Geology topics

Sarah E. Minson

Publications and source records attributed to Sarah E. Minson.

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↗

USGS2026

Remote compositional analyses of space-weathered lunar maria

Visible-to-shortwave infrared (VSWIR) reflectance spectroscopy has revolutionized our understanding of planetary surface compositions. However, space-weathering processes on airless bodies complicate quantitative compositional analyses. Here, we present a framework to isolate the signatures of space weathering in VSWIR spectra of lunar maria by leveraging radiative transfer modeling under the assumptions that (i) a space-weathered target can be expressed as a mixture of fresh and fully space-weathered components and (ii) remaining signatures can be modeled by including agglutinates as an end-member component. We first validate this approach against laboratory spectra of space-weathered Apollo mare soils of known mineral compositions using a probabilistic Markov Chain Monte Carlo implementation of the Hapke radiative transfer model. Second, we illustrate how this approach can be applied to orbital Moon Mineralogy Mapper data. The proposed space-weathering correction workflow for lunar maria could be expanded to other lunar lithologies and applied to existing and future data sets.

Planetary Science Journal↗

USGS2025

Near-fault amplification and ground motion variability during the 2019 Ridgecrest, California sequence

We estimate ground-motion variability near the 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. Accurate seismic hazard estimation requires understanding ground-motion spatial correlations, yet many studies lack the dense station coverage needed to resolve small-scale variability. The 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence presents a unique opportunity to examine ground motions and their spatial correlations at a range of interstation distances. The permanent seismic network was augmented with hundreds of temporary stations including several fault-crossing nodal arrays. We compute the event ( δE i ) and within-event ( δW ij ) residuals from the observed peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration data to isolate potential sources of ground-motion variability. We then compare δW ij between station pairs that record an event to understand the semivariance of the ground motion versus interstation distance. By fitting an exponential model to the semivariances, we determine a correlation range of 25 km for the Ridgecrest region. Although the exponential model fits the broad-scale increase of semivariance with interstation distance, we also observe smaller-scale trends. We find that ground motions are less correlated for station pairs that are near or across faults that ruptured during the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence. We also find large, positive median δW ij with relative values 2–3 times larger than nearby stations for individual stations’ near-fault traces. Near-fault amplification and greater ground-motion variability can delineate fault zones and may locally increase the seismic hazard.

California↗

USGS2025

Mechanics and statistics of postseismic shaking

Analysis of two weeks of continuous post-seismic shaking after the 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest, CA earthquake sequence using 4 nearby borehole seismometers reveals that continuous ground motions decay as Omori’s law in time and follow the Gutenberg-Richter distribution in logarithmic amplitude. The measured temporal decay in amplitudes agrees with predictions of the rate-and-state framework and indicates shaking amplitudes are proportional to the velocity of afterslip. Our ground motion-based statistical framework provides a basis to forecast shaking intensity in the minutes to hours after a large earthquake.

California↗

USGS2025

What 25+ years of "Did You Feel It" intensities tell us about shaking in California

“When will the Big One happen?” is a question that people often have for earthquake scientists. But while waiting for the “Big One” to occur, people will usually experience frightening or damaging shaking from multiple relatively smaller‐magnitude earthquakes. Given this context, it raises the question: “Where does most of the damage come from?” Could smaller, yet more frequent, earthquakes account for the majority of reported impactful shaking? To explore this question, we consider reports of earthquake damage and felt shaking experiences from a catalog of community‐collected intensity values from the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” system. Comparing these intensities to expectations from a ground‐motion model, we find that earthquakes of magnitudes smaller than expected are responsible for most reported intensities of community decimal intensities (CDI) 4.5 and above (moderate and higher shaking intensity levels). (Here “expected value” is meant in its mathematical sense of the mean or equivalently median shaking intensity.) We also present a regional analysis of observed earthquake shaking for specific areas, detailing the maximum intensity experienced within a predetermined area. We identify several instances of M < 4.5 events that generated maximum intensities of CDI > 5 in regions in California surrounding the cities of Eureka, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Our results motivate the need to include smaller‐magnitude earthquakes in communications about earthquake hazard and risk reduction.

California↗

USGS2024

Cross-fade sampling: Extremely efficient Bayesian inversion for a variety of geophysical problems

This paper introduces cross-fade sampling, a computationally efficient Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation method that uses a semi-analytical approach to quickly solve Bayesian inverse problems that do not themselves have an analytical solution. Cross-fading is efficient in two ways. First, it requires fewer samples to obtain the same quality simulation of the target probability density function (PDF). Secondly, it is much faster to evaluate the posterior probability of each sample than conventional sampling methods for simulating Bayesian posterior PDFs. Conventional methods require evaluating the prior probability (which describes your a priori constraints) and data likelihood (which describes the fit between the observations and the predictions of the model) for each sample model. However, cross-fading does not require evaluating the data likelihood, meaning that ‘big data’ can be fit with zero additional computational cost. Further, the cross-fading approach can be used to calculate the marginal likelihood associated with a model design, facilitating model comparison and Bayesian model averaging. Topics covered in this paper include derivation of the cross-fade approach and how it can be used to simulate Bayesian posterior PDFs and compute the marginal likelihood, discussion of the class of problems to which cross-fading can be applied (with examples from earthquake statistics, earthquake ground motion modelling, volcanic eruption forecasting, and finite fault slip modelling), demonstration of efficiency relative to existing sampling methods and discussion of how cross-fading can be used to account for prediction errors (i.e. epistemic errors) as part of the geophysical inverse problem.

Geophysical Journal International↗

USGS2024

Uncertainty in ground-motion-to-intensity conversions significantly affects earthquake early warning alert regions

We examine how the choice of ground‐motion‐to‐intensity conversion equations (GMICEs) in earthquake early warning (EEW) systems affects resulting alert regions. We find that existing GMICEs can underestimate observed shaking at short rupture distances or overestimate the extent of low‐intensity shaking. Updated GMICEs that remove these biases would improve the accuracy of alert regions for the ShakeAlert EEW system for the West Coast of the United States. ShakeAlert uses ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs), which calculate spatial distributions of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV) from earthquake source estimates, combined with GMICEs to translate GMPE output into modified Mercalli intensity (MMI). We find significant epistemic uncertainty in alert distances; near‐source MMI estimates from different GMICEs can differ by over 1 MMI unit, and MMI extents used for public EEW alerts can differ by hundreds of kilometers for larger magnitude earthquakes ( M ∼6.5+). We use a catalog of “Did You Feel It?” shaking reports to evaluate how well GMICEs predict observed shaking. Our preferred GMICE is the one that computes MMI using PGV for high intensities and transitions to using PGA for nondamaging intensities. These results motivate updating GMICE relationships more generally, including in ShakeMap applications.

The Seismic Record↗

USGS2024

GRAPES: Earthquake early warning by passing seismic vectors through the grapevine

Estimating an earthquake's magnitude and location may not be necessary to predict shaking in real time; instead, wavefield-based approaches predict shaking with few assumptions about the seismic source. Here, we introduce GRAph Prediction of Earthquake Shaking (GRAPES), a deep learning model trained to characterize and propagate earthquake shaking across a seismic network. We show that GRAPES’ internal activations, which we call “seismic vectors”, correspond to the arrival of distinct seismic phases. GRAPES builds upon recent deep learning models applied to earthquake early warning by allowing for continuous ground motion prediction with seismic networks of all sizes. While trained on earthquakes recorded in Japan, we show that GRAPES, without modification, outperforms the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system on the 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest, CA earthquake.

