Geology topics

Benjamin A. Brooks

Publications and source records attributed to Benjamin A. Brooks.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Earthquake rupture arrest from depth‐dependent frictional stability on the Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Türkiye (Turkey)

Determining why earthquake ruptures stop is a central challenge in earthquake science and seismic hazard assessment. The Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Türkiye, exhibits shallow creep (<∼3 km depth) yet hosts M > 6.5 earthquake ruptures at greater depth. Here, we evaluate whether variations in frictional stability along this segment aided arrest of the 2020 M 6.7 Elaziğ and 2023 M 7.8 Pazarcık earthquake ruptures. Analysis of Sentinel‐1 Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery indicates the 2023 M 7.8 rupture propagated laterally into a metamorphic massif within the Pütürge segment, where slip rapidly decayed below detection limits. Creepmeters along this segment recorded no significant surface afterslip (<3 mm) in the following year. To investigate this fault‐slip behavior, we conducted triaxial friction experiments on Pütürge fault gouge sampled from an outcrop exposure. The gouge, composed primarily of muscovite, quartz, and calcite, is velocity strengthening at conditions approximating 0–2.5 km depth and velocity weakening at 4–5 km depth. This transition to velocity‐weakening friction is associated with enhanced comminution and shear localization observed microstructurally. Our results suggest that depth‐dependent frictional stability of the Pütürge fault segment facilitates rupture nucleation and propagation at depth while maintaining rupture‐arresting behavior near Earth’s surface.

Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone↗

USGS2023

2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake slip distribution controlled by fault geometry inherited from Independence dike swarm

Faults often form through reactivation of pre-existing structures, developing geometries and mechanical properties specific to the system’s geologic inheritance. Competition between fault geometry and other factors (e.g., lithology) to control slip at Earth’s surface is an open question that is central to our knowledge of fault processes and seismic hazards. Here we use remote sensing data and field observations to investigate the origin of the 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake rupture geometry and test its impact on the slip distribution observed at Earth’s surface. Common geometries suggest the fault system evolved through reactivation of structures within the surrounding Independence dike swarm (IDS). Mechanical models testing a range of fault geometries and stress fields indicate that the inherited rupture geometry strongly controlled the M 7.1 earthquake slip distribution. These results motivate revisiting the development of other large-magnitude earthquake ruptures (1992 M 7.3 Landers, 1999 M 7.1 Hector Mine) and tectonic provinces within the IDS.

California↗

USGS2023

Rapid shallow megathrust afterslip from the 2021 M8.2 Chignik, Alaska earthquake revealed by seafloor geodesy

The shallower portions of subduction zone megathrust faults host Earth’s most hazardous tsunamigenic earthquakes, yet understanding how and when they slip remains elusive because of challenges making seafloor observations. We performed Global Navigation Satellite System Acoustic seafloor geodetic surveys before and ~2.5 months after the 29 July 2021 M w (moment magnitude) 8.2 Chignik, Alaska, earthquake and determine ~1.4 meters cumulative co- and post-seismic horizontal displacement ~60 kilometers from the megathrust front. Only for the 2011 M w 9 Tohoku event have closer subduction zone earthquake displacements been observed. We estimate ~2 to 3 meters of megathrust afterslip shallower than 20 kilometers, a portion of the megathrust on which both inter- and co-seismic slip likely had occurred previously. Our analysis demonstrates that by 2.5 months, shallower and deeper moment had effectively equilibrated on the megathrust, suggesting that its tsunamigenic potential remains no more elevated than before the earthquake.

Alaska↗

USGS2021

Post-seismic relaxation following the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence involved predominantly right‐lateral strike slip on a northwest–southeast‐trending subvertical fault in the 6 July M 7.1 mainshock, preceded by left‐lateral strike slip on a northeast–southwest‐trending subvertical fault in the 4 July M 6.4 foreshock. To characterize the postseismic deformation, we assemble displacements measured by Global Positioning System (GPS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar. The geodetic measurements illuminate vigorous postseismic deformation for at least 21 months following the earthquake sequence. The postseismic transient deformation is particularly well constrained from survey‐mode GPS (sGPS) in the epicentral region carried out during the weeks after the mainshock. We interpret these observations with mechanical models including afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation of the lower crust and mantle asthenosphere. During the first 21 months, up to several centimeters of horizontal motions are measured at continuous GPS and sGPS sites, with amplitude that diminishes slowly with distance from the mainshock rupture, suggestive of deeper afterslip or viscoelastic relaxation. We find that although afterslip involving right‐lateral strike slip along the mainshock fault traces and their deeper extensions reach a few decimeters, most postseismic deformation is attributable to viscoelastic relaxation of the lower crust and mantle. Within the Basin and Range crust and mantle, we infer a transient lower crust viscosity several times that of the mantle asthenosphere. The transient mantle asthenosphere viscosity is ∼ 1.3 × 10 17    Pa   s ">

California↗

USGS2021

Robust earthquake early warning at a fraction of the cost: ASTUTI Costa Rica

We show that a fixed smartphone network can provide robust Earthquake Early Warning for at least two orders of magnitude less cost than scientific-grade networks. Our software and cloud-based data architecture that we have constructed for the Alerta Sismica Temprana Utilizando Teléfonos Inteligentes (ASTUTI; Earthquake Early Warning Utilizing Smartphones) network in Costa Rica is easily scaled and exported. Implementation comprises provisioning and installing modern smartphones in judicious locations. Stand-up time for regionally operational networks can be on the order of days. We evaluated a non-parametric ground-motion detection and alerting strategy that would alert the entire Costa Rican population of any event with a ground motion detection threshold of 0.55–0.65 %g at four neighboring stations. During a 6-month evaluation period ASTUTI detected and alerted on five of 13 earthquakes with M w 4.8–5.3 that caused felt Modified Mercalli Intensity shaking levels of 4.3–6. The system did not produce any false alerts and the undetected events did not produce wide-spread or significant felt shaking. System latencies were less than or similar to scientific-grade latencies. Alerts for all five detected events would have reached the capital city, San Jose, before strong S -wave shaking. This would have afforded time for Drop Cover Hold On actions by most residents. Two of the five alerts were triggered by P -waves suggesting that smartphone-based networks could approach the fastest theoretical EEW performance, especially with future expected improvements in smartphone sensors and processing algorithms.

AGU Advances↗

USGS2021

Commentary: The role of geodetic algorithms for earthquake early warning in Cascadia

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system issues public alerts in California and will soon extend to Oregon and Washington. The Cascadia subduction zone presents significant new challenges and opportunities for EEW. Initial publications suggested that EEW algorithms based on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data could provide improved warning for intraslab events and dramatically improved warning for offshore megathrust events, both of which contribute significantly to hazard in Cascadia. We find that some expectations in these publications were unrealistic, and we demonstrate that in general geodetic algorithms would not produce timely warnings for intraslab events nor warning times of two minutes or more for severe shaking from megathrust earthquakes. Nonetheless, lessons from recent earthquakes in Japan and California, for which alerts from seismic algorithms suffered from magnitude saturation and high data latencies, demonstrate the urgent need for rigorous testing of geodetic EEW as a potential complement to seismic EEW.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

Documentation of Surface Fault Rupture and Ground‐Deformation Features Produced by the 4 and 5 July 2019 Mw 6.4 and Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

The M w "> M w Mw 6.4 and M w "> M w Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence occurred on 4 and 5 July 2019 within the eastern California shear zone of southern California. Both events produced extensive surface faulting and ground deformation within Indian Wells Valley and Searles Valley. In the weeks following the earthquakes, more than six dozen scientists from government, academia, and the private sector carefully documented the surface faulting and ground‐deformation features. As of December 2019, we have compiled a total of more than 6000 ground observations; approximately 1500 of these simply note the presence or absence of fault rupture or ground failure, but the remainder include detailed descriptions and other documentation, including tens of thousands of photographs. More than 1100 of these observations also include quantitative field measurements of displacement sense and magnitude. These field observations were supplemented by mapping of fault rupture and ground‐deformation features directly in the field as well as by interpreting the location and extent of surface faulting and ground deformation from optical imagery and geodetic image products. We identified greater than 68 km of fault rupture produced by both earthquakes as well as numerous sites of ground deformation resulting from liquefaction or slope failure. These observations comprise a dataset that is fundamental to understanding the processes that controlled this earthquake sequence and for improving earthquake hazard estimates in the region. This article documents the types of data collected during postearthquake field investigations, the compilation effort, and the digital data products resulting from these efforts.

California↗

USGS2020

Surface displacement distributions for the July 2019 Ridgecrest, California earthquake ruptures

Surface rupture in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence occurred along two orthogonal cross faults and includes dominantly left‐lateral and northeast‐striking rupture in the M w "> M w 6.4 foreshock and dominantly right‐lateral and northwest‐striking rupture in the M w "> M w 7.1 mainshock. We present > 650 "> > 650 field‐based, surface‐displacement observations for these ruptures and synthesize our results into cumulative along‐strike displacement distributions. Using these data, we calculate displacement gradients and compare our results with historical strike‐slip ruptures in the eastern California shear zone. For the M w "> M w 6.4 rupture, we report 96 displacements measured along 18 km of northeast‐striking rupture. Cumulative displacement curves for the rupture yield a mean left‐lateral displacement of 0.3–0.5 m and maximum of 0.7–1.6 m. Net mean vertical displacement based on the difference of down‐to‐the‐west (DTW) and down‐to‐the‐east (DTE) displacement curves is close to zero (0.02 m DTW). The M w "> M w 6.4 displacement distribution shows that the majority of displacement occurred southwest of the intersection with the M w "> M w 7.1 rupture. The M w "> M w 7.1 rupture is northwest‐striking and 50 km long based on 576 field measurements. Displacement curves indicate a mean right‐lateral displacement of 1.2–1.7 m and a maximum of 4.3–7.0 m. Net vertical displacement in the rupture averages 0.3 m DTW. The M w "> M w 7.1 displacement distributions demonstrate that maximum displacement occurred along a 12‐km‐long portion of the fault near the M w "> M w 7.1 epicenter, releasing 66% of the geologically based seismic moment along 24% of the total rupture length. Using our displacement distributions, we calculate kilometer‐scale displacement gradients for the M w "> M w 7.1 rupture. The steepest gradients ( ⁠ ∼ 1 – 3    m / km "> ∼ 1 – 3 m / km ⁠ ) flank the 12‐km‐long region of maximum displacement. In contrast, gradients for the 1992 M w "> M w 7.3 Landers and 1999 M w "> M w 7.1 Hector Mine earthquakes are < 0.6    m / km "> < 0.6 m / km . Our displacement distributions are important for understanding the influence of cross‐fault rupture on M w "> M w 6.4 and 7.1 rupture length and displacement and will facilitate comparisons with distributions generated remotely and at broader scales.

California↗

USGS2020

Kinematics of fault slip associated with the July 4-6 2019 Ridgecrest, Californai earthquakes sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence produced observable crustal deformation over much of central and southern California, as well as surface rupture over several tens of kilometers. To obtain a detailed picture of the fault slip involved in the 4 July M 6.4 foreshock and 6 July M 7.1 mainshock, we combine strong‐motion seismic waveforms with crustal deformation observations to obtain kinematic and static slip models of both events. We sample the regional seismic wavefield for both the foreshock and mainshock with three‐component records from 31 stations of the California Integrated Seismic Network. The deformation observations include Global Positioning System (GPS), Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), and borehole strainmeter recordings of the dynamic strain field. These data collectively constrain the kinematic coseismic slip distributions of the events, with measurements variously observing coseismic slip from one event (e.g., seismic waveforms, kinematic solutions from continuous GPS, and strainmeter time series) or coseismic slip from both events combined (InSAR). We find that the foreshock ruptured two separate faults, one with left‐lateral strike slip on a northeast–southwest‐trending fault and the other with right‐lateral strike slip on an orthogonal fault, with unilateral rupture propagation along both. The mainshock ruptured a series of northwest–southeast‐trending faults with right‐lateral strike slip concentrated in the uppermost 6 km with exceptionally low‐rupture velocity averaging 1.0 – 1.5    km / s ">

