{"title":"来自随机地震模型的海啸变异性:澳大利亚潮汐计对14次海啸的测试","authors":"G. Davies","doi":"10.1029/2025JB031949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Stochastic earthquake-tsunami models (SETMs) are widely used to simulate hypothetical tsunamis and their variability. Different SETMs can produce tsunamis with substantially different statistical properties, and to understand their biases, SETMs should be tested against tsunamis generated by multiple real earthquakes. However, few studies have attempted this. This study tests three SETMs from the 2018 Australian Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment by comparison with fourteen earthquake-tsunamis observed at tide gauges in southeast and west Australia. The SETMs vary in complexity from a simple uniform slip model with deterministic rupture area (FAUS), a uniform slip model with variable rupture area (VAUS), and a heterogeneous slip model (HS). For all historical events, 60 scenarios with similar earthquake location and magnitude are sampled from each SETM, and modeled at tide gauges for 60 hours post-earthquake to represent the SETM tsunami distribution. The best fitting SETM scenarios often agree with observations better than tsunamis modeled using published source inversions. However, some observations are not well modeled by one or more SETMs. The tsunami size distribution varies between the SETMs, with FAUS failing to envelope the observed tsunami size much more often. FAUS also tends to underestimate the observations, particularly for larger tsunamis. The VAUS and HS SETMs perform much better, with HS typically producing larger tsunamis than VAUS, but also failing to envelope the observations more often. The relative performance of each SETM is similar if the tsunami size is analyzed over the full simulation, or just for early arriving waves, or late waves.</p>","PeriodicalId":15864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth","volume":"130 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025JB031949","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tsunami Variability From Stochastic Earthquake Models: Tests Against Fourteen Tsunamis at Australian Tide Gauges\",\"authors\":\"G. Davies\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2025JB031949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Stochastic earthquake-tsunami models (SETMs) are widely used to simulate hypothetical tsunamis and their variability. Different SETMs can produce tsunamis with substantially different statistical properties, and to understand their biases, SETMs should be tested against tsunamis generated by multiple real earthquakes. However, few studies have attempted this. This study tests three SETMs from the 2018 Australian Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment by comparison with fourteen earthquake-tsunamis observed at tide gauges in southeast and west Australia. The SETMs vary in complexity from a simple uniform slip model with deterministic rupture area (FAUS), a uniform slip model with variable rupture area (VAUS), and a heterogeneous slip model (HS). For all historical events, 60 scenarios with similar earthquake location and magnitude are sampled from each SETM, and modeled at tide gauges for 60 hours post-earthquake to represent the SETM tsunami distribution. The best fitting SETM scenarios often agree with observations better than tsunamis modeled using published source inversions. However, some observations are not well modeled by one or more SETMs. The tsunami size distribution varies between the SETMs, with FAUS failing to envelope the observed tsunami size much more often. FAUS also tends to underestimate the observations, particularly for larger tsunamis. The VAUS and HS SETMs perform much better, with HS typically producing larger tsunamis than VAUS, but also failing to envelope the observations more often. The relative performance of each SETM is similar if the tsunami size is analyzed over the full simulation, or just for early arriving waves, or late waves.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\",\"volume\":\"130 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025JB031949\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JB031949\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JB031949","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Tsunami Variability From Stochastic Earthquake Models: Tests Against Fourteen Tsunamis at Australian Tide Gauges
Stochastic earthquake-tsunami models (SETMs) are widely used to simulate hypothetical tsunamis and their variability. Different SETMs can produce tsunamis with substantially different statistical properties, and to understand their biases, SETMs should be tested against tsunamis generated by multiple real earthquakes. However, few studies have attempted this. This study tests three SETMs from the 2018 Australian Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment by comparison with fourteen earthquake-tsunamis observed at tide gauges in southeast and west Australia. The SETMs vary in complexity from a simple uniform slip model with deterministic rupture area (FAUS), a uniform slip model with variable rupture area (VAUS), and a heterogeneous slip model (HS). For all historical events, 60 scenarios with similar earthquake location and magnitude are sampled from each SETM, and modeled at tide gauges for 60 hours post-earthquake to represent the SETM tsunami distribution. The best fitting SETM scenarios often agree with observations better than tsunamis modeled using published source inversions. However, some observations are not well modeled by one or more SETMs. The tsunami size distribution varies between the SETMs, with FAUS failing to envelope the observed tsunami size much more often. FAUS also tends to underestimate the observations, particularly for larger tsunamis. The VAUS and HS SETMs perform much better, with HS typically producing larger tsunamis than VAUS, but also failing to envelope the observations more often. The relative performance of each SETM is similar if the tsunami size is analyzed over the full simulation, or just for early arriving waves, or late waves.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth serves as the premier publication for the breadth of solid Earth geophysics including (in alphabetical order): electromagnetic methods; exploration geophysics; geodesy and gravity; geodynamics, rheology, and plate kinematics; geomagnetism and paleomagnetism; hydrogeophysics; Instruments, techniques, and models; solid Earth interactions with the cryosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and climate; marine geology and geophysics; natural and anthropogenic hazards; near surface geophysics; petrology, geochemistry, and mineralogy; planet Earth physics and chemistry; rock mechanics and deformation; seismology; tectonophysics; and volcanology.
JGR: Solid Earth has long distinguished itself as the venue for publication of Research Articles backed solidly by data and as well as presenting theoretical and numerical developments with broad applications. Research Articles published in JGR: Solid Earth have had long-term impacts in their fields.
JGR: Solid Earth provides a venue for special issues and special themes based on conferences, workshops, and community initiatives. JGR: Solid Earth also publishes Commentaries on research and emerging trends in the field; these are commissioned by the editors, and suggestion are welcome.