Geology topics

Seth Stein

Publications and source records attributed to Seth Stein.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Apparent non-double-couple components as artifacts of moment tensor inversion

Compilations of earthquake moment tensors from global and regional catalogs find pervasive non-double-couple (NDC) components with a mean deviation from a double-couple (DC) source of around 20%. Their distributions vary only slightly with magnitude, faulting mechanism, or geologic environments. This consistency suggests that for most earthquakes, especially smaller ones whose rupture processes are expected to be simpler, the NDC components are largely artifacts of the moment tensor inversion procedure. This possibility is also supported by the fact that NDC components for individual earthquakes with Mw<6.5 are only weakly correlated between catalogs. We explore this possibility by generating synthetic seismograms for the double-couple components of earthquakes around the world using one Earth model and inverting them with a different Earth model. To match the waveforms with a different Earth model, the inversion changes the mechanisms to include a substantial NDC component while largely preserving the fault geometry (DC component). The resulting NDC components have a size and distribution similar to those reported for the earthquakes in the Global Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) catalog. The fact that numerical experiments replicate general features of the pervasive NDC components reported in moment tensor catalogs implies that these components are largely artifacts of the inversions not adequately accounting for the effects of laterally varying Earth structure.

Seismica↗

USGS2024

Why do seismic hazard models worldwide appear to overpredict historical intensity observations?

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments (PSHAs) provide the scientific basis for building codes to reduce damage from earthquakes. Despite their substantial impact, little is known about how well PSHA predicts actual shaking. Recent PSHA for California, Japan, Italy, Nepal, and France appear to consistently overpredict historically observed earthquake shaking intensities. Numerical simulations show that observed shaking is equally likely to be above or below predictions. This result from independently developed models and datasets in different countries and tectonic settings indicates possible systematic bias in the hazard models, the observations, or both. Analysis of possible causes shows that much of the discrepancy is due to a subtle and rarely considered issue: the conversion equations used in comparing the models—which forecast shaking as peak ground acceleration or velocity—and observations—parameterizations of qualitative shaking reports. Historical shaking reports fill a crucial data gap, but more research is warranted on how qualitative observations relate to instrumental shaking measures for earthquakes.

Science Advances↗

USGS2023

Uncertainties in intensity-based earthquake magnitude estimates

Estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes is crucial for assessing seismic hazard. Magnitudes of early‐instrumental earthquakes can be inferred using a combination of instrumental records, field observations, and the observed distribution of shaking intensity determined from macroseismic observations. For earthquakes before 1900, shaking intensity distributions often provide the only information to constrain earthquake magnitude. Considerable effort has been made to develop methods to estimate the magnitude of moderate‐to‐large historical earthquakes using shaking intensities derived from macroseismic data. In this study, we consider earthquakes in California with known instrumental magnitudes to explore uncertainties in estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes from intensity information alone. We use three California‐specific intensity prediction equations (IPEs) and an IPE based on a global ground‐motion model (GMM) to determine optimum intensity‐based magnitudes for 33 moderate‐to‐large California earthquakes between 1979 and 2021. Intensity‐based magnitudes are close to instrumental magnitudes on average. However, intensity‐based magnitudes for individual events differ by as much as 2.2 magnitude units from instrumental magnitudes. This result reflects the weak dependence of ground motions and shaking intensities on moment magnitude and their strong dependence on stress drop. Considering the intensity distributions of the 1906 San Francisco and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes, we show that information that could constrain rupture length is discarded when considering only the 2D decay of intensity with distance. We also show that ground‐motion intensity conversion equations used in a GMM‐based approach may cause a systematic overestimation of large historical earthquake magnitudes. This study underscores both the reducible and potentially irreducible uncertainties associated with using intensity data to estimate magnitudes of historical earthquakes using IPEs and highlights the value of using additional information to constrain rupture dimensions. Using intensity observations alone, moment magnitude uncertainties are typically on the order of a full unit.

