part 3 first order regional seismotectonic model for south
TRANSCRIPT
3-1
PART 3
First Order Regional Seismotectonic Model
for South Africa
Introduction
The seismic hazard and risk associated with potential sites of engineering
structures (such as dams and power stations) are derived from a
seismotectonic model for the region. Terrier et al. (2000) define
seismotectonic analysis as the analysis of structural, neotectonic and
seismological data to establish links between seismicity and current
deformation mechanisms, and their effects on certain tectonic structures,
with the ultimate goal of delimiting and characterising various
seismotectonic units. Seismotectonic units correspond to tectonic
structures like faults, or to geological and structural bodies of uniform
seismicity. The seismotectonic model, otherwise known as a
seismotectonic map, will consist of a presentation of all the seismotectonic
units identified for the region of interest. An ideal delineation of
seismotectonic units requires a complete comprehension of the geology,
tectonics, palaeoseismology, historical and instrumental seismicity, and
other neotectonic features and phenomena. However, information is
incomplete in many parts of the world.
To date there is no published seismotectonic model for South Africa.
General procedures for regional seismotectonic mapping for engineering
purposes are described by Gonzalez and Skipp (1980). Furthermore, no
standard procedure has been established by the scientific community to
produce a seismotectonic model. Different researchers have used different
parameters to perform seismotectonic investigations. This could be due to
the wide variety of geological settings, basic assumptions and
philosophical approaches (e.g., Gasperini et al. (1998) defined
seismotectonic units from historical felt-earthquake reports for the central
and southern Apennines in Italy. Mohanty and Walling (2008) used a GIS
3-2
platform for seismic microzonation of Haldia in the Bengal Basin (India),
Meletti et al. (2000) used GIS to cross-correlate several datasets to
construct a seismotectonic model for Italy. Hicks et al. (2000) studied
seismotectonic zonation using detailed seismic monitoring data and fault
planes solutions for Norway.)
As a first step towards the creation of a seismotectonic model for South
Africa, Singh et al. (2009) compiled a multidisciplinary geoscientific
database. They identified many useful data sets, but found that further
seismic monitoring, geological mapping and integrated analysis was
required to build an entirely data-driven seismotectonic model. The
following recommendations were made by Singh et al. (2009):
a) A denser network of seismic monitoring stations is required in order
to improve location accuracy of recorded earthquakes;
b) The earthquake database should be revisited in order to distinguish
earthquakes of natural origin from those that are mining related;
c) Depths and focal mechanisms of earthquakes should be recorded
and routinely published;
d) Microseismic monitoring should be undertaken of active regions like
the Ceres and Koffiefontein areas and active fault regions in the
Cape Fold Belt (CFB).
e) Quaternary sediments should be mapped in more detail; and
f) Evidence of palaeoseismicity and neotectonic activity should be
documented.
Noting these shortcomings, an attempt is made here to build a first order
regional seismotectonic model using the available information.
Of the many methodologies implemented elsewhere in the world, the one
of Terrier et al. (2000) used in France was found to be most appropriate
for South Africa, as it allowed one to use an integrated approach by using
all available information in a series of logical steps.
The seismotectonic model derived for stable continental regions often
does not explain all the observed earthquake activity. This is because
3-3
structures may exist without recognized surface or subsurface
manifestations, and, in some cases, fault displacements may have long
recurrence intervals with respect to seismological observation periods.
Although attempts should be made to define all the parameters of each
element in a seismotectonic model, the construction of the model should
be data-driven, and any tendency to interpret data only in a manner that
supports some preconception should be avoided (IAEA, 2002, p. 10,
paragraph 4.3). One of the main advantages of the methodology used for
France (Terrier et al. 2000) is that it is a structured approach and is highly
data-driven.
Methodology
The methodology for the seismotectonic analysis as presented by Terrier
et al. (2000) encompasses four stages:
1. Data collection,
2. Data quality assessment,
3. Data assimilation, interpretation and construction of seismotectonic
schema, and
4. Synthesis and compilation of a seismotectonic model.
Note that in our study an additional stage was added, (data quality
assessment) when compared to the methodology proposed by Terrier et
al. (2000) because of the shortcomings of the data noted in the
introduction to this chapter. The flowchart summarising the proposed
methodology is shown in Figure 1. This framework is essential to this
analysis. The South African data was then used intuitively for the analysis.
STAGE 1: Collection and selection of base data
The data sets collected for this stage include:
a) A comprehensive earthquake catalogue of historical and
instrumental events from the Seismology Unit, Council for
Geoscience (CGS),
3-4
b) Isoseismal maps for the country since 1932 (Singh and Hattingh
2008),
c) Regional geological maps,
d) Magnetic and gravimetric data (Geophysics Unit, CGS),
e) Map of the depth to Moho (Nguuri et al., 2001),
f) Tectospheric structure (James et al., 2001),
g) Topographic data, and
h) Stress data (World Stress Map (WSM) database; Reinecker et al.,
2004; Bird et al., 2006).
These data sets are described in detail by Singh et al. (2009).
Shortcomings in the data sets have been noted in the introduction to this
chapter.
The data sets compiled in Stage 1 are used to define structural and
neotectonic domains, and seismic zones. In Stage 2 the usefulness,
importance and completeness of each data set is assessed.
Structural domains are regions that display homogeneous mechanical
behavior and contain major faults or structures. Neotectonic domains are
regions characterized by recent or contemporary tectonic activity. Seismic
zones (or concentrations of earthquake foci (CEF)) are identified by
known historical and instrumental earthquake clusters.
STAGE 2: Assessment of data quality and usefulness
Firstly, the usefulness of various data sets for the definition of structural
domains is described, together with a qualitative assessment by the author
of the importance and completeness of each dataset (Table 1).
Similarly, the usefulness of various data sets for the definition of
neotectonic domains and seismic zones is assessed (Tables 2 and 3,
respectively). The neotectonic information generally falls into two
categories: descriptions of large well-studied faults, and ad-hoc accounts
of reactivated features.
3-5
STAGE 3 Data Assimilation, Interpretation and Construction of
Schema
A structured approach is followed in creating the seismotectonic schema
which is a schematic plan consisting of a combination of structural and
neotectonic domains, and seismic zones. Specific data sets contributing to
each classification are highlighted in Tables 1, 2 and 3. From this stage
onwards, some interpretation is required. Hence interpretations vary
depending on the experience and background knowledge of the analyst.
1. Structural domains
Here we seek to integrate various data sets to define structural domains
Geological and geophysical provinces
The major geological provinces are outlined in Figure 2. The major
geological provinces include the Kaapvaal craton (KC) of Archean age.
Some authors (e.g. Eglington and Armstrong, 2004) have further divided
this province based on the age of lithologies (up to 3 Ga). For our
purposes we are interested in changes in tectonic environments and opted
to present this craton as one large province. The Limpopo belt separates
the KC from the Zimbabwe craton (ZC), which is of similar age and
composition. The oblique nature of this collision is believed to have
initiated or re-activated major transcurrent fault systems, resulting in
important structures such as the Thabazimbi-Murchison lineament. Rift-
related basins like the Witwatersrand Basin developed within the KC. The
Bushveld Complex intruded the KC about 2,000 million years ago.
Tectonic activity on the KC ceased about 1,800 million years ago.
Proterozoic fold and thrust belts up to 400 km wide were added to the KC
on the south (Namaqua-Natal mobile belt, NNMB). The Kheis province
(Cornell et al. 1996), which consists of a passive margin of siliciclastic
rocks of the Olifantshoek Supergroup (2-1.7 Ga), separates rocks from the
western part of the NNMB from the KC.
3-6
The rocks in the Cape fold belt (CFB) were laid down as sediments in a
coastal delta environment upon the Malmesbury unconformity in the
Ordovician (450 million years ago) period, with the folding subsequently
occurring in the Carboniferous and Permian periods during the merging of
the supercontinent Pangaea.
The Karoo Supergroup is the largest geological feature in southern Africa,
covering almost two thirds of the present land surface. However, it is
relatively thin. Its strata, mostly shales and sandstones, record an almost
continuous sequence of marine, glacial and terrestrial deposition from the
Late Carboniferous to the Early Jurassic, a period of about 100 million
years. Extensive basic and acid lavas of the Lebombo and Drakensberg
groups cap the Karoo Supergroup, and their extrusion preceded the
fragmentation of Gondwana. South Africa began breaking away from
Australia in the northeast around 200 million years ago. This breakup
proceeded southward and then westward until the proto-Atlantic was
formed about 120 million years ago. This was accompanied and followed
by widespread anorogenic alkaline magmatism of the kimberlitic,
carbonatitic, and ring-complex types (Wilson 2005). Geologically younger
deposits, ranging in age from Cretaceous to recent times, include the
Kalahari group sediments; coastal, shallow marine and lagoonal
sediments; and present and ancient river terraces (Schlüter 2006).
The boundaries of the provinces are often clearly revealed in the
geophysical maps. The major geophysical anomalies such as the Beattie
Magnetic Anomaly and the Southern Cape Conductivity Belt are also
illustrated (Figure 3).
Mantle Seismic Structure
The mantle seismic structure beneath the Kaapval Craton (KC) was
studied by Fouch et al. (2004). It was found that seismic images provide
clear evidence of mantle structures that mimic the surface geology across
the craton. Specifically, a thick (~250-300 km) mantle keel exists beneath
3-7
the KC and a slightly thinner keel (~225-250km) exists beneath parts of
the Limpopo mobile belt. Relatively lower mantle velocities are observed
beneath the Bushveld Complex.
Crustal Structure
Nguuri et al. (2001) found that the Limpopo Belt is characterised by a thick
crust and complex Moho, while the crust beneath the KC is typically thin
(~35-40 km), unlayered and characterised by a strong velocity contrast
across a relatively sharp Moho. Across post-Archaean terrains such as the
Bushveld Complex and the Namaqua Natal Mobile belt (NNMB), the crust
tends to be relatively thick (~45-50 km) and the Moho is complex.
Topography and Drainage
Generally the country can be divided into two basic drainage systems: the
Orange River as one system, and all the other rivers comprising the other.
These two systems are divided by the Great Escarpment. The Orange
River drains from the interior of the country to the west. All the other rivers
drain from the coastal side of the escarpment to the ocean in western,
southern and eastern directions. In the north, the tributaries of the
Limpopo/Olifants River form a watershed on the Witwatersrand. It is worth
noting that regional seismicity, to a large extent, correlates well with the
location of the Great Escarpment. This is evident in the northwest, along
the Lesotho mountain ranges, and the northeast. Some of the largest
earthquakes for which macroseismic data are available occurred along
this escarpment.
Discussion
Based on the above datasets, clearly, the pre-Karoo geological provinces
form the main structural domains of the country. The other prominent
structure is the Great Escarpment.
3-8
2. Concentrations of Earthquake Foci (CEF)
Eighteen earthquake clusters were intuitively identified (Figure 4, refer to
Table 6 for names of clusters and brief description of possible source).
The best known clusters are described in Singh et al. (2009). Along the
east coast, at least 10 isoseismal maps collected in Singh and Hattingh
(2008) clearly show a high density of large magnitude earthquakes in
these regions, hence linear clusters 4, 5, 15 and 14 were created.
3. Neotectonic domains
Classification
Neotectonic faults (F) were classified (see Table 4) using a scheme similar
to Terrier et al. (2000):
AF are seismogenic faults with a strong correlation with seismic
epicenters.
BF are seismogenic faults with possible associated seismicity as
seismic epicenters are known near the faults, but the precision of
their locations does not guarantee a reliable link.
CF are tectonically active faults without known seismicity as no
seismic epicenters are correlated with them, but with indicators of
recent tectonic activity.
DF are tectonic faults with possible associated seismicity as seismic
epicenters are known along the faults (similar to BF), and some
neotectonic indicators.
Neotectonic and seismogenic regions (N) were also classified (see Table
5) using a scheme similar to Terrier et al. (2000):
• AN are seismogenic and neotectonic regions that have a strong
correlation with seismic epicenters.
• BN are neotectonic regions with possible associated seismicity as
seismic epicenters are known in the regions, but the precision of
the locations does not guarantee a reliable link
• CN are neotectonic regions without known seismicity, but with
indicators of recent tectonic activity.
3-9
The classified neotectonic faults and regions were digitised (Figure 6), and
neotectonic domains defined (Figure 7). Each neotectonic sub-domain
delineates the fault/region and extends this region to about 50 km in all
directions in order to include those earthquakes that are possibly mis-
located.
