Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70186590

The co-seismic slip distribution of the Landers earthquake

Abstract

We derived a model for the co-seismic slip distribution on the faults which ruptured during the Landers earthquake sequence of 28 June 1992. The model is based on the inversion of surface geodetic measurements, primarily vector displacements measured using the Global Positioning System ( GPS ). The inversion procedure assumes that the slip distribution is to some extent smooth and purely right-lateral strike slip. For a given fault geometry, a family of solutions of varying smoothness can be generated. We choose the optimal model from this family based on cross-validation, which measures the predictive power of the data, and the trade-off of misfit and roughness. Solutions which give roughly equal weight to misfit and smoothness are preferred and have certain features in common: (1) there are two main patches of slip, on the Johnson Valley fault, and on the Homestead Valley, Emerson, and Camp Rock faults; (2) virtually all slip is in the upper 10 to 12 km; and (3) the model reproduces the general features of the geologically measured surface displacements, without prior constraints on the surface slip. In all models, regardless of smoothing, very little slip is required on the fault that represents the Big Bear event, and the total moment of the Landers event is 9 · 10 19 N-m. The nearly simultaneous rupture of multiple distinct faults suggests that much of the crust in this region must have been close to failure prior to the earthquake.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 33.55266747577443° to 35.175884043309324° latitude; -117.48148758019548° to -115.32816726769562° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. Freymueller, N.E. King, P. Segall. 1994-06-01. The co-seismic slip distribution of the Landers earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0840030646

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↗