How Can One Test the Seismic Gap Hypothesis? The Case of Repeated Ruptures in the Aleutians

Abstract—The test that Kagan and Jackson (1991, 1995) applied to the seismic gap hypothesis did not bring us closer to understanding the generation of large earthquakes. On the contrary, it led some to the conclusion that the rebound theory of earthquake generation should be rejected. We disagree with this point of view and argue that a global test of the simplified gap hypothesis cannot be done because it cannot account for differences in the slip history of fault segments and tectonic differences between separate plate boundaries. Kagan and Jackson did show, however, that the original gap hypothesis was oversimplified and should be refined. We propose that consideration of all the facts, including slip history and seismicity patterns in the Andreanof Islands, show that the concept of seismic gaps and the elastic rebound theory are correct for that segment of the plate boundary. The coseismic slip in the Mw 8.7 earthquake that broke this plate boundary segment in 1957 was only 2 m, as published before the repeat earthquake of 1986 (Mw 8), and thus, using a plate convergence rate of 7.3 cm/year, the return time in this cycle was expected to be less than 30 years, unless substantial aseismic creep occurs. This supports the time predictable model of mainshock recurrence. In addition, Kisslinger et al. (1985) and Kisslinger (1986) noticed a seismic quiescence in the subsequent source volume before the 1986 earthquake and attempted to predict it. The specific parameters he estimated were not entirely correct although his interpretation of the observed quiescence as a precursor was. We conclude that the 1986, Mw 8, Andreanof earthquake was not an example that disproves the seismic gap hypothesis. On the contrary, it shows that the hypothesis that plate motions reload plate boundaries after most of the elastic energy is released in great ruptures was correct in this case. This suggests that great earthquakes occur preferably in mature gaps. We believe the testing of the seismic gap hypothesis by algorithm on a global scale is an example that illustrates that overly simplified tests can lead to erroneous conclusions. To make progress in the actual understanding of the physics of the process of great earthquake ruptures, one must consider all the facts known for case histories.