Earthquake Report: M 6.8 Morocco

Posted on by
Reply

This evening (my time) there was an earthquake in Morocco. Magnitude 6.8, rather shallow, reverse or thrust (compressional) mechanism.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000kufc/executive

This M 6.8 earthquake happened in the Atlas Mountains, a compressional system with south dipping reverse faults on the north and north dipping reverse faults on the south.

It is possible, if not probable, that this earthquake is related to one of these reverse faults. Based on the location, it seems possible that this earthquake is on a south dipping thrust fault (associated with the North Atlas fault system).

I used the USGS earthquake catalog and it appears that this is the largest magnitude earthquake to happen in Morocco (since we started recording earthquakes on seismometers).

Here is the sobering part of this earthquake. The USGS PAGER Alert provides an estimate for the number of casualties and economic impact. Read more about how these estimates are produced (and how to read this report) here.

UPDATE: (2023.09.10 Version 7)

UPDATE: (2023.09.11)

Fault Scaling Relations

Empirical fault scaling relations are ways that we can compare fault rupture sizes with earthquake magnitudes. One of the most used and well cited empirical fault scaling relations paper is Wells and Coppersmith, 1994.

  • Wells and Coppersmith developed relations between earthquake magnitude/moment magnitude and surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, and rupture area. They also consider the difference between mean and maximum displacement measures.
  • The length of fault rupture is the distance that the fault slipped measured parallel to Earth’s surface. When we see fault lines mapped on a map, these lines are representative of the fault length.
  • The width of fault rupture is the distance that the fault slipped measured down into the Earth. For a fault that dips straight down into the Earth (perpendicular to the Earth’s surface), the width of the fault rupture is the distance between the Earth’s surface and the depth where the fault slipped. For faults that dip at an angle (like along a subduction zone, or a reverse/thrust fault like the fault that caused this M 6.8 earthquake), the distance measured is measured along this non-perpendicular distance.
  • The area of fault slip is basically the fault length times the fault width.

    • Here is the USGS fault slip model for the M 6.8 earthquake. The length of the fault slip figure is about 40 kilometers (km) and the width of the fault is about 45 km. The color represents the amount that the fault slipped (in meters) during the earthquake. So, the slip area does not fill this entire area. Most of the slip length is within ~30 km and width is within ~35km. The maximum slip is ~1.7 meters.


  • There have been some updates to these scaling relations that attempt to improve these relations. However, Wells and Coppersmith still work pretty well (the updates are not really that much different).
  • There remain certain types of earthquakes where we have small amounts of information to constrain these relations for those types of earthquakes (particularly large magnitude earthquakes, which are more rare than small and medium sized earthquakes). So, there is room for improvement.

    • Here is a plot from Wells and Coppersmith that shows the data relating magnitude with subsurface rupture length. We can see that there is a positive relation between magnitude and length (as the length is larger, so is the magnitude).


    (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 relation.

  • Note that there is lots of variation, so these empirical relations (represented by the lines that are drawn to “fit” these data) have lots of range. So, these empirical relations are not perfect predictors (i.e., fault length does not perfectly predict magnitude).
  • For example, a fault with subsurface rupture length of 10 km could have a magnitude that ranges between 5.25 and 6.25+. Remember, a M 6.25 releases about 32 times as much energy as a M 5.25. A M 6.25 earthquake is much larger than a M 5.25.

    • So, I used these scaling relations to calculate the magnitude for earthquakes of varying subsurface fault length. Here is a table from those calculations.


  • The M 6.8 USGS earthquake slip model suggests that this earthquake fits well with these subsurface fault scaling relations from Wells and Coppersmith (1994).
  • Well, as I was wrapping up for the day, I refreshed the USGS website for the earthquake and they had updated a bunch of the data (intensity, GIS data, and the slip data). So, the slip model shows a much smaller slip area. Though, if we look at the EMSC aftershock region, we may think that their first slip model was better. The aftershock region has a better fit for the scaling relations.

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 plates and seismicity for northwestern Africa.
  • In the upper 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.
  • Below the intensity map is a plot that shows the same intensity (both modeled and reported) data as displayed on the map. Note how the intensity gets smaller with distance from the earthquake.
  • In the lower left center are two maps showing the probability of earthquake triggered landslides and possibility of earthquake induced liquefaction. I will describe these phenomena below.
  • In the lower right corner is a larger scale map showing the Atlas Mountains and the North and South Atlas faults.
  • To the left of this large scale map is a map from Beauchamp et al., 1999. This map is for the Atlas Mtns to the east of where this earthquake happened. Note the tectonic folds associated with the underlying reverse faults.
  • In the upper left is a map from TEixel et al. (1999) that includes cross section locations. Cross section C is displayed to the right. The location of this cross section is also shown on the main map with the green line.
  • To the left of the intensity map is a map from Banault et al. (2023) that includes a yellow star where the M 6.8 earthquake occurred.
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


  • This is an updated poster with COMET InSAR analytical results. I also figured out how to download the EMSC seismicity data (they changed their website, so had to learn something new. Here is where one may download data from their catalog.
  • The USGS earthquake catalog (aka ComCat) is a global network, so a global catalog. The EMSC catalog relies, in places, on a more local network, so has more events in the catalog than in ComCat.
  • However, ComCat usually has all the major events and spans a longer time period.
  • SO, the 3 month seismicity I use here is from EMSC and the century dataset is based on the ComCat catalog.


    •

Other Report Pages

Discussion about aftershocks

    the following is a series of statements that i wrote to respond to someone who is in Morocco. i thought that perhaps others might find this useful.

    aftershocks may last for weeks, possibly months. aftershocks typically decay at a rate that is dependent on the fault system. each fault system is slightly different.

    Here is a short story about aftershocks in Northern California but this story is relevant to earthquakes elsewhere.

    we don’t know the specific rate of decay for a fault system until we observe the aftershocks decay for that fault. some faults have few aftershocks and others have robust aftershock sequences (many events).

    it is not satisfying to not know how long they will last, i understand.

    e.g., there was an earthquake in central Washington USA in 1872 and some argue that this continues to have aftershocks.

    so, they will last a while and nobody will know when they will stop.

    but for people to feel safe to start living in their homes again, they need to get an expert, like an engineer, to evaluate the stability of their houses. only an expert, who is trained to inspect structures, can make these evaluations.

    will there be other large earthquakes? this is something nobody can know.

    follow advice for getting an engineer to check out one’s building(s) so that they can feel safe living in them; if the engineer decides that the structure is safe to withstand earthquakes, that is the best we can do.

    the M6.8 changed the stresses in the crust adjacent to the earthquake. in some places, these stresses increased the chance for earthquakes on different (or the same) faults. in other places, they decreased the stress.

    these changes in stress are modest but can trigger a new earthquake. but this depends on the state of stress of the other earthquake fault, something that we cannot yet know. so, we cannot know if the places where stress is increased will have a triggered/new earthquake.

    the best we can do is to make sure that buildings are resistant to earthquake forces. this capability is reliant on engineers, building inspectors, competent building contractors, building codes, etc. AND that these people follow the rules (building codes).

    the Feb 2023 Türkiye earthquakes destroyed buildings that were constructed under well designed building codes. but they were destroyed because people did not follow the code. lots of buildings were built before the codes existed and those did not perform well either.

    so, when living in earthquake country, one simply needs to ensure that they are living/working in earthquake resistant buildings. they may find comfort to live outside these structures until they are inspected. this is the smart thing to do.

    i don’t have the expertise to know if a building is designed to withstand earthquakes. i am not a structural engineer, an earthquake engineer. i know some and can follow the local building codes here where i live. and i sure could not offer advice remotely. one simply needs to seek local expertise. i wish i could offer more advice.

    finally, people who have been traumatized by this earthquake and continue to be traumatized by these aftershocks are going through what everyone does when faced with these conditions. this is typical. maybe finding comfort with friends and family and neighbors will help (?).

    i hope i have provided some constructive feedback to your questions/concerns.

    hopefully this information can help those in Morocco cope with this extremely challenging natural hazard.

    if nothing else, the survivors will be able to build back stronger and more earthquake resistant.

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

Luckily I updated this page because I noticed that the interpretive figure below was incorrect (it was for a different earthquake).

  • 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.


Remote Sensing of Surface Deformation

  • One way to learn about the processes that happen during an earthquake is to evaluate the “coseismic” (during earthquake) surface deformation from that earthquake.
  • There are many ways to do this type of analysis. One may use classic surveys (using levels and tape measures) to measure the changes. One may use digital observations from satellites or airplanes, called remote sensing.
  • One of the ways to do this remote sensing is with a method called interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR).
  • The techniques to apply InSAR methods are advanced and take years to master. I will not attempt to explain the full description of what InSAR is but below is a list of online resources where others do a great job at explaining InSAR:

  • Basically, there are satellites that pass over Earth over a regular schedule. These satellites have sensors (called platforms) that acquire a variety of data that span different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
  • Many are familiar with the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum (recall the Pink Floyd album, The Dark Side of the Moon, which has an image of light going through a prism, showing the different colors of the visible spectrum.
  • The different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are described by the wavelength of the waves that these different types of radiation use to travel. The wavelength span for blue light is between 400 and 500 nanometers (nm). Green is 500 to 600 nm and red is 600 to 700 nm.
  • Other bands have longer or shorter wavelengths. X-Rays have much shorter wavelengths and infrared radiation has longer wavelengths.
  • Radar operates at long wavelengths (1-100 cm or 10,000,000-1,000,000,000 nm)
  • InSAR analysis, generally, uses radar data collected at two different times to determine how the Earth’s surface moved between the radar acquisitions.
  • There are some organizations that have programs that staff people to work on these InSAR analyses for events like earthquakes. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Centre for Observation and Modeling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tectonics (COMET) are two of these programs. They provide the results from their analyses online for anyone to download for free.
  • Here is the COMET event page for this M6.8 Morocco Earthquake.
  • This is a plot of the “unwrapped” InSAR results from the first Sentinel 1 (one of the radar satellites used for InSAR analysis) post-earthquake radar acquisition.
  • Color represents how the surface moved towards or away from the Satellite between 30 August and 11 September 2023. This is an ascending track and once we get a descending track acquisition, we will be able to get a better idea of the coseismic deformation.
  • This result helps us learn that the area in red generally went up and that the fault is dipping to the north (looking at the unwrapped data in the lower panel help with this interpretation).


  • Here is the source of data that I used to plot the above figures.

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • Here is the tectonic map from the poster (Teizel et al., 2002).


      • (a) Location sketch map of the Atlas Mountains in the North African foreland. (b) Geological map of the central High Atlas, indicating the section lines of Figure 2. ATC, Ait Tamlil basement culmination; SC, Skoura basement culmination; MC, Mougueur basement culmination; FZ, Foum Zabel thrust.

    • Here is the cross section from the poster (Teizel et al., 2002).


      • Serial geological cross sections through the High Atlas of Morocco (location in Figure 1b): (a) Midelt-Errachidia section, (b) Imilchil section, and (c) Demnat section. Segment x–x0 in 2c is adapted from Errarhaoui [1997].

    • This part of the world was once a mid ocean spreading ridge (aka a rifted margin). This figure shows the tectonic plate boundary configurations from this time of Earth’s past.
    • We will revisit this paper further down in the report where we see a geologic map and cross section in the region of this M 6.8 earthquake.


      • Plate reconstruction of the Central Atlantic to the Triassic-Jurassic boundary (200 Ma) (modified from Schettino and Turco, 2009). Rift zones are shown in dark grey. The square indicates the reconstructed position of the Marrakech High Atlas pf Morocco (MHA).

    (Domènech et al., 2015)

    • Here is the Babault et al. (2013) tectonic map.


      • Tectonic sketch map of the Moroccan High Atlas Mountains, indicating the lines of section of Figure 4a, b.

    • Here are the Babault et al. (2013) cross sections.


      • Structural cross-sections across the High Atlas and the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia. (a, b) Sections across the eastern and central High Atlas (from Teixell et al. 2003). These sections are based on field data and were modified from the original according to gravity modelling by Ayarza et al. 2005 (see location in Fig. 1). Although largely eroded, the Cretaceous sediments probably formed a tabular body that covered the entire Atlas domain, representing post-rift conditions. (c) Simplified structural cross-section of the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia, approximately through the latitude of Bogota´ (see location in Fig. 2). This section was constructed on the basis of maps, seismic profiles and structural data provided by ICP-Ecopetrol. The deep structure of the Sabana de Bogota´ region is conjectural as it is poorly imaged in the seismic profiles. The lower–upper Cretaceous boundary is taken for the sake of convenience at the top of the Une and Hilo´ formations. MMVB, Middle Magdalena Valley basin; LLB, Llanos basin.

    • The following are some maps from Lanari et al. (2020).
    • This is the main tectonic map.


      • Location of the study area and simplified geological map of the High Atlas and Anti‐Atlas Mountains. Africa Plate motion considering Eurasia fixed by Serpelloni et al. (2007). FWHA = far western High Atlas; WHA = western High Atlas; CHA = central High Atlas, AA = Anti‐Atlas; MA = Middle Atlas; SAF = South Atlas fault; JTF = Jebilet thrust front.

    • This is a map that shows how complicated the faulting is in this region.


      • Simplified geological map of the study area with schematic logs. See Figure 1 for location. The black lines are the cross‐section traces. Data from Baudon et al. (2009), Domènech et al. (2016, 2015), and El Arabi et al. (2003).

