Dynamic rupture inversion on the M5.9 pre-event before the 2024 Mw7.6 Noto-Peninsula, Japan, earthquake

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4517598/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Dynamic rupture inversion on the M5.9 pre-event before the 2024 Mw7.6 Noto-Peninsula, Japan, earthquake

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4517598/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Active seismicity which began since late 2020 under the Noto Peninsula, Japan, led to the Mw7.6 earthquake on the 1st January 2024. This paper analyzes the M_JMA 5.9 pre-event that occurred 13 seconds before the Mw7.6 mainshock. Near-field ground motion records clearly distinguish this pre-event from the ground shaking of the mainshock. We then use six near-field ground motions over a 10-second period to obtain first the focal mechanism and then dynamic rupture models by fixing the hypocenter location. We obtain a steep dip angle of 67°, whereas the dip of the M7.6 mainshock is 33° after Japan Metrological Agency catalog. We propose a simplified inversion process that dynamic rupture models are built by varying the location of the target circular patch, the stress level and the fault dipping directions. The preferred model has an up-dip rupture directivity (rake direction) on the south-east dipping fault, i.e. propagating away from the hypocenter of the M7.6 mainshock, and the two events are not aligned on the same planar fault. Uplift of about 20 cm and more is expected on the north coast of the Noto Peninsula in the case of the stress drop of 6 MPa or less. We also analyze another M5.5 pre-event 4 minutes earlier, with a slightly deeper focal depth and a gentle dip angle of 36°. This earthquake has also a rupture directivity in the up-dip direction. This infers that there should have been a preparation process of the Mw7.6 mainshock behind these pre-events and multiple fault segmentations around the hypocenter zone might have played a role.

2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake

pre-events

dynamic rupture process

near-field ground motions

The initiation process of earthquakes is the subject of long debate, whether it involves nucleation or a cascade rupture (e.g. Ellsworth and Beroza, 1995). Some earthquakes reveal foreshock activities, indicating the acceleration of such an initiation process prior to large earthquakes (Bouchon et al., 2011; Kato et al., 2012; Ruiz et al., 2014; Ellsworth and Bulut, 2018). On the other hand, some earthquakes involved a pre-event, which can be identified in the near-field ground motions, but this may have not been part of the initiation process of the subsequent mainshock. For example, the 2015 Mw8.3 Illapel earthquake (Ruiz et al., 2016; Aochi and Ruiz, 2021) may have a pre-event of Mw 6.8–6.9 about 20 second before the mainshock. According to kinematic and dynamic rupture models, this pre-event could not have directly triggered the ruptured area of the mainshock, whose nucleation would have had to be prepared differently elsewhere. In the case where the earthquake rupture process is governed by the fracture energy scaling over the size, the probability of dynamic triggering depends not only on the static stress condition but also on the rupture velocity of the pre-event (Uemura et al., 2023).

The January 1st 2024 Mw7.6 Noto Peninsula earthquake occurred after continuous seismicity since late 2020, as previously studied by many groups including Amezawa et al. (2023), Yoshida et al. (2023), Nishimura et al., (2023) and Kato (2023). The coseismic process of the Mw7.6 mainshock has been extensively studied and reported together two weeks after the mainshock by the Headquaters for Earthquake Research Promotion under the Prime Minister’s Office in Japan (https://www.jishin.go.jp). All the ruptured fault segments of Mw7.6 earthquake correspond to the fault structure known for a 150 km-length from geophysical survey (e.g. Okamoto, 2019; Okamoto et al., 2024). In detail, Asano and Iwata (2024) suggest that the rupture process have two stages, namely the first rupture propagating south-west and the second north-east, and that their segments may be different. Indeed, the Japan Meteorological Agency publishes the homogeneous catalog of seismicity in Japan, and distinguishes two earthquakes with a delay of 13 seconds.

