Advertisement

Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 385–409 | Cite as

A study of the energy released by great (M ≥ 7) deep focus seismic events with allowance for the M w 8.3 earthquake of May 24, 2013 in the Sea of Okhotsk, Russia

  • P. Varga
  • E. A. Rogozhin
  • B. Süle
  • N. V. Andreeva
Article

Abstract

The distribution of the hypocenters of great seismic events with M ≥ 7.0 and, consequently, the seismic energy released in their sources is asymmetric along the Earth radius. According to our estimates, 90% of the energy is released relatively close to the Earth’s surface, at the average depth of 50 km. The bulk of the remaining 10% is associated with seismic events that take place at large depths, on average 630–640 km above the boundary between the transition zone and lower mantle. These very deep earthquakes (depth ≥350 km) significantly differ from the shallow events. Their sources, in contrast to the shallow focus events, are located inside the plate. The examination of seven seismic zones described in the present study, except for the Honsu-Kamchatka zone which accommodates both the shallow and deep M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes, shows that the linear distribution of the hypocenters of deep earthquakes is considerably shorter than that of the shallow earthquakes, which, in turn, determines the length of the seismic zones at depth. In the zones of the Solomon Islands and the Izu–Bonin–Mariana arc, there are no seismic events with M ≥ 7.0 deeper than 450 km. In the zones of Indonesia, Philippines, Tonga–Kermadec, and Chile–Peru, the mentioned length’s shortening at the top of the lower mantle (660-km discontinuity) relative to the length of the zone observed close to the surface is unequivocal. The relationship between the lithospheric plates is supported by the spatial distribution of the hypocenters. The position of the foci of very deep (≥500 km) earthquakes indicates where the descending lithospheric plates conflict with the upper boundary of the lower mantle, and where in some cases they cross it. This passage generates the compression and elongation inside the slab. A comparison of the time distribution of the shallow and deep seismic events suggests the absence of direct relationship between these two different earthquake activities. For studying the fairly uncommon deep earthquakes, important additional information was provided by the largest of the deep earthquakes, the May 24, 2013 M 8.3 event beneath the Sea of Okhotsk, in an area where significant deep earthquakes have already occurred. Based on our studies of the records provided by the Russian and Hungarian national seismological networks, we concluded that this seismic event was preceded by an earthquake swarm, which consisted of 58 M ≥ 5 events between May 15 and 24, 2013 in the higher part of the sinking slab east of Kamchatka within the segment of increased historical seismicity. Most probably, the interaction of two distinct active source zones took place. The aftershock activity beneath the Sea of Okhotsk was moderate: thirteen events with magnitudes above М ≥ 4.0 were observed by June 27, 2013. Nevertheless, the unusually small number of aftershocks determined a fault area (2.64 × 104 km2), generally similar to that in the case of the assumed shallow M 8.3 event.

Keywords

shallow and deep earthquakes transition zone earthquake catalog focal depth Sea of Okhotsk aftershocks earthquake swarm 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anan’in, I.V., Composite isoseismal map of the earthquake of Marrch 4, 1977 in the European part of USSR and its interpretation, in Karpatskoe zemletryasenie 4 marta 1977 g. i ego posledstviya (The Carpathian Earthquake of March 4, 1944 and Its Consequences), Drumya, A.V., Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 191–195.Google Scholar
  2. Bird, P, An updated digital model of plate boundaries, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 2003, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 1027. doi 10.1029/2001GC000252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chebrov, V.N. and Raevskaya, A.A, The 1737 Kamchatka earthquakes, Vestn. KRAUNTs, Nauki Zemle, 2011, vol. 2, no. 18, pp. 114–127.Google Scholar
  4. Chung, W.-Y. and Kanamori, H, Source processes and tectonic implications of the Spanish deep-focus earthquake of March 29, 1954, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 1976, vol. 13, pp. 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doglioni, C., Carminati, E., Cuffaro, M., and Scrocca, D, Subduction kinematic sand dynamic constraints, Earth Sci. Rev., 2007, vol. 83, pp. 125–175. doi 10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engdahl, E.R. and Villaseñor, A., Global seismicity: 1900–1999, in: International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Lee, W.H.K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P.C., and Kisslinger, C. Eds., Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2002, vol. 41, pp. 665–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frohlich, C, Kiyoo Wadati and early research on deep focus earthquakes: introduction to special section on deep and intermediate focus earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 1987, vol. 92, pp. 13777–13788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frohlich, C., Deep Earthquakes, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Fukao, Y., Obayashi, M., Nakakuki, T., et al. (Deep Slab Project Collab.), Stagnant slab: a review, Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 2009, vol. 37, pp. 19–46.Google Scholar
  10. Green, H.W, Solving the paradox of deep earthquakes, Sci. Am., 1994, vol. 271, pp. 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gu, Y.J., Okeler, A., and Schultz, R, Tracking slabs beneath northwestern Pacific subduction zones, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2012, vols. 331–332, pp. 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gusev, A.A. and Shumilina, L.S, Recurrence of Kamchatka strong earthquakes on a scale of moment magnitudes, Izv., Phys. Solid Earth, 2004, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 206–215.Google Scholar
  13. Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F, Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration (second paper), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 1956, vol. 46, pp. 105–145.Google Scholar
  14. Herak, M., Panza, G.F., and Costa, G, Theoretical and observed depth correction for MS, Pure Appl. Geophys., 2001, vol. 158, pp. 1517–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van der Hilst, R.D, Complex morphology of subducted lithosphere in the mantle beneath the Tonga trench, Nature, 1995, vol. 374, pp. 154–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanamori, H, Magnitude scale and quantification of earthquakes, Tectonophysics, 1983, vol. 93, nos. 3–4, pp. 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keilis-Borok, V.I., Knopoff, L., and Rotwain, I.M, Burst of aftershocks, long-term precursors of strong earthquakes, Nature, 1980, vol. 283, no. 5744, pp. 259–263.Google Scholar
  18. Kirby, S.H., Stein, S., Okal, E.A., and Rubie, D.C, Metastable mantle phase transformations and deep earthquakes in subducting oceanic lithosphere, Rev. Geophys., 1996, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 261–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kondorskaya, N.V. and Ulomov, V.I., Katalog zemletryasenii Severnoi Evrazii (Catalog of Earthquakes in Northern Eurasia), Moscow: IFZ RAN, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. Kossobokov, V.G, Earthquake prediction: basics, achievements, perspectives, Acta Geodaet. Geophys., 2004, vol. 39, nos. 2–3, pp. 205–221.Google Scholar
  21. Medvedev, S.V, On the consequences of Carpathian earthquakes of 1940, Tr. Geofiz. Inst., Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1948, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 74–79.Google Scholar
  22. Obayashi, M., Sugioka, H., Yoshimitsu, J., and Fukao, Y, High temperature anomalies oceanward of subducting slabs at the 410 km discontinuity, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2006, vol. 243, pp. 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reasenberg, P.A, Foreshock occurrence before large earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 1999, vol. 104, pp. 4755–4768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rees, B.A. and Okal, E.A, The depth of the deepest historical earthquakes, Pure Appl. Geophys., 1987, vol. 125, no. 5, pp. 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogozhin, E.A, March 11, 2011 M 9.0 Tohoku earthquake in Japan: tectonic setting of source, macroseismic, seismological, and geodynamic manifestations, Geotectonics, 2011, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 337–348.Google Scholar
  26. Rogozhin, E.A., Zavyalov, A.D., and Zaitseva, N.V, Macroseismic manifestations of the Okhotsk earthquake of May 24, 2013 in the territory of the Moscow, Vopr. Inzh. Seismol., 2013, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 64–78.Google Scholar
  27. Schubnel, A., Brunet, F., Hilairet, N., Gasc, J., and Wang, Y, Green, H.W., Deep-focus earthquake analogs recorded at high pressure and temperature in the laboratory, Science, 2013, vol. 341, no. 6152, pp. 1377–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stein, S, Deep earthquakes: a fault too big?, Science, 1998, vol. 268, pp. 49–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sykes, L.R. and Quittmayer, R.C., Repeat time of great earthquakes along simple plate boundaries, in Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, Simpson, D.W. and Richards, P., Eds., Washington: American Geophysical Union, 1981, pp. 217–247.Google Scholar
  30. Tinker, M.A., Beck, S.L., Jiao, W., and Wallace, T.C, Mainshock and aftershock analysis of the June 17, 1996, deep Flores Sea earthquake sequence: implications for the mechanism of deep earthquakes and the tectonics of the Banda Sea, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 1998, vol. B5, pp. 9987–10001.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, H.H, On the arrival of earthquake waves at the antipodes, and on the measurement of the focal depth of an earthquake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., Geophys. Suppl., 1922, no. 1, pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Utsu, T., Relationships between magnitude scales, Lee, W.H.K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P.C., and Kisslinger, C., Eds., International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A, Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2002, pp. 733–746.Google Scholar
  33. Varga, P., Krumm, F., Riguzzi, F., Doglioni, C., Sule, B., Wang, K., and Panza, G.F, Earthquake energy distribution along the Earth surface and radius, Publication of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and International Atomic Energy Agency), 2010, vol. 43, no. 22, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Varga, P., Krumm, F., Riguzzi, F., Doglioni, C., Sule, B., Wang, K., and Panza, G.F, Global pattern of earthquakes and seismic energy distributions: insights for the mechanisms of plate tectonics, Tectonophysics, 2012, vols. 530–531, pp. 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Varga, P., Rogozhin, E.A., Süle, B., and Andreeva, N.V, Global study of great (M = 7) deep focus seismic events having regard to the May 24, 2013 Mw 8.3 earthquake the Sea of Okhotsk, Russia, Geophys. Res. Abstr., 2014, vol. 16, EGU 2014–3940.Google Scholar
  36. Venkataraman, A. and Kanamori, H, Observational constraints on the fracture energy of subduction zone earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 2004, vol. 109, B05302. doi 10.1029/2003JB002549Google Scholar
  37. Wei, S., Helmberger, D., Zhan, Z., and Graves, R, Rupture complexity of the Mw 8.3 Sea of Okhotsk earthquake: rapid triggering of complementary of complementary earthquakes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2013, vol. 40, pp. 5034–5039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiens, D.P, Seismological constrains on the mechanism of deep earthquakes: temperature dependence of deep earthquake source properties, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 2001, vol. 127, pp. 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ye, L., Lay, T., Kanamori, H., and Koper, K.D, Energy release of the 2013 Mw 8.3 Sea of Okhotsk earthquake and deep slab stress heterogeneity, Science, 2013, vol. 341, pp. 1380–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhigalin, A.D., Zav’yalov, A.D., Mindel’, I.G., Nikonov, A.A., Popova, O.G., Rogozhin, E.A., Ruzaikin, A.I., and Sevost’yanov, V.V, The Phenomenon of the Sea of Okhotsk Earthquake of May 24, 2013, in Moscow, Herald Rus. Acad. Sci., 2014, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Varga
    • 1
  • E. A. Rogozhin
    • 2
  • B. Süle
    • 1
  • N. V. Andreeva
    • 2
  1. 1.Seismological Observatory, Geodetic and Geophysical Institute Research Center for Astronomy and Earth SciencesHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Schmidt Institute of Physics of the EarthRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations