You are on page 1of 101

BUILDING A GIS DATABASE

FOR

THE EASTERN TENNESSEE SEISMIC ZONE

By

Motunrayo Oladayo Akinpelu

A thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School at North Carolina Central
University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of
Science in the Department of Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences.
Durham
2011
Approved by:

Dr. Gordana Vlahovic

Dr. Pierre Arroucau

Dr. Garrett Love

Dr. Timothy Mulrooney


AKINPELU, MOTUNRAYO O., M.S. Building a GIS Database for the Eastern

Tennessee Seismic Zone. (2011) Directed by Dr Gordana Vlahovic

Eastern Tennessee contains one of the most seismically active regions in the eastern

North America. The Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone (ETSZ) is about 300 kilometers

long and extends from northwestern Georgia through eastern Tennessee [Study Area:

34ºN to 37ºN; 86ºW to 82.5ºW]. It is the second most active earthquake zone in the

United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Only the New Madrid Seismic Zone is

releasing more seismic strain energy. Unlike the New Madrid Seismic Zone, the ETSZ

did not experience any destructive earthquake in historical time; however, its

seismogenic potential is not well understood.

The spatial dimensions of the ETSZ and its association with potential field anomalies

suggest that collecting and organizing all the relevant data into a GIS geodatabase could

increase our understanding of that region. Geographic Information System (GIS)

software can be used to acquire, share, maintain, and modify geospatial data sets. In this

work, ArcGIS 9.3 is used to build a geodatabase which includes topography, earthquake

information such as locations, magnitudes and focal mechanisms, potential field data, P

and S wave velocity anomalies inferred from tomographic inversions of local events,

seismic transects, digital geological maps and others relevant datasets. Raw datasets

were downloaded from several earth science institutions and were edited before being

2
imported to ArcGIS. Various geoprocessing techniques, such as geo-referencing,

digitizing, and surface interpolation were used to manipulate and analyze these data.

We show how this compilation can be used to analyze the spatial relationships between

earthquake locations and the velocity anomaly models. We utilized the chi-squared

method to determine if we should reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. Our null

hypothesis was that the Earthquake locations, also referred to as points and events, were

random or produced through means of independent random processes or complete

spatial randomness The idea behind this project is to build an information resource that

will eventually encompass data related to intraplate seismicity in the entire central and

eastern United States. The database will be made available to researchers, students, the

general public and engineers concerned with geohazards, and will be used to develop

educational materials for upper level undergraduate and graduate GIS and earth science

courses at North Carolina Central University.


4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.............................................................................................. 8

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ 10

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 12

Study Area .................................................................................................................... 12

Objective of the Study .................................................................................................. 14

II. PREVIOUS STUDIES........................................................................................... 16

III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 22

Geographic Information System ................................................................................... 22

Data Input.................................................................................................................. 22

Functions and application ......................................................................................... 23

Geodatabase Management ............................................................................................ 28

Data Processing......................................................................................................... 29

Data Compilation .......................................................................................................... 33

Seismicity.................................................................................................................. 33

Focal Mechanisms .................................................................................................... 34

Magnetic anomaly..................................................................................................... 35

Gravity anomalies ..................................................................................................... 37

Velocity Anomalies .................................................................................................. 39

Geology..................................................................................................................... 42

Elevation ................................................................................................................... 43
Stress ......................................................................................................................... 45

Utilities...................................................................................................................... 48

IV. DATABASE APPLICATION ............................................................................... 53

Chi -Square ................................................................................................................... 54

Determining variables............................................................................................... 55

Chi-Square Analysis of the Velocity anomaly layers ............................................... 57

Limitations ................................................................................................................ 59

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 61

VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 71

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................. 74

VIII. APPENDIX A........................................................................................................ 78

IX. APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................ 85

X. APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................ 97

7
I. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Figure I.1: Seismicity and geology of the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone, major geologic

provinces: Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, and Cumberland Plateau. blue

circles represent earthquake epicenters, solid black line represent the NY- AL lineament,

while the green line represents the Clingman lineament .................................................. 13

Figure II.1: Cartoon representation of the Seismotectonic model presented in this study,

(Johnston et al 1985)......................................................................................................... 17

Figure II.2Aeromagnetic anomaly of the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone. Dashed lines

indicate the New York-Alabama, Ocoee, and Clingman potential field lineaments. King

& Zietz, 1978; Nelson & Zietz, 1983; Johnston et al., 1985 ............................................ 19

Figure III.1 A represents the dataset before the natural neighbor tool was used to

interpolate it to image B.................................................................................................... 32

Figure 3.2 slip Focal mechanisms from the eastern Tennessee seismic zone scaled Focal

mechanism data compiled by Chapman et al., 1997 and Dunn. 2004. Red dots represent

earthquake location from SEUSN and CERI, green line represents the NY-AL lineament.

........................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure III.3 Aeromagnetic anomaly of the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone. Dashed lines

indicate the New York-Alabama, Ocoee, and Clingman potential field lineaments. King

& Zietz, 1978; Nelson & Zietz, 1983; Johnston et al., 1985 ............................................ 37

Figure III.4: Bouguer gravity anomaly of the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone. Dashed

lines indicate the New York-Alabama lineament and the bold green line the Clingman
8
potential field lineament (King & Zietz, 1978; Nelson & Zietz, 1983; Johnston et al.,

1985) ................................................................................................................................. 39

Figure III.5: Map layers showing the tomographic results for P-wave velocity, each layer

is represented for depths ranging from 0 - 20 km. The white dots represent the

earthquakes located in this work. The data is provided by CA Powell CERI University of

Memphis ........................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3.6 Three-dimensional representation of the digital elevation model of the ETSZ

(vertical exaggeration of 1.5m) with a resolution of 30m (1 arc-second). USGS

(nationalmap.gov) ............................................................................................................. 44

Figure III.7 Two-dimensional representation of the digital elevation model of the ETSZ

with a resolution of 30m (1 arc-second). USGS (nationalmap.gov)................................. 45

Figure III.8 Stress map showing measurements of maximum horizontal compressive

stress orientations (SH) from the World Stress Map database (Heidbach et al., 2008).... 47

Figure 5.1 Graphical representation of layers in the Vp model and the bin classes with

the observed earthquakes and the expected earthquake.................................................... 63

Figure V.2: Graphical representation of layers in the Vs is similar to the Vp model

graphical representation in fig 2.2 .................................................................................... 66

Figure V.3: Graphical representation of layers in the Vp/Vs model and the bin classes

with the observed earthquakes and the expected earthquake............................................ 68

II.

9
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table III.1:Input data sets for the geodata layers compiled in this study. ........................ 25

Table III.2: Table contains information for the latitude, longitude and the corresponding

magnetic intensity for that point location. The highlighted portion of the table is required

to extrapolate the data (Data from the University of El Paso PACES) ............................ 30

Table III.3 Specifications for the North America aeromagnetic survey. (USGS book to

accompanty magnetic anomaly map:2002) ...................................................................... 36

Table IV.1: Layer classification according to Powell et al (2011) ................................... 58

Table V.1: Combined chi-square results and significance level for earthquake locations in

each layer are shown for each tomographic inversion model........................................... 62

Table 0.1 SDSFIE attribute table for jurisdiction_state_areaError! Bookmark not

defined.

10
11
III. INTRODUCTION

Study Area

The Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone (ETSZ) is an intraplate seismically active region,

which extends from northwest Georgia through east Tennessee [Study Area: 34ºN to

37ºN; 86ºW to 82.5ºW]. It is the second most active earthquake zone east of the Rocky

Mountains, the New Madrid Seismic Zone being the most active (Powell et al., 1994).

Most of the seismicity of this region occurs in the 300km by 50km wide area located in

the Valley and Ridge physiographic province of the southern Appalachians. There is a

long recorded history of seismicity in the region with magnitude range of 0.2 - 4.6

(Dunn, 2004) Although the ETSZ has never produced a damaging earthquake, the

largest earthquake recorded occurred on 29 April 2003 in Fort Payne, Alabama, with

magnitude of 4.6, it is considered a potential source of large earthquakes (Powell et al.,

1994). Like most intraplate seismic regions, the earthquake distribution has no clear

association with the surface geology. The cause of seismicity in the ETSZ is unknown,

however, the earthquakes appear to cluster in a region along the New York-Alabama

(NY-AL) magnetic lineament (Powell et al., 1994). The New York-Alabama lineament,

which strikes NE-SW and spans 1600 km beneath much of the Appalachians in the

eastern United States, the earthquakes in the ETSZ are mostly located to the east of this

geophysical anomaly with the largest magnitude earthquakes occurring in close


proximity to or within the NY-AL lineament. (Steltenpohl et al., 2010; King & Zietz,

1978)

Figure III.1: Seismicity and geology of the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone, major geologic provinces: Piedmont,
Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, and Cumberland Plateau. blue circles represent earthquake epicenters, solid
black line represent the NY- AL lineament, while the green line represents the Clingman lineament
Objective of the Study

The objective of this research is to develop a working geodatabase for the Eastern

Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS format such as ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that

can be used to improve our understanding of the seismicity in the area. The stated

purpose of this research can be detailed as follows :

• Collect and digitally input existing geodata into a geodatabase implemented by

ArcGIS v.9.3, the most widely accepted GIS format. The data layers to be

included in the geodatabase are: topography; earthquake locations, magnitudes

and focal mechanisms; potential field data; P and S wave velocity anomaly

results from tomographic inversions of local events; digital geological maps and

others relevant datasets from data compiled by the state geological surveys of the

states in this region.

