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