Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Seismological Research Letters”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
USGS2023

Uncertainties in intensity-based earthquake magnitude estimates

Estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes is crucial for assessing seismic hazard. Magnitudes of early‐instrumental earthquakes can be inferred using a combination of instrumental records, field observations, and the observed distribution of shaking intensity determined from macroseismic observations. For earthquakes before 1900, shaking intensity distributions often provide the only information to constrain earthquake magnitude. Considerable effort has been made to develop methods to estimate the magnitude of moderate‐to‐large historical earthquakes using shaking intensities derived from macroseismic data. In this study, we consider earthquakes in California with known instrumental magnitudes to explore uncertainties in estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes from intensity information alone. We use three California‐specific intensity prediction equations (IPEs) and an IPE based on a global ground‐motion model (GMM) to determine optimum intensity‐based magnitudes for 33 moderate‐to‐large California earthquakes between 1979 and 2021. Intensity‐based magnitudes are close to instrumental magnitudes on average. However, intensity‐based magnitudes for individual events differ by as much as 2.2 magnitude units from instrumental magnitudes. This result reflects the weak dependence of ground motions and shaking intensities on moment magnitude and their strong dependence on stress drop. Considering the intensity distributions of the 1906 San Francisco and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes, we show that information that could constrain rupture length is discarded when considering only the 2D decay of intensity with distance. We also show that ground‐motion intensity conversion equations used in a GMM‐based approach may cause a systematic overestimation of large historical earthquake magnitudes. This study underscores both the reducible and potentially irreducible uncertainties associated with using intensity data to estimate magnitudes of historical earthquakes using IPEs and highlights the value of using additional information to constrain rupture dimensions. Using intensity observations alone, moment magnitude uncertainties are typically on the order of a full unit.

California↗
USGS2023

Shallow fault slip of the 2020 M5.1 Sparta, North Carolina, earthquake

The 2020 M 5.1 Sparta, North Carolina, earthquake is the largest in the eastern United States since the 2011 M 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake and produced a ∼2.5‐km‐long surface rupture, unusual for an event of this magnitude. A geological field study conducted soon after the event indicates oblique slip along a east‐southeast‐trending fault with a consistently observed thrust component. My analysis of regional seismic waveforms, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, and Global Positioning System survey data yields a compact shallow rupture extending from Earth’s surface down‐dip to the southwest over a ∼3 km fault length. The inferred kinematic rupture is primarily toward the up‐dip and eastward along‐strike directions and has predominantly thrust motion in the west, transitioning to roughly equal thrust and left‐lateral strike‐slip motion in the east. No normal faulting component, as proposed in an earlier geophysical study, is necessary to explain the data. The prevalence of only dip‐slip motions observed at Earth’s surface may demand slip partitioning between dip slip and lateral motions at depth.

North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia↗
USGS2023

Comparison of co-recorded analog and digital systems for characterization of responses and uncertainties

One of the most prominent challenges related to legacy seismic data is determining how these data can be appropriately used in modern research applications. The wide variety of instrumentation used in the analog era, the format of recording on paper wrapped around a helicorder drum, and limited metadata information introduces ambiguities that are not typical of modern digital data. Therefore, techniques must be developed to help characterize uncertainties in legacy data. This article presents an analysis that compares corecorded signals from two instruments—a Trillium Compact or Press‐Ewing (PE) seismometer for sensing ground motion and two recording systems: a modern Q330 digitizer or heated‐stylus system. Analyses of the recordings in both time and frequency domains indicate time uncertainty on the order of one second, identify a flat response in a 10–60 s band for the PE and drum recorder, and highlight how specific features of scans and paper seismograms (e.g., repeated portions of scans and line thickness) can cause timing jumps or reduced trace amplitude.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2023

Global seismic networks operated by the U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Seismographic Network (GSN) Program operates two thirds of the GSN, a network of state‐of‐the‐art, digital seismological and geophysical sensors with digital telecommunications. This network serves as a multiuse scientific facility and a valuable resource for research, education, and monitoring. The other one third of the GSN is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the operations of this component are overseen by EarthScope. This collaboration between the USGS, EarthScope, and NSF has allowed for the development and operations of the GSN to be a truly multiuse network that provides near real‐time open access data, facilitating fundamental discoveries by the Earth science community, supporting the earthquake hazards mission of the USGS, benefitting tsunami monitoring by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and contributing to nuclear test monitoring and treaty verification. In this article, we describe the installation and evolution of the seismic networks operated by the USGS that ultimately led to the USGS portion of the GSN (100 stations under network codes IU, IC, and CU) as they are today and envision technological advances and opportunities to further improve the utility of the network in the future. This article focuses on the USGS‐operated component of the GSN; a companion article on the GSN stations funded by the NSF and operated by the Cecil and Ida Green Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego by Davis et al. (2023) appears in this volume.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

