Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. XX, No. XX, pp. –, – 2018, doi: 10.

1785/0120170364

Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil: Statistical Characteristics

in a Midplate Environment
by Lucas Vieira Barros, Marcelo Assumpção, Luis Carlos Ribotta, Vinicius M. Ferreira, Juraci
M. de Carvalho, Brigida M. D. Bowen, and Diogo F. Albuquerque

Abstract Reservoir-triggered seismicity (RTS) was first reported in Brazil in the

early 1970s. Here, we update the compilation of Assumpção et al. (2002), increasing
the number of RTS from 16 to 26 cases. We briefly describe eight new cases that had
been published in congress proceedings. We compare this updated RTS database with
all Brazilian dams taller than 20 m. The reservoirs that triggered earthquakes were an-
alyzed in relation to dam height, reservoir volume, geology, seismicity level, and stress
provinces. The chance of a reservoir-triggering seismicity clearly increases with dam
height, as is well known: the chance is only 2% for heights between 20 and 50 m in
Brazil, increases to 8% between 50 and 100 m, and reaches 65% for dams taller than
100 m. The reservoir volume also has a clear influence: 26% of the reservoirs with
volumes between 1.0 and 10 km3 triggered earthquakes, and the chance increases
to 47% for volumes larger than 10 km3 . No clear correlation with the geology was
found. Dams built on igneous rocks tend to be slightly more prone to RTS, compared
with those built on sedimentary rocks, but the difference is not statistically significant.
No difference was found among the three main types of geological provinces (cratonic
basement, Neoproterozoic fold belts, and intracratonic Phanerozoic basins). A tentative
comparison with the yet poorly defined stress provinces in Brazil did not show any
difference between regions of compressional stresses and regions with shear stresses.
On the other hand, comparison of the fraction of reservoirs producing RTS in natural
seismic and aseismic areas showed that regions with natural seismicity have twice as
much potential for RTS than aseismic regions. Although dam height is the most influ-
ential characteristics, the maximum magnitude does not show any clear correlation with
dam height or reservoir size, similar to other cases worldwide.

Electronic Supplement: Figures of focal mechanisms, waveform fits, epicenter

locations, reservoir locations, frequency–magnitude distributions, tentative definition
of compressional and shear-stress provinces, and distributions of dams.

Introduction
The first observations of seismicity related to reservoir
impoundment in Brazil occurred in the early 1970s (e.g.,
Gupta and Rastogi, 1976; Assumpção et al., 2002), especially
at the small Cajuru reservoir (dam only 20 m tall) with earth-
quake swarms in 1971 and 1972 (Viotti et al., 1995; Veloso
and Gomide, 1997). The largest reservoir-related earthquake
(mb 4.2) occurred in 1974. In the mid-1970s, almost all
medium and large reservoirs had seismic-monitoring stations.
In addition, all planned major reservoirs started preimpound-
ment monitoring several years before completion. Interest in
RTS contributed to motivating the study of seismology in Bra-
zil. After the 1980s and 1990s, with the decrease in the rate of
dam construction in Brazil, interest in RTS also decreased.
This was not only due to fewer large dams under construction
but also owing to the feeling that the chance of a large event
was small. No other magnitude larger than 4.0 had been
observed since 1974.
On 5 November 2015, the catastrophic failure of the
Fundão iron-ore tailings dam, in Mariana, Minas Gerais
state, caused a huge mud flow that destroyed a nearby town
and caused 19 deaths. It has been described as the worst envi-
ronmental disaster in Brazil’s history (Neves et al., 2016).
About 1 hr before the failure, four small earthquakes with
magnitudes up to 2.5 occurred ∼1 km from the dam
(Agurto-Detzel et al., 2016). The earthquakes were regarded
as too small to have caused a direct impact on the dam failure,

BSSA Early Edition / 1

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf
by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
 2 L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque

Figure 1. (a) Reservoir-triggered seismicity (RTS) cases in Brazil (red circles, numbered according to Table 1). White circles denote the
natural seismicity, with sizes scaling with magnitude. The yellow star is the largest RTS case (magnitude mb 4.2). The main geological
provinces are shown as follows: AmBs, Amazon basin; AmCr, Amazon craton; PbBs, Parnaíba basin; BPPr, Borborema Province (fold
belts); PcBs, Parecis basin; ToPr, Tocantins Province (fold belts); SFCr, São Francisco craton; PnBs, Paraná basin; MqPr, Mantiqueira
Province (fold belts). (b) Map of all 492 dams in Brazil with height !H" ≥ 20 m (data from the Brazilian Committee on Large Dams).
Colors denote main geological provinces from CPRM (Brazilian Geological Survey). (Continued)

and a liquefaction process was already developing, leading the
upstream dam to a critical state. Irrespective of any possible
causal relation with the dam failure, the occurrence of the small
events renewed Brazil’s interest in RTS. A tailings dam can be
taller than 100 m, and the water-saturated sediments could also
contribute to increasing pore pressures in the fractured rock-
mass beneath the tailings reservoir. Most tall tailings dams
are now being monitored for local seismicity. For this reason,
a reappraisal of all RTS cases in Brazil is important to help as-
sess triggering hazard and plan mitigation policies.
Here, we update the list of RTS cases from the previous
16 dams (Assumpção et al., 2002) to a total of 26 cases.
We also compare the RTS cases with a revised catalog of
all Brazilian dams, trying to estimate triggering potential ac-
cording to reservoir size, geology, natural seismicity, and
stress provinces.
Triggered Seismicity in Brazil
Studies of RTS began in 1972 with an earthquake of mag-
nitude mb 3.7 and intensity VI modified Mercalli intensity
(MMI) in Carmo do Cajuru reservoir, southeast Brazil (10
in Fig. 1a and Table 1). The nearest station (Brasilia) was
∼500 km away, and no portable stations were available. Only
macroseismic surveys were possible at that time. In 1974, two
other reservoirs (Porto Colombia and Volta Grande, which
started filling in April and September of 1973, respectively;
Veloso, 1992a) caused the largest triggered earthquake in
Brazil, with magnitude mb 4.2 and VI–VII MMI (star with
6 in Fig. 1a). Since then, research groups from the University
of Brasilia, the University of São Paulo, and the Institute for
Technological Research of São Paulo, with support from
energy companies (CEMIG, CESP, FURNAS, Itaipu-

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
 Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil 3

Figure 1. Continued.

Binacional, Eletronorte, and Eletrosul), started seismic mon-
itoring of several reservoirs in the country. In July 1975,
Carmo do Cajuru was the first reservoir to be instrumented
with a local five-station portable network. A seismographic
station is still in operation at this reservoir.
Table 1 and Figure 1a summarize all 26 cases of reser-
voirs that triggered seismicity, six of them with a repetitive-
cycle RTS type, that is, more than one main earthquake.
Table 1 shows reservoir size, year of impoundment, and
occurrence of the major earthquake, maximum magnitudes,
intensity, and references. The Brazilian Seismic Bulletin
(BSN) magnitudes are in the regional mR scale (Assumpção,
1983; Assumpção et al., 2014) that is equivalent to the tele-
seismic body-wave magnitude mb . For small events detected

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
 4

on 11 September 2018
Table 1
Cases of Triggered Seismicity in Brazil
Largest Events
Dam Max

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050

Name Dam Water Volume. Start of Geological Seismicity Date I0 ΔT
Number (State) Height (m) Depth (m) (km3 ) Impoundment Province Type (yyyy/mm/dd) Magnitude (MMI) (yrs) Location References

1 Capivari- 61 58 0.18 July 1970 Orogenic belt Initial 1971/05/21 < 3 ML VI ∼1 — Berrocal et al. (1984)
Cachoeira and Mioto et al. (1991)
(PR)
2 Capivara 60 55 10.5 January 1976 Basin Initial 1976/01/25 < 3 mb V–VI 0.1 Margin Assumpção et al. (1995)
(PR/SP)
Delayed 1979/03/27 3.7 V–VII ∼3 Margin
— 1989/01/07 3.7 VI 13 Margin
3 Paraibuna- 98 & 104 90 4.74 1974 and 1976 Orogenic Initial 1977/11/16 3.0 mb IV ∼1 Inside Mendiguren (1980)
Paratinga belt and Ribotta (1989)
(SP)
4 Jaguari (SP) 67 53 1.5 December Orogenic Delayed 1985/12/17 3.0 ML V–VI 16 Margin Veloso et al. (1987)
1969 belt/border
5 Marimbondo 90 86? 6.15 1975 Basin Initial 1978/07/25 2.0 ML Not felt ∼3 Margin Veloso et al. (1987)
(MG/SP)
6 Porto 40 & 45 35 & 37 1.46 & 2.30 April 1973 Basin Initial 1974/02/24 4.2 MD VI–VII ∼1 Margin? Berrocal et al. (1984),
Colômbia & and Veloso (1992a), and
Volta September Gomide (1999)
Grande 1973
(MG/SP)
7 Nova Ponte 142 132 12.8 October 1993 Basin/border Initial 1995/04/21 3.5 mR IV–V 1.5 Margin Chimpliganond (2002),

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

(MG) Marza, Barros, Soares,

BSSA Early Edition

et al. (1999), Marza,
Borros, Chimpliganond,
et al. (1999), and
Marza et al. (1997)
Delayed 1998/05/22 4.0 VI 4.5
8 Miranda (MG) 85 82 1.14 August 1997 Basin/border Initial 1998/04/07 2.4 mR Not felt 0.8 Margin? Barros and Caixeta (2003)
and Assumpção et al.
(2002)
Delayed 2000/05/06 3.3 2.7 Margin
9 Emborcação 158 154 17.5 August 1981 Orogenic Initial 1982/05/20 1.6 ML Not felt ∼1 Inside Viotti et al. (1997, 1995)
(MG) belt/border
10 Carmo do 23 20 0.20 1954 Craton Delayed 1971/08/08 3.5 mb V–VI 17 Margin Veloso et al. (1987),
Cajuru and Viotti et al.
(MG) (1997, 1995)
1972/01/23 3.7 VI 18
1976/05/23 3.2 — 22
11 Serra da 150 146 54.4 October 1996 Orogenic belt Initial 1999/06/13 2.2 MD Not felt ∼3? Margin Veloso et al. (1987)
Mesa (GO) and Assumpção et al.
(2002)
(continued)
L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque
on 11 September 2018
Table 1 (Continued)
Largest Events
Dam Max
Name Dam Water Volume. Start of Geological Seismicity Date I0 ΔT
Number (State) Height (m) Depth (m) (km3 ) Impoundment Province Type (yyyy/mm/dd) Magnitude (MMI) (yrs) Location References

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050

12 Balbina (AM) 42 35 17.5 October 1987 Basin/border Initial 1990/03/25 3.4 mb — 2.5 Margin Assumpção et al. (2002)
and Veloso et al. (1991)
13 Tucuruí (PA) 106 90 45.8 September Basin/border Initial 1985/11/02 3.2 mb — ∼1 Inside Assumpção et al. (2002)
1984 and Veloso (1992b)
Delayed 1987/04/01 3.3 — ∼2:5 Margin
— 1998/03/02 3.6 IV–V 14 Inside
14 Açu (RN) 31 31 2.4 1985 Orogenic belt Delayed 1994/08/26 3.0 mR IV? 9.5 Inside Nascimento
(2002)
15 Sobradinho 43 40 34.1 1977 Craton Initial 1979/07/05 1.9 ML Not felt ∼2 Inside Berrocal et al.
(BA) (1984)
Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil

16 Xingó 140 110? 3.8 June 1984 Orogenic belt Initial 1994/07/20 1.7 ML III–IV ∼0:1 Margin Berrocal and
(SE/AL) Fernandes (1996)
17 Furnas (MG) 127 106 23 1963 Orogenic Initial? 1966/11/15 n.a. IV–V ∼1? — Berrocal et al. (1984)
belt/border and Barros et al. (2005)
18 Itapebi (BA) 117 90 1.0 December Craton/border Initial 2003/08/03 1.5 MD Not felt ∼0:01 Inside Barros (2008)
2002
Margin
19 Irapé (MG) 208 n.a 5.96 December Orogenic Initial 2006/05/14 3.0 mR III–IV 0.01 Inside França et al. (2010)
2005 belt/border
20 Castanhão 85 ?? 6.7 2003 Orogenic belt 2.3 MD 1? Ferreira et al. (2008)
(CE)
21 Machadinho 130 128 3.3 2001/08/28 Basin Initial 2001/09/08 1.8 ML Not felt 0.01 Inside Ribotta et al. (2006a)

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

(SC) and Ribotta et al. (2010)

BSSA Early Edition

Delayed Margin
22 Itá (SC) 130 125 5.1 1999/12/13 Basin Initial 1999/12/15 2.5 ML III–IV 0.01 Inside Ribotta et al.
(2006b, 2010, 2017)
Delayed Margin
23 Barra Grande 190 186 5.2 2005/07/05 Basin Initial 2005/10/10 2.5 ML Not felt 0.01 Inside Ribotta et al. (2008)
(SC) and Ribotta et al. (2010)
Delayed Margin
24 Campos 166 166 1.5 2005/10/10 Basin Initial 12/10/2005 1.8 ML Not felt 0.01 Inside Ribotta et al. (2010)
Novos
(SC-RS)
2006/11/26 Delayed 2007/01/27 1.4 Margin
25 Funil (MG) 50 49 0.26 2002 Craton Delayed 2011/08/14 3.2 mR IV–V 8 Margin Barros et al. (2014)
26 Jirau (RO) 62 60 2.73 2014 Basin/border Initial 2014/11/07 3.2 mR IV–V 0.8 Inside Barros et al. (2015)

