SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Geological Society of America Bulletin”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

839 records · Page 47Linked to original sources

USGS2025

Near-surface material and topography generate anomalous high-frequency ground motion amplification in Chugiak, Alaska

An ∼3 km long nodal array oriented approximately east–west was deployed in Chugiak, Alaska, by the U.S. Geological Survey during 2021. The array intersects with the permanent NetQuakes station NP.ARTY, where peak ground acceleration (PGA) value of 1.98 g was recorded during the 2018 M w 7.1 Anchorage, Alaska, earthquake, in sharp contrast to the PGA of ∼0.3 g at a site just 4 km to the west. Seismic data for M w 1.8–4.3 aftershocks from the M w 7.1 event recorded by the nodal array confirm the anomalously large ground motions obtained at NP.ARTY as well as similar amplifications at nodes within ∼1 km to the east. Here, we performed 0–10 Hz 3D finite‐difference simulations, including high‐resolution surface topography, to explore the cause of the unexpectedly large amplification. As expected, the simulations computed with a regional 3D tomography velocity model severely underpredict the 0–10 Hz acceleration records at almost all sites. Adding a near‐surface low‐velocity taper to 300 m depth amplifies the accelerations by up to a factor of 5 and enables a reasonable match between the nodal data and simulations at sites to the west of NP.ARTY. However, this model still underpredicts the spectral energy in the area covered by glacial sediments by up to an order of magnitude. The addition of a till layer using a depth‐dependent shear‐wave velocity ( ⁠⁠ V s ) profile along with a homogeneous, 8 m thick low‐velocity layer with V s = 250 m/s representing the kame terraces improves the fit to data to within a factor of 2 at nodes located on top of the glacial sediments. Our study shows that the anomalously large high‐frequency amplification recorded at and near NP.ARTY can be explained by a combination of topographic effects and near‐surface low‐velocity material with amplification effects on the high‐frequency ground motion by up to about 40% and an order of magnitude, respectively.

Alaska↗

USGS2018

Evaluation of ground motion models for USGS seismic hazard forecasts: Induced and tectonic earthquakes in the Central and Eastern U.S.

Ground motion model (GMM) selection and weighting introduces a significant source of uncertainty in United States Geological Survey (USGS) seismic hazard models. The increase in moderate moment magnitude induced earthquakes (Mw 4 to 5.8) in Oklahoma and Kansas since 2009, due to increased wastewater injection related to oil and gas production (Keranen et al., 2013; 2014; Weingarten et al., 2015; McNamara et al., 2015a), provides useful near-source (< 40 km) instrumental ground-motion observations for comparisons between central and eastern US (CEUS) induced (Rennolet et al., 2017) and tectonic (Goulet et al., 2014) earthquakes. In this study, we evaluate over 50 GMMs using two well-established probabilistic scoring methods: log likelihood (LLH) (Scherbaum et al., 2004; 2009) and multivariate LLH (MLLH) (Mak et al., 2017). The LLH approach compares the mean and standard deviation (σ) of the observed and modeled ground motions. The MLLH approach advances the LLH method by considering the variability (φ,τ) of multiple correlated variables namely intra- (within) and inter- (between) event residuals. For the probabilistic scoring GMM evaluation methods (LLH, MLLH), we compute horizontal component peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 1s period pseudo spectral acceleration (PSA1.0) total residuals using GMM software (nshmp-haz) recently implemented by the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model Project (NSHMP). We observe from LLH and MLLH scores that: 1) newer GMMs with lower standard deviations (σ,φ,τ) score better than older GMMs with higher published uncertainty; 2) 2014 CEUS GMMs score better for CEUS tectonic earthquakes than induced earthquakes; 3) NGA-West2, G17 and A15 GMMs score well for CEUS induced earthquake ground motions; and 4) NGA-East GMMs score well for CEUS tectonic earthquake ground motions. We also use the LLH and MLLH scores to evaluate GMM weights applied in past USGS seismic hazard forecasts and to inform weighting of GMMs in future seismic hazard forecasts.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2018

Improving near‐real‐time coseismic landslide models: Lessons learned from the 2016 Kaikōura, New Zealand, earthquake