Background seismic noise levels among the Caribbean network and the role of station proximity to coastline

The amplitude and frequency content of background seismic noise is highly variable with geographic location. Understanding the characteristics and behavior of background seismic noise as a function of location can inform approaches to improve network performance and in turn increase earthquake detection capabilities. Here, we calculate power spectral density estimates in one‐hour windows for over 15 yr of vertical‐component data from the nine‐station Caribbean network (CU) and look at background noise within the 0.05–300 s period range. We describe the most visually apparent features observed at the CU stations. One of the most prominent features occurs in the 0.75–3 s band for which power levels are systematically elevated and decay as a function of proximity to the coastline. Further examination of this band on 1679 contiguous USArray Transportable Array stations reveals the same relationship. Such a relationship with coastal distance is not observed in the 4–8 s range more typical of globally observed secondary microseisms. A simple surface‐wave amplitude decay model fits the observed decay well with geometric spreading as the most important factor for stations near the coast (<∼50 km). The model indicates that power levels are strongly influenced by proximity to coastline at 0.75–3 s. This may be because power from nearshore wave action at 0.75–3 s overwhelms more distant and spatially distributed secondary microseism generation. Application of this basic model indicates that a power reduction of ∼25 dB can be achieved by simply installing the seismometer 25 km away from the coastline. This finding may help to inform future site locations and array design thereby improving network performance and data quality, and subsequently earthquake detection capabilities.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

Geologic input databases for the 2025 Puerto Rico – U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model update: Crustal faults component

The last National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI) was published in 2003. In advance of the 2025 PRVI NSHM update, we created three geologic input databases to summarize new onshore and offshore fault source information in the northern Caribbean region between 62°–70° W and 16°–21° N. These databases, of fault sections, fault‐zone polygons, and geologic estimates of fault activity (fault‐slip rate and earthquake recurrence intervals) at specific sites, document updates to fault parameters used in prior seismic hazard models in PRVI. Fault sources were reviewed from published studies since 2003, which document substantial changes to the understanding of fault location, geometry, or activity. New fault section sources were added for features that meet the criteria of (1) length ≥7 km, (2) unequivocal evidence of recurrent tectonic Quaternary activity, and (3) documentation that is publicly available in a peer‐reviewed source. In addition, we revised several broad areal sources, such as the Mona and Anegada extensional zones. The 2003 model included three fault sections and two fault‐zone polygons (areal sources). These databases include 35 fault sections, 6 fault‐zone polygons, and 51 earthquake geology sites. To characterize fault activity rates, slip‐rate bins were assigned based on landscape expression and paleoseismic trench observations for faults without published slip‐rate sites. Additional fault sources were evaluated but not included in these databases due to a lack of published information about fault location, geometry, or recurrent Quaternary activity. The PRVI NSHM 2025 geologic input databases describe crustal faulting; the geometries and coupling of Puerto Rico subduction zone and Muertos Trough models are considered in a separate database. Updates to the fault sections, fault‐zone polygons, and earthquake geology databases can help inform the location and recurrence rate of damaging earthquakes in the PRVI NSHM implementation.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗
USGS2024

Evaluation of an open earthquake early warning system in Mexico, and laboratory tests of their sensors

Microelectromechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers are useful for seismological and engineering applications because of their ability to record unsaturated large seismic signals. Recent advances in MEMS technologies enable the design of instruments with improved capabilities that also allow the recording of small signals. As a result, MEMS can be useful across a broad dynamic range and for both major earthquakes and smaller magnitude events. Here, we analyze the performance of a MEMS‐based accelerometer with the capability of real‐time data transmission. We discuss the self‐noise level, dynamic range, and sensitivity, along with the timing precision and data transmission latency, and compare these parameters to other MEMS‐based instruments. We also summarize observations from a regional network deployed in southern Mexico over a period of 3+ yr for the purpose of earthquake early warning. In addition to the sensor evaluation, we present a large, openly available data set of strong motion data from the Mexican network that comprises continuous ground‐motion records from 24 accelerometers in the period between 2017 and 2022.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

