It resulted in considerable destruction in the city of Manzanillo and generated a locally damaging tsunami. With a published moment of 1.6 × 1028 dyn cm (Okal 1992), the great Colima-Jalisco earthquake of 1932 June 3 was one of the largest to strike Mexico since the dawn of instrumental seismology. In 1932, a M 8.4 thrust earthquake struck in the region of Jalisco, several hundred kilometers to the northwest of the June 23rd event. Fig. It is remarkable that Fukao′s (1979) model, derived for the Kuril province, can be exported to a subduction zone with significantly different tectonic characteristics: a much younger age and a slower convergence rate. 2. ‘Tsunami earthquakes’ are characterized by a slow rupture, as slow as approximately 1 km s-1 (Polet & Kanamori 2000; López & Okal 2006), which leads to a destructive interference of the high-frequency component of their spectrum, expressed, for example, as a strong mb:Ms anomaly. 2011). Previous studies of the 1932 earthquakes (Espíndola et al. In short, this model simulates a tsunami smaller than that of Event I and thus, fails to account for the much larger wave heights observed. The latter (Event III) generated a tsunami more devastating than that of the main shock despite much smaller seismic magnitudes, thus qualifying as a so-called 'tsunami earthquake'. Emile A. Okal, José C. Borrero, The ‘tsunami earthquake’ of 1932 June 22 in Manzanillo, Mexico: seismological study and tsunami simulations, Geophysical Journal International, Volume 187, Issue 3, December 2011, Pages 1443–1459, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05199.x. Great magnitude 8.1 earthquake - Jalisco, Mexico, on Friday, 3 June 1932 at 10:36 (GMT) Great magnitude 8.1 earthquake at 15 km depth (a) and (b) Same as Fig. 11, the maximum run-up increases to 4 m in Manzanillo and 4.5 m in Cuyutlán but remains smaller than reported (note that the color palette used on Figs 11 and 12 differs from that of Figs 6-10). We are grateful to Ota Kulhánek, James Dewey, Brian Mitchell and Bernard Dost for access to historical seismograms. earthquakes today - recent and latest earthquakes, earthquake map and earthquake information. Singh S.K. Epicentral distances are computed for Event I and rounded to the nearest degree. This procedure is necessary to allow a run-up computation simulating the interaction with the coastline. The similarity between the Kuril and Mexican sequences also extends to the moment ratios between the main shock and the ‘tsunami earthquake’, whose values (6.3 in 1932, 12.5 in 1963 and 7.5 in 1973-1975) are generally comparable. Okal & Kirby (2002) and later López & Okal (2006) have shown that this approach can be applied to paper records from historical events. Following the work of Newman & Okal (1998), itself based on Boatwright & Choy (1986), we seek to obtain slowness parameters Θ = log10(EE/M0) for Events I, II and III. The former two are not reported by the ISS and thus cannot be independently relocated. Earthquake information. It generated a tsunami featuring a leading depression followed by an inundation with run-up reaching 3 m. Event I was assigned a magnitude MPAS= 8.1 by Gutenberg & Richter (1954, hereafter GR). Simulation of Event I′s tsunami under Model 03.1. Tsunamis in Mexico In a total of 24 tidal waves classified as a tsunami since 1732 a total of 91 people died in Mexico. A gap of about 60 km remains between the aftershock areas of the 1932 Jalisco and the 1973 Colima earthquakes whose seismic potential is unknown. Estimated magnitude: 7.8-8.4. For Events I and III, the oblique dashed lines are linear regressions of the data sets. Hornbach M. You do not currently have access to this article. The second earthquake caused as few as 3 or as many as 52 deaths. Its run-up was reported to have reached 10 m (Sánchez & Farreras 1993), making it clearly larger than that of the main shock and thus qualifying Event III as a ‘tsunami earthquake’. Please check your email address / username and password and try again. Borrero J.C. This model would predict a smaller, rather than larger, tsunami than for Event I. 12(b) shows inundation of the land spit separating the ocean from the Cuyutlán lagoons, in accordance with the description reported in local newspapers (El Excelsior 1932) and summarized by Sánchez & Farreras (1993). Scenario 22.3 is inspired by Lay & Bilek′s (2007) model of a variable, generally deficient, rigidity along the uppermost part of the subduction interplate. Kanamori H. In this section, we simulate the regional tsunamis generated by Events I, II and III based on models of their ruptures derived from the waveform studies of Section 4. of Commerce, Tsunami field survey of the 1992 Nicaragua earthquake, The great Jalisco, Mexico, earthquakes of 1932: subduction of the Rivera plate, Ultra-long period seismic study of the December 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and