California↗

USGS2020

Rapid geodetic observations of spatiotemporally varying postseismic deformation following the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence: The U.S. Geological Survey response

The U.S. Geological Survey’s geodetic response to the 4–5 July 2019 (Pacific time) Ridgecrest earthquake sequence comprised primarily the installation and/or reoccupation of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) monumentation. Our response focused primarily on the United States’ Navy’s China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station base (NAWSCL). This focus was because much of the surface rupture occurred on the NAWSCL and because of NAWSCL access restrictions only permitting Federal and State of California personnel. In total, we measured or are still measuring at 24 sites, 14 of which were on the NAWSCL and, as of this writing, operational. The majority of sites were set up as continuous stations logging at either 1 sample per second or 1 sample per 15 s. Two stations were recording a 200 m cross‐rupture aperture starting ∼10 hr after the M 6.4 event, and they recorded the coseismic displacements of the M 7.1. Approximately, 1 hr after the M 7.1 event, two new stations were recording a ∼200 m cross‐rupture aperture of the surface rupture. In the days following, we established the rest of the stations ranging to a distance of ∼15 km from the M 7.1 principal rupture trace. The lack of differential displacement across the M 6.4 rupture during the M 7.1 event suggests that it did not reactivate the M 6.4 plane. The lack of differential cross‐fault displacement for both events suggests that rapid shallow afterslip did not occur at those two locations. The postseismic time series from these stations shows centimeters of horizontal displacement over periods of a few months. They record a mixture of fault‐parallel and fault‐normal displacements that, in conjunction with analysis of more spatially complete Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar displacement fields, suggest that both poroelastic and afterslip phenomena occur along the M 6.4 and 7.1 rupture planes. Using preliminary data from these and other regional stations, we also explore the Ridgecrest sequence’s effect on regional GNSS time series and the differentiation of long‐term postseismic motions and secular deformation rates. We find that redefining a common‐mode noise filter using different GNSS stations that are assumed to be unaffected by the earthquakes results in small but systematic differences in the regional velocity field estimate.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2020

Airborne lidar and electro-optical imagery along surface ruptures of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, Southern California

Surface rupture from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, initially associated with the M 6.4 foreshock, occurred on July 4 on a ~17 km long, northeast-southwest oriented, left-lateral zone of faulting. Following the M 7.1 mainshock on July 5 (local time), extensive northwest-southeast-oriented, right-lateral faulting was then also mapped along a ~50 km long zone of faults, including sub-parallel splays in several areas. The largest slip was observed in the epicentral area, and crossing the dry lakebed of China Lake to the southeast. Surface fault rupture mapping by a large team, reported elsewhere, was used to guide the airborne data acquisition reported here. Rapid rupture mapping allowed for accurate and efficient flight line planning for the high-resolution lidar and aerial photography. Flight line planning trade-offs were considered to allocate the medium (25 pulses per square meter, or ppsm) and high resolution (80 ppsm) lidar data collection polygons. The National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM) acquired the airborne imagery with a Titan multispectral lidar system and DiMAC aerial digital camera, and USGS acquired GPS ground control data. This effort required extensive coordination with the Navy as much of the airborne data acquisition occurred within their restricted airspace at the China Lake Ranges.

