Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70189610

Validation of the SCEC broadband platform V14.3 simulation methods using pseudo spectral acceleration data

Abstract

This paper summarizes the evaluation of ground motion simulation methods implemented on the SCEC Broadband Platform (BBP), version 14.3 (as of March 2014). A seven-member panel, the authorship of this article, was formed to evaluate those methods for the prediction of pseudo-­‐spectral accelerations (PSAs) of ground motion. The panel’s mandate was to evaluate the methods using tools developed through the validation exercise (Goulet et al. ,2014), and to define validation metrics for the assessment of the methods’ performance. This paper summarizes the evaluation process and conclusions from the panel. The five broadband, finite-source simulation methods on the BBP include two deterministic approaches herein referred to as CSM (Anderson, 2014) and UCSB (Crempien and Archuleta, 2014); a band-­‐limited stochastic white noise method called EXSIM (Atkinson and Assatourians, 2014); and two hybrid approaches, referred to as G&P (Graves and Pitarka, 2014) and SDSU (Olsen and Takedatsu, 2014), which utilize a deterministic Green’s function approach for periods longer than 1 second and stochastic methods for periods shorter than 1 second. Two acceptance tests were defined to validate the broadband finite‐source ground methods (Goulet et al., 2014). Part A compared observed and simulated PSAs for periods from 0.01 to 10 seconds for 12 moderate to large earthquakes located in California, Japan, and the eastern US. Part B compared the median simulated PSAs to published NGA-­‐West1 (Abrahamson and Silva, 2008; Boore and Atkinson, 2008; Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2008; and Chiou and Youngs, 2008) ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for specific magnitude and distance cases using a pass-­‐fail criteria based on a defined acceptable range around the spectral shape of the GMPEs. For the initial Part A and Part B validation exercises during the summer of 2013, the software for the five methods was locked in at version 13.6 (see Maechling et al., 2014). In the spring of 2014, additional moderate events were considered for the Part A validation, and additional magnitude and distance cases were considered for the Part B validation, for the software locked in at version 14.3. Several of the simulation procedures, specifically UCSB and SDSU, changed significantly between versions 13.6 and 14.3. The CSM code was not submitted in time for the v14.3 evaluation and its detailed performance is not addressed in this paper. As described in Goulet et al. (2014) and Maechling et al. (2014), the BBP generates a variety of products, including three-­‐component acceleration time series. A series of post-­‐processing codes were developed to provide individual component PSAs and average median horizontal-­‐component PSA (referred to as RotD50; Boore, 2010) for oscillator periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 seconds, as well as median PSA values computed using the NGA-­‐West 1 GMPEs. The BBP was also configured to provide statistical analysis of simulation results relative to recordings (Part A) and GMPEs (Part B) as described further in sections below. As part of our evaluation, we reviewed documentation provided by each of the developers, which included the technical basis behind the methods and the developer’s self-­‐assessments regarding the extrapolation capabilities (in terms of magnitude and distance ranges) of their methods. Two workshops were held in which methods and results were presented, and the panel was given the opportunity to question the developers and to have detailed technical discussions. A SCEC report (Dreger et al., 2013) describes the results of this review for BBP version 13.6. This paper summarizes that work and presents results for the more recent BBP 14.3 validation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Douglas S. Dreger, Gregory C. Beroza, Steven M. Day, Christine A. Goulet, Thomas H Jordan, Paul A. Spudich, Jonathan P. Stewart. 2014-12-17. Validation of the SCEC broadband platform V14.3 simulation methods using pseudo spectral acceleration data. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140118

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗

Global seasonal microseism intensity and hemispheric asymmetry

Earth’s microseism wavefield dominates seismic background levels at periods between approximately 4 and 20 s, and reflects periodic and secular variations in ocean swell energy. Ocean wave energy couples to the seismic wavefield via distinct primary microseism and secondary microseism (PM and SM) source mechanisms, which are excited by basal swell tractions and seafloor pressure variations due to crossing seas, respectively. This study examines annual amplitude variations for the globally dominant PM (14–20 s) and SM (4–10 s) period bands. Annual harmonic variations are represented by four‐term Fourier series fits to vertical‐component seasonally smoothed acceleration time series from 73 stations in the Global Seismographic and GEOSCOPE networks with over 20 yr of recording and at least 75% data completeness. These annual periodic functions fit between 14%–95% (PM) and 22%–97% (SM) of signal variance. Station annual peak‐to‐peak variations range between 1.2–14.3 dB (PM) and 1.5–20.6 dB (SM). An asymmetry in microseism features exists between the Northern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. High‐latitude NH stations show highly correlated PM and SM annual amplitude variations. This character dominates the wider extratropical NH but diminishes at tropical latitudes, and widespread relative PM–SM decorrelation is observed in the SH. These hemispheric characteristics reflect systematic differences in both extratropical storm activity and ocean wave state. Greater annual variation and seasonal predictability in the NH reflect the influence of the large continental landmasses that enhance both storm intensity seasonality and SM‐generating coastal wave reflection. Notable clusters of low PM–SM correlation stations are also observed in continental Antarctica due to seasonal sea ice influences, and in East Asia, reflecting unusual PM and SM source responses to South Asian monsoonal and tropical cyclone ocean wave influences.

Seismological Research Letters↗