Geology topics

Charles Worden

Publications and source records attributed to Charles Worden.

4 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↗