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing near‐real‐time global earthquake‐triggered‐landslide products to augment the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system. The 14 November 2016 M w "> M w Mw 7.8 Kaikōura, New Zealand, earthquake provided a test case for evaluating the performance and near‐real‐time response applicability of three published global seismically induced landslide models. All three models obtain shaking estimates from the USGS ShakeMap, which is updated and sometimes changes significantly in the hours to days after an earthquake. The Kaikōura earthquake is a particularly valuable event that helps us better understand how changes to the ShakeMap affect the landslide models because the ShakeMap evolved significantly over several weeks as multifault rupture and seismic data were incorporated. We used the detailed landslide inventory available for this event for qualitative landslide model evaluation. We found that once a point source was replaced with an approximate rupture extent in ShakeMap, the landslide models were all successful at roughly identifying the area of highest hazard. This is notable, given that the models are relatively simple, coarse in resolution, and are based solely on input proxies that are globally available. However, all of the models dramatically overpredicted the hazard level, which indicates that improvements can be made. Subsequent updates to the ShakeMap resulted in improvements to model performance by some metrics and declining performance by others. In all cases, details of the ShakeMap strongly controlled the spatial pattern, even when those details were erroneous, such as the inclusion of a fault segment that did not rupture. If maps of landslide hazard are to be used effectively for rapid response, then we need to understand and clearly communicate the control that ShakeMap has over the models and how that typically evolves with time and is (or is not) reflected in reported uncertainties.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS1999

Site response for Seattle and source parameters of earthquakes in the Puget Sound Region

We analyzed seismograms from 21 earthquakes ( M L 2.0-4.9) recorded by digital seismographs we deployed in urban Seattle to determine site response and earthquake stress drops. The seismometers were situated on a wide variety of geologic units, including artificial fill (e.g., Kingdome, Harbor Island), Pleistocene age soils (glacial till and outwash deposits of Seattle's hills), modified land (downtown Seattle, Space Needle), and Tertiary sedimentary rock. Two mainshock-aftershock sequences were recorded: the June 1997 Bremerton sequence (mainshock M L 4.9) and the February 1997 South Seattle sequence (mainshock M L 3.5), along with other events in the Puget Sound region. We developed a new inversion procedure to estimate site response, source corner frequencies, and seismic moments from the S -wave spectra. This inversion uses corner frequencies determined from spectral ratios of mainshock-aftershock pairs as constraints. The site responses found from the inversion are not relative to the rock site but are relative to an idealized site with a flat frequency response. The response of the rock site is also found from the inversion. The inversion results show high response for the sites on artificial fill, more moderate amplification for most sites on stiff Pleistocene soils or modified land, and low response for the rock site. Some sites display resonances, such as a strong 2-Hz resonance at our site near the Kingdome, which is caused by the surficial layers of fill and younger alluvium. The sites in West Seattle exhibit high amplification, even though they are on relatively stiff soils of glacial outwash. This may be partly caused by basin surface waves produced by conversion of incident S waves. This high response in West Seattle is consistent with damage reports from the 1949 ( m b 7.1) and 1965 ( m b 6.5) earthquakes. Stress-drop estimates for the events we recorded were generally low, between 0.4 and 25 bars, although some of the events may have had higher stress drops that could not be resolved because of the limited passband. We calculated a stress drop of 24 bars for the Bremerton mainshock and 10 bars for the South Seattle mainshock.

Washington↗

USGS2020

ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System Performance During the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

During July 2019, a sequence of earthquakes including a Mw6.4 foreshock and a Mw7.1 mainshock occurred near Ridgecrest, California. ShakeAlert, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ShakeAlert public Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) system being developed for the U.S. West Coast, was operational during this time, though public alerting was only available within LA County. ShakeAlert created alert messages for many of the earthquakes, including the two largest events, and for many of the larger aftershocks. In this study, we dissect log files and replay data through the system to reconstruct the sequence of events and analyze the performance of the system during that time period. While the system performed reasonably well overall, the sequence also revealed various issues and short comings that will be addressed in impending and future system upgrades, with most parts of the system working as they should. ShakeAlert correctly detected and rapidly characterized both the Mw6.4 and Mw7.1 earthquakes within 6.9 s of their origin times and created alert messages that were available to ShakeAlert’s pilot users. No public alerts were sent out by the ShakeAlertLA cellphone app (the only publicly available alerting method at the time) because the predicted shaking for LA County was below the app’s alerting threshold of MMI 4.0. For the Mw6.4 event this was accurate. For the Mw7.1 event, public alerts for LA County were warranted, but ShakeAlert underpredicted the shaking levels because both the point-source and the finite-fault algorithms underestimated the magnitude of the earthquake by 0.8 units. A number of software and hardware issues that were responsible for the magnitude underestimation of the mainshock have been identified and will be addressed in future ShakeAlert releases. We also analyze the hypothetical alerting performance of ShakeAlert had public alerting been available throughout southern California with a lower alerting threshold of 〖MMI〗_alert=2.5MMI 2.5. We find that, despite the magnitude underestimation, ShakeAlert could have provided timely warnings to a large fraction of affected sites, including some of the near-epicentral sites with high ground motion intensities.

