3.1. Location Investigation
As shown before, significant biases in location can be generated by different station configurations when using absolute location techniques. To measure how large these effects are, we performed an analysis for the five stages characterized by different configurations of stations in the epicentral area. We analysed in parallel the routine locations with the JHD ones.
The first interval includes the activity recorded between the first two shocks with magnitude above 5 (M1 on 13 February, 14:58 of magnitude M
L 5.2 and M2 on 14 February, 13:16 of magnitude M
L 5.7) followed by the events recorded until 15 February 20:24, 57 events in all (
Figure 2a). Comparing the routine locations vs JHD locations, we notice a distinct shift in space between them, and a mismatch between the position of the main shocks (M1 and M2) and the position of the aftershocks for routine locations (black symbols), while for JHD locations (pink symbols) this shortcoming does not appear. As shown by [
6], this may be an effect due to the different distribution of stations used in location, more precisely the different weight of distant stations vs close stations for events where the magnitudes differ significantly.
Another interesting aspect revealed in the figure refers to the way the activity evolved after the M1 shock was triggered. The aftershocks occurred toward NW, while the second shock (M2) is situated in the opposite direction relative to M1. This makes us assume that M2 was caused by a sudden stress variation following the triggering of M1 and not by a directivity effect that we would have expected if the rupture of M1 source had propagated towards SE.
Epicentres distribution in the second stage are plotted in the
Figure 2b. A number of 590 earthquakes was recorded and located within one day of this stage. A new station (LELR) came into operation. The aftershocks of the first two main shocks propagated along ENE – WSW direction, which fits well the geometry of the nodal planes in the fault plane solutions of the main shocks (GFZ solution, [
14]). Similar results were obtained by [
15] who determined focal mechanisms for the 51 earthquakes with M
L>2.9, based on the first motion of P-wave polarities. The fault plane solutions show in general a normal faulting oriented roughly in the ENE-WSW direction.
In the next stage (
Figure 2c), two additional stations became operational in the epicentral area: DBRR and PTSR. Note that the discrepancy between routine and JHD locations is reduced for the new configuration of stations. The considerable increase in the density of epicentres near the future major shock M3 is also noticeable. The number of detected and located events remains high (418) due to the increase in the number of stations and implicitly to the increase of the detection and localization capacity.
The number of detected and located events increases considerably in the next stage (2195 events) when a new station (BVPR) was installed close to the epicentral area (
Figure 2d), also due to the long duration of this stage. During this period the last major shock of magnitude M
L5.0 was recorded (on 20 March 14:02). Considering the migration in time of the seismicity (revealed in the previous figures), it is obvious that this shock was caused by the stress increase as a result of the propagation of the activity towards WSW.
The epicentres distribution in the last stage is plotted in
Figure 2e. The CPSR additional seismic station started operating in this stage. The station was installed in close proximity to the epicentres of the two shocks M1 and M2. The largest earthquakes of magnitude M
L ≥4.0 occurred on 19 June, 05:26 (M
L = 4.3), 18 July, 20:30 (M
L = 4.4) and 20 August, 21:33 (M
L = 4.5), plotted by blue stars in the figure. The last one is located somewhat outside the active area and it remains to be clarified to what extent it is triggered by the ongoing sequence or not. A closer look to the figure suggests a possible migration of the activity from the ENE - WSW direction to a perpendicular direction that could be interpreted as an activation of a secondary fault.
The comparative inspection of the locations using the Antelope program applied routinely for the NIEP catalogue ROMPLUS using IASP91 global model and the JHD program using the optimised local model outlines a few important features:
- -
JHD locations are more clustered in space. This is visible both in epicentral distribution (
Figure 2) and in depth (
Figure 3);
- -
JHD locations are practically not influenced by the differences in stations configuration as Antelope locations do. Note, however, that as the number of stations in the epicentral area increases, both the systematic shift in space and the hypocentres dispersion for routine locations come closer to the JHD results (compare the epicentres distribution in the first stages with those in the final stages; also, the depth distribution as shown in the first and in the last histograms);
- -
Location errors, illustrated by the histograms of the RMS values (
Figure 4) are significantly reduced when using JHD locations.
As concerns the location error (RMS), we emphasise from the
Figure 4: (i) the increase in location accuracy with the improvement of the seismic network configuration, which is found both at routine locations and at JHD ones, which was to be expected and (ii) a systematic decrease in the RMS values for JHD as compared with Antelope in any of the five configurations (a difference of about 0.25 s).
3.2. Quarry Activity: Possible Triggering Effects?
It is worth mentioning that the two main shocks M1 and M2 occurred just close to a quarry site (Dobriţa). We identified three quarries which are presently active in the area: Bumbeşti-Jiu, Dobriţa (Susesni) and Pestişani (
Figure 5). Bumbeşti-Jiu and Pestişani quarries appear to be inactive or the detonation level is too low to be detected with acceptable signal/noise ratio by the seismic stations in the region, while the Dobrița quarry activity is relatively well monitored.