Calilfornia↗

USGS2020

Mechanics of near-field deformation during co- and post-seismic shallow fault slip

Poor knowledge of how faults slip and distribute deformation in the shallow crust hinders efforts to mitigate hazards where faults increasingly intersect with the expanding global population at Earth’s surface. Here we analyze two study sites along the 2014 M 6.0 South Napa, California, earthquake rupture, each dominated by either co- or post-seismic shallow fault slip. We combine mobile laser scanning (MLS), active-source seismic tomography, and finite element modeling to investigate how deformation rate and mechanical properties of the shallow crust affect fault behavior. Despite four orders-of-magnitude difference in the rupture velocities, MLS-derived shear strain fields are remarkably similar at the two sites and suggest deceleration of the co-seismic rupture near Earth’s surface. Constrained by the MLS and seismic data, finite element models indicate shallow faulting is more sensitive to lithologic layering and plastic yielding than to the presence of fault compliant zones (i.e., regions surrounding faults with reduced stiffness). Although both elastic and elastoplastic models can reproduce the observed surface displacement fields within the uncertainty of MLS data, elastoplastic models likely provide the most reliable representations of subsurface fault behavior, as they produce geologically reasonable stress states and are consistent with field, geodetic, and seismological observations.

California↗

USGS2019

Coseismic slip and early afterslip of the M6.0 August 24, 2014 South Napa, California, earthquake

We employ strong motion seismograms and static offsets from the Global Positioning System, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, and other measurements in order to derive a coseismic slip and afterslip model of the M6.0 24 August 2014 South Napa earthquake. This earthquake ruptured an ∼13‐km‐long portion of the West Napa fault with predominantly right‐lateral strike slip. In the kinematic seismic slip inversions, we couple the coseismic slip and afterslip distributions by requiring both distributions to involve right‐lateral strike slip with positive amplitude, with the net static slip being the sum of the two. We consider several candidate fault geometries: a first involving two steeply east dipping fault planes that reach Earth's surface at the western surface trace (STW), where most surface rupture was observed, a second involving a steeply west dipping plane that also reaches Earth's surface at the STW, and a third involving a combination of two variably west dipping planes constrained to pass through the locus of postseismic seismicity located ∼1 km west of the STW. The data are best fit using the model of two east dipping fault planes, with coseismic slip up to ∼1.2 m on a dominant shallow asperity about 10 km north of the hypocenter and on deeper asperities on the southern part of the rupture. Afterslip up to 1 m is concentrated along the southern part of the rupture at depths 5 km, consistent with surface observations of afterslip. Seismic moments associated with coseismic slip and afterslip are 1.13×10 18 N m (Mw 6.00) and 3.64×10 17 N m, respectively.

California↗

USGS2019

Regional Global Navigation Satellite System networks for crustal deformation monitoring

Regional networks of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations cover seismically and volcanically active areas throughout the United States. Data from these networks have been used to produce high‐precision, three‐component velocity fields covering broad geographic regions as well as position time series that track time‐varying crustal deformation. This information has contributed to assessing interseismic strain accumulation and related seismic hazard, revealed previously unknown occurrences of aseismic fault slip, constrained coseismic slip estimates, and enabled monitoring of volcanic unrest and postseismic deformation. In addition, real‐time GNSS data are now widely available. Such observations proved invaluable for tracking the rapidly evolving eruption of Kīlauea in 2018. Real‐time earthquake source modeling using GNSS data is being incorporated into tsunami warning systems, and a vigorous research effort is focused on quantifying the contribution that real‐time GNSS can make to improve earthquake early warnings as part of the Advanced National Seismic System ShakeAlert system. Real‐time GNSS data can also aid in the tracking of ionospheric disturbances and precipitable water vapor for weather forecasting. Although regional GNSS and seismic networks generally have been established independently, their spatial footprints often overlap, and in some cases the same institution operates both types of networks. Further integration of GNSS and seismic networks would promote joint use of the two data types to better characterize earthquake sources and ground motion as well as offer opportunities for more efficient network operations. Looking ahead, upgrading network stations to leverage new GNSS technology could enable more precise positioning and robust real‐time operations. New computational approaches such as machine learning have the potential to enable full utilization of the large amounts of data generated by continuous GNSS networks. Development of seafloor Global Positioning System‐acoustic networks would provide unique information for fundamental and applied research on subduction zone seismic hazard and, potentially, monitoring.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2019

