Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70028004

Liquefaction at Oceano, California, during the 2003 San Simeon earthquake

Abstract

The 2003 M 6.5 San Simeon, California, earthquake caused liquefaction-induced lateral spreading at Oceano at an unexpectedly large distance from the seismogenic rupture. We conclude that the liquefaction was caused by ground motion that was enhanced by both rupture directivity in the mainshock and local site amplification by unconsolidated fine-grained deposits. Liquefaction occurred in sandy artificial fill and undisturbed eolian sand and fluvial deposits. The largest and most damaging lateral spread was caused by liquefaction of artificial fill; the head of this lateral spread coincided with the boundary between the artificial fill and undisturbed eolian sand deposits. Values of the liquefaction potential index, in general, were greater than 5 at liquefaction sites, the threshold value that has been proposed for liquefaction hazard mapping. Although the mainshock ground motion at Oceano was not recorded, peak ground acceleration was estimated to range from 0.25 and 0.28g on the basis of the liquefaction potential index and aftershock recordings. The estimates fall within the range of peak ground acceleration values associated with the modified Mercalli intensity = VII reported at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) "Did You Feel It?" web site.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T.L. Holzer, T.E. Noce, M.J. Bennett, J. C. Tinsley, L.I. Rosenberg. 2005. Liquefaction at Oceano, California, during the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050078

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↗