Earthquake Report: M 7.4 Japan

A couple weeks ago there was a sequence of earthquakes offshore of the east coast of Japan.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000sri7/executive

This 4/20 magnitude M 7.4 earthquake occurred in the aftershock region from the 2011 Great East Japan M 9.0 earthquake.

The 7.4 earthquake has a thrust earthquake mechanism. This, combined with the depth, places this earthquake on the megathrust subduction zone earthquake fault.

There was a cluster of earthquake aftershocks near the mainshock and there was a cluster of seismicity to the northwest of this main cluster. It is probable that they are related given the closeness in time and space.

In December 2025 there was an M 7.6 earthquake in the region of the seismicity cluster to the northwest. So this northwest cluster represents aftershocks from that slip patch. It is possible that this 7.6 sequence (and the 2011 earthquake) increased the stress on the fault where the 20 April 2026 M 7.4 earthquake happened (?).

We also observed a small tsunami on tide gages in Japan.

The Japanese government put the nation into an aftershock advisory, suggesting that people be aware that there may be a large aftershock (or that this 7.4 was a foreshock to a much larger earthquake).

This advisory system was created in response to a M~7 foreshock to the 2011 M 9.0 mainshock. There is generally a 5% chance that any given earthquake may be followed by a larger magnitude earthquake.

It is smart to have people with a heightened awareness following these large earthquakes. For example, it might be prudent to postpone a sailboat regatta.

If one is in a small sailboat about 1 kilometer from the beach and a large subduction zone earthquake happens, one has a difficult choice to make. Do they move further out to sea or do they attempt to get to land? There really is not enough time to do either.

Going offshore, one needs to get to a safe water depth. Typically, this depth is tens of kilometers offshore.

Going onshore, one needs to get to the beach, then get out of the boat, then get to high ground.

If this person is directly overlying the subduction zone, a tsunami may reach the coast within 10-15 minutes (possibly during the earthquake).

It is probably not possible to travel 1-km to the beach, then walk uphill to high ground, before the tsunami arrives.

Better yet, postpone the sailboat regatta and avoid the tsunami hazard.

Tectonic Setting and Recent Seismicity

The earthquake occurred along the megathrust subduction zone that forms the Japan Trench. Here, the Pacific plate subducts beneath the North America or Okhotsk plate.

Here are two diagrams that show this.

This diagram shows how the different plates move relative to each other in this region (from AGU Trembling Earth blogo, Austin Elliot).


This illustration shows the seismicity in cross section. Note how some earthquakes are within the subducting Pacific plate, some are in the upper North America plate, and some are located along the plate interface, the megathrust subduction zone.


Ths 20 April 2026 earthquake sequence happened along the northern part of the 2011 M 9.1 aftershock region (the yellow shaded area in the interpretive poster).

On 8 December 2025 there was a M 7.6 earthquake just to the north The mainshock and aftershocks are shown as blue circles on the map.

It seems that these two earthquake sequences are related, possible by changes in static coulomb stress (explained in the next sentence).

When earthquake faults slip, the surrounding crust and faults change shape and this causes areas of the faults to get imparted increased or decreased amounts of stress. If these faults are almost ready to slip and the change of stress is increased sufficiently, those source earthquakes may trigger earthquakes on the receiver fault (the one with increased stress). This is termed “static coulomb stress triggering.”

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 1926-2026 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 is a map showing the plate tectonic boundaries (from the USGS).
  • In the lower right corner is a map that shows the M 7.4 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.
  • To the upper left of the intensity map 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 possibility of earthquake triggered landslides and earthquake induced liquefaction for these two earthquakes.
  • To the left of the ground failure maps are the tide gage data from Ofunato, Japan (location labeled on map).
  • In the center left is the USGS finite fault model that shows their estimate of the amount that the fault slipped during this earthquake.
  • Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.


Tsunami

Tsunami can be caused by a variety of processes, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and meteorological phenomena. Earthquakes, eruptions, and landslides cause tsunami when these processes displace water in some way. We may typically associate tsunami with subduction zone earthquakes because these earthquakes are the type that generate vertical land motion along the sea floor.

  • Here is a great illustration of how a subduction zone earthquake can generate a tsunami (Atwater et al., 2005).


We think that the earthquake slipped at least 50 meters (165 feet) during several minutes. This is the largest coseismic measurement of any subduction zone earthquake (so far).

When the fault slipped, it caused the seafloor to deform and move. This motion also displaced the overlying water column.

As the water column is elevated, it gains potential energy. As this uplifted water expends this energy by oscillating up and down, it radiates energy in the form of tsunami waves.

Tsunami were observed across the entire Pacific Basin, causing extensive damage and casualties in Japan, but also in other places too. There was about $100 million damage to coastal infrastructure in California alone.

This is an animated model of the Great East Japan tsunami of ten years ago. The warmer the colors, the larger the wave. The first surges reached the closest Japan coasts in about 25 minutes. The first surges reached Crescent City in 9.5 hours. (modified text from Dr. Lori Dengler)

    Here are the tide gage data from Ofunato, Japan.

    Time is represented by the horizontal axis and elevation is represented on the vertical axis. The darker blue line in this image represents NOAA’s tidal forecast. The data recorded by the tide gage are represented by the light blue colored lines. Wave height is the distance measured between the wave crest and trough. Wave amplitude is the level of water above sea level.

    These data came from the European Union sea level monitoring website.

    Additional data are available from the IOC sea level monitoring website.


Other Report Pages

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 map and 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

  • 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.


  • Here Dr. Bohon demonstrates the phenomena of liquefaction.
    • @drwendyrocksit #Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid. This can happen during #earthquake shaking. #geophysics #geology ♬ Quicksand – Hatchie

  • And, another video demonstration.

  • 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.


    •

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

    • This map shows the current tectonic configuration of this region, along with some inherited features from the tectonic past (e.g. green lines). This is from NUMO’s report: “Evaluating Site Suitability for a HLW Repository (Scientific Background and Practical Application of NUMO’s Siting Factors), NUMO-TR-04-04.”


    • Also from the NUMO report, this shows the Niigata-Kobe fold and thrust belt. In addition, this map shows a northwest striking convergent plate boundary along the southeastern boundary of Hokkaido. However, it cannot explain the interesting orientation of the M 6.2 deep (240 km) earthquake.


      •

    • Here is a USGS poster than summarizes the earthquake history and plate geometry for this region. This is the USGS Open File Report 2010-1083-D (Rhea et al., 2010).


    • Here is the cool tectonic map from Liu et al. (2013). We all like cool maps! (right?)


      • Tectonic settings of the study region (black box). The solid sawtooth lines and the black dashed line denote the plate boundaries (Bird 2003). The red triangles denote the active volcanoes. The blue dashed lines and the pink lines denote the depth contours to the upper boundary of the subducting Pacific slab and that of the subducting Philippine Sea slab, respectively (Hasegawa et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2012). The topography data are derived from the GEBCO_08 Grid, version 20100927, http://www.gebco.net. The ages of oceanic plates are from M¨uller et al. (2008).

    • The upper slope of the accretionary prism for this part of the subduction zone that forms the Japan trench has well developed normal faults. Tsuji et al. (2013) present seismic reflection profiles that for this region. I present their figure and include their figure citation below as a blockquote. The first figure is a map showing the locations of the cross sections and the locations of sites with direct observations of sea floor surface displacements (surface ruptures).


      • Index maps for the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake in the Japan Trench (JCG, JAMSTEC, 2011). (a) Blue and white contour lines are subsidence and uplift, respectively, estimated from tsunami inversion (Fujii et al., 2011), with contour intervals of 0.5 m (subsidence) and 1.0 m (uplift).Blue arrows indicate dynamic seafloor displacements observed at seafloor observatories (Kido et al., 2011; Sato et al., 2011). Red lines are locations of seismic profiles (SR101, MY101, and MY102) shown in Fig. 2. Stars indicate diving sites and are labeled with dive numbers of pre-earthquake observations (blue numerals) and post-earthquake observations in 2011 (red numerals) and in 2012 (orange numerals). Background heatflow values measured before the 2011 earthquake are displayed as colored dots (Yamano et al.,2008; Kimura et al., 2012). (b) Enlarged map around the diving sites, corresponding to the yellow rectangle in panel (a). Red dashed lines indicate seafloor traces of normal faults (i.e.,ridge structures). Yellow dashed lines indicate estimated locations of the backstop interface. The white dashed line indicates the boundary of the area of significant seafloor uplift (49 m uplift)and also the tsunami generation area (Fujii et al., 011), corresponding to the reddish-brown area in panel (a). Observations made during the post-earthquake dives are described in panel(b).


