SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK

Donald H. Cadwell

Gary N. Nottis

ABSTRACT

Seismic shear-wave data collection is expanding the database for the projection statewide of seismic hazards and is obtaining detailed information about the varied surficial materials across New York State. Onondaga County was selected for study because of the types of surficial materials deposited within the County during retreat of the Wisconsinan Ice Sheet, 13,000-10,000 years ago, and because of the large urban population in the greater Syracuse region. Lacustrine sands, silts, and clays were deposited in Glacial Lake Oneida, a 400 square-mile lake that developed at the edge of the glacier front, during the waning stages of Woodfordian deglaciation. For example, the glacier retreated from the southern part of Onondaga County, near Tully and the Otisco Uplands, and continued past Syracuse and the Green Lakes State Park into the Mohawk Lowlands to the north. Glacial Lake Oneida included most of the lowland and swamp regions within 10-20 miles of the present 250 square mile Oneida Lake. Specific site locations for interpretation of seismic data were chosen based on the type of surficial material and the projected susceptibility to liquefaction, landslide, and seismic shear-wave attenuation.

INTRODUCTION

In May 1990, the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (DPC) initiated a multi-year earthquake preparedness project for critical services and infrastructure (lifelines). This project is being funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with New York State providing an in-kind services match to federal dollars. The New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) is serving as the grant administrator. The main emphasis of the New York State Emergency Management Lifelines Program is to develop the ability to conduct earthquake loss estimates for scenario events. Specifically, we need to determine expected damages, casualties, shelter needs, and secondary effects, such as, fire and toxic releases, and then utilize this information for mitigation and response planning.

A major task of this project is the design, development and implementation of a Geographic Information System (GIS) capable of facilitating vulnerability analysis, mitigation strategy, and response planning efforts. An integral part of this system is the development of GIS data sets that characterize the seismic ground response of the State's soils, bedrocks, and stratigraphy. The New York State Museum/Geological Survey (NYSGS) is responsible for this project.

The NYSGS has begun a systematic Seismic Hazard Assessment Program, with analyses for Columbia and Dutchess counties (1994, 1995), and portions of Rensselaer, Greene and St. Lawrence counties (1996), and has provided SEMO with earthquake hazard maps based on the data sets. Major earthquake damage occurs from attenuation of S-waves (shear-waves) as they travel from bedrock into the surficial glacial sediments. As the shear-wave velocity decreases in the unconsolidated sediments (together with a shortened wavelength), there is a corresponding increase in wave amplitude. The increased amplitude produces greater ground shaking and, consequently, increased damage.

PROCEDURES

The collection of seismic data was accomplished with a crew of 6, using a Geometrics Smartseis 24 channel seismograph, with 14Hz horizontal and vertical geophones. The phones were arranged with the vertical phones at the odd numbered positions and the horizontal phones at the even numbered positions. The spacing between geophones, in feet, was arranged from forward shot, 3ft, 6ft, 6ft, 10ft, 10ft, 10ft, 10ft, 10ft, 6ft, 6ft, 3ft, midpoint, 3ft, 6ft, 6ft, 10ft, 10ft, 10ft, 10ft, 10ft, 6ft, 6ft, 3ft, reverse shot. This spacing was used to examine the detailed stratigraphic layers near the surface. An auger was used to drill the holes for the shot points, where the Betsy Seisgun was used to detonate the 400 grain black powder charge 1.5 to 3 feet below the surface. A steel plate and cocoa mat were used to minimize blowback. The energy that passes through the ground simulates the energy released from a natural earthquake. The vertical geophones record the arrival of the Primary or P-wave, that oscillates in a vertical plane. These waves travel the fastest, and are the first to arrive. The second wave to arrive is recorded by the horizontal geophones, Shear or S-waves that oscillate in a horizontal plane.

 

DATA SOURCES

Seismic profiling

The primary data source was the direct measurement of seismic waves with a Geometrics Seismograph. A seismic crew was used to obtain data from 40 shot locations, with a total of 146 shot detonations (Figure 1). The summary of seismic data (Table 1) relates the types of surficial materials with the number of shot sites, number of shot lines and the S- and P-wave velocities. A complete listing of seismic data is in Appendix A.

Table 1. Summary of Onondaga County seismic data.

