Open AccessVariations of the velocity contrast and rupture properties of M6 earthquakes along the Parkfield section of the San Andreas fault
Author(s) -
Zhao Peng,
Peng Zhigang,
Shi Zheqiang,
Lewis Michael A.,
BenZion Yehuda
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
geophysical journal international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.302
H-Index - 168
eISSN - 1365-246X
pISSN - 0956-540X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2009.04436.x
Subject(s) - seismology , geology , san andreas fault , fault (geology) , seismic velocity , elastic rebound theory , section (typography) , seismic tomography , seismic wave , waveform , geophysics , mantle (geology) , advertising , business , physics , quantum mechanics , voltage
SUMMARY We investigate the seismic velocity contrast across the San Andreas fault (SAF) in the Parkfield area using fault zone head waves (FZHW) that propagate along the bimaterial fault interface and direct P waves. We systematically analyse large data sets of near‐fault waveforms recorded by several seismic networks over the period 1984–2005. Clear FZHW are observed at many stations on the NE side of the fault in the creeping section of the SAF north of Middle Mountain (MM). This indicates the presence of a sharp bimaterial interface and that the NE side of the fault has lower seismic velocities in that region. The obtained P ‐wave velocity contrast is about 5–10 per cent north of MM, and it systematically decreases to 0–2 per cent near Gold Hill (GH). The along‐strike variations of the velocity contrast are consistent with geological observations of a sliver of high‐velocity rock immediately to the NE of the SAF near GH, associated with the GH fault, and existing 3‐D seismic tomography results. The obtained imaging results offer an explanation for the mixed rupture directions of the M6‐type Parkfield earthquakes. The strong velocity contrast around MM is expected to produce a preferred propagation direction to the SE for earthquakes that nucleate near MM (e.g. the 1934 and 1966 Parkfield earthquakes). In contrast, the near‐zero velocity contrast and multiple fault branches near GH imply that earthquakes that nucleate near GH (e.g. the 2004 Parkfield earthquake) are not expected to have a preferred propagation direction to the SE, and are likely to propagate in directions that are controlled by other factors such as structural and stress heterogeneities. The observed systematic reduction of the velocity contrast along the SAF from NW of MM to SE of GH provides a dynamic arrest mechanism for earthquakes that nucleate in the northern part of the Parkfield section and propagate to the SE, and a dynamic arrest mechanism for earthquakes that nucleate in the southern section and propagate to the NW.