Development of Geodynamic Model of Bangladesh

Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP-II)
Ministry of Food and Disaster Management (MoFDM)

Disaster Management and Relief Division (DMRD)
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh
Task I: Development of Geodynamic Model of Bangladesh

Earthquake Risk and Damage Assessment and Subsequent Development of Scenario-based
Contingency Planning for Rangpur, Dinajpur, Mymensing, Tangail, Bogra and Rajshahi Municipalities / City Corporations and Detailed Building Inventory of the Said Towns Including Dhaka
and Chittagong City Corporation Areas
July, 2012
Submitted by
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

SM Tower, 24 th Floor, 979/69 Paholyothin Road,
Samsen Nai Phayathai, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Development of Geodynamic Model of Bangladesh
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Active tectonic framework of Bangladesh .................................................................................................. 1
Historical earthquakes ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1548 earthquake ................................................................................................................................................. 6
1676 earthquake ................................................................................................................................................. 7
The great Arakan earthquake of 1762 ......................................................................................................... 8
1822 Bengal earthquake................................................................................................................................... 9
1842 earthquake ...............................................................................................................................................10
1845 earthquakes .............................................................................................................................................11
1865 earthquake ...............................................................................................................................................12
1869 earthquake ...............................................................................................................................................13
The great Indian earthquake of 1897 .........................................................................................................14
The Srimongal earthquake of 1918.............................................................................................................15
Active structures ...............................................................................................................................................17
Major plate-boundary structures ................................................................................................................17
Active structures in the CTFB ........................................................................................................................26
Earthquake potential of active structures ................................................................................................38
Reference ............................................................................................................................................................41
Abstract
Geomorphic investigation and published studies indicate that two major active
tectonic belts threaten Bangladesh with large and potentially destructive
earthquakes. These two elements are the Himalayan system in the north and the
Arakan subduction-collision system in the east. The Himalayan Frontal Thrust fault
and the Dauki fault are the principal components of the former and the
Chittagong-Tripura Fold Belt of eastern Bangladesh is a manifestation of the latter.
Judging from the length of individual active folds within the CTFB and the nature of
historical earthquakes, these anticlines and their associated faults are able to
produce earthquakes up to about M 7.5 individually.
Introduction
The seismic potential of Bangladesh is high, because the country is on and near two
major tectonic elements of the on-going Indian-Eurasian plate collision. However,
investigation of the seismic potential of these two systems is in its infancy. Steckler
et al. [2008] are, for example, among the first to begin to address the seismic hazard
of the region with scientific rigor.
In the past two decades, the improved availability and resolution of terrestrial
imagery from satellites and aerial surveys has facilitated evaluation of active
structures. For example, mapping by Sieh and Natawidjaja [2000] delineated the
2000-km long Sumatran fault in unprecedented detail, and mapping by Shyu et al.
[2005] yielded the first comprehensive, reliable modern map of Taiwans active faults
and estimates of their seismic potential. Data from space-borne surveying systems
include the nearly global digital elevation model from NASAs Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission (SRTM), as well as a variety of high-resolution (~1 m) imagery.
The availability of such datasets greatly facilitates investigation of large regions with a
consistency of detail and standards.
We have applied such techniques to mapping the active tectonic features of
Bangladesh and surrounding regions. We have used primarily the 90-meter digital
elevation model from the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) and
high-resolution satellite imagery. However, because sedimentation and erosion rates
in Bangladesh are high, landforms may be eroded faster than the rate at which
tectonism forms them. Our use of other geological information has helped us
identify and analyze such features. These data include published subsurface
stratigraphic and structural data, such as seismic reflection profiles, and a recently
refined historical earthquake catalog. Taken together these and the satellite data
allow us to identify most major seismically active structures and allow us to estimate
their seismic potential.
Active tectonic framework of Bangladesh

The Bangladesh region is strongly affected by the on-going Indian-Eurasian plate
collision process. To the north, the collision of the Indian plate with Asia has created
the spectacular Himalayan mountains, bounded along their southern flank by the
Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT) [Figure 1]. This great north-dipping thrust fault runs
1

more than 1500 km from Pakistan to Assam and has produced many large
continental earthquakes, some greater than M 8. South of the HFT in the
Bangladesh region, is another large north-dipping reverse fault, which lies along the
southern flank of the Shillong Plateau. This Dauki fault is bringing ancient
continental rocks of the Shillong plateau over thick sediments of of the
Ganges-Bramhaputra delta [Figure 2].
Another major active tectonic belt appears along the eastern side of Bangladesh.
Oblique subduction and collision between the Indian and the Burma plate has
produced the N-S trending Indo-Burma range along the western edge of the Bay of
Bengal [Curray, 2005]. The width of the range gradually increases from south to north.
North of the latitude of southernmost Bangladesh, it is ~300 km wide. The eastern
half of the range is the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt [Figure 2]. It comprises many
young anticlinal folds in young sediment of the thick Ganges Delta. The higher,
eastern half of the Indo-Burma range comprises older rocks and reflects the longer
convergence history of the Indian and the Burma plate.
The Arakan megathrust changes its orientation from nearly N-S to NE-SW at the
latitude of the Shillong Plateau. Northeast of the Shillong Plateau, this fault system
becomes the Naga thrust fault, which forms the northern flank of the Naga hills
(northern Indo-Burma range). Further northeast, the southeast-dipping Naga-Arakan
fault system approaches the north-dipping Himalayan frontal thrust and terminates
in a complex, poorly understood fashion at the Eastern Himalayan Syntax, near the
Indian-China boarder [Figure 2].
Recent geodetic analyses suggest that each of these four major structures
accommodate more than 1 cm/yr of shortening [e.g., Socquet et al., 2006; Banerjee
et al., 2008]. Analysis of GPS data across Nepal indicates that the Himalayan frontal
thrust accommodates 18 to 21 mm/yr of convergence, a range of values that is
consistent with the much longer-term fault slip rate established from geomorphic
analysis [Bettinelli et al., 2006]. Recent analysis of GPS data implies 4 to 7 mm/yr of
shortening across the the Dauki fault. This translates into ~11 mm/yr fault slip rate
on the Dauki fault along the northern border of Bangladesh [Banerjee et al., 2008].
To the south, analysis of GPS data implies shortening across the Arakan megathrust
of ~ 23 mm/yr [Socquet et al., 2006]. Across the Naga thrust, however, GPS yields a
puzzling result -- insignificant rates of convergence [Jade et al., 2007]. Instead, it
shows right-lateral motion across the Naga thrust fault.
Figure 1.
The tectonic setting of
the Bangladesh region
is dominated by the
structural elements of
the Indian-Asian
collision. The
Himalayan Frontal
Thrust (HFT) and
Dauki Fault (DF)
thrust Asian
lithosphere over Indian
lithosphere.
Blue arrow indicates
the motion of India
relative to Asia.
After Tapponnier et al.
[1982].
Figure 2.
Major active tectonic
elements of the
region also include
the
southeast-dipping
Naga thrust and the
Arakan megathrust.
Estimated current
convergence rates
range from 11 to 23
mm/yr.
Historical earthquakes
Historical damaging earthquakes in the region can be plausibly ascribed to
rupture of faults associated with the four major active tectonic systems just
described. Although there are historical reports of earthquakes as far back as the
mid-16th century, the written record is far more reliable and detailed since the
mid-18th century.
Table 1 lists significant historical earthquakes in and around Bangladesh from
several published earthquake catalogues. Szeliga et al. [2010] and Martin and Szeliga
[2010] provide the most up-to-date earthquake catalog for this region since the great
earthquake of 1762.
Figure 3. Large (M>6) historical earthquakes in the catalogue of Szeliga et al. [2010].

