4.7 Article

What Can We Do to Forecast Tsunami Hazards in the Near Field Given Large Epistemic Uncertainty in Rapid Seismic Source Inversions?

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 4944-4955

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2018GL076998

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CONICYT Fondap program [CONICYT/FONDAP/1511017]
  2. CONICYT [FONDEF IT15I10001, PIA/Basal FB0821]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The variability in obtaining estimates of tsunami inundation and runup on a near-real-time tsunami hazard assessment setting is evaluated. To this end, 19 different source models of the Maule Earthquake were considered as if they represented the best available knowledge an early tsunami warning system could consider. Results show that large variability can be observed in both coseismic deformation and tsunami variables such as inundated area and maximum runup. This suggests that using single source model solutions might not be appropriate unless categorical thresholds are used. Nevertheless, the tsunami forecast obtained from aggregating all source models is in good agreement with observed quantities, suggesting that the development of seismic source inversion techniques in a Bayesian framework or generating stochastic finite fault models from a reference inversion solution could be a viable way of dealing with epistemic uncertainties in the framework of nearly-real-time tsunami hazard mapping. Plain Language Summary Owing to recent advancements in rapid seismic source characterization and tsunami simulation, nearly-real-time tsunami hazard forecasts in the framework of tsunami early warning systems are starting to be within reach. However, in this study we bring a note of caution regarding its future operational implementation since the level of uncertainty associated to a single rupture inversion is high and thus calls for the use of multiple realizations of seismic inversions to forecast inundation maps and assess their uncertainty bounds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available