Geophysical Journal International

Geophys. J. Int. (2011) 185, 1365–1378 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05009.x

Is there a best source model of the Sumatra 2004 earthquake

for simulating the consecutive tsunami?

B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros

BRGM, Land Use Planning and Natural Hazards, Orléans, France. E-mail: b.poisson@brgm.fr

Accepted 2011 March 7. Received 2011 February 25; in original form 2009 December 24

SUMMARY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021

Many studies have attempted to invert the fault source of the Sumatra 2004 event. Whereas
they mostly consider the same fault geometry, they lead to a wide range of potential slip
distributions. Using tsunami modelling with GEOWAVE, a model based on fully non-linear
Boussinesq equations, we investigate the influence of five distinct source models of various
origins and the influence of rupture kinematics on the generated tsunami. The simulation
results are considered both at ocean-scale and at country-scale. We then compare the results
along the Jason-1 track to the corresponding sea surface height anomaly (SSHA) profile, and
examine the patterns of maximum sea surface elevation around the Bay of Bengal and on the
eastern and southern coastlines of Sri Lanka. In most cases, the synthetic SSHA profiles are
not very consistent with the observed one, although they all display a prevailing first wave.
The divergence in maximum sea surface elevation appears in particular along the Sri Lankan
coast, where three of the models lead to a clearly underestimated tsunami impact. The best
models derive from purely seismic and geodetic studies that did not consider any tsunami
modelling, thus suggesting that the methods to invert a fault model from tsunami data still
need some adjustment, especially concerning the handling of coastal data. In addition, it is
important to consider the rupture kinematics along such a long fault, as the generated tsunami
is more significant than when considering an instantaneous rupture. In the case of the Sumatra
2004 event, the tsunami impact on Sri Lanka is notably underestimated if modelled without

GJI Seismology
the rupture kinematics. We conclude that for tsunami modelling, a complex description of the
fault source model is not absolutely necessary, but some significant parameters such as rupture
kinematics should be taken into account.
Key words: Tsunamis; Earthquake dynamics; Indian Ocean.

et al. 2007; Chlieh et al. 2007), from seismic waveforms (Ammon

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
The 2004 December 26 Sumatra earthquake was one of the most
disastrous recorded earthquakes, reaching a magnitude M w between
9.1 and 9.3 (Ammon et al. 2005; Park et al. 2005; Stein & Okal
2005). The earthquake generated a tsunami that propagated through
the Indian Ocean and caused extreme flooding and destruction along
the surrounding coasts (Chanson 2005). The resulting death toll
is estimated between 200 000 and 300 000. The most devastated
country was Indonesia, as it lies near the subduction zone where
the earthquake occurred, but the tsunami also severely affected Sri
Lanka, southern India and Thailand (Chanson 2005; Liu et al. 2005;
Narayan et al. 2005; Choi et al. 2006; Goff et al. 2006; Tsuji et al.
2006; Yeh et al. 2006).
Since 2005, numerous studies have attempted to model the source
of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami. Different methods were
used: inversion of the slip distribution from GPS (Global Positioning
System) offsets (Vigny et al. 2005; Subarya et al. 2006; Banerjee
et al. 2005; Song et al. 2005; Tsai et al. 2005; Vallee 2007), from tide
gauge records (Tanioka et al. 2006; Piatanesi & Lorito 2007) and
from satellite altimetry data (Hirata et al. 2006; Sladen & Hébert
2008). Many studies combined two or more data sets of different
nature to better constrain their model (e.g. Lay et al. 2005; Fujii &
Satake 2007; Pietrzak et al. 2007; Rhie et al. 2007). Some of these
studies included a check of the inverted source by simulating the
generated tsunami (Lay et al. 2005; Song et al. 2005; Chlieh et al.
2007; Pietrzak et al. 2007). In most cases, the simulated tsunami
was then compared to the altimetric satellite records of Jason-1 and
Topex-Poseidon, both of which detected the tsunami waves in the
Indian Ocean around 2 h after the earthquake (Gower 2005; Kulikov
et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2005). Generally, the tsunami simulation
was carried out with a specific tsunami model chosen by the authors
regardless of the choice of the other workers, which means that the
results of different studies are not comparable, as they rely neither
on the same data nor on the same tsunami modelling.


C 2011 The Authors 1365
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
1366 B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros
In addition, the 2004 Sumatra earthquake involved an excep-
tionally extended fault and the rupture propagated for around 500 s
(e.g. Ishii et al. 2005; Tolstoy & Bohnenstiehl 2005). Some source
models thus inverted the rupture velocity together with the slip dis-
tribution (e.g. Ishii et al. 2005; Vigny et al. 2005; Lambotte et al.
2007; Piatanesi & Lorito 2007; Rhie et al. 2007). However, numer-
ical studies of the tsunami usually do not take the rupture velocity
into account, or do so only by imposing a time lag between a few
large subfaults.
In the light of these observations, some questions emerge.
(i) How can we account for such different models of the same
seismic source whereas they all appear to fit some data? If we have
to choose one source model for this event, for example for studying
the regional tsunami hazard, which one should be preferred, and
why?
(ii) How does the rupture propagation influence the generation,
propagation and impact of the tsunami? The 2004 Sumatra event
provides an exceptional opportunity for studying this influence that
has already been proved to be non-negligible (Song et al. 2005;
Wang & Liu 2006; Piatanesi & Lorito 2007), but which is not taken
into account in most tsunami modelling studies.
In this study, we simulate the tsunami generated by five different
seismic source models from the literature. To this end, we use the
GEOWAVE tsunami generation and propagation model that was
elaborated by Watts et al. (2003) and validated on many tsunami
events. At the same time, we simulate each tsunami both with the
inverted rupture velocity and with an infinite rupture velocity (in-
stantaneous seafloor deformation). The simulation results are first
examined with respect to overall ocean and coastal observations,
after which we focus on Sri Lanka to compare the results at a
country-wide scale.
2 MODEL
2.1 Tsunami generation and propagation
We choose to use the tsunami generation, propagation and inun-
dation model GEOWAVE (Watts et al. 2003). The initial tsunami
(surface water deformation and velocity) is computed from the
vertical seafloor displacements produced by an elastic dislocation
simulating the earthquake (Okada 1985). To do this computation,
the fault or subfaults are usually subdivided into elementary areas
of 10 km × 10 km. In the simulation with a rupture velocity, we
impose smaller elementary areas of 1 km × 1 km whereby each one
breaks at a time computed from the distance to the hypocentre and
from the rupture velocity.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the five source models tested in this study. The data used for inverting/checking the model may be: [defo], deformation data;
[tsun], tsunami data; [seis], seismological data. For each study, it is indicated if tsunami modelling was performed (for the inversion or checking), and—if
necessary—if it is based upon the (non)linear shallow water equations: (N)LSWE. Whether or not the rupture velocity was inverted or tested in the referred
study is also reported.
Model Reference Data used for inversion
M1 Banerjee et al. [defo] GPS static offsets (near- and
far-field)
M2 Fujii & Satake [tsun] SSHA + tide gauge data
M3 Piatanesi & Lorito [tsun] tide gauge data
M4 Rhie et al. [defo] GPS static offsets (near-field)
[seis] long-period seismic waveforms
M5 Chlieh et al. [defo] GPS static offsets (near- and
far-field) + coral reefs uplift
Then, the propagation and inundation of tsunami waves are com-
puted with FUNWAVE, a model based on fully nonlinear Boussi-
nesq equations accounting for frequency dispersion (Wei et al.
1995).
The main advantages of using FUNWAVE are the following:
(i) FUNWAVE takes into account the frequency dispersion,
which can be important in the case of short-wave propagation
through the deep ocean, as occurred west of the Sumatra–Andaman
fault during the 2004 event. Grilli et al. (2007) estimated that the
dispersive effect reduces the maximum water elevation in deep wa-
ter by 23 per cent, compared to the results from non-linear shallow
water equations (NLSWE) models.
(ii) The non-linearity of equations is crucial to the correct mod-
elling of propagation in shallow water and then, of coastal impact.
FUNWAVE thus is an appropriate model for simulating tsunami
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
propagation from the deep ocean to coastal regions. The GEOWAVE
methodology is described in Grilli et al. (2007) and the code has
already been validated on various tsunami studies (e.g. Watts et al.
2003; Day et al. 2005; Ioualalen et al. 2007; Poisson et al. 2009).
When looking at the available satellite altimeter measurements
of the 2004 Sumatra tsunami, the frequency dispersion appears to
be actually significant (Kulikov et al. 2005; Ablain et al. 2006).
High-frequency components in the tsunami signal are likely due
to variations in slip and bathymetry along the fault (Hanson et al.
2007). The choice of the FUNWAVE model thus appears to be
particularly appropriate for the 2004 Sumatra tsunami (Kulikov
et al. 2005).
2.2 Selected source models
In this study, we refer to five published earthquake source parameters
for the 2004 December 26 event resulting from data inversion. If
the authors inverted several models for the fault, we take the model
that they considered as the best one. Among all significant fault
parameters, the rupture velocity is not always estimated, depending
on the method used. The main characteristics of the five models are
briefly summarized in Table 1.
M1: Banerjee et al. (2007) deduced the coseismic slip distri-
bution on the fault from GPS static offsets. The fault geometry
is inferred from the aftershock focal mechanisms, the seismically
determined slab-depth contours, and near-field geodetic data in the
Andaman and Nicobar islands (Banerjee et al. 2005). The coseismic
rupture area was divided into 15 subfaults; following this, the fault
slip distribution was computed from the static surface displacement
data (near-field and far-field GPS offsets) through Green’s func-
tions applied to a layered spherical earth. As they inverted the slip
Data used for checking Tsunami modelling Rupture velocity
- No -
- Yes: LSWE a priori values tested
- Yes: NLSWE inverted
- No inverted
seismic data + very far-field Yes: NLSWE a priori values tested
GPS data + SSHA

