Assessing Earthquake Hazard Map Performance for Natural and Induced Seismicity in the Central and Eastern United States

Brooks, Edward Μ.; Stein, Seth; Spencer, Bruce D.; Salditch, Leah; Petersen, Mark D.; McNamara, Daniel E.

doi:10.1785/0220170124

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In California, area-based results showed the hazard model substantially exceeding historical intensities (Salditch et al, 2020). However, area-based results showed good agreement with modern intensities when applied to the short-term forecasts in Oklahoma/Kansas, similar to the point-based assessments in that region (Brooks et al, 2018, 2019). Area-based methods applied to the 2023 NSHM (beta version which is very similar to the final model) using modern intensity products show overall satisfactory agreement, indicating good performance of the model (Figure 19).…”

Section: Uniform-hazard Response Spectrasupporting

confidence: 61%

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

Petersen,

Shumway,

Powers

et al. 2023

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increases and decreases compared to previous NSHMs) are substantial because the new model considers more data and updated earthquake rupture forecasts and ground-motion components. In developing the 2023 model, we tried to apply best available or applicable science based on advice of co-authors, more than 50 reviewers, and hundreds of hazard scientists and end-users, who attended public workshops and provided technical inputs. The hazard assessment incorporates new catalogs, declustering algorithms, gridded seismicity models, magnitude-scaling equations, fault-based structural and deformation models, multi-fault earthquake rupture forecast models, semi-empirical and simulation-based ground-motion models, and site amplification models conditioned on shear-wave velocities of the upper 30 m of soil and deeper sedimentary basin structures. Seismic hazard calculations yield hazard curves at hundreds of thousands of sites, ground-motion maps, uniform-hazard response spectra, and disaggregations developed for pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 oscillator periods and two peak parameters, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and 8 site classes required by building codes and other public policy applications. Tests show the new model is consistent with past ShakeMap intensity observations. Sensitivity and uncertainty assessments ensure resulting ground motions are compatible with known hazard information and highlight the range and causes of variability in ground motions. We produce several impact products including building seismic design criteria, intensity maps, planning scenarios, and engineering risk assessments showing the potential physical and social impacts. These applications provide a basis for assessing, planning, and mitigating the effects of future earthquakes.

show abstract

Section: Uniform-hazard Response Spectrasupporting

confidence: 61%

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

Petersen,

Shumway,

Powers

et al. 2023

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Owing to the length of the time window considered (50 years), seismologists cannot usually validate models using independent data, even though some efforts in this direction are ongoing, with some limitations, and usually using earthquakes from small to moderate magnitudes [e.g. Mak et al, 2014;Brooks et al, 2017;Mousavi and Beroza, 2018]. Most of the time, as for MPS19, only past data, which have been used more or less directly to build the hazard model, can be considered for testing [e.g.…”

Section: The Probabilistic Framework and The Testing Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

The new Italian seismic hazard model (MPS19)

Meletti¹,

Marzocchi²,

Lanzano³

et al. 2021

Annals of Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the main structure and outcomes of the new probabilistic seismic hazard model for Italy, MPS19 [Modello di Pericolosità Sismica, 2019]. Besides to outline the probabilistic framework adopted, the multitude of new data that have been made available after the preparation of the previous MPS04, and the set of earthquake rate and ground motion models used, we give particular emphasis to the main novelties of the modeling and the MPS19 outcomes. Specifically, we (i) introduce a novel approach to estimate and to visualize the epistemic uncertainty over the whole country; (ii) assign weights to each model components (earthquake rate and ground motion models) according to a quantitative testing phase and structured experts’ elicitation sessions; (iii) test (retrospectively) the MPS19 outcomes with the horizontal peak ground acceleration observed in the last decades, and the macroseismic intensities of the last centuries; (iv) introduce a pioneering approach to build MPS19_cluster, which accounts for the effect of earthquakes that have been removed by declustering. Finally, to make the interpretation of MPS19 outcomes easier for a wide range of possible stakeholders, we represent the final result also in terms of probability to exceed 0.15 g in 50 years.

show abstract

“…Hence, typically few of the largest earthquakes that control hazard for a given area have occurred since the map was made. Retrospective assessment, or hindcasting, using compilations of historical shaking data spanning hundreds of years, provides one approach to address this problem (Stirling and Petersen, 2006;Stirling and Gerstenberger, 2010;Mak et al, 2014;Nekrasova et al, 2014;Stein et al, 2015;Brooks et al, 2016Brooks et al, , 2017Brooks et al, , 2018Mak and Schorlemmer, 2016).…”

Section: Comparison With Historical Intensity Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

A study on the effect of site response on California seismic hazard map assessment

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior studies have repeatedly shown that probabilistic seismic hazard maps from several different countries predict higher shaking than that observed. Previous map assessments have not, however, considered the influence of site response on hazard. Seismologists have long acknowledged the influence of near-surface geology, in particular low-impedance sediment layers, on earthquake ground-motion at frequencies of engineering concern. Although the overall effects of site response are complex, modern ground-motion models (GMMs) account for site effects using terms based on VS30, the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m of the Earth’s surface. In this study, we consider general implications of incorporating site terms from modern GMMs using site-specific VS30 as a proxy in probabilistic seismic hazard maps for California. At the long periods (1–5 s) that affect tall buildings, site terms amplify the mapped hazard by factors of 1–3 at many sites relative to maps calculated for the standard reference soft-rock site condition, VS30 = 760 m/s. However, at the short periods of ground-motion that are the main contributors to peak ground acceleration (PGA) and thus affect smaller structures, only negligible effects occur due to nonlinear deamplification of strong ground-motion at high frequencies. Nonlinear deamplification increases as the shaking level increases. For very strong shaking, deamplification can overcome the linear amplification, yielding net deamplification. We explore the implications of these results for the evaluation of hazard maps. Because site effects do not change the maps appreciably at short periods, we can exclude site response as an explanation for why the maps overpredict historically observed shaking as captured by the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) dataset. The results are expected to be generalizable to regions that are comparable to California in terms of structure and seismicity rates. In low-to-moderate-seismicity regions where the hazard reflects weaker shaking, nonlinear site response is expected to be less important for the hazard.

show abstract

Assessing Earthquake Hazard Map Performance for Natural and Induced Seismicity in the Central and Eastern United States

Cited by 18 publications

References 30 publications

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

The new Italian seismic hazard model (MPS19)

A study on the effect of site response on California seismic hazard map assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About