Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383 DOI 10.

1007/s11069-010-9618-2 ORIGINAL PAPER

Potential source zones for Himalayan earthquakes: constraints from spatialtemporal clusters
Basab Mukhopadhyay Anshuman Acharyya Sujit Dasgupta

Received: 15 October 2008 / Accepted: 6 September 2010 / Published online: 26 September 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The Himalayan fold-thrust belt has been visited by many disastrous earthquakes (magnitude [ 6) time and again. This active collisional orogen bordering Indian subcontinent in the north remains a potential seismic threat of similar magnitude in the adjoining countries like India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and China. Though earthquake forecasting is riddled with all conjectures and still not a proven presumption, identifying likely source zones of such disastrous earthquakes would be an important contribution to seismic hazard assessment. In this study, we have worked out spatio-temporal clustering of earthquakes (Mb C 4.5; 19642006) in the Himalayas. Point density spatial statistics has helped in detecting 22 spatial seismicity clusters. Earthquake catalog is then treated with a moving time-distance window technique (inter-event time 35 days and distance 100 20 km) to bring out temporal clusters by recognizing several foreshock-main shock-aftershock (FMA) sequences. A total of 53 such temporal sequences identied in the process are conned within the 22 spatial clusters. Though each of these spatio-temporal clusters deserves in-depth analysis, we short-listed only eight such clusters that are dissected by active tectonic discontinuities like MBT/MCT for detail study. Spatio-temporal clusters have been used to constrain the potential source zones. These eight well-dened spatio-temporal clusters demonstrate recurrent moderate to large earthquakes. We assumed that the length of these clusters are indicating the possible maximum rupture lengths and thus empirically estimated the maximum possible magnitudes of eight clusters that can be generated from them (from west to east) as 8.0, 8.3, 8.2, 8.3, 8.2, 8.4, 8.0 and 7.7. Based on comparative study of the eight cluster zones contemplating with their temporal recurrences, historical seismic records, presence of intersecting faults and estimated magnitudes, we have guessed the possibility that Kangra, East Nepal, Garhwal and KumaunWest Nepal clusters, in decreasing order of earthquake threat, are potential source zones for large earthquakes (C7.7 M) in future. Keywords Himalayas Earthquake Spatio-temporal clusters Characteristic earthquake Seismic quiescence Fault interaction Rupture
B. Mukhopadhyay (&) A. Acharyya S. Dasgupta Geological Survey of India, 27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700016, India e-mail: basabmukhopadhyay@yahoo.com

123

370

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

1 Introduction The active deformation of the Himalayan fold-thrust belt has been witnessed by the occurrence of repeated earthquakes of different size. Manifestation of ongoing active tectonics in this collisional convergent margin includes disastrous earthquakes at Shillong (1897, M 8.7), Kangra (1905, M 7.8), Assam (1950, M 8.5), West NepalIndia (1980, M 6.5), Assam (1988, M 7.2), BiharNepal (1988, M 6.6), Uttarkashi (1991, M 6.6), Chamoli (1999, M 6.8) and Kashmir (2005, M 7.7). In addition, several large-sized and medium-sized earthquakes have spawned along the 2,500-km-long Himalayan arc inicting major damage to life and property in the adjoining densely populated foothills and in the GangesBrahmaputra alluvial plains. Forecasting earthquakes in the Himalayan tectonic domain is not uncommon. Four large earthquakes (M 8.6) are forecasted in the Himalayas (Bilham and Ambraseys 2005; Bilham and Wallace 2005) within the inferred seismic gap areas. At least two large earthquakes (M [ 8.0 or even larger) might also take place in the areas west of Kathmandu in Nepal (Bettinelli et al. 2006). Large earthquakes (Mw [ 8.6 with rupture length *400 km) are also speculated in the seismic gaps at western and central Himalayas and eastern Nepal (Feldl and Bilham 2006). Lines of evidence such as estimation of plate convergence rate (Bettinelli et al. 2006) and differential shortening rate (Banerjee and Burgmann 2002; Chen et al. 2004; Bettinelli et al. 2006; Feldl and Bilham 2006; Jade et al. 2007) from GPS observations and average slip decit (Bilham and Ambraseys 2005; Bilham and Wallace 2005) also support the continuing active tectonism and recurrence seismogenesis in the Himalayas. Earthquake forecasting based on direct scientic observation is replete with conjectures and has not yielded success so far. Delineation of seismic gap between ruptured fault segments found some success in the oceanic subduction margins, though the data from the Himalayas yet to attest such hypothesis. Predictions are rather ineffective if not specied in the recognizable size timespace window. Even the available statistical models do not yield unique solutions because of both random and non-random nature of earthquake distribution in space and time (Kagan 1997; Wang and Kuo 1998; Ebel and Kafka 2002). Moreover, detecting specic locales of strain accumulation in the lithosphere is still beyond the reach of the earth scientists. Accumulation and release of strain never follow any uniform rule with the GutenbergRichter (GR) relation and Characteristic Earthquake slip distribution model both observed in real situations. While the GR relation appears to be valid in many seismotectonic spatial domains, individual fault segments have a tendency to produce repeated large earthquakes characteristic to the particular fault without producing transient smaller earthquakes (see Schwartz and Coppersmith 1984). In the present study, we have examined the earthquake distribution in the Himalayas from the spatio-temporal perspective. The objective of this study is to dene spatiotemporal clusters of earthquakes through point density and moving time window analysis. Principal outcome of our nding is the disposition and characteristics of spatiotemporal clusters, with a few corollaries as a spin-off. We have described seismotectonic characteristics of clusters and its possible association with inferred rupture areas. Behavior of these clusters has also been investigated symptomatic of characteristic model. We have derived maximum rupture lengths of individual clusters and estimated the maximum possible size of earthquakes for each cluster. Eventually, the threat potential of possible source zones in the Himalayas has been prognosticated.

