Geology topics

Oliver S. Boyd

Publications and source records attributed to Oliver S. Boyd.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Preface to the focus section on intraplate earthquakes

More than a half century after plate tectonics provided an overarching framework to explain earthquakes along active plate boundaries, numerous theories have been proposed to explain where, why, and how often earthquakes occur well away from active plate boundaries, but a paradigm remains elusive. Even the classification of earthquakes away from active plate boundaries as "intraplate" raises issues, with potentially important distinctions between Stable Continental Regions and more actively deforming regions including passive margins and failed rifts. Some of the largest known intraplate earthquakes themselves remain enigmatic, having occurred before the modern instrumental era. Hazard assessments are often data-limited: low fault-slip rates relative to landscape modification rates result in poor discoverability of fault sources, challenging the characterization of source zones and earthquake recurrence; the completeness and homogenization of instrumental earthquake catalogs using uncertain magnitude conversions can lead to uncertainties in earthquake recurrence; and, limited strong-motion observations for large-magnitude events at near-source distances leads to uncertainties in the selection and development of ground-motion models for seismic hazard studies. Data from recent intraplate earthquakes around the world—from the moment magnitude M 7.7 2001 Bhuj, India, earthquake 25 years ago to the 2024 M 4.8 Tewksbury, New Jersey earthquake—have yielded both new insights and new questions. The papers in this special focus discuss many of the long-standing challenges involved with intraplate earthquake investigations and provide a snapshot of the state of the art with current research to advance our understanding.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Ground-motion simulations for the 2024 Mw 4.8 Tewksbury, New Jersey, earthquake

Ground-motion simulations of notable earthquakes in the central and eastern United States are limited and typically assume one-dimensional (1D) Earth structure. In this study, we use a three-dimensional (3D) seismic velocity model to better constrain the depth and focal mechanism of the April 5th, 2024, moment magnitude 4.8 Tewksbury earthquake and investigate the spatial variability of earthquake ground motions and the effects of nearby sedimentary basins. We perform earthquake ground-motion simulations up to 0.5 Hz using the 3D spectral-element wave-propagation solver SPECFEM3D over a region 280-km wide by 260-km long by 77-km deep. Topography and subsurface geophysical structure are assigned using the U.S. Geological Survey National Crustal Model with a minimum shear-wave velocity of 200 m/s. We use earthquake time series from 13 broadband seismic stations in the region that have a uniform azimuthal distribution and epicentral distances ranging from 76 to 131 km to compare with synthetics and explore the effects of 1D versus 3D seismic structure on focal mechanism and depth solutions. Ground-motion intensity metrics are also presented relative to the NGA-East ground-motion models (GMMs) currently used in seismic hazard assessments for the region. We find that the 3D model, which reveals a wide spatial variability of period-dependent ground motions, yields better predictions of earthquake ground motions relative to the 1D model and the NGA-East ergodic ground-motion model, with 76 percent reduction of residual variance in observed ground motions averaged over 3-, 5-, 7-, and 10-second periods. Use of the 3D model to solve for a focal mechanism yields a shallower focal depth at 4 km and a shallower east-dipping focal plane relative to the U.S. Geological Survey regional moment tensor and Global Centroid Moment Tensor. Our study demonstrates that use of 3D seismic velocity models can improve estimates of earthquake focal mechanisms, ground motions, and seismic hazard.

New Jersey↗

USGS2025

A comprehensive geologic framework of the National Crustal Model for seismic hazard studies in the conterminous United States

A three-dimensional (3D) geologic framework has been developed for the conterminous United States (U.S.) as part of the U.S. Geological Survey National Crustal Model to enhance seismic hazard modeling. The geologic framework is created from geologic maps and multiple subsurface geologic unit boundaries including the base of the Miocene, Cenozoic, Phanerozoic, and the Mohorovičić discontinuity. Modifications are made to surficial geologic maps to remove discontinuities across state and country borders. The subsurface distribution of rock type and age is extrapolated from the surface, seeded with subsurface geologic information, and constrained by a map of basement geology. The framework provides the basis for estimates of subsurface seismic velocity and density that is needed to improve estimates of earthquake ground shaking and seismic hazard. The present framework greatly expands and updates a previously published 3D geologic framework of the western part of the U.S. that was itself a first-of-its-kind digital 3D portrayal of the nation.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2025

2023 Earthquake Ground-Motion Workshop for the Central and Eastern United States, with a focus on the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains—Agenda and abstracts

The U.S. Geological Survey held a virtual workshop December 7–8, 2023, to share research and ideas about earthquake ground motions in the Central and Eastern United States, with a focus on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. The workshop was organized to learn about potential regionalization of ground-motion characteristics (source, path, and site), consider new explanatory variables for site response, and hear and discuss updates on ground-motion research on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. The workshop was organized into a series of contributed presentations and three panel discussions held during 2 days. This report documents the agenda, contributed abstracts, and panel summaries.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2025

Overview of The SCEC/USGS Community Stress Drop Validation Study using the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

We present initial findings from the ongoing Community Stress Drop Validation Study to compare spectral stress‐drop estimates for earthquakes in the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequence. This study uses a unified dataset to independently estimate earthquake source parameters through various methods. Stress drop, which denotes the change in average shear stress along a fault during earthquake rupture, is a critical parameter in earthquake science, impacting ground motion, rupture simulation, and source physics. Spectral stress drop is commonly derived by fitting the amplitude‐spectrum shape, but estimates can vary substantially across studies for individual earthquakes. Sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Statewide (previously, Southern) California Earthquake Center our community study aims to elucidate sources of variability and uncertainty in earthquake spectral stress‐drop estimates through quantitative comparison of submitted results from independent analyses. The dataset includes nearly 13,000 earthquakes ranging from M 1 to 7 during a two‐week period of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence, recorded within a 1° radius. In this article, we report on 56 unique submissions received from 20 different groups, detailing spectral corner frequencies (or source durations), moment magnitudes, and estimated spectral stress drops. Methods employed encompass spectral ratio analysis, spectral decomposition and inversion, finite‐fault modeling, ground‐motion‐based approaches, and combined methods. Initial analysis reveals significant scatter across submitted spectral stress drops spanning over six orders of magnitude. However, we can identify between‐method trends and offsets within the data to mitigate this variability. Averaging submissions for a prioritized subset of 56 events shows reduced variability of spectral stress drop, indicating overall consistency in recovered spectral stress‐drop values.

California↗

USGS2025

A crustal thermal model of the conterminous U.S. constrained by multiple data sets: A Monte-Carlo approach

The thermal structure of the continental crust plays a critical role in understanding its elastic and rheologic properties as well as its dynamic processes. Thermal parameter data sets on continental scales have been used to constrain the crustal thermal structure, including both the direct (e.g. temperature, heat flux and heat conductivity measured at the surface) and indirect (e.g. seismically derived Mohorovičić discontinuity (Moho) temperature, geomagnetically derived Curie depth) observations. In this study, we present a new continental scale crustal heat generation model with additional information from seismologically inferred crustal composition. Together with previous direct and indirect thermal parameter data sets in the conterminous United States, we use the new crustal heat generation model to construct a 3-D crustal temperature model under a newly developed Bayesian framework. Specifically, we first derive profiles of crustal heat generation based on an empirical geochemical relationship at 1683 locations where seismologically derived crustal composition information is available. Then for each of these locations, the average heat generation values in the upper, middle and lower crust are combined with other thermal parameters through a Markov Chain Monte-Carlo inversion for a conductive, vertically smooth temperature profile. The results, posterior distributions of temperature profiles, are used to generate a 3-D crustal thermal model with the uncertainties systematically assessed. The new temperature model overall exhibits similar patterns to that from the U.S. Geological Survey National Crustal Model, but also reduces possible biases and the model's dependence on a single thermal parameter.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2024

Preliminary observations of the April 5th, 2024, Mw4.8 New Jersey earthquake

On 5 April 2024, 10:23 a.m. local time, a moment magnitude 4.8 earthquake struck Tewksbury Township, New Jersey, about 65 km west of New York City. Millions of people from Virginia to Maine and beyond felt the ground shaking, resulting in the largest number (>180,000) of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” reports of any earthquake. A team deployed by the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association and the National Institute of Standards and Technology documented structural and nonstructural damage, including substantial damage to a historic masonry building in Lebanon, New Jersey. The USGS National Earthquake Information Center reported a focal depth of about 5 km, consistent with a lack of signal in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data. The focal mechanism solution is strike slip with a substantial thrust component. Neither mechanism’s nodal plane is parallel to the primary northeast trend of geologic discontinuities and mapped faults in the region, including the Ramapo fault. However, many of the relocated aftershocks, for which locations were augmented by temporary seismic deployments, form a cluster that parallels the general northeast trend of the faults. The aftershocks lie near the Tewksbury fault, north of the Ramapo fault.

New Jersey↗

USGS2024

Empirical ground-motion basin response in the California Great Valley, Reno, Nevada, and Portland, Oregon

We assess how well the Next-Generation Attenuation-West 2 (NGA-West2) ground-motion models (GMMs), which are used in the US Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for crustal faults in the western United States, predict the observed basin response in the Great Valley of California, the Reno basin in Nevada, and Portland and Tualatin basins in Oregon. These GMMs rely on site parameters such as the time-averaged shear-wave velocity ( V S ) in the upper 30 m of Earth’s crust ( V S30 ) and depths to 1.0 and 2.5 km/s shear-wave isosurfaces ( Z 1.0 and Z 2.5 ) to capture basin effects and were developed using observations and simulations primarily from the Los Angeles region in southern California. Using ground-motion records from mostly small-to-moderate earthquakes and mixed-effects regression analysis, we find that the GMMs perform well with our local basin-depth models for the California Great Valley. With our local basin-depth models for Reno, the GMMs do not perform as well for this relatively shallow basin and exhibit little sensitivity to the basin parameters used in the NGA-West2 GMMs. We also find good performance for the local Z 1.0 model across the Portland region, whereas the local Z 2.5 model provides little predictive power except at sites in the deepest part of the Tualatin basin. Additional work could improve the performance of the site and basin terms in the NGA-West2 GMMs for regions with geologic structure different than the deep basins in southern California and the Great Valley. In addition, we find significant discrepancies among the GMMs in how the uncertainty in the ground motion varies with basin depth and pseudospectral period. Our results can help guide seismic hazard analyses on whether to include these local basin-depth models.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States

We update the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. The update includes the use of new ground-motion models (GMMs) in the Cascadia subduction zone; an adjustment to the central and eastern United States (CEUS) GMMs to reduce misfits with observed data; an updated boundary for the application of GMMs for shallow, crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (i.e. western United States (WUS)) and stable continental regions (i.e. CEUS); and the use of improved models for the site response of deep sedimentary basins in the WUS and CEUS. Site response updates include basin models for the California Great Valley and for the Portland and Tualatin basins, Oregon, as well as long-period basin effects from three-dimensional simulations in the Greater Los Angeles region and in the Seattle basin; in the CEUS, we introduce a broadband (0.01- to 10-s period) amplification model for the effects of the passive-margin basins of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In addition, we summarize progress on implementing rupture directivity models into seismic hazard models, although they are not incorporated in the 2023 NSHM. We implement the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 NSHM in the US Geological Survey’s code for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, nshmp-haz-v2 , and present the sensitivity of hazard to these changes. Hazard calculations indicate widespread effects from adjustments to the CEUS GMMs, from the incorporation of Coastal Plain amplification effects, and from the treatment of shallow-basin and out-of-basin sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region, as well as locally important changes from subduction-zone GMMs, and from updated and new WUS basins.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2024

Regional seismic velocity model for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains based on measured shear wave velocity, sediment thickness, and surface geology

The Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (CPs) are characterized by widespread accumulations of low-velocity sediments and sedimentary rock that overlay high-velocity bedrock. Geology and sediment thickness greatly influence seismic wave propagation, but current regional ground motion amplification and seismic hazard models include limited characterization of these site conditions. In this study, a new regional seismic velocity model for the CPs is created by integrating shear wave velocity (V S ) measurements, surface geology, and a sediment thickness model recently developed for the CPs. A reference rock V S of 3000 m/s has been assumed at the bottom of the sedimentary columns, which corresponds to the base of Cretaceous and Mesozoic sediments underlying the Atlantic CP and the Gulf CP, respectively. Measured V S profiles located throughout the CPs are sorted into five geologic groups of varying age, and median V S profiles are developed for each group by combining measured V S values within layer thicknesses defined by an assumed layering ratio. Statistical analyses are also conducted to test the appropriateness of the selected groups. A power law model with geology-informed coefficients is used to extend the median velocity models beyond the depths where measured data were available. The median V S profiles provide reasonable agreement with other generic models applicable for the region, but they also incorporate new information that enables more advanced characterizations of site response at regional scales and their effective incorporation into seismic hazard models and building codes. The proposed median velocity profiles can be assigned within a grid-based model of the CPs according to the spatial distribution of geologic units at the surface.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

Recent applications of the USGS National Crustal Model for Seismic Hazard Studies

The U.S. Geological Survey is developing the National Crustal Model (NCM) for seismic hazard studies to facilitate modeling site, path, and source components of seismic hazard across the conterminous United States. The NCM is composed of a 1km grid of geophysical profiles, extending from the Earth’s surface into the upper mantle. It is constructed from a threedimensional (3D) geologic framework and geophysical rules that use (1) a petrologic and mineral physics database; (2) a 3D temperature model; and (3) a calibrated rock type- and age-dependent porosity model. Parameters needed to estimate site response for existing ground motion models (GMMs), including the time-averaged velocity in the upper 30 meters (VS30), the depths to 1.0 and 2.5 km/s shear-wave velocity (Z1.0 and Z2.5), and sediment thickness, can be computed from the NCM. As GMMs continue to improve in the future, other metrics could also be extracted or derived from the NCM, such as fundamental period, site attenuation (ko), a fully frequency-dependent site response function, or 3D geophysical volumes for wavefield simulations. Application of the NCM may also benefit other aspects of seismic hazard analysis, including better accounting for path-dependent attenuation and geometric spreading, more accurate estimation of earthquake source properties such as hypocentral location and stress drop, and calculation of crustal strength profiles that inform estimates of the base of seismicity.

conterminous United States↗

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

Sediment thickness map of United States Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Strata, and their influence on earthquake ground motions

With the recent successful accounting of basin depth ground-motion adjustments in seismic hazard analyses for select areas of the western United States, we move toward implementing similar adjustments in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains by constructing a sediment thickness model and evaluating multiple relevant site amplification models for central and eastern United States seismic hazard analyses. We digitize and combine existing sediment thickness data sets into a composite surface that delineates the base of Cretaceous sediments under the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the base of Mesozoic sediments under the Gulf Coastal Plain. Amplification models dependent on sediment thickness, site natural period, and source-to-site path length are compared with data sets of observed ground motions to evaluate the ability of the new models to improve ground motion estimates. We find that the amplification models can account for observed trends in sediment-thickness and period-dependent residuals, but some tuning is required. For example, the model of Chapman and Guo requires a reference V S 30 , the time-averaged shear-wave velocity within 30 m of the Earth’s surface, for non-Coastal Plain sites, which we estimate to be between about 1 and 2 km/s. Along with our sediment thickness model, we estimate a velocity profile for application to the Harmon et al. site-natural-period-based model in order to best match the Chapman and Guo period dependence for a broad range of sediment thicknesses. The Next Generation of Attenuation models for the eastern United States Gulf Coast path-based adjustment models can also account for seismic attenuation in the Coastal Plain sediments and reduce the standard deviation of total residuals. If enacted in the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model, these amplification models will reduce predicted short-period (<1 s) and increase predicted long-period (>1 s) ground motions in the Coastal Plains appreciably.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2023

Ground motion and seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States

This report describes work carried out under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Interagency Agreement to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Research to Support NRC’s Seismic Hazard Analyses” for Task 3, “Seismic Hazard and Ground Motion Models.” The focus of this work has been on evaluation of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-East groundmotion models (GMMs) with available ground-motion data and evaluation of alternative methods for characterizing epistemic uncertainty for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). When the Interagency Agreement commenced, the USGS’s National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was being updated, and a significant part of the update for the 2018 NSHM included the introduction of new GMMs for the central and eastern United States (CEUS) (Petersen et al., 2020). In addition to the implementation of the then-recently developed NGA-East GMMs (Goulet et al., 2018), the ground-motion characterization for the CEUS in the 2018 NSHM also included a logic-tree branch with weights applied to the updated “adjusted seed” models that were developed as part of the NGA-East process and in updates by the GMM developers. The Statement of Work for Task 3 of the NRC Interagency Agreement to the USGS included the following parts: (1) Describe technically acceptable approaches in combining GMMs for use in PSHA calculations; (2) Evaluate the effect of using different sets of GMMs (NGA-East SSHAC versus NGA-East USGS) on PSHA calculations; (3) Describe the results of the GMM testing against recorded data, and provide a recommendation on the GMMs application for use in the PSHA; (4) Evaluate the impacts of recently updated individual GMMs on the published NGAEast models; and (5) Submit a final Technical Letter Report documenting results of this task. We present results from this work in two sections: (Chapter 1) Updated Central and Eastern United States Ground Motions and Ground-Motion Analyses; and (Chapter 2) Approaches to Combining Ground-Motion Models for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis in the Central and Eastern United States.

central and eastern United States↗

USGS2022

Lower seismogenic depth model of western U.S. Earthquakes

We present a model of the lower seismogenic depth of earthquakes in the western United States (WUS) estimated using the hypocentral depths of events M > 1, a crustal temperature model, and historical earthquake rupture depth models. Locations of earthquakes are from the Advanced National Seismic System Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog from 1980 to 2021 supplemented with seismicity in southern California for event hypocenters that were relocated by Hauksson et al. (2012) to obtain higher precision and better resolution in the model. We calculated the average depth of the deepest 10% of the merged catalog using an adaptive radius of 50 km or more. Along the San Andreas fault, the deepest seismogenic depths are located at 23 km around the Cholame segment, whereas the shallowest depths are located at about 10 km along the Rodgers Creek and Maacama faults. For the WUS outside California, the depth generally varies between 10 and 25 km with an average around 14 km but could extend to 35 km along Cascadia subduction zone. We find good agreement between the small‐magnitude depths and rupture depths derived from coseismic slip of large earthquakes across the region. Our estimates are generally deeper than the previous seismogenic depths determined for the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 model based on work by Petersen et al. (1996) who used seismicity cross sections along major fault zones in California. Our new seismogenic depth distribution correlates closely with crustal temperature derived from WUS heat flow ( Blackwell et al. , 2011 ). This correlation allowed us to develop a map of the brittle–ductile transition that we use to replace seismogenic depths in the model east of the Intermountain West Seismic Belt where the seismicity rate is low. This updated depth model is useful for recalibrating the lower geologic fault rupture depths, and constraining deformation and seismicity source models in updates of the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model.

western United States↗

USGS2022

U.S. Geological Survey coastal plain amplification virtual workshop

In early October of 2020, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) held a virtual workshop to discuss Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains site-response models. Earthquake researchers came together to assess (1) research related to proposed Coastal Plains amplification models and (2) USGS plans for implementing these models. Presentations spanned a broad range of topics from Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains geophysical properties including seismic velocity and attenuation, to ground motion amplification models and their impacts on seismic hazard. Interspersed with these presentations were discussions regarding the definition and extent of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, potential complexities of wave propagation in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, and problems that need to be overcome to implement various proposed site-response models. Based on feedback from this workshop, the USGS working group on Coastal Plain Amplification is considering applying published models that depend on sediment thickness. The working group is also exploring potential application of models that depend on the length of path traversed across the Coastal Plain, including the Gulf Coastal Plain ground-motion model adjustments from the Next Generation Attenuation Relationships for the Eastern United States.

Gulf and Atlantic Coast Plains↗

USGS2022

Updates to and applications of the USGS National Crustal Model for seismic hazard studies

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Crustal Model (NCM) is being developed to assist in the modeling of seismic hazards across the conterminous United States. The NCM is composed of a grid of geophysical profiles, extending from the Earth’s surface into the upper mantle. It is constructed from a 3D geologic framework and geophysical rules defined by: (1) a petrologic and mineral physics database; (2) a 3D temperature model; and (3) a calibrated rock type- and age-dependent porosity model. Parameters needed to estimate site response for existing ground motion models (GMMs), including the time-averaged velocity in the upper 30 meters ( V S 30 ) and the depths to 1.0 and 2.5 km/s shear-wave velocity ( Z 1.0 and Z 2.5 ), can be extracted from the NCM. As GMMs develop, other metrics could also be extracted or derived from the NCM such as sediment thickness and travel times, fundamental frequency, a fully frequency-dependent site response function, or 3D geophysical volumes for wavefield simulations. Application of the NCM may also benefit other aspects of seismic hazard analysis including better accounting for path-dependent attenuation and geometric spreading, more accurate estimation of earthquake source properties such as hypocentral location and stress drop, and calculation of crustal strength profiles that inform estimates of the base of seismicity.

Conference Paper↗