    • Here is a study about the geodetics of the western Mediterranean (Vernant et al., 2010). This study just barely reaches into the western Atlas Mountains, where the M 6.8 earthquake happened.
    • Geodesy is the study of the deformation of the Earth’s surface. Geodesists may study interseismic (between earthquakes) deformation or coseismic (during earthquakes) deformation.
    • These researchers used Global Positioning System (GPS, like in your smartphone) to measure the motion of locations in this area of study.
    • This map shows the two profiles plotted in the next figure. Profile 1 is of interest.


      • (a) GPS site velocities with respect to Nubia and 95% confidence ellipses. Heavy dashed lines show locations of profiles shown in Fig. 3 with the widths of the profiles indicated by lighter dashed lines. Focal mechanism indicates the location of the February 2004 Al Hoceima earthquake. Base map as in Fig. 1. (b) GPS site velocities with respect to Eurasia and 95% confidence ellipses. Format as in (a).

    • Profile 1 makes it into the western Atlas Mountains.
    • On the left, note sites MARO and AZIL. Look at the profile normal plot (the vertical axis represents how much the sites are moving relative to the direction perpendicular to the profile, which is sort of the direction of convergence in the Atlas Mountains).
    • The difference in convergence along the western part of profile 1 shows that there is very little interseismic deformation here. This supports the hypothesis that these faults are low slip rate faults.
    • There does appear to be some amount of interseismic deformation parallel to the profile. This suggests that there is some amount of lateral strain accumulating on these faults. However, these profiles are not oriented in an optimal direction to study the faults in the Atlas Mountains (so my crude interpretations are moderately inaccurate; what do you think about these geodetic data?).


      • Profiles 1 and 2 (see Fig. 2a). (a and d) Component of velocities and 1-sigma uncertainties along the direction of plate motion (normal to profile). (b and e) Component of velocities and 1-sigma uncertainties normal to the direction of plate motion (i.e., parallel to profiles). The interseismic deformation predicted by elastic block models is shown for the three main hypothesized plate boundaries (Red = Klitgord and Schouten, 1986; Green = Bird, 2003; Blue = Gutscher, 2004, see Fig. 1 for geometry). The pink line is for a model with a central Rif block (see the figure for geometry). (c and f) Topography and interpretative cross-section along Profiles 1 and 2. CC = Continental crust, LM= lithospheric mantle, OC= ocean crust, LVA = low velocity, high attenuation seismic anomaly (Calvert et al., 2000a,b).

    UPDATE: 11 Sept 2023

    • Albert Griera tweeted a figure that is included in a reference (Domènech et al., 2015). I used a couple figures from that journal article in an interpretive illustration below.
    • This Domènech et al. (2015) paper includes a cross section very close to the M 6.8 earthquake. At the top of this illustration is the map that shows the geology, faults, and the location for the cross section. Below is this cross section at two different time periods.
    • I include the figure captions for the map and cross section in block quote below the illustration.


      • (a) Geologic map of the western and Marrakech High Atlas (modified from Hollard, 1985), showing location of the study area detailed in (b). (b) Geologic map of the Marrakech High Atlas showing the main structural elements. Squares correspond to areas described in detail in this paper.

      Present-day cross section of the Marrakech High Atlas (see location in Fig. 2) and restoration to a state previous to the orogenic inversion in the Late Cretaceous.

Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

  • These are the two maps that show seismic and seismic risk for the western Mediterranean, 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 the western Mediterranean.


      •

    • 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 the western Mediterranean.


      References:

      Basic & General References

    • Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
    • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
    • Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
    • Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
    • Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
    • Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
    • Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
    • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
    • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
    • Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
    • Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
    • Storchak, D. A., D. Di Giacomo, I. Bondár, E. R. Engdahl, J. Harris, W. H. K. Lee, A. Villaseñor, and P. Bormann (2013), Public release of the ISC-GEM global instrumental earthquake catalogue (1900–2009), Seismol. Res. Lett., 84(5), 810–815, doi:10.1785/0220130034.
    • Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

      • Specific References

    • Arboleya, M.L., Teoxe;. A., Charroud, M., Julivert, M., 2004. A structural transect through the High and Middle Atlas of Morocco in Journal of African Earth Sciences, v. 39, p. 319-327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2004.07.036
    • Beauchamp, W., Allmendinger, R.W., Barazangi, M., Demnati, A., El Alji, M., and Dahmani, M., 1999. Inversion tectonics and the evolution of the High Atlas Mountains, Morocco, based on a geological-geophysical transect in Tectonics, v. 18, no. 2, p. 163-184, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998TC900015
    • Domènech, M., Teixell, A., Babault, J., and Arbolya, M-L., 2015. The inverted Triassic rift of the Marrakech High Atlas: A reappraisal of basin geometries and faulting histories in Tectonophysics, v. 663, p. 177-191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2015.03.017
    • Domènech, M., Teixell, A., and Stockli, D.F., 2016. Magnitude of rift-related burial and orogenic contraction in the Marrakech High Atlas revealed by zircon(U-Th)/He thermochronology and thermal modeling in Tectonics, v. 35, p. 2609–2635, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016TC004283
    • Jiménez‐Munt, I., M. Fernàndez, J. Vergés, D. Garcia‐Castellanos, J. Fullea, M. Pérez‐Gussinyé, and J. C. Afonso(2011), Decoupled crust‐mantle accommodation of Africa‐Eurasia convergence in the NW Moroccan margin,J. Geophys. Res.,116, B08403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB008105
    • Babault, J., Teixell, A., Struth, L., Van Den Driessche, J., Arboleya, ML., Tesón, and E., 2013. “Shortening, structural relief and drainage evolution in inverted rifts: insights from the Atlas Mountains, the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia and the Pyrenees”, Thick-Skin-Dominated Orogens: From Initial Inversion to Full Accretion, in Nemcˇok, M., Mora, A. & Cosgrove, J. W. (eds) Thick-Skin-Dominated Orogens: From Initial Inversion to Full Accretion. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP377.14
    • Lanari, R., Faccenna, C., Fellin, M. G., Essaifi, A., Nahid, A., Medina, F., & Youbi, N. (2020). Tectonic evolution of the western High Atlas of Morocco: Oblique convergence, reactivation, and transpression. Tectonics, 39, e2019TC005563. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019TC005563
    • Teixell, A., Arboleya, M., Julivert, M., and Charroud, M., 2003. Tectonic shortening and topography in the central High Atlas (Morocco) in Tectonics, v. 22, no. 5, 1051, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002TC001460
    • Vernant et al., 2010. Geodetic constraints on active tectonics of the Western Mediterranean: Implications for the kinematics and dynamics of the Nubia-Eurasia plate boundary zone in Journal of Geodynamics, v. 49, no 3-4, p. 123-129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2009.10.007

    Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: Kantō, Japan

Posted on by
Reply

Today marks 100 years since the 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/iscgem911526/executive

I am putting together the basics and will update over the next few months.

This earthquake generated strong ground shaking, triggered landslides, induced liquefaction, generated tsunami, and (sadly) caused a large number of casualties and deaths.

There was also a large typhoon that hit this area around the time of the earthquake. The fires from the earthquake were spread by the winds from this typhoon.

There are estimates that as many as 142,800 people died from this earthquake.

Here is a short video that mentions the 1923 earthquake.

This part of Japan is tectonically dominated by convergent plate boundaries called subduction zones.

For example, the Tokyo region was in the southern extent of the 2011 Tohoku-oki Earthquake. Here is an Earthquake Report for the 2011 earthquake.

There is a subduction zone that forms the Sagami trough. This is where the Philippine Sea plate subducts northwards beneath the Okhotsk plate (part of North America).

The 1923 earthquake appears to have slipped along this fault (maybe several sub-faults of this fault).

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 showing the tectonic plates and their boundaries. There is an inset figure from Lin et al. (2016) that shows a low angle oblique view of the tectonic plates and how the different subduction zones dive beneath each other.
  • To the right of this map is another plate tectonic map from Nyst et al. (2006). I describe this figure lower down in the report.
  • 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.
  • Above this intensity map is a figure from Stein et al. (2006) that shows what the intensity observations were from the 1923 earthquake. The JMA intensity scale is similar to the MMI scale but just spans a range from 1-7, while the MMI scale spans a range of 1-10.
  • In the upper right corner are two maps showing the probability of earthquake triggered landslides and possibility of earthquake induced liquefaction. I will describe these phenomena below.
  • To the left of the modeled intensity map is a figure that shows an earthquake slip model result from Kobayashi and Koketsu (2006). I discuss this figure later in the report.
  • In the lower left is a map showing inundation heights (rup-up elevations) from the 1923 earthquake generated tsunami (Matsuda et al., 1978).
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


    •

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • Matsuda et al. (1978) prepared a summary of major earthquakes in the southern Kanto district in Japan.
    • This summary included earthquake mechanisms and recurrence times for these earthquakes.
    • They used uplifted marine terraces as a basis for their interpretations.
    • This map shows the spatial extent for the earthquakes in their summary.


      • Great earthquakes during past 400 years off central Honshu. Encircled areas are earthquake source areas inferred from tsunami refraction diagram (Hatori, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1976a). Encircled area with a broken line is an area of the future earthquake of Oiso type. Ages of sudden uplift for the respective terrace were inferred from the thickness of marine sediments overlying the collected 14C samples and the width of the terrace.

    • This map shows the inundation height for tsunami generated by the 1923 and 1703 tsunami.


      • Inundation height of tsunamis at the 1923 earthquake (top) and at the 1703 earthquake (bottom) (data from Hatori and others, 1973; Hatori, 1976b).

    • The tsunami was devastating and had a run-up elevation that was at least 12 meters in some locations.
    • Here is a map showing some run-up elevations around Sagami Bay, south of the epicenter (Hatori, 1984).
    • The authors directly interviewed survivors of the earthquake and tsunami and their report is based on these interviews.


      • Distribution of inundation heights (above sea level. unti: m) of the 1923 Kanto tsunami in the Atami region.

    • This is a photo showing damaged houses and a dashed line representing the inundation level of 12 meters above sea level(flow depth; Hatori, 1984).


      • Damage to houses caused by the 1023 Kanto tsunami at Atami (from T. Ikeda). The dotted line shows the inundation level (3.0 m above sea level).

    • Here is a map showing the topography and inundation extent along the coast at Atami (Hatori, 1984).


      • Topography of Atami (ground elevations above M.S.L.) and inundation area of the 1923 Kanto tsunami.

    • Nyst et al. (2006) used updated geodetic analyses to reevaluate the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake.
    • Geodesy is the study of the deformation of the Earth, how the plates and crust move with time.
    • This can be for times between earthquakes (interseismic) or during earthquakes (coseismic).
    • They used geodetic observations (tide gage data, benchmark survey data) to constrain tectonic models of the earthquake.
    • Their analyses included the application of different fault slip models and how those different models may have generated deformation of Earth’s surface.
    • Here is a great tectonic map from their paper, showing the major tectonic boundaries, the shape of the megathrust subduction zone faults (slabs), and their proposed earthquake fault planes (the areas of the faults that slipped during the earthquake) for the 1923 temblor.


      • (a) Plate tectonic setting of Japan, where four major plates converge: the Eurasian (EU) or Amurian according to Heki et al. [1999] and Heki and Miyazaki [2001], North American (NA) or Okhotsk according to Seno et al. [1993, 1996], Pacific (PA), and Philippine Sea (PH) plates. Northern Honshu is located on the North American or Okhotsk plate. ISTL, Itoigawa-Shizuoka Tectonic Line. The arrows indicate motion of different plates relative to northern Honshu, and the numbers are averages of the rate predictions in millimeters per year, based on Global Positioning System (GPS) observations [Heki et al., 1999; Seno et al., 1996]. The dashed square outlines the area shown in Figure 1b. (b) Isodepth contours of the surfaces of the PH plate based on seismic reflection data [from Sato et al., 2005] and the PA plate based on seismicity data [from Noguchi, 2002]. (c) Active fault map of the coastal region around Sagami Bay with 1923 coseismic fault model planes (model III) of Matsu’ura et al. [1980] and isodepth contours of the PH plate [Sato et al., 2005]. The star indicates the epicenter of the 1923 Kanto earthquake according to the seismic study of Kanamori and Miyamura [1970]. The boldface lines indicate the Sagami trough.

    • Here is a map that shows their calculation of vertical land motion generated by the earthquake (Nyst et al., 2006).
    • The height of the colored bars represents the uplift (or subsidence) at each location. The arrowheads show the direction of motion.


      • Leveling routes in Kanto and the vertical displacement derived from surveys before and shortly after 1923. The oval indicates tide gauge station Aburatsubo, which provides the data for the absolute vertical reference frame. The roman enumeration and color coding of the arrows correspond to the profiles shown in Figure 10. The direction in which the profiles in Figure 10 display displacement along the routes is here indicated by a black arrow. For closed loops I and IV the white arrow indicates the start of the profile.

    • This map shows the different fault slip models that they considered in their study (Nyst et al., 2006).


      • Surface projection of a selection of fault plane models that are based on historical geodetic observations (triangulation and leveling data). The arrows indicate the slip direction, and the numbers indicate the magnitude of the slip for the uniform slip models.

    • These plots show a comparison of their model results with the observations (Nyst et al., 2006).


      • Fit of our uniform source model to the leveling observations that are adjusted for interseismic deformation and indicated by the colored lines. The dashed lines represent the absolute vertical displacement of our model. The color coding and roman numerals correspond to the level routes shown in Figure 5. The vertical component of the interseismic deformation field, plotted for routes I through IV, is omitted for routes V through IX, because there its signal is indistinguishable from zero displacement. Route X (Figure 5) is not displayed here, because the observations do not show any deformation and our model predicts zero vertical displacement along this route.

    • Kobayashi and Koketsu (2005) also used geodetic data to develop a slip model for this 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake.
    • Kobayashi and Koketsu (2005) “inverted” these geodetic data to estimate where the slip was on their fault models. They considered a range of parameters and included geodetic data, teleseismic data (seismic waves transmitted far distances), and strong ground motion data (seismic waves recorded on seismometers near the earthquake) for their inversions. The result of their inversion is a slip distribution for the earthquake fault slip. A slip distribution is a plot of an earthquake fault that shows how much the fault slipped in different parts of the fault. In most cases, faults do not slip in a homogeneous manner (the fault slips more in some places and less in other places).
    • Here is another figure that shows coseismic (during the earthquake) geodetic observations from this earthquake (Kobayashi and Koketsu, 2005)
    • Dark arrows show horizontal motion, black bars show subsidence (vertical motion downwards), and the white bars show uplift (vertical motion upwards).


      • Observed geodetic data. The arrows denote horizontal displacements from triangulation. The bars denote vertical displacements from leveling (up: white, down: black). The rectangular area bounded by dashed lines indicates the horizontal projection of the fault plane. The star symbol denotes the epicenter.

    • This is a figure that shows the prefered results from their study (Kobayashi and Koketsu, 2005)
    • The figure shows the slip model (color = slip amount, arrows = slip direction), the vertical motion from their model, and the horizontal motion from their model (compared to the observations).


      • Results from inversions of the geodetic data using the Green’s functions for a 1-D layered structure. (a) Slip distribution. (b) Observed (up: red, down: blue) and calculated (black) vertical displacements. (c) Observed (green) and calculated (black) horizontal displacements. The variance reduction for geodetic data is 0.96.

    • Nakadai et al. (2023) recently published a new source model for the 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake.
    • These authors used (inverted) coseismic geodetic observations to calculate the slip distribution from the earthquake (as Kobayashi and Koketsu (2005) did above ^^^).
    • First we see a map showing the region of these earthquakes, the locations of tide gages that recorded the tsunami, and a plot showing the tsunami size in places along the coast.


      • Tectonic setting near the source area of the 1923 Kanto earthquake. (a) The source areas of the 1923 Kanto earthquake (orange) and the 1703 Genroku Kanto earthquake (green). Red triangles show location of tide gauges in which tsunamis generated by the 1923 Kanto earthquake were observed. (b) Maximum tsunami surveyed heights (Aida, 1993) along the east coast of the Izu Peninsula shown in a red rectangle in panel (a).

    • Here is a map that shows the hypothetical fault geometry that Nakadai et a.l. (2023) used for their inversions.
    • The blue dashed lines show the shape of the megathrust subduction zone fault, the fault that forms the Sagami trough, and how it dips to the north.
    • The orange lines show the fault elements (subfaults) used in this study.


      • Locations of subfaults along the plate interface along the Sagami trough where the Philippine Sea plate subducts. Blue dashed contours show the depth of the plate interface with a 2 km interval. Red triangles show locations of tide gauges where tsunami waveforms were observed.

    • This figure shows the results of their inversion.
    • The map on the left shows the fault slip distribution (colored yellow to red to brown, 1- to 12-m of slip). There were two regions of high slip, circled in blue.
    • The plots on the right show the tide gage data (these are called marigrams) from the tsunami, in blue. The orange lines are plots showing tsunami waves calculated from their tsunami model that used the slip distribution along the fault shown on the left.
    • The comparison between their modeled data and the observed data is really good, except that Chiba misses one of the large waves and misses the timing of the 2nd or 3rd waves.


      • Results of the joint inversion of tsunami waveforms and crustal deformation data. (a) The estimated slip distribution of the 1923 Kanto earthquake. Red triangles show locations of tide gauges where tsunami waveforms were observed. Two blue dashed ellipsoids, I and II, show large slip areas. A blue star shows the epicenter of the Kanto earthquake. Black
      contours show the slip distribution estimated by Matsu’ura et al. (2007) with a contour interval of 2 m. Two blue dashed ellipsoids, I and II, show large slip areas. (b) Comparison of observed (blue) and computed (orange) tsunami waveforms. Yellow hatched areas show parts of tsunami waveforms used in the joint inversion.

    • This map shows a comparison between their modeled coseismic vertical land motion (using orange (up) and yellow (down) arrows) with the observed vertical land motion (dark blue (up) and light blue (down) arrows).


      • Comparison of observed and computed vertical crustal deformation caused by the 1923 Kanto earthquake. Dark and light blue arrows show observed uplifts and subsidence, respectively. Red and orange arrows show computed uplifts and subsidence, respectively.

    • These are their slip distributions for a variety of how much they weight the crustal deformation data relative to the tsunami ddata.


      • Slip distributions estimated from the joint inversion of tsunami waveforms and crustal deformation data using different weighting factors (λ), the weight of the crustal deformation data against the tsunami data, 0.25, 0.5, 0,75, 1.0, and 2.0. Blue arrows show subfault 4C for which a large slip was estimated in this study but not in the previous studies.

    • This figure shows a comparison between the tsunami observations and their calculated tsunami sizes.


      • (a) Comparison of surveyed tsunami heights (red dots), computed maximum tsunami heights from the estimated slip distribution (blue dots), and those from the slip distribution without subfault 4C (green dots), along the east coast of the Izu Peninsula. (b) Maximum tsunami height distribution near the east coast of the Izu peninsula computed from the estimated slip distribution.

    • Stein et al. (2006) prepared an updated seismic hazard assessment for the Tokyo region of southern Japan.
    • Their model was based on observations from historical earthquakes.


      • (a) Simplified tectonic map of the Kanto triple junction (Toda et al. submitted), showing the Japan Group and Kashima-Daiichi seamount chains. (b) The Philippine Sea plate is shaded pink, where it descends beneath the Eurasian plate. The proposed Kanto fragment (green) lies between the Philippine Sea plate and the underlying Pacific plate. Sites of
      large historical earthquakes are identified with their tectonic plate element. Two cross-sections through greater Tokyo are shown with 1979–2003 microseismicity in the lower panels.

    • This shows the peak intensities that they used for their hazard model. The intensities from the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake are in the upper right panel (Stein et al., 2006).


      • (a) Peak intensities observed during the past 400 years. Observed intensity distribution for (b) 1923 MZ7.9 Kanto (c) 1855 Mw7.4 Ansei-Edo and (d) 1703 Mw8.2 Genroku shocks (Bozkurt et al. submitted), together with our inferred seismic sources for these three earthquakes.

    • These are the seismic slip rates for the sources used in their model (Stein et al., 2006).


      • The inferred seismic slip rate (often called the ‘slip deficit rate’) for the major sources, and their association with larger historic events and historical seismicity, modified from Nishimura & Sagiya (submitted). Red sources slip at high rate and are presently locked, and thus are accumulating tectonic strain to be released in future large earthquakes; white sources have a low slip rate or creep, and so are unlikely to be sites of future large shocks.

    • These maps show the 30 year probability percent (%) of ground shaking exceeding JMA 6 (about 0.93 pga) and places that may experience earthquake induced liquefaction (Stein et al., 2006).
    • Compare the lower map with the USGS earthquake induced liquefaction susceptibility map in the poster or below in the ground failure interpretation figure.


      • (a) Spatial distribution of the time-averaged 30 year probability of severe shaking (PGAw0.93g), which is consistent with our independent estimate (Bozkurt et al. submitted). (b) The probability of shaking is correlated with proximity to the plate-boundary faults and to sites of unconsolidated sediments. ISTL, Itoigawa-Shizuoka Tectonic Line.

    • Kimura et al. (2010) used seismic reflection and microseismicity data to investigate the fault geometry in the region of the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake.
    • They found evidence for the subducting plate (and more).
    • Here is a figure showing the earthquakes they studied, the plate tectonic configuration, and the seismicity they used for their study.


      • (A) Plate geometry of the PHS, which subducts below Kanto from the Sagami trough. The arrow represents the plate convergence direction relative to Kanto (25).(B) Map of Kanto. Blue lines denote deep seismic survey lines. Small triangles denote the nearest points between P1 and P2. Small red circles denote repeating earthquakeson the PHS, with the representative focal mechanism (13, 18). Green lines represent isodepth contours of the PHS; numbers denote depths in kilometers (18). The epicenter, focal mechanism, and source fault are shown for the 1923 Kanto earthquake (12, 26), its largest aftershock (13), and the SSE (16, 17), respectively. Small squares represent seismographic stations. (C) The cross section along a line a-b-c-d. The plate boundary of the PHS revealed by P1 (13) is shown as a thick line. Small blue circles denote background earthquakes.

    • Here is a figure showing the seismic reflection data they used for their study (Kimura et al., 2010).


      • Deep seismic reflection profiles. Horizontal distance from the Sagami trough is shown on top. P2 is projected onto the N30°E direction. Red arrows show the plate boundary. Numbers denote P-wave velocities (km/s). Small triangles denote the nearest point between P1 and P2. In P2, the final hypocenters of the Off-Kanto cluster for which depths were adjusted by the P-S wave are projected (red, RQs; black, background microearthquakes). The original sections are shown in fig. S1. The velocity profile at the location indicated by an open arrow is displayed to the right, with enlargements of waveforms at major deep reflectors (R1 and R2) at locations shown by black arrows (III, IV) that are convolved by reflectors at the basement of the surface sedimentary layer just above each region (I, II). P1 data are from (13).

    • Here is a figure showing their interpretations (Kimura et al., 2010).


      • Schematic illustration of subsurface structure, the plate boundary (red line), and underplating off the Kanto region of the Philippine Sea plate. The depth uncertainty of the RQs is also shown.

    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).


    • Here is the observed intensity map from Stein et al. (2006)


      • Observed intensity distribution for (b) 1923 MZ7.9 Kanto earthquake.

    Potential for Ground Failure

    Luckily I updated this page because I noticed that the interpretive figure below was incorrect (it was for a different earthquake).

    • 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
    • Storchak, D. A., D. Di Giacomo, I. Bondár, E. R. Engdahl, J. Harris, W. H. K. Lee, A. Villaseñor, and P. Bormann (2013), Public release of the ISC-GEM global instrumental earthquake catalogue (1900–2009), Seismol. Res. Lett., 84(5), 810–815, doi:10.1785/0220130034.
    • Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

      • Specific References

    • Davison, C., 1925. The Japanese Earthquake of 1 September 1923. The Geographical Journal, 65(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1782347
    • Hatori, Tokutaro, 1984. Tsunami Behavior of the 1923 Kanto Earthquake at Atami and Hatsushima Island in Sagami Bay in Bull. Earthquake Research Institute, v. 58, p. 683-689
    • Jones, M., 2016. The Great Kantō Earthquake and the Chimera of National Reconstruction in Japan. By J. Charles Schencking . New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. xxii, 374 pp. ISBN: 9780231162180 (cloth; also available as e-book). – Imaging Disaster: Tokyo and the Visual Culture of Japan’s Great Earthquake of 1923. By Gennifer Weisenfeld . Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. xv, 393 pp. ISBN: 9780520271951 (cloth; also available as e-book). The Journal of Asian Studies, 75(3), 836–839. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021911816000851
    • Kimura, H., Takeda, T., Obara, K., & Kasahara, K., 2010. Seismic Evidence for Active Underplating Below the Megathrust Earthquake Zone in Japan. Science, 329(5988), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187115 
    • Kobayashi, R., Koketsu, K. Source process of the 1923 Kanto earthquake inferred from historical geodetic, teleseismic, and strong motion data. Earth Planet Sp 57, 261–270 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352562
    • Matsuda, T., Ota, Y., Ando, M., & Yonekura, N., 1978. Fault mechanism and recurrence time of major earthquakes in southern Kanto district, Japan, as deduced from coastal terrace data. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 89(11), 1610. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120230050
    • Nyst, M., Nishimura, T., Pollitz, F. F., and Thatcher, W., 2006. The 1923 Kanto earthquake reevaluated using a newly augmented geodetic data set, J. Geophys. Res., 111, B11306, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003628.
    • Pollitz, F. F., Pichon, X., & Lallemant, S. J. (1996). Shear partitioning near the central Japan triple junction: the 1923 great Kanto earthquake revisited-II. Geophysical Journal International, 126(3), 882–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1996.tb04710.x
    • Stein, R.S., Toda, S., Parsons, T., amnd Grunewald, E., 2006. A new probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for greater Tokyo in Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci.v. 364, p. 1965-1988. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2006.1808.
    • https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jamstecr/23/0/23_12/_html/-char/en
    • https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0040195189903880
    • https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282052144_Geological_and_historical_evidence_of_irregular_recurrent_earthquakes_in_Japan
    • https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352413188_Time-Dependent_Probabilistic_Tsunami_Inundation_Assessment_Using_Mode_Decomposition_to_Assess_Uncertainty_for_an_Earthquake_Scenario

      • Audio version of the wikipedia page:

    Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 7.1 Indonesia

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

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

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

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


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


Other Report Pages

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

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


    • Here are the seismcity cross sections.


      •

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

    Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

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

      • The GEM Seismic Hazard Map:




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


        •

      • The GEM Seismic Risk Map:




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


      •

    Tsunami Hazard

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


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

    References:

    Basic & General References

  • Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
  • Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
  • Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
  • Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
  • Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
  • Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
  • Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
  • Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
  • Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
  • Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
  • Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
  • Storchak, D. A., D. Di Giacomo, I. Bondár, E. R. Engdahl, J. Harris, W. H. K. Lee, A. Villaseñor, and P. Bormann (2013), Public release of the ISC-GEM global instrumental earthquake catalogue (1900–2009), Seismol. Res. Lett., 84(5), 810–815, doi:10.1785/0220130034.
  • Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

    • Specific References

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

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 7.7 Loyalty Islands

Posted on by
Reply

I am catching up with this today as I have been busy with other things.