Earthquake rupture forecast model construction for the 2023 U.S. 50‐State National Seismic Hazard Model Update: Central and eastern U.S. fault‐based source model

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2023 50‐State National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), we make modest revisions and additions to the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS) fault‐based seismic source model that result in locally substantial hazard changes. The CEUS fault‐based source model was last updated as part of the 2014 NSHM and considered new information from the Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS‐SSCn) Project. Since then, new geologic investigations have led to revised fault and fault‐zone inputs, and the release of databases of fault‐based sources in the CEUS. We have reviewed these databases and made minor revisions to six of the current fault‐based sources in the NSHM, as well as added five new fault‐based sources. Implementation of these sources follows the current NSHM methodology for CEUS fault‐based sources, as well as the incorporation of a new magnitude–area relationship and updated maximum magnitude and recurrence rate estimates following the methods used by the CEUS‐SSCn Project. Seismic hazard sensitivity calculations show some substantial local changes in hazard (−0.4 g to 1.1 g ) due to some of these revisions and additions, especially from the addition of the central Virginia, Joiner ridge, and Saline River sources and revisions made to the Meers and New Madrid sources.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

SKHASH: A python package for computing earthquake focal mechanisms

We introduce a Python package for computing focal mechanism solutions. This algorithm, which we refer to as SKHASH, is largely based on the HASH algorithm originally written in Fortran over 20 yr ago. HASH innovated the use of suites of solutions, spanning the expected errors in polarities and takeoff angles, to estimate focal mechanism uncertainty. SKHASH benefits from new features with flexible input formats and allows users to take advantage of recent advances in constraining focal mechanisms for small magnitude or poorly recorded earthquakes. The 3D locations of earthquakes and the velocity models used are varied when finding acceptable solutions. As a result, source–receiver azimuths are reflective of errors from the earthquake locations and velocity models, in addition to the takeoff angles. Users can consider weighted P ‐wave first‐motion polarities derived from traditional or machine‐learning picks, cross‐correlation consensus, and/or imputation techniques using SKHASH. Focal mechanism solutions can also be further constrained using traditional, machine learning, and/or cross‐correlation consensus S / P amplitude ratios. With improved reporting of individual and collective P polarity and S / P amplitude misfits, users can better evaluate the success of the solutions and the quality of the measurements. The reporting also makes it easier to identify potential issues with metadata, including incorrectly reported station polarity reversals. In addition, by leveraging vectorized operations, taking advantage of an efficient backend Python C Application Programming Interface, and the use of a parallel environment, the Python SKHASH routine may compute mechanisms quicker than the HASH routine.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

Cyclic injection leads to larger and more frequent induced earthquakes under volume-controlled conditions

As carbon storage technologies advance globally, methods to understand and mitigate induced earthquakes become increasingly important. Although the physical processes that relate increased subsurface pore pressure changes to induced earthquakes have long been known, reliable methods to forecast and control induced seismic sequences remain elusive. Suggested reservoir engineering scenarios for mitigating induced earthquakes typically involve modulation of the injection rate. Some operators have implemented periodic shutdowns (i.e., effective cycling of injection rates) to allow reservoir pressures to equilibrate (e.g., Paradox Valley) or shut‐in wells after the occurrence of an event of concern (e.g., Basel, Switzerland). Other proposed scenarios include altering injection rates, actively managing pressures through coproduction of fluids, and preinjection brine extraction. In this work, we use 3D physics‐based earthquake simulations to understand the effects of different injection scenarios on induced earthquake rates, maximum event magnitudes, and postinjection seismicity. For comparability, the modeled injection considers the same cumulative volume over the project’s operational life but varies the schedule and rates of fluid injected. Simulation results show that cyclic injection leads to more frequent and larger events than constant injection. Furthermore, with intermittent injection scenario, a significant number of events are shown to occur during pauses in injection, and the seismicity rate remains elevated for longer into the postinjection phase compared to the constant injection scenario.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

Reply to “comment on ‘an evaluation of the timing accuracy of global and regional seismic stations and networks’ by Yang et al. (2021)” by Xin Zhang and Lianxing Wen

