The September 2017 M=8.1 Chiapas and M=7.1 Puebla, Mexico, earthquakes: Chain reaction or coincidence?
Abstract
The M=8.1 and M=7.1 events struck 12 days and 600 km apart, both with an independent probability of occurrence of 0.5% per year, based on the GEAR model [Bird et al., 2015]. Are they related? First, we calculated the static stress imparted by the M=8.1 shock to the fault that ruptured in the M=7.1, and find a tiny push that would favor rupture. But the stress increase (0.2 kPa) is less than the fault would experience from the tidal stresses, and so it should be inconsequential. We next used the México Servicio Sismológico Nacional (UNAM) online catalog to look at the quakes in the month before the M=8.1 and in the 13 days since. We calculate the completeness to be M≥4.0. There are virtually no remote aftershocks from the Chiapas rupture that extend within 250 km of the M=7.1 shock during the first week after the M=8.1. So, if anything, the M=8.1 turned off for a week or more the region that ruptured in the M=7.1. Events started turning on about 2-3 days before the M=7.1, but none of those struck within 40 km of the future M=7.1 mainshock. The seismic surface waves unleashed by great earthquakes envelop the globe in just 160 minutes, and yet triggering of remote large aftershocks during these 2-3 hours is either very rare [Pollitz et al., Nature 2012] or in dispute [Fan & Shearer, 2016 vs. Yue et al., 2017]. So, the waves must trigger tiny shocks that cascade into larger shocks after some delay. Or, perhaps the stresses conveyed by the waves pump pockets of fluids that slowly diffuse into nearby fault zones, lubricating them to the point of failure [Parsons at al., 2017]. In the cases where great earthquakes are indisputably seen to trigger aftershocks at great distances or even globally, they to do so within several days, or a week at most. Since Puebla struck 12 days later, this seems to us too long a period to be explained by dynamic triggering. Even though neither quake on their own is rare, what's the chance of independent M=8.1 and M=7.1 events just 12 days and 600 km apart? We calculate that to be 1 chance in 30,000, which at first seems remote. But there's another coincidence in our midst: What's the chance that the M=7.1 Puebla shock would strike within 2 hours of the annual Mexico City earthquake drill? It's 1 chance in a 900,000. So, extreme coincidences do indeed occur in our lives, we might find that it's the best explanation we've got for this pair.
- Publication:
-
AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts
- Pub Date:
- December 2017
- Bibcode:
- 2017AGUFM.S32D..04T
- Keywords:
-
- 7223 Earthquake interaction;
- forecasting;
- and prediction;
- SEISMOLOGY