[Geophysical Research Letters]
Supporting Information for
Scaling of maximum observed magnitudes with geometrical and stress properties of strikeslip faults
Patricia Martínez-Garzón 1, Marco Bohnhoff 1,2, Yehuda Ben-Zion3, Georg Dresen1,4
(1) GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany
(2) Free University Berlin, Institute of Geological sciences, Berlin, Germany
(3) Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
(4) Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Potsdam, Germany
Contents of this file
Table S1
Text S2
Figure S3
Figure S4
Supplement References
1
Introduction
Table S1 provides with the data compiled throughout 2014 from literature research. Supplement
S2 provides an overview on the parameters derived for each specific fault as well as the literature
references from which the data has been taken. When possible, uncertainties in these quantities are
provided. Figure S3 provides a general overview on the approximate locations of the strike slip
faults used in this study. Figure S5 presents the stress drop results analogous to Fig 3c from the
main text, but calculated using a W source model.
Table S1. Parameters from thirty major continental strike-slip faults sections worldwide used in
this study. Cd : Cumulative displacement. z : Seismogenic thickness. M MAX : Maximum observed
magnitude. u : Average coseismic slip. RL : Earthquake rupture length. L f : Total mapped fault
length.  : Angle between fault trace and maximum horizontal stress.
1
Low
Low z
(km)
Up z
(km)
Best
Low
Up
(km)
Best z
(km)
M MAX
M MAX
M MAX
475
485
18
11
25
8,1
8
8,5
7
10
15
13
17
7,8
3
0
5
13
10
15
24
19
29
9
7
9,1
8,5
9
11
3
1,6
4
200
200
Best
Cd
Cd
Fault
ID
Fault
(km)
(km)
1
Alpine Fault
480
2
6
Atera Fault
Atotsugawa
fault
Calaveras
Fault
Calico Mesquite
(ECSZ)
Camp Rock
(ECSZ)
7
Chaman
3
4
5

RL
(km)
Mag.
type
(km)
(deg)
8,2
380
Mw
900
63
7,5
7,9
60
M
65
43
7,1
7
7,2
23
M
80
45
11
6,6
6,4
6,8
25
M
123
53
10
12
5,3
5,2
5,4
M
125
42
10
9
12
7,3
7,2
7,4
Mw
35
42
400
30
28
32
7,8
7,7
8
M
850
53
1000
25
Cd
3
71
8.a
DST, North
80
75
85
30
28
31
7,50
7,4
7,80
ML
8.b
DST,South
105
100
110
20
19
21
7,3
7,1
7,5
ML
9
350
300
400
20
15
25
7,9
7,7
7,9
10
Denali
East
Anatolian
Fault
30
27
33
19
18
20
7,5
7,3
7,8
11
El Pilar Fault
60
55
65
12
10
14
7,3
7,2
7,4
12
Fairweather
6
5
16
20
18
22
7,8
7,7
7,9
13
Garlock
56
48
64
12
11
13
7
6,6
7,4
14
75
60
90
20
15
25
7,4
7,2
7,9
8
15
Haiyuan
Hayward
Fault
68
53
83
7
5
9
6,8
6,7
6,9
0,9
16
Hope
19
14
24
9
6
12
7,1
7
17
150
100
200
14,5
12
17
7,5
4
3
5
15,5
13
18
19
MTL
Neodani
Fault
Newport
Inglewood
5
1
10
10
9
20
NAFZ
90
85
95
16
10
18
Lf
u
(m)
Up
4,2
Mw
1500
80
M
550
55
Mw
408
63
Mw
1200
43
M
245
53
200
M
280
53
51
M
120
60
7,3
87
Mw
220
40
7,3
7,6
40
M
500
30
7,5
7,4
7,8
80
Mw
60
48
11
6,4
6,3
6,5
35
Mw
60
53
20
7,8
7,7
7,9
360
Mw
1200
45
4
5
2,5
340
30
200
1
21.a
436
360
512
16
15
20
7,9
7,7
8
3,3
432
Mw
1300
65
209
104
315
19,5
18
21
7,9
7,8
8
6,4
297
Mw
1300
60
27
25
29
16,5
15,5
17,5
7
6,8
7,1
M
265
55
23
SAF, North
SAF,
Cholame Cajon Pass
San Jacinto
Fault
San MiguelVallecitos
0,6
0,1
5
12
11
17
6,6
6,5
6,7
0,5
22
M
160
38
24
Tanna
1
0,1
6
11
9
13
6,9
6,8
7,1
2,9
35
Mw
30
45
25
Wairau
Whittier Elsinore
455
430
480
17
11
25
8
7,9
8,10
Mw
25
10
40
15
14
16
7,1
6,9
7,5
M
21.b
22
26
65
275
53
2
Text S2.
A brief description of each fault is here provided with the appropriate references where the
data is taken from, estimated uncertainties, moment magnitude and individual comments.
1 Alpine Fault, New Zealand
Paleoseismic evidence suggest that it ruptured in large earthquakes (M > 7.5) [Leitner et al.,
2001]. The 1717 event had a moment magnitude of MW 8.1 ± 0.1 based on the 380-km-long
surface rupture [Pascale and Langridge, 2012]. Thus, these values and uncertainties are here used.
Leitner et al., [2001] also indicated that the Alpine releases elastic strain seismically from the
surface down to 10-12 km, but notice that locking depth estimated from GPS data is 20-30 km
[Barth et al., 2013]. Thus, a value of 18 km is here used for the seismogenic depth, with
uncertainties 11 - 25 km. The Alpine Fault (Fig. S1.D) has a remarkably straight surface trace for
over 800 km [Barth et al., 2013], although no information is provided on how much the fault might
extend offshore. The Wairau fault (Fig. S1.D) is the natural prolongation of the Alpine. For
analyzing mapped fault length, the Wairau fault has been added to the Alpine fault (total of 900
km). Cumulative offsets taken from Stirling et al. [1996] and references therein. Also, according
to Leitner et al., [2001]: The region deforms under a uniform stress field with a maximum principal
shortening direction of 110° - 120°.
2 Atera Fault, Japan
Toda and Inoue [1995] and Toda et al. [1996] conducted a trenching survey and suggested
that the greatest activity on the Atera fault system (Fig. S3.C) is the 1586 Tensho earthquake (M
7.8 from Yabe et al., [2010]). The magnitude type is unknown. Therefore, this value is used with
an uncertainty between 7.5 and 7.9. To estimate the rupture length, the empirical relation between
magnitude and RL proposed by Matsuda, [1975] is used (contained also in Kanaori, [1994]):
log RL  0.6M  2.9 . The depth of the seismogenic layer is estimated from Tanaka et al., [2004]),
based on the 90% cutoff of the relocated seismicity from Japan Meteorological Agency (between
13 and 17 km). The length of the fault is 60-70 km [Stirling et al., 1996]. Cumulative offset is taken
from Stirling et al., [1996] and references therein. Yabe et al., [2010] estimated the stress field from
Deformation Rate Analysis and concluded that the orientation of S HMAX is around N – S.
