USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70192291

A comparison among observations and earthquake simulator results for the allcal2 California fault model

Terry. E. Tullis·Keith B. Richards-Dinger·Michael Barall·James H. Dieterich·Edward H. Field·Eric M. Heien·Louise Kellogg·Fred F. Pollitz·John B. Rundle·Michael K. Sachs·Donald L. Turcotte·Steven N. Ward·M. Burak Yikilmaz
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In order to understand earthquake hazards we would ideally have a statistical description of earthquakes for tens of thousands of years. Unfortunately the ∼100‐year instrumental, several 100‐year historical, and few 1000‐year paleoseismological records are woefully inadequate to provide a statistically significant record. Physics‐based earthquake simulators can generate arbitrarily long histories of earthquakes; thus they can provide a statistically meaningful history of simulated earthquakes. The question is, how realistic are these simulated histories? This purpose of this paper is to begin to answer that question. We compare the results between different simulators and with information that is known from the limited instrumental, historic, and paleoseismological data. As expected, the results from all the simulators show that the observational record is too short to properly represent the system behavior; therefore, although tests of the simulators against the limited observations are necessary, they are not a sufficient test of the simulators’ realism. The simulators appear to pass this necessary test. In addition, the physics‐based simulators show similar behavior even though there are large differences in the methodology. This suggests that they represent realistic behavior. Different assumptions concerning the constitutive properties of the faults do result in enhanced capabilities of some simulators. However, it appears that the similar behavior of the different simulators may result from the fault‐system geometry, slip rates, and assumed strength drops, along with the shared physics of stress transfer. This paper describes the results of running four earthquake simulators that are described elsewhere in this issue of Seismological Research Letters. The simulators ALLCAL (Ward, 2012), VIRTCAL (Sachs et al., 2012), RSQSim (Richards‐Dinger and Dieterich, 2012), and ViscoSim (Pollitz, 2012) were run on our most recent all‐California fault model, allcal2. With the exception of ViscoSim, which ran for 10,000 years, all the simulators ran for 30,000 years. Presentations containing content similar to this paper can be found at http://scec.usc.edu/research/eqsims/.

Explore related subjects

Seismological Research LettersArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Terry. E. Tullis, Keith B. Richards-Dinger, Michael Barall, James H. Dieterich, Edward H. Field, Eric M. Heien, Louise Kellogg, Fred F. Pollitz, John B. Rundle, Michael K. Sachs, Donald L. Turcotte, Steven N. Ward, M. Burak Yikilmaz. 2012-11-08. A comparison among observations and earthquake simulator results for the allcal2 California fault model. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120094

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2026

The digital archivist: Automating legacy macroseismic data processing using large language models

Macroseismic data are a key resource to investigate shaking and damage from preinstrumental and early instrumental eras. However, data are often stored as inconsistently formatted reports describing observed shaking and damage, making manually parsing and interpreting accounts labor‐intensive. We introduce a novel workflow using Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro large language model (LLM) to automate the extraction and structuring of macroseismic observations from summary reports. We apply this workflow to the 22 March 1957 M 5.3 Daly City, California, earthquake as a case study. We used Gemini to extract addresses, originally assigned modified Mercalli intensity values, and descriptions from each report. To address coordinate precision limits, addresses were geocoded via Google’s Geocoding application programming interface. This workflow yielded over 2300 geocoded intensity reports for the Daly City earthquake. We use the geocoded accounts, with the original report intensity assignments, to develop a shaking intensity map that in some respects rivals modern Did You Feel It? Maps. We also extract and present data for the 9 February 1971 M L 6.7 Sylmar, California, earthquake. Our results demonstrate the potential of LLMs for reliably extracting and analyzing large, unstructured macroseismic datasets. LLMs offer a scalable solution for rapidly digitizing macroseismic archives, enabling their broader use to constrain ground‐motion models in modern seismic hazard analysis and to improve our understanding of site effects in urban areas. The concepts explored here may also be applied to the handling of other legacy seismological and earth science data.

Seismological Research Letters↗