Geology topics

Jeanne L. Hardebeck

Publications and source records attributed to Jeanne L. Hardebeck.

60 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

USGS2010

Precise tremor source locations and amplitude variations along the lower-crustal central San Andreas Fault

We precisely locate 88 tremor families along the central San Andreas Fault using a 3D velocity model and numerous P and S wave arrival times estimated from seismogram stacks of up to 400 events per tremor family. Maximum tremor amplitudes vary along the fault by at least a factor of 7, with by far the strongest sources along a 25 km section of the fault southeast of Parkfield. We also identify many weaker tremor families, which have largely escaped prior detection. Together, these sources extend 150 km along the fault, beneath creeping, transitional, and locked sections of the upper crustal fault. Depths are mostly between 18 and 28 km, in the lower crust. Epicenters are concentrated within 3 km of the surface trace, implying a nearly vertical fault. A prominent gap in detectible activity is located directly beneath the region of maximum slip in the 2004 magnitude 6.0 Parkfield earthquake.

California↗

USGS2010

Seismotectonics and fault structure of the California Central Coast

I present and interpret new earthquake relocations and focal mechanisms for the California Central Coast. The relocations improve upon catalog locations by using 3D seismic velocity models to account for lateral variations in structure and by using relative arrival times from waveform cross-correlation and double-difference methods to image seismicity features more sharply. Focal mechanisms are computed using ray tracing in the 3D velocity models. Seismicity alignments on the Hosgri fault confirm that it is vertical down to at least 12 km depth, and the focal mechanisms are consistent with right-lateral strike-slip motion on a vertical fault. A prominent, newly observed feature is an ~25 km long linear trend of seismicity running just offshore and parallel to the coastline in the region of Point Buchon, informally named the Shoreline fault. This seismicity trend is accompanied by a linear magnetic anomaly, and both the seismicity and the magnetic anomaly end where they obliquely meet the Hosgri fault. Focal mechanisms indicate that the Shoreline fault is a vertical strike-slip fault. Several seismicity lineations with vertical strike-slip mechanisms are observed in Estero Bay. Events greater than about 10 km depth in Estero Bay, however, exhibit reverse-faulting mechanisms, perhaps reflecting slip at the top of the remnant subducted slab. Strike-slip mechanisms are observed offshore along the Hosgri–San Simeon fault system and onshore along the West Huasna and Rinconada faults, while reverse mechanisms are generally confined to the region between these two systems. This suggests a model in which the reverse faulting is primarily due to restraining left-transfer of right-lateral slip.

California↗

USGS2008

Complex faulting associated with the 22 December 2003 M w 6.5 San Simeon California, earthquake, aftershocks and postseismic surface deformation

We use data from two seismic networks and satellite interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) imagery to characterize the 22 December 2003 M w 6.5 San Simeon earthquake sequence. Absolute locations for the mainshock and nearly 10,000 aftershocks were determined using a new three-dimensional (3D) seismic velocity model; relative locations were obtained using double difference. The mainshock location found using the 3D velocity model is 35.704° N, 121.096° W at a depth of 9.7±0.7 km. The aftershocks concentrate at the northwest and southeast parts of the aftershock zone, between the mapped traces of the Oceanic and Nacimiento fault zones. The northwest end of the mainshock rupture, as defined by the aftershocks, projects from the mainshock hypocenter to the surface a few kilometers west of the mapped trace of the Oceanic fault, near the Santa Lucia Range front and the >5 mm postseismic InSAR imagery contour. The Oceanic fault in this area, as mapped by Hall (1991) , is therefore probably a second-order synthetic thrust or reverse fault that splays upward from the main seismogenic fault at depth. The southeast end of the rupture projects closer to the mapped Oceanic fault trace, suggesting much of the slip was along this fault, or at a minimum is accommodating much of the postseismic deformation. InSAR imagery shows ∼72 mm of postseismic uplift in the vicinity of maximum coseismic slip in the central section of the rupture, and ∼48 and ∼45 mm at the northwest and southeast end of the aftershock zone, respectively. From these observations, we model a ∼30-km-long northwest-trending northeast-dipping mainshock rupture surface—called the mainthrust—which is likely the Oceanic fault at depth, a ∼10-km-long southwest-dipping backthrust parallel to the mainthrust near the hypocenter, several smaller southwest-dipping structures in the southeast, and perhaps additional northeast-dipping or subvertical structures southeast of the mainshock plane. Discontinuous backthrust features opposite the mainthrust in the southeast part of the aftershock zone may offset the relic Nacimiento fault zone at depth. The InSAR data image surface deformation associated with both aseismic slip and aftershock production on the mainthrust and the backthrusts at the northwest and southeast ends of the aftershock zone. The well-defined mainthrust at the latitude of the epicenter and antithetic backthrust illuminated by the aftershock zone indicate uplift of the Santa Lucia Range as a popup block; aftershocks in the southeast part of the zone also indicate a popup block, but it is less well defined. The absence of backthrust features in the central part of the zone suggests range-front uplift by fault-propagation folding, or backthrusts in the central part were not activated during the mainshock.