• Demonstrate usefulness of such database to quantitatively explore possible

relationship between earthquake locations and other data layers, for example,

velocity anomalies.
15
IV. PREVIOUS STUDIES

Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone (ETSZ) is about 300 km by 50 km wide area, which

extends from northwestern Georgia through east Tennessee (Error! Reference source

not found.). It is the second most active earthquake zone *east of the Rocky Mountains

after the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) [Study Area: 34ºN to 37ºN; 86ºW to

82.5ºW]. The ETSZ is located mostly within the Valley and Ridge physiographic

province of the southern Appalachians, which consists of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks

within a foreland fold and thrust belt northwest of the Blue Ridge-Piedmont mega thrust

sheet indentor (Hatcher et al., 2007). The depth of seismicity in the area is estimated to

be approximately 5km - 26km, starting at the base of the Paleozoic cover and extending

down to mid-crustal depths of the Grenville age basement. Consequently, the earthquake

distribution has no clear association with the surface geology. (Dunn, 2004; Vlahovic et

al., 1998; Powell et al., 1994).


Figure IV.1: Cartoon representation of the Seismotectonic model presented in this study, (Johnston et al 1985).

Because intraplate earthquakes in the eastern North America are not usually

accompanied by surface ruptures and due to fact that the distribution of earthquakes

does not match any known surface faults, it is unclear what is responsible for the origin

of earthquakes and if the zone is capable of producing damaging earthquakes (Powell et.

al, 1994). The earthquakes are most likely related to a basement faults buried underneath

the Paleozoic cover (Powell et al 1994). The existence, extent and location of these

faults can only mapped by the use of indirect techniques, for instance, geophysical

methods (aeromagnetic mapping). There is a long history of seismicity in the region

with magnitude range of 0.2 - 4.6, the largest event recorded in this region was a
magnitude 4.6 earthquake that occurred on April 29, 2003 near Fort Payne, AL (U.S.

Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center, 2003). The earthquakes in

this region happen over a very long area, which is characteristic of a major fault;

however, geologists have been unable to successfully map a fault zone in the basement

rocks (Dunn, 2004).

Johnston et al. (1985) stated that the seismicity of the region does not seem to be

associated with the geological provinces and faults mapped at the surface of the

Appalachians, but that most of the ETSZ earthquakes lie between the NY-AL lineament

and the Clingman/Ocoee system (Error! Reference source not found.). The NY-AL

magnetic lineament trends to the northeast from Alabama to Albany, New York, and is

expressed on the map as a sharp gradient in the magnetic field (Steltenpohl et al., 2010).

The earthquake foci in the ETSZ are mostly located to the east of this geophysical

anomaly with the largest magnitude earthquakes occurring in close proximity to or

within the NY-AL lineament. The Clingman lineament is located to the southeast of the

seismic zone, and is a less prominent magnetic anomaly than the NY-AL lineament

(Johnston et. al, 1985; Powell et. al, 1994; Steltenpohl et al., 2010). The NY – AL

lineament separates two major crustal blocks, the stable craton of the continental interior

and the Appalachian block of the continental margin. The source of the anomaly may be

largely within the basement rocks, and the NY- AL lineament is interpreted as an

ancient strike slip fault between these two crustal blocks (Steltenpohl et al., 2010). Both

lineaments separate basement blocks of distinctly different magnetic signatures and are

interpreted to be the result of major faults active during the Grenville orogeny (Nelson &

Zietz, 1983; Hatcher et al., 1987) that took place 1 billion year ago.
18
Figure IV.2Aeromagnetic anomaly of the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone. Dashed lines indicate the New
York-Alabama, Ocoee, and Clingman potential field lineaments. King & Zietz, 1978; Nelson & Zietz, 1983;
Johnston et al., 1985

Local tomographic study by Vlahovic et al., (1998) suggested that earthquakes tend to

occur not in regions of extremely high or low velocities, but in transitional zones

between the two and that the regions of high and low velocity are produced by different

rock composition. Most recent results based on arrival time tomography of more than
19
1000 local earthquakes by Powell et al. (2011) also stated that there was a spatial

correlation between the velocity and earthquake locations with most active part of the

ETSZ southeast of NY-AL magnetic lineament being characterized by higher than

average P and S wave velocities and low Vp/VS ratio. One proposed model that

explains current seismicity in the ETSZ is that earthquakes are the result of present day

reactivation of late Proterozoic to Cambrian rift faults in the Precambrian basement

beneath Appalachian thrust sheets (Bollinger & Wheeler, 1988). Powell et al. (1994)

proposed that the faults in the ETSZ may have originated from Iapetan rifting, but stated

that the faults may have been modified by Paleozoic compression or a Mesozoic

extension. They also proposed that slip along the east and north-striking planes may be

combined into a through-going strike slip fault along the NY-AL lineament.

20
21
V. METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses all data sources and methodologies that will be used in this

research. To avoid redundancy, more methodology details will be stated systematically

when they are implemented. After an overview of GIS, this chapter will introduce

geodatabases in general, compilation of this particular ETSZ geodatabase including

basic information about all layers and finally, geodatabase management.

Geographic Information System

A Geographic Information System is the combination of hardware, software, and

geospatial data capable of capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically

referenced information (Bernhardsen 2002; USGS 1997). GIS is used in a variety of

areas, such as transportation planning, natural resource and environmental studies, utility

management, highways and infrastructures, town planning and municipal government.

Data Input

The two most commonly employed spatial data types are raster and vector data (Zeifel

2004). Either of these can represent a spatial object in GIS. Raster data represent the area

of continuous interest as a matrix of square cells where cell size defines the spatial

resolution of the data. Each raster cell contains a value, representing a property or

attribute of interest, for example the elevation layer, the cell value is the elevation at the

center of the cell.. In vector data format, points, polylines, and polygons represent

features and feature shapes, as defined by x and y coordinates in


space. The vector data sets in a spatial database are commonly referred to as layers,

themes, or coverages. Raster images to vector graphics or vector to raster conversion can

be performed in GIS; however, multiple conversions may introduce the data loss and

cumulative error in the process.

Functions and application

A GIS database is the collection of geospatial data that are stored in a computer system.

The type of geodatabase that will be used to implement this project is a file geodatabase

that allows for a multiuser, multiplatform interface. The file geodatabase can scale up to

1TB in size for each data set with the option of rising the size limit up to 256 TB for

exceptionally large image data sets (ArcGIS Desktop 9.3 Help, Types of Geodatabases).

File geodatabase has a more efficient storage than other formats with each data set

stored in a separate file and all data sets organized in file folder. The ETSZ file

geodatabase contains raster datasets, TIN datasets and feature classes. The data layers

represented in the geodatabase include seismic data (earthquake locations, magnitude,

and focal mechanisms), geologic data (physiographic provinces, rock units, and fault

lines), magnetic anomaly data, gravity anomaly data, velocity anomaly data, hydrologic

data, and stress data. Data is organized by layers, coverages, or themes, with each theme

representing common features. Layers or themes are related with precise geographic

coordinates recorded for each theme. For example, physiographic provinces can be seen

as a theme in a GIS map to represent different geology. The most important part of

building the geodatabase is cataloging the metadata. Metadata is data about data, it

describes the attributes and contents of an original document or work, and it helps the

users to have full knowledge of a data characteristics. ArcCatalog (a component of


ArcGIS) has an inbuilt metadata editor. The editor complies with the Federal

Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) standards. The standard FGDC style sheet has seven categories. The seven

categories are as follows (FGDC 1998):

• Identification Information- General Information on the dataset such as abstract,

purpose of the data, point of contact (person or organization responsible for the

database).

• Data Quality Information- The accuracy of the dataset such as positional

accuracy of spatial objects, accuracy of assigned values in the dataset, how data

was processed, source of the data.

• Spatial Data Organization Information- Type of objects utilized in a dataset for

feature representation (e.g. “point”, “vector”, “raster” (graphic, not image).

• Spatial Reference Information- Description of the reference frame applied to the

coordinate system.

• Entity and attribute Information- Information about the content of the dataset. A

description of attributes and their values.

• Distribution Information- Information about the distributor and comments on

obtaining the dataset.

• Metadata Reference Information- Information on how current the metadata is

(such as the date on which the metadata was created, contact responsible for

composing the metadata.)

24
To maintain the integrity of the datasets in the geodatabase, the data was loaded into a

geodatabase using Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment

(SDSFIE). SDSFIE is the standard developed and maintained at the Department of

Defense’s CAD/GIS Technology Center; it defines terminology, data requirements, and

types, attribute tables, relationships, domains and ranges. The geodatabase template

contains predefined SDSFIE attribute table naming conventions and definitions. The

design criterion for using the SDSFIE geodatabase template is that it follows the FGDC

standards. The definition for all variables in the attribute for each data is described in the

appendix III

Table V.1:Input data sets for the geodata layers compiled in this study.

Data
Entity Dataset Feature type
Source

Geology

Earthquake Data Date, origin time, Center for

(point) lat/long location, Earthquake

depth (km), Research

magnitude, distance and

to nearest station Information,

(km) Southeaster
25
n U. S.

Seismic

Network
(SEUSN),

Nationalma
Surface Geology Unit age
p.gov

Chapman et
Same as earthquake
Focal Mechanism al., 1997
data but including
(point) and Dunn.
strike, dip, rake
2004

Nationalma
Fault (line) Fault type
p.gov

National

elevation

Digital elevation 30 m resolution and 3 database


Ground Elevations
model (DEM) (raster) m resolution (U.S.

Geological

Survey)

The
Aeromagnetic Magnetic intensity
University
Potential field Anomaly (point, raster nanotesla (nT)
of Texas at
cell) 1km resolution
El Paso

Gravity Anomaly Milligals (mGal) The

(point, raster cell) resolution 4km University

of Texas at 26
El Paso

P and S wave

Velocity anomaly velocity anomalies Powell et al.

(point, raster) (km/s) (12km x12 km (2011)

x 4 km)

World

Stress Stress field Raster (cell) Stress Map

Database

Transportation (point, Road class, road U.S.

line) name (highways) Geological

Survey,

Utilities United
Type of fuel,
Structures (dams States
location, name of
Nuclear plant (point) Nuclear
facility
Regulatory

Commission

U.S.