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

371

2 Methodology for cluster analysis Similar elements occurring closely together in space usually produce clusters. Earthquakes may show spatial, preferred distribution that simulates clusters. In a region, an earthquake cluster may be suspected if the assemblage consists of multiple events with magnitude greater than a threshold value occurring within a specic period of time (McGuire 2004). The ISC catalog has been used for the period from 1964 to 2002, and the NEIC catalog is employed for the time span 2003 to June 2006. There has been no overlap of data between the two catalogs. The data within the catalog may have minor locational and depth errors consistent with the teleseismic data and, to our knowledge, will not affect substantially the analysis. The earthquakes cover a range of magnitude from Mb 3.0 to 7.0 with focal depths ranging between *5 and 100 km. The earthquakes covered a broad extent of the Himalayas (2537N, 7395E) comprising tectonic domains of main frontal thrust (MFT) in the south, main boundary thrust (MBT), main central thrust (MCT) to beyond IndusTsangpo Suture (ITS) in the north (Fig. 1). The cumulative earthquake frequency curves are constructed using the 2,345 earthquake events with Mb C 4.0. The b-value of earthquakes with Mb C 4.0 calculated by maximum-likelihood method (Aki 1965) is 1.09. However, we have selected 1,266 events of a magnitude domain of Mb C 4.5 for the time period 19642006 because the cumulative curve (Fig. 2a) over the magnitude (Mb C 4.5) is smooth and the catalog is by and large complete above

Fig. 1 Spatio-temporal clusters outlined in black (A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) in Lesser Himalaya. The name of the clusters are AKashmir, BKangra, CGarhwal, DKumaunWest Nepal, EEast Nepal, FSikkim, GBomdila and HEastern Syntaxis. Note the interaction between Himalayan Thrust planes (MFT-MBT-MCT) and Peninsular crosscutting faults (RFRopar fault, MDFMahendragarhDehradun Fault, GBFGreat Boundary Fault, WPFWest Patna Fault, EPFEast Patna Fault, MSRMFMunger Saharsha Ridge Marginal Fault, MKFMalda-Kishanganj Fault and BFBomdila Fault). MFTmain frontal thrust, MBTmain boundary thrust, MCTmain central thrust, ITSIndus-Tsangpo Suture, JamJammu, SiSimla, LeLeh, DdDehra Dun, NdNew Delhi, JaiJaipur, AllAllahabad, ShShillong

123

372 Fig. 2 a Frequency magnitude relationships for 2345 events of mb C 4.0. See the catalog is complete above magnitude 4.5 which was the cutoff magnitude taken for further analysis. b Histogram showing total number of earthquakes in the period 19642006 against clusters

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

magnitude 4.5 within the time frame. The events (Mb C 4.5) are plotted on a generalized tectonic map (Dasgupta et al. 2000) of the area (Fig. 1). A simple visual examination of the map clearly brings out signicant numbers of spatial clusters of earthquake epicenters (Fig. 1). To constrain the spatial extents of such visible clusters, we have utilized the spatial statistical function point density. Point density is a classical spatial statistical tool to identify areas where data points are concentrated more or vice versa. To calculate the point density, the distance between the adjacent earthquakes is measured and a mean distance (*20 km) is calculated. Half of the mean distance (i.e., 10 km) is taken as the radius of the neighborhood. Point density is then calculated as the total number of earthquake epicentral points that fall within a circular neighborhood with a specic radius (in this case 10 km) divided by the area of the neighborhood. This process scans each time a total area of *314 sq. Km. A factor resulting from the size of the earthquake is also introduced for deriving the point density value, e.g., ve points are counted instead one for an earthquake of magnitude ve in the selected neighborhood. This is done to offer more weight to larger earthquakes in the calculation. The measurement is then taken in an overlapping grid pattern where the center of the circle has been moved across the map (both along latitude and along longitude) by a sliding distance of 10 km. The calculated point density value is stored in a grid point at the center of the circle. The resulting values obtained by this sliding grid process have a mean (M) 22.78 and standard deviation (SD) 78.58. The areas with anomalous point density (value [ (m ? 1 SD) = 101.36) have been marked as zones of spatial clusters and shown as closed polygons with black outline (Fig. 1). This process identies 22 spatial clusters within the study area. It is to be mentioned here that other than size, any other source parameter like data pertaining to energy release or seismic moment of the earthquakes can also be used alternately to calculate point density provided the energy release data/seismic moment for all earthquakes is available in the selected catalog, which are indeed rare.

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

373

The foreshock-main shockaftershock/main shockaftershock sequences in the catalog are identied by a moving time-distance window technique (after Kafka and Walcott 1998), the time taken as 35 days whereas distance as 100 20 km. The time refers to inter-event time between successive earthquakes within a circular area; distance indicates the radius of the circle. By this method of moving time-distance window, 53 numbers of foreshock-mainshockaftershock (FMA)/mainshockaftershock (MA)/foreshock-mainshock (FM) temporal sequences have been identied in the catalog. Interestingly, these 53 numbers of temporal sequences are clustered within the 22 spatial clusters already dened by point density analysis. We have attempted detailed analysis on 8 clusters (designated as A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, from west to east for the eight clusters viz., Kashmir, Kangra, Garhwal, KumaunWest Nepal, East Nepal, Sikkim, Bomdila and Eastern Syntaxis, respectively) conned between the MFT and north of MCT in the Lesser Himalayas (Fig. 1).

3 Characteristics of the eight cluster zones The cluster pattern in the eight zones reveals temporalspatial association of earthquakes (Table 1). Between 1964 and 2006, Kashmir cluster (A) accommodates maximum number of earthquakes (210) followed by KumaunWest Nepal (cluster D, 94) and Bomdila (cluster G, 82). While Eastern Syntaxis (cluster H) contains only 12 events, the other four clusters, Kangra (B, 74), Garhwal (C, 47), East Nepal (E, 28) and Sikkim (F, 45), have a moderate number of events (Fig. 2b). Within individual clusters, occurrence of events through time depicts temporal variance (Fig. 3). The period 19861990 registered prolic events for clusters E, F and H, whereas cluster C had an acme during 19912000 and B reached its zenith during 19701980. Cluster D experienced a maximum number of earthquakes during 19641969, while G registered a maximum number during 19811985. Cluster A is absolutely different from any other clusters and earthquake incidence abounded only during 20012006. Analyzing the pattern of earthquakes within each cluster, it is apparent that the clusters are constituted of independent events as well as FMA sequence and its combinations (Table 1). In the clusters, earthquakes that form complete FMA sequence or any combination of FMA are placed in temporal sequence, whereas the events that do not register to any foreshock (FS) and/or aftershock (AS) are treated as independent events. The characteristics of temporal sequence and independent events in the cluster zones show interesting variations. It is noteworthy that in all the clusters, there are more independent events than the earthquakes classied under temporal (FMA) sequences. The only exception is the cluster A that has more events in FMA sequence due to Kashmir earthquake of 08.10.2005 (Mb 7.7) with 1 FS and 195 AS. The magnitudes of individual earthquakes vary from 4.5 to 5.8 in all the clusters, apart from a higher magnitude event of Mb 6.1 (01.06.2005) in cluster H. It is worthwhile to investigate the seismotectonic implications of these clusters. According to the characteristic earthquake model (Schwartz and Coppersmith 1984), faults rupture in a series of characteristic earthquakes, each identical, with the same slip distribution and length. Especially in the case of a fault of nite length, the characteristic earthquake model ts ne with attributes such as constant displacement per event at a point, variable slip rate along the fault and persistent large events with infrequent moderate earthquakes (Scholz 2002). In the light of above, we propose that the identied cluster zones are strong candidates for earthquakes of repetitive nature.

