More Like this

1. Rupture Process of the 2019 Ridgecrest, California Mw 6.4 Foreshock and Mw 7.1 Earthquake Constrained by Seismic and Geodetic Data

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200108  

   Wang, Kang ; Dreger, Douglas S. ; Tinti, Elisa ; Bürgmann, Roland ; Taira, Taka’aki ( July 2020 , Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America)

   ABSTRACT The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence culminated in the largest seismic event in California since the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake. Here, we combine geodetic and seismic data to study the rupture process of both the 4 July Mw 6.4 foreshock and the 6 July Mw 7.1 mainshock. The results show that the Mw 6.4 foreshock rupture started on a northwest-striking right-lateral fault, and then continued on a southwest-striking fault with mainly left-lateral slip. Although most moment release during the Mw 6.4 foreshock was along the southwest-striking fault, slip on the northwest-striking fault seems to have played a more important role in triggering the Mw 7.1 mainshock that happened ∼34  hr later. Rupture of the Mw 7.1 mainshock was characterized by dominantly right-lateral slip on a series of overall northwest-striking fault strands, including the one that had already been activated during the nucleation of the Mw 6.4 foreshock. The maximum slip of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake was ∼5  m, located at a depth range of 3–8 km near the Mw 7.1 epicenter, corresponding to a shallow slip deficit of ∼20%–30%. Both the foreshock and mainshock had a relatively low-rupture velocity of ∼2  km/s, which is possibly related to the geometric complexity and immaturity of the eastern California shear zone faults. The 2019more »Ridgecrest earthquake produced significant stress perturbations on nearby fault networks, especially along the Garlock fault segment immediately southwest of the 2019 Ridgecrest rupture, in which the coulomb stress increase was up to ∼0.5  MPa. Despite the good coverage of both geodetic and seismic observations, published coseismic slip models of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence show large variations, which highlight the uncertainty of routinely performed earthquake rupture inversions and their interpretation for underlying rupture processes.« less
2. Finite Slip Models of the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence Constrained by Space Geodetic Data and Aftershock Locations

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200060  

   Jin, Zeyu ; Fialko, Yuri ( June 2020 , Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America)

   ABSTRACT The July 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence involved two large events—the M 6.4 foreshock and the M 7.1 mainshock that ruptured a system of intersecting strike-slip faults. We present analysis of space geodetic observations including Synthetic Aperture Radar and Global Navigation Satellite System data, geological field mapping, and seismicity to constrain the subsurface rupture geometry and slip distribution. The data render a complex pattern of faulting with a number of subparallel as well as cross-cutting fault strands that exhibit variations in both strike and dip angles, including a “flower structure” formed by shallow splay faults. Slip inversions are performed using both homogeneous and layered elastic half-space models informed by the local seismic tomography data. The inferred slip distribution suggests a moderate amount of the shallow coseismic slip deficit. The peak moment release occurred in the depth interval of 3–4 km, consistent with results from previous studies of major strike-slip earthquakes, and the depth distribution of seismicity in California. We use the derived slip models to investigate stress transfer and possible triggering relationships between the M 7.1 mainshock and the M 6.4 foreshock, as well as other moderate events that occurred in the vicinity of the M 7.1 hypocenter. Triggering is discouraged for the average strikemore »of the M 7.1 rupture (320°) but encouraged for the initial orientation of the mainshock rupture suggested by the first-motion data (340°). This lends support to a scenario according to which the earthquake rupture nucleated on a small fault that was more optimally oriented with respect to the regional stress and subsequently propagated along the less-favorably oriented pre-existing faults, possibly facilitated by dynamic weakening. The nucleation site of the mainshock experienced positive dynamic Coulomb stress changes that are much larger than the static stress changes, yet the former failed to initiate rupture.« less
3. Airborne Lidar and Electro-Optical Imagery along Surface Ruptures of the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence, Southern California

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190338  

   Hudnut, Kenneth W. ; Brooks, Benjamin A. ; Scharer, Katherine ; Hernandez, Janis L. ; Dawson, Timothy E. ; Oskin, Michael E. ; Ramon Arrowsmith, J. ; Goulet, Christine A. ; Blake, Kelly ; Boggs, Matthew L. ; et al ( April 2020 , Seismological Research Letters)