Shimane/HiroshimaPrefectures↗

USGS2024

Incorporating intensity distance attenuation into PLUM ground-motion-based earthquake early warning in the United States: The APPLES configuration

We develop Attenuated ProPagation of Local Earthquake Shaking (APPLES), a new configuration for the United States West Coast version of the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm that incorporates attenuation into its ground-motion prediction procedures. Under APPLES, instead of using a fixed radius to forward-predict observed peak ground shaking to the area surrounding a seismic station, the forward-predicted intensity at a location depends on the distance from the station using an intensity prediction relationship. We conduct conceptual tests of maximum intensity distribution predictions in APPLES and PLUM using a catalog of ShakeMaps to confirm that the attenuation relationship in APPLES is appropriately modeling shaking distributions for West Coast earthquakes. Then, we run APPLES and PLUM in simulated real-time tests to determine warning time performance. Finally, we compare real-time alert behavior during the 2022 M 6.4 Ferndale, California, earthquake and other recent events. We find that APPLES presents two potential improvements to PLUM by reducing over-alerting during smaller magnitude earthquakes and by increasing warning times in some locations during larger earthquakes. APPLES can produce missed and late alerts in locations that experience shaking intensities close to the level used to issue alerts, so preferred alerting strategies with APPLES would use alert thresholds that are lower than the intensities targeted for EEW alerts. We find alerts using APPLES are also similar to those for the source-based approaches currently used in the ShakeAlert EEW system, which will make APPLES easier to integrate into the system.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2024

California community Earth Models for Seismic Hazard Assessments workshop report

The California Community Earth Models for Seismic Hazard Assessments Workshop (https://www.scec.org/workshops/2024/california-community-models) was held online March 4–5, 2024, with more than 200 participants over the two days. In this report, we provide a summary of the key points from the presentations and discussions. We highlight three use cases that drive the development of community Earth models, present an inventory of existing community Earth models in California, summarize a few techniques for integrating and merging models, discuss potential connections with the Cascadia Region Earthquake Science Center, and discuss what “community” means in community Earth models.

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↗

USGS2022

Real-time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of PLUM ground-motion-based early warning in the United States

We examine the real‐time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm and compare PLUM’s performance with the real‐time performance of the current source‐characterization‐based ShakeAlert System. In the United States (U.S.), PLUM uses a two‐station approach to detect earthquakes. Once a detection is confirmed, observed modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) distributions are forecast onto a regular grid, in which the preferred alert regions are grid cells with MMI 4.0+ forecasts. Although locations of dense station coverage allow PLUM to detect small ( M < 4.5) earthquakes typically not considered for EEW in the U.S., a PLUM detection on a small earthquake does not always generate an alert. This is because PLUM alerts are determined by current shaking distributions. If the MMI 4.0+ shaking subsides prior to detection confirmation by shaking at a second neighboring station, the prior MMI 4.0+ information will not be in the alert forecasts. Of the 432 M 3.0+ U.S. West Coast earthquakes in 2021, 33 produced ground motions large enough to be detected by PLUM. Twenty‐four generated MMI 4.0+ PLUM alerts, whereas ShakeAlert issued public EEW alerts for 13 of these earthquakes. We compare PLUM and ShakeAlert alert regions with ShakeMap and “Did You Feel It?” intensity distributions. Because PLUM alert regions surround stations observed to have strong ground motions (regardless of earthquake magnitude), PLUM alerts reliably include locations that experience significant shaking. This is not necessarily the case for ShakeAlert alert regions when there are large errors in magnitude or epicenter estimates. For two of the largest earthquakes in our real‐time dataset, the M 6.0 Antelope Valley and M 5.1 Petrolia earthquakes, the inclusion of PLUM would have improved real‐time ShakeAlert performance. Our results indicate that incorporation of PLUM into ShakeAlert will improve the robustness of the EEW system.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2022

What to expect when you are expecting earthquake early warning

We present a strategy for earthquake early warning (EEW) alerting that focuses on providing users with a target level of performance for their shaking level of interest (for example, ensuring that users receive warnings for at least 95 per cent of the occurrences of that shaking level). We explore the factors that can affect the accuracy of EEW shaking forecasts including site conditions (which can make shaking more or less varied), the share of earthquake hazard that comes from outlier events, and even the metric of shaking being forecast (with modified Mercalli intensity being the most uncertain quantity to forecast). To provide different locations with the same level of EEW performance, the alert issuance criteria will need to change based on these factors. Finally, we present a hierarchy of information approach with which to communicate EEW system design and performance to the public and other stakeholders, including how frequently alerts will be issued and how accurate those alerts will be.

Geophysical Journal International↗

USGS2022

How low should we alert? Quantifying intensity threshold alerting strategies for earthquake early warning in the United States

We use a suite of historical earthquakes to quantitatively determine earthquake early warning (EEW) alert threshold strategies for a range of shaking intensity targets for EEW in the U.S. West Coast. The current method for calculating alert regions for the ShakeAlert EEW System does not take into account variabilities and uncertainties in shaking distribution. As a result, if the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) level used to determine the extent of the alert region (the alert threshold) is the same as the target intensity threshold, the alert region will be too small to include all locations that require alerts even if earthquake source parameters are estimated accurately. Missed alerts can be reduced by using a lower alert threshold than the target threshold. This expands the alert region, increasing the number of precautionary alerts issued to people who experience shaking below the target level. We determine alert thresholds that optimize this tradeoff between missed and precautionary alerts for target thresholds of MMI 4.0-6.0 using a ShakeMap catalog of 143 M 5.0-7.3 earthquakes as ground truth. We examine the quality of each alerting strategy relative to the target MMI, where we define alert quality metrics in terms of both the area and population alerted. Optimal alert thresholds maximize correct alerts while limiting most precautionary alerts to regions that are likely to still feel some shaking. We find these optimal alert thresholds also maximize warning times. This analysis presents a quantitative framework ShakeAlert can use to communicate alerting strategies and performance expectations to ShakeAlert users.

Earth's Future↗

USGS2022

Alert optimization of the PLUM earthquake early warning algorithm for the western United States

We determine an optimal alerting configuration for the propagation of local undamped motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm for use by the U.S. ShakeAlert system covering California, Oregon, and Washington. All EEW systems should balance the primary goal of providing timely alerts for impactful or potentially damaging shaking while limiting alerts for shaking that is too low to be of concern (precautionary alerts). The PLUM EEW algorithm forward predicts observed ground motions to nearby sites within a defined radius without accounting for attenuation, avoiding the earthquake source parameter estimation step of most EEW algorithms. PLUM was originally developed in Japan where the alert regions and ground motions for which alerts are issued differ from those implemented by ShakeAlert. We compare predicted ground motions from PLUM to ShakeMap‐reported ground motions for a set of 22 U.S. West Coast earthquakes of magnitude 4.4–7.2 and evaluate available warning times. We examine a range of prediction radii (20–100 km), thresholds used to issue an alert (alert threshold), and levels of impactful or potentially damaging shaking (target threshold). We find optimal performance when the alert threshold is close to the target threshold, although higher target ground motions benefit from somewhat lower alert thresholds to ensure timely alerts. We also find that performance, measured as the cost reduction that a user can achieve, depends on the user’s tolerance for precautionary alerts. Users with a low target threshold and high tolerance for precautionary alerts achieve optimal performance when larger prediction radii (60–100 km) are used. In contrast, users with high target thresholds and low tolerance for precautionary alerts achieve better performance for smaller prediction radii (30–60 km). Therefore, setting the PLUM prediction radius to 60 km balances the needs of many users and provides warning times of up to ∼20 s.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2021

The impact of 3D finite‐fault information on ground‐motion forecasting for earthquake early warning

We identify aspects of finite‐source parameterization that strongly affect the accuracy of estimated ground motion for earthquake early warning (EEW). EEW systems aim to alert users to impending shaking before it reaches them. The U.S. West Coast EEW system, ShakeAlert, currently uses two algorithms based on seismic data to characterize the earthquake’s location, magnitude, and origin time, treating it as a point or line source. From this information, ShakeAlert calculates shaking intensity and alerts locations where shaking estimates exceed a threshold. Several geodetic EEW algorithms under development would provide 3D finite‐fault information. We investigate conditions under which this information produces sufficiently better intensity estimates to potentially improve alerting. Using scenario crustal and subduction interface sources, we (1) identify the most influential source geometry parameters for an EEW algorithm’s shaking forecast, and (2) assess the intensity alert thresholds and magnitude ranges for which more detailed source characterization affects alert accuracy. We find that alert regions determined using 3D‐source representations of correct magnitude and faulting mechanism are generally more accurate than those obtained using line sources. If a line‐source representation is used and magnitude is calculated from the estimated length, then incorrect length estimates significantly degrade alert region accuracy. In detail, the value of 3D‐source characterization depends on the user’s chosen alert threshold, tectonic regime, and faulting style. For the suite of source models we tested, the error in shaking intensity introduced by incorrect geometry could reach levels comparable to the intrinsic uncertainty in ground‐motion calculations (e.g., 0.5–1.3 modified Mercalli intensity [MMI] units for MMI 4.5) but, especially for crustal sources, was often less. For subduction interface sources, 3D representations substantially improved alert area accuracy compared to line sources, and incorrect geometry parameters were more likely to cause error in calculated shaking intensity that exceeded uncertainties.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2021

Imaging the next Cascadia earthquake: Optimal design for a seafloor GNSS- A network

The Cascadia subduction zone in the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America capable of producing magnitude ∼9 earthquakes, likely often accompanied by tsunamis. An outstanding question in this region is the degree and spatial extent of interseismic strain accumulation on the subduction megathrust. Seafloor geodetic methods combining GNSS and underwater acoustic ranging (GNSS-A) are capable of imaging this strain accumulation on the offshore portion of the subduction zone and therefore anticipating the potential size and rupture pattern of a future earthquake. However, the high cost of seafloor geodesy means that only a limited number of stations may be deployed and monitored. To facilitate expansion of current geodetic networks offshore, we develop a quantitative recommendation of optimal locations for future seafloor geodetic observations, based on the amount of new information provided by that observation. The optimal network depends on the problem that one is trying to solve with those observations (mapping subduction locking rates, coupling rates, constraining total moment rate, etc.), and on a number of modelling and data uncertainty assumptions. In particular, data uncertainty assumptions will change over time, as more position observations reduce velocity uncertainties. We find that near-trench observations on the megathrust hangingwall, distributed along-strike, consistently provide significant reduction in differential entropy over a large suite of assumptions, and that a well-placed seafloor observation can provide up to ∼30 times the information gain of the most optimal onshore observation.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2021

The PLUM earthquake early warning algorithm: A retrospective case study of West Coast, USA, data

The PLUM (Propagation of Local Undamped Motion) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm differs from typical source-based EEW algorithms as it predicts shaking directly from observed shaking without first deriving earthquake source information (e.g., magnitude and epicenter). Here, we determine optimal PLUM event detection thresholds for U.S. West Coast earthquakes using two data sets: 558 M3.5+ earthquakes (California, Oregon, Washington; 2012–2017) and the ShakeAlert test suite of historic and problematic signals (1999–2015). PLUM computes Modified Mercalli Intensity ( I MMI ) using velocity and acceleration data, leveraging co-located sensors to avoid problematic signals. An event detection is issued when the observed I MMI exceeds a given threshold(s). We find a two-station detection method using I MMI trigger thresholds of 4.0 and 3.0 for the first and second stations, respectively, is optimal for detecting M4.5+ earthquakes. PLUM detected 79 events in the 2012–2017 data set, reporting (not including telemetry or alert dissemination) detection times on par, and sometimes faster than current EEW methods (mean 8 s; median 6 s). As expected, detection times were slower for the older 1999–2015 earthquakes ( N = 21; mean 11 s; median 6 s) when station coverage was sparser. Of the 31 PLUM detected M5+ events (10 2012–2017; 21 1999–2015), theoretically 20 (∼65%) could provide timely warnings. PLUM issued no false detections and avoided issuing detections for all calibration/anomalous signals, regional and teleseismic events. We conclude PLUM can successfully identify I MMI 4+ shaking from local earthquakes and could complement and enhance EEW in the U.S.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