123

374

Table 1 Description and statistics of temporal and independent events in the eight cluster zones (AH of Fig. 1) in Lesser Himalaya Independent events in cluster No of recorded Aftershock 3 2 195 1984 2 2 8 19772006 3 8 1 12 4 5 4 1 1 1 2 BiharNepal earthquake Chamoli earthquake Uttarkashi earthquake 19671990 19921996 20022005 19641965 19671979 19811984 19862000 20022006 19661968 1971 19751987 19892006 19741975 19681970 4 2 47 23 6 4 4 16 10 20 12 2 1 7 8 1966 1 2 Kashmir earthquake 1978 1 1971 2 1966 1 5.1 (06.04.1966) 5.2 (27.12.1971) 4.9 (27.04.1978) 4.6 (04.06.1984) 4.7 (16.03.1966) 4.9 (05.11.1968) 4.8 (16.11.1974) 5.5 (26.04.1986) 5.6 (10.07.1986) 4.8 (08.12.1994) 5.0 (14.12.2005) 5.3 (20.12.1964) 5.7 (20.05.1979) 5.1 (19.02.1984) 5.6 (09.12.1991) 5.0 (05.05.2006) 4.9 (28.10.1968) 4.9 (06.06.1971) 5.2 (04.10.1978) 5.0 (03.02.2006) Name of earthquake Years No of events Mmax with date Range in Mb 5.1 4.85.2 4.9 4.54.6 4.7 4.54.9 4.64.8 4.55.5 4.55.6 4.54.8 4.55.0 4.85.3 4.55.7 4.55.1 4.55.6 4.55.0 4.54.9 4.9 4.55.2 4.55.0

123

Cluster

No of events (Mb C 4.5)

Temporal sequence in cluster

No of Fore-shock

Main shock date and magnitude in Mb

A (Kashmir)

210

28.12.1974 (5.0)

14.02.2004 (5.5)

08.10.2005 (7.7)

B (Kangra)

74

20.02.1967 (5.5)

24.10.1973 (5.3)

05.12.1975 (5.3)

C (Garhwal)

47

19.10.1991 (6.4)

28.03.1999 (6.3)

D (Kumaon West Nepal)

94

26.09.1964 (5.9)

27.06.1966 (6.0)

29.07.1980 (6.1)

18.05.1984 (5.6)

27.11.2001 (5.5)

E (East Nepal)

28

26.02.1970 (5.0)

24.03.1974 (5.4)

20.04.1988 (5.4)

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

20.08.1988 (6.4)

Table 1 continued Independent events in cluster No of recorded Aftershock 1 1 19982006 2 4 1 2 2 19771981 19912005 4 5 4.7 (14.10.1981) 6.1 (01.06.2005) 4.54.7 4.56.1 19871997 19992006 19661984 1964 2 27 32 6 11 19821996 17 Gangtok earthquake 19751978 5 1971 1 1964 3 5.1 (30.08.1964) 5.2 (04.12.1971) 5.0 (26.11.1975) 5.7 (09.01.1990) 5.6 (03.09.1998) 5.6 (01.09.1964) 5.8 (15.09.1967) 5.1 (08.03.1989) 5.3 (25.01.2006) Name of earthquake Years No of events Mmax with date Range in Mb 4.85.1 5.2 4.55.0 4.55.7 4.55.6 5.6 4.55.8 4.55.1 4.75.3

Cluster

No of events (Mb C 4.5)

Temporal sequence in cluster

No of Fore-shock

Main shock date and magnitude in Mb

F (Sikkim)

45

12.01.1965 (5.9)

21.08.1972 (5.1)

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

19.11.1980 (6.0)

27.11.1997 (5.0)

G (Bomdila)

82

09.12.1965 (5.3)

07.01.1985 (5.4)

12.10.1985 (5.3)

26.09.1985 (5.5)

