# Stochastic analysis and uncertainty assessment of tsunami wave height using a random source parameter model that targets a Tohoku-type earthquake fault

- 2.3k Downloads
- 29 Citations

## Abstract

We created a fault model with a Tohoku-type earthquake fault zone having a random slip distribution and performed stochastic tsunami hazard analysis using a logic tree. When the stochastic tsunami hazard analysis results and the Tohoku earthquake observation results were compared, the observation results of a GPS wave gauge off the southern Iwate coast indicated a return period equivalent to approximately 1,709 years (0.50 fractile), and the observation results of a GPS wave gauge off the shore of Fukushima Prefecture indicated a return period of 600 years (0.50 fractile). Analysis of the influence of the number of slip distribution patterns on the results of the stochastic tsunami hazard analysis showed that the number of slip distribution patterns considered greatly influenced the results of the hazard analysis for a relatively large wave height. When the 90 % confidence interval and coefficient of variation of tsunami wave height were defined as an index for projecting the uncertainty of tsunami wave height, the 90 % confidence interval was typically high in locations where the wave height of each fractile point was high. At a location offshore of the Boso Peninsula of Chiba Prefecture where the coefficient of variation reached the maximum, it was confirmed that variations in maximum wave height due to differences in slip distribution of the fault zone contributed to the coefficient of variation being large.

## Keywords

Stochastic tsunami hazard analysis Logic tree analysis Uncertainty assessment Random source parameter model Tohoku-type earthquake## 1 Introduction

In earthquake-induced tsunami hazard analysis, it is extremely important to ascertain the effect of earthquake source parameters on the initial displaced water height of tsunamis. Numerous studies on this influence have been conducted (e.g., Hwang and Divoky 1970; Ward 1982; Ng et al. 1991; Pelayo and Wiens 1992; Whitmore 1993; Geist and Yoshioka 1996; Geist 1999; Song et al. 2005). Based on observations of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Song et al. (2005) concluded that slip function is an important factor that governs tsunami intensity and that the fracture rate of the earth’s crust determines the spatial pattern of a tsunami. It is now well known that the amount of slip of a rupturing fault strongly affects tsunami wave height, as numerous past studies have indicated.

On the other hand, Freund and Barnett (1976) pointed out that tsunami wave height is underestimated more when tsunami calculations are performed with uniform slip distributions than with heterogeneous slip distributions, but studies on the effect of planar nonuniformity of fault slip on tsunami wave height are limited (e.g., Geist and Dmowska 1999; Geist 2002; McCloskey et al. 2007, 2008; Løvholt et al. 2012). Geist (2002) calculated tsunami wave height uncertainty for the Pacific coastline of Mexico by fixing the moment magnitude at 8.0 and using a trench fault with 100 cases of random slip. He ascertained that random slip distribution of a trench fault significantly affected the localized coastal wave height and that coastal wave height varied three-fold on average and six-fold at maximum. McCloskey et al. (2007, 2008) examined coastal wave height uncertainty for the Sumatra coast using approximately 100 cases of initial displaced water height values calculated from a trench fault with a random slip distribution that was artificially generated in the same manner. They also confirmed that nonuniformity of slip distribution greatly influenced coastal wave height. Løvholt et al. (2012) quantitatively studied the effect of 500 cases of artificially generated random trench slip distributions on tsunami runup height. They concluded that a hydrostatic pressure model produces artificially high uncertainty and that a nonhydrostatic pressure model produces a decrease in uncertainty.

However, even though these studies describe the effect of planar nonuniformity of slip on a fault on tsunami wave height or tsunami runup height, they do not describe its influence on stochastic tsunami hazard analysis. Thus, we focused on the influence of nonuniformity of slip distribution on a fault on the results of a stochastic tsunami hazard analysis. Various methods of the stochastic tsunami hazard analysis have been proposed by past many studies (e.g., Lin and Tung 1982; Rikitake and Aida 1988; Ward 2002; Geist 2005; Thio 2010; Yong et al. 2013). In this study, we adopted a method of stochastic tsunami hazard analysis using a logic tree (Annaka et al. 2007). Specifically, using a random source parameter model that determined the probability of slip distributions including asperity in a fault zone, we produced multiple giant faults with hypothetical slip distributions for a Tohoku-type fault zone. Then, by treating these multiple giant faults as branches of a logic tree, we treated heterogeneous slip on the fault as epistemic uncertainty. We also examined how the results of the tsunami hazard analysis changed when the number of branches of the logic tree was varied. We used only five patterns of generated random slip distribution, but it appears that they have a large effect on the results of stochastic tsunami hazard analysis when using a logic tree. In this study, we also discuss the regional uncertainty of stochastically assessed tsunami wave height.

## 2 Assessment of slip distribution on a fault using a random source model

In this study, we used the correlated random source parameter (CRSP) model (Liu et al. 2006) to generate random slip distributions on a fault plane. The CRSP model is a recently proposed kinematic fault model that smoothly varies slip distributions on fault planes. In this model, a two-dimensional distribution of parameters such as slip, slip angle, rupture propagation rate, and rupture rise time on a fault plane can be estimated based on a probability density function obtained by statistically processing slip distributions estimated from past earthquake records. In this study, we used only the two-dimensional slip distributions that were generated using the CRSP model. The procedure for creating a hypocenter model using this technique is as follows.

*k*

_{ x }is the wavenumber of fault strike direction,

*k*

_{ y }is the wavenumber of fault dip direction,

*ν*is the fractile dimension,

*C*

_{L}is the correlation length of the fault strike direction, and

*C*

_{W}is the correlation length of the fault dip direction. We set a ν value to 4.0, which was determined by Liu et al. (2006).

*C*

_{L}and

*C*

_{W}are calculated from the following equations, where

*Mw*is the moment magnitude of the earthquake fault.

*C*is the normalized probability density function,

*D*

_{o}is the Cauchy distribution location parameter, κ is the Cauchy distribution scale parameter, and

*D*

_{max}is the maximum slip of fault.

*κ*is a coefficient that is set such that the average value of the slip distribution is equal to the average slip across the fault. The average slip across the fault was taken as

*D*

_{ave}, and the following values were used for

*D*

_{o}and

*D*

_{max};

The coefficient of 2.8 in Eq. (5) uses the ratio of maximum slip and average slip in the shallow part of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake as a reference. In particular, using the results of Yoshida et al. (2011), who studied the rupture process of the Tohoku earthquake using the waveform inversion technique with long-period seismic motion data, Ishii et al. (2013) concluded that the average slip of the shallow part was 16.7 m and that the maximum slip was 46.9 m. Based on these results, we set the ratio of maximum slip to average slip in the truncated Cauchy distribution at 2.8. The coefficient of 0.5 in Eq. (6) is the coefficient of Liu et al. (2006), without modification.

Ishii et al. (2013) focused on a prominent feature of the Tohoku earthquake (i.e., the slip in the shallow part was larger than the slip in the deep part) and proposed a technique by which the average slip of each part is calculated by using the area and modulus of rigidity of each part after the fault is divided into a deep and shallow part. A value of approximately 3.0, derived from analysis of the Tohoku earthquake, has been used as the ratio of average slip of the deep part to that of the shallow part.

^{2}) and deep part (73,000 km

^{2}) set by Ishii et al. (2013). If the average slip of each part is determined, it is possible to determine the maximum slip of each part uniquely using Eq. (5). Furthermore, the ratio of average slip and maximum slip of the deep part was assumed to be the same as the ratio of average slip and maximum slip of the shallow part. Specifically, we consider it necessary to concretely determine the ratio of average slip and maximum slip of the shallow part from observation results, but because we could not obtain concrete data, we assumed the ratio of average slip to maximum slip to be the same in both the shallow and deep parts. Next, based on the average slip and maximum slip of each part, the technique of Liu et al. (2006) was applied to both the deep and shallow parts to generate a random slip distribution for each part. Table 1 shows the average slip in the deep and shallow parts and the maximum slip across the entire fault zone (maximum slip of shallow part) calculated in this study and by Yoshida et al. (2011). The results in this study, in which slip was artificially generated using the CRSP model, are slightly higher but express the general trend of numeric values quite well.

Comparison of average slip in the deep part and shallow part and maximum slip of the entire fault zone according to this study and Yoshida et al. (2011)

This study | Yoshida et al. (2011) | |
---|---|---|

Average slip in the deep part (m) | 6.0 | 5.0 |

Average slip in the shallow part (m) | 18.1 | 16.7 |

Maximum slip of the entire fault zone (m) | 50.7 | 46.9 |

^{2}) is in the range of 12.5–18.1 %, which agrees relatively well with the results of Somerville et al. (1999); we believe it can appropriately express the heterogeneous slip distribution characteristics of actual fault slip.

Fault parameters of a Tohoku-type earthquake fault zone

Longitude | Latitude | Length (km) | Width (km) | Upper depth (km) | Strike | Dip | Rake | Slip |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

144.139° | 39.9° | 500 | 200 | 4.1 | 193° | 13° | 90° | |

Ratio of asperity (region where the slip is 1.5 times greater than the average slip of the entire fault) generated by the CRSP model to total fault area

Position of asperity in the fault area | Northern edge (%) | Between norther edge and center (%) | Center (%) | Between southern edge and center (%) | Southern edge (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Ratio of asperity | 18.10 | 16.70 | 17.80 | 12.50 | 16.60 |

## 3 Stochastic tsunami hazard analysis

### 3.1 Numerical tsunami simulation method

Based on the Tohoku-type earthquake fault model generated in Sect. 2, we calculated tsunami wave height at each point as follows. First, the points of a 10-km mesh encompassing a Tohoku-type earthquake fault zone (500 km × 200 km) were generated; then, using the fault parameters in Table 2 and the fault slip artificially generated by the CRSP model as input values, the initial displaced water height was calculated at those points using the formula of Okada (1985). Here, the slip angle was assumed to be a uniform 90°. Using the calculated initial displaced water height as input values, time integration was performed with a time interval of 0.9 s and a grid spacing of 15 s (approximately 450 m) at the longitude/latitude origin by a nonlinear long-wave equation using the TUNAMI program (Tohoku University’s Numerical Analysis Model for Investigation of Far-field Tsunamis, IUGG/IOC TIME Project 1997).

### 3.2 Logic tree construction

Here, we would like to clarify the definitions and handling methods regarding aleatory uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty in this study. Annaka et al. (2007) explain that aleatory uncertainty is due to the random nature of earthquake occurrence and its effects. Its nature can be determined from the variation in the ratios of observed to numerically calculated tsunami heights for historical tsunami sources (Aida 1978) in their model, which is named “Aida’s kappa (*κ*)”. They also stated that epistemic uncertainty is due to incomplete knowledge and data about the earthquake process. Uncertainties in various model parameters and various alternatives are treated as epistemic uncertainty using the logic-tree approach.

Values of Aida’s kappa (*κ*) and logarithm of kappa (*σ*) for 11 historical tsunamigenic earthquakes listed by Annaka et al. (2007)

Year | Earthquake name | Number of run-up data | Aida’s kappa ( | Logarithm of kappa ( |
---|---|---|---|---|

1707 | Hoei | 61 | 1.35 | 0.300 |

1854 | Ansei Tokai | 89 | 1.47 | 0.385 |

1854 | Ansei Nankai | 60 | 1.42 | 0.351 |

1896 | Meiji Sanriku | 257 | 1.45 | 0.372 |

1933 | Showa Sanriku | 572 | 1.40 | 0.336 |

1944 | Tonankai | 43 | 1.58 | 0.457 |

1946 | Nankaido | 159 | 1.60 | 0.470 |

1960 | Chile | 764 | 1.37 | 0.315 |

1968 | Tokachi-oki | 273 | 1.41 | 0.344 |

1983 | Nihonkai-chubu | 209 | 1.48 | 0.392 |

1993 | Hokkaido-nansei-oki | 216 | 1.47 | 0.385 |

For the moment magnitude (*M* _{w}), three cases of *M* _{w} 8.9, 9.0, and 9.1 were considered. Variations in moment magnitude are obtained by multiplying the slip across the fault by a coefficient calculated from seismic moment *M* _{o} (*N***m*) = *μDS*, where *μ* is the fault rigidity (N/m^{2}), *S* is the fault area (m^{2}), and *D* is the average displacement (*m*) across the fault.

For the position of the asperity, we initially generated many two-dimensional distributions of slip on the fault using the CRSP model. From these, we subjectively selected just five patterns of slip distribution such that the position of asperity was dispersed throughout the entire fault. Variations in the tsunami water level accompanying the variations in slip distribution in the strike direction of the fault are greater than the variations in the tsunami water level accompanying the variations in slip distribution in the dip direction (Geist and Dmowska 1999). Therefore, we considered fault patterns in which the variations in slip distribution in the strike direction were expressed more distinctly than were the variations in the slip distribution in the dip direction of the fault. In this study, we dealt with five, three, and one pattern of slip distributions, but we will confirm the large influence on the hazard curve, as will be discussed later.

For the return period of the Tohoku-type earthquake, we used the value of 600 years employed by Fujiwara et al. (2013). In their analysis, a model of the average return period for the Tohoku earthquake was treated as the BPT distribution. In this study, we decided on a deviation of the BPT distribution as 0.3 and set an upper limit and lower limit confidence interval based on its error.

For the log-normal standard deviation (aleatory uncertainty) and truncated uncertainty, we used the values of Annaka et al. (2007), which were determined from a numerical simulation for the optimal fault models of 11 tsunamigenic earthquakes with many historical run-up data (Table 4).

The number appended to each branch of the logic tree in Fig. 3 indicates the weight of that branch. For the branches related to the range of moment magnitude and position of the asperity, the values were equally divided weights. For the weights for each branch of the recurrence interval, we set the basis value as 0.5 and both end values as 0.25 because we set the branch by considering the confidence interval. Finally, regarding the weights for the branches of the standard deviation of the log-normal distribution and truncation of the log-normal distribution, we adapted the weighting values used in the study of Annaka et al. (2007); these values were used when they used a variable fault model in their study.

### 3.3 Hazard curves

*σ*):

Second, we can obtain a tsunami hazard curve by converting the probability density function into an exceedance probability distribution on the assumption of an ergodic hypothesis. The ergodic hypothesis is a statistical assumption that spatial variability is equal to temporal variability. Therefore, if we use the log-normal distribution that indicated spatial variability, we can obtain a tsunami hazard curve that shows the relationship between tsunami height and the annual probability of exceedance.

The hazard curves are drawn to correspond to one specific location. Here, for example, the hazard curves at the installation site (39.259°N, 142.097°E) of the south Iwate offshore GPS wave gauge set up by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) in April 2007 are shown. The same number of hazard curves as the number of branches of the logic tree (3 × 5 × 3 × 4 × 2 = 360) was created.

From these 360 hazard curves, statistical processing was performed in consideration of branch weight. Annual probability of exceedance at a certain tsunami wave height and cumulative branch weight are shown in Fig. 4b. These were calculated in the same manner as the tsunami wave height from 0.0 to 0.1 m, and annual probability of exceedance was determined at the points of 95, 50, and 5 % cumulative weight. From this, the relationship between tsunami wave height and annual probability of exceedance was re-drawn, resulting in the 95, 50, and 5 % fractile curves shown in Fig. 4c. The fractile curves simultaneously include epistemic uncertainty and aleatory uncertainty in earthquake occurrence and tsunami propagation. The analysis of this hazard curve, which includes the various types of uncertainty, enables a stochastic interpretation of a tsunami hazard. Additionally, a curve produced by simply averaging the annual probability of exceedance without considering branch weight was also generated as a simple average curve. We note that the tsunami hazard curves presented in this study are actually the conditional hazard exceedance curves because only 3.11 Tohoku-type earthquake events are included in the logic tree. However, we can say that we conducted stochastic tsunami hazard analysis in terms of considering the variability of the moment magnitude, position of asperity, and recurrence interval of the target earthquake. In addition, there is a possibility that other parameters such as the log-normal standard deviation or weights based on expert judgment strongly influence the shape of the hazard curves (e.g., Annaka et al. 2007; Iwabuchi et al. 2014). However, we would like to note that we focused on how the hazard curves change in response to the different positions of asperity in the logic tree, on the premise that parameters such as the log-normal standard deviation and weights based on expert judgment are fixed.

### 3.4 Comparison with Tohoku earthquake observation results and a past study

In this section, we compare the results of the stochastic tsunami hazard analysis performed in Sect. 3.1 with the observation results of the Tohoku earthquake that occurred in 2011 and a past study performed by Sakai et al. (2006). The measurement data of the south Iwate offshore GPS wave gauge and the Fukushima Prefecture offshore GPS wave gauge set up by MLIT and analyzed by Port and Airport Research Institute (PARI) were used as the Tohoku earthquake observation data (Kawai et al. 2013).

#### 3.4.1 Comparison with the south Iwate offshore GPS wave gauge observation results

#### 3.4.2 Comparison with the Fukushima Prefecture offshore GPS wave gauge observation results

#### 3.4.3 Comparison with a past study

Sakai et al. (2006) also conducted probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis using the logic-tree approach, targeting the coast of Fukushima Prefecture. Before comparing our research with their work, it is important to note that one of the fundamental differences between the two studies is that our research considers only the Tohoku earthquake type fault (*M* _{w} 8.9–9.1), while their research considered nine earthquake faults (*M* _{w} 7.7–8.6) along the Japan trench for the near-field tsunami. In addition, the contents and weights of the branches in the logic tree differ between the two studies. Thus, although there are some differences in the conditions of the studies, we discuss the results of the analyses in the following.

In the long-term averaged hazard curve of Sakai et al. (2006), wave heights with a return period of 1,000 years had a range of about 3.5 m (0.05 fractile wave) to about 5.6 m (0.95 fractile wave). However, in our study, wave heights with a similar return period had a range of about 4.0 m (0.05 fractile wave) to about 17.3 m (0.95 fractile wave). It is indicated that both the calculated stochastic tsunami height and its range in our analysis are larger than in their analysis, which is mainly because the moment magnitude of the assumed earthquake fault in our analysis is larger. Furthermore, the difference of the 0.05 fractile wave between the analyses is about 0.5 m, while the difference of the 0.95 fractile wave is about 13.3 m. We can also understand from the results that the difference in tsunami height between the analyses has a larger value as the fractile point is large.

### 3.5 Influence of the number of random slip distribution patterns on the results of hazard analysis

In this section, we examine the influence of the number of random slip distribution patterns in a fault zone on the results of stochastic tsunami hazard analysis. In the logic tree, variations in slip distribution in the fault zone are handled by a separate branch as epistemic uncertainty. Thus, we examined the effect of the number of slip distribution patterns in the fault zone on the stochastic tsunami hazard results by comparing the analysis results when using five slip distribution patterns (standard case), three patterns, and one pattern. For the case of three patterns, we considered the cases where the slip distribution was at the northernmost part, in the center, and at the southernmost part of the hypothetical fault. For the one pattern case, we only considered the case where the slip distribution was in the center. Since the number of branches of the logic tree changes if the number of slip distribution patterns is changed, the number of hazard curves also changes. When there are three slip distribution patterns, the number of branches is 216 (3 × 3 × 3 × 4 × 2), and when there is one, the number of branches is 72 (3 × 1 × 3 × 4 × 2).

### 3.6 Quantitative assessment of uncertainty of tsunami wave height

In this section, we discuss the uncertainty of tsunami wave height in each region of the Tohoku earthquake using the results of stochastic tsunami hazard analysis and the logic tree of Fig. 3.

#### 3.6.1 Uncertainty of tsunami wave height in the Tohoku offshore region

*M*

_{w}9.0) and when the position of asperity is placed at the northernmost edge of the fault zone (1.0 m for the case of

*M*

_{w}9.0); we believe this is the cause for the increase in the coefficient of variation. Figure 12a shows a frequency distribution with a relatively wide range at higher wave heights, up to a maximum of 6.8 m with an average of 1.3 m. The second interesting fact is that the point where the coefficient of variation reached a minimum was a point offshore of the Fukushima Prefecture coast. Similarly, Table 5b shows the data at the same location, and Fig. 12b shows the tsunami wave height frequency distribution when considering the uncertainty at the same location. The wave height data for the case of Mw 9.0 calculated directly from the tsunami simulation of Table 5b shows that the wave height was highest when the position of the asperity was placed at the southernmost edge of the fault zone; however, relatively high tsunami wave heights were recorded in all cases. The wave height frequency distribution in Fig. 12b is distributed relatively widely, from a minimum of 4.5 m to a maximum of 18.9 m, but the average wave height was at 10.5 m and the coefficient of variation had the minimum value.

