Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI: 10.2478/s11600-008-0068-0
Abstract
Tectonism in the Himalayan fold-thrust belt had generated great
earthquakes in the past and will spawn more in the future. Sequential
cumulative moment release data of macroearthquakes (Mb ≥ 4.5) over
the years 1964-2006 in four zones of the Himalaya was analysed by non-
parametric RUD method. The Z values of RUD analysis had neither re-
jected nor supported the null hypothesis of randomness. However, the
Hurst analysis and plot, a statistical procedure to identify clustering of
low and high values in a time series, brought out a pattern for earthquake
prognostication. The pattern was a negative sloping segment representing
a sluggish moment release over years, followed by a positive sloping
segment indicating a sudden high moment release with occurrence of
medium/large size earthquake(s). In recent past, such a negative sloping
has been found in Zones B (1992-2006) and D (1998-2006), indicating
an impending moderate/mega earthquake event in near future.
1. INTRODUCTION
Himalayan fold-thrust belt has been revisited by large to medium size earth-
quakes over decades. The ongoing tectonic movement is likely to cause
many future quakes as a result of differential convergence rate from west to
________________________________________________
© 2008 Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences
B. MUKHOPADHYAY et al.
east between Indian and Eurasian Plates. Variable shortening of crust along
the strike length of the Himalayan arc manifests such a convergence. The
shortening rate measured by systematic GPS studies from western to eastern
Himalaya varies considerably, from 13.4 to 19 mm/yr (cf., Banerjee and
Burgmann 2002, Chen et al. 2004, Bettinelli et al. 2006, Feldl and Bilham
2006, Jade et al. 2007). This shortening of crust in the Himalaya is absorbing
a large fraction of variable plate motion, 32 to 36.4 mm/yr from western to
eastern part of Indian subcontinent, between India and Eurasia (Bettinelli et
al. 2006). Differential shortening rates across the Himalayan arc result into
locking of the basement thrust (Main Himalayan Thrust, MHT) (Zhao et al.
1993, Nelson et al. 1996, Hauck et al. 1998, Bettinelli et al. 2006). This
locking generates elastic strain and resultant earthquake in foreland part of
the Himalaya. However, the average geodetic convergence rate of 18 mm/yr
is lower than the average geological slip of 21.5±1.5 mm/yr measured over
the Holocene period in the central Nepal Himalaya (Lave and Avouac 2000).
From the slip deficit, moment release pattern, seismic gap, and GPS cam-
paign data on either side of active tectonic zones, various workers have
prognosticated future large earthquakes in different parts of the Himalayan
arc. From the accumulated slip deficit, Bilham and Ambraseys (2005) and
Bilham and Wallace (2005) have predicted four 8.6 magnitude earthquakes
in entire length of the Himalaya. Similarly, Bollinger et al. (2004) has fore-
casted a major earthquake along the seismic gap between Kathmandu, Nepal
and Dehra Dun, India. Again, from the seismic gap area between the rupture
zones of Kangra earthquake of 1905 and Bihar Nepal earthquake of 1934,
aided by GPS data, Bettinelli et al. (2006) has guessed two M > 8 or even
larger events west of Kathmandu in the Nepal Himalaya. Feldl and Bilham
(2006) have speculated Mw > 8.6 earthquakes with rupture length of ap-
proximately 400 km in the western and central Himalaya, and eastern Nepal
seismic gaps. The slip deficit generated over decades coupled with differen-
tial shortening rate may likely cause one larger-to-great earthquake, some-
times soon or not too far in time. But where, when and how large the size of
the hazard is anybody’s guess.
The decadal convergence along the Himalayan arc has accumulated elas-
tic strain that is bound to release by seismic or as aseismic slip between
earthquakes (Bilham and Ambraseys 2005). In this article, the yearly cumu-
lative moment release data from 1964 to 2006 by known macroearthquakes
(Mb ≥ 4.5) in different zones of the Himalaya has been subjected to RUD
(Runs Up and Down) analysis and Hurst analysis in an attempt to identify a
characteristic pattern on moment release. The identified pattern was then
used to locate source zone(s) for a next impending major shock in the Hima-
laya. It is known that Hurst statistics and plots provide means to determine
YEARLY SEISMIC MOMENT RELEASE DATA
the degree of clustering between low and high values in a time series. This
rescaled range analysis (Feder 1988) has been applied in sedimentological
studies (Chen and Hiscott 1999, Mukhopadhyay et al. 2003), several envi-
ronmental quantities such as wind power variations (Haslett and Raftery
1989), hydrologic studies (Hurst 1951, 1956, Wallis and Matalas 1970, 1971)
and climatic changes (Evans 1996, Koutsoyiannis 2003) to quantify cluster-
ing in datasets. But this methodology has never been used for pattern recog-
nition on yearly earthquake moment release data, which will be demon-
strated in the following sections.
