Earthquake Report: M 6.1 Turkey

There was a damaging earthquake in Turkey yesterday, a magnitude M 6.1.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000irp8/executive

The seismic hazards of this region of the Earth is dominated by a plate boundary fault, the North Anatolia fault (NAF).

The NAF is a right-lateral strike-slip earthquake fault that has a slip rate of about 24 mm/yr. This fault is similar in fault type and slip rate to the San Andreas fault in California.

There have been a series of large earthquakes along the NAF in the 20th century. See the poster below that highlights the 1999 M 7.6 Izmit Earthquake.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

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

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

  • In the upper left corner is a map that shows the tectonic strain in the region. Areas of red are deforming more from tectonic motion than are areas that are blue. Learn more about the Global Strain Rate Map project here.
  • In the upper right corner is a comparison of the shaking intensity modeled by the USGS and the shaking intensity based on peoples’ “boots on the ground” observations. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. A modeled estimate of intensity is shown by the color overlay and labels MMI 4, 5, 6, 7. The USGS Did You Feel It observations are the colored circles (color = intensity) and labeled dyfi 6.2 for example.
  • Below the strain map is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
  • To the left of the intensity map is a tectonic map from Taymaz et al., 2007 that shows the main plate boundary faults and their relative senses of motion.
  • To the left of the tectonic map is a plot from Stein et al. (1997) that shows the slip from these 20th century earthquakes along the NAF.
  • To the left of the Stein figure are two histograms from the USGS PAGER Alert system. These are rapid estimates of the potential damage from this earthquake. These data help organizations understand what response programs need to be utilized to help the people in this region following this earthquake.
  • In the center right is a map from the Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe program, which shows the chance for ground shaking from earthquakes over the next 50 years.
  • In the lower right corner is a larger scale map showing the tectonic geomorphology of the region (how the landscape is sculpted by tectonic forces). This map has aftershocks from the CSEM-EMSC catalog.
  • To the right of the legend are two maps that show (left) liquefaction susceptibility and (right) landslide probability. These are based on empirical models from the USGS that show the chance an area may have experienced these processes that may have happened as a result of the ground shaking from the earthquake. I spend more time explaining these types of models and what they represent in this Earthquake Report for the recent event in Albania.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • This is the plate tectonic map from Armijo et al., 1999.

  • Tectonic setting of continental extrusion in eastern Mediterranean. Anatolia-Aegean block escapes westward from Arabia-Eurasia collision zone, toward Hellenic subduction zone. Current motion relative to Eurasia (GPS [Global Positioning System] and SLR [Satellite Laser Ranging] velocity vectors, in mm/yr, from Reilinger et al., 1997). In Aegean, two deformation regimes are superimposed (Armijo et al., 1996): widespread, slow extension starting earlier (orange stripes, white diverging arrows), and more localized, fast transtension associated with later, westward propagation of North Anatolian fault (NAF). EAF—East Anatolian fault, K—Karliova triple junction, DSF—Dead Sea fault,NAT—North Aegean Trough, CR—Corinth Rift.Box outlines Marmara pull-apart region, where North Anatolian fault enters Aegean.

  • Here is the tectonic map from Dilek and Sandvol (2009).

  • Tectonic map of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean region showing the main plate boundaries, major suture zones, fault systems and tectonic units. Thick, white arrows depict the direction and magnitude (mm a21) of plate convergence; grey arrows mark the direction of extension (Miocene–Recent). Orange and purple delineate Eurasian and African plate affinities, respectively. Key to lettering: BF, Burdur fault; CACC, Central Anatolian Crystalline Complex; DKF, Datc¸a–Kale fault (part of the SW Anatolian Shear Zone); EAFZ, East Anatolian fault zone; EF, Ecemis fault; EKP, Erzurum–Kars Plateau; IASZ, Izmir–Ankara suture zone; IPS, Intra–Pontide suture zone; ITS, Inner–Tauride suture; KF, Kefalonia fault; KOTJ, Karliova triple junction; MM, Menderes massif; MS, Marmara Sea; MTR, Maras triple junction; NAFZ, North Anatolian fault zone; OF, Ovacik fault; PSF, Pampak–Sevan fault; TF, Tutak fault; TGF, Tuzgo¨lu¨ fault; TIP, Turkish–Iranian plateau (modified from Dilek 2006).

  • This is the Woudloper (2009) tectonic map of the Mediterranean Sea. The yellow/orange band represents the Alpide Belt, a convergent plate boundary that extends from western Europe, through the Middle East, beneath northern India and Nepal (forming the Himalayas), through Indonesia, terminating east of Australia.

  • This is a fantastic figure, yet quite complicated. This map shows teh plate boundaries, the GPS motions, and the tectonic strain for the region (Perouse et al., 2012).
  • We use GPS sites at specific locations to measure how fast the Earth’s crust moves due to plate tectonics and other reasons. These GPS sites are almost constantly recording their geographic position. If a GPS site is moving, we can take two observations (lets say a year apart), measure their relative distance, and divide the time between the measurements to get the velocity (the speed) that this GPS site is moving. The white vectors (the arrows) show the direction those GPS sites are moving and the length of the vector represents its velocity. The black arrows show what the plate motion rates are at the plate boundaries and these are modeled using lots of different data sources (not just GPS).
  • Tectonic strain is a measure of how much the Earth’s crust is deforming over time. The higher the tectonic strain rate (i.e. red), the more tectonic stress is being accumulated in the crust and along faults. Areas of higher strain are places where there are more likely to be larger or more (or both) earthquakes.

  • Present-day kinematic and tectonic map encompassing the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, summarizing our main results and interpretations. Our kinematic model includes rigid-block motions as well as localized and distributed strain. Central-SW Aegean block (CSW AEG block) and East Anatolian block (East Anat. block) are purely kinematic and directly results from strain modeling (Figure 5). AP-IO Block is our Apulian-Ionian block with tentative tectonic boundaries. Rotation pole of this Apulian-Ionian block relative to Nubia (Nu WAp-Io) and to Eurasia (Eu WAp-Io) are shown with their 95% confidence ellipse.

  • Below is a series of figures from Jolivet et al. (2013). These show various data sets and analyses for Greece and Turkey.
  • Upper Panel (A): This is a tectonic map showing the major faults and geologic terranes in the region. The fault possibly associated with today’s earthquake is labeled “Neo Tethys Suture” on the map, for the Eastern Anatolia fault.
  • Lower Panel (B): This shows historic seismicity for the region. Note the general correlation with the faults in the upper panel.

  • A: Tectonic map of the Aegean and Anatolian region showing the main active structures
    (black lines), the main sutures zones (thick violet or blue lines), the main thrusts in the Hellenides where they have not been reworked by later extension (thin blue lines), the North Cycladic Detachment (NCDS, in red) and its extension in the Simav Detachment (SD), the main metamorphic units and their contacts; AlW: Almyropotamos window; BD: Bey Daglari; CB: Cycladic Basement; CBBT: Cycladic Basement basal thrust; CBS: Cycladic Blueschists; CHSZ: Central Hellenic Shear Zone; CR: Corinth Rift; CRMC: Central Rhodope Metamorphic Complex; GT: Gavrovo–Tripolitza Nappe; KD: Kazdag dome; KeD: Kerdylion Detachment; KKD: Kesebir–Kardamos dome; KT: Kephalonia Transform Fault; LN: Lycian Nappes; LNBT: Lycian Nappes Basal Thrust; MCC: Metamorphic Core Complex; MG: Menderes Grabens; NAT: North Aegean Trough; NCDS: North Cycladic Detachment System; NSZ: Nestos Shear Zone; OlW: Olympos Window; OsW: Ossa Window; OSZ: Ören Shear Zone; Pel.: Peloponnese; ÖU: Ören Unit; PQN: Phyllite–Quartzite Nappe; SiD: Simav Detachment; SRCC: South Rhodope Core Complex; StD: Strymon Detachment; WCDS: West Cycladic Detachment System; ZD: Zaroukla Detachment. B: Seismicity. Earthquakes are taken from the USGS-NEIC database. Colour of symbols gives the depth (blue for shallow depths) and size gives the magnitude (from 4.5 to 7.6).

  • Upper Panel (C): These red arrows are Global Positioning System (GPS) velocity vectors. The velocity scale vector is in the lower left corner. The main geodetic (study of plate motions and deformation of the earth) signal here is the westward motion of the North Anatolian fault system as it rotates southward as it traverses Greece. The motion trends almost south near the island of Crete, which is perpendicular to the subduction zone.
  • Lower Panel (D): This map shows the region of mid-Cenozoic (Oligo-Miocene) extension (shaded orange). It just happens that there is still extension going on in parts of this prehistoric extension.

  • C: GPS velocity field with a fixed Eurasia after Reilinger et al. (2010) D: the domain affected by distributed post-orogenic extension in the Oligocene and the Miocene and the stretching lineations in the exhumed metamorphic complexes.

  • Upper Panel (E): This map shows where the downgoing slab may be located (in blue), along with the volcanic centers associated with the subduction zone in the past.
  • Lower Panel (F): This map shows the orientation of how seismic waves orient themselves differently in different places (anisotropy). We think seismic waves travel in ways that reflects how tectonic strain is stored in the earth. The blue lines show the direction of extension in the asthenosphere, green lines in the lithospheric mantle, and red lines for the crust.

  • E: The thick blue lines illustrate the schematized position of the slab at ~150 km according to the tomographic model of Piromallo and Morelli (2003), and show the disruption of the slab at three positions and possible ages of these tears discussed in the text. Velocity anomalies are displayed in percentages with respect to the reference model sp6 (Morelli and Dziewonski, 1993). Coloured symbols represent the volcanic centres between 0 and 3 Ma after Pe-Piper and Piper (2006). F: Seismic anisotropy obtained from SKS waves (blue bars, Paul et al., 2010) and Rayleigh waves (green and orange bars, Endrun et al., 2011). See also Sandvol et al. (2003). Blue lines show the direction of stretching in the asthenosphere, green bars represent the stretching in the lithospheric mantle and orange bars in the lower crust.

