USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70197572

The earthquake sequence near Danville, California, 1970

W.H.K. Lee·M.S. Eaton·E. E. Brabb
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Several thousand small earthquakes, with magnitudes ranging up to 4, occurred near Danville, California, during May, June, and July 1970. Seven temporary seismographs were installed near the epicentral region to augment an existing telemetered network within 1 day after the first felt earthquake. The dense concentration of 10 seismographs within 12 km of the seismic activity and the existence of a reversed seismic-refraction profile through the region permitted a very detailed study of this earthquake sequence. Over 400 events with magnitude greater than 0.5 were located with an average accuracy of ±1 km. The main earthquake region was approximately spherical: 1 km in radius, 6 km deep, and centered about 5 km southeast of Danville, 40 km east of San Francisco. Fault-plane solutions indicate that faulting associated with the earthquakes was of the right-lateral strike-slip type, with a strike of N 35°W.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaArticle
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 36.92793899776678° to 38.417014454352035° latitude; -123.17596435546876° to -121.47857666015625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W.H.K. Lee, M.S. Eaton, E. E. Brabb. 1971-12-01. The earthquake sequence near Danville, California, 1970. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0610061771

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗
USGS2026

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