Can an earthquake of Mw∼9 occur in the Himalayan region?

H. K. Gupta and V. K. Gahalaut
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 412, 43-53, 5 May 2015, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP412.10

Abstract

It has been suggested that all of the Earth's subduction zones are capable of producing an Mw∼9 earthquake. Such a possibility has also been suggested for the Himalayan collisional arc. We examined recent and historical earthquakes in the Himalayan region and suggest that, in the past few hundred years, only great earthquakes (Mw∼8) have occurred in the region, the largest being the 1950 Assam earthquake with Mw 8.6. Several aseismic ridges segment the Himalayan arc and these appear to have limited the extent of rupture in earthquakes of the past 200 years. There is also evidence of distributed deformation and out-of-sequence thrusting, where only part of the detachment participates in the accommodation of the convergence. We concluded that, although it is unlikely that an Mw∼9 earthquake could occur in the Himalaya, from the hazard point of view a great earthquake of Mw∼8 anywhere along the Himalayan arc could kill about one million people in the Himalaya and adjoining Indo-Ganga plains. As an example, a scenario developed for a hypothetical Mw 8 earthquake occurring in the middle of the night at Mandi, close to the epicentre of the 1905 Kangra earthquake, predicts an estimated loss of one million human lives.

The convergence between the Indian and Eurasian plates, accommodated in the Himalayan region at a rate of c. 2 cm a−1 (Molnar 1990; Bilham et al. 1997; Bettinelli et al. 2006), has developed a mountainous topography and has also led to the occurrence of earthquakes in the region. According to the most widely accepted model of underthrusting and earthquake occurrence at this collisional plate boundary, the convergence in the Himalaya is accommodated on the Main Himalayan Thrust or detachment (Seeber & Armbruster 1981). The detachment is the surface between the underthrusting Indian shield rocks and the overlying Himalayan rocks (Fig. 1). The overlying Himalayan sedimentary wedge has been divided into at least four geological units, namely, the Sub (or Outer), Lesser, Higher and Tethys Himalaya (Yin 2006). The part of the detachment that lies under the Sub and Lesser Himalaya is seismogenic and slips episodically in a stick-slip manner. It accumulates strain during the inter-seismic period when it is locked and this strain is released during the infrequent earthquakes through sudden slip on the detachment. The detachment under the Higher and Tethys Himalaya slips aseismically. The great thrust earthquakes in the Himalaya occur on the seismogenic detachment under the Outer and Lesser Himalaya, whereas the small and moderate earthquakes of the Himalayan seismic belt occur on the downdip part of the seismogenic detachment or on the mid-crustal ramp (Seeber & Armbruster 1981; Ni & Barazangi 1984; Molnar 1990; Pandey et al. 1995, 1999; Gahalaut & Kalpna 2001).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Map showing the seismicity of the Himalayan arc, including the general geology, rifts in the Tibetan Plateau and subsurface ridges in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Earthquakes are from the ISC catalogue, which also includes smaller magnitude earthquakes (M<3) from local networks run by the India Meteorological Department, India and the Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal. The ruptures of earthquakes of M>7.2 over the past 200 years in the Himalayan arc are shown by rounded red rectangles and ellipses. The motion of the India plate in the global reference frame and with respect to Eurasia is shown by the arrows. Inset shows a north–south vertical cross-section across the Himalayan arc. Modified after Gahalaut & Kundu (2011). MFT, main frontal thrust; MBT, main boundary thrust; MCT, main central thrust.

The occurrence of the 2011 Japan (Mw 9.0) and 2004 Sumatra Andaman (Mw 9.2) earthquakes prompted us to assess and analyse whether such an earthquake could occur in the Himalayan region. It has been suggested that such large earthquakes, which generally occur in subduction zones, may not occur in the Himalaya (e.g. Srivastava et al. 2013), including the Kashmir valley region (Shah 2013), and we partially agree with this view. We provide here more robust arguments based on geological and geophysical data to strengthen the proposal that an Mw 9 earthquake is unlikely to occur in the Himalayan region. We review the occurrence of historical thrust earthquakes of the frontal Himalayan arc, earthquakes from palaeoseismological data, the results of geodetic measurements in the Himalaya, seismic gaps in the Himalayan arc region and the possibility of the occurrence of a great earthquake in the Himalayan region.

Global occurrence of Mw 9 earthquakes

In the past 100 years, six global earthquakes of Mw≥9 have been reported, namely, the 1946 Aleutian, 1952 Kamchatka, 1960 Chile, 1964 Alaska, 2004 Sumatra Andaman and 2011 Japan earthquakes (McCaffrey 2008) (Fig. 2). Although the global average is about one to three such earthquakes within any 100-year period, six earthquakes occurring over a short time span of 67 years reflect time clustering (e.g. Goldfinger et al. 2013). In contrast, probably only three such earthquakes occurred in the previous 250 years, namely, the 1700 Cascadia, 1833 Sumatra and 1868 Peru earthquakes. All these earthquakes occurred in subduction zones – seven occurred in the subduction zones around the Pacific Ocean and two in the Sumatra region.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Global distribution of M≥9 earthquakes (updated from McCaffrey 2008) since AD 1700. Open circles are the largest known earthquakes from AD 1700 to 1900.

It was considered previously that the subduction of a young, warm, buoyant lithosphere with a larger velocity would produce larger-sized earthquakes (Uyeda & Kanamori 1979). A good correlation was also found between the magnitude of the largest earthquake and the age of the lithosphere and the subduction velocity. However, such correlations were later found to be less compelling (McCaffrey 2008). Realizing that the 2004 Sumatra Andaman earthquake occurred in a region where such an earthquake was least expected, McCaffrey (2008) analysed the global occurrence of Mw∼9 earthquakes. He performed simulations of Mw∼9 earthquakes without relying too strongly on the short earthquake history and suggested that every subduction zone is capable of generating an Mw∼9 earthquake. It is important to know the approximate rupture area and the amount of slip released during an earthquake to determine the Mw∼9 earthquake-generating potential of subduction zones. Murotani et al. (2013) analysed the parameters of large earthquakes and derived scaling relations. In particular, they focused on recent Mw∼9 earthquakes in Sumatra Andaman and Japan. Earlier scaling relations were valid only for strong and major earthquakes (Wells & Coppersmith 1994; Murotani et al. 2013). New relations suggest that earthquakes with Mw≥9 should have a rupture area exceeding (1−2)×105 km2 and average slip in excess of 8–10 m (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Scaling relations of the source parameters of M∼9 and smaller earthquakes. (a) rupture area plotted against seismic moment (M0); (b) average slip plotted against seismic moment (M0) (after Murotani et al. 2013).

Great and major earthquakes in the Himalayan region

Great and major earthquakes of the past 100 years

Several large and devastating earthquakes have occurred in the Himalayan region (Table 1). The most notable for which documentary or instrumental records exist are the 1897 Shillong Plateau, 1905 Kangra, 1934 Nepal–Bihar, 1950 Assam and 2005 Kashmir earthquakes. The 12 June 1897 Shillong Plateau earthquake (Mw 8.1) occurred under the Shillong Plateau and is technically not a Himalayan earthquake, although it can be considered as an earthquake of the Himalayan convergent plate margin. The maximum rupture size of this earthquake was about 200×100 km2 (Gahalaut & Chander 1992), with a slip of about 16 m in one of the models (Bilham & England 2001). The 4 April 1905 Kangra earthquake, which was earlier considered to be a great earthquake (Middlemiss 1910), was actually Mw 7.8 (Ambraseys & Douglas 2004; Wallace et al. 2005). The revised estimate of the rupture area is 150×80 km2 with a slip not exceeding 3 m. The 15 January 1934 Nepal–Bihar Mw 8.3 earthquake had a rupture area of about (200–300)×100 km2, with a slip of about 6 m (Pandey & Molnar 1988). New evidence suggests that the rupture zone of this earthquake extended up to the surface (Sapkota et al. 2013). The 15 August 1950 Assam earthquake actually occurred in the Himalayan arc region or in the Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis of Arunachal Pradesh (Devachandra et al. 2014) and is the largest known earthquake of the Himalayan region. It was of Mw 8.6 and had a rupture area of about 250×100 km2 (Molnar 1990); there is now evidence that the rupture area reached the surface (Jayangondaperumal et al. 2011). Although the magnitude of the 8 October 2005 Kashmir earthquake was only Mw 7.6, it was probably the most damaging earthquake that ever occurred in the Himalaya in the past two centuries. It claimed the lives of more than 80 000 people. The earthquake occurred through thrust motion on a 75 km long rupture on Balakot fault in the Indo-Kohistan Seismic Zone, with a maximum surface offset of about 7 m (Kaneda et al. 2008). One important feature of this earthquake, which distinguishes it from other major or moderate magnitude Himalayan earthquakes, is that its rupture extended up to the surface. The rupture was steeper (20° dip) than that of the other great and major Himalayan earthquakes considered to have occurred on the gently dipping detachment. It has been suggested that this earthquake represents out-of-sequence thrusting in the Himalaya (Avouac et al. 2006; Gahalaut 2008; Jouanne et al. 2011).

View this table:
Table 1.

