Geology topics

Sanaz Rezaeian

Publications and source records attributed to Sanaz Rezaeian.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2021

Evaluation of simulated ground motions using probabilistic seismic demand analysis: CyberShake (ver. 15.12) simulations for Ordinary Standard Bridges

There is a need for benchmarking and validating simulated ground motions in order for them to be utilized by the engineering community. Such validation may be geared towards a specific ground motion simulation method, a target engineering application, and a specific location; the validation presented herein focuses on a bridge engineering application in southern California. Catalogs of simulated ground motions representing a 200,000-year forecast are selected from the Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake version 15.12 database for five sites in Southern California (~20,000 unscaled ground motions per site). They are used in Non-Linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) of four Ordinary Standard Bridge structures. For each site, these data are used to obtain simulation-based Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) hazard curves. These are compared against EDP hazard curves that are constructed using conventional methods based on empirical models, i.e., using recorded ground motions through Incremental Dynamic Analysis and integration over the Intensity Measure (IM) hazard curve. The two sets of simulation-based and conventional EDP hazard curves are compared at various return periods. To further account for the differences between simulated and recorded ground motions, direct comparisons are also made between IM hazard curves for simulated and recorded catalogs, as well as the EDP versus IM data obtained from NLTHA of the bridges. We observe that CyberShake simulates motions that yield similar EDP values compared to empirical data for shorter return periods. For longer return periods, however, EDPs from the simulation-based analysis tend to be lower than the EDPs obtained from utilizing recorded ground motions for short-period bridges, while the opposite is the case for long-period bridges. It is recommended that validation efforts go beyond IM levels and also include comparisons of the relations between IMs and EDPs. Finally, site-specific relations are proposed that correlate the ratio between the two types of EDPs (simulation-based and conventional) with the hazard level, shallow site condition, and site basin depth.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Journal↗

USGS2021

Multi-period response spectra

Multi-period response spectra (MPRS) are incorporated in the development of seismic design ground motions in the 2020 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (2020 NEHRP Provisions) and are approved for adoption in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-22). MPRS are incorporated in these design regulations because it was discovered that the standard spectral shape based on two periods and one reference site class was substantially understating spectral response in moderately long period structures located on soft soil sites where ground motion hazard is dominated by large magnitude events. These are the motions that are relevant to tall buildings in the Los Angeles region and of interest to the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Seismic Design Council (LATBSDC). The MPRS incorporation updated Chapters 11, 20, 21, and 22 of the 2020 NEHRP Provisions (a.k.a. FEMA P-2082); changes are described in detail in the commentary of FEMA P-2082. The MPRS also influenced the development of the 2018 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous U.S. because valid ground motion models for all periods and site classes of interest were required. FEMA P-2082 is complemented by the FEMA P-2078 technical report that provides a procedure for approximating MPRS outside of the conterminous U.S. This paper presents a condensed version of the relevant sections of FEMA P-2082 and FEMA P-2078 that would interest the LATBSDC.

Conference Paper↗

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

Procedures for developing multi-period response spectra at non-conterminous United States sites

This study complements proposals to the Provisions Update Committee of the Building Seismic Safety Council that would incorporate multi-period response spectra (MPRS) in the 2020 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (2020 NEHRP Provisions) and related proposals to the ASCE 7-22 Seismic Subcommittee of the American Society of Civil Engineers for incorporation of MPRS in ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-22, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-22). Ultimately, the intent is that the proposed MPRS and related design requirements of ASCE 7-22 would be adopted, by reference, as part of the 2024 International Building Code. The technical basis and associated methods herein enable the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop MPRS for sites in non-conterminous U.S. regions for which seismic hazard analyses have not yet been updated by the USGS to fully define all 22 periods and eight site classes of interest in the MPRS related proposals for the 2020 NEHRP Provisions and ASCE 7-22. These regions include Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. The methods developed can be used to derive MPRS using only the three currently available ground motion parameters S S , S 1 , and T L for all nonconterminous United States regions of interest. The methods include models that characterize generic shapes of Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE R ) ground motions as a function of these three parameters. For deriving MPRS that represent probabilistic MCE R ground motions, models are based on statistical analyses of large sample sets of probabilistic MCE R response spectra for Western United States (WUS) and Cascadia sites in California, Oregon, Washington (including Puget Sound), Idaho, and Nevada. For deriving MPRS that represent deterministic MCE R ground motions, models are based on sets of deterministic MCE R response spectra calculated using WUS shallow crustal ground motion models for earthquake magnitudes and shaking levels typical of sites governed by deterministic MCE R ground motions.

