Geology topics

Jessie K. Saunders

Publications and source records attributed to Jessie K. Saunders.

5 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

Refinements to the attenuated propagation of local earthquake shaking (APPLES) ground-motion-based earthquake early warning algorithm

We refined the Attenuated ProPagation of Local Earthquake Shaking (APPLES) ground-motion-based earthquake early warning (EEW) approach, and directly compare APPLES performance with that of the source-characterization-based U.S. ShakeAlert EEW system for a suite of historical earthquakes in the U.S. West Coast and Japan. APPLES is an extension of the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) algorithm in which observed shaking intensity at seismic stations is used to forward-predict intensity distributions to surrounding areas using an attenuation model derived from an intensity prediction equation. We test new configuration options within APPLES, such as using the second highest estimated ground motion rather than the maximum, to better match median ground-motion observations and reduce alerts for small magnitude earthquakes, both of which are key alerting priorities within ShakeAlert. We evaluate these configurations alongside ShakeAlert by comparing the ground-motion estimation accuracy and available warning times relative to station observations and ShakeMap distributions. Our preferred APPLES configuration produces accurate ground-motion estimates and corresponds better with median observations compared to ShakeAlert’s estimates. This preferred configuration substantially reduces alert issuance for M < 5.0 earthquakes compared to the previous APPLES configuration, and alert-release criteria can further restrict alerts to primarily M ≥ 5.5 earthquakes without requiring magnitude estimation. Prioritizing matching median-observed ground motions may reduce APPLES warning times compared to configurations that were tuned to avoid missed alerts (such as those that use the maximum estimated ground motions), which can lead to shorter warning times compared to ShakeAlert for the same alert threshold. However, station-based warning time assessments demonstrate that APPLES can outperform ShakeAlert for high target thresholds. APPLES is a simple, independent EEW approach that may improve the robustness of EEW for the West Coast of the U.S.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2025

Quantitative evaluations of earthquake early warning performance using “Did You Feel It?” and post-alert surveys

We examine responses to the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) survey and its companion earthquake early warning (EEW) questionnaire to assess the performance of the U.S. ShakeAlert EEW system directly from the alert recipients’ perspectives. ShakeAlert rapidly detects earthquakes and develops alert information, but as official alert delivery partners issue these alerts, it is thus difficult to determine how many people were alerted and when. We investigate DYFI reports for six California earthquakes that had EEW alerts and substantial responses to the DYFI EEW questionnaire. Comparisons of ShakeAlert predictions to reported intensities demonstrate that magnitude estimation accuracy is not necessarily indicative of ground-motion prediction accuracy. Perceived warning time distributions indicate that estimating maximum-expected warning times using the S-wave arrival is a reasonable assumption when discussing public EEW performance. However, we also find many reports of shorter warning times, late alerts, and missed alerts than expected based on ShakeAlert publication times, suggesting alert delivery latencies are substantial and highly variable. The novelty of our analysis is that we demonstrate that the DYFI EEW survey provides useful EEW efficacy information—independent of the specific alerting pathway—that can be used to inform our choices for conveying EEW performance.

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↗

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↗