  • Upper Panel (G): This is the map showing focal mechanisms in the poster above. Note the strike slip earthquakes associated with the North Anatolia and East Anatolia faults and the thrust/reverse mechanisms associated with the thrust faults.

  • G: Focal mechanisms of earthquakes over the Aegean Anatolian region.

  • Here is a map showing tectonic domains (Taymaz et al., 2007).

  • Schematic map of the principal tectonic settings in the Eastern Mediterranean. Hatching shows areas of coherent motion and zones of distributed deformation. Large arrows designate generalized regional motion (in mm a21) and errors (recompiled after McClusky et al. (2000, 2003). NAF, North Anatolian Fault; EAF, East Anatolian Fault; DSF, Dead Sea Fault; NEAF, North East Anatolian Fault; EPF, Ezinepazarı Fault; CTF, Cephalonia Transform Fault; PTF, Paphos Transform Fault.

  • Because this 1999 earthquake is important for many reasons, I will be writing up an Earthquake Report for that event sometime soon. In the meantime, here is a poster I put together for that event.
  • Of particular note is that this August earthquake generated a small tsunami. I use this in my tsunami talks to highlight how there are non-traditional tsunami sources that need to be considered when mitigating tsunami hazards. Even though this tsunami was only a couple meters high, that is enough to damage harbors, boats, and people.

    Earthquake Triggered Landslides

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

    FOS = Resisting Force / Driving Force

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

  • Landslide ground shaking can change the Factor of Safety in several ways that might increase the driving force or decrease the resisting force. Keefer (1984) studied a global data set of earthquake triggered landslides and found that larger earthquakes trigger larger and more numerous landslides across a larger area than do smaller earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause landslides because the seismic waves can cause the driving force to increase (the earthquake motions can “push” the land downwards), leading to a landslide. In addition, ground shaking can change the strength of these earth materials (a form of resisting force) with a process called liquefaction.
  • Sediment or soil strength is based upon the ability for sediment particles to push against each other without moving. This is a combination of friction and the forces exerted between these particles. This is loosely what we call the “angle of internal friction.” Liquefaction is a process by which pore pressure increases cause water to push out against the sediment particles so that they are no longer touching.
  • An analogy that some may be familiar with relates to a visit to the beach. When one is walking on the wet sand near the shoreline, the sand may hold the weight of our body generally pretty well. However, if we stop and vibrate our feet back and forth, this causes pore pressure to increase and we sink into the sand as the sand liquefies. Or, at least our feet sink into the sand.
  • Below is a diagram showing how an increase in pore pressure can push against the sediment particles so that they are not touching any more. This allows the particles to move around and this is why our feet sink in the sand in the analogy above. This is also what changes the strength of earth materials such that a landslide can be triggered.

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

  • Here is an excellent educational video from IRIS and a variety of organizations. The video helps us learn about how earthquake intensity gets smaller with distance from an earthquake. The concept of liquefaction is reviewed and we learn how different types of bedrock and underlying earth materials can affect the severity of ground shaking in a given location. The intensity map above is based on a model that relates intensity with distance to the earthquake, but does not incorporate changes in material properties as the video below mentions is an important factor that can increase intensity in places.
  • If we look at the map at the top of this report, we might imagine that because the areas close to the fault shake more strongly, there may be more landslides in those areas. This is probably true at first order, but the variation in material properties and water content also control where landslides might occur.
  • There are landslide slope stability and liquefaction susceptibility models based on empirical data from past earthquakes. The USGS has recently incorporated these types of analyses into their earthquake event pages. More about these USGS models can be found on this page.
  • Below is a figure that shows both landslide probability and liquefaction susceptibility maps for this M 6.1 earthquake.
  • For the first time, I include maps that show the uncertainty in these ground failure models. The larger the uncertainty is shown in red and the lower the uncertainty is shown in blue. I cut off the symbology at 0.1%.

Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

  • These are the two seismic maps from the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) project, 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 Europe.

    • The USGS Seismic Hazard Map:
    • Here is a map that displays an estimate of seismic hazard for the region (Jenkins et al., 2010). This comes from Giardini et al. (1999).

    • The Global Seismic Hazard Map. Peak ground acceleration (pga) with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years is depicted in m/s2. The site classification is rock everywhere except Canada and the United States, which assume rock/firm soil site classifications. White and green correspond to low seismicity hazard (0%-8%g), yellow and orange correspond to moderate seismic hazard (8%-24%g), pink and dark pink correspond to high seismicity hazard (24%-40%g), and red and brown correspond to very high seismic hazard (greater than 40%g).

    • 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 Europe.

    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

  • Basili R., G. Valensise, P. Vannoli, P. Burrato, U. Fracassi, S. Mariano, M.M. Tiberti, E. Boschi (2008), The Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), version 3: summarizing 20 years of research on Italy’s earthquake geology, Tectonophysics, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2007.04.014
  • Brun, J.-P., Sokoutis, D., 2012. 45 m.y. of Aegean crust and mantle flow driven by trench retreat. Geol. Soc. Am., v. 38, p. 815–818.
  • Caputo, R., Chatzipetros, A., Pavlides, S., and Sboras, S., 2012. The Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources (GreDaSS): state-of-the-art for northern Greece in Annals of Geophysics, v. 55, no. 5, doi: 10.4401/ag-5168
  • Dilek, Y., 2006. Collision tectonics of the Mediterranean region: Causes and consequences in Dilek, Y., and Pavlides, S., eds., Postcollisional tectonics and magmatism in the Mediterranean region and Asia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 409, p. 1–13
  • Dilek, Y. and Sandvol, E., 2006. Collision tectonics of the Mediterranean region: Causes and consequences in Dilek, Y., and Pavlides, S., eds., Postcollisional tectonics and magmatism in the Mediterranean region and Asia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 409, p. 1–13
  • DISS Working Group (2015). Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), Version 3.2.0: A compilation of potential sources for earthquakes larger than M 5.5 in Italy and surrounding areas. http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia; DOI:10.6092/INGV.IT-DISS3.2.0.
  • Duman, T.Y. and Emre, O., 2013. The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics in Geological Society of London, Special Publications, v. 372, doi: 10.1144/SP372.14
  • Emre, T. and Sozbilir, H., 2007. Tectonic Evolution of the Kiraz Basin, Küçük Menderes Graben: Evidence for Compression/Uplift-related Basin Formation Overprinted by Extensional Tectonics in West Anatolia in Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 106, p. 441-470
  • Ersoy, E.Y., Cemen, I., Helvaci, C., and Billor, Z., 2014. Tectono-stratigraphy of the Neogene basins in Western Turkey: Implications for tectonic evolution of the Aegean Extended Region in Tectonophysics v. 635, p. 33-58.
  • Jenkins, Jennifer, Turner, Bethan, Turner, Rebecca, Hayes, G.P., Sinclair, Alison, Davies, Sian, Parker, A.L., Dart, R.L., Tarr, A.C., Villaseñor, Antonio, and Benz, H.M., compilers, 2013, Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 Middle East and vicinity (ver 1.1, Jan. 28, 2014): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-K, scale 1:7,000,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1083/k/.
  • Jolivet, L., et al., 2013. Aegean tectonics: Strain localisation, slab tearing and trench retreat in Tectonophysics, v. 597-598, p. 1-33
  • Kaya, A., 2015. The effects of extensional structures on the heat transport mechanism: An example from the Ortakçı geothermal field (Büyük Menderes Graben, SW Turkey) in Journal oF african Easth Sciences, v. 108, p. 74-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2015.05.002
  • Kokkalas, S., et al., 2006. Postcollisional contractional and extensional deformation in the Aegean region in GSA Special Papers, v. 409, p. 97-123.
  • Kurt, H., Demirbag, E., and Kuscu, I., 1999. Investigation of the submarine active tectonism in the Gulf of Gokova, southwest Anatolia–southeast Aegean Sea, by multi-channel seismic reflection data in Tectonophysics, v. 305, p. 477-496
  • Ocakoglu, N., DEmirbag, E.,. and Kuscu, I., 2005. Neotectonic structures in I˙zmir Gulf and surrounding regions (western Turkey): Evidences of strike-slip faulting with compression in the Aegean extensional regime in Marine Geology, v. 219, p. 155-171, doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2005.06.004
  • Papazachos, B.C., Papadimitrious, E.E., Kiratzi, A.A., Papazachos, C.B., and Louvari, E.k., 1998. Fault Plane Solutions in the Aegean Sea and the Surrounding Area and their Tectonic Implication, in Bollettino Di Geofisica Terorica Ed Applicata, v. 39, no. 3, p. 199-218.
  • Pérouse, E., N. Chamot-Rooke, A. Rabaute, P. Briole, F. Jouanne, I. Georgiev, and D. Dimitrov, 2012. Bridging onshore and offshore present-day kinematics of central and eastern Mediterranean: Implications for crustal dynamics and mantle flow, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 13, Q09013, doi:10.1029/2012GC004289.
  • Rojay, B., Toprak, V., Demirci, C., and Süzen, L., 2005. Plio-Quaternary evolution of the Küçük Menderes Graben Southwestern Anatolia, Turkey in Geodinamica Acta, v. 18, no. 3-4, p. 317-331
  • Taymaz, T., Yilmaz, Y., and Dilek, Y., 2007. The geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia: introduction in Geological Society Special Publications, v. 291, p. 1-16.
  • Wouldloper, 2009. Tectonic map of southern Europe and the Middle East, showing tectonic structures of the western Alpide mountain belt. Only Alpine (tertiary) structures are shown.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report M 7.0 Solomon Isles

The past couple of weeks have been busy from an earthquake perspective. There have been four M7 events.