Records of notable historical earthquakes in the Himalayan region and estimates of their magnitude

Other significant historical Himalayan earthquakes

The earthquake of 6 June 1505 in southwestern Tibet is considered to be a major event (Ambraseys & Jackson 2003) (Table 1). It was strongly felt, with damage to local houses along the northern part of the Great Himalaya. Ambraseys & Jackson (2003) estimated that it was of Mw∼8.2. However, Rajendran & Rajendran (2005) analysed the historical accounts of this earthquake and suggested that either it was not a great earthquake, but occurred in the Himalayan region, or it was a non-plate boundary great earthquake that occurred in the Tibetan region. The lack of severe damage in the Indo-Gangetic plains led them to suggest the second possibility. For the earthquake of 1 September 1803 (Mw 7.1), which probably occurred in northern Kumaun–Tibet, Ambraseys & Jackson (2003) assigned an approximate magnitude of Ms 7.5. This was later revised to Mw 8.09 by Ambraseys & Douglas (2004). However, a later analysis of the macro-seismic data from the Himalaya and Indo-Gangetic plains by Rajendran & Rajendran (2005) puts the magnitude of this earthquake as not greater than 7.7. They suggested that this earthquake occurred somewhere close to Devprayag and Srinagar in the Garhwal Himalaya and that it cannot be characterized as a great plate boundary earthquake. The 26 August 1833 Mw 7.7 earthquake occurred near Kathmandu. Bilham (1995) suggested that, although there are remarkable similarities between the 1934 and 1833 isoseismal areas, the mechanism of the 1833 earthquake is unknown. Ambraseys & Jackson (2003) also mentioned some other historical earthquakes: the earthquake of 1713, somewhere in Bhutan or Arunachal Pradesh, with Ms 7; the earthquake of 1751 that occurred in the upper reaches of the Sutlej river in Tibet with Ms 7.0; and the earthquake of 11 June 1806 that occurred in the region between Samye and Cona in Tibet, near its border with eastern Bhutan, with a magnitude of c. 7.5. Another significant earthquake worth mentioning is the 29 July 1947 earthquake that occurred slightly west of the 1950 earthquake. Molnar (1990) suggested a magnitude of about 7.9 for this earthquake based on the estimated seismic moment of 2×1020 N m (Molnar & Deng 1984).

Earthquakes reported from palaeoseismological investigations in the Himalaya

Palaeoseismological work has been carried out in the Himalayan region along c. 1700 km of its total length of about 2500 km (see review by Mugnier et al. 2013). In addition to evidence of the occurrence of major earthquakes, at least three other events have been identified. The 1505 earthquake in southwestern Tibet shows up in these palaeoseismological investigations; however, the evidence of its occurrence is based on data from only one trench (Yule et al. 2006). It probably involved a 700 km long rupture and had a magnitude of 8.2. An approximately AD 1400 event has been documented along a c. 600 km length of the Himalayan arc between Chandigarh in the Punjab Himalaya to western Nepal. This event dates from AD 1222 to 1632 (Kumar et al. 2010). Jayangondaperumal et al. (2013) analysed this event and suggested that the 16 m slip documented in the trenches might have occurred as the result of an earthquake of Mw∼8.5. Sapkota et al. (2013) reported the discovery of the surface rupture of the 7 June 1255 earthquake that killed 30% of the population of Kathmandu, including the king. This event was referred to as an approximately AD 1100 event by Lavé et al. (2005), which probably occurred in western Nepal and possibly extended up to western Arunachal Pradesh with a rupture length of 700–800 km. The dates for the event in the western Arunachal Pradesh range from AD 1025 to 1435.

We have analysed these events critically. We found that the 1505 and 1255 events were probably the most reliably reported (Bollinger et al. 2014) as they have also been documented in historical records. However, the estimates of their magnitudes and rupture lengths may not be very reliable. A curious case is that of the 1803 event. The co-seismic displacement inferred from the trenches ranges from c. 16 to 26 m, significantly larger than expected from the interpreted size of this event (Kumar et al. 2010). In the case of the event in the Punjab Himalaya to western Nepal, there is a large uncertainty (c. 400 years) in the time of occurrence. It is difficult to ascertain whether it was a single event or multiple events showing time clustering during this period. For example, the last four great or major earthquakes in the Himalayan region occurred over a time span of only 53 years. In fact, even the Mw 9 earthquakes show time clustering on a global scale. Considering the large uncertainties in the date and slip of the events inferred from palaeoseismological observations, and notwithstanding these criticisms, the largest earthquake documented through palaeoseismological investigations so far appears to be the 1505 earthquake with a magnitude of 8.2.

This discussion led us to conclude that the largest magnitude earthquake in the Himalayan region in the past 1000 years was the 1950 Assam earthquake with Mw 8.6. On a global scale, this is also the largest earthquake that has occurred in a continental collision plate boundary.

Seismic gaps

Three seismic gaps that have the potential to generate a great earthquake have been proposed in the Himalayan arc, namely the Kashmir, Central and Assam gaps. It is more than 60 years since a great earthquake occurred in the Himalaya and every segment of the Himalayan arc is now considered to have the potential to produce at least one major earthquake (Bilham & Wallace 2005). There is no doubt that a destructive earthquake could occur anywhere along the arc, although it is difficult to ascertain where it might occur or how large it could be.

