Geology topics

Oliver S. Boyd

Publications and source records attributed to Oliver S. Boyd.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Preliminary 2018 national seismic hazard model for the conterminous United States

The 2014 U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard model for the conterminous U.S. will be updated in 2018 and 2020 to coincide with the Building Seismic Safety Council’s Project 17 timeline for development of new building code design criteria. The two closely timed updates are planned to allow more time for the Provisions Update Committee to analyze the consequences of the hazard model changes in the design criteria. To prepare the 2018 update we held a workshop (March 7-8, 2018) with scientists and engineers to solicit feedback on the model. The 2018 model will be available for public comment during the summer of 2018. The purpose of this paper is to solicit feedback on the modeling choices and results. The 2018 NSHM considers an updated seismicity catalog and certain key changes in the way ground motions are calculated. First, we implemented new Next Generation Attenuation Relationships for the Central and Eastern North America Region and other published models that allow for the calculation of ground motions at additional periods and site classes in the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS). Second, basin depth terms were implemented in the ground motion models in select regions of the western U.S. (WUS) to account for enhanced long-period ground motions at softer soil sites overlying sedimentary basins. Preliminary results indicate higher ground motions for all periods in parts of the CEUS and for long-periods and soft soils in urban areas overlying sedimentary basins in the WUS.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2017

Influence of lithostatic stress on earthquake stress drops in North America

We estimate stress drops for earthquakes in and near the continental United States using the method of spectral ratios. The ratio of acceleration spectra between collocated earthquakes recorded at a given station removes the effects of path and recording site and yields source parameters including corner frequency for, and the ratio of seismic moment between, the two earthquakes. We determine stress drop from these parameters for 1121 earthquakes greater than M ∼3 in 60 earthquake clusters. We find that the average Brune stress drop for the few eastern United States (EUS) tectonic mainshocks studied (2.6–36 MPa) is about three times greater than that of tectonic mainshocks in the western United States (WUS, 1.0–7.9 MPa) and five times greater than mainshocks potentially induced by wastewater injection in the central United States (CUS, 0.6–5.6 MPa). EUS events tend to be deeper thrusting events, whereas WUS events tend to be shallower but have a wide range of focal mechanisms. CUS events tend to be shallow with strike‐slip to normal‐faulting mechanisms. With the possible exception of CUS aftershocks, we find that differences in stress drop among all events can be taken into account, within one standard deviation of significance, by differences in the shear failure stress as outlined by Mohr–Coulomb theory. The shear failure stress is a function of vertical stress (or depth), the fault style (normal, strike slip, or reverse), and coefficient of friction (estimated here to be, on average, 0.64). After accounting for faulting style and depth dependence, we find that the average Brune stress drop is about 3% of the failure stress. These results suggest that high‐frequency shaking hazard (>∼1 Hz) from shallow induced events and aftershocks is reduced to some extent by lower stress drop. However, the shallow hypocenters will increase hazard within several kilometers of the source.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2016

2016 Eastern Section SSA Annual Meeting Report

Report on the Eastern Section Seismological Society of America Meeting.

Virginia↗

USGS2016

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

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

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

USGS2016

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

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

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2016

Dense lower crust elevates long-term earthquake rates in the New Madrid seismic zone

Knowledge of the local state of stress is critical in appraising intraplate seismic hazard. Inverting earthquake moment tensors, we demonstrate that principal stress directions in the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) differ significantly from those in the surrounding region. Faults in the NMSZ that are incompatible with slip in the regional stress field are favorably oriented relative to local stress. We jointly analyze seismic velocity, gravity, and topography to develop a 3-D crustal and upper mantle density model, revealing uniquely dense lower crust beneath the NMSZ. Finite element simulations then estimate the stress tensor due to gravitational body forces, which sums with regional stress. The anomalous lower crust both elevates gravity-derived stress at seismogenic depths in the NMSZ and rotates it to interfere more constructively with far-field stress, producing a regionally maximal deviatoric stress coincident with the highest concentration of modern seismicity. Moreover, predicted principal stress directions mirror variations (observed independently in moment tensors) at the NMSZ and across the region.

Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee↗

USGS2015

A random-walk algorithm for modeling lithospheric density and the role of body forces in the evolution of the Midcontinent Rift

This paper develops a Monte Carlo algorithm for extracting three-dimensional lithospheric density models from geophysical data. Empirical scaling relationships between velocity and density create a 3D starting density model, which is then iteratively refined until it reproduces observed gravity and topography. This approach permits deviations from uniform crustal velocity-density scaling, which provide insight into crustal lithology and prevent spurious mapping of crustal anomalies into the mantle. We test this algorithm on the Proterozoic Midcontinent Rift (MCR), north-central U.S. The MCR provides a challenge because it hosts a gravity high overlying low shear-wave velocity crust in a generally flat region. Our initial density estimates are derived from a seismic velocity/crustal thickness model based on joint inversion of surface-wave dispersion and receiver functions. By adjusting these estimates to reproduce gravity and topography, we generate a lithospheric-scale model that reveals dense middle crust and eclogitized lowermost crust within the rift. Mantle lithospheric density beneath the MCR is not anomalous, consistent with geochemical evidence that lithospheric mantle was not the primary source of rift-related magmas and suggesting that extension occurred in response to far-field stress rather than a hot mantle plume. Similarly, the subsequent inversion of normal faults resulted from changing far-field stress that exploited not only warm, recently faulted crust but also a gravitational potential energy low in the MCR. The success of this density modeling algorithm in the face of such apparently contradictory geophysical properties suggests that it may be applicable to a variety of tectonic and geodynamic problems.

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisco↗

USGS2015

Seismic hazard in the Nation's breadbasket

The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps were updated in 2014 and included several important changes for the central United States (CUS). Background seismicity sources were improved using a new moment-magnitude-based catalog; a new adaptive, nearest-neighbor smoothing kernel was implemented; and maximum magnitudes for background sources were updated. Areal source zones developed by the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities project were simplified and adopted. The weighting scheme for ground motion models was updated, giving more weight to models with a faster attenuation with distance compared to the previous maps. Overall, hazard changes (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, across a range of ground-motion frequencies) were smaller than 10% in most of the CUS relative to the 2008 USGS maps despite new ground motion models and their assigned logic tree weights that reduced the probabilistic ground motions by 5–20%.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

Seismic hazard in the eastern United States

The U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard maps for the central and eastern United States were updated in 2014. We analyze results and changes for the eastern part of the region. Ratio maps are presented, along with tables of ground motions and deaggregations for selected cities. The Charleston fault model was revised, and a new fault source for Charlevoix was added. Background seismicity sources utilized an updated catalog, revised completeness and recurrence models, and a new adaptive smoothing procedure. Maximum-magnitude models and ground motion models were also updated. Broad, regional hazard reductions of 5%–20% are mostly attributed to new ground motion models with stronger near-source attenuation. The revised Charleston fault geometry redistributes local hazard, and the new Charlevoix source increases hazard in northern New England. Strong increases in mid- to high-frequency hazard at some locations—for example, southern New Hampshire, central Virginia, and eastern Tennessee—are attributed to updated catalogs and/or smoothing.

eastern United States↗

USGS2015

Seismic source characterization for the 2014 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

We present the updated seismic source characterization (SSC) for the 2014 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. Construction of the seismic source models employs the methodology that was developed for the 1996 NSHM but includes new and updated data, data types, source models, and source parameters that reflect the current state of knowledge of earthquake occurrence and state of practice for seismic hazard analyses. We review the SSC parameterization and describe the methods used to estimate earthquake rates, magnitudes, locations, and geometries for all seismic source models, with an emphasis on new source model components. We highlight the effects that two new model components—incorporation of slip rates from combined geodetic-geologic inversions and the incorporation of adaptively smoothed seismicity models—have on probabilistic ground motions, because these sources span multiple regions of the conterminous United States and provide important additional epistemic uncertainty for the 2014 NSHM.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

