Advertisement

Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 177–191 | Cite as

Comparative study of temporal variations in the earth’s gravity field using GRACE gravity models in the regions of three recent giant earthquakes

  • V. O. Mikhailov
  • I. Panet
  • M. Hayn
  • E. P. Timoshkina
  • S. BonvalotEmail author
  • V. Lyakhovsky
  • M. Diament
  • O. de Viron
Article

Abstract

Comparative analysis of coseismic and postseismic variations of the Earth’s gravity field is carried for the regions of three giant earthquakes (Andaman-Sumatra, December 26, 2004, magnitude M w = 9.1; Maule-Chile, February 27, 2010, M w = 8.8, and Tohoku-Oki, March 11, 2011, M w = 9.0) with the use of GRACE satellite data. Within the resolution of GRACE models, the coseismic changes of gravity caused by these seismic events manifest themselves by large negative anomalies located in the rear of the subduction zone. The real data are compared with the synthetic anomalies calculated from the rupture surface models based on different kinds of ground measurements. It is shown that the difference between the gravity anomalies corresponding to different rupture surface models exceeds the uncertainties of the GRACE data. There-fore, the coseismic gravity anomalies are at least suitable for rejecting part of the models that are equivalent in the ground data. Within the first few months after the Andaman-Sumatra earthquake, a positive gravity anomaly started to grow above the deep trench. This anomaly rapidly captured the area of the back-arc basin and largely compensated the negative coseismic anomaly. The processes of viscoelastic stress relaxation do not fully allow for these rapid changes of gravity. According to the calculations, even with a sufficiently low viscosity of the upper mantle, relaxation only covers about a half of the observed change of the field. In order to explain the remaining temporal variations, we suggested the process of downdip propagation of the coseismic rupture surface. The feasibility of such a process was supported by numerical simulations. The sum of the gravity anomalies caused by this process and the anomaly generated by the processes of viscoelastic relaxation accounts well for the observed changes of the gravity field in the region of the earthquake. The similar postseismic changes of gravity were also detected for the region of the Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Just as in the case discussed above, this earthquake was also followed by a rapid growth of a positive postseismic anomaly, which partially counterbalanced the negative coseismic anomaly. The time variations of the gravity field in the region of the Maule-Chile earthquake differ from the pattern of changes observed in the island arcs described above. The postseismic gravity variations are in this case concentrated in a narrower band above the deep trench and shelf, and they do not spread over the continental territory, where the negative coseismic anomaly is located. These discrepancies reflect the difference in the geodynamical settings of the studied earthquakes.

Keywords

Gravity Field Solid Earth Rupture Surface Geoid Height Sumatra Earthquake 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ammon, C., Ji, C., Thio, H.-K., Robinson, D., Ni, S., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Kanamori, H., Lay, T., Das, S., Helmberger, D., Ichinose, G., Polet, J., and Wald, D., Rupture process of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Science, 2005, vol. 308, pp. 1133–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammon, C.J., Lay, T., Kanamori, H., and Cleveland, M. A rupture model of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake, Earth Planets Space, 2011, vol. 63, pp. 693–696. doi: 10.5047/eps.2011.05.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee, P., Pollitz, F., and Bürgmann, R., Size and duration of the great 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake from far-field static offsets, Science, 2005, vol. 308, pp. 1769–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, P., Pollitz, F., Nagarajan, B., and Burgmann, R., Coseismic slip distribution of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman and 28 March 2005 Nias earthquakes from GPS static offsets, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2007, vol. 97, no. 1A, S86–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biancale, R., Lemoine, J.M., Balmino, G., Bruinsma, S., Perosanz, F., Marty, J.C., Loyer, S., Bourgogne, S., and Gégout, P., 6 years of gravity variations from GRACE and LAGEOS data at 10-day intervals over the period from July 29th 2002 to November 13th, 2008. http://bgi.cnesfr:8110/geoid-variations/README.html (2009)Google Scholar
  6. Broerse, D.B.T., Vermeersen, L.L.A., Riva, R.E.M., and van der Wal, W., Ocean contribution to co-seismic crustal deformation and geoid anomalies: application to the 2004 December 26 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2011, vol. 305, pp. 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cambiotti, G. and Sabadini, R., Source model for the great 2011 Tohoku earthquake (M w = 9.1) from inversion of GRACE gravity data, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2012, vols. 335–336, pp. 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickey, J.O., Bentley, Ch.R., Bilham, R., Carton, J.A., Eanes, R.J., Herring, Th.A., Kaula, W.M., Lagerloef, G.S.E., Rojstaczer, S., Smithg, W.H.F., van den Dool, H.M., Wahr, J.M., and Zuber, M.T., Satellite Gravity and the Geosphere, Washington: Natl. Academy Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Gerya, T.V. and Yuen, D., Robust characteristics method for modeling multiphase visco-elasto-plastic thermomechanical problems, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 2007, vol. 163, pp. 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerya, T.V., Future directions in subduction modelling, J. Geodynam., 2011, vol. 52, pp. 344–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross, R. and Chao, B., The gravitational signature of earthquakes, in Gravity, Geoid and Geodynamics 2000. IAG symposia, New York: Springer, 2001, vol. 123, pp. 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Han, S.-C., Shum, C.K., Bevis, M., Ji, C., and Kuo, C.-Y., Crustal dilatation observed by GRACE after the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Science, 2006, vol. 313, pp. 658–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hashimoto, M., Choosakul, N., Hashizume, M., Takemoto, S., Takiguchi, H., Fukuda, Y., and Frjimori, K., Crustal deformations associated with the great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake deduced from continuous GPS observation, Earth Planets Space, 2006, vol. 58, pp. 127–139.Google Scholar
  14. Heki, K., Secular, transient, and seasonal crustal movements in Japan from a dense GPS array: Implication for plate dynamics in convergent boundaries, in: The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults, Dixon, T. and Moore, C., New York: Columbia University Press, 2007, pp. 512–539.Google Scholar
  15. Holschneider, M., Chambodut, A., and Mandea, M., From global to regional analysis of the magnetic field on the sphere using wavelet frames, Phys. Earth Plan. Int., 2003, vol. 135, pp. 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu, Y. and Wang, K., Spherical-earth finite element model of short-term postseismic deformation following the 2004 Sumatra earthquake, J. Geophys. Res., 2012, vol. 117, p. B05404. doi: 10.1029/2012JB009153Google Scholar
  17. Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C., Nettles, M., Ward, S., Aster, R., Beck, S., Bilek, S., Brudzinski, M., Butler, R., DeShon, H., Ekström, G., Satake, K., and Sipkin, S., The great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004, Science, 2005, vol. 308, pp. 1127–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lay, T., Ammon, C.J., Kanamori, H., Xue, L., and Kim, M., Possible large near-trench slip during the 2011 M w 9.0 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake, Earth Planets Space, 2011, vol. 63, pp. 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Linage, C., Rivera, L., Hinderer, J., Boy, J.-P., Rogister, Y., Lambotte, S., and Biancale, R., Separation of coseismic and postseismic gravity changes for the 2004 Ssumatra-Andaman earthquake from 4.6 yr of GRACE observations and modeling of the coseismic change by normal-modes summation, Geophys. J. Int., 2009, vol. 176, no. 3, pp. 695–714. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.04025.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorito, S., Romano, F., Atzori, S., Tong, X., Avallone, A., McCloskey, J., Cocco, M., Boschi, E., and Piatanesi, A., Limited overlap between the seismic gap and coseismic slip of the great 2010 Chile earthquake, Nature Geosci., 2011, vol. 4, pp. 173–177. doi: 10.1038/NGEO1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyakhovsky, V., Hamiel, Y., and Ben-Zion, Y., A non-local visco-elastic damage model and dynamic fracturing, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 2011, vol. 59, pp. 1752–1776. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2011.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Masterlark, T., DeMets, C., Wang, H., Sanchez, O., and Stock, J., Homogeneous versus heterogeneous subduction zone models: Coseismic and post-seismic deformation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2001, vol. 28, pp. 4047–4050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matsuo, K. and Heki, K., Coseismic gravity changes of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake from satellite gravimetry, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2011, vol. 38, L00G12. doi: 10.1029/2011GL049018Google Scholar
  24. Mikhailov, V., Tikhotsky, S., Diament, M., Panet, I., and Ballu, V., Can tectonic processes be recovered from new gravity satellite data?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2004, vol. 228, nos. 3–4, pp. 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mikhailov, V.O., Tikhotskii, S.A., Diament, M., and Panet, I., Gravity variations of geodynamic origin: recognition and study on the basis of modern satellite gravity data, Izv., Phys. Solid Earth, 2005, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 193–205.Google Scholar
  26. Mikhailov, V., Lyakhovsky, V., Panet, I., van Dinther, Y., Diament, M., Gerya, T., and Timoshkina, E., Numerical modeling of post-seismic rupture propagation after the Sumatra 26.12. 2004 earthquake constrained by GRACE gravity data, Geophys. J. Int., vol. 194, no 2, pp. 640–650. 2013. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ogawa, R. and Heki, K., Slow post-seismic recovery of geoid depression formed by the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake by mantle water diffusion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2007, vol. 34, p. L06313. doi: 10.1029/2007GL029340Google Scholar
  28. Ozawa, S., Nishimura, T., Suito, H., Kobayashi, T., Tobita, M., and Imakiire, T., Coseismic and postseismic slip of the 2011 magnitude-9 Tohoku-Oki earthquake, Nature, 2011, vol. 475, pp. 373–376. doi: 10.1038/nature10227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Panet, I., Mikhailov, V., Diament, M., Pollitz, F., King, G., de Viron, O., Holschneider, M., Biancale, R., and Lemoine, J.-M., Co-seismic and post-seismic signatures of the Sumatra December 2004 and March 2005 earthquakes in GRACE satellite gravity, Geophys. J. Int., 2007, vol. 171, pp. 177–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03525.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Panet, I., Pollitz, F., Mikhailov, V., Diament, M., Banerjee, P., and Grijalva, K., Upper mantle rheology from GRACE and GPS post-seismic deformations after the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Geochem. Geophys. Geosys., 2010, vol. 11, no 6, Q06008. doi: 10.1029/2009GC002905Google Scholar
  31. Paul, J., Rajendran, C.P., Lowry, A.R., Andrade, V., and Rajendran, K., Andaman postseismic deformation observations: still slipping after all these years?, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2012, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 343–351. doi: 10.1785/0120110074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollitz, F., Co-seismic deformation from earthquake faulting on a layered spherical Earth, Geophys. J. Int., 1996, vol. 125, pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollitz, F.F., Bürgmann, R., and Banerjee, P., Postseismic relaxation following the great 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake on a compressible self-gravitating Earth, Geophys. J. Int., 2006, vol. 167, pp. 397–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03018.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollitz, F., Bürgmann, R., and Banerjee, P., Geodetic slip model of the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2011, vol. 38, L00G08. doi: 10.1029/2011GL048632Google Scholar
  35. Savage, J.C. and Hastie, L.M., Surface deformation associated with dip-slip faulting, J. Geophys. Res., 1966, vol. 71, pp. 4897–4904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shao, G., Li, X., Ji, C., and Maeda, T., Focal mechanism and slip history of 2011 M w 9.1 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake, constrained with teleseismic body and surface waves, Earth Planets Space, 2011, vol. 63, pp. 559–564. doi: 10.5047/eps.2011.06.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simons, M., Minson, S.E., Sladen, A., Ortega, F., Jiang, J., Owen, S.E., Meng, L., Ampuero, J.-P., Wei, Sh., Chu, R., Helmberger, D.V., Kanamori, H., Hetland, E., Moore, A.W., and Webb, F.H., The 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: Mosaicking the megathrust from seconds to centuries, Science, 2011, vol. 332, no. 6036, pp. 1421–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.1206731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sun, W. and Okubo, S., 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., 2004, vol. 109, p. B04405.Google Scholar
  39. Vigny, C., Simons, W., Abu, S., Bamphenyu, R., Satirapod, C., Choosakul, N., Subarya, C., Socquet, A., Omar, K., Abidin, H., and Ambrosius, B., Insights into the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake from GPS measurements in Southeast Asia, Nature, 2005, vol. 436, pp. 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. de Viron, O., Panet, I., Mikhailov, V., Van Camp, M., and Diament, M., Retrieving earthquake signature in GRACE data, Geophys. J. Int., 2008. vol. 174, pp. 14–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03807.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wahr, J., Molenaar, M., and Bryan, F., Time variability of the Earth’s gravity field: Hydrological and oceanic effects and their possible detection using GRACE, J. Geophys. Res., 1998, vol. 103, pp. 30205–30229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang, L., Shum, C.K., Simons, F.J., Tassara, A., Erkan, K., Jekeli, C., Braun, A., Kuo, C., Lee, H., and Yuan, D.-N., Coseismic slip of the 2010 Mw8.8 Great Maule Chile earthquake quantified by the inversion of GRACE observations, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2012, vol. 335–336, pp. 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, L., Shum, C.K., Simons, F.J., Tapley, B., and Dai, Ch., Coseismic and postseismic deformation of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake constrained by GRACE gravimetry, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2012, vol. 39, L07301. doi: 10.1029/2012GL051104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. O. Mikhailov
    • 1
    • 2
  • I. Panet
    • 3
  • M. Hayn
    • 2
  • E. P. Timoshkina
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Bonvalot
    • 4
    Email author
  • V. Lyakhovsky
    • 5
  • M. Diament
    • 2
  • O. de Viron
    • 2
  1. 1.Schmidt Institute of Physics of the EarthRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut de Physique du Globe de ParisUniversité Paris DiderotParisFrance
  3. 3.Institut National de l’Information Geographique et Forestiere, Laboratoire LAREGUniversite Paris DiderotParis Cedex 13France
  4. 4.Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)Bureau Gravimétrique International (BGI)-GET (UMR5563 CNRS/IRD/UT3)ToulouseFrance
  5. 5.Geological Survey of IsraelJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations