Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70198117

Toward a unified near-field intensity map of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake

Sujan Raj Adhikari·Gopi Baysal·Amod Dixit·Stacey Martin·Mattieu Landes·Remy Bossu·Susan E. Hough
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We develop a unified near-field shaking intensity map for the 25 April 2015 M w 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake by synthesizing intensities derived from macroseismic effects that were determined by independent groups using a variety of approaches. Independent assessments by different groups are generally consistent, with minor differences that are likely due in large part to differences in spatial sampling. Throughout most of the near-field region, European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) intensities were generally close to 7 EMS. In the Kathmandu Valley, intensities were somewhat higher (6.5–7.5) along the periphery of the valley and in the adjacent foothills than in the central valley, where they were ≈6. The results are consistent with instrumental intensity values estimated from available data using a published relationship between peak ground acceleration (PGA) and intensity. Using this relationship to convert intensities to PGA, we estimate strong-motion PGA de-amplification factors of ≈0.7 in the central Kathmandu Valley, with amplification of ≈1.6 in adjacent foothills. The results support the conclusion that the Kathmandu Valley experienced a pervasively nonlinear response during the Gorkha main shock.

Explore related subjects

Earthquake SpectraArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sujan Raj Adhikari, Gopi Baysal, Amod Dixit, Stacey Martin, Mattieu Landes, Remy Bossu, Susan E. Hough. 2017-12-01. Toward a unified near-field intensity map of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1193/120716eqs226m

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

An examination of the reasons for, and variability of, the differences between response spectra and pseudo response spectra

For many decades, it has been common practice to overlook the differences between response spectra and pseudo response spectra. This practice stems from analyses indicating that the average difference between response spectra and pseudo response spectra is negligible for a viscous damping ratio of 5%, which is near-universally adopted. As others have shown, the differences depend strongly on the damping ratio, earthquake magnitude, and oscillator period, with larger differences for larger damping, smaller magnitudes, and longer periods. To quantify the full statistical distribution of the ratio of the absolute acceleration response spectrum (SA) to the pseudo absolute acceleration response spectrum (PSA), we fit empirical ratios with the generalized gamma distribution. Data for magnitudes from 4.0 to 5.5 give 95% prediction intervals for the ratio of 1.00–1.02 at 1 s and 1.01–2.24 at 10 s for 5% damping. For 30% damping, these intervals increase to 1.14–2.01 at 1 s and 1.62–11.8 at 10 s, respectively. Further, we demonstrate how the shape of the ground-motion Fourier amplitude spectrum interacts with the natural period of the oscillator to control the differences in the response spectra type. Routinely treating the two measures of acceleration response spectra as interchangeable may lead to unacceptable inconsistencies when the response spectra of individual records are important or when larger damping ratios are used, such as in direct displacement-based design. If one must convert between them, the uncertainty of the conversion should be accounted for during analysis.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2026

Accounting for biases in the analysis of building damage data for the 2023 M7.8 Türkiye/Syria earthquake sequence

In the aftermath of a large earthquake, several practical constraints affect the systematic collection of data for assessing building damage. The available data are therefore typically incomplete, frequently missing key information such as the type of construction, age and geographic location. Moreover, the observations often favour certain locations and damage grades. In the absence of robust methods, using such data directly for characterising the building stock or conducting fragility assessments can introduce systematic bias. Using the 2023 M7.8 Türkiye/Syria earthquake sequence as a case study, we propose a statistical model that enables joint inference over the inventory and fragility of the building stock while explicitly accounting for sources of data error and missing information. The results show higher-than-expected vulnerability amongst several building types, particularly mid- and high-rise reinforced concrete buildings, which performed extremely poorly during the 2023 earthquake sequence. The proposed Bayesian framework provides rigorous uncertainty quantification that can be propagated to future applications.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2026

Development of liquefaction-targeted design basis in U.S. seismic provisions

Seismic design criteria for new buildings in the United States have historically focused on life safety performance objectives through minimizing the potential for structural collapse. Development of design criteria to meet this performance objective has evolved over time, leading to the current, risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE R ) design basis. Corresponding MCE R seismic design loads incorporate the full range of probabilistic ground motion hazard information available from U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models, as well as a representation of the uncertainty in structural collapse capacity. Despite these considerable advances in structural design criteria, guidelines for geotechnical hazards such as liquefaction-induced damage, which continue to be based on uniform ground-shaking hazard (i.e., MCE ground motions), are not well-connected with risk-based, collapse prevention performance objectives. This study, undertaken as part of Building Seismic Safety Council efforts to update recommended seismic provisions through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, presents probabilistic, liquefaction-targeted design objectives and corresponding ground motion parameters, with a focus on improving consistency in first-level screening criteria for liquefaction hazard assessment. This study identifies a potential maximum acceptable annualized probability of liquefaction triggering ( P L,max ) of 2.5% in 50 years, above which liquefaction consequences and potential mitigation measures would be considered. The P L,max -based design basis is calibrated to effective probabilistic liquefaction hazard levels obtained in practice using current MCE peak ground accelerations, and could be implemented via a new liquefaction-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE L ) peak ground acceleration ( PGA L ). The proposed PGA L is derived from probabilistic liquefaction hazard curves and includes uncertainties inherent to liquefaction hazard modeling. The potential design effects of the proposed PGA L are demonstrated via comparison with current MCE PGA levels, effects on first-level liquefaction screening analyses, and improvements in the consistency of P L,max levels across the United States, and for a wide range of site conditions.

conterminous United States↗