Eric M Thompson
Eric Thompson is a research geophysicist with the USGS in Golden. He joined the USGS in 2015 where he participates in research, development, and operations of many earthquake hazard products, including near-real-time earthquake hazard products.
Professional Experience
5/2015-Present: Research Geophysicist, USGS, Golden, Colorado.
4/2013-4/2015: Adjunct Professor, Geological Sciences, San Diego State University.
1/2014-3/2015: Lecturer, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles.
9/2010-9/2013: Research Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University.
3/2009-8/2010: Postdoctoral Researcher/Lecturer, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University.
Education and Certifications
2009 Ph.D., Tufts University, Civil and Environmental Engineering.
2002 B.S., University of California at Santa Cruz, Earth Science.
Honors and Awards
2022: Superior Service Award for activities in the planning and development of ground motion processing software named gmprocess.
2019: FEMA Certificate of Appreciation for outstanding contributions in support of national level earthquake exercise.
2018: Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC) Award for Excellence Use of Technology for developing the ShakeMap Scenario Suite.
Science and Products
Filter Total Items: 18
No Result Found
Filter Total Items: 79
An open repository of earthquake-triggered ground-failure inventories
Earthquake-triggered ground failure, such as landsliding and liquefaction, can contribute significantly to losses, but our current ability to accurately include them in earthquake-hazard analyses is limited. The development of robust and widely applicable models requires access to numerous inventories of ground failures triggered by earthquakes that span a broad range of terrains, shaking characte
Authors
Robert G. Schmitt, Hakan Tanyas, M. Anna Nowicki Jessee, Jing Zhu, Katherine M. Biegel, Kate E. Allstadt, Randall W. Jibson, Eric M. Thompson, Cees J. van Westen, Hiroshi P. Sato, David J. Wald, Jonathan W. Godt, Tolga Gorum, Chong Xu, Ellen Rathje, Keith L. Knudsen
Estimating rupture distances without a rupture
Most ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) require distances that are defined relative to a rupture model, such as the distance to the surface projection of the rupture (RJB) or the closest distance to the rupture plane (RRUP). There are a number of situations in which GMPEs are used where it is either necessary or advantageous to derive rupture distances from point-source distance metrics, s
Authors
Eric M. Thompson, Charles Worden
An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application
We present an updated geospatial approach to estimation of earthquake-induced liquefaction from globally available geospatial proxies. Our previous iteration of the geospatial liquefaction model was based on mapped liquefaction surface effects from four earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Kobe, Japan, paired with geospatial explanatory variables including slope-derived VS30, compound top
Authors
Jing Zhu, Laurie G. Baise, Eric M. Thompson
Integrating landslide and liquefaction hazard and loss estimates with existing USGS real-time earthquake information products
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has made significant progress toward the rapid estimation of shaking and shakingrelated losses through their Did You Feel It? (DYFI), ShakeMap, ShakeCast, and PAGER products. However, quantitative estimates of the extent and severity of secondary hazards (e.g., landsliding, liquefaction) are not currently included in scenarios and real-time post-earthquake product
Authors
Kate E. Allstadt, Eric M. Thompson, Mike Hearne, M. Anna Nowicki Jessee, J. Zhu, David J. Wald, Hakan Tanyas
Characterizing the Kathmandu Valley sediment response through strong motion recordings of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake sequence
We analyze strong motion records and high-rate GPS measurements of the M 7.8 Gorkha mainshock, M 7.3 Dolakha, and two moderate aftershock events recorded at four stations on the Kathmandu basin sediments, and one on rock-outcrop. Recordings on soil from all four events show systematic amplification relative to the rock site at multiple frequencies in the 0.1–2.5 Hz frequency range, and de-amplific
Authors
S. Rajaure, Domniki Asimaki, Eric M. Thompson, Susan E. Hough, Stacey Martin, J.P. Ampuero, M.R. Dhital, A Inbal, N Takai, M. Shigefuji, S Bijukchhen, M Ichiyanagi, T Sasatani, L Paudel
USGS approach to real-time estimation of earthquake-triggered ground failure - Results of 2015 workshop
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards and Landslide Hazards Programs are developing plans to add quantitative hazard assessments of earthquake-triggered landsliding and liquefaction to existing real-time earthquake products (ShakeMap, ShakeCast, PAGER) using open and readily available methodologies and products. To date, prototype global statistical models have been developed and ar
Authors
Kate E. Allstadt, Eric M. Thompson, David J. Wald, Michael W. Hamburger, Jonathan W. Godt, Keith L. Knudsen, Randall W. Jibson, M. Anna Jessee, Jing Zhu, Michael Hearne, Laurie G. Baise, Hakan Tanyas, Kristin D. Marano
