Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70230324

A ground motion model for GNSS peak ground displacement

Abstract

We present an updated ground‐motion model (GMM) for M w "> M w Mw 6–9 earthquakes using Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) observations of the peak ground displacement (PGD). Earthquake GMMs inform a range of Earth science and engineering applications, including source characterization, seismic hazard evaluations, loss estimates, and seismic design standards. A typical GMM is characterized by simplified metrics describing the earthquake source (magnitude), observation distance, and site terms. Most often, GMMs are derived from broadband seismometer and accelerometer observations, yet during strong shaking, these traditional seismic instruments are affected by baseline offsets, leading to inaccurate recordings of low‐frequency ground motions such as displacement. The incorporation of geodetic data sources, particularly for characterizing the unsaturated ground displacement of large‐magnitude events, has proven valuable as a complement to traditional seismic approaches and led to the development of an initial point‐source GMM based on PGD estimated from high‐rate GNSS data. Here, we improve the existing GMM to more effectively account for fault finiteness, slip heterogeneity, and observation distance. We evaluate the limitations of the currently available GNSS earthquake data set to calibrate the GMM. In particular, the observed earthquake data set is lacking in observations within 100 km of large‐magnitude events ( ⁠ M w > 8 "> M w > 8 Mw>8 ⁠ ), inhibiting evaluation of fault dimensions for earthquakes too large to be represented as point sources in the near field. To that end, we separately consider previously validated synthetic GNSS waveforms within 10–1000 km of M w "> M w Mw 7.8–9.3 Cascadia subduction zone scenario ruptures. The synthetic data highlight the importance of fault distance rather than point‐source metrics and improve our preparedness for large‐magnitude earthquakes with spatiotemporal qualities unlike those in our existing data set.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dara Elyse Goldberg, Diego Melgar, Gavin P. Hayes, Valerie J. Sahakian, Brendan W. Crowell. 2021-08-24. A ground motion model for GNSS peak ground displacement. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210042

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↗