3 Atotsugawa Fault, Japan
The largest historical earthquake is the 1858 Hietsu earthquake (∼M 7.1), which occurred
along the Atotsugawa (Fig. S3.C) and Mozumi - Sukenobu faults [Nakajima, 2010]. Due to the
unknown magnitude type, uncertainties are here considered between M 6.9 and 7.2. To estimate
the rupture length of this earthquake, the empirical relation between magnitude and RL proposed by
Matsuda, [1975] is used (contained also in Kanaori, [1994]). In Nakajima, [2010], the depth of the
seismogenic layer is estimated to be at ~ 15 km in the deepest parts. From Tanaka [2004], the depth
of seismogenic layer is between 11–15 km. The Atotsugawa fault system is composed of three main
strike-slip faults, covering approximately 80 km [Katsumata, 2010]. Cumulative offset is taken
from [Stirling et al., 1996] and references therein. The direction of S HMAX and the fault trace forms
an angle of 43 – 48° [Katsumata, 2010].
4 Calaveras Fault, Northern California, USA
The largest recorded event at the Calaveras Fault (Fig. S3.B) occurred in 1911 in the Morgan
Hill area. Doser et al., [2008] gave this event a M 6.6, but not specified type of magnitude.
1
Therefore, here a M 6.6 is considered (unknown type), with larger uncertainties of 0.2 . The RL
of the Morgan Hill event was estimated to be 25 km [Oppenheimer et al., 1990]. However,
approximately same rupture length is reported for the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake (M 6.2). Thus,
this value is probably a lower estimate. The seismogenic layer is not arriving to 10 km using
relocated seismicity hypocenters. Therefore, here a value of 9 km is used, with an uncertainty of
2km to account for the hypocentral location error [Schaff et al., 2002]. At the Calaveras Fault,
the cumulative offset is 24 km [Stirling et al., 1996] and references therein. The total length of the
fault is approximately 123 km [Working group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003]. The
angle between the fault trace and S HMAX is estimated from Hardebeck and Michael, [2004].
5 Calico-Mesquite, Eastern California Shear Zone, USA
The Calico fault (Fig. S3.B) has not ruptured in historical times. However, it triggered a 5.3
event after the Landers earthquake in 1992 [from SCEDC catalog of significant earthquakes and
faults]. Since this earthquake occurred in recent times, uncertainty of 0.1 is considered. The depth
of the seismogenic layer (12 km) was first estimated from Hauksson et al., [1993] and Smith Konter
et al., [2011]. Now, we use the relocated catalog of southern California from Hauksson et al.,
[2012], calculating the cutoff depth of the 90% seismicity. Here, the seismogenic thickness is 9 km.
Therefore, here a value of 10 km is used with uncertainties covering these two values. The
cumulative offset is 8 km taken from Stirling et al., [1996] and references therein. In Petersen and
Wesnousky, [1994], cumulative offset is between 8.5 and 9.6 km. The length of the fault is taken
from Stirling et al., [1996]. The angle between the fault trace and S HMAX is assumed to be very
similar to that of the Camp Rock fault.
6 Camp Rock, Eastern California Shear Zone, USA
The major rupture of the Camp Rock Fault (Fig. S3.B) is the 1992 Landers earthquake, with
magnitude MW 7.3 [Hauksson et al., 1993]. Since this earthquake occurred in recent times,
uncertainty of 0.1 is considered. The surface RL of the Landers event was estimated in 71 m
[Wells and Coppersmith, 1994]. The depth of the seimogenic layer is estimated in 12 km following
[Hauksson et al., 1993]. Using the relocated catalog of southern California from Hauksson et al.,
[2012], the cutoff depth of the 90% seismicity occurs at 9 km. [Hauksson et al., 2012]. Here, a
value of 10 km is used, with uncertainties extending to these values. The cumulative offset is 1,6 4 km taken from Stirling et al., [1996], Petersen and Wesnousky, [1994] and references therein.
The length of the Camp Rock fault alone is about 35 km [from Fault Database of Southern
California Earthquake Datacenter]. This earthquake did not only activate this fault, but also the
Johnson Valley Fault, the Kickapoo Fault and the Homestead Valley fault. The angle between the
fault trace and S HMAX is estimated from Hardebeck and Michael, [2006].
7 Chaman Transform Fault Zone (Afghanistan - Pakistan)
Greatest earthquakes on the Chaman Fault (Fig. S3.A) can be found in [Ambraseys and
Bilham, 2003]: “The M 7.3 1931 earthquake released stresses that may have “unclamped” the
subsequent M 7.7 left-lateral Quetta earthquake”. Other sources give to this event a value between
MW 7.7 and MW 8.1 (http://www.dawn.com/news/1068419/dawn-features-october-25-2005).
Therefore, here a value of MW 7.8 is used with uncertainties between the mentioned values. For
this fault, Ambraseys and Bilham, [2003] reported a significant earthquake moment release at 30
km depth. Therefore, this value is chosen as the depth of seismogenic layer, with uncertainties of
2km . The length of the fault is estimated in approximately 850 – 900 km
2
(http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1685#.VMDYXkfF-wU). Between 200 and 400
km of left cumulated slip along the Chaman fault seems probable [Lawrence et al., 1981], but they
could only demonstrate 200 km. Therefore, these values are used as uncertainties, but the best value
corresponds to the highest demonstrable offset (200 km). The orientation of the stress field is taken
from Zhang et al., [2011].
8 Dead Sea Transform (Syria – Lebanon – Jordan – Israel – Saudi Arabia)
The Dead Sea Transform (DST) Fault Zone (Fig. S3A) extends by approximately 1000 km
[Quenell, 1958; Freund et al., 1970]. The stress field orientation is taken from Eyal, [1996]. We
have analyzed two particular sections of the Dead Sea Transform:
8.1 Northern Section (Syria - Lebanon)
The potentially strongest event reported for the DST is the Antiochia earthquake of 859 AD
[Ben-Menahem, 1991]. Its magnitude values extend between M 7 and 8. The largest event with a
consistent magnitude of M 7.4 occurred in 1759. Another event with M 7.5 occurred in 1202 in this
area [Ambraseys, 1989]. Thus, here M 7.5 is used with uncertainties extending [7.4 – 7.8] to account
for the potentially larger Antiochia event. The depth limit of seismicity is unusually large (about
31 km) [Aldersons et al., 2003; Braeuer et al., 2012]. Alderson et al., [2003], shows that the events
in the north occur at a maximum depth of 31 km. A value of 30 km with uncertainties of 28 to 31
km is considered. The total displacement in the northern section is 80 km [Garfunkel, 1981].
