Tagged: temblor Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 1:08 am on January 17, 2020 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/, , San Diego CA, , temblor   

    From temblor: “Past meets present to help future seismic hazard forecasts in San Diego, CA” 

    1

    From temblor

    January 13, 2020
    Alka Tripathy-Lang
    @DrAlkaTrip

    Urbanization obscures a complex fault zone on which downtown San Diego sits, but decades-old geotechnical studies reveal the faults.

    1
    Urbanization in downtown San Diego. Credit: Tony Webster CC-BY-2.0.

    Fault studies often rely on surface expressions of the ground’s movement. In densely populated urban areas, such as San Diego, this evidence is concealed beneath the cityscape. Now, though, a team has used historical reports to trace faults through downtown San Diego in unprecedented detail, establishing a template that other fault-prone cities can follow to illuminate otherwise hidden hazards.

    Urbanization obscures geology

    Downtown San Diego, popular for its beaches and parks, also hosts the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone, a complex hazard that underlies the city from northwest of La Jolla through downtown, before curving into San Diego Bay.

    2
    Rose Canyon Fault. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/

    Like the nearby San Andreas, the Rose Canyon Fault is right-lateral, meaning if you were to stand on one side, the opposite side would appear to move to your right. But it plods along at a rate of 1-2 millimeters per year, unlike its speedy neighbor, which indicates a comparatively lower seismic risk.

    “We haven’t had a major rupture” on the Rose Canyon Fault since people have been living atop it, says Jillian Maloney, a geophysicist at San Diego State University and co-author of the new study. So it’s hard to say what kind of damage would be caused, she says. “But, a magnitude-6.9 [of which this fault is capable] is big.”

    Because of urbanization, though, “there haven’t been any comprehensive geologic investigations” of the faults underlying downtown San Diego, Maloney says. This presents a problem because detailed knowledge of active and inactive fault locations, especially in a complicated area where the fault zone bends, is key for successful seismic hazard assessments, she says. The state and federal government maintain fault maps and databases, but their accuracy at the small scale was unknown.

    3
    Map of the Rose Canyon Fault near San Diego, California, USA. USGS

    Faded pages

    A solution to the lack of detailed fault mapping in downtown San Diego resided in decades of old geotechnical reports. These individual studies the size of a city block or smaller are required by the city for any proposed development near active faults, as mapped by the state. Although the data are public once the reports are filed with the city, the reports had not been integrated into a comprehensive or digital resource, and the city does not maintain a list of such reports.

    4
    This bird’s-eye view of downtown San Diego was drawn by Eli Glover in 1876. Prior to the development of downtown San Diego, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone was expressed on the surface and could be seen laterally offsetting topographic features. Credit: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division.

    According to Luke Weidman, lead author of this study, which was his master’s project, the first challenge was determining how many reports were even available. Weidman, currently a geologist at geotech firm Geocon, went straight to the source: He asked several of San Diego’s large geotechnical firms for their old publicly available reports in exchange for digitizing them. 


    Weidman scrutinized more than 400 reports he received, dating from 1979 to 2016. Many were uninterpretable because of faded or illegible pages. He assembled the 268 most legible ones into a fault map and database of downtown San Diego. Because reports lacked geographical coordinates, Weidman resorted to property boundaries, building locations, park benches and even trees to locate the reports on a modern map, says Maloney, one of his master’s advisors. Weidman, Maloney and geologist Tom Rockwell also of San Diego State published the findings from their comprehensive interactive digital map last month in Geosphere, along with an analysis of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone in downtown San Diego.

    Below from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/

    5
    Map of the Rose Canyon fault zone (RCFZ) through San Diego (SD), California (USA) and across the San Diego Bay pull-apart basin. Black box shows the extent of Figure 3. Grid shows population count per grid cell (∼1 km2) (source: LandScan 2017, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, UT-Battelle, LLC, https://landscan.ornl.gov/). DF—Descanso fault; SBF—Spanish Bight fault; CF—Coronado fault; SSF—Silver Strand fault; LNFZ—La Nacion fault zone.

    6
    Street map of greater downtown San Diego region showing Alquist-Priolo (AP) zones and faults from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) fault database (USGS-CGS, 2006). Black box shows the extent of Figures 6, 7, and 8. Background imagery: ESRI, HERE (https://www.here.com/strategic-partners/esri), Garmin, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS community.

    Fault findings

    The team found that downtown San Diego’s active faults—defined in their paper as having ruptured within the past 11,500 years—largely track the state’s active fault maps. However, at the scale of the one-block investigations, they found several faults mapped in the wrong location, and cases of no fault where one was expected. Further, the team uncovered three active faults that were not included in the state or federal maps. At the scale at which geotechnical firms, government, owners and developers need to know active fault locations, the use of this type of data is important, says Diane Murbach, an engineering geologist at Murbach Geotech who was not involved in this study.

    7
    This map of downtown San Diego, Calif., shows fault locations as mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and faults as located by the individual geotechnical reports compiled in the new study. Green, light orange, dark orange and red boxes indicate whether individual geotechnical studies found no hazard (green), active faults (red) or potential fault hazards (dark or light orange). Note that the Rose Canyon Fault Zone as mapped by USGS occasionally intersects green boxes, indicating the fault may be mislocated. Where the fault is active, mismatches exist as well. Note the arrow pointing to the ‘USGS-Geotech fault difference,’ highlighting a significant discrepancy in where the fault was previously mapped, versus where it lies. Credit: Weidman et al., [2019].

    Maloney says they also found other faults that haven’t ruptured in the last 11,500 years. This is important, she says, because “you could have a scenario where an active zone ruptures and propagates to [one] that was previously considered inactive.”

    This research “is the first of its kind that I know of that takes all these different reports from different scales with no set format, and fits them into one [usable] database,” says Nicolas Barth, a geologist at the University of California, Riverside who was not part of this study. Many cities have been built on active faults, obscuring hints of past seismicity, he notes. “This is a nice template for others to use,” he says, “not just in California, but globally.”

    References
    Weidman, L., Maloney, J.M., and Rockwell, T.K. (2019). Geotechnical data synthesis for GIS-based analysis of fault zone geometry and hazard in an urban environment. Geosphere, v.15, 1999-2017. doi:10.1130/GES02098.1

    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 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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 9:34 pm on December 30, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Largest Colombian crustal earthquake in 20 years strikes on Christmas Eve", , , , , , , temblor   

    From temblor: “Largest Colombian crustal earthquake in 20 years strikes on Christmas Eve” 

    1

    From temblor

    December 28, 2019
    Albert Leonardo Aguilar Suarez, Ph.D. candidate, Stanford University
    Ross S. Stein, Ph.D., Temblor, Inc.

    Evacuations in Bogotá and the suspension of transportation systems followed a magnitude-6.2 earthquake, which struck on or near where the North Andean Block grinds against South American Plate. The mainshock was followed just 15 minutes later by a magnitude-5.7 aftershock. Further large aftershocks remain a possibility.

    1
    Bogotá, Colombia, the capital and largest city in the country, was shaken on Christmas Eve by a magnitude-6.2 temblor. Credit: Ian Barbour, CC BY-SA 2.0

    The Christmas Eve gift from the Earth to the people of Colombia was a reminder of Earth’s immense power and destructive potential. A magnitude-6.2 earthquake struck near the town of Mesetas, Meta just after 2 pm local time on December 24. This event was followed 15 minutes later by a magnitude-5.7 aftershock. Both were widely felt in Bogotá, Villavicencio, Cali and other big cities in the country. The shaking caused evacuations in Bogotá and the suspension of transportation systems. Fortunately, no injuries have been reported, but many buildings were damaged near the epicentral region. Damages in Mesetas include cracking of the school, the police station and many houses.

    3
    The magnitude-6.2 and magnitude-5.7 earthquakes struck at the junction of several faults, in a location where strong shaking is expected over a person’s lifetime. In this map, sediment-filled basins would be expected to experience more intense shaking than the highlands. The expected shaking is from Temblor’s PUSH (Probabilistic Uniform Seismic Hazards) model, which is available worldwide.

    4
    Ground motion recorded at the seismic station Tumaco, nearly 600 km away. The magnitude-6.2 shock struck 15 minutes before the magnitude-5.7 shock. Data provided by National Seismological Network at the Colombian Geological Survey (RSNC) and stored on IRIS DMC.

    More to come

    Following a large earthquake, many smaller earthquakes, called aftershocks, occur because of stress changes caused by the mainshock. In the 48 hours following the magnitude-6.2 earthquake, the National Seismological Network of Colombia (RSNC for its initials in Spanish) reported more than 300 aftershocks.

    5
    Aftershocks reported by the National Seismological Network at the Colombian Geological Survey (RSNC).

    In a typical aftershock sequence, earthquakes will become less frequent with time. That is observed here, with the aftershock sequence including several earthquakes greater than magnitude-4.5. These aftershocks will continue for weeks to years, but most will be too small to be felt or cause damage, although we cannot rule out the possibility of a larger event.

