Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70032080

Coseismic slip distributions of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman and 28 March 2005 Nias earthquakes from GPS static offsets

Abstract

Static offsets produced by the 26 December 2004 M ???9 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake as measured by Global Positioning System (GPS) reveal a large amount of slip along the entire ???1300 km-long rupture. Most seismic slip inversions place little slip on the Andaman segment. whereas both near-field and far-field GPS offsets demand large slip on the Andaman segment. We compile available datasets of the static offset to render a more detailed picture of the static-slip distribution. We construct geodetic offsets such that postearthquake positions of continuous GPS sites are reckoned to a time 1 day after the earthquake and campaign GPS sites are similarly corrected for postseismic motions. The newly revised slip distribution (Mw 9.22) reveals substantial segmentation of slip along the Andaman Islands, with the southern quarter slipping ???15 m in unison with the adjacent Nicobar and northern Sumatran segments of length ???700 km. We infer a small excess of geodetic moment relative to the seismic moment. A similar compilation of GPS offsets from the 28 March 2005 Nias earthquake is well explained with dip slip averaging several meters (Mw = 8.66) distributed primarily at depths greater than 20 km.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P. Banerjee, F. Pollitz, B. Nagarajan, R. Burgmann. 2007-01-01. Coseismic slip distributions of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman and 28 March 2005 Nias earthquakes from GPS static offsets. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050609

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