Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70101407

Southern San Andreas Fault evaluation field activity: approaches to measuring small geomorphic offsets--challenges and recommendations for active fault studies

Abstract

In southern California, where fast slip rates and sparse vegetation contribute to crisp expression of faults and microtopography, field and high‐resolution topographic data (<1 m/pixel) increasingly are used to investigate the mark left by large earthquakes on the landscape (e.g., Zielke et al., 2010; Zielke et al., 2012; Salisbury, Rockwell, et al., 2012, Madden et al., 2013). These studies measure offset streams or other geomorphic features along a stretch of a fault, analyze the offset values for concentrations or trends along strike, and infer that the common magnitudes reflect successive surface‐rupturing earthquakes along that fault section. Wallace (1968) introduced the use of such offsets, and the challenges in interpreting their “unique complex history” with offsets on the Carrizo section of the San Andreas fault; these were more fully mapped by Sieh (1978) and followed by similar field studies along other faults (e.g., Lindvall et al., 1989; McGill and Sieh, 1991). Results from such compilations spurred the development of classic fault behavior models, notably the characteristic earthquake and slip‐patch models, and thus constitute an important component of the long‐standing contrast between magnitude–frequency models (Schwartz and Coppersmith, 1984; Sieh, 1996; Hecker et al., 2013). The proliferation of offset datasets has led earthquake geologists to examine the methods and approaches for measuring these offsets, uncertainties associated with measurement of such features, and quality ranking schemes (Arrowsmith and Rockwell, 2012; Salisbury, Arrowsmith, et al., 2012; Gold et al., 2013; Madden et al., 2013). In light of this, the Southern San Andreas Fault Evaluation (SoSAFE) project at the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) organized a combined field activity and workshop (the “Fieldshop”) to measure offsets, compare techniques, and explore differences in interpretation. A thorough analysis of the measurements from the field activity will be provided separately; this paper discusses the complications presented by such offset measurements using two channels from the San Andreas fault as illustrative cases. We conclude with best approaches for future data collection efforts based on input from the Fieldshop.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.53° to 35.77° latitude; -120.76° to -115.21° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Katherine M. Scharer, J. Barrett Salisbury, J. Ramon Arrowsmith, Thomas K. Rockwell. 2014-01-02. Southern San Andreas Fault evaluation field activity: approaches to measuring small geomorphic offsets--challenges and recommendations for active fault studies. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130108

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters

The digital archivist: Automating legacy macroseismic data processing using large language models

Macroseismic data are a key resource to investigate shaking and damage from preinstrumental and early instrumental eras. However, data are often stored as inconsistently formatted reports describing observed shaking and damage, making manually parsing and interpreting accounts labor‐intensive. We introduce a novel workflow using Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro large language model (LLM) to automate the extraction and structuring of macroseismic observations from summary reports. We apply this workflow to the 22 March 1957 M 5.3 Daly City, California, earthquake as a case study. We used Gemini to extract addresses, originally assigned modified Mercalli intensity values, and descriptions from each report. To address coordinate precision limits, addresses were geocoded via Google’s Geocoding application programming interface. This workflow yielded over 2300 geocoded intensity reports for the Daly City earthquake. We use the geocoded accounts, with the original report intensity assignments, to develop a shaking intensity map that in some respects rivals modern Did You Feel It? Maps. We also extract and present data for the 9 February 1971 M L 6.7 Sylmar, California, earthquake. Our results demonstrate the potential of LLMs for reliably extracting and analyzing large, unstructured macroseismic datasets. LLMs offer a scalable solution for rapidly digitizing macroseismic archives, enabling their broader use to constrain ground‐motion models in modern seismic hazard analysis and to improve our understanding of site effects in urban areas. The concepts explored here may also be applied to the handling of other legacy seismological and earth science data.

Seismological Research Letters