Evaluating the Tsunamigenic Potential of Buried Versus Trench‐Breaching Megathrust Slip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Subduction megathrust ruptures that breach the trench, such as in the 2011 M = 9 Tohoku‐oki earthquake, can be very tsunamigenic. However, whether buried ruptures are intrinsically less tsunamigenic has not been fully investigated. Here, we conduct this investigation by studying the mechanics of seafloor deformation and the resultant tsunami runup. With a trench‐breaching rupture, deformation is dominated by the rigid‐body translation of the frontal upper plate, and seafloor uplift is enhanced by the horizontal motion of the sloping seafloor. With a buried rupture, the rigid‐body motion is reduced, but the shortening of the upper plate due to seaward slip termination causes elastic thickening to enhance tsunamigenic seafloor uplift. By combining a finite‐element deformation model and a shallow‐water equation tsunami model, we systematically test various subduction zone geometrical and slip parameters to study the trade‐off between rigid‐body translation and elastic thickening in causing seafloor uplift and tsunami runup. To isolate the effect of slip depth, we compare scenarios with the same peak slip and rupture width. We find that very shallow ruptures, including those breaching the trench, are generally less tsunamigenic than deeper ruptures. Given peak slip, tsunamigenic potential is maximized if the rupture is not too shallow or too deep but is buried to moderate depths. Our model tests using variable hypothetical rupture depths suggest that, with a slip magnitude as large as in the 2011 Tohoku‐oki earthquake, tsunami runups as high as the observed would occur even if the rupture were fully buried.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".