Geology topics

R.A. Page

Publications and source records attributed to R.A. Page.

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS1980

Estimating earthquake potential

The hazards to life and property from earthquakes can be minimized in three ways. First, structures can be designed and built to resist the effects of earthquakes. Second, the location of structures and human activities can be chosen to avoid or to limit the use of areas known to be subject to serious earthquake hazards. Third, preparations for an earthquake in response to a prediction or warning can reduce the loss of life and damage to property as well as promote a rapid recovery from the disaster. The success of the first two strategies, earthquake engineering and land use planning, depends on being able to reliably estimate the earthquake potential. The key considerations in defining the potential of a region are the location, size, and character of future earthquakes and frequency of their occurrence. Both historic seismicity of the region and the geologic record are considered in evaluating earthquake potential.

Earthquake Information Bulletin (USGS)↗

USGS1978

Estimation of ground motion parameters

Strong motion data from western North America for earthquakes of magnitude greater than 5 are examined to provide the basis for estimating peak acceleration, velocity, displacement, and duration as a function of distance for three magnitude classes. A subset of the data (from the San Fernando earthquake) is used to assess the effects of structural size and of geologic site conditions on peak motions recorded at the base of structures. Small but statistically significant differences are observed in peak values of horizontal acceleration, velocity and displacement recorded on soil at the base of small structures compared with values recorded at the base of large structures. The peak acceleration tends to b3e less and the peak velocity and displacement tend to be greater on the average at the base of large structures than at the base of small structures. In the distance range used in the regression analysis (15-100 km) the values of peak horizontal acceleration recorded at soil sites in the San Fernando earthquake are not significantly different from the values recorded at rock sites, but values of peak horizontal velocity and displacement are significantly greater at soil sites than at rock sites. Some consideration is given to the prediction of ground motions at close distances where there are insufficient recorded data points. As might be expected from the lack of data, published relations for predicting peak horizontal acceleration give widely divergent estimates at close distances (three well known relations predict accelerations between 0.33 g to slightly over 1 g at a distance of 5 km from a magnitude 6.5 earthquake). After considering the physics of the faulting process, the few available data close to faults, and the modifying effects of surface topography, at the present time it would be difficult to accept estimates less than about 0.8 g, 110 cm/s, and 40 cm, respectively, for the mean values of peak acceleration, velocity, and displacement at rock sites within 5 km of fault rupture in a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. These estimates can be expected to change as more data become available.

Circular↗

USGS1975

Earthquake shaking and damage to buildings

Ground shaking close to the causative fault of an earthquake is more intense than it was previously believed to be. This raises the possibility that large numbers of buildings and other structures are not sufficiently resistant for the intense levels of shaking that can occur close to the fault. Many structures were built before earthquake codes were adopted; others were built according to codes formulated when less was known about the intensity of near-fault shaking. Although many building types are more resistant than conventional design analyses imply, the margin of safety is difficult to quantify. Many modern structures, such as freeways, have not been subjected to and tested by near-fault shaking in major earthquakes (magnitude 7 or greater). Damage patterns in recent moderate-sized earthquakes occurring in or adjacent to urbanized areas, however, indicate that many structures, including some modern ones designed to meet earthquake code requirements, cannot withstand the severe shaking that can occur close to a fault. It is necessary to review the ground motion assumed and the methods utilized in the design of important existing structures and, if necessary, to strengthen or modify the use of structures that are found to be weak. New structures situated close to active faults should be designed on the basis of ground motion estimates greater than those used in the past. The ultimate balance between risk of earthquake losses and cost for both remedial strengthening and improved earthquake-resistant construction must be decided by the public. Scientists and engineers must inform the public about earthquake shaking and its effect on structures. The exposure to damage from seismic shaking is steadily increasing because of continuing urbanization and the increasing complexity of lifeline systems, such as power, water, transportation, and communication systems. In the near future we should expect additional painful examples of the damage potential of moderate-sized earthquakes in urban areas. Over a longer time span, however, we can significantly reduce the risk to life and property from seismic shaking through better land utilization, improved building codes and construction practices, and at least the gradual replacement of poor buildings by more resistant buildings. Progress toward reducing risk from seismic shaking through better building design is slowed by deficiencies in our knowledge about the nature of damaging ground motion and the failure mechanisms in structures. For example, lacking observational data, seismologists must rely on simplified theoretical and numerical models of the earthquake process to estimate near-fault ground motion, especially for earthquakes as large as magnitude 7 and 8. Because such models have not been adequately tested against data, their reliability is unknown. Engineers lack detailed information about failure processes in structures during an earthquake. Although many structures have been instrumented to measure their response to an earthquake, few records have been obtained from buildings that actually sustained significant structural damage and few structures are properly instrumented to measure all the modes of deformation that are likely to contribute to failure. Moreover, the fact that many structures have withstood ground motion more intense than that assumed in their design indicates that conventional methods of design do not take into account important contributions to earthquake resistance by nonstructural elements and by the ability of structural elements to deform inelastically without necessarily causing failure of the structure. It is fortunate when such reserve resistance exists, but better understanding of the sources of reserve strength is needed to determine how large a margin of safety they confer and how they might be affected by changes in construction practices and materials with time. In the next few years we look forward to significant advances in knowledge and to more effective application of what is already known, largely because of substantial funding of research related to seismic engineering by the National Science Foundation . The increasing number of strong-motion seismographs operating in seismically active regions will likely provide for the first time a number of records of damaging levels of ground motion. Significant effort is being directed toward obtaining near-fault records, although many probable sites of future large earthquakes remain inadequately instrumented, especially outside the conterminous United States. New and more complete information on building response and damage mechanisms will be obtained by improved instrumentation of structures and through laboratory investigations of failure in structures and structural elements. Further developments in computer technology and in computer modeling techniques will permit more realistic simulations of the seismic response of soils and structures that take into account their inelastic behavior and their strain-dependent properties. Earthquake design codes will continually be revised to better utilize existing knowledge concerning the nature of strong ground motion and the dynamic behavior of buildings during earthquakes and to incorporate new knowledge and also experiences gained from future earthquakes. We believe that application of new knowledge, improvements in earthquake-resistant design and construction, and remedial strengthening or replacement of weak existing structures can significantly reduce our current level of exposure to earthquake hazards.

Science↗

USGS1974

Expectable Earthquakes and their ground motions in the Van Norman Reservoirs Area

The upper and lower Van Norman dams, in northwesternmost San Fernando Valley about 20 mi (32 km) northwest of downtown Los Angeles, were severely damaged during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. An investigation of the geologic-seismologic setting of the Van Norman area indicates that an earthquake of at least M 7.7 may be expected in the Van Norman area. The expectable transitory effects in the Van Norman area of such an earthquake are as follows: peak horizontal acceleration of at least 1.15 g, peak velocity of displacement of 4.43 ft/sec (135 cm/sec), peak displacement of 2.3 ft (70 cm), and duration of shaking at accelerations greater than 0.05 g, 40 sec. A great earthquake (M 8+) on the San Andreas fault, 25 mi distant, also is expectable. Transitory effects in the Van Norman area from such an earthquake are estimated as follows: peak horizontal acceleration of 0.5 g, peak velocity of 1.97 ft/sec (60 cm/sec), displacement of 1.31 ft (40 cm), and duration of shaking at accelerations greater than 0.05 g, 80 sec. The permanent effects of the expectable local earthquake could include simultaneous fault movement at the lower damsite, the upper damsite, and the site proposed for a replacement dam halfway between the upper and lower dams. The maximum differential displacements due to such movements are estimated at 16.4 ft (5 m) at the lower damsite and about 9.6 ft (2.93 m) at the upper and proposed damsites. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake (M 6?) was accompanied by the most intense ground motions ever recorded instrumentally for a natural earthquake. At the lower Van Norman dam, horizontal accelerations exceeded 0.6 g, and shaking greater than 0.25 g lasted for about 13 see; at Pacoima dam, 6 mi (10 km) northeast of the lower dam, high-frequency peak horizontal accelerations of 1.25 g were recorded in two directions, and shaking greater than 0.25 g lasted for about 7 sec. Permanent effects of the earthquake include slope failures in the embankments of the upper and lower Van Norman dams, rupturing of the ground surface by faulting along parts of the zone of old faults that extends easterly through the reservoir area and across the northern part of the valley, folding or arching of the ground surface, and differential horizontal displacement of the terrane north and south of the fault zone. Although a zone of old faults extends through the reservoir area, the 1971 surface ruptures apparently did not; however, arching and horizontal displacements caused small relative displacements of the abutment areas of each of the three damsites. The 1971 arching coincided with preexisting topographic highs, and the surface ruptures coincided with eroded fault scarps and a buried ground-water impediment formed by pre-1971 faulting in young valley fill. This coincidence with evidence of past deformation indicates that the 1971 deformations were the result of a continuing geologic process that is expected to produce similar deformations during future events. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake probably was not the largest that has occurred in this area during the last approximately 200 years, as indicated by a buried fault like scarp about 200 years old that is higher than, and aligned with, 1971 fault scarps. In addition, the San Fernando zone of 1971 ruptures is part of a regional tectonic system that includes the San Andreas and associated faults; one of these, the White Wolf fault north of the San Andreas, is symmetrical in structural attitude with the San Fernando zone and ruptured the ground surface during the 1952 Kern County earthquake (M 7.7). Other large earthquakes associated with surface rupturing on faults of this system include the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake (M 8+) and possibly the 1852 Big Pine earthquake. Several other historic earthquakes in this general area are not known to be associated with surface ruptures, but were large enough to cause damage in the northern San Fernando Valley. The Van Norman rese

Circular↗

USGS1974

Catalog of earthquakes in south-central Alaska, April - June 1972

The National Center for Earthquake Research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) installed a network of eleven seismograph stations in south-central Alaska in the summer of 1971 to collect seismological data for investigating seismic and tectonic processes in the Cook Inlet region, for evaluating the seismic hazard in the Cook Inlet region and in the Chugach Mountains along the southern end of the route of the proposed trans-Alaska oil pipeline, and for studying the structure of the crust and upper mantle in south-central Alaska. The first recordings from the network were obtained in late September 1971. The first earthquakes to be located with data from the network occurred in October 1971. This earthquake catalog, which is the first to be compiled for the USGS Alaska network, presents origin times, focal coordinates and magnitudes for 210 shocks occurring in the second quarter of 1972 (except from June 15 to 23) in south-central Alaska, primarily in the Cook Inlet region. Readings from a total of 18 stations were used to locate the shocks. To supplement the readings from the 10 USGS stations that were operative during this quarter, arrival times were obtained from 6 stations operated by the Palmer Seismological Observatory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 2 stations operated by the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska (U of A). The data in this catalog are the most detailed and precise earthquake data compiled to date for earthquakes within the Cook Inlet region. Earthquakes in south-central Alaska as small as magnitude 3.0 have been routinely located by the National Earthquake Information Center of NOAA (currently the National Earthquake Information Service of USGS) since the great Alaska earthquake of 1964 and published in the reports "Preliminary Determination of Epicenters" (PDE). In contrast the shocks included in this catalog are as small as magnitude 1.0 and most are smaller than magnitude 3.0. Data for the larger historic earthquakes in south-central Alaska have been tabulated by Davis and Echols (1962) and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (1966). The locations of the eleven stations of the NCER seismograph network are plotted in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1 along with the additional stations from which readings were obtained. The USGS stations have single, vertical-component seismometers except for NKA and SKL, which also have two horizontal seismometers. The station ERN was installed in the summer of 1971, however the telemetry circuit was not available until September 1972.

Alaska↗

USGS1973

Point Mugu, California, earthquake of 21 February 1973 and its aftershocks

Seismological investigations show that the Point Mugu earthquake involved north-south crustal shortening deep within the complex fault zone that marks the southern front of the Transverse Ranges province. This earthquake sequence results from the same stress system responsible for the deformation in this province in the Pliocene through Holocene and draws attention to the significant earthquake hazard that the southern frontal fault system poses to the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

California↗

USGS1973

Evidence for Quaternary movement on the McKinley strand of the Denali fault in the Delta River area, Alaska

Offset Holocene alluvial fans and drainages along the McKinley strand of the Denali fault near the Delta River in the east-central Alaska Range indicate as much as 50 to 60 m of right-lateral displacement during the last 10,000 yrs. Vertical movement of 6 to 10 m during the same time interval is reflected by south-facing scarps along the trace of the fault. All but possibly 1 m of the lateral movement is thought to predate the 1830 neoglacial ice advance. Older drainages have been offset in a right-lateral sense since early Wisconsin or Illinoian time by as much as 6.5 km or, alternatively, by as little as 1 km.

Alaska↗