The geometry of the Sefidsang earthquake nodal planes taken from GCMT and ISC.
Abstract
Identification of the fault plane of earthquakes can be a critical contribution of seismology to regional tectonic studies and assessment of expected deformation and damage patterns. A fundamental ambiguity in the representation of an earthquake with a focal mechanism is to recognize the causative fault plane accommodating the slip during the event among the two nodal planes. The Coulomb static stress has been commonly used to determine the stress distribution induced by an event. However, for the first time in this research, the Coulomb regional stress was resolved on nodal planes to realize the optimally oriented plane for failure having maximum Coulomb stress on which the regional stress triggers an event. The method has been conducted for the April 5th, 2017 Sefidsang earthquake in NE Iran. The results reveal that the earthquake-triggering fault is a northeast-dipping listric fault with dextral reverse movement. The identified structural aspects subjected to active deformation in the area have crucial implications for seismic hazard assessment of the region and potential future failure areas.
Keywords
- Coulomb stress change
- causative fault geometry
- active tectonics
- earthquake
- aftershock distributions
1. Introduction
According to the Andersonian faulting theory, the relative magnitude of the principle stresses can be simply related to the faulting style currently active in region. Information on the state of stress in the lithosphere comes from a variety of sources: earthquake focal mechanisms, young geologic data on fault slip and volcanic alignments,
Stress in brittle upper crust builds up during the interseismic period until it ruptures seismically. An earthquake occurs when the volume close to a fault moves. Earthquakes, as a result of an instability in faulting, are so pervasive that on many faults most slip occurs during them. The seismicity is an extremely important resource to studies of both continental tectonics and seismic hazard assessment in deforming regions. Stress fields and optimally oriented active faults reveal seismic potential around the cities that improves future earthquake scenarios and are helpful for disaster mitigation (e.g., [5]). The Coulomb failure stress changes caused by mainshock rupture effectively explain the aftershock distributions for the earthquakes. Not only do aftershocks appear to be triggered by such stress changes but moderate events prior to the earthquake increased the potential for failure along most of the future rupture zone, perhaps controlling the location of the later rupture.
The Coulomb stress change is one of a number of models relating to the stress triggering in earthquakes [6]. Since the 1990s, the Coulomb stress change has been widely employed to probe the cause of triggering in several general types of studies: a) main shock-main shock triggering, b) main shock-aftershock triggering, and c) faults optimally oriented for failure. A large number of studies have investigated the Coulomb stress changes and earthquake interactions (e.g., [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]). There are many recent works that applied the Coulomb stress change on the causative fault parameter determined by the other approaches to investigate the stress distribution after the earthquake triggering the second mainshock or the aftershocks (the “a” and “b” categories).
Methods generally used to select the fault plane of earthquakes are based on the observation of directivity effects associated with finite ruptures (e.g., [25, 26, 27]). The method presented in this article includes Coulomb stress change and its interaction with the surrounding area. Coulomb stress changes induced by regional stress (before the earthquake) are implemented to determine the optimally oriented nodal plane for failure. Our research lays in the “c” category of Coulomb stress studies mentioned above. The correlation between the epicentral distribution of aftershocks and the increased Coulomb stress area promoting failure is investigated. Our motivation for this investigation is the recognition of seismic faults, in particular, when there are uncertainties in location and fault plane orientations, and the ambiguity of which nodal plane is the right one. It could advance out knowledge of the pattern and kinematics of active faulting, and understanding the regional active deformation. This research aims to improve our understanding of kinematics and has important implications for seismic hazard assessment.
2. Method
The slip that occurs on faults during earthquakes (referred to as “source faults”) deforms the surrounding area and changes the stress field. A measure of this change is the Coulomb static stress [15, 28]. The strain created by the displacement of a source fault results in the Coulomb stress changes. Therefore, the stress change can be resolved on an area or specified “receiver” fault planes. The stresses imparted by the source faults or tectonic regime affect faults with a specified strike, dip, and rake namely receiver faults. In other representation, the faults with an optimal orientation, concerning the regional (also called “tectonic”) stress or the stress imparted by the source fault, and the assumed friction coefficient are suitable for sliding and could be as a receiver fault. The Coulomb failure stress change,
where
The positive
There are two principal considerations of the Coulomb stress changes on receiver faults: stress changes on the specified receiver fault and stress changes on an optimally oriented receiver fault. The specified receiver faults rely on resolving stress changes on faults with known geometry [20, 33, 41]. The optimally oriented receiver faults are determined by assuming that the earthquakes will be triggered only on those planes with maximum total Coulomb stress [7, 12, 13, 42].
