Geodetic constraints on fault interactions and stressing rates in southern California Jack Loveless Department of Geosciences Smith College jloveless@smith.edu Brendan Meade Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences Harvard University meade@fas.harvard.edu
Imaging fault interactions in Southern California Image interseismic fault system activity using an elastic block model (Meade & Loveless, 2009) constrained by GPS velocities and mapped fault system geometry derived from SCEC Community Fault Model (Plesch et al., 2007) Use slip rate estimates to analytically calculate interseismic stressing rates resolved on the San Andreas fault How do faults interact during the interseismic part of the seismic cycle to modulate stress accumulation rates? How do fault system interactions influence long-term earthquake rupture patterns and seismic hazard assessment?
GPS velocity field 6 combined networks 1822 stations; 6-parameter (rotation + translation) velocity field combination 237.5 240 242.5 Data from: 1. McClusky et al., 2001 2. McCaffrey, 2005 3. Williams et al., 2006 4. Hammond & Thatcher, 2004 5. SCEC Crustal Motion Map 3.0 6. EarthScope PBO velocity field 100 km mm/yr 10 20 30 40 237.5 240 242.5
Interseismic elastic block modeling Velocity N. America block Dist. from fault Block motion described as rotation about Euler poles Block interactions give kinematically consistent fault slip rates vblock vinterseis. vcoseismic Interseismic Coseismic Block Pacific block Meade & Loveless, BSSA, 2009
Geodetically constrained strike-slip rates 237.5 240 242.5 White Wolf: 2 Panamint V.: 3 Carrizo: 31 Garlock: 2 4 Death V.: 3 Goldstone: 7 Mojave: 16 Calico: 1 Lockhart: 6 San Bern.: 10 Elsinore: 4 Indio: 24 100 km San Jacinto: 14 N. Imperial: 33 Left-lateral 30 15 0 15 30 mm/yr Right-lateral S. Imperial: 38 237.5 240 242.5
San Andreas interseismic stressing rate 237.5 240 242.5 Mechanical, analytical stress calculation (Okada, 1992) based on estimated slip rates Calculated at half locking depth Stress tensor resolved into shear and normal components; shear is shown 100 km kpa/yr 1 10 50 237.5 240 242.5
Stress amplification from interseismic fault interactions 240 240 242.5 242.5 A. SAF only B. All faults C. Difference 100 km 100 km 100 km Carrizo WW 240 240 242.5 242.5 Imperial kpa/yr kpa/yr % diff. 50 50 30 10 10 1 Santa Barbara SG G Mojave Los Angeles 1 240 240 San EP Diego SB 242.5 242.5 Self stress Total stress Stress difference Indio 15 0 15 30 SJ NF SJ E Coulomb stress changes are similar in spatial distribution and magnitude
Stress amplification and paleoseismicity 16 Number of events 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WW G NF EP 0 10 20 30 40 (%) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Paleoseismic events from Biasi and Weldon, BSSA, 2009 Distance from Parkfield (km) Interseismic stresses along the Mojave and San Bernardino segment of the SAF induced by slip on all other faults, when integrated over 150 years, exceed co- and post-seismic stress changes from the Landers-Hector Mine earthquake sequence
Modeling GPS data near San Gorgonio Pass 34 243 33 241 242 243 244 243.5 244 34.5 CFM-based geometry tests: CFM-R Loveless and Meade, 2011 Mission Creek North Palm Springs Garnet Hill 34
Modeling GPS data near San Gorgonio Pass 34.5 243 243.5 244 34 CFM-based geometry tests: CFM-R Loveless and Meade, 2011 Mission Creek North Palm Springs Garnet Hill Main results: Euler poles statistically identical Mean. resid. of local GPS: all ~1.8 mm/yr Dextral slip rates statistically identical Reverse slip rates up to 19 mm/yr (Garnet Hill, North Palm Springs models)
Conclusions Along-strike variation in San Andreas fault slip rate (10 34 mm/ yr) results from anastomosing fault system geometry Interseismic stressing rates can be determined analytically using elastic dislocation theory and estimated fault slip rates Interseismic stressing rates are amplified by up to 30% along the Big Bend section of the SAF due to the activity of the nearby San Jacinto, Garlock, Eureka Peak, and ECSZ faults The distribution of stress amplification correlates with inferred frequency of paleoseismically recorded earthquakes, with a maximum along the Mojave and San Bernardino segments The effect of interseismic fault interactions should be considered in stress-based seismic hazard assessment
Future related work at SGP Integrate campaign GPS and other geodetic data to resolve relative activity of SGP fault strands Crustal Motion Map 4.0 provides more stations around SGP than velocity fields used in this study Explore impact of Eureka Peak fault on SGP slip rates Eureka Peak partitions slip from southern San Andreas into Eastern California Shear Zone and San Bernardino regions Including the Eureka Peak fault or similar structure is required for elastic block models to provide a good fit to GPS data