Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70037223

Localized surface disruptions observed by InSAR during strong earthquakes in Java and Hawai'i

Michael P. Poland
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data spanning strong earthquakes on the islands of Java and Hawai‘i in 2006 reveal patches of subsidence and incoherence indicative of localized ground failure. Interferograms spanning the 26 May 2006 Java earthquake suggest an area of about 7.5 km 2 of subsidence (~2 cm) and incoherence south of the city of Yogyakarta that correlates with significant damage to housing, high modeled peak ground accelerations, and poorly consolidated geologic deposits. The subsidence and incoherence is inferred to be a result of intense shaking and/or damage. At least five subsidence patches on the west side of the Island of Hawai‘i, ranging 0.3–2.2 km 2 in area and 3–8 cm in magnitude, occurred as a result of a pair of strong earthquakes on 15 October 2006. Although no felt reports or seismic data are available from the areas in Hawai‘i, the Java example suggests that the subsidence patches indicate areas of amplified earthquake shaking. Surprisingly, all subsidence areas in Hawai‘i were limited to recent, and supposedly stable, lava flows and may reflect geological conditions not detectable at the surface. In addition, two ‘a‘ā lava flows in Hawai‘i were partially incoherent in interferograms spanning the earthquakes, indicating surface disruption as a result of the earthquake shaking. Coearthquake incoherence of rubbly deposits, like ‘a‘ā flows, should be explored as a potential indicator of earthquake intensity and past strong seismic activity.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael P. Poland. 2010-03-15. Localized surface disruptions observed by InSAR during strong earthquakes in Java and Hawai'i. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090175

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

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↗
USGS2026

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↗