Progress report on BSM data evaluation

Download Report

Transcript Progress report on BSM data evaluation

Slide 1

Progress Report on Analysis of Existing Borehole
Strain Data

E. Roeloffs, K. Hodgkinson

October 17, 2003


Slide 2

Questions Posed by PBO Standing Committee
• How sensitive are the instruments to vertical strain?
• What are the error characteristics for a typical installation?
• Can we reconcile the tides recorded by the instruments with the
calculated tides?
• How do the instruments respond to pore pressure changes?
• Will we be able to use the pore pressure measurements planned for
PBO boreholes to define repeatable responses to pore pressure changes
that can be used to correct the data?
• Are some instruments decoupled from the regional strain field by local
fractures or other features, and if so, why?
• How do we assess the accuracy of step-like coseismic changes at
teleseismic distances where static strain should not be detectable?
• How does borehole strain data compare with data from other
instruments?
• Are there examples of events other than coseismic steps recorded using
borehole strainmeters?


Slide 3

Vertical Strain Sensitivity
Instrument

Site

RESPC(microstrain/mbar)

Dil atometer
Dil atometer
Dil atometer

Donna Lee ( Parkfield)
Frolich (Parkfield)
Vin eyard Cyn (Parkfield)

6.9e-3 ± 3e-5
3.5e-3 ± 3e-5
2.9e-2 ± 6e-5

Dil atometer
Dil atometer
Dil atometer
SES-3

Garin (SF Bay Area)
Sunol (SF Bay Area)
Coyote (SF Bay Area)
St. Vincent (SF Bay Area)

1.8e-2
3.4e-3
5.1e-3
1.0e-2

GTSM

Donna Lee ( Parkfield)

7.0e-5 ± 2e-5

±
±
±
±

6e-5
8e-5
2e-4
3e-4

• Atmospheric pressure response of GTSM’s is 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude lower than that of dilatometers or SES-3’s
• Implies dilatometers and SES-3’s have greater sensitivity to vertical
strain, which needs to be considered in the calibration process


Slide 4

Donna Lee
(Parkfield)
Dilatometer,
GTSM,
Atmospheric
Pressure
• Strain data have had
linear trends subtracted
• Calibrations are
approximate


Slide 5

Sizes and Frequencies/year of Steps in Dilatometer Data
Site

Big Springs
Chantry
Coyote Fla t
Garin
Motor Cross
Philips
Punch Bo wl
Sunol
Vin eyard Cyn
Frolich
Donna Lee







YEAR S

4
6
10
10
4
14
17.5
10
16.5
16.5
16.5

100-500
counts
2.3
34.7
7.9
1.9
16.3
9.4
1.1
3.2
11.0
3.2
2.2

500-4000
counts
0.25
6.8
1.5
0.8
10
4.3
7.2
1.3
9.7
2.1
1.3

>4000
counts
0.25
16.5
4.7
2.5
1.5
4.5
5.7
1
1.7
3.6
6.3

Dilatometers and SES-3’s contain valves that open to reset the instruments
when a certain strain value is exceeded
The valve-opening resets are large (typically > 4000 counts) and should be
easily identified and corrected for
However, data from some dilatometers contain additional step-like changes
2-3 smaller step-like changes per year is characteristic of well-performing
instruments (e.g., Frolich and Donna Lee)


Slide 6

Vineyard Cyn and Frohlich Step Sizes




Frolich steps are mostly valve-opening resets
Vineyard Cyn record contains smaller, unexplained steps (problem may have
been solved around 1996)


Slide 7

Solid Earth and Ocean Load Tides


Slide 8

Observed and Calculated Tides: Long Valley dilatometers
Site
Big Springs
Postpile
Motorcross
Phillips

M2 phase in data
341.14°±0.493
5.89°±0.65
5.48°±0.19
0.78°±1.57

M2 phase from SPOTL
4.64°
4.98°
4.83°
4.77°

• Ocean load corrections are small because site is 300 km from coast
• 3 of the 4 dilatometers have M2 phases within 5° of SPOTL-calculated
M2 phase
• Big Springs M2 phase differs by about 25° throughout life of
instrument - possibly a pore pressure drainage effect?


Slide 9

Observed and Calculated Tides: SF Bay Area Dilatometers
Site
Garin
Sunol
Coyote
Russell
Mill Cr

Phase Difference


-135°



• Phase differences are for M2 with respect to SPOTL-calculated tides
• Ocean loads are calculated to contribute about half the tidal strain
• Coyote Hills site is situated in poorly consolidated material near a
complex shoreline


Slide 10

Preliminary Summary: Comparison with Calculated Tides

• Ocean loading is unimportant at Long Valley (~300 km from coast),
measureable at Parkfield (~90 km from coast), and very significant in
San Francisco Bay area
• For most dilatometers, M2 phase is within about 5° of areal strain
phase calculated by SPOTL
• One dilatometer in Long Valley and one dilatometer in SF Bay area
have M2 phases significantly different from calculated values
• Tide phases for mini-PBO SES-3 instruments were previously found
by Duncan Agnew to differ significantly from SPOTL-calculated
phases.


Slide 11

Decoupling from Regional Strain Field?

• Some dilatometers record little net strain, and/or strain from grout
curing/hole relaxation is extensional (compare with Donna Lee
dilatometer, which behaves as expected)
• Local fractures, steep topography, high rates of extension, or
installation problems need to be investigated as possible causes


Slide 12

Brief List of Published Events Recorded by Borehole
Strainmeters
– Transient strain induced by the Landers earthquake at
Long Valley, as well as other earthquakes (Hill et al.,
JGR, 1995)
– Parkfield strain-rate change, 1993 (Gwyther et al.,
GRL, 1996; Langbein et al., GRL, 1999)
– Slow earthquakes at San Juan Bautista (Linde et al.,
Nature, 1996)
– Possible precursor to Kettleman Hills earthquake
(Roeloffs and Quilty, PAGEOPH, 1997)
– Strain-rate change prior to Loma Prieta earthquake
(Gladwin et al., GRL, 1991)


Slide 13

Dilatometer Data
Showing
Responses to
Summit Tilt
Event on Kilauea
Volcano


Slide 14

Preliminary Criteria for a Satisfactorily Functioning
Borehole Strainmeter





Instrument is stable to periods of 3 months.
No fluid pressure drainage effects at periods of 30 days
Barometric response is flat in the frequency domain.
Tides reconciled with calculated tides

• Repeatable pore pressure response
• Valves reset at appropriate times with no change in slope.
• Long-term strain is observed from grout curing and hole
relaxation
This list is intended for discussion and is expected to evolve.