The Coulomb static stress has been commonly used to determine the distribution of stress induced by an event. However, for the first time, it is applied to realize the distribution of regional stress triggering an event on appropriate fault. Determination of the principal regional stress directions and a measure of relative stress magnitudes are possible by a variety of different focal mechanisms within a region of uniform stress [43]. Theoretically, the earthquakes will be triggered only on the fault planes with maximum total Coulomb stress. It means that the earthquake-triggering faults might have an optimal orientation with maximum Coulomb stress imparted by the regional stress (e.g., [44]). Therefore, the earthquake causative faults can be determined from nodal planes by resolving Coulomb stress on them with respect to the regional stress and selecting those on which the imparted Coulomb stress is maximum.
3. Results
The Sefidsang earthquake occurred on April 5th, 2017 Mw 6.15 at a depth of about 11.5 km. Its epicenter was about 35.776 degrees of latitude and 60.436 degrees of longitude, southeast of Mashhad and east-northeast of Fariman, NE Iran (Figure 1). The maximum acceleration of this earthquake recorded by the Iranian Strong Motion Network was about 120 cm/s at the station 38 km from the epicenter. Based on the GSI field observations, the most destructive effects of the earthquake were observed near one of the Kashafrud fault segments. The Kashafrud reverse fault closely parallels the boundary between the Binalud and the Kopeh Dagh mountains. East of Mashad, the Kashafrud fault system runs to the Binalud mountains south of the Cimmerian arc-related Fariman complex (Figure 2).
According to the focal mechanism solutions presented by some global seismological centers, the mechanism of the Sefidsang earthquake is reversed with a minor strike slip on northwest-southeast oriented nodal planes. The characteristic of the two nodal planes and the event are presented in Table 1.
Date | Time (UTC) | Lat (°N) | Lon (°E) | Depth (km) | Mw | Mechanism | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Strike (°) | Dip (°) | Rake (°) | ||||||
2017-04-05 | 6:9 | 35.776 | 60.436 | 11.5 | 6.15 | 316 | 20 | 120 |
105 | 73 | 80 |
Although historical seismicity in the northeast of Iran is mostly associated with the Baghan, Quchan, and Neyshabur faults [45, 46, 47, 48], the Sefidsang earthquake occurred in a region that has faced almost no historic or recent seismicity and has been characterized by low deformation rate concerning Eurasia [49].
Though in such a moderate earthquake that the causative fault is not exposed at the surface, theoretically, each nodal plane has the same possibility for failure, however, following the rules of focal mechanism inversion [50], one of them must be selected for each earthquake. The seismic fault is determined by assuming that the earthquake will be triggered on the plane with maximum total Coulomb stress. In other words, the earthquake-triggering fault should have maximum Coulomb stress with respect to regional stress. The best-fitting regional stress tensor compatible with the majority of ISC collected earthquake focal mechanisms over the period of years was defined by the Win-Tensor program (Table 2). Then, we should select the nodal plane on which imparted Coulomb stress is maximum.
Trend | 216 | 120 | 317 |
Plunge | 8 | 35 | 54 |
The stress change calculations were performed using the software Coulomb 3.3 [44]. For all the calculations of the Coulomb stress change, the shear modulus (G), 32 × 105 bar, Poisson ratio (
The aftershocks preferentially occur in the calculated stress increase and are less likely in the calculated stress decrease areas [51]. Therefore, the aftershock distributions control which nodal plane results in more matching with high Coulomb stress. The epicentral distribution of aftershocks by MN≥2 and ≥3 is mostly situated in the maximum (most positive) Coulomb stress area (Figure 4) and is more consistent with the first nodal plane in Table 1. The general pattern of aftershocks brings up that the geometry of the Sefidsang earthquake sequence causative faults is in listric form.
