Geology ReportsSearch

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Seismological Research Letteres”

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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

Unusual downhole and surface free-field records near the Carquinez Strait bridges during the 24 August 2014 Mw6.0 South Napa, California earthquake

This paper reports the results of Part A of a study of the recorded strong-motion accelerations at the well-instrumented network of the two side-by-side parallel bridges over the Carquinez Strait during the 24 August 2014 (Mw6.0 ) South Napa, Calif. earthquake that occurred at 03:20:44 PDT with epicentral coordinates 38.22N, 122.31W. (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2014/20140824.php, last accessed on October 17, 2014). Both bridges and two boreholes were instrumented by the California Strong motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) of California Geological Survey (CGS) (Shakal et al., 2014). A comprehensive comparison of several ground motion prediction equations as they relate to recorded ground motions of the earthquake is provided by Baltay and Boatright (2015).

California

A quick SEED tutorial

Introduction A number of different government-funded seismic data centers offer free open-access data (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center, the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), and Data Management System), which can be freely downloaded and shared among different members of the community ( Lay, 2009 ). To efficiently share data, it is important that different data providers follow a common format. The Standard for the Exchange of Earthquake Data (SEED) provides one such format for storing seismic and other geophysical data. The SEED format is widely used in earthquake seismology; however, SEED and its structure can be difficult for many first-time users (ourselves included). Below is a quick tutorial that outlines the basic structure of SEED format. This write-up is in no way intended to replace the comprehensive SEED manual ( Ahern et al. , 2009 ), and instead of going into the details of any specific part of the SEED format we refer the reader to the manual for additional details. The goal of this write-up is to succinctly explain the basic structure of SEED format as well as the associated jargon, as most commonly used now, in a colloquial way so that novice users of SEED can become more familiar with the format and its application quickly. Our goal is to give the reader the necessary background so that when problems or questions about SEED format arise they will have some understanding of where they should look for more details or from where the problem might be stemming. As a secondary goal, we hope to help the reader become familiar with the SEED manual ( Ahern et al. , 2009 ), which contains detailed information about all aspects of the SEED format.

Seismological Research Letters

How to recognize a “Beast Quake” and a “Dance Quake”

Any good seismologist–carryball (i.e., American football) fan remembers the “beast quake” of 2011. Seahawks fans’ exuberant reactions to a Marshawn Lynch (in beast mode) run caused the stadium to shake enough to be well recorded on a strong‐motion seismograph a block away ( Vidale, 2011 ). With the Seahawks at home for the National Football Conference (NFC) Championship playoffs, both last year and this year, the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN) received permission to install some seismometers in the stadium. Motivations for the experiment included testing the field and telemetry equipment, examining analysis and display techniques, and practicing quick reactions to mobilize field experiments. With PNSN students and staff who are also Seahawks fans, it was not hard to get volunteers to do the installations and monitor the on‐field actions and the resulting seismograms.

Seismological Research Letters

Surface monitoring of microseismicity at the Decatur, Illinois, CO2 sequestration demonstration site

