Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Seismological Research Letteres”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
USGS2002

The Commerce geophysical lineament and its possible relation to Mesoproterozoic igneous complexes and large earthquakes in the central Illinois Basin

New inversions of existing magnetic and gravity data lead to insights on upper crustal structures in the central Illinois basin. The results of 2D and 3D inversion techniques suggest that the source of the Commerce geophysical lineament follows the southeast boundary of a dense and magnetic, northeast-trending igneous center, named the Vincennes igneous center. Thus the Commerce geophysical lineament, defining the 5- to 10-km-wide Commerce deformation zone, appears to have influenced the structural development of the Vincennes igneous center. Overlying this igneous center is the Centralia seismic-reflection sequence, expressed as highly coherent reflectors ( McBride and Kolata, 1999 ). We suggest that the buried Vincennes igneous center is the source of inferred volcanic units of the Centralia sequence and is related to a rifted margin or a Proterozoic plate boundary. A comparison of gravity and magnetic fields over the Vincennes igneous center and the St. Francois Mountains igneous center in southeastern Missouri suggests that the associated sources in these regions are similar in composition and perhaps origin. Such a conclusion, although speculative, suggests that ∼1.47 Ga-year-old volcanic fields of high-silica rocks, with more abundant mafic components at depth, characterize basement in the regions of the Vincennes igneous center and the St. Francois Mountains. Further, we conclude that the Commerce deformation zone evolved in the Mesoproterozoic (1.1 to 1.5 Ga) as a major cratonic rheological boundary and was the focus of episodic reactivation related to varying stress regimes throughout its history. Spatial relations of the Commerce deformation zone with large Pleistocene and Holocene earthquakes suggest that the zone represents a major rheological boundary intimately related to both surface and deep structures and to the seismic hazard of the Illinois basin region. Assuming recent right-lateral slip along the Commerce deformation zone, we propose that a jog or left step in the Vincennes area leads to thrusting or a restraining bend, where associated stress accumulations may have resulted in nearby large prehistoric earthquakes and may also be the nucleation sites of future large earthquakes.

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky↗
USGS2002

Interpreting the earthquake source of the Wabash Valley seismic zone (Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky) from seismic-reflection, gravity, and magnetic-intensity data

Reprocessing of seismic-reflection data reveals new images of upper- to middle-crustal structures beneath the Wabash Valley seismic zone, located north of the New Madrid seismic zone within the seismically active southern Illinois basin. Four intersecting deep seismic profiles (243 km total) indicate an anomalous, 5–10-km-wide zone of dipping reflections and diffractions below the western flank of the Wabash Valley fault system (WVFS). The zone corresponds in places to gently arched regions of Paleozoic strata. The reflector zone can be interpreted as a result of either (or a combination of) magmatic intrusion or structural deformation. The area encompassing the reflection profiles has experienced several moderate magnitude (3.0 ≤ m bLg ≤ 5.5) earthquakes during the past 50 years, defining the central part of the Wabash Valley seismic zone. The hypocenter of the largest 20th-century earthquake in the central USA midcontinent (9 November 1968, m bLg 5.5) corresponds to the most prominent zone of dipping middle-crustal reflections, just west of the WVFS. Both the focal mechanism (moderately dipping reverse fault) and the expected rupture zone size (∼2.9 km fault length) of this earthquake are consistent with the orientation and size of observed reflectors. Dipping reflector patterns in the Precambrian crust are not collinear with fault surfaces updip in the Paleozoic sedimentary section. This indicates that shallow Paleozoic structures are effectively “decoupled” from deeper, possibly seismogenic structure, which suggests that understanding Paleozoic structure is not the key to understanding the earthquake source. The complex dipping crustal reflectivity beneath the WVFS is typical of Paleozoic continental convergent zones observed elsewhere ( e.g. , Appalachian orogen) and thus may suggest a preserved Proterozoic suture, possibly associated with the distal Grenville orogeny or an older event. Although magnetic intensity, Bouguer gravity, and seismic-reflection data present different means of understanding the deep geology of the area, their integration aids in limiting the number of admissible interpretations. The reflection profiles indicate a variable zone of anomalous crustal structure, including the dipping reflector zone, along a trend of northeast-trending gravity and magnetic highs locally defining the Commerce geophysical lineament (CGL), which is a suspected source of seismic hazard in the central USA midcontinent. Three-dimensional inverse modeling of the residual isostatic gravity anomaly values indicates that the upper part of the dipping reflector zone beneath the CGL lies near an important density boundary in the upper Precambrian crust. The results of our study suggest that the seismogenic source just north of the New Madrid seismic zone consists, in part, of a pre-existing fabric of blind thrusts localized along pre-existing igneous intrusions, locally coincident with the CGL. This suggests that the CGL may be seismogenic in places and thus a potential seismic hazard. The variation in the expression of the CGL using reflection and potential-field data sets is probably partly related to the differing geologic features by which it is expressed, but would be also consistent with its reactivation numerous times under varying stress regimes.

