SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “The Seismic Record”

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.

At least 1,603 records · Page 89Linked to original sources

USGS1991

Seismicity map of the state of Idaho

This map is one of a series of seismicity maps produced by the U.S. Geological Survey that show earthquake data of individual states or groups of states at the scale of 1:1,000,000. This map shows only those earthquakes with epicenters located within the boundaries of Idaho, even though earthquakes in nearby states or countries may have been felt or may have caused damage in Idaho. The data in table 1 were used to compile the seismicity map; these data are a corrected, expanded, and updated (through 1987) version of the data used by Algermissen (1969) for a study of seismic risk in the United States. The locations and intensities of some earthquakes were revised and intensities were assigned where none had been before. Many earthquakes were added to the original list from new data sources as well as from some old data sources that had not been previously used. The data in table 1 represent earthquake on the basis of historical and current information. Some of the aftershocks from large earthquake are listed, but not all, especially for earthquakes that occurred before seismic instruments were universally used. The latitude and longitude coordinates of each epicenter were rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree and sorted so that all identical locations were grouped and counted. These locations are represented on the map by a triangle. The number of earthquakes at each location is shown on the map by the Arabic number to the right of the triangle. A Roman numeral to the left of a triangle is the maximum Modified Mercalli intensity (Wood and Neumann, 1931) of all earthquakes at that geographic location. The absence of an intensity value indicates that no intensities have been assigned to earthquakes at that location. The year shown below each triangle is the latest year for which the maximum intensity was recorded.

Idaho↗

USGS1987

Seismicity map of the state of Indiana

This map is one of a series of seismicity maps produced by the U. S. Geological Survey that show earthquake data of individual states or groups of states at the scale of 1:1,000,000. This map shows only those earthquakes with epicenters located within the boundaries of Indiana, even though earthquakes in nearby states may have been felt or may have caused damage in Indiana. The data in table 1 were used to compile the seismicity map; these data are a corrected, expanded, and updated (through 1983) version of the data used by Algermissen (1969) for a study of seismic risk in the United States. The locations and intensities of some earthquakes were revised and intensities were assigned where none had been before. Many earthquakes were added to the original list from new data sources as well as from some old data sources that had not been previously used. The data in table 1 represent best estimates of the location of the epicenter, magnitude, and intensity of each earthquake on the basis of historical and current information. Some of the aftershocks from large earthquakes are listed, but not all, especially for earthquakes that occurred before seismic instruments were universally used. The latitude and longitude coordinates of each epicenter were rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree and sorted so that all identical locations were grouped and counted. These locations are represented on the map by a triangle. The number of earthquakes at each location is shown on the map by the arabic number to the right of the triangle. A Roman numeral to the left of a triangle is the maximum Modified Mercalli intensity (Wood and Neumann, 1931) of all earthquakes at that geographic location. The absence of an intensity value indicates that no intensities have been assigned to earthquakes at that location. The year shown below each triangle is the latest year for which the maximum intensity was recorded.

Indiana↗

USGS1987

Seismicity map of the state of Ohio

This map is one of a series of seismicity maps produced by the U. S. Geological Survey that show earthquake data of individual states or groups of states at the scale of 1:1,000,000. This map shows only those earthquakes with epicenters located within the boundaries of Ohio, even though earthquakes in nearby states or countries may have been felt or may have caused damage in Ohio. The data in table 1 were used to compile the seismicity map; these data are a corrected, expanded, and updated (through 1983) version of the data used by Algermissen (1969) for a study of seismic risk in the United States. The locations and intensities of some earthquakes were revised and intensities were assigned where none had been before. Many earthquakes were added to the original list from new data sources as well as from some old data sources that had not been previously used. The data in table 1 represent best estimates of the location of the epicenter, magnitude, and intensity of each earthquake on the basis of historical and current information. Some of the aftershocks from large earthquakes are listed, but not all, especially for earthquakes that occurred before seismic instruments were universally used. The latitude and longitude coordinates of each epicenter were rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree and sorted so that all identical locations were grouped and counted . These locations are represented on the map by a triangle. The number of earthquakes at each location is shown on the map by the arabic number to the right of the triangle. A Roman numeral to the left of a triangle is the maximum Modified Mercalli intensity (Wood and Neumann, 1931) of all earthquakes at that geographic location. The absence of an intensity value indicates that no intensities have been assigned to earthquakes at that location. The year shown below each triangle is the latest year for which the maximum intensity was recorded.

