Tagged: temblor Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 11:06 am on January 20, 2022 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai in the south Pacific erupts violently", , , , temblor,   

    From temblor: “Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai in the south Pacific erupts violently” 

    1

    From temblor

    January 18, 2022
    Marie Edmonds, Ph.D., The University of Cambridge (UK)

    The Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano, 40 miles (65 kilometers) north of Tongatapu, Tonga, erupted on January 15 at 5:14 p.m. local time, triggering tsunami waves that swept across the Pacific. The energy released in the eruption was equivalent to a magnitude-5.8 earthquake at the surface, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The powerful eruption was captured on satellite images, which show a shock wave and a rapidly expanding ash cloud that reached 12 miles (20 kilometers) into the atmosphere.

    1
    The expanding ash cloud from the eruption of the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano on January 15. Credit: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US), Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

    News of the immediate impact of the eruption on the Tongan islands has been slow to emerge because internet communications have been entirely cut off by the eruption. It is likely, however, that the islands have experienced many inches of ash fall as well as damage from the tsunami, which inundated coastal areas and reached a height of 2.7 feet (83 centimetres) in Nuku’alofa, according to The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (US).

    2
    The island of Tongatapu and the nearby smaller islands – all part of the Kingdom of Tonga archipelago in the southern Pacific Ocean – are pictured in this Sentinel-2A image from May 23, 2016. Contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data (2016), processed by ESA,CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO, via Wikimedia Commons

    ESA Copernicus Sentinel-2.

    Tsunami waves reached 3.6 feet (1.1 meters) along the northeastern coastline of Japan at a port in Kuji, Iwate (Source: Japan Meteorological Agency) and up to 3.6 feet (1.1 meters) in Port San Luis, California (Source: NOAA). In northern Peru, two people drowned when waves inundated a beach in the Lambayeque region.

    Explosion detected on the other side of the world

    The eruption was heard in New Zealand. The shock wave was violent enough to shake houses in Fiji, more than 450 miles (720 kilometers) away from Tonga.

    Pressure surges from the atmospheric perturbation caused by the eruption were felt right across the world. Atmospheric pressure fluctuations have been reported in New Zealand, the U.S., Brazil, Japan and Europe. More than 14 hours after the eruption, The Meteorological Office (UK) picked up several pressure waves, more than 10,000 miles away from the volcano. The agency described the waves as “like dropping a pebble in a still pond and seeing the ripples.”

    The eruption was so powerful it destroyed the subaerial part of the volcano that had been built up in successive eruptions since 2015, according to the Smithsonian’s Global Volcanism Program. Radar images of the island acquired by The European Space Agency [La Agencia Espacial Europea] [Agence spatiale européenne][Europäische Weltraumorganisation](EU)’s Sentinel-2 satellite show that the island has largely disappeared following the eruption; only the far southwestern and northeastern tips of the island remain.

    3
    Before (left) and after (right) radar images of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haapai Volcano, Tonga, January 2 and 17, 2022. Credit: Copernicus/ESA/Sentinal Hub.

    Long-term climate impacts unlikely

    The ash produced by the eruption has now dispersed from the caldera, but the finest particles are likely still aloft high in the atmosphere and will remain there for months or even years.

    The eruption also produced around 0.4 teragrams of sulfur dioxide (SO2), according to spectrometer data from ESA’s Sentinel 5P satellite.

    ESA Copernicus Sentinel-5P.

    Past large explosive eruptions have typically been associated with global cooling. SO2 injected into the stratosphere — the second layer of the atmosphere — forms sulfate aerosol when it reacts with water, which absorbs and scatters incoming radiation from the sun, thereby cooling the Earth’s surface.

    The 1991 eruption of Pinatubo Volcano in the Philippines emitted around 18-19 teragrams of SO2, which caused cooling of a few tenths of a degree for a few years. It is unlikely that the SO2 emitted from the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai eruption will significantly impact the climate.

    One volcano in a chain

    The Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano lies along the Tonga-Kermedec Arc, where two tectonic plates in the southwest Pacific converge. This volcano is one of a chain of largely submarine volcanoes that extend all the way from New Zealand in the southwest to Fiji in the north-northeast. Here, the Pacific plate subducts beneath the Indo-Australian plate. As it sinks, the Pacific Plate heats up, releasing fluids into the overlying rocks, which causes them to melt. The magma rises into the overlying crust and some erupts at the surface. Eruptions from subduction zone volcanoes are notoriously explosive because magmas there are sticky and contain large quantities of dissolved water from the mantle, which is the explosion’s “fuel.”

    4
    Map of the Kermadec and Tonga subduction trench. Credit: Nwbeeson, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

    For submarine volcanic eruptions however, there is an added ingredient that causes them to be extra-violent. During large volcanic eruptions a caldera, or large depression on the surface, can form due to the void left in the ground by the erupted magma. Calderas that form on the seafloor can cause tsunamis and large earthquakes when large rock masses sink during the eruption.

    Seawater can flow into the faults and fractures that form around the edges of the caldera. If water comes into contact with hot magma, it flash boils into steam, which expands rapidly, adding to the explosive power of an eruption. Such eruptions are termed “hydrovolcanic.” They generate powerful base surges — or pyroclastic flows — that expand out from the base of the eruption column, and can travel long distances. A famous example is the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa Volcano in Indonesia. The sound of the explosion was heard 1,800 miles (3,000 kilometers) away. Large tsunami waves and pyroclastic surges that travelled 25 miles (40 kilometers) over the surface of the sea killed more than 36,000 people.

    Geologists studying the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano have uncovered its few-thousand-year-long history of eruptions just like the one that occurred on January 15. The volcano erupted explosively in 2009 and in 2014-2015, producing ‘Surtseyan’ eruptions — a smaller magnitude explosive eruption produced by the interaction of magma and seawater. The precise magnitude of this latest eruption will be known once the height of the eruption column as well as the volume of erupted material is estimated, but it is certainly one of the most significant eruptions of the 21st century thus far.

    5
    NASA’s Terra satellite on December 29, 2014, showing a white plume rising over the undersea volcano Hunga Ha’apai, near Hunga Tonga in the South Pacific. Discolored water suggests an underwater release of gases and rock by the eruption. Credit: NASA, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons.

    National Aeronautics Space Agency (US)Terra satellite.

    Answers still to come

    There are many questions to be answered over the coming weeks and months about the mechanisms and impacts of this eruption. Immediate questions concern the fate of the residents of Tonga, who are contending with the enormous challenges of the aftermath of the eruption and tsunami, including missing loved ones, enormous infrastructure damage, thick ash cover, contaminated drinking supplies and a lack of basic medical and communication services.

    There will be detailed studies of the geophysical signals accompanying the eruption and the period leading up to it to better understand how the eruption was triggered and its magnitude. Scientists will be particularly interested in infrasound, satellite-based data and eventually will study the volcanic deposits and landforms produced. In particular, scientists will seek to understand the geological sequence of events that led to the simultaneous explosion and tsunami that had such wide-ranging effects across the Pacific Ocean.

    References

    Guo, S., Bluth, G. J., Rose, W. I., Watson, I. M., & Prata, A. J. (2004). Re‐evaluation of SO2 release of the 15 June 1991 Pinatubo eruption using ultraviolet and infrared satellite sensors. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 5(4).

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network project Earthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 12:56 pm on January 15, 2022 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Strong earthquake increases seismic hazard in Qinghai in China", , , , , temblor   

    From temblor : “Strong earthquake increases seismic hazard in Qinghai in China” 

    1

    From temblor

    January 13, 2022

    By Zhigang Peng, Ph.D., School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The Georgia Institute of Technology (US), Jing Liu-Zeng, Ph.D., Tianjin University[天津大學](CN), Yangfan Deng, Ph.D., The Chinese Academy of Sciences [中国科学院](CN) Center for Excellence in Deep Earth Science, Guangzhou, China, Shinji Toda, Ph.D., International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University [東北大学](JP).

    A powerful magnitude-6.6 earthquake occurred in the Qinghai province in Western China on January 7, 2022 (Figure 1). The quake struck at 1:45 a.m. local time in a remote region of Menyuan county. It was the largest earthquake in China since the magnitude-7.3 Maduo earthquake in the same province in May 2021. The Menyuan earthquake was widely felt in surrounding regions and caused temporary halts of several high-speed rail lines. But the region is sparsely populated, and only minor injuries and property damage were reported.

    1
    Figure 1. Active faults in the northeastern Tibetan plateau and the focal mechanism of the most recent Menyuan earthquake in Northwestern China. The inset marks the map in a larger map of Tibetan Plateau. HYF: Haiyuan Fault; ATF: Altyn Tagh Fault; KF: Kunlun fault; XHF: Xianshuihe Fault. Credit: Wenqian Yao.

    Tectonic Environment

    The earthquake occurred in the northeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau, which was created by the collision between the Eurasian and Indian tectonic plates. Near the recent epicenter, tectonic movement is mostly accommodated by a combination of thrust faults and left-lateral strike-slip fault systems such as the Altyn Tagh, the Kunlun and Haiyuan faults (Figure 1). The most recent Menyuan earthquake occurred on the Lenglongling (meaning “Cold Dragon Ridge” in Chinese) Fault, which is the western branch of the Haiyuan fault. This region is seismically active. Moderate-sized earthquakes occurred in 1986 and 2016 within 40 kilometers to the east of the recent epicenter. Both preceding events involved thrust motion, and so were different from this strike-slip event. All three quakes occurred in a “restraining bend” of the Haiyuan fault, meaning that there is compression straddling the fault, leading to a combination of thrusting and strike-slip motion.

    Compared with the 2016 event, the 2022 earthquake started in the same bend or jog, but the rupture appeared to propagate further to the west along the main strike-slip fault, producing roughly 22-kilometer surface ruptures on the ground. Further to the east, two roughly magnitude-8.0 earthquakes occurred in the past century (the 1920 Haiyuan and 1927 Gulang earthquakes), causing significant damage and casualties (Figure 2). The great 1920 Haiyuan earthquake also triggered numerous landslides in the terrain mantled by loess — windblown sand or dust, often derived from glacier deposits. Between these great earthquakes is a 260-kilometer-long segment of the Haiyuan Fault that has not ruptured in the past 1000 years (Liu-Zeng et al., 2007). The section is known as the “Tianzhu” seismic gap (Gaudemer et al. 1995) and could host large damaging earthquakes in the future.

    2
    Figure 2. Tectonic map and earthquake locations/focal mechanisms in the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau. The blue lines mark ruptures associated with previous large earthquakes and the red line mark the Tianzhu seismic gap. Modified after Deng et al. (2020).

    Mainshock Slip Patterns and Intensities

    The mainshock focal mechanism is primarily left-lateral, which is consistent with the tectonic movement of the nearby Lenglongling Fault. Rapid finite fault modeling based on long-period teleseismic waves has shown that the mainshock ruptured in both directions along the fault from its nucleation point, with more slip to the east (Figure 3). In contrast, back-projections of short-period teleseismic P waves suggest that the mainshock ruptured primarily to the northwest (Figure 4). This is perhaps not surprising because these approaches use different techniques and frequency bands, and hence they are mostly sensitive to different types of earthquake rupture. For example, long-period finite fault modeling results likely correspond to smooth ruptures that produce significant fault slip. In comparison, short-period back-projection results likely image seismic ruptures on a relatively rough patch that produce significant high-frequency shaking. This is qualitatively consistent with the near-field strong motion and intensity recordings (Figure 5), showing high peak accelerations primarily around the mainshock epicenter and to the northwest direction.

    3
    Figure 3. A preliminary finite fault modeling result for the 2022 magnitude-6.6 Menyuan mainshock based on teleseismic P waves. The inset marks the fault strike with respect to north. Modified from results by Weiming Wang.

    4
    Figure 4. Mainshock rupture propagation results based on back-projection stack of teleseismic P waves recorded at broadband stations in Europe. Timing (color of circles) and amplitude (size of circles) for the stack with the maximum correlation at each time step in the map view. Red and black stars represent the epicenter of the 2022 Mw 6.6 Qinghai earthquake determined by the China Earthquake Networks Center (CENC), and United States Geological Survey (USGS), respectively. Gray circles indicate the locations of aftershocks that occurred within one day following the main shock (from Lihua Fang). Red lines represent traces of faults and province boundaries, respectively. Credit: Dun Wang.

    5
    Figure 5. Near-field peak acceleration map for the M6.6 Menyuan mainshock. Modified from a figure provided by Qiang Ma.

    Aftershocks and Surface Ruptures

    As of January 13, 2022, at 8 a.m. Beijing time, more than 5000 aftershocks have been identified (Figure 6). The largest aftershock has a moment magnitude of 5.3. Relocated aftershocks extended about 40 kilometers to both sides of the mainshock epicenter. To the west, the aftershocks illuminate a fault striking nearly east-west, which is consistent with a rupture on the similarly oriented Tuolaishan Fault (TLSF). To the east, aftershocks mostly follow the local strike of the Lenglongling fault (LLLF). There appears to be a few kilometers gap between the aftershocks of the 2022 magnitude-6.6 mainshock and those of the 2016 magnitude-5.9 mainshock. The 2016 event was a thrust event that likely ruptured the Northern Lenglongling Fault (NLLLF) (Liu et al., 2019), rather than the left-lateral Lenglongling Fault that ruptured in the most recent event.

    6
    Figure 6. A comparison of relocated aftershocks following the 2022 M6.6 and 2016 M5.9 mainshocks. The aftershock locations following the 2022 mainshock were provided by Lihua Fang. LLLF: Lenglongling fault; NLLLF: Northern Lenglongling fault; TLSF: Tuolaishan fault. The 2016 aftershock locations were from Liu et al. (2019). Credit: Yangfan Deng.

    Coulomb Stress Transfers and Seismic Hazard

    9
    Figure 9. Coulomb stress changes due to the 2016 Mw5.9 earthquake resolved onto (a) the left-lateral faults parallel to the 2022 rupture plane and (b) onto the 2022 fault plane of the finite fault model of Wang et al. (Figure 3). We implemented a simple uniform slip model of the NW-striking blind thrust for the 2016 earthquake based on the USGS CMT and Wells and Coppersmith (1994) empirical relation. Credit: Shinji Toda.

    Due to their proximity and timing, we explore whether the 2016 magnitude-5.9 event promoted the 2022 magnitude-6.6 earthquake by static stress transfer. As shown in Figure 9, the 2016 magnitude-5.9 earthquake imparted up to 0.4 bar (0.04 MPa) of stress on the fault plane that ruptured during the 2022 earthquake. The calculation was done using the Coulomb 3.3 Software (Toda et al., 2011), with an effective coefficient of friction of 0.4. Similarly, we also compute the Coulomb stress changes on both left-lateral faults and northwest-trending thrust faults due to the combined effects of the 2016 and 2022 events (Figure 10). As expected, both events produced positive stress changes on nearby faults, suggesting an increased likelihood of future damaging earthquakes in these regions. In particular, the 2022 earthquake may have brought the unbroken sections to the west (i.e., the Tuolaishan Fault) and east (i.e., the Lenglongling Fault) of the 2022 surface ruptures several bars closer to failure. Indeed, so far, several roughly magnitude-5.0 aftershocks have occurred, suggesting seismic hazard in these sections is relatively high.

    10
    Figure 10. The maximum Coulomb stress imparted by both 2016 and 2022 events for (a) WNW-striking left-lateral faults, and (b) NW-trending thrust faults at a depth range of 5-15 km. The finite fault model by Wang et al. (Figure 3) is used for the 2022 earthquake stress transfer. Credit: Shinji Toda.

    The recent earthquake struck in an area previously highlighted by the China Earthquake Administration as having a high probability of a magnitude-6.0 or greater earthquake (Xu et al., 2017). This earthquake provides a glimmer of hope for the scientists engaging in long- and short-term earthquake forecasting in China.

    Acknowledgement

    We thank Drs. Lihua Fang at Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Dun Wang at Chinese University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Weiming Wang at Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qiang Ma at Institute Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, and Jie Gao at China Earthquake Disaster Prevention Center for providing their preliminary results and field photos that are included in this news report. We also thank Dr. Weqian Yao at Tianjing University for making Figure 1.

    References

    Deng, Y., Peng, Z., & Liu-Zeng, J. (2020), Systematic search for repeating earthquakes along the Haiyuan fault system in Northeastern Tibet, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125(7), e2020JB019583, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB019583.

    Gaudemer, Y., Tapponnier, P., Meyer, B., Peltzer, G., Shunmin, G., Zhitai, C., et al. (1995). Partitioning of crustal slip between linked, active faults in the eastern Qilian Shan, and evidence for a major seismic gap, the ‘Tianzhu gap’, on the western Haiyuan Fault, Gansu (China). Geophysical Journal International, 120(3), 599–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1995.tb01842.x

    Liu, M., Li, H., Peng, Z., Ouyang, L., Ma, Y., Ma, J., Liang, Z., & Huang, Y. (2019), Spatial-temporal distribution of early aftershocks following the 2016 Ms 6.4 Menyuan, Qinghai, China Earthquake, Tectonophysics, 766, 469-479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2019.06.022.

    Liu-Zeng, J., Y. Klinger, X. Xu, C. Lasserre, G. Chen, W. Chen, P. Tapponnier, and B. Zhang, 2007. Millennial Recurrence of Large Earthquakes on the Haiyuan Fault near Songshan, Gansu Province, China, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 97 (1B): 14-34

    Toda, S. R. S. Stein, V. Sevilgen, and J. Lin (2011) Coulomb 3.3 graphic-rich deformation and stress-change software for earthquake, tectonic, and volcano research and teaching —user guide: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1060, 63 p., available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1060/.

    Wells, D.L. and Coppersmith K.J. (1994), New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 974-1002.

    Xu, Xiwei, X. Wu, G. Yu, X. Tan, and K. Li (2017), Seismo-geological signatures for identifying M≥7.0 earthquake risk areas and their preliminary application in mainland China, Seismology and Geology, 39(2), doi:10.3969/j.isn.0253-4967.2017.02.001 (in Chinese).

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network project Earthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 8:32 pm on December 30, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Luzon in the Philippines sees sixth strong earthquake in five months", , , , , temblor   

    From temblor : “Luzon in the Philippines sees sixth strong earthquake in five months” 

    1

    From temblor

    December 21, 2021

    By Mario Aurelio, Director of the The University of the Philippines [Pamantasan ng Pilipinas or Unibersidad ng Pilipinas](PH) National Institute of Geological Sciences Sandra Donna Catugas, Structural Geology and Tectonics Laboratory at the University of Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences
    John Agustin Escudero, Structural Geology and Tectonics Laboratory at the University of Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences
    Alfredo Mahar Francisco Lagmay, Executive Director, University of the Philippines Resilience Institute-Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards Center (@nababaha)
    Giovanni A. Tapang, Dean of the University of the Philippines-Diliman College of Science

    On December 13, 2021, at 5:12 p.m. local time, the Batangas region in southern Luzon, Philippines, was hit by the fifth earthquake with a magnitude greater than 5.0 since a magnitude-6.6 tremor on July 24, 2021 (Aurelio et al., 2021a; 2021b; 2021c). Prior to this, four earthquakes with magnitude-5.8 (July 24 and August 13), 5.7 (September 27) and 5.2 (October 7) struck within a radius of 20 miles (30 kilometers) of the first July 24 event. This recurrence interval — an average of more than one strong earthquake every month — is too short to be neglected. This is either an unusually vigorous aftershock sequence, or an event comparable to a seismic swarm.

    Area of stress increase

    Using the fault responsible for generating the magnitude-6.6 earthquake of July 24, as the source fault, Coulomb stress transfer modeling indicates that the magnitude-5.5 tremor of December 13 falls within the lobe of increased stress when used as the receiver fault (Fig. 1). The 65-mile (104-kilometer) depth of the December tremor also plots approximately along the same fault plane, but four miles (seven kilometers) shallower than the July 24 event. These observations suggest that the first earthquake likely triggered the second.

    1
    Figure 1. Seismotectonics of six moderate magnitude, thrust-mechanism earthquakes (shown by beachballs) occurring in the same region in Batangas, southern Luzon, Philippines, within a period of five months (July 24 to December 13, 2021). Result of Coulomb stress change modeling shown. July 24 magnitude-6.6 as source; December 13 magnitude-5.5 as receiver. References: Jarvis et al., 2008 for SRTM topography; Weatherall et al., 2020 for bathymetry; Toda et al., 2011 for Coulomb stress transfer modeling; PHIVOLCS for earthquake data. GMT (Wessel and Smith, 1995) was used to generate the map. See text for more discussion. Credit: Aurelio, Catugas, Escudero, Lagmay,Tapang.

    The same triggering mechanism can explain three of the other recent magnitude-5.0 and larger events when each is used as the receiver fault (Aurelio et al., 2021a; 2021b), except for the magnitude-5.7 quake of September 27, which occurred in a zone of decreased stress (Aurelio et al., 2021c).

    However, when Coulomb stress transfer modeling considers an optimally-oriented receiver fault — assumed to be aligned with the stress field, thus promoting failure — all five earthquakes that succeeded the July 24 magnitude-6.6 earthquake fall within the lobe of increased stress at 65 miles (104 kilometers) depth (Fig. 2). The hypocenters — the locations on the fault where each earthquake nucleated — cluster within the calculated region of increased stress, which suggests triggering of all five quakes by the magnitude-6.6 July 24 event.

    2
    Figure 2. Seismotectonics of six moderate magnitude, thrust-mechanism earthquakes (shown by beachballs) occurring in the same region in Batangas, southern Luzon, Philippines, within a period of five months (July 24 to December 13, 2021). Result of Coulomb stress change modeling shown. July 24 magnitude-6.6 as source, with optimally-oriented fault as receiver. References: Jarvis et al., 2008 for SRTM topography; Weatherall et al., 2020 for bathymetry; Toda et al., 2011 for Coulomb stress transfer modeling; PHIVOLCS for earthquake data. GMT (Wessel and Smith, 1995) was used to generate the map. See text for more discussion. Credit: Aurelio, Catugas, Escudero, Lagmay,Tapang.

    Cause for concern?

    Based on the data collected during the last decade (Aurelio et al., 2021b), an average of 2.5 events larger than magnitude-5.0 strike per year within 50 kilometers of the July 24 magnitude-6.6 event. The recent spate of moderate quakes — each separated by less than a month — far exceeds this average and suggests that this is an evolving sequence.

    Could these six moderate magnitude earthquakes occurring over a short period of time indicate that stresses are being released rapidly? Or could these be lower-magnitude foreshocks of a larger event that has yet to strike? The latter is a possibility and should serve as a reminder to the 25 million inhabitants of Metro Manila and surrounding provinces that this region is vulnerable to a large earthquake. Preparedness and readiness are vital.

    Low-cost seismology studies

    The December 13 tremor was recorded by low-cost seismometers partly belonging to Public Seismic Network that is currently being established by the College of Science of the University of the Philippines-Diliman (UP Diliman) in Quezon City (Fig. 3). These low-cost seismometers, developed by Raspberry Shake, have been tried and tested both in the laboratory (Anthony et al., 2019) and in the field (Manconi et al., 2018; Winter et al., 2021; Holmgren, 2021).

    3
    Figure 3. Earthquake information generated by a Raspberry Shake station located nearest to the Public Seismic Network hub located inside the University of the Philippines-Diliman campus in Quezon City. The figure is a screenshot from the mobile phone app showing on the: upper panel – the date and time (local) of the seismic event, earthquake parameters (magnitude-5.5 and focal depth of 157 kilometers), station ID: R5160, map showing the locations of the Raspberry Shake seismic station and the epicenter and, station-to-epicenter distance in kilometers; middle panel – the waveform of the earthquake, clearly delineating the first P and S waves; lower panel – wave frequency distribution as a function of time. Credit: Aurelio, Catugas, Escudero, Lagmay, Tapang

    The earthquake parameters for December’s quake, generated by the UP Diliman-based network, include a calculated magnitude of 5.5, which compares well with magnitudes calculated by established international seismological observatories such as The Geological Survey (US) – National Earthquake Information Center (USGS-NEIC), GEOFON German Research Center for Geosciences (GEOFON-GFZ, Potsdam, Germany) and PHIVOLCS (Philippines). The low-cost, Raspberry Shake-derived earthquake depth of 98 miles (157 kilometers) is close to that computed by USGS-NEIC, but varies significantly from GEOFON-GFZ (69 miles/111 kilometers) and PHIVOLCS (64 miles/104 kilometers) estimates.

    Currently, most of these low-cost seismometers are owned and operated by ordinary citizens on their private properties. Though the stations are still scarce, there are good indications that more citizens are interested in setting up their own stations to join the UP Diliman-based network. Efforts are underway to find funds for more seismometers to deploy in schools throughout the country, with the aims of expanding the network and serving as a learning and teaching platform for students interested in earthquake studies.

    Meanwhile, at the UP National Institute of Physics (UP-NIP), a group of scientists from the institutes’ Instrumentation Physics Laboratory (ILP), is developing a low-cost seismic network consisting of accelerometers manufactured from commercially available components (Fig. 4). Each accelerometer costs less than $200 USD to manufacture. This network is part of a study to understand how shaking decays with distance from the source and how it is influenced by the nature of the ground underneath — called a ground attenuation relationship. Current attenuation relationships used in the country come from outside the Philippines, including experimental results from artificially induced, low-magnitude earthquakes, and data gathered directly from natural earthquakes.

    5
    Figure 4. Custom-made ground motion sensor (accelerometer) fabricated at the Instrumentation Physics Laboratory (IPL) of the University of the Philippines National Institute of Physics. The sensor contains the following components: (Left photo) (1) digital accelerometer; (2) development board containing the microcontroller, SD card module, and antenna for Long Range (LoRa) reception capabilities; (3) power section of board; (4) GPS module; (5) Real Time Clock (RTC) module; (6) antenna; (7) storage module; (8) power switch, (9) connection to the battery (not seen in picture) secured at the bottom of the container. (Right photo) Sensor assembled inside a closed, laser-cut acrylic sheet, with the electronic parts secured inside, connected to a pipe that serves as an extended antenna. The acrylic box is equipped with a level (button on top) to ensure horizontality of the base of the sensor. Credit: Aurelio (ongoing).

    These complementary efforts to establish low-cost seismological observatories serve two purposes. The Raspberry Shake network promotes citizen science. The second effort led by scientists helps Philippine researchers conduct innovative but inexpensive earthquake research. Both efforts hold promise in contributing to hazard resilience in an earthquake-prone country that often lacks scientific research funds.

    References

    Anthony, R.E., Ringler, A., Wilson D.C., and Wolin, E. (2019). Do Low-Cost Seismographs Perform Well Enough for Your Network? An Overview of Laboratory Tests and Field Observations of the OSOP Raspberry Shake 4D. Seismological Research Letters. 90 (1): 219-228.

    Aurelio, M. (ongoing). Project Leader: Establishing a ground attenuation relation for the Philippines using artificial blasting methods. Project funded by the University of the Philippines – Office of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs (UP-OVPAA) under the Enhanced Creative Work Research Grant (ECWRG).

    Aurelio, M., Lagmay, M., Escudero, J. A., and Catugas, S. (2021a). Latest Philippine earthquake reveals tectonic complexity, Temblor, doi.org/10.32858/temblor.191

    Aurelio, M., Lagmay, M., Escudero, J. A., and Catugas, S. (2021b). Philippine fault jolts Batangas again, with magnitude-5.8 quake, Temblor, doi.org/10.32858/temblor.198

    Aurelio, M., Lagmay, M., Escudero, J. A., and Catugas, S. (2021c). Magnitude-5.7 Batangas earthquake puzzles researchers, Temblor, doi.org/10.32858/temblor.21

    GEOFON German Research Center for Geosciences. Available at: http://www.geofon.gfz-potsdam.de

    Holmgren, J.M and Werner, M. (2021). Raspberry Shake Instruments Provide Initial Ground‐Motion Assessment of the Induced Seismicity at the United Downs Deep Geothermal Power Project in Cornwall, United Kingdom. The Seismic Record 1 (1): 27–34.

    Jarvis, A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara (2008). Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database (http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org).

    Manconi, A., Coviello, V. and Galletti, M. (2018). Short Communication: Monitoring Rockfall with the Raspberry Shake. Earth Surface Dynamics 6(4): 1219-1227.

    Observatoire GEOSCOPE. Available at: http://geoscope.ipgp.fr/index.php/en/

    Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS). Available at: http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph

    Toda, Shinji, Stein, R.S., Sevilgen, Volkan, and Lin, J. (2011). Coulomb 3.3 Graphic-rich deformation and stress-change software for earthquake, tectonic, and volcano research and teaching—user guide: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1060, 63 p., available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1060/

    United States Geological Survey – National Earthquake Information Center (USGS-NEIC). Available at: http://www.earthquake.usgs.gov

    Weatherall P., Tozer B., Arndt J.E., Bazhenova E., Bringensparr C., Castro C.F., Dorschel B., Ferrini V., Hehemann L., Jakobsson M., Johnson P., Ketter T., Mackay K., Martin T.V., Mayer L.A., McMichael-Phillips J., Mohammad R., Nitsche F.O., Sandwell D.T., Snaith H., Viquerat S. (2020). The GEBCO_2020 Grid – a continuous terrain model of the global oceans and land. British Oceanographic Data Centre, National Oceanography Centre, NERC, UK. doi:10.5285/a29c5465-b138-234d-e053-6c86abc040b9

    Wessel, P. and Smith, W.H.F., (1995). New version of the Generic Mapping Tools released. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 76, 329.

    Winter, K., Lombardi, D. Diaz-Moreno A., and Bainbridge, R. (2021). Monitoring Icequakes in East Antarctica with the Raspberry Shake. Seismological Research Letters. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200483

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network project Earthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 10:21 pm on December 16, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Engaging communities with Canada’s earthquake early warning system", , , Canada is a vast country with diverse tectonic settings., , , Earthquake early warning systems can alert the public; emergency organizations; and critical infrastructure operators of impending shaking., , , Potential future seismicity in eastern Ontario and southern Quebec is more enigmatic-the St Lawrence Seaway passes through these regions and hosted several moderate to high magnitude earthquakes., temblor, The Cascadia Subduction Zone has generated a magnitude-9.0 earthquake roughly every 300-800 years according to NRCan.   

    From temblor : “Engaging communities with Canada’s earthquake early warning system” 

    1

    From temblor

    December 16, 2021

    By Meghomita Das, McGill University (CA)

    For residents of British Columbia, along the west coast of Canada, seeing a road sign that says, ‘Entering Tsunami Hazard Zone’ is a common occurrence.

    1
    A tsunami hazard warning sign in British Columbia informing people to move to higher areas in case of a strong earthquake. Credit: Ruth Hartnup, via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

    The sign reminds travelers that British Columbia and much of western North America is earthquake country.

    Here, the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate is diving under the North American plate. This boundary, called the Cascadia Subduction Zone, extending from British Columbia down to northern California, has the potential to generate very large magnitude earthquakes and tsunamis and is currently primed for the next one.
    Cascadia subduction zone

    Ensuring Canadians are alerted of potentially harmful earthquakes in the region falls to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), a federal organization tasked with developing policies and programs to utilize the country’s natural resources. Wednesday, at the American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, a team of researchers at NRCan provided an update on Canada’s planned earthquake early warning system and discussed their efforts to engage the public.

    Earthquake early warning systems can alert the public; emergency organizations; and critical infrastructure operators of impending shaking. The additional seconds of advanced warning are enough for individuals to take appropriate actions and automated systems to protect sensitive equipment, thus reducing the devastating effects of earthquakes on lives and property. In large countries like Canada with two widely separated seismically active areas, implementing such a system is challenging but doable. NRCan is currently deploying such a system.

    Canadian seismicity

    Canada is a vast country with diverse tectonic settings. It has two major areas at moderate to high seismic risk: British Columbia and eastern Ontario-southern Quebec. Relevant to the former, the Cascadia Subduction Zone has generated a magnitude-9.0 earthquake roughly every 300-800 years according to NRCan.

    Potential future seismicity in eastern Ontario and southern Quebec is more enigmatic. Even though these areas do not lie on an active plate boundary, the St Lawrence Seaway, which passes through these regions, has hosted several moderate to high magnitude earthquakes over the last 40 years. Canada’s largest cities are in or close to these high-hazard areas.

    A network of sensors to detect quakes

    The Canadian earthquake early warning system will be implemented over the next three years. Three hundred land-based sensors will be deployed throughout British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec to detect ground motions and quickly relay data, says Henry Seywerd, the project leader and a co-author of this study. In the future, NRCan plans to expand this network to northern and Atlantic Canada.

    The system will use the same software as the U.S. West Coast’s ShakeAlert early warning system [below] to ensure alert detection along the U.S.-Canada border. Alerts will be sent through the country’s National Public Alerting System. Additionally, facilities can be programed to open firehall and hospital emergency doors, halt trains and even back up important data servers when an alert is issued.

    “We want the people to understand that this system does not have predictive powers. It can only give us shaking alerts after an earthquake has been detected and encourage us to take the necessary actions,” says Alison Bird, the liaison and outreach officer at NRCan and a co-author of this study, who is handling the public engagement strategies for the project.

    Several workshops with critical infrastructure operators are planned to ensure that they are aware of the system’s benefits, Bird says. She will be working with Public Safety Canada, who operates the National Public Alerting System, along with provincial emergency management organizations to develop materials and activities to inform the public about the capabilities of this system, the need to take immediate actions like drop, cover and hold on and the steps to take to prepare for earthquakes at home, school and work.

    2
    Testing sensors that will be used for the earthquake early warning system’s network. The sensors measure strong ground motions. Credit: Natural Resources Canada and Nanometrics Inc., (shared by Alison Bird.)

    A system that works for the people

    Coastal First Nations communities of British Columbia have long documented historical earthquakes and their devastating effects as part of their oral traditions. These communities will be stakeholders in the implementation of the system and help NRCan to expand the network of stations on their lands, says Bird. Other partners include Emergency Management BC, The Great British Columbia ShakeOut (Grande Secousse) and Canadian Red Cross through the Inclusive Resilience project.

    Challenges encountered

    “Designing an earthquake early warning system is a complicated process. We want the main users to know that it is a warning system, but not a prediction system,” says Gabriel Lotto, ShakeAlert User Engagement Facilitator for the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN), who was not associated with this study.

    One major challenge to deploying the system is increasing the awareness of earthquakes among the public and allowing them to interact with such an alerting system. This issue is echoed by Lotto for ShakeAlert. Since Eastern Canada generally experiences smaller magnitude earthquakes, residents may not be aware of their risk. One challenge the group at NRCan faces is ensuring those individuals know what to do if they receive an alert.

    Canada’s population is unevenly distributed near the east and west coasts and urban centers are located far from one another. The country, therefore, has large swaths where accessibility and communication are somewhat limited. The team plans to ensure the alerts are available across multiple platforms, like radio, television, internet and cellular networks, so that residents in these remote areas can get the alerts in time.

    Implementing the warning system

    Scientists are currently installing the seismic sensors, and the team hopes to announce the first official station very soon. Over the next couple of years, the system will be tested and fine-tuned before it is launched for the public. As the system is implemented, the team will continue their public engagement efforts and raise awareness about Canada’s seismic history and its new early warning system, Bird says.

    Further Reading

    Bird, A. L., Seywerd, H., Crane, S., Adams, J., & McCormack, D. A. (2021). Outreach and Engagement to ensure the success of an Earthquake Early Warning System in Canada. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2021. https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/974633

    Natural Resources Canada. (2021). Earthquakes in Eastern Canada. https://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/zones/eastcan-en.php

    Seywerd, H., McCormack, D. A., McKee, L., Bird, A. L., Nykolaishen, L., & Crane, S. (2021). Current status of the Canadian Earthquake Early Warning Program. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2021. https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/950545

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network project Earthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 8:49 pm on November 10, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Newly identified fault in Seal Beach. CA. quietly rattles beneath the city", , , , , temblor   

    From temblor : “Newly identified fault in Seal Beach. CA. quietly rattles beneath the city” 

    1

    From temblor

    November 8, 2021
    Dan Gish
    Steve Boljen

    The Los Angeles basin is home to countless faults that range from thousands of feet to hundreds of miles in length. These include normal faults, reverse faults, thrust faults and strike-slip faults. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ) — a series of faults that extends between Newport and Inglewood, California — is one of the major sources of seismicity in the area. Many experts believed this zone is associated with several notable earthquakes, particularly in the Long Beach-Seal Beach area, including the 1933 magnitude-6.4 Long Beach earthquake.

    Less widely known are the basin’s numerous near-surface faults, some of which were recently identified in the immediate Seal Beach area. Scientists at 3D Seismic Solutions, a seismic data consulting company, in partnership with researchers at The California Institute of Technology (US), recently discovered one particularly active fault in this area. The finding highlights the difficulty faced by emergency managers, city planners and engineers in knowing potential hazards when planning for future earthquakes.

    Identifying near-surface faults

    A high-density seismic survey of the subsurface was conducted in early 2017 over approximately 28 square miles (72 square kilometers) of Long Beach and Seal Beach. A total of 5,354 sensors continuously recorded ground movement in the area for eight weeks.

    At one point during this period, vibrator trucks were deployed to generate seismic waves within the survey area. These waves reflect off features below ground — such as faults — and are detected by the sensors at the surface. The energy these vibrator trucks put into the ground is benign and undetectable by humans at the surface, but akin to an MRI, the bouncing waves allow us to generate a three-dimensional image of the subsurface down to 14,000 feet below sea level.

    1
    Area covered by the 2017 high-density seismic hazard survey. Credit: 3D Seismic Solutions.

    The subsurface data revealed several faults that had not been previously identified. These shallow faults extend upward to within 300 feet (90 meters) of the surface, however human activity has obscured meaningful fault information higher up. Our observations in the area suggest that these faults have also deformed sediments near the surface relatively recently, indicating these areas, shown in red on the map below, may be subject to continued deformation. Although it is impossible to predict when or how likely these faults are to move in the future, these data suggest they are active.

    3
    Location of the newly identified shallow faults (purple), areas of recent deformation (red) and the current surface trace of the NIFZ (yellow).

    Thousands of tiny earthquakes

    In addition to the bouncing seismic waves from the vibrating trucks, the sensors detected more than 3,000 micro-earthquakes during the eight-week period. Micro-seismic events are small earthquakes that are imperceptible by people, even those who are standing directly on the epicenter.

    Seismic sensors record these tiny events that occur along faults when they slip or creep. These micro-earthquakes do not pose a danger and can even help scientists locate otherwise hidden faults.

    Researchers at Caltech plotted the epicenters of the micro-seismic events onto our map and found that many of the events struck in a cluster along a section of the coast, close to one of our newly mapped faults. The micro-earthquakes occurred between tens of feet to more than one mile (several meters to two kilometers) below the surface, which is consistent with the inferred depth of this fault. The strong correlation between the events and the fault location indicates the fault was active during the eight-week period the sensors were deployed.

    If the events were related to human activities, such as construction or drilling, they would likely be dispersed throughout the urban area. Alternatively, if they were seismic noise related to waves crashing on the beach, we would expect them to be present along the entire shoreline. Yet, the linear cluster does not extend north of the San Gabriel River; it abruptly ends at a point where the newly mapped fault bends inland.

    4
    Correlation of Caltech’s micro-seismic events with 3D Seismic Solution’s fault map. Newly mapped faults in purple, Newport-Inglewood fault trace in red, and black dots represent the micro-seismic events, which occurred down to more than one mile (two kilometers) below the surface.

    Seismic hazard from unknown faults

    The Alquist-Priolo Act was created following the 1971 magnitude-6.6 San Fernando Valley earthquake, which cause widespread damage to structures when the Sierra Madre Fault slipped at the surface. The intent of the act was to reduce earthquake loses by regulating development near active surface faults. However, as demonstrated by the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, and more recently by the magnitude-6.7 Northridge earthquake, severe damage can occur even when a fault does not rupture all the way to the surface.

    Some of the major challenges in assessing seismic hazard include identifying subsurface faults and knowing how the fault will move. Faults that are not easily observed in a landscape, either because they do not reach the surface or evidence of offset has been paved over or otherwise removed, can be difficult to identify without detailed study of the subsurface. Such faults can still pose a hazard and do occasionally slip in a major earthquake, surprising seismologists. The damaging Northridge earthquake itself occurred on a previously unknown thrust fault, highlighting the hazard hidden faults pose in the region.

    Understanding the complex structure of the subsurface and the location of the many faults is critical in assessing potential earthquake risks. Presently in the Seal Beach area, the only identified Alquist-Priolo zone is along the Newport-Inglewood fault. The seismic data shows there are additional near-surface faults, some of which are currently active. High-density seismic surveys give scientists, city planners and emergency managers a better understanding of the hazards present in the Los Angeles basin. Emergency planners are keenly interested in the location of faults that cross planned evacuation routes, as well as first responder and key infrastructure locations.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network project Earthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 7:42 pm on September 15, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Faults connect beneath Salt Lake City-may increase hazard", As a city bounded by mountain ranges to the east and west Salt Lake City lies above a segment of the Wasatch Fault Zone and is underlain by unconsolidated sediment ., In March of 2020 a moderate magnitude-5.7 earthquake struck near Magna Utah jolting the population that lives across much of the Wasatch Front — the western side of the Wasatch Mountains., Secondary faults that branch off the main faults have the potential to slip during a large earthquake and could cause significant damages downtown., temblor, The faults of particular concern-Warm Springs and East Bench faults appear to connect underground directly beneath downtown Salt Lake City., There are active faults that seem to lie within a broad distributed zone throughout downtown., What the study seems to be showing is that earthquake energy does not stop between these two faults.   

    From temblor : “Faults connect beneath Salt Lake City-may increase hazard” 

    1

    From temblor

    September 14, 2021
    Kaelie Contreras, The Pennsylvania State University (US), Temblor Earthquake News Extern.

    In March of 2020 a moderate magnitude-5.7 earthquake struck near Magna Utah jolting the population that lives across much of the Wasatch Front — the western side of the Wasatch Mountains. After the earthquake, scientists observed several earthquake-induced phenomena concentrated in regions of water-rich, unconsolidated sediment. For example, liquefaction — when water-saturated soil loses its strength and acts as quick sand — occurred mostly near the shores of the Great Salt Lake. Sand boils, which occur when underground water pressure increases and pushes sand up to the surface, appeared as a result of liquefaction. Older unreinforced masonry buildings — those built of bricks or concrete blocks — suffered severe damage on the order of $100 million USD.

    As a city bounded by mountain ranges to the east and west Salt Lake City lies above a segment of the Wasatch Fault Zone and is underlain by unconsolidated sediment exposing it to these earthquake-related hazards. According to a recently published study in The Seismic Record, two individual faults of the Salt Lake City segment (the Warm Springs fault and East Bench fault) are connected to one another directly under downtown Salt Lake City, further increasing its susceptibility to earthquake damage.

    1
    Cobbles settled into wet clay shows minor liquefaction just a day after the 2020 Magna earthquake. Credit: Emily Kleber, Utah Geological Survey via UGS GeoData Archive.

    X-ray underneath the downtown corridor

    Before the Magna earthquake, lead author Lee Liberty, a research professor at Boise State University (US), wondered whether distant faults or those beneath downtown Salt Lake City caused sand boils, liquefaction, and other evidence of past soft sediment deformation found throughout the region.

    To answer this question, Lee and a team of scientists used an active source approach, which is like taking an x-ray of the earth’s structure. The “active source” part of this approach involved Lee and his team, along with the help of off-duty police officers, tapping the ground with a 440-pound (200-kilogram) weight to create mini-shakes that sent seismic waves into the shallow subsurface. Behind a vehicle, they dragged a fire hose containing ground sensors that detected the seismic waves that bounced back to the surface, off geologic structures in the ground beneath downtown Salt Lake City.

    2
    Seismic land streamer data collection in downtown Salt Lake City, 2017. Credit: Rich Giraud, Utah Geological Survey via UGS GeoData Archive.

    “There are active faults that seem to lie within a broad distributed zone throughout downtown,” says Lee. The team’s findings indicate that “there is potential for ground displacements beneath the downtown corridor where high-rise buildings either have been or will be constructed in the future,” he says. The faults of particular concern, the aforementioned Warm Springs and East Bench faults, appear to connect underground directly beneath downtown Salt Lake City, suggesting that if the Warm Springs fault moves it could activate the East Bench fault, and vice versa.

    What the study seems to be showing, says Emily Kleber, a geoscientist with the Geologic Hazards Program at the Utah Geological Survey, is that “earthquake energy does not stop between these two faults.” In other words, downtown Salt Lake City appears to sit above faults that could breach the surface, should energy from an earthquake activate either of them.

    New answers, more questions

    In terms of hazard to both existing and new buildings, Ivan Wong, a senior principal seismologist for Lettis Consultants International says that although Lee’s study indicates a zone of deformation between the two faults, the behavior of secondary faults that may accompany the main faults in the downtown area is unknown. These secondary faults that branch off the main faults have the potential to slip during a large earthquake, and if they reach the surface, says Wong, they could cause significant damages downtown.

    “It’s such an important issue for engineering, and also to know what we’re up against,” explains Kleber, “to model what could happen if we do have a big earthquake.”

    In the future, Lee hopes to revisit downtown Salt Lake to acquire additional seismic data from more closely spaced profiles to understand the interaction between the two faults at a higher resolution, determine how far the fault zones extend, and estimate how fast individual faults — both primary and secondary — move. This clearer picture of what’s happening in the subsurface would help scientists to better forecast when and where future earthquakes may occur and determine the potential for disaster.

    References:

    Liberty, L. M., St. Clair, J., & McKean, A. P. (2021). A Broad, Distributed Active Fault Zone Lies beneath Salt Lake City, Utah. The Seismic Record, 1(1), 35-45.

    Kleber, E. J., McKean, A. P., Hiscock, A. I., Hylland, M. D., Hardwick, C. L., McDonald, G. N., … & Erickson, B. A. (2021). Geologic Setting, Ground Effects, and Proposed Structural Model for the 18 March 2020 M w 5.7 Magna, Utah, Earthquake. Seismological Society of America, 92(2A), 710-724.

    Wasatch Front Unreinforced Masonry Risk Reduction Strategy (2021). FEMA.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network project Earthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 11:28 am on September 4, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Can smartphones affixed to buildings detect earthquakes?", Accelerometers provide between 10 and 30 seconds of warning before the earthquake’s waves arrive., , , , , Smartphones come packaged with GPS location services-constant communication via cell networks-and a device called an accelerometer., Smartphones have all the three components that are there in a scientific grade seismic station., temblor, The accelerometer can record any shaking your phone may experience.   

    From temblor : “Can smartphones affixed to buildings detect earthquakes?” 

    1

    From temblor

    September 1, 2021
    By Meghomita Das, Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, McGill University (CA).

    Damaging earthquakes can strike at any time, leaving behind a trail of devastation. Recovery from such events can take several years. Unfortunately, scientists cannot forecast the exact time an earthquake will strike. But extensive research in the field of earthquake early warning systems is ongoing. Such systems can provide seconds of warning, which could save lives and prevent people from overwhelming emergency management systems.

    1
    The 2009 Cinchona earthquake, that struck close to the capital city of San Jose, caused 34 fatalities and collapsed houses across Costa Rica. Credit: Capt Diana Parzik, US Army, via Wikipedia, CC-Public Domain Mark 1.0.

    Earthquake early warning systems work by having a densely distributed network of seismic stations capable of rapidly detecting an earthquake, and by sending alerts that warn of shaking to the population. A significant hurdle to designing and implementing such systems is the high cost of installing multiple, scientific-grade seismic stations across earthquake-prone regions. For countries like India or Mexico, which have limited resources and high population densities, these expensive networks are not feasible.

    In a recent study published in AGU Advances, a team of scientists explored whether a low-cost, robust and operational earthquake early warning system — built around comparatively cheap smartphones instead of seismic stations — might become a reality in the near future in Costa Rica, a country that regularly experiences high-magnitude earthquakes. During a six-month testing period, this network, called Alerta Sismica Temprana Utilizando Telefonos Inteligentes (ASTUTI), a collaborative effort between The Geological Survey (US) and the National University of Costa Rica [Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica] (CR), detected and sent alerts for five earthquakes that produced significant shaking in San Jose, Costa Rica’s densely populated capital city.

    Smartphones and earthquakes

    Smartphones come packaged with GPS location services-constant communication via cell networks-and a device called an accelerometer that helps your phone’s screen rotate as you move it around. The accelerometer can also record any shaking your phone may experience. “Essentially, your phone costs maybe $100 and has all the three components that are there in a scientific grade seismic station, which costs thousands of dollars,” says Marino Protti, a study co-author and a seismologist at the Observatorio Vulcanologico y Sismologico de Costa Rica (Universidad Nacional).

    To set up the ASTUTI network, the team deployed 82 Android smartphones, encased in protective boxes, throughout Costa Rica, at an annual cost of $20,000 USD. They installed these smartphones inside buildings, on either the walls or floors of the ground story. The phones are plugged in to AC power supplies.

    The accelerometers stream data via cellular networks in real time to the cloud, says Protti. A cloud-based server receives signals from all stations. So, when an earthquake strikes and four sites detect strong ground motion, an alert goes out to people in San Jose, providing between 10 and 30 seconds of warning before the earthquake’s waves arrive, he explains.

    San Jose’s location relative to the Middle America Trench — where the Cocos Plate dives beneath the Caribbean Plate — is perfect to test the efficacy of this network because the city is in the Goldilocks position. It’s far enough from the trench such that issuing a timely alert is feasible, but close enough such that the population will feel shaking. The ASTUTI network also issued alerts as soon as events were detected, rather than either waiting for an earthquake to grow larger or trying to define its characteristics. This choice gave people more time to protect themselves.

    Did ASTUTI feel it?

    During its six months of operation, a group of people selected to receive alerts via phone were notified of five events that ASTUTI detected, with magnitudes ranging between 4.8 and 5.3. Thirteen earthquakes struck Costa Rica in that time, but the other eight earthquakes did not produce significant shaking to warrant an alert. For two of the five detected events, ASTUTI sent out alerts at the earliest possible time — when the first wave from the earthquake, also called the P-wave — was detected by smartphones. This provided people with enough time to take protective action. Moreover, each of the five detected events were accompanied by a “Did You Feel It” report by the U.S. Geological Survey. This citizen science project collects “felt reports” from people who felt shaking (or didn’t) during earthquakes worldwide. In other words, the earthquakes that shook people enough to file a report were detected by the ASTUTI network.

    3
    One of the ASTUTI earthquake early warning stations. Image on the left shows the encased smartphone, and image on the right shows the software interface that records data from the station. Credit: Brooks et al., 2021, CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.

    With recent advancements in earthquake early warning, there is a potential for developing a network consisting of expensive high-end devices complemented by a larger number of low-cost devices capable of detecting ground motion, says Raj Prasanna, a telecommunications and electronics engineer and senior lecturer at Massey University-New Zealand [Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa](NZ) who was not involved with this study. “Together, they can become an affordable warning network, with acceptable levels of reliability,” he says.

    In the next phase of development, the team plans to create a hybrid system by integrating this smartphone-enabled network with Costa Rica’s existing scientific-grade seismic network, which will improve the accuracy and reduce time of detection of the earthquake early warning system.

    What the public wants

    Setting up an earthquake early warning system that effectively prompts the public to get to safety is challenging, says Sarah Minson of the USGS, a co-author of the new study. “How do we find out what people want; how do we find out if they are enjoying the system?” she asks. Because earthquake early warning systems are relatively new and people haven’t interacted with them, Minson says, they may not have a personal feel for what works for them. Plus, every country’s needs are different. People’s responses to the same alerts vary depending upon how that specific society culturally reacts to natural hazards.

    To that end, the team plans to develop a smartphone-based application. In the future, they will work with the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Management in Costa Rica to measure how the Costa Rican population perceives earthquake early warning. The goal, says Protti, is to create a more coordinated response plan for earthquakes in Costa Rica. By coupling effective messaging with earthquake early warning, the public will have crucial seconds to take actions that can protect their lives.

    References

    Brooks, B. A., Protti, M., Ericksen, T., Bunn, J., Vega, F., Cochran, E. S., … & Glennie, C. L. (2021). Robust earthquake early warning at a fraction of the cost: ASTUTI Costa Rica. AGU Advances, 2(3), e2021AV000407.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network project Earthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 3:47 pm on August 27, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Scientists surveying the seabed off New Zealand’s east coast have uncovered undersea mountains that help explain mysterious slow-motion earthquakes., So why do some faults slip suddenly and set off deadly earthquakes while others slide slowly and stealthily?, temblor, The Hikurangi Margin zone poses a significant earthquake and tsunami hazard to coastal communities in New Zealand but the largest earthquakes only seem to occur toward the south of the margin., The team used electromagnetic methods to essentially take an MRI scan of the seabed along the Hikurangi Margin where the Pacific Plate dives beneath the Australian Plate., This study is the first to use electromagnetic methods to map out water trapped in rocks beneath the seafloor offshore.   

    From temblor : “Submarine mountains can subdue earthquakes” 

    1

    From temblor

    August 23, 2021

    Scientists surveying the seabed off New Zealand’s east coast have uncovered undersea mountains that help explain mysterious slow-motion earthquakes.

    By Erin Martin-Jones, Ph.D., Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge (UK)

    Earth’s tectonic plates are constantly jostling for space — colliding and diving under one another in a dance that sculpts dramatic mountain chains, fuels volcanic eruptions and delivers earth-shattering tremors. But sometimes these forces can have more subtle impacts. Take, for instance, silent earthquakes or “slow-slip events,” which can move at slow-motion speeds, stretching their ruptures over weeks to months. Often, no one feels a thing, and these events go undetected even by seismometers.