Geological

Hydrography Rivers Length of river, name Survey,

United

States

27
All data pertaining to the project was acquired by desk-based research and was collected

as vector shape files, raster cell or directly from the analog hard copies (excels

spreadsheets and text files). Hard copy maps were scanned, rectified into a raster format,

and manually digitized into a vector format if needed. Data descriptions and values for

individual spatial objects in the vector layers were input into attribute tables of the

layers. ArcGIS 9.3 suite, a Geographic Information System (GIS) and geodatabase

management software, which allow users to acquire, share, maintain, and modify

geospatial datasets was the primary software used to create the database.

All data collected for the project with no coordinate system or data that already had a

defined projection were projected to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The

North American Datum is the most widely used projection by the USGS for the United

States data; this is the official horizontal datum for use in the North and Central

American geodetic networks (Zeiler, 1999; USGS, 2000).

Geodatabase Management

The geodatabase has the ability to store several types of information in an off-the-shelf

database management system (DBMS). This information may range from raster features

and vector features to attribute information (attributes are data that describe the

properties of a point, line, or polygon record in a Geographic Information System) of the

features (tables), metadata, and relationship (Zeiler, 1999). Geodatabases usage in GIS

has a lot of advantages to the users, such as centralized data storage, maintenance of data

integrity, and more accurate data entry. Geodatabases can be easily created and managed

using the tools in ArcCatalog and ArcMap. All the crucial files for the project were

28
eventually bundled into this geodatabase system, thereby condensing the project into one

file available for different operations.

Data Processing

The constructions of files in GIS data formats into the geodatabase were performed in

the following way.

Displaying XY Values

Point values can be displayed as features from tables containing X and Y coordinates

(longitude and latitude) brought into ArcMap and then converted into shapefiles or

geodatabase feature class. There are several table formats that ArcMap can read in order

to bring point data into ArcMap as an Event theme. These include DBase, TXT, CSV

and XLS spreadsheets. Files in these formats can be created in Microsoft Excel and

added to ArcMap. For example, the longitude and latitude positions of the earthquake

locations in the study area were obtained and added as point shapefile data in ArcMap.

The systematic process for this tool is available in the APPENDIX C, Datasets in which

the XY (latitude, longitude) values were displayed are:

- Aeromagnetic data

- Gravity anomaly data

- Velocity anomaly

- Earthquake location

- Nuclear plant facilities

- Dams

29
- Synthetic earthquakes (that is, fake earthquake locations used for the random

distribution hypothesis for chi-square analysis)

- New York – Alabama and the Clingman lineament.

The portion of the table below displays the information required to display XY values

into a feature on a map.

Table V.2: Table contains information for the latitude, longitude and the corresponding magnetic intensity for
that point location. The highlighted portion of the table is required to extrapolate the data (Data from the
University of El Paso PACES)

30
Interpolation (Vector to raster)

Interpolation is the process of prediction or calculation of unknown points or values

between known values. Interpolation can be used to create continuous data (raster) from

vector data. These datasets represent heights, concentration, or magnitudes of elements

such as elevation, pollution, noise, particulate matter, or earthquakes.

31
Natural neighbor interpolation finds the closest subset of input samples to a query point

and applies values to them based on the surrounding areas in order to interpolate a value.

This tool was used to interpolate most datasets that were to be viewed as continuous

data. For example magnetic anomaly data, gravity anomaly data, velocity anomaly

datasets. (ArcGIS 9.3 help)

Figure V.1 A represents the dataset before the natural neighbor tool was used to interpolate it to image B

32
Data Compilation

Seismicity

Precise locations of earthquake hypocenters are important for identifying potentially

seismogenic features, especially in intraplate regions where there is little or no

correlation between seismicity and mapped faults. The dataset for this study contains

1039-recorded earthquakes that range in magnitude from 0.2 to 4.6, with depth of

seismicity in the area estimated to be approximately 5km - 26km (Dunn 2004). This

information was obtained from Powell (Center for Earthquake Research and

Information, Memphis, TN). The original earthquakes from ETSZ were relocated for use

in the 3D velocity model; the locations will slightly differ from the earthquake location

in the catalog. The earthquake epicenters appear clustered to the southeast of the NY-AL

lineament and are bound to the southeast by the Clingman/Ocoee system (Figure V.4).

This gives rise to the possible spatial correlation of the earthquake locations and the

geophysical anomalies (Dunn, 2004; Vlahovic et al., 1998; Powell et al., 1994).

The seismic data from the ETSZ was used to demonstrate the usefulness of the database

by determining the relationship of this dataset and the velocity anomaly dataset

(discussed later in the paper). A chi-squared analysis was performed using this dataset to

test the hypothesis that earthquakes hypocenters are independent from the body-wave

velocity field obtained from tomographic inversion. Earthquake events occurring within

each depth slice were selected out using the steps described in APPENDIX C. Above

hypothesis was also tested with randomly generated earthquake locations and the

velocity anomaly datasets. A comparison will be made between the real data and the

33
synthetic data by looking at the calculated chi-square, earthquake distribution between

the bins and the histogram distribution of the chi-square analysis.

Focal Mechanisms

Focal mechanisms are a representation of the potential fault orientation and slip

direction at the earthquake source. One plane represents the fault plane and contains the

slip vector, while the other plane, known as the auxiliary plane, has no structural

significance but is oriented normal to the slip vector (Cronin 2004). Focal mechanisms

are commonly deduced from first motion polarities observed on the available

seismograms, or alternatively by waveform modeling and inversion. Provided there is

enough seismometer coverage of an earthquake event, the 3-D focal mechanism pattern

of an earthquake can be inferred and plotted. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine

which nodal plane represents the fault from a single event with no other information.

The Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone focal mechanism studies reveal a maximum

northeast-southwest horizontal compression with corresponding strike-slip motion on

approximately north-south (right lateral) or east-west (left lateral) oriented nodal planes

(Johnston et al., 1985). Chapman et al. (1997) included an additional northeast-

southwest (right lateral) or southeast-northwest (left lateral) possible nodal plane pair

solution. The 26 focal mechanism solutions provided in the database were obtained from

Chapman et al. (1997) and an additional 11 solutions from Dunn (2004).

34
Figure V.2 Focal mechanisms from the eastern Tennessee seismic zone scaled Focal mechanism data compiled
by Chapman et al., 1997 and Dunn. 2004. Red dots represent earthquake location from SEUSN and CERI,
green line represents the NY-AL lineament.

Magnetic anomaly

Aeromagnetic anomaly mapping is useful in providing information about the geology

especially in cases where the structures are scarce or absent (USGS 2002). Airborne

measurement of the earth's magnetic field over all of North America provides gridded

data describing the magnetic anomaly caused by variations in earth materials and

structure (USGS 2002). The observed magnetic field is characterized by significant

anomalies, particularly, the northeast trending NY-AL lineament extending roughly

from Alabama to New York and framing most active part of ETSZ from the northwest

and the less prominent Clingman lineament to the southeast. The magnetic anomaly

data, which are in essence individual points, were obtained from The University of
35
Texas at El Paso (UTEP) online gravity and magnetic database

(http://irpsrvgis00.utep.edu/repositorywebsite/). The North American aeromagnetic data

is a digitized version of two compilations, one by the U.S. Geological Survey and

Society of Exploration Geophysicists (USGS/SEG, 1982), and Bond and Zietz (1987).

The database is searchable by latitude and longitude so the data downloaded is strictly

the section of the grid of interest in a simple ASCII format. The USGS magnetic data

cover the period 1945 to 2001. The grid values represent total intensity in nanotesla

(nT); the flight lines were acquired at 305m above the ground (USGS, 2002). The data

was then interpolated at the sample points of the flight lines. The data was then gridded

at 1/3 - 1/4 of the flight-line spacing, then re-gridded to 1 km.

Table V.3 Specifications for the North America aeromagnetic survey. (USGS book to accompanty magnetic
anomaly map:2002)

Data acquisition 1980’s (Zietz, 1982), 1994 (U.S. Magnetic

Anomaly Data Set Task Group )

Line Spacing 1.1 - 2km (NC, SC, GA) 4.8- 8km

(Eastern TN, North Eastern AL)

Observation height from the ground 305 m (1000 ft)

Instrument used magnetometers, altimeters, navigational

systems

36
Figure V.3 Aeromagnetic anomaly of the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone. Dashed lines indicate the New York-
Alabama, Ocoee, and Clingman potential field lineaments. King & Zietz, 1978; Nelson & Zietz, 1983; Johnston
et al., 1985

Gravity anomalies

Gravity anomalies are produced by density variations within the rocks of the Earth's

crust and upper mantle. Mapping of these density variations is the primary use of gravity

anomalies. The gravitational fields vary slightly from place to place due to the

composition and structure of Earth's crust, the observed Bouguer anomaly map can be

37
interpreted in terms of rock density variations at depth. The Bouguer gravity anomaly

data grid was obtained from The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) online gravity

and magnetic database (http://irpsrvgis00.utep.edu/repositorywebsite/) and is searchable

by latitude and longitude so the data downloaded is the region of interest in a simple

ASCII format. This database is result of a collaborative effort by the U.S. Geological

Survey, the National Imagery and Mapping Administration (NIMA) National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NSF, NASA and The University of Texas at

El Paso. The data were compiled from about 2 million gravity anomaly values derived

from surface, airborne, and satellite measurements. The gravity measurements were

reduced to Free-air and Bouguer anomalies using the new standards recommended by

Hinze et al. (2005) which uses a single reference ellipsoid as the vertical and horizontal

data as well as for the theoretical gravity calculation. Bouguer gravity anomalies were

calculated using a standard crustal density of 2670 kg/m3 (2.67 grams/cc). To eliminate

the minor effects of noise, the derivative gravity data were slightly smoothed by upward

continuation to a level of 2,000 meters above the surface. (North American Gravity

Database Committee, USGS 2003). The Bouguer gravity anomaly over Appalachian

mountains is characterized by a generally asymmetric gravity low and this gravity low

also correlates with the location of the seismic zone.

38
Figure V.4: Bouguer gravity anomaly of the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone. Dashed lines indicate the New
York-Alabama lineament and the bold green line the Clingman potential field lineament (King & Zietz, 1978;
Nelson & Zietz, 1983; Johnston et al., 1985)

Velocity Anomalies

Seismic tomography uses the P and S wave travel times as well as the surface wave data

to map the velocity variations of the Earth’s interior. The travel time residuals

(difference between observed and theoretical travel times from the hypocenter to the
39
seismometers) are then used to invert for the velocity structure of the region (Iyer 1993).

An inversion of the P-wave and S-wave arrival time residuals was used to create a

velocity model, P- and S-wave arrival-time data for ETSZ earthquakes were taken from

the Southeastern U. S. Seismic Network Bulletins (SEUSN) for the years 1984 - 2002

and from the Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI) catalog for the

years 1993 – 2009 (Powell et al. 2011). There are 1,039 earthquakes present in the

dataset, the velocity models are imaged over the depth range from the surface to 20.0 km

with the size of the cells 12 km by 12 km horizontally by 4 km in the vertical direction.

The cell sizes were based on source-receiver distribution and synthetic resolution tests

(Powell et al. 2011). The velocity anomaly were used in this thesis to show practical

application of the database. A chi-squared (goodness of fit test) analysis was performed

with the velocity anomaly data (Vp, Vs, Vp/Vs) and the earthquake locations (depths

ranging from 0 – 20 km). The chi-squared test was also performed with randomly

generated earthquake locations. A comparison was made between the real data and the

synthetic data while looking at the calculated chi-square, earthquake distribution

between the bins and the histogram distribution of the chi-square analysis.

40
0 - 4km
4 - 0km

4 - 8km
8 - 12km

12 - 16km 16 - 20km

Figure V.5: Map layers showing the tomographic results for P-wave velocity, each layer is represented for
depths ranging from 0 - 20 km. The white dots represent the earthquakes located in this work. The data is
provided by CA Powell CERI University of Memphis

The velocity anomaly data was provided by Christine A. Powell of the Center for

Earthquake Research and Information (CERI), University of Memphis in a simple txt

format which was imported into Microsoft excel spreadsheet. The attributes contained in

41
these datasets are latitude, longitude and the corresponding velocity (in km/s) at each

point. The data in the excel spreadsheet (APPENDIX C) to create feature points for each

lat/long value with its corresponding velocity. Using the natural neighbor spatial analyst

tool, the newly created points were interpolated using the steps described in appendix p.

65. Figures 1.3 – 1.5 show processed velocity anomaly data.

Geology

Eastern Tennessee seismic zone is located within the Valley and Ridge region of the

Appalachians containing Paleozoic age rocks ranging from Early Cambrian through

Early Permian age. The generalized geologic map of the conterminous United States,

published by the U.S. Geological Survey, contains surficial geology that displays the

geologic age of the rock layers. U.S. Geological Survey map was compiled using data

from various sources: Tennessee Geological Survey, Georgia Geological Survey, North

Carolina Geological Survey, Alabama Geological Survey, Kentucky Geological Survey,

and Virginia Geological Survey.

42
Figure V.6: Geologic map of the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Solid blue line represents the New York-
Alabama lineament and the bold green line the Clingman potential field lineament and the soild black lines
represents the mapped surface faults in the seismic zone( USGS 2004)

Elevation

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) describes the land terrain relief; this data covers the

features on the landside of the shoreline. The regions elevation data was obtained from

the national elevation dataset (NED) (http://nationalmap.gov/viewers.html). The

resolution of the DEM is in 1 arc-second (approx. 30m), higher resolution data of the

43
region displaying arc second (approx. 10m). The vertical accuracy of NED is ±7~15m

(USGS 2007).

Figure V.7; Three-dimensional representation of the digital elevation model of the ETSZ (vertically
exaggerated 1.5 times) with a resolution of 30m (1 arc-second). USGS (nationalmap.gov)

44
Figure V.8 Two-dimensional representation of the digital elevation model of the ETSZ with a resolution of
30m (1 arc-second). USGS (nationalmap.gov)

Stress

An important addition to the database is crustal stress, which is the driving force behind

seismicity. Investigations into stress patterns indicate that horizontal stress orientations

and relative magnitudes are broadly uniform over large regions of the earth (e.g. Zoback

45
& Zoback, 1989). The world stress map (WSM) is a compilation of the present day

tectonic stress data. The stress indicators include earthquake focal mechanisms, well

bore breakouts and drilling-induced fractures, in-situ stress measurements (over coring,

hydraulic fracturing, and borehole slotter), and young geologic data (from fault-slip

analysis and volcanic vent alignments) (Heidbach et al 2008). In the study area, there are

four data points, two of which occur to the southeastern region of the seismic zone, as a

result of thrust faulting caused by hydraulic fracturing. In addition, the other two, which

occur to the north east of the zone, are as a result of strike-slip faulting induced by well

bore breakouts and drilling-induced fractures. The stress map in Figure V.9 was created

by CASMO, a web-based HTML-form that creates stress maps using the data from the

WSM database (http://dc-app3-14.gfz-

potsdam.de/pub/stress_data/stress_data_frame.html). The stress field in the ETSZ is

dominated by a NE-SW orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress (SH) as

determined from borehole data (Heidbach et al., 2008). This is roughly parallel to the

orientation of the magnetic lineaments and is consistent with stress estimates inferred

46
from focal mechanism data (Chapman et al., 1997).

Figure V.9 Stress map showing measurements of maximum horizontal compressive stress orientations (SH)
from the World Stress Map database. The Blue stars represent thrust faulting caused by hydraulic fracturing,
while the green triangles represent strike-slip faulting induced by well bore breakouts and drilling-induced
fractures (Heidbach et al., 2008).

From Figure V.9 the abbreviations in the map legend represent NF- normal faulting, SS-

strike-slip fault, TF- thrust Fault, U-unknown

47
Utilities

Damaging earthquakes can affect water, sewer, gas and power utilities. Since the

magnitude 9.0 March 11, 2011 earthquake near the east coast of Honshu, Japan, the

safety of nuclear power in the United States has also become once again the major

source of concern. Thus, the locations of all operating nuclear power reactors in the

United States and the reactor type were included in this database. Also included in this

dataset are buildings, roads and trails, railroads, pipelines, and transmission lines, which

were downloaded from the USGS nationalmap.gov. According to the metadata that

accompanied the datasets, all layers were last updated 2011

48
Figure V.10 Red stars represents nuclear plants located in the ETSZ, purple dots represent earthquake locations
(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission )

- The transportation data theme consists of roads, airports, railroads, and other

features associated with the transport of people or commerce. The data includes

the location, classification and names for major roads in the study area.

49
Figure V.11:Highway road map in the study area yellow line represents interstate highways, green –state
routes, purple line- state highways and red- US highways(U.S. Geological Survey)

- The structures data includes the location and characteristics of manmade

facilities. Characteristics consist of a structure's physical form (footprint),

function, name, location, and other detailed information about the structure.

- The hydrographic data includes information about the surface waters in the study

area.

50
Figure V.12 hydrographic map of the ETSZ region, green squares represent dam locations(U.S. Geological
Survey)

51
52
VI. DATABASE APPLICATION

As mentioned in the objective of this project, this chapter will demonstrate usefulness of

the database to quantitatively explore possible relationship between earthquake

distribution and the velocity anomaly layer. Through various studies, it has been

suggested that the earthquake distribution in the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone was

spatially correlated with potential-field anomalies (King and Zietz, 1978;, Powell et al.,

1994, Vlahovic et al., 1998). Powell et al. (2011) stated that there was a spatial

correlation between the velocity field and earthquake locations with most active part of

the ETSZ southeast of NY-AL magnetic lineament being characterized by higher than

average P and S wave velocities and low Vp/VS ratio. By using the chi-square goodness

of fit statistical method, quantify the relationship between the earthquake locations and

the velocity anomaly models of ETSZ for the P- wave, S-wave (Vp and Vs) and the ratio

of P-wave to S-wave (Vp/Vs). This analysis will be used to test the analysis made by

Powell et al, 2011. A chi-squared test was also performed with hypocenters randomly

generated from a uniform distribution: comparison was made between the real data and

the synthetic data while looking at the calculated chi-square, earthquake distribution

between the bins and the histogram distribution of the chi-square analysis.
Chi -Square

The chi-square test was used to determine whether the frequencies we observe fit what

we might expect (also known as the Chi- square goodness of fit). According to Gravetter

and Wallnau 2007 (pg 581), “The chi-square statistic is a measure of how much the

observed cell counts diverge from the expected cell counts.”

Equation VI.1 : Formula for Chi-Squared goodness of fit, observed represents the actual count in a given cell,
while expected represents a theoretical count for that cell

The Chi-square values for this analysis will be calculated using the Equation VI.1, in

this study the observed counts of earthquakes, will be compared to the expected counts

of earthquakes for each of the velocity anomaly layer in the Eastern Tennessee Seismic

Zone. There are 1,039 earthquakes present in the dataset used in the analysis of chi-

square. Therefore, these chi-square tests have the following hypothesis:

Ho: variables are independent – there is no relationship.

Ha: variables are not independent – there is a relationship.


The Null hypothesis (Ho :) states that there is no relationship between the earthquake

event locations and the velocity anomaly layer. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) is a positive

statement of the null hypothesis i.e. there is a relationship between the variables under

analysis. If the difference between expected and observed counts is large, the chi-square

value (Equation VI.1) will be large, and there will be enough evidence against the null

hypothesis and in favor of the alternative one.

Determining variables

The observed number of earthquakes in each layer is determined in the following way:

• The velocity anomaly layer is reclassified into 5 bins (very high, high, normal,

low, and very low) using the spatial analyst reclassify tool.

• From the reclassified layer a raster count for each bin value is determined, then

a percentage of the raster count is calculated

• Using the Hawth’s intersect point tool a frequency count of earthquake events

fall within the classified fields, this frequency of the earthquakes that intersect

the classified bins are then added as attributes to the original point layer.

From this process, we determined the number of observed earthquakes in each bin for

each layer.

The expected number of earthquakes in each bin was determined using the equation

below:

55
Equation VI.2 Formula used to determine number of expected earthquakes

If the null hypothesis was valid, i.e. if the earthquakes were uniformly distributed and

had no relationship with the velocity field, the total number of expected earthquakes

falling in a bin should equal the total number of observed earthquakes in that bin. This

would result in a low chi-square value. If on the other hand the earthquakes either were

preferentially distributed in zones of high, low, or intermediate velocities, the observed

number of events in a given bin would significantly deviate from the expected one,

which would result in a high chi-square value. Based on that chi-square value, and

provided that the number of degrees of freedom is known (Equation VI.3), the

probability associated with the null hypothesis can be deduced from the probability

distribution table available in APPENDIX II.

Equation VI.3 Formula for calculating the degree of freedom in chi-squared

A probability threshold has to be defined, that will be used to determine whether the null

hypothesis is valid or not. This threshold is called level of significance (denoted alpha)

and is commonly set to a value of 5% to 10% (0.05 or 0.1). Here we consider a level of
56
significance of 5% (0.05). If the probability (denoted as p) associated with the null

hypothesis is less than this threshold, the hypothesis is rejected, and otherwise it is

considered as valid. The p-value is a probability, with a value ranging from zero to one

Then, for a given number of degrees of freedom Equation VI.3, a critical chi-square

value associated with the chosen level of significance can be determined from the table

given in APPENDIX A. To determine if the hypothesis is rejected or fails to reject:

i. If the calculated chi-square value is greater than the critical value from the table,

in other words if the p-value is lower than alpha, then you “reject the null

hypothesis”

ii. If the chi-square value is less than the critical value, i.e. if the p-value is greater

than alpha, then you “fail to reject” the null hypothesis

Chi-Square Analysis of the Velocity anomaly layers

Our null hypothesis is that the epicenter locations, also referred to as points and events,

are random, or produced through means of independent random processes or complete

spatial randomness in the velocity models. 1064 local earthquakes in the Eastern

Tennessee Seismic Zone were used to determine this spatial relationship. Most

earthquakes occur to the southeast of the NY- AL lineament and occur at depths ranging

from 5 to 26 km. The velocity anomaly datasets, which all have a thickness of 4 km in

the vertical direction as displayed in Error! Reference source not found.

Layer Depth (km)

57
1 -4-0(above sea level)

2 0 –4

3 4–8

4 8 – 12

5 12 – 16

6 16 - 20

Table VI.1: Layer classification according to Powell et al (2011)

Each layer of the velocity model was classified into 5 bins (very high, high, normal, low,

and very low). The 1-D Velocity Model (Vlahovic et al 1998) was used as a basis to

determine the normal velocity range for each layer.

Depth Vp(km/s) Vs(km/s) Thickness(km)

0 6.05 3.47 5.7

5.7 6.24 3.59 4.3

10.0 6.34 3.66 4.7

14.7 6.43 3.72 5.3

20.0 6.52 3.79 25.0

45.0 8 4.62 -

Table VI.2: One-Dimensional Velocity Model (Vlahovic et al 1998)

58
Limitations

Horizontal errors < 2 km and vertical errors < 4 km may be present in the earthquake

hypocenter locations due to, among other factors, station spacing, arrival time reading

errors and velocity model uncertainties (Powell et al 2011). The chi-square values for

layer 1 was not computed for any of the velocity models due to the fact that the total

number of observed earthquakes in this layer is less than 5, therefore the computed

values are considered insignificant.

59
60
VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This research was designed to test the possibility of random distribution of the

earthquake in each velocity anomaly layer. A brief summary of the results the all of the

Chi-Square analyses and their corresponding p-values displayed in the following tables.

To determine this relationship a Chi-square test goodness of fit was performed to

determine if the earthquake location in ETSZ is related to the velocity anomaly of the

region.

Null Hypothesis: No relationship exists between the earthquake locations and the

velocity field inferred from body-wave travel time tomographic inversion.

Alternative Hypothesis: A relationship exists between the earthquake locations and the

velocity field inferred from body-wave travel time tomographic inversion.

The threshold values used for the analysis of the chi-square values are

- Level of significance: α = 0.05 (5% with a confidence level of 95% that the

results of the test are real and repeatable, and not just random)

- Degree of freedom: df = 4

- Critical value: = 9.49(value from the chi-square distribution table based on the

level of significance of and a degree of freedom, if chi-square is greater than this

value, then the null hypothesis is rejected)


Ho fail to
Chi-square P-value reject
Layer
Values (y/n)

2 (0-4km) 6.12 0.19 Y

3 (4-8km) 8.50 0.07 Y

Vp 4 (8-12km) 26.25 0.00 N

5 (12-16km) 19.29 0.00 N

6 (16-20km) 24.73 0.00 N

2 (0-4km) 8.85 0.06 Y

3 (4-8km) 53.52 0.00 N

Vs 4 (8-12km) 35.35 0.00 N

5 (12-16km) 126.09 0.00 N

6 (16-20km) 54.50 0.00 N

2 (0-4km) 3.15 0.53 Y

3 (4-8km) 39.86 0.00 N

Vp/Vs 4 (8-12km) 41.36 0.00 N

5 (12-16km) 39.53 0.00 N

6 (16-20km) 48.89 0.00 N

Table VII.1: Combined chi-square results and significance level for earthquake locations in each layer are
shown for each tomographic inversion model.
The results in

Ho fail to
Chi-square P-value reject
Layer
Values (y/n)

2 (0-4km) 6.12 0.19 Y

3 (4-8km) 8.50 0.07 Y

Vp 4 (8-12km) 26.25 0.00 N

5 (12-16km) 19.29 0.00 N

6 (16-20km) 24.73 0.00 N

2 (0-4km) 8.85 0.06 Y

3 (4-8km) 53.52 0.00 N

Vs 4 (8-12km) 35.35 0.00 N

5 (12-16km) 126.09 0.00 N

6 (16-20km) 54.50 0.00 N

2 (0-4km) 3.15 0.53 Y

3 (4-8km) 39.86 0.00 N

Vp/Vs 4 (8-12km) 41.36 0.00 N

5 (12-16km) 39.53 0.00 N

6 (16-20km) 48.89 0.00 N

63
Table VII.1 show the calculated chi-square value for each layer in each model. The

variables with p-values< 0.05 show that there is a relationship between the calculated

tomographic inversion of p, s-wave arrival time and the earthquake events at these

layers. Therefore rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternative hypothesis

for these variables

Vp Model

Figure VII.1 Histograms juxtapose observed and expected number of earthquakes in the Vp velocity anomaly
model of the ETSZ.

It can be inferred from the graph that observed earthquakes in the Vp model show a

significant difference from the expected in the low – normal bins. The chi-square value

in each layer is presented in American Psychological Association (APA) style this is

most commonly used to cite statistical expression sources within the social sciences

64
χ2([df], N = [total sample size]) = [Chi-squared obtained], p = [p-value]. (American

Psychological Association, 2009)

In layer 2, the analysis was performed with, the p-value (0.19) is greater than alpha (0.

05), therefore it fails to reject null hypothesis [χ2 (4, N =131) = 6.12, p = 0.19]. In this

layer, it appears that the observed earthquakes are preferentially located in the normal

bin (6.05km/s), this means that the variables are independent of each other, and there is

no relationship between the calculated tomographic inversion of p-wave arrival time and

the earthquake events at this layer. This result is to be expected because previous studies

suspect that features in the basement – below the decollement, may control the

seismicity in ETSZ. The depth of seismicity in the ETSZ is estimated to be

approximately 5km - 26km (Johnston et al., 1985; Powell et al., 1994; Vlahovic et al.,

1998). The earthquakes in this layer range from 0-4km.

In layer 3, fails to reject null hypothesis [χ2 (4, N =178) = 8.50, p = 0.07]: this means

that the variables (as observed in layer 2) are independent of each other and there is no

relationship between the calculated tomographic inversion of p-wave arrival time and

the earthquake events at this layer. It appears that the observed earthquakes are

preferentially located in the normal bin (6.24km/s), this result does not support the

observations by Powell et al 2011 that earthquakes prefer high velocities but as stated

earlier the earthquakes in this layer prefer to occur in the normal(6.24km/s).

In layer 4, the null is rejected [χ2 (4, N =239) = 26.25, p = 0.00], this means that the

variables are dependent on each other and there is a relationship between the calculated

tomographic inversion of p-wave arrival time and earthquake occurrence in this layer.
65
There appears to be a significant difference between the observed earthquakes and the

earthquakes in the normal (6.35km/s), the observed earthquakes in this layer are

preferentially located in the normal bin, this differs from observations expected which is

that the earthquakes prefer high velocities. Although the distribution of the earthquakes

in this layer does not support the Powell observations, the layer still supports the

hypothesis that there is a relationship between the earthquake locations and the velocity

field inferred from body-wave travel time tomographic inversion.

In layer 5, the null was rejected [χ2 (4, N =233 = 19.29, p = 0.00], there appears to be a

major difference between the observed earthquake and the expected as the earthquakes

in this layer occur preferentially in the normal bin (6.43km/s) similar analysis made for

layer 4 was made for layer 5.

In layer 6, [χ2 (4, N =191) = 24.23, p = 0.00], the null hypothesis was rejected; the

observed earthquakes in this layer tend to occur in the region of low velocity (6.42km/s).

Similar analysis made for layer 4 was made for this layer; Powell et al (2011) observed

that for the Vp model the earthquakes prefer to occur in the region of high velocity.

