EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Kishor S. Jaiswal

Publications and source records attributed to Kishor S. Jaiswal.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Evaluating the U.S. Geological Survey’s earthquake shaking hazard forecasts and their implications on seismic risk

We analyze the last six update cycles of the long-term probabilistic earthquake shaking hazard forecast from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and discuss the changes in hazard estimates from the 1996 to the latest 2023 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous U.S. We summarize how our understanding of earthquake hazards has evolved over the last two decades and quantify the implications of changing hazards on people, buildings, and lifeline infrastructure. The net effect of changes in hazard estimates, with reference to the mean hazard from the 2023 NSHM update that has 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, suggests an overall increase in total geographic areas facing very strong shaking levels (modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of VII or more) when compared with any of the previous cycles. This increase puts ~159.2 million people (an increase from 111.8 million when using the 2018 NSHM), ~47.3 million residential buildings (an increase from 32.5 million with the 2018 NSHM), and ~$25.6 trillion of economic exposure of all buildings (an increase from $17.4 trillion when using the 2018 NSHM) at risk from earthquakes. We demonstrate that small changes in hazard estimates do not necessarily imply small changes in risk estimates. Therefore, changes in risk estimates can be used to highlight key USGS NSHM updates for improving risk mitigation efforts.

Earthquake Spectra Journal↗

USGS2026

2025 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: Overview of model and hazard results

The U.S. Geological Survey recently updated the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). The first version of the PRVI NSHM was released in 2003, and therefore this 2025 update includes over 20 years of new geologic, geophysical, and engineering data, methods, and models. Updates follow similar efforts performed in the recent 2023 50-state NSHM. However, this is the first NSHM in which we: (1) apply an inversion methodology to subduction interface fault sources in the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) model; (2) develop scaled backbone median ground-motion models and independent aleatory variability models that are applied in the ground-motion characterization (GMC) model; and (3) calculate epistemic uncertainty related to alternative scenarios in the ERF and GMC models for all grid points in the study region. Long-term time-independent mean hazard calculations were performed for peak ground acceleration and 5%-damped pseudospectral acceleration at 21 spectral periods from 0.01- to 10.0-s, for eight National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program site conditions ranging from V S30 = 150 to 1500 m/s, and for 2%, 5%, and 10% in 50-year probabilities of exceedance (return periods of 2475, 975, and 475 years, respectively). Epistemic uncertainty, in the form of selected percentiles, is also provided for a suite of test sites and all grid points in the study region for limited periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. Selected results, including comparisons with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, are shown and discussed for selected periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. When comparing the 2025 PRVI NSHM with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, hazard is generally higher at shorter periods and lower at longer periods, as a result of updates in both ERF and GMC models. The 2025 PRVI NSHM is applicable for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2026

Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Seismic Hazard Model to improve seismic risk assessment of critical infrastructure.

As fragility and risk modeling techniques and computational capabilities evolve, complemented by moving toward more routine and systematic seismic risk assessment of all buildings and critical infrastructure, the authors pose a few critical questions to investigate how the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) can be used and enhanced further to serve such issues. In this paper, we use three examples from multiple sectors to (1) identify the role of USGS NSHMs in evaluating seismic risks to critical infrastructure, (2) quantify potential impacts from NSHM enhancements (i.e., [i] hazard curves for the vertical component of ground motion, [ii] stochastic event sets, and [iii] maps of probabilistic ground failure hazards), and (3) clarify the feasibility of relevant NSHM improvements. We illuminate that NSHMs are commonly used in location-specific performance assessments, whereas earthquake effects on critical infrastructure can be widespread across large geospatial regions. Further, we found that without the NSHM extensions considered here, risk can be severely underestimated, e.g., neglecting ground failure hazards can underestimate regional loss by a factor of two or more. Although many challenges remain, we developed example prototypes to clarify the feasibility of the NSHM extensions, which can facilitate improved management of risks to critical infrastructure.

Earthquake Spectra Journal↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

Updating regional‐scale geospatial liquefaction models with locally available geotechnical data

We present a method to update the geospatial liquefaction model used by the U.S. Geological Survey’s near‐real‐time ground failure product with subsurface geotechnical data. The geospatial model estimates liquefaction probability from peak ground velocity (via ShakeMap) and geospatial susceptibility proxies. In many regions, additional information relevant to constraining liquefaction likelihood is also available, including surface geology maps and subsurface geotechnical measurements. There is currently no mechanism to use these data in the ground failure product liquefaction model, even though these data could provide more precise constraints on spatial variations in the lithologic character of the soil (surface geology) and direct measurements of the subsurface mechanical properties that affect liquefaction occurrence and severity (geotechnical measurements). In this study, we develop a method to integrate these data with the geospatial model and assess how these data can improve regional‐scale predictions. We develop a Bayesian updating framework and apply it to the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake, for which mapped observations are available to evaluate performance. We constrain the Bayesian framework with 373 Northern California cone penetration tests and liquefaction susceptibility classes based on the mapped surface geology. This Bayesian model incorporates geotechnical information into the geospatial model and more accurately predicts liquefaction occurrences than the geospatial model, while sacrificing less accuracy in terms of predicting the absence of liquefaction than the geotechnical model. In future applications, this approach could be adapted to update other geospatial models using locally available subsurface data.

California↗

USGS2025

Engineering and risk research—A strategic vision for extending USGS earthquake science to risk assessment and mitigation

As a part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area, the Engineering and Risk Project (ERP) of the Geologic Hazards Science Center conducts civil engineering research to extend natural hazards science to risk assessments. The ERP includes predominantly, but not exclusively, staff funded by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. A major focus of the ERP is to deliver actionable information to decisionmakers that helps promote the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The report discusses briefly the ERP’s evolution and scope, its organization structure, describes key products and deliverables, their efforts to engage with external partners, and its strategy and vision in conducting range of engineering and risk research. The research topics outlined in this report, as developed by the ERP, may be used to facilitate project planning activities during the next 10 years and serve as a longer-term planning resource for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and Geologic Hazards Science Center.

Circular↗