The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States

Morgan P. Moschetti; Brad T. Aagaard; Sean Kamran Ahdi; Jason M. Altekruse; Oliver S. Boyd; Arthur D. Frankel; Julie A. Herrick; Mark D. Petersen; Peter M. Powers; Sanaz Rezaeian; Allison M. Shumway; James Andrew Smith; William J. Stephenson; Eric M. Thompson; Kyle B. Withers

doi:10.1177/87552930231223995

USGS · 70263570

The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States

Morgan P. Moschetti·Brad T. Aagaard·Sean Kamran Ahdi·Jason M. Altekruse·Oliver S. Boyd·Arthur D. Frankel·Julie A. Herrick·Mark D. Petersen·Peter M. Powers·Sanaz Rezaeian·Allison M. Shumway·James Andrew Smith·William J. Stephenson·Eric M. Thompson·Kyle B. Withers

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We update the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. The update includes the use of new ground-motion models (GMMs) in the Cascadia subduction zone; an adjustment to the central and eastern United States (CEUS) GMMs to reduce misfits with observed data; an updated boundary for the application of GMMs for shallow, crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (i.e. western United States (WUS)) and stable continental regions (i.e. CEUS); and the use of improved models for the site response of deep sedimentary basins in the WUS and CEUS. Site response updates include basin models for the California Great Valley and for the Portland and Tualatin basins, Oregon, as well as long-period basin effects from three-dimensional simulations in the Greater Los Angeles region and in the Seattle basin; in the CEUS, we introduce a broadband (0.01- to 10-s period) amplification model for the effects of the passive-margin basins of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In addition, we summarize progress on implementing rupture directivity models into seismic hazard models, although they are not incorporated in the 2023 NSHM. We implement the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 NSHM in the US Geological Survey’s code for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, nshmp-haz-v2 , and present the sensitivity of hazard to these changes. Hazard calculations indicate widespread effects from adjustments to the CEUS GMMs, from the incorporation of Coastal Plain amplification effects, and from the treatment of shallow-basin and out-of-basin sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region, as well as locally important changes from subduction-zone GMMs, and from updated and new WUS basins.

Explore related subjects

Earthquake Spectra Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 25.08° to 49.38905° latitude; -124.68721° to -66.96466° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Morgan P. Moschetti, Brad T. Aagaard, Sean Kamran Ahdi, Jason M. Altekruse, Oliver S. Boyd, Arthur D. Frankel, Julie A. Herrick, Mark D. Petersen, Peter M. Powers, Sanaz Rezaeian, Allison M. Shumway, James Andrew Smith, William J. Stephenson, Eric M. Thompson, Kyle B. Withers. 2024-02-29. The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231223995

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Revisions to the 2023 U.S. 50-state National Seismic Hazard Model

We present an update to the 2023 U.S. 50-state National Seismic Hazard Model, based on questions and comments received from a range of users, as well as additional internal and building code reviews since its initial release. For the conterminous United States, the update includes (1) revised weighting of ground motion models in the Intermountain West, (2) revised weighting of seismicity models across the stable crust of the central and eastern United States, (3) corrections to fault rupture input files and hazard codes, and (4) adjustments to stable crust nonlinear site amplification terms at soft soil sites. The model also updates the implementation of moment magnitude 7–8 subduction interface earthquake ruptures for Alaska and includes an alternate, full-catalog rate model for Hawaii. The revised model is available through the U.S. Geological Survey online tools and is accompanied by a data release of high-resolution hazard datasets for eight site conditions (from soft soil to hard rock with a time-averaged shear-wave velocity, V S30 , ranging from 150 to 1500 m/s) in terms of peak horizontal ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and 5% damped pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 spectral periods. It has been approved as the basis for updated design provisions and is being considered for inclusion in other hazard and risk assessment products.

Earthquake Spectra↗

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↗