Reconciling geologic and geodetic fault studies: do they even need to be reconciled?

Session ID#: 23156

Session Description:
Quantifying crustal deformation across geodetic and geomorphic timescales may not always produce consistent results, leading to questions about which approach may be most appropriate for interpreting fault activity and seismic hazard. Geodetic techniques such as Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), record active accumulation of tectonic strain across seismogenic fault zones on decadal timescales. Paleoseismology and tectonic geomorphology are capable of probing deeper in time, but must average over several earthquake cycles to estimate fault slip rates, and often cannot resolve slip heterogeneity along fault strike and depth. We encourage submissions exploring strengths and weaknesses of geologic and/or geodetic approaches to understanding active fault systems, and novel approaches for reconciling geologic and geodetic information: Under what conditions might we expect geologic and geodetic slip rates to agree or disagree? What do geologic and/or geodetic measurements reveal about slip partitioning throughout the earthquake cycle?
Primary Convener:  Mong-Han Huang, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States
Conveners:  Eileen L Evans, USGS Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, United States; U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Science Center, Menlo Park, CA, United States and Kimberly Blisniuk, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, United States

  • G - Geodesy
  • S - Seismology
Index Terms:

Abstracts Submitted to this Session:

Horng-Yue Chen, Masataka Ando and Cheng-Horng Lin, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
Ryan D Gold, USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center, Golden, CO, United States
Katherine Anna Guns1, Rick A Bennett1 and Kimberly Blisniuk2, (1)University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States, (2)San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, United States
Giorgi Khazaradze, Robert López, Raimon Pallàs, Maria Ortuño, Jaume Bordonau and Eulalia Masana, University of Barcelona, Department of Earth and Ocean Dynamics, Barcelona, Spain
Huw Goodall1, Laura C Gregory1, Luke Wedmore2, Gerald Roberts3, Richard P Shanks4, Kenneth J W McCaffrey5, Ruth Amey2 and Andrew J Hooper1, (1)University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2, United Kingdom, (2)University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, (3)Birkbeck, University of London, Earth and Planetary Sciences, London, United Kingdom, (4)Scottish Universities Environmental Research Center at the University of Glasgow, East Kilbride, United Kingdom, (5)University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom
Emma Hill1, Aron J Meltzner1, James D. P. Moore1, Belle Philibosian2, Lujia Feng1, Eric O. Lindsey1, Kyle E. Bradley1 and Qiang Qiu3, (1)Earth Observatory of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore, (2)USGS, Menlo Park, United States, (3)University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Katherine M Scharer, USGS Pasadena, Earthquake Science Center, Pasadena, CA, United States, Adrien Moulin, University of California Davis, Geological Sciences, Davis, CA, United States and Eric Cowgill, University of California Davis, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Davis, CA, United States
David J Harbor, Washington and Lee University, Geology, Lexington, VA, United States and William D Barnhart, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States
Yu Zhou, Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Wuhan, China

See more of: Tectonophysics