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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2017

Characterizing local variability in long‐period horizontal tilt noise

Horizontal seismic data are dominated by atmospherically induced tilt noise at long periods (i.e., 30 s and greater). Tilt noise limits our ability to use horizontal data for sensitive seismological studies such as observing free earth modes. To better understand the local spatial variability of long‐period horizontal noise, we observe horizontal noise during quiet time periods in the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) underground vault using four small‐aperture array configurations. Each array comprises eight Streckeisen STS‐2 broadband seismometers. We analyze the spectral content of the data using power spectral density and magnitude‐squared coherence (γ2‐coherence). Our results show a high degree of spatial variability and frequency dependence in the long‐period horizontal wavefield. The variable nature of long‐period horizontal noise in the ASL vault suggests that it might be highly local in nature and not easily characterized by simple physical models when overall noise levels are low, making it difficult to identify locations in the vault with lower horizontal noise. This variability could be limiting our ability to apply coherence analysis for estimating horizontal sensor self‐noise and could also complicate various indirect methods for removing long‐period horizontal noise (e.g., collocated rotational sensor or microbarograph).

New Mexico↗
USGS2017

PRISM Software: Processing and Review Interface for Strong‐Motion Data

A continually increasing number of high‐quality digital strong‐motion records from stations of the National Strong Motion Project (NSMP) of the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as data from regional seismic networks within the United States, calls for automated processing of strong‐motion records with human review limited to selected significant or flagged records. The NSMP has developed the Processing and Review Interface for Strong Motion data (PRISM) software to meet this need. In combination with the Advanced National Seismic System Quake Monitoring System (AQMS), PRISM automates the processing of strong‐motion records. When used without AQMS, PRISM provides batch‐processing capabilities. The PRISM software is platform independent (coded in Java), open source, and does not depend on any closed‐source or proprietary software. The software consists of two major components: a record processing engine composed of modules for each processing step, and a review tool, which is a graphical user interface for manual review, edit, and processing. To facilitate use by non‐NSMP earthquake engineers and scientists, PRISM (both its processing engine and review tool) is easy to install and run as a stand‐alone system on common operating systems such as Linux, OS X, and Windows. PRISM was designed to be flexible and extensible to accommodate implementation of new processing techniques. All the computing features have been thoroughly tested.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

Global Positioning System data collection, processing, and analysis conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program

The U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Science Center collects and processes Global Positioning System (GPS) data throughout the western United States to measure crustal deformation related to earthquakes and tectonic processes as part of a long‐term program of research and monitoring. Here, we outline data collection procedures and present the GPS dataset built through repeated temporary deployments since 1992. This dataset consists of observations at ∼1950 locations. In addition, this article details our data processing and analysis procedures, which consist of the following. We process the raw data collected through temporary deployments, in addition to data from continuously operating western U.S. GPS stations operated by multiple agencies, using the GIPSY software package to obtain position time series. Subsequently, we align the positions to a common reference frame, determine the optimal parameters for a temporally correlated noise model, and apply this noise model when carrying out time‐series analysis to derive deformation measures, including constant interseismic velocities, coseismic offsets, and transient postseismic motion.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

Poroelastic properties of the Arbuckle Group in Oklahoma derived from well fluid level response to the 3 September 2016 M w 5.8 Pawnee and 7 November 2016 M w 5.0 Cushing earthquakes

The Arbuckle Group (Arbuckle) is a basal sedimentary unit that is the primary target for saltwater disposal in Oklahoma. Thus, the reservoir characteristics of the Arbuckle, including how the poroelastic properties change laterally and over time are of significant interest. We report observations of fluid level changes in two monitoring wells in response to the 3 September 2016 M w 5.8 Pawnee and the 7 November 2016 M w 5.0 Cushing earthquakes. We investigate the relationship between static strain resulting from these events and the fluid level changes observed in the wells. We model the fluid level response by estimating static strains from a set of earthquake source parameters and spatiotemporal poroelastic properties of the Arbuckle in the neighborhood of the monitoring wells. Results suggest that both the direction of the observed fluid level step and the amplitude can be predicted from the computed volumetric strain change and a reasonable set of poroelastic parameters. Modeling results indicate that poroelastic parameters differ at the time of the Pawnee and Cushing earthquakes, with a moderately higher Skempton’s coefficient required to fit the response to the Cushing earthquake. This may indicate that dynamic shaking resulted in physical alteration of the Arbuckle at distances up to ∼50 km from the Pawnee earthquake.

