Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70024232

San Andreas fault zone, California: M≥5.5 earthquake history

Abstract

The San Andreas fault zone has been a very significant source of major California earthquakes. From 1812 to 1906 it generated four major earthquakes of M ∼7 or larger in two pairs on two major portions of the fault. A pair of major earthquakes occurred on the central to southern region, where the 1857 faulting overlapped the 1812 earthquake faulting. A pair of major earthquakes occurred on the northern region, where the 1906 faulting overlapped the 1838 earthquake faulting. Also, earthquakes of M ∼7 occurred in the San Francisco Bay area on the Hayward fault in 1868 and the Santa Cruz Mountains near Loma Prieta in 1989 and on the Imperial fault near the border with Mexico in 1940. The 1838 earthquake's damage effects throughout the Bay area, from San Francisco to Santa Clara Valley and Monterey, were unequalled by any historical earthquake other than the 1906 event. This, and numerous strong possible aftershocks during the following 3 years in the San Juan Bautista vicinity, suggest 1838 faulting from San Francisco to San Juan Bautista. Cycles of seismicity and quiescence were associated with the Bay area earthquakes of 1868, 1906, and 1989. The 1868 earthquake on the Hayward fault was preceded by 12 earthquakes of M ≥5.5 from 1855 to 1866, within 60 km of the Hayward fault, and was followed by 13 quiet years. The 1906 San Andreas fault event was preceded from 1881 to 1903 by 18 earthquakes of M ≥5.5 and was followed by quiescence, with only three earthquakes of M ≥5.5 until 1954. The Bay area has been seismically quiet at the M ≥5.5 level since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and its 1990 aftershocks, which contrasts with the 10 years before 1989, when five M 5.5–6.2 events occurred. The Loma Prieta earthquake is of similar magnitude to the 1868 Hayward event and could be followed by a similarly short quiet period. The 1857 earthquake had immediate foreshocks in the Lonoak–Bitterwater region ∼50 km northwest of Parkfield. In the northern end zone of the 1857 rupture, extending southeast from Bitterwater ∼70 km to Parkfield, the rate of seismic moment release has decreased with time since 1857. This may reflect the decay with time of the stress loading due to the ∼9 m 1857 fault displacements ∼80 km southeast of Parkfield and explain why the predicted earthquake, which was based on the assumption of regular recurrence of Parkfield earthquakes, has not yet occurred. The extent of the 1812 earthquake fault rupture is not well defined. Jacoby et al. ( 1988 ) estimated that it extended ∼170 km from Cajon Pass to Tejon Pass. Based on this estimate, we present the hypothesis that the rupture occurred in two segments in December 1812. The eastern segment generated the 8 December earthquake that damaged San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, San Fernando, and San Buenaventura. Thirteen days later the western segment ruptured generating the earthquake that damaged San Fernando and San Buenaventura again, as well as Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez, and Purisima Concepcion.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.220771049995165° to 39.748229697528274° latitude; -124.0746241178646° to -115.63712411786469° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tousson R. Toppozada, D.M. Branum, M.S. Reichle, C.L. Hallstrom. 2002. San Andreas fault zone, California: M≥5.5 earthquake history. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000614

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Efficient physics‐informed ground‐motion simulations with reduced‐order models: CyberShake implications and high‐resolution site terms for southern San Andreas fault earthquakes

Recent advances in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) leverage physics‐based ground‐motion simulations to estimate seismic hazard, such as the CyberShake project. However, computational costs quickly escalate when performing PSHA for numerous faults or sites and can become prohibitively expensive. To reduce computational demands, CyberShake uses reciprocity and interpolates physics‐informed corrections from simulations conducted at fewer locations, but the accuracy of these interpolations remains poorly quantified. To quantify the interpolation accuracy, we derive high‐resolution, frequency‐dependent site terms for southern California and compare them with interpolated site terms using the CyberShake approach. We accomplish this by performing a set of earthquake point‐source simulations distributed along the nonplanar fault geometry for the southern San Andreas fault (SSAF) extending from Bombay Beach to Lake Hughes. Using SeisSol, we simulate three minutes of viscoelastic seismic wave propagation for these sources and store the horizontal‐component Green’s functions for 480,000 sites. We then use a scientific machine learning approach based on interpolated proper orthogonal decomposition to construct an accurate reduced‐order model of the Green’s functions to efficiently predict effective amplitude spectra (EAS) for finite‐source rupture models of SSAF earthquakes. Using minimum curvature interpolation with tension, as used in CyberShake, we compare the interpolated site terms against our high‐resolution site terms. We identify local discrepancies with EAS differing by up to a factor of approximately three. Furthermore, we identify locations where unexpectedly high or low ground motions are missed when using the interpolated dataset for these earthquakes. We estimate that our approach may be used within CyberShake to reduce the time‐to‐solution by a factor of 336 for the entire earthquake rupture forecast. Our analysis of physics‐based site terms provides more insight into the seismic hazard due to SSAF ruptures and guides future developments by combining high‐performance computing and reduced‐order modeling techniques for PSHA.

California

Simulation-based scenario ShakeMaps for large magnitude (MW6.5+) crustal earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults, Washington, USA

Scenario ground‐motion maps based on empirical ground‐motion models (GMMs) provide a rapid and generally reliable means of estimating the amplitude and distribution of earthquake shaking. However, because GMMs are designed for broad applicability, they often rely on simplified representations of Earth structure, which can limit their accuracy in regions with complex source, path, and site effects. This can substantially impact the accuracy of predicted shaking in areas like western Washington State, where deep, interconnected basin structure exerts a strong influence on seismic‐wave propagation. In this study, we present a new suite of simulation‐based scenario ShakeMaps that characterize ground shaking from large‐magnitude ( ⁠ M W 6.5–7.5) earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults. These maps are developed using results from recent 3D wave propagation simulations ( Stone et al. , 2022 , 2023 , 2025 ) that incorporate realistic rupture geometries, variable slip distributions, and a regional 3D seismic velocity model with shallow soils. Broadband ground motions are estimated by combining the low‐frequency (<1 Hz) deterministic seismograms from these studies with high‐frequency (1–10 Hz) stochastic seismograms. Simulated ground motions are corrected to account for the enforced minimum shear‐wave velocity and nonlinear site response. The resulting ShakeMaps represent median ground‐shaking estimates derived from multiple rupture scenarios with varying slip distributions and hypocenter locations for each fault. To extend ShakeMap coverage beyond the simulation domain (i.e., into eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia), we scale GMM‐based ground‐motion estimates using amplification patterns observed in the simulations. These new ShakeMaps reveal the substantial influence of deep basin structure on shaking intensity, underscoring the importance of considering crustal structure complexity in regional hazard assessments for the Pacific Northwest.

Washington

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States