|
| HOME | ABOUT | NEWS | MEETINGS | PUBLICATIONS | GOVERNMENT | EDUCATION | LINKS | MEMBERS |
Special Sessions
2007 Annual Meeting
11-13 April 2007
Hilton Waikoloa Village
Kona, Hawaii, USA
Home | Official
Meeting Web Site | Regular Sessions |
Important Dates | Hotel | Field
Trips | Registration | Abstracts
New Developments in Semi-automatic and Fully-automatic tools in Seismic Data Analysis
Decreased monitoring thresholds and increased expectations for faster and more sophisticated products from the seismological community have led to the inevitable need for more automatic or semi-automatic data analysis methods. Evaluations of source parameters, signal quality, structural interpretation, etc. are important for members of the seismological community, as well as public and private constituents for a variety of time-critical applications. These needs for automated tools transcend the various disciplines within seismology, as well as the multiple tasks of seismologists and those to whom they report. Fortunately increasing computer capacity, available digital waveform data, and growing maturity of our understanding of the processing algorithms involved have allowed partial or complete automation of many tasks that were done with extensive human intervention only a few years ago.
We welcome contributions for all aspects of new automation and semi-automation in the realm of seismic data analysis and reporting - including but not limited to: automatically adaptive digital filtering, autopicking, auto-location, hands-off updating of velocity modeling or seismic imaging, seismic hazard analysis, eruption probabilities, tsunami warning or critical information releases to emergency responders.
Conveners
Dr. Charlotte Rowe
EES-11, MS D-408
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
PH: 505-665-6404 FAX 505-667-8487
E-mail:
char [at] lanl.gov
Dr. Kent Lindquist
Lindquist Consulting, Inc.
59 College Rd. Suite
#7
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone/FAX 907-457-2374
E-mail:
kent [at] lindquistconsulting.com
Data Mining and Simulation for Earthquake Analysis, Forecasting and Prediction
Ever increasing volumes of observational data, coupled with rapidly improving computational technologies, have made statistical analysis and simulation approaches to studying earthquake systems not only feasible but necessary. The intent of this session is to highlight technologies and recent results that make use of such approaches to advance earthquake science. Key problems include data fusion across multiple data sources or sensor networks, assimilation of observational data into simulations, data mining of seismicity catalogs and large volume simulation output, forecasting and hazard analysis, signal detection, and interactive data exploration.
Conveners
Robert Granat
Science Data Understanding Group
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA
E-mail:
granat [at] jpl.nasa.gov
John B Rundle
California Hazards Institute of the University of California
Departments of
Physics, Geology and Engineering
University of California, Davis, CA
Volcano Seismoacoustics: Synchronizing Sound and Vibration
Infrasonic microphone arrays and seismometers extend our perception of sound and touch beyond our biometric capacity. These technologies have different installation requirements: microphones benefit from wind shelter in forested areas and seismometers prefer solid bedrock away from trees. Yet they share compatible sampling rates and frequencies of interest, and can provide complementary perspectives of eruptive processes.
Volcanic eruptions are characterized by the acceleration of hot fluids from subsurface reservoirs into the atmosphere. Seismic observations allow us to assess the internal stages of the eruption process ranging from depths of 10s of km to the shallow subsurface. Infrasonic observations allow us to assess finer-scale dynamic changes in the upper conduit section (where the oscillations and phase transitions of fluids are coupled to the atmosphere), and the interactions of ash, gas, and magma with the atmosphere. Coupled seismic and acoustic models can provide constraints on the composition, phases, and pathways of the fluids. Synchronized thermal and visual observations may allow us associate seismoacoustic data with the kinetic and thermal energetics, as well as the dynamics and volumes of materials entering the atmosphere.
We welcome contributions on the integration and interpretation of seismic, acoustic, thermal, and visual observations of volcanic activity with geological, chemical, deformation, radar, and other observations. We warmly encourage contributions that demonstrate how these data can be used in conjunction with theoretical and numerical models to best constrain our understanding of eruption processes.
Conveners
Milton Garces and David Fee
Infrasound Laboratory
HIGP, SOEST, University of Hawaii, Manoa
73-4460 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy., #119
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740-2638
Tel: 1.808.327.6206, Fax: 1.808.327.6207
E-mail:
milton [at] isla.hawaii.edu
Robin Matoza
Graduate Student Researcher
Laboratory for Atmospheric Acoustics
IGPP 0225, U.C. San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093-0225
E-mail:
rmatoza [at] ucsd.edu
The Future of Seismology (This session will only accept abstracts from invited speakers.)
