.
Feedback

Stanford Geophysicists: Major Earthquakes Coming

Research by Stanford scientists focuses on geologic features and activity in the Himalayas and Pacific Northwest that could mean those areas are primed for major earthquakes.


Stanford geophysicists were well represented at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union last week in San Francisco. Included among the many presentations were several studies that relate to predicting – and preparing for – major earthquakes in the Himalaya Mountains and the Pacific Northwest.

A big one in the Himalayas

The Himalayan range was formed, and remains currently active, due to the collision of the Indian and Asian continental plates. Scientists have known for some time that India is subducting under Asia, and have recently begun studying the complexity of this volatile collision zone in greater detail, particularly the fault that separates the two plates, the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT).

Previous observations had indicated a relatively uniform fault plane that dipped a few degrees to the north. To produce a clearer picture of the fault, Warren Caldwell, a geophysics doctoral student at Stanford, has analyzed seismic data from 20 seismometers deployed for two years across the Himalayas by colleagues at the National Geophysical Research Institute of India.

The data imaged a thrust dipping a gentle two to four degrees northward, as has been previously inferred, but also revealed a segment of the thrust that dips more steeply (15 degrees downward) for 20 kilometers. Such a ramp has been postulated to be a nucleation point for massive earthquakes in the Himalaya.

Although Caldwell emphasized that his research focuses on imaging the fault, not on predicting earthquakes, he noted that the MHT has historically been responsible for a magnitude 8 to 9 earthquake every several hundred years.

"What we're observing doesn't bear on where we are in the earthquake cycle, but it has implications in predicting earthquake magnitude," Caldwell said. "From our imaging, the ramp location is a bit farther north than has been previously observed, which would create a larger rupture width and a larger magnitude earthquake."

Caldwell's adviser, geophysics Professor Simon Klemperer, added that recent detections of magma and water around the MHT indicate which segments of the thrust will rupture during an earthquake.

"We think that the big thrust vault will probably rupture southward to the Earth's surface, but we don't expect significant rupture north of there," Klemperer said. The findings are important for creating risk assessments and disaster plans for the heavily populated cities in the region.

Measuring small tremors in the Pacific Northwest

The Cascadia subduction zone, which stretches from northern California to Vancouver Island, has not experienced a major seismic event since it ruptured in 1700, an 8.7–9.2 magnitude earthquake that shook the region and created a tsunami that reached Japan. And while many geophysicists believe the fault is due for a similar scale event, the relative lack of any earthquake data in the Pacific Northwest makes it difficult to predict how ground motion from a future event would propagate in the Cascadia area, which runs through Seattle, Portland and Vancouver.

Stanford postdoctoral scholar Annemarie Baltay presented research on how measurements of small seismic tremors in the region can be utilized to determine how ground motion from larger events might behave. Baltay's research involves measuring low amplitude tectonic tremor that occurs 30 kilometers below Earth's surface, at the intersections of tectonic plates, roughly over the course of a month each year.

By analyzing how the tremor signal decays along and away from the Cascadia subduction zone, Baltay can calculate how ground motion activity from a larger earthquake will dissipate. An important application of the work will be to help inform new construction how best to mitigate damage should a large earthquake strike.

"We can't predict when an earthquake will occur, but we can try to be very prepared for them," Baltay said. "Looking at these episodic tremor events can help us constrain what the ground motion might be like in a certain place during an earthquake."

Though Baltay has focused on the Cascadia subduction zone, she said that the technique could be applied in areas of high earthquake risk around the world, such as Alaska and Japan.

Cascadia quake simulations

The slow slip and tremor events in Cascadia are also being studied by Stanford geophysics Professor Paul Segall, although in an entirely different manner. Segall's group uses computational models of the region to determine whether the cumulative effects of many small events can trigger a major earthquake.

"You have these small events every 15 months or so, and a magnitude 9 earthquake every 500 years. We need to known whether you want to raise an alert every time one of these small events happens," Segall said. "We're doing sophisticated numerical calculations to simulate these slow events and see whether they do relate to big earthquakes over time. What our calculations have shown is that ultimately these slow events do evolve into the ultimate fast event, and it does this on a pretty short time scale."

Unfortunately, so far Segall's group has not seen any obvious differences in the numerical simulations between the average slow slip event and those that directly precede a big earthquake. The work is still young, and Segall noted that the model needs refinement to better match actual observations and to possibly identify the signature of the event that triggers a large earthquake.

"We're not so confident in our model that public policy should be based on the output of our calculations, but we're working in that direction," Segall said.

One thing that makes Segall's work difficult is a lack of data from actual earthquakes in the Cascadia region. Earlier this year, however, earthquakes in Mexico and Costa Rica occurred in areas that experience slow slip events similar to those in Cascadia.

--Stanford News Service

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in San Carlos--Sign up for our daily newsletter | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter| Start a blog


Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in Belmont--Sign up for our daily newsletter|Like Belmont|Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Start your own blog

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.