Uncertainty for this measurement is unknown.
8.2 Southern Section (Gulf of Eilat – Jordan River – Dead Sea)
The maximum magnitude here was estimated in the ML 7.3 earthquake from 746 [BenMenahem, 1991, Table 2]. To account for the unknown conversion to moment magnitude,
uncertainty of 0.3 is considered. Alderson et al., [2003], show that the events occur in the south
at a maximum depth of 20 km. These results are confirmed by the study of Braeuer et al., [2012]
as well as Wetzler [2014]. An uncertainty range of 1km is here considered. The total
displacement in the southern section is 105 km [Quenell, 1958; Freund et al., 1970; Weber et al.
2009]. Uncertainty for this measurement is unknown.
9 Denali Fault, Alaska, USA
The total length of the Denali Fault (Fig. S3B) is 1500 km. The cumulative offset is 300 –
400 km is taken from the USGS report from Nokleberg et al., [1985]. The largest known earthquake
in the Denali fault happened in 2002, with MW 7.9 [Eberthart-Phillips et al., 2003, Bufer, 2004,
Choy, 2004, Ozacar, 2004]. It has been also decomposed in two events, then the largest one of
MW 7.7 [Ozacar, 2004]. The RL of this event was estimated in 340 m [Choy and Boatwright,
2004]. Ratchkovski et al., [2003] relocated more than 4000 aftershocks from the Denali Earthquake.
They observed that the aftershocks were located down to 12 km, most of them located at 10 km.
However, in Fisher et al., [2007], the Denali fault is observed to extend to depths between 20 and
25 km. Therefore, 20 km is here taken as a value with uncertainties of 5km . The stress field
orientation is estimated from the report of Ruppert, “Stress Map for Alaska from Earthquake Focal
Mechanisms”. There, stress inversions are performed separately for the fault section between
Denali and Fairweather, Eastern Denali fault and Totschunda Fault. In the three cases, the angle
between S HMAX and  1 varies between 70 and 85.
10 East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), Turkey
Historical and instrumental records reveal significant differences between historical and
recent seismicity. The largest earthquake along the EAFZ (Fig. S3A) occurred on 1114 (Maras, Ms
3
> 7.8), 1513 (Ms > 7.4) and 1893 (Ms > 7.1) [Ambraseys and Jackson, 1998]. Since the earthquake
in Maras could have been overestimated or occur in the Dead Sea Transform Fault (EAFZ and DST
join in Maras), a value of Ms 7.4, MW 7.5 seems reasonable with uncertainties extending from 7.3
to 7.8. This event is categorized as unknown magnitude type. The length of the fault (500 km – 600
km) and depth of seismogenic layer is estimated from seismicity shown in Bulut et al.,
[2012].There, 90% of the seismicity is be approximately 19 km. Therefore, this value is here used
with uncertainties of 1km . Largest cumulative offsets are 27–33 km constrained by the offset of
geological features and by the length of the Golbasi strike-slip basin [Westaway and Arger, 1996,
Bulut et al., 2012]. The stress field is estimated following Yilmaz et al., [2006].
11 El Pilar Transform Zone, Venezuela
There are few reported historical earthquakes that caused tsunamis for which the magnitude
has not been estimated. Not considering this, Ms 7.1 – 7.3 is the maximum earthquake on this fault
[Audemard, 2007]. This results in MW 7,2 to 7,4. Therefore, these values are here used. According
to the micro-seismicity shown in Jouanne et al., [2011], the thickness of the seismogenic layer
from the 90% of the seismicity is approximately 12 km. Since here the estimation is performed
from GPS data and not from seismicity, an uncertainty of 2km is considered. The length of the
fault is described in [Audemard et al., 2000] (page 66). The cumulative offset is in the order of 60
km [Audemard and Giraldo, 1997]. The stress field of this fault is analyzed in detail in Audemard
et al., [2005].
12 Fairweather Fault, Alaska, USA
The length of the Fairweather System (Fig. S3B) is around 1200 km [Fletcher and
Freymueller, 2003]. The largest event reported in this fault occurred in 1958. The magnitude was
M 7.9 (magnitude type not reported) in Page, [1969] and MW 7.78 in Bufe, [2005]. Therefore,
uncertainty of 0.1 assumed. The surface rupture RL of this event was estimated in 200 m [Wells
and Coppersmith, 1994]. Doser, [2010] relocated the earthquakes in the Denali fault between 1971
and 2005 and reported that most of the seismicity is concentrated up to 20 km. Since no clear 90%
cutoff can be estimated here, an uncertainty of 2km is used. Major valleys are systematically
offset in a dextral way approximately 5.5 km, which suggest that the fault cannot be older than
100000 years [Plafker et al., 1978]. Additionally, Kalbas et al., [2008] pointed out that the
cumulative offset in the Artlewis Fault (Southern segment of the Fairweather fault) is 16  5km .
Therefore, a value of 6 km is here used with upper uncertainty covering this measurement. The
stress field orientation is estimated from Bufe, [2005].
13 Garlock Fault, Southern California, USA
The total length of the Garlock Fault (Fig. S3B) is approximately 240 – 250 km [Wesnousky,
1988]. No earthquake has produced surface rupture on the Garlock fault in historic times. However,
dividing the observed offsets by the range of slip rates led to estimate the occurrence of events of
magnitude greater than about 7 [Petersen and Wesnousky, 1994]. Thus, here a M 7 (unknown type)
is used, with the largest uncertainty range of 0.4 . The depth of the seismogenic layer is estimated
in 12 km in [Nazareth and Hauksson, 2004]. In this study, the error range in the seismogenic
thickness prediction is 2.3 km. The cumulative offset at the Garlock fault is estimated to be 64 km
[Stirling et al., 1996] and references therein. “The Garlock fault of southern California has a leftlateral displacement of at least 48 to 64 km.” [Davis and Burchfiel, 1973]. The orientation of the
stress field is estimated from Hardebeck and Hauksson, [2001].
14 Haiyuan Fault, Tibet
4
The length of the Haiyuan fault (Fig. S3A) is 280 km according to Stirling et al., [1996]. The
greatest earthquake on this fault is the 1920 Kansu event. The magnitude of this event is Ms 8.6
[Liu-Zeng et al., 2007]. However, the same event had been given also ML 7,8.
(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/mag8/magnitude8_1900_date.php).
Using an empirical relation between MW and ML for China: MW  0.85M L  0.58 [Li et al.,
2014], this event has a moment magnitude of MW 7.2. However, Wells and Coppersmith, [1994]
gave a MW 8.0 to this event. Therefore, a value of MW 7.4 is here used, with uncertainties ranging
from MW 7.2 to 8. The surface RL of this event was estimated in 220 m [Wells and Coppersmith,
1994]. No studies on the seismogenic depth could be found particularly for the Haiyuan fault. Thus,
we estimated the seismogenic layer from the studies of [Bell et al., 2011] using ESA and ERS data
to estimate the slip rates of the Kunlun – Altyn Tagh faults. A value of 22 km was provided. Here,
we used a value of 20 km with uncertainty of 5km . Cumulative offset from [Stirling et al., 1996]
and references therein was estimated in between 12 and 14.5 km. More recently, it was refined with
the data from [Liu-Zeng et al., 2007], in which the cumulative offset is varying between 60 and 90
km. The stress field orientation was estimated using data from the World Stress Map Project
[Heidbach et al., 2010].
15 Hayward Fault, Northern California, USA
The length of this fault (Fig. S3B) is estimated in 120 km [Lienkaemper et al., 1991;
Waldhauser and Ellsworth, 2002]. The largest quake on the Hayward Fault in recorded history
occurred in 1868, with an estimated magnitude of 6.8 - 7.0. Wells and Coppersmith, (1994) gave
to this event a MW 6.76. Thus, M 6.8 is here chosen with uncertainties between M [6.6 -7]
(unknown magnitude type). The surface RL of this event was estimated in 48 m [Wells and
Coppersmith,
1994]
or
54
km
(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/simulations/hayward/M6.8.php). The dextral cumulative
offset at the Hayward fault exhibits about 160 to 170 km across faults of the East San Francisco
Bay Region (ESFBR) [McLaughlin et al., 1996]. Among them, 68  15km are accumulated
between the Tolay-Rogers Creek – Haywards faults. From cutoff seismicity analysed [Bürgmann
et al., 2000], the seismogenic layer is estimated to be at 10 – 12 km. Also, Waldhauser and
Ellsworth, [2002] relocated the seismicity having most of the events up to 13 km. To correct for
the part of the seismogenic layer that is creeping, Lienkaemper et al., [1991] estimated that the
seismogenic thickness is approximately 11 km, from which 7 km might be fully locked. Therefore,
this is the estimation that is performed here, accounting for uncertainties of 2km . The orientation
of the stress field is estimated following Hardebeck and Michael, [2004].
16 Hope Fault, Marlborough Fault System, New Zealand
The length of the Hope fault (Fig. S3D) is 220 km [Stirling et al., 1996]. Cumulative offset is
also taken from Stirling et al., [1996]. The Hope’s largest event was the 1888 North Canterbury
MW
(Amuri)
earthquake.
This
event
had
7–7.3,
according
to
http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake/M+7.0+-+7.3,+North+Canterbury,+1+September+1888.
Thus, MW 7.1 has been here assigned to this event, with uncertainties between MW 7 and 7.3.
The surface RL of the North Canterbury event was estimated in 13, 50, 60 and 150 km[Cowan and
McGlone, 1991]. Therefore, an estimation of the latest three values (87 km) is here used. The
earthquake are distributed all depths down to 9 km [Leitner et al., 2001]. Since the seismicity here
5
was only located and due to the great difference with the other faults from New Zealand, an
uncertainty of 3km is used.
17 Median Tectonic line (MTL), Japan
The total length of the fault is 500 km [Ikeda et al., 2009]. The stress field is estimated
according to the results of Famin et al., [2014]. The largest earthquake occurred on 1596 in Kinai
and had a reported magnitude of M 7.5 (unknown type) [Kanaori et al., 1994]. To account for
potential magnitude conversion to MW , uncertainties are considered between 7.3 and 7.6. The
depth of the seismogenic layer is estimated from Tanaka et al., [2004], who estimated it based on
the 90% cutoff of the seismicity using the relocated catalog of Japan Meteorological Agency
(JMA). The distribution of the seismicity varies between 12 and 17 km. The cumulative
displacement is a controversial measure. About 2 km of cumulative displacement has been reported
at the Kii Peninsula for the Quaternary period [Kaneko, 1966]. However, the fault was active for a
larger geological period, and between 100 and 200 km of total displacement were reported by
Takagi and Shibata, [2000] from the mid-Cretaceus. Therefore, these values are here used.
18 Neodani Fault System, Japan
Kanaori et al., [1990] reported a length of 60 km for the Neodani fault (Fig. S3C) alone.
Cumulative offset is taken from Stirling et al., [1996]. The largest earthquake that occurred in this
fault is the 1891 Nobi earthquake. Tsutsumi et al., [2004] reported M 8.0 for this event (unknown
magnitude type). However, Fukuyama et al., [2007] created synthetic seismograms from source
models with various fault parameters, compared them with the original records and estimated a
MW 7.5. Therefore, accounting for the conversion of the Tsutsumi estimation to MW ,
uncertainties are here considered from 7.4 to 7,8. The surface RL of the Nobi earthquake was
estimated in 80 m [Wells and Coppersmith, 1994]. The depth of the seismogenic layer is estimated
from Tanaka et al., [2004], based on the 90% cutoff of the seismicity using the relocated catalog
of JMA. Here, the seismogenic depth varies between 13 and 18 km. The stress field orientation is
estimated from Townend and Zoback, [2006].
19 Newport – Inglewood, Southern California, USA
The length of this fault (Fig. S3B) is 60 km [Wesnousky, 1989]. The cumulative offset 0.2 –
10 km is taken from [Stirling et al., 1996]. The maximum magnitude event observed here is the
event from 1933 at Long Beach. Wells and Coppersmith [1994] estimated the magnitude of this
event in MW 6.38. Thus, a MW of 6.4 is here used with an uncertainty of 0.1. The earthquake
rupture length is here estimated in 35 km based on the aftershock distribution of the Long Beach
earthquake [Hauksson and Gross, 1991]. The depth of the seimogenic layer (10 km) is estimated
following the results in [Nazareth and Hauksson, 2004]. In this study, error range in the
seismogenic thickness prediction is 2.3 km. This is consistent with the estimation using the
seismicity catalog [Hauksson et al., 2012]. Stress field orientation is taken from Hardebeck and
Hauksson, [2001].
20 North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), Turkey
The total fault length (Fig. S3A) has been estimated between 1200 and 1600 km [Sengör,
2005; Bulut et al., 2007].
The largest earthquake in this section is the Erzincan earthquake, 1939 of magnitude Ms 7.8 and M
7.9 to 8 [Barka, 1996]. A MW 7.8 is given in Wells and Coppersmith, [1994]. Therefore, here a
6
MW 7.8 with an uncertainty of 0.1is used. The RL of the Erzincan event was estimated in 360
m [Wells and Coppersmith, 1994]. The cumulative offset of the NAFZ has been a matter of debate
for a long time. However, at the eastern part of the fault where the Erzincan earthquake occurred
there may be between 85 – 95 km of cumulative slip [Hubert-Ferrari et al., 2002; Sengör et al.,
2005]. Grosser et al., [1998] analyzed and located aftershock seismicity from the Erzincan
earthquake. From the 90% cutoff of the seismicity, the seismogenic depth is estimated in 12 km.
Here, uncertainty is larger since no local velocity model was available. Recently, Walters et al.,
[2014] obtained 16  10km for the locking depth using INSAR and GPS data. Therefore, these
values are used. Stress field orientation is estimated using data from the World Stress Map Project
[Heidbach et al., 2010].
21 San Andreas Fault (SAF), California, USA
The San Andreas Fault (Fig. S3B) is specified to be approximately 1300 km long. Stress
field orientation is estimated following Hardebeck and Michael, [2004]. In this study we have
selected to specific sections of the San Andreas Fault:
21.1 Northern Section (Shelter Cove – San Francisco Bay)
The entire segment failed during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (M 8.2) with a ~430 km
long surface rupture. This event has been given MW 7.7 [Wallace, 1990], and MW 7.9 in Wells
and Coppersmith, [1994] and also by University of California, Berkeley
(http://seismo.berkeley.edu/outreach/1906_quake.html). Therefore, here MW 7.9 is assumed, with
uncertainties between MW [7.7 - 8]. The surface RL of the San Francisco event was estimated in
432 m [Wells and Coppersmith, 1994]. Furlong and Atkinson, [1993] estimated the 90% cutoff of
the seismicity in Northern California and they provided with an estimation up to 16 km. However,
some patches were seen to have up to 20 km. Therefore, here the value of 16 km is used with
uncertainties between 15 and 20 km. Cumulative offset is described in Irwin, [1990], reporting 512
km offset near Fort Ross and 360 km in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
21.2 Southern Section (Cholame – Cajon Pass)
It almost completely failed during the 1857 M 8.2 Fort Tejon earthquake. This event has been
given a moment magnitude of MW 7.8 [Wallace, 1990], MW 7.85 [Wells and Coppersmith, 1994],
and MW 7.9 [Stover and Coffman, 1993]. Therefore, MW 7.9 is used here with uncertainties MW
[7.8 - 8]. The surface RL of the Fort Tejon event was estimated in 297 m [Wells and Coppersmith,
1994]. The depth of the seismogenic layer was estimated from geodesy and 90 % cutoff of
seismicity [Smith-Konter et al., 2011]. For the segment of San Bernardino, seismogenic thickness
vary between 18 and 21 km. The cumulative is approximately 315 km in the Carrizo Plain and 104
km at the south end of Great Valley [Wallace, 1990].
22 San Jacinto Fault, California, USA
The length of the San Jacinto fault zone (Fig. S3B) is approximately 230 km [Wesnousky,
1988], although when considered together with the Imperial Fault Zone, it may reach 300 km
[Petersen and Wesnousky, 1994]. Therefore, here a length of 265 will be considered. The total
offset along the entire zone southeast of Hemet is 29 km of right slip since early Tertiary [Sanders
and Kanamori, 1984]. The largest documented earthquake was on 25 December 1899 (M 7.1)
[Petersen and Wesnousky, 1994]. The magnitude is only calculated by intensity comparison with
the earthquake in 1918. Therefore, in the conversion from magnitude intensity to moment
magnitude, would be MW ~ 7. Here it is considered as unknown magnitude type of M 7 and
7
uncertainties are considered M [6.8 – 7.1]. As estimated from cutoff 90% of relocated seismicity
and geodesy in Smith-Konter et al., [2011], the depth of seismogenic layer is between 16 – 17 km.
Uncertainties of 1km are here considered. Stress field orientation is estimated following
Hardebeck and Michael, [2004].
23 San Miguel – Vallecitos, Baja California, Mexico
The length of this fault (Fig. S3B) is 160 km and the cumulative offset is 0.5 km [Stirling et
al., 1996]. The largest recorded earthquake occurred in 1956. Thatcher and Hanks, (1973) gave to
this event a M 6.5 (unknown magnitude type). Wells and Coppersmith (1994) gave a MW 6.63 to
this event. Therefore, an uncertainty of [6.5 – 6.7] is assigned. The surface RL of this event was
estimated in 22 m [Wells and Coppersmith, 1994]. The depth of the seismogenic layer is estimated
between 13 and 18 km from the microseismicity analyzed in [Frez et al., 2000]. Using the relocated
catalog of southern California from Hauksson et al., [2012] and calculating the cutoff depth of the
90% of seismicity at this fault, a seismogenic thickness of 12 km is obtained. This value is here
used, with uncertainties extending from 11 km to 17 km. Stress field orientation is estimated
following Frez et al., [2000].
24 Tanna Fault, Japan
From Stirling et al., [1996], the length of the fault (Fig. S3C) is 30 km. Cumulative offset is
taken from [Stirling et al., 1996] and references therein. The largest earthquake on this fault is the
1930 North Izu earthquake. [Shimazaki and Somerville, 1979] reported a M = 7.0 for this event.
However, Stirling et al., [1996], and Okada and Ikeda, [1991] gave to the same event M 7.3. In
Wells and Coppersmith, [1994], M 7.3 appears as surface magnitude and they gave a MW 6.9.
Here, this magnitude is considered, with uncertainties extending from 6.8 to 7.1. To estimate the
rupture length of this earthquake, the empirical relation between magnitude and RL proposed by
Matsuda, [1975] is used. The depth of the seismogenic layer is estimated at approximately 11km
from Tanaka, [2004]. Uncertainties of 2km are used. Stress field orientation is estimated
following Townend and Zoback, [2006].
25 Wairau Fault, Marlborough Fault System, New Zealand
The Wairau Fault (Fig. S3D) is the prolongation of the Alpine Fault into the Marlborough
Fault System. Its length has been reported in approximately 100 km [Stirling et al., 1996]. In the
analysis of the total length of the fault, the length of this fault has been added to the length of the
Alpine fault and treated as one. Cumulative offsets taken from Stirling et al. [1996] and references
therein. The largest rupture occurred in the 1929 Murchison earthquake (ML = 7·8) [Arabasz and
Robinson, 1976]. The relation of ML to MW for the New Zealand area and for earthquakes with
( M L  0.73)
[Ristau, 2009]. Therefore, the
0.88
8.0 with an uncertainty of 0.1. Notice that
hypocentral depth smaller than 33 km is M W 
Murchinson earthquake corresponds to MW
seismogenic depth is 10- 12 km but locking depth from GPS data is 20-30 km [Barth et al., 2013].
Therefore, a value of 17 km is here used for the seismogenic depth, with uncertainties from 11 to
25 km. The stress field orientation is measured from Townend et al., [2012].
26 Whittier – Elsinore, Southern California, USA
The length of this fault (Fig. S3B) is 330 km [Wesnousky, 1989] and 250 km [Petersen and
Wesnousky, 1994]. The cumulative offset taken from [Stirling et al., 1996] is 10 – 15 km. However,
[Petersen and Wesnousky, 1994] gave to this fault system between 5 and 40 km along the Elsinore
8
Fault and up to 30 km in the Whittier Fault. A large earthquake occurred in February 1892 (M 7 to
7.5) [Toppozada et al., 1981]. Several investigators have suggested that this event may have
occurred along the portion of the Elsinore fault south of the Coyote Mountains [Petersen and
Wesnousky, 1994]. Wesnousky [1989] gave a M 7 to this event. Here, a M 7.1 is used (unknown
magnitude), with uncertainties varying from 6.9 to 7.5. The depth of the seimogenic layer (14-15
km) is estimated following the results in Nazareth and Hauksson, [2004]. This is consistent with
the 90% cutoff seismicity estimation from the relocated catalog of southern California from
Hauksson et al., [2012], which is 14.8 km. Error range in the seismogenic thickness prediction is
2.3 km. The stress field orientation is measured from Hardebeck and Hauksson, [2001].
27 Kunlun Fault, China
The Kunlun fault bounds the northern side of the Tibet region. The length of this fault is
estimated in 1500-1600 km [Xie et al., 2014]. The cumulative offset is estimated to be
approximately 400 km (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=871).
The largest known earthquake to date at this fault is the 2001 Kokoxili earthquake with M W 7.8.
The aftershock sequence of this earthquake extends to at least 30 km depth [Xie et al., 2014]. The
surface rupture length is estimated around 350 to 400 km [Fu et al., 2005] and the average
coseismic slip varied between 3 and 7 m [Fu et al., 2005]. The angle between the fault trace and
SHMAX is estimated from Liao et al., [2003] using the estimated stress field before the earthquake.
9
Figure S3. Approximate location of the twenty-seven major continental strike slip faults analyzed
in this study. Numbers represent fault IDs as listed in Supplements A and B.
10
Figure S4. Estimated stress drop as a function of magnitude including the strike-slip earthquakes
from Wells and Coppersmith [1994] catalog (black squares). The stress drop here is estimated
applying a W model [Scholz, 1982]. Color is encoded with the angle  between fault trace and
SHMAX when it is known. Coseismic slips for the Atera and Atotsugawa faults (IDs: 2, 3)
estimated following Matsuda, [1975] are marked with dark-blue triangles. Size of the symbols,
symbols and lines represent the same as in Figs 1 and 2.
11
Supplement References:
Ambraseys, N., and R. Bilham (2003), Earthquakes and Associated Deformation in
Northern Baluchistan 1892-2001, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 93(4), 1573–1605,
doi:10.1785/0120020038.
Ambraseys, N. N. (1970), Some characteristic features of the Anatolian fault zone,
Tectonophysics, 9(2–3), 143–165, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(70)90014-4.
Arabasz, W. J., and R. Robinson (1976), Microseismicity and geologic structure in the
northern South Island, New Zealand, N. Z. J. Geol. Gephysics, 19(5), 569–601,
doi:10.1080/00288306.1976.10426309.
Audemard, F., G. Romero, H. Rendon, and V. Cano (2005), Quaternary fault kinematics
and stress tensors along the southern Caribbean from fault-slip data and focal
mechanism solutions, Earth-Sci. Rev., 69, 181–233.
Audemard, F. A. (2007), Revised seismic history of the El Pilar fault, Northeastern
Venezuela, from the Cariaco 1997 earthquake and recent preliminary
paleoseismic results, J. Seismol., 11(3), 311–326, doi:10.1007/s10950-007-90542.
Audemard, F. A., and C. Giraldo (1997), Desplzamientos dextrales a lo largo de la
frontera meridional de la placa Caribe, Venezuela Septentrional, Mem. VIII
Congr. Geológico Venez. Soc Venez. Geol., 1, 101–108.
Audemard, F. A., M. A. Machette, J. W. Cox, R. L. Dart, and K. M. Haller (2000), Map
and Database of Quaternary Faults in Venezuela and its Offshore regions, OpenFile Report, U. S. Geological Survey.
Barka, A. (1996), Slip distribution along the North Anatolian fault associated with the
large earthquakes of the period 1939 to 1967, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 86(5),
1238–1254.
Barth, N. C., C. Boulton, B. M. Carpenter, G. E. Batt, and V. G. Toy (2013), Slip
localization on the southern Alpine Fault, New Zealand, Tectonics, 32(3), 620–
640, doi:10.1002/tect.20041.
Bell, M. A., J. R. Elliott, and B. E. Parsons (2011), Interseismic strain accumulation
across the Manyi fault (Tibet) prior to the 1997 Mw 7.6 earthquake, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 38(24), L24302, doi:10.1029/2011GL049762.
Bohnhoff, M., H. Grosser, and G. Dresen (2006), Strain partitioning and stress rotation at
the North Anatolian fault zone from aftershock focal mechanisms of the 1999
Izmit Mw= 7.4 earthquake, Geophys. J. Int., 166(1), 373–385,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03027.x.
12
Bufe, C. G. (2005), Stress Distribution along the Fairweather–Queen Charlotte Transform
Fault System, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95(5), 2001–2008,
doi:10.1785/0120040171.
Bulut, F., M. Bohnhoff, M. Aktar, and G. Dresen (2007), Characterization of aftershockfault plane orientations of the 1999 İzmit (Turkey) earthquake using highresolution aftershock locations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34(L20306),
doi:10.1029/2007GL031154.
Bulut, F., M. Bohnhoff, T. Eken, C. Janssen, T. Kılıç, and G. Dresen (2012), The East
Anatolian Fault Zone: Seismotectonic setting and spatiotemporal characteristics
of seismicity based on precise earthquake locations, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth,
117(B7), n/a–n/a, doi:10.1029/2011JB008966.
Bürgmann, R., D. Schmidt, R. M. Nadeau, M. d’ Alessio, E. Fielding, D. Manaker, T. V.
McEvilly, and M. H. Murray (2000), Earthquake Potential Along the Northern
Hayward Fault, California, Science, 289(5482), 1178–1182,
doi:10.1126/science.289.5482.1178.
Choy, G. L., and J. Boatwright (2004), Radiated Energy and the Rupture Process of the
Denali Fault Earthquake Sequence of 2002 from Broadband Teleseismic Body
Waves, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94(6B), S269–S277, doi:10.1785/0120040605.
Cowan, H. A., and M. S. McGlone (1991), Late Holocene displacements and
characteristic earthquakes on the Hope River segment of the Hope Fault, New
Zealand, J. R. Soc N. Z., 21(4), 373–384.
