Earthquake Report: M 6.2 along the Great Sumatra fault

There was a magnitude M 6.2 Gempa or Earthquake on 25 February 2022.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000gzyg/executive
The plate boundary fault system that dominates the tectonics of the Island of Sumatera, Indonesia, is the complicated.
The oceanic India-Australia plate converges with the Eurasia plate to form the Sunda trench. This convergent plate boundary forms a subduction zone where the oceanic plate subducts beneath the continental plate.
Below is a low-angle oblique view cut into the Earth showing this plate configuration from the Earth Observatory Singapore.


However, the direction of plate convergence is not perpendicular to the plate boundary fault (the megathrust subduction zone). Why does this matter?
Because the convergence is at an angle oblique to the plate boundary, we can imagine that this convergence can be subdivided into two components of motion:

  1. the fault perpendicular motion
  2. and the fault parallel motion

The amount of plate convergence that is perpendicular to the plate boundary is accommodated by earthquake fault slip on the megathrust.
The amount of plate convergence that is parallel to the plate boundary is accommodated by earthquake fault slip on a different series of faults that we call sliver faults. The Great Sumatra fault is one of these [forearc] sliver faults.
Here is a figure from Lange et al. (2008) that shows how oblique plate convergence forms both a subduction zone and a forearc sliver fault system.


The M 6.2 earthquake is a strike-slip earthquake along the Great Sumatra fault, one of these forearc sliver faults.
Based on our knowledge of this fault system and the earthquake mechanism, we can easily interpret this to be a right-lateral strike-slip fault.
There are numerous historical analogies from the past century. Most of the events in the past few decades have been in the M 6-7 range, though there have been events of larger magnitude in the past centuries.

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 1922-2022 with magnitudes M ≥ 6.0.
  • 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 the upper right corner is a map that shows the major plate boundaries with tectonic strain shown in red and blue. Areas that are red have a higher rate of tectonic deformation due to the motion of these plates and the orientation of the plate boundaries.
  • In the lower center is a low angle oblique view of the Sumatra subduction zone that forms the Sunda Trench. I placed a red circle in the location of the M 6.2 earthquake.
  • In the upper left center there is a map that shows the earthquake shaking intensity. Read more about this further down in this report.
  • In the upper right center is a plot showing earthquake shaking intensity (vertical axis) relative to distance from the earthquake (horizontal axis). This shows a comparison between the USGS shaking models as colored lines (also shown on the map to the left) relative to real reports from real people (the Did You Feel It? (dyfi) points).
  • Below the earthquake intensity map is a map that shows the mapped active faults, along with their slip rates from Natawidjaja (2018).
  • On the right margin are two maps that show models of earthquake triggered landslides and earthquake induced liquefaction. I describe these phenomena later in this report.
  • In the upper left corner are two maps from the Global Earthquake Model program: Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk. Read more about this later in this report.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • Here is a part of the poster “Seismicity of the Earth 1900-2012, Sumatra and Vicinity” (Hayes et al., 2013). Note the location of Padang, which is southwest of the M 6.2 earthquake.
  • The map shows the location of the seismicity cross section (the next figure). The cross section includes earthquakes from locations within the rectangle. These events are plotted along the line C-C.’
  • See that the Sumatra fault crosses this cross section just to the east of the center.

  • Here is the seismicity cross section C-C’. Many of the earthquakes plotted here follow the subducting slab of the India-Australia plate.
  • However, there are some shallow earthquakes in the upper plate that represent slip along Sumatra fault zone faults (like yesterday’s M 6.2).

  • Further to the north there was a pair of subduction zone earthquakes in 2004 and 2005. The 2004 Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone earthquake was devastating and the earthquake and tsunami led to almost a quarter of million deaths.
  • There are several earthquake report pages on these two events. Here is one of them:/li>
  • This is my poster from that report.

  • Here is a cross section showing where the earthquake hypocenter is compared to where we think the mantle exists. We have not been here, so nobody actually knows… These interpretations are based on industry deep seismic data (Singh et al., 2008 ).

  • Here is the historic rupture map showing the locations of historic subduction zone earthquakes. I include a figure caption below that I wrote as blockquote.

  • India-Australia plate subducts northeastwardly beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia) at modern rates (GPS velocities are based on regional modeling of Bock et al, 2003 as plotted in Subarya et al., 2006). Historic earthquake ruptures (Bilham, 2005; Malik et al., 2011) are plotted in orange. 2004 earthquake and 2005 earthquake 5 meter slip contours are plotted in orange and green respectively (Chlieh et al., 2007, 2008). Bengal and Nicobar fans cover structures of the India-Australia plate in the northern part of the map. RR0705 cores are plotted as light blue. SRTM bathymetry and topography is in shaded relief and colored vs. depth/elevation (Smith and Sandwell, 1997).

  • One of my favorite interpretive posters for this part of the world is from the 2012 outer rise sequence offshore of northern Sumatra. This poster includes additional details about the structure of the India-Australia plate.
  • The India-Australia plate is important as it appears to control some of the tectonics of the megathrust, as well as for the upper plate faults like the Sumatra fault.
  • Read more about the 2012 sequence here.

  • This is a video showing a visualization of the seismic waves transmitted from the 2004 SASZ earthquake from IRIS and others.
  • This movie illustrates simulation of seismic wave propagation generated by Dec. 26 Sumatra earthquake. Colors indicate amplitude of vertical displacement at the surface of the Earth. Red is upward and blue is downward. Total duration of this simulation is 20 minutes. Source model we used is that of Chen Ji of Caltech. Simulation was performed by using the Earth Simulator of JAMSTEC.

  • Here is a great figure from Philobosian et al. (2014) that shows the slip patches from the subduction zone earthquakes in this region.

  • Map of Southeast Asia showing recent and selected historical ruptures of the Sunda megathrust. Black lines with sense of motion are major plate-bounding faults, and gray lines are seafloor fracture zones. Motions of Australian and Indian plates relative to Sunda plate are from the MORVEL-1 global model [DeMets et al., 2010]. The fore-arc sliver between the Sunda megathrust and the strike-slip Sumatran Fault becomes the Burma microplate farther north, but this long, thin strip of crust does not necessarily all behave as a rigid block. Sim = Simeulue, Ni = Nias, Bt = Batu Islands, and Eng = Enggano. Brown rectangle centered at 2°S, 99°E delineates the area of Figure 3, highlighting the Mentawai Islands. Figure adapted from Meltzner et al. [2012] with rupture areas and magnitudes from Briggs et al. [2006], Konca et al. [2008], Meltzner et al. [2010], Hill et al. [2012], and references therein.

  • Now let’s take a closer look at the Sumatra fault. Here is a map that is from Natawidjaja (2017). Dr. Natawidjaja worked with Dr. Kerry Sieh on the Sumatra fault for his Ph.D. research. This map is an updated version showing the different fault segments of the Sumatra fault system. I inlcude their figure caption in blackquote.

  • New revised (simplified) active fault map of the Sumatran Fault Zone (SFZ) according to the PuSGeN Team for Updating Indonesia Seismic Hazard Map (2016) with new slip rates from geological and geodetical (GPS) recent studies.

  • Here is a figure from their dissertation showing these fault segments in greater detail (Natawidjaja , 2002). The M 6.2 earthquake is near the southern boundary of the Barumun segment.

  • Map of 20 geometrically defined segments of the Sumatran fault system and their spatial relationships to active volcanoes, major graben, and lakes.

  • This map shows what the slip rate would be on an hypothetical forearc sliver fault in the location of the Sumatra fault, given plate convergence rates and coral uplift rates (Natawidjaja, 2017).

  • Tectonic modelling based on continuous GPS – SuGAr 9 Sumatran GPS Array) and coral uplift rates,

  • This figure shows a comparison of fault slip rates for different parts of the Sumatra fault (Natawidjaja, 2017).

  • Comparison of GPS velocity profiles across the Sumatran fore arc inferred from (left) kinematic block models (right) with previously published velocity profiles. Modeling all fore-arc site velocities with a single strike-slip fault results in anomalously high inferred slip-rates (>22mm/yr) and missing the Sumatran Fault trace by up to 40km. Incorporating the effect of oblique locking of the Sunda megathrust results in lower inferred slip – rates for the Sumatran Fault (~15mm/yr) that are more consistent with updated geological slip rates.

  • And finally here is an interpretive figure showing how Natawidjaja(2002) interpret the formation of the Sumatra fault system.

  • A plausible (but nonunique) history of deformation along the obliquely convergent Sumatran plate margin, based upon our work and consistent with GPS results and the timing of deformation in the forearc region. (a) By about 4 Ma, the outer-arc ridge has formed. The former deformation front and the Mentawai homocline provide a set of reference features for assessing later deformations. From 4 to 2 Ma, partitioning of oblique plate convergence occurs only north of the equator. Dextral-slip faults on the northeast flank of the forearc sliver plate parallel the trench in northern Sumatra but swing south and disarticulate the forearc basin and outer-arc ridge north of the equator. (b) Slip partitioning begins south of the equator about 2 Ma, with the creation of the Mentawai and Sumatran faults. Transtension continues in the forearc north of the equator. (c) In perhaps just the past 100 yr, the Mentawai fault has become inactive, and the rate of slip on the Sumatran fault north of 2°N has more than doubled. This difference in slip rate may be accommodated by a new zone of transtension between the Sumatran fault and the deformation front in the forearc and outer-arc regions.

  • What about further back in time? Hurukawa et al., 2014 prepared a summary of the earthquakes along the Sumatra fault. Below is a map showing the location of these ruptures.

  • Relocated MJHD epicenters. (a) Northern Sumatra. (b) Central Sumatra. (c) Southern Sumatra. Solid lines with names indicate segments of the Sumatran fault (Sieh and Natawidjaja, 2000). Symbols are as in Figure 2. The thick solid line (see Fig. 4c) indicates the Ranau–Suwoh area, which was severely damaged by the 1933 Liwa earthquake (Berlage, 1934;Widiwijayanti et al., 1996). The slip rates of the Sumatran fault in northern, central, and southern Sumatra are taken from Ito et al. (2012) and Genrich et al. (2000) for Global Positioning System (GPS) and Bellier and Sebrier (1995) for Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre (SPOT).

  • This shows these records on a space-time diagram.

  • Earthquake history along the Sumatran fault since 1892. Fault planes estimated in this study are shown by thick lines. SG: Seismic gap.

    Earthquake Stress Triggering

    • When an earthquake fault slips, the crust surrounding the fault squishes and expands, deforming elastically (like in one’s underwear). These changes in shape of the crust cause earthquake fault stresses to change. These changes in stress can either increase or decrease the chance of another earthquake.
    • I wrote more about this type of earthquake triggering for Temblor here. Head over there to learn more about “static coulomb stress triggering.”
    • There are two kinds of earthquake triggering.
      1. Dynamic Triggering – When seismic waves travel through the Earth, they change the stresses in the crust. IF the faults are “locked and loaded” (i.e. they are just about ready to slip in an earthquake), there may be an earthquake on the “receiver” fault. Generally, once the seismic waves are done travelling, this effect is over. Though, some suggest that this affect on the stress changes may last longer (but not much longer).
      2. Static Triggering – When an earthquake fault slips, it deforms (changes the shape) of the crust surrounding that earthquake. These changes can cause increases and decreases in the stress on faults (either increasing or decreasing the chance for an earthquake). Just like for dynamic triggering, the fault needs to be about ready to slip. The effect on fault slip changes in “static coulomb stress” generally extend a distance of about 2-3 times the fault length of the “source” fault.
    • Raffie et al. (2021) calculated static coulomb stress changes on the central Sumatra fault segments as imposed by several megathrust subduction zone earthquakes.
    • Below is a series of maps that show the results from their analyses.

    • Coulomb stress models resolved on receiver faults of central part of GSF from coseismic slip model of each large interplate earthquakes. The color represents the maximum stress changes at 10 km depth with a scale saturated at 1 bar.

    • Here are the results when they consider all sources in a cumulative manner.

    • Cumulative ΔCFF of each earthquake listed in Table 1 (a) and cumulative ΔCFF of 1797, 1833, and 1861 earthquakes (b). The cyan ellipses are the damage area of large intraplate earthquakes marked as green star. The ΔCFF is calculated at 10 km depth with a scale saturated at 1 bar.

    Shaking Intensity

    • Here is a figure that shows a more detailed comparison between the modeled intensity and the reported intensity. Both data use the same color scale, the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI). More about this can be found here. The colors and contours on the map are results from the USGS modeled intensity. The DYFI data are plotted as colored dots (color = MMI, diameter = number of reports).
    • In the upper panel is the USGS Did You Feel It reports map, showing reports as colored dots using the MMI color scale. Underlain on this map are colored areas showing the USGS modeled estimate for shaking intensity (MMI scale).
    • In the lower panel is a plot showing MMI intensity (vertical axis) relative to distance from the earthquake (horizontal axis). The models are represented by the green and orange lines. The DYFI data are plotted as light blue dots. The mean and median (different types of “average”) are plotted as orange and purple dots. Note how well the reports fit the green line (the model that represents how MMI works based on quakes in California).
    • Below the lower plot is the USGS MMI Intensity scale, which lists the level of damage for each level of intensity, along with approximate measures of how strongly the ground shakes at these intensities, showing levels in acceleration (Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA) and velocity (Peak Ground Velocity, PGV).

    Potential for Ground Failure

    • Below are a series of maps that show the 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.

    • Below is the liquefaction susceptibility and landslide probability map (Jessee et al., 2017; Zhu 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.
    • I use the same color scheme that the USGS uses on their website. Note how the areas that are more likely to have experienced earthquake induced liquefaction are in the valleys. Learn more about how the USGS prepares these model results here.

    Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

    • Here is a map that shows the seismic hazard in southeast Asia, including Sumatra (Hayes et al., 2013). The plate convergence vectors, showing the direction of plate convergence and the rate of plate convergence in mm per year. Note how the plate convergence vectors are not perpendicular to the plate boundary.

