Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 109, No. 5, pp. 1985–1999, October 2019, doi: 10.

1785/0120190082

The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central

Chile, 33°–34° S): Implications for Regional Tectonics
and Seismic Hazard in the Santiago Area
by Jean-Baptiste Ammirati, Gabriel Vargas, Sofía Rebolledo, Rachel Abrahami,
Bertrand Potin, Felipe Leyton, and Sergio Ruiz

Abstract Most of the recorded seismicity in central Chile can be linked to the sub-
duction of the Nazca plate. To the east, a much smaller fraction is observed at 0–30 km
depths beneath the western Andean thrust. Paleoseismic studies evidenced the occur-
rence of at least two major earthquakes (M > 7) over the past 17 ka, associated with the
San Ramón fault (SRF): an important tectonic feature characterizing the west Andean
thrust, close the Santiago metropolitan area. To better constrain the crustal seismicity in
this area, the Chilean Seismological Center (CSN) extended its permanent seismic net-
work with seven new broadband seismometers deployed around the scarp of the SRF
and farther east. The improved azimuthal distribution and reduced station spacing
allowed to complete the CSN catalog with more than 900 smaller magnitude earth-
quakes (M L < 2:5) detected and located within the study region. The use of a 3D veloc-
ity model derived from P- and S-wave travel-time tomography considerably lowered the
uncertainties associated with hypocentral locations. Our results show an important seis-
micity beneath the Principal Cordillera located at a depth of ∼10 km, and a deeper
seismicity (~15 km) aligned with the main Andean thrust more to the west, parallel
to the scarp of the SRF. Regional stress inversion results suggest that the seismicity
of the west Andean thrust is accommodating northeast–southwest compressional stress,
consistent with the convergence of the Nazca plate. Based on our improved crustal seis-
micity, combined with observations from previous studies, we have been able to refine
the scenario of an Mw 7.5 earthquake rupturing the SRF. Ground-motion prediction
results show peak ground accelerations of ∼0:8g close to the fault scarp.

Supplemental Content: Cross sections of the 3D velocity model used in this

study, probabilistic power spectral density (PPSD) plots for the stations of the
Chilean Seismological Center (CSN) network located in the study region as well the
waveforms corresponding to a seismic event that occurred beneath the west Andean
thrust, and tables of hypocentral location and associated errors of the 917 events char-
acterized in this study, and the focal mechanism solutions determined from P-wave
first-motion polarity.

Introduction and Geological Setting

Central Chile marks the boundary between the Nazca
plate and the South American plate, which makes it one of
the most seismically active countries on the planet. In this
region (Fig. 1), roughly 95% of the recorded seismicity
can be linked to the subduction of the Nazca plate under
the South American plate, along the Chilean margin. This
major seismogenic zone is characterized by the occurrence
between 0 and 50 km depths of some of the largest thrust
earthquakes ever recorded such as the 1960 M w 9.5
Valdivia earthquake or more recently, the 2010 Mw 8.9
Maule earthquake (Cifuentes and Silver, 1989; Vigny et al.,
2011; Ruiz and Madariaga, 2018) as well as intermediate
depth intraplate events, mainly extensional, that have been
related to dehydration and brittle failure within the sub-
ducting Nazca plate (Beck et al., 1998; Barrientos et al.,
2004; Ruiz et al., 2019). Around 5% of the seismicity
recorded in central Chile can be observed between 0 and
30 km depths beneath the western flank of the Andean

1985

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf

by Univ de Chile user
 1986 J.-B. Ammirati, G. Vargas, S. Rebolledo, R. Abrahami, B. Potin, F. Leyton, and S. Ruiz
Figure 1. Seismicity of central Chile recorded by the Chilean
National Network (CSN) between 2000 and 2017. (Inset) Location
of our study region at the western margin of South America. Stars
show the epicenter of recent megathrust earthquakes along the
Chilean margin. Squares mark the location of the CSN permanent
seismic stations. Note the strike-slip mechanism associated with
three crustal events from the Global Centroid Moment Tensor
(CMT) catalog (Ekström et al., 2012) and Alvarado et al.
(2005). The solid arrow shows the regional velocity field direction
inferred from 20 yr of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS)
measurements (Métois et al., 2016). The color version of this figure
is available only in the electronic edition.
Cordillera (Fig. 1). Although the occurrence of seismic
events in this sector is far less frequent than the Chilean mar-
gin, near-surface rupturing represents a considerable threat to
urban centers located in this region. The Santiago metropoli-
tan area is home to nearly half of the total Chilean population
and concentrates an important fraction of the Chilean eco-
nomic activity. There is no lack of examples to illustrate the
threat of crustal faults worldwide: Mendoza (Argentina)
1862; San Juan (Argentina) 1944; Kobe (Japan) 1995;
Chi-Chi (Taiwan) 1999; Christchurch (New Zealand) 2010;
and Gorkha (Nepal) 2015 (Kanaori and Kawakami, 1996;
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
Shin and Teng, 2001; Alvarado et al., 2005; Quigley et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2016; Instituto Nacional de Prevención
Sísmica [INPRES], 2019). To this day, the 1958 M w 6.3 Las
Melosas earthquake is the strongest crustal event to have
occurred in our study region that was instrumentally
recorded and characterized (Pardo and Acevedo, 1984;
Alvarado et al., 2009). It produced several casualties, build-
ing collapses, and severely damaged the water distribution
infrastructure of the Santiago area (Sepúlveda et al., 2008).
The city of Santiago de Chile, located in the central valley
on the western Andean piedmont, has expanded over the sedi-
ments of the Central Depression, mainly Quaternary detrital
material carried from the Mapocho and the Maipo rivers
(Fig. 2). An important topographic scarp (∼2700 m) directly to
the east marks the beginning of the Principal Cordillera (PC)
mostly constituted by Cenozoic volcanic rocks of the Abanico
and Farellones formations, intrusive, and highly deformed
Jurassic to Cretaceous sequences (Thiele, 1980). Farther east,
the Frontal Cordillera (FC) exhibits Permian–Triassic volcanic
rocks and intrusive granitoids together with late Paleozoic
sequences and Proterozoic metamorphic rocks (Fig. 2).
Geological observations in this regions showed that the
present structural configuration of the Andes between 33°
and 35° S is the result of intense crustal shortening within
the upper plate, in the context of subduction (Allmendinger
et al., 1990; Cristallini and Ramos, 2000; Giambiagi and
Ramos, 2002). It appears that most of this crustal shortening
was accommodated since ∼16 Ma by east-vergent structures
on the eastern side (Giambiagi, Ramos, et al., 2003). In the
western side, the contact between the Abanico formation and
the Quaternary sediments of the Central Depression is defined
by a west-verging reverse fault that accommodated part of the
crustal shortening in the western side: the San Ramón fault
(SRF; Armijo et al., 2010; Vargas et al., 2014). Although
the extension in depth of the aforementioned structures and
their tectonic implications are still debated (Armijo et al.,
2010; Giambiagi et al., 2015; Riesner et al., 2018), the
SRF certainly raises questions in terms of seismic hazard
because of its proximity with the city of Santiago (Fig. 2).
Recent paleoseismic studies (Vargas et al., 2014) evidenced
two major seismic events occurred on the SRF, respectively
∼8 and ∼17 ka. The slip associated with these events has been
estimated to 4.7–4.9 m corresponding to seismic events of
magnitude 7:2 < M w < 7:4. In the metropolitan area of
Santiago (0–20 km away from the SRF scarp), such magni-
tudes would generate ground accelerations much stronger than
the ones observed during high-magnitude megathrust earth-
quakes, along the Chilean margin (>100 km west of the city).
As an example, the 2010 M w 8.8 Maule earthquake produced
a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of ∼0:3g in the Santiago
area (Boroschek et al., 2012). Previous seismic hazard studies
simulated ground accelerations generated by rupturing the
SRF (Pérez et al., 2014; Estay et al., 2016) and estimated
PGAs of ∼0:7g near the fault scarp.
In this work, we use continuous seismic waveforms
recorded by the Chilean seismic network to detect and
 The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central Chile, 33°–34° S) 1987