The 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model

New seismic hazard maps have been developed for the conterminous United States using the latest data, models, and methods available for assessing earthquake hazard. The hazard models incorporate new information on earthquake rupture behavior observed in recent earthquakes; fault studies that use both geologic and geodetic strain rate data; earthquake catalogs through 2012 that include new assessments of locations and magnitudes; earthquake adaptive smoothing models that more fully account for the spatial clustering of earthquakes; and 22 ground motion models, some of which consider more than double the shaking data applied previously. Alternative input models account for larger earthquakes, more complicated ruptures, and more varied ground shaking estimates than assumed in earlier models. The ground motions, for levels applied in building codes, differ from the previous version by less than ±10% over 60% of the country, but can differ by ±50% in localized areas. The models are incorporated in insurance rates, risk assessments, and as input into the U.S. building code provisions for earthquake ground shaking.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

Crustal deformation in the New Madrid seismic zone and the role of postseismic processes

Global Navigation Satellite System data across the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) in the central United States over the period from 2000 through 2014 are analyzed and modeled with several deformation mechanisms including the following: (1) creep on subsurface dislocations, (2) postseismic frictional afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation from the 1811–1812 and 1450 earthquakes in the NMSZ, and (3) regional strain. In agreement with previous studies, a dislocation creeping at about 4 mm/yr between 12 and 20 km depth along the downdip extension of the Reelfoot fault reproduces the observations well. We find that a dynamic model of postseismic frictional afterslip from the 1450 and February 1812 Reelfoot fault events can explain this creep. Kinematic and dynamic models involving the Cottonwood Grove fault provide minimal predictive power. This is likely due to the smaller size of the December 1811 event on the Cottonwood Grove fault and a distribution of stations better suited to constrain localized strain across the Reelfoot fault. Regional compressive strain across the NMSZ is found to be less than 3 × 10 −9 /yr. If much of the present-day surface deformation results from afterslip, it is likely that many of the earthquakes we see today in the NMSZ are aftershocks from the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes. Despite this conclusion, our results are consistent with observations and models of intraplate earthquake clustering. Given this and the recent paleoseismic history of the region, we suggest that seismic hazard is likely to remain significant.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗

USGS2015

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

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

Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee↗

USGS2015

Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States, 2014

The maps presented here provide an update to the 2008 data contained in U.S Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3195 ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/ ).Probabilistic seismic-hazard maps were prepared for the conterminous United States for 2014 portraying peak horizontal acceleration and horizontal spectral response acceleration for 0.2- and 1.0-second periods with probabilities of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years and 2 percent in 50 years. All of the maps were prepared by combining the hazard derived from spatially smoothed historical seismicity with the hazard from fault-specific sources. The acceleration values contoured are the random horizontal component. The reference site condition is firm rock, defined as having an average shear-wave velocity of 760 m/s in the top 30 meters corresponding to the boundary between NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction program) site classes B and C. This data set represents the results of calculations of hazard curves for a grid of points with a spacing of 0.05 degrees in latitude and longitude. The grid of points was contoured to produce the final representation of the seismic hazard. These maps are intended to summarize the available quantitative information about seismic ground motion hazard for the conterminous United States from geologic and geophysical sources.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS2014