    • 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
    • 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

    • Abercrombie, R.E., Antolik, M., Ekstrom, G., 2003. The June 2000 Mw 7.9 earthquakes south of Sumatra: Deformation in the India–Australia Plate. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 16.
    • Bassin, C., Laske, G. and Masters, G., The Current Limits of Resolution for Surface Wave Tomography in North America, EOS Trans AGU, 81, F897, 2000.
    • Bock, Y., Prawirodirdjo, L., Genrich, J.F., Stevens, C.W., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Puntodewo, S.S.O., Calais, E., 2003. Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B8, 2367, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000324.
    • Bothara, J., Beetham, R.D., Brunston, D., Stannard, M., Brown, R., Hyland, C., Lewis, W., Miller, S., Sanders, R., Sulistio, Y., 2010. General observations of effects of the 30th September 2009 Padang earthquake, Indonesia. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 143-173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S152-S173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Galetzka, J., 2008. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004981.
    • DEPLUS, C. et al., 1998 – Direct evidence of active derormation in the eastern Indian oceanic plate, Geology.
    • DYMENT, J., CANDE, S.C. & SINGH, S., 2007 – Oceanic lithosphere subducting beneath the Sunda Trench: the Wharton Basin revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 15-20/05.
    • 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.
    • Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, Fransiska, Smoczyk, Gregory, Briggs, Richard, Benz, H.M., Furlong, K.P., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2013. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Sumatra and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-L, scale 1:6,000,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1083/l/.
    • JACOB, J., DYMENT, J., YATHEESH, V. & BHATTACHARYA, G.C., 2009 – Marine magnetic anomalies in the NE Indian Ocean: the Wharton and Central Indian basins revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 19-24/04.
    • Ji, C., D.J. Wald, and D.V. Helmberger, Source description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California earthquake; Part I: Wavelet domain inversion theory and resolution analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol 92, No. 4. pp. 1192-1207, 2002.
    • Hurukawa, N., Wulandari, B.R., and Kasahara, M., 2014. Earthquake History of the Sumatran Fault, Indonesia, since 1892, Derived from Relocation of Large Earthquakes in BSSA,v. 104, no. 4, p. 1750-1762, doi: 10.1785/0120130201
    • Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H., Vidale, J.E., 2005. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933.
    • Kanamori, H., Rivera, L., Lee, W.H.K., 2010. Historical seismograms for unravelling a mysterious earthquake: The 1907 Sumatra Earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 183, 358-374.
    • Konca, A.O., Avouac, J., Sladen, A., Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Fang, P., Li, Z., Galetzka, J., Genrich, J., Chlieh, M., Natawidjaja, D.H., Bock, Y., Fielding, E.J., Ji, C., Helmberger, D., 2008. Partial Rupture of a Locked Patch of the Sumatra Megathrust During the 2007 Earthquake Sequence. Nature 456, 631-635.
    • Lange, D., Cembrano, J., Rietbrock, A., Haberland, C., Dahm, T., and Bataille, K., 2008. First seismic record for intra-arc strike-slip tectonics along the Liquiñe-Ofqui fault zone at the obliquely convergent plate margin of the southern Andes in Tectonophysics, v. 455, p. 14-24
    • Maus, S., et al., 2009. EMAG2: A 2–arc min resolution Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid compiled from satellite, airborne, and marine magnetic measurements, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q08005, doi:10.1029/2009GC002471.
    • Malik, J.N., Shishikura, M., Echigo, T., Ikeda, Y., Satake, K., Kayanne, H., Sawai, Y., Murty, C.V.R., Dikshit, D., 2011. Geologic evidence for two pre-2004 earthquakes during recent centuries near Port Blair, South Andaman Island, India: Geology, v. 39, p. 559-562.
    • Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B.W., Natawidjaja, D.H., Philobosian, B., Briggs, R.W., Galetzka, J., 2010. Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D. 1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh–Andaman rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, 1-46.
    • Meng, L., Ampuero, J.-P., Stock, J., Duputel, Z., Luo, Y., and Tsai, V.C., 2012. Earthquake in a Maze: Compressional Rupture Branching During the 2012 Mw 8.6 Sumatra Earthquake in Science, v. 337, p. 724-726.
    • Natawidjaja, D.H., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M., Galetzka, J., Suwargadi, B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Avouac, J., Ward, S.N., 2006. Source parameters of the great Sumatran megathrust earthquakes of 1797 and 1833 inferred from coral microatolls. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, 37.
    • Natawidjaja, D.H., 2018. Updating active fault maps and slip rates along the Sumatran Fault Zone, Indonesia in IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 118 012001
    • Natawidjaja, D.H., 2002. Neotectonics of the Sumatran Fault And Paleogeodesy of the Sumatran Subduction Zone [thesis] Californiat Institute of Technilogy, Pasadena, California, 289 pp.
    • Newcomb, K.R., McCann, W.R., 1987. Seismic History and Seismotectonics of the Sunda Arc. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 421-439.
    • Philibosian, B., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B., Hill, E.M., Edwards, R.L., 2012. An ancient shallow slip event on the Mentawai segment of the Sunda megathrust, Sumatra. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, 12.
    • Prawirodirdjo, P., McCaffrey,R., Chadwell, D., Bock, Y, and Subarya, C., 2010. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone: Role of interseismic strain segmentation, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, v. 115, B03414, doi:10.1029/2008JB006139
    • Rafie, M.T., Cummins, P.R., Sahara, D.P., Widiyantoro, S., Triyoso, W., and Nugraha, A.D., 2021. Preliminary study of stress changes evolution on central part of Sumatran Fault influenced by large interplate earthquakes and tectonic stress rates, IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 873 012011
    • Rivera, L., Sieh, K., Helmberger, D., Natawidjaja, D.H., 2002. A Comparative Study of the Sumatran Subduction-Zone Earthquakes of 1935 and 1984. BSSA 92, 1721-1736.
    • Shearer, P., and Burgmann, R., 2010. Lessons Learned from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Megathrust Rupture, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. v. 38, pp. 103–31
    • SATISH C. S, CARTON H, CHAUHAN A.S., et al., 2011 – Extremely thin crust in the Indian Ocean possibly resulting from Plume-Ridge Interaction, Geophysical Journal International.
    • Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Meltzner, A.J., Shen, C., Cheng, H., Li, K., Suwargadi, B.W., Galetzka, J., Philobosian, B., Edwards, R.L., 2008. Earthquake Supercycles Inferred from Sea-Level Changes Recorded in the Corals of West Sumatra. Science 322, 1674-1678.
    • Singh, S.C., Carton, H.L., Tapponnier, P, Hananto, N.D., Chauhan, A.P.S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J., 2008. Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nature Geoscience, v. 1, pp. 5.
    • Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
    • Sorensen, M.B., Atakan, K., Pulido, N., 2007. Simulated Strong Ground Motions for the Great M 9.3 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004. BSSA 97, S139-S151.
    • Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H., McCaffrey, R., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: Nature, v. 440, p. 46-51.
    • Tolstoy, M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2006. Hydroacoustic contributions to understanding the December 26th 2004 great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake. Survey of Geophysics 27, 633-646.
    • Zhu, Lupei, and Donald V. Helmberger. “Advancement in source estimation techniques using broadband regional seismograms.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86.5 (1996): 1634-1641.

    Return to the Earthquake Reports page.


    Earthquake Report: Mentawai, Sumatra

    We just had an earthquake in the Mentawai region of the Sunda subduction zone offshore of Sumatra. Here is the USGS website for this M 6.3 earthquake.
    Based upon the hypocentral depth and the current estimate of the location of the subduction zone fault, this appears to be a subduction zone interface earthquake.
    This M 6.3 earthquake happened near the location of an M 7.6 earthquake on 2009.09.30. Here is the USGS website for this M 7.6 earthquake. The M 7.6 earthquake was deep in the downgoing slab (oceanic crust of the India-Australia plate).
    There was an M 6.4 earthquake further to the south on 2017.08.13 and here is my report for that earthquake. These two earthquakes are probably not related.
    Today’s earthquake happened in a region of the subduction zone that has not yet ruptured in recent times (with a large magnitude earthquake). The city of Padang, due East of this earthquake, is low lying with millions of people living and working at elevations of less than a few meters. The residents of Padang have a high exposure to earthquake and tsunami risk associated with this subduction zone. Today’s earthquake also happened in a region of the subduction zone that may have a lower amount of seismic coupling (i.e. a lower amount of “stick” on the fault). See the Chlieh et al. (2008) figures in this report and poster.

    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 also include USGS epicenters from 1917-2017 for magnitudes M ≥ 7.5.

    • 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.

      I include some inset figures in the poster.

    • In the upper left corner, I include a map from Hayes et al. (2013) that shows the epicenters of earthquakes from the past century or so. There is also a cross section that is in the region of the 2007 and 2017 M 8.4 and M 6.4 earthquakes. I also placed a C-C’ green line on the main map to show where this cross section is compared to the other features on my map. I placed a blue star in the general location of the M 6.4 earthquake.
    • In the upper right corner, I include a map I made that delineates the spatial extent for historic earthquakes along the Sunda Megathrust. This came from a paper that I had submitted to Marine Geology. I include this figure below with attributions to the publications that I used as references for this map.
    • In the lower right corner, I present a figure from Chlieh et al. (2008 ). These authors use GPS and coral geodetic and paleogeodetic data to constrain the proportion of the plate motion rates that are accumulated as tectonic strain along the megathrust fault. Basically, this means how much % that the fault is storing energy to be released in subduction zone earthquakes. This is just a model and is limited by the temporal and spatial extent of their observations which form the basis for their model. However, this is a well respected approach to estimate the potential for future earthquake (given the assumptions that I here mention).


    • Here is the interpretive poster for the M 6.4 earthquake from 2017.08.13.

    • Here is my map. I include the references below in blockquote.

    • Sumatra core location and plate setting map with sedimentary and erosive systems figure. A. India-Australia plate subducts northeastwardly beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia) at modern rates (GPS velocities are based on regional modeling of Bock et al, 2003 as plotted in Subarya et al., 2006). Historic earthquake ruptures (Bilham, 2005; Malik et al., 2011) are plotted in orange. 2004 earthquake and 2005 earthquake 5 meter slip contours are plotted in orange and green respectively (Chlieh et al., 2007, 2008). Bengal and Nicobar fans cover structures of the India-Australia plate in the northern part of the map. RR0705 cores are plotted as light blue. SRTM bathymetry and topography is in shaded relief and colored vs. depth/elevation (Smith and Sandwell, 1997). B. Schematic illustration of geomorphic elements of subduction zone trench and slope sedimentary settings. Submarine channels, submarine canyons, dune fields and sediment waves, abyssal plain, trench axis, plunge pool, apron fans, and apron fan channels are labeled here. Modified from Patton et al. (2013 a).

    • This is the main figure from Hayes et al. (2013) from the Seismicity of the Earth series. There is a map with the slab contours and seismicity both colored vs. depth. There are also some cross sections of seismicity plotted, with locations shown on the map.

    • Here is a great figure from Philobosian et al. (2014) that shows the slip patches from the subduction zone earthquakes in this region.

    • Map of Southeast Asia showing recent and selected historical ruptures of the Sunda megathrust. Black lines with sense of motion are major plate-bounding faults, and gray lines are seafloor fracture zones. Motions of Australian and Indian plates relative to Sunda plate are from the MORVEL-1 global model [DeMets et al., 2010]. The fore-arc sliver between the Sunda megathrust and the strike-slip Sumatran Fault becomes the Burma microplate farther north, but this long, thin strip of crust does not necessarily all behave as a rigid block. Sim = Simeulue, Ni = Nias, Bt = Batu Islands, and Eng = Enggano. Brown rectangle centered at 2°S, 99°E delineates the area of Figure 3, highlighting the Mentawai Islands. Figure adapted from Meltzner et al. [2012] with rupture areas and magnitudes from Briggs et al. [2006], Konca et al. [2008], Meltzner et al. [2010], Hill et al. [2012], and references therein.

    • This is a figure from Philobosian et al. (2012) that shows a larger scale view for the slip patches in this region. Note that today’s earthquake happened at the edge of the 7.9 earthquake slip patch.

    • Recent and ancient ruptures along the Mentawai section of the Sunda megathrust. Colored patches are surface projections of 1-m slip contours of the deep megathrust ruptures on 12–13 September 2007 (pink to red) and the shallow rupture on 25 October 2010 (green). Dashed rectangles indicate roughly the sections that ruptured in 1797 and 1833. Ancient ruptures are adapted from Natawidjaja et al. [2006] and recent ones come from Konca et al. [2008] and Hill et al. (submitted manuscript, 2012). Labeled points indicate coral study sites Sikici (SKC), Pasapuat (PSP), Simanganya (SMY), Pulau Pasir (PSR), and Bulasat (BLS).

    • Here are a series of figures from Chlieh et al. (2008 ) that show their data sources and their modeling results. I include their figure captions below in blockquote.
    • This figure shows the coupling model (on the left) and the source data for their inversions (on the right). Their source data are vertical deformation rates as measured along coral microattols. These are from data prior to the 2004 SASZ earthquake.

    • Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of the coral and of the GPS data (Tables 2, 3, and 4) prior to the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake (model I-a in Table 7). (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red, and fully creeping areas are white. Three strongly coupled patches are revealed beneath Nias island, Siberut island, and Pagai island. The annual moment deficit rate corresponding to that model is 4.0 X 10^20 N m/a. (b) Observed (black vectors) and predicted (red vectors) horizontal velocities appear. Observed and predicted vertical displacements are shown by color-coded large and small circles, respectively. The Xr^2 of this model is 3.9 (Table 7).

    • This is a similar figure, but based upon observations between June 2005 and October 2006.

    • Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of the horizontal velocities and uplift rates derived from the CGPS measurements at the SuGAr stations (processed at SOPAC). To reduce the influence of postseismic deformation caused by the March 2005 Nias-Simeulue rupture, velocities were determined for the period between June 2005 and October 2006. (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red and fully creeping areas are white. This model reveals strong coupling beneath the Mentawai Islands (Siberut, Sipora, and Pagai islands), offshore Padang city, and suggests that the megathrust south of Bengkulu city is creeping at the plate velocity. (b) Comparison of observed (green) and predicted (red) velocities. The Xr^2 associated to that model is 24.5 (Table 8).

    • This is a similar figure, but based on all the data.

    • Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of all the data (model J-a, Table 8). (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red, and fully creeping areas are white. This model shows strong coupling beneath Nias island and beneath the Mentawai (Siberut, Sipora and Pagai) islands. The rate of accumulation of moment deficit is 4.5 X 10^20 N m/a. (b) Comparison of observed (black arrows for pre-2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and green arrows for post-2005 Nias earthquake) and predicted velocities (in red). Observed and predicted vertical displacements are shown by color-coded large and small circles (for the corals) and large and small diamonds (for the CGPS), respectively. The Xr^2 of this model is 12.8.

    • Here is the figure I included in the poster above.

    • Comparison of interseismic coupling along the megathrust with the rupture areas of the great 1797, 1833, and 2005 earthquakes. The southernmost rupture area of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake lies north of our study area and is shown only for reference. Epicenters of the 2007 Mw 8.4 and Mw 7.9 earthquakes are also shown for reference. (a) Geometry of the locked fault zone corresponding to forward model F-f (Figure 6c). Below the Batu Islands, where coupling occurs in a narrow band, the largest earthquake for the past 260 years has been a Mw 7.7 in 1935 [Natawidjaja et al., 2004; Rivera et al., 2002]. The wide zones of coupling, beneath Nias, Siberut, and Pagai islands, coincide well with the source of great earthquakes (Mw > 8.5) in 2005 from Konca et al. [2007] and in 1797 and 1833 from Natawidjaja et al. [2006]. The narrow locked patch beneath the Batu islands lies above the subducting fossil Investigator Fracture Zone. (b) Distribution of interseismic coupling corresponding to inverse model J-a (Figure 10). The coincidence of the high coupling area (orange-red dots) with the region of high coseismic slip during the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake suggests that strongly coupled patches during interseismic correspond to seismic asperities during megathrust ruptures. The source regions of the 1797 and 1833 ruptures also correlate well with patches that are highly coupled beneath Siberut, Sipora, and Pagai islands.

    • This figure shows the authors’ estimate for the moment deficit in this region of the subduction zone. This is an estimate of how much the plate convergence rate, that is estimated to accumulate as tectonic strain, will need to be released during subduction zone earthquakes.

    • Latitudinal distributions of seismic moment released by great historical earthquakes and of accumulated deficit of moment due to interseismic locking of the plate interface. Values represent integrals over half a degree of latitude. Accumulated interseismic deficits since 1797, 1833, and 1861 are based on (a) model F-f and (b) model J-a. Seismic moments for the 1797 and 1833 Mentawai earthquakes are estimated based on the work by Natawidjaja et al. [2006], the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake is taken from Konca et al. [2007], and the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake is taken from Chlieh et al. [2007]. Postseismic moments released in the month that follows the 2004 earthquake and in the 11 months that follows the Nias-Simeulue 2005 earthquake are shown in red and green, respectively, based on the work by Chlieh et al. [2007] and Hsu et al. [2006].

    • For a review of the 2004 and 2005 Sumatra Andaman subduction zone (SASZ) earthquakes, please check out my Earthquake Report here. Below is the poster from that report. On that report page, I also include some information about the 2012 M 8.6 and M 8.2 Wharton Basin earthquakes.
      • I include some inset figures in the poster.
      • In the upper left corner, I include a map that shows the extent of historic earthquakes along the SASZ offshore of Sumatra. This map is a culmination of a variety of papers (summarized and presented in Patton et al., 2015).
      • In the upper right corner I include a figure that is presented by Chlieh et al. (2007). These figures show model results from several models. Each model is represented by a map showing the amount that the fault slipped in particular regions. I present this figure below.
      • In the lower right corner I present a figure from Prawirodirdjo et al. (2010). This figure shows the coseismic vertical and horizontal motions from the 2004 and 2005 earthquakes as measured at GPS sites.
      • In the lower left corner are the MMI intensity maps for the two SASZ earthquakes. Note these are at different map scales. I also include the MMI attenuation curves for these earthquakes below the maps. These plots show the reported MMI intensity data as they relate to two plots of modeled estimates (the orange and green lines). These green dots are from the USGS “Did You Feel It?” reports compared to the estimates of ground shaking from Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) estimates. GMPE are empirical relations between earthquakes and recorded seismologic observations from those earthquakes, largely controlled by distance to the fault, ray path (direction and material properties), and site effects (the local geology). When seismic waves propagate through sediment, the magnitude of the ground motions increases in comparison to when seismic waves propagate through bedrock. The orange line is a regression of data for the central and eastern US and the green line is a regression through data from the western US.


    • The 2004/2005 SASZ earthquakes also tended to load strain in the crust in different locations. On 2012.04.11 there was a series of strike-slip earthquakes in the India plate crust to the west of the 2004/2005 earthquakes. The two largest magnitudes for these earthquakes were M 8.6 and M 8.2. The M 8.6 is the largest strike-slip earthquake ever recorded.
    • On 2016.03.22 there was another large strike-slip earthquake in the India-Australia plate. This is probably related to this entire suite of subduction zone and intraplate earthquakes. I presented an interpretive poster about this M 7.8 earthquake here. Below is my interpretive poster for the M 7.8 earthquake. Here is the USGS website for this earthquake.
    • I include a map in the upper right corner that shows the historic earthquake rupture areas.

    • Here is a poster that shows some earthquakes in the Andaman Sea. This is from my earthquake report from 2015.11.08.

    • This map shows the fracture zones in the India-Australia plate.

    References:

    • Abercrombie, R.E., Antolik, M., Ekstrom, G., 2003. The June 2000 Mw 7.9 earthquakes south of Sumatra: Deformation in the India–Australia Plate. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 16.
    • Bassin, C., Laske, G. and Masters, G., The Current Limits of Resolution for Surface Wave Tomography in North America, EOS Trans AGU, 81, F897, 2000.
    • Bock, Y., Prawirodirdjo, L., Genrich, J.F., Stevens, C.W., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Puntodewo, S.S.O., Calais, E., 2003. Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B8, 2367, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000324.
    • Bothara, J., Beetham, R.D., Brunston, D., Stannard, M., Brown, R., Hyland, C., Lewis, W., Miller, S., Sanders, R., Sulistio, Y., 2010. General observations of effects of the 30th September 2009 Padang earthquake, Indonesia. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 143-173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S152-S173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Galetzka, J., 2008. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004981.
    • DEPLUS, C. et al., 1998 – Direct evidence of active derormation in the eastern Indian oceanic plate, Geology.
    • DYMENT, J., CANDE, S.C. & SINGH, S., 2007 – Oceanic lithosphere subducting beneath the Sunda Trench: the Wharton Basin revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 15-20/05.
    • 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.
    • Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, Fransiska, Smoczyk, Gregory, Briggs, Richard, Benz, H.M., Furlong, K.P., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2013. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Sumatra and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-L, scale 1:6,000,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1083/l/.
    • JACOB, J., DYMENT, J., YATHEESH, V. & BHATTACHARYA, G.C., 2009 – Marine magnetic anomalies in the NE Indian Ocean: the Wharton and Central Indian basins revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 19-24/04.
    • Ji, C., D.J. Wald, and D.V. Helmberger, Source description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California earthquake; Part I: Wavelet domain inversion theory and resolution analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol 92, No. 4. pp. 1192-1207, 2002.
    • Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H., Vidale, J.E., 2005. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933.
    • Kanamori, H., Rivera, L., Lee, W.H.K., 2010. Historical seismograms for unravelling a mysterious earthquake: The 1907 Sumatra Earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 183, 358-374.
    • Konca, A.O., Avouac, J., Sladen, A., Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Fang, P., Li, Z., Galetzka, J., Genrich, J., Chlieh, M., Natawidjaja, D.H., Bock, Y., Fielding, E.J., Ji, C., Helmberger, D., 2008. Partial Rupture of a Locked Patch of the Sumatra Megathrust During the 2007 Earthquake Sequence. Nature 456, 631-635.
    • Maus, S., et al., 2009. EMAG2: A 2–arc min resolution Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid compiled from satellite, airborne, and marine magnetic measurements, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q08005, doi:10.1029/2009GC002471.
    • Malik, J.N., Shishikura, M., Echigo, T., Ikeda, Y., Satake, K., Kayanne, H., Sawai, Y., Murty, C.V.R., Dikshit, D., 2011. Geologic evidence for two pre-2004 earthquakes during recent centuries near Port Blair, South Andaman Island, India: Geology, v. 39, p. 559-562.
    • Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B.W., Natawidjaja, D.H., Philobosian, B., Briggs, R.W., Galetzka, J., 2010. Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D. 1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh–Andaman rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, 1-46.
    • Meng, L., Ampuero, J.-P., Stock, J., Duputel, Z., Luo, Y., and Tsai, V.C., 2012. Earthquake in a Maze: Compressional Rupture Branching During the 2012 Mw 8.6 Sumatra Earthquake in Science, v. 337, p. 724-726.
    • Natawidjaja, D.H., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M., Galetzka, J., Suwargadi, B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Avouac, J., Ward, S.N., 2006. Source parameters of the great Sumatran megathrust earthquakes of 1797 and 1833 inferred from coral microatolls. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, 37.
    • Newcomb, K.R., McCann, W.R., 1987. Seismic History and Seismotectonics of the Sunda Arc. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 421-439.
    • Philibosian, B., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B., Hill, E.M., Edwards, R.L., 2012. An ancient shallow slip event on the Mentawai segment of the Sunda megathrust, Sumatra. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, 12.
    • Prawirodirdjo, P., McCaffrey,R., Chadwell, D., Bock, Y, and Subarya, C., 2010. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone: Role of interseismic strain segmentation, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, v. 115, B03414, doi:10.1029/2008JB006139
    • Rivera, L., Sieh, K., Helmberger, D., Natawidjaja, D.H., 2002. A Comparative Study of the Sumatran Subduction-Zone Earthquakes of 1935 and 1984. BSSA 92, 1721-1736.
    • Shearer, P., and Burgmann, R., 2010. Lessons Learned from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Megathrust Rupture, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. v. 38, pp. 103–31
    • SATISH C. S, CARTON H, CHAUHAN A.S., et al., 2011 – Extremely thin crust in the Indian Ocean possibly resulting from Plume-Ridge Interaction, Geophysical Journal International.
    • Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Meltzner, A.J., Shen, C., Cheng, H., Li, K., Suwargadi, B.W., Galetzka, J., Philobosian, B., Edwards, R.L., 2008. Earthquake Supercycles Inferred from Sea-Level Changes Recorded in the Corals of West Sumatra. Science 322, 1674-1678.
    • Singh, S.C., Carton, H.L., Tapponnier, P, Hananto, N.D., Chauhan, A.P.S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J., 2008. Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nature Geoscience, v. 1, pp. 5.
    • Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
    • Sorensen, M.B., Atakan, K., Pulido, N., 2007. Simulated Strong Ground Motions for the Great M 9.3 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004. BSSA 97, S139-S151.
    • Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H., McCaffrey, R., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: Nature, v. 440, p. 46-51.
    • Tolstoy, M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2006. Hydroacoustic contributions to understanding the December 26th 2004 great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake. Survey of Geophysics 27, 633-646.
    • Zhu, Lupei, and Donald V. Helmberger. “Advancement in source estimation techniques using broadband regional seismograms.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86.5 (1996): 1634-1641.

    Earthquake Report: Bengkulu (Sumatra)!

    Last night (my time) while I was tending to other business, there was an earthquake along the Sunda Megathrust. Here is the USGS website for this M 6.4 earthquake.
    This M 6.4 earthquake happened down-dip (“deeper than”) along the megathrust from the 2007.09.12 M 8.4 megathrust earthquake. Here is the USGS website for the M 8.4 earthquake. This M 6.4 earthquake occurred in a region of low seismogenic coupling (as inferred by Chlieh at al., 2008), albeit with sparse GPS data in this region. Chlieh et al. (2008) used coral geodetic and paleogeodetic data, along with Global Positioning System (GPS) observations, to constrain their model. Because there are no forearc islands in this part of the subduction zone, there are no GPS nor coral data with which to constrain their model (so it may underestimate the coupling %, i.e. coupling ratio).
    Based upon the USGS fault plane slip model, this M 6.4 earthquake actually happened in a region of higher slip from the M 8.4 earthquake. We may consider this M 6.4 earthquake to be an aftershock of the M 8.4 earthquake.
    Here is a report from earthquake-report.com.

    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 also include USGS epicenters from 1917-2017 for magnitudes M ≥ 7.
    I also include the USGS moment tensor for today’s earthquake, as well as for the 2007 M 8.4 earthquake. I label the other epicenters with large magnitudes (2004, 2005, and 2012). Find more details about these earthquakes in my reports listed at the bottom of this page, above the references.

    • 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.

      I include some inset figures in the poster.

    • In the upper right corner, I include a map from Hayes et al. (2013) that shows the epicenters of earthquakes from the past century or so. There is also a cross section that is in the region of the 2007 and 2017 M 8.4 and M 6.4 earthquakes. I also placed a C-C’ green line on the main map to show where this cross section is compared to the other features on my map. I placed a blue star in the general location of the M 6.4 earthquake.
    • In the lower left corner, I include a map I made that delineates the spatial extent for historic earthquakes along the Sunda Megathrust. This came from a paper that I had submitted to Marine Geology. I include this figure below with attributions to the publications that I used as references for this map. I outlined the slip patch for the M 8.4 earthquake in transparent orange.
    • In the upper left corner, I present a figure from Chlieh et al. (2008 ). These authors use GPS and coral geodetic and paleogeodetic data to constrain the proportion of the plate motion rates that are accumulated as tectonic strain along the megathrust fault. Basically, this means how much % that the fault is storing energy to be released in subduction zone earthquakes. This is just a model and is limited by the temporal and spatial extent of their observations which form the basis for their model. However, this is a well respected approach to estimate the potential for future earthquake (given the assumptions that I here mention).


    • I prepared this figure to show the difference in MMI Intensity for these two closely spaced earthquakes. The data here come from the USGS websites listed above.

    • Here is my map. I include the references below in blockquote.

    • Sumatra core location and plate setting map with sedimentary and erosive systems figure. A. India-Australia plate subducts northeastwardly beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia) at modern rates (GPS velocities are based on regional modeling of Bock et al, 2003 as plotted in Subarya et al., 2006). Historic earthquake ruptures (Bilham, 2005; Malik et al., 2011) are plotted in orange. 2004 earthquake and 2005 earthquake 5 meter slip contours are plotted in orange and green respectively (Chlieh et al., 2007, 2008). Bengal and Nicobar fans cover structures of the India-Australia plate in the northern part of the map. RR0705 cores are plotted as light blue. SRTM bathymetry and topography is in shaded relief and colored vs. depth/elevation (Smith and Sandwell, 1997). B. Schematic illustration of geomorphic elements of subduction zone trench and slope sedimentary settings. Submarine channels, submarine canyons, dune fields and sediment waves, abyssal plain, trench axis, plunge pool, apron fans, and apron fan channels are labeled here. Modified from Patton et al. (2013 a).

    • This is the main figure from Hayes et al. (2013) from the Seismicity of the Earth series. There is a map with the slab contours and seismicity both colored vs. depth. There are also some cross sections of seismicity plotted, with locations shown on the map.

    • Here is a great figure from Philobosian et al. (2014) that shows the slip patches from the subduction zone earthquakes in this region.

    • Map of Southeast Asia showing recent and selected historical ruptures of the Sunda megathrust. Black lines with sense of motion are major plate-bounding faults, and gray lines are seafloor fracture zones. Motions of Australian and Indian plates relative to Sunda plate are from the MORVEL-1 global model [DeMets et al., 2010]. The fore-arc sliver between the Sunda megathrust and the strike-slip Sumatran Fault becomes the Burma microplate farther north, but this long, thin strip of crust does not necessarily all behave as a rigid block. Sim = Simeulue, Ni = Nias, Bt = Batu Islands, and Eng = Enggano. Brown rectangle centered at 2°S, 99°E delineates the area of Figure 3, highlighting the Mentawai Islands. Figure adapted from Meltzner et al. [2012] with rupture areas and magnitudes from Briggs et al. [2006], Konca et al. [2008], Meltzner et al. [2010], Hill et al. [2012], and references therein.

    • This is a figure from Philobosian et al. (2012) that shows a larger scale view for the slip patches in this region.

    • Recent and ancient ruptures along the Mentawai section of the Sunda megathrust. Colored patches are surface projections of 1-m slip contours of the deep megathrust ruptures on 12–13 September 2007 (pink to red) and the shallow rupture on 25 October 2010 (green). Dashed rectangles indicate roughly the sections that ruptured in 1797 and 1833. Ancient ruptures are adapted from Natawidjaja et al. [2006] and recent ones come from Konca et al. [2008] and Hill et al. (submitted manuscript, 2012). Labeled points indicate coral study sites Sikici (SKC), Pasapuat (PSP), Simanganya (SMY), Pulau Pasir (PSR), and Bulasat (BLS).

    • Here are a series of figures from Chlieh et al. (2008 ) that show their data sources and their modeling results. I include their figure captions below in blockquote.
    • This figure shows the coupling model (on the left) and the source data for their inversions (on the right). Their source data are vertical deformation rates as measured along coral microattols. These are from data prior to the 2004 SASZ earthquake.

    • Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of the coral and of the GPS data (Tables 2, 3, and 4) prior to the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake (model I-a in Table 7). (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red, and fully creeping areas are white. Three strongly coupled patches are revealed beneath Nias island, Siberut island, and Pagai island. The annual moment deficit rate corresponding to that model is 4.0 X 10^20 N m/a. (b) Observed (black vectors) and predicted (red vectors) horizontal velocities appear. Observed and predicted vertical displacements are shown by color-coded large and small circles, respectively. The Xr^2 of this model is 3.9 (Table 7).

