Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70233980

An exact anelastic model for the free-surface reflection of P and S-I waves

Abstract

Exact anelastic solutions incorporating inhomogeneous waves are used to model numerically S -I and P waves incident on the free surface of a low-loss anelastic half-space. Anelastic free-surface reflection coefficients are computed for the volumetric strain and displacement components of inhomogeneous wave fields. For the problem of an incident homogeneous S -I wave in Pierre shale, the largest strain and displacement amplitudes for the reflected P wave occur at angles of incidence for which the particle motion for the reflected inhomogeneous P wave is elliptical (minor/major axis = 0.6), the specific absorption ( Q P −1 ) is greater (300 per cent) and the velocity is less (25 per cent) than those for a corresponding homogeneous P wave, the direction of phase propagation is not parallel to the free surface, and the amplitude of the wave shows a significant increase with depth (6 per cent in one wavelength). Energy reflection coefficients computed for this low-loss anelastic model show that energy flow due to interaction of the incident and reflected waves reach maxima (30 per cent of the incident energy) near large but nongrazing angles of incidence. For the problem of an incident homogeneous P wave in Pierre shale, the inhomogeneity of the reflected S wave is shown not to contribute to significant variations in wave field characteristics over those that would be expected for a homogeneous wave.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Roger D. Borcherdt, G. Glassmoyer. 1989-06-01. An exact anelastic model for the free-surface reflection of P and S-I waves. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0790030842

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↗