Earthquake Report: M 7.1 Sumatra, Indonesia

Posted on April 25, 2023 by Jay Patton

As I completed the Earthquake Report for yesterday’s M 7.1 earthquake along the Kermadec Trench, I tweeted the report and interpretive poster to notice a colleague had tweeted about a magnitude M 7.1 earthquake about an hour earlier.

So, I got to work on this report.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000jvl3/executive

Needless to say, I am a little tired. So, I will write this up more tomorrow.

Until then, I present the interpretive poster for this earthquake below.

Here is a fantastic view of this plate boundary from a low-angle oblique perspective. The geologists at the EOS Singapore prepared this.

This M7.1 earthquake happened along the plate boundary megathrust subduction zone fault (labeled Sunda megathrust in the illustration).

The location was near the “t” in the Mentawai fault label.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1923-2023 with magnitudes M ≥ 7.0 in one version.
I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

In the upper left corner is a map showing the tectonic plates and their boundaries.
In the lower right corner is a map that shows the earthquake intensity using the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Earthquake intensity is a measure of how strongly the Earth shakes during an earthquake, so gets smaller the further away one is from the earthquake epicenter. The map colors represent a model of what the intensity may be. The USGS has a system called “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) where people enter their observations from the earthquake and the USGS calculates what the intensity was for that person. The dots with yellow labels show what people actually felt in those different locations.
In the lower left corner is a plot that shows the same intensity (both modeled and reported) data as displayed on the map. Note how the intensity gets smaller with distance from the earthquake.
In the upper right corner are two maps showing the probability of earthquake triggered landslides and possibility of earthquake induced liquefaction. I will describe these phenomena below

Here is the map with 3 month’s seismicity plotted.

Shaking Intensity

Here is a figure that shows a more detailed comparison between the modeled intensity and the reported intensity. Both data use the same color scale, the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI). More about this can be found here. The colors and contours on the map are results from the USGS modeled intensity. The DYFI data are plotted as colored dots (color = MMI, diameter = number of reports).
In the upper panel is the USGS Did You Feel It reports map, showing reports as colored dots using the MMI color scale. Underlain on this map are colored areas showing the USGS modeled estimate for shaking intensity (MMI scale).
In the lower panel is a plot showing MMI intensity (vertical axis) relative to distance from the earthquake (horizontal axis). The models are represented by the green and orange lines. The DYFI data are plotted as light blue dots. The mean and median (different types of “average”) are plotted as orange and purple dots. Note how well the reports fit the green line (the model that represents how MMI works based on quakes in California).
Below the lower plot is the USGS MMI Intensity scale, which lists the level of damage for each level of intensity, along with approximate measures of how strongly the ground shakes at these intensities, showing levels in acceleration (Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA) and velocity (Peak Ground Velocity, PGV).

Potential for Ground Failure

Luckily I updated this page because I noticed that the interpretive figure below was incorrect (it was for a different earthquake).

Below are a series of maps that show the potential for landslides and liquefaction. These are all USGS data products.
There are many different ways in which a landslide can be triggered. The first order relations behind slope failure (landslides) is that the “resisting” forces that are preventing slope failure (e.g. the strength of the bedrock or soil) are overcome by the “driving” forces that are pushing this land downwards (e.g. gravity). The ratio of resisting forces to driving forces is called the Factor of Safety (FOS). We can write this ratio like this:

FOS = Resisting Force / Driving Force
When FOS > 1, the slope is stable and when FOS < 1, the slope fails and we get a landslide. The illustration below shows these relations. Note how the slope angle α can take part in this ratio (the steeper the slope, the greater impact of the mass of the slope can contribute to driving forces). The real world is more complicated than the simplified illustration below.

Landslide ground shaking can change the Factor of Safety in several ways that might increase the driving force or decrease the resisting force. Keefer (1984) studied a global data set of earthquake triggered landslides and found that larger earthquakes trigger larger and more numerous landslides across a larger area than do smaller earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause landslides because the seismic waves can cause the driving force to increase (the earthquake motions can “push” the land downwards), leading to a landslide. In addition, ground shaking can change the strength of these earth materials (a form of resisting force) with a process called liquefaction.
Sediment or soil strength is based upon the ability for sediment particles to push against each other without moving. This is a combination of friction and the forces exerted between these particles. This is loosely what we call the “angle of internal friction.” Liquefaction is a process by which pore pressure increases cause water to push out against the sediment particles so that they are no longer touching.
An analogy that some may be familiar with relates to a visit to the beach. When one is walking on the wet sand near the shoreline, the sand may hold the weight of our body generally pretty well. However, if we stop and vibrate our feet back and forth, this causes pore pressure to increase and we sink into the sand as the sand liquefies. Or, at least our feet sink into the sand.
Below is a diagram showing how an increase in pore pressure can push against the sediment particles so that they are not touching any more. This allows the particles to move around and this is why our feet sink in the sand in the analogy above. This is also what changes the strength of earth materials such that a landslide can be triggered.

Below is a diagram based upon a publication designed to educate the public about landslides and the processes that trigger them (USGS, 2004). Additional background information about landslide types can be found in Highland et al. (2008). There was a variety of landslide types that can be observed surrounding the earthquake region. So, this illustration can help people when they observing the landscape response to the earthquake whether they are using aerial imagery, photos in newspaper or website articles, or videos on social media. Will you be able to locate a landslide scarp or the toe of a landslide? This figure shows a rotational landslide, one where the land rotates along a curvilinear failure surface.

Below is the liquefaction susceptibility and landslide probability map (Jessee et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017). Please head over to that report for more information about the USGS Ground Failure products (landslides and liquefaction). Basically, earthquakes shake the ground and this ground shaking can cause landslides.
I use the same color scheme that the USGS uses on their website. Note how the areas that are more likely to have experienced earthquake induced liquefaction are in the valleys. Learn more about how the USGS prepares these model results here.

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

Here is my map. I include the references below in blockquote.