California↗

USGS2005

Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake

Obtaining high-quality measurements close to a large earthquake is not easy: one has to be in the right place at the right time with the right instruments. Such a convergence happened, for the first time, when the 28 September 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake occurred on the San Andreas fault in the middle of a dense network of instruments designed to record it. The resulting data reveal aspects of the earthquake process never before seen. Here we show what these data, when combined with data from earlier Parkfield earthquakes, tell us about earthquake physics and earthquake prediction. The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, with its lack of obvious precursors, demonstrates that reliable short-term earthquake prediction still is not achievable. To reduce the societal impact of earthquakes now, we should focus on developing the next generation of models that can provide better predictions of the strength and location of damaging ground shaking.

California↗

USGS2004

Stress orientations at intermediate angles to the San Andreas Fault, California

There are currently two competing models for the frictional strength of the San Andreas Fault in California: the strong-fault model and the weak-fault model. The strong-fault model predicts the maximum horizontal compressive stress axis to be at low angles to the fault, while the relatively weak fault model predicts it to be at high angles. Previous studies have disagreed as to which model is supported by observed stress orientations. We review and compare these studies and present results from several new focal mechanism stress inversions. We find that the observed stress orientations of different studies are generally consistent, implying that the disagreement is one of interpretation. The majority of studies find compressive stress orientations at intermediate angles to the fault, not strictly consistent with either current model. The strong-fault model is acceptable if the San Andreas is assumed to be a nonoptimally orientated fault that fails because optimally oriented, preexisting planes are not present. The relatively weak fault model is not consistent with the stress orientations. We propose two alternative models to better explain the observed intermediate stress orientations: an intermediate-strength San Andreas model and a model in which all major active faults are weak.

California↗

USGS2004

Preliminary report on the 22 December 2003, M 6.5 San Simeon, California earthquake

The M w 6.5 San Simeon earthquake struck the central California coast on 22 December 2003 at 19:15:56 UTC (11:15:56 am local time.) The epicenter was located 11 km northeast of the town of San Simeon, and 39 km west-northwest of Paso Robles ( Figure 1 ), as reported by the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN, the California region of the Advanced National Seismic System [ANSS]). The mainshock nucleated at 35.702°N, 121.108°W and a depth of 7.1 km, and the rupture propagated unilaterally to the southeast. The strong directivity of the rupture resulted in a concentration of damage and aftershock activity to the southeast of the hypocenter. The worst earthquake damage occurred in Paso Robles, where two people died in the collapse of an unreinforced masonry building. The accurate and rapid earthquake information provided in near real-time by CISN/ANSS to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services made it possible to focus emergency response in the source area, although the earthquake was felt from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a reverse fault striking northwest and most likely dipping to the northeast. Although motion along the Pacific-North America plate boundary in California is dominantly strike-slip, there is a small compressional component through central California. Repeated thrust earthquakes such as the San Simeon event accommodate this compression and build the Coast Ranges. Other recent thrust earthquakes in central California include the 1983 Coalinga (M 6.4) and the 1985 Kettleman Hills (M 6.0) earthquakes. Prior earthquakes in the vicinity of the San Simeon event include a M 5-6 earthquake in 1853, a M 5.7 earthquake in 1906, and the M L 6.2 Bryson earthquake of 1952 ( Figure 1 ) ( McLaren and Savage, 2001 .) The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a previously unknown blind thrust fault. No surface rupture associated with the earthquake has been identified. A number of roads, including State Highway 46, buckled due to the earthquake, but this deformation appears mainly to be failure of road fill due to ground shaking and not the result of tectonic surface rupture. Extrapolation of the fault plane to the surface would roughly align with the surface trace of the Oceanic Fault, but this is thought to be a vertical strike-slip fault. Two models for the kinematics of the region have previously been proposed. The first is a fault-propagation fold model developed by Namson and Davis ( 1990 ) for the Santa Lucia mountains ∼30 km to the southeast of the San Simeon sequence. The mainshock geometry is similar to, although more steeply dipping than, the main blind thrust of this model, implying that this model may be applicable to the San Simeon region as well. The second is the model of McLaren and Savage ( 2001 ), in which the region is dominated by strike-slip faulting with shortening on high-angle reverse faults. This model also may be applicable, although the dip of the San Simeon mainshock is shallower than predicted. The San Simeon earthquake was followed by a vigorous aftershock sequence, with 165 events above M 3 reported by CISN within the first week of the mainshock. Although the event triggered many aftershocks, it did not significantly impact the seismicity rates of other nearby faults such as the San Andreas Fault and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone. The only triggered seismicity seems to be a few small events within the mainshock coda at the Geysers geothermal area, north of San Francisco. The San Simeon earthquake did, however, trigger shallow creep on the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield and hydrologic changes in hot springs in Paso Robles.

California↗