Stress and Seismic Wave Anisotropy
Tectonic stress indicators are used to determine the tectonic stress
orientation. A sparse dataset of such indicators is available for South
Africa through the World Stress Map (WSM) database (Reinecker et al.,
2004) and a database created by Bird et al. (2006). Data points derived
from earthquake focal mechanisms and in situ stress measurements
(overcoring), geological fault-slip observations (GFS) and borehole
breakout orientation (BO) were accumulated. A detailed description of the
different methodologies used can be found in Zoback and Zoback (1991)
and Sperner et al. (2003). These data are plotted in Figure 5,
superimposed on CEF clusters. Only broad trends in the data can be
observed owing to the sparse number of data points. Earthquakes forming
Clusters 2 and 3 have strike-slip regimes while earthquakes in Cluster 8
show normal faulting. Other earthquakes towards the north have normal
faulting regimes. The orientation of the maximum horizontal stress (SH)
varies from the north to the south. In the north, SH directions are NW-SE,
corresponding to similar orientations of the Wegener Stress Anomaly
(WSA). Stress indicators from earthquakes in the Koffiefontein region
(Cluster 8) have a NW-SE SH orientation with a normal faulting regime.
The earthquake of 01 July 1976 was used for this measurement. For the
data points in the south, the earthquakes of 2 September 1969 and 14
April 1970 were used.
Additional data included in Figure 5 are the shear wave splitting data from
Silver et al. (2004). In an anisotropic medium the elastic parameters vary
as a function of orientation. Seismic anisotropy occurs when some elastic
waves vibrating or travelling in one direction travel faster than other waves
3-10
vibrating or travelling in another direction. This causes the waves to
separate in orthogonal directions (shear wave splitting). Materials develop
anisotropic properties because of the preferred ordering of minerals or
defects, i.e. fractures or cracks. Anisotropy is linked to minerals, kerogen,
fractures and stresses. The polarisation direction of the fast wave (phi) can
be measured and the delay time between the fast and slow waves (dt)
gives us information about the magnitude of anisotropy. The values of phi
exhibit systematic spatial variations. In the southwestern KC they are
roughly NNE-SSW and rotate to NE-SW further north and to nearly E-W in
the northeastern part of the craton. Further south, in the NNMB,
polarisation of waves varies from NW-SE to E-W. This anisotropic
signature implies a pattern of ancient mantle lithospheric deformation
beneath South Africa. Silver et al. (2004) observed that the anisotropic
signature is delimited by the Colesburg Magnetic lineament towards the
southwest of the craton, by the Thabazimbi Murchison Lineament (TML) in
the north, and the Triangle Shear Zone in the Limpopo Belt. The delay
time falls mainly in the range of 0.6-2 s. There is clearly strong anisotropy
towards the NW of the craton compared to weaker anisotropy towards the
SW. Silver et al. (2004) indicate that these differences are due to
differences in lithospheric mantle fabric. The eastern part of the craton is
devoid of rifting and magmatic events seen elsewhere in the craton and
hence the lithosphere here is mechanically stronger than surrounding
areas.
STAGE 4 Interpretation and Synthesis: Seismotectonic Zonation
Based on the knowledge gained from the analysis so far, as well as the
data availability and applicability, it was decided that it was best to use the
categories proposed by Davis (2002) for seismotectonic zonation. Note
that although Terrier et al (2002) use similar labels to categorize the
seismotectonic units, their definitions of the categories are much more
rigorous. In our case the data set is incomplete in several aspects,
therefore the more flexible definitions provided by Davis (2002) is more
applicable.
3-11
Three general types of seismotectonic units are defined by Davis (2002):
(i) SEISMOGENIC STRUCTURES - units that model active faults,
(ii) SEISMOGENIC SYSTEMS - units that model “active” structures
that may contain significant faults (i.e. active fold belts), and
(iii) SEISMOGENIC DOMAINS - units that model distributed
seismicity that cannot be assigned to specific geological
structures.
Consideration was given to the schema obtained in stage 3 and polygons
were created corresponding to major clusters of earthquake foci (CEF)
and neotectonic domains (refer to Figure 7 and Figure 8). The large
structural domains eventually made no contribution to the zonation
because many of the neotectonic domains transect the structural domains.
Probably the outline of the Great Escarpment, to some extent, is
intrinsically included. Only two seismogenic structures were delineated:
the reactivated region of the Kango Baviaanskloof Fault (KBF) and its
linear extension towards the east. The main neotectonic domains form
seismogenic systems. Clusters of Earthquake Foci with no association
with large faults or neotectonic activity form the seismogenic domains. In
Table 7 characteristics of the identified seismogenic structures and
systems are summarized.
The Gutenberg-Richter frequency magnitude relations were assessed
using seismicity within each zone (Figure 9). Where it is assumed that the
number of earthquakes recorded within specified area and time interval
can be described by the Gutenberg-Richter relation
,)(log mbamN ⋅−= (1)
where a is a constant, b refers to the slope of the line, m is the earthquake
magnitude and N the cumulative number of earthquakes occurring
annually within a magnitude interval < m, m +∆ m >, or the number of
earthquakes equal or larger than m. The parameter a is the measure of
3-12
the level of seismicity, whereas the parameter b, which is typically close to
1, describes the ratio between small and large events.
The software package Zmap (Wiemer 2001) was used for this purpose
(assuming the maximum curvature method to evaluate mmin (the threshold
of completeness of the sub-catalogue) and the maximum likelihood
method to assess b). The parameters obtained for each zone are listed in
Table 8. Note that no solution could be obtained for zones 1, 3, 4, 6 and
19 due to insufficient seismicity data within each zone. Proper assessment
of these parameters including use of different techniques; assessment of
mmax (the largest possible magnitude within each zone) and mmin is
described in Part 4 of this thesis.
The Welkom (zone 10); Klerksdorp (zone 11) and Carletonville-West Rand
(zone 12) mining regions clearly have relatively higher levels of seismic
activity than other zones. b-values for zone 10 and 12 are similar (1.1 and
1.2) with zone 12 displaying higher levels of seismic activity. Zone 11 has
a somewhat lower b-value (0.99) but very high levels of activity. Clearly
this is reminiscent of differences in mining activity in the different regions
and different tectonic features affecting the mining environments.
The Ceres zone (zone 2) has much lower b-values (0.63) but considerable
levels of seismic activity. These levels of activity exceed that of the
Koffiefontein zone (zone 8) with a similar b-value (0.56). Zone 5 (which
can be found along the east coast) shows considerable levels of activity
with a much higher b-value (1.08). The seismicity trends in zone 15 are
very similar to that of the Koffiefontein zone (zone 8). The Lesotho cluster
(zone 7 and 9) shows relatively lower levels of activity with b-value of 0.8
and 0.68 respectively which is somewhat different from all the other zones.
Zone 14, corresponding to the Griqualand-Transvaal Axis (GTA) has the
lowest levels of seismic activity. Similarly, relatively lower levels of seismic
activity occur in zones 13 and 16-18.
3-13
Results and Discussions
This work serves as a starting point for the development of the
geoscientific database and seismotectonic model. Clearly, the structural
domains are not critical for the zonation because the seismotectonic
model transects the boundaries of the structural domains. The origins of
clusters of earthquake locations around the country are poorly understood
therefore there is a need to understand the geodynamics associated with
the stresses along regions such as the Great Escarpment, the Cape Fold
Belt and the Lesotho mountain ranges. Localised seismotectonic domains
exist in the interior of the country (Koffiefontein, Zone 15, Zone 16) for
which its origin/source is still poorly understood. Seismicity in the mining
regions (Zones 10-13) still forms a major component of the seismic history
in the country. From a crude assessment of the parameters of the
Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude relation, relative levels of seismic
activity and b-values were obtained. Clearly, the highest levels of mining
activity originate in the gold-mining regions. Naturally occurring
earthquakes that have relatively higher levels of seismic activity originate
from the Ceres, Koffiefontein and CSA domains. More detailed
assessment of these parameters will be considered in the next part.
This is a regional model and should not be used as such in seismic hazard
investigations for industrial applications. In these cases all attempts should
be made to complete the database by using a higher resolution.
Seismotectonic model development applying the methodology adopted
here could be appropriate.
Following this study, an ongoing update of the geodatabase will be made.
Future research in this area can include statistical identification of seismic
sources, seismic zonation using historical data, correlation of data using
GIS techniques and appropriate spatial weighting of layers. A broader
study in progress is the Seismotectonic Map of Africa (SeTMA) (Ingram
2008) which should add value to the understanding of seismotectonic
zonation within the region.
3-14
REFERENCES
Andreoli MAG, Doucoure M, Van Bever Donker J, Brandt D, and Andersen
NJB (1996), Neotectonics of southern Africa: A review, Africa
Geoscience Review, 3, 1–16.
Barker, A (2004) Proceedings of the Landslides and Seismicity Course,
Geoscience Africa, University of the Witwatersrand.
Bird P, Ben-Avraham Z, Schubert G, Andreoli M and Viola G (2006),
Patterns of stress and strain rate in southern Africa, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 111, 1–14.
Cornell DH, Thomas RJ, Moen HFG, Reid DL, Moore DM, and Gibson RL
(2006), The Namaqua-Natal Province, In: M. R. Johnson, C. R.
Anhaeusser, R. J. Thomas (Editors) The Geology of South Africa,
Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg/ Council for
Geoscience, Pretoria, 325 – 379.
Davis J (2002), Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard
Zones in California, Department of Conservation Guideline 118
Eglington BM, and Armstrong RA (2004), The Kaapvaal Craton and
adjacent orogens, southern Africa: a geochronological database
and overview of the geological development of the Craton, South
African Journal of Geology, 107, 13 – 32.
Erdik M, Alpay Biro Y, Onur T, Sesetyan K and Birgoren G (1991),
Assessment of Earthquake Hazard in Turkey and Neighboring
Regions. The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program.
Retrieved from http://kandilli.koc.net/gshap.html, 1999
Fouch MJ, James DE, VanDecar JC, Van Der Lee S, and the Kaapvaal
Seismic Group (2004), Mantle seismic structure beneath the
Kaapvaal and Zimbabwe cratons. South African Journal of Geology
107, 33–44.
Gasperini P, Bernardini F, Valensise G and Boschi E (1998), Defining
Seismogenic Sources from Historical Earthquake Felt Reports,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; 89(1): 94-110.
Gonzalez DV and Skipp BO (1980), Hazard mapping in risk evaluation for
engineering structures, Bulletin of the International Association of
Engineering Geology, No 21, 118-121
3-15
Hattingh J and Goedhart ML (1997), Neotectonic control on drainage
evolution in the Algoa basin, Eastern Cape. South African Journal
of Geology, 100, No. 1, p. 43-52.
Hicks EC, Bungum H and Linholm CD (2000), Seismic activity, inferred
crustal stresses and seismotectonics in the Rana region, Northern
Norway , Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 1423:1436.
Hill RS (1988), Quarternary faulting in the south-eastern Cape Province.
South African Journal of Geology, 91, 399-403
IAEA (2002), Safety Standards Series, NS-G-3.3, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna.
Ingram B (2008), The Seismotectonic Map of Africa (SeTMA) project,
second progress report. Council for Geoscience, Report No: 2008–
0201
James DE, Fouch MJ, VanDecar JC, van der Lee S, and Kaapvaal
Seismic Group (2001), Tectospheric structure beneath southern
Africa, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2485– 2488.
Johnston AC (1996), Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in
stable continental regions - I Instrumental seismicity, Geophys. J.
Int., 124, 381-414.
Kent LE (1981), The thermal springs of south-eastern Transvaal and
northern Natal. Annals of the Geological Survey of South Africa, 15,
51-67.
Meletti C, Patacca E and Scandone P (2000). Construction of a
Seismotectonic Model: The Case of Italy. Pure and Applied
Geophysics 157:11–35.
Mohanty WK and Walling MY (2008), First Order Seismic Microzonation of
Haldia, Bengal Basin (India) Using a GIS Platform. Pure and
Applied Geophysics 165:1325–1350.
Nguuri T, Gore J, James DE, Webb SJ, Wright C, Zengeni TG, Gwavava
O, Snoke A and Kaapvaal Seismic Group (2001), Crustal structure
beneath southern Africa and its implications for the formation and
evolution of the Kaapvaal and Zimbabwe cratons, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 28 (13), 2501-2504.
3-16
Reinecker J, Heidbach O, Tingay M, Connolly P and Muller B (2004), The
2004 release of the World Stress Map, World Stress Map
Proj.(Available online at www.world-stress-map.org)
Schlüter, T (2006), Geological Atlas of Africa, with Notes on Stratigraphy,
Tectonics, Economic Geology, Geohazards and Geosites of Each
Country. Berlin: Springer, 272 pps.
Silver PG, Fouch M, Gao S, and Schmitz M (2004), Seismic anisotropy,
mantle fabric, and the magmatic evolution of Precambrian southern
Africa, South African J. Geol., 107, 45-58.
Singh M and Hattingh E (2008), Collection of Isoseismal Maps for South
Africa, Natural Hazards, 50. Pages 403-408
Singh M, Kijko A and Durrheim R (2009), Seismotectonic Models for South
Africa. Synthesis of Geoscientific Information, Problems and Way
Forward, Seismological Research Letters, 80, Pages 65-33
Sperner B, Müller B, Heidbach O, Delvaux D, Reinecker J and Fuchs K,
(2003), Tectonic stress in the Earth's Crust: advances in the World
Stress Map Project. In: D. Nieuwland, Editor, New Insights in
Structural Interpretation and Modelling, Geological Society Special
Publication 212, London, pp. 101–116.
Terrier M, Bl`es1 JL., Godefroy P(†), Dominique M, Bour M and Martin C
(2000), Zonation of Metropolitan France for the application of
earthquake-resistant building regulations to critical facilities Part 1:
Seismotectonic zonation. Journal of Seismology 4: 215–230.
Wiemer, S (2001), A software package to analyse seismicity: ZMAP.
Seismological Research Letters, 3, 373-382.
Wilson, MGC (2005), Simplified Geology, Selected Mines and Mineral
Deposits-South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Council for
Geoscience, Pretoria.
Zoback MD and Zoback ML (1991), Tectonic Stress field of North America
and Relative Plate Motions. In: D.B. Slemmons, E.R. Engdahl, M.D.
Zoback and D.D. Blackwell, Editors, Neotectonics of North America
Decade Map Vol. I, Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO,
pp. 339–366.
3-17
Acknowledgements
Prof. Artur Cichowicz is thanked for his encouragement and on-going
mentorship. I am grateful to my supervisors, Prof. Durrheim and Prof. Kijko
for providing their support. The Council for Geoscience supplied the base
data. The manager of the Seismology Unit of the Council for Geoscience,
Michelle Grobbelaar, is thanked for her continued support in making this
work possible.
3-1
8
1 3 4
Co
llectio
n
an
d s
ele
ctio
n
of b
ase
da
ta
Str
ati
gra
ph
y a
nd
ge
olo
gic
al s
tru
ctu
res
Cru
st
po
st-
Pa
leo
zo
ic c
ove
r
Ge
olo
gic
al h
isto
ry
Ge
op
hysic
al fr
am
ew
ork
Ma
ntl
e
Mo
ho
de
pth
Ma
ntle
pro
pe
rtie
s
Ne
ote
cto
nic
s
Re
gio
na
l o
r lo
ca
lise
d d
efo
rma
tio
n
Typ
e a
nd
age
of
defo
rma
tio
n
To
po
gra
ph
y a
nd
dra
ina
ge
Re
cen
t a
nd
co
nte
mp
ora
ry r
eg
ion
al
str
es
s f
ield
s
Fo
ca
l m
ech
an
ism
s o
f e
art
hq
ua
ke
s
In-s
itu
str
ess m
ea
su
rem
en
ts
Seis
mic
ity
Pa
leo
His
tori
ca
l
Instr
um
en
tal
Da
ta a
ssim
ilatio
n,
inte
rpre
tatio
n a
nd
co
nstr
uctio
n o
f th
e
se
ism
ote
cto
nic
sch
em
a
Cla
ssif
ica
tio
n o
f fa
ult
s,
neo
tec
ton
ic a
nd
se
ism
og
en
ic r
eg
ion
s
Fa
ults
AF
se
ism
og
en
ic fa
ults
BF
fa
ults w
ith
po
ssib
le a
sso
cia
ted
se
ism
icity
CF
te
cto
nic
ally
active
fa
ults w
ith
ou
t kno
wn
se
ism
icity
DF
te
cto
nic
fa
ults w
ith
po
ssib
le a
sso
cia
ted
seis
mic
ity
Inte
rpre
tatio
n,
synth
esis
an
d
se
ism
ote
cto
nic
zo
na
tio
n
Se
ism
ote
cto
nic
zo
na
tio
n
to c
rea
te a
seis
mo
tec
ton
ic m
od
el
2D
ata
qua
lity a
sse
ssm
en
t,
da
ta s
ign
ific
an
ce
and
cla
ssific
atio
n
Da
ta I
mp
ort
an
ce
and
Co
mp
lete
ne
ss
Hig
h (
1),
Me
diu
m (
2),
Lo
w (
3)
Ta
bu
late
Da
ta I
nte
ractio
n a
nd
Sig
nific
an
ce
fo
r sch
em
a
Ne
ote
cto
nic
an
d/o
r se
ism
og
en
ic r
egio
ns
AN
str
on
gly
co
rre
late
d w
ith
ep
ice
ntr
es
BN
po
ssib
ly a
sso
cia
ted
with
seis
mic
ity
CN
with
ou
t kn
ow
n s
eis
mic
ity
DN
po
ssib
ly a
sso
cia
ted
with
se
ism
icity
De
fin
e t
hre
e typ
es o
f seis
mo
tecto
nic
zo
ne
s:
1
. S
eis
mo
ge
nic
str
uctu
res -
active f
au
lts
2
. S
eis
mo
ge
nic
syste
ms -
se
ism
ica
ly a
ctive
re
gio
ns t
ha
t m
ay c
on
tain
sig
nific
an
t fa
ults
3
. S
eis
mo
ge
nic
do
main
s -
re
gio
ns o
f d
iffu
se
se
ism
icity t
ha
t ca
nn
ot
be
asso
cia
ted
with
sp
ecific
ge
olo
gic
al str
uctu
res
Th
e s
eis
mo
tecto
nic
mo
de
l is
th
e s
um
of
the
se
ism
ote
cto
nic
zo
ne
s
Fig
ure
1 S
ch
em
atic r
epre
senta
tio
n o
f sta
ge
s in t
he c
rea
tion
of
a r
egio
na
l se
ism
ote
cto
nic
mod
el [a
dapte
d f
rom
Terr
ier
et a
l. (
20
00
)].
3-1
9
Fig
ure
2 G
eo
log
ica
l pro
vin
ces a
nd
cru
sta
l th
ickness r
esu
lts fro
m N
gu
uri
et a
l. (
20
01).
3-2
0
Fig
ure
3 L
arg
e s
tru
ctu
ral d
om
ain
s.
3-2
1
Fig
ure
4 C
EF
sch
em
a c
on
sis
tin
g o
f 1
8 c
luste
rs.
3-2
2
Fig
ure
5 W
orld
Str
ess M
ap d
ata
and
data
fro
m B
ird (
20
06).
Ea
rthq
ua
kes form
ing
Clu
ste
rs 2
and 3
have
str
ike-s
lip r
eg
ime
s.
Eart
hq
uake
s in C
luste
r 8 s
how
norm
al
fau
ltin
g.
Oth
er
eart
hq
uake
s to
ward
s t
he n
ort
h h
ave n
orm
al fa
ultin
g r
egim
es.
Th
e m
eth
od u
se
d f
or
ca
lcu
lating
str
esses a
re ind
ica
ted
(F
MS
-Fo
cal m
ech
anis
m
so
lution,
OC
-Overc
ori
ng,
BO
-Indiv
idua
l bre
akou
ts, G
FS
- ge
olo
gic
al fa
ult s
lip).