I am still behind on those things, but wanted to get this put together since I am currently working on a project that includes tsunami sources in this region.

There was a magnitude M 7.7 earthquake on 19 May 2023 offshore of New Caledonia.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/at00ruvxj7/executive

This earthquake happened in the Australia plate, west of the deep sea trench.

The deep sea trench owes its 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 North Fiji Basin.

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, the location showed this to be west of the subduction zone. Also, 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 7.7 Loyalty Isles 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.

There are also records of tsunami and seismic waves on water level sensors in this region. A tsunami was observed on the Ouinne (New Caledonia) tide gage.

Here are the tide gage data from https://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SeaLevelsDb/Home.

This M 7.7 earthquake is having lots of aftershocks and the largest was a M 7.1.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000kdce/executive

Not only did the M 7.7 generate a tsunami but so did the M 7.1 earthquake. The plot below shows both earthquake times relative to the tsunami produced by those events.

These tsunami were recorded on other gages as well but this was the best record I saw.


My initial tweet called this normal faulting event a tensional earthquake. Dr. Harold Tobin provided an excellent overview of the difference between tension and extension.

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 1923-2023 with magnitudes M ≥ 7.5 in one version.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • 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 center is a tectonic map from Patriat et al. (2019). I place a yellow star in the general location of this M 7.7 earthquake.
  • In the upper left corner shows the tectonic plates and seismicity from the past century for events with magnitudes larger than M 7.5.
  • Below this map is a figure from the USGS that shows their estimate of how much the fault slipped during this M 7.7 earthquake. Dark red shows where the fault may have slipped as much as 3 meters.
  • 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 transparent colors with yellow labels show what people actually felt in those different locations.
  • in the lower left is the tide gage plot from Ouinne, New Caledonia (location shown on the map).
  • In the upper right is a map that shows earthquakes and their aftershock sequences for three events in the past 3 years. There is some overlap, but mostly, these three sequences have aftershocks in different areas. The 2021 and 2022 earthquakes are probably (?) subduction zone earthquakes based on their mechanisms. it sure seems like these two events may have changed the stresses in the Australia plate (i.e., they may have triggered the 2023 earthquake).
    1. 2021 M 7.7 (green)
    2. 2022 M 7.0 (blue)
    3. 2023 M 7.7 (orange)
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


    Other Report Pages

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a spectacular web page that helps us learn about the plate tectonics (seismotectonics) of the eastern margin of the Australia plate. Check out their webpage here.

    • Here is the plate tectonic map from Patriat et al. (2019).


      • A) Simplified present-day geodynamic map of the New Hebrides and Matthew-Hunter subduction systems (modern trenches shown in black). Inferred location of the New Hebrides subduction and its termination as a STEP fault before 2 Ma shown in light grey. Inset map shows the regional bathymetry. B) Schematic evolution of the North Fiji Basin when the system shifted from a STEP fault to subduction initiation at 2 Ma (after Patriat et al., 2015). LR, Loyalty Ridge; NC, New Caledonia.

    • This is the plate tectonic map from de Alteriis et al. (1993) that shows the major fault systems in the region.


      • Location map of North Fiji Basin ridge; box indicates full multibeam covered area of Figure 2. Heavy lines denote north-south, N15°, and N160° main segments of ridge axis; dashed lines are pseudofaults indicating double propagation. F. Z.— fracture zone.

    • Here is a figure from Schellart et al. (2002) that shows their model of tectonic development of the North Fiji Basin. Schellart et al. (2002) include a long list of references for the tectonics in this region here. Below I include the text from the original figure caption in blockquote.


      • Tectonic reconstruction of the New Hebrides – Tonga region (modified and interpreted from Auzende et al. [1988], Pelletier et al. [1993], Hathway [1993] and Schellart et al.(2002a)) at (a) ~ 13 Ma, (b) ~ 9 Ma, (c) 5 Ma and (d) Present. The Indo-Australian plate is fixed. DER = d’Entrcasteaux Ridge, HFZ = Hunter Fracture Zone, NHT = New Hebrides Trench, TT = Tonga Trench, WTP = West Torres Plateau. Arrows indicate direction of arc migration. During opening of the North Fiji Basin, the New Hebrides block has rotated some 40-50° clockwise [Musgrave and Firth 1999], while the Fiji Plateau has rotated some 70-115° anticlockwise [Malahoff et al. 1982]. During opening of the Lau Basin, the Tonga Ridge has rotated ~ 20° clockwise [Sager et al. 1994]. (Click for enlargement)

    • This is the plate tectonic history map from Begg and Gray (1993) that shows how they interpret the Fiji Plateau to have formed.


      • Tectonic setting (Figures 1a–1c) and tectonic reconstructions (Figures 1d and 1e) of the Outer Melanesian region (adapted from Hathway [1993]; reprinted with permission from the Geological Society of London).

    • (a) Map of the Fiji platform and north end of the Lau Ridge showing the major islands in the Fiji area, the major early Pliocene volcanoes of Viti Levu, the major seafloor fracture zones, and part of the spreading center of the Fiji Basin (adapted from Gill and Whelan [1989]). Shoshonitic volcanoes, including the Tavua Volcano (T), are shown by squares and calc-alkaline volcanoes by circles.
    • (b) Tectonic features of the northeastern segment of the plate boundary between the Australian and Pacific plates showing the Outer Melanesian Arc of the southwest Pacific, trenches and ridge systems, and oceanic plateaus (adapted from Kroenke [1984]). Fiji, as part of the Fiji Platform, consists of a series of islands at the north end of the Lau Ridge, with the North Fiji Basin formed as part of a spreading center.
    • (c) Present plate configuration.
    • (d) Reconstruction at 5.5 Ma.
    • (e) Reconstruction at 10 Ma. In Figures 1a–1e the Australian plate is fixed and the east-west convergence rate between plates was assumed to be 9–10 cm yr-1. Shading represents submarine depths <2000 m.
    • Abbreviations are as follows: VT, Vitiaz trench; VAT, Vanuatu trench; LR, Lau Ridge; LB, Lau Basin; TR, Tonga Ridge; FFZ, Fiji Fracture Zone; LL, Lomaiviti lineament; V-BL, Vatulele-Beqa lineament. Long dashes denote southern margin of the Melanesian Border Plateau (MBP). The open square (Figures 1b and 1c) denotes the location of the Tavua Volcano.
    • 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 a map from the USGS report (Benz et al., 2011). Read more about this map on the USGS website. Earthquakes are plotted with color related to depth and circle diameter related to magnitude. Today’s M 6.8 earthquake occurred south of cross section G-G’.


    • This is the legend.


    • Here is a cross section showing the seismicity along swatch profile G-G’.


      •

    • Craig et al. (2014) evaluated the historic record of seismicity for subduction zones globally. In particular, the evaluated the relations between upper and lower plate stresses and earthquake types (cogent for the southern New Hebrides trench). Below is a figure from their paper for this part of the world. I include their figure caption below in blockquote.


      • Outer-rise seismicity along the New Hebrides arc. (a) Seismicity and focal mechanisms. Seismicity at the southern end of the arc is dominated by two major outer-rise normal faulting events, and MW 7.6 on 1995 May 16 and an MW 7.1 on 2004 January 3. Earthquakes are included from Chapple & Forsyth (1979); Chinn & Isacks (1983); Liu & McNally (1993). (b) Time versus latitude plot.

    • Here is a summary figure from Craig et al. (2014) that shows different stress configurations possibly existing along subduction zones.


      • Schematic diagram for the factors influencing the depth of the transition from horizontal extension to horizontal compression beneath the outer rise. Slab pull, the interaction of the descending slab with the 660 km discontinuity (or increasing drag from the surround mantle), and variations in the interface stress influence both the bending moment and the in-plane stress. Increases in the angle of slab dip increases the dominance of the bending moment relative to the in-plane stress, and hence moves the depth of transition towards the middle of the mechanical plate from either an shallower or a deeper position. A decrease in slab dip enhances the influence of the in-plane stress, and hence moves the transition further from the middle of the mechanical plate, either deeper for an extensional in-plane stress, or shallower for a compressional in-plane stress. Increased plate age of the incoming plate leads to increases in the magnitude of ridge push and intraplate thermal contraction, increasing the in-plane compressional stress in the plate prior to bending. Dynamic topography of the oceanic plate seawards of the trench can result in either in-plane extension or compression prior to the application of the bending stresses.

    • Here is an animation that shows the seismicity for this region from 1960 – 2016 for earthquakes with magnitudes greater than or equal to 7.0.
    • I include some figures mentioned in my report from 2016.04.28 for a sequence of earthquakes in the same region as today’s earthquake (albeit shallower hypocentral depths), in addition to a plot from Cleveland et al. (2014). In the upper right corner, Cleveland et al. (2014) on the left plot a map showing earthquake epicenters for the time period listed below the plot on the right. On the right is a plot of earthquakes (diameter = magnitude) of earthquakes with latitude on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis. Cleveland et al (2014) discuss these short periods of seismicity that span a certain range of fault length along the New Hebrides Trench in this area. Above is a screen shot image and below is the video. To see more about the tectonics in the Vanuatu region, head over to a report from January 2023.


    • Here is a link to the embedded video below (6 MB mp4)

    • Here is a great overview map from Schellart et al. (2006).
    • There is a cross section in subsequent figures and the location of this section is shown on the map on the left.


      • (a) Topography and bathymetry of the Southwest Pacific region (from Smith and Sandwell (1997)) and (b) regional tectonic setting of (a). Cfz, Cook fracture zone; ChRfsz, Chatham Rise fossil subduction zone; d’ER, d’Entrecasteaux Ridge; EP, East Papua; ER, Efate Re-entrant; LPl, Louisiade Plateau; LoR, Loyalty Ridge; LTr, Louisiade Trough; MaB, Manus Basin; MeR, Melish Rise; NB, New Britain; NBT, New Britain Trench; NCfsz, New Caledonia fossil subduction zone; Nd’EB, North d’Entrecasteaux Basin; NHT, New Hebrides Trench; NLoB, North Loyalty Basin; NST, North Solomon Trough; QT, Queensland Trough; ReB, Reinga Basin, ReR, Reinga Ridge; SCB, Santa Cruz Basin; SCT, San Cristobal Trench; SER, South Efate Re-entrant; SLoB, South Loyalty Basin; SoS, Solomon Sea; SReT, South Rennell Trough; TaB, Taranaki Basin; TKR, Three Kings Ridge; ToT, Townsville Trough; TrT, Trobriand Trough; VMfz, Vening Meinesz fracture zone;WoB,Woodlark Basin; WTP,West Torres Plateau. 1, normal fault; 2, strike-slip fault; 3, subduction zone; 4, spreading ridge (double line) and transform faults (single lines); 5, land; 6–8, sea, with 6, continental or arc crust; 7, oceanic plateau; and 8, basin/ocean floor. Structures in light grey indicate that they are inactive. Thick continuous east–west line at latitude 20° S in panel (a) shows location of cross-section plotted in Fig. 4h. Thick dashed line in panel (a) shows location of cross-section plotted in Fig. 5.

    • Below is a series of cross sections (location on above map) through time.
    • The panels start at 85 million years ago (Ma) and proceed to the present time (panel H).




      • East–west cross-sections illustrating the evolution of the Southwest Pacific region since the Cretaceous in an Australia-fixed reference frame. For location of final cross-section in Fig. 4h see Fig. 1. White arrows indicate convergence between Pacific plate and Australia. Black arrows illustrate the sinking kinematics of a slab. Diagrams illustrate that subduction of Pacific lithosphere from the Late Cretaceous to Paleocene and subduction of backarc lithosphere (e.g. South Loyalty slab) results primarily from slab rollback (i.e. negligible convergence between overriding and subducting plate), leading to a simple slab geometry with draping of the slab over the upper–lower mantle discontinuity. subduction of the Pacific plate from the Eocene to Present results from both slab rollback and convergence, leading to a more complex slab geometry with slab draping (due to rollback) and folding (due to convergence). Slab kinematics was inspired by subduction models from Guillou-Frottier et al. (1995), Griffiths et al. (1995), Funiciello et al. (2003) and Schellart (2004a, 2005).

    • Here is a reconstruction that Schellart et al. (2006) prepared for the past 10 Ma.


      • Reconstruction of the clockwise rotation of the New Hebrides arc during opening of the North Fiji backarc Basin, resulting in collision of the arc with the d’Entrecasteaux Ridge and formation of the Efate re-entrant during initial collision. Location of the initial collision site provides an estimate of the eastward continuation of the d’Entrecasteaux Ridge, and therefore an estimate of the east–west width of the South Loyalty Basin (∼750km). Location of the rotation pole is indicated by the black dot and the curved arrow. Numbers indicate approximate amount of rotation of the New Hebrides arc since opening of the North Fiji Basin at ∼12–11Ma. Australia is fixed. Hfz, Hunter fracture zone; LB, Lau Basin; NFB, North Fiji Basin; NHT, New Hebrides Trench; SCT, San Cristobal Trench.

    • Here is an interesting paper where van de Lagemaat et al. (2018) work out the tectonic history of the region between New Zealand, Australia, and the Loyalty Islands.
    • They prepare a tectonic model to reconstruct the tectonic history and compare their model with seismic tomography models.


