Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 741–751 | Cite as

Macroseismic survey of the ML5.5, 2014 Orkney earthquake

  • V. Midzi
  • B. Zulu
  • B. Manzunzu
  • T. Mulabisana
  • T. Pule
  • S. Myendeki
  • W. Gubela
Original Article

Abstract

On 5 August 2014 at 1222 hours (local time), an earthquake of local magnitude ML = 5.5 occurred in the Orkney area in the North West Province, South Africa. The earthquake shaking was felt widely in South Africa as far as Cape Town as well as in Maputo, Mozambique, and Gaborone in Botswana. One person was killed when a wall collapsed on him, and more than 600 houses were damaged. Following the earthquake, many people submitted reports to the Council for Geoscience (CGS) through an online questionnaire which recorded their experience, whilst others reported the event and its effects on social networks like Twitter and in newspapers. The CGS also sent out a team of scientists to further assess the effects of the event in the community by interviewing members of the public and completing additional questionnaires. A total of 866 observations were collected. Analysis of the collected macroseismic data produced 170 intensity data points which showed that a maximum intensity of VII was experienced in communities located in the epicentral area. The observed attenuation of intensity values was comparable to that observed on the French stable continental region especially in the area of 600-km radius from the epicentre. Airborne geophysical data were used to try and identify the fault along which the earthquake occurred. This was necessary as there was no surface expression of the earthquake and no previously identified fault near the epicentre. The interpretation of the data showed a fault located about 500 m from the epicentre appearing to form a boundary to the east of located aftershocks.

Keywords

South Africa Earthquakes Intensity MMI scale Questionnaires Macroseismic field Epicentre 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We extend our sincere appreciation to the Council for Geoscience for funding the macroseismic intensity survey. The authors are also grateful to M. Grobbelaar and D. Birch for giving their time to proofread this manuscript as well as to the reviewers whose input significantly improved our article.

References

  1. Allen TI, Wald DJ (2009) Evaluation of ground-motion modelling techniques for use in Global ShakeMap: a critique of instrumental ground-motion prediction equations, peak ground motion to macroseismic intensity conversions, and macroseismic intensity predictions in different tectonic settings. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1047Google Scholar
  2. Ashford SA, Sitar N (1994) Seismic response of steep natural slopes, Report No. UCB/EERC 94-05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Athanasopoulos GA, Pelekis PC, Leonidou EA (1999) Effects of surface topography on seismic ground response in the Egion (Greece) 15 June 1995 earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18(2):135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakun WH, McGarr A (2002) Differences in attenuation among the stable continental regions. Geophys Res Lett 29(23):190–202. doi: 10.1029/2002GL015457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakun WH, Scotti O (2006) Regional intensity attenuation models for France and the estimation of magnitude and location of historical earthquakes. Geophys J Int 164:596–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boore DM (1972) A note on the effect of simply topography on seismic SH wave. Bull Seismol Soc Am 62:275–284Google Scholar
  7. Celebi M (1987) Topographic and geological amplification determined from strong-motion and aftershock records of the 3 March 1985 Chile earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:1147–1167Google Scholar
  8. Celebi M (1991) Topographic and geological amplification: case studies and engineering implications. Struct Saf 10:199–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delavaud E, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Riggelsen C (2009) Information-theoretic selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis: an applicability study using Californian data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3248–3263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faccioli E, Vanni M, Frassine F (2002) Complex site effects in earthquake ground motion, including topography. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 844Google Scholar
  11. Midzi V, Bommer JJ, Strasser FO, Albini P, Zulu BS, Prasad K, Flint NS (2013) An intensity database for earthquakes in South Africa from 1912 to 2011. J Seismol 17:1183–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Musson RMW, Cecić I (2002) Macroseismology. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, International Geophysics. 81(A):807–822Google Scholar
  13. Richter C (1958) Elementary seismology. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  14. Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen C (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3234–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sibson R (1981) A brief description of natural neighbor interpolation. In: Barnett V (ed) Interpreting multivariate data. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–36Google Scholar
  16. USGS (2006) M7.0 Mozambique earthquake of 22 February 2006. Poster, National Earthquake Information Center, US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Midzi
    • 1
  • B. Zulu
    • 1
  • B. Manzunzu
    • 1
  • T. Mulabisana
    • 1
  • T. Pule
    • 1
  • S. Myendeki
    • 1
  • W. Gubela
    • 1
  1. 1.Geophysics CompetencyCouncil for GeosciencePretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations