The response of water level in the YuZ-5 well, Kamchatka to the magnitude 9.3, Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of December 26, 2004

Копылова, Г. Н.; Болдина, С. В.

doi:10.1134/s0742046307050041

Cited by 6 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The data on the YuZ-5 well are presented in (Kopylova, 2006;Kopylova et al, 2016;. The well is located at 53.169° N, 158.414° E and has a depth of 800 m. In the depth interval 0-310 m, the wellbore is cased with a metal Their transmissivity T = 7.8 m 2 /day was estimated from pumping data (Kopylova and Boldina, 2007). Groundwater mineralization is 0.25 g/l.…”

Section: Initial Data and Study Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effects of vibration action of seismic waves which manifest themselves in the changes of the water level are hereinafter referred to as water level hydrogeoseismic variations or HGSV. Different HGSV types reflect the integrated changes in the groundwater pressure under the dynamic deformation of water-bearing rocks and the concomitant filtration processes caused by the changes in the properties of the water-bearing rocks, mainly their permeability (Kopylova and Boldina, 2007;Wang and Manga, 2010). As the mecha-nisms of the change in permeability, different authors proposed the development of fracture dilatancy in water-bearing rocks (Bower and Heaton, 1978;Kanamori and Brodski, 2004;Kopylova and Boldina, 2007), groundwater degassing (Roeloffs, 1998;Kopylova et al, 2012), unclogging of the fracture-pore space (Brodsky et al, 2003;Kocharyan et al, 2011), effects of cumulative accumulation of interblock deformations (Kocharyan et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The HGSV occurrences in these cases characteristically have complex character with the coseismic jumps in the water level recorded directly during the passage of seismic waves and then are changed by various postseis-mic (postdynamic according to (Kocharyan et al, 2011)) water level variations. In the far zones of earthquake sources (d e /D 3D), water level variations are dominated by oscillations (Cooper et al, 1965;Kopylova and Boldina, 2007;etc. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-the jump-like water level drawdowns or rises (abrupt or step-like changes) at epicentral distances d e up to a few hundred km as a groundwater pressure response to the static component of coseismic deformation of water-bearing rocks during the strong earthquakes (Wakita, 1975;Kopylova et al, 2010;Shi et al, 2013;; -water level oscillations due to the dynamic deformation of water-bearing rocks and harmonic variations in pressure upon the arrival of body and surface seismic waves (Cooper et al, 1965;Kopylova and Boldina, 2007;Kopylova et al, 2012;Shi et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of Seismic Waves in Water Level Changes in a Well: Empirical Data and Models

Копылова

Болдина

2020

Izv., Phys. Solid Earth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The high-precision water level measurements with a sampling interval of 5-10 min were carried out in 1996-2017 in the YuZ-5 well, Kamchatka. In the obtained time series, water level variations caused by the passage of seismic waves (hydrogeoseismic variations-HGSV) during 19 earthquakes with М w = 6.8-9.1 which occurred at epicentral distances of 80-14.6 thousand km are revealed. Based on the HGSV morphological features, four main types of these variations are distinguished: oscillations (I); short (up to tens of hours) water level rises (II) superimposed on oscillations; short rises (III); and long (1.5-3 months) drawdowns (IV). The dependence of the occurrence of the revealed GHSV types on earthquake parameters (magnitude and distance), specific energy density and maximum seismic wave velocity, and the amplitude-frequency content of ground motion is analyzed based on the records at a nearest seismic station. Based on several case studies, hydrogeodynamic processes of HGSV formation are investigated using numerical modeling. It is shown that the forced and free amplitude fluctuations in the water level (types I and II) can arise due to the enhancement of groundwater pressure variations in the well-water-bearing rock system during the passage of surface seismic waves with periods corresponding to the resonant frequency of the well (τ = 44.6 s). The rise in the water level in well lasting for tens minutes to hours (types II and III of HGSV variation) is caused by the short increase in pressure under violation of the steady water flow in the direct vicinity of the well; strong local earthquakes accompanied by ground shaking with intensity I msk-64 ≥ 5 cause sustained drawdowns (type IV) due to pressure drop with the amplitudes up to 0.1 bar within a radius of up to a few hundred meters from the well.

show abstract

Section: Initial Data and Study Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Seismic Waves in Water Level Changes in a Well: Empirical Data and Models

Копылова

Болдина

2020

Izv., Phys. Solid Earth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Сильные землетрясения сопровождаются разнообразными вариациями уровней воды в скважинах. Их описание приводится в многочисленных работах, например в [Kopylova, 2001[Kopylova, , 2006Kopylova, Boldina, 2007Chia et al, 2008;Kitagawa et al, 2006;Shi et al, 2015;Wang, Manga, 2010;Wang et al, 2001;и др. ].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

EFFECTS OF THE JANUARY 30, 2016, Mw=7.2 ZHUPANOVSKY EARTHQUAKE ON THE WATER LEVEL VARIATIONS IN WELLS YUZ-5 AND E-1 IN KAMCHATKA

Болдина¹,

Копылова²

2017

Geodin. tektonofiz.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the water level variations in wells YuZ-5 and E-1 in Kamchatka during the Zhupanovsky earthquake that occurred on January 30, 2016 (Mw=7.2, Н=180 km). The distances from the Zhupanovsky earthquake epicenter to wells E-1 and YuZ-5 were 70 and 80 km, respectively. In well YuZ-5, the water level raised by 9.4 cm during 45 minutes after the seismic wave arrival. This effect was caused by a combination of a co-seismic rise in the water level due to the volumetric compression of the water-bearing rocks during fracturing in the earthquake source and an impulse increase in the fluid pressure near the wellbore during the seismic shocks. We estimated the amplitude of the coseismic water level increase (h=7.3 cm) and the strain value resulting from the volumetric compression of the water-bearing rocks, which is consistent with the estimated value of the coseismic volumetric deformation in the area of the well at the depth of 500m: D1 =-4.510-8. This estimation was based on the model of the dislocation source in the homogeneous isotropic elastic half-space with the parameters of the Zhupanovsky earthquake focal mechanism. After the earthquake, the water level dropped for three months at an amplitude of about ~40 cm. In order to estimate the radius of the well sensitivity to the pressure drop source, we used the model of water level lowering that followed the pressure drop in the aquifer at a distance to the well as a result of the improved filtration properties of the water-bearing rocks after the seismic shocks. The estimated radius of the well sensitivity, R is 450 m. For 3.5 months before the Zhupanovsky earthquake, ~20 cm increase in the water level was observed, which is anomalous in comparison with the average seasonal variations of the water level, as shown by the long-term observations. In our opinion, such a rise in the water level occurred in the process of the earthquake preparation, and can thus be viewed as its precursor. In well E-1, a sequence of water level changes manifested a hydrogeodynamic precursor: the water level dropped at an increased rate for 21 days before the earthquake, and raised at an amplitude of 3.7 cm during one month after the earthquake. The hydrogeodynamic precursor detected in real time gave grounds for forecasting a highly probable strong earthquake at a distance of up to 350 km from wells E-1 within a month. This forecast was reported to the Kamchatka Branch of the Russian Expert Council (KB REC) on January 21, 2016. The Zhupanovsky earthquake occurred on January 30, 2016, and its magnitude, time and location correlated with the prediction. The case of this earthquake shows that the Kamchatka Branch of the Federal Research Center 'Geophysical Survey of RAS' has the system of water level observations and data processing, which is capable of diagnosing (close to real time and retrospectively) different types of hydrogeoseismic variations in the water level in wells in case of strong seismic events, and detecting the hydrogeodynamic precursors of strong earthquakes.

show abstract

Features of Fluid-Dynamic Processes in a Seismically Active Region (Case Study of Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia)

Копылова

Болдина

2019

Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The response of water level in the YuZ-5 well, Kamchatka to the magnitude 9.3, Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of December 26, 2004

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Effects of Seismic Waves in Water Level Changes in a Well: Empirical Data and Models

Effects of Seismic Waves in Water Level Changes in a Well: Empirical Data and Models

EFFECTS OF THE JANUARY 30, 2016, Mw=7.2 ZHUPANOVSKY EARTHQUAKE ON THE WATER LEVEL VARIATIONS IN WELLS YUZ-5 AND E-1 IN KAMCHATKA

Features of Fluid-Dynamic Processes in a Seismically Active Region (Case Study of Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About