    So why do some faults slip suddenly and set off deadly earthquakes while others slide slowly and stealthily? A new study [Nature] suggests that off the coast of New Zealand, where thousands of small quakes occur each year, excess water locked within undersea mountains, or “seamounts,” can promote the silent sliding linked to slow-motion earthquakes.

    2
    Map of Hikurangi Subduction Zone, showing locations where electromagnetic receivers were deployed to collect data. Credit: Christine Chesley, using GeoMapApp and data from William Ryan et al., Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems (2009).

    The Hikurangi Margin Subduction Zone

    To understand slow-slip earthquakes off New Zealand’s eastern coast, a team of researchers led by Christine Chesley of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory first had to figure out a way to peer into the depths of a subduction zone.

    The team used electromagnetic methods to essentially take an MRI scan of the seabed along the Hikurangi Margin where the Pacific Plate dives beneath the Australian Plate. That subduction motion along the margin is partly responsible for the more than 15,000 earthquakes in the region each year. Most are so small that they go unnoticed, but between 150 and 200 are large enough to be felt.

    3
    The research vessel hauls in one of the receivers used to take electromagnetic measurements of the seabed. Credit: Kerry Key.

    This subduction zone poses a significant earthquake and tsunami hazard to coastal communities in New Zealand, but the largest earthquakes only seem to occur toward the south of the margin — and scientists want to know why. “One of the fascinating things about this area, and why so many have studied it, is the puzzling variation in earthquake hazards over a very small area,” Chesley says.

    Although large earthquakes haven’t struck the North Island in roughly the last 200 years, evidence of ancient quakes is written in the rocks along the coastline, which have been jolted upward by past seismic events.

    Diving beneath the hidden depths of silent earthquakes

    In December 2018, the research team began a month-long deep-sea cruise, collecting profiles of the seafloor in the northern part of the subduction zone margin, which is studded with large seamounts. “Although other studies have suggested that seamounts may contribute to small, rather than large and destructive earthquakes, it’s been unclear exactly how those mountains interact with the seafloor as they are subducted,” says Chesley.

    Chesley’s eye was drawn to two seamounts: the Tūranganui Knoll, located about 110 kilometers southeast of the east coast city of Gisborne, and an unnamed one that is closer to the margin and is currently being subducted. A cluster of tiny earthquakes related to a 2014 slow-slip event occurred around the second seamount, which first began subducting about a million years ago.

    5
    Christine Chesley and Eric Attias operate the Scripps Undersea Electromagnetic Source Instrument (SUESI) during a deep-tow. SUESI is attached to the ship via a coaxial cable and must be “flown” about 100 meters above the seafloor. Credit: Kerry Key.

    Peeling back the layers of a seamount

    Chesley’s team’s electric conductivity survey revealed that each seamount was made up of layers of varying porosity, which held water and conducted electricity differently. Each had a solid core surrounded by a layer of loose, cindery material that acts a bit like a sponge. In fact, the team found that seamounts lock away three to five times more water than typical oceanic crust. This water can act as a lubricant to help tectonic plates glide into Earth’s interior without setting off a large earthquake.

    “It makes a lot of sense, knowing how they form, but we really weren’t expecting them to be such heterogeneous masses of rock,” says Chesley. She noted that the nuance in material can really affect how the subducting plate moves and expels water when it is subducted.

    Because both seamounts had a similar structure, the researchers think that even actively subducting seamounts retain their structural strength — so much so that they can damage the overriding plate, causing tiny faults that dissipate the energy and result in slow-slip events.

    New methods

    This study is the first to use electromagnetic methods to map out water trapped in rocks beneath the seafloor offshore, says Susan Ellis, a geophysicist at GNS Science, who was not involved in the study. “Mapping the structure of the seafloor is extremely challenging and has only recently become viable. This research is at the cutting edge of new geophysical imaging methods,” Ellis says.

    3
    Electromagnetic receivers can be seen on the back deck of the R/V Roger Revelle during particularly rough seas. Credit: Kerry Key.

    “These results are very exciting … they show just how subducting topography can impact water content,” she adds. That, in turn, reveals the type of slipping. “Understanding why slow-slip events occur is critical for estimating New Zealand’s earthquake and tsunami hazard.”

    Factoring underwater oddities into hazard models

    “Seamounts are very common on the seafloor, but hazard models currently don’t consider how they contribute to slow-slip events,” says Chesley. “Now we know that we need to take seafloor topography into account — otherwise we’re not getting the full picture.”

    But Chesley and her team note that slow-slip earthquakes aren’t always subdued. In 1947, two unusual tsunamis were both associated with slow-slip behavior. And because they weren’t preceded by shaking, there was little warning.

    “Future work in other locations of the margin, and in other subduction zones with and without seamounts, will help us understand whether there are any other factors that also contribute to slow-slip events,” says Ellis. Or that contribute to a larger event, for that matter.

    References:

    Chesley, C., Naif, S., Key, K., & Bassett, D. (2021). Fluid-rich subducting topography generates anomalous forearc porosity. Nature, 595(7866), 255-260. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03619-8

    Sun, T., Saffer, D. and Ellis, S., 2020. Mechanical and hydrological effects of seamount subduction on megathrust stress and slip. Nature Geoscience, 13(3), pp.249-255. doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0566-5

    Wallace, L.M., Webb, S.C., Ito, Y., Mochizuki, K., Hino, R., Henrys, S., Schwartz, S.Y. and Sheehan, A.F., 2016. Slow slip near the trench at the Hikurangi subduction zone, New Zealand. Science, 352(6286), pp.701-704. doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2349

    Wang, K., & Bilek, S. L. (2011). Do subducting seamounts generate or stop large earthquakes? Geology, 39(9), 819-822. doi.org/10.1130/G31856.1

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network projectEarthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 12:40 pm on August 18, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Are the 2021 and 2010 Haiti earthquakes part of a progressive sequence?", , , , temblor   

    From temblor : “Are the 2021 and 2010 Haiti earthquakes part of a progressive sequence?” 

    1

    From temblor

    August 17, 2021
    By Ross Stein, Ph.D., Temblor, Inc., California (@rstein357)
    Shinji Toda, Ph.D., IRIDeS, Tohoku University [東北大学] (JP).
    Jian Lin, Ph.D. Southern University of Science and Technology [南方科技大學](CN), and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (US).
    Volkan Sevilgen, M.Sc., Temblor, Inc., California (@volkansevilgen)

    On Jan. 12, 2010, a magnitude-7.0 earthquake struck Léogâne, Haiti, just outside the capital of Port-au-Prince. The quake killed some 300,000 people, according to the Haitian government, and displaced hundreds of thousands more people. Though the quake was initially thought to have struck on the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden Fault, where the Caribbean Plate is separated from the Gonâve microplate, further investigation eventually indicated the quake occurred on a blind thrust fault now known as the Léogâne Fault. (Blind thrust faults are those that don’t reach Earth’s surface and result from compression.) On Aug. 14, 2021, a magnitude-7.2 quake struck along the same fault system, to the west of the epicenter of the 2010 quake. The death toll is already above 1,400 and thousands more are displaced. Those numbers are expected to rise, especially as a tropical storm barrels down on the island.

    Our analyses suggest that the disastrous 2010 earthquake likely brought the fault that ruptured in the Aug. 14, 2021 quake closer to failure. Some elements suggest a westward earthquake progression, but highly stressed sections of the fault system well to the east remain.

    Stress transferred by the 2010 quake to the site of the 2021 event

    Two weeks after the 2010 earthquake, we published a Coulomb stress analysis to gain insight as to what could happen next (Lin et al., 2010). We identified sections of the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden Fault (Mann et al., 2002) to the east and west of the 2010 rupture zone with significantly increased stress and hazard, as shown in Figure 1. The 2021 magnitude-7.2 Nippes, Haiti, earthquake struck on a patch that was brought 0.1 bar closer to failure. While 0.1 bar has been shown in many studies to be large enough to trigger earthquakes, it is nevertheless much smaller than the stress increases closer to both ends of the 2010 rupture, which we calculated to be 5-10 times larger. Symithe et al. (2013) obtained similar and more extensive results, providing independent confirmation of our calculations.

    1
    Figure 1. This is Figure 1 from Lin et al. (2010), annotated with the epicenter of the Aug. 14, 2021, magnitude-7.2 Nippes mainshock, which likely struck on a patch of the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden Fault System. Credit: Authors, after Lin et al. (2010).

    The fault map in Figure 1 might be oversimplified, as there are likely two adjacent faults running along the peninsula— the Enriquillo, as well as a blind thrust fault (Calais et al., 2010; Hayes et al, 2010; Prentice et al., 2010; Hashimoto et al., 2012; Douilly et al., 2013). Here, we refer to both faults as a fault system. But for both fault geometries, the 2010 earthquake stressed the site of the 2021 event.

    Why the 11-year wait for the next shoe to fall, and why the unruptured fault section between the two earthquakes (labeled “jump?” in Figure 2)? In our calculations, the impact of the stress change on seismicity fades with time, just as do the rate of aftershocks. So, while an immediate trigger is more likely, long delays are still possible. The jump or gap between the 2010 and 2021 ruptures could be explained by a strong fault patch that requires still more stress to rupture, it could mark a bend or break in the fault (Saint Fleur et al., 2020), or this section could have ruptured prehistorically, lowering the stress relative to adjacent patches. Irrespective of those speculations, we cannot rule out the possibility that the fault could soon rupture through that gap in a magnitude~6.5 aftershock.

    2
    Figure 2. Progressive westward rupture of the 2010 and 2021 earthquakes. It appears that there is a 15-kilometer-long jump or gap between them, one candidate among several for a future large earthquake. Credit: Temblor Inc.

    Stress transferred by the 2021 earthquake

    How has the fault stress been altered by the magnitude-7.2 event, which is about twice as large as its 2010 forerunner? In Figure 3, we calculate this in several different ways. Regardless of which approach we take, one can see that sections of the fault system to the east and west of the magnitude-7.2 rupture were brought significantly closer to failure. This is easiest to visualize in Figure 3a. But Figure 3b shows something else of importance: The faults that ruptured in the 2010 aftershocks have been re-stressed by the 2021 event, and so we could see a reawakening of the 2010 aftershock zone.

    3
    Figure 3. Stress transferred by the Aug. 14, 2021, magnitude-7.2 mainshock to surrounding faults. In (a), we calculate stress on faults with the same geometry as the mainshock, based on a preliminary finite fault model (USGS, 2021). Lobes of stress increase (red) extend in four directions. (b) Here we use the focal mechanisms of past earthquakes to infer the geometry of surrounding faults, which indicates that the faults that ruptured in 2010 aftershocks were re-stressed by the 2021 earthquake (red beachballs). (c) Because the density of focal mechanisms is very sparse, here we interpolate between focal mechanisms for a smooth grid. Credit: Temblor Inc.

    The 2021 earthquake had a predecessor in 1770

    Saint Fleur et al. (2020) excavated a trench along the Enriquillo–Plantain Garden fault near Clonard (shown in Figure 2), which turns out to be within the rupture of the 2021 mainshock. They found evidence for an earthquake in about 1770, with a range of uncertainty of 40 years, which they suggest corresponds to the June 3, 1770, magnitude~7.5 earthquake. The Enriquillo Fault has a long-term slip rate of about 9 millimeters/year at this location, so in the 250 years between the two events, about 2.0-2.5 meters of potential slip would have accumulated. According to the USGS (2021) finite fault model, the mean slip in the 2021 earthquake was about 1.5 meters, and so these inferences are roughly consistent: Stress released in the 1770 earthquake had rebuilt by about 2010, when a small amount of additional stress was transferred to the site, further ratcheting the fault toward failure.

    Earthquake forecast for the next 12 months

    We make a probabilistic forecast (Figure 4) of the next year by using the stress transferred from the 2010 and 2021 mainshocks, our smoothed grid of focal mechanisms (shown in Figure 3c), and the Global Earthquake Activity Rate (GEAR) model of Bird et al. (2015) (Figure 4b). The method we adopt (Toda and Stein, 2020) assumes that the impact of a large earthquake decays with time. The absence of a strong national seismic network limits our ability to test the forecast in Haiti, but the same approach has performed well in Japan, California and Chile.

    In the forecast (Figure 4a), we calculate an elevated hazard extending from Jeremie (population 122,000) near the west end of the peninsula, all the way to Port-au-Prince in the east, a surprisingly long extent of 200 kilometers. But in support of this calculation, Figure 2 shows numerous earthquakes both east of Port-au-Prince, and in the region around the Aug. 14, 2021, magnitude-7.2 rupture zone, more than the 11 years before the magnitude-7.2 event struck (the grey quakes). These quakes probably indicate that the hazard was high along this section of the Enriquillo-Plaintain Garden fault system since the 2010 magnitude-7.0 event struck.

    4
    Figure 4. Probabilistic forecast for 12-month periods. (a) This forecast considers the decaying impact of the stress transferred by the 2010 magnitude-7.0 and the 2021 magnitude-7.2 earthquakes on surrounding faults, following the approach of Toda and Stein (2020). Except for the 40 kilometers centered on the Aug. 14, 2021 rupture, a 220-kilometer-long section of the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden Fault System has a higher likelihood of hosting magnitude-5.0 or bigger quakes than during an average 12-month period, as shown in (b). Credit: Temblor Inc.

    Is the earthquake sequence headed west?

    One might be tempted to infer that the magnitude-7 earthquake sequence is progressing westward, in which case any future large shocks would strike less-populated areas along Haiti’s southern peninsula. The argument for this view is that the aftershocks of the 2010 and 2021 earthquakes are separated by about 15 kilometers, and in addition, the 2010 and 2021 events ruptured largely to the west, where most of their aftershocks lie.

    But our forecast tells a different story: The eastern sections of the fault are also calculated to have an elevated probability of large shocks, and unfortunately, these areas are more populated. One might ask if the 11 years since the 2010 quake without a large shock to the east means that we can exclude this possibility. But there have been about 10 shocks to the east of the 2010 rupture in the past decade (Figure 2), and so, in our judgment, a larger earthquake there remains a possibility.

    References

    Bird, P., D.D. Jackson, Y.Y. Kagan, C. Kreemer, and R.S. Stein (2015), GEAR1: A global earthquake activity rate model constructed from geodetic strain rates and smoothed seismicity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 105, 2538–2554.

    Calais, E., A. Freed, G. Mattioli, F. Amelung, S. Jónsson, P. Jansma, S.-H. Hong, T. Dixon, C. Prépetit, and R. Momplaisir (2010), Transpressional rupture of an unmapped fault during the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Nature Geosci., 3, 794-799, doi:10.1038/ngeo992.

    Douilly, R., et al. (2013), Crustal structure and fault geometry of the 2010 Haiti earthquake from temporary seismometer deployments, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 103, 2305–2325, doi: 10.1785/0120120303.

    Hashimoto, M., Y. Fukushima, and Y. Fukahata (2011), Fan-delta uplift and mountain subsidence during the Haiti 2010 earthquake, Nature Geosci., 4, 255–259, doi:10.1038/ngeo1115.

    Hayes, G. P., R. W. Briggs, A. Sladen, E. J. Fielding, C. Prentice, K. Hudnut, P. Mann, F. W. Taylor, A. J. Crone, R. Gold, T. Ito, and M. Simons (2010), Complex rupture during the 12 January 2010 Haiti earthquake, Nature Geosci., 3, 800–805, doi:10.1038/ngeo977.

    Lin, J., Stein, R. S., Sevilgen, V., and Toda, S. (2010), USGS-WHOI-DPRI Coulomb stress-transfer model for the January 12, 2010, MW=7.0 Haiti earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1019, 7 p.

    Mann, P., E. Calais, J.-C. Ruegg, C. DeMets, P. E. Jansma, and G. S. Mattioli (2002), Oblique collision in the northeastern Caribbean from GPS measurements and geological observations, Tectonics, 21, 1057, doi:10.1029/2001TC001304.

    Prentice, C. S., P. Mann, A. J. Crone, R. D. Gold, K. W. Hudnut, R. W. Briggs, R. D. Koehler, and P. Jean (2010), Seismic hazard of the Enriquillo Plantain Garden fault in Haiti inferred from palaeoseismology, Nature Geosci., 3, 789-793, doi:10.1038/ngeo991.

    Saint Fleur, N., Y. Klinger, N. Feuillet (2020), Detailed map, displacement, paleoseismology, and segmentation of the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden Fault in Haiti, Tectonophysics, 778, 228368.

    Symithe, S. J., E. Calais, J. S. Haase, A. M. Freed, and R. Douilly (2013), Coseismic slip distribution of the 2010 M 7.0 Haiti earthquake and resulting stress changes on regional faults, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 103, 2326–2343.

    Toda, S., and Stein, R. S. (2020), Long‐ and short‐term stress interaction of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence and Coulomb‐based earthquake forecasts. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 110, 1765-1780.

    USGS (2021), Finite Fault model for 14 August 2021 M 7.2 Nippes, Haiti, Earthquake
    https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000f65h/finite-fault

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network projectEarthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
  • richardmitnick 10:26 pm on July 9, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Tectonic mystery swirls as earthquake rocks California-Nevada border", Decades of paleoseismic and tectonic studies have revealed dozens of faults throughout the Walker Lane some with evidence of large prehistoric earthquakes that likely exceeded magnitude-7.0., In the last three years far more moderate earthquakes have occurred along the Walker Lane Fault system than any other single fault system in the western United States., More than 100 aftershocks above magnitude 2.5 have rocked the region., On the afternoon of July 8 2021 a magnitude-6.0 earthquake rocked much of central California and western Nevada., temblor, The Walker Lane is a diffuse zone of normal and strike-slip faults. It follows an approximately 60-mile (100-kilometer)-wide swath along the Eastern Sierras and California/Nevada border., This earthquake originated in the seismically busy Central Walker Lane between Yosemite National Park in California and Carson City Nevada.   

    From temblor : “Tectonic mystery swirls as earthquake rocks California-Nevada border” 

    1

    From temblor

    July 9, 2021
    Ian Pierce-University of Oxford (UK)

    On the afternoon of July 8, 2021, a magnitude-6.0 earthquake rocked much of central California and western Nevada. Intense shaking that lasted as long as 20 seconds was reported 80 miles (~130 kilometers) away in Reno, while the Bay Area, Central Valley, Southern California and even Las Vegas all shook as well. Reports of damages are slowly trickling in from many of the remote communities nearest the shaking and videos of car-sized boulders on a major highway have gone viral. Since the mainshock less than 24 hours ago (at the time of posting), more than 100 aftershocks above magnitude 2.5 have rocked the region. More than 25,600 people have reported feeling shaking to the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Did You Feel It? website. If you felt the mainshock or any of the aftershocks — or if you didn’t — report them.

    1
    Map showing earthquakes that have rocked the Antelope Valley area, south of Lake Tahoe, since yesterday afternoon.

    This earthquake originated in the seismically busy Central Walker Lane between Yosemite National Park in California and Carson City Nevada, in the southernmost part of Antelope Valley. In the last three years, four large earthquakes — greater than magnitude 6.0 — have struck the Walker Lane region. What’s driving all this seismic activity and what does it mean for the earthquake hazards far from the famed San Andreas Fault?

    Busy Walker Lane

    The Walker Lane is a diffuse zone of normal and strike-slip faults. It follows an approximately 60-mile (100-kilometer)-wide swath along the Eastern Sierras and California/Nevada border, reaching from Death Valley and the Garlock Fault in the south to north of the Honey Lake Valley region. The Walker Lane Fault system accommodates roughly 20 percent of the 2-inch (50-millimeter) per year right-lateral shear between the Pacific and North American Plates, while the remaining 80 percent is accommodated along the more well-known San Andreas Fault system.

    2
    Annotated map showing locations of earthquakes greater than or equal to magnitude-6 in the Walker Lane region.

    The Walker Lane has been getting much attention recently, and for good reason. In the last three years far more moderate earthquakes have occurred along the Walker Lane Fault system than any other single fault system in the western United States. This earthquake is the fourth event larger than magnitude-6.0 since the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence that included magnitude-6.4 and magnitude-7.1 earthquakes, and the 2020 magnitude-6.5 Monte Cristo Range earthquake. In 2021 alone, yesterday’s earthquake joins a series of several other widely felt events ranging from magnitude 4 to 5 near Lake Tahoe and the Northern Sierras.

    Yet, the Walker Lane didn’t start popping off events in 2019. In 2016 the Nine Mile Ranch sequence produced three events of about magnitude-5.5 near Hawthorne, Nev., in less than an hour, following a similar sequence from 2011. In 2008, the Mogul sequence rocked Reno, Nev., with a magnitude-4.7 quake. The largest-known Walker Lane event was the 1872 magnitude-7.4 Owens Valley earthquake, which is roughly the maximum magnitude we expect of an earthquake along any single fault in this system.

    Decades of paleoseismic and tectonic studies have revealed dozens of faults throughout the Walker Lane some with evidence of large prehistoric earthquakes that likely exceeded magnitude-7.0. For example, the most recent earthquake along the Genoa Fault near Carson City occurred about 450 years ago (Ramelli et al., 1999). The fault running beneath the west shore of Lake Tahoe most recently ruptured about 5,500 years ago (Pierce et al., 2017).

    A tectonic mystery

    Shifting attention to the tectonics of the Central Walker Lane where this most recent magnitude-6.0 event occurred, an unresolved tectonic mystery swirls. Using high accuracy stationary GPS stations, we can observe — in real time — the crest of the Sierra Nevada sliding northwest at a rate of about 0.3 inches (7 millimeters) per year relative to Fallon, Nev., shearing the region spanning Antelope, Smith, and Mason Valleys. Yet, geologically speaking, we cannot find sufficient strike-slip faulting to account for this observed shear.

    3
    Overview of study area of Pierce et al., 2020, that includes Antelope Valley. Dark gray hillshades indicate lidar data. Red lines show mapped faults. Bold black lines show fault contacts between bedrock and alluvial sediments. Thin black lines come from the USGS Quaternary fault and fold database. Credit: Pierce et al., 2020, CC BY 4.0.

    While a number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain this mismatch, we expect that future large earthquakes will show complex, transient and discontinuous deformation, as opposed to long-lasting fault strands that produce the fault scarps, large offsets of features in the landscape, and other geomorphologic features we would require to measure long-term faulting rates (Pierce et al., 2020). This more subtle, less dramatic style of deformation was witnessed in the 2020 Monte Cristo Range earthquake, as well as other earlier Walker Lane events. Other explanations for the missing measurable shear that we expect based on GPS data include clockwise rotations of basins and bounding normal faults, and obliquely slipping faults that bound the rangefronts of the mountains in this area.

    The fault responsible for the July 8 magnitude-6.0 event produced a north-striking normal moment tensor — the beachball diagram seismologists use to determine both the orientation of a fault, and which way it moved. Normal faulting is consistent with the local patterns of faulting in Antelope Valley. In other words, the quake occurred on a north-striking fault that moves because of east-west directed extension, similar to what we would expect for the north-oriented Antelope Valley Fault that bounds the range. This fault does not have a significant oblique component, as one might expect if this range were accommodating right-lateral shear — the motion recorded by the San Andreas Fault, and the overall movement of the Walker Lane as recorded by GPS. This supports the conclusion of our 2020 paper suggesting this range does not exhibit oblique faulting — it is mostly normal.

    Underappreciated hazards

    All told, eastern California and western Nevada have much underappreciated earthquake hazards. While these hazards are well known to the earthquake science community, the public seems to view these moderate magnitude-5 to 6 events as “the big ones” when in reality, were the inevitable magnitude-7 event to occur in one of the rapidly developing communities of the region, the losses to life and property would be devastating.

    Everyone living in this region should not only keep an earthquake kit and have a plan for inevitable forthcoming quakes, but they should also make sure their homes are prepared for earthquakes. There are a number of cost-effective measures that can be readily applied by homeowners to mitigate damage, like securing hot water heaters to walls and securing foundations. Finally, these moderate events should serve as a warning to our community leaders, and communities should encourage business owners to retrofit the relatively large number of unreinforced masonry structures in many of the historic districts of Reno, Carson Valley, Truckee, and Tahoe.

    Remember, if you feel shaking, the U.S. Geological Survey says to drop, cover and hold on.

    References:

    Pierce, I. K., Wesnousky, S. G., & Owen, L. A. (2017). Terrestrial cosmogenic surface exposure dating of moraines at Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada of California and slip rate estimate for the West Tahoe Fault. Geomorphology, 298, 63-71.

    Pierce, I. K., Wesnousky, S. G., Owen, L. A., Bormann, J. M., Li, X., & Caffee, M. (2020). Accommodation of Plate Motion in an Incipient Strike‐Slip System: The Central Walker Lane. Tectonics, 40(2), e2019TC005612. doi: 10.1029/2019TC005612

    Ramelli, A. R., Bell, J. W., Depolo, C. M., & Yount, J. C. (1999). Large-magnitude, late Holocene earthquakes on the Genoa fault, west-central Nevada and eastern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(6), 1458-1472.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Earthquake Alert

    1

    Earthquake Alert

    Earthquake Network projectEarthquake Network is a research project which aims at developing and maintaining a crowdsourced smartphone-based earthquake warning system at a global level. Smartphones made available by the population are used to detect the earthquake waves using the on-board accelerometers. When an earthquake is detected, an earthquake warning is issued in order to alert the population not yet reached by the damaging waves of the earthquake.

    The project started on January 1, 2013 with the release of the homonymous Android application Earthquake Network. The author of the research project and developer of the smartphone application is Francesco Finazzi of the University of Bergamo, Italy.

    Get the app in the Google Play store.

    3
    Smartphone network spatial distribution (green and red dots) on December 4, 2015

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    ShakeAlert: An Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast of the United States

    The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with a coalition of State and university partners is developing and testing an earthquake early warning (EEW) system called ShakeAlert for the west coast of the United States. Long term funding must be secured before the system can begin sending general public notifications, however, some limited pilot projects are active and more are being developed. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018.

    Watch a video describing how ShakeAlert works in English or Spanish.

    The primary project partners include:

    United States Geological Survey
    California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES)
    California Geological Survey
    California Institute of Technology
    University of California Berkeley
    University of Washington
    University of Oregon
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

    The Earthquake Threat

    Earthquakes pose a national challenge because more than 143 million Americans live in areas of significant seismic risk across 39 states. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated on the West Coast of the United States. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has estimated the average annualized loss from earthquakes, nationwide, to be $5.3 billion, with 77 percent of that figure ($4.1 billion) coming from California, Washington, and Oregon, and 66 percent ($3.5 billion) from California alone. In the next 30 years, California has a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake and the Pacific Northwest has a 10 percent chance of a magnitude 8 to 9 megathrust earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Part of the Solution

    Today, the technology exists to detect earthquakes, so quickly, that an alert can reach some areas before strong shaking arrives. The purpose of the ShakeAlert system is to identify and characterize an earthquake a few seconds after it begins, calculate the likely intensity of ground shaking that will result, and deliver warnings to people and infrastructure in harm’s way. This can be done by detecting the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, which rarely causes damage. Using P-wave information, we first estimate the location and the magnitude of the earthquake. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated and a warning is provided to local populations. The method can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, bringing the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage.

    Studies of earthquake early warning methods in California have shown that the warning time would range from a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. ShakeAlert can give enough time to slow trains and taxiing planes, to prevent cars from entering bridges and tunnels, to move away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments and to take cover under a desk, or to automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems. Taking such actions before shaking starts can reduce damage and casualties during an earthquake. It can also prevent cascading failures in the aftermath of an event. For example, isolating utilities before shaking starts can reduce the number of fire initiations.

    System Goal

    The USGS will issue public warnings of potentially damaging earthquakes and provide warning parameter data to government agencies and private users on a region-by-region basis, as soon as the ShakeAlert system, its products, and its parametric data meet minimum quality and reliability standards in those geographic regions. The USGS has set the goal of beginning limited public notifications in 2018. Product availability will expand geographically via ANSS regional seismic networks, such that ShakeAlert products and warnings become available for all regions with dense seismic instrumentation.

    Current Status

    The West Coast ShakeAlert system is being developed by expanding and upgrading the infrastructure of regional seismic networks that are part of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS); the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) is made up of the Southern California Seismic Network, SCSN) and the Northern California Seismic System, NCSS and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). This enables the USGS and ANSS to leverage their substantial investment in sensor networks, data telemetry systems, data processing centers, and software for earthquake monitoring activities residing in these network centers. The ShakeAlert system has been sending live alerts to “beta” users in California since January of 2012 and in the Pacific Northwest since February of 2015.

    In February of 2016 the USGS, along with its partners, rolled-out the next-generation ShakeAlert early warning test system in California joined by Oregon and Washington in April 2017. This West Coast-wide “production prototype” has been designed for redundant, reliable operations. The system includes geographically distributed servers, and allows for automatic fail-over if connection is lost.

    This next-generation system will not yet support public warnings but does allow selected early adopters to develop and deploy pilot implementations that take protective actions triggered by the ShakeAlert notifications in areas with sufficient sensor coverage.

    Authorities

    The USGS will develop and operate the ShakeAlert system, and issue public notifications under collaborative authorities with FEMA, as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, as enacted by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7704 SEC. 2.

    For More Information

    Robert de Groot, ShakeAlert National Coordinator for Communication, Education, and Outreach
    rdegroot@usgs.gov
    626-583-7225

    Learn more about EEW Research

    ShakeAlert Fact Sheet

    ShakeAlert Implementation Plan

    QuakeAlertUSA

    1

    About Early Warning Labs, LLC

    Early Warning Labs, LLC (EWL) is an Earthquake Early Warning technology developer and integrator located in Santa Monica, CA. EWL is partnered with industry leading GIS provider ESRI, Inc. and is collaborating with the US Government and university partners.

    EWL is investing millions of dollars over the next 36 months to complete the final integration and delivery of Earthquake Early Warning to individual consumers, government entities, and commercial users.

    EWL’s mission is to improve, expand, and lower the costs of the existing earthquake early warning systems.

    EWL is developing a robust cloud server environment to handle low-cost mass distribution of these warnings. In addition, Early Warning Labs is researching and developing automated response standards and systems that allow public and private users to take pre-defined automated actions to protect lives and assets.

    EWL has an existing beta R&D test system installed at one of the largest studios in Southern California. The goal of this system is to stress test EWL’s hardware, software, and alert signals while improving latency and reliability.

    Earthquake Early Warning Introduction

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with state agencies, university partners, and private industry, is developing an earthquake early warning system (EEW) for the West Coast of the United States called ShakeAlert. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program aims to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States. Citizens, first responders, and engineers rely on the USGS for accurate and timely information about where earthquakes occur, the ground shaking intensity in different locations, and the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

    The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System recently entered its first phase of operations. The USGS working in partnership with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is now allowing for the testing of public alerting via apps, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and by other means throughout California.

    ShakeAlert partners in Oregon and Washington are working with the USGS to test public alerting in those states sometime in 2020.

    ShakeAlert has demonstrated the feasibility of earthquake early warning, from event detection to producing USGS issued ShakeAlerts ® and will continue to undergo testing and will improve over time. In particular, robust and reliable alert delivery pathways for automated actions are currently being developed and implemented by private industry partners for use in California, Oregon, and Washington.

    Earthquake Early Warning Background

    The objective of an earthquake early warning system is to rapidly detect the initiation of an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking intensity to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground shaking starts. A network of seismic sensors detects the first energy to radiate from an earthquake, the P-wave energy, and the location and the magnitude of the earthquake is rapidly determined. Then, the anticipated ground shaking across the region to be affected is estimated. The system can provide warning before the S-wave arrives, which brings the strong shaking that usually causes most of the damage. Warnings will be distributed to local and state public emergency response officials, critical infrastructure, private businesses, and the public. EEW systems have been successfully implemented in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, and other nations with varying degrees of sophistication and coverage.

    Earthquake early warning can provide enough time to:

    Instruct students and employees to take a protective action such as Drop, Cover, and Hold On
    Initiate mass notification procedures
    Open fire-house doors and notify local first responders
    Slow and stop trains and taxiing planes
    Install measures to prevent/limit additional cars from going on bridges, entering tunnels, and being on freeway overpasses before the shaking starts
    Move people away from dangerous machines or chemicals in work environments
    Shut down gas lines, water treatment plants, or nuclear reactors
    Automatically shut down and isolate industrial systems

    However, earthquake warning notifications must be transmitted without requiring human review and response action must be automated, as the total warning times are short depending on geographic distance and varying soil densities from the epicenter.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: