CAN THE SEISMO-LINEAMENT ANALYSIS METHOD [SLAM] FIND THE SURFACE TRACE OF FAULTS KNOWN TO HAVE RUPTURED DURING LARGE [AND SMALL] EARTHQUAKES?
Are seismogenic faults sufficiently planar for SLAM to be useful? We evaluated this question by gathering data from 6 earthquakes with known surface rupture, including the Parkfield (2004, M6), Denali (2002, M7.9), Hector Mine (1999, M7.1), Superstition Hills (1987, M6.2 and M6.6), and Borah Peak (1983, M7.3) earthquakes. In these cases, the ground-rupture zone associated with the main shock was located within the seismo-lineament.
Can small earthquakes be used to find faults capable of producing large earthquakes? Small earthquakes result from slip on small fault patches, which are commonly located along established faults that have produced large earthquakes. That is, small earthquakes are not necessarily associated with small isolated faults. When a fault-plane solution from a small earthquake correlates spatially with a long, brittle-cataclastic fault exposed at the ground surface, it may be a distant aftershock of a large prehistoric earthquake. SLAM was applied using focal data from aftershocks of several well-recorded major earthquakes. Result: the fault rupture zone associated with the main shock was located within the seismo-lineament in each case. Small earthquakes can be used to find the faults associated with much larger earthquakes.