Date Time (JST) Latitude Longitude Depth Magnitude
2024/01/01 16:10:09.5 37°30.4’N 137°13.8’E 10 km M5.9
2024/01/01 16:10:22.5 37°29.7’N 137°16.2’E 16 km M7.6

Two earthquakes are close enough as shown in Fig. 1. Hereafter, we refer to them as M5.9 pre-event and M7.6 mainshock. The seismic wave radiation from the M5.9 pre-event is clearly distinguishable from the mainshock ground shaking only at the three nearest stations, ISKH01, ISK001 and ISK002, located a few kilometers from the epicenter area. The aim of this study is to analyze the M5.9 pre-event to determine whether this is a nucleation process (foreshock) of the M7.6 mainshock. We perform a dynamic rupture inversion using the near-field ground motions to determine the ruptured area and rupture directivity.

The dynamic rupture inversion process has been applied to various earthquakes (e.g. Peyrat et al., 2010; Di Carli et al, 2010; Ruiz and Madariaga, 2011; Twardzik et al., 2014). Although the spatial resolution is limited compared to kinematic inversions, it is possible reveal the causality of rupture propagation from a starting point. Aochi and Twardzik (2021) analyzed the 2016 Amatrice, Italy, earthquake using a few near-field ground motion data, and were able to identify seismogenic asperities (patches responsible for seismic wave radiation) in a manner consistent with known kinematic models and the scaling relation between fracture energy and patch size (e.g. Ide and Aochi, 2005). This process is applicable at the beginning of seismic signals, even if the entire rupture process is not yet complete. In this study, we adopt this previous approach to identify rapidly the causal asperity of the M5.9 pre-event without analyzing the M7.6 mainshock.

We focus on the M5.9 pre-event preceding the M7.6 mainshock. The focal mechanism of this pre-event has not been systematically obtained in the catalogs, so we first perform the focal mechanism inversion for a given hypocenter position (Aochi and Burnol, 2016). We invert only five parameters: fault strike, dip, rake, time shift (${t}_{0}$) and moment magnitude (${M}_{w}$) through a genetic algorithm. As shown in Fig. 1, the waveform corresponding to the M5.9 pre-event is distinct from the M7.6 mainshock in the nearfield so we use only a fixed time window of 10 seconds to minimize the residual between synthetics and observations at the six selected stations. Synthetics are calculated using a finite difference method (Aochi and Madariaga, 2003) in a 1D structure model, used in this region by Nishimura et al. (2023). We filter both synthetics and observations between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz.

We test seven epicenter positions and different focal depths (Fig. 2). Positions #2 and #4 correspond to the epicenters of the M7.6 mainshock and M5.9 pre-event in the JMA catalog. The result of focal mechanism inversion is summarized in Fig. 3. We do not see clearly the residual minimum (See another example in Discussion), mainly because the data available for this analysis are limited and may be contaminated by the subsequent rupture process. Nevertheless, we observe the trend of the solution. Position #2 (M7.6 mainshock epicenter) shows poor convergence. For the other positions, a shallow focal depth enables better convergence. This suggests that the rupture process may have happened near station ISK001, as the ground shaking is the biggest before the 7.6 mainshock. However, as the ground shaking is significant (20 cm/s after the bandpass filter between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz), it is questionable whether this station suffers from a non-linear site effect. For further analysis of dynamic rupture inversion, we select two solutions at positions #4 (focal depth 12 km) and #7 (focal depth 6 km), which are the local minima in each analysis. The focal mechanisms obtained are very similar: (strike, dip, rake) = (N69°E, 65°, 104°) for position #4, and (N79°E, 67°, 121°) for #7, respectively. Position #7 corresponds to the position of the maximum slip in the following dynamic rupture inversion. We observe that the estimated magnitude also has a trend a function of focal depth. To set up the dynamic rupture inversion, we target a moment magnitude Mw6.0, corresponding to the that at the focal depth of 10 km.

The aim of dynamic rupture inversion is to gain a better understanding the causality of the rupture process not only in spatio-temporal evolution but also in stress condition. Let us suppose that the rupture process is governed by linear slip-weakening friction (Fig. 4). The fault strength is defined as a function of on-going slip ${\Delta }u$ as follows,

$$\tau \left({\Delta }u\right)={\tau }_{r}+{\Delta }{\tau }_{b}H\left(1-\frac{{\Delta }u}{{D}_{c}}\right)$$

where the breakdown strength drop ${\Delta }{\tau }_{b}$ is the difference between the peak strength ${\tau }_{p}$ and the residual strength ${\tau }_{r}$, namely ${\Delta }{\tau }_{b}\equiv {\tau }_{p}-{\tau }_{r}$, and $H(\bullet )$ is the Heaviside function. We consider a planar fault in an infinite homogeneous medium, so that normal stress play no explicit role and ${\tau }_{r}=0$ can be assumed without loss of generality. The parameter ${D}_{c}$ is called the critical slip displacement, characterizing the slip-weakening friction, and generally considered to be scale-dependent (Ohnaka, 2003; Aochi & Ide, 2004). The initial shear stress ${\tau }_{0}$ is set such that ${\tau }_{0}<{\tau }_{p}$. The rupture stability is often examined using non-dimensional parameters such as the S-value (Das & Aki, 1977) or $\kappa$ (Madariaga & Olsen, 2000):

$$S=\frac{{\tau }_{p}-{\tau }_{0}}{{\tau }_{0}-{\tau }_{r}} \text{a}\text{n}\text{d} \kappa =\frac{{\left({\tau }_{0}-{\tau }_{r}\right)}^{2}}{G\bullet \left({\tau }_{p}-{\tau }_{r}\right)}\frac{L}{{D}_{c}}$$

where $G$ is the rigidity of the medium and $L$ is a characteristic length of the rupture process on a causal fault.

We prepare a small nucleation patch and a larger target patch to describe fault heterogeneity, similar to previous works (Aochi & Twardzik, 2020; Aochi & Ruiz, 2021). They are circular with radii $R={r}_{0}$ and $R={r}_{1}$ respectively for simplicity. We seek to determine the relative position and frictional parameters of the target patch (Fig. 4), on which uniform frictional parameters (${D}_{c}, {\tau }_{p},{\tau }_{r}$) are assumed. On the other hand, for the nucleation patch, we assume that its size is equal to half of the target, ${r}_{1}=2 {r}_{0}$ and that ${D}_{c}$ is proportional to the distance from the center (Aochi & Ide, 2004; Uemura et al., 2023). Consequently, the value of ${D}_{c}$ on the target patch is twice that at the edge of the nucleation patch. Outside of the patches, no weakening, ${\tau }_{p}={\tau }_{r}$, is supposed to gradually halt the rupture propagation. We then limit the number of simulations by discretizing key parameters in advance. We test three pairs of (${\tau }_{p},{\tau }_{r}$) and nine relative locations of the target patch with respect to the given nucleation patch, while following the ${D}_{c}$-scaling adopted in Ide & Aochi (2005) and Aochi & Twardzik (2020). Numerical simulations of the dynamic rupture process are carried out using boundary integral equation method (Aochi et al., 2000) and renormalization technique (Aochi & Ide, 2004). The simulation starts with a grid size of ${\Delta }s$=32 m for a fault size of 2048 m $\times$ 2048 m, and when the rupture reaches at the edge of the model dimension, it is normalized to a larger scale by a factor of 4, i.e. to ${\Delta }s$=128 m and again to ${\Delta }s$=512 m. The radius of the target patch ${r}_{1}$ is adjusted to obtain the magnitude expected to Mw6, i.e. ${r}_{1}$ = 4.92 km, 3.93 km and 2.95 km for the high, medium and low stress cases, respectively. Synthetic seismograms are calculated on the basis of dynamic rupture source models using a finite difference method (Aochi & Madariaga, 2003) supposing a regional 1D structure (Nishimura et al., 2023).

Figure 5 shows the comparison of the simulated slip area for the nine different target patch positions in the case of (${\tau }_{p},{\tau }_{r}$) = (10 MPa, 6 MPa). The magnitude ranges from Mw 5.98 (case 00020) to Mw6.04 (case 00022, 00024, 00026 and 00028). Seismograms from the six stations are compared in Fig. 6. As in the focal mechanism inversion, we use only the beginning of the waveforms for 10 seconds in the frequency range between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz. Here we test two possible fault planes (southeast or northwest dipping), three stress levels and nine target patch locations. We run the procedure twice, i.e., using the two different locations (#4 and #5 in Fig. 2) and two slightly different focal mechanisms. The focal mechanism of the second run is the one obtained at position #7, where the maximum slip is obtained in the model 00021 of the first run. The trend in solution convergence is very similar. In general, convergence is better when the stress level is high, namely the ruptured area is smaller, and when the rupture directivity is the same as the rake direction (numbered as model 11, 21, 31). Overall, models 00021 and 00031 of the southeast dipping fault are the two best, indicating a relatively higher stress drop and a localized ruptured area.

Figure 6 compares the vertical displacement at station ISK001 at which a temporal GPS station has been installed nearby showing uplift of about a few tenths’ centimeters before the arrival of the mainshock deformation (Nishimura, 2024). It is briefly confirmed by the double integration of the acceleration data. However, the acceleration data may be subject to drift and do not show the final stable displacement after the arrival of the strong ground shaking from the M7.6 mainshock. For this reason, static displacement is not used in the previous inversion. However, from a qualitative point of view, the high-stress model does not retain sufficient final displacement, because the ruptured area is small, namely far from station ISK001. Only the two models of low and medium stress values with the appropriate directivity can leave the final displacement of 20 cm, which is consistent with the insight from GPS measurements.

The dip angle of the mainshock is obtained as 37° from JMA (e.g. Aoki et al., 2024). The aftershock distribution globally shows a gentile dip angle of about 20–45° (e.g. Aoki et al., 2024; Matsubara and Sato, 2024; Kato, 2024). In published finite-source models of the M7.6 mainshock, relatively small dip angles are adopted, for example, 37° in Aoki et al. (2024), 40°-54° in Nishimiya (2024), 35°-42° in Kurahashi et al. (2024). This reflects the spatial distribution of the aftershocks over the entire area. Guo et al. (2024) consider a dip variation up to 60° in the shallow part to be consistent with the known position of the active faults. To account for significant amount of uplift on the Noto Peninsula, the dip angle should be steeper, e.g. 50°-60° (Fujii and Satake, 2024), 50° (Kubo et al., 2024), 40°-55° (Takamatsu et al., 2024). Yamada et al. (2024) propose a dip-variation model from 25° at depth to 60° at shallow depth. The dip variation from depth to the surface can be geologically consistent with the known database (e.g. https://www.jamstec.go.jp/offshorefault/fault_model.html) and has been inferred within the schematic cross-section interpretations (e.g. Nishimura et al., 2023; Kato et al., 2023). Here, we test the sensibility of the dynamic rupture inversion by setting the fault parameters (strike, dip, rake) = (N56°E, 33°, 125°). Figure 8 shows the results of dynamic rupture inversion. Overall, the convergence is worse than that of the previous solution with a dip of 67°. The ruptured area of a better solution extends far to the northwest under the sea. However, the final vertical displacement at ISK001 does not reach 10 cm, much smaller than the expected value (Fig. 7). This test therefore supports a high dip angle of this pre-event.

In the JMA catalog, another large event is reported before the M7.6 mainshock.

Date Time (JST) Latitude Longitude Depth Magnitude
2024/01/01 16:06:06.1 37°30.6’N 137°14.7’E 12 km M5.5

The epicenter location is sufficiently close to the M5.9 pre-event, and we aim to analyze it in terms of focal mechanism and dynamic rupture inversion. We then use the same six stations and apply the same procedure. Figure 9 shows the focal mechanism result. We adopt a bandpass filter between 0.1 and 0.3 Hz and a duration of 15 seconds. The better solution is obtained for the focal depth set at 8 km, and the focal mechanism obtained is (strike, dip, rake) = (N81°E, 36°, 110°) and Mw = 5.3. This solution is similar to the one obtained by F-NET (N58°E, 44°, 90°) and Mw = 5.3, although they do not use the near-field stations. An uncertainty of about 20° remains, but the dip angle is clearly small compared with the previous analysis. Next, we perform dynamic rupture inversion. Figure 10 summarizes the solution obtained together with the M5.9 pre-event. In terms of residual, there is no significant preference of the fault plane direction, however, it is known that southeast-dipping faults are dominant in the area from the seismological analyses. The preferred stress level of the M5.5 pre-event is higher than the other, probably because the focal depth is deeper. The ruptured areas of the two pre-events are superposed on the map, however they have different focal depths and fault dips. The two fault planes therefore dot not intersect. Both rupture processes show a preference of rupture extension to the northwest, i.e. from deep to shallow. This also means that the pre-events do not contain the hypocenter area of the M7.6 mainshock and are getting away from it. This suggests that stress is concentrated at depth and that various fault systems have attempted to release the energy toward the surface. On the other hand, there should have been another nucleation process for the M7.6 mainshock, different from these pre-events. Finally, from a mechanical point of view, it is reasonable to distinguish the M5.9 pre-event from the M7.6 mainshock on the seismicity catalog.

The dynamic rupture model in this study remains the first approximation of the rupture process to determine the characteristic behavior of the process, such as the ruptured area and rupture directivity, from the relatively-low frequency range (0.05 and 0.5 Hz) of the near-field ground motion data. The rupture process could have been more complex in detail. When we look at the unfiltered observation at ISK001 in Fig. 7, we observe the first peak at about 5.5 seconds, and the second one at 8.5 seconds, whereas all the synthetics have one peak, corresponding to one target patch in the model set up. It remains possible that the rupture process of M5.9 pre-event continues, triggering another nearby zone in cascade. ISK001 is the closet station from which to discuss the detail process from the pre-event to the mainshock rupture, however, care must be taken. Asano and Iwata (2024) do not include ISK001 in their finite-source inversion, taking into account two different segments and a 13-second delay between the M5.9 pre-event and M7.6 mainshock. In their analysis, it appears that the ruptured area continues to expand south-westwards for 40 seconds from the onset of the M5.9 pre-event, while the M7.6 mainshock concerns the rupture propagation north-eastwards on a different fault structure. Our results are consistent with their interpretation in the sense that M5.9 pre-event and M7.6 mainshock should have separately driven different faults. This suggests the important role of multiple segments in the earthquake initiation process.

In this paper, we analyzed two moderate pre-events (M5.5 an M5.9), which respectively occurred four minutes and 13 seconds before the M7.6 Noto Peninsula, Japan, earthquake on the 1st January 2024. The seismic waves of M5.9 pre-event are distinguishable from the ground shaking of the M7.6 mainshock at the nearest stations. We used six near-field ground motions over a 10-second period to obtain first the focal mechanism and then dynamic rupture models by fixing the hypocenter location. Dynamic rupture models are built by varying the location of a target circular patch relative to the nucleation patch. This simple description makes it possible to explore the rupture characteristics rapidly with observations. For a given focal mechanism, we performed 54 dynamic rupture models (nine positions, three stress levels and two fault orientations) every time. We have obtained that the M5.5 pre-event has a dip of 36° at a focal depth of 12 km (Mw5.3) and the M5.9 has 67°-dip at 10 km depth (approximatively Mw6.0). Both pre-events have a preferential rupture directivity to the up-dip (rake) direction on a southeast-dipping fault, i.e. propagating away from the hypocenter of the M7.6 mainshock. The M5.9 pre-event is not aligned on the same planar fault as the M7.6 mainshock. This infers that M5.9 pre-event is not part of the nucleation process of M7.6 mainshock and there should have been another intrinsic preparation process behind these pre-events. Multiple fault segmentations around the hypocenter zone might have played a role.

JMA: Japan Metrological Agency, Japan.

NIED: National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, Japan.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The ground motion data (K-net and Kik-net) and focal mechanism (F-net) are available from National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (https://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/kyoshin/ and https://www.hinet.go.jp/topics/noto240101/) . Seismicity catalog is available from Japan Meteorological Agency (https://www.data.jma.go.jp/eqev/data/daily_map/index.html). A boundary integral equation method and a finite difference code is available on line by the author (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1472238 and https://zenodo.org/records/10225172). A genetic algorithm utility library is available from http://gaul.sourceforge.net.

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Funding

All the simulations are held at the French national computing centre GENCI/Idris and GENCI/TGCC under grant A0130406700. This work is a contribution to the project ‘E-CITY’ (Near-fault observation and simulation of earthquake ground motion in an urban environment) funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche of France (ANR-21-CE22-0020).

