More Like this

1. The 30 November 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage Earthquake

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190176  

   West, Michael E.; Bender, Adrian; Gardine, Matthew; Gardine, Lea; Gately, Kara; Haeussler, Peter; Hassan, Wael; Meyer, Franz; Richards, Cole; Ruppert, Natalia; et al (October 2019, Seismological Research Letters)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract The Mw 7.1 47 km deep earthquake that occurred on 30 November 2018 had deep societal impacts across southcentral Alaska and exhibited phenomena of broad scientific interest. We document observations that point to future directions of research and hazard mitigation. The rupture mechanism, aftershocks, and deformation of the mainshock are consistent with extension inside the Pacific plate near the down‐dip limit of flat‐slab subduction. Peak ground motions >25%g were observed across more than 8000  km2, though the most violent near‐fault shaking was avoided because the hypocenter was nearly 50 km below the surface. The ground motions show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of regional geology and near‐surface soil conditions. Aftershock activity was vigorous with roughly 300 felt events in the first six months, including two dozen aftershocks exceeding M 4.5. Broad subsidence of up to 5 cm across the region is consistent with the rupture mechanism. The passage of seismic waves and possibly the coseismic subsidence mobilized ground waters, resulting in temporary increases in stream flow. Although there were many failures of natural slopes and soils, the shaking was insufficient to reactivate many of the failures observed during the 1964 M 9.2 earthquake. This is explained by the much shorter duration of shaking as well as the lower amplitude long‐period motions in 2018. The majority of observed soil failures were in anthropogenically placed fill soils. Structural damage is attributed to both the failure of these emplaced soils as well as to the ground motion, which shows some spatial correlation to damage. However, the paucity of instrumental ground‐motion recordings outside of downtown Anchorage makes these comparisons challenging. The earthquake demonstrated the challenge of issuing tsunami warnings in complex coastal geographies and highlights the need for a targeted tsunami hazard evaluation of the region. The event also demonstrates the challenge of estimating the probabilistic hazard posed by intraslab earthquakes. 

   more » « less
2. Ground‐Motion Amplification in Cook Inlet Region, Alaska, from Intermediate‐Depth Earthquakes, Including the 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage Earthquake

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190179  

   Moschetti, Morgan P.; Thompson, Eric M.; Rekoske, John; Hearne, Michael G.; Powers, Peter M.; McNamara, Daniel E.; Tape, Carl (November 2019, Seismological Research Letters)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract We measure pseudospectral and peak ground motions from 44 intermediate‐depth Mw≥4.9 earthquakes in the Cook Inlet region of southern Alaska, including those from the 2018 Mw 7.1 earthquake near Anchorage, to identify regional amplification features (0.1–5  s period). Ground‐motion residuals are computed with respect to an empirical ground‐motion model for intraslab subduction earthquakes, and we compute bias, between‐, and within‐event terms through a linear mixed‐effects regression. Between‐event residuals are analyzed to assess the relative source characteristics of the Cook Inlet earthquakes and suggest a difference in the scaling of the source with depth, relative to global observations. The within‐event residuals are analyzed to investigate regional amplification, and various spatial patterns manifest, including correlations of amplification with depth of the Cook Inlet basin and varying amplifications east and west of the center of the basin. Three earthquake clusters are analyzed separately and indicate spatial amplification patterns that depend on source location and exhibit variations in the depth scaling of long‐period basin amplification. The observations inform future seismic hazard modeling efforts in the Cook Inlet region. More broadly, they suggest a greater complexity of basin and regional amplification than is currently used in seismic hazard analyses. 

   more » « less
3. Seismic Response of Cook Inlet Sedimentary Basin, Southern Alaska

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190205  

   Smith, Kyle; Tape, Carl (October 2019, Seismological Research Letters)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract Cook Inlet fore‐arc basin in south‐central Alaska is a large, deep (7.6 km) sedimentary basin with the Anchorage metropolitan region on its margins. From 2015 to 2017, a set of 28 broadband seismic stations was deployed in the region as part of the Southern Alaska Lithosphere and Mantle Observation Network (SALMON) project. The SALMON stations, which also cover the remote western portion of Cook Inlet basin and the back‐arc region, form the basis for our observational study of the seismic response of Cook Inlet basin. We quantify the influence of Cook Inlet basin on the seismic wavefield using three data sets: (1) ambient‐noise amplitudes of 18 basin stations relative to a nonbasin reference station, (2) earthquake ground‐motion metrics for 34 crustal and intraslab earthquakes, and (3) spectral ratios (SRs) between basin stations and nonbasin stations for the same earthquakes. For all analyses, we examine how quantities vary with the frequency content of the seismic signal and with the basin depth at each station. Seismic waves from earthquakes and from ambient noise are amplified within Cook Inlet basin. At low frequencies (0.1–0.5 Hz), ambient‐noise ratios and earthquake SRs are in a general agreement with power amplification of 6–14 dB, corresponding to amplitude amplification factors of 2.0–5.0. At high frequencies (0.5–4.0 Hz), the basin amplifies the earthquake wavefield by similar factors. Our results indicate stronger amplification for the deeper basin stations such as near Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula and weaker amplification near the margins of the basin. Future work devoted to 3D wavefield simulations and treatment of source and propagation effects should improve the characterization of the frequency‐dependent response of Cook Inlet basin to recorded and scenario earthquakes in the region. 