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS

Figure 1. Slip distribution on the discretized fault responsible for the 2004 tsunami, for each of the five considered models. The slip scale is in metres.
distribution from static surface deformation, Banerjee et al. (2007)
did not obtain any indication about the rupture velocity.
M2: Fujii & Satake (2007) inferred their tsunami source from
12 tide gauge records and the sea surface height anomaly (SSHA)
measured by three satellites (Jason-1, Topex-Poseidon and Envisat).
The fault geometry was slightly modified after Hirata et al. (2006)
and several a priori rupture velocities were tested. They divided the
fault area into 22 subfaults for which tsunami waveforms (equiv-
alent to Green’s functions) were computed. As they used linear
shallow-water long-wave equations, they assumed that each tide
gauge record was a linear combination of subfault waveforms. They
obtained one source model for each tested rupture velocity and fi-
nally retained the one yielding the largest variance reduction.
M3: Piatanesi & Lorito (2007) followed a similar approach for
inverting both the slip spatial distribution and the rupture velocity
from 14 tsunami waveforms recorded in the Indian Ocean. They
computed similar Green’s functions as Fujii & Satake (2007), but
also took into account the non-linearity of the tsunami propagation
by computing elementary sources for 10-m slip, considered as the
mean slip on the whole fault. After this, they inverted the rupture
velocity at the same time as the slip distribution, using a non-linear
inversion technique. The fault geometry in this case was the same
as in Banerjee et al. (2005), involving 16 subfaults, just slightly
different from the fault description by Banerjee et al. (2007).
M4: Rhie et al. (2007) computed a joint inversion of long period
seismic waveforms and near-field GPS static offsets. They started
from the fault geometry model by Banerjee et al. (2005) and subdi-
vided each fault segment so that the total number of subfaults was
201, significantly higher than in the first three models.
M5: Chlieh et al. (2007) based their study on the work of Subarya
et al. (2006) who had inverted a coseismic slip distribution from
near-field GPS surveys in northern Sumatra and in situ and remote
observations of vertical displacements of coral reefs. Chlieh et al.
(2007) carried out new inversions after adding near-field GPS data
from the Nicobar-Andaman islands as well as far-field GPS data
from Thailand and Malaysia. The fault geometry was taken from
Ammon et al. (2005). The model fault was then subdivided into
three main segments that were discretized into 661 smaller cells.
We chose to test these five source models for the following
reasons.

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
A best source for Sumatra 2004 tsunami? 1367
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
(i) Many source models have been published for the 2004
December 26 earthquake. However, we select models that were
drawn up long after the event, so that they had the time to incorpo-
rate validated data for inverting the source.
(ii) The selected sources have a similar geometry, derived from
Banerjee et al. (2005), but they clearly show distinct slip distribu-
tions (see Section 2.3, hereafter, and Fig. 1).
(iii) The rupture velocity has been inverted in four of the five
models, with values ranging from 1 to 2.5 km s−1 , hence covering
a good part of the range of plausible velocities for this earthquake
(see Section 2.3 hereafter).
(iv) All five models were inverted from different data sets of
various origin (seismic, ground deformation and tsunami).
2.3 Source parameters used in this study
The required parameters of the fault geometry in each model are
shown in Table 2. The number of subfaults can be lower than in the
basic model of each study because subfaults with a null inverted
slip were omitted.
The seismic moment corresponding to each model is also re-
ported. When the chosen rigidity was not specified in the published
studies, it could be deduced from the given seismic moment and
the sum of the products of slip on the subfaults and their area. It
must be noted that all authors compare their computed M 0 to seis-
mic moments computed from waveforms (Ammon et al. 2005; Park
et al. 2005; Stein & Okal 2005). However, as all models concern
the same rupture event and then the same fault zone, it may be
interesting to compute their respective seismic moments with the
same rigidity, considered as representative for the depth range of
the fault. That is why two seismic moments are indicated: M 0 from
each study, and M ∗0 recomputed with μ = 4.0 × 1010 N m−2 , which
is a value close to the average rigidity in the first 80 km from surface
in the global earth model PREM (Dziewonski & Anderson 1981).
Through this little calculation, we note that the seismic moment M ∗0
shows more discrepancy than M 0 . The five studied models actu-
ally consider more different amounts of released energy than the
displayed moments M 0 suggest.
Only one of the chosen models does not take into account the
rupture velocity, as it is purely inverted from static offsets (Banerjee
1368 B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros

Table 2. Range of the source parameters used for the five tested models of the Sumatra 2004 earthquake. N s is the
number of subfaults with positive slip; the parameter range for all subfaults is reported for the slip (m), dip (◦ ), rake
(◦ ) and depth (m); V r is the rupture velocity (km s−1 ); M 0 is the seismic moment (N m) computed with the rigidity μ
(N m−2 ) imposed by the authors, and M ∗0 is the seismic moment (N m) recomputed with the same assumed rigidity μ =
4.0 × 1010 N m−2 for all models.
Simulation Model Ns Slip Dip Rake Depth Vr M0 μ M ∗0
S1 M1 10 0.5–19.4 11–35 90–139 0–90 - 7.6 5 6.1
S2 M2 16 1.0–24.6 10 85–130 3–37 1.0 6.0 5 4.8
S3 M3 14 4.0–30.0 11–35 90–139 0–50 2 5.7 3 7.6
S4 M4 200 0.2–35.3 11–18 90–138 0–40 2.5 7.1 4 7.1
S5 M5 661 0.1–17 12–17.5 70–150 2.0–54.7 2.2 6.9 6 4.6

et al. 2007). We thus complete the parameters of S1 by imposing Two simulations were carried out for each model: the first takes
a rupture velocity of 2.5 km s−1 , which corresponds to the most the parameters set with the corresponding non-null rupture velocity

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021

common value found in the studies of the 2004 Sumatra earthquake
(Ammon et al. 2005; Guilbert et al. 2005; Krüger & Ohrnberge
2005; Lay et al. 2005; Ni et al. 2005; Lambotte et al. 2006; Vallee
2007). Besides, it approximately corresponds to the ratio of the
fault length (ca. 1200 km) to the rupture duration (ca. 480 s: Ishii
et al. 2005; Krüger & Ohrnberge 2005; Ni et al. 2005; Tolstoy &
Bohnenstiehl 2005; Lambotte et al. 2006).
The spatial slip distribution projected on the surface is mapped
on Fig. 1 for the five cases. The location and global length of
the fault is similar from one model to another, running along the
subduction zone. The slip distribution however appears to differ
markedly between the models. All models display a region of large
slip in the south, in front of the northern tip of Sumatra, but this
region may be located in the deep or shallow part of the fault,
depending on the considered model. A rather large amount of slip
affects the middle part of the fault in four models (all but M2), and
the deep northern part in only one model (M3).
A rise time τ (slip duration before seafloor deformation) is taken
into account in two of the five source models:
(i) Fujii & Satake (2007) find that a τ of 3 min for each 100 km ×
100 km subfault gives the largest variance reduction;
(ii) Chlieh et al. (2007) impose a τ of 20 s to each 16 km ×
20 km subfault;
(iii) Rhie et al. (2007) neglect the rise time because their model
is based on long-period data; and
(iv) Banerjee et al. (2007) and Piatanesi & Lorito (2007) do not
mention the rise time in their studies, so that we may suppose that
they did not take it into account.
In this study, we do not take into account the rise time in any
model. First, this choice is consistent with the three source models
that neglect the rise time; and second, our model computes the
tsunami generation on 1 km × 1 km subfaults so that the rise time
is actually negligible.
2.4 Computational setting
All simulations are carried out on a 1122 × 944 cartesian grid in
Mercator projection, covering the geographic extent [79 to 100◦ E,
–5.5 to 19.5◦ N] with a pixel size of 2500 m. The bathymetric grid
is constructed from the ETOPO-2 data set (U.S. Department of
Commerce & Atmospheric Administration 2006). The tsunami is
simulated during 2.5 real-time hours, so that the impact of the first
waves on the south and the east coasts of Sri Lanka can be estimated.
A 10-pixel-wide sponge-layer is imposed on each of the four grid
edges, where absorbing boundary conditions are imposed.
(kinematic model M K ), and the second assumes an infinite rupture
velocity (instantaneous model M I ).
3 R E S U LT S
The results of our tsunami simulations are investigated through the
following:
(i) the sea surface elevation (SSE) profile recorded along the
space–time track of the Jason-1 satellite altimeter over the passage
of the 2004 tsunami; and
(ii) zmax, which is the maximum SSE reached at every point.
We cannot compare our results to real tide gauge records or to
runup measurements because the simulations were run only on a
crude resolution grid so that the tsunami impact at the coast may
well be underestimated. For a correct simulation of SSE time-series
near the coast and inundation heights inland, a nested grid system
integrating detailed topobathymetric data should be used. However
the aim of our study is to compare the simulated tsunami through
its global behaviour in the northeastern Indian Ocean, so that no
focusing was undertaken.
3.1 Overall influence of the seismic source
To investigate the influence of the seismic source, we choose to
refer to M K simulations.
3.1.1 In the deep ocean
3.1.1.1 Comparison to Jason-1 data. We use the Jason-1 record of
the SSHA of cycle 1091 for checking the results of our simulations
(Fig. 2). Satellite motion was taken into account by extracting the
computed SSE on our calculation domain along its ground track,
according to the measurement time sequence that spanned around
8.4 min.
Some authors consider that the tsunami signal was better de-
scribed by the difference between the concerned cycle and the pre-
ceding one (cycle 108, 10 d earlier), assuming that other oceano-
graphic effects than the tsunami are thus removed (Fujii & Satake
2007). Gower (2006) chose to subtract the smoothed average of
heights observed on both cycles before and after cycle 109 instead.
Other authors used a specific ocean variability mapping technique
1ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov / pub / sea_surface_height / jason / j1_ssha / data/
c109/


C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378

Geophysical Journal International 

C 2011 RAS

Figure 2. Map of SSE simulated at the beginning of the Jason-1 passage from south to north over the tsunami (around 2:54 UTC).
to distinguish the tsunami signal from the large-scale and mesoscale
ocean variability (Ablain et al. 2006). Here, we choose to consider
directly the SSHA deduced from Jason-1 measurements (Fig. 3),
for two reasons:
(i) a mean sea surface level is already taken into account in the
computation of the SSHA (GSFC00.1 model; Koblinsky et al. 1998)
as it is subtracted from the satellite measured SSH at the same time
as atmospheric and tide effects;
(ii) the tsunami signal obtained in the cited studies is very similar
to the SSHA on the main part of the record, where the two main
waves are observed (parts A, B and C on Fig. 3, Ablain et al. 2006;
Gower 2006). In the northern 2000 km of the profile (part D on
Fig. 3), the SSHA appears to be at worst 5–10 cm higher than the
processed ones, where most models anyway have inadequate results
[see e.g. Sladen & Hébert (2008), for use of Ablain et al. (2006)’s
processed SSHA].
When looking at snapshots of the tsunami propagation at the time
of Jason-1’s passage (Fig. 2), wave patterns along this track seem to
be somewhat different according to the simulated source. The SSE
profiles of the M K simulated tsunamis along the Jason-1 track are
shown on Fig. 3 as red curves.

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
A best source for Sumatra 2004 tsunami? 1369
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
The first (and southernmost) part of Jason-1 data comprises the
largest and clearest crest wave (A). This most significant wave
corresponds to the front wave of the tsunami (Fig. 2), which also
furthermore results from the southern part of the fault where the
slip is the highest in most models (Fig. 1).
All simulations but S5 lead to fit the presence of this high first
crest wave. Its amplitude in data and in simulation results is reported
in Table 3. The half wavelength of this crest is 200 km on Jason-
1 data and appears to be around 150–200 km in S2 and S4, its
amplitude being fitted by 80–100 per cent in these simulations.
The first wave simulated in S1 and S3 is of smaller amplitude and
wavelength.
The second peak is not well reproduced by any model, as it is
not of the same shape as the data (S1, S3), or is too small (S4) or
missing (S2).
From a temporal point of view, the first peak is matched in S1,
S3 and S4, but is late in S2.
In S5, the first crest appears to have a half wavelength of 400 km
that is longer than the two first peaks together in the data. Besides,
its amplitude does not exceed a third of the observed crests.
The following trough (B) is rather well reproduced in S4,
but is badly reproduced in the other simulations. The rise of an
1370 B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021

Figure 3. Sea surface elevation profiles along the Jason-1 track, for all tested models. Black points are Jason-1 data, red profiles are for M K and blue ones for
M I simulations. Grey letters designate profile segments that are referred to in the text.

intermediate small crest is also visible in S1 and matches the data of this variability, most of the simulations results in this segment
in S4. are in the same range as the data. However, the best average fit is
The second rise (C) involves a high frequency signal with 0.2 obtained for S4, as the others show anomalous trends northwards,
m amplitude, the SSHA then extending from 0 to 0.4 m. Because with regard to the data.