    • This is a similar figure, but based upon observations between June 2005 and October 2006.

    • Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of the horizontal velocities and uplift rates derived from the CGPS measurements at the SuGAr stations (processed at SOPAC). To reduce the influence of postseismic deformation caused by the March 2005 Nias-Simeulue rupture, velocities were determined for the period between June 2005 and October 2006. (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red and fully creeping areas are white. This model reveals strong coupling beneath the Mentawai Islands (Siberut, Sipora, and Pagai islands), offshore Padang city, and suggests that the megathrust south of Bengkulu city is creeping at the plate velocity. (b) Comparison of observed (green) and predicted (red) velocities. The Xr^2 associated to that model is 24.5 (Table 8).

    • This is a similar figure, but based on all the data.

    • Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of all the data (model J-a, Table 8). (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red, and fully creeping areas are white. This model shows strong coupling beneath Nias island and beneath the Mentawai (Siberut, Sipora and Pagai) islands. The rate of accumulation of moment deficit is 4.5 X 10^20 N m/a. (b) Comparison of observed (black arrows for pre-2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and green arrows for post-2005 Nias earthquake) and predicted velocities (in red). Observed and predicted vertical displacements are shown by color-coded large and small circles (for the corals) and large and small diamonds (for the CGPS), respectively. The Xr^2 of this model is 12.8.

    • Here is the figure I included in the poster above.

    • Comparison of interseismic coupling along the megathrust with the rupture areas of the great 1797, 1833, and 2005 earthquakes. The southernmost rupture area of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake lies north of our study area and is shown only for reference. Epicenters of the 2007 Mw 8.4 and Mw 7.9 earthquakes are also shown for reference. (a) Geometry of the locked fault zone corresponding to forward model F-f (Figure 6c). Below the Batu Islands, where coupling occurs in a narrow band, the largest earthquake for the past 260 years has been a Mw 7.7 in 1935 [Natawidjaja et al., 2004; Rivera et al., 2002]. The wide zones of coupling, beneath Nias, Siberut, and Pagai islands, coincide well with the source of great earthquakes (Mw > 8.5) in 2005 from Konca et al. [2007] and in 1797 and 1833 from Natawidjaja et al. [2006]. The narrow locked patch beneath the Batu islands lies above the subducting fossil Investigator Fracture Zone. (b) Distribution of interseismic coupling corresponding to inverse model J-a (Figure 10). The coincidence of the high coupling area (orange-red dots) with the region of high coseismic slip during the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake suggests that strongly coupled patches during interseismic correspond to seismic asperities during megathrust ruptures. The source regions of the 1797 and 1833 ruptures also correlate well with patches that are highly coupled beneath Siberut, Sipora, and Pagai islands.

    • This figure shows the authors’ estimate for the moment deficit in this region of the subduction zone. This is an estimate of how much the plate convergence rate, that is estimated to accumulate as tectonic strain, will need to be released during subduction zone earthquakes.

    • Latitudinal distributions of seismic moment released by great historical earthquakes and of accumulated deficit of moment due to interseismic locking of the plate interface. Values represent integrals over half a degree of latitude. Accumulated interseismic deficits since 1797, 1833, and 1861 are based on (a) model F-f and (b) model J-a. Seismic moments for the 1797 and 1833 Mentawai earthquakes are estimated based on the work by Natawidjaja et al. [2006], the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake is taken from Konca et al. [2007], and the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake is taken from Chlieh et al. [2007]. Postseismic moments released in the month that follows the 2004 earthquake and in the 11 months that follows the Nias-Simeulue 2005 earthquake are shown in red and green, respectively, based on the work by Chlieh et al. [2007] and Hsu et al. [2006].

    • For a review of the 2004 and 2005 Sumatra Andaman subduction zone (SASZ) earthquakes, please check out my Earthquake Report here. Below is the poster from that report. On that report page, I also include some information about the 2012 M 8.6 and M 8.2 Wharton Basin earthquakes.
      • I include some inset figures in the poster.
      • In the upper left corner, I include a map that shows the extent of historic earthquakes along the SASZ offshore of Sumatra. This map is a culmination of a variety of papers (summarized and presented in Patton et al., 2015).
      • In the upper right corner I include a figure that is presented by Chlieh et al. (2007). These figures show model results from several models. Each model is represented by a map showing the amount that the fault slipped in particular regions. I present this figure below.
      • In the lower right corner I present a figure from Prawirodirdjo et al. (2010). This figure shows the coseismic vertical and horizontal motions from the 2004 and 2005 earthquakes as measured at GPS sites.
      • In the lower left corner are the MMI intensity maps for the two SASZ earthquakes. Note these are at different map scales. I also include the MMI attenuation curves for these earthquakes below the maps. These plots show the reported MMI intensity data as they relate to two plots of modeled estimates (the orange and green lines). These green dots are from the USGS “Did You Feel It?” reports compared to the estimates of ground shaking from Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) estimates. GMPE are empirical relations between earthquakes and recorded seismologic observations from those earthquakes, largely controlled by distance to the fault, ray path (direction and material properties), and site effects (the local geology). When seismic waves propagate through sediment, the magnitude of the ground motions increases in comparison to when seismic waves propagate through bedrock. The orange line is a regression of data for the central and eastern US and the green line is a regression through data from the western US.


    • The 2004/2005 SASZ earthquakes also tended to load strain in the crust in different locations. On 2012.04.11 there was a series of strike-slip earthquakes in the India plate crust to the west of the 2004/2005 earthquakes. The two largest magnitudes for these earthquakes were M 8.6 and M 8.2. The M 8.6 is the largest strike-slip earthquake ever recorded.
    • On 2016.03.22 there was another large strike-slip earthquake in the India-Australia plate. This is probably related to this entire suite of subduction zone and intraplate earthquakes. I presented an interpretive poster about this M 7.8 earthquake here. Below is my interpretive poster for the M 7.8 earthquake. Here is the USGS website for this earthquake.
    • I include a map in the upper right corner that shows the historic earthquake rupture areas.

    • Here is a poster that shows some earthquakes in the Andaman Sea. This is from my earthquake report from 2015.11.08.

    • This map shows the fracture zones in the India-Australia plate.

    References:

    • Abercrombie, R.E., Antolik, M., Ekstrom, G., 2003. The June 2000 Mw 7.9 earthquakes south of Sumatra: Deformation in the India–Australia Plate. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 16.
    • Bassin, C., Laske, G. and Masters, G., The Current Limits of Resolution for Surface Wave Tomography in North America, EOS Trans AGU, 81, F897, 2000.
    • Bock, Y., Prawirodirdjo, L., Genrich, J.F., Stevens, C.W., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Puntodewo, S.S.O., Calais, E., 2003. Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B8, 2367, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000324.
    • Bothara, J., Beetham, R.D., Brunston, D., Stannard, M., Brown, R., Hyland, C., Lewis, W., Miller, S., Sanders, R., Sulistio, Y., 2010. General observations of effects of the 30th September 2009 Padang earthquake, Indonesia. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 143-173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S152-S173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Galetzka, J., 2008. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004981.
    • DEPLUS, C. et al., 1998 – Direct evidence of active derormation in the eastern Indian oceanic plate, Geology.
    • DYMENT, J., CANDE, S.C. & SINGH, S., 2007 – Oceanic lithosphere subducting beneath the Sunda Trench: the Wharton Basin revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 15-20/05.
    • 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.
    • Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, Fransiska, Smoczyk, Gregory, Briggs, Richard, Benz, H.M., Furlong, K.P., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2013. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Sumatra and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-L, scale 1:6,000,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1083/l/.
    • JACOB, J., DYMENT, J., YATHEESH, V. & BHATTACHARYA, G.C., 2009 – Marine magnetic anomalies in the NE Indian Ocean: the Wharton and Central Indian basins revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 19-24/04.
    • Ji, C., D.J. Wald, and D.V. Helmberger, Source description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California earthquake; Part I: Wavelet domain inversion theory and resolution analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol 92, No. 4. pp. 1192-1207, 2002.
    • Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H., Vidale, J.E., 2005. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933.
    • Kanamori, H., Rivera, L., Lee, W.H.K., 2010. Historical seismograms for unravelling a mysterious earthquake: The 1907 Sumatra Earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 183, 358-374.
    • Konca, A.O., Avouac, J., Sladen, A., Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Fang, P., Li, Z., Galetzka, J., Genrich, J., Chlieh, M., Natawidjaja, D.H., Bock, Y., Fielding, E.J., Ji, C., Helmberger, D., 2008. Partial Rupture of a Locked Patch of the Sumatra Megathrust During the 2007 Earthquake Sequence. Nature 456, 631-635.
    • Maus, S., et al., 2009. EMAG2: A 2–arc min resolution Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid compiled from satellite, airborne, and marine magnetic measurements, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q08005, doi:10.1029/2009GC002471.
    • Malik, J.N., Shishikura, M., Echigo, T., Ikeda, Y., Satake, K., Kayanne, H., Sawai, Y., Murty, C.V.R., Dikshit, D., 2011. Geologic evidence for two pre-2004 earthquakes during recent centuries near Port Blair, South Andaman Island, India: Geology, v. 39, p. 559-562.
    • Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B.W., Natawidjaja, D.H., Philobosian, B., Briggs, R.W., Galetzka, J., 2010. Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D. 1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh–Andaman rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, 1-46.
    • Meng, L., Ampuero, J.-P., Stock, J., Duputel, Z., Luo, Y., and Tsai, V.C., 2012. Earthquake in a Maze: Compressional Rupture Branching During the 2012 Mw 8.6 Sumatra Earthquake in Science, v. 337, p. 724-726.
    • Natawidjaja, D.H., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M., Galetzka, J., Suwargadi, B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Avouac, J., Ward, S.N., 2006. Source parameters of the great Sumatran megathrust earthquakes of 1797 and 1833 inferred from coral microatolls. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, 37.
    • Newcomb, K.R., McCann, W.R., 1987. Seismic History and Seismotectonics of the Sunda Arc. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 421-439.
    • Philibosian, B., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B., Hill, E.M., Edwards, R.L., 2012. An ancient shallow slip event on the Mentawai segment of the Sunda megathrust, Sumatra. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, 12.
    • Prawirodirdjo, P., McCaffrey,R., Chadwell, D., Bock, Y, and Subarya, C., 2010. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone: Role of interseismic strain segmentation, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, v. 115, B03414, doi:10.1029/2008JB006139
    • Rivera, L., Sieh, K., Helmberger, D., Natawidjaja, D.H., 2002. A Comparative Study of the Sumatran Subduction-Zone Earthquakes of 1935 and 1984. BSSA 92, 1721-1736.
    • Shearer, P., and Burgmann, R., 2010. Lessons Learned from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Megathrust Rupture, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. v. 38, pp. 103–31
    • SATISH C. S, CARTON H, CHAUHAN A.S., et al., 2011 – Extremely thin crust in the Indian Ocean possibly resulting from Plume-Ridge Interaction, Geophysical Journal International.
    • Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Meltzner, A.J., Shen, C., Cheng, H., Li, K., Suwargadi, B.W., Galetzka, J., Philobosian, B., Edwards, R.L., 2008. Earthquake Supercycles Inferred from Sea-Level Changes Recorded in the Corals of West Sumatra. Science 322, 1674-1678.
    • Singh, S.C., Carton, H.L., Tapponnier, P, Hananto, N.D., Chauhan, A.P.S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J., 2008. Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nature Geoscience, v. 1, pp. 5.
    • Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
    • Sorensen, M.B., Atakan, K., Pulido, N., 2007. Simulated Strong Ground Motions for the Great M 9.3 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004. BSSA 97, S139-S151.
    • Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H., McCaffrey, R., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: Nature, v. 440, p. 46-51.
    • Tolstoy, M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2006. Hydroacoustic contributions to understanding the December 26th 2004 great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake. Survey of Geophysics 27, 633-646.
    • Zhu, Lupei, and Donald V. Helmberger. “Advancement in source estimation techniques using broadband regional seismograms.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86.5 (1996): 1634-1641.

    Earthquake Report: Sumatra!

    There were two interesting earthquakes near the northern tip of the Island of Sumatra whilst I was off on a field trip with some HSU geology students. So, I think it prudent to review these earthquakes now.
    These earthquakes happened along the convergent plate boundary that is formed by the oblique subduction of the India-Australia plate beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia). The India-Australia plate has numerous north-south striking fracture zones that are reactivated as normal faults when they reach the subduction trench (where the subducting plate flexes, causing bending and extension in the upper part of the plate). These fracture zones are initially strike-slip (or transform) faults.
    In 2004 there was a Great megathrust earthquake (M =9.0)that triggered a catastrophic and deadly trans-oceanic tsunami. Three months later, in 2005, there was a triggered Great earthquake (M = 8.6), which also caused a tsunami, but a much smaller one for various reasons. The 2004 M 9.2 earthquake provided some ground breaking (sorry for the pun) advancements in our knowledge of the earth. One new observation is that this earthquake ruptured into the mantle, previously thought to behave in a ductile manner, so not capable of brittle failure during an earthquake. Earthquake reports for some of the earthquakes discussed on this page are listed at the bottom of the page.
    In 2012, there was a series of Great earthquakes to the west of these 2004 & 2005 subduction zone earthquakes in a region that experienced increased strain following the 2004/2005 earthquakes. These two earthquakes initially appeared to have ocurred on one of these fracture zone faults. However, upon further investigations (including various analyses and aftershock analysis), these two earthquakes were actually along faults ~orthogonal to the fracture zones. They were also very very deep, also probably occurring in the mantle! But, the crust is really thick here (possibly the thickest oceanic crust in the world, associated with the ninetyeast ridge. The 90E ridge is thickened because the I-A plate floated over a hotspot, causing it to be thicker). The larger of the two had a magnitude of M = 8.6, which is currently the largest strike-slip earthquake ever recorded on modern seismometers. Later, on 2016.03.02, there was another strike-slip fault in the I-A plate. Assistant Professor Wei Shengi (Earth Observatory of Singapore) derived some slip models for this earthquake and chose a slip model based on an East-West fault, making it a right lateral strike-slip earthquake (EOS, 2016).

      Here are the USGS websites for these two earthquakes.

    • 2017.03.17 02:51 UTC M 6.0
    • 2017.03.17 13:13 UTC M 5.5

    There was an earthquake with a magnitude of M 6.0 that is just west of the tip of the megathrust fault, so is clearly in the India plate west of the subduction zone. This earthquake occurred on a strike-slip fault and is oriented similar to the 2012 and 2016 earthquakes. Like the 2016 earthquake, I am not sure which nodal plane is the fault plane and which is the auxiliary fault plane.
    About 10 hours later, there was an M 5.5 earthquake that has a hypocentral depth of 41.2 km. This depth is fully consistent with the depth of the subduction zone megathrust fault here (Hayes et al., 2012). The moment tensor is consistent with a thrust fault and the fault plane is probably the northeast shallowly dipping nodal plane.

    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 the USGS moment tensors from these 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. The moment tensor for the M 6.0 compares well with other Wharton Basin earthquakes from the past (e.g. 2012 & 2016). The triggered M 5.5 earthquake was instead possibly a subduction zone earthquake.
    • 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. The hypocentral depth of the M 5.5 plots this close to the location of the fault as mapped by Hayes et al. (2012).

