Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70027179

Evidence for liquefaction identified in peeled slices of Holocene deposits along the Lower Columbia River, Washington

Abstract

Peels made from 10 geoslices beneath a riverbank at Washington's Hunting Island, 45 km inland from the Pacific coast, aid in identifying sand that liquefied during prehistoric earthquakes of estimated magnitude 8-9 at the Cascadia subduction zone. Each slice was obtained by driving sheetpile and a shutter plate to depths of 6-8 m. The resulting sample, as long as 8 m, had a trapezoidal cross section 42-55 cm by 8 cm. The slicing created few artifacts other than bending and smearing at slice edges. Each slice is dominated by well-stratified sand and mud deposited by the tidal Columbia River. Nearly 90% of the sand is distinctly laminated. The sand contains mud beds as thick as 0.5 m and at least 20 m long, and it is capped by a mud bed that contains a buried soil that marks the 1700 Cascadia earthquake of estimated magnitude 9. Every slice intersected sills and dikes of fluidized sand, and many slices show folds and faults as well. Sills, which outnumber dikes, mostly follow and locally invade the undersides of mud beds. The mud beds probably impeded diffuse upward flow of water expelled from liquefied sand. Trapped beneath mud beds, this water flowed laterally, destroyed bedding by entraining (fluidizing) sand, and locally scoured the overlying mud. Horizontal zones of folded sand extend at least 10 or 20 m, and some contain low-angle faults. Many of the folds probably formed while sand was weakened by liquefaction. The low-angle faults may mark the soles of river-bottom slumps or lateral spreads. As many as four great Cascadia earthquakes in the past 2000 yr contributed to the intrusions, folds, and faults. This subsurface evidence for fluid escape and deformation casts doubt on maximum accelerations that were previously inferred from local absence of liquefaction features at the ground surface along the Columbia River. The geosliced evidence for liquefaction abounds not only beneath banks riddled with dikes but also beneath banks in which dikes are absent. Such dike-free banks of the Columbia River, if interpreted without study of postdepositional structures in deposits beneath them, provide insufficient basis for setting upper bounds on the strength of shaking from great Cascadia earthquakes.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 45.51789504294005° to 46.32796494040746° latitude; -124.0411376953125° to -121.9647216796875° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K. Takada, B.F. Atwater. 2004. Evidence for liquefaction identified in peeled slices of Holocene deposits along the Lower Columbia River, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020152

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↗