Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

T. Heaton

Publications and source records attributed to T. Heaton.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

Status and performance of the ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system: 2019-2023

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)‐operated ShakeAlert® system is the United States West Coast earthquake early warning system ( Given et al. , 2018 ). In this study we detail ShakeAlert’s performance during some of the largest events seen by the system thus far. Statewide public alerting using ShakeAlert messages was authorized in California in October 2019. Over the next few years, public alerts were expanded into Oregon and then into Washington ( U.S. Geological Survey, 2024 ). ShakeAlert source results are routinely compared to the USGS Comprehensive Catalog (ComCat; Guy et al. , 2015 ; U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017 ), which contains the earthquake location and magnitude determined using complete waveform data. M 4.5 and larger is the threshold used for public alerting and was deliberately set below the level where damage is likely to compensate for cases where the system underestimates the magnitude. Between 17 October 2019 and 1 September 2023, the ShakeAlert system created 95 events with maximum magnitude estimates of M ≥4.5, the public alerting threshold. 94 of the 95 events were due to real earthquakes. Seven were categorized “false” per ShakeAlert’s internal definition that there was no matching catalog event within 100 km and 30 s of origin time; however, all but one of these were real earthquakes that were poorly located, primarily because they were at the edges of the seismic network. Three detected events were labeled “missed” because they were very poorly located (>100 km location error). In addition, the system did not produce solutions for four ComCat events M ≥4.5 ( U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017 ), which were all at the edge of the alerting and network boundaries. The ShakeAlert system has accurately detected the majority of earthquakes that have occurred within the operational region since completing the public rollout, and alerts from the system have been delivered to millions of cell phone users throughout the West Coast.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

How often can Earthquake Early Warning systems alert sites with high intensity ground motion?

Although numerous Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) algorithms have been developed we still lack a detailed understanding of how often and under what circumstances useful ground motion alerts can be provided to end-users. Here we analyze the alerting performance of the PLUM, EPIC and FinDer algorithms by running them retrospectively on the seismic strong motion data of the 219 earthquakes in Japan since 1996 that exceeded Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of 4.5 on at least 10 sites (Mw 4.5-9.1). Our analysis suggests that, irrespective of the algorithm, EEW end-users should be prepared that EEW can often but not always provide useful ground motion alerts. A majority of sites with moderate-strong ground motion (MMI 5-6) can generally get at least a few seconds of warning time from all algorithms. If such shaking is caused by a shallow crustal event, around 50% of such sites receive alerts with warning times >5 s. Many sites with severe-extreme ground motion (MMI >=8) can be alerted successfully in the case of very large offshore earthquakes, but less than 20% can be alerted ahead of time if such shaking is caused by a shallow crustal event. Our results provide detailed quantitative insight into the expected alerting performance for EEW algorithms under realistic conditions. The main caveat is that the largest shallow crustal event in our data set has Mw7.0, i.e. the data set does not contain very large strike slip events.

Journal of Geophysical Research↗

Rapid earthquake characterization using MEMS accelerometers and volunteer hosts following the M 7.2 Darfield, New Zealand, Earthquake

We test the feasibility of rapidly detecting and characterizing earthquakes with the Quake‐Catcher Network (QCN) that connects low‐cost microelectromechanical systems accelerometers to a network of volunteer‐owned, Internet‐connected computers. Following the 3 September 2010 M 7.2 Darfield, New Zealand, earthquake we installed over 180 QCN sensors in the Christchurch region to record the aftershock sequence. The sensors are monitored continuously by the host computer and send trigger reports to the central server. The central server correlates incoming triggers to detect when an earthquake has occurred. The location and magnitude are then rapidly estimated from a minimal set of received ground‐motion parameters. Full seismic time series are typically not retrieved for tens of minutes or even hours after an event. We benchmark the QCN real‐time detection performance against the GNS Science GeoNet earthquake catalog. Under normal network operations, QCN detects and characterizes earthquakes within 9.1 s of the earthquake rupture and determines the magnitude within 1 magnitude unit of that reported in the GNS catalog for 90% of the detections.

