Geology topics

Noha Sameh Ahmed Farghal

Publications and source records attributed to Noha Sameh Ahmed Farghal.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

Earthquake magnitudes from dynamic strain

Dynamic strains have never played a role in determining local earthquake magnitudes, which are routinely set by displacement waveforms from seismic instrumentation (e.g., M L ⁠ ). We present a magnitude scale for local earthquakes based on broadband dynamic strain waveforms. This scale is derived from the peak root‐mean‐squared strains ( ⁠ A ⁠ ) in 4589 records of dynamic strain associated with 365 crustal earthquakes and 77 borehole strainmeters along the Pacific‐North American plate boundary on the west coast of the United States and Canada. In this data set, catalog moment magnitudes range from 3.5≤ M w ≤ 7.2 ⁠ , and hypocentral distances range from 6≤ R ≤500 km . The 1D representation of geometrical spreading and attenuation of A common to all strain data is log A 0 ( R )=−0.00072R−1.45log(R) . After correcting for instrument gain, site terms, and event terms, the magnitude scale, M DS =log A −log A 0 ( R )−log(3×10−9) ⁠ , scales as ≈0.92 M w with a residual standard deviation of 0.19. This close association with M w holds for events east of the −124° meridian; west of this boundary, however, a constant correction of 0.41 is needed to adjust for additional along‐path attenuation effects. As a check on the accuracy of this magnitude scale, we apply it to dynamic strain records from three strainmeters located in the near field of the 2019 M 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes. Results from these six records are in agreement to within 0.5 magnitude units, and five out of six records are in agreement to within 0.34 units.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

Strain-estimated ground motions associated with recent earthquakes in California

Peak ground velocity (PGV) is a commonly used parameter in earthquake ground‐motion models (GMMs) and hazard analyses, because it is closely related to structural damage and felt ground shaking, and is typically measured on broadband seismometers. Here, we demonstrate that strainmeters, which directly measure in situ strain in the bulk rock, can easily be related to ground velocity by a factor of bulk shear‐wave velocity and, thus, can be used to measure strain‐estimated PGV. We demonstrate the parity of velocity to strain utilizing data from borehole strainmeters deployed along the plate boundaries of the west coast of the United States for nine recent M "> M M 4.4–7.1 earthquakes in California, including the largest two events of the July 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. PGVs derived from maximum horizontal shear strains fall within the range of seismic‐estimated values recorded at the same distances. We compare the strain‐estimated data with GMMs based on seismic PGVs and find consistency in residual polarity (positive vs. negative; the sign of the difference between observed and modeled data) for certain earthquake–station paths, where some paths indicate an overestimation and others indicate an underestimation of strain‐derived PGVs, as compared with the GMMs. We surmise that this may be indicative of over or underestimation of shear‐wave velocity along those paths, as compared with the average velocity used to derive PGV from strain measurements, or indicative of repeatable site and path effects that are not accounted for in our analyses. This direct comparison of strain with velocity can highlight physical path effects, as well as improve the density and capability of ground‐motion recordings.

California↗

USGS2020

The potential of using dynamic strains in earthquake early warning applications

We investigate the potential of using borehole strainmeter data from the Network of the Americas (NOTA) and the U.S. Geological Survey networks to estimate earthquake moment magnitudes for earthquake early warning (EEW) applications. We derive an empirical equation relating peak dynamic strain, earthquake moment magnitude, and hypocentral distance, and investigate the effects of different types of instrument calibration on model misfit. We find that raw (uncalibrated) strains fit the model as accurately as calibrated strains. We test the model by estimating moment magnitudes of the largest two earthquakes in the July 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence—the M 6.4 foreshock and the M 7.1 mainshock—using two strainmeters located within ∼50 km of the rupture. In both the cases, the magnitude based on the dynamic strain component is within ∼0.1–0.4 magnitude units of the catalog moment magnitude. We then compare the temporal evolution of our strain‐derived magnitudes for the largest two Ridgecrest events to the real‐time performance of the ShakeAlert EEW System (SAS). The final magnitudes from NOTA borehole strainmeters are close to SAS real‐time estimates for the M 6.4 foreshock, and significantly more accurate for the M 7.1 mainshock.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