Sequestration of CO2 into subsurface reservoirs can play an important role in limiting future emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (e.g., Benson and Cole, 2008). For geologic sequestration to become a viable option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, large-volume injection of supercritical CO2 into deep sedimentary formations is required. These formations offer large pore volumes and good pore connectivity and are abundant (Bachu, 2003; U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013). However, hazards associated with injection of CO2 into deep formations require evaluation before widespread sequestration can be adopted safely (Zoback and Gorelick, 2012). One of these hazards is the potential to induce seismicity on pre-existing faults or fractures. If these faults or fractures are large and critically stressed, seismic events can occur with magnitudes large enough to pose a hazard to surface installations and, possibly more critical, the seal integrity of the cap rock. The Decatur, Illinois, carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration site is the first, and to date, only CCS project in the United States that injects a large volume of supercritical CO2 into a regionally extensive, undisturbed saline formation. The first phase of the Decatur CCS project was completed in November 2014 after injecting a million metric tons of supercritical CO2 over three years. This phase was led by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) and included seismic monitoring using deep borehole sensors, with a few sensors installed within the injection horizon. Although the deep borehole network provides a more comprehensive seismic catalog than is presented in this paper, these deep data are not publicly available. We contend that for monitoring induced microseismicity as a possible seismic hazard and to elucidate the general patterns of microseismicity, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface and shallow borehole network described below provides an adequate event detection threshold. The formation targeted for injection is the Mount Simon Sandstone, which is laterally extensive, has high porosity and permeability and has the potential to host future CCS projects due to its favorable hydrologic characteristics and proximity to industrial sources of CO2 (Birkholzer and Zhou, 2009). At Decatur, CO2, a byproduct of ethanol production at the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) facility, is compressed to supercritical state and injected at 2.1 km depth into the 460 m thick Mount Simon Sandstone. This sandstone has varying properties, ranging from the lower, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone with high permeability and porosity, to the middle and upper Mount Simon, which consist of planar, cross-bedded layers of varied permeability and porosity (Leetaru and Freiburg, 2014). The changes in permeability and porosity within the Mount Simon Sandstone, due to depositional and diagenetic differences, create horizontal baffles, which inhibit vertical flow and restrict the injected CO2 to remain near the injection horizon (Bowen et al., 2011). The lowest portion of the Mount Simon Sandstone overlying the Precambrian rhyolite basement is the Pre-Mount Simon interval, generally < 15 m in thickness and composed of fine- to medium-grain size sandstone that is highly deformed (Leetaru and Freiburg, 2014). The basement rhyolite has a clayrich matrix and is fractured, with significant alterations within the fractures. The primary sealing cap rock is the Eau Claire Formation, a 100–150 m thick unit at a depth of roughly 1.69 km (Leetaru and Freiburg, 2014). The Maquoketa Shale Group and the New Albany Shale serve as secondary and tertiary seals at shallower depths of ∼820 and ∼650 m, respectively. The ISGS managed the Illinois Basin–Decatur Project (IBDP), a three-year project beginning in November 2011, during which carbon dioxide was injected at a rate of ∼1000 metric tons per day until November 2014 (Finley et al., 2011, 2013). ADM manages the Illinois Industrial CCS (ICCS) project, which will inject ∼3000 metric tons/day into a second injection well starting in the summer of 2015. The USGS began monitoring microseismicity with a 13- station seismic network at Decatur in July 2013 (Fig. 1). This network provides good detection capabilities and azimuthal (focal sphere) coverage for microseismicity with moment magnitudes (Mw) above about −0:5. Here, we report on 19 months of microseismicity monitoring at the Decatur CO2 sequestration site, which permits a detailed look at the evolution and character of injection-induced seismicity.

Illinois

Myths and facts on wastewater injection, hydraulic fracturing, enhanced oil recovery, and induced seismicity

The central United States has undergone a dramatic increase in seismicity over the past 6 years (Fig. 1), rising from an average of 24 M&ge;3 earthquakes per year in the years 1973&ndash;2008 to an average of 193 M&ge;3 earthquakes in 2009&ndash;2014, with 688 occurring in 2014 alone. Multiple damaging earthquakes have occurred during this increase including the 2011 M 5.6 Prague, Oklahoma, earthquake; the 2011 M 5.3 Trinidad, Colorado, earthquake; and the 2011 M 4.7 Guy‐Greenbrier, Arkansas, earthquake. The increased seismicity is limited to a few areas and the evidence is mounting that the seismicity in many of these locations is induced by the deep injection of fluids from nearby oil and gas operations. Earthquakes that are caused by human activities are known as induced earthquakes. Most injection operations, though, do not appear to induce earthquakes. Although the message that these earthquakes are induced by fluid injection related to oil and gas production has been communicated clearly, there remains confusion in the popular press beyond this basic level of understanding.

Seismological Research Letters

Quantifying 10 years of improved earthquake-monitoring performance in the Caribbean region