      I include some inset figures in the poster.

    • In the upper right corner I include a map showing the plate tectonics of the region as well as earthquake rupture regions for historic subduction zone earthquakes. Bathymetry and topography data come from the Smith and Sandwell (1997) Space Shuttle Radar Topography (SRTM) data set. The India-Australia plate subducts northeastward beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia; sz–subduction zone). Orange vectors plot India plate movement relative to Sunda, and black vectors plot Australia relative to Sunda (global positioning system velocity based on Nuvel-1A; Bock et al., 2003; Subarya et al., 2006). Historic ruptures (Bilham, 2005; Malik et al., 2011) are plotted in grey, calendar years are in white. The 2004 and 2005 slip contours are shown orange and green, respectively (Chlieh et al., 2007, fig. 11 therein; Chlieh et al., 2008, figure 20 therein). Bengal and Nicobar fans cover structures of the India-Australia plate in the northern part of the map; are dashed black lines delimit their southern boundaries (Stow et al., 1990). The 2004 and 2005 earthquake focal mechanisms are plotted.
    • In the lower right corner is a Time Space plot of seismicity from this region for the period of 1973-2012 (Hayes et al., 2013). Great earthquakes are represented by yellow stars on the map time-space plot. The epicenters from the 2012 earthquakes are plotted on this map, so the figure caption is incorrect in their publication (can’t be perfect). Note how the rate of seismicity (prior to 2004 and 2010) at and north of the latitude of the 2007-09-12 M 8.4 subduction zone earthquake (4° S) is lower than south of this latitude. Of particular interest is that there is a slightly higher rate of seismicity between 4° and 8°. Could this inform us about whether or not there will be a Great earthquake in this region of the subduction zone?
    • In the upper left corner is a map that has the same earthquake patches as in the plate tectonic map. The base map is the Magnetic Anomaly data (Maus et al., 2009). These magnetic data is a compilation of data from ships, satellites, and airborne platforms. The first order patterns of dark and light gray represents the change in magnetic polarity through time. These show up on the map as horizontal/East-West bars in the oceanic crust west of Sumatra. These horizontal bars are also offset along North-South fracture zones (strike slip faults). Ninetyeast Ridge and the Investigator fracture zone are labeled. The Wharton Ridge is a spreading center that went inactive ~45 million years ago, which is part of the diffuse plate boundary between the India and Australia plates.
    • Below that map is a tectonic map of the Wharton Basin from Earth Observatory of Singapore (EOS, 2012). The Wharton Basin is the ocean basin east of the Ninetyeast Ridge west of the Sunda Megathrust. This map shows some earthquake rupture areas and the plate boundary faults (including the forearc sliver fault, the Sumatra fault), and North-South fracture zones in the Wharton Basin. The 2012 earthquakes and earthquake fault ruptures are shown in red stars and red dashed lines. Aftershocks are plotted as red oranges. Note how these help us define the faults that ruptured.
    • In the lower left corner are two maps that show seismicity from the 2012 earthquakes. On the left is a map showing the Satellite Gravity Anomaly. Variations in gravity anomaly data represent variations in earth material properties (things that change the spatial distribution of gravitational force). On the right is a map that shows the Magnetic Anomaly (like my map above). Epicenters and moment tensors for these earthquakes are plotted on both maps. The upper-right panel shows how the authors interpret how the faults slipped.


      Sumatra-Wharton Basin Eartquakes

    • Here is an interpretive map that shows the early 21st century Great Earthquakes in the Sumatra-Wharton Basin region. More interpretive maps can be found here.

    Some of the Poster Figures

    • This is the magnetic anomaly map.

    • This is the historic earthquake map.

    • This is the EOS 2012 earthquake map.

    • Tectonic setting of the April 11, 2012 earthquake. Seafloor fault information from Dyment et al. (2007) and Jacob et al. (2009), Satish et al. (2011), Deplus et al. (1998).

    • This is the main figure from Hayes et al. (2013) from the Seismicity of the Earth series. There is a map with the slab contours and seismicity both colored vs. depth. There are also some cross sections of seismicity plotted, with locations shown on the map.

    • This is the map and Time-Space plot (Hayes et al. (2013).

    • These are the gravity and magnetic anomaly maps (Duputel et al., 2012). I include the figure caption below as a blockquote.

    • The 2012 Sumatra great earthquake sequence.(a) Map of the 2012 Sumatra great earthquake region. The 11 April 2012 mainshock can be decomposed into two subevents separated by about 200 km (green mechanisms and circles labeled I and II). The W phase and Global CMT (GCMT solution available in July 2012; Ekstrom et al.,2012.) single-point-source solutions for the mainshock (inset green mechanisms), the W phase solutions for the 10 January foreshock (blue mechanism), for the Mw 8.2 aftershock (yellow mechanism) and for the 5.8 < Mw < 8.2 aftershocks (red mechanisms) are shown. Yellow circles indicate the earthquake epicenters and magnitudes from the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC)catalog between 1 January 1973 and 10 April 2012. Red circles show the events since the Mw 8.6 11 April 2012 earthquake through May 2012. White arrows indicate the direction of motion of the Australian plate relative to the Indian plate at about 13 mm/yr (De Mets et al.,2010). The red triangles on the globe indicate the locations of broadband stations RER and BFO. b) W phase waveforms recorded at station RER (epicentral distance delta = 43, azimuth phi = 235) and BFO(delta = 84, phi = 317) during the 11 Mw 8.6 April 2012 Sumatra earthquake. In each figure, the black trace is the vertical broad-band displacement data and the red trace is the very-long- period displacement data filtered in the 200–1000 s pass band. The W phase, body wave arrivals (P,PP, S,SS) and the Rayleigh wavetrain (R) are indicated.

    • These are the gravity and magnetic anomaly maps (Meng et al., 2012). I include the figure caption below as a blockquote.

    • Spatiotemporal distribution of HF radiation imaged by the (left) European and (right) Japanese networks. Colored circles and squares indicate the positions of primary and secondary peak HF radiation (from movies S1 and S2, respectively). Their size is scaled by beamforming amplitude, and their color indicates timing relative to hypocentral time (color scale in center). The secondary peaks of the MUSIC pseudo-spectrum are those at least 50% as large as the main peak in the same frame. The brown shaded circles in the right figure are the HF radiation peaks from the Mw 8.2 aftershock observed from Japan. The colored contours in the Sumatra subduction zone (left) represent the slip model of the 2004 Mw 9.1 Sumatra earthquake (28). The figure background is colored by the satellite gravity anomaly (left) in milligalileos (mgals) (color scale on bottom left) and the magnetic anomaly (right) in nanoteslas (color scale on bottom right). Black dots are the epicenters of the first day of aftershocks from the U.S. National Earthquake Information Center catalog. The big and small white stars indicate the hypocenter of the mainshock and Mw 8.2 aftershock. The moment tensors of the Mw 8.6 mainshock, Mw 8.2 aftershock, and double CMT solutions of the mainshock are shown as colored pink, yellow, red, and blue beach balls. The red line in the top left inset shows the boundary between the India (IN) and Sundaland (SU) plates (29). The patterned pink area is the diffuse deformation zone between the India and Australia plate. The red rectangular zone indicates the study area. The top right inset shows the interpreted fault planes (gray dashed lines) and rupture directions (colored arrows).

    References:

    • Abercrombie, R.E., Antolik, M., Ekstrom, G., 2003. The June 2000 Mw 7.9 earthquakes south of Sumatra: Deformation in the India–Australia Plate. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 16.
    • Bassin, C., Laske, G. and Masters, G., The Current Limits of Resolution for Surface Wave Tomography in North America, EOS Trans AGU, 81, F897, 2000.
    • Bock, Y., Prawirodirdjo, L., Genrich, J.F., Stevens, C.W., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Puntodewo, S.S.O., Calais, E., 2003. Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B8, 2367, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000324.
    • Bothara, J., Beetham, R.D., Brunston, D., Stannard, M., Brown, R., Hyland, C., Lewis, W., Miller, S., Sanders, R., Sulistio, Y., 2010. General observations of effects of the 30th September 2009 Padang earthquake, Indonesia. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 143-173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S152-S173.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Galetzka, J., 2008. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004981.
    • DEPLUS, C. et al., 1998 – Direct evidence of active derormation in the eastern Indian oceanic plate, Geology.
    • DYMENT, J., CANDE, S.C. & SINGH, S., 2007 – Oceanic lithosphere subducting beneath the Sunda Trench: the Wharton Basin revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 15-20/05.
    • 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.
    • Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, Fransiska, Smoczyk, Gregory, Briggs, Richard, Benz, H.M., Furlong, K.P., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2013. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Sumatra and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-L, scale 1:6,000,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1083/l/.
    • JACOB, J., DYMENT, J., YATHEESH, V. & BHATTACHARYA, G.C., 2009 – Marine magnetic anomalies in the NE Indian Ocean: the Wharton and Central Indian basins revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 19-24/04.
    • Ji, C., D.J. Wald, and D.V. Helmberger, Source description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California earthquake; Part I: Wavelet domain inversion theory and resolution analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol 92, No. 4. pp. 1192-1207, 2002.
    • Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H., Vidale, J.E., 2005. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933.
    • Kanamori, H., Rivera, L., Lee, W.H.K., 2010. Historical seismograms for unravelling a mysterious earthquake: The 1907 Sumatra Earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 183, 358-374.
    • Konca, A.O., Avouac, J., Sladen, A., Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Fang, P., Li, Z., Galetzka, J., Genrich, J., Chlieh, M., Natawidjaja, D.H., Bock, Y., Fielding, E.J., Ji, C., Helmberger, D., 2008. Partial Rupture of a Locked Patch of the Sumatra Megathrust During the 2007 Earthquake Sequence. Nature 456, 631-635.
    • Maus, S., et al., 2009. EMAG2: A 2–arc min resolution Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid compiled from satellite, airborne, and marine magnetic measurements, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q08005, doi:10.1029/2009GC002471.
    • Malik, J.N., Shishikura, M., Echigo, T., Ikeda, Y., Satake, K., Kayanne, H., Sawai, Y., Murty, C.V.R., Dikshit, D., 2011. Geologic evidence for two pre-2004 earthquakes during recent centuries near Port Blair, South Andaman Island, India: Geology, v. 39, p. 559-562.
    • Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B.W., Natawidjaja, D.H., Philobosian, B., Briggs, R.W., Galetzka, J., 2010. Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D. 1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh–Andaman rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, 1-46.
    • Meng, L., Ampuero, J.-P., Stock, J., Duputel, Z., Luo, Y., and Tsai, V.C., 2012. Earthquake in a Maze: Compressional Rupture Branching During the 2012 Mw 8.6 Sumatra Earthquake in Science, v. 337, p. 724-726.
    • Natawidjaja, D.H., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M., Galetzka, J., Suwargadi, B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Avouac, J., Ward, S.N., 2006. Source parameters of the great Sumatran megathrust earthquakes of 1797 and 1833 inferred from coral microatolls. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, 37.
    • Newcomb, K.R., McCann, W.R., 1987. Seismic History and Seismotectonics of the Sunda Arc. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 421-439.
    • Philibosian, B., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B., Hill, E.M., Edwards, R.L., 2012. An ancient shallow slip event on the Mentawai segment of the Sunda megathrust, Sumatra. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, 12.
    • Prawirodirdjo, P., McCaffrey,R., Chadwell, D., Bock, Y, and Subarya, C., 2010. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone: Role of interseismic strain segmentation, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, v. 115, B03414, doi:10.1029/2008JB006139
    • Rivera, L., Sieh, K., Helmberger, D., Natawidjaja, D.H., 2002. A Comparative Study of the Sumatran Subduction-Zone Earthquakes of 1935 and 1984. BSSA 92, 1721-1736.
    • Shearer, P., and Burgmann, R., 2010. Lessons Learned from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Megathrust Rupture, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. v. 38, pp. 103–31
    • SATISH C. S, CARTON H, CHAUHAN A.S., et al., 2011 – Extremely thin crust in the Indian Ocean possibly resulting from Plume-Ridge Interaction, Geophysical Journal International.
    • Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Meltzner, A.J., Shen, C., Cheng, H., Li, K., Suwargadi, B.W., Galetzka, J., Philobosian, B., Edwards, R.L., 2008. Earthquake Supercycles Inferred from Sea-Level Changes Recorded in the Corals of West Sumatra. Science 322, 1674-1678.
    • Singh, S.C., Carton, H.L., Tapponnier, P, Hananto, N.D., Chauhan, A.P.S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J., 2008. Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nature Geoscience, v. 1, pp. 5.
    • Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
    • Sorensen, M.B., Atakan, K., Pulido, N., 2007. Simulated Strong Ground Motions for the Great M 9.3 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004. BSSA 97, S139-S151.
    • Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H., McCaffrey, R., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: Nature, v. 440, p. 46-51.
    • Tolstoy, M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2006. Hydroacoustic contributions to understanding the December 26th 2004 great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake. Survey of Geophysics 27, 633-646.
    • Zhu, Lupei, and Donald V. Helmberger. “Advancement in source estimation techniques using broadband regional seismograms.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86.5 (1996): 1634-1641.

    Earthquake Anniversary: Sumatra-Andaman 2004 M 9.2 & 2005 M 8.6

    On 26 December 2004 there was an earthquake with a magnitude of M 9.2 along the Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone (SASZ). This earthquake is the third largest earthquake ever recorded by modern seismometers and ruptured nearly 2,000 km of the megathrust fault offshore of Sumatra, the Andaman Isles, and the Nicobar Isles. (The 22 may 2960 Chile M 9.5 and 27 March 1964 M 9.2 Good Friday earthquake in Alaska are the first and second largest.) This 2004 M 9.2 earthquake triggered submarine landslides and deformed the seafloor to generate a trans-oceanic tsunami that killed almost a quarter of a million people. A few months later, on 28 March 2005, there was another megathrust earthquake, further to the south, with a magnitude of M 8.6. The M 8.6 earthquake ruptured in a region of the megathrust that had an increase in coulomb stress imparted to it by the M 9.2 earthquake to the north. The increase in stress is small, so for the stress increase to be able to trigger an earthquake, the fault must be within a margin of critical stress prior to the first earthquake in order to be triggered.
    In prior years, I have written some material about the 2004 earthquake, including some observations made by others. Today I prepared an interpretive poster for the 2004 and 2005 SASZ earthquakes (while waking up at my mom’s house, where I was for the holiday; I was driving home to Arcata in 2004 when I heard about the SASZ earthquake.).
    I updated this page for the 2017 anniversary of this 2004 earthquake in some places.

      Here are the USGS websites for these two SASZ earthquakes.

    • 2004.12.26 M 9.2
    • 2005.03.28 M 8.6

      Here is a summary page from IRIS.

    • 2004.12.26 M 9.2

    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 also include the region of the fault slip solution as modeled by the USGS (slightly transparent blue polygons). Note how the 2005 earthquake slips along a section of the fault that is further down-dip compared to the 2004 earthquake. This probably owes to the smaller tsunami triggered by the 2005 earthquake (and the smaller turbidite; Patton et al., 2015).