Ohio↗

USGS1987

Seismicity map of the state of North Carolina

This map is one of a series of seismicity maps produced by the U. S. Geological Survey that show earthquake data of individual states or groups of states at the scale of 1:1,000,000. This map shows only those earthquakes with epicenters located within the boundaries of North Carolina, even though earthquakes in nearby states may have been felt or may have caused damage in North Carolina. The data in table 1 were used to compile the seismicity map; these data are a corrected, expanded, and updated (through 1983) version of the data used by Algermissen (1969) for a study of seismic risk in the United States. The locations and intensities of some earthquakes were revised and intensities were assigned where none had been before. Many earthquakes were added to the original list from new data sources as well as from some old data sources that had not been previously used. The data in table 1 represent best estimates of the location of the epicenter, magnitude, and intensity of each earthquake on the basis of historical and current information. Some of the aftershocks from large earthquakes are listed, but not all, especially for earthquakes that occurred before seismic instruments were universally used. The latitude and longitude coordinates of each epicenter were rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree and sorted so that all identical locations were grouped and counted. These locations are represented on the map by a triangle. The number of earthquakes at each location is shown on the map by the arabic number to the right of the triangle. A Roman numeral to the left of a triangle is the maximum Modified Mercalli intensity (Wood and Neumann, 1931) of a11 earthquakes at that geographic location. The absence of an intensity value indicates that no intensities have been assigned to earthquakes at that location. The year shown below each triangle is the latest year for which the maximum intensity was recorded.

North Carolina↗

USGS2010

Tectonic controls on nearshore sediment accumulation and submarine canyon morphology offshore La Jolla, Southern California

CHIRP seismic and swath bathymetry data acquired offshore La Jolla, California provide an unprecedented three-dimensional view of the La Jolla and Scripps submarine canyons. Shore-parallel patterns of tectonic deformation appear to control nearshore sediment thickness and distribution around the canyons. These shore-parallel patterns allow the impact of local tectonic deformation to be separated from the influence of eustatic sea-level fluctuations. Based on stratal geometry and acoustic character, we identify a prominent angular unconformity inferred to be the transgressive surface and three sedimentary sequences: an acoustically laminated estuarine unit deposited during early transgression, an infilling or “healing-phase” unit formed during the transgression, and an upper transparent unit. Beneath the transgressive surface, steeply dipping reflectors with several dip reversals record faulting and folding along the La Jolla margin. Scripps Canyon is located at the crest of an antiform, where the rocks are fractured and more susceptible to erosion. La Jolla Canyon is located along the northern strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which separates Cretaceous lithified rocks to the south from poorly cemented Eocene sands and gravels to the north. Isopach and structure contour maps of the three sedimentary units reveal how their thicknesses and spatial distributions relate to regional tectonic deformation. For example, the estuarine unit is predominantly deposited along the edges of the canyons in paleotopographic lows that may have been inlets along barrier beaches during the Holocene sea-level rise. The distribution of the infilling unit is controlled by pre-existing relief that records tectonic deformation and erosional processes. The thickness and distribution of the upper transparent unit are controlled by long-wavelength, tectonically induced relief on the transgressive surface and hydrodynamics.

California↗

USGS1996

Application of ground-penetrating radar to investigation of near-surface fault properties in the San Francisco Bay region

In many geologic environments, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) provides high-resolution images of near-surface Earth structure. GPR data collection is nondestructive and very economical. The scale of features detected by GPR lies between those imaged by high-resolution seismic reflection surveys and those exposed in trenches and is therefore potentially complementary to traditional techniques for fault location and mapping. Sixty-two GPR profiles were collected at 12 sites in the San Francisco Bay region. Results show that GPR data correlate with large-scale features in existing trench observations, can be used to locate faults where they are buried or where their positions are not well known, and can identify previously unknown fault segments. The best data acquired were on a profile across the San Andreas fault, traversing Pleistocene terrace deposits south of Olema in Marin County; this profile shows a complicated multi-branched fault system from the ground surface down to about 40 m, the maximum depth for which data were recorded.