I am writing this report a few days late. But, better late than never!

There was a magnitude M 7.0 earthquake offshore of the Solomon Islands.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000irfb/executive

The Solomon Islands owe their existence to the plate boundary fault system there, a convergent plate boundary where plates move towards each other. The plate boundary here is formed by the subduction of the Australia plate beneath the Pacific plate.

The largest earthquakes that happen on Earth happen on these subduction zone faults.

At first I thought that this was an interface earthquake along the megathrust subduction zone fault. These are called interface events because they happen along the fault interface between the two plates. They are also called interplate earthquakes.

However, as the earthquake mechanisms (e.g., focal mechanism or moment tensor) were calculated and posted online, it was clear that this was not a megathrust earthquake.

Here is an illustration that shows a cross section of a subduction zone. I show hypothetical locations for different types of earthquakes. I include earthquake mechanisms (as they would be viewed from map view) for these different types of earthquakes.


Here is a legend for these different mechanisms. We can see what the mechanisms look like from map view (from looking down onto Earth from outer space or from flying in an airplane) and what they look like from the side.


The mechanism for the M 7.0 Solomon Isle earthquake is an extensional (normal) type of an earthquake that happened in the slab of the Australia plate.

Typically, the extension in these slab events is perpendicular to the plate boundary fault because that is the direction that the plate is pulling down (slab pull) due to gravity or that is the orientation of bending of the plate that causes this extension.

In this case, the orientation of extension is oblique (not perpendicular, nor parallel) to the plate boundary. The leading hypothesis for this is that there is some pre-existing structure in the Australia plate that hosted this earthquake fault slip.

If we look to the west, to the structures in the Woodlark Basin, we see some candidate structures for this earthquake. These are faults that are related to the seafloor spreading that formed the Woodlark Basin. It is possible that some of these faults have been subducted beneath the Solomon Isles (though this is unclear).

There are also records of tsunami and seismic waves on water level sensors in this region. A tsunami was observed on the Honiara tide gage and seismic waves observed on the Coral Sea DART Buoy 55023.

Here are the tide gage data from https://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SeaLevelsDb/Home. This is a small tsunami that happened on a tide gage with noisy data. So, it is difficult to tell how long the tsunami lasted here.


Here are the DART data from the same website. I triple checked the size of the wave but it still seems a little large for a seismic wave. I could still be wrong. Feel free to contact me if you think this plot needs to be corrected! quakejay at gmail.com.


Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

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

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

  • In the upper left is a map that shows the plate boundary faults and a century of seismicity. The shoreline data come from GIS data at Natural Earth (a great source of fee GIS data).
  • In the center right is a map from Holm et al. (2016) that shows various key elements of the plate configuration in this region. Colors representing the age of the crust shows how the Woodlark Basin has an active spreading ridge system with ridges striking East-West. Large Igneous Provinces are shown here in dark gray. A relevant cross section is C-D, with the location highlighted in magenta on the map. The cross section shows how the North Solomon Trench is configured.
  • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
  • In the center left is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
  • In the upper right are two maps that show models of how there may have been landslides or liquefaction because of the earthquake shaking and impacts. Read more about landslides and liquefaction here. I include the USGS epicenter as a yellow circle. These ground failure models are based on the USGS epicenter/location.
  • In the lower center are water surface elevation (WSE) data from a tide gage in Honiara and a DART buoy located near Cocos Island. The tide gage shows a small tsunami and the DART buoy shows evidence for seismic waves from this earhquake.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

Other Report Pages

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • This figure shows an interpretation of the regional tectonics (Holm et al., 2016). I include the figure caption below as a blockquote.

    • Tectonic setting of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. a) Regional plate boundaries and tectonic elements. Light grey shading illustrates bathymetry b 2000 m below sea level indicative of continental or arc crust, and oceanic plateaus; 1000 m depth contour is also shown. Adelbert Terrane (AT); Bismarck Sea fault (BSF); Bundi fault zone (BFZ); Feni Deep (FD); Finisterre Terrane (FT); Gazelle Peninsula (GP); Kia-Kaipito-Korigole fault zone (KKKF); Lagaip fault zone (LFZ); Mamberamo thrust belt (MTB); Manus Island (MI); New Britain (NB); New Ireland (NI); North Sepik arc (NSA); Ramu-Markham fault (RMF); Weitin Fault (WF);West Bismarck fault (WBF); Willaumez-Manus Rise (WMR).

    • This figure shows details of the regional tectonics (Holm et al., 2016). I include the figure caption below as a blockquote.

    • a) Present day tectonic features of the Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands region as shown in plate reconstructions. Sea floor magnetic anomalies are shown for the Caroline plate (Gaina and Müller, 2007), Solomon Sea plate (Gaina and Müller, 2007) and Coral Sea (Weissel and Watts, 1979). Outline of the reconstructed Solomon Sea slab (SSP) and Vanuatu slab (VS)models are as indicated. b) Cross-sections related to the present day tectonic setting. Section locations are as indicated. Bismarck Sea fault (BSF); Feni Deep (FD); Louisiade Plateau
      (LP); Manus Basin (MB); New Britain trench (NBT); North Bismarck microplate (NBP); North Solomon trench (NST); Ontong Java Plateau (OJP); Ramu-Markham fault (RMF); San Cristobal trench (SCT); Solomon Sea plate (SSP); South Bismarck microplate (SBP); Trobriand trough (TT); projected Vanuatu slab (VS); West Bismarck fault (WBF); West Torres Plateau (WTP); Woodlark Basin (WB).

    Social Media

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 6.9 Sumatra

While I was travelling back from a USGS Powell Center Workshop on the recurrence of earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone, there was an earthquake (gempa) offshore of Sumatra.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000iqpn/executive

There was actually a foreshock (more than one): https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000iq2d/executive
I need to run to catch the sunset and will complete the intro later tonight.

OK, sunset led to nap, led to bed.

The plate boundary offshore of Sumatra, Indonesia, is a convergent (moving together) plate boundary. Here, the Australia plate subducts northwards beneath the Sunda plate (part of the Eurasia plate) along a megathrust subduction zone fault. This subduction forms a deep sea trench, the Sunda trench.

This was a shallow event near the trench formed by the subduction here. The magnitude was a little small for generating a large tsunami. However, it was shallow, so the deformation reached the sea floor and generated tsunami recorded on several tide gages in the region.

These gages are operated by the Indonesian Geospatial Reference System, though there are some gages that are posted on the European Union World Sea Levels website.

The water surface elevation data was a little noisy on these tide gage plots, but two of them had sufficient signal to justify my interpretation that these are tsunami. My interpretations could be incorrect and I include two plots below.

  • Here are the tide gage data. I label the locations for these two gage sites on the interpretive poster.


Many are familiar with the Boxing Day Earthquake and Tsunami from December 2004. This is one of the most deadly events in modern history, almost a quarter million people perished (mostly from the tsunami).

These lives lost did lead to changes in how tsunami risk is managed worldwide. So, these lives lost were not lost in vain (though it would be better if they were not lost, we can all agree to that).

The southern Sumatra subduction zone has an excellent record of prehistoric and historic earthquakes. For example, there is a couplet where earthquake slips overlapped slightly, the 1797 and 1833 earthquakes.

Many think that this area is the next place a large tsunamigenic earthquake may occur. Below we can see the analysis from Chlieh et al. (2008) where they suggest that there is considerable tectonic strain accumulated since these 1797 and 1833 earthquakes. There have been several large earthquakes in this area but they may not have released this strain.

If we look at the Chlieh et al. (2008) study, we will notice that this M 6.9 earthquake happened in an area thought to be in an area that is not accumulating much tectonic strain. I post a figure showing this later in the report.

There are millions of people who live in the coastal lowlands of Padang who may have difficulty evacuating in time should an earthquake like the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone earthquake were to occur in this area.

For those that live along the coast here, the ground shaking from the earthquake is their natural notification to evacuate to high ground. For those that live across the ocean, they will get warning notifications to help them learn to evacuate since they won’t have the ground shaking as a warning. This is what happened to many people in December 2004 along the east coast of India and along the coast of Sri Lanka.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1922-2022 with magnitudes M ≥ 6.5 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • 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 showing historic seismicity, fault lines, and the global strain rate map (red shows area of higher tectonic strain).
  • To the left of the strain map is a figure that shows historic earthquake rupture areas and a representation of how strongly the megathrust subduction fault is (Chlieh et al., 2008).
  • In the upper left corner are maps that show the seismic hazard and seismic risk for Indonesia. I spend more time explaining this below.
  • In the center top-left is a map that shows earthquake intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale.
  • In the lower left center is a low angle oblique view of a cut away of the Earth along the subduction zone in Sumatra, Indonesia from EOS.
  • Above the oblique view is a plot of the tide gage from Cocos, Island.
  • In the right center is a great figure from Philobosian et al. (2014) that shows the slip patches from the subduction zone earthquakes in this region.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • 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.

  • Here is the Chlieh et al. (2008) figure with the 18 November 2022 M 6.9 earthquake plotted as a blue star.
  • Note how the M 6.9 happened in a region of low seismogenic coupling. Beware that this is also in an area without any geodetic (GPS/GNSS) nor paleogeodetic (coral microattol) observations (the sources of data for the coupling model).

  • 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.


  • Here is a map from Jacob et a. (2014) that shows the structure of the eastern Indian Ocean. Figure text below.

  • Free-air gravity anomaly map derived from satellite altimetry [Sandwell and Smith, 2009] over the Wharton Basin area.

  • Here is the map from Jacobs et a. (2014). Figure text below.

