Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70025264

Ground cracks associated with the 1994 double spring flat earthquake, west-central Nevada

A. R. Ramelli·C.M. DePolo·J. C. Yount
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The 1994 Double Spring Flat earthquake (M w 5.8) occurred within a densely faulted step-over between the Genoa and Antelope Valley faults, two principal normal faults of the transition zone between the Basin and Range Province and the northern Sierra Nevada . The earthquake created zones of ground cracks from 0.1 to 2.8 km long along at least five northwest- to north-northwest-striking faults in the epicentral area. Individual cracks had extensional openings generally from 1 to 10 mm wide. No cracks displayed obvious vertical separation, and only one zone showed permissive evidence of right-lateral separation. Over the 8 days following the mainshock (the period over which the cracks were found), aftershocks formed a dominant northeast trend suggesting the earthquake occurred along a northeast-striking structure. However, no ground breakage was found along faults striking parallel to this northeast aftershock alignment, and subsequent aftershocks formed a conjugate northwest trend. Based on the location and character of the five zones, the observed cracks are attributed to secondary fault slip and shaking effects. The earthquake also created ground cracks along at least two faults 15-25 km from the epicenter. In both of these cases, the faults had documented histories of prior ground cracking, indicating that they are particularly susceptible to such triggered deformation.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A. R. Ramelli, C.M. DePolo, J. C. Yount. 2003. Ground cracks associated with the 1994 double spring flat earthquake, west-central Nevada. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020177

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

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↗
USGS2026

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↗