California↗

USGS2005

Catalog of earthquake hypocenters at Alaskan volcanoes: January 1 through December 31, 2004

The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), a cooperative program of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, has maintained seismic monitoring networks at historically active volcanoes in Alaska since 1988. The primary objectives of the seismic program are the real-time seismic monitoring of active, potentially hazardous, Alaskan volcanoes and the investigation of seismic processes associated with active volcanism. This catalog presents the calculated earthquake hypocenter and phase arrival data, and changes in the seismic monitoring program for the period January 1 through December 31, 2004. These include Mount Wrangell, Mount Spurr, Redoubt Volcano, Iliamna Volcano, Augustine Volcano, Katmai volcanic cluster (Snowy Mountain, Mount Griggs, Mount Katmai, Novarupta, Trident Volcano, Mount Mageik, Mount Martin), Mount Peulik, Aniakchak Crater, Mount Veniaminof, Pavlof Volcano, Mount Dutton, Isanotski Peaks, Shishaldin Volcano, Fisher Caldera, Westdahl Peak, Akutan Peak, Makushin Volcano, Okmok Caldera, Great Sitkin Volcano, Kanaga Volcano, Tanaga Volcano, and Mount Gareloi. Over the past year, formal monitoring of Okmok, Tanaga and Gareloi were announced following an extended period of monitoring to determine the background seismicity at each volcanic center. The seismicity at Mount Peulik was still being studied at the end of 2004 and has yet to be added to the list of monitored volcanoes in the AVO weekly update. AVO located 6928 earthquakes in 2004. Monitoring highlights in 2004 include: (1) an earthquake swarm at Westdahl Peak in January; (2) an increase in seismicity at Mount Spurr starting in February continuing through the end of the year into 2005; (4) low-level tremor, and low-frequency events related to intermittent ash and steam emissions at Mount Veniaminof between April and October; (4) low-level tremor at Shishaldin Volcano between April and October; (5) an earthquake swarm at Akutan in July; and (6) low-level tremor at Okmok Caldera throughout the year (Table 2). Instrumentation and data acquisition highlights in 2004 were the installation of subnetworks on Mount Peulik and Korovin Volcano and the installation of broadband stations to augment the Katmai and Spurr subnetworks. This catalog includes: (1) a description of instruments deployed in the field and their locations; (2) a description of earthquake detection, recording, analysis, and data archival systems; (3) a description of velocity models used for earthquake locations; (4) a summary of earthquakes located in 2004; and (5) an accompanying UNIX tar-file with a summary of earthquake origin times, hypocenters, magnitudes, phase arrival times, and location quality statistics; daily station usage statistics; and all HYPOELLIPSE files used to determine the earthquake locations in 2004.

Alaska↗

USGS2012

Source parameters of the 1980 Mammoth Lakes, California, earthquake sequence

From the more than 1500 Mammoth Lakes earthquakes recorded on three-component digital seismographs (Spudich et al., 1981), 150 were used in an analysis of the locations, mechanism, and source parameters. A composite fault plane solution of nine earthquakes 3.9 ≤ M ≤ 5.1 defines a right-lateral strike slip mechanism on a steeply dipping nearly east-west plane striking S75°E or left-lateral strike slip on a nearly north-south plane striking N10°E. Vertical cross sections of well-located aftershocks indicate possibly three east-west planes that coincide with the locations of the four largest earthquakes with M L ≥ 6.0. Using the spectral analysis of S waves (Brune, 1970), source parameters for 67 earthquakes were determined. Forty-eight had magnitudes greater than or equal to 3.0. Seismic moments ranged from 9.20×10 18 dyn cm to 2.33×10 24 dyn cm. Earthquakes with seismic moment greater than about 1.0×10 21 dyn cm had nearly constant stress drops (≃ 50 bars); earthquakes with seismic moment less than about 1.0×10 21 dyn cm had stress drops that apparently decrease as seismic moment decreases.

California↗

USGS2022

Using a grid-search approach to validate the Graves-Pitarka broadband simulation method