Alaska, American Samoa, Hawaii, Guam and the North↗

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↗

USGS2019

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using stochastic simulated ground motions

: In recent years, ground motion models used in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) have evolved from the traditional approach of using ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) to using ground motion time series models. The purpose of this paper is to develop an approach to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using stochastic site-based simulation techniques. These techniques consist of empirical stochastic models that simulate both near-fault and far-field ground motion time series. The near-fault models consider directivity pulses, which can impose large seismic demands. The proposed approach was applied to a site located in Los Angeles Downtown and the corresponding hazard curves were developed. The results were compared to hazard curves derived for the same site from CyberShake, which uses a physics-based simulation approach, and from a traditional GMPE approach. The comparison indicated that the proposed methodology accurately describes the seismic hazard at the site at high hazard levels. The proposed approach is computationally efficient compared to the use of physics-based simulations like CyberShake.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2019

Updates to USGS national seismic hazard model (NSHM) and design ground motion maps for 2020 NEHRP recommended provisions

This presentation summarizes the proposed updates to earthquake design ground motions for the 2020 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, expected to be incorporated into the ASCE 7-22 Standard. The implications of these updates on the values of design ground motions for example locations in both conterminous and nonconterminous U.S. cities are shown and discussed.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2019

Proposed multi-period response spectra and ground motion requirements of the 2020 Recommended Provisions and ASCE 7-22

This paper summarizes a comprehensive set of proposals to the Provisions Update Committee of the Building Seismic Safety Council that would incorporate multi-period response spectra (MPRS) in the 2020 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (2020 NEHRP Provisions) and related proposals to the ASCE 7-22 Seismic Subcommittee of the American Society of Civil Engineers for incorporation of MPRS in the ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-22, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-22). Ultimately, the intent is that the proposed MPRS and related design requirements of ASCE 7-22 would be adopted, by reference, as part of the 2024 International Building Code.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2018

Additional period and site class maps for the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States

The 2014 update of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States (2014 NSHM; Petersen and others, 2014, 2015) included probabilistic ground motion maps for 2 percent and 10 percent probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, derived from seismic hazard curves for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 0.2 and 1.0 second spectral accelerations (SAs) with 5 percent damping for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site class boundary B/C (time-averaged shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters [V S30 ]=760 meters per second [m/s]). We now provide uniform NEHRP site class maps for 2, 5, and 10 percent probabilities of exceedance in 50 years derived from hazard curves for additional spectral periods. For the central and eastern United States (CEUS) and western United States (WUS), hazard curves and maps for PGA, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 second SAs are now available. The WUS additionally includes hazard curves and maps for 0.75, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 second SAs. The use of region-specific suites of weighted ground motion models (GMMs) in the 2014 NSHM precluded the calculation of ground motions for a uniform set of periods and site classes for the conterminous United States. At the time of the development of the 2014 NSHM, there was no consensus in the CEUS on an appropriate site-amplification model to use; therefore, we calculated hazard curves and maps for NEHRP site class A, for which most stable continental GMMs were originally developed, based on simulations for hard rock site conditions (V S30 =2,000 m/s). In the WUS, however, the active crustal Next Generation Attenuation Relationships for the WUS (NGA-West2 GMMs) and subduction GMMs allow amplification of ground motions based on site class (defined by V S30 ); so we calculated hazard curves and maps for NEHRP site classes B (V S30 =1,080 m/s), C (V S30 =530 m/s), D (V S30 =260 m/s), and E (V S30 =150 m/s) and site class boundaries A/B (V S30 =1,500 m/s), B/C (V S30 =760 m/s), C/D (V S30 =365 m/s), and D/E (V S30 =185 m/s). The 2014 NSHM introduced a set of criteria for selecting GMMs for use in the NSHMs. When calculating additional period and site class maps, we verified whether the 2014 NSHM original suites of GMMs satisfied these ground motion selection criteria at all additional periods and site classes using GMM magnitude-distance scaling relation plots. Results of our analysis show that certain GMMs give unrealistic results at longer periods, distances, and softer soils in the WUS. In these rare instances, the GMM was removed from the original suite of GMMs (for all periods and site classes) and the weights of the remaining GMMs in the suite were renormalized. Ratio maps show these updated suites of weighted GMMs result in probabilistic ground motion changes of less than 10 percent in the WUS at PGA, as well as 0.2 and 1.0 second SAs, except in the Pacific Northwest, where differences as much as 20 percent are seen. Hazard curves and uniform hazard response spectra at test sites across the conterminous United States were produced to verify that results were reasonable. The additional period and site class maps, and the hazard curves from which they were derived, are available for download from the USGS ScienceBase Catalog.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Integrate urban‐scale seismic hazard analyses with the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

For more than 20 yrs, damage patterns and instrumental recordings have highlighted the influence of the local 3D geologic structure on earthquake ground motions (e.g., M "> M M 6.7 Northridge, California, Gao et al. , 1996 ; M "> M M 6.9 Kobe, Japan, Kawase, 1996 ; M "> M M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, Frankel, Carver, and Williams, 2002 ). Although this and other local‐scale features are critical to improving seismic hazard forecasts, historically they have not been explicitly incorporated into the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM, national model and maps), primarily because the necessary basin maps and methodologies were not available at the national scale. Instead, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), its partners, and external groups developed urban seismic hazard maps (urban models and maps) that consider detailed site effects in local areas (e.g., Wong et al. , 2002 ; Cramer et al. , 2006 ; Frankel et al. , 2007 ; Graves et al. , 2011 ). The disconnect between the urban and national hazard models, however, means that the national models, which underlie U.S. building codes and other applications, do not make use of all of the scientific results informing earthquake ground‐shaking hazards. We recommend that future U.S. national seismic hazard assessment make use of all available regional information, including that in urban models. In this column, we describe the roles of and differences between the urban and national models, and discuss the obstacles to and benefits of integrating the urban models with the national model. Future progress on this issue will require further coordination and implementation efforts between the USGS and external partners.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2018

Preliminary 2018 national seismic hazard model for the conterminous United States

The 2014 U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard model for the conterminous U.S. will be updated in 2018 and 2020 to coincide with the Building Seismic Safety Council’s Project 17 timeline for development of new building code design criteria. The two closely timed updates are planned to allow more time for the Provisions Update Committee to analyze the consequences of the hazard model changes in the design criteria. To prepare the 2018 update we held a workshop (March 7-8, 2018) with scientists and engineers to solicit feedback on the model. The 2018 model will be available for public comment during the summer of 2018. The purpose of this paper is to solicit feedback on the modeling choices and results. The 2018 NSHM considers an updated seismicity catalog and certain key changes in the way ground motions are calculated. First, we implemented new Next Generation Attenuation Relationships for the Central and Eastern North America Region and other published models that allow for the calculation of ground motions at additional periods and site classes in the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS). Second, basin depth terms were implemented in the ground motion models in select regions of the western U.S. (WUS) to account for enhanced long-period ground motions at softer soil sites overlying sedimentary basins. Preliminary results indicate higher ground motions for all periods in parts of the CEUS and for long-periods and soft soils in urban areas overlying sedimentary basins in the WUS.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2018

The science, engineering applications, and policy implications of simulation-based PSHA

We summarize scientific methods for developing probabilistic seismic hazard assessments from 3-D earthquake ground motion simulations, describe current use of simulated ground motions for engineering applications, and discuss on-going efforts to incorporate these effects in the U.S. national seismic hazard model. The 3-D simulations provide important, additional information about earthquake ground-shaking, which is critical to proper characterization of potential ground motions. Example uses of these simulations for engineering applications provide alternative approaches to introducing the effects of deep basins on long-period ground motions into design requirements. In Seattle, Washington tall building design includes requirements for accounting for the effect of the Seattle basin, and one method for including this effect relies upon local 3-D simulations. In Los Angeles, California a working group of scientists and engineers is advancing the use of local 3-D simulations for local building codes. In light of the benefit to ground motion characterization from the use of 3-D simulations, similar efforts are underway for national-scale seismic hazard analyses, which seek to make use of the extensive work applied from local efforts; current methods for incorporating these effects on a national-scale are presented.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2017

Development of the next generation of seismic design value maps for the 2020 NEHRP Provisions

During the period January 2015 through August 2018, a joint committee of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) representatives and National Institute of Building Sciences Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) volunteers and staff formed a committee to conduct Project 17. The purpose of Project 17 was to formulate recommendations for the rules by which next-generation seismic design value maps, derived from USGS national seismic hazard models, will be developed for adoption by the 2020 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations of New Buildings and Other Structures (NEHRP Provisions), ASCE 7-22 and the 2024 International Building Code. Two similar projects, Project 97 and Project 07, had been conducted in the past. Each of these projects established, for a period of approximately ten years, the rules by which design ground motion values referenced by the building codes would be developed both by USGS and by private consultants engaged in site-specific studies. Project 17 was originally commissioned in response to issues identified in adopting the 2014 edition of the USGS national seismic hazard model and the design procedures that reference them for use, including the NEHRP Provisions, building codes and referenced standards. Specific issues included: the engineering profession’s discontent with the fluctuating design values portrayed by successive map editions; discovery that the standard spectral shape referenced by the design provisions did not adequately represent ground motion amplitude and spectral character on some sites; and a change in seismologic characterization of the possible size of earthquakes originating on various faults and source zones. Project 17 was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and supported by the USGS with some collaborating experts. An initial planning committee met throughout calendar year 2015 to identify key issues to be considered and to develop a work plan for addressing these as part of the 2020 NEHRP Provisions update cycle. The planning committee recommended an effort of approximately 30-months duration during which the USGS would develop draft design maps based on the rules proposed, to allow evaluation and refinement of the recommendations. A Project 17 Committee (P17C) was empaneled and four task subcommittees were formed, each charged with evaluating one of the key issues identified in the planning effort: Stabilizing mapped values; Definition of Acceptable Risk; Development of multi-period spectral parameter data; and, Definition of procedures for computing deterministic caps, should it be necessary to continue use of such caps in development of the maps. A fifth task subcommittee was formed in 2017 to look at ways to stabilize the seismic design category as an extended effort to stabilize mapped values. The P17C met three times per year throughout 2016, 2017 and 2018 to resolve these issues and develop recommendations for an updated technical basis and procedures to be followed in preparing next-generation seismic design value maps for inclusion in the NEHRP Provisions. The P17C documented these in the form of draft proposals for revision of the NEHRP Provisions. In August 2018, the P17C passed these recommendations to the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) for completion, development of consensus and adoption as appropriate.

Report↗

USGS2016

Simulation of earthquake ground motions in the eastern United States using deterministic physics‐based and site‐based stochastic approaches

Earthquake ground‐motion recordings are scarce in the central and eastern United States (CEUS) for large‐magnitude events and at close distances. We use two different simulation approaches, a deterministic physics‐based method and a site‐based stochastic method, to simulate ground motions over a wide range of magnitudes. Drawing on previous results for the modeling of recordings from the 2011 M w 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake and using the 2001 M w 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake as a tectonic analog for a large magnitude CEUS event, we are able to calibrate the two simulation methods over this magnitude range. Both models show a good fit to the Mineral and Bhuj observations from 0.1 to 10 Hz. Model parameters are then adjusted to obtain simulations for M w 6.5, 7.0, and 7.6 events in the CEUS. Our simulations are compared with the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey weighted combination of existing ground‐motion prediction equations in the CEUS. The physics‐based simulations show comparable response spectral amplitudes and a fairly similar attenuation with distance. The site‐based stochastic simulations suggest a slightly faster attenuation of the response spectral amplitudes with distance for larger magnitude events and, as a result, slightly lower amplitudes at distances greater than 200 km. Both models are plausible alternatives and, given the few available data points in the CEUS, can be used to represent the epistemic uncertainty in modeling of postulated CEUS large‐magnitude events.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2015

Seismic hazard in the Intermountain West

The 2014 national seismic-hazard model for the conterminous United States incorporates new scientific results and important model adjustments. The current model includes updates to the historical catalog, which is spatially smoothed using both fixed-length and adaptive-length smoothing kernels. Fault-source characterization improved by adding faults, revising rates of activity, and incorporating new results from combined inversions of geologic and geodetic data. The update also includes a new suite of published ground motion models. Changes in probabilistic ground motion are generally less than 10% in most of the Intermountain West compared to the prior assessment, and ground-motion hazard in four Intermountain West cities illustrates the range and magnitude of change in the region. Seismic hazard at reference sites in Boise and Reno increased as much as 10%, whereas hazard in Salt Lake City decreased 5–6%. The largest change was in Las Vegas, where hazard increased 32–35%.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

Seismic hazard in the Nation's breadbasket

The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps were updated in 2014 and included several important changes for the central United States (CUS). Background seismicity sources were improved using a new moment-magnitude-based catalog; a new adaptive, nearest-neighbor smoothing kernel was implemented; and maximum magnitudes for background sources were updated. Areal source zones developed by the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities project were simplified and adopted. The weighting scheme for ground motion models was updated, giving more weight to models with a faster attenuation with distance compared to the previous maps. Overall, hazard changes (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, across a range of ground-motion frequencies) were smaller than 10% in most of the CUS relative to the 2008 USGS maps despite new ground motion models and their assigned logic tree weights that reduced the probabilistic ground motions by 5–20%.

Earthquake Spectra↗