Abstract

34 downloads 425 Views 6MB Size Report
12 Jun 2017 - 12th Jun 2017 12:28:38. 12th Jun 2017 12:28:37 ...... The parameters used for, and obtained by, the invers
Analysis of the Tsunami Event caused by the Mw 6.3 Lesvos Island (East Aegean Sea) Earthquake of 12th June 2017 A. Annunziato1, G. Α. Papadopoulos2, A. Yalciner3, O.Necmioglu4, C. Ozer Sozdinler4, A. Agalos2, M. Charalampakis2, G. G. Dogan3, M. Kleanthi5, T. Novikova2, P. Probst1, C. Proietti1, I. Triantafyllou2 1 -Joint Research Centre, European Commission 2 –Institute of Geodynamics, National Observatory of Athens, Greece 3 -Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey 4 -Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bogazici University, Turkey 5 -Natural Disasters Rehabilitation Directorate, Ministry of Infrastructure, Greece

Abstract On 12 June 2017 at 12:28 UTC a strong earthquake of Moment Magnitude Μw6.3 occurred in the Aegean Sea, off-shore the Greek island of Lesvos; the epicentre was located 34 km south-southwest of the capital city of Mytilini. The event caused damage mainly in towns and villages of the southeast side of Lesvos. One person died and several injured. As a secondary effect of the earthquake a local tsunami was generated that was witnessed in several locations of Lesvos, of other islands nearby and on the coasts of western Turkey. From official reports, eyewitness accounts, video records and photos it results that the maximum wave height, exceeding 30 cm, was observed in Plomari port, SE Lesvos. The event triggered the activation of the Tsunami Alerting mechanism by the three Tsunami Service Providers for this area (INGV, KOERI, NOA) so that, following the rules established in the frame of ICG/NEAMTWS/IOC/UNESCO and the best practices established by these centers a Tsunami Warning Statement was issued for Greece and Turkey 10 minutes from the earthquake origin time. The tidegauge on Bozcaada Island, located more than 100 km from the epicentre, detected the arrival of the waves about 1 h after the event showing sea level change of a few cm. The consideration of the measurements of this instrument provided the elements for excluding a destructive Tsunami and therefore the Warning Statement was cancelled. This report aims to analyze the impact and the rupture process of the earthquake as well as to examine the tsunami event on the basis of the information collected and the tidegauge record available. Tsunami numerical modelling was performed with the aim not only to better understand the tsunami generation mechanism and to check the quality of the various assumptions made, but also to complete the tsunami information which is relatively limited since no tide-gauge stations exist near the source area. The analysis of the procedures that have been followed for the examination of the event is also included.

1

Table of contents

Abstract

1

Table of content

2

1. Introduction

4

2. Situation assessment 2.1 Description of the earthquake 2.2 Description of the Effects of the Earthquake 2.2 Seismotectonics of the area 2.3 Description of the Effects of the Tsunami 2.3.1 Sea Level measurements 2.3.2 Visual observations 2.3.2.1 Plomari, Greece 2.3.2.2 Agios Isidoros 2.3.2.3 Marmaro Bay 2.3.2.4 Karaburun, Turkey 2.3.2.5 Foca, Turkey 2.4 Historical events in the area

5 5 9 13 15 15 17 18 19 19 20 21 22

3. Earthquake Modelling 3.1 Rupture history of the main shock

27 27

4. Tsunami Modelling 4.1 JRC Calculations 4.1.1 Travel Time 4.1.2 Preliminary calculations 4.1.3 Calculations of JRC with NOA Finite Fault Model 4.2 NOA Calculations 4.2.1 Bathymetry source and simulation grid 4.2.2 Seismic source constrain 4.3. METU Calculations

31 31 31 31 35 39 39 39 40

5. Procedures analysis

51

6. Damage assessment

54

6. Lessons Learnt 6.1 More instruments needed in the area 6.2 Knowledge of the events by the population, but wrong reaction 6.3 Early Assessment by modelling tools 6.4 Consideration of the event by the ARISTOTLE project 6.5 No alert to the population

56 57 57 57 58 58

2

7. Conclusions

59

8 References

60

9 Relevant Links

63

10 Contributions

64

Appendix A: Damage photos from Vrisa village, SE Lesvos Isl.

65

Appendix B: Finite Fault Model 3 km x 3 km

66

Appendix C: Finite Fault Model 1 km x 1 km

67

3

1. Introduction

Figure 1.1. The earthquake area and the region affected. On 12 June 2017 at 12:28 UTC a strong earthquake of moment magnitude Mw 6.3 occurred in the eastern Aegean Sea, off-shore the Greek island of Lesvos; the epicentre was located 34 km south-southwest of the capital city of Mytilini. The event caused destruction, mainly in villages and towns of the SE side of Lesvos Island. One person died and several injured. As a secondary effect of the earthquake a local tsunami was generated that was witnessed in south Lesvos as well as in several locations in other islands nearby and on the coasts of western Turkey. The Tsunami Service Providers (INGV, KOERI and NOA) which issued their alert messages 10 minutes after the earthquake origin time identified the event. The alert most probably did not reach the local population, which, however, was alerted by the seismic shaking since it was quite strong particularly in Lesvos Island and the western Turkish coast close to Karaburun and Foca. The aim of this report is to present the current situation, the historical events in the area, the earthquake and tsunami modelling, a preliminary damage estimate and the lessons learnt from the analysis and the monitoring of this event in the Tsunami Service Providers control rooms of NOA (Greece) and KOERI (Turkey). 4

2. Situation assessment 2.1 Description of the earthquake NOA

KOERI

Epicentre

Latitude: 38.8388°N Longitude: 26.3623°E

Latitude: 38.8468°N Longitude: 26.3252°E

Depth (km)

11.8

14.4

Magnitude (Mw)

6.3

6.3

Time of event

12th Jun 2017 12:28:38

12th Jun 2017 12:28:37

According to the determinations of the National Observatory of Athens (http://bbnet. gein.noa.gr/HL/databases/database) the main shock occurred on 12 June 2017, at 12:28:38 (GMT), with local magnitude ML 6.1 or moment magnitude Mw 6.3, while the largest aftershock of ML 5.2 or Mw5.3 was recorded on 17 June 2017, at 17:50:05 (GMT). Until writing these lines the aftershock activity was still ongoing. Fault plane solutions produced by NOA and other institutions (see in https://www.emsccsem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=597714#map) are consistent in that the main shock was associated with normal faulting trending about NW-SE, while a small strikeslip component was found in all the solutions (Fig. 2.1). Most of the aftershocks had focal mechanisms similar to that of the main shock. However, strike-slip faulting trending NESW is predominant in the focal mechanisms produced by NOA and other institutions for the largest aftershock of 17 June 2017 (see in https://www.emsccsem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=599243#map) as well as for smaller aftershocks (Fig. 2.1). KOERI estimations of the event are indicated in Figs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4. Cross-section of the aftershock activity (Fig. 2.5) implies that the seismic fault very likely deeps towards SW which is consistent with the active tectonics of southern Lesvos (Soulakellis et al., 2006; Pavlides et al., 2009).

5

Figure 2.1. Epicenter plots of the main shock of 12 June 2017 (large red star), its largest aftershock of 17 June 2017 (small red star) and 454 another aftershocks occurring from 12 June up to 4 July 2017. The magnitude range is from 1.0 to 6.3, while the focal depths range from 4 to 18 km. Beach-balls show the fault-plane solutions. Section A-A΄ is used in Fig. 2.2 to investigate the fault dip. Data from NOA.

Figure 2.2: Fast Moment Tensor solution of KOERI indicating normal faulting (see Section 9 for reference).

6

Figure 2.3 Moment Tensor Solution of KOERI obtained using ISOLA (see Section 9 for reference).

Figure 2.4 Focal Mechanism Solutions by KOERI for earthquakes with M ≥ 3.5 (see Section 9 for reference). 7

Figure 2.5. Plot of aftershock foci along the A-A΄cross-section which is vertical to the fault strike (see Fig. 2.1). Aftershocks located at distance up to 5 km in either side of AA΄ The star indicates the main shock focus. It is clear that the fault plane dips to southwest. Data from NOA. From preliminary reports (ITSAC, 2017; AFAD, 2017) it results that the highest ground acceleration values were recorded in Mytilini, Lesvos Isl. (0.07 g, E-W component, epicentral distance Δ=35 km) and in Foca (0.06 g, E-W component, Δ=44 km). The Global Disasters Alerts and Coordination System (GDACS) published the first determination of this event after 2 min, with data from NOA and indicating that about 1.5 million people was exposed in the radius of 100 km: a green alert was assigned to the event (no need for humanitarian intervention)1. Further estimations for the same event maintained a similar classification until the shake map from NEIC was produced (47 min after the event), that modified the alert level from Green to Orange.

Fig. 2.6 Timeline of the estimations of this event present in the GDACS system

1

http://www.gdacs.org/Earthquakes/report.aspx?eventid=1114802&episodeid=1170478&eventty pe=EQ

8

According to the shake map analysis 4100 people are living in an area with Modified Mercalli Scale of VII degree. This modified the alert level to a more important event.

Fig. 2.7 - Population estimation as a function of the expected Modified Mercalli Scale

2.2 Description of the Effects of the Earthquake The Mw 6.3 Lesvos earthquake of the 12th June 2017, University of Athens (by E. Lekkas et al. http://edcm.edu.gr/images/documents/ReportLesvos_20170627.pdf translation from Greek language On 12 June 2017 (12:28 GMT) an earthquake occurred with moment magnitude Mw 6.3, focal depth 12 km and an epicentral location offshore, south of Lesvos Isl. (Greece). The earthquake was associated with a normal fault striking NW-SE and dipping to SW, bounding to the north the offshore Lesvos basin. The main shock was followed by numerous aftershocks, forming a cloud of elliptical shape ~25-30 km long, which is in accordance to the fault’s strike. Damage οccurred in many settlements of the southeastern part of Lesvos, where the structures are mainly old with masonry made of stones, with high physical vulnerability, modern structures made of reinforced concrete with masonry filling and monumental structures. In the SE side of Lesvos Isl. the earthquake caused 1 human loss in the village Vrissa and 15 injuries in several localities. From the direct recording of damages with modern and innovative methods during the first hours after the main earthquake in the affected region, extensive and serious damage was identified in the western part of the Vrisa village, where almost all of the houses, which were constructed mainly between late 19th and early 20th century, have suffered partial or total collapse. In the villages of Plomari, Polichnitos, Lisvori, Stavros, Akrassi, Paleochori, Megalohori, Plagia and Agios Isidoros limited damages were noted mainly in old houses. PostByzantine monuments, in many villages of the affected area, as well as historical buildings in the city of Mytilene, which is located 35 km northeast of the epicentral area, also suffered serious damages.

9

Moreover, there were associated geodynamic phenomena such as ground failures on slopes and more specifically landslides and rock falls causing damage and cracks along parts of the road network, wall collapses and a tsunami, which was observed in the port of Plomari and other localities of Greek islands as well as of Western Turkey. In regard to the emergency management, from the very beginning after the occurrence of the event, all the authorities, at central, regional and local level, were mobilized in order to determine the extent of the affected area and the severity of the damage and to provide immediate assistance to the affected residents. Within 2 hours after the occurrence of the destructive earthquake the Ministry and the General Secretariat for Civil Protection, the Earthquake Planning & Protection Organization, the Fire Brigade and the Hellenic Police, were mobilized, while the Urban Search and Rescue Department with the Hellenic Rescue Team was deployed in the affected area, conducting search & rescue of trapped persons. Coordination of those actions, immediate announcement of protection directives to residents during the aftershock period and convergence of the Coordinating Local Authority (STO) for Civil Protection also took place. Direct critical decisions were made at the meeting of the STO for the protection of the citizens, the removal of the risk and the coordination of all relevant actions for the most efficient emergency management and reduction of the consequences.

