How do “ghost transients” from past earthquakes affect GPS slip rate estimates on southern California faults?

In this study, we investigate the extent to which viscoelastic velocity perturbations (or “ghost transients”) from individual fault segments can affect elastic block model‐based inferences of fault slip rates from GPS velocity fields. We focus on the southern California GPS velocity field, exploring the effects of known, large earthquakes for two end‐member rheological structures. Our approach is to compute, at each GPS site, the velocity perturbation relative to a cycle average for earthquake cycles on particular fault segments. We then correct the SCEC CMM4.0 velocity field for this perturbation and invert the corrected field for fault slip rates. We find that if asthenosphere viscosities are low (3 × 1018 Pa s), the current GPS velocity field is significantly perturbed by viscoelastic earthquake cycle effects associated with the San Andreas Fault segment that last ruptured in 1857 (Mw = 7.9). Correcting the GPS velocity field for this perturbation (or “ghost transient”) adds about 5 mm/a to the SAF slip rate along the Mojave and San Bernardino segments. The GPS velocity perturbations due to large earthquakes on the Garlock Fault (most recently, events in the early 1600s) and the White Wolf Fault (most recently, the Mw = 7.3 1952 Kern County earthquake) are smaller and do not influence block‐model inverted fault slip rates. This suggests that either the large discrepancy between geodetic and geologic slip rates for the Garlock Fault is not due to a ghost transient or that un‐modeled transients from recent Mojave earthquakes may influence the GPS velocity field.

[1]  J. C. Savage,et al.  Asthenosphere readjustment and the earthquake cycle , 1978 .

[2]  K. Johnson,et al.  Insights into active tectonics of eastern Taiwan from analyses of geodetic and geologic data , 2010 .

[3]  David R. Shelly,et al.  Migrating tremors illuminate complex deformation beneath the seismogenic San Andreas fault , 2010, Nature.

[4]  E. Hearn,et al.  Can Lateral Viscosity Contrasts Explain Asymmetric Interseismic Deformation around Strike‐Slip Faults? , 2012 .

[5]  Yuri Fialko,et al.  Dynamic models of interseismic deformation and stress transfer from plate motion to continental transform faults , 2012 .

[6]  G. Bawden.  Source parameters for the 1952 Kern County earthquake, California : A joint inversion of leveling and triangulation observations , 2001 .

[7]  Wayne Thatcher,et al.  Nonlinear strain buildup and the earthquake cycle on the San Andreas Fault , 1983 .

[8]  Robert McCaffrey,et al.  Block kinematics of the Pacific-North America plate boundary in the southwestern United States from inversion of GPS, seismological, and geologic data , 2005 .

[9]  Swaminathan Krishnan,et al.  Risk Analysis Using Rupture-to-Rafters Simulations : Inferring Probabilities of Scenario Earthquakes from the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast , 2015 .

[10]  K. Johnson,et al.  New methods for estimating the spatial distribution of locked asperities and stress‐driven interseismic creep on faults with application to the San Francisco Bay Area, California , 2010 .

[11]  R. Bürgmann,et al.  Influence of lithosphere viscosity structure on estimates of fault slip rate in the Mojave region of the San Andreas fault system , 2007 .

[12]  G. Blewitt,et al.  Block modeling of crustal deformation of the northern Walker Lane and Basin and Range from GPS velocities , 2011 .

[13]  Paul Segall,et al.  Earthquake and Volcano Deformation , 2010 .

[14]  F. Pollitz,et al.  Viscoelastic‐cycle model of interseismic deformation in the northwestern United States , 2010 .

[15]  Brendan J. Meade,et al.  Block models of crustal motion in southern California constrained by GPS measurements , 2005 .

[16]  Olaf Zielke,et al.  Slip in the 1857 and Earlier Large Earthquakes Along the Carrizo Plain, San Andreas Fault , 2010, Science.

[17]  B. Hager,et al.  Viscoelastic deformation from North Anatolian Fault Zone earthquakes and the eastern Mediterranean GPS velocity field , 2002 .

[18]  R. Bürgmann,et al.  Dynamics of Izmit Earthquake Postseismic Deformation and Loading of the Duzce Earthquake Hypocenter , 2002 .

[19]  J. C. Savage,et al.  Geodetic determination of relative plate motion in central California , 1973 .

[20]  H. Kuzma,et al.  Slip rate of the western Garlock fault, at Clark Wash, near Lone Tree Canyon, Mojave Desert, California , 2009 .

[21]  Fred F. Pollitz,et al.  Gravitational viscoelastic postseismic relaxation on a layered spherical Earth , 1997 .

[22]  B. Hager,et al.  Postseismic and interseismic displacements near a strike‐slip fault: A two‐dimensional theory for general linear viscoelastic rheologies , 2005 .

[23]  B. Meade,et al.  Viscoelastic deformation for a clustered earthquake cycle , 2004 .

[24]  Semih Ergintav,et al.  Izmit earthquake postseismic deformation and dynamics of the North Anatolian Fault Zone , 2009 .

[25]  D. Wells,et al.  New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[26]  Duncan Carr Agnew,et al.  A unified analysis of crustal motion in Southern California, 1970–2004: The SCEC crustal motion map , 2011 .

[27]  M. Kramer,et al.  Crustal deformation, the earthquake cycle, and models of viscoelastic flow in the asthenosphere , 1984 .

[28]  Kaj M. Johnson,et al.  Reconciling geologic and geodetic model fault slip-rate discrepancies in Southern California: Consideration of nonsteady mantle flow and lower crustal fault creep , 2011 .

[29]  L. Ratschbacher,et al.  Localized ductile shear below the seismogenic zone: Structural analysis of an exhumed strike-slip fault, Austrian Alps , 2007 .