Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

John R. Evans

Publications and source records attributed to John R. Evans.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2021

A reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata

Leaf-level gas exchange data support the mechanistic understanding of plant fluxes of carbon and water. These fluxes inform our understanding of ecosystem function, are an important constraint on parameterization of terrestrial biosphere models, are necessary to understand the response of plants to global environmental change, and are integral to efforts to improve crop production. Collection of these data using gas analyzers can be both technically challenging and time consuming, and individual studies generally focus on a small range of species, restricted time periods, or limited geographic regions. The high value of these data is exemplified by the many publications that reuse and synthesize gas exchange data, however the lack of metadata and data reporting conventions make full and efficient use of these data difficult. Here we propose a reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata to provide guidance to data contributors on how to store data in repositories to maximize their discoverability, facilitate their efficient reuse, and add value to individual datasets. For data users, the reporting format will better allow data repositories to optimize data search and extraction, and more readily integrate similar data into harmonized synthesis products. The reporting format specifies data table variable naming and unit conventions, as well as metadata characterizing experimental conditions and protocols. For common data types that were the focus of this initial version of the reporting format, i.e., survey measurements, dark respiration, carbon dioxide and light response curves, and parameters derived from those measurements, we took a further step of defining required additional data and metadata that would maximize the potential reuse of those data types. To aid data contributors and the development of data ingest tools by data repositories we provided a translation table comparing the outputs of common gas exchange instruments. Extensive consultation with data collectors, data users, instrument manufacturers, and data scientists was undertaken in order to ensure that the reporting format met community needs. The reporting format presented here is intended to form a foundation for future development that will incorporate additional data types and variables as gas exchange systems and measurement approaches advance in the future. The reporting format is published in the U.S. Department of Energy's ESS-DIVE data repository, with documentation and future development efforts being maintained in a version control system.

Ecological Informatics↗
USGS2016

Developments in new fluid rotational seismometers: Instrument performance and future directions

In this article we describe prototype designs and tests for low-cost rota- tional medium- and strong-motion seismometers using three types of proof mass (two liquid and one solid) and a number of transducer configurations. This article describes the third set of designs and tests in our development program. The details of our results for most of these are in the E electronic supplement to this article, whereas here we concentrate on three of the most promising and representative design combinations. Most of our results pertain to sensors with water or silicon oil as the proof mass, though we also tested a torsion-bar design with a solid proof mass. We find that most mass–transducer combinations lead to output proportional to rotational acceleration, with varying degrees of fidelity. Most combinations we tested can be dismissed from further development for reasons of performance or inconvenience during analysis of acceleration response (compare with E electronic supplement). In this article, we describe three of the more promising combinations, one each for the three types of response functions we measured. Of these three, one mass–transducer combination in particular (a hinged sensing element and capacitive transduction) has output voltage closely proportional to rotational displacement (angle) over a wide frequency range; such displacement proportionality obviates two of the integration steps normally re- quired to solve for continuum single-point motions or correct for tilt-induced errors in horizontal translational sensors. Thus, although we illustrate two other designs of some promise, we propose a new design that follows this displacement-proportional path while increasing the device’s sensitivity to on-axis rotations, improving its manu- facturing ease and lowering its sensitivity to translational motions.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2015

A quick SEED tutorial

Introduction A number of different government-funded seismic data centers offer free open-access data (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center, the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), and Data Management System), which can be freely downloaded and shared among different members of the community ( Lay, 2009 ). To efficiently share data, it is important that different data providers follow a common format. The Standard for the Exchange of Earthquake Data (SEED) provides one such format for storing seismic and other geophysical data. The SEED format is widely used in earthquake seismology; however, SEED and its structure can be difficult for many first-time users (ourselves included). Below is a quick tutorial that outlines the basic structure of SEED format. This write-up is in no way intended to replace the comprehensive SEED manual ( Ahern et al. , 2009 ), and instead of going into the details of any specific part of the SEED format we refer the reader to the manual for additional details. The goal of this write-up is to succinctly explain the basic structure of SEED format as well as the associated jargon, as most commonly used now, in a colloquial way so that novice users of SEED can become more familiar with the format and its application quickly. Our goal is to give the reader the necessary background so that when problems or questions about SEED format arise they will have some understanding of where they should look for more details or from where the problem might be stemming. As a secondary goal, we hope to help the reader become familiar with the SEED manual ( Ahern et al. , 2009 ), which contains detailed information about all aspects of the SEED format.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2015