Davis, G. A., and B. C. Burchfiel (1973), Garlock Fault: An Intracontinental Transform
Structure, Southern California, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 84(4), 1407–1422,
doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1973)84<1407:GFAITS>2.0.CO;2.
Doser, D. (2010), A study of seismicity and fault interaction in the Upper-southeast
Alaska Region, Final Technical Report.
Eyal, Y. (1996), Stress field fluctuations along the Dead Sea rift since the middle
Miocene, Tectonics, 15(1), 157–170, doi:10.1029/95TC02619.
Famin, V. et al. (2014), Stress rotations and the long-term weakness of the Median
Tectonic Line and the Rokko-Awaji Segment, Tectonics, 2014TC003600,
doi:10.1002/2014TC003600.
Fletcher, H. J., and J. T. Freymueller (2003), New constraints on the motion of the
Fairweather fault, Alaska, from GPS observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(3),
1139, doi:10.1029/2002GL016476.
13
Frez, J., J. J. González, J. G. Acosta, F. A. Nava, I. Méndez, J. Carlos, R. E. GarcíaArthur, and M. Alvarez (2000), A Detailed Microseismicity Study and Current
Stress Regime in the Peninsular Ranges of Northern Baja California, Mexico: The
Ojos Negros Region, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 90(5), 1133–1142,
doi:10.1785/0119990164.
Fu, B., Y. Awata, J. Du, Y. Ninomiya, and W. He (2005), Complex geometry and
segmentation of the surface rupture associated with the 14 November 2001 great
Kunlun earthquake, northern Tibet, China, Tectonophysics, 407(1–2), 43–63,
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2005.07.002.
Fukuyama, E., I. Muramatu, and T. Mikumo (2007), Seismic moment of the 1891 Nobi,
Japan, earthquake estimated from historical seismograms, Earth Planets Space,
59(6), 553–559, doi:10.1186/BF03352717.
Furlong, K. P., and S. M. Atkinson (1993), Seismicity and thermal structure along the
northern San Andreas Fault system, California, USA, Tectonophysics, 217(1–2),
23–30, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(93)90199-T.
Grosser, H. et al. (1998), The Erzincan (Turkey) Earthquake (Ms 6.8) of March 13, 1992
and its Aftershock Sequence, Pure Appl. Geophys., 152(3), 465–505,
doi:10.1007/s000240050163.
Hardebeck, J. L., and E. Hauksson (2001), Stress Orientations Obtained from Earthquake
Focal Mechanisms: What Are Appropriate Uncertainty Estimates?, Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am., 91(2), 250–262, doi:10.1785/0120000032.
Hardebeck, J. L., and A. J. Michael (2006), Damped regional-scale stress inversions:
Methodology and examples for southern California and the Coalinga aftershock
sequence, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 111(B11), B11310,
doi:10.1029/2005JB004144.
Hauksson, E., and S. Gross (1991), Source parameters of the 1933 Long Beach
earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 81(1), 81–98.
Hauksson, E., L. M. Jones, K. Hutton, and D. Eberhart-Phillips (1993), The 1992 Landers
Earthquake Sequence: Seismological observations, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth,
98(B11), 19835–19858, doi:10.1029/93JB02384.
Heidbach, O., M. Tingay, A. Barth, J. Reinecker, D. Kurfeß, and B. Müller (2010),
Global crustal stress pattern based on the World Stress Map database release
2008, Tectonophysics, 482(1–4), 3–15, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2009.07.023.
Ikeda, M., S. Toda, S. Kobayashi, Y. Ohno, N. Nishizaka, and I. Ohno (2009), Tectonic
model and fault segmentation of the Median Tectonic Line active fault system on
Shikoku, Japan, Tectonics, 28(5), n/a–n/a, doi:10.1029/2008TC002349.
14
Jouanne, F., F. A. Audemard, C. Beck, A. Van Welden, R. Ollarves, and C. Reinoza
(2011), Present-day deformation along the El Pilar Fault in eastern Venezuela:
Evidence of creep along a major transform boundary, J. Geodyn., 51(5), 398–410,
doi:10.1016/j.jog.2010.11.003.
Kalbas, J. L., A. M. Freed, and K. D. Ridgway (2008), Contemporary Fault Mechanics in
Southern Alaska.
Kanaori, Y., Y. Endo, K. Yairi, and S.-I. Kawakami (1990), A nested fault system with
block rotation caused by left-lateral faulting: the Neodani and Atera faults, central
Japan, Tectonophysics, 177(4), 401–418, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(90)90398-R.
Kanaori, Y., S. Kawakami, and K. Yairi (1994), Seismotectonics of the Median Tectonic
Line in southwest Japan: Implications for coupling among major fault systems,
Pure Appl. Geophys., 142(3-4), 589–607, doi:10.1007/BF00876056.
Kaneko, S. (1966), Transcurrent displacement along the median line, South-Western
Japan, N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys., 9(1-2), 45–49,
doi:10.1080/00288306.1966.10420194.
Leitner, B., D. Eberhart-Phillips, H. Anderson, and J. L. Nabelek (2001), A focused look
at the Alpine fault, New Zealand: Seismicity, focal mechanisms, and stress
observations, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 106(B2), 2193–2220,
doi:10.1029/2000JB900303.
Lettis, W., J. Bachhuber, R. Witter, C. Brankman, C. E. Randolph, A. Barka, W. D. Page,
and A. Kaya (2002), Influence of Releasing Step-Overs on Surface Fault Rupture
and Fault Segmentation: Examples from the 17 August 1999 İzmit Earthquake on
the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 92(1), 19–42,
doi:10.1785/0120000808.
Li, B., J. Havskov, L. Ottemöller, and M. B. Sørensen (2014), New magnitude scales M
L and spectrum-based M w for the area around Shanxi Rift System, North China,
J. Seismol., 19(1), 141–158, doi:10.1007/s10950-014-9455-y.
Liao, C., C. Zhang, M. Wu, Y. Ma, and M. Ou (2003), Stress change near the Kunlun
fault before and after the Ms 8.1 Kunlun earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(20),
2027, doi:10.1029/2003GL018106.
Lienkaemper, J. J., G. Borchardt, and M. Lisowski (1991), Historic creep rate and
potential for seismic slip along the Hayward Fault, California, J. Geophys. Res.
Solid Earth, 96(B11), 18261–18283, doi:10.1029/91JB01589.
Liu-Zeng, J., Y. Klinger, X. Xu, C. Lasserre, G. Chen, W. Chen, P. Tapponnier, and B.
Zhang (2007), Millennial Recurrence of Large Earthquakes on the Haiyuan Fault
15
near Songshan, Gansu Province, China, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 97(1B), 14–34,
doi:10.1785/0120050118.