Surficial material No. of shot sites No. of shot lines S-wave velocity P-wave velocity

Fill

9

26

116m/s*

340m/s

Outwash

4

14

103m/s

343m/s

Kames

2

16

288m/s

1632m/s

Lake sand

4

16

114m/s

725m/s

Lake silt & clay

7

27

165m/s

425m/s

Alluvium

3

8

116m/s

465m/s

Till

11

39

982m/s

2455m/s

*meters per second

 

 

A comparison of the S-wave velocities of Onondaga County with data obtained in earlier studies in Columbia, Dutchess, and Rensselaer counties illustrate changes in the shear-wave values for different areas (Table 2). The Betsy Seisgun with a 400 grain charge of black powder was used in Onondaga, Rensselaer and Dutchess counties, whereas a 16 lb sledgehammer and steel plate were used in Columbia County. Table 3 summarizes the range of shear-wave velocity values for the surficial materials in the counties.

Table 2. Comparison of average S-wave velocities in Onondaga County, compared with Rensselaer, Columbia, and Dutchess counties.

Surficial material Onondaga County Rensselaer County Columbia County Dutchess County

S-wave velocity S-wave velocity S-wave velocity S-wave velocity

 

Fill

116m/s*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outwash

103m/s

208m/s

368m/s

155m/s

Kame

288m/s

195m/s

440m/s

331m/s

Lake sand

114m/s

289m/s

569m/s

300m/s

Lake silt & clay

165m/s

292m/s

590m/s

378m/s

Alluvium

116m/s

 

 

472m/s

171m/s

Till

982m/s

513m/s

734m/s

484m/s

*meters per second

The mean shear-wave velocities for surficial materials in Columbia County are higher than the values in other counties. The mean shear- wave velocity for each surficial material in Onondaga, Rensselaer, and Dutchess counties are different from each other, however each class of surficial materials fall within similar ranges (Table 3).

Table 3. Range of shear-wave velocities (meters per second) in Onondaga, Rensselaer, Columbia and Dutchess counties. The numbers in parentheses following the range of shear- wave values represents the number of seismic lines included for the distribution.

Surficial Material Onondaga County Rensselaer County Columbia County Dutchess County

 

Fill

 

83 - 199m/s* (8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outwash

 

84 - 117m/s (4)

197- 308m/s (3)

367 - 368m/s (2)

75 - 324m/s (5)

 

Kame

 

100 - 704m/s (3)

91- 411m/s (3)

383 - 539m/s (7)

82 - 445m/s (6)

 

Lake sand

 

95 - 133m/s (4)

86 - 350m/s (6)

568 - 569m/s (2)

82 - 254m/s (6)

 

Lake silt & clay

 

157 - 478m/s (7)

70 - 1114m/s (7)

370 - 419m/s (3)

82 - 467m/s (4)

 

Alluvium

 

105 - 125m/s (3)

137m/s (1)

427 - 518m/s (2)

109 - 437m/s (3)

 

Till

 

232 - 1077m/s (11)

106 - 675m/s (4)

371 - 1163m/s (6)

109 - 797m/s (8)

*meters per second

Winkley M.S. Thesis/P

The thesis by Steven J. Winkley, 1989, The Hydrogeology of Onondaga County, New York, Syracuse University, M.S. Thesis, 118p, was used in the compilation of the Surficial Geologic Map of Onondaga County. This thesis was distributed by Nicholas J. Pirro, County Executive, Onondaga County. Subsurface water well data from 734 locations was used in the compilation of watertable and bedrock depths.

 

U.S.G.S.-W.R.D. Subsurface Data

The United States Geological Survey-Water Resources Division provided subsurface water well data from 421 locations in Onondaga County. Added to these data were subsurface water well data from 734 locations from the Winkley thesis. There were 895 usable depth to water table and 545 depth to bedrock determinations within Onondaga County.

N.Y.S.D.O.T. Subsurface Data

Subsurface data was also obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation, Syracuse Regional Office. Boring logs and blowcount on casing were obtained from 19 highway projects within the county. The blowcount data are used to assist in determining probability of liquefaction at depth. The individual highway projects are listed below.