Figure 2. First-order geology of the western margin of South America around 32° S and morphostructural map of the study region.
Geological information has been compiled from Armijo et al. (2010), Farías et al. (2010), Giambiagi et al. (2015), and Riesner et al. (2018).
The gray polygon delimits the metropolitan area of Santiago. AFTB, Aconcagua fold and thrust belt; SRF, San Ramón fault; WAFTB, west
Andean fold and thrust belt. Note the change in structure vergence from east to west, in the Principal Cordillera (PC). The color version of this
figure is available only in the electronic edition.

precisely locate the low-magnitude (ML < 2:5) seismicity
beneath the west Andean thrust. We also use the first-motion
polarity information to determine the focal mechanism asso-
ciated with some of these events to estimate the regional
stress principal directions. This information, along with the
seismic location allows us to discuss about the differences
and similarities between our results, tectonic models, and
interpretations made in previous studies. In addition, we
use our seismic results to refine the scenario of near-surface
rupture in the Santiago area. We then calculate the expected
ground accelerations for the metropolitan area of Santiago.
Previous Seismological Studies and Current
Operations
The Chilean Seismological Center (Centro Sismológico
Nacional or CSN) of the University of Chile started to oper-
ate in March 2013 as a continuation of the Seismological
Service of the Department of Geophysics of the same
university, which was in charge of the permanent seismic
operations since 1982.
To better comprehend the crustal seismicity beneath the
PC, Barrientos et al. (2004) relocated the events recorded by
the CSN between 1986 and 2001 using an improved 1D

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf

by Univ de Chile user
 1988 J.-B. Ammirati, G. Vargas, S. Rebolledo, R. Abrahami, B. Potin, F. Leyton, and S. Ruiz
Figure 3. Map showing the location of the seismic stations used
in this work. The solid line corresponds to the scarp of the SRF as
described in Armijo et al. (2010). Triangles correspond to the CSN
permanent stations installed prior to 2017. Inverted triangles corre-
spond to stations installed during 2017 as part of the SRF project.
The diamond corresponds to Global Seismographic Network (GSN)
station Peldehue (PEL). The polygon at the center of the map cor-
responds to the metropolitan area of Santiago. The color version of
this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
velocity model calibrated for their study region. Because of
the sparse station coverage of the Chilean seismic network
at that time, this study pointed out the necessity of having
a denser array of seismometers deployed in the Cordilleran
sector to improve the detection of smaller events and their
localizations. Results of Barrientos et al. (2004) reveal a more
clustered seismicity observed at crustal level although not par-
ticularly consistent with the geological feature observed at the
surface, in particular the Pocuro fault zone (a Mesozoic nor-
mal fault ∼100 km north of Santiago that would have been
reactivated as a reverse fault during the Neogene) and the
SRF more to the south, in our study area (Fig. 2), two impor-
tant features associated with the uplift of the PC (Charrier
et al., 2005; Armijo et al., 2010; Farías et al., 2010).
Using seismic tomography, Farías et al. (2010)
improved on the relocalization of the crustal events from the
CSN catalog between 1980 and 2004. Their findings show a
good correlation between geological observations at the sur-
face and structural reconstruction at depth (Giambiagi,
Ramos, et al., 2003), which suggests that most of the seis-
micity is related to mountain building mechanisms respon-
sible for the uplift of the Andean Cordillera. Interestingly, the
aforementioned seismological studies evidenced clusters of
earthquakes beneath the San José (∼33:8° S) and the
Tupungatito (∼33:4° S) volcanoes (Fig. 2).
The main task of the CSN consists of the maintenance
and operation of 105 broadband seismic stations, 128 Global
Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) stations, and 297
accelerometers for strong-motion measurement (Barrientos
and National Seismological Center [CSN] Team, 2018), per-
manently deployed along the country. Among other tasks,
the CSN automatically detects and characterizes every
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
seismic event with a local magnitude ML > 2:5 paying par-
ticular attention to the Chilean margin, with rapid characteri-
zation of large magnitude subduction earthquakes for
postseismic response and tsunami alert. During 2017, the
CSN extended the national seismic network with seven
broadband seismometers (including one 100 m deep bore-
hole) permanently deployed at the piedmont of the PC,
around the scarp of the SRF and farther east (Fig. 3 and
Ⓔ Table S1, available in the supplemental content to this
article). The main objective of this permanent instrumenta-
tion is to increase the station concentration in the PC,
improving the detection and characterization of small-
magnitude (M L < 2:5) earthquakes not currently automati-
cally detected by the CSN.
Recent studies explored potential rupture scenarios of the
SRF. Pérez et al. (2014) estimated PGAvalues greater than 0:7g
based on five random fractal slip distribution models, account-
ing for source directivity effects. Based on transient electro-
magnetic imaging, Estay et al. (2016) evidenced surface
segmentation of the SRF and calculated the PGA associated
with the potential rupture of each segment. Their estimated
PGAs are similar to the results of Pérez et al. (2014). The
two aforementioned rupture models consistently show stronger
accelerations for the hanging wall (HW), east of the SRF scarp.
Earthquake Characterization Procedure
The first step of this work consists in analyzing continu-
ous records from the stations shown in Figure 3 and
Ⓔ Table S1 to detect seismic events related to the seismic
activity of the PC. To make good use of the denser CSN array
around the SRF (Fig. 3), we analyze the continuous wave-
forms recorded since the deployment of the seven new sta-
tions, between 20 January 2017 and 15 March 2019.
Because the CSN stations record a very large number of
earthquakes from different sources, a challenge exists in dif-
ferentiating crustal events occurring beneath the PC
(Ⓔ Fig. S3) from the events occurring along the Chilean
margin or within the subducting slab. For each event, an
automatic detection and a first location are performed using
the methodology described in Poiata et al. (2016). This
method is based on the statistical characterization of seismic
signals recorded by a dense seismic network and the stacking
of time-delay functions. The location process of the method
allows us to discard all events with hypocenters located out-
side our study area. For each event detected, we visually
inspect the corresponding traces to remove eventual false
positives. Because the automatically picked P- and S-wave
arrival is not always accurate, this step is also a good oppor-
tunity to manually pick the P- and S-wave first arrivals to
ensure optimized residuals for the final location. When the
traces present a high signal-to-noise ratio, polarity informa-
tion for the first P-wave arrival is reported.
To improve the precision of seismic locations, we need
an accurate wave velocity model with finer crustal details.
P- and S-wave arrival times of 11,829 earthquakes occurred
 The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central Chile, 33°–34° S)
in the Chile central region (28°–36° S) and recorded by the
CSN network over a period of ∼20 yr (Fig. 1) were previously
inverted using a nonlinear approach based on the law of large
numbers (Potin, 2016). This step yielded 3D variations of the
velocity structure for both P and S waves. Then, we extracted a
3D velocity model centered on our region of interest, which
extends from 33° S to 34.5° S and 69.2° W to 71.6° W, down to
45 km depth and with a grid spacing of 1 km (Ⓔ Fig. S1).
The events previously detected were located using the
NonLinLoc package (Lomax et al., 2000). This nonlinear,
global search method based on the probabilistic formulation
of inverse problems described in Tarantola and Valette
(1982) is particularly well adapted to the use of 3D velocity
models because it does not require the calculation of partial
derivatives (otherwise very difficult to perform using linear
approaches). The locations obtained in this work are repre-
sented by a probability density function (PDF) that produces
more comprehensive uncertainty estimations. The minimum
requirements for an event to be located were set to a mini-
mum of eight picks (both P and S) and at least two S-wave
picks. Once located, we estimated the local magnitude (M L )
based on shear-wave maximum amplitude.
Finally, focal mechanisms and corresponding compres-
sion (P) and tension (T) axes were determined from P-wave
first-motion polarities using the grid-search algorithm FPFIT
(Reasenberg and Oppenheimer, 1985). We used maximum-
likelihood hypocenters and corresponding ray takeoff angles
from the 3D locations as an input. Because the seismicity
detected is very low in magnitude (in general lower than
ML < 2:5), the signal-to-noise ratio is often poor, in particu-
lar for stations located close to the urbanized area (Fig. 3 and
Ⓔ Fig. S2), which makes the P-wave polarity hard to read
for these stations. Thus, we determined fault plane solutions
for events with a minimum of six good first-motion polarity
readings (N R ; Ⓔ Fig. S4).
Under the main assumptions of a uniform regional stress
tensor in the crust, within our study region and that the slip is
parallel to the direction of the tangential traction (Wallace,
1951; Bott, 1959), it is possible to find the three principal
stress directions that will most closely match the focal
mechanism observations by performing formal stress inver-
sion (FSI; Hardebeck and Michael, 2006; Martinez-Garzón
et al., 2014). Principal stress axis uncertainties are evaluated
by randomly resampling the focal mechanisms data (boot-
straping). In this work, FSI is performed for low quality
(N R > 6), intermediate quality (N R > 8), and higher quality
(N R > 10) focal mechanisms. Only seismic locations with a
maximum azimuthal gap of 220° have been considered.
Results
Earthquake Locations
We obtained 917 probabilistic locations corresponding to
the crustal seismicity recorded mainly beneath the PC between
January 2017 and March 2019. For events with a root mean
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
1989
square (rms) lower than 1 s, P- and S-wave residuals at each
station are averaged. Final maximum-likelihood hypocenters
(Fig. 4 and Ⓔ Table S2) are then estimated taking into account
station delays. We note that in general, the dispersion of time
residuals is low with a standard deviation σ
0:09 and 0.16 s
for P and S phases, respectively. The highest residuals can be
observed for stations MT02 (−0:22 s for P phases and
−0:31 s for S phases) and MT14 (0.1 and 0.25 s for P and
S phases, respectively). Station MT14 is located in the urban
area of Santiago (Fig. 3) and presents a relatively high level of
anthropogenic noise (Ⓔ Fig. S2), which could be a reason for
such high residuals. Station MT02 is one of the quietest sta-
tions with a remote location in the Coastal Cordillera and in
general present arrivals with high signal-to-noise ratios (Fig. 3
Ⓔ Fig. S2). High residuals observed for this station could be
related to some inadequacy of our 3D velocity model in the
vicinity of this particular station. The rms associated with the
final maximum-likelihood locations is 0.1 s in aver-
age (σ
0:07 s).
Location errors are estimated from the 68% confidence
ellipsoid as computed from the samples of the location PDF.
The average horizontal error is 2.3 km (σ
1:5 km) and the
vertical error is about 3.0 km (σ
2 km). In general, we
obtained hypocenters with smaller (below average) vertical
error for events with locations closer to a seismic station.
Increasing azimuthal gap seems to be associated with
increasing horizontal error (Fig. 5).
Twenty-nine events from this work were also detected
and located by the CSN (Fig. 5d). For the central Chile
region, the CSN uses an improved 1D, three layers over a
half-space velocity model to locate (M L > 2–2:5) earth-
quakes automatically (Barrientos et al., 2004; Barrientos and
National Seismological Center [CSN] Team, 2018). The rms
for the CSN events is no larger than 0.3 s and the location
errors are in general low (comparable to the ones obtained in
this work only with a slightly higher standard deviation).
However, if we compare the CSN hypocenter solutions with
the ones obtained in this work, we notice considerable dis-
crepancies, especially in the vertical direction. The hypocen-
ters obtained using the 3D model seem to be shallower and
more gathered around 10 km depth in comparison with the
CSN. The difference tends to increase as we look to the east.
Beneath the FC (∼69:6° W), the difference in hypocenter
depths can reach 15 km (Fig. 5e). The CSN 1D layered
model has been calibrated for the Andes of central Chile
(Barrientos et al., 2004). We note that the difference in focal
depth is higher for events located in the back-arc region of
Argentina, where the real velocity variations might be not
well represented by the velocity model. We believe that our
3D velocity model allows more realistic raytracing, hence
more accurate hypocenter locations.
Looking at the distribution of hypocenters (Fig. 4), we
observe that the seismicity is mainly located along two
north–south stripes. The first stripe extends beneath the PC
(70°–70.2° W) between latitudes 33.2° S and 34.1° S. The
depth associated with this seismicity appears quite constant
 1990 J.-B. Ammirati, G. Vargas, S. Rebolledo, R. Abrahami, B. Potin, F. Leyton, and S. Ruiz

