❌

Reading view

Venezuela's devastating 'earthquake doublet' holds a warning for California's San Andreas Fault

The two major earthquakes that struck Venezuela just 39 seconds apart on June 24 had slightly different epicenters in north-central Venezuela. The first (M7.2) struck near San Felipe, and the second (M7.5) near Yumare, leaving thousands dead and thousands more injured, according to government officials. But beyond the devastation, the sequence opened a rare scientific opportunity: Researchers think the unusual "earthquake doublet" could offer new insight into how large fault systems interact and how some of the most destructive earthquakes grow.

Large earthquakes are typically followed by smaller aftershocks. But particularly intense events can also alter stress on nearby faults ‪or along the same fault, ‪triggering another major earthquake.

These scenarios are infrequent but not unprecedented. The 2023 sequence in Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, and the 1997 earthquake doublet in Harnai, Pakistan, are two well-known examples.

The Venezuelan sequence also reinforces an emerging consensus among seismologists: that treating faults as isolated structures may underestimate the destructive power of quakes in regions where multiple tectonic faults meet, as they do both in Venezuela and around California's San Andreas Fault system. That's a problem, because many of the seismic hazard models in California do not account for those multi-fault interactions.

A natural laboratory for understanding major earthquakes

The fault system involved in the Venezuelan earthquake ‪—‬ which includes the Boconó, Morón, San Sebastián and El Pilar faults ‪—‬ shares several key characteristics with the San Andreas Fault. Both are right-lateral strike-slip fault systems ‪—‬ in which the crustal blocks slide horizontally past each other ‪—‬ located along the boundary between two tectonic plates: the South American and Caribbean plates in Venezuela, and the Pacific and North American plates in California.

Despite these similarities, researchers caution that the two systems differ in important ways.

"The main difference is that the Venezuelan plate boundary has a much more complex fault architecture," Julián García Mayordomo, a senior scientist in the Geological Hazards and Climate Change Department at the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain, told Live Science.

The difference stems largely from the Maracaibo block, whose interaction with surrounding faults creates a much more intricate plate boundary than California's.

"The other difference is the speed at which the plates move," García Mayordomo pointed out.

In Venezuela, the tectonic plates move past each other at about 0.8 inches (20 millimeters) per year, compared with roughly 1.2 inches (30 millimeters) along the San Andreas Fault. Faster plate motion allows tectonic stress to accumulate more quickly, which influences how often large earthquakes occur over long timescales, but not when the next one will strike.

aerial view of the san andreas fault

An aerial view of the San Andreas Fault in California. (Image credit: Kevin Schafer/Getty Images)

Along the San Andreas Fault, magnitude 7 or larger earthquakes occur, on average every 100 to 200 years, although the frequency of recurrence varies along the fault. The last major rupture in Southern California was the magnitude 7.9 Fort Tejon earthquake in 1857. In Venezuela, estimated slip rates suggest recurrence intervals of one to two centuries. The region experienced two devastating earthquakes in 1812, part of a multiple-rupture sequence that included events of magnitude 7.5, 7.2 and 6.5, and a 2018 study concluded that the Boconó Fault had already accumulated enough strain to generate another major earthquake.

However, these are statistical averages. The recurrence of large earthquakes is highly irregular and depends on a multitude of factors, many of which we still don't fully understand. So a major event could occur in 100 years ‪—‬ or even tomorrow.

Looking beyond individual faults

This uncertainty is precisely one of the reasons the Venezuelan seismic doublet is generating so much interest among seismologists.

"It is the kind of natural event that can sharpen and test the rupture-interaction concepts that paleoseismic models like ours can only infer indirectly," said Liliane Burkhard, a geologist and geophysicist at the University of Bern and first author of a recent study suggesting that the junction between the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults in Southern California is experiencing some of its highest tectonic stress levels in the past 1,000 years, told Live Science.

"Our Cajon Pass work relied on centuries of paleoseismic reconstructions to infer how stress evolves and whether ruptures can cross between fault systems," Burkhard told Live Science. But that doesn't give geologists real-time data, captured by seismic instruments, showing how different faults interact during quakes, she added.

The Venezuela doublet offers exactly that opportunity. The main lesson for California, Burkhard said, is that interactions between neighboring faults can play an important role in the evolution of large earthquakes.

"Whether it is Cajon Pass where the San Andreas and San Jacinto systems meet or the Boconó-San Sebastián in Venezuela, these are precisely the locations where single-fault hazard models break down because the real behavior depends on how stress is shared and transferred between adjacent structures," she said.

Many times the winner isn't the boxer who lands the hardest punch but the one who keeps punching for longer.

Julián García Mayordomo, senior scientist at the Geological and Mining Institute

Still, the two systems are quite different. The Venezuelan sequence represents a different type of cascading rupture than the one described in Burkhard's research. At Cajon Pass, the "earthquake gate" concept explores whether a single rupture can jump from one fault system to another during the same earthquake, over tens of seconds of rupture propagation along a continuous fault trace. The Venezuelan doublet, by contrast, "looks like two distinct ruptures on what may be two separate fault structures, triggered in close succession," Burkhard said.

For Burkhard, the Venezuelan earthquake reinforces the need for seismic hazard models to move beyond treating faults as isolated structures and instead represent them as interconnected networks. The challenge is particularly relevant in California, where roughly 300 active faults may interact in ways that traditional hazard models do not capture.

New Zealand has already incorporated this lesson. After the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake ruptured at least 12 faults in a single event, New Zealand revised its National Seismic Hazard Model to include complex multifault ruptures.

García Mayordomo argues that both Venezuela and the United States should incorporate these complex rupture scenarios into seismic hazard assessments and building codes. Earthquakes involving multiple faults can produce longer-lasting shaking that increases structural fatigue and, ultimately, the risk of collapse.

"It's like a boxing match," García Mayordomo said. "Many times the winner isn't the boxer who lands the hardest punch but the one who keeps punching for longer."

Even so, researchers cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from a single earthquake.

"Each earthquake gives us one possible scenario," Judith Hubbard, an earthquake scientist and structural geologist at Cornell University told Live Science. "The range of earthquake behaviors is wide."

  •  

A new method to detect volcanic eruptions

Many volcano scientists spend their time monitoring volcanoes to predict if, or when, they’ll next erupt. The challenge for these scientists is to forecast the exact probability of an eruption and the moment it will occur. 

To address this problem, a team of researchers developed an early-detection system to determine when to issue alerts about volcanic eruptions. Their motivation was that previous alert systems weren’t accurate enough because they couldn’t detect underground volcanic processes that occur right before an eruption. 

From 2014 to 2023, the researchers conducted a series of tests to accurately detect temporary, low-frequency vibrations using an instrument called a seismometer. The researchers focused on these transient signals because they come from earthquakes and other ground phenomena, which scientists often rely on to predict volcanic eruptions. These phenomena include ground tilting caused by fracturing from the movement of magma and volcanic gases. The scientists named these signals the “Jerk” signals because they occur due to sudden movements. 

The team set up their experiment at Piton de la Fournaise, a volcano at La Réunion Island off the east coast of Madagascar. They discovered the Jerk signals by detecting and analyzing mysterious short-term signals from existing and experimental seismic data. During real-time experiments, they detected signals 8 kilometers (about 5 miles) from the volcano at the Rivière de l’Est seismic station. These signals resulted from changes in ground elevation as magma moved, and they preceded eruptions by minutes and sometimes hours. 

The researchers measured the Jerk signals in units of newton-meters per second, which conveys how fast physical changes occurred in or around the volcano. In addition to real-time experiments, the team checked the Jerk signals’ accuracy by analyzing the station’s past data to determine when these signals would have occurred before an eruption.

To avoid false alarms during their experiments, the researchers needed to distinguish between the signal amplitudes of ocean tides and the transient Jerk signals. So, they used computational software to predict the signals from ocean tides. This was necessary because the instruments that record ground phenomena are also sensitive to tidal movements.  

The Jerk system sent its first automatic alarm in June 2014, 1 hour before the first volcanic tremor, signalling that magma was at the Earth’s surface. The team recorded the last signal in their study on July 2, 2023, 40 minutes before the eruption, at a slow 1.5 newton-meters per second. From 2014 to 2023, other Jerk detections occurred between a few minutes and up to 8 hours before an eruption.

To further assess the strength of the Jerk signals, the team examined previous eruption records at Piton de la Fournaise. They found that for the 24 eruptions between 1998 and 2010, a Jerk alarm would have gone off 83% of the time. Of the 48 eruptions that occurred between 1998 and 2023, including the eruptions during their real-time tests, about 42 Jerk alarms would have occurred. However, they found that the Jerk signals were more accurate during their real-time analysis than they would have been for the eruptions 20 years earlier. 

Although the researchers successfully detected pre-eruption signals, they noted that the Jerk alarms occasionally arrived too late due to the data processing time, which takes at least 10 to 15 minutes. They reported 2 late alarms: one on June 11, 2019, and the other on February 10, 2020. Therefore, after 10 years of tracking the Jerk signals, the team evaluated their success rates at 22 successful alarms out of 24 eruptions, for a 92% positive rate. 

Before using the Jerk signals, many volcanologists struggled to predict the exact moment a volcano erupts. The team concluded that, in addition to the usual methods for detecting pre-eruption earthquakes, observatory scientists could now use Jerk signals to confidently notify authorities in advance of volcanic eruptions, so they can alert people living near volcanoes worldwide. 

The post A new method to detect volcanic eruptions appeared first on Sciworthy.

  •  
❌