Sumatra core location and plate setting map with sedimentary and erosive systems figure. A. India-Australia plate subducts northeastwardly beneath the Sunda plate (part of Eurasia) at modern rates (GPS velocities are based on regional modeling of Bock et al, 2003 as plotted in Subarya et al., 2006). Historic earthquake ruptures (Bilham, 2005; Malik et al., 2011) are plotted in orange. 2004 earthquake and 2005 earthquake 5 meter slip contours are plotted in orange and green respectively (Chlieh et al., 2007, 2008). Bengal and Nicobar fans cover structures of the India-Australia plate in the northern part of the map. RR0705 cores are plotted as light blue. SRTM bathymetry and topography is in shaded relief and colored vs. depth/elevation (Smith and Sandwell, 1997). B. Schematic illustration of geomorphic elements of subduction zone trench and slope sedimentary settings. Submarine channels, submarine canyons, dune fields and sediment waves, abyssal plain, trench axis, plunge pool, apron fans, and apron fan channels are labeled here. Modified from Patton et al. (2013 a).

This is the main figure from Hayes et al. (2013) from the Seismicity of the Earth series. There is a map with the slab contours and seismicity both colored vs. depth. There are also some cross sections of seismicity plotted, with locations shown on the map.

Here is a great figure from Philobosian et al. (2014) that shows the slip patches from the subduction zone earthquakes in this region.

Map of Southeast Asia showing recent and selected historical ruptures of the Sunda megathrust. Black lines with sense of motion are major plate-bounding faults, and gray lines are seafloor fracture zones. Motions of Australian and Indian plates relative to Sunda plate are from the MORVEL-1 global model [DeMets et al., 2010]. The fore-arc sliver between the Sunda megathrust and the strike-slip Sumatran Fault becomes the Burma microplate farther north, but this long, thin strip of crust does not necessarily all behave as a rigid block. Sim = Simeulue, Ni = Nias, Bt = Batu Islands, and Eng = Enggano. Brown rectangle centered at 2°S, 99°E delineates the area of Figure 3, highlighting the Mentawai Islands. Figure adapted from Meltzner et al. [2012] with rupture areas and magnitudes from Briggs et al. [2006], Konca et al. [2008], Meltzner et al. [2010], Hill et al. [2012], and references therein.

This is a figure from Philobosian et al. (2012) that shows a larger scale view for the slip patches in this region. Note that today’s earthquake happened at the edge of the 7.9 earthquake slip patch.

Recent and ancient ruptures along the Mentawai section of the Sunda megathrust. Colored patches are surface projections of 1-m slip contours of the deep megathrust ruptures on 12–13 September 2007 (pink to red) and the shallow rupture on 25 October 2010 (green). Dashed rectangles indicate roughly the sections that ruptured in 1797 and 1833. Ancient ruptures are adapted from Natawidjaja et al. [2006] and recent ones come from Konca et al. [2008] and Hill et al. (submitted manuscript, 2012). Labeled points indicate coral study sites Sikici (SKC), Pasapuat (PSP), Simanganya (SMY), Pulau Pasir (PSR), and Bulasat (BLS).

Here are a series of figures from Chlieh et al. (2008 ) that show their data sources and their modeling results. I include their figure captions below in blockquote.
This figure shows the coupling model (on the left) and the source data for their inversions (on the right). Their source data are vertical deformation rates as measured along coral microattols. These are from data prior to the 2004 SASZ earthquake.

Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of the coral and of the GPS data (Tables 2, 3, and 4) prior to the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake (model I-a in Table 7). (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red, and fully creeping areas are white. Three strongly coupled patches are revealed beneath Nias island, Siberut island, and Pagai island. The annual moment deficit rate corresponding to that model is 4.0 X 10^20 N m/a. (b) Observed (black vectors) and predicted (red vectors) horizontal velocities appear. Observed and predicted vertical displacements are shown by color-coded large and small circles, respectively. The Xr^2 of this model is 3.9 (Table 7).

This is a similar figure, but based upon observations between June 2005 and October 2006.

Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of the horizontal velocities and uplift rates derived from the CGPS measurements at the SuGAr stations (processed at SOPAC). To reduce the influence of postseismic deformation caused by the March 2005 Nias-Simeulue rupture, velocities were determined for the period between June 2005 and October 2006. (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red and fully creeping areas are white. This model reveals strong coupling beneath the Mentawai Islands (Siberut, Sipora, and Pagai islands), offshore Padang city, and suggests that the megathrust south of Bengkulu city is creeping at the plate velocity. (b) Comparison of observed (green) and predicted (red) velocities. The Xr^2 associated to that model is 24.5 (Table 8).

This is a similar figure, but based on all the data.

Distribution of coupling on the Sumatra megathrust derived from the formal inversion of all the data (model J-a, Table 8). (a) Distribution of coupling on the megathrust. Fully coupled areas are red, and fully creeping areas are white. This model shows strong coupling beneath Nias island and beneath the Mentawai (Siberut, Sipora and Pagai) islands. The rate of accumulation of moment deficit is 4.5 X 10^20 N m/a. (b) Comparison of observed (black arrows for pre-2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and green arrows for post-2005 Nias earthquake) and predicted velocities (in red). Observed and predicted vertical displacements are shown by color-coded large and small circles (for the corals) and large and small diamonds (for the CGPS), respectively. The Xr^2 of this model is 12.8.

Here is the figure I included in the poster above.

Comparison of interseismic coupling along the megathrust with the rupture areas of the great 1797, 1833, and 2005 earthquakes. The southernmost rupture area of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake lies north of our study area and is shown only for reference. Epicenters of the 2007 Mw 8.4 and Mw 7.9 earthquakes are also shown for reference. (a) Geometry of the locked fault zone corresponding to forward model F-f (Figure 6c). Below the Batu Islands, where coupling occurs in a narrow band, the largest earthquake for the past 260 years has been a Mw 7.7 in 1935 [Natawidjaja et al., 2004; Rivera et al., 2002]. The wide zones of coupling, beneath Nias, Siberut, and Pagai islands, coincide well with the source of great earthquakes (Mw > 8.5) in 2005 from Konca et al. [2007] and in 1797 and 1833 from Natawidjaja et al. [2006]. The narrow locked patch beneath the Batu islands lies above the subducting fossil Investigator Fracture Zone. (b) Distribution of interseismic coupling corresponding to inverse model J-a (Figure 10). The coincidence of the high coupling area (orange-red dots) with the region of high coseismic slip during the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake suggests that strongly coupled patches during interseismic correspond to seismic asperities during megathrust ruptures. The source regions of the 1797 and 1833 ruptures also correlate well with patches that are highly coupled beneath Siberut, Sipora, and Pagai islands.

