EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

William L. Yeck

Publications and source records attributed to William L. Yeck.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Surface-wave relocation and characterization of the 2024–2025 dyking episode along the Fentale–Dofen segment of the Ethiopian rift

From late-December 2024 to mid-March 2025, a 50-km-long dyke intrusion triggered over 300 earthquakes (magnitude 4 to 5.9) between Fentale and Dofen volcanoes along the Northern Main Ethiopian Rift. Dyke intrusions periodically occur along the Fentale–Dofen magmatic segment and are an expression of ongoing rift extension. Preliminary analyses using interferometric synthetic aperture radar revealed extensive ground deformation (up to 60 cm), which closely matched the temporal and spatial evolution of surface manifestations and earthquake locations from global catalogues. While global catalogues are critical for real-time monitoring, the precision of locations in remote and or sparsely instrumented regions can be low. In this investigation, we present surface-wave relocation results of the dyking episode that began near Fentale volcano in December 2024. We estimate relative locations using differential traveltimes measured from regional-to-teleseismic distance surface-wave observations of earthquakes reported by the U.S. Geological Survey. Relative relocations reduce the initial region of diffuse seismicity to a 50-km-long narrow band bounding the strike of surface manifestations and the zone of maximum surface deformation. We demonstrate the precision of surface-wave relocations over incremental time periods, capturing the progression of dyking from seismic onset through seismic migration and caldera subsidence. Results showcase the utility of surface-wave relocations in the characterization of dyking episodes and provide complementary insights into the current understanding of the Fentale–Dofen volcanic plumbing system.

Geophysical Journal International↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

Divide and conquer: Separating the two probabilities in seismic phase picking

There are two fundamental probabilities in the seismic phase picking process – the probability of the existence of a seismic phase (detection probability) and the probability of correctly identifying the phase arrival time (timing probability). The nearly ubiquitous approach in developing deep learning phase picking models is to use a kernel, such as a truncated Gaussian, to mask the labeled phase arrival time, and train a segmentation model. Once a model is trained, the times of the peaks in the output are taken as phase arrival times (picks) and the height of the peaks are taken as “probability” of the picks. Here, we show that this “probability” represents neither the detection nor the timing probabilty because this approach forces the output to follow the shape of the kernel. We introduce an approach using two models to estimate these two distinct probabilities. We use a binary classifier with a calibrated confidence to address the detection probability and a multi-class classifier to obtain a probability mass function to address the timing probability. This new approach makes the deep learning-based phase picking process more interpretable and gives us options to logically control seismic monitoring workflows.

Geophysical Journal International↗

USGS2025

Estimating earthquake source depth using teleseismic broadband waveform modeling at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center

The U.S. Geologic Survey National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) monitors global seismicity, producing a catalog of earthquake source parameters in near-real-time to provide information that can help mitigate the societal impact of earthquakes. The NEIC commonly relies on teleseismic observations to constrain earthquake source parameters (e.g., location, depth, magnitude, and mechanism) due to a lack of local and regional observations. For these ‘teleseismic’ events, depth phase (i.e., pP , sP ) arrival time observations provide the best estimate on source depth. However, depth phases are often difficult to accurately identify and/or pick. Therefore, NEIC relies on waveform modeling, such as those determined from W-phase ( M ww ), body wave ( M wb ), and regional ( M wr ) moment tensor estimations, to provide constraints on source depth. While depth estimates from these approaches are informative, higher frequency observations provide more precise estimates because depth phases are more prominently observed at higher frequencies. Here, we present NEIC’s relatively high-frequency (~0.04 to 1 Hz) teleseismic waveform modeling approach, termed Synthetic Depth Phase Modeling (SynDepth), for determining source depth. SynDepth was developed to provide NEIC with a tool that enables rapid, accurate, and quantifiable estimates of earthquake source depth in cases where locator depths are not reliable. This relatively simple and fast procedure searches over 1 km-incremented source depths and an expanding triangular source-time function to find the best-fitting solution. We compare automatic SynDepth solutions for a dataset of 1,216 earthquakes (M5.5-M7.6) between 2017 and 2021 to NEIC-derived depth estimates from other methods. Our approach provides a robust depth estimate for earthquakes lacking local arrival time data, and it minimizes the need for analyst review of depth-phase picks ( pP , sP ) or using predefined ‘fixed’ depths.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2025

Ultralong, supershear rupture of the 2025 Mw 7.7 Mandalay earthquake reveals unaccounted risk

The 28 March 2025 moment magnitude ( M w ) 7.7 earthquake in Mandalay, Burma (Myanmar), ruptured 475 kilometers of the Sagaing Fault, which was more than twice the length predicted by magnitude scaling relationships. Kinematic slip models and observation of a Rayleigh Mach wave that passed through parts of Thailand confirmed that rupture occurred at supershear velocities of greater than 5 kilometers per second. The anomalous length exposed a vast population to violent near-fault shaking. The Mandalay earthquake is a modern analog for the M w 7.9 1906 San Francisco earthquake, another atypically long and fast rupture. Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses use scaling relations that do not account for such long ruptures at moderate magnitudes. This limitation, in conjunction with a likely increased population and infrastructure exposure for atypically long ruptures, contributes to a potential mischaracterization of seismic risk.

Mandalay↗