Are Rock Avalanches and Landslides Due to Large Earthquakes or Local Topographic Effects? A Case Study of the Lurøy Earthquake of August 31, 1819, A 3D Finite Difference Approach
The Lurøy earthquake of August 31, 1819, with MS ~ 5.8 is, by many colleagues, rated as the largest in NW Europe in historical times (pre-1900) and even up to present. Local shaking manifestations were most spectacular with rock, stone and mud avalanches, mast-high waves in nearby Rana fjord and even liquefaction was reported. Most surprisingly, at epicentral distances exceeding 100 km except for Stockholm 800 km away, very few macroseismic observations are available. Another peculiarity was the lack of any significant housing damage even in the Lurøy parish itself. In a recent paper, we postulated that the earthquake was of moderate size, reestimated at MS ~ 5.1, but of shallow depth between 5 and 10 km causing the intense local shaking. In this article, we add a new dimension to the many Lurøy earthquake studies namely simulating the seismic wavefield response of Lurøy itself and adjacent areas characterized by steep topographic reliefs. We use a 3D finite difference scheme and compute ground motion in the 2–8 Hz band for a shear wave source with a focal depth of 5 km. Water covered areas are replaced by crystalline crust due to the sparsity of dense bathymetric data.
Main results are that the topography of the Lurøy, close to the mountain peak at 685 m, causes wavefield amplification by a factor of 20 and even stronger. Further away in the Rana fjord and surrounding areas, we also got strong amplification in particular where the relief is sharpest thus explaining triggering of avalanches in a quantitative manner. In other words, macroseismic observations would be biased upward due to the topographic focusing effects and unless properly corrected for may increase the final earthquake magnitude estimate. We take these results to strongly support our claim that the historic Lurøy earthquake was of moderate size of MS ~ 5.1 and not at MS ~ 6.0 class as claimed by many colleagues. The largest magnitude estimates stem from including outlier observations in Kola and Stockholm. Finally, downscaling of maximum earthquake magnitude would also lower the seismic risk levels significantly.
Keywords3D synthetic seismogram topography amplification rock avalanches mast high waves magnitude bias lurøy EQ
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bannister, S. C., Husebye, E. S., Ruud, B. O., 1990. Teleseismic P-coda analyzed by three component and array technique–deterministic location of topographic P-to-Rg scattering near the NORESS array. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 80, 1969–1986.Google Scholar
- Bungum, H., Olesen O., 2005. The 31st of August 1819 Lurøy Earthquake revisited. Norwegian J. Geology, 85, 245–252.Google Scholar
- Geli, L., Bard, P. Y., Jullien, B., 1988. The effect of topography on earthquake ground motion: a review and new results. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 78, 42–63.Google Scholar
- Heltzen, I. A., 1834. Ranens beskrivelse. Rana Museum og Historielag. Mo i Rana, 290.Google Scholar
- Hicks, E.C., 1996. Crustal stresses in Norway and surrounding areas as derived from earthquake focal mechanism solutions and in-situ stress measurements. M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Geology, UoOslo, Oslo, Norway, 164 pp.Google Scholar
- Husebye, E. S., 2005. Comments on the Lurøy earthquake controversy. Norwegian J. Geology 85, 253–256.Google Scholar
- Husebye, E. S., Kebeasy, T. R. M., 2004. A re-assessment of the 31st of August 1819 Lurøy earthquake–Not the largest in NW Europe. Norwegian J. Geol. 84, 57–66.Google Scholar
- Keilhau, B. M., 1836. Efterretninger om jordkjælv i Norge. Magasin for Naturvidenskaperne, 12, 83–165.Google Scholar
- Kjellen, R., 1910. Sveriges jordskalf. Forsøk til en svensk landsgeografi. Gøteborgs Høgskolas Årsskrift, 15, 1–211.Google Scholar
- Kliche, C. A., 1999. Rock slope stability. Socity for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), Inc., Littleton, CO.Google Scholar
- Kolderup, C. F., 1913. Norges jordskjKlv med slrlig hensyn til deres utbredelse i rum og tid. Bergen Museum Aarbok, 8, 152.Google Scholar
- Kramer, S. L., 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering Prentice-Hall, New York 653 pp.Google Scholar
- Mäntyniemi, P., Husebye, E. S, Kebeasy, T. R. M., Nikonov, A. A., Nikulin, V., Pacesa, A., 2004. State-of-the-art of historical earthquake research in Fennoscandia and the Baltic Republics. Annali Di Geofisica, 47, 611–619.Google Scholar
- Moczo, P., Rovelli, A., Labak, P., Malagnini, L., 1995. Seismic response of the geological structure underlying Roman Colosseum. Annali di Geofisica 38, 939–956.Google Scholar
- Moczo, P., Lucka, M., Kristek, J., Kristekova, M., 1999. 3D displacement dinite differences and a combined memory optimization. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89, 69–79.Google Scholar
- Mokrov, E., Chernouss, P., Fedorenko, Yu. V., Husebye, E. S., 2000. The influence of seismic effects on avalanche release. In Proceed. Int. Snow Sci. Workshop ISSW-2000, Big Sky, MT, 338–341.Google Scholar
- Olesen. O., Dehls, J., Olsen, L., Blikra, L. H., Rise, L., Bungum, H., Lindholm, C. D., Hicks, E., Riis, F., Bockmann, L., 1999. Mor Norge rører på seg, GEO 2, 12–17.Google Scholar
- Pitarka, A., 1999. 3D elastic finite difference modeling of seismic wave propagation using staggered-grid non-uniform spacing. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 89, 54–68.Google Scholar
- Selby, M. J., 1980. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zealand. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, 24, 31–51.Google Scholar