Pure Appl. Geophys.

Ó 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-021-02808-w Pure and Applied Geophysics

Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling
and Historical Seismicity
MIGUEL MEDINA,1 SEBASTIÁN RIQUELME,2 MAURICIO FUENTES,1 and JAIME CAMPOS1

Abstract—Throughout its history, South America has experi-
enced megathrust earthquakes which have produced large
tsunamis, devastating coastal cities in the near and far field.
Studying these phenomena is important for tsunami hazard miti-
gation in this region. We propose 10 earthquake scenarios along the
South American subduction zone on the basis of the seismic history
of each region, seismic-geodetic coupling, general scaling rela-
tionships, among others. Tsunami run-up (coastal amplification) is
then estimated using 200 nonuniform stochastic sources for each
scenario, totaling 2000 simulations. Our results show great vari-
ability in run-up distribution along the Nazca-South America
subduction zone, with some of the most affected areas being Val-
paraiso in Chile, with a most likely scenario of 20 m of run-up and
a maximum scenario of 33 m; and Lima in Peru, with 25 and 40 m
for the most likely and maximum scenarios, respectively. Similar
results are seen in Iquique and Huasco in Chile. We have also
identified 17 coastal locations with a higher vulnerability due to
local amplification of tsunami run-up and two instances in which a
regional amplification can occur due to tsunami directivity and
coastal barriers. We conclude that tsunami hazard remains high
along the coast of South America, even in areas where great
earthquakes have recently occurred.
Keywords: Tsunami, South America, seismology.
1. Introduction
Tsunamis in South America can be traced back
centuries using both historical records and paleo-
tsunamis (Cisternas et al., 2005; Goff et al., 2020;
Spiske et al., 2013). These events have had devas-
tating consequences, among which the most
important historical tsunamigenic earthquakes in
South America occurred in 1730 in central Chile
1
Seismic Risk Program, University of Chile, Santiago,
Chile. E-mail: miguel.medina@dgf.uchile.cl; mauricio@dgf.
uchile.cl; jaime@dgf.uchile.cl
2
National Seismological Center, University of Chile,
Santiago, Chile. E-mail: sebastian@csn.uchile.cl
(M * 9.0) (Carvajal et al., 2017a; Udı́as et al., 2012),
1868 in southern Peru (M * 8.8) (Comte & Pardo,
1991), 1877 in northern Chile (M * 8.8) (Comte &
Pardo, 1991), 1906 in Ecuador–Colombia (Kanamori
& McNally, 1982), and 1960 in southern Chile
(M * 9.5) (Kanamori & Cipar, 1974), among others
(see Fig. 1).
Learning from these past events is essential to
improve our comprehension of tsunamis to identify
hazards. Then, we can reduce the disruptive impacts
of a natural disaster on communities along the coast
of South America.
For tsunami hazard assessment, there are different
methodologies that can be classified based on the
distance to the tsunami source: far- and near-field. In
the far-field case, a simple model as a function of the
earthquake magnitude is often enough for tsunami
hazard assessment. Slip distribution and source depth
can even be seen as second-order factors, while other
phenomena such as directivity play a more important
role (Okal, 1988).
On the contrary, for near-field tsunamis, slip dis-
tribution, source geometry, and focal mechanism play
a key role and, are of the utmost importance when
modeling tsunamis on the coast (Geist, 2002). As
previously documented, this is why uniform slip
sources often underestimate the maximum vertical
inundation (Fuentes et al., 2019; Geist & Dmowska,
1999; Ruiz et al., 2015) which is known as run-up.
Strictly speaking, this parameter can only be modeled
by numerical methods with high-resolution
bathymetries. This data is not always available, and
approximations based on analytical or empirical
models are adopted. Hereafter, we will treat the run-
up as an approximation from the peak tsunami
nearshore amplitude (PNTA). Typical water depths
 M. Medina et al.
(where this value is computed) span between 50 and
200 m. In this study, we will take the nearest grid
point to the grid coastline (the change of sign in the
bathymetry data).
There is a lack of regional-scale studies with a
standard methodology, which would allow for com-
parison along the South American subduction zone.
Tsunami hazard studies in South America are often
done on a small scale, because a detailed bathymetry is
needed to model them properly. This has been done due
the efforts of local governments in specific coastal
areas or to study historical tsunamis (Carvajal et al.,
2017a; Okal et al., 2006). Recent studies have been
focused on stochastic or hybrid approaches to assess
tsunami hazard (Becerra et al., 2020; Drápela et al.,
2021; Escobar et al., 2020; González et al., 2020; Mas
et al., 2014), moving away from the use of uniform
distributions obtained from historical sources. These
have been known to underestimate run-up values up
to * 6 times for the maximum value (Geist, 2002).
In this work, we study run-up along the South
American coast with a regional approach to estimate
thresholds for maximum amplitudes to be expected
along this region. We define 10 regional tsunami
scenarios in South America, each one consisting of
200 simulations for nonuniform stochastic sources.
Numerical tsunami modeling is conducted to obtain
run-up distributions along this convergent tectonic
boundary.
For South America, we highlight eight zones of
interest, each one with a defined seismic scenario, from
south to north: Central Chile, North-Central Chile,
Northern Chile, South Peru, Central Peru, Northern
Peru, Ecuador–Colombia, and Colombia. As opposed
to the other regions, in Northern Chile we explore three
possible earthquake scenarios: a massive singular
megathrust rupture in the whole region and two smaller
ruptures north and south, which are denoted as
Northern Chile, Northern Chile Up, and Northern
Chile Down, respectively. Thus, we define 10 seismic
scenarios in total which can be seen in Fig. 1.
2. Methods and Data
The proposed scenarios are based in each region’s
seismic historical records, seismic coupling, the
Pure Appl. Geophys.
Figure 1 c
a Seismic history in South America, estimated and measured
rupture lengths along the coast for interplate earthquakes. Stars
denote non-interplate earthquakes (intraplate and tsunami earth-
quakes), and grey bars denote bathymetric relief such as ridges and
fracture zones. b South American subduction zone. Earthquake
geometry and magnitude are plotted for each modeled scenario
along the subduction zone
Gutenberg–Richter law (G–R), and scaling laws for
certain scenarios. For each of these 10 scenarios, we
only define a moment magnitude and a fault geom-
etry; meaning that slip distribution is initially
unknown and is then determined by the use of
stochastic sources.
The methodology proposed by Ruiz et al. (2015)
is used for source magnitude and geometry estimation
as well as tsunami modeling in each region, in which
a magnitude is estimated by the particular seismic
history of a region and stochastic sources are then
used to assess tsunami run-up with numerical tsunami
modeling. A nonplanar source geometry is used for
these sources. The Fuentes et al. (2019) approach for
estimating an earthquake magnitude and size is also
employed, which expands the magnitude estimation
of Ruiz et al. (2015) by using other factors such as
seismic coupling obtained from the seismic sequence
of the region based on the work of Scholz and
Campos (1995, 2012).
To define the extension and magnitude of each of
the 10 earthquake scenarios, we estimate earthquake
return periods, seismic cycle duration, coupled area
size, plate convergence rate, and shear modulus.
These features are used to estimate the seismic cou-
pling of each region following the work of Scholz
and Campos (1995, 2012), and finally an average
expected magnitude is obtained for each scenario.
For each region, the estimation of return period is
based on the seismic analysis of the Gutenberg–
Richter law (Gutenberg & Richter, 1944) and the
interseismic coupling degree. We use catalogs from
the US Geological Survey with a completeness
threshold of Mw 4.0 and a depth up to 50 km for each
of the studied regions. Large historical interplate
events (Mw [ 7.5) are also included and can be seen
in Fig. 1. Return periods are estimated for large
events to validate the proposed earthquake
Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling
 M. Medina et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Table 1
Estimated seismic cycles for different scenarios

Scenario ID Seismic cycle beginning Cumulative moment Released moment Available moment Associated magnitude
year (N m) (N m) (N m) (Mw)

Central Chile 1730 5.25e22 4.07e22 1.18e22 8.6

Northern-Central 1922 2.36e22 8.02e21 1.56e22 8.7
Chile
Northern Chile 1877 1.69e22 1.05e21 1.59e22 8.7
Down
Northern Chile Up 1868 9.11e21 5.11e21 4.00e21 8.3
Northern Chile 1877 3.86e22 4.94e21 3.36e22 9.0
Southern Peru 1868 1.25e22 5.61e21 6.87e21 8.5
Central Peru 1746 3.60e22 3.75e21 3.22e22 8.9
Ecuador– 1906 1.11e22 1.91e21 9.17e21 8.6
Colombia
The cumulative moment corresponds to the seismic moment accumulated from the seismic cycle beginning year up to 2020. The released
moment column corresponds to the seismic moment released since the cycle beginning by subduction earthquakes, and the available moment
is the difference between cumulative and released seismic moment with its associated magnitude moment in the next column. Northern Peru
and Colombia scenarios are not calculated due to lack of seismic data

magnitude, in the context of each seismic cycle and
for seismic coupling calculation.
Seismic cycle periods are chosen from the last
largest earthquake up to year 2020 as detailed in
Table 1. Return periods are obtained directly from the
G–R law. Different seismic cycle magnitudes are
tested and validated with these return periods for this
newly defined seismic cycle. The use of the G–R law
in this work is different from its usual role such as in
a probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment as seen in
Geist and Parsons (2006) and De Risi and Goda
(2016).
For the coupled area, we define a simple rectan-
gular geometry composed of length and width.
Length is estimated in each gap with several kilo-
meters towards north and south of the defined gaps, in
order to assure that the entire coupled region is
contained. Width is estimated using the mean sub-
duction angle for each region and a coupled depth of
50 km, based on the proposed coupled depth from
other previous works (Lay et al., 2012; Pacheco et al.,
1993; Tichelaar & Ruff, 1993).
Plate convergence rates are obtained from Argus
and Gordon (1991), Kendrick et al. (1999), and
Trenkamp et al. (2002) for each particular region. We
use a mean value of 32 GPa for the shear modulus
based on the preliminary reference Earth model
(PREM) model (Dziewonski and Anderson, 1981).
With these values, seismic coupling is computed
using the following formula from Scholz and Campos
(2012):


Xs ¼ Moi = lvo Ac T i ; ð1Þ
where Xs is the seismic coupling coefficient, Moi is the
moment released by the ith event with recurrence
time T i , l is the shear modulus, vo is the plate con-
vergence rate, and Ac is the coupled area. Values
obtained for seismic coupling derived from this
simple methodology are validated with the ones
obtained by other authors using GPS networks in the
region (Béjar-Pizarro et al., 2013; Chlieh et al., 2011;
Métois et al., 2012, 2013, 2016; Mothes et al., 2018;
Vigny et al., 2009; Villegas-Lanza et al., 2016a).
Table 1 shows the estimated seismic deficit or
accumulated seismic moment, which is computed by
multiplying the seismic flux defined as vo Ac by the
elapsed time since the year the cycle began up to the
year 2020. The released energy by recent or historical
events since the cycle beginning is accounted for the
available moment and is calculated as the residual of
this energy and the accumulated seismic moment for
every region.
Nonplanar fault geometry is obtained from a
forward modeling following Slab 2.0 (Hayes et al.,
2018) (see Fig. 2), using a subfault size close to
2 9 2 km to assure that each subfault can be
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Figure 2
Fault geometry for the North-Central Chile scenario. a Tsunami modeling domain and surface deformation computing domain in rectangle.
b Fault geometry in dotted line, and profiles A–D are solid lines. Profiles A–D in depth and fault geometry agree with Slab 2.0

modeled as a point source. In each of the 10 sce-
narios, 200 sources or simulations are used for
tsunami modeling. This number is suggested by De
Risi and Goda (2016), who verified the stabilization
in the convergence of the wave height by simulating
500 scenarios in Japan.
In order to generate realistic earthquake sources,
there are usually two equivalent approaches: assum-
ing a probability distribution of the slip in the fault
and proposing a correlation matrix, or imposing a
specific spatial power spectrum of the slip. The
seminal works on both sides (Herrero & Bernard,
1994; Mai & Beroza, 2002) provide a framework on
this subject. In both cases, correlation lengths or
corner frequencies are needed (they are directly
related by the scaling properties of the Fourier
transform). Usually, those correlation lengths are
modeled as a fraction of their dominant scales.
Melgar and Hayes (2019) proposed new scaling
relations of correlation lengths and effective size of
the fault based on a bigger finite fault model catalog,
spanning more magnitudes and earthquake variabili-
ties than Mai and Beroza (2002). Adopting this
scaling relation for the correlation lengths, we impose
a power spectrum following a Von Karman filter,
which depends on the correlation lengths and a con-
stant H, namely the Hurst exponent. This value lies in
[0, 1]. We will take H ¼ 1, which makes the
wavenumber spectrum decay with a power law k2 ,
usually referred to as the k2 model. The Von Karman
filter allows for smoothly passing from low (flat
spectrum) to high (k2 decay) wavenumber domains.
Then, samples are drawn by adding a random phase
spectrum and emulating a slip distribution (Graves &
Pitarka, 2010). This approach has already been used
in Chile (Fuentes et al., 2019; Ruiz et al., 2015).
Each scenario consists of two domains: the tsu-
nami propagation and the surface deformation
domains. The surface deformation region is always
contained in the propagation domain; we call this the
internal region.
In the internal region, the source surface defor-
mation is computed using Okada’s point-source
equations for sufficiently small fault discretization
(Okada, 1985). This region is smaller than the tsu-
nami modeling region, given that the surface
deformation decays quickly to zero in areas distant to
the source. Using this approach, computing times are
reduced. Geist (2002) pointed out that the grid size in
the fault should be less than or equal to the source
depth, in order to correctly simulate waves at that
scale.
This static surface deformation is then used as the
initial condition for numerical tsunami modeling.
 M. Medina et al.
Static deformation sources are often used for
numerical tsunami modeling because a passive
propagation is enough to represent regular subduction
events, omitting slow events or tsunami earthquakes.
Tsunamis are a long-wave phenomenon, meaning
that the total rupture time for a typical subduction
earthquake is much smaller than the period of waves
propagated in water.
Numerical tsunami modeling is computed using
NEOWAVE (Non-hydrostatic Evolution of Ocean
WAVE) (Yamazaki et al., 2009). NEOWAVE
numerically solves the nonlinear shallow water
equations with a non-hydrostatic pressure field in a
semi-implicit finite difference scheme in a staggered
grid. This solver employs the upwind scheme to
account for advective terms and the non-hydrostatic
pressure term to account for weakly dispersive
waves. GEBCO 30-arc-second (* 925 m) bathy-
metry (Becker et al., 2009) is used with a vertical
wall condition on the coast (that is to say, full
reflection at the coast), meaning that no flooding is
modeled. For a regional study such as this one, fine
details of the ocean bottom are not necessary, and the
use of this bathymetry greatly reduces the modeling
times. Since only large earthquakes are modeled here
(Mw [ 8.0), this bathymetry grid size is safely much
lower than the slip correlation lengths used in this
study (fault patch sizes).
Once tsunami modeling is done, run-up distribu-
tions can be constructed. For each seismic scenario,
we construct run-up conditional probability of
exceedance based on the values obtained along the
coast for each set of 200 simulations. This is esti-
mated as the probability for run-up to be greater or
equal than a given value at a step of 0.5 m. The
probability is computed individually for each grid
point in the tsunami modeling coast at a 30-arc-sec-
ond resolution. We display these 2D probabilities in a
heat color map for each scenario in Fig. 3.
For anomalous peaks in run-up distribution, far
from the source, we define an amplification factor
f. This factor is calculated as the peak run-up divided
by mean run-up, in the immediate neighborhood in a
0.25° radius ball centered at this anomalous run-up.
This value estimates how much run-up has increased
in certain locations.
Pure Appl. Geophys.
As a factor that might be related to these
anomalous peak run-ups, we study the beach slope.
Using GEBCO 30-arc-second bathymetry and a
piecewise linear approximation of bathymetry pro-
files perpendicular to the coast, we obtain the angle of
the nearest segment to the shore which we denote as
the beach slope b.
Finally, in the following sections, we delineate
important background information used to determine
the size and magnitude for each of the regional sce-
narios proposed in this work, such as historical
seismicity, notorious bathymetric features of the
region, among others. Scenarios are described from
south to north.
3. Chile
We define three regions of interest in Chile:
Central Chile at around 32.5° S–37° S, Central-North
Chile at around 28° S–32.5° S, and Northern Chile at
20° S–28° S.
4. Central Chile
The Central Chile region is included from the
south of the Juan Fernandez Ridge (JFR, 32.5° S)
down to the north of the Mocha Fracture Zone
(MOFZ) at 37° S. The most recent event inside this
region is the 2010 Mw 8.8 earthquake (Delouis et al.,
2010; Vigny et al., 2011) in the located southern part,
and the largest one occurred in 1730 with an esti-
mated magnitude of 9.1–9.3 (Carvajal et al., 2017a).
Although there have been multiple earthquakes in
this region, the seismic deficit in the northern part has
not been completed yet. This agrees with the seismic
coupling measurements, showing that this region is
highly coupled (Métois et al., 2016). The 1906 Mw
8.2 earthquake (Comte et al., 1986) generated a very
moderate tsunami (Carvajal et al., 2017b), and the
1985 Mw 7.8–8.0 event took place in the lower part
of the subduction interface (Barrientos, 1988; Bravo
et al., 2019); this means that most of the seismic
moment might be accumulated in the up-dip portion
of this region, enhancing the tsunami potential.
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Figure 3
Obtained run-up exceedance probability distribution by latitude for the following scenarios: a Central Chile (Mw 8.6), b North-Central Chile
(Mw 8.7), c Northern Chile (Mw 9.0), d Northern Chile Down (Mw 8.5), e Northern Chile Up (Mw 8.3), f Southern Peru (Mw 8.5), g Central
Peru (Mw 8.9), h Northern Peru (Mw 8.8), i Ecuador–Colombia (Mw 8.6), and j Colombia (Mw 8.7). For i and j, distribution by longitude is
appended, and a dotted line is plotted in this separation. Earthquake source areas are highlighted in grey, and locations of interest are marked
 M. Medina et al.
5. North-Central Chile
North-Central Chile is the region starting at the
north of the Juan Fernandez Ridge up to the Taltal
Ridge (TR, 25° S). This region has a moderate to high
coupling (Métois et al., 2016). In the southern section
of this region, the most recent event was the 2015
Mw 8.3 Illapel earthquake (Fuentes et al., 2016; Ruiz
et al., 2016). Historically, the northern section has
had at least two large earthquakes (M [ 8), once in
1819 and once in 1922, both with an estimated
magnitude around Mw 8.5–8.6 (Carvajal et al.,
2017b). The latter had a significant regional tsunami
registered (Lomnitz, 2004) as well as a transoceanic
tsunami recorded in Japan (Abe, 1979). If the rupture
area shared between the 1819 and 1922 earthquakes
is extended with the rupture area of the 1918 Mw 7.5
(Lomnitz, 2004) event, a 400-km-long rupture zone is
obtained between 30° S and south of the 1995 Mw
8.0 earthquake (Delouis et al., 1997), which is in
agreement with a Mw 8.5–8.8 event according to
scaling relationships (Blaser et al., 2010; Strasser
et al., 2010).
6. Northern Chile
Northern Chile is one of the most studied seismic
gaps in the world (McCann et al., 1979), expanding
from the northern part of the Iquique Ridge (IR, 19°
S) down south to the Taltal Ridge. This region gained
notoriety for the absence of significant seismicity in
nearly 140 years, from the years 1877–2014. The
1877 Mw 8.8 earthquake (Comte & Pardo, 1991;
Lomnitz, 2004) is one of the biggest historical
earthquakes documented in Chile and had an
immense tsunami (21 m in Mejillones) that caused
devastation in nearby cities (Abe, 1979; Lomnitz,
2004). Though the more recent 2014 Mw 8.1 earth-
quake was big enough to cause damage (Becerra
et al., 2016), the consequential tsunami was moderate
and mostly instrumental (Catalán et al., 2015), and
thus most of the damage associated with this earth-
quake was related to shaking. This earthquake failed
to fill the enormous seismic gap in the region (Hayes
et al., 2014), and seismic hazard remains high in this
region. Most of the Northern Chile subduction seems
Pure Appl. Geophys.
to be nearly or fully coupled, as shown by many
authors (Béjar-Pizarro et al., 2013; Métois et al.,
2013).
7. Peru
For Peru there are three regions: Southern around
15° S–18° S, Central at 10° S–15° S, and Northern
Peru at 2.5° S–10° S.
8. Southern Peru
Southern Peru is defined as the area between the
Nazca (NFZ, 15° S) and Iquique Ridges, with the
biggest earthquake being the 1868 Mw 8.8 Arica
earthquake (Comte & Pardo, 1991), similar to the
1877 earthquake just south of this megathrust event.
Since this earthquake, the seismic gap has been par-
tially filled with the 2001 Mw 8.4 Pisco earthquake
(Bilek & Ruff, 2002), which had a considerable tsu-
nami with run-ups of almost 10 m. This region
remains with a high coupling in the north (Villegas-
Lanza et al., 2016a).
9. Central Peru
Located between the Mendaña Fracture Zone
(MFZ, 10° S) and the Nazca Ridge, Central Peru is
without a doubt one of the most seismically active
regions in the past century, having at least three
earthquakes with a magnitude above 8.0: 1940 Mw
8.0–8.2 (Beck & Nishenko, 1990; Kanamori, 1977),
1974 Mw 8.1 (Beck & Nishenko, 1990), and 2007
Mw 8.0 (Sladen et al., 2010). And still, the seismic
moment for these three events only partially fills the
gap since the 1746 Mw 8.6–9.0 (Dorbath et al., 1990)
earthquake. If the seismic deficit is calculated from
this event up until now, there is enough seismic
energy for a Mw 8.9 event (Villegas-Lanza et al.,
2016a).
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling
10. Northern Peru
From the northernmost coastal point of Peru
roughly south of the Carnegie Ridge (CAR, 2.5° S)
down to the Mendaña Fracture Zone, Northern Peru
is a region lacking significant seismicity and is
mostly associated with aseismic movements (Noc-
quet et al., 2014; Villegas-Lanza et al., 2016b) and
slow or tsunami earthquakes (Pelayo & Wiens, 1990).
The only historical earthquake occurred in 1618
(Bourgeois et al., 1999; Dorbath et al., 1990), and its
mechanism is not well defined, meaning that it could
have been an intraplate earthquake. Seismic coupling
is low for most of the region, but is poorly con-
strained north of the Medaña Fracture Zone near the
trench (Villegas-Lanza et al., 2016a).
11. Ecuador and Colombia
Ecuador and Colombia have been paired given
that most of their seismic history is shared, as with
the 1906 Mw 8.8 earthquake rupturing in both
countries. Two regions for modeling are defined:
Ecuador–Colombia (1° S–4° N) and Colombia (4° N–
7° N).
12. Ecuador–Colombia
The Ecuador–Colombia region is defined as north
of the Carnegie Ridge (CAR, 2.5° S) up until the end
of the rupture for the 1906 earthquake at * 4° S.
This region has one of the most studied and under-
stood seismic sequences, starting with the 1906 Mw
8.8 earthquake rupturing the entire region. In this
region, there are other three rupture models (Kana-
mori & McNally, 1982): the southern segment
ruptured in 1942 and later in 2016 (Ye et al., 2016)
with both events having similar magnitudes and
rupture areas. The central segment ruptured in 1958,
and the northern segment ruptured in 1979. However,
the 2016 Mw 7.8 earthquake ruptured in the southern
segment similar to the 1942 event, so it is possible
that the seismic deficit was exceeded (Nocquet et al.,
2017) in this region. The 1958 and 1979 events also
seem to exceed the expected magnitude. This
suggests a seismic super-cycle happening in this
region, similar to the Sumatra earthquake cycle (Sieh
et al., 2008), meaning that there may be more seismic
moment in the region to be released, more than that
accumulated since 1906. The northern and central
segments are shown to be highly coupled (Mothes
et al., 2018). The seismic deficit could be high if there
is indeed a super-cycle happening in this region.
13. Colombia
Lastly, the Colombia region is located north of the
1906 rupture area and up to the border with Panamá
at * 7° N. In this area there is a lack of significant
seismic history, which could be due to the lack of
considerable population in this rainy area or due to
the change from a subduction to a transform regimen
in the northern part of this region (see Fig. 1). This
last option does not rule out the possibility of an
earthquake extending up until this regimen change,
similar to the Mw 9.5 1960 Valdivia (Moreno et al.,
2009) earthquake extending from the Nazca plate
down to the Antarctic plate, where these two plates
have a transform boundary. Most of the seismic
network is inland (Vargas et al., 2018), and we could
not find a seismic coupling model for this area.
14. Results
Estimated magnitudes for the proposed scenarios
are detailed as follows: (1) Chile Central: a moment
magnitude 8.6 earthquake is estimated for this region
from the northern part of the 2010 earthquake rupture
to the southern portion of the 2015 earthquake rup-
ture. (2) North-Central Chile: we propose a
magnitude 8.7 scenario for this area, based on seismic
deficit estimation. (3–5) Northern Chile: here we
explore two possibilities, a big rupture in the same
area of the 1877 earthquake with a magnitude 9.0
(Northern Chile), and two smaller ruptures south and
north of the 2014 Iquique earthquake, with magni-
tudes Mw 8.3 (Northern Chile Down) and 8.5
(Northern Chile Up), respectively, the last two com-
bined being smaller than the accumulated seismic
moment in the region. (6) Southern Peru: the
 M. Medina et al.
proposed earthquake scenario is a Mw 8.5 earth-
quake, north of the 2001 event and partially above the
Nazca Ridge. (7) Central Peru: a Mw 8.9 magnitude
event is modeled, which is the second largest mod-
eled earthquake only behind the Northern Chile Mw
9.0 scenario. (8) Northern Peru: an event is modeled
in the worst GPS coverture area near the trench, and a
magnitude Mw 8.8 is obtained using only scaling
relationships for the size of the selected area. (9)
Ecuador–Colombia: for the chosen earthquake, we
combine the central and northern segment, where
there is enough space for a Mw 8.6 earthquake in an
area shown to be highly coupled. (10) Colombia:
without any data to rule out this model, a Mw 8.7
earthquake is modeled in the entirety of this region
obtained using scaling relationships. Rupture sizes
and magnitudes can be seen in Fig. 1.
For each scenario, there are 200 simulations of
different stochastic distributions, each producing a
latitudinal run-up distribution. For the Ecuador–
Colombia and Colombia scenarios, there is also a
longitudinal distribution corresponding to the south-
ern Panama coastal border.
These distributions are used to calculate marginal
exceedance probabilities by latitude for each scenario
as seen in Fig. 3. In these figures, extreme scenarios
(lighter colors) can be seen with run-ups exceeding
20 m and 40 m in some simulations. Nevertheless,
the most probable scenarios (darker colors) for run-up
are below 10 m, and in some extreme scenarios
slightly below 15 or 20 m. Spanning more magni-
tudes with this approach would allow hazard curves
to be constructed by combining marginal probabili-
ties with the occurrence rate of a given earthquake
magnitude in a Poissonian process framework (De
Risi & Goda, 2016).
In Fig. 4, the maximum run-up and slip pairs are
plotted for every simulation in the set of 10 scenarios.
A linear least-squares fit is calculated between these
slips and run-ups, and the results are plotted with one
standard deviation. Distributions by country are also
included with their corresponding linear fit.
In general, some results among all scenarios are
that there is a high-variability zone in front of the
rupture area with run-ups ranging from 10 to 45 m
depending on the earthquake size. Immediately north
and south there is a low-variability zone where run-
Pure Appl. Geophys.
ups are mostly below 5 m, and results are similar
along different simulations.
In particular, some of the most significant results
are as follows: Valparaı́so in Chile (33° S) with most
likely run-ups exceeding 10 to 15 m and maximum
well above 30 m, similar to what we see in Huasco
(28.5° S). In Central Peru we see the highest run-up
values in the country with some surpassing 40 m, and
a significant portion of the coast (10° S–12° S) with
most probable scenarios in the 10–15-m range.
Northern Peru has a very narrow distribution between
Chiclayo (6.5° S) and Trujillo (8° S), with maximum
run-up values in excess of 20 m. Ecuador and
Colombia show lower run-up values mostly below
the 10-m threshold, but these distributions seem to
expand over broader areas.
15. Discussion
We modeled in a 30-arc-second grid bathymetry.
Of course, this is a proxy of finer grids or reality.
However, the idea here is to present an order of
magnitude of the run-up in active seismic gaps in the
subduction zone of South America. We are trying to
model as accurate as is possible with a 30 arc-second
grid bathymetry. We are aware that even for a small
area, a port or a bay is mandatory to use fine grids to
account for all the nonlinear effects that are produced
in the shoaling process; this would be the most
accurate result that one can obtain, still not the
observed values, especially in the inundation process.
16. Results Validation
For validation of the obtained results, we observe
Fig. 4. Maximum run-up and slip are in good
agreement with South American and globally recor-
ded tsunamis. Furthermore, the Plafker rule of thumb,
also known as Plafker law, states that for subduction
earthquakes, maximum run-up should scale with
maximum slip. A constrained null-intercept linear fit
between these two parameters shows that run-up
scales with 59–102% of the slip value (slope 1
deviation).
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Figure 4
a Maximum run-up vs. maximum slip for every modeled scenario in circles; fitted linear regression in dotted lines shows that run-up scales up
to 59–102% of the slip for any given scenario. Significant historical subduction tsunamis in South America and the world are denoted by light
and dark symbols, respectively. b Scenarios in Chile, c scenarios in Peru, and d scenarios in Ecuador and Colombia

