Geology topics

Russell A. Green

Publications and source records attributed to Russell A. Green.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Preface to the focus section on earthquake-induced ground deformation

Ground failure due to earthquake-induced liquefaction, surface fault rupture, and landsliding has caused substantial damage in the past and continues to pose risks to critical infrastructure in the future. The consideration of ground failure is central to engineering analysis and design, ranging from site-specific engineering assessments of ground failure potential to broader regional-scale ground failure assessments of near-real-time earthquake impacts or longer-term portfolio risk. Uncertainties in all aspects of the problem complicate the prediction of earthquake-induced ground failure, including the identification of hazard-susceptible geomaterials, characterizing their spatial extent and physical properties, spatio-temporal variability in groundwater conditions, characterization of earthquake ground motions, assessing ground failure severity, and linking ground failure severity to infrastructure damage and loss.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2015

Geotechnical aspects in the epicentral region of the 2011, M w 5.8 Mineral, Virginia earthquake

A reconnaissance team documented the geotechnical and geological aspects in the epicentral region of the M w (moment magnitude) 5.8 Mineral, Virginia (USA), earthquake of 23 August 2011. Tectonically and seismically induced ground deformations, evidence of liquefaction, rock slides, river bank slumps, ground subsidence, performance of earthen dams, damage to public infrastructure and lifelines, and other effects of the earthquake were documented. This moderate earthquake provided the rare opportunity to collect data to help assess current geoengineering practices in the region, as well as to assess seismic performance of the aging infrastructure in the region. Ground failures included two marginal liquefaction sites, a river bank slump, four minor rockfalls, and a ~4-m-wide, ~12-m-long, ~0.3-m-deep subsidence on a residential property. Damage to lifelines included subsidence of the approaches for a bridge and a water main break to a heavily corroded, 5-cm-diameter valve in Mineral, Virginia. Observed damage to dams, landfills, and public-use properties included a small, shallow slide in the temporary (“working”) clay cap of the county landfill, damage to two earthen dams (one in the epicentral region and one further away near Bedford, Virginia), and substantial structural damage to two public school buildings.

Virginia↗

USGS2015

Preface

This book grew out of a topical session on “Central Virginia Earthquakes of 2011: Geology, Geophysics, and Significance for Seismic Hazards in Eastern North America” at the 2012 The Geological Society of America (GSA) Annual Meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina (USA). It also benefitted from related sessions at other meetings. The goal of this volume, The 2011 Mineral, Virginia, Earthquake, and Its Significance for Seismic Hazards in Eastern North America , is to bring together as much information as possible on lessons learned from this rare event. Chapters encompass a wide range of geoscience, engineering, and related studies of this earthquake and its effects from the epicentral area in central Virginia to Washington, D.C., and beyond. The intended audience is a broad spectrum of geoscientists, engineers, and decision makers interested in understanding earthquakes and seismic hazards in eastern North America and other intraplate settings. Chapters by Berti et al. (21), Chapman (2), Costain (8), Davenport et al. (15), Green et al. (9), Heller and Carter (10), Horton et al. (14), Hughes et al. (19), Powars et al. (23), Pratt et al. (16), Roeloffs et al. (7), Shah et al. (17), Stephenson et al. (3), Walsh et al. (18), and Wells et al. (12) are expansions of presentations at the 2012 GSA meeting. The volume also contains chapters from recent studies that were not presented at the GSA meeting, including those by Bobyarchick (22), Burton et al. (20), Dreiling and Mooney (5), Li et al. (11), McNamara et al. (4), Pollitz and Mooney (6), and Shahidi et al. (13). Following an overview and synthesis by the volume editors (1), chapters are arranged under the topical headings “Seismology and Regional Effects,” “Earthquake Damage, Geotechnical, and Engineering Investigations,” “Aftershocks, Geophysical Imaging, and Modeling,” “Geologic Investigations—Epicentral Area,” and “Geologic Investigations— Central Virginia Seismic Zone and Nearby Faults.” We thank the authors for their contributions and the many scientists and engineers who contributed time and expertise in reviewing manuscripts to substantially improve the quality of the volume. These reviewers include Gail Atkinson, Christopher Bailey, Richard Berquist, Kimberly Blisniuk, Paul Bodin, Aaron Bradshaw, Clive Collins, Ariel Conn, Randy Cox, Haitham Dawood, James Dewey, John Ebel, David Fenster, Alexander Gates, Kathleen Haller, Gregory Hancock, Robert Hatcher, William Henika, Paul Hsieh, Steven Jaumé, Jeffrey Kimball, Charles Langston, Jongwon Lee, Andrea Llenos, John McBride, Scott Olson, Michael Oskin, Brent Owens, Gilles Peltzer, Mark Quigley, Dhananjay Ravat, David Saftner, Arthur Snoke, Jamison Steidl, Kevin Stewart, Alice Stieve, Danielle Sumy, Ertugrul Taciroglu, Roy Van Arsdale, Mason Walters, Chiyuen Wang, Yang Wang, Richard Whittecar, Lorraine Wolf, Clint Wood, Liam Wotherspoon, and some anonymous reviewers.

Virginia↗

USGS2015

The 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake and its significance for seismic hazards in eastern North America: overview and synthesis

The 23 August 2011 M w (moment magnitude) 5.7 ± 0.1, Mineral, Virginia, earthquake was the largest and most damaging in the central and eastern United States since the 1886 M w 6.8–7.0, Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. Seismic data indicate that the earthquake rupture occurred on a southeast-dipping reverse fault and consisted of three subevents that progressed northeastward and updip. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) "Did You Feel It?" intensity reports from across the eastern United States and southeastern Canada, rockfalls triggered at distances to 245 km, and regional groundwater-level changes are all consistent with efficient propagation of high-frequency seismic waves (&sim;1 Hz and higher) in eastern North America due to low attenuation. Reported damage included cracked or shifted foundations and broken walls or chimneys, notably in unreinforced masonry, and indicated intensities up to VIII in the epicentral area based on USGS "Did You Feel It?" reports. The earthquake triggered the first automatic shutdown of a U.S. nuclear power plant, located &sim;23 km northeast of the main shock epicenter. Although shaking exceeded the plant's design basis earthquake, the actual damage to safety-related structures, systems, and components was superficial. Damage to relatively tall masonry structures 130 km to the northeast in Washington, D.C., was consistent with source directivity, soft-soil ground-motion amplification, and anisotropic wave propagation with lower attenuation parallel to the northeast-trending Appalachian tectonic fabric. The earthquake and aftershocks occurred in crystalline rocks within Paleozoic thrust sheets of the Chopawamsic terrane. The main shock and majority of aftershocks delineated the newly named Quail fault zone in the subsurface, and shallow aftershocks defined outlying faults. The earthquake induced minor liquefaction sand boils, but notably there was no evidence of a surface fault rupture. Recurrence intervals, and evidence for larger earthquakes in the Quaternary in this area, remain important unknowns. This event, along with similar events during historical time, is a reminder that earthquakes of similar or larger magnitude pose a real hazard in eastern North America.

Virginia↗

USGS2005

Revised magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash Valley seismic zone of the central United States

Seismic hazard assessment in the central United States, and in particular the Wabash Valley seismic zone of Indiana-Illinois, frequently relies on empirical estimates of paleoearthquake magnitudes ( M ). In large part these estimates have been made using the magnitude-bound method. Existing region-specific magnitude-bound relations rely heavily on only a few historical earthquakes in the central United States and eastern Canada that induced reported liquefaction features. Recent seismological studies have suggested smaller magnitudes than previously presumed for some of these earthquakes, however, and other studies have reinterpreted site-to-source distances to liquefaction features associated with some of these earthquakes. In this paper, we re-examine historical earthquakes ( M > ∼5) that occurred in the central and eastern United States and eastern Canada; some of these earthquakes triggered liquefaction and others did not. Based on our findings, we reinterpret the region-specific magnitude-bound relation for the Wabash Valley. Using this revised magnitude-bound relation, we present magnitude estimates for four prehistoric earthquakes that occurred in the Wabash Valley seismic zone during Holocene time.

Illinois, Indiana↗

USGS2003

Geotechnical Analysis of Paleoseismic Shaking Using Liquefaction Features: Part I. Major Updating of Analysis Techniques

A new methodology is proposed for the geotechnical analysis of strength of paleoseismic shaking using liquefaction effects. The proposed method provides recommendations for selection of both individual and regionally located test sites, techniques for validation of field data for use in back-analysis, and use of a recently developed energy-based solution to back-calculate paleoearthquake magnitude and strength of shaking. The proposed method allows investigators to assess the influence of post-earthquake density change and aging. The proposed method also describes how the back-calculations from individual sites should be integrated into a regional assessment of paleoseismic parameters.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2001

Paleoliquefaction studies in continental setting; geologic and geotechnical factors in interpretations and back-analysis

Paleoliquefaction research in the last 15 years has greatly improved our ability to interpret the paleoseismic record throughout some large geographic areas, especially in regions of infrequent large earthquakes. Paleoliquefaction studies have been used extensively in the central and eastern U.S. to assess seismic hazards, and could be used elsewhere to good purpose because paleoliquefaction studies in some field settings can reveal more than other methods, such as fault studies, about the prehistoric strength of shaking and earthquake magnitude. We present guidelines for the conduct of a paleoliquefaction study in continental deposits, mainly in terms of the geologic/seismologic setting and geotechnical properties, because a successful interpretation requires factors from all these disciplines. No single discipline suffices alone. Their interactions must be appreciated in order to understand why seismically induced liquefaction features are found in some locales and not in others. The guidelines that we present also relate to three primary issues for which liquefaction features are especially useful for interpretations: Where was the tectonic source? What was the strength of shaking? And what was the magnitude? In discussing these issues we focus on the following aspects of level-ground liquefaction: (1) mechanisms that form seismic liquefaction features in the field; (2) field settings where liquefaction features should be present if strong seismic shaking has occurred; (3) field settings where an absence of liquefaction features indicates an absence of strong seismic shaking; (4) how liquefaction features should be used to interpret the tectonic source locale of a paleo-earthquake; and (5) how effects of liquefaction can be used to back-calculate the strength of shaking as well as earthquake magnitude. Several methods are available to back-calculate the strength of shaking and earthquake magnitude, and the most commonly used methods are presented and critiqued. Our critique of these methods points out the uncertainties attending each. Paleoliquefaction/paleoseismic case histories are presented to illustrate potential uncertainties in back-calculations and procedures to overcome these uncertainties. Reasonable confidence in paleoseismic interpretation generally requires using multiple methods of back-analysis, and achieving similar results from each method. An alternate approach can be used for paleo-earthquakes that were large enough to have caused liquefaction in a variety of geologic settings, in which there were differing factors affecting surface ground motions and liquefaction susceptibility. For this situation, a method such as the cyclic-stress method can be used to make back-calculations that can be cross-checked with results from other settings.

Open-File Report↗