Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70236348

A probabilistic framework to model distributions of VS30

Abstract

The time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity in the upper 30 m depth from the ground surface, or V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ , is often used as a predictor to describe local site effects in ground‐motion models. Although V S 30 "> V S 30 is typically determined from in situ measurements, it is not always feasible to obtain such measurements due to project restrictions or site accessibility. This motivates the development and use of proxy‐based V S 30 "> V S 30 predictions that leverage more readily available secondary information such as surface geology, topographic slope, or geomorphic terrain classes to estimate the mean V S 30 "> V S 30 and associated uncertainty. Traditionally, empirical distributions of V S 30 "> V S 30 have been observed to have long right tails, leading to high levels of associated uncertainty. In this study, we present a physical framework that is grounded in fundamental principles of geostatistics and probability to explain the uncertainty and skewness associated with V S 30 "> V S 30 measurements. Specifically, by invoking Lyapunov’s central limit theorem, we hypothesize that the distribution of V S 30 "> V S 30 can be theoretically approximated by a reciprocal–normal distribution. We show that a non‐normal and skewed distribution of V S 30 "> V S 30 is to be expected and is not a sign of measurement error or sampling bias, although sampling bias can exaggerate such skewness. Our framework also enables us to propose the mode as a characteristic value of V S 30 "> V S 30 measurements, as opposed to the mean or median, which can overestimate the most probable value.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 17.916022703877665° to 71.35706654962706° latitude; -178.2421875° to -65.2587890625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Utkarsh Mital, Sean K Ahdi, Julie A. Herrick, Junko Iwahashi, Alexandros Savvaidis, Alan Yong. 2021-03-16. A probabilistic framework to model distributions of VS30. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200281

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↗