ΔT, time interval (years) since the beginning of impoundment; n.a., not available; MMI, modified Mercalli intensity.
5
 6 L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque
only by the local networks, the local Richter magnitude scale
ML or duration magnitude M D is also used.
The apparent concentration of RTS cases in southeast
Brazil (Fig. 1a) is mainly due to the larger number of tall
reservoirs in that part of the country (blue and green triangles
in Fig. 1b). Table 1 also shows the predominant type of geol-
ogy beneath the reservoirs, classified as craton (Precambrian
shield terranes), orogenic belts (Neoproterozoic fold belt ter-
ranes), and basins (intracratonic Phanerozoic basins), as in-
dicated by Figure 1b.
In Brazil, most of the RTS cases well instrumented with
local networks show hypocentral depths around 0.5–2 km
(e.g., Mendiguren, 1980; Ferreira et al., 1995, 2008; Chim-
pliganond, 2002; Barros and Ferreira, 2006; Barros and Fon-
tenele, 2012). In many cases, RTS activity starts right after or
during the filling of the reservoir, increasing with and accom-
panying the increase in the water level (e.g., the Miranda res-
ervoir, as reported by Assumpção et al., 2002). The seismic
response of a reservoir was divided by Simpson (1986),
Simpson et al. (1988), and Talwani (1995) into two catego-
ries, depending on its temporal patterns: (1) initial seismicity
and (2) steady-state or delayed seismicity. The first case is
related to transient response of the reservoir, that is, to the
initial filling or to significant variations in the reservoir water
level. This case is the most common. In the second case
(delayed response), the reservoir reaches a steady-state con-
dition, well after impoundment, with a more lasting associ-
ated seismicity. This type is less common, but in several
cases, RTS has been observed for over 30 yrs.
The initial state of seismicity is attributed to the poroe-
lastic response of the reservoir and is characterized by an
increase in seismicity as the water level rises, followed by
stabilization. Sometimes, earthquakes cease under the reser-
voir and spread beyond its borders or migrate to other shal-
lower parts of the lake, forming new clusters (as in the case of
Nova Ponte reservoir, reported by Assumpção et al., 2002;
Chimpliganond, 2002). After a few years, the number and
magnitude of the earthquakes decrease, and the seismicity
returns to preimpoundment levels. Quite often, the major
earthquake occurs soon after the complete filling of the res-
ervoir. The initial seismicity results from both instantaneous
effects (loading due to filling and unloading due to the emp-
tying of the water) and from backward diffusion effects of
water pressure in the pores and fractures of rocks (Talwani,
1995). The delay between the beginning of the filling and the
main earthquake varies from months to years. In Brazil,
about three-fourth of the RTS cases start up to 3 yrs after
the first filling of the reservoir.
The delayed (or steady-state) response is thought to result
mainly from the slow pore pressure diffusion from the surface
to deeper seismogenic depths (as well as to areas outside the
lake surface). Correlations with annual water cycles can be
observed sometimes (e.g., Ferreira et al., 1995). The largest
magnitude can occur several years after completion, and
low-level seismic activity can persist for several decades.
BSSA Early Edition
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf
by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
Besides triggering by water reservoirs, we have also
observed at least two cases of earthquakes triggered by the
opening of deep wells that connect shallow surface aquifers
to deep confined aquifers. Two cases have been well observed
in the Paraná sedimentary basin as shown by Yamabe and
Hamza (1996) and Assumpção et al. (2010). This type of seis-
micity (also called hydraulic gravity feed) is not included in
Table 1.
New Cases of RTS
We now briefly describe eight new RTS cases that com-
plement the 16 cases previously compiled by Assumpção et al.
(2002). Some are recent observations, and others were pub-
lished only in congress proceedings or company reports. Cas-
tanhão, despite being a new case, was already described in
Ferreira et al. (2008), and Furnas is a case under confirmation.
Itapebi Reservoir (18 in Fig. 1a and Table 1)
The Itapebi reservoir is at the edge of the San Francisco
craton, in the southern part of Bahia state, in the course of the
Jequitinhonha river. It is an embedded reservoir (i.e., deep
and narrow, as shown in Fig. 2), with a maximum depth
of 90 m and a volume of 1:0 km3 . It was monitored 3 yrs
before impoundment by one three-component station (ITP1),
during which no seismic event in the reservoir area was ob-
served. A few months before the beginning of lake filling,
three more seismic stations (ITP2, ITP3, and ITP4) were in-
stalled. Finally, after the complete impoundment of the lake,
a fifth station (ITP5) was installed. The filling of the reservoir
began in December 2002, and the first triggered earthquakes
occurred in less than one month (29 December 2002). Filling
of the lake was completed by 31 January 2003. The largest
observed magnitude was M D 1.5 on 1 July 2003, but it was
not felt. Earthquakes in the magnitude range from 0.5 to 1.5
occurred until 18 November 2004, when the last event in the
area was detected, most of them, about 60, taking place in
2003. The Itapebi RTS occurred inside the lake and on its
banks, near the dam, where the lake is deeper (Fig. 2).
Irapé Reservoir (19 in Fig. 1a and Table 1)
Irapé reservoir is located in the São Francisco craton in
the course of the Jequitinhonha River, 200 km upstream from
the seismic Itapebi reservoir. It is also an embedded reservoir,
with the tallest dam in Brazil, 208 m. It was monitored by
a three-station three-component seismic network for 3 yrs
before its first impoundment that started on 7 December
2005. This network did not detect any seismicity before
the impoundment. However, one day after the beginning
of the impoundment, microearthquakes started to be de-
tected, and more than 300 microearthquakes had been re-
corded by October 2006. The largest occurred on 14 May
2006 with magnitude 3.0 and was felt in the reservoir area
(Chimpliganond et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2014). The seismic-
ity was located in a small area, with hypocenters in the lake
 Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil
Figure 2. Triggered seismicity (red circles) in the Itapebi reservoir (18 in Fig. 1a and
Table 1) and seismic stations (triangles). All detected events occurred in the first 2 yrs
after impoundment in December 2002.
and on its margins (less than 3 km from the narrow lake),
near the dam axis. It is a clear case of initial seismicity.
Silva et al. (2014) associated the triggered seismicity to shal-
low fractures, with a preferred northeast–southwest orientation.
Funil Reservoir (26 in Fig. 1a and Table 1)
The Funil dam, on the Rio Grande River, Minas Gerais
state, holds a lake with an area of 35 km2 and a volume of
0:26 km3 (Fig. 3). It has a maximum depth of 49 m and is
about 30 km long. It is located in a densely populated area.
The lake was formed in November 2002. A local station,
FUN1, came into operation only on 21 December 2010. It
was only on 14 August 2011 that an earthquake was felt
in the area. It had a magnitude of mR 3.2 and was recorded
by 12 regional stations of the Brazilian Seismographic Net-
work (RSBR) and the local station FUN1 (Barros et al.,
2016). This event was felt more strongly in the little town
of Ijaci (IV–V MMI), on the left margin of the Funil reservoir
(Fig. 3). On 5 October, 13 November, and 23 November
2011, Ijaci residents were again shaken by new earthquakes.
As a result, in December 2011, the University of Brasilia,
together with the FUNIL Consortium, deployed six more sta-
tions to set up a seven-station local network (Fig. 3). Near the
reservoir, there are three potential sources of triggered seis-
micity: the lake itself, mining activities, and water table
variation due to large-scale water pumping (350 m3 =hr).
Hypocentral Location
The local network operated from 28 December 2011 to
23 May 2012 and detected more than 1000 events (triggered
BSSA Early Edition
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf
by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
7
events and quarry blasts), from which ∼500
had their hypocenters determined but only
66 with good accuracy. Figure 3 shows the
66 events: the first four events of 2011 (blue
stars, located with the single three-compo-
nent station FUN1), 38 quarry blasts (yel-
low circles), and 24 earthquakes (red
circles). A half-space velocity model was
used with a P-wave velocity of 6:0 km=s
and a V P =V S ratio of 1.72, determined
by a Wadati diagram. FUN3 station, the
closest to the source, was used in almost
all event locations. The minimum distance
is about 3 km, on average. The events were
located close to the lake and near four quar-
ries in the region (CC1, CC2, Mineração
Alvarenga [AV], and Indústria de Cal SN
[SN]; Fig. 3). In these areas, no previous
natural seismicity had been observed.
Focal Mechanism
Three focal mechanisms were deter-
mined for the Funil events: a composite
mechanism with the eight best-recorded events, and two mo-
ment-tensor waveform inversions (the mainshock of 11 Au-
gust 2011 and an aftershock on 2 February 2012). More
details can be found in Ⓔ Figure S1 (available in the elec-
tronic supplement to this article). All solutions are similar
(reverse faulting with P axes oriented southeast–northwest
to east–west), which are consistent with the regional princi-
pal stresses in this part of Brazil, characterized by east–west
compression and north–south tension (Assumpção, Dias,
et al., 2016), and imply that the triggering mechanism is just
helping release tectonic stresses previously accumulated in
the area to near-critical state.
Triggering Mechanism
Seismic monitoring started 8 yrs after impoundment,
which makes it difficult to prove the triggering nature of
the recently observed seismicity. However, for conservative
purposes, the Funil reservoir was included in the list of
Brazilian RTS cases (Table 1) because of its proximity to
the lake (just a few kilometers from the lake margin) and also
because no earthquakes had been felt in the area previous to
the lake impoundment.
Alternatively, however, the seismicity could have been
caused by quarrying instead. Limestone has been intensively
mined in four quarries (Fig. 3). Initiated in the 1960s by AV
and SN, mining was intensified with the Santa Helena mine
(MSH) and the beginning of the Sul mine (MS) in 2002. MS
and MSH provide limestone to one of the largest cement
plants in Brazil. Current estimates indicate that MS and
MSH together extract an annual average of 2.5 million tons
of limestone. The epicenters are very close to the quarry areas.
 8 L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque

Figure 3. Funil reservoir (26 in Fig. 1a and Table 1) showing the local seismic network (black triangles) and triggered seismicity (blue
stars and red circles). Yellow circles are epicenters of quarry blasts. Four blue stars represent the four main events recorded by Station FUN1.
The Santa Helena mine (MSH), Sul mine (MS), Mineração Alvarenga (AV), and Indústria de Cal SN (SN) are quarry areas. The hachured
area is the town of Ijaci, and the focal mechanism plots are focal mechanisms of main event, aftershock, and composite.

The predominant focal mechanism is reverse faulting (Fig. 3
and Ⓔ Fig. S1) that would be favored by surface unloading
from the quarrying activity. A definite conclusion (RTS, quar-
rying or natural) is not possible at present, and more studies
are underway to better understand this seismic sequence.
Jirau (26 of Fig. 1a and Table 1)
The Jirau Hydroelectric Power Plant is located on the
edge of the Amazon craton and Amazon basin. The im-
pounded lake has a maximum volume of 2:74 km3 . The maxi-
mum water depth is 62 m. The reservoir started filling in April
2013, reaching the level of 60 m in February 2014. On
7 November 2014, two consecutive strong vibrations were
felt, causing alarm to office workers near the dam and in vari-
ous other parts of the dam’s concrete structure and surround-
ings. The first one occurred at 20 hrs 34 min (UTC) with
intensity V MMI and the second 38 min later with intensity
IV. These were the first events ever detected in this area. They
had magnitudes mR 3.2 and 2.8 and were recorded by five
BSSA Early Edition
seismic stations, at distances ranging from 12 (JIR2) to
180 km (the regional station ETMB). Before that, only three
events had been detected in that region of the Amazon by the
BSN, the closest 200 km away from the reservoir. On 13 No-
vember at 10 hrs 39 min (local time), another mR 3.2 magni-
tude occurred and was also felt with similar intensity
(V MMI). Both the 7 and 13 November events were felt in the
town of Nova Mutum, 5 km from the epicenter. The wave-
forms at JIR1 and JIR2 are all very similar, indicating that
the events are close to each other and close to the dam, down-
stream of the reservoir (see Ⓔ Fig. S2).
After these first events in November and December
2014, two more local stations were installed (JIR3 and JIR4;
see Ⓔ Fig. S2). Unfortunately, few events occurred after
December 2014 to be recorded by the two new stations.
We conclude that the earthquakes were most likely trig-
gered by the reservoir, which is the only new development in
the area with potential to trigger seismicity. Moreover, they
happened in the most influential area of the lake, near the
dam, shortly after impoundment.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
 Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil 9

Southern Brazil Seismic Reservoirs (21, 22, 23, and 24)

In southern Brazil, four reservoirs triggered microseismic-
ity, all of them monitored by local stations, before, during, and
after impoundment (Ribotta et al., 2006a,b, 2008, 2010, 2017).
These reservoirs (Itá, Machadinho, Campos Novos, and Barra
Grande) are in the Paraná intracratonic basin (Ⓔ Fig. S3), form-
ing deep and narrow reservoirs mainly along the Uruguay River.
All reservoirs cover flood basalt rocks of the Serra Geral forma-
tion. Preimpoundment monitoring with a single station was car-
ried out for 9 yrs for the largest Itá reservoir and at least 1 yr for
the others, with no evidence for local microearthquake activity.
All stations were three-component, some short-period and some
broadband. All four reservoirs are clear cases of immediatly trig-
gered seismicity, with small microearthquakes (magnitudes less Figure 4. Epicentral distribution along the Uruguay River trig-
than M L 2.5) appearing soon after impoundment started. Gupta gered by the filling of the Itá reservoir. Colored symbols (clusters 1,
et al. (1972) had suggested that RTS b-values tend to be higher 4, 5, and 9, recorded by stations IT1, IT4, IT5, and IT9, respectively)
than the b-value of the natural regional earthquakes. We tested show the migration of the activity front following the filling of the res-
ervoir. Each cluster was recorded by a single three-component station.
this proposal but did not find any significant difference. The
b-values for the Itá reservoir (1:08 # 0:01), Machadinho
(1:09 # 0:02), Barra Grande (1:25 # 0:11), and Campos No- earthquakes had been detected by the end of 2016. The maxi-
vos (1:27 # 0:09) do not differ significantly from the b-value of mum magnitude was M L 1.8 (Ribotta et al., 2006b).
the regional seismicity in the continental area of southern Brazil,
which is 1:10 # 0:20. Plots on the frequency–magnitude distri-
Barra Grande Reservoir (23 of Fig. 1a and Table 1)
bution and b-values are in Ⓔ Figure S4.
The Barra Grande reservoir started filling on 5 July
Itá Reservoir (22 of Fig. 1a and Table 1) 2005, and the seismicity appeared near the dam axis 14 days

The seismic activity near the Itá reservoir began on 15

December 1999, two days after the beginning of the reservoir
filling, with a spatiotemporal distribution of the epicenters
showing a clear correlation with the lake impoundment. The
epicenters began close to the dam, and the seismic front mi-
grated upstream, accompanying the water rise (Figs. 4 and
5). Most events had very small magnitudes and were only
detected by the closest station. In this way, each station re-
corded its own cluster (Fig. 4). At the end of this process, five
seismic groups had been formed. The highest observed mag-
nitude was M L 2.5 and occurred several times during the
monitoring period. Several events were felt by the local pop-
ulation, with a maximum intensity of III–IV MM, causing no
damage.
Geotechnical studies by Infanti et al. (1999) and Mafra
(2001) showed high stresses in the rock mass of the dam
foundation with occurrence of rockbursts during tunnel ex-
cavations. This means that stresses beneath the reservoir
were probably at near-critical state when the impoundment
started.

Machadinho Reservoir (21 of Fig. 1a and Table 1)

The seismic activity in the area of the Machadinho reser-
voir began in September 2001, 12 days after the reservoir
started filling on 28 August 2001. Most epicenters lie between
the MAC5 and MAC11 stations and near stations MAC9 and
BCM2 (Ⓔ Fig. S3). In this reservoir, more than 5000 micro-
Figure 5. Migration of the seismicity front in the Itá reservoir.
The blue line is water level, and black lines are the daily number of
events for the clusters G1, G4, G9, and G5, as recorded by stations
IT1, IT4, IT9, and 5, shown in Figure 4.

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
 10 L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque

magnitudes of M L 2.3 on 19 and 30

August 2006. The epicenters are located
inside and on the banks of the reservoir
(Ribotta et al., 2008). Up to July 2017,
818 microearthquakes were recorded,
95% with ML < 1:0.

