M 7.5 - 72 km N of Palu, Indonesia

  • 2018-09-28 10:02:45 (UTC)
  • 0.256°S 119.846°E
  • 20.0 km depth

Finite Fault

Contributed by US last updated 2018-10-17 21:57:04 (UTC)
  • The data below are the most preferred data available
  • The data below have been reviewed by a scientist

Scientific Analysis

This version represents an update of the rapid finite fault solution posted a few hours after the earthquake, which did not accurately portray the full extent of rupture. Please note that this solution still assumes a single fault plane, whose geometry has been chosen based on an exploration of model space (varying strike, dip, rake, etc.). Geodetic imagery indicates complexity to the surface trace of this event that is not accounted for here, so subsequent models will differ at least with respect to the finer details of the slip distribution. The major change described by this update is in the rupture velocity, assumed to be ~4.0 km/s here. Rupture velocities of at least this speed seem to be required to propagate rupture as far south as observed in geodetic data (pixel tracking correlation and InSAR images). Other points of note: 1) none of the suite of models produced leading to this version resulted in surface slip at the epicenter. 2) These data do not rule out slip to the north; allowing slip to extend to the north, as in this model, results in improved model fits. 3) Models allowing oblique-thrust rake angles (rake > 0 deg) also produce notably better model fits, particularly evident in P-wave first motions at stations to the west.

Data Process and Inversion

We analyzed 40 teleseismic broadband P waveforms, 12 broadband SH waveforms, and 57 long period surface waves selected based on data quality and azimuthal distribution. Waveforms are first converted to displacement by removing the instrument response and are then used to constrain the slip history using a finite fault inverse algorithm (Ji et al., 2002). We begin modeling using a hypocenter matching or adjusted slightly from the initial NEIC solution ( location = 0.2°S, 119.8°E; depth = 10.4 km ), and a fault plane defined using either the rapid W-Phase moment tensor (for near-real time solutions), or the gCMT moment tensor (for historic solutions).

Result

This result is based on the moment tensor nodal plane ( strike = 358.0°; dip = 66.0° ). The seismic moment release based upon this plane is 2.5e+20 N-m (Mw = 7.5) using a 1D crustal model interpolated from CRUST2.0 (Bassin et al., 2000).

Cross-section of Slip Distribution

Slip distribution map image
Cross-section of slip distribution. The strike direction is indicated above each fault plane and the hypocenter location is denoted by a star. Slip amplitude is shown in color and the motion direction of the hanging wall relative to the footwall (rake angle) is indicated with arrows. Contours show the rupture initiation time in seconds.

Surface Projection

Finite fault basemap
Surface projection of the slip distribution superimposed on GEBCO bathymetry. Thick white lines indicate major plate boundaries [Bird, 2003]. Gray circles, if present, are aftershock locations, sized by magnitude.

Moment Rate Function

Moment rate function image
Source time function, describing the rate of moment release with time after earthquake origin, relative to the peak moment rate (listed in the top right corner of the plot). The red dashed line represents the interpreted end of the event.