Comparison of the 1960 (Mw=9.5) and the 2010 Chilean (Mw=8.8) Earthquakes.
For the 2010 Chile earthquake, within one hour..
Ruegg et al., (PEPI, 2009) with GPS study
We would then conclude that the southern part of the ConcepcinConstitucin gap has accumulated a slip deficit that is large enough to produce a very large earthquake of about Mw= 8.08.5.
Teleseismic body-wave inversion Lay et al.(GRL, 2010)
Moment-rate function, Lay et al. 92010)
Teleseismic body-wave inversion, Caltech Tectonic Observatory (Anthony Sladen)
Slip distribution from seismic, INSAR, and GPS, courtesy of Caltech Tectonic Observatory
Comparison of strain records of the 1960 (ISA) and the 2010 (PFO) Chilean earthquakes R/G sensitivity=6.3
1960 Chile
2010 Chile
nano strain
R2
R3
R4
NW
R5
R6
Time, s
bp n 4 c 0.0005 0.01 p 1
Strain seismogram of the 2010 Chilean (Maule) earthquake recorded at PFO (NW component)
Observed
nano strain
R2
R3
R4
NW
R5 R6
Time, s synthetic
bp n 4 c 0.0005 0.01 p 1
2010 Chile PFO strain (observed)
nano-strain
G1
G2 G3 G4
EW
NS
R1
R2
R3
R4
NW
Time, s
bp_n4_c_0.0002-0.005_p1
2010 Chile PFO strain (synthetic GCMT)
nano-strain
G1
G2 G3 G4
EW
NS
R1
R2
R3
R4
NW
Time, s
bp_n4_c_0.0002-0.005_p1
Normal mode spectrum (from 300s to 1 hour) 2010 Maule, TUC Vertical from O.T. 20000s taper Han 0.2-0.2
computed
observed
Frequency, mHz
Normal mode spectrum (from 300s to 1 hour) 2010 Maule, MAJO Vertical from O.T. 20000s taper Han 0.2-0.2
computed
observed
Frequency, mHz
X5 M=0.7 (empirical)
100
Tsunami amplitude in the Pacific
Abe (1979, 2010)
10
Hilo
1960 Chile, m
Japan_average Aleutian_average Honolulu California_average
0.1 0.1 2010 Chile, m
(far-field only, i.e., exclude South America, Central America, and Mexico)
Tide gauge tsunami amplitude (from NGDC data base)
10
x10
x5
x3
1960 Valdivia tsunami, m
x2
1
1960
x1
0.1 0.1
2010 Maule tsunami, m
Moment-rate Spectrum (with 2 reference spectra)
1960 Chile Mw=9.5
Estimated from ISA strain Smith (1966), also tsunami Abe (1979, 2010) Mw=9.5 2004 Sumatra Mw=9.2 9.0
Estimated from PFO strain for the 2010 event
Moment, N-m
2010 Chile Mw=8.8 8.5
8.0
Hartzell and Heaton, 1985
7.5
Also: mB_hat= 7.6 for both 1960 Chile and 1964 Alaska Houston and Kanamori (1986)
mB_hat=7.2 for the 2004 Sumatra Kanamori( (2006)
Frequency, Hz
Progress in the last 50 years 1. Long-term behavior of subduction-zone seismicity 2. Better understanding of physics 3. Rapid response 4. Strong motion and engineering 5. Discovery of my ignorance
For the 2004-Sumatra Earthquake
R. Kerr (Science, 2005) Failure to Gauge the Quake Crippled the Warning Effort
Seismologists knew within minutes that the earthquake off Sumatra must have just unleashed a tsunami, but they had no idea how huge the quake and therefore the tsunamireally was
For the 2010 Chile earthquake, within one hour..
2009 Samoa Is. Earthquake (Mw=8.1)
Comparison of the 1917 and 2009 Samoa earthquakes Omori seismograms at Mizusawa
1917 Samoa Earthquake Mizusawa Omori NS, T0=38s, V=20
P S L
R
10 cm
2009 Samoa, KSN Simulated Omori NS, T0=38s, V=20, h=0.2
10 cm
1917 Samoa Earthquake Mizusawa Omori EW, T0=17s, V=100
P
15 cm
2009 Samoa, KSN Simulated Omori EW, T0=17s, V=100, h=0.2
30 cm
C E
o_amp_phase
2.5
Mizusawa
Rayleigh wave
Amplitude
1.5
Love wave
0.5
60
120
180 240 Azimuth, deg.
