2000
DOI: 10.1029/1999jb900269
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of anelastic surface layers on postseismic thrust fault deformation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
21
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
21
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We also notice that there is very likely a strong coupling between the crust and mantle and lower crustal relaxation may not be the primary mechanism for accommodating the shortening in the LA basin. These results are consistent with other published studies that investigate how stress is dissipated after earthquakes, including the Hector Mine and Northridge events (POLLITZ et al, 2001;LYZENGA et al, 2000). Our models also indicate that the geometry of faults does not significantly affect the resulting velocity profiles.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We also notice that there is very likely a strong coupling between the crust and mantle and lower crustal relaxation may not be the primary mechanism for accommodating the shortening in the LA basin. These results are consistent with other published studies that investigate how stress is dissipated after earthquakes, including the Hector Mine and Northridge events (POLLITZ et al, 2001;LYZENGA et al, 2000). Our models also indicate that the geometry of faults does not significantly affect the resulting velocity profiles.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…By the time 100 years pass in the model, the velocity profile is nearly flat and does not match the geodetic profile at all. This is contrary to results of recent studies of the Northridge earthquake, in which the stress dissipation has been modeled as fault afterslip, and velocities have returned to preseismic rates less than a decade following the event (LYZENGA et al, 2000). Since we assign slip on only one fault and do not consider fault friction, we most likely are not accounting for all of the mechanisms controlling the deformation, which may explain why we need a recent earthquake in our models to best match the observed data.…”
Section: Compliant Basin Modelscontrasting
confidence: 55%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The high-performance modeling applications include GeoFEST [1], a finite element model that simulates stresses associated with earthquake faults, Virtual California [2], which simulates large, interacting fault systems, and PARK [3], which simulates complete earthquake cycles and earthquake interaction. The portal also contains Disloc, which models surface deformation from faults within an elastic half-space, and Simplex, which is an inversion application, which finds the optical dislocation model of fault slip from GPS and InSAR deformation data [4]. Analysis methods include Pattern Informatics [5], which examines seismic archives to forecast geographic regions of future high probability for intense earthquakes, and RDAHMM [6], a time series analysis application that can be used to determine state changes in instrument signals (such as generated by Global Positioning System arrays).…”
Section: Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%