Geology Reports⌕ Search

subject

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America: explore 43 source-linked works published from 2024 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-14. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

USGS2025

The 1912 Ms 7.2 earthquake in the Denali region of central Alaska

The 2002 M w 7.9 earthquake in central Alaska ruptured 340 km on three faults—Susitna Glacier thrust fault, Denali fault, Totschunda fault—crossing both the Richardson Highway and the Alaska Pipeline. Its occurrence prompted renewed interest in historical large earthquakes that possibly originated on the Denali fault. One of these earthquakes was a M s 7.2 event on July 7, 1912, which we revisit with two approaches: (1) probabilistic relocation of the epicenter using globally recorded arrival times, and (2) compilation and reassessment of shaking intensity reports to estimate a macroseismic epicenter. Our preferred instrumental epicenter is west of the Parks Highway and in agreement with the maximum‐reported shaking, which was from the Parker–Browne expedition of Denali. We also relocated a M s 6.4 aftershock, whose epicenter is 11 km from the mainshock. Candidate faults for the 1912 earthquake include the Denali fault, the McLeod Creek thrust fault, and the Kantishna Hills thrust fault. Future analysis of active faults, paleoseismic results, 1912 instrumental data, and 1912 felt reports may help in interpreting the fault and mechanism of the 1912 earthquake.

Alaska↗
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

Earthquake magnitude and source parameter estimation with a distributed acoustic sensing dataset in the Gorda subduction zone

Distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) systems offer a cost‐effective way to create large‐scale strainmeter arrays for seismological applications using fiber‐optic cables. DAS‐based strain measurements are known to be influenced by various factors, bringing into question their general reliability for accurate earthquake characterization. A 15‐km‐long DAS deployment in northern California was operational within 3 days of the 2022 M w 6.4 Ferndale earthquake and ran continuously throughout the aftershock sequence. We utilize these aftershock data to validate DAS‐based strain measurements in two ways. We first test the accuracy of DAS‐based magnitude estimates from peak dynamic strains by comparing them with magnitude and attenuation scaling relations derived independently from traditional borehole strainmeter (BSM) data. We demonstrate that DAS‐based magnitudes are comparable to BSM‐based magnitudes when corrections for variations in site response along the fiber‐optic cable are properly made. Magnitude errors are spatially correlated, potentially because of factors such as finite‐fault effects (e.g., stress drop) or more complex, unmodeled path attenuation or because of wave propagation effects in heterogeneous media. We then apply more advanced source characterization methodology to the DAS data using a time‐domain empirical Green’s function (EGF) deconvolution approach to measure details of the moment rate history. The EGF approach using DAS data depends on careful treatment of distorting factors such as anthropogenic sources of noise and optical phase wrapping but successfully isolates source spectra for moderate‐magnitude earthquakes: source spectral ratios obtained from DAS data, broadband seismometer data, and BSM data in the same region show consistent results, revealing differences in directivity and spectral shape among earthquakes. Although further research is needed to refine source‐time‐function estimation techniques for DAS data, particularly for larger magnitude events, these case studies demonstrate the clear potential of DAS for earthquake source characterization.

California↗
USGS2025

Seismic response of rock towers at the Trona Pinnacles (U.S.A.) to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence: Theory, observations, and models

