A Unified Source Model for the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake

Abstract We reconcile two previously discordant source models of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and obtain a model that satisfies both triangulation and seismic data by allowing the rupture velocity to exceed the shear-wave velocity. Employing a projection method to remove the dependence on initial station positions allowed us to make use of a more stable triangulation network, including nonrepeated angle observations along the northern San Andreas fault. This strengthens the case for significant slip over the entire northern segment of the San Andreas fault from San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendocino during the 1906 earthquake. We also found that the teleseismic body-wave data can be reconciled with the geodetically derived slip model by allowing supershear rupture. This resolves a longstanding conflict between the two previous slip models (geodetic and seismic) of this earthquake. Supershear rupture has long been recognized as a theoretical possibility for strike-slip faulting, and it has been observed in several recent large strike-slip earthquakes, which raises the prospect that it might be typical for such events. Supershear rupture leads to substantially different strong ground motion, and as a result, may need to be taken into account when developing ground-motion prediction relations for large strike-slip earthquakes. Our final slip model has a seismic moment of 7.9×10 20 N m, which corresponds to a moment magnitude of M w  7.9.

[1]  Paul Segall,et al.  Displacement calculations from geodetic data and the testing of geophysical deformation models , 1988 .

[2]  Andrew C. Lawson,et al.  The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906 , 1910 .

[3]  D. Merritts,et al.  Northern San Andreas fault near Shelter Cove, California , 1999 .

[4]  Ralph J. Archuleta,et al.  Evidence for a Supershear Transient during the 2002 Denali Fault Earthquake , 2004 .

[5]  Ares J. Rosakis,et al.  Laboratory Earthquakes: The Sub-Rayleigh-to-Supershear Rupture Transition , 2004, Science.

[6]  Emile A. Okal,et al.  Seismology: Speed and size of the Sumatra earthquake , 2005, Nature.

[7]  Wayne Thatcher,et al.  Resolution of fault slip along the 470‐km‐long rupture of the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake and its implications , 1997 .

[8]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Near-Source Ground Motions from Simulations of Sustained Intersonic and Supersonic Fault Ruptures , 2004 .

[9]  D. J. Andrews,et al.  Rupture velocity of plane strain shear cracks , 1976 .

[10]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[11]  Michel Bouchon,et al.  Observation of Long Supershear Rupture During the Magnitude 8.1 Kunlunshan Earthquake , 2003, Science.

[12]  Ares J. Rosakis,et al.  How fast is rupture during an earthquake? New insights from the 1999 Turkey Earthquakes , 2001 .

[13]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  Probabilistic Approach to Inverse Problems , 2002 .

[14]  Robert Burridge,et al.  Admissible Speeds for Plane-Strain Self-Similar Shear Cracks with Friction but Lacking Cohesion , 1973 .

[15]  J. Boatwright,et al.  Modified mercalli intensity maps for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake plotted in ShakeMap format , 2005 .

[16]  Danilo De Rossi,et al.  Cracks Faster than the Shear Wave Speed , 2022 .

[17]  B. Bolt.  The focus of the 1906 California earthquake , 1968 .

[18]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Source study of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake , 1993, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[19]  P. Segall,et al.  Slip in the 1868 Hayward earthquake from the analysis of historical triangulation data , 1996 .

[20]  Anthony Lomax,et al.  A Reanalysis of the Hypocentral Location and Related Observations for the Great 1906 California Earthquake , 2005 .

[21]  W. Ellsworth,et al.  Near-Field Ground Motion of the 2002 Denali Fault, Alaska, Earthquake Recorded at Pump Station 10 , 2004 .