Search USGS⌕ Search

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

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↗