Constraints on the rate of strain accumulation from global positioning system measurements

Global positioning system (GPS) measurements (Bilham et al. 1997; Gahalaut & Chander 1997b; Jouanne et al. 1999; Banerjee & Burgmann 2002; Avouac 2003; Bettinelli et al. 2006; Banerjee et al. 2008; Ader et al. 2012; Schiffman et al. 2013; Devachandra et al. 2014; Kundu et al. 2014) and some levelling observations (Jackson & Bilham 1994; Gahalaut & Chander 1997a, b, 1999; Bilham 2001) along the arc suggest that strain accumulation as a result of the ongoing convergence of India–Eurasia is underway in all the Himalayan segments. The convergence, accommodated in the Himalaya, appears to decrease from east to west, from c. 20 to 12 mm a−1, which is consistent with the long-term rate of convergence (Thakur 2013). Although some attempts have been made to estimate the size of the predicted earthquake, they are mostly based on empirical scaling relations (Feldl & Bilham 2006). The width of the locked zone may be reliable in central Nepal (width 80–100 km; Ader et al. 2012), where there are large numbers of GPS measurements, but it may not be reliable elsewhere (e.g. in the Kashmir Himalaya; Schiffman et al. 2013; Kundu et al. 2014), where it has been derived from a very limited number of site measurements. Nevertheless, there is unambiguous evidence of strain accumulation along all the Himalayan arc, although it is again difficult to quantify the total amount of accumulated strain in each Himalayan segment and whether it will be released in a major, great or giant earthquake.

Possibility of the occurrence of an Mw∼9 earthquake in the Himalaya

After the occurrence of 2004 Sumatra Andaman and 2011 Japan earthquakes in subduction zones, concerns were raised about whether similar megathrust earthquakes could occur in the Himalayan collisional zone (Thakur 2006; Ader et al. 2012; Schiffman et al. 2013). We have therefore attempted to evaluate such a possibility.

The Himalayan thrust earthquakes occur on the seismogenically active detachment under the Outer and Lesser Himalaya. The small and moderate magnitude thrust earthquakes of the Himalayan seismic belt, also referred to as the mid-crustal seismicity (Pandey et al. 1995, 1999), occur close to the downdip edge of this seismically active detachment. Thus, all along the Himalayan arc, the Himalayan seismic belt marks the downdip edge of the seismically active detachment and the topographic front, marked by the main frontal thrust marks the updip edge of this seismically active detachment. The topographic contour of 3.5 km follows the Himalayan seismic belt and also the main central thrust (MCT). Thus the Himalayan seismic belt, the MCT and the 3.5 km topographic contour approximately mark the downdip edge of the detachment (Avouac 2003; Ader et al. 2012). This width varies from 80 to 120 km along the Himalayan arc, except in the Kashmir region where none of the three entities is well defined. The Himalayan arc seems to be punched by the aseismic ridges on the underthrusting Indian plate (Berger et al. 2004; Gahalaut & Kundu 2011; Robert et al. 2011; Mugnier et al. 2013). The subduction of such ridges causes segmentation in the arc as they act as barriers to the incoming front. The regions in which these high topography features subduct are either regions of low friction or regions in which, as a result of the ploughing effect on the overriding Himalayan wedge, a network of faults and fractures develop. In both cases the incoming rupture front stops at these barriers (see Robinson et al. 2006; Gahalaut & Kundu 2011; Wang & Bilek 2011 and references cited therein). Although transverse faults in the Himalaya with their possible origin in these ridges have occasionally produced earthquakes, e.g. the 2011 Sikkim Nepal earthquake with M 6.9 (Gahalaut 2011), it is unlikely that an Mw 9 or even a great magnitude earthquake would ever occur on such faults as a result of their limited spatial extent. Gahalaut & Kundu (2011) identified at least three such NNE-trending ridges on the Indian plate that appear to have segmented the Himalayan arc. None of the well-constrained earthquake ruptures of the past 200 years has breached them. Schiffman et al. (2013), however, suggested the possibility of the occurrence of an Mw∼9 earthquake in the Kashmir region. They also suggested that the 400 km long frontal arc of the Kashmir region appears to be segmented, at least in three different parts. Thus we suggest that the entire arc is actually segmented in several blocks. If this is so, then it appears unlikely that there is a longer segment of the Himalayan arc that can actually rupture at the same time and produce an Mw∼9 earthquake. For such an earthquake, the rupture area should be about (1−2)×105 km2 (Murotani et al. 2013). GPS measurements in the Nepal region indicate a locked zone of c. 100 km width. The rupture length of an earthquake with this width of locked zone would be 1000–2000 km. This appears to be unlikely in the Himalayan region unless we increase the width of the rupture by a factor of about two, so that the length of such an earthquake would then be 500–1000 km. Sometimes a large slip on a compact rupture can lead to a high magnitude earthquake. Although we do not have direct evidence from the Himalayan arc, palaeoseismological interpretations of the offsets and scarp height indicate that the slip may have been as high as 26 m (Kumar et al. 2001). However, it is not known whether this slip occurred in a single event or whether it was the result of multiple events on the same fault.