This work assesses the ability of the Graves–Pitarka simulation approach to reproduce observed ground motions for 12 California and Baja California earthquakes. A total of 240 realizations are computed for each earthquake and compared with recorded strong motions from near-fault sites. In addition to spatial variability in slip, each realization samples from discrete combinations of average rupture speed, rise time, and down-dip fault width. Ground motions for each realization of a given earthquake are compared to the observations using a pseudo-spectral acceleration goodness-of-fit (GoF) metric. Parameters for the lowest misfit cases are then tabulated to develop relations for estimating median values and ranges for future applications. The results are generally consistent with published scaling relations for estimating rupture dimensions as a function of magnitude. Additionally, I find the average rise time scales as 2.3 × α T × 10 − 9 × M o 1 / 3 "> 2.3 × α T × 10 - 9 × M o 1 / 3 ( M o is seismic moment in dyne-cm) and average rupture speed as ( 0.765 ± 0.075 ) × α T − 1 × V s "> ( 0.765 ± 0.075 ) × α T - 1 × V s ( V s is local shear wave velocity), where 2.3 × α T × 10 − 9 × M o 1 / 3 "> α T is a mechanism adjustment ranging from a value of 1.0 for pure strike-slip to 0.9 for pure reverse-slip cases. There are cases where slightly different combinations of parameters produce equally good fits to the observations, demonstrating the non-uniqueness of using a single GoF metric in this approach. Nonetheless, the results reinforce the importance of adequately sampling ranges of rupture parameters when performing validations, as well as when simulating ground motions for future events.

Earth, Planets and Space↗

USGS2024

Data-driven adjustments for combined use of NGA-East hard-rock ground motion and site amplification models

Model development in the Next Generation Attenuation-East (NGA-East) project included two components developed concurrently and independently: (1) earthquake ground-motion models (GMMs) that predict the median and aleatory variability of various intensity measures conditioned on magnitude and distance, derived for a reference hard-rock site condition with an average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m ( V S30 ) = 3000 m/s; and (2) a site amplification model that modifies intensity measures for softer site conditions. We investigate whether these models, when used in tandem, are compatible with ground-motion recordings in central and eastern North America (CENA) using an expanded version of the NGA-East database that includes new events from November 2011 (end date of NGA-East data curation) to April 2022. Following this expansion, the data set has 187 events, 2096 sites, and 16,272 three-component recordings, although the magnitude range remains limited (∼4 to 5.8). We compute residuals using 17 NGA-East GMMs and three data selection criteria that reflect within-CENA regional variations in ground-motion attributes. Mixed-effects regression of the residuals reveals a persistent pattern in which ground motions are overpredicted at short periods (0.01–0.6 s, including peak ground acceleration (PGA)) and underpredicted at longer periods. These misfits are regionally variable, with the Texas–Oklahoma–Kansas region having larger absolute misfits than other parts of CENA. Two factors potentially influencing these misfits are (1) differences in the site amplification models used to adjust the data to the reference condition during NGA-East GMM development relative to CENA amplification models applied since the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), and (2) potential bias in simulation-based factors used to adjust ground motions from the hard-rock reference condition to a V S30 = 760 m/s condition. We provide adjustment factors and their epistemic uncertainties and discuss implications for applications.

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas↗

USGS2013

Site Response and Basin Waves in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California

The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is an inland delta at the western extent of the Central Valley. Levees were built around swampy islands starting after the Civil War to reclaim these lands for farming. Various studies show that these levees could fail in concert from shaking from a major local or regional earthquake resulting in salty water from the San Francisco Bay contaminating the water in the Delta. We installed seismographs around the Delta and on levees to assess the contribution of site response to the seismic hazard of the levees. Cone penetrometer testing shows that the upper 10 s of meters of soil in the Delta have shear‐wave velocities of about 200 m/s, which would give a strong site response. Seismographs were sited following two strategies: pairs of stations to compare the response of the levees to nearby sites, and a more regional deployment in the Delta. Site response was determined in two different ways: a traditional spectral ratio (TSR) approach of S waves using station BDM of the Berkeley Digital Seismic Net as a reference site, and using SH / SV ratios of noise (or Nakamura’s method). Both estimates usually agree in spectral character for stations whose response is dominated by a resonant peak, but the most obvious peaks in the SH / SV ratios usually are about two‐thirds as large as the main peaks in the TSRs. Levee sites typically have large narrow resonances in the site response function compared to sites in the farmland of the Delta. These resonances, at a frequency of about 1–3 Hz, have amplitudes of about 15 with TSR and 10–12 with Nakamura’s method. Sites on farmland in the Delta also have amplifications, but these are typically broader and not as resonant in appearance. Late (slow) Rayleigh waves were recorded at stations in the Delta, have a dominant period of about one second, and are highly monochromatic. Results from a three‐station array at the Holland Marina suggest that they have a phase velocity of about 600 m/s and arrive at about the same azimuth as the straight‐line back azimuth to the source. A dispersion curve determined for the basin or valley waves yields a shallow velocity profile that increases from about 350 m/s in the upper 0.2 km to about 1.1 km/s at a depth of about 2 km.

