This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Asian Earth Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jseaes

5.9 Mw, 18th June 2010 earthquake and fault segment linkage at Andaman A study based on macroseismic survey, GPS geodesy and Coulomb stress changes
S.K. Som a,, Prasun Jana b, S.R. Mohapatra a, S.K. Nayak a, Ashim Kumar Saha c
a

Earthquake Geology Division, Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region, DK6, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700 095, India Earthquake Geology Division, Geological Survey of India, North Eastern Region, Rynjah, Shillong 793 006, India c SU: Maharashtra, Geological Survey of India, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006, India
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
18th June, 2010 5.9 Mw earthquake at North Andaman triggered along NWSE pre-existing fault with reverse fault mechanism. Macroseismic survey and GPS geodesy reveal maximum damages following NESW trend due to normal fault mechanism. Coulomb stress modeling for post- and inter-seismic earthquakes after the 2004 mega-earthquake show different stages of fault segment linkage at North Andaman. The present earthquake has been explained as co-shock due to asiesmic soft linkage of fault propagation. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 27 July 2012 Received in revised form 24 January 2013 Accepted 29 January 2013 Available online 15 February 2013 Keywords: Andaman Earthquake Coulomb stress Fault linkage

1. Introduction A moderate earthquake of 5.9 Mw struck the Andaman Islands on 18th June, 2010 at 23 h 9 min 34.26 s (GMT). The tremor occurred very close to the eastern coast of North Andaman at 13.21N latitude and 93.12E longitude with damages to many government and private buildings. Due to proximity of the subduction interface, moderate magnitude felt earthquakes are common at Andaman. Epicenters of most of these earthquakes were in deep sea with very little damaging effects. The present earthquake was signicant due to its proximity to land surface with imprints of directional damage pattern, offsetting the causative fault for earthquake. The observed damage intensity and coseismic displacement patterns were intriguing. Deciding if the ground effects were due to surface faulting, to activation of subsurface faults or to simple shaking is not a trivial matter since it has enormous impact on seismic hazard assessment (Vittori et al., 2000). To evaluate the impact of this earthquake, the study was conducted with the following objectives: To assess the macro-seismic intensity variation for the entire Andaman Islands and to observe the general affects of the earthquake in various intensity zones. To assess ground deformation by GPS technique.
Corresponding author. Present address: Geological Survey of India, NER, SU: Sikkim, Gangtok 737 102, India. Tel.: +91 9433339052 E-mail addresses: sksom@rediffmail.com, Sandip.som@gsi.gov.in (S.K. Som).
1367-9120/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2013.01.024

To assess Coulomb stress failure criteria for the nearby earthquakes, its relation with present earthquake in terms of fault segment linkage. 2. Seismotectonics of Andaman The Andaman arctrench system has been described as result of active subduction from Cretaceous to present day of the Indian oceanic lithosphere below the Eurasian plate (Curray and Moore, 1974). The AndamanNicobar ridge and the outer arc ridge, off Sumatra and Java, constitute accretionary subduction complex of Bengal fan and ocean crust over the overriding Burma sliver-plate (Curray, 2005; Curray et al., 1979). The 2200 km long subduction zone of SundaAndaman trench occurs between IndiaAustralia plates and Burma/SE Asia plates. The Burma sliver plate comprises several NS trending prominent structural features. The Andaman Nicobar ridge is a part of the outer arc in the west followed towards east by fore-arc basin, active volcanic inner-arc and back-arc basin with spreading ridge in the Andaman sea (Dasgupta and Mukhopadhyay, 1993; Dasgupta et al., 2003; Raju et al., 2004). Several prominent faults trending NS and NESW, such as Eastern Margin Fault, Diligent Fault and West Andaman Fault from west to east traverses the entire system, some of which are active (Curray, 2005). Due to active subduction at SumatraAndaman trench, seismicity is ubiquitous for this region. Constraining geometry of the BurmeseAndaman subducting lithosphere from seismicity data of 90 years (18971993), Dasgupta et al. (2003) has pointed

Author's personal copy

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

27

reected by upward movement of Andaman Islands with respect to the Indian plate and the resulting earthquakes were mainly due to reverse and strike-slip fault mechanisms. The transition from post-seismic to inter-seismic period leads to extension parallel to the subduction interface with proportional shortening perpendicular to it resulting downward movement of the Andaman Islands with respect to the Indian plate along with earthquakes dominated by normal fault mechanism. Due to subduction parallel shortening and extension with associated subduction perpendicular extension and shortening, the transverse fault systems were also activated and earthquakes generated in this region were not only associated with the subduction interface but also due to activity of the transverse fault systems present in the area. Fig. 1 shows the focal plane solutions of earthquakes in the region from January, 2005 to June, 2010 and source parameters of the events are summarized in Table 1. 3. Macroseismic survey Macroseismic survey was carried out following the MSK64 guide lines. Data on effects of earthquake on humans, objects and nature of damages to buildings were ascertained from almost all approachable locations of Andaman Islands. A brief account on human perceptions and damage patterns at Andaman are as follows. 3.1. Intensity assessment At North Andaman effect of earthquake was maximum. Most of the people felt the shaking for long duration (up to 20 s) with reported falling of household materials from shelves, overturning of heavy appliances (TV, etc.), violent swinging of doors, windows, etc. along with minor noise. Some of the RCC buildings developed serious failure of RCC column (Fig. 2), cracks in walls, fall of cement plaster, and compression in expansion joints. Buildings made up of wooden structure had suffered minimum damage. Spot MSK intensity varies between V to VIII. As we move from North Andaman to Middle Andaman, the felt intensity decreases drastically. Excluding few locations (Kaushalyanagar and Kadamtala), at most of the places the earthquake was weakly felt, mostly inside the house and at outdoors by few. Slight rattling was observed from utensils, windows and doors. No damage to buildings of any type was observed. Spot MSK intensity for Middle Andaman varies between III to V. At South Andaman, this earthquake was scarcely to weakly felt, only in indoors by few people. No damage reported. In general, South Andaman experienced very little effect of this earthquake and the assigned MSK intensity varies between II to III. 3.2. Isoseismal map The qualitative approach of MSK64 intensity needs to be quantied before drawing the equal intensity map because contouring depends on mathematical formulation. Otherwise, simple hand drawing of MSK64 values arbitrarily introduces workers biasness. Dengler and Dewey (1998) adopted numerical approach in case of Northridge, California earthquake using MMI scale and this procedure is presently followed by USGS for developing Community Intensity Map (CIM) after every earthquake. Later Ocola (2005) dened Macroseismic Intensity Scale, IMS, as the logarithm of the quantity of seismic energy that ows through an unit area normal to the direction of wave propagation in unit time. Calculation of IMS depends on the knowledge of mechanical properties of the media and the frequency of the seismic waves at the observation site, which in most of the cases are not available in practical sense. Recently Som et al. (2008) has developed methodology for Weighted

Fig. 1. Geodynamic setting in and around Andaman Islands with focal plane solution (www.globalcmt.org) of earthquakes occurred in between January, 2005 and 30th June, 2010. Red colored focal plane solution shows the location of present earthquake. Tectonic elements are after (Dasgupta et al., 2003) and Curray (2005). EMF: Eastern Margin Fault, DF: Deligent Fault, WAF: West Margin Fault. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

out the contorted nature of the Benioff zone in this region with variations in Benioff zone dip, depth of penetration of the subducting Indian lithosphere and variations in arctrench gap. They have also identied a number of transverse faults with compressional and tensional events giving rise to slab-pull extensional tectonics. The southern Sumatra region had generated several large earthquakes, but the overall seismicity of the Andaman and Nicobar segments was comparatively low (Rajendran et al., 2007). The signicant historical earthquakes in this region were in 1881 of Mw 7.9 and 1941 of Mw 7.7 (Bilham et al., 2005). Recent earthquake of December 26, 2004 at SumatraAndaman region of moment magnitude 9.3 had ruptured $1500 km (Banerjee et al., 2007) of curved convergent boundary extending from northwestern Sumatra to North Andaman (Ghosh and Mishra, 2008). Several co-seismic slip models were proposed for Andaman region after the earthquake (Ammon et al., 2005; Banerjee et al., 2005; Chlieh et al., 2007; Lay et al., 2005; Ray and Acharyya, 2007; Som et al., 2009; Subarya et al., 2006; Vigny et al., 2005). The distribution of post-seismic slip beneath the Andaman Islands suggests deep slip in the stable frictional regime accelerated to catch up to the coseismic rupture (Paul et al., 2007). Oblique convergence of Indian plate with Burma plate in the Andaman region implies interplay between simple and pure shear at subduction interface. Som et al. (2011) has shown differential spatial variation of strain components during post-seismic and inter-seismic period after the 2004 mega-earthquake. The postseismic period was characterized by shortening parallel to the subduction interface coupled with dextral shear strain. These were

