Figure 3. This version of past ruptures is used by Burkhard et al. (2026), adopting a modified version of the Maximum Rupture Model of Scharer and Yule (2020) and the simplified fault geometry shown here. I’ve annotated this figure to highlight the 1812 (open gate) and 1857 (closed gate) earthquakes. The extent of the 1857 rupture is well known, but it is uncertain for 1812. The authors assume a model based on Yule et al. (2007) and Rodríguez Padilla et al. (2021), rather than that of Lozos (2016). Credit: Modified from Figure 2 of Burkhard et al. (2026)

Posted on by

Figure 3. This version of past ruptures is used by Burkhard et al. (2026), adopting a modified version of the Maximum Rupture Model of Scharer and Yule (2020) and the simplified fault geometry shown here. I’ve annotated this figure to highlight the 1812 (open gate) and 1857 (closed gate) earthquakes. The extent of the 1857 rupture is well known, but it is uncertain for 1812. The authors assume a model based on Yule et al. (2007) and Rodríguez Padilla et al. (2021), rather than that of Lozos (2016). Credit: Modified from Figure 2 of Burkhard et al. (2026)

Figure 3. This version of past ruptures is used by Burkhard et al. (2026), adopting a modified version of the Maximum Rupture Model of Scharer and Yule (2020) and the simplified fault geometry shown here. I’ve annotated this figure to highlight the 1812 (open gate) and 1857 (closed gate) earthquakes. The extent of the 1857 rupture is well known, but it is uncertain for 1812. The authors assume a model based on Yule et al. (2007) and Rodríguez Padilla et al. (2021), rather than that of Lozos (2016). Credit: Modified from Figure 2 of Burkhard et al. (2026)

Follow her
Latest posts by Alka Tripathy-Lang, Ph.D. (see all)