Geology topics

Research about Ridgecrest

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Ridgecrest.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

Localized fault-zone dilatancy and surface inelasticity of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes

Earthquakes produce a spectrum of elastic and inelastic deformation processes that are reflected across various length and time scales. While elasticity has long dominated research assumptions in active tectonics, increasing interest has focused on the inelastic characteristics of earthquakes, particularly those of the surface fault rupture zone itself, and how they relate to ground rupture hazard and the mechanics of damage zones. Here we present detailed co-seismic surface-strain analysis of the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquakes. We derive three-dimensional high-resolution surface displacements from satellite optical imagery, which we then invert for the co-seismic surface-strain tensors. We show that fault-zone dilation is pervasive throughout these earthquakes and that inelastic failure is present but relatively localized (median width of 31 m). The width of the inelastic failure zone is not correlated to off-fault deformation, surface geology or displacement magnitude. Instead, the extent and kinematics of inelastic failure reflect active, mylonitic deformation of the fault damage zone that is influenced by rupture velocity and fault maturity. These results highlight how a single earthquake contributes to the long-term, permanent geologic record of faulting.

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↗

USGS2020

Seismicity rate change at the Coso Geothermal Field following the July 2019 Ridgecrest M7.1 earthquake

Many geothermal and volcanic regions experience remote and regional triggering following large earthquakes. The transient or permanent changes in stresses acting on faults and fractures can lead to changes in seismicity rates following either the passage of teleseismic waves or the permanent change in stresses following regional events. One such region of prevalent triggering is the Coso Geothermal Field (CGF) in eastern California, which is located roughly 30km to the north of the 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest epicenter. Previous regional earthquakes have seemingly caused increases in seismicity rate surrounding the CGF, but also showed an absence of such rate increases in the CGF itself. To test whether seismicity rates in the CGF were dissimilar to the surrounding area following the M7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake, I carry out seismicity rate change calculations using a catalog of seismicity complied using a local seismic network and find that the CGF behaves identical to the surrounding area. Comparisons of seismicity rate changes calculated using a regional network derived catalog and the local network derived catalog show that for a moderate, regional earthquake, the local network catalog reveals a change in seismicity rate while the regionally network catalog shows no significant changes. The differences are likely related to incomplete sampling of seismicity using the regional network due to the existence of a very shallow brittle ductile transition centered on the CGF. The CGF thus is prone to triggering from both teleseismic and regional earthquakes.

California↗