Factors such as unknown stress concentration before the mainshock, crustal heterogeneity, and the existence of small faults with different orientations [15, 52, 53] may play a role in perturbing the stress field and thus it is not surprising that all of the aftershocks have not been completely matched with regions of increased Coulomb stress.
4. Discussion
The regional inferred Coulomb stress changes triggering the April 5th, 2017 Mw 6.15 Sefidsang earthquake (pre-event stress; Table 2) was resolved on two nodal planes. The status of
5. Conclusion
The most important question concerning earthquakes is about the geometry and kinematics of the causative faults. In other words, we like to know which nodal planes would be the causative fault plane accommodating the slip during seismic activation, especially in the case that there is no rupture evidence at the surface. The Coulomb static stress has been commonly used to determine the stress distribution induced by an event. However, for the first time in this research, the Coulomb regional stress was resolved on nodal planes to realize the optimally oriented one for failure. The seismic fault is determined by assuming that the earthquake will be triggered on the plane with maximum total Coulomb stress. In other words, the earthquake-triggering fault should have maximum Coulomb stress concerning regional stress. The method has been conducted for the April 5th, 2017 Sefidsang earthquake in NE Iran. The results reveal that the earthquake occurred on a northeast-dipping listric fault with dextral reverse movement. Recognition of the pattern and kinematics of active deformation in addition to paleo-structures can help us to shed light on structural aspects subjected to active deformation in the area. The results of this study have crucial implications for seismic hazard assessment of the region and potential future failure areas.
Acknowledgments
I thank the Iranian Seismological Center (IRSC). I utilized Win-Tensor and Coulomb software. I am grateful to the International Seismological Centre (ISC), Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT), and USGS for open access to their online Bulletin. I also used SRTM DEM derived from the USGS/NASA SRTM data.
The author has no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.
References
- 1.
Aki K, Richards PG. Quantitative seismology. 2nd ed. University Science Books; 2002. p. 704 - 2.
Dziewonski AM, Chou TA, Woodhouse JH. Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1981; 86 (B4):2825-2852 - 3.
Kawakatsu H. Automated near-realtime CMT inversion. Geophysical Research Letters. 1995; 22 (19):2569-2572 - 4.
Sipkin SA. Estimation of earthquake source parameters by the inversion of waveform data: synthetic waveforms. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 1982; 30 (2-3):242-259 - 5.
Hori T, Yalciner A, Ozel N, Kilic I, Si M, Hyodo M. Earthquake generation cycles and tsunami simulations providing possible scenarios for Turkey (Marmara sea) and Japan (Nankai trough and Japan trench). In: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. April 2015. p. 7566 - 6.
Hardebeck JL, Nazareth JJ, Hauksson E. The static stress change triggering model: Constraints from two southern California aftershock sequences. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1998; 103 (B10):24427-24437 - 7.
Catalli F, Chan C-H. New insights into the application of the Coulomb model in real-time. Geophysical Journal International. 2012; 188 (2):583-599 - 8.
Deng J, Sykes LR. Stress evolution in southern California and triggering of moderate-, small-, and micro-size earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1997; 102 (B11):24411-24435 - 9.
Hainzl S, Moradpour J, Davidsen J. Static stress triggering explains the empirical aftershock distance decay. Geophysical Research Letters. 2014; 41 (24):8818-8824 - 10.
Harris RA. Introduction to special section: Stress triggers, stress shadows, and implications for seismic hazard. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1998; 103 (B10):24347-24358 - 11.
Harris RA, Simpson RW, Reasenberg PA. Influence of static stress changes on earthquake locations in southern California. Nature. 1995; 375 (6528):221-224 - 12.
King GC, Stein RS, Lin J. Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1994; 84 (3):935-953 - 13.
Lin J, Stein RS. Stress triggering in thrust and subduction earthquakes and stress interaction between the southern San Andreas and nearby thrust and strike-slip faults. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2004; 109 (B2). pp. B02303. DOI: 10.1029/2003JB002607 - 14.
Lin J, Stein RS, Meghraoui M, Toda S, Ayadi A, Dorbath C, et al. Stress transfer among en echelon and opposing thrusts and tear faults: Triggering caused by the 2003 Mw= 6.9 Zemmouri, Algeria, earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2011; 116 (B3). pp. B03305. DOI: 10.1029/2010JB007654.hal-00747421 - 15.