    • 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. The moment tensor shows northeast-southwest compression, perpendicular to the convergence at this plate boundary. Most of the recent seismicity in this region is associated with convergence along the New Britain trench or the South Solomon trench.
    • 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 MMI contours for both 2004 and 2005 earthquakes.
    • 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. The hypocentral depth plots this close to the location of the fault as mapped by Hayes et al. (2012).

      I include some inset figures in the poster.

    • In the upper left corner, I include a map that shows the extent of historic earthquakes along the SASZ offshore of Sumatra. This map is a culmination of a variety of papers (summarized and presented in Patton et al., 2015).
    • In the upper right corner I include a figure that is presented by Chlieh et al. (2007). These figures show model results from several models. Each model is represented by a map showing the amount that the fault slipped in particular regions. I present this figure below.
    • In the lower right corner I present a figure from Prawirodirdjo et al. (2010). This figure shows the coseismic vertical and horizontal motions from the 2004 and 2005 earthquakes as measured at GPS sites.
    • In the lower left corner are the MMI intensity maps for the two SASZ earthquakes. Note these are at different map scales. I also include the MMI attenuation curves for these earthquakes below the maps. These plots show the reported MMI intensity data as they relate to two plots of modeled estimates (the orange and green lines). These green dots are from the USGS “Did You Feel It?” reports compared to the estimates of ground shaking from Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) estimates. GMPE are empirical relations between earthquakes and recorded seismologic observations from those earthquakes, largely controlled by distance to the fault, ray path (direction and material properties), and site effects (the local geology). When seismic waves propagate through sediment, the magnitude of the ground motions increases in comparison to when seismic waves propagate through bedrock. The orange line is a regression of data for the central and eastern US and the green line is a regression through data from the western US.


    • Here is the USGS poster for this earthquake. These results were put out very soon after the earthquake and later reports made more refined analyses. For example, there are over a dozen earthquake slip models for this earthquake, most all are better than this initial USGS version.

    • Here are the map and attenuation plots as a single figure.

    • Here is a figure that shows the wave height observations from satellites that happened to be passing over the Indian Ocean as the tsunami crossed towards India and Sri Lanka (Shearer and Burgman 2010).

    • This figure from Meltzner et al. (2010) shows measurements of vertical deformation collected from coral microatolls (which are sensitive to the tides, basically, they cannot survive above a certain level of tidal elevation. Read his and related papers to learn more about this method.). These are observations that are independent of GPS data.

    • Here is the source time function from Ishi et al. (2005). Note the similarity between this plot and the above one from Chlieh et al. (2007). These results are more comparable that the slip models we saw earlier.

    • This is from Subarya et al. (2006), an earlier plot, but still similar to Chlieh et al. (2007) and Ishii et al. (2007).

    • This is another estimate published also in 2006 (Tolstoy and Bohnenstiehl, 2006), again showing similarities with the other plots (though this is the most different). There are a number of other examples as well (e.g. Okal).

    • UPDATE 2017: Below is a plot of the seismographs from a global data set, prepared by IRIS and others.

    • This record section plot displays vertical displacements of the Earth’s surface recorded by seismometers plotted with time (since the earthquake initiation) on the horizontal axis, and vertical displacements of the Earth on the vertical axis (note the 1 cm scale bar at the bottom for scale). The traces are arranged by distance from the epicenter in degrees. The earliest, lower amplitude, signal is that of the compressional (P) wave, which takes about 22 minutes to reach the other side of the planet (the antipode). The largest amplitude signals are seismic surface waves that reach the antipode after about 100 minutes. The surface waves can be clearly seen to reinforce near the antipode (with the closest seismic stations in Ecuador), and to subsequently circle the planet to return to the epicentral region after about 200 minutes. A major aftershock (magnitude 7.1) can be seen at the closest stations starting just after the 200 minute mark (note the relative size of this aftershock, which would be considered a major earthquake under ordinary circumstances, compared to the mainshock).

    • UPDATE 2017:This is a video showing a visualization of the seismic waves transmitted from the 2004 SASZ earthquake from IRIS and others.
    • This movie illustrates simulation of seismic wave propagation generated by Dec. 26 Sumatra earthquake. Colors indicate amplitude of vertical displacement at the surface of the Earth. Red is upward and blue is downward. Total duration of this simulation is 20 minutes. Source model we used is that of Chen Ji of Caltech. Simulation was performed by using the Earth Simulator of JAMSTEC.

    • These next two figures from Singh et al. (2008 ) show a map and cross section at the location of the earthquake. The 2004 SASZ earthquake ruptured very deep in a location previously thought to not harbor strain to be accumulated and released during an earthquake.

    • In 2007 Dr. Chris Goldfinger and myself led a coring expedition in this region within Indonesian EEZ and international waters offshore of Sumatra. Our goal was to evaluate the sedimentary record of earthquakes in the form of submarine landslide deposits (called turbidites). We collected over 100 sediment cores and have prepared several papers documenting some of our results (Patton et al., 2013, 2015).
    • I will be preparing a website that documents this 2007 cruise aboard the R/V Roger Revelle. Here is the website. On this website, I provide a link to my research cruise blog, where I documented my cruise in real time. This is the first blog post for the RR0705 cruise.
    • Below is a figure where I present evidence for a sedimentary deposit from the 2004 SASZ earthquake (Patton et al., 2015). Sumner et al. (2013) also present sedimentary evidence for the 2004 earthquake. Especially convincing because they observed computer paper within the turbidite! I include a figure caption below the image in blockquote.

    • The uppermost (2004?) turbidite from cores 96PC and 96TC, plotted as a composite core. A. From left to right: mean particle size, point magnetic susceptibility, CT density, gamma density, turbidite classification, RGB imagery, CT imagery, turbidite structure classification division, depth (cm), turbidite structure (lithologic log), texture, and the lithologic notes are plotted vs. depth. Geophysical logs symbolized as in Figure 2. B. Detailed turbidite structure based on CT imagery. From left to right: i. CT imagery uninterpreted, ii. CT imagery interpreted, iii. Turbidite structure interpretation, iv. Turbidite structure division classification, and v. turbidite structure description. C. Results from smear slide based vertical biostratigraphic transects for core 96PC. Percent biogenic and percent lithologic are plotted vs. depth in m. D. The mean, minimum, and maximum particle size distribution for sediments collected within the uppermost turbidite (in purple) and within hemipelagic sediments underlying the uppermost turbidite (in green) are plotted. These are compared with the combined distributions (in blue).

    • Here is the cross section showing where the earthquake hypocenter is compared to where we think the mantle exists. We have not been here, so nobody actually knows… These interpretations are based on industry deep seismic data (Singh et al., 2008 ).

    • Here is the historic rupture map again. I include a figure caption below that I wrote as blockquote.

    • India-Australia plate subducts northeastwardly beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia) at modern rates (GPS velocities are based on regional modeling of Bock et al, 2003 as plotted in Subarya et al., 2006). Historic earthquake ruptures (Bilham, 2005; Malik et al., 2011) are plotted in orange. 2004 earthquake and 2005 earthquake 5 meter slip contours are plotted in orange and green respectively (Chlieh et al., 2007, 2008). Bengal and Nicobar fans cover structures of the India-Australia plate in the northern part of the map. RR0705 cores are plotted as light blue. SRTM bathymetry and topography is in shaded relief and colored vs. depth/elevation (Smith and Sandwell, 1997).

    • Here is a cross section showing the differences of vertical deformation between the coseismic (during the earthquake) and interseismic (between earthquakes). This diagram was created to explain the deformation observed during the Good Friday Alaska earthquake, but these observations are observed during earthquakes at subduction zones globally.

    • This figure, from Atwater et al. (2005) shows the earthquake deformation cycle and includes the aspect that the uplift deformation of the seafloor can cause a tsunami.

    • Here is the inset figure from Chlieh et al. (2007). I include a figure caption below in blockquote.

    • Observed (black) and Predicted (red) vertical displacements associated to model Ammon-III [Ammon et al. 2005] (A, See figure 5 in the main text), model G-M9.12 (B, figure 6), model G-M9.22 (C, figure 7) and our preferred coseismic model G-M9.15 (D, figure 9 in the main text).

      Here are some pages where I present information about these SASZ earthquakes.

    • 2014.12.21 General Overview of the regional tectonics and SASZ earthquakes
    • 2014.12.25 Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone 2014/12/26: Slip, Deformation, and Energy

      Additional Static Stress Triggering!

    • The 2004/2005 SASZ earthquakes also tended to load strain in the crust in different locations. On 2012.04.11 there was a series of strike-slip earthquakes in the India plate crust to the west of the 2004/2005 earthquakes. The two largest magnitudes for these earthquakes were M 8.6 and M 8.2. The M 8.6 is the largest strike-slip earthquake ever recorded.
    • On 2016.03.22 there was another large strike-slip earthquake in the India-Australia plate. This is probably related to this entire suite of subduction zone and intraplate earthquakes. I presented an interpretive poster about this M 7.8 earthquake here. Below is my interpretive poster for the M 7.8 earthquake. Here is the USGS website for this earthquake.
    • I include a map in the upper right corner that shows the historic earthquake rupture areas.

    • Here is a poster that shows some earthquakes in the Andaman Sea. This is from my earthquake report from 2015.11.08.

    • This map shows the fracture zones in the India-Australia plate.

    • UPDATE 2017: Below is a video from IRIS that discusses the 2004 and 2012 earthquakes.
    • Data released in the Sept 2012 Nature journal yielded new information about the 2012 Sumatra earthquake. Surprising elements of this earthquake include, that it was both the largest intra-plate earthquake and the largest strike-slip earthquake ever recorded, plus the 10th largest earthquake of any kind ever recorded. Not to mention the most complex.
      In 2004 a Magnitude 9.1 interplate subduction earthquake triggered a tsunami that killed over 230,000 people. Yet a nearby magnitude 8.7 intraplate earthquake in 2012, caused little damage and generated minimal ocean waves. Although the earthquakes appeared similar in magnitude and were close in proximity, they were caused by different tectonic processes related to the greater Indo Australian plate.
      This animation describes the different tectonic settings of the two plates, and how the Indo-Australian plate seems destined to become two distinct tectonic plates: the Indian and the Australian plates.
      Yue, Lay, Koper Nature article:
      https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11492
      Animation by Jenda Johnson, Earth Sciences Animated

    References:

    • Atwater, B.F., Yamaguchi, D.K., Bondevik, S., Barnhardt, W.A., Amidon, L.J., Benson, B.E., Skjerdal, G., Shulene, J.A., and Nanalyama ,F., 2001. Rapid resetting of an estuarine recorder of the 1964 Alaska earthquake in Geology, v. 113, no. 9, p. 1193-1204.
    • Bilham, R., 2005. Partial and Complete Rupture of the Indo-Andaman Plate Boundary 1847 – 2004: Seismological Research Letters, v. 76, p. 299-311.
    • Bock, Y., Prawirodirdjo, L., Genrich, J.F., Stevens, C.W., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Puntodewo, S.S.O., Calais, E., 2003. Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B8, 2367, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000324.
    • Briggs, R.W., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D., Galetzka, J., Suwargadi, B., Hsu, Y.-j., Simons, M., Hananto, N., Suprihanto, I., Prayudi, D., Avouac, J.-P., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., 2006. Deformation and Slip Along the Sunda Megathrust in the Great 2005 Nias-Simeulue Earthquake: Science, v. 311, p. 1,897-1,901.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 97, no. 1A, p. S152-S173, doi: 10.1785/0120050631.
    • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Galetzka, J., 2008. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004981.
    • 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
    • Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H., Vidale, J.E., 2005. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933.
    • Malik, J.N., Shishikura, M., Echigo, T., Ikeda, Y., Satake, K., Kayanne, H., Sawai, Y., Murty, C.V.R., Dikshit, D., 2011. Geologic evidence for two pre-2004 earthquakes during recent centuries near Port Blair, South Andaman Island, India: Geology, v. 39, p. 559-562.
    • Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B.W., Natawidjaja, D.H., Philobosian, B., Briggs, R.W., Galetzka, J., 2010. Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D. 1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh–Andaman rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, 1-46.
    • Patton, J. R., Goldfinger, C., Morey, A. E., Romsos, C., Black, B., Djadjadihardja, Y., Udrekh, 2013, Seismoturbidite Record as Preserved at Core Sites at the Cascadia and Sumatra‐Andaman Subduction Zones: : The Offshore Search of Large Holocene Earthquakes: Obergurgl, Austria, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13, p. 833‐867
    • Patton, J. R., Goldfinger, C., Morey, A. E., Ikehara, K., Romsos, C., Stoner, J., Djadjadihardja, Y., Udrekh, Ardhyastuti, S., Gaffar, E.Z., and Viscaino, A. A 6500 year earthquake history in the region of the 2004 Sumatra‐Andaman subduction zone Earthquake, Geosphere, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 1‐62, doi:10.1130/GES01066.1
    • Plafker, G., 1969. Tectonics of the March 27, 1964 Alaska earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 543–I, 74 p., 2 sheets, scales 1:2,000,000 and 1:500,000, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0543i/.
    • Prawirodirdjo, P., McCaffrey,R., Chadwell, D., Bock, Y, and Subarya, C., 2010. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone: Role of interseismic strain segmentation, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, v. 115, B03414, doi:10.1029/2008JB006139
    • Rajendran, C.P., Rajendran, K., Anu, R., Earnest, A., Machado, T., Mohan, P.M., Freymueller, J., 2007. Crustal Deformation and Seismic History Associated with the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake: A Perspective from the Andaman–Nicobar Islands: Bulletin of The Seismological Society of America, v. 97, S174-S191, doi: 10.1785/0120050630.
    • Shearer, P., and Burgmann, R., 2010. Lessons Learned from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Megathrust Rupture, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. v. 38, pp. 103–31
    • Singh, S.C., Carton, H.L., Tapponnier, P, Hananto, N.D., Chauhan, A.P.S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J., 2008. Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nature Geoscience, v. 1, pp. 5.
    • Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
    • Sumner, E., Siti, M., McNeil, L.C., Talling, P.J., Henstock, T., Wynn, R., Djadjadihardja, Y., Permana, H., 2013. Can turbidites be used to reconstruct a paleoearthquake record for the central Sumatran margin?: Geology, v. 41, p. 763-766.
    • Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H., McCaffrey, R., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: Nature, v. 440, p. 46-51.
    • Tolstoy, M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2006. Hydroacoustic contributions to understanding the December 26th 2004 great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake. Survey of Geophysics 27, 633-646.
    • Yue, H., Lay, T., and Koper, K.D., 2012. En échelon and orthogonal fault ruptures of the 11 April 2012 great intraplate earthquakes. in Nature, v. 490, p. 245-249, doi:10.1038/nature11492

    Earthquake Report: Java Sea!