    6
    Evolution of aftershocks, with time on the x-axis and magnitude on the y-axis. The size of the circles scale with magnitude to emphasize the y-axis. Notice the decrease in earthquake frequency with time. The vertical dashed line marks the origin time of the magnitude-6.2 event.

    Unsurprising, naturally occurring earthquakes

    The magnitude-6.2 is the largest crustal earthquake that has occurred in Colombia in the last 20 years, but its size and location are not surprising for earthquake scientists. The epicenter is located on the eastern side of the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia, where the Algeciras fault system acts as the boundary between the South American plate and the North Andean Block [Velandia et al., 2005; Veloza et al., 2012]. The Algeciras fault system is as a right-lateral strike slip fault, meaning that whichever side of the fault you’re on, the opposite side moves to the right (see the green arrows on the map below). The Algeciras fault system was also responsible for the largest historical crustal earthquake in Colombia—the 1967 magnitude-7.0 Huila earthquake [Dimaté et al.,2005].

    6
    Large historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern Cordillera near Bogotá. The green arrows indicate the right-lateral sense of motion of the Algeciras fault system. On the left is the Colombia-Huila seismic sequence (2016-2017-2018). In the middle, highlighted by red boxes are the Christmas earthquakes. The inset shows the tectonic setting of Colombia. CP stands for Caribbean Plate, NP for Nazca Plate, NAB for North Andean Block and SAP for South American Plate.

    The eastern cordillera of Colombia and the faults that run through it are responsible for more than half of the shallow seismicity (i.e. depth < 30 km) reported by RSNC. Small earthquakes happen every day, but for the most part, their shaking is too small to be felt. However, more than two years ago, a magnitude-4.7 earthquake took place ~20 km NE of the epicenter of the magnitude-6.2 Christmas earthquake, which is why the location of the Christmas quake is no surprise at all.

    In recent years, seismic activity surged near the town of Colombia (a town with the same name as the country). Three earthquakes greater than magnitude-5.0 struck the town in October 2016, February 2017 and July 2018, and were felt in major cities. These earthquakes also had a rich sequence of aftershocks, as shown by Aguilar & Prieto [2019]. There, the Altamira and Nazareth faults were responsible for the sequence, which occurred near the intersection of the two. At the time, these three quakes were the largest to occur close to Bogotá, after the 2008 magnitude-5.9 Quetame earthquake.

    This seismicity is naturally occurring, a consequence of the interactions of the geological faults that are building the Eastern Cordillera. They are unrelated to industrial oil and gas activities as many people have falsely claimed on social media. Furthermore, there is no relation between these earthquakes and the so-called ‘activation of the Pacific ring of fire’, which is a headline that goes viral after any notable earthquake near the edge of the Pacific Ocean.

    An opportunity for advancement

    The RSNC recently deployed additional seismometers, including two new stations close to the recent earthquakes—station URMC in Uribe, Meta, installed in March 2018, and station CLBC in Colombia, Huila that started recording on February 2019. These additional seismometers will allow a higher resolution image of seismicity, especially for small quakes that are hidden in the shadow of bigger ones.

    Aguilar & Prieto [2018] and Aguilar et al. [2019] revisited the data recorded by RSNC near Colombia-Huila. Through a systematic search for small earthquakes, they tripled the number of events in the catalog for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. They also clarified the geometry of these faults via precise relocations. The work in the following weeks and months will be pivotal for gaining further insights into the geometry of the faults and the mechanisms of these earthquakes, as well as the seismic hazard near Bogotá, the largest city in Colombia.

    7
    These are waveforms of the M 6.2 aftershocks, with time pointing upwards. We took the liberty of ‘dressing the tree’ with the red bulbs.

    References
    INGEOMINAS – Servicio Geologico Colombiano (SGC Colombia) (1993): Red Sismologica Nacional de Colombia. International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks. Dataset/Seismic Network. doi:10.7914/SN/CM

    Dimaté, C., Rivera, L., and Cisternas, A. (2005), Re-visiting large historical earthquakes in the Colombian Eastern Cordillera, Journal of Seismology, 9, 1–22, doi:10.1007/s10950-005-1413-2

    Aguilar, A. and Prieto, G. (2018), Spatial and temporal evolution of source properties in the Colombia-Huila seismic sequence. Seismology of the Americas. Available at: https://www.seismosoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/poster_AA.pdf

    Aguilar, A. and Prieto, G. (2019), Spatial and temporal evolution of source properties in the Colombia-Huila seismic sequence. Thesis submitted to the National University of Colombia.

    Veloza, G., Styron R., Taylor M., and Morg, A. (2012), Open-source archive of active faults for northwest South America, GSA Today, 22, 4–10. doi:10.1130/GSAT-G156A.1

    Mora-Páez, H., Mencin, D.J., Molnar, P., Diederix, H., Cardona-Piedrahita, L., Peláez-Gaviria, J.-R., and Corchuelo- Cuervo, Y. (2016), GPS velocities and the construction of the Eastern Cordillera of the Colombian Andes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8407–8416, doi:10.1002/ 2016GL069795.

    Aguilar, A., Prieto, G., Pedraza, P., Pulido, N. and Beroza, G. (2019), The recent seismicity of the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting.

    Velandia, F., Acosta, J., Terraza, R. and Villegas, H. (2005), The current tectonic motion of the Northern Andes along the Algeciras Fault System in SW Colombia, Tectonophysics, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2004.12.028.

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 8:41 am on December 16, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Four large quakes in two months jolt southern Philippines", , , , temblor,   

    From temblor: “Four large quakes in two months jolt southern Philippines” 

    1

    From temblor

    December 11, 2019
    Alka Tripathy-Lang

    In the past two months, four quakes between magnitude-6.4 to -6.8 ruptured southwest of Mount Apo, a quiet stratovolcano near Davao City, in the Philippines. The third of these large temblors was potentially volcanic in origin, and the most recent earthquake was the largest, striking a region already reeling from the three previous events and their aftershocks.

    Citation: Tripathy-Lang, Alka (2019), Four large quakes in two months jolt southern Philippines, Temblor, http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.059

    In March 1991, on the northern Philippine island of Luzon, a sleepy, lushly vegetated beast began to shake itself awake from a 500-year slumber. Mount Pinatubo’s warning signals began when earthquakes jostled nuns living on its flanks. Scientists at the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) sprang into action soon after. With the help of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the researchers deployed portable seismometers to monitor the burgeoning unrest. As activity increased, PHIVOLCS began to evacuate the local population, with about 58,000 people eventually removed from harm’s way (Wolfe and Hoblitt, 1996).

    On the afternoon of June 15, 1991, Mount Pinatubo unleashed the second-largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century. Tens of thousands of lives were saved, and the actions of PHIVOLCS in conjunction with the USGS have been heralded as an example of successful volcanic forecasting (Tayag et al., 1996).

    1
    Clouds of volcanic ash and gas rise above Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, June 12, 1991, three days before the cataclysmic eruption. Credit: USGS

    Today, PHIVOLCS continues to monitor volcanoes and earthquakes—hazards inherent to a nation built on an archipelago of volcanoes sitting atop a subduction zone. Recently, the organization has had to contend with a curious set of earthquakes [PHIVOLCS] near another volcano that has not been obviously active in the recent past. Whether the quakes are merely tectonic—or are being triggered by a volcano that is perhaps awakening—is unknown.

    A trio of temblors

    On Oct. 16, 2019, a magnitude-6.4 earthquake rocked the southern Philippine island of Mindanao, causing landslides and collapsing buildings in the immediate region, according to PHIVOLCS. On Oct. 29, a M 6.6 earthquake struck only 25 kilometers to the northeast. Two days later, a third large earthquake, this one M 6.5, struck about 10 kilometers to the northeast of the second, with both later events wreaking havoc on an already reeling local population. The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council of the Philippines reported that 23 people were killed, 563 were injured, and 11 are missing, with the dead ranging in age from 6 months to 91 years. Causes of death include landslides, falling debris, cardiac arrest, and other earthquake-related traumas.

    2
    Map generated November 13, 2019, showing earthquakes from the previous month, including the three large magnitude-6.4 to -6.6 quake that progressed toward Mount Apo. The December 15 magnitude-6.8 earthquake has been added. Credit: Ross Stein, Temblor

    3
    A landslide that buried houses in its path near Kidapawan City was triggered by the Cotabato earthquake sequence in October. Credit: PHIVOLCS

    Although the locations of the first three earthquakes follow a northeast trend, PHIVOLCS reports that they occurred on the Cotabato fault system, a series of predominantly northwest-southeast trending faults. The Cotabato fault system shows left-lateral strike-slip motion, according to a USGS Scientific Investigations Report. During strike-slip faulting, the two sides of a fault move past each other along a near-vertical fault plane.

    On Dec. 15, 2019, a M 6.8 earthquake jolted the same region. Just a few tens-of-kilometers southeast of the track of the October temblors, this event was the largest of the set of four quakes, and three people, including a 6-year-old girl, have been killed. Because structures were already weakened by the October earthquakes, damage is likely to be even more significant.

    A different kind of quake

    PHIVOLCS reports that all three October earthquakes were tectonic, which means that one side of the fault plane moved past the other because tectonic stress needed to be released. However, the Oct. 31 M 6.5 earthquake may be more complicated.

    For earthquakes greater than M 5.0, scientists use seismic waves produced by the earthquake, measured at multiple seismic stations, to calculate a “moment tensor,” which is a mathematical representation of how a fault moves during an earthquake. Simple tectonic earthquakes typically involve movement along a planar surface. One side moves past the other, and this is clear in the moment tensor solution. Gavin Hayes, a research geophysicist at USGS who calculates and verifies moment tensors, says that more complicated seismic events instead involve movement of curved faults, or multiple planes that are not perpendicular to one another; such multi-planar behavior is evident from the moment tensor solutions he calculates. These types of seismic events have myriad causes, including volcanic eruptions, landslides, fluid migration, and highly complex tectonic earthquakes, he says.

    The Oct. 31 M 6.5 earthquake has an astoundingly high level of multi-planar behavior, as reported by the USGS. Hayes examines each multi-planar event in more detail than simple tectonic quakes, and for this particular earthquake, the degree to which it could be described as a single plane versus multi-planar varies. However, he notes that another repository of moment tensors calculated using a different method, the Global Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog (gCMT), “also has a large-ish [multi-planar] component for this earthquake.” In other words, both the USGS and gCMT algorithms arrive at a similar moment tensor solution that indicates this event was unlikely to be a typical tectonic temblor.

    The most recent Dec.15 M 6.8 quake also has a higher-than-usual level of multi-planar behavior, as reported by the USGS, although not as high as the Oct. 31 event.

    Rarity of large volcanic quakes


    In an area replete with volcanoes, like the Philippines, a common question is whether earthquakes are linked with volcanic activity. Hayes notes that “While large [multi-planar] components in volcanic earthquakes are possible … very large volcanic earthquakes are rare.”

    Hayes hypothesizes that assuming a simple tectonic earthquake is not a bad assumption, in most cases. “While large [multi-planar] components in volcanic earthquakes are possible … very large volcanic earthquakes are rare.”

    Jackie Caplan-Auerbach, a seismologist at Western Washington University who studies seismic signals associated with volcanoes and landslides, agrees. “It’s not unheard of that volcanoes will have larger events that are off to the side. [But] a bunch of tiny earthquakes is more alarming than a few big ones, and there’s not a clear link between tectonic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions,” she says.

    In other words, large earthquakes are usually tectonic, and when looking for seismic indicators of volcanic activity, small earthquakes below a volcano are more important than nearby big ones.

    Tiny temblors under a quiescent volcano

    According to PHIVOLCS, the nearest active volcanoes to these earthquakes are Matutum Volcano (~46 kilometers away) and Parker Volcano (~76 kilometers away), both of which are to the southwest, in the opposite direction of the propagation of the quakes. However, Ross Stein, geophysicist and CEO of Temblor, notes that these earthquakes “seem to be propagating toward volcanoes Mount Apo and Mount Talomo,” neither of which is active, according to PHIVOLCS.

    4
    Mount Apo, a reticent stratovolcano near Davao City, the third largest city in the Philippines. Credit: Robert Anton Pimentel Aparente, CC BY-SA 4.0

    Mount Talomo is listed as inactive, and Mount Apo as “potentially active,” which PHIVOLCS defines as “morphologically young-looking, but with no historical or analytical records of eruption.” Mount Apo also emits sulfurous gases and supports a geothermal energy production facility, but otherwise, it quietly watches over Davao City, the third-most populous city in the Philippines.

    Stein says that because the volcanoes are about 15 kilometers northwest of the third, “peculiar” earthquake, “I would not expect seismicity there to be tectonic aftershocks, but, instead, events related to the volcano that were stimulated by the quake.” And indeed, Stein and Temblor scientist Geoffrey Ely found just that. “By permission from PHIVOLCS, Temblor pings the PHIVOLCS catalog every minute, and shows the past month of their quakes in the app.”

    5
    In this 30-day time series, the x-axis shows time, starting with the first large earthquake (magnitude-6.4) on Oct. 16. The y-axis shows distance from Mount Apo, with both volcanoes labeled. The light blue band shows the region around Mount Apo and Mount Talomo. The initiation of seismicity below these volcanoes after the magnitude-6.5 earthquake is evident. Credit: Geoffrey Ely, Temblor

    In this time series, the first quake (M 6.4) shows the expected mainshock-aftershock sequence typical of tectonic earthquakes, with aftershocks decreasing over time. The second quake (M 6.6) similarly does not appear to trigger any seismicity in the blue band. However, the third quake (M 6.5) appears to have provoked many small earthquakes underneath the volcanoes, which, Stein says, is to be expected for a waking volcano. The fourth quake is not included in this analysis.

    Peggy Hellweg, a seismologist at the Berkeley Seismology Lab who has experience with volcano-tectonic earthquakes, says, “the nearby magnitude 6.5 triggered some unrest at the volcano, based on seismicity under it starting at that time. Whether it will erupt or not is a completely different question.” She says that based on the time series, any unrest is quieting down, and to ascertain whether this behavior is normal or anomalous, “it would certainly be great to see a much longer seismicity time series.”

    December quake analysis

    The December earthquake may come as no surprise to those who live in the Philippines. However, for earthquake scientist Wendy Bohon, four earthquakes between M 6.4-6.8, though not unprecedented, is unusual. She says “I’d be interested to see if that’s typical behavior of those fault systems, or if we have records far enough back to determine that.” Using the IRIS Earthquake Browser, which catalogs earthquakes recorded by the Global Seismographic Network since 1970, she notes that these four M 6.4-6.8 quakes are the only large events in the region southwest of Davao City in the IRIS/USGS catalog.

    Paleoseismology investigations, where scientists dig trenches along a fault to find evidence of past movement, have not been published, so much of this area’s earthquake history is hidden beneath basin sediments, which, according to Bohon, are particularly hazardous because of liquefaction concerns.

    Nevertheless, the four temblors and their aftershocks are clearly signaling that something is going on that merits close attention.

    6
    Map generated December 15, 2019 showing the locations of the magnitude-6.8 mainshock and most recent aftershocks. Credit: Ross Stein, Temblor

    PHIVOLCS disaster response

    After the first three earthquakes, PHIVOLCS increased its monitoring efforts near Matutum and Parker, the known active volcanoes in the opposite direction. Also, after the October shocks, they sent a quick response team that, in addition to assessing damage, established portable seismic stations near the earthquake epicenters, which included an additional station on Mount Apo.

    7
    Regional seismic stations, both temporary and permanent, on Mindanao Island. Credit: PHIVOLCS


    Further, according to a PHIVOLCS media release, their quick response teams are engaging in both earthquake and volcanic hazard assessment and conducting informational campaigns to calm the local population. Their immediate concerns focus on aftershocks and their potential to remobilize landslides, cause flash floods and precipitate liquefaction, among other seismic hazards. This is expected, considering there is no clear threat from any nearby volcano, and will likely continue in the aftermath of the December earthquake.

    “It’s something”

    Caplan-Auerbach says that the earthquakes progressing toward Mount Apo are intriguing, and the question of whether there is any indication of volcanic unrest is a reasonable one. However, she says, “there’s no [historic] record of [these volcanoes] doing anything. That’s the challenge.”

    On the other hand, Stein says, “the least astonishing conclusion is that all three [October earthquakes] were strike-slip events, but the third nevertheless ‘turned on’ the volcano, perhaps because it was a little closer. The alternative is that the third quake was a volcanic event, which would account for its ability to trigger volcano seismicity. It’s very hard to avoid the interpretation that there is some volcanic interaction going on here.”

    The multi-planar component of the third earthquake “may be real,” Hellweg says, pointing out that “although it looks like the seismicity is dying down, you never know what the volcano will do next.” Volcanic eruption forecasting is difficult for this exact reason.

    Perhaps these volcanoes are simply tossing and turning in their otherwise deep sleep. As yet, scientists do not have any indicators that an eruption is imminent from any of the volcanoes mentioned here. Yet, Stein says, “there’s a lot of strange things here, and it’s something.”

    References

    Tayag, J., Insauriga, S., Ringor, A. and Belo, M. (1996). “People’s Response to Eruption Warning: The Pinatubo Experience, 1991-1992,” in Fire and Mud: Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, eds C. G. Newhall and R. S. Punongbayan (Quezon; Seattle, WA: Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology and University of Washington Press), 87-106.

    Wolfe, E. W., and Hoblitt, R. P. (1996). “Overview of the eruptions,” in Fire and Mud: Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, eds C. G. Newhall and R. S. Punongbayan (Quezon; Seattle, WA: Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology and University of Washington Press), 3–20.

