Unearthing earthquakes and their tsunamis using multiple proxies: the 22 June 1932 event and a probable fourteenth-century predecessor on the Pacific coast of Mexico

Ramírez‐Herrera, María Teresa; Corona, Néstor; Lagos, Marcelo; Černý, Jan; Goguitchaichvili, Avto; Goff, James; Chagué‐Goff, Catherine; Machain, María Luisa; Zawadzki, Atun; Jacobsen, Geraldine; Carranza‐Edwards, Arturo; Lozano, Socorro; Blecher, Lindsey

doi:10.1080/00206814.2014.951977

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The earthquake is known as the Chiapas earthquake or the Pijijiapan earthquake of 2017, and it was felt from the Oaxaca and Chiapas regions in the south to the center of Mexico in the capital. This event is the most powerful earthquake in Mexico since the 1985 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico City (Mendoza 1993) and the 1932 Jalisco earthquake (Farreras and Sanchez 1991;Ramírez-Herrera et al 2014). Along the Pacific coast of Mexico, there are two distinctly defined seismic gaps: the Tehuantepec and Guerrero gaps.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tsunami Source Inversion Using Tide Gauge and DART Tsunami Waveforms of the 2017 Mw8.2 Mexico Earthquake

Adriano

Fujii

Koshimura

et al. 2017

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-On September 8, 2017 (UTC), a normal-fault earthquake occurred 87 km off the southeast coast of Mexico. This earthquake generated a tsunami that was recorded at coastal tide gauge and offshore buoy stations. First, we conducted a numerical tsunami simulation using a single-fault model to understand the tsunami characteristics near the rupture area, focusing on the nearby tide gauge stations. Second, the tsunami source of this event was estimated from inversion of tsunami waveforms recorded at six coastal stations and three buoys located in the deep ocean. Using the aftershock distribution within 1 day following the main shock, the fault plane orientation had a northeast dip direction (strike ¼ 320 , dip ¼ 77 , and rake ¼ À92 ). The results of the tsunami waveform inversion revealed that the fault area was 240 km 9 90 km in size with most of the largest slip occurring on the middle and deepest segments of the fault. The maximum slip was 6.03 m from a 30 9 30 km 2 segment that was 64.82 km deep at the center of the fault area. The estimated slip distribution showed that the main asperity was at the center of the fault area. The second asperity with an average slip of 5.5 m was found on the northwest-most segments. The estimated slip distribution yielded a seismic moment of 2:9 Â 10 21 Nm (Mw = 8.24), which was calculated assuming an average rigidity of 7 Â 10 10 N/m 2 .

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tsunami Source Inversion Using Tide Gauge and DART Tsunami Waveforms of the 2017 Mw8.2 Mexico Earthquake

Adriano

Fujii

Koshimura

et al. 2017

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intermediate to basic extrusive igneous rocks characterize the north of the studied area and granites are locally exposed [ Lancin and Carranza , ]. Locally, the sands from the shore are rich in iron oxides [ Carranza‐Edwards et al ., ] and the beach berm and intertidal beach zone show enrichment of heavy minerals [ Ramírez‐Herrera et al ., ]. This is because the Cuyutlán lagoon barrier beach is constructed by sediments originating in the Armería River, whose mouth lies 7 km southeast of Palo Verde.…”

Section: Geological Setting and Sample Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PV estuary may be considered as well suited for tsunami deposit studies because it provides a vast amount of information which may be retrieved from a survey performed after the 1932 earthquake and tsunami [ Cumming , ; Corona and Ramírez‐Herrera , ] and from an investigation of the well‐preserved geological signatures of past tsunamis that has identified the 1932 and a predecessor tsunami [ Ramírez‐Herrera et al ., ]. In addition, Corona and Ramírez‐Herrera [] and Ramírez‐Herrera et al .…”

Section: Geological Setting and Sample Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since 2010, magnetic parameters such as magnetic susceptibility and anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) have proved highly resolving in tsunami deposit research [ Font et al ., ; Wassmer et al ., ]. So far, several studies have applied these techniques in environments in which tsunami or paleotsunami deposits are present [ Ramírez‐Herrera et al ., ; Cuven et al ., ; Font et al ., ; Goguitchaichvili et al ., ; Schneider et al ., ; Černý et al ., ; Kain et al ., ; Wassmer and Gomez , ; Wassmer et al ., ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Ramírez‐Herrera et al . [] identified two probable tsunamis in the Palo Verde estuary analyzing different multiproxy data, including both magnetic susceptibility (χ) and AMS. We performed new detailed magnetic and mineralogical measurements and reevaluated these preliminary results, clearly improving the characterization of the sedimentary deposit bearing tsunamigenic units.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Magnetic signature of the 22June 1932 tsunami deposits (Jalisco,MexicanPacific coast)

Bógalo

Ramírez‐Herrera

Goguitchaichvili

et al. 2017

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have demonstrated that rock‐magnetic analysis may provide additional information to distinguish and characterize extreme marine inundation events such as tsunamis. Rock‐magnetic proxies reinforce and improve the environmental evidences supplied by other methods, adding some decisive clues for the interpretation of the origin and genesis of the sedimentary deposits. Here we report rock‐magnetic, XRD, and SEM microscopy results obtained in the Palo Verde estuary (Colima Pacific coast, Mexico) in order to enhance the tools for identification and reconstruction of two tsunami‐induced deposits. The sedimentary sequence includes two sand units, a tsunami deposit (PV1) associated with the 22 June 1932 tsunami and a deeper sandy layer (PV2) related to a possible paleotsunami that occurred around 1300 C.E. Both sandy units are topped by finer grained units. Magnetic properties exhibit a significant correlation with the stratigraphy. High susceptibility (χ) and high saturation isothermal remanence (SIRM) values typical of high concentrations of (titano)magnetite are a distinctive feature of the most recent sandy tsunamigenic unit PV1 and the overlaying soil. The lower sandy tsunamigenic unit PV2 shows significantly lower χ and SIRM values, indicating lower concentration of (titano)magnetite in this unit and the overlaying clayey‐silt unit. The latter also shows a higher coercivity component associated with (titano)hematite. Magnetic grain‐size differences are also observed between PV1 and PV2 suggesting differences in hydraulic conditions at the time of deposition. The bulk mineralogical composition and sediment texture of these units also support the hypothesis of different provenances for each tsunamigenic unit as inferred from magnetic properties.

show abstract

Determining flow patterns and emplacement dynamics from tsunami deposits with no visible sedimentary structure

Kain

Wassmer

Goff

et al. 2016

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Unearthing earthquakes and their tsunamis using multiple proxies: the 22 June 1932 event and a probable fourteenth-century predecessor on the Pacific coast of Mexico

Cited by 18 publications

References 74 publications

Tsunami Source Inversion Using Tide Gauge and DART Tsunami Waveforms of the 2017 Mw8.2 Mexico Earthquake

Tsunami Source Inversion Using Tide Gauge and DART Tsunami Waveforms of the 2017 Mw8.2 Mexico Earthquake

Magnetic signature of the 22June 1932 tsunami deposits (Jalisco,MexicanPacific coast)

Determining flow patterns and emplacement dynamics from tsunami deposits with no visible sedimentary structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About