Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Seismological Research Letters”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2018

Earthquake catalogs for the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps

We describe a methodology that has been developed at the U.S. Geological Survey for making earthquake catalogs for seismic hazard analysis and review the status of the catalogs for the conterminous United States. A new catalog is assembled from several pre‐existing catalogs. Uniform moment magnitudes and related parameters for estimating unbiased seismicity rates are calculated. Duplicates, explosions, mining‐related earthquakes, and induced earthquakes are flagged, and the catalog is declustered. Distinct catalogs are made for the central and eastern United States and the western United States.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Analysis of mean seismic ground motion and its uncertainty based on the UCERF3 geologic slip rate model with uncertainty for California

The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast v.3 (UCERF3) model (Field et al., 2014) considers epistemic uncertainty in fault‐slip rate via the inclusion of multiple rate models based on geologic and/or geodetic data. However, these slip rates are commonly clustered about their mean value and do not reflect the broader distribution of possible rates and associated probabilities. Here, we consider both a double‐truncated 2σ Gaussian and a boxcar distribution of slip rates and use a Monte Carlo simulation to sample the entire range of the distribution for California fault‐slip rates. We compute the seismic hazard following the methodology and logic‐tree branch weights applied to the 2014 national seismic hazard model (NSHM) for the western U.S. region (Petersen et al., 2014, 2015). By applying a new approach developed in this study to the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) using precomputed rates of exceedance from each fault as a Green’s function, we reduce the computer time by about 10^5‐fold and apply it to the mean PSHA estimates with 1000 Monte Carlo samples of fault‐slip rates to compare with results calculated using only the mean or preferred slip rates. The difference in the mean probabilistic peak ground motion corresponding to a 2% in 50‐yr probability of exceedance is less than 1% on average over all of California for both the Gaussian and boxcar probability distributions for slip‐rate uncertainty but reaches about 18% in areas near faults compared with that calculated using the mean or preferred slip rates. The average uncertainties in 1σ peak ground‐motion level are 5.5% and 7.3% of the mean with the relative maximum uncertainties of 53% and 63% for the Gaussian and boxcar probability density function (PDF), respectively.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

The Station Information System (SIS): A centralized seismic station repository for populating, managing, and distributing metadata

Creating, maintaining, and archiving accurate station metadata is critical for successful seismic network operations, data discovery, and research. The Station Information System (SIS) is a centralized repository of seismic station equipment inventory, instrument response, and site information of stations operated by regional seismic networks (RSNs) of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS; Filson and Arabasz, 2017 ). It has a web‐based user interface that enables the creation and manipulation of the corresponding metadata. The system can track the installation, maintenance, and removal of equipment from a site, which often results in the creation of new metadata epochs. SIS also computes the overall response, including gain, of a data channel by combining the responses of the underlying hardware components. SIS distributes this information in standard formats such as Federation of Digital Seismic Networks StationXML and dataless Standard for the Exchange of Earthquake Data. SIS can also be used to manage inventory of field equipment such as power, telemetry, or Global Positioning System antenna, as well as links to other site‐related repositories external to SIS to give the network operator the most complete view of a site and the overall network. This article summarizes the main features in SIS. We present its basic infrastructure, holdings, workflow, and how RSNs retrieve data from it. We also explain the reasoning to pursue one centralized repository and why it supports the goals of SIS and the ANSS. We demonstrate that by providing the ANSS network operator with a comprehensive site view, SIS enables the production of high‐quality metadata, a necessary prerequisite for producing high‐quality seismic data.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2017

Earthquake Early Warning ShakeAlert System: Testing and certification platform

Earthquake early warning systems provide warnings to end users of incoming moderate to strong ground shaking from earthquakes. An earthquake early warning system, ShakeAlert, is providing alerts to beta end users in the western United States, specifically California, Oregon, and Washington. An essential aspect of the earthquake early warning system is the development of a framework to test modifications to code to ensure functionality and assess performance. In 2016, a Testing and Certification Platform (TCP) was included in the development of the Production Prototype version of ShakeAlert. The purpose of the TCP is to evaluate the robustness of candidate code that is proposed for deployment on ShakeAlert Production Prototype servers. TCP consists of two main components: a real‐time in situ test that replicates the real‐time production system and an offline playback system to replay test suites. The real‐time tests of system performance assess code optimization and stability. The offline tests comprise a stress test of candidate code to assess if the code is production ready. The test suite includes over 120 events including local, regional, and teleseismic historic earthquakes, recentering and calibration events, and other anomalous and potentially problematic signals. Two assessments of alert performance are conducted. First, point‐source assessments are undertaken to compare magnitude, epicentral location, and origin time with the Advanced National Seismic System Comprehensive Catalog, as well as to evaluate alert latency. Second, we describe assessment of the quality of ground‐motion predictions at end‐user sites by comparing predicted shaking intensities to ShakeMaps for historic events and implement a threshold‐based approach that assesses how often end users initiate the appropriate action, based on their ground‐shaking threshold. TCP has been developed to be a convenient streamlined procedure for objectively testing algorithms, and it has been designed with flexibility to accommodate significant changes in development of new or modified system code. It is expected that the TCP will continue to evolve along with the ShakeAlert system, and the framework we describe here provides one example of how earthquake early warning systems can be evaluated.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2017

Earthquake early Warning ShakeAlert system: West coast wide production prototype

Earthquake early warning (EEW) is an application of seismological science that can give people, as well as mechanical and electrical systems, up to tens of seconds to take protective actions before peak earthquake shaking arrives at a location. Since 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey has been working in collaboration with several partners to develop EEW for the United States. The goal is to create and operate an EEW system, called ShakeAlert, for the highest risk areas of the United States, starting with the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington. In early 2016, the Production Prototype v.1.0 was established for California; then, in early 2017, v.1.2 was established for the West Coast, with earthquake notifications being distributed to a group of beta users in California, Oregon, and Washington. The new ShakeAlert Production Prototype was an outgrowth from an earlier demonstration EEW system that began sending test notifications to selected users in California in January 2012. ShakeAlert leverages the considerable physical, technical, and organizational earthquake monitoring infrastructure of the Advanced National Seismic System, a nationwide federation of cooperating seismic networks. When fully implemented, the ShakeAlert system may reduce damage and injury caused by large earthquakes, improve the nation’s resilience, and speed recovery.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2018

Ground-motion models for very-hard rock sites in eastern North America: An update

The ground‐motion models provided by me to the Next Generation Attenuation‐East (NGA‐East) project in 2015 have been updated by considering three additional Fourier spectra attenuation models and by conducting a mixed‐effect analysis of the residuals between the ground‐motion intensity measures computed from the attenuation models and the data from nine relatively well‐recorded events in eastern North America. On the basis of the period trends of the bias in the residuals and the distance trends of the residuals, I recommend the ground‐motion models developed for these attenuation models, with equal weights: the BCA10D model with 1/ R geometrical spreading at all distances, and two modifications of the Atkinson and Boore (2014 ; referred as AB14) model, with 1/ R spreading within 10 km, 1/ R 1.3 spreading from 10 to 50 km, and 1/√ R spreading beyond 50 km.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

A suite of exercises for verifying dynamic earthquake rupture codes

We describe a set of benchmark exercises that are designed to test if computer codes that simulate dynamic earthquake rupture are working as intended. These types of computer codes are often used to understand how earthquakes operate, and they produce simulation results that include earthquake size, amounts of fault slip, and the patterns of ground shaking and crustal deformation. The benchmark exercises examine a range of features that scientists incorporate in their dynamic earthquake rupture simulations. These include implementations of simple or complex fault geometry, off‐fault rock response to an earthquake, stress conditions, and a variety of formulations for fault friction. Many of the benchmarks were designed to investigate scientific problems at the forefronts of earthquake physics and strong ground motions research. The exercises are freely available on our website for use by the scientific community.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Laboratory tests of three Z‐Land Fairfield Nodal 5‐Hz, three‐component sensors

We conduct a number of laboratory tests at the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory to verify the self‐noise and fidelity in which 3 three‐component Fairfield Nodal Z‐Land, Generation 2, 5‐Hz sensors are able to record seismic signals. In addition to the incoherent self‐noise of the sensors, we estimate the sensitivity of the units in digital volts/m/s, the damping, and the free period. These three parameters allow us to completely characterize the response of the instruments. We find that the responses of all components match a mean‐derived response to within 5% of amplitude and 0.03 radians in phase. This close agreement suggests that for most applications a nominal response is suitable. We also checked the timing of the units as compared to a Quanterra Q330HR and found good agreement up to 200samples/s . Finally, we compared the results of our noise tests on these sensors to a couple of nodal sensors recently deployed at the Community Wavefield Demonstration Experiment in north‐central Oklahoma and found that local site noise and not the sensor self‐noise is a fundamental limiter in the resolution of these deployed sensors at frequencies above ∼0.1Hz .

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Candidate products for operational earthquake forecasting illustrated using the HayWired planning scenario, including one very quick (and not‐so‐dirty) hazard‐map option

In an effort to help address debates on the usefulness of operational earthquake forecasting (OEF), we illustrate a number of OEF products that could be automatically generated in near‐real time. To exemplify, we use an M "> M 7.1 mainshock on the Hayward fault, which is very similar to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) HayWired earthquake planning scenario. Given that there is always some background level of hazard or risk, we emphasize that probability gains (the ratio of short‐term to long‐term‐average estimates) might be of particular interest to users. We also illustrate how such gains are highly sensitive to forecast duration and latency, with the latter representing how long it takes to generate the forecast and/or to take action. The influence of fault‐based information, which has traditionally been ignored in OEF, is also evaluated using the newly developed the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (UCERF3‐ETAS) model. We find that the inclusion of faults only makes a difference for hazard and risk metrics that are dominated by large‐event likelihoods. We also show how the ShakeMap of a mainshock represents a decent estimate of the ground motions that have a 6% chance of being exceeded due to aftershocks in the week that follows. The ultimate value of these types of OEF products can only be determined in the context of specific uses, and because these vary widely, institutions responsible for providing OEF products will depend heavily on user feedback, especially when making resource‐allocation decisions.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Integrate urban‐scale seismic hazard analyses with the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

For more than 20 yrs, damage patterns and instrumental recordings have highlighted the influence of the local 3D geologic structure on earthquake ground motions (e.g., M "> M M 6.7 Northridge, California, Gao et al. , 1996 ; M "> M M 6.9 Kobe, Japan, Kawase, 1996 ; M "> M M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, Frankel, Carver, and Williams, 2002 ). Although this and other local‐scale features are critical to improving seismic hazard forecasts, historically they have not been explicitly incorporated into the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM, national model and maps), primarily because the necessary basin maps and methodologies were not available at the national scale. Instead, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), its partners, and external groups developed urban seismic hazard maps (urban models and maps) that consider detailed site effects in local areas (e.g., Wong et al. , 2002 ; Cramer et al. , 2006 ; Frankel et al. , 2007 ; Graves et al. , 2011 ). The disconnect between the urban and national hazard models, however, means that the national models, which underlie U.S. building codes and other applications, do not make use of all of the scientific results informing earthquake ground‐shaking hazards. We recommend that future U.S. national seismic hazard assessment make use of all available regional information, including that in urban models. In this column, we describe the roles of and differences between the urban and national models, and discuss the obstacles to and benefits of integrating the urban models with the national model. Future progress on this issue will require further coordination and implementation efforts between the USGS and external partners.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

A repeating event sequence alarm for monitoring volcanoes

A major challenge in volcanology is forecasting eruptions. Repeating earthquake sequences may precede volcanic eruptions or lava dome growth and collapse, providing an opportunity for short-term eruption forecasting. I develop an automated repeating earthquake sequence detector and near real-time alarm to send alerts when an in-progress sequence is identified. The algorithm is based on a standard event detector (e.g., STA/LTA) and subsequent correlation-matching procedure that identifies repeating event sequences. A notification algorithm determines when a sequence is in progress and sends alerts. I use eruptions of three Alaskan volcanoes as case studies to test the alarm, implementing it both in retrospect and in real-time during the 2016-2017 Bogoslof eruption. These case studies show that the alarm can successfully be used to detect and alert on sequences of repeating events in a timely manner.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