23.02.2006 (5.8)

H (Eastern Syntaxis)

12

09.05.1988 (5.1)

375

123

376

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

Fig. 3 Temporal distribution of earthquakes in 5-year bin in different clusters

The cluster zones in the Himalayas contain tectonic surfaces like main central thrust (MCT) and/or main boundary thrust (MBT)/main frontal thrust (MFT), segmented by discontinuities of transverse faults; many of which are transgressing from Peninsular shield area. Each of the clusters displays occurrence of more or less uniform magnitude earthquakes [e.g., Uttarkashi (6.4) and Chamoli (6.3) in Garhwal cluster C; Mainshock 5.56.1 in KumaunWest Nepal cluster E; Mainshock 5.35.5 in Kangra cluster B] suggesting more or less similar displacement per event. The principal tectonic surfaces (viz., MCT, MBT, MFT) have been deformed with variable slip rate along strikes (increasing differential shortening) from west to east (e.g., 14 1 mm/year in western Himalaya, Banerjee and Burgmann 2002; 191 mm/year in eastern Himalaya, Chen et al. 2004). If we look into the historical records, it is observed that the size of large earthquakes that recurred in each cluster is more or less similar in size (Table 2). While Kangra cluster (B) experienced two large earthquakes of Mw 7.6 (1555) and 7.8 (1905), East Nepal (cluster E) was visited by two large earthquakes of Mw 7.7 (1833) and 8.1 (1934) and KumaunWest Nepal (cluster D) had a record of Mw 7.5 (1720) and 7.3 (1916). Integrating the above, the characteristic earthquake recurrence model (Schwartz and Coppersmith 1984) dened by constant displacement of faults per event at a point with variable slip rate along length and

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

377

Table 2 Historical earthquakes (1500 to 1963 AD) (after Ambraseys and Douglus, 2003) that ruptured the cluster zones in Lesser Himalaya Type of zone Name of earthquake Year and Moment magnitude (3) Expected magnitude as per estimation in column_3 of Table 3 (4)

(1) Cluster zone B (Kangra)

(2)

Srinagar earthquake Kangra earthquake Chamba earthquake

September 1555, 7.6 8.29 April 1905, 7.8 June 1945, 6.3 September 1803, 8.1 8.25 8.28 August 1916, 7.3 July 1926, 6.5 January 1934, 8.1 August 1833, 7.7 January 1941, 6.8 7.99 8.19

C (Garhwal)

Kumaon Earthquake Kumaon earthquake Nepal earthquake

D (KumaonWest Nepal) Uttarpradesh earthquake July 1720, 7.5

E (East Nepal) G (Bomdila)

Bihar Nepal earthquake Nepal earthquake East Bhutan earthquake

constant size large earthquakes coupled with infrequent moderate earthquakes seems to be best suited for explaining these cluster events. Further, for a fault of a nite length where slip rate varies strongly along strike and is segmented by discontinuities (as by the transverse faults in the Himalayas), the characteristic earthquake model is fullling all required criteria (see Scholz 2002).

4 Estimation of size of possible earthquakes in cluster zones Within the clusters, we have employed the empirical relation between rupture length (RL) and size of earthquake (M) as a function of type of faulting (reverse) and region (inter-plate). The strike lengths of clusters have been measured in kilometers on map (Fig. 1). These strike lengths may be indicative of the maximum rupture length (RL) that can be generated by an earthquake. On measuring RL, the expected size of earthquake is empirically calculated using the equation log RL = -2.86 ? 0.63 M for reverse faults (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). We have excluded strike slip motions from our calculations since the tectonic surfaces of MCT/MBT/MFT show predominant thrust movement. The estimates show magnitude range between *7.7 and 8.4 (Table 3) in the eight clusters. The estimated magnitude is obviously indicative of a maximum possible earthquake size for respective clusters when the entire strike length ruptures. Smaller rupture length would of course yield smaller magnitude earthquake. Using M, the expected average displacement (AD) has also been calculated following the relation Log AD = -4.8 ? 0.69 M (Wells and Coppersmith 1994). The range of slip displacement would vary from 3.04 to 9.61 m. The expected moment magnitude calculated empirically and magnitude of historical earthquakes occurring in particular clusters is more or less comparable (Table 2).

