Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70020967

The strain in the array is mainly in the plane (waves below ~1 Hz)

Abstract

We compare geodetic and single-station methods of measuring dynamic deformations and characterize their causes in the frequency bands 0.5-1.0 Hz and 4.0-8.0 Hz. The geodetic approach utilizes data from small-aperture seismic arrays, applying techniques from geodesy. It requires relatively few assumptions and a priori information. The single-station method uses ground velocities recorded at isolated or single stations and assumes all the deformation is due to plane-wave propagation. It also requires knowledge of the azimuth and horizontal velocity of waves arriving at the recording station. Data employed come from a small-aperture, dense seismic array deployed in Geyokcha, Turkmenistan, and include seismograms recorded by broadband STS2 and short-period L28 sensors. Poor agreement between geodetic and single-station estimates in the 4.0-8.0 Hz passband indicates that the displacement field may vary nonlinearly with distance over distances of ∼50 m. STS2 geodetic estimates provide a robust standard in the 0.5-1.0 Hz passband because they appear to be computationally stable and require fewer assumptions than single-station estimates. The agreement between STS2 geodetic estimates and single-station L28 estimates is surprisingly good for the S -wave and early surface waves, suggesting that the single-station analysis should be useful with commonly available data. These results indicate that, in the 0.5 to 1.0 Hz passband, the primary source of dynamic deformation is plane-wave propagation along great-circle source-receiver paths. For later arriving energy, the effects of scattering become important. The local structure beneath the array exerts a strong control on the geometry of the dynamic deformation, implying that it may be difficult to infer source characteristics of modern or paleoearthquakes from indicators of dynamic deformations. However, strong site control also suggests that the dynamic deformations may be predictable, which would be useful for engineering seismically resistant structures.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. Gomberg, G. Pavlis, P. Bodin. 1999-12-01. The strain in the array is mainly in the plane (waves below ~1 Hz). https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0890061428

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↗