USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70211348

Evidence of previous faulting along the 2019 Ridgecrest, California earthquake ruptures

Abstract

The July 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence in southeastern California was characterized as surprising because only ~35% of the rupture occurred on previously mapped faults. Employing more detailed inspection of pre-event high-resolution topography and imagery in combination with field observations, we document evidence of active faulting in the landscape along the entire fault system. Scarps, deflected drainages, and lineaments and contrasts in topography, vegetation, and ground color demonstrate previous slip on a dense network of orthogonal faults, consistent with patterns of surface rupture observed in 2019. Not all of these newly mapped fault strands ruptured in 2019. Outcrop-scale field observations additionally reveal tufa lineaments and sheared Quaternary deposits. Neotectonic features are commonly short (<2 km), discontinuous, and display en echelon patterns along both the M 6.4 and M 7.1 ruptures. These features are generally more prominent and better preserved outside the late Pleistocene lake basins. Fault expression may also be related to deformation style: scarps and topographic lineaments are more prevalent in areas where substantial vertical motion occurred in 2019. Where strike-slip displacement dominated in 2019, the faults are mainly expressed by less prominent tonal and vegetation features. Both the NE- and NW-trending active fault systems are subparallel to regional bedrock fabrics that were established as early as ~150 Ma, and may be reactivating these older structures. Overall, we estimate that 50-70% (i.e., an additional 15-35%) of the 2019 surface ruptures could have been recognized as active faults with detailed inspection of pre-event data. Similar detailed mapping of potential neotectonic features could help improve seismic hazard analyses in other regions of eastern California and elsewhere that have distributed faulting or incompletely mapped faults. In areas where faults cannot be resolved as single thoroughgoing structures, a zone of potential faulting should be used as a hazard model input.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 34.46127728843705° to 36.59788913307022° latitude; -119.30603027343749° to -116.49902343749999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jessica Thompson Jobe, Belle E. Philibosian, Colin Chupik, Timothy E. Dawson, Scott E.K. Bennett, Ryan D. Gold, Christopher B. DuRoss, Tyler C. Ladinsky, Katherine J. Kendrick, Elizabeth Haddon, Ian Pierce, Brian J. Swanson, Gordon G. Seitz. 2020-07-21. Evidence of previous faulting along the 2019 Ridgecrest, California earthquake ruptures. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200041

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↗