Figure 4. (Top) Epicentral distribution of the seismic events characterized in this work from 27 January 2017 to 15 March 2019. The
polygon shows the limits of the metropolitan area of Santiago. Squares mark the location of the seismic stations used for the location (see
Fig. 3 for all station codes). (a–f) Solid lines mark the emplacements of the cross sections. Hypocenters located 0.1° apart from the lines are
projected. (Bottom) Corresponding cross sections showing (a–f) the distribution at depth of the seismicity reported in this work. Circled
numbers identify clusters of seismicity not directly related to the tectonics of the west Andean thrust: (1) Santiago cluster, (2) Los Bronces
open pit mine, and (3) Tupungatito volcano. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

at ∼10 km (5–15 km). The second stripe can be observed more
to the west consistently aligned with the western flank of the PC
(∼70:4° W). Hypocenters in this sector are 10–20 km deep.
Interestingly, we observe some clustered seismicity
beneath the Central Depression (∼33:6° S) at depths of about
20–30 km (Fig. 4). This seismicity has been evidenced in
previous studies although the mechanisms behind it remain
quite hypothetical (Leyton et al., 2009). During August
2017, the CSN network recorded a seismic swarm (Fig. 4)
located beneath the Tupungatito volcano (Fig. 2) at

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf

by Univ de Chile user
 The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central Chile, 33°–34° S) 1991

Figure 5. (a) Variability of the vertical error depending on earthquake location. Note how lower vertical error decreases when hypo-
centers are closer to a seismic station. (b) Similar to (a). The map is showing the variation of the horizontal error. This time, higher errors seem
to be associated with increasing azimuthal gap (c). (d) Epicenter distribution of some of 29 earthquakes located in this work and by the CSN.
(e) Depth distribution for the 29 earthquakes located in this work and by the CSN. The solid line corresponds to the Chile–Argentina
international border. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

10–15 km depth. Furthermore, we can observe a small clus-
ter of seismicity at shallow depths (0–5 km) beneath the Los
Bronces open pit mine. These clusters are not related to the
tectonics of the western Andean thrust; hence, we do not con-
sider them in our further interpretations.
Sections across the study area (Fig. 4) show that the
seismicity depth presents a general westward increase.
Seismicity in the Argentine back-arc is limited to the north-
east of our study area and can be observed at shallow depth
(although we acknowledge that the location errors are higher
in this sector due to a higher azimuthal gap).
The local magnitudes estimated in this work are in gen-
eral lower than M L < 2:5 (Ⓔ Table S2). However, In the
Argentine back-arc, the magnitude can be higher with events
with magnitude M L > 3:0.
Focal Mechanism Solutions
A single focal mechanism only constrains the stress direc-
tion within the dilatational quadrant, which implies that vari-
ous focal mechanisms are necessary to further constrain the
regional stress directions. In a rock volume under stress, slip
can occur on preexisting zones of weakness in directions not
always geometrically consistent with regional stress directions
(McKenzie, 1969). Because the seismicity found in this work
is low in magnitude, we expect the corresponding focal mech-
anisms to be associated with small fractures with a broad
range of orientations rather than larger regional structures
globally aligned with observed geological features.
Considering this, the focal mechanism parameters (strike,
dip, and rake) are not limited by regional structural observa-
tions as seen in previous works (e.g., Pérez et al., 2014).
We obtained a total 104 focal mechanism solutions from
P-wave first-motion polarities (Fig. 6 and Ⓔ Table S3). Fifty-
two of them were determined using a minimum of N R > 8
polarity readings and 27 has a minimum of N R > 10 polarity
readings. The limited number of polarity data and their weak
coverage of the focal sphere did not permit to accurately con-
strain the fault plane orientations for each individual event.
Thus, we do not relate them with geological structures but
rather look at the set of solutions as a whole.
In general, our solutions (Fig. 6a and Ⓔ Table S3) cover
a large variety of focal mechanisms. However, we observe a
major concentration of T axis closer to the center of the focal