  • Structure and age of the Wharton Basin deduced from free-air gravity anomaly [Sandwell and Smith, 2009; background colors] for the fracture zones (thin black longitudinal lines), and marine magnetic anomaly profiles (not shown) for the isochrons (thin black latitudinal lines). The plain colors represent the oceanic lithosphere created during normal geomagnetic polarity intervals (see legend for the ages of Chrons 20 to 34 according to the time scale of Gradstein et al. [2004]). Compartments separated by major fracture zones are labeled A to H. Grey areas: oceanic plateaus, thick black line: Sunda Trench subduction zone.

  • This is a fascinating figure from Jacob et al. (2014). This shows a reconstruction of the magntic anomalies for the oceanic crust as they are subducted beneath Eurasia.

  • Reconstitution of the subducted magnetic isochrons and fracture zones of the northern Wharton Basin using the finite rotation parameters deduced from our two- and three-plate reconstructions. (a) First the geometry is restored on the Earth surface, then (b) it is draped on the top of the subducting plate as derived from seismic tomography [Pesicek et al., 2010] shown by the thin dotted lines at intervals of 100 km (b). Colored dots: identified magnetic anomalies; colored triangles: rotated magnetic anomalies, solid lines; observed fracture zones and isochrons, dashed lines: uncertain or reconstructed fracture zones, dotted lines: reconstructed isochrons from rotated magnetic anomalies (two-plate and three-plate reconstructions), colored area: oceanic lithosphere created during normal geomagnetic polarity intervals (see legend for the ages; the colored areas without solid or dotted lines have been interpolated), grey areas: oceanic plateaus, thick line: Sunda Trench subduction zone.

  • Finally, these authors present what their reconstruction implicates about this plate boundary system.

  • The deviation of the Sunda Trench from a regular arc shape (dotted lines) off Sumatra is explained by the presence of the younger, hotter and therefore lighter lithosphere in compartments C–F, which resists subduction and form an indentor (solid line). The very young compartment G was probably part of this indentor before oceanic crust formed at slow spreading rate near the Wharton fossil spreading center approached subduction: The weaker rheology of outcropping or shallow serpentinite may have favored the restoration of the accretionary prism in this area. Further south, the deviation off Java is explained by the resistance of the thicker Roo Rise, an oceanic plateau entering the subduction.

Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

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



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

    • The GEM Seismic Risk Map:



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

Tsunami Hazard

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

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

    References:

    Basic & General References

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

  • Andrade, V. and Rajendran, K., 2014. The April 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes: Seismotectonic context and implications for their mechanisms in Tectonophysics, v. 617, p. 126-139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2014.01.024
  • Heidarzadeh, M., Harada, T., Satake, K., Ishibe, T., Takagawa, T., 2017. Tsunamis from strike-slip earthquakes in the Wharton Basin, northeast Indian Ocean: March 2016 Mw7.8 event and its relationship with the April 2012 Mw 8.6 event in GJI, v. 2110, p. 1601-1612, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggx395
  • Jacob, J., J. Dyment, and V. Yatheesh, 2014. Revisiting the structure, age, and evolution of the Wharton Basin to better understand subduction under Indonesia, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 119, 169–190, doi:10.1002/2013JB010285.
  • Yadav, R.K., Kundu, B., Gahalaut, K., Catherine, J., Gahalaut, V.K., Ambikapathy, A., and Naidu, MZ.S., 2013. Coseismic offsets due to the 11 April 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes (Mw 8.6 and 8.2) derived from GPS measurements in Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 3389-3393, doi:10.1002/grl.50601
  • Wiseman, K. and Bürgmann, R., 2012. Stress triggering of the great Indian Ocean strike-slip earthquakes in a diffuse plate boundary zone in Geophysical research Letters, v. 39, L22304, doi:10.1029/2012GL053954
  • 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.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 7.3 Tonga trench outer rise

Early this morning I received some notifications of earthquakes along the Tonga trench (southwestern central Pacific Ocean). It was about 2am my local time.

I work on the tsunami program for the California state tsunami program (CTP) and we respond to tsunami to (1) help local communities do their first response activities so that they can help reduce suffering and to (2) document the impact of these tsunami.

Because of this work, our team is “at the ready” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to respond to these events. Luckily, this event was unlikely to generate a tsunami that would impact California. I went back to sleep.

This morning I put together a report and checked to see if there was a tsunami generated. Here is one place that I check for tsunami records as observed on tide gages http://www.ioc-sealevelmonitoring.org/map.php. I did not see anything convincing.

This earthquake, from last night my time, has a magnitude of M 7.3.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000ip0l/executive

This area of the Earth has a plate boundary fault system called a subduction zone. A subduction zone is a convergent plate boundary, which means that the plates on either side of the boundary move towards each other.

Here, the Pacific plate dives westwards beneath the Australia plate, forming the Tonga trench. Below is a schematic illustration showing what these plates may look like if we cut into the Earth and viewed this subduction zone from the side. Note the Pacific plate on the right and the Australia plate on the left, with the megathrust subduction zone fault where they meet.

This illustration shows where earthquakes may happen along this plate boundary. There could be interface earthquakes along the megathrust fault (megathrust earthquakes). These are what most people are familiar with when they are thinking about tsunami (e.g., the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami).

In the upper plate (the Australia plate), there can be crustal fault earthquakes. In the lower plate (the Pacific plate) there can be slab earthquakes (events within the crust, aka the slab), and there can be outer rise earthquakes).

The outer rise is a part of the plate that is warping up and down because of the forces adjacent to the subduction zone. This warping can cause extension in the upper part, and compression in the lower part, of this plate.

This 11 Nov 2022 M 7.3 earthquake was a compressional (reverse) earthquake in the outer rise region of this plate boundary. It was pretty deep (for oceanic crust) so fits nicely in the correct place in this illustration:


But megathrust earthquakes are not the only type of earthquake that can cause a tsunami. The 2009 magnitude M 8.1 extensional (normal) fault earthquake near Samoa and American Samoa caused a tsunami that inundated the nearby islands (causing lots of damage and human suffering). This tsunami also travelled across the Pacific Ocean to impact California! (This is why the California Tsunami Program monitors tsunami across the Pacific Basin, so that we can help reduce suffering through the evacuation of coastal areas. Remember, the entire coast of California is a Tsunami Hazard Area.)

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1922-2022 with magnitudes M ≥ 7.0 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • 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 left corner is a map that shows the plates, their boundaries, and a century of seismicity.
  • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
  • To the left is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
  • Further to the left is a diagram that shows the different types of earthquakes that can occur along a subduction zone.
  • In the upper right corner is a map that shows some of the historic earthquakes in the region, with the earthquake mechanisms. I labeled these events for the type of event that I interpret them to be.
  • In the upper left center is a map from Richards et al. (2011) that shows earthquake locations (epicenters) with color representing depth. I place a yellow star in the general location of today’s M 7.3 earthquake. These colors help us visualize how the Pacific plate dips deeper towards the left (yellow are shallow events and purple are deep events). The 2000.01.08 M 7.2 earthquake is an intermediate depth earthquake (see the map in the upper right corner).
  • In the right center is a map from Timm et al (2013) that also shows the depth to the slab (the downgoing Pacific plate). I place a yellow star in the general location of today’s M 7.3 earthquake.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

  • Well, I just looked at Pago Pago and the record is clear. I am kinda surprised since this gage is on the nodal plane for this event. I will plot these data up.

  • Here is a screenshot:

  • Here are teh two plots for the gages listed above. The Pago pago record is quite clear. However, the Nukualofa gage is pretty noisy. I don’t have much confidence in the measurements of the wave size.
  • Data from both gages show a background wave sequence that makes it difficult to know when the tsunami ends. Someone who can filter out that wave series could probably do a better job at locating when the tsunami ends, at least for the Pago Pago data.
  • Pago Pago (American Samoa) https://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SeaLevelsDb/Device/959

  • Nukualofa (Tonga Island) https://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SeaLevelsDb/Device/950

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • Here is the map from Timm et al., 2013.

  • Bathymetric map of the Tonga–Kermadec arc system. Map showing the depth of the subducted slab beneath the Tonga–Kermadec arc system. Louisville seamount ages are after Koppers et al.49 ELSC, eastern Lau-spreading centre; DSDP, Deep Sea Drilling Programme; NHT, Northern Havre Trough; OT, Osbourn Trough; VFR, Valu Fa Ridge. Arrows mark total convergence rates.

  • Here is the oblique view of the slab from Green (2003).

  • Earthquakes and subducted slabs beneath the Tonga–Fiji area. The subducting slab and detached slab are defined by the historic earthquakes in this region: the steeply dipping surface descending from the Tonga Trench marks the currently active subduction zone, and the surface lying mostly between 500 and 680 km, but rising to 300 km in the east, is a relict from an old subduction zone that descended from the fossil Vitiaz Trench. The locations of the mainshocks of the two Tongan earthquake sequences discussed by Tibi et al. are marked in yellow (2002 sequence) and orange (1986 series). Triggering mainshocks are denoted by stars; triggered mainshocks by circles. The 2002 sequence lies wholly in the currently subducting slab (and slightly extends the earthquake distribution in it),whereas the 1986 mainshock is in that slab but the triggered series is located in the detached slab,which apparently contains significant amounts of metastable olivine

  • Here are figures from Richards et al. (2011) with their figure captions below in blockquote.
  • The main tectonic map

  • bathymetry, and major tectonic element map of the study area. The Tonga and Vanuatu subduction systems are shown together with the locations of earthquake epicenters discussed herein. Earthquakes between 0 and 70 km depth have been removed for clarity. Remaining earthquakes are color-coded according to depth. Earthquakes located at 500–650 km depth beneath the North Fiji Basin are also shown. Plate motions for Vanuatu are from the U.S. Geological Survey, and for Tonga from Beavan et al. (2002) (see text for details). Dashed line indicates location of cross section shown in Figure 3. NFB—North Fiji Basin; HFZ—Hunter Fracture Zone.

