Tsunami Source Inversion Using Tide Gauge and DART Tsunami Waveforms of the 2017 Mw8.2 Mexico Earthquake

Adriano, Bruno; Fujii, Y.; Koshimura, Shunichi; Mas, Erick; Ruiz‐Angulo, Angel; Estrada, Miguel

doi:10.1007/s00024-017-1760-2

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the waveform at Choshi station (southernmost location) is not accurately solved by the slip model. Nonetheless, the solutions at these stations are an improvement of previous inversion results ( Adriano et al 2017). The variance reduction obtained from the estimated slip model is approximately equal to 51.5%.…”

Section: Fault Slip Distribution Fault Model Based On Gcmt Solutionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Tsunami source and inundation features around Sendai Coast, Japan, due to the November 22, 2016 Mw 6.9 Fukushima earthquake

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tsunami source of the 2016 Fukushima Earthquake, which was generated by a normal faulting earthquake mechanism, is estimated by inverting the tsunami waveforms that were recorded by seven tide gauge stations and two wave gauge stations along the north Pacific coast of Japan. Two fault models based on different available moment tensor solutions were employed, and their locations were constrained by using the reverse tsunami travel time from the stations to the epicenter. The comparison of the two fault slip models showed that the fault model with a strike = 49°, dip = 35°, and rake = −89° more accurately simulated the observed tsunami data. This fault model estimated a fault area of 40 km × 32 km. The largest slip was estimated as 4.66 m at a 6.09 km depth, larger slips also concentrated between depths of 6.06 and 10.68 km, and located southwest of the epicenter. Assuming a rigidity of 2.7 × 10 10 N/m 2 , the estimated moment magnitude was 3.35 × 10 19 Nm (equivalent to M w = 6.95). In addition, a comparison of nonlinear tsunami simulations using finer bathymetry around Sendai Coast verified that the above fault slip model could better reproduce the tsunami features observed at Sendai Port and its surroundings. Finally, we analyzed the nonlinear tsunami computed from our best fault slip model. Our simulations also corroborated the height of the secondary wave amplitude observed at Sendai Port, which was caused by the reflected tsunami waves from the Fukushima coast, as described in previous studies. Furthermore, we found that the initial positive wave recorded inside Sendai Bay resulted from the addition of the initial incoming wave and the tsunami wave reflected off Sendai Coast, between Natori River and Sendai Port.

show abstract

Section: Fault Slip Distribution Fault Model Based On Gcmt Solutionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Tsunami source and inundation features around Sendai Coast, Japan, due to the November 22, 2016 Mw 6.9 Fukushima earthquake

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The duration of the earthquake rupture was 56.5 s and the seismic moment was estimated to be 1.91 9 10 21 Nm giving M w = 8.1. Our source model obtained from joint tsunami and teleseismic data is consistent with that of Gusman et al (2018) and Adriano et al (2018), which are based on tsunami inversion.…”

Section: Finite-fault Slip Modelsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The earthquake was not capable of generating a powerful tsunami because it was relatively deep. The earthquake source model of this event was studied by Gusman et al (2018) and Adriano et al (2018) through tsunami inversions. Ramírez-Herrera et al (2018) performed a field survey of the tsunami.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraining the Source of the Mw 8.1 Chiapas, Mexico Earthquake of 8 September 2017 Using Teleseismic and Tsunami Observations

Heidarzadeh

Ishibe

Harada

2018

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The September 2017 Chiapas (Mexico) normalfaulting intraplate earthquake (M w 8.1) occurred within the Tehuantepec seismic gap offshore Mexico. We constrained the finite-fault slip model of this great earthquake using teleseismic and tsunami observations. First, teleseismic body-wave inversions were conducted for both steep (NP-1) and low-angle (NP-2) nodal planes for rupture velocities (V r) of 1.5-4.0 km/s. Teleseismic inversion guided us to NP-1 as the actual fault plane, but was not conclusive about the best V r. Tsunami simulations also confirmed that NP-1 is favored over NP-2 and guided the V r = 2.5 km/s as the best source model. Our model has a maximum and average slips of 13.1 and 3.7 m, respectively, over a 130 km 9 80 km fault plane. Coulomb stress transfer analysis revealed that the probability for the occurrence of a future large thrust interplate earthquake at offshore of the Tehuantepec seismic gap had been increased following the 2017 Chiapas normal-faulting intraplate earthquake.

show abstract

“…The synthetic pressure gauges from which waveforms are calculated are located between 500 and 800 km seaward from the source, simulating typical distances found in some recent studies using tsunami data for source inversions (e.g., Adriano et al, 2018;An et al, 2014;Williamson et al, 2017). Here we use the same shallow-dipping and planar fault geometry as used in the geodetic analysis (Figures 2 and 3) and a 30 × 30-km cell size.…”

Section: Tsunami Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations of the Resolvability of Finite‐Fault Models Using Static Land‐Based Geodesy and Open‐Ocean Tsunami Waveforms

Williamson

Newman

2018

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Finite‐fault inversions are a common technique, employed following large earthquakes, used to understand the nature of slip along a fault. Using multiple data sets, including static offsets from geodetic instruments and tsunami wave heights from open‐ocean gauges, a richer perspective on the expected slip distribution than using a singular tool is created. However, the model resolution obtained from open‐ocean tsunami data and techniques used to subsample that data have not been widely evaluated. Static geodetic data can provide near‐complete model resolution of the subduction megathrust near the trench, if data are local. However, model resolution falls off precipitously as distance between instrument and fault increases when geodetic data are limited to more distal on‐land sites. Tsunami data derived from open‐ocean waveforms are less dependent on station to fault distance, but offshore model resolution is lost due to necessary data processing, such as windowing, often necessary to avoid coastal reflections. This primarily affects the resolution in the downdip direction, which often arrives at open‐ocean stations later in the waveform. Spatial detail is also limited by the minimum subfault size that will satisfy the longwave approximation, which is dependent on the water depth. For most cases, this subfault limit is approximately 20 by 20 km. In many environments, the sparsity of offshore geodetic instruments, and the large distances between estimated slip and coastal geodetic gauges, makes the inclusion of open‐ocean data, if available, highly advantageous. Still it is possible even with the pairing of on‐land and offshore data sets for poorly resolved zones to exist. In these cases further resolution can be recovered through the incorporation of additional data sets such as strong‐motion data and seismic waveforms through a seismic‐geodetic inversion.

show abstract

Tsunami Source Inversion Using Tide Gauge and DART Tsunami Waveforms of the 2017 Mw8.2 Mexico Earthquake

Cited by 14 publications

References 43 publications

Tsunami source and inundation features around Sendai Coast, Japan, due to the November 22, 2016 Mw 6.9 Fukushima earthquake

Tsunami source and inundation features around Sendai Coast, Japan, due to the November 22, 2016 Mw 6.9 Fukushima earthquake

Constraining the Source of the Mw 8.1 Chiapas, Mexico Earthquake of 8 September 2017 Using Teleseismic and Tsunami Observations

Limitations of the Resolvability of Finite‐Fault Models Using Static Land‐Based Geodesy and Open‐Ocean Tsunami Waveforms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About