Geology topics

Charles Worden

Publications and source records attributed to Charles Worden.

15 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Ground motions from finite faults with unknown geometry

Earthquake emergency response and loss modeling require accurate models of ground‐motion intensity metrics (IMs), such as those produced by ShakeMap. In the critical minutes and hours after an earthquake, however, knowledge of the earthquake source geometry limits the accuracy of these models, especially in areas where seismic instrumentation is insufficient to constrain the shaking intensity pattern. Previous attempts to overcome this limitation have centered on computing the mean distance metrics from a suite of assumed source geometries. That approach is inadequate with modern ground‐motion models (GMMs) because they typically include terms for the hanging wall effect, depth to top of rupture, and other nonlinear terms. Such approaches also propagate the distance uncertainty through the GMMs and may not properly allocate the additional uncertainty into the between‐ and within‐event components. Here we present Finite‐Fault SIMulation with Mixed Effects Regression (FFSIMMER), a method to address these limitations by computing IM distributions from a suite of rupture realizations that fully accounts for all geometry‐related GMM terms and allows for the separation of the between‐ and within‐event components of the total uncertainty. The accuracy of this method is limited by the available constraints on the source parameters. To address this, FFSIMMER can incorporate constraints based on knowledge of the source, such as the approximate strike and dip based on knowledge of the plate tectonics and focal mechanism of the earthquake. We demonstrate the improvement in accuracy that can be achieved with the 2025 M 7.7 Mandalay, Burma (Myanmar), earthquake by incorporating constraints on the range of plausible source parameters.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

Site-specific, extended ShakeMaps for earthquake engineering applications

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely produces ShakeMaps of shaking intensity across the globe. Due to practical constraints, the number of response spectral periods was limited to three standard periods (0.3, 1.0, and 3.0 sec). We have recently developed the tools that are necessary to expand this functionality to include 22 periods (matching the current U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model periods) as well as the orientation-independent components (e.g., “RotD50”). We refer to ShakeMap products that include these extensions as “extended ShakeMaps.” The added level of complexity motivated us to also develop a user-friendly tool called the “ShakeMap Sampling Tool” (SST) that gives all the estimated shaking metrics for a specific location (or list of locations). Additionally, we develop a web application where users can input locations of interest and view/download the SST results. We further familiarize users with the concept of “Composite ShakeMaps.” For earthquakes sequences such as a mainshock and larger foreshocks and aftershocks, this provides a map of the maximum value of each shaking metric, which is useful for overall loss estimates, the full extent of ground failure triggering potential, and a better portrayal of the repeated shaking levels at a given point for a series of earthquakes. Such a site-specific shaking history facilitates earthquake forensics at building or infrastructure sites for which damage may be of concern, as described in the Disproportionate Damage Earthquake trigger specified in the IEBC (2018, Section 405.2.2) and in developing ATC-145 guidelines (Guidelines for Post-Earthquake Assessment, Repair, and Retrofit of Buildings). The composite ShakeMap can be combined with the SST for a variety of earthquake-hazard applications, such as systematically inferring triggering shaking estimates at specific sites of geotechnical interest for landsliding, liquefaction, and lateral-spreading hazards.

Kahramanmaraş↗

USGS2024

Automated, near real-time ground-motion processing at the U.S. Geological Survey

We describe automated ground‐motion processing software named gmprocess that has been developed at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in support of near‐real‐time earthquake hazard products. Because of the open‐source development process, this software has benefitted from the involvement and contributions of a broad community and has been used for a wider range of applications than was initially envisioned. Here, we give an overview and introduction to the software, including how it has leveraged other open‐source libraries. We highlight some key features that gmprocess provides, compare response spectra calculated with the automated processing approach of gmprocess to the response spectra provided by the Next Generation Attenuation projects, and summarize projects that have utilized gmprocess. These use‐cases demonstrate that this software development effort has been successfully leveraged in earthquake research activities both within and outside the USGS.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2022

Partitioning ground motion uncertainty when conditioned on station data

Rapid estimation of earthquake ground shaking and proper accounting of associated uncertainties in such estimates when conditioned on strong‐motion station data or macroseismic intensity observations are crucial for downstream applications such as ground failure and loss estimation. The U.S. Geological Survey ShakeMap system is called upon to fulfill this objective in light of increased near‐real‐time access to strong‐motion records from around the world. Although the station data provide a direct constraint on shaking estimates at specific locations, these data also heavily influence the uncertainty quantification at other locations. This investigation demonstrates methods to partition the within‐ (phi) and between‐event (tau) uncertainty estimates under the observational constraints, especially when between‐event uncertainties are heteroscedastic. The procedure allows the end users of ShakeMap to create separate between‐ and within‐event realizations of ground‐motion fields for downstream loss modeling applications in a manner that preserves the structure of the underlying random spatial processes.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2021

ShakeMap operations, policies, and procedures

The US Geological Survey’s ShakeMap is used domestically and globally for post-earthquake emergency management and response, engineering analyses, financial instruments, and other decision-making activities. Recent developments in the insurance, reinsurance, and catastrophe bond sectors link payouts of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to ShakeMap products. Similarly, building codes, post-earthquake building damage forensic evaluations, and geotechnical evaluations often rely on estimated peak response-spectral values for site-specific evaluations that may lead to costly analyses, retrofits, or other expenditures. Given such activities, financial, engineering, and other technical users demand processing specifications and a metadata trail for actuarial, escrow, and forensic purposes for each significant earthquake. Recent inquiries include how and why maps change with time, how to interpret metadata, and how to obtain the creation and update history of various map layers. Similarly, the collection of ShakeMap scenarios and historical ShakeMaps—either created in earlier versions or rerun as part of the latest version of the ShakeMap Atlas—warrant a full explanation of the inputs, processing, and archiving given their contribution to fragility curve development and loss model calibration. For these reasons, in addition to event-specific ShakeMap metadata and a comprehensive online ShakeMap Manual, we have crafted this practice paper to answer several of the most frequently asked technical questions. We also describe an application programming interface (API) for accessing site-specific shaking metrics and their uncertainties for earthquake forensic purposes in a consistent fashion. In all, we describe the advantages of employing ShakeMaps for these critical purposes as well as describe their limitations and uncertainties, offering an extensive set of instructions and disclaimers that can be referenced by ShakeMap users.

California↗

USGS2020

An update of USGS bear-real-time earthquake shaking and impact products

We report on advancements in both hazard and consequence modeling that form the core of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) strategy to improve rapid earthquake shaking and loss estimates. Whereas our primary goal is to improve our operational capabilities of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center, the science, software, and datasets behind these systems continue to advance uses and studies of earthquake shaking and impact by the seismological, engineering, financial, and risk modeling communities. Several important updates to our integrated shaking and impact products are outlined and we introduce new earthquake information products that have recently been brought online, including rapid ground failure estimates and more spatially refined loss estimates domestically (in the U.S). We continue to compile, develop, and refine key openly available models and datasets that contribute to calibrating these systems and report on the collection and storage of new inventories. We also describe some of the basic operational considerations in the current generation of these shaking and loss-estimation systems. A key aspect of the product integration and development is leveraging earthquake-hazard and loss-modeling science done internally (within the USGS) and by external researchers and collaborators. Lastly, we outline new opportunities for further research and development by emphasizing scientific, data, and application gaps and challenges that must be solved in order to improve our shaking and impact information tools.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2019

Earthquakes, ShakeMap

ShakeMap® is an open-source software program employed to automatically produce a suite of maps and products that portray the geographical extent and severity of potentially damaging shaking following an earthquake. ShakeMap’s primary purpose is to provide post-earthquake situational awareness for emergency management and response as well as damage and loss estimation. The availability of ShakeMaps immediately after a significant earthquake is critical for the identification of areas likely to be most damaged. Principal users include first responders, utility companies, response and aid agencies, scientists and engineers, and the media. Maps are made publicly available via the Internet within several minutes of an earthquake’s occurrence. ShakeMap is widely deployed in seismically active, well-instrumented portions of the USA and internationally in numerous countries including Italy, Iceland, Greece, Costa Rica, and Switzerland, among others, and the US...

Book chapter↗

USGS2019

USGS near-real-time products-and their use-for the 2018 Anchorage earthquake

In the minutes to hours after a major earthquake, such as the recent 2018 M w "> M w 7.1 Anchorage event, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produces a suite of interconnected earthquake products that provides diverse information ranging from basic earthquake source parameters to loss estimates. The 2018 Anchorage earthquake is the first major domestic earthquake to occur since several new USGS products have been developed, thus providing an opportunity to discuss the newly expanded USGS earthquake product suite, its timeliness, performance, and reception. Overall, the products were relatively timely, accurate, well received, and widely used, including by the media, who used information and visualizations from many products to frame their early reporting. One downside of the codependence of multiple products is that reasonable updates to upstream products (e.g., magnitude and source characterization) can result in significant changes to downstream products; this was the case for the Anchorage earthquake. However, the coverage of strong‐motion stations and felt reports was so dense that the ShakeMap and downstream products were relatively insensitive to changes in magnitude or fault‐plane orientation once the ground‐motion data were available. Shaking and loss indicators initially fluctuated in the first hour or two after the earthquake, but they stabilized quickly. To understand how the products are being used and how effectively they are being communicated, we analyze the media coverage of USGS earthquake products. Most references to USGS products occurred within the first 48 hr after the event. The lack of coverage after 48 hr could indicate that longer‐term products addressing what actions the USGS is taking or what early reconnaissance has revealed might be useful for those people wanting additional information about the earthquake.

Alaska↗

USGS2018

The intensity signature of induced seismicity

We analyze a comprehensive database of ∼ 63 , 000 "> ∼ 63 , 000 geocoded community intensity observations from > 400 "> > 400 earthquakes of moment magnitude M ≥ 3.5 "> M ≥ 3.5 in Oklahoma from 2010 to 2016 to define the intensity signature of induced events. We show that natural and induced events have similar average intensities within 10 km of the epicenter. At greater distances, induced events have low‐average intensities compared with deeper natural events. These trends are predictable based on ground‐motion prediction equations. They are a consequence of two focal‐depth effects that have offsetting impacts on the strength of ground motion: (1) the epicenter is near the source for shallow events, and (2) the stress parameter scales with focal depth.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2018

Spatial and spectral interpolation of ground-motion intensity measure observations

Following a significant earthquake, ground‐motion observations are available for a limited set of locations and intensity measures (IMs). Typically, however, it is desirable to know the ground motions for additional IMs and at locations where observations are unavailable. Various interpolation methods are available, but because IMs or their logarithms are normally distributed, spatially correlated, and correlated with each other at a given location, it is possible to apply the conditional multivariate normal (MVN) distribution to the problem of estimating unobserved IMs. In this article, we review the MVN and its application to general estimation problems, and then apply the MVN to the specific problem of ground‐motion IM interpolation. In particular, we present (1) a formulation of the MVN for the simultaneous interpolation of IMs across space and IM type (most commonly, spectral response at different oscillator periods) and (2) the inclusion of uncertain observation data in the MVN formulation. These techniques, in combination with modern empirical ground‐motion models and correlation functions, provide a flexible framework for estimating a variety of IMs at arbitrary locations.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2017

Estimating rupture distances without a rupture

Most ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) require distances that are defined relative to a rupture model, such as the distance to the surface projection of the rupture (RJB) or the closest distance to the rupture plane (RRUP). There are a number of situations in which GMPEs are used where it is either necessary or advantageous to derive rupture distances from point-source distance metrics, such as hypocentral (RHYP) or epicentral (REPI) distance. For ShakeMap, it is necessary to provide an estimate of the shaking levels for events without rupture models, and before rupture models are available for events that eventually do have rupture models. In probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, it is often convenient to use point-source distances for gridded seismicity sources, particularly if a preferred orientation is unknown. This avoids the computationally cumbersome task of computing rupture-based distances for virtual rupture planes across all strikes and dips for each source. We derive average rupture distances conditioned on REPI, magnitude, and (optionally) back azimuth, for a variety of assumed seismological constraints. Additionally, we derive adjustment factors for GMPE standard deviations that reflect the added uncertainty in the ground motion estimation when point-source distances are used to estimate rupture distances.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2017

Computing spatial correlation of ground motion intensities for ShakeMap

Modeling the spatial correlation of ground motion residuals, caused by coherent contributions from source, path, and site, can provide valuable loss and hazard information, as well as a more realistic depiction of ground motion intensities. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) software package, ShakeMap, utilizes a deterministic empirical approach to estimate median ground shaking in conjunction with observed seismic data. ShakeMap-based shaking estimates are used in concert with loss estimation algorithms to estimate fatalities and economic losses after significant seismic events around the globe. Incorporating the spatial correlation of ground motion residuals has been shown to improve seismic loss estimates. In particular, Park, Bazzuro, and Baker (Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, 2007) investigated computing spatially correlated random fields of residuals. However, for large scale ShakeMap grids, computational requirements of the method are prohibitive. In this work, a memory efficient algorithm is developed to compute the random fields and implemented using the ShakeMap framework. This new, iterative parallel algorithm is based on decay properties of an associated ground motion correlation function and is shown to significantly reduce computational requirements associated with adding spatial variability to the ShakeMap g round motion estimates. Further, we demonstrate and quantify the impact of adding peak ground motion spatial variability on resulting earthquake loss estimates.

Computers & Geosciences↗

USGS2015

National Earthquake Information Center systems overview and integration

Overview The primary mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) is comprehensive global earthquake monitoring (M4.5 or larger) and complete seismic monitoring of the United States for all significant earthquakes (M3.0 or larger or felt). In recent years, the NEIC has assumed a more prominent role in local and regional seismic monitoring, backup capabilities, and special studies. The NEIC uses numerous scientific algorithms to produce information products for local, national, and international disaster responders; infrastructure corporations (for example, utility providers and insurers); U.S. embassies worldwide; news agencies; national and international earth science research communities; and millions of public users. To support this mission, the NEIC operates a constant service to derive numerous information products as rapidly and accurately as possible. Derived information products and data sets provide a wealth of related earthquake information and include products such as location, magnitude, maps of shaking intensity, moment tensors, phase arrivals, and loss and damage reports. These information products are automatically derived in near real-time and refined over time. Earthquake information products vary from well formatted text files, to binary files, to directories full of many files. A team of analysts, who provide constant coverage, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, review the acquired data and automatically derived products (1) in near real-time for rapid release and (2) in the weeks following events to produce historical catalogs of global earthquakes in support of scientific research. Data and products are reviewed both in near real-time for rapid release and in the weeks following events to produce historical catalogs of global earthquakes in support of scientific research. At the present time, the NEIC publishes data for approximately 25,000 earthquakes annually. The NEIC software system that supports this service and mission comprises many subsystems. The internals of each subsystem are often complex, but the integration between all of the subsystems is well defined, standardized, and straightforward. This Open-File Report describes the systems’ integration infrastructure and how all the subsystems fit together. It provides summary views of the system as a whole, along with detailed views of the inputs, outputs, and dependencies for each subsystem. It also outlines the many shared data services that support these subsystems and applications as well as external customers. The NEIC systems-integration effort is ongoing. Additional integration steps, needed to reach our goals, are discussed. It is important to note that this document provides a brief introduction to the work of dozens of software developers and IT specialists, spanning in many cases more than a decade. References to significant amounts of supporting documentation, code, and information are supplied within.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

A V S30 map for California with geologic and topographic constraints

For many earthquake engineering applications, site response is estimated through empirical correlations with the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity to 30 m depth ( V S 30 ). These applications therefore depend on the availability of either site‐specific V S 30 measurements or V S 30 maps at local, regional, and global scales. Because V S 30 measurements are sparse, a proxy frequently is needed to estimate V S 30 at unsampled locations. We present a new V S 30 map for California, which accounts for observational constraints from multiple sources and spatial scales, such as geology, topography, and site‐specific V S 30 measurements. We apply the geostatistical approach of regression kriging (RK) to combine these constraints for predicting V S 30 . For the V S 30 trend, we start with geology‐based V S 30 values and identify two distinct trends between topographic gradient and the residuals from the geology V S 30 model. One trend applies to deep and fine Quaternary alluvium, whereas the second trend is slightly stronger and applies to Pleistocene sedimentary units. The RK framework ensures that the resulting map of California is locally refined to reflect the rapidly expanding database of V S 30 measurements throughout California. We compare the accuracy of the new mapping method to a previously developed map of V S 30 for California. We also illustrate the sensitivity of ground motions to the new V S 30 map by comparing real and scenario ShakeMaps with V S 30 values from our new map to those for existing V S 30 maps.

California↗