Geology topics

Jessie Kate Saunders

Publications and source records attributed to Jessie Kate Saunders.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Latency and geofence testing of wireless emergency alerts intended for the ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America

ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast of the United States, attempts to provides crucial warnings before strong shaking occurs. However, because the alerts are triggered only when an earthquake is already in progress, and the alert latencies and delivery times are platform dependent, the time between these warnings and the arrival of shaking is variable. The ShakeAlert system uses, among other public alerting platforms like a mobile phone operating system, smartphone apps, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS). IPAWS sends Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) informing people via their smartphones and other mobile devices about various events, such as natural hazards, child abductions, or public health information about COVID-19. However, little is known about the IPAWS delivery latencies. Given that people may have only a few seconds of notice after they receive an alert to take a protective action before they feel earthquake shaking, quantifying latencies is critical to understanding whether the IPAWS system is useful for EEW. In this study, we developed new methods to test the IPAWS distribution system's performance, both with devices in a controlled environment and as well as with a 2019 community-based feedback form, in Oakland and San Diego County, California, respectively. The controlled environment test used mobile phones (including smart and non-smart phones) and associated devices to determine alert receipt times; the community research form had participants self-report their receipt times. By triangulating the data between the controlled test environment and the community research, we determined the latency statistics as well as whether the geofence (the geographic area where the alert was intended to be sent) held broadly. We found that the latencies were similar between the two tests despite the large differences in population sizes. WEA messages were received within a median time frame of 6–12 s, and the geofence held with only a few exceptions. We use this latency to assess how the system would have performed in two large earthquakes, the 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta and 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes, which both occurred near our WEA test locations. Our analysis revealed that had IPAWS been available during those earthquakes, particularly Loma Prieta, it would have provided crucial seconds of notice that damaging shaking was imminent in some locations relatively far from the epicenter. Further, we find affordable non-smart phones can receive WEAs as fast as smartphones. Finally, our new method can be used for latency and geospatial testing going forward for IPAWS and other similar alerting systems.

California↗

USGS2022

Real-time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of PLUM ground-motion-based early warning in the United States

We examine the real‐time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm and compare PLUM’s performance with the real‐time performance of the current source‐characterization‐based ShakeAlert System. In the United States (U.S.), PLUM uses a two‐station approach to detect earthquakes. Once a detection is confirmed, observed modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) distributions are forecast onto a regular grid, in which the preferred alert regions are grid cells with MMI 4.0+ forecasts. Although locations of dense station coverage allow PLUM to detect small ( M < 4.5) earthquakes typically not considered for EEW in the U.S., a PLUM detection on a small earthquake does not always generate an alert. This is because PLUM alerts are determined by current shaking distributions. If the MMI 4.0+ shaking subsides prior to detection confirmation by shaking at a second neighboring station, the prior MMI 4.0+ information will not be in the alert forecasts. Of the 432 M 3.0+ U.S. West Coast earthquakes in 2021, 33 produced ground motions large enough to be detected by PLUM. Twenty‐four generated MMI 4.0+ PLUM alerts, whereas ShakeAlert issued public EEW alerts for 13 of these earthquakes. We compare PLUM and ShakeAlert alert regions with ShakeMap and “Did You Feel It?” intensity distributions. Because PLUM alert regions surround stations observed to have strong ground motions (regardless of earthquake magnitude), PLUM alerts reliably include locations that experience significant shaking. This is not necessarily the case for ShakeAlert alert regions when there are large errors in magnitude or epicenter estimates. For two of the largest earthquakes in our real‐time dataset, the M 6.0 Antelope Valley and M 5.1 Petrolia earthquakes, the inclusion of PLUM would have improved real‐time ShakeAlert performance. Our results indicate that incorporation of PLUM into ShakeAlert will improve the robustness of the EEW system.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2022

What to expect when you are expecting earthquake early warning

We present a strategy for earthquake early warning (EEW) alerting that focuses on providing users with a target level of performance for their shaking level of interest (for example, ensuring that users receive warnings for at least 95 per cent of the occurrences of that shaking level). We explore the factors that can affect the accuracy of EEW shaking forecasts including site conditions (which can make shaking more or less varied), the share of earthquake hazard that comes from outlier events, and even the metric of shaking being forecast (with modified Mercalli intensity being the most uncertain quantity to forecast). To provide different locations with the same level of EEW performance, the alert issuance criteria will need to change based on these factors. Finally, we present a hierarchy of information approach with which to communicate EEW system design and performance to the public and other stakeholders, including how frequently alerts will be issued and how accurate those alerts will be.

Geophysical Journal International↗

USGS2022

The potential of using fiber optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) in earthquake early warning applications

As the seismological community embraces fiber optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), DAS arrays are becoming a logical, scalable option to obtain strain and ground‐motion data for which the installation of seismometers is not easy or cheap, such as in dense offshore arrays. The potential of strain data in earthquake early warning (EEW) applications has been recently demonstrated using records from borehole strainmeters (BSMs). However, current BSM networks are sparse, installing more BSMs is expensive and often impractical, and BSMs have the same limitations in offshore environments as other traditional seismic instruments. Here, we aim to provide a road map about how DAS data could be used in existing EEW applications, using the ShakeAlert EEW System for the West Coast of the United States as an example. We review the data requirements for EEW systems, examine ways in which strain‐derived ground‐motion data can be incorporated into such systems without significant modifications, and determine what is still needed for full utilization of DAS data in these applications. Importantly, EEW algorithms require ground‐motion amplitude information for rapid earthquake source characterization; thus, accurate strain amplitude observations, not only phase information, are necessary for deriving these ground‐motion metrics from DAS data. To obtain high‐quality ground‐motion observations, EEW‐compatible DAS arrays need to be multicomponent, well coupled, and low noise. We suggest ways to achieve such data requirements using existing DAS technology and discuss areas in which further research is needed to optimize DAS array performance for EEW.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2022

How low should we alert? Quantifying intensity threshold alerting strategies for earthquake early warning in the United States

We use a suite of historical earthquakes to quantitatively determine earthquake early warning (EEW) alert threshold strategies for a range of shaking intensity targets for EEW in the U.S. West Coast. The current method for calculating alert regions for the ShakeAlert EEW System does not take into account variabilities and uncertainties in shaking distribution. As a result, if the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) level used to determine the extent of the alert region (the alert threshold) is the same as the target intensity threshold, the alert region will be too small to include all locations that require alerts even if earthquake source parameters are estimated accurately. Missed alerts can be reduced by using a lower alert threshold than the target threshold. This expands the alert region, increasing the number of precautionary alerts issued to people who experience shaking below the target level. We determine alert thresholds that optimize this tradeoff between missed and precautionary alerts for target thresholds of MMI 4.0-6.0 using a ShakeMap catalog of 143 M 5.0-7.3 earthquakes as ground truth. We examine the quality of each alerting strategy relative to the target MMI, where we define alert quality metrics in terms of both the area and population alerted. Optimal alert thresholds maximize correct alerts while limiting most precautionary alerts to regions that are likely to still feel some shaking. We find these optimal alert thresholds also maximize warning times. This analysis presents a quantitative framework ShakeAlert can use to communicate alerting strategies and performance expectations to ShakeAlert users.

Earth's Future↗

USGS2022

Alert optimization of the PLUM earthquake early warning algorithm for the western United States

We determine an optimal alerting configuration for the propagation of local undamped motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm for use by the U.S. ShakeAlert system covering California, Oregon, and Washington. All EEW systems should balance the primary goal of providing timely alerts for impactful or potentially damaging shaking while limiting alerts for shaking that is too low to be of concern (precautionary alerts). The PLUM EEW algorithm forward predicts observed ground motions to nearby sites within a defined radius without accounting for attenuation, avoiding the earthquake source parameter estimation step of most EEW algorithms. PLUM was originally developed in Japan where the alert regions and ground motions for which alerts are issued differ from those implemented by ShakeAlert. We compare predicted ground motions from PLUM to ShakeMap‐reported ground motions for a set of 22 U.S. West Coast earthquakes of magnitude 4.4–7.2 and evaluate available warning times. We examine a range of prediction radii (20–100 km), thresholds used to issue an alert (alert threshold), and levels of impactful or potentially damaging shaking (target threshold). We find optimal performance when the alert threshold is close to the target threshold, although higher target ground motions benefit from somewhat lower alert thresholds to ensure timely alerts. We also find that performance, measured as the cost reduction that a user can achieve, depends on the user’s tolerance for precautionary alerts. Users with a low target threshold and high tolerance for precautionary alerts achieve optimal performance when larger prediction radii (60–100 km) are used. In contrast, users with high target thresholds and low tolerance for precautionary alerts achieve better performance for smaller prediction radii (30–60 km). Therefore, setting the PLUM prediction radius to 60 km balances the needs of many users and provides warning times of up to ∼20 s.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2021

The PLUM earthquake early warning algorithm: A retrospective case study of West Coast, USA, data

The PLUM (Propagation of Local Undamped Motion) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm differs from typical source-based EEW algorithms as it predicts shaking directly from observed shaking without first deriving earthquake source information (e.g., magnitude and epicenter). Here, we determine optimal PLUM event detection thresholds for U.S. West Coast earthquakes using two data sets: 558 M3.5+ earthquakes (California, Oregon, Washington; 2012–2017) and the ShakeAlert test suite of historic and problematic signals (1999–2015). PLUM computes Modified Mercalli Intensity ( I MMI ) using velocity and acceleration data, leveraging co-located sensors to avoid problematic signals. An event detection is issued when the observed I MMI exceeds a given threshold(s). We find a two-station detection method using I MMI trigger thresholds of 4.0 and 3.0 for the first and second stations, respectively, is optimal for detecting M4.5+ earthquakes. PLUM detected 79 events in the 2012–2017 data set, reporting (not including telemetry or alert dissemination) detection times on par, and sometimes faster than current EEW methods (mean 8 s; median 6 s). As expected, detection times were slower for the older 1999–2015 earthquakes ( N = 21; mean 11 s; median 6 s) when station coverage was sparser. Of the 31 PLUM detected M5+ events (10 2012–2017; 21 1999–2015), theoretically 20 (∼65%) could provide timely warnings. PLUM issued no false detections and avoided issuing detections for all calibration/anomalous signals, regional and teleseismic events. We conclude PLUM can successfully identify I MMI 4+ shaking from local earthquakes and could complement and enhance EEW in the U.S.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

Real-time performance of the PLUM earthquake early warning method during the 2019 M6.4 and M7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquakes

We evaluate the timeliness and accuracy of ground‐motion‐based earthquake early warning (EEW) during the July 2019 M 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes. In 2018, we began retrospective and internal real‐time testing of the propagation of local undamped motion (PLUM) method for earthquake warning in California, Oregon, and Washington, with the potential that PLUM might one day be included in the ShakeAlert EEW system. A real‐time version of PLUM was running on one of the ShakeAlert EEW system’s development servers at the time of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, allowing us to evaluate the timeliness and accuracy of PLUM’s warnings for the M 6.4 and 7.1 mainshocks in real time with the actual data availability and latencies of the operational ShakeAlert EEW system. The latter is especially important because high‐data latencies during the M 7.1 earthquake degraded ShakeAlert’s performance. PLUM proved to be largely immune to these latencies. In this article, we present a retrospective analysis of PLUM performance and explore three potential regional alerting strategies ranging from spatially large regions (counties), to moderate‐size regions (National Weather Service public forecast zones), to high‐spatial specificity (50 km regular geographic grid). PLUM generated initial shaking forecasts for the two mainshocks 5 and 6 s after their respective origin times, and faster than the ShakeAlert system’s first alerts. PLUM was also able to accurately forecast shaking across southern California for all three alerting strategies studied. As would be expected, a cost‐benefit analysis of each approach illustrates trade‐offs between increasing warning time and minimizing the area receiving unneeded alerts. Choosing an optimal alerting strategy requires knowledge of users’ false alarm tolerance and minimum required warning time for taking protective action, as well as the time required to distribute alerts to users.

California↗

USGS2020

Optimizing earthquake early warning alert distance strategies using the July 2019 Mw6.4 and Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquakes

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system aims to alert people who experience modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) IV+ shaking during an earthquake using source estimates (magnitude and location) to estimate median‐expected peak ground motions with distance, then using these ground motions to determine median‐expected MMI and thus the extent of MMI IV shaking. Because median ground motions are used, even if magnitude and location are correct, there will be people outside the alert region who experience MMI IV shaking but do not receive an alert (missed alerts). We use 91,000 “Did You Feel It?” survey responses to the July 2019 Mw 6.4 and Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquakes to determine which ground‐motion to intensity conversion equation (GMICE) best fits median MMI with distance. We then explore how incorporating uncertainty from the ground‐motion prediction equation and the GMICE in the alert distance calculation can produce more accurate MMI IV alert regions for a desired alerting strategy (e.g., aiming to alert 95% of people who experience MMI IV+ shaking), assuming accurate source characterization. Without incorporating ground‐motion uncertainties, we find MMI IV alert regions using median‐expected ground motions alert fewer than 20% of the population that experiences MMI IV+ shaking. In contrast, we find >94% of the people who experience MMI IV+ shaking can be included in the MMI IV alert region when two standard deviations of ground‐motion uncertainty are included in the alert distance computation. The optimal alerting strategy depends on the false alert tolerance of the community due to the trade‐off between minimizing missed and false alerts. This is especially the case for situations like the Mw 6.4 earthquake when alerting 95% of the 5 million people who experience MMI IV+ also results in alerting 14 million people who experience shaking below this level and do not need to take protective action.

California↗