Geology ReportsSearch

EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Carl W. Ulberg

Publications and source records attributed to Carl W. Ulberg.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

The potential impact of three-dimensional distributed slip models derived from real-time GNSS data on the performance of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system for slab interface earthquakes

The ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning (EEW) system is designed to warn users of imminent strong ground motion with sufficient time to take protective actions. ShakeAlert currently uses three algorithms to characterize the earthquake source. One estimates the location and magnitude using the first few seconds of the P wave and, while fast, tends to underestimate magnitude for M w 7.0+ earthquakes. A second estimates the location, orientation, length, and corresponding magnitude of a line source using observed peak ground acceleration and contributes primarily to M w 5.5+ earthquakes. The third infers earthquake magnitude from peak ground displacement measured using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data and offers nonsaturating magnitudes for M w 7.0+ earthquakes. Other EEW algorithms exist that infer temporally evolving spatially variable slip on a 3D fault surface from real‐time GNSS data, information that might enable more accurate and timely alerts in the event of large‐magnitude subduction interface earthquakes. Here, we evaluate the potential contribution of one such algorithm, BEFORES ( Minson et al. , 2014 ), to improve ShakeAlert performance through a simulated real‐time implementation of Bayesian evidence‐based fault orientation and real‐time earthquake slip (BEFORES) and other ShakeAlert algorithms using data for eight M w 7.6+ earthquakes. The test results demonstrate that BEFORES can produce well‐constrained and accurate magnitude estimates as soon as or sooner than other EEW algorithms, in turn enabling it to increase the amount of warning time users receive in many cases. However, with a modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) threshold of 3.5, which is commonly used for issuing alerts, BEFORES would tend to alert large geographic regions that did not feel strong shaking (MMI 6+). This effect can be mitigated using a higher alert threshold of MMI 4.5 without negative impact on the amount of warning time obtainable with BEFORES.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System performance during the Mw 7.0 offshore Cape Mendocino earthquake

The 5 December 2024 M w 7.0 Offshore Cape Mendocino earthquake was a challenging test of the U.S. West Coast ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system due to its offshore epicenter and limited near‐source station coverage. We analyzed real‐time performance of all components of the ShakeAlert system, including the seismic algorithms (earthquake point‐source integrated code [EPIC] and Finite‐fault rupture Detector [FinDer]), the geodetic algorithm (Geodetic First Approximation of Size and Time–peak ground displacement [GFAST‐PGD]), and network telemetry during the event. EPIC created the first solution for this earthquake 15 s after origin time with an initial magnitude estimate of M 5.6 and location error of 10 km from the Advanced National Seismic System epicenter. An early spurious trigger from station CE.89101 fortuitously maintained location accuracy and, correspondingly, magnitude accuracy. FinDer contributed its first solution at 18 s with a location estimate closer to the seismic network and produced two distinct rupture geometries, leading to minor fluctuations in estimated intensity contours. GFAST‐PGD did not meet alerting thresholds but otherwise performed as expected. Network latencies were <2 s for most stations, supporting the rapid detection of this earthquake by the system. Roughly five million alerts were delivered to cell phone devices in California and Oregon during this event. This was also the first instance of a school district‐wide ShakeAlert‐powered system being activated. Comparisons to recorded seismograms demonstrate that the maximum warning times before potentially damaging shaking (intensity 6+) were in the range of 5–55 s. Although the ShakeAlert system provided accurate solutions and useful alert delivery, this earthquake raised awareness of potential issues within the system, including the need for improved offshore location estimates, a combination of solutions from ShakeAlert servers, and handling of spurious triggers.

California