2003
DOI: 10.1029/2001jb000189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lower crustal structure in northern California: Implications from strain rate variations following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake

Abstract: [1] It is well known that geodetic data from a single instant in time cannot uniquely characterize structure or rheology beneath active seismogenic zones. Nevertheless, comparison of spatial and temporal variations in deformation rate with time-dependent mechanical models can place valuable constraints on fault zone geometry and rheology. We consider postseismic strain rate transients by comparing geodetic data from north of San Francisco Bay obtained between 1906 and 1995 to predictions from viscoelastic fini… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
59
0
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
7
59
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, these papers assume symmetry of deformation. As mentioned earlier, Kenner and Segall [2003] recognize significant asymmetry in the postseismic and interseismic deformation in northern California with respect to the trace of the San Andreas fault, but they attribute this asymmetry to the presence of discrete shear zones within the lower crust below each of the three subparallel faults. They do not consider the possibility of a bimaterial San Andreas fault.…”
Section: Coseismic Elastic Rebound During the 1906 San Francisco Eartmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…However, these papers assume symmetry of deformation. As mentioned earlier, Kenner and Segall [2003] recognize significant asymmetry in the postseismic and interseismic deformation in northern California with respect to the trace of the San Andreas fault, but they attribute this asymmetry to the presence of discrete shear zones within the lower crust below each of the three subparallel faults. They do not consider the possibility of a bimaterial San Andreas fault.…”
Section: Coseismic Elastic Rebound During the 1906 San Francisco Eartmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Fixing D should not alter our investigation in rigidity contrast. Moreover, the value of D that best fits the inversion does not necessarily correspond to the true locking depth, because of the possible effects of lower crustal viscoelasticity on the observed surface deformation [ Kenner and Segall , 2003; Malservisi et al , 2001; Savage and Lisowski , 1998]. …”
Section: Testing For Asymmetric Interseismic Strainmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Possible explanations for the concentrated deformation on one side of a fault include acrossfault contrasts in the effective shear modulus of the host rocks 14,15 , postseismic relaxation in the presence of lateral variations in the effective viscosity of the substrate 16 , multiple sub-parallel shear zones 17 , and a non-vertical fault geometry 18,19 . Postseismic transients are an unlikely explanation given the large time lapse since the presumend last great earthquake on the southern SAF.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%