Stochastically processed wave heights and maximum wave heights for each case of tsunami simulation at (a) the location of the maximum coefficient of variation and (b) the location of the minimum coefficient of variation

(a) The location of the maximum coefficient of variation | (b) The location of the minimum coefficient of variation | |
---|---|---|

Latitude | 35.505° | 37.345° |

Longitude | 140.75099° | 141.1454° |

0.05 fractile wave height (m) | 0.5 | 6.6 |

0.95 fractile wave height (m) | 4.9 | 17.4 |

90 % confidence interval (m) | 4.4 | 10.8 |

Average wave height | 1.3 | 10.5 |

Standard deviation | 1.41 | 3.45 |

Coefficient of variation c.o.v. | 1.08 | 0.33 |

| ||

| ||

North | 0.7 | 8.2 |

North-central | 1.8 | 7.5 |

Central | 0.8 | 6.8 |

South-central | 0.9 | 8.8 |

South | 2.7 | 8.2 |

| ||

North | 1.0 | 12.0 |

North-central | 2.8 | 11.0 |

Central | 1.2 | 9.6 |

South-central | 1.4 | 12.0 |

South | 4.3 | 12.1 |

Mw9.1 | ||

North | 1.4 | 15.2 |

North-central | 3.9 | 13.9 |

Central | 1.6 | 11.9 |

South-central | 2.1 | 15.2 |

South | 6.0 | 16.3 |

#### 3.6.2 Uncertainty of tsunami wave height at the ria coastline of the Tohoku region

Stochastically processed wave heights and maximum wave heights for each case of calculation at (a) the location of the maximum coefficient of variation offshore from the peninsular tip of a coastline and (b) the location of the minimum coefficient of variation in the closed-off section of a bay shown in the yellow boxes in Fig. 13

(a) The location of the maximum coefficient of variation offshore from the peninsular tip of a coastline | (b) The location of the minimum coefficient of variation in the closed-off section of a bay | |
---|---|---|

Latitude | 39.6513° | 39.4974° |

Longitude | 142.0329° | 142.0303° |

0.05 fractile wave height (m) | 4.9 | 4.3 |

0.95 fractile wave height (m) | 39.1 | 20.3 |

90 % confidence interval (m) | 34.2 | 16.0 |

Average wave height | 9.0 | 10.7 |

Standard deviation | 9.23 | 4.66 |

Coefficient of variation c.o.v | 1.03 | 0.44 |

| ||

Mw8.9 | ||

North | 19.7 | 11.4 |

North-central | 7.1 | 10.1 |

Central | 6.7 | 8.8 |

South-central | 5.2 | 4.7 |

South | 5.4 | 7.1 |

Mw9.0 | ||

North | 29.6 | 15.9 |

North-central | 10.4 | 14.2 |

Central | 9.6 | 12.4 |

South-central | 7.5 | 6.7 |

South | 7.7 | 10.2 |

Mw9.1 | ||

North | 37.6 | 19.7 |

North-central | 14.3 | 18.3 |

Central | 13.0 | 15.8 |

South-central | 9.5 | 9.0 |

South | 10.3 | 13.1 |

The above results show that when the results of stochastic tsunami wave height analysis limited to a Tohoku-type earthquake fault are analyzed, regional differences in uncertainty at the 90 % confidence interval and coefficient of variation of tsunami wave height clearly exist. In this study, we analyzed a Tohoku-type earthquake fault, but we believe that if the subject fault is changed, regional variations in the uncertainty of tsunami wave heights will also change.

## 4 Conclusions

- (1)
When the observation results of the Tohoku earthquake tsunami were compared with the results of the stochastic tsunami hazard analysis, the return period of the observation results at the location of the south Iwate offshore GPS wave gauge was equivalent to approximately 1,709 years (0.50 fractile wave height), and the return period at the location of the Fukushima Prefecture offshore GPS wave gauge was equivalent to approximately 600 years (0.50 fractile wave height). It was ascertained that the return period statistically determined from stochastic tsunami hazard analysis results differs by a fair amount depending on the region.

