Geology topics

Christopher Milliner

Publications and source records attributed to Christopher Milliner.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Fault displacement model for surface principal rupture of strike-slip faults

The probability distribution model for principal displacement accommodated on the surface main trace is a critical input to the fault displacement hazard analysis. This article presents a new model for strike-slip ruptures in the moment magnitude ( M ) range of 6 to 8.3. The new model is the outcome of a multi-year research effort to update the widely used model developed by Petersen and others in 2011. Updates include the adoption of the Fault Displacement Hazard Initiative database and enhancements to rupture and displacement data preparation. Statistical formulation and estimation have also been updated substantially. A three-parameter modified normal distribution that we refer to as the negative Exponentially Modified Gaussian distribution is adopted to model the probability distribution of the natural logarithm of principal displacement. Formulation for the mean parameter of the modified normal includes a random earthquake term, a nonlinear scaling relation with M , and an ellipse function for along-main-trace variation. The aleatory variability of the updated model now depends on M as well as site’s along-main-trace position. These updates not only significantly improve the fit to the distribution of the observed displacements but also yield reasonable 95th percentile predictions for M > 7.5 events. Alternative models representing the estimation uncertainty of the M -scaling relation are also developed. These new models are compared to the previous model in terms of percentile predictions and the calculated hazard curves. The steeper hazard curves from the new models yield a lower exceedance rate than the normal-distribution based model developed previously by Petersen and others.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

Are field observations of surface rupture useful? An example from the 2023 Mw 7.8 Pazarcık, Turkey (Türkiye), earthquake

Field investigations have long been an important component of the scientific response to surface‐faulting earthquakes. However, in light of advances in remote data and models, the question arises whether field‐based observations of surface rupture remain useful for understanding rupture processes and seismic hazards. We approach this question using a field‐based study of the central 2023 M w 7.8 Pazarcık, Turkey (Türkiye), earthquake rupture, at the intersection of the east Anatolian fault (EAF) and Narlı fault. Our field observations include the surface rupture expression and extent of the central EAF and northernmost Narlı fault in generally forested and steep terrain and 68 measurements of left‐lateral surface displacement. These data improve our understanding of the Pazarcık rupture complexity, resolve the surface geometry of the Narlı fault–EAF connection, and exhibit a clear (>2 m) change in surface displacement across this intersection zone that confirms remote‐based coseismic slip models. Our study shows that focusing field efforts in areas of obscured or low‐resolution remote data can yield essential data for refining rupture extent, documenting perishable on‐fault displacement, and improving postearthquake situational awareness. A comparison of similarly large‐magnitude continental surface‐rupturing earthquakes indicates that displacement uncertainties relate to a complex set of factors, including measurement methods, rupture complexity, and displacement magnitude. Our study validates the need for postearthquake field observations, which, when driven by clear motivating questions and knowledge of methodological strengths and limitations, provide high‐resolution rupture data that complement remote‐based models.

Pazarcık↗

USGS2020

Documentation of Surface Fault Rupture and Ground‐Deformation Features Produced by the 4 and 5 July 2019 Mw 6.4 and Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

The M w "> M w Mw 6.4 and M w "> M w Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence occurred on 4 and 5 July 2019 within the eastern California shear zone of southern California. Both events produced extensive surface faulting and ground deformation within Indian Wells Valley and Searles Valley. In the weeks following the earthquakes, more than six dozen scientists from government, academia, and the private sector carefully documented the surface faulting and ground‐deformation features. As of December 2019, we have compiled a total of more than 6000 ground observations; approximately 1500 of these simply note the presence or absence of fault rupture or ground failure, but the remainder include detailed descriptions and other documentation, including tens of thousands of photographs. More than 1100 of these observations also include quantitative field measurements of displacement sense and magnitude. These field observations were supplemented by mapping of fault rupture and ground‐deformation features directly in the field as well as by interpreting the location and extent of surface faulting and ground deformation from optical imagery and geodetic image products. We identified greater than 68 km of fault rupture produced by both earthquakes as well as numerous sites of ground deformation resulting from liquefaction or slope failure. These observations comprise a dataset that is fundamental to understanding the processes that controlled this earthquake sequence and for improving earthquake hazard estimates in the region. This article documents the types of data collected during postearthquake field investigations, the compilation effort, and the digital data products resulting from these efforts.

California↗

USGS2020

Surface displacement distributions for the July 2019 Ridgecrest, California earthquake ruptures

Surface rupture in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence occurred along two orthogonal cross faults and includes dominantly left‐lateral and northeast‐striking rupture in the M w "> M w 6.4 foreshock and dominantly right‐lateral and northwest‐striking rupture in the M w "> M w 7.1 mainshock. We present > 650 "> > 650 field‐based, surface‐displacement observations for these ruptures and synthesize our results into cumulative along‐strike displacement distributions. Using these data, we calculate displacement gradients and compare our results with historical strike‐slip ruptures in the eastern California shear zone. For the M w "> M w 6.4 rupture, we report 96 displacements measured along 18 km of northeast‐striking rupture. Cumulative displacement curves for the rupture yield a mean left‐lateral displacement of 0.3–0.5 m and maximum of 0.7–1.6 m. Net mean vertical displacement based on the difference of down‐to‐the‐west (DTW) and down‐to‐the‐east (DTE) displacement curves is close to zero (0.02 m DTW). The M w "> M w 6.4 displacement distribution shows that the majority of displacement occurred southwest of the intersection with the M w "> M w 7.1 rupture. The M w "> M w 7.1 rupture is northwest‐striking and 50 km long based on 576 field measurements. Displacement curves indicate a mean right‐lateral displacement of 1.2–1.7 m and a maximum of 4.3–7.0 m. Net vertical displacement in the rupture averages 0.3 m DTW. The M w "> M w 7.1 displacement distributions demonstrate that maximum displacement occurred along a 12‐km‐long portion of the fault near the M w "> M w 7.1 epicenter, releasing 66% of the geologically based seismic moment along 24% of the total rupture length. Using our displacement distributions, we calculate kilometer‐scale displacement gradients for the M w "> M w 7.1 rupture. The steepest gradients ( ⁠ ∼ 1 – 3    m / km "> ∼ 1 – 3 m / km ⁠ ) flank the 12‐km‐long region of maximum displacement. In contrast, gradients for the 1992 M w "> M w 7.3 Landers and 1999 M w "> M w 7.1 Hector Mine earthquakes are < 0.6    m / km "> < 0.6 m / km . Our displacement distributions are important for understanding the influence of cross‐fault rupture on M w "> M w 6.4 and 7.1 rupture length and displacement and will facilitate comparisons with distributions generated remotely and at broader scales.

California↗