C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378

Geophysical Journal International 

C 2011 RAS
 A best source for Sumatra 2004 tsunami? 1371

Table 3. Comparison between: observed and simulated amplitude of the All models, except S5, show a strong impact on the northern tip
first crest wave on Jason-1 track profile; simulated zmax in the most impacted of Sumatra. Actually, the observed runups in the Aceh province are
places and maximum observed tsunami heights (in metres). the highest reported in the observations, reaching 20–30 m (Borrero
Data S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 et al. 2006; Jaffe et al. 2006).
Eastwards, the coast of Thailand is impacted in all simulations
Amplitude of first wave 0.59 0.42 0.59 0.34 0.46 0.20
on J-1 profile
but S2. The strongest impact there is computed in S1, where the
Indonesia (Aceh) 20–30 9.8 5.7 8.7 13 6.9 computed tsunami height reaches 5–6 m at some points, whereas
Thailand 5–15 6.7 3.6 6.4 6.2 6.3 the observations show that the highest tsunami heights ranged from
Myanmar (south) 2–3 2.6 1.0 3.3 1.9 2.9 5 to 15 m (Tsuji et al. 2006).
Myanmar (Ayeyarwaddy) 1.5–2 1.8 0.8 3.8 1.3 1.9 Northwards, on the Myanmar coast, the tsunami’s impact differs
India (Tamil Nadu) 3–5 3.4 1.7 3.5 3.4 3.1 according to the source model. In S2, no impact is observed, whereas
Sri Lanka (east) 5–7 7.1 2.0 4.9 5.5 5.2 in S3 the whole coast is hit by 3–4 m high waves. In the other cases,
the affected zones are the southern coastal areas that were actually
reached by 2–3 m high waves, and the Ayeyarwaddy Delta (northeast
The last part of profile (D) shows three successive bulges of
of our computation domain), where the observed tsunami heights
0.2–0.3 m amplitude that are not artefacts because they can also be
reached 1.5–2 m (Satake et al. 2006; Swe et al. 2006).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021

observed on variously processed SSHA profiles (Ablain et al. 2006;
Gower 2006). None of our five simulations correctly reproduce these
bulges. However, the initiation of the rises is reasonably matched
on the S4 profile, and the global trend on D is roughly computed by
S1, S3 and S4.
It should be noted that referring to the sea level anomaly pro-
cessed by Ablain et al. (2006) or Gower (2006) would lead to a
similar comparison with our simulation results.
3.1.1.2 Main zmax patterns. The zmax maps are shown on Fig. 4.
Given the average direction of the fault, the mid-ocean zmax patterns
mainly extend west- and eastwards from the fault.
As could be expected, the zmax patterns are strongly related to
the spatial slip distribution in both location and depth. Thus, the
trails of the highest tsunami waves start from the subfaults with
high slip, except where they are too deep. Then, the direction of
the high zmax areas varies notably from one simulation to another.
In S1, S4 and S5, a high slip on the middle segments of the fault
leads to a high western zmax trail pointing to the south of Sri Lanka.
Because of differences in the detailed slip distribution, the highest
waves directly hit Sri Lanka in S5, while they pass to the south in
S1 and S4. In the latter cases, however, the larger width of the high
slip zone leads to a wider area of high zmax at sea, and the waves
that arrive on the coasts of southern India and Sri Lanka are of a
similar height. The slip distribution in S3 is longitudinally more
homogeneous, and the resulting waves westward generate extended
areas of moderate zmax; in this case, the highest waves home in on
northern Sri Lanka. The zmax map for S2 appears to be markedly
distinct from the others, as the high slip only concentrates in the
south of the fault. Thus, the high waves go through the southern
part of the domain only, far to the south of Sri Lanka.
East of the fault, high waves propagate from the middle segments
in S1, S4 and S5. Again, the more homogeneous slip in S3 generates
rather high waves to the east, until the northern part of the fault,
whereas the smaller slip in S2 strongly restricts the tsunami impact
eastwards.
3.1.2 Coastal regions
To assess the tsunami impact at the coast, we need to refer to
some tsunami data, so we refer to tsunami height measurements
(Table 3). As they mostly consist of surveyed runups, we have to
keep in mind that computed zmax may be compared to runup values
only qualitatively, in terms of more or less impacted regions.
At first sight, the computed tsunami impact on the coasts depends
upon the simulation in accordance with the different mid-ocean
zmax patterns.
The impact of the simulated tsunamis on the southeastern coast
of India is very similar for all simulations but S2. In the latter case,
zmax is almost everywhere less than 1 m high whereas the highest
observed runups in this zone range mainly from 3 to 6 m (Sheth
et al. 2006; Yeh et al. 2006). Apart from S2, the other simulations
yield tsunami amplitudes of around 3 m.
As for the Indian coast, the eastern coast of Sri Lanka is slightly
impacted by the S2 tsunami, while it is almost twice as severely
hit in the other simulations. Besides, S1 and S4 lead to an impact
around 1 m higher than S3 and S5. The results on the coast of Sri
Lanka will be examined in detail hereafter.
3.2 Overall influence of the rupture velocity
3.2.1 Comparison to Jason-1 data
M K and M I profiles from S1 to S4 are shifted about 20 to 75 km
(Fig. 3). Taking into account the tsunami propagation speed of
around 800 km h−1 at this depth, this shift corresponds to a propa-
gation time lag of a few minutes (1.5–5.6 min). Considering the first
wave (A), the rise in M I is slightly in advance compared to the data.
M K simulations show a better temporal agreement with the data,
except in S2 and S5. In S2, the first crest with M K is shifted about
40 km as compared with the data, which corresponds to a 3-min
delay or the rise time taken into account by Fujii & Satake (2007).
In S5, the first wave appears to be much spread and its amplitude is
lower than the data by half.
Besides the segment A, the other parts of the profiles are gen-
erally shifted following the same trend. However this is not a pure
translation, especially in the case of S5, where the M I and M K
profiles do not look alike at all.
3.2.2 Maximal SSE results
The difference between zmax computed by M K and M I simulations
(δ zmax) is mapped on Fig. 5. The difference is more important just
above the fault, especially where the slip is high and not too deep;
δ zmax is clearly positive on trails rising westwards from a more
or less wide northern part of the fault. These trails are due to the
northward propagation of rupture in M K simulations, so that they
do not exhibit the same patterns depending on the slip distribution
of each case. However, all cases display δ zmax trails over 0.1 m
crossing the deep ocean, where the front (and highest) wave is
around 0.6–0.7 m high only. The ratio of δ zmax to zmax on this
mid-ocean trail then exceeds 10 per cent for S4, 20 per cent for S1


