Ground-motion Parameters of the Southwestern Indiana Earthquake of 18 June 2002 and the Disparity between the Observed and Predicted Values

Street, R.; Wiegand, Jens; Woolery, Edward W.; Hart, Phyllis

doi:10.1785/gssrl.76.4.512

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 1987 and 2008 events are associated with similar enough release energies to be directly comparable. While release energy for the 2002 event is smaller, comparisons without conversions can be made because variability of ground motion due to topography and stratigraphy over large distances is larger in magnitude (Street et al [5]) than differences caused by differences in magnitude. These earthquake induced ground motions were also measured by seismographs that monitor mine blast induced ground motions.…”

Section: Moment Magnitude Five Earthquakes At the Test Housementioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation of microseismic effects from response to large coal mine blasts

Dowding¹,

Meissner

2011

WIT Transactions on the Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response of a residential structure to ground motions generated by large, surface coal mine blasts can provide information regarding the cracking severity of microseismic events. Microseismic events produced by small earthquakes, minecollapse and reservoir induced seismicity, etc. can lead to concern on the part of those who feel the ground motion. These concerns can be addressed by reference to low frequency blast generated ground motions that have not caused cracking. This paper presents measured response of a structure to motions producing peak particle velocities of 10 to 19 mm/s and ground displacements of 0.3 mm at 5 to 15 Hz, which can be employed to interpret microseismic phenomena of any sort. Measured responses include velocity responses of the superstructure and midwall as well as vibratory response of existing cracks in walls. Response spectra of these blast generated motions are compared to those generated by moment magnitude five midcontinent earthquakes to determine the relative impact. The structure was inspected for crack extension after each blast and none were found Keywords: response spectrum, cracking, earthquakes, blasting, mining, micrometer, crack, response, humidity, temperature, climate, microseismic. Response to large surface coal mine blast induced ground motionsThis article presents structural and crack response of a test house to unusually high amplitude, low frequency ground motions from surface coal mining. These measurements provide a comparison between excitation and structure response velocities and dynamic and long term micrometer crack response. Comparison of these mine-blast induced excitation ground motions with those produced by a small, moment magnitude five, mid-continent earthquake at the same structure allows an assessment of the potential for cosmetic cracking by small earthquakes and other microseismic activity such as that induced by mine collapse or construction of large reservoirs. Walls of the house were thoroughly inspected for cracking before and after each blast. The walls were divided into inspection grids, which were visually inspected by the same person in the same fashion in each instance over a period of some 6 months. No new cracks or extensions, not even cosmetic, were observed through the 02 April blast when observation of crack response ceased. (Dowding and Lucole [1]).The test house was located near a surface coal mine in central Indiana, which involved large-scale cast blasting. The walls, interior and exterior, were constructed with a standard wood stud frame and were covered with gypsum drywall board on the interior and aluminum siding and a half-height brick wall on the exterior. Locations of instruments to measure velocity and crack response in the test house are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Context and details of instrumentation: top -illustration of crack gauges spanning joints and cracks: mid -photograph of the instrumented room: bottom -details of velocity transducers and crack gauges.A typical coal mine blast, 600 to 360 meters (...

show abstract

Section: Moment Magnitude Five Earthquakes At the Test Housementioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation of microseismic effects from response to large coal mine blasts

Dowding¹,

Meissner

2011

WIT Transactions on the Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Relationships between Felt Intensity and Instrumental Ground Motion in the Central United States and California

Atkinson

Kaka

2007

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

174

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Felt Intensity versus Instrumental Ground Motion: A Difference between California and Eastern North America?

Dangkua¹,

Cramer²

2011

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the question of whether a single ground-motion intensity correlation equation (GMICE) is applicable to both eastern North America (ENA; intraplate) and California (interplate). We initially address this issue with the datasets from previous studies and separate them into central United States (CUS), California, and Canada datasets. We then add data from the 2008 M 5.2 Mt. Carmel, Illinois, and the 2005 M 4.7 Riviere du Loup earthquakes to the CUS and Canada datasets, respectively. For each dataset, the median of ground-motion values at each modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) level and their 95% confidence limits are calculated for peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA), and spectral acceleration (SA) at 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 s. The California median value is relatively higher than the CUS and Canada for PGV and SA at 1.0 and 2.0 s. Based on the median values and the associated uncertainty, we combine all datasets for PGA and 0.3-s SA in order to determine a GMICE. The CUS and Canada datasets are combined separately from California for PGV, 1.0-s SA, and 2.0-s SA. ENA earthquakes have a different spectral shape than those in California, particularly at intermediate periods (∼1:0 s) where ENA spectral amplitudes are reduced, which may explain the difference we see at longer periods. Finally, a log-linear-fit of MMI to the median values of ground motion is used to determine GMICE.

show abstract

Ground-motion Parameters of the Southwestern Indiana Earthquake of 18 June 2002 and the Disparity between the Observed and Predicted Values

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

Interpretation of microseismic effects from response to large coal mine blasts

Interpretation of microseismic effects from response to large coal mine blasts

Relationships between Felt Intensity and Instrumental Ground Motion in the Central United States and California

Felt Intensity versus Instrumental Ground Motion: A Difference between California and Eastern North America?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About