  • Here is the map showing the current configuration of the slabs in the region.

  • Map showing distribution of slab segments beneath the Tonga-Vanuatu region. West-dipping Pacifi c slab is shown in gray; northeast-dipping Australian slab is shown in red. Three detached segments of Australian slab lie below the North Fiji Basin (NFB). HFZ—Hunter Fracture Zone. Contour interval is 100 km. Detached segments of Australian plate form sub-horizontal sheets located at ~600 km depth. White dashed line shows outline of the subducted slab fragments when reconstructed from 660 km depth to the surface. When all subducted components are brought to the surface, the geometry closely approximates that of the North Fiji Basin.

  • This is the cross section showing the megathrust fault configuration based on seismic tomography and seismicity.

  • Previous interpretation of combined P-wave tomography and seismicity from van der Hilst (1995). Earthquake hypocenters are shown in blue. The previous interpretation of slab structure is contained within the black dashed lines. Solid red lines mark the surface of the Pacifi c slab (1), the still attached subducting Australian slab (2a), and the detached segment of the Australian plate (2b). UM—upper mantle;
    TZ—transition zone; LM—lower mantle.

  • Here is their time step interpretation of the slabs that resulted in the second figure above.

  • Simplified plate tectonic reconstruction showing the progressive geometric evolution of the Vanuatu and Tonga subduction systems in plan view and in cross section. Initiation of the Vanuatu subduction system begins by 10 Ma. Initial detachment of the basal part of the Australian slab begins at ca. 5–4 Ma and then sinking and collision between the detached segment and the Pacifi c slab occur by 3–4 Ma. Initial opening of the Lau backarc also occurred at this time. Between 3 Ma and the present, both slabs have been sinking progressively to their current position. VT—Vitiaz trench; dER—d’Entrecasteaux Ridge.

  • Here is the tectonic map from Ballance et al., 1999.

  • Map of the Southwest Pacific Ocean showing the regional tectonic setting and location of the two dredged profiles. Depth contours in kilometres. The presently active arcs comprise New Zealand–Kermadec Ridge–Tonga Ridge, linked with Vanuatu by transforms associated with the North Fiji Basin. Colville Ridge–Lau Ridge is the remnant arc. Havre Trough–Lau Basin is the active backarc basin. Kermadec–Tonga Trench marks the site of subduction of Pacific lithosphere westward beneath Australian plate lithosphere. North and South Fiji Basins are marginal basins of late Neogene and probable Oligocene age, respectively. 5.4sK–Ar date of dredged basalt sample (Adams et al., 1994).

  • Here is a great summary of the fault mechanisms for earthquakes along this plate boundary (Yu, 2013).

  • Large subduction-zone interplate earthquakes (large open gray stars) labeled with event date, Mw, GCMT focal mechanisms, and GPS velocity vectors (gray arrows and black triangles labeled with station name). GPS velocities are listed in Table 3. Black lines indicate the Tonga–Kermadec and Vanuatu trenches. Note that the 2009/09/29 Samoa–Tonga outer trench-slope event (Mw 8.1) triggered large interplate doublets (both of Mw 7.8; Lay et al., 2010). The Pacific plate subducts westward beneath the Australian plate along the Tonga–Kermadec trench, whereas the Australian plate subducts eastward beneath the Vanuatu arc and North Fiji basin. The opposite orientation between the Tonga–Kermadec and Vanuatu subduction systems is due to complex and broad back-arc extension in the Lau and North Fiji basins (Pelletier et al., 1998).


    Regional map of moderate-sized (mb > 4:7) shallow-focus repeating earthquakes and background seismicity along the (a) Tonga–Kermadec and (b) Vanuatu (former New Hebrides) subduction zones. Shallow repeating earthquakes (black stars) and their available Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT; Dziewoński et al., 1981; Ekström et al., 2003) are labeled with event date and doublet/cluster id where applicable. Colors of GCMT are used to distinguish nearby different repeaters. Source parameters for the clusters and doublets are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Background seismicity is shown as gray dots and large interplate earthquakes (moment magnitude, Mw > 7:3) since 1976 are shown as large open gray stars. Black lines indicate the trench (Bird, 2003) and slab contour at 50-km depth (Gudmundsson and Sambridge, 1998). Repeating earthquake clusters in the (a) T1 and T2 plate-interface regions in Tonga and (b) V3 plate-interface region in Vanuatu are used to study the fault-slip rate ( _d). A regional map of the Tonga–Kermadec–Vanuatu subduction zones is
    shown in the inset figure, with the gray dotted box indicating the expanded region in the main figure.

    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

  • Richards, S., Holm, R., and Barber, G., 2011. Skip Nav Destination When slabs collide: A tectonic assessment of deep earthquakes in the Tonga-Vanuatu region in Geology, c. 39, no. 8, p. 787-790, https://doi.org/10.1130/G31937.1
  • Timm, C., Bassett, D., Graham, I. et al. Louisville seamount subduction and its implication on mantle flow beneath the central Tonga–Kermadec arc. Nat Commun 4, 1720 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2702

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 7.6 Earthquake in Mexico

I don’t always have the time to write a proper Earthquake Report. However, I prepare interpretive posters for these events.
Because of this, I present Earthquake Report Lite. (but it is more than just water, like the adult beverage that claims otherwise). I will try to describe the figures included in the poster, but sometimes I will simply post the poster here.

There was a magnitude M 7.6 earthquake in Mexico on 1 September 2022.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000i9bw/executive

I am catching up on some Earthquake Reports that I did not yet post since my website was being migrated to a more secure and reliable server (and more expensive).

The tectonics of coastal southwestern Mexico is dominated by the convergent plate boundary between the Cocos plate (to the southwest) and the North America plate (to the northeast). Here, the Cocos plate subducts below (goes underneath) the North America plate.

The fault between these plates is called a megathrust subduction zone fault and the plate boundary forms the Middle America trench.

This M 7.6 earthquake mechanism (the “moment tensor”) shows that this event was a compressional earthquake (reverse or thrust).

Based on it’s location, the event probably happened along the megathrust fault.

This earthquake even generated a tsunami recorded on tide gages in the region!

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1921-2021 with magnitudes M ≥ 3.0 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

    I include some inset figures.

  • In the upper left corner is a map that shows the plates, their boundaries, and a century of seismicity.
  • In the upper right are two maps that show models of how there may have been landslides or liquefaction because of the earthquake shaking and impacts. Read more about landslides and liquefaction here. I include the USGS epicenter as a red circle. However, these ground failure models are based on the USGS epicenter/location.
  • On the center right is a map that shows the historic subduction zone earthquake history for the subduction zone offshore of Mexico (National Seismological Service of Mexico).
  • To the left of those two maps is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plates and how they are oriented relative to each other (Manea et al., 2013).
  • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
  • On the left, below the tectonic setting map is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
  • In the upper left-center is a figure that shows the USGS earthquake slip model. This shows how much the fault slipped in different areas (based on their modeling, not observation). The model shows that there were places that may have slipped over 1.25 meters (~4 feet).
  • In the lower left is a series of plots from the tide gages in the region. The location of these gages are shown on the main map. The tsunami wave height (vertical distance between the peak of the wave and the trough of the wave) ranged from 0.6m to 1.7m.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

    Supportive Figures

  • I could not help myself. I am so excited to have this website back up and running, like a fully operational space station, that I include below some additional figures that help us understand the tectonic setting.
  • Here is the low angle oblique view of this tectonic region (Manea et al., 2013).

  • Development of the Tepic–Zacoalco (TZ), Colima, and Chapala rifts. The TZ rift is formed by the Rivera slab rollback, enhanced by the toroidal flow around the slab edges. The Colima rift is probably related with the oblique convergence between Rivera and NAM plates at ~5 Ma.

  • Here are the plots from the tide gages operated in the region.
  • These tide gages are organized north to south, top to bottom.
  • The dark blue line is the tidal forecast. The medium blue line is the tide gage record. The light blue line is the tide gage record minus the tidal forecast (basically the tsunami plus any other influence (like atmospheric pressure influences, or storm surge, etc.).
  • The locations for these gages are labeled on the interpretive poster above.
  • The earthquake origin time is labeled in orange.
  • Time is presented in UTC.

    • Here is tectonic map from Franco et al. (2012).

    • Tectonic setting of the Caribbean Plate. Grey rectangle shows study area of Fig. 2. Faults are mostly from Feuillet et al. (2002). PMF, Polochic–Motagua faults; EF, Enriquillo Fault; TD, Trinidad Fault; GB, Guatemala Basin. Topography and bathymetry are from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (Farr&Kobrick 2000) and Smith & Sandwell (1997), respectively. Plate velocities relative to Caribbean Plate are from Nuvel1 (DeMets et al. 1990) for Cocos Plate, DeMets et al. (2000) for North America Plate and Weber et al. (2001) for South America Plate.

    • These figures are from the USGS publication (Benz et al., 2011) that presents an educational poster about the historic seismicity and seismic hazard along the Middle America Trench.
    • First is a map showing earthquake depth as color (green depth > red). Seismicity cross section B-B’ is shown on the map. Today’s M=6.6 quake is nearest this section.


    • Here is a map from Benz et al. (2011) that shows the seismic hazard for this region.

    • Here are some figures from Manea et al. (2013). First are the map and low angle oblique view of the Cocos plate.

    • A. Geodynamic and tectonic setting alongMiddle America Subduction Zone. JB: Jalisco Block; Ch. Rift—Chapala rift; Co. rift—Colima rift; EGG—El Gordo Graben; EPR: East Pacific Rise; MCVA: Modern Chiapanecan Volcanic Arc; PMFS: Polochic–Motagua Fault System; CR—Cocos Ridge. Themain Quaternary volcanic centers of the TransMexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB) and the Central American Volcanic Arc (CAVA) are shown as blue and red dots, respectively. B. 3-D view of the Pacific, Rivera and Cocos plates’ bathymetrywith geometry of the subducted slab and contours of the depth to theWadati–Benioff zone (every 20 km). Grey arrows are vectors of the present plate convergence along theMAT. The red layer beneath the subducting plate represents the sub-slab asthenosphere.