2. DATA
The earthquake data (Mb ≥ 4.5) from ISC (1964-2003) and NEIC catalogues
(2004 – June 2006) from Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) in the south, followed
Fig. 1. Plot of earthquake data (Mb ≥ 4.5) in the Himalaya for 1964-2006. Note
boundaries of zones A, B, C and D in gray, where further analysis is carried out.
Zone A – Western Himalaya, B – Western Nepal Himalaya, C – Eastern Nepal
Himalaya, and D – Northeast Himalaya. Note also the active tectonic surfaces in the
Himalaya: MFT – Main Frontal Thrust, MBT – Main Boundary Thrust, MCT –
Main Central Thrust, ITS – Indus–Tsangpo Suture. The faults from Peninsular India
in interaction with the Himalayan Thrusts: RF – Ropar Fault, MDF – Mahendra-
garh–Dehradun Fault, GBF – Great Boundary Fault, WPF – West-Patna Fault,
EPF – East-Patna Fault, MSRMF – Munger Saharsha Ridge Marginal Fault, and
MKF – Malda-Kishanganj Fault. Jam – Jammu, Si – Simla, Le – Leh, Dd – Dehra
Dun, Nd – New Delhi, Jai – Jaipur, All – Allahabad, Sh – Shillong.
B. MUKHOPADHYAY et al.
successively in the north by Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Main Central
Thrust (MCT) to Indus–Tsangpo Suture (ITS) has been utilized for the
study. Earthquake events are plotted on a generalized tectonic map of the
area (Fig. 1). To account for the spatial variation of seismicity and corres-
ponding seismotectonic parameters of the Himalaya, the area is subdivided
into four zones, A, B, C and D, respectively, from west to east, within the
MFT and ITS bounded seismic zone. The earthquake events within these
four zones have been separated out into four sub-catalogues for further ana-
lyses. Zone A is named the Western Himalaya, B – the Western Nepal Hi-
malaya, C – the Eastern Nepal Himalaya, and finally D – the Northeast
Himalaya (Fig. 1).
Seismic moment is a second rank tensor with a scalar value M0 and the
two directions define the slip and fault orientations (Scholz 2002). The latter
geometrical information is called “focal mechanism” or “fault plane solu-
tion”. Seismic moment is related to properties of the earth’s crust and that of
the faulting process by
M 0 = μ A Δu , (1)
11 2
where μ is the shear rigidity (3×10 dyne/cm ) of the crust, A is the area of
the entire ruptured surface, and Δu is the rupture displacement averaged over
the ruptured surface (Scholz 2002, McGuire 2004). The moment M0 (in
Fig. 2. Plot of log-cumulative moment release for successive years (1964-2006) for
four zones, A to D. Note the number of earthquakes with Mb ≥ 4.5 as labels. Zero
value in cumulative moment release data indicates absence of earthquake (Mb ≥ 4.5)
in that particular year.
YEARLY SEISMIC MOMENT RELEASE DATA
where c = 1.5 and d = 16.05 (Hanks and Kanamori 1979, McGuire 2004).
The moments log M0 for individual earthquake events within the four sub-
catalogues (A, B, C and D) are calculated by eq. (2). The cumulative log M0
for the period starting from 1964 to June 2006 are calculated for sub-cata-
logues of Zones A, B, C and D and summarized graphically in Fig. 2. The
moment release data shown in the diagrams display peaks and drops, without
any visible cyclic pattern.
Z = (U − μ ) / σ , (5)
Fig. 3. Hurst plots of years against cumulative difference from mean log-cumulative
moment release data of earthquakes in four zones (A-D). Note the IDs of Table 2 are
plotted as numbers.
T ab l e 2
Important medium- to large-sized events in A to D zones in the Lesser Himalaya.
