The April 18, 2008 Illinois earthquake: an ANSS monitoring success

Robert B. Herrmann; M. Withers; H. Benz

doi:10.1785/gssrl.79.6.830

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70033514

The April 18, 2008 Illinois earthquake: an ANSS monitoring success

Robert B. Herrmann·M. Withers·H. Benz

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The largest-magnitude earthquake in the past 20 years struck near Mt. Carmel in southeastern Illinois on Friday morning, 18 April 2008 at 09:36:59 UTC (04:37 CDT). The Mw 5.2 earthquake was felt over an area that spanned Chicago and Atlanta, with about 40,000 reports submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” system. There were at least six felt aftershocks greater than magnitude 3 and 20 aftershocks with magnitudes greater than 2 located by regional and national seismic networks. Portable instrumentation was deployed by researchers of the University of Memphis and Indiana University (the first portable station was installed at about 23:00 UTC on 18 April). The portable seismographs were deployed both to capture near-source, high-frequency ground motions for significant aftershocks and to better understand structure along the active fault. The previous similar-size earthquake within the Wabash Valley seismic zone (WVSZ) of southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana was a magnitude 5.0 in June 1987. The seismicity associated with the WVSZ is thought to occur in a complex horst and graben system of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic units at depths between 12 and 20 km. Paleoliquefaction evidence suggests several major shaking events have occurred within the past 12,000 years (Munson et al. 1997).

Explore related subjects

Seismological Research Letters Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 37° to 42.5° latitude; -91.5° to -87.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Robert B. Herrmann, M. Withers, H. Benz. 2008. The April 18, 2008 Illinois earthquake: an ANSS monitoring success. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.79.6.830

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2026

Global seasonal microseism intensity and hemispheric asymmetry

Earth’s microseism wavefield dominates seismic background levels at periods between approximately 4 and 20 s, and reflects periodic and secular variations in ocean swell energy. Ocean wave energy couples to the seismic wavefield via distinct primary microseism and secondary microseism (PM and SM) source mechanisms, which are excited by basal swell tractions and seafloor pressure variations due to crossing seas, respectively. This study examines annual amplitude variations for the globally dominant PM (14–20 s) and SM (4–10 s) period bands. Annual harmonic variations are represented by four‐term Fourier series fits to vertical‐component seasonally smoothed acceleration time series from 73 stations in the Global Seismographic and GEOSCOPE networks with over 20 yr of recording and at least 75% data completeness. These annual periodic functions fit between 14%–95% (PM) and 22%–97% (SM) of signal variance. Station annual peak‐to‐peak variations range between 1.2–14.3 dB (PM) and 1.5–20.6 dB (SM). An asymmetry in microseism features exists between the Northern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. High‐latitude NH stations show highly correlated PM and SM annual amplitude variations. This character dominates the wider extratropical NH but diminishes at tropical latitudes, and widespread relative PM–SM decorrelation is observed in the SH. These hemispheric characteristics reflect systematic differences in both extratropical storm activity and ocean wave state. Greater annual variation and seasonal predictability in the NH reflect the influence of the large continental landmasses that enhance both storm intensity seasonality and SM‐generating coastal wave reflection. Notable clusters of low PM–SM correlation stations are also observed in continental Antarctica due to seasonal sea ice influences, and in East Asia, reflecting unusual PM and SM source responses to South Asian monsoonal and tropical cyclone ocean wave influences.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters↗