↓ Skip to main content

The limits of earthquake early warning: Timeliness of ground motion estimates

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
24 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
87 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
The limits of earthquake early warning: Timeliness of ground motion estimates
Published in
Science Advances, March 2018
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.aaq0504
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah E. Minson, Men-Andrin Meier, Annemarie S. Baltay, Thomas C. Hanks, Elizabeth S. Cochran

Abstract

The basic physics of earthquakes is such that strong ground motion cannot be expected from an earthquake unless the earthquake itself is very close or has grown to be very large. We use simple seismological relationships to calculate the minimum time that must elapse before such ground motion can be expected at a distance from the earthquake, assuming that the earthquake magnitude is not predictable. Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are in operation or development for many regions around the world, with the goal of providing enough warning of incoming ground shaking to allow people and automated systems to take protective actions to mitigate losses. However, the question of how much warning time is physically possible for specified levels of ground motion has not been addressed. We consider a zero-latency EEW system to determine possible warning times a user could receive in an ideal case. In this case, the only limitation on warning time is the time required for the earthquake to evolve and the time for strong ground motion to arrive at a user's location. We find that users who wish to be alerted at lower ground motion thresholds will receive more robust warnings with longer average warning times than users who receive warnings for higher ground motion thresholds. EEW systems have the greatest potential benefit for users willing to take action at relatively low ground motion thresholds, whereas users who set relatively high thresholds for taking action are less likely to receive timely and actionable information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Master 11 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 32 46%
Engineering 12 17%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 263. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2019.
All research outputs
#49,518
of 14,021,129 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#388
of 3,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,480
of 277,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#34
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,021,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.