4.4 Article

Subsurface Fault Damage Zone of the 2014 Mw 6.0 South Napa, California, Earthquake Viewed from Fault-Zone Trapped Waves

期刊

出版社

SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0120160039

关键词

-

资金

  1. Southern California Earthquake Center's Award [15195, 6168]
  2. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aftershocks of the 24 August 2014 M-w 6.0 South Napa earthquake generated prominent fault-zone trapped waves (FZTWs) that were recorded on two 1.9-km-long seismic arrays deployed across the northern projection (array 1, A1) and the southern part (A2) of the surface rupture of the West Napa fault zone (WNFZ). We also observed FZTWs on an array (A3) deployed across the intersection of the Franklin and Southampton faults, which appear to be the southward continuations of the WNFZ. A1, A2, and A3 consisted of 20, 20, and 10 L28 (4.5 Hz) three-component seismographs. We analyzed waveforms of FZTWs from 55 aftershocks in both time and frequency to characterize the fault damage zone associated with this M-w 6.0 earthquake. Post-S coda durations of FZTWs increase with epicentral distances and focal depths from the recording arrays, suggesting a low-velocity waveguide along the WNFZ to depths in excess of 5-7 km. Locations of the aftershocks showing FZTWs, combined with 3D finite-difference simulations, suggest the subsurface rupture zone having an S-wave speed reduction of similar to 40%-50% between A1 and A2, coincident with the similar to 14-km-long mapped surface rupture zone and at least an similar to 500-m-wide deformation zone. The low-velocity waveguide along the WNFZ extends further southward to at least A3, but with a more moderate-velocity reduction of 30%-35% at ray depth. This last FZTW observation suggests continuity between the WNFZ and Franklin fault. The waveguide effect may have localized and amplified ground shaking along the WNFZ and the faults farther to the south (see a companion paper by Catchings et al., 2016).

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

4.4
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