Authors’ contributions

I have worked from the conception to the paper writing.

Acknowledgements

I thank for the data available from National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience and Japan Meteorological Agency. I also thank for the colleagues from both institutions and from the Disaster Prevention Research Institute of Kyoto University and the Earthquake Research Institute of the University of Tokyo for the fruitful discussions and information exchange.

Amezawa Y, Hiramatsu Y, Miyakawa A, Imanishi K, Otsubo M (2023) Long-living earthquake swarm and intermittent seismicity in the Northeastern tip of the Noto Peninsula, Japan. Geophys Res Lett 50: e2022GL102670. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102670.
Aochi H, Burnol A (2018) Mechanism of the ML4.0 25^th April 2016 earthquake in southwest of France in the vicinity of the Lacq gas field. J Seismol 22:1139-1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9758-5.
Aochi H, Ide S (2004) Numerical study on multi-scaling earthquake rupture. Geophys Res Lett 31: L02606. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018708.
Aochi H, Fukuyama E, Matsu’ura M (2000) Spontaneous rupture propagation on a non-planar fault in 3D elastic medium. Pure Appl Geophys 157:2003-2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00001072.
Aochi H, Madariaga R (2003) The 1999 Izmit, Turkey, earthquake: Non-planar fault structure, dynamic rupture process and strong ground motion. Bull Seism Soc Am 93:1249-1266. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020167.
Aochi H, Ruiz S (2021) Eartly stage and main ruptures of the 2015 Mw8.3 Illapel, Chile, megathrust earthquake: Kinematic elliptical inversions and dynamic rupture simulations. J Geophys Res 126:e2020JB021207. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021207.
Aochi H, Twardzik C (2021) Imaging of seismogenic asperities of the 2016 ML6.0 Amatrice, Central Italy, earthquake through dynamic rupture simulations. Pageoph 170:1931-1946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02199-z.
Aoki S, Oka T, Shimizu J, Kawai A, Moriwaki K, Kuwayama T, Yamada Y, Yurimoto, G (2024). The 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake -seismicity and earthquake/tsunami information issued by JMA-, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-P01, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Asano K, Iwata T (2024) Source rupture process of the 2024 Noto Hanto earthquake by waveform inversion of strong motion records. In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-P20, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Bouchon M, Karabulut H, Aktar M, Özalaybey S, Schmittbuhl J, Bouin MP (2011) Extended nucleation of the 1999 Mw7.6 Izmit earthquake. Science 331:877-880. Doi:10.1126/science.1197341
Di Carli S, François-Holden C, Peyrat S, Madariaga R (2010). Dynamic inversion of the 2000 Tottori earthquake based on elliptical subfault approximations. J Geophys Res 115:B12238. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006358.
Ellsworth WL, Beroza GC (1995) Seismic evidence for an earthquake nucleation phase. Science 268: 851-855. Doi:10.1126/science.268.5212.851.
Ellsworth WL, Bulut F (2018) Nucleation of the 1999 Izmit earthquake by a triggered cascade of foreshocks. Nature Geos 11:531-535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0145-1.
Fujii Y, Satake K (2024) Slip distribution of the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake (M_JMA 7.6) estimated from tsunami waveforms and GNSS data, Earth Planets and Space 76:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-024-01991-z
Fukuyama E, Madariaga R (1995) Integral equation method for planar crack with arbitrary shape in 3D elastic medium. Bull Seism Soc Am 85:614-628. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0850020614
Ide S, Aochi H (2005) Earthquakes as multiscale dynamic ruptures with heterogeneous fracture surface energy. J Geophys Res 110:B11303. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003591.
Kato A (2023) Implication of fault-valve behabior from immediate aftershocks following the 2023 Mj6.5 earthquake benearth Noto Peninsula, Central Japan. Geophys Res Lett 51:e2023GL106444. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106444.
Kato A, Nakagawa S, Kurashimo E, Sakai S (2024). The long-lasting earthquake swarm leading up to the 2024 M7.6 Noto-Hanto earthquake, Japan. In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U16-01, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Kato A, Obara K, Igarashi T, Tsusuoka H, Nakagawa S, Hirata N (2012). Propagation of slow slip leading up to the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Science 335:705-708. Doi:10.1126/science.1215141.
