Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Paul Bodin

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Bodin.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2025

Fiber-optic sensing for earthquake hazards research, monitoring and early warning

The use of fiber‐optic sensing systems in seismology has exploded in the past decade. Despite an ever‐growing library of ground‐breaking studies, questions remain about the potential of fiber‐optic sensing technologies as tools for advancing if not revolutionizing earthquake‐hazards‐related research, monitoring, and early warning systems. A working group convened to explore these topics; we comprehensively examined the application of fiber optics in various aspects of earthquake hazards, encompassing earthquake source processes, crustal imaging, data archiving, and technological challenges. There is great potential for fiber‐optic systems to advance earthquake monitoring and understanding, but to fully unlock their capabilities requires continued progress in key areas of research and development, including instrument testing and validation, increased dynamic range for applications focused on larger earthquakes, and continued improvement in subsurface and source imaging methods. A key current stumbling block results from the lack of clear data archiving requirements, and we propose an initial strategy that balances data volume requirements with preserving key data for a broad range of future studies. In addition, we demonstrate the potential for fiber‐optic sensing to impact monitoring efforts by documenting the data completeness in a number of long‐term experiments. Finally, we outline the features of a instrument testing facility that would enable progress toward reliable and standardized distributed acoustic sensing data. Overcoming these current obstacles would facilitate progress in fiber‐optic sensing and unlock its potential application to a broad range of earthquake hazard problems.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2022

Using seismic noise correlation to determine the shallow velocity structure of the Seattle basin, Washington

Cross-correlation waveforms of seismic noise in the Seattle basin, Washington, were analyzed to determine the group velocities of surface waves and constrain the shear-wave velocity ( V S ) for depths less than about 2 kilometers (km). Twenty broadband seismometers were deployed for about 3 weeks in three dense arrays separated by about 5 km, with minimum intra-array station spacing of about 0.5 km. Cross correlations of only 9 days of noise recordings produced Green’s functions at periods of 2 to 6 seconds (s) for sites about 5 km apart. Usable noise correlations for shorter periods of 0.5 to 1.0 s were found for sites within the arrays separated by 1 to 2 km. We bandpass filtered the inter- and intra-array cross-correlation waveforms to determine Love-wave group velocities at periods of 0.5 to 6 s for paths within the Seattle basin and at 3 to 5 s for paths crossing the southern edge of the basin. We developed a non-linear inversion program to determine V S profiles that fit the observed group velocities for paths in the basin. We found that these group velocities are well fit by a variety of V S profiles, each with a distinct jump in V S at depths ranging from 0.9 to 1.3 km. This jump in V S is inferred to represent the top of bedrock. The observed group velocities are not matched by models with the top of bedrock at 0.7-km depth or shallower. The group velocities are also fit by a model with no large jumps in V S in depths less than 2.4 km. The V S profile for the middle of the basin from Stephenson and others (2017), with a depth to bedrock of 0.9 km, also adequately fits the group velocity observations, if a velocity gradient is added from 0.05- to 0.1-km depth. The results indicate that short (3-week) deployments of seismometers to record seismic noise may provide useful constraints on the V S of sedimentary basins.

Washington↗
USGS2021

The productivity of Cascadia aftershock sequences

This study addresses questions about the productivity of Cascadia mainshock–aftershock sequences using earthquake catalogs produced by the Geological Survey of Canada and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. Questions concern the likelihood that future moderate to large intermediate depth intraslab earthquakes in Cascadia would have as few detectable aftershocks as those documented since 1949. More broadly, for Cascadia, we consider if aftershock productivities vary spatially, if they are outliers among global subduction zones, and if they are consistent with a physical model in which aftershocks are clock‐advanced versions of tectonically driven background seismicity. A practical motivation for this study is to assess the likely accuracy of aftershock forecasts based on productivities derived from global data that are now being issued routinely by the U.S. Geological Survey. For this reason, we estimated productivity following the identical procedures used in those forecasts and described in Page et al. (2016) . Results indicate that in Cascadia we can say that the next intermediate depth intraslab earthquake will likely have just a few detectable aftershocks and that aftershock productivity appears to be an outlier among global subduction zones, with rates that on average are lower by more than half, except for mainshocks in the upper plate. Our results are consistent with a clock‐advance model; productivities may be related to the proximity of mainshocks to a population of seismogenic fault patches and correlate with background seismicity rates. The latter and a clear correlation between productivities with mainshock depth indicate that both factors may have predictive value for aftershock forecasting.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2020

Developing post-alert messaging for ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America

As ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the U.S., begins its transition to operational public alerting, we explore how post-alert messaging might represent system performance. Planned post-alert messaging can provide timely, crucial information to both emergency managers and ShakeAlert operators as well as calibrate expectations among various publics or public user groups and inform their responses to future alerts. There is a concern among the scientists and emergency managers that false alerts may negatively impact trust in the system, so quickly disseminated post-alert messages are necessary. For a new early warning system, such as ShakeAlert, this is particularly relevant given that the potentially affected population is likely to be unfamiliar with this system. We address this concern in six steps: (1) assessment of ShakeAlert performance to date, (2) characterization of human behavior and response to earthquake alerts, (3) presentation of a decision tree for issuing post-alert messages, (4) design of a critical set of post-alert messaging scenarios, (5) elaboration of these scenarios with message templates for a variety of communication channels, and (6) development of a typology of earthquake alerts. We further explore methods for monitoring and evaluating ShakeAlert post-alert messaging, for continuous improvement to the system.

California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Uta↗
USGS2018

Revised technical implementation plan for the ShakeAlert system—An earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), along with partner organizations, has developed an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the highest risk areas of the United States: namely, California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by providing alerts to institutional users and the public. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Alerts can then be sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System. However, these networks were not originally designed for EEW; old equip­ment needs to be updated and new stations must be added to construct EEW-capable networks. The ShakeAlert data-processing infrastructure includes redundant servers that are geographically distributed at monitoring centers in Seattle, Washington, as well as Menlo Park, Berkeley, and Pasadena in California. Three data-processing layers collect raw ground-motion data from field stations (data layer), analyze these data to estimate the area and intensity of the resulting shaking (production layer), and publish alert products as appropriate for end users (alert layer). The alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission, infrastructure, or expertise to perform public notifications and is therefore recruiting technology enablers from the private sector. Additionally, ShakeAlert will coordinate with both public and private partners to accomplish consistent and ongoing public communication, education, and outreach. The estimated cost of completing the ShakeAlert infrastructure and sensor networks is \$39.4 million and has an estimated annual operation and maintenance cost of \$28.6 million per year. Building a highly reliable data telemetry infrastructure would cost another \$20.5 million and operating this telemetry system would add \$49.8 million per year; however, these costs could be reduced if project partners provide bandwidth on existing systems.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Research to improve ShakeAlert earthquake early warning products and their utility

Earthquake early warning (EEW) is the rapid detection of an earthquake and issuance of an alert or notification to people and vulnerable systems likely to experience potentially damaging ground shaking. The level of ground shaking that is considered damaging is defined by the specific application; for example, manufacturing equipment may experience damage at a lower intensity ground shaking than would cause damage to a building. Along the West Coast of the United States, the warning times for ground shaking could range as high as tens of seconds for moderate levels of ground shaking, or potentially longer, if a lower ground-shaking threshold is used to issue alerts. However, it is not always possible to provide advance warning of ground shaking, particularly for locations close to an earthquake that are most likely to experience very strong ground shaking. EEW alerts may be useful to individuals who can use a few seconds to move to a safe zone and to electromechanical systems that can take automatic actions to reduce damage and injuries. An EEW system, ShakeAlert, has been under development in the United States since 2006. Federal and State governments, as well as the private sector, are now investing in the ShakeAlert prototype system that will, when completed, become an operational public system for the West Coast of the United States. While the current prototype is delivering alerts to test users, improvements to the accuracy, timeliness, and utility of the alerts are needed. For this reason, it is essential that the ShakeAlert system be continuously improved through targeted research, involving not only the current ShakeAlert partner organizations, but also the broader scientific, engineering, and emergencyresponse communities. To this end, this report describes the opportunities for improvement that can be addressed through research and development over the next 5 years. Our recommendations are organized into four areas: (1) understand EEW capabilities and user needs, (2) make alerts as fast and accurate as possible, (3) ensure reliability when it counts, and (4) explore the use of new instrumentation. The first challenge is to understand EEW capabilities and user needs. EEW must deliver actionable information to people and to automated systems to mitigate short- and longterm impacts of damaging ground shaking, so development of EEW must be motivated by the needs of users. Within this challenge, we must study the technical capabilities and limitations of EEW in general, and the ShakeAlert system specifically. This includes development of performance metrics that assess the timeliness and accuracy of alerts to understand the value and utility of the ShakeAlert EEW product(s) for various user groups, including different industry sectors, emergency-management agencies, and the public. Research is needed to define the alerting choices that maximize the utility of the system for users and to determine what the available communication pathways are for providing timely alert information. Additionally, we engage users to assess how alerts will be used by different sectors to mitigate losses and to inform EEW product design. Further, social-science research is needed to develop alert messaging, including what relevant prior and follow-up information are required, to ensure effective use of alerts. The second challenge is to make alerts as fast and as accurate as possible. The timeliness and accuracy of an EEW alert is important because it will set in motion a series of actions and downstream products. An EEW alert will trigger notification across emergency-alert systems and across multiple communication channels to populations in impacted regions. The EEW alert region may grow as the earthquake fault-rupture length increases, and the EEW system’s characterization of it, evolves. We must continue research into new or improved seismic and geodetic waveform-processing methods necessary to rapidly characterize the expected ground shaking and associated uncertainties. It is important to thoroughly evaluate whether new methods improve alerts through more accurate ground-motion estimates and (or) reduced latencies (that is, longer warning times). New methods could include tracking the extent of a large rupture in real time (known as finite-fault algorithms) and ground-motionbased EEW algorithms. Additionally, ground motion predictions could be optimized for each earthquake as the earthquake fault rupture progresses by using, for example, event terms to shift ground-motion curves for more (or less) energetic ruptures. The third challenge is to ensure reliability when it counts. This challenge requires us to explore approaches that assess the expected performance of ShakeAlert across the range of earthquake magnitudes, locations, and depths that may occur within the alerting region. Large, damaging earthquakes and their associated aftershock sequences matter most for hazard and for EEW, but these large-earthquake sequences occur infrequently. We expect ShakeAlert to respond robustly to these large-earthquake sequences despite potentially long periods of relative seismic quiescence in the intervening years, and in spite of inevitable communication challenges that arise during and after a large earthquake. We must develop methods to utilize the broadest available datasets to test EEW performance, including ground-motion data recorded in other parts of the world. The observational period for large, damaging earthquakes in any particular region has been short in comparison to estimated large-earthquake recurrence times. Ground-motion records for very large, damaging western United States events and major aftershock sequences do not yet exist, nor do data exist for all potential sources of noise and spurious signals that ShakeAlert must be “tuned” to reject. In addition, robust synthetic data could provide the flexibility to test a wider range of earthquake magnitude, tectonic-setting, and noise scenarios than are covered by existing observational data. Synthetic ground-motion data must be thoroughly vetted against records of smaller magnitude earthquakes to ensure that they accurately capture both the onset and the amplitude of the ground shaking. The final challenge is to explore the use of new instrumentation. The development of EEW around the world to date has focused on the use of high-quality, scientific-grade seismic and geodetic instrumentation. The use of additional types of instrumentation or information may also improve EEW products by filling gaps in sensor coverage in countries that already have dense seismic networks or enable EEW in countries without such networks. We must keep up with these developments and continuously assess their value in supplementing existing EEW systems, such as ShakeAlert, or enabling EEW where such systems do not exist. Such developments include low-cost instrumentation with microelectromechanical system (MEMS) sensors and global positioning system (GPS)/global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antennas embedded in low-cost consumer electronics, sea-floor seismometers, geodetic instrumentation deployed along the Cascadia and Alaska megathrust margins of western North America, and borehole strainmeters that are already deployed across the region.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Earthquake early Warning ShakeAlert system: West coast wide production prototype

