See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285936926

Characteristics of Earthquake-Generated Tsunamis in Indonesia Based on

Source Parameter Analysis

Article in Journal of Mathematical and Fundamental Sciences · July 2013

DOI: 10.5614/j.math.fund.sci.2013.45.2.8

CITATIONS READS
36 1,204

4 authors:

Sugeng Pribadi Afnimar Pagacancang

Meteorological Climatological and Geophysical Agency Bandung Institute of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 398 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nanang Puspito Gunawan Ibrahim

Bandung Institute of Technology Universitas Diponegoro
83 PUBLICATIONS 1,101 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 80 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Afnimar Pagacancang on 05 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J. Math. Fund. Sci., Vol. 45, No. 2, 2013, 189-207 189

Characteristics of Earthquake-Generated
Earthquake Tsunamis in
Indonesia
nesia Based on Source Parameter Analysis
Sugeng Pribadi1,2, Afnimar3, Nanang T. Puspito3 & Gunawan Ibrahim3
1
Tsunami Warning Information Division Indonesian
Indonesian, Meteorological Climatological and
Geophysical Agency (BMKG), Jalan
J Angkasa I No. 2, Jakarta13920, Indonesia
2
Graduate Student of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Technology, Institut
Teknologi Bandung, Jalan Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
3
Global Geophysics Research Group,
Group, Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung,
Bandung Jalan Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

Abstract. We have ave characterized

chara 27 earthquake-generated tsunamis from 1991
to 2012 in Indonesia, based on source parameter analysis. This includes the focal
mechanism derived by W phase inversion analysis, the ratio (Θ) between the
seismic energy (E) and the seismic moment (Mo), the moment magnitude (Mw),
the rupture duration (To)) and the distance of the hypocenter to the trench. Most
of the earthquakes (24 events) were tsunamigenic earthquakes with various fault
types, a shallow focal depth (12 km ≤ D ≤ 77.8 km), a small to large magnitude
(6.6 ≤ Mw ≤ 9.0), a low ratio of seismic energy to seismic moment (-5.8 < Θ < -
4.9), a short to long rupture duration (27 s ≤ To ≤ 257 s), a small to large tsunami
height (0.1 m ≤ H ≤ 50.9 m) and a short to long distance from the hypocenter to
the trench (10 km < HT ≤ 230 km). Three tsunami earthquakes were
characterized by a thrust fault mechanism, a very shallow depth (D ≤ 20 km), a
moderate magnitude (7.5 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.8), a very low ratio of seismic energy to
seismic moment (Θ ≤ -5. 5.8), a long rupture duration (99 s ≤ To ≤ 135 s), a large
tsunami height (7.4 m ≤ H ≤ 14 m) and a short distance from the hypocenter to
the trench (HT ≤ 20 km).

Keywords: characteristics;; moment; rupture; tsunamigenic earthquake; tsunami

earthquake; W phase; energy.

1 Introduction
About 90% of the tsunamis
tsunami that have occurred in the Indonesia region were
generated by earthquakes,, with a variety of focal mechanisms and hypocenter
depths [1,2]. In the sea regions
region of Sumatra, the Andaman Islands, Java, Sumba ba
and Molucca, most commonly thrust fault mechanisms occurred. Some
earthquake-generated tsunamis in the Makassar strait were caused by normal
faults. Strike-slip
slip fault mechanisms occurred in several areas
area of the Banda Sea.ea.
The Papua earthquake-generated
generated tsunamis occurred as a result of thrust faults
and strike-slip
slip faults. The December 26, 2004 Aceh earthquake wass purely
thrust fault, with a large magnitude (Mw = 9.1) and a very large extending
Received April 3rd, 2013, 1st Revision July 17th, 2013, 2nd Revision July 26th, 2013, Accepted
pted for publication
July 29th, 2013.
Copyright © 2013 Published by ITB Journal Publisher,ISSN: 2337-5760,
2337 DOI: 10.5614/j.math.fund.sci.2013.45.2..8
190 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

rupture (1300 km) [3-5]. The July 17, 2006 Java earthquake involved thrust
fault in the Java trench with a medium magnitude (Mw = 7.8) [6]. This was an
inter-plate earthquake located at a very shallow depth [6]. Latief, et al. [1] made
a catalog of tsunamis and subduction zones in Indonesia over the period of 1800
to 1999 using statistic analysis with frequency and damage criteria. However,
the characteristics of the earthquake-generated tsunamis that have occurred over
the last two decades in Indonesia have not been studied very well. Especially
the characteristics of tsunamigenic earthquakes and tsunami earthquakes are
still not well understood.

Satake and Tanioka [7] classify earthquakes that generate tsunamis anywhere in
the world into: inter-plate earthquakes, intra-plate earthquakes and tsunami
earthquakes, based on the hypocenter position in the subduction zone relative to
the trench. A common earthquake that generates a tsunami is called a
tsunamigenic earthquake. However, a special type of earthquakes with unique
characterizations are referred to as tsunami earthquakes. Tsunami earthquakes
are characterized by a long rupture duration, a lower body wave magnitude and
location of the epicenter near the trench [8,9]. Kanamori [10] has characterized
the September 2, 1992 Nicaragua earthquake as a tsunami earthquake using the
W phase method. Kanamori and Rivera [11] have analyzed the December 26,
2004 Sumatra earthquake, the July 17, 2006 Java earthquake and the September
12, 2007 Sumatra earthquake with the same method. For the purpose of tsunami
modeling, Handayani [12] employed a method similar to the one used by
Kanamori and Rivera [11] to characterize earthquakes that have generated
tsunamis in Indonesia from 2004 to 2009. Newman and Okal [13] investigated
the ratio (Θ) between seismic energy (E) and seismic moment (Mo) to identify
52 large earthquakes from 1982 to 1997 with data taken from the catalog of the
National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), provided by 500 teleseismic
stations. Their study covers earthquakes in Indonesia, such as the December 12,
1992 Flores earthquake, the June 2, 1994 Java earthquake, the January 1, 1996
Minahasa earthquake and the February 17, 1996 Papua earthquake. Polet and
Kanamori [14] employed the ratio (Θ) between seismic energy (E) and seismic
moment (Mo) to investigate large-scale earthquakes. Lomax, et al. [15] used the
same method as two previous studies [13,14] and defined tsunami earthquakes
by ratio Θ < -5.5. Newman, et al. [16] have analyzed the rupture duration of the
October 25, 2010 Sumatra earthquake and categorized it as a specific tsunami
earthquake.

The aim of this study was to characterize earthquake-generated tsunamis in the

Indonesia region based on the focal mechanism, the ratio (Θ) between seismic
energy (E) and seismic moment (Mo), the moment magnitude (Mw), the rupture
duration (To) and the distance of the hypocenter to the trench (HT). We hope
that the results of this study will contribute to better tsunami hazard zoning in
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 191

the Indonesia region. In addition,

addition we hope that in the near future the results of
this study will support the work of the Indonesian Tsunami Early Warning
System (Ina-TEWS).

2 Data
This study utilized the tsunami and earthquake data catalog of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov),
Tsunami Laboratory Russia (http://tsun.sscc.ru) and the Global Centroid
Moment Tensor Project (Global CMT, www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html).
www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html).
Moreover, the hypocenter data relocated by Engdahl, et al.. [17] were used. The
seismic waveforms were obtained from IRIS (IncorporatedIncorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology,
Seismology www.iris.edu/cgi-bin/wilberII/wilberII_page1.pl).
in/wilberII/wilberII_page1.pl).
The databases and seismic
mic waveforms were re-accessed
re accessed on February 7, 2012.
This study has collected
lected 27 earthquake-generated tsunamis around Indonesia
from 1991 to 2012 with a magnitude Mw > 6.5 and shallow depth (D ≤ 77.8
km), as listed in Table 1. The geographical coordinates of the studied area are
longitude 90° E–140° E and latitude 15° S–8° N, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Global IRIS station network and study area. Stations shown as gray
triangles, earthquake-generated
generated tsunamis as black dots, and study area as a
rectangle.
192 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

Figure 2 Waveform fitting between synthetic and observed signals for the
October 25, 2010 Sumatra earthquake. The global spheres on the left show the
distribution of the observation stations (grey dots), the recording observation
stations (black dot), and the epicenter (black star). The graphs show the synthetic
W phase signals (thick lines) and the observed signals (thin lines).

3 W phase Method
The W phase method is an alternative,
alternative faster inversion analysis, nearly identical
to the Global CMT solution. The W phase is a long-period wave phase (T > 100
s), whose propagation
ropagation is similar to that of whispering gallery waves. It consists
of a group of P and S waves (P, PP, SS, SP, PS and S). The W phase clearly
distinguishes an earthquake with a great magnitude from teleseismic body
waves. The
he average length of the wave signal was used to detect the September
2, 1992 Nicaragua tsunami earthquake [10]. In addition, W phase analysis
produces the focal mechanism, the focal depth, the hypocenter location, the
seismic moment and the moment magnitude, which follows the double couple
principle using the least-squares
squares method. The W phase can be simulated by the
summation of the normal fundamental modes of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd overtone.
overtone
The input data processing of W phase uses formatting and moment tensor
inversion performed by Global CMT or value estimation for earthquakes
earthquake that
generate tsunamis.. For detailed
detail information about the wave-theory
theory and
modeling of W phase we refer to Kanamori and Rivera [11].

For example, W phase inversion presents the source point according to the
origin time of the Global CMT (centroid location),
location) as shown in Figure 2 for the
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 193

October 25, 2010 Sumatra earthquake. The synthetic signals (thick lines) of the
W phase are indicated by two parallel black dots coinciding with the observed
signals (thin lines). All distribution stations are marked by grey dots, the
selected stations by black dots, and the epicenters by black stars. The total
number of IRIS stations used in this study was 912, equipped with long-period
seismometers (LHZ, LHE, LHN). The stations’ azimuths cover the whole planet
Earth from 0º – 360º. The distance between seismometer and earthquake ranged
from 11º – 90º. The frequency range (0.005 Hz – 0.02 Hz) of the long-period
wave depends on the earthquake magnitude [18].