California↗

USGS2022

On the documentation, independence, and stability of widely used seismological data products

Earthquake scientists have traditionally relied on relatively small data sets recorded on small numbers of instruments. With advances in both instrumentation and computational resources, the big-data era, including an established norm of open data-sharing, allows seismologists to explore important issues using data volumes that would have been unimaginable in earlier decades. Alongside with these developments, the community has moved towards routine production of interpreted data products such as seismic moment tensor catalogs that have provided an additional boon to earthquake science. As these products have become increasingly familiar and useful, it is important to bear in mind that they are not data, but rather interpreted data products. As such, they differ from data in ways that can be important, but not always appreciated. Important - and sometimes surprising - issues can arise if methodology is not fully described, data from multiple sources are included, or data products are not versioned (time-stamped). The line between data and data products is sometimes blurred, leading to an underappreciation of issues that affect data products. This note illustrates examples from two widely used data products: moment tensor catalogs and Did You Feel It? (DYFI) macroseismic intensity values. These examples show that increasing a data product’s documentation, independence, and stability can make it even more useful. To ensure the reproducibility of studies using data products, time-stamped products should be preserved, for example as electronic supplements to published papers, or, ideally, a more permanent repository.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

USGS2022

A study on the effect of site response on California seismic hazard map assessment

Prior studies have repeatedly shown that probabilistic seismic hazard maps from several different countries predict higher shaking than that observed. Previous map assessments have not, however, considered the influence of site response on hazard. Seismologists have long acknowledged the influence of near-surface geology, in particular low-impedance sediment layers, on earthquake ground-motion at frequencies of engineering concern. Although the overall effects of site response are complex, modern ground-motion models (GMMs) account for site effects using terms based on V S30 , the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m of the Earth’s surface. In this study, we consider general implications of incorporating site terms from modern GMMs using site-specific V S30 as a proxy in probabilistic seismic hazard maps for California. At the long periods (1–5 s) that affect tall buildings, site terms amplify the mapped hazard by factors of 1–3 at many sites relative to maps calculated for the standard reference soft-rock site condition, V S30 = 760 m/s. However, at the short periods of ground-motion that are the main contributors to peak ground acceleration (PGA) and thus affect smaller structures, only negligible effects occur due to nonlinear deamplification of strong ground-motion at high frequencies. Nonlinear deamplification increases as the shaking level increases. For very strong shaking, deamplification can overcome the linear amplification, yielding net deamplification. We explore the implications of these results for the evaluation of hazard maps. Because site effects do not change the maps appreciably at short periods, we can exclude site response as an explanation for why the maps overpredict historically observed shaking as captured by the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) dataset. The results are expected to be generalizable to regions that are comparable to California in terms of structure and seismicity rates. In low-to-moderate-seismicity regions where the hazard reflects weaker shaking, nonlinear site response is expected to be less important for the hazard.

California↗

USGS2020

Revisiting California’s past great earthquakes and long-term earthquake rate

In this study, we revisit the three largest historical earthquakes in California—the 1857 Fort Tejon, 1872 Owens Valley, and 1906 San Francisco earthquakes—to review their published moment magnitudes, and compare their estimated shaking distributions with predictions using modern ground‐motion models (GMMs) and ground‐motion intensity conversion equations. Currently accepted moment magnitude estimates for the three earthquakes are 7.9, 7.6, and 7.8, respectively. We first consider the extent to which the intensity distributions of all three earthquakes are consistent with a moment magnitude toward the upper end of the estimated range. We then apply a GMM‐based method to estimate the magnitudes of large historical earthquakes. The intensity distribution of the 1857 earthquake is too sparse to provide a strong constraint on magnitude. For the 1872 earthquake, consideration of all available constraints suggests that it was a high stress‐drop event, with a magnitude on the higher end of the range implied by scaling relationships, that is, higher than moment magnitude 7.6. For the 1906 earthquake, based on our analysis of regional intensities and the detailed intensity distribution in San Francisco, along with other available constraints, we estimate a preferred moment magnitude of 7.9, consistent with the published estimate based on geodetic and instrumental seismic data. These results suggest that, although there can be a tendency for historical earthquake magnitudes to be overestimated, the accepted catalog magnitudes of California’s largest historical earthquakes could be too low. Given the uncertainties of the magnitude estimates, the seismic moment release rate between 1850 and 2019 could have been either higher or lower than the average over millennial time scales. It is further not possible to reject the hypothesis that California seismicity is described by an untruncated Gutenberg–Richter distribution with a b "> b ‐value of 1.0 for moment magnitudes up to 8.0.

