The Andaman - Sumatra Arc in the NE Indian Ocean is well known for its high seismic hazard and

tsunami potentiality. Seismicity is caused by eastward subduction of the Indo-Australian plate along Andaman - Sumatra trench to about a depth of 500 km below the NE Asian plate. The seismicity map with earthquake magnitude data (Ms/mb 4) for the time period 1906 2010 and its correlation to the crustal and mantle faults for this plate margin is presented. The seismicity map shows visible earthquake clusters. From the spatial perspective, the extents of these clusters are constrained by near and point density analyses. Seismic potentialities of the 11 numbers of clusters (source zones) in terms of generation of maximum capable earthquakes are calculated through empirical relationship between RL and magnitude (M) of individual clusters, and also by Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) relationship. Again, these earthquake sizes are used to calculate the maximum run-up height (ranging from 1.98 to 6.42 m) of tsunamis along the nearby coastal tracts. To our understanding, the source zones A, B in offshore Sumatra and F, J in south of Little Andaman and North Andaman are the most vulnerable areas with future occurrence of earthquake magnitude greater that Mw 7.3 with a run-up height of

Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2009 u 1

tsunamis more than 6 meter. Further, the maximum magnitude earthquake of the entire study area is calculated by Gumbels extreme value statistics for return period 400, 450 and 500 years. The return period (400-500 years) of giant palaeo-tsunami is comparable to the return period for tsunamogenic earthquake of magnitude Mw 9.2 and above.
Key words : Earthquake source zone, Andaman-Sumatra subduction, Spatial statistics, Maximum Capable Earthquake, Tsunami Run-up, Gumbels extreme value statistics.

The interelationship between occurrence of a megathrust earthquake event under the Sea/Ocean and subsequent generation of tsunami as its after effect is known from past. Examples of such combinations are 1960 Great Chilean earthquake (Mw 9.5), 1964 Alaska earthquake (Mw 9.2), and most recently 2004 Sumatra earthquake (Mw 9.3). These giant megathrust earthquakes with accompanied large scale tsunamis were felt all along the coastal tracts of the Oceans across the globe, enundate and damage properties worth of millions of dollars and most importantly incured a huge loss of life both human and livestocks. It is known that principal cause of generation of a tsunami is by the displacement of a huge volume of water under-sea (Haugen et al. 2005) by either earthquake, landslide, and / or volcanic eruption (see Voit 1987; Margaritondo 2005 for details). Owing to the tectonic loading over millions of years, the lithospheric plate in the destructive plate boundaries placed below sea floor abruptly buckles and subsequently rebounds back as per the elastic rebound principle to generate primarily a thrust earthquake. This tectonic process naturally displaces a large volume of water above the ruptured area on the Ocean floor. The small amplitude and long wavelength waves generated by this ocean floor rebound process stabilise by the earths gravity approaches towards the coastal land as tsunami waves. The height of the waves along the coasts depend on many factors like nature and material along the coast-line, configuration, slope towards sea etc., including unusual bathymetry or irregular configurations of the coastlines. Geologically, a tsunami is formed when a thrust fault, present under Ocean, within the subduction zone, slips suddenly resulting into displacement of large volume of water by the vertical component of the movement vector. Movement on normal or strike slip faults undersea may cause displacement of the seabed, but fail to give rise to a significant tsunami due to its small vertical movement component. The record of tsunami in the Bay of Bengal especially in and around the Andaman Sumatra islands is dotted within the record book. In recent times, the earliest recorded tsunami in the Bay of Bengal dates back to 31 December 1881 caused by an earthquake

2 u Journal of South Asia Disaster Studies

of size ML 7.5, with its epicenter off the coast of the Car-Nicobar Island. The next record is from the Andaman Island. It happened on 26 June 1941, caused by an earthquake (magnitude exceeding 8.5) that created pervasive damage to the Andaman Islands. The 2004 Sumatra earthquake (Mw 9.3) [Krger and Ohrnberger, 2005] with epicentre off the coast of Sumatra had generated the last, most prominent and probably well-studied tsunami and its after effects along Andaman Sea. The damage and loss of life due to this tsunami was felt in and around the coastal tracts of Indian Ocean rim countries. Before the rupture, the edge of the NE Asian plate was being dragged downward by the descending Indo-Australian plate. Upon released by the rupture, the dragged edge of the plate jumped back up (Lay et al. 2005). This process uplifted the ocean floor and water column on the top of it and initiated the tsunami that inundated the coastal areas. The fault that caused the rupture had slipped as much as 15 meters at places, with an average of 7-10 meters of displacement (Lay et al. 2005; Stein and Okal 2005; Subarya et al. 2006; Banerjee et al. 2007; Rhie et al. 2007; Mishra et al. 2007). There are no other well-documented records of Tsunami in this part of India Ocean in recent time. Though, palaeo-tsunami has been identified in this part from the geological record of extensive deposits of sand sheets marked within the sedimentary cores drilled from the coastal marshes in the northern Sumatra. These sand deposits are similar in character and extent; and comparable to that was deposited by the tsunami associated with the 2004 Sumatra earthquake at that place. From the deposits within the drilling core, two palaeo-tsunamis of size equivalent to the tsunami occurred after the 2004 Sumatra earthquake are delineated and that dates back to 780990 AD and 12901400 AD (Monecke et al. 2008). In this particular discourse, we have examined the earthquake distribution in the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone from the spatial perspective where extents of the clusters are constrained by near and point density analyses. Principal outcome of our finding is the disposition of the clusters and determination of the maximum capable earthquakes estimated through maximum rupture lengths of individual clusters and separately by the G-R relationship. The earthquake sizes in these source zones are then used to calculate the run-up heights and estimation of tsunamogenic potentiality in the coastal tracts. The return period of large earthquakes with associated tsunami comparable to the 2004 Andaman Sumatra tsunami is also predicted through the Gumbels extreme value statistics.

Identification of the earthquake source zones is one of the key research areas for the earth-scientists and can be approached through different earth science disciplines, and

Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2009 u 3

also by statistics. The last one requires sufficient amount of accurate data. The source zone for an earthquake may be outlined where earthquakes physically cluster in recent past, identified from the last 100 years of earthquake records. This is because the areas of the clusters are zones where the strain has been accumulated through millions of years by imposition of far-field stress associated with the plate movement. The accumulated strain is getting released periodically in the form of earthquake shocks of variable sizes. Our discourse is on the statistical viewpoint wherein a simple spatial statistical procedure has been attempted. These techniques constrain the spatial extents of visually identified clusters on epicentral plot over a tectonic base map. The procedure is a combination of two spatial statistical techniques, near- and point density analysis. Point density is a statistical tool used to identify areas where data points are concentrated more or vice versa. To calculate point density, the distance between the adjacent earthquakes is measured by near analysis. Statistically, a mean distance is then calculated from the measured distances. This mean distance is used further as search radius to calculate area of the circular neighborhood required for the point density calculation. Point density is a 2D statistical technique and measured as the total count of earthquake points that locate within the proposed circular neighborhood, and normalized by dividing the count with the area of the neighborhood. A factor resulting from the size of earthquake is also taken into consideration for calculating point density values, e.g., 6 numbers are counted instead of only one for an earthquake of magnitude 6 in the selected neighborhood. This is done to offer relatively more weight to the size of the earthquakes. The measurement is then carried out in an overlapping grid pattern both along latitude and longitude of the map area by a sliding distance equal to the search radius. The calculated point density value is stored at the grid point placed at the center of the circle. This process generates a 2D grid of point density values. The grid values have a mean (m) and a standard deviation (sd). Areas with higher point density [value > (m + 3sd)] are marked as zones of spatial clusters. Further, to constrain the maximum capable size of earthquake within the clusters (source zone), the author has employed the empirical relationship between rupture length (RL) and size of earthquake (M) as a function of type of faulting (Thrust / Strike-slip). The strike lengths of clusters are considered as the maximum rupture length (RL) that can be generated by an earthquake occurring there. On measuring RL, the expected size of earthquake is empirically calculated via equations 1 and 2 (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994) Log RL = -2.86 + 0.63M [for reverse faults] (1) and