Author's personal copy

28

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

Table 1 Source parameters of earthquakes at Andaman region from January, 2005 to June, 2010. Source: www.globalcmt.org S. no. Date (Y/M/D) MW Location Lat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 05/01/01 05/01/03 05/01/04 05/01/04 05/01/05 05/01/06 05/01/06 05/01/06 05/01/08 05/01/09 05/01/11 05/01/13 05/01/17 05/01/18 05/01/19 05/01/23 05/01/23 05/01/27 05/01/27 05/01/29 05/01/30 05/01/30 05/02/06 05/02/20 05/02/20 05/02/22 05/03/13 05/03/22 05/03/23 05/04/10 05/04/17 05/07/02 05/07/04 05/07/13 05/08/29 05/10/11 06/01/21 06/02/03 06/02/05 06/03/12 06/05/25 06/12/22 07/03/01 07/04/10 08/01/14 08/06/27 08/06/27 08/06/27 08/06/28 08/06/28 08/06/28 08/06/28 08/06/29 08/06/29 08/07/26 08/08/05 08/08/10 08/08/10 08/08/10 08/08/10 08/09/07 08/09/18 08/10/03 08/11/16 09/01/28 09/03/11 09/08/10 09/08/13 09/08/14 09/11/02 09/11/26 09/12/01 10/03/30 4.9 5.1 5.9 5.6 4.9 5.2 5.0 5.4 4.8 5.4 4.9 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.4 4.8 5.4 5.5 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.1 5.3 5.6 6.1 4.8 5.2 4.9 6.2 5.0 5.5 5.8 6.6 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.9 6.1 5.4 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.2 6.2 5.3 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.1 5.1 7.5 5.8 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.3 6.6 11.14 10.47 10.65 10.48 13.02 10.85 13.71 11.01 10.41 10.35 11.95 11.90 14.48 10.57 13.08 13.64 13.64 13.28 10.72 13.18 13.80 13.20 13.93 11.51 10.30 10.81 11.69 13.08 12.40 10.75 10.20 13.86 10.33 10.42 11.04 10.89 13.10 11.83 11.03 13.94 10.18 10.70 10.42 13.13 10.36 10.92 11.09 10.80 10.95 10.87 10.90 11.0 11.07 10.81 11.61 13.88 10.96 11.05 11.12 11.04 13.09 10.97 10.83 10.88 13.62 10.85 14.16 14.04 14.08 13.97 13.58 13.62 13.58 Long. 91.67 92.32 92.03 91.56 92.62 93.74 93.07 91.99 92.03 92.37 92.22 92.28 93.13 91.93 92.27 92.84 92.91 92.87 91.72 93.07 93.02 92.97 93.55 92.07 93.84 91.72 93.12 92.57 92.11 92.09 93.89 93.56 93.80 92.87 91.92 92.02 93.23 92.17 91.75 93.60 91.62 92.11 93.23 92.59 92.70 91.82 91.95 91.84 92.06 91.96 91.80 92.10 91.87 91.96 91.64 93.56 91.83 91.80 91.84 91.94 92.49 91.83 91.80 91.82 92.75 91.95 92.94 92.76 93.02 93.13 92.80 92.81 92.76 Depth (km) 21.6 16.0 24.0 12.0 19.4 124.2 15.1 13.0 12.0 15.3 19.6 23.2 30.6 12.0 30.9 26.6 14.4 13.8 37.3 20.6 14.1 23.1 42.0 30.0 12.0 12.0 112.8 32.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 45.0 12.0 52.0 21.0 24.0 39.0 12.0 15.8 36.7 12.0 22.0 89.2 18.3 43.9 17.1 12.1 17.3 13.7 17.2 12.0 13.2 14.6 12.0 12.0 44.7 15.8 13.5 12.0 12.0 34.3 27.0 12.0 12.0 18.5 15.0 22.0 33.0 19.7 16.7 29.0 27.4 30.5 Location error Lat. 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Long. 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Depth (km) 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.5 2.8 0.0 1.9 2.3 1.6 3.0 1.6 0.7 1.6 1.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 8.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.8 0.0 0.7 3.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.8 1.3 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.3 Nodal plane 1 Strike 1 0 5 359 32 141 44 211 15 12 345 149 271 26 216 270 139 141 175 118 46 103 22 43 223 345 117 216 17 56 219 21 220 4 334 1 19 356 359 21 57 350 141 238 349 42 216 5 207 200 225 206 237 216 353 11 48 348 218 218 62 36 206 216 273 214 39 256 9 238 354 252 255 Dip 37 6 20 21 47 55 61 26 31 4 74 77 51 37 36 59 49 59 46 44 71 69 34 47 44 29 19 28 22 13 35 37 36 27 18 22 29 10 36 35 67 14 50 49 27 52 28 34 28 24 50 19 41 29 32 39 76 49 44 30 58 49 48 49 44 20 36 81 33 18 67 73 60 Slip 112 106 107 96 113 163 174 50 131 132 172 174 43 135 87 8 8 4 72 44 173 14 142 135 44 69 176 82 111 144 43 142 59 111 66 101 103 91 100 131 168 95 161 42 98 40 41 59 55 76 49 56 29 49 70 130 7 127 40 36 35 55 57 55 17 47 92 8 124 71 166 17 20 Nodal plane 2 Strike 208 164 168 172 244 241 137 348 150 149 77 240 31 155 33 4 235 233 20 353 138 8 145 167 347 188 211 27 174 181 346 143 3 160 179 169 184 175 192 154 151 164 243 360 161 159 344 149 348 5 352 351 350 351 196 143 140 217 339 341 172 170 342 350 16 350 220 348 227 39 258 347 355 Dip 56 84 70 69 48 76 85 70 67 87 83 84 58 65 54 83 84 87 47 61 84 77 70 59 61 63 89 62 69 82 67 68 60 65 74 68 62 80 55 65 79 76 75 60 63 60 72 61 67 67 55 75 71 68 60 61 83 53 64 73 61 51 52 52 78 76 54 82 63 73 77 74 73 Slip 74 88 84 88 67 37 29 108 68 87 16 13 133 62 92 149 138 149 108 125 19 158 62 53 125 101 71 94 82 79 118 59 110 79 97 86 83 90 83 65 23 89 41 130 86 134 112 109 107 96 128 101 128 110 102 62 166 56 126 115 143 124 121 123 132 104 89 171 70 96 24 162 148

Author's personal copy

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636 Table 1 (continued) S. no. Date (Y/M/D) MW Location Lat. 74 75 76 10/05/16 10/05/31 10/06/18 5.1 6.5 5.9 14.31 11.16 13.21 Long. 93.29 93.70 93.12 Depth (km) 30.0 127.9 20.1 Location error Lat. 0.02 0.00 0.01 Long. 0.02 0.00 0.01 Depth (km) 1.1 0.4 0.2 Nodal plane 1 Strike 198 148 116 Dip 28 39 38 Slip 123 158 59 Nodal plane 2 Strike 54 256 333 Dip 67 76 58 Slip 74 54 112

29

Fig. 2. Damage of RCC column with cracks along joints between beam, column and wall.

Intensity (WI) calculation based on Principal Component Analysis and communality, which gives good matches with MSK64 scale and is adopted in this study for preparation of isoseismal map. The isoseismal map was generated from WI by Krigging interpolation method. Fig. 3 shows the isoseismal map of Andaman area, where maximum and minimum isoseismal varies within 82. In general, all intensity contours show NESW trend with maximum at North Andaman area and lowers towards South Andaman. At North Andaman, 7.5 and above intensities closes roughly in a dumb-bell shape with maximum elongation towards NESW direction. Although, the SW lobe of dumb bell follows the observed data, we do not have any control points at sea part. So, the NE lobe of dumb bell shape may be an interpolation artifact. Ideally, the highest degree isoseismal is controlled by the geometry of the seismogenic structure, but due to local amplications, the highest intensity may represent outliers in the data distribution. The source is more correctly represented by considering intensity one or even two degrees lower than the observed (Gasperini et al. 1999). At North Andaman, maximum WI observed was 9.4 (Navinnagar). Hence, 7.5 contour gives a good approximation on orientation of causative fault responsible for damage in the area, which in this case was NESW oriented and marked by line AB in Fig. 3. 4. Ground deformation by GPS geodesy GPS geodesy is an integral component for understanding surface displacement due to tectonic motion and earthquakes. The concept of local displacement is extremely important to geoscientist and is closely connected with the concept of strain at a point (Ramsay and Huber, 1983). The December 26, 2004 SumatraAndaman tsunamigenic earthquake of moment magnitude 9.3 had damaged severally the Andaman and Nicobar group of islands. This had led the Geological Survey of India to formulate program for long term annual detection and quantication of post-earthquake ground deformation during crustal adjustment by campaign mode

Fig. 3. Isoseismal map of Andaman for 18th June, 2010 earthquake. AB represents the interpreted causative fault responsible for damages.

GPS geodesy. After the 18th June, 2010 earthquake, GPS data were collected over eight stations at Andaman islands viz. Chidiatapu (CDPT), Bedonabad (BDNB), Saitankhari (STKI), Padmanavapuram (PDNP), Karmatang (KRTG), Aerial Bay (ABAY), Radhanagar (RDNR) and Baratang Island (BARA) during August, 2010 and compared with data collected during September, 2008 and March, 2010.

4.1. Methodology on GPS solutions The daily site coordinates were estimated from RINEX le using GAMIT/GLOBK ver. 10.35 (Herring et al., 2009) software packages. From daily site coordinates to nal velocity determination were three step processes as follows. First we computed loosely constrained daily GAMIT solutions with the estimates of co-ordinates, satellite orbital parameters, zenith tropospheric delay, satellite and receiver clock errors and phase ambiguities for each site. In the second step the daily solutions were combined with daily solutions from global sites provided by MIT (http://mit.everest.edu) taking into account the value of chi-square as a criterion to estimate goodness of t of the model (Dong et al., 1998). In the nal step sequential Kalman

Author's personal copy

30

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

Fig. 4. Velocity at ITRF2005 reference frame between September, 2008 to March, 2010 (deep blue) and March, 2010 to August, 2010 (magenta) showing variations due to 18th June, 2010 earthquake. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

ltering was done to obtain the station co-ordinates and displacements by GLOBK/GLORG, constraining the ITRF2005 co-ordinates and velocities of global tracking sites comprising the reference network. We have included the offset parameters for sudden site motion due to earthquakes and monument change up to 2005 as provided with GAMIT/GLOBK software distribution.

4.2. Surface displacement At Andaman region, just after the mega-earthquake of December, 2004, the sites continued to move in the same direction of co-seismic displacement, i.e. towards WSW. For example, Gahalaut et al. (2006) have shown 4.1 cm displacement of Port Blair towards 259 from 12 days data in mid-January, 2005. The rst 2 years after
Table 2 GPS velocities at Andaman sites. Sites Lat. Long.

the main shock, the combined motion of Paul et al. (2007) shows SW to WSW azimuth of all their stations in and around Port Blair with magnitudes varying up to 20% and azimuths up to 36. Som et al. (2011) has shown the post-seismic deformation at Andaman region ceases about two and half years after the mega-earthquake and entered in inter-seismic period. Prior to the mega earthquake at December, 2004, GPS data was scarce for the Andaman region. Gahalaut et al. (2006) have shown movement of Port Blair at a rate of 44 mm/yr towards NW. Paul et al. (2001) have shown another site (CARI) near to Port Blair moves at a rate of 45.2 mm/yr towards NE. Although these two studies in ITRF, 2000 reference frame indicate different direction with nearly same magnitude, both were dominated by northern component, which were signicantly different from the co-seismic and post-seismic azimuthal directions. For the present study, data collected during September, 2008, March, 2010 and August, 2010 were compared. Fig. 4 shows comparison of ITRF05 velocity between September, 08March, 10 and MarchAugust, 2010. Velocity for September, 2008 to March, 2010 shows nearly trench parallel movement for South Andaman sites (CDPT and BDNB). From Baratang Island (BARA) to Karmatang (KRTG) at Middle Andaman velocity vectors are parallel to trench. However, more interesting differences were observed for North Andaman sites at Aerial Bay (ABAY) and Radhanagar (RDNR). Both the stations show movement nearly parallel towards NE during 200708 period (Som et al., 2011). During 200810, RDNR moved more towards NE and ABAY more towards N. In comparison to September, 08March, 10 velocity, the MarchAugust, 2010 velocity shows signicant changes with very high velocity at ABAY towards SE (Table 2). During this period all other stations show azimuthal velocity rotations from parallel to perpendicular of the trench orientation as observed just after the mega-earthquake (Gahalaut et al., 2006). India reference frame velocity for 200810 (Fig. 5) has picked up the same disharmonious displacement pattern for ABAY station. All other sites show nearly parallel velocity towards SW. Indiareference frame velocity for MarchAugust, 2010 were signicantly different from earlier period with very high velocity at ABAY (Table 2). Signicantly, the ITRF05 and India reference frame velocities for MarchAugust, 2010 do not show much difference in azimuths and to some extent for magnitudes also, indicating all sites were affected by June, 2010 earthquake. The velocity vectors as shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of MarchAugust, 2010 were combination of co-seismic displacement and secular plate velocity, recalculated on yearly basis. We conceive the velocity of 200810 was representative of secular plate velocity as the Andaman region has entered in inter-seismic period by this time (Som et al., 2011). We have subtracted this velocity from the velocity observed between March and August, 2010. The difference thus nearly represents co-seismic displacement, as there was no perceptible earthquake

Velocity between September, 2008 to March,2010 (2 epochs) ITRF2005 reference frame (mm/yr) E N 29.02 2.64 68.46 2.27 23.35 2.41 22.14 2.68 29.01 2.66 19.47 2.47 5.18 1.84 9.88 2.34 14.85 1.53 India2005 reference frame (mm/yr) E 12.71 2.68 51.85 2.40 44.96 2.26 50.39 3.05 45.92 3.25 51.67 3.20 57.87 1.91 45.82 1.55 56.97 1.46 N 12.67 2.64 26.75 2.27 18.34 2.41 19.56 2.68 12.65 2.66 22.18 2.47 36.54 1.84 31.76 2.34 26.79 1.53

Velocity between March, 2010 to August, 2010 (2 epochs) ITRF2005 reference frame (mm/ yr) E 22.48 2.04 143.26 2.60 4.72 2.37 19.79 1.94 18.22 2.10 23.35 1.76 27.08 2.07 19.89 2.69 N 5.96 2.15 161.94 2.93 22.39 2.21 1.47 2.03 12.57 1.52 42.10 1.81 11.67 1.56 1.82 2.28 India2005 reference frame (mm/yr) E 23.99 2.04 141.75 2.63 6.28 2.40 21.35 1.97 19.84 2.13 24.98 1.77 28.76 2.11 21.54 2.73 N 2.45 2.15 165.47 2.95 18.85 2.23 2.07 2.05 9.02 1.55 45.63 1.82 8.10 1.60 5.43 2.32

RDNR ABAY KRTG PDNP KUNR BARA HVLK STKI BDNB CDPT

92.930 93.023 92.934 92.948 92.763 92.769 92.984 92.664 92.736 92.703

13.369 13.277 12.845 12.616 12.535 12.168 12.037 11.715 11.582 11.506

34.80 2.68 4.28 2.40 2.79 2.26 2.54 3.05 1.94 3.25 3.65 3.20 9.76 1.91 2.42 1.55 8.47 1.46

Author's personal copy

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

31

Fig. 5. Velocity at INDIA2005 reference frame between September, 2008 to March, 2010 (deep blue) and March, 2010 to August, 2010 (magenta) showing variations due to 18th June, 2010 earthquake. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 6. Co-seismic displacement vectors due to 18th June, 2010 earthquake.

other than June, 2010 event during this period. Co-seismic displacement of more than 100 mm towards SE was observed at North Andaman (ABAY) near to the fault inferred from macroseismic survey (Fig. 3). Other site at North Andaman (RDNR) moved 24 mm towards NW. Co-seismic displacement gradually decreases as one moves towards south from the inferred fault. Fig. 6 and Table 3 show the co-seismic horizontal displacement patterns and absolute values under ITRF05 and India reference frames respectively. 5. Earthquake stress transfer An earthquake can be modeled as a slip dislocation within a uniform elastic half-space. The conditions under which failure occurs are commonly explained by coulomb failure criterion in which failure occurs on a plane when coulomb stress exceeds a specic value. Static stress transfer in the adjacent fault due to the source fault has been evaluated by using the change in Coulomb failure criterion, dened as (Lin and Stein, 2004; Toda et al., 2005):

Dr f Ds s l 0 Dr n

where Drf is change in failure stress on receiver fault due to source fault, Dss and Drn are changes in shear stress and normal stress with l0 as effective coefcient of friction on the fault. For our calculations we have considered l0 as 0.4. After the mega-earthquake of 2004, post-seismic deformation at Andaman continued about two and half years with transtensional deformational environment, dominated by reverse and strike slip faults (Som et al., 2011). At North Andaman, some of the earthquakes (Table 4) preceding the present earthquake of 2010 followed a systematic pattern (Fig. 7) with initiation of strike slip

faulting on 27/01/05(1). This is followed by reverse faulting on 29/01/05(2) and 30/01/05(3). Earthquake-1 has apparently no effect of static stress transfer for earthquake-2, but the closely associated earthquake-3 denitely initiated due to static stress transfer of earthquake-2. Depth of these three earthquakes ranges between 14 km and 23 km. Inter-seismic period after the post-seismic period shows transpressional deformational environment dominated by normal faults (Som et al., 2011). 7.5 Mw earthquake of 10/08/09 (4) at 22 km depth was the most prominent earthquake during this period due to normal faulting which has strongly inuenced the failure stress distribution pattern in and around North Andaman. Strong failure stress developed at tip of ruptured fault of earthquake-4 triggered the 6.6 Mw earthquake of 30/03/10 (5) at 30.5 km depth. This is again due to normal faulting, strongly supports the strain pattern as described by Som et al. (2011). Faults propagate from east to west during post-seismic period as seen by earthquakes 2 and 3, whereas earthquakes 4 and 5 show fault propagation trend from north to south during inter-seismic period. It is noteworthy to mention that the 2004 SumatraAndaman mega earthquake was caused due to thrust faulting and the western trending, trench perpendicular thrust component was operative during the post-seismic period also (Gahalaut et al., 2006; Som et al., 2011). This has caused reverse faulting on earthquakes 2 and 3 as described above. However, during inter-seismic period trench parallel movement dominated at North Andaman favoring earthquake events due to normal faulting (Som et al., 2011). Earthquakes 4 and 5 as described above fulll the strain requirement during this period. These indicate that fault propagation in the area was primarily governed by prevailing dominant tectonic loading directivity. The area in between the subduction axis and fault propagation trend axis has enhanced Coulomb stress (Fig. 7) meeting the condition of failure, as increase of Coulomb stress less than 1 bar can trigger events while reduction of the same amount effectively suppress them (King et al., 1994).

Author's personal copy

32

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

Table 3 Co-seismic displacement due to 18th June, 2010 earthquake observed by GPS at different Andaman sites. Sites ITRF05 reference frame displacement (mm) East ABAY PDNP KRTG RDNR BARA BDNB CDPT 58.13 10.08 3.98 23.16 7.81 7.55 4.46 North 93.30 8.64 3.24 7.89 3.76 0.26 7.10 Absolute 109.93 13.28 5.13 24.47 8.66 7.56 8.38 INDIA2005 reference frame displacement (mm) East 76.30 8.15 14.22 5.01 10.44 10.76 13.86 North 77.49 7.15 12.56 7.92 12.02 16.00 8.62 Absolute 108.75 10.84 18.97 9.38 15.92 19.28 16.32

Table 4 Earthquake and fault parameters used for segment linkage in this study. S.No. Earthquake parameters Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 27-01-05 29-01-05 30-01-05 10-08-09 30-03-10 18-06-10 Lat. 13.28 13.18 13.20 14.16 13.58 13.21 Long. 92.87 93.07 92.97 92.94 92.76 93.12 Magnitude (Mw) 4.9 5.2 5.1 7.5 6.6 5.9 Fault parameters Length (km) 2.41 3 2.57 112.71 29.34 8.84 Width (km) 2.66 2.66 2.37 43.63 16.34 6.09 Strike () 141 118 103 39 355 333 Dip () 59 44 69 36 73 58 Nature of fault Normal Reverse Reverse Normal Normal Reverse

From the above regional failure stress condition we can observe the earthquake location of 18/06/10 (earthquake-6) falls in area with suppressed coulomb stress (Fig. 7), i.e. condition was not favorable for earthquake triggering. We will discuss in detail on this issue on the next section. However, the interpreted fault of North Andaman along which maximum damage was observed can be covered reasonably with enhanced regional failure stress condition. The location of interpreted fault lies in between the earthquakes 2 and 3. Fig. 8 shows the vertical prole of coulomb stress in between the area due to earthquakes 2 and 3. This clearly

indicates the failure condition persists for the area up to the hypocentral depth of the two earthquakes.

