The great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004

Science

Volumn 308, Issue 5725, 2005, Pages 1127-1133

  Lay, Thorne ^a   Kanamori, Hiroo ^b   Ammon, Charles J ^c   Nettles, Meredith ^d   Ward, Steven N ^a   Aster, Richard C ^e   Beck, Susan L ^f   Bilek, Susan L ^e   Brudzinski, Michael R ^g,h   Butler, Rhett ⁱ   Deshon, Heather R ^g   Ekström, Göran ^d   Satake, Kenji ^j   Sipkin, Stuart ^k  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^f University of Arizona   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^h MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ IRIS Consortium   (United States)

^j GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF JAPAN   (Japan)

^k U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GEOLOGY; PLATES (STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS); SEISMOLOGY;

EURASIAN PLATES; FAULT BOUNDARY; SUMATRA-ANDAMAN EARTHQUAKE; TSUNAMI;

EARTHQUAKES;

EARTHQUAKE; TSUNAMI;

AUSTRALIA; BOUNDARY LAYER; CONTINENTAL SHELF; DISASTER; EARTHQUAKE; GEOMETRY; INDIA; INTERFEROMETER; MYANMAR; OSCILLATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SHOCK; TSUNAMI;

INDIAN OCEAN; OCEANIC REGIONS; WORLD;

EID: 21044436581     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1112250     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. The February 23, 2005 update on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Web site http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav indicates 283, 100 confirmed fatalities, 14,100 missing, and 1,126,900 displaced. The majority of the fatalities were in Indonesia (235,800), with 30,900 fatalities in Sri Lanka.
2. K. Abe, personal communication, 2005.
3. K. Abe, J. Geophys. Res. 84, 1561 (1979).
4. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2005/usweax indicates more than 1300 fatalities on Nias, Simeulue, Kepulauen Banyak, and Meulaboh.
5. R. Butler et al., EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 85, 225 (2004); http://www.iris.edu.
6. B. A. Romanowicz, D. Giardini, Science 293, 2000 (2001).
7. J. Park et al., EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 86, 57 (2005).
8. J. Park et al., Seismol. Res. Lett., in press (2005).
9. C. J. Ammon et al., Science 308, 1133 (2005).
10. J. Park et al., Science 308, 1139 (2005).
11. K. R. Newcomb, W. R. McCann, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 421 (1987).
12. R. Bilham, E. R. Engdahl, N. Feldl, S. P. Satyabala Seism., Seismol. Res. Lett., in press (2005).
13. Y. Bock et al., J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2367 (2003).
14. J. Paul et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 657 (2001).
15. R. McCaffrey, J. Geophys. Res. 97, 8905 (1992).
16. K. Sieh, D. Natawidjaja, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 28295 (2000).
17. J. Zachariasen et al., J. Geophys. Res. 104, 895 (1999).
18. D. H. Natawidjaja et al., J. Geophys. Res. 109, B04306, doi:10.1029/2003JB002398 (2004).
19. W. R. McCann, S. P. Nishenko, L R. Sykes, J. Krause, Pure Appl. Geophys. 117, 1082 (1979).
20. G. Ekström, A. M. Dziewonski, N. N. Maternovskaya, M. Nettles, Phys. Earth Planet Inter. 148, 327 (2005).
21. Harvard CMT solutions can be accessed at http://www.seismology.harvard. edu/CMTsearch.html.
22. M. K. Giovanni, S. L. Beck, L. Wagner, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 2018, doi:10.1029/2002GL015774 (2002).
23. Many stations of the Global Seismographic Network operated by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, the University of California, San Diego, and the USGS are connected by real-time telemetry to operational efforts of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. These centers provide rapid earthquake location, seismic-magnitude, and tsunami-potential determinations (8).
24. O = μAD).
25. For the Alaska and Chile events, the amplitude measurements are made at 300 s, but the zero-frequency seismic-moment value is estimated using a finite-source model.
26. H. Kanamori, J. Geophys. Res. 75, 5029 (1970).
27. H. Kanamori, J. J. Cipar, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 9, 128 (1974).
28. CMT (f), which in turn depends on the CMT source mechanism and depth and the modeling assumptions in the CMT solution.
29. If the dip angle increases toward the north, the moment determined here will be overestimated. A change in dip from 8° to 12° would reduce the estimated moment by 50%, and if the dip were 15° or more in the subduction zone along the Andaman Islands, the effect could be even larger. The increase in low-frequency source strength seen in Fig. 5 could thus be an artifact of using too shallow a dip for the northern portion of the rupture.
30. See http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ous/STORE/Xslav_04/ciim_display. html.
31. b with seismic moment are shown for many large earthquakes, including the Sumatra-Andaman event, in fig. S5.
32. H. Houston, H. Kanamori, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 76, 19 (1986).
33. H. Kanamori, M. Kikuchi, Nature 361, 714 (1993).
34. H. Kanamori, Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B 80, 297 (2004).
35. 18 J.
36. A. Venkataraman, H. Kanamori, J. Geophys. Res. 109, B05302, doi:10.1029/2003JB002549 (2004).
37. H. Kanamori, J. Geophys. Res. 82, 2981 (1977).
38. S. Ni, H. Kanamori, D. Helmberger, Nature 434, 582 (2005).
39. M. Ishii, P. Shearer, H. Houston, J. Vidale, Nature, in press (2005).
40. P. Banerjee, F. F. Pollitz, R. Bürgmann, Science 19 May 2005 (10.1126/science.1113746).
41. The tsunami source region estimated in Fig. 6 and shown in greater detail in fig. S6 is based on back-projecting tsunami waves from arrival points with known arrival times to the origin time of the earthquake. This provides a lower bound of 600-km length for the tsunami source area, based on assumptions of instantaneous rupture and total slip on the fault. If we allow for the delay in tsunami excitation due to finite rupture propagation time to the Nicobar region (∼3 to 4 min), along with delay in excitation due to finite-slip rise time (1 to 5 min), the effective tsunami source area may extend to 10°N, giving a total source region about 800 km long.
42. J. Gower, EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 86, 37 (2005).
43. S. Uyeda, H. Kanamori, J. Geophys. Res. 84, 1049 (1979).
44. L. Ruff, H. Kanamori, Tectonophysics 99, 99 (1983).
45. R. Scholz, J. Campos, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 22, 103 (1995).
46. F. T. Wu, H. Kanamori, J. Geophys. Res. 78, 6082 (1973).
47. This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grants EAR-0125595, EAR-0337495, and EAR-0207608. Seismic waveform data from the Global Seismographic Network (funded by NSF under Cooperative Agreement EAR-0004370 and USGS) were obtained from the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) Data Management System. Jason data were provided by Lee-Lueng Fu of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA.