Friday Focal Mechanisms: before and after the M8 Santa Cruz Islands quake

A post by Chris RowanOn Tuesday night American time (Wednesday lunchtime local time), a magnitude 8 earthquake occurred near the Santa Cruz Islands, a set of small islands east of the Solomon Islands. In this region, the Australian plate is subducting to the north-east beneath the Pacific plate. The geometry of the plate boundary is quite interesting: this earthquake is located at the apex of a major curve in the trench, from roughly east in the direction of the Solomon Islands to south-west in the direction of Vanuatu and New Caledonia. The focal mechanism* for the event itself shows northeast-southwest compression, which is consistent with a rupture of the subduction thrust. At almost 30 km deep, the rupture did not produce displace the seafloor enough to produce a major tsunami, but it did produce a local tsunami that caused a fair amount of carnage on Lata, the principal island in the Santa Cruz group.

Earthquakes in the Santa Cruz Islands region, SW Pacific, Feb 2-8th 2013. The NE-SW thrust focal mechanism of the M8 mainshock on 6th February is also shown.

Earthquakes in the Santa Cruz Islands region, SW Pacific, Feb 2-8th 2013. The NE-SW thrust focal mechanism of the M8 mainshock on 6th February is also shown.

One interesting thing about this event is that it appears to have had a well-defined foreshock sequence, with around a dozen earthquakes in the magnitude 5-6 range recorded in the 5 days before the main shock, close to its eventual location. I haven’t plotted them, but the focal mechanisms for the magnitude 6 events show thrust mechanisms very similar to the eventual main shock. In hindsight, we can interpret this as preliminary slip on the subduction thrust, prior to the main event. As ever, you should be aware that there was nothing about these earthquakes that told us this beforehand.

Santa Cruz Island foreshocks

Magnitude 5+ earthquakes near the Feb 6th main shock on Feb 1st-5th (foreshocks).

The aftershocks are turning out to be a bit of a surprise. Of the nine aftershocks stronger than magnitude 6 recorded so far, not one of them is compressional: instead we’re seeing a mixture of extensional and strike-slip faulting.

Santa Cruz Island aftershocks

Location and focal mechanisms of magnitude 6+ aftershocks between Feb 6th and Feb 8th in the Santa Cruz Islands region.

Easiest to explain are the three large extensional events on the Australian plate just south of the trench, which are probably related to bending of the plate as it enters the subduction zone. North of the trench, there have been four Magnitude 6.6-7 strike slip earthquakes in the vicinity of Lata, and a magnitude 6 extensional event caused by east-west stretching further east, on the very edge of the aftershock zone. This makes it likely (but not certain) that the east-west striking focal planes for the strike-slip earthquakes to the west are the fault planes: east-west extension is more consistent with east-west shear.

Tentative interpretation of the stress field associated with the aftershocks.

Tentative interpretation of the stress field associated with the aftershocks.

All the aftershocks north of the trench were located at 10-20 kilometres depth, which is at least 10 kilometres shallower than the main shock, suggesting that they are caused by deformation of the overriding Pacific plate. As to the cause, I can only speculate that it is something to do with the shape of the subducting plate in this region. The bending of the trench in this region suggests that as well as curving down into the mantle as it is being subducted, the Australian plate is also folded along a perpendicular axis, creating a kind of conically folded slab at the corner occupied by the Santa Cruz Islands. If this conical fold is widest at the surface where it enters the trench, then thrusting it forward and beneath the Pacific plate will cause some warping of the overlying crust to accommodate a suddenly more broadly arched Australian plate, leading to the extension and shearing we are seeing.

But as I said, that’s a highly speculative explanation, which may or may not make any sense to anyone but me. I’d attempt to sketch it but my ability to visualise three-dimensional structures far exceeds my ability to draw them, especially on a Friday night…

*A primer on focal mechanisms

Categories: earthquakes, focal mechanisms, tectonics

Stuff we linked to on Twitter last week

A post by Chris RowanA post by Anne JeffersonA busy week for both of us this week – Anne had a stimulating few days at the ScienceOnline 2013 conference in North Carolina, while Chris tried to achieve something other than teaching prep. But, through all this, we still found some cool links to share with y’all.

Up-Goer 5

Volcanoes

Earthquakes

Planets

(Paleo)climate

Water

Environmental

General Geology

Interesting Miscellaney

Categories: links

Friday Focal Mechanism: the Himalayas’ long tectonic shadow

A post by Chris RowanIt wasn’t the biggest seismic event of the week, but this shallow (15 km depth) magnitude 6.0 that shook the remote southeast corner of Kazakstan on Monday still caught my attention.

Location and (strike-slip) focal mechanism for Monday’s M6.0 earthquake in the Tian Shan Mountains, SE Kazakstan.

Located within the Tian Shan mountains, this earthquake is testimony to the profound and ongoing regional impact of the collision of India with Asia over the past 50 million years or so. This crash of continents has thrown up the Himalayas, and behind them raised the Tibetan plateau; but GPS measurements of deformation for this region show that even 500 kilometres further inland still, the northward motion of India is still being felt, pushing and squashing the Asian crust, raising the Tian Shan mountains – and causing this earthquake.

