Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70030276

Seismic attenuation structure of the Seattle Basin, Washington State from explosive-source refraction data

Abstract

We used waveform data from the 1999 SHIPS (Seismic Hazard Investigation of Puget Sound) seismic refraction experiment to constrain the attenuation structure of the Seattle basin, Washington State. We inverted the spectral amplitudes of compressional- and shear-wave arrivals for source spectra, site responses, and one- and two-dimensional Q-1 models at frequencies between 1 and 40 Hz for P waves and 1 and 10 Hz for S waves. We also obtained Q-1 models from t* values calculated from the spectral slopes of P waves between 10 and 40 Hz. One-dimensional inversions show that Qp at the surface is 22 at 1 Hz, 130 at 5 Hz, and 390 at 20 Hz. The corresponding values at 18 km depth are 100, 440, and 1900. Qs at the surface is 16 and 160 at 1 Hz and 8 Hz, respectively, increasing to 80 and 500 at 18 km depth. The t* inversion yields a Qp model that is consistent with the amplitude inversions at 20 and 30 Hz. The basin geometry is clearly resolved in the t* inversion, but the amplitude inversions only imaged the basin structure after removing anomalously high-amplitude shots near Seattle. When these shots are removed, we infer that Q-1 values may be ???30% higher in the center of the basin than the one-dimensional models predict. We infer that seismic attenuation in the Seattle basin will significantly reduce ground motions at frequencies at and above 1 Hz, partially countering amplification effects within the basin.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Q. Li, W.S.D. Wilcock, T. L. Pratt, C.M. Snelson, T.M. Brocher. 2006. Seismic attenuation structure of the Seattle Basin, Washington State from explosive-source refraction data. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040164

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