Self-noise models of five commercial strong-motion accelerometers

Strong‐motion accelerometers provide onscale seismic recordings during moderate‐to‐large ground motions (e.g., up to tens of m/s 2 peak). Such instruments have played a fundamental role in improving our understanding of earthquake source physics (Bock etal. , 2011), earthquake engineering (Youd et al. , 2004), and regional seismology (Zollo et al. , 2010). Although strong‐motion accelerometers tend to have higher noise levels than high‐quality broadband velocity seismometers, their higher clip‐levels provide linear recordings at near‐field sites even for the largest of events where a collocated broadband sensor would no longer be able to provide onscale recordings (Clinton and Heaton, 2002). Recently, the seismological community has begun to make use of strong‐motion accelerometer data even in the absence of large ground motions (e.g., Tibuleac et al. , 2011). The noise floor of the instruments often limits the usefulness of strong‐motion accelerometer data in such studies, because it obscures first arrivals or can make the traces dominated by noise. When a strong‐motion accelerometer is deployed in a quiet setting, the noise floors of the digitizer and the accelerometer tend to dominate the other noise sources (Cauzzi and Clinton, 2013). This situation is unlike that using broadband sensors, in which site conditions are typically the largest contributing source of noise in seismic data, especially at long periods (Wilson et al. , 2002). With the widespread deployment of strong‐motion accelerometers recorded on high resolution digitizers, it is now possible to get continuous high‐rate acceleration data in which the digitizer noise is not the dominant noise source (Cauzzi and Clinton, 2013). To better characterize the noise of a number of commonly deployed accelerometers in a standardized way, we conducted noise measurements on five different models of strong‐motion accelerometers. Our study was limited to traditional accelerometers (Fig. 1) and is in no way exhaustive.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2015

What lies deep in the mantle below?

For decades, scientists have probed Earth's remote mantle by analyzing how seismic waves of distant earthquakes pass through it. But we are still challenged by the technique's limitations.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2014

Response of Global Navigation Satellite System receivers to known shaking between 0.2 and 20 Hertz