    Last night as I was finishing work for the day, I noticed an earthquake in the Java Sea, just north of western Java. Here is the USGS website for this M 6.6 earthquake. This earthquake is extensional and plots very deep along the subduction zone beneath Java.
    In the map below I plot the epicenters of earthquakes from the past 30 days of magnitude greater than M = 2.5. The epicenters have colors representing depth in km. The USGS plate boundaries are plotted vs color. The USGS modeled estimate for ground shaking is plotted with contours of equal ground shaking using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. 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 placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend in the lower left corner of the map. 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.
    The subduction of the India-Australia plate, northwards beneath the Sunda plate, forms a subduction zone trench (labeled Sunda Trench in the map below). 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. The hypocentral depth plots this close to the location of the fault as mapped by Hayes et al. (2012). So, the earthquake is either in the downgoing slab, or in the upper plate and a result of the seismogenic locked plate transferring the shear strain from a fracture zone in the downgoing plate to the upper plate.
    Today’s earthquake has an hypocentral depth of 415 km, while the slab depth estimate from Hayes et al. (2013) is greater than 620 km. This is a pretty good match. The moment tensor shows northeast-southwest extension, so this earthquake is possibly in the down going slab where there is either down-slab tension (the subducting plate is pulling the plate down, causing extension) or due to “bending moment normal faults” (if the plate is bending downwards, this causes extension in the top of the plate and compression in the lower part of the plate). Based upon these observations, I suspect this earthquake is in the downgoing Indo-Australia plate.

      I include some inset figures.

    • In the upper right corner are some figure insets from Jones et al. (2010). This is a report on the regional seismicity. The panel on the right is a map showing seismicity vs. depth (color of circle) and magnitude (diameter of circle). There are two cross sections (A-A’ and B-B’) that sample seismicity limited to the rectangular boxes shown on the map. The seismicity cross sections show the general location of the India-Australia slab as it subducts beneath the Sunda plate. On the left are legends for the map and the cross sections. I place a yellow circle for the general location of the epicenter of this M 6.6 earthquake.
    • Below Jones et al. (2010), I present two more cross sections of seismicity (Hengesh and Whitney, 2016). The lower right cross section is position in eastern Java.
    • In the lower left corner is a figure I prepared using SRTM (Space Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) bathymetric and topographic data (Smith and Sandwell, 1997). I plot USGS earthquake epicenters for earthquakes with magnitudes greater than, or equal to, M = 6.5, for the period from 1916 to present. Circle diameter represents earthquake magnitude. Plate motion rates are from Bock et al. (2003). Outline of the Bengal and Nicobar fans is from Stow (1990). Relative plate motion along the subduction zone is increasingly oblique, south to north. I place a red circle for the general location of the epicenter of this M 6.6 earthquake.
    • Above the seismicity map is a geodetic-tectonic fault map from Hengesh and Whitney (2016). Seismicity is plotted vs. magnitude (diameter of circle) and depth (color of circle). Relative plate motion and GPS geodetic plate motion rates are plotted as scaled and labeled vectors. I place a red circle for the general location of the epicenter of this M 6.6 earthquake.


    • 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).

    • Here is a figure showing the regional gravity anomalies, supporting the interpretations of Hengesh and Whitney, 2016. I include their figure caption below as a blockquote.

    • Merged free-air and isostatic gravity anomalies and inferred Quaternary active faults along the western margin of Australia [Geoscience Australia, 2009]. Note the association of faults with areas of high gravity anomaly associated with former rift margin basins.

    • Here is a figure showing the tectonic interpretations of Hengesh and Whitney, 2016. I include their figure caption below as a blockquote.

    • 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. [2006]. 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.

      Recent Seismicity

      There have been several large magnitude earthquakes in this part of the Alpide belt in historic times, including some great earthquakes (

      • 2015.11.08 M 6.1 and M 6.4 Earthquakes

      • The interesting things about these two earthquakes is that they are not on the subduction zone fault interface. The M = 6.4 earthquake is shallow (USGS depth = 7.7 km). Note how the subduction zone is mapped to ~120-140 km depth near the M 6.4 earthquake. The Andaman Sea is a region of backarc spreading and forearc sliver faulting. Due to oblique convergence along the Sunda trench, the strain is partitioned between the subduction zone fault and the forearc sliver Sumatra fault. In the Andaman Sea, there is a series of en echelon strike-slip/spreading ridges. The M 6.4 earthquake appears to have slipped along one of these strike-slip faults. I interpret this earthquake to be a right lateral strike-slip earthquake, based upon the faults mapped in this region. The smaller earthquakes align in a west-southwest orientation. These may be earthquakes along the spreading center, or all of these earthquakes may be left lateral strike slip faults aligned with a spreading ridge. More analyses would need to be conducted to really know.
      • Here is a map showing moment tensors for the largest earthquakes since the 26 December 2004 Mw = 9.15 Megathrust Great Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone (SASZ) earthquake. Below is a map showing the earthquake slip contours. The beginning of this series started with the Mw 9.15 and Mw = 8.7 Nias earthquakes. There were some other earthquakes along the Mentawaii patch to the south (Mw = 8.5, 7.9, and 7.0). These were also subduction zone earthquakes, but failed to release the strain that had accumulated since the last large magnitude earthquakes to have slipped in this region in 1797 and 1833. In 2012 we had two strike slip earthquakes in the outer rise, where the India-Australia plate flexes in response to the subduction. At first I interpreted these to be earthquakes on northeast striking faults since those the orientation of the predominant faulting in the region. The I-A plate has many of these N-S striking fracture zones, most notably the Investigator fracture zone (the most easterly faults shown in this map as a pair of strike slip faults that head directly for the epicenter of yesterday’s earthquake). However, considering the aftershocks and a large number of different analyses, these two earthquakes (the two largest strike slip earthquakes EVER recorded!) were deemed to have ruptured northwest striking faults. We called these off fault earthquakes, since the main structural grain is those N-S striking fracture zones. Also of note is the focal depth of these two large earthquakes (Mw 8.2 & 8.6). These earthquakes ruptured well into the mantle. Before the 2004 SASZ earthquake and the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake (which also probably ruptured into the mantle), we would not have expected earthquakes in the mantle.

        While we were at sea offshore Sumatra, there was a CBC (Canada) film maker aboard recording material for a film on Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes. This is a dity that he made for us.

      • link to the embedded video below. (45 mb mp4)
      • YT link to the embedded video below.
      • Here is a map showing the historic earthquake regions. Earthquake slip contours are shown for the 2004 and 2005 earthquakes. Some references for these earthquake sources include: Newcomb and McMann, 1987; Rivera et al., 2002; Abercrombie et al., 2003; Natawidjaja et al., 2006; Konca et al., 2008; Bothara, 2010; Kanamori et al., 2010; Philibosian et al., 2012.


        This map shows the magnitude of these historic earthquakes overlain upon a map showing the magnetic anomalies.

          References:

        • Abercrombie, R.E., Antolik, M., Ekstrom, G., 2003. The June 2000 Mw 7.9 earthquakes south of Sumatra: Deformation in the India–Australia Plate. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 16.
        • Bothara, J., Beetham, R.D., Brunston, D., Stannard, M., Brown, R., Hyland, C., Lewis, W., Miller, S., Sanders, R., Sulistio, Y., 2010. General observations of effects of the 30th September 2009 Padang earthquake, Indonesia. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 143-173.
        • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S152-S173.
        • Harris, R. A. (2006), Rise and fall of the Eastern Great Indonesian arc recorded by the assembly, dispersion and accretion of the Banda Terrane,
          Timor, Gondwana Res., 10, 207–231.
        • Hayes, G. P., D. J. Wald, and R. L. Johnson (2012), Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B01302, doi:10.1029/2011JB008524.
        • Hengesh, J.V. and Whitney, B.B., 2016. Transcurrent reactivation of Australia’s western passive margin: An example of intraplate deformation from the central Indo-Australian plate in Tectonics, v. 35, doi:10.1002/2015TC004103.
        • 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 SurveyOpen-File Report 2010–1083-N, 1 sheet, scale 1:5,000,000,http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20101083N.
        • Kanamori, H., Rivera, L., Lee, W.H.K., 2010. Historical seismograms for unravelling a mysterious earthquake: The 1907 Sumatra Earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 183, 358-374.
        • Konca, A.O., Avouac, J., Sladen, A., Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Fang, P., Li, Z., Galetzka, J., Genrich, J., Chlieh, M., Natawidjaja, D.H., Bock, Y., Fielding, E.J., Ji, C., Helmberger, D., 2008. Partial Rupture of a Locked Patch of the Sumatra Megathrust During the 2007 Earthquake Sequence. Nature 456, 631-635.
        • Lasitha, S., Radhakrishna, M., Sanu, T.D., 2006. Seismically active deformation in the Sumatra–Java trench-arc region: geodynamic implications in Current Science, v. 90, p. 690-696.
        • Natawidjaja, D.H., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M., Galetzka, J., Suwargadi, B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Avouac, J., Ward, S.N., 2006. Source parameters of the great Sumatran megathrust earthquakes of 1797 and 1833 inferred from coral microatolls. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, 37.
        • Newcomb, K.R., McCann, W.R., 1987. Seismic History and Seismotectonics of the Sunda Arc. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 421-439.
        • Philibosian, B., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B., Hill, E.M., Edwards, R.L., 2012. An ancient shallow slip event on the Mentawai segment of the Sunda megathrust, Sumatra. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, 12.
        • Rigg, J. W., and R. Hall (2011), Structural and stratigraphic evolution of the Savu Basin, Indonesia, Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ., 355(1), 225–240.
        • Rivera, L., Sieh, K., Helmberger, D., Natawidjaja, D.H., 2002. A Comparative Study of the Sumatran Subduction-Zone Earthquakes of 1935 and 1984. BSSA 92, 1721-1736.
        • Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Meltzner, A.J., Shen, C., Cheng, H., Li, K., Suwargadi, B.W., Galetzka, J., Philobosian, B., Edwards, R.L., 2008. Earthquake Supercycles Inferred from Sea-Level Changes Recorded in the Corals of West Sumatra. Science 322, 1674-1678.
        • Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
        • 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.
        • Stow, D.A.V., et al., 1990. Sediment facies and processes on the distal Bengal Fan, Leg 116, ODP Texas & M University College Station; UK distributors IPOD Committee NERC Swindon, p. 377-396.

    Earthquake Report: Burma!

    Well, there was an earthquake about 6 hours ago in Burma. This M 6.8 earthquake was rather deep, which is good for the residents of that area (the ground motions diminish with distance from the earthquake hypocenter). Here is the USGS website for this earthquake. This M 6.8 earthquake is possibly soled in the convergent plate boundary thrust fault at the base of the Indo-Burmese Wedge (see maps below). While this M 6.8 earthquake probably won’t result in a large number of casualties, there are reports of damage to buildings and temples. Some live updates on damage in this area are posted here.

    Below is my interpretive map that shows the epicenter, along with the shaking intensity contours. These contours use the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. 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 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 include some inset figures and maps. I also post some of these figures below, along with their original figure captions.

    • In the upper right corner I include the Rapid Assessment of an Earthquake’s Impact (PAGER) report. More on the PAGER program can be found here. An explanation of a PAGER report can be found here. PAGER reports are modeled estimates of damage. On the top is a histogram showing estimated casualties and on the right is an estimate of possible economic losses. This PAGER report suggests that there will be quite a bit of damage from this earthquake (and casualties).
    • In the lower right corner, is a map from Maurin and Rangin (2009) that shows the regional tectonics at a larger scale.
    • In the lower left corner is a map that shows an estimate of the ground motions from a hypothetical earthquake of this magnitude in this location. This shows the shaking intensity and uses the MMI scale mentioned above. The plot to the right shows the reported MMI intensity data as they relate to two plots of modeled estimates (the orange and green lines). These green dots are from the USGS “Did You Feel It?” reports compared to the estimates of ground shaking from Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) estimates. The relations between ground shaking and distance to an earthquake are also known as attenuation relations as the ground motions diminish (get attenuated) with distance from the earthquake.
    • In the upper left corner is a map from Wang et al. (2014) that shows even more details about the faulting in the Indo-Burmese Wedge (IBW) shown in the Maurin and Rangin (2009) map. To the right of this map is a cross section (c-c’ shown on the map) that shows an east-west transect of earthquake hypocenters (Wang et al., 2014).

    Here is the Curray (2005) plate tectonic map.


    Here is a map from Maurin and Rangin (2009) that shows the regional tectonics at a larger scale. They show how the Burma and Sunda plates are configured, along with the major plate boundary faults and tectonic features (ninetyeast ridge). The plate motion vectors for India vs Sunda (I/S) and India vs Burma (I/B) are shown in the middle of the map. Note the Sunda trench is a subduction zone, and the IBW is also a zone of convergence. There is still some debate about the sense of motion of the plate boundary between these two systems. This map shows it as strike slip, though there is evidence that this region slipped as a subduction zone (not strike-slip) during the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone earthquake. I include their figure caption as a blockquote below.


    Structural fabric of the Bay of Bengal with its present kinematic setting. Shaded background is the gravity map from Sandwell and Smith [1997]. Fractures and magnetic anomalies in black color are from Desa et al.[2006]. Dashed black lines are inferred oceanic fracture zones which directions are deduced from Desa et al. in the Bay of Bengal and from the gravity map east of the 90E Ridge. We have flagged particularly the 90E and the 85E ridges (thick black lines). Gray arrow shows the Indo-Burmese Wedge (indicated as a white and blue hatched area) growth direction discussed in this paper. For kinematics, black arrows show the motion of the India Plate with respect to the Burma Plate and to the Sunda Plate (I/B and I/S, respectively). The Eurasia, Burma, and Sunda plates are represented in green, blue, and red, respectively.

    Wang et al. (2014) also have a very detailed map showing historic earthquakes along the major fault systems in this region. They also interpret the plate boundary into different sections, with different ratios of convergence:shear. I include their figure caption as a blockquote below.


    Simplified neotectonic map of the Myanmar region. Black lines encompass the six neotectonic domains that we have defined. Green and Yellow dots show epicenters of the major twentieth century earthquakes (source: Engdahl and Villasenor [2002]). Green and yellow beach balls are focal mechanisms of significant modern earthquakes (source: GCMT database since 1976). Pink arrows show the relative plate motion between the Indian and Burma plates modified from several plate motion models [Kreemer et al., 2003a; Socquet et al., 2006; DeMets et al., 2010]. The major faults west of the eastern Himalayan syntax are adapted from Leloup et al. [1995] and Tapponnier et al. [2001]. Yellow triangle shows the uncertainty of Indian-Burma plate-motion direction.

    Here is a map from Wang et al. (2014) that shows even more details about the faulting in the IBW. Today’s fault occurred nearby the CMf label. I include their figure caption as a blockquote below. Wang et al. (2014) found evidence for active faulting in the form of shutter ridges and an offset alluvial fan. Shutter ridges are mountain ridges that get offset during a strike-slip earthquake and look like window shutters. This geologic evidence is consistent with the moment tensor from today’s earthquake. There is a cross section (C-C’) that is plotted at about 22 degrees North (we can compare this with the Maurin and Rangin (2009) cross section if we like).


    Figure 6. (a) Active faults and anticlines of the Dhaka domain superimposed on SRTM topography. Most of the active anticlines lie within 120 km of the deformation front. Red lines are structures that we interpret to be active. Black lines are structures that we consider to be inactive. CT = Comilla Tract. White boxes contain the dates and magnitudes of earthquakes mentioned in the text. CMf = Churachandpur-Mao fault; SM = St. Martin’s island antilcline; Da = Dakshin Nila anticline; M= Maheshkhali anticline; J = Jaldi anticline; P = Patiya anticline; Si = Sitakund anticline; SW= Sandwip anticline; L = Lalmai anticline; H = Habiganj anticline; R = Rashidpur anticline; F = Fenchunganj anticline; Ha = Hararganj anticline; Pa = Patharia anticline. (b) Profile from SRTM topography of Sandwip Island.

