Can a fault’s history signal future quakes?
17 April 2018
Scientists internationally are puzzled by the 2016 Kaikōura quake that ruptured more than 17 active faults, but did not break some other active faults in the area. EQC has funded Structural Geology Professor Andy Nicol at the University of Canterbury to study the mystery, and what it could mean for forecasting future earthquakes.
Scientists internationally are puzzled by the 2016 Kaikōura quake that ruptured more than 17 active faults, but did not break some other active faults in the area.
EQC has funded Structural Geology Professor Andy Nicol at the University of Canterbury to study the mystery, and what it could mean for forecasting future earthquakes.
“What happened in Kaikōura has really got earthquake scientists around the world talking. The Kaikōura quake is well known as one of the most complex earthquakes ever recorded. The big question is, why did some faults rupture and not others?
“Faults build up stress over time, and eventually rupture as an earthquake. Seen over a long, long time – maybe tens of thousands of years – there is a cycle for a fault. What we’ll be doing in our EQC research is comparing cycles for some faults that ruptured in the quake with some that didn’t,” Professor Nicol says.
“The team is testing the idea that the faults that ruptured were already stressed as part of their historical cycle, and were in effect ready to go. This could help us forecast the timing, location and complexity of a quake in the future.”
Looking at a 10,000-year timeframe is not easy. It takes quite a bit of detective work, Professor Nicol says.
“We’re digging trenches across a fault line to read the history of how often the fault has ruptured, and when the last one was. In the trench we can see how different layers of rock have moved during past earthquakes over thousands of years. Then we use radiocarbon dating to get an idea of when each movement occurred. Having many dates of faulted layers will help us work out the timing of prehistoric earthquakes as accurately as possible.
“We can then calculate where the fault was in its seismic cycle when the Kaikōura quake happened – and compare the faults that ruptured against those that didn’t.”
There is a team of 14 researchers from the University of Canterbury, Lincoln University, GNS Science, and Geoscience in Australia involved in the study.
“What we’ve already seen in the field is that one fault – the Humps fault – has ruptured on the surface four times over the last 20,000 years. We’ll be doing more fieldwork over the next year,” Professor Nicol says.
“At this stage we have no idea if our theory explains what happened in the Kaikōura earthquake. We’ll be getting a lot of support from GNS with the analysis to see if the evidence backs up the theory.
“Our aim is to contribute new insights to seismic hazard analysis to help forecast where else might rupture when there is a sizeable earthquake.”
EQC General Manager Resilience, Dr Hugh Cowan, says Professor Nicol’s work is an exciting area of research with practical application for planners and emergency management.
“It will help build a more accurate picture of how faults behave and when faults might rupture. This kind of science is painstaking but contributes to useable knowledge that can help reduce the impact of earthquakes on people and property,” says Dr Cowan.
“The Kaikōura earthquake raised a whole lot of new questions about fault behaviour and the answers are important for New Zealand and internationally. There are a lot of people here and overseas with a keen interest in Professor Nicol’s research.”
This project is funded through EQC’s 2018 Biennial Research Grants. EQC funds $16 million of research annually to reduce the impact of natural disaster on people and property.
For further information please contact:
What to read next:
The family of pioneering New Zealand suffragist Kate Sheppard kept an important secret – one that possibly explains a lot about her life, her beliefs ...
Imagine an organisation that performs thousands of transactions, but has no governing structure, no board, no chief executive and no middle managers.