Over 75 tsunamis have been documented in the Caribbean and adjacent regions during the past 500 years. Since 1500, at least 4484 people are reported to have perished in these killer waves. Hundreds of thousands are currently threatened along the Caribbean coastlines. Were a great tsunamigenic earthquake to occur in the Caribbean region today, the effects would potentially be catastrophic due to an increasingly vulnerable region that has seen significant population increases in the past 40&ndash;50 years and currently hosts an estimated 500,000 daily beach visitors from North America and Europe, a majority of whom are not likely aware of tsunami and earthquake hazards. Following the magnitude 9.1 Sumatra&ndash;Andaman Islands earthquake of 26 December 2004, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intergovernmental Coordination Group (ICG) for the Tsunami and other Coastal Hazards Early Warning System for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (CARIBE‐EWS) was established and developed minimum performance standards for the detection and analysis of earthquakes. In this study, we model earthquake‐magnitude detection threshold and P‐wave detection time and demonstrate that the requirements established by the UNESCO ICG CARIBE‐EWS are met with 100% of the network operating. We demonstrate that earthquake‐monitoring performance in the Caribbean Sea region has improved significantly in the past decade as the number of real‐time seismic stations available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami warning centers have increased. We also identify weaknesses in the current international network and provide guidance for selecting the optimal distribution of seismic stations contributed from existing real‐time broadband national networks in the region.

Seismological Research Letters

2014 M=6.0 South Napa earthquake triggered widespread aftershocks and stressed several major faults and exotic fault clusters

The strongest San Francisco Bay area earthquake since the 1989 Mw 7.0 Loma Prieta shock struck near Napa on 24 August 2014. Field mapping (Dawson et al., 2014; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute [EERI], 2014; Brocher et al., 2015) and seismic and geodetic source inversions (Barnhart et al., 2015; Dreger et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2015) indicate that a 15-km-long northwest-trending section of the West Napa Valley fault ruptured in the earthquake. Remarkably, it was the first indisputable surface rupture in the Bay area since 1906. The Napa event, along with other smaller earthquakes such as the 1980 Mw 5.8 Livermore and 1984 Mw 6.2 Morgan Hill events on the Calaveras and Hayward faults over the past 3–4 decades, may indicate that the Bay area region is emerging from the stress shadow of the 1906 Mw 7.8 San Francisco earthquake (Harris and Simpson, 1998; Pollitz et al., 2004). Since 1979, there has been a 140% increase in the rate of Mw≥4.1 shocks (Fig. 1) in the broader Bay area, with most concentrated in a corridor extending north from the 1989 Loma Prieta aftershock zone through the Calaveras, Greenville, Green Valley, Napa, and Rodgers Creek faults east of the San Francisco Bay (Fig. 1a). This corridor roughly coincides with the 1906 stress shadow that is being eroded away by more than a century of stress reaccumulation. The Napa event, as well as the surrounding faults on which we calculate the resulting hazard increases, all lie within this zone.

California

Ground motions from the 2015Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake constrained by a detailed assessment of macroseismic data

To augment limited instrumental recordings of the M w 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake on 25 April 2015 (Nepali calendar: 12 Baisakh 2072, Bikram Samvat), we collected 3831 detailed media and first-person accounts of macroseismic effects that include sufficiently detailed information to assign intensities. The resulting intensity map reveals the distribution of shaking within and outside of Nepal, with the key result that shaking intensities throughout the near-field region only exceeded intensity 8 on the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) in rare instances. Within the Kathmandu Valley, intensities were generally 6&ndash;7 EMS. This surprising (and fortunate) result can be explained by the nature of the mainshock ground motions, which were dominated by energy at periods significantly longer than the resonant periods of vernacular structures throughout the Kathmandu Valley. Outside of the Kathmandu Valley, intensities were also generally lower than 8 EMS, but the earthquake took a heavy toll on a number of remote villages, where many especially vulnerable masonry houses collapsed catastrophically in 7&ndash;8 EMS shaking. We further reconsider intensities from the 1833 earthquake sequence and conclude that it occurred on the same fault segment as the Gorkha earthquake.

Gorkha

Rapid characterization of the 2015 M w 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake sequence and its seismotectonic context

Earthquake response and related information products are important for placing recent seismic events into context and particularly for understanding the impact earthquakes can have on the regional community and its infrastructure. These tools are even more useful if they are available quickly, ahead of detailed information from the areas affected by such earthquakes. Here we provide an overview of the response activities and related information products generated and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center in association with the 2015 M 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake. This group monitors global earthquakes 24&thinsp;&thinsp;hrs/day and 7&thinsp;&thinsp;days/week to provide rapid information on the location and size of recent events and to characterize the source properties, tectonic setting, and potential fatalities and economic losses associated with significant earthquakes. We present the timeline over which these products became available, discuss what they tell us about the seismotectonics of the Gorkha earthquake and its aftershocks, and examine how their information is used today, and might be used in the future, to help mitigate the impact of such natural disasters.