66
Vs Model

Figure VII.2: Graphical representation of layers in the Vs is similar to the Vp model graphical representation
in fig 2.2

The earthquake distribution in the Vs model is somewhat similar to the trend observed in

the Vp model. In layer 2, fails to reject the null hypothesis, [χ2 (4, N =133) = 8.85, p =

0.06]. The earthquake distribution for this layer preferentially occur in the region of high

velocity (3.52km/s).this result partly supports the observation made by Powell that

earthquake prefer locations with high S-wave velocity. Although it it fails to reject null,

concluding that there is no relationship exists between variables (earthquake and

velocity anomaly model) in this layer.

In Layer 3 the null hypothesis was rejected [χ2 (4, N =178) = 53.52, p = 0.00], the

earthquakes in this layer tend to favor regions of high velocity (3.64km/s) and the

normal (3.59km/s). The results from this layer fully support Powell et al observations

67
first, that the earthquakes and the velocity models are spatial correlated secondly that the

earthquakes in this layer prefer high s-wave velocity.

In layer 4 the null is rejected [χ2 (4, N =235) = 35.35, p = 0.00], with earthquakes in this

layer tend to occur in region of high velocity (3.71km/s) and the normal (3.66km/s). The

result for the analysis of this is similar to the analysis made in layer 3, which is that it

also fully support Powell et al observations first, that the earthquakes and the velocity

models are spatial correlated secondly that the earthquakes in this layer prefer high s-

wave velocity.

Similar to the conclusion made in layer 3 and 4 for the null was rejected the distribution

in layer 5 [χ2 (4, N =233) = 126.09, p = 0.00] The earthquakes in this layer tend to occur

in regions of high velocity (3.77km/s) and very high velocity (3.86km/s).

In layer 6 the null is rejected [χ2 (4, N =191) = 54.50, p = 0.00] with earthquakes in this

layer tend to occur in region of very high velocity (3.8km/s) and the normal (3.7km/s).

The results in the layer also support the analysis made by Powell et al that earth the

earthquakes in the seismic zone prefer Vs ratios and that that the earthquakes and the

velocity models are spatial correlated.

68
VII.1.1.1.1 Vp/Vs model

Figure VII.3: Graphical representation of layers in the Vp/Vs model and the bin classes with the observed
earthquakes and the expected earthquake

Powell et at (2011) observed that in the Vp/Vs models the earthquakes tend to prefer

regions of low velocity and this exactly what is observed in Figure VII.3 The

earthquake distribution in Vp/Vs layers all appear to prefer very low to low velocity

ratios.

In layer 2, fails to reject null hypothesis χ2 (4, N =133) = 3.15, p = 0.53], and as stated

earlier the earthquakes in this layer prefer the regions of low velocity. However,

according to the chi-square value calculated the earthquake distributions in this layer are

not related to the velocity anomaly model.

In layer 3, the earthquake events tend to occur preferentially in the low and normal bin

(1.74km/s). The null hypothesis was rejected for this layer χ2 (4, N =177) = 39.86, p =

69
0.00], this supports the analysis made by Powell et al, that the earthquakes prefer low

Vp/Vs ratios.

in layer 4 the null was also rejected [χ2 (4, N =237) = 41.36, p = 0.00] the distribution

of earthquakes tend to occur in the region of low velocity(1.76km/s) which supports the

analysis made by Powell et al .

In layer 5 the earthquake distribution are preferentially located in the region of very low

velocity (1.72km/s) the null hypothesis for this layer was also rejected χ2 (4, N =204) =

39.53, p = 0.00]. This proves that a relationship exists between the earthquake locations

and the velocity field inferred from body-wave travel time tomographic inversion and

the results support Powell et al., observations.

70
71
VIII. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to build in a GIS database for the Eastern Tennessee

Seismic Zone, encompassing a land area of approximately 300 km by 50 km. A GIS

database offers benefits to the potential users who are interested in doing a study on the

Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone: integration, efficiency, synthesis, speed, and

flexibility. On the other hand, GIS is just a tool. It has some limitations, such as needing

trained staff or someone who is well versed in use of this tool. The process of building a

geodatabase involved combining vast quantities of data such as geologic, hydrologic,

seismic, geophysical map etc. All of these data were then geo-referenced and entered

into the geodatabase. The data sources included the US Geological Survey, Center for

Earthquake Research and Information NMSZ Earthquake Catalog, World Stress Map,

etc. All the data pertaining to the research were computed into Spatial Data Standards

for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE) to maintain the integrity of the

datasets in the geodatabase. In addition, all data referencing and data integrity were

computed using Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards.

Also part of this project was to quantitatively explore possible relationship between

earthquake locations and velocity anomalies. A geostatistical analysis was performed

using the chi-squared method to determine if the earthquake distributions in the velocity

anomaly layers were random.


In the Vp model Table VII.1 fails to reject null for layer 2 and 3stating that that the

variables involved in the analysis are independent of each other and there is no

relationship between the calculated tomographic inversion of p-wave arrival time and

the earthquake events at this layer. In addition, it appears that the observed earthquakes

in these two layers are preferentially located in the normal bin which does not supports

the observations that made by Powell et al 2011, that the earthquakes prefer high Vp

ratios. For layer 4, 5, and 6 the null was rejected stating that that the variables are

dependent on each other and there is a relationship between the calculated tomographic

inversion of p-wave arrival time and earthquake occurrence in this layer. However for

these layers the earthquakes are preferentially located in the normal velocity rations, this

differs from observations expected that Powell made which is that the earthquakes prefer

high velocities.

For the Vs model, the earthquakes in each layer appear to support the analysis made by

Powell et al that earthquakes prefer high Vs ratios as the earthquakes tend to occur in

regions of high velocity. All the layers rejected the null hypothesis except layer 2; it fails

to reject null.

For the Vp/Vs model, Powell et at (2011) observed that in the Vp/Vs models the

earthquakes tend to prefer regions of low velocity and this exactly what is observed in

Figure VII.3 The earthquake distribution in Vp/Vs layers all appear to prefer very low to

low velocity ratios.


74
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bankey, Viki, Cuevas, Alejandro, Daniels, David, Finn, Carol A. , Hernandez, Israel,

Hill, Patricia, Kucks, Robert, Miles, Warner, Pilkington, Mark, Roberts, Carter, Roest,

Walter, Rystrom, Victoria, Shearer, Sarah, Snyder, Stephen, Sweeney, Ronald, Velez,

Julio, Phillips, J.D., and Ravat, D., (2002) Digital data grids for the magnetic anomaly

map of North America: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-414. U.S.

Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Chapman, M.C., C.A. Powell, G.C. Vlahovic, and M.S. Sibol (1997). A statistical

analysis of earthquake focal mechanisms and epicenter locations in the Easter Tennessee

Seismic Zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 87, no. 6, 1522-1536.

Chouinard, L.E.(1989) Statistical Analysis of Seismicity in Intraplate Regions

Dunn, M.M., and Chapman, M.C. (2006), Fault Orientation in the Eastern Tennessee

Seismic Zone: A Study Using the Double-Difference Earthquake Location Algorithm.

Seismological Research Letters 77, no. 4, 494-504.

Dunn, M.M. (2004), Relocation of Eastern Tennessee Earthquakes Using hypoDD.

Fisher R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Edinburgh: Oliver and

Boyd, 1925, p.43.


Gravetter, F.J. and Wallnau, L.B. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 7th ed.

Wadsworth Publishing, 2007

Heidbach, O., Tingay, M., Barth, A., Reinecker, J., Kurfeß, D., and Müller, B., The

World Stress Map database release 2008 doi:10.1594/GFZ.WSM.Rel2008, 2008.

Hough, S.E., Seeber, L., and Armbruster, J.G., (2003) Intraplate triggered Earthquakes:

Observations and Interpretation. Seismological Society of America 93, no. 5, 2213-

2221.

Johnston, A.C., Reinbold, D.J., and Brewer, S.I., (1985) Seismotectonics of the Southern

Appalachians. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 75, no. 1, 291-312.

King, E.R., and Zietz I. (1978). The New York-Alabama lineament: geophysical

evidence for a major crustal break beneath the Appalachian basin. Geology 6, 312-318.

Kucks, Robert P., 1999, Bouguer gravity anomaly data grid for the conterminous US

Powell, C.A., Withers, M., Vlahovic, G., Arroucau, P., Cox, R.(2011). Three-

Dimensional P- and S-Wave Velocity Models for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.

Powell, C.A., Bollinger G. A., Chapman M.C., Sibol M.S., Johnston A.C., and Wheeler

R.L. (1994). A Seismotectonic model for the 300-kilometer long eastern Tennessee

seismic zone. Science 264, 686-688.

Sandiford, M. and Lundbek Egholm, D. (2008) Enhanced Intraplate Seismicity along

Continental Margins: Some Causes and Consequences. Tectonophysics 457, 197-208.


Schruben, Paul G., Arndt, Raymond E., Bawiec, Walter J., King, Philip B., and

Beikman, Helen M., (1994) Geology of the Conterminous United States at 1:2,500,000

Scale -- A Digital Representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map: U.S.

Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-11, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Steltenpohl, M.G., Zietz, I., Horton, J.W. Jr, and Daniels, D.L (2010). New York-

Alabama Lineament: A Buried Right-Slip Fault Bordering the Appalachians and Mid-

Continent North America. Geology 38, 571-574.

Taylor, J.R. An Introduction to error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical

Measurements. 2nd ed., University Science Books. 1997

Vlahovic, G.C., Powell C.A., Chapman M.C., and Sibol M.S. (1998). Joint hypocenter-

velocity inversion for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone. Journal of Geophysical

Research 103, 4879-4896.

Wheeler, R.L., (1995). Earthquakes and the cratonward limit of Iapetan faulting in

eastern North America. Geology 23, 105-108.

Zoback, M.D. and Zoback, M.L. (1981). State of Stress and Intraplate Earthquakes in

the United States. Science 213, 96-104.

77
78
X. APPENDIX A

Chi-square analysis for the Vp model

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2


1 very low(5.85) 0 31 1.77 0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.04
low(5.95) 0 192 10.98 0.22 -0.22 0.05 0.22
normal(6.05) 2 943 53.92 1.08 0.92 0.85 0.79
high(6.15) 0 314 17.95 0.36 -0.36 0.13 0.36
very high(6.25) 0 269 15.38 0.31 -0.31 0.09 0.31
2 1749 100.00 2.00 1.71

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


2 very low(5.85) 0 25 0.72 0.95 -0.95 0.90 0.95
low(5.95) 10 307 8.89 11.65 -1.65 2.71 0.23
normal(6.05) 86 1933 55.98 73.33 12.67 160.42 2.19
high(6.15) 27 978 28.32 37.10 -10.10 102.08 2.75
very high(6.25) 8 210 6.08 7.97 0.03 0.00 0.00
131 3453 100.00 131.00 6.12
Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2
3 very low(6.04) 83 2174 50.45 89.81 -6.81 46.32 0.52
low(6.14) 72 1789 41.52 73.90 -1.90 3.62 0.05
normal(6.24) 21 280 6.50 11.57 9.43 88.99 7.69
high(6.34) 2 64 1.49 2.64 -0.64 0.41 0.16
very high(6.44) 0 2 0.05 0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.08
178 4309 100.00 178.00 8.50

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


4 very low(6.15) 3 160 3.45 8.24 -5.24 27.47 3.33
low(6.25) 123 2662 57.37 137.12 -14.12 199.26 1.45
normal(6.35) 102 1362 29.35 70.15 31.85 1014.12 14.46
high(6.45) 9 410 8.84 21.12 -12.12 146.86 6.95
very high(6.55) 2 46 0.99 2.37 -0.37 0.14 0.06
239 4640 100.00 239.00 26.25
Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2
5 very low(6.23) 0 81 1.77 4.12 -4.12 17.00 4.12
low(6.33) 88 1928 42.11 98.13 -10.13 102.55 1.05
normal(6.43) 131 2049 44.76 104.29 26.71 713.69 6.84
high(6.53) 14 437 9.55 22.24 -8.24 67.92 3.05
very high(6.63) 0 83 1.81 4.22 -4.22 17.84 4.22
233 4578 100.00 233.00 19.29

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


6 very low(6.32) 0 34 0.73 1.40 -1.40 1.97 1.40
low(6.42) 110 1955 42.22 80.65 29.35 861.48 10.68
normal(6.52) 81 2421 52.29 99.87 -18.87 356.18 3.57
high(6.62) 0 205 4.43 8.46 -8.46 71.52 8.46
very high(6.72) 0 15 0.32 0.62 -0.62 0.38 0.62
191 4630 100.00 191.00 24.73

Chi-square analysis for Vs model

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2


very low(3.27) 0 16 1.179941 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

1 low(3.37) 1 147 10.84071 0.22 0.78 0.61 2.83


normal(3.47) 0 288 21.23894 0.42 -0.42 0.18 0.42
high(3.57) 1 891 65.70796 1.31 -0.31 0.10 0.08
very high(3.67) 0 14 1.032448 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02
2 1356 100 2 3.37

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(3.37) 0 10 0.291375 0.39 -0.39 0.15 0.39

2 low(3.42) 0 78 2.272727 3.02 -3.02 9.14 3.02


normal(3.47) 8 416 12.12121 16.12 -8.12 65.95 4.09
high(3.52) 123 2866 83.50816 111.07 11.93 142.42 1.28
very high(3.57) 2 62 1.806527 2.40 -0.40 0.16 0.07
81
Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2
133 3432 100 133 8.85

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(3.49) 1 160 4.169924 7.42 -6.42 41.25 5.56

low(3.54) 98 2392 62.34037 110.97 -12.97 168.11 1.52


normal(3.59) 55 1134 29.55434 52.61 2.39 5.73 0.11
3 high(3.64) 22 124 3.231691 5.75 16.25 263.98 45.89
very high(3.69) 2 27 0.703675 1.25 0.75 0.56 0.45
178 3837 100 178 53.52

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(3.56) 2 30 0.76746 1.80 0.20 0.04 0.02

low(3.61) 117 2598 66.46201 156.19 -39.19 1535.52 9.83


normal(3.66) 90 1077 27.5518 64.75 25.25 637.73 9.85
4 high(3.71) 25 193 4.937324 11.60 13.40 179.49 15.47
very high(3.76) 1 11 0.281402 0.66 0.34 0.11 0.17
235 3909 100 235 35.35

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(3.62) 0 7 0.178208 0.42 -0.42 0.17 0.42

low(3.67) 4 221 5.626273 13.11 -9.11 82.98 6.33


normal(3.72) 113 2808 71.48676 166.56 -53.56 2869.12 17.23
5 high(3.77) 73 684 17.41344 40.57 32.43 1051.49 25.92
very high(3.82) 43 208 5.295316 12.34 30.66 940.15 76.20
233 3928 100 233 126.09

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


6 very low(3.60) 0 1 0.026171 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05

low(3.65) 0 39 1.020675 1.95 1.95 3.80 1.95


82
normal(3.7) 76 1443 37.76498 72.13 -3.87 14.97 0.21
high(3.75) 84 2145 56.13714 107.22 23.22 539.26 5.03
very high(3.8) 31 193 5.051034 9.65 -21.35 455.93 47.26
191 3821 100 191 54.50

Chi-square analysis for Vp/Vs model

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2


very low(1.69) 2 184 16.68178 0.33 1.67 2.78 8.32

1 low(1.71) 0 167 15.14053 0.30 -0.30 0.09 0.30


normal(1.73) 0 347 31.45966 0.63 -0.63 0.40 0.63
high(1.75) 0 352 31.91296 0.64 -0.64 0.41 0.64
very high(1.77) 0 53 4.805077 0.10 -0.10 0.01 0.10
2 1103 100 2 9.99

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(1.70) 7 143 4.741379 6.31 0.69 0.48 0.08

low(1.72) 36 726 24.07162 32.02 3.98 15.88 0.50


2
normal(1.74) 66 1409 46.71751 62.13 3.87 14.94 0.24
high(1.76) 21 627 20.78912 27.65 -6.65 44.22 1.60
very high(1.78) 3 111 3.680371 4.89 -1.89 3.59 0.73
133 3016 100 133 3.15

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(1.70) 0 52 1.389631 2.46 -2.46 6.05 2.46

low(1.72) 37 771 20.60396 36.47 0.53 0.28 0.01


normal(1.74) 123 1846 49.33191 87.32 35.68 1273.24 14.58
3 high(1.76) 16 913 24.39872 43.19 -27.19 739.06 17.11
very high(1.78) 1 160 4.275788 7.57 -6.57 43.14 5.70
177 3742 100 177 39.86

83
Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2
very low(1.72) 49 853 21.38917 50.69 -1.69 2.86 0.06

low(1.74) 147 1768 44.333 105.07 41.93 1758.19 16.73


normal(1.76) 38 976 24.47342 58.00 -20.00 400.08 6.90
4 high(1.78) 3 344 8.625878 20.44 -17.44 304.27 14.88
very high(1.8) 0 47 1.178536 2.79 -2.79 7.80 2.79
237 3988 100 237 41.36

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(1.72) 174 2028 65.06256 132.73 41.27 1703.41 12.83

low(1.74) 28 794 25.47321 51.97 -23.97 574.34 11.05


normal(1.76) 2 181 5.806866 11.85 -9.85 96.94 8.18
5 high(1.78) 0 104 3.336542 6.81 -6.81 46.33 6.81
very high(1.8) 0 10 0.320821 0.65 -0.65 0.43 0.65
204 3117 100 204 39.53

Layer Bin observed Raster Count %RC expected obs-exp o-e^2 Χ2


very low(1.72) 62 613 16.37286 31.27 -30.73 944.20 30.19

low(1.74) 91 1743 46.55449 88.92 -2.08 4.33 0.05


normal(1.76) 37 1131 30.20833 57.70 20.70 428.40 7.42
6 high(1.78) 1 178 4.754274 9.08 8.08 65.30 7.19
very high(1.8) 0 79 2.110043 4.03 4.03 16.24 4.03
191 3744 100 191 48.89

Table of Chi-square statistics

df P = 0.05 P = 0.01 P = 0.001

84
1 3.84 6.64 10.83

2 5.99 9.21 13.82

3 7.82 11.35 16.27

4 9.49 13.28 18.47

85
XI. APPENDIX B

Content Citation
Title of Content: STATE_AREA
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: The Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone (ETSZ) is an intraplate seismically
active region, which extends from northwest Georgia through east Tennessee [Study Area:
34ºN to 37ºN; 86ºW to 82.5ºW]. It is the second most active earthquake zone east of the
Rocky Mountains, the New Madrid Seismic Zone being the most active (Powell et al., 1994).
Most of the seismicity of this region occurs in the 300km by 50km wide area located in the
Valley and Ridge physiographic province of the southern Appalachians.
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, by the Department of
Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University. This
geodatabase was developed for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS
format such as ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that can be used to improve our understanding of the
seismicity in the area.

Time Period of
Content
Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -87.059204
East Coordinate: -82.139893
North Coordinate: 36.871887
South Coordinate: 33.871277
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, State_area
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia
Spatial Data
Information
Data Type: vector digital data
Data Format: File Geodatabase Feature Class
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage


Information
Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for full access to this data
set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for use limitations of this
data set.

Content Citation
Title of Content: EARTHQUAKE_HYPOCENTER_POINT
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: Precise locations of earthquake hypocenters are important for
identifying potentially seismogenic features, especially in intraplate regions where there is
little or no correlation between seismicity and mapped faults. The earthquakes that range in
magnitude from 0.2 to 4.6, with depth of seismicity in the area estimated to be
approximately 5km - 26km
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, by the Department of
Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University. This
geodatabase was developed for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS
format such as ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that can be used to improve our understanding of the
seismicity in the area.