    Here is the Wang et al. (2014) cross section. I include their figure caption as a blockquote below.


    Schematic cross sections through two domains of the northern Sunda megathrust show the geometry of the megathrust and hanging wall structures. Symbols as in Figure 18. (a) The megathrust along the Dhaka domain dips very shallowly and has secondary active thrust faults within 120 km of the deformation front. See Figures 2 and 6 for profile location.

    Here is a different cross section that shows how they interpret this plate boundary to have an oblique sense of motion (it is a subduction zone with some strike slip motion). Typically, these different senses of motion would be partitioned into different fault systems (read about forearc sliver faults, like the Sumatra fault. I mention this in my report about the earthquakes in the Andaman Sea from 2015.07.02). This cross section is further to the south than the one on the interpretation map above. I include their figure caption as a blockquote below.


    Present cross section based on industrial multichannel seismics and field observations. The seismicity from USGS catalog and Engdahl [2002] is represented as black dots. Focal mechanisms from Global CMT (http://www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html) catalog are also represented.

      For the January 2016 earthquake, Jascha Polet made these two figures:

    • Here is a cross section that shows seismicity for this region. The earthquakes are plotted as focal mechanisms. This comes from Jacha Polet, Professor of Geophysics at Cal Poly Pomona.

    • Here is a map showing the seismicity and focal mechanisms, also from Jacha Polet.

    Earthquake Report: Sumatra!

    We just had a M = 7.8 earthquake southwest of the Island of Sumatra, a volcanic arc formed from the subduction of the India-Australia plate beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia). Here is the USGS website for this earthquake.
    Here is my preliminary earthquake report poster. I will update this after class.
    I have presented materials related to the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone earthquake here and more here.
    I include a map in the upper right corner that shows the historic earthquake rupture areas.


    Here is a poster that shows some earthquakes in the Andaman Sea. This is from my earthquake report from 2015.11.08.


    This map shows the fracture zones in the India-Australia plate.

    Earthquake Report: Nicobar Isles and Sumatra!

    This past 24 hours include two large earthquakes in the region of the Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone offshore of Sumatra. Here is a map using the USGS online GIS interface.

      Here are the two large earthquakes posted on the USGS websites:

    • 2015.11.08 M 6.4
    • 2015.11.08 M 6.1

    Below is a map that I prepared with the seismicity from the past week, as well as the seismicity since 1900 with earthquakes of magnitude greater than M = 7.5. I plot the slab contours (these show the depth where we think that the subduction zone fault is located; Hayes et al., 2012). I plot the moment tensors (read more below about mt data) for these two earthquakes, along with the moment tensors from four significant earthquakes since ~2004. The 2004.12.26 and 2005.03.28 earthquakes are subduction zone earthquakes. The 2012.04.11 earthquakes are the largest strike slip earthquakes ever recorded on modern seismometers. While the tectonic fabric in the India plate is dominated by north-south fracture zones (see the blue line to the right of the label “Sunda trench”), these two M~8+ earthquakes ruptured east-west faults. The oceanic crust is very thick in the region of the Ninteyeast Ridge (thought to have thickened as the crust traveled over a hot spot).
    I placed a moment tensor / focal mechanism legend in the upper right corner of the map. 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.


    The interesting things about these two earthquakes is that they are not on the subduction zone fault interface. The M = 6.4 earthquake is shallow (USGS depth = 7.7 km). Note how the subduction zone is mapped to ~120-140 km depth near the M 6.4 earthquake. The Andaman Sea is a region of backarc spreading and forearc sliver faulting. Due to oblique convergence along the Sunda trench, the strain is partitioned between the subduction zone fault and the forearc sliver Sumatra fault. In the Andaman Sea, there is a series of en echelon strike-slip/spreading ridges. The M 6.4 earthquake appears to have slipped along one of these strike-slip faults. I interpret this earthquake to be a right lateral strike-slip earthquake, based upon the faults mapped in this region. The smaller earthquakes align in a west-southwest orientation. These may be earthquakes along the spreading center, or all of these earthquakes may be left lateral strike slip faults aligned with a spreading ridge. More analyses would need to be conducted to really know.
    In May 2015, there was another Andaman Sea earthquake. Here is my report for that M 5.8 earthquake. Below is a map of the region. The M 5.8 did not have a moment tensor nor focal mechanism calculated, but I placed a generic strike-slip focal mechanism in an orientation that aligns with transform plate boundary that likely ruptured during this earthquake. The M 5.8 epicenter is depicted by a red and black star. I pose that this was a right-lateral strike slip earthquake along a transform plate boundary (shown in blue). Note that I have also added updated fault locations in this area, based upon seismicity (the USGS located plate boundaries are not quite correct; mine are imperfect too, but are consistent with the seismicity). The USGS fault lines have a stepped appearance and the ones that I drew look more smooth.
    I placed moment tensors for some of the largest earthquakes in this region. The 2009 and 2008 earthquakes in the northwest are extensional, so are probably in the downgoing India plate (extension from bending of the plate or slab pull). The 2010 and 2005 earthquakes in the southwest are strike-slip and may be due to the oblique subduction (strain partitioning).


    Here is a graphic that depicts how a sliver fault accommodates the strain partitioning from oblique subduction.


    The M = 6.1 earthquake is a deep earthquake, based upon its USGS hypocentral depth of 75 km. The slab depth in this region is about 70 km, so this is close to the megathrust. However, these slab contours are mostly based upon seismicity, so there is considerable uncertainty regarding the precise location of the fault (Hayes et al., 2012).
    Here is a map that I just put together that shows the historic earthquakes along the Suamtra-Andaman subduction zone. Compiled multiband single beam bathymetry and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) topography is in shaded relief and colored vs. depth (Smith and Sandwell, 1997, Graindorge et al., 2008; Ladage et al., 2006).The India-Australia plate subducts northeastward beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia; sz–subduction zone). Orange vectors plot India plate movement relative to Sunda, and black vectors plot Australia relative to Sunda (global positioning system velocity based on Nuvel-1A; Bock et al., 2003; Subarya et al., 2006). Historic ruptures (Bilham, 2005; Malik et al., 2011) are plotted in grey, calendar years are in white. The 2004 and 2005 slip contours are shown orange and green, respectively (Chlieh et al., 2007, fig. 11 therein; Chlieh et al., 2008, figure 20 therein). Bengal and Nicobar fans cover structures of the India-Australia plate in the northern part of the map; are dashed black lines delimit their southern boundaries (Stow et al., 1990). The 2004 and 2005 earthquake focal mechanisms are plotted.

    This figure from Meltzner et al. (2010) shows measurements of vertical deformation collected from coral microatolls (which are sensitive to the tides, basically, they cannot survive above a certain level of tidal elevation. Read his and related papers to learn more about this method.). These are observations that are independent of GPS data. I include this figure because it shows the complicated tectonic setting. Note all the different strike-slip and extensional faulting north of Sumatra. These faults are from Curray (2005).


    Here is a map where I plot the USGS Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) contours for these two M 6.4 and 6.1 earthquakes. These are estimates of ground shaking based upon Ground Motion Prediction Equations, empirical relations between shaking intensity and distance to the earthquake.


    Here is one example of the MMI scale from the wiki site.

      These are the two “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) maps for these two earthquakes. The DYFI maps are based on real observations, not models. Compare these maps with the above MMI Contour map.

    • M 6.4 strike-slip

    • M 6.1 normal

      Here are the attenuation plots comparing the DYFI and MMI model based estimates of ground shaking.

    • M 6.4 strike-slip

    • M 6.1 normal

    Here are the USGS web pages for the earthquakes I will discuss below:

    Here are a couple posts I put together regarding the initial instigator to this entire series of earthquakes (Mw = 9.15) and then the two largest strike slip earthquakes ever recorded (Mw = 82 and 8.6).

    Here is a map showing moment tensors for the largest earthquakes since the 26 December 2004 Mw = 9.15 Megathrust Great Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone (SASZ) earthquake. Below is a map showing the earthquake slip contours. The beginning of this series started with the Mw 9.15 and Mw = 8.7 Nias earthquakes. There were some other earthquakes along the Mentawaii patch to the south (Mw = 8.5, 7.9, and 7.0). These were also subduction zone earthquakes, but failed to release the strain that had accumulated since the last large magnitude earthquakes to have slipped in this region in 1797 and 1833. In 2012 we had two strike slip earthquakes in the outer rise, where the India-Australia plate flexes in response to the subduction. At first I interpreted these to be earthquakes on northeast striking faults since those the orientation of the predominant faulting in the region. The I-A plate has many of these N-S striking fracture zones, most notably the Investigator fracture zone (the most easterly faults shown in this map as a pair of strike slip faults that head directly for the epicenter of yesterday’s earthquake). However, considering the aftershocks and a large number of different analyses, these two earthquakes (the two largest strike slip earthquakes EVER recorded!) were deemed to have ruptured northwest striking faults. We called these off fault earthquakes, since the main structural grain is those N-S striking fracture zones. Also of note is the focal depth of these two large earthquakes (Mw 8.2 & 8.6). These earthquakes ruptured well into the mantle. Before the 2004 SASZ earthquake and the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake (which also probably ruptured into the mantle), we would not have expected earthquakes in the mantle.

      While we were at sea offshore Sumatra, there was a CBC (Canada) film maker aboard recording material for a film on Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes. This is a dity that he made for us.

    • link to the embedded video below. (45 mb mp4)
    • YT link to the embedded video below.
      • References:

      • Bilham, R., 2005. Partial and Complete Rupture of the Indo-Andaman Plate Boundary 1847 – 2004: Seismological Research Letters, v. 76, p. 299-311.
      • Bock, Y., Prawirodirdjo, L., Genrich, J.F., Stevens, C.W., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Puntodewo, S.S.O., Calais, E., 2003. Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B8, 2367, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000324.
      • Curray, J. R., 2005. Tectonics and history of the Andaman Sea region, J. Asian Earth Sci., 25, 187–232, doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2004.09.001.
      • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S152-S173.
      • Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Galetzka, J., 2008. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004981.
      • Graindorge , D., Klingelhoefer, F., Sibuet, J.-C., McNeill , L., Henstock, T.J., Dean, S., Gutscher, M.-A., Dessa, J.X., Permana, H., Singh, S.C., Leau, H., White, N., Carton, H., Malod, J.A., Rangin, C., Aryawan, K.G., Chaubey, A.K., Chauhan, A., Galih, D.R., Greenroyd, C.J., Laesanpura, A., Prihantono, J., Royle, G., Shankar, U., 2008. Impact of lower plate structure on upper plate deformation at the NW Sumatran convergent margin from seafloor morphology: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 275, p. 201-210.
      • Hayes, G. P., D. J. Wald, and R. L. Johnson (2012), Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B01302, doi:10.1029/2011JB008524.
      • Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H., Vidale, J.E., 2005. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933.
      • Malik, J.N., Shishikura, M., Echigo, T., Ikeda, Y., Satake, K., Kayanne, H., Sawai, Y., Murty, C.V.R., Dikshit, D., 2011. Geologic evidence for two pre-2004 earthquakes during recent centuries near Port Blair, South Andaman Island, India: Geology, v. 39, p. 559-562.
      • Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B.W., Natawidjaja, D.H., Philobosian, B., Briggs, R.W., Galetzka, J., 2010. Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D. 1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh–Andaman rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, 1-46.
      • Patton, J.R., Goldfinger, C., Morey, A.E., Ikehara, K., Romsos, C., Stoner, J., Djadjadihardja, Y., Udrekh, Ardhyastuti, S., Gaffar, E.Z., and Vizcaino, A., 2015. A 6500 year earthquake history in the region of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone earthquake: Geosphere, v. 11, no. 6, p. 1–62, doi:10.1130/GES01066.1.
      • Prawirodirdjo, P., McCaffrey,R., Chadwell, D., Bock, Y, and Subarya, C., 2010. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone: Role of interseismic strain segmentation, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, v. 115, B03414, doi:10.1029/2008JB006139
      • Singh, S.C., Carton, H.L., Tapponnier, P, Hananto, N.D., Chauhan, A.P.S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J., 2008. Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nature Geoscience, v. 1, pp. 5.
      • Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
      • Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H., McCaffrey, R., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: Nature, v. 440, p. 46-51.
      • Stow, D.A.V., et al., 1990. Sediment facies and processes on the distal Bengal Fan, Leg 116, ODP Texas & M University College Station; UK distributors IPOD Committee NERC Swindon, p. 377-396.
      • Tolstoy, M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2006. Hydroacoustic contributions to understanding the December 26th 2004 great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake. Survey of Geophysics 27, 633-646.

    Plate Tectonics: 200 Ma

    Gibbons and others (2015) have put together a suite of geologic data (e.g. ages of geologic units, fossils), plate motion data (geometry of plates and ocean ridge spreading rates), and plate tectonic data (initiation and cessation of subduction or collision, obduction of ophiolites) to create a global plate tectonic map that spans the past 200 million years (Ma). Here is the facebook post that I first saw to include this video.
    Here is a view of their tectonic map at a specific time.


    Gibbons et al. (2015) created several animations using their plate tectonic model. I have embedded both of these videos below. Other versions of these files are placed on the NOAA Science on a Sphere Program website.

    They also compare their model with P-wave tomographic analytical results. P-Wave tomography works similar to CT-scans. CT-scans are the the result of integrating X-Ray data, from many 3-D orientations, to model the 3-D spatial variations in density. “CT” is an acronym for “computed tomography.” Both are kinds of tomography. Here is a book about seismic tomography. Here is a paper from Goes et al. (2002) that discusses their model of the thermal structure of the uppermost mantle in North America as inferred from seismic tomography.
    Here is an illustration from the wiki page that that attempts to help us visualize what tomography is.


    P-Wave tomography uses Seismic P-Waves to model the 3-D spatial variation of Earth’s internal structure. P-Wave tomography is similar to Computed-Tomography of X-Rays because the P-wave sources are also in different spatial locations. For CT-scans, the variation in density is inferred with the model. For P-Wave tomography, the variation in seismic velocity. Typically, when seismic waves travel faster, they are travelling through old, cold, and more dense crust/lithosphere/mantle. Likewise, when seismic waves travel slower, they are travelling through relatively young, hot, and less dense crust/lithosphere/mantle.
    Regions of Earth’s interior that have faster seismic velocities are often plotted in blue. Regions that have slower velocities are often plotted in red.
    Here are their plots showing the velocity perturbation (faster or slower). I include the figure caption below the image.



    Plate reconstructions superimposed on age-coded depth slices from P-wave seismic tomography (Li et al., 2008) using first-order assumptions of near-vertical slab sinking, with a) 3.0 and 1.2 cm/yr constant sinking rates in the upper and lower mantle, respectively, following Zahirovic et al. (2012), and b) 5.0 and 2.0 cm/yr upper and lower mantle sinking rates, respectively, following Replumaz et al. (2004). Both end-member sinking rates indicate bands of slab material (blue, S1–S2) offset southward from the Andean-style subduction zone along southern Lhasa, consistentwith the interpretations of Tethyan subducted slabs by Hafkenscheid et al. (2006). However, although the P-wave tomography provides higher resolution than S-wave tomography, the amplitude of the velocity perturbation is significantly lower in oceanic regions (e.g., S2) and the southern hemisphere due to continental sampling biases. Orthographic projection centered on 0°N, 90°E.