USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70192474

Subsurface geometry of the San Andreas fault in southern California: Results from the Salton Seismic Imaging Project (SSIP) and strong ground motion expectations

Abstract

The San Andreas fault (SAF) is one of the most studied strike‐slip faults in the world; yet its subsurface geometry is still uncertain in most locations. The Salton Seismic Imaging Project (SSIP) was undertaken to image the structure surrounding the SAF and also its subsurface geometry. We present SSIP studies at two locations in the Coachella Valley of the northern Salton trough. On our line 4, a fault‐crossing profile just north of the Salton Sea, sedimentary basin depth reaches 4 km southwest of the SAF. On our line 6, a fault‐crossing profile at the north end of the Coachella Valley, sedimentary basin depth is &#x223C; 2 &#x2013; 3 &#x2009;&#x2009; km "> ∼ 2 – 3 km and centered on the central, most active trace of the SAF. Subsurface geometry of the SAF and nearby faults along these two lines is determined using a new method of seismic‐reflection imaging, combined with potential‐field studies and earthquakes. Below a 6–9 km depth range, the SAF dips &#x223C; 50 &#xB0; &#x2013; 60 &#xB0; "> ∼ 50 ° – 60 ° NE, and above this depth range it dips more steeply. Nearby faults are also imaged in the upper 10 km, many of which dip steeply and project to mapped surface fault traces. These secondary faults may join the SAF at depths below about 10 km to form a flower‐like structure. In Appendix D , we show that rupture on a northeast‐dipping SAF, using a single plane that approximates the two dips seen in our study, produces shaking that differs from shaking calculated for the Great California ShakeOut, for which the southern SAF was modeled as vertical in most places: shorter‐period ( T &lt; 1 &#x2009;&#x2009; s "> T < 1 s ) shaking is increased locally by up to a factor of 2 on the hanging wall and is decreased locally by up to a factor of 2 on the footwall, compared to shaking calculated for a vertical fault.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.5° to 34.2° latitude; -117° to -115° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gary S. Fuis, Klaus Bauer, Mark R. Goldman, Trond Ryberg, Victoria E. Langenheim, Daniel S. Scheirer, Michael J. Rymer, Joann M. Stock, John A. Hole, Rufus D. Catchings, Robert Graves, Brad T. Aagaard. 2017-07-04. Subsurface geometry of the San Andreas fault in southern California: Results from the Salton Seismic Imaging Project (SSIP) and strong ground motion expectations. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160309

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↗