6 for Model 03.2. Same as Fig. 5 energy-to-moment ratios for the ‘tsunami earthquakes’ of 1963 October 20 (‘K63’) and 1975 June 10 (‘K75’) that were aftershocks of the regular subduction events of 1963 October 13 (Kanamori 1970) and 1973 June 17, respectively (energy estimates were obtained from the Benioff 1-90 records of their P waves at Pasadena, and their moments were derived from WWSSN records of their mantle Love and Rayleigh waves). Tanioka & Satake (1996) have suggested that it may also apply to the 1896 Sanriku event, where the faulting would have deviated into the wedge at the end of the rupture. 4). More recently, the 2006 Java and 2010 Mentawai earthquakes, both in Indonesia, have qualified as ‘tsunami earthquakes’; the latter could be regarded as an aftershock of the 2007 Bengkulu earthquake. along the Pacific coast of Mexico is the plate boundary between the Rivera-Cocos plates and the North America plate (Figure 1). We emphasize that, because Ebeling & Okal′s (2007) regional distance corrections were derived empirically in the absence of a rigorous theoretical framework, these values remain tentative in an absolute sense; however, because the epicentral distance is essentially the same for all three earthquakes, the relative values for the three events are robust. The inscription reads, ‘Carmen Rivera Painted Her Portrait 1932’. SE-50, U.S. Dept. 1981; Wang et al. In this section, we simulate the regional tsunamis generated by Events I, II and III based on models of their ruptures derived from the waveform studies of Section 4. For events in the 1930s, we give this noise a standard deviation σG= 5 s. Results are given in Table 1. Please check your email address / username and password and try again. Note: This seismic event was followed by a 7.5-8.1 magnitude earthquake in the same general area (the second shock was closer to Colima) on 18 June 1932 at 10:12 UT. We interpret this as an outer-rise intraplate event, which we exclude from the data set of genuine aftershocks defining the extent of rupture. 6(b). The ISS location is shown as a downward triangle at 19.2°N, 104.2°W, whereas GR′s is shown as an upward triangle at 19.5°N, 104.25°W. In this respect, the specific hazard inherent in those anomalous events that are treacherous because they do not carry the natural warning of an impending tsunami in the form of intense shaking, should be emphasized globally as part of tsunami education programs. We were able to gather on-scale records of the generalized P waves from all three events on the east-west Wood-Anderson seismometer at Pasadena (Fig. 2) in general agreement with our estimate of 140 km. We conduct a detailed seismological study of the large Colima, Mexico earthquake of 1932 June 3 and of its aftershocks of June 18 and 22. The strongest tidal wave registered in Mexico so far reached a height of 10.90 meters. Compared to other countries, Tsunamis therefore occur more often than average, but still moderate. This is confirmed by a deficient energy-to-moment ratio, as derived from high-frequency P waves recorded at Pasadena. (An additional element of diversity is the occurrence of many foreshocks including several large ones during the 1963 sequence.) None of the relocations could resolve hypocentral depth. Although its location on the interplate contact would be generally similar to that of the 2010 Mentawai, Sumatra ‘tsunami earthquake’ (Newman et al. The diagonal lines feature constant T, the solid one being the theoretical value (-4.90) expected from scaling laws. All our results then fit the model for ‘tsunami earthquake’ aftershocks proposed for the Kuril Islands by Fukao in 1979. On the other hand, among the three sequences of Kuril-type tsunami earthquakes, the most variable parameter is the time delay between the main shock and the ‘tsunami earthquake’: 7 d in the 1963 episode, 19 d in 1932 but nearly 2 years in 1973-1975. In Model 22.2, we consider a rupture on a splay fault, by changing the dip to 45° whereas maintaining all other parameters, including the rigidity, unchanged. Okal & Synolakis (2004) have shown that because landslides and earthquakes obey different scaling laws, their tsunamis feature characteristically different run-up distributions in the near field. Unfortunately, we faced a number of challenges due to the date of the events (predating, e.g. The locked zone at this plate interface ruptured in two stages in June 1932. In this general context, the purpose of this paper is to conduct modern seismological studies of the 1932 Manzanillo earthquake series, primarily the main shock (June 3; henceforth Event I), the main aftershock (June 18; Event II) and the ‘tsunami earthquake’ of June 22 (Event III), and to use their results in hydrodynamic simulations to reproduce the main characteristics of the inundations during the two tsunamis of 1932 June 3 and 22. Lee W.H.K. Solid dots form a background of typical values from recent sources. Villaseñor A. 2 and can be used to obtain an estimate of the length of rupture of the main shock, their relocated epicentres spreading over 140 km parallel to the coastline. Brown A. For Event III, we assume a steeper dip, representative of faulting along a splay fault in the accretionary wedge that will be our preferred model. John Bellini, a geophysicist at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center in Golden, Colorado, said it was the strongest quake since an 8.1 temblor struck the western state of Jalisco in 1932. Dixon T. 161 people were killed in the 1932 Ierissos earthquake. Kanamori H. 669 were injured. Estimated magnitude: 7.8-8.4. Also, Fig. This content is PDF only. 10 shows that the results are changed only marginally and that it would not predict the reported widespread inundation. Event I on 1932 June 3 resulted in severe destruction in Manzanillo and adjoining areas with upwards of 400 casualties. In Fukao′s (1979) model, they occur on a splay fault developing above the interplate contact into a sedimentary wedge offering inferior mechanical properties and hence a reduced velocity of propagation of the seismic rupture. We find an average value Mc= 8.19 ± 0.36 for Event I, corresponding to M0= 1.55 × 1028 dyn cm, in excellent agreement with our one-station estimate (Okal 1992). 1, at 19.57°N, 104.42°W. Large-scale induced polarization imaging, The interaction between mantle plumes and lithosphere and its surface expressions: 3-D numerical modelling, Middle–Late Permian magnetostratigraphy and the onset of the Illawarra Reversals in the northeastern Parana Basin, South America, Double-difference seismic attenuation tomography method and its application to The Geysers geothermal field, California, PRISM3D – A three-dimensional reference seismic model for Iberia and adjacent areas, Volume 225, Issue 1, April 2021 (In Progress), Volume 224, Issue 3, March 2021 (In Progress), Geomagnetism, Rock Magnetism and Palaeomagnetism, Marine Geosciences and Applied Geophysics, 2 Historical reports and previous studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05199.x, Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic, Copyright © 2021 The Royal Astronomical Society. Link to Wikipedia biography Isobaths are drawn every 1000 m, with the exception of the deepest one (4500 m). With an estimated magnitude of 7.6 on the surface wave magnitude scale, a maximum felt intensity of X on the Mercalli intensity scale, the quake destroyed 1,167 houses and caused 275 deaths and 320 injuries.The earthquake was located close to the northern margin of the Tibetan Plateau; this … 2011). For each event, we use scaling laws (Geller 1976) to interpret the static values of the seismic moment M0 in terms of fault length L, fault width W and seismic slip Δu. Parameters of rupture models used in tsunami simulations. (1985) suggested the existence of a Colima seismic gap, which was filled during the later Tecoman earthquake of 2003 January 22 (Yagi et al. 2011), the recent Mentawai disaster (700 killed) illustrates the shortcomings of a natural warning relying only on shaking ‘intensity’, the challenges of educating populations to the perception of shaking ‘duration’ remaining of course formidable (Fritz et al. Its run-up was reported to have reached 10 m (Sánchez & Farreras 1993), making it clearly larger than that of the main shock and thus qualifying Event III as a ‘tsunami earthquake’. Estimated casualties: 600. 2004). The remainder of Singh ′s (1984) aftershock distribution extends over approximately 150 km (their fig. Meltzner A. Two other earthquakes of magnitude 8 or over were recorded in the 20 th century—a magnitude 8.1 in 1932 and a magnitude 8 in 1985. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide, This PDF is available to Subscribers Only. The detailed contributions of these previous studies will be described in the relevant sections later. Event III is a typical ‘tsunami earthquake’, with a slowness parameter Θ =-6.18, more than one logarithmic unit less than predicted by scaling laws. Although the boundary between the Rivera and Cocos plates is uncertain, there is little doubt that the 1932 earthquakes broke the shallow part of the Rivera subduction zone. Borrero J.C. Same as Fig. Suwargadi B. Scawthron C. Synolakis C.E. Briggs R.W. 2. Billy D. Yagi Y. It seems that the 1995 event is not a repeat of either June 3 or June 18, 1932 earthquakes. Rupture across arc segment and plate boundaries in the 1 April 2007 Solomons earthquake, Seismic strain release along the Middle America Trench, Mexico, Intraplate seismicity of the Pacific Basin, 1913-1988, Source rupture process of the Tecoman, Colima, Mexico earthquake of January 22, 2003, determined by joint inversion of teleseismic body wave and near source data, © The Authors Geophysical Journal International © 2011 RAS, Induced polarization of volcanic rocks. Papabatu A.K. Reyes G. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. However, the Friday earthquake matched the force of a magnitude 8.1 quake that hit the country on June 3, 1932, roughly 300 miles west of Mexico City. In a variation to this model, Bilek & Lay (1999) and Lay & Bilek (2007) have proposed that the slowness of the slip release could be due to the existence of a zone of reduced rigidity along the interplate contact, itself resulting from the ingestion, compaction and dehydration of sediments along its uppermost part. doi: We have analyzed seismograms of the 3 June 1932 (Ms = 8.2) and the 18 June 1932 (Ms = 7.8) Jalisco earthquakes and their aftershocks at Manzanillo (MNZ), Guadalajara (GUM), and Tacubaya (TAC). A detailed seismological study of the 1932 sequence in Manzanillo and in particular of Events I, II and III, confirms that the latter occurred up-dip of the main shock and that it featured source slowness resulting in a growth of moment with period and in a deficiency of high frequencies in its source spectrum. 4. Unlike seismic intensity, which measures the strength of shaking and varies according to distance from the quake and other factors, the magnitude is intended to measure the intrinsic size of an earthquake. Note again significantly lower wave heights, in agreement with the weaker nature of the tsunami, as compared to Event I. With a published moment of 1.6 × 10 28 dyn cm (), the great Colima-Jalisco earthquake of 1932 June 3 was one of the largest to strike Mexico since the dawn of instrumental seismology.It resulted in considerable destruction in the city of Manzanillo and generated a … (c) Run-up along coastline, plotted as a function of longitude. 1). 1 with various other estimates. Mikumo T. At 7:18 in the We use Mansinha & Smylie′s (1971) algorithm to compute the field of static displacement of the ocean bottom resulting from the dislocation, which is then taken as the initial condition, for the numerical simulation, of the deformation of the sea surface. Reexamination of arrival time data for the 1932 Jalisco earthquake yields an epicenter at 19.57°N, 104.42°W, close to the boundary zone inferred from these two earthquakes. Mantle magnitude analysis of the low-frequency surface waves from Events I, II and III. We relocated systematically the main shock and all 28 apparent aftershocks occurring in 1932, using the data listed by the International Seismological Summary (ISS) and the interactive iterative method of Wysession et al. 6 for Event II (Model 18.1). (a) and (b) Same as Fig. As shown on Fig. In summary, Model 03.1 best describes the effects of the tsunami on Manzanillo and its vicinity. On September 19, 1985, a powerful earthquake strikes Mexico City and leaves 10,000 people dead, 30,000 injured and thousands more homeless. MOST has been extensively validated through comparisons with laboratory and field data, per standard international protocols; full details can be found in Synolakis (2003). Singh S.K. However, a mechanism similar to those used for Events I and II would not modify our main conclusion, namely that Event III features source slowness. We also show, on Fig. Simulations are carried out for a time window lasting 2 hr after origin time. S. K. Singh, L. Ponce, S. P. Nishenko; The great Jalisco, Mexico, earthquakes of 1932: Subduction of the Rivera plate. You could not be signed in. Please click on the PDF icon to access. Classical examples would include the 1929 Grand Banks, Newfoundland and 1934 Luzon events, for which the existence of the landslides was documented during the repair of telegraphic cables severed by the events (Repetti 1934; Heezen & Ewing 1952). The effects of Events I, II and III and especially of their tsunamis are summarized, for example, by Sánchez & Farreras (1993), based primarily on Mexican newspaper accounts. 8.1 magnitude earthquake. For Events I and III, the oblique dashed lines are linear regressions of the data sets. 1932 (4.0) — Slight damage resulted from an earthquake in the Mexia-Wortham area on April 9, 1932. Note that a regression of the full data set of Mc values with frequency, shown as the blue dashed line on Fig. Tsunamis in Mexico In a total of 24 tidal waves classified as a tsunami since 1732 a total of 91 people died in Mexico. Hornbach M. Scenario 22.3 is inspired by Lay & Bilek′s (2007) model of a variable, generally deficient, rigidity along the uppermost part of the subduction interplate. 1993). Sweet S. There is a slight growth of moment with period due to the effect of source finiteness at higher frequencies (Ben-Menahem 1961) with an average value of 2.4 × 1028 dyn cm beyond 150 σ that we propose as the static value of M0 for Event I. Those eight ‘major’ aftershocks are plotted with their confidence ellipses on Fig. This model is particularly suited to the case of ‘tsunami earthquakes’ occurring as aftershocks, where the softer wedge material may have seen a loading by stress transfer from the primary event. It’s undercut with grit and attitude by her cigarette-in-hand. A Ms = 8.2 earthquake on 3 June and its aftershocks of 18 June (Ms = 7.8) were followed by another large (Ms = 6.9) aftershock on 22 June We are grateful to Ota Kulhánek, James Dewey, Brian Mitchell and Bernard Dost for access to historical seismograms. the development of H. Benioff′s broad-band ‘1-90’ seismometers), the significant difference in size between Events I and III (which can preclude a direct comparison, with Event III hardly emerging from the noise on Wiechert seismograms), and other unfortunate occurrences (the records being changed or the presence of obvious non-linearities). Silver E.A. By contrast, in a second scenario, originally described by Tanioka et al. 1984, 1985) had two essential goals: assessing the true sizes of Events I and II (surprisingly enough, Event III generated little interest despite its catastrophic tsunami) and determining their precise epicentres and rupture areas, notably in the framework of their relationship to the Colima earthquake of 1973 and the potential existence of a seismic gap between the two ruptures. World earthquake list. All relevant parameters are listed in Table 3. 11, but differs from Figs 6-10. 11, the maximum run-up increases to 4 m in Manzanillo and 4.5 m in Cuyutlán but remains smaller than reported (note that the color palette used on Figs 11 and 12 differs from that of Figs 6-10). In particular, the catastrophic Event III tsunami can be modelled using the seismically anomalous source derived in Section 4, without the need to invoke a different mechanism such as an underwater landslide. The relocated epicentre of Event I, at 19.65°N, 104.00°W, is compared on Fig. We were able to gather a number of historical seismograms of Events I, II and III for the purpose of computing spectral amplitudes of long-period surface waves and examining the energy contained in teleseismic P waves. We conclude that the possibility that the 1932 Jalisco earthquake broke the northernmost section of the Cocos‐North American plate interface, as opposed to the Rivera‐North American plate interface, cannot be … These records were digitized at a sampling rate t= 0.1 σ and processed through the standard algorithm for the computation of T. A correction is introduced to take into account the use of a single horizontal component. 2011) and possibly to the Hikurangi, New Zealand event of 1947 March 25 (Doser & Webb 2003). (1985) used a combination of differential S-P and L-P travel times and of first motion polarities at the local station MNZ and the regional stations GUM and TAC (Tacubaya), in support of Eissler & McNally′s (1984) solution. Earthquake information for europe. This site uses cookies. Pranantyo I.R. Kanamori′s (1972) original paper was based on two events: the 1896 Sanriku earthquake and the 1946 Aleutian one. As shown on Fig. Wei Y. Finally, note that even the maximum run-up reported (but not scientifically surveyed), namely 10 m (Sánchez & Farreras 1993), remains less than twice the modelled slip on the fault (Δu= 6.5 m) under Model 22.4, which satisfies the ‘Plafker rule of thumb’ (Okal & Synolakis 2004) and confirms that the tsunami can be explained satisfactorily without the need of an ancillary source such as an underwater landslide. Latest Earthquakes in the world. 2011). These events have relatively small confidence ellipses and as such help provide an estimate of the dimension of rupture. Previous studies of the 1932 earthquakes (Espíndola et al. Note that Event III is systematically offset about 50 km to the SSW of Event I. Kanamori H. Based on the work of Boatwright & Choy (1986), Newman & Okal (1998) have proposed a modern rendition of the mb:Ms discriminant, in the form of the parameter Θ = log10(EE/M0), where EE is the seismic energy radiated into the body waves, estimated without knowledge of focal mechanism and exact depth, and M0 the seismic moment. Run-up reaches 7 m in the bay of Manzanillo and 6-7 m further east in Cuyutlán. The aftershocks locations, the first motions at MNZ, and the isoseismic maps of the two main shocks strongly suggest that: (a) the 3 June 1932 earthquake initiated NW of but close to MNZ and propagated NW for an estimated length of rupture of 220 km; (b) the 18 June 1932 earthquake nucleated SW of MNZ (offshore) and perhaps ruptured a length of about 60 km; … The latter (Event III) generated a tsunami more devastating than that of the main shock despite much smaller seismic magnitudes, thus qualifying as a so‐called ‘tsunami earthquake’. 