Fig. 2.8 - Impact of the event and damages The main shock caused considerable damage in the southern side of Lesvos Isl., particularly in Vrisa village, where one person was killed, and in other villages of the area 10

(Fig. 2.8). About 400 people were left homeless in Vrisa village and, therefore, forced to move to other places. From post-event field survey performed by official corps of civil engineers of the Natural Disasters Rehabilitation Directorate, Ministry of Infrastructure (Table 1), one may conclude that in Vrisa 477 out of 585 buildings inspected were found of heavy damage (see photos in Appendix A). We assigned seismic intensity of VIII-IX degree (MM). Less damage of V-VII degree (MM) was observed in Plomari. Minor damage was reported from other localities of Lesvos and Chios islands. Reporting the information of the damage on the map of Fig. 2.8 it appears that most of the damage has occurred in the south-central part of the island. This appears not consistent with the released USGS shake map (same Fig. 2.8), which appears instead more centered towards the south eastern part of the island. In regard to this we wish to thank Dr. D. Wald of USGS, who provided a new version of the shake map which was calculated using the NOA finite fault geometry, which is presented below. A similar pattern of the PGA is calculated by the University of Athens, with a eastern side location for the maximum impact.

Figure 2.9. Image from University of Athens, that confirms the largest PGA in the south-eastern part of the island, like in the case of USGS image.

11

Table 1 - List of damages reported by the Greek Official Corp of Engineers, Natural Disasters Rehabilitation Directorate, Ministry of Infrastructure.

Figure 2.10 - The five localities with the highest damage level in Lesvos Isl. Figures near each locality shows the corresponding serial number in Table 1. Only one settlement (n. 4) is situated at high altitude level. 12

Figure 2.11 - Damage level distribution in Lesvos Isl. Only localities with at least 10 buildings (last right column in Table 1) were taken into account. Damage percent is shown by red color. Figures near each locality shows the corresponding serial number in Table 1.

2.2 Seismotectonics of the area The North Aegean Sea (NAS) is characterized by high seismicity which is due to the westwards branching of the major right-lateral North Anatolian Fault (e.g. Goldsworthy et al., 2002; Papadopoulos et al., 2003; Fig. 2.12). Therefore, right-lateral strike-slip is the predominant faulting style associated with the large NAS earthquakes as inferred from fault plane solutions (e.g. Taymaz et al., 1991) and surface fault-traces identified during post-event field surveys (e.g. Pavlides and Tranos, 1991). However, tectonic basins are formed between the strike-slip segments and are controlled by normal faults trending either NE-SW or NW-SE (e.g. Koukouvelas & Aydin, 2002; Caputo et al., 2012). The southern coast of Lesvos Isl. is a good example of a basin controlled by normal NWSE faults as concluded by geomorphological and tectonic observations (Soulakellis et al., 2006; Vacchi et al., 2012). This basin is the host of the earthquake source of 12 June 2017 (Fig. 2.1).

13

Figure 2.12 - Rupture zones of the large (M≥ 6.5)earthquakes occurring in the North Aegean Sea (NAS) after AD 1850 and up to AD 2003 (after Papadopoulos et al., 2003). One may observe three branches of the North Anatolian Fault penetrating in NAS. The southern branch runs from the Edremit bay to the north side of Lesvos Isl. and further towards SW in the Aegean Sea.

14

2.3 Description of the Effects of the Tsunami 2.3.1 Sea Level measurements

Fig. 2.13 - Location of the tide gauges in the area. Unfortunately there are not many sea level measurement devices in the area. We can rely only on 4 measurements: Samothraki (Greece), Gokceada and Bozcaada (Turkey), Syros (Greece). The analysis of these 4 sea levels showed that in 3 of them no relevant Tsunami oscillation is present after the event: only in Bozcaada signal it is possible to recognize, within some oscillations, characteristic patterns of low-amplitude Tsunami. In the figures below (2.14-2.17), the estimated sea level has been superimposed to the measured values in order to have a reference of when the wave could be present. All the measured signals are the de-tided signals, i.e. the tide component has been removed to identify eventual Tsunami component.

15

Fig.2.14 - Samothraki (Greece). Tide gauge record (red curve). Blue curve is the theoretical mareogram. Starting from north to south, in Samothraki there is a rather persistent oscillation of about 1.5 cm in amplitude. At about 14:00, after the expected wave arrival, a bit larger oscillation is present but it is difficult to attribute it to the Tsunami. This is consistent with the expected wave height which is less than 1 cm.

Fig.2.15 - Gokceada (Turkey). Tide gauge record (red curve). Blue curve is the theoretical mareogram.

Similarly in Gokceada station where the pre-event oscillations are even larger (~0.3 cm) and at the wave arrival it is not very evident a wave signal even if some change in the frequency signal is present. The expected wave height is also extremely small.

16

Fig.2.16 - Bozcaada(Turkey). Tide gauge record (red curve). Blue curve is the theoretical mareogram.

In Bozcaada the arrival of the wave is much more clear with two effects: a reduction of the small waves, so an elimination of high frequency waves is recognized; and some oscillations follow very well the expected sea level in this position. A maximum amplitude of 2.5 cm is visible.

Fig.2.17 - Syros (Greece). Tide gauge record (red curve). Blue curve is the theoretical mareogram.

In Syros there is no evidence of the Tsunami arrival.

2.3.2 Visual observations After the main shock of 12 June 2017 tsunami observations were reported from various coastal localities around the earthquake epicenter: Plomari (SE Lesvos, Greece), Agios Isidoros (SE Lesvos, Greece), Marmaro (North Chios Isl., Greece), Karaburun Yeniliman (new port of Karaburun, W. Turkey), Foca (W. Turkey).

17

2.3.2.1 Plomari, Greece In Plomari (38.974431, 26.370822), in an official report of the Plomari Port Authority (12 June 2017, time 18.00) communicated to NOA, it is reported that after the earthquake “in the Plomari port the sea receded intensively, then returned with remarkable waves raising the sea level more than 1 m above the usual level. The boats anchored by in the port moved towards the pier, but no damage was caused. The earthquake caused small cracks in the pier”. The tsunami in Plomari is observable in two videos (the Plomari.gr that hosted the videos allows the use of both for scientific purposes): (video 1) https://youtu.be/KB-w3dHaojc and (video 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPUCw6uI18 According to the Plomarinews.gr “The videos were recorded by Mrs Daniella Aligiannis a few minutes after the earthquake. The sea first receded and then raised. Sea flows lasted for long enough. One rope of the tourist boat “Aspasia” broke and the boat left with only one rope, thus it remained uncontrolled to shake due to the water flows. Fishes were reported to jump out of the sea water.” The value of 1 m reported by the Port Authority for the sea level rise appears larger than what is shown in the videos recorded during the event. One explanation is that the report of the Port Authority was based on eyewitness accounts only which may have exaggerated the wave amplitude. On the other hand, the video record covers only some time segments of the sea oscillation and, therefore, does not account for the complete oscillation history.

Fig. 2.18 - A moment of water depletion at the beginning of the video 2 in Plomari.

18

Fig. 2.19 - A moment of water ingress in the port in video 2 in Plomari. Besides, C. Ozer Sozdinler has visited Plomari Port after the event. She has also confirmed from eyewitnesses accounts that the tsunami was observed in the harbor by dragging of one big boat but was not effective in the small beach inside the port at the east. From these two videos, the communication of NOA with the Plomari Port authority as well as the press reports and C. Ozer Sozdinler’s eyewitness communications, we concluded that the sea level anomaly in Plomari started about 10-15 minutes after the earthquake, while the peak-to-peak amplitude of the sea level variation was about 3035 cm. The wave period was roughly estimated to about 2-3 minutes.

2.3.2.2 Agios Isidoros In Agios Isidoros (38.971638, 26.381277), situated to the east of Plomari, the head of the Plomari Port Authority reported to G. A. Papadopoulos that the sea just retreat after the earthquake. This information was also confirmed by the eyewitnesses communicated by C. Ozer Sozdinler after the event.

2.3.2.3 Marmaro Bay In Marmaro Bay (38.540212, 26.115167), located at the northern part of Chios Isl., an eyewitness reported to Mr Nikos Vorrias, responsible of Civil Protection Office of Chios Isl., that after the main shock the sea just retreat and then returned smoothly.

19

2.3.2.4 Karaburun, Turkey

Fig. 2.20 - The image, part of a video recorded about 40 min after the event, shows strong currents in both directions, from left to right and vice versa. The precise location of the image is: 26.437099 E, 38.670599 N. The following videos are taken at Karaburun Yeniliman at 38.670599°N, 26.437099°E by Mr. Kayahan Ucel 40 minutes after the main shock M=6.3. The videos show the abnormal water motion. According to Kayahan Ucel, he was at the site 40 min after the earthquake. He observed that sea receded and advanced several times with approximately 2 minutes periods and continued about 1.5 hours2. http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/WhatsApp-Video-Karaburun-1-byKayahan-Ucel.mp4 http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/WhatsApp-Video-Karaburun-2-byKayahan-Ucel.mp4 http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/WhatsApp-Video-Karaburun-3-byKayahan-Ucel.mp4

2

The owner of the videos (Mr. Kayahan Ucel) permitted distribution with citing his name. 20

2.3.2.5 Foca, Turkey

Fig. 2.21 - Image shot in Foca and indication of the extent of ‘inundation’ The following Images and videos are taken at Foca at 38.664305N, 26.742217E by Mr. Haluk Bozkurt Director of Environment and Urbanization at Foca town 10-15 minutes after the main shock M=6.3 Inundation is about 1.5-2m and max water elevation is about 15cm3. http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/WhatsApp-Image-Foca-on-June-132017-10-15-minutes-after-main-shock-2-by-Haluk-Bozkurt.jpeg http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/WhatsApp-Image-Foca-on-June-132017-10-15-minutes-after-main-shock-by-Haluk-Bozkurt.jpeg http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/WhatsApp-Video-Foca-on-June-132017-10-15-minutes-after-main-shock-by-Haluk-Bozkurt.mp4 The following video is taken at Foca at 38.664305N, 26.742217E by Mr. Haluk Bozkurt Director of Environment and Urbanization at Foca town 6 minutes after the aftershock M=5.5 on 17/6/2017 19:50 UTC (22:50 Local time). Inundation and maximum water elevation is about the same which occurred after the main shock.

3

The owner of the images and videos (Mr Haluk Bozkurt) permitted distribution with citing his name.

21

http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-13-eq-tsu/WhatsApp-Video-Foca-on-June-172017-at-19-50UTC-at-Foca-by-Haluk-Bozkurt.mp4

2.4 Historical events in the area The reliability of the tsunami occurrence for the events listed below has been defined as Unlikely (U), Questionable (Q), Probable (P) and Definite (D). The list of original sources is too long to be included here, therefore only some of the most important books are summarizing the relevant information are cited. Recent reviews can be found in Necmioğlu (2014) and Papadopoulos (2015). According to the writings of Pliny, an earthquake is said to have destroyed the city of Arisbe on Lesbos in 79 BC, and caused Pyrrha to be swallowed up by the sea (Ambraseys, 2009) [Q]. A destructive earthquake with M 6.8 occurred and embraced a large area in the Aegean Sea-Island of Chios, where the greater part of the fortress Chios was destroyed. The event happened on 20 March 1389. The tsunami ran against the eastern half of the Island of Chios and caused great damage advancing 300 m inland, and the wave caused destruction in Izmir and in the small fortress of New Phocaea (Yeni Foça) (Papazachos and Papazachou, 1997; Soloviev, 2000; Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005, Ambraseys, 2009; Altınok et al., 2011) [D]. From French documents we learn (Ambraseys and Finkel, 1995) that Chios and Lesvos islands were hit by a strong earthquake occurring on 1772, 24 November, at the Karaburun peninsula with magnitude 6.4 (Papazachos and Papazachou, 2003). An Ottoman document dated 8 May 1777 says that in Foca castle an earthquake and the associated sea wave destroyed completely five coastal gates while the mosque inside the castle needed repair (Ambraseys and Finkel, 1995). Papadopoulos (2015) suggested that perhaps it was the earthquake of 1772. [P]. There was a strong earthquake of M 7.0 in Izmir on 10 July 1688, at which the city was damaged very badly and costing lives of around 15,000-16,000 people. A weak tsunami was observed (Soloviev, 2000), where ships in the harbour were disturbed (Altınok et al., 2011). After the earthquake, it was found that the seashore in Izmir had advanced inland permanently as a result of a general sinking of the ground by about 60 cm (Papazachos and Papazachou, 1997; Ambraseys, 2009) [Q]. A weak earthquake took place on 12 May 1852 in Izmir. The day before, the sea receded leaving the sea bottom dry for a distance of many meters (Soloviev, 2000; Altınok et al., 2011) The shock was preceded and followed by a series of surges in the sea in the Gulf of Izmir, which flooded the coast a number of times at intervals of about 5 minutes. This was most probably the result of submarine slides, which are known to have occurred in the bay in the past without earthquakes (Ambraseys, 2009). [Q].

22

An earthquake occurred on 8 September 1852 in Izmir followed by a sea rise (Soloviev, 2000; Altınok et al., 2011). Ambraseys (2009) report on the event but not on the tsunami [Q]. There was a damaging earthquake on 25 November 1856 in Chios with M 6.6, which was also felt in Izmir, Samos and Mitilini (Papazachos and Papazachou, 1997). In Chios, the sea flooded the coast with violence, drawning a few people (Soloviev, 2000; Altınok et al., 2011). The date of this event is given as 13 November in Ambraseys (1962), Soloviev (2000) and Altınok et al. (2011), but was updated as 25 November in Ambraseys (2009) [D]. A strong earthquake occurred on 19 January 1866 in the Island of Chios. On the same day, intensive boiling of the sea-water was noticed approximately in the middle of the strait separating Island of Chios from Asia Minor. According to other data, oscillations of the sea level were observed (Soloviev, 2000; Altınok et al., 2011). It is also said that during the earthquake the sea between Chios and the mainland became agitated and columns of smoke were seen rising from its surface. These shocks were not reported from nearby Izmir (Ambraseys, 2009) [U]. A destructive earthquake occurred on 7 March 1867 in the Gulf of Edremit where the Island of Lesvos and the coast of Asia Minor were ruined with heavy loss of life. The earthquake was felt strongly in Ayvalık, Foça, Izmir, Chios, Manisa, Aydin and nearby regions (Ambraseys, 2009). Soloviev (2000) argues that the main shock or one of the strongest aftershocks could have generated movements of the sea, which could not have been noticed in the darkness. He refers to an eyewitness report that the sea in the harbor of Mitilini rose and was covered with foam, whereas according to another eyewitness, the low part of Mitilini was flooded and cluttered up by silt after the earthquake, the sea in Mitilini swelled, as if its bottom rose, and started to boil (Soloviev, 2009). After the earthquake, dead fish were found inside a boat in the Mitilini harbour (Altınok et al., 2011). Ambraseys (2009) argues that there is no evidence of a seismic sea wave preceding or following the earthquake [P]. An earthquake took place on 31 March 1928 with M 6.5 in Izmir followed by a weak tsunami (Soloviev, 2000) [Q]. A highly destructive earthquake of M6.5 hit Chios Isl. on 1881, 03 March. The death toll reached about 3,651 while the number of injuries was nearly 7,500 (Altinok et al., 2005). From local documents reviewed by Papazachos and Papazachou, (2003) and Papadopoulos (2015) it results that tsunami waves hit the city of Chios after the main shock. [P]. A destructive earthquake of M6.8 hit Samothraki Isl. on 1893, 09 February. A local tsunami followed the earthquake and caused damage in the port of the island but it was also reported from the port of Alexandroupolis (see reviews in Papazachos and Papazachou, 2003, Ambraseys, 2009, Papadopoulos et al., 2014). [D]. Abnormal oscillations of the sea level were observed in the Gulf of Izmir on 25 March 1929, where the sea level decreased by 125 cm and the amplitude of the oscillations amounted to 55 cm. No earthquakes were noted in the region of Izmir at that time and it 23

is impossible to exclude that the dates given in the description are confused and the information is related to the March 31, 1928 event (Soloviev, 2000), unless the oscillations are originated from a submarine landslide [Q]. A strong destructive earthquake of M6.7 hit the northern side of Chios Isl. and the Karaburun peninsula (western Turkey) on 1949, 23 July (Altinok et al., 2005). Papazachos and Papazachou (2003) reviewed the event and reported that a tsunami of 2 m high was observed In Marmaro bay, North Chios Isl. However, this information proved incorrect. Papadopoulos (2015) examined the reports available for this event and found that in Marmaro bay a periodic oscillation of the sea level was observed with period of 10-15 min and amplitude of 50-70 cm. The sea first moved inland, then retreat. The oscillation was of ~2 hours in duration. The sea raised also in the coastal zone of Cesme in western Turkey. When the sea retreat dead fish were left behind. The sea between Chios and Cesme was agitated for several hours. [D]. A catastrophic earthquake occurred in the Island of Amorgos on 9 July 1956 with M 7.8, which was accompanied by a tsunami. This earthquake was of the highest magnitude in the 20th century in Greece. Tsunami caused great damage on the Island of Kalymnos, since the main settlements of the island were grouped on the shore. The sea in the town Pothea at first receded, and then rushed onto the coast in the form of a large crest and flooded the town completely with a wave height of 2.5 m but with a very strong pressure in the water current. The port constructions and houses within the 90 m wide coastal strip suffered significantly. Various fragments and objects were carried 1.5 km onto the island. Tsunami was strong and caused damage on the Island of Patmos where the water level dropped by 15 m and rose by 4 m; on the Islands of Nisyros and Tilos where the rise of the water reached 2.7 m, on the Island of Ios where the level decreased by 3 m and increased by 1.5 m, and on the Island of Sikinos. The sea advanced up the coast of the Island of Lipsos for 600 m and damaged a great number of houses. The water level varied within 1-2 m on the northern shore of the Island of Crete, but the rise amounted to 3.5 m in the north-east of the Island of Palaikastro. The pressure of the water on the big Island of Karpathos, located to the south-west of the tsunami source, in the town of Foiniki was so strong that the pier was destroyed and the anchorage was damaged, the water rise exceeded 6 m. Many villages were flooded, houses were destroyed, 30 cows were carried away to sea. The rise of the water varied within 1-1.5 m on the most of the islands on the central part of the Greek Archipelago, such as Alimia, Ikaria, Kasos, Kimolos, Kos, Milos, Serifos, Tilos. The tsunami reached Island of Skopelos near the shore of Greece, the town of Izmir on the shore of Asia Minor and the Island of Chios in the north of the Aegean Sea. The rise of water in these places did not exceed 0.25 m (Soloviev, 2000), however the Turkish Newspaper “Milliyet” reports some inundation in Konak municipality of Izmir (Necmioglu, 2014). The sea rose up 1 m and a recorded inundation distance of 250 m in Fethiye (Altınok et al., 2011). Tsunami propagated up to remote coastal zones of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, such as Palestine and Jaffa (Israel), where it was recorded by a tide-gauge. From the tide-gauge records, suggestions were made on the possibility of the coseismic landslides producing sea waves. Studies indicate that an adequate reproduction of the near-field wave amplitudes requires not only coseismic seafloor fault displacement but also an additional tsunamigenic component such as coseismic massive submarine sediment slumping, where a study by Papadopoulos showed that based on numerical simulations the 24

scenario of submarine slumping adequately reproduces the observed near-field wave heights (Papadopoulos, 2011). Soloviev (2000) reports on two aftershocks of the Amorgos earthquake on the same day, where one is assumed to have caused the local tsunami on the Island of Folegandros located to the west of the main tsunami source behind the Island of Ios and Sikinos, where the rise of water amounted to 10 m, probably due to focusing effect. [D] On 6 August, 1983, a M6.8 earthquake ruptured in North Aegean Sea being strongly felt in the islands of Lemnos, Thassos and Lesvos but causing no damage. It was reported that a small sea wave was observed in Lemnos and Lesvos (Papazachos and Papazachou, 2003). [P]. Date

Magnitude

Latitude

Longitude

Source area

20 Mar 1389

6.8

38.4

26.3

Chios Isl.

24 Nov 1772

6.4

38.6

26.7

Karaburun peninsula

25 Nov 1856

6.3

38.2

26.1

Chios Isl.

07 Mar 1867

7.0

39.20

26.25

Lesvos Isl.

03 Mar 1881

6.5

38.2

26.2

Chios Isl.

09 Feb 1893

6.8

40.49

25.53

Samothraki Isl.

23 July 1949

6.7

38.68

26.13

Chios Isl.

09 Jul 1956

7.8

36.6

26.0

South Aegean Sea

06 Aug 1983

6.8

40.0

24.7

Lemnos Isl.

Table 2 – List of main historical events in the area

25

Fig. 2.22 - Historical events in the area of 12 June 2017 Mw. 6.3 event.

26

3. Earthquake Modelling 3.1 Rupture history of the main shock To produce the main shock rupture history in space and time we followed the kinematic finite-fault inversion scheme of Hartzell & Heaton (1983) and Mendoza & Hartzell (2013), which is a non-negative, least squares inversion method. A discretized to uniform cells (sub-faults) rectangular fault plane was constructed and each point source response was computed with a code based on the generalized ray theory (Langston and Helmberger, 1975) using an appropriate for the area velocity model (Karagianni et al., 2005). The exact way the synthetics were constructed we followed the technique discussed by Heaton (1982). The calculated elementary synthetics were convolved with an attenuation operation under the assumption that t*=1 sec; t* is the attenuation parameter of teleseismic body waves that represents the total body wave travel time divided by Q along the ray path for P waves (Stein and Wysession, 2003). In order to retrieve the co-seismic slip model from the inversion of P waves recorded at teleseismic distances ranging from 30° to 90°, waveform data from 30 stations with good azimuthal coverage (Fig. 3.1) were used. The waveform data were downloaded from the Iris Data Management Center (i.e. data from GSN, II, IU and G digital networks were used) using the Wilber 3 application. All waveforms were pre-processed before the inversion process with the aim to remove the mean offset and instrument response. They were also band-pass filtered between 0.03 and 0.08 Hz using a Butterworth filter, resampled to 0.2 samples/sec and finally integrated in time to obtain displacements. Regarding fault parameterization, several values of source velocity were examined, varying from 2.6 to 3.3 km/sec, while various values for rise time, fault dimensions and time lag were tested. The source of the elementary synthetics was taken as of trapezoidal shape and the width of the source was chosen to be short enough (0.3 sec) compared to the total rise time on the fault. The fault examined, whose dimensions were set to 27 km long and 15 km deep, was discretized by 108 sub-faults, 18 of them along strike and 6 along dip.

Figure 3.1. Seismological stations at teleseismic distances used in the present study.

27

For the kinematic inversion of the earthquake we adopted the strike of 114° from the CMT focal mechanism taking the nodal plane with strike NW-SE and dipping to SW. We fixed the fault strike as it fits with the tectonics of the area faults and we performed inversions changing the dip from minimum 35° to maximum 55°. The optimum were obtained using fault dip of 37° which is lower than the dip of 50° found in the CMT solution. In order to make the rake vary upon the fault we followed the suggestion by Hartzell et al. (1996) and calculated the synthetics twice varying ±45° from the CMT rake (-82°) using six time windows for the inversion process. The parameters used for, and obtained by, the inversion procedure for each one of the three cases are listed in Table 3. Date

-

12-Jun-17

L

(km)

27

W

(km)

15

v

(km/s)

3

t

(sec)

0.3

h

(km)

12

Rake range

(deg)

-37 to -127

Strike

Dip (deg)

114

Dip

(deg)

37

Mo

(Nm)

3.8×1018

Mw

-

6.3

Table 3: Final faulting parameters used or retrieved from the inversion. Symbol key: L=fault length (km), W=fault width (km), v=rupture velocity (km/sec), t=rise time (sec), h=focal depth (km), Mo=seismic moment, Mw=moment magnitude. The co-seismic slip distribution of the earthquake, representing the movement of the hanging wall with respect to the foot wall is illustrated in Figure 3.2. The time evolution of slip is presented in each case by 6 snaps using nearly 1.25 sec intervals. The slip distribution is smooth as a 2D cone shaped filter was applied. The simplest solution presented is the one succeeded using a trial-and-error process that balances fitting the data with smoothing and minimizing the slip (Mendoza & Hartzell 2013); the Residual Norm ||Ax-b|| was applied, where A is the sub-fault synthetics matrix, b is the matrix of observations and x is the solution vector containing the slip required to reproduce the observations.