Illuminating subduction zone rheological properties in the wake of a giant earthquake

Deformation associated with plate convergence at subduction zones is accommodated by a complex system involving fault slip and viscoelastic flow. These processes have proven difficult to disentangle. The 2010 M w 8.8 Maule earthquake occurred close to the Chilean coast within a dense network of continuously recording Global Positioning System stations, which provide a comprehensive history of surface strain. We use these data to assemble a detailed picture of a structurally controlled megathrust fault frictional patchwork and the three-dimensional rheological and time-dependent viscosity structure of the lower crust and upper mantle, all of which control the relative importance of afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation during postseismic deformation. These results enhance our understanding of subduction dynamics including the interplay of localized and distributed deformation during the subduction zone earthquake cycle.

Science Advances↗

USGS2019

Preliminary report on engineering and geological effects of the July 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

The Ridgecrest Earthquake sequence included a foreshock event on July 4 2019 (M6.4) and a M7.1 mainshock event on July 5 2019. These events occurred in the Eastern California Shear Zone, near Indian Wells Valley, south of China Lake and west of Searles Valley. GEER has partnered with several organizations to collect perishable data and document the important impacts of these events, including the US Geological Survey, the California Geological Survey, the US Navy, the Southern California Earthquake Center, and local utilities. Critical geotechnical features of this event are extensive left-lateral (M6.4 event) and right-lateral (M7.1 event) surface ruptures over fault segments of variable complexity and width as well as across extensional and compressive step-over zones. We also document lifeline performance at fault crossings (gas, water, electrical), mainshock slip and afterslip, liquefaction and lateral spreading features, and liquefaction effects on structures. These effects are documented using field (ground) mapping and aerial imagery that will support subsequent development of high-resolution digital elevation models. Over 750 ground motions were recorded from the foreshock and mainshock alone, with many additional aftershock records. The data demonstrate significant impacts of site response and rupture directivity on ground motion attributes.

Report↗

USGS2018

Research to improve ShakeAlert earthquake early warning products and their utility

Earthquake early warning (EEW) is the rapid detection of an earthquake and issuance of an alert or notification to people and vulnerable systems likely to experience potentially damaging ground shaking. The level of ground shaking that is considered damaging is defined by the specific application; for example, manufacturing equipment may experience damage at a lower intensity ground shaking than would cause damage to a building. Along the West Coast of the United States, the warning times for ground shaking could range as high as tens of seconds for moderate levels of ground shaking, or potentially longer, if a lower ground-shaking threshold is used to issue alerts. However, it is not always possible to provide advance warning of ground shaking, particularly for locations close to an earthquake that are most likely to experience very strong ground shaking. EEW alerts may be useful to individuals who can use a few seconds to move to a safe zone and to electromechanical systems that can take automatic actions to reduce damage and injuries. An EEW system, ShakeAlert, has been under development in the United States since 2006. Federal and State governments, as well as the private sector, are now investing in the ShakeAlert prototype system that will, when completed, become an operational public system for the West Coast of the United States. While the current prototype is delivering alerts to test users, improvements to the accuracy, timeliness, and utility of the alerts are needed. For this reason, it is essential that the ShakeAlert system be continuously improved through targeted research, involving not only the current ShakeAlert partner organizations, but also the broader scientific, engineering, and emergencyresponse communities. To this end, this report describes the opportunities for improvement that can be addressed through research and development over the next 5 years. Our recommendations are organized into four areas: (1) understand EEW capabilities and user needs, (2) make alerts as fast and accurate as possible, (3) ensure reliability when it counts, and (4) explore the use of new instrumentation. The first challenge is to understand EEW capabilities and user needs. EEW must deliver actionable information to people and to automated systems to mitigate short- and longterm impacts of damaging ground shaking, so development of EEW must be motivated by the needs of users. Within this challenge, we must study the technical capabilities and limitations of EEW in general, and the ShakeAlert system specifically. This includes development of performance metrics that assess the timeliness and accuracy of alerts to understand the value and utility of the ShakeAlert EEW product(s) for various user groups, including different industry sectors, emergency-management agencies, and the public. Research is needed to define the alerting choices that maximize the utility of the system for users and to determine what the available communication pathways are for providing timely alert information. Additionally, we engage users to assess how alerts will be used by different sectors to mitigate losses and to inform EEW product design. Further, social-science research is needed to develop alert messaging, including what relevant prior and follow-up information are required, to ensure effective use of alerts. The second challenge is to make alerts as fast and as accurate as possible. The timeliness and accuracy of an EEW alert is important because it will set in motion a series of actions and downstream products. An EEW alert will trigger notification across emergency-alert systems and across multiple communication channels to populations in impacted regions. The EEW alert region may grow as the earthquake fault-rupture length increases, and the EEW system’s characterization of it, evolves. We must continue research into new or improved seismic and geodetic waveform-processing methods necessary to rapidly characterize the expected ground shaking and associated uncertainties. It is important to thoroughly evaluate whether new methods improve alerts through more accurate ground-motion estimates and (or) reduced latencies (that is, longer warning times). New methods could include tracking the extent of a large rupture in real time (known as finite-fault algorithms) and ground-motionbased EEW algorithms. Additionally, ground motion predictions could be optimized for each earthquake as the earthquake fault rupture progresses by using, for example, event terms to shift ground-motion curves for more (or less) energetic ruptures. The third challenge is to ensure reliability when it counts. This challenge requires us to explore approaches that assess the expected performance of ShakeAlert across the range of earthquake magnitudes, locations, and depths that may occur within the alerting region. Large, damaging earthquakes and their associated aftershock sequences matter most for hazard and for EEW, but these large-earthquake sequences occur infrequently. We expect ShakeAlert to respond robustly to these large-earthquake sequences despite potentially long periods of relative seismic quiescence in the intervening years, and in spite of inevitable communication challenges that arise during and after a large earthquake. We must develop methods to utilize the broadest available datasets to test EEW performance, including ground-motion data recorded in other parts of the world. The observational period for large, damaging earthquakes in any particular region has been short in comparison to estimated large-earthquake recurrence times. Ground-motion records for very large, damaging western United States events and major aftershock sequences do not yet exist, nor do data exist for all potential sources of noise and spurious signals that ShakeAlert must be “tuned” to reject. In addition, robust synthetic data could provide the flexibility to test a wider range of earthquake magnitude, tectonic-setting, and noise scenarios than are covered by existing observational data. Synthetic ground-motion data must be thoroughly vetted against records of smaller magnitude earthquakes to ensure that they accurately capture both the onset and the amplitude of the ground shaking. The final challenge is to explore the use of new instrumentation. The development of EEW around the world to date has focused on the use of high-quality, scientific-grade seismic and geodetic instrumentation. The use of additional types of instrumentation or information may also improve EEW products by filling gaps in sensor coverage in countries that already have dense seismic networks or enable EEW in countries without such networks. We must keep up with these developments and continuously assess their value in supplementing existing EEW systems, such as ShakeAlert, or enabling EEW where such systems do not exist. Such developments include low-cost instrumentation with microelectromechanical system (MEMS) sensors and global positioning system (GPS)/global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antennas embedded in low-cost consumer electronics, sea-floor seismometers, geodetic instrumentation deployed along the Cascadia and Alaska megathrust margins of western North America, and borehole strainmeters that are already deployed across the region.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Leveraging geodetic data to reduce losses from earthquakes