Over the past decade, several technological advances have allowed Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) receivers to have the capability to record displacements at high frequencies, with sampling rates approaching 100 samples per second (sps). In addition, communication and computer hardware and software have allowed various institutions, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to retrieve, process, and display position changes recorded by a network of GNSS sites with small, less than 1-s delays between the time that the GNSS receiver records signals from a constellation of satellites and the time that the position is estimated (a method known as “real-time”). These improvements in hardware and software have allowed the USGS to process GNSS (or a subset of the GNSS, the Global Positioning System, GPS) data in real-time at 1 sps with the goal of determining displacements from earthquakes and volcanoes in real-time. However, the current set of GNSS equipment can record at rates of 100 sps, which allows the possibility of using this equipment to record earthquake displacements over the full range of frequencies that typically are recorded by acceleration and velocity transducers. The advantage of using GNSS to record earthquakes is that the displacement, rather than acceleration or velocity, is recorded, and for large earthquakes, the GNSS sensor stays on scale and will not distort the observations due to clipping of the signal at its highest amplitude. The direct observation of displacement is advantageous in estimating the size and spatial extent of the earthquake rupture. Otherwise, when using velocity or acceleration sensors, the displacements are determined by numerical integration of the observations, which can introduce significant uncertainty in the estimated displacements. However, GNSS technology can, at best, resolve displacements of a few millimeters, and for most earthquakes, their displacements are less than 1 mm. Consequently, to be useful, GNSS data are only relevant for the large earthquakes with magnitudes (M) exceeding M5.5 at best. With the capability to record GNSS data at high-rate, at sampling rates typical for seismological applications, experiments are needed to quantify the response of GNSS to shaking from earthquakes. There have been a few studies that examine the response of GNSS to strong shaking. One of the first was Elosegui and others (2006), where they simulated surface waves from a distant earthquake and mechanically applied the shaking to a GPS antenna. They processed the 1 sps observations and compared the estimated displacements with the simulated displacements. They determined that the GPS could accurately track the simulated surface wave whose primary frequency spans from 0.01 to 0.1 Hertz (Hz), which spanned the frequency band of the simulation. To test GNSS equipment due to shaking from a large earthquake in the near-field, Wang and others (2012) used a mechanical simulator or shake table with 6 degrees of freedom and studied two different inputs to the simulator—(1) the accelerometer record from one station that was located near the 2010 M8.8 Maule, Chile earthquake, and (2) a 2-Hz sinusoid. Wang and others (2012) analyzed the 2-Hz data with spectral analysis and determined that the displacements observed by the GPS included higher harmonics along with the 2-Hz signal. In addition, the background spectral amplitude was greater during periods of 2-Hz shaking than when at rest. With the simulated M 8.8 earthquake, Wang and others (2012) observed decreased signal to noise for L1 and L2 carrier frequencies of the GPS signal, at times corresponding to high acceleration and jerk (first derivative of acceleration). One of the principal limitations of these experiments was that the displacements of the shake table itself could not be measured independently. Although with the 2-Hz sinusoidal measurements, the input displacements were purely translational, Wang and others (2012) analysis of the data showed that the shake table also included rotational motions which affect horizontal inertial sensors like accelerometers and seismometers at first order. More recently, Ebinuma and Kato (2012) used a GPS simulator to electronically test several GNSS receivers and obtain the receiver characteristics at three frequencies: 1, 2, and 5 Hz. The results showed that the amplitude of 5-Hz displacements recorded by the GPS was, depending on the receiver model, between 30 and 125 percent more than the displacement input to the simulator. At low frequencies, the GPS displacement was nearly equal to the input displacement. In addition, Ebinuma and Kato (2012) examined how each receiver model amplified an earthquake displacement record in the 2–8 Hz band. The simulated earthquake was the 2008 moment magnitude (Mw) 6.8 Iwate-Miyagi earthquake where, for the simulated record, acceleration peaked at 1 G. The study discussed here builds on the tests by Ebinuma and Kato (2012), but rather than using electronic simulation, the tests are setup outdoors and closer to actual field installations of GNSS equipment. We used a one-dimensional shake table capable of 400 mm of displacement and high acceleration; the shake table also is constrained by a precision linear slider to have very low tilt that would affect inertial sensors. In addition, the stage position can be accurately monitored independent of the GNSS hardware and, importantly, provides a reference to compare with the estimated displacements from the GNSS data. Our tests spanned a greater frequency range from 0.2 to 20 Hz and we used equipment from three different manufacturers covering five different combinations of receivers and antennas. In addition, we have been able to simulate the frequency response of the GNSS equipment using a simple, causal filter. The quality of the filter was tested using additional test data where a step function in displacement was applied to the shake table. The observed displacements from the GNSS data show an overshoot in displacement at the time of the step or transition of the stage. That overshoot was accurately predicted using the filter design derived from our sinusoidal displacement tests. Similar to Wang and others (2012), we also examined the GPS displacement records using standard spectral techniques. However, we extended their work by evaluating several models of GNSS receivers using a variety of input frequencies. Because our shake table was limited on acceleration and displacement, we did not attempt to duplicate the high shaking associated with high magnitude earthquakes. However, because our shake table could measure the table displacement, we could directly compare the measured GPS displacements with the true displacements.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Caveats on tomographic images

Geological and geodynamic models of the mantle often rely on joint interpretations of published seismic tomography images and petrological/geochemical data. This approach tends to neglect the fundamental limitations of, and uncertainties in, seismic tomography results. These limitations and uncertainties involve theory, correcting for the crust, the lack of rays throughout much of the mantle, the difficulty in obtaining the true strength of anomalies, choice of what background model to subtract to reveal anomalies, and what cross-sections to select for publication. The aim of this review is to provide a relatively non-technical summary of the most important of these problems, collected together in a single paper, and presented in a form accessible to non-seismologists. Appreciation of these issues is essential if final geodynamic models are to be robust, and required by the scientific observations.

Terra Nova↗
USGS2012

Shear-wave splitting from local earthquakes at the Geysers Geothermal Field, California

Shear-wave splitting from local microearth-quakes recorded in The Geysers geothermal field shows that seismic anisotropy is distributed in a complex geographic pattern. At stations within about 2 km of northwest-striking regional faults, the fast polarization direction is parallel to those faults. The geothermal field, lying between two such faults, has both northwest and northeast fast polarization directions, often at the same station. This pattern suggests at least two causes of splitting: (1) extensive dilatancy anisotropy (EDA) and (2) fault-produced fractures or rock fabric. The observed anisotropy may derive from the upper 1.5 km of the crust, averaging 4% there, or it may be heterogeneously distributed throughout the upper 5 km. Fast polarization directions coincide with fracture directions inferred from borehole data for one of the youngest rock types in the region, a felsite pluton of about 1 Ma, and with injectate pathways inferred from microseismicity and geochemistry. Including in reservoir models a permeability anisotropy with a pattern similar to seismic anisotropy may help in optimizing fluid injection and steam recovery.

California↗
USGS2012

Teleseismic tomography of the Loma Prieta Earthquake Region, California: Implications for strain partitioning

From teleseismic travel times we derive three-dimensional velocity models of the upper 71 km in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake region, central California. Shallow crustal structure is consistent with local-earthquake tomography. Horizontal velocity gradients at all depths suggest that the San Andreas fault was a deep shear locus, at least at one time. A large low-velocity feature near the Moho beneath Loma Prieta probably is caused by a crustal root. Two low-velocity features at about 45–70 km depth are offset right-laterally along the San Andreas by about 45 km. Cooling of this portion of the upper mantle [ Furlong et al., 1989] could have frozen in displacements in this region within a few million years after passage of the Mendocino Triple Junction. These results are consistent with Furlong et al.'s model.

California↗
USGS2012

Crustal subsidence and extension and Medicine Lake volcano, northern California

The pattern of historical ground deformation, seismicity, and crustal structure near Medicine Lake volcano illustrates a close relation between magmatism and tectonism near the margin of the Cascade volcanic chain and the Basin and Range tectonic province. Between leveling surveys in 1954 and 1989 the summit of Medicine Lake volcano subsided 389±43 mm with respect to a reference bench mark 40 km to the southwest (average rate = 11.1±1.2 mm/yr). A smaller survey across the summit caldera in 1988 suggests that the subsidence rate was 15–28 mm/yr during 1988–1989. Swarms of shallow earthquakes ( M ≤ 4.6) occurred in the region during August 1978, January–February 1981, and September 1988. Except for the 1988 swarm, which occurred beneath Medicine Lake caldera, most historical earthquakes were located at least 25 km from the summit. The spatial relation between subsidence and seismicity indicates (1) radially symmetric downwarping of the volcano's summit and flanks centered near the caldera and (2) downfaulting of the entire edifice along regional faults located 25–30 km from the summit. We propose that contemporary subsidence, seismicity, and faulting are caused by (1) loading of the crust by more than 600 km 3 of erupted products plus a large volume of mafic intrusives; (2) east‐west extension in the western Basin and Range province; and, to a lesser extent, (3) crystallization or withdrawal of magma beneath the volcano. Thermal weakening of the subvolcanic crust by mafic intrusions facilitates subsidence and influences the distribution of earthquakes. Subsidence occurs mainly by aseismic creep within 25 km of the summit, where the crust has been heated and weakened by intrusions, and by normal faulting during episodic earthquake swarms in surrounding, cooler terrain.

California↗
USGS2012

Note: Rotaphone, a new self-calibrated six-degree-of-freedom seismic sensor

We have developed and tested (calibration, linearity, and cross-axis errors) a new six-degree-of-freedom mechanical seismic sensor for collocated measurements of three translational and three rotational ground motion velocity components. The device consists of standard geophones arranged in parallel pairs to detect spatial gradients. The instrument operates in a high-frequency range (above the natural frequency of the geophones, 4.5 Hz). Its theoretical sensitivity limit in this range is 10(-9) m/s in ground velocity and 10(-9) rad/s in rotation rate. Small size and weight, and easy installation and maintenance make the instrument useful for local-earthquake recording and seismic prospecting.

Review of Scientific Instruments↗
USGS2012

Observed source parameters for dynamic rupture with non-uniform initial stressand relatively high fracture energy

We have conducted dynamic rupture propagation experiments to establish the relations between in-source stress drop, fracture energy and the resulting particle velocity during slip of an unconfined 2 m long laboratory fault at normal stresses between 4 and 8 MPa. To produce high fracture energy in the source we use a rough fault that has a large slip weakening distance. An artifact of the high fracture energy is that the nucleation zone is large such that precursory slip reduces fault strength over a large fraction of the total fault length prior to dynamic rupture, making the initial stress non-uniform. Shear stress, particle velocity, fault slip and acceleration were recorded coseismically at multiple locations along strike and at small fault-normal distances. Stress drop increases weakly with normal stress. Average slip rate depends linearly on the fault strength loss and on static stress drop, both with a nonzero intercept. A minimum fracture energy of 1.8 J/m 2 and a linear slip weakening distance of 33 μm are inferred from the intercept. The large slip weakening distance also affects the average slip rate which is reduced by in-source energy dissipation from on-fault fracture energy. Because of the low normal stress and small per event slip (∼86 μm), no thermal weakening such as melting or pore fluid pressurization occurs in these experiments. Despite the relatively high fracture energy, and the very low heat production, energy partitioning during these laboratory earthquakes is very similar to typical earthquake source properties. The product of fracture energy and fault area is larger than the radiated energy. Seismic efficiency is low at ∼2%. The ratio of apparent stress to static stress drop is ∼27%, consistent with measured overshoot. The fracture efficiency is ∼33%. The static and dynamic stress drops when extrapolated to crustal stresses are 2–7.3 MPa and in the range of typical earthquake stress drops. As the relatively high fracture energy reduces the slip velocities in these experiments, the extrapolated average particle velocities for crustal stresses are 0.18–0.6 m/s. That these experiments are consistent with typical earthquake source properties suggests, albeit indirectly, that thermal weakening mechanisms such as thermal pressurization and melting which lead to near complete stress drops, dominate earthquake source properties only for exceptional events unless crustal stresses are low.

Journal of Structural Geology↗
USGS2010

Method for calculating self-noise spectra and operating ranges for seismographic inertial sensors and recorders