Uncertainty in Vs30-based site response
Methods that account for site response range in complexity from simple linear categorical adjustment factors to sophisticated nonlinear constitutive models. Seismic‐hazard analysis usually relies on ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs); within this framework site response is modeled statistically with simplified site parameters that include the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity to 30 m (VS30
Authors
Eric M. Thompson, David J. Wald
Compilation of VS30 Data for the United States
VS30, the time-averaged shear-wave velocity (VS) to a depth of 30 meters, is a key index adopted by the earthquake engineering community to account for seismic site conditions. VS30 is typically based on geophysical measurements of VS derived from invasive and noninvasive techniques at sites of interest. Owing to cost considerations, as well as logistical and environmental concerns, VS30 data are
Authors
Alan Yong, Eric M. Thompson, David J. Wald, Keith L. Knudsen, Jack K. Odum, William J. Stephenson, Scott Haefner
Soil amplification with a strong impedance contrast: Boston, Massachusetts
In this study, we evaluate the effect of strong sediment/bedrock impedance contrasts on soil amplification in Boston, Massachusetts, for typical sites along the Charles and Mystic Rivers. These sites can be characterized by artificial fill overlying marine sediments overlying glacial till and bedrock, where the depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 80 m. The marine sediments generally consist of orga
Authors
Laurie G. Baise, James Kaklamanos, Bradford M Berry, Eric M. Thompson
Geotechnical effects of the 2015 magnitude 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks
This article summarizes the geotechnical effects of the 25 April 2015 M 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks, as documented by a reconnaissance team that undertook a broad engineering and scientific assessment of the damage and collected perishable data for future analysis. Brief descriptions are provided of ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landsliding, soil failure, and infrastruct
Authors
Robb E. S. Moss, Eric M. Thompson, D Scott Kieffer, Binod Tiwari, Youssef M A Hashash, Indra Acharya, Basanta Adhikari, Domniki Asimaki, Kevin B. Clahan, Brian D. Collins, Sachindra Dahal, Randall W. Jibson, Diwakar Khadka, Amy Macdonald, Chris L M Madugo, H Benjamin Mason, Menzer Pehlivan, Deepak Rayamajhi, Sital Uprety
Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion
The stochastic method of ground‐motion simulation specifies the amplitude spectrum as a function of magnitude (M) and distance (R). The manner in which the amplitude spectrum varies with M and R depends on physical‐based parameters that are often constrained by recorded motions for a particular region (e.g., stress parameter, geometrical spreading, quality factor, and crustal amplifications), whic
Authors
David Boore, Eric M. Thompson
Surface wave site characterization at 27 locations near Boston, Massachusetts, including 2 strong-motion stations
The geotechnical properties of the soils in and around Boston, Massachusetts, have been extensively studied. This is partly due to the importance of the Boston Blue Clay and the extent of landfill in the Boston area. Although New England is not a region that is typically associated with seismic hazards, there have been several historical earthquakes that have caused significant ground shaking (for
Authors
Eric M. Thompson, Bradley A. Carkin, Laurie G. Baise, Robert E. Kayen
Non-USGS Publications**
Thompson, E.M., Baise, L.G., Tanaka, Y. and Kayen, R.E., 2012. A taxonomy of site response complexity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 41, pp.32-43.
Boore, D.M. and Thompson, E.M., 2012. Empirical improvements for estimating earthquake response spectra with random‐vibration theory. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(2), pp.761-772.
Kaklamanos, J., Bradley, B.A., Thompson, E.M. and Baise, L.G., 2013. Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site‐response analyses using KiK‐net downhole array data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3), pp.1733-1749.
Kaklamanos, J., Baise, L.G., Thompson, E.M. and Dorfmann, L., 2015. Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 69, pp.207-219.
Moss, R.E., Thompson, E.M., Kieffer, D.S., Tiwari, B., Hashash, Y.M., Acharya, I., Adhikari, B.R., Asimaki, D., Clahan, K.B., Collins, B.D. and Dahal, S., 2015. Geotechnical effects of the 2015 magnitude 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks. Seismological Research Letters, 86(6), pp.1514-1523.
Thompson, E.M., Baise, L.G. and Vogel, R.M., 2007. A global index earthquake approach to probabilistic assessment of extremes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112(B6).
Zhu, J., Daley, D., Baise, L.G., Thompson, E.M., Wald, D.J. and Knudsen, K.L., 2015. A geospatial liquefaction model for rapid response and loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), pp.1813-1837.
Thompson, E.M., Hewlett, J.B., Baise, L.G. and Vogel, R.M., 2011. The Gumbel hypothesis test for left censored observations using regional earthquake records as an example. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11(1), pp.115-126.
Baise, L.G., Lenz, J.A. and Thompson, E.M., 2008. Discussion of “Mapping liquefaction potential considering spatial correlations of CPT measurements” by Chia-Nan Liu and Chien-Hsun Chen. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 134(2), pp.262-263.
**Disclaimer: The views expressed in Non-USGS publications are those of the author and do not represent the views of the USGS, Department of the Interior, or the U.S. Government.
Science and Products
Filter Total Items: 18
No Result Found
Filter Total Items: 79
An open repository of earthquake-triggered ground-failure inventories
Earthquake-triggered ground failure, such as landsliding and liquefaction, can contribute significantly to losses, but our current ability to accurately include them in earthquake-hazard analyses is limited. The development of robust and widely applicable models requires access to numerous inventories of ground failures triggered by earthquakes that span a broad range of terrains, shaking characte
Authors
Robert G. Schmitt, Hakan Tanyas, M. Anna Nowicki Jessee, Jing Zhu, Katherine M. Biegel, Kate E. Allstadt, Randall W. Jibson, Eric M. Thompson, Cees J. van Westen, Hiroshi P. Sato, David J. Wald, Jonathan W. Godt, Tolga Gorum, Chong Xu, Ellen Rathje, Keith L. Knudsen
Estimating rupture distances without a rupture
Most ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) require distances that are defined relative to a rupture model, such as the distance to the surface projection of the rupture (RJB) or the closest distance to the rupture plane (RRUP). There are a number of situations in which GMPEs are used where it is either necessary or advantageous to derive rupture distances from point-source distance metrics, s
Authors
Eric M. Thompson, Charles Worden
An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application
We present an updated geospatial approach to estimation of earthquake-induced liquefaction from globally available geospatial proxies. Our previous iteration of the geospatial liquefaction model was based on mapped liquefaction surface effects from four earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Kobe, Japan, paired with geospatial explanatory variables including slope-derived VS30, compound top
Authors
Jing Zhu, Laurie G. Baise, Eric M. Thompson
Integrating landslide and liquefaction hazard and loss estimates with existing USGS real-time earthquake information products
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has made significant progress toward the rapid estimation of shaking and shakingrelated losses through their Did You Feel It? (DYFI), ShakeMap, ShakeCast, and PAGER products. However, quantitative estimates of the extent and severity of secondary hazards (e.g., landsliding, liquefaction) are not currently included in scenarios and real-time post-earthquake product
Authors
Kate E. Allstadt, Eric M. Thompson, Mike Hearne, M. Anna Nowicki Jessee, J. Zhu, David J. Wald, Hakan Tanyas
Characterizing the Kathmandu Valley sediment response through strong motion recordings of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake sequence
We analyze strong motion records and high-rate GPS measurements of the M 7.8 Gorkha mainshock, M 7.3 Dolakha, and two moderate aftershock events recorded at four stations on the Kathmandu basin sediments, and one on rock-outcrop. Recordings on soil from all four events show systematic amplification relative to the rock site at multiple frequencies in the 0.1–2.5 Hz frequency range, and de-amplific
Authors
S. Rajaure, Domniki Asimaki, Eric M. Thompson, Susan E. Hough, Stacey Martin, J.P. Ampuero, M.R. Dhital, A Inbal, N Takai, M. Shigefuji, S Bijukchhen, M Ichiyanagi, T Sasatani, L Paudel
USGS approach to real-time estimation of earthquake-triggered ground failure - Results of 2015 workshop
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards and Landslide Hazards Programs are developing plans to add quantitative hazard assessments of earthquake-triggered landsliding and liquefaction to existing real-time earthquake products (ShakeMap, ShakeCast, PAGER) using open and readily available methodologies and products. To date, prototype global statistical models have been developed and ar
Authors
Kate E. Allstadt, Eric M. Thompson, David J. Wald, Michael W. Hamburger, Jonathan W. Godt, Keith L. Knudsen, Randall W. Jibson, M. Anna Jessee, Jing Zhu, Michael Hearne, Laurie G. Baise, Hakan Tanyas, Kristin D. Marano
Uncertainty in Vs30-based site response
Methods that account for site response range in complexity from simple linear categorical adjustment factors to sophisticated nonlinear constitutive models. Seismic‐hazard analysis usually relies on ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs); within this framework site response is modeled statistically with simplified site parameters that include the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity to 30 m (VS30
Authors
Eric M. Thompson, David J. Wald
Compilation of VS30 Data for the United States
VS30, the time-averaged shear-wave velocity (VS) to a depth of 30 meters, is a key index adopted by the earthquake engineering community to account for seismic site conditions. VS30 is typically based on geophysical measurements of VS derived from invasive and noninvasive techniques at sites of interest. Owing to cost considerations, as well as logistical and environmental concerns, VS30 data are
Authors
Alan Yong, Eric M. Thompson, David J. Wald, Keith L. Knudsen, Jack K. Odum, William J. Stephenson, Scott Haefner
Soil amplification with a strong impedance contrast: Boston, Massachusetts
In this study, we evaluate the effect of strong sediment/bedrock impedance contrasts on soil amplification in Boston, Massachusetts, for typical sites along the Charles and Mystic Rivers. These sites can be characterized by artificial fill overlying marine sediments overlying glacial till and bedrock, where the depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 80 m. The marine sediments generally consist of orga
Authors
Laurie G. Baise, James Kaklamanos, Bradford M Berry, Eric M. Thompson
Geotechnical effects of the 2015 magnitude 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks
This article summarizes the geotechnical effects of the 25 April 2015 M 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks, as documented by a reconnaissance team that undertook a broad engineering and scientific assessment of the damage and collected perishable data for future analysis. Brief descriptions are provided of ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landsliding, soil failure, and infrastruct
Authors
Robb E. S. Moss, Eric M. Thompson, D Scott Kieffer, Binod Tiwari, Youssef M A Hashash, Indra Acharya, Basanta Adhikari, Domniki Asimaki, Kevin B. Clahan, Brian D. Collins, Sachindra Dahal, Randall W. Jibson, Diwakar Khadka, Amy Macdonald, Chris L M Madugo, H Benjamin Mason, Menzer Pehlivan, Deepak Rayamajhi, Sital Uprety
Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion
The stochastic method of ground‐motion simulation specifies the amplitude spectrum as a function of magnitude (M) and distance (R). The manner in which the amplitude spectrum varies with M and R depends on physical‐based parameters that are often constrained by recorded motions for a particular region (e.g., stress parameter, geometrical spreading, quality factor, and crustal amplifications), whic
Authors
David Boore, Eric M. Thompson
Surface wave site characterization at 27 locations near Boston, Massachusetts, including 2 strong-motion stations
The geotechnical properties of the soils in and around Boston, Massachusetts, have been extensively studied. This is partly due to the importance of the Boston Blue Clay and the extent of landfill in the Boston area. Although New England is not a region that is typically associated with seismic hazards, there have been several historical earthquakes that have caused significant ground shaking (for
Authors
Eric M. Thompson, Bradley A. Carkin, Laurie G. Baise, Robert E. Kayen
Non-USGS Publications**
Thompson, E.M., Baise, L.G., Tanaka, Y. and Kayen, R.E., 2012. A taxonomy of site response complexity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 41, pp.32-43.
Boore, D.M. and Thompson, E.M., 2012. Empirical improvements for estimating earthquake response spectra with random‐vibration theory. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(2), pp.761-772.
Kaklamanos, J., Bradley, B.A., Thompson, E.M. and Baise, L.G., 2013. Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site‐response analyses using KiK‐net downhole array data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3), pp.1733-1749.
Kaklamanos, J., Baise, L.G., Thompson, E.M. and Dorfmann, L., 2015. Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 69, pp.207-219.
Moss, R.E., Thompson, E.M., Kieffer, D.S., Tiwari, B., Hashash, Y.M., Acharya, I., Adhikari, B.R., Asimaki, D., Clahan, K.B., Collins, B.D. and Dahal, S., 2015. Geotechnical effects of the 2015 magnitude 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks. Seismological Research Letters, 86(6), pp.1514-1523.
Thompson, E.M., Baise, L.G. and Vogel, R.M., 2007. A global index earthquake approach to probabilistic assessment of extremes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112(B6).
Zhu, J., Daley, D., Baise, L.G., Thompson, E.M., Wald, D.J. and Knudsen, K.L., 2015. A geospatial liquefaction model for rapid response and loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), pp.1813-1837.
Thompson, E.M., Hewlett, J.B., Baise, L.G. and Vogel, R.M., 2011. The Gumbel hypothesis test for left censored observations using regional earthquake records as an example. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11(1), pp.115-126.
Baise, L.G., Lenz, J.A. and Thompson, E.M., 2008. Discussion of “Mapping liquefaction potential considering spatial correlations of CPT measurements” by Chia-Nan Liu and Chien-Hsun Chen. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 134(2), pp.262-263.
**Disclaimer: The views expressed in Non-USGS publications are those of the author and do not represent the views of the USGS, Department of the Interior, or the U.S. Government.