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

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2017

Improving the Hawaiian seismic network for earthquake early warning

The motivation for earthquake early warning (EEW) is the fact that in many applications a few extra seconds of notice ahead of the about-imminent strong shaking can provide significant benefit. Reducing data latencies, accelerating processing times, and tuning seismic station distributions increase time available for warning. We assess the feasibility of EEW for Hawai‘i and examine how additional stations or upgrades to existing stations can improve warning times. We designed an objective method to identify the most efficient sites for improving an existing seismic network’s coverage, taking both seismic station distribution and seismic hazard into account. The choice of locations for new seismic station sites is informed by improvements in warning time, considering the distribution of seismic hazard and exposure. New sites that improve warning time from earthquakes that are most likely to generate significant ground motions are given preference. This technique may be applied to any seismically active region and target infrastructure in which seismic hazard is spatially defined. We demonstrate this method’s use on the Island of Hawai‘i, with focus on warnings to astronomical observatories on Mauna Kea and island population centers Hilo and Kailua-Kona. We identified 13 candidate sites for new sensors, telemetry upgrades, or new station installations that should provide an additional 1–4 s of warning for the most probable damaging earthquakes in southern Ka‘ū and northern offshore regions in which 2–14 s and <4 s of warning are currently estimated, respectively.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2016

Feasibility study of earthquake early warning (EEW) in Hawaii

The effects of earthquake shaking on the population and infrastructure across the State of Hawaii could be catastrophic, and the high seismic hazard in the region emphasizes the likelihood of such an event. Earthquake early warning (EEW) has the potential to give several seconds of warning before strong shaking starts, and thus reduce loss of life and damage to property. The two approaches to EEW are (1) a network approach (such as ShakeAlert or ElarmS) where the regional seismic network is used to detect the earthquake and distribute the alarm and (2) a local approach where a critical facility has a single seismometer (or small array) and a warning system on the premises. The network approach, also referred to here as ShakeAlert or ElarmS, uses the closest stations within a regional seismic network to detect and characterize an earthquake. Most parameters used for a network approach require observations on multiple stations (typically 3 or 4), which slows down the alarm time slightly, but the alarms are generally more reliable than with single-station EEW approaches. The network approach also benefits from having stations closer to the source of any potentially damaging earthquake, so that alarms can be sent ahead to anyone who subscribes to receive the notification. Thus, a fully implemented ShakeAlert system can provide seconds of warning for both critical facilities and general populations ahead of damaging earthquake shaking. The cost to implement and maintain a fully operational ShakeAlert system is high compared to a local approach or single-station solution, but the benefits of a ShakeAlert system would be felt statewide—the warning times for strong shaking are potentially longer for most sources at most locations. The local approach, referred to herein as “single station,” uses measurements from a single seismometer to assess whether strong earthquake shaking can be expected. Because of the reliance on a single station, false alarms are more common than when using a regional network of seismometers. Given the current network, a single-station approach provides more warning for damaging earthquakes that occur close to the station, but it would have limited benefit compared to a fully implemented ShakeAlert system. For Honolulu, for example, the single-station approach provides an advantage over ShakeAlert only for earthquakes that occur in a narrow zone extending northeast and southwest of O‘ahu. Instrumentation and alarms associated with the single-station approach are typically maintained and assessed within the target facility, and thus no outside connectivity is required. A single-station approach, then, is unlikely to help broader populations beyond the individuals at the target facility, but they have the benefit of being commercially available for relatively little cost. The USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) is the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) regional seismic network responsible for locating and characterizing earthquakes across the State of Hawaii. During 2014 and 2015, HVO tested a network-based EEW algorithm within the current seismic network in order to assess the suitability for building a full EEW system. Using the current seismic instrumentation and processing setup at HVO, it is possible for a network approach to release an alarm a little more than 3 seconds after the earthquake is recorded on the fourth seismometer. Presently, earthquakes having M≥3 detected with the ElarmS algorithm have an average location error of approximately 4.5 km and an average magnitude error of -0.3 compared to the reviewed catalog locations from the HVO. Additional stations and upgrades to existing seismic stations would serve to improve solution precision and warning times and additional staffing would be required to provide support for a robust, network-based EEW system. For a critical facility on the Island of Hawaiʻi, such as the telescopes atop Mauna Kea, one phased approach to mitigate losses could be to immediately install a single station system to establish some level of warning. Subsequently, supporting the implementation of a full network-based EEW system on the Island of Hawaiʻi would provide additional benefit in the form of improved warning times once the system is fully installed and operational, which may take several years. Distributed populations across the Hawaiian Islands, including those outside the major cities and far from the likely earthquake source areas, would likely only benefit from a network approach such as ShakeAlert to provide warnings of strong shaking.

Hawaii↗
USGS2016

Demonstration of the Cascadia G‐FAST geodetic earthquake early warning system for the Nisqually, Washington, earthquake

A prototype earthquake early warning (EEW) system is currently in development in the Pacific Northwest. We have taken a two‐stage approach to EEW: (1) detection and initial characterization using strong‐motion data with the Earthquake Alarm Systems (ElarmS) seismic early warning package and (2) the triggering of geodetic modeling modules using Global Navigation Satellite Systems data that help provide robust estimates of large‐magnitude earthquakes. In this article we demonstrate the performance of the latter, the Geodetic First Approximation of Size and Time (G‐FAST) geodetic early warning system, using simulated displacements for the 2001 M w 6.8 Nisqually earthquake. We test the timing and performance of the two G‐FAST source characterization modules, peak ground displacement scaling, and Centroid Moment Tensor‐driven finite‐fault‐slip modeling under ideal, latent, noisy, and incomplete data conditions. We show good agreement between source parameters computed by G‐FAST with previously published and postprocessed seismic and geodetic results for all test cases and modeling modules, and we discuss the challenges with integration into the U.S. Geological Survey&rsquo;s ShakeAlert EEW system.

Washington↗
USGS2016

Building a subduction zone observatory

Subduction zones contain many of Earth&rsquo;s most remarkable geologic structures, from the deepest oceanic trenches to glacier-covered mountains and steaming volcanoes. These environments formed through spectacular events: Nature&rsquo;s largest earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions are born here.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2015

Earthquake forewarning in the Cascadia region

This report, prepared for the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC), is intended as a step toward improving communications about earthquake hazards between information providers and users who coordinate emergency-response activities in the Cascadia region of the Pacific Northwest. NEPEC charged a subcommittee of scientists with writing this report about forewarnings of increased probabilities of a damaging earthquake. We begin by clarifying some terminology; a &ldquo;prediction&rdquo; refers to a deterministic statement that a particular future earthquake will or will not occur. In contrast to the 0- or 100-percent likelihood of a deterministic prediction, a &ldquo;forecast&rdquo; describes the probability of an earthquake occurring, which may range from >0 to <100 percent. When the time window is short (days to months) and the forecast is formulated for operational utility, this term may be &ldquo;operational earthquake forecasting.&rdquo; The subcommittee considered short-term forecasts only, herein referred to as &ldquo;forewarnings,&rdquo; but not their formulation into messages or their applications, which will be addressed by NEPEC in subsequent activities. The subcommittee considered &ldquo;direct&rdquo; and &ldquo;indirect&rdquo; forewarnings. Direct forewarnings originate with observed changes in geologic processes or conditions, which may include Increased rates of M >4 earthquakes on the plate interface north of the Mendocino region Changes in shallow seismicity patterns Increased rates of moderate earthquakes within the subducting plate Changes in the pattern of slow slip on the plate interface and other major faults Indirect forewarnings are based largely on model predictions of increased earthquake-occurrence probabilities. In this context, &ldquo;models&rdquo; refers to simulations of the processes believed to affect earthquake occurrence, as implemented in computer software, laboratory experiments, or some analog natural system. These indirect forewarnings likely will be more uncertain and difficult to interpret than direct forewarnings. This report also highlights the challenges of assessing the significance of forewarnings, which mostly will be extraordinary events with little or no historical precedent in the Cascadia region.

Cascadia region↗
USGS2014

Technical implementation plan for the ShakeAlert production system: an Earthquake Early Warning system for the West Coast of the United States

Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) systems can provide as much as tens of seconds of warning to people and automated systems before strong shaking arrives. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and its partners are developing such an EEW system, called ShakeAlert, for the West Coast of the United States. This document describes the technical implementation of that system, which leverages existing stations and infrastructure of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) regional networks to achieve this new capability. While significant progress has been made in developing the ShakeAlert early warning system, improved robustness of each component of the system and additional testing and certification are needed for the system to be reliable enough to issue public alerts. Major components of the system include dense networks of ground motion sensors, telecommunications from those sensors to central processing systems, algorithms for event detection and alert creation, and distribution systems to alert users. Capital investment costs for a West Coast EEW system are projected to be $38.3M, with additional annual maintenance and operations totaling $16.1M—in addition to current ANSS expenditures for earthquake monitoring. An EEW system is complementary to, but does not replace, other strategies to mitigate earthquake losses. The system has limitations: false and missed alerts are possible, and the area very near to an earthquake epicenter may receive little or no warning. However, such an EEW system would save lives, reduce injuries and damage, and improve community resilience by reducing longer-term economic losses for both public and private entities.

California;Oregon;Washington↗
USGS2013

InSAR Evidence for an active shallow thrust fault beneath the city of Spokane Washington, USA

In 2001, a nearly five month long sequence of shallow, mostly small magnitude earthquakes occurred beneath the city of Spokane, a city with a population of about 200,000, in the state of Washington. During most of the sequence, the earthquakes were not well located because seismic instrumentation was sparse. Despite poor-quality locations, the earthquake hypocenters were likely very shallow, because residents near the city center both heard and felt many of the earthquakes. The combination of poor earthquake locations and a lack of known surface faults with recent movement make assessing the seismic hazards related to the earthquake swarm difficult. However, the potential for destruction from a shallow moderate-sized earthquake is high, for example Christchurch New Zealand in 2011, so assessing the hazard potential of a seismic structure involved in the Spokane earthquake sequence is important. Using interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data from the European Space Agency ERS2 and ENVISAT satellites and the Canadian Space Agency RADARSAT-1, satellite we are able to show that slip on a shallow previously unknown thrust fault, which we name the Spokane Fault, is the source of the earthquake sequence. The part of the Spokane Fault that slipped during the 2001 earthquake sequence underlies the north part of the city, and slip on the fault was concentrated between ~0.3 and 2 km depth. Projecting the buried fault plane to the surface gives a possible surface trace for the Spokane Fault that strikes northeast from the city center into north Spokane.

Washington↗
USGS2008

Strong tremor near Parkfield, CA, excited by the 2002 Denali Fault earthquake

We show clear evidence of non-volcanic tremor triggered by 2002 Mw7.8 Denali Fault earthquake near Parkfield. Triggered tremor is identified as bursts of high-frequency (∼2–8 Hz), non-impulsive seismic energy whose envelope is coherent among many stations and has the same periodicity as the passing surface waves. The tremor originates from at least three hypocenters near the San Andreas fault with differing frictional regimes, two in the creeping section and the other where the San Andreas is transitional between creeping and locked. All the sources originate below the seismogenic zone, suggesting that transitional frictional properties are necessary conditions for tremor generation. Tremor is excited by the Love waves when the San Andreas is sheared in a right-lateral sense, encouraging slip, and is absent when the San Andreas is sheared in a left-lateral sense, consistent with a simple frictional response to the driving stress.

