Geology topics

Morgan P. Moschetti

Publications and source records attributed to Morgan P. Moschetti.

83 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

USGS2015

Ground motion models used in the 2014 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps

The National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHMs) are an important component of seismic design regulations in the United States. This paper compares hazard using the new suite of ground motion models (GMMs) relative to hazard using the suite of GMMs applied in the previous version of the maps. The new source characterization models are used for both cases. A previous paper ( Rezaeian et al. 2014 ) discussed the five NGA-West2 GMMs used for shallow crustal earthquakes in the Western United States (WUS), which are also summarized here. Our focus in this paper is on GMMs for earthquakes in stable continental regions in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), as well as subduction interface and deep intraslab earthquakes. We consider building code hazard levels for peak ground acceleration (PGA), 0.2-s, and 1.0-s spectral accelerations (SAs) on uniform firm-rock site conditions. The GMM modifications in the updated version of the maps created changes in hazard within 5% to 20% in WUS; decreases within 5% to 20% in CEUS; changes within 5% to 15% for subduction interface earthquakes; and changes involving decreases of up to 50% and increases of up to 30% for deep intraslab earthquakes for most U.S. sites. These modifications were combined with changes resulting from modifications in the source characterization models to obtain the new hazard maps.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

The 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model

New seismic hazard maps have been developed for the conterminous United States using the latest data, models, and methods available for assessing earthquake hazard. The hazard models incorporate new information on earthquake rupture behavior observed in recent earthquakes; fault studies that use both geologic and geodetic strain rate data; earthquake catalogs through 2012 that include new assessments of locations and magnitudes; earthquake adaptive smoothing models that more fully account for the spatial clustering of earthquakes; and 22 ground motion models, some of which consider more than double the shaking data applied previously. Alternative input models account for larger earthquakes, more complicated ruptures, and more varied ground shaking estimates than assumed in earlier models. The ground motions, for levels applied in building codes, differ from the previous version by less than ±10% over 60% of the country, but can differ by ±50% in localized areas. The models are incorporated in insurance rates, risk assessments, and as input into the U.S. building code provisions for earthquake ground shaking.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

A long-term earthquake rate model for the central and eastern United States from smoothed seismicity

I present a long-term earthquake rate model for the central and eastern United States from adaptive smoothed seismicity. By employing pseudoprospective likelihood testing (L-test), I examined the effects of fixed and adaptive smoothing methods and the effects of catalog duration and composition on the ability of the models to forecast the spatial distribution of recent earthquakes. To stabilize the adaptive smoothing method for regions of low seismicity, I introduced minor modifications to the way that the adaptive smoothing distances are calculated. Across all smoothed seismicity models, the use of adaptive smoothing and the use of earthquakes from the recent part of the catalog optimizes the likelihood for tests with M ≥2.7 and M ≥4.0 earthquake catalogs. The smoothed seismicity models optimized by likelihood testing with M ≥2.7 catalogs also produce the highest likelihood values for M ≥4.0 likelihood testing, thus substantiating the hypothesis that the locations of moderate-size earthquakes can be forecast by the locations of smaller earthquakes. The likelihood test does not, however, maximize the fraction of earthquakes that are better forecast than a seismicity rate model with uniform rates in all cells. In this regard, fixed smoothing models perform better than adaptive smoothing models. The preferred model of this study is the adaptive smoothed seismicity model, based on its ability to maximize the joint likelihood of predicting the locations of recent small-to-moderate-size earthquakes across eastern North America. The preferred rate model delineates 12 regions where the annual rate of M ≥5 earthquakes exceeds 2×10 −3 . Although these seismic regions have been previously recognized, the preferred forecasts are more spatially concentrated than the rates from fixed smoothed seismicity models, with rate increases of up to a factor of 10 near clusters of high seismic activity.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2015

Incorporating induced seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model: results of the 2014 workshop and sensitivity studies

