Geology topics

Eric M. Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to Eric M. Thompson.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2027

Ground failure resulting from earthquake ground motions

The ground failure resulting from an earthquake, at all scales, is ultimately controlled by the details of near-surface earthquake ground motions, the spatially distributed mechanical characteristics of surface materials and how the two interact. This chapter introduces the aspects of ground-motion seismology that are most relevant to the triggering of different types of ground failure, such as landslides and liquefaction. In particular, the chapter focuses on different sources of local modification (e.g. amplification) of earthquake ground motions in the shallow subsurface, known as site effects. The chapter ends with an overview of the controls on, general spatial patterns of, and approaches to regional modelling of the manifestation of ground failure that may be triggered by an earthquake.

Book chapter↗

USGS2026

An examination of the reasons for, and variability of, the differences between response spectra and pseudo response spectra

For many decades, it has been common practice to overlook the differences between response spectra and pseudo response spectra. This practice stems from analyses indicating that the average difference between response spectra and pseudo response spectra is negligible for a viscous damping ratio of 5%, which is near-universally adopted. As others have shown, the differences depend strongly on the damping ratio, earthquake magnitude, and oscillator period, with larger differences for larger damping, smaller magnitudes, and longer periods. To quantify the full statistical distribution of the ratio of the absolute acceleration response spectrum (SA) to the pseudo absolute acceleration response spectrum (PSA), we fit empirical ratios with the generalized gamma distribution. Data for magnitudes from 4.0 to 5.5 give 95% prediction intervals for the ratio of 1.00–1.02 at 1 s and 1.01–2.24 at 10 s for 5% damping. For 30% damping, these intervals increase to 1.14–2.01 at 1 s and 1.62–11.8 at 10 s, respectively. Further, we demonstrate how the shape of the ground-motion Fourier amplitude spectrum interacts with the natural period of the oscillator to control the differences in the response spectra type. Routinely treating the two measures of acceleration response spectra as interchangeable may lead to unacceptable inconsistencies when the response spectra of individual records are important or when larger damping ratios are used, such as in direct displacement-based design. If one must convert between them, the uncertainty of the conversion should be accounted for during analysis.

Earthquake Spectra↗

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

Subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool: Implementation in the USGS 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) periodically releases updates to National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the United States and its territories leveraging current scientific knowledge and methodologies to guide public policy, building codes, and risk assessments regarding potential ground shaking due to earthquakes that may result in infrastructure damage. In subduction zones, there is a need to separate the earthquake catalog into tectonic regimes to create specific seismicity models for which the most appropriate ground‐motion models are then applied. Here, we describe newly developed methods and software, called CatSep, that classifies subduction zone events into three primary tectonic regimes: crustal, interface, and intraslab. This method incorporates information about the location of the earthquake relative to the subducting slab, the depth of the Mohorovičić discontinuity, and the earthquake’s moment tensor. Applying this method is a first step in the NSHM workflow for regions covering U.S. subduction zones. Results using this subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool for the 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands NSHM earthquake catalog are presented and analyzed.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

Preface to the focus section on earthquake-induced ground deformation

Ground failure due to earthquake-induced liquefaction, surface fault rupture, and landsliding has caused substantial damage in the past and continues to pose risks to critical infrastructure in the future. The consideration of ground failure is central to engineering analysis and design, ranging from site-specific engineering assessments of ground failure potential to broader regional-scale ground failure assessments of near-real-time earthquake impacts or longer-term portfolio risk. Uncertainties in all aspects of the problem complicate the prediction of earthquake-induced ground failure, including the identification of hazard-susceptible geomaterials, characterizing their spatial extent and physical properties, spatio-temporal variability in groundwater conditions, characterization of earthquake ground motions, assessing ground failure severity, and linking ground failure severity to infrastructure damage and loss.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2025

Updating regional‐scale geospatial liquefaction models with locally available geotechnical data

We present a method to update the geospatial liquefaction model used by the U.S. Geological Survey’s near‐real‐time ground failure product with subsurface geotechnical data. The geospatial model estimates liquefaction probability from peak ground velocity (via ShakeMap) and geospatial susceptibility proxies. In many regions, additional information relevant to constraining liquefaction likelihood is also available, including surface geology maps and subsurface geotechnical measurements. There is currently no mechanism to use these data in the ground failure product liquefaction model, even though these data could provide more precise constraints on spatial variations in the lithologic character of the soil (surface geology) and direct measurements of the subsurface mechanical properties that affect liquefaction occurrence and severity (geotechnical measurements). In this study, we develop a method to integrate these data with the geospatial model and assess how these data can improve regional‐scale predictions. We develop a Bayesian updating framework and apply it to the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake, for which mapped observations are available to evaluate performance. We constrain the Bayesian framework with 373 Northern California cone penetration tests and liquefaction susceptibility classes based on the mapped surface geology. This Bayesian model incorporates geotechnical information into the geospatial model and more accurately predicts liquefaction occurrences than the geospatial model, while sacrificing less accuracy in terms of predicting the absence of liquefaction than the geotechnical model. In future applications, this approach could be adapted to update other geospatial models using locally available subsurface data.

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

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↗

USGS2024

Editorial: Enabling people-centered risk communication for geohazards

In the field of natural hazards, communicating science with the public and stakeholders (i.e., interested parties) involves entering the challenging and complex world of hazard and risk communication, the ultimate purpose of which is to reduce the impact of impending hazards on people and property at risk. Hazard and risk communication are adequate if they reach people with the information that they need, at the right time, and in a form that they can use. This task appears to be particularly difficult when decisions by the public and stakeholders have to be made in the presence of uncertainty about what could happen, as is often the case with geohazards. Moreover, decision-making is complex when there are time pressures, human and economic resources are limited, and multiple sources of information need to be considered. This poses several challenges for the development of two-way and people-centered risk communication for geohazards. The “Enabling People-Centered Risk Communication for Geohazards” Research Topic analyses these challenges and identifies innovative pathways to address them. More precisely, it draws together 13 state-of-the-art articles from around the world on improving communication practices, strategies, and understandings relating to a range of various geohazards and weather-related hazards.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

USGS2024

Comparing subduction ground-motion models to observations for Cascadia

We evaluate Cascadia subduction ground-motion models (GMMs), considered for the 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) update, by comparing observations to model predictions. The observations comprise regional recordings from intraslab earthquakes, including contributions from 2021 and 2022 events in southern Cascadia and global records from interface earthquakes. Since the 2018 NSHM update, new GMMs for Cascadia have been published by the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-Subduction Project that require independent evaluation. In the regional intraslab comparisons, we highlight a characteristic frequency dependence for Cascadia data, with short periods having lower ground motions and longer periods being comparable to other subduction zones. We evaluate differences in northern and southern Cascadia and find that the NGA-Subduction GMMs developed using southern Cascadia data perform better in this region than the model that did not consider these data. We compare ground-motion variability in Cascadia with the NGA-Subduction model predictions and find differences at short periods ( T = 0.1 s) due to the use of global versus regional data in the development of these models. Moreover, the within-event component of aleatory variability from the GMMs overpredicts the standard deviation of Cascadia recordings at very short periods ( T < 0.05 s). Using global interface earthquakes as a proxy to evaluate the Cascadia GMMs, we find long-period overprediction from a simulation-based GMM and some of the empirical GMMs. When comparing recent observations, we find a similar misfit to GMMs and the 2010 and 2022 Ferndale earthquakes. Finally, we observe different basin amplification factors arising in different subsets of the data, which indicate that differences in basin factors between empirical GMMs could arise from the data selection choices by the developers. As part of evaluating the regional basin terms, we apply basin amplification factors from the magnitude 9 Cascadia earthquake simulations to the empirical GMMs for interface earthquakes. The comparisons presented in this study indicate that the NGA-Subduction GMMs for Cascadia perform well relative to observations and older subduction GMMs.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2024

Earthquake-triggered ground-failure inventory associated with the M7.1 2018 Southcentral Alaska earthquake