California↗
USGS1998

Preliminary results from the investigation of the Pymatuning earthquake of September 25, 1998

The Pymatuning earthquake occurred on Friday, September 25, 1998, at 19:52:52 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), or 3:52:52 p.m. EDT, near Jamestown, Pa., at the southern end of the Pymatuning Reservoir, which straddles the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. The National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) determined that the event had a magnitude of 5.2 mbLg (a magnitude scale used to measure the size of earthquakes that are regional distances away [100 to 1,000 km, or 60 to 600 mi]), an epicenter of 41.5°N latitude, 80.4°W longitude, and an estimated depth of 5 km (3 mi). One person was reported injured as a result of being thrown to the ground by the earthquake, and it caused minor damage to buildings and seriously disrupted many water wells in the GreenvilleJamestown, Pa., area. The earthquake was generally felt over an area of approximately 200,000 km 2 (77,230 mi 2 ) throughout northern Ohio, western Pennsylvania and New York, and much of southern Ontario, Canada (see map on back cover). It was also felt as far west as Illinois and Wisconsin, as far east as New Jersey, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, and as far south as Kentucky and Virginia. During the aftershock field investigation that commenced within 12 hours of the main shock, a World Wide Web site, < http://groundmotion.cr.usgs.gov/pym/pym.htm >, was established from the field headquarters. The web site was used not only to transmit investigation results to the world in near real time but also to receive information from the local community as new earthquake effects were reported. As of March 1999, at least 11 aftershocks have occurred, the largest being a magnitude 2.3. The largest recent previous earthquake in the region was the northeastern Ohio (Leroy) earthquake of magnitude 5.0 that occurred on January 31, 1986, about 65 km (40 mi) west-northwest of the Pymatuning shock. This event was also felt by many of those who felt the Pymatuning earthquake. Similar to most of the seismicity east of the Rocky Mountains, earthquakes in the region are probably shallow (5 to 10 km, or 3 to 6 mi), and Seeber and Armbruster (1993) hypothesized that the earthquakes occurred along preexisting zones of weakness in Precambrian rocks. Wegweiser and others (1998) suggested that seismicity in northwestern Pennsylvania may be associated with the northwest-trending “cross-strike discontinuities” that are recognized in Paleozoic rocks and may represent reactivation of faults in the Precambrian basement. Using structure-contour maps constructed on the tops of lower Paleozoic strata, Alexandrowicz and Cole (1999) found evidence of preexisting northwest-striking faults in the epicentral region of the Pymatuning shock. The Harvard focal mechanism for the Pymatuning earthquake (a method used to infer the slip and orientation of the fault that generated an earthquake) indicates thrust faulting on a northwest striking plane, which is consistent with the regional northeast-southwest compressive stress regime observed in the area. Seeber and Armbruster (1993) plotted three prior earthquakes in the epicentral area having magnitudes greater than 3; two were instrumentally located near the Pymatuning earthquake, and the third event occurred 20 to 30 km (12 to 19 mi) to the northeast in 1852 (Figure 1).

Connecticut;District of Columbia;Illinois;Kentucky↗
USGS1997

The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989: Aftershocks and postseismic effects

While the damaging effects of the earthquake represent a significant social setback and economic loss, the geophysical effects have produced a wealth of data that have provided important insights into the structure and mechanics of the San Andreas Fault system. Generally, the period after a large earthquake is vitally important to monitor. During this part of the seismic cycle, the primary fault and the surrounding faults, rock bodies, and crustal fluids rapidly readjust in response to the earthquake's sudden movement. Geophysical measurements made at this time can provide unique information about fundamental properties of the fault zone, including its state of stress and the geometry and frictional/rheological properties of the faults within it. Because postseismic readjustments are rapid compared with corresponding changes occurring in the preseismic period, the amount and rate of information that is available during the postseismic period is relatively high. From a geophysical viewpoint, the occurrence of the Loma Prieta earthquake in a section of the San Andreas fault zone that is surrounded by multiple and extensive geophysical monitoring networks has produced nothing less than a scientific bonanza. The reports assembled in this chapter collectively examine available geophysical observations made before and after the earthquake and model the earthquake's principal postseismic effects. The chapter covers four broad categories of postseismic effect: (1) aftershocks; (2) postseismic fault movements; (3) postseismic surface deformation; and (4) changes in electrical conductivity and crustal fluids.

California↗