4 Ratio of Seismic Energy and Moment

The seismic moment describes the overall size of the earthquake deformation
[19,20]. The moment magnitude is the scale of the seismic moment [16]. Data
on the waveforms were collected from 783 vertical component broadband
sensors of IRIS. These waveforms were analyzed by the P phase of the body
waves recorded by a teleseismic station at a distance of more than 30°. In this
study, the velocity seismogram was converted to displacement by applying the
formula of Lomax, et al. [15], where the Butterworth bandpass filters were
obtained from 0.001 Hz – 5 Hz. The signal processing of seismic energy can be
seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3 The July 17, 2006 Java earthquake was recorded by ULN station. The
signal processing from top to bottom: ground velocity signal (nm.s-1), removing
instrument response and filtering, cutting, and seismic moment (N.m).
194 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

Figure 4 Seismogram of WAKE station detecting the April 11, 2012 Sumatra
earthquake. From top to bottom: velocity signal (nm.s-1), removing instrument
response and filtering, squaring, and seismic energy.

The equations of seismic moment (Mo) and moment magnitude (Mw) were
derived from Kanamori [20] and Tsuboi, et al. [21], as shown below:

‫ܯ‬௢ = ห݉ܽ‫ݔ‬൫‫ݑ ׬‬௭ ൫‫ݔ‬௥, ‫ݐ‬൯݀‫ݐ‬൯ห. 4ߨߩଷ ‫ݎ‬ (1)

‫ܯ‬௪ = ቀ ቁ
௟௢௚ெ೚ ିଽ.ଵ
(2)
ଵ.ହ

where,
uz(xr, t) = displacement (10-2 m)
ρ = material density (3.4 x 103 kg.m-3)
r = distance from source to station (103 m).

Moment calculation was started by cutting the ground motion velocity signal, as
the raw input data, of the P–PP phase. The P phase propagates directly from the
source to the receiver. The PP phase is then reflected to the earth’s surface
before it reaches the sensor. Cutting the P–PP signal was applied in order to
eliminate other propagation effects that inhibit the calculation of moment. The
onset time of the wave phase was determined by the Tau-P program with the
IASP91 velocity model [22] and refers to Jeffery Bullens [23]. For signal
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 195

processing, the Seismic Analysis Code (SAC) program was used [24]. The
instrument response of each seismometer was removed by transfer function.
The frequency range of the Butterworth band-pass filter was obtained between
0.001 Hz – 5 Hz, which was determined by the frequency spectrum. Then, the
signal was tapered in order to render it symmetric between the end point and the
starting point of the seismic waveform. The velocity signal was integrated to get
the displacement signal, whose value is equivalent to the moment rate.
Furthermore, the second integral function and the formula of Tsuboi, et al. [21]
were applied in order to calculate the seismic moment (Mo). For example, the
processing signal for the July 17, 2006 Java earthquake (Mw = 7.7), as recorded
by ULN station (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia), is shown in Figure 3. The moment
magnitude (Mw) value was derived from the calculation of Eq. (2) [20,21] after
signal processing of the seismic moment was finished.

The radiated seismic energy (E) is proportional to the energy flux of the seismic
propagation from the source in the Earth’s interior to the surface. The energy
flux is the total seismic energy density measured at the high corner frequency.
The formula is explained by Lomax, et al. [15] as follows:

‫ۃ‬ிು ‫ۄ‬మ
‫ = ܧ‬ሺ1 + ‫ݍ‬ሻ. 4ߨ‫ ݎ‬ଶ ቄ‫ۃ‬ி೒ು ‫ۄ‬మ ቅ . ߩߙ ‫ ݒ ׬‬ଶ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ݀‫ݐ‬ (3)

where,
E = radiated seismic energy of P-S phase (N.m)
r = distance from source to station (103 m)
<FP>2 = radiation pattern of P phase (4/15)
<FgP> = radiation pattern of group of P phase (1)
q = ratio of S-wave energy to P-wave energy (1+q=16.6)
ρ = density at the station (2,6 x 103 kg.m-3)
α = velocity at the station of P wave (5 x 103 m.s-1)
υ (t) = ground velocity seismogram (m.s-1)
4πr2 = average density of Earth sphere with radius r.

By substituting all constant parameters and Eq. (3), the equation becomes as
follows:
‫ = ܧ‬2.2 × 10ଵହ . ‫ ݎ‬ଶ ‫ ݒ ׬‬ଶ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ݀‫ݐ‬ (4)
The procedure of calculating energy is simpler than that of calculating seismic
moment. The vertical ground velocity seismogram was used as the raw input
data. A similar method was applied for cutting the phase of the P–PP waves.
The instrument response was removed by deconvolution using SAC.
196 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

Figure 5 Procedure of rupture duration analysis by ABKT station for the July
17, 2006 Java earthquake. From top to bottom: velocity as the input data,
removing instrument response and filtering, squaring, and normalized signal of
rupture duration.

The Butterworth bandpass filter was applied with a frequency range between
0.001 Hz and 5 Hz. Therefore, the velocity signal was squared before Eq. (4)
was applied. For example, Figure 4 shows the case of the April 11, 2012
Sumatra earthquake, recorded at WAKE station (Wake Island, Pacific).
Furthermore, the ratio Θ is a logarithmic relation between seismic energy and
seismic moment [15],

߆ = ݈‫ ݃݋‬ቀெ ቁ
ா
(5)
೚

5 Rupture Duration
The rupture duration (To) is the time period that is required for an earthquake to
occur, from the beginning to the end process of breaking along the fault area.
The P wave radiation has a high frequency and a high propagation velocity.
Therefore, the signal can be isolated from the other wave phases in the
seismogram. The size of the rupture duration is measured as the polynomial
distribution area of P wave ground motion by seismic wave analysis, referring
to Lomax, et al. [15]. The procedure starts with taking the vertical component of
the velocity signal from each station. The instrument response is removed
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 197

before cutting the signal of the P–S phase. In this study, the calculation of the
rupture duration was employed for filtering, squaring, enveloping, and
normalizing. We used the Butterworth bandpass filter with a high frequency
range (between 1 Hz – 2 Hz). Then the velocity seismogram was modified by a
squaring and enveloping procedure to obtain a squared velocity waveform with
an amplitude that has a positive value. The signal of each station was
normalized. Then all the normalized signals were stacked into one duration
curve. Some stations with a high error and local-disturbance rate were removed.
Figure 5 shows the procedure of rupture duration analysis at the ABKT station
(Alibek, Turkmenistan).

Table 1 Earthquake-generated tsunamis in Indonesia (1991–2012).

Location Event Ref. H FM D MwG Lon/lat
Alor 19910704 L,G NA T 17 6.7 124.7/-8.02
Flores 19921212 N,R,G,S 26.2 T 20.4 7.8 122.5/-8.34
Java 19940602 N,R,G 14 T 15 7.8 113/-11
Halmahera 19941008 R,G NA S 15 6.8 127.8/1.2
Halmahera 19950213 L,R,G NA SO 15 6.7 127.9/-1.19
Timor 19950514 L,N,R,G 4 T 15.8 6.8 125.3/-8.6
Minahasa 19960101 R,G 3.4 T 15 7.9 119.9/0.74
Papua 19960217 L,R,G 7.7 T 15 8.2 136.6/-0.67
Sulawesi 20000504 R,G NA S 18.6 7.5 123.6/-1.29
Sumatra 20000604 R,G NA T 33 7.8 101.9/-4.73
Papua 20021010 R,G NA T 15 7.5 134.3/-1.79
Sumatra 20041226 N,R,G 50.9 T 28.6 9.0 94.26/3.09
Sumatra 20050328 N,R,G 3 T 25.8 8.6 97.07/1.67
Sumatra 20050410 N,R,G 0.4 T 15 6.7 99.54/-1.68
Ceram 20060314 N,R,G NA T 13 6.7 127.3/-3.35
Java 20060717 N,R,G 20.9 T 20 7.7 107.8/-10.3
Sumatra 20070912 N,R,G 5 T 24.4 8.5 101/-3.78
Sumatra 20080225 N,G 0.1 T 14.4 7.2 99.95/-2.66
Sulawesi 20081116 R,G NA T 29.2 7.3 122.1/1.5
Papua 20090103 R,G NA T 15.2 7.7 133.5/-0.58
Talaud 20090211 R,G 0.1 T 23.9 7.1 126.8/3.92
Sumatra 20090816 N,R,G 0.2 T 12 6.7 99.45/-1.56
Java 20090902 B NA T 53 7.0 107.3/-8.12
Sumatra 20090930 N,R,G 0.3 TO 77.8 7.6 99.67/-0.79
Sumatra 20100406 N,R,G 0.4 T 17.6 7.8 96.74/2.07
Sumatra 20101025 N,R,G 7 T 12 7.8 99.32/-3.71
Sumatra 20120411 N,G NA TO 40 8.6 92.78/2.24
Remarks: Ref = reference, L = Latief, et al. [1], S = Shi, et al. [25], N = NOAA, R = Russia, G =
Global CMT, B = BMKG, H = tsunami height, NA = no available data, FM = focal mechanism, T
= thrust fault, S = strike-slip, O = oblique, D = depth, MwG = moment magnitude of Global CMT.
198 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

6 Results and Discussion

The calculation results of W phase inversion, seismic moment, moment
magnitude, seismic energy and rupture duration are shown in Table 2. The event
locations are shown in Table 1. The epicenter coordinates, depth and focal
mechanism (strike, dip, slip) resulted from the W phase method. Detailed
information about earthquakes that generate tsunamis is useful for tsunami
hazard zoning and additional information for the operational routine of
InaTEWS at the Meteorological Climatological Geophysical Agency (BMKG).
Currently, the criteria used to determine a potential local tsunami warning at
InaTEWS are: magnitude (M ≥ 7.0 Richter scale), depth (D < 100 km) and
epicenter in the sea (ocean) [26].
Table 2 Results of source parameters from W phase inversion & signal
analysis.
Lon/lat Strke/dip/slip RFC HT Mw Mo E Θ To C
124.7/-8.02 97/38/135 0.55 20 6.6 1.07 2.0 -5.7 27 G
122.3/-8.74 78/24/99 0.85 30 7.7 52.48 229.1 -5.4 85 L
113.2/-11.2 269/7/85 0.95 -20 7.6 26.92 25.7 -6.0 100 E
127.9/-1.59 85/67/-168 0.92 20 6.6 1.12 4.2 -5.4 27 G
128/-1.51 86/46/-3 0.80 10 6.8 2.14 3.2 -5.8 36 G
125.3/-8.6 39/40/-164 0.10 20 6.7 1.32 3.0 -5.6 58 G
119.9/0.54 31/8/50 1.27 50 7.8 72.44 186.2 -5.6 47 G
136.2/-0.87 109/14/80 1.37 50 8.0 144.54 457.1 -5.5 117 G
123.4/-1.49 230/75/-173 1.20 -50 7.7 39.81 97.7 -5.6 85 G
102.1/-4.72 82/55/137 0.81 110 7.8 72.44 562.3 -5.1 85 G
134.3/-2.39 65/76/-43 0.36 70 7.7 40.74 120.2 -5.5 134 G
94.26/2.89 325/7/101 0.90 50 9.0 3890.4 6309.6 -5.8 257 G
96.67/1.67 332/10/114 1.14 100 8.3 323.59 3981.1 -4.9 100 G
99.41/-1.84 151/27/103 0.81 130 6.8 2.29 6.3 -5.6 36 G
127.2/-3.6 190/87/-180 0.59 50 6.8 2.00 6.3 -5.5 117 G
108.4/-10.7 275/12/77 1.81 -20 7.7 43.65 31.6 -6.1 134 E
101.4/-4.4 313/14/81 1.61 160 8.2 263.03 2630.2 -5.0 174 G
99.55/-2.86 330/22/117 1.00 120 7.3 10.47 33.9 -5.5 47 G
122.1/1.1 58/14/90 0.12 50 7.4 15.85 30.2 -5.7 47 G
132.8/-0.78 100/17/57 0.81 50 7.8 70.79 154.9 -5.7 36 G
126.8/3.92 173/37/81 0.85 10 7.4 15.85 28.8 -5.7 47 G
99.05/-1.76 167/20/113 0.82 90 6.7 1.55 3.0 -5.7 36 G
107.5/-7.92 118/83/92 0.23 230 7.1 6.03 44.7 -5.1 27 G
99.87/-0.99 69/43/134 1.11 120 7.8 57.54 141.3 -5.6 27 G
96.74/1.87 307/9/86 1.16 130 7.8 72.44 109.7 -5.8 100 G
98.89/-3.88 97/38/135 1.24 -5 7.6 35.48 50.1 -5.8 117 E
92.78/2.04 78/24/99 0.38 -130 8.5 630.96 3311.3 -5.3 134 G
Remarks: RFC = ratio of focal sphere comparison between Global CMT and W phase. HT =
hypocenter distance to trench (km); a negative value means that the hypocenter is back at the
beginning of trench. Mw = moment magnitude of signal analysis, Mo = seismic moment (1019
N.m), E = seismic energy (1013 N.m), Θ = logarithmic ratio of seismic energy and moment, To =
rupture duration (s), C = character, G = tsunamigenic earthquake, E = tsunami earthquake, L =
landslide.
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 199

Figure 6 Earthquake and focal mechanism distributions in Indonesia.

Earthquakes are shown as gray obelus, focal mechanism of W phase as black
balls, and Global CMT as gray balls. Event numbers refer to Table 1.

InaTEWS plays a role in Asia and surrounding areas for detecting tele-tsunami
tsunami.
Therefore we recommend that Indonesia implement the source parameter
retrieval of W phase, the ratio between seismic energy and seismic moment,, and
rupture duration. W phase has been adopted by the Japan Meteorological
Agency (JMA), the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) and the United
State of Geological Survey (USGS, http://www.usgs.gov) because it is
consistent with both Global CMT and geological
geolog structure. Figure 6 and Table 2
show that our W phase analysis is similar to Global CMT. In general, strike, dip
and slip of W phase are similar to those
th of Global CMT. Comparison of the
values of the focal parameters between Global CMT and W phase are expressed
by the ratio of focal sphere comparison (RFC). This study has produced the
consistent focal parameters
parameter as amount of 23 events (85% of total) with RFC ≥
0.4. However, there werere four non-consistent
non events, with RFC < 0.4 (no.
no. 6, 11,
23 and 27).. The focal mechanisms
mechanism of the May 14, 1995 Timor earthquake (no.
6) and the October 10, 2002 Papua earthquake (no. 11) based on Global CMT
were normal faults, whereas our results point to oblique-thrust faults. Compared
ompared
to Global CMT for the September 2, 2009 Java earthquake (no. (no. 23) and the
April 11, 2012 Sumatra earthquake (no. 27),27) according to our results the focal
spheres were in the opposite direction and slightly different.
different. These non
non-
consistent results were caused by not reaching the minimum number of seismic
stations. In addition, in the processing of the W phase, the three-component
component
sensors were not used optimally in each station, except for one or two
directions. The small number of sensors and large gaps in the distribution of the
network also contributed to the poor results.
200 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

The results of the source parameter determination by signal analysis are

presented in Table 2. This study shows the value of radiated seismic energy to
be 2.0 x 1013 N.m ≤ E ≤ 6.309 x 1016 N.m, seismic moment 1.07 x 1019 N.m ≤
Mo ≤ 3.89 x 1022 N.m and in accordance with moment magnitude 6.6 ≤ Mw ≤
9.0. Overall, the value of the radiated seismic energy was lower than the seismic
moment, although both describe the strength of the earthquakes with the same
dimension of energy (Newton.meter). The difference is 1.0 x 106 times . This is
caused by the flux of energy received at the station when attenuation effects
occur [12]. The minimum energy flux is influenced by the low density of rocks
in each receiving station and the low ground motion velocity. This situation
causes the low value of the energy-moment ratio.

Our calculation of the seismic energy-moment ratio is different from Lomax, et

al. [15], who divide the area of tsunamigenic earthquakes and tsunami
earthquakes along a ratio line of Θ < -5.5. The ratio line is derived from linear
regression calculations on the distribution of the energy value moments of each
earthquake. In this study, the threshold line is Θ = -5.8, as shown in Figure 7.
This distinction is based on a variety of data used by each researcher. Lomax, et
al. [15] used inland and ocean large-scale earthquakes, inter-plate and intra-
plate earthquakes, and earthquakes that generated tsunamis. The epicenters that
were used by Lomax, et al. [15] were from 34 events around the world, from
1992 to 2006 (15 years of observation). Our data focused only on earthquakes
that generated tsunamis. The time range of this study is longer, i.e. from 1991 to
2012 (21 years of observation), covering 27 events. Furthermore, the energy
calculations were influenced by the geometry of the distribution of the seismic
waves as the energy passes through the layers of the earth’s crust. Hence, they
were also influenced by the distance from the source to the station and by the
velocity of the seismic waves.

The rupture duration results of this study are shown in Figure 8. Tsunamigenic
earthquakes are quite varied in To (> 10 s) and log Mo (> 19 N.m.), that is from
the shortest duration, such as the July 4, 1991 Timor earthquake (no. 1) with To
= 27 s, to the longest duration, such as the December 26, 2004 Sumatra
earthquake (no. 12) with To = 257 s. The tsunami earthquake distribution
ranged in rupture from 99 s < To < 135 s and in seismic moment from 20.4 <
log Mo < 20.7 N.m or with moderate seismic moment from 2.51 x 1020 N.m <
Mo < 5.0 x 1020 N.m. These parameters are consistent with previous studies of
tsunami earthquakes [15,16]. Generally, earthquake-generated tsunamis that are
called tsunamigenic earthquakes, are characterized by a large moment
magnitude (Mw ≥ 8), a long rupture duration, a high seismic energy and a large
tsunami.
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 201

Figure 7 Ratio of energy-moment (Θ). The tsunamigenic earthquakes ranged

between -5.8 < Θ < -4.9 while the tsunami earthquakes had Θ ≤ -5.8.

Specific earthquake-generated tsunamis, called tsunami earthquakes, are

characterized by a medium moment magnitude (Mw < 8), a long rupture
duration, a low seismic energy but a large tsunami. This is caused by the fact
that the epicenter occurs in the segment of the displacement rocks between the
plates in the area of the accretionary wedge with unstable material conditions.
This area has a weak rigidity where brittle sedimentary and fragile rocks are
mixed. This condition causes a weakening of the seismic radiation energy and a
long rupture duration [27].

Conversely, some tsunamigenic earthquakes with a moderate moment

magnitude only generate a very small tsunami. This is caused by a large focal
depth, a long distance from the hypocenter to the trench and a horizontal focal
mechanism.
202 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

Figure 8 Ratio of seismic moment-rupture duration. The tsunami earthquakes

ranged in rupture from 99 s < To < 135 s, in seismic moment from 20.4 < log Mo
< 20.7 N.m and 7.5 ≤ Mw ≤ 7.8. Tsunamigenic earthquakes had To > 10 s and log
Mo > 19 N.m.

An example is the September 30, 2009 Sumatra earthquake (no. 24), which had
a moderate magnitude (Mw = 7.6) and very shallow focal depth (D = 24.4 km),
but was located nearby a narrow fore-arc basin with minimum seawater volume.
Therefore it only caused a very small tsunami (H = 0.3 m). The March 14, 2006
Ceram earthquake (no. 15) had a long rupture duration (To = 117 s), a very low
seismic moment (Mo = 2.0 x 1019 N.m), a smaller than moderate magnitude (Mw
= 6.7), but had a long distance from the hypocenter to the trench. As a
consequence, it did not cause a tsunami.

We conclude that tsunami earthquakes are a special category of tsunamigenic

earthquakes. From the discussion of the source parameters, such as the rupture
duration, the seismic moment and the ratio of energy-seismic moment, the
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 203

unique character of tsunami earthquakes could be established. In addition, there

were the focal depth and the distance from trench. The 2 June 1994 Java
earthquake (no. 3) had a very shallow depth (D = 15 km), a very small distance
from the hypocenter to the trench, a moderate magnitude (Mw = 7.8) but a very
large tsunami height (H = 14 m). This is consistent with tsunami earthquake
characteristics in previous studies [28]. The July 17, 2006 Java earthquake (no.
16) also had a very shallow depth (D = 20 km) and a very small distance from
the hypocenter to the trench (Sunda Trench). The slip direction was distributed
near the surface with a shallow depth, which is a characteristic of tsunami
earthquakes [29]. The October 25, 2010 Sumatra earthquake (no. 26) had a very
shallow depth (D = 12 km) and was located near the trench and the accretionary
wedge. These parameters are similar to the ones from previous studies and
categorize it as a tsunami earthquake [15].

