Reproducibility of Remote Mapping of the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Surface Ruptures

IF 2.6 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Seismological Research Letters Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.1785/0220230095
Elaine K. Young, Michael E. Oskin, Alba M. Rodriguez Padilla
{"title":"Reproducibility of Remote Mapping of the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Surface Ruptures","authors":"Elaine K. Young, Michael E. Oskin, Alba M. Rodriguez Padilla","doi":"10.1785/0220230095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We use multiple, independently produced surface-rupture maps of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence to test the reproducibility of surface-rupture map interpretation and completeness. The 4 July Mw 6.4 and 5 July Mw 7.1 earthquakes produced surface-rupture zones approximately 20 and 50 km in length, respectively. Three independent mappers with various backgrounds in active tectonics mapped the surface rupture from the postearthquake lidar data without knowledge from postearthquake field or geodetic observations. Visual comparisons of the three remote rupture maps show good agreement for scarps >50 cm in height. For features with less topographic expression, interpretations of the data vary more widely between mappers. Quantitative map comparisons range from 18% to 54% consistency between mapped lines with 1 m buffers. The percent overlap increases with buffer width, reflecting variance in line placement as well as differences in fault-zone interpretation. Overall, map similarity is higher in areas where the surface rupture was simpler and had more vertical offset than in areas with complex rupture patterns or little vertical offset. Fault-zone interpretation accounts for the most difference between maps, while line placement accounts for differences at the meter scale. In comparison to field observations, our remotely produced maps capture the principal rupture well but miss small features and geometric complexity. In general, lidar excels for the detection and measurement of vertical offsets in the landscape, and it is deficient for detecting lateral offset with little or no vertical motion.","PeriodicalId":21687,"journal":{"name":"Seismological Research Letters","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seismological Research Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1785/0220230095","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract We use multiple, independently produced surface-rupture maps of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence to test the reproducibility of surface-rupture map interpretation and completeness. The 4 July Mw 6.4 and 5 July Mw 7.1 earthquakes produced surface-rupture zones approximately 20 and 50 km in length, respectively. Three independent mappers with various backgrounds in active tectonics mapped the surface rupture from the postearthquake lidar data without knowledge from postearthquake field or geodetic observations. Visual comparisons of the three remote rupture maps show good agreement for scarps >50 cm in height. For features with less topographic expression, interpretations of the data vary more widely between mappers. Quantitative map comparisons range from 18% to 54% consistency between mapped lines with 1 m buffers. The percent overlap increases with buffer width, reflecting variance in line placement as well as differences in fault-zone interpretation. Overall, map similarity is higher in areas where the surface rupture was simpler and had more vertical offset than in areas with complex rupture patterns or little vertical offset. Fault-zone interpretation accounts for the most difference between maps, while line placement accounts for differences at the meter scale. In comparison to field observations, our remotely produced maps capture the principal rupture well but miss small features and geometric complexity. In general, lidar excels for the detection and measurement of vertical offsets in the landscape, and it is deficient for detecting lateral offset with little or no vertical motion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2019年山脊地震地表破裂的远程测绘再现性
我们使用2019年山脊地震序列的多个独立制作的地表破裂图来测试地表破裂图解释的可重复性和完整性。7月4日的6.4兆瓦和7月5日的7.1兆瓦地震分别产生了大约20公里和50公里长的地表破裂带。三位具有不同活动构造背景的独立制图者在没有震后场或大地测量观测知识的情况下,利用地震后激光雷达数据绘制了地表破裂图。三幅远距离断裂图的目视比较显示高度为50厘米的断崖高度一致。对于地形表达较少的特征,不同制图者对数据的解释差异更大。定量地图比较在具有1m缓冲区的映射线之间的一致性范围为18%到54%。重叠的百分比随着缓冲区宽度的增加而增加,这反映了线放置的差异以及断层带解释的差异。总体而言,地表破裂较为简单且垂直偏移较多的地区的地图相似性高于破裂模式复杂或垂直偏移较少的地区。断层带解释解释了地图之间的最大差异,而线的放置解释了米尺度上的差异。与现场观察结果相比,我们的远程制作的地图可以很好地捕捉到主要破裂,但遗漏了小特征和几何复杂性。总的来说,激光雷达擅长于探测和测量景观中的垂直偏移量,而在探测很少或没有垂直运动的横向偏移量方面存在不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Seismological Research Letters
Seismological Research Letters 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
12.10%
发文量
239
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Follow the Trace: Becoming a Seismo‐Detective with a Campus‐Based Raspberry Shake Seismometer Nominations for the Next Joyner Lecturer Due 30 June Imaging Urban Hidden Faults with Ambient Noise Recorded by Dense Seismic Arrays Microseismic Event Location with Dual Vertical DAS Arrays: Insights from the FORGE 2022 Stimulation New Empirical Source‐Scaling Laws for Crustal Earthquakes Incorporating Fault Dip and Seismogenic‐Thickness Effects
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1