Time Period of
Content
Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As needed

87
Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -85.930969
East Coordinate: -82.499023
North Coordinate: 36.814087
South Coordinate: 34.341125
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, Earthquake_hypocenter_point
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Spatial Data
Information
Data Type: vector digital data
Data Format: File Geodatabase Feature Class
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage


Information
Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for full access to this data
set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for use limitations of this
data set.

Content Citation
Title of Content: GEOLOGIC_FEATURE_AREA
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: The generalized geologic map of the conterminous United States,
published by the U.S. Geological Survey, contains surficial geology that displays the geologic
age of the rock layers.
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, by the Department of

88
Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University. This
geodatabase was developed for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS
format such as ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that can be used to improve our understanding of the
seismicity in the area.

Time Period of
Content
Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -90.310425
East Coordinate: -75.097595
North Coordinate: 39.465881
South Coordinate: 30.060730
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, Geologic_feature_area
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Spatial Data
Information
Data Type: vector digital data
Data Format: File Geodatabase Feature Class
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage


Information
Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for full access to this
data set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for use limitations of this
data set.

Content Citation

89
Title of Content: SURFACE_WATER_CENTERLINE
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content
Description
Content Summary: Dataset includes information about the surface
waters in the study area.
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-
spatial database for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, by the
Department of Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences of North
Carolina Central University. This geodatabase was developed for the
Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS format such as
ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that can be used to improve our understanding of the
seismicity in the area.

Time Period of
Content
Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -87.058777
East Coordinate: -82.141602
North Coordinate: 36.858887
South Coordinate: 33.873291
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Content
Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, Surface_water_centerline
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Spatial Data
Information
Data Type: vector digital data
90
Data Format: File Geodatabase Feature Class
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage


Information
Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for full
access to this data set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for use
limitations of this data set.
Content Citation
Title of Content: GRAVITY_ANOMALY_PNT
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: Gravity anomalies are produced by density variations within the rocks
of the Earth's crust and upper mantle. Mapping of these density variations is the primary use
of gravity anomalies. The gravitational fields vary slightly from place to place due to the
composition and structure of Earth's crust, the observed Bouguer anomaly map can be
interpreted in terms of rock density variations at depth. The Bouguer gravity anomaly data
grid was obtained from The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) online gravity and
magnetic database (http://irpsrvgis00.utep.edu/repositorywebsite/) and is searchable by
latitude and longitude so the data downloaded is the region of interest in a simple ASCII
format
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, by the Department of
Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University. This
geodatabase was developed for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS
format such as ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that can be used to improve our understanding of the
seismicity in the area.

Time Period of Content


Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -86.202515
East Coordinate: -82.379822
North Coordinate: 37.003113

91
South Coordinate: 33.828491
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data,
Gravity_anomaly_pnt
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Spatial Data Information


Data Type: vector digital data
Data Format: File Geodatabase Feature Class
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage Information


Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution
contact for full access to this data
set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution
contact for use limitations of this
data set.
Content Citation
Title of Content: MAGNETIC_ANOMALY_PNT
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: Aeromagnetic anomaly mapping is useful in providing information
about the geology especially in cases where the structures are scarce or absent (USGS
2002). Airborne measurement of the earth's magnetic field over all of North America
provides gridded data describing the magnetic anomaly caused by variations in earth
materials and structure (USGS 2002). The observed magnetic field is characterized by
significant anomalies, particularly, the northeast trending NY-AL lineament extending roughly
from Alabama to New York and framing most active part of ETSZ from the northwest and the
less prominent Clingman lineament to the southeast.
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, by the Department of
Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University. This
geodatabase was developed for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS
format such as ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that can be used to improve our understanding of the
seismicity in the area.
92
Time Period of Content
Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -86.000427
East Coordinate: -82.500671
North Coordinate: 36.874084
South Coordinate: 34.001709
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina,
Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, Magnetic_anomaly_pnt
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina,
Alabama, Georgia

Spatial Data Information


Data Type: vector digital data
Data Format: File Geodatabase Feature Class
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage Information


Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for
full access to this data set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for
use limitations of this data set.
Content Citation
Title of Content: VELOCITY_ANOMALY
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: the data set includes Seismic tomography for the p-wave travel times

93
as well as the surface wave data to map the velocity variations of the Earth's interior. The
travel time residuals (difference between observed and theoretical travel times from the
hypocenter to the seismometers) are then used to invert for the velocity structure of the
region
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, by the Department of
Environmental, Earth and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University. This
geodatabase was developed for the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone in an accepted GIS
format such as ArcGIS 9.3 so that it that can be used to improve our understanding of the
seismicity in the area.

Time Period of Content


Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -86.994019
East Coordinate: -82.137573
North Coordinate: 36.832092
South Coordinate: 33.862488
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina,
Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, Velocity_anomaly_vp2
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina,
Alabama, Georgia

Spatial Data Information


Data Type: vector digital data
Data Format: File Geodatabase Feature Class
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage Information


Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for
full access to this data set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for

94
use limitations of this data set.
Content Citation
Title of Content: Velocity Models
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: REQUIRED: A brief narrative summary of the data set.
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, Department of Environmental, Earth
and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University so that it that can be used to
improve our understanding of the seismicity in the area.

Time Period of Content


Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West -87.059204
Coordinate:
East -82.139893
Coordinate:
North 36.871887
Coordinate:
South 33.871277
Coordinate:
Coverage Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky,
Area: Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, Etsz_vp_vs_1
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina,
Alabama, Georgia

Spatial Data Information


Data Type: Raster

95
Data Format: File Geodatabase Raster Dataset

Access and Usage Information


Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for
full access to this data set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for
use limitations of this data set.
Content Citation
Title of Content: MAGNETICANOMALY
Type of Content: Downloadable Data
Content Publisher: NCCU DEEGS
Publication Date: 20110527

Content Description
Content Summary: REQUIRED: A brief narrative summary of the data set.
Content Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to be part of the geo-spatial database for
the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone.
Supplemental Information: Established in May 2011, Department of Environmental, Earth
and Geospatial Sciences of North Carolina Central University so that it that can be used to
improve our understanding of the seismicity in the area.

Time Period of Content


Date: May 2011

Content Status
Progress: Complete
Update Frequency: As Needed

Spatial Domain
West Coordinate: -86.006195
East Coordinate: -82.490537
North Coordinate: 36.879715
South Coordinate: 33.995956
Coverage Area: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

Content Keywords
Theme Keywords: Geological Data, Magneticanomaly
Place Keywords: Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

96
Spatial Data Information
Data Type: vector digital data
Data Format: File Geodatabase Raster Dataset
Data Projection: Geographic

Access and Usage Information


Access Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for full
access to this data set.
Use Constraints: Please contact the distribution contact for use
limitations of this data set.

97
XII. APPENDIX C

Changing Map Projection

All feature classes in a feature dataset must have the same spatial references. A feature

dataset can be added to the feature class either by importing existing map or creating a

new one. The spatial reference of the feature dataset is described by

Coordinate system

Spatial domain (X, Y or Lat/Lon coordinate range)

The coordinate system can be modified to another system or projection according to our

needs. We have several options to set the coordinate system for any feature class.

Steps for changing the coordinate system

Open the map document

• Make active the data frame you want to change

• Go to “view” menu and choose “Data Frame Property” and select Coordinate

System tab

• In coordinate system box select Modify, click select and follow the steps by

selecting the coordinate system you want. In the case of this project, NAD 1983

is the coordinate system used for all datasets.


Select by Attributes

To display features that meet specific criteria. In this step, I will use the earthquake dataset to

describe this process. I will select and locate depths of earthquakes greater than 4km but less

than 8km.

1. In ArcMap, from the Selection menu, choose Select By Attributes, which allows you

to select features by building a query.

2. In the Layer dropdown list, choose layer of interest “EARTHQUAKE” . For Method,

make sure "Create a new selection" is selected.

3. In the Fields list, scroll down and double-click on attribute of interest “DEPTH.”

4. Enter query you are interested in, in this case it is earthquakes that occur within a depth

that are greater than 4 but less than 8. Input the following query “ DEPTH ≥ 4 AND

≤8
DEPTH≤

5. Click Apply. Move the Select By Attributes dialog out of the way, so you can see the

map display.

6. Close the Select By Attributes dialog.

7. Right click earthquake layer, click export data (make sure drop down menu indicates

“from selected data.”)

8. Create new layer

Merging GRID files in ArcMap

This procedure outlines steps to merge Digital Elevation Model data into a single file

using ArcMap.
1. From the Spatial Analyst dropdown menu, select Raster Calculator. The Raster

Calculator dialogue box appears.

2. In the expression box at the bottom of the window enter the following text DEM

ETSZ= Merge(. Where "DEMETSZ" will be the name of the merged DEM and

"Merge" is the command for Spatial Analyst to merge the grid files together.

3. Input the following query ([DEM1], [DEM2],….] however many DEM grids you

wish to merge. It is critical to have the proper query or the calculator will not

work.

Extrapolating (Adding New X/Y Data to a Map Project from a Table)

Some of the data included in the geodatabase were downloaded as excel files with

Lat/Lon values, the data will only be presented as a table without a geometry. The

following step detail how to create a feature from a table with XY coordinates.

1. Add the Table with X/Y Coordinate Data to ArcMap.

2. Right-click on the new layer and choose from the menu “Display XY Data.”

The Display XY Data dialog box will appear.

3. Choose the fields from your table that you want to populate with X and Y data.

LATITUDE coordinates should be mapped to the Y value, while

LONGITUDE coordinates should be mapped to the X value. Click OK.

4. This will add your coordinate points to the Map Project as an Event Layer.

5. To preserve the layer, rename it and save it as a new layer file.

100