Describing earthquake fault motion is indispensable to understanding the mechanism of tsunami generation. Moreover, seismic waves, excited by the fault motion, are analyzed in order to estimate the magnitude and location of earthquakes. The information is used to perform rapid tsunami calculations and predictions. At the same time, we should note that seismic waves sometimes function as noise among tsunami signals. This chapter introduces earthquake seismology, which is closely related to tsunami phenomena, and illustrates a practical method of seismic wave simulation. Section 4.1 explains a mathematical representation of an earthquake fault as a point source in order to quantitatively describe the relation between the fault motion and seismic waves. Section 4.2 explains an empirical scaling law representing the fault size from small to large earthquakes. We also introduce the idea of earthquake stress change (stress drop) as a mechanism behind the scaling law. Section 4.3 illustrates the finite difference method as a practical method of seismic wave simulation. By using this numerical method, we investigate seismic waves, ocean acoustic waves, and the permanent displacement caused by an earthquake. The simulation results can be used in the simulation of tsunami propagation.
Shear dislocation Moment tensor Equivalent body force Scaling law Finite difference method
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Aki K, Richards P (2002) Quantitative seismology. University Science Books, Mill ValleyGoogle Scholar
Aki K (1966) Generation and propagation of G waves from the Niigata earthquake of June 16, 1964. Part 2. Estimation of earthquake moment, released energy, and stress-strain drop from the G wave spectrum. Bull Earthquake Res Inst 44:73–88Google Scholar
Burridge R, Knopoff L (1964) Body force equivalents for seismic dislocations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 54(6A):1875–1888Google Scholar
Cerjan C, Kosloff D, Kosloff R, Reshef M (1985) A nonreflecting boundary condition for discrete acoustic and elastic wave equations. Geophysics 50(4):705–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshelby JD (1957) The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. In Proceedings of the royal society of London A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences 241 1226 376-396). The Royal Society LondonGoogle Scholar
Fichtner A (2010) Full seismic waveform modelling and inversion. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Moczo P (2002) 3D heterogeneous staggered-grid finite-difference modeling of seismic motion with volume harmonic and arithmetic averaging of elastic moduli and densities. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(8):3042–3066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moczo P, Kristek J, Gális M (2014) The finite-difference modelling of earthquake motions: waves and ruptures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Okada Y (1992) Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(2):1018–1040Google Scholar