Afterslip (and only afterslip) following the 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake

[1] An analysis of the first two years of postseismic surface deformations from GPS reveals that afterslip is the only mechanism significantly contributing to postseismic deformation following the 2004 M6 Parkfield, California earthquake. Finite element modeling shows this event to have been too small to significantly stress the lower crust and upper mantle, thus viscoelastic relaxation did not lead to detectable surface displacements. Similarly, coseismically induced pressure changes in the upper crust were not sufficient to induce a measurable poroelastic response. From 10 days to two years after the Parkfield earthquake, postseismic displacements at all GPS stations experience the same characteristic decay time (∼2 weeks). This suggests that only afterslip was activated and the distribution of slip remained unchanged in this time period. Afterslip was found to be broadly distributed in the upper 15 km of the crust and associated with a moment release of much greater magnitude than the coseismic rupture.

[1]  Kenneth W. Hudnut,et al.  Poroelastic rebound along the Landers 1992 earthquake surface rupture , 1998 .

[2]  K. Hudnut,et al.  Preliminary Report on the 22 December 2003, M 6.5 San Simeon, California Earthquake , 2004 .

[3]  Herbert F. Wang.  Theory of Linear Poroelasticity with Applications to Geomechanics and Hydrogeology , 2000 .

[4]  Egill Hauksson,et al.  Crustal structure and seismicity distribution adjacent to the Pacific and North America plate boundary in southern California , 2000 .

[5]  Jeffrey T. Freymueller,et al.  Implications of deformation following the 2002 Denali, Alaska, earthquake for postseismic relaxation processes and lithospheric rheology , 2006 .

[6]  Paul Segall,et al.  Post-earthquake ground movements correlated to pore-pressure transients , 2003, Nature.

[7]  Chris Marone,et al.  On the mechanics of earthquake afterslip , 1991 .

[8]  Chen Ji,et al.  Slip history of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake constrained by combining 1‐Hz GPS, strong motion, and teleseismic data , 2004 .

[9]  J. Rice,et al.  Some basic stress diffusion solutions for fluid‐saturated elastic porous media with compressible constituents , 1976 .

[10]  J. K. Mitchell,et al.  Coseismic deformation of the 2002 Denali Fault earthquake: Insights from GPS measurements , 2006 .

[11]  Kristine M. Larson,et al.  Frictional Properties on the San Andreas Fault near Parkfield, California, Inferred from Models of Afterslip following the 2004 Earthquake , 2006 .

[12]  Jonathan Richard Shewchuk,et al.  Triangle: Engineering a 2D Quality Mesh Generator and Delaunay Triangulator , 1996, WACG.

[13]  Jessica R. Murray,et al.  Coseismic and initial postseismic deformation from the 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake, observed by global positioning system, electronic distance meter, creepmeters, and borehole strainmeters , 2006 .

[14]  R. Bürgmann,et al.  Stress-dependent power-law flow in the upper mantle following the 2002 Denali, Alaska, earthquake , 2006 .

[15]  J. Langbein,et al.  Slip on the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield, California, over Two Earthquake Cycles, and the Implications for Seismic Hazard , 2006 .

[16]  Herbert F. Wang,et al.  Transient stress-coupling between the 1992 Landers and 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquakes , 2002 .

[17]  E. Roeloffs.  Poroelastic Techniques in the Study of Earthquake-Related Hydrologic Phenomena , 1996 .

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

[19]  Eric J. Fielding,et al.  Coseismic and Postseismic Slip of the 2004 Parkfield Earthquake from Space-Geodetic Data , 2006 .

[20]  Roland Bürgmann,et al.  Evidence of power-law flow in the Mojave desert mantle , 2004, Nature.