Rte 31 Baldwinsville PIN 3037.35, borehole data and blows on casing

Jordon Bridge # E80 over NYS Barge Canal, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 370 Lysander, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 31 over Chittenango Creek PIN 3037.54, borehole data

Rte 298 Taylor Commission Ditch PIN 3104.10, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 481, Rte 57 relocation, 4 sites, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 290 Butternut Creek PIN 3082.09, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 154 Skaneateles, East Lake Road, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 41 Skaneateles PIN 3102.11, borehole data and blows on casing

Marietta - Marcellus Bridge #1, Marcellus, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 158 Lawless Road Marcellus PIN 0091.10, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 38A Bridge, Skaneateles PIN 3140.05, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 11, Reference 11-3303-1065, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 80, Reference Marker 80-3301-2056, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 80 Fabius, west of Swift Road, borehole data

Rte 160, DeRutyter Reservoir PIN 3940.52, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 175, Onondaga Lake outlet PIN 3751.79, borehole data and blows on casing

John Glenn Blvd over Barge Canal, borehole data and blows on casing

Rte 3 over railroad, Apulia Station PIN 3751.43, borehole data and blows on casing


PRODUCTS

Surficial Geologic Map of Onondaga County

The digital Surficial Geologic Map of Onondaga County, Figure 2, was created from both, the 1989, M.S. Thesis, completed by Steven Winkley at Syracuse University, and site specific surficial mapping data from D. Cadwell 1997, and D. Pair, 1995-97. The completed digital map was digitized at a 15-minute scale, one-inch equals one mile.

A Surficial Geologic Map is used to illustrate surface glacial materials; each deposit has a different response to earthquakes as the shear-wave passes through the material. Surficial materials are deposits left by a glacier, usually during glacial retreat. Most of the surficial materials in Onondaga County were deposited during retreat of the Late Wisconsinan Ice Sheet, the last episode of glaciation in New York. This glacier retreat was gradual, first the ice retreated northward from Long Island, about 21,750 years ago, reaching the Mohawk Valley about 15,000 ago. Then, the Ice Sheet readvanced southward to the Valley Heads Moraine, which is in the southern part of Onondaga County near Tully. Northward glacier retreat resumed from the Valley Heads Moraine about 13,000 ago, and New York State was completely deglaciated about 10,000 ago. This means that most of the glacial deposits in Onondaga County were deposited between 13,000 to 10,000 years ago. The map, therefore, illustrates the surficial geological material deposited by all glacier, stream and lake processes associated with retreat of the Late Wisconsinan Glacier.

The colors on the map each represent different surficial materials, deposited in association with the retreating Wisconsinan Ice Sheet. The glacial deposits are classified according to the type of material (i.e., sand, gravel, clay) deposited, the location where deposition occurred with respect to the glacier (i.e., adjacent, in front of, or beneath) and the mechanism of deposition (i.e., fluvial, lacustrine, or aeolian).

 

Depth to Water Table Map of Onondaga County

Depth to Bedrock Map of Onondaga County

Subsurface water well data was derived from 735 records from Winkley=s 1989 thesis, and 421 records from USGS-WRD (Figure 3). Both the Depth to Water Table Map (Figure 4) and the Depth to Bedrock Map (Figure 5) were created from this data. The water table information was derived from 895 points, whereas the depth to bedrock information was derived from 545 points. Both maps represent a surface interpolated from points: the water table map makes no attempt to account for seasonal changes in water table depth values. The depths to water table and bedrock were input to an algorithm, that assumes that there are no great variations among the points. These algorithms created surfaces representing the depth to the water table and the depth to bedrock across the county. These data sets were reclassified to group the depth values into the ranges presented on the individual maps.

 

Slope Map of Onondaga County

The Slope Map of Onondaga County (Figure 6) was created by using 7.5 minute Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), a three dimensional model of topography,with the HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology to create slope polygons. The DEMs for each 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle were brought together as a single image for the entire county. The HAZUS Methodology divided the slope values into the following ranges:

0 - 10 degrees

10.01 - 15 degrees

15.01 - 20 degrees

20.01 - 30 degrees

30.01 - 40 degrees

>40 degrees

 

Landslide Susceptibility Maps

The landslide hazard evaluation from HAZUS requires the characterization of the landslide susceptibility of the soil/geologic conditions of a region. Susceptibility is characterized by the geologic group, slope angle and critical acceleration. The acceleration required to initiate slope movement is a complex function of slope geology, steepness, groundwater conditions, type of landsliding and history of previous slope performance. Landslide susceptibility is measured on a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most susceptible. The site condition is defined using three geologic groups and groundwater level. The description for each geologic group and its associated susceptibility is given in Table 4. The groundwater condition is divided into either dry condition (groundwater below level of the sliding) or wet conditions (groundwater level at the surface). The critical acceleration is then estimated for the respective geologic and groundwater conditions and the slope angle. These bounds are shown in Table 5. In Table 6, landslide susceptibility categories are defined as a function of critical acceleration.