Here is the Chlieh et al. (2008) figure with the 18 November 2022 M 6.9 earthquake plotted as a blue star.
Note how the M 6.9 happened in a region of low seismogenic coupling. Beware that this is also in an area without any geodetic (GPS/GNSS) nor paleogeodetic (coral microattol) observations (the sources of data for the coupling model).

This figure shows the authors’ estimate for the moment deficit in this region of the subduction zone. This is an estimate of how much the plate convergence rate, that is estimated to accumulate as tectonic strain, will need to be released during subduction zone earthquakes.

Latitudinal distributions of seismic moment released by great historical earthquakes and of accumulated deficit of moment due to interseismic locking of the plate interface. Values represent integrals over half a degree of latitude. Accumulated interseismic deficits since 1797, 1833, and 1861 are based on (a) model F-f and (b) model J-a. Seismic moments for the 1797 and 1833 Mentawai earthquakes are estimated based on the work by Natawidjaja et al. [2006], the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake is taken from Konca et al. [2007], and the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake is taken from Chlieh et al. [2007]. Postseismic moments released in the month that follows the 2004 earthquake and in the 11 months that follows the Nias-Simeulue 2005 earthquake are shown in red and green, respectively, based on the work by Chlieh et al. [2007] and Hsu et al. [2006].

For a review of the 2004 and 2005 Sumatra Andaman subduction zone (SASZ) earthquakes, please check out my Earthquake Report here. Below is the poster from that report. On that report page, I also include some information about the 2012 M 8.6 and M 8.2 Wharton Basin earthquakes.

I include some inset figures in the poster.
In the upper left corner, I include a map that shows the extent of historic earthquakes along the SASZ offshore of Sumatra. This map is a culmination of a variety of papers (summarized and presented in Patton et al., 2015).
In the upper right corner I include a figure that is presented by Chlieh et al. (2007). These figures show model results from several models. Each model is represented by a map showing the amount that the fault slipped in particular regions. I present this figure below.
In the lower right corner I present a figure from Prawirodirdjo et al. (2010). This figure shows the coseismic vertical and horizontal motions from the 2004 and 2005 earthquakes as measured at GPS sites.
In the lower left corner are the MMI intensity maps for the two SASZ earthquakes. Note these are at different map scales. I also include the MMI attenuation curves for these earthquakes below the maps. These plots show the reported MMI intensity data as they relate to two plots of modeled estimates (the orange and green lines). These green dots are from the USGS “Did You Feel It?” reports compared to the estimates of ground shaking from Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) estimates. GMPE are empirical relations between earthquakes and recorded seismologic observations from those earthquakes, largely controlled by distance to the fault, ray path (direction and material properties), and site effects (the local geology). When seismic waves propagate through sediment, the magnitude of the ground motions increases in comparison to when seismic waves propagate through bedrock. The orange line is a regression of data for the central and eastern US and the green line is a regression through data from the western US.

Here is a map from Jacob et a. (2014) that shows the structure of the eastern Indian Ocean. Figure text below.

Free-air gravity anomaly map derived from satellite altimetry [Sandwell and Smith, 2009] over the Wharton Basin area.

Here is the map from Jacobs et a. (2014). Figure text below.

Structure and age of the Wharton Basin deduced from free-air gravity anomaly [Sandwell and Smith, 2009; background colors] for the fracture zones (thin black longitudinal lines), and marine magnetic anomaly profiles (not shown) for the isochrons (thin black latitudinal lines). The plain colors represent the oceanic lithosphere created during normal geomagnetic polarity intervals (see legend for the ages of Chrons 20 to 34 according to the time scale of Gradstein et al. [2004]). Compartments separated by major fracture zones are labeled A to H. Grey areas: oceanic plateaus, thick black line: Sunda Trench subduction zone.

This is a fascinating figure from Jacob et al. (2014). This shows a reconstruction of the magntic anomalies for the oceanic crust as they are subducted beneath Eurasia.

Reconstitution of the subducted magnetic isochrons and fracture zones of the northern Wharton Basin using the finite rotation parameters deduced from our two- and three-plate reconstructions. (a) First the geometry is restored on the Earth surface, then (b) it is draped on the top of the subducting plate as derived from seismic tomography [Pesicek et al., 2010] shown by the thin dotted lines at intervals of 100 km (b). Colored dots: identified magnetic anomalies; colored triangles: rotated magnetic anomalies, solid lines; observed fracture zones and isochrons, dashed lines: uncertain or reconstructed fracture zones, dotted lines: reconstructed isochrons from rotated magnetic anomalies (two-plate and three-plate reconstructions), colored area: oceanic lithosphere created during normal geomagnetic polarity intervals (see legend for the ages; the colored areas without solid or dotted lines have been interpolated), grey areas: oceanic plateaus, thick line: Sunda Trench subduction zone.

Finally, these authors present what their reconstruction implicates about this plate boundary system.

The deviation of the Sunda Trench from a regular arc shape (dotted lines) off Sumatra is explained by the presence of the younger, hotter and therefore lighter lithosphere in compartments C–F, which resists subduction and form an indentor (solid line). The very young compartment G was probably part of this indentor before oceanic crust formed at slow spreading rate near the Wharton fossil spreading center approached subduction: The weaker rheology of outcropping or shallow serpentinite may have favored the restoration of the accretionary prism in this area. Further south, the deviation off Java is explained by the resistance of the thicker Roo Rise, an oceanic plateau entering the subduction.

Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

These are the two maps shown in the map above, the GEM Seismic Hazard and the GEM Seismic Risk maps from Pagani et al. (2018) and Silva et al. (2018).

