Tectonics
Supporting Information for
One Hundred and Fifty Years of Coulomb Stress History Along the CaliforniaNevada Border, USA
Alessandro Verdecchia and Sara Carena
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Luisenstrasse 37, 80333
Munich, Germany
Contents of this file
Captions for Figures S1 to S11
Captions for Dataset S1
Additional Supporting Information (Files uploaded separately)
Figures S1 to S11
Dataset S1
Introduction
This data set contains auxiliary figures that mainly show in graphical form some
of the parameter testing cases listed in the three tables accompanying the paper,
the details of input slip models, some additional plots illustrating Coulomb stress
modeling results, and the Coulomb 3.3 input file (2014TC003746-ds01.inp)used
for the coseismic Coulomb stress modeling.
Figure S1. Slip distribution on the Chalfant Valley main fault inferred from aftershock
pattern. (a) Aftershocks located within 500 m of each side of the fault, in the time interval
between the main shock (black star) and the first large aftershock (black circle), and slip
patch (grey). Contours on the fault are in km b.s.l. (b) Slip distribution based on
aftershocks density and earthquake magnitude. Yellow star shows the location of the
July 21th main shock. Earthquake data are from Waldahuser and Schaff [2008].
Figure S2. Coseismic ∆CFS from the 1986 Chalfant Valley main shock calculated on
optimally-oriented faults, (a) map view, (b) slices through the ∆CFS volume. Black dots
in (a) are the aftershocks that occurred in the time between the main shock and the first
1
strong aftershock (10 days) at depth between 6.5 and 7.5 km. Spheres in (b) are
aftershocks that occurred within 1 km of each slice shown, in the time between the main
shock and the first strong aftershock (10 days). White (a) and black (b) dashed-line
circles highlight the off-fault aftershocks. Earthquake hypcenter locations are from
Waldahuser and Schaff [2008].
Figure S3. Coseismic ΔCFS calculated on the Long Valley caldera faults (green lines),
due to the 1872 Owens Valley earthquake (white lines), for three different effective
friction coefficients (μ’).
Figure S4. Coseismic ΔCFS calculated on the 1984 Round Valley fault (green line), due
to all the preceding events (white lines), for three different effective friction coefficients
(μ’).
Figure S5. Coseismic ΔCFS calculated on the Chalfant Valley foreshock fault (green
line) due to all the preceding events (white lines), for three different effective friction
coefficients (μ’).
Figure S6. Coseismic ΔCFS calculated on the Chalfant Valley main shock fault (green
line), due to all the preceding events (white lines), calculated for three different effective
friction coefficients (μ’).
Figure S7. Coseismic ΔCFS calculated on the Eureka Valley fault (green line), due to all
the preceding events (white lines), calculated for three different effective friction
coefficients (μ’).
Figure S8. 142 years of cumulative ∆CFS from all the studied events combined,
calculated on the Emigrant Peak fault (green line). Thick white lines are the surface
traces (or surface projections, for blind faults) of source faults.
Figure S9. 142 years of cumulative ∆CFS from all the studied events combined,
calculated on the Deep Springs fault (green line). Thick white lines are the surface traces
(or surface projections, for blind faults) of source faults.
Figure S10. 142 years of cumulative ∆CFS from all the studied events combined,
calculated on the Hilton Creek fault (green line). Thick white lines are the surface traces
(or surface projections, for blind faults) of source faults.
Figure S11. 142 years of cumulative ∆CFS from all the studied events combined,
calculated on the Round Valley fault (green line). Thick white lines are the surface traces
(or surface projections, for blind faults) of source faults.
DataSet S1. Coulomb 3.3 [Toda et al., 2011] input file used for for the coseismic
Coulomb stress modeling.
2