Geology topics

Kishor S. Jaiswal

Publications and source records attributed to Kishor S. Jaiswal.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Accounting for biases in the analysis of building damage data for the 2023 M7.8 Türkiye/Syria earthquake sequence

In the aftermath of a large earthquake, several practical constraints affect the systematic collection of data for assessing building damage. The available data are therefore typically incomplete, frequently missing key information such as the type of construction, age and geographic location. Moreover, the observations often favour certain locations and damage grades. In the absence of robust methods, using such data directly for characterising the building stock or conducting fragility assessments can introduce systematic bias. Using the 2023 M7.8 Türkiye/Syria earthquake sequence as a case study, we propose a statistical model that enables joint inference over the inventory and fragility of the building stock while explicitly accounting for sources of data error and missing information. The results show higher-than-expected vulnerability amongst several building types, particularly mid- and high-rise reinforced concrete buildings, which performed extremely poorly during the 2023 earthquake sequence. The proposed Bayesian framework provides rigorous uncertainty quantification that can be propagated to future applications.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2026

Evaluating the U.S. Geological Survey’s earthquake shaking hazard forecasts and their implications on seismic risk

We analyze the last six update cycles of the long-term probabilistic earthquake shaking hazard forecast from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and discuss the changes in hazard estimates from the 1996 to the latest 2023 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous U.S. We summarize how our understanding of earthquake hazards has evolved over the last two decades and quantify the implications of changing hazards on people, buildings, and lifeline infrastructure. The net effect of changes in hazard estimates, with reference to the mean hazard from the 2023 NSHM update that has 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, suggests an overall increase in total geographic areas facing very strong shaking levels (modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of VII or more) when compared with any of the previous cycles. This increase puts ~159.2 million people (an increase from 111.8 million when using the 2018 NSHM), ~47.3 million residential buildings (an increase from 32.5 million with the 2018 NSHM), and ~$25.6 trillion of economic exposure of all buildings (an increase from $17.4 trillion when using the 2018 NSHM) at risk from earthquakes. We demonstrate that small changes in hazard estimates do not necessarily imply small changes in risk estimates. Therefore, changes in risk estimates can be used to highlight key USGS NSHM updates for improving risk mitigation efforts.

Earthquake Spectra Journal↗

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

Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Seismic Hazard Model to improve seismic risk assessment of critical infrastructure.

As fragility and risk modeling techniques and computational capabilities evolve, complemented by moving toward more routine and systematic seismic risk assessment of all buildings and critical infrastructure, the authors pose a few critical questions to investigate how the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) can be used and enhanced further to serve such issues. In this paper, we use three examples from multiple sectors to (1) identify the role of USGS NSHMs in evaluating seismic risks to critical infrastructure, (2) quantify potential impacts from NSHM enhancements (i.e., [i] hazard curves for the vertical component of ground motion, [ii] stochastic event sets, and [iii] maps of probabilistic ground failure hazards), and (3) clarify the feasibility of relevant NSHM improvements. We illuminate that NSHMs are commonly used in location-specific performance assessments, whereas earthquake effects on critical infrastructure can be widespread across large geospatial regions. Further, we found that without the NSHM extensions considered here, risk can be severely underestimated, e.g., neglecting ground failure hazards can underestimate regional loss by a factor of two or more. Although many challenges remain, we developed example prototypes to clarify the feasibility of the NSHM extensions, which can facilitate improved management of risks to critical infrastructure.

Earthquake Spectra Journal↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

Updating regional‐scale geospatial liquefaction models with locally available geotechnical data

We present a method to update the geospatial liquefaction model used by the U.S. Geological Survey’s near‐real‐time ground failure product with subsurface geotechnical data. The geospatial model estimates liquefaction probability from peak ground velocity (via ShakeMap) and geospatial susceptibility proxies. In many regions, additional information relevant to constraining liquefaction likelihood is also available, including surface geology maps and subsurface geotechnical measurements. There is currently no mechanism to use these data in the ground failure product liquefaction model, even though these data could provide more precise constraints on spatial variations in the lithologic character of the soil (surface geology) and direct measurements of the subsurface mechanical properties that affect liquefaction occurrence and severity (geotechnical measurements). In this study, we develop a method to integrate these data with the geospatial model and assess how these data can improve regional‐scale predictions. We develop a Bayesian updating framework and apply it to the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake, for which mapped observations are available to evaluate performance. We constrain the Bayesian framework with 373 Northern California cone penetration tests and liquefaction susceptibility classes based on the mapped surface geology. This Bayesian model incorporates geotechnical information into the geospatial model and more accurately predicts liquefaction occurrences than the geospatial model, while sacrificing less accuracy in terms of predicting the absence of liquefaction than the geotechnical model. In future applications, this approach could be adapted to update other geospatial models using locally available subsurface data.

California↗

USGS2025

Engineering and risk research—A strategic vision for extending USGS earthquake science to risk assessment and mitigation

As a part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area, the Engineering and Risk Project (ERP) of the Geologic Hazards Science Center conducts civil engineering research to extend natural hazards science to risk assessments. The ERP includes predominantly, but not exclusively, staff funded by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. A major focus of the ERP is to deliver actionable information to decisionmakers that helps promote the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The report discusses briefly the ERP’s evolution and scope, its organization structure, describes key products and deliverables, their efforts to engage with external partners, and its strategy and vision in conducting range of engineering and risk research. The research topics outlined in this report, as developed by the ERP, may be used to facilitate project planning activities during the next 10 years and serve as a longer-term planning resource for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and Geologic Hazards Science Center.

Circular↗

USGS2025

Assessing earthquake risks to lifeline infrastructure systems in the United States

The security and economic stability of the United States rely heavily on robust lifeline infrastructure systems and yet the risks to such systems are seldom quantified at the national scale. For example, while earthquake risks to buildings in the United States have been investigated at the national scale regularly, such risks to gas pipelines have rarely been investigated nationally. In this paper, we use examples from two critical infrastructure sectors to demonstrate (1) the nature of earthquake risks to lifeline infrastructure systems, (2) complexities involved in regional seismic risk assessments, and (3) how such risks change with time. We found that bridge risks can be underestimated by at least 64 % when viewed from repair costs instead of traffic demands and that regional risks can be underestimated by 19 % when spatial correlations of ground motion are ignored. Further, exceedance of traffic demand can be 50 times more likely to occur when viewed at the regional scale than when viewed at an individual bridge. Similarly, exceedance of repairs can be 180 times more likely to occur when viewed at the pipeline network level than at a segment-specific level. Finally, sensitivity analyses with the 2018 and 2023 USGS National Seismic Hazard Models indicate an increase in bridge risk of at least 24 % and an increase in exposed gas pipeline mileage of 43 %. The evolution of risks, complexities involved in assessments, and limited resources jointly underscore the need for more routine updates to nationwide seismic risk assessments of lifeline systems in the United States.

International Journal of Critical Infrastructure P↗

USGS2024

Evaluating the impact of uncertainty in ground motion forecasts for post-earthquake impact modeling applications

The US Geological Survey’s (USGS) ShakeMap system provides a rapid characterization of strong ground shaking in areas directly affected by an earthquake. This study focuses on studying the aggregate effects of macroseismic shaking estimates from ShakeMap, expressed in terms of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI), when accounting for the uncertainty in forecasted ground motions. We use a Monte Carlo approach to generate numerous spatially correlated realizations of ground motions by utilizing a combination of circulant embedding and kriging techniques for efficiently handling the correlations. We then assessed the aggregate effects of shaking by looking at bin counts across these realizations. We demonstrate that the aggregate shaking regarding the mean macroseismic intensity estimates (from the ShakeMap output) is a biased representation of the aggregate shaking when shaking uncertainty is included. Incorporating shaking uncertainty can help to improve various downstream earthquake impact applications, such as the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) overall earthquake fatality distribution or estimates of shaking-induced ground failure impacts from consequential earthquakes.

Earthquake Spectra Journal↗

USGS2024

Quantitative risk of earthquake disruption to global copper and rhenium supply

Earthquakes have the potential to substantially affect mining operations, potentially leading to supply chain disruptions and adversely affecting the global economy. This study explores the quantification of earthquake risk to copper and rhenium commodity supply by examining the spatial concentration of high earthquake hazard areas and the commodity-specific mining, smelting, and refining operations across the globe. Because many of the largest facilities are concentrated geographically near the highly seismic regions of South America, East Asia, and the Pacific, there is a potential for cascading effects on the entire supply chain. The analysis indicates that the expected annual disruption of global production is 0.3–1.1 percent for copper mines, 1.8–4.0 percent for smelters, and 1.5–3.3 percent for refineries. Expected annual disruption of global rhenium production capacity is 0.32–1.32 percent. The research highlights that the potential lost revenue from earthquake disruptions is from $315 million to $1.29 billion for copper mining, $1.92 billion to $4.33 billion for copper smelting, $2.06 billion to $4.52 billion for copper refining, and $337,000 to $1.40 million for rhenium production capacity.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2024

Near-real-time earthquake-induced fatality estimation using crowdsourced data and few-shot large-language models

When a damaging earthquake occurs, immediate information about casualties (e.g., fatalities and injuries) is critical for time-sensitive decision-making by emergency response and aid agencies in the first hours and days. Systems such as the Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were developed to provide a forecast of such impacts within about 30 min of any significant earthquake globally. However, existing disaster-induced human loss estimation systems often rely on early casualty reports manually retrieved from global traditional media, which are labor-intensive, time-consuming, and have significant time latencies. Recent approaches use keyword matching and topic modeling to identify human casualty-relevant information from social media but tend to be error-prone when dealing with complex semantics in multi-lingual text data and parsing dynamically changing and conflicting human death and injury numbers shared by various unvetted sources in social media platforms. In this work, we introduce an end-to-end framework to significantly improve the timeliness and accuracy of global earthquake-induced human loss forecasting using multi-lingual, crowdsourced social media. Our framework integrates (i) a hierarchical casualty extraction model built upon large language models, prompt design, and few-shot learning to retrieve quantitative human loss claims from social media, (ii) a physical constraint-aware, dynamic-truth discovery model that discovers the truthful human loss from massive noisy and potentially conflicting human loss claims, and (iii) a Bayesian updating loss projection model that dynamically updates the final loss estimation using discovered truths. We test the framework in real-time on a series of global earthquake events in 2021 and 2022 and show that our framework effectively automates the retrieval of casualty information faster but with comparable accuracy to those now retrieved manually by the USGS. The code associated with this work is made available at: https://github.com/SusuXu-s-Lab/Hierarchical-Earthquake-Casualty-Information-Retrieval

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction↗

USGS2024

Earthquake scenario development in conjunction with the 2023 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model

We present earthquake scenarios developed to accompany the release of the 2023 update to the US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM). Scenarios can serve a range of local and regional needs, from developing proactive-targeted mitigation strategies for minimizing impending risk to aiding emergency management planning. These deterministic scenarios can also be used to communicate seismic hazard and risk to audiences who are not well versed in methods, such as probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. Specifically, we discuss the scenarios developed, challenges, and lessons learned in the development process, and how this work aided the development of the 2023 NSHM itself. In total, 28 scenarios were developed for Hawaii, Utah, Alaska, and Virginia considering the 2023 NSHM science, past scenario efforts, and input from local experts and stakeholders. Finally, we investigate how NSHM modeling decisions can change estimated impacts to Utah and Hawaii in more detail showing, for example, that a shallower dip of the Wasatch fault under Salt Lake City can increase predicted ground-motion intensities and therefore estimated losses and deaths.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

Development of USGS NSHMs: Do small changes in hazard imply small changes in risk?

One of the flagship products from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM). Since 1976, the NSHM has been periodically updated to reflect newly published earthquake science and provide probabilistic estimates of seismic hazard for the United States. During each update cycle, alternative models are deliberated, analyzed, and documented through logic trees and their corresponding logic tree branch weights. For example, the decision to modify a logic tree branch weight may be influenced by sensitivity analyses of the logic tree branches in their effects on the mean hazard. However, do small changes in traditional measures of hazard imply small changes in risk? In this study, we make use of two update cycles of the USGS NSHMs and a National Bridge Inventory (NBI) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to explore the preceding question. Specifically, we first identify geographic locations in the conterminous United States in which the change in hazard from one cycle to another is relatively small. Next, we model the seismic risk to highway bridges for these locations and for each update cycle, while simultaneously distinguishing low hazard environments from high hazard environments. These data enable quantitative analysis of how much changes in risk can be expected given small changes in hazard, investigating the importance of risk models in decision-making during development of the USGS NSHMs.

Conference Paper↗

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

ShakeMap Atlas 4.0 and AtlasCat: An archive of the recent and the historical earthquake ShakeMaps, and impacts for global hazard analyses and loss model calibration

Archival earthquake studies often focus on event and source characteristics for use in earthquake catalogs, seismotectonic understanding, and ground‐motion studies—many of these targeting better constraints for probabilistic seismic‐hazard analyses. The ShakeMap Atlas, in contrast, focuses on spatial distribution of shaking for the historical events, providing the best constraints at all locations that experienced significant shaking for each event, facilitating analyses of human experience, damage, and induced hazards (ground failure). The aim of the Atlas is to gain a general understanding and depiction of the shaking distribution for a suite of canonical earthquakes, and, coupled with loss data for each event, to provide a basis for earthquake loss model calibration, among other uses. Although the initial motivation for developing the ShakeMap Atlas was calibrating the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response system, over time, the Atlas has proved to be a useful tool for its users, and, as such, its scope has been vastly expanded in this newest version. The fourth version of the USGS ShakeMap Atlas is an openly available compilation of over 14,000 ShakeMaps of significant global earthquakes between 1900 and 2020. This revision includes: (1) the latest version of the ShakeMap software that provides refined uncertainty estimations and improved methods to combine macroseismic observations with updated ground‐motion models; (2) an updated earthquake source catalog; (3) a refined strategy to select suites of prediction and conversion equations based on a new seismotectonic regionalization scheme; and (4) expanded macroseismic intensity and ground‐motion datasets. We also tabulate reported economic losses and fatalities for Atlas events where such data are openly available. These changes make the new ShakeMap Atlas a self‐consistent, calibrated catalog invaluable for investigating near‐source ground motions, as well as seismic hazard, scenario, risk, and loss‐model development and testing.

California↗

USGS2023

A methodology to combine shaking and ground failure models for forecasting seismic damage to buried pipeline networks

How does an earthquake affect buried pipeline networks? It is well known that the seismic performance of buried pipelines depends on ground failures (GFs) as well as strong ground shaking (SGS), but it is unclear how the various types of earthquake hazards should be collectively combined, as existing methodologies tend to examine each of the earthquake hazards separately. In this article, we develop a probability‐based methodology to consistently combine SGS with three types of GF (surface faulting, liquefaction, and landslide) for forecasting seismic damage in buried pipeline networks from a given earthquake rupture scenario. Using a gas transmission pipeline example, we illustrate how the proposed methodology enables others (e.g., researchers, pipeline operators who manage distribution lines, and consultants) to modularly combine various models such as those for estimating probability of GF, permanent ground displacements, and pipeline fragility. Finally, we compare the proposed methodology against the Hazus methodology to explore implications from considering each hazard one at a time.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2023

Earthquake scenarios for Quito, Ecuador; Cali, Colombia; and Santiago De Los Caballeros, Dominican Republic

Earthquake risk associated with Quito, Ecuador; Cali, Colombia; and Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic is examined by generating a set of hypothetical earthquake scenarios considering seismic sources, recent seismicity, and major historical earthquakes recorded in the vicinity. In this study, particular focus is given to the development of earthquake scenarios for use in emergency planning in each city as well as stimulating discussion with respect to addressing the gaps in current understanding of built stock inventory and their vulnerability when subjected to strong shaking. Exposure and vulnerability models from the Global Earthquake Model foundation, hazard and local site information available for the cities, and the U.S. Geological Survey near‐real‐time products are utilized to estimate potential consequences for postearthquake response planning. Results showed that the historic city centers remain the most susceptible to experiencing severe damage resulting in widespread casualties. Similarly, the scenarios highlight areas susceptible to shaking induced ground failure hazards, which may pose additional challenges when responding to such earthquakes. Moderate earthquakes originating from nearby seismic sources, for example, Quito fault system for Quito or the Septentrional fault zone in the case of Santiago de Los Caballeros, could potentially be of greater consequence in terms of direct economic impact and disruption to the city when compared to very large distant subduction interface earthquakes.

Cali, Santiago De Los Caballeros, Quito↗