Note the IDs that are plotted in Fig. 3.
h Name of the
Zone ID Date Time Lat Long Mb
[km] earthquake
1 1972 Sep 03 16h48m29.00s 35.94 73.33 6.2 45
A 2 1981 Sep 12 07 15 54.00 35.68 73.60 6.1 30
3 2005 Oct 08 03 50 41.00 34.54 73.59 7.7 26 Kashmir
4 1966 Mar 06 02 15 57.00 31.49 80.50 6.0 50
5 1966 Jun 27 10 41 08.10 29.62 80.83 6.0 33
6 1966 Jun 27 10 59 18.10 29.71 80.89 6.0 36
7 1975 Jan 19 08 01 57.70 32.39 78.50 6.2 1
B 8 1975 Jan 19 08 12 09.80 31.94 78.52 5.8 49
9 1980 Jul 29 14 58 41.60 29.63 81.09 6.1 23
10 1991 Oct 19 21 23 15.00 30.77 78.79 6.4 15 Uttarkashi
11 1999 Mar 28 19 05 12.30 30.51 79.42 6.3 20 Chamoli
12 2004 Oct 26 02 11 33.00 31.02 81.15 6.0 10
13 1965 Jan 12 13 32 24.10 27.40 87.84 5.9 23
14 1974 Sep 27 05 26 33.60 28.59 85.51 5.5 20
15 1980 Nov 19 19 00 45.00 27.40 88.80 6.0 47 Gangtok
16 1986 Jan 10 03 46 30.90 28.65 86.56 5.5 53
17 1987 Aug 09 21 15 02.70 29.47 83.74 5.5 74
C
18 1988 Aug 20 23 09 10.10 26.72 86.63 6.4 65 Bihar-Nepal
19 1990 Jan 09 02 29 21.80 28.15 88.11 5.7 41
20 1993 Mar 20 14 51 59.70 29.03 87.33 5.7 15
21 1998 Sep 03 18 15 52.10 27.86 86.95 5.6 14
22 2003 Mar 25 18 51 26.00 27.26 89.33 5.5 47
23 1964 Sep 01 13 22 37.30 27.12 92.26 5.6 33
24 1964 Oct 21 23 09 19.00 28.04 93.75 6.0 37
25 1967 Mar 14 06 58 04.40 28.41 94.29 5.7 20
D 26 1967 Sep 15 10 32 44.20 27.42 91.86 5.8 19
27 1998 Sep 26 18 27 01.00 27.76 92.81 5.5 15
28 2005 Jun 01 20 06 41.00 28.88 94.63 6.1 25
29 2006 Feb 23 20 04 54.00 26.91 91.71 5.8 10
5. CONCLUSIONS
Any study on the earthquake parameters aims to find out a pattern to prog-
nosticate a future shock. In this study, the non-parametric statistical RUD
test and construction of Hurst plots on the cumulative moment release data
of successive years (1964-2006) on four zones (A to D) of the Himalaya
have been made for identification of such a pattern. The RUD analysis does
not suggest that the cumulative moment release pattern is systematic. How-
ever, the failure of null hypothesis does not always mean the absence of sys-
tematic patterns in the dataset. Therefore, a search for a systematic pattern to
identify clusters of low and high values in the moment release has been
carried out by Hurst analysis. The Hurst plots (Fig. 3) of four zones bring out
the inherent clustering patterns of moment release by revealing the succes-
sive series of low and high values in the dataset which corroborates well the
occurrence of large to medium-sized earthquakes. The plots also suggest
a characteristic pattern that bears the signature to prognosticate a next
impending earthquake in the Himalaya. The pattern is a long negative slop-
ing segment (indicating slow and decreasing moment release) immediately
followed by a medium to large-sized earthquake with a pattern reversal to
positive sloping segment. Such a pattern exists in Zone A prior to Kashmir
(Mb 7.7) earthquake in 2005, in Zone B before Chamoli (Mb 6.3) earth-
quakes of 1999, and also in Zone C preceding Bihar-Nepal (Mb 6.4) earth-
quake of 1988.
A relook on the Hurst plot of Zone A (Fig. 3a) shows that it takes almost
21 years (1964-2004) of seismic lull period to accumulate sufficient elastic
strain to generate an earthquake of magnitude 7.7 (2005 Kashmir earth-
quake). Though within this seismic lull period two earthquakes with magni-
tude greater than 6.0 at 1972 and 1981 (IDs 1, 2 of Table 2, Fig. 3a) have
occurred, these earthquakes were not sufficient to release the entire amount
of elastic strain accumulated within rock-masses so far. Hence, within a
seismic cycle, the possibility of occurrence of a megaevent (Mb ≥ 7.0) is not
YEARLY SEISMIC MOMENT RELEASE DATA
delayed by the occurrence of several moderate (Mb ~ 6.0) events prior to it.
