Geology topics

Molly M. Gallahue

Publications and source records attributed to Molly M. Gallahue.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Why do seismic hazard models worldwide appear to overpredict historical intensity observations?

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments (PSHAs) provide the scientific basis for building codes to reduce damage from earthquakes. Despite their substantial impact, little is known about how well PSHA predicts actual shaking. Recent PSHA for California, Japan, Italy, Nepal, and France appear to consistently overpredict historically observed earthquake shaking intensities. Numerical simulations show that observed shaking is equally likely to be above or below predictions. This result from independently developed models and datasets in different countries and tectonic settings indicates possible systematic bias in the hazard models, the observations, or both. Analysis of possible causes shows that much of the discrepancy is due to a subtle and rarely considered issue: the conversion equations used in comparing the models—which forecast shaking as peak ground acceleration or velocity—and observations—parameterizations of qualitative shaking reports. Historical shaking reports fill a crucial data gap, but more research is warranted on how qualitative observations relate to instrumental shaking measures for earthquakes.

Science Advances↗

USGS2023

Uncertainties in intensity-based earthquake magnitude estimates

Estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes is crucial for assessing seismic hazard. Magnitudes of early‐instrumental earthquakes can be inferred using a combination of instrumental records, field observations, and the observed distribution of shaking intensity determined from macroseismic observations. For earthquakes before 1900, shaking intensity distributions often provide the only information to constrain earthquake magnitude. Considerable effort has been made to develop methods to estimate the magnitude of moderate‐to‐large historical earthquakes using shaking intensities derived from macroseismic data. In this study, we consider earthquakes in California with known instrumental magnitudes to explore uncertainties in estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes from intensity information alone. We use three California‐specific intensity prediction equations (IPEs) and an IPE based on a global ground‐motion model (GMM) to determine optimum intensity‐based magnitudes for 33 moderate‐to‐large California earthquakes between 1979 and 2021. Intensity‐based magnitudes are close to instrumental magnitudes on average. However, intensity‐based magnitudes for individual events differ by as much as 2.2 magnitude units from instrumental magnitudes. This result reflects the weak dependence of ground motions and shaking intensities on moment magnitude and their strong dependence on stress drop. Considering the intensity distributions of the 1906 San Francisco and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes, we show that information that could constrain rupture length is discarded when considering only the 2D decay of intensity with distance. We also show that ground‐motion intensity conversion equations used in a GMM‐based approach may cause a systematic overestimation of large historical earthquake magnitudes. This study underscores both the reducible and potentially irreducible uncertainties associated with using intensity data to estimate magnitudes of historical earthquakes using IPEs and highlights the value of using additional information to constrain rupture dimensions. Using intensity observations alone, moment magnitude uncertainties are typically on the order of a full unit.

California↗

USGS2022

A study on the effect of site response on California seismic hazard map assessment

Prior studies have repeatedly shown that probabilistic seismic hazard maps from several different countries predict higher shaking than that observed. Previous map assessments have not, however, considered the influence of site response on hazard. Seismologists have long acknowledged the influence of near-surface geology, in particular low-impedance sediment layers, on earthquake ground-motion at frequencies of engineering concern. Although the overall effects of site response are complex, modern ground-motion models (GMMs) account for site effects using terms based on V S30 , the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m of the Earth’s surface. In this study, we consider general implications of incorporating site terms from modern GMMs using site-specific V S30 as a proxy in probabilistic seismic hazard maps for California. At the long periods (1–5 s) that affect tall buildings, site terms amplify the mapped hazard by factors of 1–3 at many sites relative to maps calculated for the standard reference soft-rock site condition, V S30 = 760 m/s. However, at the short periods of ground-motion that are the main contributors to peak ground acceleration (PGA) and thus affect smaller structures, only negligible effects occur due to nonlinear deamplification of strong ground-motion at high frequencies. Nonlinear deamplification increases as the shaking level increases. For very strong shaking, deamplification can overcome the linear amplification, yielding net deamplification. We explore the implications of these results for the evaluation of hazard maps. Because site effects do not change the maps appreciably at short periods, we can exclude site response as an explanation for why the maps overpredict historically observed shaking as captured by the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) dataset. The results are expected to be generalizable to regions that are comparable to California in terms of structure and seismicity rates. In low-to-moderate-seismicity regions where the hazard reflects weaker shaking, nonlinear site response is expected to be less important for the hazard.

California↗

USGS2020

Revisiting California’s past great earthquakes and long-term earthquake rate

In this study, we revisit the three largest historical earthquakes in California—the 1857 Fort Tejon, 1872 Owens Valley, and 1906 San Francisco earthquakes—to review their published moment magnitudes, and compare their estimated shaking distributions with predictions using modern ground‐motion models (GMMs) and ground‐motion intensity conversion equations. Currently accepted moment magnitude estimates for the three earthquakes are 7.9, 7.6, and 7.8, respectively. We first consider the extent to which the intensity distributions of all three earthquakes are consistent with a moment magnitude toward the upper end of the estimated range. We then apply a GMM‐based method to estimate the magnitudes of large historical earthquakes. The intensity distribution of the 1857 earthquake is too sparse to provide a strong constraint on magnitude. For the 1872 earthquake, consideration of all available constraints suggests that it was a high stress‐drop event, with a magnitude on the higher end of the range implied by scaling relationships, that is, higher than moment magnitude 7.6. For the 1906 earthquake, based on our analysis of regional intensities and the detailed intensity distribution in San Francisco, along with other available constraints, we estimate a preferred moment magnitude of 7.9, consistent with the published estimate based on geodetic and instrumental seismic data. These results suggest that, although there can be a tendency for historical earthquake magnitudes to be overestimated, the accepted catalog magnitudes of California’s largest historical earthquakes could be too low. Given the uncertainties of the magnitude estimates, the seismic moment release rate between 1850 and 2019 could have been either higher or lower than the average over millennial time scales. It is further not possible to reject the hypothesis that California seismicity is described by an untruncated Gutenberg–Richter distribution with a b "> b ‐value of 1.0 for moment magnitudes up to 8.0.

California↗

USGS2020

California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP): A consistently reinterpreted dataset of seismic intensities for the past 162 years and implications for seismic hazard maps

Historical seismic intensity data are useful for myriad reasons, including assessment of the performance of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) models and corresponding hazard maps by comparing their predictions to a dataset of historically observed intensities in the region. To assess PSHA models for California, a long and consistently interpreted intensity record is necessary. For this purpose, the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) has compiled a dataset that combines and reinterprets intensity information that has been stored in disparate and sometimes hard-to-access locations. The CHIMP dataset also includes new observations of intensity from archival research and oral history collection. Version 1 of the dataset includes 46,502 intensity observations for 62 earthquakes with estimated magnitudes ranging from 4.7 to 7.9. The 162 years of shaking data show observed shaking lower than expected from seismic hazard models. This discrepancy is reduced, but persists, if historical intensity data for the largest earthquakes are smoothed to reduce the effects of spatial under-sampling. Possible reasons for this discrepancy include other limitations of the CHIMP dataset, the hazard models, and the possibility that California seismicity throughout the historical period has been lower than the long-term average. Some of these issues may also explain similar discrepancies observed for Italy and Japan.

California↗