USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Seismological Research Letteres”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Method for calculating self-noise spectra and operating ranges for seismographic inertial sensors and recorders

Understanding the performance of sensors and recorders is prerequisite to making appropriate use of them in seismology and earthquake engineering. This paper explores a critical aspect of instrument performance, the “self” noise level of the device and the amplitude range it can usefully record. Self noise limits the smallest signals, while instrument clipping level creates the upper limit (above which it either cannot produce signals or becomes unacceptably nonlinear). Where these levels fall, and the “operating range” between them, determines much of the instrument's viability and the applications for which it is appropriate. The representation of seismic-instrument self-noise levels and their effective operating ranges (cf., dynamic range) for seismological inertial sensors, recorders (data acquisition units, or DAUs), and integrated systems of sensors and recorders (data acquisition systems, or DASs) forces one to address an unnatural comparison between transient finite-bandwidth signals, such as earthquake records, and the instrument's self noise, an effectively stationary signal of infinite duration. In addition to being transient, earthquakes and other records of interest are characterized by a peak amplitude and generally a narrow, peaked spectral shape. Unfortunately, any power spectrum computed for such transient signals is ill defined, since the maximum of that spectrum depends strongly upon signal and record durations. In contrast, the noise floor of an instrument is approximately stationary and properly described by a power spectral density (PSD) or its root (rPSD). Put another way, earthquake records have units of amplitude ( e.g. , m/s 2 ) while PSDs have units of amplitude-squared per hertz ( e.g. , (m/s 2 ) 2 /Hz) and the rPSD has units of amplitude per root of hertz ( e.g. , (m/s 2 )/Hz 1/2 ). Thus, this incompatability is a conflict between earthquake (amplitude) and PSD (spectral density) units that requires one to make various assumptions before they can be compared. For purposes of instrument operational performance, we provide a means of evaluating signal and noise and the range between them in a manner representative of time-domain instrument performance. We call these “operating range diagrams” (ORDs), plots of instrument self noise and clipping level; the “operating range” is the range between these values. For frequency-domain performance we elect to show self noise as an rPSD that may be compared to another instrument's noise or to ambient Earth noise ( e.g. , Peterson 1993); however, to limit the number of arbitrary choices required to merge transient and stationary signals we do not compare the rPSD to transient signals in the frequency domain. Our solution for a time-domain comparison is not new but rather builds upon the consensus of the first and second Guidelines for Seismometer Testing workshops (Hutt et al. 2009) and long established practice in acoustics. We propose this method as a standard for characterizing seismic instruments, and it has been endorsed by the second workshop (Hutt et al. 2009, 2010) and the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Working Group (2008) and recent ANSS procurement specifications.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

8 March 2010 Elazığ-Kovancilar (Turkey) Earthquake: observations on ground motions and building damage

An earthquake of M W = 6.1 occurred in the Elazığ region of eastern Turkey on 8 March 2010 at 02:32:34 UTC. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reported the epicenter of the earthquake as 38.873°N-39.981°E with a focal depth of 12 km. Forty-two people lost their lives and 137 were injured during the event. The earthquake was reported to be on the left-lateral strike-slip east Anatolian fault (EAF), which is one of the two major active fault systems in Turkey. Teams from the Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the Middle East Technical University (EERC-METU) visited the earthquake area in the aftermath of the mainshock. Their reconnaissance observations were combined with interpretations of recorded ground motions for completeness. This article summarizes observations on building and ground damage in the area and provides a discussion of the recorded motions. No significant observations in terms of geotechnical engineering were made.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

88 hours: The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center response to the March 11, 2011 Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake

The M 9.0 11 March 2011 Tohoku, Japan, earthquake and associated tsunami near the east coast of the island of Honshu caused tens of thousands of deaths and potentially over one trillion dollars in damage, resulting in one of the worst natural disasters ever recorded. The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center (USGS NEIC), through its responsibility to respond to all significant global earthquakes as part of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, quickly produced and distributed a suite of earthquake information products to inform emergency responders, the public, the media, and the academic community of the earthquake's potential impact and to provide scientific background for the interpretation of the event's tectonic context and potential for future hazard. Here we present a timeline of the NEIC response to this devastating earthquake in the context of rapidly evolving information emanating from the global earthquake-response community. The timeline includes both internal and publicly distributed products, the relative timing of which highlights the inherent tradeoffs between the requirement to provide timely alerts and the necessity for accurate, authoritative information. The timeline also documents the iterative and evolutionary nature of the standard products produced by the NEIC and includes a behind-the-scenes look at the decisions, data, and analysis tools that drive our rapid product distribution.

