USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

M.S. Reichle

Publications and source records attributed to M.S. Reichle.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake

Obtaining high-quality measurements close to a large earthquake is not easy: one has to be in the right place at the right time with the right instruments. Such a convergence happened, for the first time, when the 28 September 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake occurred on the San Andreas fault in the middle of a dense network of instruments designed to record it. The resulting data reveal aspects of the earthquake process never before seen. Here we show what these data, when combined with data from earlier Parkfield earthquakes, tell us about earthquake physics and earthquake prediction. The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, with its lack of obvious precursors, demonstrates that reliable short-term earthquake prediction still is not achievable. To reduce the societal impact of earthquakes now, we should focus on developing the next generation of models that can provide better predictions of the strength and location of damaging ground shaking.

California

San Andreas fault zone, California: M≥5.5 earthquake history

The San Andreas fault zone has been a very significant source of major California earthquakes. From 1812 to 1906 it generated four major earthquakes of M ∼7 or larger in two pairs on two major portions of the fault. A pair of major earthquakes occurred on the central to southern region, where the 1857 faulting overlapped the 1812 earthquake faulting. A pair of major earthquakes occurred on the northern region, where the 1906 faulting overlapped the 1838 earthquake faulting. Also, earthquakes of M ∼7 occurred in the San Francisco Bay area on the Hayward fault in 1868 and the Santa Cruz Mountains near Loma Prieta in 1989 and on the Imperial fault near the border with Mexico in 1940. The 1838 earthquake's damage effects throughout the Bay area, from San Francisco to Santa Clara Valley and Monterey, were unequalled by any historical earthquake other than the 1906 event. This, and numerous strong possible aftershocks during the following 3 years in the San Juan Bautista vicinity, suggest 1838 faulting from San Francisco to San Juan Bautista. Cycles of seismicity and quiescence were associated with the Bay area earthquakes of 1868, 1906, and 1989. The 1868 earthquake on the Hayward fault was preceded by 12 earthquakes of M ≥5.5 from 1855 to 1866, within 60 km of the Hayward fault, and was followed by 13 quiet years. The 1906 San Andreas fault event was preceded from 1881 to 1903 by 18 earthquakes of M ≥5.5 and was followed by quiescence, with only three earthquakes of M ≥5.5 until 1954. The Bay area has been seismically quiet at the M ≥5.5 level since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and its 1990 aftershocks, which contrasts with the 10 years before 1989, when five M 5.5–6.2 events occurred. The Loma Prieta earthquake is of similar magnitude to the 1868 Hayward event and could be followed by a similarly short quiet period. The 1857 earthquake had immediate foreshocks in the Lonoak–Bitterwater region ∼50 km northwest of Parkfield. In the northern end zone of the 1857 rupture, extending southeast from Bitterwater ∼70 km to Parkfield, the rate of seismic moment release has decreased with time since 1857. This may reflect the decay with time of the stress loading due to the ∼9 m 1857 fault displacements ∼80 km southeast of Parkfield and explain why the predicted earthquake, which was based on the assumption of regular recurrence of Parkfield earthquakes, has not yet occurred. The extent of the 1812 earthquake fault rupture is not well defined. Jacoby et al. ( 1988 ) estimated that it extended ∼170 km from Cajon Pass to Tejon Pass. Based on this estimate, we present the hypothesis that the rupture occurred in two segments in December 1812. The eastern segment generated the 8 December earthquake that damaged San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, San Fernando, and San Buenaventura. Thirteen days later the western segment ruptured generating the earthquake that damaged San Fernando and San Buenaventura again, as well as Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez, and Purisima Concepcion.

California

Active Fault Near-Source Zones Within and Bordering the State of California for the 1997 Uniform Building Code

The fault sources in the Project 97 probabilistic seismic hazard maps for the state of California were used to construct maps for defining near-source seismic coefficients, N a and N v , incorporated in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (ICBO 1997). The near-source factors are based on the distance from a known active fault that is classified as either Type A or Type B. To determine the near-source factor, four pieces of geologic information are required: (1) recognizing a fault and determining whether or not the fault has been active during the Holocene, (2) identifying the location of the fault at or beneath the ground surface, (3) estimating the slip rate of the fault, and (4) estimating the maximum earthquake magnitude for each fault segment. This paper describes the information used to produce the fault classifications and distances.

California

Discrepancy between earthquake rates implied by historic earthquakes and a consensus geologic source model for California

We examine the difference between expected earthquake rates inferred from the historical earthquake catalog and the geologic data that was used to develop the consensus seismic source characterization for the state of California [California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Petersen et al., 1996; Frankel et al., 1996]. On average the historic earthquake catalog and the seismic source model both indicate about one M 6 or greater earthquake per year in the state of California. However, the overall earthquake rates of earthquakes with magnitudes (M) between 6 and 7 in this seismic source model are higher, by at least a factor of 2, than the mean historic earthquake rates for both southern and northern California. The earthquake rate discrepancy results from a seismic source model that includes earthquakes with characteristic (maximum) magnitudes that are primarily between M 6.4 and 7.1. Many of these faults are interpreted to accommodate high strain rates from geologic and geodetic data but have not ruptured in large earthquakes during historic time. Our sensitivity study indicates that the rate differences between magnitudes 6 and 7 can be reduced by adjusting the magnitude-frequency distribution of the source model to reflect more characteristic behavior, by decreasing the moment rate available for seismogenic slip along faults, by increasing the maximum magnitude of the earthquake on a fault, or by decreasing the maximum magnitude of the background seismicity. However, no single parameter can be adjusted, consistent with scientific consensus, to eliminate the earthquake rate discrepancy. Applying a combination of these parametric adjustments yields an alternative earthquake source model that is more compatible with the historic data. The 475-year return period hazard for peak ground and 1-sec spectral acceleration resulting from this alternative source model differs from the hazard resulting from the standard CDMG-USGS model by less than 10% across most of California but is higher (generally about 10% to 30%) within 20 km from some faults.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America