Schiffman et al. (2013) suggested that this could be the situation in the Kashmir region. They suggested that the width of the locked zone in the Kashmir region could be as much as 170 km. However, they also suggested that the Kashmir Himalayan arc is divided into three segments with lengths of about 130, 80 and 110 km. This actually reduces the length of the potential rupture in each segment to about 150 km and therefore the rupture area of future potential earthquakes will be less than 0.4×105 km2 (c. Mw 8.2), much less than required for an Mw∼9 earthquake. In addition, there is unambiguous evidence of distributed deformation along two or three faults parallel to the Himalayan arc (Madden et al. 2010, 2011; Meigs et al. 2010; Vassallo et al. 2013). The strain may be released on one of these planes rather than involving the entire detachment. The 2005 Kashmir earthquake is a good example of where slip occurred via out-of-sequence thrusting (Avouac et al. 2006; Gahalaut 2008; Jouanne et al. 2011). In fact, this could happen anywhere in the Himalaya and there is geological evidence for such an out-of-sequence deformation (Thakur et al. 2010; Mukherjee et al. 2012; Mugnier et al. 2013). Schiffman et al. (2013) argued that in the past 900 years no earthquake of Mw≥7.6 has occurred in the region and, as this region shows evidence of strain accumulation, it could produce a great earthquake. A counter view could be that because this region has not produced a great earthquake in the past 900 years, it may actually not produce Mw∼9 earthquakes. It is possible that the majority of the convergence of c. 12 mm a−1 is released through major earthquakes (as has happened through 14 earthquakes in the past 900 years) and the rest through aseismic slip (Schiffman et al. 2013), thus leaving no significant accumulation of strain to produce great or Mw∼9 earthquakes. This view is supported by the argument that the presence of salts and anhydrites in the region reduces the strength of the rocks and faults and hence this region did not, and may not, produce great earthquakes (Seeber et al. 1981). Thus, in view of the distributed deformation involving out-of-sequence thrusting, the segmentation of the Kashmir Himalayan arc, the presence of salts and anhydrites, and the absence of evidence for the occurrence of great earthquakes in the region, we suggest that even this region may not produce an Mw∼9 earthquake until, or unless, it involves a very compact small rupture (say 150×150 km2) with exceptionally high slip (>50 m).

Mw 8 earthquake damage scenario in the Himalaya

Earthquakes will continue to occur, but short-term earthquake forecasts are not feasible. Therefore, to minimize the hazards from earthquakes, it is desirable to develop an earthquake-resilient society. The National Disaster Management Authority, India has developed different scenarios for the repetition of earlier great earthquakes in the vicinity of the Himalayan seismic belt. The 1905 Kangra earthquake claimed an estimated 20 000 human lives (Middlemiss 1910). A scenario has been developed for the occurrence of a hypothetical earthquake of Mw∼8 at Mandi, near the epicentre of the Kangra earthquake (R. Sinha, pers. comm. 2013; National Disaster Management Authority, India, unpublished data). The earthquake rupture in this scenario had a length of 200 km and a width of 80 km. The corresponding slip on the rupture was assumed to be 2.6 m. The earthquake rupture was centred at 31.55°N and 76.88°E with a focal depth of 15 km. The attenuation relations of Boore & Atkinson (2008) were used to calculate the peak ground acceleration, which was then converted to the Medvedev–Sponheuer–Karnik intensity. The maximum peak ground acceleration was estimated to be 1.17 g. The intensity distribution resulting from this scenario earthquake is shown in Figure 4. If this earthquake occurred at midnight, the number of human lives lost in the states of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and the Union Territory of Chandigarh could be close to one million (Table 2). This scenario takes into account the population density, habitat type and the various types of structure in the region.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Intensity distribution of a scenario Mw 8 earthquake with rupture centred at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, near Kangra. The ground motion predictive equation (GMPE) is taken from Boore & Atkinson (2008). After Sinha (pers. comm. 2013).

View this table:
Table 2.

Predicted scenario for an earthquake in Mandi (Himachal Pradesh, NW Himalaya): estimated injuries and loss of life if the earthquake strikes at midnight

Conclusion

In view of the occurrence of the recent two Mw∼9 earthquakes in subduction zones, the possibility of the occurrence of such an earthquake in the Himalayan region has been considered in various publications. We analysed this possibility using the knowledge available for the Himalayan arc and suggest that, although the occurrence of such an earthquake eventually occurring cannot be completely rejected, the available information does not support the occurrence of such an earthquake in the Himalayan arc. This is because the Himalayan collisional arc appears to be segmented (Gahalaut & Kundu 2011; Schiffman et al. 2013) and the deformation appears to be distributed over several thrust sheets across the arc (Mugnier et al. 2004; Kumar et al. 2006). However, we are of the view that even a great earthquake in any part of the Himalayan arc would lead to a severe loss of human life.

Acknowledgments

We thank Soumyajit Mukherjee for inviting us to write this article, Rick Law and Angharad Hills of the Geological Society, London, for support, Pater der Beek for efficiently handling the manuscript, and Jean-Louis Mugnier and an anonymous reviewer for their very constructive comments.

References

  1. Abe K. 1994. Instrumental magnitudes of historical earthquakes, 1892 to 1898. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 415–425.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Ader T., Avouac J. P. et al. 2012. Convergence rate across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic coupling on the Main Himalayan Thrust: implications for seismic hazard. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, B04403, http://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB009071
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    Ambraseys N. & Jackson D. 2003. A note on early earthquakes in northern India and southern Tibet. Current Science, 84, 571–582.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    Ambraseys N. N. & Douglas J. 2004. Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International, 159, 165–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    Avouac J. P. 2003. Mountain building, erosion, and the seismic cycle in the Nepal Himalaya. Advances in Geophysics, 46, 1–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Avouac J. P., Ayoub F. et al. 2006. The 2005, Mw 7.6 Kashmir earthquake: sub-pixel correlation of ASTER images and seismic waveforms analysis. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 249, 514–528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    Banerjee P. & Burgmann R. 2002. Convergence across the northwest Himalaya from GPS measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 29, http://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015184
  8. ↵
    Banerjee P., Burgmann R., Nagarajan B. & Apel E. 2008. Intraplate deformation of the Indian subcontinent. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L18301, http://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035468
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    Berger A., Jouanne F., Hassani R. & Mugnier J. L. 2004. Modelling the spatial distribution of present-day deformation in Nepal: how cylindrical is the Main Himalayan Thrust in Nepal? Geophysical Journal International, 156, 94–114, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02038.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    Bettinelli P., Avouac J. P., Flouzat M., Jouanne F., Bollinger L., Willis P. & Chitrakar G. R. 2006. Plate motion of India and interseismic strain in the Nepal Himalaya from GPS and DORIS measurements. Journal of Geodesy, 80, 567–589, http://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-006-0030-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    Bilham R. 1995. Location and magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake and its relation to the rupture zones of contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Current Science, 69, 101–128.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    Bilham R. 2001. Slow tilt reversal of the Lesser Himalaya between 1862 and 1992 at 78°E, and bounds to the southeast rupture of the 1905 Kangra earthquake. Geophysical Journal International, 144, 713–728.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    Bilham R. & England P. 2001. Plateau pop-up in the 1897 Assam earthquake. Nature, 410, 806–809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Bilham R. & Wallace K. 2005. Future Mw>8 earthquakes in the Himalaya: implications from the 26 Dec 2004 Mw=9.0 earthquake on India‘s eastern plate margin. Geological Survey of India Special Publication, 85, 1–14.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    Bilham R., Larson K. & Freymueller J. & Project Idylhim Members 1997. GPS measurements of present-day convergence across the Nepal Himalaya. Nature, 386, 61–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    Bollinger L., Sapkota S. N. et al. 2014. Estimating the return times of great Himalayan earthquakes in eastern Nepal: evidence from the Patu and Bardibas strands of the Main Frontal Thrust. Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, 119, http://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB010970
  17. ↵
    Boore D. M. & Atkinson G. M. 2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24, 99–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    Devachandra M., Bhaskar K., Joshi C., Arun K. & Gahalaut V. K. 2014. Global positioning system (GPS) measurements of crustal deformation across the frontal Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis and seismic hazard assessment. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104, 1518–1524.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    Feldl N. & Bilham R. 2006. Great Himalayan earthquakes and the Tibetan Plateau. Nature, 444, 165–170.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. 2008. Coulomb stress changes due to 2005 Kashmir earthquake and implications on future seismic hazard. Journal of Seismology, 12, 387–394, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-008-9092-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. 2011. M 6.9 September 18, 2011 Sikkim earthquake. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 2, 325–328.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. & Chander R. 1992. A rupture model for the great earthquake of 1897, northeast India. Tectonophysics, 204, 163–174.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. & Chander R. 1997a. Evidence for an earthquake cycle in the NW outer Himalaya near 78°E longitude from precision levelling operations. Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 225–228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. & Chander R. 1997b. On interseismic changes and strain accumulation for great thrust earthquakes in the Nepal Himalaya. Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 1011–1014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. & Chander R. 1999. Geodetic evidence for accumulation of earthquake generating strains in the NW Himalaya near 75.5E longitude. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89, 837–843.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. & Kalpna 2001. Himalayan mid crustal ramp. Current Science, 81, 1641–1646.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Gahalaut V. K. & Kundu B. 2011. Possible influence of subducting ridges on the Himalayan arc and on the ruptures of great and major Himalayan earthquakes. Gondwana Research, 21, 1080–1088, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2011.07.021
