The 1997 Kronotsky earthquake and tsunami and their predecessors, Kamchatka, Russia
The northern part of the Kamchatka subduction zone (KSZ) experienced three tsunamigenic earthquakes in the 20th century – February 1923, April 1923, December 1997 – events that help us better understand the behavior of this segment. A particular focus of this study is the nature and location of the...
| Published in: | Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-335-2018 https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/18/335/2018/nhess-18-335-2018.pdf https://doaj.org/article/6bf161ec058e4b7a92989c1d1e4a7246 |
| Summary: | The northern part of the Kamchatka subduction zone (KSZ) experienced three tsunamigenic earthquakes in the 20th century – February 1923, April 1923, December 1997 – events that help us better understand the behavior of this segment. A particular focus of this study is the nature and location of the 5 December 1997 Kronotsky rupture (Mw ∼ 7.8) as elucidated by tsunami runup north of Kronotsky Peninsula in southern to central Kamchatsky Bay. Some studies have characterized the subduction zone off Kronotsky Peninsula as either more locked or more smoothly slipping than surrounding areas and have placed the 1997 rupture south of this promontory. However, 1997 tsunami runup north of the peninsula, as evidenced by our mapping of tsunami deposits, requires the rupture to extend farther north. Previously reported runup (1997 tsunami) on Kronotsky Peninsula was no more than 2–3 m, but our studies indicate tsunami heights for at least 50 km north of Kronotsky Peninsula in Kamchatsky Bay, ranging from 3.4 to 9.5 m (average 6.1 m), exceeding beach ridge heights of 5.3 to 8.3 m (average 7.1 m). For the two 1923 tsunamis, we cannot distinguish among their deposits in southern to central Kamchatsky Bay, but the deposits are more extensive than the 1997 deposit. A reevaluation of the April 1923 historical tsunami suggests that its moment magnitude could be revised upward, and that the 1997 earthquake filled a gap between the two 1923 earthquake ruptures. Characterizing these historical earthquakes and tsunamis in turn contributes to interpreting the prehistoric record, which is necessary to evaluate recurrence intervals for such events. Deeper in time, the prehistoric record back to ∼ AD 300 in southern to central Kamchatsky Bay indicates that during this interval, there were no local events significantly larger than those of the 20th century. Together, the historic and prehistoric tsunami record suggests a more northerly location of the 1997 rupture compared to most other analyses, a revision of the size of the April 1923 ... |
|---|