4 u Journal of South Asia Disaster Studies

Log RL = -3.55 + 0.74M [for strike-slip faults] (2) As stated earlier, these clusters can be considered as the probable source zones of future tsunamogenic earthquakes in Andaman area. Further from published and unpublished data on tsunami run-up, coseismic vertical displacement, and seismologic data, an empirical relationship between tsunami run-up and its causative earthquake magnitude has been worked out (Nishenko et al. 2004). They opined that for most tsunamogenic earthquakes, the associated tsunamis are generated by the large-scale vertical coseismic displacement of the seafloor as stated earlier. They also argued that for tectonic tsunamis, both average fault slip and maximum regional tsunami run-up correlate with the earthquake size (seismic moment or earthquake magnitude). The maximum run-up heights for tectonic tsunamis, which are not complicated by unusual bathymetry or irregular configurations of the coastlines, are governed by the equation 3 (Nishenko et al. 2004): Run-up (m) = 4.99 Mw - 34.6 (3)

Seismic clusters are places of repeated rupturing by medium to large sized earthquakes. Keeping this in mind, the possible source areas for larger tsunamogenic earthquakes in and around Andaman Sumatra Islands are delineated by cluster analysis applied on 7520 earthquake magnitude data (Ms/mb 4) for the time period 1906 2010 (Fig. 1). The spatial extents of the clusters are constrained by near and point density analysis as stated earlier. The distances between the nearby earthquakes are calculated by near analysis and thereby an average value of these distances is delineated as 3.4 Km. This distance is taken as the search radius. The point density is carried out in an overlapping grid pattern through a sliding distance of 3.4 Km on the map area. The resulting point density grid has a mean (3.54) and a standard deviation (8.11). The areas above a critical density value 27.87 (mean + 3 * standard deviation) are marked as zones of spatial clusters and demarcated in this study as closed polygon with red outline on the map. This process identifies 11 numbers of spatial clusters of variable sizes with numbers A to K across the study area (Fig. 2). These clusters are the seismic source zones that had spawned larger earthquakes in the past and have the potentiality to generate comparable magnitude earthquakes in future (see Mukhopadhyay et al. 2010c for more implication on Himalaya).

Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2009 u 5

Fig. 1: Epicentral map for the Andaman - sumatra Arc, period: 19062010. AR: Alcock Rise; ASR: Andaman Spreading Ridge; AT: Andaman Trench; RF: Renong Fault; ST: Sunda Trench; SF: Sumatra Fault; SR: Sewell Rise; VA: Volcanic Arc; WAF: WEST Andaman Fault. Tectonic features are adopted after Curray (2005) and Dasgupta et al. (2003).

To constrain the size of earthquake within the clusters, the strike lengths of clusters are measured in kilometer on the map (Fig. 2). This length is then taken as the maximum rupture length (RL) and the expected size of earthquake is empirically calculated via equations 1 and 2 (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). The estimates show that the capable earthquake magnitude will range between 7.33 and 8.22 M (Table 1) in the eleven clusters. The estimated magnitude is obviously an indication of the maximum possible earthquake size for respective clusters when the entire strike length will rupture. Hence, smaller rupture length will naturally yield smaller magnitude earthquake. Using M, the

6 u Journal of South Asia Disaster Studies

expected Average coseismic displacement (AD) has also been calculated following the relation, equation 4 (Wells and Coppersmith 1994):

Fig. 2: Seismic clusters (A to K) delineated by point density analysis are future source zones for large earthquakes and tsunamis in the Andaman Sumatra area. AR: Alcock Rise; ASR: Andaman Spreading Ridge; RF: Renong Fault; SF: Sumatra Fault; SR: Sewell Rise; VA: Volcanic Arc; WAF: WEST Andaman Fault. Tectonic features are adopted from Curray (2005) and Dasgupta et al. (2003). Green star is the epicenter of 2004 Sumatra earthquake.

Log AD = - 4.8 + 0.69 M (4) The coseismic slip within the clusters would vary from 1.81m to 7.44m (Table 1). Again, for each cluster, author has already calculated empirically the maximum earthquake size (Mw). The maximum run-up height of tsunamis in meter for these proposed earthquake magnitudes are calculated by equation 3 and tabulated (Table 1). The run-up height of the tsunamis varies from 1.98 to 6.42 meters.

Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2009 u 7

Table 1: Predicted earthquake and tsunamogenic parameters in Andaman Sumatra Region

b value Magnitude of Maximum capable earthquake by G-R Relationship (a/b) 7.7 Predominate Thrust and subordinate Strike-slip Predominate Thrust and subordinate Strike-slip Predominate Normal and subordinate Strike-slip Predominate Strikeslip and subordinate Normal Normal and Strike-slip equal proportion Thrust Predominate Normal and subordinate Strike-slip Strike-slip Predominate Normal and subordinate Strike-slip Predominate Thrust and subordinate Strike-slip Strike-slip 5.2 6.6 5.7 5.9 76 169 5.6 74 7.50 7.33 7.80 6.1 246 8.02 6.1 77 7.53 2.48 7.3 181 8.12 6.35 8.6 209 8.22 7.44 6.42 Predominant movement (from HRVD CMT data) in the cluster Maximum magnitude observed by cluster (Ms/ mb) in the time frame 1906-2009 Strike Length of cluster (Km) Predicted magnitude* (M) taking strike length of the cluster as rupture length Average coseismic displacement* (meter) at source Maximum run-up heights (meter) of Tectonic tsunamis** along coastal tract

Cluster

No of earthquakes (Magnitude >= 4)

a value

947

5.94

0.77

676

7.17

1.04

6.9

5.92

8 u Journal of South Asia Disaster Studies

0.99 6.0 2.97 1.53 6.3 5.41 5.42 1.07 1.07 1.58 5.8 5.6 5.7 2.37 1.81 3.81 2.83 1.98 4.32 0.84 0.89 6.5 5.6 75 93 7.34 7.66 1.83 3.05 2.03 3.62 0.66 5.5 5.8 84 7.59 2.73 3.27 0.82 5.3 5.1 127 7.88 4.33 4.72

78

5.95

1198

9.61

50

6.11

61

6.02

263

9.10

15

4.71

158

5.73

19

3.58

4.23

Calculated following * Wells and Coppersmith (1994) ** Nishenko et al. 2004.

Additionally for each cluster, we have also calculated the seismic parameters of a and b values (Table 1) by regression method where logarithm of cumulative frequency numbers of earthquakes is plotted against magnitude following the Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) equation. The b value in the cluster varies between 0.77 and 1.53. The b value greater than 1.50 is recorded in clusters D and G that indicates their probable volcanic connotation. The maximum capable earthquake on those clusters as per the G-R relationship is also calculated. The value is from 5.3 (Cluster K) to 7.7 (Cluster A). These calculated magnitude values are comparable to the largest magnitude observed in those clusters within the time span 1906-2010 but underestimates the earthquake magnitudes that have been derived through estimates based on the rupture lengths (Table 1; Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Graph showing Mmax calculated by different process against Cluster name. Mmax (G-R) is as per Gutenberg-Richter equation, Mmax(observed) is the maximum magnitude observed within the catalogue spanning 1906-2010, Mmax (W-C) is the magnitude calculated as per rupture length following Wells and Coppersmith, 1994.

Further, Gumbels extreme value probability with a data bin of 10 years has been applied on the earthquake dataset spanning for the period 1900-2010 for the entire study

Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2009 u 9

area. The maximum magnitude is arranged for each data bin. From this arrangement the ranks are assigned. The non-exceedence probability of each magnitude bin is calculated from the rank index of the data following the principle stated in Gumbel, 1958. The non-exceedence probability is then plotted against the maximum magnitude (Fig. 4). A best-fit line according to Gumbels asymptotic equation is also established. For return periods for 400 to 500 years, the non-exceedence probabilities are separately calculated for the data bin of 10 years. The maximum magnitude for return periods is interpolated from the best-fit curve. From the above plot, it is observed that the maximum magnitude (M) earthquake that can occur for 400, 450 and 500 years return period are 9.23, 9.35 and 9.45 M respectively.

Fig. 4: Estimated Maximfium Magnitude and its probability through Gumbels extreme value statistics over return period 400, 450 and 500 years for the entire study area.

Eleven numbers of spatial clusters (A to K, Figure 2) that are also considered as earthquake source zones are studied. The clusters A, B and C are seen in offshore Sumatra (Fig. 2) following the outline of Nias and other islands. These are shallow to moderate depth clusters with very high seismicity. Configuration for A and B clusters follows the structural outline of the outer

10 u Journal of South Asia Disaster Studies

sedimentary arc of the Nias and other islands and cluster C is parallel to the trench axis. Seismically, cluster A presents one of the most destructive regions in the world, where December 26, 2004 Sumatra earthquake (Mw 9.3) occurs. Clusters A and B have earthquakes belonging to both the plates (the under-thrusted Indo-Australian and overriding NE Asian plates) with predominant thrust movement and subordinate strikeslip movements, whereas, clusters C holds earthquakes only to the subducting Indian plate with predominant normal movement and subordinate strike-slip movement. The earthquakes of thrust mechanisms in clusters A and B are related to the underthrusting of the Indo-Australian plate below the Sunda Arc and also from overriding SE Asian Plate. The overall orientation of the thrust planes derived from composite CMT plot is NW-SE dipping 25 northeasterly. P-T axes orient NE-SW in close correspondence to the arc geometry. The depth sections across cluster A and B show that subducting Indian plate and overriding SE Asian plate in this sector behave uniquely with a thrust movement along NW-SE striking plane dipping less than 22 towards northeast parallel to the Sunda arc (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2010a). Similar geometry and stress partitioning in both the plates indicate high seismic coupling, extreme compressive nature of this zone resulting from slow subduction of the old Indian plate (Stein and Okal, 2007). The fault unclamping along shallow dipping thrust planes (< 30) has resulted into the Sumatra Andaman earthquake of 2004 (Mw 9.3). The normal faulting in cluster C indicates bending events with later adjustment by strike slip motion. It is also to be mentioned that the hinge faults delineated by earlier studies (Dasgupta et al. 2003 and Mukhopadhyay et al. 2009) act as barriers to the formation of the clusters. The boundary zone between the cluster and adjacent hinge fault are area of high strain. This is well documented in Cluster A where the December 26, 2004 Sumatra earthquake (Mw 9.3) spawned at the interface between the cluster A and the hinge fault. Seismic clusters D to K locate between central and southern parts of the Andaman Arc. They are shallow depth clusters with moderate magnitude shocks (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2010a). Clusters F, J and K locate over the Andaman fore-arc, whereas, E and I belong to the Andaman trench zone. Clusters D, G and H are found at the Andaman sea, where clusters G and H correlate to the Andaman Spreading Ridge (ASR). Cluster D, the longest of all clusters; has a strike length of 246 km and contains maximum number of earthquakes (1198). This cluster is clearly associated with the West Andaman Fault (WAF) and its southern continuation to the Sumatra Fault (SF). Seismic clusters F, J and K underlie the Andaman fore arc and clusters E and I belong to Andaman trench. The clusters F, J and K are thrust dominated clusters indicating back-thrusting events in the fore-arc. The shallow focuses Normal and Strike-slip events of E and I along the Andaman

Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2009 u 11

trench axis were generated by bending of subducting Indian Plate and occurred at the leading edge of the subduction zone where the Indo-Australian plate descends. Clusters G and H found below the ASR exhibit predominantly normal and strike slip events that illustrate the basic tectonic pattern under the spreading arc. The large cluster D typifies almost equal proportion of strike-slip and normal events. Distribution of periodic occurrences of strike-slip and normal fault events in this cluster zone actually corresponds to a complex faulting episode: normal faulting for the rift zone and strike-slip movements for its transgressive regional faults WAF and SF. This cluster is found in the area where a swarm of events originated following the occurrence of great Sumatra earthquake (Mw 9.3) of 26 December 2004. The swarm (n = 651, mbmax= 5.9) came mainly in two phases: January 26 - 31 and Feb. Aug. 2005, in an area of size 90 x 40 sq. km, at the centre of which lies a broad bathymetric depression and high gravity zone (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2010b). Based on the evidences from seismology, bathymetry, gravity, time dependent pore pressure perturbations, rift related volcanism and calculations on phases of rifting, we assume that a nascent rift is in the process of formation at this location (Mukhopadhyay and Dasgupta, 2008; Mukhopadhyay et al., 2010b). The orientation of the nascent rift is perpendicular to regional trend of strike-slip faults of WAF and SF.

Eleven source zones numbered A to K exist in Sumatra Andaman area have the capability to spawn repeated damaging large earthquakes of magnitude range Mw 7.3 to 8.2. Comparing the results of both seismic and tsunamogenic hazards in (Table 1), we can conclude that out of the 11 clusters, clusters A, B, F and J are the most vulnerable because they can generate earthquakes with predominate thrust movement, a prime requirement for tsunamogenic earthquakes. These source zones can yield earthquake with magnitude greater than Mw 7.3 that in turn can generate tsunamis with a maximum run-up height of more than 6 meter. Moreover, these measurements are independent of the unusual bathymetry or irregular configurations of the coastlines. The potentiality of the Andaman - Sumatra zone to generate tsunamogenic earthquakes is also discussed elsewhere (Fujii and Satake 2007; Hbert et al. 2007) along with the physical records of tsunami of last 1000 years (Monecke et al. 2008). From the palaeotsunami record from northern Sumatra, it is apparent that damage-causing tsunamis in this part of the Indian ocean occur infrequently during AD 780990, 1290 1400, and 2004 (Monecke et al. 2008). The recurrency rate of the giant tsunami is nearly 400 - 500 years which is comparable to the recurrency time of Giant earthquakes of

12 u Journal of South Asia Disaster Studies

size Mw 9.2 and above measured by extreme-value statistics (Fig. 4). But within this infrequency, moderate to large size thrust earthquakes within the ocean bottom always pose a threat to create tsunami which can devastrate nearby coastal tracts. Hence, the coastal structures may be constructed in such a fashion that it can withstand the ground motion created by such an earthquake and can also nullify the damages caused by those predicted tsunamis.

Banerjee P., Pollitz F., Nagarajan B. and Burgmann R. (2007). Coseismic slip distributions of the 26 December 2004 SumatraAndaman and 28 March 2005 Nias earthquakes from GPS static offsets. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97, pp. S86S102. Curray, J.R. (2005). Tectonics and history of the Andaman Sea Region. Journal of Asian Earth Science, 25, pp.187-232. Dasgupta S., Mukhopadhyay M., Bhattacharya A. and Jana T.K. (2003) The geometry of the Burmese- Andaman subducting lithosphere. Journal of Seismology, 7, pp. 155-174. Fujii Y., and Satake K. (2007). Tsunami source of the 2004 Sumatra Andaman earthquake inferred from tide gauge and satellite data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97 (1A), pp. S192 S207. Haugen K., Lvholt F., Harbitz C. K. (2005). Fundamental mechanisms for tsunami generation by submarine mass flows in idealised geometries. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 22, pp. 209217. DOI:10.1016/j. marpetgeo.2004.10.016. Hbert H., Sladen A., and Schindel F. (2007) .Numerical modeling of the great 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: focus on the Mascarene Islands. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97 (1A), pp. S208 S222. Krger F, Ohrnberger M (2005). Tracking the rupture of the Mw = 9.3 Sumatra earthquake over 1,150 km at teleseismic distance. Nature 435: 937-939. Lay T., Kanamori H., Ammon C.J., Nettles M., Ward S.N., Aster R.C., Beck S. L., Bilek S.L., Bredzinski R., Butler R., Deshon H.R., Ekstrom G., Satake K. and Sipkin S. (2005). The great Sumatra Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004. Science, 308, pp.1127-1132. Margaritondo, G (2005). Explaining the physics of tsunamis to undergraduate and non-physics students. European Journal of Physics, 26 (3). 401-408 Mishra O.P., Kayal J.R., Chakroborty G.K., Singh O.P. and Ghosh, D. (2007). Aftershock investigation in the AndamanNicober Islands of India and its tectonic implications, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97, pp. S71S85. Monecke K., Finger W., Klarer D., Kongko W., Mcadoo B. G., Moore A.L., and Sudrajat, S.U. (2008) A 1,000-year sediment record of tsunami recurrence in northern Sumatra. Nature, 455, pp. 1232-1234. Mukhopadhyay B., and Dasgupta S. (2008). Swarms in Andaman Sea, India a seismotectonic analysis. Acta Geophysica, 56 (4), pp. 1000 - 1014. DOI: 10.2478/s11600-008-0039-5. Mukhopadhyay B, Acharyya A, Bhattacharya A, Dasgupta S, and Sengupta SR (2009) Revisiting the Andaman subduction lithosphere following the 26 December 2004 Sumatra earthquake., Indian Journal of Geosciences, 63 (1), pp. 1-10. Mukhopadhyay B., Fnais M., Mukhopadhyay M., and Dasgupta S., (2010a) Seismic cluster analysis for the Burmese-Andaman and West Sunda Arc: insight into subduction kinematics and seismic potentiality,

Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2009 u 13

Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 283314, DOI: 10.1080/19475705.2010.494014 Mukhopadhyay B, Acharyya A, Mukhopadhyay M, and Dasgupta S (2010b). Relationship between earthquake swarm, rifting history, magmatism and pore pressure diffusion an example from South Andaman Sea, India. Journal Geological Society of India, 76, pp. 164-170. Mukhopadhyay B, Acharyya A and Dasgupta S (2010c). Potential source zones for Himalayan earthquakes: constraints from spatialtemporal clusters. Natural Hazards, DOI 10.1007/s11069-010-9618-2, published online 26th September 2010. Nishenko, S., Plafker, G., and Page, W. (2004) Tsunami Hazard Based on Empirical Data From Tsunamigenic Earthquakes. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2004, abstract #OS23D-1351 Rhie, J., Dreger, D., Burgmann, R. and Romanowicz, B. (2007) Slip of the 2004 Sumatra Andaman earthquake from joint inversion of long period global seismic waveforms and GPS static offsets, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97, pp. S115S127. Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J.P., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H. and Mccaffrey, R. (2006). Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great SumatraAndaman earthquake. Nature, 440, pp. 4651. Stein S, Okal EA (2005). Speed and size of the Sumatra earthquake, Nature 434: 581-582. Stein S, Okal EA (2007). Ultralong period seismic study of the December 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and implications for regional tectonics and the subduction process,Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97, pp. S279S295. Voit, S.S (1987). Tsunamis. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 19, pp. 217236. DOI :10.1146/annurev. fl.19.010187.001245. Wells D L, Coppersmith K J (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 84 (4): 974-1002.

14 u Journal of South Asia Disaster Studies