Premium
Incorporating fault zone head wave and direct wave secondary arrival times into seismic tomography: Application at Parkfield, California
Author(s) -
Bennington Ninfa L.,
Thurber Clifford,
Peng Zhigang,
Zhang Haijiang,
Zhao Peng
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: solid earth
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.983
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 2169-9356
pISSN - 2169-9313
DOI - 10.1002/jgrb.50072
Subject(s) - hypocenter , seismology , geology , slip (aerodynamics) , arrival time , san andreas fault , wave velocity , fault (geology) , geodesy , induced seismicity , physics , petrology , engineering , shear (geology) , thermodynamics , transport engineering
We present a three‐dimensional (3D) P wave velocity (Vp) model of the Parkfield region that utilizes existing P wave arrival time data, including fault zone head waves (FZHWs), and data from direct wave secondary arrivals (DWSAs). The first‐arrival and DWSA travel times are obtained as the global‐ and local‐minimum travel time paths, respectively. The inclusion of FZHWs and DWSAs results in as much as a 5% and a 10% increase in the across‐fault velocity contrast, respectively, for the Vp model at Parkfield relative to that of Thurber et al . [2006]. Viewed along strike, three pronounced velocity contrast regions are observed: a pair of strong positive velocity contrasts (SW fast), one NW of the 1966 Parkfield earthquake hypocenter and the other SE of the 2004 Parkfield earthquake hypocenter, and a strong negative velocity contrast (NE fast) between the two hypocenters. The negative velocity contrast partially to entirely encompasses peak coseismic slip estimated in several slip models for the 2004 earthquake, suggesting that the negative velocity contrast played a part in defining the rupture patch of the 2004 Parkfield earthquake. Following Ampuero and Ben‐Zion (2008), the pattern of velocity contrasts is consistent with the observed bilateral rupture propagation for the 2004 Parkfield earthquake. Although the velocity contrasts also suggest bilateral rupture propagation for the 1966 Parkfield earthquake, the fault is creeping to the NW here, i.e., exhibiting velocity‐strengthening behavior. Thus, it is not surprising that rupture propagated only SE during this event.