- (2)
Analysis of the effect of the number of slip distribution patterns on stochastic tsunami hazard analysis results showed that the uncertainty of tsunami wave height increased as the number of slip distribution patterns increased, but for relatively small wave heights, there was almost no effect of the number of slip distribution patterns on the results of the hazard analysis.

- (3)
When the uncertainty of tsunami wave height of a 1,000-year return period at a depth of 50 m underwater offshore from the Tohoku coast was examined, regional differences in uncertainty were clearly observed. In general, the 90 % confidence interval was high for locations where the wave height of each fractile point was high. Offshore of the Boso Peninsula of Chiba Prefecture, where the coefficient of variation reached the maximum, the difference in maximum wave height due to differences in slip distribution in the fault zone contributed greatly to the large coefficient of variation. At a ria coastline, the coefficient of variation was relatively large at a location offshore from the peninsular tip and relatively smaller at an offshore location in the closed-off section of a bay. We believe this is the effect of the submarine topography in a ria coastline.

As demonstrated in this study, important information for promoting regional disaster prevention activity can be obtained by quantifying and visualizing the uncertainty of tsunami wave heights by stochastic tsunami hazard analysis.

## Notes

### Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers who provided us with valuable comments and helped improve the manuscript. This research was partially supported by Specific Project Research (B70) for 2014 from the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University. This research was also supported by funding from Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., through the IRIDeS.

