Spatial Separation of Large Earthquakes, Aftershocks, and Background Seismicity: Analysis of Interseismic and Coseismic Seismicity Patterns in Southern California

  • Egill Hauksson
Chapter
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Part of the Pageoph Topical Volumes book series (PTV)

Abstract

We associate waveform-relocated background seismicity and aftershocks with the 3-D shapes of late Quaternary fault zones in southern California. Major earthquakes that can slip more than several meters, aftershocks, and near-fault background seismicity mostly rupture different surfaces within these fault zones. Major earthquakes rupture along the mapped traces of the late Quaternary faults, called the principal slip zones (PSZs). Aftershocks occur either on or in the immediate vicinity of the PSZs, typically within zones that are ±2-km wide. In contrast, the near-fault background seismicity is mostly accommodated on a secondary heterogeneous network of small slip surfaces, and forms spatially decaying distributions extending out to distances of ±10 km from the PSZs. We call the regions where the enhanced rate of background seismicity occurs, the seismic damage zones. One possible explanation for the presence of the seismic damage zones and associated seismicity is that the damage develops as faults accommodate bends and geometrical irregularities in the PSZs. The seismic damage zones mature and reach their finite width early in the history of a fault, during the first few kilometers of cumulative offset. Alternatively, the similarity in width of seismic damage zones suggests that most fault zones are of almost equal strength, although the amount of cumulative offset varies widely. It may also depend on the strength of the fault zone, the time since the last major earthquake as well as other parameters. In addition, the seismic productivity appears to be influenced by the crustal structure and heat flow, with more extensive fault networks in regions of thin crust and high heat flow.

Key words

Seismicity California faults aftershocks interseismic seismicity fault damage zones San Andreas fault system evolution of fault zones earthquake interaction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ando, R. and Yamashita, T. (2007), Effects of mesoscopic-scale fault structure on dynamic earthquake ruptures: Dynamic formation of geometrical complexity of earthquake faults, J. Geophys. Res. 112, B09303, doi:10.1029/2006JB004612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Zion, Y. and Lyakhovsky, V. (2006), Analysis of aftershocks in a lithospheric model with seismogenic zone governed by damage rheology, Geophys. J. Int. 165, 197–210 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02878.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambon, G., Schmittbuhl, J., Corfdir, A., Orellana, N., Diraison, M. and Géraud, Y. (2006), The thickness of faults: From laboratory experiments to field-scale observations, Tectonophysics 426, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Felzer, K.R. and Brodsky, E.E. (2006), Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress, Nature 441, 735–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frankel, A.D. et al. (2002), Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, Tech. Rep. Open-File Report 02-420, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  6. Hardebeck, J.L. and Michael, A. (2006), Spatial and temporal stress inversion, J. Geophys. Res 111, B11310, doi: 10.1029/2005JB004144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Helmstetter, A., Ouillon, G. and Sornette, D. (2003), Are aftershocks of large California earthquakes diffusing?, J. Geophys. Res. 108, doi:10:1029/2003JB002503.Google Scholar
  8. Jennings, C.W. (1994), Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000.Google Scholar
  9. Lin, G., Shearer, P.M. and Hauksson, E. (2007), Applying a three-dimensional velocity model, waveform cross correlation, and cluster analysis to locate southern California seismicity from 1981 to 2005, J. Geophys. Res. 112, B12309, doi:10.1029/2007 JB004986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu, J., Sieh, K. and Hauksson, E. (2003), A structural interpretation of the aftershock “cloud” of the 1992 M w 7.3 Landers Earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93,3, 1333–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marsan, D. (2006), Can coseismic stress variability suppress seismicity shadows? Insights from a rate-and-state friction model, J. Geophys. Res. 111, B06305, doi:10.1029/2005 JB004060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nazareth, J.J. and Hauksson, E. (2004), The seismogenic thickness of the southern California crust, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 940–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Plesch, A., Shaw, J.H., Benson, C., Bryant, W.A., Carena, S., Cooke, M., Dolan, J., Fuis, G., Gath, E., Grant, L., Hauksson, E., Jordan, T., Kamerling, M., Legg, M., Lindvall, S., Magistrale, H., Nicholson, C., Niemi, N., Oskin, M., Perry, S., Planansky, G., Rockwell, T., Shearer, P., Sorlien, C., Süss, M.P., Suppe, J., Treiman, J., and Yeats, R. (2007), Community fault model (CFM) for southern California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Dec., 97, 1793–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Press, H.W., Teukolsky. S.A., Vetterling, W.T. and Flannery, B.P., Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Edition, Vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY (1997)) 1447 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Provost, A.-S. and Houston, H. (2001), Orientation of the stress field surrounding the creeping section of the San Andreas Fault: Evidence for a narrow mechanically weak fault zone, J. Geophys. Res., 106,B6, 11,373–11,386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sagy, A., Brodsky, E.E. and Axen, G.J. (2007), Evolution of fault-surface roughness with slip, Geol. 35, 283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sieh, K., Jones, L.M., Hauksson, E., Hudnut, K., Eberhart-Phillips, D., Heaton, T.H., Hough, S., Hutton, K., Kanamori, H., Lilje, A., Lindvall, S., McGill, S.F., Mori, J., Rubin, C., Spotilla, J.A., Stock, J., Thio, H.K., Treiman, J., Wernicke, B. and Zachariasen, J. (1993), Near-field investigations of the Landers earthquake sequence April–July 1992, Science 260, 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shaw, B.E. (2004), Variation of large elastodynamic earthquakes on complex fault systems, G. Res. Lett., 31, L18609, doi:10.1029/ 2004GL019943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaw, B.E. (2006), Initiation propagation and termination of elastodynamic ruptures associated with segmentation of faults and shaking hazard, J. Geophys. Res. 111, B08302, doi:10.1029/ 2005JB004093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sibson, R.H. (2003), Thickness of the seismic slip zone, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 93,3. 1169–1178; doi:10.1785/0120020061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spotila, J., Niemi, A., Brady, R., House, M., Buscher, J. and Oskin, M. (2007), Long-term continental deformation associated with transpressive plate motion: The San Andreas fault, Geology 35,11, 967–970; doi:10.1130/G23816A.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Utsu, T., Statistical Features of Seismicity, Int’l. Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology V. 81B: Centennial publication of the Intl’. Assn. of Seism. and Physics of the Earth’s Interior (P. Jennings, H. Kanamori, and W. Lee, eds), pp. 719–732 (2003).Google Scholar
  23. Wesnousky, S.G. (1990), Seismicity as a function of cumulative geologic offset: Some observations from southern California, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 80, 1374–1381.Google Scholar
  24. Wessel, P. and Smith, W.H.F. (1998), New version of the generic mapping tools released, EOS 79, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wesson, R.L., Bakun, W.H. and Perkins, D.M. (2003), Association of earthquakes and faults in the San Francisco Bay Area using Bayesian inference, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1306–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiemer, S. (2001), A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP, Seis. Res. Lett., 373–382.Google Scholar
  27. Woessner, J. and Hauksson, E. (2006), Associating Southern California seismicity with Late Quaternary Faults: Implications for Seismicity Parameters (abstract), Southern California Earthquake Center Annual Meeting, Palm Springs, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Wood, H.O. (1916), The earthquake problem in the Western United States, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. VI, 196–217.Google Scholar
  29. Zaliapin, I., Gabrielov, A., Keilis-Borok, V. and Wong, H. (2007), Aftershock identification, arXiv:0712.1303v1 [physics.geo-ph].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser / Springer Basel AG 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Egill Hauksson
    • 1
  1. 1.Seismological Laboratory, Division of Geological and Planetary SciencesCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations