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

IF 4.1 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
G. Davies
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随机地震海啸模型(SETMs)被广泛用于模拟假想海啸及其变异。不同的setm产生的海啸具有本质上不同的统计特性,为了理解它们的偏差,setm应该在多次真实地震产生的海啸中进行测试。然而,很少有研究尝试这样做。本研究通过与澳大利亚东南部和西部潮汐计观测到的14次地震海啸进行比较,对2018年澳大利亚概率海啸危害评估中的三个setm进行了测试。SETMs的复杂程度各不相同,从具有确定破裂面积(FAUS)的简单均匀滑动模型,到具有可变破裂面积(VAUS)的均匀滑动模型,以及非均匀滑动模型(HS)。对于所有历史事件,从每个SETM中采样60个具有相似地震位置和震级的情景,并在地震后60小时的潮汐计上模拟,以表示SETM海啸分布。最适合SETM的情景往往比使用已发表的震源反演模型模拟的海啸更符合观测结果。然而,一些观测结果不能很好地由一个或多个setm模拟。海啸大小分布在SETMs之间有所不同,FAUS更经常地不能覆盖观测到的海啸大小。FAUS也倾向于低估观测结果,特别是对于较大的海啸。vus和HS SETMs的表现要好得多,HS通常比vus产生更大的海啸,但也不能更频繁地覆盖观测结果。如果在整个模拟中分析海啸的大小,或者只分析早到达的波浪,或者晚到达的波浪,那么每个SETM的相对性能是相似的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Tsunami Variability From Stochastic Earthquake Models: Tests Against Fourteen Tsunamis at Australian Tide Gauges

Tsunami Variability From Stochastic Earthquake Models: Tests Against Fourteen Tsunamis at Australian Tide Gauges

Tsunami Variability From Stochastic Earthquake Models: Tests Against Fourteen Tsunamis at Australian Tide Gauges

Tsunami Variability From Stochastic Earthquake Models: Tests Against Fourteen Tsunamis at Australian Tide Gauges

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth Earth and Planetary Sciences-Geophysics
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
559
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信