We analyze the seismic response of a class of fragile geologic features (FGFs), referred to as rock towers (RTs) at the Trona Pinnacles, a group of RTs in southern California that suffered strong shaking during the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. FGFs, including RTs, may provide maximum constraints on past earthquake shaking intensity, and thereby support probabilistic seismic hazard assessments (PSHAs). In a rare case study, we explore the hypothesis that RT structural integrity is time dependent, as damage accumulates progressively. We develop finite‐element method (FEM) models of the RTs using photogrammetric shape models. We validate the models by comparing numerical simulations of their response to broadband ground shaking with low‐intensity seismic recordings obtained at the Pinnacles. Results of our simulations are in good agreement with the seismic recordings of actual earthquake aftershocks. We next use the results of the FEM models to analyze the response and evolution of RTs. Our analyses elucidate the influence of geometry over their seismic response, providing a rationale that may explain the rarity of slender RTs at Trona: high‐aspect‐ratio structures that respond in bending develop detrimental tensile stresses that crack the rock, whereas low‐aspect‐ratio ones’ response also includes shearing, which does not compromise material integrity as much as tension. Field measurements with a rebound hammer support this finding, suggesting that the material around the base of slender rocks has been weakened relative to other parts of the RT. We also study how to define simplified mechanical models (“archetypes”) to predict the natural frequencies of RTs. Results from our work illuminate the fundamental mechanisms of seismic response and progressive failure of RTs, and open new avenues of research to potentially incorporate these geologic features as long‐return period constraints on PSHA, in ways analogous to those of the widely used precariously balanced rocks.

California↗
USGS2025

A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective

We articulate a scientific vision and roadmap for the development of improved Earthquake Rupture Forecast models, which are one of the two main modeling components used in modern seismic hazard and risk analysis. One primary future objective is to provide fully time-dependent models that include both elastic rebound and spatiotemporal clustering nationwide, which is particularly important for shorter-term hazard and risk considerations (e.g., earthquake insurance products). We also discuss the importance and perennial challenges associated with quantifying epistemic uncertainties, including those associated with deformation-model slip rates, un-quantified sampling errors with respect to off-fault seismicity, and any spatial covariances. The need for more physics-based approaches is also emphasized, as is the benefit of adding model valuation (quantifying usefulness) to our verification and validation protocols. Given the multidisciplinary and system-level nature of this activity, modular design is critical. Future updates will also draw from best-available science by both the United States Geological Survey and the external community. The primary goal of this paper is to highlight plans that guide research and facilitate community engagement with model development, especially with respect to lowering the entry barrier for early career scientists and engineers. The paper is written so readers can focus on the sections that interest them most (see table of contents), with the Introduction and Discussion providing a stand-alone overview and summary.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2025

Near-surface material and topography generate anomalous high-frequency ground motion amplification in Chugiak, Alaska

An ∼3 km long nodal array oriented approximately east–west was deployed in Chugiak, Alaska, by the U.S. Geological Survey during 2021. The array intersects with the permanent NetQuakes station NP.ARTY, where peak ground acceleration (PGA) value of 1.98 g was recorded during the 2018 M w 7.1 Anchorage, Alaska, earthquake, in sharp contrast to the PGA of ∼0.3 g at a site just 4 km to the west. Seismic data for M w 1.8–4.3 aftershocks from the M w 7.1 event recorded by the nodal array confirm the anomalously large ground motions obtained at NP.ARTY as well as similar amplifications at nodes within ∼1 km to the east. Here, we performed 0–10 Hz 3D finite‐difference simulations, including high‐resolution surface topography, to explore the cause of the unexpectedly large amplification. As expected, the simulations computed with a regional 3D tomography velocity model severely underpredict the 0–10 Hz acceleration records at almost all sites. Adding a near‐surface low‐velocity taper to 300 m depth amplifies the accelerations by up to a factor of 5 and enables a reasonable match between the nodal data and simulations at sites to the west of NP.ARTY. However, this model still underpredicts the spectral energy in the area covered by glacial sediments by up to an order of magnitude. The addition of a till layer using a depth‐dependent shear‐wave velocity ( ⁠⁠ V s ) profile along with a homogeneous, 8 m thick low‐velocity layer with V s = 250 m/s representing the kame terraces improves the fit to data to within a factor of 2 at nodes located on top of the glacial sediments. Our study shows that the anomalously large high‐frequency amplification recorded at and near NP.ARTY can be explained by a combination of topographic effects and near‐surface low‐velocity material with amplification effects on the high‐frequency ground motion by up to about 40% and an order of magnitude, respectively.

