4.7 Article

Time-dependent model of creep on the Hayward fault from joint inversion of 18years of InSAR and surface creep data

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
卷 118, 期 4, 页码 1733-1746

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/jgrb.50149

关键词

Time-dependent creep; InSAR; Hayward; inverse modeling

资金

  1. European Space Agency [C1P-9539]
  2. WInSAR archive
  3. NASA
  4. USGS NEHRP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spatial and temporal variations of aseismic fault creep influence the size and timing of large earthquakes along partially coupled faults. To solve for a time-dependent model of creep on the Hayward fault, we invert 18 years of surface deformation data (1992-2010), obtained by interferometric processing of 52 and 50 SAR images acquired by the ERS1/2 and Envisat satellites, respectively, and surface creep data obtained at 19 alinement and 4 creepmeter stations. For multi-temporal analysis of the SAR data we developed a method for identifying stable pixels using wavelet multi-resolution analysis. We also implement a variety of wavelet-based filters for reducing the effects of environmental artifacts. Using a reweighted least squares approach, we inverted the interferometric data to generate a time series of surface deformation over the San Francisco Bay Area with a precision of better than a few millimeters. To jointly invert the InSAR displacement time series and the surface creep data for a time-dependent model of fault creep, we use a robust inversion approach combined with a Kalman filter. The time-dependent model constrains a zone of high slip deficit that may represent the locked rupture asperity of past and future M approximate to 7 earthquakes. We identify several additional temporal variations in creep rate along the Hayward fault, the most important one being a zone of accelerating slip just northwest of the major locked zone. We estimate that a slip-rate deficit equivalent to Mw 6.3-6.8 has accumulated on the fault, since the last event in 1868.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据