USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Russell L. Wheeler

Publications and source records attributed to Russell L. Wheeler.

32 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2000

Data for Quaternary faults, liquefaction features, and possible tectonic features in the Central and Eastern United States, east of the Rocky Mountain Front

The USGS is currently leading an effort to compile published geological information on Quaternary faults, folds, and earthquake-induced liquefaction in order to develop an internally consistent database on the locations, ages, and activity rates of major earthquake-related features throughout the United States. This report is the compilation for such features in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), which for the purposes of the compilation, is defined as the region extending from the Rocky Mountain Front eastward to the Atlantic seaboard. A key objective of this national compilation is to provide a comprehensive database of Quaternary features that might generate strong ground motion and therefore, should be considered in assessing the seismic hazard throughout the country. In addition to printed versions of regional and individual state compilations, the database will be available on the World-Wide Web, where it will be readily available to everyone. The primary purpose of these compilations and the derivative database is to provide a comprehensive, uniform source of geological information that can by used to complement the other types of data that are used in seismic-hazard assessments. Within our CEUS study area, which encompasses more than 60 percent of the continuous U.S., we summarize the geological information on 69 features that are categorized into four classes (Class A, B, C, and D) based on what is known about the feature's Quaternary activity. The CEUS contains only 13 features of tectonic origin for which there is convincing evidence of Quaternary activity (Class A features). Of the remaining 56 features, 11 require further study in order to confidently define their potential as possible sources of earthquake-induced ground motion (Class B), whereas the remaining features either lack convincing geologic evidence of Quaternary tectonic faulting or have been studied carefully enough to determine that they do not pose a significant seismic hazard (Classes C and D). The correlation between historical seismicity and Quaternary faults and liquefaction features in the CEUS is generally poor, which probably reflects the long return times between successive movements on individual structures. Some Quaternary faults and liquefaction features are located in aseismic areas or where historical seismicity is sparse. These relations indicate that the record of historical seismicity does not identify all potential seismic sources in the CEUS. Furthermore, geological studies of some currently aseismic faults have shown that the faults have generated strong earthquakes in the geologically recent past. Thus, the combination of geological information and seismological data can provide better insight into potential earthquake sources and thereby, contribute to better, more comprehensive seismic-hazard assessments.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

Research, methodology, and applications of probabilistic seismic-hazard mapping of the Central and Eastern United States; minutes of a workshop on June 13-14, 2000, at Saint Louis University

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is updating and revising its 1996 national seismic-hazard maps for release in 2001. Part of this process is the convening of four regional workshops with earth scientists and other users of the maps. The second of these workshops was sponsored by the USGS and the Mid-America Earthquake Center, and was hosted by Saint Louis University on June 13-14, 2000. The workshop concentrated on the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS) east of the Rocky Mountains. The tasks of the workshop were to (1) evaluate new research findings that are relevant to seismic hazard mapping, (2) discuss modifications in the inputs and methodology used in the national maps, (3) discuss concerns by engineers and other users about the scientific input to the maps and the use of the hazard maps in building codes, and (4) identify needed research in the CEUS that can improve the seismic hazard maps and reduce their uncertainties. These minutes summarize the workshop discussions. This is not a transcript; some individual remarks and short discussions of side issues and logistics were omitted. Named speakers were sent a draft of the minutes with a request for corrections of any errors in remarks attributed to them. Nine people returned corrections, amplifications, or approvals of their remarks as reported. The rest of this document consists of the meeting agenda, discussion summaries, and a list of the 60 attendees.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

Preliminary estimate of the amplification of possible earthquake ground motion at a site in Charleston County, South Carolina

We estimate site amplification at the location of a proposed bridge near Charleston, South Carolina. Model calculations indicate that amplification at periods of 1 s and longer is likely to be strongly influenced by the effects of a large contrast in shear-wave velocity at a depth of approximately 1 km (3,000 ft). On-site borehole data, regional geological and geophysical information, and data from a geologically similar setting near Memphis, Tennessee allowed us to estimate profiles of shear-wave velocity, shear-wave attenuation, and density from ground level down to metamorphic and igneous rocks that are approximately 3 km (9,500 ft) beneath the site. We modeled amplifications that would be produced at the surface and at the top and bottom of the Cooper Marl. Amplification estimates that are based only on the shallow shear-wave structure, for example in the upper 100 m (300 ft), can severely underestimate long-period amplification at the site. Additional modeling could help determine whether new data should be collected, to resolve remaining uncertainties about likely amplification.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1994

Map showing seismicity and sandblows in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri

This is one of a series of five seismotectic maps of the seismically active New Madrid, Missouri, area (table 1; Wheeler and others, 1992). The map area centers near the sites of three great earthquakes that struck during the winter of 1811-12 (Fuller, 1912; Nuttli, 1973). These earthquakes and continuing subsequent seismicity rank the New Madrid area with Cherlevoix, Quebec, as the two most seismically active areas in North America east of the Rocky Mountains. The threat posed by New Madrid seismicity to the central United States makes the area the focus of many investigations (for examples, Heyl and McKeown, 1978; McKeown and Pakiser, 1982; Algemissen and Hopper, 1984; Hamilton and Johnston, 1990; Applied Technology Council, 1991; Johnston and others, 1992). The map area includes the most intense seismic activity in the New Madrid region. A seismotectic map shows some of the geologic and geophysical information needed to assess seismic hazard (Hadley and Devine, 1974; Pavoni, 1985). A previous seismotectonic map of the central Mississippi River valley (Heyl and McKeown, 1978) has had wide use for planning field surveys, as a base map for plotting data collected during single investigations, and for compiling a range of information. Since 1978 numcrous researchers have greatly advanced our knowledge of the geology and geophysics of the central Mississippi Valley. The New Madrid seismotectonic map folio updates approximately the south-central sixth of the central Mississippi Valley seismotectonic map of Heyl and McKeown (1978).

Missouri↗
USGS1994

Map showing large structures interpreted from geophysical data in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri

This is one of a series of five seismotectonic maps of the seismically active New Madrid area in southeast Missouri and adjacent parts of Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee (table 1). We cannot legibly show all the seismotectonic data on a single map, therefore each of the five maps in this series groups a different type of related information. Rhea and others (1994) summarized the background and purpose of the seismotectonic map folio.

Missouri↗
USGS1994

Map showing locations of geophysical survey and modeling lines in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri

This is one of a series of five seismotectonic maps of the seismically active New Madrid area in southeast Missouri and adjacent parts of Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee (table 1). We cannot legibly show all the seismotectonic data on a single map, therefore each of the five maps in this series groups a different type of related information. Rhea and others (1994) summarized the background and purpose of the seismotectonic map folio.

Missouri↗
USGS1994

Map showing structure of the Mississippi Valley Graben in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri

This is one of a series of five seismotectonic maps of the seismically active New Madrid area in southeast Missouri and adjacent parts of Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee (table 1). We cannot legibly show all the seismotectonic data on a single map, therefore each of the five maps in this series groups a different type of related information. Rhea and others (1994) summarized the background and purpose of the seismotectonic map folio. The different types of data shown on this map are described in table 2. Except for a few exposed faults, all structures shown on the map are in Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of the midcontinent or underlying metamorphic and igneous basement rocks of presumed Precambrian age (Dart, 1992; Muehlberger, 1992). Edge of Mississippi Embayment, as shown on the map, marks the contact between gently dipping, exposed Paleozoic rocks to the northwest (Anderson and others, 1979) and unconformably overlying, flat or gently dipping Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata of the embayment to the southeast.

Missouri↗
USGS1994

Elements of infrastructure and seismic hazard in the central United States

In the winter of 1811-12, three of the largest historic earthquakes in the United States occurred near New Madrid, Missouri. Seismicity continues to the present day throughout a tightly clustered patter of epicenters centered on the bootheel of Missouri, including parts of northeastern Arkansas, northwestern Tennessee, western Kentucky, and southern Illinois. In 1990, the New Madrid seismic zone/central United States became the first seismically active region east of the Rocky Mountains to be designated a priority research area within the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). This Professional Paper is a collection of papers, some published separately, presenting results of the newly intensified research program in this area. Major components of this research program include tectonic framework studies, seismicity and deformation monitoring and modeling, improved seismic hazard and risk assessments, and cooperative hazard mitigation studies.

Professional Paper↗
USGS1982

The Giles County, Virginia, seismogenic zone-- Seismological results and geological interpretations

