Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Fig. 3 | Earth, Planets and Space

Fig. 3

From: A megathrust earthquake cycle model for Northeast Japan: bridging the mismatch between geological uplift and geodetic subsidence

Fig. 3

Temporal change in cumulative uplift and uplift rate in an earthquake cycle on a vertical plane bisecting the periodic rupture area (corresponding to the cross section under line AB in Fig. 1c) for Case 1. White and gray areas in panels af denote land and ocean in NE Japan, respectively. a Cumulative uplift after a megathrust earthquake. Dashed line shows coseismic uplift profile. b Permanent uplift due to an earthquake cycle. c Uplift rate in the first 100 years of an earthquake cycle. d Uplift rate after 200 years of an earthquake cycle. e Contribution of the effect of viscoelastic relaxation to the uplift rate in the first 100 years compared with the locking effect. Locking and viscoelastic effects are calculated by separately evaluating the second and third terms of the right-hand side of Eq. (1), respectively. f Contribution of the effect of viscoelastic relaxation after 200 years. Note that the dashed line is the same for panels e and fg Geometry of plate interface along line AB (Fig. 1c). Solid line shows the plate interface Σ, with red part denoting periodic rupture area Σ P . Dashed line shows the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary. Thick solid line shows the land area. Triangle shows the location of the trench

Back to article page