Understanding the performance of sensors and recorders is prerequisite to making appropriate use of them in seismology and earthquake engineering. This paper explores a critical aspect of instrument performance, the “self” noise level of the device and the amplitude range it can usefully record. Self noise limits the smallest signals, while instrument clipping level creates the upper limit (above which it either cannot produce signals or becomes unacceptably nonlinear). Where these levels fall, and the “operating range” between them, determines much of the instrument's viability and the applications for which it is appropriate. The representation of seismic-instrument self-noise levels and their effective operating ranges (cf., dynamic range) for seismological inertial sensors, recorders (data acquisition units, or DAUs), and integrated systems of sensors and recorders (data acquisition systems, or DASs) forces one to address an unnatural comparison between transient finite-bandwidth signals, such as earthquake records, and the instrument's self noise, an effectively stationary signal of infinite duration. In addition to being transient, earthquakes and other records of interest are characterized by a peak amplitude and generally a narrow, peaked spectral shape. Unfortunately, any power spectrum computed for such transient signals is ill defined, since the maximum of that spectrum depends strongly upon signal and record durations. In contrast, the noise floor of an instrument is approximately stationary and properly described by a power spectral density (PSD) or its root (rPSD). Put another way, earthquake records have units of amplitude ( e.g. , m/s 2 ) while PSDs have units of amplitude-squared per hertz ( e.g. , (m/s 2 ) 2 /Hz) and the rPSD has units of amplitude per root of hertz ( e.g. , (m/s 2 )/Hz 1/2 ). Thus, this incompatability is a conflict between earthquake (amplitude) and PSD (spectral density) units that requires one to make various assumptions before they can be compared. For purposes of instrument operational performance, we provide a means of evaluating signal and noise and the range between them in a manner representative of time-domain instrument performance. We call these “operating range diagrams” (ORDs), plots of instrument self noise and clipping level; the “operating range” is the range between these values. For frequency-domain performance we elect to show self noise as an rPSD that may be compared to another instrument's noise or to ambient Earth noise ( e.g. , Peterson 1993); however, to limit the number of arbitrary choices required to merge transient and stationary signals we do not compare the rPSD to transient signals in the frequency domain. Our solution for a time-domain comparison is not new but rather builds upon the consensus of the first and second Guidelines for Seismometer Testing workshops (Hutt et al. 2009) and long established practice in acoustics. We propose this method as a standard for characterizing seismic instruments, and it has been endorsed by the second workshop (Hutt et al. 2009, 2010) and the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Working Group (2008) and recent ANSS procurement specifications.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2010

Guidelines for Standardized Testing of Broadband Seismometers and Accelerometers

Testing and specification of seismic and earthquake-engineering sensors and recorders has been marked by significant variations in procedures and selected parameters. These variations cause difficulty in comparing such specifications and test results. In July 1989, and again in May 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey hosted international pub-lic/private workshops with the goal of defining widely accepted guidelines for the testing of seismological inertial sensors, seismometers, and accelerometers. The Proceedings of the 2005 workshop have been published and include as appendix 6 the report of the 1989 workshop. This document represents a collation and rationalization of a single set of formal guidelines for testing and specifying broadband seismometers and accelerometers.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Proceedings of the Guidelines for Seismometer Testing Workshop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 9-10 May 2005 ("GST2")

Testing and specification of seismic and earthquake-engineering sensors and recorders has been marked by significant variations in procedures and selected parameters. These variations cause difficulty in comparing such specifications and test results. In July 1989, and again in May 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey hosted international public/private workshops with the goal of defining widely accepted guidelines for the testing of seismological inertial sensors, seismometers, and accelerometers. This document reports the Proceedings of the 2005 workshop and includes as Appendix 6 the report of the 1989 workshop. In a future document, we will attempt to collate and rationalize a single set of formal guidelines for testing and specifying seismic sensors, supplementing Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) guidelines on instrumentation likely used by ANSS as its standard for verification, acceptance, and intermittent testing, as well as for responses to ANSS instrument requisitions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

A Brief Test of the Tokyo Sokushin VSE-355G3 Strong Motion Velocity Seismometer

The VSE-355G3 seismometer is a broadband seismometer (called a 'servo velocity meter' by Tokyo Sokushin) with a specified clip level of 2 m/s and a flat response to earth velocity from 0.008 Hertz (Hz) to 70 Hz. Mr. Yokoi and Mr. Kurahashi of Tokyo Sokushin shipped one instrument to the U. S. Geological Survey's Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) for testing in early September 2007. They gave a presentation on this instrument and some of their other products to the authors and others on September 6, 2007. Testing of the VSE-355G3, Serial Number 70520, commenced on Friday, September 7, 2007.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

The Virtual Data Center Tagged-Format Tool: Introduction and executive summary

This Report introduces and summarizes the new Virtual Data Center (VDC) Tagged Format (VTF) Tool, which was developed by a diverse group of seismologists, earthquake engineers, and information technology professionals for internal use by the COSMOS VDC and other interested parties for the exchange, archiving, and analysis of earthquake strong-ground-motion data.

Open-File Report↗