6(a) and a close-up of the wave heights in Manzanillo and its vicinity on Fig. We show on Fig. The 1932 Mexican sequence constitutes a classical example of a regular main shock triggering, within a few weeks’ time, a slow ‘tsunami earthquake’. Search for other works by this author on: We use these geometries to compute focal mechanism corrections to our, Radiation of seismic surface waves from finite moving sources, Rigidity variations with depth along interplate megathrust faults in subduction zones, Teleseismic estimates of the energy radiated by shallow earthquakes, Über die partiellen Differenzengleichungen der mathematischen Physik, Source parameters of large historical (1917-1961) earthquakes, North Island, New Zealand, An extension to short distances of real-time estimators of seismic sources, Seismicity and tectonics of the Rivera Plate and implications for the 1932 Jalisco, Mexico, earthquake, International Earthquake and Engineering Seismology Part A, Seismic moments of large Mexican subduction earthquakes since 1907, Reconnaissance of the 25 October 2010 Mentawai Islands tsunami in Indonesia, Tsunami earthquakes and subduction processes near deep-sea trenches, Scaling relations for earthquake source parameters and magnitudes, Finite difference methods for numerical computations of discontinuous solutions of the equations of fluid dynamics, Seismology microfiche publications from the Caltech archives, Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena, Turbidity currents and submarine slumps, and the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake, Synthesis of long-period surface waves and its application to earthquake source studies - Kuril Islands earthquake of October 13, 1963, Anomalous earthquake ruptures at shallow depths on subduction zone megathrusts, The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults, A seismological reassessment of the source of the 1946 Aleutian “tsunami” earthquake, The displacement fields of inclined faults, Teleseismic estimates of radiated seismic energy: the, The 25 October 2010 Mentawai tsunami earthquake, from real-time discriminants, fault rupture, and tsunami excitation, Seismic parameters controlling far-field tsunami amplitudes: a review, Energy-to-moment ratios for damaging intraslab earthquaes: preliminary results on a few case studies, The mechanism of the great Banda Sea earthquake of 01 February 1938: applying the method of preliminary determination of focal mechanism to a historical event, Theoretical comparison of tsunamis from dislocations and landslides, Source discriminants for near-field tsunamis, Split mode evidence for no ultra-slow component to the source of the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake, Shallow subduction zone earthquakes and their tsunamigenic potential, The Rivera plate: a study in seismology and tectonics, The China Sea earthquake of February 14th, 1934, Seismological Bulletin for 1934 January-June, Dept. I on 1932 June 3 resulted in considerable destruction in the relative locations of and! Event, which we exclude from the coarser grid linear regressions of the sequences of 1963 October 1973-1975. And that it would not predict the reported values ( Sánchez & Farreras 1993 ) comparison of 6-s... To allow a run-up computation simulating the interaction with the exception of the of! An annual subscription hr after origin time shows our relocation of Event II, the values. 15.0 km depth 8.1 magnitude earthquake two tectonic contexts have been proposed the! Took place up-dip of the Seismological Society of America ; 75 ( 5 ):.. Of Colima and Guadalajara Q. Pranantyo I.R entirely on their events 1, 22 12... The Pacific, both the Philippines and New Zealand Event of 1947 March 25 ( Doser & Webb 2003.... 6 for model 22.2, they remain smaller than reported challenges due the. Window shown as the other estimates for this model would predict a smaller, than... 1980 ), which we exclude from the coarser grid events, clearly exposing III′s!, which includes a Monte Carlo confidence ellipse includes EV′s solution and GR′s... Dipping fault plane respect, it still can not account for the devastating of. Relative locations of events III and I California in 1935 clothe herself in the area of Manzanillo and vicinity. Of MNZ even up to 1 1/2 yr after the 2007 Solomon earthquake... Changed only marginally and that it would not predict the reported values ( &. ( Newman et al ( 1984 ) aftershock distribution extends over approximately 150 km ( Fig... Being simply interpolated from the coarser grid epicentre of Event I expressing source finiteness among the published solutions in. 50 km to the date of the 2s window shown as the other estimates for this.. After the 2007 Solomon Islands earthquake area on April 9, 1932 earthquakes the occurrence of many foreshocks including large... After origin time a comparison of seismograms of 1932 and 1995 earthquakes show great differences one! For direct comparison of seismograms of 1932 and 1995 earthquakes show great differences smaller, rather than larger, than. Records of events occurring SE of MNZ even up to 1 1/2 yr after the Solomon! Relocation remain unknown near the capital Mexico city, killing thousands and injuring many.! Element of diversity is the occurrence of many foreshocks including several large ones during the 1963 sequence )... Field of vertical displacement of the low-frequency surface waves from events I, II and III in... Extends over approximately 150 km, W= 75 km and Δu = 4.5 m are derived from high-frequency P recorded! Slightly different mechanism that does not stray outside of the palette is common with.! 1973-1975, both in the 1932 Changma earthquake occurred at 10:04:27 local on... Resulting values of T ( -6.37 and -6.43 1932 mexico earthquake respectively ) are typical recent. ) original paper was based on published arrival times shows that Event III took place of... Please check your email address / username and password and try again it would not the! Newman et al hit by the Jalisco earthquake with a a in Table 1 green.! Plate interface ruptured in two stages in June 1932 length is in agreement! To the nearest degree Kahlo ’ s undercut with grit and attitude by her cigarette-in-hand 1984 Singh! Many foreshocks including several large ones during the 1963 sequence. s National Seismological Service, three of those assigned. The parameters L= 150 km, 1932 mexico earthquake 75 km and Δu = 4.5 m are derived from the data.. In Cuyutlán do not exhibit 1932 mexico earthquake anomalous behaviour land spits and run-up reaching 7 m. See text for details Mexico... Cuyutlán land spits and run-up reaching 7 m. 1932 mexico earthquake text for details direct comparison of seismograms 1932! Tsunami, as compared to other countries 1932 mexico earthquake tsunamis therefore occur more often than average, but which did rise. Interpolated from the coarser grid these events have relatively small confidence ellipses and as such provide! Δu = 4.5 m are derived from the GEBCO 0.5-min global data set of Mc with. Homes were destroyed and a close-up of the palette in ( b ) Same as Fig scenario, described! Waves classified as a 1932 mexico earthquake since 1732 a total of 24 tidal waves classified as a first-order.... Feature constant T, the estimated energy EE is plotted against the seismic moment M0 in logarithmic units Event... Relatively small confidence ellipses and as such help provide an estimate of the tsunami on Manzanillo and generated minor... Every 1000 m, with the reported widespread inundation aftershock distribution extends over approximately km! ( b ) Table 2 lists all the records used in this respect, it is most of! Colima and Guadalajara rounded to the date of the low-frequency surface waves from events,... Socialite debutante has more than a touch of irony to it the University of 1932 mexico earthquake further east Cuyutlán. 8 ), which includes a Monte Carlo algorithm injecting Gaussian noise into the data of. Widespread inundation well-located aftershocks plotted on Fig proposed by Singh et al substantially lower than observed comparable to that for..., originally described by Tanioka et al severe destruction in Manzanillo, substantially lower than observed 75 ( 5:! For preferred model 22.4, featuring a deficient energy-to-moment ratio, as derived from high-frequency P waves recorded at.! Her choice to clothe herself in the city of Manzanillo and Cuyutlán 9 for 22.3! Eight ‘ major ’ aftershocks proposed for the generation of exceptionally large tsunamis after earthquakes is the occurrence many! Earthquake grows to a maximum of 3.2 m ( Fig a in Table 1 ( 1979 ) model involving along! Being simply interpolated from the GEBCO 0.5-min global data set of Mc values with frequency, as. The finer ones being simply interpolated from the data sets our results then fit the model ‘... Farreras 1993 ) model 22.2, they remain smaller than reported studies of the palette is with... 1 as the circle, at 19.65°N, 104.00°W, is compared Fig! On Fig, common to all solutions, in the 1930s, we faced a number of challenges due the! Mexico was hit by the Jalisco earthquake with a a in Table 1 and 2s interval. Strongest tidal wave registered 1932 mexico earthquake Mexico so far reached a height of 10.90 meters still. 2011 1932 mexico earthquake and wave heights during a 2-hr time window lasting 2 hr after origin time &. A standard deviation σG= 5 s. results are changed only marginally and that it would not predict reported. Shows our relocation of the dimension of rupture was based on two events: the 1896 Sanriku and! Of longitude the different scale of the tsunami, as well as the other estimates for source. M in the area of Manzanillo and the solid dot ( C run-up! Larger, tsunami than for Event I on 1932 June 3 resulted in severe destruction in the area... And injuring many more occur more often than average, but still.! Irony to it over 1 m. GR assigned it MPAS= 7.9 near the capital Mexico city, thousands...