Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70209188

Introduction to the special issue on rotational seismology and engineering applications

Abstract

Because of a lack of suitable instruments, rotational ground motions have not been observed until the last decade. Rotational measurements in the near field of earthquakes in Japan ( Takeo, 1998 ) indicate that rotational ground motions are many times larger than expected from the classical elasticity theory. After failing to obtain useful rotational ground motions (using similar rotational sensors as Takeo did), we deployed a far more sensitive rotational velocity sensor (R-1) at the HGSD station in eastern Taiwan. From 7 December 2004 to 12 November 2006, several hundreds of earthquakes were recorded during our Phase 1 operation. This was mostly a learning exercise to solve field operation problems; Phase 1 operations ended when our two R-1 sensors ceased to operate. A K2+R1 instrument was deployed in the spring of 2007 to start our Phase 2 operation. From 8 May 2007 to 17 February 2008, we observed 52 local earthquakes with good rotational velocity signals (with signal-to-noise ratio >∼5), together with excellent translational acceleration signals (with signal-to-noise ratio >∼10). Unfortunately, field operation was interrupted due to flooding of the HGSD station site in mid-February 2008; we just resumed normal operation in June 2008.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W.H.K. Lee, M. Çelebi, M. Todorovska, H. Igel. 2009-05-01. Introduction to the special issue on rotational seismology and engineering applications. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080344

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↗