Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

David J. Wald

Publications and source records attributed to David J. Wald.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2020

Estimating rupture dimensions of three major earthquakes in Sichuan, China, for early warning and rapid loss estimates

Large earthquakes like in Wenchuan in 2008, MW 7.9, Sichuan, China, provide opportunity for earthquake early warning (EEW) as many heavily shaken areas are far (~50 km) from the epicenter and warning time could be long enough (≥ 5 s) to take effective preventative action. On the other hand, earthquakes with magnitudes larger than ~M 6.5 are challenging for EEW since source dimensions need to be defined in order to adequately estimate shaking. The Finite-Fault Rupture Detector (FinDer) is an approach to identify fault rupture extents from real-time strong motion and/or broadband records. In this study, we playback local and regional on-scale strong motion waveforms recorded during the 2008 MW 7.9 Wenchuan, 2013 MW 6.6 Lushan, and 2017 MW 6.5 Jiuzhaigou earthquakes to study the performance of FinDer for the current layout of the China Strong Motion Network. Overall, the FinDer line-source models agree well with the observed spatial distribution of aftershocks and fault models determined from waveform inversion. However, since FinDer models are constructed to characterize seismic ground motions (as needed for EEW) instead of source parameters, the rupture length can be overestimated for events radiating high levels of high-frequency motions, as is the case in the Lushan earthquake. If the set of strong motion data used had been available in real-time, 50% to 80% of sites experiencing shaking of intensity MMI IV-VII (light to very strong) and 30% experiencing VIII-IX (severe to violent) could have been issued a warning with 10 s and 5 s, respectively, before the arrival of the destructive S-wave. We also show that loss estimates after devastating earthquakes based on the FinDer line-source are more accurate compared to a point-source model. For the Wenchuan earthquake, for example, they predict a four to six times larger number of fatalities and injured, which is consistent with official reports. At the same time, these losses could be provided 1/2~3 hours faster than if based on more complex inversion rupture models.

Sichuan↗
USGS2020

Earthquakes, did you feel it?

The US Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” ® (DYFI) system is an automated system for rapidly collecting macroseismic intensity data from Internet users’ shaking and damage reports and generating intensity maps immediately following earthquakes. Although the collection and assignment of DYFI-based Macroseismic Intensity (MI) data depart from traditional assignments, they are made more quickly, provide more complete coverage at higher spatial resolution, offer citizen input and interaction, and allow data collection at rates and quantities that were not previously possible. These aspects of Internet-based data collection, in turn, allow for data analyses, graphics, and ways to communicate with the public, opportunities that were not feasible with traditional data-collection approaches.

Book chapter↗
USGS2020

A domestic earthquake impact alert protocol based on the combined USGS PAGER and FEMA Hazus loss estimation systems

The U.S. Geological Survey’s PAGER alert system provides rapid (10-20 min) but general loss estimates of ranges of fatalities and economic impact for significant global earthquakes. FEMA’s Hazus software, in contrast, provides time consuming (2-5 hours) but more detailed loss information quantified in terms of structural, social, and economic consequences estimated at a much higher spatial resolution for large domestic earthquakes. We developed a rapid hybrid post-earthquake product that takes advantage of the best of both loss models. First, though, we conducted a systematic comparison of loss estimates from PAGER with Hazus for all significant, relatively recent, domestic earthquakes for which adequate loss data exist — augmented by a dozen ShakeMap scenarios. The systematic comparison of Hazus and PAGER losses provided the basis for selecting the specific loss metrics to present from each system. The signature product will serve as a supplement to the widely deployed PAGER alerts product for significant domestic earthquakes.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2020

An update of USGS bear-real-time earthquake shaking and impact products

We report on advancements in both hazard and consequence modeling that form the core of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) strategy to improve rapid earthquake shaking and loss estimates. Whereas our primary goal is to improve our operational capabilities of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center, the science, software, and datasets behind these systems continue to advance uses and studies of earthquake shaking and impact by the seismological, engineering, financial, and risk modeling communities. Several important updates to our integrated shaking and impact products are outlined and we introduce new earthquake information products that have recently been brought online, including rapid ground failure estimates and more spatially refined loss estimates domestically (in the U.S). We continue to compile, develop, and refine key openly available models and datasets that contribute to calibrating these systems and report on the collection and storage of new inventories. We also describe some of the basic operational considerations in the current generation of these shaking and loss-estimation systems. A key aspect of the product integration and development is leveraging earthquake-hazard and loss-modeling science done internally (within the USGS) and by external researchers and collaborators. Lastly, we outline new opportunities for further research and development by emphasizing scientific, data, and application gaps and challenges that must be solved in order to improve our shaking and impact information tools.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2020

Seismic monitoring & response for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

The 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) passes through extremely remote regions, where there is a high potential for seismic activity. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, the TAPS operator, has been on the forefront of seismic engineering and situational awareness, and continues to enhance its capabilities. TAPS has used earthquake monitoring since the pipeline was constructed in 1977 and recently upgraded to a fourth-generation of its monitoring system. This upgrade includes recent technology to improve accuracy and increase system redundancy, and it incorporates lessons learned during the 2018 M6.3 Kaktovik and the 2018 M7.1 Anchorage earthquakes. The modernized earthquake monitoring system includes strong-motion accelerograph stations installed at key locations along the pipeline tied into the control system to provide real-time detection of seismic events. The accelerometers also telemeter data to provide local constraints in ShakeMap so that they not only provide site-specific shaking values, but also contribute openly to constraining ground motions elsewhere so shaking at locations without stations can be better inferred. Alyeska then employs U. S. Geological Survey’s ShakeCast system to automatically ingest the ShakeMap to provide near real-time alerts of shaking as well as inspection priorities across the system, both for pipeline assets and infrastructure. TAPS stakeholders who receive ShakeCast alerts via email and text messages include controllers, engineers, and emergency managers. As part of our standard post-earthquake protocol, damage assessment checklists have been pre-deployed at multiple locations to guide these teams as they determine the integrity of TAPS following an event. This unprecedented level of situational awareness allows for rapid prioritization and deployment of damage assessment teams. The purpose of this manuscript is to expand on the details of these systems.

Alaska↗
USGS2020

Assessing the long-term earthquake risk for the US National Bridge Inventory (NBI)

We estimate annualized earthquake loss associated with over 600,000 bridges located throughout the contiguous United States. Each year, the Federal Highway Administration, in partnership with State Departments of Transportation, undertake a massive exercise to update the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) by combining data from states, federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and tribal governments. The NBI captures pertinent details related to individual bridges (e.g., their usage, repairs, or retrofits). We make use of the 2018 NBI that contain the necessary engineering attributes needed to assign the appropriate Hazus bridge class for each bridge, which can then be used for engineering risk analyses. Basic structural data, component dimensions, and regional replacement cost factors are used to develop an economic exposure model. This is a significant improvement over previous replacement costs, and as a result of this study, results are now available within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazus platform. Earthquake hazard is defined using the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model. For each bridge location, we obtain an earthquake shaking hazard curve defined in terms of spectral acceleration at a vibration period of 1.0 sec, ensuring that it properly reflects the site-specific soil conditions. We then integrate it with the bridge-specific fragility curve to compute annual probabilities of exceeding various damage states. Next, we perform economic loss analyses using the repair costs associated with specific damage states, resulting in an estimate of mean total annual financial loss for each bridge; this long-term measure of seismic risk enables us to illustrate the distribution of overall financial risk with respect to geographical region, era of construction, or type of bridge.

contiguous United States↗
USGS2019

Earthquakes, ShakeMap

ShakeMap® is an open-source software program employed to automatically produce a suite of maps and products that portray the geographical extent and severity of potentially damaging shaking following an earthquake. ShakeMap’s primary purpose is to provide post-earthquake situational awareness for emergency management and response as well as damage and loss estimation. The availability of ShakeMaps immediately after a significant earthquake is critical for the identification of areas likely to be most damaged. Principal users include first responders, utility companies, response and aid agencies, scientists and engineers, and the media. Maps are made publicly available via the Internet within several minutes of an earthquake’s occurrence. ShakeMap is widely deployed in seismically active, well-instrumented portions of the USA and internationally in numerous countries including Italy, Iceland, Greece, Costa Rica, and Switzerland, among others, and the US...

Book chapter↗
USGS2019

USGS near-real-time products-and their use-for the 2018 Anchorage earthquake

In the minutes to hours after a major earthquake, such as the recent 2018 M w "> M w 7.1 Anchorage event, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produces a suite of interconnected earthquake products that provides diverse information ranging from basic earthquake source parameters to loss estimates. The 2018 Anchorage earthquake is the first major domestic earthquake to occur since several new USGS products have been developed, thus providing an opportunity to discuss the newly expanded USGS earthquake product suite, its timeliness, performance, and reception. Overall, the products were relatively timely, accurate, well received, and widely used, including by the media, who used information and visualizations from many products to frame their early reporting. One downside of the codependence of multiple products is that reasonable updates to upstream products (e.g., magnitude and source characterization) can result in significant changes to downstream products; this was the case for the Anchorage earthquake. However, the coverage of strong‐motion stations and felt reports was so dense that the ShakeMap and downstream products were relatively insensitive to changes in magnitude or fault‐plane orientation once the ground‐motion data were available. Shaking and loss indicators initially fluctuated in the first hour or two after the earthquake, but they stabilized quickly. To understand how the products are being used and how effectively they are being communicated, we analyze the media coverage of USGS earthquake products. Most references to USGS products occurred within the first 48 hr after the event. The lack of coverage after 48 hr could indicate that longer‐term products addressing what actions the USGS is taking or what early reconnaissance has revealed might be useful for those people wanting additional information about the earthquake.

Alaska↗
USGS2019

Earthquakes, PAGER

PAGER, short for Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response, is an automated system developed and run by the US Geological Survey (USGS) that produces information concerning the impact of significant earthquakes around the world within approximately 20 min of any magnitude 5.5 or larger event. PAGER rapidly assesses earthquake impacts by combining populations exposed to estimates of shaking intensity with models of economic and fatality losses based on past earthquakes in each country or region of the world. The main purpose of the PAGER system is to inform emergency responders, government and aid agencies, and the media regarding the scope of the potential disaster. Earthquake alerts – which were formerly sent based on event magnitude and location or population exposure to shaking – are generated based on the estimated range of fatalities and/or economic losses.

Book chapter↗
USGS2019

National earthquake information center strategic plan, 2019–23

Executive Summary Damaging earthquakes occur regularly around the world; since the turn of the 20th century, hundreds of earthquakes have caused significant loss of life and (or) millions of dollars or more in economic losses. While most of these did not directly affect the United States and its Territories, by studying worldwide seismicity we can better understand how to mitigate the effects of earthquakes when they do occur within U.S. borders. Within the U.S. Government, this mandate falls on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), which has the statutory responsibility for monitoring and reporting on earthquakes domestically and globally. The NEIC has been operating since 1966, and throughout its history has been recognized as a world leader for earthquake information. For much of this time, NEIC has been cooperating with a number of regional seismic networks (RSNs) which operate in areas of heightened seismicity in the United States. In 2000, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) was founded as a cooperative umbrella for earthquake-related data collection, analysis, and dissemination in the United States, thereby promoting advanced interoperability between the NEIC and RSN partners. The NEIC also cooperates and coordinates with dozens of global seismic networks. At present (2019), NEIC acquires real-time waveform data from more than 2,000 seismic stations worldwide, contributed from more than 130 seismic networks. Since 2006, the NEIC has operated on a 24-hour, 7-days per week (24/7) basis, and reports on about 30,000 earthquakes per year. Soon after the occurrence of a significant global earthquake, notifications are issued to government representatives, aid agencies, the press, and members of the general public by the Earthquake Notification Service (ENS), electronic feeds, and through the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) website. Event-specific web pages provide detailed source parameter information outlining the location and magnitude of the earthquake, including more detailed source characteristics like moment magnitude and focal mechanisms and finite fault solutions. Further, NEIC produces a suite of real-time situational awareness products, including ShakeMap, ShakeCast, Did-You-Feel-It? (DYFI?), and Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER), to characterize the shaking resulting from the earthquake and the impact it is likely to have on nearby populations and infrastructure. All of these products are ultimately archived in the ANSS Comprehensive Catalog (ComCat), hosted and served by the NEIC. The NEIC also pursues an active research program to improve its ability to characterize earthquakes and understand their hazards. These efforts are all aimed at mitigating the risks of earthquakes to humankind. To maintain its prominent position in earthquake monitoring, the NEIC must continue to evolve, concurrently improving its operations and 24/7 robustness, streamlining services and infrastructure, and keeping pace with research and innovation in the field of seismology. This document outlines how the NEIC might best achieve such goals, by describing specific avenues and opportunities for development in the next five years (2019–23). Several key areas of operational and research focus are identified in this plan as being of the highest importance. First, NEIC must finalize improvements to its regional monitoring capabilities, including the implementation of a variety of improved earthquake detection and association algorithms. One of the most exciting avenues of recent research expansion in earthquake monitoring has involved the use of machine learning; NEIC must explore the benefits of machine learning for improved earthquake detection and source characterization. NEIC also needs to address issues related to the timeliness of earthquake information, exploring the benefits of distributing information as it becomes available, rather than when certain quality criteria are met. To that end, the incorporation of real-time Global Positioning System (GPS) data into the NEIC operational workflow will help improve the speed and accuracy of information for moderate-to-large earthquakes. Finally, NEIC should explore how to further expand and improve the quality and content of the products served during earthquake response efforts, including the generation of new earthquake sequence-specific products, adding an evolutionary component to earthquake information, and continued improvements to earthquake impact products.

Circular↗
USGS2019

Global earthquake response with imaging geodesy: recent examples from the USGS NEIC

The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center leads real-time efforts to provide rapid and accurate assessments of the impacts of global earthquakes, including estimates of ground shaking, ground failure, and the resulting human impacts. These efforts primarily rely on analysis of the seismic wavefield to characterize the source of the earthquake, which in turn informs a suite of disaster response products such as ShakeMap and PAGER. In recent years, the proliferation of rapidly acquired and openly available in-situ and remotely sensed geodetic observations has opened new avenues for responding to earthquakes around the world in the days following significant events. Geodetic observations, particularly from interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) and satellite optical imagery, provide a means to robustly constrain the dimensions and spatial complexity of earthquakes beyond what is typically possible with seismic observations alone. Here, we document recent cases where geodetic observations contributed important information to earthquake response efforts – from informing and validating seismically-derived source models to independently constraining earthquake impact products – and the conditions under which geodetic observations improve earthquake response products. We use examples from the 2013 Mw7.7 Baluchistan, Pakistan, 2014 Mw6.0 Napa, California, 2015 Mw7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, and 2018 Mw7.5 Palu, Indonesia earthquakes to highlight the varying ways geodetic observations have contributed to earthquake response efforts at the NEIC. We additionally provide a synopsis of the workflows implemented for geodetic earthquake response. As remote sensing geodetic observations become increasingly available and the frequency of satellite acquisitions continues to increase, operational earthquake geodetic imaging stands to make critical contributions to natural disaster response efforts around the world.

Remote Sensing↗
USGS2018

A global empirical model for near real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides

Earthquake-triggered landslides are a significant hazard in seismically active regions, but our ability to assess the hazard they pose in near real-time is limited. In this study, we present a new globally applicable model for seismically induced landslides based on the most comprehensive global dataset available; we use 23 landslide inventories that span a range of earthquake magnitudes and climatic and tectonic settings. We use logistic regression to relate the presence and distribution of earthquake-triggered landslides with spatially distributed estimates of ground shaking, topographic slope, lithology, land-cover type, and a topographic index designed to estimate variability in soil wetness to provide an empirical model of landslide distribution. We tested over 100 combinations of independent predictor variables to find the best-fitting model, using a diverse set of statistical tests. Blind validation tests show the model accurately estimates the distribution of available landslide inventories. The results indicate that the model is reliable and stable, with high “balanced accuracy” (correctly vs. incorrectly classified pixels) for the majority of test events. A cross validation analysis shows high balanced accuracy for a majority of events as well. By combining near-real time estimates of ground shaking with globally available landslide susceptibility data, this model provides a tool to estimate the distribution of co-seismic landslide hazard within minutes of the occurrence of any earthquake worldwide for which a USGS ShakeMap is available.

Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface↗
USGS2018

Stronger peak ground motion, beyond the threshold to initiate a response, does not lead to larger stream discharge responses to earthquakes

The impressive number of stream gauges in Chile, combined with a suite of past and recent large earthquakes, makes Chile a unique natural laboratory to study several streams that recorded responses to multiple seismic events. We document changes in discharge in eight streams in Chile following two or more large earthquakes. In all cases, discharge increases. Changes in discharge occur for peak ground velocities greater than about 7–11 cm/s. Above that threshold, the magnitude of both the increase in discharge and the total excess water do not increase with increasing peak ground velocities. While these observations are consistent with previous work in California, they conflict with lab experiments that show that the magnitude of permeability changes increases with increasing amplitude of ground motion. Instead, our study suggests that streamflow responses are binary.

Geophysical Research Letters↗
USGS2018

The intensity signature of induced seismicity

We analyze a comprehensive database of ∼ 63 , 000 "> ∼ 63 , 000 geocoded community intensity observations from > 400 "> > 400 earthquakes of moment magnitude M ≥ 3.5 "> M ≥ 3.5 in Oklahoma from 2010 to 2016 to define the intensity signature of induced events. We show that natural and induced events have similar average intensities within 10 km of the epicenter. At greater distances, induced events have low‐average intensities compared with deeper natural events. These trends are predictable based on ground‐motion prediction equations. They are a consequence of two focal‐depth effects that have offsetting impacts on the strength of ground motion: (1) the epicenter is near the source for shallow events, and (2) the stress parameter scales with focal depth.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2018

Improving near‐real‐time coseismic landslide models: Lessons learned from the 2016 Kaikōura, New Zealand, earthquake

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing near‐real‐time global earthquake‐triggered‐landslide products to augment the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system. The 14 November 2016 M w "> M w Mw 7.8 Kaikōura, New Zealand, earthquake provided a test case for evaluating the performance and near‐real‐time response applicability of three published global seismically induced landslide models. All three models obtain shaking estimates from the USGS ShakeMap, which is updated and sometimes changes significantly in the hours to days after an earthquake. The Kaikōura earthquake is a particularly valuable event that helps us better understand how changes to the ShakeMap affect the landslide models because the ShakeMap evolved significantly over several weeks as multifault rupture and seismic data were incorporated. We used the detailed landslide inventory available for this event for qualitative landslide model evaluation. We found that once a point source was replaced with an approximate rupture extent in ShakeMap, the landslide models were all successful at roughly identifying the area of highest hazard. This is notable, given that the models are relatively simple, coarse in resolution, and are based solely on input proxies that are globally available. However, all of the models dramatically overpredicted the hazard level, which indicates that improvements can be made. Subsequent updates to the ShakeMap resulted in improvements to model performance by some metrics and declining performance by others. In all cases, details of the ShakeMap strongly controlled the spatial pattern, even when those details were erroneous, such as the inclusion of a fault segment that did not rupture. If maps of landslide hazard are to be used effectively for rapid response, then we need to understand and clearly communicate the control that ShakeMap has over the models and how that typically evolves with time and is (or is not) reflected in reported uncertainties.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2018

ShakeMap-based prediction of earthquake-induced mass movements in Switzerland calibrated on historical observations

In Switzerland, nearly all historical Mw ~ 6 earthquakes have induced damaging landslides, rockslides and snow avalanches that, in some cases, also resulted in damage to infrastructure and loss of lives. We describe the customisation to Swiss conditions of a globally calibrated statistical approach originally developed to rapidly assess earthquake-induced landslide likelihoods worldwide. The probability of occurrence of such earthquake-induced effects is modelled through a set of geospatial susceptibility proxies and peak ground acceleration. The predictive model is tuned to capture the observations from past events and optimised for near-real-time estimates based on USGS-style ShakeMaps routinely produced by the Swiss Seismological Service. Our emphasis is on the use of high-resolution geospatial datasets along with additional local information on ground failure susceptibility. Even if calibrated on historic events with moderate magnitudes, the methodology presented in this paper yields sensible results also for low-magnitude recent events. The model is integrated in the Swiss ShakeMap framework. This study has a high practical relevance to many Swiss ShakeMap stakeholders, especially those managing lifeline systems, and to other global users interested in conducting a similar customisation for their region of interest.

Natural Hazards↗
USGS2018

Integrate urban‐scale seismic hazard analyses with the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

For more than 20 yrs, damage patterns and instrumental recordings have highlighted the influence of the local 3D geologic structure on earthquake ground motions (e.g., M "> M M 6.7 Northridge, California, Gao et al. , 1996 ; M "> M M 6.9 Kobe, Japan, Kawase, 1996 ; M "> M M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, Frankel, Carver, and Williams, 2002 ). Although this and other local‐scale features are critical to improving seismic hazard forecasts, historically they have not been explicitly incorporated into the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM, national model and maps), primarily because the necessary basin maps and methodologies were not available at the national scale. Instead, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), its partners, and external groups developed urban seismic hazard maps (urban models and maps) that consider detailed site effects in local areas (e.g., Wong et al. , 2002 ; Cramer et al. , 2006 ; Frankel et al. , 2007 ; Graves et al. , 2011 ). The disconnect between the urban and national hazard models, however, means that the national models, which underlie U.S. building codes and other applications, do not make use of all of the scientific results informing earthquake ground‐shaking hazards. We recommend that future U.S. national seismic hazard assessment make use of all available regional information, including that in urban models. In this column, we describe the roles of and differences between the urban and national models, and discuss the obstacles to and benefits of integrating the urban models with the national model. Future progress on this issue will require further coordination and implementation efforts between the USGS and external partners.

Seismological Research Letters↗