Geology topics

Andrea L. Llenos

Publications and source records attributed to Andrea L. Llenos.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

2025 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: Overview of model and hazard results

The U.S. Geological Survey recently updated the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). The first version of the PRVI NSHM was released in 2003, and therefore this 2025 update includes over 20 years of new geologic, geophysical, and engineering data, methods, and models. Updates follow similar efforts performed in the recent 2023 50-state NSHM. However, this is the first NSHM in which we: (1) apply an inversion methodology to subduction interface fault sources in the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) model; (2) develop scaled backbone median ground-motion models and independent aleatory variability models that are applied in the ground-motion characterization (GMC) model; and (3) calculate epistemic uncertainty related to alternative scenarios in the ERF and GMC models for all grid points in the study region. Long-term time-independent mean hazard calculations were performed for peak ground acceleration and 5%-damped pseudospectral acceleration at 21 spectral periods from 0.01- to 10.0-s, for eight National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program site conditions ranging from V S30 = 150 to 1500 m/s, and for 2%, 5%, and 10% in 50-year probabilities of exceedance (return periods of 2475, 975, and 475 years, respectively). Epistemic uncertainty, in the form of selected percentiles, is also provided for a suite of test sites and all grid points in the study region for limited periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. Selected results, including comparisons with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, are shown and discussed for selected periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. When comparing the 2025 PRVI NSHM with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, hazard is generally higher at shorter periods and lower at longer periods, as a result of updates in both ERF and GMC models. The 2025 PRVI NSHM is applicable for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2026

The U.S. Geological Survey 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands time-independent earthquake rupture forecast

We present the 2025 U.S. Geological Survey Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI) time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast (ERF), developed for the 2025 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for PRVI. The updated ERF improves upon a prior model from 2003, including an expanded fault inventory with slip‐rate estimates, updated seismicity catalogs, and refined subduction zone geometries and deformation models. It applies the fault‐system inversion methodology to solve for rates of ruptures on modeled faults, adapted from the 2023 NSHM (NSHM23) for the western United States, including the first application of the inversion to model rates on a U.S. subduction interface. Off‐fault and intraslab seismicity are constrained by observed seismicity and use updated methods developed for NSHM23. Uncertainties in model components are substantial, and the ERF represents epistemic uncertainties through a comprehensive logic tree consisting of 1.7 billion logic‐tree branches combined across all sources.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2026

Magnitude conversion relations create substantial differences in seismic hazard models

Earthquake catalogs are essential data inputs for seismic hazard modeling. Because earthquake magnitudes are reported in a variety of types (e.g., local magnitudes and moment magnitudes), magnitude conversion relationships must be used to convert the different magnitude types present in a catalog to a uniform magnitude type to avoid biases in the hazard computation. However, these conversion relationships are often uncertain and have been shown to sometimes perform poorly. Here, we investigate the sensitivity of the gridded seismicity component of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) to the catalog conversion equations in the Eastern United States. In the 2023 NSHM, magnitudes of various types were converted to moment magnitudes using equations developed by the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS‐SSCn), based on least‐squares (LS) regressions made using data from a catalog containing events up through 2008. We recompute these equations using events in the Advanced National Seismic System Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog with multiple magnitudes from 2000 to 2023. Although we prefer the use of orthogonal regressions for our datasets, LS regressions produce broadly similar results, with both approaches exhibiting large deviations from the CEUS‐SSCn conversions, especially at smaller magnitudes. We compare the spatial distribution of annual rates using three different models: (1) the 2023 NSHM conversions, (2) our updated conversions, and (3) no conversions. We find that the choice of conversions leads to substantial differences in the rate forecasts, which can greatly impact the seismic hazard model, particularly in regions with low‐seismicity rates such as the Eastern United States, where the hazard is dominated by gridded seismicity rather than a fault model.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2025

Capturing the uncertainty of seismicity observations in earthquake rate estimates: Implications for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model

