EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Eric M. Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to Eric M. Thompson.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Ground motions from finite faults with unknown geometry

Earthquake emergency response and loss modeling require accurate models of ground‐motion intensity metrics (IMs), such as those produced by ShakeMap. In the critical minutes and hours after an earthquake, however, knowledge of the earthquake source geometry limits the accuracy of these models, especially in areas where seismic instrumentation is insufficient to constrain the shaking intensity pattern. Previous attempts to overcome this limitation have centered on computing the mean distance metrics from a suite of assumed source geometries. That approach is inadequate with modern ground‐motion models (GMMs) because they typically include terms for the hanging wall effect, depth to top of rupture, and other nonlinear terms. Such approaches also propagate the distance uncertainty through the GMMs and may not properly allocate the additional uncertainty into the between‐ and within‐event components. Here we present Finite‐Fault SIMulation with Mixed Effects Regression (FFSIMMER), a method to address these limitations by computing IM distributions from a suite of rupture realizations that fully accounts for all geometry‐related GMM terms and allows for the separation of the between‐ and within‐event components of the total uncertainty. The accuracy of this method is limited by the available constraints on the source parameters. To address this, FFSIMMER can incorporate constraints based on knowledge of the source, such as the approximate strike and dip based on knowledge of the plate tectonics and focal mechanism of the earthquake. We demonstrate the improvement in accuracy that can be achieved with the 2025 M 7.7 Mandalay, Burma (Myanmar), earthquake by incorporating constraints on the range of plausible source parameters.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

Subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool: Implementation in the USGS 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) periodically releases updates to National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the United States and its territories leveraging current scientific knowledge and methodologies to guide public policy, building codes, and risk assessments regarding potential ground shaking due to earthquakes that may result in infrastructure damage. In subduction zones, there is a need to separate the earthquake catalog into tectonic regimes to create specific seismicity models for which the most appropriate ground‐motion models are then applied. Here, we describe newly developed methods and software, called CatSep, that classifies subduction zone events into three primary tectonic regimes: crustal, interface, and intraslab. This method incorporates information about the location of the earthquake relative to the subducting slab, the depth of the Mohorovičić discontinuity, and the earthquake’s moment tensor. Applying this method is a first step in the NSHM workflow for regions covering U.S. subduction zones. Results using this subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool for the 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands NSHM earthquake catalog are presented and analyzed.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

Preface to the focus section on earthquake-induced ground deformation

Ground failure due to earthquake-induced liquefaction, surface fault rupture, and landsliding has caused substantial damage in the past and continues to pose risks to critical infrastructure in the future. The consideration of ground failure is central to engineering analysis and design, ranging from site-specific engineering assessments of ground failure potential to broader regional-scale ground failure assessments of near-real-time earthquake impacts or longer-term portfolio risk. Uncertainties in all aspects of the problem complicate the prediction of earthquake-induced ground failure, including the identification of hazard-susceptible geomaterials, characterizing their spatial extent and physical properties, spatio-temporal variability in groundwater conditions, characterization of earthquake ground motions, assessing ground failure severity, and linking ground failure severity to infrastructure damage and loss.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2025

Updating regional‐scale geospatial liquefaction models with locally available geotechnical data

We present a method to update the geospatial liquefaction model used by the U.S. Geological Survey’s near‐real‐time ground failure product with subsurface geotechnical data. The geospatial model estimates liquefaction probability from peak ground velocity (via ShakeMap) and geospatial susceptibility proxies. In many regions, additional information relevant to constraining liquefaction likelihood is also available, including surface geology maps and subsurface geotechnical measurements. There is currently no mechanism to use these data in the ground failure product liquefaction model, even though these data could provide more precise constraints on spatial variations in the lithologic character of the soil (surface geology) and direct measurements of the subsurface mechanical properties that affect liquefaction occurrence and severity (geotechnical measurements). In this study, we develop a method to integrate these data with the geospatial model and assess how these data can improve regional‐scale predictions. We develop a Bayesian updating framework and apply it to the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake, for which mapped observations are available to evaluate performance. We constrain the Bayesian framework with 373 Northern California cone penetration tests and liquefaction susceptibility classes based on the mapped surface geology. This Bayesian model incorporates geotechnical information into the geospatial model and more accurately predicts liquefaction occurrences than the geospatial model, while sacrificing less accuracy in terms of predicting the absence of liquefaction than the geotechnical model. In future applications, this approach could be adapted to update other geospatial models using locally available subsurface data.

California↗