Source parameters and crustal Q for four earthquakes in South Carolina

Joe B. Fletcher

doi:10.1785/gssrl.66.4.44

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70018833

Source parameters and crustal Q for four earthquakes in South Carolina

Joe B. Fletcher

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Two three-component seismometers (one surface and one borehole) were re-installed on the Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina in July 1992 to determine attenuation in the Coastal Plain sediment wedge and source parameters of local earthquakes. Four earthquakes M ∼ 1.8 to 3.6 were recorded during the next 6 months. The largest event was located near Summerville within the meizoseismal area for the 1886 Charleston earthquake. Two shocks were located 50 km to the east near Neeses, and one was located 20 km north of the SRS near Aiken. Although source parameters have been determined from strong motion data and short-period regional networks for east coast earthquakes, such as the Saguenay, Nahanni, and Mt. Laurier earthquakes (e.g., Atkinson, 1993 ), these are some of the first source parameters determined from broad-band digital recorders. Seismograms for the Summerville event are also available from Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Blacksburg, Virginia, providing estimates of t * beyond 200 km. Here we determine source parameters such as moment, stress drop, and the attenuation parameter t * using a non-linear least-squares algorithm. We do not correct for site response because the deepest borehole is not below the Coastal Plain sediments (about 300m thick at this site) and because only one station is available for most of the data. Values of t* are marginally higher from seismograms recorded at the surface when compared to records from the 91m depth borehole seismograph. A value of 170-200 bars was determined for the Brune stress drop of the Summerville event using the borehole data, which is high compared to a value of 50 bars usually specified for modeling strong motion in western North America, but similar to other estimates for eastern North America. A higher stress drop leads to a higher seismic risk because peak acceleration is approximately proportional to stress drop. Moreover, mid- to upper-crustal Qs are in the range of 2,000 to 3,000, which would permit the propagation of high frequency seismic waves. A comparison of the surface records from the SRS with a record from the USGS dense array at Parkfield, CA for an event at about the same distance range and moment as the Summerville event-SRS case shows that the peak acceleration of the Summerville event is 16 times higher than that for the event from California (stress drop of 21 bars).

Explore related subjects

Seismological Research Letters Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 32.0346° to 35.215402° latitude; -83.353238° to -78.541087° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Joe B. Fletcher. 1995. Source parameters and crustal Q for four earthquakes in South Carolina. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.66.4.44

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Seismic evidence of the transition from debris flow to hyperconcentrated flow at Mount Rainier, USA

Debris flows are a seasonal hazard in Tahoma Creek in Mount Rainier National Park, Washington, United States. We present seismic recordings spaced every 100–200 m along the path of a debris flow triggered by a glacial outburst on 15 August 2023. These recordings capture changes as the debris flow deposits ∼24,000 cubic meters of material along an ∼800 m stretch of channel, approximately 2.5 km from the glacial source. As the flow deposits material, the seismic signal onset shape associated with the debris flow snout recedes, resulting in an elongation of the delay between the signal onset and the peak amplitude from 100 to 300 s. In parallel, the peak frequency increases by more than 20 Hz, and energy below 20 Hz fades, indicating deposition of larger particles and changes in sediment concentration within the flow. We interpret these changes to correspond to the transition from debris flow to hyperconcentrated flow, a distinction based on sediment concentration by volume and on rheological criteria such as yield strength. We find that the frequency content of the seismic signal depends on grain size and sediment concentrations within the flow, among other factors, complicating the starting assumptions of many physical models of debris flows.

Washington↗

USGS2026

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Intensity prediction equations for intraslab earthquakes in the Cascadia Subduction Zone

In the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW), intraslab earthquakes located within the subducting Juan de Fuca slab are responsible for most of the region’s moderate‐magnitude seismicity. Historically, these earthquakes have caused significant damage, such as the 2001 M 6.8 Nisqually, 1965 M 6.5 Seattle, and 1949 M 6.8 Olympia events. Intensity prediction equations (IPEs) aim to relate source‐to‐site distance and earthquake magnitude to the resultant felt shaking intensity at a particular location, and help to estimate hazard from earthquakes. We find that a commonly used IPE developed by Atkinson et al. (2014) does not accurately describe shaking intensity from most intraslab events in the PNW, likely because it was developed using primarily crustal fault earthquakes. In this study, we develop two new IPEs that provide an improved fit to observed intensities from Cascadia subduction zone intraslab earthquakes. To develop our IPEs, we compute linear mixed‐effects regressions using community decimal intensity data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s ‘Did You Feel It?’ program from 36 intraslab events that occurred in British Columbia, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and northern California from 2000 to 2025. We also investigate the relationship between the new intraslab IPEs and select parameters related to near‐surface conditions and deeper geologic structure that may be related to ground‐motion intensities, but find no correlations. These new IPEs provide a better fit to observations of intraslab earthquakes in the PNW than Atkinson et al. (2014) , particularly within 300 km of the epicenter. They also provide a better fit to the 2018 M 7.1 Anchorage, Alaska, intraslab earthquake, suggesting that they may have broader applicability to global subduction zones.

California, Oregon, Washington↗