 

Table 4. Landslide Susceptibility# of Geologic Groups

 

Geologic Group

 

Slope Angle, degrees

0-10 10-15 15-20 20-30 30-40 >40

 

(a) DRY (Groundwater below level of sliding)

 

A

Strongly Cemented Rocks ( crystalline rocks and

well cemented sandstone)

(rk)

-

-

1

2

5

7

B

Weakly Cemented Rocks and Soils (sandy soils and

poorly cemented sandstone)

(lsg, osg, isg, ld, al, ls)*

-

3

4

7

8

8

C

Argillaceous Rocks(shales, clayey soils, existing landslides, poorly compacted fills)

( lsc, lt, t)*

6

8

9

9

9

9

 

(b) WET (Groundwater level at ground surface)

 

A

Strongly Cemented Rocks ( crystalline rocks and

well cemented sandstone)

(rk)

-

3

4

7

8

8

B

Weakly Cemented Rocks and Soils (sandy soils and

poorly cemented sandstone)

(lsg, osg, isg, ld, al, ls)*

6

8

9

9

9

9

C

Argillaceous Rocks(shales, clayey soils, existing landslides, poorly compacted fills)

(lsc, lt, t)*

9

10

10

10

10

10

# measured on a scale of 1-10, with 10 the most susceptible

* surficial geologic map units

 

 

Table 5. Lower Bounds for Slope Angles and Critical Accelerations for Landsliding Susceptibility.

 

Slope Angle, degrees

Critical Acceleration (g)

 

Group

 

Dry Conditions

Wet Conditions

Dry Conditions

Wet Conditions

 

A

15

10

0.20

0.15

 

B

10

5

0.15

0.10

 

C

5

3

0.10

0.05

Table 6. Landslide Susceptibility Categories Are Defined as a Function of Critical

Acceleration.

 

Susceptibility

Category

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 

Critical

Accelerations (g)

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

 

For the calculations of the landslide maps, the following values were used: magnitude 4.1 moment magnitude, with a critical site accelleration of 0.1g, and magnitude 5.8 moment magnitude, with a critical site accelleration of .36g. Landslide susceptibility in Onondaga County is summarized in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7 illustrates susceptibility with wet conditions, where the groundwater level is at the ground surface, and represents categories 8 (low), 9 (medium), and 10 (high) on Table 4, part( b). Figure 8 illustrates susceptibility with dry conditions, where the groundwater level is below the level of sliding, and represents categories 8 (low), 9 (medium), and 10 (high) on Table 4, part (a).

 

Liquefaction

The initial step of the liquefaction hazard evaluation is to characterize the relative liquefaction susceptibility of the soil/geologic conditions of the region. Susceptibility is characterized utilizing geologic map information and the classification outlined in Youd and Perkins (1978) with modifications to characterize glacial deposits (Table 7). Based on these characteristics, a relative susceptibility is assigned.

 

 

Table 7. Liquefaction Susceptibility of Sedimentary Deposits (modified from Youd and Perkins, 1978, modified to reflect the age and types of deposits).

 

Likelihood that Cohesionless Sediments when Saturated would be susceptible to Liquefaction (by Age of Deposit)

 

 

Type of

Surficial Deposit

Type of Deposit

General Distribution of Cohesionless Sediments in Deposits

<500 yr

modern

with Proportion of Map Unit Susceptible to Liquefaction

<11ka i

Holocene

with Proportion of Map Unit Susceptible to Liquefaction

>11ka

Pleistocene

with Proportion of Map Unit Susceptible to Liquefaction

 

Alluvium al

River Channel

variable

Very High 0.9

High 0.75

Low 0.15

Alluvium al

Floodplain

variable

High 0.75

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Alluvium alf

Alluvial Fan and Plain

Widespread

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Low 0.15

Colluvium col

Alluvial Fan and Plain

Widespread

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Low 0.15

Outwash osg

Delta and Fan Delta

Widespread

High 0.75

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Kame ud, isg

Delta and Fan Delta

Widespread

High 0.75

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Lacustrine Delta

ld

Delta and Fan Delta

Widespread

High 0.75

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Lacustrine Sand

ls, lsg

Delta and Fan Delta

Widespread

High 0.75

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Lacustrine silt & clay lsc

Lacustrine & Playa

Variable

High 0.75

Moderate 0.50

Low 0.15

Till t, lt

Glacial Till

Variable

Low 0.15

Low 0.15

V. Low 0.05

i This category (<11,000 years BP) is used for the liquefaction calculations because that is an average age for the glacial deposits in New York.