Ori
en
tatio
n o
f sym
bol (r
ed lin
e)
corr
esp
ond
s to t
he m
axim
um
hori
zo
nta
l str
ess
(SH
). S
S:
str
ike-s
lip S
H>
SV
>S
h ;
NF
: n
orm
al fa
ultin
g S
V>
SH
>S
h.
14
1
3-2
3
Fig
ure
6 C
lassific
atio
n o
f n
eote
cto
nic
fau
lts a
nd
rea
ctivate
d f
ea
ture
s.
Refe
r to
Ta
ble
4 a
nd T
able
5 f
or
sym
bo
l m
ea
nin
gs a
nd fu
ll na
me
s o
f fe
atu
res
3-2
4
Fig
ure
7 C
lassifie
d n
eo
tecto
nic
dom
ain
s a
nd C
EF
sch
em
a.
The
ne
ote
cto
nic
do
ma
ins (
AN
D-D
ND
) are
in
dic
ate
d a
ccord
ing t
o t
he c
lassific
atio
n s
ch
em
e
imp
lem
ente
d.
3-2
5
Fig
ure
8 S
eis
mote
cto
nic
mo
de
l fo
r S
ou
th A
fric
a c
om
pri
sin
g o
f se
ism
ote
cto
nic
syste
ms, do
ma
ins a
nd s
tru
ctu
res (
refe
r to
text
for
exp
lanation).
3-2
6
1.0
0
10.0
0
100.0
0
1000.0
0
10000.0
0
33.5
44.5
55.5
66.5
Mag
nit
ud
e
Cumulative Number
2 5 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
backgro
und
Fig
ure
9 P
lot
of
Gu
ten
berg
-Ric
hte
r fr
equ
ency
mag
nitud
e r
ela
tio
ns fo
r se
ism
icity w
ithin
ea
ch z
one. N
ote
tha
t no
so
lution
could
be o
bta
ine
d f
or
zo
ne
s 1
, 3,
4,
6 a
nd
19 d
ue t
o insuffic
ient
seis
mic
ity
da
ta w
ith
in e
ach z
one
3-2
7
Table
1 M
appin
g o
f str
uctu
ral dom
ain
s.
Typ
e o
f d
ata
(S
ou
rce)
Po
ssib
le u
se
Imp
ort
an
ce
Hig
h 1
Med
ium
2
Low
3
Data
co
mp
lete
ne
ss
Hig
h 1
Med
ium
2
Low
3
Geolo
gic
al M
aps
(CG
S)
Shallo
w s
tructu
re
1
1-
exte
nsiv
e m
appin
g
Cru
sta
l th
ickness (
Ng
uuri e
t al. 2
00
1)
Dee
p s
tructu
re
2
2-
data
cove
rag
e f
or
larg
e
regio
n
Subsurf
ace s
tructu
re,
lithosphere
thic
kness (
Fouch e
t al. 2
004
) D
ee
p s
tructu
re
2
2--
data
covera
ge f
or
larg
e
regio
n
Top
ogra
ph
y (
CG
S)
Shallo
w s
tructu
re
2
1-g
ood c
ove
rag
e
Aero
ma
gn
etic M
aps (
CG
S)
Ide
ntificatio
n o
f re
gio
nal a
nom
alie
s a
nd
larg
e s
tructu
ral dom
ain
s
3
1-g
ood c
ove
rag
e
Gra
vim
etr
ic M
aps (
CG
S)
Ide
ntificatio
n o
f re
gio
nal a
nom
alie
s a
nd
larg
e s
tructu
ral dom
ain
s
3
1-g
ood c
ove
rag
e
3-2
8
Table
2 M
appin
g o
f ne
ote
cto
nic
dom
ain
s.
Typ
e o
f d
ata
Usefu
lne
ss f
or
Fau
lt
Ch
ara
cte
risati
on
Imp
ort
an
ce
Hig
h 1
Med
ium
2
Low
3
Data
co
mp
lete
nes
s
Hig
h 1
Med
ium
2
Low
3
Reactivate
d f
ault s
carp
s
ye
s
1
3 –
spars
e d
ata
set
Regio
ns o
f observ
ed
ne
ote
cto
nic
activity
ye
s
1
3 –
spars
e d
ata
set
The
rmal spri
ngs
ye
s
1
3 –
spars
e d
ata
set
Str
ess in
dic
ato
rs
ma
ybe
1
3 –
spars
e d
ata
set
Seis
mic
anis
otr
op
y (
Silv
er
et
al
20
04)
and D
r M
att
he
w F
ouch
(pers
. com
m.)
)
Not
dir
ectly
2
2—
data
cove
rage f
or
larg
e
regio
n
Axis
of
warp
ing
ye
s
2
3--
inte
rpre
tatio
n
3-2
9
Table
3 M
appin
g o
f co
ncentr
atio
ns o
f eart
hq
uake f
oci.
Typ
e o
f d
ata
Usefu
lne
ss f
or
Fau
lt
Ch
ara
cte
ris
ati
on
Imp
ort
an
ce
Hig
h 1
Med
ium
2
Low
3
Data
co
mp
lete
ne
ss
Hig
h 1
Me
diu
m 2
Low
3
Eart
hqu
ake c
ata
logu
e
(162
0-2
008)
m
aybe
1
2
Incom
ple
te d
ata
set
Com
pila
tion o
f is
oseis
mal
maps (
Sin
gh a
nd H
att
ing
h
20
08)
ma
ybe
1
1
34 m
aps c
om
pile
d s
ince
19
32
3-3
0
Table
4 C
lassific
ation o
f N
eote
cto
nic
Evid
ence (
Faults o
nly
) (A
F-s
eis
mogenic
faults,
BF
-neote
cto
nic
faults w
ith p
ossib
le a
ssocia
ted s
eis
mic
ity,
CF
-
tecto
nic
ally
active f
aults w
ithout know
n s
eis
mic
ity,
DF
-tecto
nic
faults w
ith p
ossib
le a
ssocia
ted s
eis
mic
ity,
1-4
is g
iven a
s level of
import
ance to the
model).
Featu
re
Ab
bre
via
tio
n
Des
cri
pti
on
of
evid
en
ce
So
urc
e
Co
rrela
tio
n w
ith
seis
mic
ity/
CE
F z
on
e
Cate
go
ry
Kan
go
Bavia
ansklo
of
Fault
KB
F
Has r
eactivate
d f
ault s
carp
s in s
om
e
pla
ces o
f betw
een 2
- 4
m h
igh
Hill
(19
88)
La
rge p
art
falls
in z
one
3,
som
e p
art
s in z
ones 2
+4
AF
1
Kuis
eb-
Hebro
n F
ault
KH
F
Dis
pla
ced C
en
ozoic
/Qua
rte
nary
se
dim
ent
up t
o 6
5 m
T P
art
rid
ge
(pers
. com
m.)
O
ut
of
regio
n o
f in
tere
st
Rie
tfonte
in
Fault
RF
In G
aute
ng,
the R
ietf
onte
in f
ault s
yste
m
runs f
rom
Edenva
le in t
he e
ast
to b
eyon
d
Kru
gers
dorp
in th
e w
est.
A s
eries o
f
lan
dslid
es a
re f
ou
nd a
lon
g this
fault. T
his
fault s
yste
m m
ay
be t
he s
ourc
e o
f
localis
ed d
istr
ess in b
uild
ings a
nd m
ay
als
o b
e t
he locus o
f lo
w level seis
mic
events
Bark
er
(20
04)
Locate
d in m
inin
g r
egio
n o
f
Ran
d –
zo
ne 1
2
DF
4
Port
Du
nfo
rd-
PD
MO
Z
Late
Ple
isto
ce
ne t
o H
olo
ce
ne f
aults a
re
Andre
oli
Fe
w e
ve
nts
, M
l 6.3
event of
BF
2
3-3
1
Featu
re
Ab
bre
via
tio
n
Des
cri
pti
on
of
evid
en
ce
So
urc
e
Co
rrela
tio
n w
ith
seis
mic
ity/
CE
F z
on
e
Cate
go
ry
Mo
zam
biq
ue
coasta
l fa
ults
well
exp
osed a
t P
ort
Dunfo
rd n
ea
r
Ric
hard
s B
ay e
xte
ndin
g n
ort
hw
ard
s,
thro
ugh th
e S
t Lucia
Lakes a
nd th
e
nort
hern
Kw
aZ
ulu
Nata
l co
asta
l pla
in into
south
ern
Mo
zam
biq
ue
(199
6)
19
32 o
ccurr
ed in t
his
vic
inity
Tship
ise F
ault
TH
PS
E
Have y
oun
g f
ault s
carp
s r
an
gin
g f
rom
2
m t
o 1
0 m
heig
ht
dis
pla
cin
g a
eolia
n
san
ds
T P
art
rid
ge
(Pers
.
Com
m.)
No s
eis
mic
ity
CF
3
Bosb
okpoo
rt
BB
SB
K
Have y
ou
ng f
ault s
carp
s r
angin
g f
rom
2m
to 1
0 m
heig
ht
dis
pla
cin
g a
eolia
n s
ands
T P
art
rid
ge
(Pers
.
Com
m.)
No s
eis
mic
ity
CF
3
Coeg
a F
ault
CG
A
You
ng F
au
lt
Hatt
ingh a
nd
Goe
dhart
(199
7)
Som
e s
eis
mic
ity,
lo
w s
tatio
n
cove
rage Z
one 4
D
F 4
Tha
bazim
bi-
Murc
his
on
Gre
ensto
ne
Belt
TM
B
Natu
ral seis
mic
ity
associa
ted w
ith t
his
lineam
ent,
conta
ins t
he Z
ebe
die
la F
ault
and T
ha
bazim
bi F
ault –
rela
ted t
o
subsid
ence o
f B
ushve
ld B
asin
by 4
00 m
and h
as a
num
ber
of
the
rmal spri
ngs
Andre
oli
(199
6)
Zon
es 1
7 a
nd 1
8
AF
1
3-3
2
Table
5 C
lassific
ation o
f N
eote
cto
nic
evid
ence: re
activation o
f fa
ults, th
erm
al springs, altering o
f dra
inage lin
es,
axis
of
warp
ing a
nd s
ubsid
ence
(AN
-seis
mogenic
and n
eote
cto
nic
regio
ns, B
N-n
eote
cto
nic
regio
ns w
ith p
ossib
le a
ssocia
ted s
eis
mic
ity,
CN
-neote
cto
nic
regio
ns w
ithout know
n
seis
mic
ity,
1-4
is g
iven a
s level of
import
ance t
o the m
odel).
Featu
re
Ab
bre
via
tio
n
Descri
pti
on
of
evid
en
ce
So
urc
e
Co
rrela
tio
n w
ith
seis
mic
ity/
CE
F z
on
e
Use
Bultfo
nte
in
(SW
) B
LT
SW
R
ece
nt fa
ult z
one r
eachin
g th
e s
urf
ace 1
0 k
m
south
west
of
Bultfo
nte
in
Andre
oli
(199
6)
Not
sure
B
N 4
Bultfo
nte
in
(N6
0)
BLT
N6
0
Wid
espre
ad r
eactivatio
n o
f P
recam
bri
an f
aults f
rom
the
Wesselb
ron p
anneveld
60 k
m n
ort
h o
f B
ultfo
nte
in in
the K
rug
ers
do
rp a
rea
Andre
oli
(199
6)
Not
sure
B
N 4
Griquala
nd-
Tra
nsvaal
Axis
GT
A
Rela
ted t
o th
e s
ubsid
ence o
f th
e K
ala
hari B
asin
. S
mall
movem
ents
alo
ng t
his
axis
le
d t
o d
isru
ption o
f dra
inag
e
netw
ork
s a
nd d
eve
lop
ment
of
ne
w d
rain
ag
e lin
es
T P
art
rid
ge
(Pers
com
m.)
Thre
e p
art
s c
an b
e
consid
ere
d (
West,
Zon
e 9
, M
iddle
som
e
seis
mic
ity
– n
o z
one
ide
ntified,
East
–G
old
-
min
ing z
ones 1
1, 1
2)
AN
1
Sald
ana-
Agulh
as-A
xis
S
AA
Alo
ng t
his
axis
, th
ere
are
regio
ns w
here
litholo
gie
s
occu
r b
elo
w s
ea-l
evel. I
n the C
ap
e A
gulh
as,
fluvia
l
terr
aces o
f pro
bably
Neogen
e a
ges a
re u
pa
rched
acro
ss t
his
axis
. N
eote
cto
nic
join
ts,
faults a
nd
bre
ccia
s
Andre
oli
(199
6)
Occurs
betw
een Z
one
s
1 a
nd 2
A
N 1
3-3
3
Featu
re
Ab
bre
via
tio
n
Descri
pti
on
of
evid
en
ce
So
urc
e
Co
rrela
tio
n w
ith
seis
mic
ity/
CE
F z
on
e
Use
cut consolid
ate
d a
nd s
em
i-conso
lidate
d L
ate
Plio
ce
ne
to P
leis
tocene c
alc
are
nites n
ear
Ga
nsba
ai, Q
uoin
Poin
t, C
ap
e A
gu
lhas a
nd G
ouri
qua
Cis
kei
Sw
azila
nd
Axis
CS
A
Eart
hqu
akes in L
esoth
o o
ccur
ne
ar
the C
ed
arv
ille F
ault
an
d C
ed
arv
ille f
lats
allu
via
l d
ep
osits locate
d o
n t
he
inla
nd f
lank o
f th
e C
SA
. T
herm
al spri
ngs in K
waZ
ulu
Nata
l an
d M
pum
ala
nga a
lso o
ccur
alo
ng this
axis
Andre
oli
(199
6)
Kent
(198
1)
Occurs
alo
ng Z
ones 4
,
6,
5,
15,
14.
