Geology topics

Deborah L. Kilb

Publications and source records attributed to Deborah L. Kilb.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Testing the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system using synthesized earthquake sequences

We test the behavior of the United States (US) West Coast ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system during temporally close earthquake pairs to understand current performance and limitations. We consider performance metrics based on source parameter and ground‐motion forecast accuracy, as well as on alerting timeliness. We generate ground‐motion times series for synthesized earthquake sequences from real data by combining the signals from pairs of well‐recorded earthquakes (⁠4.4≤M≤7.1⁠) using time shifts ranging from −60 to +180 s. We examine fore‐ and aftershock sequences, near‐simultaneous events in different source regions, and simulated out‐of‐network and offshore earthquakes. We find that the operational ShakeAlert algorithms Earthquake Point‐source Integrated Code (EPIC) and Finite‐Fault Rupture Detector (FinDer) and the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) method perform largely as expected: EPIC provides the best source location estimates and is often fastest but can underestimate magnitudes or, in extreme cases, miss large earthquakes; FinDer provides real‐time line‐source models and unsaturated magnitude estimates for large earthquakes but currently cannot process concurrent events and may mislocate offshore earthquakes; PLUM identifies pockets of strong ground motion, but can overestimate alert areas. Implications for system performance are: (1) spatially and temporally close events are difficult to identify separately; (2) challenging scenarios with foreshocks that are close in space and time can lead to missed alerts for large earthquakes; and (3) in these situations the algorithms can often estimate ground motion better than source parameters. To improve EEW, our work suggests revisiting the current algorithm weighting in ShakeAlert, to continue developments that focus on using ground‐motion data to aggregate alerts from multiple algorithms, and to investigate methods to optimally leverage algorithm ground‐motion estimates. For testing and certification of EEW performance in ShakeAlert and other EEW systems where applicable, we also suggest that 25 of our 73 scenarios become part of the baseline data set.

California↗

USGS2022

Real-time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of PLUM ground-motion-based early warning in the United States

We examine the real‐time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm and compare PLUM’s performance with the real‐time performance of the current source‐characterization‐based ShakeAlert System. In the United States (U.S.), PLUM uses a two‐station approach to detect earthquakes. Once a detection is confirmed, observed modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) distributions are forecast onto a regular grid, in which the preferred alert regions are grid cells with MMI 4.0+ forecasts. Although locations of dense station coverage allow PLUM to detect small ( M < 4.5) earthquakes typically not considered for EEW in the U.S., a PLUM detection on a small earthquake does not always generate an alert. This is because PLUM alerts are determined by current shaking distributions. If the MMI 4.0+ shaking subsides prior to detection confirmation by shaking at a second neighboring station, the prior MMI 4.0+ information will not be in the alert forecasts. Of the 432 M 3.0+ U.S. West Coast earthquakes in 2021, 33 produced ground motions large enough to be detected by PLUM. Twenty‐four generated MMI 4.0+ PLUM alerts, whereas ShakeAlert issued public EEW alerts for 13 of these earthquakes. We compare PLUM and ShakeAlert alert regions with ShakeMap and “Did You Feel It?” intensity distributions. Because PLUM alert regions surround stations observed to have strong ground motions (regardless of earthquake magnitude), PLUM alerts reliably include locations that experience significant shaking. This is not necessarily the case for ShakeAlert alert regions when there are large errors in magnitude or epicenter estimates. For two of the largest earthquakes in our real‐time dataset, the M 6.0 Antelope Valley and M 5.1 Petrolia earthquakes, the inclusion of PLUM would have improved real‐time ShakeAlert performance. Our results indicate that incorporation of PLUM into ShakeAlert will improve the robustness of the EEW system.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

Real-time performance of the PLUM earthquake early warning method during the 2019 M6.4 and M7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquakes

We evaluate the timeliness and accuracy of ground‐motion‐based earthquake early warning (EEW) during the July 2019 M 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes. In 2018, we began retrospective and internal real‐time testing of the propagation of local undamped motion (PLUM) method for earthquake warning in California, Oregon, and Washington, with the potential that PLUM might one day be included in the ShakeAlert EEW system. A real‐time version of PLUM was running on one of the ShakeAlert EEW system’s development servers at the time of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, allowing us to evaluate the timeliness and accuracy of PLUM’s warnings for the M 6.4 and 7.1 mainshocks in real time with the actual data availability and latencies of the operational ShakeAlert EEW system. The latter is especially important because high‐data latencies during the M 7.1 earthquake degraded ShakeAlert’s performance. PLUM proved to be largely immune to these latencies. In this article, we present a retrospective analysis of PLUM performance and explore three potential regional alerting strategies ranging from spatially large regions (counties), to moderate‐size regions (National Weather Service public forecast zones), to high‐spatial specificity (50 km regular geographic grid). PLUM generated initial shaking forecasts for the two mainshocks 5 and 6 s after their respective origin times, and faster than the ShakeAlert system’s first alerts. PLUM was also able to accurately forecast shaking across southern California for all three alerting strategies studied. As would be expected, a cost‐benefit analysis of each approach illustrates trade‐offs between increasing warning time and minimizing the area receiving unneeded alerts. Choosing an optimal alerting strategy requires knowledge of users’ false alarm tolerance and minimum required warning time for taking protective action, as well as the time required to distribute alerts to users.

California↗

USGS2019

Event detection performance of the PLUM earthquake early warning algorithm in southern California

We test the Japanese ground‐motion‐based earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm, propagation of local undamped motion (PLUM), in southern California with application to the U.S. ShakeAlert system. In late 2018, ShakeAlert began limited public alerting in Los Angeles to areas of expected modified Mercalli intensity (⁠IMMI⁠) 4.0+ for magnitude 5.0+ earthquakes. Most EEW systems, including ShakeAlert, use source‐based methods: they estimate the location, magnitude, and origin time of an earthquake from P waves and use a ground‐motion prediction equation to identify regions of expected strong shaking. The PLUM algorithm uses observed ground motions directly to define alert areas and was developed to address deficiencies in the Japan Meteorological Agency source‐based EEW system during the 2011 Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake sequence. We assess PLUM using (a) a dataset of 193 magnitude 3.5+ earthquakes that occurred in southern California between 2012 and 2017 and (b) the ShakeAlert testing and certification suite of 49 earthquakes and other seismic signals. The latter suite includes events that challenge the current ShakeAlert algorithms. We provide a first‐order performance assessment using event‐based metrics similar to those used by ShakeAlert. We find that PLUM can be configured to successfully issue alerts using IMMI trigger thresholds that are lower than those implemented in Japan. Using two stations, a trigger threshold of IMMI 4.0 for the first station and a threshold of IMMI 2.5 for the second station PLUM successfully detect 12 of 13 magnitude 5.0+ earthquakes and issue no false alerts. PLUM alert latencies were similar to and in some cases faster than source‐based algorithms, reducing area that receives no warning near the source that generally have the highest ground motions. PLUM is a simple, independent seismic method that may complement existing source‐based algorithms in EEW systems, including the ShakeAlert system, even when alerting to light (⁠IMMI 4.0) or higher ground‐motion levels.

California↗

USGS2019

Ground-motion residuals, path effects, and crustal properties: A pilot study in southern California

To improve models of ground motion estimation and probabilistic seismic hazard analyses, the engineering seismology field is moving toward developing fully nonergodic ground motion models, models specific for individual source‐to‐site paths. Previous work on this topic has examined systematic variations in ground‐motion along particular paths (from either recorded or simulated earthquake data) and has not included physical properties of the path. We present here a framework to include physical path properties, by seeking correlations between ground motion amplitudes along specific paths and crustal properties, specifically seismic velocity and anelastic attenuation, along that path. Using a large data set of small‐magnitude earthquakes recorded in Southern California, we find a correlation between the gradient of seismic S wave velocity and the path term residual, after accounting for an average geometric spreading and anelastic attenuation, indicating that heterogeneity in crustal velocity primarily controls the path‐specific attenuation. Even in aseismic regions, details of path‐specific ground motion prediction equations can be developed from crustal structure and property data.

California↗

USGS2018

Decomposing leftovers: Event, path, and site residuals for a small magnitude ANZA region GMPE

Ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs) are critical elements of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), as well as for other applications of ground motions. To isolate the path component for the purpose of building nonergodic GMPEs, we compute a regional GMPE using a large dataset of peak ground accelerations (PGAs) from small‐magnitude earthquakes ( ⁠0.5 ≤ M ≤ 4.5 with > 10,000 events, yielding ∼120,000 recordings) that occurred in 2013 centered around the ANZA seismic network (hypocentral distances ≤180 km⁠ ) in southern California. We examine two separate methods of obtaining residuals from the observed and predicted ground motions: a pooled ordinary least‐squares model and a mixed‐effects maximum‐likelihood model. Whereas the former is often used by the broader seismological community, the latter is widely used by the ground‐motion and engineering seismology community. We confirm that mixed‐effects models are the preferred and most statistically robust method to obtain event, path, and site residuals and discuss the reasoning behind this. Our results show that these methods yield different consequences for the uncertainty of the residuals, particularly for the event residuals. Finally, our results show no correlation (correlation coefficient [CC] <0.03⁠ ) between site residuals and the classic site‐characterization term V S30 ⁠ , the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity in the top 30 m at a site. We propose that this is due to the relative homogeneity of the site response in the region and perhaps due to shortcomings in the formulation of V S30 ⁠ and suggest applying the provided PGA site correction terms to future ground‐motion studies for increased accuracy.

California↗