USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70211194

Site response estimates in Salt Lake Valley, Utah, from borehole seismic velocities

Abstract

The general correlation of Salt Lake Valley sites located on soft, saturated unconsolidated silty and clayey deposits (that is, deposits with low S -wave velocity) with high seismic amplification at the ground surface motivated our investigation of the relationship between the P - and S -wave seismic velocity ( V p and V s ) of these units and their corresponding observed site response. We found that low, near surface V s −1.5 is proportional to seismic amplification measured on the surface, and suspected that we might be able to predict the site response if the near surface seismic velocity structure were known. With this idea in mind we constructed plane-layered seismic impedance models from borehole data in order to correlate impedance structure with variations in site response. Seismic travel times, measured in a borehole at 2-m intervals, were converted into compressional and shear wave seismic velocity profiles for 22 boreholes (average depth = 59 m) in Salt Lake Valley, Utah. Using this impedance model, we estimated site response on the ground surface of the borehole site to within 12% of the measured value in the 0.7 to 1.0 Hz frequency range for six of the twenty sites, and within 20% for 55% of the sites. All except two of our site response estimates are within a factor of two of the measured value. Thus, high values of seismic amplification appear to be partially explained by a near surface high-impedance contrast produced by the low S -wave velocities. Comparing the downhole data with published Salt Lake Valley ground motion data derived from Nevada nuclear tests shows that increased site response (sites of relative ground motion amplification) is associated with: (1) a lower value of V s (110 to 400 m/sec), and (2) high Poisson ratios (0.45 to 0.49) derived from borehole V p and V s values. The lowest S -wave velocities found in the Salt Lake Valley are comparable to other regions, such as the muds around San Francisco Bay and the lake sediments of Mexico City, with low S -wave velocities and a record of severe seismic wave amplification in previous earthquakes. The very-low-velocity surface layer in Salt Lake Valley is, however, about half as thick (10 to 14 m) as the low-velocity layers around San Francisco Bay and Mexico City. We also considered the influence of sedimentary basin fill on site response, because coincidentally, the sites of high seismic wave amplification correspond to the locations of thickest basin fill. The valley fill impedance structure, revealed in seismic reflection profiles we acquired, indicate that a more dynamic impedance structure characterizes sites near the center of the valley where the basin fill is thickest. The reflection data from mid-valley sites typically have more high-amplitude reflectors relative to basin edge sites. The sites with a more dynamic impedance structure suggest that the site response would also be correspondingly different. Thus, the broadband, deep basin effect on site response might account for some of the discrepancy between observed and predicted site response in this study.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 40.29628651711716° to 40.94671366508002° latitude; -112.6318359375° to -111.24755859375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R. A. Williams, K. W. King, John Tinsley. 1993. Site response estimates in Salt Lake Valley, Utah, from borehole seismic velocities. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0830030862

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

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↗

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↗