Geology topics

Mark Hunter Murray

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Hunter Murray.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

USGS2023

Incorporation of real-time earthquake magnitudes estimated via peak ground displacement scaling in the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system

The United States earthquake early warning (EEW) system, ShakeAlert®, currently employs two algorithms based on seismic data alone to characterize the earthquake source, reporting the weighted average of their magnitude estimates. Nonsaturating magnitude estimates derived in real time from Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data using peak ground displacement (PGD) scaling relationships offer complementary information with the potential to improve EEW reliability for large earthquakes. We have adapted a method that estimates magnitude from PGD ( Crowell et al. , 2016 ) for possible production use by ShakeAlert. To evaluate the potential contribution of the modified algorithm, we installed it on the ShakeAlert development system for real‐time operation and for retrospective analyses using a suite of GNSS data that we compiled. Because of the colored noise structure of typical real‐time GNSS positions, observed PGD values drift over time periods relevant to EEW. To mitigate this effect, we implemented logic within the modified algorithm to control when it issues initial and updated PGD‐derived magnitude estimates ( ⁠ M PGD "> M PGD "> M PGD PGD ⁠ ), and to quantify M PGD "> M PGD PGD uncertainty for use in combining it with estimates from other ShakeAlert algorithms running in parallel. Our analysis suggests that, with these strategies, spuriously large M PGD "> M PGD PGD will seldom be incorporated in ShakeAlert’s magnitude estimate. Retrospective analysis of data from moderate‐to‐great earthquakes demonstrates that the modified algorithm can contribute to better magnitude estimates for M w > 7.0 "> M w > 7.0 w>7.0 events. GNSS station distribution throughout the ShakeAlert region limits how soon the modified algorithm can begin estimating magnitude in some locations. Furthermore, both the station density and the GNSS noise levels limit the minimum magnitude for which the modified algorithm is likely to contribute to the weighted average. This might be addressed by alternative GNSS processing strategies that reduce noise.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2021

Post-seismic relaxation following the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence involved predominantly right‐lateral strike slip on a northwest–southeast‐trending subvertical fault in the 6 July M 7.1 mainshock, preceded by left‐lateral strike slip on a northeast–southwest‐trending subvertical fault in the 4 July M 6.4 foreshock. To characterize the postseismic deformation, we assemble displacements measured by Global Positioning System (GPS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar. The geodetic measurements illuminate vigorous postseismic deformation for at least 21 months following the earthquake sequence. The postseismic transient deformation is particularly well constrained from survey‐mode GPS (sGPS) in the epicentral region carried out during the weeks after the mainshock. We interpret these observations with mechanical models including afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation of the lower crust and mantle asthenosphere. During the first 21 months, up to several centimeters of horizontal motions are measured at continuous GPS and sGPS sites, with amplitude that diminishes slowly with distance from the mainshock rupture, suggestive of deeper afterslip or viscoelastic relaxation. We find that although afterslip involving right‐lateral strike slip along the mainshock fault traces and their deeper extensions reach a few decimeters, most postseismic deformation is attributable to viscoelastic relaxation of the lower crust and mantle. Within the Basin and Range crust and mantle, we infer a transient lower crust viscosity several times that of the mantle asthenosphere. The transient mantle asthenosphere viscosity is ∼ 1.3 × 10 17    Pa   s ">

California↗

USGS2020

Rapid geodetic observations of spatiotemporally varying postseismic deformation following the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence: The U.S. Geological Survey response

The U.S. Geological Survey’s geodetic response to the 4–5 July 2019 (Pacific time) Ridgecrest earthquake sequence comprised primarily the installation and/or reoccupation of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) monumentation. Our response focused primarily on the United States’ Navy’s China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station base (NAWSCL). This focus was because much of the surface rupture occurred on the NAWSCL and because of NAWSCL access restrictions only permitting Federal and State of California personnel. In total, we measured or are still measuring at 24 sites, 14 of which were on the NAWSCL and, as of this writing, operational. The majority of sites were set up as continuous stations logging at either 1 sample per second or 1 sample per 15 s. Two stations were recording a 200 m cross‐rupture aperture starting ∼10 hr after the M 6.4 event, and they recorded the coseismic displacements of the M 7.1. Approximately, 1 hr after the M 7.1 event, two new stations were recording a ∼200 m cross‐rupture aperture of the surface rupture. In the days following, we established the rest of the stations ranging to a distance of ∼15 km from the M 7.1 principal rupture trace. The lack of differential displacement across the M 6.4 rupture during the M 7.1 event suggests that it did not reactivate the M 6.4 plane. The lack of differential cross‐fault displacement for both events suggests that rapid shallow afterslip did not occur at those two locations. The postseismic time series from these stations shows centimeters of horizontal displacement over periods of a few months. They record a mixture of fault‐parallel and fault‐normal displacements that, in conjunction with analysis of more spatially complete Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar displacement fields, suggest that both poroelastic and afterslip phenomena occur along the M 6.4 and 7.1 rupture planes. Using preliminary data from these and other regional stations, we also explore the Ridgecrest sequence’s effect on regional GNSS time series and the differentiation of long‐term postseismic motions and secular deformation rates. We find that redefining a common‐mode noise filter using different GNSS stations that are assumed to be unaffected by the earthquakes results in small but systematic differences in the regional velocity field estimate.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2019

Regional Global Navigation Satellite System networks for crustal deformation monitoring

Regional networks of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations cover seismically and volcanically active areas throughout the United States. Data from these networks have been used to produce high‐precision, three‐component velocity fields covering broad geographic regions as well as position time series that track time‐varying crustal deformation. This information has contributed to assessing interseismic strain accumulation and related seismic hazard, revealed previously unknown occurrences of aseismic fault slip, constrained coseismic slip estimates, and enabled monitoring of volcanic unrest and postseismic deformation. In addition, real‐time GNSS data are now widely available. Such observations proved invaluable for tracking the rapidly evolving eruption of Kīlauea in 2018. Real‐time earthquake source modeling using GNSS data is being incorporated into tsunami warning systems, and a vigorous research effort is focused on quantifying the contribution that real‐time GNSS can make to improve earthquake early warnings as part of the Advanced National Seismic System ShakeAlert system. Real‐time GNSS data can also aid in the tracking of ionospheric disturbances and precipitable water vapor for weather forecasting. Although regional GNSS and seismic networks generally have been established independently, their spatial footprints often overlap, and in some cases the same institution operates both types of networks. Further integration of GNSS and seismic networks would promote joint use of the two data types to better characterize earthquake sources and ground motion as well as offer opportunities for more efficient network operations. Looking ahead, upgrading network stations to leverage new GNSS technology could enable more precise positioning and robust real‐time operations. New computational approaches such as machine learning have the potential to enable full utilization of the large amounts of data generated by continuous GNSS networks. Development of seafloor Global Positioning System‐acoustic networks would provide unique information for fundamental and applied research on subduction zone seismic hazard and, potentially, monitoring.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS1996

The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989: Main shock characteristics

The October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta, Calif., earthquake (0004:15.2 G.m.t. October 18; lat 37.036º N., long 121.883º W.; 19-km depth) had a local magnitude (M L ) of about 6.7, a surface-wave magnitude (M S ) of 7.1, a seismic moment of 2.2x10 19 N-m to 3.5x10 19 N-m, a source duration of 6 to 15 s, and an average stress drop of at least 50 bars. Slip occurred on a dipping fault surface about 35 km long and was largely confined to a depth of about 7 to 20 km. The slip vector had a large vertical component, and slip was distributed in two main regions situated northwest and southeast of the hypocenter. This slip distribution caused about half of the earthquake's energy to be focused toward the urbanized San Francisco Bay region, while the other half was focused toward the southeast. Had the rupture initiated at the southeast end of the aftershock zone, shaking in the bay region would have been both longer and stronger. These source parameters suggest that the earthquake was not a typical shallow San Andreas-type event but a deeper event on a different fault with a recurrence interval of many hundreds of years. Therefore, the potential for a damaging shallow event on the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains may still exist.

California↗

USGS1993

The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989: Preseismic observations

The October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta, Calif., Ms=7.1 earthquake provided the first opportunity in the history of fault monitoring in the United States to gather multidisciplinary preearthquake data in the near field of an M=7 earthquake. The data obtained include observations on seismicity, continuous strain, long-term ground displacement, magnetic field, and hydrology. The papers in this chapter describe these data, their implications for fault-failure mechanisms, the scale of prerupture nucleation, and earthquake prediction in general. Of the 10 papers presented here, about half identify preearthquake anomalies in the data, but some of these results are equivocal. Seismicity in the Loma Prieta region during the 20 years leading up to the earthquake was unremarkable. In retrospect, however, it is apparent that the principal southwest-dipping segment of the subsequent Loma Prieta rupture was virtually aseismic during this period. Two M=5 earthquakes did occur near Lake Elsman near the junction of the Sargent and San Andreas faults within 2.5 and 15 months of, and 10 km to the north of, the Loma Prieta epicenter. Although these earthquakes were not on the subsequent rupture plane of the Loma Prieta earthquake and other M=5 earthquakes occurred in the preceding 25 years, it is now generally accepted that these events were, in some way, foreshocks to the main event.

California↗