An introduction to technical issues in the evaluation of seismic hazards for earthquake-resistant design
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Open-File Report↗
SEARCH · Search USGS
Results for “earthquake hazards”
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Washington and Oregon earthquake history and hazards
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Open-File Report↗
Hazard of earthquake-induced lateral-spread ground failure on the Central California Coast modeled from earth-science map data in a geographic information system
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Open-File Report↗
Reconnaissance engineering geology of the Skagway area, Alaska, with emphasis on evaluation of earthquake and other geologic hazards
A program to study the engineering geology of most of the larger Alaska coastal communities and to evaluate their earthquake and other geologic hazards was started promptly after the 1964 Alaska earthquake; this report is a product of that program. Field-study methods were largely reconnaissance, and thus the interpretations in the report are subject to revision as further information becomes available. The report provides broad guidelines for planners and engineers when considering geologic factors during preparation of land-use plans. The use of this information should lead to minimizing future loss of life and property, especially during major earthquakes. Skagway was established in 1897 as a seaport near the head of Taiya Inlet fiord in the northern part of southeastern Alaska. Rugged mountains, steep-walled valleys, fiords, and numerous glaciers and icefields characterize the landscape of the area. Valley floors are narrow and most carry large streams, which end in tidewater deltas. Skagway is situated on the delta and lower valley floor of the Skagway River. Glaciers became vastly enlarged during the Pleistocene Epoch and presumably covered the area at least several times. The last major deglaciation probably occurred about 10,000 years ago. Subsequently, there was minor expansion and then partial retreat of glaciers; land rebound because of glacial melting is still going on today. Bedrock is composed predominantly of plutonic intrusive rocks, chiefly quartz diorite and granodiorite, some metamorphic rocks and a few dikes are present. Most bedrock is of Jurassic and Cretaceous age. An assortment of surficial deposits of Quaternary age form the valley bottoms and locally part of the valley walls. Thick deposits of sand and gravel have accumulated as deltas at the heads of fiords and as alluvium in the main stream valleys; deposits may be as much as S8S feet thick at Skagway. Locally, thin deposits mantle some of the steep bedrock slopes and also form some moderately to gently sloping ground. Manmade fill covers much of the top of the delta and floor of the Skagway valley. The fill is composed chiefly of gravel and sand. Quarried blocks of granodiorite are used as riprap to face river dikes and on fill areas exposed to waves of Taiya Inlet. The geologic structure of the area is imperfectly known. However, it appears that plutonic rocks intruded metamorphic rocks in Jurassic and Cretaceous time. Extensive faulting is strongly indicated by the strikingly linear or curvilinear pattern of fiords and many large and small valleys, but no major faults have been positively identified because of concealment by water or surficial deposits. Inferred faults include those coincident with the lower Skagway valley, Taiya Inlet-Taiya valley, and the Katzehin River delta-Upper Dewey Lake. Principal fault movements probably occurred in middle Tertiary time but some movement might have been in late Tertiary or possibly early Quaternary time. Local faults appear to join the Chilkat River fault, a segment of the important Denali fault system, one of the major tectonic elements of southeastern Alaska. One fault segment of this system shows evidence of movement within the last several hundred years. Southeastern Alaska's other major fault system is the active Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system'near the coast of the Pacific Ocean. This fault system passes to within about 100 miles of Skagway. At its northwest end the fault system merges with the Chugach-St. Elias fault. One hundred twenty-two earthquakes, some of them strong, have been felt or possibly felt at Skagway during the years 1898 through 1969. The closest large earthquake (magnitude about 8) causing some damage at Skagway occurred July 10, 1958. Its epicenter was about 100 miles to the southwest. Other earthquakes, as much as 150 miles away, also have caused slight to moderate damage. The closest instrumentally recorded earthquake (magnitude 6) had its epicenter about 30 miles to the west of Skagway. Most earthquakes in southeastern Alaska have occurred southwest, west, or northwest of Skagway, near the coast of the Pacific Ocean. They appear to be related to