Evidence of long recurrence times and low slip rate along the 1668 Tancheng earthquake fault

Block Kinematics in North China From GPS Measurements

“…Li et al, 2019). Assuming that the recently reported value of 0.7 ± 0.16 mm/yr (K. Li et al, 2019) is more appropriate, the geodetic rate of 0.9 ± 0.1 mm/yr derived from our elastic block model or previous GPS works (e.g., ∼0.7 mm/yr in H. Wang et al, 2011) is comparable to the geological estimates (e.g., K. Li et al, 2019).…”

“…For instance, earlier geological studies have proposed that this fault is characterized by a mean seismic interval of ∼3,500 years (Jiang et al., 2017; J. Li et al., 1994; Lin & Gao, 1987); whereas recent paleoseismic research suggested that its seismic interval may be much longer, reaching at least ∼10 ka (Cao et al., 2018; K. Li et al., 2019; Shu et al., 2020). These discrepancies might arise from the large uncertainties in dating of paleoseismic events, causing disparity in Holocene slip estimates: the slower value of ∼0.7 mm/yr (K. Li et al., 2019) versus the faster value of ∼2.6 mm/yr (Jiang et al., 2017). Considering the characteristic offset of ∼9 m for major earthquakes on this fault (Jiang et al., 2017; K. Li et al., 2019), the strike‐slip motion of ∼0.9 mm/yr derived in this study also supports a long interval of ∼10 ka, consistent with recent paleoseismic research of K. Li et al.…”

“…We consider two situations with different recurrence times, that is, ∼4,000 years (Jiang et al., 2017) and ∼10,000 years (K. Li et al., 2019), respectively. In addition, considering the characteristic offset of ∼9 m produced by the 1668 M 8.5 event as reported from paleoseismic research (Jiang et al., 2017; K. Li et al., 2019), we assume that the time since the last earthquake is ∼350 years and so the fault is now in early stages of the cycle (i.e., t < 0.1 T). Based on the viscoelastic solution of Savage and Prescott (1978), we calculate profiles of surface velocities in different stages of the cycle, that is, ∼0.1 T, ∼0.4 T, ∼0.6 T, and ∼0.9 T, respectively, assuming μ = 30 GPa and H = 15 km.…”

“…These discrepancies might arise from the large uncertainties in dating of paleoseismic events, causing disparity in Holocene slip estimates: the slower value of ∼0.7 mm/yr (K. Li et al., 2019) versus the faster value of ∼2.6 mm/yr (Jiang et al., 2017). Considering the characteristic offset of ∼9 m for major earthquakes on this fault (Jiang et al., 2017; K. Li et al., 2019), the strike‐slip motion of ∼0.9 mm/yr derived in this study also supports a long interval of ∼10 ka, consistent with recent paleoseismic research of K. Li et al. (2019).…”

“…For instance, considering the seismic offset of ∼9 m, earlier studies proposed that this fault is featured by a mean recurrence time of ∼4,000 years and strike-slip motion of ∼2.6 mm/yr (e.g., Jiang et al, 2017;Lin & Gao, 1987). In contrast, based on field investigations and precise dating of paleoseismic events, recent research reports a much longer interval of at least ∼10 ka and Holocene rate of 0.7 ± 0.16 mm/yr (e.g., Cao et al, 2018;K. Li et al, 2019).…”