Mitsakaki C, Rondoyanni T, Anastasiou D, Papazissi K, Marinou A, Sakellariou M. Static stress changes and fault interactions in Lefkada Island. Western Greece. Journal of Geodynamics. 2013; 67 :53-61 - 16.
Parsons T. Global Omori law decay of triggered earthquakes: Large aftershocks outside the classical aftershock zone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2002; 107 (B9):ESE 9-1-ESE 9-20 - 17.
Sarkarinejad K, Ansari S. The coulomb stress changes and seismicity rate due to the 1990 M W 7.3 Rudbar earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 2014; 104 (6):2943-2952 - 18.
Sarkarinejad K, Ansari S. Did the 1983 Charazeh earthquake trigger the destructive 1990 Rudbar earthquake? International Journal of Earth Sciences. 2015; 104 (1):309-319 - 19.
Steacy S, Gomberg J, Cocco M. Introduction to special section: Stress transfer, earthquake triggering, and time-dependent seismic hazard. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2005; 110 (B5). pp. B05S01. DOI: 10.1029/2005JB003692 - 20.
Stein RS, King GC, Lin J. Stress triggering of the 1994 M= 6.7 Northridge, California, earthquake by its predecessors. Science. 1994; 265 (5177):1432-1435 - 21.
Wang J, Xu C, Freymueller JT, Li Z, Shen W. Sensitivity of Coulomb stress change to the parameters of the Coulomb failure model: A case study using the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 2014; 119 (4):3371-3392 - 22.
Wang J-C, Shieh C-F, Chang T-M. Static stress changes as a triggering mechanism of a shallow earthquake: case study of the 1999 Chi–Chi (Taiwan) earthquake. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 2003; 135 (1):17-25 - 23.
Wang W-H, Chen C-H. Static stress transferred by the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake: Effects on the stability of the surrounding fault systems and aftershock triggering with a 3D fault-slip model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 2001; 91 (5):1041-1052 - 24.
Yadav R, Gahalaut V, Chopra S, Shan B. Tectonic implications and seismicity triggering during the 2008 Baluchistan, Pakistan earthquake sequence. Journal of Asia Earth Sciences. 2012; 45 :167-178 - 25.
Dreger D. Empirical Green's function study of the January 17, 1994 Northridge, California earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters. 1994; 21 (24):2633-2636 - 26.
Li Y, Doll C Jr, Toksöz M. Source characterization and fault plane determination for MbLg= 1.2 to 4.4 earthquakes in the Charlevoix Seismic Zone, Quebec, Canada. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1995; 85 (6):1604-1621 - 27.
Mori J, Hartzell S. Source inversion of the 1988 Upland, California, earthquake: Determination of a fault plane for a small event. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1990; 80 (3):507-518 - 28.
Meier MA, Werner M, Woessner J, Wiemer S. A search for evidence of secondary static stress triggering during the 1992 Mw7. 3 Landers, California, earthquake sequence. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 2014; 119 (4):3354-3370 - 29.
Das S, Scholz CH. Off-fault aftershock clusters caused by shear stress increase? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1981; 71 (5):1669-1675 - 30.
Stein RS, King GC, Lin J. Change in failure stress on the southern San Andreas fault system caused by the 1992 magnitude= 7.4 Landers earthquake. Science. 1992; 258 (5086):1328-1332 - 31.
Stein RS. The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature. 1999; 402 (6762):605-609 - 32.
Toda S. Coulomb stresses imparted by the 25 March 2007 M w= 6.6 Noto-Hanto, Japan, earthquake explain its ‘butterfly’distribution of aftershocks and suggest a heightened seismic hazard. Earth, Planets and Space. 2008; 60 (10):1041-1046 - 33.
Ma KF, Chan CH, Stein RS. Response of seismicity to Coulomb stress triggers and shadows of the 1999 Mw= 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2005; 110 (B5) - 34.
Parsons T, Stein RS, Simpson RW, Reasenberg PA. Stress sensitivity of fault seismicity: A comparison between limited-offset oblique and major strike-slip faults. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1999; 104 (B9):20183-20202 - 35.
Sumy DF, Cochran ES, Keranen KM, Wei M, Abers GA. Observations of static Coulomb stress triggering of the November 2011 M5. 7 Oklahoma earthquake sequence. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 2014; 119 (3):1904-1923 - 36.
Aron A, Hardebeck JL. Seismicity rate changes along the central California coast due to stress changes from the 2003 M 6.5 San Simeon and 2004 M 6.0 Parkfield earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 2009; 99 (4):2280-2292 - 37.
Harris RA, Simpson RW. Suppression of large earthquakes by stress shadows: A comparison of Coulomb and rate-and-state failure. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1998; 103 (B10):24439-24451 - 38.
Parsons T. Significance of stress transfer in time-dependent earthquake probability calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 2005; 110 (B5) - 39.
Stein RS, Barka AA, Dieterich JH. Progressive failure on the North Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering. Geophysical Journal International. 1997; 128 (3):594-604 - 40.
Toda S, Lin J, Meghraoui M, Stein RS. 12 May 2008 M= 7.9 Wenchuan, China, earthquake calculated to increase failure stress and seismicity rate on three major fault systems. Geophysical Research Letters. 2008; 35 (17) - 41.
Hainzl S, Steacy D, Marsan S. Seismicity models based on Coulomb stress calculations. Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis. 2010 - 42.
Ishibe T, Shimazaki K, Tsuruoka H, Yamanaka Y, Satake K. Correlation between Coulomb stress changes imparted by large historical strike-slip earthquakes and current seismicity in Japan. Earth, Planets and Space. 2011; 63 (3):12 - 43.
Bott MHP. The mechanics of oblique slip faulting. Geological Magazine. 1959; 96 (2):109-117. DOI: 10.1017/S0016756800059987 - 44.
Toda S, Stein RS, Sevilgen V, Lin J. Coulomb 3.3 Graphic-rich deformation and stress-change software for earthquake, tectonic, and volcano research and teaching—user guide. US Geological Survey Open-file Report. 2011; 1060 (2011):63 - 45.
Ambraseys NN, Melville CP. A History of Persian Earthquakes. Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 219 - 46.
Tchalenko J. Seismicity and structure of the Kopet Dagh (Iran, USSR). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 1975; 278 (1275):1-28 - 47.
Berberian M, Yeats RS. Patterns of historical earthquake rupture in the Iranian Plateau. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1999; 89 (1):120-139 - 48.
Berberian M, Yeats RS. Contribution of archaeological data to studies of earthquake history in the Iranian Plateau. Journal of Structural Geology. 2001; 23 (2-3):563-584 - 49.
Masson F, Anvari M, Djamour Y, Walpersdorf A, Tavakoli F, Daignieres M, et al. Large-scale velocity field and strain tensor in Iran inferred from GPS measurements: new insight for the present-day deformation pattern within NE Iran. Geophysical Journal International. 2007; 170 (1):436-440 - 50.
Carey-Gailhardis E, Mercier JL. A numerical method for determining the state of stress using focal mechanisms of earthquake populations: application to Tibetan teleseisms and microseismicity of Southern Peru. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 1987; 82 (1-2):165-179 - 51.
Parsons T, Segou M, Sevilgen V, Milner K, Field E, Toda S, et al. Stress-based aftershock forecasts made within 24 h postmain shock: Expected north San Francisco Bay area seismicity changes after the 2014 M= 6.0 West Napa earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters. 2014; 41 (24):8792-8799 - 52.
Kozłowska M, Orlecka-Sikora B, Kwiatek G, Boettcher MS, Dresen G. Nanoseismicity and picoseismicity rate changes from static stress triggering caused by a Mw 2.2 earthquake in Mponeng gold mine, South Africa. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 2015; 120 (1):290-307 - 53.
Xie C, Lei X, Wu X, Hu X. Short-and long-term earthquake triggering along the strike-slip Kunlun fault, China: insights gained from the Ms 8.1 Kunlun earthquake and other modern large earthquakes. Tectonophysics. 2014; 617 :114-125 - 54.
Zanchetta S, Berra F, Zanchi A, Bergomi M, Caridroit M, Nicora A, et al. The record of the Late Palaeozoic active margin of the Palaeotethys in NE Iran: constraints on the Cimmerian orogeny. Gondwana Research. 2013; 24 (3-4):1237-1266