USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

John R. Evans

Publications and source records attributed to John R. Evans.

29 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2007

Rotational Seismology Workshop of February 2006

Introduction A successful workshop titled 'Measuring the Rotation Effects of Strong Ground Motion' was held simultaneously in Menlo Park and Pasadena via video conference on 16 February 2006. The purpose of the Workshop and this Report are to summarize existing data and theory and to explore future challenges for rotational seismology, including free-field strong motion, structural strong motion, and teleseismic motions. We also forged a consensus on the plan of work to be pursued by this international group in the near term. At this first workshop were 16 participants in Menlo Park, 13 in Pasadena, and a few on the telephone. It was organized by William H. K. Lee and John R. Evans and chaired by William U. Savage in Menlo Park and by Kenneth W. Hudnut in Pasadena. Its agenda is given in the Appendix. This workshop and efforts in Europe led to the creation of the International Working Group on Rotational Seismology (IWGoRS), an international volunteer group providing forums for exchange of ideas and data as well as hosting a series of Workshops and Special Sessions. IWGoRS created a Web site, backed by an FTP site, for distribution of materials related to rotational seismology. At present, the FTP site contains the 2006 Workshop agenda (also given in the Appendix below) and its PowerPoint presentations, as well as many papers (reasonable-only basis with permission of their authors), a comprehensive citations list, and related information. Eventually, the Web site will become the sole authoritative source for IWGoRS and shared information: http://www.rotational-seismology.org ftp://ehzftp.wr.usgs.gov/jrevans/IWGoRS_FTPsite/ With contributions from various authors during and after the 2006 Workshop, this Report proceeds from the theoretical bases for making rotational measurements (Graizer, Safak, Trifunac) through the available observations (Huang, Lee, Liu, Nigbor), proposed suites of measurements (Hudnut), a discussion of broadband teleseismic rotational seismology (Cochard, Igel, Schreiber, Teisseyre, Wassermann, Majewski), sensor-calibration issues (Evans, Hutt), and finally the summary and conclusions (Savage). As a direct result of the 2006 Workshop and the formation of IWGoRS, we held a special session at the Fall 2006 AGU meeting (convened by H. Igel, W.H.K. Lee, and M.I. Todorovska). Currently, the first formal Workshop of the IWGoRS is being organized by W.H.K. Lee, M. Celebi, and M. I. Todorovska with sponsorship by the USGS and assistance from many others; this First International Workshop on Rotational Seismology and Engineering Applications will be held in September 2007 at Menlo Park, California (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1144/). The following summarizes presentations and discussions during and shortly after the informal Workshop of February 2006.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Calibration of PS09, PS10, and PS11 trans-Alaska pipeline system strong-motion instruments, with acceleration, velocity, and displacement records of the Denali fault earthquake, 03 November 2002

In September, 2003, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) embarked on a joint effort to extract, test, and calibrate the accelerometers, amplifiers, and bandpass filters from the earthquake monitoring systems (EMS) at Pump Stations 09, 10, and 11 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). These were the three closest strong-motion seismographs to the Denali fault when it ruptured in the MW 7.9 earthquake of 03 November 2002 (22:12:41 UTC). The surface rupture is only 3.0 km from PS10 and 55.5 km from PS09 but PS11 is 124.2 km away from a small rupture splay and 126.9 km from the main trace. Here we briefly describe precision calibration results for all three instruments. Included with this report is a link to the seismograms reprocessed using these new calibrations: http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/data_sets/20021103_2212_taps.html Calibration information in this paper applies at the time of the Denali fault earthquake (03 November 2002), but not necessarily at other times because equipment at these stations is changed by APSC personnel at irregular intervals. In particular, the equipment at PS09, PS10, and PS11 was changed by our joint crew in September, 2003, so that we could perform these calibrations. The equipment stayed the same from at least the time of the earthquake until that retrieval, and these calibrations apply for that interval.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

Additional information for “TREMOR: A Wireless, MEMS Accelerograph for Dense Arrays” (Evans et al., 2003)

The length of Evans et al. (2003) necessitated transfer of several less germane sections to this alternate forum to meet that venue’s needs. These sections include a description of the development of Figure 1, the plot of spatial variability so critical to the argument for dense arrays of strong-motion instruments; the description of the rapid, integer, computational method for PGV used in the TREMOR instrument (the Oakland instrument, the commercial prototype, and the commercial instrument); siting methods and strategies used for Class B TREMOR instruments and those that can be used for Class C instruments to preserve the cost advantages of such systems; and some general discussion of MEMS accelerometers, including a comparative Table with representative examples of Class A, B and C MEMS devices. (“MEMS” means “Micro-ElectroMechanical” Systems—“micromachined” sensors, generally of silicon. Classes A, B, and C are defined in Table 1.)