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    Goldfinger C., Ikeda Y., Yeats R. S. & Ren J. 2013. Superquakes and supercycles. Seismological Research Letters, 84, 1–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. Gutenberg B. & Richter C. F. 1954. Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
  30. ↵
    Jackson M. & Bilham R. 1994. Constraints on Himalayan deformation inferred from vertical velocity fields in Nepal and Tibet. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 13897–13912.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    Jayangondaperumal R., Wesnousky S. G. & Choudhuri B. K. 2011. Near-surface expression of early to late Holocene displacement along the northeastern Himalayan Frontal Thrust at Marbang Korong creek, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101, 3060–3064, http://doi.org/10.1785/0120110051
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Jayangondaperumal R., Mugnier J. L. & Dubey A. K. 2013. Earthquake slip estimation from the scarp geometry of Himalayan Frontal Thrust, western Himalaya: implications for seismic hazard assessment. International Journal of Earth Sciences (Geologische Rundschau), 102, 1937–1955.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    Jouanne F., Mugnier M. et al. 1999. Oblique convergence in the Himalaya of western Nepal deduced from preliminary results. Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 1933–1936.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    Jouanne F., Awan A. et al. 2011. Postseismic deformation in Pakistan after the 8 October 2005 earthquake: evidence of afterslip along a flat north of the Balakot-Bagh thrust. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, B07401, http://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007903
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    Kaneda H., Nakata T. et al. 2008. Surface rupture of the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake, and its active tectonic implications. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98, 521–557, http://doi.org/10.1785/0120070073
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Kumar S., Wesnousky S. G., Rockwell T. K., Ragona D., Thakur V. C. & Seitz G. G. 2001. Earthquake recurrence and rupture dynamics of Himalayan Frontal Thrust, India. Science, 294, 2328–2331.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    Kumar S., Wesnousky S. G., Rockwell T. K., Briggs R. W., Thakur C. & Jayangondaperumal R. 2006. Paleoseismic evidence of great surface rupture earthquakes along the Indian Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, B03304, http://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003309
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    Kumar S., Wesnousky S. G., Jayangondaperumal R., Nakata T., Kumahara Y. & Singh V. 2010. Paleoseismological evidence of surface faulting along the northeastern Himalayan front, India: timing, size, and spatial extent of great earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, B12422, http://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006789
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    Kundu B. & Yadav R. K., Bali B. S., Chowdhury S. & Gahalaut V. K. 2014. Oblique convergence and slip partitioning in the NW Himalaya: implications from GPS measurements. Tectonics, 33, 2013–1024, http://doi.org/10.1002/2014TC003633
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    Lavé J., Yule D., Sapkota S., Basant K., Madden C., Attal M. & Pandey R. 2005. Evidence for a Great Medieval Earthquake ∼1100 A.D.) in the Central Himalayas, Nepal. Science, 307, 1302–1305.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Madden C., Trench D. & Meigs A. 2010. Late Quaternary shortening and earthquake chronology of an active fault in the Kashmir Basin, Northwest Himalaya. Seismological Research Letters, 81, 346.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    Madden C., Ahmad S. & Meigs A. 2011. Geomorphic and paleoseismic evidence for late quaternary deformation in the southwest Kashmir Valley, India: out-of-sequence thrusting, or deformation above a structural ramp? American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2011, Abstracts, T54B-07.
  43. ↵
    McCaffrey R. 2008. Global frequency of magnitude 9 earthquakes. Geology, 36, 263–266, http://doi.org/10.1130/G24402A.1
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    Meigs A., Madden C. et al. 2010. Distributed deformation, distributed earthquakes in the Northwest Himalaya. 25th Himalaya-Karakoram-Tibet Workshop, San Francisco, CA, June 2010, US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1099, 129–130.
  45. ↵
    Middlemiss C. S. 1910. The Kangra earthquake of 4 April 1905. Memoir of the Geological Survey of India, 38, 405.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    Molnar P. 1990. A review of the seismicity and the rates of active underthrusting and deformation at the Himalaya. Journal of Himalayan Geology, 1, 131–154.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    Molnar P. & Deng Q. 1984. Faulting associated with large earthquakes and the average rate of deformation in central and eastern Asia. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89, 6203–6227.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    Mugnier J.-L., Huyghe P., Leturmy P. & Jouanne F. 2004. Episodicity and rates of thrust-sheet motion in the Himalayas (western Nepal). In: McClay K. R. (ed.) Thrust Tectonics and Hydrocarbon Systems. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoirs, 82, 91–114.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    Mugnier J.-L., Gajurel A., Huyghe P., Jayangondaperumal R., Jouanne F. & Upreti B. 2013. Structural interpretation of the great earthquakes of the last millennium in the central Himalaya. Earth-Science Reviews, 127, 30–47.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    Mukherjee S., Koyi H. A. & Talbot C. 2012. Implications of channel flow analogue models in extrusion of the Higher Himalayan Shear Zone with special reference to the out-of-sequence thrusting. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 101, 253–272.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. Murotani S., Miyake H. & Koketsu K. 2008. Scaling of characterized slip models for plate-boundary earthquakes. Earth Planets and Space, 60, 987–991.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    Murotani S., Satake K. & Fujii Y. 2013. Scaling relations of seismic moment, rupture area, average slip, and asperity size for M∼9 subduction-zone earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 5070–5074, http://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50976