If we examine the seismic activity recorded before the triggering of the sequence, we notice a concentration of epicentres in the area around the quarry site (marked by an ellipse in the figure). This enhancement of activity can be explained by anthropic activity. On the other hand, the area affected by the seismicity that precedes the sequence roughly delimits the area of the future earthquake sequence. It means that in our opinion the preceding seismicity is somehow related to the seismicity in the sequence.
The analysis of day-night distribution of the events illustrated in
Figure 6, which shows a strong concentration of events generated during day-time clustered around Dobrița quarry site. For the day-time we used the time interval from 7 to 16, and the night-time for the rest of the day. The inhomogeneous distribution throughout the day is a clear indication that we are dealing with human activity.
The coincidence of the epicentral area with the quarry exploitation site is certainly intriguing and can lead us to think of a possible triggering effect. However, a calculation of the typical energy release in the case of a quarry blast and the energy released by a magnitude 5 earthquake shows a difference of about 30,000 times. In addition, the explosions are generated in close proximity to the Earth’s surface and it is known that in this case the energy dissipates rapidly as the generated waves propagate at distance.
Another interesting aspect is revealed when comparing
Figure 5 with
Figure 2: the migration of epicentres of the aftershocks from east to southwest and the dimension range on which this migration takes place seem to be anticipated by the activity preceding the sequence. Since the probability that the amount of quarry activity, even over a long time period, is capable of perturbing the tectonic stress accumulation at the seismogenic depth range is negligible, we are tempted to attribute the above-mentioned coincidental aspects simply to chance. Maybe, in future approaches, we should take into account more subtle processes able to destabilise an area that is very sensitive to small and repeated disturbances.
3.3. Wadati Analysis
Wadati diagram provides a simple way to estimate the mean of the V
P/V
S ratio characterizing the region where the sequence was recorded. If the geological structure were homogeneous, the ratio obtained would have the same value for the data recorded at any seismic event. We applied the modified Wadati diagram based on double-difference arrival times, as proposed by [
16]. V
P/V
S ratio is given by the slope of the straight line that best fits the difference between couples of t
Si- t
Sj travel times for S waves vs. couples of t
Pi- t
Pj travel times for P waves, where the couples (i,j) refer to the stations which recorded both P and S waves for each event. This method allows the use of all the pairs of travel times for P and S waves available for all events in the catalogue in a single diagram because these pairs do not depend on the origin time of each event.
The analysis of Wadati distribution performed on different sets extracted from the catalogue shows up two significant features:
- -
VP/VS ratio is systematically lower when considering readings for stations located within 100 km distance from epicentre;
- -
VP/VS ratio is almost exclusively below the theoretical level (1.73).
We show in
Figure 7 examples of Wadati diagram for two sets of earthquakes, one recorded at the beginning of the sequence (304 events occurred between 13 February 14:58 and 16 February 07:15) and the other recorded at the end of the sequence (295 events occurred between 7 July 01:15 and 24 October 19:01). Note that the slope of the best fitting line is smaller than 1.73 value, both for the entire network and near-epicentral network. In
Figure 7 we tested if V
P/V
S ratio is stable over time or suffers significant variations.
The first point on the plot corresponds to the set of events preceding the sequence. The number of events per set varies from 4 (at the beginning) to 30 events (at the end). We mention that modifying the selected windows (for example, selecting a constant number of events per window) does not essentially change the results presented in
Figure 8. Note that at the beginning of the sequence the slope inferred from the readings for the entire seismic network are close to 1.73 (first three black dots). As the time runs, the values systematically decrease below the theoretical value. There are only a few sets with V
P/V
S > 1.73. As regards the slopes estimated from the readings from the epicentral stations (red dots), they are always below 1.73 (effectively, they extend over 1.6 – 1.7 interval). If the fluctuations are attributed to statistical errors, we can conclude that the ratio V
P/V
S is really stable over time and that it is significantly lower than 1.73.
Considering the unusually long duration of the sequence (more than 8 months), we assume that destabilisation processes due to the presence of fluids should take place in the region. In this hypothesis, we would have expected the ratio V
P/V
S to be greater than 1.73. Clearly, our results contradict this expectation. Results similar to ours were reported for the mid-crustal (8–10 km) earthquake swarms recorded in the NW-Bohemia swarm region [
17]. In case of several swarms generated in the region, an anomalous drop V
P/V
S to low values (as low as ~1.4) is explained by the presence of gases under high overpressure in the source zone. This implies an area with a high level of complexity in the relation between stress changes accompanying the seismogenic process and crustal fluids that are represented primarily by water and CO
2 at seismogenic depth. If we assume that the rock there is fractured and can be represented by a porous model with small porosity, oversaturated gases can suddenly fill the pore space as a result of a spontaneous transition of fluid to gaseous phases. The source volume can be enriched in this way with a gaseous phase which tends to migrate upward as being buoyancy driven.