Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake
Abstract Coseismic electromagnetic (EM) signals that appear from the P arrival were observed in a volcanic area during the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. In this study, we conduct numerical simulations to explain the coseismic EM signals observed for a M5.4 aftershock of the earthquake. Initially, we ado...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | Earth, Planets and Space |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-019-1122-7 |
| _version_ | 1818599743078531072 |
|---|---|
| author | Yao-Chong Sun Makoto Uyeshima Hengxin Ren Qinghua Huang Koki Aizawa Kaori Tsukamoto Wataru Kanda Kaori Seki Takahiro Kishita Takao Ohminato Atsushi Watanabe Jiangjun Ran Xiaofei Chen |
| author_facet | Yao-Chong Sun Makoto Uyeshima Hengxin Ren Qinghua Huang Koki Aizawa Kaori Tsukamoto Wataru Kanda Kaori Seki Takahiro Kishita Takao Ohminato Atsushi Watanabe Jiangjun Ran Xiaofei Chen |
| author_sort | Yao-Chong Sun |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Coseismic electromagnetic (EM) signals that appear from the P arrival were observed in a volcanic area during the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. In this study, we conduct numerical simulations to explain the coseismic EM signals observed for a M5.4 aftershock of the earthquake. Initially, we adopt a water-saturated half-space model, and its simulation result for a receiver with a depth of 0.1 m suggests that the magnetic signals do not show up at the arrivals of P, refracted SV–P and Rayleigh waves because the evanescent EM waves just counterbalance the localized magnetic signals that accompany P, refracted SV–P and Rayleigh waves. Then, we conduct numerical simulations on a seven-layer half-space model in which the second layer corresponds to an aquifer analogy and the six other layers refer to air-saturated porous media. When only the electrokinetic effect is considered, the simulated coseismic magnetic signals still appear from the S arrival. The combination of electrokinetic effect and surface-charge assumption is also tested. We find that signals before the S arrival are missing on the transverse seismic, transverse electric, radial magnetic and vertical magnetic components, although the situation on horizontal magnetic components is improved to an extent. Then, we introduce an artificial scattering effect into our numerical simulations given that the scattering effect should exist in the volcanic area. New numerical result shows good agreement with the observation result on the signal appearance time. Hence, the combination of electrokinetic and scattering effects is a plausible explanation of coseismic EM signals. Further investigations indicate that coseismic electric and/or magnetic signals are more sensitive to the scattering effect and the aquifer thickness than seismic signals. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T12:24:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ee9dbc5c985d4d70b9ab1399887f9bc0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1880-5981 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T12:24:26Z |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Earth, Planets and Space |
| spelling | doaj.art-ee9dbc5c985d4d70b9ab1399887f9bc02022-12-21T22:31:53ZengSpringerOpenEarth, Planets and Space1880-59812019-12-0171112410.1186/s40623-019-1122-7Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakeYao-Chong Sun0Makoto Uyeshima1Hengxin Ren2Qinghua Huang3Koki Aizawa4Kaori Tsukamoto5Wataru Kanda6Kaori Seki7Takahiro Kishita8Takao Ohminato9Atsushi Watanabe10Jiangjun Ran11Xiaofei Chen12Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and TechnologyEarthquake Research Institute, The University of TokyoDepartment of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Geophysics, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking UniversityInstitute of Seismology and Volcanology, Kyushu UniversityGraduate School of Science, Kyushu UniversitySchool of Science, Tokyo Institute of TechnologySchool of Science, Tokyo Institute of TechnologySchool of Science, Tokyo Institute of TechnologyEarthquake Research Institute, The University of TokyoEarthquake Research Institute, The University of TokyoDepartment of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and TechnologyAbstract Coseismic electromagnetic (EM) signals that appear from the P arrival were observed in a volcanic area during the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. In this study, we conduct numerical simulations to explain the coseismic EM signals observed for a M5.4 aftershock of the earthquake. Initially, we adopt a water-saturated half-space model, and its simulation result for a receiver with a depth of 0.1 m suggests that the magnetic signals do not show up at the arrivals of P, refracted SV–P and Rayleigh waves because the evanescent EM waves just counterbalance the localized magnetic signals that accompany P, refracted SV–P and Rayleigh waves. Then, we conduct numerical simulations on a seven-layer half-space model in which the second layer corresponds to an aquifer analogy and the six other layers refer to air-saturated porous media. When only the electrokinetic effect is considered, the simulated coseismic magnetic signals still appear from the S arrival. The combination of electrokinetic effect and surface-charge assumption is also tested. We find that signals before the S arrival are missing on the transverse seismic, transverse electric, radial magnetic and vertical magnetic components, although the situation on horizontal magnetic components is improved to an extent. Then, we introduce an artificial scattering effect into our numerical simulations given that the scattering effect should exist in the volcanic area. New numerical result shows good agreement with the observation result on the signal appearance time. Hence, the combination of electrokinetic and scattering effects is a plausible explanation of coseismic EM signals. Further investigations indicate that coseismic electric and/or magnetic signals are more sensitive to the scattering effect and the aquifer thickness than seismic signals.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-019-1122-7Coseismic EM signals2016 Kumamoto earthquakeNumerical simulationElectrokinetic effectScattering effect |
| spellingShingle | Yao-Chong Sun Makoto Uyeshima Hengxin Ren Qinghua Huang Koki Aizawa Kaori Tsukamoto Wataru Kanda Kaori Seki Takahiro Kishita Takao Ohminato Atsushi Watanabe Jiangjun Ran Xiaofei Chen Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake Earth, Planets and Space Coseismic EM signals 2016 Kumamoto earthquake Numerical simulation Electrokinetic effect Scattering effect |
| title | Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake |
| title_full | Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake |
| title_fullStr | Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake |
| title_full_unstemmed | Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake |
| title_short | Numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals: a case study for a M5.4 aftershock of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake |
| title_sort | numerical simulations to explain the coseismic electromagnetic signals a case study for a m5 4 aftershock of the 2016 kumamoto earthquake |
| topic | Coseismic EM signals 2016 Kumamoto earthquake Numerical simulation Electrokinetic effect Scattering effect |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-019-1122-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yaochongsun numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT makotouyeshima numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT hengxinren numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT qinghuahuang numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT kokiaizawa numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT kaoritsukamoto numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT watarukanda numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT kaoriseki numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT takahirokishita numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT takaoohminato numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT atsushiwatanabe numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT jiangjunran numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake AT xiaofeichen numericalsimulationstoexplainthecoseismicelectromagneticsignalsacasestudyforam54aftershockofthe2016kumamotoearthquake |