Geology topics

Sean Kamran Ahdi

Publications and source records attributed to Sean Kamran Ahdi.

15 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

USGS2024

The 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Subduction ground motion models

The US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used to calculate earthquake ground-shaking intensities for design and rehabilitation of structures in the United States. The most recent 2014 and 2018 versions of the NSHM for the conterminous United States included major updates to ground-motion models (GMMs) for active and stable crustal tectonic settings; however, the subduction zone GMMs were largely unchanged. With the recent development of the next generation attenuation-subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs, and recent progress in the utilization of “M9” Cascadia earthquake simulations, we now have access to improved models of ground shaking in the US subduction zones and the Seattle basin. The new NGA-Sub GMMs support multi-period response spectra calculations. They provide global models and regional terms specific to Cascadia and terms that account for deep-basin effects. This article focuses on the updates to subduction GMMs for implementation in the 2023 NSHM and compares them to the GMMs of previous NSHMs. Individual subduction GMMs, their weighted averages, and their impact on the estimated mean hazard relative to the 2018 NSHM are discussed. The updated logic trees include three of the new NGA-Sub GMMs and retain two older models to represent epistemic uncertainty in both the median and standard deviation of ground-shaking intensities at all periods of interest. Epistemic uncertainty is further represented by a three-point logic tree for the NGA-Sub median models. Finally, in the Seattle region, basin amplification factors are adjusted at long periods based on the state-of-the-art M9 Cascadia earthquake simulations. The new models increase the estimated mean hazard values at short periods and short source-to-site distances for interface earthquakes, but decrease them otherwise, relative to the 2018 NSHM. On softer soils, the new models cause decreases to the estimated mean hazard for long periods in the Puget Lowlands basin but increases within the deep Seattle portion of this basin for short periods relative to the 2018 NSHM.

Earthquake Spectra↗

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 influence of anthropogenic regulation and evaporite dissolution on earthquake-triggered ground failure

Remote sensing observations of Searles Lake following the 2019 moment magnitude 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake reveal an area where surface ejecta is arranged in a repeating hexagonal pattern that is collocated with a solution-mining operation. By analyzing geologic and geotechnical data, here we show that the hexagonal surface ejecta is likely not a result of liquefaction. Instead, we propose dissolution cavity collapse (DCC) as an alternative driving mechanism. We support this theory with pre-event Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data, which reveals differential subsidence patterns and the creation of subsurface void space. We also find that DCC is likely triggered at a lower shaking threshold than classical liquefaction. This and other unknown mechanisms can masquerade as liquefaction, introducing bias into liquefaction prediction models that rely on liquefaction inventories. This paper also highlights the opportunities and drawbacks of using remote sensing data to disentangle the complex factors that influence earthquake-triggered ground failure.

California↗

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

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

Developing international standards and guidelines for disseminating and validating simulated ground motions

We are leading an effort to develop international standards and guidelines for curating, disseminating, and validating simulated ground-motion data. This effort is organized as a working group within the Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS). In 2022 we held online workshops on 7 and 8 June and 20 October. The first workshop focused on curating and disseminating simulated ground-motion data. The second workshop focused on validating simulated ground-motions for engineering applications. About 100 people participated in each of the workshops with strong representation from North America, Europe, and western Asia. In the coming year, we intend to form a technical committee to draft the international guidelines and standards while continuing to engage stakeholders from across the globe through online and in-person meetings. The key points from the workshops include: (1) Numerous groups are generating simulated earthquake ground motions and making them openly available; however there is very little coordination among groups to provide consistent interfaces for searching and retrieving data; (2) Standardizing interfaces for metadata and data access should consider agile approaches that can adapt to changing capabilities and user needs while building upon existing efforts; (3) A distributed architecture is preferred by most participants to allow institutions to host and manage their own data while broadcasting their holdings to a combined catalog; (4) Validation of ground-motion simulations applies to the entire workflow for simulating earthquake ground-motions, including the rupture model, seismic velocity model, and seismic wave propagation software; (5) Metrics to evaluate the validation are application dependent; more research is needed to tie structural response characteristics to ground-motion characteristics; and (6) Validation results should provide a clear, transparent, and quantitative assessment of the simulated ground motions.

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↗

USGS2022

Implementation of basin models and sediment depth terms in the 2023 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Example from Reno, Nevada

We present a framework to evaluate the inclusion of candidate basin depth models in the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model. We compute intensity measures (peak and spectral amplitudes) from uniformly processed earthquake ground motions in and around the basin of interest and compare these to ground-motion model (GMM) estimates over a range of oscillator periods. The GMMs use depth to specific shear-wave velocity isosurfaces (Z x ) as a proxy for basin depth. We quantify whether the GMM estimates using Z x from the candidate basin depth model outperform the default estimates based on V S30 (the time-averaged shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m). We partition GMM residuals into event and site terms and compare site terms for stations within the basin to non-basin sites. We apply this framework to the greater Reno, Nevada, region, which has shallow basin depths (less than 450 m) and empirical amplifications of up to a factor of 2.2 at 1.0 s. There are no strong trends in site terms with basin depth, and the use of Z x values from the new candidate basin model shows marginal improvement of GMM total residuals compared to the default V S30 -based model (the condition of no relative basin amplification).

Nevada↗

USGS2022

COSMOS Ground-Motion Simulation Working Group workshops #1 and #2

These 2 workshops were held in response to interest generated from sessions on the use of simulated earthquake ground motions at the 2020 and 2021 Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) Technical Sessions. The discussions at the Technical Sessions highlighted desires to promote the use of simulated earthquake ground motions for engineering applications and the need to coordinate efforts to validate and disseminate the data. Our first workshop focused on curating and disseminating simulated earthquake ground-motion data. Our second workshop focused on validating simulated ground-motions for engineering applications. Both workshops included a few invited presentations from providers (ground-motion simulators) and engineering user perspectives followed by open discussions. About 100 people participated in each of the workshops.

Report↗

USGS2021

Relational database for horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratios

Frequency‐dependent horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratios (HVSRs) of Fourier amplitudes from three‐component recordings can provide useful information for site response modeling. However, such information is not incorporated into most ground‐motion models, including those from Next‐Generation Attenuation projects, which instead use the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity ( ⁠ V S "> V S VS ⁠ ) in the upper 30 m of the site and sediment depth terms. To facilitate utilization of HVSR, we developed a publicly accessible relational database. This database is adapted from a similar repository for V S "> V S VS data and provides microtremor‐based HVSR data (mHVSR) and supporting metadata, but not parameters derived from the data. Users can interact with the data directly within a web portal that contains a graphical user interface (GUI) or through external tools that perform cloud‐based computations. Within the database GUI, the median horizontal‐component mHVSR can be plotted against frequency, with the mean and mean ± one standard deviation (representing variability across time windows) provided. Using external interactive tools (provided as a Jupyter Notebook and an R script), users can replot mHVSR (as in the database) or create polar plots. These tools can also derive parameters of potential interest for modeling purposes, including a binary variable indicating whether an mHVSR plot contains peaks, as well as the fitted properties of those peaks (frequencies, amplitudes, and widths). Metadata are also accessible, which includes site location, details about the instruments used to make the measurements, and data processing information related to windowing, antitrigger routines, and filtering.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2021

2021 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for the State of Hawaii

The 2021 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the State of Hawaii updates the two-decades-old former model by incorporating new data and modeling techniques to improve the underlying ground shaking forecasts of tectonic-fault, tectonic-flexure, volcanic, and caldera collapse earthquakes. Two earthquake ground shaking hazard models (public policy and research) are produced that differ in how they account for declustered catalogs. The earthquake source model is based on (1) declustered earthquake catalogs smoothed with adaptive smoothing methods, (2) earthquake rate forecasts based on three temporally varying 60-year time periods, (3) maximum magnitude models that extend to larger earthquakes than previously considered, (4) a separate Kīlauea-specific seismogenic caldera collapse model which accounts for clustered event behavior observed during the 2018 eruption, and (5) fault ruptures that consider historic seismicity, GPS-based strain rates, and a new Quaternary fault database. Two new Hawaii-specific ground motion models (GMMs) and five additional global models consistent with Hawaii shaking data are used to forecast ground shaking at 23 spectral periods and peak parameters. Site effects are modeled using western U.S. and Hawaii specific empirical equations and provide shaking forecasts for eight site classes. For most sites the new model results in similar spectral accelerations as those in the 2001 NSHM, with a few exceptions caused mostly by GMM changes. Ground motions are highest in the southern portion of the Island of Hawai‘i due to high rates of forecasted earthquakes on décollement faults. Shaking decays to the northwest where lower earthquake rates result from flexure of the tectonic plate. Large epistemic uncertainties in source characterizations and GMMs lead to an overall high uncertainty (more than a factor of 3) in ground shaking at Honolulu and Hilo. The new shaking model indicates significant chances of slight or greater damaging ground motions across most of the island chain.

Hawai'i↗

USGS2021

NGA-Subduction research program

This article summarizes the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Subduction (NGA-Sub) project, a major research program to develop a database and ground motion models (GMMs) for subduction regions. A comprehensive database of subduction earthquakes recorded worldwide was developed. The database includes a total of 214,020 individual records from 1,880 subduction events, which is by far the largest database of all the NGA programs. As part of the NGA-Sub program, four GMMs were developed. Three of them are global subduction GMMs with adjustment factors for up to seven worldwide regions: Alaska, Cascadia, Central America and Mexico, Japan, New Zealand, South America, and Taiwan. The fourth GMM is a new Japan-specific model. The GMMs provide median predictions, and the associated aleatory variability, of RotD50 horizontal components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and 5%-damped pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA) at oscillator periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Three GMMs also quantified “within-model” epistemic uncertainty of the median prediction, which is important in regions with sparse ground motion data, such as Cascadia. In addition, a damping scaling model was developed to scale the predicted 5%-damped PSA of horizontal components to other damping ratios ranging from 0.5% to 30%. The NGA-Sub flatfile, which was used for the development of the NGA-Sub GMMs, and the NGA-Sub GMMs coded on various software platforms, have been posted for public use.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2021

Horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios from California sites: Open-source database and data interpretation to establish site parameters

Frequency-dependent horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios (HVSR) of Fourier amplitudes from three-component recordings can provide information on one or more site resonant frequencies and relative levels of amplification at those frequencies. Such information is potentially useful for predicting site amplification but is not present in site databases that have been developed over the last 15–20 years for the Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) projects, which instead use the time-averaged shear-wave velocity (VS) in the upper 30 m of the site (VS30) as the primary site parameter and are supplemented with basin depth terms where available. As a consequence, HVSR parameters are also not used in NGA ground motion models. In order for HVSR-based parameters to be used in future versions of site databases, a publicly accessible repository of this information is needed. We adapt a relational database developed to archive and disseminate VS data to also include HVSR. The database provides relevant microtremor-based HVSR data (mHVSR) and supporting metadata. We consider the most relevant data to be the frequency-dependent mHVSR, where the horizontal is taken as the median component and also as a function of horizontal azimuth (referred to as polar plots). Relevant metadata includes site location information, details about the equipment used to make the measurements, and processing details related to windowing, anti-trigger routines, and filtering. We describe the database schema developed to organize and present this information.

California↗