Geodesy and Geodynamics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geodesy and Geodynamics

journal homepage: http ://w ww.k eaip ub l ishing .com/geog

Source of the 2019 Mw6.9 Banten Intraslab earthquake modelled with

GPS data inversion
a, *
Satrio Muhammad Alif , Erlangga Ibrahim Fattah b, Munawar Kholil c, Ongky Anggara a

a
Geomatics Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sumatera, Indonesia
b
Geophysics Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sumatera, Indonesia
c
Geospatial Information Agency, Indonesia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The 2019 MW6.9 Banten Intraslab earthquake occurred at ~100 km to the northeast of the Sunda Trench
Received 23 December 2020
with two nodal plane models estimated by the Global Centroid-Moment-Tensor (GCMT) Project with a
Accepted 1 June 2021
Available online xxx strike of 200 and a dip of 65 .Continuous GPS data from 11 GPS sites were used to model the source of
the earthquake in three-components. The coseismic displacements and its uncertainties are obtained
Keywords:
from the coordinates of these GPS sites from 7 days before to 7 days after the earthquake. The coseismic
Coseismic slip slip is the inversion result of those displacements based on the best fit in an elastic half-space. The
Intraslab earthquake maximum displacement is ~5 cm with a large uncertainty that is comparable to the amplitude of
19
GPS data displacement. A seismic moment of the best model (strike of 65 and dip of 54 ) is 2.79 10 Nm or
Sunda strait equivalent to MW6.89. The fault model of the earthquake is highly presumed as a continuation of
Stress transfer Sumatran Fault Zone.
© 2021 Editorial office of Geodesy and Geodynamics. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Sumatran Island and Java Island are considered as a tectoni-
cally active region with many earthquake occurrences along
Sunda Trench in western Sumatra and southern Java [1]. Sunda
Strait, namely a transition between a frontal and oblique sub-
duction of Indian plate [2], is the location of the epicenter of the
2019 MW6.9 Banten Intraslab Earthquake (Fig. 1). Numerous
earthquakes with the magnitudes of more than 6 occurred
around the area and most of them are megathrust earthquakes
(USGS,
2020). Those earthquakes strengthen the possibility of the exis-
tence of the extension segment of Sumatran Fault Zone (SFZ) [3]
that stretched for 1900 km [4,5] and connected to Cimandiri Fault
in Java Island [6,7]. The dip value of the trench is about 15 while
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: satrio.muhammad@gt.itera.ac.id (S.M. Alif).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake
Administration.
Production and Hosting by Elsevier on behalf of KeAi
the transition between seismic and aseismic interface regions are
at 51 km depth [8].
The 2019 MW6.9 Banten earthquake occurred on August 2nd,
2019 at ~100 km northeast of Sunda Trench and ~140 km off the
coast of Sumatran Island. It resulted in a moderate to severe
shaking within 60 km away from the epicenter. Nevertheless,
more than 160,000 people were exposed to the earthquake and
most of them are located outside the critical 60-km area [9].
The focal mechanism of the 2019 MW6.9 Banten Earthquake
estimated by the
Global Centroid-Moment-Tensor (GCMT) Project [10] was sug-
gested as a south-striking nodal plane model with a strike of 200
and a dip of 45 and an east-striking nodal plane model with a
strike of 65 and a dip of 54 . This suggests that the dip angles of
both models are larger than that of the plate interface model [8].
The seismological analysis suggests that the 2019 MW6.9
Banten earthquake was an intraslab earthquake. The earthquake is
too deep for megathrust earthquake or Sumatran fault
earthquake, and its orientation is not consistent with those types
of earthquakes [14]. The hypocenter depth (~49 km)
published by United States Geological Survey (USGS) is larger
than the depth (~20 km) of plate interface on the epicenter
location which is within Indo-Australian Plate. There are many
similar intraslab earthquakes around this
Banten earthquake. Two earthquakes (the MW6.8
Tasikmalaya

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2021.06.001
1674-9847/© 2021 Editorial office of Geodesy and Geodynamics. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article as: S.M. Alif, E.I. Fattah, M. Kholil et al., Source of the 2019 Mw6.9 Banten Intraslab earthquake modelled with GPS data
inversion, Geodesy and Geodynamics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2021.06.001
S.M. Alif, E.I. Fattah, M. Kholil et al. Geodesy and Geodynamics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. Regional tectonics backgrounds of this study show the epicenter of the earthquake. The terrain model is obtained from SRTM data with 1 arc second spatial resolution
[11]. The bathymetry model in meters is obtained from the global bathymetry model [12]. The red rectangle in the inset globe shows the study area. Red beach ball shows the
epicenter of the 2019 MW6.9 Banten intraslab earthquake. Black beach balls show earthquakes with MW > 6.0 from 2000 to 2020 [13].
earthquake [15] and MW7.6 Padang earthquake [16]) of them 2. Data and methods
occurred in 2009 with the epicenters located within 500 km
away from the epicenter of the Banten earthquake. Those In this study, the observation data from many GPS sites in
intraslab earthquake sources have been modeled [15,16] with Lampung Province and Banten Province with the distance ranges
Global Posi- tioning System (GPS) data inversion while the from 50 to 120 km from the epicenter is obtained from the Geo-
corresponding result on the 2019 Banten intraslab earthquake has spatial Information Agency of Indonesia (BIG) (Fig. 2). Those GPS
not been published yet. sites are located around Sunda Strait, which is in the south of
Therefore, in this study, GPS data are used to model the rupture Sumatran Fault Zone and in the west of Cimandiri Fault. GPS
source of the 2019 MW6.9 Banten intraslab earthquake and technique is proven to be a powerful tool in the analysis of surface
the stress transfer by incorporating information from focal
mechanisms.

Fig. 2. Distribution of GPS sites represented by orange squares. Dashed black line denoted slab contour (in kilometer) from Slab1.0 [8]. The red rectangle in the inset globe shows
the study area. Red beach ball shows the epicenter of the 2019 MW6.9 Banten intraslab earthquake.

2
deformation [17,18] and the understanding of seismic cycles
[19,20]. There are 11 continuous GPS sites used in this research
(Table 1). The GPS data are recorded in 30 s interval. There are also
more than 10 campaign GPS sites around the study area in July
2019 and September 2019 but their observation data were noisy
and too large uncertainties to be useful in the inversions. The GPS
data from 7 days before the earthquake to 7 days after the earth-
quake are used.
The daily solutions of GPS site coordinates are used to estimate
coseismic displacements. GPS data are processed using GAMIT/
GLOBK software [21] with considering some other parameters
such as International GNSS Service (IGS) final ephemeris, earth
rotation parameters, ionosphere model parameters, differential
code biases for satellites and receivers, and ocean tide model
coefficients. The daily solutions are in a consistent reference
frame, which is the International Terrestrial Reference Frame
2014 (ITRF2014) [22]. The daily solutions from GPS data at each
GPS site are used to calculate the velocities. The velocities in 7
days after the earthquake are subtracted to the velocities in7
days before the earthquake to obtain the coseismic
displacements at each GPS site [23,24]. Three components of the
obtained coseismic displacements are used to model the rupture
source of the earthquake.
Coseismic displacements are used in the inversion process to
obtain coseismic slip distribution from both a south-striking nodal
plane model and an east-striking nodal plane model. The
geometry inversion method uses a constrained, non-linear
optimization al- gorithm to solve for the best fit, uniform-slip
rectangular disloca- tion [25] in an elastic half-space [26]. In
this study, the initial models, namely a south-striking nodal
plane (SSNP) model and an east-striking nodal plane (ESNP)
model, are obtained from GCMT with the hypocenter depth from
USGS. The model fault plane ex- tends 140 km along strike by
250 km downdip, divided into
10 km 10 km patches with the hypocenter located at the center
of fault plane in strike component and up-down component.
Some GPS sites move toward the epicenter and they have
large uncertainties especially for the vertical components. The
CMLP station located ~90 km away from the epicenter
experienced the largest horizontal coseismic displacement of ~4
mm while the CSBK station located ~100 km away experienced
the largest vertical coseismic subsidence displacement of ~7 cm
(Fig. 3 and Table 1). The vertical displacements for all sites show
no pattern related to the uplift and subsidence at all and all of Fig. 3. Coseismic displacements at GPS sites for (a) horizontal and (b) vertical com-
ponents are shown by blue arrows. Error ellipses are shown at a confidence level of
them have large un- certainties that are comparable to the
95%. Red beach ball shows the epicenter of the 2019 MW6.9 Banten intraslab
amplitudes of displacements. The direction and magnitude of earthquake.
horizontal displacement indicate that this earthquake is not an
interplate earthquake, but an intra- slab earthquake.

Table 1
GPS sites in this study and the displacements at each GPS site.

No Site name Longitude ( ) Latitude ( ) Location Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical displacement
displacement (mm) displacement displacement (mm) error (mm)
Error (mm)

1 CLGI 105.2974 5.8116 Legundi Island 2.0 3.0 3.4 11.0

2 CSBK 105.5051 5.9019 Sebuku Island 1.4 3.5 6.8 17.8
3 CTCN 104.7269 5.9128 Cina Cape 1.9 2.5 1.2 8.0
4 CUJK 105.2134 6.7466 Ujung Kulon 0.9 3.5 3.3 12.0
5 CGON 106.0522 6.0208 Cilegon 2.2 2.5 5.4 8.0
6 CMLP 106.0191 6.7783 Malingping 3.7 2.5 0.4 8.8
7 CPSR 105.8336 6.2260 Pasauran 2.1 3.9 0.4 17.3
8 CRKS 106.2463 6.3579 Rangkasbitung 3.3 3.8 4.3 13.3
9 CPTN 106.3814 6.9608 Pelabuhan Ratu 2.1 3.2 1.2 13.9
10 CPTU 106.5814 6.9892 Pelabuhan Ratu 1.2 3.2 0.2 11.0
11 CUJG 106.4056 7.3820 Ujung Genteng 3.1 3.0 0.5 13.8
3. Results and discussion
Those coseismic displacements from GPS sites are used to esti-
mate slip from two possible fault geometries and a better model
between both models is proposed. Both ESNP and SSNP models
explain the slip mechanism of the earthquake within the slab of
the Indian Plate (Fig. 4). Relative to subduction direction, the
ESNP model is a type of thrusting fault with the reversed direction
while the SSNP model is a type of left-lateral strike-slip fault
with a similar direction with ESNP model. The coseismic slips
of both
models reached up to 1.2 m. An equivalent seismic moment of
ESNP model is 2.79 1019 Nm or MW6.89. An equivalent seismic
moment of ESNP model is 2.37 1019 Nm or MW6.85. Two results
are based on an assumed rigidity of 50 GPa [15,27]. The
magnitude of ESNP
model is closer to the magnitude of the earthquake.
The misfit between ESNP model and GPS displacement is
smaller than that between SSNP model and GPS displacement
(Fig. 5). For ESNP model, the worst fit is estimated at CSBK sites
(8.0 mm), the best fit is estimated at CTCN sites (1.1 mm), and the
average misfit is 3.4 mm. For SSNP model, the worst fit is
estimated
Fig. 4. The earthquake modeled in two fault geometries: ESNP (green), and SSNP (blue). The line AeA0 in (a) shows the cross-section of ESNP model (b) and SSNP model (c). Black
beach ball (a) and yellow star (b and c) show the epicenter of the 2019 MW6.9 Banten intraslab earthquake. The red dashed line shows the boundary between two plates. The
arrows show the direction of plate motion. The subduction rate is obtained from the MORVEL model [28]. Dashed black line denoted slab contour (in kilometer) from Slab1.0
[8].
Fig. 5. Slip result of the ESNP model (a and c) and SSNP model (b and d). Green arrows
show horizontal misfits (a and b) and vertical misfits (c and d) between GPS dis-
placements and two models. Black beach ball shows the epicenter of the 2019 MW6.9
Banten intraslab earthquake.
at CSBK sites (7.1 mm), the best fit is estimated at CPSR sites
(1.9 mm), and the average misfit is 3.5 mm. The misfit is slightly
smaller than the displacement error at the GPS sites and the
additional information is necessary to support these findings. The
high slip of ESNP model is concentrated on the top left side and
the bottom right side of the rectangular plane. The rake direction
of the top left side is upward (rake of ~90 ) while the rake
direction of the bottom right side is downward (rake of ~270 ).
The high slip of the SSNP model is concentrated on the topside
and the bottom side of the rectangular plane. The top side of the
rectangular plane moves leftward, so the SSNP model is more
likely to be a left-lateral strike- slip fault.
The ESNP model is a better one to explain the earthquake
source from two aspects. First, the minimum misfit and average
misfit of ESNP model are smaller than those of SSNP model.
Second, the intraslab fault model matches with the continuation
of Sumatran Fault Zone (SFZ) on Memed [29] and Irsyam [30]. The
analysis from Coulomb failure stress changes (Fig. 6) shows that
the stress is

Fig. 6. Coulomb failure stress changes resulting from slips based on the ESNP model
(a) and SSNP (b) model.
released in the NWeSE direction of ESNP model which is similar [6] J.A. Malod, K. Karta, M.O. Beslier, M.T. Zen Jr., From normal to oblique sub-
duction: tectonic relationships between Java and Sumatra, J. Southeast Asian
to SFZ direction and the earthquake epicenter is also located in Earth Sci. 12 (1e2) (1995 Jul 1) 85e93.
the continuation of SFZ. The result confirms that this shallow
intraslab earthquake is highly caused by the type of subduction
processes such that the oceanic Indian plate is down-dip
tensional and the continental Sunda plate is compressional
[31]. It could occur without following a larger megathrust
earthquake [27]. Based on the above findings and analyses, the
ESNP model is highly pre- sumed as the continuation of the
Sumatran Fault Zone. Although it contains bias, the moment
magnitude of the ESNP model is also closer to the magnitude of
the earthquake reported by USGS. Since the GPS data is not
convincing enough, it is highly suggested to utilize seismic
waveforms to support these findings.

4. Conclusion

The results of GPS data inversion prefer thrusting fault (ESNP

model) to strike-slip fault (SSNP model) as the source model of the
2019 MW6.9 Banten intraslab earthquake. The amount of moment
release of the ESNP model is equivalent to MW6.89. The fit coseis-
mic displacement of the ESNP model is 3.4 mm on average. The
coseismic slip reached up to 1.2 m with a rake of ~90 at the top
side and a rake of ~270 at the bottom side of the rectangular
plane. To support this source model and understand its impact on
Sunda megathrust, the broad-band regional seismic-displacement
wave- forms are highly suggested to be utilized.

Author contribution

Satrio Muhammad Alif and Erlangga Ibrahim Fattah e Concep-

tualization, Formal analysis; Satrio Muhammad Alif e Methodol-
ogy, Software, Investigation, Writing e Original Draft,
Visualization; Erlangga Ibrahim Fattah e Validation, Writing e
Review & Editing; Munawar Khaleel e Data contribution; Ongky
Anggara e Software. All authors discussed the results and
contributed to the final manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

This research was funded by the Ministry of Research and

Technology 2020 Research Grant Fund No.
B/201/IT9.C1/PT.01.03/
2020. Figures were drawn using Generic Mapping Tools (GMT)
software [32]. Thanks are given to the Geospatial Information
Agency of Indonesia (BIG) for continuous GPS data.

References

[1] R. McCaffrey, The tectonic framework of the Sumatran subduction zone,

Annu.
Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37 (2009 May 30) 345e366, https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.earth.031208.100212.
[2] H. Harjono, M. Diament, J. Dubois, M. Larue, M.T. Zen, Seismicity of the Sunda
Strait: evidence for crustal extension and volcanological implications, Tec-
tonics 10 (1) (1991 Feb) 17e30, https://doi.org/10.1029/90TC00285.
[3] I. Arisbaya, M.M. Mukti, H. Permana, Seismic evidence of the southeastern
segment of the Sumatran Fault Zone in Sunda Strait and Southern Java, in:
Proceedings GEOSEA XIV & 45th IAGI Annual Convention, 2016.
[4] D.H. Natawidjaja, Updating active fault maps and sliprates along the
Sumatran Fault Zone, Indonesia, Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 118 (2017)
2e10, https:// doi.org/10.1088/17551315/118/1/012001.
[5] S.M. Alif, E.I. Fattah, M. Kholil, Geodetic slip rate and locking depth of East
Semangko Fault derived from GPS measurement, Geod. Geodyn. (2020 May
11), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2020.04.002.
 [7] A.A. Safitri, I. Meilano, E. Gunawan, H.Z. Abidin, J. Efendi, E. Kriswati, Strain 5) 409e410, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013eo450001.
variation along Cimandiri Fault, west Java based on continuous and campaign
GPS observation from 2006-2016, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 132 (1) (2018 Mar),
012027, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/132/1/012027.
[8] G.P. Hayes, D.J. Wald, R.L. Johnson, Slab1. 0: a three-dimensional model of
global subduction zone geometries, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 117 (B1) (2012
Jan), https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008524.
[9] AHA, Flash Update No. 01 e M7.4 Earthquake in Southwest Banten,
Indonesia e 02 August 2019 e Indonesia, AHA, 2019.
https://reliefweb.int/report/ indonesia/flash-update-no-01-m74-earthquake-
southwest-banten-
indonesia-02-august-2019.
[10] A.M. Dziewonski, T.A. Chou, J.H. Woodhouse, Determination of earthquake
source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional
seismicity, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 86 (B4) (1981 Apr 10) 2825e2852,
https://doi.org/10.1029/JB086iB04p02825.
[11] T.G. Farr, et al., The shuttle radar topography mission, Rev. Geophys. 45 (2)
(2007 Jun), https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183.
[12] V. Gouretski, Using GEBCO digital bathymetry to infer depth biases in the XBT
data, Deep Sea Res. Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 62 (2012 Apr 1) 40e52, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2011.12.012.
[13] U.S. Geological Survey, Search Earthquake Catalog, 2020. https://earthquake.
usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/2020.
[14] J. Patton, Earthquake Report: Sunda Strait, Indonesia, 2019.
[15] E. Gunawan, S. Widiyantoro, G.I. Marliyani, E. Sunarti, R. Ida, A.R. Gusman,
Fault source of the 2 September 2009 Mw 6.8 Tasikmalaya intraslab earth-
quake, Indonesia: analysis from GPS data inversion, tsunami height simula-
tion, and stress transfer, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 291 (2019 Jun 1) 54e61,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2019.04.004.
[16] K. Wiseman, P. Banerjee, R. Bürgmann, K. Sieh, D.S. Dreger, I. Hermawan,
Source model of the 2009 M w 7.6 Padang intraslab earthquake and its effect
on the Sunda megathrust, Geophys. J. Int. 190 (3) (2012 Sep 1) 1710e1722,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365246X. 2012.05600.x.
[17] S.M. Alif, M.I. Ardiansyah, S. Wiyono, Segmentation of Sumatran Fault Zone in
Tanggamus District, Lampung based on GPS displacement and SRTM data, in:
InIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 537 (1), IOP
Publishing, 2020 Jul 1, 012002.
[18] N.R. Hanifa, T. Sagiya, F. Kimata, J. Efendi, H.Z. Abidin, I. Meilano, Interplate
coupling model off the southwestern coast of Java, Indonesia, based on
continuous GPS data in 2008e2010, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 401 (2014 Sep 1)
159e171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2014.06.010.
[19] A.R. Gusman, et al., Fault slip distribution of the 2014 Iquique, Chile, earth-
quake estimated from ocean-wide tsunami waveforms and GPS data, Geo-
phys. Res. Lett. 42 (4) (2015 Feb 28) 1053e1060, https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014gl062604.
[20] R. Raharja, E. Gunawan, I. Meilano, H.Z. Abidin, J. Efendi, Long aseismic slip
duration of the 2006 Java tsunami earthquake based on GPS data, Earthq.
Sci. 29 (5) (2016 Oct 1) 291e298, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11589-016-
0167-y.
[21] T.A. Herring, R.W. King, S.C. McClusky, GAMIT Reference Manual, Release 10.4,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2010.
[22] Z. Altamimi, P. Rebischung, L. Me tivier, X. Collilieux, ITRF2014: a new release
of the international terrestrial reference frame modeling nonlinear station
motions, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121 (8) (2016 Aug) 6109e6131, https://
doi.org/10.1002/2016jb013098.
[23] P. Banerjee, F. Pollitz, B. Nagarajan, R. Bürgmann, Coseismic slip distributions
of the 26 December 2004 SumatraeAndaman and 28 March 2005 Nias
earthquakes from GPS static offsets, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97 (1A) (2007 Jan
1) S86eS102, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050609.
[24] E. Gunawan, M. Kholil, I. Meilano, Splay-fault rupture during the 2014 Mw7. 1
Molucca Sea, Indonesia, earthquake determined from GPS measurements,
Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 259 (2016 Oct 1) 29e33, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pepi.2016.08.009.
[25] R. Bürgmann, P. Segall, M. Lisowski, J. Svarc, Postseismic strain following the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake from GPS and leveling measurements,
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 102 (B3) (1997 Mar 10) 4933e4955, https://
doi.org/10.1029/96JB03171.
[26] Y. Okada, Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-
space, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75 (4) (1985 Aug 1) 1135e1154.
[27] Y. Ohta, et al., Large intraslab earthquake (2011 April 7, M 7.1) after the
2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake (M 9.0): coseismic fault
model based on the dense GPS network data, Earth Planets Space 63 (12)
(2011 Dec
1) 1207e1211, https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.07.016.
[28] C. DeMets, R.G. Gordon, D.F. Argus, Geologically current plate motions, Geophys.
J.
Int. 181 (1) (2010 Apr 1) 1e80, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
246x.2009.04491.x. [29] W. Memed, A. Soehaimi, H. Gunawan, Dinamika Geologi
Selat Sunda Dalam Pembangunan Berkelanjutan, Badan Geologi, Bandung,
Indonesia, 2019, p. 30.
[30] M. Irsyam, et al., Development of the 2017 national seismic hazard maps of
Indonesia, Earthq. Spectra (2020 Oct 1), https://doi.org/10.1177/
8755293020951206, 8755293020951206.
[31] T. Seno, M. Yoshida, Where and why do large shallow intraslab earthquakes
occur? Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 141 (3) (2004 Mar 16) 183e206, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2003.11.002.
[32] P. Wessel, W.H. Smith, R. Scharroo, J. Luis, F. Wobbe, Generic mapping tools:
improved version released, Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 94 (45) (2013 Nov
Satrio Muhammad Alif obtains Bachelor degree and
Master degree from Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung. His international publications
are about postseismic mechanism and geodetic slip rate
of fault. Currently, Lecturer and Researcher in
Geomatics
Engineering Study Program, Regional and Infrastructure
Technology Department, Institut Teknologi Sumatera
teaching Geometric Geodesy, Computational Geodesy, and
Geodynamics. His interests include tectonic geodesy and
earthquake geodesy.