Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70215586

VS30 and Dominant Site Frequency (⁠fd⁠) as Provisional Station ML Corrections (⁠dML⁠) in California

Abstract

New seismic stations added to a regional seismic network cannot be used to calculate local magnitude ( ⁠ M L "> M L ⁠ ) until a revised regionwide amplitude decay function is developed. Each station must record a minimum number of local and regional earthquakes that meet specific amplitude requirements prior to recalibration of the amplitude decay function. Station component adjustments ( ⁠ d M L "> d M L ⁠ ; Uhrhammer et al. , 2011 ) are then calculated after inverting for a new regional amplitude decay function, constrained by the sum of d M L "> d M L ⁠ for long‐running stations. Therefore, there can be significant delay between when a new station starts contributing real‐time waveform packets and when data can be included in magnitude determinations. We propose the use of known estimates of seismic site conditions such as the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity ( ⁠ V S "> V S ⁠ ) of the upper 30 m ( ⁠ V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ ) and the site dominant frequency ( ⁠ f d "> f d ⁠ ) to calculate d M L "> d M L ⁠ ⁠ . Previously established d M L "> d M L ⁠ ⁠ , measured V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ ⁠ , and f d "> f d data are available for between 126 and 458 horizontal components (east–west and north–south) at 81 seismic stations in the California Integrated Seismic Network; d M L "> d M L ⁠ d M L "> data range from −1.10 to 0.39, V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ values range from 202 to 1464 &#x2009;&#x2009; m / s "> 1464 m / s ⁠ , and 440 f d "> f d values are compiled from earthquake and microseismic records that range from 0.13 to 21 Hz. We find V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ and d M L "> d M L ⁠ exhibit a positive coefficient of determination ( ⁠ R = 0.59 "> R = 0.59 ⁠ ), indicating that as V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ increases, d M L "> d M L ⁠ increases. This implies that greater site amplification (lower V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ ⁠ ) results in smaller d M L "> d M L ⁠ ⁠ . f d "> f d and d M L "> d M L ⁠ also generally exhibit a positive correlation ( ⁠ R 2 &lt; 0.56 "> R 2 < 0.56 ⁠ ), which implies lower d M L "> d M L values are related to site resonance at depth‐dependent frequencies. Using the developed relationships, V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ or f d "> f d measurements can be used to establish a provisional d M L "> d M L ⁠ for newly established stations. This procedure allows new stations to contribute to regional network M L "> M L determinations immediately without the need to wait until a minimum set of earthquake data has been recorded.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.65787573695528° to 36.84446074079564° latitude; -122.78320312499999° to -114.43359375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alan Yong, Elizabeth S. Cochran, Jennifer Andrews, Kenneth Hudson, Ellen Yu, Antony Martin, Julie A. Herrick, Jessica Dozal. 2020-10-06. VS30 and Dominant Site Frequency (⁠fd⁠) as Provisional Station ML Corrections (⁠dML⁠) in California. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200130

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↗