Why the New Madrid earthquakes are M 7–8 and the Charleston earthquake is ∼M 7

Estimates of magnitudes of large historical earthquakes are an essential input to and can seriously affect seismic‐hazard estimates. The earthquake‐intensity observations, modified Mercalli intensities (MMI), and assigned magnitudes M of the 1811–1812 New Madrid events have been reinterpreted several times in the last decade and have been a source of controversy in making seismic‐hazard estimates in the central United States. Observations support the concept that the larger the earthquake, the greater the maximum‐felt distance. For the same crustal attenuation and local soil conditions, magnitude should be the main influence on intensity values at large distances. We apply this concept by comparing the mean MMI at distances of 600–1200 km for each of the four largest New Madrid 1811–1812 earthquakes, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, the 1929 M 7.2 Grand Banks earthquake, and the 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake. We fit the intensity observations using the form MMI= A + C ×dist−0.8×log(dist) to better define intensity attenuation in eastern North America (ENA). The intensity attenuation in cratonic India differs from ENA and is corrected to ENA using both the above estimate and published intensity relations. We evaluate source, marine geophysical, Q , and stress‐drop information, as well as a 1929 Milne–Shaw record at Chicago to confirm that the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake occurred in ENA crust. Our direct comparison of mean intensities beyond 600 km suggests M 7.5, 7.3, 7.7, and 6.9 for the three New Madrid 1811–1812 mainshocks and the largest aftershock and M 7.0 for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, with an estimated uncertainty of 0.3 units at the 95% confidence level (based on a Monte Carlo analysis). Our mean New Madrid and Charleston mainshock magnitudes are similar to those of Bakun and Hopper (2004) and are much higher than those of Hough and Page (2011) for New Madrid.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2014

Estimating earthquake magnitudes from reported intensities in the central and eastern United States

A new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is derived for the central and eastern United States and is used to estimate the magnitudes of the 1811–1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes. This work improves upon previous derivations of intensity prediction equations by including additional intensity data, correcting magnitudes in the intensity datasets to moment magnitude, and accounting for the spatial and temporal population distributions. The new relation leads to moment magnitude estimates for the New Madrid earthquakes that are toward the lower range of previous studies. Depending on the intensity dataset to which the new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is applied, mean estimates for the 16 December 1811, 23 January 1812, and 7 February 1812 mainshocks, and 16 December 1811 dawn aftershock range from 6.9 to 7.1, 6.8 to 7.1, 7.3 to 7.6, and 6.3 to 6.5, respectively. One‐sigma uncertainties on any given estimate could be as high as 0.3–0.4 magnitude units. We also estimate a magnitude of 6.9±0.3 for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. We find a greater range of magnitude estimates when also accounting for multiple macroseismic intensity prediction equations. The inability to accurately and precisely ascertain magnitude from intensities increases the uncertainty of the central United States earthquake hazard by nearly a factor of two. Relative to the 2008 national seismic hazard maps, our range of possible 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquake magnitudes increases the coefficient of variation of seismic hazard estimates for Memphis, Tennessee, by 35%–42% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 2% probability in 50 years and by 27%–35% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 10% probability in 50 years.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2014

Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps

The national seismic hazard maps for the conterminous United States have been updated to account for new methods, models, and data that have been obtained since the 2008 maps were released (Petersen and others, 2008). The input models are improved from those implemented in 2008 by using new ground motion models that have incorporated about twice as many earthquake strong ground shaking data and by incorporating many additional scientific studies that indicate broader ranges of earthquake source and ground motion models. These time-independent maps are shown for 2-percent and 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for peak horizontal ground acceleration as well as 5-hertz and 1-hertz spectral accelerations with 5-percent damping on a uniform firm rock site condition (760 meters per second shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m, V S30 ). In this report, the 2014 updated maps are compared with the 2008 version of the maps and indicate changes of plus or minus 20 percent over wide areas, with larger changes locally, caused by the modifications to the seismic source and ground motion inputs.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

Advancing geodesy in the U.S. Midcontinent: workshop report

The workshop on “Advancing Geodesy in the U.S. Midcontinent” was held from October 31 to November 1, 2012, at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The workshop included 28 participants from academia, government, and private-sector organizations that are involved in research on geodesy and earthquake hazards in the seismically active areas of the U.S. midcontinent (the region of relatively undeformed crust roughly between the Great Plains and Appalachian Mountains). The workshop was intended to provide guidance to the U.S. Geological Survey’s internal and external Earthquake Hazards research programs in the U.S. midcontinent. The 2012 workshop was developed as a follow-up to the “Workshop on New Madrid Geodesy and Understanding Intraplate Earthquakes,” held in Norwood, Massachusetts, in March 2011. The goal of the 2012 workshop was to provide specific recommendations to the U.S. Geological Survey on priorities for infrastructure and research investments related to geodesy in the U.S. midcontinent.

Open-File Report↗