Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70189761

The earthquake cycle in the San Francisco Bay region: A.D. 1600–2012

Abstract

Stress changes produced by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake had a profound effect on the seismicity of the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR), dramatically reducing it in the twentieth century. Whether the SFBR is still within or has emerged from this seismic quiescence is an issue of debate with implications for earthquake mechanics and seismic hazards. Historically, the SFBR has not experienced one complete earthquake cycle (i.e., the accumulation of stress, its release primarily as coseismic slip during surface‐faulting earthquakes, its re‐accumulation in the interval following, and its subsequent rerelease). The historical record of earthquake occurrence in the SFBR appears to be complete at about M 5.5 back to 1850 ( Bakun, 1999 ). For large events, the record may be complete back to 1776, which represents about half a cycle. Paleoseismic data provide a more complete view of the most recent pre‐1906 SFBR earthquake cycle, extending it back to about 1600. Using these, we have developed estimates of magnitude and seismic moment for alternative sequences of surface‐faulting paleoearthquakes occurring between 1600 and 1776 on the region’s major faults. From these we calculate seismic moment and moment release rates for different time intervals between 1600 and 2012. These show the variability in moment release and suggest that, in the SFBR regional plate boundary, stress can be released on a single fault in great earthquakes such as that in 1906 and in multiple ruptures distributed on the regional plate boundary fault system on a decadal time scale.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 36.4° to 39° latitude; -123.5° to -120.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David P. Schwartz, James J. Lienkaemper, Suzanne Hecker, Keith I. Kelson, Thomas E. Fumal, John N. Baldwin, Gordon G. Seitz, Tina Niemi. 2014-05-20. The earthquake cycle in the San Francisco Bay region: A.D. 1600–2012. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120322

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↗