Geology topics

Deborah Smith

Publications and source records attributed to Deborah Smith.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System performance during the Mw 7.0 offshore Cape Mendocino earthquake

The 5 December 2024 M w 7.0 Offshore Cape Mendocino earthquake was a challenging test of the U.S. West Coast ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system due to its offshore epicenter and limited near‐source station coverage. We analyzed real‐time performance of all components of the ShakeAlert system, including the seismic algorithms (earthquake point‐source integrated code [EPIC] and Finite‐fault rupture Detector [FinDer]), the geodetic algorithm (Geodetic First Approximation of Size and Time–peak ground displacement [GFAST‐PGD]), and network telemetry during the event. EPIC created the first solution for this earthquake 15 s after origin time with an initial magnitude estimate of M 5.6 and location error of 10 km from the Advanced National Seismic System epicenter. An early spurious trigger from station CE.89101 fortuitously maintained location accuracy and, correspondingly, magnitude accuracy. FinDer contributed its first solution at 18 s with a location estimate closer to the seismic network and produced two distinct rupture geometries, leading to minor fluctuations in estimated intensity contours. GFAST‐PGD did not meet alerting thresholds but otherwise performed as expected. Network latencies were <2 s for most stations, supporting the rapid detection of this earthquake by the system. Roughly five million alerts were delivered to cell phone devices in California and Oregon during this event. This was also the first instance of a school district‐wide ShakeAlert‐powered system being activated. Comparisons to recorded seismograms demonstrate that the maximum warning times before potentially damaging shaking (intensity 6+) were in the range of 5–55 s. Although the ShakeAlert system provided accurate solutions and useful alert delivery, this earthquake raised awareness of potential issues within the system, including the need for improved offshore location estimates, a combination of solutions from ShakeAlert servers, and handling of spurious triggers.

California↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert® version 3: Expected performance in large earthquakes

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system partners along with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) licensed operators deliver EEW alerts to the public and trigger automated systems when a significant earthquake is expected to impact California, Oregon, or Washington. ShakeAlert’s primary goal is to provide usable warning times before the arrival of damaging shaking. EEW is most likely to achieve this goal in large‐magnitude earthquakes. In recent years, ShakeAlert has gone through a series of upgrades to its underlying scientific algorithms aimed at improved performance during large earthquakes. Version 3 of this software recently went live in the production system and includes improvements to all algorithms. The main seismic algorithms that detect an earthquake and characterize its location, magnitude, and fault rupture orientation are faster than older versions. Other key changes include: using real‐time geodetic data to characterize the magnitude growth in large earthquakes; the introduction of an alert pause procedure to compromise between speed near the epicenter and improved accuracy at larger distances; and the inclusion of a nonergodic site‐response model in the ground‐motion predictions. ShakeAlert has achieved its primary goal of usable warning times before strong shaking at some locations in real‐time operations in recent M 6 earthquakes. Using offline tests, we demonstrate usable warning times are possible for many sites with peak shaking values of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 7–8 in M 7+ earthquakes and also for many MMI 8–9 sites in M 8+ earthquakes. ShakeAlert partners use a variety of MMI and magnitude thresholds in deciding when to alert their users within bounds set by the USGS. Our study shows that there is room to raise the magnitude thresholds up to about M 5.5 without adversely affecting performance in large earthquakes. The ground‐motion criteria are more complex owing to a significant drop‐off in warning times between the MMI 4 and 5 levels of predicted shaking. However, widely used ShakeAlert products, such as the MMI 3 and 4 contour products, can provide sufficiently long warning times before strong shaking in moderate‐to‐great earthquakes to enable a range of protective actions.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2024

Status and performance of the ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system: 2019-2023

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)‐operated ShakeAlert® system is the United States West Coast earthquake early warning system ( Given et al. , 2018 ). In this study we detail ShakeAlert’s performance during some of the largest events seen by the system thus far. Statewide public alerting using ShakeAlert messages was authorized in California in October 2019. Over the next few years, public alerts were expanded into Oregon and then into Washington ( U.S. Geological Survey, 2024 ). ShakeAlert source results are routinely compared to the USGS Comprehensive Catalog (ComCat; Guy et al. , 2015 ; U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017 ), which contains the earthquake location and magnitude determined using complete waveform data. M 4.5 and larger is the threshold used for public alerting and was deliberately set below the level where damage is likely to compensate for cases where the system underestimates the magnitude. Between 17 October 2019 and 1 September 2023, the ShakeAlert system created 95 events with maximum magnitude estimates of M ≥4.5, the public alerting threshold. 94 of the 95 events were due to real earthquakes. Seven were categorized “false” per ShakeAlert’s internal definition that there was no matching catalog event within 100 km and 30 s of origin time; however, all but one of these were real earthquakes that were poorly located, primarily because they were at the edges of the seismic network. Three detected events were labeled “missed” because they were very poorly located (>100 km location error). In addition, the system did not produce solutions for four ComCat events M ≥4.5 ( U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017 ), which were all at the edge of the alerting and network boundaries. The ShakeAlert system has accurately detected the majority of earthquakes that have occurred within the operational region since completing the public rollout, and alerts from the system have been delivered to millions of cell phone users throughout the West Coast.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

The normal faulting 2020 Mw5.8 Lone Pine, Eastern California earthquake sequence

The 2020 M w "> M w 5.8 Lone Pine earthquake, the largest earthquake on the Owens Valley fault zone, eastern California, since the nineteenth century, ruptured an extensional stepover in that fault. Owens Valley separates two normal‐faulting regimes, the western margin of the Great basin and the eastern margin of the Sierra Nevada, forming a complex seismotectonic zone, and a possible nascent plate boundary. Foreshocks began on 22 June 2020; the largest M w "> M w 4.7 foreshock occurred at ∼ 6    km "> ∼6 km depth, with primarily normal faulting, followed ∼ 40    hr "> ∼ 40 hr later on 24 June 2020 by an M w "> M w 5.8 mainshock at ∼ 7    km "> ∼ 7 km depth. The sequence caused overlapping ruptures across a ∼ 0.25    km 2 "> ∼0.25 km 2 area, extended to ∼ 4    km 2 "> ∼ 4 km 2 , and culminated in an ∼ 25    km 2 "> ∼25 km 2 aftershock area. The mainshock was predominantly normal faulting, with a strike of 330° (north‐northwest), dipping 60°–65° to the east‐northeast. Comparison of background seismicity and 2020 Ridgecrest aftershock rates showed that this earthquake was not an aftershock of the Ridgecrest mainshock. The M w "> M w M w – m B "> – m B relationship and distribution of ground motions suggest typical rupture speeds. The aftershocks form a north‐northwest‐trending, north‐northeast‐dipping, 5 km long distribution, consistent with the rupture length estimated from analysis of regional waveform data. No surface rupture was reported along the 1872 scarps from the 2020 M w "> M w 5.8 mainshock, although, the dipping rupture zone of the M w "> M w 5.8 mainshock projects to the surface in the general area. The mainshock seismic energy triggered rockfalls at high elevations ( ⁠ > 3.0    km "> > 3.0 km ⁠ ) in the Sierra Nevada, at distances of 8–20 km, and liquefaction along the western edge of Owens Lake. Because there were ∼ 30 % "> ∼ 30 % fewer aftershocks than for an average southern California sequence, the aftershock forecast probabilities were lower than expected. ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system, provided first warning within 9.9 s, as well as subsequent updates.

California↗

USGS2020

ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System Performance During the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

During July 2019, a sequence of earthquakes including a Mw6.4 foreshock and a Mw7.1 mainshock occurred near Ridgecrest, California. ShakeAlert, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ShakeAlert public Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) system being developed for the U.S. West Coast, was operational during this time, though public alerting was only available within LA County. ShakeAlert created alert messages for many of the earthquakes, including the two largest events, and for many of the larger aftershocks. In this study, we dissect log files and replay data through the system to reconstruct the sequence of events and analyze the performance of the system during that time period. While the system performed reasonably well overall, the sequence also revealed various issues and short comings that will be addressed in impending and future system upgrades, with most parts of the system working as they should. ShakeAlert correctly detected and rapidly characterized both the Mw6.4 and Mw7.1 earthquakes within 6.9 s of their origin times and created alert messages that were available to ShakeAlert’s pilot users. No public alerts were sent out by the ShakeAlertLA cellphone app (the only publicly available alerting method at the time) because the predicted shaking for LA County was below the app’s alerting threshold of MMI 4.0. For the Mw6.4 event this was accurate. For the Mw7.1 event, public alerts for LA County were warranted, but ShakeAlert underpredicted the shaking levels because both the point-source and the finite-fault algorithms underestimated the magnitude of the earthquake by 0.8 units. A number of software and hardware issues that were responsible for the magnitude underestimation of the mainshock have been identified and will be addressed in future ShakeAlert releases. We also analyze the hypothetical alerting performance of ShakeAlert had public alerting been available throughout southern California with a lower alerting threshold of 〖MMI〗_alert=2.5MMI 2.5. We find that, despite the magnitude underestimation, ShakeAlert could have provided timely warnings to a large fraction of affected sites, including some of the near-epicentral sites with high ground motion intensities.

California↗

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

FinDer v.2: Improved real-time ground-motion predictions for M2-M9 with seismic finite-source characterization

Recent studies suggest that small and large earthquakes nucleate similarly, and that they often have indistinguishable seismic waveform onsets. The characterization of earthquakes in real time, such as for earthquake early warning, therefore requires a flexible modeling approach that allows a small earthquake to become large as fault rupture evolves over time. Here, we present a modeling approach that generates a set of output parameters and uncertainty estimates that are consistent with both small/moderate (≤M6.5) and large earthquakes (>M6.5) as is required for a robust parameter interpretation and shaking forecast. Our approach treats earthquakes over the entire range of magnitudes (>M2) as finite line-source ruptures, with the dimensions of small earthquakes being very small (<100 m) and those of large earthquakes exceeding several tens to hundreds of kilometres in length. The extent of the assumed line source is estimated from the level and distribution of high-frequency peak acceleration amplitudes observed in a local seismic network. High-frequency motions are well suited for this approach, because they are mainly controlled by the distance to the rupturing fault. Observed ground-motion patterns are compared with theoretical templates modeled from empirical ground-motion prediction equations to determine the best line source and uncertainties. Our algorithm extends earlier work by Böse et al. for large finite-fault ruptures. This paper gives a detailed summary of the new algorithm and its offline performance for the 2016 M7.0 Kumamoto, Japan and 2014 M6.0 South Napa, California earthquakes, as well as its performance for about 100 real-time detected local earthquakes (2.2 ≤ M ≤ 5.1) in California. For most events, both the rupture length and the strike are well constrained within a few seconds (<10 s) of the event origin. In large earthquakes, this could allow for providing warnings of up to several tens of seconds. The algorithm could also be useful for resolving fault plane ambiguities of focal mechanisms and identification of rupturing faults for earthquakes as small as M2.5.

California↗