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 10:40 am on November 27, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Albania earthquake strikes highest-hazard zone in the Balkans devastating nearby towns", , , , , temblor   

    From temblor: “Albania earthquake strikes highest-hazard zone in the Balkans, devastating nearby towns” 

    1

    From temblor

    November 26, 2019
    by Ross S. Stein, Ph.D., and Volkan Sevilgen, M.Sc., Temblor, Inc.

    As of today, some 24 people are dead and 650 injured, and many more are unaccounted for in collapsed concrete buildings on the coastal plains surrounding the epicenter. The quake likely struck on a ‘blind thrust fault’ that does not reach the Earth’s surface but had nevertheless been previously identified by geologists.

    It could have been worse

    On 26 Jul 1963, some 165 km (100 mi) east of the 26 Nov 2019 Mag. 6.4 Albania shock, a Mag. 6.1 earthquake struck Skopje, capital of Northern Macedonia destroying 80% of the city, killing over 1,070 people, injuring 3,000-4,000, and leaving more than 200,000 people homeless.

    It would appear that the 26 Nov 2019 quake, although 5 times larger than the Skopje event, did much less damage, perhaps because it struck more than 35 km from the 375,000 people living in the Albanian capital of Tirana.

    1
    Map showing Temblor’s globally consistent PUSH (Probabilistic Uniform Seismic Hazard) model, together with earthquakes principally from the EMSC catalog. The region is one in which residents should expect powerful shaking in their lifetimes. The aftershock distribution is roughly perpendicular to the presumed NW-SE oriented thrust fault.

    Immediate foreshocks and remote aftershocks

    The M 6.4 quake was preceded during the previous 6 hours by four M3 shocks in the epicentral region, the largest of which was Mag. 4.4, striking 1 hour before the mainshock. While uncommon, this kind of activity does not make earthquake prediction any easier, because the foreshocks do not show any features that would distinguish them from typical shocks. Perhaps more surprising, there was a burst of seismicity 230 km (140 mi) to the northwest of the M 6.4 a little over 6 hours later near the city of Mostar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, capped by a Mag 5.4 shock. This might be a coincidence, but if these two distant events are indeed related, it would have to be by the stresses carried by the seismic waves of the M 6.4, which dissipate within several minutes.

    3
    Could the Mag. 5.4 shock be a remotely triggered aftershock of the M 6.4? There is likely no smoking gun, but the possibility is nevertheless tantalizing.

    A long history of large earthquakes

    The high earthquake hazard of coastal Albania stems from tectonic compression of the crust that extends from Croatia south to Greece. The compression is evident in the contraction of the Earth’s surface measured by GPS, and by the long history of large earthquakes in the region. In fact, the southern Balkans are more seismically active than Italy.

    4
    Figure from Sevilgen et al. 2014 showing the ‘EMEC’ instrumental and historical earthquake catalog (Grünthal and Wahlström, 2012). The earthquake catalog extends to AD 1000; however, it is incomplete until about the past century, meaning that not all M≥5.5 quakes were recorded due to lack of seismometer coverage. But even when restricted to that time period (red shocks), the site of the 25 Nov 2019 quake is among the most active anywhere in the Balkans or Italy.

    Blind thrust fault a likely culprit

    The contraction has produced a series of thrust faults, only some of which come to the surface. Those that do not cut the Earth’s surface instead fold the overlying strata. Croatia’s coastal islands are one example of these folds, and one of these folds lies at the epicenter of the 26 Nov 2019 quake.

    5
    Koci et al. (2011) and Kastelic et al. (2016) identified active faults in the region for the European SHARE project using satellite imagery and field mapping (with inferred fault slip rates in black numerals), and they subsequently remapped the region (revised fault slip rates in red numerals; Sevilgen et al., 2014). One can see that thrust faults near the 26 Nov 2019 epicenter are about 75 km long with slip rates of ~1 mm/yr. That would mean that M~6.4 quakes on these faults would have mean inter-event times of roughly 500-1,000 years.

    Amplified shaking on the coastal plains

    The shaking produced by the Mag. 6.4 shock was almost certainly amplified in the weak, unconsolidated basins and coastal estuaries surrounding the epicenter. Temblor’s STAMP model shows amplification factors of 4-5 over the shaking that was experienced at bedrock sites, such as at the epicenter itself. Compounding the weak soil are water-saturated coastal plains, which are susceptible to liquefaction. This is where the soil turns to quicksand, causing buildings to sink or tilt. Sandblows and eruptions of artesian water often accompany shaking in such regions, compounding the damage.

    6
    Temblor’s STAMP high resolution (200 m) model of site amplification reveals that in Thumanë, Durres, and Lezhe, the shaking could have been severely amplified, contributing to the damage of weak buildings. Areas in black likely shook four times higher than those in yellow. The black areas are water-saturated coastal estuaries and plains that might also liquify when shaken violently, which can cause buildings to sink and tilt, rendering them a total loss. The fault on which the Mag. 6.4 quake struck is probably concealed by a growing fold.

    Undoubtedly, emergency responders, geologists, and seismologists will learn more about this quake in the days to come. But what we can say now is that the hazard was not unforeseen.

    References

    Grünthal, G. and Wahlström, R. (2012): The European‐Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium, Journal of Seismology, 16, 3, 535‐570, doi: 10.1007/s10950‐012‐9302‐y

    Vanja Kastelic, Michele M.C. Carafa, and Francesco Visini (2016), Neotectonic deformation models for probabilistic seismic hazard: a study in the External Dinarides, Geophysical Journal International, 205, 1694–1709, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw106

    R. Koci, N. Kuka, V. Kuk, K. Kuk, J. Mihaljevic, B. Glavatovic, H. Hrvatovic, I. Brlek, S. Kovacevic, S. Radovanovic, Z. Milutinovic, R. Salic (2011), Seismotectonic model as the OHAZ input, in Harmonization of Seismic Hazard Maps for the Western Balkan Countries, Closing Meeting Zagreb, 12-13 May 2011 (mihaljevic@seismo.co.me)

    Volkan Sevilgen , R.A. Bennett , I. Brlek , Laurentiu Danciu , V. Kastelic , S. Kovacevic , C. Kreemer , K., Kuk , N. Kuka , Z. Milutinovic , S. Mustafa , B. Sket-Motnikar , Ross S. Stein , and L. Vucic (2014), BALKANS-OQ: A collaborative seismic hazard assessment of the Balkan countries using the OpenQuake software and the GEM Strain Rate Model, Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, http://www.eaee.org/Media/Default/2ECCES/2ecces_esc/3276.pdf

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 10:45 am on July 10, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "The Ridgecrest earthquakes: Torn ground; nested foreshocks; Garlock shocks; and Temblor’s forecast", , , , temblor   

    From temblor: “The Ridgecrest earthquakes: Torn ground, nested foreshocks, Garlock shocks, and Temblor’s forecast” 

    1

    From temblor

    July 9, 2019
    Chris Rollins, Ph.D.; Michigan State University

    By Chris Rollins, Ph.D., Michigan State University; Ross S. Stein, Ph.D., Temblor; Guoqing Lin, Ph.D., Professor of Geophysics, University of Miami; and Deborah Kilb, Ph.D., Project Scientist, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego

    A new image of the ground deformation, a rich and enigmatic foreshock sequence, aftershock trends we can explain, and others that are more elusive. This is also the time see how Temblor app’s hazard forecast for Ridgecrest fared.

    Citation: Chris Rollins, Ross S. Stein, Guoqing Lin, and Deborah Kilb (2019), The Ridgecrest earthquakes: Torn ground, nested foreshocks, Garlock shocks, and Temblor’s forecast, Temblor, http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.039

    Ground Deformation from Space

    The Advanced Rapid Imaging and Analysis (ARIA) team at NASA JPL and Caltech just released this Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) image that shows how the fault slip in the 4 July M 6.4 and 5 July M 7.1 earthquakes warped the earth’s surface. We have annotated the map to highlight its remarkable features: knife-edge faulting in the south, and a widely distributed band of secondary faults and shear in the north. That broad pattern of deformation may explain why geologists had missed the fault in the first place: it masquerades as hundreds of small, discontinuous tears at the surface. By using this image and others like it that will come in as more radar satellites pass over the Ridgecrest area, we can study how the slip in these earthquakes was distributed at depth, why the fault may have slipped that way, and what that might mean for how earthquakes occur in general.

    2
    The interferogram is derived from the ALOS-2 satellite, operated by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), with images taken before (16 April 2018) and after (8 July 2019) the earthquakes. Each color cycle represents 11.45 cm (4.5 inches) of ground displacement in the radar line-of-sight (28° from vertical and roughly east).

    JAXA ALOS-2 satellite aka DAICH-2

    Foreshocks of foreshocks

    When we look how the earthquake sequence unfolded in time, we see what we might call ‘nested foreshocks.’ First, a M 4.0 struck 30 min before the M 6.4 mainshock in virtually the same location. Rare, but not unprecedented. About 18 hours into the M 6.4 aftershock sequence, the largest aftershock, a M 5.3 event struck. Then, about 16 hours later, the M 7.1 ruptured less than 3 km from the site of the M 5.3. That’s also rare. But while fascinating, we don’t see much that marks those little shocks for future greatness.

    3
    Here are the quakes in time. This plot is preliminary, as the locations will ultimately be improved, and many of the small quakes that struck soon after the mainshocks will be recovered. Thinking about this sequence was inspired by Derek Watkins from the New York Times.

    Aftershocks in the Coso Volcanic Field and on the Garlock Fault: Cause for concern?

    The Coso Volcanic Field, an area northwest of the earthquake with a history of seismic swarms, has lit up in earthquakes since the 7.1 quake. Over the past 48 hours, aftershocks have also begun to show up along parts of the Garlock Fault to the southwest. Can we explain these observations?

    3
    One can see 8-10 small shocks on the Garlock Fault (lower left), and a large cluster at Coso Volcanic Field (upper left).

    When an earthquake ruptures a fault, it warps the surrounding earth (as captured by the satellite image above) and therefore changes the state of stress in the earth around it, including along nearby faults. These stress changes can push some faults closer to failure and pull others further from it, depending on where they are with respect to the earthquake. In the plot below, we calculated what the M 7.1 shock might have done to the major mapped faults in the region and others oriented like them. All else being equal, we would expect aftershocks to be more numerous around faults brought closer to failure by the stress changes in the M 7.1 shock (the red zones below), and less prevalent along faults inhibited from failure (the blue ‘stress shadows’).

    5
    Faults in the red lobes are calculated to be brought closer to failure; those in the blue ‘stress shadows’ are inhibited from failure. The calculation estimates what the dominant fault orientations are around the earthquakes by interpolating between major mapped faults (shown in red lines). So, we would expect strong stressing in the Coso Volcanic Field to the north (where the aftershocks lie), and along the Garlock Fault to the south (but not where most of them lie).

    We see that the the 7.1 quake likely brought faults in the Coso Volcanic Field closer to failure, consistent with the abundant aftershocks there. But although the quake also strongly increased the Coulomb stress on a 30-km (20-mile) stretch of the Garlock, most of the aftershocks along the Garlock have in fact appeared in a blue zone to the southwest. Satellite radar imagery spanning several years before these quakes suggests the Garlock may be slowly creeping in the blue zone [Tong et al., 2013], which if real could play into seismicity there, but that signal is within the noise level of the dataset. Satellite radar imagery and other geodetic (surface deformation) data and field observations will help piece together what has been going on, not only near the Garlock but everywhere in and around the Ridgecrest sequence.

    6
    This calculation differs from the one above in that the stress changes are calculated on faults that are perfectly oriented for failure under the regional stress direction, which is north-south compression and east-west extension.

    It is also possible that some of those aftershocks to the southwest didn’t actually occur on the Garlock, but instead on smaller nearby faults that are more optimally oriented for failure under the current tectonic stressing that drives the Eastern California Shear Zone. (The Garlock, for its part, has been rotated severely out of alignment with the regional stress direction, so exactly how much and how often it still slips is a topic of ongoing research.) The above plot shows that faults with this more optimal orientation would have in fact been slightly promoted for failure by the Ridgecrest quake down around where those aftershocks are occurring. We see that faults oriented like this in the Coso region would also have been in

    7
    Time history at Coso shows a mystery: The M 6.4 shock had no effect, but the M 7.1 produced abundant shocks.

    A closer look at Coso shows that, intriguingly, it was quiet after the M 6.4 4th of July earthquake, but began to light up in earthquakes as soon as the M 7.1 hit on July 5. That might be because the 7.1 was a much larger earthquake and induced larger Coulomb stress changes there; it might alternatively (or also) be because the throughgoing seismic waves from the 7.1 shook Coso harder. We note that a M 7.5 earthquake in Ecuador earlier this year may have also been correlated with a temporary uptick in seismicity in Coso, but two other large remote earthquakes don’t look like they were. This effect, called remote triggering, has been observed in various parts of the world following several large earthquakes in the past 25 years, but studies differ on whether it is characteristic of the Coso region [Castro et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017]. Nevertheless, with more in-depth research, we can use the Ridgecrest sequence and Coso aftershocks as a natural experiment that helps shed light on what controls earthquake behavior there – and therefore what may control it in general.

    How useful was Temblor in offering guidance to Ridgecrest residents?

    Temblor gives three condensed forecasts in one screen. Here it is, slightly annotated:

    8
    Temblor app screen for Ridgecrest, California (app.temblor.net/)

    – Earthquake Score is 40, which is based on the most current ‘probabilistic’ USGS model. A score of 100 means probable damage of 20% of the replacement cost of a home in 30 years. The score factors in all quakes large and small, near and far, and the amplification of shaking in basins. For comparison, the score is 65 in downtown Los Angeles, and 95 in San Bernardino.

    – Lifetime quake is M 6.4. This is the earthquake magnitude that has a 1% chance per year of occurring within 60 mi (100 km); that’s a 60% chance of occurring if you live to 90. It was certainly exceeded, and this tells us that a M 7.1 here is rare. The lifetime quake is M 6.7 for L.A., and M 6.8 for San Bernardino.

    – Possible quake is M 6.9. Temblor finds the USGS ‘scenario’ earthquake that produces the strongest shaking at your location and reports its magnitude, fault, and the shaking. Temblor then estimates the cost of repairing the damage to your home in this quake, based on your home’s characteristics. For L.A., it is M 7.0, and for San Bernardino, it is M 7.7. Although the shaking estimate is for a nearby fault with a lower magnitude, it turns out to be spot on: The forecast peak shaking was 55% g (55% of the force of gravity) and the observed was 57%.

    Why do we give you two quake magnitudes? (in this case, M 6.4 and M 6.9). The first is the quake size you will more likely than not experience in your lifetime, the second is the largest that the USGS considers possible at your location. On July 5, both were exceeded, but the forecasted shaking nevertheless turned out to be prescient.

    In short, while earthquakes will continue to surprise us, their shaking doesn’t have to. Take this opportunity and understand your risk.

    References

    Castro, R. R., Clayton, R., Hauksson, E., & Stock, J. (2017). Observations of remotely triggered seismicity in Salton Sea and Coso geothermal regions, Southern California, USA, after big (MW> 7.8) teleseismic earthquakes. Geofísica internacional, 56(3), 269-286.

    Tong, X., Sandwell, D. T., & Smith‐Konter, B. (2013). High‐resolution interseismic velocity data along the San Andreas fault from GPS and InSAR. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 118(1), 369-389

    Zhang, Q., Lin, G., Zhan, Z., Chen, X., Qin, Y., and Wdowinski, S. (2017). Absence of remote earthquake triggering within the Coso and Salton Sea geothermal production fields. Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1002/2016GL071964.

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 10:38 am on July 6, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Magnitude 7.1 earthquake rips northwest from the M6.4 just 34 hours later", , temblor, The M 6.4 quake on July 4 can now be regarded as a foreshock of the M 7.1 quake.   

    From temblor: “Magnitude 7.1 earthquake rips northwest from the M6.4 just 34 hours later” 

    1

    From temblor

    July 6, 2019
    Tiegan Hobbs

    The M 6.4 earthquake loaded the site where the M 7.1 shock nucleated. Now, the M 7.1 has extended the original rupture to the northwest, as well as to the southeast, where it kisses the major Garlock Fault.

    Citation: Ross S. Stein, Tiegan Hobbs, Chris Rollins, Geoffrey Ely, Volkan Sevilgen, and Shinji Toda, (2019), Magnitude 7.1 earthquake rips northwest from the M6.4 just 34 hours later, Temblor, http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.037

    Rupture of a Previously Unknown Fault

    The town of Ridgecrest was not done shaking after a magnitude 6.4 earthquake on the morning of July 4. An M=7.1 shock ruptured for at least 35 km (20 mi) from the 4 July 2019 epicenter, towards the northwest, and perhaps also for 25 km to the southeast. It is astonishing that there is no continuous mapped fault at the ground surface, despite the near absence of vegetation that can otherwise hide faults. Numerous other faults have been mapped in this region, trending predominantly in a north-south direction, somewhat different than this earthquake. The aftershock alignment, however, is very straight in a northwest-southeast trend, suggesting that beneath the surface must lie a continuous fault. We strongly suspect that the rupture is right-lateral (whichever side you are on, the other moves to the right). The trend is parallel to the San Andreas Fault, but has a strike (or compass orientation) more westerly than most of the nearby surrounding faults.

    1
    Map of the past 40 hours of earthquakes from the USGS (ANSS) catalog, with the inferred sense of fault slip represented by the gray half-arrow pairs. This gives the impression of a northwestward rupture of perhaps 30 km length, which is very short for such a large shock. Because the USGS website is experiencing problems, this might be an incomplete portrayal.

    Did the Rupture Unzip to the Northwest Only, or Also to the Southeast?

    Without knowing about this fault, there was no reason to suspect that such a large earthquake could occur to the north of the July 4 rupture. Fortunately, this is a remote location, with even fewer people living to the northwest of the mainshock than the south.

    While much of the seismicity in the last 48 hours has fallen along two nearly linear faults, aftershocks of this magnitude 7.1 earthquake have formed a cluster to the northwest of the main rupture fault. This cluster, near Little Lake, CA, is approximately 15 km (9 miles) south of the Coso Geothermal Area. That geothermal region is home to abundant seismicity [Hauksson & Unruh, 2007] which is often clustered in swarms at its periphery. All events in this swarm, as of midnight local time on July 5th, are shallower than 10 km depth, consistent with previous swarms in this area.

    2
    This Temblor app map with another 2 hours of events gives a different impression of the M 7.1 aftershocks than the initial USGS map, suggesting that the rupture does not simply extend to the northwest. Based on these aftershocks it appears ‘bilateral’, meaning that the fault unzipped both to the northwest and southwest, for a total length of up to 55 km. This would be more consistent with its magnitude, as a strike-slip M 7.1 typically has a length of about 50 km. If this is correct, then parts of the Garlock Fault might also be brought closer to failure.

    Chain Reaction

    In retrospect, the M 6.4 quake on July 4 can now be regarded as a foreshock of the M 7.1. While generally uncommon, there are many recent examples of occurrences similar to this. The 14 April 2016 M 6.0 Kumamoto shock was followed 28 hours later by a M 7.0 quake on 15 April 2016 that ruptured two major faults that were brought closer to failure by the first event. The 3 November 2002 M 7.9 Denali earthquake on the Denali Fault was preceded by a M 6.7 shock on the Fault on 23 October 2002, 11 days beforehand.

    The epicenter of the M 7.1 was Loaded by the M 6.4 Earthquake

    Preliminary Coulomb stress transfer calculations reveal that the epicenter of the M 7.1 shock was brought 2 bars closer to failure by the M 6.4 shock. In other words, the 4 July event stoked the fire for the 5 July magnitude 7.1 earthquake. This large stress jump very likely played a role in the triggering of the second event. In fact, it would not be incorrect to say that the M 7.1 was an unusually large aftershock of the M 6.4, rather than the M 6.4 being a foreshock of the M 7.1.

    3
    Coulomb stress changes on nearby faults, as a result of the 4 July 2019 M=6.4 earthquake near Ridgecrest. The approximate location of the 5 July M=7.1 earthquake is indicated by the purple star, near the northwesterly extension of the fault that ruptured on the 4th of July. Stress in the region of the M=7.1 event was increased by roughly 2 bars following the M=6.4 earthquake.

    Aftershocks Propagating Towards the Garlock Fault

    Seismicity between the M=7.1 at 8:19pm and midnight (local) has continued to the northwest and southeast. At the time of writing, 12:10am (local) the closest aftershock is within a few kilometers of the nearby Garlock Fault, which runs east-west between the Eastern California Shear Zone and the San Andreas Fault. Changes in stress on this major fault can have major implications for the nearby city of Los Angeles, and so will be closely monitored in the coming days. At this time, the USGS has forecasted that in the next week there is only a 9% chance of an aftershock which is equal to or larger than this M=7.1 event.

    References

    Hauksson, E., & Unruh, J. (2007). Regional tectonics of the Coso geothermal area along the intracontinental plate boundary in central eastern California: Three‐dimensional Vp and Vp/Vs models, spatial‐temporal seismicity patterns, and seismogenic deformation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112(B6).

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 11:21 am on July 5, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Southern California M 6.4 earthquake stressed by two large historic ruptures", , , , temblor   

    From temblor: “Southern California M 6.4 earthquake stressed by two large historic ruptures” 

    1

    From temblor

    July 4, 2019
    Ross S. Stein, Ph.D., and Volkan Sevilgen, M.Sc., Temblor, Inc.

    The site of the 4th of July shock was stressed by the great 1872 Owens Valley quake and the 1992 Landers quake. Their overlapping stress lobes may have raised the stakes for this region.

    Citation: Stein, R. S., and Sevilgen, V., (2019), Southern California M 6.4 earthquake stressed by two large historic ruptures, Temblor, http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.034

    A Magnitude 6.4 earthquake struck the remote southern California high desert today, a region which has been the site of several moderate earthquakes over the past 30 years (Hauksson and Unruh, 2007), and tends to exhibit swarm-like behavior. Based on its aftershocks, the quake appears to have ruptured two perpendicular faults, one right-lateral (whichever side you are on, the other moves to the right), and the other left lateral, as shown below.

    1
    Temblor app map of the mainshock and its first two hours of aftershock suggests that two orthogonal faults have ruptured together. The inferred sense of slip is represented by the half arrows.

    The Eastern California Shear Zone lights up

    The quake lies west of Searles Valley and east of Ridgecrest, near the Naval Air Warfare Center on China Lake. This is a region of diffuse shear and extension, as indicated by the myriad of small distributed faults, and is part of the so-called ‘Eastern California Shear Zone.’ It also lies close to a geothermally active region that heats and locally thins the crust. While the San Andreas is the major fault system that accommodates the Pacific-North America plate motion, the Eastern California Shear Zone plays a secondary role, and so, in fact, the plate boundary spans the entire girth of California.

    2
    The ‘Eastern California Shear Zone,’ within which the 4th July shock struck, rivals the San Andreas for great quakes, producing an M~7.6 shock in 1872, an M=7.3 shock in 1992, and an M=7.1 shock in 1999.

    Two quakes gang up in Ridgecrest

    We calculate that two large earthquakes, the 26 March 1872 M~7.6 Owens Valley shock, and the 29 June 1992 M=7.3 Landers shock, permanently imparted stress to the site of today’s shock, perhaps increasing the likelihood of earthquakes in this region over others.

    3
    The site of the July 4th shock was likely brought closer to failure in the 1872 M~7.6 shock. Notice that the (red) stress trigger zones of the this 148-year-old quake are all seismically active today, whereas the (blue) stress shadows are generally devoid of shocks.

    The more recent 1992 M 7.3 Landers shock was followed by the Ridgecrest earthquakes of M 5.4 in August 1995, and an M 5.8 in September 1995 (Hauksson et al., 1995). These earthquakes perhaps indicate that stress imparted by the Landers earthquake immediately brought this area closer to failure, and so the 1995 events might be regarded as remote aftershocks.

    4
    The 4th July earthquake lies at the northern edge of a stress trigger lobe of the 1992 Landers shock. Together, the 1872 and 1992 earthquakes increased the stress at the 4th July epicenter by about 0.25 bars, a small but significant amount.

    In 2005, Shinji Toda and his colleagues used the 1992 Landers stress changes and the pattern of seismicity to make a retrospective forecast of seismicity, below. The forecast is in red, the observed quakes that struck are in blue. Because of its voluminous background seismicity and the imparted stress, one can see that the site of the 4th July shock was indeed forecast for a high quake rate.

    5
    The 4th July quake struck where the background rate of shocks is high, and where stress was transferred by the 1992 earthquake.

    What’s Next?

    Our preliminary calculation, below, suggests that parts of the Garlock, Black Mountain, and Panamint Valley Faults were brought closer to failure by the 4th July quake. Fortunately, all of these are in remote, lightly populated regions.

    6
    Coulomb 3.3 calculation of stress transferred by the 4th July shock to the surrounding region and major faults. Here we use a simple source based on the moment tensor (geometry, sense of slip, and size) of the earthquake, as determined by the USGS.

    Citation: Stein, R. S., and Sevilgen, V., (2019), Southern California M 6.4 earthquake stressed by two large historic ruptures, Temblor, http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.034

    References

    Egill Hauksson, Kate Hutton, Hiroo Kanamori, Lucile Jones, James Mori, Susan Hough, and Glenn Roquemore (1995), Preliminary Report on the 1995 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence in Eastern California, Seismological Research Letters, 66 (6), 54-60, doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.66.6.54

    Hauksson, E., and J. Unruh (2007), Regional tectonics of the Coso geothermal area along the intracontinental plate boundary in central eastern California: Three-dimensional Vp and Vp /Vs models, spatial-temporal seismicity patterns, and seismogenic deformation, J. Geophys. Res., 112, B06309, doi:10.1029/2006JB004721.

    Stein, R.S., Earthquake Conversations, Scientific American, vol. 288, 72-79, January issue, 2003. Republished in: Our Ever Changing Earth, Scientific American, Special Edition, v. 15 (2), 82-89, 2005.

    Toda, S., Stein, R. S., Richards-Dinger, K. & Bozkurt, S. Forecasting the evolution of seismicity in southern California: Animations built on earthquake stress transfer. J. Geophys. Res. 110, B05S16 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003415

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 1:38 pm on June 25, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Large earthquake on Japan’s west coast points to a profound shortcoming in the national seismic hazard model", , , , temblor   

    From temblor: “Large earthquake on Japan’s west coast points to a profound shortcoming in the national seismic hazard model” 

    1

    From temblor

    June 24, 2019
    Sara E. Pratt, M.A., M.S.
    @Geosciencesara

    On Tuesday, June 18, 2019, a magnitude-6.4 quake struck the west coast of Honshu along the eastern Sea of Japan. The quake was shallow — 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) deep — and only 6 kilometers (3.7 kilometers) offshore, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Its proximity to the cities of Tsuruoka and Sakata, both of which have populations of about 100,000, meant many were exposed to shaking. No one was killed, 21 people were injured, and despite the shallow depth, infrastructure damage was minimal. But the quake was a reminder that this region has experienced several large inland quakes over the last 15 years, and could again. In fact, two magnitude-6.8 earthquakes struck near the hypocenter of this week’s quake in Niigata in 2004 and 2007. The 2004 Niigata-Chuetsu quake killed 40 people, injured 3,000 and damaged more than 6,000 homes, and the 2007 Niigata quake killed seven people, injured more than 830 and destroyed 500 houses.

    1
    In the hours that followed the June 18 Tsuruoka quake, aftershocks ranging from magnitude-2.7 to magnitude-4.1 were recorded around Yamagata and Niigata. Credit: HI-Net/NIED

    “The tectonic situation, epicenter offshore near the coast, and the size of the quakes are quite similar,” says Prof. Shinji Toda, a geophysicist at the International Research Institute of Disaster Science at Tohoku University who studies inland quakes.

    Crucially, the hazard of large earthquakes striking off the coasts of Yamagata and Niigata prefectures is being underestimated by Japan’s national earthquake hazard models, according to some seismologists.

    “The government is underestimating the probability of magnitude-7.5 to -7.8 events along the eastern Sea of Japan,” says Prof. Toda. “It misleads the general public [that] we will not have any large events near the coast of Yamagata and Niigata.”

    The June 18 thrust fault rupture (where the crust is being compressed horizontally) occurred on the eastern margin of the Sea of Japan in a seismic zone where numerous active faults accommodate the strain of east-west crustal shortening transmitted from the subduction of the Pacific Plate, says Prof. Toda.

    During the past 5-25 million years (the Miocene epoch), this region underwent ‘backarc’ extension (stretching), opening what is now the eastern Sea of Japan. Those tensional faults have now been reactivated, with their sense of slip reversed, as thrust faults. Thus, “the hazard of inland large quakes is always high,” Prof. Toda says.

    Although the country’s east coast, where the Pacific Plate subducts beneath the North American and Eurasian plates in the Japan Trench, is more prone to large thrust quakes like the March 2011 magnitude-9 Tohoku megathrust quake, the west coast of Japan also is quite seismically active, a fact that is not being adequately accounted for in Japan’s earthquake hazard model, says geophysicist and Temblor CEO Ross Stein.

    2
    When compared to Japan’s national earthquake model, the GEAR model indicates a higher rate of earthquake activity on the eastern margin of the Sea of Japan, with a significant lifetime likelihood of experiencing a magnitude-7 or -7.5 quake.

    Japan’s earthquake hazard models are released by the Japan Seismic Hazard Information Station (J-SHIS). The J-SHIS model uses inputs based on known faults, historical quakes and assumes fairly regular recurrence intervals. It has been criticized for underestimating the hazard of future the Tohoku quake, whose tsunami killed more than 18,000 people.

    Scientists and officials in “Japan have done their very best to create a model that they think reflects future earthquake occurrence based on the expectation of regularity in the size and recurrence behavior of earthquakes. They have also built in the expectation that the longer it’s been since the last large earthquake, the more likely the next one is,” Stein says.

    The J-SHIS model thus anticipates a strong likelihood that the next megaquake will occur in the Nankai Trough, off the southeast coast of Honshu, where two deadly magnitude-8.1 quakes struck in the 1940s. The 1944 Tōnankai and the 1946 Nankaidō quakes both triggered tsunamis and killed more than 1,200 and 1,400 people, respectively. “The Japanese model is putting all of its weight on this area, southeast of Tokyo and Nagoya,” Stein says.

    Another model, the Global Earthquake Activity Rate (GEAR) forecast, that was developed by a team from UCLA, University of Nevada Reno, and Temblor, and is used in the Temblor app, indicates that quakes on the west coast of Honshu could likely reach magnitude-7 or magnitude-7.5 in the typical resident’s lifetime.

    Unlike traditional earthquake hazard models, GEAR does not include active faults or historical earthquakes, which are not uniformly available around the globe. Instead, GEAR takes a global approach that uses only two factors: the stress that drives quakes (measured by GPS) and the events that release that stress, represented in the model by a complete global record of all quakes greater than magnitude-5.7 that have occurred over the past 40 years (from the Global CMT catalog).

    “What the GEAR model says is that the Tohoku coast is a lot more likely to produce a large earthquake than the Japan Sea side, but the Japan Sea side is still quite active,” Stein says. “It should produce large earthquakes and has.”

    Significant historical earthquakes in the shear zone along the eastern Sea of Japan include the 1964 magnitude-7.5 Niigata earthquake, the 1983 magnitude-7.7 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake and the 1993 magnitude-7.8 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake.

    References

    USGS Event Pages – https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us600042fx/executive

    https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us600042fx/pager

    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. Am. 105, no. 5, 2538–2554.

    Toda and Enescu, (2011). Rate/state Coulomb stress transfer model for the CSEP Japan seismicity forecast. Earth, Planetary and Science, 63: 2. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.01.004 https://link.springer.com/article/10.5047/eps.2011.01.004

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 10:48 am on June 6, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: A unique opportunity to drill and instrument the seismogenic zone of large megathrust earthquakes, , , , , , , temblor   

    From temblor: “Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica: A unique opportunity to drill and instrument the seismogenic zone of large megathrust earthquakes” 

    1

    From temblor

    June 4, 2019
    Jason Patton

    1
    The past month of earthquakes in Costa Rica with boundaries show that the Osa peninsula is unusually close to the Middle America Trench, and has a very high quake rate.

    A unique opportunity exists on the Osa peninsula, in southern Costa Rica to drill and instrument a locked but mature segment of the Middle America Subduction Zone. This section of the Middle America Subduction Zone has suffered large (Mw=7.2-7.4) earthquakes in 1853, 1904, 1941 and 1983. With an average recurrence interval of roughly 40 years, the timing is now right to drill, instrument and record data of unrivalled importance before, during and after the next megathrust earthquake in this region. Because the subduction of young, rejuvenated and thickened lithosphere, the megathrust surface is unusually shallow. As a consequence, the plate interface beneath the peninsula lies just 4-8 km beneath land. This shallow depth and record of large quakes makes drilling possible and instrumentation fruitful.

    2
    Cross-section with no vertical exaggeration showing the close proximity of the Osa peninsula to the megathrust surface of the Cocos Plate.

    Geodetic observations indicate that the subduction interface is locked beneath the peninsula (Kobayashi et al., 2014) (Figure 3). The surface geology has been mapped to a large extent based on continuous shoreline exposures and observations in bedrock rivers that incise in response to rapid uplift. These uplift rates have been quantified for the Quaternary (the past million years) using marine terraces and their associated sedimentary cover. A series of trench-parallel, landward-dipping reverse faults have been mapped on the peninsula, which could represent splay faults and fluid conduits, similar to those imaged offshore Nankai, Japan, site of a great earthquake sequence in 1944-1946. All of this makes the Osa Peninsula an ideal site to compare with very important results that are currently obtained in the Nankai Trough. Since the trench is only 15-30 km from the SW coastline of Osa Peninsula, submarine cables with seafloor instrumentation, power and data transmission can be deployed and tight to borehole instrumentation, at a much lower cost than in other subduction zones.

    Drilling and instrumenting the hole with seismometers, strainmeters, tiltmeters, fluid samplers and fluid flow meters, among other instruments, would establish the relationship between surface geology, subsurface, upper plate structure, surface deformation and the characteristics of the locked interface. We noted that there are signals only detectable by borehole observatories. The integration of these datasets would be an unprecedented opportunity to relate continuous processes such as strain accumulation and seismic slip with the longer-term evolution of the margin that manifests as upper plate deformation, and permanent uplift. This will be a chance to contribute to the international efforts carried out all over the world, as part of a global network of observatories to understand the genesis of large and destructive earthquakes, to help estimate the seismic hazards and therefore contribute to the reduction of their potential damage.

    Large efforts have been invested in trying to drill to the source of large subduction earthquakes. Since most of these seismogenic zones are located offshore and deeper than current ‘non-riser’ and ‘riser’ drilling technology, very few subduction zone candidates exist where this goal can be achieved. Even at these offshore locations, the cost and time required to drill them are extremely large. Furthermore, strong ocean currents can cause an interruption in drilling operations for a large part of the year and therefore require the drilling vessel to transit to the site many times, which further increases the cost. On the other hand, drilling a 6-8 km hole on land would cost roughly $10-$30 million USD and could be completed in less than 6 months.

    We welcome inquiries from scientists and institutions for such an ambitious yet discounted project. Resources from ICDP, national funding agencies, and potentially other foundations could be leveraged to take advantage of this unique tectonic and temporal opportunity.

    References:

    Bangs, N. L., K. D. McIntosh, E. A. Silver, J. W. Kluesner, and C. R. Ranero (2015), Fluid accumulation along the Costa Rica subduction thrust and development of the seismogenic zone, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 120, 67–86, doi:10.1002/2014JB011265.

    Kobayashi, D., P. LaFemina, H. Geirsson, E. Chichaco, A. A. Abrego, H. Mora, and E. Camacho (2014), Kinematics of the western Caribbean: Collision of the Cocos Ridge and upper plate deformation, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 15, 1671–1683, doi:10.1002/2014GC005234.

    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
    1

    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

     
  • richardmitnick 10:15 am on June 3, 2019 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "El Salvador Earthquake: A Moderate Event in An Area of Extreme Seismic Risk", , , , , , temblor   

    From temblor: “El Salvador Earthquake: A Moderate Event in An Area of Extreme Seismic Risk” 

    1

    From temblor

    Posted on June 1, 2019 by Tiegan Hobbs
    Tiegan Hobbs, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Hazard Scientist (@THobbsGeo), and Ross S. Stein, Ph.D., Temblor, Inc.

    Because of its offshore location and moderate depth, Thursday’s shock did little damage. But many indications suggest that El Salvador will not stay so lucky for long. This event also highlights the increasing number of large extensional earthquakes: a global trend with important hazard implications.

    1
    A photo by Twitter user Daniel (@dfvegacom) showing the calm after the earthquake in El Salvador.

    At 03:03 am local time on Thursday morning, a strong earthquake ruptured off the west coast of El Salvador on the Pacific side of Central America. It was felt in southern Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, with a maximum reported intensity of about Level VI (strong shaking). The quake awakened many residents of the nearby city of La Libertad, less than an hour’s drive south of the capital city of San Salvador. But fortunately, the shaking is likely to damage only poorly built structures. Because of its moderate depth and offshore location, no tsunami was produced and little liquefaction or land-sliding is expected.

    2
    Thursday’s M 6.6 earthquake just off the coast of El Salvador was felt in surrounding countries: Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

    Waiting For El Salvador’s ‘Big One’ in the Red Zone

    While this event has no reported damage or injuries so far, El Salvador has among the highest seismic risks in the world. What does that mean, exactly? Hazard refers to the probability of earthquakes occurring, but risk refers to the likelihood of suffering losses from that hazardous event. Both El Salvador and Guatemala are recognized by the Global Earthquake Model Foundation as having a very high potential for losses due to a high likelihood of earthquakes occurring compounded by buildings and population centers that are highly susceptible to damage. So, this week’s earthquake was a gentle reminder of what could be in store for this small country.

    3
    The Global Earthquake Model Foundation assesses seismic risk around the world. El Salvador and Guatemala are both ominously high. (Silva et al., 2018)

    Two Deep Tensional Earthquakes in One Week

    As with the M=8.0 Peru earthquake from earlier this week, Thursday’s M=6.6 El Salvador earthquake was also a relatively deep tensional rupture. That means it occurs within the subducting slab, rather than on the interface between the slab and the over-riding continental plate. In this part of Central America, tensional events occur relatively frequently at this depth range (Correa-Mora et al., 2009). This includes a M=7.3 in 1982 and M=7.7 in 2001, which, combined, killed almost 2,000 people.

    Conflicting views of seismic hazard in Central America

    Although the GEM model and the Global Earthquake Activity Rate model (Bird et al., 2015), used by Temblor and shown in the first figure, both suggest high risk for El Salvador and Guatemala, Correa-Mora et al., (2009) argue that the subduction zone in this region may be too ‘weak’ (slippery) to generate large megathrust earthquakes. These are the kinds of events that are usually associated with great damage, and which can generate tsunami if they occur near the ocean floor. Correa-Mora and coauthors suggested that although there is a great deal of energy being released through earthquakes in the subduction zone region here, they are probably mostly from these tensional events. Nevertheless, earthquakes can be deadly regardless of their mechanism. The 1556 Huaxian earthquake in China occurred in an extensional rift environment, and yet it is the single deadliest earthquake on record, claiming 830,000 lives (Liu et al., 2011).

    Is the Rate of Large Global Tensional Earthquakes Growing?

    In addition to this week’s two major extensional (also called ‘normal’ or tensional) earthquakes, the last couple of years have seen other strong tensional events: the September 2017 M=7.1 Puebla earthquake in Mexico City, the November 2018 M=7.1 Anchorage earthquake in Alaska, and the February 2019 M=7.5 Ecuador earthquake. But is the apparent increase in extensional events real?

    4
    A map of tensional earthquakes with magnitude 7 and above, since 2005. They are distributed mainly in the ‘Ring of Fire, around the Pacific Ocean. Mapped using GeoMapApp.

    Generally speaking, we detect more earthquakes with time because networks, detection algorithms, and computing power are all improving. However, the number of large extensional events appears to increase with time at a greater rate than either thrust events or combined thrust and strike-slip events. The rate of increase is 0.01 magnitude units per year when normalized to all non-extensional earthquakes, and 0.02 when compared to only thrust events. This means that (1) there are more large tensional earthquakes than there were before, and (2) the occurrence of thrust events is actually decreasing slightly.

    6
    9

    The proportion of normal events is increasing with time. The ratio of extensional events to all other types of events (top) and to only thrust events (bottom), inclusive from 1976-2018 (Global CMT Project). Only M>7 earthquakes considered. The lines show a linear regression (fitting), with the corresponding equations and regression coefficients in the top left. A clear upward trend is observed, although a larger increase is occurring relative to thrust events. This means that the rate of large thrust events is actually decreasing with time.

    It’s possible that, because extensional earthquakes are sometimes quite deep, this apparent increased frequency of extensional events is just due to improved seismic networks. Additional work will be required to determine how compelling this result is. However, if it is real then it is astounding! These events occur because the subducting slab is being pulled apart as it is dragged into the mantle by suction. Is that suction force increasing with time, or does it oscillate? We know that great megathrust earthquakes (Ben-Naim et al., 2013) and strike-slip events (Pollitz et al., 2012) can tend to be clustered in time – perhaps the same is true for extensional intraslab events?

    Aftershocks in Unexpected Places

    7
    The initial aftershocks of the M=6.6 event lie 30-40 km southwest of the mainshock.

    Although Thursday’s M=6.6 earthquake off El Salvador was too far away to have been caused by Sunday’s M=8.0 event in Peru, the El Salvador event did produce its own remarkable aftershock sequence. Early aftershocks are concentrated to the southwest of the mainshock, roughly 30 km away, at a depth of about 35 km. Usually, aftershocks are distributed around the edge of the region that slipped during the mainshock, rather than being clustered in only one direction. This may be due to the rupture propagating (unzipping) towards the southwest, concentrating seismic energy in that direction, or possibly related to a tear or bump in the subducting slab that makes this region more susceptible. By studying cases like this one, scientists can better understand where and when aftershocks will strike in the aftermath of much larger earthquakes.

    References

    Ben‐Naim, E., Daub, E. G., & Johnson, P. A. (2013). Recurrence statistics of great earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(12), 3021-3025.

    Bird, P., Jackson, D. D., Kagan, Y. Y., Kreemer, C. & Stein, R. S. (2015). GEAR1: A Global Earthquake Activity Rate Model Constructed from Geodetic Strain Rates and Smoothed Seismicity. Bull Seis. Soc. Am.105(5), 2538-2554.

    Correa-Mora, F., DeMets, C., Alvarado, D., Turner, H. L., Mattioli, G., Hernandez, D., … & Tenorio, C. (2009). GPS-derived coupling estimates for the Central America subduction zone and volcanic arc faults: El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. Geophysical Journal International, 179(3), 1279-1291.

    Liu, M., Stein, S., & Wang, H. (2011). 2000 years of migrating earthquakes in North China: How earthquakes in midcontinents differ from those at plate boundaries. Lithosphere, 3(2), 128-132.

    Pollitz, F. F., Stein, R. S., Sevilgen, V., & Bürgmann, R. (2012). The 11 April 2012 east Indian Ocean earthquake triggered large aftershocks worldwide. Nature, 490(7419), 250.

    V. Silva, D. Amo-Oduro, A. Calderon, J. Dabbeek, V. Despotaki, L. Martins, A. Rao, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, C. Yepes, A. Acevedo, N. Horspool, H. Crowley, K. Jaiswal, M. Journeay, M. Pittore (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1, https://maps.openquake.org/map/global-seismic-risk-map/

    GEM Profile for El Salvador: https://downloads.openquake.org/countryprofiles/SLV.pdf

    USGS Event Pages

    https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us70003t2n

    https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ar20/

    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
    1

    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

     
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: