Geology topics

Eric M. Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to Eric M. Thompson.

11 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

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

A journey to the center of the USGS National Strong-motion Project processing and beyond

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Strong Motion Project (NSMP) has the primary U.S. government responsibility to acquire, process, and disseminate significant strong-motion earthquake ground motion records measured at surficial free-field stations, structures (buildings, dams, and bridges, and geotechnical arrays to the earthquake engineering community. As a result of the deployment of modern seismic instrumentation and growth of tools such as web-services, earthquake data from U.S. and international seismic networks are more accessible than ever. Our mission is to provide raw and processed strong-motion waveforms with PGA values greater than 0.1%g for M3.0 earthquakes and larger in California and M4.0 and larger within the conterminous US, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska. Datasets of interest to the engineering and geophysics communities, such as event sequences in areas of induced seismicity and significant global events, are also processed and posted at the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) at strongmotioncenter.org when available through collaboration with the international strong-motion data community. Here we outline (1) the NSMP’s current workflow to acquire, process, and distribute data at CESMD; (2) our new endeavours and collaborations focusing on comparison and integration of waveform processing software, development of techniques for metadata quality checks before and after earthquakes, and construction of a dynamic site characterization repository; and (3) our topics for possible collaboration topics across the global strong-motion community.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2024

New developments at the Center for Engineering Strong-Motion Data (CESMD)

The Center for Engineering Strong-Motion Data (CESMD), an internationally utilized joint center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS), provides a single access point for earthquake strong-motion records and station metadata from the CGS California Strong-Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), the USGS National Strong-Motion Project (NSMP), the USGS Advanced National Seismic System, and other affiliates. The CESMD has been continuously improving its webtools to facilitate the access of strong-motion data and metadata for use in post-earthquake response and for scientific and engineering research applications. The Center provides raw and processed strong-motion data via the Engineering Data Center (EDC) and the Virtual Data Center (VDC) web portals. This paper focuses on the strong-motion products provided by the EDC where more than 48,000 records with peak ground accelerations greater than 0.1% g from over 2400 earthquakes are currently hosted. and on the ongoing efforts to develop data access tools and applications. The new developments and ongoing efforts in the EDC include: 1) enhancements to the CESMD webservices to facilitate access to station metadata, earthquake information, and strong motion records 2) new features to the interactive map interface, improving the visualization and access to earthquake, station, and record information, 3) efforts to develop a new web application tool for data format conversion from a number of data formats, 4) efforts to unify varying waveform data formats into a consistent format, 5) ongoing efforts to compile seismic station site geology, measured or inferred Vs30 values, shear-wave profiles, NEHRP site class, and available structural instrument deployment schematics, and 6) a special studies pages for research topic-specific ground motion datasets that offer uniform processing of records from a variety of sources.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2024

A partially nonergodic ground-motion model for Fourier amplitude spectra for the San Francisco Bay area, California, USA

We develop a partially nonergodic ground-motion model (GMM) for Fourier amplitude spectra for the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA, using the Bayless and Abrahamson (2019) GMM as a reference ergodic GMM and developing location-dependent adjustments to the predicted median and variance. We compile regional ground-motion data from moment magnitude (𝑀 w ) >3 earthquakes occurring during 2000–2022 for which magnitude information is available in the U.S. Geological Survey Comprehensive Catalog (Guy et al., 2015). The data set predominantly consists of records from 𝑀 w 3.5–4.5 earthquakes but includes three well-recorded 𝑀 w > 5 events. Ground-motion residuals are evaluated using the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m (𝑉 S30 ) from the California-specific map of Thompson et al. (2018) and basin-depth site parameters from the seismic velocity model of Aagaard and Hirakawa (2021). The 𝑉 S30 dependence and basin-depth scaling of the reference ergodic GMM of Bayless and Abrahamson (2019) are evaluated and modified with the updated data set. We compute maps of site adjustments using a varying-coefficient model that considers the spatial correlation structure and uncertainties at each observation location. The spatial covariance model is developed using ground-motion residuals that are standardized by the uncertainty model, which allows for consideration of the aleatory variability in developing the site adjustments. The covariance model is fit considering the means and standard deviations of the site terms at all locations. The use of partially nonergodic median adjustments results in modified variance components of the within-event variability. Due to the low number of large-magnitude earthquakes that control seismic hazard in the data set, we do not modify between-event variance; however, we present adjustments to site-to-site variability for use in partially nonergodic hazard assessments.

California↗