Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70192468

Combining multiple earthquake models in real time for earthquake early warning

Abstract

The ultimate goal of earthquake early warning (EEW) is to provide local shaking information to users before the strong shaking from an earthquake reaches their location. This is accomplished by operating one or more real‐time analyses that attempt to predict shaking intensity, often by estimating the earthquake’s location and magnitude and then predicting the ground motion from that point source. Other EEW algorithms use finite rupture models or may directly estimate ground motion without first solving for an earthquake source. EEW performance could be improved if the information from these diverse and independent prediction models could be combined into one unified, ground‐motion prediction. In this article, we set the forecast shaking at each location as the common ground to combine all these predictions and introduce a Bayesian approach to creating better ground‐motion predictions. We also describe how this methodology could be used to build a new generation of EEW systems that provide optimal decisions customized for each user based on the user’s individual false‐alarm tolerance and the time necessary for that user to react.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sarah E. Minson, Stephen Wu, James L Beck, Thomas H. Heaton. 2017-06-13. Combining multiple earthquake models in real time for earthquake early warning. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160331

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