From the epicenter determined by W phase, we can estimate the distance

between the hypocenter and the trench. Subsequently, we can draw a cross-
sectional line for some events that are perpendicular to the trench lines, as
shown in Figure 9. For the North Sumatra region, the December 26, 2004
Sumatra earthquake (no. 12) and the April 11, 2012 Sumatra earthquake (no.
27) located at the front of the trench (HT = 50 km) and the back of the trench
(HT = -130 km). In this study, the tsunamigenic earthquake events had a short
to long hypocenter distance to the trench (10 km < HT ≤ 230 km) and a shallow
focal depth (12 km ≤ D ≤ 77.8 km). The tsunami earthquakes had a very small
distance from the hypocenter to the trench (HT ≤ 20 km) and very shallow depth
(D ≤ 20 km).

The December 12, 1992 Flores earthquake (no. 2) caused a large tsunami (26.2
m) but had a medium magnitude (Mw = 7.8). The epicenter was very close to the
offshore of Maumere (HT = 50 km). The earthquake was related to the back-arc
thrust fault and increased marine erosion, after which an extensive landslide
took place. The survey observations showed as evidence the fractured cliff near
Riang-Kroko, watermarks on wall structures, scattered coral boulders, and tree
leaves. The event was characterized as a landslide tsunami [24,30]. Beside that,
the five times reflected tsunami waves hit the island and its surroundings and
caused 2,080 people to be killed [24].

7 Conclusions
We have characterized earthquake-generated tsunamis that occurred in
Indonesia from 1991 to 2012. This characterization was based on a source
parameter analysis of the focal mechanism retrieved from the W phase, the ratio
of seismic energy and seismic moment, the moment magnitude, the rupture
duration and the distance of the hypocenter to the trench. The results of this
204 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

study make it possible to differentiate two kinds of earthquake-generated

generated
tsunamis: tsunamigenic earthquakes
earthquake and tsunami earthquakes.

Figure 9 Seismic distribution in the North Sumatra region, with the December
26, 2004 (no. 12) and the April 11, 2012201 Sumatra earthquake (no. 27). Top:
Mercator map with SS’ projection line.
line Earthquakes are shown as gray obelus,
the projected earthquakes as black circles, the focal mechanisms of W phase as
black balls. Bottom: cross
ross-sectional map. Projected focal mechanisms shown as
black stars, trenches and faults
fault as black triangles.

Most of the earthquakes, 24 events,

events were tsunamigenic earthquakes. They were
we
characterized by various types of fault mechanisms, a low ratio of seismic
energy and seismic moment, a short to long rupture duration, a short to long
distance from the hypocenter to the trench, a shallow focal depth, a small to
large magnitude, and a small to large tsunami height.
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 205

The remaining three events were tsunami earthquakes. These were the June 2,
1994 Java earthquake, the July 17, 2006 Java earthquake and the October 25,
2010 Sumatra earthquake. The characteristics of these tsunami earthquakes
were: thrust fault mechanism only, a very low ratio of seismic energy and
seismic moment, a long rupture duration, only a short distance from the
hypocenter to the trench, a very shallow focal depth, a moderate magnitude but
always a large tsunami height.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to Prof. Kenji
Satake of Earthquake Research Institute (ERI), University of Tokyo, Japan and
Prof. Luis Rivera of École et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre, Louis
Pasteur University, for basic idea and technical assistance. We thank the
anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We thank BMKG
and ITB for funding this study within the framework of their PhD program.
This work was carried out using GMT, SAC, IRIS, hypocenter data of Engdahl,
Global CMT and GEBCO.

References
[1] Latief, H., Puspito, N.T. & Imamura, Tsunami Catalog and Zones in
Indonesia, J. Nat. Dis. Science, 22(1), Japan, 2000.
[2] Puspito, N.T., Statistical Data of Tsunamigenic Earthquakes in the
Indonesian Region, International Symposium on Earthquake and
Precursor Proceeding, Puslitbang BMKG, Bukit Tinggi, 2009.
[3] Fujii, Y. & Satake, K., Source of the July 2006 West Java Tsunami
Estimated from Tide Gauge Records, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24317,
doi: 10.1029/2006GL028049, 2006.
[4] Convers, J.A. & Newman, A.V., Global Evaluation of Large Earthquake
from 1997 Through Mid-2010, J. Geophys. Res., 116, B08304, 2011.
[5] Ammon, C.J., Ji, C., Thio, H.K., Robinson, D., Ni, S., Hjorleifdottir, V.,
Kanamori, H., Lay, T., Das, S., Helmberger, D., Ichinose, G., Polet, J. &
Wald, D., Rupture Process of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake,
Science, 308, 2005.
[6] Ammon, C.J., Kanamori, H., Lay, T. & Velasco, A.A., The July 2006
Java Tsunami Earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24308, doi:
10.1029/2006GL028005, 2006.
[7] Satake, K. & Tanioka, Y., Sources of Tsunami and Tsunamigenic
Earthquakes in Subduction Zones, Pure Appl. Geophys., 154, pp. 467-
483, 0033–4553:99:040467–17, 1999.
[8] Kanamori, H., Mechanism of Tsunami Earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet.
Inter., 11, pp. 312-332, 1972.
206 Sugeng Pribadi, et al.

