USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70024267

Paleoseismic event dating and the conditional probability of large earthquakes on the southern San Andreas fault, California

Abstract

We introduce a quantitative approach to paleoearthquake dating and apply it to paleoseismic data from the Wrightwood and Pallett Creek sites on the southern San Andreas fault. We illustrate how stratigraphic ordering, sedimentological, and historical data can be used quantitatively in the process of estimating earthquake ages. Calibrated radiocarbon age distributions are used directly from layer dating through recurrence intervals and recurrence probability estimation. The method does not eliminate subjective judgements in event dating, but it does provide a means of systematically and objectively approaching the dating process. Date distributions for the most recent 14 events at Wrightwood are based on sample and contextual evidence in Fumal et al. (2002) and site context and slip history in Weldon et al. (2002). Pallett Creek event and dating descriptions are from published sources. For the five most recent events at Wrightwood, our results are consistent with previously published estimates, with generally comparable or narrower uncertainties. For Pallett Creek, our earthquake date estimates generally overlap with previous results but typically have broader uncertainties. Some event date estimates are very sensitive to details of data interpretation. The historical earthquake in 1857 ruptured the ground at both sites but is not constrained by radiocarbon data. Radiocarbon ages, peat accumulation rates, and historical constraints at Pallett Creek for event X yield a date estimate in the earliest 1800s and preclude a date in the late 1600s. This event is almost certainly the historical 1812 earthquake, as previously concluded by Sieh et al. (1989). This earthquake also produced ground deformation at Wrightwood. All events at Pallett Creek, except for event T, about A.D. 1360, and possibly event I, about A.D. 960, have corresponding events at Wrightwood with some overlap in age ranges. Event T falls during a period of low sedimentation at Wrightwood when conditions were not favorable for recording earthquake evidence. Previously proposed correlations of Pallett Creek X with Wrightwood W3 in the 1690s and Pallett Creek event V with W5 around 1480 (Fumal et al., 1993) appear unlikely after our dating reevaluation. Apparent internal inconsistencies among event, layer, and dating relationships around events R and V identify them as candidates for further investigation at the site. Conditional probabilities of earthquake recurrence were estimated using Poisson, lognormal, and empirical models. The presence of 12 or 13 events at Wrightwood during the same interval that 10 events are reported at Pallett Creek is reflected in mean recurrence intervals of 105 and 135 years, respectively. Average Poisson model 30-year conditional probabilities are about 20% at Pallett Creek and 25% at Wrightwood. The lognormal model conditional probabilities are somewhat higher, about 25% for Pallett Creek and 34% for Wrightwood. Lognormal variance ??ln estimates of 0.76 and 0.70, respectively, imply only weak time predictability. Conditional probabilities of 29% and 46%, respectively, were estimated for an empirical distribution derived from the data alone. Conditional probability uncertainties are dominated by the brevity of the event series; dating uncertainty contributes only secondarily. Wrightwood and Pallett Creek event chronologies both suggest variations in recurrence interval with time, hinting that some form of recurrence rate modulation may be at work, but formal testing shows that neither series is more ordered than might be produced by a Poisson process.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 33.55970664841198° to 34.82282272723702° latitude; -117.75146484375° to -115.94970703125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G. P. Biasi, R.J. Weldon, T. E. Fumal, G. G. Seitz. 2002. Paleoseismic event dating and the conditional probability of large earthquakes on the southern San Andreas fault, California. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000605

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Efficient physics‐informed ground‐motion simulations with reduced‐order models: CyberShake implications and high‐resolution site terms for southern San Andreas fault earthquakes

Recent advances in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) leverage physics‐based ground‐motion simulations to estimate seismic hazard, such as the CyberShake project. However, computational costs quickly escalate when performing PSHA for numerous faults or sites and can become prohibitively expensive. To reduce computational demands, CyberShake uses reciprocity and interpolates physics‐informed corrections from simulations conducted at fewer locations, but the accuracy of these interpolations remains poorly quantified. To quantify the interpolation accuracy, we derive high‐resolution, frequency‐dependent site terms for southern California and compare them with interpolated site terms using the CyberShake approach. We accomplish this by performing a set of earthquake point‐source simulations distributed along the nonplanar fault geometry for the southern San Andreas fault (SSAF) extending from Bombay Beach to Lake Hughes. Using SeisSol, we simulate three minutes of viscoelastic seismic wave propagation for these sources and store the horizontal‐component Green’s functions for 480,000 sites. We then use a scientific machine learning approach based on interpolated proper orthogonal decomposition to construct an accurate reduced‐order model of the Green’s functions to efficiently predict effective amplitude spectra (EAS) for finite‐source rupture models of SSAF earthquakes. Using minimum curvature interpolation with tension, as used in CyberShake, we compare the interpolated site terms against our high‐resolution site terms. We identify local discrepancies with EAS differing by up to a factor of approximately three. Furthermore, we identify locations where unexpectedly high or low ground motions are missed when using the interpolated dataset for these earthquakes. We estimate that our approach may be used within CyberShake to reduce the time‐to‐solution by a factor of 336 for the entire earthquake rupture forecast. Our analysis of physics‐based site terms provides more insight into the seismic hazard due to SSAF ruptures and guides future developments by combining high‐performance computing and reduced‐order modeling techniques for PSHA.

California↗

Simulation-based scenario ShakeMaps for large magnitude (MW6.5+) crustal earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults, Washington, USA

Scenario ground‐motion maps based on empirical ground‐motion models (GMMs) provide a rapid and generally reliable means of estimating the amplitude and distribution of earthquake shaking. However, because GMMs are designed for broad applicability, they often rely on simplified representations of Earth structure, which can limit their accuracy in regions with complex source, path, and site effects. This can substantially impact the accuracy of predicted shaking in areas like western Washington State, where deep, interconnected basin structure exerts a strong influence on seismic‐wave propagation. In this study, we present a new suite of simulation‐based scenario ShakeMaps that characterize ground shaking from large‐magnitude ( ⁠ M W 6.5–7.5) earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults. These maps are developed using results from recent 3D wave propagation simulations ( Stone et al. , 2022 , 2023 , 2025 ) that incorporate realistic rupture geometries, variable slip distributions, and a regional 3D seismic velocity model with shallow soils. Broadband ground motions are estimated by combining the low‐frequency (<1 Hz) deterministic seismograms from these studies with high‐frequency (1–10 Hz) stochastic seismograms. Simulated ground motions are corrected to account for the enforced minimum shear‐wave velocity and nonlinear site response. The resulting ShakeMaps represent median ground‐shaking estimates derived from multiple rupture scenarios with varying slip distributions and hypocenter locations for each fault. To extend ShakeMap coverage beyond the simulation domain (i.e., into eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia), we scale GMM‐based ground‐motion estimates using amplification patterns observed in the simulations. These new ShakeMaps reveal the substantial influence of deep basin structure on shaking intensity, underscoring the importance of considering crustal structure complexity in regional hazard assessments for the Pacific Northwest.

Washington↗

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States↗