Application of Geophysical Techniques for Earthquake Research
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Geologically Hazardous Area Assessment
Geologically Hazardous Area Assessment Guemes Channel Trail Extension Anacortes, Washington for Herrigstad Engineering, PS May 16, 2014 Earth Science + Technology Geologically Hazardous Area Assessment Guemes Channel Trail Extension Anacortes, Washington for Herrigstad Engineering, PS May 16, 2014 600 Dupont Street Bellingham, Washington 98225 360.647.1510 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ........................................................................................................................ 1 DESIGNATION OF GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS AT THE SITE ..................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 2 Geology ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Subsurface Explorations ........................................................................................................................ 4 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 4 Soil Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater -
Preprint Arxiv:1806.10939, 2018
Solid Earth Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2019-4 Manuscript under review for journal Solid Earth Discussion started: 15 January 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Bayesian geological and geophysical data fusion for the construction and uncertainty quantification of 3D geological models Hugo K. H. Olierook1, Richard Scalzo2, David Kohn3, Rohitash Chandra2,4, Ehsan Farahbakhsh2,4, Gregory Houseman3, Chris Clark1, Steven M. Reddy1, R. Dietmar Müller4 5 1School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia 2Centre for Translational Data Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 3Sydney Informatics Hub, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 4EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia Correspondence to: Hugo K. H. Olierook ([email protected]) 10 Abstract. Traditional approaches to develop 3D geological models employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative scientific techniques, which do not fully provide quantification of uncertainty in the constructed models and fail to optimally weight geological field observations against constraints from geophysical data. Here, we demonstrate a Bayesian methodology to fuse geological field observations with aeromagnetic and gravity data to build robust 3D models in a 13.5 × 13.5 km region of the Gascoyne Province, Western Australia. Our approach is validated by comparing model results to independently-constrained 15 geological maps and cross-sections produced by the Geological Survey of Western Australia. By fusing geological field data with magnetics and gravity surveys, we show that at 89% of the modelled region has >95% certainty. The boundaries between geological units are characterized by narrow regions with <95% certainty, which are typically 400–1000 m wide at the Earth’s surface and 500–2000 m wide at depth. -
Hydrometer and Viscosity Cup Guide
Hydrometers Do Work What Is Specific Gravity? Specific gravity of any solid or liquid substance is its weight compared with the weight of an equal bulk of pure water at 62 degrees F at sea level. Gases use an equal volume of pure air at 32 degrees F. There are three methods of determining the specific gravity of liquids: Hydrometer In which the specific gravity of the liquid tested is read as the scale division marking the liquid level on the stem. Bottle Method In which the specific gravity is the weight of liquid (slip) in a full bottle divided by the weight of water in a full bottle. Displacement Method In which specific gravity is the weight of liquid displaced by a body divided by the weight of an equal volume of water displaced by the same body. The first two methods are practical. The faster, easier method uses a hydrometer designed specifically for slip (see right). There are many different hydrometers. Slip should range between 1.78 to 1.75, the latter being the maximum amount of water in the body and the former the lesser amount. How To Get An Accurate Reading 1. Store hydrometer in water. This keeps slip from drying on the surface. A cut off two liter soft drink bottle is ideal. Remove and gently “squeegee” off excess water. 2. Immerse in freshly agitated slip to the stem readings. 3. Lift up, “squeegee” off excess slip. Hydrometer is now “wet coated” with slip, not with water, which would give a false reading. 4. Immerse bulb half way into slip before releasing. -
ISC Data Cited in Research Publications in 2019
ISC data cited in research publications in 2019 This list is a result of a special effort to put together a collection of scientific papers published during 2019 that used ISC data. The list is by no means exhaustive. The ISC has become such a familiar name that many researchers sadly fail to reference their use of the ISC data. To track publications that use one or more of the ISC dataset and services, we set up automatic alerts with Google Scholar for scientific papers that refer to ISC. The Google Scholar alerts return matches with different ways to refer to the ISC as normally done by authors, such as “International Seismological Centre”, “International Seismological Center”, “ISC-GEM”, “ISC-EHB” and “EHB” + ”seismic”. No doubt many more references can be found by using different search phrases. Below are the bibliographic references to the ~280 works in year 2019 as gathered by Google Scholar. The references to articles published in journals are listed first, followed by the references to other types of publications (e.g., chapters in books, reports, thesis, websites). The references are sorted by journal name. The vast majority of the references below belong to journal articles. Radulian, M., Bălă, A., Ardeleanu, L., Toma-Dănilă, D., Petrescu, registered earthquakes in the Arctic regions, Arctic Environmental L. and Popescu, E. (2019). Revised catalogue of earthquake Research, 19, 3, 123-128, http://doi.org/10.3897/issn2541- mechanisms for the events occurred in Romania until the end of 8416.2019.19.3.123. twentieth century: REFMC, Acta Geod. Geoph., 54, 1, 3-18, Turova, A.P. -
SOP14 Geophysical Survey
SSFL Use Only SSFL SOP 14 Geophysical Survey Revision: 0 Date: April 2012 Prepared: C. Werden Technical Review: J. Plevniak Approved and QA Review: J. Oxford Issued: 4/6/2012 Signature/Date 1.0 Objective The purpose of this technical standard operating procedure (SOP) is to introduce the procedures for non-invasive geophysical investigations in areas suspected of being used for disposal of debris or where landfill operations may have been conducted. Specifics of the geophysical surveys will be discussed in the Geophysical Survey Field Sampling Plan Addendum. Geophysical methods that will be used to accurately locate and record buried geophysical anomalies are: . Total Field Magnetometry (TFM) . Frequency Domain Electromagnetic Method (FDEM) . Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) TFM and FDEM will be applied to all areas of interest while GPR will be applied only to areas of interest that require further and/or higher resolution of geophysical anomaly. The geophysical investigation (survey) will be conducted by geophysical subcontractor personnel trained, experienced, and qualified in shallow subsurface geophysics necessary to successfully perform any of the above geophysical methods. CDM Smith will provide oversight of the geophysical contractor. 2.0 Background 2.1 Discussion This SOP is based on geophysical methods employed by US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) subcontractor Hydrogeologic Inc. (HGL) while conducted geophysical surveys of portions of Area IV during 2010 and 2011. The Data Gap Investigation conducted as part of Phase 3 identified additional locations of suspected buried materials not surveyed by HGL. To be consistent with the recently collected subsurface information, HGL procedures are being adopted. The areas of interest and survey limits will be determined prior to field mobilization. -
How to Read a Hydrometer
Triple Scale Beer & Wine Hydrometer • Please Note: Always handle your hydrometer with care and DO NOT BOIL Why Use a Hydrometer – A Hydrometer is an instrument used Example formula: 1.073 was the Original Gravity reading and 1.012 How to Read to measure the progress of fermentation and determine alcohol per- is the Final Gravity reading.: 1.073-1.012=.06 x 131 = 7.99% Alc. By Vol centage. How to Determine Alcohol Percentage for Wine – For A Hydrometer Hydrometer Theory – A Hydrometer measures the density of a Wine, your final reading is often below zero. In wine, nearly all the liquid in relation to water. In beer or wine making we are measuring sugar is converted to alcohol – because alcohol is lighter than wa- how much sugar is in solution. The more sugar that is in solution, ter, your reading at the end of a wine fermentation is often negative. the higher the hydrometer will float. As sugar is turned into alcohol When the reading is negative, you have to add this back to your first during the fermentation, the hydrometer will slowly sink lower in the reading. Here is an example for these situations: .990 solution. When fermentation is finished, the hydrometer will stop Example Using Potential Alcohol Scale for Wine: sinking. Original Reading: 12.5 Potential alcohol 1.000 Three Scales – What are they used for? – Each of our Fer- Final Reading: -.7 Potential alcohol mentap hydrometers comes with three scales. The Specific Gravity - - - - - - - - - scale is most often used in brewing. The Brix scale is most often used 1.010 (12.5+.7)=13.2 % alcohol by volume in winemaking. -
Enhancement of Shaft Capacity of Cast-In- Place Piles Using a Hook System
Enhancement of Shaft Capacity of Cast-in- Place Piles using a Hook System by Ghazi Abou El Hosn A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Applied Science in Civil Engineering Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario ©2015 Ghazi Abou El Hosn * Abstract This research investigates an innovative approach to improve the shaft bearing capacity of cast- in-place pile foundations by utilizing passive inclusions (Hooks) that will be mobilized if movement occurs in pile system. An extensive experimental program was developed to study the shaft bearing capacity of cast-in-place piles with and without hook system in soft clay and sand. First phase of the experiment was developed to investigate the effect of passive inclusion on pile- soil interface shear strength behaviour, employing a modified direct shear test apparatus. The interface strength obtained for pile-soil specimens was found to significantly increase when passive inclusions were implemented. Apparent residual friction angle for concrete-sand interface increased from 22 to 29.5 when two hook elements were used at the pile-soil interface. The pile-clay apparent adhesion was also increased from 19 kPa to 34 kPa. A series of pile-load testing at field were performed on cast-in-place in soft clay to investigate the effect of passive inclusions on pile bearing capacity. The pile-load tests were conducted at Gloucester test site. Four model piles were cast with steel cages along with hooks (P1- no hook, P2-7 hooks, P3- 5 hooks and P4- 5 hooks) installed on the exterior side of the steel cages prior to filling the hole with concrete. -
Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire
In Cooperation with the NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES o Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4183 U.S. Department of the Interior / U.S. Geological Survey The base map on the front cover shows geophysical survey locations overlaying a geologic map of U.S. Geological Survey, Windham, New Hampshire, 1:24,000-scale quadrangle. Geology is by G.S. Walsh and S.F. Clark, Jr. (1999) and lineaments are from Ferguson and others (1997) and R.B. Moore and Garrick Marcoux, 1998. The photographs and graphics overlying the base map are showing, counterclockwise from the left, a USGS scientist using a resistivity meter and surveying equipment (background) to survey the bedrock beneath the surface using a geophysical method called azimuthal square-array direct- current resistivity. In the lower left, this cross section is showing the results of a survey along line 3 in Windham, N.H., using another method called two-dimensional direct-current resistivity. In the lower right, the photograph is showing a bedrock outcrop located between red lines 3 and 4 (on base map) at Windham, in which the fractures and parting parallel to foliation have the same strike as the azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey results, and remotely sensed lineaments (purple and green lines on base map). The upper right graphic shows a polar plot of the results of an azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey at Windham for array 1 (red circle on base map). U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. -
An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, 3E
An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION AN INTRODUCTION TO GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION © 2002 by The right of the Authors to be distributors Blackwell Science Ltd identified as the Authors of this Work Marston Book Services Ltd Editorial Offices: has been asserted in accordance PO Box 269 Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0EL with the Copyright, Designs and Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4YN 25 John Street, London WC1N 2BS Patents Act 1988. (Orders: Tel: 01235 465500 23 Ainslie Place, Edinburgh EH3 6AJ Fax: 01235 465555) 350 Main Street, Malden All rights reserved. No part of MA 02148-5018, USA this publication may be reproduced, The Americas 54 University Street, Carlton stored in a retrieval system, or Blackwell Publishing Victoria 3053,Australia transmitted, in any form or by any c/o AIDC 10, rue Casimir Delavigne means, electronic, mechanical, PO Box 20 75006 Paris, France photocopying, recording or otherwise, 50 Winter Sport Lane except as permitted by the UK Williston,VT 05495-0020 Other Editorial Offices: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (Orders: Tel: 800 216 2522 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH 1988, without the prior -
Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C130 October 2008 Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008–2009 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Shelly R. Brown, Principal, Shelly Brown Associates, Seattle, Washington, Legal Resources Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Arlene L. Dietz, A&C Dietz and Associates, LLC, Salem, Oregon, Marine Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Acting Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Rail Group Chair Karla H. Karash, Vice President, TranSystems Corporation, Medford, Massachusetts, Public Transportation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Katherine F. Turnbull, Associate Director, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Planning and Environment Group Chair Daniel S. -
Geophysical Field Mapping
Presented at Short Course IX on Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP, GDC and KenGen, at Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya, Nov. 2-23, 2014. Kenya Electricity Generating Co., Ltd. GEOPHYSICAL FIELD MAPPING Anastasia W. Wanjohi, Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd. Olkaria Geothermal Project P.O. Box 785-20117, Naivasha KENYA [email protected] or [email protected] ABSTRACT Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. Geophysical field mapping is the process of selecting an area of interest and identifying all the geophysical aspects of the area with the purpose of preparing a detailed geophysical report. The objective of geophysical field work is to understand all physical parameters of a geothermal field and be able to relate them with geological phenomenons and come up with plausible inferences about the system. Four phases are involved and include planning/desktop studies, reconnaissance, actual data aquisition and report writing. Equipments must be prepared and calibrated well. Geophysical results should be processed, analysed and presented in the appropriate form. A detailed geophysical report should be compiled. This paper presents the reader with an overview of how to carry out geophysical mapping in a geothermal field. 1. INTRODUCTION Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. In lay man’s language, geophysics is all about x-raying the earth and involves sending signals into the earth and monitoring the outcome or monitoring natural signals from the earth. -
Seismotectonic Characteristics of the Taiwan Collision-Manila Subduction Transition the Effect of Pre-Existing Structures
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 173 (2019) 113–120 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Asian Earth Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jseaes Seismotectonic characteristics of the Taiwan collision-Manila subduction transition: The effect of pre-existing structures T ⁎ Shao-Jinn China,b, Jing-Yi Lina,b, , Yi-Ching Yeha, Hao Kuo-Chena, Chin-Wei Liangb a Department of Earth Sciences, National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan 32001, Taiwan, ROC b Center for Environmental Studies, National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan 32001, Taiwan, ROC ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Based on the distribution of an earthquake swarm determined from an ocean bottom seismometer (OBS) network Collision deployed from 20 August to 5 September 2015 in the northernmost part of the South China Sea (SCS) and data Subduction from inland seismic stations in Taiwan, we resolved a ML 4.1 earthquake occurring on 1 September 2015 as a NE- Taiwan SW-trending left-lateral strike-slip event that ruptured along the pre-existing normal faults generated during the Manila SCS opening phases. The direction of the T-axes derived from the M 4.1 earthquake and the background Ocean bottom seismometer L seismicity off SW Taiwan present high consistency, indicating a stable dominant NW-SE tensional stress for the Passive margin subducted Eurasian Plate (EUP). The distinct stress variations on the two sides of these reactivated NE-SW trending features suggest that the presence of pre-existing normal faults and other related processes may lessen the lateral resistance between the Taiwan collision and Manila subduction system, and facilitate the slab-pull process for the subducting portion, which may explain the NW-SE tensional stress environment near the tran- sition boundary in the northernmost part of the SCS.