4.7 Article

Seismic cycle and rheological effects on estimation of present-day slip rates for the Agua Blanca and San Miguel-Vallecitos faults, northern Baja California, Mexico

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2000JB000099

关键词

fault slip rates and the seismic cycle; northern Baja California

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] Geodesy can be used to infer long-term fault slip rates, assuming a model for crust and upper mantle rheology. We examine the sensitivity of fault slip rate estimates to assumed rheology for the Agua Blanca and San Miguel-Vallecitos faults in northern Baja California, Mexico, part of the Pacific-North America plate boundary zone. The Agua Blanca fault is seismically quiet, but offset alluvial fans indicate young activity. Current seismicity is confined to the nearby San Miguel-Vallecitos fault, a small offset fault better aligned with plate motion. GPS measurements between 1993 and 1998 suggest that both faults are active, with a combined slip rate of 4-8 mm yr(-1) regardless of rheological model. However, slip rate estimates for the individual faults are sensitive to assumed rheology. Elastic half-space models yield 2-3 mm yr(-1) for the Agua Blanca fault, and somewhat faster rates for the San Miguel-Vallecitos fault, 2-4 mm yr(-1), with uncertainties of about 1 mm yr(-1). Models incorporating viscoelastic rheology and seismic cycle effects suggest a faster slip rate for the Agua Blanca fault, 6 +/- 1 mm yr(-1), and a slower rate for the San Miguel-Vallecitos fault, 1 +/- 1 mm yr(-1), in better agreement with geological data, but these rates are sensitive to assumed rheology. Numerical simulations with a finite element model suggest that for similar rheological and friction conditions, slip on the San Miguel-Vallecitos fault should be favored due to better alignment with plate motion. Long-term faulting processes in the larger offset Agua Blanca fault may have lowered slip resistance, allowing accommodation of motion despite misalignment with plate motion.

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