Table 1 Major historical earthquakes in and around the Bangladesh area
No Name
Date
Source area
Reference
Iyengar et al., 1999
Dauki fault or
--
1548
--
Steckler et al., 2008

Arakan megathrust
Morino et al., 2011
--
1676
CTFB or
Iyengar et al., 1999
Arakan megathrust
Martin & Szeliga 2010
-Halstead, 1841
Arakan
1762
8.5
Arakan megathrust
Oldham, 1883
earthquake
Bengal
1822
7.1
CTFB ?
1842
7.3
Western Bengal
Ambraseys and Dauglas, 2004
--
--
1845
--
1865
earthquake

7.1
Shillong plateau
CTFB or
Arakan megatrust
Cachan
7.4 /
Indoburman
range
or
8.3
Arakan subduction zone
Ambraseys and Dauglas, 2004
1869
earthquake

Oldham, 1899
Great
Indian
Richter, 1958
1897
8.0
Dauki fault
earthquake
Abe, 1994
10
Srimongal
1918
earthquake
CTFB or
Stuart, 1920
Arakan megathrust
7.4
1548 earthquake
The 1548 earthquake is one of the earliest damaging earthquakes recorded in
the region. Detailed information about ground shacking and damage is lacking, but
the earthquake is known to have damaged both Sylhet and Chittagong and to have
caused significant liquefaction [Figure 4] ["Banglapedia Earthquake"; Bilham and
Hough, 2006; Steckler et al., 2008]. Iyengar et al [1999] suggest that the intensities
might have been as high as IX in the southern Assam Valley. Steckler et al. [2008]
suggest the earthquake resulted from slip on the megathrust beneath the
Chittagong-Tripura folding belt, because of the severity of shaking and damage in the
area. Morino et al. [2011] suggest that rupture of the Dauki fault produced the
earthquake, based on paleoseismologic investigation and geochronological analysis
of the Dauki fault.
Figure 4. The documented felt locations of the 1548 earthquake in eastern India.
6
1676 earthquake
Records of the 1676 earthquake are sparse and ambiguous. Iyengar et al [1999]
indicates that both Chittagong and the Balasore area may have felt this earthquake,
Chittagong being severely damaged by both (either?) a cyclone and (or?) the
earthquake [Figure 5]. However, the felt records from Chittagong and the Balasore
region may represent separate events, since the records give no exact date.
If the same earthquake were felt in both Chittagong and the Balasore area, and
severe damage occurred at Chittagong, the likely source of the earthquake would be
t the Arakan megathrust or an upper plate fault within in the Chittagong-Tripura fold
belt.
Figure 5. The felt location of 1676 earthquake. The two records are from different
sources, and no exact date is mentioned in either record.
The great Arakan earthquake of 1762

The Aarakan earthquake in 1762 is best-known historical earthquake along the
eastern side of Bay of Bengal. The earthquake was strongly felt from Cheduba and
Ramree Islands of western Myanmar to the area near Dhaka and caused heavy
damage in the Chittagong region [Figure 6]. A British officer who surveyed the
Myanmar coast about 80 years later documented several meters of uplift associated
with the earthquake [Halstead, 1841]. Our recent measurements and radiometric
dtates of marine terraces implies that the 1762 earthquake was generated by failure
of the Arakan megathrust and an accompanying upper-plate fault [Wang et al., in
preparation].
The extent to which the 1762 rupture extended northward toward Bangladesh
is unclear, because all we have to interpret are historical reports of coseismic land
subsidence in the Chittagong area. Cummins [2007] has interpreted this to be
associated with megathrust rupture seaward of the coastline. If this interpretation is
correct, the total length of the fault rupture during the 1762 earthquake could well
be ~ 350 km or even longer, and the earthquake magnitude could be greater than or
equal to M 8.5.
Figure 6. The rupture of the Arakan megathrust in 1762 could have been as great as shown by the dashed rectangle, if reported
coseismic land subsidence in the Chittagong area (northernmost large dot) was the result of offshore rupture of the megathrust.
The four dots farther south along the coast are localities where we have confirmed uplift in 1762.
1822 Bengal earthquake

This earthquake was felt in many parts of Bangladesh [Figure 7]. People found
it difficult to stand in the Comilla area, but no material damage occurred there. At
Mymensingh, south of the Shillong plateau, houses were demolished or badly
fractured [Martin and Szeliga, 2010]. Although information about this earthquake is
very sparse, Szeliga et al. [2010] suggest the source of the earthquake was close to
the western edge of the Chittagong-Tripura Folding belt, and they estimate a
magnitude of 7.1.
Figure 7 Location of 1822 earthquake from Szeliga et al. [2010]
1842 earthquake
This earthquake was felt throughout most of Bangladesh and in parts of Assam
and Bihar. Records collected and analyzed by Martin and Szeliga [2010] report
damage of several buildings in western Bangladesh. Szeliga et al. [2010] estimates
the earthquake magnitude at M 7.3, with the center of the quake close to the
India-Bangladesh border [Figure 8]. Ambraseys and Dauglas [2004] suggest a lower
earthquake magnitude (M 6.8) and a center inside Bangladesh.
Figure 8 Location of 1842 earthquake from Szeliga et al. [2010]
10
1845 earthquakes
Three distinct earthquakes rocked northern Bangladesh from July 1845 to
August 1845. The strongest, on 6 August, damaged several buildings at Sylhet and
Guwahati. The tremor was felt strongly at Cherrapunji and other places around
Bangladesh. Szeliga et al. [2010] estimate a magnitude of 7.1 for this earthquake and
a center near the northern flank of the Shillong plateau [Figure 9]. Their analysis also
suggest the two earlier earthquakes were centered very close to the Shillong plateau.
Therefore, it is plausible that all three events resulted from rupture of a structure
associated with the Dauki thrust beneath the Shillong plateau.
Figure 9 Locations of 1845 earthquakes from Szeliga et al. [2010]

(After Szeliga et al., 2010)
11
1865 earthquake
A large earthquake shook the Sandwip Island area in 1865. Analysis of
intensity records led [Szeliga et al., 2010] to estimate a magnitude of M 6.8. This
earthquake was felt along the Arakan coast and in the Bengal area. Liquefaction and
ground cracks occurred northeast of Chittagong city, where the intensity was
strongest [Martin and Szeliga, 2010]. The location of the stongest shaking suggests a
source within the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt or on the Arakan megathrust fault.
Figure 10 Locations of 1865 earthquakes from Szeliga et al. [2010]

(After Szeliga et al., 2010)
12
1869 earthquake
The Cachan earthquake of 1869 occurred in the Silchar area, in the IndoBurman
range east of Bangladesh. Damage extended from Silchar to the Manipur area and
included extensive liquefaction. The quake was felt in both northeast and eastern
India as well as the in adjacent parts of Myanmar. On the Brahmaputra River,
people observed energetic seiches [Martin and Szeliga, 2010]. Based upon intensity
records, Szeliga et al. [2010] estimate the center of this earthquake to have been
near the India-Myanmar boarder and that its magnitude was M 8.3. Ambraseys
and Dauglas [2004] suggest a far lesser magnitude of M 7.4 but a similar source
location. It is likely that this earthquake resulted from rupture within the
Wadati-Benioff zone of the downgoing Indian plate lithosphere beneath the
Indoburman range.
Figure 11 Location of 1869 earthquakes from Szeliga et al. [2010]
13
The great Indian earthquake of 1897

The 1897 earthquake is the first Indian earthquake for which levels of shaking
were documented in a contemporary earthquake report [Oldham, 1899]. The
region of very strong shaking (EMS intensity IX) includes the Attrabari, Rambrai and
Shillong areas [Martin and Szeliga, 2010]. The Sylhet and Mymensingh regions
experience severe damage. The tremor was felt less strongly over much of South
Asia, including lower Myanmar, the Assam valley and much of the Indian
subcontinent.
Estimates of the magnitude of the earthquake varies, but all are greater than M
8.0. Richter [1958] calculates an Ms 8.7. Abe [1994] recalculated the magnitude as
Ms 8.0 from instrumental records. Szeliga et al. [2010] suggests a magnitude of M
8.4 based on seismic intensity records. All of these magnitude estimates suggest
that surface rupture would have been at least 100 to 200 km long, based on
magnitude-rupture empirical relationships [Wells and Coppersmith, 1994].
No evidence of surface rupture has been found, however. Thus the source of
the earthquake currently is still debated. Bilham and England [2001] postulate the
Oldham fault, on the northern edge of the Shillong Plateau, ruptured, based upon
triangulation measurements. However, no one has found the surface trace of the
Oldham fault, and the geomorphological expression of the plateau suggests that
there is no fault break along the northern flank of the Shillong plateau.
The Dauki fault is a more likely source for the 1897 earthquake. It outcrops
along the southern flank of the Shillong Plateau and dips under the region of highest
intensities, on the plateau [Figure 12]. Preliminary paleoseismological work at one
locality along the Dauki fault revealed no evidence of surface rupture in 1897
[Morino et al. 2011]. A more comprehensive paleoseismological study would be
needed firmly establish or refute the Dauki fault as the source of the great
earthquake.
14
Figure 12. The fact that the high-intensity area of 1897 earthquake coincides with the
Shillong Plateau suggests that the source of the earthquake was the Dauki fault.
Intensity map is from Rajendran et al. [2004]
The Srimongal earthquake of 1918

The Sirmongal earthquake of 1918 caused extensive damage along the eastern
Bangladesh border, particularly in the Balisera Valley near Srimongal, where seismic
intensity reached EMS 8 to 9 [Martin and Szeliga, 2010]. Buildings were also
damaged in Dhaka and Sylhet, as well as some adjacent parts of in India. The tremor
was throughout Bangladesh and adjacent parts of India and Myanmar [Stuart, 1920].
Pacheco and Sykes [1992] estimate a magnitude Ms 7.4 centered close to the
western front of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt. The highest intensities of this
earthquake occurred in the northernmost part of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt.
This suggests that the earthquake was generated by a structure within the
Chittagong-Tripura fold belt or the Arakan megathrust beneath it.
15
Figure 13. The high-intensity area of 1918 earthquake and likely center.
16
Active structures
To categorize the active structures with the seismic potentials in the near future,
we first define these structures into two basic groups based on their scales. The first
group, major plate-boundary structures includes the major collision and subduction
interface that are capable to produce M ~ 8 earthquake solely. The second group
includes the structure that mostly within the deformation belt, but shows the
evidence of active at least during the late-Quaternary period.
We include different aspects of data to address on the activity of both the
plate-boundary scale structures and the second-order active structures. These data
include the structural analyses from published dataset, the geodetic data, the
existing paleoseismology studies and the geomorphic investigations from the remote
sensing dataset.
Overall, we define five different patches of plate-boundary faults as the primary
seismic sources in this area. Among the active structures within the deformation belt,
we suggest 13 structures within the Bangladesh-India region are the candidate of
potential seismic source in the region. The high-resolution satellite imagery shows
some of these structures may accompany with the young faulting on their limbs.
However, future detail study is needed to verify their history of active.
Major plate-boundary structures

1. Main frontal thrust
One of the most prominent seismic sources in the region is the Himalayan
Frontal Thrust (HFT). The fault runs along the southern flank of the Himalayan
Mountains and has produced several great earthquakes in the past several hundred
years [Figure 14] [Kumar et al., 2010]. Two of these occurred near Bangladesh in the
20th century. The 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake (Mw~ 8.1) severely shook a large
region northwest of Bangladesh. Judging from felt reports, rupture of a section of
the megathrust about 300 km long produced the earthquake. The 1950 Assam
earthquake (Mw 8.5) involved rupture of at least 400 km of the megathrust along the
northern edge of the Assam Valley, northeast of the Bangladesh [Figure 14] [Kumar
et al., 2010]. Between the 1934 and 1950 rupture patches is a 500-km-long patch
that has not produced a great earthquake in recorded history. This seismically
quiescent gap is only ~60 km north of the Bangladesh border, so it must be
considered to be a significant potential source of strong ground shaking over at least
the northern sectors of Bangladesh.
17

This section of the Himalayan megathrust has not been well studied, but studies
of its neighbor to the west provides some suggestions about its structural geometry
and kinematics. There, in eastern Nepal, the HFT (the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT))
dips ~10 northward and has a long-term slip rate of ~ 18 mm/yr plate convergence
at the eastern Nepal area [Ader et al., 2012]. Geodetic analysis suggests the fault is
locked from the surface to the depth of 15 to 20 km. This locking depth
corresponds to an ~ 100-km-wide locked patch. The analysis of geodetic data by
Banerjee et al. [2008] suggests a slip rate beneath the Bhutan Himalaya is about 21
mm/yr.
Figure 14 Historical earthquakes along the Himalayan Frontal Thrust fault

Paleoseismological studies at both ends of this patch suggest that the most
recent large rupture of the fault was several hundred years ago. This result is
consistent with the lack of a historical record of earthquakes along this reach of the
megathrust. Kumar et al. [2010] suggest the last rupture took place no later than the
15th century and likely occurred in the 12th century. If the most recent event occurred
in the 12th to 15th century and if the fault is fully locked and accumulating potential
slip at 2 cm/yr, we might expect the fault is now capable of slipping 12 to 18 meters.
2. Dauki fault system
Slip on the famous Dauki fault has formed the steep, 270-km-long southern
flank of the Shillong plateau, where the elevation rises northward from near sea level
18

to more than 1500 m. This impressive fault scarp extends from the Brahmaputra
River Delta to the western flank of the Indoburman range, where the Shillong Plateau
and Indoburman range meet near the northeastern corner of Bangladesh [Figure 15].
The Dauki fault dips northward at an angle of between 40 and 50 beneath the
Shillong plateau [e.g. Bilham and England, 2001; Biswas et al., 2007]. An analysis of
geophysical data suggests the fault extends to a depth of 35 km and cuts completely
through the Indian continental crust to the Moho [Nayak et al., 2008]. If the Dauki
fault is locked from the surface to 35 km deep, the fault width in the down-dip
direction would be ~50 km.
An elastic deformation model based upon geodetic data yields a slip rate of ~11
mm/yr [Banerjee et al., 2008]. This would be a third of the total plate convergence
rate between the Tibetan Plateau and the Indian plate. If the fault is totally locked
and accumulating potential slip at this rate, then potential slip would be
accumulating at about one meter per century. For example, a 5-meter rupture
might occur every about every 500 years and a 10-meter rupture might occur every
1000 years.
Although it is still debated, the last major seismic event on the Dauki fault is
likely to have been the great (M~8.0) Indian earthquake of 1897. Its bell-shaped
patch of high intensity covers most of the Shillong plateau, above the north-dipping
Dauki fault and the southern limit of strongest intensities lies close to and parallel to
the trace of the surface trace of the Dauki fault. Even so, a plaeoseismological
study at one site along the Dauki fault failed to yield clear evidence of surface
rupture during the 1897 earthquake. Instead, fissures caused by liquefaction is a
very shallow part of the trench indicate strong shaking during the 1897 earthquake
[Morino et al. 2011]. The same trench also revealed an earlier rupture of the fault in
the 16th century.
Our geomorphic investigations based upon satellite data show that most of the
geomorphic features at the base of the Shillong plateau are related to fluvial
processes associated with river flow parallel to the mountain front. The high
erosional and deposition rates associated with this active fluvial system obscure
younger tectonic landforms of the Dauki fault. Nevertheless, we have found several
features that we suspect to be young fault scarps. Figure 16 shows one such
south-facing scarp near the Bichanakandi area. The lateral continuation of this scarp
is unclear, due to fluvial erosion both to the east and west.
19
Figure 15 Simplified Dauki fault patch (black rectangle) along its mapped surface
trace (red line).
Figure 16 Suspected Dauki fault scarp near the Bichanakandi area. Image is from
Google Map.
20

3. Arakan megathrust (Ramree section)
Our studies of the structure, tectonic geomorphology, paleoseismology and
historical seismicity of the Arakan megathrust have led us to separate the fault into
four distinctive sections. Only the three northernmost sections are relevant to this
report on the seismic hazard of Bangladesh. The farthest south of these three is the
500-km-long Ramree section, which extends from near Myanmars Fouls Island in the
south about to Bangladeshs Chittagong in the north. The megathrust dips gently
northeastward toward the coastline at an angle of about 16. This is the dip of a
plane intersecting the offshore trench and lay atop the Wadati-Benioff zone.
The 4-decade-long instrumental seismic record contains very few earthquakes
on the megathrust. This implies that it is wholly locked and the blocks above and
below are accumulating strain at the rate of convergence of the Indian and Burma
plates [Figure 17]. Recent analysis of GPS data suggests that the convergence rate
across the megathrust is ~23 mm/yr at a latitude just south of the
Bangladesh-Myanmar border [Socquet et al., 2006]. Most of this strain is likely to be
accommodated by the megathrust. However, youthful deformation of the
over-riding plate indicates that part of the convergence occurs across upper-plate
structures within the Indoburman range [Nelson et al., 2004].
The great Arakan earthquake of 1762 is the latest major rupture of the Ramree
section of the Arakan megathrust. The rupture was at least 350 km long, if one
assumes that, in addition to uplift reported in the south, reported subsidence in the
Chittagong region was associated with slip on the megathrust [Halstead, 1842; Mallet,
1878; Oldham, 1833]. Shishikura et al. [2009] suggests the recurrence interval of
1762-type earthquakes is about 900 years, based on the ages of uplift marine
terraces they measured and dated along the Myanmar coast. Our unpublished data
demonstrates that uplift events are more frequent than this, which implies that large
earthquakes are also more frequent.
21
Figure 17. Ramree section of the Arakan

megathrust (red rectangle). Colored
rectangles are earthquake epicenters for the
period 1973 to 2008, from the NEIC
catalogue. Warmer colors indicate
earthquakes with shallow hypocenters and
cooler colors indicate deeper hypocenters.
The pattern northeast of the Ramree section
shows the descent of the Wadati-Benioff
zone beneath the Indoburman range. The
60-km on the top of the Wadati-Benioff
zone is approximately at the westernmost
light blue hypocenters.
4.
Arakan megathrust (Chittagong section)

We define the megathrust north of the Chittagong area as a separate
seismogenic patch, because of a significant difference in the megathrust geometry
[Figure 18]. Maurin and Rangin (2009) suggest the dip of this Chittagong section of
the megathrust is nearly flat. Slip on this shallow-dipping section of the megathrust
has resulted in the construction of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt, a broad swath of
anticlinal ridges and synclinal troughs formed within the accreted Bengal Fan
sedimentary sequence. These large but secondary structures arise from bends in
the megathrust and/or secondary faults associated with it.
Steckler et al. [2008] suggest the megathrust dips 5-7 to the east. They
deduce a slip rate of 1 to 2 cm/yr, based upon a structural analysis of previously
published data. One important result of the very shallow dip of the megathrust is
that the width of the shallow part of the fault must be much greater than it is along
the Ramree section. If the locking depth of the fault is about 35 km, then the width
of the seismic patch would be about 300 km.
Although the earthquake history of the Chittagong section extends back to the
16 century, the historical reports are so scant prior to the 20th century that
associations of large historical earthquakes with specific parts of the megathrust or
specific secondary faults of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt remain spectulative.
Steckler et al. [2008] suggest that 1548 earthquake may have resulted from rupture
th
22

of the megathrust event, since severe damage extended across most of the fold belt,
from Syhelt to Chittagong. To the contrary, the Morino et al. [2011] paleoseismic
study of the Dauki fault suggested to them that the 1548 earthquake resulted from
slip on the Dauki fault. Additional paleoseismological studies would be needed to
resolve the matter definitively.
The length of the Chittagong section, its exceptional width, the high rate of
convergence across it, and its very long period of quiescence imply that it is capable
of generating exceptionally large earthquakes. For example, if it has indeed been
quiet since at least 1548 and is accumulating potential slip at a rate of 1 to 2 cm/yr,
then one can reasonably surmise that at least 5.5 to 11 meters of slip could occur
during the next great rupture of the megathrust. The magnitude of such an event
could be Mw 8.8, given the width and length of the Chittagong section.
Figure 18 Along the Chittagong section of the Arakan megathrust the shallow,
seismogenic part of the great fault is very flat, exceptionally wide, and blind. That is,
23

its westernmost limit does not crop out at the surface. Our estimate of the blind
megathrusts geometry is illustrated in the cross-section. The solid red line suggests
the width of its shallow, seismogenic portion is over 200 km.
5. Naga thrust fault
The Naga thrust fault is the northeastern extension of the Arakan megathrust
and the third of the three megathrust sections that could affect Bangladesh. This
350-km-long fault system separates the Naga hills from the Assam valley, northeast
of the Shillong Plateau. In great contrast to the Chittagong section, this system of
fault-propagation folds and southeast-dipping thrust faults outcrops at the surface
within a narrow band. Shallow seismic and well data indicate that the dip of the Naga
thrust is about 23 [Figure 19].
Young tectonic landforms are very prominent in high-resolution satellite
imagery and SRTM digital elevation model along the entire Naga fault system. These
features include uplifted and anticlinally deformed fluvial terraces and small tectonic
scarps along the mountain front. The existence of these features implies that the
Naga thrust fault system has been active at least during the late Quaternary period.
A recent geodetic study, however, shows insignificant modern shortening across
the Naga fault system [Jade et al., 2007]. These two results suggest that the fault is
active but accumulating strains at a rate lower than 5 mm/yr, about the uncertainty
of the GPS measurements.
24
Figure 19. Our mapping of tectonic landforms shows that the active Naga thrust
fault traverses the northern flank of the Naga hills from the Shillong plateau to the
northeastern end of the Assam valley. The cross-section shows the fault
accommodates the rocks of the Naga hills over-riding the continental sedimentary
rocks of the Assam valley. After Kent [2002].
25
Active structures in the CTFB

The five major plate-boundary fault systems that we have just described are not
the only potential sources for destructive earthquakes in Bangladesh. Most
prominent among secondary structures in the region are those associated with the
anticlines of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt (CTFB). Geomorphological and
structural/stratigraphic analyses demonstrate that at least thirteen of these
anticlines are active (Table 2 and Figure 20). Because of high erosional and
depositional rates, not all of these structures show clear, youthful geomorphic
features. Hence, we rely also on published seismic reflection profiles to assist in our
evaluation of whether or not they are active.
Most of the anticlines that display evidence of youthful activity are within 100
km of the western deformation front of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt. We
suspect that this reflects the westward propagation of the megathrust and overlying
fold belt into the Ganges delta sedimentary section. This suggests that other folds
within 100 km of the deformation front, including those not marked by us as active,
may also belie activity of the underlying megathrust and related secondary
structures.
Table 2. A preliminary list of active anticlines in Bangladesh
Evidence
Code Anticline name
Growth strata
Deformed
Reference
surface
SM
St. Martins Island
This study
Da
Dakshin Nila
This study
Maheshkhali
Maurin and Rangin, 2009
Khan et al., 2005

Jaldi
Khan et al., 2005
Patiya
SW
Sandwip
This study
Lalmai
This study
Habiganj
John and Nur Alam, 1991
Rashidpur
Curiale et al., 2002
Sylhet
John and Nur Alam, 1991
Steckler et al.,2008
F
Fenchunganj
This study
Ha
Hararganj
This study
Pa
Patharia
Sikder and Alam, 2003
26
Figure 20. Thirteen anticlines of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt with geomorphic
and/or structural/stratigraphic evidence for recent activity. Table 2 lists more
information about these anticlines, which are marked with white code letters in black
boxes. Other folds and related faults within 100 km of the deformation front may
also be active.
27

St. Martins Island
The anticline beneath the St Martins Island has long been known from offshore
structural maps. Uplifted marine terraces on the island are clear evidence of recent
activity. High-resolution satellite imagery shows two distinct terraces ringing the
island [Figure 21]. Young uplifted corals also exist at several locales along the
modern coastline. The uplifted corals suggest very young tectonic uplift of the island
[Environmental profile of St Martins Island, 2010]. The lengths of the anticline and
the related fault are unclear from published research..
Figure 21 Marine terraces on the southern part of the St Martins Island imply that it
is rising on the crest of an active anticline. Image is from Google Map.
Dakshin Nila anticline
As on nearby St Martins Island, marine terraces on the southern tip of Dakshin
Nila imply that it is an actively rising anticline. Its alignment with and proximity to the
anticline of St. Martins Island suggests that they are kinematically related. The
geomorphology of the Dakshin Nila anticline suggests that its western limb is steeper
than its eastern limb. This asymmetry would be consistent with the existence of an
underlying east-dipping thrust fault.
The steepness of the western flank may be evidence that the fault cuts through
its western limb and crops out along or near the west coast of the island.
High-resolution satellite imagery shows a steep west-facing scarp between coastal
28

plain and foothills; this may be the fault scarp of the suspect thrust fault [Figure 22].
Field investigation would be needed to test this hypothesis.
Figure 22. The steep western flank of the foothills may be the scarp of a
northeast-dipping thrust fault beneath the Dakshin Nila anticline. Image is from
Google Map.
Maheshkhali anticline and fault

The activity of the Maheskhali anticline was documented in the report of the
CDMP-1 project. The SRTM digital elevation model and high-resolution satellite
imagery both show clear evidence of recent uplift along the southern part of the
anticline [Figure 23]. The base of its western limb exhibits a continuous linear scarp
on the SRTM topography. As in the case of the Dakshin Nila anticline, this suggests
that the fault associated with the anticline may crop out the surface.
SRTM topography indicates that the Maheshkhali structure may further extend
to the north, beneath Kutubdia Island. Profiles from the 90-m SRTM show the
islands surface is warped about 4 meter [Figure 24]. We have no evidence that the
fault underlying the Maheshkhali anticline breaks to the surface; we suspect
therefore that it is blind, at least along its northern part.
29
Figure 23. The fault scarp on the southwestern side of the Maheshkhali anticline.
Image is from Google Map
Figure 24. The surface profile across the northern part of Maheshkhali anticline
shows a 4-meter bowing of the surface of nearby Kutubdia Island, which we interpret
as anticlinal deformation. Source of topography is the 90-meter SRTM dataset.
30

