Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Limitations of rupture forecasting exposed by instantaneously triggered earthquake doublet

Nature Geoscience volume 9, pages 330–336 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Earthquake hazard assessments and rupture forecasts are based on the potential length of seismic rupture and whether or not slip is arrested at fault segment boundaries. Such forecasts do not generally consider that one earthquake can trigger a second large event, near-instantaneously, at distances greater than a few kilometres. Here we present a geodetic and seismological analysis of a magnitude 7.1 intracontinental earthquake that occurred in Pakistan in 1997. We find that the earthquake, rather than a single event as hitherto assumed, was in fact an earthquake doublet: initial rupture on a shallow, blind reverse fault was followed just 19 s later by a second rupture on a separate reverse fault 50 km away. Slip on the second fault increased the total seismic moment by half, and doubled both the combined event duration and the area of maximum ground shaking. We infer that static Coulomb stresses at the initiation location of the second earthquake were probably reduced as a result of the first. Instead, we suggest that a dynamic triggering mechanism is likely, although the responsible seismic wave phase is unclear. Our results expose a flaw in earthquake rupture forecasts that disregard cascading, multiple-fault ruptures of this type.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Tectonic setting and InSAR data and modelling results.
Figure 2: Seismograms and relocated epicentres.
Figure 3: Seismic back-projections.
Figure 4: Coulomb stress changes.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wesnousky, S. G. Predicting the endpoints of earthquake ruptures. Nature 444, 358–360 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wesnousky, S. G. Displacement and geometrical characteristics of earthquake surface ruptures: issues and implications for seismic-hazard analysis and the process of earthquake rupture. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 1609–1632 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Field, E. H. et al. Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—the time-independent model. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 104, 1122–1180 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Page, M. T., Field, E. H., Milner, K. R. & Powers, P. M. The UCERF3 grand inversion: solving for the long-term rate of ruptures in a fault system. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 104, 1181–1204 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ambraseys, N. & Bilham, R. Earthquakes and associated deformation in northern Baluchistan 1892–2001. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1573–1605 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nakata, T., Otsuki, K. & Khan, S. H. Active faults, stress field and plate motion along the Indo-Eurasian plate boundary. Tectonophysics 181, 83–95 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Haq, S. S. & Davis, D. M. Oblique convergence and the lobate mountain belts of western Pakistan. Geology 25, 23–26 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sarwar, G. & DeJong, K. A. Geodynamics of Pakistan 351–358 (Geological Survey of Pakistan, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Banks, C. J. & Warburton, J. ‘Passive-roof’ duplex geometry in the frontal structures of the Kirthar and Sulaiman mountain belts, Pakistan. J. Struct. Geol. 8, 229–237 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Humayon, M., Lillie, R. J. & Lawrence, R. D. Structural interpretation of the eastern Sulaiman foldbelt and foredeep, Pakistan. Tectonics 10, 299–324 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davis, D. M. & Lillie, R. J. Changing mechanical response during continental collision: active examples from the foreland thrust belts of Pakistan. J. Struct. Geol. 16, 21–34 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jadoon, I. A., Lawrence, R. D. & Shahid Hassan, K. Mari-Bugti pop-up zone in the central Sulaiman fold belt, Pakistan. J. Struct. Geol. 16, 147–158 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bernard, M., Shen-Tu, B., Holt, W. E. & Davis, D. M. Kinematics of active deformation in the Sulaiman Lobe and Range, Pakistan. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 13253–13279 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Copley, A. The formation of mountain range curvature by gravitational spreading. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 351, 208–214 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Reynolds, K., Copley, A. & Hussain, E. Evolution and dynamics of a fold-thrust belt: the Sulaiman Range of Pakistan. Geophys. J. Int. 201, 683–710 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Macedo, J. & Marshak, S. Controls on the geometry of fold-thrust belt salients. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 111, 1808–1822 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wright, T. J., Lu, Z. & Wicks, C. Source model for the Mw 6.7, 23 October 2002, Nenana Mountain Earthquake (Alaska) from InSAR. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1974 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Funning, G. J., Parsons, B., Wright, T. J., Jackson, J. A. & Fielding, E. J. Surface displacements and source parameters of the 2003 Bam (Iran) earthquake from Envisat advanced synthetic aperture radar imagery. J. Geophys. Res. 110, B09406 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Talebian, M. & Jackson, J. A reappraisal of earthquake focal mechanisms and active shortening in the Zagros mountains of Iran. Geophys. J. Int. 156, 506–526 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nissen, E., Tatar, M., Jackson, J. A. & Allen, M. B. New views on earthquake faulting in the Zagros fold-and-thrust belt of Iran. Geophys. J. Int. 186, 928–944 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Satyabala, S. P., Yang, Z. & Bilham, R. Stick-slip advance of the Kohat Plateau in Pakistan. Nature Geosci. 5, 147–150 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Copley, A. & Reynolds, K. Imaging topographic growth by long-lived postseismic afterslip at Sefidabeh, east Iran. Tectonics 33, 330–345 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ritzwoller, M. H., Shapiro, N. M., Levshin, A. L., Bergman, E. A. & Engdahl, E. R. Ability of a global three-dimensional model to locate regional events. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2353 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Walker, R. T., Bergman, E. A., Szeliga, W. & Fielding, E. J. Insights into the 1968–1997 Dasht-e-Bayaz and Zirkuh earthquake sequences, eastern Iran, from calibrated relocations, InSAR and high-resolution satellite imagery. Geophys. J. Int. 187, 1577–1603 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Szeliga, W. M. Historical and Modern Seismotectonics of the Indian Plate with an Emphasis on its Western Boundary with the Eurasian Plate PhD thesis, Univ. Colorado (2010).

