Geology topics

Yuki Kodera

Publications and source records attributed to Yuki Kodera.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Real-time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of PLUM ground-motion-based early warning in the United States

We examine the real‐time earthquake detection and alerting behavior of the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm and compare PLUM’s performance with the real‐time performance of the current source‐characterization‐based ShakeAlert System. In the United States (U.S.), PLUM uses a two‐station approach to detect earthquakes. Once a detection is confirmed, observed modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) distributions are forecast onto a regular grid, in which the preferred alert regions are grid cells with MMI 4.0+ forecasts. Although locations of dense station coverage allow PLUM to detect small ( M < 4.5) earthquakes typically not considered for EEW in the U.S., a PLUM detection on a small earthquake does not always generate an alert. This is because PLUM alerts are determined by current shaking distributions. If the MMI 4.0+ shaking subsides prior to detection confirmation by shaking at a second neighboring station, the prior MMI 4.0+ information will not be in the alert forecasts. Of the 432 M 3.0+ U.S. West Coast earthquakes in 2021, 33 produced ground motions large enough to be detected by PLUM. Twenty‐four generated MMI 4.0+ PLUM alerts, whereas ShakeAlert issued public EEW alerts for 13 of these earthquakes. We compare PLUM and ShakeAlert alert regions with ShakeMap and “Did You Feel It?” intensity distributions. Because PLUM alert regions surround stations observed to have strong ground motions (regardless of earthquake magnitude), PLUM alerts reliably include locations that experience significant shaking. This is not necessarily the case for ShakeAlert alert regions when there are large errors in magnitude or epicenter estimates. For two of the largest earthquakes in our real‐time dataset, the M 6.0 Antelope Valley and M 5.1 Petrolia earthquakes, the inclusion of PLUM would have improved real‐time ShakeAlert performance. Our results indicate that incorporation of PLUM into ShakeAlert will improve the robustness of the EEW system.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2022

Alert optimization of the PLUM earthquake early warning algorithm for the western United States

We determine an optimal alerting configuration for the propagation of local undamped motion (PLUM) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm for use by the U.S. ShakeAlert system covering California, Oregon, and Washington. All EEW systems should balance the primary goal of providing timely alerts for impactful or potentially damaging shaking while limiting alerts for shaking that is too low to be of concern (precautionary alerts). The PLUM EEW algorithm forward predicts observed ground motions to nearby sites within a defined radius without accounting for attenuation, avoiding the earthquake source parameter estimation step of most EEW algorithms. PLUM was originally developed in Japan where the alert regions and ground motions for which alerts are issued differ from those implemented by ShakeAlert. We compare predicted ground motions from PLUM to ShakeMap‐reported ground motions for a set of 22 U.S. West Coast earthquakes of magnitude 4.4–7.2 and evaluate available warning times. We examine a range of prediction radii (20–100 km), thresholds used to issue an alert (alert threshold), and levels of impactful or potentially damaging shaking (target threshold). We find optimal performance when the alert threshold is close to the target threshold, although higher target ground motions benefit from somewhat lower alert thresholds to ensure timely alerts. We also find that performance, measured as the cost reduction that a user can achieve, depends on the user’s tolerance for precautionary alerts. Users with a low target threshold and high tolerance for precautionary alerts achieve optimal performance when larger prediction radii (60–100 km) are used. In contrast, users with high target thresholds and low tolerance for precautionary alerts achieve better performance for smaller prediction radii (30–60 km). Therefore, setting the PLUM prediction radius to 60 km balances the needs of many users and provides warning times of up to ∼20 s.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2021

The PLUM earthquake early warning algorithm: A retrospective case study of West Coast, USA, data

The PLUM (Propagation of Local Undamped Motion) earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithm differs from typical source-based EEW algorithms as it predicts shaking directly from observed shaking without first deriving earthquake source information (e.g., magnitude and epicenter). Here, we determine optimal PLUM event detection thresholds for U.S. West Coast earthquakes using two data sets: 558 M3.5+ earthquakes (California, Oregon, Washington; 2012–2017) and the ShakeAlert test suite of historic and problematic signals (1999–2015). PLUM computes Modified Mercalli Intensity ( I MMI ) using velocity and acceleration data, leveraging co-located sensors to avoid problematic signals. An event detection is issued when the observed I MMI exceeds a given threshold(s). We find a two-station detection method using I MMI trigger thresholds of 4.0 and 3.0 for the first and second stations, respectively, is optimal for detecting M4.5+ earthquakes. PLUM detected 79 events in the 2012–2017 data set, reporting (not including telemetry or alert dissemination) detection times on par, and sometimes faster than current EEW methods (mean 8 s; median 6 s). As expected, detection times were slower for the older 1999–2015 earthquakes ( N = 21; mean 11 s; median 6 s) when station coverage was sparser. Of the 31 PLUM detected M5+ events (10 2012–2017; 21 1999–2015), theoretically 20 (∼65%) could provide timely warnings. PLUM issued no false detections and avoided issuing detections for all calibration/anomalous signals, regional and teleseismic events. We conclude PLUM can successfully identify I MMI 4+ shaking from local earthquakes and could complement and enhance EEW in the U.S.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2020

Real-time performance of the PLUM earthquake early warning method during the 2019 M6.4 and M7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquakes

We evaluate the timeliness and accuracy of ground‐motion‐based earthquake early warning (EEW) during the July 2019 M 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes. In 2018, we began retrospective and internal real‐time testing of the propagation of local undamped motion (PLUM) method for earthquake warning in California, Oregon, and Washington, with the potential that PLUM might one day be included in the ShakeAlert EEW system. A real‐time version of PLUM was running on one of the ShakeAlert EEW system’s development servers at the time of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, allowing us to evaluate the timeliness and accuracy of PLUM’s warnings for the M 6.4 and 7.1 mainshocks in real time with the actual data availability and latencies of the operational ShakeAlert EEW system. The latter is especially important because high‐data latencies during the M 7.1 earthquake degraded ShakeAlert’s performance. PLUM proved to be largely immune to these latencies. In this article, we present a retrospective analysis of PLUM performance and explore three potential regional alerting strategies ranging from spatially large regions (counties), to moderate‐size regions (National Weather Service public forecast zones), to high‐spatial specificity (50 km regular geographic grid). PLUM generated initial shaking forecasts for the two mainshocks 5 and 6 s after their respective origin times, and faster than the ShakeAlert system’s first alerts. PLUM was also able to accurately forecast shaking across southern California for all three alerting strategies studied. As would be expected, a cost‐benefit analysis of each approach illustrates trade‐offs between increasing warning time and minimizing the area receiving unneeded alerts. Choosing an optimal alerting strategy requires knowledge of users’ false alarm tolerance and minimum required warning time for taking protective action, as well as the time required to distribute alerts to users.

California↗