User login
Recent comments
-
4 years 13 weeks ago
-
4 years 13 weeks ago
-
5 years 17 weeks ago
-
5 years 17 weeks ago
-
5 years 17 weeks ago
-
5 years 21 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 22 weeks ago
-
5 years 23 weeks ago
-
5 years 23 weeks ago
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
From email notification: SCSN quake (M4.6): Association with SCEC CFM Faults (ci38695658)
CFM Fault Association Probability
Most Likely
Lower Elysian Park fault (27%)
Alternates
Not associated with a CFM modeled fault (9%)
Other CFM faults (64%)
I've attached a SCEC-VDO movie showing the hypocenter location with UCERF3 faults overlayed. It's 3.6 km from Elysian Park, 5.7 km from Compton, and 6.8 km from Puente Hills.
The latest compilation of surface observation waypoints and resultant map in geopdf and KMZ. Rupture in black indicates "field verified" meaning they were largely walked for entirety and "not fully verified" in orange meaning the trace may be derived from SAR and/or optical imagery and may have just a point or two where someone observed on the ground. Next up will be the slip data!!
Credit to Luke Blair, Dan Ponti, Kate Thomas and I am sure others that have been making this database come together: there are over 8700 points!
The latest compilation of surface observation waypoints and resultant map in geopdf and KMZ. Rupture in black indicates "field verified" meaning they were largely walked for entirety and "not fully verified" in orange meaning the trace may be derived from SAR and/or optical imagery and may have just a point or two where someone observed on the ground. Next up will be the slip data!!
Credit to Luke Blair, Dan Ponti, Kate Thomas and I am sure others that have been making this database come together: there are over 8700 points!
A quick line length measurement of mapped faults (available here: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Program-RGMP/2010_faultmap.aspx) compared to the rupture map available in the KMZ thread (and soon to be updated) shows that about 30% of the M7.1 rupture occured on mapped faults, 35% of the M6.4 occured on mapped faults. See attached map!
Hey folks,
UC Riverside seismic team deployed 25 stations so far. The first station went in less than 24 hours after the Mw 7.1. It's a combination of strong and weak motion stations.
Attached are a station map and kml file. I have coordinated with USGS and SCEC.
--Abhi
I agree - you can follow the 7.1 rupture throughout the entire swath of "7/5" imagery - too bad it doesn't extend into the high slip zone. Google post-earthquake imagery taken on the afternoon of the 2014 South Napa Earthquake was listed in GE as the day before so they have a history of this. I've sent off some inquiries.
We received permission from the China Lake NAWS to release KMZ versions of the rupture map and field observations/waypoints that Ali Pickering posted in pdf form on 7/16. No mapping occurred this week on the base but will resume next week. This week field crews continue to map complex ruptures south of the base on the M6.4 and M7.1 ruptures as well as verifying reports of triggered slip on nearby faults. We will post updated maps next week.
after closer inspection, my sense is the GE imagery was acquired the morning of 7/6, not 7/5 as listed in Google Earth. Again, it would be great to verify.
Processed LOS displacement files ready for modelers.
at https://topex.ucsd.edu/SV_7.1/.
Original data was processed at full resolution for Sentinel-1 and near full resolution for ALOS-2 (4 dec in azimuth) with further processed products below
1) 500m resolution original LOS displacement. (167011 records for 4 tracks of data)
2) detrended and quad-tree downsampled LOS displacement. (7857 records for 4 tracks of data)
Cheers,
Xiaohua(Eric)
New google earth imagery dated 7/5/19 appears to show rupture on the NW trending right-lateral fault on Navy NAW, northwest of M6.4 rupture. This indicates that part of that fault ruptured prior to the M7.1 EQ on 7/5. Time/dates of GE imagery need additional verification verification. Black line is interpolated fault from Ponti et al compilation, crude red arrows point to rupture to the east.
Attached is a detected/relocated catalog of earthquakes for the foreshock and aftershock sequence, thru July 9. Animations show the same time period.
A couple notes:
2 foreshocks detected ~30 minutes prior to first SCSN catalog event (M ~-0.1 at 15:35:29 and 0.4 at 15:42:48). These appear to be clustered with the other foreshocks of the M 6.4 near the fault intersection and near the downdip limit of seismicity.
Large “holes” in aftershock distribution on both orientations (NW and NE striking), might indicate areas of substantial slip in M 6.4 mainshock.
Caveats:
The larger earthquakes (larger dots) are typically less well located because their waveforms usually don’t correlate well with very many other events. Therefore, don’t read too much into the locations of the M 6.4 or M 7.1
Magnitudes are estimated for newly detected events, but haven’t yet been calibrated.
Very little checking/validation has been done on this, so take it with an appropriate grain of salt.
Technique/Procedure:
Technique follows approach described here:
Shelly, D. R., W. L. Ellsworth, and D. P. Hill (2016), Fluid-faulting evolution in high definition: connecting
fault structure and frequency-magnitude variations during the 2014 Long Valley Caldera, California earthquake swarm,
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 121, 1776-1795, doi:10.1002/2015JB012719.
11,637 events detected and relocated from July 4-July 9. 6846 SCSN catalog events (as of data download) for the same period, which were used as waveform templates.
Events relocated using hypoDD with 1D velocity model approximated from SCEC CVM (thanks to Kyle Withers). Surface rupture is shown (probably outdated now), from Chris Milliner.
Preliminary slip distribution of the 7.1 event, measured from image correlation of Sentinel 2 images. The profile represents total slip across the main faulta and secondary structures.
Cols are:
long, lat, right-lateral disp. (m), 1 sig uncert
Note that we are awaiting official permission from NAWS before releasing digital versions of these data. We hope to receive this soon.
Here is an updated version of the previous fault trace/field observations map. Note we have broken down surface rupture by:
field verified-continuous rupture
field verified in part-continuity uncertain
inferred-not verified
This map is generalized and provisional. We will update as we work our way through observations, new imagery and receive more data from the field.
If you are heading to the Ridgecrest area with the intent to do fieldwork, please check beforehand to
(1) Determine if you will be on BLM land, using the attached KMZ (made from this site: https://gis.blm.gov/arcgis/rest/services/lands/BLM_Natl_SMA_Cached_with_...)
(2) If so, please make contact with BLM before heading out so they are aware of what is happening. If needed, the contact is:
Elaine Hanson
ehanson@blm.gov
office: 760-384-5457
cell: 760-608-3461
We have been cautioned that the BLM Field Manager will start removing instruments if they are not authorized. Thanks for helping to ensure our community can continue to access the area.
Regards,
Tran Huynh
Next Clearinghouse briefing #7 will be on MONDAY, July 15, 2019 at 7:00 PM Pacific Time. See notes from previous days' briefings attached to comments in this thread.
Virtual GoToMeeting connection information:Web Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/722561069Call-in Phone number: +1 (872) 240-3311
Access Code: 722-561-069
Solutions are derived from 9 daily or partial daily solutions (4 before the foreshock, 2 between the foreshock and mainshock, and 3 after the mainshock), and are referenced to a group of sites located outside of California.
Xiaofeng Meng and I went on recon on Friday July 12. We documented several cases of fresh damage to the tufa spires at the Pinnacles National Park, near Trona.
- Lidar and UAV campaigns are being coordinated and will start as early as Monday July 16.
- We need to engage the broader fragile geologic featre (FGF aka PBR) community.
- Download Powerpoint and videos here (too big for this site): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fp1CWMuOoY0NHaL8G54CFXCmpVpPrxIu?usp=sharing
- Please contact me if you have questions or to be included in the coordination discussions (cgoulet@usc.edu).
The UCR team revisted the Ridgecrest area today, and set out three additional sites (PASO, 0914, GS25), took down one (V511) and serviced their remaining four stations (H701, PNCL, BM25, GS04). A group from Scripps was in the area, also, servicing their stations.
The updated kmz file posted here reflects the new deployments that I know of.
See attached animation (14MB) from 1Hz GPS/GNSS NOTA data by Christine Puskas. One can see the surface waves propagating outward. There appears to be some amplification in the Ventura Basin. Note vector for horizontal scale and color for vertical scale.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ze86j14cgybp4v0/2019-07-06-M7.1Ridgecrest-realtime.mp4?dl=0
The slip model uses 3 component GPS (by Peng), Sentinel-1, ALOS-2, and optical imagery fault offset (by Chris).