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf

by Univ de Chile user
 1992 J.-B. Ammirati, G. Vargas, S. Rebolledo, R. Abrahami, B. Potin, F. Leyton, and S. Ruiz
Figure 6. (a) Inferior hemisphere projection of the P (compres-
sion) and T (tensional) axes for the focal mechanisms found in this
study with a minimum of 6, 8, and 10 polarity readings, respec-
tively. (b) Formal stress inversion (FSI) results. The crosses corre-
spond to the best regional stress orientations. The data have been
randomly resampled (2000 times) for uncertainty estimations. The
dots show the distribution of the bootstrap samples. The color
version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
sphere and P axis more distributed closer to the edges of the
focal sphere suggesting compressive regional stress.
FSI results (Fig. 6b) show a general northeast–southwest
orientation of the principal stress axis (σ 1 ). The minimum
stress axis (σ 3 ) appears well constrained at the center of
the focal sphere, which suggests a northeast–southwest-ori-
ented compressional crustal stress state for our study region.
These results are consistent with the regional velocity field
inferred from GNSS data (Métois et al., 2016).
In detail, the uncertainty associated with principal stress
orientations does not appear to be sensitive to data quality.
The bootstrap samples are tightly surrounding the best sol-
ution especially when the number of polarity readings is low
(6 < N R < 8). We believe that the larger dispersion of the
bootstrap samples for good quality events is due to the
smaller size of the corresponding dataset (only 27 focal
mechanisms were inverted in this case). Another interesting
observation is that the stress tensor seems to rotate around the
principal stress axis (σ 1 ) as we perform FSI using fewer focal
mechanisms. This rotation is introducing some north–south
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
right-lateral strike-slip component compatible with the focal
mechanism of intermediate magnitude earthquake located at
shallow depths, in the PC sector (Fig. 1).
Implications for Regional Tectonics
Both improved hypocentral locations and regional stress
tensor obtained in this work can be discussed in the frame-
work of the regional tectonics in our study area.
The hypocenter distribution (Fig. 4) seems to coincide
with tectonic and geological observations at the surface
(Fig. 2). We observe that an important amount of the shallow
seismicity lies beneath the highly deformed Mesozoic
sequences of the PC also known as the Aconcagua fold and
thrust belt (AFTB). Around 33.5° S, this ∼20 km wide fea-
ture has been described as a thin-skinned thrust belt with
east-vergent structures, overthrusting Neogene intramoun-
tain basins. The timing of the deformation suggests that this
feature contributed to the accommodation of the Andean
orogeny between ∼20 and ∼10 Ma (Giambiagi, Alvarez,
et al., 2003). The basal décollement of the AFTB has been
estimated by Giambiagi, Alvarez, et al. (2003) to be 5–10 km
deep, which is quite consistent with the distribution of our
hypocenters for this area (Fig. 7). However, recent re-evalu-
ation of the structural configuration by Riesner et al. (2018)
suggests that the AFTB roots onto a very shallow, 2–3 km
deep décollement level, well above the seismicity level high-
lighted in the present work.
Two controversial models have been proposed to
explain the tectonic evolution of the PC and the FC more to
the east. Giambiagi et al. (2015) proposed that the AFTB
accommodated crustal shortening in the PC during the
Miocene and then migrated to the east, affecting the
Permian–Triassic sequences of the FC. This has been con-
strued as two successive east-vergent thrusts with two sep-
arate décollement levels at 5–10 and 15–20 km depths,
respectively. The total estimated shortening associated with
these structures is ∼47 km (Giambiagi and Ramos, 2002).
Alternatively, Armijo et al. (2010) consider the AFTB as
a secondary feature that accommodated a maximum of
10 km of crustal shortening and have then been carried over
the basement of the FC by a deep west-vergent ramp
throughout a continuous crustal shortening accommodation
during the Neogene. The important seismicity observed in
the present work (Figs. 4 and 7) beneath the AFTB is com-
patible with the uplift of the FC basement as mentioned by
Riesner et al. (2018) although they imply that this structure
was only active during the late Middle Miocene (∼11 Ma).
Our results thus suggest that quite an important fraction
(∼70%) of the seismicity in the west Andean thrust occurs
at the transition between the PC and the FC basements,
around ∼10 km depth (Fig. 7).
As previously mentioned, hypocenters consistently align
with the western flank of the PC (Figs. 2 and 4), right beneath
the Farellones plateau (70.3°–70.5° W) at a depth of ∼15 km.
In this sector, the Pre-Andean basement and the overlying
 The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central Chile, 33°–34° S)
Figure 7. Integrated cross section showing the depth distribution and the normalized density of the seismicity characterized in this study
between 33° S and 34.5° S. Solid lines are structures inferred from geological observations (Riesner et al., 2018). Dashed lines correspond to
major structures inferred from our seismic results. Dotted lines delimit the seismogenic zone associated to the tectonics of the study region.
The circled numbers refer to clusters of seismicity not directly related to the tectonics west Andean thrust (see Fig. 4). The color version of
this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
Abanico and Farellones formations as well as Quaternary
intrusive bodies seem to be rather deformed and uplifted by
deep-cored structures sometimes referred as west Andean fold
and thrust belt (WAFTB); Riesner et al., 2017). The PC is
bounded to the west by east-dipping faults that mounted the
aforementioned Cenozoic formations above the Quaternary
sediments of the Central Depression resulting in a very abrupt
mountain front (Fig. 2). Farther east, a series of anticlines and
synclines was developed as the underlying structures (former
WAFTB) accommodated the Andean compression for the past
20–25 Ma. According to the west-verging model (Armijo
et al., 2010; Riesner et al., 2017), the WAFTB would be the
main structure responsible for the building of the Andes
between 33° and 35° S. Recent quantification of the WAFTB
kinematics from structural and geochronological observations
(Riesner et al., 2017) allowed to estimate the depth of the
décollement level associated with the WAFTB at 12–15 km.
The hypocenter distribution found along the western front of
the PC, lying at ∼15 km depth is compatible with this struc-
ture (Fig. 4). Nearby Santiago de Chile, the west Andean front
is characterized by the presence of the SRF. The seismicity
associated with the WAFTB appears quite parallel to this
structure (Fig. 4) although we do not observe any hypocenters
on the SRF fault plane, at shallow levels, between the surface
and the base of the ramp. Paleoseismic studies suggest that at
least two ruptures occurred along the SRF during the past
17,000 yr (Vargas et al., 2014) and were associated to 7:2 >
Mw > 7:5 earthquakes. We believe that such high-magnitude
events would occur when the entire ramp is ruptured.
Although the SRF scarp at the surface was mapped as a
∼30 km long structure (Armijo et al., 2010), the seismicity
(found in this work) at its base clearly extends farther south.
Considering this observation, there is a possibility that the
SRF plane is extending southward as well, totaling a length
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
1993
of at least 50 km. This length value is more consistent with
empirical scaling laws between 4.7 and 4.9 slip estimated by
Vargas et al. (2014) and the rupture length at the surface
(Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). However, we acknowledge
that the amount slip measured at the surface is not always rep-
resentative of the magnitude, because the rupture is not nec-
essarily uniform along the fault plane. As an example, the
1999 Mw 7.6 Chi-Chi earthquake (Shin and Teng, 2001) was
characterized by a slip and surface rupture length way above
the values expected from magnitude scaling relationships.
In the Andes of central Chile, most of the tectonic fea-
tures observed at the surface present a north–south general
orientation. This is particularly true for the three main afore-
mentioned structures: the AFTB in the eastern PC, the
WAFTB in the western PC, and the SRF (Fig. 2). These
structures accommodated the Andean shortening in a very
clear east–west direction. However, the regional stress tensor
displays a northeast–southwest orientation, parallel to the
convergence orientation of the Nazca plate. This observation
raises the question of how the upper plate accommodates
northeast–southwest motion induced by the subduction
dynamics with north–south structure? Geological observa-
tions mainly support the idea of reverse faulting. As an exam-
ple, the SRF on the PC piedmont previously interpreted as a
normal fault (Brüggen, 1950) has been recently studied more
in details driving to the conclusion that it rather corresponds
to the expression of a west-vergent reverse structure thrusting
the Miociene volcanic rocks of the Abanico Formation over
the Quaternary sediments of the Central Depression (Armijo
et al., 2010; Vargas et al., 2014). More to the east, the west-
verging folds that characterize the WAFTB present clear
north–south axial planes and suggest east–west deformation
(Riesner et al., 2017). The same observation would apply to
the AFTB (Armijo et al., 2010; Riesner et al., 2018).
 1994
The Las Melosas earthquake is the largest crustal event
instrumentally recorded in the central Andes. It occurred on 4
September 1958 in the PC, ∼60 km southeast from Santiago.
The hypocenter was located at around 10 km depth, beneath
the locality of Las Melosas where the earthquake was felt
with the strongest intensity (IX on the Mercalli scale) accord-
ing to Sepúlveda et al. (2008). Using teleseismic waveform
modeling and moment tensor inversion, Alvarado et al.
(2009) were able to further constrain the corresponding
source parameters. In particular, they calculated a moment
magnitude of Mw 6.3 associated with a strike-slip (right-lat-
eral) focal mechanism. The optimal source parameters were
obtained for a depth of 8 km, which is consistent with pre-
vious studies based on local seismograms analysis (Pardo
and Acevedo, 1984). To explain such a mechanism,
Alvarado et al. (2009) proposed that the Las Melosas event
could have been associated with the activation of east–west
structures accommodating differences in shortening rate
north from 33° S although no surface rupture were observed
to corroborate this hypothesis. Another possible explanation
is that the strike-slip component induced by the north–east
regional stress is accommodated by the existent north–south
crustal structures (Fig. 2) although in this case, the focal
mechanism of the Las Melosas earthquake does not match
the regional stress tensor (Fig. 6). Two other crustal events
occurred in 1987 and 2001 (Alvarado et al., 2005) show
focal mechanisms compatible with this idea (Fig. 1).
Interestingly, these strike-slip events seem to be located in
the eastern PC and FC, indicating that the regional north–
east-oriented principal stress could be accommodated in this
sector. More intermediate magnitude (M > 5) events in this
sector would be necessary to validate this particular point.
Implications for Seismic Hazard
SRF Rupture Scenario
The scarp of the SRF has been identified bordering the
eastern side of the metropolitan area of Santiago. It extends
from the Cerro Alvarado, on the north bank of the Mapocho
river (−33:35° S) to the south of the Maipo river at ∼33:6° S
(Armijo et al., 2010). Previous SRF rupture scenarios (Pérez
et al., 2014; Estay et al., 2016) are based on approximation
of Armijo et al. (2010) of fault plane geometry.
Pérez et al. (2014) estimated the PGA from five random
composite fractal slip distribution scenarios and calculated
the corresponding PGA within a 122-node grid. This
approach accounts for the directivity effect associated with
the rupture propagation. This effect strongly influences the
wave amplitudes depending on the angle between the
receiver and the rupture propagation main direction. On the
other hand, they neglected site parameters that could locally
influence the ground acceleration such as soil qualifications
(V S30 ) and/or basin thickness variations. Their rupture sce-
narios were computed for a conservative magnitude M w 6.9
earthquake rupturing an S
30 × 16 km2 SRF fault plane.
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
J.-B. Ammirati, G. Vargas, S. Rebolledo, R. Abrahami, B. Potin, F. Leyton, and S. Ruiz
They obtained PGA values between 0.7 and 0:8g around the
scarp of the SRF.
Estay et al. (2016) focused their work on improving the
near-surface fault geometry. They found evidence of at least
four different subsegments of ∼10 km length, along the SRF.
They concluded that those segments would be activated inde-
pendently resulting in four different rupture scenarios that
involve earthquakes of magnitudes 6:2 < Mw < 6:7.
Corresponding accelerations were computed for a grid of
1 km spacing. V S30 and basin depth variations were taken into
account. Despite the even more conservative magnitude range,
PGA estimations are consistent with the results of Pérez
et al. (2014).
As mentioned in the previous section, based on the seis-
micity obtained in the present work, in particular the seismic-
ity associated with the western flank of the PC (Figs. 4 and 7),
we consider the possibility that the SRF extends farther south,
down to ∼33:7° S totaling a surface length of 50 km. The ramp
of the SRF would connect with the western PC seismicity at
∼10 km depth. Thus, we estimate an east-dipping fault plane
(∼34°) with an area of S
50 × 20km2 (Fig. 8). Seismic
moment (M0 ) and moment magnitude (M w ) can be estimated
by relating the shear modulus (μ), the rupture area (A), and the
amount of slip produced by the earthquake (d) (Kanamori,
1977). Our scenario considers a seismic event that would
rupture the entire fault plane. Hence, taking a shear modulus
μ
40 GPa (Ji et al., 2010), a surface area S
1 × 106 m2
and a slip (assumed uniform along the rupture) of d
4:9 m
(Vargas et al., 2014) we obtain a seismic moment of
M0
1:96 × 1020 N · m (M w 7.46).
We use ground-motion prediction equations derived from
the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database (Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center [PEER], 2019) to
compute PGAs in our study area (Abrahamson et al., 2014;
Graizer and Kalkan, 2016; hereafter, ASK14 and GK15,
respectively). The NGA database includes ground-motion
observations for a large number of earthquakes, which allows
the calculation of PGA median value and standard deviation.
For this reason, we assume that PGA variations due to source
effects are taken into account through the dispersion of the
empirical data. The HW effect has been defined as a system-
atic amplification of ground-motion amplitudes measured on
the HW (Abrahamson and Somerville, 1996). Unlike GK15,
the ASK14 model allows to specifically quantify this effect.
For this reason, we compute PGA variations using both mod-
els to explore their similarities and differences.
Our SRF scenario is based on the most recently available
geological and seismological knowledge. It considers the
rupture of every point on the fault plane (Fig. 8), which does
not mean that the rupture would be uniform along the entire
fault plane but that we consider every possible source–
receiver distances. We compute PGAs for a grid of ∼900 m
(30 arcsec) spacing for which each node is characterized with
elevation (h), V S30 and the closest distance to the rupture
(rmin ). The distance to the rupture is calculated considering
the topography and the depth of the fault plane. Thus, for
 The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central Chile, 33°–34° S)
Figure 8. SRF plane geometry taken into account for a major
rupture scenario. The solid line corresponds to the scarp of the SRF
as described in Armijo et al. (2010). The dashed line is the southern
extension of the SRF inferred from the crustal seismicity reported in
this work (see the Results section). The rupture of the entire SRF
fault plane would generate an earthquake of magnitude Mw 7.5. The
metropolitan area of Santiago (white polygon) is home to more than
∼6:5 million inhabitants. The color version of this figure is available
only in the electronic edition.
the foot wall (west of the SRF scarp) rmin corresponds to the
closest distance to the scarp whereas some points on the HW
can be closer to the underlying fault plane. The shear-wave
velocity to a depth of 30 m (V S30 ) has been estimated in the
study area by Leyton et al. (2011) based on soil and rock
characteristics from local geology. We considered basin
thicknesses (b) from Yáñez et al. (2015), which varies
between 0.2 km to the south and 0.5 km to the northeast of
the Santiago basin. The Joyner–Boore distance (closest dis-
tance to the surface projection of the rupture plane: RJB ) is
also calculated, as it is required by ASK14. The anelastic
attenuation factor (Q0 ) is required to constrain far source
attenuation in the GK15 model (which in our case will only
have little effect). We set Q0
450 based on Ji et al. (2010).
Results and Discussion
PGAs computed in this work are shown in Figure 9. In
general, both models show quite similar results close to the
SRF scarp with maximum PGA of 0:8  0:4g and
0:7  0:3g for the ASK14 and GK15 models, respectively.
We observe that footwall PGAs obtained from ASK14
decrease more rapidly with distance compared to the GK15
model. Values obtained in this work are consistent with Pérez
et al. (2014) and Estay et al. (2016) although our rupture
scenario is considering a much bigger earthquake (Mw 7.5).
However, our results show quite a different repartition of
PGAs compared to the aforementioned works. Close to the
SRF scarp, the first-order parameter that controls the amount
of expected acceleration appears to be the V S30 , a parameter
closely related to the observed geology in the study area
(Leyton et al., 2011). Pérez et al. (2014) and Estay et al.
(2016) estimated stronger PGAs systematically located on
the HW. Although we specifically considered the amplifica-
tion caused by the HW effect, our results (Fig. 9) show
relatively higher PGAs mostly characterizing the footwall.
The reason for this observation is that the Santiago basin
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
1995
(footwall) is filled with relatively low V S30 (450–500 ms−1 )
detrital alluvium in comparison to the HW, mostly composed
by higher V S30 (>1200 ms−1 ) rocks from the Abanico for-
mation (Fig. 2 and Ⓔ Fig. S5). This difference in V S30 seems
to compensate the HW effect. However, our highest PGA
values are observed on the HW north of our study area
(∼33:4°S) and more to the south (∼33:6°S) where the
Mapocho and Maipo rivers (Figs. 2 and 9) open to the
Santiago basin. These sectors are characterized by low
V S30 (∼500 ms−1 ) and are located close to the SRF scarp,
hence the strong PGAs observed locally. To the northwest
of the Santiago metropolitan area (Fig. 9), the presence of
volcanic ashes (Pudahuel ignimbrites) is characterized by
a very low V S30 (∼150 ms−1 ) and contributes to a locally
higher PGA (0:3  0:15g) in this sector despite being
located further from the fault scarp. This observation is par-
ticularly visible on the GK15 model (Fig. 9a and Ⓔ Fig. S5).
Overall, our models show that ground-motion attenua-
tion with distance is lower than observed in Pérez et al.
(2014) and Estay et al. (2016). On the footwall, 10 km from
the SRF scarp, our models show PGA average values of
0:4–0:5g, in which the work mentioned earlier obtained val-
ues of ∼0:25 and ∼0:3g, respectively. This difference in
ground-motion attenuation can be related to the higher mag-
nitude earthquake modeled in this study.
Values and distribution of PGAs estimated in this study
are consistent with ground-motion measurements correspond-
ing to the 1999 M w 7.6 Chi-Chi earthquake, a case similar to
our SRF scenario in terms of tectonic setting although with a
slightly higher magnitude and a rupture length of nearly 90 km
(Shin and Teng, 2001). Chi-Chi generated PGA values greater
than 0:9g close to the rupture scarp, on the HW and PGA val-
ues of 0:3g at ∼25 km to the west, on the footwall. Another
comparable example would be the 2011 M w 6.2 Christchurch
earthquake with recorded PGA greater than 0:8g on the HW
although with a rapid decrease at short distances
(PGA
0:25g recorded at 10 km from the epicenter), prob-
ably due to the lower magnitude compared to our study. Also,
the Christchurch area is characterized by poorer quality soils
than observed in the Santiago basin. Unlike, the SRF or the
1999 Chi-Chi case, the fault responsible for the 2011
Christchurch earthquake was blind, which means that no sur-
face rupture was observed.
Shallow crustal earthquakes this size occurring on reverse
faults are expected to generate surface rupture, which was the
case for the Chi-Chi earthquake and locally resulted in a ∼9 m
scarp. This amount of slip close to the surface reminds us that
the slip distribution can be quite heterogeneous along the rup-
ture and that patches of high slip can locally increase PGA
values. Considering the 4.9 m surface displacement observed
by Vargas et al. (2014), there is no doubt that the rupture of the
SRF will reach the surface. In this case, differential ground
movements would be particularly detrimental for any build-
ings or infrastructure constructed above and right next to the
rupture area. We do not discard the occurrence of smaller
events, large enough to cause damage but with a slip
 1996 J.-B. Ammirati, G. Vargas, S. Rebolledo, R. Abrahami, B. Potin, F. Leyton, and S. Ruiz

Figure 9. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) estimations corresponding to our rupture scenario for the SRF calculated from the (a) GK15
and (b) ASK14 models, following Graizer and Kalkan (2016) and Abrahamson et al. (2014), respectively. The solid white line corresponds to
the SRF scarp considered in this case. Both models clearly show high-PGA values on the footwall, east from the scarp of the SRF. The
strongest accelerations are observed on the hanging wall (HW) in areas filled with sedimentary material carried by the Mapocho river to the
north and then by the Maipo river to the south (Fig. 2). This observation is particularly clear on the (b) ASK14 model that specifically
accounts for the HW effect (see the Implications for Seismic Hazard section). Variations of PGA mean values for the GK15 and
ASK14 models along cross section AB are shown within 1 standard deviation in (c) and (d), respectively. The dashed line shows topography
variations along cross section AB. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf

by Univ de Chile user
 The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central Chile, 33°–34° S)
distribution that would not rupture up to the surface. Finally,
strong accelerations related to the SRF rupture could trigger
landslides and rock falls in areas characterized by high
topography.
Conclusions
In this study, we analyzed 26 months (27 January 2017 to
15 March 2019) of continuous waveforms recorded by 17
broadband seismometers and obtained 917 probabilistic loca-
tions of seismic events associated to the west Andean thrust
between 33° and 34° S. Our results evidence seismic activity
mainly distributed beneath the eastern PC between 5 and
15 km depths and beneath the western PC between 10 and
20 km depths. The former imply that crustal shortening affect-
ing the central Andes would be concentrated at the transition at
depth between the PC and the FC at depth. The latter is con-
sistent with the west Andean thrust and would be associated
with the SRF showing that the west Andean front is active.
Focal mechanisms obtained in this work allowed to constrain
a northeast–southwest direction of the principal stress axis, in
good agreement with GNSS velocity measurements. This dis-
cordance between the principal stress direction and the north–
south orientation of the structure would explain strike-slip
mechanisms associated with shallow, intermediate magnitude
earthquakes in the PC and FC. The crustal seismicity charac-
terized in this work has been used to better constrain the geom-
etry of the SRF and propose an improved rupture scenario
involving a characteristic Mw 7.5 earthquake. Expected
PGA in Santiago could be stronger than 0:8g close to the scarp
of the SRF and greater than 0:3g for most of the metropolitan
area. Considering this scenario, surface rupture would be very
likely, hence the necessity to severely restrict (or prohibit) any
kind of new construction in the proximity of the SRF scarp.
Data and Resources
The continuous waveforms used in this study can be
downloaded from the Incorporated Research Institutions for
Seismology (IRIS) platform at https://www.iris.edu/hq/. Data
preparation and processing were performed using the ObsPy,
Pyrocko, and Seismic Analysis Code (SAC) packages
(Goldstein et al., 2003; Beyreuther et al., 2010; https://
pyrocko.org). Some of the figures shown in this article were
made using the Generic Mapping Tools (GMT) package
(http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/; Wessel and Smith, 2006).
Global Seismographic Network (GSN) station information
(Fig. 3) can be found at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/
monitoring/gsn/. Figure 1 shows three crustal events from the
Global Centroid Moment Tensor (CMT) catalog (https://
www.globalcmt.org/CMTsearch.html). All websites were last
accessed on July 2019.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Chilean Oficina Nacional de Emergencia
del Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública (ONEMI) under resolution
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
1997
N° 41, 20 June 2016 (Monitoreo sismico y potencial sismogénico de la Falla
San Ramón). The authors thank Sergio Barrientos and the Chilean
Seismological Center (CSN) team (in particular Sebastián Arriola) for the
easy access to the continuous waveforms and station metadata used in the
present work. J.-B. A. is thankful to Chelsea Mackaman-Lofland for fruitful
discussions about the tectonics of the central Andes. J.-B. A., G. V., and S. R.
are thankful to Ruben Boroschek for his feedback on peak ground acceler-
ation (PGA) calculations. The authors are grateful to Associate Editor Mark
W. Stirling, as well as Gregory De Pascale and another anonymous reviewer
for their very constructive comments on the original article.
References
Abrahamson, N. A., and P. G. Somerville (1996). Effects of the hanging wall
and footwall on ground motions recorded during the Northridge earth-
quake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, no. 1B, S93–S99.
Abrahamson, N. A., W. J. Silva, and R. Kamai (2014). Summary of the
ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthq.
Spectra 30, no. 3, 1025–1055, doi: 10.1193/070913EQS198M.
Allmendinger, R. W., D. Figueroa, D. Snyder, J. Beer, C. Mpodozis, and B.
L. Isacks (1990). Foreland shortening and crustal balancing in the
Andes at 30°S latitude, Tectonics 9, no. 4, 789–809, doi: 10.1029/
TC009i004p00789.
Alvarado, P., S. Barrientos, M. Saez, M. Astroza, and S. Beck (2009). Source
study and tectonic implications of the historic 1958 Las Melosas crustal
earthquake, Chile, compared to earthquake damage, Phys. Earth Planet.
In. 175, nos. 1/2, 26–36, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.03.015.
Alvarado, P., S. Beck, G. Zandt, M. Araujo, and E. Triep (2005). Crustal
deformation in the south-central Andes back-arc terranes as viewed
from regional broadband seismic waveform modeling, Geophys. J.
Int. 163, no. 2, 580–598, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02759.x.
Armijo, R., R. Rauld, R. Thiele, G. Vargas, J. Campos, R. Lacassin, and E.
Kausel (2010). The west Andean thrust, the San Ramón fault, and the
seismic hazard for Santiago, Chile, Tectonics 29, TC2007, doi:
10.1029/2008TC002427.
Barrientos, S., and National Seismological Center (CSN) Team (2018). The
seismic network of Chile, Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, no. 2A, 467–474, doi:
10.1785/0220160195.
Barrientos, S., E. Vera, P. Alvarado, and T. Monfret (2004). Crustal seismic-
ity in central Chile, J. South Am. Earth Sci. 16, 759–768, doi: 10.1016/
j.jsames.2003.12.001.
Beck, S., S. Barrientes, E. Kausel, and M. Reyes (1998). Source character-
istics of historic earthquakes along the central Chile subduction zone,
J. South Am. Earth Sci. 11, 115–129.
Beyreuther, M., R. Barsch, L. Krischer, T. Megies, Y. Behr, and J.
Wassermann (2010). ObsPy: A Python toolbox for seismology,
Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, no. 3, 530–533, doi: 10.1785/gssrl.81.3.530.
Boroschek, R. L., V. Contreras, D. Y. Kwak, and J. P. Stewart (2012). Strong
ground motion attributes of the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile, earth-
quake, Earthq. Spectra 28, no. S1, S19–S38, doi: 10.1193/1.4000045.
Bott, M. H. P. (1959). The mechanics of oblique slip faulting, Geol. Mag. 96,
109–117.
Brüggen, J. (1950). Fundamentos de la geología de Chile, Instituto
Geográfico military (IGM), Santiago, Chile (in Spanish).
Charrier, R., M. Bustamante, D. Comte, S. Elgueta, J. J. Flynn, N. Iturra, N.
Muñoz, M. Pardo, R. Thiele, and A. R. Wyss (2005). The Abanico
extensional basin: Regional extension, chronology of tectonic inver-
sion and relation to shallow seismic activity and Andean uplift,
Neues Jahrb, Geol. Palaeontol. Abh. 236, 43–77.
Cifuentes, I. L., and P. G. Silver (1989). Low frequency source character-
istics of the great 1960 Chilean earthquake, J. Geophys. Res. 94, 643–
663, doi: 10.1029/JB094iB01p00643.
Cristallini, E. O., and V. A. Ramos (2000). Thick-skinned and thin-skinned
thrusting in the La Ramada fold and thrust belt: Crustal evolution of the
high Andes of San Juan, Argentina (32°SL), Tectonophysics 317, 205–
235, doi: 10.1016/S0040-1951(99)00276-0.
 1998 J.-B. Ammirati, G. Vargas, S. Rebolledo, R. Abrahami, B. Potin, F. Leyton, and S. Ruiz
Ekström, G., M. Nettles, and A. M. Dziewonski (2012). The global CMT
project 2004-2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13, 017 earthquakes,
Phys. Earth Planet. In. 200/201, 1–9, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2012.04.002.
Estay, N. P., G. Yáñez, S. Carretier, E. Lira, and J. Maringue (2016). Seismic
hazard in low slip rate crustal faults, estimating the characteristic event
and the most hazardous zone: Study case San Ramón fault, in Southern
Andes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 2511–2528, doi: 10.5194/
nhess-16-2511-2016.
Farías, M., D. Comte, R. Charrier, J. Martinod, C. David, A. Tassara, F.
Tapia, and A. Fock (2010). Crustal-scale structural architecture in
central Chile based on seismicity and surface geology: Implications
for Andean mountain building, Tectonics 29, doi: 10.1029/
2009TC002480.
Giambiagi, L., A. Tassara, J. Mescua, M. Tunik, P. P. Alvarez, E. Godoy, G.
Hoke, L. Pinto, S. Spagnotto, H. Porras, et al. (2015). Evolution of
shallow and deep structures along the Maipo-Tunuyan transect (33°
40’s): From the Pacific coast to the Andean foreland, Geol. Soc.
Lond. Spec. Publ. 399, SP399-14, doi: 10.1144/SP399.14.
Giambiagi, L. B., and V. A. Ramos (2002). Structural evolution of the Andes
between 33°30′ and 33°45′s above the transition zone between the flat
and normal subduction segment, Argentina and Chile, J. South Am.
Earth Sci. 15, 101–116, doi: 10.1016/S0895-9811(02)00008-1.
Giambiagi, L. B., P. P. Alvarez, E. Godoy, and V. A. Ramos (2003). The
control of pre-existing extensional structures in the evolution of the
southern sector of the Aconcagua fold and thrust belt,
Tectonophysics 369, 1–19.
Giambiagi, L. B., V. A. Ramos, E. Godoy, P. P. Alvarez, and S. Orts (2003).
Cenozoic deformation and tectonic style of the Andes, between 33°
and 34° south latitude, Tectonics 22, no. 4, 1041, doi: 10.1029/
2001TC001354.
Goldstein, P., D. Dodge, M. Firpo, and L. Minner (2003). SAC2000: Signal
processing and analysis tools for seismologists and engineers, in The
IASPEI International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering
Seismology, W. H. K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, and C.
Kisslinger (Editors), Academic Press, London, United Kingdom.
Graizer, V., and E. Kalkan (2016). Summary of the GK15 ground-motion
prediction equation for horizontal PGA and 5% damped PSA from
shallow crustal continental earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
106, no. 2, 687–707, doi: 10.1785/0120150194.
Hardebeck, J. L., and A. J. Michael (2006). Damped regional-scale stress
inversions: Methodology and example for southern California and the
Coalinga aftershock sequence, J. Geophys. Res. 111, no. B11, doi:
10.1029/2005JB004144.
Instituto Nacional de Prevención Sísmica (INPRES) (2019). Terremotos
históricos ocurridos en la República Argentina, available at http://
contenidos.inpres.gov.ar/sismologia/historicos (last accessed July 2019).
Ji, S., S. Sun, Q. Wang, and D. Marcotte (2010). Lamé parameters of
common rocks in the Earth’s crust and upper mantle, J. Geophys.
Res. 115, no. B06314, doi: 10.1029/2009JB007134.
Kanamori, H. (1977). The energy release in great earthquakes, J. Geophys.
Res. 82, no. 20, 2981–2987, doi: 10.1029/JB082i020p02981.
Kanaori, Y., and S.-I. Kawakami (1996). The 1995 7.2 magnitude Kobe
earthquake and the Arima-Takatsuki tectonic line: Implications of
the seismic risk for central Japan, Eng. Geol. 43, nos. 2/3, 135–
150, doi: 10.1016/0013-7952(96)00056-7.
Leyton, F., S. A. Sepulveda, M. Astroza, S. Rebolledo, P. Acevedo, S. Ruiz,
L. Gonzalez, and C. Foncea (2011). Seismic zonation of the Santiago
basin, Chile, 5th International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
Leyton, P., A. Pérez, and J. Campos (2009). Anomalous seismicity in the
lower crust of the Santiago basin, Chile, J. Phys. Earth Planet. In.
175, 17–25, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.03.016.
Lomax, A., J. Virieux, P. Volant, and C. Berge (2000). Probabilistic earth-
quake location in 3D and layered models: Introduction of a Metropolis-
Gibbs method and comparison with linear locations, in Advances in
Seismic Event Location, C. H. Thurber and N. Rabinowitz (Editors),
Kluwer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 101–134.
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf
by Univ de Chile user
Martinez-Garzón, P., G. Kwiatek, M. Ickrath, and M. Bohnhoff (2014).
MSATSI: A MATLAB package for stress inversion combining solid
classic methodology, a new simplified user-handling and a visualiza-
tion tool, Seismol. Res. Lett. 85, no. 4, 896–904, doi: 10.1785/
0220130189.
McKenzie, D. P. (1969). The relation between fault plane solutions for earth-
quakes and the directions of the principal stresses, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 59, no. 2, 591–601.
Métois, M., C. Vigny, and A. Socquet (2016). Interseismic coupling, mega-
thrust earthquakes and seismic swarms along the Chilean subduction
zone (38°-18°S), Pure Appl. Geophys. 173, 1431–1449, doi: 10.1007/
s00024-016-1280-5.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2019), Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center ground motion database,
available at https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu (last accessed June 2019).
Pardo, M., and P. Acevedo (1984). Mecanismos de foco en la zona de Chile
Central, Tralka 2, no. 3, 279–293.
Pérez, A., J. A. Ruiz, G. Vargas, R. Rauld, S. Rebolledo, and J. Campos
(2014). Improving seismotectonics and seismic hazard assessment
along the San Ramón Fault at the eastern border of Santiago city,
Chile, Nat. Hazards 71, no. 1, 243–274, doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-
0908-3.
Poiata, N., C. Satriano, J.-P. Vilotte, P. Bernard, and K. Obara (2016).
Multiband array detection and location of seismic source recorded
by dense seismic network, Geophys. J. Int. 205, 1548–1573, doi:
10.1093/gji/ggw071.
Potin, B. (2016). Les Alpes Occidentales: Tomographie, localization de
séismes et topographie du Moho, Ph.D. Dissertation, University
Grenoble-Alpes (France), ISTerre.
Quigley, M. C., M. W. Hughes, B. A. Bradley, S. van Ballegooy, C. Reid, J.
Morgenroth, T. Horton, B. Duffy, and J. R. Pettinga (2016). The 2010–
2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence: Environmental effects, seismic
triggering thresholds and geologic legacy, Tectonophysics 672/673,
228–274, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2016.01.044.
Reasenberg, P., and D. Oppenheimer (1985). FPFIT, FPPLOT and FPPAGE;
Fortran computer programs for calculating and displaying earthquake
fault-plane solutions, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 85-739, doi:
10.3133/ofr85739.
Riesner, M., R. Lacassin, M. Simoes, R. Armijo, R. Rauld, and G. Vargas
(2017). Kinematics of the active west Andean fold-and-thrust belt
(Central Chile): Structure and long-term shortening rate, Tectonics
36, 287–303, doi: 10.1002/2016TC004269.
Riesner, M., R. Lacassin, M. Simoes, D. Carrizo, and R. Armijo (2018).
Revisiting the crustal structure and kinematics of the central Andes
at 33.5°S: Implications for the mechanics of Andean Mountain build-
ing, Tectonics 37, 1347–1375, doi: 10.1002/2017TC004513.
Ruiz, S., and R. Madariaga (2018). Historical and recent large megathrust
earthquakes in Chile, Tectonophysics 733, 37–56, doi: 10.1016/
j.tecto.2018.01.015.
Ruiz, S., J.-B. Ammirati, F. Leyton, L. Cabrera, B. Potin, and R. Madariaga
(2019). The January 2019 (Mw 6.7) Coquimbo earthquake: Insights
from a seismic sequence within the Nazca plate, Seismol. Res. Lett.
doi: 10.1785/0220190079.
Sepúlveda, S., M. Astroza, E. Kausel, J. Campos, E. Casas, S. Rebolledo,
and R. Verdugo (2008). New findings on the 1958 Las Melosas earth-
quake sequence, Central Chile: Implications for seismic hazard related
to shallow crustal earthquake in subduction zones, J. Earthq. Eng. 12,
432–455, doi: 10.1080/13632460701512951.
Shin, T, and T. Teng (2001). An overview of the 1999 Chi Chi, Taiwan, earth-
quake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, no. 5, 895–913, doi: 10.1785/
0120000738.
Tarantola, A., and B. Valette (1982). Generalized nonlinear inverse problems
solved using the least squares criterion, Rev. Geophys. 20, no. 2, 219–
232, doi: 10.1029/RG020i002p00219.
Thiele, R. (1980). Geología de la hoja Santiago, Región Metropolitana,
Carta Geológica de Chile, Inst. de Invest. Geol., Santiago, Chile, scale
1:250, 000, 51 pp.
 The Crustal Seismicity of the Western Andean Thrust (Central Chile, 33°–34° S) 1999

Vargas, G., Y. Klinger, T. K. S. Rockwell, L. Forman, S. Rebolledo, S. Baize, Jean-Baptiste Ammirati

R. Lacassin, and R. Armijo (2014). Probing large intraplate earth- Gabriel Vargas
quakes at the west flank of the Andes, Geology 42, no. 12, 1083– Sofía Rebolledo
Rachel Abrahami
1086, doi: 10.1130/G35741.1.
Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas
Vigny, C., A. Socquet, S. Peyrat, J. C. Ruegg, M. Métois, R. Madariaga, S.
Departamento de Geología
Morvan, M. Lancieri, R. Lacassin, J. Campos, et al. (2011). The
Universidad de Chile
2010 Mw 8.8 Maule megathrust earthquake of central Chile, Plaza Ercilla 803
monitored by GPS, Science 332, 1417–1421, doi: 10.1126/sci- 8320000 Santiago, Chile
ence.1204132. jbaptiste@ing.uchile.cl
Wallace, R. E. (1951). Geometry of shearing stress and relation to faulting, J.
Geol. 59, no. 2, 118–130. Bertrand Potin
Wells, D. L., and K. J. Coppersmith (1994). New empirical relation- Felipe Leyton
ships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, Centro Sismológico Nacional
and surface displacement, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, no. 4, 974– Universidad de Chile
1002. Blanco Encalada 2002
Wessel, P., and W. H. F. Smith (2006). New, improved version of generic 8320000 Santiago, Chile
mapping tools released, EOS Trans. AGU 79, no. 47, 579–579, doi:
10.1029/98EO00426. Sergio Ruiz
Yáñez, G., M. Muñoz, V. Flores-Aqueveque, and A. Bosch (2015). Gravity Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas
derived depth to basement in Santiago Basin, Chile: Implications for Departamento de Geofísica
its geological evolution, hydrogeology, low enthalpy geothermal, soil Universidad de Chile
Blanco Encalada 2002
characterization and geo-hazards, Andean Geol. 42, no. 2, 190–212,
8320000 Santiago, Chile
doi: 10.5027/andgeoV42n2-a01.
Zhang, L., J. Li, W. Liao, and Q. Wang (2016). Source rupture process of
the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal Mw7.9 earthquake and its tectonic implica-
tions, Geodes. Geodynam. 7, no. 2, 124–131, doi: 10.1016/ Manuscript received 1 April 2019;
j.geog.2016.03.001. Published Online 3 September 2019

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/109/5/1985/4833931/bssa-2019082.1.pdf

by Univ de Chile user