Integration of rupture directivity models for the US National Seismic Hazard Model

Kyle B. Withers; Morgan P. Moschetti; Peter M. Powers; Mark D. Petersen; Robert Graves; Brad T. Aagaard; Annemarie S. Baltay; Nico Luco; Erin A. Wirth; Sanaz Rezaeian; Eric M. Thompson

doi:10.1177/87552930241232708

USGS · 70267274

Integration of rupture directivity models for the US National Seismic Hazard Model

Kyle B. Withers·Morgan P. Moschetti·Peter M. Powers·Mark D. Petersen·Robert Graves·Brad T. Aagaard·Annemarie S. Baltay·Nico Luco·Erin A. Wirth·Sanaz Rezaeian·Eric M. Thompson

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Several rupture directivity models (DMs) have been developed in recent years to describe the near-source spatial variations in ground motion amplitudes related to propagation of rupture along the fault. We recently organized an effort towards incorporating these directivity effects into the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), by first evaluating the community's work and potential methods to implement directivity adjustments into probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Guided by this evaluation and comparison among the considered DMs, we selected an approach that can be readily implemented into the USGS hazard software, that provides an azimuthally varying adjustment to the median ground motion and its aleatory variability. This method allows assessment of the impact on hazard levels and provides a platform to test the DM amplification predictions using a generalized coordinate system, necessary for consistent calculation of source-to-site distance terms for complex ruptures. We give examples of the directivity-related impact on hazard, progressing from a simple, hypothetical rupture, to more complex fault systems, composed of multiple rupture segments and sources. The directivity adjustments were constrained to strike-slip faulting, where DMs have good agreement. We find that rupture directivity adjustments using a simple median and aleatory adjustment approach can impact hazard both from a site perspective and on a regional scale, increasing shaking off the end of the fault trace up to 30--40\% and potentially reducing it for sites along strike. Statewide hazard maps of California show that the change in shaking along major faults can be a factor to consider for assessing long-period (>ls) near-source effects within the USGS NSHM going forward, reaching up to 10--20\%. Finally, we suggest consideration of minimum parameter ranges and baseline requirements as future DMs are developed to minimize single approach adaptations, to enable more consistent application within both ground motion and hazard studies.

Explore related subjects

Earthquake Spectra Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 17.94655° to 71.35776° latitude; -171.79111° to -65.591° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Kyle B. Withers, Morgan P. Moschetti, Peter M. Powers, Mark D. Petersen, Robert Graves, Brad T. Aagaard, Annemarie S. Baltay, Nico Luco, Erin A. Wirth, Sanaz Rezaeian, Eric M. Thompson. 2024-03-22. Integration of rupture directivity models for the US National Seismic Hazard Model. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241232708

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

Discover connections

United STates place Article subject Earthquake Spectra subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

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↗