California↗

USGS2020

California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP): A consistently reinterpreted dataset of seismic intensities for the past 162 years and implications for seismic hazard maps

Historical seismic intensity data are useful for myriad reasons, including assessment of the performance of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) models and corresponding hazard maps by comparing their predictions to a dataset of historically observed intensities in the region. To assess PSHA models for California, a long and consistently interpreted intensity record is necessary. For this purpose, the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) has compiled a dataset that combines and reinterprets intensity information that has been stored in disparate and sometimes hard-to-access locations. The CHIMP dataset also includes new observations of intensity from archival research and oral history collection. Version 1 of the dataset includes 46,502 intensity observations for 62 earthquakes with estimated magnitudes ranging from 4.7 to 7.9. The 162 years of shaking data show observed shaking lower than expected from seismic hazard models. This discrepancy is reduced, but persists, if historical intensity data for the largest earthquakes are smoothed to reduce the effects of spatial under-sampling. Possible reasons for this discrepancy include other limitations of the CHIMP dataset, the hazard models, and the possibility that California seismicity throughout the historical period has been lower than the long-term average. Some of these issues may also explain similar discrepancies observed for Italy and Japan.

California↗

USGS2018

The 1952 Kern County, California earthquake: A case study of issues in the analysis of historical intensity data for estimation of source parameters

Seismic intensity data based on first-hand accounts of shaking give valuable insight into historical and early instrumental earthquakes. Comparing an observed intensity distribution to intensity-prediction models based on modern calibration events allows the magnitude to be estimated for many historic earthquakes. Magnitude estimates can also potentially be refined for earthquakes for which limited instrumental data are available. However, the complicated nature of macroseismic data and the methods used to collect and interpret the data introduce significant uncertainties. In this paper, we illustrate these challenges and possible solutions using the 1952 Kern County, California, earthquake as a case study. Published estimates of its magnitude vary from M W 7.2–7.5, making it possibly the second largest in California during the 20th century. We considered over 1100 first-hand reports of shaking, supplemented with other data, and inferred the magnitude in several ways using intensity prediction equations, yielding a preferred intensity magnitude M I 7.2 ± 0.2, where the uncertainty reflects our judgement. The revised intensity distribution reveals stronger shaking on the hanging wall, south of the surface expression of the White Wolf fault, than on the footwall. Characterizing the magnitude and shaking distribution of this early instrumental earthquake can help improve estimation of the seismic hazard of the region. Such reinterpreted intensities for historic earthquakes, combined with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Did You Feel It? data for more recent events, can be used to produce a uniform shaking dataset with which earthquake hazard map performance can be assessed.

California↗

USGS2013

Workshop on New Madrid geodesy and the challenges of understanding intraplate earthquakes

On March 4, 2011, 26 researchers gathered in Norwood, Massachusetts, for a workshop sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey and FM Global to discuss geodesy in and around the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) and its relation to earthquake hazard. The group addressed the challenge of reconciling current geodetic measurements, which show low present-day surface strain rates, with paleoseismic evidence of recent, relatively frequent, major earthquakes in the region. Several researchers were invited by the organizing committee to give overview presentations while all participants were encouraged to present their most recent ideas. The overview presentations appear in this report along with a set of recommendations.

Open-File Report↗