The Earthquake Research Committee (ERC) of the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion conducted a probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment due to large earthquakes along the Nankai Trough for the next 30 years. Utilizing the basic data of earthquake source models and calculated maximum tsunami heights, the authors propose a method to evaluate the hazard curves of the first and second earthquakes separately, considering the sequence of earthquake occurrence in one cycle of large earthquake activities along the Nankai Trough. First, based on the relative weights allocated to the 176 occurrence patterns of 79 earthquake source regions, the weights for the 2,720 characterized earthquake fault models (CEFMs) are calculated. The hazard curve of the first earthquake is evaluated using the 2,720 sets of maximum tsunami heights and weights under the condition that one of the CEFMs causes an earthquake. Next, the conditional hazard curves for the possible second earthquakes conditional on each individual first earthquake are calculated. Finally, the hazard curve for the second earthquake is evaluated as a weighted average of the conditional hazard curves. Numerical examples are shown for 15 sites. The first earthquake accounts for about 60% or more of the total hazard evaluated by ERC, and its contribution increases with increasing maximum tsunami height. The first and second earthquakes account for 80%–90% of the total hazard.

1. [1] Earthquake Research Committee, The Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion, “Long-Term Evaluation of Nankai Trough Seismic Activity (2nd Edition),” 2013 (in Japanese).
2. [2] Earthquake Research Committee, The Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion, “Tsunami Prediction Method for Earthquakes with Characterized Source Faults (Tsunami Recipe),” 2017 (in Japanese).
3. [3] Earthquake Research Committee, The Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion, “Probabilistic Hazard Assessment of Tsunami due to Large Earthquakes Along the Nankai Trough,” 2020 (in Japanese), English version of outline translated in July 2023.
4. [4] H. Fujiwara et al., “Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment for earthquakes occurring along the Nankai Trough – Volume 1 Part I –,” Technical Note of the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, No.439, 2020 (in Japanese).
5. [5] National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED), “J-THIS Japan Tsunami Hazard Information Station,” 2020. https://doi.org/10.17598/nied.0016
6. [6] Y. Dohi, H. Nakamura, and H. Fujiwara, “Development of the Japan Tsunami Hazard Information Station (J-THIS),” J. Disaster Res., Vol.17, No.6, pp. 934-943, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2022.p0934
7. [7] Y. Tsuji, “Nankai earthquake and accompanying tsunami,” Chikyu Monthly / Special, No.24, pp. 35-49, 1999 (in Japanese).
8. [8] M. Hyodo, T. Hori, and Y. Kaneda, “A possible scenario for earlier occurrence of the next Nankai earthquake due to triggering by an earthquake at Hyuga-Nada, off southwest Japan,” Earth, Planets and Space, Vol.68, No.6, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0384-6
9. [9] T. Hori, “Earthquake and tsunami scenarios as basic information to prepare next Nankai megathrust earthquakes,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, No.4, pp. 775-781, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2017.p0775
10. [10] F. Hirose, K. Maeda, K. Fujita, and A. Kobayashi, “Simulation of great earthquakes along the Nankai Trough: Reproduction of event history, slip areas of the Showa Tonankai and Nankai earthquakes, heterogeneous slip-deficit rates, and long-term slow slip events,” Earth, Planets and Space, Vol.74, 131, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-022-01689-0
11. [11] H. Park, D. T. Cox, M. S. Alam, and A. R. Barbosa, “Probabilistic seismic and tsunami hazard analysis conditioned on a megathrust rupture of the Cascadia subduction zone,” Frontiers in Built Environment, Vol.3, 32, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2017.00032
12. [12] K. Goda and R. D. Risi, “Multi-hazard loss estimation for shaking and tsunami using stochastic rupture sources,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.28, pp. 539-554, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.002
13. [13] T. Baba et al., “Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment based on the Gutenberg–Richter law in eastern Shikoku, Nankai subduction zone, Japan,” Earth, Planets and Space, Vol.74, 156, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-022-01715-1
14. [14] N. Maki et al., “How can we communicate with people about variety of hazard simulation outputs?: Shaking and tsunami of Nankai Trough earthquake,” 17th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (17WCEE), 7f-0005, 2020.
15. [15] Y. Kawata, “Policies of disaster management in Japan for preparation for Nankai megathrust earthquake,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.17, No.2, pp. 164-182, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2022.p0164
16. [16] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “Guidelines for the examination of disaster prevention measures in preparation for various types of Nankai Trough earthquakes (1st Edition, partially revised),” 2021 (in Japanese).
17. [17] R. Ohtani et al., “Workshop for identifying issues due to the dissemination of the Nankai Trough earthquake information by news media,” J. of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vol.22, No.2, pp. 2_88-2_108, 2022 (in Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.5610/jaee.22.2_88
18. [18] K. Terumoto et al., “Problem structures due to the time lag between Tokai, Tonankai, and Nankai earthquake,” J. of Social Safety Science, No.9, pp. 137-146, 2007 (in Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.11314/jisss.9.137
19. [19] N. Maki, H.-L. Chen, and S. Suzuki, “Response to possible earthquake disasters in the Tokai, Tonankai, and Nankai areas, and their restoration/reconstruction strategies,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.4, No.2, pp. 142-150, 2009. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2009.p0142
20. [20] S. Hashitomi and Y. Kawata, “On damage oil refining capacity and lack of fuel production at the time difference between wide Tokai and Nankai earthquakes,” Disaster Information, No.16-1, pp. 61-72, 2018 (in Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.24709/jasdis.16.1_61
21. [21] H. Nakamura, Y. Tokizane, H. Fujiwara, and Y. Komaru, “Risk estimation considering the diversity of Nankai Trough large earthquakes – Examples of partial-area-rupture case –,” Proc. of the JAEE Annual Meeting 2022, TS_20220092, 2022 (in Japanese).
22. [22] E. L. Geist and T. Parsons, “Probabilistic analysis of tsunami hazards,” Natural Hazards, Vol.37, No.3, pp. 277-314, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-4646-z
23. [23] K. Satake, “Advances in earthquake and tsunami sciences and disaster risk reduction since the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,” Geoscience Letters, Vol.1, 15, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-014-0015-7
24. [24] T. Annaka, K. Satake, T. Sakakiyama, K. Yanagisawa, and N. Shuto, “Logic-tree approach for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis and its applications to the Japanese coasts,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, Vol.164, No.2, pp. 577-592, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-006-0174-3
25. [25] H. Park and D. T. Cox, “Probabilistic assessment of near-field tsunami hazards: Inundation depth, velocity, momentum flux, arrival time, and duration applied to Seaside, Oregon,” Coastal Engineering, Vol.117, pp. 79-96, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2016.07.011
26. [26] E. L. Geist, “Complex earthquake rupture and local tsunamis,” J. of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol.107, No.B5, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JB000139
27. [27] M. Nakano et al., “Self-similar stochastic slip distributions on a non-planar fault for tsunami scenarios for megathrust earthquakes,” Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, Vol.7, 45, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-020-00360-0
28. [28] R. D. Risi and K. Goda, “Probabilistic earthquake–tsunami multi-hazard analysis: Application to the Tohoku region, Japan,” Frontiers in Built Environment, Vol.2, 25, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2016.00025
29. [29] I. Sato, Y. Fukutani, and R. Miyamoto, “Probabilistic tsunami risk evaluation considering uncertainty of fault slips,” 16th World Conf. on Earthquake (16WCEE), 2896, 2017.
30. [30] H. Sugino, Y. Iwabuchi, and F. Imamaura, “Scenario tsunami source modeling and probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment method,” 16th World Conf. on Earthquake (16WCEE), 1556, 2017.
31. [31] P. Bazzurro and C. A. Cornell, “Disaggregation of seismic hazard,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.89, No.2, pp. 501-520, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0890020501
32. [32] M. J. Fox, P. J. Stafford, and T. J. Sullivan, “Seismic hazard disaggregation in performance-based earthquake engineering: Occurrence or exceedance?,” Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, Vol.45, No.5, pp. 835-842, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2675
33. [33] J. Selva et al., “Quantification of source uncertainties in Seismic Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis (SPTHA),” Geophysical J. Int., Vol.205, No.3, pp. 1780-1803, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw107
34. [34] S. J. Gibbons et al., “Probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis: High performance computing for massive scale inundation simulations,” Frontiers in Earth Science, Vol.8, 591549, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.591549
35. [35] H. Ishibashi et al., “Framework to assess risk and resilience of road networks under both seismic and subsequent tsunami hazards,” 17th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (17WCEE), 7d-0002, 2020.
36. [36] T. Torayashiki and H. Maruya, “Study on risk reduction of electric power supply restriction by reinforcement of interconnection lines between areas for the Nankai Trough earthquake,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.11, No.3, pp. 566-576, 2016. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2016.p0566
37. [37] N. Nojima and H. Kato, “Exposure of population and energy-related base facilities to shaking intensity predicted for Nankai megathrust earthquakes,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, No.1, pp. 106-117, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2017.p0106
38. [38] N. Nojima and H. Kato, “Modification and validation of an assessment model of post-earthquake lifeline serviceability based on the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.2, pp. 108-120, 2014. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2014.p0108
39. [39] H. Park, M. S. Alam, D. T. Cox, A. R. Barbosa, and J. W. van de Lindt, “Probabilistic seismic and tsunami damage analysis (PSTDA) of the Cascadia Subduction Zone applied to Seaside, Oregon,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.35, 101076, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101076
40. [40] Y. Jiao and N. Nojima, “Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment considering the first and second earthquakes along the Nankai Trough,” Proc. of the JAEE Annual Meeting 2022, TS_20220099, 2022 (in Japanese).