Source study of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake

All quality teleseismic recordings of the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake archived in the 1908 Carnegie Report by the State Earthquake Investigation Commission were scanned and digitized. First order results were obtained by comparing complexity and amplitudes of teleseismic waveforms from the 1906 earthquake with well calibrated, similarly located, more recent earthquakes (1979 Coyote Lake, 1984 Morgan Hill, and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes) at nearly co-located modern stations. Peak amplitude ratios for calibration events indicated that a localized moment release of about 1 to 1.5 × 1027 dyne-cm was responsible for producing the peak the teleseismic body wave arrivals. At longer periods (50 to 80 sec), we found spectral amplitude ratios of the surface waves require a total moment release between 4 and 6 × 1027 dyne-cm for the 1906 earthquake, comparable to previous geodetic and surface wave estimates (Thatcher, 1975). We then made a more detailed source analysis using Morgan Hill S body waves as empirical Green's Functions in a finite fault subevent summation. The Morgan Hill earthquake was deemed most appropriate for this purpose as its mechanism is that of the 1906 earthquake in the central portion of the rupture. From forward and inverse empirical summations of Morgan Hill Green's functions, we obtained a good fit to the best quality teleseismic waveforms with a relatively simple source model having two regions of localized strong radiation separated spatially by about 110 km. Assuming the 1906 epicenter determined by Bolt (1968), this corresponds with a large asperity (on the order of the Loma Prieta earthquake) in the Golden Gate/San Francisco region and one about three times larger located northwest along strike between Point Reyes and Fort Ross. This model implies that much of the 1906 rupture zone may have occurred with relatively little 10 to 20 sec radiation. Consideration of the amplitude and frequency content of the 1906 teleseismic data allowed us to estimate the scale length of the largest asperity to be less than about 40 km. With rough constraints on the largest asperity (size and magnitude) we produced a suite of estimated synthetic ground velocities assuming a slip distribution similar to that of the Loma Prieta earthquake but with three times as much slip. For purposes of comparison with the recent, abundant Loma Prieta strong motion data set, we “moved” the largest 1906 asperity into Loma Prieta region. Peak ground velocity amplitudes are substantially greater than those recorded during the Loma Prieta earthquake, and are comparable to those predicted by the attenuation relationship of Joyner and Boore (1988) for a magnitude MW = 7.7 earthquake.

[1]  Masayuki Kikuchi,et al.  Inversion of complex body waves , 1982 .

[2]  David M. Boore,et al.  Strong-motion recordings of the California earthquake of April 18, 1906 , 1977 .

[3]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Inversion of strong ground motion and teleseismic waveform data for the fault rupture history of the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake , 1983 .

[4]  Donald V. Helmberger,et al.  The near-source ground motion of the 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake, California, earthquake , 1983 .

[5]  P. Segall,et al.  Surface Displacements in the 1906 San Francisco and 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquakes , 1990, Science.

[6]  David J. Wald,et al.  Rupture process of the 1987 Superstition Hills earthquake from the inversion of strong-motion data , 1990, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[7]  T. Heaton.  Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulses of slip in earthquake rupture , 1990 .

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

[9]  W. B. Joyner,et al.  Measurement, Characterization, and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion , 1988 .

[10]  W. Thatcher.  Strain accumulation on the northern San Andreas Fault Zone since 1906 , 1975 .

[11]  C. Langston,et al.  Shear‐coupled PL , 1985 .

[12]  D. P. Schwartz,et al.  Re-evaluation of 1906 surface faulting, geomorphic expression, and seismic hazard along the San Andres fault in the Southern Santa Cruz mountains , 1991, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[13]  Allen H. Olson,et al.  Finite faults and inverse theory with applications to the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake , 1982 .

[14]  K. Abe,et al.  Revision of magnitudes of large shallow earthquakes, 1897–1912 , 1983 .

[15]  Wayne Thatcher,et al.  Long‐Term Seismic Potential of the San Andreas Fault Southeast of San Francisco, California , 1987 .

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

[17]  Stephen H. Hartzell,et al.  Source complexity of the 1987 Whittier Narrows, California, earthquake from the inversion of strong motion records , 1990 .

[18]  Gregory C. Beroza,et al.  Linearized inversion for fault rupture behavior: Application to the 1984 Morgan Hill, California, earthquake , 1988 .

[19]  D. Helmberger,et al.  Waveform modeling of the November 1987 Superstition Hills earthquakes , 1989 .

[20]  P. Somerville,et al.  The location and source parameters of the Lompoc, California, earthquake of 4 November 1927 , 1992 .

[21]  C. Young,et al.  Rupture of the 4 February 1976 Guatemalan earthquake , 1989 .

[22]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  RUPTURE HISTORY OF THE 1984 MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE FROM THE INVERSION OF STRONG MOTION RECORDS , 1986 .

[23]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Rupture model of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake from the inversion of strong-motion and broadband teleseismic data , 1991, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[24]  P. C. Jennings,et al.  Determination of local magnitude, ML, from seismoscope records , 1979 .

[25]  A. Ben-menahem.  Source mechanism of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake , 1978 .

[26]  W. Thatcher.  Strain accumulation and release mechanism of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake , 1975 .