Morphological differences across the Shumagin-Semidi fault segments control slip behaviors and tsunami genesis in the Aleutian-Alaska subduction zone

Abstract

Rupture behaviors of a subduction megathrust define the slip type, the extent and the associated tsunami hazard. They are, however, difficult to be defined precisely due to limited fault-zone observations. Here, we integrate GNSS, tsunami-waveforms, seismic-profiles, and earthquake-cycle modeling to delineate the slip-extent of the 2020 Mw 7.8 Simeonof and the 2021 Mw 8.2 Chignik earthquakes in the Semidi segment; and to understand the possible structural and mechanical control on the distinct rupture behaviors of this segment and its neighboring Shumagin segment at the Aleutian-Alaska subduction zone. We show that both the Simeonof and Chignik earthquakes slipped a compact area at depth between ∼20 and 40 km that is well constrained by the combination of GNSS and tsunami-waveform data. We explain the distinct slip behaviors associated with the Semidi and Shumagin segments by highlighting the morphological changes in the fault along the strike direction. Beneath the Shumagin Island, we identify a structural-mechanical boundary that separates the megathrust into Semidi (east) and Shumagin (west) two segments. Semidi is gentle and curved; while Shumagin is steep and planar. The Semidi segment produces spatially-heterogenous stress field, and generates partial, full, complex ruptures as indicated in modeled cycles and in historical seismic observations. Meanwhile the Shumagin segment, coincides with the ocean-continent transition boundary – the Beringian margin, tend to generate slow-slip-events, tremors, otherwise, generates small or moderate seismicity as indicated in the modeled cycles and in seismic records since 1750. Our findings indicate that Semidi is likely to rupture in a chaotic fashion with major or large earthquakes, resulting a greater tsunami hazard like the 1938 Mw 8.2 event. The tsunami potential in the Unimak segment may also remain high.

Keywords

• Aleutian-Alaska subduction zone
• Fault morphology differences
• Earthquake-cycle modeling
• Tsunamis
• Coseismic joint inversion