Severa
l
larg
e e
art
hqu
akes
occu
rre
d a
long t
his
axis
for
whic
h
macro
se
ism
ic d
ata
are
availa
ble
.
AN
1
3-3
4
Table
6 V
isual id
entification o
f C
EF
.
CE
F C
luste
r num
ber
Com
ment
1
His
torical eart
hqu
akes in C
ap
e T
ow
n C
luste
r
2
Ong
oin
g e
art
hq
uake a
ctivity
in the C
ere
s r
eg
ion
3
Spora
dic
low
density (
larg
e>
ML4)
ea
rth
qu
akes a
long t
he C
FB
4
Lin
ear-
like tra
ce o
f re
latively
low
er
density e
vents
alo
ng t
he E
ast
Coast
5
Clu
ste
r of
events
ab
out
the e
ast
coast
6
Clu
ste
r of
events
in L
esoth
o
7
Clu
ste
r of
events
in L
esoth
o
8
Clu
ste
r of
events
ne
ar
Koff
iefo
nte
in
9
larg
e>
ML4 e
art
hqu
ake
s –
als
o k
no
wn a
s t
he G
rootv
loer
clu
ste
r
10
Clu
ste
r of
events
in W
elk
om
gold
-min
ing d
istr
ict
11
Clu
ste
r of
events
in K
lerk
sdorp
min
ing d
istr
ict
12
Clu
ste
r of
events
in C
arleto
nvill
e-W
est R
and m
inin
g d
istr
ict
13
Explo
sio
ns in t
he C
oal field
s
14
Clu
ste
r of
events
ne
ar
Sw
azila
nd
15
Clu
ste
r of
events
alo
ng
the E
ast
Co
ast
16
Clu
ste
r of
events
17
Clu
ste
r of
events
18
Clu
ste
r of
events
– p
ossib
le r
ela
tion t
o p
latinum
min
es
3-3
5
Table
7 M
ain
chara
cte
ristics o
f seis
mogenic
str
uctu
res a
nd s
yste
ms.
R
efe
ren
ce
Eart
hq
ua
kes
Pre
sen
t D
efo
rma
tio
n
an
d
Str
es
se
s
Geo
log
ica
l P
rovin
ce
Str
ike
s o
f M
ain
fa
ult
s a
nd
oth
er
ch
ara
cte
risti
cs
Seis
mo
gen
ic S
tru
ctu
re A
Z
3
CE
F 3
K
BF
re
activate
d f
ault s
carp
s
CF
B
–
Fo
lde
d
co
asta
l de
lta
se
dim
ents
E-W
str
ike,
Str
ike S
lip
KB
F(E
-W
str
ike,
Norm
al
Fa
ult)
4
CE
F 4
C
ontinu
ation o
f K
BF
C
FB
–
Fo
lde
d
co
asta
l de
lta
se
dim
ents
KB
F(E
-W
str
ike,
Norm
al
Fa
ult)
Seis
mo
gen
ic S
yste
m B
Z
1
CE
F
1
(ma
inly
his
tori
ca
lly
rep
ort
ed
eart
hq
uakes)
SA
A
(See
de
tails
in
T
ab
le
5
abo
ve)
CF
B
–
Fo
lde
d
co
asta
l de
lta
se
dim
ents
5
CE
F
4,
5,
14,
15,
se
vera
l e
ve
nts
availa
ble
with
macro
seis
mic
info
rmation
CS
A
(Se
e
deta
ils
in
Tab
le
5
abo
ve)
Pa
sses
thro
ugh
a
ll m
ajo
r
geo
log
ical pro
vin
ce
s
6
193
2,
Ml
6.3
S
t L
ucia
Eart
hqu
ake
PD
MO
Z (
See d
eta
ils i
n T
ab
le 4
abo
ve)
Rocks form
ing th
e N
NM
B
14
Low
le
vel
of
eart
hq
uake
activity
GT
A
(Se
e
deta
ils
in
Tab
le
5
abo
ve)
Rocks f
orm
ing t
he K
he
iss G
rabe
n
and
the K
C
NE
-SW
Anis
otr
op
y
17,1
8
CE
F 1
7,1
8
TM
B
(See
deta
ils
in
Tab
le
4
abo
ve)
KC
E
W -
EN
E A
nis
otr
op
y
19
Low
le
vel
of
eart
hq
uake
activity
BB
SB
K
an
d
TH
PS
E
(See
deta
ils in
Ta
ble
4 a
bo
ve
)
Lim
pop
o B
elt
EW
Anis
otr
op
y
3-3
6
Ta
ble
8 P
ara
mete
rs f
or
the G
ute
nb
erg
-Ric
hte
r fr
eq
uen
cy
ma
gnitud
e r
ela
tio
n.
Zo
ne N
um
ber
mm
in
b
Sta
nd
ard
de
via
tio
n o
f
b
a
a (
an
nu
al)
2
3.4
0
.63
0.0
6
4.1
3
1.9
6
5
3.7
1
.08
0.2
5
.84
3.6
4
7
3.4
0
.86
0.1
4
.47
2.3
8
8
3
0.5
61
0.0
6
3.5
6
1.5
5
9
3.2
0.6
84
0.2
3
.28
1.5
4
10
3.1
1.1
0.0
3
6.1
8
4.4
5
11
3
0.9
89
0.0
2
6.1
7
4.4
2
12
3.1
1.2
0.0
2
7.1
5
5.1
5
13
3
0.9
32
0.2
4
.43
2.4
3
14
3
0.9
39
0.2
3.9
1.6
15
3.7
0.5
62
0.0
9
3.5
1
1.2
3
16
3.2
0.5
82
0.1
3
.08
1.1
17
3.7
1
.63
0.7
7
.11
5.1
2
18
3
0.9
44
0.2
4.4
2.4
Ba
ckgro
und
3
0.5
63
0.0
2
4.3
2
1.8
1