6. Discussion The 18th June, 2010 earthquake of 5.9 Mw occurred very near to the North Andaman land surface. Focal plane solution gives reverse faulting with one of the nodal plane dipping north-easterly and strikes parallel to NWSE oriented nearby fault, indicating its

Fig. 7. Combined Coulomb stress distribution pattern due to some of the signicant earthquakes in and around North Andaman. Dotted line marks the fault propagation trend axis. Location of interpreted fault is marked in between 29/01/05 and 30/01/05 earthquakes.

Author's personal copy

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

33

Fig. 9. Modeled horizontal displacement vectors due to sole effect of observed 18th June, 2010 earthquake. Note the azimuth of all displacement vectors towards NE in the footwall side of the fault.

Fig. 8. Vertical prole of Coulomb stress in between the earthquakes of 29/01/05 and 30/01/05. Section line AB is marked in Fig. 7.

activation. Macroseismic survey after the earthquake shows a linear zone of NESW trend having maximum damage, demarcating the probable activated sub-surface fault. Co-seismic displacements measured by GPS geodesy show the North Andaman sites RDNR and ABAY, which were located on both sides of the NESW trending inferred fault moved in opposite azimuthal directions with absolute co-seismic displacement ratio of $1:4.5. The opposite azimuthal movement directions with high displacement ratio indicate normal faulting mechanism due to which the southern hanging wall side with ABAY GPS station have displaced in downdip direction towards south. The results of macroseismic survey and co-seismic displacement pattern were intriguing in the sense that the sole effect of 18/06/10 earthquake with reverse fault mechanism having strike direction of NWSE cannot give rise to this type of damage and co-seismic displacements. Instead, the macroseismic contours should have ellipticity with long axis parallel to the ruptured strike direction with co-seismic displacement towards NE (Fig. 9) including both of the North Andaman GPS sites (ABAY and RDNR). These indicate that whatever ground truth observed were due to some sub-surface primary processes and the observed earthquake itself was secondary manifestation of this subsurface primary process. Faults grow through the accumulation of slip often associated with earthquakes (Walsh and Watterson, 1987). Segment linkage has been proposed to be an important mechanism for fault growth (Cartwright et al., 1995; Peacock and Sanderson, 1991; Segall and Pollard, 1980; Trudgill and Cartwright, 1994; Wilkins and Gross, 2002). Linked fault segments primarily grow through three stages (Kim and Sanderson, 2005). At stage-1, isolated faults propagate to each other with an approach to interact. In stage-2, the fault

segments evolve without physical connections although they approach to each other (soft-linkage) and ultimately in stage-3 the segments interact with each other (hard-linkage). Hence development of fault length and displacement is partially independent (Barnett et al., 1987). For some faults linkage occurs early and much of their displacement history was one of building displacement without lateral propagation (Morley, 1999). For other faults much of their displacement history was characterized by displacement on independent segments and nal linkage of the fault zone occurs late in the fault history (Schlische and Anders, 1996). From earlier section we have seen that some of the earthquakes triggered in post and inter-seismic periods at North Andaman region follow systematic pattern and can be explained by static stress changes with fault linkage model. The existing tectonic map around North Andaman does not show any fault trace following the fault propagation axis. This indicates the initiation of fault propagation and linkage of stage-1 in which the isolated ruptures due to individual earthquakes (1, 2, 3, 4) have created the coulomb stress failure criteria for stage-2 and stage-3 at the western side of North Andaman. Due to close proximity of earthquakes 2 and 3, the failure stress criteria already exists (Fig. 7) for further propagation of failure surfaces towards each other, leading to stage-2 of fault linkage. We do not extend this up to stage-3 because the earthquake was recorded in the adjacent preexisting fault, thus indicating hard linkage has not been established in between earthquakes 2 and 3. The soft linkage thus produced leads to aseismic displacement as seen in most of the subduction zones where more than half of their fault slip aseismically (Hirose and Obara, 2005; Obara, 2002; Wallace and Beavan, 2006). These are known as silent earthquakes. Co-seismic displacement from GPS shows the southern block (ABAY station) moved about 118 mm south-easterly with a downfall of 36 mm with reference to the northern block (RDNR station). Assuming the movement was solely restricted to a normal fault of rake 90, dip slip will be around 113 mm. This gives rise to a shallow dipping (about 17) normal fault. Liu and Rice (2007) noted occurrences of spontaneous aseismic transients in shallow dipping subduction zones (Cascadia, SW Japan, south Mexico and Hikurangi in New Zealand) but not in steep dipping subduction

Author's personal copy

34

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

Fig. 10. Coulomb stress condition due to aseismic movement along interpreted fault (A). Note the position of ruptured fault (C) within high failure stress condition. (B) The location of associated active fault.

Fig. 11. Modeled horizontal displacement vector due to combined effect of aseismic and seismic slip due to 18th June, 2010 earthquake.

zones (NE Japan) under the condition of near lithostatic pore pressure, certain effective normal stress variation with depth and stress perturbations due to nearby earthquakes. The depth of this silent earthquake is difcult to constrain only on the basis of GPS data (Segall et al., 2006). The nearby earthquakes 2 and 3 have depth ranges from 20.6 km to 23.1 km and the present earthquake of 18/06/10 occurred at a depth of 20.1 km. These indicate the earthquakes occurring in this part lie on a nearly horizontal surface at a