The U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated in 2014 to account for new methods, input models, and data necessary for assessing the seismic ground shaking hazard from natural (tectonic) earthquakes. The U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model project uses probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to quantify the rate of exceedance for earthquake ground shaking (ground motion). For the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model assessment, the seismic hazard from potentially induced earthquakes was intentionally not considered because we had not determined how to properly treat these earthquakes for the seismic hazard analysis. The phrases “potentially induced” and “induced” are used interchangeably in this report, however it is acknowledged that this classification is based on circumstantial evidence and scientific judgment. For the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model update, the potentially induced earthquakes were removed from the NSHM’s earthquake catalog, and the documentation states that we would consider alternative models for including induced seismicity in a future version of the National Seismic Hazard Model. As part of the process of incorporating induced seismicity into the seismic hazard model, we evaluate the sensitivity of the seismic hazard from induced seismicity to five parts of the hazard model: (1) the earthquake catalog, (2) earthquake rates, (3) earthquake locations, (4) earthquake Mmax (maximum magnitude), and (5) earthquake ground motions. We describe alternative input models for each of the five parts that represent differences in scientific opinions on induced seismicity characteristics. In this report, however, we do not weight these input models to come up with a preferred final model. Instead, we present a sensitivity study showing uniform seismic hazard maps obtained by applying the alternative input models for induced seismicity. The final model will be released after further consideration of the reliability and scientific acceptability of each alternative input model. Forecasting the seismic hazard from induced earthquakes is fundamentally different from forecasting the seismic hazard for natural, tectonic earthquakes. This is because the spatio-temporal patterns of induced earthquakes are reliant on economic forces and public policy decisions regarding extraction and injection of fluids. As such, the rates of induced earthquakes are inherently variable and nonstationary. Therefore, we only make maps based on an annual rate of exceedance rather than the 50-year rates calculated for previous U.S. Geological Survey hazard maps.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States, 2014

The maps presented here provide an update to the 2008 data contained in U.S Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3195 ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/ ).Probabilistic seismic-hazard maps were prepared for the conterminous United States for 2014 portraying peak horizontal acceleration and horizontal spectral response acceleration for 0.2- and 1.0-second periods with probabilities of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years and 2 percent in 50 years. All of the maps were prepared by combining the hazard derived from spatially smoothed historical seismicity with the hazard from fault-specific sources. The acceleration values contoured are the random horizontal component. The reference site condition is firm rock, defined as having an average shear-wave velocity of 760 m/s in the top 30 meters corresponding to the boundary between NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction program) site classes B and C. This data set represents the results of calculations of hazard curves for a grid of points with a spacing of 0.05 degrees in latitude and longitude. The grid of points was contoured to produce the final representation of the seismic hazard. These maps are intended to summarize the available quantitative information about seismic ground motion hazard for the conterminous United States from geologic and geophysical sources.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS2014

Implementation of NGA-West2 ground motion models in the 2014 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps

The U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHMs) have been an important component of seismic design regulations in the United States for the past several decades. These maps present earthquake ground shaking intensities at specified probabilities of being exceeded over a 50-year time period. The previous version of the NSHMs was developed in 2008; during 2012 and 2013, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey have been updating the maps based on their assessment of the “best available science,” resulting in the 2014 NSHMs. The update includes modifications to the seismic source models and the ground motion models (GMMs) for sites across the conterminous United States. This paper focuses on updates in the Western United States (WUS) due to the use of new GMMs for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions developed by the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA-West2) project. Individual GMMs, their weighted combination, and their impact on the hazard maps relative to 2008 are discussed. In general, the combined effects of lower medians and increased standard deviations in the new GMMs have caused only small changes, within 5–20%, in the probabilistic ground motions for most sites across the WUS compared to the 2008 NSHMs.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2014

Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps

The national seismic hazard maps for the conterminous United States have been updated to account for new methods, models, and data that have been obtained since the 2008 maps were released (Petersen and others, 2008). The input models are improved from those implemented in 2008 by using new ground motion models that have incorporated about twice as many earthquake strong ground shaking data and by incorporating many additional scientific studies that indicate broader ranges of earthquake source and ground motion models. These time-independent maps are shown for 2-percent and 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for peak horizontal ground acceleration as well as 5-hertz and 1-hertz spectral accelerations with 5-percent damping on a uniform firm rock site condition (760 meters per second shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m, V S30 ). In this report, the 2014 updated maps are compared with the 2008 version of the maps and indicate changes of plus or minus 20 percent over wide areas, with larger changes locally, caused by the modifications to the seismic source and ground motion inputs.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

Comparison of smoothing methods for the development of a smoothed seismicity model for Alaska and the implications for seismic hazard

In anticipation of the update of the Alaska seismic hazard maps (ASHMs) by the U. S. Geological Survey, we report progress on the comparison of smoothed seismicity models developed using fixed and adaptive smoothing algorithms, and investigate the sensitivity of seismic hazard to the models. While fault-based sources, such as those for great earthquakes in the Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone and for the ~10 shallow crustal faults within Alaska, dominate the seismic hazard estimates for locations near to the sources, smoothed seismicity rates make important contributions to seismic hazard away from fault-based sources and where knowledge of recurrence and magnitude is not sufficient for use in hazard studies. Recent developments in adaptive smoothing methods and statistical tests for evaluating and comparing rate models prompt us to investigate the appropriateness of adaptive smoothing for the ASHMs. We develop smoothed seismicity models for Alaska using fixed and adaptive smoothing methods and compare the resulting models by calculating and evaluating the joint likelihood test. We use the earthquake catalog, and associated completeness levels, developed for the 2007 ASHM to produce fixed-bandwidth-smoothed models with smoothing distances varying from 10 to 100 km and adaptively smoothed models. Adaptive smoothing follows the method of Helmstetter et al. and defines a unique smoothing distance for each earthquake epicenter from the distance to the nth nearest neighbor. The consequence of the adaptive smoothing methods is to reduce smoothing distances, causing locally increased seismicity rates, where seismicity rates are high and to increase smoothing distances where seismicity is sparse. We follow guidance from previous studies to optimize the neighbor number (n-value) by comparing model likelihood values, which estimate the likelihood that the observed earthquake epicenters from the recent catalog are derived from the smoothed rate models. We compare likelihood values from all rate models to rank the smoothing methods. We find that adaptively smoothed seismicity models yield better likelihood values than the fixed smoothing models. Holding all other (source and ground motion) models constant, we calculate seismic hazard curves for all points across Alaska on a 0.1 degree grid, using the adaptively smoothed and fixed smoothed seismicity models separately. Because adaptively smoothed models concentrate seismicity near the earthquake epicenters where seismicity rates are high, the corresponding hazard values are higher, locally, but reduced with distance from observed seismicity, relative to the hazard from fixed-bandwidth models. We suggest that adaptively smoothed seismicity models be considered for implementation in the update to the ASHMs because of their improved likelihood estimates relative to fixed smoothing methods; however, concomitant increases in seismic hazard will cause significant changes in regions of high seismicity, such as near the subduction zone, northeast of Kotzebue, and along the NNE trending zone of seismicity in the Alaskan interior.

Alaska↗

USGS2014

2014 update of the U.S. national seismic hazard maps

We held 8 regional and topical workshops across the U.S. to gather information for these maps. The maps were available to the public for comment during a 60-day period. A Steering Committee (9 experts) was assembled to review the inputs and results and provide additional insights. The maps have been presented at several professional meetings. In this talk we discuss: (1) CEUS, (2) WUS (outside California), (3) California, (4) Ground motion models We discuss the hazard maps and hazard curves used in the building code. The maps in this presentation are for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years on a uniform firm rock site condition (V S30 =760 m/s). Maps are for 0.2 s (5 Hz) spectral acceleration with 5% damping. We consider difference maps (2014-2008) and ratio maps (2014/2008).

Book↗

USGS2012

Reﬁnements to the method of epicentral location based on surface waves from ambient seismic noise: introducing Love waves

The purpose of this study is to develop and test a modiﬁcation to a previous method of regional seismic event location based on Empirical Green’s Functions (EGFs) produced from ambient seismic noise. Elastic EGFs between pairs of seismic stations are determined by cross-correlating long ambient noise time-series recorded at the two stations. The EGFs principally contain Rayleigh- and Love-wave energy on the vertical and transverse components, respectively, and we utilize these signals between about 5 and 12 s period. The previous method, based exclusively on Rayleigh waves, may yield biased epicentral locations for certain event types with hypocentral depths between 2 and 5 km. Here we present theoretical arguments that show how Love waves can be introduced to reduce or potentially eliminate the bias. We also present applications of Rayleigh- and Love-wave EGFs to locate 10 reference events in the western United States. The separate Rayleigh and Love epicentral locations and the joint locations using a combination of the two waves agree to within 1 km distance, on average, but conﬁdence ellipses are smallest when both types of waves are used.

Geophysical Journal International↗

USGS2011

Long-period earthquake simulations in the Wasatch Front, UT: misfit characterization and ground motion estimates

In this research we characterize the goodness-of-fit between observed and synthetic seismograms from three small magnitude (M3.6-4.5) earthquakes in the region using the Wasatch Front community velocity model (WCVM) in order to determine the ability of the WCVM to predict earthquake ground motions for scenario earthquake modeling efforts. We employ the goodness-of-fit algorithms and criteria of Olsen and Mayhew (2010). In focusing comparisons on the ground motion parameters that are of greatest importance in engineering seismology, we find that the synthetic seismograms calculated using the WCVM produce a fair fit to the observed ground motion records up to a frequency of 0.5 Hz for two of the modeled earthquakes and up to 0.1 Hz for one of the earthquakes. In addition to the reference seismic material model (WCVM), we carry out earthquake simulations using material models with perturbations to the regional seismic model and with perturbations to the deep sedimentary basins. Simple perturbations to the regional seismic velocity model and to the seismic velocities of the sedimentary basin result in small improvements in the observed misfit but do not indicate a significantly improved material model. Unresolved differences between the observed and synthetic seismograms are likely due to un-modeled heterogeneities and incorrect basin geometries in the WCVM. These differences suggest that ground motion prediction accuracy from deterministic modeling varies across the region and further efforts to improve the WCVM are needed.

Utah↗