Alaska↗
USGS2025

Revisiting an enigma on California's north coast: The Mw6.5 Fickle Hill earthquake of 21 December 1954

Many earthquakes occur along the North Coast of California in the vicinity of the Mendocino Triple Junction (MTJ), where the Pacific, Gorda, and North American (NA) plates meet, and on the adjacent plate boundaries. The MTJ marks the nexus of the Mendocino and San Andreas faults with the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ). Historically, most large earthquakes around the MTJ have been within the offshore Gorda plate and its subducted portion beneath the NA plate. North of the MTJ, active faults mapped in the NA plate are part of the CSZ fold‐and‐thrust belt. Although some events have been detected in the NA plate, no large historic events have been associated with mapped surface faults. The 21 December 1954 M w 6.5 earthquake in Humboldt County is one possible exception. Using published data from catalogs and articles, unpublished data from Berkeley’s archives, and S ‐ P times interpreted from two U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) accelerometers, we determine a probability cloud for the earthquake’s hypocenter using NonLinLoc. The highest probability location lies beneath Fickle Hill just east of the city of Arcata, California, at 40.87° N, 124.03° W, and ∼11 km depth. Using P ‐wave polarities from Berkeley stations and the digitized waveforms from the accelerometers, we find that the focal mechanism most consistent with the data indicates thrust movement with strike, dip, and rake of 350°, 10°, and 90°, respectively, at a depth of 14 km. Given the depth uncertainties of both this event and the megathrust, this implies that the earthquake most likely took place on the subduction interface rather than on the mapped faults in the Mad River fault zone that trend 322° and dip to the northeast. The revisited intensity in the epicentral region also supports a location beneath Fickle Hill to the east of the city of Arcata, California.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2025

Magnitude, depth and methodological variations of spectral stress drop within the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

We present the first ensemble analysis of the 56 different sets of results submitted to the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence. Different assumptions and methods result in different estimation of the source contribution to recorded seismograms, and hence to the source parameters (principally corner frequency, f c ⁠ , spectral stress drop, Δσ, and seismic moment, M 0 ⁠ ) obtained from modeling calculated source spectra. For earthquakes smaller than magnitude (M) 2.5 there is negligible correlation between the f c values obtained by different studies, implying that no present method is reliable using available data. For larger magnitude events, correlation between f c measurements of different studies, within even a small M range is always higher than spectral ⁠Δσ , because the f c measurements simply reflect the underlying physical decrease in f c with increasing M. We model the observed trends of submitted f c with both magnitude and depth. Most methods report an increase in spectral Δσ with M, although a magnitude‐invariant spectral Δσ is within the confidence limits. The depth dependence is smaller and depends on whether a study allows attenuation to vary with source depth; a combination of depth‐dependent attenuation correction, and depth‐dependent shear‐wave velocity can compensate for reported depth trends. We model the submitted values to remove differing M and depth variation to investigate the relative interevent variability. We find consistent relative variation between individual events, and also lower relative spectral Δσ in the northwest of the aftershock sequence, and higher on the cross fault and in the region of main fault intersection. This large‐scale comparison implies that absolute spectral Δσ estimates are dependent on the methods used; studies of different regions or using different methods should not be directly compared and improved constraints on path and site corrections are needed to resolve these absolute spectral Δσ differences.