The GEM Seismic Hazard Map:

The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Global Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1) depicts the geographic distribution of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, computed for reference rock conditions (shear wave velocity, VS30, of 760-800 m/s). The map was created by collating maps computed using national and regional probabilistic seismic hazard models developed by various institutions and projects, and by GEM Foundation scientists. The OpenQuake engine, an open-source seismic hazard and risk calculation software developed principally by the GEM Foundation, was used to calculate the hazard values. A smoothing methodology was applied to homogenise hazard values along the model borders. The map is based on a database of hazard models described using the OpenQuake engine data format (NRML). Due to possible model limitations, regions portrayed with low hazard may still experience potentially damaging earthquakes.
Here is a view of the GEM seismic hazard map for Indonesia.

The GEM Seismic Risk Map:

The Global Seismic Risk Map (v2018.1) presents the geographic distribution of average annual loss (USD) normalised by the average construction costs of the respective country (USD/m2) due to ground shaking in the residential, commercial and industrial building stock, considering contents, structural and non-structural components. The normalised metric allows a direct comparison of the risk between countries with widely different construction costs. It does not consider the effects of tsunamis, liquefaction, landslides, and fires following earthquakes. The loss estimates are from direct physical damage to buildings due to shaking, and thus damage to infrastructure or indirect losses due to business interruption are not included. The average annual losses are presented on a hexagonal grid, with a spacing of 0.30 x 0.34 decimal degrees (approximately 1,000 km² at the equator). The average annual losses were computed using the event-based calculator of the OpenQuake engine, an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk analysis developed by the GEM Foundation. The seismic hazard, exposure and vulnerability models employed in these calculations were provided by national institutions, or developed within the scope of regional programs or bilateral collaborations.

Here is a view of the GEM seismic risk map for Indonesia.

Tsunami Hazard

Here are two maps that show the results of probabilistic tsunami modeling for the nation of Indonesia (Horspool et al., 2014). These results are similar to results from seismic hazards analysis and maps. The color represents the chance that a given area will experience a certain size tsunami (or larger).
The first map shows the annual chance of a tsunami with a height of at least 0.5 m (1.5 feet). The second map shows the chance that there will be a tsunami at least 3 meters (10 feet) high at the coast.

Annual probability of experiencing a tsunami with a height at the coast of (a) 0.5m (a tsunami warning) and (b) 3m (a major tsunami warning).

Indonesia | Sumatra

General Overview

M 9.2 Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone 2014 Earthquake Anniversary
M 9.2 Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone SASZ Fault Deformation
M 9.2 Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone 2016 Earthquake Anniversary

Earthquake Reports

2023.04.24 M 7.1 Sumatra
2022.11.18 M 6.9 Sumatra
2022.02.25 M 6.2 Sumatra
2020.05.06 M 6.8 Banda Sea
2019.08.02 M 6.9 Indonesia
2019.06.23 M 7.3 Banda Sea
2019.04.12 M 6.8 Sulawesi, Indonesia
2018.09.28 M 7.5 Sulawesi
2018.10.16 M 7.5 Sulawesi UPDATE #1
2018.08.19 M 6.9 Lombok, Indonesia
2018.08.05 M 6.9 Lombok, Indonesia
2018.07.28 M 6.4 Lombok, Indonesia
2017.12.15 M 6.5 Java
2017.08.31 M 6.3 Mentawai, Sumatra
2017.08.13 M 6.4 Bengkulu, Sumatra, Indonesia
2017.05.29 M 6.8 Sulawesi, Indonesia
2017.03.14 M 6.0 Sumatra
2017.03.01 M 5.5 Banda Sea
2016.10.19 M 6.6 Java
2016.03.02 M 7.8 Sumatra/Indian Ocean
2015.07.22 M 5.8 Andaman Sea
2015.11.08 M 6.4 Nicobar Isles
2012.04.11 M 8.6 Sumatra outer rise
2004.12.26 M 9.2 Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone

Social Media

#EarthquakeReport for M7.1 #Gempa #Earthquake offshore of #Sumatra #Indonesia

Strong ground shaking w felt reports of intensity MMI 9
must have been terrifying
Hopefully there is little suffering

Learn more from earlier report https://t.co/KKizpqrU0C https://t.co/b9naiPPnbA pic.twitter.com/ThnHCzPNxv

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) April 24, 2023

#EarthquakeReport for M7.1 #Gempa #Earthquake offshore of #Sumatra #Indonesia @USGS_Quakes model results show the likelihood (chance) for liquefaction induced by the earthquake

Learn more from earlier report https://t.co/MsVJ54GpGM https://t.co/s269GrVReM pic.twitter.com/cZ2EjlRHb1

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) April 24, 2023

#EarthquakeReport for M7.1 #Gempa #Earthquake offshore of #Sumatra #Indonesia

felt reports of intensity MMI 9

This plot shows how earthquake intensity gets smaller w/distance

Learn more from earlier report https://t.co/MsVJ54GpGM https://t.co/ROpl0cNYYx pic.twitter.com/pGuafAWLxN

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) April 24, 2023

#EarthquakeReport for M7.1 #Gempa #Earthquake offshore of Batu Islands, Siberut Island, and #Sumatra #Indonesia

megathrust subduction zone earthquake
likely generated a modest local tsunami
potential for ground failure

interpretive poster and report herehttps://t.co/yATr1rEugZ pic.twitter.com/3S6OeT3mow

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) April 25, 2023

https://t.co/k71inQr158

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) April 24, 2023

M 7.1 – 170 km SSE of Teluk Dalam, Indonesiahttps://t.co/7jWUUYLp7E pic.twitter.com/n83OgwYCmj

— Wendy Bohon, PhD 🌏 (@DrWendyRocks) April 24, 2023

#Earthquake (#gempa) confirmed by seismic data.⚠Preliminary info: M6.7 || 174 km W of #Pariaman (#Indonesia) || 9 min ago (local time 03:00:54). Follow the thread for the updates👇 pic.twitter.com/T0fEZEoE6j

— EMSC (@LastQuake) April 24, 2023

#Earthquake in #Indonesia – Early impact estimation. Modified Mercalli Intensity: 7.0/10 – Population Exposure Estim.: https://t.co/BPHYunonh4 pic.twitter.com/ONbpUUpzdd

— ADAM Disaster Alerts (@WFP_ADAM) April 24, 2023

Major M7ish, shallow, upslip (reverse) faulting #earthquake on Australian-Sunda (Pacific) plates boundary with 5-6cm/y convergence. Potential for local land and mud slides and perhaps minor tsunami impact. Region known for recent great earthquakes.#geohazards #Indonesia https://t.co/7h2pOcX1TV pic.twitter.com/GG6kF7lg5Z

— 🌎 Prof Ben van der Pluijm ⚒️ (@vdpluijm) April 24, 2023

Watch the waves from the M7.1 Sumatra, Indonesia earthquake roll across seismic stations in North America.