[9] Polet, J., & Kanamori, H., Tsunami Earthquakes, Encyclopedia of

Complexity and Systems Science, Springer-Verlag 2009, Robert A.
Meyers, 10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_567, 2009.
[10] Kanamori, H., W Phase, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20(16), pp. 1691-1694,
1993.
[11] Kanamori, H. & Rivera, L., Source Inversion of W-phase, Speeding Up
Seismic Tsunami Warning, Geophys. J. Int., 175, pp. 222-238, doi:
10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03887.x, 2008.
[12] Handayani, T., W-Phase Analysis for Tsunami Warning, Master Thesis,
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo, Japan, Building
Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, MEE08175, Disaster Management
Policy Program, 2009.
[13] Newman, A. & Okal, E., Teleseismic Estimates of Radiated Seismic
Energy: The E/M0 Discriminant for Tsunami Earthquakes, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 103(B11), doi: 10.1029/98JB02236, ISSN: 0148-
0227, 1998.
[14] Polet, J. & Kanamori, H., Shallow Subduction Zone Earthquake,
Geophys. J. Int., 142, pp. 684-702, 2000.
[15] Lomax, A., Michelini, A. & Piatanesi, A., An Energy-Duration
Procedure for Rapid Determination of Earthquake Magnitude and
Tsunamigenic Potential, Geophys. J. Int., 170, pp. 1195-1209,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03469.x, 2007.
[16] Newman, A., Hayes, G., Wei, Y. & Convers, J., The 25 October 2010
Sumatra Tsunami Earthquake from Real-Time Discriminants, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 38, L05302, doi: 10.1029/2010GL046498, 2011.
[17] Engdahl, E.R., van der Hilst, R. & Buland, R., Global Teleseismic
Earthquake Relocation with Improved Travel Times and Procedures for
Depth Determination, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 88, pp. 722-743, 1998.
[18] Hayes, G.P., Rivera, L. & Kanamori, H., Source Inversion of the W-
Phase: Realtime Implementation and Extension to Low Magnitudes,
Seism. Res. Lett., 80(5), doi: 10.1785/gssrl.80.5.817, 2009.
[19] Boatwright, J. & Choy, G., Teleseismic Estimates of Energy Radiated by
Shallow Earthquake, J. Geophys. Res., 91(B2), pp. 2095-2112, 1986.
[20] Kanamori, H., The Energy Release in Great Earthquake, J. Geophys.
Res., 82, pp. 2981-2987, 1977.
[21] Tsuboi, S., Abe, K., Takano, K. & Yamanaka, Y., Rapid Determination
of Mw from Broadband P Waveforms, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 83, pp. 606-
613, 1995.
[22] Crotwell, H.P., Owens, T.J. & Ritsema, J., The Tau-P toolkit, Flexible
Seismik Travel-Time & Ray-Path Utilities, Seism. Res. Lett., 70, pp. 154-
160, 1999.
[23] Bormann, P., Engdahl, B. & Kind, R., Seismic Wave Propagation and
Earth models, New Manual of Seismology Observatory Practice
 The Characteristics of Earthquakes Generate Tsunamis 207

(NMSOP-2), IASPEI, GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences,

DOI: 10.2312/GFZ.NMSOP-2, pp.47-57, 2002.
[24] Goldstein, P. & Snoke, A., SAC Availability for the IRIS Community,
http://www.iris.edu/dms/newsletter/vol7/no1/sac-availability-for-the-iris-
community, March 2005 (8 March 2013).
[25] Shi, S., Dawson, A.G. & Smith, D.E., Geomorphological Impact of The
Flores Tsunami of 12th December 1992, Tsuchiya, Y. & Shuto, N.,
Tsunami: Progress in Prediction, Disaster Prevention and Warning,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 187-195, 1995.
[26] BMKG (Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika), Panduan
Peringatan Dini Tsunami, BMKG (unpublished), pp. 7-35, 2010.
[27] Bilek, S.L. & Lay, T., Tsunami Earthquake Possibly Widespread
Manifestation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(14), 10.1029/2002GL015215,
2002.
[28] Synolakis C., Imamura, F., Tsuji, Y., Matsutomi, H., Tinti, S., Cook, B.,
Chandra, Y.P. & Usman, M., Damage, Conditions of Java Tsunami of
1994 Analyzed, EOS, Trans. Am. Geoph. Union, 76(26), pp. 257-264,
1995.
[29] Kanamori, H. & Brodsky, E.E., The Physics of Earthquake, Institute of
Physics Publishing, Rep. Prog. Phys., 67, pp. 1429-1496, 2004.
[30] Kawata, Y., Tsuji, Y., Syamsudin, A.R., Sunarjo, Matsuyama, M.,
Matsutomi, H., Imamura, F. & Takahashi, T., Response of Residents at
The Moment of Tsunami-The 1992 Flores Island Earthquake Tsunami,
Indonesia, Tsuchiya, Y. & Shuto, N., Tsunami: Progress in Prediction,
Disaster Prevention and Warning, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherlands, pp. 173-185, 1995.

View publication stats