Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City-Philadelphia Area

Sykes, Lynn R.; Armbruster, John G.; Kim, Youn-Jung; Seeber, Leonardo

doi:10.1785/0120070167

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Global compilations of intraplate earthquakes with magnitudes between about 4 and 6.5 yield b values of 0.6-0.85 ( Figure 3). Similar values arise for some specific intracontinental areas (Jaiswal and Sinha 2006;Sykes et al 2008). Hence the fact that b is significantly lower than 1 need not indicate that an area's seismicity is anomalous.…”

mentioning

confidence: 53%

Comparison of Seismicity Rates in the New Madrid and Wabash Valley Seismic Zones

Merino

Stein

Liu

et al. 2010

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 53%

Comparison of Seismicity Rates in the New Madrid and Wabash Valley Seismic Zones

Merino

Stein

Liu

et al. 2010

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A major concern regarding CO 2 injection into fractured and faulted rocks of the central Newark Basin would be a risk of induced seismicity (Zoback and Gorelick, 2012). More than 300 seismic events up to magnitude 5.25 have been identified from historical records and instrumental data in the crystalline rocks around the Newark Basin and in the Ramapo seismic zone that is associated with its border fault system (Goldberg et al, 2003;Sykes et al, 2008). Since induced seismicity from fluid injections in sedimentary basins has often been associated with basement faults (e.g., Keranen et al, 2014;Yeck et al, 2016), pressurized injection into the Stockton Formation immediately above basement could raise a concern of potential fault reactivation.…”

Section: Role Of Fractures and Geomechanical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reservoir and sealing properties of the Newark rift basin formations: Implications for carbon sequestration

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Newark Basin is one of the major Mesozoic rift basins along the U.S. Atlantic coast evaluated for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage potential. Its geologic setting offers an opportunity to assess both the traditional reservoir targets, e.g., fluvial sandstones, and less traditional options for CO2 storage, e.g., mafic intrusions and lavas. Select samples from the basal, predominantly fluvial, Stockton Formation are characterized by relatively high porosity (8%–18%) and air permeability (0.1–50 mD), but borehole hydraulic tests suggest negligible transmissivity even in the high-porosity intervals, emphasizing the importance of scale in evaluating reservoir properties of heterogeneous formations. A stratigraphic hole drilled by TriCarb Consortium for Carbon Sequestration in the northern basin also intersected numerous sandstone layers in the predominantly lacustrine Passaic Formation, characterized by core porosity and permeability up to 18% and 2000 mD. However, those layers are shallow (predominantly above 1 km in this part of the basin) and lack prominent caprock layers above. The mudstones in all three of the major sedimentary formations (Stockton, Lockatong, and Passaic) are characterized by a high CO2 sealing capacity — evaluated critical CO2 column heights exceed several kilometers. The igneous options are represented by basalt lavas, with porous flow tops and massive flow interiors, and a crystalline but often densely fractured Palisade Sill. The Newark Basin basalts may be too shallow for sequestration over most of the basin's area, but many other basalt flows exist in similar rift basins. Abundant fractures in sedimentary and igneous rocks are predominantly closed and/or sealed by mineralization, but stress indicators suggest high horizontal compressional stresses and strong potential for reactivation. Overall, the basin potential for CO2 storage appears low, but select formation properties are promising and could be investigated in the Newark Basin or other Mesozoic rift basins with similar fill but a different structural architecture.

show abstract

“…18,19 Data for events generated at these nearby faults are usually scarce to nonexistent, such that the only feasible way to obtain detailed, 3-dimensional ground motions is through numerical simulation. Despite the fact that NPPs would not likely be emplaced near a potentially active fault, NPPs have been built unknowingly near active faults that have been discovered after construction is completed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the fact that NPPs would not likely be emplaced near a potentially active fault, NPPs have been built unknowingly near active faults that have been discovered after construction is completed. 18,19 Data for events generated at these nearby faults are usually scarce to nonexistent, such that the only feasible way to obtain detailed, 3-dimensional ground motions is through numerical simulation. For nearby events, the wave-front in the near-field shows the curvature of initial propagation, such that a plane-wave approximation of this surface might not be satisfactory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthquake soil‐structure interaction of nuclear power plants, differences in response to 3‐D, 3 × 1‐D, and 1‐D excitations

Abell

Orbović

McCallen

et al. 2018

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In soil‐structure interaction modeling of systems subjected to earthquake motions, it is classically assumed that the incoming wave field, produced by an earthquake, is unidimensional and vertically propagating. This work explores the validity of this assumption by performing earthquake soil‐structure interaction modeling, including explicit modeling of sources, seismic wave propagation, site, and structure. The domain reduction method is used to couple seismic (near‐field) simulations with local soil‐structure interaction response. The response of a generic nuclear power plant model computed using full earthquake soil‐structure interaction simulations is compared with the current state‐of‐the‐art method of deconvolving in depth the (simulated) free‐field motions, recorded at the site of interest, and assuming that the earthquake wave field is spatially unidimensional. Results show that the 1‐D wave‐field assumption does not hold in general. It is shown that the way in which full 3‐D analysis results differ from those which assume a 1‐D wave field is dependent on fault‐to‐site geometry and motion frequency content. It is argued that this is especially important for certain classes of soil‐structure systems of which nuclear power plants subjected to near‐field earthquakes are an example.

show abstract

Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City-Philadelphia Area

Abstract: A catalog of 383 earthquakes in southeastern New York, southwestern

Cited by 14 publications

References 64 publications

Comparison of Seismicity Rates in the New Madrid and Wabash Valley Seismic Zones

Comparison of Seismicity Rates in the New Madrid and Wabash Valley Seismic Zones

Reservoir and sealing properties of the Newark rift basin formations: Implications for carbon sequestration

Earthquake soil‐structure interaction of nuclear power plants, differences in response to 3‐D, 3 × 1‐D, and 1‐D excitations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About