movement along the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system or the Chugach-St. Elias fault. Most have had their epicenters offshore. Some earthquakes may be related to movement at depth along the Denali fault system. The probability of destructive earthquakes at Skagway is unknown because the tectonics of the region have not been studied in detail. However, on the basis of the seismic record and limited tectonic evidence, we suggest that sometime in the future an earthquake of at least magnitude 6 probably will occur very close to the city, a magnitude 7 earthquake might occur in the general area, and an earthquake of magnitude 8 probably will occur at some distance to the southwest, west, or northwest. Effects from nearby large earthquakes could cause extensive damage at Skagway. Nine principal effects are considered. 1. Surface displacement. Displacement of ground caused by fault movement would affect only structures built athwart the fault. However, a sudden tectonic uplift of land of as much as a few feet might affect a wide area and necessitate extensive dredging and wharf rebuilding. On the other hand, a subsidence of several feet would allow tidewater to reach inland and flood part of the harbor facilities and the business district. 2. Ground shaking. Because intensity of ground shaking during earthquakes largely depends on type and water content of the geologic material being shaken, the geologic materials are separated into three categories. Those considered susceptible to strongest shaking are grouped into category 1 (containing materials that are saturated, loose, and of medium- to fine-grain sizes); those of intermediate susceptibility in category 2; and those least susceptible to shaking in category 3. 3. Compaction of some medium-grained sediments during strong earthquake shaking could cause local settling of alluvial and deltaic surfaces. Also, some manmade fills near the harbor might undergo marked differential settling. 4. Liquefaction of saturated beds of uniform, fine sand commonly occurs during strong earthquakes. Few such beds, however, are positively identified at Skagway; some may occur within deltaic and alluvial deposits. If present, these beds might liquefy and cause local settling or trigger landslides. 5. Ejection of water-sediment mixtures from earthquake-induced fractures or from point sources, plus some associated ground subsidence, is common during major earthquakes where saturated sand and fine gravel deposits are confined beneath generally impermeable beds. Some alluvial and deltaic deposits at Skagway probably are susceptible to these processes. Locally, ejecta might cover roads and areas between buildings and fill low-lying areas. Associated ground fracturing might damage roadways, foundations of buildings, and other facilities. 6. Subaerial and subaqueous slides occur frequently during earthquakes. Saturated loose sediments on steep slopes are especially susceptible to sliding. During a major earthquake, surficial deposits forming such slopes along the southeast side of the Skagway valley probably would be subject to sliding or earthflowing on an extensive scale. Some sliding might extend onto the valley floor and damage or destroy buildings and part of the railroad. Rockfalls would be numerous and locally very large rockslides might occur. Subaqueous sliding of the Skagway delta is potentially the most damaging of earthquake effects. Sliding may have occurred there during the earthquake of September 16, 1899; any future major earthquake close to the city would cause extensive sliding, possibly triggered in part by liquefaction. If shaking continued for several minutes, successive slides might progressively remove large portions of the delta and allow extensive land spreading and fracturing of Skagway River alluvium as much as several thousand feet landward from the shoreline. 7. Glacier surfaces commonly receive extensive snow avalanches and rockslides during seismic shaking. In the Skagway area, glaciers may be disrupted at their margins, and resulting blocked streams might form lakes in a few places. If these lakes drained suddenly, downstream areas would he flooded. No long-term effects, such as glacier expansion, are expected. 8. Ground- and surface-water levels often are affected during and after strong earthquake shaking. At Skagway, ground-water levels probably would be lowered, but there would be no permanent change in water quality. Earthquake-triggered landslides could dam the Skagway River; the sudden failure of the dams might cause severe flooding. 9. Waves generated by earthquakes include tsunamis, seiche waves, and waves caused by subaerial and submarine sliding and tectonic displacement of land. Damage in the Skagway area would depend on wave height, tidal stage, and warning time. Some waves triggered by subaerial and subaqueous slides have a strong possibility of reaching heights of as much as 60 feet--or possibly even higher. Tsunamis from the open ocean must travel 160 miles of fiords before reaching Skagway, which allows sufficient time for appraisal of expectable wave height and, if necessary, evacuation of the harbor area and other low-lying ground. Geologic hazards other than those hazards associated with earthquakes include nonearthquake-induced subaerial and subaqueous slides, floods, and slow uplift (rebound) of land. Landslides of moderate size are known to have occurred from time to time during heavy rains such as those of September 1967. Subaqueous slides happen intermittently during the normal growth of deltas. Submarine cables on the floor of northern Taiya Inlet presumably were broken by such slides on September 10, 1927. Flooding by the Skagway River has inundated parts of the city many times, usually during heavy rains in the fall. Two floods were reported to have been caused by the sudden draining of glacier-dammed lakes. Dikes protect the city from many smaller floods, but heightening and broadening is needed to give full protection. Slow land uplift at Skagway, because of regional glacioisostatic rebound, averages 0.059 foot per year. On this basis, the shoreline theoretically shifted seaward 500 feet and the harbor shoaled 4.4 feet between 1897 and 1972. It is recommended that future geologic study of the Skagway area include: detailed geologic mapping and collection of data on geologic materials, joints, faults, and slope stability; complete evaluation of earthquake probability and response of materials to shaking; and collection and evaluation of periodic soundings and sediment data from Skagway and Taiya deltas to assist in forecasting the stability of the delta front.
Alaska↗
The 1909 Taipei earthquake: implication for seismic hazard in Taipei
The 1909 April 14 Taiwan earthquake caused significant damage in Taipei. Most of the information on this earthquake available until now is from the written reports on its macro-seismic effects and from seismic station bulletins. In view of the importance of this event for assessing the shaking hazard in the present-day Taipei, we collected historical seismograms and station bulletins of this event and investigated them in conjunction with other seismological data. We compared the observed seismograms with those from recent earthquakes in similar tectonic environments to characterize the 1909 earthquake. Despite the inevitably large uncertainties associated with old data, we conclude that the 1909 Taipei earthquake is a relatively deep (50–100 km) intraplate earthquake that occurred within the subducting Philippine Sea Plate beneath Taipei with an estimated M_W of 7 ± 0.3. Some intraplate events elsewhere in the world are enriched in high-frequency energy and the resulting ground motions can be very strong. Thus, despite its relatively large depth and a moderately large magnitude, it would be prudent to review the safety of the existing structures in Taipei against large intraplate earthquakes like the 1909 Taipei earthquake.
Taipei↗
Reconnaissance engineering geology of Sitka and vicinity, Alaska, with emphasis on evaluation of earthquake and other geologic hazards
A program to study the engineering geology of most of the larger Alaska coastal communities and to evaluate their earthquake and other geologic hazards was started following the 1964 Alaska earthquake; this report about Sitka and vicinity is a product of that program. Field-study methods were of a reconnaissance nature, and thus the interpretations in the report are subject to revision as further information becomes available. This report can provide broad geologic guidelines for planners and engineers during preparation of land-use plans. The use of this information should lead to minimizing future loss of life and property due to geologic hazards, especially during very large earthquakes. Landscape of Sitka and surrounding area is characterized by numerous islands and a narrow strip of gently rolling ground adjacent to rugged mountains; steep valleys and some fiords cut sharply into the mountains. A few valley floors are wide and flat and grade into moderate-sized deltas. Glaciers throughout southeastern Alaska and elsewhere became vastly enlarged during the Pleistocene Epoch. The Sitka area presumably was covered by ice several times; glaciers deeply eroded some valleys and removed fractured bedrock along some faults. The last major deglaciation occurred sometime before 10,000 years ago. Crustal rebound believed to be related to glacial melting caused land emergence at Sitka of at least 35 feet (10.7 m) relative to present sea level. Bedrock at Sitka and vicinity is composed mostly of bedded, hard, dense graywacke and some argillite. Beds strike predominantly northwest and are vertical or steeply dipping. Locally, bedded rocks are cut by dikes of fine-grained igneous rock. Host bedrock is of Jurassic and Cretaceous age. Eight types of surficial deposits of Quaternary age were recognized. Below altitudes of 3S feet (10.7 m), the dominant deposits are those of modern and elevated shores and deltas; at higher altitudes, widespread muskeg overlies a mantle of volcanic ash which commonly overlies glacial drift. Alluvial deposits are minor. Man-emplaced embankment fill, chiefly sandy gravel, covers many muskeg and former offshore areas; quarried blocks of graywacke are placed to form breakwaters and to edge large areas of embankment fill and modified ground. The geologic structure of the area is known only in general outlines. Most bedded Mesozoic rocks probably are part of broad northwest-trending complexes of anticlines and synclines. Intrusion of large bodies of plutonic igneous rocks occurred in Tertiary and Cretaceous time. Extensive faulting is suggested by the numerous linear to gently curving patterns of some fiords, lakes, and valleys, and by a group of Holocene volcanoes and cinder cones. Two major northwest-striking fault zones are most prominent: (1) the apparently inactive Chichagof-Sitka fault, about 2.5 miles (4.0 km) northeast of Sitka, and {2) part of the active 800-mile- (1,200-km) long Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system, lying about 30 miles (48 km) southwest of the city. Many earthquakes have been reported as felt at Sitka since 1832, when good records were first maintained; several shocks were very strong, but none of them caused severe damage. The closest major earthquake (magnitude about 7.3) causing some damage to the city occurred July 30, 1972, and had an epicenter about 30 miles (48 km) to the southwest. Movement along the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system apparently caused most of the earthquakes felt at Sitka. The probability of destructive earthquakes at Sitka is unknown. The tectonics of the region and the seismic record suggest that sometime in the future an earthquake of a magnitude of about 8 and related to the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system probably will occur in or near the area. Effects from some nearby major earthquakes could cause substantial damage at Sitka. Eight possible effects are as follows: 1. Sudden dis
Open-File Report↗
Reconnaissance engineering geology of the Metlakatla area, Annette Island, Alaska, with emphasis on evaluation of earthquakes and other geologic hazards
A program to study the engineering geology of most larger Alaska coastal communities and to evaluate their earthquake and other geologic hazards was started following the 1964 Alaska earthquake; this report about the Metlakatla area, Annette Island, is a product of that program. Field-study methods were of a reconnaissance nature, and thus the interpretations in the report are tentative. Landscape of the Metlakatla Peninsula, on which the city of Metlakatla is located, is characterized by a muskeg-covered terrane of very low relief. In contrast, most of the rest of Annette Island is composed of mountainous terrane with steep valleys and numerous lakes. During the Pleistocene Epoch the Metlakatla area was presumably covered by ice several times; glaciers smoothed the present Metlakatla Peninsula and deeply eroded valleys on the rest. of Annette Island. The last major deglaciation was completed probably before 10,000 years ago. Rebound of the earth's crust, believed to be related to glacial melting, has caused land emergence at Metlakatla of at least 50 ft (15 m) and probably more than 200 ft (61 m) relative to present sea level. Bedrock in the Metlakatla area is composed chiefly of hard metamorphic rocks: greenschist and greenstone with minor hornfels and schist. Strike and dip of beds are generally variable and minor offsets are common. Bedrock is of late Paleozoic to early Mesozoic age. Six types of surficial geologic materials of Quaternary age were recognized: firm diamicton, emerged shore, modern shore and delta, and alluvial deposits, very soft muskeg and other organic deposits, and firm to soft artificial fill. A combination map unit is composed of bedrock or diamicton. Geologic structure in southeastern Alaska is complex because, since at least early Paleozoic time, there have been several cycles of tectonic deformation that affected different parts of the region. Southeastern Alaska is transected by numerous faults and possible faults that attest to major movements of the earth's crust. The latest of the major tectonic events in the Metlakatla region occurred in middle Tertiary time; some minor fault activity probably continues today at depth. Along the outer coast of southeastern Alaska and British Columbia, major faulting activity occurs in the form of active, strike-slip movement along the Queen Charlotte fault about 100 mi (160 kin) west-southwest of Metlakatla. Some branching subsidiary faults also may be active, at least one of which may be the Sandspit fault. Many major and smaller earthquakes occur along the outer coast. These shocks are related to movements along the Queen Charlotte fault. A few small earthquakes occur in the region between the outer coast and the Coast Mountains, which includes Metlakatla. 0nly a few earthquakes have been reported as felt at Metlakatla; these shocks and others felt in the region are tabulated. Historically, the closest major earthquake was the magnitude 8.1 Queen Charlotte Islands earthquake of August 22, 1949, which occurred along the Queen Charlotte fault 125 mi (200 km) southwest of Metlakatla. No damage was reported at Metlakatla. The probability of destructive earthquakes affecting Metlakatla is unknown. A consideration of the tectonics and earthquake history of the region, however, suggests that sometime in the future an earthquake with a magnitude of about 8 will occur along that segment of the Queen Charlotte fault nearest to Metlakatla. Smaller earthquakes with magnitudes of 6 or more might occur elsewhere in the Metlakatla region or south-southeastward near Dixon Entrance or Hecate Strait. Several geologic effects that have characterized large earthquakes elsewh6re may be expected to accompany some of the possible major earthquakes that might affect the Metlakatla area in the future. Evaluation of effects indicates that fault displacement and tectonic uplift or subsidence are probably unlikely, and ground shaking in general probably would be strongest
Open-File Report↗
Oklahoma experiences largest earthquake during ongoing regional wastewater injection hazard mitigation efforts
The 3 September 2016, M w 5.8 Pawnee earthquake was the largest recorded earthquake in the state of Oklahoma. Seismic and geodetic observations of the Pawnee sequence, including precise hypocenter locations and moment tensor modeling, shows that the Pawnee earthquake occurred on a previously unknown left-lateral strike-slip basement fault that intersects the mapped right-lateral Labette fault zone. The Pawnee earthquake is part of an unprecedented increase in the earthquake rate in Oklahoma that is largely considered the result of the deep injection of waste fluids from oil and gas production. If this is, indeed, the case for the M 5.8 Pawnee earthquake, then this would be the largest event to have been induced by fluid injection. Since 2015, Oklahoma has undergone wide-scale mitigation efforts primarily aimed at reducing injection volumes. Thus far in 2016, the rate of M 3 and greater earthquakes has decreased as compared to 2015, while the cumulative moment—or energy released from earthquakes—has increased. This highlights the difficulty in earthquake hazard mitigation efforts given the poorly understood long-term diffusive effects of wastewater injection and their connection to seismicity.
Oklahoma↗
What can we learn from the Wells, NV earthquake sequence about seismic hazard in the intermountain west?
The February 21, 2008 Wells, NV earthquake (M 6) was felt throughout eastern Nevada, southern Idaho, and western Utah. The town of Wells sustained significant damage to unreinforced masonry buildings. The earthquake occurred in a region of low seismic hazard with little seismicity, low geodetic strain rates, and few mapped faults. The peak horizontal ground acceleration predicted by the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps is about 0.2 g at 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, with the contributions coming mostly from the Ruby Mountain fault and background seismicity (M5-7.0). The hazard model predicts that the probability of occurrence of an M>6 event within 50 km of Wells is about 15% in 100 years. Although the earthquake was inside the USArray Transportable Array network, the nearest on-scale recordings of ground motions from the mainshock were too distant to estimate accelerations in town. The University of Nevada Reno, the University of Utah, and the U.S. Geological Survey deployed portable instruments to capture the ground motions from aftershocks of this rare normal-faulting event. Shaking from a M 4.7 aftershock recorded on portable instruments at distances less than 10 km exceeded 0.3 g, and sustained accelerations above 0.1 g lasted for about 5 seconds. For a magnitude 5 earthquake at 10 km distance the NGA equations predict median peak ground accelerations about 0.1 g. Ground motions from normal faulting earthquakes are poorly represented in the ground motion prediction equations. We compare portable and Transportable Array ground-motion recordings with prediction equations. Advanced National Seismic System stations in Utah recorded ground motions 250 km from the mainshock of about 2% g. The maximum ground motion recorded in Salt Lake City was in the center of the basin. We analyze the spatial variability of ground motions (rock vs. soil) and the influence of the Salt Lake Basin in modifying the ground motions. We then compare this data with the September 28, 2004 Parkfield aftershocks to contrast the differences between strike-slip and normal ground motions.
Conference Paper↗
Modified Mercalli Intensity for scenario earthquakes in Evansville, Indiana
Evansville, Indiana, has experienced minor damage from earthquakes several times in the past 200 years. Because of this history and the fact that Evansville is close to the Wabash Valley and New Madrid seismic zones, there is concern about the hazards from earthquakes. Earthquakes currently cannot be predicted, but scientists can estimate how strongly the ground is likely to shake as a result of an earthquake. Earthquake-hazard maps provide one way of conveying such estimates of strong ground shaking and will help the region prepare for future earthquakes and reduce earthquake-caused losses.
Indiana↗
Surficial geologic map of the Evansville, Indiana, and Henderson, Kentucky, area
The geologic map of the Evansville, Indiana, and Henderson, Kentucky, area depicts and describes surficial deposits according to their origin and age. Unconsolidated alluvium and outwash fill the Ohio River bedrock valley and attain maximum thickness of 33-39 m under Diamond Island, Kentucky, and Griffith Slough, south of Newburgh, Indiana. The fill is chiefly unconsolidated, fine- to medium-grained, lithic quartz sand, interbedded with clay, clayey silt, silt, coarse sand, granules, and gravel. Generally, the valley fill fines upward from the buried bedrock surface: a lower part being gravelly sand to sandy gravel, a middle part mostly of sand, and a surficial veneer of silt and clay interspersed with sandy, natural levee deposits at river's edge. Beneath the unconsolidated fill are buried and discontinuous, lesser amounts of consolidated fill unconformably overlying the buried bedrock surface. Most of the glaciofluvial valley fill accumulated during the Wisconsin Episode (late Pleistocene). Other units depicted on the map include creek alluvium, slackwater lake (lacustrine) deposits, colluvium, dune sand, loess, and sparse bedrock outcrops. Creek alluvium underlies creek floodplains and consists of silt, clayey silt, and subordinate interbedded fine sand, granules, and pebbles. Lenses and beds of clay are present locally. Silty and clayey slackwater lake (lacustrine) deposits extensively underlie broad flats northeast of Evansville and around Henderson and are as thick as 28 m. Fossil wood collected from an auger hole in the lake and alluvial deposits of Little Creek, at depths of 10.6 m and 6.4 m, are dated 16,650+-50 and 11,120+-40 radiocarbon years, respectively. Fossil wood collected from lake sediment 16 m below the surface in lake sediment was dated 33,100+-590 radiocarbon years. Covering the hilly bedrock upland is loess (Qel), 3-7.5 m thick in Indiana and 9-15 m thick in Kentucky, deposited about 22,000-12,000 years before present. Most mapped surficial deposits in the quadrangle are probably no older than about 55,000 years. Lithologic logs, shear-wave velocities, and other cone penetrometer data are used to interpret depositional environments and geologic history of the surficial deposits. This map, which includes an area of slightly more than seven 7.5-minute quadrangles, serves several purposes. It is a tool for assessing seismic and flood hazards of a major urban area; aids urban planning; conveys geologic history; and locates aggregate resources. The map was produced concurrently with research by seismologists to determine places where the surficial deposits may tend to liquefy and (or) to amplify ground motions during strong earthquakes. Such hazardous responses to shaking are related to the characteristics of the geologic materials and topographic position, which the geologic map depicts. The geologic map is an element in the cooperative seismic hazard assessment program among the States of Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois and the U.S. Geological Survey, funded by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Indiana, Kentucky↗
ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision
Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.
Circular↗
Far field tsunami simulations of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake: Implications for tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast and the Caribbean
The great Lisbon earthquake of November 1st, 1755 with an estimated moment magnitude of 8.5-9.0 was the most destructive earthquake in European history. The associated tsunami run-up was reported to have reached 5-15??m along the Portuguese and Moroccan coasts and the run-up was significant at the Azores and Madeira Island. Run-up reports from a trans-oceanic tsunami were documented in the Caribbean, Brazil and Newfoundland (Canada). No reports were documented along the U.S. East Coast. Many attempts have been made to characterize the 1755 Lisbon earthquake source using geophysical surveys and modeling the near-field earthquake intensity and tsunami effects. Studying far field effects, as presented in this paper, is advantageous in establishing constraints on source location and strike orientation because trans-oceanic tsunamis are less influenced by near source bathymetry and are unaffected by triggered submarine landslides at the source. Source location, fault orientation and bathymetry are the main elements governing transatlantic tsunami propagation to sites along the U.S. East Coast, much more than distance from the source and continental shelf width. Results of our far and near-field tsunami simulations based on relative amplitude comparison limit the earthquake source area to a region located south of the Gorringe Bank in the center of the Horseshoe Plain. This is in contrast with previously suggested sources such as Marqu??s de Pombal Fault, and Gulf of C??diz Fault, which are farther east of the Horseshoe Plain. The earthquake was likely to be a thrust event on a fault striking ~ 345?? and dipping to the ENE as opposed to the suggested earthquake source of the Gorringe Bank Fault, which trends NE-SW. Gorringe Bank, the Madeira-Tore Rise (MTR), and the Azores appear to have acted as topographic scatterers for tsunami energy, shielding most of the U.S. East Coast from the 1755 Lisbon tsunami. Additional simulations to assess tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast from possible future earthquakes along the Azores-Iberia plate boundary indicate that sources west of the MTR and in the Gulf of Cadiz may affect the southeastern coast of the U.S. The Azores-Iberia plate boundary west of the MTR is characterized by strike-slip faults, not thrusts, but the Gulf of Cadiz may have thrust faults. Southern Florida seems to be at risk from sources located east of MTR and South of the Gorringe Bank, but it is mostly shielded by the Bahamas. Higher resolution near-shore bathymetry along the U.S. East Coast and the Caribbean as well as a detailed study of potential tsunami sources in the central west part of the Horseshoe Plain are necessary to verify our simulation results. ?? 2008 Elsevier B.V.
Marine Geology↗
Stress controls rupture extent and maximum magnitude of induced earthquakes
Seismic hazard forecasts of induced seismicity often require estimates of the maximum possible magnitude ( M max ). Empirical models suggest that maximum magnitudes, or expected number of earthquakes, are related to the volume of injected fluid. We perform a suite of 3D physics-based earthquake simulations with rate- and state-dependent friction, systematically varying the area of the pressurized region and the amplitude of the initial homogeneous or heterogeneous shear stress. Using the resulting catalog we explore the conditions that result in pressure-controlled versus runaway ruptures that extend outside the pressurized zone. We find that proposed empirical scaling laws correctly predict M max when shear stresses are further from failure (≤90% of maximum shear stress) and for high amplitude stress fields. Runaway ruptures are observed for higher initial shear stresses and smoother stress fields. In these cases, runaway ruptures occur early after the onset of injection and rarely preceded by foreshock activity.
Geophysical Research Letters↗
The occurrence and hazards of great subduction zone earthquakes
Subduction zone earthquakes result in some of the most devastating natural hazards on Earth. Knowledge of where great (moment magnitude M ≥ 8) subduction zone earthquakes can occur and how they rupture is critical to constraining future seismic and tsunami hazards. Since the occurrence of well-instrumented great earthquakes, such as the 2004 M 9.1 Sumatra–Andaman and 2011 M 9.1 Tohoku earthquakes, the hypotheses that plate age and convergence rate influence the ability of subduction zones to host large earthquakes have been dispelled. In this Review, we highlight how certain subduction zone properties might influence the location and characteristics of great earthquake rupture and impact seismic and tsunami hazard. The rupture characteristics of great earthquakes that most heavily impact earthquake hazards include the rupture extent (seaward and landward), location of strong motion-generating areas and earthquake recurrence. By contrast, large slip or displacement at the seafloor is one of the major controls of tsunami hazard. Future improvements in addressing hazards posed by subduction zones depend heavily on sustained geophysical monitoring in subduction zone systems (both onshore and offshore), expanded development of palaeoseismic data sets and improved integration of observations and models across disciplines and timescales.
