Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70263400

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

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
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

BibTeXRIS

A.I. Lux, Deborah Smith, M. Böse, Jeffrey J. McGuire, Jessie K. Saunders, Minh Huynh, I. Stubailo, Jennifer R Andrews, G. Lotto, B. Crowell, S. Crane, R. M. Allen, Douglas D. Given, R. Hartog, T. Heaton, A. Husker, J. Marty, Leland O'Driscoll, Harold J. Tobin, Sara K. McBride, D. Toomey. 2024-08-16. Status and performance of the ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system: 2019-2023. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120230259

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Introduction to the special section on improving measurements of earthquake source parameters

Earthquake source parameters such as magnitude, seismic moment, source dimension, stress drop, and radiated energy are fundamental to understanding earthquake physics, and are also key ingredients in earthquake ground‐motion modeling, rupture simulation, and statistical seismology. However, the uncertainties in these parameters estimated from the radiated seismic wavefield are large due to variability in approaches, including site and attenuation characterizations, and so estimates for an individual earthquake made by different studies can vary greatly. Estimating spectral source parameters remains a popular topic, due to a combination of their intrinsic importance and their apparent ease of measurement, but also a controversial one, due to many sources of variability and large uncertainty. The available methods coupled with necessary parameter choices and assumptions in the analysis make it challenging for researchers to apply methods or understand the reliability in results or reported source parameters. This Special Section on Improving Measurements of Earthquake Source Parameters showcasing comparisons between methods and studies seeks to alleviate some of these difficulties to help the community identify the important components and trade‐offs of decomposing recorded seismograms into their source, path, and site components.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

The impact of source time function complexity on stress drop estimates

Earthquake stress drop—a key parameter for describing the energetics of earthquake rupture—can be estimated in several different, but theoretically equivalent, ways. However, independent estimates for the same earthquakes sometimes differ significantly. We find that earthquake source complexity plays a significant role in why theoretically (for simple rupture models) equivalent methods produce different estimates. We apply time‐ and frequency‐domain methods to estimate stress drops for real earthquakes in the SCARDEC (Seismic source ChAracteristics Retrieved from DEConvolving teleseismic body waves, Vallée and Douet, 2016 ) source time function (STF) database and analyze how rupture complexity drives stress‐drop estimate discrepancies. Specifically, we identify two complexity metrics—Brune relative energy (BRE) and spectral decay—that parameterize an earthquake’s complexity relative to the standard Brune model and strongly correlate with the estimate discrepancies. We find that the observed systematic magnitude–stress‐drop trends may reflect underlying changes in STF complexity, not necessarily trends in actual stress drop. Both the decay and BRE parameters vary systematically with magnitude, but whether this magnitude–complexity relationship is real remains unresolved.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

A comprehensive fault system inversion approach: Methods and application to NSHM23

We present updated inversion‐based fault‐system solutions for the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23), standardizing earthquake rate model calculations on crustal faults across the western United States. We build upon the inversion methodology used in the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) to solve for time‐independent rates of earthquakes in an interconnected fault system. The updated model explicitly maps out a wide range of fault recurrence and segmentation behavior (epistemic uncertainty), more completely exploring the solution space of viable models beyond those of UCERF3. We also improve the simulated annealing implementation, greatly increasing computational efficiency (and thus inversion convergence), and introduce an adaptive constraint weight calculation algorithm that helps to mediate between competing constraints. Hazard calculations show that ingredient changes (especially fault and deformation models) are the primary driver of hazard changes between NSHM23 and UCERF3. Updates to the inversion methodology are also consequential near faults in which the slip rate in UCERF3 was poorly fit or was satisfied primarily using large multifault ruptures that are now restricted by explicit b ‐value and segmentation constraints.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America