depth of 2023 km. Constraining the depth of observed silent earthquake at 20 km with measured surface projected length of $14 km (from macroseismic survey) gives a moment magnitude of 6.1, which matches fairly well with the observed earthquake of 5.9 Mw in the associated fault. Fig. 10 shows the failure stress condition developed at tip of this aseismic fault which immediately reactivated the preexisting fault to rupture, giving rise 5.9 Mw earthquake. Fig. 11 shows the modeled horizontal displacement vectors, azimuth of which fairly matches with observed coseismic displacements by GPS. Displacement vectors of normal fault hanging wall side gradually rotate from SE to NE near the reverse fault. These indicates that the reverse focal plane solution of 18/06/10 earthquake was primarily a manifestation of down dip movement of foot wall of the reverse fault which in turn was hanging wall of the associated normal fault. The triggered earthquake thus properly be thought of as co-shocks (Segall et al., 2006) of the associated asiesmic silent earthquake. The enhanced failure stress condition at southern tip of ruptured normal fault due to earthquake-5 is likely to trigger another earthquake for southern lateral propagation of already ruptured fault or it may rupture another individual normal fault segment following the fault propagation trend axis in enhanced stress region due to inter-seismic transpressional strain activities. Static stress change calculations are valuable tools for evaluating many traits of earthquake occurrences, but difcult to explain all earthquakes (Harris, 2000). The other factors for earthquake triggering include dynamic stress, pore pressure changes, inhomogeneous background stress eld, asiesmic deep slip, viscoelastic relaxation, etc. (Brodsky and Prejean, 2005; Freed and Lin, 1998, 2001; Gomberg et al., 2001; Kilb et al., 1997; Vigny et al., 2005). From available macroseismic and GPS data, this paper tried to explain fault propagation from seismic record and coulomb failure stress criteria and highlighted future seismic hazard of the region. More studies are required to explain all earthquakes triggered and its relation with fault dynamics.

Author's personal copy

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636

35

7. Conclusion (a) Focal plane solution of 5.9 Mw, 18th June, 2010 Andaman earthquake indicate activation of NWSE trending existing dislocation plane by reverse fault mechanism. However, macroseismic intensity pattern and co-seismic displacements measured by GPS geodesy indicates activation of NESW trending sub-surface fault by normal fault mechanism. (b) Investigation on this contrasting ground truth with instrumental seismological record reveals segment linkage of fault growth. Elevated coulomb stress at the tips of existing faults favored instantaneous aseismic normal fault movement inbetween along NESW direction due to soft linkage at stage-2 of fault growth mechanism. This aseismic slip in turn enhances coulomb stress over the existing fault of NWSE orientation promoting seismic failure. Due to perpendicular orientation of north-easterly dipping seismic fault (NWSE) with the south-easterly dipping aseismic fault (NESW), the hanging wall of aseismic fault becomes foot wall of the seismic fault. Aseismic normal fault movement on the hanging wall thus gives rise to reverse fault mechanism in focal plane solution following the seismic fault. This indicates that the observed seismic record was a secondary manifestation of the associated primary aseismic process.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region for permitting to publish the work. They are also grateful to Andaman authorities and local people for extending their help during eld data collection.

References
Ammon, C. et al., 2005. Rupture process of the 2004 SumatraAndaman earthquake. Science 308, 11331139. Banerjee, P., Pollitz, F., Nagarajan, B., Burgmann, R., 2007. Coseismic slip distributions of the 26 December 2004 SumatraAndaman and 28 March 2005 Nias Earthquakes from GPS static offsets. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97 (1A), S86102. Banerjee, P., Pollitz, F.F., Burgmann, R., 2005. The size and duration of the Sumatra Andaman earthquake from far-eld static offsets. Science 308 (5729), 1769 1772. Barnett, J.A.M., Mortimer, J., Rippon, J.H., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1987. Displacement geometry in the volume containing a single normal fault. AAPG Bulletin 71, 925937. Bilham, R., Engdahl, E.R., Feldl, N., Satyabala, S.P., 2005. Partial and complete rupture of the Indo-Andaman plate boundary 18472004. Seismological Research Letters 76, 299311. Brodsky, E.E., Prejean, S.G., 2005. New constraints on mechanisms of remotely triggered seismicity at Long Valley Caldera. Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (B4), B04302. Cartwright, J.A., Trudgill, B.D., Manseld, C.S., 1995. Fault growth by segment linkage: ans explanation for scatter in maximum displacement and trace length data from the Canyonlands Grabens of SE Utah. Journal of Structural Geology 17 (9), 13191326. Chlieh, M. et al., 2007. Coseismic slip and after slip of the great Mw 9. 15 Sumatra Andaman earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97 (1A), S152173. Curray, J.R., 2005. Tectonics and history of the Andaman Sea region. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 25 (1), 187232. Curray, J.R., Moore, D.G., 1974. Sedimentary and tectonic processes in Bengal deepsea fan and geosyncline. In: Burk, C.A., Drake, C.L. (Eds.), The Geology of Continental Margins. Springer, New York, pp. 617628. Curray, J.R., Moore, D.G., Lawver, L.A., Emmel, F.J., Raitt, R.W., Henry, M., Kieckhefer, R., 1979. Tectonics of the Andaman Sea and Burma. In: Watkins, J., Montadert, L., Dickerson, P.W. (Eds.), Geological and Geophysical Investigations of Continental Margins, vol. 29. American Association Petroleum Geologists, Memoir, pp. 189198. Dasgupta, S., Mukhopadhyay, M., 1993. Seismicity and plate deformation below the Andaman Arc, northeast Indian Ocean. Teconophysics 225, 529542.