      • Topography and bathymetry (left) and tectonic map (right) of the SW Pacific. Tectonic map is based on our model (see Table 3 and the supporting information): continents in green, submerged continental fragments and volcanic arcs in gray. Present-day plate boundaries in red, former plate boundaries in dark gray. Pink and yellow stars are locations of New Caledonia and Northland ophiolites, respectively. (Former) plate names in dark blue. SW Pacific assemblage consists of multiple smaller plates. BT = Bellona Trough; DEB = D’Entrecasteaux Basin; DEZ = D’Entrecasteaux Zone; FAB = Fairway- Aotea Basin; HT = Havre Trough; KAP = Kupe Abyssal Plain; MAP = Minerva Abyssal Plain = NB, Norfolk Basin; NCB = New Caledonia Basin; NFB = North Fiji Basin; NLB = North Loyalty Basin; LB = Lau Basin; SFB = South Fiji Basin; SLB = South Loyalty Basin; WB = Woodlark Basin; NHT = New Hebdrides Trench; Cfz = Cook fracture zone; Hfz = Hunter fracture zone; VMfz = Vening Meinesz fracture zone; Tr = Trench.

    • Here we see some tomographic cross sections from van de Lagemaat et al. (2018). The colder/denser crust is shown in blue (an oversimplification). We can identify the subducted plates as the blue regions that have a downward going shape.


      • W-E tomographic cross sections of the Tonga-Kermadec slab at the northern (left) and southern (right) ends of the trench, based on the UU-P07 tomographic model (Amaru, 2007). In the north, a significant portion of the slab is flat lying before it continues into the upper mantle, whereas in the south the slab penetrates straight into the upper mantle.

    • This is a summary of their plate tectonic reconstruction.


      • Paleogeographic snapshots of the kinematic reconstruction at selected time slices in an Australia fixed frame. 83 Ma: Start of the reconstruction; 60 Ma: start of New Caledonia subduction; 45 Ma: oldest possible, and frequently mentioned, age of Tonga-Kermadec subduction zone; 30 Ma: end of New Caledonia subduction, youngest possible age of Tonga-Kermadec subduction zone initiation and start of Norfolk and South Fiji Basin back-arc spreading; and 15 Ma: end of Norfolk and South Fiji Basin back-arc spreading.

    • Here is a great figure from here, the New Caledonian Seismologic Network. This shows how geologists have recorded uplift rates along dip (“perpendicular” to the subduction zone fault). On the left is a map and on the right is a vertical profile showing how these rates of uplift change east-west. This is the upwards flexure related to the outer rise, which causes extension in the upper part of the downgoing/subducting plate.


      • The subduction of the Australian plate under the Vanuatu arc is also accompanied by vertical movements of the lithosphere. Thus, the altitudes recorded by GPS at the level of the Quaternary reef formations that cover the Loyalty Islands (Ouvéa altitude: 46 m, Lifou: 104 m and Maré 138 m) indicate that the Loyalty Islands accompany a bulge of the Australian plate. just before his subduction. Coral reefs that have “recorded” the high historical levels of the sea serve as a reference marker for geologists who map areas in uprising or vertical depression (called uplift and subsidence). Thus, the various studies have shown that the Loyalty Islands, the Isle of Pines but alsothe south of Grande Terre (Yaté region) rise at speeds between 1.2 and 2.5 millimeters per decade.

    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

  • Baillard, C., W. C. Crawford, V. Ballu, M. Régnier, B. Pelletier, and E. Garaebiti (2015), Seismicity and shallow slab geometry in the central Vanuatu subduction zone, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth,120,5606–5623, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011853
  • Begg, G. and Gray, D.R., 2002. Arc dynamics and tectonic history of Fiji based on stress and kinematic analysis of dikes and faults of the Tavua Volcano, Viti Levu Island, Fiji in Tectonics, v. 21, no. 4, DOI: 10.1029/2000TC001259
  • Benz, H.M., Herman, Matthew, Tarr, A.C., Furlong, K.P., Hayes, G.P., Villaseñor, Antonio, Dart, R.L., and Rhea, Susan, 2011. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 eastern margin of the Australia plate: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-I, scale 1:8,000,000.
  • Bergeot, N., M. N. Bouin, M. Diament, B. Pelletier, M. Re´gnier, S. Calmant, and V. Ballu (2009), Horizontal and vertical interseismic velocity fields in the Vanuatu subduction zone from GPS measurements: Evidence for a central Vanuatu locked zone, J. Geophys. Res., 114, B06405, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005249
  • Cleveland, K.M., Ammon, C.J., and Lay, T., 2014. Large earthquake processes in the northern Vanuatu subduction zone in Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, v. 119, p. 8866-8883, doi:10.1002/2014JB011289.
  • Craig, T.J., Copley, A., and Jackson, J., 2014. A reassessment of outer-rise seismicity and its implications for the mechanics of oceanic lithosphere in Geophyscial Journal International, v. 1974, no. 1, p. 63-89, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu013
  • de Alterris, G. et al., 1993. Propagating rifts in the North Fiji Basin southwest Pacific in Geology, v. 21, p. 583-586.
  • Deng, C., Jenner, F. E., Wan, B., & Li, J.-L. (2022). The influence of ridge subduction on the geochemistry of Vanuatu arc magmas. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127, e2021JB022833. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB022833
  • Hayes, G. P., D. J. Wald, and R. L. Johnson, 2012. Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B01302, doi:10.1029/2011JB008524.
  • Patriat, M., Tervor, F., Danyushevsky, L., Callot, J., Jean, M.M., Hoernle, J., Hauff, F., Maas, R., Woodhead, J.D., and Feig, S.T., 2019. Subduction initiation terranes exposed at the front of a 2 Ma volcanically-active subduction zone in EPSL, v. 508, p. 30-40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.12.011
  • Richards, S., Holm., R., Barber, G., 2011. When slabs collide: A tectonic assessment of deep earthquakes in the Tonga-Vanuatu region, Geology, v. 39, pp. 787-790.

    • Oceanic-Oceanic Subduction Zone Figure
    Music Reference (in 1900-2016 seismicity video)

  • Schellart, W., Lister, G. and Jessell, M. 2002. Analogue modelling of asymmetrical back-arc extension. In: (Ed.) Wouter Schellart, and Cees W. Passchier, Analogue modelling of large-scale tectonic processes, Journal of the Virtual Explorer, Electronic Edition, ISSN 1441-8142, volume 7, paper 3, doi:10.3809/jvirtex.2002.00046
  • Schellart, W.P., Lister, G.S., and Toy, V.B., 2006. A Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic reconstruction of the Southwest Pacific region: Tectonics controlled by subduction and slab rollback processes in Earth Science Reviews, v. 76, p. 191-233, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.01.002
  • van de Lagemaat, S. H. A., van Hinsbergen, D. J. J., Boschman, L. M., Kamp, P. J. J., & Spakman, W. (2018). Southwest Pacific absolute plate kinematic reconstruction reveals major Cenozoic Tonga-Kermadec slab dragging. Tectonics, 37, 2647–2674. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017TC004901

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 5.5 Lake Almanor

Posted on by
Reply

As I was socializing with my coworkers at our weekly social hour, my colleagues noted that they were getting an Earthquake Early Warning. Soon after they reported feeling the ground shake.

After refreshing the USGS earthquakes map webpage a few times, the earthquake showed up. Methinks it was a M 5.5 at first, and changed a few times over the coming minutes (eventually settling on M 5.5).

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ew1683847190/executive

Cindy and I realized that we would need to get to work preparing an Earthquake Quick Report. We had not yet gotten notifications from our information sources, but we left the social hour to get to work.

Cindy and I got our report out and our other colleague Brian got some tweets out from our twitter account. It is important to provide information in a rapid manner so that people learn that they can rely upon us as a credible source of information.

The earthquake reminded me of an earthquake sequence in 2013. I remember discussing this M 5.7 sequence in real time with other colleagues, like Danielle. This was early in the earthjay years, so I was still getting used to preparing material for Earthquake Reports.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc71996906/executive

The 2013 M 5.7 was a normal oblique (combination of tension and strike-slip) earthquake mainshock. The earthquake mechanisms for the 2013 and 2023 earthquakes are remarkably similar.

These earthquakes happened along the Almanor fault zone, a right-lateral strike-slip and extensional fault system. Further to the south is the Mohawk Valley fault zone (MHVZ), a right-lateral strike-slip fault system.

The relative plate motions between the North America and Pacific plates (plate motion localized along faults like the San Andreas) cause this region of northern California to experience transtension (combination of strike-slip and extension). The relative plate motions are accommodated by fault slip on both strike-slip faults and normal (tensional) faults.

The MVFZ feeds right-lateral (“dextral”) shear from the Walker Lane. The Walker Lane is the northern extension of the Eastern California Shear Zone. These dextral fault systems may accommodate about 20% of the relative plate motion between the North America and Pacific plates.

There are a number of valleys that have been formed from the extension on the normal faults. As earthquakes slip on these normal faults, the center of the valleys subside (forming what we call grabens if there are normal faults on each side of the valley, or half grabens if the fault is only on one side).

The 2015 Pacific Cell Friends of the Pleistocene led us on a tour of the Quaternary stratigraphy of the Mohawk Valley fault zone.

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 main tectonic boundaries, crustal faults, and a century of seismicity.
  • 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 transparent colors with yellow labels show what people actually felt in those different locations.
  • Above the map is a plot that shows the same intensity (both modeled and reported) data as displayed on the map. Note how the intensity gets smaller with distance from the earthquake.
  • Here is the map with 2 week’s seismicity plotted.


  • Here is the map with aftershocks plotted and comparisons with the 2013 M 5.7 Earthquake Sequence.
  • Note the large number of triggered and aftershock earthquakes from 2013. This represents a month of time and there were about 770 earthquakes, with four M>4 events.
  • When I put the aftershock poster (less than 24 hours later), there were 50 aftershocks (with one M>5). There have only been a handful since then so it looks like the aftershock decay is winding down.
  • Though the USGS is setting up a seismic array to detect more aftershocks as a local network will be able to detect events of smaller magnitudes. Events like this provide an opportunity to study the subsurface structures as this “microseismicity” can align with the faults and people can visualize these.
  • In the lower right corner is a comparison of the modeled and reported intensity (using MMI scale) for these two earthquakes.


Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • This is a great overview map showing the plate boundary fault systems from Dr. Jayne Bormann’s submission to the 2015 FOP guidebook (Bormann et al., 2015).
    • Note how the Eastern California Shear Zone (ECSZ) feeds relative plate motion via fault slip, from the San Andreas along the east side of the Sierra Nevada. This plate motion slip feeds into the Walker Lane.
    • There remains considerable debate about how this Pacific-North America relative plate motion goes north of the Walker Lane. Some suggest it feeds into the eastern Cascades and others suggest that it feeds out to the subduction zone. It is likely a combination of these two hypotheses.


      • Regional map showing topography and the location of faults in the Northern Walker Lane. Faults are modified from the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold database [U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, and Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2006]. Major faults are drawn in black lines and other Quaternary active faults are drawn in thin gray lines. Towns and cities are indicated by red stars. Inset shows the location of the study area in relation to other elements of the Pacific/North America Plate boundary zone.

    • Here is the Gold et al. (2014) map. I include the figure caption as a blockquote below.
    • This shows the main faults in the region. Note how the main throughgoing faults are right-lateral strike-slip (the lines with the arrows showing the relative motion along the fault), while there are also basin forming normal faults (the lines with the ball tipped line symbols).
    • The Mohawk Valley fault zone is highlighted by the white rectangle. Note how it trends to the northwest, towards Quincy and the IVF (the Indian Valley fault runs through Lake Almanor).


      • Map of the northern Walker Lane study area and regional strike-slip and normal faults, simplified from the U.S. Geological Survey, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, and California Geological Survey [2006], Faulds and Henry [2008], the California Department of Water Resources [1963], Saucedo and Wagner [1992], Hunter et al. [2011], Gold et al. [2013a, 2013b], Olig et al. [2005], and our mapping using lidar data and field observations. Abbreviations: CL, Carson Lineament; DVF, Dog Valley fault; ETFZ, East Truckee fault zone; GVF, Grizzly Valley fault; HLF, Honey Lake fault; HSF, Hot Springs fault; IVF, Indian Valley fault; MVFZ, Mohawk Valley fault zone; OF, Olinghouse fault; PF, Polaris fault; PLF, Pyramid Lake fault; and WSVF, Warm Springs Valley fault. Arrows indicate relative direction of strike-slip fault movement. Bar and ball indicates downthrown block of normal faults. Star depicts location of Sulphur Creek site.

    • Here is a figure that shows how GPS and seismicity compare with the surface fault mapping.
    • The upper panel shows a topographic profile from A-A’ looking northwest from the south eastern side of the box..
    • Panel B shows the GPS velocity relative to stable North America. These data are from the GPS sites within the blue rectangle on the map. The crust further to the west is moving faster to the north relative to the crust in the eastern portion.
    • Panel C shows the seismicity sourced from the green box.


