A., S. Susilo, S. McClusky, I. Meilano, P. Cummins, P. Tregoning, G. Lister, J. Efendi, and M. A. Syafi’i, 2016. Crustal strain partitioning and the associated earthquake hazard in the eastern Sunda-Banda Arc in Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 1943–1949, doi:10.1002/2016GL067941
    • McCaffrey, R., and Nabelek, J.L., 1984. The geometry of back arc thrusting along the Eastern Sunda Arc, Indonesia: Constraints from earthquake and gravity data in JGR, Atm., vol., 925, no. B1, p. 441-4620, DOI: 10.1029/JB089iB07p06171
    • Okal, E. A., & Reymond, D., 2003. The mechanism of great Banda Sea earthquake of 1 February 1938: applying the method of preliminary determination of focal mechanism to a historical event in EPSL, v. 216, p. 1-15.
    • Silver, E.A., Breen, N.A., and Prastyo, H., 1986. Multibeam Study of the Flores Backarc Thrust Belt, Indonesia, in JGR., vol. 91, no. B3, p. 3489-3500
    • Zahirovic, S., Seton, M., and Müller, R.D., 2014. The Cretaceous and Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia in Solid Earth, v. 5, p. 227-273, doi:10.5194/se-5-227-2014