GNS Science Consultancy Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Times and distances between events from selected global earthquake sequences; comparison with the 2010-2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence N. J. Litchfield K. R. Berryman GNS Science Report 2012/43 January 2013 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Litchfield, N. J.; Berryman, K. R. 2013. Times and distances between events from selected global earthquake sequences; comparison with the 2010-2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence, GNS Science Report 2012/43. 20 p. N. J. Litchfield, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt K. R. Berryman, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt © Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2012 ISSN 1177-2425 ISBN 978-1-972192-31-3 CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... III KEYWORDS ......................................................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 1811-1812 NEW MADRID .......................................................................................... 3 3.0 1876 OAMARU ........................................................................................................... 5 4.0 1883-1892 TASMANIA ............................................................................................... 7 5.0 1929-1968 BULLER ................................................................................................... 8 6.0 1988 TENNANT CREEK .......................................................................................... 10 7.0 1992-1999 LANDERS ............................................................................................... 12 8.0 2010-2012 CANTERBURY ....................................................................................... 13 9.0 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................ 15 10.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 18 11.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 19 GNS Science Report 2012/43 i FIGURES Figure 2.1 Isoseismal map of the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquake sequence shown with respect to the density of population at the time (Johnston and Schweig, 1996). ....................................... 3 Figure 2.2 Epicentres of ≤M 5.0 earthquakes recorded in the area of the 1811-1812 New Madrid sequence between 1974 and 1993. These are inferred to be ongoing small aftershocks (Johnston and Schweig, 1996). .................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3.1 Felt intensity maps for the 1876 Oamaru Earthquakes (M. Reyners unpubl. data). The numbers are Modified Mercalli Intensities (scale 1-12, 12 being the highest) compiled from felt reports; F is information insufficient to assign intensity. Adapted from Downes (1999). .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4.1 Isoseismal maps for the three largest earthquakes of the 1883-1892 Tasmania earthquake sequence. Adapted from Michael-Leiba (1989). ........................................................ 7 Figure 5.1 Epicentral locations of the 1929-1968 Buller earthquake sequence (red). Adapted from Hincapie et al. (2005). .................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 6.1 Locations of the 1988 Tennant Creek mainshocks (red), largest foreshocks (crosses), and selected aftershocks (circles and diamonds). Adapted from Bowman and Dewey (1991). ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 6.2 Histogram of earthquakes recorded by the Warramunga seismic array (located in Figure 6.1), showing the 1987 foreshock sequence (F) and the 22 January 1988 Tennant Creek (TC) mainshocks. Ticks within the bars show earthquakes of ML 3 or greater recorded at the Alice Springs array. Some of the earthquakes prior to 1987 are from mines. Adapted from Bowman (1992). ................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7.1 Locations of the 1992-1989 Landers earthquake sequence. From Haukkson et al. (2002). ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 8.1 Locations of the (ongoing) 2010-2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Compiled from Geonet (http://www.geonet.org.nz/) by R. Langridge and W. Ries. ............................................ 14 Figure 9.1 Times between successive earthquakes in the sequences compiled in this report. The frequency is the number of inter-event times within each interval. A) All earthquakes. Note the horizontal axis is truncated on the right hand side. B) Only those earthquakes less than 500 days apart. ........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 9.2 Distances between successive earthquakes in the sequences compiled in this report. The frequency is the number of inter-event distances within each interval................................. 16 Figure 9.3 Time between successive earthquakes compared with earthquake magnitude. A) All earthquakes. B) Only those earthquakes less than 500 days apart. The inter-event times are shown as the time to the next earthquake, rather than time since the previous earthquake in Figure 9.1, as the aim of these plots was to test if triggering of the next earthquake in the sequence is magnitude-dependent. ............................................................... 17 Figure 9.4 Distance between successive earthquakes compared with earthquake magnitude. The inter-event distances are shown as the distance to the next earthquake, rather than distance from the previous earthquake in Figure 9.2, as the aim of these plots was to test if triggering of the next earthquake in the sequence is magnitude-dependent............................ 17 TABLES Table 1.1 Summary of key features of the global earthquake sequences compiled in this report, including inter-event times and distances. .................................................................................... 2 GNS Science Report 2012/43 ii ABSTRACT The lengths of times (days) and distances (km) between large events in selected global earthquake sequences are summarised and compared with the 2010-2012 (and ongoing) Canterbury earthquake sequence. The motivation was to address the question “Is the Canterbury sequence typical?” The global earthquake sequence inter-event times and distances were compiled from published scientific papers and maps. The selection of the earthquake sequences is not statistically robust, but instead is simply a set of examples that we consider may have some similarities with the tectonic setting in which occurred the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The sequences reviewed are the pre- instrumental 1811-1812 New Madrid, 1876 Oamaru, 1883-1892 Tasmania, and 1929-1968 Buller sequences, and the instrumentally-recorded 1988 Tennant Creek, and 1992-1999 Landers earthquake sequences. Inter-event times for the global earthquake sequences vary from 0 to 14,192 days (39 years) and inter-event distances from 3 to 110 km respectively. This wide variation suggests that there is no such thing as a typical earthquake sequence in terms of inter-event times and distances in low strain rate zones such as Canterbury. The Canterbury earthquake sequence inter-event times and distances are 171, 111, and 193 days and 42, 5, and 5 km respectively. These are clearly within, but are generally at the shorter end of the global sequence ranges, which suggests that the Canterbury sequence is not atypical. Plots of inter-event times and distances against magnitude are not well correlated, indicating earthquake magnitude cannot be used as an indication of likely times and distances to subsequent earthquakes. Instead, earthquake sequences are more likely to reflect the state of stress on faults in surrounding areas, such that earthquakes are triggered only if faults are ready to fail. KEYWORDS Earthquake, earthquake sequence, aftershock, inter-event time, inter-event distance, Christchurch, Christchurch Earthquake GNS Science Report 2012/43 iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents an analysis of the times and distances between events in selected global earthquake sequences and then compares them with the 2010-2012 (and ongoing) Canterbury earthquake sequence. The motivation was to address the question “Is this typical?”, which was being asked by members of the public after the 23rd December 2011 aftershock. The answer turned out to be, as expected, that there is no such thing as typical sequences in regions similar to the Canterbury Plains. On the other hand, the Canterbury earthquake sequence is shown to be not atypical. Therefore, the main use of this report is most likely to simply provide examples of other sequences which can be referred to when such questions are asked in the future. The selection of the earthquake sequences documented here are based on a broad regional characterisation of the long historical record rather than the