Geology topics

D. Dreger

Publications and source records attributed to D. Dreger.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2016

Faulting, damage, and intensity in the Canyondam earthquake of May 23, 2013

On Thursday evening, May 23, 2013 (0347 May 24 UTC), a moment magnitude (M w ) = 5.7 earthquake occurred northeast of Canyondam, California. A two-person team of U.S. Geological Survey scientists went to the area to search for surface rupture and to canvass damage in the communities around Lake Almanor. While the causative fault had not been identified at the time of the field survey, surface rupture was expected to have occurred just south of Lake Almanor, approximately 2–4 kilometers south of the epicenter. No surface rupture was discovered. Felt intensity among the communities around Lake Almanor appeared to vary significantly. Lake Almanor West (LAW), Lake Almanor Country Club (LACC), and Hamilton Branch (HB) experienced Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) ≥7, whereas other communities around the lake experienced MMI ≤6; the maximum observed intensity was MMI 8, in LAW. Damage in the high intensity areas consisted of broken and collapsed chimneys, ruptured pipes, and some damage to foundations and to structural elements within houses. Although this shaking damage is not usually expected for an M w 5.7 earthquake, the intensities at Lake Almanor Country Club correlate with the peak ground acceleration (38 percent g) and peak ground velocity (30 centimeters per second) recorded by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program accelerometer located at the nearby Lake Almanor Fire Station. The intensity distribution for the three hardest hit areas (LAW, LACC, and HB) appears to increase as the azimuth from epicenter to the intensity sites approaches the fault strike. The small communities of Almanor and Prattville on the southwestern shore of Lake Almanor experienced somewhat lower intensities. The town of Canyondam experienced a lower intensity as well, despite its location up-dip of the earthquake rupture. This report contains information on the earthquake itself, the search for surface rupture, and the damage we observed and compiled from other sources.

California↗

USGS2008

Ground-motion modeling of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, part I: Validation using the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake

We compute ground motions for the Beroza (1991) and Wald et al. (1991) source models of the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake using four different wave-propagation codes and recently developed 3D geologic and seismic velocity models. In preparation for modeling the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, we use this well-recorded earthquake to characterize how well our ground-motion simulations reproduce the observed shaking intensities and amplitude and durations of recorded motions throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. All of the simulations generate ground motions consistent with the large-scale spatial variations in shaking associated with rupture directivity and the geologic structure. We attribute the small variations among the synthetics to the minimum shear-wave speed permitted in the simulations and how they accommodate topography. Our long-period simulations, on average, under predict shaking intensities by about one-half modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) units (25%-35% in peak velocity), while our broadband simulations, on average, under predict the shaking intensities by one-fourth MMI units (16% in peak velocity). Discrepancies with observations arise due to errors in the source models and geologic structure. The consistency in the synthetic waveforms across the wave-propagation codes for a given source model suggests the uncertainty in the source parameters tends to exceed the uncertainty in the seismic velocity structure. In agreement with earlier studies, we find that a source model with slip more evenly distributed northwest and southeast of the hypocenter would be preferable to both the Beroza and Wald source models. Although the new 3D seismic velocity model improves upon previous velocity models, we identify two areas needing improvement. Nevertheless, we find that the seismic velocity model and the wave-propagation codes are suitable for modeling the 1906 earthquake and scenario events in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2008

Ground-motion modeling of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, part II: Ground-motion estimates for the 1906 earthquake and scenario events

We estimate the ground motions produce by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake making use of the recently developed Song et al. (2008) source model that combines the available geodetic and seismic observations and recently constructed 3D geologic and seismic velocity models. Our estimates of the ground motions for the 1906 earthquake are consistent across five ground-motion modeling groups employing different wave propagation codes and simulation domains. The simulations successfully reproduce the main features of the Boatwright and Bundock (2005) ShakeMap, but tend to over predict the intensity of shaking by 0.1-0.5 modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) units. Velocity waveforms at sites throughout the San Francisco Bay Area exhibit characteristics consistent with rupture directivity, local geologic conditions (e.g., sedimentary basins), and the large size of the event (e.g., durations of strong shaking lasting tens of seconds). We also compute ground motions for seven hypothetical scenarios rupturing the same extent of the northern San Andreas fault, considering three additional hypocenters and an additional, random distribution of slip. Rupture directivity exerts the strongest influence on the variations in shaking, although sedimentary basins do consistently contribute to the response in some locations, such as Santa Rosa, Livermore, and San Jose. These scenarios suggest that future large earthquakes on the northern San Andreas fault may subject the current San Francisco Bay urban area to stronger shaking than a repeat of the 1906 earthquake. Ruptures propagating southward towards San Francisco appear to expose more of the urban area to a given intensity level than do ruptures propagating northward.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2004