28

Figure 3.2. Snapshots of the rupture process along the seismic fault at intervals of 1.25 sec. The rupture history of the 12 June Lesvos earthquake (Fig. 3.2) shows a bilateral propagation mode with upwards rupture directivity. The seismic moment calculated was found 3.8×1018 Nm which corresponds to moment magnitude Mw6.3. The rupture started at depth of 12 km and evolved up-dip with a rupture velocity of 3 km/sec. The maximum co-seismic slip calculated was ~1.0 m close to the hypocenter at depth of 11 km. The total rupture had a length of nearly 20 km and the seismic slip was mainly concentrated at depths between 3 and 14 km with seismic slip ranging from 0 to 10 cm across the Earth’s surface. However, the main rupture area was found of ~11 km in length and ~6 km in width. According to our inversion and taking into account the dip of the rupture the coastal areas of Lesvos at the northwest from the epicenter were the ones where the small values of slip reached the surface. The earthquake rupture had a total duration of ~7 sec. The source time function (Fig. 3.3) indicates that the maximum peak of moment release occurred ~3 sec after the rupture initiation, which may represent the main asperity that ruptured. Around the 4th sec of rupture a second, smaller rupture area (asperity) appeared at depth of ~8 km to the NW and upwards of the main rupture event. The overall picture indicates rupture

29

directivity towards NW (Fig. 3.4) where the spot of maximum intensity was observed in Vrisa village.

Figure 3.3. Source time function of the 12 June 2017 main shock.

Figure 3.4 - Finite Fault Model showing the location of the main deformation (in appendix the values of the sub-faults are provided)

30

4. Tsunami Modelling 4.1 JRC Calculations JRC performed a number of preliminary calculations, based on homogeneous fault mechanisms, communicated by various Institutions (USGS, NOA) and one multi fault source geometry, made available from NOA (section 3).

4.1.1 Travel Time The analysis of the travel time in the area indicates that the time to reach the available closer instrument, i.e. Bozcaada, is in the order to 1h. Therefore it was necessary to wait at least 1 h before understanding exactly what was happening.

Fig. 4.1 - Tsunami Travel Time (TTT, NOAA)

4.1.2 Preliminary calculations The Mw 6.3 earthquake has been estimated using the USGS with moment tensors NP1 and NP2. Epicentre: · Latitude: 38.9 · Longitude: 26.4 · Date: 12 Jun 2017 12:28 31

Ep

Mw

Strike

Dip

Rake

Width (km)

Length (km)

Slip (m)

Depth (km)

NP1

38.93199 26.364

6.3

279

33

-102

6

22

0.6

11.5

NP2

38.93199 26.364

6.3

114

57

-82

6

22

0.6

11.5

NOA

38.8 26.4

6.5

116

32

-88

12

30

0.4

8

NP1: http://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ModellingTsunami/TsunamiSurge/JETS_System/JRC/Lesvos/USGS_NP1/ NP2: http://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ModellingTsunami/TsunamiSurge/JETS_System/JRC/Lesvos/USGS_NP2/ NOA: http://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ModellingTsunami/TsunamiSurge/JETS_System/JRC/Lesvos/NOA_homogeneous/

The disambiguation between the two solutions NP1 and NP2 of the moment tensors is not easy because the strike is very similar 279, complement of 180 to 99 degrees, similar to 114; dip is not so different and the rake is about -90 degrees. The location of the aftershocks is also not decisive in the determination of which of the two solutions is the correct one. In order to establish this we have performed both calculations and have verified the behaviour of the sea level in Plomari, that is the closest port and location to the epicentre about 4 km).

Fig. 4.2a - NP1 solution, compared with the Fig. 4.2b - NP2 solution, compared with location of before and after shocks of the event the location of before and after shocks of the event

32

The calculations were performed using a number of codes (SWAN and EASYWAVE) and allowed to show the effect of the two different solutions on the behavior of the sea level. Plotting the sea level in Plomari, it is possible to note that the solution NP1 (red curve) decreases of about 1 cm due to the seismic subsidence but then the sea level continues to decrease for about 5 min to about -10 cm before restarting rising up to 12-13 cm. In the case of NP2 instead, the co-seismic deformation is more pronounced, up to -8 cm but then the decrease is minor before rising up to +6 cm.

Fig. 4.3 - Synthetic sea level in Plomari, according to the two USGS solutions: NP1 in red, NP2 in black. Still both solutions could be possible. However, if the solution would have been NP2 (black curve), a person in the port would have not realized the decrease because both the on-shore rocks as well as the water was decreasing almost of the same quantity; the 1 cm decrease would have not been visible and one would have seen the water rise. In the case of NP1, instead, curve red, the sea level decrease of more than 10 cm would have been clearly visible for about 5 min before having the positive wave. The videos offered by the site www.Plomarinews.com, that we appreciated a lot, allows to see a long period of several minutes in which normally water covered rocks are visible before a refilling and water rise. Using the timings of the film as if a continuous recording was done (we are not sure of this however), it is possible to identify the two frames in the figure above corresponding to about 12:31 and 12:33. If this is the case we tend to give credit to solution NP1 instead of solution NP2, that therefore created a relatively long and visible period of water recession. The comparison of NP1 solution in Bozcaada, is shown in the figure below.

33

Fig. 4.3 - Sea Level in Bozcaada The calculation of the sea level at the Bozcaada sea level measurement (IDSL type, installed by JRC in collaboration with KOERI), shows that, even considering relevant oscillations before the arrival of the wave, about 1 h after the earthquake a different frequency oscillation appears with a maximum oscillation of about 2 cm. The black curve represents the calculation with source NP1. It is evident the initial sea level decrease, followed by a more sustained oscillation of period about 13 min. The comparison shows that the sea level oscillation is smaller than what was measured which may be explained with two possible reasons: a) the slip that was considered was too small; b) the amplification factor in the Bozcaada port is in the order of 2. The first hypothesis could be justified by a smaller ratio between fault length and width, thus causing a higher initial slip. The effect of the higher slip is not as strong as expected. At the Bozcaada location the increase in the sea level is only few mm more than with the standard model.

Fig. 4.4 - Sensitivity analysis on the slip in relation to Bozcaada sea level

34

It is interesting however to note that the measured value oscillates with a frequency that is not part of the Tsunami. Filtering with a low frequency pass band (i.e. 70 points moving average) it is possible to note a much better agreement with the calculated trend.

Fig. 4.5 - Smoothing procedure on the Bozcaada signal

Fig. 4.6 - Comparison of the 3 solutions tested: Blue USGS-1, Brown USGS-2, Red NOA Homogeneous

4.1.3 Calculations of JRC with NOA Finite Fault Models Two calculations were performed: with the model proposed by NOA (Appendix A), 45 subfaults by 3x3 km and with the model by the original NOA finite fault model, rotated and projected on geographical coordinates (Appendix B), 405 sub-faults by 1x1 km. The two models are not identical because in the model proposed by NOA some of the faults do not appear adjacent and a slightly not aligned. Also the extent appear larger than what it should be. The results however are not very different.

35

The Finite Fault Model adopted for this calculation has been obtained by the fault characterization performed by NOA; the resulting deformation grid, 1 km x 1 km has been re-projected by JRC and rotated to the 114 degrees angle. The resulting figure is indicated above and the individual sub-fault characteristics are shown in Appendix. The overall fault deformation has been obtained by running the Okada model for each of the sub-faults and summing up the contribution of each individual fault. The resulting deformation is indicated in Fig. 4.7 and indicates a maximum water initial change of -14 cm. The overall deformation with the original NOA model is -12.5 cm.

FFM proposed by NOA (Appendix A)

FFM with the original NOA model rotated and projected by JRC (Appendix B)

Fig. 4.7 - Location of the sub-faults of the Finite Fault Model

Fig. 4.8 - The figure shows both the imposed multi fault slip values and the resulting overall deformation (negative values) 36

The sea level estimated for Plomari is shown in Fig. 4.9. The behavior is not very different among the two solutions. The FFM model decreases a bit more than the other one but the main features are similar. Same behavior in Karaburun: in this case the initial positive peak is larger in the FFM case.

Fig. 4.9 - Sea Level in Plomari: RED is the FFM model, Blue is the USGS NP1 solution

Fig. 4.10 - Sea Level in Karaburun: RED is the FFM model, Blue is the USGS NP1 solution

37

Fig. 4.11 - Sea Level in Boczaada: RED is the FFM model, Blue is the measured sea level from the tide gauge

Fig. 4.12 – Comparison of coarse and detailed Finite Fault Models. No major difference can be appreciated.

38

4.2 NOA Calculations 4.2.1 Bathymetry source and simulation grid The simulation grid was built using bathymetry map EMODNET in 300 m resolution. For the near-field domain, however, and particularly for the Foca and Karaburun areas bathymetry map of 150 m resolution was utilized4 as obtained by digitizing Navigation Charts of scale 1/50000 and provided by Prof. A. Yalciner of METU, Ankara5.

4.2.2 Seismic source constrain In the present research we have considered seismic source with homogeneous and heterogeneous slip model. Homogeneous fault model For the source with homogeneous slip model we first utilized the NOA focal mechanism with parameters listed in Table 1. The movement in the tsunamigenic earthquake source was described by the standard half-plane solution for an elastic dislocation with maximum slip Δ (Okada, 1985). Okada’s solution was implemented by the TOPICS (Tsunami Open and Progressive Initial Conditions System) software tool. TOPICS uses a variety of curve fitting techniques and was designed (Grilli and Watts, 1999) as an approximate simulation tool that provides surface elevations and water velocities as initial conditions for tsunami propagation model. Source parameters Longitude (deg.)

26.3695 E

Latitude (deg.) Centroid depth (km) Fault length L* (km) Fault width W*(km) Strike (deg.) Dip (deg.) Rake (deg.) Slip (m)

38.8395 N 8 29.5 11.8 116 32 -88 0.4

Table 1. Parameters of the homogeneous fault model used in tsunami simulation. *Fault dimensions were calculated from Konstantinou et al. (2005) relationships: Log L = -1.49 + 0.47 Mw; Log W = -1.07 + 0.34 Mw

4 5

http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/East-Aegean-XYZ-dx-150m.rar http://users.metu.edu.tr/yalciner/june-12-eq-tsu/Karaburun-Foca-XYZ-Navigation-Chart.dat./

39

Heterogeneous fault model It has been widely supported that the rupture complexity, typically in the form of heterogeneous slip distribution pattern, significantly affects the local tsunami wave field (Geist, 1998, 2002; Geist and Dmowska, 1999; Løvholt et al., 2012; McCloskey et al., 2007). In a recent study by Li et. al (2016) it was shown that assuming a uniform slip distribution greatly underestimates the level wave height not only in the near-source region but also in relatively far-field regions. Therefore our calculations for the heterogeneous slip model were based on 3X3 Finite Fault Model described above in section 3.1 and given in details in Appendix B.

It should be noted however that the deformation obtained from the multi sources adopted by SWAN in previous chapter and NAMIDANCE in the following one, is very different from the one estimated by this model. In the other cases the minimum deformation is 14 cm while in this case -24 cm with a wider extension of the perturbated surface. The above figure shows the two surface elevations for values exceeding 2 cm or -2 cm. This also explains some differences, in the case of heterogeneous model, between the estimated values in the various locations respect to the other calculations (SWAN, NAMIDANCE). Numerical modeling software used The tsunami wave propagation in the east Aegean region was performed with the aid of GEOWAVE software package (Watts et al., 2003), which is a combination of TOPICS and FUNWAVE. The numerical model FUNWAVE (Wei and Kirby, 1995; Wei et al., 1995) performs wave propagation simulation, based on the fully non-linear and dispersive Boussinesq theory, allowing us to obtain accurate run up and inundation at the same time. FUNWAVE also includes well-calibrated dissipation models for wave breaking and bottom friction (Wei and Kirby, 1995; Wei et. al., 1995; Chen et. al., 2000; Kennedy et. al., 2000). The inclusion of both nonlinear and dispersive terms in the Boussinesq model eliminates the excessive shallow water steepening, and corresponding early offshore wave breaking and dissipation, that take place in non-linear shallow water wave models, such as TUNAMI-N2 or MOST, and hence allows for tsunami run up to occur onshore. The frequency dispersion in the model is also necessary to account for the shorter 40

wavelengths of landslide tsunamis, which have horizontal water velocity profiles that vary with depth. The use of GEOWAVE software package for tsunami simulations has been previously well validated by case studies on tsunamis generated by pyroclastic flows (Watts and Waythomas, 2003; Novikova et al., 2011), underwater landslides (Watts et al., 2003), earthquakes (Grilli et al., 2007; Ioualalen et al., 2006, 2007) and debris flows (Walder et al., 2003).