More info⬇️ pic.twitter.com/DW7qzpRwjm

— EarthScope Consortium (@EarthScope_sci) April 25, 2023

2023-04-24 M7.1 #Indonesia #earthquake recorded in #Scotland + historical seismicity & cross section.

Weak P/PcP arrival on many stations & clear surface waves for most (2nd plot).

Dist: 10889km
Travel Time: 13m 37s
Depth: 15km#Python @raspishake @matplotlib #CitizenScience pic.twitter.com/EzZMkYa1W8

— Giuseppe Petricca (@gmrpetricca) April 25, 2023

M7.1 earthquake near Indonesia at 20.00 UTC on 24 April 2023. Recorded in Nottingham using horizontal pendulum school seismometer from @mindsets_uk #earthquake https://t.co/wQVD8D7eVg pic.twitter.com/rSPebaQ0YZ

— Geological Outreach (@GeoOutreach) April 24, 2023

Large earthquake near Indonesia, preliminary information suggests M6.7-M6.9 and shallow depth. Based on early depths and epicenter, this could be a shallow subduction interface event. https://t.co/1x9UBcPEZx pic.twitter.com/qkiOfaqwzA

— Jascha Polet (@CPPGeophysics) April 24, 2023

Pretty decent size earthquake this morning, I am currently at my in laws, a little bit to the southeast of Padang but it didn't woke me up although my in laws said they felt a strong swaying, stay safe everyone on the outer islands 🙏 pic.twitter.com/8PVekovYEC

— Gayatri Marliyani (@GMarliyani) April 24, 2023

Karakteristik Gempa Megathrust dengan mekanisme naik (thrust fault) di bidang kontak antar lempeng di kedalaman 23 km. pic.twitter.com/ORbJymysj8

— DARYONO BMKG (@DaryonoBMKG) April 24, 2023

Sebelum terjadi gempa dengan skala 7 pagi hari ini. Setidaknya telah terjadi beberapa kali gempa preshock yang mendahului sejak 2 hari yang lalu (23 April 2023) pic.twitter.com/iUmYYMUgyt

— INFOMITIGASI™ (@infomitigasi) April 24, 2023

Recent Earthquake Teachable Moment for the M7.1 Indonesia earthquake.

Teachable Moments presentations capture the opportunity to bring knowledge, insight, and critical thinking to the classroom following a newsworthy earthquake.https://t.co/NrmdZ6Xu2Y pic.twitter.com/dzUpYiC0LR

— EarthScope Consortium (@EarthScope_sci) April 25, 2023

The magnitude-7.1 earthquake that struck off the coast of Sumatra earlier today occurred at the edge of a seismic gap. Asst Prof Meltzner @QuakesAndShakes said that we are still expecting a great earthquake in the region in the future. Find out more at https://t.co/3jYBFB8MBx

— Earth Observatory SG (@EOS_SG) April 25, 2023

References:

Basic & General References

Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

Specific References

Andrade, V. and Rajendran, K., 2014. The April 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes: Seismotectonic context and implications for their mechanisms in Tectonophysics, v. 617, p. 126-139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2014.01.024
Heidarzadeh, M., Harada, T., Satake, K., Ishibe, T., Takagawa, T., 2017. Tsunamis from strike-slip earthquakes in the Wharton Basin, northeast Indian Ocean: March 2016 Mw7.8 event and its relationship with the April 2012 Mw 8.6 event in GJI, v. 2110, p. 1601-1612, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggx395
Jacob, J., J. Dyment, and V. Yatheesh, 2014. Revisiting the structure, age, and evolution of the Wharton Basin to better understand subduction under Indonesia, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 119, 169–190, doi:10.1002/2013JB010285.
Yadav, R.K., Kundu, B., Gahalaut, K., Catherine, J., Gahalaut, V.K., Ambikapathy, A., and Naidu, MZ.S., 2013. Coseismic offsets due to the 11 April 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes (Mw 8.6 and 8.2) derived from GPS measurements in Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 3389-3393, doi:10.1002/grl.50601
Wiseman, K. and Bürgmann, R., 2012. Stress triggering of the great Indian Ocean strike-slip earthquakes in a diffuse plate boundary zone in Geophysical research Letters, v. 39, L22304, doi:10.1029/2012GL053954
Abercrombie, R.E., Antolik, M., Ekstrom, G., 2003. The June 2000 Mw 7.9 earthquakes south of Sumatra: Deformation in the India–Australia Plate. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 16.
Bassin, C., Laske, G. and Masters, G., The Current Limits of Resolution for Surface Wave Tomography in North America, EOS Trans AGU, 81, F897, 2000.
Bock, Y., Prawirodirdjo, L., Genrich, J.F., Stevens, C.W., McCaffrey, R., Subarya, C., Puntodewo, S.S.O., Calais, E., 2003. Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B8, 2367, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000324.
Bothara, J., Beetham, R.D., Brunston, D., Stannard, M., Brown, R., Hyland, C., Lewis, W., Miller, S., Sanders, R., Sulistio, Y., 2010. General observations of effects of the 30th September 2009 Padang earthquake, Indonesia. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 143-173.
Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.-P., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.-R.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Galetzka, J., 2007. Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great (Mw 9.15) Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of 2004. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97, S152-S173.
Chlieh, M., Avouac, J.P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Galetzka, J., 2008. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 113, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004981.
DEPLUS, C. et al., 1998 – Direct evidence of active derormation in the eastern Indian oceanic plate, Geology.
DYMENT, J., CANDE, S.C. & SINGH, S., 2007 – Oceanic lithosphere subducting beneath the Sunda Trench: the Wharton Basin revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 15-20/05.
Hayes, G. P., Wald, D. J., and Johnson, R. L., 2012. Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries in J. Geophys. Res., 117, B01302, doi:10.1029/2011JB008524.
Hayes, G.P., Bernardino, Melissa, Dannemann, Fransiska, Smoczyk, Gregory, Briggs, Richard, Benz, H.M., Furlong, K.P., and Villaseñor, Antonio, 2013. Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2012 Sumatra and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-L, scale 1:6,000,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1083/l/.
JACOB, J., DYMENT, J., YATHEESH, V. & BHATTACHARYA, G.C., 2009 – Marine magnetic anomalies in the NE Indian Ocean: the Wharton and Central Indian basins revisited. European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 19-24/04.
Ji, C., D.J. Wald, and D.V. Helmberger, Source description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California earthquake; Part I: Wavelet domain inversion theory and resolution analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol 92, No. 4. pp. 1192-1207, 2002.
Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H., Vidale, J.E., 2005. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933.
Kanamori, H., Rivera, L., Lee, W.H.K., 2010. Historical seismograms for unravelling a mysterious earthquake: The 1907 Sumatra Earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 183, 358-374.
Konca, A.O., Avouac, J., Sladen, A., Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Fang, P., Li, Z., Galetzka, J., Genrich, J., Chlieh, M., Natawidjaja, D.H., Bock, Y., Fielding, E.J., Ji, C., Helmberger, D., 2008. Partial Rupture of a Locked Patch of the Sumatra Megathrust During the 2007 Earthquake Sequence. Nature 456, 631-635.
Maus, S., et al., 2009. EMAG2: A 2–arc min resolution Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid compiled from satellite, airborne, and marine magnetic measurements, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q08005, doi:10.1029/2009GC002471.
Malik, J.N., Shishikura, M., Echigo, T., Ikeda, Y., Satake, K., Kayanne, H., Sawai, Y., Murty, C.V.R., Dikshit, D., 2011. Geologic evidence for two pre-2004 earthquakes during recent centuries near Port Blair, South Andaman Island, India: Geology, v. 39, p. 559-562.
Meltzner, A.J., Sieh, K., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B.W., Natawidjaja, D.H., Philobosian, B., Briggs, R.W., Galetzka, J., 2010. Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D. 1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh–Andaman rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, 1-46.
Meng, L., Ampuero, J.-P., Stock, J., Duputel, Z., Luo, Y., and Tsai, V.C., 2012. Earthquake in a Maze: Compressional Rupture Branching During the 2012 Mw 8.6 Sumatra Earthquake in Science, v. 337, p. 724-726.
Natawidjaja, D.H., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M., Galetzka, J., Suwargadi, B., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Avouac, J., Ward, S.N., 2006. Source parameters of the great Sumatran megathrust earthquakes of 1797 and 1833 inferred from coral microatolls. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, 37.
Newcomb, K.R., McCann, W.R., 1987. Seismic History and Seismotectonics of the Sunda Arc. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 421-439.
Philibosian, B., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Chiang, H., Shen, C., Suwargadi, B., Hill, E.M., Edwards, R.L., 2012. An ancient shallow slip event on the Mentawai segment of the Sunda megathrust, Sumatra. Journal of Geophysical Research 117, 12.
Prawirodirdjo, P., McCaffrey,R., Chadwell, D., Bock, Y, and Subarya, C., 2010. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone: Role of interseismic strain segmentation, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, v. 115, B03414, doi:10.1029/2008JB006139
Rivera, L., Sieh, K., Helmberger, D., Natawidjaja, D.H., 2002. A Comparative Study of the Sumatran Subduction-Zone Earthquakes of 1935 and 1984. BSSA 92, 1721-1736.
Shearer, P., and Burgmann, R., 2010. Lessons Learned from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Megathrust Rupture, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. v. 38, pp. 103–31
SATISH C. S, CARTON H, CHAUHAN A.S., et al., 2011 – Extremely thin crust in the Indian Ocean possibly resulting from Plume-Ridge Interaction, Geophysical Journal International.
Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D.H., Meltzner, A.J., Shen, C., Cheng, H., Li, K., Suwargadi, B.W., Galetzka, J., Philobosian, B., Edwards, R.L., 2008. Earthquake Supercycles Inferred from Sea-Level Changes Recorded in the Corals of West Sumatra. Science 322, 1674-1678.
Singh, S.C., Carton, H.L., Tapponnier, P, Hananto, N.D., Chauhan, A.P.S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J., 2008. Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nature Geoscience, v. 1, pp. 5.
Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1,957-1,962.
Sorensen, M.B., Atakan, K., Pulido, N., 2007. Simulated Strong Ground Motions for the Great M 9.3 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004. BSSA 97, S139-S151.
Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdjo, L., Avouac, J., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja, D.H., McCaffrey, R., 2006. Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake: Nature, v. 440, p. 46-51.
Tolstoy, M., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2006. Hydroacoustic contributions to understanding the December 26th 2004 great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake. Survey of Geophysics 27, 633-646.
Zhu, Lupei, and Donald V. Helmberger. “Advancement in source estimation techniques using broadband regional seismograms.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86.5 (1996): 1634-1641.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

Sorted by Magnitude
Sorted by Year
Sorted by Day of the Year
Sorted By Region

Earthquake Report: M 7.1 Kermadec

Posted on April 24, 2023 by Jay Patton

I am currently taking a break following an excellent Seismological Society of America Meeting in San Juan Puerto Rico.

I presented a couple posters and one talk on the results from our USGS Powell Center meeting where we developed a basic logic tree for probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment for the Cascadia subduction zone.

Last night (my time, in Arecibo) there was an earthquake along the subduction zone, a convergent plate boundary, that forms the Kermadec trench (a deep sea trench, much like the Mariana trench).

Initially, there was one M 7.3 earthquake. I received a text message from the National Tsunami Warning Center stating that there was no tsunami risk for California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000k6mg/executive

Shortly after that, there were then two M7.3 earthquakes. One was located east of the trench (an earthquake within the Pacific plate, much like the March 2023 M 7.3 earthquake, which was also in a similar location). The other earthquake was located west of the trench and had a depth that suggested it was a megathrust subduction zone earthquake.

