Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 615–632 | Cite as

The rotational and gravitational signature of the December 26, 2004 Sumatran earthquake

Original paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Besides generating seismic waves, which eventually dissipate, an earthquake also generates a static displacement field everywhere within the Earth. This global displacement field rearranges the Earth’s mass thereby causing the Earth’s rotation and gravitational field to change. The size of this change depends upon the magnitude, focal mechanism, and location of the earthquake. The Sumatran earthquake of December 26, 2004 is the largest earthquake to have occurred since the 1960 Chilean earthquake. Using a spherical, layered Earth model, the coseismic effect of the Sumatran earthquake upon the Earth’s length-of-day, polar motion, and low-degree harmonic coefficients of the gravitational field are computed. Using a model of the earthquake source that is composed of five subevents having a total moment-magnitude M w of 9.3, it is found that this earthquake should have caused the length-of-day to decrease by 6.8 microseconds, the position of the Earth’s generalized figure axis to shift 2.32 milliarcseconds towards 127° E longitude, the Earth’s oblateness J 2 to decrease by 2.37 × 10−11 and the Earth’s pear-shapedness J 3 to decrease by 0.63 × 10−11. The predicted change in the length-of-day, position of the generalized figure axis, and J 3 are probably not detectable by current measurement systems. But the predicted change in oblateness is perhaps detectable if other effects, such as those of the atmosphere, oceans, and continental water storage, can be adequately removed from the observations.

Keywords

Earth rotation Polar motion Length-of-day Gravitational field Earthquake 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work of RSG described in this paper was performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Support for this work was provided by the Solid Earth and Natural Hazards program of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.