 

It is recognized that in reality, natural geologic deposits as well as man-placed fills encompass a range of liquefaction susceptibilities due to variations of soil type, relative density, etc. Therefore portions of a geologic map unit may not be susceptible to liquefaction, and this is considered in assessing the probability of liquefaction at any given location within a unit. Non-susceptible portions are generally smaller for higher susceptibilities. Default values for the susceptibility categories are listed in Table 8.

Table 8. Proportion of Map Unit Susceptible to Liquefaction

 

Relative Susceptibility

Preportion of Map Unit

 

5 Very High

0.90

4 High

0.75

3 Moderate

0.50

2 Low

0.15

1 Very Low

0.05

 

The likelihood of liquefaction is significantly influenced by ground shaking amplitude (i.e., peak horizontal acceleration, PGA), ground shaking duration as reflected by earthquake magnitude, Mw, and groundwater depth. The probability of liquefaction for a given susceptibility category can be determined by the following relationship.

P[LiquefactionSC] = P[LiquefactionSC|PGA = a] .Pml

KM .Kw

where

P[LiquefactionSC|PGA = a] is the conditional liquefaction probability for a given susceptibility category at a specified level of peak ground acceleration

KM Is the moment magnitude (Mw) correction factor (from equation 4-23, HAZUS)

Kw is the ground water correction factor (from equation 4-24, HAZUS)

Pml proportion of map unit susceptible to liquefaction (from Table 9)

Table 9. Proportion of Map Unit Susceptible to Liquefaction

 

Susceptibility Category

P[Liquefaction|PGA = a]

 

5 Very High

9.09a - 0.82

4 High

7.67a - 0.92

3 Moderate

6.67a - 1.0

2 Low

5.57a - 1.18

1 Very Low

4.16a - 1.08

 

Two scenario events, Magnitude 5.8 (Table 10) and Magnitude 4.1 (Table 11), have been chosen to illustrate the probability of liquefaction. If the susceptibility and depth to water table is known, the probability is easily determined. For example, in Figure 9 and Table 7, a unit designated with a High Risk and a depth to water table of 20 feet, would have a probability of 74 percent (Table 9). Note that the Magnitude 4.1 scenario (Table 11) would have an extremely low probability.

 

Table 10. Susceptibility to Liquefaction with Magnitude 5.8 Earthquake

 

 

 

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

 

WT Depth (ft)

% Probability

% Probability

% Probability

% Probability

% Probability

5

100

98

50

9

2

10

100

89

45

8

1

15

100

81

41

7

1

20

100

74

38

7

1

25

100

69

35

6

1

30

100

64

33

6

1

35

96

60

30

5

1

40

90

56

29

5

1

45

85

53

27

5

1

50

80

50

25

5

1

55

76

48

24

4

1

60

72

45

23

4

1

65

69

43

22

4

1

70

66

41

21

4

1

75

63

40

20

4

1

80

61

38

19

3

1

 

Table 11. Susceptibility to Liquefaction with Magnitude 4.1 Earthquake

 

 

 

Very High

High

 

WT Depth (ft)

% Probability

% Probability

5

4

0

10

4

0

15

4

 

 

20

3

 

 

25

3

 

 

30

3

 

 

35

3

 

 

40

3

 

 

45

2

 

 

50

2

 

 

55

2

 

 

60

2

 

 

65

2

 

 

70

2

 

 

 

 

Ground Shaking Amplification

Site soil classifications are used in the methodology to standardize site geology classifications for determination of amplification of site-dependent ground motion demand. This classification is based on the average shear-wave velocity of the upper 30 meters of the local site geology. Users with geotechnical expertise are required to relate the soil classification scheme of soil maps to the classification scheme shown in Table 12 The ground shaking amplification in Onondaga County is summarized in Figure 10, using the general descriptions in Table 12.

 

Table 12 Site Classes for Site-Dependent Ground Shaking Amplification

(Modified From Borcherdt, 1994 and HAZUS 1997 User=s Manual)

Type

 

1 (A)

Hard Rock (Eastern US only)

1500

>1500

 

2 (B)

Rock

760

1500

3 (C)

Very Dense Soils and Soft Rock

e.g., soft sedimentary rocks, shales, gravels, and soils with >20% gravel N> 50 blows/ft

(osg, isg, ld, t, lt, ud, alf)*

360

760

4 (D)

Stiff Soils

e.g., loose to very dense sands, silt loams and sandy clays, and medium stiff to hard clays and silty clays

(N< 5 blows/ft)

(lsc, ls, lsg)*

180

360

5 (E)

Soft soils

(al, pm)*

D1: Non-Special Study Soft Soils e.g., loose submerged fills and very soft to soft clay (N<15 blows/ft) and silty clays <37 meters thick

D2: Special Study Soft Soils e.g., liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, peats, highly organic clays, very high plasticity clays (PI>75%), and soft soils >37 meters

<100

180

6 (F)

Soils requiring site specific evaluations

1. Soils vulnerable to potential failures or collapse under seismic loading:

e.g. liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils.

2. Peats and/or highly organic clays

(10ft (3m) or thicker layer)

3. Very high plasticity clays

(25 ft (8m) or thicker layer with PI>75)

4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays

(120 ft (36m) or thicker layer)

 

 

 

*surficial geologic map units

Composite Seismic Hazard

The composite seismic hazard in Onondaga County represents an overlay of areas within the County that have Liquefaction values of Very High or High, Ground Shaking Amplification values of 4 or 5, and Landsliding values of 8, 9 or 10, when the surficial materials are either wet or dry. Figure 11 summarizes the hazard areas when the groundwater is below the level of sliding (dry). Figure 12 summarizes the hazard areas when the groundwater level is at the ground surface (wet).

Selected References

 

Atkinson, G.M., and D.M. Boore, 1990, Recent trends in ground motion and spectral response relations for North America, Earthquake Spectra, v.6, pp.15-35.

Borcherdt, Roger D., 1994, Estimates of Site-Hedendent response spectra for design (Methodology and Justification), Earthquake Spectra, v. 10, No. 4, pp. 617-653.

Ebel, J.E., 1994, The mLg(F) magnitude scale: a proposal for its use for northeastern North America, Seismological Research Letters, v.65, pp.157-166.

Ebel, J.E. and A.L. Kafka, 1991, Earthquake activity in the northeastern United States, in Neotectonics of North America, The geology of North America, Volume I, D.B. Slemmons, E.R. Engdahl, M.D. Zoback, and D.D. Blackwell, Editors, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 277-290.

Fickies, R.F., and P.T.Regan, 1983, Engineering geology classification of the soils of the Albany, New York 15 minute quadrangle. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series No. 36, 8p, 2 maps.

Fischer, J.A., 1994, personal communication.

Jacob, K., J. Armbruster, N. Barstow, and S. Horton, 1994, Probabilistic ground-motion estimates for New York: Comparison with design ground-motions in national and local codes. Proceedings of 5th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake Engineering Institute, Oakland, CA, v. 3, pp. 119-128.

Kijko, A., and M.A. Sellevoll, 1992, Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from

incomplete data files. Part II. Incorporation of magnitude heterogeneity, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 82, pp.120-134.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976, SIMQKE: A program for artificial motion generation - user's manual and documentation, Department of Civil Engineering, 87 p.

 

Seed, H.B., and I.M. Idriss, 1970, Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses, Report No. UCB/EERC-70/10, University of California, Berkeley.

Sun, J.I., R. Golesorkhi, and H.B. Seed, 1988, Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/15, University of California, Berkeley.

Technical manual, Development of a Standardized Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, Volume I, prepared for National Institute of Building Sciences, 1997, by Risk Management Solutions, Inc. Menlo Park, CA.

Tinti, S., and F. Mulargia, 1985, Effects of magnitude uncertainties on estimating the parameters in the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude law, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 75, pp.1681-1697.

Toro, G.R. and R.K. McGuire, 1987, An investigation into earthquake ground motion

characteristics in eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of

America, v. 77, pp.468-489.

Youd, P. L., and Perkins, D. M., 1978, Mapping Liquefaction-induced ground failure potential, Journal of Geotechcnical Engineering, ASCE, v.104 No.GT4, pp.433-446.

 

Appendix A

 

Description of Seismic Shot Locations, Onondaga County

20-01 Power line, Highland County Forest, Town of Fabius

20-02 East of DeRuyter Reservoir, Madison County, Town of DeRuyter

20-03 East side Waters Road, 1/4 mile north of town border, Town of Pompey

20-04 South side Island Road, just west of Cicero Swamp State Wildlife Management Area, Town of Cicero

20-05 East side Island Road, in Cicero Swamp State Wildlife Management Area, Town of Cicero

20-06 East of Oxbow Road, on floodplain to the rear of Gerber farm, Town of Cicero

20-07 East side of Route 298, in Cicero Swamp State Wildlife Management Area, Town of Cicero

20-08 West side of Route 11 at Michael Field, north of Cicero, Town of Cicero

20-09 West side of Riverside Drive, adjacent to Oswego River, Town of Clay

20-10 Oneida River floodplain, near Lock 23 Park, Oswego County

20-11 Model Plane Airport, east of Black Creek Road, Town of Clay

20-12 West of Black Creek Road, Town of Clay

20-13 Adjacent to Rt 481 exit ramp onto maple Road, Town of Clay

20-14 Near Seneca River, behind Seneca Mall, Route 57, Town of Clay

20-15 Three Rivers State Wildlife Area, South side of Kellogg Road, east of Hollow Road, Town of Lysander

20-16 North side Kibby Road, east of Plainville Rd, Town of Lysander

20-17 West of Perry Road, north of Loveless Road, Town of Van Buren

20-18 South of railroad tracks at Peru, Town of Elbridge

20-19 Parking lot, Beaver Lake County Park, Town of Lysander

20-20 North side of Route 370, near County line, Town of Lysander

20-21 Parking lot, Onondaga Lake County Park, Town of Salina

20-22 East side Sentinel Hill Road, north of Mondor Drive, Town of Lafayette

20-23 East side Apulia Road, just north of railroad tracks, Town of Fabius

20-24 East of Berry Road, in field north of Route 80, Town of Fabius

20-25 West of Berry Road, in field, Town of Fabius

20-26 East of Berry Road, in field, Town of Fabius

20-27 North side Cascade Road, near Apulia Road, Town of Lafayette

20-28 East side Tully Farms Road, near landslide south of Town border, Town of Tully

20-29 East side Slate Hill Road, at top of hill between Brewer and Schuyler Roads, Town of Marcellus

20-30 Old gravel pit, north side of Brewer Road, east of Otisco Valley Road, Town of Marcellus

20-31 North side Church Road, half way between Shamrock and Rosbill Roads, Town of Marcellus

20-32 East side of Gully Road, north of New Seneca Turnpike, where road is closest to Ninemile Creek, Town of Skaneateles

20-33 East side Stevens Road, north of Gardner Road, Town of Onondaga

20-34 North of Route 173, near White Lake, Town of Dewitt

20-35 Green Lakes State Park, in field south of Route 257, Town of Manlius

20-36 Syracuse Tank Farm, NYS Barge Canal property, Syracuse

20-37 Parking lot, Onondaga Community College, near entrance from Route 175, Town of Onondaga

20-38 East side Barker Road, midway between Cook and Kingsley Roads, Town of Otisco

20-39 East side Masters Road, north of Church Road, Town of Spafford

20-40 West side Tully Farms Road, near Syracuse Tully Valley Road, Town of Lafayette

Appendix B

 

Interpretations of New York State Geological Survey's (Nysgs)

1997 Seismic Refraction Program in Onondaga County, New York

Seismic Wave

Seismic Layer Thickness Velocities(ft/sec)

Line Site Description Number (ft) P-waveS-wave

TILL

LN20-01 Till over shale 1 4.0 882 240

2 --- 10,271 5,677

LN20-02 Thin till over shale (?) 1 3.0 1,435 433

2 6.0 3,215 969

3 --- 7,593 3,825

LN20-03 Till over shale 1 7.0 1,219 368

2 28.0 5,170 2,604

3 --- 12,899 7,130

LN20-05 Till 1 4.0 702 250

2 5.0 1,986 541

3 --- 8,382 4,222

LN20-11 Till over Lockport dolomite 1 5.0 1,240 374

2 35.0 5,342 1,454

3 --- 16,250 8,982

LN20-17 Drumlin till 1 5.0 1,132 341

2 --- 7,720 2,101

LN20-22 Till over shale 1 13.0 2,223 605

2 --- 6,070 3,058

LN20-29 Thin till over Marcellus shale 1 5.0 746 250

2 --- 6,414 3,231

LN20-31 Thin till over rock 1 7.0 1,475 445

2 --- 6,063 3,062

LN20-37 Till over rock (OCC) 1 7.0 1,962 592

2 25.0 5,936 2,990

3 --- 12,371 6,838

LN20-38 Till over Hamilton shale 1 7.0 970 293

2 --- 9,764 5,397

 

