Earthquake early Warning ShakeAlert system: West coast wide production prototype

Monica D. Kohler; Elizabeth S. Cochran; Douglas D. Given; Stephen Guiwits; Sarah U. Neuhaus; Ivan Hensen; J. Renate Hartog; Paul Bodin; Victor Kress; Stephen Thompson; Claude Felizardo; Jeff Brody; Rayo Bhadha; Stan Schwarz

doi:10.1785/0220170140

USGS · 70195141

Earthquake early Warning ShakeAlert system: West coast wide production prototype

Monica D. Kohler·Elizabeth S. Cochran·Douglas D. Given·Stephen Guiwits·Sarah U. Neuhaus·Ivan Hensen·J. Renate Hartog·Paul Bodin·Victor Kress·Stephen Thompson·Claude Felizardo·Jeff Brody·Rayo Bhadha·Stan Schwarz

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Earthquake early warning (EEW) is an application of seismological science that can give people, as well as mechanical and electrical systems, up to tens of seconds to take protective actions before peak earthquake shaking arrives at a location. Since 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey has been working in collaboration with several partners to develop EEW for the United States. The goal is to create and operate an EEW system, called ShakeAlert, for the highest risk areas of the United States, starting with the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington. In early 2016, the Production Prototype v.1.0 was established for California; then, in early 2017, v.1.2 was established for the West Coast, with earthquake notifications being distributed to a group of beta users in California, Oregon, and Washington. The new ShakeAlert Production Prototype was an outgrowth from an earlier demonstration EEW system that began sending test notifications to selected users in California in January 2012. ShakeAlert leverages the considerable physical, technical, and organizational earthquake monitoring infrastructure of the Advanced National Seismic System, a nationwide federation of cooperating seismic networks. When fully implemented, the ShakeAlert system may reduce damage and injury caused by large earthquakes, improve the nation’s resilience, and speed recovery.

Explore related subjects

Seismological Research Letters Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 32.534156° to 49.002357° latitude; -124.731746° to -114.134768° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Monica D. Kohler, Elizabeth S. Cochran, Douglas D. Given, Stephen Guiwits, Sarah U. Neuhaus, Ivan Hensen, J. Renate Hartog, Paul Bodin, Victor Kress, Stephen Thompson, Claude Felizardo, Jeff Brody, Rayo Bhadha, Stan Schwarz. 2017-12-06. Earthquake early Warning ShakeAlert system: West coast wide production prototype. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170140

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2026

Global seasonal microseism intensity and hemispheric asymmetry

Earth’s microseism wavefield dominates seismic background levels at periods between approximately 4 and 20 s, and reflects periodic and secular variations in ocean swell energy. Ocean wave energy couples to the seismic wavefield via distinct primary microseism and secondary microseism (PM and SM) source mechanisms, which are excited by basal swell tractions and seafloor pressure variations due to crossing seas, respectively. This study examines annual amplitude variations for the globally dominant PM (14–20 s) and SM (4–10 s) period bands. Annual harmonic variations are represented by four‐term Fourier series fits to vertical‐component seasonally smoothed acceleration time series from 73 stations in the Global Seismographic and GEOSCOPE networks with over 20 yr of recording and at least 75% data completeness. These annual periodic functions fit between 14%–95% (PM) and 22%–97% (SM) of signal variance. Station annual peak‐to‐peak variations range between 1.2–14.3 dB (PM) and 1.5–20.6 dB (SM). An asymmetry in microseism features exists between the Northern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. High‐latitude NH stations show highly correlated PM and SM annual amplitude variations. This character dominates the wider extratropical NH but diminishes at tropical latitudes, and widespread relative PM–SM decorrelation is observed in the SH. These hemispheric characteristics reflect systematic differences in both extratropical storm activity and ocean wave state. Greater annual variation and seasonal predictability in the NH reflect the influence of the large continental landmasses that enhance both storm intensity seasonality and SM‐generating coastal wave reflection. Notable clusters of low PM–SM correlation stations are also observed in continental Antarctica due to seasonal sea ice influences, and in East Asia, reflecting unusual PM and SM source responses to South Asian monsoonal and tropical cyclone ocean wave influences.

Seismological Research Letters↗