Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Earthquake Spectra”

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.

266 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
USGS2026

Temporal and spatial changes in seismic attenuation associated with inferred fluid migration in the 2016 central Apennines earthquake sequence

Prior work suggests that high‐frequency seismic attenuation acts as a highly sensitive proxy for crustal permeability and fluid mobility in fractured media. We test the hypothesis that the fault system responsible for the 2016–2017 Amatrice–Visso–Norcia–Capitignano sequence acted as an impermeable seal, compartmentalizing pressurized fluids until dynamic rupture triggered widespread fluid diffusion. By tracking across the sequence the spatiotemporal evolution of the S ‐wave anelastic attenuation parameter, we identify large, positive low‐frequency attenuation anomalies emerging within the hanging wall following the Amatrice mainshock and strictly preceding subsequent large ruptures. Conversely, we observe weaker, negative anomalies in the footwall, anticorrelated in time with those of the hanging wall, revealing a massive asymmetry in fluid redistribution and permeability evolution across the fault system. Furthermore, aftershock migration rates reveal distinct linear alignments in a distance‐reduced time space, allowing us to explicitly track and quantify episodes of lateral and upward fluid migration. These physically consistent patterns suggest that stress‐driven fluid diffusion directly weakens adjacent fault patches, dictating the spatiotemporal migration of seismicity. We conclude that near‐real‐time monitoring of seismic attenuation may help detect fluid redistribution in active fault systems and may provide useful information for time‐dependent seismic hazard assessment.

central Apennines↗
USGS2026

Simulation-based scenario ShakeMaps for large magnitude (MW6.5+) crustal earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults, Washington, USA

Scenario ground‐motion maps based on empirical ground‐motion models (GMMs) provide a rapid and generally reliable means of estimating the amplitude and distribution of earthquake shaking. However, because GMMs are designed for broad applicability, they often rely on simplified representations of Earth structure, which can limit their accuracy in regions with complex source, path, and site effects. This can substantially impact the accuracy of predicted shaking in areas like western Washington State, where deep, interconnected basin structure exerts a strong influence on seismic‐wave propagation. In this study, we present a new suite of simulation‐based scenario ShakeMaps that characterize ground shaking from large‐magnitude ( ⁠ M W 6.5–7.5) earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults. These maps are developed using results from recent 3D wave propagation simulations ( Stone et al. , 2022 , 2023 , 2025 ) that incorporate realistic rupture geometries, variable slip distributions, and a regional 3D seismic velocity model with shallow soils. Broadband ground motions are estimated by combining the low‐frequency (<1 Hz) deterministic seismograms from these studies with high‐frequency (1–10 Hz) stochastic seismograms. Simulated ground motions are corrected to account for the enforced minimum shear‐wave velocity and nonlinear site response. The resulting ShakeMaps represent median ground‐shaking estimates derived from multiple rupture scenarios with varying slip distributions and hypocenter locations for each fault. To extend ShakeMap coverage beyond the simulation domain (i.e., into eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia), we scale GMM‐based ground‐motion estimates using amplification patterns observed in the simulations. These new ShakeMaps reveal the substantial influence of deep basin structure on shaking intensity, underscoring the importance of considering crustal structure complexity in regional hazard assessments for the Pacific Northwest.

Washington↗
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

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
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↗
USGS2025

Deterministic physics-based earthquake sequence simulators match empirical ground-motion models and enable extrapolation to data poor regimes: Application to multifault multimechanism ruptures

We use the deterministic earthquake simulator RSQSim to generate complex sequences of ruptures on fault systems used for hazard assessment. We show that the source motions combined with a wave propagation code create surface ground motions that fall within the range of epistemic uncertainties for the Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 set of empirical models. We show the model is well calibrated where there are good data constraints, and has good correspondence in regions with fewer data constraints. We show magnitude, distance, and mechanism dependence all arising naturally from the same underlying friction. The deterministic physics‐based approach provides an opportunity for better understanding the physical origins of ground motions. For example, we find that reduced stress drops in shallow layers relative to constant stress drop with depth lead to peak ground velocities in the near field that better match empirical models. The simulators may also provide better extrapolations into regimes that are poorly empirically constrained by data because physics, rather than surface shaking data parameterizations, is underlying the extrapolations. Having shown the model is credible, we apply it to a problem where observations are lacking. We examine the case of crustal faults above a shallow subduction interface seen to break coseismically in simulations of the New Zealand fault system. These types of events were left out of consideration in the most recent New Zealand national seismic hazard model due to the modeling complexity and lack of observational data to constrain ground‐motion models (GMMs). Here, we show that in the model, by breaking up the coseismic crustal and interface rupturing fault motions into two separate subevents, and then recombining the resulting ground‐motion measures in a square‐root‐of‐sum‐of‐squares incoherent manner, we reproduce well the ground‐motion measures from the full event rupture. This provides a new method for extrapolating GMMs to more complex multifault ruptures.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

The impact of source time function complexity on stress drop estimates

Earthquake stress drop—a key parameter for describing the energetics of earthquake rupture—can be estimated in several different, but theoretically equivalent, ways. However, independent estimates for the same earthquakes sometimes differ significantly. We find that earthquake source complexity plays a significant role in why theoretically (for simple rupture models) equivalent methods produce different estimates. We apply time‐ and frequency‐domain methods to estimate stress drops for real earthquakes in the SCARDEC (Seismic source ChAracteristics Retrieved from DEConvolving teleseismic body waves, Vallée and Douet, 2016 ) source time function (STF) database and analyze how rupture complexity drives stress‐drop estimate discrepancies. Specifically, we identify two complexity metrics—Brune relative energy (BRE) and spectral decay—that parameterize an earthquake’s complexity relative to the standard Brune model and strongly correlate with the estimate discrepancies. We find that the observed systematic magnitude–stress‐drop trends may reflect underlying changes in STF complexity, not necessarily trends in actual stress drop. Both the decay and BRE parameters vary systematically with magnitude, but whether this magnitude–complexity relationship is real remains unresolved.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2025

Spatiotemporal variations in strain release and seismic rupture in multifault systems: An example from Panamint Valley, southeastern California

Geometrically complex, multifault ruptures have been observed in recent, damaging earthquakes in southeastern California, sparking renewed efforts to identify physical conditions that promote or inhibit fault discontinuity-spanning coseismic ruptures. The likelihood of ruptures propagating across fault discontinuities is thought to be partly controlled by fault geometries, rupture direction, and the history of strain release. However, these parameters vary in space and time over multiple earthquake cycles, making it difficult to forecast the likelihood that an earthquake on one fault will trigger rupture on a nearby fault. Here we use tectono-geomorphic mapping of a geometrically complex fault zone in Panamint Valley, southeastern California, to assess spatiotemporal variations of paleo-rupture patterns and geometries of fault discontinuities over multiple earthquake cycles. First, we identify ten generations of late Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium using geomorphic parameters and luminescence dating to constrain ages of alluvium and bracket late Holocene earthquake timing. Then, we quantify slip kinematics using high-resolution structure from motion digital surface models. We find the Panamint Valley transtensional relay (PVTR) hosted four late Holocene earthquakes, bracketed to ~5.8–3.4 ka, ~3.8–2.2 ka, ~2.4–0.6 ka, and ~0.64–0.16 ka, with ~0.6–1.1 m of slip per event, correlative to Mw ≈ 6.7–6.9 earthquakes. Additionally, we find similarities in earthquake timing on the Ash Hill, PVTR, and Panamint Valley faults and similarities in the slip magnitude and slip kinematics between the Ash Hill and PVTR faults, implying that the PVTR may co-rupture with nearby faults. Paleo-rupture patterns indicate that seismogenic strain transfer may occur through the PVTR, along different combinations of fault segments and jump distances, over multiple earthquake cycles. These data highlight the utility of tectono-geomorphic mapping in evaluating paleo-rupture patterns and suggest that the PVTR may act to propagate and/or arrest rupture between the Ash Hill and Panamint Valley faults.

California↗
USGS2024

Characterizing directivity in small (M 2.4-5) aftershocks of the Ridgecrest sequence

Directivity, or the focusing of energy along the direction of an earthquake rupture, is a common property of earthquakes of all sizes and can cause increased hazard due to azimuthally dependent ground‐motion amplification. For small earthquakes, the effects of directivity are generally less pronounced due to reduced rupture size, yet the directivity in small events can bias source property estimates and provide important insights into general regional faulting patterns. However, due to observational limitations, directivity is usually only measured and modeled for large events. As such, many studies of small earthquakes either ignore directivity altogether or assume a constant rupture direction for all events in a cluster. In our study, we apply a refined directivity fitting method constrained with two separate methods of source deconvolution to the dataset of aftershocks of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes, which contain a large number of well‐recorded small‐to‐mid sized earthquakes occurring in close proximity to each other. The revealed directivity of 100+ small (M 2.4–5) earthquakes is highly heterogeneous and primarily oblique to and away from the main fault strike, suggesting a complex postseismic stress redistribution. In addition, the energy focusing effect of directivity appears to bias the selection of high‐quality data from stations in the direction of rupture, leading to average stress‐drop increases of 50% if directivity is not accounted for.