Dasgupta, S., Mukhopadhyay, M., Bhattacharya, A., Jana, T.K., 2003. The geometry of the Burmese-Andaman subducting lithosphere. Journal of Seismology 7, 155 174. Dengler, L.A., Dewey, J.W., 1998. An intensity survey of households affected by the Northridge, California earthquake of 17 January, 1994. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 88 (2), 441462. Dong, D.N., Herring, T.A., King, R.W., 1998. Estimating regional deformation from a combination of space and terrestrial geodetic data. Journal of Geodesy 72, 200 214. Freed, A.M., Lin, J., 1998. Time-dependent changes in failure stress following thrust earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research 103 (B10), 2439324409. Freed, A.M., Lin, J., 2001. Delayed triggering of the 1999 Hector Mine earthquake by viscoelastic stress transfer. Nature 411 (6834), 180183. Gahalaut, V.K., Nagarajan, B., Catherine, J.K., Kumar, S., 2006. Constraints on 2004 SumatraAndaman earthquake rupture from GPS measurements in Andaman Nicobar Islands. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 242, 365374. Gasperini, P., Bernardini, F., Valensise, G., Boschi, E., 1999. Dening seismogenic sources from historical earthquake felt reports. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89 (1), 94110. Ghosh, D., Mishra, O.P., 2008. The 2004 SumatraAndaman earthquake sequence and its implications for seismic coupling: future vulnerability. Indian Minerals 61 (34), 93112, 62(14). Gomberg, J., Reasenberg, P.A., Bodin, P., Harris, R.A., 2001. Earthquake triggering by seismic waves following the Landers and Hector Mine earthquakes. Nature 411 (6836), 462466. Harris, R.A., 2000. Earthquake stress triggers, stress shadows and seismic hazard. Current Science 79 (9), 12151225. Herring, T.A., King, R.W., McClusky, S.C., 2009. Gamit Reference Manual; Release 10.3. Massachussetts Institute of Technology. Hirose, H., Obara, K., 2005. Repeating short- and long-term slow slip events with deep tremor activity around the Bungo channel region, southwest Japan. Earth Planets Space 57 (10), 961972. Kilb, D., Ellis, M., Gomberg, J., Davis, S., 1997. On the origin of diverse aftershock mechanisms following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 128 (3), 557570. Kim, Y.-S., Sanderson, D.J., 2005. The relationship between displacement and length of faults: a review. Earth-Science Reviews 68, 317334. King, C.P., Stein, R.S., Lin, J., 1994. Static stress changes and the triggering of Earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 84 (3), 935 953. Lay, T. et al., 2005. The great SumatraAndaman earthquake of 26 December 2004. Science 308 (5725), 11271133. Lin, J., Stein, R.S., 2004. Stress triggering in thrust and subduction earthquakes, and stress interaction between the southern San Andreas and nearby thrust and strike-slip faults. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, B02303. Liu, Y., Rice, J.R., 2007. Spontaneous and triggered aseismic deformation transients in a subduction fault model. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, B09404. Morley, C.K., 1999. Patterns of displacement along large normal faults: implications for basin evolution and fault propagation, based on examples from East Africa. AAPG Bulletin 83, 613634. Obara, K., 2002. Nonvolcanic deep tremor associated with subduction in southwest Japan. Science 296 (5573), 16791681. Ocola, L., 2005. La sica de las escalas macrosismicas y la actualizacion de catalogos macrosismicos, Reunion de CERESIS:Actualizacion de catalogos de intensidades sismicas: Lima. Peru. Paul, J. et al., 2001. The motion and active deformation of India. Geophysical Research Letters 28 (4), 647650. Paul, J., Lowry, A.R., Bilham, R., Sen, S., Smalley Jr., R., 2007. Postseismic deformation of the Andaman Islands following the 26 December, 2004 Great Sumatra Andaman earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 34. Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1991. Displacements, segment linkage and relay ramps in normal fault zones. Journal of Structural Geology 13, 721733. Rajendran, C.P. et al., 2007. Crustal deformation and seismic history associated with the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake: a perspective from the AndamanNicobar Islands. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S174S191. Raju, K.A.K., Ramprasad, T., Rao, P.S., Rao, B.R., Varghese, J., 2004. New insights into the tectonic evolution of the Andaman basin, northeast Indian Ocean. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 221, 145162. Ramsay, J.G., Huber, M., 1983. The Techniques of Modern Structural Geology. Strain Analysis, vol. 1. Academic Press, Inc. Ray, S.K., Acharyya, A., 2007. 26 December 2004 earthquake: coseismic vertical ground movement in the Andaman Islands. Geological Survey of India, Special publication 89, 6381. Schlische, R.W., Anders, M.N., 1996. Stratigraphic effects and tectonic implications of the growth of normal faults and extensional basins. Geological Society of America Special Paper 303, 183203. Segall, P., Desmarais, E.K., Shelly, D., Miklius, A., Cervelli, P., 2006. Earthquakes triggered by silent slip events on Kilauea volcano, Hawaii. Nature, 442/6. Segall, P., Pollard, D.D., 1980. Mechanics of discontinuous faults. Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 43374350. Som, S.K. et al., 2011. Transtension to transpression: a study of strain evolution in Andaman islands based on GPS measurements following great Sumatra Andaman earthquake, 2004. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42 (12), 3850. Som, S.K. et al., 2008. Macroseismic survey of Sikkim earthquake, 14th February, 2006. Journal of Geological Society India 71, 541550.

Author's personal copy

36

S.K. Som et al. / Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 6768 (2013) 2636 Vittori, E. et al., 2000. Ground effects and surface faulting in the SeptemberOctober 1997 Umbria-Marche (Central Italy) seismic sequence. Journal of Geodynamics 29, 535564. Wallace, L.m., Beavan, J., 2006. A large slow slip event on the central Hikurangi subduction interface beneath the Manawatu region, North Island, New Zealand. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L11301. Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1987. Distribution of cumulative displacement and seismic slip on a single normal fault surface. Journal of Structural Geology 9, 1039 1046. Wilkins, S.J., Gross, M.R., 2002. Normal fault growth in layered rocks at Split Mountain, Utah: inuence of mechanical stratigraphy on dip linkage, fault restriction and fault scaling. Journal of Structural Geology 24, 14131429.

Som, S.K., Shivgotra, V., Saha, A., 2009. Coral microatoll as geodetic tool in North Andaman and Little Andaman, India. Journal of Earth System Science 118 (2), 157162. Subarya, C. et al., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra Andaman earthquake. Nature 440 (7080), 4651. Toda, S., Stein, R.S., Richards-Dinger, K., Bozkurt, S., 2005. Forecasting the evolution of seismicity in southern California: animations built on earthquake stress transfer. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, B05S16. Trudgill, B.D., Cartwright, J.A., 1994. Relay ramp forms and normal fault linkages Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 95, 454462. Vigny, C. et al., 2005. Insight into the 2004 SumatraAndaman earthquake from GPS measurements in southeast Asia. Nature 436 (7048), 201206.