California↗

USGS2013

The Mw 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake of August 2011 and aftershock sequence: constraints on earthquake source parameters and fault geometry

The M w 5.8 earthquake of 23 August 2011 (17:51:04 UTC) (moment, M0 5.7×10 17 N·m) occurred near Mineral, Virginia, within the central Virginia seismic zone and was felt by more people than any other earthquake in United States history. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received 148,638 felt reports from 31 states and 4 Canadian provinces. The USGS PAGER system estimates as many as 120,000 people were exposed to shaking intensity levels of IV and greater, with approximately 10,000 exposed to shaking as high as intensity VIII. Both regional and teleseismic moment tensor solutions characterize the earthquake as a northeast‐striking reverse fault that nucleated at a depth of approximately 7±2 km. The distribution of reported macroseismic intensities is roughly ten times the area of a similarly sized earthquake in the western United States (Horton and Williams, 2012). Near‐source and far‐field damage reports, which extend as far away as Washington, D.C., (135 km away) and Baltimore, Maryland, (200 km away) are consistent with an earthquake of this size and depth in the eastern United States (EUS). Within the first few days following the earthquake, several government and academic institutions installed 36 portable seismograph stations in the epicentral region, making this among the best‐recorded aftershock sequences in the EUS. Based on modeling of these data, we provide a detailed description of the source parameters of the mainshock and analysis of the subsequent aftershock sequence for defining the fault geometry, area of rupture, and observations of the aftershock sequence magnitude–frequency and temporal distribution. The observed slope of the magnitude–frequency curve or b‐value for the aftershock sequence is consistent with previous EUS studies (b=0.75), suggesting that most of the accumulated strain was released by the mainshock. The aftershocks define a rupture that extends between approximately 2–8 km in depth and 8–10 km along the strike of the fault plane. Best‐fit modeling of the geometry of the aftershock sequence defines a rupture plane that strikes N36°E and dips to the east‐southeast at 49.5°. Moment tensor solutions of the mainshock and larger aftershocks are consistent with the distribution of aftershock locations, both indicating reverse slip along a northeast–southwest striking southeast‐dipping fault plane.

Virginia↗

USGS2020

Evaluation of ground‐motion models for U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard forecasts: Hawaii tectonic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions

The selection and weighting of ground‐motion models (GMMs) introduces a significant source of uncertainty in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project (NSHMP) forecasts. In this study, we evaluate 18 candidate GMMs using instrumental ground‐motion observations of horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5%‐damped pseudospectral acceleration (0.02–10 s) for tectonic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, to inform logic‐tree weights for the update of the USGS seismic hazard model for Hawaii. GMMs are evaluated using two methods. The first is a total residual visualization approach that compares the probability density function (PDF), mean and standard deviations σ "> σ ⁠ , of the observed and predicted ground motion. The second GMM evaluation method we use is the common total residual probabilistic scoring method (log likelihood [LLH]). The LLH method provides a single score that can be used to weight GMMs in the Hawaii seismic hazard model logic trees. The total residual PDF approach provides additional information by preserving GMM over‐ and underprediction across a broad spectrum of periods that is not available from a single value LLH score. We apply these GMM evaluation methods to two different data sets: (1) a database of instrumental ground motions from historic earthquakes in Hawaii from 1973 to 2007 ( ⁠ M w "> M w 4–7.3) and (2) available ground motions from recent earthquakes ( ⁠ M w "> M w 4–6.9) associated with 2018 Kilauea eruptions. The 2018 Kilauea sequence contains both volcanic eruptions and tectonic earthquakes allowing for statistically significant GMM comparisons of the two event classes. The Kilauea ground observations provide an independent data set allowing us to evaluate the predictive power of GMMs implemented in the new USGS nshmp‐haz software system. We evaluate GMM performance as a function of earthquake depth and we demonstrate that short‐period volcanic eruption ground motions are not well predicted by any candidate GMMs. Nine of the initial 18 candidate GMMs fit the observed ground motions and meet established criteria for inclusion in the update of the Hawaii seismic hazard model. A weighted mean of four top performing GMMs in this study (NGAsubslab, NGAsubinter, ASK14, A10) is 50% lower for PGA than for GMMS used in the previous USGS seismic hazard model for Hawaii.

Hawaii↗

USGS1991

The Loma Prieta earthquake, ground motion, and damage in Oakland, Treasure Island, and San Francisco

The basis of this study is the acceleration, velocity, and displacement wave-forms of the Loma Prieta earthquake (18 October 1989; M = 7.0) at two rock sites in San Francisco, a rock site on Yerba Buena Island, an artificial-fill site on Treasure Island, and three sites in Oakland underlain by thick sections of poorly consolidated Pleistocene sediments. The waveforms at the three rock sites display a strong coherence, as do the three sedimentary sites in Oakland. The duration of strong motion at the rock sites is very brief, suggestive of an unusually short source duration for an earthquake of this size, while the records in Oakland show strong amplification effects due to site geology. The S -wave group at Treasure Island is phase coherent with the Oakland records, but at somewhat diminished amplitudes, until the steps in acceleration at approximately 15 sec, apparently signaling the onset of liquefaction. All seven records clearly show shear-wave first motion opposite to that expected for the mainshock radiation pattern and peak amplitudes greater than expected for sites at these distances (95 ± 3 km) from an earthquake of this magnitude. While the association between these ground motion records and related damage patterns in nearby areas has been easily and eagerly accepted by seismological and engineering observers of them, we have had some difficulty in making such relationships quantitative or even just clear. The three Oakland records, from sites that form a nearly equilateral triangle about the Cypress Street viaduct collapse, are dominated by a long-period resonance (≃ 1 1/2-sec period) far removed from the natural frequency of the structure to transverse motion (2.5 Hz) or from high-frequency amplification bands observed in aftershock studies. A spectral ratio arbiter of this discrepancy confuses it further. The failure of the East Bay crossing of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge cannot be attributed to relative displacements of the abutments in Oakland and Yerba Buena Island, but the motions of the Bay Bridge causing failure remain unknown. The steps in acceleration at Treasure Island present unusual strong-motion accelerogram processing problems, and modeling suggests that the velocity and displacement waveforms are contaminated by a spurious response of the filtering operations to the acceleration steps. A variety of coincidences suggests that the Treasure island accelerogram is the most likely strong-motion surrogate for the filled areas of the Marina District, for which no mainshock records are available, but the relative contributions of bad ground, poor construction and truly strong ground motion to damage in the Marina District will never by known in any quantitative way. The principal lesson of all of this is that until a concerted effort is mounted to instrument ground and structures that are likely to fail during earthquakes, our understanding of the very complex relationships between strong ground motion and earthquake damage will, in general, remain rudimentary, imprecise, and vague.

California↗

USGS2015

Ground motion-simulations of 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes, central United States

We performed a suite of numerical simulations based on the 1811–1812 New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) earthquakes, which demonstrate the importance of 3D geologic structure and rupture directivity on the ground‐motion response throughout a broad region of the central United States (CUS) for these events. Our simulation set consists of 20 hypothetical earthquakes located along two faults associated with the current seismicity trends in the NMSZ. The hypothetical scenarios range in magnitude from M 7.0 to 7.7 and consider various epicenters, slip distributions, and rupture characterization approaches. The low‐frequency component of our simulations was computed deterministically up to a frequency of 1 Hz using a regional 3D seismic velocity model and was combined with higher‐frequency motions calculated for a 1D medium to generate broadband synthetics (0–40 Hz in some cases). For strike‐slip earthquakes located on the southwest–northeast‐striking NMSZ axial arm of seismicity, our simulations show 2–10 s period energy channeling along the trend of the Reelfoot rift and focusing strong shaking northeast toward Paducah, Kentucky, and Evansville, Indiana, and southwest toward Little Rock, Arkansas. These waveguide effects are further accentuated by rupture directivity such that an event with a western epicenter creates strong amplification toward the northeast, whereas an eastern epicenter creates strong amplification toward the southwest. These effects are not as prevalent for simulations on the reverse‐mechanism Reelfoot fault, and large peak ground velocities (>40  cm/s) are typically confined to the near‐source region along the up‐dip projection of the fault. Nonetheless, these basin response and rupture directivity effects have a significant impact on the pattern and level of the estimated intensities, which leads to additional uncertainty not previously considered in magnitude estimates of the 1811–1812 sequence based only on historical reports. The region covered by our simulation domain encompasses a large portion of the CUS centered on the NMSZ, including several major metropolitan areas. Based on our simulations, more than eight million people living and working near the NMSZ would experience potentially damaging ground motion and modified Mercalli intensities ranging from VI to VIII if a repeat of the 1811–1812 earthquakes occurred today. Moreover, the duration of strong ground shaking in the greater Memphis metropolitan area could last from 30 to more than 60 s, depending on the magnitude and epicenter.

Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee↗

USGS2003

Geology of the continental margin beneath Santa Monica Bay, Southern California, from seismic-reflection data

We interpret seismic-reflection data, which were collected in Santa Monica Bay using a 70-in3 generator-injector air gun, to show the geologic structure of the continental shelf and slope and of the deep-water, Santa Monica and San Pedro Basins. The goal of this research is to investigate the earthquake hazard posed to urban areas by offshore faults. These data reveal that northwest of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Palos Verdes Fault neither offsets the seafloor nor cuts through an undeformed sediment apron that postdates the last sea level rise. Other evidence indicates that this fault extends northwest beneath the shelf in the deep subsurface. However, other major faults in the study area, such as the Dume and San Pedro Basin Faults, were active recently, as indicated by an arched seafloor and offset shallow sediment. Rocks under the lower continental slope are deformed to differing degrees on opposite sides of Santa Monica Canyon. Northwest of this canyon, the continental slope is underlain by a little-deformed sediment apron; the main structures that deform this apron are two lower-slope anticlines that extend toward Point Dume and are cored by faults showing reverse or thrust separation. Southeast of Santa Monica Canyon, lower-slope rocks are deformed by a complex arrangement of strike-slip, normal, and reverse faults. The San Pedro Escarpment rises abruptly along the southeast side of Santa Monica Canyon. Reverse faults and folds underpinning this escarpment steepen progressively southeastward. Locally they form flower structures and cut downward into basement rocks. These faults merge downward with the San Pedro Basin fault zone, which is nearly vertical and strike slip. The escarpment and its attendant structures diverge from this strike-slip fault zone and extend for 60 km along the margin, separating the continental shelf from the deep-water basins. The deep-water Santa Monica Basin has large extent but is filled with only a thin (less than 1.5-km) section of what are probably post-Miocene rocks and sediment. Extrapolating ages obtained from Ocean Drilling Program site 1015 indicates that this sedimentary cover is Quaternary, possibly no older than 600 ka. Folds and faults along the base of the San Pedro Escarpment began to form during 8-13 ka ago. Refraction-velocity data show that high-velocity rocks, probably the Catalina Schist or Miocene volcanic rocks, underlie the sedimentary section. The San Pedro Basin developed along a strike-slip fault, widens to the southeast, and is deformed by faults having apparent reverse separation and by folds near Redondo Canyon and the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

California↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert® version 3: Expected performance in large earthquakes

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system partners along with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) licensed operators deliver EEW alerts to the public and trigger automated systems when a significant earthquake is expected to impact California, Oregon, or Washington. ShakeAlert’s primary goal is to provide usable warning times before the arrival of damaging shaking. EEW is most likely to achieve this goal in large‐magnitude earthquakes. In recent years, ShakeAlert has gone through a series of upgrades to its underlying scientific algorithms aimed at improved performance during large earthquakes. Version 3 of this software recently went live in the production system and includes improvements to all algorithms. The main seismic algorithms that detect an earthquake and characterize its location, magnitude, and fault rupture orientation are faster than older versions. Other key changes include: using real‐time geodetic data to characterize the magnitude growth in large earthquakes; the introduction of an alert pause procedure to compromise between speed near the epicenter and improved accuracy at larger distances; and the inclusion of a nonergodic site‐response model in the ground‐motion predictions. ShakeAlert has achieved its primary goal of usable warning times before strong shaking at some locations in real‐time operations in recent M 6 earthquakes. Using offline tests, we demonstrate usable warning times are possible for many sites with peak shaking values of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 7–8 in M 7+ earthquakes and also for many MMI 8–9 sites in M 8+ earthquakes. ShakeAlert partners use a variety of MMI and magnitude thresholds in deciding when to alert their users within bounds set by the USGS. Our study shows that there is room to raise the magnitude thresholds up to about M 5.5 without adversely affecting performance in large earthquakes. The ground‐motion criteria are more complex owing to a significant drop‐off in warning times between the MMI 4 and 5 levels of predicted shaking. However, widely used ShakeAlert products, such as the MMI 3 and 4 contour products, can provide sufficiently long warning times before strong shaking in moderate‐to‐great earthquakes to enable a range of protective actions.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