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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2016

Demonstration of the Cascadia G‐FAST geodetic earthquake early warning system for the Nisqually, Washington, earthquake

A prototype earthquake early warning (EEW) system is currently in development in the Pacific Northwest. We have taken a two‐stage approach to EEW: (1) detection and initial characterization using strong‐motion data with the Earthquake Alarm Systems (ElarmS) seismic early warning package and (2) the triggering of geodetic modeling modules using Global Navigation Satellite Systems data that help provide robust estimates of large‐magnitude earthquakes. In this article we demonstrate the performance of the latter, the Geodetic First Approximation of Size and Time (G‐FAST) geodetic early warning system, using simulated displacements for the 2001 M w 6.8 Nisqually earthquake. We test the timing and performance of the two G‐FAST source characterization modules, peak ground displacement scaling, and Centroid Moment Tensor‐driven finite‐fault‐slip modeling under ideal, latent, noisy, and incomplete data conditions. We show good agreement between source parameters computed by G‐FAST with previously published and postprocessed seismic and geodetic results for all test cases and modeling modules, and we discuss the challenges with integration into the U.S. Geological Survey’s ShakeAlert EEW system.

Washington↗
USGS2016

Afterslip behavior following the M6.0, 2014 South Napa earthquake with implications for afterslip forecasting on other seismogenic faults

The M6.0, 24 Aug. 2014 South Napa, California, earthquake exhibited unusually large slip for a California strike-slip event of its size with a maximum coseismic surface slip of 40-50 cm in the north section of the 15 km-long rupture. Although only minor (<10 cm) surface slip occurred coseismically in the southern 9-km section of the rupture, there was considerable postseismic slip, so that the maximum total slip one year after the event approached 40-50 cm, about equal to the coseismic maximum in the north. We measured the accumulation of postseismic surface slip on four, ~100-m-long alignment arrays for one year following the event. Because prolonged afterslip can delay reconstruction of fault-damaged buildings and infrastructure, we analyzed its gradual decay to estimate when significant afterslip would likely end. This forecasting of Napa afterslip suggests how we might approach the scientific and engineering challenges of afterslip from a much larger M~7 earthquake anticipated on the nearby, urban Hayward Fault. However, we expect its afterslip to last much longer than one year.The M6.0, 24 Aug. 2014 South Napa, California, earthquake exhibited unusually large slip for a California strike-slip event of its size with a maximum coseismic surface slip of 40-50 cm in the north section of the 15 km-long rupture. Although only minor (<10 cm) surface slip occurred coseismically in the southern 9-km section of the rupture, there was considerable postseismic slip, so that the maximum total slip one year after the event approached 40-50 cm, about equal to the coseismic maximum in the north. We measured the accumulation of postseismic surface slip on four, ~100-m-long alignment arrays for one year following the event. Because prolonged afterslip can delay reconstruction of fault-damaged buildings and infrastructure, we analyzed its gradual decay to estimate when significant afterslip would likely end. This forecasting of Napa afterslip suggests how we might approach the scientific and engineering challenges of afterslip from a much larger M~7 earthquake anticipated on the nearby, urban Hayward Fault. However, we expect its afterslip to last much longer than one year.

California↗
USGS2016

Rapid response, monitoring, and mitigation of induced seismicity near Greeley, Colorado

On 1 June 2014 (03:35 UTC), an M w 3.2 earthquake occurred in Weld County, Colorado, a historically aseismic area of the Denver–Julesburg basin. Weld County is a prominent area of oil and gas development, including many high‐rate class II wastewater injection wells. In the days following the earthquake, the University of Colorado, with support from the U.S. Geological Survey and Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology–Portable Array Seismic Studies of the Continental Lithosphere, rapidly deployed six seismic stations to characterize the seismicity associated with the 1 June earthquake (the Greeley sequence) and to investigate its possible connection to wastewater disposal. The spatial and temporal proximity of earthquakes to a high‐rate wastewater disposal well strongly suggests these earthquakes were induced. Scientific communication between the university, state agencies, and the energy industry led to rapid mitigation strategies to reduce the occurrence of further earthquakes. Mitigation efforts included implementing a temporary moratorium on injection at the well, cementing the bottom portion of the disposal well to minimize hydrologic connectivity between the disposal formation and the underlying crystalline basement, and subsequently allowing injection to resume at lower rates. Following the resumption of wastewater disposal, microseismicity was closely monitored for both increases in earthquake rate and magnitude. Following mitigation efforts, between 13 August 2014 and 29 December 2015, no earthquakes larger than M 1.5 occurred near the Greeley sequence. This study demonstrates that a detailed and rapid characterization of a seismic sequence in space and time relative to disposal, combined with collaboration and communication between scientists, regulators, and industry, can lead to objective and actionable mitigation efforts that potentially reduced the rate of earthquakes and the possible generation of larger earthquakes.

Colorado↗
USGS2016

PhasePApy: A robust pure Python package for automatic identification of seismic phases

We developed a Python phase identification package: the PhasePApy for earthquake data processing and near‐real‐time monitoring. The package takes advantage of the growing number of Python libraries including Obspy. All the data formats supported by Obspy can be supported within the PhasePApy. The PhasePApy has two subpackages: the PhasePicker and the Associator, aiming to identify phase arrival onsets and associate them to phase types, respectively. The PhasePicker and the Associator can work jointly or separately. Three autopickers are implemented in the PhasePicker subpackage: the frequency‐band picker, the Akaike information criteria function derivative picker, and the kurtosis picker. All three autopickers identify picks with the same processing methods but different characteristic functions. The PhasePicker triggers the pick with a dynamic threshold and can declare a pick with false‐pick filtering. Also, the PhasePicker identifies a pick polarity and uncertainty for further seismological analysis, such as focal mechanism determination. Two associators are included in the Associator subpackage: the 1D Associator and 3D Associator, which assign phase types to picks that can best fit potential earthquakes by minimizing root mean square (rms) residuals of the misfits in distance and time, respectively. The Associator processes multiple picks from all channels at a seismic station and aggregates them to increase computational efficiencies. Both associators use travel‐time look up tables to determine the best estimation of the earthquake location and evaluate the phase type for picks. The PhasePApy package has been used extensively for local and regional earthquakes and can work for active source experiments as well.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

The 2015 Fillmore earthquake swarm and possible crustal deformation mechanisms near the bottom of the eastern Ventura Basin, California

The 2015 Fillmore swarm occurred about 6 km west of the city of Fillmore in Ventura, California, and was located beneath the eastern part of the actively subsiding Ventura basin at depths from 11.8 to 13.8 km, similar to two previous swarms in the area. Template‐matching event detection showed that it started on 5 July 2015 at 2:21 UTC with an M ∼1.0 earthquake. The swarm exhibited unusual episodic spatial and temporal migrations and unusual diversity in the nodal planes of the focal mechanisms as compared to the simple hypocenter‐defined plane. It was also noteworthy because it consisted of >1400 events of M ≥0.0, with M 2.8 being the largest event. We suggest that fluids released by metamorphic dehydration processes, migration of fluids along a detachment zone, and cascading asperity failures caused this prolific earthquake swarm, but other mechanisms (such as simple mainshock–aftershock stress triggering or a regional aseismic creep event) are less likely. Dilatant strengthening may be a mechanism that causes the temporal decay of the swarm as pore‐pressure drop increased the effective normal stress, and counteracted the instability driving the swarm.

California↗
USGS2016

St. Louis area earthquake hazards mapping project; seismic and liquefaction hazard maps

We present probabilistic and deterministic seismic and liquefaction hazard maps for the densely populated St. Louis metropolitan area that account for the expected effects of surficial geology on earthquake ground shaking. Hazard calculations were based on a map grid of 0.005°, or about every 500 m, and are thus higher in resolution than any earlier studies. To estimate ground motions at the surface of the model (e.g., site amplification), we used a new detailed near‐surface shear‐wave velocity model in a 1D equivalent‐linear response analysis. When compared with the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model, which uses a uniform firm‐rock‐site condition, the new probabilistic seismic‐hazard estimates document much more variability. Hazard levels for upland sites (consisting of bedrock and weathered bedrock overlain by loess‐covered till and drift deposits), show up to twice the ground‐motion values for peak ground acceleration (PGA), and similar ground‐motion values for 1.0 s spectral acceleration (SA). Probabilistic ground‐motion levels for lowland alluvial floodplain sites (generally the 20–40‐m‐thick modern Mississippi and Missouri River floodplain deposits overlying bedrock) exhibit up to twice the ground‐motion levels for PGA, and up to three times the ground‐motion levels for 1.0 s SA. Liquefaction probability curves were developed from available standard penetration test data assuming typical lowland and upland water table levels. A simplified liquefaction hazard map was created from the 5%‐in‐50‐year probabilistic ground‐shaking model. The liquefaction hazard ranges from low (<40% of area expected to liquefy) in the uplands to severe (>60% of area expected to liquefy) in the lowlands. Because many transportation routes, power and gas transmission lines, and population centers exist in or on the highly susceptible lowland alluvium, these areas in the St. Louis region are at significant potential risk from seismically induced liquefaction and associated ground deformation

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentuc↗
USGS2016

Origins of a national seismic system in the United States

This historical review traces the origins of the current national seismic system in the United States, a cooperative effort that unifies national, regional, and local‐scale seismic monitoring within the structure of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). The review covers (1) the history and technological evolution of U.S. seismic networks leading up to the 1990s, (2) factors that made the 1960s and 1970s a watershed period for national attention to seismology, earthquake hazards, and seismic monitoring, (3) genesis of the vision of a national seismic system during 1980–1983, (4) obstacles and breakthroughs during 1984–1989, (5) consensus building and convergence during 1990–1992, and finally (6) the two‐step realization of a national system during 1993–2000. Particular importance is placed on developments during the period between 1980 and 1993 that culminated in the adoption of a charter for the Council of the National Seismic System (CNSS)—the foundation for the later ANSS. Central to this story is how many individuals worked together toward a common goal of a more rational and sustainable approach to national earthquake monitoring in the United States. The review ends with the emergence of ANSS during 1999 and 2000 and its statutory authorization by Congress in November 2000.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Reply to “Comment on ‘Ground motions from the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake constrained by a detailed assessment of macroseismic data’ by Stacey S. Martin, Susan E. Hough, and Charleen Hung” by Andrea Tertulliani, Laura Graziani, Corrado Castellano, Alessandra Maramai, and Antonio Rossi

We thank Andrea Tertulliani and his colleagues for their interest in our article on the 2015 Gorkha earthquake (Martin, Hough, et al., 2015), and for their comments pertaining to our study (Tertulliani et al., 2016). Indeed, as they note, a comprehensive assessment of macroseismic effects for an earthquake with far‐reaching effects as that of Gorkha is not only critically important but is also an extremely difficult undertaking. In the absence of a widely known web‐based system, employing a well‐calibrated algorithm with which to collect and systematically assess macroseismic information (e.g., Wald et al., 1999; Coppola et al., 2010; Bossu et al., 2015) in the Indian subcontinent, one is left with two approaches to characterize effects of an event such as the Gorkha earthquake: a comprehensive ground‐based survey such as the one undertaken in India following the 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Pande and Kayal, 2003), or an assessment such as Martin, Hough, et al. (2015) akin to other contemporary studies (e.g., Nuttli, 1973; Sieh, 1978; Meltzner and Wald, 1998; Martin and Szeliga, 2010; Ambraseys and Bilham, 2012; Mahajan et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2013; Hough and Martin, 2015; Martin and Hough, 2015; Martin, Bradley, et al., 2015; Ribeiro et al., 2015), based primarily upon media reports and other available documentary accounts.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Seismic‐hazard forecast for 2016 including induced and natural earthquakes in the central and eastern United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a one‐year (2016) probabilistic seismic‐hazard assessment for the central and eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes that are constructed with probabilistic methods using alternative data and inputs. This hazard assessment builds on our 2016 final model ( Petersen et al. , 2016 ) by adding sensitivity studies, illustrating hazard in new ways, incorporating new population data, and discussing potential improvements. The model considers short‐term seismic activity rates (primarily 2014–2015) and assumes that the activity rates will remain stationary over short time intervals. The final model considers different ways of categorizing induced and natural earthquakes by incorporating two equally weighted earthquake rate submodels that are composed of alternative earthquake inputs for catalog duration, smoothing parameters, maximum magnitudes, and ground‐motion models. These alternatives represent uncertainties on how we calculate earthquake occurrence and the diversity of opinion within the science community. In this article, we also test sensitivity to the minimum moment magnitude between M 4 and M 4.7 and the choice of applying a declustered catalog with b =1.0 rather than the full catalog with b =1.3. We incorporate two earthquake rate submodels: in the informed submodel we classify earthquakes as induced or natural, and in the adaptive submodel we do not differentiate. The alternative submodel hazard maps both depict high hazard and these are combined in the final model. Results depict several ground‐shaking measures as well as intensity and include maps showing a high‐hazard level (1% probability of exceedance in 1 year or greater). Ground motions reach 0.6 g horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and about 0.2 g PGA in the Raton basin of Colorado and New Mexico, in central Arkansas, and in north‐central Texas near Dallas–Fort Worth. The chance of having levels of ground motions corresponding to modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) VI or greater earthquake shaking is 2%–12% per year in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas and New Madrid similar to the chance of damage at sites in high‐hazard portions of California caused by natural earthquakes. Hazard is also significant in the Raton basin of Colorado/New Mexico; north‐central Arkansas; Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas; and in a few other areas. Hazard probabilities are much lower (by about half or more) for exceeding MMI VII or VIII. Hazard is 3‐ to 10‐fold higher near some areas of active‐induced earthquakes than in the 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), which did not consider induced earthquakes. This study in conjunction with the LandScan TM Database (2013) indicates that about 8 million people live in areas of active injection wells that have a greater than 1% chance of experiencing damaging ground shaking (MMI≥VI) in 2016. The final model has high uncertainty, and engineers, regulators, and industry should use these assessments cautiously to make informed decisions on mitigating the potential effects of induced and natural earthquakes.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Observations of seismicity and ground motion in the northeast U.S. Atlantic margin from ocean bottom seismometer data

Earthquake data from two short-period ocean-bottom seismometer (OBS) networks deployed for over a year on the continental slope off New York and southern New England were used to evaluate seismicity and ground motions along the continental margin. Our OBS networks located only one earthquake of M c ∼1.5 near the shelf edge during six months of recording, suggesting that seismic activity (M Lg >3.0) of the margin as far as 150–200 km offshore is probably successfully monitored by land stations without the need for OBS deployments. The spectral acceleration from two local earthquakes recorded by the OBS was found to be generally similar to the acceleration from these earthquakes recorded at several seismic stations on land and to hybrid empirical acceleration relationships for eastern North America. Therefore, the seismic attenuation used for eastern North America can be extended in this region at least to the continental slope. However, additional offshore studies are needed to verify these preliminary conclusions.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Annualized earthquake loss estimates for California and their sensitivity to site amplification

Input datasets for annualized earthquake loss (AEL) estimation for California were updated recently by the scientific community, and include the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), site‐response model, and estimates of shear‐wave velocity. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s loss estimation tool, Hazus, was updated to include the most recent census and economic exposure data. These enhancements necessitated a revisit to our previous AEL estimates and a study of the sensitivity of AEL estimates subjected to alternate inputs for site amplification. The NSHM ground motions for a uniform site condition are modified to account for the effect of local near‐surface geology. The site conditions are approximated in three ways: (1) by VS30 (time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity in the upper 30 m) value obtained from a geology‐ and topography‐based map consisting of 15 VS30 groups, (2) by site classes categorized according to National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classification, and (3) by a uniform NEHRP site class D. In case 1, ground motions are amplified using the Seyhan and Stewart (2014) semiempirical nonlinear amplification model. In cases 2 and 3, ground motions are amplified using the 2014 version of the NEHRP site amplification factors, which are also based on the Seyhan and Stewart model but are approximated to facilitate their use for building code applications. Estimated AELs are presented at multiple resolutions, starting with the state level assessment and followed by detailed assessments for counties, metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and cities. AEL estimate at the state level is ∼$3.7 billion, 70% of which is contributed from Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, and Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario MSAs. The statewide AEL estimate is insensitive to alternate assumptions of site amplification. However, we note significant differences in AEL estimates among the three sensitivity cases for smaller geographic units.

California↗
USGS2016

A rare moderate‐sized (Mw 4.9) earthquake in Kansas: Rupture process of the Milan, Kansas, earthquake of 12 November 2014 and its relationship to fluid injection

The largest recorded earthquake in Kansas occurred northeast of Milan on 12 November 2014 ( M w 4.9) in a region previously devoid of significant seismic activity. Applying multistation processing to data from local stations, we are able to detail the rupture process and rupture geometry of the mainshock, identify the causative fault plane, and delineate the expansion and extent of the subsequent seismic activity. The earthquake followed rapid increases of fluid injection by multiple wastewater injection wells in the vicinity of the fault. The source parameters and behavior of the Milan earthquake and foreshock–aftershock sequence are similar to characteristics of other earthquakes induced by wastewater injection into permeable formations overlying crystalline basement. This earthquake also provides an opportunity to test the empirical relation that uses felt area to estimate moment magnitude for historical earthquakes for Kansas.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Acquisition of a unique onshore/offshore geophysical and geochemical dataset in the Northern Malawi (Nyasa) Rift

The Study of Extension and maGmatism in Malawi aNd Tanzania (SEGMeNT) project acquired a comprehensive suite of geophysical and geochemical datasets across the northern Malawi (Nyasa) rift in the East Africa rift system. Onshore/offshore active and passive seismic data, long‐period and wideband magnetotelluric data, continuous Global Positioning System data, and geochemical samples were acquired between 2012 and 2016. This combination of data is intended to elucidate the sedimentary, crustal, and upper‐mantle architecture of the rift, patterns of active deformation, and the origin and age of rift‐related magmatism. A unique component of our program was the acquisition of seismic data in Lake Malawi, including seismic reflection, onshore/offshore wide‐angle seismic reflection/refraction, and broadband seismic data from lake‐bottom seismometers, a towed streamer, and a large towed air‐gun source.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Thumbnail‐based questionnaires for the rapid and efficient collection of macroseismic data from global earthquakes

The collection of earthquake testimonies (i.e., qualitative descriptions of felt shaking) is essential for macroseismic studies (i.e., studies gathering information on how strongly an earthquake was felt in different places), and when done rapidly and systematically, improves situational awareness and in turn can contribute to efficient emergency response. In this study, we present advances made in the collection of testimonies following earthquakes around the world using a thumbnail‐based questionnaire implemented on the European‐Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) smartphone app and its website compatible for mobile devices. In both instances, the questionnaire consists of a selection of thumbnails, each representing an intensity level of the European Macroseismic Scale 1998. We find that testimonies are collected faster, and in larger numbers, by way of thumbnail‐based questionnaires than by more traditional online questionnaires. Responses were received from all seismically active regions of our planet, suggesting that thumbnails overcome language barriers. We also observed that the app is not sufficient on its own, because the websites are the main source of testimonies when an earthquake strikes a region for the first time in a while; it is only for subsequent shocks that the app is widely used. Notably though, the speed of the collection of testimonies increases significantly when the app is used. We find that automated EMSC intensities as assigned by user‐specified thumbnails are, on average, well correlated with “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) responses and with the three independently and manually derived macroseismic datasets, but there is a tendency for EMSC to be biased low with respect to DYFI at moderate and large intensities. We address this by proposing a simple adjustment that will be verified in future earthquakes.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Preliminary assessment of a previously unknown fault zone beneath the Daytona Beach sand blow cluster near Marianna, Arkansas

We collected new high‐resolution P ‐wave seismic‐reflection data to explore for possible faults beneath a roughly linear cluster of early to mid‐Holocene earthquake‐induced sand blows to the south of Marianna, Arkansas. The Daytona Beach sand blow deposits are located in east‐central Arkansas about 75 km southwest of Memphis, Tennessee, and about 80 km south of the southwestern end of the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ). Previous studies of these sand blows indicate that they were produced between 10,500 and 5350 yr B.P. (before A.D. 1950). The sand blows are large and similar in size to those in the heart of the NMSZ produced by the 1811–1812 earthquakes. The seismic‐reflection profiles reveal a previously unknown zone of near‐vertical faults imaged in the 100–1100‐m depth range that are approximately coincident with a cluster of earthquake‐induced sand blows and a near‐linear surface lineament composed of air photo tonal anomalies. These interpreted faults are expressed as vertical discontinuities with the largest displacement fault showing about 40 m of west‐side‐up displacement at the top of the Paleozoic section at about 1100 m depth. There are about 20 m of folding on reflections within the Eocene strata at 400 m depth. Increasing fault displacement with depth suggests long‐term recurrent faulting. The imaged faults within the vicinity of the numerous sand blow features could be a causative earthquake source, although it does not rule out the possibility of other seismic sources nearby. These newly located faults add to a growing list of potentially active Pleistocene–Holocene faults discovered over the last two decades that are within the Mississippi embayment region but outside of the historical NMSZ.

Arkansas↗
USGS2017

A report on upgraded seismic monitoring stations in Myanmar: Station performance and site response

Myanmar is in a tectonically complex region between the eastern edge of the Himalayan collision zone and the northern end of the Sunda megathrust. Until recently, earthquake monitoring and research efforts have been hampered by a lack of modern instrumentation and communication infrastructure. In January 2016, a major upgrade of the Myanmar National Seismic Network (MNSN; network code MM) was undertaken to improve earthquake monitoring capability. We installed five permanent broadband and strong‐motion seismic stations and real‐time data telemetry using newly improved cellular networks. Data are telemetered to the MNSN hub in Nay Pyi Taw and archived at the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Data Management Center. We analyzed station noise characteristics and site response using noise and events recorded over the first six months of station operation. Background noise characteristics vary across the array, but indicate that the new stations are performing well. MM stations recorded more than 20 earthquakes of M ≥4.5 within Myanmar and its immediate surroundings, including an M 6.8 earthquake located northwest of Mandalay on 13 April 2016 and the M w 6.8 Chauk event on 24 August 2016. We use this new dataset to calculate horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratios, which provide a preliminary characterization of site response of the upgraded MM stations.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

Quaternary displacement rates on the Meeman‐Shelby fault and Joiner ridge horst, eastern Arkansas: Results from coring Mississippi River alluvium

This research used coring and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of displaced, deeply buried Quaternary alluvium to determine vertical displacement rates for the Meeman‐Shelby fault and the Joiner ridge horst, two structures in northeastern Arkansas that have no modern seismicity associated with them. We drilled continuous cores of the entire alluvial section in the hanging wall of each structure, performed detailed core descriptions and analyses, and obtained three OSL ages from each core. The Meeman‐Shelby fault core consists of 36 m of 4.3–5.2‐ka Holocene alluvium overlying 4 m of 14.3‐ka Kennett alluvium that in turn overlies the upper part of Eocene Claiborne Group sediments at a depth of 41 m. Seismic reflection indicates that the basal (Kennett) alluvium at the Meeman‐Shelby fault is displaced ∼28 m across the Meeman‐Shelby fault, which equates to a time‐averaged vertical displacement rate of 2 mm/yr within the last 14.3 ka. The Joiner ridge horst core consists, in descending order, of 11 m of 6.3‐ka Holocene alluvium, 14 m of 11.5‐ka Morehouse alluvium, a paleosol, 6 m of Kennett alluvium, and 4 m of 20.3‐ka Sikeston alluvium that in turn overlies the upper part of Eocene Claiborne Group sediments at a depth of 36 m. Lignite exploration drilling conducted in the 1970s indicates that basal (Sikeston) alluvium is displaced ∼20 m across the eastern bounding fault of the Joiner ridge horst, resulting in a time‐averaged vertical displacement rate of ∼1 mm/yr within the last 20.3 ka. These late Quaternary displacement rates are comparable to time‐averaged displacement rates of faults within the active New Madrid seismic zone.

Arkansas↗
USGS2017

Improving the Hawaiian seismic network for earthquake early warning

The motivation for earthquake early warning (EEW) is the fact that in many applications a few extra seconds of notice ahead of the about-imminent strong shaking can provide significant benefit. Reducing data latencies, accelerating processing times, and tuning seismic station distributions increase time available for warning. We assess the feasibility of EEW for Hawai‘i and examine how additional stations or upgrades to existing stations can improve warning times. We designed an objective method to identify the most efficient sites for improving an existing seismic network’s coverage, taking both seismic station distribution and seismic hazard into account. The choice of locations for new seismic station sites is informed by improvements in warning time, considering the distribution of seismic hazard and exposure. New sites that improve warning time from earthquakes that are most likely to generate significant ground motions are given preference. This technique may be applied to any seismically active region and target infrastructure in which seismic hazard is spatially defined. We demonstrate this method’s use on the Island of Hawai‘i, with focus on warnings to astronomical observatories on Mauna Kea and island population centers Hilo and Kailua-Kona. We identified 13 candidate sites for new sensors, telemetry upgrades, or new station installations that should provide an additional 1–4 s of warning for the most probable damaging earthquakes in southern Ka‘ū and northern offshore regions in which 2–14 s and <4 s of warning are currently estimated, respectively.

Seismological Research Letters↗