California↗
USGS2026

Predictable seismic cycles result from structural rupture barriers on oceanic transform faults

Earthquakes of magnitude ( M ) >5.5 on oceanic transform faults (OTFs) repeatedly rupture the same locked patches, sometimes quasiperiodically. These patches are separated by “barriers” that halt earthquake propagation and slip mostly aseismically. However, the physical processes governing this systematic behavior remain unclear. We analyzed two barriers along the Gofar transform fault that have arrested ~15 M 6 earthquakes over the past three decades. Ocean bottom seismometer data indicate that the barriers hosted intense microseismicity before the mainshocks and comprise multistrand faults and transtensional stepovers with 100- to 400-m lateral offset. These characteristics contradict earthquake rupture termination models invoking velocity-strengthening friction or large geometric steps and instead point to damage-enhanced porosity and dilatancy-strengthening mechanisms. By isolating rupture segments, the barriers regulate the quasiperiodic recurrence of OTF earthquakes.

Science↗
USGS2025

To heal or not to heal?: 1. The effect of pore fluid pressure on the frictional healing behavior of lithologies in Oklahoma

The competition between fault healing (i.e., re-strengthening) and fault loading determines the timing and magnitude of fault failure within the seismic cycle. Repeating earthquakes can give observational estimates of fault healing rates, however, it is difficult to link laboratory studies of frictional healing and observed healing rates from repeating earthquakes in part because of uncertainty in lithology at depth. Due to well-constrained and relatively simple geology, earthquakes in Oklahoma can be linked to the granitic basement rock and to the Arbuckle Group, which is primarily composed of dolomite at earthquake depths. Here, we conduct friction experiments to measure healing rates of the two earthquake-bearing lithologies at confining pressures representative of earthquake depths and pore pressures ranging from 0% to 80% of the confining pressure. We measure frictional healing by executing slide-hold-slide tests with hold times ranging from 3 s to 3000 s. The friction experiments on the Troy Granite indicate that pore fluid pressure does not greatly affect healing rate. On the other hand, the dolomite of the Arbuckle Group exhibits decreased healing with increased pore fluid pressure, with weakening at the highest pore pressure. We hypothesize that this is due to an increase in dissolution of dolomite at high pore pressures/low effective normal stress. These healing rates are used in the companion paper to understand the moment-recurrence time behavior of repeating earthquakes in Prague, Oklahoma. This work has implications for possible enhanced dissolution and weakening behavior of the Arbuckle Group during wastewater injection activities.

Oklahoma↗
USGS2025

Macroseismology

In this chapter I discuss the use of so-called macroseismic data, i.e., reports of damage and other effects of shaking on humans and the built environment, to improve the characterization of earthquakes and the ground motions they produce. Macroseismic data are critical not only to investigate earthquakes that occurred before the start of the instrumental era in seismology, but are also, by virtue of the spatially rich nature of the data, of tremendous potential importance to investigate early instrumental and even recent earthquakes. Fueled by both the advent of on-line systems that now produce unprecedented volumes of macroseismic intensity data and by recognition of the importance of understanding key historical earthquakes, there has been a growing appreciation for the value of macroseismic data. It is, however, critical to understand both the unique challenges and the unique opportunities associated with these data. I review the evolution of thought and practices regarding analysis of macroseismic data, and the use of such data to improve the characterization of historic and early instrumental earthquakes.

Book chapter↗
USGS2026

Simulated ground motion dataset in the Azores Plateau, Portugal, on rock and soil sites

Building on a previously developed bedrock dataset, this study extends the Azores Plateau ground motion simulations to include soil-amplified records and introduces a comprehensive validation framework. Soil amplification is modeled using one-dimensional soil profiles. A stochastic source-based approach is employed to generate the dataset, incorporating randomization of input-model parameters to account for the aleatory uncertainty in seismic activity. The accuracy of the dataset is verified through a comprehensive validation framework, showing that the randomization effectively captures variance and inter-period correlation observed in records. This work provides a robust dataset for advancing seismic hazard and risk assessment in the Azores Plateau.

central and eastern Azores islands↗
USGS2026

Compact seismicity bursts have different characteristics from regional seismicity

Earthquakes tend to cluster, developing into sequences driven by stress perturbations and transient fault-zone processes. Depending on the driving process, earthquake sequences show differing behaviors. This variability challenges our ability to observe or distinguish these driving processes in high resolution. Here we systematically identify seismicity bursts throughout southern California using new statistical methods and examine their causes with other independent geophysical observations. Seismicity bursts are defined as statistically significant seismicity rate anomalies. Our approach has the advantage of being data driven, depending on few earthquake occurrence assumptions. We find abundant seismicity bursts across southern California, most frequently occurring along the San Jacinto Fault and in the Salton Sea and Coso geothermal fields. These seismicity bursts are highly compact in space and time, often encompassed by a 5 km radius and have durations less than 10 hr. Many of the seismicity bursts have their largest earthquake near the beginning of the sequence, but the largest earthquake is usually not an obvious mainshock. We utilize a variety of independent geophysical data sets to analyze the characteristics of the seismicity bursts, finding that the seismicity bursts have low b-values, low spectral stress drops, and varied stress ratios compared to regional seismicity. These differences suggest that seismicity bursts are driven by transient processes acting frequently across fault networks.

California↗
USGS2025

International data gaps at the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data

The Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) is utilized by seismologists, engineers, and disaster management professionals in the US and has historically achieved and distributed waveforms from across the globe for significant earthquakes. The increased access to the waveforms via Web API (Application Programming Interface) offers a unique opportunity to provide the community complete datasets, sampling a variety of tectonic environments and geologic conditions, increasing the number of available ground motion records for use in ground motion models (GMMs) and improving the accuracy of earthquake engineering evaluations. The objective of this study is to programmatically identify gaps in global event data from the past decade and backfill missing data gaps at CESMD. We first compare the CESMD catalog with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog identifying regions and time periods where strong-motion data is limited or inadequate. To backfill datasets at CESMD for significant events, we pinpoint regions and time intervals that lack information, creating a list of events for which we’d like to obtain data. An important facet of this work is identifying the source of data and metadata across earthquake repositories around the world and integrating these data repositories into our current strong-motion data processing workflow. In parallel with these newly processed datasets, we are developing a script to produce data origination citations to include provenance and attribution information to associate with respective datasets at CESMD. We showcase our methodology for identifying and filling data gaps at CESMD using three case studies (the 2018 Anchorage Alaska earthquake sequence, seismicity associated with the 2018 Hawaiian Kilauea volcano eruption, and several earthquakes in Turkey) and then outline our strategy to apply our data gap backfilling methods on an international scale.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2025

Surface-wave relocation and characterization of the October 2023 tsunamigenic seismic unrest near Sofugan volcano, Izu Islands, Japan

A moderate-magnitude earthquake swarm occurred in the remote Izu Islands region of Japan between October 1 and 8, 2023. The swarm included 151 shallow earthquakes cataloged by the U.S. Geological Survey, which notably included a roughly 2.5-hr episode of 15 successive magnitude (M) < 5.5 earthquakes. Origin times were coincident with regionally recorded tsunami waves, but tsunamigenesis for moderate-magnitude earthquakes is uncommon, indicating that volcanic activity generated the ocean displacements. Leveraging a surface-wave relative relocation approach, we estimate precise epicentroid locations for the remote swarm. Final epicentroids and caldera analogs indicate a three-stage model to explain swarm activity: (a) caldera pressurization due to magma intrusion, (b) depressurization via dike propagation away from the caldera, and (c) eruption corresponding with caldera reactivation either by collapse or additional intrusion.

Sofugan volcano, Izu Islands↗
USGS2026

Orientation dependence of probabilistic seismic hazard estimates from CyberShake physics-based simulations

Earthquake ground‐motion intensities, such as pseudospectral accelerations (SAs), can vary significantly with horizontal orientation. However, conducting probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for each horizontal orientation is challenging because current ground‐motion models used in PSHA consider only a single horizontal intensity value, usually the median across all orientations, known as RotD50. To address this limitation, we employ physics‐based simulations for PSHA, which contain full waveforms from which ground‐motion intensities can be computed for all horizontal orientations to study directional seismic hazard. We apply our approach to the latest CyberShake study of the Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, developed by the Statewide California Earthquake Center, finding that seismic hazard at a 2475‐yr return period, a common value used for earthquake‐resistant design, varies significantly with horizontal orientation. For instance, for SAs at 3 s, the maximum seismic hazard across all horizontal orientations is, on average, 15% higher than the median RotD50 hazard, with these differences becoming more pronounced at longer periods. These observed variations can generally be attributed to physical mechanisms that polarize seismic waves, such as the radiation pattern of the earthquake source and the influence of the subsurface structure. These results may have important implications for earthquake engineering applications, particularly for long‐period structures in areas with substantial horizontal variations in seismic hazard.

California↗
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↗