EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Annemarie S. Baltay

Publications and source records attributed to Annemarie S. Baltay.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Earthquake ground-motion model adjustments for the San Francisco Bay area

We develop adjustments to ergodic ground‐motion models (GMMs) to improve their performance in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA). GMMs are widely used in hazard assessments to estimate characteristics of ground shaking based on known properties of the source, path, and site. Such models are often developed using datasets containing records from various regions, resulting in models that represent median ground‐motion behavior, which may not adequately represent ground motions within subregions. This is true for the SFBA, where ground motions attenuate more rapidly with distance than in many other parts of California that dominate GMM databases. To support improved seismic hazard estimates in the SFBA, we calculate regional constants and anelastic attenuation coefficient adjustments relative to two commonly used ergodic GMMs: BSSA14 ( Boore et al. , 2014 ) and ASK14 ( Abrahamson et al. , 2014 ). These adjustments are obtained for a suite of ground‐motion intensity measures (peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and 5%‐damped pseudospectral acceleration at oscillator periods ranging from 0.075 to 10 s) using mixed‐effects regression. Use of the regionally adjusted models reduces the overall bias by up to 0.5 natural log units for BSSA14 and up to 0.6 natural log units for ASK14. We demonstrate one application of our attenuation adjustments and their implications in an earthquake early warning case study of the 2014 M 6.0 South Napa earthquake. The predicted extent of shaking using the adjusted models better matches observed shaking at large source‐to‐site distances, especially for lower shaking intensities, thus potentially reducing overalerting. We encourage the use of our model adjustments when ergodic models are considered for seismic hazard studies in the SFBA.

California↗

USGS2026

Orientation dependence of probabilistic seismic hazard estimates from CyberShake physics-based simulations

Earthquake ground‐motion intensities, such as pseudospectral accelerations (SAs), can vary significantly with horizontal orientation. However, conducting probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for each horizontal orientation is challenging because current ground‐motion models used in PSHA consider only a single horizontal intensity value, usually the median across all orientations, known as RotD50. To address this limitation, we employ physics‐based simulations for PSHA, which contain full waveforms from which ground‐motion intensities can be computed for all horizontal orientations to study directional seismic hazard. We apply our approach to the latest CyberShake study of the Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, developed by the Statewide California Earthquake Center, finding that seismic hazard at a 2475‐yr return period, a common value used for earthquake‐resistant design, varies significantly with horizontal orientation. For instance, for SAs at 3 s, the maximum seismic hazard across all horizontal orientations is, on average, 15% higher than the median RotD50 hazard, with these differences becoming more pronounced at longer periods. These observed variations can generally be attributed to physical mechanisms that polarize seismic waves, such as the radiation pattern of the earthquake source and the influence of the subsurface structure. These results may have important implications for earthquake engineering applications, particularly for long‐period structures in areas with substantial horizontal variations in seismic hazard.

California↗

USGS2025

Near-fault amplification and ground motion variability during the 2019 Ridgecrest, California sequence

We estimate ground-motion variability near the 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. Accurate seismic hazard estimation requires understanding ground-motion spatial correlations, yet many studies lack the dense station coverage needed to resolve small-scale variability. The 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence presents a unique opportunity to examine ground motions and their spatial correlations at a range of interstation distances. The permanent seismic network was augmented with hundreds of temporary stations including several fault-crossing nodal arrays. We compute the event ( δE i ) and within-event ( δW ij ) residuals from the observed peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration data to isolate potential sources of ground-motion variability. We then compare δW ij between station pairs that record an event to understand the semivariance of the ground motion versus interstation distance. By fitting an exponential model to the semivariances, we determine a correlation range of 25 km for the Ridgecrest region. Although the exponential model fits the broad-scale increase of semivariance with interstation distance, we also observe smaller-scale trends. We find that ground motions are less correlated for station pairs that are near or across faults that ruptured during the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence. We also find large, positive median δW ij with relative values 2–3 times larger than nearby stations for individual stations’ near-fault traces. Near-fault amplification and greater ground-motion variability can delineate fault zones and may locally increase the seismic hazard.

California↗

USGS2025

Mechanics and statistics of postseismic shaking

Analysis of two weeks of continuous post-seismic shaking after the 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest, CA earthquake sequence using 4 nearby borehole seismometers reveals that continuous ground motions decay as Omori’s law in time and follow the Gutenberg-Richter distribution in logarithmic amplitude. The measured temporal decay in amplitudes agrees with predictions of the rate-and-state framework and indicates shaking amplitudes are proportional to the velocity of afterslip. Our ground motion-based statistical framework provides a basis to forecast shaking intensity in the minutes to hours after a large earthquake.