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

The Sidebar Computer Program, a seismic-shaking intensity meter: users' manual and software description

The SideBar computer program provides a visual display of seismic shaking intensity as recorded at one specific seismograph. This software allows a user to tap into the seismic data recorded on that specific seismograph and to display the overall level of shaking at the single location where that seismograph resides (usually the same place the user is). From this shaking level, SideBar also estimates the potential for damage nearby. SideBar cannot tell you the “Richter magnitude” of the earthquake (see box), only how hard the ground shook locally and this estimate of how much damage is likely in the neighborhood. This combination of local effects is called the “seismic intensity”. SideBar runs on a standard desktop or laptop PC, and is intended for the media, schools, emergency responders, and any other group hosting a seismograph and who want to know immediately after an earthquake the levels of shaking measured by that instrument. These local values can be used to inform the public and help initiate appropriate local emergency response activities in the minutes between the earthquake and availability of the broader coverage provided by the USGS over the Web, notably by ShakeMap. For example, for instruments installed in schools, the level of shaking and likely damage at the school could immediately be Web broadcast and parents could quickly determine the likely safety of their children—their biggest postearthquake concern. Also, in the event of a Web outage, SideBar may be a continuing primary source of local emergency response information for some additional minutes. Specifically, SideBar interprets the peak level of acceleration (that is, the force of shaking, as a percentage of the force of gravity) as well as the peak velocity, or highest speed, at which the ground moves. Using these two basic measurements, SideBar computes what is called Instrumental Intensity—a close approximation of the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, or “MMI” (using the Wald et al., 1999a, relationships between acceleration, velocity, and shaking intensity). Intensity is a measure of local shaking strength and the potential for damage—of how bad the earthquake effects were locally. The intensity level is what SideBar displays most prominently on the PC monitor. Intensity is shown as a large, colored bar that gets taller and changes color up a rainbow from blues toward reds as the shaking level increases. As opposed to earthquake magnitudes, which are reported as decimal values (like “7.6”), intensity is traditionally given as a Roman numeral, with “I” to “X+” assigned to levels of potential damage and perceived shaking strength. For good measure, SideBar shows the actual values of the force of shaking (peak ground acceleration as a percentage of gravity) and the speed of ground motion (peak ground velocity in inches per second, by default, or in centimeters per second, if you wish), both these values as decimal numbers. SideBar also remembers the most recent earthquakes (for up to one week), and can store as many of these previous earthquakes as the user allows (and as the user’s PC has room for)—typically thousands. SideBar also remembers forever the three largest earthquakes it has seen and all earthquakes over intensity IV so that one never loses particularly important events.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1995

Relative performance of several inexpensive accelerometers

We examined the performance of several low-cost accelerometers for highly cost-driven applications in recording earthquake strong motion. We anticipate applications for such sensors in providing the lifeline and emergency-response communities with an immediate, comprehensive picture of the extent and characteristics of likely damage. We also foresee their use as 'filler' instruments sited between research-grade instruments to provide spatially detailed and near-field records of large earthquakes (on the order of 1000 stations at 600-m intervals in San Fernando Valley, population 1.2 million, for example). The latter applications would provide greatly improved attenuation relationships for building codes and design, the first examples of mainshock information (that is, potentially nonlinear regime) for microzonation, and a suite of records for structural engineers. We also foresee possible applications in monitoring structural inter-story drift during earthquakes, possibly leading to local and remote alarm functions as well as design criteria. This effort appears to be the first of its type at the USGS. It is spurred by rapid advances in sensor technology and the recognition of potential non-classical applications. In this report, we estimate sensor noise spectra, relative transfer functions and cross-axis sensitivity of six inexpensive sensors. We tested three micromachined ('silicon-chip') sensors in addition to classical force-balance and piezoelectric examples. This sample of devices is meant to be representative, not comprehensive. Sensor noise spectra were estimated by recording system output with the sensor mounted on a pneumatically supported 545-kg optical-bench isolation table. This isolation table appears to limit ground motion to below our system noise level. These noise estimates include noise introduced by signal-conditioning circuitry, the analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and noise induced in connecting wiring by ambient electromagnetic fields in our suburban laboratory. These latter sources are believed to dominate sensor noise in the quieter sensors we tested. Transfer functions were obtained relative to a research grade force-balance accelerometer (a Kinemetrics TM FBA-11) by shaking the sensors simultaneously on the same shake table and taking spectral ratios with the output of the FBA- 11. This reference sensor is said to have 120 db dynamic range (-+20 bits, though we only digitized it at 16 bits resolution and drove it with relatively small signals). We did not test temperature sensitivity, which is thought to be a significant issue at least for the silicon devices. Though these tests were not designed to be definitive (our anticipated applications do not demand research-grade precision), our tests do appear to have been successful in estimating relative transfer functions from about 0.3 to 50 Hz. Most sensors performed adequately in this range, with essentially fiat relative transfer functions. Noise tests appear to measure sensor noise well for the noisier (generally less expensive) instruments from about 0.1 to 50 Hz.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1985

GELIFICATION OF WOOD DURING COALIFICATION.

Coalified wood was examined by SEM and CPMAS**1**3C NMR to delineate chemical and physical alterations responsible for gelification. Early coalification selectively degrades cellulosic components, preserving lignin-like components that are eventually transformed to coal. Cellular morphology persists until the chemical composition becomes uniform, at which point the cells coalesce under compaction and gelify.

Conference Paper↗
USGS1985

SEISMIC STUDY OF THE AGUA DE PAU GEOTHERMAL PROSPECT, SAO MIGUEL, AZORES.

A 16 station array was operated over the 200 km**2 central portion of Sao Miguel utilizing 8 permanent Instituto Nacional de Meterologia e Geofisica stations and 8 USGS portable stations. Forty four local events with well constrained solutions and 15 regional events were located. In addition, hundreds of unlocatable seismic events were recorded. The most interesting seismic activity occurred in a swarm on September 6 and 7, 1983 when over 200 events were recorded in a 16 hour period. The seismic activity around Agua de Pau was centered on the east and northeast slopes of the volcano. The data suggest a boiling hydrothermal system beneath the Agua de Pau volcano, consistent with a variety of other data.

Conference Paper↗