GPS measurements of deformation associated with collision between India and Asia. Motion vectors are relative to the non-deforming interior of Asia. Source: Gan et al., 2007.

This is a good example of how unlike plate tectonics in the strict sense the deformation of continental crust can be: rather than large, rigid chunks of crust which interact only at their edges, the ‘plate boundary’ between India and Asia stretches a long way into Asia. Rather than a single fault system, you have an entire region gradually absorbing India’s inward charge. But this event is interesting for another reason: the reported focal mechanism suggests that the rupture was due to strike-slip motion on a fault, either dextral strike slip on an northwest oriented fault (north-east side moving south-east) or sinistral strike-slip on a southwest oriented fault (northwest side moving southwest).

The two possible interpretations of the focal mechanism. Dextral strike slip on NW-SE fault, or sinistral strike-slip on a SW-NE fault.

Strike-slip is perhaps a bit of a surprise, since most earthquakes in this region seem to be on thrust faults accommodating north-south compression. These faults mostly appear to be following a northeast-southwest trend, which might suggest that we are seeing sinistral strike-slip on one these structures, as in the first possibility above. However, this implies some sort of lateral escape tectonics in this area, where rather than being all squashed and crumpled up to make room for India’s incursion, some of the Asian crust simply moves out of its way. This is clearly evident in eastward GPS vectors seen in eastern Tibet, but is not particularly compatible with the SW-NE trend of the GPS-derived motion in the Tian Shan. However, it turns out that about 200 km to the west, on the other side of Lake Issyk Kul, there is an 800 km-long, active, northwest-southeast trending dextral strike-slip fault, the Talas-Fergana Fault (TFF):

GPS velocity field for Tian Shan; motion vectors relative to stable Eurasia. TFF=Talas-Fergana Fault. Source: Zubovich et al., 2010.

Monday’s earthquake could therefore have occurred on a smaller but similarly oriented structure east of the Talas-Fergana fault (meaning that the first of the two possibilities suggested above is correct). Over 1000 km beyond the main collision front, the northern motion of India is causing deformation; and in the Tian Shan that deformation is being accommodated by N-S strike-slip faults as well as E-W thrust faults. Why is it doing it that way? I suspect it may have something to do with us being near the eastern edge of the Tarim Basin, which is thought to be a strong, rigid block that is not deforming very much. Based on the GPS velocities in the figure above, the Tarim block appears to transmit the stress from the Himalayas and Tibet further northwards into the Tian Shan than is possible in the weaker crust beyond its edges. Strike slip faults such as the Talas-Fergana fault, and possibly the fault that ruptured on Monday, are accommodating the difference. That’s continental tectonics for you: why use one fault when you can use whole different sets of faults at the same time?

Note:No promises, but I’m hoping to make this a quasi-regular feature again.

Categories: earthquakes, focal mechanisms, tectonics

The Up-Goer Five Challenge: now at Scientific American

A post by Chris RowanAnne and I have continued to be blown away by the magnitude of the response to Anne’s original challenge to explain your scientific research using only a list of the thousand most commonly used English words. Ten Hundred Words of Science, the tumblr blog we created to manage and showcase the flow of submissions, has now got up to almost 300 responses, with more still arriving. In a post now up at the Scientific American Guest Blog about the whole memetic shebang, we highlight some of the more brilliant and creative examples, although that is but a small sampling of the riches on offer. Check it out here.

As a side note, I’ve noticed a curious bipolarity in reactions to the ‘Up-Goer 5’ phenomenon. Many are genuinely enthusiastic, but some are very dismissive indeed (check out a couple of comments on the Guest Blog post for some fairly typical examples). Partly this seems based on the mistaken idea that we’re arguing that you should actually lecture or write exclusively from the Up-Goer 5 lexicon*. Should you speak like this? No, of course not. The point of the challenge is to see if and how you could, and in the process discover the snarly, hand-wavy parts of the explanations we store in our head – the bits we mentally gloss over with ‘obviously’s and ‘clearly’s and basically ignore until we are trying to pass our wisdom onto others, and realise that they’re not really obvious or clear at all.

This, I believe, is where the challenge comes in: it forces you to take apart the linguistic engine of an explanation, and allows you to identify and remove the ugly bits of jargon that are clogging things up and inhibiting the spark of comprehension; and then, you can put it all back together again, creating a shiny new explanatory framework that enlightens the people you are trying to reach more smoothly. It’s a training aid, not something you use when performing. Although the results are fascinating – and fun.

*Seriously, people. Me, argue for abolishing virtually every word with more than two syllables? Preposterous!

Categories: public science, science education

Stuff we linked to on Twitter last week

A post by Chris RowanA post by Anne JeffersonSince it seems much of the northern hemisphere is cold and snowy at the moment, here’s some good reading to curl up with a hot drink over. For those in the southern hemisphere: here’s some good brain food to distract you from gloating…

Volcanoes

Earthquakes

Planets

(Paleo)climate

Water

Environmental

General Geology

Interesting Miscellaney

Categories: links