Tsunami run-up distribution in Peru scales nar-
rowly with slip at 0.66–0.89 times, a much smaller
range than the Chile and Ecuador–Colombia distri-
butions, both with similar results in the 0.53–0.91 and
0.60–1.00 ranges, respectively. With the exception of
the Northern Chile scenario (Mw 9.0), tsunami run-
ups in Chile are the ones that scale at the biggest
factor with maximum slip. Special care needs to be
taken when these values are compared, because they
belong to different zones with different properties and
generated with a different earthquake.
17. Obtained Run-Up Distributions
Run-up distributions show two clear regions: high
variability near the rupture, and low variability far
from it. This can be explained because, far from the
source, magnitude, location, and focal mechanism are
the most important parameters for run-up estimation,
all of which remain constant between simulations. On
the other hand, slip distribution variations have a
much more important role near the source (Crempien
et al., 2020), which explains high variability in run-
up.
With a higher magnitude we also observe higher
variability (see Fig. 4). This can be seen by
 M. Medina et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

comparing the results for a lower-magnitude earth-
quake (Fig. 3d, e) with a higher-magnitude
earthquake (Fig. 3c, g). For the Northern Chile Up
scenario (Mw 8.3), at latitude 17.6° S we see the
maximum run up of * 18.4 m with 95% of the run-
ups contained in the 7.5–16-m range along with a
standard deviation of 2.45 m. In contrast, for the
Northern Chile scenario (Mw 9.0), we see a * 47-m
maximum value at latitude 20.5° S, with 95% of the
values in the 8–30-m range, having a standard devi-
ation of 6.8 m, about three times as much variability
in the observed run-up. The physical explanation is
that with higher magnitude there is more slip to dis-
tribute among simulations, and this redistribution has
higher consequences in the resulting inundation.
For the run-up in the Northern Chile scenario
(Mw 9.0), run-up values obtained are not in line with
other simulations as can be seen in Fig. 4. This can be
attributed to several factors, including the following:
(1) The geometrical setting in this region, in which
the bend in the subduction at * 18.4° S in front of
Arica, known as the ‘‘Arica Bend,’’ causes the coast
to be farther from the trench, going from a mean
100-km distance up to 200 km (Saillard et al., 2017).
(2) A bigger rupture zone as a consequence of the
Arica Bend causes slip distribution to be less densely
packed as opposed to other scenarios. (3) Nonlinear
behavior of tsunami waves near the coast might affect
the relationship between run-up and slip. Neverthe-
less, results in this area are similar to those obtained
by Ruiz et al. (2015).
18. Local and Regional Amplification Phenomena
Although in low-variability zones run-ups are
mostly below 5–10 m, there are still some interesting
phenomena in these regions. There are some points
on the coast that show constant levels of high run-up
among all simulations. In Fig. 5 there is an example
of at least two coastal points, around 35° S and 35.5°
S, with constant peaks in the run-up value in all the
simulations. We previously defined this constant peak
as a local amplification phenomenon.
As seen in Fig. 3g, run-ups in the northern section
of the Central Peru scenario are consistently higher
than those obtained south of the source. We define
this as a regional amplification phenomenon, when an

Figure 5
Run-up distribution for 50 randomly selected scenarios in South-Central Chile (36°S–29°S) for the North-Central scenario. As shown in the
figure, there is a regular appearance of peaks in run-up among all scenarios at various latitudes
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Table 2
Identified local amplification across all scenarios

Scenario Latitude (°S) f b (°) jbnþ1 j1=2 Nearest location

Central Chile 29.4 4 0.61 9.69 Chungungo

30.0 5 0.73 8.21 Coquimbo
35.3 5 0.17 18.36 Constitución
36.8 3 0.50 10.70 Concepción
North-Central Chile 23.5 4 0.54 10.30 Mejillones Peninsula
29.9 5 1.19 6.35 Coquimbo
30.3 4 4.09 3.74 Tongoy
31.8 6 2.52 4.77 Los Vilos
35.3 4 0.17 18.36 Constitucion
Northern Chile (Up and Down) 16.6 4 0.94 7.81 Camana
18.4 6 0.84 8.26 Arica
23.4 4 5.65 3.18 Mejillones Peninsula
20.2 3 1.29 6.66 Iquique
21.4 4.5 0.91 7.93 Loa River
Southern Peru 11.3 4 0.34 12.98 Huacho Peninsula
12.1 3 0.25 15.14 Chorrillos
16.6 5 0.94 7.81 Camana
18.4 7 0.84 8.26 Arica
Central Peru 15 5 0.34 19.98 Puerto Caballas
Northern Peru 3.6 6 0.41 11.82 Caleta Cruz
3.8 4 0.89 8.02 Cancas
10.7 3.5 0.13 20.99 Pativilca River
11.2 3.5 0.34 19.98 Huacho Peninsula
Locations that repeat across different scenarios are bolded. Amplification factor f is calculated as the peak run-up divided by mean run-up in
the immediate vicinity. Beach slope b is obtained using the last value in a piecewise bathymetry approximation, and slope factor bnþ1 is
calculated as: bnþ1 ¼ tan(b)

irregular run-up is identified over an extended area
([ 100 km), for example, the northern section for the
Central Peru scenario or the western Panama coast in
the Ecuador–Colombia scenario. This definition is in
contrast to a local amplification which takes place in
one specific location.
We identified 23 instances of local amplification
and two cases of regional amplification, all of which
can be seen in Table 2. We studied the possible
causes for this amplification phenomena and identi-
fied the following: coastal shape, beach slope,
tsunami directivity, and tsunami clustering.
19. Coastal Shape
cases (except for Concepcion), the coast is closer to
the trench, standing out in comparison to the nearby
coast. This could, in fact, mean that these coastal
points act as a tsunami barrier stopping wave prop-
agation either south or north, and locally increasing
run-up values. In particular for the Central Peru
scenario, the coastal shape at 14° S acts as a barrier,
lowering run-up values to the south of this latitude
(Fig. 6).
The coastal shape in Concepcion has been shown
to amplify run-up because of shelf resonance during
the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake (Yamazaki &
Cheung, 2011) and more recently has been shown to
be one of the largest resonators in this area (Aranguiz
et al., 2019).

In this case we identify four instances in which

coast shape could be the cause of the run-up ampli- 20. Directivity
fication: Huacho (11.2° S), Mejillones Peninsula
(23.4° S), Concepcion (36.8° S), and in the regional Directivity amplification is identified in the
case of the Central Peru scenario. In most of these regional case for the Ecuador–Colombia scenario, in
 M. Medina et al.
Figure 6
Tsunami maximum wave height showing amplification in a Central Peru scenarios, by a coastal barrier stopping wave propagation southwards
and b Ecuador scenarios, due to tsunami directivity into the west Panama coast
which the western Panama coast has slightly higher
values than those observed in the eastern side. In this
case, this phenomenon can be explained due to tsu-
nami directivity creating a higher-energy zone
directly in front of the source, located on the western
coast (see Fig. 6).
Tsunami energy radiation is similar to that of
Rayleigh waves (Okal, 1988) and has a maximum
amplitude in front of the rupture for subduction-type
earthquakes. This means that there are cases in which
the tsunami wave propagation could create higher-
energy zones for the coast located directly in front of
the rupture area. For example, for an earthquake in
Central Chile, the tsunami waves could be higher in
Juan Fernandez Islands than those seen in the north or
south of Chile due to these islands being located
directly in front of the rupture area as opposed to the
sides of it.
21. Beach Slope
Finally, we study the effect that beach slope b
could have in local amplification. As seen in Table 2,
most of the identified local amplifications are in areas
Pure Appl. Geophys.
with low b values. Fuentes et al. (2015) showed that
in a 1 ? 1D beach geometry setting, the slope closest
to the coast (bnþ1 ) plays an important role in the final
maximum run-up value.
To verify this hypothesis in our 2 ? 1D setting,
we show b values for every point along the coast
from Southern Chile (40° S) up to Ecuador at 0°.
Examples for low and high b values can be seen in
Fig. 7c and d, respectively. Results for all South
American coasts can be seen in Fig. 7e.
As can be seen in Fig. 7a and b, no correlation can
be obtained between local amplification value f and b
or jbnþ1 j1=2 , where bnþ1 ¼ tan(b). Nevertheless,
Fig. 7e shows a good agreement between local
amplification of run-up R and low or local minimum
b values (below 0.3°). The identified local amplifi-
cation phenomena can be explained by a local
minimum in b value or overall low b values
(b \ 0.3°), with the exception of Puerto Caballas
(15° S) and Iquique (20.2° S) in which no correlation
is found.
It is a possibility that the selected set of scenarios
could trigger directivity in the identified coastal
points, and the other localities with a low b value
could be vulnerable to another set of scenarios.
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Figure 7
Relationship between different beach slope parameters and run-up amplification value. a Amplification value f vs. beach slope b. b
Amplification value f vs. bnþ1 slope: [tan(b)]. Both c and d show examples of a piecewise linear approximation of a bathymetry profile for a
small and large b value, respectively. e Beach slope along latitude b; run-up R amplification marked with dotted lines, and b values lower than
0.3° or local minimum are highlighted with a darker background

22. Tsunami Clustering 23. Possible Identified Causes

Tsunami clustering is defined by stochastic sce-
narios that can form groups with similar inundation
patterns (Williamson et al., 2020), directly related to
the earthquake sources. This could be a possible
explanation for the local amplification we see in
Fig. 5. Nevertheless, several subsets of 50 scenarios
were chosen at random with all of them showing
similar behaviors for inundation, and given the large
discrepancies in slip distribution among different
stochastic simulations, we do not expect this partic-
ular observed phenomenon to be attributed to tsunami
clustering. Similar tests were done for other
scenarios.
Table 3 shows a summary of all the possible
identified causes for amplified run-up along the South
American coast, local or regional. All of these loca-
tions could then have an inherently higher
vulnerability to tsunami inundation.
In most cases, a low or locally low b value can
explain this feature. There are at least five cases in
which the run-up amplification could be caused by
other reasons, and only Iquique at 20.2° S remains
unexplained with the proposed causes.
 M. Medina et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Table 3
Possible identified causes for 17 local and two regional tsunami amplifications

Latitude (°S) Location Possible cause

3.6 Caleta Cruz Beach slope

3.8 Cancas Beach slope
6–9 Northern Peru Apparent amplification due to coastal barrier
10.7 Pativilca River Beach slope
11.2 and 11.3 Huacho Beach slope and coast shape
12.1 Chorrillos Beach slope
15 Puerto Caballas Beach slope
16.6 Camana Beach slope
18.4 Arica Beach slope
20.2 Iquique Non identified
21.4 Loa River Beach slope
23.4 and 23.5 Mejillones Peninsula Beach slope and coast shape
29.4 Chungungo Beach slope
29.9 and 30.0 Coquimbo Beach slope
30.3 Tongoy Beach slope
31.8 Los Vilos Beach slope
35.3 Constitucion Beach slope
36.8 Concepción Beach slope and possible shelf resonance
81.5–84a Costa Rica and Panamá Tsunami directivity
In 16 cases, a low value or local minimum of beach slope can explain tsunami amplification. Causes other than beach slope are bolded. Only
in one case could a cause for local tsunami amplification not be identified
a
Longitude (°W) instead of latitude

24. Conclusions behavior of tsunami run-up (González et al., 2020).

Tsunami run-up shows an immense variability
along the Nazca-South America and scales differently
among different segments: Tsunami inundation in
Chile scales with a greater percentage of maximum
slip in comparison to the rest of South America,
except for the Northern Chile. This is probably
caused by a greater trench-coast distance due to
change in subduction orientation known as the ‘‘Arica
Bend’’ at around 18.4° S. Tsunamis in Peru scale
much more narrowly with 63–87% of the maximum
slip. This significant difference is probably associated
with geometric constraints related to the trench-coast
distance being greater in Peru than in Chile and the
deformation produced inland due to the tectonic set-
ting. Tsunamis in Ecuador and Colombia show
smaller run-ups and much more dispersive behavior
(see Fig. 4d). This is explained by the tsunami wave
propagation taking place in a more narrow and closed
area with a coast to the north, south, and east of the
modeled sources.
It has been also discussed that the near field in
Northern Chile can be affected by the nonlinear
Both studies agree in terms of run-up values, and in
general the Plafker rule is observed in the
simulations.
Tsunami hazards can still be high even in areas
where great earthquakes (M [ 8.0) have occurred
recently. For instance, our simulations for Central
Peru (see Fig. 3g) show that tsunami run-up can
reach 40 m in extreme cases and 15–20 m in most of
the cases, even though three great earthquakes have
taken place in this region in the last 80 years (1940,
1974, and 2007).
Even in areas far from the source, where run-up is
usually between one and two meters, local amplifi-
cation can cause run-up to be much higher than
expected up to a factor of six or seven times. Local
amplification phenomena were identified in 17
instances for coastal locations and are mostly
explained by local minimum or extremely small
values of beach slope (b \ 0.3°). A detailed bathy-
metry could help to constrain those values of run-up
in those specific locations. This is of special signifi-
cance for tsunami hazard mitigation due to these
coastal locations having greater inherent vulnerability
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

to inundation. We do not expect for this phenomenon Acknowledgements

to be related to tsunami clustering, as the used
tsunamigenic sources are widely different from one This work was supported by Fondecyt 1170218.
another.

Appendix
25. Data and Resources
Grid
All data used in this paper came from published
Grids for numerical simulations are constructed
sources listed in the references. Some plots were
according to the Slab 2.0 model (Hayes et al., 2018).
made using the Generic Mapping Tools version 5.4.4
The following Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 17 show the domains and source area for each
scenario. Profiles A through D show agreement from
north to south of the constructed grid.

Figure 8
Central Perú scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area
 M. Medina et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 9
North-Central Chile scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area

Figure 10
Norther Chile (Up) scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area
Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Figure 11
Colombia scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area

Figure 12
Southern Perú scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area
 M. Medina et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 13
Ecuador–Colombia scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area

Figure 14
Northern Perú scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area
Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Figure 15
Central Chile scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area

Figure 16
Northern Chile scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area
 M. Medina et al.
Figure 17
Northern Chile (Down) scenario. White rectangle depicts the deformation area
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
REFERENCES
Abe, K. (1979). Size of great earthquakes of 1837–1974 inferred
from tsunami data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
Earth, 84(B4), 1561–1568.
Aranguiz, R., Catalán, P. A., Cecioni, C., Bellotti, G., Henriquez,
P., & González, J. (2019). Tsunami resonance and spatial pattern
of natural oscillation modes with multiple resonators. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124(11), 7797–7816.
Argus, D. F., & Gordon, R. G. (1991). No-net-rotation model of
current plate velocities incorporating plate motion model
NUVEL-1. Geophysical Research Letters, 18(11), 2039–2042.
Barrientos, S. E. (1988). Slip distribution of the 1985 central Chile
earthquake. Tectonophysics, 145(3–4), 225–241.
Becerra, A., Sáez, E., Podestá, L., & Leyton, F. (2016). The 2014
earthquake in Iquique, Chile: Comparison between local soil
conditions and observed damage in the cities of Iquique and Alto
Hospicio. Earthquake Spectra, 32(3), 1489–1505.
Becerra, I., Aránguiz, R., González, J., & Benavente, R. (2020). An
improvement of tsunami hazard analysis in Central Chile based
on stochastic rupture scenarios. Coastal Engineering Journal,
62(4), 473–488.
Pure Appl. Geophys.
Beck, S. L., & Nishenko, S. P. (1990). Variations in the mode of
great earthquake rupture along the central Peru subduction zone.
Geophysical Research Letters, 17(11), 1969–1972.
Becker, J. J., Sandwell, D. T., Smith, W. H. F., Braud, J., Binder,
B., Depner, J., & Ladner, R. (2009). Global bathymetry and
elevation data at 30 arc seconds resolution: SRTM30_PLUS.
Marine Geodesy, 32(4), 355–371.
Béjar-Pizarro, M., Socquet, A., Armijo, R., Carrizo, D., Genrich, J.,
& Simons, M. (2013). Andean structural control on interseismic
coupling in the North Chile subduction zone. Nature Geoscience,
6(6), 462.
Bilek, S. L., & Ruff, L. J. (2002). Analysis of the 23 June 2001 Mw
= 8.4 Peru underthrusting earthquake and its aftershocks. Geo-
physical Research Letters, 29(20), 21–31.
Blaser, L., Krüger, F., Ohrnberger, M., & Scherbaum, F. (2010).
Scaling relations of earthquake source parameter estimates with
special focus on subduction environment. Bulletin of the Seis-
mological Society of America, 100(6), 2914–2926.
Bourgeois, J., Petroff, C., Yeh, H., Titov, V., Synolakis, C. E.,
Benson, B., & Norabuena, E. (1999). Geologie setting, field
survey and modeling of the Chimbote, Northern Peru, Tsunami
of 21 February 1996. In Seismogenic and tsunamigenic processes
in shallow subduction zones (pp. 513–540). Birkhäuser: Basel.
Bravo, F., Koch, P., Riquelme, S., Fuentes, M., & Campos, J.
(2019). Slip distribution of the 1985 Valparaı́so earthquake
constrained with seismic and deformation data. Seismological
Research Letters, 90, 1792–1800.
Carvajal, M., Cisternas, M., & Catalán, P. A. (2017a). Source of the
1730 Chilean earthquake from historical records: Implications
for the future tsunami hazard on the coast of Metropolitan Chile.
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(5),
3648–3660.
Carvajal, M., Cisternas, M., Gubler, A., Catalán, P. A., Winckler,
P., & Wesson, R. L. (2017b). Reexamination of the magnitudes
for the 1906 and 1922 Chilean earthquakes using Japanese tsu-
nami amplitudes: Implications for source depth constraints.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(1), 4–17.
Catalán, P. A., Aránguiz, R., González, G., Tomita, T., Cienfuegos,
R., González, J., & Gubler, A. (2015). The 1 April 2014 Pisagua
tsunami: Observations and modeling. Geophysical Research
Letters, 42(8), 2918–2925.
Chlieh, M., Perfettini, H., Tavera, H., Avouac, J.-P., Remy, D.,
Nocquet, J.-M., et al. (2011). Interseismic coupling and seismic
potential along the central Andes subduction zone. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 116, B12405.
Cisternas, M., Atwater, B. F., Torrejón, F., Sawai, Y., Machuca, G.,
Lagos, M., Eipert, A., Youlton, C., Salgado, I., Kamataki, T.,
Shishikura, M., Rajendran, C. P., Malik, J. K., Rizal, Y., &
Husni, M. (2005). Predecessors of the giant 1960 Chile earth-
quake. Nature, 437(7057), 404–407.
Comte, D., Eisenberg, A., Lorca, E., Pardo, M., Ponce, L., Sarag-
oni, R., & Suárez, G. (1986). The 1985 central Chile earthquake:
A repeat of previous great earthquakes in the region? Science,
233(4762), 449–453.
Comte, D., & Pardo, M. (1991). Reappraisal of great historical
earthquakes in the northern Chile and southern Peru seismic
gaps. Natural Hazards, 4(1), 23–44.
Crempien, J. G. F., Urrutia, A., Benavente, R., & Cienfuegos, R.
(2020). Effects of earthquake spatial slip correlation on vari-
ability of tsunami potential energy and intensities. Scientific
Reports, 10, 8399.
De Risi, R., & Goda, K. (2016). Probabilistic earthquake–tsunami
multi-hazard analysis: Application to the Tohoku region, Japan.
Frontiers in Built Environment, 2, 25.
Delouis, B., Monfret, T., Dorbath, L., Pardo, M., Rivera, L., Comte,
D., & Cisternas, A. (1997). The Mw = 8.0 Antofagasta (northern
Chile) earthquake of 30 July 1995: A precursor to the end of the
large 1877 gap. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
87(2), 427–445.
Delouis, B., Nocquet, J.-M., & Vallée, M. (2010). Slip distribution
of the February 27, 2010 Mw = 8.8 Maule earthquake, central
Chile, from static and high-rate GPS, InSAR, and broadband
teleseismic data. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L17305.
Dorbath, L., Cisternas, A., & Dorbath, C. (1990). Assessment of
the size of large and great historical earthquakes in Peru. Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 80(3), 551–576.
Drápela, J., Calisto, I., & Moreno, M. (2021). Locking-derived
tsunami scenarios for the most recent megathrust earthquakes in
Chile: Implications for tsunami hazard assessment. Natural
Hazards, 107, 35–52.
Dziewonski, A. M., & Anderson, D. L. (1981). Preliminary refer-
ence Earth model. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors,
25(4), 297–356.
Escobar, R. S., Diaz, L. O., Guerrero, A. M., Galindo, M. P., Mas,
E., Koshimura, S., & Quintero, P. (2020). Tsunami hazard
assessment for the central and southern pacific coast of Colom-
bia. Coastal Engineering Journal, 62(4), 540–552.
Fuentes, M. S., Riquelme Muñoz, S., Medina, M., Mocanu, M., &
Filippi Fernandez, R. (2019). Tsunami hazard evaluation in the
Coquimbo region using nonuniform slip distribution sources.
Seismological Research Letters, 90, 1812–1819.
Fuentes, M., Riquelme, S., Hayes, G., Medina, M., Melgar, D.,
Vargas, G., et al. (2016). A study of the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel
earthquake and tsunami: Numerical and analytical approaches.
Pure Applied Geophysics, 173, 1847–1858.
Fuentes, M. A., Ruiz, J. A., & Riquelme, S. (2015). The runup on a
multilinear sloping beach model. Geophysical Journal Interna-
tional, 201(2), 915–928.
Geist, E. L. (2002). Complex earthquake rupture and local tsuna-
mis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B5),
ESE-2.
Geist, E. L., & Dmowska, R. (1999). Local tsunamis and dis-
tributed slip at the source. In J. Sauber & R. Dmowska (Eds.),
Seismogenic and tsunamigenic processes in shallow subduction
zones. Pageoph Topical Volumes. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Geist, E. L., & Parsons, T. (2006). Probabilistic analysis of tsunami
hazards. Natural Hazards, 37(3), 277–314.
Goff, J., Witter, R., Terry, J., & Spiske, M. (2020). Palaeotsunamis
in the Sino-Pacific region. Earth-Science Reviews, 210, 103352.
González, J., González, G., Aránguiz, R., Melgar, D., Zamora, N.,
Shrivastava, M. N., & Cienfuegos, R. (2020). A hybrid deter-
ministic and stochastic approach for tsunami hazard assessment
in Iquique, Chile. Natural Hazards, 100(1), 231–254.
Graves, R. W., & Pitarka, A. (2010). Broadband ground-motion
simulation using a hybrid approach. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 100(5A), 2095–2123.
Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1944). Frequency of earthquakes
in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
34(4), 185–188.
Hayes, G. P., Herman, M. W., Barnhart, W. D., Furlong, K. P.,
Riquelme, S., Benz, H. M., & Samsonov, S. (2014). Continuing
megathrust earthquake potential in Chile after the 2014 Iquique
earthquake. Nature, 512(7514), 295.
Hayes, G. P., Moore, G. L., Portner, D. E., Hearne, M., Flamme,
H., Furtney, M., & Smoczyk, G. M. (2018). Slab2, a compre-
hensive subduction zone geometry model. Science, 362(6410),
58–61.
Herrero, A., & Bernard, P. (1994). A kinematic self-similar rupture
process for earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 84(4), 1216–1228.
Kanamori, H. (1977). The energy release in great earthquakes.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 82(20), 2981–2987.
Kanamori, H., & Cipar, J. J. (1974). Focal process of the great
Chilean earthquake May 22, 1960. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, 9(2), 128–136.
Kanamori, H., & McNally, K. C. (1982). Variable rupture mode of
the subduction zone along the Ecuador–Colombia coast. Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 72(4), 1241–1253.
Kendrick, E. C., Bevis, M., Smalley, R. F., Jr., Cifuentes, O., &
Galban, F. (1999). Current rates of convergence across the cen-
tral Andes: Estimates from continuous GPS observations.
Geophysical Research Letters, 26(5), 541–544.
Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C. J., Koper, K. D., Hutko, A. R.,
Ye, L., et al. (2012). Depth-varying rupture properties of sub-
duction zone megathrust faults. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, 117, B04311.
Lomnitz, C. (2004). Major earthquakes of Chile: A historical sur-
vey, 1535–1960. Seismological Research Letters, 75(3),
368–378.
Mai, P. M., & Beroza, G. C. (2002). A spatial random field model
to characterize complexity in earthquake slip. Journal of Geo-
physical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B11), ESE-10.
 M. Medina et al.
Mas, E., Adriano, B., Pulido, N., Jimenez, C., & Koshimura, S.
(2014). Simulation of tsunami inundation in Central Peru from
future megathrust earthquake scenarios. Journal of Disaster
Research, 9(6), 961–967.
McCann, W. R., Nishenko, S. P., Sykes, L. R., & Krause, J. (1979).
Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic potential for major
boundaries. In M. Wyss (Ed.), Earthquake prediction and seis-
micity patterns. Contributions to Current Research in
Geophysics. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Melgar, D., & Hayes, G. P. (2019). The correlation lengths and
hypocentral positions of great earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seis-
mological Society of America, 109(6), 2582–2593.
Métois, M., Socquet, A., & Vigny, C. (2012). Interseismic cou-
pling, segmentation and mechanical behavior of the central Chile
subduction zone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,
117, B03406.
Métois, M., Socquet, A., Vigny, C., Carrizo, D., Peyrat, S.,
Delorme, A., & Ortega, I. (2013). Revisiting the North Chile
seismic gap segmentation using GPS-derived interseismic cou-
pling. Geophysical Journal International, 194(3), 1283–1294.
Métois, M., Vigny, C., & Socquet, A. (2016). Interseismic cou-
pling, megathrust earthquakes and seismic swarms along the
Chilean subduction zone (38–18 S). Pure and Applied Geo-
physics, 173(5), 1431–1449.
Moreno, M. S., Bolte, J., Klotz, J., & Melnick, D. (2009). Impact of
megathrust geometry on inversion of coseismic slip from
geodetic data: Application to the 1960 Chile earthquake. Geo-
physical Research Letters, 36, L16310.
Mothes, P. A., Rolandone, F., Nocquet, J. M., Jarrin, P. A.,
Alvarado, A. P., Ruiz, M. C., & Segovia, M. (2018). Monitoring
the earthquake cycle in the northern Andes from the Ecuadorian
cGPS network. Seismological Research Letters, 89(2A),
534–541.
Nocquet, J. M., Jarrin, P., Vallée, M., Mothes, P. A., Grandin, R.,
Rolandone, F., & Régnier, M. (2017). Supercycle at the
Ecuadorian subduction zone revealed after the 2016 Pedernales
earthquake. Nature Geoscience, 10(2), 145.
Nocquet, J. M., Villegas-Lanza, J. C., Chlieh, M., Mothes, P. A.,
Rolandone, F., Jarrin, P., & Martin, X. (2014). Motion of con-
tinental slivers and creeping subduction in the northern Andes.
Nature Geoscience, 7(4), 287.
Okada, Y. (1985). Surface deformation due to shear and tensile
faults in a half-space. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 75(4), 1135–1154.
Okal, E. A. (1988). Seismic parameters controlling far-field tsu-
nami amplitudes: A review. Natural Hazards, 1(1), 67–96.
Okal, E. A., Borrero, J. C., & Synolakis, C. E. (2006). Evaluation
of tsunami risk from regional earthquakes at Pisco, Peru. Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 96(5), 1634–1648.
Pacheco, J. F., Sykes, L. R., & Scholz, C. H. (1993). Nature of
seismic coupling along simple plate boundaries of the subduction
type. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 98(B8),
14133–14159.
Pelayo, A. M., & Wiens, D. A. (1990). The November 20, 1960
Peru tsunami earthquake: Source mechanism of a slow event.
Geophysical Research Letters, 17(6), 661–664.
Ruiz, J. A., Fuentes, M., Riquelme, S., Campos, J., & Cisternas, A.
(2015). Numerical simulation of tsunami runup in northern Chile
based on non-uniform k-2 slip distributions. Natural Hazards,
79(2), 1177–1198.
Pure Appl. Geophys.
Ruiz, S., Klein, E., del Campo, F., Rivera, E., Poli, P., Metois, M.,
& Madariaga, R. (2016). The seismic sequence of the 16
September 2015 M w 8.3 Illapel, Chile, earthquake. Seismolog-
ical Research Letters, 87(4), 789–799.
Saillard, M., Audin, L., Rousset, B., Avouac, J. P., Chlieh, M.,
Hall, S. R., & Farber, D. L. (2017). From the seismic cycle to
long-term deformation: Linking seismic coupling and Quaternary
coastal geomorphology along the Andean megathrust. Tectonics,
36(2), 241–256.
Scholz, C. H., & Campos, J. (1995). On the mechanism of seismic
decoupling and back arc spreading at subduction zones. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 100(B11), 22103–22115.
Scholz, C. H., & Campos, J. (2012). The seismic coupling of
subduction zones revisited. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Solid Earth, 117, B05310.
Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D. H., Meltzner, A. J., Shen, C. C., Cheng,
H., Li, K. S., & Edwards, R. L. (2008). Earthquake supercycles
inferred from sea-level changes recorded in the corals of west
Sumatra. Science, 322(5908), 1674–1678.
Sladen, A., Tavera, H., Simons, M., Avouac, J. P., Konca, A. O.,
Perfettini, H., et al. (2010). Source model of the 2007 Mw 8.0
Pisco, Peru earthquake: Implications for seismogenic behavior of
subduction megathrusts. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
Earth, 115, B02405.
Spiske, M., Piepenbreier, J., Benavente, C., Kunz, A., Bahlburg, H.,
& Steffahn, J. (2013). Historical tsunami deposits in Peru: Sed-
imentology, inverse modeling and optically stimulated
luminescence dating. Quaternary International, 305, 31–44.
Strasser, F. O., Arango, M. C., & Bommer, J. J. (2010). Scaling of
the source dimensions of interface and intraslab subduction-zone
earthquakes with moment magnitude. Seismological Research
Letters, 81(6), 941–950.
Tichelaar, B. W., & Ruff, L. J. (1993). Depth of seismic coupling
along subduction zones. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
Earth, 98(B2), 2017–2037.
Trenkamp, R., Kellogg, J. N., Freymueller, J. T., & Mora, H. P.
(2002). Wide plate margin deformation, southern Central
America and northwestern South America, CASA GPS obser-
vations. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 15(2),
157–171.
Udı́as, A., Madariaga, R., Buforn, E., Muñoz, D., & Ros, M.
(2012). The large Chilean historical earthquakes of 1647, 1657,
1730, and 1751 from contemporary documents. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1639–1653.
Vargas, C. A., Caneva, A., Monsalve, H., Salcedo, E., & Mora, H.
(2018). Geophysical networks in Colombia. Seismological
Research Letters, 89(2A), 440–445.
Vigny, C., Rudloff, A., Ruegg, J. C., Madariaga, R., Campos, J., &
Alvarez, M. (2009). Upper plate deformation measured by GPS
in the Coquimbo Gap, Chile. Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors, 175(1–2), 86–95.
Vigny, C., Socquet, A., Peyrat, S., Ruegg, J. C., Métois, M.,
Madariaga, R., & Carrizo, D. (2011). The 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule
megathrust earthquake of central Chile, monitored by GPS.
Science, 332(6036), 1417–1421.
Villegas-Lanza, J. C., Chlieh, M., Cavalié, O., Tavera, H., Baby, P.,
Chire-Chira, J., & Nocquet, J. M. (2016a). Active tectonics of
Peru: Heterogeneous interseismic coupling along the Nazca
megathrust, rigid motion of the Peruvian Sliver, and Subandean
shortening accommodation. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Solid Earth, 121(10), 7371–7394.
 Tsunami Modeling in the South American Subduction Zone Inferred from Seismic Coupling

Villegas-Lanza, J. C., Nocquet, J. M., Rolandone, F., Vallée, M.,
Tavera, H., Bondoux, F., & Chlieh, M. (2016b). A mixed seis-
mic–aseismic stress release episode in the Andean subduction
zone. Nature Geoscience, 9(2), 150–154.
Williamson, A., Rim, D., Adams, L., LeVeque, R. J., Melgar, D., &
Gonzalez, F. (2020). A source clustering approach for efficient
inundation modeling and regional scale PTHA
Yamazaki, Y., & Cheung, K. F. (2011). Shelf resonance and impact
of near-field tsunami generated by the 2010 Chile earthquake.
Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L12605.
Yamazaki, Y., Kowalik, Z., & Cheung, K. F. (2009). Depth-inte-
grated, non-hydrostatic model for wave breaking and run-up.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 61(5),
473–497.
Ye, L., Kanamori, H., Avouac, J. P., Li, L., Cheung, K. F., & Lay,
T. (2016). The 16 April 2016, MW 7.8 (MS 7.5) Ecuador
earthquake: A quasi-repeat of the 1942 MS 7.5 earthquake and
partial re-rupture of the 1906 MS 8.6 Colombia-Ecuador earth-
quake. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 454, 248–258.

(Received January 14, 2021, revised June 23, 2021, accepted June 24, 2021)