The 30 November 2018, magnitude (Mw) 7.1 earthquake in Southcentral Alaska triggered substantial landslides, liquefaction, and ground cracking throughout the region, resulting in widespread geotechnical damage to buildings and infrastructure. Despite a challenging reconnaissance and remote-sensing environment, we constructed a detailed digital inventory of ground failure associated with the event from several sources. Sources included information derived from remotely sensed data, and data compiled from literature, social media postings, and earthquake damage information compiled by local, state, and federal agencies. Each instance of ground failure within the inventory contains information on the location and type of observed ground failure, and the methods and data used to document the occurrence. Where high-quality data, such as LIDAR or satellite imagery, were available and showed the ground-failure instance clearly, the extent is mapped as a polygon or polyline. All other locations are mapped as points. There are a total of 886 ground-failure instances documented within the inventory (400 landslides, 286 liquefaction features, and 200 features unattributed to specific processes). A semi-quantitative confidence scheme is used to describe mapping certainty associated with each ground-failure feature. This inventory represents a relatively moderate ground-failure-triggering event that occurred in a subarctic environment. This data paper describes the content within the inventory, the inventory data collection procedures, and limitations of the data. Events of this type are not often documented in detail; thus, adding the inventory data to the US Geological Survey Open Repository of Earthquake-Triggered Ground-Failure Inventories further diversifies the datasets available to the scientific community to be used to better understand and model earthquake-triggered ground failure.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

Basin effects from 3D simulated ground motions in the Greater Los Angeles region for use in seismic-hazard analyses

We develop basin-depth-scaling models (i.e. “basin terms”) from the long-period ( ⁠ T ≥2s⁠ ) simulated ground motions of the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) CyberShake project for use in seismic hazard analyses at sites within the sedimentary basins of southern California. Basin terms use the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West-2 ground-motion models (GMMs) as reference models and use their functional forms with slight modifications. We investigate the use of two approaches to incorporate the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m ( ⁠ V S30 ⁠ ) in these calculations and find that the use of site-specific and uniform V S30 has minor effects on the resulting basin terms for this data set. By centering the simulated ground motions on the basin terms, we separate the information from the simulations about absolute ground-motion level from information relating to the relative amplifications, such as the differences between shallow- and deep-basin sites. Recent observations from sedimentary basins of southern California indicate that additional amplification effect may persist at relatively shallow basin depths (i.e. the GMM basin terms should have positive values when differential depths, δ Z1⁠ , are near zero), and we present models for “centered” and “adjusted” basin-depth scaling models that reflect this potential. The simulation-modified GMMs are appropriate for crustal sources and for deep-basin sites ( ⁠δ Z1>0⁠ ) within basins of the Greater Los Angeles region, for the magnitudes and distances defined by each of the reference NGA-West-2 GMMs.

California↗

USGS2024

Integration of rupture directivity models for the US National Seismic Hazard Model

Several rupture directivity models (DMs) have been developed in recent years to describe the near-source spatial variations in ground motion amplitudes related to propagation of rupture along the fault. We recently organized an effort towards incorporating these directivity effects into the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), by first evaluating the community's work and potential methods to implement directivity adjustments into probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Guided by this evaluation and comparison among the considered DMs, we selected an approach that can be readily implemented into the USGS hazard software, that provides an azimuthally varying adjustment to the median ground motion and its aleatory variability. This method allows assessment of the impact on hazard levels and provides a platform to test the DM amplification predictions using a generalized coordinate system, necessary for consistent calculation of source-to-site distance terms for complex ruptures. We give examples of the directivity-related impact on hazard, progressing from a simple, hypothetical rupture, to more complex fault systems, composed of multiple rupture segments and sources. The directivity adjustments were constrained to strike-slip faulting, where DMs have good agreement. We find that rupture directivity adjustments using a simple median and aleatory adjustment approach can impact hazard both from a site perspective and on a regional scale, increasing shaking off the end of the fault trace up to 30--40\% and potentially reducing it for sites along strike. Statewide hazard maps of California show that the change in shaking along major faults can be a factor to consider for assessing long-period (>ls) near-source effects within the USGS NSHM going forward, reaching up to 10--20\%. Finally, we suggest consideration of minimum parameter ranges and baseline requirements as future DMs are developed to minimize single approach adaptations, to enable more consistent application within both ground motion and hazard studies.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

Data-driven adjustments for combined use of NGA-East hard-rock ground motion and site amplification models

Model development in the Next Generation Attenuation-East (NGA-East) project included two components developed concurrently and independently: (1) earthquake ground-motion models (GMMs) that predict the median and aleatory variability of various intensity measures conditioned on magnitude and distance, derived for a reference hard-rock site condition with an average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m ( V S30 ) = 3000 m/s; and (2) a site amplification model that modifies intensity measures for softer site conditions. We investigate whether these models, when used in tandem, are compatible with ground-motion recordings in central and eastern North America (CENA) using an expanded version of the NGA-East database that includes new events from November 2011 (end date of NGA-East data curation) to April 2022. Following this expansion, the data set has 187 events, 2096 sites, and 16,272 three-component recordings, although the magnitude range remains limited (∼4 to 5.8). We compute residuals using 17 NGA-East GMMs and three data selection criteria that reflect within-CENA regional variations in ground-motion attributes. Mixed-effects regression of the residuals reveals a persistent pattern in which ground motions are overpredicted at short periods (0.01–0.6 s, including peak ground acceleration (PGA)) and underpredicted at longer periods. These misfits are regionally variable, with the Texas–Oklahoma–Kansas region having larger absolute misfits than other parts of CENA. Two factors potentially influencing these misfits are (1) differences in the site amplification models used to adjust the data to the reference condition during NGA-East GMM development relative to CENA amplification models applied since the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), and (2) potential bias in simulation-based factors used to adjust ground motions from the hard-rock reference condition to a V S30 = 760 m/s condition. We provide adjustment factors and their epistemic uncertainties and discuss implications for applications.

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas↗

USGS2024

The influence of anthropogenic regulation and evaporite dissolution on earthquake-triggered ground failure

Remote sensing observations of Searles Lake following the 2019 moment magnitude 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake reveal an area where surface ejecta is arranged in a repeating hexagonal pattern that is collocated with a solution-mining operation. By analyzing geologic and geotechnical data, here we show that the hexagonal surface ejecta is likely not a result of liquefaction. Instead, we propose dissolution cavity collapse (DCC) as an alternative driving mechanism. We support this theory with pre-event Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data, which reveals differential subsidence patterns and the creation of subsurface void space. We also find that DCC is likely triggered at a lower shaking threshold than classical liquefaction. This and other unknown mechanisms can masquerade as liquefaction, introducing bias into liquefaction prediction models that rely on liquefaction inventories. This paper also highlights the opportunities and drawbacks of using remote sensing data to disentangle the complex factors that influence earthquake-triggered ground failure.

California↗

USGS2024

The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States

We update the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. The update includes the use of new ground-motion models (GMMs) in the Cascadia subduction zone; an adjustment to the central and eastern United States (CEUS) GMMs to reduce misfits with observed data; an updated boundary for the application of GMMs for shallow, crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (i.e. western United States (WUS)) and stable continental regions (i.e. CEUS); and the use of improved models for the site response of deep sedimentary basins in the WUS and CEUS. Site response updates include basin models for the California Great Valley and for the Portland and Tualatin basins, Oregon, as well as long-period basin effects from three-dimensional simulations in the Greater Los Angeles region and in the Seattle basin; in the CEUS, we introduce a broadband (0.01- to 10-s period) amplification model for the effects of the passive-margin basins of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In addition, we summarize progress on implementing rupture directivity models into seismic hazard models, although they are not incorporated in the 2023 NSHM. We implement the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 NSHM in the US Geological Survey’s code for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, nshmp-haz-v2 , and present the sensitivity of hazard to these changes. Hazard calculations indicate widespread effects from adjustments to the CEUS GMMs, from the incorporation of Coastal Plain amplification effects, and from the treatment of shallow-basin and out-of-basin sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region, as well as locally important changes from subduction-zone GMMs, and from updated and new WUS basins.

conterminous United States↗