Darfield↗

Major improvements in progress for Southern California Earthquake Monitoring

Major improvements in seismic and strong-motion monitoring networks are being implemented in southern California to better meet the needs of emergency response personnel, structural engineers, and the research community in promoting earthquake hazard reduction. Known as the TriNet project, the improvements are being coordinated by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) of the state's Department of Conservation. Already the ambitious instrument and system development project has started to record and disseminate ground motions from a spatially dense and robust network of high quality seismographs.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗

Preliminary report on the 16 October 1999 M 7.1 Hector mine, California, earthquake

The M w 7.1 Hector Mine, California, earthquake occurred at 9:46 GMT on 16 October 1999. The event caused minimal damage because it was located in a remote, sparsely populated part of the Mojave Desert, approximately 47 miles east-southeast of Barstow, with epicentral coordinates 34.59°N 116.27°W and a hypocentral depth of 5 ± 3 km. Twelve foreshocks, M 1.9-3.8, preceded the mainshock during the previous twelve hours. All of these events were located close to the hypocenter of the mainshock. The Hector Mine earthquake occurred within the Eastern California Shear Zone (ECSZ). By virtue of its remote location, the societal impact of the Hector Mine earthquake was, fortunately, minimal in spite of the event's appreciable size. The ECSZ is characterized by high seismicity, a high tectonic strain rate, and a broad, distributed zone of north-northwest-trending faults (ECSZ; Figure 1 ; Dokka and Travis, 1990 ; Sauber et al., 1986 ; Sauber et al., 1994 ; Sieh et al., 1993 ). Data regarding the slip rates of faults within the ECSZ suggest that on the order of 15% of the Pacific-North American plate motion occurs along this zone ( Sauber et al., 1986 ; Wesnousky, 1986 ). Most of the faults in the ECSZ have low slip rates and long repeat times for major earthquakes, on the order of several thousands to tens of thousands of years. The occurrence of the Hector Mine earthquake within seven years and only about 30 km east of the 1992 M w 7.3 Landers earthquake suggests that the closely spaced surface faults in the ECSZ are mechanically related. The Hector Mine event involved rupture on two previously mapped fault zones—the Bullion Fault and an unnamed, more northerly-trending fault that is informally referred to in this paper as the Lavic Lake Fault (Dibblee, 1966 , 1967a , b ). Traces of the Bullion Fault exhibit evidence of Holocene displacement and were zoned as active in 1988 under California's Mquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act ( Hart and Bryant, 1997 ). The pattern of rupture along more than one named fault was also observed from the 1992 Landers earthquake ( Hauksson et al., 1993 ; Sieh et al., 1994). Much of the fault zone that produced the Hector Mine earthquake had been buried by relatively young stream deposits, and the fault scarps in bedrock have a subdued morphology. It appears that these faults have not experienced significant offset for perhaps 10,000 years or more ( Hart, 1987 ). Planned future investigations will refine the age of the last event on these faults. The portion of the Lavic Lake Fault that ruptured between the northern end of the Bullion Mountains and Lavic Lake had not previously been mapped. However, our field investigations have identified ancient, subdued fault scarps along portions of the 1999 rupture zone in this area. It thus appears that the entire segment of the Lavic Lake Fault that was involved in the 1999 event had ruptured in the past. As is typical for most faults within the Eastern California Shear Zone, the rate of movement along the Lavic Lake Fault may be quite slow (<1 mm/yr) and should produce earthquakes only infrequently. This event is a reminder that faults that have ruptured in late Quaternary time, but that lack evidence of Holocene displacement, can still produce earthquakes in this low-slip-rate tectonic setting. Additionally, the Hector Mine earthquake is noteworthy for a couple of other reasons. First, it clearly produced triggered seismicity over much of southern California, from the rupture zone toward the south-southwest in particular. Second, as we will discuss, the event may provide new data and insight into recently developed paradigms concerning earthquake interactions and the role of static stress changes. Questions such as these will, of course, be the subject of extensive detailed analyses in years to come. Fortunately, the Hector Mine sequence will provide one of the best data sets obtained to date for a significant earthquake in the United States. Because it occurred when major upgrades to both the regional seismic network (TriNet) and the regional geodetic network (SCIGN) were well underway, the Earth science community will have abundant high-quality data with which to explore the important and interesting questions that have been raised. In this paper, we present and discuss the basic data and preliminary results from the Hector Mine earthquake.