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    Ni J. & Barazangi M. 1984. Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone: geometry of the underthrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89, 1147–1163.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  54. Pacheco J. & Sykes L. R. 1992. Seismic moment catalog of large shallow earthquakes, 1900 to 1989. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 82, 1306–1349.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    Pandey M. R. & Molnar P. 1988. The distribution of intensity of the Bihar–Nepal earthquake of 15 January 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone. Journal of the Geological Society of Nepal, 5, 22–44.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    Pandey M. R., Tandukar R. P., Avouac J. P., Lavé J. & Massot J. P. 1995. Interseismic strain accumulation on the Himalayan crustal ramp (Nepal). Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 751–754.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  57. ↵
    Pandey M. R., Tandukar R. P., Avouac J. P., Vergne J. & Heritier Th. 1999. Seismotectonics of the Nepal Himalaya from a local seismic network. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 17, 703–712.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    Rajendran C. P. & Rajendran K. 2005. The status of central seismic gap: a perspective based on the spatial and temporal aspects of the large Himalayan earthquakes. Tectonophysics, 395, 19–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  59. Richter C. F. 1958. Elementary Seismology. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
  60. ↵
    Robert X., van der Beek P., Braun J., Perry C. & Mugnier J.-L. 2011. Control of detachment geometry on lateral variations in exhumation rates in the Himalaya: insights from low-temperature thermochronology and numerical modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, B05202, http://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007893
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    Robinson D. P., Das S. & Watts A. B. 2006. Earthquake rupture stalled by a subducting fracture zone. Science, 321, 1203–1205.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  62. ↵
    Sapkota S. N., Bollinger L., Klinger Y., Tapponnier P., Gaudemer Y. & Tiwari D. 2013. Primary surface ruptures of the great Himalayan earthquakes in 1934 and 1255. Nature Geoscience, 6, 71–76.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    Schiffman C., Bali B. S., Szeliga W. & Bilham R. 2013. Seismic slip deficit in the Kashmir Himalaya from GPS observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 5642–5645, http://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL057700
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    Seeber L. & Armbruster J. 1981. Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan Arc and long-term forecasting. In: Simpson D. W. & Richards P. G. (eds) Earthquake Prediction – an International Review. American Geophysical Union, Maurice Ewing Series, 4, 259–277.
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    Seeber L., Armbruster J. G. & Quittmeyer R. C. 1981. Seismicity and continental subduction in the Himalayan arc. In: Gupta H. K. & Delany F. M. (eds) Zagros, Hindukush, Himalaya, Geodynamic Evolution. Geodynamic Series, American Geophysical Union, Maurice Ewing Series, 3, 215–242.
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    Shah A. A. 2013. Earthquake geology of Kashmir Basin and its implications for future large earthquakes. International Journal of Earth Sciences (Geologische Rundschau), 102, 1957–1966.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. ↵
    Srivastava H. N., Bansal B. K. & Verma M. 2013. Largest earthquake in Himalaya: an appraisal. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 82, 15–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    Thakur V. C. 2006. Reassessment of earthquake hazard in the Himalaya and implications from the 2004 Sumatra Andaman earthquake. Current Science, 90, 1070–1072.
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    Thakur V. C. 2013. Active tectonics of Himalayan Frontal Fault system. International Journal of Earth Sciences (Geologische Rundschau), 102, 1791–1810.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. ↵
    Thakur V. C., Jayangondaperumal R. & Malik M. A. 2010. Redefining Medlicott-Wadia's main boundary fault from Jhelum to Yamuna: an active fault strand of the main boundary thrust in northwest Himalaya. Tectonophysics, 489, 29–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    Uyeda S. & Kanamori H. 1979. Back-arc opening and the mode of subduction. Journal of Geophysical Research, 84, 1049–1061.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  72. ↵
    Vassallo R., Mugnier J. L., Jomard H., Malik M., Jouanne F., Buoncristiani J. F. & Jayangondaperumal R. 2013. Northwestern Himalayan active front: what paleoseismology tells us about very large thrusts. Paper presented at the 4th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archeoseismology (PATA), Aachen, Germany, 9–14 October 2013.
  73. ↵
    Wallace K., Bilham R., Blume F., Gaur V. K. & Gahalaut V. K. 2005. Surface deformation in the region of the 1905 Kangra Mw=7.8 earthquake in the period 1846–2001. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L15307, http://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022906
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    Wang K. & Bilek S. L. 2011. Do subducting seamounts generate or stop large earthquakes? Geology, 39, 819–822, http://doi.org/10.1130/G31856.1
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    Wells D. L. & Coppersmith K. J. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 974–1002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    Yin A. 2006. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland sedimentation. Earth-Science Reviews, 76, 1–131.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    Yule D., Dawson S., Lave J., Sapkota S. & Tiwari D. 2006. Possible evidence for surface rupture of the Main Frontal Thrust during the great 1505 Himalayan earthquake, far-western Nepal. EOS, Transactions of the AGU, Fall Meeting Supplement, 87, Abstract S33C-05.
Back to top
Alerts
Citation tools
Permissions
View PDF
Email to
Print
Download PPT

Related Articles

Similar Articles

Cited By...