Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70228913

Partitioning ground motion uncertainty when conditioned on station data

Abstract

Rapid estimation of earthquake ground shaking and proper accounting of associated uncertainties in such estimates when conditioned on strong‐motion station data or macroseismic intensity observations are crucial for downstream applications such as ground failure and loss estimation. The U.S. Geological Survey ShakeMap system is called upon to fulfill this objective in light of increased near‐real‐time access to strong‐motion records from around the world. Although the station data provide a direct constraint on shaking estimates at specific locations, these data also heavily influence the uncertainty quantification at other locations. This investigation demonstrates methods to partition the within‐ (phi) and between‐event (tau) uncertainty estimates under the observational constraints, especially when between‐event uncertainties are heteroscedastic. The procedure allows the end users of ShakeMap to create separate between‐ and within‐event realizations of ground‐motion fields for downstream loss modeling applications in a manner that preserves the structure of the underlying random spatial processes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Davis T. Engler, Charles Worden, Eric M. Thompson, Kishor S. Jaiswal. 2022-01-11. Partitioning ground motion uncertainty when conditioned on station data. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210177

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