    • Here is a map showing the spreading ridge features, along with the plate boundary faults (Mann, 2007). This is similar to the inset map in the interpretive poster.

    • Marine magnetic anomalies and fracture zones that constrain tectonic reconstructions such as those shown in Figure 4 (ages of anomalies are keyed to colors as explained in the legend; all anomalies shown are from University of Texas Institute for Geophysics PLATES [2000] database): (1) Boxed area in solid blue line is area of anomaly and fracture zone picks by Leroy et al. (2000) and Rosencrantz (1994); (2) boxed area in dashed purple line shows anomalies and fracture zones of Barckhausen et al. (2001) for the Cocos plate; (3) boxed area in dashed green line shows anomalies and fracture zones from Wilson and Hey (1995); and (4) boxed area in red shows anomalies and fracture zones from Wilson (1996). Onland outcrops in green are either the obducted Cretaceous Caribbean large igneous province, including the Siuna belt, or obducted ophiolites unrelated to the large igneous province (Motagua ophiolites). The magnetic anomalies and fracture zones record the Cenozoic relative motions of all divergent plate pairs infl uencing the Central American subduction zone (Caribbean, Nazca, Cocos, North America, and South America). When incorporated into a plate model, these anomalies and fracture zones provide important constraints on the age and thickness of subducted crust, incidence angle of subduction, and rate of subduction for the Central American region. MCSC—Mid-Cayman Spreading Center.

    • Here is the McCann et al. (1979) summary figure, showing the earthquake history of the region.

    • Rupture zones (ellipses) and epicenters (triangles and circles) of large shallow earthquakes (after KELLEHER et al., 1973) and bathymetry (CHASE et al., 1970) along the Middle America arc. Note that six gaps which have earthquake histories have not ruptured for 40 years or more. In contrast, the gap near the intersection of the Tehuantepec ridge has no known history of large shocks. Contours are in fathoms.

    • This is a more updated figure from Franco et al. (2005) showing the seismic gap.
    • Here is a map from Franco et al. (2015) that shows the rupture patches for historic earthquakes in this region.

    • The study area encompasses Guerrero and Oaxaca states of Mexico. Shaded ellipse-like areas annotated with the years are rupture areas of the most recent major thrust earthquakes (M≥6.5) in the Mexican subduction zone. Triangles show locations of permanent GPS stations. Small hexagons indicate campaign GPS sites. Arrows are the Cocos-North America convergence vectors from NUVEL-1A model (DeMets et al., 1994). Double head arrow shows the extent of the Guerrero seismic gap. Solid and dashed curves annotated with negative numbers show the depth in km down to the surface of subducting Cocos plate (modified from Pardo and Su´arez, 1995, using the plate interface configuration model for the Central Oaxaca from this study, the model for Guerrero from Kostoglodov et al. (1996), and the last seismological estimates in Chiapas by Bravo et al. (2004). MAT, Middle America trench.

    Earthquake Triggered Landslides

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

    FOS = Resisting Force / Driving Force

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

  • Landslide ground shaking can change the Factor of Safety in several ways that might increase the driving force or decrease the resisting force. Keefer (1984) studied a global data set of earthquake triggered landslides and found that larger earthquakes trigger larger and more numerous landslides across a larger area than do smaller earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause landslides because the seismic waves can cause the driving force to increase (the earthquake motions can “push” the land downwards), leading to a landslide. In addition, ground shaking can change the strength of these earth materials (a form of resisting force) with a process called liquefaction.
  • Sediment or soil strength is based upon the ability for sediment particles to push against each other without moving. This is a combination of friction and the forces exerted between these particles. This is loosely what we call the “angle of internal friction.” Liquefaction is a process by which pore pressure increases cause water to push out against the sediment particles so that they are no longer touching.
  • An analogy that some may be familiar with relates to a visit to the beach. When one is walking on the wet sand near the shoreline, the sand may hold the weight of our body generally pretty well. However, if we stop and vibrate our feet back and forth, this causes pore pressure to increase and we sink into the sand as the sand liquefies. Or, at least our feet sink into the sand.
  • Below is a diagram showing how an increase in pore pressure can push against the sediment particles so that they are not touching any more. This allows the particles to move around and this is why our feet sink in the sand in the analogy above. This is also what changes the strength of earth materials such that a landslide can be triggered.

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

  • Here is an excellent educational video from IRIS and a variety of organizations. The video helps us learn about how earthquake intensity gets smaller with distance from an earthquake. The concept of liquefaction is reviewed and we learn how different types of bedrock and underlying earth materials can affect the severity of ground shaking in a given location. The intensity map above is based on a model that relates intensity with distance to the earthquake, but does not incorporate changes in material properties as the video below mentions is an important factor that can increase intensity in places.
  • If we look at the map at the top of this report, we might imagine that because the areas close to the fault shake more strongly, there may be more landslides in those areas. This is probably true at first order, but the variation in material properties and water content also control where landslides might occur.
  • There are landslide slope stability and liquefaction susceptibility models based on empirical data from past earthquakes. The USGS has recently incorporated these types of analyses into their earthquake event pages. More about these USGS models can be found on this page.

    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

  • Franco, A., C. Lasserre H. Lyon-Caen V. Kostoglodov E. Molina M. Guzman-Speziale D. Monterosso V. Robles C. Figueroa W. Amaya E. Barrier L. Chiquin S. Moran O. Flores J. Romero J. A. Santiago M. Manea V. C. Manea, 2012. Fault kinematics in northern Central America and coupling along the subduction interface of the Cocos Plate, from GPS data in Chiapas (Mexico), Guatemala and El Salvador in Geophysical Journal International., v. 189, no. 3, p. 1223-1236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05390.x
  • Franco, S.I., Kostoglodov, V., Larson, K.M., Manea, V.C>, Manea, M., and Santiago, J.A., 2005. Propagation of the 2001–2002 silent earthquake and interplate coupling in the Oaxaca subduction zone, Mexico in Earth Planets Space, v. 57., p. 973-985.
  • Garcia-Casco, A., Projenza, J.A., Iturralde-Vinent, M.A., 2011. Subduction Zones of the Caribbean: the sedimentary, magmatic, metamorphic and ore-deposit records UNESCO/iugs igcp Project 546 Subduction Zones of the Caribbean in Geologica Acta, v. 9, no., 3-4, p. 217-224
  • Benz, H.M., Dart, R.L., Villaseñor, Antonio, Hayes, G.P., Tarr, A.C., Furlong, K.P., and Rhea, Susan, 2011 a. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 Mexico and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-F, scale 1:8,000,000.
  • Franco, A., Lasserre, C., Lyon-Caen, H., Kostoglodov, V., Molina, E., Guzman-Speziale, M., Monterosso, D., Robles, V., Figueroa, C., Amaya, W., Barrier, E., Chiquin, L., Moran, S., Flores, O., Romero, J., Santiago, J.A., Manea, M., Manea, V.C., 2012. Fault kinematics in northern Central America and coupling along the subduction interface of the Cocos Plate, from GPS data in Chiapas (Mexico), Guatemala and El Salvador in Geophysical Journal International., v. 189, no. 3, p. 1223-1236 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05390.x
  • Manea, V.C., et al., 2013. A geodynamical perspective on the subduction of Cocos and Rivera plates beneath Mexico and Central America in Tectonophysics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.12.039
  • Manea, M., and Manea, V.C., 2014. On the origin of El Chichón volcano and subduction of Tehuantepec Ridge: A geodynamical perspective in JGVR, v. 175, p. 459-471.
  • Mann, P., 2007. Overview of the tectonic history of northern Central America, in Mann, P., ed., Geologic and tectonic development of the Caribbean plate boundary in northern Central America: Geological Society of America Special Paper 428, p. 1–19, doi: 10.1130/2007.2428(01). For
  • McCann, W.R., Nishenko S.P., Sykes, L.R., and Krause, J., 1979. Seismic Gaps and Plate Tectonics” Seismic Potential for Major Boundaries in Pageoph, v. 117

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report for M 6.9 Earthquake in Taiwan

I don’t always have the time to write a proper Earthquake Report. However, I prepare interpretive posters for these events.
Because of this, I present Earthquake Report Lite. (but it is more than just water, like the adult beverage that claims otherwise). I will try to describe the figures included in the poster, but sometimes I will simply post the poster here.

There was a magnitude M 6.9 earthquake in Taiwan on 18 September 2022.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000i90q/executive

Taiwan is an interesting place, from a tectonic perspective. There is an intersection of several plate boundary fault systems here. Along the western boundary of Taiwan the Eurasia plate subducts (dives beneath) the Philippine Sea plate forming the Manila trench. This megathrust subduction zone fault system terminates somewhere in central-northern Taiwan.

Intersecting central Taiwan from the east is another subduction zone where the Philippine Sea plate subducts beneath the Eurasia plate, forming the Ryukyu trench.

There was an earthquake in Taiwan in 1999 that has been commemorated by creating a park and museum that preserves some of the evidence of the earthquake. This Chi-Chi earthquake cause lots of damage and, sadly, lots of suffering. In addition, because of the dominance of the computer chip manufacturing industry in Taiwan at the time, the price of computer chips was greatly inflated. The global economy suffered following this earthquake.

This 18 September 2022 M 6.9 earthquake occurred on a crustal fault that strikes (trends) parallel to the coast. Because of the mapped faults, I interpret this to have been a left-lateral strike slip earthquake.