C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
1372 B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros
Figure 4. Maximum sea surface elevation (in metres) computed during the simulated Sumatra 2004 tsunami generation and propagation, for the five tested
earthquake source parameter sets through the kinematic model. Pink diamonds locate places where zmax was extracted from results and reported in Table 3.
and S3, reaching 50 per cent in S2 and S5 where zmax appears to
be quite low.
In S1, S4 and S5, δ zmax is positive towards Sri Lanka and
southern India (0.1–1 m), a slightly negative area being observed
further south. In S2, δ zmax is positive almost everywhere west of
the fault. In S3, δ zmax appears to be positive only towards India,
north of Sri Lanka. East of the fault, δ zmax is lower but reaches
0.5 m in absolute value at some places. It is rather negative on the
coast of Thailand, and positive along Myanmar. On the northern tip
of Sumatra, δ zmax is slightly negative in S1, S4 and S5, except
in some points of the coast. In S2 and S3, it is more heteroge-
neous, and, when compared to zmax (8–10 m), can be considered as
negligible.
3.3 Focus on Sri Lanka
As Sri Lanka lay squarely in the tsunami path, it was severely hit
by the tsunami waves. For this reason, it is interesting to analyse
the simulated tsunami impact in this zone. Here we consider the
results of the simulations on the eastern coast of Sri Lanka only,
because of the presence of the western absorbing boundary of the
computational grid near the western coast.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
Poisson et al. (2009) showed that the zmax computation on a
1600-m resolution grid around Sri Lanka represented on average 88
per cent of actual tsunami heights with a standard deviation of 30
per cent. This leads to examine the zmax results on the Sri Lankan
coast not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, as they should
not be much smaller than the actual tsunami heights.
3.3.1 Influence of the seismic source
The zmax maps obtained with the M K model on the eastern coast of
Sri Lanka show a clear discrepancy between the outputs of the five
simulations (Fig. 6). Letters a to f help to distinguish areas with
distinct observations.
On the whole, S1 exhibits a much higher zmax at all annotated
points, whereas S2 leads to the lowest zmax values. At first sight, S3,
S4 and S5 produce the same zmax patterns intermediate between
those of S1 and S2, but they differ in detail. S4 gives some higher
estimations of zmax, especially in the southern part of the area
where they are 1–2 m higher than in S3 and S5 (‘e’ and ‘f’). S3 and
S5 differ locally, but with a discrepancy lower than 1 m. Almost
everywhere along the coast, the S1 results are 2–3 m higher than
the S3 and S5 ones, whereas the S2 results are 2–3 m lower.

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
 A best source for Sumatra 2004 tsunami? 1373

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021

Figure 5. Difference in maximum sea surface elevation (in metres) between the kinematic and instantaneous models, applied to the five tested parameters
sets.

Figure 6. Maximum sea surface elevation (in metres) computed on the eastern coast of Sri Lanka through the kinematic model with the five tested parameter
sets. The letters refer to areas mentioned in the text.


C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
1374 B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros
Figure 7. Difference in maximum sea surface elevation (in metres) between the kinematic and instantaneous models, obtained along the eastern coast of Sri
Lanka with the five tested parameter sets. The letters refer to areas mentioned in the text.
To make a quantitative assessment of the simulations results, we
compare zmax at the coastline of Sri Lanka to published tsunami
height data (Liu et al. 2005; Wijetunge 2006). More than 70 per
cent of the measured tsunami heights on the eastern coast were
comprised in the 3–6 m range. On the southern coast, the same ratio
of reported measurements reached 5–10 m.
The tsunami heights on the eastern coast were mostly comprised
in the 4–6 m range. On the southern coast, they rather reached
5–10 m. The two simulations that appear to be the more consistent
with these data are S1 and S4, which lead to zmax ranging from
4 to 7 m along the southeastern coast, whereas the others clearly
underestimate the tsunami impact in this region.
3.3.2 Influence of the rupture velocity
The influence of the rupture velocity is illustrated in Fig. 7 which
represents δ zmax in the same manner as Fig. 5.
δ zmax appears to be higher in the case of the S1, where zmax
was also higher than in the other cases. It reaches 1–2 m on the main
part of the eastern coastline in S1, but is less significant in the other
cases, where a 1-m discrepancy appears in some spots (c and e in S3
to S5, f in S3 and d in S5). Taking into account the range of zmax,
the ratio of δ zmax to zmax amounts to 20–30 per cent at points
c, e and f in S3, as in S2. The S5 δ zmax map distinguishes itself
from the others as it shows a 0.5–1 m discrepancy over a more than
50-km-wide area before reaching the coast from a to e. However,
the resulting δ zmax at the coastline is lower than in the case of S1.
The only case where δ zmax appears to be slightly negative
(meaning that the M K model underestimates zmax in comparison
to M I ) is S3, over a 150-km-long area in the middle of the coast.
4 DISCUSSION
Here, we discuss the potential reasons for the observed discrepancy
between the different models, and between the model results and
the tsunami data.
4.1 Influence of slip distribution
As could be expected when testing five distinct fault models, the
simulated tsunamis are distinct as well. The main difference between
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
the models lies in the spatial slip distribution. As the patches of
high slip are not located on the same fault segments, the high zmax
patterns do not appear at the same places in all simulations.
The comparison of simulation results with the Jason-1 record in
the deep ocean allows a first analysis of the discrepancy between
models (Fig. 3). The most remarkable point is the first wave de-
tected on the Jason-1 track. The fit with the first crest seems to be
closely related to the presence of a high slip patch in a not too deep
southern segment of the fault (as in M2 and M4). If the high slip
is too moderate (M1) or too deep (M3), the first generated tsunami
wave appears to be notably smaller than the observed one, both in
wavelength and amplitude.
However the discrepancy between models is only partly visible
through the comparison with Jason-1 data. For example, the S1 and
S3 profiles along the Jason-1 track look alike but lead to clearly
distinct zmax maps (Fig. 4). At the ocean scale, zmax patterns are
also closely related to the spatial slip distribution. When looking
at the coastal impact of the simulated tsunami on the Sri Lanka,
however, the differences between simulations are less expectable.
4.2 Fault models involving tsunami modelling
Among the five tested earthquake source models, three are inverted
or validated by their authors through tsunami modelling:
M2: Fujii & Satake (2007) inverted the source with a linear
tsunami model (Satake 1995);
M3: Piatanesi & Lorito (2007) used a NLSWE tsunami model for
computing elementary tsunami waveforms that were then linearly
combined to invert the seismic source; and
M5: Chlieh et al. (2007) checked their slip model by simulating
the tsunami with a model based on a shallow-water approximation,
without specifying if it is linear or not (both are referred: Hbert
et al. 2001; Sladen & Hbert 2005).
These three tsunami models not only differed among each other,
but were also distinct from ours.
4.2.1 Tsunami generation
Tsunami generation relies on Okada (1985)’s equations for all mod-
els. Fujii & Satake (2007) only added a correction due to the effect

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS

of coseismic horizontal displacement in region of steep bathymetric
slopes (Tanioka & Satake 1996), but the calculation of this correc-
tion shows that it induces a change in the seafloor deformation of
3 per cent on average. Thus, the computation of the tsunami gen-
eration cannot explain the observed divergences between the tested
models and ours.
4.2.2 Frequency dispersion
The frequency dispersion appears to be obvious in Jason-1 data, as
high-frequency waves are clearly visible (see Figs 2 and 3, Kulikov
et al. 2005). This observation confirms the importance of taking
this phenomenon into account in tsunami modelling, as it is done
in FUNWAVE. We observe that only S2 and S4 reproduce a high-
frequency component that is fairly similar in frequency to Jason-1
data (Fig. 3). This may be due to the higher spatial heterogeneity
of the corresponding slip distributions. The other simulations lead
to smoother SSHA profiles, probably because of their lower slip
gradients.
4.2.3 Linearity
We observe that both S2 and S3 involve an assumption of linearity
in their propagation model, either inside the equations, or through
the way of inverting data. However, these models are both based
on inversion of tide gauge data (plus satellite data for S2), and tide
gauges are generally located in harbours or elsewhere at shallow
depth, in other words in places where the tsunami signal is highly
non-linear (Satake 1995; Zahibo et al. 2006).
Concerning M2, Fujii & Satake (2007) also lead an inversion of
the source from tide gauge data only and one from satellite data
only. Their results show that the joint inversion of both tide gauge
and satellite data (their ‘best model’ that we use here) leads to
almost exactly the same results as the inversion of tide gauge data
only. This means that the inverted slip distribution depends almost
entirely on tide gauge records, confirming that this is questionable
because of the linearity of the tsunami model used. On the contrary,
their inversion of satellite data only is likely more relevant as it
is consistent with the linear behaviour of the tsunami propagation
through the deep ocean.
4.2.4 Tide gauge data sets
In addition to the non-linearity question, sea level records at tide
gauge stations can be affected by the very local context around
them, so that numerical modelling on a grid of 1.8 km (S3) or even
0.75 km (S2) spatial resolution may lead to incorrect results if the
surroundings of the tide gauges are too roughly represented. To
prevent local effects from affecting their inversion, Fujii & Satake
(2007) and Piatanesi & Lorito (2007) used only the first oscillations
in each tide gauge record. This method tends to restrict the inver-
sion problem to the first wave impact, so that it is not surprising
that the next waves appear to be poorly reproduced on the SSHA
profile.
The same effect arises from the rather small number of tide gauge
records used in these models (12 in M2 and 14 in M3). Consider-
ing the length and complexity of such a fault, more data would be
necessary to avoid over simplification of the resulting slip distribu-
tion. For instance, half of the tide gauges in India were located on
the direct path of the tsunami, whereas the others were only hit by

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
A best source for Sumatra 2004 tsunami? 1375
diffracted waves along the southwestern coast. Specific configura-
tions at these particular places may have induced site effects that
in turn might have generated specific tsunami characteristics that
would have biased the global behaviour.
Moreover, some of the referred tide gauge stations are common
to both, but the corresponding waveforms seem to differ from one
description to the other. We may presume that it is due to the re-
moving of the tidal component in the tsunami signals in M2, as M3
does not seem to consider the ocean tide effect. In any case, the
difference in the tide gauge data used by M2 and M3 compounds
the differences of the tsunami models; M2 and M3 necessarily lead
to different slip distributions, and S2 and S3 are then expected to
lead to different results.
4.3 Seismic moments
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
The zmax patterns, on general maps as well as on our Sri Lanka
focus, show a restricted area affected by the tsunami impact in S2
and S5 compared to the other cases. This may be caused by the
smaller seismic moments of the corresponding models (Table 2).
For the 2004 December earthquake, the seismic moment that is
most often obtained from seismic data amounts to 6.5 × 1022 N m
(Ammon et al. 2005; Banerjee et al. 2005; Park et al. 2005) or
more (Ishii et al. 2005; Stein & Okal 2005). A seismic moment
close to that value was computed by Fujii & Satake (2007) and
Chlieh et al. (2007) with a higher rigidity than the value used
here. However imposing the same rigidity in the computation of all
seismic moments is justified, as all the models aim at describing
the same fault at the same depth range. As an example, the slip
distribution obtained by Piatanesi & Lorito (2007) is exactly in
the same depth range as the one inverted by Chlieh et al. (2007)
(Table 2). However, they computed near seismic moments only
because they assumed very different rigidity values, respectively,
3 and 6 × 1022 N m. Therefore, their slip distributions correspond
actually to clearly distinct amounts of released energy, and even
with a higher rigidity for all the seismic moments would remain
discrepant.
4.4 Validation of models
Among the five models considered here, the validity is treated as
follows.
M1: Banerjee et al. (2007) compared the inverted slip distribu-
tion to the results of other published inverted slip distributions.
M2: Fujii & Satake (2007) compared the synthetic tsunami
waveforms and SSHA profiles to the data that had been used in
the inversion.
M3: Piatanesi & Lorito (2007) assessed the uncertainty of their
model by comparing the synthetic tsunami waveforms to the ob-
served one that had been inverted, first on a synthetic data set and
then on the Sumatra 2004 data.
M4: Rhie et al. (2007) first conducted tests of sensitivity to the
fault geometry and to the rupture velocity. After that, they carried
out an error analysis through the repeated inversion on a random
selection of 50 per cent of the seismic and GPS stations.
M5: Chlieh et al. (2007)’s study is the only one involving a check
of the source model with other data than inverted ones. They exam-
ined the consistency of their model with the latitudinal variations
of the seismic moment and the energy radiated by T waves, with
the normal modes, with the amplitude of very long-period surface
waves and with satellite-measured SSHA profiles.
1376 B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros
All models but M5 lack a comparison with data that were not
taken into account in the inversion. Concerning the validation of
M5 on Jason-1 data, the first crest was already not reproduced in
their tsunami simulation. However, the discrepancy with data was
not so significant that here in S5 (M I , to conform to the choice in M5
not to take into account the rupture kinematics), as the amplitude
of the second crest and the timing appeared to be consistent. This
may be due to the difference of the tsunami models used.
4.5 Best models
In our study, the simulations that best reproduce the SSHA profile
and the impact on Sri Lanka are S4 followed by S1. The related
models were not actually validated on independent data, but both
were based on the inversion of only geodetic and/or seismic data.
As they did not take into account any actual tsunami data, it may ap-
pear paradoxical that they fit tsunami observations so well through
our simulations. In fact, tsunami data may still be less suitable for
inversion of a fault source model than geodetic and seismic data
that have been studied for a long time. Models based on tsunami
data inversion commonly transpose the Green’s functions method
from seismic/geodetic inversion, which is inappropriate to tsunami
inversion because of the linearity assumption. In fact, many mod-
els refer to coastal tsunami data (runup measurements, tide-gauge
records) although they cannot compute the tsunami behaviour in
coastal areas because of the propagation model used or because of a
lack in bathymetric data of high resolution. However, the inversion
of deep-ocean tsunami measurements is much easier to carry out
(e.g. Ritsema et al. 1995) and should enhance the development of
fault source inversion from tsunami data as the DART (Deep-ocean
Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) network grows up.
Though M4 was not derived from satellite data and was com-
pletely disconnected from GEOWAVE, the agreement of the S4
synthetic SSHA profile with Jason-1 data tends to confirm the suit-
ability of GEOWAVE for the correct modelling of tsunami genera-
tion and propagation. If it was inadequate, it should not give such
consistent results with any source of only seismic/geodetic origin.
Model M5 stands apart from the others. It takes into account
several distinct geodetic data sets, but S5 leads to a clear mismatch
between synthetic and observed SSHA profiles. Chlieh et al. (2007)
mentioned that their best model underestimated the near-field dis-
placements, likely because the data set used comprised post-seismic
displacement. The resulting slip distribution shows a gap of high
slip in the southern part of the fault, implying an underestimated
and deformed first tsunami wave.
4.6 Rupture velocity
Fujii & Satake (2007) discussed the influence of rupture velocity,
and concluded that it is negligible on the slip distribution but im-
portant on the tsunami impact on the coasts of eastern India and Sri
Lanka. This agrees with our results, showing a significant modifi-
cation of zmax in these areas from M I to M K .
Piatanesi & Lorito (2007) emphasized the importance of rupture
velocity, as their inversion of tsunami data clearly determined a
strictly positive velocity. Nevertheless, this velocity was not taken
into account in the same manner as proposed by us, as they consid-
ered the rupture velocity by considering a temporal gap between sub-
faults so that the rupture is instantaneous on each subfault, whereas
we impose a finer kinematic rupture through further subsampling
of each subfault. This difference may have induced a difference
between Piatanesi & Lorito (2007)’s results and our S3 results.
Hirata (2009) used the same approach as Piatanesi & Lorito
(2007) for demonstrating the importance of taking the rupture ve-
locity into account in tsunami modelling. Our study, by refining the
discretization and by testing several slip distribution models, con-
firms that the impact on Sri Lanka and eastern India can be notably
underestimated by neglecting the rupture kinematics.
5 C O N C LU S I O N
The 2004 December Sumatra tsunami was simulated with the
tsunami code Geowave, as induced by five different published mod-
els of the seismic source and with or without taking into account
the rupture velocity.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
As expected, different slip distributions and different seismic
moments result in different zmax patterns, both when propagating
across the ocean and at the arrival near the coast, in the far field
as well as in the near field. In most cases, the comparison with the
Jason-1 record leads to only a rough consistency. The shape and
amplitude of the waves are generally not reproduced by a same
model at the same time, and in some cases both appear inconsistent.
Some of the tested source models involved tsunami modelling. In
our simulations, however, these models lead to some disagreement
with Jason-1 data and zmax patterns. In some cases, the discrepancy
was already notable in the original study, but in other cases it must be
attributed to the tsunami models used. Contrary to other models used
in the concerned studies, Geowave uses fully non-linear Boussinesq
equations and takes into account the frequency dispersion, which
may induce significant changes when compared with linear models,
especially near the coast.
Our simulation results show that tsunami modelling is very sen-
sitive to spatial slip distribution. They also confirm that the 2004
December tsunami was a particularly complex event. Even, it was
probably so complex that any detailed study intending to invert the
source from a specific data set almost certainly will not be con-
sistent with all tsunami observations. We observe that a simplified
approach, like the Grilli et al. (2007)’s model, gives just as correct
results as more complex models, though it describes the fault by
only five segments. This model would maybe not fit seismic and/or
uplift data, but it leads to good consistency with tsunami data and
could be very useful for tsunami hazard studies.
Among the five tested models, the seismic/geodetic inversion by
Rhie et al. (2007) leads to the best agreement with the Jason-1
SSHA profile and with the zmax patterns, especially those around
Sri Lanka. As it is independent of tsunami modelling, the observed
agreement supports the validity of GEOWAVE tsunami model.
Concerning the rupture kinematics, we observe that, when assum-
ing an infinite rupture velocity, the simulation results are modified
with a systematic bias.
(i) The wavefront is a few minutes in advance against the sim-
ulations with finite rupture velocity. The time lag appears at the
tsunami generation, and seems to increase from mid-ocean to the
coast.
(ii) The tsunami amplitude is notably underestimated (up to
50 per cent), especially along the Sri Lanka coastline.
We conclude that the rupture velocity, like the slip distribution,
may have a significant influence on the tsunami impact on the coast.
Thus, when simulating tsunamis to feed a forecast database for a
tsunami warning system, it should be essential to take into account a

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS

non-infinite rupture velocity and the potential spatial heterogeneity
of slip through several slip distributions. In fact, these parameters
could modify significantly the estimation of tsunami potential max-
imal amplitudes and arrival times.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
This study was funded by BRGM research projects. Philip Watts
(Applied Fluids Engineering Inc.) provided the initial GEOWAVE
code version that we modified and used in this work. The authors
want to thank Mohamed Chlieh who kindly provided M5 slip dis-
tribution details. The authors are very grateful to John Douglas for
improving the English of the manuscript and to three anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Ablain, M., Dorandeu, J., Le Traon, P.Y. & Sladen, A., 2006. High resolution
altimetry reveals new characteristics of the December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L21602, doi:10.1029/2006GL027533.
Ammon, C.J. et al., 2005. Rupture process of the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman
earthquake, Science, 308, 1133–1139.
Banerjee, P., Pollitz, F.F. & Bürgmann, R., 2005. The size and duration of
the Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake from Far–Field Static Offsets, Science,
308, 1769–1772.
Banerjee, P., Pollitz, F., Nagarajan, B. & Bürgmann, R., 2007. Coseismic
slip distributions of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra–Andaman and 28
March 2005 Nias earthquakes from GPS static offsets, Bull. seism. Soc.
Am., 97(1A), S86–S102.
Borrero, J.C., Synolakis, C.E. & Fritz, H., 2006. Northern Sumatra field
survey after the December 2004 Great Sumatra earthquake and Indian
Ocean tsunami, Earthquake Spectra, 22, S93–S104.
Chanson, H., 2005. Le Tsunami du 26 décembre 2004: un phénoméne
hydraulique d’ampleur internationale. Premiers constats, La Houille
Blanche, 2, 25–32 (in French).
Chlieh, M. et al., 2007. Coseismic slip and afterslip of the Great Mw 9.15
Sumatra–Andaman earthquake of 2004, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 97(1A),
S152–S173.
Choi, B.H., Hong, S.J. & Pelinovsky, E., 2006. Distribution of runup heights
of the December 26, 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 33, L13601, doi:10.1029/2006GL025867.
Day, S.J., Watts, P., Grilli, S.T. & Kirby, J.T., 2005. Mechanical models of
the 1975 Kalapana, Hawaii earthquake and tsunami, Mar. Geol., 215, 59–
92.
Dziewonski, A.M. & Anderson, D.L., 1981. Preliminary reference Earth
model, Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 25, 297–356.
Fujii, Y. & Satake, K., 2007. Tsunami source of the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman
earthquake inferred from tide gauge and satellite data, Bull. seism. Soc.
Am., 97(1A), S192–S207.
Goff, J. et al., 2006. Sri Lanka field survey after the December 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami, Earthquake Spectra, 22, S155–S172.
Gower, J., 2005. Jason 1 detects the 26 December 2004 tsunami, EOS, Trans.
Am. geophys. Un., 86, 37–38.
Gower, J., 2006. The 26 December 2004 tsunami measured by satellite
altimetry, Int. J. Remote Sens., 28, 2897–2913.
Grilli, S.T., Ioualalen, M., Asavanant, J., Shi, F., Kirby, J. & Watts, P., 2007.
Source constraints and model simulation of the December 26, 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami, J. Waterway Port Coast. Ocean Eng., 133, 414–428.
Guilbert, J., Vergoz, J., Schissel, E., Roueff, A. & Cansi, Y., 2005. Use
of hydroacoustic and seismic arrays to observe rupture propagation and
source extent of the Mw = 9.0 Sumatra earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
32, L15310, doi:10.1029/2005GL022966.
Hanson, J.A., Reasoner, C.L. & Bowman, J.R., 2007. High–frequency
tsunami signals of the Great Indonesian earthquakes of 26 December
2004 and 28 March 2005, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 97(1A), S232–S248.