Seismic hazard assessments that are based on a variety of data and the best available science, coupled with rapid synthesis of real-time information from continuous monitoring networks to guide post-earthquake response, form a solid foundation for effective earthquake loss reduction. With this in mind, the Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) engages in a variety of undertakings, both established and emergent, in order to provide high quality products that enable stakeholders to take action in advance of and in response to earthquakes. Examples include the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), development of tools for improved situational awareness such as earthquake early warning (EEW) and operational earthquake forecasting (OEF), research about induced seismicity, and new efforts to advance comprehensive subduction zone science and monitoring. Geodetic observations provide unique and complementary information directly relevant to advancing many aspects of these efforts (fig. 1). EHP scientists have long leveraged geodetic data for a range of influential studies, and they continue to develop innovative observation and analysis methods that push the boundaries of the field of geodesy as applied to natural hazards research. Given the ongoing, rapid improvement in availability, variety, and precision of geodetic measurements, considering ways to fully utilize this observational resource for earthquake loss reduction is timely and essential. This report presents strategies, and the underlying scientific rationale, by which the EHP could achieve the following outcomes: The EHP is an authoritative source for the interpretation of geodetic data and its use for earthquake loss reduction throughout the United States and its territories. The USGS consistently provides timely, high quality geodetic data to stakeholders. Significant earthquakes are better characterized by incorporating geodetic data into USGS event response products and by expanded use of geodetic imaging data to assess fault rupture and source parameters. Uncertainties in the NSHM, and in regional earthquake models, are reduced by fully incorporating geodetic data into earthquake probability calculations. Geodetic networks and data are integrated into the operations and earthquake information products of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). Earthquake early warnings are improved by more rapidly assessing ground displacement and the dynamic faulting process for the largest earthquakes using real-time geodetic data. Methodology for probabilistic earthquake forecasting is refined by including geodetic data when calculating evolving moment release during aftershock sequences and by better understanding the implications of transient deformation for earthquake likelihood. A geodesy program that encompasses a balanced mix of activities to sustain missioncritical capabilities, grows new competencies through the continuum of fundamental to applied research, and ensures sufficient resources for these endeavors provides a foundation by which the EHP can be a leader in the application of geodesy to earthquake science. With this in mind the following objectives provide a framework to guide EHP efforts: Fully utilize geodetic information to improve key products, such as the NSHM and EEW, and to address new ventures like the USGS Subduction Zone Science Plan. Expand the variety, accuracy, and timeliness of post-earthquake information products, such as PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), through incorporation of geodetic observations. Determine if geodetic measurements of transient deformation can significantly improve estimates of earthquake probability. Maintain an observational strategy aligned with the target outcomes of this document that includes continuous monitoring, recording of ephemeral observations, focused data collection for use in research, and application-driven data processing and analysis systems. Collaborate on research, development, and operation of affordable, high-precision seafloor geodetic methods that improve earthquake forecasting and event response. Advance computational techniques and instrumentation to enable use of strategies like repeat-pass imagery and low-cost geodetic sensors for earthquake response, monitoring, and research. Engage stakeholders and collaborate with partner institutions to foster operational and research objectives and to safeguard the continued health of geodetic infrastructure upon which we mutually depend. Maintaining a vibrant internal research program provides the foundation by which the EHP can remain an effective and trusted source for earthquake science. Exploiting abundant new data sources, evaluating and assimilating the latest science, and pursuing novel avenues of investigation are means to fulfilling the EHP’s core responsibilities and realizing the important scientific advances envisioned by its scientists. Central to the success of such a research program is engaging personnel with a breadth of competencies and a willingness and ability to adapt these to the program’s evolving priorities, enabling current staff to expand their skills and responsibilities, and planning holistically to meet shared workforce needs. In parallel, collaboration with external partners to support scientific investigations that complement ongoing internal research enables the EHP to strengthen earthquake information products by incorporating alternative perspectives and approaches and to study topics and geographic regions that cannot be adequately covered internally. With commensurate support from technical staff who possess diverse skills, including engineering, information technology, and proficiency in quantitative analysis combined with basic geophysical knowledge, the EHP can achieve the geodetic outcomes identified in this document.

Open-File Report↗