LACUSTRINE SILT AND CLAY

LN20-06 Lake silt and clay over sand 1 5.0 747 250

2 75.0 5,014 1,193

3 --- 11,144 6,160

LN20-08 Lake clays and fine sands 1 10.0 1,561 471

2 --- 12,538 6,931

LN20-12 Lake clay over Lockport 1 5.0 1,098 331

dolomite 2 35.0 5,324 1,267

3 --- 15,558 8,600

LN20-13 Wet clay 1 6.0 1,674 505

2 --- 6,900 1,642

LN20-14 Fill over lake clay or alluvium 1 6.0 1,029 310

2 --- 5,494 1,307

LN20-19 Fill over muck or clay 1 7.0 1,146 346

2 --- 6,029 1,434

LN20-28 Fill over lake clay 1 5.0 1,034 312

2 --- 5,283 1,257

 

FILL

LN20-04 Fill over lake clay 1 5.0 540 250

2 --- 6,422 1,528

LN20-07 Fill over muck 1 3.0 847 255

2 --- 5,254 1,245

LN20-18 Fill over rock or alluvium 1 6.0 976 250

2 17.0 7,221 3,637

3 --- 9,950 5,500

LN20-23 Fill over silt? 1 6.0 1,509 455

2 --- 5,143 1,224

LN20-32 Fill over shale? 1 5.0 1,208 364

2 8.0 1,878 447

3 --- 9,146 5,056

LN20-33 Fill over shale or limestone 1 5.0 934 282

2 --- 6,225 3,144

LN20-34 Fill over limestone (Jamesville 1 21.0 3,842 1,427

Quarry) 2 --- 11,025 6,094

LN20-36 Fill at Syracuse Tank Farm 1 10.0 1,979 597

2 --- 3,472 945

 

KAME

LN20-20 Supra-glacial melt-out 1 12.0 5,692 2,114

2 --- 6,891 2,560

LN20-35 Kame sand and gravel over 1 7.0 990 299

2 --- 4,103 1,971

 

OUTWASH

LN20-24 Outwash over carbonate rock 1 8.0 1,082 326

or shale 2 --- 5,257 2,648

LN20-25 Outwash over carbonate rock 1 13.0 1,164 351

or shale 2 --- 9,310 5,146

LN20-26 Outwash over carbonate rock 1 5.0 842 254

or shale 2 13.0 8,588 4,326

3 --- 12,254 6,674

LN20-27 Floodplain/gravel 1 5.0 1,037 313

2 --- 5,634 1,340

 

LAKE DELTA

LN20-30 Glacial delta 1 10.0 1,878 566

2 --- 3,483 1,673

 

LAKE SAND

 

LN20-10 Lake sand over dolomite?? 1 7.0 947 286

2 8.0 1,550 369

3 --- 2,737 651

LN20-15 Lake sand over Lockport 1 5.0 1,014 306

dolomite 2 30.0 5,729 1,363

3 --- 16,934 9,360

LN20-16 Lake sand over Lockport 1 5.0 1,266 382

dolomite 2 30.0 8,910 2,120

3 --- 16,250 8,982

LN20-21 Lake sand over flood plain 1 4.0 1,331 401

2 --- 5,153 1,220

 

 

ALLUVIUM & COLLUVIUM

 

LN20-09 Alluvium over rock 1 5.0 1,248 376

2 35.0 4,887 1,330

3 --- 13,736 7,593

LN20-39 Colluvium over shale 1 12.0 1,171 353

2 --- 5,345 2,700

LN20-40 Colluvium over lake sediments 1 22.0 1,773 319 2 --- 6,111 1,454

Museum Open Tuesday - Sunday: 9:30 am to 5 pm | Carousel Hours: 10 am to 4:30 pm
Office of Cultural Education | New York State Education Department
Information: 518-474-5877 | Contact Us | Image Requests | Terms of Use
Sign Up for Email Updates
Join us on Facebook See us on YouTube See us on Flickr