Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (17) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hardebeck, J. L. Articles by Hauksson, E. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Stress Orientations Obtained from Earthquake Focal Mechanisms: What Are Appropriate Uncertainty Estimates?

Seismological Laboratory MC 252-21
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California, 91125

Crustal stress orientations provide important information about the mechanics of regional deformation. Numerous methods exist for inverting earthquake focal mechanisms for stress orientation, and the more widely used methods usually obtain similar results for similar data sets. However, error estimates are highly variable, complicating the interpretation of results. The southern California stress field, for example, contains much statistically significant spatial and temporal variability according to the error estimates of one method (Michael, 1984, 1987b), but very little according to those of another (Gephart and Forsyth, 1984). To resolve whether the southern California stress field is generally homogeneous or heterogeneous, we must determine which of the error estimates best reflects the true inversion uncertainty. To do this, we tested both methods on a suite of synthetic focal mechanism data sets containing random errors. The method of Gephart and Forsyth (1984) usually provides more accurate estimates of stress orientation, especially for high-quality data sets, but its confidence regions are in most cases too large. The method of Michael (1984, 1987b) is more accurate for very noisy data sets and provides a more appropriate estimate of uncertainty, implying that the stress field in southern California is probably heterogeneous.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. J. Sanchez and F. J. Nunez-Cornu Seismicity and Stress in a Tectonically Complex Region: The Rivera Fracture Zone, the Rivera-Cocos Boundary, and the Southwestern Jalisco Block, Mexico Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2009; 99(5): 2771 - 2783. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Multiple Seismogenic Processes for High-Frequency Earthquakes at Katmai National Park, Alaska: Evidence from Stress Tensor Inversions of Fault-Plane Solutions Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2003; 93(1): 94 - 108.

				Properties of the Aftershock Sequence of the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine Earthquake: Implications for Aftershock Hazard Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, May 1, 2002; 92(4): 1227 - 1240.