USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70000290

Structure of the eastern Seattle fault zone, Washington state: New insights from seismic reflection data

Abstract

We identify and characterize the active Seattle fault zone (SFZ) east of Lake Washington with newly acquired seismic reflection data. Our results focus on structures observed in the upper 1 km below the cities of Bellevue, Sammamish, Newcastle, and Fall City, Washington. The SFZ appears as a broad zone of faulting and folding at the southern boundary of the Seattle basin and north edge of the Seattle uplift. We interpret the Seattle fault as a thrust fault that accommodates north-south shortening by forming a fault-propagation fold with a forelimb breakthrough. The blind tip of the main fault forms a synclinal growth fold (deformation front) that extends at least 8 km east of Vasa Park (west side of Lake Sammamish) and defines the south edge of the Seattle basin. South of the deformation front is the forelimb break-through fault, which was exposed in a trench at Vasa Park. The Newcastle Hills anticline, a broad anticline forming the north part of the Seattle uplift east of Lake Washington, is interpreted to lie between the main blind strand of the Seattle fault and a backthrust. Our profiles, on the northern limb of this anticline, consistently image north-dipping strata. A structural model for the SFZ east of Lake Washington is consistent with about 8 km of slip on the upper part of the Seattle fault, but the amount of motion is only loosely constrained.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L.M. Liberty, T. L. Pratt. 2008. Structure of the eastern Seattle fault zone, Washington state: New insights from seismic reflection data. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070145

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