Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70197854

The Marina District, San Francisco, California: Geology, history, and earthquake effects

Abstract

A northwest-trending valley in the bedrock surface is buried by firm Pleistocene bay clay, a dense Pleistocene sand layer, soft Holocene bay sediments, loose to dense Holocene beach and dune sands, and artificial fill that have an aggregate maximum thickness of about 90 m (300 ft). Artificial filling of a cove at the site of The Marina District proceeded gradually from the late 1860s to 1912, when major hydraulic filling was done for the Panama-Pacific International Exposition. The remains of thousands of piles driven for the Exposition very probably still exist and have had unknown effects on long-term ground settlement and earthquake-related ground displacements. Intensity maps of the 1906 earthquake, and seismic recordings and severe building damage in 1989, reported by others, indicate that ground motion was amplified on both natural and artificial ground. This suggests that the configuration of the bedrock surface and the location and thickness of various clay and sand deposits underlying the fill had an important effect on the shaking. However, most of the settlement and liquefaction and the damage to pipelines, building foundations, streets, side-walks, and curbs occurred in areas of artificial fill consisting mainly of loose sand.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.78578069396751° to 37.82321480372734° latitude; -122.46796249048703° to -122.39758132593622° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Manuel G. Bonilla. 1991. The Marina District, San Francisco, California: Geology, history, and earthquake effects. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0810051958

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↗