The rate of earthquakes in a region is a fundamental input to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. We present a Monte Carlo method for computing that rate from seismicity catalogs while including a range of data and analysis uncertainties. This method is applied to regions for which the b value is assumed to be spatially invariant. Each region is broken down into epochs for which each epoch is estimated to have a uniform magnitude of completeness ( ⁠⁠ M c ). The distribution of earthquake rates for M ≥ M c is determined for each epoch by considering the Poisson likelihood of rates given the number of observed earthquakes with M ≥ M c ⁠ . We use a Monte Carlo process to include the uncertainty in b , ⁠ M c , and individual event magnitudes. The result for each epoch is the joint distribution of the Poisson rate of earthquakes with magnitudes larger than the minimum value used to calculate hazard ( ⁠⁠ M 1 ) and the Gutenberg–Richter b values, which control the extrapolation to other magnitudes. The rate for each region is either the duration‐weighted average over the epochs or, to better capture temporal variations, we also consider mixture models. The mixture models also provide an avenue to allow temporal variations in b values. To implement this joint distribution in a logic tree, we use the mean and 95% confidence branches, each of which is parameterized with an M ≥ M 1 rate and b value. We explore different ways of defining those branches, as well as non‐Gutenberg–Richter branches, and their impact on hazard estimates. The mean hazard, but not the fractiles, is robust with respect to these choices. To illustrate these new methods, we use synthetic data and catalogs from recent U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models for the Central and Eastern United States and for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

central and eastern United States, Puerto Rico, U.↗

USGS2025

Using gridded seismicity to forecast the long-term spatial distribution of earthquakes for the 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model

Gridded (or background) seismicity models are a critical component of probabilistic seismic hazard assessments, accounting for off‐fault and smaller‐magnitude earthquakes. They are typically developed by declustering and spatially smoothing an earthquake catalog to estimate a long‐term seismicity rate that can be used to forecast future earthquakes. Here, we present new gridded seismicity models for use in the 2025 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). The previous PRVI NSHM was released in 2003, and our new models incorporate updates to both data and methodology. We utilize an updated earthquake catalog based on improved Puerto Rico Seismic Network data with newly characterized completeness epochs. The catalog is divided into crustal, subduction interface, and intraslab seismicity using new methods and Slab2 subduction zone geometries. To forecast the long‐term spatial distribution of earthquakes, we use an updated methodology developed for the 2023 U.S. 50‐state NSHM, considering three declustering methods and two spatial smoothing methods based on 2D Gaussian kernels. To adapt it for the complex seismotectonics of the region, we also adopt probabilistic methods to account for events with unknown depths and uncertainties in tectonic classification, and develop a new method for spatial scaling to counteract the effects of spatial variability in network coverage while maintaining the use of smaller events. Finally, we test the performance of these spatial models in forecasting the location of M w ≥ 5earthquakes in the region. Our updated methodology improves the representation of epistemic uncertainty relative to the 2003 model, and our results demonstrate the effectiveness of the new measures we have introduced to address heterogeneities in network detection and systematically evaluate forecast performance.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

Subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool: Implementation in the USGS 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) periodically releases updates to National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the United States and its territories leveraging current scientific knowledge and methodologies to guide public policy, building codes, and risk assessments regarding potential ground shaking due to earthquakes that may result in infrastructure damage. In subduction zones, there is a need to separate the earthquake catalog into tectonic regimes to create specific seismicity models for which the most appropriate ground‐motion models are then applied. Here, we describe newly developed methods and software, called CatSep, that classifies subduction zone events into three primary tectonic regimes: crustal, interface, and intraslab. This method incorporates information about the location of the earthquake relative to the subducting slab, the depth of the Mohorovičić discontinuity, and the earthquake’s moment tensor. Applying this method is a first step in the NSHM workflow for regions covering U.S. subduction zones. Results using this subduction zone earthquake catalog separation tool for the 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands NSHM earthquake catalog are presented and analyzed.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective

We articulate a scientific vision and roadmap for the development of improved Earthquake Rupture Forecast models, which are one of the two main modeling components used in modern seismic hazard and risk analysis. One primary future objective is to provide fully time-dependent models that include both elastic rebound and spatiotemporal clustering nationwide, which is particularly important for shorter-term hazard and risk considerations (e.g., earthquake insurance products). We also discuss the importance and perennial challenges associated with quantifying epistemic uncertainties, including those associated with deformation-model slip rates, un-quantified sampling errors with respect to off-fault seismicity, and any spatial covariances. The need for more physics-based approaches is also emphasized, as is the benefit of adding model valuation (quantifying usefulness) to our verification and validation protocols. Given the multidisciplinary and system-level nature of this activity, modular design is critical. Future updates will also draw from best-available science by both the United States Geological Survey and the external community. The primary goal of this paper is to highlight plans that guide research and facilitate community engagement with model development, especially with respect to lowering the entry barrier for early career scientists and engineers. The paper is written so readers can focus on the sections that interest them most (see table of contents), with the Introduction and Discussion providing a stand-alone overview and summary.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2024

The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model

US Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used extensively for seismic design regulations in the United States and earthquake scenario development, as well as risk assessment and mitigation for both buildings and infrastructure. This 2023 update of the long-term, time-independent Alaska NSHM includes substantial changes to both the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) and ground motion models (GMMs). The ERF includes numerous additions to the finite-fault model, considers two deformation models, and introduces updated declustering and smoothing algorithms in the gridded background seismicity model. For the Alaska–Aleutian subduction zone, megathrust earthquakes occur on an updated structural and segmentation model, and the moment magnitude (M) 8+ rupture and rate model include a logic tree branch that considers slip rates derived from geodetic models of interface coupling. The megathrust model considers multiple models of down-dip width, and magnitudes are computed using newly developed scaling relations. For subduction intraslab events and subduction interface events with M < 7, the 2023 update uses a smoothed seismicity model with rupture depths derived from Slab2. The 2023 model updates GMMs in all tectonic settings using the recently published Next Generation Attenuation Subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs for subduction interface and intraslab events, and the NGA-West2 GMMs for active crustal settings. Collectively, additions and updates to the Alaska NSHM result in hazard increases across most of south-central Alaska relative to the previous model, published in 2007. These changes are primarily due to the adoption of updated rate models for the large-magnitude interface events and the NGA-Sub GMMs that have much higher aleatory variability (sigma), consistent with global observations, and that include models of epistemic uncertainty.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

Forecasting the long-term spatial distribution of earthquakes for the 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model using gridded seismicity

Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses such as the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) typically rely on declustering and spatially smoothing an earthquake catalog to estimate a long‐term time‐independent (background) seismicity rate to forecast future seismicity. In support of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 2023 update to the NSHM, we update the methods used to develop this background or gridded seismicity model component of the NSHM. As in 2018, we use a combination of fixed and adaptive kernel Gaussian smoothing. However, we implement two additional declustering methods to account for the fact that declustering is a nonunique process. These new declustering methods result in different forecasts for the locations of future seismicity, as represented by spatial probability density functions that are later combined with a rate model to produce a full gridded earthquake rate forecast. The method updates, particularly in the separation of the spatial and rate models as well as revised regional boundaries, in some places cause substantive changes to the seismic hazard forecast compared to the previous 2018 NSHM. Additional updates to catalog processing and induced seismicity zones also contribute to changes in the gridded seismicity hazard since 2018. However, these changes are well understood and reflect improvements in our modeling of gridded seismicity hazard.

Continental United States↗

USGS2024

Aftershock forecasting

Aftershocks can compound the impacts of a major earthquake, disrupting recovery efforts and potentially further damaging weakened buildings and infrastructure. Forecasts of the probability of aftershocks can therefore aid decision-making during earthquake response and recovery. Several countries issue authoritative aftershock forecasts. Most aftershock forecasts are based on simple statistical models that were first developed in the 1980s and remain the best available models. We review these statistical models, and the wide-ranging research to advance aftershock forecasting through better statistical, physical, and machine learning methods. Physics-based forecasts based on mainshock stress changes can sometimes match the statistical models in testing, but don’t yet outperform them. Physical models are also hampered by unsolved problems such as the mechanics of dynamic triggering and the influence of background conditions. Initial work on machine learning forecasts shows promise, and new machine learning earthquake catalogs provide an opportunity to advance all types of aftershock forecasts.

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences↗

USGS2024

The 2023 U.S. 50-state National Seismic Hazard Model: Changes in 2023 compared to 2018 ground motions

We present the 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for all 50 states that applies new smoothed seismicity, fault rupture, and ground motion models. New data and methods are introduced in the 2023 earthquake rupture forecast that include: new earthquake catalogs - excluding induced earthquakes, alternative declustering methods, spatially smoothed seismicity distributions, full-catalog scaled rates to account for aftershocks, updated CEUS-WUS attenuation boundary, new magnitude-scaling equations, new geodetic and geologic deformation models, and alternative fault system solutions accounting for a more complete representation of epistemic uncertainty potential for earthquake generation in Alaska, Hawaii, and the conterminous U.S. Improved ground motion models consider new Next Generation Attenuation NGASubduction, modified NGA-East, and adjustments to account for regional biases in ground shaking observations. Semi-empirical and 3D simulations of ground motion are applied to account for shaking at 21 oscillator periods, 2 peak motions, and 8 site conditions. Site effects models are constructed for western U.S. basins (Seattle, Portland/Tualatin, San Francisco, Central Valley of California, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City) and for sites with deep sedimentary wedges found across the central and eastern U.S. Gulf Coast and Atlantic coastal plain regions. These models result in substantial changes compared to the older NSHMs and are differentiated for the earthquake rupture forecast and ground motion model changes to display sensitivities and impacts.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2023

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

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.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2023

The USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast

We present the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast for the conterminous United States, which gives authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time‐averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes throughout the region. In addition to updating virtually all model components, a major focus has been to provide a better representation of epistemic uncertainties. For example, we have improved the representation of multifault ruptures, both in terms of allowing more and less fault connectivity than in the previous models, and in sweeping over a broader range of viable models. An unprecedented level of diagnostic information has been provided for assessing the model, and the development was overseen by a 19‐member participatory review panel. Although we believe the new model embodies significant improvements and represents the best available science, we also discuss potential model limitations, including the applicability of logic tree branch weights with respect different types of hazard and risk metrics. Future improvements are also discussed, with deformation model enhancements being particularly worthy of pursuit, as well as better representation of sampling errors in the gridded seismicity components. We also plan to add time‐dependent components, and assess implications with a wider range of hazard and risk metrics.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2023

Latency and geofence testing of wireless emergency alerts intended for the ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America

ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast of the United States, attempts to provides crucial warnings before strong shaking occurs. However, because the alerts are triggered only when an earthquake is already in progress, and the alert latencies and delivery times are platform dependent, the time between these warnings and the arrival of shaking is variable. The ShakeAlert system uses, among other public alerting platforms like a mobile phone operating system, smartphone apps, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS). IPAWS sends Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) informing people via their smartphones and other mobile devices about various events, such as natural hazards, child abductions, or public health information about COVID-19. However, little is known about the IPAWS delivery latencies. Given that people may have only a few seconds of notice after they receive an alert to take a protective action before they feel earthquake shaking, quantifying latencies is critical to understanding whether the IPAWS system is useful for EEW. In this study, we developed new methods to test the IPAWS distribution system's performance, both with devices in a controlled environment and as well as with a 2019 community-based feedback form, in Oakland and San Diego County, California, respectively. The controlled environment test used mobile phones (including smart and non-smart phones) and associated devices to determine alert receipt times; the community research form had participants self-report their receipt times. By triangulating the data between the controlled test environment and the community research, we determined the latency statistics as well as whether the geofence (the geographic area where the alert was intended to be sent) held broadly. We found that the latencies were similar between the two tests despite the large differences in population sizes. WEA messages were received within a median time frame of 6–12 s, and the geofence held with only a few exceptions. We use this latency to assess how the system would have performed in two large earthquakes, the 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta and 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes, which both occurred near our WEA test locations. Our analysis revealed that had IPAWS been available during those earthquakes, particularly Loma Prieta, it would have provided crucial seconds of notice that damaging shaking was imminent in some locations relatively far from the epicenter. Further, we find affordable non-smart phones can receive WEAs as fast as smartphones. Finally, our new method can be used for latency and geospatial testing going forward for IPAWS and other similar alerting systems.

California↗

USGS2022

An efficient, analytic solution using order statistics for probabilistic seismic‐hazard assessment without the Poisson assumption

Standard approaches to probabilistic seismic‐hazard assessment (PSHA) assume that earthquakes are random, independent events that follow a Poisson distribution of occurrences in a given time period ( Cornell, 1968 ). To overcome the limitations of the Poisson assumption, such as ignoring earthquake clustering, we introduce an analytic method for PSHA that uses order statistics to allow for arbitrary distributions of earthquake occurrence. Cornell (1968) used the Poisson assumption to achieve a computationally efficient method that enables users to explore the impact of parameters used in earthquake occurrence and ground‐motion models. We apply our order statistics method to the highly clustered seismicity associated with caldera collapses at Kīlauea and explore the general implications of non‐Poisson behavior for PSHA. We find that non‐Poisson behavior has the greatest impact for high probabilities of exceedance, low‐mean rates of occurrence, and multiple exceedances. Those conditions can be important for applications such as operating standards for buildings and infrastructure engineering, standards for temporary structures and during construction, the insurance industry, the design of earthquake early warning, and to assess hazards due to clustered processes such as aftershock sequences and earthquake swarms. The commonly used rate of exceedance hides the difference between the hazard due to a non‐Poisson distribution and a Poisson distribution with the same mean rate of earthquakes. Thus, including non‐Poisson behavior in PSHA means that we must plot and discuss PSHA results as the probability and not the rate of exceedance.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2022

Modeling the occurrence of M ∼ 5 caldera collapse-related earthquakes in Kīlauea volcano, Hawai'i

During the 2018 Kīlauea eruption and caldera collapse, M ∼ 5 caldera collapse earthquakes occurred almost daily from mid-May until the beginning of August. While caldera collapses happen infrequently, the collapse-related seismicity damaged nearby structures, and so these events should be included in a complete seismic hazard assessment. Here, we present an approach to forecast the seismic hazard of the collapse earthquakes. We model their occurrence by combining a Poisson distribution for the number of collapses with a negative binomial for the number of earthquakes in a collapse, based on observations at Kīlauea. This rate model is then combined with a ground motion model to assess the seismic hazard posed by caldera collapse events. The rate model is non-Poisson but a Poisson model is adequate for low exceedance probabilities (e.g., <10% in 50 years). This approach could be generalized to model the hazard from earthquakes triggered by other underlying processes.

Hawaii↗

USGS2021

2021 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for the State of Hawaii

The 2021 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the State of Hawaii updates the two-decades-old former model by incorporating new data and modeling techniques to improve the underlying ground shaking forecasts of tectonic-fault, tectonic-flexure, volcanic, and caldera collapse earthquakes. Two earthquake ground shaking hazard models (public policy and research) are produced that differ in how they account for declustered catalogs. The earthquake source model is based on (1) declustered earthquake catalogs smoothed with adaptive smoothing methods, (2) earthquake rate forecasts based on three temporally varying 60-year time periods, (3) maximum magnitude models that extend to larger earthquakes than previously considered, (4) a separate Kīlauea-specific seismogenic caldera collapse model which accounts for clustered event behavior observed during the 2018 eruption, and (5) fault ruptures that consider historic seismicity, GPS-based strain rates, and a new Quaternary fault database. Two new Hawaii-specific ground motion models (GMMs) and five additional global models consistent with Hawaii shaking data are used to forecast ground shaking at 23 spectral periods and peak parameters. Site effects are modeled using western U.S. and Hawaii specific empirical equations and provide shaking forecasts for eight site classes. For most sites the new model results in similar spectral accelerations as those in the 2001 NSHM, with a few exceptions caused mostly by GMM changes. Ground motions are highest in the southern portion of the Island of Hawai‘i due to high rates of forecasted earthquakes on décollement faults. Shaking decays to the northwest where lower earthquake rates result from flexure of the tectonic plate. Large epistemic uncertainties in source characterizations and GMMs lead to an overall high uncertainty (more than a factor of 3) in ground shaking at Honolulu and Hilo. The new shaking model indicates significant chances of slight or greater damaging ground motions across most of the island chain.

Hawai'i↗

USGS2021

A big problem for small earthquakes: Benchmarking routine magnitudes and conversion relationships with coda-envelope-derived Mw in southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma

Earthquake magnitudes are widely relied upon measures of earthquake size. Although moment magnitude ( ⁠ M w "> M w Mw ⁠ ) has become the established standard for moderate and large earthquakes, difficulty in reliably measuring seismic moments for small (generally M w < 4 "> M w < 4 Mw<4 ⁠ ) earthquakes has meant that magnitudes for these events remain plagued by a patchwork of inconsistent measurement scales. Because of this, magnitudes of small earthquakes and statistics derived from them can be biased. Furthermore, because small earthquakes are much more numerous than large ones, many applications, such as seismic hazard modeling, depend critically on analysis of events characterized by magnitudes other than M w "> M w Mw ⁠ . To assess this problem, we apply coda envelope analysis to reliably determine moment magnitudes for a case study of small earthquakes from northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas. Not surprisingly, we find significant differences among M L "> M L ML ⁠ , m b L g "> m b L g mbLg ⁠ , and M w "> M w Mw for M ∼2–4 earthquakes examined here. More troublingly, we find that relations designed to convert other magnitudes to M w "> M w Mw ⁠ , which are relied upon for important applications such as seismic hazard analysis, often increase rather than decrease this bias for our dataset. In our case study, we find that converted magnitudes can result in a systematic bias sometimes exceeding 0.5 magnitude units, a difference that typically corresponds to a factor of ∼3 in seismicity rate. Moreover, we find a correspondingly large bias in Gutenberg–Richter b ‐values, controlled primarily by inaccurate magnitude scaling in the conversion relationships. Although this study focuses on a relatively small geographic area, we can expect that similar issues exist with varying severity in other regions. Therefore, magnitudes of small earthquakes and their associated statistics, including seismicity rates and b ‐values, should be treated with caution.

Kansas, Oklahoma↗