There was a foreshock, a mag M 6.5 earthquake, nearby, the day before.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1921-2021 with magnitudes M ≥ 3.0 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

    I include some inset figures.

  • In the upper left corner is a map that shows the plates, their boundaries, and a century of seismicity.
  • In the upper right are two maps that show models of how there may have been landslides or liquefaction because of the earthquake shaking and impacts. Read more about landslides and liquefaction here. I include both the USGS epicenter and the Central Weather Bureau Seismological Center epicenter (which is probably more accurate). However, these ground failure models are based on the USGS epicenter/location.
  • To the left of those two maps is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plates and how they are oriented relative to each other.
  • Below that figure, in the center, is a map from Chen at al. (2020) that shows the earthquake fault mapping along eastern Taiwan. I place a yellow star in the location of the M 6.9 epicenter (the location of the earthquake on the ground surface).
  • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. The colored circles represent reports from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
  • To the left of the intensity map is a map that shows seismicity from the Central Weather Bureau Seismological Center. The locations of earthquakes from this center are better than those from the USGS since this organization runs a local seismic network (the USGS runs a global network). The local network uses more seismometers than the global network (so can detect more events, in this region).
  • To the left of this seismicity map is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).
  • In the upper left-center is a figure that shows the USGS earthquake slip model. This shows how much the fault slipped in different areas (based on their modeling, not observation). The model shows that there were places that may have slipped over 1.5 meters (5 feet).
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

    Supportive Figures

  • I could not help myself. I am so excited to have this website back up and running, like a fully operational space station, that I include below some additional figures that help us understand the tectonic setting.
  • Here is the low angle oblique view of the plate configuration in Taiwan.

  • Here is the map from Chen at al. (2020) that shows the fault mapping in this area of eastern Taiwan.

  • Geologic map of the Coastal Range on shaded relief (after Wang and Chen, 1993). The Longitudinal Valley Fault (LVF) can be subdivided into the Linding and Juisui locked Fault and the Chihshang and Lichi creeping Fault. Vertical cross-sections of VS perturbation tomography along the AeA0 and BeB0 profiles denote the Central Range, the Coastal Range, and the LVF. EU: Eurasian Plate; PH: Philippine Sea Plate.

  • Here is an oblique view of the plate configuration in this region. This is from Chang (2001).

  • Here is a great interpretation showing how the Island of Taiwan is being uplifted and exhumed. This is from Lin (2002).

  • Needless to say, this is an excellent map showing the complicated faulting of this region. This is from Theunissen et al. (2012).

  • Here is another tectonic interpretation map from here.
  • Here is a great general overview of the tectonics of the region from Shyu et al. (2005). I include their figure caption below the image as a blockquote.

  • A neotectonic snapshot of Taiwan and adjacent regions. (a) Taiwan is currently experiencing a double suturing. In the south the Luzon volcanic arc is colliding with the Hengchun forearc ridge, which is, in turn, colliding with the Eurasian continental margin. In the north both sutures are unstitching. Their disengagement is forming both the Okinawa Trough and the forearc basins of the Ryukyu arc. Thus, in the course of passing through the island, the roles of the volcanic arc and forearc ridge flip along with the flipping of the polarity of subduction. The three gray strips represent the three lithospheric pieces of Taiwan’s tandem suturing and disarticulation: the Eurasian continental margin, the continental sliver, and the Luzon arc. Black arrows indicate the suturing and disarticulation. This concept is discussed in detail by Shyu et al. [2005]. Current velocity vector of the Philippine Sea plate relative to the Eurasian plate is adapted from Yu et al. [1997, 1999]. Current velocity vector of the Ryukyu arc is adapted from Lallemand and Liu [1998]. Black dashed lines are the northern and western limits of the Wadati-Benioff zone of the two subducting systems, taken from the seismicity database of the Central Weather Bureau, Taiwan. DF, deformation front; LCS, Lishan-Chaochou suture; LVS, Longitudinal Valley suture; WF, Western Foothills; CeR, Central Range; CoR, Coastal Range; HP, Hengchun Peninsula. (b) Major tectonic elements around Taiwan. Active structures identified in this study are shown in red. Major inactive faults that form the boundaries of tectonic elements are shown in black: 1, Chiuchih fault; 2, Lishan fault; 3, Laonung fault; 4, Chukou fault. Selected GPS vectors relative to the stable Eurasian continental shelf are adapted from Yu et al. [1997]. A,Western Foothills; B, Hsueshan Range; C, Central Range and Hengchun Peninsula; D, Coastal Range; E, westernmost Ryukyu arc; F, Yaeyama forearc ridge; G, northernmost Luzon arc; H, western Taiwan coastal plains; I, Lanyang Plain; J, Pingtung Plain; K, Longitudinal Valley; L, submarine Hengchun Ridge; M, Ryukyu forearc basins.

  • This figure from Shyu et al. (2005) shows their interpretation of the different tectonic domains in Taiwan. This is a complicated region that includes collision zones in different orientations as the Okinawa Trough, Ryukyu Trench, and Manila Trench (all subduction zones) each intersect beneath and adjacent to Taiwan. I include their figure caption below the image as a blockquote.

  • Map of major active faults and folds of Taiwan (in red) showing that the two sutures are producing separate western and eastern neotectonic belts. Each collision belt matures and then decays progressively from south to north. This occurs in discrete steps, manifested as seven distinct neotectonic domains along the western belt and four along the eastern. A distinctive assemblage of active structures defines each domain. For example, two principal structures dominate the Taichung Domain. Rupture in 1999 of one of these, the Chelungpu fault, caused the disastrous Chi-Chi earthquake. The Lishan fault (dashed black line) is the suture between forearc ridge and continental margin. Thick light green and pink lines are boundaries of domains.

  • This map from Shyu et al. (2005) shows the earthquake slip regions for proposed earthquake scenarios. I include their figure caption below the image as a blockquote.

  • Proposed major sources for future large earthquakes in and around Taiwan. Thick red lines are proposed future ruptures, and the white patches are rupture planes projected to the surface. Here we have selected only a few representative scenarios from Table 1. Earthquake magnitude of each scenario is predicted value from our calculation.

  • This map from here shows the basement geology of Taiwan. Note the accretionary belts, including the forearc basin. This is a compilation from Teng et al. (2001) and Hsiao et al. (1998) as presented in Ustaszewski et al. (2012).

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 7.6 Papua New Guinea

I was travelling to southern California to attend the annual meeting for the Southern California Earthquake Center. This was the first in person meeting since 2019, my first SCEC meeting. I had landed and was waiting for the luggage to arrive when I saw the CSEM earthquake app notification that there was a large earthquake in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

I  put together a quick tweet before anything was posted on the USGS earthquake page other than the location and depth.

When I got to my hotel room later, more information was up.

However, due to some problems with Dreamhost (my website hosting company), I am migrating to a different company. For a little while, parts of this website (like the links and the images) will be non-functional. I will not be using Dreamhost again. I don’t have any more to say about this since they have not returned any of my emails in over a week, basically abandoning my website in the middle of the night without any warning.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000iitd/executive

The depth increased to about 90 km and has a normal-oblique sense of motion. This means that the earthquake was the result of a combination of extension (stretching) and strike-slip.

This area is a complicated region from a tectonic perspective. There are old faults and old plate boundaries that may no longer be active and there are known active faults that juxtapose these older structures.

For example, there is a convergent (moving together) plate boundary fault system on the north side of Papua New Guinea. This ‘subduction zone’ formed a deep sea trench called the New Guinea trench, where the Caroline plate subducted south beneath Papua New Guinea. This plate boundary fault system is thought to be inactive on the west side of the island and active, but with a slow convergence rate, on the eastern side of the island.

Then, to the southeast of PNG, there is a deep sea trench formed by the subduction of the Australia plate diving to the north beneath the island. This fault is inactive offshore and turns into the Papua fold and thrust belt (PFTB) onshore. The PFTB onshore is inactive in the western part of the island and has a slow convergence rate on the eastern side of the island. On 25 February 2018 there was a M 7.5 earthquake associated with the PFTB. Here is the earthquake report for that earthquake.

Between these two subduction zones, that dip in opposite directions, are several large strike-slip fault systems, which also have varying levels of activity.

“Yesterday’s” M 7.6 occurred in one of the plates that is/was being subducted. It was probably in the Australia plate that dives beneath PNG (which is responsible for the PFTB).

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1920-2020 with magnitudes M ≥ 3.0 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

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

  • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the earthquake intensity using the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Earthquake intensity is a measure of how strongly the Earth shakes during an earthquake, so gets smaller the further away one is from the earthquake epicenter. The map colors represent a model of what the intensity may be. The USGS has a system called “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) where people enter their observations from the earthquake and the USGS calculates what the intensity was for that person. The dots with yellow labels show what people actually felt in those different locations.
  • In the lower left center, there is a plate tectonic map showing the tectonic plates and their boundaries (Cloos et al., 2005). I place a yellow star in the general location of this M 7.6 earthquake.
  • On the right, above the intensity map, is a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plate configuration from Cloos et al. (2005). This shows how the Australia plate may be oriented and I place a yellow star to show how the earthquake may be located within the plate (the “slab”).
  • In the upper left corner are two maps showing the probability of earthquake triggered landslides and possibility of earthquake induced liquefaction. I will describe these phenomena below.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

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.

    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

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 6.9 Mid Atlantic Ridge

There have not been that many large earthquakes this year. This is good for one main reason, there is a lower potential for human suffering.
Therefore, there are fewer Earthquake Reports for this year.
This morning (my time) there was a magnitude M 6.9 earthquake along the Romanche transform fault, a right-lateral strike-slip fault system that offsets the Mid Atlantic Ridge in the equatorial Atlantic Ocean. The fault is part of the Romanche fracture zone.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000i53f/executive
The transform faults in this part of the Mid Atlantic Ridge plate boundary have a pattern of earthquakes that seem to max out in the lower 7 magnitudes. This may be (at least partly) due to the maximum length of these faults (?).
The Romanche fault is about 900 kilometers long. The Chain fault is about 250 km long. The St. Paul fault is about 350 km long.