California↗

USGS1981

Northwest margin of California continental borderland: Marine geology and tectonic evolution

The northwest margin of the California continental borderland consists mainly of two northwest-trending pre-Neogene lithologic belts blanketed by Miocene and younger strata. These belts, which are lithologically and structurally correlated with the Franciscan Complex and Great Valley sequence of northern California, are interpreted to represent facies corresponding to the subduction complex and forearc-basin deposits of a late Mesozoic and Paleogene continental-margin arc-trench system. The outer belt, which forms the acoustic basement underlying the continental slope and Patton Ridge, is characterized by: (1) moderately high compressional velocities (5.1 to 6.2 km/sec), (2) discordant and discontinuous seismic reflectors, and (3) nonfossiliferous and diverse rock types t at range in metamorphic grade from zeolite-bearing arkosic sandstone to blueschist. Landward, the inner Great Valley sequence belt underlies Santa Rosa-Cortes Ridge and Santa Cruz and San Nicolas Basins; in contrast to the outer belt, this belt is characterized by: (1) intermediate compressional velocities (4.5 to 4.6 km/sec), (2) concordant and relatively continuous reflectors, and (3) a thick turbidite sequence of relatively undeformed and unmetamorphosed fossiliferous Cretaceous and Paleogene strata. The inner belt overlies a 6.6-km/sec layer that is probably oceanic crust, a relation consistent with the hypothesis that trapped old oceanic crust underlies the forearc basins along parts of some convergent margins. Well-developed wrench-fault structures in overlying Miocene strata record a transition from Paleogene subduction to Neogene transform faulting. Related events include widespread andesitic to dacitic volcanism and concurrent uplift and erosion of Miocene and older rocks. The proximity of these Miocene silicic volcanic rocks to the paleotrench (< 20 km) is best explained as resulting from passage of the southward-migrating Rivera ridge-fault-trench triple junction along the margin. On the basis of the age of the adjacent sea floor, passage of this triple junction occurred about 17 m.y. ago, a date that corresponds closely to the inception of volcanism and uplift in the northwest margin of the borderland. A widespread unconformity that separates highly deformed lower and lower middle iocene strata from relatively undeformed younger strata is assumed to mark the subsequent onset of wrench faulting. The timing of volcanism and uplift, and of the slightly younger wrenching event, closely matches the plate-tectonic model of Atwater and Molnar if the northwest margin of the borderland is restored to an earlier tectonic setting off Baja California, approximately 260 km southeast of its present position.

California↗

USGS1980

Multichannel seismic-reflection profiles collected along the U.S. continental margin in 1978

During 1978, the U.S.. Geological Survey (USGS) contracted with Geophysical Services, Inc. (GSI) for GSI to collect 4,813 km of 48-channel seismic-reflection profiles along the continental margin between North Carolina and Maine. Fifteen lines were acquired perpendicular to the margin Clines 18 through 32), and six lines were acquired parallel to the margin Clines 33 through 38). The profiles were shot by the Motor Vessel (MV) CARINO and MV CECIL GREEN between May and November 1978. A 3,600-long hydrophone streamer was used; it was composed of 24 groups of 100-m length each near the ship, followed by 24 groups of 50-mlength each. Tuned airgun arrays totaling 2,000 and 1,400 cubic inches of air were used by the MV- CARINO and MV CECIL GREEN, respectively. The profiles were stacked by GSI and displayed in conventional time-variant scaled format to 12 seconds of recording time with vertical scales of .2.5 inches per second and horizontal scales of 1.2 km per inch. Additional protessing was applied to Line 25 across the Baltimore Canyon Trough and Line 32 across the Carolina Trough. Data collected along Line 25 over the Outer Shelf, Slope and upper Rise were restacked with 1 1/2-km-spaced velocity analyses, signature deconvolution, deep-water multiple deconvolution, velocity filtering Con shelf only), and time migration. The restacked part and remaining parts of Line 25 were converted to depth sections having a vertical scale of 1.2 km per inch (vertical exaggeration: 2/1). Data collected along two parts of Line 32 were also restacked with signature and deep-water multiple deconvolution. Line 32 was also converted to a depth section except for the first 80 km near shore. Profiles 18-38 may be inspected at the USGS in Woods Hole, MA 02543. Copies of the profiles may be, purchased only from the National Geophysical and Solar-Terrestrial Data Center, NOAA, Boulder, Co 80303.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Dynamic strains for earthquake source characterization

Strainmeters measure elastodynamic deformation associated with earthquakes over a broad frequency band, with detection characteristics that complement traditional instrumentation, but they are commonly used to study slow transient deformation along active faults and at subduction zones, for example. Here, we analyze dynamic strains at Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) borehole strainmeters (BSM) associated with 146 local and regional earthquakes from 2004–2014, with magnitudes from M 4.5 to 7.2. We find that peak values in seismic strain can be predicted from a general regression against distance and magnitude, with improvements in accuracy gained by accounting for biases associated with site–station effects and source–path effects, the latter exhibiting the strongest influence on the regression coefficients. To account for the influence of these biases in a general way, we include crustal‐type classifications from the CRUST1.0 global velocity model, which demonstrates that high‐frequency strain data from the PBO BSM network carry information on crustal structure and fault mechanics: earthquakes nucleating offshore on the Blanco fracture zone, for example, generate consistently lower dynamic strains than earthquakes around the Sierra Nevada microplate and in the Salton trough. Finally, we test our dynamic strain prediction equations on the 2011 M 9 Tohoku‐Oki earthquake, specifically continuous strain records derived from triangulation of 137 high‐rate Global Navigation Satellite System Earth Observation Network stations in Japan. Moment magnitudes inferred from these data and the strain model are in agreement when Global Positioning System subnetworks are unaffected by spatial aliasing.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2008

The ShakeOut Scenario

This is the initial publication of the results of a cooperative project to examine the implications of a major earthquake in southern California. The study comprised eight counties: Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Its results will be used as the basis of an emergency response and preparedness exercise, the Great Southern California ShakeOut, and for this purpose we defined our earthquake as occurring at 10:00 a.m. on November 13, 2008. As members of the southern California community use the ShakeOut Scenario to plan and execute the exercise, we anticipate discussion and feedback. This community input will be used to refine our assessment and will lead to a formal publication in early 2009. Our goal in the ShakeOut Scenario is to identify the physical, social and economic consequences of a major earthquake in southern California and in so doing, enable the users of our results to identify what they can change now?before the earthquake?to avoid catastrophic impact after the inevitable earthquake occurs. To do so, we had to determine the physical damages (casualties and losses) caused by the earthquake and the impact of those damages on the region?s social and economic systems. To do this, we needed to know about the earthquake ground shaking and fault rupture. So we first constructed an earthquake, taking all available earthquake research information, from trenching and exposed evidence of prehistoric earthquakes, to analysis of instrumental recordings of large earthquakes and the latest theory in earthquake source physics. We modeled a magnitude (M) 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault, a plausible event on the fault most likely to produce a major earthquake. This information was then fed forward into the rest of the ShakeOut Scenario. The damage impacts of the scenario earthquake were estimated using both HAZUS-MH and expert opinion through 13 special studies and 6 expert panels, and fall into four categories: building damages, non-structural damages, damage to lifelines and infrastructure, and fire losses. The magnitude 7.8 ShakeOut earthquake is modeled to cause about 1800 deaths and $213 billion of economic losses. These numbers are as low as they are because of aggressive retrofitting programs that have increased the seismic resistance of buildings, highways and lifelines, and economic resiliency. These numbers are as large as they are because much more retrofitting could still be done. The earthquake modeled here may never happen. Big earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are inevitable, and by geologic standards extremely common, but probably will not be exactly like this one. The next very damaging earthquake could easily be on another fault. However, lessons learned from this particular event apply to many other events and could provide benefits in many possible future events.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Role of fault gouge during Interaction between hydraulic fracture and a preexisting fracture

