Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70026757

A study of possible ground-motion amplification at the Coyote Lake Dam, California

Abstract

The abutment site at the Coyote Lake Dam recorded an unusually large peak acceleration of 1.29g during the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake. Following this earthquake another strong-motion station was installed about 700 m downstream from the abutment station. We study all events (seven) recorded on these stations, using ratios of peak accelerations, spectral ratios, and particle motion polarization (using holograms) to investigate the relative ground motion at the two sites. We find that in all but one case the motion at the abutment site is larger than the downstream site over a broad frequency band. The polarizations are similar for the two sites for a given event, but can vary from one event to another. This suggests that the dam itself is not strongly influencing the records. Although we can be sure that the relative motion is usually larger at the abutment site, we cannot conclude that there is anomalous site amplification at the abutment site. The downstream site could have lower-than-usual near-surface amplifications. On the other hand, the geology near the abutment site is extremely complex and includes fault slivers, with rapid lateral changes in materials and presumably seismic velocities. For this reason alone, the abutment site should not be considered a normal free-field site.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D.M. Boore, V.M. Graizer, J. C. Tinsley, A.F. Shakal. 2004. A study of possible ground-motion amplification at the Coyote Lake Dam, California. https://doi.org/10.1785/012003144

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↗