Ground Motions from Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas

2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan P. Moschetti ◽  
Eric M. Thompson ◽  
Peter M. Powers ◽  
Susan M. Hoover ◽  
Daniel E. McNamara
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motions ◽  
Induced Earthquakes

scholarly journals A New Procedure for Evaluating Ground-Motion Models, with Application to Hydraulic-Fracture-Induced Seismicity in the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (5) ◽  
pp. 2380-2397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Cremen ◽  
Maximilian J. Werner ◽  
Brian Baptie
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Hydraulic Fracture ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Statistical Tool ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT An essential component of seismic hazard analysis is the prediction of ground shaking (and its uncertainty), using ground-motion models (GMMs). This article proposes a new method to evaluate (i.e., rank) the suitability of GMMs for modeling ground motions in a given region. The method leverages a statistical tool from sensitivity analysis to quantitatively compare predictions of a GMM with underlying observations. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed method relative to several other popular GMM ranking procedures and highlight its advantages, which include its intuitive scoring system and its ability to account for the hierarchical structure of GMMs. We use the proposed method to evaluate the applicability of several GMMs for modeling ground motions from induced earthquakes due to U.K. shale gas development. The data consist of 195 recordings at hypocentral distances (R) less than 10 km for 29 events with local magnitude (ML) greater than 0 that relate to 2018/2019 hydraulic-fracture operations at the Preston New Road shale gas site in Lancashire and 192 R<10  km recordings for 48 ML>0 events induced—within the same geologic formation—by coal mining near New Ollerton, North Nottinghamshire. We examine: (1) the Akkar, Sandikkaya, and Bommer (2014) models for European seismicity; (2) the Douglas et al. (2013) model for geothermal-induced seismicity; and (3) the Atkinson (2015) model for central and eastern North America induced seismicity. We find the Douglas et al. (2013) model to be the most suitable for almost all of the considered ground-motion intensity measures. We modify this model by recomputing its coefficients in line with the observed data, to further improve its accuracy for future analyses of the seismic hazard of interest. This study both advances the state of the art in GMM evaluation and enhances understanding of the seismic hazard related to U.K. shale gas development.

Magnitude thresholds and spatial footprints of damage from induced earthquakes

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 1995-2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridger W Baird ◽  
Abbie B Liel ◽  
Robert E Chase
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
Earthquake Epicenter ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Injection Wells ◽  
Building Models ◽  
Central United States ◽  
First Onset ◽  
Moderate Magnitude

The rise in the number of anthropogenic small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes in the central United States raises questions about the damageability of the built environment in such events. This study examines the performance of modern light-frame wood buildings, including single, multifamily, and commercial constructions, in earthquakes with moment magnitudes of 3–6, using dynamic analysis of building models subjected to ground motions recorded in past induced events in North America. We focus on first onset of damage, for example, wallboard or wallpaper cracking, and nails popping out. The results show that earthquakes with magnitudes less than 4–4.25 are unlikely to cause damage to modern constructions. However, moderate-magnitude events can cause damage over a wide geographic area (more than 30 mi from the earthquake epicenter, or 40 or more miles from a wastewater injection well). These results can be used to suggest setback distances between injection wells and certain neighborhoods or facilities, and magnitude thresholds for post-earthquake inspections.

Quantifying nuisance ground motion thresholds for induced earthquakes

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302098802
Author(s):  
Ryan Schultz ◽  
Vince Quitoriano ◽  
David J Wald ◽  
Gregory C Beroza
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Binary Data ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Peak Ground Velocity ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Intensity Measures ◽  
Damage States

Hazards from induced earthquakes are a growing concern with a need for effective management. One aspect of that concern is the “nuisance” from unexpected ground motions, which have the potential to cause public alarm and discontent. In this article, we borrow earthquake engineering concepts to quantify the chance of building damage states and adapt them to quantify felt thresholds for induced earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States. We compare binary data of felt or not-felt reports from the “Did You Feel It” database with ShakeMap ground motion intensity measures (IM) for ∼360 earthquakes. We use a Monte Carlo logistic regression to discern the likelihood of perceiving various degrees of felt intensity, given a particular IM. These best-fit nuisance functions are reported in this article and are readily transferable. Of the shaking types considered, we find that peak ground velocity tends to be the best predictor of a felt earthquake. We also find that felt thresholds tended to decrease with increasing earthquake magnitude, after M ∼3.9. We interpret this effect as related to the duration of the event, where events smaller than M 3.9 are perceived as “impulsive” to the human senses. Improved quantification of the nuisance from induced earthquake ground motions could be utilized in management of the public perception of their causal operations. Although aimed at anthropogenic earthquakes, thresholds we derive could be useful in other realms, such as establishing best practices and protocols for earthquake early warning.

A Flatfile of Ground Motion Intensity Measurements from Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven B. Rennolet ◽  
Morgan P. Moschetti ◽  
Eric M. Thompson ◽  
William L. Yeck
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Seismicity Rate ◽  
Seismic Arrays ◽  
Intensity Measurements ◽  
Motion Time ◽  
Selection Of

We have produced a uniformly processed database of orientation-independent (RotD50, RotD100) ground motion intensity measurements containing peak horizontal ground motions (accelerations and velocities) and 5-percent-damped pseudospectral accelerations (0.1–10 s) from more than 3,800 M ≥ 3 earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas that occurred between January 2009 and December 2016. Ground motion time series were collected from regional, national, and temporary seismic arrays out to 500 km. We relocated the majority of the earthquake hypocenters using a multiple-event relocation algorithm to produce a set of near uniformly processed hypocentral locations. Ground motion processing followed standard methods, with the primary objective of reducing the effects of noise on the measurements. Regional wave propagation features and the high seismicity rate required careful selection of signal windows to ensure that we captured the entire ground motion record and that contaminating signals from extraneous earthquakes did not contribute to the database. Processing was carried out with an automated scheme and resulted in a database comprising more than 174,000 records ( https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F73B5X8N ). We anticipate that these results will be useful for improved understanding of earthquake ground motions and for seismic hazard applications.

The Intensity of Ground Motions from Induced Earthquakes with Implications for Damage Potential

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (5) ◽  
pp. 2366-2379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail M. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motions ◽  
Damage Threshold ◽  
Western Canada ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Damage Potential ◽  
Tectonic Events ◽  
Significant Damage ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Natural Earthquakes ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The damage potential of induced earthquakes is compared to that of natural tectonic events, considering recent instrumental data and felt records from events of M 3.5–5.8 (in which M is the moment magnitude). Ground motions are mutually consistent at close distances (<30  km) for natural earthquakes in California, induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, and induced earthquakes in western Canada, despite differences in the dominant processes that trigger the events. Recorded peak ground motions may exceed the damage threshold for induced events of M∼4.0 within ∼5  km of the hypocenter; events of M≥4.5 are inferred to have significant damage potential within 5 km and may be damaging to greater distances. Felt and damage effects in Oklahoma, as reported on the U.S. Geological Survey’s online “Did You Feel It?” system, show that the damage threshold (modified Mercalli intensity [MMI] = 6) is commonly exceeded for events of M∼4.5 at close distances (<10  km) and that significant damage effects (MMI=7) are observed for M>4.8 events within 10 km.

Ground Motions for Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma

2016 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 198-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emrah Yenier ◽  
Gail M. Atkinson ◽  
Danielle F. Sumy
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motions ◽  
Induced Earthquakes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document