USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Seismological Research Letters”

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
USGS2005

Hazard calculations for the WGCEP-2002 earthquake forecast using OpenSHA and distributed object technologies

We present seismic-hazard calculations for what is arguably the most sophisticated earthquake forecast ever developed—the model by the 2002 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003), or WGCEP-2002 as referred to hereafter. These calculations have been made possible by developments in both OpenSHA ( Field et al. , 2003 ) and the Information Technology Research (ITR) Collaboration of the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) ( Jordan et al. , 2003 ). In particular, we demonstrate the use of a freely available, platform-independent, and graphical-user-interface-based application for computing hazard curves. This application utilizes distributed-object technologies, meaning the code running on the client's computer communicates over the Internet with code hosted elsewhere on server computers. This interoperability, which is invisible to the user, makes the application fast and executable without heavy installation requirements. Instructions on how to reproduce the calculations presented here are available under “Publications” at the Web site http://www.OpenSHA.org/ .

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2005

A comparison of seismic event detection with IASPEI and earthworm acquisition systems at Alaskan volcanoes

Since 1988, Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) has been continually monitoring seismicity at active volcanoes in Alaska ( Dixon et al. , 2004 ). The AVO seismic network has grown from 27 stations on the Cook Inlet volcanoes (Augustine, Iliamna, Redoubt, and Spurr) to 160 stations on 27 volcanoes in 2004 ( Figure 1 ). Each seismograph subnetwork on an individual volcano typically consists of five short-period vertical stations and one short-period three-component station surrounding the volcanic center at distances of 1 to 20 km. The configuration of each subnetwork varies depending on numerous factors such as local topography, available telemetry options, and the grouping of individual volcanic centers. Historically, the AVO seismic network has used short-period geophones and standard analog telemetry because of reliability, cost, and availability. As telemetry bandwidth has become more readily available, AVO has begun to deploy broadband seismometers and digital communications for telemetry ( Murray et al. , 2002 ).

Alaska↗
USGS2005

Wagon loads of sand blows in White County, Illinois

Several anecdotal accounts provide compelling evidence that liquefaction occurred at several sites in Illinois during the 1811-1812 New Madrid sequence, as much as 250 km north of the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ). At one Wabash Valley location, sand blows are still evident near Big Prairie, Illinois, a location described in a particularly detailed and precise historic account. This account includes descriptions of substantial liquefaction (sand blows) as well as a two-mile-long east-west-trending “crack” along which two feet of south-side-down displacement occurred. An offset can no longer be seen at this location, which has been extensively farmed and plowed for decades. Field reconnaissance verifies many of the details provided in the account, however. We conducted a seismic-reflection experiment at this location and observed a modest offset in the Paleozoic strata at this location. The offset is opposite to that described in the historic account, consistent with the hypothesis that large midcontinent earthquakes occur on faults reactivated in a Holocene stress regime different from the one in which they were formed. Only two explanations can account for these observations: Either large NMSZ events triggered substantial liquefaction at distances greater than hitherto realized, or at least one large “New Madrid” event occurred significantly north of the NMSZ. We explore these possibilities and conclude that, while neither one can be ruled out, several disparate lines of evidence suggest that the 23 January 1812 “New Madrid mainshock” occurred in White County, Illinois, near the location of the m b 5.5 1968 southern Illinois earthquake and recent microearthquake activity.

Illinois↗
USGS2005

Evidence for New Madrid earthquakes in A.D. 300 and 2350 B.C

Six episodes of earthquake-induced liquefaction are associated with soil horizons containing artifacts of the Late Archaic (3000-500 B.C.) and Early to Middle Woodland (500 B.C.-A.D. 400) cultural periods at the Burkett archaeological site in the northern part of the New Madrid seismic zone, where little information about prehistoric earthquakes has been available. Radiocarbon dating of organic material and analysis of artifacts are used to estimate the ages of the liquefaction features and times of the causative earthquakes. The most recent episode of liquefaction occurred after A.D. 1670, produced small sand dikes, and is probably related to the 1895 Charleston, Missouri earthquake. The preceding episode struck the area in A.D. 300 ± 200 years and generated a sand blow that contains Late Woodland artifacts and buries an Early to Middle Woodland cultural horizon. Four older episodes of liquefaction occurred in 2350 B.C. ± 200 years and may have been produced by a sequence of closely timed earthquakes. The four earlier episodes produced graben structures, sand dikes, and associated sand blows on which a cultural mound was constructed. The Burkett liquefaction features that formed about 2350 B.C. and A.D. 300 are relatively large and similar in age to other liquefaction features in northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri, respectively. If the prehistoric features at the Burkett site and those of similar age elsewhere in the region are the result of the same earthquakes, then this suggests that they were similar in size to the three largest (M 7-8) 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes. A New Madrid-type earthquake in A.D. 300 ± 200 years would support an average recurrence time of 500 years. Although this study extends the earthquake chronology back to 2500 B.C., it is uncertain that the record of New Madrid events is complete for the period between 2350 B.C. and A.D. 300. As demonstrated by this study, information about other prehistoric earthquakes may be buried beneath fluvial deposits of the Mississippi River Valley.

Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee↗
USGS2005

Ground-motion parameters of the southwestern Indiana earthquake of 18 June 2002 and the disparity between the observed and predicted values

The M 4.5 southwestern Indiana earthquake of 18 June 2002 triggered 46 blast monitors in Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. The resulting flee-field particle velocity records, along with similar data from previous earthquakes in the study area, provide a clear standard for judging the reliability of current maps for predicting ground motions greater than 2 Hz in southwestern Indiana and southeastern Illinois. Peak horizontal accelerations and velocities, and 5% damped pseudo-accelerations for the earthquake, generally exceeded ground motions predicted for the top of the bedrock by factors of 2 or more, even after soil amplifications were taken into consideration. It is suggested, but not proven, that the low shear-wave velocity and weathered bedrock in the area are also amplifying the higher-frequency ground motions that have been repeatedly recorded by the blast monitors in the study area. It is also shown that there is a good correlation between the peak ground motions and 5% pseudo-accelerations recorded for the event, and the Modified Mercalli intensities interpreted for the event by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky↗
USGS2005

Revised magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash Valley seismic zone of the central United States

Seismic hazard assessment in the central United States, and in particular the Wabash Valley seismic zone of Indiana-Illinois, frequently relies on empirical estimates of paleoearthquake magnitudes ( M ). In large part these estimates have been made using the magnitude-bound method. Existing region-specific magnitude-bound relations rely heavily on only a few historical earthquakes in the central United States and eastern Canada that induced reported liquefaction features. Recent seismological studies have suggested smaller magnitudes than previously presumed for some of these earthquakes, however, and other studies have reinterpreted site-to-source distances to liquefaction features associated with some of these earthquakes. In this paper, we re-examine historical earthquakes ( M > ∼5) that occurred in the central and eastern United States and eastern Canada; some of these earthquakes triggered liquefaction and others did not. Based on our findings, we reinterpret the region-specific magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash Valley. Using this revised magnitude-bound relation, we present magnitude estimates for four prehistoric earthquakes that occurred in the Wabash Valley seismic zone during Holocene time.

Illinois, Indiana↗
USGS2007

Earthquake likelihood model testing

INTRODUCTION The Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) project aims to produce and evaluate alternate models of earthquake potential (probability per unit volume, magnitude, and time) for California. Based on differing assumptions, these models are produced to test the validity of their assumptions and to explore which models should be incorporated in seismic hazard and risk evaluation. Tests based on physical and geological criteria are useful but we focus on statistical methods using future earthquake catalog data only. We envision two evaluations: a test of consistency with observed data and a comparison of all pairs of models for relative consistency. Both tests are based on the likelihood method, and both are fully prospective ( i.e. , the models are not adjusted to fit the test data). To be tested, each model must assign a probability to any possible event within a specified region of space, time, and magnitude. For our tests the models must use a common format: earthquake rates in specified “bins” with location, magnitude, time, and focal mechanism limits. Seismology cannot yet deterministically predict individual earthquakes; however, it should seek the best possible models for forecasting earthquake occurrence. This paper describes the statistical rules of an experiment to examine and test earthquake forecasts. The primary purposes of the tests described below are to evaluate physical models for earthquakes, assure that source models used in seismic hazard and risk studies are consistent with earthquake data, and provide quantitative measures by which models can be assigned weights in a consensus model or be judged as suitable for particular regions. In this paper we develop a statistical method for testing earthquake likelihood models. A companion paper ( Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger 2007 , this issue) discusses the actual implementation of these tests in the framework of the RELM initiative. Statistical testing of hypotheses is a common task and a wide range of possible testing procedures exist. Jolliffe and Stephenson ( 2003 ) present different forecast verifications from atmospheric science, among them likelihood testing of probability forecasts and testing the occurrence of binary events. Testing binary events requires that for each forecasted event, the spatial, temporal and magnitude limits be given. Although major earthquakes can be considered binary events, the models within the RELM project express their forecasts on a spatial grid and in 0.1 magnitude units; thus the results are a distribution of rates over space and magnitude. These forecasts can be tested with likelihood tests. In general, likelihood tests assume a valid null hypothesis against which a given hypothesis is tested. The outcome is either a rejection of the null hypothesis in favor of the test hypothesis or a nonrejection, meaning the test hypothesis cannot outperform the null hypothesis at a given significance level. Within RELM, there is no accepted null hypothesis and thus the likelihood test needs to be expanded to allow comparable testing of equipollent hypotheses. To test models against one another, we require that forecasts are expressed in a standard format: the average rate of earthquake occurrence within pre-specified limits of hypocentral latitude, longitude, depth, magnitude, time period, and focal mechanisms. Focal mechanisms should either be described as the inclination of P -axis, declination of P -axis, and inclination of the T -axis, or as strike, dip, and rake angles. Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger ( 2007 , this issue) designed classes of these parameters such that similar models will be tested against each other. These classes make the forecasts comparable between models. Additionally, we are limited to testing only what is precisely defined and consistently reported in earthquake catalogs. Therefore it is currently not possible to test such information as fault rupture length or area, asperity location, etc. Also, to account for data quality issues, we allow for location and magnitude uncertainties as well as the probability that an event is dependent on another event. As we mentioned above, only models with comparable forecasts can be tested against each other. Our current tests are designed to examine grid-based models. This requires that any fault-based model be adapted to a grid before testing is possible. While this is a limitation of the testing, it is an inherent difficulty in any such comparative testing. Please refer to appendix B for a statistical evaluation of the application of the Poisson hypothesis to fault-based models. The testing suite we present consists of three different tests: L-Test, N-Test, and R-Test. These tests are defined similarily to Kagan and Jackson ( 1995 ). The first two tests examine the consistency of the hypotheses with the observations while the last test compares the spatial performances of the models.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2007

The 17 July 2006 Tsunami earthquake in West Java, Indonesia

A tsunami earthquake (Mw = 7.7) occurred south of Java on 17 July 2006. The event produced relatively low levels of high-frequency radiation, and local felt reports indicated only weak shaking in Java. There was no ground motion damage from the earthquake, but there was extensive damage and loss of life from the tsunami along 250 km of the southern coasts of West Java and Central Java. An inspection of the area a few days after the earthquake showed extensive damage to wooden and unreinforced masonry buildings that were located within several hundred meters of the coast. Since there was no tsunami warning system in place, efforts to escape the large waves depended on how people reacted to the earthquake shaking, which was only weakly felt in the coastal areas. This experience emphasizes the need for adequate tsunami warning systems for the Indian Ocean region.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2007

"Did you feel it?" Intensity data: A surprisingly good measure of earthquake ground motion

The U.S. Geological Survey is tapping a vast new source of engineering seismology data through its "Did You Feel It?" (DYFI) program, which collects online citizen responses to earthquakes. To date, more than 750,000 responses have been compiled in the United States alone. The DYFI data make up in quantity what they may lack in scientific quality and offer the potential to resolve longstanding issues in earthquake ground-motion science. Such issues have been difficult to address due to the paucity of instrumental ground-motion data in regions of low seismicity. In particular, DYFI data provide strong evidence that earthquake stress drops, which control the strength of high-frequency ground shaking, are higher in the central and eastern United States (CEUS) than in California. Higher earthquake stress drops, coupled with lower attenuation of shaking with distance, result in stronger overall shaking over a wider area and thus more potential damage for CEUS earthquakes in comparison to those of equal magnitude in California - a fact also definitively captured with these new DYFI data and maps.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2007

Enhancement of the national strong-motion network in Turkey

Two arrays comprising 20 strong-motion sensors were established in western Turkey. The 14 stations of BYTNet follow a N-S trending line about 65 km in length, normal to strands of the North Anatolian fault that runs between the cities of Bursa and Yalova. Here the dominant character of the potential fault movement is a right-lateral transform slip. The DATNet array, comprising a total of eight stations, is arranged along a 110-km-long E-W trending direction along the Menderes River valley between Denizli and Aydin. (Two stations in this array were incorporated from the existing Turkish national strong-motion network.) This is an extensional tectonic environment, and the network monitors potential large normal-faulting earthquakes on the faults in the valley.

Seismological Research Letters↗