Jaldi anticline
The seismic-reflection profile across the Jaldi anticline shows clear growth strata
in the shallow part of the profile. The age of the growth strata indicate that the
anticline has been active since the Pleistocene [Maurin and Rangin, 2009]. Khan et
al. [2005] use soil morphology to infer an average uplift rate of nearly 3 mm/yr. The
shape of the Jaldi anticline is well exhibited in satellite imagery. This also supports
the contention that the anticline is an active structure.
A clear linear scarp is apparent in high-resolution satellite imagery along the
southwestern limb of the anticline [Figure 25]. This may reflect the existence of an
underlying fault near or breaking the surface. The scarp does not extend to the
southern part of the anticline, so this speculative southwest-bounding fault would
become a blind fault along the southern part of the fold.
Although a seismic-reflection profile suggests another thrust fault along the
eastern limb of the anticline, we do not see clear evidence of it in satellite imagery.
The eastern-bonding fault may also be a blind fault beneath the young and
undeformed sediment, or is slipping at a lesser rate than the southwest-bounding
fault of the Jaldi anticline.
Figure 25. A sharp demarcation between coastal plain and foothills may represent a
fault scarp along the southwestern side of the Jaldi anticline. The image is from
Google Map.
31

Patiya anticline
A seismic-reflection profile shows clear growth strata against the Patiya anticline
in the shallow subsurface; this imdicates that the anticline has been active in the
Pleistocene [Maurin and Rangin, 2009]. It also shows the eastern limb of the
anticline is cut by a west-dipping thrust fault. The trace of this eastern-bounding fault
may be apparent in a high-resolution satellite image along the central part of the
anticline [Figure 26]. However, we caution that there is no clear evidence for
deformation of young fluvial sediments along this lineament, so we cannot be sure
that it represents a fault scarp. Additional inspection using stereoscopic aerial
photography and in the field would be needed to resolve the true nature of the
lineament.
Figure 26. A tectonic scarp along the eastern flank of the Patiya anticline. Image
from Google Map.
Sandwip Island
SRTM digital topography shows that the surface of Sandwip Island has been
anticlinally warped about 4 meters. This slight warping is also reflected in the
drainage pattern of the island [Figure 27].
32
Figure 27.
Image and surface profile of the Sandwip Island. The white dashed
line shows the watershed of the island and the yellow line shows the location of the
profile. Elevation profile is from 90-meter SRTM topography. Image is from Google
Map.
Lalmai anticline
The Lalmai anticline lies close to the western front of the Chittagong-Tripura
folding belt, east of Dhaka. The seismic reflection profile published by Sikder and
Alam [2003] clearly shows the gentle folding of this young anticline. Moreover, the
gentle folding of the anticline is clear in the warping of the young surface of the
Comilla terrace. The western side of Comilla terrace is bounded by a linear scarp,
which may well be a fault scarp. The CDMP-1 project report also mentions this scarp,
but no clear feature was found during their field investigations.
Habiganj anticline
The seismic-reflection profile published by John and Nur Alam [1991] shows
clear growth-strata on the shallow part of the Habiganj anticline. The age of the
growth strata indicate that the anticline has been growing throughout the late
Quaternary period. The profile also suggests an east-dipping reverse fault along the
western limb of the anticline. A lack of clear topographic scarps in high-resolution
imagery suggests that active faulting beneath the fold is blind.
33

Rashidpur anticline
Geomorphic observation from satellite imagery suggests the Rashidpur anticline,
near the northwestern front of the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt is active. A
seismic-reflection profile shows clear growth strata across the northern extension of
the anticline [Curiale et al., 2002]. The same profile also shows a secondary fault
developing beneath its eastern limb. That structure is not clearly in evidence in
high-resolution satellite imagery, although the eastern topographic slope of the
anticline is sharp [Figure 28]. Field investigations aided by examination of
stereoscopic aerial photographs could lead to a better resolution of the nature of this
landform and its relation to the activity of the anticline.
The Srimongal earthquake of 1918 was centered close to the Rashidpur anticline.
The earthquake report shows that structures on the eastern flank of the anticline and
in the adjacent valley were badly damaged and that the earthquakes strongest
intensities were experienced there.
Figure 28. High-resolution satellite imagery of the Rashidpur anticline. A green

dashed line shows the northern limit of high intensity during the 1918 earthquake.
Image is from Google Map.
Sylhet anticline
Published seismic-reflection profiles [e.g. Steckler et al., 2008] clearly show
young growth strata on the flanks of the Sylhet anticline. High-resolution satellite
imagery shows the top of the anticline is highly eroded, and no uplifted terrace
34

surfaces appear to have been preserved. Faults associated with the Sylhet anticline
do not appear to outcrop at the surface, so they are likely blind. The existence of a
tectonic feature in the middle of this rapidly depositing and subsiding floodplain
suggests that the Sylhet anticline is active. Details regarding its rate of folding and
seismic history await field investigations of affected Pleistocene and Holocene
deposits and landforms.
Figure 29. A false-color map of SRTM topography clearly shows the Sylhet anticline
rising out of a part of the delta that is rapidly sedimenting and subsiding. The
underlying faults that have created the anticline are not apparent at the surface, so
we speculate that they are blind.
Fenchunganj anticline
The Fenchungani anticline is topographically manifest as gentle low hills on the
active floodplain of the northern part of the Chittagong-Tripura folding belt.
High-resolution satellite imagery shows that the anticline deforms young fluvial
sediment across the southern part of the fold, where deformed fluvial surfaces are
well preserved and largely uneroded. The northeastern limb of this fold is
well-expressed [Figure 30] and may be either a fault or a fold scarp.
35
Figure 30. An east-facing scarp is well-expressed along the eastern flank of the
Fenchunganj anticline.
Hararganj anticline
The northernmost part of the Haraaganj anticline may deform a young fluvial
surface east of the Fenchunganj anticline. SRTM topography shows the surface at
the northern Hararganj anticline is bowed about 15 meters [Figure 31]. A careful
inspection of stereoscopic aerial photographs and a field survey of late Quaternary
landforms and sediments here would be necessary to ascertain the degree of recent
activity of this anticline.
36
Figure 31. An SRTM digital elevation map and the surface profile of the Haraganj
anticline suggest that young deformation may extend northward from the clear
topographic expression of the anticline.
Patharia anticline
The Patharia anticline is the easternmost anticline in the Chittagong-Tripura fold
belt for which we have evidence of young activity. A seismic-reflection profile
published by Sikder and Alam [2003] shows a fanning of dip angles and an angular
unconformity at shallow levels that implies activity during the late Quarternary
period. A lack of clear fault scarps on the flank of the fold implies that the underlying
faults are blind.
37
Earthquake potential of active structures

The lengths and widths of active faults or fault segments can be used to
calculate the potential size of earthquakes generated by them via the formula for
moment magnitude, Mw. Since we are interested in estimating the size of
earthquakes generated by the five large thrust faults associated with the Arakan and
Himalayan megathrusts, we use the Mw equation proposed by Strasser et al. [2010]
for megathrusts and other subduction-zone structures:
Mw = 4.441 + 0.846 * log10(A)
where A is the area of the fault patch that produces the anticipated earthquake.
Mw is related to seismic moment (Mo) by this equation:
log10(Mo) = 1.5 * Mw + 16.1
and Mo is related to the area of seismic rupture as follows:
Mo = AD
where D is the average slip of the fault plane and is the shear modulus.
Later we will use the slip-rate estimates to estimate recurrence intervals via this
equation:
D = r * T (r = slip rate; T = recurrence interval)
Earthquake scenarios for major structures
Table 3 lists the five major seismic structures of Bangladesh and their estimated
parameters. Plugging these parameters into the Mw equation suggests that each of
them is capable of producing earthquakes greater than Mw 8. Their estimated
recurrence times range from 150 to 540 years, based on their average slip rate and
average co-seismic fault slip. The estimated recurrence intervals should be
considered minimum values, because during most known megathrust events peak
fault slip on the megathrust is much greater than the average fault slip (e.g., 2005
Nias, 2010 Chilean, 2011 Japan). Therefore, a recurrence interval based on an
average value of co-seismic fault slip is probably an overestimate of the actual
frequency of earthquake. Future paleoseismological studies of these structures could
greatly improve the quality of seismic recurrence estimation. Also such work will
38

provide better constraints on estimations of possible earthquake magnitudes.
Table 3 The potential earthquake magnitude of major structures near Bangladesh
Length
Fault name
Dip
Locking
Fault width
Slip
rate
Average
Recurrence
Date
slip (m)
interval (yr)
last event
(km)A
angle
depth (km)
(km)
(mm/yr)
Main Frontal Thrust
440
10
20
115
21
8.4
3.5
175
1100(?)
Dauki fault
260
45
35
50
11
7.9
2.5
250
1897
Arakan
440
16
30
108
23
8.4
3.4
150
1762
360
30
340
20
8.75
4.5
200
1548?
360
23
20
50
8.0
2.7
540
megathrust
(Rahkine section)
Arakan
Megathrust
(Chittagong section)
Naga thrust
of
Mmax
Earthquake scenarios of active structures within the CTFB

We use a different Mw equation to calculate earthquake scenarios for secondary
active structures within the Chittagong-Tripura fold belt. Because most of these
anticlines are related to underlying thrust faults and their fault widths are mostly
unconstrained, we use magnitude-length relationship from Wells and Coppersmith
[1994] to calculate plausible earthquake magnitudes:
M = 4.49 + 1.49 * log10(RLD)
(RLD = subsurface rupture length)
We later use the magnitude-fault area relationship of Wells and Coppersmith

[1994], and the moment-magnitude equation to calculate average fault slip and the
likely recurrence interval by assuming a constant slip rate for all of these structures.
Log (A) = -3.99 + 0.98 * M
where A is the rupture area.
log10(Mo) = 1.5 * Mw + 16.1
where Mo is the seismic moment. And
Mo = AD
where D is the average slip.
39
D=r*T
r is the assumed slip rate and T is the recurrence interval.
The slip rate we assumed for each of the structure is 3 mm/yr, about 30 % of the
shortening rate across the entire Chittagong-Tripura fold belt from analysis of GPS
data by Jade et al. [2004]. We chose this slip rate because it appears that two to
three anticlines are currently active at any particular latitude across the CTFB.
Table 4 lists a scenario for each of the 13 anticlines that we have described
above, assuming that they act independently. Our calculations suggest these
structures are capable of producing earthquakes ranging in magnitude from M 6.3 to
M 7.5, with recurrence intervals ranging from 250 to 1100 years. Although these
earthquake magnitudes are smaller than the magnitudes generated by the five larger
active faults, they are still dangerous, because most them are close to populated
areas.
Table 4 The potential earthquake magnitude of structures within Chittagong-Tripura folding belt.
Length
Slip
rate
Name
Average
Recurrence
Date of last
slip (m)
interval (yr)
event
?
Mmax
Reference
(km)
(mm/yr)
St. Martins Island
> 16
6.3
0.75
250
Dakshin Nila
40
6.8
1.5
515
Maheshkhali
50
7.0
1.8
610
Jaldi
40
6.8
1.5
515
Patiya
40
6.8
1.5
515
Sandwip
50
7.0
1.8
610
Lalmai
50
7.0
1.8
610
Habiganj
105
7.5
3.3
1100
Rashidpur
62
7.2
2.2
720
Sylhet
22
6.5
340
Fenchunganj
45
6.9
1.7
570
Hararganj
50
1.8
610
Patharia
46
1.7
570
40
1918 (M 7.4)
Reference
Abe, K., 1994. Instrumental magnitudes of historical earthquakes, 1892 to 1898:
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 84, p. 415-425
Ader, T., et al. (2012), Convergence rate across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic
coupling on the Main Himalayan Thrust: Implications for seismic hazard, J. Geophys.
Res., 117, B04403, doi:10.1029/2011JB009071.
Ambraseys, N. N., and J. Douglas (2004), Magnitude calibration of north Indian
earthquakes, Geophys. J. Int., 159, 165 206
Banerjee, P., R. Brgmann, B. Nagarajan, and E. Apel (2008), Intraplate deformation
of
the
Indian
subcontinent,
Geophys.
Res.
Lett.,
35,
L18301,
doi:10.1029/2008GL035468.
Banglapedia:Earthquake http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/HT/E_0002.HTM
Bettinelli, P., J.-P. Avouac, M. Flouzat, F. Jouanne, L. Bollinger, P. Willis, and G. R.
Chitrakar (2006), Plate motion of India and interseismic strain in the Nepal Himalaya
from GPS and DORIS measurements, J. Geod., 80, 567 589.
Bilham, R., and P. England, (2001). Plateau pop-up during the great 1897 Assam
earthquake. Nature, 410, 806-809.
Bilham, R., and S. Hough. (2006). Future Earthquakes on the Indian Subcontinent:
Inevitable Hazard, Preventable Risk. South Asian Journal, 12, 1-9.
Biswas, S., I. Coutand, D. Grujic, C. Hager, D. Stckli, and B. Grasemann (2007),
Exhumation and uplift of the Shillong plateau and its influence on the eastern
Himalayas: New constraints from apatite and zircon (U-Th-[Sm])/He and apatite
fission track analyses, Tectonics, 26, TC6013, doi:10.1029/2007TC002125.
Commins, P.R., (2007). The potential for giant tsunamigenic earthquakes in
northern Bay of Bengal, Nature, 449, doi:10.1038/nature06088
the
Curiale, J.A., G.H.Covington, A.H.M.Shamsuddin, J.A.Morelos, and A.K.M.Shamsuddin,