    Earthquake magnitude is controlled by three things:

  1. the size of the earthquake slip area, for most events, this is basically the length of the fault (since the width of the fault is controlled by the thickness of the lithosphere, or the crust)
  2. the amount that the fault slipped
  3. physical properties of the lithosphere or crust on either side of the fault (how “elastic” the Earth is)

Using empirical (data) based relations between earthquake subsurface rupture length and earthquake magnitude (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994), I calculate the maximum earthquake magnitude we may get on these three faults listed above.
Here are the data that Wells and Coppersmith use to establish these relations.

(a) Regression of subsurface rupture length on magnitude (M). Regression line shown for all-slip-type relationship. Short dashed line indicates 95% confidence interval. (b) Regression lines for strike-slip relationships. See Table 2 for regression coefficients. Length of regression lines shows the range of data for each relationship.

Here are the magnitude estimates for each of these fault systems.


Looking at the interpretive poster, we can see that there have not been any temblors that approach the sizes listed in this table. The largest historic earthquake was M 7.1 (there were several).
So, we may ask ourselves one of the most common questions people ask regarding earthquakes. Was this M 6.9 a foreshock to a larger earthquake?
Obviously, we cannot yet know this. Nobody can predict the future (at least not yet).
However, based on the incredibly short historic record of earthquakes, we may answer this question: “no, probably not.” This answer is tempered by the very short seismic record. If magnitude 8 earthquakes occur, on average, every 1000 years, then our ~100 year record might be too short to “notice” one of these M 8 events.
If we continue to look at the historic record, we will see that there appear to be three instances where one of these M 6.5-7 earthquakes had a later earthquake of a similar magnitude.
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.”
In the poster, I label these earthquakes as “Linked Earthquakes.” Perhaps the later of each earthquake pair (or triple) was triggered by the change in static coulomb stress.

    Here are the three sets of “Linked Earthquakes:”

  • In 1992, along the Chain fault, the 16 Feb M 6.6 appears to have triggered the 18 Feb M 6.6. More speculatively, about 6 months later, it seems that there was a triggered M 6.9 on 18 Aug. Static Coulomb triggering typically has a limit of about 2-3 times the rupture length (and this depends of the pre-existing stress on the receiver fault, the fault that may be having triggered slip). A M 6.6 may have a rupture length of 50 km, so could possibly affect faults as far as 100-150 km away. The M 6.9 is about 70 km from the easternmost M 6.6, so it seems possible that the M 6.9 was triggered by the M 6.6.
  • In 2003, along the Romanche fault, there were two M 6.6 earthquakes separated by about 6 weeks. These quakes are about 100 km apart, possibly close enough to be triggered.
  • In 2020, along the St. Paul transform fault, there was a pair of quakes about 3 weeks and 340 km apart. The first quake was M 6.5, so this pair of events seems to far apart to be related.

So, given the historic record, it sure seems likely that there may be another M6-7 earthquakes in the region of the fault sometime in the next couple of months. And, given our lack of knowledge about the long term behavior of these faults, it is also possible that there could be a larger M 8 event.
Since we cannot yet know the real answer to this question, we are reminded of the advice that educators and emergency response people provide: If one lives in Earthquake Country, get earthquake prepared. Just a little effort to get better prepared makes a major difference in the outcome.
Head over to Earthquake Alliance where there are some excellent brochures about how to be better prepared and more resilient to earthquake and tsunami hazards. Living on Shaky Ground is one of my favorites!

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1920-2020 with magnitudes M ≥ 3.0 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

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

  • In the lower right corner I include a map that shows the age of the oceanic crust in the Atlantic Ocean. Oceanic crust (or lithosphere) is created at mid ocean ridges, where there is extension that allows upward movement of magma, leading to the formation of oceanic crust. The Mid Atlantic Ridge system is one of these types of plate boundaries.
  • Above the crust age map is an illustration showing the how the crust moving away from the ocean ridges leaves behind oceanic crust. The Earth’s magnetic polarity changes at times and the oceanic crust records these changes in magnetic polarity. These changes are the main reason why we know that the crust is formed along these ridge systems. Read more here.
  • In the upper left corner is a small scale map that shows the historic seismicity, the plate boundary fault systems, and the magnetic anomalies. Places with crust formed when the magnetic field is like today, is colored red (a.k.a. normal polarity) and crust formed when the poles were reversed relative to today is blue (i.e., reversed polarity).
  • In the upper right corner is a map that shows the earthquake intensity from this earthquake (using the modified Mercalli Intensity Scale). Intensity is a measure of how strongly the shaking is felt, not a measure of the earthquake size. So, the intensity gets smaller with distance (see how the highest intensity is nearest the earthquake epicenter).
  • In the lower left center there is a map from Heezen et al. (1964). Heezen was an oceanographer that contributed greatly to our knowledge of the oceans. In this study, one of the things that they were studying is the flow of deep water (deep water flows largely because of changes in density of the seawater, controlled by salinity and temperature). Because of this, they were mapping the shape of the seafloor to see where this deep water could flow. Ths location of this map is outlined by a dashed rectangle in the main map.
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • Here is the Müller et al. (2008) figure from the interpretive poster above.

  • Here a the Bonatti et al. (2001) figure showing the bathymetry of this area. I include the figure caption as a blockquote below.

  • A: Multibeam topography of Romanche region, showing north-south profiles where sampling was carried out. Black dots and red numbers indicate estimated age (in million years) of lithosphere south of Romanche Transform, assuming spreading half-rate of 17 mm/yr within present-day ridge and transform geometry. White dots indicate epicenters of teleseismically recorded 1970–1995 events (magnitude . 4). FZ is fracture zone. B: Topography and petrology at eastern intersection of Romanche Fracture Zone with Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Data were obtained during expeditions S-16, S-19, and G-96 (Bonatti et al., 1994, 1996). C: Location of A along Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

  • Dr. Stephen Hicks and their colleagues conducted a fascinating study of the 2016 M 7.1 earthquake. They hypothesize that the Romanche fault slipped in different parts of the fault at different times (during the earthquake).
  • This map shows the historic seismicity of the region.

  • Seismotectonic context. The map location is given by the red rectangle on the inset globe. Focal mechanisms are shown for events with Mw > 6 (ref. 30). Mw > 7.0 events are labelled. Stations of the PI-LAB ocean bottom seismometer network are indicated by triangles. Our relocated hypocentre and low-frequency RMT of the 2016 earthquake are shown by the red star and red beach ball, respectively. The orange beach ball is a colocated Mw 5.8 used for the Mach cone analysis. The black rectangle shows the location of the map in Fig. 2. ISC Bulletin, Bulletin of the International Seismological Centre.

  • Here is where Hicks et al. (2020) hypothesize that the slip slipped.

  • Interpretation of rupture dynamics for the 2016 Romanche earthquake. Top: perspective view of bathymetry along the Romanche FZ. Bottom: interpretive cross-section along the ruptured fault plane. Colours show a thermal profile based on half-space cooling. The green line denotes the predicted transition between velocity-strengthening and velocity-weakening frictional regimes (as expressed by the a – b friction rate parameter) from Gabbro data35. The numbers show the key stages of rupture evolution: (1) rupture initiation (star) in the oceanic mantle, (2) initiation phase has sufficient fracture energy to propagate upwards to the locked section of fault, (3) weak subshear rupture front travels east in the lower crust and/or upper mantle, (4) rupture reaches the locked, thinner crustal segment close to the weaker RTI (SE1), (5) sufficient fracture energy for a westward supershear rupture in the crust along the strongly coupled fault segment (SE2) and (6) rupture possibly terminated by a serpentinized and hydrothermally altered fault segment.

    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. and Ekstrom, G., 2001. Earthquake slip on oceanic transform faults in Nature, v. 410, p. 74-77
  • Bonatti, E., Brunello, D., Fabretti, P., Ligi, M., Porcaro, R.A., and Sealer, M., 2001. Steady-state creation of crust-free lithosphere at cold spots in mid-ocean ridges in Geology, v. 29, no. 11, p. 979-982.
  • Hicks, S.P., Okuwaki, R., Steinberg, A., Rychert, C.A., Harmon, N. Abercrombie, R.E., Bogiatzis, P., Cataphors, D., Zahradnik, J., Kendall, J-M., Yagi, Y., Shimizu, K., and Sudhaus, H., 2020. Back-propagating supershear rupture in the 2016 Mw 7.1 Romanche transform fault earthquake in Nature Geoscience, v. 13, p. 647-653, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0619-9
  • Heezen, B.C., Bunce, E.T., Hersey, J.B., and Tharp, M., 1964. Chain and Romanche fracture zones in Deep-Sea research, v. 11, p. 11-33
  • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C., and Roest, W.R., 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743
  • Torsvik, T.H., Tousse, S., Labaila, C., and Smethurst, M.A., 2009. A new scheme for the opening of the South Atlantic Ocean and the dissection of an Aptian salt basin in Geophysical Journal International, v. 177, p. 1315-1333.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.


Earthquake Report M 7.0 Philippines

I don’t always have the time to write a proper Earthquake Report. However, I prepare interpretive posters for these events.
Because of this, I present Earthquake Report Lite. (but it is more than just water, like the adult beverage that claims otherwise). I will try to describe the figures included in the poster, but sometimes I will simply post the poster here.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000i5rd/executive

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

  • I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1921-2021 with magnitudes M ≥ 3.0 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
  • Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

    I include some inset figures.

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

20220727_philippines_interpretation.pdf 16 MB pdf

    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

Social Media: Here is my thread for this event.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

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.