123

378

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

5 Seismotectonic characteristics of cluster zones After demonstrating the existence and characteristics of eight cluster zones, the behavior of those spatio-temporal clusters in relation with regional tectonics may be examined at this point. There may be number of factors responsible for earthquakes to occur as clusters. The suggested factors include fault interactions, type of tectonics and its relation to far eld stress, characteristics of rupture, activation of basement and cover rocks etc. The geometric disposition of the fault system in relation to interaction of conjugate/en echelon fault/lineament etc. plays a pivotal role in the kinematics and dynamics of earthquake triggering process. Domains of intersecting major discontinuity surfaces are favorable locales for stress buildup and are considered to be seismically potential sites (Andrew 1989; Talwani and Gangopadhyay 2003). Localized stress buildup has been shown to be a function of preexisting zones of weakness in response to plate tectonic force. The existing model of stress builtup near interacting/intersecting faults depends on relative length and orientation of faults. The optimum condition of strain accumulation is found when a suitably oriented fault is intersected and offset by transverse, shorter faults. This model may not be applied as a general principle valid for all types of tectonic setting may hold good in many tectonic domains including the present study area in the Himalayas particularly in cluster C, D, E, F and G as discussed below. Probing into the 42 years of seismic record (19642006) in the Himalayas, it is perceived that clusters B, E, C and D successively may be propounded for potential source according to seismic vulnerability. However, due to inherent uncertainties in the complex earth system, a telltale suggestion is difcult to make. The pattern observed in the past may or may not indicate the most vulnerable locales in the future. The concentration of earthquakes in cluster A supersedes all other clusters, solely because of the Kashmir earthquake of 2005. Threat potential of cluster A might have been possibly minimized due to the recent rupture. The Kangra cluster (B) had experienced last independent moderate earthquake (Mb 5.5) 20 years ago (26.4.1986) suggesting a temporal quiescence. On the other hand, this cluster is characterized by the history of two large earthquakes (Fig. 4) in the past (15557.6;

Table 3 The expected magnitude (M) of the earthquake derived from rupture length (RL) and its average displacement (AD) in the cluster zones of Lesser Himalaya. AKashmir, BKangra, CGarhwal, DKumaunWest Nepal, EEast Nepal, FSikkim, GBomdila and HEastern Syntaxis Type of zone Expected (maximum) rupture Expected magnitude (M) Expected average displacement length (RL) (in km) (for reverse fault) (AD)/slip (in meter) calculated taking M of reverse fault (1) (2) (3) (4) Cluster A B C D E F G H 151 230 217 226 200 263 149 92 8.00 8.29 8.25 8.28 8.19 8.38 7.99 7.66 5.236 8.298 7.780 8.147 7.128 9.616 5.164 3.040

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

379

19057.8). Empirical estimation also shows that in case of total rupture of the cluster length, an earthquake of M 8.2 is expected in cluster B. Garhwal cluster (C) is dotted with two recent catastrophic earthquakes, viz., Uttarkashi (1991, 6.4) and Chamoli (1999, 6.3). MCT passes through cluster C and shows a crosscutting relationship with Ropar fault (RF) and Mahendragarh-Dehradun Fault (MDF). The Garhwal cluster has one signicant great historical event (18038.1). In the KumaunWest Nepal cluster (D), there is no record of large earthquakes in the recent past; only moderate tremors visited the area. However, it contains Main Central Thrust (MCT) as predominant seismogenic surface (also MBT in the southern fringe of the cluster) intersected by transverse Great Boundary fault (GBF). Two large historical events (17207.5; 19167.3) had dotted the area. Such interaction of crosscutting faults both from the Himalayas (EW trending MFT, MBT, MCT) and from NS to NESW trending deep-seated faults traversing from Peninsular India [viz. GBF, East Patna Fault (EPF) etc.] may likely to have a role in earthquake incidence. Intersecting domains of thrusts/faults seems very relevant for East Nepal cluster (E). MFT, MBT and MCT pass through cluster E and are intersected by three dominant transverse faults (Dasgupta et al. 1987) traversing from the plains of India (Fig. 1). These faults are East Patna Fault (EPF), West Patna Fault (WPF) and Munger Saharsha Ridge Marginal Fault (MSRMF). The epicenter of the disastrous BiharNepal earthquake (1988, 6.1) is located near such a fault (see Dasgupta 1993). Further, two major historical events (18337.7; 19348.1) of cluster E had shaken northern India awfully (Fig. 4). We have indicated clusters B, E, C and D above in view of vulnerable source zones taking into consideration the temporal events, historical records, presence of intersecting faults and estimated expected M. Besides, intersections of fault systems are also prominent in other clusters. Sikkim Cluster F illustrates a folded MCT intersected by Malda Kishanganj Fault (MKF). Bomdila Cluster G, located in East Bhutan, is characterized by

