Geology Reports⌕ Search

EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Ruth A. Harris

Publications and source records attributed to Ruth A. Harris.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2026

CRESCENT earthquake dynamic rupture, earthquake cycle, and tsunami code verification platform

Physics-based simulations are critical for understanding natural hazards. The increasing complexity of numerical codes requires benchmark exercises to verify that different computational methods yield consistent results when solving the same governing equations. Here, we present an open-access web platform designed for the verification of earthquake dynamic rupture, seismic cycle, and tsunami simulations. The platform architecture utilizes a modular, serverless backend on Amazon Web Services (AWS) to provide scalable file processing and visualization. A lightweight static web application provides a secure interface for uploading and managing results, while the browser-based data visualization enables interactive analysis of time series and surface grid data. By using structured JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text files to define benchmark structures, the system remains fully extensible, allowing the addition of new scenarios without modifying the underlying software logic. The platform hosts the "The Tsunami Problem Versions" (TTPV) 1 & 2, two benchmarks for 3D fully coupled earthquake dynamic rupture and tsunami generation, and provides a framework for earthquake cycle models. This community resource aims to build trust in numerical simulations and facilitate long-term collaborative code verification as modeling software continues to evolve.

Seismica↗
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↗
USGS2025

Long‐period ground motions from dynamic rupture simulations of large earthquakes on the creeping Hayward–Calaveras–Rodgers Creek fault system

he Hayward, Calaveras, and Rodgers Creek faults in the San Francisco Bay region of California have a high probability of producing a large earthquake in the next decades. Although these faults creep, the creep is insufficient to keep up with their relatively rapid slip rates on their deepest sections, so they have been storing tectonic strain since their last large earthquakes, with the Hayward’s and Rodgers Creek’s more than 150 yr ago. We do not know what the next large Hayward–Calaveras–Rodgers Creek earthquakes will look like or how strongly they will shake the San Francisco Bay region. Harris et al. (2021) used the 3D dynamic (spontaneous) rupture method to simulate large earthquakes on these creeping faults. In this article, we examine the resulting simulated long‐period ( T > 1 s) ground shaking from 0 to 50 km distance, for earthquakes nucleating on the Hayward fault and earthquakes nucleating on the Rodgers Creek fault. We compare these simulated long‐period ground motions with the Boore et al. (2014) well‐established empirically based ground‐motion model suitable for the slowest material velocity in our 3D velocity structure. We find that the simulated long‐period ground motions from the creeping‐fault earthquake scenarios produce a reasonable agreement with the empirical expectations if frictional cohesion is included only where it is appropriate.

California↗
USGS2025

Aftershocks in stress shadows are inconsistent with modeled static Coulomb stress changes

Aftershock triggering is commonly attributed to increases in static Coulomb stress. In some areas, termed "stress shadows", a decrease in Coulomb stress is predicted to suppress earthquake occurrence. However, aftershocks are often observed in the modeled stress shadows. We examine several hypotheses that attempt to reconcile these shadow aftershocks with the static Coulomb stress change model: (1) they appear to be in shadows because of inaccuracy in the stress change calculations, (2) they occur on faults of unusual orientation which actually experienced increased Coulomb stress, (3) they occur on faults with different frictional properties, not modeled well by Coulomb stress, and (4) they are secondary aftershocks triggered by prior aftershocks or afterslip. When tested on the 2016 Mw7.0 Kumamoto, Japan, and 2019 Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California, aftershock sequences, none of these hypotheses can explain the majority of the shadow aftershocks, and taken together these hypotheses can explain only about half of these aftershocks. This implies that Coulomb stress modeling that lacks small-scale fault zone heterogeneity might be inadequate to fully capture the true static stress changes and/or that other physical triggering models are needed, for example transient processes such as delayed triggering by dynamic stress changes from the passing seismic waves.

California↗