This paper describes and interprets a newly-recognized 40-km-long seismogenic zone, which is inferred to have been the locus of a damaging earthquake in 1897. That shock was the second largest known to have occurred in the southeastern United States (MMI VIII, m b estimated at 5.8, felt over 725,000 km 2 ). It struck Giles County in southwestern Virginia, and a recurrence would affect populous regions on and near the central Atlantic seaboard. This paper attempts to aid in evaluating that hazard by presenting and synthesizing new seismological data with geological inferences and deductions. A five-station, 60-km aperture seismic network has been in operation in the Giles County locale since early 1978. For the subsequent 3-year monitoring period, 10 microearthquakes (M < 2) have been detected. Eight of those 10 events, plus an additional 4 relocated felt earthquakes (3.2 < M < 4.1; 1959-1976) have a tabular distribution centered at Pearisburg, Virginia. That distribution is about 40 km long, 10 km wide, strikes N. 43° E., and has a nearly vertical extent of from 5 km to 25 km in depth. Thus, a Giles County seismogenic zone is defined presently by 12 earthquakes that span 4 orders of magnitude (0 < M < 4) and 2 decades of time (1959-1980). We conclude that the 1897 earthquake occurred on that seismogenic zone. From the orientation of the tabular zone, from evidence that greatest horizontal compressive stress trends east-northeasterly at seismogenic depths in and near Giles County and from sparse P-wave first-motion data, we infer that the monitored microseismicity probably occurs by right-reverse motion on the seismogenic zone, with the southeast side dropping down with respect to the northwest side. In the Giles County locale, the upper 3-6 km of the crust are Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that have moved some tens of kilometers northwest on nearly horizontal detachment faults. The above-mentioned reliable hypocenters for the region lie below the deepest likely detachment, indicating that Giles County seismicity probably has no simple relationship to surface geology. Since Precambrian time, three deformational episodes could have formed steep faults under today's surface structures, at the observed hypocentral depths. These episodes were as follows: (1) As the Iapetus Ocean (Atlantic's predecessor) opened in late Precambrian or early Paleozoic time, northeast-striking normal faults formed, probably at the inferred Iapetan continental edge in central Virginia and at least as far northwest of that locus as Giles County. (2) In late Paleozoic time, detachment faults loaded the crust with several kilometers of overthrust sedimentary rocks, perhaps forming northeast-striking thrust-load faults in a brittle analogue of isostatic depression caused by thrust masses and much lighter continental glaciers. (3) As the Atlantic Ocean opened in Mesozoic time, other northeast-striking normal faults formed on the present continental margin and inland of it. The N. 43° E.-striking seismogenic zone seems most likely to have resulted from compressional reactivation of an Iapetan normal fault, which also may have been reactivated by late Paleozoic compression and Mesozoic extension. First, the seismogenic zone probably does not occur on a thrust-load fault. The zone underlies detached structures of southern Appalachian orientations (east-northeast), but those structures are not known to be displaced where they cross the zone. Thus, if the zone occurs on a thrust-load fault, the fault and its coeval causative central Appalachian detachments would pre-date the southern Appalachian structures. That deduction contradicts stratigraphic and structural estimates of relative ages of southern and central Appalachian detachments. Second, the zone probably does not result from a Mesozoic normal fault, because known locations of Mesozoic normal faults and grabens are well to the southeast of Giles County. Not yet known is where else in the East reactivated Iapetan normal faults might generate shocks similar to that of 1897. However, our analysis enables us to suggest specific geological and geophysical investigations that may produce results useful in answering that question. Such investigations can concentrate on defining the area of probable occurrence of other Iapetan normal faults, and on determining whether the one inferred to underlie Giles County is uniquely active or is typical of others that might exist elsewhere.

Virginia↗
USGS1981

Pattern-recognition program modified and applied to southeastern United States seismicity

The pattern-recognition technique of Bongard and others (1966), Gelfand and others (1976), and Briggs and others (1977) was modified and applied in Southeastern United States to try to detect combinations or interactions of geologic, geophysical, and topographic parameters characteristic of areas with moderate and large earthquakes. The modification involved replacing the operator-defined criteria for significance of association of parameters and earthquakes with statistical estimates of significance. This was done in order to decrease the probability of random associations and to increase the flexibility of the pattern-recognition technique. The binomial distribution was used to determine the probability that each particular association could have occurred by chance. Bonferroni's inequality was invoked to determine a conservative significance level for each of the binomial tests. However, without being able to quantify the dependence among the associations, it is not possible to statistically evaluate the group of binomial tests as a whole. Preliminary results identify four independent associations characterizing spatially independent earthquake epicenters, or "dangerous" points, and seven independent associations characterizing the intervening "safe" points. When all points were reclassified using these traits, all epicenters were correctly classified as dangerous. In addition, three "safe" points were reclassified as dangerous and appear to be potential sites for future earthquakes. However, it is not possible to determine the degree of dangerousness of the points using this reclassification scheme. Two dangerous zones emerge in the northeast and southwest portions of the study area. Epicenters outside of these zones, including those of the large historic earthquakes (MMI > VIII) in Giles County, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina, have not been well characterized by the significant associations and may have fundamentally different causes.

southeastern United States↗