(2002) Origin of petroleum in Bangladesh: AAPG Bulletin, v.86, no. 4, p. 625-652.
41
Curray, J. R. (2005), Tectonics and history of the Andaman Sea region, J. Asian Earth
Sci., 25, 187 228
Environmental profile of St Martins Island (2010), Coastal and Westlands Biodiversity
Management Project, UNDP.
Halsted, E. P. (1841). Report on the Island of Chedooba.
Iyengar, R. N., D. Sharma, and J. M. Siddiqui (1999), Earthquake history of India in
medieval times, Indian J. Hist. Sci., 34, 181 237.
Jade, S., M. Mukul, A. K. Bhattacharya, M. S. M. Vijayan, S. Jaganathan, A. Kumar, R. P.
Tiwari, A. Kumar, S. Kalita, S. C. Sahu, A. P. Krishna, S. S. Gupta, M. V. R. L. Murthy, and
V. K. Gaur (2007), Estimates of interseismic deformation in Northeast India from GPS
Measurements,
Earth
and
Planetary
Science
Letters,
doi:
10.1016/j.epsl.2007.1008.1031.
Johnson, S.Y., A.M. Nur Alam, (1991) Sedimentation and tectonics of the Sylhet
trough, Bangladesh. Geological Society of America Bulletin 103, 1513 1527.
Kent, N.W., R.G. Hickman, U. Dasgupta, (2002) Application of a ramp/atfault model
to interpretation of the Naga thrust and possible implications for
petroleum exploration along the Naga thrust front. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists 86, 20232045.
Khan, M.S.H., B. Parkash, S. Kumar (2005), Soil-landform development of a part of
the fold belt along the eastern coast of Bangladesh. Geomorphology 71, 310327.
Kumar, S., S. G. Wesnousky, R. Jayangondaperumal, T. Nakata, Y. Kumahara, and V.
Singh (2010), Paleoseismological evidence of surface faulting along the northeastern
Himalayan front, India: Timing, size, and spatial extent of great earthquakes, J.
Geophys. Res., 115, B12422, doi:10.1029/2009JB006789
Maurin, T. and C. Rangin (2009), Structure and kinematics of the Indo-Burmese
Wedge: Recent and fast growth of the outer wedge, Tectonics, 28, TC2010,
doi:10.1029/2008TC002276.
42

Martin, S., and W. Szeliga (2010). A catalog of felt intensity data for 589 earthquakes
in India, 16362008, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100, no. 2, 562569.
Morino M., A.S.M. M. Kamalb, D. Muslimc, R.E. Alid, M.A. Kamald, Z. Rahmane, F.
Kanekoa (2011) Seismic event of the Dauki Fault in 16th century confirmed by trench
investigation at Gabrakhari Village, Haluaghat, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, Journal of
Asian Earth Sciences, Volume 42, Issue 3, p. 492-498.
Nayak, G. K., V. K. Rao, H. V. Rambabu, and J. R. Kayal (2008), Pop-up tectonics of the
Shillong Plateau in the great 1897 earthquake (Ms 8.7): Insights from the gravity in
conjunction with the recent seismological results, Tectonics, 27, TC1018,
doi:10.1029/2006TC002027.
Nielsen, C., et al. (2004), From partial to full strain partitioning along the
Indo-Burmese hyper-oblique subduction, Mar. Geol., 209, 303 327.
Oldham, T. (1883). Catalogue of Indian Earthquakes, Memoirs Geological Survey of
India, 19(3), pp.170.
Oldham, R.D. (1899) Report on the great earthquake of 12th June 1897, Mem. Geol.
Survey of India, 29, pp.1379, Calcutta
Pacheco, J. F., and Sykes, L. R. (1992), Seismic moment catalog of large shallow
earthquakes, 1900 to 1989, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 82, 13061349
Rajendran, C. P., K. Rajendran, B. P. Duarah, S. Baruah, and A. Earnest (2004),
Interpreting the style of faulting and paleoseismicity associated with the 1897
Shillong, northeast India, earthquake: Implications for regional tectonism, Tectonics,
23, TC4009, doi:10.1029/2003TC001605.
Richter, C. F. (1958). Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco
Sieh, K., and D. Natawidjaja (2000), Neotectonics of the Sumatran fault, Indonesia, J.
Geophys. Res., 105(B12), 28,29528,326, doi:10.1029/2000JB900120.
Sikder, A.M. and M.M Alam (2003), 2-D Modeling Of The Anticlinal Structures And
Structural Development Of The Eastern Fold Belt Of The Bengal Basin, Bangladesh.
43

Journal of Sedimentary Geology, volume 155, issues 3-4, pp. 179-208.
Shyu, J. B. H., K. Sieh, Y.-G. Chen, and C.-S. Liu (2005), Neotectonic architecture of
Taiwan and its implications for future large earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 110,
B08402, doi:10.1029/2004JB003251.
Socquet, A., C. Vigny, N. Chamot-Rooke, W. Simons, C. Rangin, and B. Ambrosius
(2006), India and Sunda plates motion and deformation along their boundary in
Myanmar determined by GPS, J. Geophys. Res., 111, B05406,
doi:10.1029/2005JB003877
Steckler, M.S., S.H. Akhter, and L. Seeber (2008), Collision of the Ganges
Brahmaputra Delta with the Burma Arc: implications for earthquake
hazard, Earth planet Sci. Lett., 273, 367378.
Strasser, F. O., M. C. Arango, and J. J. Bommer, (2010) Scaling of the source
dimensions of interface and intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with moment
magnitude. Seismol. Res. Lett., 81 (6), 941950.
Stuart, M. (1920), The Srimangal earthquake of 8th July 1918, Memoirs of the
Geological Survey of India, 46(1).
Szeliga, W,, S. Hough, S. Martin and R. Bilham, (2010) Intensity, magnitude, location
and attenuation in India for felt earthquakes since 1762. Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. 100,
2, 570-584
Taylor, M. & A. Yin (2009) Active structures of the Himalayan-Tibetan
orogen and their relationships to earthquake distribution, contemporary strain eld,
and Cenozoic volcanism, Geosphere, 5(3), 199214.
Wells, D. L., and K. J. Coppersmith (1994), New empirical relationships among
magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84, 974 1002.
44
INCEPTION REPORT
Earthquake Risk and Damage Assessment and Subsequent Development of Scenario-based
Contingency Planning for Rangpur, Dinajpur, Mymensing, Tangail, Bogra and Rajshahi Municipalities / City Corporations and Detailed Building Inventory of the Said Towns Including Dhaka
and Chittagong City Corporation Areas
Submitted by
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

SM Tower, 24 th Floor, 979/69 Paholyothin Road,
Samsen Nai Phayathai, Bangkok 10400, Thailand

Development of Geodynamic Model of Bangladesh - 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of Geodynamic Model of Bangladesh - 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP-II)

Ministry of Food and Disaster Management (MoFDM)

Task I: Development of Geodynamic Model of Bangladesh

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center