  26. Pezzo, G., Boncori, J. P. M., Atzori, S., Antonioli, A. & Salvi, S. Deformation of the western Indian Plate boundary: insights from differential and multi-aperture InSAR data inversion for the 2008 Baluchistan (Western Pakistan) seismic sequence. Geophys. J. Int. 198, 25–39 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pinel-Puysségur, B., Grandin, R., Bollinger, L. & Baudry, C. Multifaulting in a tectonic syntaxis revealed by InSAR: the case of the Ziarat earthquake sequence (Pakistan). J. Geophys. Res. 119, 5838–5854 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Molnar, P. & Lyon-Caen, H. Fault plane solutions of earthquakes and active tectonics of the Tibetan Plateau and its margins. Geophys. J. Int. 99, 123–154 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ishii, M., Shearer, P. M., Houston, H. & Vidale, J. E. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933–936 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Trabant, C. et al. Data products at the IRIS DMC: stepping-stones for research and other applications. Seismol. Res. Lett. 83, 846–854 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stein, R. S. The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature 402, 605–609 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lin, J. & Stein, R. S. Stress triggering in thrust and subduction earthquakes and stress interaction between the southern San Andreas and nearby thrust and strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. 109, B02303 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tibi, R., Wiens, D. A. & Inoue, H. Remote triggering of deep earthquakes in the 2002 Tonga sequences. Nature 424, 921–925 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hill, D. P. et al. Seismicity remotely triggered by the magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. Science 260, 1617–1623 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Velasco, A. A., Hernandez, S., Parsons, T. & Pankow, K. Global ubiquity of dynamic earthquake triggering. Nature Geosci. 1, 375–379 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pollitz, F. F., Stein, R. S., Sevilgen, V. & Bürgmann, R. The 11 April 2012 east Indian Ocean earthquake triggered large aftershocks worldwide. Nature 490, 250–253 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lin, C. H. Remote triggering of the Mw 6.9 Hokkaido Earthquake as a result of the Mw 6.6 Indonesian earthquake on September 11, 2008. Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 23, 283–290 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Voisin, C., Campillo, M., Ionescu, I. R., Cotton, F. & Scotti, O. Dynamic versus static stress triggering and friction parameters: inferences from the November 23, 1980, Irpinia earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 21647–21659 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Felzer, K. R. & Brodsky, E. E. Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress. Nature 441, 735–738 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Decriem, J. et al. The 2008 May 29 earthquake doublet in SW Iceland. Geophys. J. Int. 181, 1128–1146 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Richards-Dinger, K., Stein, R. S. & Toda, S. Decay of aftershock density with distance does not indicate triggering by dynamic stress. Nature 467, 583–586 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gomberg, J., Bodin, P. & Reasenberg, P. A. Observing earthquakes triggered in the near field by dynamic deformations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 118–138 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pollitz, F. F. & Johnston, M. J. Direct test of static stress versus dynamic stress triggering of aftershocks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L15318 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Parsons, T. & Velasco, A. A. On near-source earthquake triggering. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B10307 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Harris, R. A. & Day, S. M. Dynamic 3D simulations of earthquakes on en echelon faults. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 2089–2092 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rubin, C. M. Systematic underestimation of earthquake magnitudes from large intracontinental reverse faults: historical ruptures break across segment boundaries. Geology 24, 989–992 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Meng, L. et al. Earthquake in a maze: compressional rupture branching during the 2012 Mw 8.6 Sumatra earthquake. Science 337, 724–726 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dolan, J. F. et al. Prospects for larger or more frequent earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan region. Science 267, 199–205 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Engdahl, E. R., van der Hilst, R. & Buland, R. Global teleseismic earthquake relocation with improved travel times and procedures for depth determination. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 722–743 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Argus, D. F. et al. The angular velocities of the plates and the velocity of Earth’s centre from space geodesy. Geophys. J. Int. 180, 913–960 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the UK Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) through the Looking Inside the Continents project (NE/K011006/1), the Earthquake without Frontiers project (EwF_NE/J02001X/1_1) and the Centre for the Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics (COMET). The Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) Data Management Center is funded through the Seismological Facilities for the Advancement of Geoscience and EarthScope (SAGE) Proposal of the National Science Foundation (EAR-1261681). We are grateful to E. Bergman for guidance in earthquake relocations, and K. McMullan and A. Rickerby for their assistance with preliminary InSAR and body waveform modelling.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, 1500 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, USA

    E. Nissen

  2. Department of Earth Sciences, COMET, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3AN, UK

    J. R. Elliott, R. A. Sloan & B. E. Parsons

  3. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

    R. A. Sloan

  4. COMET, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

    T. J. Craig & T. J. Wright

  5. Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA

    G. J. Funning

  6. Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) Data Management Center, 1408 NE 45th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, Washington 98105, USA

    A. Hutko

Authors
  1. E. Nissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. R. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. A. Sloan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. J. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. J. Funning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Hutko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. E. Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. T. J. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

InSAR analysis and accompanying Coulomb modelling were undertaken by E.N. and J.R.E. Seismological analyses were led by R.A.S. (calibrated multi-event relocation), A.H. (seismic back-projection) and E.N. (body waveform modelling). All authors contributed to the interpretation of results and E.N. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Nissen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 3276 kb)

Supplementary Movies

Supplementary Movie 1 (MOV 62 kb)

Supplementary Movies

Supplementary Movie 2 (MOV 62 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nissen, E., Elliott, J., Sloan, R. et al. Limitations of rupture forecasting exposed by instantaneously triggered earthquake doublet. Nature Geosci 9, 330–336 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2653

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2653

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing