USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70037251

The influence of maximum magnitude on seismic-hazard estimates in the Central and Eastern United States

Abstract

I analyze the sensitivity of seismic-hazard estimates in the central and eastern United States (CEUS) to maximum magnitude (m max ) by exercising the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) probabilistic hazard model with several m max alternatives. Seismicity-based sources control the hazard in most of the CEUS, but data seldom provide an objective basis for estimating m max . The USGS uses preferred m max values of moment magnitude 7.0 and 7.5 for the CEUS craton and extended margin, respectively, derived from data in stable continental regions worldwide. Other approaches, for example analysis of local seismicity or judgment about a source's seismogenic potential, often lead to much smaller m max . Alternative models span the m max ranges from the 1980s Electric Power Research Institute/Seismicity Owners Group (EPRI/SOG) analysis. Results are presented as haz-ard ratios relative to the USGS national seismic hazard maps. One alternative model specifies m max equal to moment magnitude 5.0 and 5.5 for the craton and margin, respectively, similar to EPRI/SOG for some sources. For 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (about 0.0004 annual probability), the strong m max truncation produces hazard ratios equal to 0.35-0.60 for 0.2-sec spectral acceleration, and 0.15-0.35 for 1.0-sec spectral acceleration. Hazard-controlling earthquakes interact with m max in complex ways. There is a relatively weak dependence on probability level: hazardratios increase 0-15% for 0.002 annual exceedance probability and decrease 5-25% for 0.00001 annual exceedance probability. Although differences at some sites are tempered when faults are added, m max clearly accounts for some of the discrepancies that are seen in comparisons between USGS-based and EPRI/SOG-based hazard results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C.S. Mueller. 2010-03-15. The influence of maximum magnitude on seismic-hazard estimates in the Central and Eastern United States. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090114

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