2018 one‐year seismic hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

This article describes the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2018 one‐year probabilistic seismic hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. For consistency, the updated 2018 forecast is developed using the same probabilistic seismicity‐based methodology as applied in the two previous forecasts. Rates of earthquakes across the United States M ≥ 3.0 "> M ≥ 3.0 grew rapidly between 2008 and 2015 but have steadily declined over the past 3 years, especially in areas of Oklahoma and southern Kansas where fluid injection has decreased. The seismicity pattern in 2017 was complex with earthquakes more spatially dispersed than in the previous years. Some areas of west‐central Oklahoma experienced increased activity rates where industrial activity increased. Earthquake rates in Oklahoma (429 earthquakes of M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 and 4 M ≥ 4 "> M ≥ 4 ), Raton basin (Colorado/New Mexico border, six earthquakes M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 ), and the New Madrid seismic zone (11 earthquakes M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 ) continue to be higher than historical levels. Almost all of these earthquakes occurred within the highest hazard regions of the 2017 forecast. Even though rates declined over the past 3 years, the short‐term hazard for damaging ground shaking across much of Oklahoma remains at high levels due to continuing high rates of smaller earthquakes that are still hundreds of times higher than at any time in the state’s history. Fine details and variability between the 2016–2018 forecasts are obscured by significant uncertainties in the input model. These short‐term hazard levels are similar to active regions in California. During 2017, M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 earthquakes also occurred in or near Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Ensemble smoothed seismicity models for the new Italian Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map

We develop a long‐term (a few decades or longer) earthquake rate forecast for Italy based on smoothed seismicity for incorporation in the 2017–2018 Italian Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps (IPSHM). Because the earthquake rate models from previous IPSHM were computed using source zones that were drawn around seismicity and tectonic provinces, the present model will be the first introduction of the smoothed seismicity method into the IPSHM. Smoothed seismicity models are constructed from both historical CPTI15 (Catalogo Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani, 1000–2014) and instrumental (1981–2016) earthquake catalogs and use both fixed and adaptive smoothing methods. We compute spatial likelihood values comparing the spatial distribution of observed earthquakes with a suite of trial earthquake rate models to optimize smoothing parameters and catalogs. Then we produce an ensemble model using two different smoothing models (adaptive and fixed) and two earthquake catalogs (historical and instrumental), which are weighted equally through a logic‐tree approach to improve the forecast capability. We also compare our optimized smoothed seismicity models with the best two models of the Italian Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) experiment and retrospectively test them with the CSEP methodology. We observed that the ensemble model performs slightly better than the optimized fixed and the adaptive smoothing seismicity models obtained in this study and the best time‐independent model of the CSEP Italian experiment. The preferred ensemble model forecasts an annual rate of 1.47 M ≥ 5.0 "> M ≥ 5.0 earthquakes, with higher rates mainly concentrating along the Apennines chain, eastern Alps, Calabria, and northeast Sicily. Finally, six ensemble models are created from the different smoothing methods using different weights through a logic‐tree approach to estimate the uncertainty associated with the model.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Tilt Trivia: A free multiplayer app to learn geoscience concepts and definitions

Today’s technology is opening up new ways to learn. Here, we introduce Tilt Trivia, a suite of quiz‐style, multiplayer games for use on mobile devices and tablets (Android or Apple) to help students learn simple definitions and facts. This mobile device game was built using the Unity engine and has a multiplayer functionality that runs seamlessly, all day, every day. A single game consists of 6–10 questions that are selected at random from a base suite of 13–33 questions. A single Tilt Trivia game takes 3–7 min to complete and allows up to five players to play simultaneously in the same game space. To begin, players select a topical avatar to represent them in the game. While in the competitive playing field, players are presented with a question and then they simply tilt their tablets until their avatar rests on the correct answer marker (i.e., true or false). Because the playing field is constantly tilting, keeping your avatar on the correct answer requires a continual counter‐tilting motion of the tablet to maintain your position within the game. A countdown timer is incorporated requiring players to answer the questions as quickly as possible. At the end of the game, a leaderboard displays the players’ scores and rankings, a metric that motivates repeat play. Players have the option of jostling other players off of the correct answer in the hopes of netting the highest score. The game is configurable to any topic and currently there are games for eight different topics (see Data and Resources ).

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Seismicity in the Challis, Idaho region, January 2014 - May 2017: Late aftershocks of the 1983 Ms 7.3 Borah Peak earthquake

In April 2014, after about 20 yrs of relatively low seismicity, an energetic earthquake sequence (maximum M L "> M L 4.8) began 25–30 km northwest of the 1983 M s "> M s 7.3 Borah Peak earthquake rupture area near the town of Challis, Idaho. This sequence ended in the fall of 2014, but in January 2015, a second energetic sequence (maximum M L "> M L 5.0) began about 20 km to the southeast. Modest seismicity has continued in both regions with ∼ 1000 "> ∼ 1000 earthquakes detected and located through May 2017. To better characterize the seismicity in the area, we deployed a seven‐station local seismometer network during April–October 2014; one of the stations remained active until July 2015. Here, we report updated locations for earthquakes in the Challis area for 1 January 2014–31 May 2017. Using a combination of absolute and differential arrival times, we generated a catalog of high‐accuracy relocations. The earthquakes clustered into four primary groups, three of them with strikes similar to the Lost River fault—the fault responsible for the 1983 Borah Peak event. We used a modified cut‐and‐paste method to determine moment tensors for 15 of the largest events. All of the moment tensors showed normal faulting with nodal plane strikes consistent with the trend of the relocated seismicity and the regional stress field. We suggest that the recent seismicity near Challis is best interpreted as a continuation of the 1983 M s "> M s Ms 7.3 Borah Peak aftershock sequence, which is unusually long compared to plate boundary aftershock sequences because of the lower regional strain rate.

Idaho↗
USGS2018

Mw 4.2 Delaware Earthquake of 30 November 2017

The 30 November 2017 Delaware earthquake with magnitude MW 4.2 occurred beneath the northeastern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula near Dover, Delaware. The earthquake and its aftershocks provide an opportunity to evaluate seismicity in a passive margin setting using much improved coverage by high-quality permanent broadband seismometers at regional distance ranges in the central and eastern United States. This is the largest instrumentally recorded earthquake in Delaware and triggered a collaborative rapid-response effort by seismologists at five institutions along the mid-Atlantic. As a result of this effort, eighteen portable seismographs were deployed in the epicentral region within 24 hours of the mainshock. High-quality seismic recordings at over 380 permanent regional broadband seismographic stations in the eastern United States show a remarkably small decrease in amplitude with distance between 800-2000 km. The mainshock focal mechanism shows predominantly strike-slip motion with a significant thrust component. The orientation of the subhorizontal P-axis is consistent with that of earthquakes in the nearby Reading-Lancaster seismic zone in Pennsylvania, but are rotated counter-clockwise about 45º from that of the MW 5.8 Mineral, Virginia earthquake. We detected small aftershocks below the normal event detection threshold by using a waveform cross-correlation detection method. This demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach for earthquake studies and hazard evaluation in the eastern United States. Based on their waveform similarities, repeating earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 1.5 are detected in 2010, 2015, and 2017. While there is a large time interval between events, 5 years and 2.2 years respectively, the events occur within a spatially tight cluster located near the 2017 Dover DE earthquake mainshock.

Delaware↗
USGS2018

Improving earthquake rupture forecasts using California as a guide

This article discusses ways in which earthquake rupture forecast models might be improved. Because changes are most easily described in the context of specific models, the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) and its presumed successor, UCERF4, is used as a basis for discussion. Virtually all of the issues and possible improvements discussed are nevertheless general and should therefore be applicable to other regions as well. Two common themes are a need for better epistemic uncertainty representation and the potential utility of physics‐based simulators. Given the large number of possible improvements, coupled with challenges in defining the potential value of each, which will vary among uses, community feedback is invaluable in terms of setting priorities. We should also strive to define more objective valuation metrics.

Seismological Research Letters↗