References

  1. Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Chao BF, Gross RS (1987) Changes in the Earth’s rotation and low-degree gravitational field induced by earthquakes. Geophys J R Astr Soc 91:569–596Google Scholar
  3. Chao BF, Gross RS (2000) Coseismic excitation of the Earth’s polar motion. In: Dick S, McCarthy D, Luzum B (eds) Polar motion: historical and scientific problems, IAU Colloq. 178, Astron Soc Pacific Conf Series, vol. 208, San Francisco, pp 355–367Google Scholar
  4. Chao BF, Gross RS (2005) Did the 26 December 2004 Sumatra, Indonesia, earthquake disrupt the Earth’s rotation as the mass media have said? EOS Trans AGU 86(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chao BF, Gross RS, Han Y-B (1996) Seismic excitation of polar motion, 1977–1993. Pure Appl Geophys 146:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahlen FA (1971) The excitation of the Chandler wobble by earthquakes. Geophys J R Astr Soc 25:157–206Google Scholar
  7. Dahlen FA (1973) A correction to the excitation of the Chandler wobble by earthquakes. Geophys J R Astr Soc 32:203–217Google Scholar
  8. Dahlen FA, Tromp J (1998) Theoretical global seismology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dragoni M, Yuen DA, Boschi E (1983) Global postseismic deformation in a stratified viscoelastic Earth: effects on Chandler Wobble excitation. J Geophys Res 88:2240–2250Google Scholar
  10. Dziewonski AM, Anderson DL (1981) Preliminary reference Earth model. Phys Earth Planet Inter 25:297–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dziewonski AM, Ekström G, Franzen JE, Woodhouse JH (1987) Global seismicity of 1977: centroid-moment tensor solutions for 471 earthquakes. Phys Earth Planet Inter 45:11–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dziewonski AM, Ekström G, Woodhouse JH, Zwart G (1990) Centroid-moment tensor solutions for April–June 1989. Phys Earth Planet Inter 60:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eubanks TM (1993) Variations in the orientation of the Earth. In: Smith DE, Turcotte DL (eds) Contributions of space geodesy to geodynamics: Earth dynamics, American Geophysical Union Geodynamics Series vol. 24, Washington, DC, pp 1–54Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert F (1970) Excitation of the normal modes of the Earth by earthquake sources. Geophys J R Astr Soc 22:223–226Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert F, Dziewonski AM (1975) An application of normal mode theory to the retrieval of structural parameters and source mechanisms from seismic spectra. Phil Trans R Soc London A278:187–269Google Scholar
  16. Gross RS (1986) The influence of earthquakes on the Chandler wobble during 1977–1983. Geophys J R Astr Soc 85:161–177Google Scholar
  17. Gross RS Earth rotation variations—long period. In: Herring TA (ed) Treatise on geophysics, vol. 11: Physical geodesy, Elsevier, Amsterdam (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Gross RS, Chao BF (1990) The global geodynamic effect of the Macquarie Ridge earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 17:1009–1012Google Scholar
  19. Gross RS, Chao BF (2001) The gravitational signature of earthquakes. In: Sideris MG (ed) Gravity, geoid, and geodynamics 2000. IAG Symposia vol. 123, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 205–210Google Scholar
  20. Gross RS, Eubanks TM, Steppe JA, Freedman AP, Dickey JO, Runge TF (1998) A Kalman filter-based approach to combining independent Earth orientation series. J Geodesy 72:215–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heiskanen WA, Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanamori H (1970) The Alaska earthquake of 1964: radiation of long-period surface waves and source mechanism. J Geophys Res 75:5029–5040Google Scholar
  23. Kantha LH, Stewart JS, Desai SD (1998) Long-period lunar fortnightly and monthly ocean tides. J Geophys Res 103:12639–12647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaula WM (1966) Theory of satellite geodesy. Blaisdell, Waltham, MassGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambeck K (1980) The Earth’s variable rotation: geophysical causes and consequences. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Lapwood ER, Usami T (1981) Free oscillations of the Earth. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Masters G, Richards-Dinger K (1998) On the efficient calculation of ordinary and generalized spherical harmonics. Geophys J Int 135:307–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Munk WH, MacDonald GJF (1960) The rotation of the Earth: a geophysical discussion. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Press F (1965) Displacements, strains, and tilts at teleseismic distances. J Geophys Res 70:2395–2412Google Scholar
  30. Sabadini R, Yuen DA, Boschi E (1984) The effects of postseismic motions on the moment of inertia of a stratified viscoelastic earth with an asthenosphere. Geophys J R Astr Soc 79:727–745Google Scholar
  31. Salstein DA, Kann DM, Miller AJ, Rosen RD (1993) The Sub-Bureau for Atmospheric Angular Momentum of the International Earth Rotation Service: a meteorological data center with geodetic applications. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 74:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soldati G, Spada G (1999) Large earthquakes and Earth rotation: the role of mantle relaxation. Geophys Res Lett 26:911–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Soldati G, Piersanti A, Boschi E (1998) Global postseismic gravity changes of a viscoelastic Earth. J Geophys Res 103:29867–29885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Souriau A, Cazenave A (1985) Re-evaluation of the seismic excitation of the Chandler wobble from recent data. Earth Planet Sci Lett 75:410–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stammer D, Wunsch C, Fukumori I, Marshall J (2002) State estimation improves prospects for ocean research. EOS Trans AGU 83(27):289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stein S, Okal EA (2005) Speed and size of the Sumatra earthquake. Nature 434:581–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sun W, Okubo S (2004a) Coseismic deformations detectable by satellite gravity missions: a case study of Alaska (1964, 2002) and Hokkaido (2003) earthquakes in the spectral domain. J Geophys Res 109:B04405, doi:10.1029/2003JB002554Google Scholar
  38. Sun W, Okubo S (2004b) Truncated co-seismic geoid and gravity changes in the domain of spherical harmonic degree. Earth Planets Space 56:881–892Google Scholar
  39. Tsai VC, Nettles M, Ekström G, Dziewonski AM (2005) Multiple CMT source analysis of the 2004 Sumatra earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 32:L17304, doi:10.1029/2005GL023813Google Scholar
  40. Wahr JM (1982) The effects of the atmosphere and oceans on the Earth’s wobble-I Theory. Geophys J Roy Astr Soc 70:349–372Google Scholar
  41. Wang H (1999) Surface vertical displacements, potential perturbations, and gravity changes of a viscoelastc earth model induced by internal point dislocations. Geophys J Int 137:429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson CR, Vicente RO (1990) Maximum likelihood estimates of polar motion parameters. In: McCarthy DD, Carter WE (eds) Variations in earth rotation, American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series vol. 59, Washington, DC, pp 151–155Google Scholar
  43. Yoder CF, Williams JG, Parke ME (1981) Tidal variations of Earth rotation. J Geophys Res 86:881–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA
  2. 2.College of Earth SciencesNational Central UniversityChung-liROC

Personalised recommendations