4.2.3 Results and Discussion Through numerical calculation we obtained time histories of the tsunami wave at five observation locations (Table 4.2.3) for both the homogeneous (red curves in Figures 4.2.1-4.2.6) and heterogeneous (blue curves in Figures 4.2.1-4.2.6) source models. Calculations were performed for virtual tide-gauges installed at water depths varying from 20 m to 80 m (Table 4.2.3). Comparison of results obtained from the two models indicates that the heterogeneous slip model accounts significantly for the seismic source complexity since it enhances drastically the wave amplitude at the recorded points. We also obtained maximum water elevation (Figure 4.2.7) and maximum current velocity (Figure 4.2.8) at all times for both homogeneous (Figures 4.2.7a, 4.2.8a) and heterogeneous (Figures 4.2.7b, 4.2.8b) source models.

Table 4.2.3 Coordinates and water depth of theoretical tide gauge stations. station 1: Karaburun (water depth ~50 m)

26.515709°E 38.647653°N

station 2: Foca (water depth ~50 m)

26.742217°E 38.664305°N

station 3: Plomari Port (water depth ~80 m)

26.370822°E 38.974431°N

station 4: Agios Isidoros (water depth ~20 m)

26.381277°E 38.971638°N

station5: Marmaro (N. Chios) (water depth ~20 m)

26.115167°E 38.540212°N

41

0.08

Karaburun

homogeneous slip model

heterogeneous slip model

amplitude, m

0.04

0.00

-0.04

-0.08

-0.12 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Time, sec.

Figure 4.2.1: Time history of wave amplitude at the Karaburun location for both source models. . 0.08

Foca

homogeneous slip model

heterogeneous slip model

amplitude, m

0.04

0.00

-0.04

-0.08

-0.12 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Time, sec. Figure 4.2.2: Time history of wave amplitude at Foca location for both source models. .

42

0.10

Plomari Port

homogeneous slip model

heterogeneous slip model

amplitude, m

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Time, sec. Figure 4.2.3: Time history of wave amplitude at the location of Plomari Harbor for both source models. 0.20

Agios Isidoros

homogeneous slip model

heterogeneous slip model

amplitude, m

0.00

-0.20

-0.40

-0.60 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Time, sec. Figure 4.2.4: Time history of wave amplitude at the location of Agios Isidoros (Mitilini) for both source models.

43

0.20

Marmaro (N. Chios)

homogeneous slip model

heterogeneous slip model

amplitude, m

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Time, sec. Figure 4.2.5: Time history of wave amplitude at the location of Marmaro (N. Chios) for both source models. . 0.06

Bozcaada

homogeneous slip model

heterogeneous slip model

amplitude, m

0.04

0.02

0.00

-0.02

-0.04 0

4000

8000

12000

Time, sec. Figure 4.2.6: Time history of wave amplitude at the Bozcaada location for both source models.

44

a)

b)

Figure 4.2.7: Maximum water elevations at all times for both homogeneous (a) and heterogeneous (b) source models. a)

b) curmax, m/sec.

curmax, m/sec. 0.5

0.3 0.28

40.5

0.45

40.5

0.26 0.4

0.24 0.22

40

0.2

0.35

40

0.3

0.18

0.25

0.16 0.14

39.5

39.5 0.2

0.12

0.15

0.1 0.08

39

39

0.1

0.06 0.05

0.04 0.02

0

38.5

0

38.5

25.5

25.5

26

26.5

26

26.5

27

27

Figure 4.2.8: Maximum current velocities at all times for both homogeneous (6) and heterogeneous (b) source models.

45

4.3. METU Calculations Tsunami Numerical Model NAMI DANCE is used in modeling of June 20, 2017 event by METU. The model solves the Nonlinear Shallow Water Equations (NLSWE) with a bottom friction term using the Leap-Frog numerical scheme (Imamura, 1989; Shuto et al., 1990 ). 1001990). The model takes an input tsunami source from either a defined rupture, pre-determined wave form, or time history of water surface fluctuation at a grid boundary and computes propagation, coastal amplification, and inundation (e.g. Ozer Sozdinler et al., 2015, Dilmen et al., 2015, Aytore et al, 2016, Cankaya et al.,2016,). The GPU version of the model is used in this study (Yalciner and Zaytsev, 2017). In the modeling applications of tsunami event caused by the Plomari Earthquake, the 1X1 Finite Fault Model (given in Appendix B) is used as the tsunami source in simulation. Figure 4.3.1 shows the study domain, tsunami source and observation points.

Figure 4.3.1: Study Domain and Tsunami Source according to 1x1km FFM (Appendix B) and observation points The study domain is selected as bounded by 26.06314E and 27.09279N along W-E direction and 38.61860 and 39.11264 along S-N direction. The grid size of the bathymetry/topography data is selected as 17m spatial spacing. The simulations are performed for 60min real time starting from earthquake occurrence. The observation points of this event are Foca, Karaburun Yeniliman Stream Mouth and Plomari Harbor (Figure 4.3.1). The coordinates and water depths at the observation points are given in Table 4.3.1.

46

Table 4.3.1. The coordinates and water depths at the observation points Foca, Karaburun Yeniliman Stream Mouth and Plomari Harbor. Observation Point

Longitude (degree)

Latitude (degree)

Water depth in bathymetry file (m)

Plomari harbor

26.3700474E

38.9730774N

1.95

Karaburun Yeniliman Stream Mouth

26.4372631E

38.6711561N

1.56

Foca

26.7405112E

38.6650331N

1.71

The distribution of maximum water elevations and current velocities computed by simulation are shown in Figures 4.3.2 and 4.3.3. It is clearly seen from the Figures that there are some critical points where water level elevations increase more than other locations. The observation points (Foca, Karaburun Yeniliman and Plomari Harbor) are among those locations. Time histories of water elevations and current velocities at observation points computed by 60 minutes simulations are also shown in Figures 4.3.44.3.9.

Figure 4.3.2: Distribution of Maximum Water Elevations Computed by 60min Simulations

47

Figure 4.3.3: Distribution of Maximum Current Velocities Computed by 60min Simulations

Figure 4.3.4: Time History of Water Elevations at Plomari Harbor

48

Figure 4.3.5: Time History of Water Elevations at Karaburun Yeniliman Stream Mouth

Figure 4.3.6: Time History of Water Elevations at Foca

49

Figure 4.3.7: Time History of Current Velocities at Plomari Harbor

Figure 4.3.8: Time History of Current Velocities at Karaburun Yeniliman Stream Mouth

50

Figure 4.3.9: Time History of Current Velocities at Foca

51

5. Procedures analysis Tsunami alert messages have been issued by three national centers (NOA, Greece, INGV-CAT, Italy, and KOERI, Turkey) acting as Tsunami Service Providers (TSPs) at the North East Atlantic, Mediterranean and connected seas (NEAM) region within the frame of the ICG/IOC/UNESCO. All three centers issued tsunami bulletins 10 minutes after the earthquake origin time (see table below), which is considered as successful timing performance. In the first alert messages, INGV-CAT and KOERI have alerted coastal regions in Greece and Turkey in ADVISORY level while NOA’s alert level was one level higher as in WATCH level. The three centers are using their own Decision Matrices and scenario databases within their best practices. The first tsunami alert messages have mainly included the expected arrival time of first waves to the Tsunami Forecast Points at the coasts of alerted countries with the corresponding alert levels. According to the tsunami scenario database and preliminary simulation results performed by SWAN in Tsunami Analysis Tool (TAT) due to first fault mechanism estimations, first waves would reach to Bozcaada IDSL and Gokceada sea level station at 13:31 UTC and 13:52 UTC, respectively. SWAN has calculated wave heights at some administration units along Turkish and Greek coasts in the vicinity as below. Due to these calculations, 13 cm and 10 cm wave heights were expected in Lesvos Island, Greece and Foca, Turkey, respectively.

Wave heights calculated at the administration units along coasts in Turkey and Greece by SWAN in Tsunami Analysis Tool (TAT) As discussed in Chapter 2.3.1 in details, the sea level measurements at Bozcaada IDSL (Turkey), Gokceada (Turkey), Samothraki (Greece) and Syros (Greece) tide-gauge 52

stations have been monitored around the expected arrival times. A tsunami signal with about 2 cm wave height and 15 min period at Bozcaada IDSL tide-gauge has been observed at around 13:45 UTC. Very small waves have been observed in Gokceada and Samothraki sea level stations with variable frequency and small wave oscillations but it was difficult to identify those oscillations as a tsunami. No tsunami were recorded at Syros tide-gauge station. According to the sea level measurements at tide-gauge stations and evaluations of the Tsunami Service Providers, TSUNAMI CANCELLATION messages have been issued by all TSPs about 1.5 hours after the earthquake, indicating that tsunami threat was over. The above was done considering the sea level measurement available in the area either too far to provide a clear signal or not showing an important wave amplitude. Consequently, none of the centers indicated the sea level measurements in the message in accordance with the Interim Operational User’s Guide of ICG/NEAMTWS. Nevertheless, the need to indicate even small sea-level measurements in the cancellation messages may be revisited at the next session of the ICG/NEAMTWS. A number of sea level stations closer to the source would have allowed an early lift of the alert level or in any case a clearer picture of the situation. INGV

NOA

KOERI

1st Message (UTC)

12 Jun 2017 12:38

12 Jun 2017 12:38

12 Jun 2017 12:38

Time after EQ for 1st message

10 min

10 min

10 min

Magnitude (Mw)

6.5

6.2 (ML)

6.3

Depth (km)

16

10

10

Location

38.87 NORTH 26.34 EAST

38.83 NORTH 26.38 EAST

38.83 NORTH 26.32 EAST

Alert level

Advisory Turkey, Greece

Watch Turkey, Greece

Advisory Turkey, Greece

Cancellation (UTC)

12 Jun 2017 14:27

12 Jun 2017 14:24

12 Jun 2017 14:10

Time span

01:39

01:36

01:32

53

6. Damage assessment The harmonization of the disaster loss data and damages according to the Sendai Targets and related Indicators can, at first, facilitate the global comparison of the impact of the different events. In addition, it can support the EU implementation of the Sendai Indicators. The Sendai Targets dealing with the monitor of the impact of hazardous events are 4: Global target A

Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared with 2005-2015.

Global target B

Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100 000 between 20202030 compared with 2005-2015.

Global target C

Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030.

Global target D

Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030.

Table X - Sendai Targets dealing with disaster loss data The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is an important catalyst for ensuring consistent and lasting disaster data collection over time. The first phase of the emergency response has been recognized as the key moment for setting this process in motion. In the following sessions, the disaster losses are categorized according to the related Sendai Indicators. To harmonize the data related to the affected population according to the Sendai Indicator, a consideration regarding the Target B (Affected population) and in particular to the Indicator B 3 (Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters) needs to be done. According to the description of the indicator provided by the Open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction (OEIWG) on February 2017 (http://www.preventionweb.net/drr-framework/open-ended-working-group/), this indicators reports a sub-set of the directly affected population and, in particular, here the number of displaced population is considered because of main damages to their dwellings (415 people).

54

Target A

Deaths and Missing

A-1 (compound)

Number of deaths and missing persons attributed to disasters

1

A-2

Number of deaths attributed to disasters

1

A-3

Number of missing persons attributed to disasters

0

Table X -Impact of Mw 6.3 Lesvos Earthquake according to the Sendai Indicators Target A

Target B

Affected population

B-1

Number of directly affected people attributed to disasters

415

B-2

Number of injured or ill people attributed to disasters

15

B-3

Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters.

400

(compound)

Table X -Impact of Mw 6.3 Plomari Earthquake according to the Sendai Indicators – Target B

Target D - Damage to critical infrastructures

6

D-1 (compound)

Damage to critical infrastructure attributed to disasters.

D-2

Number of destroyed or damaged health facilities attributed to disasters.

0

D-3

Number of destroyed or damaged educational facilities attributed to disasters.

36

at least 3 schools seemed to be seriously damaged

55

D-4

Number of other destroyed or damaged critical infrastructure units and facilities attributed to disasters.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0vuAkseFawtSFV3Z21HVnVCRFk/view

56

The Port authority of Plomari reported that the port dock was slightly fissured by the earthquake.

6. Lessons Learnt 6.1 More instruments needed in the area The presence of additional tide-gauge instruments in this area would have allowed to identify better the consequences of the tsunami event and probably lift earlier the alert. In the first round of IDSL installations, proposed to UNESCO, Turkey requested the installation in Foca but due to the lack of a suitable place for the installation, it was suspended. Should this device be available it would have been very useful to have a closer look to the Tsunami effects. The installation of IDSL at a suitable place around Foca or Cesme would be reconsidered due to the need of sea level measurements in Aegean Sea. An IDSL installation in Plomari (Greece) could be considered in the future. It is clear that it is not possible to install sea level measurements in each port of the Aegean Sea but given the recurrence of events in this area probably some efforts should be done to have more instruments here. Furthermore, due to the vitality of sea level measurements for the confirmation of tsunami alert level issued by TSPs, the health of real time sea level data transmission should be sustainably ensured and monitored within the NEAM region.

6.2 Knowledge of the events by the population, but wrong reaction From the videos available after the event, some people nearby the Plomari port or the Karaburun beaches, identified that a Tsunami was in place. Perhaps these persons had already felt the earthquake and few minutes later, with the water receding, concluded that a Tsunami was occurring. However, instead of alerting the other people nearby and invite them to go far from the water, continued to film the video. This was a minor event and therefore no consequences occurred but if the event was larger being on the coastal area could have been very dangerous. So it was positive that someone realized the potential of a Tsunami (education, training, awareness, etc) but this did not translate into a correct response (evacuation from coastal areas).

6.3 Early Assessment by modelling tools Online calculation systems present in GDACS allowed identified the event but since the magnitude was lower than Mw 6.5 no calculation was launched. Maybe in the future we should trigger calculations also for event between Mw 6.0 and Mw 6.5 in order to allow to follow them.

57

6.4 Consideration of the event by the ARISTOTLE project The event happened during the ARISTOTLE annual meeting in Iceland. The team examined immediately the case. By collecting first information it was realized that the threat from both the Earthquake and the Tsunami was very low. Therefore, the project coordinator communicated with ERCC, who decided not to activate the ARISTOTLE service.

6.5 No alert to the population In Lesvos Island as well as in Karaburun or Foca (W. Turkey) the presence of a strong earthquake caused some concern and at least few people understood that a small tsunami was there since they video recorded it saying “it is a tsunami, it is a tsunami”. What has not clarified so far is the time line of the tsunami warning messages from the warning centers towards the local authorities. Such a clarification is needed in order to better understand how such warning messages are practically implemented – or not – by central and local civil protection authorities as well as to extract appropriate lessons that may help to improve warning practices in the future, including the implementation of local alert signs (evacuation routes) or messaging systems.

58

7. Conclusions The Lesvos earthquake of 12 June 12:28 UTC has been the first important earthquake in 2017 that caused damages in the Lesvos Island and triggered a Tsunami that affected Greece and Turkey. At the time of writing another larger earthquake (Mw 6.6, 20 July 2017 22:31) occurred between Bodrum and Kos which caused more important Tsunami effects but less earthquake damage. This report describes the Lesvos earthquake and tsunami characteristics, the reported damages, the observations (instrumental and by social media) and the historical events in the area. All those information are very important for the follow-up modelling activity that has also been included. Estimations performed by 3 modelling teams have been included. There are differences in some of the initial hypotheses and therefore the results of the calculations are different each other; no attempt has been done to solve those differences, to understand if they come from initial and boundary conditions or from solving algorithm. The Tsunami Watch Providers (INGV, NOA, KOERI) issued their messages at the same time, providing a slightly different assessment but then all lifted the alert when confirmation from sea level measurements occurred. The damage has been estimated and classified according to the Sendai indicators in order to facilitate the introduction into Harmonized Loss databases. A number of lessons learnt has been indicated which may be useful to discuss in International coordination groups, like UNESCO/IOC/ICG/NEAMTWS or the EU Union Civil Protection Mechanism to improve the response to those type of events.

59

8 References Altınok, Y., and S. Ersoy, 2000, “Tsunamis Observed on and Near the Turkish Coasts”, Natural Hazards, 21, 185–205. Altınok, Y., B. Alpar, N. Özer and H. Aykurt, 2011, “Revision of the Tsunami Catalogue Affecting Turkish Coasts and Surrounding Regions”, Natural hazards Earth System Science, 11, 273-293. Ambraseys, N. N., 1962, “Data for the Investigation of the Seismic Sea-Waves in the Eastern Mediterranean”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 52, 895–913. Ambraseys, N. (Ed.), 2009, Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-87292-8, Cambridge. Ambraseys, N. N. and Finkel, C. F., 1995. The Seismicity of Turkey and Adjacent AreasA Historical Review, 1500-1800. EREN Ltd, Istanbul, 240 p. Aytore, B., Yalciner, A. C., Zaytsev, A., Cankaya, Z. C., & Suzen, M. L. (2016). Assessment of tsunami resilience of Haydarpaşa Port in the Sea of Marmara by highresolution numerical modeling. Earth, Planets and Space, 68(1), 139. Cankaya, Z. C., Suzen, M. L., Yalciner, A. C., Kolat, C., Zaytsev, A., & Aytore, B. (2016). A new GIS-based tsunami risk evaluation: MeTHuVA (METU tsunami human vulnerability assessment) at Yenikapı, Istanbul. Earth, Planets and Space, 68(1), 133. Chen, Q., Kirby, J. T., Dalrymple, R. A., Kennedy, A. B., & Chawla, A., 2000. Boussinesq modelling of wave transformation, breaking and run up. II: 2D, J., Wtrwy, Port, Coast, and Oc. Engrg., ASCE, 126 (1), 48-56. Dilmen, D.I., Kemec, S., Yalciner, A.C., Düzgün, S., Zaytsev, A., 2015. Development of a tsunami inundation map in detecting tsunami risk in Gulf of Fethiye, Turkey. Pure Appl. Geophys. 172, 921–929. doi: 10.10 07/s0 0 024- 014- 0936- 2 .

Ganas A., Oikonomou I.A. and Tsimi , 2013. NOAfaults: a digital database for active faults in Greece. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, vol. 47 (2), 518-530, http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/bgsg.11079 Geist, E. L. (1998), Local tsunamis and earthquake source parameters, Adv. Geophys., 39, 117–209. Geist, E. L. (2002), Complex earthquake rupture and local tsunamis, J. Geophys. Res., 107(5), 2086, doi:10.1029/2000JB000139. Geist, E. L., and R. Dmowska (1999), Local tsunamis and distributed slip at the source, Pure Appl.Geophys., 154(3–4), 485–512. 60

Grilli, S. T., & Watts, Ph., 1999. Modelling of waves generated by a moving submerged body: Applications to underwater landslides, Engrg. Analysis with Boundary Elements, 23(8), 645-656. Grilli, S. T., M. Ioualalen, J. Asavanant, F. Shi, J. T. Kirby, & Watts, Ph., 2007. Source constariants and model simulation of the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng., in press. Imamura, F. , 1989. Tsunami Numerical Simulation With the Staggered Leap-Frog Scheme (Numerical Code of TUNAMI-N1). School of Civil Engineering, Asian In- stitute of Technology and Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University . Ioualalen, M., B. Pelletier, M. Regnier, & Watts, Ph., 2006. Numerical modelling of the 26th November 1999 Vanuatu tsunami, J. Geophys. Res., 1111, C06030, doi: 10.1029/2005JC003249 Ioualalen, M., J. Asavanant, F. Shi, J. T. Kirby, &.Watts, Ph., 2007. Modeling the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: Case study of impact in Thailand, J. Geophys. Res., 112, C07024, doi: 10.1029/2006JC003850. Kennedy, A. B., Q. Chen, J.T. Kirby, &.Dalrymple, R. A., 2000. Boussinesq modelling of wave transformation, breaking, and run-up I: 1D, J. Wtrwy, Port, Coast, and Oc. Engrg., ASCE, 126 (1), 39-47. Li, L., Switzer, A.D., Chan, C-H., Wang, Y., Weiss, R. and Qiu, Q., 2016. How heterogeneous coseismic slip affects regional probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment: A case study in the South China Sea. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 121, doi: 10.1002/2016JB013111. Løvholt, F., G. Pedersen, S. Bazin, D. Kühn, R. E. Bredesen, and C. Harbitz (2012), Stochastic analysis of tsunami runup due to heterogeneous coseismic slip and dispersion, J. Geophys. Res., 117, C03047, doi:10.1029/2011JC007616. McCloskey, J., A. Antonioli, A. Piatanesi, K. Sieh, S. Steacy, S. S. Nalbant, M. Cocco, C. Giunchi, J. D. Huang, and P. Dunlop (2007), Near-field propagation of tsunamis from megathrust earthquakes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14316, doi:10.1029/2007GL030494. Necmioglu, 2014, Tsunami Hazard in Turkey and Surroundings, PhD Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute Istanbul, Turkey Novikova T., Papadopoulos G. A., McCoy F.: Modelling of tsunami generated by the giant late Bronze Age eruption of Thera, South Aegean Sea, Greece. Geophys. J. Int., 186, 665-680, 2011.

61

Ozer Sozdinler, C., Yalciner, A.C., Zaytsev, A., et al., 2015. Investigation of hydrodynamic parameters and the effects of breakwaters during the 2011 Great East Japan Tsunami in Kamaishi Bay. Pure Appl. Geophy. 172, 3473. doi: 10.1007/ s0 0 024- 0151051- 8. Papadopoulos, G. A., 2011, The Seismic History of Crete, Ocelotos Publications, ISBN 978-960-9499-68-2.

Shuto, N. , Goto, C. , Imamura, F. ,1990. Numerical simulation as a means of warning for near field tsunamis. Coast. Eng. Jpn. 33 (2), 173–193 Soloviev, S. L., O. N. Solovieva, C. N. Go, K. S. Kim and N. A. Shchetnikov (Eds.), 2000, Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Sea – 2000 B.C.–2000 A.D., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 237 pp. Taymaz, T., Jackson, J. and McKenzie, D., 1991. Active tectonics of the north and central Aegean Sea. Geophys. J. Int., 106, 433-490. Walder, J., Watts, Ph., Sorensen, O., &. Janssen, K., 2003. Tsunamis generated by subaerial mass flows, J. Gophys. Res., 108, B5, 2-1:219. Watts, P., Grilli, S.T., Kirby, Fryer, G.J., and D.R. Tappin, 2003. Landslide tsunami case studies using a Boussinesq model and a fully nonlinear tsunami generation model, Nat. Hazards. and Earth Syst. Sci., 3(5), 391-402. Watts, P., and Waythomas, C., 2003. Theoretical analysis of tsunami generation by pyroclastic flows, J. Geophys. Res., 108, B12, 1-19. Wei, G. & J.T. Kirby, J. T., 1995. Time-depended numerical code for extended Boussinesq equations, J. Wtrwy, Port, Coast, and Oc. Engrg., ASCE, 121 (5), 251-261. Wei, G., J.T. Kirby, S.T. Grilli, and Subramanya, R., 1995. A fully nonlinear Boussinesq model for free surface waves. Part 1: highly nonlinear unsteady waves, J. Fluid Mech., 294, 71-92. Yalciner B. and Zaytsev A., (2017), "Assessment of Efficiency and Performance in Tsunami Numerical Modeling with GPU", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU 2017-1246, 2017, EGU General Assembly 2017 of European Geoscience Union, EGU, Vienna

62

9 Relevant Links EMSC - https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=597714 USGS - https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20009ly0#executive GDACS - http://www.gdacs.org/report.aspx?eventid=1114802&eventtype=EQ IDSL-14, Bozcaada Sea Level http://webcritech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/TAD_server/SensorData.aspx?id=87&tmin=12%20J un%202017&tmax=13%20Jun%202017 NOA Solution http://www.gein.noa.gr/services/pre/pre_20170612122838_20170612161354.txt Thessaloniki Univ. http://geophysics.geo.auth.gr/the_seisnet/ATLAS/web/20170612_122838/ AFAD - http://sismo.deprem.gov.tr/en/eventdetail?eventID=375576 Interactive Vrissa damage assessment (Athens Univ.) - http://arcg.is/2sjxf7o KOERI Report http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/12_HAZIRAN_2017_EGE_DENIZI_DEPREMI.pdf

63

10 Contributions All authors contributed to all the sections. The notes below indicate the main activities only. JRC Contributions: Document proposal and organization of VC among the authors Editing Tsunami propagation calculations Maps METU Contributions: Bathymetry data in Karaburun and Foca regions from Navigation charts digitization. Establishing bathymetry data for the simulations. Obtaining more info about the sea abnormalities based on observations and oceanographic measurements at Foca. NOA Contributions: Earthquake rupture process analysis with inversion of teleseismic P-wave records, Collection of historical EQ data Collection of pictures showing the damage in Lesvos isl. Collection of GPS data Collection of tsunami observations (we continue), Preliminary tsunami numerical simulation

64

Appendix A: Damage caused in village Vrisa, SE Lesvos Isl. photo courtesy Mr Paraschos Vassouris, Lesvos Fire Brigade

65

Appendix B: Finite Fault Model 3 km x 3 km Finite Fault sub-faults 3 km x 3 km, based on NOA Analysis

NEW_ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

LON 38.9819 38.969 38.959 38.946 38.9348 38.924 38.9124 38.8996 38.8894 38.9524 38.9401 38.931 38.9167 38.903 38.895 38.8814 38.869 38.858 38.9175 38.908 38.898 38.8848 38.8715 38.8607 38.851 38.838 38.827 38.886 38.875 38.8633 38.8527 38.84 38.829 38.817 38.805 38.797 38.858 38.8455 38.833 38.822 38.8115 38.8035 38.789 38.775 38.7643

LAT 26.2581 26.2899 26.323 26.356 26.3926 26.4266 26.457 26.491 26.5209 26.242 26.2729 26.306 26.341 26.373 26.406 26.4435 26.473 26.5016 26.221 26.2508 26.288 26.32 26.355 26.3895 26.4217 26.456 26.4854 26.204 26.235 26.267 26.301 26.336 26.367 26.4 26.435 26.4654 26.1879 26.217 26.2514 26.285 26.3183 26.353 26.3837 26.418 26.4514

SLIP (cm) 0 0 5 20 22 20 5 0 0 5 5 20 34 40 20 10 10 10 5 5 20 40 50 40 20 15 20 5 5 25 60 90 90 60 25 10 0 5 15 30 60 70 40 20 10

DEPTH (km) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5

66

STRIKE (deg) 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114

DIP (deg) 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

RAKE (DEG) -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82 -82

Appendix C: Finite Fault Model 1 km x 1 km Finite Fault sub-faults 1 km x 1 km, based on NOA analysis and JRC reprojection Deformation value: is the height in the lat/lon point as a result of all the 405 sub-faults

NEW_ID

DEPTH STRIKE LON LAT SLIP (cm) (km) (deg) 26.263755 38.994676 0.0000 1.000 0 1 26.259978 38.986194 0.0000 2.000 2 26.256202 38.977712 0.0000 3.000 3 26.252425 38.969229 0.0000 4.000 4 26.248649 38.960747 0.0000 5.000 5 26.244872 38.952265 0.0000 6.000 6 26.241095 38.943782 0.0000 7.000 7 26.237319 38.935300 0.0000 8.000 8 26.233542 38.926818 0.0000 9.000 9 26.229766 38.918335 0.0000 10.000 10 26.225989 38.909853 0.0000 11.000 11 26.222213 38.901371 0.0000 12.000 12 26.218436 38.892889 0.0000 13.000 13 26.214660 38.884406 0.0000 14.000 14 26.210883 38.875924 0.0000 15.000 15 26.273761 38.990221 0.0350 1.000 16 26.269985 38.981739 0.0700 2.000 17 26.266208 38.973256 0.2400 3.000 18 26.262431 38.964774 0.6100 4.000 19 26.258655 38.956292 1.3000 5.000 20 26.254878 38.947810 2.2500 6.000 21 26.251102 38.939327 3.2600 7.000 22 26.247325 38.930845 4.0600 8.000 23 26.243549 38.922363 4.3600 9.000 24 26.239772 38.913880 4.0600 10.000 25 26.235995 38.905398 3.2700 11.000 26 26.232219 38.896916 2.2500 12.000 27 26.228442 38.888434 1.3900 13.000 28 26.224666 38.879951 0.7500 14.000 29 26.220889 38.871469 0.3750 15.000 30 26.283767 38.985766 0.0700 1.000 31 26.279991 38.977284 0.1400 2.000 32 26.276214 38.968801 0.2700 3.000 33 26.272438 38.960319 0.5800 4.000 34 26.268661 38.951837 1.1500 5.000 35 26.264885 38.943355 1.9500 6.000 36 26.261108 38.934872 2.8200 7.000 37 26.257331 38.926390 3.5000 8.000 38 26.253555 38.917908 3.7600 9.000 39 26.249778 38.909425 3.5000 10.000 40 26.246002 38.900943 2.8200 11.000 41 26.242225 38.892461 1.9400 12.000 42 26.238449 38.883978 1.1900 13.000 43 26.234672 38.875496 0.6400 14.000 44 26.230895 38.867014 0.3200 15.000 45 26.293774 38.981311 0.1700 1.000 46 26.289997 38.972829 0.3400 2.000 47 26.286220 38.964346 0.4300 3.000 48 26.282444 38.955864 0.6400 4.000 49 26.278667 38.947382 1.0300 5.000 50 26.274891 38.938899 1.6000 6.000 51 26.271114 38.930417 2.2400 7.000

67

RAKE DIP (deg) (DEG) 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37. 114. 37.

Deformation (m) -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0

Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.003 -0.006 -0.009 -0.010 -0.012 -0.012 -0.011 -0.011 -0.011 -0.010 -0.010 -0.009 0.000 -0.001 -0.002 -0.007 -0.012 -0.013 -0.015 -0.016 -0.017 -0.015 -0.015 -0.015 -0.014 -0.013 -0.012 -0.001 -0.003 -0.009 -0.012 -0.016 -0.019 -0.021 -0.022 -0.022 -0.021 -0.019 -0.019 -0.017 -0.016 -0.015 -0.004 -0.011 -0.014 -0.020 -0.023 -0.027 -0.027

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

26.267338 26.263561 26.259785 26.256008 26.252231 26.248455 26.244678 26.240902 26.303780 26.300003 26.296227 26.292450 26.288674 26.284897 26.281120 26.277344 26.273567 26.269791 26.266014 26.262238 26.258461 26.254685 26.250908 26.313786 26.310009 26.306233 26.302456 26.298680 26.294903 26.291127 26.287350 26.283574 26.279797 26.276020 26.272244 26.268467 26.264691 26.260914 26.323792 26.320016 26.316239 26.312463 26.308686 26.304909 26.301133 26.297356 26.293580 26.289803 26.286027 26.282250 26.278474 26.274697 26.270920 26.333799 26.330022 26.326245 26.322469 26.318692 26.314916 26.311139 26.307363 26.303586 26.299809 26.296033 26.292256

38.921935 38.913453 38.904970 38.896488 38.888006 38.879523 38.871041 38.862559 38.976856 38.968374 38.959891 38.951409 38.942927 38.934444 38.925962 38.917480 38.908998 38.900515 38.892033 38.883551 38.875068 38.866586 38.858104 38.972401 38.963919 38.955436 38.946954 38.938472 38.929989 38.921507 38.913025 38.904542 38.896060 38.887578 38.879096 38.870613 38.862131 38.853649 38.967946 38.959463 38.950981 38.942499 38.934017 38.925534 38.917052 38.908570 38.900087 38.891605 38.883123 38.874641 38.866158 38.857676 38.849194 38.963491 38.955008 38.946526 38.938044 38.929561 38.921079 38.912597 38.904115 38.895632 38.887150 38.878668 38.870185

2.7400 2.9300 2.7000 2.1500 1.4700 0.8900 0.4700 0.2350 0.4300 0.8600 0.9800 1.1700 1.4500 1.8100 2.1500 2.3400 2.3100 2.0500 1.6700 1.2600 0.9100 0.6100 0.3050 1.0300 2.0600 2.4800 2.9700 3.4500 3.7100 3.6900 3.3600 2.8900 2.4900 2.2900 2.2200 2.1100 1.8900 0.9450 2.1700 4.3400 5.4700 6.7500 7.9600 8.4500 8.2300 7.3600 6.2900 5.5300 5.3500 5.3900 5.3300 5.0000 2.5000 3.8600 7.7200 9.9700 12.5700 15.1000 16.2200 15.9500 14.4600 12.6000 11.3500 11.1800 11.1400

8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000

68

114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114.

37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37.

-82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0

-0.029 -0.028 -0.026 -0.025 -0.023 -0.022 -0.020 -0.018 -0.009 -0.017 -0.024 -0.028 -0.033 -0.034 -0.036 -0.036 -0.036 -0.032 -0.031 -0.029 -0.026 -0.023 -0.021 -0.020 -0.027 -0.034 -0.037 -0.043 -0.043 -0.045 -0.045 -0.044 -0.039 -0.037 -0.033 -0.031 -0.027 -0.024 -0.030 -0.044 -0.046 -0.053 -0.054 -0.056 -0.055 -0.054 -0.052 -0.046 -0.043 -0.039 -0.035 -0.031 -0.027 -0.043 -0.058 -0.065 -0.067 -0.070 -0.069 -0.067 -0.064 -0.060 -0.054 -0.049 -0.045

117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181

26.288480 26.284703 26.280927 26.343805 26.340028 26.336252 26.332475 26.328699 26.324922 26.321145 26.317369 26.313592 26.309816 26.306039 26.302263 26.298486 26.294709 26.290933 26.353811 26.350034 26.346258 26.342481 26.338705 26.334928 26.331152 26.327375 26.323598 26.319822 26.316045 26.312269 26.308492 26.304716 26.300939 26.363817 26.360041 26.356264 26.352488 26.348711 26.344934 26.341158 26.337381 26.333605 26.329828 26.326052 26.322275 26.318498 26.314722 26.310945 26.373823 26.370047 26.366270 26.362494 26.358717 26.354941 26.351164 26.347388 26.343611 26.339834 26.336058 26.332281 26.328505 26.324728 26.320952 26.383830 26.380053

38.861703 38.853221 38.844739 38.959036 38.950553 38.942071 38.933589 38.925106 38.916624 38.908142 38.899660 38.891177 38.882695 38.874213 38.865730 38.857248 38.848766 38.840284 38.954581 38.946098 38.937616 38.929134 38.920651 38.912169 38.903687 38.895204 38.886722 38.878240 38.869758 38.861275 38.852793 38.844311 38.835828 38.950125 38.941643 38.933161 38.924679 38.916196 38.907714 38.899232 38.890749 38.882267 38.873785 38.865303 38.856820 38.848338 38.839856 38.831373 38.945670 38.937188 38.928706 38.920224 38.911741 38.903259 38.894777 38.886294 38.877812 38.869330 38.860847 38.852365 38.843883 38.835401 38.826918 38.941215 38.932733

10.9600 10.3200 5.1600 5.9050 11.8100 15.4400 19.6500 23.7600 25.7300 25.5500 23.5400 20.9700 19.2600 19.1100 18.8400 18.3900 17.3000 8.6500 8.1050 16.2100 21.2000 26.8400 32.2200 34.8100 34.7500 32.6200 30.1300 28.7900 29.2300 28.7800 27.7500 25.7400 12.8700 10.2050 20.4100 26.2600 32.6900 38.6300 41.5000 41.7900 40.3500 39.1300 39.3600 41.1500 40.8400 39.0900 35.7200 17.8600 12.0650 24.1300 30.1300 36.3700 41.8300 44.3100 45.1600 45.5100 47.1100 50.4200 54.4900 54.5600 51.8500 46.6700 23.3350 13.7000 27.4000

13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000

69

114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114.

37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37.

-82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0

-0.040 -0.034 -0.030 -0.065 -0.075 -0.081 -0.083 -0.084 -0.082 -0.078 -0.073 -0.069 -0.061 -0.056 -0.050 -0.045 -0.039 -0.033 -0.080 -0.097 -0.097 -0.099 -0.097 -0.093 -0.088 -0.082 -0.076 -0.068 -0.061 -0.056 -0.048 -0.043 -0.035 -0.093 -0.112 -0.114 -0.112 -0.108 -0.103 -0.096 -0.090 -0.083 -0.074 -0.067 -0.059 -0.052 -0.044 -0.038 -0.114 -0.124 -0.126 -0.122 -0.116 -0.108 -0.102 -0.094 -0.089 -0.079 -0.072 -0.064 -0.057 -0.048 -0.038 -0.123 -0.136

182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246

26.376277 26.372500 26.368723 26.364947 26.361170 26.357394 26.353617 26.349841 26.346064 26.342288 26.338511 26.334734 26.330958 26.393836 26.390059 26.386283 26.382506 26.378730 26.374953 26.371177 26.367400 26.363623 26.359847 26.356070 26.352294 26.348517 26.344741 26.340964 26.403842 26.400066 26.396289 26.392512 26.388736 26.384959 26.381183 26.377406 26.373630 26.369853 26.366077 26.362300 26.358523 26.354747 26.350970 26.413848 26.410072 26.406295 26.402519 26.398742 26.394966 26.391189 26.387412 26.383636 26.379859 26.376083 26.372306 26.368530 26.364753 26.360977 26.423855 26.420078 26.416302 26.412525 26.408748 26.404972 26.401195

38.924251 38.915768 38.907286 38.898804 38.890322 38.881839 38.873357 38.864875 38.856392 38.847910 38.839428 38.830946 38.822463 38.936760 38.928278 38.919796 38.911313 38.902831 38.894349 38.885867 38.877384 38.868902 38.860420 38.851937 38.843455 38.834973 38.826490 38.818008 38.932305 38.923823 38.915341 38.906858 38.898376 38.889894 38.881411 38.872929 38.864447 38.855965 38.847482 38.839000 38.830518 38.822035 38.813553 38.927850 38.919368 38.910886 38.902403 38.893921 38.885439 38.876956 38.868474 38.859992 38.851510 38.843027 38.834545 38.826063 38.817580 38.809098 38.923395 38.914913 38.906431 38.897948 38.889466 38.880984 38.872501

32.8900 38.0000 42.0300 43.4300 44.9200 48.0000 53.8600 61.7600 69.1600 69.9300 66.0800 58.6100 29.3050 14.9550 29.9100 34.3400 37.7700 39.9800 40.1700 42.3800 48.5800 59.1300 71.8800 82.9100 84.5200 79.7500 70.3400 35.1700 15.5650 31.1300 34.4300 36.1300 36.4900 35.5200 38.3200 47.2700 61.9600 78.9900 93.3000 95.7500 90.3400 79.5000 39.7500 15.1900 30.3800 32.7300 33.0900 32.0200 30.1500 33.2200 43.8400 61.1800 81.0800 97.7900 101.1200 95.5600 84.0700 42.0350 13.5450 27.0900 28.6100 28.1700 26.3300 24.2500 27.4800

3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000

70

114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114.

37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37.

-82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0

-0.134 -0.127 -0.121 -0.112 -0.107 -0.099 -0.091 -0.083 -0.074 -0.067 -0.057 -0.050 -0.040 -0.127 -0.141 -0.136 -0.129 -0.120 -0.114 -0.107 -0.101 -0.094 -0.087 -0.077 -0.067 -0.060 -0.049 -0.042 -0.134 -0.139 -0.135 -0.127 -0.118 -0.111 -0.106 -0.099 -0.095 -0.086 -0.079 -0.069 -0.062 -0.050 -0.040 -0.128 -0.133 -0.129 -0.118 -0.113 -0.107 -0.104 -0.098 -0.092 -0.086 -0.077 -0.070 -0.059 -0.051 -0.040 -0.115 -0.121 -0.116 -0.110 -0.104 -0.102 -0.098

247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311

26.397419 26.393642 26.389866 26.386089 26.382312 26.378536 26.374759 26.370983 26.433861 26.430084 26.426308 26.422531 26.418755 26.414978 26.411202 26.407425 26.403648 26.399872 26.396095 26.392319 26.388542 26.384766 26.380989 26.443867 26.440091 26.436314 26.432537 26.428761 26.424984 26.421208 26.417431 26.413655 26.409878 26.406102 26.402325 26.398548 26.394772 26.390995 26.453873 26.450097 26.446320 26.442544 26.438767 26.434991 26.431214 26.427437 26.423661 26.419884 26.416108 26.412331 26.408555 26.404778 26.401002 26.463880 26.460103 26.456326 26.452550 26.448773 26.444997 26.441220 26.437444 26.433667 26.429891 26.426114 26.422337

38.864019 38.855537 38.847054 38.838572 38.830090 38.821608 38.813125 38.804643 38.918940 38.910458 38.901975 38.893493 38.885011 38.876529 38.868046 38.859564 38.851082 38.842599 38.834117 38.825635 38.817153 38.808670 38.800188 38.914485 38.906003 38.897520 38.889038 38.880556 38.872074 38.863591 38.855109 38.846627 38.838144 38.829662 38.821180 38.812697 38.804215 38.795733 38.910030 38.901548 38.893065 38.884583 38.876101 38.867618 38.859136 38.850654 38.842172 38.833689 38.825207 38.816725 38.808242 38.799760 38.791278 38.905575 38.897093 38.888610 38.880128 38.871646 38.863163 38.854681 38.846199 38.837716 38.829234 38.820752 38.812270

38.4300 56.2200 76.6100 93.6900 97.7100 92.9500 82.1200 41.0600 10.9600 21.9200 22.9100 22.1600 20.1400 18.2400 21.3300 31.5000 48.0400 67.1700 83.3500 87.7600 84.0600 74.5900 37.2950 7.9650 15.9300 16.6100 15.9500 14.2900 13.0000 15.9300 24.7100 38.8300 55.2900 69.4400 73.7500 71.0900 63.3700 31.6850 5.2350 10.4700 10.9400 10.6100 9.7400 9.4500 12.3400 19.6200 30.8000 43.6400 54.8100 58.2800 56.3100 50.4600 25.2300 3.3150 6.6300 7.1300 7.2900 7.3900 8.1200 11.0700 16.9900 25.4200 34.6900 42.6000 44.7300

8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000

71

114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114.

37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37.

-82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0

-0.096 -0.090 -0.086 -0.077 -0.066 -0.059 -0.047 -0.040 -0.101 -0.105 -0.104 -0.100 -0.096 -0.094 -0.093 -0.090 -0.086 -0.080 -0.075 -0.064 -0.058 -0.046 -0.036 -0.081 -0.087 -0.091 -0.088 -0.088 -0.087 -0.087 -0.085 -0.081 -0.077 -0.069 -0.062 -0.052 -0.044 -0.034 -0.063 -0.071 -0.076 -0.078 -0.079 -0.080 -0.080 -0.080 -0.076 -0.073 -0.065 -0.055 -0.049 -0.039 -0.033 -0.051 -0.057 -0.066 -0.069 -0.071 -0.073 -0.074 -0.072 -0.071 -0.065 -0.060 -0.052

312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376

26.418561 26.414784 26.411008 26.473886 26.470109 26.466333 26.462556 26.458780 26.455003 26.451226 26.447450 26.443673 26.439897 26.436120 26.432344 26.428567 26.424791 26.421014 26.483892 26.480115 26.476339 26.472562 26.468786 26.465009 26.461233 26.457456 26.453680 26.449903 26.446126 26.442350 26.438573 26.434797 26.431020 26.493898 26.490122 26.486345 26.482569 26.478792 26.475015 26.471239 26.467462 26.463686 26.459909 26.456133 26.452356 26.448580 26.444803 26.441026 26.503905 26.500128 26.496351 26.492575 26.488798 26.485022 26.481245 26.477469 26.473692 26.469915 26.466139 26.462362 26.458586 26.454809 26.451033 26.513911 26.510134

38.803787 38.795305 38.786823 38.901120 38.892637 38.884155 38.875673 38.867191 38.858708 38.850226 38.841744 38.833261 38.824779 38.816297 38.807815 38.799332 38.790850 38.782368 38.896665 38.888182 38.879700 38.871218 38.862736 38.854253 38.845771 38.837289 38.828806 38.820324 38.811842 38.803359 38.794877 38.786395 38.777913 38.892210 38.883727 38.875245 38.866763 38.858280 38.849798 38.841316 38.832834 38.824351 38.815869 38.807387 38.798904 38.790422 38.781940 38.773458 38.887755 38.879272 38.870790 38.862308 38.853825 38.845343 38.836861 38.828379 38.819896 38.811414 38.802932 38.794449 38.785967 38.777485 38.769002 38.883300 38.874817

42.8600 38.2200 19.1100 2.2350 4.4700 5.1900 5.9800 7.1100 8.9000 12.1300 17.0100 23.0400 29.0000 33.5200 33.9000 31.6200 27.6300 13.8150 1.8200 3.6400 4.6800 6.1200 8.2200 11.0000 14.6200 18.8100 22.9700 26.2100 27.7200 26.3000 23.3300 19.5400 9.7700 1.6650 3.3300 4.6000 6.4400 9.1000 12.3000 15.9300 19.4700 22.2600 23.6500 23.2100 20.6300 17.2400 13.6400 6.8200 1.5250 3.0500 4.3900 6.3800 9.2600 12.6100 16.1500 19.2600 21.1600 21.3700 19.7400 16.4900 13.0300 9.7200 4.8600 1.3500 2.7000

13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000

72

114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114.

37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37.

-82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0

-0.046 -0.037 -0.028 -0.040 -0.049 -0.057 -0.062 -0.065 -0.067 -0.068 -0.066 -0.062 -0.059 -0.053 -0.048 -0.040 -0.034 -0.025 -0.033 -0.042 -0.051 -0.055 -0.058 -0.060 -0.061 -0.060 -0.056 -0.054 -0.048 -0.040 -0.035 -0.027 -0.023 -0.031 -0.037 -0.046 -0.049 -0.052 -0.054 -0.054 -0.052 -0.050 -0.045 -0.042 -0.035 -0.031 -0.024 -0.018 -0.025 -0.032 -0.039 -0.043 -0.045 -0.046 -0.047 -0.045 -0.041 -0.039 -0.034 -0.030 -0.024 -0.021 -0.015 -0.021 -0.025

377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404

26.506358 26.502581 26.498805 26.495028 26.491251 26.487475 26.483698 26.479922 26.476145 26.472369 26.468592 26.464815 26.461039 26.523917 26.520140 26.516364 26.512587 26.508811 26.505034 26.501258 26.497481 26.493705 26.489928 26.486151 26.482375 26.478598 26.474822 26.471045

38.866335 38.857853 38.849370 38.840888 38.832406 38.823923 38.815441 38.806959 38.798477 38.789994 38.781512 38.773030 38.764547 38.878844 38.870362 38.861880 38.853398 38.844915 38.836433 38.827951 38.819468 38.810986 38.802504 38.794022 38.785539 38.777057 38.768575 38.760092

4.0000 5.9400 8.7800 12.0200 15.3200 18.0400 19.4300 19.1200 17.0900 13.6600 10.2900 7.3000 3.6500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000

73

114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114. 114.

37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37.

-82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0 -82.0

-0.032 -0.036 -0.037 -0.039 -0.038 -0.037 -0.035 -0.032 -0.029 -0.024 -0.020 -0.016 -0.013 -0.014 -0.018 -0.025 -0.028 -0.030 -0.031 -0.032 -0.030 -0.028 -0.025 -0.024 -0.020 -0.017 -0.013 -0.009