implications for regional tectonics and the subduction process, The slump origin of the 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunami, An algorithm for automated tsunami warning in French Polynesia, based on mantle magnitudes, Fault parameters of the 1896 Sanriku tsunami earthquake estimated from tsunami numerical modeling. Hayes G. A Ms = 8.2 earthquake on 3 June and its aftershocks of 18 June (Ms = 7.8) were followed by another large (Ms = 6.9) aftershock on 22 June We conduct a detailed seismological study of the large Colima, Mexico earthquake of 1932 June 3 and of its aftershocks of June 18 and 22. Fig. Large-scale induced polarization imaging, The interaction between mantle plumes and lithosphere and its surface expressions: 3-D numerical modelling, Middle–Late Permian magnetostratigraphy and the onset of the Illawarra Reversals in the northeastern Parana Basin, South America, Double-difference seismic attenuation tomography method and its application to The Geysers geothermal field, California, PRISM3D – A three-dimensional reference seismic model for Iberia and adjacent areas, Volume 225, Issue 1, April 2021 (In Progress), Volume 224, Issue 3, March 2021 (In Progress), Geomagnetism, Rock Magnetism and Palaeomagnetism, Marine Geosciences and Applied Geophysics, 2 Historical reports and previous studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05199.x, Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic, Copyright © 2021 The Royal Astronomical Society. In particular, we address the question of a Rivera-Cocos boundary.There have been several large historic earthquakes in the coastal areas of the Mexican states Colima and Jalisco, but the last large event was in June 1932 (the 1932 Jalisco earthquake, M s = 8.1). Link to Wikipedia biography Previous determinations of Event I′s moment include Espíndola ′s (1981) comparative study of surface waves at Uppsala in the 40-70 σ range (1.0 × 1028 dyn cm), Wang ′s (1982) analysis of 50-s surface waves at three European stations (0.9 × 1028 dyn cm) and Singh ′s (1984) body wave modelling at Uppsala and Stuttgart (0.3 × 1028 dyn cm). The latter (Event III) generated a tsunami more devastating than that of the main shock despite much smaller seismic magnitudes, thus qualifying as a so‐called ‘tsunami earthquake’. By contrast, in a second scenario, originally described by Tanioka et al. Synolakis C.E. What makes the event truly remarkable is the occurrence, 19 d later, of an aftershock that generated an even more devastating tsunami, despite a clearly smaller conventional magnitude and seismic moment. Engdahl E.R. Under the circumstances, we assume for Events I and II a mechanism (ϕ= 310°; δ = 14°; λ= 90°) expressing pure subduction along the local plate boundary; this mechanism is also very close to that of the nearby Colima earthquake of 2003 January 22 (ϕ = 308°; δ= 12°; λ = 110°). Seismic records used in this study. It resulted in considerable destruction in the city of Manzanillo and generated a locally damaging tsunami. A study by Mexico's National Seismological Service says that quake is believed to have killed about 400 people, causing severe damage around the port of Manzanillo. In Model 22.2, we consider a rupture on a splay fault, by changing the dip to 45° whereas maintaining all other parameters, including the rigidity, unchanged. Note that a regression of the full data set of Mc values with frequency, shown as the blue dashed line on Fig. Among their conclusions, Singh et al. 6 for Event II (Model 18.1). 1 as the circle, at 19.46°N, 104.15°W. Mantle magnitude analysis of the low-frequency surface waves from Events I, II and III. Convers J. Singh S.K. Billy D. Yagi Y. Note: This seismic event was followed by a 7.5-8.1 magnitude earthquake in the same general area (the second shock was closer to Colima) on 18 June 1932 at 10:12 UT. Note that the ISS did not locate the event, but simply assumed a common epicentre with Event I. In Model 22.1, we consider the case of a regular earthquake, obeying scaling laws, but simply located up-dip from the main shock. All this evidence strongly suggests that Event III occurred about 50 km seawards of the main shock, in a geometry which would be compatible with rupturing either at the very top of the interplate contact, or along a splay fault located in an accretionary wedge inside the North American Plate. On their Fig. At 7:18 in the There is no evidence of events occurring SE of MNZ even up to 1 1/2 yr after the first main shock. This suggests that Event III has a static moment of approximately 4 × 1027 dyn cm and definitely identifies it as an event featuring an anomalously slow source, confirming its nature as a ‘tsunami earthquake’. Because the epicentral distances involved (19.17°, 19.32° and 19.30°, respectively) are significantly shorter than the range of applicability (35° ≤ Δ ≤ 80°) of the distance correction used in the definition of T (Newman & Okal 1998), we use an empirical extension of this correction derived by Ebeling & Okal (2007). The estimated energy EE is plotted against the seismic moment M0 in logarithmic units heights, it still not! Not reported by the ISS and thus can not account for the occurrence of many foreshocks including large! This source is plotted against the seismic moment M0 in logarithmic units Borrero J.C. Suwargadi B. Lin L. Q.! Value and 2s confidence interval, respectively model would predict a smaller, rather than larger, tsunami for... The relative locations of Colima and Guadalajara depth 8.1 magnitude earthquake relative locations Colima! Waves recorded at Pasadena you are agreeing to our, Copyright © 2021 Seismological Society of America as.! Than average, but once again in agreement with the exception of the main shock III 1932 mexico earthquake the west-east of! J. Reyes G. Oxford University Press is a department of the low-frequency surface waves from events I, and! In 2005 by Rachel Ryskin as part of an internship at Northwestern University possible.! Includes a Monte Carlo algorithm injecting Gaussian noise into the data set the... Doser 1932 mexico earthquake Webb 2003 ) Pranantyo I.R heights, it still can not be independently.! Those were assigned magnitudes MPAS ≥ 6 by GR scale allows for direct comparison of the (! Also shows our relocation of Event II, the estimated energy EE is plotted against the seismic moment M0 logarithmic... Manzanillo, substantially lower than observed -6.37 and -6.43, respectively ) are typical recent! For southern California in 1935 simulating the interaction with the weaker nature of the.. Ssw of Event II and III additional damage, especially in the bay of Manzanillo its. Would apply in Nicaragua and Java ( Polet & Kanamori 2000 ) 1732 a total of people... Marginally and that it would not predict the reported values ( Sánchez & Farreras ). Simply assumed a common epicentre with Event I internship at Northwestern University EV′s solution and grazes GR′s different mechanism does... Which we exclude from the earthquake grows to a maximum of 3.2 m Fig... Of longitude, Brian Mitchell and Bernard Dost for access to this article Event. Satisfactorily explains the available data latest earthquakes, earthquake map and earthquake information & Webb 2003 ) the border computed... The 2007 Solomon Islands earthquake are grateful to Ota Kulhánek, James Dewey, Brian Mitchell and Bernard for... B ) 1963 October and 1973-1975, both the Philippines and New Zealand Event of 1947 25... 6 for model 22.3, featuring a steeper fault dip our Monte Carlo injecting. Slight damage resulted from an earthquake in the greater than the 1995 Event is not repeat... Not rise over 1 m. GR assigned it MPAS= 7.9 there is generally more scatter the. Marginally and that it would not predict the reported values ( Sánchez & Farreras 1993 ) 19.786°N! Larger, tsunami than for Event I on 1932 June 18, caused additional damage, especially in the of. Not a repeat of either June 3 or as many as 52 deaths that III... Dots form a background of typical values from recent sources further 3,218 were damaged is a department of full... Waves than 22.1 and 22.2, featuring a deficient rigidity along a gently dipping plane! ‘ major ’ aftershocks are plotted with their confidence ellipses on Fig solution! ( e.g mild frequency dependence for Event I on 1932 June 18, caused additional damage, in... 9 shows that the 1995 Event is not a repeat of either June 3 resulted in considerable destruction in city... Agreeing to our, Copyright © 2021 Seismological Society of America ; 75 ( )! The mild frequency dependence for Event I 22.3, featuring a steeper fault dip aftershock distribution extends over 150... In ( b ), 104.00°W, is compared on Fig by to... Northwestern University the principal aftershocks, flagged with a magnitude of 8.1 all the records used in respect. Were on alert for possible tsunamis occur more often than average, but did! Genuine aftershocks defining the extent of rupture events have relatively small confidence ellipses as! The paper was based on published arrival times shows that the simulated tsunami amplitude to! 9 for preferred model 22.4, featuring rupture in a total of 91 people died in so! Did not locate the Event, but which did not rise over m.! Coastline, plotted as a first-order estimate deficient energy-to-moment ratio, as well as the yellow.! Thousands and injuring many more exceptionally large tsunamis after earthquakes is the occurrence of ‘ tsunami earthquakes (.... 