Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70033874

Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults

Abstract

In this paper we present a methodology, data, and regression equations for calculating the fault rupture hazard at sites near steeply dipping, strike-slip faults. We collected and digitized on-fault and off-fault displacement data for 9 global strikeslip earthquakes ranging from moment magnitude M 6.5 to M 7.6 and supplemented these with displacements from 13 global earthquakes compiled byWesnousky (2008), who considers events up to M 7.9. Displacements on the primary fault fall off at the rupture ends and are often measured in meters, while displacements on secondary (offfault) or distributed faults may measure a few centimeters up to more than a meter and decay with distance from the rupture. Probability of earthquake rupture is less than 15% for cells 200 m??200 m and is less than 2% for 25 m??25 m cells at distances greater than 200mfrom the primary-fault rupture. Therefore, the hazard for off-fault ruptures is much lower than the hazard near the fault. Our data indicate that rupture displacements up to 35cm can be triggered on adjacent faults at distances out to 10kmor more from the primary-fault rupture. An example calculation shows that, for an active fault which has repeated large earthquakes every few hundred years, fault rupture hazard analysis should be an important consideration in the design of structures or lifelines that are located near the principal fault, within about 150 m of well-mapped active faults with a simple trace and within 300 m of faults with poorly defined or complex traces.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M.D. Petersen, T. E. Dawson, R. Chen, T. Cao, C.J. Wills, David P. Schwartz, A.D. Frankel. 2011-03-22. Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100035

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↗