Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70270165

The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model

Abstract

US Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used extensively for seismic design regulations in the United States and earthquake scenario development, as well as risk assessment and mitigation for both buildings and infrastructure. This 2023 update of the long-term, time-independent Alaska NSHM includes substantial changes to both the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) and ground motion models (GMMs). The ERF includes numerous additions to the finite-fault model, considers two deformation models, and introduces updated declustering and smoothing algorithms in the gridded background seismicity model. For the Alaska–Aleutian subduction zone, megathrust earthquakes occur on an updated structural and segmentation model, and the moment magnitude (M) 8+ rupture and rate model include a logic tree branch that considers slip rates derived from geodetic models of interface coupling. The megathrust model considers multiple models of down-dip width, and magnitudes are computed using newly developed scaling relations. For subduction intraslab events and subduction interface events with M < 7, the 2023 update uses a smoothed seismicity model with rupture depths derived from Slab2. The 2023 model updates GMMs in all tectonic settings using the recently published Next Generation Attenuation Subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs for subduction interface and intraslab events, and the NGA-West2 GMMs for active crustal settings. Collectively, additions and updates to the Alaska NSHM result in hazard increases across most of south-central Alaska relative to the previous model, published in 2007. These changes are primarily due to the adoption of updated rate models for the large-magnitude interface events and the NGA-Sub GMMs that have much higher aleatory variability (sigma), consistent with global observations, and that include models of epistemic uncertainty.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 50.98609893339354° to 71.45515260247822° latitude; -178.9453125° to -129.97169494628906° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Peter M. Powers, Jason M. Altekruse, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Kirstie Lafon Haynie, Peter J. Haeussler, Adrian Bender, Sanaz Rezaeian, Morgan P. Moschetti, James Andrew Smith, Richard W. Briggs, Robert C. Witter, Charles Mueller, Yuehua Zeng, Demi Leafar Girot, Julie A. Herrick, Allison M. Shumway, Mark D. Petersen. 2024-08-07. The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241266741

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

Discover connections

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Earthquake stress drop, source spectra from laboratory experiments, and the apparent unsteadiness of frictional slip

Over a range of co-seismic total energy release, high sample rate slip, stress, and slip velocity measurements were made during frictional failure to determine seismic source properties. The near-field measurements were used to estimate stress drops using spectral approaches that are analogous to the standard seismological moment-corner determined Δσ and acceleration amplitude Δσ arms stress drops. Rapid frictional sliding produces slip velocity amplitude spectra that vary with frequency -1 so long as the energy dissipated by friction approaches the total energy release. Under these conditions Δσ and Δσ arms are similar in size. Since these are nearly direct measurements of fault slip velocity and because they produce flat acceleration spectra between the corner and an apparent fmax, friction in these experiments seems to produce dynamic acceleration and deceleration at all resolved frequencies. The physical origin of this unsteady motion is not known exactly but likely reflects rapid dynamic variations in fault strength or applied stress. On the other hand, when the total energy stored prior to failure is artificially made somewhat larger relative to that which can be dissipated by friction the velocity spectra vary with frequency -2 immediately below the corner. At these conditions Δσ and Δσ arms diverge. The excess stored energy is preferentially partitioned into radiated energy upon failure. Collectively the experiments imply that to produce unsteady, white noise accelerations that are observed for natural earthquakes, requires that at least 95% of the energy released does not escape the source region to be radiated to the far-field.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Evaluating the impact of uncertainty in ground motion forecasts for post-earthquake impact modeling applications

The US Geological Survey’s (USGS) ShakeMap system provides a rapid characterization of strong ground shaking in areas directly affected by an earthquake. This study focuses on studying the aggregate effects of macroseismic shaking estimates from ShakeMap, expressed in terms of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI), when accounting for the uncertainty in forecasted ground motions. We use a Monte Carlo approach to generate numerous spatially correlated realizations of ground motions by utilizing a combination of circulant embedding and kriging techniques for efficiently handling the correlations. We then assessed the aggregate effects of shaking by looking at bin counts across these realizations. We demonstrate that the aggregate shaking regarding the mean macroseismic intensity estimates (from the ShakeMap output) is a biased representation of the aggregate shaking when shaking uncertainty is included. Incorporating shaking uncertainty can help to improve various downstream earthquake impact applications, such as the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) overall earthquake fatality distribution or estimates of shaking-induced ground failure impacts from consequential earthquakes.

Earthquake Spectra Journal

Earthquake scenario development in conjunction with the 2023 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model

We present earthquake scenarios developed to accompany the release of the 2023 update to the US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM). Scenarios can serve a range of local and regional needs, from developing proactive-targeted mitigation strategies for minimizing impending risk to aiding emergency management planning. These deterministic scenarios can also be used to communicate seismic hazard and risk to audiences who are not well versed in methods, such as probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. Specifically, we discuss the scenarios developed, challenges, and lessons learned in the development process, and how this work aided the development of the 2023 NSHM itself. In total, 28 scenarios were developed for Hawaii, Utah, Alaska, and Virginia considering the 2023 NSHM science, past scenario efforts, and input from local experts and stakeholders. Finally, we investigate how NSHM modeling decisions can change estimated impacts to Utah and Hawaii in more detail showing, for example, that a shallower dip of the Wasatch fault under Salt Lake City can increase predicted ground-motion intensities and therefore estimated losses and deaths.

Earthquake Spectra