Fig. 4 The plot of historical earthquakes (refer Table 2) and four identied clusters as most vulnerable source zones (gray zonesB, C, D, E) for future Lesser Himalayan earthquakes. Annotation is similar to Fig. 1

123

380

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

the presence of all the three tectonic surfaces of MFT, MBT and MCT with the Bomdila fault as the major cross fault interaction (see also Nandy and Dasgupta 1991). Since these seismic clusters are seemingly controlled by the faults from Peninsular India, the far eld Indian plate driving forces reactivate the whole system and as a result moderate to large earthquakes may continuously recur. Occurrence of earthquakes in similar conditions has also been inferred elsewhere (see Kenner 2003).

6 Discussion In a collision orogen like the Himalayas, thrust tectonics dominates in the foreland and hinterland anks of the orogenic belt. In the Lesser Himalayan foreland, deformation either may be restricted to the cover sequence (thin skinned tectonics) or may actively involve both the cover sequence and crystalline basement underlying it (thick-skinned tectonics; Sibson 2002). Thick-skinned tectonics thus involves compressional reactivation of basement and its penetrating fault systems inherited from previous crustal extension (e.g., fault systems from Peninsular India, Fig. 1). With a view to infer the depth distribution of earthquakes in eight clusters (Table 4), depth sections for seven representative clusters (A, B, C. D, E, F, G) (Fig. 5ag) are constructed. Orientation of depth section lines is approximately perpendicular to the thrust zones (Fig. 5). In cluster A, though the epicenter of recent Kashmir earthquake (focal depth 26 km) is located in the upper crust, there is number of earthquakes including Mb 5.0 that have been produced in deep crustal conditions (6070 km, Fig. 5a). In clusters B, C and G, earthquakes [5 Mb are mostly conned in the upper crustal level (Fig. 5b, c, g). The events in clusters D, E and F have been originated from upper as well as from lower crust, including few located at the interface between lower crust and mantle (Fig. 5df). The conspicuous absence of deep-seated faults from Peninsular India within inter-cluster zones might have made the inter-cluster zones seismically less active. Thus it may be surmised that cluster zones of earthquakes do exist in the Himalayan arc where thick-skinned tectonics coupled with reactivation of basement penetrating faults from Peninsular India could be the main source of earthquakes. Earthquakes may strike in the same locale replicating previous record by re-rupturing. The incidence of earthquakes within each cluster may also follow characteristic earthquake model as already discussed. Inference may be made with caution from the comparative study of the eight cluster zones. A speculation is insinuated that the clusters B (Kangra), E (East Nepal), C (Garhwal) and D (KumaonWest Nepal) are potential source zones [marked gray in Fig. 4, in decreasing order of earthquake threat to bounce back to produce
Table 4 Depth (km) distribution of the earthquake epicenter in eight cluster zones in Lesser Himalaya Cluster Number of earthquake (Mb C 4.5) 210 73 46 94 28 45 82 12 Number of earthquake [45 km depth 9 13 8 14 3 12 18 3

A B C D E F G H

AKashmir, BKangra, CGarhwal, DKumaunWest Nepal, EEast Nepal, FSikkim, GBomdila and HEastern Syntaxis

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383 Fig. 5 Enlarged view of the seven clusters along with corresponding seismic depth sections; (a) Cluster A, (b) Cluster B, (c) Cluster C, (d) Cluster D, (e) Cluster E (f) Cluster F and (g) Cluster G. Star in depth section indicates the main shock events in the clusters (see Table 1). Note: BF bomdila fault, MBT main boundary thrust, MFT main frontal thrust, MCT main central Thrust

381

123

382

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

large earthquakes (C7.8 M)]. If these earthquakes in shallow depth show reverse fault mechanism, the expected size may range from M 7.7 to 8.4 with a comparable displacement (3.049.61 m) along rupture plane possibly accommodating the slip decit in the Himalayas. Historically observed pattern may portray occurrence scenario but may not be a strong enough tool for forecasting. The estimated size of the earthquakes should not be accepted as a forecast since our main objective was to identify source zones based on historical seismic records. Nevertheless, the earthquake threat potential envisaged in the source zones cannot be ignored altogether.
Acknowledgments We express our thankfulness to Dr. Thomas Glade, Editor in Chief, for his thoughtful comments on the earlier version of the manuscript. We convey our gratefulness to three erudite anonymous reviewers whose suggestions have helped immensely to improve the scientic contents of the paper.

