Evaluating the 2016 One‐Year Seismic Hazard Model for the Central and Eastern United States Using Instrumental Ground‐Motion Data

2018 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 1185-1196 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Mostafa Mousavi ◽  
Gregory C. Beroza
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
One Year

scholarly journals A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe: regionalisation, model selection and development of a scaled backbone approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 6119-6148
Author(s):  
Graeme Weatherill ◽  
Fabrice Cotton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Seismic Hazard Analysis ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Logic Tree ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Northeastern Europe

Abstract Regions of low seismicity present a particular challenge for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis when identifying suitable ground motion models (GMMs) and quantifying their epistemic uncertainty. The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model adopts a scaled backbone approach to characterise this uncertainty for shallow seismicity in Europe, incorporating region-to-region source and attenuation variability based on European strong motion data. This approach, however, may not be suited to stable cratonic region of northeastern Europe (encompassing Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries), where exploration of various global geophysical datasets reveals that its crustal properties are distinctly different from the rest of Europe, and are instead more closely represented by those of the Central and Eastern United States. Building upon the suite of models developed by the recent NGA East project, we construct a new scaled backbone ground motion model and calibrate its corresponding epistemic uncertainties. The resulting logic tree is shown to provide comparable hazard outcomes to the epistemic uncertainty modelling strategy adopted for the Eastern United States, despite the different approaches taken. Comparison with previous GMM selections for northeastern Europe, however, highlights key differences in short period accelerations resulting from new assumptions regarding the characteristics of the reference rock and its influence on site amplification.

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Petersen ◽  
Allison M. Shumway ◽  
Peter M. Powers ◽  
Charles S. Mueller ◽  
Morgan P. Moschetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Salt Lake ◽  
Sedimentary Basins ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Ground Shaking

During 2017–2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated as follows: (1) an updated seismicity catalog was incorporated, which includes new earthquakes that occurred from 2013 to 2017; (2) in the central and eastern United States (CEUS), new ground motion models were updated that incorporate updated median estimates, modified assessments of the associated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the western United States (WUS), amplified shaking estimates of long-period ground motions at sites overlying deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas were incorporated; and (4) in the conterminous United States, seismic hazard is calculated for 22 periods (from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform VS30 maps (ranging from 1500 to 150 m/s). We also include a description of updated computer codes and modeling details. Results show increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the CEUS (up to ~30%), as well as near the four urban areas overlying deep sedimentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard estimates, more people live or work in areas of high or moderate seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from forecasted future ground shaking.

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Additional period and site class data

2020 ◽  
pp. 875529302097097
Author(s):  
Allison M Shumway ◽  
Mark D Petersen ◽  
Peter M Powers ◽  
Sanaz Rezaeian ◽  
Kenneth S Rukstales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Sedimentary Basins ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Gridded Data ◽  
Velocity Models ◽  
Hazard Curves ◽  
Site Classes

As part of the update of the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States (CONUS), new ground motion and site effect models for the central and eastern United States were incorporated, as well as basin depths from local seismic velocity models in four western US (WUS) urban areas. These additions allow us, for the first time, to calculate probabilistic seismic hazard curves for an expanded set of spectral periods (0.01 to 10 s) and site classes (VS30 = 150 to 1500 m/s) for the CONUS, as well as account for amplification of long-period ground motions in deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas. Two sets of 2018 NSHM hazard data (hazard curves and uniform-hazard ground motions) are available: (1) 0.05°-latitude-by-0.05°-longitude gridded data for the CONUS and (2) higher resolution 0.01°-latitude-by-0.01°-longitude gridded data for the four WUS basins. Both sets of data contain basin effects in the WUS deep sedimentary basins. Uniform-hazard ground motion data are interpolated for 2, 5, and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years from the hazard curves. The gridded data for the hazard curves and uniform-hazard ground motions, for all periods and site classes, are available for download at the U.S. Geological Survey ScienceBase Catalog ( https://doi.org/10.5066/P9RQMREV ). The design ground motions derived from the hazard curves have been accepted by the Building Seismic Safety Council for adoption in the 2020 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Recommended Seismic Provisions.

2017 One‐Year Seismic‐Hazard Forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from Induced and Natural Earthquakes

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 772-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Petersen ◽  
Charles S. Mueller ◽  
Morgan P. Moschetti ◽  
Susan M. Hoover ◽  
Allison M. Shumway ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
One Year ◽  
Natural Earthquakes

THE PERFORMANCE OF THE USGS’S 2017 ONE-YEAR SEISMIC HAZARD FORECAST FOR THE CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward M. Brooks ◽  
◽  
Seth Stein ◽  
Bruce D. Spencer ◽  
Leah Salditch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
One Year

Increases in Life-Safety Risks to Building Occupants from Induced Earthquakes in the Central United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 471-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taojun Liu ◽  
Nicolas Luco ◽  
Abbie B. Liel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Fragility Curves ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Earthquake Ground Motion ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Building Collapse ◽  
Central United States ◽  
One Year

Earthquake occurrence rates in some parts of the Central United States have been elevated for a number of years; this increase has been widely attributed to deep wastewater injection associated with oil and gas activities. This induced seismicity has caused damage to buildings and infrastructure and substantial public concern. In March 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published its first earthquake ground motion hazard model that accounts for the elevated seismicity, producing a one-year forecast encompassing both induced and natural earthquakes. To assess the potential impact of the elevated seismicity on buildings and the public, this paper quantifies forecasted risks of (1) building collapse and (2) the falling of nonstructural building components by combining the 2016 USGS hazard model with fragility curves for generic modern code-compliant buildings. The assessment shows significant increases in both types of risk compared to that caused by noninduced earthquakes alone; the magnitude of the increases varies from a few times to more than 100 times, depending on location, building period (which is correlated to building height), alternatives for the hazard model, and type of risk of interest. For exploratory purposes only, we also estimate revised values of the risk-targeted ground motion that are currently used for designing buildings.

scholarly journals Seismic Hazard in the Nation's Breadbasket

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. S109-S130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Boyd ◽  
Kathleen Haller ◽  
Nico Luco ◽  
Morgan Moschetti ◽  
Charles Mueller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Nearest Neighbor ◽  
Seismic Source ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Source Characterization ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps were updated in 2014 and included several important changes for the central United States (CUS). Background seismicity sources were improved using a new moment-magnitude-based catalog; a new adaptive, nearest-neighbor smoothing kernel was implemented; and maximum magnitudes for background sources were updated. Areal source zones developed by the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities project were simplified and adopted. The weighting scheme for ground motion models was updated, giving more weight to models with a faster attenuation with distance compared to the previous maps. Overall, hazard changes (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, across a range of ground-motion frequencies) were smaller than 10% in most of the CUS relative to the 2008 USGS maps despite new ground motion models and their assigned logic tree weights that reduced the probabilistic ground motions by 5–20%.

Assessments of the Performance of the 2017 One‐Year Seismic‐Hazard Forecast for the Central and Eastern United States via Simulated Earthquake Shaking Data

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 1155-1167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward M. Brooks ◽  
James Neely ◽  
Seth Stein ◽  
Bruce D. Spencer ◽  
Leah Salditch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
One Year

scholarly journals 2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Petersen ◽  
Charles S. Mueller ◽  
Morgan P. Moschetti ◽  
Susan M. Hoover ◽  
Andrea L. Llenos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
One Year ◽  
Natural Earthquakes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document