Asperity Distribution of Alaskan-Aleutian Earthquakes: Implications for Seismic and Tsunami Hazards

  • Jean M. Johnson
  • Kenji Satake
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 9)


The slip distributions of five great Alaskan-Aleutian earthquakes of the 20th century are determined by inversion of tsunami waveforms recorded on tide gauges. These earthquakes are the 1938 Alaskan, 1946 Aleutian, 1957 Aleutian, 1964 Prince William Sound, and 1965 Rat Islands earthquakes. These earthquakes have in general not been well-studied due to a lack of seismic data. The tsunami waveform inversion gives previously unknown information about the earthquake source. The results of tsunami inversion are compared to seismic inversion results where they exist and show high correlation to the seismic results. The slip distributions show highly variable slip occurred in each earthquake. The areas of highest slip, asperities, may be the locations of future high slip in great earthquakes. This information is vital because asperities control the location of strong ground motion and the run-up height of tsunamis. These results can be used to make predictions concerning future large earthquakes.


Seismic Moment Tide Gauge Great Earthquake Slip Distribution Tsunami Hazard 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abe, K., 1979. Size of great earthquakes of 1873–1974 inferred from tsunami data, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 1561–1568.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, S. L. and D.H. Christensen,, 1991. Rupture process of the February 4, 1965, Rat Islands earthquake, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 2205–2221.Google Scholar
  3. Brune, J. N. and G.R. Engen, 1969. Excitation of mantle Love waves and definition of mantle wave magnitude, Bull. Seismal. Soc. Am., 59, 923–934.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen, D. H. and S.L. Beck, 1994. The rupture process and tectonic implications of the great 1964 Prince William Sound earthquake, Pure Appl. Geophys., 142, 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, J., L. Sykes, L. House, and K. Jacob, 1981. Shumagin seismic gap, Alaska peninsula. History of great earthquakes, tectonic setting, and evidence for high seismic potential, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 3821–3855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gutenberg, B. and C.F. Richter, 1954. Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena, Hafner Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
  7. House, L. S., L.R. Sykes, J. N., Davies, and K.H. Jacob, 1981. Identification of a possible seismic gap near Unalaska Island, eastern Aleutians, Alaska, in D. W. Simpson and P. G. Richards (eds.), Earthquake Prediction–An International Review, American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C., pp. 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, J. M. and K. Satake, 1994. Rupture extent of the 1938 Alaskan earthquake as inferred from tsunami waveforms, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 733–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, J. M. and K. Satake, 1995. Source parameters of the 1957 Aleutian and 1938 Alaskan earthquakes from tsunami waveforms, in Y. Tsudniya and N. Shuto (eds.), Tsunami: Progress in Prediction, Disaster Prevention and Warning, Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp. 71–84.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, J. M., K. Satake, S.R. Holdahl, and J. Sauber, 1996. The 1964 Prince William Sound earthquake: Joint inversion of tsunami and geodetic data, J. Geophys. Res.,in press.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, J. M., Y. Tanioka, L.J. Ruff, K. Satake, H. Kanamori, and L.R. Sykes, 1994. The 1957 great Aleutian earthquake, Pure Appl. Geophys., 142, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanamori, H., 1972 Mechanism of tsunami earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 6, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanamori, H., 1977. The energy release in great earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 2981–2987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kikuchi, M. and Y. Fukao, 1987. Inversion of long-period P-waves from great earthquakes along subduction zones, Tectonophysics, 144, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lay, T. and H. Kanamori, 1981. An asperity model of large earthquake sequences, in D. W. Simpson and P. G. Richards (eds.), Earthquake Prediction–An International Review, American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C., pp. 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCann, W. R., S.P. Nishenko, L.R. Sykes, J. Krause, J., 1979. Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic potential for major boundaries, Pure Appl. Geophys., 117, 1082–1147.Google Scholar
  17. Okada, Y., 1985. Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space, Bull. Seismal. Soc. Am., 75, 1135–1154.Google Scholar
  18. Okal, E. A., 1992. Use of mantle magnitude Mm for the reassessment of the moment of historical earthquakes I: Shallow events, Pure Appl. Geophys., 139, 17–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruff, L. and H. Kanamori, 1983. The rupture process and asperity distribution of three great earthquakes from long-period diffracted P-waves, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 31, 202–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Satake, K., 1987. Inversion of tsunami waveforms for the estimation of a fault heterogeneity: Method and numerical experiments J. Phys. Earth, 35, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Satake, K., 1989. Inversion of tsunami waveforms for the estimation of heterogeneous fault motion of large submarine earthquakes: The 1968 Tokadii-oki and the 1983 Japan Sea earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 5627–5636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sykes, L, 1971. Aftershock zones of great earthquakes, seismicity gaps, and earthquake prediction for Alaska and the Aleutians, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 8021–8041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean M. Johnson
    • 1
  • Kenji Satake
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Geological SciencesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Seismotectonics SectionGeological Survey of JapanTsukuba 305Japan

Personalised recommendations