Premium
Seismotectonics and Fault Geometries of the 2019 Ridgecrest Sequence: Insight From Aftershock Moment Tensor Catalog Using 3‐D Green's Functions
Author(s) -
Wang Xin,
Zhan Zhongwen
Publication year - 2020
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 - 10.1029/2020jb019577
Subject(s) - aftershock , seismology , geology , epicenter , moment tensor , fault (geology) , cauchy stress tensor , seismic moment , fault trace , geodesy , sequence (biology) , mathematics , mathematical analysis , oceanography , deformation (meteorology) , biology , genetics
The 2019 M w 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake occurred on 6 July, preceded by the M w 6.4 foreshock on 4 July 2019. These two earthquakes occurred close in space and time with partially overlapping surface ruptures and aftershock patterns, raising the question of the relationship between the two events. Geological surveys and satellite observations provide important constraints on the surface traces of faulting. However, the subsurface fault geometries, which are important for understanding the regional stress field, earthquake initiation, propagation, and termination, are not well resolved. In this study, moment tensor solutions for 256 earthquakes in the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence were determined by waveform inversion using 3‐D velocity model. The obtained moment tensor solutions show rotations of the stresses after mainshock, indicating the ratio of mainshock stress drop to the background stress to be 0.5–0.9. The obtained moment tensor catalog also facilitates a better understanding of the subsurface fault geometries, including (1) splay faults and antithetic faults in the northwest aftershock zone; (2) shallow flower structures near the M w 7.1 epicenter; and (3) subparallel faults in the southeast aftershock zone. The aftershocks' studies suggest the very complex surface ruptures near the 2019 Ridgecrest M w 7.1 epicenter are near‐surface features that linked to a simple large throughgoing fault at >5 km depth. We also found that the southeastern‐most aftershocks, which are located less than a kilometer from the Garlock fault trace, have significant different strike directions from that of the Garlock fault, indicating the central Garlock fault remains seismically quiet.