Enhanced reservoir connectivity generally requires maximizing the intersection between hydraulic fracture (HF) and preexisting underground natural fractures (NF), while having the hydraulic fracture continue to propagate across the natural fractures. Observations of downhole core samples suggest that these natural fractures are in fact veins filled with minerals such as calcite (Mighani et al., 2016). We study this interaction during the approach of a hydraulic fracture to a smooth saw-cut fracture under triaxial stress conditions. The specimen is Solnhofen limestone, a fine-grained (<5 µm grain), low permeability (<10 nD) carbonate. The differential stress (1-20 MPa) and inclination of the fault which determines the approach angle, θ (30, 60°) are the experimental variables. We conduct the experiments on both bare surface and gouge-filled fault surfaces. The gouge is a 1 mm thick crushed powder of Solnhofen limestone with <106 µm grain size. During the hydraulic fracture, acoustic emissions (AE), inferred slip velocity, axial stress and pore pressure are recorded at a 5 MHz sampling rate. The hydraulic fracture was able to cross the bare surface fault with small induced fault slip. The fault gouge increased the coefficient of friction significantly from 0.12 (bare, polished surface) to > 0.44 (gouged layer). However, the gouge-filled fault arrested the hydraulic fracture and generated a slip event with different characteristics: 1- The stress drop was larger while the generated AE signals had lower magnitude. 2- Slip velocity recorded by the vibrometer was of the same order of magnitude for the bare and gouge-filled faults, but the slip duration increased from 29 µsec for bare surface to ~2.5 msec (~90 times longer rise time) for the gouge-filled fault. The experiments suggest that the gouge-filled fault can accommodate much larger displacement while promoting slow slip on the fault which is harder to detect as AE signals. The observed long duration slip events are similar to the field observations of the long period and long duration (LPLD) events during the stimulation of clay-rich shale formations (Zoback et al., 2012). While the intrinsic low strength, high ductility, and unfavorably oriented natural fractures in shale formations are expected to reduce the occurrence of induced seismicity, our experiments suggest an additional mechanism for the observed LPLD events, i.e. the role of fault gouge. They also suggest that the microseismic detection techniques may under-predict the stimulated volume as the activation of natural gouge-filled fractures may proceed aseismically.

Conference Paper↗

USGS1997

Review of electric and magnetic fields accompanying seismic and volcanic activity

New observations of magnetic, electric and electromagnetic field variations, possibly related to recent volcanic and seismic events, have been obtained on Mt. Unzen in Japan, Reunion Island in Indian Ocean, the Long Valley volcanic caldera in California, and for faults in China and Russia, California and several other locations. For volcanic events, contributions from different physical processes can be identified during the various eruption stages. Slow processes (weeks to months) include near-surface thermal demagnetization effects, piezomagnetic effects, and effects from rotation/displacement of magnetized material. Rapid processes (seconds to days) include piezomagnetic effects from instantaneous stress redistribution with explosive eruptions and electrokinetic effects from rupture of high pressure fluid compartments commonly encountered in volcanic regions. For seismic events, the observed coseismic offsets are instantaneous, provided care has been taken to ensure sensors are insensitive to seismic shaking and are in regions of low magnetic field gradient. Simple piezomagnetic dislocation models based on geodetically and seismically determined fault parameters generally match the observed signals in size and sign. Electrokinetic effects resulting from rupture of fluid filled compartments at hydrostatic to lithostatic pore pressures can generate transient signals in the frequency band 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz. However, large-scale fluid driven processes are not evident in near-field measurements in the epicentral region minutes to weeks before large earthquakes. The subset of ionospheric disturbances generated by trapped atmospheric pressure waves (also termed gravity waves and/or acoustic waves, traveling ionospheric disturbances or TID's) that are excited by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are common and propagate to great distances. These are known and expected consequences of earthquakes, volcanic explosions (and other atmospheric disturbances), that must be identified and their effects removed from VLF/ULF electromagnetic field records before associating new observations of ionospheric disturbances with earthquake activity.

Surveys in Geophysics↗

USGS2025

Introduction to the special section on improving measurements of earthquake source parameters

Earthquake source parameters such as magnitude, seismic moment, source dimension, stress drop, and radiated energy are fundamental to understanding earthquake physics, and are also key ingredients in earthquake ground‐motion modeling, rupture simulation, and statistical seismology. However, the uncertainties in these parameters estimated from the radiated seismic wavefield are large due to variability in approaches, including site and attenuation characterizations, and so estimates for an individual earthquake made by different studies can vary greatly. Estimating spectral source parameters remains a popular topic, due to a combination of their intrinsic importance and their apparent ease of measurement, but also a controversial one, due to many sources of variability and large uncertainty. The available methods coupled with necessary parameter choices and assumptions in the analysis make it challenging for researchers to apply methods or understand the reliability in results or reported source parameters. This Special Section on Improving Measurements of Earthquake Source Parameters showcasing comparisons between methods and studies seeks to alleviate some of these difficulties to help the community identify the important components and trade‐offs of decomposing recorded seismograms into their source, path, and site components.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