Because these earthquakes happened at nearly the same time and had the same magnitude, I suspected that they were actually the same earthquake but had been automatically located in two locations (possibly due to something about the seismic waves that complicated the automatic location algorithm). In a few minutes, this was all worked out and the two earthquake pages began to show the same information, a single M 7.3 that was a subduction zone interface earthquake (an earthquake that slipped the megathrust fault).

Within a few more minutes, the magnitude was revised to be M 7.1. This is a much smaller earthquake than a M 7.3 but still quite significant. People on Raoul Island, about 75 km from the epicenter, reported strong ground shaking (intensity MMI 8, though initially reported as MMI 9).

After a few tweets, I went over to the tide gage websites that I monitor when there are subduction zone earthquakes. I often look at the UNESCO Sea Level Monitoring Facility website first. There is a map and one may click on the dots that represent most of the tide gages around the globe.

This page provides basic information about water surface elevations. One may take a quick look to see if there are excursions in the sea level data, possibly related to tsunami.

Then, when I am ready to download some data so that I may plot these data I head over to the European Commission World Sea Levels website. This is also a map interface and it takes a little more effort to learn how to operate the website to obtain the data one likes. These data are in a better format than the UNESCO site since they provide the observations, the tide prediction, and the excursion (i.e., the tsunami with the tide data removed).

I prefer to prepare my own plots so that I can control their graphical composition, these organizations create plots automatically and they are not always the best looking; I download these data, open them in excel, plot, then place them in adobe illustrator so that I can annotate them.

OK, back to the earthquake.

There was a magnitude M8.1 subduction zone earthquake in this area on 4 March 2021. Here is my poster for that earthquake, where I show that several large earthquakes happened closely in space and in time. It was phenomenal that these 3 earthquakes also generated 3 tsunami that showed up on tide gages across the south Pacific.

Yesterday’s M 7.1 happened within the area of aftershocks from the M 8.1. So, I interpret this to be an aftershock of the M8.1. (Though I could easily be convinced that it was instead simply a triggered earthquake; it also followed the 15 March 2023 M 7.0 earthquake which was directly east of yesterday’s M 7.1.

The earlier M 8.1 and yesterday’s M 7.1 earthquakes were along the subduction zone, where the Pacific plate subducts beneath the Australia plate. This subduction zone is quite active with many analogical historical earthquakes of similar magnitude in this area and also further to the north and to the south.

We may recall the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption that generated a large trans-Pacific tsunami. Here is my report on that event. Here is a web page that I put together for the California Geological Survey where I serve the public in the Seismic Hazards Program and Tsunami Unit (actually, I cannot share that page as it does not work outside of the USA, sadly; I will add a link once I am back home).

At the bottom of this report are a series of tweets that include some additional educational material. Check out the EarthScope Consortium tweets!

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1923-2023 with magnitudes M ≥ 7.0 in one version.
I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

In the upper left corner is a map that shows the major plate tectonic boundaries.
In the lower right corner is a map that shows the ground shaking from the earthquake, with color representing intensity using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The closer to the earthquake, the stronger the ground shaking. The colors on the map represent the USGS model of ground shaking. There is one location with a report from people who posted information on the USGS Did You Feel It? part of the website for this earthquake. There are things that affect the strength of ground shaking other than distance, which is why the reported intensities are different from the modeled intensities.
In the upper right corner is a plot that includes the 2021 M 8.1 & M 7.4 and 2023 M 7.0 earthquakes. I include the aftershocks from about one week after the M 8.1 and outline these aftershocks to show how yesterday’s M 7.1 is within this area.
To the left of the aftershock map I include the USGS earthquake fault slip model. The colors represent the amount of slip that this fault experienced during the earthquake. We can see that they think the fault slipped up to about 1.25 meters (about 4 feet).
To the left are tide gage plots from the tide gages on Raoul Island (shown on map). Anthony Lomax and I debated on Twitter about whether these signals were tsunami or seismic waves. We concluded that these are most likely tsunami waves because of their arrival time (seismic waves would have arrived sooner), their duration (seismic waves would not have lasted as long in time), and their amplitude & wave heights (seismic waves would have been smaller in size). Twitter is such a helpful place to discuss our observations in real time! I learn so much from my colleagues. It really is such a wonderful community that we have developed over the years!
In the lower right center is a map from Benz et al. (2011) that shows earthquakes with circles that represent magnitude (diameter) and depth (color). Deeper = blue & shallower = red. There is a cross section (cut into the earth) profile through this seismicity (the blue line J-J’). I plot the M 7.0 as a blue star.
To the left of the map is cross section J-J’ that shows earthquake hypocenters (3-D locations) in the region of the M 7.0 earthquake.

Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.

Tsunami

Here I present the tide gage data from this earthquake and tsunami.
These two gages are located on opposite sides of Raoul Island. Can you tell which is on the north side and which is on the south side? Go to the tide gage websites I link to above to see if you are correct.
The size of the wave is similar for both of these gages (about 20 cm wave height).
In the legend, one may learn the difference between wave height and amplitude. Wave height is the vertical distance between the peak wave and the trough of the wave. The amplitude is the height of the wave peak above the ambient water surface (the ambient tide level).

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

Here is the map from Timm et al., 2013.

Bathymetric map of the Tonga–Kermadec arc system. Map showing the depth of the subducted slab beneath the Tonga–Kermadec arc system. Louisville seamount ages are after Koppers et al.49 ELSC, eastern Lau-spreading centre; DSDP, Deep Sea Drilling Programme; NHT, Northern Havre Trough; OT, Osbourn Trough; VFR, Valu Fa Ridge. Arrows mark total convergence rates.

Here is the tectonic map from Ballance et al., 1999.

Map of the Southwest Pacific Ocean showing the regional tectonic setting and location of the two dredged profiles. Depth contours in kilometres. The presently active arcs comprise New Zealand–Kermadec Ridge–Tonga Ridge, linked with Vanuatu by transforms associated with the North Fiji Basin. Colville Ridge–Lau Ridge is the remnant arc. Havre Trough–Lau Basin is the active backarc basin. Kermadec–Tonga Trench marks the site of subduction of Pacific lithosphere westward beneath Australian plate lithosphere. North and South Fiji Basins are marginal basins of late Neogene and probable Oligocene age, respectively. 5.4sK–Ar date of dredged basalt sample (Adams et al., 1994).

Here is a great summary of the fault mechanisms for earthquakes along this plate boundary (Yu, 2013).

Large subduction-zone interplate earthquakes (large open gray stars) labeled with event date, Mw, GCMT focal mechanisms, and GPS velocity vectors (gray arrows and black triangles labeled with station name). GPS velocities are listed in Table 3. Black lines indicate the Tonga–Kermadec and Vanuatu trenches. Note that the 2009/09/29 Samoa–Tonga outer trench-slope event (Mw 8.1) triggered large interplate doublets (both of Mw 7.8; Lay et al., 2010). The Pacific plate subducts westward beneath the Australian plate along the Tonga–Kermadec trench, whereas the Australian plate subducts eastward beneath the Vanuatu arc and North Fiji basin. The opposite orientation between the Tonga–Kermadec and Vanuatu subduction systems is due to complex and broad back-arc extension in the Lau and North Fiji basins (Pelletier et al., 1998).

Regional map of moderate-sized (mb > 4:7) shallow-focus repeating earthquakes and background seismicity along the (a) Tonga–Kermadec and (b) Vanuatu (former New Hebrides) subduction zones. Shallow repeating earthquakes (black stars) and their available Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT; Dziewoński et al., 1981; Ekström et al., 2003) are labeled with event date and doublet/cluster id where applicable. Colors of GCMT are used to distinguish nearby different repeaters. Source parameters for the clusters and doublets are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Background seismicity is shown as gray dots and large interplate earthquakes (moment magnitude, Mw > 7:3) since 1976 are shown as large open gray stars. Black lines indicate the trench (Bird, 2003) and slab contour at 50-km depth (Gudmundsson and Sambridge, 1998). Repeating earthquake clusters in the (a) T1 and T2 plate-interface regions in Tonga and (b) V3 plate-interface region in Vanuatu are used to study the fault-slip rate ( _d). A regional map of the Tonga–Kermadec–Vanuatu subduction zones is
shown in the inset figure, with the gray dotted box indicating the expanded region in the main figure.

Here is a great visualization of the Kermadec Trench from Woods Hole.

Kermadec Trench from Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. on Vimeo.

Here is another map of the bathymetry in this region of the Kermadec trench. This was produced by Jack Cook at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The Lousiville Seamount Chain is clearly visible in this graphic.

I put together an animation of seismicity from 1965 – 2015 Sept. 7. Here is a map that shows the entire seismicity for this period. I plot the slab contours for the subduction zone here. These were created by the USGS (Hayes et al., 2012).

Here is the animation. Download the mp4 file here. This animation includes earthquakes with magnitudes greater than M 6.5 and this is the kml file that I used to make this animation.

Here is the oblique view of the slab from Green (2003). Some of the following figures are for the Tonga subduction zone, the same plate boundary as Kermadec, with some slightly different attributes.

Earthquakes and subducted slabs beneath the Tonga–Fiji area. The subducting slab and detached slab are defined by the historic earthquakes in this region: the steeply dipping surface descending from the Tonga Trench marks the currently active subduction zone, and the surface lying mostly between 500 and 680 km, but rising to 300 km in the east, is a relict from an old subduction zone that descended from the fossil Vitiaz Trench. The locations of the mainshocks of the two Tongan earthquake sequences discussed by Tibi et al. are marked in yellow (2002 sequence) and orange (1986 series). Triggering mainshocks are denoted by stars; triggered mainshocks by circles. The 2002 sequence lies wholly in the currently subducting slab (and slightly extends the earthquake distribution in it),whereas the 1986 mainshock is in that slab but the triggered series is located in the detached slab,which apparently contains significant amounts of metastable olivine

Here are figures from Richards et al. (2011) with their figure captions below in blockquote.
The main tectonic map

bathymetry, and major tectonic element map of the study area. The Tonga and Vanuatu subduction systems are shown together with the locations of earthquake epicenters discussed herein. Earthquakes between 0 and 70 km depth have been removed for clarity. Remaining earthquakes are color-coded according to depth. Earthquakes located at 500–650 km depth beneath the North Fiji Basin are also shown. Plate motions for Vanuatu are from the U.S. Geological Survey, and for Tonga from Beavan et al. (2002) (see text for details). Dashed line indicates location of cross section shown in Figure 3. NFB—North Fiji Basin; HFZ—Hunter Fracture Zone.

Here is the map showing the current configuration of the slabs in the region.

Map showing distribution of slab segments beneath the Tonga-Vanuatu region. West-dipping Pacifi c slab is shown in gray; northeast-dipping Australian slab is shown in red. Three detached segments of Australian slab lie below the North Fiji Basin (NFB). HFZ—Hunter Fracture Zone. Contour interval is 100 km. Detached segments of Australian plate form sub-horizontal sheets located at ~600 km depth. White dashed line shows outline of the subducted slab fragments when reconstructed from 660 km depth to the surface. When all subducted components are brought to the surface, the geometry closely approximates that of the North Fiji Basin.

This is the cross section showing the megathrust fault configuration based on seismic tomography and seismicity.

Previous interpretation of combined P-wave tomography and seismicity from van der Hilst (1995). Earthquake hypocenters are shown in blue. The previous interpretation of slab structure is contained within the black dashed lines. Solid red lines mark the surface of the Pacifi c slab (1), the still attached subducting Australian slab (2a), and the detached segment of the Australian plate (2b). UM—upper mantle;
TZ—transition zone; LM—lower mantle.

Here is their time step interpretation of the slabs that resulted in the second figure above.

Simplified plate tectonic reconstruction showing the progressive geometric evolution of the Vanuatu and Tonga subduction systems in plan view and in cross section. Initiation of the Vanuatu subduction system begins by 10 Ma. Initial detachment of the basal part of the Australian slab begins at ca. 5–4 Ma and then sinking and collision between the detached segment and the Pacifi c slab occur by 3–4 Ma. Initial opening of the Lau backarc also occurred at this time. Between 3 Ma and the present, both slabs have been sinking progressively to their current position. VT—Vitiaz trench; dER—d’Entrecasteaux Ridge.