California↗

USGS2025

Magnitude, depth and methodological variations of spectral stress drop within the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

We present the first ensemble analysis of the 56 different sets of results submitted to the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence. Different assumptions and methods result in different estimation of the source contribution to recorded seismograms, and hence to the source parameters (principally corner frequency, f c ⁠ , spectral stress drop, Δσ, and seismic moment, M 0 ⁠ ) obtained from modeling calculated source spectra. For earthquakes smaller than magnitude (M) 2.5 there is negligible correlation between the f c values obtained by different studies, implying that no present method is reliable using available data. For larger magnitude events, correlation between f c measurements of different studies, within even a small M range is always higher than spectral ⁠Δσ , because the f c measurements simply reflect the underlying physical decrease in f c with increasing M. We model the observed trends of submitted f c with both magnitude and depth. Most methods report an increase in spectral Δσ with M, although a magnitude‐invariant spectral Δσ is within the confidence limits. The depth dependence is smaller and depends on whether a study allows attenuation to vary with source depth; a combination of depth‐dependent attenuation correction, and depth‐dependent shear‐wave velocity can compensate for reported depth trends. We model the submitted values to remove differing M and depth variation to investigate the relative interevent variability. We find consistent relative variation between individual events, and also lower relative spectral Δσ in the northwest of the aftershock sequence, and higher on the cross fault and in the region of main fault intersection. This large‐scale comparison implies that absolute spectral Δσ estimates are dependent on the methods used; studies of different regions or using different methods should not be directly compared and improved constraints on path and site corrections are needed to resolve these absolute spectral Δσ differences.

California↗

USGS2025

Relationship between peak and cumulative ground motions from 49 Mw 3-6 earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area

We examine the relationship between peak ground velocity (PGV) and cumulative absolute displacement (CAD) for 49 M w 3 – 6 earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) and gain insight into the spatiotemporal partitioning of seismic energy in ground motion records with respect to source, path, and site effects. PGV and CAD are positively correlated, but there can be large deviations from the average trend. For example, ground motion records with either very long duration resonance or short pulse-like motions will have higher or lower CAD, respectively, but could have very similar PGV. We perform principal component analysis (PCA) on PGV-CAD for >7000 records in the SFBA with the goal of investigating what influences positive or negative anomalies in cumulative motions. PCA rotates the PGV-CAD datapoints into two principal components, where the one with the larger variance, which we call the “primary intensity” represents mostly the distance-dependence of ground motion amplitudes. The other principal component, which we call the “excess motion”, represents the deviation from cumulative motions that would be typical for a ground motion record with a given PGV. The excess motion will be positive in the case of records with long duration ringing and will be negative for short duration pulse-like ground motions. We find that excess motion is generally positive at sites in sedimentary basins and in soft sediments around the SF Bay. Excess motion is generally negative in the very near field, as well as at sites on hard bedrock. We discuss the findings here in terms of implications for seismic hazard applications and other wave propagation phenomena.

California↗

USGS2025

An empirical Green’s function approach for isolating directivity effects in earthquake ground-motion amplitudes

In this study, we apply an empirical Green’s function (eGf) method within a ground‐motion modeling framework to mitigate trade‐offs between source, path, and site effects. Many physical processes contribute to spatial variations in observed ground motions, including earthquake radiation pattern, directivity, variable path attenuation, and site effects. Current nonergodic ground‐motion models use spatially varying coefficients for path and site effects, but they do not address trade‐offs with complex earthquake source effects. To quantify the influence of directivity on ground‐motion amplitudes, we use records from multiple smaller earthquakes with epicenters near that of a larger event. We use these small magnitude events as eGfs and estimate repeatable path and site effects at individual stations, assuming that the average adjustments are not controlled by directivity. We adjust residuals from the larger earthquake using the eGf terms, isolating effects related to the rupture. This method clearly enhances the observed broadband directivity observed in the 2022 M 5.1 and 2007 M 5.4 Alum Rock earthquake ground motions, reinforcing the conclusion that their ruptures were unilateral. For the 2004 M 6.0 Parkfield earthquake, we find a bilateral rupture model better fits the data because variations in rupture velocity, slip rate, and slip distribution seem to have a stronger effect on the ground motions than rupture direction alone. Applying eGf adjustments reduces the standard deviation of the rupture models over the three earthquakes by 32% on average and by up to 57% for the 2022 Alum Rock earthquake, confirming we have effectively removed repeatable effects related to the wave propagation path and site response. We propose a novel measure of the frequency‐dependent directivity amplification strength as the reduction in ground‐motion residual variability gained by fitting a directivity model; for the three earthquakes considered, this parameter varies between 25% and 75%, indicating that directivity can strongly influence ground motions and should be considered in ground‐motion modeling.

California↗

USGS2025

Overview of The SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

We present initial findings from the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study to compare spectral stress‐drop estimates for earthquakes in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequence. This study uses a unified dataset to independently estimate earthquake source parameters through various methods. Stress drop, which denotes the change in average shear stress along a fault during earthquake rupture, is a critical parameter in earthquake science, impacting ground motion, rupture simulation, and source physics. Spectral stress drop is commonly derived by fitting the amplitude‐spectrum shape, but estimates can vary substantially across studies for individual earthquakes. Sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Statewide (previously, Southern) California Earthquake Center our community study aims to elucidate sources of variability and uncertainty in earthquake spectral stress‐drop estimates through quantitative comparison of submitted results from independent analyses. The dataset includes nearly 13,000 earthquakes ranging from M 1 to 7 during a two‐week period of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, recorded within a 1° radius. In this article, we report on 56 unique submissions received from 20 different groups, detailing spectral corner frequencies (or source durations), moment magnitudes, and estimated spectral stress drops. Methods employed encompass spectral ratio analysis, spectral decomposition and inversion, finite‐fault modeling, ground‐motion‐based approaches, and combined methods. Initial analysis reveals significant scatter across submitted spectral stress drops spanning over six orders of magnitude. However, we can identify between‐method trends and offsets within the data to mitigate this variability. Averaging submissions for a prioritized subset of 56 events shows reduced variability of spectral stress drop, indicating overall consistency in recovered spectral stress‐drop values.

California↗

USGS2025

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↗

USGS2025

Seismic moment and local magnitude scales in Ridgecrest, CA from the SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study

We illustrate the systematic difference between moment magnitude and local magnitude caused by underlying earthquake source physics, using seismic moments submitted to the Statewide California Earthquake Center/United States Geological Survey Community Stress Drop Validation Study 2019 Ridgecrest data set. While the relationship between seismic moment and moment magnitude ( M or M w ) of log 10 ( M 0 ) ~ 1.5* M is uniformly valid for all earthquake sizes by definition (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979), the relationship between local magnitude M L and moment is itself magnitude dependent. For moderate events, ~3< M < ~6, M and M L are coincident; for earthquakes smaller than ~3, M L ~ 1.0 log 10 M 0 (Hanks and Boore, 1984). This is a physical consequence of the corner frequency fc becoming larger than the upper frequency of observation and implies that M L and M differ systematically by a factor of 1.5 for these small events. While this idea is not new, we propose a new, continuous relationship between local magnitude and moment, for magnitudes 2 to 6 which extrapolates to smaller and larger magnitudes, applicable to southern California specific to the Ridgecrest region. We make use of the plethora of seismic moments as submitted by many participants of the Community Stress Drop study, compared to the Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) catalog magnitudes. Overall, the seismic moments in the Community Study recover moment magnitude well, so we use our new M L - M 0 to convert M L to M , refining the SCSN operational M Lr scale. This systematic difference of 50% in slope between local and moment magnitude at small magnitudes has implications for spectral stress drop estimates, earthquake ground motion modeling, as well as other magnitude scales and earthquake occurrence statistics.

California↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert® version 3: Expected performance in large earthquakes

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system partners along with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) licensed operators deliver EEW alerts to the public and trigger automated systems when a significant earthquake is expected to impact California, Oregon, or Washington. ShakeAlert’s primary goal is to provide usable warning times before the arrival of damaging shaking. EEW is most likely to achieve this goal in large‐magnitude earthquakes. In recent years, ShakeAlert has gone through a series of upgrades to its underlying scientific algorithms aimed at improved performance during large earthquakes. Version 3 of this software recently went live in the production system and includes improvements to all algorithms. The main seismic algorithms that detect an earthquake and characterize its location, magnitude, and fault rupture orientation are faster than older versions. Other key changes include: using real‐time geodetic data to characterize the magnitude growth in large earthquakes; the introduction of an alert pause procedure to compromise between speed near the epicenter and improved accuracy at larger distances; and the inclusion of a nonergodic site‐response model in the ground‐motion predictions. ShakeAlert has achieved its primary goal of usable warning times before strong shaking at some locations in real‐time operations in recent M 6 earthquakes. Using offline tests, we demonstrate usable warning times are possible for many sites with peak shaking values of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 7–8 in M 7+ earthquakes and also for many MMI 8–9 sites in M 8+ earthquakes. ShakeAlert partners use a variety of MMI and magnitude thresholds in deciding when to alert their users within bounds set by the USGS. Our study shows that there is room to raise the magnitude thresholds up to about M 5.5 without adversely affecting performance in large earthquakes. The ground‐motion criteria are more complex owing to a significant drop‐off in warning times between the MMI 4 and 5 levels of predicted shaking. However, widely used ShakeAlert products, such as the MMI 3 and 4 contour products, can provide sufficiently long warning times before strong shaking in moderate‐to‐great earthquakes to enable a range of protective actions.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2025

What 25+ years of "Did You Feel It" intensities tell us about shaking in California

“When will the Big One happen?” is a question that people often have for earthquake scientists. But while waiting for the “Big One” to occur, people will usually experience frightening or damaging shaking from multiple relatively smaller‐magnitude earthquakes. Given this context, it raises the question: “Where does most of the damage come from?” Could smaller, yet more frequent, earthquakes account for the majority of reported impactful shaking? To explore this question, we consider reports of earthquake damage and felt shaking experiences from a catalog of community‐collected intensity values from the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” system. Comparing these intensities to expectations from a ground‐motion model, we find that earthquakes of magnitudes smaller than expected are responsible for most reported intensities of community decimal intensities (CDI) 4.5 and above (moderate and higher shaking intensity levels). (Here “expected value” is meant in its mathematical sense of the mean or equivalently median shaking intensity.) We also present a regional analysis of observed earthquake shaking for specific areas, detailing the maximum intensity experienced within a predetermined area. We identify several instances of M < 4.5 events that generated maximum intensities of CDI > 5 in regions in California surrounding the cities of Eureka, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Our results motivate the need to include smaller‐magnitude earthquakes in communications about earthquake hazard and risk reduction.

California↗

USGS2024

SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study: How spectral fitting approaches influence measured source parameters

Spectral source parameters used to estimate an earthquake’s stress drop (Δσ) can vary significantly across measurement approaches. The Statewide California Earthquake Center/U.S. Geological Survey Community Stress-Drop Validation Study was initiated to compare source parameter estimates, focusing initially on a dataset from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. As part of that validation effort, here we focus on one potential source of uncertainty: whether spectral fitting approaches alone, applied to a common set of spectra from the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence result in different source parameter estimates. By using a common set of benchmark spectra analyzed across a consistent frequency band of 1–40 Hz, we eliminate many sources of variability. A subgroup of validation study participants volunteered to estimate the low-frequency displacement (Ω0) and corner frequency ( f c ) by fitting a smooth function to benchmark displacement spectra. Participants used linear- or log-sampled spectra, assumed a Brune or Boatwright spectral model, and applied different misfit criteria. We compare 17 approaches used to estimate Ω0, f c , and Δσ for 54 earthquake spectra. Our results reveal that 35% of events have Δσ estimates within a factor of two, whereas others exhibit variations exceeding an order of magnitude. The variability in Ω0 and f c can largely be attributed to whether a spectrum is consistent with the smooth function of an idealized simple crack model. The trade-off between Ω0 and f c may be more pronounced when using linearly sampled spectra, as higher frequency spectral bumps control the fits. As expected, methods that assumed a Boatwright model tended to have lower Ω0 and somewhat higher f c compared to those assuming a Brune model, although resulting Δσ estimates are similar. When compared to the overall validation study results, the fitting approach alone may account for between 5% and 90% (25% on average) of the total variability in spectral Δσ.

California↗

USGS2024

Characterizing directivity in small (M 2.4-5) aftershocks of the Ridgecrest sequence

Directivity, or the focusing of energy along the direction of an earthquake rupture, is a common property of earthquakes of all sizes and can cause increased hazard due to azimuthally dependent ground‐motion amplification. For small earthquakes, the effects of directivity are generally less pronounced due to reduced rupture size, yet the directivity in small events can bias source property estimates and provide important insights into general regional faulting patterns. However, due to observational limitations, directivity is usually only measured and modeled for large events. As such, many studies of small earthquakes either ignore directivity altogether or assume a constant rupture direction for all events in a cluster. In our study, we apply a refined directivity fitting method constrained with two separate methods of source deconvolution to the dataset of aftershocks of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes, which contain a large number of well‐recorded small‐to‐mid sized earthquakes occurring in close proximity to each other. The revealed directivity of 100+ small (M 2.4–5) earthquakes is highly heterogeneous and primarily oblique to and away from the main fault strike, suggesting a complex postseismic stress redistribution. In addition, the energy focusing effect of directivity appears to bias the selection of high‐quality data from stations in the direction of rupture, leading to average stress‐drop increases of 50% if directivity is not accounted for.

California↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program decadal science strategy, 2024–33

Executive Summary Earthquakes represent one of our Nation’s most significant and costly natural hazards, with estimated annual loses from earthquakes close to $15 billion in 2023. Over the past two centuries, 37 U.S. States have experienced an earthquake exceeding a magnitude of 5, and 50 percent of States have a significant potential for future damaging shaking; these statistics speak to the need for nationwide interest and investment in earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction. Authorized under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) provides the scientific information, situational awareness, and knowledge necessary to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis, landslides, and soil liquefaction. The EHP supports activities in three focused topical areas: (1) earthquake monitoring, (2) hazard assessment, and (3) applied research, using the results of each—and the coordination among them—to further support risk translation and communication in regions at risk nationwide. For earthquake monitoring, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a cooperative effort of USGS networks, university partner regional seismic networks, and real-time geodetic networks, collects and analyzes data on earthquakes; issues timely, reliable notifications of their occurrence and impacts; and provides data for earthquake research, hazard, and risk assessment as a foundation for building an earthquake-resilient Nation. The USGS-operated ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system is a recent addition to EHP’s ANSS infrastructure. In the realm of earthquake hazard assessment, the EHP contributes to earthquake risk mitigation strategies by developing the National Seismic Hazard Model and maps, and other related products, that describe the likelihood and potential effects of earthquakes nationwide, especially in the urban areas of highest risk. The EHP also conducts research on the causes, characteristics, and effects of earthquakes and prioritizes work that directly increases the accuracy and precision of earthquake hazards assessments, earthquake forecasts, and earthquake monitoring and situational-awareness products and that supports the Nation’s earthquake mitigation practices. Bridging the EHP’s efforts across research, hazard assessments, and earthquake monitoring is a broad and comprehensive collection of earthquake information products, including the National Seismic Hazard Model, ShakeAlert, and other products describing impact, such as ShakeMap and PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), which have been developed and integrated into EHP’s real-time monitoring systems. EHP funds external partners to carry out many important collaborative activities through an active external grants program—one of the largest in the USGS—and through cooperative agreements with other partners such as the university-operated regional seismic networks, funded as part of the ANSS. To continue its support of earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction, the EHP aims to strengthen its foundational products and practices while positioning itself to respond to the evolving needs of the Nation and follow best practices of the scientific community. This document describes a strategy for the program to ensure it can meet these demands. The foundational priorities outlined in this strategy represent those activities that remain critical to the core functionality of the program and those that can be supported under current fiscal year 2024-level appropriations. Priorities described as aspirational are important for future growth, and to maintain the program’s position as a leading global resource in earthquake science, but would require increases in appropriated funding to be fully realized. Across the program’s portfolio of activities, several major themes have been identified as the most critical activities to advance EHP science over the coming decade. Together, these activities provide the framework necessary to integrate critical hazard characterization and risk reduction activities across the program. They provide the structure for research to advance the understanding of where, when, and why earthquakes occur and how we can use improved knowledge to drive short-term and actionable forecasts of seismic activity. They expand the usefulness of critical earthquake products and advance the sophistication of those products to keep pace with the rapidly evolving needs of an ever-expanding user base while maintaining the position of the USGS as a global leader in earthquake science. Focus on system-level science. Establish an automated earthquake-processing pipeline. Enhance the accuracy and reliability of the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system and plan for extension to other regions. Implement time-dependent earthquake forecasting. Develop physically realistic models. Expand computational capacity. This science strategy is organized into three primary sections. The first section provides an overview of the EHP and its budget, governance, and program council. Readers familiar with the program may wish to focus on the second section, which describes the core of the science strategy, including priorities across each of the EHP’s major program activities in monitoring, hazard assessment, and targeted research. The third section outlines science priorities that cut across program activities, including those involving collaborations external to the EHP.

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, U↗

USGS2024

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↗

USGS2024

GRAPES: Earthquake early warning by passing seismic vectors through the grapevine

Estimating an earthquake's magnitude and location may not be necessary to predict shaking in real time; instead, wavefield-based approaches predict shaking with few assumptions about the seismic source. Here, we introduce GRAph Prediction of Earthquake Shaking (GRAPES), a deep learning model trained to characterize and propagate earthquake shaking across a seismic network. We show that GRAPES’ internal activations, which we call “seismic vectors”, correspond to the arrival of distinct seismic phases. GRAPES builds upon recent deep learning models applied to earthquake early warning by allowing for continuous ground motion prediction with seismic networks of all sizes. While trained on earthquakes recorded in Japan, we show that GRAPES, without modification, outperforms the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system on the 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest, CA earthquake.

Shimane/HiroshimaPrefectures↗