Oklahoma↗
USGS2017

Geodetic slip model of the 3 September 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma, earthquake: Evidence for fault‐zone collapse

The 3 September 2016 M w 5.8 Pawnee earthquake in northern Oklahoma is the largest earthquake ever recorded in Oklahoma. The coseismic deformation was measured with both Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar and Global Positioning System (GPS), with measureable signals of order 1 cm and 1 mm, respectively. We derive a coseismic slip model from Sentinel‐1A and Radarsat 2 interferograms and GPS static offsets, dominated by distributed left‐lateral strike slip on a primary west‐northwest–east‐southeast‐trending subvertical plane, whereas strike slip is concentrated near the hypocenter (5.6 km depth), with maximum slip of ∼1 m located slightly east and down‐dip of the hypocenter. Based on systematic misfits of observed interferogram line‐of‐sight (LoS) displacements, with LoS based on shear‐dislocation models, a few decimeters of fault‐zone collapse are inferred in the hypocentral region where coseismic slip was the largest. This may represent the postseismic migration of large volumes of fluid away from the high‐slip areas, made possible by the creation of a temporary high‐permeability damage zone around the fault.

Oklahoma↗
USGS2017

The effects of varying injection rates in Osage County, Oklahoma, on the 2016 Mw5.8 Pawnee earthquake

The 2016 M w 5.8 Pawnee earthquake occurred in a region with active wastewater injection into a basal formation group. Prior to the earthquake, fluid injection rates at most wells were relatively steady, but newly collected data show significant increases in injection rate in the years leading up to earthquake. For the same time period, the total volumes of injected wastewater were roughly equivalent between variable‐rate and constant‐rate wells. To understand the possible influence of these changes in injection, we simulate the variable‐rate injection history and its constant‐rate equivalent in a layered poroelastic half‐space to explore the interplay between pore‐pressure effects and poroelastic effects on the fault leading up to the mainshock. In both cases, poroelastic stresses contribute a significant proportion of Coulomb failure stresses on the fault compared to pore‐pressure increases alone, but the resulting changes in seismicity rate, calculated using a rate‐and‐state frictional model, are many times larger when poroelastic effects are included, owing to enhanced stressing rates. In particular, the variable‐rate simulation predicts more than an order of magnitude increase in seismicity rate above background rates compared to the constant‐rate simulation with equivalent volume. The observed cumulative density of earthquakes prior to the mainshock within 10 km of the injection source exhibits remarkable agreement with seismicity predicted by the variable‐rate injection case.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

2017 One‐year seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

We produce a one‐year 2017 seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes that updates the 2016 one‐year forecast; this map is intended to provide information to the public and to facilitate the development of induced seismicity forecasting models, methods, and data. The 2017 hazard model applies the same methodology and input logic tree as the 2016 forecast, but with an updated earthquake catalog. We also evaluate the 2016 seismic‐hazard forecast to improve future assessments. The 2016 forecast indicated high seismic hazard (greater than 1% probability of potentially damaging ground shaking in one year) in five focus areas: Oklahoma–Kansas, the Raton basin (Colorado/New Mexico border), north Texas, north Arkansas, and the New Madrid Seismic Zone. During 2016, several damaging induced earthquakes occurred in Oklahoma within the highest hazard region of the 2016 forecast; all of the 21 moment magnitude ( M ) ≥4 and 3 M ≥5 earthquakes occurred within the highest hazard area in the 2016 forecast. Outside the Oklahoma–Kansas focus area, two earthquakes with M ≥4 occurred near Trinidad, Colorado (in the Raton basin focus area), but no earthquakes with M ≥2.7 were observed in the north Texas or north Arkansas focus areas. Several observations of damaging ground‐shaking levels were also recorded in the highest hazard region of Oklahoma. The 2017 forecasted seismic rates are lower in regions of induced activity due to lower rates of earthquakes in 2016 compared with 2015, which may be related to decreased wastewater injection caused by regulatory actions or by a decrease in unconventional oil and gas production. Nevertheless, the 2017 forecasted hazard is still significantly elevated in Oklahoma compared to the hazard calculated from seismicity before 2009.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

A synoptic view of the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)

Probabilistic forecasting of earthquake‐producing fault ruptures informs all major decisions aimed at reducing seismic risk and improving earthquake resilience. Earthquake forecasting models rely on two scales of hazard evolution: long‐term (decades to centuries) probabilities of fault rupture, constrained by stress renewal statistics, and short‐term (hours to years) probabilities of distributed seismicity, constrained by earthquake‐clustering statistics. Comprehensive datasets on both hazard scales have been integrated into the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3). UCERF3 is the first model to provide self‐consistent rupture probabilities over forecasting intervals from less than an hour to more than a century, and it is the first capable of evaluating the short‐term hazards that result from multievent sequences of complex faulting. This article gives an overview of UCERF3, illustrates the short‐term probabilities with aftershock scenarios, and draws some valuable scientific conclusions from the modeling results. In particular, seismic, geologic, and geodetic data, when combined in the UCERF3 framework, reject two types of fault‐based models: long‐term forecasts constrained to have local Gutenberg–Richter scaling, and short‐term forecasts that lack stress relaxation by elastic rebound.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

Forecasting the (un)productivity of the 2014 M 6.0 South Napa aftershock sequence

The 24 August 2014 M w 6.0 South Napa mainshock produced fewer aftershocks than expected for a California earthquake of its magnitude. In the first 4.5 days, only 59 M ≥1.8 aftershocks occurred, the largest of which was an M 3.9 that happened a little over two days after the mainshock. We investigate the aftershock productivity of the South Napa sequence and compare it with other M ≥5.5 California strike‐slip mainshock–aftershock sequences. While the productivity of the South Napa sequence is among the lowest, northern California mainshocks generally have fewer aftershocks than mainshocks further south, although the productivities vary widely in both regions. An epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model ( Ogata, 1988 ) fit to Napa seismicity from 1980 to 23 August 2014 fits the sequence well and suggests that low‐productivity sequences are typical of this area. Utilizing regional variations in productivity could improve operational earthquake forecasting (OEF) by improving the model used immediately after the mainshock. We show this by comparing the daily rate of M ≥2 aftershocks to forecasts made with the generic California model ( Reasenberg and Jones, 1989 ; hereafter, RJ89), RJ89 models with productivity updated daily, a generic California ETAS model, an ETAS model based on premainshock seismicity, and ETAS models updated daily following the mainshock. RJ89 models for which only the productivity is updated provide better forecasts than the generic RJ89 California model, and the Napa‐specific ETAS models forecast the aftershock rates more accurately than either generic model. Therefore, forecasts that use localized initial parameters and that rapidly update the productivity may be better for OEF than using a generic model and/or updating all parameters.

California↗
USGS2018

Hypocenter relocation along the Sunda arc in Indonesia, using a 3D seismic velocity model

The tectonics of the Sunda arc region is characterized by the junction of the Eurasian and Indo‐Australian tectonic plates, causing complex dynamics to take place. High‐seismicity rates in the Indonesian region occur due to the interaction between these tectonic plates. The availability of a denser network of seismometers after the earthquakes of M w "> M w 9.1 in 2004 and M w "> M w 8.6 in 2005 supports various seismic studies, one of which regards the precise relocation of the hypocenters. In this study, hypocenter relocation was performed using a teleseismic double‐difference (DD) relocation method (teletomoDD) combining arrival times of P and S waves from stations at local, regional, and teleseismic distances. The catalog data were taken from the Agency of Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics (BMKG) of Indonesia, and the International Seismological Centre (ISC) for the time period of April 2009 to May 2015. The 3D seismic‐wave velocity model with a grid size 1 ° × 1 ° "> 1°×1° was used in the travel‐time calculations. Relocation results show a reduction in travel‐time residuals compared with the initial locations. The relocation results better illuminate subducted slabs and active faults in the region such as the Mentawai back thrust and the outer rise in the subduction zone south of Java. Focal mechanisms from the Global Centroid Moment Tensor catalog are analyzed in conjunction with the relocation results, and our synthesis of the results provides further insight into seismogenesis in the region.

Sunda arc↗
USGS2018

Earthquake catalogs for the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps

We describe a methodology that has been developed at the U.S. Geological Survey for making earthquake catalogs for seismic hazard analysis and review the status of the catalogs for the conterminous United States. A new catalog is assembled from several pre‐existing catalogs. Uniform moment magnitudes and related parameters for estimating unbiased seismicity rates are calculated. Duplicates, explosions, mining‐related earthquakes, and induced earthquakes are flagged, and the catalog is declustered. Distinct catalogs are made for the central and eastern United States and the western United States.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Analysis of mean seismic ground motion and its uncertainty based on the UCERF3 geologic slip rate model with uncertainty for California

The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast v.3 (UCERF3) model (Field et al., 2014) considers epistemic uncertainty in fault‐slip rate via the inclusion of multiple rate models based on geologic and/or geodetic data. However, these slip rates are commonly clustered about their mean value and do not reflect the broader distribution of possible rates and associated probabilities. Here, we consider both a double‐truncated 2σ Gaussian and a boxcar distribution of slip rates and use a Monte Carlo simulation to sample the entire range of the distribution for California fault‐slip rates. We compute the seismic hazard following the methodology and logic‐tree branch weights applied to the 2014 national seismic hazard model (NSHM) for the western U.S. region (Petersen et al., 2014, 2015). By applying a new approach developed in this study to the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) using precomputed rates of exceedance from each fault as a Green’s function, we reduce the computer time by about 10^5‐fold and apply it to the mean PSHA estimates with 1000 Monte Carlo samples of fault‐slip rates to compare with results calculated using only the mean or preferred slip rates. The difference in the mean probabilistic peak ground motion corresponding to a 2% in 50‐yr probability of exceedance is less than 1% on average over all of California for both the Gaussian and boxcar probability distributions for slip‐rate uncertainty but reaches about 18% in areas near faults compared with that calculated using the mean or preferred slip rates. The average uncertainties in 1σ peak ground‐motion level are 5.5% and 7.3% of the mean with the relative maximum uncertainties of 53% and 63% for the Gaussian and boxcar probability density function (PDF), respectively.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

The Station Information System (SIS): A centralized seismic station repository for populating, managing, and distributing metadata

Creating, maintaining, and archiving accurate station metadata is critical for successful seismic network operations, data discovery, and research. The Station Information System (SIS) is a centralized repository of seismic station equipment inventory, instrument response, and site information of stations operated by regional seismic networks (RSNs) of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS; Filson and Arabasz, 2017 ). It has a web‐based user interface that enables the creation and manipulation of the corresponding metadata. The system can track the installation, maintenance, and removal of equipment from a site, which often results in the creation of new metadata epochs. SIS also computes the overall response, including gain, of a data channel by combining the responses of the underlying hardware components. SIS distributes this information in standard formats such as Federation of Digital Seismic Networks StationXML and dataless Standard for the Exchange of Earthquake Data. SIS can also be used to manage inventory of field equipment such as power, telemetry, or Global Positioning System antenna, as well as links to other site‐related repositories external to SIS to give the network operator the most complete view of a site and the overall network. This article summarizes the main features in SIS. We present its basic infrastructure, holdings, workflow, and how RSNs retrieve data from it. We also explain the reasoning to pursue one centralized repository and why it supports the goals of SIS and the ANSS. We demonstrate that by providing the ANSS network operator with a comprehensive site view, SIS enables the production of high‐quality metadata, a necessary prerequisite for producing high‐quality seismic data.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

Earthquake Early Warning ShakeAlert System: Testing and certification platform

Earthquake early warning systems provide warnings to end users of incoming moderate to strong ground shaking from earthquakes. An earthquake early warning system, ShakeAlert, is providing alerts to beta end users in the western United States, specifically California, Oregon, and Washington. An essential aspect of the earthquake early warning system is the development of a framework to test modifications to code to ensure functionality and assess performance. In 2016, a Testing and Certification Platform (TCP) was included in the development of the Production Prototype version of ShakeAlert. The purpose of the TCP is to evaluate the robustness of candidate code that is proposed for deployment on ShakeAlert Production Prototype servers. TCP consists of two main components: a real‐time in situ test that replicates the real‐time production system and an offline playback system to replay test suites. The real‐time tests of system performance assess code optimization and stability. The offline tests comprise a stress test of candidate code to assess if the code is production ready. The test suite includes over 120 events including local, regional, and teleseismic historic earthquakes, recentering and calibration events, and other anomalous and potentially problematic signals. Two assessments of alert performance are conducted. First, point‐source assessments are undertaken to compare magnitude, epicentral location, and origin time with the Advanced National Seismic System Comprehensive Catalog, as well as to evaluate alert latency. Second, we describe assessment of the quality of ground‐motion predictions at end‐user sites by comparing predicted shaking intensities to ShakeMaps for historic events and implement a threshold‐based approach that assesses how often end users initiate the appropriate action, based on their ground‐shaking threshold. TCP has been developed to be a convenient streamlined procedure for objectively testing algorithms, and it has been designed with flexibility to accommodate significant changes in development of new or modified system code. It is expected that the TCP will continue to evolve along with the ShakeAlert system, and the framework we describe here provides one example of how earthquake early warning systems can be evaluated.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2017

Earthquake early Warning ShakeAlert system: West coast wide production prototype

Earthquake early warning (EEW) is an application of seismological science that can give people, as well as mechanical and electrical systems, up to tens of seconds to take protective actions before peak earthquake shaking arrives at a location. Since 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey has been working in collaboration with several partners to develop EEW for the United States. The goal is to create and operate an EEW system, called ShakeAlert, for the highest risk areas of the United States, starting with the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington. In early 2016, the Production Prototype v.1.0 was established for California; then, in early 2017, v.1.2 was established for the West Coast, with earthquake notifications being distributed to a group of beta users in California, Oregon, and Washington. The new ShakeAlert Production Prototype was an outgrowth from an earlier demonstration EEW system that began sending test notifications to selected users in California in January 2012. ShakeAlert leverages the considerable physical, technical, and organizational earthquake monitoring infrastructure of the Advanced National Seismic System, a nationwide federation of cooperating seismic networks. When fully implemented, the ShakeAlert system may reduce damage and injury caused by large earthquakes, improve the nation’s resilience, and speed recovery.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2018

Ground-motion models for very-hard rock sites in eastern North America: An update

The ground‐motion models provided by me to the Next Generation Attenuation‐East (NGA‐East) project in 2015 have been updated by considering three additional Fourier spectra attenuation models and by conducting a mixed‐effect analysis of the residuals between the ground‐motion intensity measures computed from the attenuation models and the data from nine relatively well‐recorded events in eastern North America. On the basis of the period trends of the bias in the residuals and the distance trends of the residuals, I recommend the ground‐motion models developed for these attenuation models, with equal weights: the BCA10D model with 1/ R geometrical spreading at all distances, and two modifications of the Atkinson and Boore (2014 ; referred as AB14) model, with 1/ R spreading within 10 km, 1/ R 1.3 spreading from 10 to 50 km, and 1/√ R spreading beyond 50 km.

Seismological Research Letters↗