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment↗
DisasterNet: Causal Bayesian networks with normalizing flows for cascading hazards
Sudden-onset hazards like earthquakes often induce cascading secondary hazards (e.g., landslides, liquefaction, debris flows, etc.) and subsequent impacts (e.g., building and infrastructure damage) that cause catastrophic human and economic losses. Rapid and accurate estimates of these hazards and impacts are critical for timely and effective post-disaster responses. Emerging remote sensing techniques provide pre- and post-event satellite images for rapid hazard estimation. However, hazards and damage often co-occur or colocate with underlying complex cascading geophysical processes, making it challenging to directly differentiate multiple hazards and impacts from satellite imagery using existing single-hazard models. We introduce DisasterNet, a novel family of causal Bayesian networks to model processes that a major hazard triggers cascading hazards and impacts and further jointly induces signal changes in remotely sensed observations. We integrate normalizing flows to effectively model the highly complex causal dependencies in this cascading process. A triplet loss is further designed to leverage prior geophysical knowledge to enhance the identifiability of our highly expressive Bayesian networks. Moreover, a novel stochastic variational inference with normalizing flows is derived to jointly approximate posteriors of multiple unobserved hazards and impacts from noisy remote sensing observations. Integrating with the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system, our framework is evaluated in recent global earthquake events. Evaluation results show that DisasterNet significantly improves multiple hazard and impact estimation compared to existing USGS products.
Conference Paper↗
Earthquake-induced chains of geologic hazards: Patterns, mechanisms, and impacts
Large earthquakes initiate chains of surface processes that last much longer than the brief moments of strong shaking. Most moderate- and large-magnitude earthquakes trigger landslides, ranging from small failures in the soil cover to massive, devastating rock avalanches. Some landslides dam rivers and impound lakes, which can collapse days to centuries later, and flood mountain valleys for hundreds of kilometers downstream. Landslide deposits on slopes can remobilize during heavy rainfall and evolve into debris flows. Cracks and fractures can form and widen on mountain crests and flanks, promoting increased frequency of landslides that lasts for decades. More gradual impacts involve the flushing of excess debris downstream by rivers, which can generate bank erosion and floodplain accretion as well as channel avulsions that affect flooding frequency, settlements, ecosystems, and infrastructure. Ultimately, earthquake sequences and their geomorphic consequences alter mountain landscapes over both human and geologic time scales. Two recent events have attracted intense research into earthquake-induced landslides and their consequences: the magnitude M 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake of 1999, and the M 7.9 Wenchuan, China earthquake of 2008. Using data and insights from these and several other earthquakes, we analyze how such events initiate processes that change mountain landscapes, highlight research gaps, and suggest pathways toward a more complete understanding of the seismic effects on the Earth’s surface.
Reviews of Geophysics↗
Geophysical setting of the 2000 ML 5.2 Yountville, California, earthquake: Implications for seismic Hazard in Napa Valley, California
The epicenter of the 2000 ML 5.2 Yountville earthquake was located 5 km west of the surface trace of the West Napa fault, as defined by Helley and Herd (1977). On the basis of the re-examination of geologic data and the analysis of potential field data, the earthquake occurred on a strand of the West Napa fault, the main basin-bounding fault along the west side of Napa Valley. Linear aeromagnetic anomalies and a prominent gravity gradient extend the length of the fault to the latitude of Calistoga, suggesting that this fault may be capable of larger-magnitude earthquakes. Gravity data indicate an ???2-km-deep basin centered on the town of Napa, where damage was concentrated during the Yountville earthquake. It most likely played a minor role in enhancing shaking during this event but may lead to enhanced shaking caused by wave trapping during a larger-magnitude earthquake.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