Geology topics

James Luke Blair

Publications and source records attributed to James Luke Blair.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

What 25+ years of "Did You Feel It" intensities tell us about shaking in California

“When will the Big One happen?” is a question that people often have for earthquake scientists. But while waiting for the “Big One” to occur, people will usually experience frightening or damaging shaking from multiple relatively smaller‐magnitude earthquakes. Given this context, it raises the question: “Where does most of the damage come from?” Could smaller, yet more frequent, earthquakes account for the majority of reported impactful shaking? To explore this question, we consider reports of earthquake damage and felt shaking experiences from a catalog of community‐collected intensity values from the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” system. Comparing these intensities to expectations from a ground‐motion model, we find that earthquakes of magnitudes smaller than expected are responsible for most reported intensities of community decimal intensities (CDI) 4.5 and above (moderate and higher shaking intensity levels). (Here “expected value” is meant in its mathematical sense of the mean or equivalently median shaking intensity.) We also present a regional analysis of observed earthquake shaking for specific areas, detailing the maximum intensity experienced within a predetermined area. We identify several instances of M < 4.5 events that generated maximum intensities of CDI > 5 in regions in California surrounding the cities of Eureka, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Our results motivate the need to include smaller‐magnitude earthquakes in communications about earthquake hazard and risk reduction.

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↗

USGS2024

The 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake: A retrospective analysis

The 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake was a watershed event, with far-reaching societal and scientific impacts. The earthquake, which occurred in the early days of both broadband seismic networks and the Internet, spurred advances in seismic monitoring, real-time systems, and development of data products. Motivated by the 30th anniversary of the earthquake, we present a brief retrospective of the earthquake and its impact, and reconsider both ground motions and the aftershock distribution using modern tools and best-available data. With improvements in instrumentation and analysis methodology, recent earthquakes continue to reveal increasing complexity of ground motions, fault systems, and earthquake ruptures. Even in the absence of data from state-of-the art instrumentation, a retrospective consideration of ground motion data from the Northridge earthquake reveals complexities beyond what could be characterized (and modeled) thirty years ago. Aftershock relocations for both the 1971 Sylmar and 1994 Northridge earthquakes also reveal an updated view of fault complexity. Our study does provide a cautionary tale regarding legacy data sets and research results that are not easily accessible, which can result in discrepancies between catalog data and products from best-available science. We also briefly describe outreach products produced as part of the anniversary commemoration.

California↗

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↗

USGS2020

Documentation of Surface Fault Rupture and Ground‐Deformation Features Produced by the 4 and 5 July 2019 Mw 6.4 and Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

The M w "> M w Mw 6.4 and M w "> M w Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence occurred on 4 and 5 July 2019 within the eastern California shear zone of southern California. Both events produced extensive surface faulting and ground deformation within Indian Wells Valley and Searles Valley. In the weeks following the earthquakes, more than six dozen scientists from government, academia, and the private sector carefully documented the surface faulting and ground‐deformation features. As of December 2019, we have compiled a total of more than 6000 ground observations; approximately 1500 of these simply note the presence or absence of fault rupture or ground failure, but the remainder include detailed descriptions and other documentation, including tens of thousands of photographs. More than 1100 of these observations also include quantitative field measurements of displacement sense and magnitude. These field observations were supplemented by mapping of fault rupture and ground‐deformation features directly in the field as well as by interpreting the location and extent of surface faulting and ground deformation from optical imagery and geodetic image products. We identified greater than 68 km of fault rupture produced by both earthquakes as well as numerous sites of ground deformation resulting from liquefaction or slope failure. These observations comprise a dataset that is fundamental to understanding the processes that controlled this earthquake sequence and for improving earthquake hazard estimates in the region. This article documents the types of data collected during postearthquake field investigations, the compilation effort, and the digital data products resulting from these efforts.

California↗

USGS2019

The Mw 6.0 South Napa earthquake of August 24, 2014—Observations of surface faulting and ground deformation, with recommendations for improving post-earthquake field investigations

The M w 6.0 South Napa earthquake of August 24, 2014, produced complex and extensive surface faulting and other ground deformation features. Following the event, geologists made more than 1,200 field observations at locations where tectonic faulting and ground failure produced visible deformation that fractured and disturbed the ground surface. At a few locations, large-scale, detailed, field-based maps of fault rupture and ground deformation were produced. The South Napa earthquake response was one of the first times when post-earthquake reconnaissance data were mostly collected and disseminated electronically. The advantages and opportunities these new methods bring to our research also pose new challenges to large-scale compilation efforts and demonstrate the value of developing guidelines and better standardization across the community to more optimally utilize developing technology in future post-earthquake investigations. Some suggestions for standardizing the collection and dissemination of post-earthquake field reconnaissance data are provided herein. Field observations and maps were integrated with airborne imagery, lidar, and InSAR to produce a comprehensive, large-scale digital map of fault rupture and zones of ground deformation. The map, observations, and photo database are summarized here in appendixes and figures and are also available as a series of digital data products within a companion U.S. Geological Survey data release ( Ponti and others, 2019 ); the characteristics of fault rupture and ground deformation features are summarized in detail in the body of this report. The results of this compilation reveal that faulting occurred within a 2-km-wide zone on six, roughly parallel traces within the West Napa Fault System. Most of the fault slip, and all the afterslip, occurred on the 21-km-long westernmost trace (Trace A). Maximum coseismic slip was greater than 40 cm and possibly as great as 60 cm, with the slip maximum located about 10 km north of the epicenter. Extensive ground deformation also occurred off the principal fault traces. Deformation characteristics of these features were not consistent with either primary faulting or shaking-induced ground failure and remain enigmatic, although this report includes speculation about possible origins. The use of InSAR was invaluable for identifying and mapping secondary traces with small displacements, and for delineating the overall details of the extensive rupture. InSAR data also highlighted other areas with possible ground deformation—some of which are found coincident with previously mapped fault traces, whereas others are in areas where no faults were previously mapped. Several of these regions had no visible ground deformation, whereas others did produce features that were inconsistent with tectonic faulting, so care must be taken not to over interpret the InSAR data without careful, corroborating field investigations.

California↗