The finding of Yang et al. (2021 ; hereafter, YSR21) casts fundamental doubts on all the previous studies on the temporal changes of the inner core (IC) surface that are based on absolute arrival times, including Wen (2006 ; hereafter, WEN06) and its follow‐up studies. The reports of small time shifts of the IC‐reflected phase ( PKiKP ) likely misinterpreted station‐related issues (clock errors and instrument changes) as evidence for rapid localized deformation at the IC surface. The comment by Zhang and Wen (2024 ; hereafter, ZW24) aims at defending the results and conclusions of WEN06 by questioning a tiny portion of the results (2 out of over 400 doublets and 3 out of over 400 problematic stations) in YSR21. In response, we acknowledge an accidental error in table S1 of YSR21, which is corrected in an erratum ( Yang et al. , 2023 ), although this does not affect the results or interpretations of YSR21. However, we strongly disagree with the criticisms in ZW24 due to many problems therein, especially the issue of irreproducibility due to its inconsistent procedures with YSR21. While the problems are related to the use of absolute arrivals in the previous studies by Wen’s group, key problems in this new comment are related to questionable data selection and inconsistent processing. We further caution the metadata updates, particularly when involving small temporal change signals. We focus on the main points in ZW24 and demonstrate that its arguments are problematic in many aspects and do not diminish the credibility of YSR21 or other related works by Yang and Song in support of the IC differential rotation.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

Automated, near real-time ground-motion processing at the U.S. Geological Survey

We describe automated ground‐motion processing software named gmprocess that has been developed at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in support of near‐real‐time earthquake hazard products. Because of the open‐source development process, this software has benefitted from the involvement and contributions of a broad community and has been used for a wider range of applications than was initially envisioned. Here, we give an overview and introduction to the software, including how it has leveraged other open‐source libraries. We highlight some key features that gmprocess provides, compare response spectra calculated with the automated processing approach of gmprocess to the response spectra provided by the Next Generation Attenuation projects, and summarize projects that have utilized gmprocess. These use‐cases demonstrate that this software development effort has been successfully leveraged in earthquake research activities both within and outside the USGS.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

On the provenance of field reports of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake: A seismo-historical whodunnit

Much of what is known about the effects of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake throughout the epicentral region can be attributed to meticulous field investigations by an individual with training in geology and engineering, Earle Sloan ( Clendenin, 1926 ). In a recent study, Bilham and Hough (2024) undertook a detailed analysis of the effects of the earthquake on railroads in the Charleston region, drawing heavily from Sloan’s reports. This exercise identified several inconsistencies in Sloan’s field reports, including understandable measurement imprecision, inferred data entry mistakes, and transcription errors. The study also begged the question, where was Sloan at the time of the mainshock and over the following week? And to what extent did he draw from secondhand information in compiling his reports? On this question Sloan’s reports were sometimes enigmatic, lending themselves to misinterpretation in contemporaneous as well as modern interpretations. Beyond the details that were germane for, and briefly summarized by, the studies of Bilham and Hough (2023 , 2024) , in this report we don our historical seismologist caps to chronicle Sloan’s activities following the earthquake. We summarize our inferences here for the benefit of future scholars who might attempt to retrace either Sloan’s footsteps or our own. This study also serves to highlight Sloan’s singular contributions to earthquake science, which were never published separately.

South Carolina↗
USGS2024

A seismic nodal deployment to understand magmatic structure in the vicinity of the Pahala earthquake swarm

In summer-fall 2022, 80 three-component SmartSolo IGU-BD3C-5 nodal seismometers were deployed surrounding the Pāhala seismic swarm on the Island of Hawaiʻi, with the goal of improving seismicity catalogs, and seismic velocity images of the crust and upper mantle in this region. The Pāhala swarm, located south of Mauna Loa and Kīlauea, has been the site of a multiyear sustained swarm of seismicity at depths of ~ 25 – 40 km, with order of magnitude increases in rate in 2015, and then again in 2019. This seismicity is possibly related to the input of magma from the mantle plume below, which may then be subsequently transported to volcanic edifices. However, these processes remain enigmatic, in part due to a lack of precise earthquake locations and seismic velocity models in this region. Here we provide an overview of the deployment, an assessment of the quality of the collected data, and discuss the viability of the dataset for local earthquake relocation, tomography, and teleseismic receiver functions. Through comparisons with proximal permanent broadband and short period instruments, we find that the nodes produce high quality data, particularly at periods shorter than 5 s, although we find, document, and correct discrepancies with the gain and polarities of the instruments. We successfully record signals from teleseismic earthquakes, even at periods longer than 5 s (the corner of the flat response of the nodes). We also record local earthquakes, including details related to source characteristics. This indicates that the data is likely to prove useful for investigations using both local and teleseismic earthquake signals to better understand the connections between the deep and shallow magmatic systems of Hawaiʻi. While this deployment provides a snapshot in time, its success may provide a useful benchmark for future studies as the volcanic systems of Hawaiʻi continue to evolve in the future.

