Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70024616

Subsurface geometry and evolution of the Seattle fault zone and the Seattle Basin, Washington

Abstract

The Seattle fault, a large, seismically active, east-west-striking fault zone under Seattle, is the best-studied fault within the tectonically active Puget Lowland in western Washington, yet its subsurface geometry and evolution are not well constrained. We combine several analysis and modeling approaches to study the fault geometry and evolution, including depth-converted, deep-seismic-reflection images, P-wave-velocity field, gravity data, elastic modeling of shoreline uplift from a late Holocene earthquake, and kinematic fault restoration. We propose that the Seattle thrust or reverse fault is accompanied by a shallow, antithetic reverse fault that emerges south of the main fault. The wedge enclosed by the two faults is subject to an enhanced uplift, as indicated by the boxcar shape of the shoreline uplift from the last major earthquake on the fault zone. The Seattle Basin is interpreted as a flexural basin at the footwall of the Seattle fault zone. Basin stratigraphy and the regional tectonic history lead us to suggest that the Seattle fault zone initiated as a reverse fault during the middle Miocene, concurrently with changes in the regional stress field, to absorb some of the north-south shortening of the Cascadia forearc. Kingston Arch, 30 km north of the Seattle fault zone, is interpreted as a more recent disruption arising within the basin, probably due to the development of a blind reverse fault.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 46.89398546092549° to 48.55297816440071° latitude; -122.8216552734375° to -122.1185302734375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Uri S. ten Brink, P.C. Molzer, M. A. Fisher, R.J. Blakely, R.C. Bucknam, T. Parsons, R. S. Crosson, K. C. Creager. 2002. Subsurface geometry and evolution of the Seattle fault zone and the Seattle Basin, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010229

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↗