Geology topics

Brandon S. Clayton

Publications and source records attributed to Brandon S. Clayton.

8 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↗

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↗

USGS2021

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Where, why, and how much probabilistic ground motion maps changed

The 2018 US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) incorporates new data and updated science to improve the underlying earthquake and ground motion forecasts for the conterminous United States. The NSHM considers many new data and component input models: (1) new earthquakes between 2013 and 2017 and updated earthquake magnitudes for some earlier earthquakes; (2) two updated smoothed seismicity models to forecast earthquake rates; (3) two suites of new central and eastern US (CEUS) ground motion models (GMMs) to translate ground shaking for various earthquake sizes and source-to-site distances considered in the model; (4) two CEUS GMMs for aleatory variability; (5) two CEUS site-effect models that modify ground shaking based on alternative shallow site conditions; (6) more advanced western US (WUS) lithologic and structural information to assess basin site effects for selected urban regions; and (7) a more comprehensive range of outputs (22 periods and 8 site classes) than in previous versions of the NSHMs. Each of these new datasets and models produces changes in the probabilistic ground shaking levels that are spatially and statistically analyzed. Recent earthquakes or changes to some older earthquake magnitudes and locations mostly result in probabilistic ground shaking levels that are similar to previous models, but local changes can reach up to +80% and −60% compared to the 2014 model. Newly developed CEUS models for GMMs, aleatory variability, and site effects cause overall changes up to ±64%. The addition of the WUS basin amplifications causes changes of up to +60% at longer periods for sites overlying deep soft soils. Across the conterminous United States, the hazard changes in the model are mainly caused by new GMMs in the CEUS, by sedimentary basin effects for long periods (≥1 s) in the WUS, and by seismicity changes for short (0.2 s) and long (1 s) periods for both areas.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2020

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

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 (V S30 = 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.

California, Utah, Washington↗

USGS2020

2018 and 2023 U. S. National Seismic Hazard Models

During 2017-2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated by incorporating (1) new median ground motion models, new estimates of their epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors for the central and eastern U.S., (2) amplification of long-period ground motions in deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas, (3) an updated seismicity catalog, which includes new earthquakes that occurred between 2012 and 2017, and (4) improved computer code and implementation details. Results show significantly increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the central and eastern U.S., and increased ground shaking in the four urban areas (listed above) that overlie deep sedimentary basins in the western U.S. During 2019-2023, the NSHM will consider additional updates for the 2023 NSHM including: 3D simulations in urban areas of Los Angeles and Seattle, additional soil amplification models for other urban areas (e.g., eastern and southern coastal plains of the U.S., Reno, and Las Vegas), non-ergodic ground motion models that reconsider epistemic and aleatory uncertainty, topographic amplification, and new geological and geodetic models for faults. These maps will be considered by the Building Seismic Safety Council, American Society of Civil Engineers, and International Building Code committees for inclusion in upcoming building codes. Due to population growth, more people live and work in areas of moderate or high seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from future ground shaking.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2019

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

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 V S30 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.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2019

Estimation of ground motion variability in the CEUS using simulations

We estimate earthquake ground-motion variability in the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS) by varying the model parameters of a deterministic physics-based and a stochastic site-based simulation method. Utilizing a moderate-magnitude database of recordings, we simulate ground motions for larger-magnitude scenarios M6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0. For the physics-based method, we vary the faulting mechanism, slip, stress drop, rupture velocity, source depth, and 1D velocity structure. For the stochastic method, we simulate realizations using a set of six model parameters, each of which has a pre-assigned probability distribution. The median spectral accelerations over all synthetic realizations are compared with the NGA-East models. The synthetic standard deviation for deterministic simulations ranges from approximately 0.4 to 0.85 for various magnitudes and distances, whereas that for stochastic simulations is between 0.48 and 1.04. Based on the simulation results and comparisons with NGA-East variability models, a range for ground motion variability in the CEUS is discussed.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2017

Finite‐fault Bayesian inversion of teleseismic body waves

Inverting geophysical data has provided fundamental information about the behavior of earthquake rupture. However, inferring kinematic source model parameters for finite‐fault ruptures is an intrinsically underdetermined problem (the problem of nonuniqueness), because we are restricted to finite noisy observations. Although many studies use least‐squares techniques to make the finite‐fault problem tractable, these methods generally lack the ability to apply non‐Gaussian error analysis and the imposition of nonlinear constraints. However, the Bayesian approach can be employed to find a Gaussian or non‐Gaussian distribution of all probable model parameters, while utilizing nonlinear constraints. We present case studies to quantify the resolving power and associated uncertainties using only teleseismic body waves in a Bayesian framework to infer the slip history for a synthetic case and two earthquakes: the 2011 M w 7.1 Van, east Turkey, earthquake and the 2010 M w 7.2 El Mayor–Cucapah, Baja California, earthquake. In implementing the Bayesian method, we further present two distinct solutions to investigate the uncertainties by performing the inversion with and without velocity structure perturbations. We find that the posterior ensemble becomes broader when including velocity structure variability and introduces a spatial smearing of slip. Using the Bayesian framework solely on teleseismic body waves, we find rake is poorly constrained by the observations and rise time is poorly resolved when slip amplitude is low.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