      Reflection seismic profiles obtained in the central part of tsunami source area(line MY102 in panels f–h), at its northern edge (line MY101 in panels c–e), and its outside (line SR101 in panels a,b). Original profiles of (a) line SR101, (c) line MY101, and (f) line MY102. Composite seismic reflection profiles with geological interpretations of(b) line SR101,(d) line MY101, and (g) line MY102 (Tsuji et al.,2011). Red arrows in panel (d) and (g) indicate seafloor displacements (Ito et al.,2011; Kido et al.,2011; Sato et al.,2011). Enlarged profiles around (e) Site 2W on line MY101, and (h) Site 3W on line MY102.

    • Here is a figure from Tsuji et al. (2013) that shows some images of the seafloor. These show views of ruptured sea floor.


      • (a) Diving tracks on seafloor bathymetry at Site 2W. Stars indicate locations of seafloor photographs displayed in panels (b)–(f). (b) Photograph of an open fissure representative of those commonly observed after the earthquake. (d) An open fissure was observed during post-earthquake observations where (c) no fissure had been before the earthquake.(g,h) Photographs taken in (g) 2011 and (h) 2012 showing the heat flow measurements being made at the same location by SAHF probe.


      (a) Diving tracks on seafloor bathymetry at Site 1E. The white dashed line indicates the location of the interpreted fault. Stars indicate locations of seafloor images displayed in panels(b)–(f).(b) Photograph of an open fissure representative of those commonly observed after the earthquake. (d) Open fissure seen during post-earthquake observations where (c) a clam colony (1 m wide) was observed before the earthquake. (e,f) Photographs taken in (e) 2011 and (f) 2012,showing the heatflow measurements at the same location by SAHF probe. (g) Dive track on seafloor bathymetry at Site 3E. The star indicates the location of (h) a seafloor photograph showing a steep cliff.

    • Here is an explanation for the extension generated during the 2011 earthquake.


      • Schematic images of coseismic fault ruptures and the tsunami generation model (a) at the northern edge (and outside) and (b) in the central part of the tsunami source area. Soft slope sediments covering the continental crust are not shown in these images. (a) Collapse of the continental framework occurred mainly at the backstop interface north of the large tsunami source area. (b) Anelastic deformation around the normal fault allowed large extension of the overriding plate in the tsunami source area.

    • Here is a map from the recent update of the Japan National Seismic Hazard Maps, resulting from knowledge gained following the 2011 M 9.1 earthquake (Fujiwara et al., 2012). The color represents the chance that a region will experience ground shaking at or greater that Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) seismic intensity 6 in the next 30 years. JMA intensity is a scale of shaking intensity similar to the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale. The numbers are different, so they are difficult to compare. The JMA intensity 6 is similar to MMI X. Today’s earthquakes are in a region of slightly elevated chance of ground shaking (between 6-26%). Today’s M 6.6 earthquake may have reached


    • This is a fantastic educational video from IRIS that discusses the plate tectonics and mentions some earthquakes in the region of Japan.