## References

- Aida I (1978) Reliability of a tsunami source model derived from fault parameters. J Phys Earth 26:57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Annaka T, Satake K, Sakakiyama T, Yanagisawa K, Shuto N (2007) Logic-tree approach for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis and its applications to the Japanese coasts. Pure appl Geophys 164:577–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cairo MC, Neilson BL (1997) Modeling and generation random vectors with arbitrary marginal distributions and correlation matrix. Technical Report. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
- Freund LB, Barnett DM (1976) A two-dimensional analysis of surface deformation due to dip-slip faulting. Bull Seism Soc Am 66:667–675Google Scholar
- Fujiwara H, Kawai S, Aoi S, Morikawa N, Senna S, Azuma H, Ooi M, Hao KX, Hasegawa N, Maeda T, Iwaki A, Wakamatsu K, Imoto M, Okumura T, Matsuyama H, Narita A (2013) Some improvements of seismic hazard assessment based on the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Technical note of the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention 379 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- Geist EL (1999) Local tsunamis and earthquake source parameters. Adv Geophys 39:117–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geist EL (2002) Complex earthquake rupture and local tsunamis. J Geophys Res 107(B5):2086. doi: 10.1029/2000JB000139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geist EL (2005) Local Tsunami Hazards in the Pacific Northwest from Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1661-BGoogle Scholar
- Geist EL, Dmowska R (1999) Local tsunamis and distributed slip at the source. Pure appl Geophys 154:485–512. doi: 10.1007/s000240050241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geist EL, Yoshioka S (1996) Source parameters controlling the generation and propagation of potential local tsunamis along the Cascadia margin. Nat Hazards 13:151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hwang L, Divoky D (1970) Tsunami generation. J Geophys Res 75:6802–6817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ishii Y, Dan K, Miyakoshi J, Takahashi H, Mori M, Fukuwa N (2013) Source modeling of hypothetical Nankai Trough, Japan, earthquake and strong ground motion prediction using the empirical Green’s functions. Shimizu Corporation Research Report 90:17–26 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- IUGG/IOC TIME Project (1997), Numerical method of tsunami simulation with the leap-frog scheme, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Manuals and Guides 35Google Scholar
- Iwabuchi Y, Sugino H, Ebisawa K (2014) Guidelines for Developing Design Basis Tsunami based on Probabilistic Approach. JNES-RE-Report Series, JNES-RE-2013-2041Google Scholar
- Japan Society of Civil Engineers (2011) A method for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis, The Tsunami Evaluation Subcommittee, The Nuclear Civil Engineering Committee. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, TokyoGoogle Scholar
- Kawai H, Satoh M, Kawaguchi K, Seki K (2013) Characteristics of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami waveform acquired around Japan by NOWPHAS equipment. Coast Eng J 55(3):1350008. doi: 10.1142/S0578563413500083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lavallée D, Archuleta RJ (2003) Stochastic modeling of slip spatial complexities for the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 30(5):1245. doi: 10.1029/2002GL015839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lavallée D, Archuleta RJ (2005) Coupling of the random properties of the source and the ground motion for the 1999 Chi Chi earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 32:L08311. doi: 10.1029/2004GL022202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lavallée D, Liu P, Archuleta RJ (2006) Stochastic model of heterogeneity in earthquake slip spatial distributions. Geophys J Int 165:622–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lin I, Tung CC (1982) A preliminary investigation of tsunami hazard. Bull Seism Soc Am 72:2323–2337Google Scholar
- Liu PC, Archuleta RJ, Hartzell S (2006) Prediction of broadband ground-motion time histories: hybrid low/high frequency method with correlated random source parameters. Bull Seism Soc Am 96:2118–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Løvholt F, Pedersen G, Bazin S, Kühn D, Bredesen RE, Harbitz C (2012) Stochastic analysis of tsunami runup due to heterogeneous coseismic slip and dispersion. J Geophys Res 117:C03047. doi: 10.1029/2011JC007616 Google Scholar
- Mai P, Beroza G (2002) A spatial random-field model to characterize complexity in earthquake slip. J Geophys Res 107(B11):2308. doi: 10.1029/2001JB000588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCloskey J, Antonioli A, Piatanesi A, Sieh K, Steacy S, Nalbant S, Cocco M, Giunchi C, Huang JD, Dunlop P (2007) Near-field propagation of tsunamis from megathrust earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 34:L14316. doi: 10.1029/2007GL030494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCloskey J, Antonioli A, Piatanesi A, Sieh K, Steacy S, Nalbant S, Cocco M, Giunchi C, Huang JD, Dunlop P (2008) Tsunami threat in the Indian Ocean from a future megathrust earthquake west of Sumatra. Earth Planet Sci Lett 265:61–81. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2007.09.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ng MK, Leblond PH, Murty TS (1991) Simulation of tsunamis from great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone. Science 250:1248–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Okada Y (1985) Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull Seism Soc Am 75:1135–1154Google Scholar
- Pelayo AM, Wiens DA (1992) Tsunami earthquakes: slow thrust-faulting events in the accretionary wedge. J Geophys Res 97(B11):15321–15337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rikitake T, Aida I (1988) Tsunami hazard probability in Japan. Bull Seism Soc Am 78:1268–1278Google Scholar
- Sakai T, Takeda T, Soraoka H, Yanagisawa K, Annaka T (2006) Development of a probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis in Japan. In: Proceedings of ICONE14, international conference on nuclear engineering, Miami, FLGoogle Scholar
- Somerville PG, Irikura K, Graves R, Sawada S, Wald D, Abrahamson N, Iwasaki Y, Kagawa T, Smith N, Kowada A (1999) Characterizing crustal earthquake slip models for the prediction of strong ground motion. Seism Res Lett 70:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Song YT, Ji C, Fu LL, Zlotnicki V, Shum CK, Yi Y, Hjorleifsdottir V (2005) The 26 December 2004 tsunami source estimated from satellite radar altimetry and seismic waves. Geophys Res Lett 32:L20601. doi: 10.1029/2005GL023683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thio HK (2010) Probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis in California. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Report 2010/108. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Ward SN (1982) On tsunami nucleation: II. An instantaneous modulated line source. Phys Earth Planet Inter 27:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ward SN (2002) Tsunamis. In: Meyers RA (ed) The encyclopedia of physical science and technology, vol 17. Academic Press, London, pp 175–191Google Scholar
- Whitmore PM (1993) Expected tsunami amplitudes and currents along the North American coast for Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes. Nat Hazards 8:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yong SC, Yong CK, Dongkyun K (2013) On the spatial pattern of the distribution of the tsunami run-up heights. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27:1333–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yoshida K, Miyakoshi K, Irikura K (2011) Source process of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake inferred from waveform inversion with long-period strong-motion records. Earth Planet Space 63:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.