300
360
o_MS_global
2009 Samoa earthquake, Surface-wave magnitude, MS
8.5
Mizusawa
8
S
M
7.5 7
60
120
180 Azimuth, deg.
240
300
360
2009 Samoa
W phase solution
Discrepancy between gCMT and W-phase mechanisms
CMT
P and SH waveform fits from finite-source model
Radiated energy ER= 4 x 1016 J Scaled energy ER/Mo = 2.2 x10-5
ES/M0
Scaled Energy, ER/M0
M0_ES_table
0.0001
2009_Kuril 2006_Tonga
1994_Shikotan
2009 Andaman Is.
2001_India 2007_kuril
ER/M0
2009 Samoa
10
-5
2002_Sumatra 2003_Tokachi-oki 2005_Nias 2007_Sumatra 2006_Kuril 2006_Java
2008_Sumatra
2004_Sumatra-Anda
2004 Sumatra-Andaman
10
-6
10
19
10
20
10
21
10
22
10
23
M0. N-m
M0
Near-field waveforms
Far-field waveforms
Chen Jis 3-event model
A B C
Mw=7.75
Mw=7.99
Mw=7.89
-15.05 -172.65 8.0 36. 20.
-15.6 -172.0 8.0 51.25 16. -15.55 -172.65 16. 110. 18.
1 Vague evidence for a secondary event
Evidence for a secondary event at close-in R1 (PPT and RAR)
200s
Composite Source
What does a point source solution (e.g., gCMT and WP) mean?
M c (t )
M i (t tdi )
( ) M c ( )e M c0
i td
( )e M i
i tdi
( )e M i
i tdi
(e.g., in the LSQ sense.)
new
Direct sum
800s (Mw=7.81)
500s
400s
300s
200s
Preferred solution
-------Mo-----strike--dip---rake----lat.-----long.---depth---centroidtime----halfduration X. 1.8e28 144 65 -86 -15.51 -172.03 18. 33 ~30 (10 s low, 20 s rise, 40 s fall) Y2. 5.4e27 185 29 90 -16.01 -172.43 18. 69 20 Z2. 5.1e27 185 29 90 -16.01 -172.43 18. 110 20 Event X origin time is USGS hypocentral time 17:48:10.85.
3-event preferred model
X Mw=8.10 Y Mw=7.75 Z Mw=7.73
-15.51 -172.03 18. 33 ~30
-16.01 -172.43 18. 69 20
-16.01 -172.43 18. 110 20
Direct Sum
T=800s
T=500s
T=200s
W phase Solution 0.00167-0.005 Hz ZNE
W phase solution
0.001-0.0014 Hz
Chen Ji 3-event (2 normal + 1 thrust) model
0.001 to 0.0014 Hz
Chen Ji 3-event (2 normal + 1 thrust) model
0.001 to 0.0014 Hz
Current model 1 normal + 2 thrusts 0.001 to 0.0014 Hz
Current model 1 normal + 2 thrusts 0.001 to 0.0014 Hz
Umino et al.
Index of Frequency Contents
Trench Axis
High Freq
Low Freq
Seismograms
1 min
Event 1 10/10/2009 M=5.9 -15.64 -173.23 10 km
hp >1.0
0.3 to 1.0 0.1 to 0.3
lp < 0.1
Event 2 10/19/2009 M=6.2 -15.30 -172.19 10 km
Comparison of teleseismic P waveform
Event 1 Event 2
Comparison of moment-rate spectrum from teleseismic data (solid curve: 2 spectrum)
C D
C D
o_spec_sum_20091010 Event 1 20091010 10
6
Event 2 20091019 o_spec_sum_20091019
10
6
N-m
10
13
Moment, 10
moment, 10
13
N-m
10
10
10
1000 0.01
0.1 Frequency, Hz
1000 0.01
0.1 Frequency, Hz