    Social Media

    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
  • Storchak, D. A., D. Di Giacomo, I. Bondár, E. R. Engdahl, J. Harris, W. H. K. Lee, A. Villaseñor, and P. Bormann (2013), Public release of the ISC-GEM global instrumental earthquake catalogue (1900–2009), Seismol. Res. Lett., 84(5), 810–815, doi:10.1785/0220130034.
  • 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

  • An’naka, T., K. Inagaki, H. Tanaka, and K. Yanagisawa (2003), Characteristics of great earthquakes along the Nankai trough based on numerical tsunami simulation, J. Earthquake Eng. [CD‐ROM], 27, article 307.
  • Chapman et al., 2009. Development of Methodologies for the Identification of Volcanic and Tectonic Hazards to Potential HLW Repository Sites in Japan –The Kyushu Case Study-, NUMO-TR-09-02, NOv. 2009, 192 pp.
  • Furumura, T., K. Imai, and T. Maeda (2011), A revised tsunami source model for the 1707 Hoei earthquake and simulation of tsunami inundation of Ryujin Lake, Kyushu, Japan, J. Geophys. Res., 116, B02308, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007918
  • Garrett, E., O. Fujiwara, P. Garrett, V. M. A. Heyvaert, M. Shishikura, Y. Yokoyama, A. Hubert-Ferrari, H. Brückner, A. Nakamura, and M. De Batist, 2016. A systematic review of geological evidence for Holocene earthquakes and tsunamis along the Nankai-Suruga Trough, Japan, Earth-Science Reviews 159, 337–357, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.06.011.
  • Goltz, J. D., K. Yamori, K. Nakayachi, H. Shiroshita, T. Sugiyama, and Y. Matsubara, 2024. Operational Earthquake Forecasting in Japan: A Study of Municipal Government Planning for an Earthquake Advisory or Warning in the Nankai Region, Seismological Research Letters 95, no. 4, 2251–2265, doi: 10.1785/0220230304.
  • 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
  • Hyodo, M., T. Hori, and Y. Kaneda, 2016. A possible scenario for earlier occurrence of the next Nankai earthquake due to triggering by an earthquake at Hyuga-nada, off southwest Japan, Earth Planet Sp 68, no. 1, 6, doi: 10.1186/s40623-016-0384-6.
  • Ichinose, G. A., H. K. Thio, P. G. Somerville, T. Sato, and T. Ishii, Rupture process of the 1944 Tonankai earthquake (Ms 8.1) from the inversion of teleseismic and regional seismograms, J. Geophys. Res., 108(B10), 2497, doi:10.1029/2003JB002393, 2003.
  • Kurikami et al., 2009. Study on strategy and methodology for repository concept development for the Japanese geological disposal project, NUMO-TR-09-04, Sept. 20-09, 101 pp.
  • Moore, G.F., Bangs, N.L., Taira, A., Kuramoto, S., Pangborn, E., and Tobin, H.J., 2007. Three-Dimensional Splay Fault Geometry and Implications for Tsunami Generation in Science, v. 318, p. 1128-1131.
  • 1Moore, G.F., Park, J.-O., Bangs, N.L., Gulick, S.P., Tobin, H.J., Nakamura, Y., Sato, S., Tsuji, T., Yoro, T., Tanaka, H., Uraki, S., Kido, Y., Sanada, Y., Kuramoto, S., and Taira, A., 2009. Structural and seismic stratigraphic framework of the NanTroSEIZE Stage 1 transect. In Kinoshita, M., Tobin, H., Ashi, J., Kimura, G., Lallemant, S., Screaton, E.J., Curewitz, D., Masago, H., Moe, K.T., and the Expedition 314/315/316 Scientists, Proc. IODP, 314/315/316: Washington, DC (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc.). doi:10.2204/iodp.proc.314315316.102.2009
  • Rhea, S., Tarr, A.C., Hayes, G., Villaseñor, A., and Benz, H.M., 2010. Seismicity of the earth 1900–2007, Japan and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-D, scale 1:6,000,000.
  • Toda, S., Stein, R. S., and Sevilgen, V., 2024. Japan’s magnitude 7.1 shock triggers megaquake warning. How likely is this scenario?, Temblor, http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.348
  • Van Horne, A., Sato, H., Ishiyama, T., 2017. Evolution of the Sea of Japan back-arc and some unsolved issues in Tectonophysics, v. 710-711, p. 6-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.08.020
  • Yagi, Y., M. Kikuchi, S. Yoshida, and T. Sagiya, 1999. Comparison of the coseismic rupture with the aftershock distribution in the Hyuga-nada Earthquakes of 1996, Geophysical Research Letters 26, no. 20, 3161–3164, doi: 10.1029/1999GL005340

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.