Seismological Research Letters

Strong-motion observations of the M 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake sequence and development of the N-shake strong-motion network

We present and describe strong-motion data observations from the 2015 M 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake sequence collected using existing and new Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) and U.S. Geological Survey NetQuakes sensors located in the Kathmandu Valley. A comparison of QCN data with waveforms recorded by a conventional strong-motion (NetQuakes) instrument validates the QCN data. We present preliminary analysis of spectral accelerations, and peak ground acceleration and velocity for earthquakes up to M 7.3 from the QCN stations, as well as preliminary analysis of the mainshock recording from the NetQuakes station. We show that mainshock peak accelerations were lower than expected and conclude the Kathmandu Valley experienced a pervasively nonlinear response during the mainshock. Phase picks from the QCN and NetQuakes data are also used to improve aftershock locations. This study confirms the utility of QCN instruments to contribute to ground-motion investigations and aftershock response in regions where conventional instrumentation and open-access seismic data are limited. Initial pilot installations of QCN instruments in 2014 are now being expanded to create the Nepal&ndash;Shaking Hazard Assessment for Kathmandu and its Environment (N-SHAKE) network.

Seismological Research Letters

Rapid damage mapping for the 2015 M7.8 Gorkha earthquake using synthetic aperture radar data from COSMO-SkyMed and ALOS-2 satellites

The 25 April 2015 M w 7.8 Gorkha earthquake caused more than 8000 fatalities and widespread building damage in central Nepal. The Italian Space Agency&rsquo;s COSMO&ndash;SkyMed Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite acquired data over Kathmandu area four days after the earthquake and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency&rsquo;s Advanced Land Observing Satellite-2 SAR satellite for larger area nine days after the mainshock. We used these radar observations and rapidly produced damage proxy maps (DPMs) derived from temporal changes in Interferometric SAR coherence. Our DPMs were qualitatively validated through comparison with independent damage analyses by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research&rsquo;s United Nations Operational Satellite Applications Programme, and based on our own visual inspection of DigitalGlobe&rsquo;s WorldView optical pre- versus postevent imagery. Our maps were quickly released to responding agencies and the public, and used for damage assessment, determining inspection/imaging priorities, and reconnaissance fieldwork.

Seismological Research Letters

Geotechnical effects of the 2015 magnitude 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks

This article summarizes the geotechnical effects of the 25 April 2015 M 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks, as documented by a reconnaissance team that undertook a broad engineering and scientific assessment of the damage and collected perishable data for future analysis. Brief descriptions are provided of ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landsliding, soil failure, and infrastructure performance. The goal of this reconnaissance effort, led by Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance, is to learn from earthquakes and mitigate hazards in future earthquakes.

Gorkha

The potential uses of operational earthquake forecasting

This article reports on a workshop held to explore the potential uses of operational earthquake forecasting (OEF). We discuss the current status of OEF in the United States and elsewhere, the types of products that could be generated, the various potential users and uses of OEF, and the need for carefully crafted communication protocols. Although operationalization challenges remain, there was clear consensus among the stakeholders at the workshop that OEF could be useful.

Seismological Research Letters

Potential improvements in horizontal very broadband seismic data in the IRIS/USGS component of the Global Seismic Network

The Streckeisen STS‐1 has been the primary vault‐type seismometer used in the over‐150‐station Global Seismographic Network (GSN). This sensor has long been known for its outstanding vertical, very long‐period (e.g., >100&thinsp;&thinsp;s period), and low‐noise performance, although the horizontal long‐period noise performance is less well known. The STS‐1 is a limited, important resource, because it is no longer made or supported by the original manufacturer. We investigate the incoherent noise of horizontal‐component sensors, where coherent signals among sensors have been removed, giving an upper bound on the self‐noise of both the STS‐1 and STS‐2 horizontal components. Our findings suggest that a well‐installed STS‐2 could potentially produce data with similar or better incoherent noise levels to that of a horizontal‐component STS‐1. Along with our experimental investigation, we compare background noise levels for a calendar year at Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology/U.S. Geological Survey network stations, which comprise approximately two‐thirds of the GSN, with collocated STS‐1 and STS‐2 seismometers. The use of an STS‐2‐class of sensor (flat to velocity to 120 s period) to acquire low‐frequency data in surface‐vault installations would allow network operators to focus more attention on improving vertical data. In order to deal with the difference in instrument response shapes between the two instruments, we detail two different time‐domain filters that would allow users to convert broadband STS‐2 data into very broadband data with a response similar to that of an STS‐1 (flat to velocity to 360 s period). We conclude that the complexity of the current primary horizontal vault sensors in the GSN may not be necessary until we are better able to isolate surface horizontal sensors from various noise sources.

Seismological Research Letters

Prospective earthquake forecasts at the Himalayan Front after the 25 April 2015 M 7.8 Gorkha Mainshock

When a major earthquake strikes, the resulting devastation can be compounded or even exceeded by the subsequent cascade of triggered seismicity. As the Nepalese recover from the 25 April 2015 shock, knowledge of what comes next is essential. We calculate the redistribution of crustal stresses and implied earthquake probabilities for different periods, from daily to 30 years into the future. An initial forecast was completed before an M 7.3 earthquake struck on 12 May 2015 that enables a preliminary assessment; postforecast seismicity has so far occurred within a zone of fivefold probability gain. Evaluation of the forecast performance, using two months of seismic data, reveals that stress‐based approaches present improved skill in higher‐magnitude triggered seismicity. Our results suggest that considering the total stress field, rather than only the coseismic one, improves the spatial performance of the model based on the estimation of a wide range of potential triggered faults following a mainshock.

Seismological Research Letters

Introduction to the focus section on the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake

It has long been recognized that Nepal faces high earthquake hazard, with the most recent large ( M w >7.5) events in 1833 and 1934. When the 25 April 2015 M w 7.8 Gorkha earthquake struck, it appeared initially to be a realization of worst fears. In spite of its large magnitude and proximity to the densely populated Kathmandu valley, however, the level of damage was lower than anticipated, with most vernacular structures within the valley experiencing little or no structural damage. Outside the valley, catastrophic damage did occur in some villages, associated with the high vulnerability of stone masonry construction and, in many cases, landsliding. The unexpected observations from this expected earthquake provide an urgent impetus to understand the event itself and to better characterize hazard from future large Himalayan earthquakes. Toward this end, articles in this special focus section present and describe available data sets and initial results that better illuminate and interpret the earthquake and its effects.

Gorkha

The petroleum geologist and the insurance policy

In a recent study, Hough and Page (2015) presented several lines of evidence suggesting that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma during the twentieth century, including the M w 5.7 El Reno earthquake of 9 April 1952, were likely induced by wastewater injection and possibly secondary oil recovery operations. We undertook an archival search for accounts of this event, which unearthed a newspaper article published immediately following the El Reno earthquake regarding a prominent petroleum geologist in the area who took out a rare earthquake insurance policy less than 60 days before the earthquake struck. In this study we present a historical context for this intriguing coincidence. We present a retrospective of oil industry practices in the early‐ to mid‐twentieth century, gleaned from court records and other industry reports, that potentially bear on the interplay between oil exploration activities and earthquakes, focusing on the Oklahoma City region. We describe events of the day that could plausibly have alerted a geologist to the possibility of induced earthquakes, although there is no indication that the potential for induced earthquakes was widely recognized within the industry at that time.

Oklahoma

The Earthquake‐Source Inversion Validation (SIV) Project

Finite‐fault earthquake source inversions infer the (time‐dependent) displacement on the rupture surface from geophysical data. The resulting earthquake source models document the complexity of the rupture process. However, multiple source models for the same earthquake, obtained by different research teams, often exhibit remarkable dissimilarities. To address the uncertainties in earthquake‐source inversion methods and to understand strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches used, the Source Inversion Validation (SIV) project conducts a set of forward‐modeling exercises and inversion benchmarks. In this article, we describe the SIV strategy, the initial benchmarks, and current SIV results. Furthermore, we apply statistical tools for quantitative waveform comparison and for investigating source‐model (dis)similarities that enable us to rank the solutions, and to identify particularly promising source inversion approaches. All SIV exercises (with related data and descriptions) and statistical comparison tools are available via an online collaboration platform, and we encourage source modelers to use the SIV benchmarks for developing and testing new methods. We envision that the SIV efforts will lead to new developments for tackling the earthquake‐source imaging problem.

Seismological Research Letters