Hawaii↗
USGS2024

Reference 1D seismic velocity models for volcano monitoring and imaging: Methods, models, and applications

Seismic velocity models of the crust are an integral part of earthquake monitoring systems at volcanoes. 1D models that vary only in depth are typically used for real‐time hypocenter determination and serve as critical reference models for detailed 3D imaging studies and geomechanical modeling. Such models are usually computed using seismic tomographic methods that rely on P ‐ and S ‐wave arrival‐time picks from numerous earthquakes recorded at receivers around the volcano. Traditional linearized tomographic methods that jointly invert for source locations, velocity structure, and station corrections depend critically on having reasonable starting values for the unknown parameters, are susceptible to local misfit minima and divergence, and often do not provide adequate uncertainty information. These issues are often exacerbated by sparse seismic networks, inadequate distributions of seismicity, and/or poor data quality common at volcanoes. In contrast, modern probabilistic global search methods avoid these issues only at the cost of increased computation time. In this article, we review both approaches and present example applications and comparisons at several volcanoes in the United States, including Mount Hood (Oregon), Mount St. Helens (Washington), the Island of Hawai’i, and Mount Cleveland (Alaska). We provide guidance on the proper usage of these methods as relevant to challenges specific to volcano monitoring and imaging. Finally, we survey‐published 1D P ‐wave velocity models from around the world and use them to derive a generic stratovolcano velocity model, which serves as a useful reference model for comparison and when local velocity information is sparse.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

(Re)discovering the seismicity of Antarctica: A new seismic catalog for the southernmost continent

We apply a machine learning (ML) earthquake detection technique on over 21 yr of seismic data from on‐continent temporary and long‐term networks to obtain the most complete catalog of seismicity in Antarctica to date. The new catalog contains 60,006 seismic events within the Antarctic continent for 1 January 2000–1 January 2021, with estimated moment magnitudes (⁠Mw ⁠) between −1.0 and 4.5. Most detected seismicity occurs near Ross Island, large ice shelves, ice streams, ice‐covered volcanoes, or in distinct and isolated areas within the continental interior. The event locations and waveform characteristics indicate volcanic, tectonic, and cryospheric sources. The catalog shows that Antarctica is more seismically active than prior catalogs would indicate, examples include new tectonic events in East Antarctica, seismic events near and around the vicinity of David Glacier, and many thousands of events in the Mount Erebus region. This catalog provides a resource for more specific studies using other detection and analysis methods such as template matching or transfer learning to further discriminate source types and investigate diverse seismogenic processes across the continent.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

Evidence for low effective stress within the crust of the subducted Gorda plate from the 2022 December Mw 6.4 Ferndale earthquake sequence

Stress levels on and adjacent to megathrust faults at seismogenic depths remain a key but difficult to constrain parameter for assessing seismic hazard in subduction zones. Although strong ground motions have been observed to be generated from distinct, high-stress regions on the downdip end of the megathrust rupture areas in many great earthquakes, we lack direct constraints on the stress level in the lower seismogenic portion of the Cascadia megathrust. On 2022 December 20, a M w 6.4 strike-slip earthquake occurred near Ferndale, California in southern Cascadia and likely ruptured the Gorda slab crust in the lower seismogenic portion, providing an opportunity to assess the stress level in this region. Here, we relocate the Ferndale mainshock and the first two weeks of aftershocks using a high-resolution 3-D velocity model and estimate rupture dimensions, directivity, and stress drop for several M w 4-5 aftershocks and recent earthquakes. The aftershocks define a strike-slip fault in the slab crust striking ENE, consistent with the mainshock focal mechanism. The orientation of this fault is about 45 ° off the ideally oriented fault plane given the stress state in the slab. The aftershock zone is extensive and broad in the forward direction of the mainshock rupture but still constrained within the volume of high Vp/Vs within the slab crust. Our stress drop estimates are generally lower for M w 4-5 earthquakes located within the slab crust compared to those a few km deeper in the slab mantle. Combined, our results support a relatively low effective stress level in the vicinity of the megathrust in the lower portion of the seismogenic zone in southern Cascadia, likely due to elevated fluid pressures. Consequently, the ground motion in the onshore region above this low-stress seismogenic portion in southern Cascadia may not be as intense as that observed during great earthquakes in other subduction zones.

California↗