Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70218749

Documentation of Surface Fault Rupture and Ground‐Deformation Features Produced by the 4 and 5 July 2019 Mw 6.4 and Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

Abstract

The M w "> M w Mw 6.4 and M w "> M w Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence occurred on 4 and 5 July 2019 within the eastern California shear zone of southern California. Both events produced extensive surface faulting and ground deformation within Indian Wells Valley and Searles Valley. In the weeks following the earthquakes, more than six dozen scientists from government, academia, and the private sector carefully documented the surface faulting and ground‐deformation features. As of December 2019, we have compiled a total of more than 6000 ground observations; approximately 1500 of these simply note the presence or absence of fault rupture or ground failure, but the remainder include detailed descriptions and other documentation, including tens of thousands of photographs. More than 1100 of these observations also include quantitative field measurements of displacement sense and magnitude. These field observations were supplemented by mapping of fault rupture and ground‐deformation features directly in the field as well as by interpreting the location and extent of surface faulting and ground deformation from optical imagery and geodetic image products. We identified greater than 68 km of fault rupture produced by both earthquakes as well as numerous sites of ground deformation resulting from liquefaction or slope failure. These observations comprise a dataset that is fundamental to understanding the processes that controlled this earthquake sequence and for improving earthquake hazard estimates in the region. This article documents the types of data collected during postearthquake field investigations, the compilation effort, and the digital data products resulting from these efforts.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.191766965947394° to 36.16448788632064° latitude; -118.125° to -117.04284667968749° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel J. Ponti, James Luke Blair, Rosa Carla M, Kate Thomas, Alexandra Pickering, Sinan Akciz, Stephen J. Angster, Jean-Philipe Avouac, Jeffrey Bachhuber, Steven Bacon, Nicolas C. Barth, S. Bennett, Kelly Blake, Stephan Bork, Benjamin A. Brooks, Thomas Bullard, Paul A. Burgess, Colin Chupik, Timothy E. Dawson, Michael DeFrisco, Jaime E. Delano, Stephen B. DeLong, James D. Dolan, Andrea Donnellan, Christopher B. DuRoss, Todd Ericksen, Erik Frost, Gareth J. Funning, Ryan D. Gold, Nicholas A Graehl, Carlos Gutierrez, Elizabeth Haddon, Alexandra Elise Hatem, John Helms, Janis Hernandez, Christopher S. Hitchcock, Peter Holland, Kenneth W. Hudnut, Katherine J. Kendrick, Richard D Koehler, Ozgur Kozaci, Tyler C. Ladinsky, Robert Leeper, Christopher Madugo, Maxime Mareschal, James McDonald, Devin McPhillips, Christopher Milliner, Daniel Mongovin, Alexander Morelan, Stephanie Nale, Johanna Nevitt, Matt O’Neal, Brian J. Olsen, Michael Oskin, Salena Padilla, Jason Patton, Belle E. Philibosian, Ian Pierce, Cynthia Pridmore, Nathaniel Roth, David Sandwell, Katherine M. Scharer, Gordon G. Seitz, Drake Singleton, Bridget Smith-Konter, Eleanor Spangler, Brian J. Swanson, Jessica Thompson Jobe, Jerome Treiman, Francesca Valencia, Joshua Vanderwal, Alana Williams, Xiaohua Xu, Judith Zachariasen, Jade Zimmerman, Robert Zinke. 2020-07-29. Documentation of Surface Fault Rupture and Ground‐Deformation Features Produced by the 4 and 5 July 2019 Mw 6.4 and Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190322

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