Tohoku↗
USGS2011

Developing seismogenic source models based on geologic fault data

Calculating seismic hazard usually requires input that includes seismicity associated with known faults, historical earthquake catalogs, geodesy, and models of ground shaking. This paper will address the input generally derived from geologic studies that augment the short historical catalog to predict ground shaking at time scales of tens, hundreds, or thousands of years (e.g., SSHAC 1997). A seismogenic source model, terminology we adopt here for a fault source model, includes explicit three-dimensional faults deemed capable of generating ground motions of engineering significance within a specified time frame of interest. In tectonically active regions of the world, such as near plate boundaries, multiple seismic cycles span a few hundred to a few thousand years. In contrast, in less active regions hundreds of kilometers from the nearest plate boundary, seismic cycles generally are thousands to tens of thousands of years long. Therefore, one should include sources having both longer recurrence intervals and possibly older times of most recent rupture in less active regions of the world rather than restricting the model to include only Holocene faults (i.e., those with evidence of large-magnitude earthquakes in the past 11,500 years) as is the practice in tectonically active regions with high deformation rates. During the past 15 years, our institutions independently developed databases to characterize seismogenic sources based on geologic data at a national scale. Our goal here is to compare the content of these two publicly available seismogenic source models compiled for the primary purpose of supporting seismic hazard calculations by the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); hereinafter we refer to the two seismogenic source models as INGV and USGS, respectively. This comparison is timely because new initiatives are emerging to characterize seismogenic sources at the continental scale (e.g., SHARE in the Euro-Mediterranean, http://www.share-eu.org/; EMME in the Middle East, http://www.emme-gem.org/) and global scale (e.g., GEM, http://www.globalquakemodel.org/; Anonymous 2008). To some extent, each of these efforts is still trying to resolve the level of optimal detail required for this type of compilation. The comparison we provide defines a common standard for consideration by the international community for future regional and global seismogenic source models by identifying the necessary parameters that capture the essence of geological fault data in order to characterize seismogenic sources. In addition, we inform potential users of differences in our usage of common geological/seismological terms to avoid inappropriate use of the data in our models and provide guidance to convert the data from one model to the other (for detailed instructions, see the electronic supplement to this article). Applying our recommendations will permit probabilistic seismic hazard assessment codes to run seamlessly using either seismogenic source input. The USGS and INGV database schema compare well at a first-level inspection. Both databases contain a set of fields representing generalized fault three-dimensional geometry and additional fields that capture the essence of past earthquake occurrences. Nevertheless, there are important differences. When we further analyze supposedly comparable fields, many are defined differently. These differences would cause anomalous results in hazard prediction if one assumes the values are similarly defined. The data, however, can be made fully compatible using simple transformations.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

Some possible causes of and corrections for STS-1 response changes in the Global Seismographic Network

The Global Seismographic Network (GSN) (Figure 1) plays a key role in providing seismic data for global earthquake monitoring ( e.g. , Benz et al. 2005), earthquake science ( e.g. , Tsai et al. 2005), and studies of Earth structure ( e.g. , Dalton et al. 2008). One of the key GSN design goals is to "provide high fidelity digital recordings of all teleseismic ground motions (adequate to resolve at or near ambient noise up to the largest teleseismic signals over the bandwidth from free oscillations (10 -4 Hz) to teleseismic body waves (up to approximately 15 Hz))" (GSN ad hoc Design Goals Subcommittee 2002). To help meet this goal, Streckeisen STS-1 seismometers were deployed at 80 GSN stations. Some of the GSN sensors have been deployed for more than 25 years. Several recent studies (Davis et al. 2005; Ekström et al. 2006; Davis and Berger 2007) have examined the question of overall calibration of the GSN. Ekström et al. (2006) indicated that a number of sites showed anomalous responses and suggested a gradual decay in the sensitivity. We have investigated the anomalous responses at several GSN sites. At least some of the problems observed by Ekström et al. (2006) may be attributed to humid air leaking into the feedback electronics of the STS-1 seismometers, which produces lower than normal sensitivities near the long-period corner of the instrument (360 seconds period). It appears that even though the feedback electronics boxes are designed to be sealed, water vapor can penetrate their interior after they have been exposed to highly humid seismometer vault air for extended periods. Highly humid air was also found to be present inside some STS-1 bell-jars (especially horizontal instruments) after loss of vacuum, resulting in corrosion and leakage between electrical conductors in connectors.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

What is that mysterious booming sound?

The residents of coastal North Carolina are occasionally treated to sequences of booming sounds of unknown origin. The sounds are often energetic enough to rattle windows and doors. A recent sequence occurred in early January 2011 during clear weather with no evidence of local thunder storms. Queries by a local reporter (Colin Hackman of the NBC affiliate WETC in Wilmington, North Carolina, personal communication 2011) seemed to eliminate common anthropogenic sources such as sonic booms or quarry blasts. So the commonly asked question, “What's making these booming sounds?” remained (and remains) unanswered.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

Verifying a computational method for predicting extreme ground motion

In situations where seismological data is rare or nonexistent, computer simulations may be used to predict ground motions caused by future earthquakes. This is particularly practical in the case of extreme ground motions, where engineers of special buildings may need to design for an event that has not been historically observed but which may occur in the far-distant future. Once the simulations have been performed, however, they still need to be tested. The SCEC-USGS dynamic rupture code verification exercise provides a testing mechanism for simulations that involve spontaneous earthquake rupture. We have performed this examination for the specific computer code that was used to predict maximum possible ground motion near Yucca Mountain. Our SCEC-USGS group exercises have demonstrated that the specific computer code that was used for the Yucca Mountain simulations produces similar results to those produced by other computer codes when tackling the same science problem. We also found that the 3D ground motion simulations produced smaller ground motions than the 2D simulations.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

A short note on ground-motion recordings from the M 7.9 Wenchuan, China, earthquake and ground-motion prediction equations in the Central and Eastern United States

The 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (M 7.9) occurred along the western edge of the eastern China SCR and was well recorded by modern strong-motion instruments: 93 strong-motion stations within 1.4 to 300 km rupture distance recorded the main event. Preliminary comparisons show some similarities between ground-motion attenuation in the Wenchuan region and the central and eastern United States, suggesting that ground motions from the Wenchuan earthquake could be used as a database providing constraints for developing GMPEs for large earthquakes in the central and eastern United States.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

Coulomb stress change sensitivity due to variability in mainshock source models and receiving fault parameters: A case study of the 2010-2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakes

Strong aftershocks following major earthquakes present significant challenges for infrastructure recovery as well as for emergency rescue efforts. A tragic instance of this is the 22 February 2011 M w 6.3 Christchurch aftershock in New Zealand, which caused more than 100 deaths while the 2010 M w 7.1 Canterbury mainshock did not cause a single fatality (Figure 1). Therefore, substantial efforts have been directed toward understanding the generation mechanisms of aftershocks as well as mitigating hazards due to aftershocks. Among these efforts are the prediction of strong aftershocks, earthquake early warning, and aftershock probability assessment. Zhang et al. (1999) reported a successful case of strong aftershock prediction with precursory data such as changes in seismicity pattern, variation of b-value, and geomagnetic anomalies. However, official reports of such successful predictions in geophysical journals are extremely rare, implying that deterministic prediction of potentially damaging aftershocks is not necessarily more scientifically feasible than prediction of mainshocks.

Christchurch↗
USGS2011

Reassessment of stable continental regions of Southeast Asia

Probabilistic seismic-hazard assessments of the central and eastern United States (CEUS) require estimates of the size of the largest possible earthquake (Mmax). In most of the CEUS, sparse historical seismicity does not provide a record of moderate and large earthquakes that is sufficient to constrain Mmax. One remedy for the insufficient catalog is to combine the catalog of moderate to large CEUS earthquakes with catalogs from other regions worldwide that are tectonically analogous to the CEUS (stable continental regions, or SCRs). After the North America SCR, the largest contribution of earthquakes to this global SCR catalog comes from a Southeast Asian SCR that extends from Indochina to southeasternmost Russia. Integration and interpretation of recently published geological and geophysical results show that most of these Southeast Asian earthquakes occurred in areas exposing abundant alkaline igneous rocks and extensional faults, both of Neogene age (last 23 million years). The implied Neogene extension precludes classification of the areas as SCR crust. The extension also reduces the number of moderate and large Southeast Asian historical earthquakes that are available to constrain CEUS Mmax by 86 percent, from 43 to six.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2012

Listening to the 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki, Japan, earthquake

The magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki, Japan, earthquake on 11 March 2011 is the largest earthquake to date in Japan’s modern history and is ranked as the fourth largest earthquake in the world since 1900. This earthquake occurred within the northeast Japan subduction zone (Figure 1 ), where the Pacific plate is subducting beneath the Okhotsk plate at rate of ∼8–9 cm/yr (DeMets et al. 2010 ). This type of extremely large earthquake within a subduction zone is generally termed a “megathrust” earthquake. Strong shaking from this magnitude 9 earthquake engulfed the entire Japanese Islands, reaching a maximum acceleration ∼3 times that of gravity (3 g). Two days prior to the main event, a foreshock sequence occurred, including one earthquake of magnitude 7.2. Following the main event, numerous aftershocks occurred around the main slip region; the largest of these was magnitude 7.9. The entire foreshocks-mainshock-aftershocks sequence was well recorded by thousands of sensitive seismometers and geodetic instruments across Japan, resulting in the best-recorded megathrust earthquake in history. This devastating earthquake resulted in significant damage and high death tolls caused primarily by the associated large tsunami. This tsunami reached heights of more than 30 m, and inundation propagated inland more than 5 km from the Pacific coast, which also caused a nuclear crisis that is still affecting people’s lives in certain regions of Japan.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2012

Heavy tails and earthquake probabilities

The 21st century has already seen its share of devastating earthquakes, some of which have been labeled as “unexpected,” at least in the eyes of some seismologists and more than a few journalists. A list of seismological surprises could include the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Islands; 2008 Wenchuan, China; 2009 Haiti; 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand; and 2011 Tohoku, Japan, earthquakes

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2012

Data quality of seismic records from the Tohoku, Japan earthquake as recorded across the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory networks

Great earthquakes recorded across modern digital seismographic networks, such as the recent Tohoku, Japan, earthquake on 11 March 2011 (M w = 9.0), provide unique datasets that ultimately lead to a better understanding of the Earth's structure (e.g., Pesicek et al. 2008) and earthquake sources (e.g., Ammon et al. 2011). For network operators, such events provide the opportunity to look at the performance across their entire network using a single event, as the ground motion records from the event will be well above every station's noise floor.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2008

The USGS Earthquake Notification Service (ENS): Customizable notifications of earthquakes around the globe

At the beginning of 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) introduced a new automated Earthquake Notification Service (ENS) to take the place of the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) "Bigquake" system and the various other individual EHP e-mail list-servers for separate regions in the United States. These included northern California, southern California, and the central and eastern United States. ENS is a "one-stop shopping" system that allows Internet users to subscribe to flexible and customizable notifications for earthquakes anywhere in the world. The customization capability allows users to define the what (magnitude threshold), the when (day and night thresholds), and the where (specific regions) for their notifications. Customization is achieved by employing a per-user based request profile, allowing the notifications to be tailored for each individual's requirements. Such earthquake-parameter-specific custom delivery was not possible with simple e-mail list-servers. Now that event and user profiles are in a structured query language (SQL) database, additional flexibility is possible. At the time of this writing, ENS had more than 114,000 subscribers, with more than 200,000 separate user profiles. On a typical day, more than 188,000 messages get sent to a variety of widely distributed users for a wide range of earthquake locations and magnitudes. The purpose of this article is to describe how ENS works, highlight the features it offers, and summarize plans for future developments.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2006

Recordings from the deepest borehole in the New Madrid Seismic Zone

The recordings at the deepest vertical strong-motion array (VSAS) from three small events, the 21 October 2004 Tiptonville, Tennessee, earthquake; the 10 February 2005 Arkansas earthquake; and the 2 June 2005 Ridgely, Tennessee, earthquake show some interesting wave-propagation phenomena through the soils: the S-wave is attenuated from 260 m to 30 m depth and amplified from 30 m to the surface. The S-wave arrival times from the three events yielded different shear-wave velocity estimates for the soils. These different estimates may be the result of different incident angles of the S-waves due to different epicentral distances. The epicentral distances are about 22 km, 110 km, and 47 km for the Tiptonville, Arkansas, and Ridgely earthquakes, respectively. These recordings show the usefulness of the borehole strong-motion array. The vertical strong-motion arrays operated by the University of Kentucky have started to accumulate recordings that will provide a database for scientists and engineers to study the effects of the near-surface soils on the strong ground motion in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. More information about the Kentucky Seismic and Strong-Motion Network can be found at www.uky.edu/KGS/geologichazards. The digital recordings are available at ftp://kgsweb.uky.edu.

Seismological Research Letters↗