Search for: All records

ABSTRACT We present initial findings from the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study to compare spectral stress-drop estimates for earthquakes in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequence. This study uses a unified dataset to independently estimate earthquake source parameters through various methods. Stress drop, which denotes the change in average shear stress along a fault during earthquake rupture, is a critical parameter in earthquake science, impacting ground motion, rupture simulation, and source physics. Spectral stress drop is commonly derived by fitting the amplitude-spectrum shape, but estimates can vary substantially across studies for individual earthquakes. Sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Statewide (previously, Southern) California Earthquake Center our community study aims to elucidate sources of variability and uncertainty in earthquake spectral stress-drop estimates through quantitative comparison of submitted results from independent analyses. The dataset includes nearly 13,000 earthquakes ranging from M 1 to 7 during a two-week period of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, recorded within a 1° radius. In this article, we report on 56 unique submissions received from 20 different groups, detailing spectral corner frequencies (or source durations), moment magnitudes, and estimated spectral stress drops. Methods employed encompass spectral ratio analysis, spectral decomposition and inversion, finite-fault modeling, ground-motion-based approaches, and combined methods. Initial analysis reveals significant scatter across submitted spectral stress drops spanning over six orders of magnitude. However, we can identify between-method trends and offsets within the data to mitigate this variability. Averaging submissions for a prioritized subset of 56 events shows reduced variability of spectral stress drop, indicating overall consistency in recovered spectral stress-drop values. 

Abstract On 5 April 2024, 10:23 a.m. local time, a moment magnitude 4.8 earthquake struck Tewksbury Township, New Jersey, about 65 km west of New York City. Millions of people from Virginia to Maine and beyond felt the ground shaking, resulting in the largest number (>180,000) of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” reports of any earthquake. A team deployed by the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association and the National Institute of Standards and Technology documented structural and nonstructural damage, including substantial damage to a historic masonry building in Lebanon, New Jersey. The USGS National Earthquake Information Center reported a focal depth of about 5 km, consistent with a lack of signal in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data. The focal mechanism solution is strike slip with a substantial thrust component. Neither mechanism’s nodal plane is parallel to the primary northeast trend of geologic discontinuities and mapped faults in the region, including the Ramapo fault. However, many of the relocated aftershocks, for which locations were augmented by temporary seismic deployments, form a cluster that parallels the general northeast trend of the faults. The aftershocks lie near the Tewksbury fault, north of the Ramapo fault. 

Abstract Foreshocks provide valuable information on the nucleation process of an upcoming large earthquake. We applied high‐resolution similar‐waveform techniques for earthquake detection, location, and source parameter estimation to understand the space‐time evolution of a foreshock sequence and its relationship to the mainshock hypocenter. The 1999M_w7.1 Hector Mine, California, earthquake was preceded by 50 foreshocks (−0.4 ≤ M ≤ 3.7) during the 20 hr before the mainshock. Foreshock activity did not accelerate leading up to the mainshock. Their locations moved north with time, rupturing adjacent areas along the fault plane with little overlap, but remained within a compact <2 km³volume. The mainshock initiated at a location where previous foreshocks had locally increased the shear stress. These observations are consistent with a triggered cascade of stress transfer, where previous foreshocks load adjacent fault patches to rupture as additional foreshocks, and eventually the mainshock.