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky↗
USGS2003

The nature of earthquake prediction

Earthquake prediction is inherently statistical. Although some people continue to think of earthquake prediction as the specification of the time, place, and magnitude of a future earthquake, it has been clear for at least two decades that this is an unrealistic and unreasonable definition. The reality is that earthquake prediction starts from long-term forecasts of place and magnitude, with very approximate time constraints, and progresses, at least in principle, to a gradual narrowing of the time window as data and understanding permit. The analogy to catching a rabbit in an overgrown confined field may be appropriate. You do not just start out looking for the rabbit, you instead build a fence dividing the field in two and then decide which half the rabbit is in, thereby gaining one bit of information. You iterate this process until you have located the rabbit “close enough for practical purposes.” This is approximately how earthquake prediction proceeds in the real world, with time and position along a fault comprising the two dimensions of the search. (I assume here that we are considering for the moment only large earthquakes, that is those capable of inflicting serious damage on a regional scale; in California this means events of about M 6.7 and larger.) This more realistic perspective on the problem lays to rest the “red herring” that “earthquake predictions might do more harm than earthquakes.” These imaginary concerns are predicated on the fantasy of a prediction that precisely specifies time, place, and magnitude; in the real world a progression of probabilities that narrows the space-time window in small steps clearly carries no such threat.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2004

Preliminary report on the 22 December 2003, M 6.5 San Simeon, California earthquake

The M w 6.5 San Simeon earthquake struck the central California coast on 22 December 2003 at 19:15:56 UTC (11:15:56 am local time.) The epicenter was located 11 km northeast of the town of San Simeon, and 39 km west-northwest of Paso Robles ( Figure 1 ), as reported by the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN, the California region of the Advanced National Seismic System [ANSS]). The mainshock nucleated at 35.702°N, 121.108°W and a depth of 7.1 km, and the rupture propagated unilaterally to the southeast. The strong directivity of the rupture resulted in a concentration of damage and aftershock activity to the southeast of the hypocenter. The worst earthquake damage occurred in Paso Robles, where two people died in the collapse of an unreinforced masonry building. The accurate and rapid earthquake information provided in near real-time by CISN/ANSS to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services made it possible to focus emergency response in the source area, although the earthquake was felt from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a reverse fault striking northwest and most likely dipping to the northeast. Although motion along the Pacific-North America plate boundary in California is dominantly strike-slip, there is a small compressional component through central California. Repeated thrust earthquakes such as the San Simeon event accommodate this compression and build the Coast Ranges. Other recent thrust earthquakes in central California include the 1983 Coalinga (M 6.4) and the 1985 Kettleman Hills (M 6.0) earthquakes. Prior earthquakes in the vicinity of the San Simeon event include a M 5-6 earthquake in 1853, a M 5.7 earthquake in 1906, and the M L 6.2 Bryson earthquake of 1952 ( Figure 1 ) ( McLaren and Savage, 2001 .) The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a previously unknown blind thrust fault. No surface rupture associated with the earthquake has been identified. A number of roads, including State Highway 46, buckled due to the earthquake, but this deformation appears mainly to be failure of road fill due to ground shaking and not the result of tectonic surface rupture. Extrapolation of the fault plane to the surface would roughly align with the surface trace of the Oceanic Fault, but this is thought to be a vertical strike-slip fault. Two models for the kinematics of the region have previously been proposed. The first is a fault-propagation fold model developed by Namson and Davis ( 1990 ) for the Santa Lucia mountains ∼30 km to the southeast of the San Simeon sequence. The mainshock geometry is similar to, although more steeply dipping than, the main blind thrust of this model, implying that this model may be applicable to the San Simeon region as well. The second is the model of McLaren and Savage ( 2001 ), in which the region is dominated by strike-slip faulting with shortening on high-angle reverse faults. This model also may be applicable, although the dip of the San Simeon mainshock is shallower than predicted. The San Simeon earthquake was followed by a vigorous aftershock sequence, with 165 events above M 3 reported by CISN within the first week of the mainshock. Although the event triggered many aftershocks, it did not significantly impact the seismicity rates of other nearby faults such as the San Andreas Fault and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone. The only triggered seismicity seems to be a few small events within the mainshock coda at the Geysers geothermal area, north of San Francisco. The San Simeon earthquake did, however, trigger shallow creep on the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield and hydrologic changes in hot springs in Paso Robles.

California↗
USGS2004

Geotechnical characterization of TriNet sites: A status report

The TriNet project, launched in 1997, created an improved, real-time seismic monitoring network in Southern California. Planning of the network began in 1995 ( e.g. , Heaton et al. , 1996 ), building on the success of the earlier TERRAscope network, which included 24 digital broadband and strong-motion instruments throughout Southern California ( e.g. , Kanamori et al. , 1993 ). At the end of the five-year TriNet project the network comprised 150 real-time digital broadband stations and another 400 strong-motion sensors, 50 of which were also real-time. This network is now recording digital broadband data for Southern California earthquakes at an unprecedented rate, data that are already proving valuable for investigations of earthquake sources and regional wave propagation, as well as earthquake response. In this report we describe an ongoing effort aimed at a full geotechnical characterization of the newly installed TriNet sets. Shallow geologic structure is known to play a substantial role in controlling the ground motions recorded at any site. Documentation of amplified ground motion at soft-sediment sites can be found among even early macroseismic observations of strong ground motions ( e.g. , Drake, 1815 ). Seismic waves are also now known to be strongly affected by deep basin structure as well ( e.g. , Frankel et al. , 1991 ; Field, 2000 ; Joyner, 2000 ). It will be necessary to understand these effects to exploit fully the rich data set being recorded at TriNet sites. Clearly, the nature of site conditions and site response at the recording sites must be understood for studies focused on ground motions and hazard from future large earthquakes, but it is also necessary to understand these effects to conduct earthquake source studies of both large and small earthquakes. Our multifaceted site characterization project involves geological/geotechnical site investigations, database development, and investigation of empirical amplification factors determined from broadband and strong-motion data recorded to date. Our goal is to complete a first-order geologic site characterization by 2005 and then employ appropriate methods to obtain direct constraint on shallow shear-wave velocity structure at each site. In the latter effort we will endeavor to find the most accurate and cost-effective methods to quantify geotechnical parameters at sites that have ranges of geologic site conditions and cultural settings. Our long-term goal is to obtain direct estimates of the average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m, Vs30, at each site. If velocity information is available to greater depths, for example at sites characterized under the ROSRINE project ( http://geoinfo.usc.edu/rosrine/ ), this information will be included in the database as well. The original motivation for using Vs30 to characterize near-surface velocity was pragmatic, determined by such factors as the typical reach of a drill rig in a single day. The parameter has become the accepted standard with which many seismic recording sites are characterized, however. In a recent study using mainshock and aftershock recordings at sites in the Los Angeles region, Wald and Mori ( 2000 ) observed good correlation between Vs30 and amplification at 1-7 Hz, albeit with significant scatter. The purpose of this report is threefold. First, we describe our ongoing efforts and present site characterization results collected to date for 62 broadband and strong-motion stations in and around the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region. Second, we present preliminary results that illustrate how improved geologic site characterizations can improve the correlation between site conditions and site response. Finally, we invite feedback from the community to guide our future investigations, in particular with respect to our ongoing database development efforts.

California↗
USGS2005

Preliminary report on the 28 September 2004, M 6.0 Parkfield, California earthquake

The M w 6.0 Parkfield earthquake struck central California at 17:15:14 UTC on 28 September 2004. The epicenter was located 11 km southeast of the rural town of Parkfield, adjacent to Gold Hill and on the San Andreas Fault ( Figure 1 ). The California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) reported that the hypocenter was located at 35.819°N, 120.364°W at a depth of 8.8 km. From the distribution of aftershocks and from models of seismograms, strain changes, and geodetic displacements from the earthquake, it appears that the rupture propagated to the northwest along the San Andreas Fault from its hypocenter beneath Gold Hill to Middle Mountain. Because of the earthquake's moderate size and the low population density, only minimal damage was reported, but strong ground motions of approximately 1 g were recorded at a few isolated points (Shakal et al. , 2005, this issue).

California↗
USGS2005

Remotely triggered earthquakes following moderate mainshocks (or, why California is not falling into the ocean)

On several occasions in recent memory California has experienced apparent clusters of earthquake activity that are too far apart to be considered related according to a classic taxonomy that includes foreshocks, mainshocks, and aftershocks. During a week-long period in July 1986, California experienced the M 6.0 North Palm Springs earthquake, the M 5.5 Oceanside earthquake, and a swarm of smaller events beneath San Diego Bay. The recent M 6.0 Parkfield earthquake was followed approximately 30 hours later by the M 5.0 Arvin event, which was located well outside the traditional aftershock zone for a M 6.0 mainshock. These periods of apparently heightened activity lead to understandable consternation among California residents, who wonder if activity will build further. The recent, memorably dramatic television mini-series, 10.5, was based on what might be considered an end-member doomsday scenario, culminating in a large part of California literally falling into the ocean. While the public did seem to recognize the gross liberties that were taken with science in this movie, old myths die hard, and seismicity maps showing activity in different parts the state are not reassuring. Neither is what used to be conventional wisdom on the part of the experts, that far-flung earthquakes are not related (even though this might remain a possibility).

California↗
USGS2005

Wagon loads of sand blows in White County, Illinois

Several anecdotal accounts provide compelling evidence that liquefaction occurred at several sites in Illinois during the 1811-1812 New Madrid sequence, as much as 250 km north of the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ). At one Wabash Valley location, sand blows are still evident near Big Prairie, Illinois, a location described in a particularly detailed and precise historic account. This account includes descriptions of substantial liquefaction (sand blows) as well as a two-mile-long east-west-trending “crack” along which two feet of south-side-down displacement occurred. An offset can no longer be seen at this location, which has been extensively farmed and plowed for decades. Field reconnaissance verifies many of the details provided in the account, however. We conducted a seismic-reflection experiment at this location and observed a modest offset in the Paleozoic strata at this location. The offset is opposite to that described in the historic account, consistent with the hypothesis that large midcontinent earthquakes occur on faults reactivated in a Holocene stress regime different from the one in which they were formed. Only two explanations can account for these observations: Either large NMSZ events triggered substantial liquefaction at distances greater than hitherto realized, or at least one large “New Madrid” event occurred significantly north of the NMSZ. We explore these possibilities and conclude that, while neither one can be ruled out, several disparate lines of evidence suggest that the 23 January 1812 “New Madrid mainshock” occurred in White County, Illinois, near the location of the m b 5.5 1968 southern Illinois earthquake and recent microearthquake activity.

Illinois↗
USGS2005

Revised magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash Valley seismic zone of the central United States

Seismic hazard assessment in the central United States, and in particular the Wabash Valley seismic zone of Indiana-Illinois, frequently relies on empirical estimates of paleoearthquake magnitudes ( M ). In large part these estimates have been made using the magnitude-bound method. Existing region-specific magnitude-bound relations rely heavily on only a few historical earthquakes in the central United States and eastern Canada that induced reported liquefaction features. Recent seismological studies have suggested smaller magnitudes than previously presumed for some of these earthquakes, however, and other studies have reinterpreted site-to-source distances to liquefaction features associated with some of these earthquakes. In this paper, we re-examine historical earthquakes ( M > ∼5) that occurred in the central and eastern United States and eastern Canada; some of these earthquakes triggered liquefaction and others did not. Based on our findings, we reinterpret the region-specific magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash Valley. Using this revised magnitude-bound relation, we present magnitude estimates for four prehistoric earthquakes that occurred in the Wabash Valley seismic zone during Holocene time.

Illinois, Indiana↗
USGS2007

Earthquake likelihood model testing

INTRODUCTION The Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) project aims to produce and evaluate alternate models of earthquake potential (probability per unit volume, magnitude, and time) for California. Based on differing assumptions, these models are produced to test the validity of their assumptions and to explore which models should be incorporated in seismic hazard and risk evaluation. Tests based on physical and geological criteria are useful but we focus on statistical methods using future earthquake catalog data only. We envision two evaluations: a test of consistency with observed data and a comparison of all pairs of models for relative consistency. Both tests are based on the likelihood method, and both are fully prospective ( i.e. , the models are not adjusted to fit the test data). To be tested, each model must assign a probability to any possible event within a specified region of space, time, and magnitude. For our tests the models must use a common format: earthquake rates in specified “bins” with location, magnitude, time, and focal mechanism limits. Seismology cannot yet deterministically predict individual earthquakes; however, it should seek the best possible models for forecasting earthquake occurrence. This paper describes the statistical rules of an experiment to examine and test earthquake forecasts. The primary purposes of the tests described below are to evaluate physical models for earthquakes, assure that source models used in seismic hazard and risk studies are consistent with earthquake data, and provide quantitative measures by which models can be assigned weights in a consensus model or be judged as suitable for particular regions. In this paper we develop a statistical method for testing earthquake likelihood models. A companion paper ( Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger 2007 , this issue) discusses the actual implementation of these tests in the framework of the RELM initiative. Statistical testing of hypotheses is a common task and a wide range of possible testing procedures exist. Jolliffe and Stephenson ( 2003 ) present different forecast verifications from atmospheric science, among them likelihood testing of probability forecasts and testing the occurrence of binary events. Testing binary events requires that for each forecasted event, the spatial, temporal and magnitude limits be given. Although major earthquakes can be considered binary events, the models within the RELM project express their forecasts on a spatial grid and in 0.1 magnitude units; thus the results are a distribution of rates over space and magnitude. These forecasts can be tested with likelihood tests. In general, likelihood tests assume a valid null hypothesis against which a given hypothesis is tested. The outcome is either a rejection of the null hypothesis in favor of the test hypothesis or a nonrejection, meaning the test hypothesis cannot outperform the null hypothesis at a given significance level. Within RELM, there is no accepted null hypothesis and thus the likelihood test needs to be expanded to allow comparable testing of equipollent hypotheses. To test models against one another, we require that forecasts are expressed in a standard format: the average rate of earthquake occurrence within pre-specified limits of hypocentral latitude, longitude, depth, magnitude, time period, and focal mechanisms. Focal mechanisms should either be described as the inclination of P -axis, declination of P -axis, and inclination of the T -axis, or as strike, dip, and rake angles. Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger ( 2007 , this issue) designed classes of these parameters such that similar models will be tested against each other. These classes make the forecasts comparable between models. Additionally, we are limited to testing only what is precisely defined and consistently reported in earthquake catalogs. Therefore it is currently not possible to test such information as fault rupture length or area, asperity location, etc. Also, to account for data quality issues, we allow for location and magnitude uncertainties as well as the probability that an event is dependent on another event. As we mentioned above, only models with comparable forecasts can be tested against each other. Our current tests are designed to examine grid-based models. This requires that any fault-based model be adapted to a grid before testing is possible. While this is a limitation of the testing, it is an inherent difficulty in any such comparative testing. Please refer to appendix B for a statistical evaluation of the application of the Poisson hypothesis to fault-based models. The testing suite we present consists of three different tests: L-Test, N-Test, and R-Test. These tests are defined similarily to Kagan and Jackson ( 1995 ). The first two tests examine the consistency of the hypotheses with the observations while the last test compares the spatial performances of the models.

Seismological Research Letters↗