References
Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a-bM and its condence limits. Bull Earthquake Res Inst Tokyo Univ 43:237239 Ambraseys N, Douglas J (2003) Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes. J Geophy Int 158:142 Andrew DJ (1989) Mechanics of fault junction. J Geophy Res 94:93899397 Banerjee P, Burgmann R (2002) Convergence across the northwest Himalaya from GPS measurements. Geophys Res Lett 29(13):3134 Bettinelli P, Avouac JP, Flouzat M, Jouanne F, Bollinger L, Willis P, Chitrakar GR (2006) Plate motion of India and interseismic strain in the Nepal Himalaya from GPS and DORIS measurements. J Geodesy 80:567589 Bilham R, Ambraseys NN (2005) Apparent Himalayan slip decit from the summation of seismic moments for Himalayan earthquakes, 15002000. Current Science 881:6581663 Bilham R, Wallace K (2005) Future Mw [ 8 earthquakes in the Himalaya: Implication from the 26 Dec 2004 MW = 9.0 earthquake on Indias Eastern Plate Margin. Geol Surv India 85:114 special publication Chen QZ, Freymueller JT, Wang Q, Yang ZQ, Xu CJ, Liu JN (2004) A deforming block model for the present-day tectonics of Tibet. J Geophys Res 109(B1):B01403 Dasgupta S (1993) Seismotectonics of the Eastern Himalaya and its foredeep. Geol Surv India 31:7381 Special Publication Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay M, Nandy DR (1987) Active transverse features in the central portion of the Himalaya. Tectonophysics 136:255264 Dasgupta S, Pande P, Ganguly D, Iqbal Z, Sanyal K, Venkatraman NV, Dasgupta S, Sural B, Harendranath L, Mazumdar S, Sanyal S, Roy A, Das LK, Misra PS, Gupta H (2000) Seismotectonic Atlas of India and Its Environs. Geol Surv, India, Kolkata Ebel JE, Kafka AL (2002) A non-poissinian element in the seismicity of the Northeastern United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:20402046 Feldl N, Bilham R (2006) Great Himalayan earthquakes and the Tibetan plateau. Nature 444:165170 Jade S, Mukul M, Bhattacharyya AK, Vijayan MSM, Jaganathan S, Kumar A, Tiwari RP, Kumar A, Kalita S, Sahu SC, Krishna AP, Gupta SS, Murthy MVRL, Gaur VK (2007) Estimates of interseismic deformation in Northeast India from GPS measurements. Earth Planet Sci Lett 263:221234 Kafka AL, Walcott JR (1998) How well does the spatial distribution of smaller earthquakes forecast the locations of larger earthquakes in the Northeastern United States? Seismol Res Lett 69:428440 Kagan YY (1997) Are earthquakes predictable? Geophys J Int 131:505525 Kenner SJ (2003) Understanding the sources of stress which load faults in low strain rate tectonic regimes. Abst., Indo-US workshop on Seismicity & Geodynamics, October 610, 2003, NGRI, Hyderabad,: 2124 McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake engineering research institute (EERI) Okland California USA Monograph series 10 Nandy DR, Dasgupta S (1991) Seismotectonic domains of Northeastern India and adjacent areas. In geology and geodynamic evolution of the Himalayan collision zone. Phys Chem Earth 18:371384 Scholz CH (2002) The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, UK

123

Nat Hazards (2011) 57:369383

383

Schwartz D, Coppersmith K (1984) Fault behaviour and characteristic earthquakes: example from the Wasatch fault and San Andreas fault zones. J Geophys Res 89(B7):56815698 Sibson RH (2002) Geology of the crustal earthquake source. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, 81st edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 455473 Talwani P, Gangopadhyay A (2003) Seismogenesis of intraplate earthquakes. Abst., Indo-US workshop on Seismicity & Geodynamics, October 610, 2003, NGRI, Hyderabad,: 1617 Wang JH, Kuo CH (1998) On the frequency distribution of interoccurrence times of earthquake. J Seismol 2:351358 Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):9741002

123