Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault Eileen L

Masthead Logo Smith ScholarWorks Geosciences: Faculty Publications Geosciences 3-2012 Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault Eileen L. Evans Harvard University John P. Loveless Harvard University, [email protected] Brendan J. Meade Harvard University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.smith.edu/geo_facpubs Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Eileen L.; Loveless, John P.; and Meade, Brendan J., "Geodetic Constraints on San Francisco Bay Area Fault Slip Rates and Potential Seismogenic Asperities on the Partially Creeping Hayward Fault" (2012). Geosciences: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Northampton, MA. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/geo_facpubs/21 This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Geosciences: Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Smith ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected] JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, B03410, doi:10.1029/2011JB008398, 2012 Geodetic constraints on San Francisco Bay Area fault slip rates and potential seismogenic asperities on the partially creeping Hayward fault Eileen L. Evans,1 John P. Loveless,1,2 and Brendan J. Meade1 Received 28 March 2011; revised 17 November 2011; accepted 31 January 2012; published 31 March 2012. [1] The Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) is sometimes considered unusual among continental faults for exhibiting significant aseismic creep during the interseismic phase of the seismic cycle while also generating sufficient elastic strain to produce major earthquakes. Imaging the spatial variation in interseismic fault creep on the Hayward fault is complicated because of the interseismic strain accumulation associated with nearby faults in the SFBA, where the relative motion between the Pacific plate and the Sierra block is partitioned across closely spaced subparallel faults. To estimate spatially variable creep on the Hayward fault, we interpret geodetic observations with a three-dimensional kinematically consistent block model of the SFBA fault system. Resolution tests reveal that creep rate variations with a length scale of <15 km are poorly resolved below 7 km depth. In addition, creep at depth may be sensitive to assumptions about the kinematic consistency of fault slip rate models. Differential microplate motions result in a slip rate of 6.7 Æ 0.8 mm/yr on the Hayward fault, and we image along-strike variations in slip deficit rate at 15 km length scales shallower than 7 km depth. Similar to previous studies, we identify a strongly coupled asperity with a slip deficit rate of up to 4 mm/yr on the central Hayward fault that is spatially correlated with the mapped surface trace of the 1868 MW = 6.9–7.0 Hayward earthquake and adjacent to gabbroic fault surfaces. Citation: Evans, E. L., J. P. Loveless, and B. J. Meade (2012), Geodetic constraints on San Francisco Bay Area fault slip rates and potential seismogenic asperities on the partially creeping Hayward fault, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B03410, doi:10.1029/2011JB008398. 1. Introduction with a reported surface rupture from Fremont in the south to San Leandro in the north (Figure 1) [Lawson, 1908; Yu and [2] In the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA), motion Segall, 1996; Bakun, 1999; Toppozada and Branum, 2004]. between the Pacific plate and Sierra Block is partitioned [3] The Hayward fault is both geometrically [Graymer across 7 major subparallel right-lateral faults with <20 km et al., 2005; Waldhauser and Ellsworth, 2002; Hardebeck spacing [e.g., Freymueller et al., 1999]. From west to east, et al., 2007] and kinematically complex [Lienkaemper et al. these include the San Gregorio, San Andreas, Hayward, 2001; Simpson et al., 2001; Schmidt et al., 2005; G. J. Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, Green Valley, and the Greenville Funning et al., The source of major earthquakes on the faults (Figure 1). The Hayward fault lies in the center of the Hayward fault, California, submitted to Geophysical SFBA fault system accommodating 20% of the total slip Research Letters, 2011]. Nearly vertical along most of its budget [e.g., Graymer et al., 2002; Schmidt et al., 2005; ’ trace, the Hayward fault dips eastward south of Fremont, d Alessio et al., 2005], and has been interpreted as the SFBA as illuminated by relocated seismicity [Waldhauser and fault most likely to rupture in a M = 6.7 or larger earth- W Ellsworth, 2002; Manaker et al., 2005; Hardebeck et al., quake in the next 20 years [2007 Working Group for 2007], and likely merges at depth with the Calaveras fault California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008] based on immediately to the east [Ponce et al., 2004; Williams et al., paleoseismic estimates of earthquake recurrence intervals 2005; Graymer et al., 2005]. Surface creep observations and geologic and geodetic fault slip rate estimates. The last from creepmeters [Bilham and Whitehead, 1997] and major (M = 7) Hayward fault earthquake occurred in 1868, W alignment arrays [Lienkaemper et al., 2001; Simpson et al., 2001] show that sections of the Hayward fault creep aseis- 1Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, mically with surface creep rates ranging from <4 mm/yr on Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. the northern Hayward fault to 8 mm/yr near Fremont. 2Now at Department of Geosciences, Smith College, Northampton, Estimates of spatially variable creep on the Hayward fault Massachusetts, USA. from inversions of GPS and InSAR data [Bürgmann et al., 2000; Schmidt et al., 2005; Funning et al., submitted man- Copyright 2012 by the American Geophysical Union. 0148-0227/12/2011JB008398 uscript, 2011] suggest that the distribution of interseismic B03410 1of15 B03410 EVANS ET AL.: HAYWARD FAULT COUPLING FROM BLOCK MODELS B03410 Figure 1. (a) San Francisco topography and mapped fault locations; seismicity [Waldhauser and Ellsworth, 2002] shown colored by depth of hypocenter. (b) Block boundaries based on mapped fault locations shown as bold black lines. Bay Area GPS velocities (BAVU) shown as vectors colored by uncer- tainty. Filtered InSAR range change rates from Bürgmann et al. [2006]. fault coupling is also spatially heterogeneous, ranging from fault slip rates are kinematically consistent but do not include 0 to 8 mm/yr over <15 km length scales both along strike spatially dense InSAR measurements near the Hayward fault and downdip. Dynamically driven models [e.g., Savage and [Murray and Segall, 2001; d’Alessio et al., 2005; Johnson Lisowski, 1993; Simpson et al., 2001, Malservisi et al., and Fukuda, 2010], and (3) those that both assume SFBA 2003] of creep on the Hayward fault have been interpreted fault flip rates are kinematically consistent and include to agree favorably with geodetically inferred estimates of InSAR measurements [Bürgmann et al., 2000]. creep at depth. [5] Here we develop a kinematically consistent three- [4] Imaging the interseismic creep on the Hayward fault is dimensional block model of the SFBA fault system con- complicated because the geodetic observations that provide strained by both GPS and spatially dense InSAR observations the greatest resolution of activity at depth [Schmidt et al., that provide the greatest resolution of fault activity at depth. 2005] are also influenced by the overlapping interseismic We simultaneously estimate microplate rotations, kinemati- elastic strain fields associated with each of the closely cally consistent fault slip rates, and spatially variable slip spaced faults of the SFBA fault system [e.g., Freymueller deficit at depth on the Hayward fault. This particular refer- et al., 1999]. Thus, to some extent, estimates of Hayward ence model is not constrained by a priori geologic slip rate fault creep at depth depend on assumptions about the constraints or surface creep measurements, so that the model behavior of the rest of the SFBA fault system. Previous may be tested against these observations. We perform geodetically constrained kinematic models of Hayward fault checkerboard resolution tests on the Hayward fault within behavior may be categorized into three classes: (1) those the three-dimensional SFBA block model to assess the that incorporate spatially dense InSAR measurements near resolving ability of the data and determine the extent to the Hayward fault but do not assume that slip rates are which creeping behavior can be imaged at depth. To kinematically consistent [Schmidt et al., 2005; Funning et al., understand how the assumption of kinematically consistent submitted manuscript, 2011], (2) those that assume SFBA slip rates affects Hayward fault creep rate estimates, we 2of15 B03410 EVANS ET AL.: HAYWARD FAULT COUPLING FROM BLOCK MODELS B03410 develop a series of idealized two-fault deep dislocation nominally interseismic GPS velocities and 15,000 PS- models that may explain differences between this and some InSAR (Permanent Scatterer) line-of-sight range change previous studies. rates collected from 1992 to 2000 by the European Remote Sensing satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2 [Bürgmann et al., 2006] 2. Interseismic Deformation in Fault Systems (Figure 1). Survey mode GPS velocities in the SFBA are those reported by d’Alessio et al. [2005], augmented by [6] Interseismic deformation in fault systems such as the 6 GPS velocities at sites in the Pacific (sites KWJ1, CHAT, SFBA includes the contribution of earthquake cycle pro- KOKB, MKEA, THTI, MAUI) and 9 in eastern North cesses associated with multiple faults. The quasistatic America (sites WES2, BARN, THU1, THU3, SCH2, earthquake cycle contribution from SFBA faults has been BRMU, ALRT, STJO, KELY) to constrain far-field plate approximated with deep dislocation [Bürgmann et al., 2000; motions. Because this study is focused on understanding Schmidt et al., 2005; Funning et al., submitted manuscript, steady interseismic fault system behavior, we do not include 2011], and block models [Murray and Segall, 2001; velocities from GPS stations that have documented post- d’Alessio et al., 2005; Johnson and Fukuda, 2010]. In the seismic deformation following the MW = 6.9–7.0 1989 deep dislocation formulation, the net surface velocity field Loma Prieta Earthquake [Bürgmann et al., 1997].

Load more