16
ReMi Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010 Fariha Islam Gretchen Schmauder

ReMi Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

  • Upload
    leal

  • View
    41

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

ReMi Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010. Fariha Islam Gretchen Schmauder. Question. Can the ReMi method be used to locate faults in the Reno Basin?. Area Geology. NE trending faults Lacustrine, fluvial, and alluvial fan deposits Tertiary volcanic basement Active hot springs. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

ReMi Applied GeophysicsSpring Break 2010

Fariha IslamGretchen Schmauder

Page 2: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Question

• Can the ReMi method be used to locate faults in the Reno Basin?

Page 3: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Area Geology

• NE trending faults• Lacustrine, fluvial, and alluvial fan

deposits• Tertiary volcanic basement• Active hot springs

Abbott and Louie (2000)

Page 4: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Project Constraints

• Sedimentary cover can be greater than 1000 meters thick (Abbott and Louie, 2000).

• ReMi method typically used to depths less than 100 meters.

Page 5: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

ReMi Method

• Surface wave velocity spectral analysis used to determine shallow earth structures

– Typically used to determine IBC site classification, rippability, void detection, and fault mapping.

Page 6: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

ReMi Method

Fundamental Mode Rayleigh Wave

Transect 3 along lakeside dr.

Page 7: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

ReMi Survey

Transect 4 along lakeside dr.

Page 8: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Survey location

Scott et al. (2004)

Page 9: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

20 Transects along Manzanita Ln and adjacent streets

Page 10: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

First order: shear velocity correlates to surficial geology

Page 11: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Tr ansect 14 Vs30 Model

-200

-150

-100

-50

00 500 1000 1500

Shear Wave Vel ocity (m/ s)

Depth

(m

)

Vs30 = 827 m/ s

NEHRP C l ass B

Tr ansect 2 Vs Model

-200

-150

-100

-50

00 100 200 300 400 500

Shear Wave Vel ocity (m/ s)

Depth

(m

)

Vs30 = 301 m/ s

NEHRP C l ass D

Tr ansect 5 Vs Model

-200

-150

-100

-50

00 500 1000

Shear Wave Vel ocity (m/ s)

Depth

(m

)

Vs30 = 407 m/ s

NEHRP C l ass C

Page 12: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Frary (2009)

Abbott and Louie (2000)

Second order: shear velocity correlates to depth to bedrock

Page 13: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Third order: correlation between shear velocity and faults?

Page 14: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Conclusions

• Transect velocity models reflect regional geology and depth to bedrock

• Correlation between velocity models and faults is inconclusive

• Indication that the alluvium has a lower shear velocity due to faulting

Page 15: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

Further Work

• Additional ReMi lines south of Manzanita Lane to verify higher velocity in alluvium

• Better constraint on area faulting

Page 16: ReMi  Applied Geophysics Spring Break 2010

references