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS
A best source for Sumatra 2004 tsunami? 1377
Hbert, H., Heinrich, P., Schindel, F. & Piatanesi, A., 2001. Far-field sim-
ulation of tsunami propagation in the Pacific Ocean: impact on the
Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia), J. geophys. Res., 106, 9161–
9177.
Hirata, K., 2009. Tsunami amplification along the eastern coast of In-
dia and Sri Lanka due to earthquake rupture propagation in the
Sumatra–Nicobar–Andaman trenches, J. earthq. Tsunami, 3, 67–75.
Hirata, K., Satake, K., Tanioka, Y., Kuragano, T., Hasegawa, Y., Hayashi, Y.
& Hamada, N., 2006. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: tsunami source
model from satellite altimetry, Earth Planets Space, 58, 195–201.
Ioualalen, M., Asavanant, J., Kaewbanjak, N., Grilli, S.T., Kirby, J.T.
& Watts, P., 2007. Modeling the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami: case study of impact in Thailand, J. geophys. Res., 112, C07024,
doi:10.1029/2006JC003850.
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, 933–936.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
Jaffe, B.E. et al., 2006. Northwest Sumatra and offshore islands field survey
after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Earthquake Spectra, 22,
S105–S135.
Koblinsky, C.J., Ray, R., Beckley, B.D., Wang, Y.M., Tsaoussi, L., Brenner,
A. & Williamson, R., 1998. NASA ocean altimeter Pathfinder project
report 1: data processing handbook, NASA Tech. Memo. 1998-208605,
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD.
Krüger, F. & Ohrnberge, M., 2005. Tracking the rupture of the Mw 5 9.3
Sumatra earthquake over 1,150 km at teleseismic distance, Nature, 435,
937–939.
Kulikov, E.A., Medvedev, P.P. & Lappo, S.S., 2005. Satellite recording of
the Indian Ocean tsunami on December 26, 2004, Doklady Earth Sciences
A, 401, 444–448.
Lambotte, S., Rivera, L. & Hinderer, J., 2006. Rupture length and du-
ration of the 2004 Aceh–Sumatra earthquake from the phases of the
Earth’s gravest free oscillations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03307,
doi:10.1029/2005GL024090.
Lambotte, S., Rivera, L. & Hinderer, J., 2007. Constraining the overall
kinematics of the 2004 Sumatra and the 2005 Nias earthquakes us-
ing the Earth’s gravest free oscillations, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 97(1A),
S128–S138.
Lay, T. et al., 2005. The Great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake of 26 Decem-
ber 2004, Science, 308, 1127–1133.
Liu, P.L.F. et al., 2005. Observations by the International Tsunami Survey
Team in Sri Lanka, Science, 308, 1595, doi:10.1126/science.1110730.
Narayan, J.P., Sharma, M.L. & Maheshwari, B.K., 2005. Run–up and inun-
dation pattern developed during the Indian Ocean tsunami of December
26, 2004 along the coast of Tamil Nadu (India), Gondwana Res., 8, 611–
616.
Ni, S., Kanamori, H. & Helmberger, D., 2005. Energy radiation from the
Sumatra earthquake, Nature, 434, 582, doi:10.1038/434582a.
Okada, Y., 1985. Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a
half–space, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 75, 1135–1154.
Park, J. et al., 2005. Earth’s free oscillations excited by the 26 December
2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake, Science, 308, 1139–1144.
Piatanesi, A. & Lorito, S., 2007. Rupture process of the 2004
Sumatra–Andaman earthquake from tsunami waveform inversion, Bull.
seism. Soc. Am., 97(1A), S223–S231.
Pietrzak, J. et al., 2007. Defining the source region of the Indian Ocean
tsunami from GPS, altimeters, tide gauges and tsunami models, Earth
planet. Sci. Lett., 261, 49–64.
Poisson, B., Garcin, M. & Pedreros, R., 2009. The 2004 December 26 Indian
Ocean tsunami impact on Sri Lanka: cascade modelling from ocean to
city scales., Geophys. J. Int., 177, 1080–1090.
Rhie, J., Dreger, D., Burgmann, R. & Romanowicz, B., 2007. Slip of the
2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake from joint inversion of long-period
global seismic waveforms and GPS static offsets, Bull. seism. Soc. Am.,
97(1A), S115–S127.
Ritsema, J., Ward, S.N. & González, F.I., 1995. Inversion of deep-ocean
tsunami records for 1987 to 1988 Gulf of Alaska earthquake parameters,
Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 85, 747–754.
1378 B. Poisson, C. Oliveros and R. Pedreros
Satake, K., 1995. Linear and nonlinear computations of the 1992 Nicaragua
earthquake tsunami, Pure appl. Geophys., 144, 455–470.
Satake, K. et al., 2006. Tsunami heights and damage along the Myanmar
coast from the December 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake, Earth
Planets Space, 58, 243–252.
Sheth, A., Sanyal, S., Jaiswal, A. & Gandhi, P., 2006. Effects of the December
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on the Indian mainland, Earthquake Spectra,
22, 435–473.
Sladen, A. & Hbert, H., 2005. Inversion of satellite altimetry data to recover
the Sumatra 2004 earthquake slip distribution, EOS, Trans. Am. geophys.
Un., 86 (Fall Meet. Suppl.), U22A–07.
Sladen, A. & Hébert, H., 2008. On the use of satellite altimetry to infer the
earthquake rupture characteristics: application to the 2004 Sumatra event,
Geophys. J. Int., 172, 707–714.
Smith, W.H.F., Scharroo, R., Titov, V.V., Arcas, D. & Arbic, B.K., 2005.
Satellite altimeters measure tsunami, Doklady Earth Sciences A, 18,
11–13.
Song, Y.T., Ji, C., Fu, L.L., Zlotnicki, V., Shum, C.K., Yi, Y. & Hjorleifsdottir,
V., 2005. The 26 December 2004 tsunami source estimated from satel-
lite radar altimetry and seismic waves, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20601,
doi:10.1029/2005GL023683.
Stein, S. & Okal, E.A., 2005. Speed and size of the Sumatra earthquake,
Nature, 434, 581–582.
Subarya, C. et al., 2006. Plate–boundary deformation associated with the
great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake, Nature, 440, 46–51.
Swe, T.L. et al., 2006. Myanmar Coastal Area Field Survey after the Decem-
ber 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, Earthquake Spectra, 22, S285–S294.
Tanioka, Y. & Satake, K., 1996. Tsunami generation by horizontal displace-
ment of ocean bottom, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 861–864.
Tanioka, Y., Yudhicara, Kususose, T., Kathiroli, S., Nishimura, Y.,
Iwasaki, S. & Satake, K., 2006. Rupture process of the 2004 great
Sumatra–Andaman earthquake estimated from tsunami waveforms, Earth
Planets Space, 58, 203–209.
Tolstoy, M. & Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2005. Hydroacoustic constraints on the
rupture duration, length, and speed of the Great Sumatra–Andaman earth-
quake, Seism. Res. Lett., 76, 419–425.
Tsai, V.C., Nettles, M., Ekström, G. & Dziewonski, A.M., 2005. Multiple
CMT source analysis of the 2004 Sumatra earthquake, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L17304, doi:10.1029/2005GL023813.
Tsuji, Y., Namegaya, Y., Matsumoto, H., Iwasaki, S.I., Kanbua, W.,
Sriwichai, M. & Meesuk, V., 2006. The 2004 Indian tsunami in Thailand:
surveyed runup heights and tide gauge records, Earth Planets Space, 58,
223–232.
U.S. Department of Commerce, N.O. & Atmospheric Administration, N.G.
D.C., 2006. 2–minute Gridded Global Relief Data (ETOPO2v2).
Vallee, M., 2007. Rupture properties of the giant Sumatra earthquake imaged
by empirical Green’s function analysis, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 97(1A),
S103–S114.
Vigny, C. et al., 2005. Insight into the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake
from GPS measurements in southeast Asia, Nature, 436(7048), 201–206.
Wang, X. & Liu, P.L.F., 2006. An analysis of 2004 Sumatra earthquake
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/185/3/1365/603962 by guest on 27 April 2021
fault plane mechanisms and Indian Ocean tsunami, J. Hydrau. Res., 44,
147–154.
Watts, P., Grilli, S.T., Kirby, J.T., Fryer, G.J. & Tappin, D.R., 2003. Landslide
tsunami case studies using a Boussinesq model and a fully nonlinear
tsunami generation model, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 3, 391–402.
Wei, G., Kirby, J., Grilli, S. & Subramanya, R., 1995. A fully nonlinear
Boussinesq model for surface waves. I. Highly nonlinear, unsteady waves,
J. Fluid Mech., 294, 71–92.
Wijetunge, J.J., 2006. Tsunami on 26 december 2004 : spatial distribution
of tsunami height and the extent of inundation in Sri Lanka, Sci. Tsunami
Hazards, 24, 225–239.
Yeh, H., Chadha, R.K., Francis, M., Katada, T., Latha, G., Peterson, C.,
Raghuraman, G. & Singh, J.P., 2006. Tsunami runup survey along the
southeast Indian coast, Earthquake Spectra, 22, S173–S186.
Zahibo, N., Pelinovsky, E., Talipova, T., Kozelkov, A. & Kurkin, A., 2006.
Analytical and numerical study of nonlinear effects at tsunami modeling,
Appl. Math. Comput., 174, 795–809.

C 2011 The Authors, GJI, 185, 1365–1378
Geophysical Journal International 
C 2011 RAS