   more » « less
4. Rupture Process of the 2019 Ridgecrest, California Mw 6.4 Foreshock and Mw 7.1 Earthquake Constrained by Seismic and Geodetic Data

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200108  

   Wang, Kang; Dreger, Douglas S.; Tinti, Elisa; Bürgmann, Roland; Taira, Taka’aki (July 2020, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America)

   null (Ed.)

   ABSTRACT The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence culminated in the largest seismic event in California since the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake. Here, we combine geodetic and seismic data to study the rupture process of both the 4 July Mw 6.4 foreshock and the 6 July Mw 7.1 mainshock. The results show that the Mw 6.4 foreshock rupture started on a northwest-striking right-lateral fault, and then continued on a southwest-striking fault with mainly left-lateral slip. Although most moment release during the Mw 6.4 foreshock was along the southwest-striking fault, slip on the northwest-striking fault seems to have played a more important role in triggering the Mw 7.1 mainshock that happened ∼34  hr later. Rupture of the Mw 7.1 mainshock was characterized by dominantly right-lateral slip on a series of overall northwest-striking fault strands, including the one that had already been activated during the nucleation of the Mw 6.4 foreshock. The maximum slip of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake was ∼5  m, located at a depth range of 3–8 km near the Mw 7.1 epicenter, corresponding to a shallow slip deficit of ∼20%–30%. Both the foreshock and mainshock had a relatively low-rupture velocity of ∼2  km/s, which is possibly related to the geometric complexity and immaturity of the eastern California shear zone faults. The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake produced significant stress perturbations on nearby fault networks, especially along the Garlock fault segment immediately southwest of the 2019 Ridgecrest rupture, in which the coulomb stress increase was up to ∼0.5  MPa. Despite the good coverage of both geodetic and seismic observations, published coseismic slip models of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence show large variations, which highlight the uncertainty of routinely performed earthquake rupture inversions and their interpretation for underlying rupture processes. 

   more » « less
5. 3D Wave Propagation Simulations of Mw 6.5+ Earthquakes on the Tacoma Fault, Washington State, Considering the Effects of Topography, a Geotechnical Gradient, and a Fault Damage Zone

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0120230083  

   Stone, Ian; Wirth, Erin A; Grant, Alex; Frankel, Arthur D (September 2023, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America)

   ABSTRACT We simulate shaking in Tacoma, Washington, and surrounding areas from Mw 6.5 and 7.0 earthquakes on the Tacoma fault. Ground motions are directly modeled up to 2.5 Hz using kinematic, finite-fault sources; a 3D seismic velocity model considering regional geology; and a model mesh with 30 m sampling at the ground surface. In addition, we explore how adjustments to the seismic velocity model affect predicted shaking over a range of periods. These adjustments include the addition of a region-specific geotechnical gradient, surface topography, and a fault damage zone. We find that the simulated shaking tends to be near estimates from empirical ground-motion models (GMMs). However, long-period (T = 5.0 s) shaking within the Tacoma basin is typically underpredicted by the GMMs. The fit between simulated and GMM-derived short-period (T = 0.5 s) shaking is significantly improved with the addition of the geotechnical gradient. From comparing different Mw 6.5 earthquake scenarios, we also find that the response of the Tacoma basin is sensitive to the azimuth of incoming seismic waves. In adding surface topography to the simulation, we find that average ground motion is similar to that produced from the nontopography model. However, shaking is often amplified at topographic highs and deamplified at topographic lows, and the wavefield undergoes extensive scattering. Adding a fault damage zone has the effect of amplifying short-period shaking adjacent to the fault, while reducing far-field shaking. Intermediate-period shaking is amplified within the Tacoma basin, likely due to enhanced surface-wave generation attributable to the fault damage zone waveguide. When applied in the same model, the topography and fault damage zone adjustments often enhance or reduce the effects of one another, adding further complexity to the wavefield. These results emphasize the importance of improving near-surface velocity model resolution as waveform simulations progress toward higher frequencies. 

   more » « less