Forecast of seismic and geodynamic conditions before and after the earthquake of March 28, 2025, M7.7, in Myanmar

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the seismic and geodynamic conditions before and after the March 28, 2025, M7.7 earthquake in Myanmar. The results of a global test of the M8 algorithm for predicting earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.5 and greater for this region are considered. It is analyzed how expected the earthquake was in terms of long-term seismic hazard based on seismicity data alone. A geodynamic analysis is performed to assess the seismogenic potential of the Sagaing fault before and after the earthquake. The risk of aftershocks is assessed. A model of the earthquake source is constructed to test the supershare property of the rupture and interpret the anomalously large length in the US Geological Survey model.

About the authors

S. V. Baranov

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Kola Branch of the Federal Research Center Geophysical Survey, Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia; Apatity, Murmansk oblast, Russia

F. E. Vinberg

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

I. S. Vladimirova

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia

I. A. Vorobieva

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

V. G. Kosobokov

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

K. V. Krushelnitskii

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

S. D. Matochkina

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

A. K. Nekrasova

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

G. M. Steblov

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

A. I. Filippova

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

A. S. Fomochkina

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

P. N. Shebalin

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: shebalin@mitp.ru
Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Tapponnier P., Peltzer G., Le Dain A.Y., Armijo R., Cobbold P. Propagating extrusion tectonics in Asia: New insights from simple experiments with plasticine // Geology. 1982. 10 (12). 611–616. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613.
  2. Hurukawa N., Maung P.M. Two seismic gaps on the Sagaing Fault, Myanmar, derived from relocatin of historical earthquakes since 1918 // Geophysical Research Letters. 2010. V. 38. L01310.
  3. Кособоков В.Г., Щепалина П.Д. Времена повышенной вероятности возникновения сильнейших землетрясений мира: 30 лет проверки гипотезы в реальном времени // Физика Земли. 2020. № 1. С. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0002333720010068
  4. Филиппова А.И., Фомочкина А.С. Очаговые параметры сильных Турецких землетрясений 6 февраля 2023 г. (Mw=7.8 и Mw=7.7) по данным поверхностных волн // Физика Земли. 2023. № 6. С. 89–102. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0002333723060078
  5. Баранов С.В., Шебалин П.Н., Воробьева И.А., Селюцкая О.В. Автоматизированная оценка опасности афтершоков землетрясения в Турции 06.02.2023 г., Mw 7.8* // Физика Земли. 2023. № 6. C. 133–141. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0002333723060042
  6. Shebalin P.N., Narteau C., Baranov S.V. Earthquake productivity law // Geophysical Journal International. 2020. V. 222. № 2. P. 1264–1269. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa252
  7. Healy J.H., Kossobokov V.G., Dewey J.W. A test to evaluate the earthquake prediction algorithm, M8. USGS Open-File Report 92–401. 1992. 23 p. with 6 Appendices. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr92401
  8. Gerstenberger M.C., Marzocchi W., Allen T., Pagani M., Adams J., Danciu L. et al. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at regional and national scales: State of the art and future challenges // Reviews of Geophysics. 2020. V. 58. e2019RG000653. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000653
  9. Шебалин П.Н., Баранов С.В., Воробьева И.А., Греков Е.М., Крушельницкий К.В., Скоркина А.А., Селюцкая О.В. О моделировании сейсмического режима в задачах оценки сейсмической опасности // Доклады Российской академии наук. Науки о Земле. 2024. Т. 515. № 1. С. 95–109. doi: 10.31857/S2686739724030121, EDN: HQDOAN.
  10. Di Giacomo D., Bondar I., Storchak D.A., Engdahl E.R., Bormann P., Harris J. ISC-GEM: Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900–2009), III. Re-computed MS and mb, proxy MW, final magnitude composition and completeness assessment // Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2015. V. 239. P. 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2014.06.005
  11. Крушельницкий К.В., Шебалин П.Н., Воробьева И.А., Селюцкая О.В., Антипова А.О. Границы применимости закона Гутенберга–Рихтера в задачах оценки сейсмической опасности и риска // Физика Земли. 2024. № 5. С. 69–84. doi: 10.31857/S0002333724050058, EDN: EJZGGD.
  12. Mon C.T., Gong X., Wen Y., Jiang M., Zhiang M., Chen Q.‚ÄêF., Zhang M., Hou G., Thant M., Sein K., He Y. Insight into major active faults in Central Myanmar and the related geodynamic sources // Geophysical Research Letters. 2020. V. 47. e2019GL086236.
  13. Tin T.Z.H., Nishimura T., Hashimoto M., Lindsey E.O., Aung L.T., Min S.M., Thant M. Present-day crustal deformation and slip rate along the southern Sagaing fault in Myanmar by GNSS observation // Journal of Asian Earth Sciences. 2022. V. 228. 105125.
  14. Okada Y. Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half space // Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1985. V. 75. No. 4. P. 1135–1154.
  15. Savage J.C. A dislocation model of strain accumulation and release at a subduction zone // Journal of Geophysical Research. 1983. V. 88. No. B6. P. 4984–4996.
  16. Pollitz F.F. Coseismic deformation from earthquake faulting on a layered spherical Earth // Geophysical Journal International. 1996. V. 125. P. 1–14.
  17. Букчин Б.Г. Об определении параметров очага землетрясения по записям поверхностных волн в случае неточного задания характеристик среды // Известия АН СССР. Серия Физика Земли. 1989. № 9. С. 34–41.
  18. Bukchin B. Determination of stress glut moments of total degree 2 from teleseismic surface wave amplitude spectra // Tectonophysics. 1995. V. 248. P. 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(94)00271-A
  19. Букчин Б.Г. Описание очага землетрясения в приближении вторых моментов и идентификация плоскости разлома // Физика Земли. 2017. № 2. С. 76–83. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0002333717020041
  20. Baranov S., Narteau C., Shebalin P. Modeling and Prediction of Aftershock Activity // Surveys in Geophysics. 2022. V. 43. № 2. P. 437–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-022-09698-0

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Academy of Sciences