Geology topics

Thomas E. Parsons

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas E. Parsons.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Temporal and spatial changes in seismic attenuation associated with inferred fluid migration in the 2016 central Apennines earthquake sequence

Prior work suggests that high‐frequency seismic attenuation acts as a highly sensitive proxy for crustal permeability and fluid mobility in fractured media. We test the hypothesis that the fault system responsible for the 2016–2017 Amatrice–Visso–Norcia–Capitignano sequence acted as an impermeable seal, compartmentalizing pressurized fluids until dynamic rupture triggered widespread fluid diffusion. By tracking across the sequence the spatiotemporal evolution of the S ‐wave anelastic attenuation parameter, we identify large, positive low‐frequency attenuation anomalies emerging within the hanging wall following the Amatrice mainshock and strictly preceding subsequent large ruptures. Conversely, we observe weaker, negative anomalies in the footwall, anticorrelated in time with those of the hanging wall, revealing a massive asymmetry in fluid redistribution and permeability evolution across the fault system. Furthermore, aftershock migration rates reveal distinct linear alignments in a distance‐reduced time space, allowing us to explicitly track and quantify episodes of lateral and upward fluid migration. These physically consistent patterns suggest that stress‐driven fluid diffusion directly weakens adjacent fault patches, dictating the spatiotemporal migration of seismicity. We conclude that near‐real‐time monitoring of seismic attenuation may help detect fluid redistribution in active fault systems and may provide useful information for time‐dependent seismic hazard assessment.

central Apennines↗

USGS2025

An exploration of the relative influence of physical models for Omori’s law

Omori’s law states that the rate of aftershocks decays as a function of inverse time. There are multiple physical explanations that we reduce into a nonlinear mixed effects relation of three terms: (1) a Rate/State expression that can account for static/dynamic and viscoelastic triggering caused directly by the mainshock, (2) a fluid diffusion triggering term, and (3) a randomized secondary triggering (cascade) term. We fit free physical-model parameters to an observed aftershock sequence through two nonlinear regression methods to find the relative contributions of physics-based models in an observed aftershock sequence. Results from both methods show that Rate/State models overpredict aftershock rates by ∼0–30%. Secondary aftershocks cause a net negative contribution (seismicity rate reduction that corrects overprediction by other terms) ranging between ∼0 and 30%. All regression solutions yield negative secondary triggering contributions without being guided to do so. A physical explanation for this is that aftershock occurrence relieves stress from the crust, ultimately causing the sequence to extinguish itself. Fluid diffusion triggering contributions range from ∼0 to 20%. Diffusion processes are observed to be shorter in time than the full duration of an aftershock sequence and they are also spatially limited, diminishing their influence. Our results apply to an aftershock decay curve from the 2016 Central Apennines earthquake sequence, meaning that our specific results may not be general. Our primary conclusion is that any one physical model cannot alone fit the observed sequence as well as the combination of three we investigated.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

USGS2025

A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective

We articulate a scientific vision and roadmap for the development of improved Earthquake Rupture Forecast models, which are one of the two main modeling components used in modern seismic hazard and risk analysis. One primary future objective is to provide fully time-dependent models that include both elastic rebound and spatiotemporal clustering nationwide, which is particularly important for shorter-term hazard and risk considerations (e.g., earthquake insurance products). We also discuss the importance and perennial challenges associated with quantifying epistemic uncertainties, including those associated with deformation-model slip rates, un-quantified sampling errors with respect to off-fault seismicity, and any spatial covariances. The need for more physics-based approaches is also emphasized, as is the benefit of adding model valuation (quantifying usefulness) to our verification and validation protocols. Given the multidisciplinary and system-level nature of this activity, modular design is critical. Future updates will also draw from best-available science by both the United States Geological Survey and the external community. The primary goal of this paper is to highlight plans that guide research and facilitate community engagement with model development, especially with respect to lowering the entry barrier for early career scientists and engineers. The paper is written so readers can focus on the sections that interest them most (see table of contents), with the Introduction and Discussion providing a stand-alone overview and summary.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2025

Do Graviquakes exist?

The “Graviquake” model, proposed in 2015 as an alternative to the elastic dislocation model, posits that normal faults are passive features dominated by coseismic gravitational collapse into a dilated crustal wedge, and that normal faulting is fundamentally distinct from strike‐slip and reverse faulting. Developed using finite‐element modeling before the 2016 central Apennines earthquake sequence, the model was revamped based on interpreted Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data from these events and used as evidence for a gravitational collapse episode. However, this interpretation relies on miscalculated elevation changes and is not corroborated by independent geophysical and seismological observations. Our analysis exposes fundamental flaws in the Graviquake model. By assuming that faults are passive players, it underrepresents the dynamic role of strain accumulation and release in rocks adjacent to faults. The hypothesized rapid expulsion of overpressurized fluids appears inconsistent with observed diffusion rates and lacks supporting seismological evidence. Part of the uplifted–subsided volume imbalance is likely an artifact arising from data processing, and in part is a transient effect due to the delayed response of the lower crust. Moment tensor analyses detect no isotropic components indicative of gravitational collapse, and observed ground motion and stress‐drop levels remain fully consistent with elastic dislocation theory. In addition, finite‐element modeling of normal faulting replicates observed surface deformation without invoking a collapsing wedge. The Graviquake model proposes a representation of normal‐faulting mechanics that differs significantly from established models and observations. Gravity does play a role in normal faulting, but the elastic dislocation theory remains the definitive framework of fault mechanics. Reinterpreting the 2016 earthquakes as a cascade of gravitational episodes, based on incorrect data processing and modeling, fails to substantiate the Graviquake hypothesis. Persistence in advocating this model could mislead seismic hazard assessment and undermine our understanding of normal faulting.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2025

Identification of representative earthquakes for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA) using earthquake rupture forecasts and machine learning

As probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA) focuses more on assessments for localized, populous regions, techniques are needed to identify a subsample of representative earthquake ruptures to make the computational requirements for producing high-resolution hazard maps tractable. Moreover, the greatest epistemic uncertainty in seismic PTHA is related to source characterization, which is often poorly defined and subjective. We address these two salient issues by applying streamlined earthquake rupture forecasts (ERFs), based on combinatorial optimization methods, to an unsupervised machine learning workflow for identifying representative ruptures. ERFs determine the optimal distribution of a millennia-scale sample of earthquakes by inverting the observed slip rate on major faults. We use two previously developed combinatorial optimization ERFs, integer programming and greedy sequential, to produce the optimal location of ruptures with seismic moments sampled from a regional Gutenberg–Richter magnitude–frequency distribution. These ruptures in turn are used to calculate peak nearshore tsunami amplitude, using computationally efficient tsunami Green's functions. An unsupervised machine learning workflow is then used to identify a small subsample of the earthquakes input to ERFs for onshore PTHA analysis. We eliminate epistemic uncertainty related to source distribution under traditional PTHA analysis; in its place, a quantifiable, less subjective and generally smaller uncertainty related to the input to ERFs is included. The Nankai subduction zone is used as a test case, where previous ERFs have been conducted. Results indicate that the locations of representative earthquakes are sensitive to choice of magnitude–area relation and to whether a minimum cumulative stress objective is imposed on the fault. In general, incorporating ERFs into PTHA provide a physically self-consistent method to incorporate fault slip information in determining representative earthquakes for onshore PTHA, eliminating a major source of epistemic uncertainty.

Nankai subduction zone↗