Geology topics

Rachel E. Abercrombie

Publications and source records attributed to Rachel E. Abercrombie.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

To heal or not to heal?: 2. The moment-recurrence time behavior of repeating earthquakes in the 2011 Prague, Oklahoma aftershock sequence is consistent with laboratory healing rates

The timing and failure conditions of an earthquake are governed by the interplay between fault reloading and restrengthening. The moment-recurrence time behavior of repeating earthquakes can give observational estimates of fault healing rates; however, it is difficult to link these observed healing rates to laboratory studies of frictional healing in part because of uncertainty in lithology. Here, we study the 2011 Prague earthquake sequence, which includes repeating earthquakes in the Arbuckle group and the granitic basement, and compare them to laboratory experiments on samples of the Arbuckle and Troy granite (representative of the basement rock) (Okamoto et al., 2025, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JB030573 ). We find three spatially distinct groups of repeating earthquakes with different moment-recurrence behavior: (a) constant moment-recurrence time in the Arbuckle group, (b) scattered moment-recurrence time at the intersection of the foreshock-mainshock fault in the granitic basement, and (c) moment-predictable behavior outside of the foreshock-mainshock fault intersection also in the granitic basement. Our observation of stagnant healing for repeating sequences in the Arbuckle group is consistent with laboratory observations of low healing rates for moderately high pore fluid pressures in Arbuckle samples. For the moment-predictable group, the source radius that is required in order to match healing rates is consistent with source radius estimations when taking into account reasonable attenuation of the P- pulse width. Overall, we observe diverse healing behaviors in the seismic families that are consistent with laboratory healing rates, providing seismic evidence that contact-scale frictional mechanisms are relevant to large-scale earthquake dynamics.

Oklahoma↗

USGS2025

Magnitude, depth and methodological variations of spectral stress drop within the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

We present the first ensemble analysis of the 56 different sets of results submitted to the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence. Different assumptions and methods result in different estimation of the source contribution to recorded seismograms, and hence to the source parameters (principally corner frequency, f c ⁠ , spectral stress drop, Δσ, and seismic moment, M 0 ⁠ ) obtained from modeling calculated source spectra. For earthquakes smaller than magnitude (M) 2.5 there is negligible correlation between the f c values obtained by different studies, implying that no present method is reliable using available data. For larger magnitude events, correlation between f c measurements of different studies, within even a small M range is always higher than spectral ⁠Δσ , because the f c measurements simply reflect the underlying physical decrease in f c with increasing M. We model the observed trends of submitted f c with both magnitude and depth. Most methods report an increase in spectral Δσ with M, although a magnitude‐invariant spectral Δσ is within the confidence limits. The depth dependence is smaller and depends on whether a study allows attenuation to vary with source depth; a combination of depth‐dependent attenuation correction, and depth‐dependent shear‐wave velocity can compensate for reported depth trends. We model the submitted values to remove differing M and depth variation to investigate the relative interevent variability. We find consistent relative variation between individual events, and also lower relative spectral Δσ in the northwest of the aftershock sequence, and higher on the cross fault and in the region of main fault intersection. This large‐scale comparison implies that absolute spectral Δσ estimates are dependent on the methods used; studies of different regions or using different methods should not be directly compared and improved constraints on path and site corrections are needed to resolve these absolute spectral Δσ differences.

California↗

USGS2025

Overview of The SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

We present initial findings from the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study to compare spectral stress‐drop estimates for earthquakes in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequence. This study uses a unified dataset to independently estimate earthquake source parameters through various methods. Stress drop, which denotes the change in average shear stress along a fault during earthquake rupture, is a critical parameter in earthquake science, impacting ground motion, rupture simulation, and source physics. Spectral stress drop is commonly derived by fitting the amplitude‐spectrum shape, but estimates can vary substantially across studies for individual earthquakes. Sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Statewide (previously, Southern) California Earthquake Center our community study aims to elucidate sources of variability and uncertainty in earthquake spectral stress‐drop estimates through quantitative comparison of submitted results from independent analyses. The dataset includes nearly 13,000 earthquakes ranging from M 1 to 7 during a two‐week period of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, recorded within a 1° radius. In this article, we report on 56 unique submissions received from 20 different groups, detailing spectral corner frequencies (or source durations), moment magnitudes, and estimated spectral stress drops. Methods employed encompass spectral ratio analysis, spectral decomposition and inversion, finite‐fault modeling, ground‐motion‐based approaches, and combined methods. Initial analysis reveals significant scatter across submitted spectral stress drops spanning over six orders of magnitude. However, we can identify between‐method trends and offsets within the data to mitigate this variability. Averaging submissions for a prioritized subset of 56 events shows reduced variability of spectral stress drop, indicating overall consistency in recovered spectral stress‐drop values.

California↗

USGS2025

Introduction to the special section on improving measurements of earthquake source parameters

Earthquake source parameters such as magnitude, seismic moment, source dimension, stress drop, and radiated energy are fundamental to understanding earthquake physics, and are also key ingredients in earthquake ground‐motion modeling, rupture simulation, and statistical seismology. However, the uncertainties in these parameters estimated from the radiated seismic wavefield are large due to variability in approaches, including site and attenuation characterizations, and so estimates for an individual earthquake made by different studies can vary greatly. Estimating spectral source parameters remains a popular topic, due to a combination of their intrinsic importance and their apparent ease of measurement, but also a controversial one, due to many sources of variability and large uncertainty. The available methods coupled with necessary parameter choices and assumptions in the analysis make it challenging for researchers to apply methods or understand the reliability in results or reported source parameters. This Special Section on Improving Measurements of Earthquake Source Parameters showcasing comparisons between methods and studies seeks to alleviate some of these difficulties to help the community identify the important components and trade‐offs of decomposing recorded seismograms into their source, path, and site components.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2025

Seismic moment and local magnitude scales in Ridgecrest, CA from the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study

We illustrate the systematic difference between moment magnitude and local magnitude caused by underlying earthquake source physics, using seismic moments submitted to the Statewide California Earthquake Center/United States Geological Survey Community Stress Drop Validation Study 2019 Ridgecrest data set. While the relationship between seismic moment and moment magnitude ( M or M w ) of log 10 ( M 0 ) ~ 1.5* M is uniformly valid for all earthquake sizes by definition (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979), the relationship between local magnitude M L and moment is itself magnitude dependent. For moderate events, ~3< M < ~6, M and M L are coincident; for earthquakes smaller than ~3, M L ~ 1.0 log 10 M 0 (Hanks and Boore, 1984). This is a physical consequence of the corner frequency fc becoming larger than the upper frequency of observation and implies that M L and M differ systematically by a factor of 1.5 for these small events. While this idea is not new, we propose a new, continuous relationship between local magnitude and moment, for magnitudes 2 to 6 which extrapolates to smaller and larger magnitudes, applicable to southern California specific to the Ridgecrest region. We make use of the plethora of seismic moments as submitted by many participants of the Community Stress Drop study, compared to the Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) catalog magnitudes. Overall, the seismic moments in the Community Study recover moment magnitude well, so we use our new M L - M 0 to convert M L to M , refining the SCSN operational M Lr scale. This systematic difference of 50% in slope between local and moment magnitude at small magnitudes has implications for spectral stress drop estimates, earthquake ground motion modeling, as well as other magnitude scales and earthquake occurrence statistics.

California↗

USGS2024

SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study: How spectral fitting approaches influence measured source parameters

Spectral source parameters used to estimate an earthquake’s stress drop (Δσ) can vary significantly across measurement approaches. The Statewide California Earthquake Center/U.S. Geological Survey Community Stress-Drop Validation Study was initiated to compare source parameter estimates, focusing initially on a dataset from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. As part of that validation effort, here we focus on one potential source of uncertainty: whether spectral fitting approaches alone, applied to a common set of spectra from the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence result in different source parameter estimates. By using a common set of benchmark spectra analyzed across a consistent frequency band of 1–40 Hz, we eliminate many sources of variability. A subgroup of validation study participants volunteered to estimate the low-frequency displacement (Ω0) and corner frequency ( f c ) by fitting a smooth function to benchmark displacement spectra. Participants used linear- or log-sampled spectra, assumed a Brune or Boatwright spectral model, and applied different misfit criteria. We compare 17 approaches used to estimate Ω0, f c , and Δσ for 54 earthquake spectra. Our results reveal that 35% of events have Δσ estimates within a factor of two, whereas others exhibit variations exceeding an order of magnitude. The variability in Ω0 and f c can largely be attributed to whether a spectrum is consistent with the smooth function of an idealized simple crack model. The trade-off between Ω0 and f c may be more pronounced when using linearly sampled spectra, as higher frequency spectral bumps control the fits. As expected, methods that assumed a Boatwright model tended to have lower Ω0 and somewhat higher f c compared to those assuming a Brune model, although resulting Δσ estimates are similar. When compared to the overall validation study results, the fitting approach alone may account for between 5% and 90% (25% on average) of the total variability in spectral Δσ.

California↗

USGS2024

Characterizing directivity in small (M 2.4-5) aftershocks of the Ridgecrest sequence

Directivity, or the focusing of energy along the direction of an earthquake rupture, is a common property of earthquakes of all sizes and can cause increased hazard due to azimuthally dependent ground‐motion amplification. For small earthquakes, the effects of directivity are generally less pronounced due to reduced rupture size, yet the directivity in small events can bias source property estimates and provide important insights into general regional faulting patterns. However, due to observational limitations, directivity is usually only measured and modeled for large events. As such, many studies of small earthquakes either ignore directivity altogether or assume a constant rupture direction for all events in a cluster. In our study, we apply a refined directivity fitting method constrained with two separate methods of source deconvolution to the dataset of aftershocks of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes, which contain a large number of well‐recorded small‐to‐mid sized earthquakes occurring in close proximity to each other. The revealed directivity of 100+ small (M 2.4–5) earthquakes is highly heterogeneous and primarily oblique to and away from the main fault strike, suggesting a complex postseismic stress redistribution. In addition, the energy focusing effect of directivity appears to bias the selection of high‐quality data from stations in the direction of rupture, leading to average stress‐drop increases of 50% if directivity is not accounted for.

California↗