USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70015740

Source inversion of the 1988 Upland, California, earthquake: Determination of a fault plane for a small event

Abstract

We examined short-period P waves to investigate if waveform data could be used to determine which of two nodal planes was the actual fault plane for a small (ML 4.6) earthquake near Upland, California. We removed path and site complications by choosing a small aftershock (ML 2.7) as an empirical Green function. The main shock P waves were deconvolved by using the empirical Green function to produce simple far-field displacement pulses. We used a least-squares method to invert these pulses for the slip distribution on a finite fault. Both nodal planes (strike 125°, dip 85° and strike 221°, dip 40°) of the first-motion focal mechanism were tested at various rupture velocities. The southwest trending fault plane consistently gave better fitting solutions than the southeast-trending plane. We determined a moment of 4.2 × 1022 dyne-cm. The rupture velocity, and thus the source area could not be well resolved, but if we assume a reasonable rupture velocity of 0.87 times the shear wave velocity, we obtain a source area of 0.97 km2 and a stress drop of 38 bars. Choice of a southwest-trending fault plane is consistent with the trend of the nearby portion of the Transverse Ranges frontal fault zone and indicates left-lateral motion. This method provides a way to determine the fault plane for small earthquakes that have no surface rupture and no obvious trend in aftershock locations.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 34.01973318949351° to 34.20109870938646° latitude; -117.78470180187463° to -117.53268938642012° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. Mori, S. Hartzell. 1990-06-01. Source inversion of the 1988 Upland, California, earthquake: Determination of a fault plane for a small event. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0800030507

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↗