How much can off-fault deformation contribute to the slip rate discrepancy within the eastern California shear zone?

>Kinematic assumptions of geodetic inversions for fault slip require that the slip sums to the (plate) boundary velocity. This assumption neglects permanent off-fault deformation, which could account for discrepancies between geologic and geodetic estimates. We use three-dimensional mechanical models to assess if unaccounted permanent strain surrounding faults could contribute to slip rate discrepancies across disconnected faults within the Mojave Desert (California, USA) portion of the eastern California shear zone (ECSZ). We modified fault configurations derived from the Southern California Earthquake Center Community Fault Model to better represent the disconnected nature of active faults in the ECSZ south of the Garlock fault. The models with revised fault geometry produce slip rates that better match geologic strike-slip rates, thus validating the revisions. Within these models, off-fault deformation accounts for 40% ± 23% of the total strain across the ECSZ. This suggests that a significant portion of the discrepancy between the geologic and geodetically modeled slip rates in the ECSZ could be due to the geodetic inversion model assumption of zero permanent off-fault deformation.

[1]  Jerome A. Treiman,et al.  Community Fault Model (CFM) for Southern California , 2007 .

[2]  Michele L. Cooke,et al.  Application of three fault growth criteria to the Puente Hills thrust system, Los Angeles, California, USA , 2005 .

[3]  M. Cooke,et al.  Sensitivity of the Southern San Andreas Fault System to Tectonic Boundary Conditions and Fault Configurations , 2012 .

[4]  Richard G. Gordon,et al.  Geologically current plate motions , 2010 .

[5]  Michael Oskin,et al.  Deformation processes adjacent to active faults: Examples from eastern California , 2010 .

[6]  Michael Oskin,et al.  Elevated shear zone loading rate during an earthquake cluster in eastern California , 2008 .

[7]  M. Cooke,et al.  Simulating the recent evolution of the southern big bend of the San Andreas fault, Southern California , 2011 .

[8]  Roy K. Dokka,et al.  Role of the Eastern California Shear Zone in accommodating Pacific‐North American Plate motion , 1990 .

[9]  A. Aydin,et al.  The maximum distortional strain energy density criterion for shear fracture propagation With applica , 1993 .

[10]  James F. Dolan,et al.  Long-range and long-term fault interactions in Southern California , 2004 .

[11]  Kaj M. Johnson,et al.  Slip rates and off‐fault deformation in Southern California inferred from GPS data and models , 2013 .

[12]  Matt A. King,et al.  Long GPS coordinate time series: Multipath and geometry effects , 2009 .

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

[14]  Dylan Blumentritt,et al.  Slip rate of the Calico fault: Implications for geologic versus geodetic rate discrepancy in the Eastern California Shear Zone , 2007 .

[15]  S. Owen,et al.  Interseismic deformation associated with three‐dimensional faults in the greater Los Angeles region, California , 2009 .

[16]  J. Vermilye,et al.  Evidence for aseismic deformation in the western Transverse Ranges, southern California: Implications for seismic risk assessment , 1998 .

[17]  M. Cooke,et al.  Unlocking the effects of friction on fault damage zones , 2010 .

[18]  T. H. McCulloh.  Geologic map of the Lane Mountain quadrangle, California , 1960 .

[19]  R. Schultz,et al.  Evolution of damage zone geometry and intensity in porous sandstone: insight gained from strain energy density , 2005, Journal of the Geological Society.

[20]  B. Meade,et al.  Stress modulation on the San Andreas fault by interseismic fault system interactions , 2011 .

[21]  Peter Bird,et al.  Long-term fault slip rates, distributed deformation rates, and forecast of seismicity in the western United States from joint fitting of community geologic, geodetic, and stress direction data sets , 2009 .

[22]  M. Dyson,et al.  Geologic versus geodetic deformation adjacent to the San Andreas fault, central California , 2011 .

[23]  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 .