Similarly, seismic lulls of 8 years each (1967-1974, 1992-1998) have gener-
ated earthquakes of comparable size, of 6.2 (1975) and 6.3 (1999 Chamoli
earthquake) in Zone B. Therefore, as the duration of seismic lull increases,
the size of impending event increases too. A focus on Hurst plots of Zones B
and D (Figs. 3b, d) indicate that Zone B (between years 1992-2006) and
Zone D (between years 1998-2006) do exhibit negative sloping moment re-
lease pattern in recent times. Within these periods, both these zones have re-
leased some of the accumulated strain by spawning earthquakes with
Mb ≥ 6.0 (IDs 11, 12, 28 of Table 2 and Fig. 3). As these zones still maintain
the negative sloping moment release trend, two possibilities can be appre-
hended keeping in view the moment release signature of Zone A. One possi-
bility is the occurrence of an immediate moderate size earthquake with
magnitude Mb ~ 6.0 that may reverse the moment release trend from nega-
tive to positive. Otherwise, the negative trend may continue for a couple of
years more and spawn an earthquake comparable to the size of Kashmir
earthquake of 2005 as found in Zone A. Evaluating the consequences of both
possibilities it can be logically concluded that Zones B and D are in the
verge of experiencing an earthquake of magnitude ~ 6.0 or > 7.0 immediate-
ly or pretty soon, depending on the period of seismic lull. Thus, from the
above study we can only constrain the source zone for the next impending
event but the exact size and timing of the event cannot be deciphered.
References
Andrew, D.J. (1989), Mechanics of fault junction, J. Geophys. Res. 94, B7, 9389-
9397, DOI: 10.1029/JB094iB07p09389.
Banerjee, P., and R. Burgmann (2002), Convergence across the northwest Himalaya
from GPS measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 13, 31-34, DOI: 10.1029/
2002GL015184.
Bettinelli, P., J.P. Avouac, M. Flouzat, F. Jouanne, L. Bollinger, P. Willis, and
G.R. Chitrakar (2006), Plate motion of India and interseismic strain in the
Nepal Himalaya from GPS and DORIS measurements, J. Geod. 80, 8-11,
567-589, DOI: 10.1007/s00190-006-0030-3.
Bilham, R., and N.N. Ambraseys (2005), Apparent Himalayan slip deficit from the
summation of seismic moments for Himalayan earthquakes, 1500-2000,
Current Science 88, 1658-1663.
Bilham, R., and K. Wallace (2005), Future Mw > 8 earthquakes in the Himalaya:
Implication from the 26 Dec 2004 Mw = 9.0 Plate Margin, Geol. Surv. In-
dia Spl. Pub. 85, 1-14.
Bollinger, L., J.P. Avouac, R. Cattin, and M.R. Pandey (2004), Stress buildup in the
Himalaya, J. Geophys. Res. 109, B11405, DOI: 10.1029/2003JB002911.
B. MUKHOPADHYAY et al.
McGuire, R.K. (2004), Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, EERI Monograph 10,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 221 pp.
Mukhopadhyay, B., P.P. Chakraborty, and S. Paul (2003), Facies clustering in tur-
bidite successions: Case study from Andaman Flysch Group, Andaman Is-
lands, India, Gondwana Res. 6, 4, 918-925, DOI: 10.1016/S1342-937X(05)
71036-4.
Nelson, K.D., W.J. Zhao, L.D. Brown, J. Kuo, J.K. Che, X.W. Liu, S.L. Klemperer,
Y. Makovsky, R. Meissner, J. Mechie, R. Kind, F. Wenzel, J. Ni, J. Nabe-
lek, L.S. Chen, H.D. Tan, W.B. Wei, A.G. Jones, J. Booker, M. Unsworth,
W.S.F. Kidd, M. Hauck, D. Alsdorf, A. Ross, M. Cogan, C.D. Wu, E. Sand-
vol, and M. Edwards (1996), Partially molten middle crust beneath southern
Tibet: Synthesis of project INDEPTH results, Science 274, 5293, 1684-
1688, DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5293.1684.
Scholz, C.H. (2002), The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting, 2nd ed., Cam-
bridge University Press, 471 pp.
Wallis, J.R., and N.C. Matalas (1970), Small sample properties of H and K estima-
tors of Hurst coefficient h, Water Resour. Res. 6, 6, 1583-1594, DOI: 10.1029/
WR006i006p01583.
Wallis, J.R., and N.C. Matalas (1971), Correlogram analysis revisited, Water Re-
sour. Res. 7, 6, 1448-1459, DOI: 10.1029/WR007i006p01448.
Zhao, W., K.D. Nelson, and Project INDEPTH Team (1993), Deep seismic reflec-
tion evidence for continental underthrusting beneath southern Tibet, Nature
366, 6455, 557-559, DOI: 10.1038/366557a0.