Campos Novos Reservoir

(24 of Fig. 1a and Table 1)
This reservoir began filling on 10
October 2005, and small events appeared
two days later. Seismicity was observed
in the first half of the reservoir, with sev-
eral periods of reactivation. The maxi-
mum magnitude in this first period of
operation was ML 1.8 on 21 October
2005. Because of geotechnical problems
Figure 6. Evolution of the water-level daily energy and daily number of events of in the deviation tunnel, the reservoir was
the Campos Novos reservoir. Between 19 June and 26 November 2006, the reservoir emptied between 19 June and 26 Novem-
was emptied due to geotechnical problems in a deviation tunnel, during which almost no
ber 2006, during which the seismicity
events were recorded.
completely stopped (Fig. 6). Seismicity
resumed soon after the reservoir started
filling again. The maximum magnitude in this second
after, reaching a maximum magnitude of M L 2.5
period of operation was M L 1.4 on 1 January 2006. Up
on 14 October 2005. Microearthquakes were recorded near
to July 2017, 790 earthquakes had been recorded, 475
the dam until 30 October 2005. Seismicity extended to the
earthquakes before emptying the reservoir and 315 after
central area of the reservoir from 26 July 2005, reaching
the new filling process. This reservoir presented continuous
seismicity up to October 2009 and then one isolated event
on 2 February 2015.

Figure 7. Dam height and reservoir volume for all Brazilian
dams taller than 20 m. Open circles and solid triangles are cases
with no triggered and triggered seismicity, respectively. The small-
est RTS case is the Cajuru reservoir (22 m high, volume 0:2 km3 ),
with maximum magnitude mb 3.7.
BSSA Early Edition
Discussion
The largest RTS earthquake ever observed in Brazil,
mb 4.2 (VI–VII) in 1974, was not strong enough to produce
any damage to the dam structure or to the electromechanical
equipment. However, the large numbers of RTS cases in
Brazil can be used to compare statistical characteristics with
other parts of the world and help improve estimates of the
hazard levels for new reservoirs to trigger earthquakes.
Here, we discuss the RTS cases with respect to reservoir
size, predominant geology, seismicity, and regional stress
character.
We used a catalog of all Brazilian dams provided by
the Brazilian Committee on Large Dams. Some missing
7information (such as coordinates of a few small dams)
was completed, and the catalog was checked for dam
and reservoir size for the largest dams. Also, multiple en-
tries (different small dams for the same reservoir) were
changed to a single reservoir-related information. A few
dams that are still under construction were removed from
the database. The revised catalog contains 492 dams taller
than 20 m, which was the limit used in our statistical
analysis.
Figure 7 shows the sizes (dam height and reservoir vol-
ume) of all dams in the catalog and those which produced

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
 Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil 11

seismicity. When estimating the percent-

age of RTS cases in several different
classes (reservoir size, geology, seismic-
ity, and stress), such as in Figures 8
and 9, we estimated the standard
deviation of the observed ratios with
the Bernoulli formula, as done by
Baecher and Keeney (1982).

Dam Height and Reservoir Volume

It has long been known that the
chance of a reservoir-triggering seismic-
ity increases with water depth and reser-
voir volume. Figures 7 and 8 confirm this
for the Brazilian cases. Whereas dams
smaller than 50 m high have only a 2%
probability of causing seismicity, dams
taller than 100 m have about a 65%
chance. For reservoirs with volumes
larger than 10 km3 in Brazil, 47% caused
RTS. For intermediate reservoirs
(1 < volume < 10 km3 ), about one-
fourth caused seismicity. Reservoirs
smaller than 1 km3 very rarely cause
seismicity: the only three cases shown
in Figure 8 have volumes around
0:2 km3 and dam heights between 20
and 60 m. On the other hand, we have
not observed any clear trend of higher
magnitudes for taller dams, as will be dis-
cussed below.

Local Geology
Following early attempts to correlate
RTS probabilities with geotectonic charac-
teristics (e.g., Castle et al., 1980; Baecher
and Keeney, 1982), we compared the number of RTS cases
with the local lithology (i.e., the rock type beneath the dam)
and the geological province. We first compared the percent-
age of RTS cases for three types of rocks: sedimentary, meta-
morphic, and igneous (Fig. 9a). Dams built on igneous rocks
tend to have more RTS (8%) than sedimentary rocks (4%);
metamorphic rocks seem to have the least seismic potential
(3%). This is contrary to what Baecher and Keeney (1982)
had estimated for deep, very deep, or very large reservoirs
(i.e., height > 100 m or volume > 10 km3 ): sedimentary
rocks have slightly higher probability (16%) compared to
metamorphic or igneous (about 10% each). One of the
reasons for the discrepancy may be the large number of
Brazilian RTS dams built on basaltic rocks of the Serra Geral
formation in the Paraná basin Province.
We also compared the RTS chances according to the
main geological provinces defined by CPRM (Brazilian
Geological Survey) and shown in Figure 1a. We used three
Figure 8. Percentage of RTS cases according to the (a) dam height and (b) reservoir
volume. For dams taller than 100 m, 65% have triggered seismicity. For reservoirs larger
than 1 km3 , 31% have triggered seismicity.
classes: Proterozoic cratons, Neoproterozoic fold belts (or
orogenic belts), and Phanerozoic intracratonic basins
(Fig. 9b). Cratons and basins have about the same ratios
(∼7%), slightly higher than orogenic belts (4%). However,
these results are not significantly different, given the large
standard deviations.
Seismicity and Stress Provinces
A common question regarding RTS is whether regions
of higher natural seismicity tend to favor triggered
seismicity. The presence of natural earthquakes could imply
higher pre-existing stresses, a necessary condition for a
reservoir to trigger local seismicity. We use the preliminary
seismic hazard map of Brazil (Assumpção, Pirchiner, et al.,
2016) that mapped peak ground acceleration (PGA)
expected with 2% probability in 50 yrs. The areas with
PGA > 0:1g (Fig. 10) roughly correspond to higher
BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
 12 L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque
Figure 9. RTS and geology. Note vertical log scale: (a) percentage of RTS cases
according to the main rock type (sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous) at the
dam site. Igneous basement tends to produce more RTS; (b) classification according
to the main geological provinces, as shown in Figure 1. Cratons and intraplate sedimen-
tary basins tend to produce more RTS than Neoproterozoic fold belts.
epicentral concentration, as shown in Figure 1a. We
compared the fraction of RTS cases inside and outside these
seismic zones.
For this analysis, we only used reservoirs with
volumes > 0:15 km3 , that is, we excluded the many very
small reservoirs that have negligible potential for RTS. Out
of the 43 dams in the seismic areas (PGA ≥ 0:1g),
11 produced RTS, corresponding to 26% (#7%). Of the
105 reservoirs in aseismic regions (PGA < 0:1g), 15 had
seismicity, corresponding to 13% (#3%). So, it seems that
reservoirs in regions with higher natural seismicity have
about twice as much potential to trigger earthquakes than
those in regions of lower seismicity. An early estimate
of global RTS cases had also indicated that RTS occurs
preferably in regions with high strain rates (Castle et al.,
1980). Our results are also consistent with the study of
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf
by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
Baecher and Keeney (1982) in which
all deep or very large reservoirs had evi-
dence of active geological faults.
We also tested the RTS chance with
crustal-stress provinces. Knowledge of
the stress field in Brazil is still quite in-
complete because the number of focal
mechanisms and in situ stress measure-
ments are few and very far apart. Despite
this limitation, it is interesting to com-
pare our estimates with those of Castle
et al. (1980) and Baecher and Keeney
(1982), who had arrived at somewhat dif-
ferent conclusions. Castle et al. (1980)
suggested that RTS is more frequent in
extensional and horizontal shear strain
areas (areas with normal or strike-slip
faulting), whereas the statistical tests of
Baecher and Keeney (1982) indicated ex-
tensional stresses are the less likely to
cause RTS (10%) and shear stresses the
most likely (18%), for deep or very large
reservoirs.
We used the last compilation of
focal mechanism and stress indicators
(Assumpção, Dias, et al., 2016), added
a few more recently calculated focal
mechanisms (such as Dias et al., 2018),
and tentatively identified zones with pre-
dominantly compressional stresses (prin-
cipal stresses S1 and S2 horizontal, S3
vertical) and zones with shear deforma-
tion (S1 and S3 horizontal, intermediate
S2 vertical). The focal mechanisms and
stress tensors used for this zoning are
shown in Ⓔ Figure S5. In Brazil, there
is no clear zone of purely extensional
stresses, except for a small area in north-
east Brazil (around the town of Caruaru).
But even there, the available focal mechanisms are not in-
consistent with a shear-stress zone. Clearly, the exact limits
of these compressional and shear-stress zones (Ⓔ Fig. S6)
are highly speculative. However, it is interesting to compare
our preliminary results with those of the early estimates de-
scribed above.
In this stress analysis, we also used only the reservoirs
larger than 0:15 km3 . In the two zones of compressional
stresses, 5 RTS cases are found in a total of
22 dams. In the two shear-stress zones, 21 RTS cases were
found out of 119 reservoirs. Compressional stress provinces
have 23% (#9%) chance of causing RTS, compared with
18% (#4%) in shear-stress zones. Clearly, no significant dif-
ference could be detected between the two types of stress
provinces.
BSSA Early Edition
 Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil
Figure 10. Distribution of dams with RTS (solid blue triangles) and no RTS (white
triangles). Only dams holding reservoirs larger than 0:15 km3 are shown. Colors are
peak ground acceleration (PGA with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 yrs) and in-
dicate areas with higher and lower seismicity.
Maximum Magnitude
The chances of RTS occurrence increase dramatically
with dam height and reservoir volume (Figs. 7 and 8),
which has been well known since 1970s. Interestingly,
however, the magnitude of the largest earthquake has
no correlation with dam or reservoir size, as shown in
Figure 11. The largest RTS event in Brazil, with mb 4.2
in 1974, is associated with two nearby Porto Colombia
and Volta Grande reservoirs, with dam heights of only
40 and 45 m. Small reservoirs (such as Cajuru and Açu),
with dams only 23 and 31 m tall, caused earthquakes with
magnitudes larger than 3.0 (Ferreira et al., 1995; Veloso and
Gomide, 1997).
Regarding reservoir volume, Klose (2013) showed a
slight trend of maximum magnitudes to increase with
the affected area that depends on the dimensions of the
reservoir. Larger areas of a reservoir should increase the
chances of pore pressure to affect existing potential seis-
mogenic structures in or near the lake. However, we do not
observe any clear trend of maximum magnitudes increas-
ing with dam height, reservoir volume, or area (Fig. 11).
A look at all RTS cases worldwide shows that this lack
of correlation is not just a Brazilian characteristic.
Figure 12 shows the dam heights and maximum magni-
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf
by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
13
tudes from a compilation of 117 reser-
voirs worldwide based on Gupta
(2002), Klose (2013) and the Brazilian
cases of Table 1.
Conclusions
The probability of RTS occurrence in
Brazil is not negligible and should be taken
into account in dam-safety projects. In fact,
half of dams above 100 m high presented
RTS. The increased probability of RTS
with dam height and reservoir volume is
comparable to other estimates for world-
wide cases. As found in other studies,
the dam height is the most effective param-
eter to influence RTS occurrence, followed
by reservoir volume. We tested the RTS oc-
currence with the main Brazilian geological
provinces, the rock lithology beneath the
dam, the regional seismicity level, and
the stress province. No significant differ-
ence was found among the geological
provinces, with cratonic basement, Neopro-
terozoic fold belts, and Phanerozoic basins
showing similar rates of RTS. Dams built
on igneous rocks tend to have slightly
higher chances of RTS, compared to sedi-
mentary and metamorphic rocks, but the
differences are not statistically significant.
The comparison of RTS cases with
the regional stress-field characteristics (compressional or
shear stresses) did not show any significant difference, partly
due to the small sample of RTS cases and partly due to large
uncertainties in defining the intraplate stress provinces in
Brazil. On the other hand, RTS is twice as likely in areas
with natural seismicity (defined as areas with PGA > 0:1g
for 2% in 50 yrs), compared with other aseismic areas. This
is consistent with the usual assumption that RTS cases occur
in areas with near-critical crustal stresses.
Data and Resources
The events reported in this article are from two main
sources: specific monitoring seismic network with no
open-data access and from the Brazilian earthquake catalog;
data and information from the last one can be downloaded
from University of Brasília (UnB), University of São Paulo
(USP), and the National Observatory (ON) websites: www
.obsis.unb.br, www.sismo.iag.usp.br, and www.rsbr.gov
.br. The USP provides federated (FDSNWS) webservices
for downloading event waveforms at http://
seisrequest.iag.usp.br. Data from all Brazilian Seismographic
Network (RSBR) stations can be downloaded, using
standard Seedlink or Arclink protocols. The ON provides
an FDSNWS service at http://rsbr.gov.br for all RSBR
BSSA Early Edition
 14 L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque
Figure 11. Distribution of dam height, reservoir volume, and
area with maximum magnitude for RTS cases in Brazil.
waveform data. Some of the plots were made with the use
of the code Generic Mapping Tools v.4.2.1 http://www
.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/. The waveform inversion was
done with the software ISOLA and can be downloaded
from http://geo.mff.cuni.cz/~jz/for_Costa_Rica/. The techni-
cal information from the dams was provided by the
Brazilian Committee on Large Dams (CBDB) at http://
www.cbdb.org.br/. All websites were last accessed on April
2018.
BSSA Early Edition
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf
by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
Figure 12. Dam height and magnitudes for 117 RTS cases
worldwide.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the energy companies CEMIG, CHESF, CESP, CET,
COPEL, Eletronorte, BAESA, ENERCAN, ENGIE, Enerpeixe, FURNAS,
INVESTCO, Itaipu Binacional, Itapebi Power Generation, North Energy, Ma-
chadinho Energia, and ESBR for their valuable contribution to the knowledge
of Brazilian seismicity, both natural and reservoir triggered, obtained with
their seismographic networks. They also acknowledge the comments of
two anonymous reviewers, the associate editors, especially Aderson do Nas-
cimento, who helped improve the article. The authors thank Petrobras for the
installation of the Brazilian Seismic Network (BSN) and CPRM (Brazilian
Geological Survey) for the seismic network maintenance and operation.
References
Agurto-Detzel, H., M. Bianchi, M. Assumpção, M. Schimmel, B. Collaço,
C. Ciardelli, J. Barbosa, and J. Calhau (2016). The tailing dam failure
of 5 November 2015 in SE Brazil and its preceding seismic sequence,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 4929–4936, doi: 10.1002/2016GL069257.
Assumpção, M. (1983). A regional magnitude scale for Brazil, Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 73, 237–246.
Assumpção, M., F. L. Dias, I. Zevallos, and J. B. Naliboff (2016). Intraplate
stress field in South America from earthquake focal mechanisms,
J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 71, November, 278–295, doi: 10.1016/
j.jsames.2016.07.005.
Assumpção, M., J. Ferreira, L. Barros, F. H. Bezerra, G. S. França, J. R.
Barbosa, E. Menezes, L. C. Ribotta, M. Pirchiner, A. Nascimento, et al.
(2014). Intraplate seismicity in Brazil, in Intraplate Earthquakes,
P. Talwani (Editor), chap. 3, Cambridge U. P., ISBN: 978-1-107-
04038-0.
Assumpção, M., M. Freire, and L. C. Ribotta (1995). Sismicidade induzida
no reservatório de Capivara: resultados preliminares sobre localização
de fraturas ativas, IV Int. Congr. Brazilian Geophys. Soc., Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, Vol. 2, 961–964 (in Portuguese).
Assumpção, M., V. I. Marza, L. V. Barros, C. N. Chimpliganond, J. E.
Soares, J. M. Carvalho, D. F. Caixeta, A. Amorim, and E. Cabral
(2002). Reservoir induced seismicity in Brazil, Pure Appl. Geophys.
159, 597–617.
 Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity in Brazil
Assumpção, M., M. Pirchiner, J. C. Dourado, and L. V. Barros (2016). Ter-
remotos no Brasil: Preparando-se para eventos raros (Earthquakes in
Brazil: Preparing for rare events, Bull. Braz. Geophys. Soc. 96, 25–29
(in Portuguese).
Assumpção, M., T. H. J. R. Yamabe Barbosa, V. A. E. Hamza, V. Lopes, L.
Balancin, and M. B. Bianchi (2010). Seismic activity triggered by
water wells in the Paraná basin, Brazil, Water Resour. Res. 46,
no. W07527, doi: 10.1029/2009WR008048.
Baecher, G. B., and R. L. Keeney (1982). Statistical examination of reser-
voir-induced seismicity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72, no. 2, 553–569.
Barros, L. V. (2008). Relatório Síntese (2001-2007) do monitoramento
sismológico do reservatório de Itapebi/BA, Brasília, Brazil (in
Portuguese).
Barros, L. V., and D. F. Caixeta (2003). Induced seismicity at Miranda
Reservoir—A fine example of immediate seismic response, 8th Int.
Cong. of the Brazilian Geophys. Soc., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 5 pp.
Barros, L. V., and V. M. Ferreira (2006). Focal mechanism of Furnas
reservoir induced seismicity detected in Areado-MG in 2003–2004,
II Simpósio Brasileiro de Geofísica da SBGf Extended Abstract,
Natal/RN, Brazil, 21–23 September 2006, 6 pp.
Barros, L. V., and D. P. Fontenele (2012). Estreito o novo cenário da água, in
Sismicidade Induzida por Reservatório no Brasil e o Programa de
Monitoramento Sismológico do Reservatório de Estreito, chap. 4,
Organização Ana Luiza Coelho Neto, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012
E-Papers, 33–57 (in Portuguese).
Barros, L. V., M. Assumpção, V. M. Ferreira, and L. C. Ribotta (2016). Sis-
micidade Induzida por Reservatório: casos brasileiros, Bull. Brazilian
Geophys. Soc. 96, 16–21, ISSN: 2177-9090 (in Portuguese).
Barros, L. V., D. F. Caixeta, C. N. Chimpliganond, and D. P. Fontenele
(2005). Evolution of the Areado/MG seismic sequence—Started in
January, 2004, 9th Int. Cong. of the SBGf Extended Abstract,
11–14 September, Salvador – BA, Brazil, 6 pp.
Barros, L. V., J. M. Carvalho, V. M. Ferreira, D. F. Albuquerque, M. G. Von
Huelsen, D. Caixeta, and D. P. Fontenele (2014). Determination of
source seismic parameters of micro-earthquakes with epicenter in
the south of Minas Gerais State-Brazil, VI Simpósio da Sociedade
Brasileira de Geofísica, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 14–16 October.
Barros, L. V., J. M. Carvalho, V. M. Ferreira, M. G. Von Huelsen, D. F.
Caixeta, and D. P. Fontenele (2015). Recent seismicity close to the
Jirau reservoir in Rondônia State, Brazil, 14th Int. Congress of the
Brazilian Geophysical Society, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–6 August.
Berrocal, J., and C. Fernandes (1996). Estudo de Sismicidade Induzida Na Área
dos Reservatórios Hidroelétricos da Chesf, Sessão Regular da Academia
Brasileira de Ciências: Ciências da Terra e o meio ambiente. An. Acad.
bras. Ci., Vol. 68, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 613–620 (in Portuguese).
Berrocal, J., M. Assumpção, R. Antezana, C. Dias Neto, R. Ortega, H.
França, and J. A. Veloso (1984). Sismicidade do Brasil, IAG/USP
and Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear, São Paulo, Brazil,
320 pp. (in Portuguese).
Castle, R. O., M. C. Malcolm, A. Grantz, and J. C. Savage (1980). Tectonic
state: Its significance and characterization in the assessment of seismic
effects associated with reservoir impounding, Eng. Geol. 15, 53–99.
Chimpliganond, C., G. S. França, A. E. Bandeira, and L. Bevilaqua (2007).
Reservoir-triggered seismicity at the highest Brazilian dam, AGU 2007
—Meeting of Americas Joint Assembly Abstract, Acapulco, Mexico,
Acapulco, Mexico, 22–25 May.
Chimpliganond, C. N. (2002). Characterization of induced seismicity at the
Nova Ponte Reservoir, MG, Brasil, M.Sc. Dissertation, University of
Brasilia, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Dias, F. L., M. Assumpção, M. B. Bianchi, L. V. Barros, and J. M. Carvalho
(2018). The intraplate Maranhão earthquake of 2017 Jan 03, northern
Brazil: Evidence for uniform regional stresses along the Brazilian
equatorial margin, Geophys. J. Int. 213, no. 1, 387–396, doi:
10.1093/gji/ggx560.
Ferreira, J., G. S. França, S. Vilar, and M. Assumpção (2008). Induced seis-
micity in the Castanhão Reservoir, NE Brazil—Preliminary results,
Tectonophysics 456, no. 1, 103–110.
BSSA Early Edition
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf
by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018
15
Ferreira, J. M., R. T. Oliveira, M. Assumpção, J. A. M. Moreira, R. G.
Pearce, and M. K. Takeya (1995). Correlation of seismicity and water
level in the Açu reservoir—An example form northeast Brazil, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 85, 1483–1489.
França, G. S., M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, M. G. Von Huelsen, and E. C.
N. Chimpliganond (2010). Updated compilation of reservoir triggered
seismicity in Brazil, 2010 The Meeting of the Americas (AGU - Ameri-
can Geophysical Union), Foz do Iguaçu, PR, Brazil, 8–12 August.
Gomide, L. C. (1999). Nature and history of reservoir induced seismicity in
Brazil, M.Sc. Dissertation, Univ. of South Carolina.
Gupta, H. K. (2002). A review of recent studies of triggered earthquakes by
artificial water reservoirs with special emphasis on earthquakes in
Koyna, India, Earth Sci. Rev. 58, 279–310.
Gupta, H. K., and B. K. Rastogi (1976). Dams and earthquakes, in Develop-
ments in Geotechnical Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gupta, H. K., B. K. Rastogi, and H. Narain (1972). Common features of the
reservoir associated seismic activities, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 62,
481–492.
Infanti, N., P. A. Tassi, R. Mazuatti, M. Piller, and J. M. Q. Mafra (1999).
Tensões residuais nas obras subterrâneas da UHE Itá, XXIII Seminário
Nacional de Grandes Barragens, Anais. 2, 417–426 (in Portuguese).
Klose, C. D. (2013). Mechanical and statistical evidence of the causality of
human-made mass shifts on the Earth’s upper crust and the occurrence
of earthquakes, J. Seismol. 17, 109–135, doi: 10.1007/s10950-012-
9321-8.
Mafra, J. M. Q. (2001). Estudos de tensões virgens em maciços rochosos: o
caso UHE Itá, Dissertação de Mestrado, Departamento de Engenharia
Civil, Federal de Ouro Preto—Escola de Minas, 220 pp. (in Portuguese).
Marza, V., L. V. Barros, C. Chimpliganond, J. E. Soares, J. M. Carvalho, and
D. F. Caixeta (1999). Precursory seismicity pattern associated to the
Nova Ponte (MG)—Reservoir induced mainshock of 1998 May
(mR $ 4:0), Proc. 6th Int. Cong. of the Braz. Geophys. Soc., Rio
de Janeiro/RJ, Brazil, 15–19 August.
Marza, V., L. V. Barros, J. E. Soares, J. M. Carvalho, D. Fontenele, C. Chim-
pliganond, D. Caixeta, I. P. Gomes, G. O. Furtado, A. L. Carim, et al.
(1999). Aspectos da Sismicidade Induzida por Reservatórios no Brasil,
Sem. Nac. de G. B. Belo Horizonte - MG, 22–26 de março, Anais. I,
199–211 (in Portuguese).
Marza, V., J. A. V. Veloso, J. M. Carvalho, L. V. Barros, and L. C. Gomide
(1997). Reservoir induced seismicity at Nova Ponte (MG): Revisited,
5th Intern. Cong. SBGf, São Paulo, Brazil, 28 September–2 October,
968–971.
Mendiguren, J. A. (1980). A procedure to resolve areas of different source
mechanisms when using the method of composite nodal plane solu-
tion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70, 985–998.
Mioto, J. A., L. C. Ribotta, and A. C. Verdiani (1991). Aspectos geológico-
estruturais da sismicidade relacionada ao reservatório de Capivara
(SP/PR), II Congr. Int. Soc. Bras. Geofísica, Salvador, Brazil, Vol. 1,
513–520 (in Portuguese).
Nascimento, A. F. (2002). The role of pore pressure diffusion in a reservoir-
induced seismicity site in NE Brazil, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Edim-
burgo, 203 pp.
Neves, A. C. O., F. A. Nunes, and G. W. Fernandes (2016). Neglect of
ecosystems services by mining, and the worst environmental disaster
in Brazil, Braz. J. Nature Conserv. 14, 24–27.
Ribotta, L. C. (1989). Aspectos da sismicidade na área do reservatório de
Paraibuna/Paraitinga, M.Sc. Dissertation, IAG, University of São
Paulo (in Portuguese).
Ribotta, L. C., M. Assumpção, J. L. Manuzzi, A. M. B. E. Carvalho, and J. V.
M. Regina (2010). Seismicity induced in 4 deep reservoirs, southern
Brazil, 2010 The Meeting of the Americas (AGU - American Geophysi-
cal Union), Foz do Iguaçu, PR, Brazil, 8–12 August.
Ribotta, L. C., J. A. Mioto, J. L. Manuzzi, A. M. B. E. Carvalho, and G.
Vinciprova (2008). Sismicidade na área do reservatório de Barra
Grande, SC/RS, Anais do III Simpósio Brasileiro de Geofísica, Belém,
PA, Brazil, 26–28 November (in Portuguese).
 16 L. V. Barros, M. Assumpção, L. C. Ribotta, V. M. Ferreira, J. M. de Carvalho, B. M. D. Bowen, and D. F. Albuquerque

Ribotta, L. C., J. A. Mioto, and J. V. M. Regina (2006a). Sismicidade na área case of induced seismicity in the Amazon area, 2th Intern. Cong.
do reservatório de Itá, SC/RS, Anais do II Simpósio Brasileiro de of the Braz Geophys. Soc. Extended Abstract, Salvador, Brazil, 27 Oc-
Geofísica da SBGf, Natal/RN, Brazil, 21–23 September (in Portu- tober–1 November, Vol. II, 508–512.
guese). Viotti, C. B., L. C. Gomide, and S. N. A. Brito (1995). Induced seismicity in
Ribotta, L. C., J. A. Mioto, and J. V. M. Regina (2006b). Sismicidade na área CEMIG’s reservoir in Minas Gerais - Brazil, Proc. ISORIS’95, Beijing,
do reservatório de Machadinho, SC/RS, Anais do XLIII Cong. Brasi- China, 1–5 November, 205–212.
leiro de Geologia, Aracaju, SE, Brazil, 21–23 September (in Portu- Viotti, C. B., J. A. V. Veloso, and L. C. Gomide (1997). Induced seismicity at
guese). Cajuru Reservoir, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 19th Int. Congr. on Large
Ribotta, L. C., L. D. Moreira, S. L. E. Souzas, and J. V. Regina (2017). Dams Proceedings, Italy, 26–30 May, 1211–1225.
Reservatório de Itá, SC/RS, 19 Anos de Sismicidade, Anais do II Yamabe, T. H., and V. M. Hamza (1996). Geothermal investigations in an
Simpósio Brasileiro de Sismologia, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil, 12–15 area of induced seismic activity, northern São Paulo State, Brazil,
November (in Portuguese). Tectonophysics 253, 209–225.
Silva, G. F., J. O. Araújo Filho, M. G. Von Huelsen, C. N. Chimpliganond,
and G. S. França (2014). Influence of Brazilian structures on the
reservoir induced seismicity case of Irapé Hydroelectric Plant, Minas Seismological Observatory
Gerais, Brazil, Braz. J. Geol. 44, no. 3, 375–386, doi: 10.5327/Z2317- University of Brasília
4889201400030004. Campus Darcy Ribeiro – SG13
Simpson, D. W. (1986). Triggered earthquakes, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. 70910-900 Brasília, Brazil
Sci. 14, 21–42. lucas@unb.br
Simpson, D. W., W. S. Leith, and C. H. Scholz (1988). Two types of (L.V.B., V.M.F., J.M.d., B.M.D.B., D.F.A.)
reservoir-induced seismicity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78, no. 6,
2025–2040.
Talwani, P. (1995). Two categories of reservoir induced seismicity, Int. Seismology Center, IAG
Symp. on Reservoir Induced Seismicity (ISORIS’95) Proceedings, Bei- University of São Paulo
jing, China, 1–5 November, 44–64. Rua do Matão 1226
Veloso, J. A. V. (1992a). Terremotos induzidos pelo homem, Ciênc. Hoje 14, 05508-090 São Paulo, Brazil
66–72 (in Portuguese). marcelo.assumpcao@iag.usp.br
Veloso, J. A. V. (1992b). Cases of RIS in the Brazilian Amazon area, Proc. (M.A.)
Tenth World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, Madrid, Spain,
19–24 July, 269–273.
Veloso, J. A. V., and L. C. Gomide (1997). Induced seismicity at Cajuru Institute of Technological Research (IPT)
Reservoir, M.G. - Brazil, Proc. 19th Intl. Congress on Large Dams, Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 532 - Butantã
Florence, Italy, 26–30 May, 1211–1225. CEP
Veloso, J. A. V., M. Assumpção, E. S. Gonçalves, J. C. Reis, V. M. Duarte, 05508-070 São Paulo, Brazil
and C. G. Mota (1987). Registro de SIR em reservatórios da CEMIG e ribotta@ipt.br
FURNAS, Anais do V Cong. Bras. de Geol. de Eng., São Paulo, Brazil, (L.C.R.)
135–146 (in Portuguese).
Veloso, J. A. V., J. M. Carvalho, E. P. Fernandes, M. L. B. Blum, and D. P. Manuscript received 8 December 2017;
Araújo (1991). Micro earthquakes and the Balbina Lake, a possible Published Online 11 September 2018

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120170364/4332009/bssa-2017364.1.pdf

by USP Universidade de Sao Paulo, 10050
on 11 September 2018