California↗

The magnitude 6.7 Northridge, California, earthquake of 17 January 1994

The most costly American earthquake since 1906 struck Los Angeles on 17 January 1994. The magnitude 6.7 Northridge earthquake resulted from more than 3 meters of reverse slip on a 15-kilometer-long south-dipping thrust fault that raised the Santa Susana mountains by as much as 70 centimeters. The fault appears to be truncated by the fault that broke in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake at a depth of 8 kilometers. Of these two events, the Northridge earthquake caused many times more damage, primarily because its causative fault is directly under the city. Many types of structures were damaged, but the fracture of welds in steel-frame buildings was the greatest surprise. The Northridge earthquake emphasizes the hazard posed to Los Angeles by concealed thrust faults and the potential for strong ground shaking in moderate earthquakes.

Los Angeles↗

Near-field investigations of the Landers earthquake sequence, April to July 1992

The Landers earthquake, which had a moment magnitude ( M w ) of 7.3, was the largest earthquake to strike the contiguous United States in 40 years. This earthquake resulted from the rupture of five major and many minor right-lateral faults near the southern end of the eastern California shear zone, just north of the San Andreas fault. Its M w 6.1 preshock and M w 6.2 aftershock had their own aftershocks and foreshocks. Surficial geological observations are consistent with local and far-field seismologic observations of the earthquake. Large surficial offsets (as great as 6 meters) and a relatively short rupture length (85 kilometers) are consistent with seismological calculations of a high stress drop (200 bars), which is in turn consistent with an apparently long recurrence interval for these faults.

California↗

Seismic excitation by space shuttles

Shock waves generated by the space shuttles Columbia (August 13, 1989), Atlantis (April 11, 1991) and Discovery (September 18, 1991) on their return to Edwards Air Force Base, California, were recorded by TERRAscope (Caltech's broadband seismic network), the Caltech-U.S.G.S Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN), and the University of Southern California (USC) Los Angeles Basin Seismic Network. The spatial pattern of the arrival times exhibits hyperbolic shock fronts from which the path, velocity and altitude of the space shuttle could be determined. The shock wave was acoustically coupled to the ground, converted to a seismic wave, and recorded clearly at the broadband TERRAscope stations. The acoustic coupling occurred very differently depending on the conditions of the Earth's surface surrounding the station. For a seismic station located on hard bedrock, the shock wave (N wave) was clearly recorded with little distortion. Aside from the N wave, very little acoustic coupling of the shock wave energy to the ground occurred at these sites. The observed N wave record was used to estimate the overpressure of the shock wave accurately; a pressure change of 0.5 to 2.2 mbars was obtained. For a seismic station located close to the ocean or soft sedimentary basins, a significant amount of shock wave energy was transferred to the ground through acoustic coupling of the shock wave and the oceanic Rayleigh wave. A distinct topography such as a mountain range was found effective to couple the shock wave energy to the ground. Shock wave energy was also coupled to the ground very effectively through large man made structures such as high rise buildings and offshore oil drilling platforms. For the space shuttle Columbia, in particular, a distinct pulse having a period of about 2 to 3 seconds was observed, 12.5 s before the shock wave, with a broadband seismograph in Pasadena. This pulse was probably excited by the high rise buildings in downtown Los Angeles which were simultaneously hit by the space shuttle shock waves. The proximity of the natural periods of the high rise buildings and the modal periods of the Los Angeles basin enabled efficient energy transfer from shock wave to seismic wave. ?? 1992 Springer-Verlag.

Shock Waves↗