California↗
USGS2025

Site response and wave propagation effects in the eastern United States

Fourier amplitude spectra from regional earthquakes in the eastern United States are used in a parametric inversion for source, path, and site effects. Five earthquakes are selected for analysis during the installation of the United States National Seismic Network (US), Earthscope’s USArray Transportable Array (TA), and other temporary arrays to maximize station coverage. A global search algorithm is used to solve for site response from 0.1 to 15 Hz, corner frequency, geometrical spreading ( r - γ ), and frequency dependent anelastic attenuation in the form Q(f) = Q o f α . Tradeoff between moment and geometric spreading is handled by fixing the moment. The tradeoff between corner frequency and Q(f) is solved by selecting the value of corner frequency that minimizes an objective function defined over all stations. Values of site response and attenuation parameters show a strong spatial correlation with the physiographic provinces of the eastern United States. Site response for the Atlantic Coastal Plain is consistent with previous work using spectral ratios relative to a reference site, defined by strong resonance peaks correlated with the thickness of sediments. Site response for the other physiographic provinces is markedly different from the coastal plain, with a lack of distinct resonance peaks and a broad moderate high at frequences from 0.1 to 0.5 Hz consistent with the hard-rock geology of the regions. Like site response, Q(f) has a strong correlation with physiographic province, showing lower values on the coastal plain and higher values inland. Geometric spreading exponent, γ, decreases with increasing hypocenter distance from just above 1 at a few tens of kilometers to 0.9 at 500 km. The limited range in geometric spreading values is attributed to starting the Fourier transform window at the S ‐wave arrival for all distances and averaging over multiple wave types.

eastern United States↗
USGS2025

Relationship between peak and cumulative ground motions from 49 Mw 3-6 earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area

We examine the relationship between peak ground velocity (PGV) and cumulative absolute displacement (CAD) for 49 M w 3 – 6 earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) and gain insight into the spatiotemporal partitioning of seismic energy in ground motion records with respect to source, path, and site effects. PGV and CAD are positively correlated, but there can be large deviations from the average trend. For example, ground motion records with either very long duration resonance or short pulse-like motions will have higher or lower CAD, respectively, but could have very similar PGV. We perform principal component analysis (PCA) on PGV-CAD for >7000 records in the SFBA with the goal of investigating what influences positive or negative anomalies in cumulative motions. PCA rotates the PGV-CAD datapoints into two principal components, where the one with the larger variance, which we call the “primary intensity” represents mostly the distance-dependence of ground motion amplitudes. The other principal component, which we call the “excess motion”, represents the deviation from cumulative motions that would be typical for a ground motion record with a given PGV. The excess motion will be positive in the case of records with long duration ringing and will be negative for short duration pulse-like ground motions. We find that excess motion is generally positive at sites in sedimentary basins and in soft sediments around the SF Bay. Excess motion is generally negative in the very near field, as well as at sites on hard bedrock. We discuss the findings here in terms of implications for seismic hazard applications and other wave propagation phenomena.

California↗
USGS2025

An empirical Green’s function approach for isolating directivity effects in earthquake ground-motion amplitudes

In this study, we apply an empirical Green’s function (eGf) method within a ground‐motion modeling framework to mitigate trade‐offs between source, path, and site effects. Many physical processes contribute to spatial variations in observed ground motions, including earthquake radiation pattern, directivity, variable path attenuation, and site effects. Current nonergodic ground‐motion models use spatially varying coefficients for path and site effects, but they do not address trade‐offs with complex earthquake source effects. To quantify the influence of directivity on ground‐motion amplitudes, we use records from multiple smaller earthquakes with epicenters near that of a larger event. We use these small magnitude events as eGfs and estimate repeatable path and site effects at individual stations, assuming that the average adjustments are not controlled by directivity. We adjust residuals from the larger earthquake using the eGf terms, isolating effects related to the rupture. This method clearly enhances the observed broadband directivity observed in the 2022 M 5.1 and 2007 M 5.4 Alum Rock earthquake ground motions, reinforcing the conclusion that their ruptures were unilateral. For the 2004 M 6.0 Parkfield earthquake, we find a bilateral rupture model better fits the data because variations in rupture velocity, slip rate, and slip distribution seem to have a stronger effect on the ground motions than rupture direction alone. Applying eGf adjustments reduces the standard deviation of the rupture models over the three earthquakes by 32% on average and by up to 57% for the 2022 Alum Rock earthquake, confirming we have effectively removed repeatable effects related to the wave propagation path and site response. We propose a novel measure of the frequency‐dependent directivity amplification strength as the reduction in ground‐motion residual variability gained by fitting a directivity model; for the three earthquakes considered, this parameter varies between 25% and 75%, indicating that directivity can strongly influence ground motions and should be considered in ground‐motion modeling.

California↗
USGS2025

Do Graviquakes exist?

The “Graviquake” model, proposed in 2015 as an alternative to the elastic dislocation model, posits that normal faults are passive features dominated by coseismic gravitational collapse into a dilated crustal wedge, and that normal faulting is fundamentally distinct from strike‐slip and reverse faulting. Developed using finite‐element modeling before the 2016 central Apennines earthquake sequence, the model was revamped based on interpreted Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data from these events and used as evidence for a gravitational collapse episode. However, this interpretation relies on miscalculated elevation changes and is not corroborated by independent geophysical and seismological observations. Our analysis exposes fundamental flaws in the Graviquake model. By assuming that faults are passive players, it underrepresents the dynamic role of strain accumulation and release in rocks adjacent to faults. The hypothesized rapid expulsion of overpressurized fluids appears inconsistent with observed diffusion rates and lacks supporting seismological evidence. Part of the uplifted–subsided volume imbalance is likely an artifact arising from data processing, and in part is a transient effect due to the delayed response of the lower crust. Moment tensor analyses detect no isotropic components indicative of gravitational collapse, and observed ground motion and stress‐drop levels remain fully consistent with elastic dislocation theory. In addition, finite‐element modeling of normal faulting replicates observed surface deformation without invoking a collapsing wedge. The Graviquake model proposes a representation of normal‐faulting mechanics that differs significantly from established models and observations. Gravity does play a role in normal faulting, but the elastic dislocation theory remains the definitive framework of fault mechanics. Reinterpreting the 2016 earthquakes as a cascade of gravitational episodes, based on incorrect data processing and modeling, fails to substantiate the Graviquake hypothesis. Persistence in advocating this model could mislead seismic hazard assessment and undermine our understanding of normal faulting.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2025

Bayesian ETAS modeling for the Pacific Northwest: Uncovering effects of tectonic regimes, regional differences, and swarms on aftershock parameters

The Pacific Northwest (PNW) of North America has high seismic hazard due to numerous earthquake sources under populated areas. It hosts several tectonic regimes and subregional seismic zones that are hypothesized to have different patterns of earthquake and aftershock occurrence. It is also predisposed to earthquake swarms, which can complicate the statistical modeling of these patterns. We present the first statistical seismicity model of the PNW catalog using the epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) framework. We develop a Bayesian inference procedure that provides a stable estimation of both ETAS parameters and their uncertainties for different sets of PNW earthquakes, even those with very sparse catalogs. The Bayesian approach allows us to investigate how parameter estimates change between the intraslab and crustal tectonic regimes, the northern and southern PNW, and when swarms are included and excluded from the catalog. We also utilize our Bayesian framework to calculate parameter estimates under different prior beliefs about PNW seismicity, as well as to propagate catalog measurement errors into ETAS parameter estimates. We discuss the implications of parameter differences across the region for aftershock forecasting for the PNW.

Pacific Northwest↗
USGS2025

Overview of The SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

We present initial findings from the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study to compare spectral stress‐drop estimates for earthquakes in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequence. This study uses a unified dataset to independently estimate earthquake source parameters through various methods. Stress drop, which denotes the change in average shear stress along a fault during earthquake rupture, is a critical parameter in earthquake science, impacting ground motion, rupture simulation, and source physics. Spectral stress drop is commonly derived by fitting the amplitude‐spectrum shape, but estimates can vary substantially across studies for individual earthquakes. Sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Statewide (previously, Southern) California Earthquake Center our community study aims to elucidate sources of variability and uncertainty in earthquake spectral stress‐drop estimates through quantitative comparison of submitted results from independent analyses. The dataset includes nearly 13,000 earthquakes ranging from M 1 to 7 during a two‐week period of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, recorded within a 1° radius. In this article, we report on 56 unique submissions received from 20 different groups, detailing spectral corner frequencies (or source durations), moment magnitudes, and estimated spectral stress drops. Methods employed encompass spectral ratio analysis, spectral decomposition and inversion, finite‐fault modeling, ground‐motion‐based approaches, and combined methods. Initial analysis reveals significant scatter across submitted spectral stress drops spanning over six orders of magnitude. However, we can identify between‐method trends and offsets within the data to mitigate this variability. Averaging submissions for a prioritized subset of 56 events shows reduced variability of spectral stress drop, indicating overall consistency in recovered spectral stress‐drop values.

California↗
USGS2025

Introduction to the special section on improving measurements of earthquake source parameters

Earthquake source parameters such as magnitude, seismic moment, source dimension, stress drop, and radiated energy are fundamental to understanding earthquake physics, and are also key ingredients in earthquake ground‐motion modeling, rupture simulation, and statistical seismology. However, the uncertainties in these parameters estimated from the radiated seismic wavefield are large due to variability in approaches, including site and attenuation characterizations, and so estimates for an individual earthquake made by different studies can vary greatly. Estimating spectral source parameters remains a popular topic, due to a combination of their intrinsic importance and their apparent ease of measurement, but also a controversial one, due to many sources of variability and large uncertainty. The available methods coupled with necessary parameter choices and assumptions in the analysis make it challenging for researchers to apply methods or understand the reliability in results or reported source parameters. This Special Section on Improving Measurements of Earthquake Source Parameters showcasing comparisons between methods and studies seeks to alleviate some of these difficulties to help the community identify the important components and trade‐offs of decomposing recorded seismograms into their source, path, and site components.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2025

Seismic moment and local magnitude scales in Ridgecrest, CA from the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study

We illustrate the systematic difference between moment magnitude and local magnitude caused by underlying earthquake source physics, using seismic moments submitted to the Statewide California Earthquake Center/United States Geological Survey Community Stress Drop Validation Study 2019 Ridgecrest data set. While the relationship between seismic moment and moment magnitude ( M or M w ) of log 10 ( M 0 ) ~ 1.5* M is uniformly valid for all earthquake sizes by definition (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979), the relationship between local magnitude M L and moment is itself magnitude dependent. For moderate events, ~3< M < ~6, M and M L are coincident; for earthquakes smaller than ~3, M L ~ 1.0 log 10 M 0 (Hanks and Boore, 1984). This is a physical consequence of the corner frequency fc becoming larger than the upper frequency of observation and implies that M L and M differ systematically by a factor of 1.5 for these small events. While this idea is not new, we propose a new, continuous relationship between local magnitude and moment, for magnitudes 2 to 6 which extrapolates to smaller and larger magnitudes, applicable to southern California specific to the Ridgecrest region. We make use of the plethora of seismic moments as submitted by many participants of the Community Stress Drop study, compared to the Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) catalog magnitudes. Overall, the seismic moments in the Community Study recover moment magnitude well, so we use our new M L - M 0 to convert M L to M , refining the SCSN operational M Lr scale. This systematic difference of 50% in slope between local and moment magnitude at small magnitudes has implications for spectral stress drop estimates, earthquake ground motion modeling, as well as other magnitude scales and earthquake occurrence statistics.

California↗
USGS2025

Earthquake stress drop, source spectra from laboratory experiments, and the apparent unsteadiness of frictional slip

Over a range of co-seismic total energy release, high sample rate slip, stress, and slip velocity measurements were made during frictional failure to determine seismic source properties. The near-field measurements were used to estimate stress drops using spectral approaches that are analogous to the standard seismological moment-corner determined Δσ and acceleration amplitude Δσ arms stress drops. Rapid frictional sliding produces slip velocity amplitude spectra that vary with frequency -1 so long as the energy dissipated by friction approaches the total energy release. Under these conditions Δσ and Δσ arms are similar in size. Since these are nearly direct measurements of fault slip velocity and because they produce flat acceleration spectra between the corner and an apparent fmax, friction in these experiments seems to produce dynamic acceleration and deceleration at all resolved frequencies. The physical origin of this unsteady motion is not known exactly but likely reflects rapid dynamic variations in fault strength or applied stress. On the other hand, when the total energy stored prior to failure is artificially made somewhat larger relative to that which can be dissipated by friction the velocity spectra vary with frequency -2 immediately below the corner. At these conditions Δσ and Δσ arms diverge. The excess stored energy is preferentially partitioned into radiated energy upon failure. Collectively the experiments imply that to produce unsteady, white noise accelerations that are observed for natural earthquakes, requires that at least 95% of the energy released does not escape the source region to be radiated to the far-field.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2025

Examining the role of elevated and sustained strain in dynamically triggering earthquakes on the Anza section of the San Jacinto fault

Microearthquakes can be dynamically triggered in southern California by remote earthquakes. However, directly connecting dynamic triggering mechanisms with observational data remains challenging. One proposed failure mechanism suggests that both the amplitude and duration of cyclic fatigue caused by the passing seismic wave contribute to triggering occurrence. Here, we measure dynamic strains recorded by borehole strainmeters in the Anza section of the San Jacinto fault zone from 710 earthquakes that occurred over 300 km away between 2008 and 2017 to systematically investigate the role of elevated and sustained strain in controlling dynamic triggering. We design a suite of tests to evaluate whether specific amplitude thresholds and durations of strain can predict dynamic triggering cases. We further test whether the peak dynamic strain (PDS) can predict triggering occurrence in combination with the strain amplitude and duration. Based on these tests, there is no strain amplitude–duration threshold that can distinguish triggering occurrence in Anza. Dynamic triggering is more likely to occur if a remote earthquake causes a PDS above 100 nanostrain, though many cases were triggered at smaller PDSs. The lack of clear correlation between triggering and characteristics of the dynamic strain field suggests that the tested features of the incoming waves do not determine triggering occurrence and local fault conditions and slip processes are more important in controlling dynamic triggering in Anza.

California↗
Compare source metadata on this page
WorkPublishedSource identifierSource
The 1912 Ms 7.2 earthquake in the Denali region of central Alaska2025-11-2070273453usgs
Near-fault amplification and ground motion variability during the 2019 Ridgecrest, California sequence2025-11-1070275665usgs
Earthquake magnitude and source parameter estimation with a distributed acoustic sensing dataset in the Gorda subduction zone2025-10-0170272184usgs
Seismic response of rock towers at the Trona Pinnacles (U.S.A.) to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence: Theory, observations, and models2025-09-0870276975usgs
A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective2025-09-0270273218usgs
Near-surface material and topography generate anomalous high-frequency ground motion amplification in Chugiak, Alaska2025-08-2270273328usgs
Revisiting an enigma on California's north coast: The Mw6.5 Fickle Hill earthquake of 21 December 19542025-08-1970270887usgs
Magnitude, depth and methodological variations of spectral stress drop within the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence2025-08-1470270751usgs
Site response and wave propagation effects in the eastern United States2025-08-0570270102usgs
Relationship between peak and cumulative ground motions from 49 Mw 3-6 earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area2025-06-2470276847usgs
An empirical Green’s function approach for isolating directivity effects in earthquake ground-motion amplitudes2025-06-0670268119usgs
Do Graviquakes exist?2025-06-0570269049usgs
Bayesian ETAS modeling for the Pacific Northwest: Uncovering effects of tectonic regimes, regional differences, and swarms on aftershock parameters2025-05-2170267725usgs
Overview of The SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence2025-05-0270264176usgs
Introduction to the special section on improving measurements of earthquake source parameters2025-05-0270266478usgs
Seismic moment and local magnitude scales in Ridgecrest, CA from the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study2025-04-1570266481usgs
Earthquake stress drop, source spectra from laboratory experiments, and the apparent unsteadiness of frictional slip2025-02-2170277765usgs
Examining the role of elevated and sustained strain in dynamically triggering earthquakes on the Anza section of the San Jacinto fault2025-02-1170264128usgs

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.