Kubo H, Suzuki W, Aoi S, Sekiguchi H (2024) Source process of the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake derived from strong motion data, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-P36, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Kurahashi S, Miyakoshi K, Irikura K (2024). Estimation of source rupture process of the 2024 Noto-hanto earthquake sequence focusing on rupture propagation complexity, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024:U15-P27, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Matsubara M., Sato, H (2024) Seismic velocity structure along the source fault of the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake and aftershock distribution compared with the fault model. In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-P08, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Nishimiya, T (2024) The source process inversion of the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake on various fault plane models with local seismograms, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-P23, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Nishimura T, Hiramatsu Y, Ohta Y (2024). Source models for the 2020-2024 Noto Peninsula earthquakes based on GNSS data, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U16-P02, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Nishimura T, Hiramatsu Y, Ohta Y (2023). Episodic transient deformation revealed by the analysis of multiple GNSS networks in the Noto Peninsula, central Japan. Sci Rep 13:8381. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35459-z.
Okamoto Y (2019) Distribution of active faults in Japan Sea and future issues. Zisin 71:185-199. https://doi.org/10.4294/zisin.2017-21
Okamoto Y, Inoue T, Sato T, Ogami T (2024). Relationship between offshore active faults around the Noto Peninsula and the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-02, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May, 2024.
Peyrat S, Olsen KB, Madariaga R (2001). Dynamic modeling of the 1992 Landers earthquake. J Geophys Res 106:26467–26482. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000205.
Ruiz S, Klein E, del Campo F, Rivera E, Poli P, Metois M, Vigny C, Baez JC, Vargas G, Leyton F, Madariaga R, Fleitout L (2016) The seismic sequence of the 16 September 2015 Mw8.3 Illapel, Chile, Earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 87:789–799. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150281.
Ruiz S, Madariaga R (2011) Determination of the friction law parameters of the Mw 6.7 Michilla earthquake in northern Chile by dynamic inversion. Geophys Res Lett 38:L09317. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011gl047147.
Ruiz S., Metois M, Fuenzalida A, Ruiz J, Leyon F, Grandin R, Vigny C, Madariaga R, Campos J (2014) Intense foreshocks and a slow slip event preceded the Iquique 2014 Mw 8.1 earthquake. Science 345:1165-1169. Doi:10.1126/science.1256074.
Takamatsu N, Miyazaki T, Ohno K, Murakami S, Wakasugi T, Ohta Y (2024) Rapid estimation of coseismic crustal deformation and fault model associated with the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake using REGARD, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-P63, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Twardzik C, Das S, Madariaga R (2014). Inversion of the physical parameters that control the source dynamics of the 2004 Parkfield earthquake. J Geophys Res 119:7010–7027. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jb011238.
Uemura K, Ide S, Aochi H (2023) Influence of rupture velocity on dynamic nucleation, Earth Planets Space 75:123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-023-01866-9.
Yamada T, Ohta Y, Nishimura T, Hiramatsu Y Kinoshita Y, Yoshida K (2024) Relationship between the coseismic slip distribution and its assumed fault geometry in the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake derived from very dense geodetic observation data, In: Abstract of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2024: U15-P65, Chiba, Japan, 26-31 May 2024.
Yoshida K, Uchida N, Matsumoto Y, Orimo M, Okada T, Hirahara S, Kimura S and Hino R (2023) Updip fluid fluid flow in the crust of the northeastern Noto Peninsula, Japan, triggered the 2023 Mw6.2 Suzu earthquake during swarm activity, Geophys Res Lett 50:e2023GL106023. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106023

graphicabstract1.jpg
Graphical abstract

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Minor Revision
01 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
17 Jul, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Jul, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
06 Jun, 2024
First submitted to journal
02 Jun, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Dynamic rupture inversion on the M5.9 pre-event before the 2024 Mw7.6 Noto-Peninsula, Japan, earthquake

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Data and Focal mechanism

3. Dynamic rupture inversion

4. Discussions

5. Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1