SSA recently celebrated its centennial with its annual meeting in San Francisco held 100 years to the day after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and a special meeting on November 20 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first official meeting of the founders of the Society. SSA was formed in response to a recognized need to better understand the basic science of earthquakes and the effects of earthquakes on society. During the 100 years that the Society has been in existence, seismology has found broad application in areas such as earthquake hazards, contributing to our fundamental understanding of global to local tectonic processes, earthquakes induced by human activities, nuclear explosion monitoring, and exploration and development of Earth resources. In this session, we will speculate on where seismologists will be making significant contributions to science and society in the future. A number of invited speakers will present their ideas about what they think both basic and applied seismologists will be doing 5 to 20 years from now.
Conveners
Michael Fehler
Division Leader
Earth and Environmental Sciences Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545 U.S.A.
505-667-3644
E-mail:
fehler [at] lanl.gov
Towards an Integrated Understanding of Earthquake Interactions
Recent research has shed new light on the physical processes that control aftershocks, earthquake sequences, remotely triggered seismicity, and induced seismicity. It has also raised new questions about whether static Coulomb stress changes, dynamic Coulomb stress changes, or shaking associated with seismic wave propagation, is principally responsible for these effects and their time behavior. We invite papers that explore the physical mechanism associated with earthquake triggering of any kind, including events induced by human activity and creep events, from observational constraints or theoretical analyses, as well as papers that consider the hazard implications of dependent events
Conveners
Dr. Susan E. Hough
Scientist-in-Charge, Pasadena Office
U.S. Geological Survey
525 S. Wilson Ave
Pasadena, CA 91106 USA
626-583-7224
626-583-7827 (fax)
E-mail: hough [at] usgs.gov
Dr. Ross Stein
USGS Menlo Park
Very Near-field Earthquake Source Observations
What can very near-field observations of fault displacement, velocity, acceleration, strain, electric and magnetic fields within a few tens of meters of an earthquake teach us about earthquake source physics? Recently installed arrays of instruments at hypocentral depths in deep mines and deep boreholes allow exciting new insights into source scaling, fault friction, apparent stress, fracture energy, nucleation, crack formation and charge generation. In this session, we invite contributions addressing both theoretical and observational aspects of recent, and not so recent, expectations and data from these experiments. The purpose of this session will be to provide researchers an opportunity for comparing data, exchanging new ideas and exploring implications for source physics.
Conveners
Malcolm Johnston
U.S. Geol. Survey
345 Middlefield Rd., MS977
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Ph: 650-3294812
Fax: 650-3295163
Cell:
650-5766047
E-mail: mal [at] usgs.gov
Integrated Borehole Geodetic and Seismic Networks: A Developing Tool for Earth Science
Development and growth of large integrated borehole geodetic and seismic networks, such as the EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory in North America, HiNET in Japan and the Taiwanese network operated by the Central Geological Survey, present new opportunities and challenges for the solid earth sciences. For example, temporal and spatial resolution of slow slip events, scaling relationships between small and large earthquakes, and detection and modeling of possible earthquake precursors are all improved through the integrated use of borehole and surface techniques. At the same time, these networks produce large volumes of data with attendant data management requirements, and current modeling techniques may need to broadened to take full advantage of these data along with those from surface networks.
This session will discuss will discuss all aspects of such networks including data access, formats, analysis, calibrations methods, as well as integrated research using such data. We welcome contributions that touch on any of the above and related topics, especially those that integrate data from multiple instrument platforms.
Conveners
Greg Anderson
Data Products Manager
Plate Boundary Observatory/UNAVCO
6350 Nautilus Dr.
Boulder, CO 80301
303-381-7555
E-mail: anderson [at] uanvco.org
David Mencin
Senior Engineer
Plate Boundary Observatory/UNAVCO
6350 Nautilus Dr.
Boulder, CO
303-381-7558
E-mail: mencin [at] unavco.org
Seismology and Cyberinfrastructure: From Data to Knowledge
As the utilization of information technology resources by the seismological community increases, new challenges await the community of users and developers. Issues related to efficient data access, advanced computing, integration of seismological results with other Earth science disciplines require meaningful collaborations among seismologists, information technologists, and other geophysicists and geologists. This session will be highlighting current community efforts that utilize high-end information technology resources such as Web Services, Grid computing, workflows, advanced visualization as well as high performance computing in seismological studies. The session’s goals will be to improve the interaction among research groups, bring attention to such efforts, and enable future collaborations in this new era of cyberinfrastructure-based seismological research.
Conveners
Dogan Seber
University of California, San Diego
San Diego Supercomputer Center
MC 0505
La Jolla, CA 92093
858-822-5409
Spinning Straw Into Gold: Improving Our Understanding of Planetary Seismology and Geophysics With New Methods and New Data
This session explores recent developments in the study of planetary and solar seismology and geophysics. Since the original acquisition and analysis of the lunar seismic data 30 years ago, new methodologies have evolved that may enhance our understanding of planetary structure and related seismic phenomena. With the new initiatives for missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, we are poised not only to re-examine existing extraterrestrial data with modern methods, but we also have an opportunity to guide the acquisition of new, high-quality data through experimental design and instrumental specifications. Geophysical and seismic measurements will and should be part of future missions. This session provides a forum for discussions that may influence the scientific plan for such missions, not only lunar and Martian, but also ideas relevant to other efforts such as the Messenger mission to Mercury. We invite contributions addressing instrumental development, old and new data sets and advances in analysis techniques applied to solar, lunar and planetary seismological and geophysical research.
Conveners
Youshun Sun
Earth Resources Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139
617-253-7868
E-mail:
Youshun [at] mit.edu
Charlotte Rowe
Los Alamos National Laboratory
EES-11, Geophysics Mail Stop D-408
Los Alamos, NM 87545
505-665-6404
E-mail:
char [at] lanl.gov
Site Effects on Ground Motions
It is well known that local shallow geology plays a key role in the amplification of seismic ground motions. Prominent examples of this phenomenon are observed from past earthquakes, such as the 1985 M 8.0 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico, the 1989 M 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake in California, the 1995 M 6.9 Kobe earthquake in Japan, and the 2005 M 7.6 Muzaffarabad earthquake in Pakistan. To account for site effects, or site response, a variety of observations have been used to derive predictive models. These observations have included direct data, from site characterizations using invasive or noninvasive methods, or inferential data, such as the number of reported deaths, the reported intensity of shaking felt by observants, etc. To ascertain the current state of knowledge about assessing site effects on ground motions and to facilitate innovations through regional and international cooperation for improvements to the current state of knowledge, we invite papers that address the following areas of interest: the influence of shallow geology on ground motions, linear and nonlinear soil behavior, scatter, directivity, focusing effects, basin edge effects, spatial correlation and variation of ground motions, Vs30, Z1.0 or Z1.5, and the effects of deeper crustal structures.
Conveners
Alan Yong
Geophysicist
Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Earthquake Hazards Team
525 S. Wilson Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91106
(626)583-7816
E-mail:
yong [at] usgs.gov
John N. Louie
Professor of Seismology
Seismological Laboratory (174)
217 Laxalt Mineral Engineering Bldg.
Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering
College of Science
The University of Nevada
1664 N. Virginia Street
Reno, NV 89557-0141
(775) 784-4219
E-mail:
louie [at] seismo.unr.edu
Adventures in Earthquake Predictability Experiments
Earthquake forecasting research is gradually shifting focus from a course of seeking precursory signals that might allow earthquake warnings to a course of quantifying predictability of earthquake processes. The latter approach emphasizes system-level understanding of earthquake physics and thus a cooperative effort is natural. In addition to this change in focus, researchers can leverage new, high-quality datasets (e.g., GPS and relocated seismicity) and consensus models (e.g., models of fault structure and seismic velocity). These developments enable and encourage collaborative, experiment-based investigations. This approach to elucidating the nature of earthquake predictability presents a new set of opportunities and challenges; these shall be the focus of this session. Submissions should address one or more of the following issues as they relate to earthquake predictability: status of current (and plans for future) regional and global experiments; integration of new data and application of new models; methods for testing and evaluation (with an emphasis on comparative approaches).
Conveners
Jeremy Zechar, Danijel Schorlemmer, Thomas Jordan
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089
E-mail:
{zechar, danijel, tjordan} [at] usc.edu
Towards a Complete Description of the Explosion Source
The seismic waves generated by an explosion are much more complicated than would be predicted from a point, spherical source in an elastic medium. Particularly troublesome for nuclear monitoring are the theoretical description and quantitative modeling of shear waves from explosions, which result from nonlinear effects, free surface interaction, phase conversion and scattering. This session focuses on current research to understand the complete seismic source including the excitation and propagation of all seismic phases observed from underground explosions.
Conveners
Howard J. Patton
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Ph:
505-667-3344
E-mail: patton@lanl.gov
Jeffry L. Stevens
Science Applications International
Corporation
858-826-1635
E-mail: jeffry.l.stevens [at] saic.com
Hawaii Kiholo Bay Earthquake, October 15, 2006
The October 15, 2006, M6.7 earthquake beneath Kiholo Bay is the largest to have struck Hawaii in over 2 decades. The M6.7 earthquake, which occurred at 17:07 UTC (7:07 AM HST) at a depth of 39 km, was followed by a M6.0 earthquake 6.5 minutes later (17:14 UTC) at 19 km depth and approximately 35 km north of the initial event. Aftershocks as large as magnitude 5 have followed. Although no deaths or serious injuries were reported, some damage estimates approach $200 million. This has prompted the declaration of a major federal disaster.
This session will provide preliminary characterizations and assessments of the effects of the M6.7 Kiholo Bay earthquake. We also welcome contributions of additional observations, reports, and studies of the October 15 earthquake, seismicity, and seismic hazards and loss estimation methodologies and analyses in Hawaii.
Convener
Paul Okubo
U S Geological Survey
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory
ph: 808-967-8802
E-mail: pokubo [at] usgs.gov
SCALING OF SEISMOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
The success of a seismic investigation is defined by how well the model used fits the data in the study area. At the same time a model of interpretation is dictated by the type of the data. In seismology we have various observations associated with different frequencies. Namely: Rock sample measurements; 500 kHz- 2 MHz; sonic log : 2 kHz -20 kHz; various type of seismic observations: 2 Hz – 100 Hz . Very often the models of interpretation based on various type of the data for the same areas do not coincide. For example, if we measure velocities through the inner core at one frequency, how would this measurement appear if other frequencies were used? Another bright example is anisotropic models of the upper mantle in the Pacific Ocean obtained from Deep Seismic Sounding and from Surface Wave observations. But the structure of an investigated medium is unique. The question is which model is correct? The answer is simple: both of them are right and the problem is to find a link between these types of observations and consequently between the models. How to do this ? What kind of methodology (mathematical approaches) do we have to use in order to find this link? This is one of the goals of our session.
We invite papers discussing these problems in terms of various data obtained for one area and mathematical approaches showing the ways of finding links between various types of observations and models. At the same time this session will be devoted to studies that attempt to unravel the basic physics relating measurements at different scales. In other words, what are the mechanisms responsible for scaling and how can they be utilized to give us a better understanding of the Earth? This means any papers related to the physical measurement of the Earth’s properties analyzed at different scales is invited to make a presentation in this session.
Conveners
Evgeni
M. Chesnokov
Cloyd Becker Chair
School of Geology and Geophysics
Director
Institute for Theoretical Geophysics
Sarkeys Energy Center
University of Oklahoma
100 E. Boyd Avenue, Rm. 550
Norman, OK 73019
Phone: (405)-325-7985 (office); (405)-5702245
(cell)
Email: echesnok [at] ou.edu
William Menke
Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
203 Seismology Building
61 Route 9W
Palisades NY 10964
Office (845) 365-8438
Fax (845) 365-8150
Mobile (845) 304-5381
E-mail: menke [at] ldeo.columbia.edu
Raymon L. Brown
Principal Geophysisist
Oklahoma Geological Survey
Deputy Director
Institute for Theoretical Geophysics
Sarkeys Energy Center
University of Oklahoma
100 E. Boyd Avenue, Rm. 272
Norman, OK 73019
Phone: (405)-325-3031
Email: raybrown [at] ou.edu
Mechanisms for Postseismic Deformation Determined through Observations and Modeling
Postseismic deformation, which may amount to a substantial amount of an earthquake's coseismic displacement, occurs through a variety of mechanisms. Important postseismic deformation mechanisms may include fault afterslip, viscoelastic relaxation, or poroelastic rebound, with timescales ranging from days to decades. Postseismic processes are likely non-linear and stress dependent rather than linear, as typically assumed. Discriminating between the processes requires precise, detailed measurements, in the timeframe near to the event and for years to decades following the event. We invite contributions showing postseismic observations on various timescales following earthquakes, such as from GPS and InSAR, as well as models of postseismic processes. Both observational and theoretical studies are welcomed. Contributions showing measurement strategies and requirements for revisit times are also encouraged.
Conveners
Andrea Donnellan
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
Mail Stop 300-331F
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, CA 91109-8099
818-354-4737
E-mail: Andrea.Donnellan [at] jpl.nasa.gov
Jeff Freymueller
Geophysical Institute
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775
907-474-7286
E-mail: jeff [at] giseis.alaska.edu
[Back]
Last Update: 22 February 2007