4.3 Article

Paleoseismologic evidence for large-magnitude (Mw 7.5-8.0) earthquakes on the Ventura blind thrust fault: Implications for multifault ruptures in the Transverse Ranges of southern California

期刊

GEOSPHERE
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 1629-1650

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/GES01123.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
  2. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC)
  3. National Science Foundation [EAR-1033462, G12AC20038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detailed analysis of continuously cored boreholes and cone penetrometer tests (CPTs), high-resolution seismic-reflection data, and luminescence and C-14 dates from Holocene strata folded above the tip of the Ventura blind thrust fault constrain the ages and displacements of the two (or more) most recent earthquakes. These two earthquakes, which are identified by a prominent surface fold scarp and a stratigraphic sequence that thickens across an older buried fold scarp, occurred before the 235-yr-long historic era and after 805 +/- 75 yr ago (most recent folding event[s]) and between 4065 and 4665 yr ago (previous folding event[s]). Minimum uplift in these two scarp-forming events was similar to 6 m for the most recent earthquake(s) and similar to 5.2 m for the previous event(s). Large uplifts such as these typically occur in large-magnitude earthquakes in the range of Mw 7.5-8.0. Any such events along the Ventura fault would likely involve rupture of other Transverse Ranges faults to the east and west and/or rupture downward onto the deep, low-angle decollements that underlie these faults. The proximity of this large reverse-fault system to major population centers, including the greater Los Angeles region, and the potential for tsunami generation during ruptures extending offshore along the western parts of the system highlight the importance of understanding the complex behavior of these faults for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据