Geotechnical reconnaissance of the 2002 Denali fault, Alaska, earthquake

The 2002 M7.9 Denali fault earthquake resulted in 340 km of ruptures along three separate faults, causing widespread liquefaction in the fluvial deposits of the alpine valleys of the Alaska Range and eastern lowlands of the Tanana River. Areas affected by liquefaction are largely confined to Holocene alluvial deposits, man-made embankments, and backfills. Liquefaction damage, sparse surrounding the fault rupture in the western region, was abundant and severe on the eastern rivers: the Robertson, Slana, Tok, Chisana, Nabesna and Tanana Rivers. Synthetic seismograms from a kinematic source model suggest that the eastern region of the rupture zone had elevated strong-motion levels due to rupture directivity, supporting observations of elevated geotechnical damage. We use augered soil samples and shear-wave velocity profiles made with a portable apparatus for the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) to characterize soil properties and stiffness at liquefaction sites and three trans-Alaska pipeline pump station accelerometer locations. ?? 2004, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2004

Preliminary report on the 22 December 2003, M 6.5 San Simeon, California earthquake

The M w 6.5 San Simeon earthquake struck the central California coast on 22 December 2003 at 19:15:56 UTC (11:15:56 am local time.) The epicenter was located 11 km northeast of the town of San Simeon, and 39 km west-northwest of Paso Robles ( Figure 1 ), as reported by the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN, the California region of the Advanced National Seismic System [ANSS]). The mainshock nucleated at 35.702°N, 121.108°W and a depth of 7.1 km, and the rupture propagated unilaterally to the southeast. The strong directivity of the rupture resulted in a concentration of damage and aftershock activity to the southeast of the hypocenter. The worst earthquake damage occurred in Paso Robles, where two people died in the collapse of an unreinforced masonry building. The accurate and rapid earthquake information provided in near real-time by CISN/ANSS to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services made it possible to focus emergency response in the source area, although the earthquake was felt from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a reverse fault striking northwest and most likely dipping to the northeast. Although motion along the Pacific-North America plate boundary in California is dominantly strike-slip, there is a small compressional component through central California. Repeated thrust earthquakes such as the San Simeon event accommodate this compression and build the Coast Ranges. Other recent thrust earthquakes in central California include the 1983 Coalinga (M 6.4) and the 1985 Kettleman Hills (M 6.0) earthquakes. Prior earthquakes in the vicinity of the San Simeon event include a M 5-6 earthquake in 1853, a M 5.7 earthquake in 1906, and the M L 6.2 Bryson earthquake of 1952 ( Figure 1 ) ( McLaren and Savage, 2001 .) The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a previously unknown blind thrust fault. No surface rupture associated with the earthquake has been identified. A number of roads, including State Highway 46, buckled due to the earthquake, but this deformation appears mainly to be failure of road fill due to ground shaking and not the result of tectonic surface rupture. Extrapolation of the fault plane to the surface would roughly align with the surface trace of the Oceanic Fault, but this is thought to be a vertical strike-slip fault. Two models for the kinematics of the region have previously been proposed. The first is a fault-propagation fold model developed by Namson and Davis ( 1990 ) for the Santa Lucia mountains ∼30 km to the southeast of the San Simeon sequence. The mainshock geometry is similar to, although more steeply dipping than, the main blind thrust of this model, implying that this model may be applicable to the San Simeon region as well. The second is the model of McLaren and Savage ( 2001 ), in which the region is dominated by strike-slip faulting with shortening on high-angle reverse faults. This model also may be applicable, although the dip of the San Simeon mainshock is shallower than predicted. The San Simeon earthquake was followed by a vigorous aftershock sequence, with 165 events above M 3 reported by CISN within the first week of the mainshock. Although the event triggered many aftershocks, it did not significantly impact the seismicity rates of other nearby faults such as the San Andreas Fault and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone. The only triggered seismicity seems to be a few small events within the mainshock coda at the Geysers geothermal area, north of San Francisco. The San Simeon earthquake did, however, trigger shallow creep on the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield and hydrologic changes in hot springs in Paso Robles.

California↗