      • Northeast trending profile from the Sierra Nevada across Sierra Valley which crosses the mapped Mohawk Valley fault zone (MVFZ), Grizzly Valley fault (GVF), and Hot Springs fault (HSF). (a) Topography (National Elevation Data Set 10m DEM). (b) Geodetic data from Hammond et al. [2011] in a Great Basin reference frame (GB09, uncorrected for postseismic relaxation), which show northwest-directed motion relative to the Great Basin to the east. The geodetic data show a gradual eastward decrease in velocities from the Sierra Nevada to the Diamond Mountains. (c) Historical seismicity from 1910 to 2013, M 0–5.3, showing a concentration of earthquakes along themapped trace of MVFZ and other mapped faults in Sierra Valley (Advanced National Seismic System composite catalogue, http://www.quake.geo.berkeley.edu/anss/catalog-search.html, accessed 9 September 2013). The horizontal alignment of earthquakes at 5 km depth results from a default setting in the hypocentral location for earthquake with limited instrumental constraints. (d) Location map showing location of profile line A–A′ and the corresponding swathes from which the geodetic (blue) and seismic data (green) were sampled. Red star indicates location of 27 October 2011, M 4.7 earthquake near the MVFZ.

    • Here, Dr. Jayne Bormann and others (Bormann et al., 2015) present additional geodetic profiles. These GPS (or GNSS) rates are relative to stable North America. Note how the western sites move faster to the north relative to the eastern sites.
    • This stepwise reduction in northern velocity represents the accumulated strain from the dextral (right-lateral) faults. I.e., going from west to east, each time a dextral fault is crossed, the relative plate velocity decreases.
    • This is a portion of their poster, highlighting profiles 1 and 2. We can see Almanor Lake in the map just to the northwest of profile 1. The Mohawk Valley fault is in the location of the blue dashed line in the profiles.


      • Western Basin and Range, Walker Lane/ECSZ, and Sierra Nevada GPS velocities in a North America reference frame (NA12) corrected for postseismic relaxation following historic earthquakes in California and Nevada. Velocity uncertainties represent the 95% conndence interval. Red rectangles mark the locations of GPS velocity profiles across the Walker Lane/ECSZ at various latitudes.

      Magnitude of GPS velocities for transects of GPS stations that are perpendicular to the Walker Lane direction of maximum shear strain. Gray circles are the observed rates, green (continuous) and yellow (MAGNET) circles with 2 sigma error bars are the rates corrected for the eects of viscoelastic postseismic relaxation. Velocity annotations are station names. Dashed lines indicate the location of the Sierra Nevada frontal boundary (blue) and the easternmost Walker Lane/ECSZ fault (red). Profiles are annotated with the deformation “budget” across the Walker Lane.

    • This is a different, more local, map and cross section from Bormann et al. (Bormann et al., 2015). The GNSS velocity data are from sites within the yellow rectangle.
    • This profile includes more faults designated by the green dashed lines.


      • GPS velocity profiles across the NWL. (Left) Map showing the location of GPS sites and the profile extending from the southwest of the Mohawk Valley fault (near station P144) to the northeast of the Honey Lake fault (near station FOXR). (Bottom) The upper profile plots the velocity parallel to the long axis of the profile, in the N45°E direction. The lower profile plots the velocity normal to the profile, in the N45°W direction. Note the vertical axis scale change between the two profiles. Gray circles are the observed rates, red circles with 2 sigma error bars are the rates corrected for the effects of viscoelastic
      postseismic relaxation from the Central Nevada Seismic Belt [Hammond et al., 2009].

    • Here is a table from Dr. Bormann’s FOP trip material (Bormann et al., 2015). Using a complicated yet elegant tectonic block model, with two scenarios, Dr. Bormann estimated the slip rates for the faults in the region.
    • They suggest that the MCVF has about 2 mm/year of fault slip (aka slip deficit).


    • The following material is from the USGS report on the 2013 M 5.7 Canyondam Earthquake Sequence.
    • Here is a geologic map showing the M5.7 epicenter.


    • Dr. Angela Jayko is one of the most knowledgeable field geologists that I have ever met. Just look into her publication history, you will see the breadth of experience Jayko has. Truly remarkable.
    • Dr. Jayko presented a fascinating interpretation of the interaction of the Klamath and northern Sierra terranes. I just learned lots from a quick glimpse. I learn something new every time I am exposed to Dr. Jayko’s work.
    • Here is their (Jayko, 1990) intro small scale map showing the setting for the geologic mapping and interpretation for this 1990 paper.


      • Map of northern California showing location of major tectonic units discussed in text, including Eastern Klamath and Northern Sierra terranes. Map also shows location of the Lake Almanor study area in the northern Sierra Nevada.

    • Here is the medium scale map of the region from Jayko (1990).


      • Simplified map showing major tectonic units of the Lake Almanor area.

    • Here is the large scale map of the region from Jayko (1990)


      • A (above), Geologic map of the Lake Almanor Quadrangle, modified from Jayko (1988).

    • These are cross sections whose locations are shown on the above map.


      • Structure sections of the Lake Almanor area, modified from Jayko (1988). Pattern in J T s unit of sections A-A’ and B-B’, and in T b unit of section A-A’ used to schematically show kink folds.

    • Here is a map that Dr. Jayko compiled from other geologists.
    • Note the Melones fault zone as this is a key part of their next figure.


      • Simplified geologic map showing most of the northern Sierra terrane (modified from Harwood, 1988; D’Allura and others, 1977; Jayko, 1988).

    • Hold on to your hats. You will probably need to read Dr. Jayko’s paper to really understand these hypotheses. I know that I need to spend more time reading that paper!


      • Schematic map. A, Northward continuation of the Melones fault zone to the west of the Eastern Klamath terrane (ekt), with inferred left-lateral displacement of tectonic slivers of Eastern Klamath terrane affinity. In this scenario the slivers and their bounding faults are considered to be part of the Melones fault zone. B, Northward continuation of the Melones fault zone east of the Klamath terrane, with inferred right-lateral displacement of the Eastern Klamath terrane relative to the northern Sierra terrane (nst). This scenario implies that the Eastern Klamath terrane was juxtaposed with the Northern Sierra terrane prior to northward displacement of the Eastern Klamath terrane.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 7.1 Sumatra, Indonesia

Posted on by
Reply

As I completed the Earthquake Report for yesterday’s M 7.1 earthquake along the Kermadec Trench, I tweeted the report and interpretive poster to notice a colleague had tweeted about a magnitude M 7.1 earthquake about an hour earlier.

So, I got to work on this report.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000jvl3/executive

Needless to say, I am a little tired. So, I will write this up more tomorrow.

Until then, I present the interpretive poster for this earthquake below.

Here is a fantastic view of this plate boundary from a low-angle oblique perspective. The geologists at the EOS Singapore prepared this.

This M7.1 earthquake happened along the plate boundary megathrust subduction zone fault (labeled Sunda megathrust in the illustration).

The location was near the “t” in the Mentawai fault label.


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 1923-2023 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 showing the tectonic plates and their boundaries.
  • 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 corner is a plot that shows the same intensity (both modeled and reported) data as displayed on the map. Note how the intensity gets smaller with distance from the earthquake.
  • In the upper right 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.


    •

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

Luckily I updated this page because I noticed that the interpretive figure below was incorrect (it was for a different earthquake).

  • 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.


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 7.1 Kermadec

Posted on by
Reply

I am currently taking a break following an excellent Seismological Society of America Meeting in San Juan Puerto Rico.

I presented a couple posters and one talk on the results from our USGS Powell Center meeting where we developed a basic logic tree for probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment for the Cascadia subduction zone.

Last night (my time, in Arecibo) there was an earthquake along the subduction zone, a convergent plate boundary, that forms the Kermadec trench (a deep sea trench, much like the Mariana trench).

Initially, there was one M 7.3 earthquake. I received a text message from the National Tsunami Warning Center stating that there was no tsunami risk for California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000k6mg/executive

Shortly after that, there were then two M7.3 earthquakes. One was located east of the trench (an earthquake within the Pacific plate, much like the March 2023 M 7.3 earthquake, which was also in a similar location). The other earthquake was located west of the trench and had a depth that suggested it was a megathrust subduction zone earthquake.

Because these earthquakes happened at nearly the same time and had the same magnitude, I suspected that they were actually the same earthquake but had been automatically located in two locations (possibly due to something about the seismic waves that complicated the automatic location algorithm). In a few minutes, this was all worked out and the two earthquake pages began to show the same information, a single M 7.3 that was a subduction zone interface earthquake (an earthquake that slipped the megathrust fault).

Within a few more minutes, the magnitude was revised to be M 7.1. This is a much smaller earthquake than a M 7.3 but still quite significant. People on Raoul Island, about 75 km from the epicenter, reported strong ground shaking (intensity MMI 8, though initially reported as MMI 9).

After a few tweets, I went over to the tide gage websites that I monitor when there are subduction zone earthquakes. I often look at the UNESCO Sea Level Monitoring Facility website first. There is a map and one may click on the dots that represent most of the tide gages around the globe.

This page provides basic information about water surface elevations. One may take a quick look to see if there are excursions in the sea level data, possibly related to tsunami.

Then, when I am ready to download some data so that I may plot these data I head over to the European Commission World Sea Levels website. This is also a map interface and it takes a little more effort to learn how to operate the website to obtain the data one likes. These data are in a better format than the UNESCO site since they provide the observations, the tide prediction, and the excursion (i.e., the tsunami with the tide data removed).

I prefer to prepare my own plots so that I can control their graphical composition, these organizations create plots automatically and they are not always the best looking; I download these data, open them in excel, plot, then place them in adobe illustrator so that I can annotate them.

OK, back to the earthquake.

There was a magnitude M8.1 subduction zone earthquake in this area on 4 March 2021. Here is my poster for that earthquake, where I show that several large earthquakes happened closely in space and in time. It was phenomenal that these 3 earthquakes also generated 3 tsunami that showed up on tide gages across the south Pacific.

Yesterday’s M 7.1 happened within the area of aftershocks from the M 8.1. So, I interpret this to be an aftershock of the M8.1. (Though I could easily be convinced that it was instead simply a triggered earthquake; it also followed the 15 March 2023 M 7.0 earthquake which was directly east of yesterday’s M 7.1.

The earlier M 8.1 and yesterday’s M 7.1 earthquakes were along the subduction zone, where the Pacific plate subducts beneath the Australia plate. This subduction zone is quite active with many analogical historical earthquakes of similar magnitude in this area and also further to the north and to the south.

We may recall the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption that generated a large trans-Pacific tsunami. Here is my report on that event. Here is a web page that I put together for the California Geological Survey where I serve the public in the Seismic Hazards Program and Tsunami Unit (actually, I cannot share that page as it does not work outside of the USA, sadly; I will add a link once I am back home).

At the bottom of this report are a series of tweets that include some additional educational material. Check out the EarthScope Consortium tweets!

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 1923-2023 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 major plate tectonic boundaries.
  • 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. There is one location with a report 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 upper right corner is a plot that includes the 2021 M 8.1 & M 7.4 and 2023 M 7.0 earthquakes. I include the aftershocks from about one week after the M 8.1 and outline these aftershocks to show how yesterday’s M 7.1 is within this area.
  • To the left of the aftershock map I include the USGS earthquake fault slip model. The colors represent the amount of slip that this fault experienced during the earthquake. We can see that they think the fault slipped up to about 1.25 meters (about 4 feet).
  • To the left are tide gage plots from the tide gages on Raoul Island (shown on map). Anthony Lomax and I debated on Twitter about whether these signals were tsunami or seismic waves. We concluded that these are most likely tsunami waves because of their arrival time (seismic waves would have arrived sooner), their duration (seismic waves would not have lasted as long in time), and their amplitude & wave heights (seismic waves would have been smaller in size). Twitter is such a helpful place to discuss our observations in real time! I learn so much from my colleagues. It really is such a wonderful community that we have developed over the years!
  • In the lower right center is a map from Benz et al. (2011) that shows earthquakes with circles that represent magnitude (diameter) and depth (color). Deeper = blue & shallower = red. There is a cross section (cut into the earth) profile through this seismicity (the blue line J-J’). I plot the M 7.0 as a blue star.
  • To the left of the map is cross section J-J’ that shows earthquake hypocenters (3-D locations) in the region of the M 7.0 earthquake.
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


Tsunami

  • Here I present the tide gage data from this earthquake and tsunami.
  • These two gages are located on opposite sides of Raoul Island. Can you tell which is on the north side and which is on the south side? Go to the tide gage websites I link to above to see if you are correct.
  • The size of the wave is similar for both of these gages (about 20 cm wave height).
  • In the legend, one may learn the difference between wave height and amplitude. Wave height is the vertical distance between the peak wave and the trough of the wave. The amplitude is the height of the wave peak above the ambient water surface (the ambient tide level).



    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 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.

    • Here is a great visualization of the Kermadec Trench from Woods Hole.

    Kermadec Trench from Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. on Vimeo.

    • Here is another map of the bathymetry in this region of the Kermadec trench. This was produced by Jack Cook at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The Lousiville Seamount Chain is clearly visible in this graphic.


    • I put together an animation of seismicity from 1965 – 2015 Sept. 7. Here is a map that shows the entire seismicity for this period. I plot the slab contours for the subduction zone here. These were created by the USGS (Hayes et al., 2012).


    • Here is the animation. Download the mp4 file here. This animation includes earthquakes with magnitudes greater than M 6.5 and this is the kml file that I used to make this animation.
    • Here is the oblique view of the slab from Green (2003). Some of the following figures are for the Tonga subduction zone, the same plate boundary as Kermadec, with some slightly different attributes.


      • 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.

    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 7.0 Papua New Guinea

Posted on by
Reply

This morning (my time) I received a notification from the National Tsunami Warning Center, the organization responsible for generating notifications for my locality (California).

There was a magnitude M 7.0 earthquake in Papua New Guinea.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/at00rsi26z/executive

This earthquake was almost intermediate depth (about 63 km), not on a tsunamigenic fault, and far inland (so likely no tsunami).

There was an event last September just to the east. Here is the earthquake report for that event.

The USGS includes many products on their earthquake pages. We can see from their ground failure products that this earthquake likely generated significant liquefaction. I show this on the interpretive poster and include a write up about ground failure generated by earthquakes below.

Something that influences the liquefaction and landslide modeling is the topography. The M 7.0 earthquake happened in an area that is mostly low lying Earth adjacent to the Sepik River system. The ground is probably highly saturated with water.

Also, there is little steep topography in the area, which probably contributes to the low chance for landslides in the USGS model for earthquake triggered landslides.

As always, we hope that there was not much suffering from this earthquake. The shaking intensity was high, so it must have been quite terrifying. The region does not have a high population density, so the USGS PAGER alert estimate reflects this. There were about 133,000 people who may have been exposed to intensity MMI 7 and 333,000 exposed to MMI 6.

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 1923-2023 with magnitudes M ≥ 0.0 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 right corner is a map showing the plate tectonic boundaries (from the GEM) and seismicity from the past century (from the USGS).
  • 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 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.
  • In the lower left center is a figure from Baldwin et al. (2012). This figure shows a series of cross sections along this convergent plate boundary from the Solomon Islands in the east to Papua New Guinea in the west. Cross section ‘D’ is the most representative for the earthquakes today. I present the map and this figure again below, with their original captions. Above the map is cross section D-D’ that shows the PFTB to the south of today’s earthquake. I placed the yellow star marking today’s M 7.0 below the cross section. The faults are actually quite complex, so this schematic illustration may not be a perfect representation of the faults here.
  • In the bottom center is a profile showing the GPS velocities across the two main fault systems that profile A-A’ crosses (also shown on map). The M 7.0 is somewhere between these two fault systems (possibly along a fault that leads up to the Fold and Thrust Belt(?).
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


    •

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).


    •

    Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • Here is the Holm et al. (2016) figure.


      • Topography, bathymetry and regional tectonic setting of New Guinea and Solomon Islands. Arrows indicate rate and direction of plate motion of the Australian and Pacific plates (MORVEL, DeMets et al., 2010); Mamberamo thrust belt, Indonesia (MTB); North Fiji Basin (NFB)

    • These maps from Holm et al. (2016) show the tectonic plate boundaries and plates/microplates.
    • The lower panel includes symbology for the magmatic centers associated with the different arcs analyzed in their study.



      • Tectonic setting of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. a) Regional plate boundaries and tectonic elements. Light grey shading illustrates bathymetry b2000mbelow sea level indicative of continental or arc crust, and oceanic plateaus; 1000mdepth 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). b) Magmatic arcs and volcanic centers related to this study.

    • The this map and cross section pair shows the Holm et al. (2016) interpretation of the oceanic crust in this region in the current position.


      • 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).

    • Koulali et al (2015) use GPS data to resolve the kinematics of the central-eastern Papua New Guinea region. The first figure below is a map that shows the GPS velocities in this region There are two cross section profiles labeled on the map (the M 7.0 earthquake happened to the east of A-A’). Note the complicated and detailed fault mapping (the balck lines). The convergence is generally perpendicular to the PFTB in the east and more oblique to the PFTB on the western portion of this map.


      • The GPS velocity field and 95 per cent confidence interval ellipses with respect to the Australian Plate. Red and blue vectors are the new calculated field and black vectors are from Wallace et al. (2004). The dashed rectangle shows the area of Fig. 3. The blue dashed lines correspond to the location of profiles shown in Fig. 4. Note that the velocity scales for the red and blue vectors are different (see the lower right corner for scales). The black velocities are plotted at the same scale as the red vectors.

    • Here are the two profiles. The red and blue lines plot vertical land motion (VLM) rates in mm/yr and show strain accumulates across the region. Today’s earthquake happened in the region labeled ‘Highland FTB.’ The plot shows that ~5 mm/yr of strain accumulates in this fault system.


      • Profiles A–A& and B–B& from Fig. 2 showing model fit to GPS observations. Red symbols and lines are the GPS observed and modelled velocities, respectively, for the profile-normal component. Blue symbols and lines correspond to the profile-parallel component. The green and pink lines corresponds to the model using the Ramu-Markham fault geometry from Wallace et al. (2004), south of Lae. Grey profiles show the projected topography. The seismicity is from the ISC catalogue for events > Mw 3.5 (1960–2011).

    • This is the Cloos et al. (2005) map from the poster.
    • Something that came up this week during a tsunami workshop/meeting was about the activity for each plate boundary that has a potential to generate trans-Pacific tsunami impacting the U.S. and U.S. territories.
    • Over long periods of time, the plate boundaries around the world change shape. At some times, the relative plate motion between plates is localized one fault system. At other times, the active plate boundary fault is along a different fault system.
    • The map below includes information about the activity of the plate boundary faults. The active convergent zones are the New Britain subduction zone, the Ramu-Markham fault zone (RMFZ), the Seram subduction zone, part of the Papuan Fold and Thrust Belt, and parts of the New Guinea subduction zone. The strike-slip zones are the Bewani-Torricelli fault zone, the Mamberamo deformation zone, the Yapen fault zone, the Sorong fault zone, and the Tarera-Aiduna fault zone.
    • This map shows evidence for several different paleo-plate boundaries. Imagine how each subduction zone once had a pair of plates and those plates are still there. Even while inactive, earthquakes can occur on these faults.


      • Tectonic map of New Guinea, adapted from Hamilton (1979), Cooper and Taylor (1987), Dow et al. (1988), and Sapiie et al. (1999). AFTB—Aure fold and thrust belt, FTB—fold-and-thrust belt, IOB—Irian Ophiolite Belt, TFB—thrust-and-fold belt, POB—Papuan Ophiolite Belt, BTFZ—Bewani-Torricelli fault zone, MDZ—Mamberamo deformation zone, YFZ—Yapen fault zone, SFZ—Sorong fault zone, WO—Weyland overthrust. Continental basement exposures are concentrated along the southern fl ank of the Central Range: BD—Baupo Dome, MA—Mapenduma anticline, DM—Digul monocline, IDI—Idenberg Inlier, MUA—Mueller anticline, KA—Kubor anticline, LFTB—Legguru fold-and-thrust belt, RMFZ—Ramu-Markham fault zone, TAFZ—Tarera-Aiduna fault zone. The Tasman line separates continental crust that is Paleozoic and younger to the east from Precambrian to the west.

    • This is the Cloos et al. (2005) cross section, showing a different interpretation of the delaminated slab.


      • Lithospheric-scale cross section at 2 Ma. Plate motion is now focused along the Yapen fault zone in the center of the recently extinct arc. This probably occurred because this zone of weakness had a trend that could accommodate the imposed movements as the corner of the Caroline microplate ruptured, forming the Bismarck plate, and the corner of the Australian plate ruptured, forming the Solomon microplate. The collisional delamination-generated magmatic event ends in the highlands as the lower crustal magma chamber solidifies. Upwelled asthenosphere cools and transforms into lithospheric mantle. This drives a slow regional subsidence of the highlands that will continue for tens of millions of years or until other plate-tectonic movements are initiated. Deep erosion is still concentrated on the fl anks of the mountain belt. RMB—Ruffaer Metamorphic Belt, AUS—Australian plate, PAC—Pacific plate.

    • Here is the tectonic map figure from Sappie and Cloos (2004). Their work was focused on western PNG, so their interpretations are more detailed there (and perhaps less relevant for us for these eastern PNG earthquakes).


      • Seismotectonic interpretation of New Guinea. Tectonic features: PTFB—Papuan thrust-and-fold belt; RMFZ—Ramu-Markham fault zone; BTFZ—Bewani-Torricelli fault zone; MTFB—Mamberamo thrust-and-fold belt; SFZ—Sorong fault zone; YFZ—Yapen fault zone; RFZ—Ransiki fault zone; TAFZ—Tarera-Aiduna fault zone; WT—Waipona Trough. After Sapiie et al. (1999).

    • This is the two panel figure from Holm and Richards (2013) that shows how the New Britain trench megathrust splays into three thrust faults as this fault system heads onto PNG. They plot active thrust faults as black triangles (with the triangles on the hanging wall side of the fault) and inactive thrust faults as open triangles. So, either the NG trench subduction zone extends further east than is presented in earlier work or the Bundi Fault Zone is the fault associated with this deep seismicity.


      • Topography, bathymetry and major tectonic elements of the study area. (a) Major tectonic boundaries of Papua New Guinea and the western Solomon Islands; CP, Caroline plate; MB, Manus Basin; NBP, North Bismarck plate; NBT, New Britain trench; NGT, New Guinea trench; NST, North Solomon trench; PFTB, Papuan Fold and Thrust Belt; PT, Pocklington trough; RMF, Ramu-Markham Fault; SBP, South Bismarck plate; SCT, San Cristobal trench; SS, Solomon Sea plate; TT, Trobriand trough; WB,Woodlark Basin; WMT,West Melanesian trench. Study area is indicated by rectangle labelled Figure 1b; the other inset rectangle highlights location for subsequent figures. Present day GPS motions of plates are indicated relative to the Australian plate (from Tregoning et al. 1998, 1999; Tregoning 2002; Wallace et al. 2004). (b) Detailed topography, bathymetry and structural elements significant to the South Bismarck region (terms not in common use are referenced); AFB, Aure Fold Belt (Davies 2012); AT, Adelbert Terrane (e.g. Wallace et al. 2004); BFZ, Bundi Fault Zone (Abbott 1995); BSSL, Bismarck Sea Seismic Lineation; CG, Cape Gloucester; FT, Finisterre Terrane; GF, Gogol Fault (Abbott 1995); GP, Gazelle Peninsula; HP, Huon Peninsula; MB, Manus Basin; NB, New Britain; NI, New Ireland; OSF, Owen Stanley Fault; RMF, Ramu-Markham Fault; SS, Solomon Sea; WMR, Willaumez-Manus Rise (Johnson et al. 1979); WT, Wonga Thrust (Abbott et al. 1994); minor strike-slip faults are shown adjacent to Huon Peninsula (Abers & McCaffrey 1994) and in east New Britain, the Gazelle Peninsula (e.g. Madsen & Lindley 1994). Circles indicate centres of Quaternary volcanism of the Bismarck arc. Filled triangles indicate active thrusting or subduction, empty triangles indicate extinct or negligible thrusting or subduction.

    • This map shows plate velocities and euler poles for different blocks. I include the figure caption below as a blockquote.


      • Tectonic maps of the New Guinea region. (a) Seismicity, volcanoes, and plate motion vectors. Plate motion vectors relative to the Australian plate are surface velocity models based on GPS data, fault slip rates, and earthquake focal mechanisms (UNAVCO, http://jules.unavco.org/Voyager/Earth). Earthquake data are sourced from the International Seismological Center EHB Bulletin (http://www.isc.ac.uk); data represent events from January 1994 through January 2009 with constrained focal depths. Background image is generated from http://www.geomapapp.org. Abbreviations: AB, Arafura Basin; AT, Aure Trough; AyT, Ayu Trough; BA, Banda arc; BSSL, Bismarck Sea seismic lineation; BH, Bird’s Head; BT, Banda Trench; BTFZ, Bewani-Torricelli fault zone; DD, Dayman Dome; DEI, D’Entrecasteaux Islands; FP, Fly Platform; GOP, Gulf of Papua; HP, Huon peninsula; LA, Louisiade Archipelago; LFZ, Lowlands fault zone; MaT, Manus Trench; ML, Mt. Lamington; MT, Mt. Trafalgar; MuT, Mussau Trough; MV, Mt. Victory; MTB, Mamberamo thrust belt; MVF, Managalase Plateau volcanic field; NBT, New Britain Trench; NBA, New Britain arc; NF, Nubara fault; NGT, New Guinea Trench; OJP, Ontong Java Plateau; OSF, Owen Stanley fault zone; PFTB, Papuan fold-and-thrust belt; PP, Papuan peninsula; PRi, Pocklington Rise; PT, Pocklington Trough; RMF, Ramu-Markham fault; SST, South Solomons Trench; SA, Solomon arc; SFZ, Sorong fault zone; ST, Seram Trench; TFZ, Tarera-Aiduna fault zone; TJ, AUS-WDKPAC triple junction; TL, Tasman line; TT, Trobriand Trough;WD, Weber Deep;WB, Woodlark Basin;WFTB, Western (Irian) fold-and-thrust belt; WR,Woodlark Rift; WRi, Woodlark Rise; WTB, Weyland thrust; YFZ, Yapen fault zone.White box indicates the location shown in Figure 3. (b) Map of plates, microplates, and tectonic blocks and elements of the New Guinea region. Tectonic elements modified after Hill & Hall (2003). Abbreviations: ADB, Adelbert block; AOB, April ultramafics; AUS, Australian plate; BHB, Bird’s Head block; CM, Cyclops Mountains; CWB, Cendrawasih block; CAR, Caroline microplate; EMD, Ertsberg Mining District; FA, Finisterre arc; IOB, Irian ophiolite belt; KBB, Kubor & Bena blocks (including Bena Bena terrane); LFTB, Lengguru fold-and-thrust belt; MA, Mapenduma anticline; MB, Mamberamo Basin block; MO, Marum ophiolite belt; MHS, Manus hotspot; NBS, North Bismarck plate; NGH, New Guinea highlands block; NNG, Northern New Guinea block; OKT, Ok Tedi mining district; PAC, Pacific plate; PIC, Porgera intrusive complex; PSP, Philippine Sea plate; PUB, Papuan Ultramafic Belt ophiolite; SB, Sepik Basin block; SDB, Sunda block; SBS, South Bismarck plate; SIB, Solomon Islands block; WP, Wandamen peninsula; WDK, Woodlark microplate; YQ, Yeleme quarries.

    • This figure incorporates cross sections and map views of various parts of the regional tectonics (Baldwin et al., 2012). These deep earthquakes are nearest the cross section D (though are much deeper than these shallow cross sections). I include the figure caption below as a blockquote.


      • Oblique block diagram of New Guinea from the northeast with schematic cross sections showing the present-day plate tectonic setting. Digital elevation model was generated from http://www.geomapapp.org. Oceanic crust in tectonic cross sections is shown by thick black-and-white hatched lines, with arrows indicating active subduction; thick gray-and-white hatched lines indicate uncertain former subduction. Continental crust, transitional continental crust, and arc-related crust are shown without pattern. Representative geologic cross sections across parts of slices C and D are marked with transparent red ovals and within slices B and E are shown by dotted lines. (i ) Cross section of the Papuan peninsula and D’Entrecasteaux Islands modified from Little et al. (2011), showing the obducted ophiolite belt due to collision of the Australian (AUS) plate with an arc in the Paleogene, with later Pliocene extension and exhumation to form the D’Entrecasteaux Islands. (ii ) Cross section of the Papuan peninsula after Davies & Jaques (1984) shows the Papuan ophiolite thrust over metamorphic rocks of AUS margin affinity. (iii ) Across the Papuan mainland, the cross section after Crowhurst et al. (1996) shows the obducted Marum ophiolite and complex folding and thrusting due to collision of the Melanesian arc (the Adelbert, Finisterre, and Huon blocks) in the Late Miocene to recent. (iv) Across the Bird’s Head, the cross section after Bailly et al. (2009) illustrates deformation in the Lengguru fold-and-thrust belt as a result of Late Miocene–Early Pliocene northeast-southwest shortening, followed by Late Pliocene–Quaternary extension. Abbreviations as in Figure 2, in addition to NI, New Ireland; SI, Solomon Islands; SS, Solomon Sea; (U)HP, (ultra)high-pressure.

    • Here is the relevant cross section from Baldwin et al. (2012).


      • Across the Papuan mainland, the cross section after Crowhurst et al. (1996) shows the obducted Marum ophiolite and complex folding and thrusting due to collision of the Melanesian arc (the Adelbert, Finisterre, and Huon blocks) in the Late Miocene to recent.

    • Here is map that shows the tectonics in and to the east of Papua New Guinea from Ott and Mann (2015).
    • These authors use seismic reflection data and onshore geologic and GPS studies to look at the formation of the Aure-Moresby and Papuan fold and thrust belts.


      • Active tectonic setting of eastern Papua New Guinea showing the boundaries of the Woodlark microplate that includes previously proposed oceanic Solomon Sea plate, the Trobriand platform, and the Woodlark plate [Wallace et al., 2014]. The New Britain trench along the northern margin of the Woodlark plate is a rapidly subducting, 600 km long slab that generates a strong pull on the unsubducted Woodlark microplate [Weissel et al., 1982; Wallace et al., 2004, 2014]. Small circles around the Trobriand platform/Australia pole predict the described pattern of transpressional deformation along the Aure-Moresby fold-thrust belt and the formation of the adjacent, late Miocene to Recent Aure-Moresby foreland basin. Approximate location of the downdip limits of the subducted Solomon Sea slabs are shown by dashed lines and modified from Pegler et al. [1995], Woodhead et al. [2010], and Hayes et al. [2012]. Earthquake data are provided courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. Note that the tapering triangular shape of the extension in the Woodlark basin closely matches the size and shape of the thrusting observed in the Aure-Moresby fold-thrust belt and foreland basin.

Potential for Ground Failure

Luckily I updated this page because I noticed that the interpretive figure below was incorrect (it was for a different earthquake).

  • 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

  • Abers, G. and McCaffrey, R., 1988. Active Deformation in the New Guinea Fold-and-Thrust Belt: Seismological Evidence for Strike-Slip Faulting and Basement-Involved Thrusting in JGR, v. 93, no. B11, p. 13,332-13,354
  • Baldwin, S.L., Monteleone, B.D., Webb, L.E., Fitzgerald, P.G., Grove, M., and Hill, E.J., 2004. Pliocene eclogite exhumation at plate tectonic rates in eastern Papua New Guinea in Nature, v. 431, p/ 263-267, doi:10.1038/nature02846.
  • Baldwin, S.L., Fitzgerald, P.G., and Webb, L.E., 2012. Tectonics of the New Guinea Region, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., v. 40, pp. 495-520.
  • Cloos, M., Sapiie, B., Quarles van Ufford, A., Weiland, R.J., Warren, P.Q., and McMahon, T.P., 2005. Collisional delamination in New Guinea: The geotectonics of subducting slab breakoff: Geological Society of America Special Paper 400, 51 p., doi: 10.1130/2005.2400.
  • Dow, D.B., 1977. A Geological Synthesis of Papua New Guinea, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology, and Geophysics, Bulltein 201, Australian Government Publishing Sevice, Canberra, 1977, 58 pp.

    • ..

  • Hamilton, W.B., 1979. Tectonics of the Indonesian Region, USGS Professional Paper 1078.
  • Holm, R. and Richards, S.W., 2013. A re-evaluation of arc-continent collision and along-arc variation in the Bismarck Sea region, Papua New Guinea in Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 60, p. 605-619.
  • Holm, R.J., Richards, S.W., Rosenbaum, G., and Spandler, C., 2015. Disparate Tectonic Settings for Mineralisation in an Active Arc, Eastern Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in proceedings from PACRIM 2015 Congress, Hong Kong ,18-21 March, 2015, pp. 7.
  • Holm, R.J., Rosenbaum, G., Richards, S.W., 2016. Post 8 Ma reconstruction of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands: Microplate tectonics in a convergent plate boundary setting in Eartth Science Reviews, v. 156, p. 66-81.
  • Johnson, R.W., 1976, Late Cainozoic volcanism and plate tectonics at the southern margin of the Bismarck Sea, Papua New Guinea, in Johnson, R.W., ed., 1976, Volcanism in Australia: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 101-116
  • Koulali, A., tregoning, P., McClusky, S., Stanaway, R., Wallace, L., and Lister, G., 2015. New Insights into the present-day kinematics of the central and western Papua New Guinea from GPS in GJI, v. 202, p. 993-1004, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv200
  • Ott, B., and P. Mann (2015), Late Miocene to Recent formation of the Aure-Moresby fold-thrust belt and foreland basin as a consequence of Woodlark microplate rotation, Papua New Guinea, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 16, 1988–2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005668
  • Sapiie, B., and Cloos, M., 2004. Strike-slip faulting in the core of the Central Range of west New Guinea: Ertsberg Mining District, Indonesia in GSA Bulletin, v. 116; no. 3/4; p. 277–293
  • Tregoning, P., McQueen, H., Lambeck, K., Jackson, R. Little, T., Saunders, S., and Rosa, R., 2000. Present-day crustal motion in Papua New Guinea, Earth Planets and Space, v. 52, pp. 727-730.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Earthquake Report: M 6.8 Ecuador

Posted on by
Reply

This morning my time there was a magnitude M 6.8 earthquake in Ecuador.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/pt23077000/executive

I got a notification that there would not be a tsunami to reach the west coast of the USA. Because of the depth and magnitude, there was a low chance for a local tsunami as well (but we have been surprised before). I could not identify a tsunami on the tide gages in the region.

However, the USGS One Pager PAGER alert suggests that there may be significant casualties. I hope this estimate is incorrect. I have seen some videos online of significant building damage.

The USGS prepares models to estimate the chance of earthquake triggered landslides and earthquake induced liquefaction. These models suggest that there is a low chance for landslides but a moderate chance for liquefaction. See the ground failure section of the USGS earthquake page for more information.

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.

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 1923-2023 with magnitudes M ≥ 6.5.
  • I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
  • A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. 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 large scale plate tectonic map showing the major plate boundary faults.
  • In the lower left center is a map showing how the Nazca slab is configured in different locations (Ramos and Folguera, 2009).
  • In the left center is a cross section showing seismicity in this region (Kirby et al., 1995). The source area for this plot is designated by a dashed yellow box on the map.
  • In the upper right corner is a pair of maps that show the landslide probability (left) and the liquefaction susceptibility (right) for this M 6.8 earthquake. I spend more time describing these types of data here. Read more about these maps here.
  • In the lower right corner I plot the USGS modeled intensity (Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, MMI) and the USGS “Did You Feel It?” observations (labeled in yellow). Above the map is a plot showing these same data plotted relative to distance from the earthquake. Read more about what these data sets are and what they represent in the report here.
  • Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.


    •

    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

  • Antonijevic, S.K., et a;l., 2015. The role of ridges in the formation and longevity of flat slabs in Nature, v. 524, p. 212-215, doi:10.1038/nature14648
  • Bishop, B.T., Beck, S.L., Zandt, G., Wagner, L., Long, M., Knezevic Antonijevic, S., Kumar, A., and Tavera, H., 2017, Causes and consequences of flat-slab subduction in southern Peru: Geosphere, v. 13, no. 5, p. 1392–1407, doi:10.1130/GES01440.1.
  • Chlieh, M. Mothes, P.A>, Nocquet, J-M., Jarrin, P., Charvis, P., Cisneros, D., Font, Y., Color, J-Y., Villegas-Lanza, J-C., Rolandone, F., Vallée, M., Regnier, M., Sogovia, M., Martin, X., and Yepes, H., 2014. Distribution of discrete seismic asperities and aseismic slip along the Ecuadorian megathrust in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 400, p. 292–301
  • Kumar, A., et al., 2016. Seismicity and state of stress in the central and southern Peruvian flat slab in EPSL, v. 441, p. 71-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.02.023
  • Rhea, S., Hayes, G., Villaseñor, A., Furlong, K.P., Tarr, A.C., and Benz, H.M., 2010. Seismicity of the earth 1900–2007, Nazca Plate and South America: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-E, 1 sheet, scale 1:12,000,000.
  • Villegas-Lanza, J. C., M. Chlieh, O. Cavalié, H. Tavera, P. Baby, J. Chire-Chira, and J.-M. Nocquet (2016), Active tectonics of Peru: Heterogeneous interseismic coupling along the Nazca megathrust, rigid motion of the Peruvian Sliver, and Subandean shortening accommodation, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 121, 7371–7394, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013080.
  • Wagner, L.S., and Okal, E.A., 2019. The Pucallpa Nest and its constraints on the geometry of the Peruvian Flat Slab in Tectonophysics, v. 762, p. 97-108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2019.04.021
  • Yepes,H., L. Audin, A. Alvarado, C. Beauval, J. Aguilar, Y. Font, and F. Cotton (2016), A new view for the geodynamics of Ecuador: Implication in seismogenic source definition and seismic hazard assessment, Tectonics, 35, 1249–1279, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015TC003941.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.


Earthquake Report: M 7.0 Kermadec

Posted on by
Reply

Tonight (my time) there was a tsunami notification for a magnitude M 7.1 earthquake along the Kermadec subduction zone.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000jkbd/executive

My cat is not letting me complete this report. So, I will add some more stuff over the next few days.

There was an earthquake further to the north last November, check out that report here.

In this part of the world, there is a convergent plate boundary where the Pacific plate dives westward beneath the Australia plate forming the Kermadec megathrust subduction zone fault. This fault has a history of earthquakes with magnitudes commonly exceeding M 7 and some exceeding M 8.

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 major plate tectonic boundaries.
  • 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 upper right corner is a larger scale map that shows the crustal faults in the Pacific plate. Today’s M 7.0 was in the Pacific plate. It appears tensional oblique (strike-slip and tensional). There are two other historic examples of outer rise earthquakes in 1977 and 2001.
  • To the left are tide gage plots from the tide gages on Raoul Island (shown on map).
  • In the lower right center is a map from Benz et al. (2011) that shows earthquakes with circles that represent magnitude (diameter) and depth (color). Deeper = blue & shallower = red. There is a cross section (cut into the earth) profile through this seismicity (the blue line J-J’). I plot the M 7.0 as a blue star.
  • To the left of the map is cross section J-J’ that shows earthquake hypocenters (3-D locations) in the region of the M 7.0 earthquake.
  • Above the Benz map, there is a cross section of the Kermadec trench that shows different places where there could be earthquakes along this plate boundary.
  • Here is the map with 2 month’s seismicity M ≥ 0 plotted.


    •

  • Well, as I was preparing this report, I realized that I prepared an interpretive poster and never wrote it up!
  • So, here is the poster for a magnitude M 7.4 earthquake from 18 June 2020.
  • This M 7.4 earthquake was also in the downgoing Pacific plate.


Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

  • 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 visualization of the Kermadec Trench from Woods Hole.

Kermadec Trench from Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. on Vimeo.

  • Here is another map of the bathymetry in this region of the Kermadec trench. This was produced by Jack Cook at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The Lousiville Seamount Chain is clearly visible in this graphic.


  • I put together an animation of seismicity from 1965 – 2015 Sept. 7. Here is a map that shows the entire seismicity for this period. I plot the slab contours for the subduction zone here. These were created by the USGS (Hayes et al., 2012).


  • Here is the animation. Download the mp4 file here. This animation includes earthquakes with magnitudes greater than M 6.5 and this is the kml file that I used to make this animation.

    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.