McLaughlin, R. J., W. V. Sliter, D. H. Sorg, P. C. Russell, and A. M. Sarna-Wojcicki
(1996), Large-scale right-slip displacement on the East San Francisco Bay Region
fault system, California: Implications for location of late Miocene to Pliocene
Pacific plate boundary, Tectonics, 15(1), 1–18, doi:10.1029/95TC02347.
Nakajima (2010), Deep crustal structure around the Atotsugawa fault system, central
Japan: A weak zone below the seismogenic zone and its role in earthquake
generation, Earth Planets Space, 62(7), 555–566, doi:10.5047/eps.2010.06.007.
Nazareth, J. J., and E. Hauksson (2004), The Seismogenic Thickness of the Southern
California Crust, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94(3), 940–960,
doi:10.1785/0120020129.
Okada, A., and Y. Ikeda (1991), Active Faults and Neotectonics in Japan., Quat. Res., 30,
161–174.
Oppenheimer, D. H., W. H. Bakun, and A. G. Lindh (1990), Slip partitioning of the
Calaveras Fault, California, and prospects for future earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res.
Solid Earth, 95(B6), 8483–8498, doi:10.1029/JB095iB06p08483.
Page, R. (1969), The fairweather fault ten years after the southeast Alaska earthquake of
1958, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 59(5), 1927–1936.
Pascale, G. P. D., and R. M. Langridge (2012), New on-fault evidence for a great
earthquake in A.D. 1717, central Alpine fault, New Zealand, Geology, 40(9), 791–
794, doi:10.1130/G33363.1.
Petersen, M. D., and S. G. Wesnousky (1994), Fault slip rates and earthquake histories
for active faults in southern California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84(5), 1608–1649.
Plafker, G., T. Hudson, T. Bruns, and M. Rubin (1978), Late Quaternary offsets along the
Fairweather fault and crustal plate interactions in southern Alaska, Can. J. Earth
Sci., 15(5), 805–816, doi:10.1139/e78-085.
Ratchkovski, N. A. et al. (2003), Aftershock Sequence of the Mw 7.9 Denali Fault,
Alaska, Earthquake of 3 November 2002 from Regional Seismic Network Data,
Seismol. Res. Lett., 74(6), 743–752, doi:10.1785/gssrl.74.6.743.
Ristau, J. (2009), Comparison of Magnitude Estimates for New Zealand Earthquakes:
Moment Magnitude, Local Magnitude, and Teleseismic Body-Wave Magnitude,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 99(3), 1841–1852, doi:10.1785/0120080237.
16
Sanders, C. O., and H. Kanamori (1984), A seismotectonic analysis of the Anza Seismic
Gap, San Jacinto Fault Zone, southern California, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth,
89(B7), 5873–5890, doi:10.1029/JB089iB07p05873.
Schaff, D. P., G. H. R. Bokelmann, G. C. Beroza, F. Waldhauser, and W. L. Ellsworth
(2002), High-resolution image of Calaveras Fault seismicity, J. Geophys. Res.
Solid Earth, 107(B9), 2186, doi:10.1029/2001JB000633.
Sengör, A. M. C. (2005), The North Anatolian Fault: a new look, Ann Rev Earth Panet
Sci, 33, 37–112.
Shimazaki, K., and P. Somerville (1979), Static and dynamic parameters of the IzuOshima, Japan earthquake of January 14, 1978, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 69(5),
1343–1378.
Smith-Konter, B. R., D. T. Sandwell, and P. Shearer (2011), Locking depths estimated
from geodesy and seismology along the San Andreas Fault System: Implications
for seismic moment release, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 116(B6), n/a–n/a,
doi:10.1029/2010JB008117.
Stover, C. W. and Coffman, J. L. (1993). Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989
(Revised), U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, United States
Government Printing Office, pp. 72, 101, 102.
Takagi, K. H., and Shibata (2000), Constituents of the Paleo-Ryoke Belt and restoration
of the Paleo-Ryoke and Kurosegawa Terranes, Mem Geol Soc Jpn., 56, 1–12.
Thatcher, W., and T. C. Hanks (1973), Source parameters of southern California
earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 78(35), 8547–8576,
doi:10.1029/JB078i035p08547.
Toppozada, T. R., C. R. Real, and D. L. Parke (1981), Preparation of isoseismal maps
and summaries of reported effects for pre-1900 California earthquakes,
California Division of Mines and Geol. Open file report.
Townend, J., and M. D. Zoback (2006), Stress, strain, and mountain building in central
Japan, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 111(B3), B03411,
doi:10.1029/2005JB003759.
Townend, J., S. Sherburn, R. Arnold, C. Boese, and L. Woods (2012), Three-dimensional
variations in present-day tectonic stress along the Australia–Pacific plate
boundary in New Zealand, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 353–354, 47–59,
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2012.08.003.
17
Tsutsumi, H., and A. Okada (1996), Segmentation and Holocene surface faulting on the
Median Tectonic Line, southwest Japan, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 101(B3),
5855–5871, doi:10.1029/95JB01913.
Waldhauser, F., and W. L. Ellsworth (2002), Fault structure and mechanics of the
Hayward Fault, California, from double-difference earthquake locations, J.
Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 107(B3), ESE 3–1, doi:10.1029/2000JB000084.
Wallace, R. E. (1990), The San Andreas Fault System, California,
Walters, R. J., B. Parsons, and T. J. Wright (2014), Constraining crustal velocity fields
with InSAR for Eastern Turkey: Limits to the block-like behavior of Eastern
Anatolia, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 119(6), 5215–5234,
doi:10.1002/2013JB010909.
Working group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003), Earthquake probabilities
in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002-2031, Open File Report.
Xie, C., X. Lei, X. Wu, and X. Hu (2014), Short- and long-term earthquake triggering
along the strike-slip Kunlun fault, China: Insights gained from the Ms 8.1 Kunlun
earthquake and other modern large earthquakes, Tectonophysics, 617, 114–125,
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2014.01.023.
Yilmaz, H., S. Over, and S. Ozden (2006), Kinematics of the East Anatolian Fault Zone
between Turkoglu (Kahramanmaras) and Celikhan (Adiyaman), eastern Turkey,
Earth Planets Space, 58(11), 1463–1473, doi:10.1186/BF03352645.
Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., C. B. Biryol, S. Beck, G. Zandt, T. Taymaz, H. E. Adıyaman, and
A. A. Özacar (2012), 3-D crustal structure along the North Anatolian Fault Zone
in north-central Anatolia revealed by local earthquake tomography, Geophys. J.
Int., 188(3), 819–849, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05313.x.
Zhang, J., X. Shan, and X. Huang (2011), Seismotectonics in the Pamir: An oblique
transpressional shear and south-directed deep-subduction model, Geosci. Front.,
2(1), 1–15, doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2010.11.002.
18