   Abstract Surface rupture from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, initially associated with the Mw 6.4 foreshock, occurred on 4 July on a ∼17  km long, northeast–southwest-oriented, left-lateral zone of faulting. Following the Mw 7.1 mainshock on 5 July (local time), extensive northwest–southeast-oriented, right-lateral faulting was then also mapped along a ∼50  km long zone of faults, including subparallel splays in several areas. The largest slip was observed in the epicentral area and crossing the dry lakebed of China Lake to the southeast. Surface fault rupture mapping by a large team, reported elsewhere, was used to guide the airborne data acquisition reported here. Rapid rupture mapping allowed for accurate and efficient flight line planning for the high-resolution light detection and ranging (lidar) and aerial photography. Flight line planning trade-offs were considered to allocate the medium (25 pulses per square meter [ppsm]) and high-resolution (80 ppsm) lidar data collection polygons. The National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping acquired the airborne imagery with a Titan multispectral lidar system and Digital Modular Aerial Camera (DiMAC) aerial digital camera, and U.S. Geological Survey acquired Global Positioning System ground control data. This effort required extensive coordination with the Navy as much of the airborne data acquisition occurred within their restricted airspacemore »at the China Lake ranges.« less
4. Stress Changes on the Garlock Fault During and After the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

   Ramos, Marlon D. ; Neo, Jing Ci ; Thakur, Prithvi ; Huang, Yihe ; Wei, Shengji ( January 2020 , Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America)

   The recent 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence in Southern California jostled the seismological community by revealing a complex and cascading foreshock series that culminated in a M7.1 mainshock. But the central Garlock fault, despite being located immediately south of this sequence, did not coseismically fail. Instead, the Garlock fault underwent post-seismic creep and exhibited a sizeable earthquake swarm. The dynamic details of the rupture process during the mainshock is largely unknown, as is the amount of stress needed to bring the Garlock fault to failure. We present an integrated view of how stresses changed on the Garlock fault during and after the mainshock using a combination of tools including kinematic slip inversion, Coulomb stress change, and dynamic rupture modeling. We show that positive Coulomb stress changes cannot easily explain observed aftershock patterns on the Garlock fault, but are consistent with where creep was documented on the central Garlock fault section. Our dynamic model is able to reproduce the main slip asperities and kinematically estimated rupture speeds (≤ 2 km/s) during the mainshock, and suggests the temporal changes in normal and shear stress on the Garlock fault were greatest near the end of rupture. The largest static and dynamic stress changes onmore »the Garlock fault we observe from our models coincide with the creeping region, suggesting that positive stress perturbations could have caused this during or after the mainshock rupture. This analysis of near-field stress change evolution gives insight into how the Ridgecrest sequence influenced the local stress field of the northernmost Eastern California Shear Zone.« less
5. Slip distribution of the February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake sequence in the East Anatolian Fault Zone

   https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.502  

   Barbot, Sylvain ; Luo, Heng ; Wang, Teng ; Hamiel, Yariv ; Piatibratova, Oksana ; Javed, Muhammad Tahir ; Braitenberg, Carla ; Gurbuz, Gokhan ( February 2023 , Seismica)

   On February 6, 2023, two large earthquakes occurred near the Turkish town of Kahramanmaraş. The moment magnitude (Mw) 7.8 mainshock ruptured a 310 km-long segment of the left-lateral East Anatolian Fault, propagating through multiple releasing step-overs. The Mw 7.6 aftershock involved nearby left-lateral strike-slip faults of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, causing a 150 km-long rupture. We use remote-sensing observations to constrain the spatial distribution of coseismic slip for these two events and the February 20 Mw 6.4 aftershock near Antakya. Pixel tracking of optical and synthetic aperture radar data of the Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 satellites, respectively, provide near-field surface displacements. High-rate Global Navigation Satellite System data constrain each event separately. Coseismic slip extends from the surface to about 15 km depth with a shallow slip deficit. Most aftershocks cluster at major fault bends, surround the regions of high coseismic slip, or extend outward of the ruptured faults. For the mainshock, rupture propagation stopped southward at the diffuse termination of the East Anatolian fault and tapered off northward into the Pütürge segment, some 20 km south of the 2020 Mw 6.8 Elaziğ earthquake, highlighting a potential seismic gap. These events underscore the high seismic potential of immature fault systems.