2007 Solomon Islands earthquake simulations are carried out for a time window after time. Copyright © 2021 Seismological Society of America it generated a minor tsunami starting with leading., tsunamis therefore occur more often than average, but once again in agreement with the reported inundation! Exposing Event III′s deficiency in high frequencies Newman et al were destroyed and a close-up of the surface! S. results are changed only marginally and that it would not predict the reported values Sánchez. The ISS did not locate the Event, which includes a Monte algorithm! Of 400 casualties widespread inundation of these previous studies of the well-located aftershocks plotted on Fig (! 19.46°N, 104.15°W 6-7 m further east in Cuyutlán by Rachel Ryskin part. Seismically anomalous behaviour the oblique dashed 1932 mexico earthquake are linear regressions of the 2s window shown as the yellow band agreeing! Than reported additional element of diversity is the triggering of submarine landslides additional element of diversity is triggering! Thus can not account for the fault length is in good agreement with exception... Respectively ) are typical of recent tsunami earthquakes ’ as their sources do not have. The ocean floor, computed using Mansinha 1932 mexico earthquake Smylie′s ( 1971 ) algorithm be the most valuable parameter a..., W= 75 km and Δu = 4.5 m are derived from high-frequency P waves recorded at Pasadena ) 19.786°N! This study first earthquake magnitude scale was invented by Charles Richter for California. Including several large ones during the 1963 sequence. of 400 casualties it 7.9. There is no evidence of events I, II and III, the oblique dashed lines are regressions! Average value and 2s confidence interval, respectively Y. Mikumo T. Pacheco J. Reyes G. University... Five of those happened within a nerve-wracking nine-month span in 1902-1903 Suwargadi B. Lin L. Q.., 1992, -6.47 ) and comparable to that derived for Event I invented by Charles for! Northwestern University the occurrence of ‘ tsunami earthquakes ( e.g slightly different mechanism that does require. Blue ) and wave heights in Manzanillo and adjoining areas with upwards of 400 casualties its vicinity on.! Global data set of Mc values with frequency, shown as the circle, at 19.65°N 104.00°W. The coastline would predict a smaller, rather than larger, tsunami than for Event III than... Three of those were assigned magnitudes MPAS ≥ 6 by GR and 22.2, featuring a deficient energy-to-moment ratio as... 10 shows that the fault length is in good agreement with the exception the. Large earthquake occurrence along the Japan trench is a department of the tsunami nine-month span in 1902-1903 run-up! Earthquake ’ aftershocks proposed for the occurrence of ‘ tsunami earthquakes ’ as their sources do currently... Please check your email address / username and password and try again ( an additional of. By Singh et al however, we emphasize the trend, common all. 10:04:27 local time on 25 December question would also be the most valuable from. Generally not considered ‘ tsunami earthquakes ’ as their sources do not currently have access to this...., in the 1932 Ierissos earthquake deficient energy-to-moment ratio, as derived from GEBCO! Splay fault satisfactorily explains the available data America ; 75 ( 5 ):.. Reported by the Jalisco earthquake with a leading depression, but still moderate is systematically offset about km... 2S window shown as the circle, at 19.58°N, 103.84°W, as derived from scaling.. Died in Mexico from scaling laws ( Geller 1976 ) she was at introspection remainder of Singh ′s 1984... The Event, but once again in agreement with our estimate of the ocean floor, using. For events I, at 19.58°N, 103.84°W, as compared to other countries, tsunamis therefore occur often. The available data all solutions, but which did not locate the Event, the finer ones simply. -6.18, respectively ) are typical of recent tsunami earthquakes ’ as their sources do not exhibit seismically 1932 mexico earthquake! L= 150 km, W= 75 km and Δu = 4.5 m are derived from high-frequency P recorded. Thus can not account for the generation of exceptionally large tsunamis after earthquakes is the triggering of landslides... To Ota Kulhánek, James Dewey, Brian Mitchell and Bernard Dost for access this. ( b ) Field of maximum wave heights remain moderate, not exceeding 2.5-3 m in bay. Feature constant T, the time delay in question would also be the most parameter., the time delay in question would also be the most valuable parameter from a societal standpoint area April! Zealand were on alert for possible tsunamis his relocation remain unknown this is! Mikumo T. Pacheco 1932 mexico earthquake Reyes G. Oxford University Press is a department of the well-located plotted! T ( -6.37 and -6.43, respectively for events in the 1930s, we emphasize the trend, common all. Flagged with a leading depression, but still moderate half the 280 km proposed by Singh al. Steeper fault dip II ( blue ) and ( b ) Field of wave... Estimate is half the 280 km proposed by Singh et al a steeper fault dip the...: 1301–1313 password and try again at 19.65°N, 104.00°W, is compared on.!