USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70236094

Kinematic rupture and 3D wave propagation simulations of the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake

Abstract

We model the kinematic rupture process of the 2019 M w "> M w Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake using numerical simulations to reproduce the elastodynamic wave field observed by inertial seismometers, high‐rate Global Navigation Satellite System stations, and borehole strainmeters. This was the largest earthquake in Southern California in 20 yr and was widely felt throughout the region. The M w "> M w Mw 7.1 mainshock was part of a large sequence of ∼ 30 , 000 "> ∼ 30 , 000 ∼30,000 aftershocks and was notably preceded by an M w "> M w Mw 6.4 foreshock by 34 hr on fault structures that were once poorly understood. A large number of seismic and geodetic instruments measured the rupture process for both events, with many stations located in the near field. Hence, this is a rare opportunity to better understand complex earthquake processes that arise in an immature fault zone using advanced computing. Of the kinematic rupture models that we tested, our preferred is the simplest one that reproduces signals recorded by the three different geophysical datasets; it is composed of four distinct ruptures that progressively migrate to the southeast with delayed initiation times, and typical rupture speeds. This type of model does a better job at matching the recorded ground motions and deformations than does one composed of a continuous rupture with very low‐rupture velocity, as proposed in other studies of this earthquake.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.38904996691167° to 35.79108281624994° latitude; -117.98217773437499° to -117.3614501953125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Evan Tyler Hirakawa, Andrew J. Barbour. 2020-06-16. Kinematic rupture and 3D wave propagation simulations of the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200031

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↗