USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70274635

The Geodetic Centroid (gCent) Catalog: Global earthquake monitoring with satellite imaging geodesy

Abstract

Remote sensing geodetic observations (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar [InSAR] and optical correlation [“pixel tracking”]) serve an increasingly diverse and important role in earthquake monitoring and response. This study introduces the Geodetic Centroid (gCent) catalog—an earthquake catalog derived solely from space‐based geodetic observations—and analysis of 74 earthquakes ( ⁠ M W 4.3–7.4) imaged from 1 August 2019 to 01 February 2022. For gCent, we use InSAR and optical correlation observations derived from the Sentinel‐1 satellites and various publicly available optical satellites to systematically image all global earthquakes M W 5.5 or larger and shallower than 25 km, M W 7.0 or larger at any depth, and other high‐impact earthquakes or seismic events of special interest. We invert surface displacements from successfully imaged earthquakes for the location, orientation, and dimensions of a single slipping fault patch that describes the centroid characteristics of the earthquake. These centroid models, in turn, are compiled into a catalog and used in U.S. Geological Survey/Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) operational earthquake response products such as ShakeMaps and finite‐fault models. We provide a comparison of the gCent catalog to the ANSS Comprehensive Catalog and Global Centroid Moment Tensor (Global CMT) catalog to compare reported locations, depths, and magnitudes. We find that global earthquake catalogs not only generally provide reasonably comparable locations (within 10 km on average), but also they systematically overestimate depth that may have implications for earthquake shaking predictions based solely on earthquake origin information. Geodetic magnitudes are comparable to seismically inferred magnitudes, indicating that gCent models are unlikely to be systematically biased by the presence of postseismic deformation. We additionally highlight limitations of the gCent catalog induced by both the limitations of remote sensing imaging of earthquakes and our imposition of a simplified earthquake source description that does not include spatially distributed slip.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

William D. Barnhart, Hannah N. Shea. 2022-09-15. The Geodetic Centroid (gCent) Catalog: Global earthquake monitoring with satellite imaging geodesy. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120220072

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