USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70234243

Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay

Abstract

Measurements of ground motion generated by nuclear explosions in Nevada were made for 37 locations near San Francisco Bay, California. The results were compared with the San Francisco 1906 earthquake intensities and the strong-motion recordings of the San Francisco earthquake of March 22, 1957. The recordings show marked amplitude variations which are related consistently to the geologic setting of the recording site. For sites underlain by a layer of younger bay mud or artificial fill, maximum horizontal ground velocities generally increased with thickness of the layer and were as much as ten times greater than those recorded on nearby bedrock. The maximum vertical velocities for these sites were between 1 and 3.5 times greater. Spectral amplification curves clearly define a “dominant ground period” of about 1 second for sites underlain by younger bay mud. For sites underlain by older, more consolidated sediments, no clearly defined “dominant ground period” was found. Maximum ground velocities for the older bay sediment sites were about twice those recorded on bedrock.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.31447530414411° to 37.575603207605845° latitude; -122.37258911132812° to -121.81434631347655° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Roger D. Borcherdt. 1970. Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0600010029

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↗