The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Where, why, and how much probabilistic ground motion maps changed

Mark D. Petersen; Allison M. Shumway; Peter M. Powers; Charles S Mueller; Morgan P. Moschetti; Arthur D. Frankel; Sanaz Rezaeian; Daniel McNamara; Nico Luco; Oliver S. Boyd; Kenneth S. Rukstales; Kishor S. Jaiswal; Eric M. Thompson; Susan M. Hoover; Brandon S. Clayton; Edward H. Field; Yuehua Zeng

doi:10.1177/8755293020988016

USGS · 70225621

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Where, why, and how much probabilistic ground motion maps changed

Mark D. Petersen·Allison M. Shumway·Peter M. Powers·Charles S Mueller·Morgan P. Moschetti·Arthur D. Frankel·Sanaz Rezaeian·Daniel McNamara·Nico Luco·Oliver S. Boyd·Kenneth S. Rukstales·Kishor S. Jaiswal·Eric M. Thompson·Susan M. Hoover·Brandon S. Clayton·Edward H. Field·Yuehua Zeng

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The 2018 US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) incorporates new data and updated science to improve the underlying earthquake and ground motion forecasts for the conterminous United States. The NSHM considers many new data and component input models: (1) new earthquakes between 2013 and 2017 and updated earthquake magnitudes for some earlier earthquakes; (2) two updated smoothed seismicity models to forecast earthquake rates; (3) two suites of new central and eastern US (CEUS) ground motion models (GMMs) to translate ground shaking for various earthquake sizes and source-to-site distances considered in the model; (4) two CEUS GMMs for aleatory variability; (5) two CEUS site-effect models that modify ground shaking based on alternative shallow site conditions; (6) more advanced western US (WUS) lithologic and structural information to assess basin site effects for selected urban regions; and (7) a more comprehensive range of outputs (22 periods and 8 site classes) than in previous versions of the NSHMs. Each of these new datasets and models produces changes in the probabilistic ground shaking levels that are spatially and statistically analyzed. Recent earthquakes or changes to some older earthquake magnitudes and locations mostly result in probabilistic ground shaking levels that are similar to previous models, but local changes can reach up to +80% and −60% compared to the 2014 model. Newly developed CEUS models for GMMs, aleatory variability, and site effects cause overall changes up to ±64%. The addition of the WUS basin amplifications causes changes of up to +60% at longer periods for sites overlying deep soft soils. Across the conterminous United States, the hazard changes in the model are mainly caused by new GMMs in the CEUS, by sedimentary basin effects for long periods (≥1 s) in the WUS, and by seismicity changes for short (0.2 s) and long (1 s) periods for both areas.

Explore related subjects

Earthquake Spectra Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 25.08° to 49.38905° latitude; -124.68721° to -66.96466° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Mark D. Petersen, Allison M. Shumway, Peter M. Powers, Charles S Mueller, Morgan P. Moschetti, Arthur D. Frankel, Sanaz Rezaeian, Daniel McNamara, Nico Luco, Oliver S. Boyd, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Kishor S. Jaiswal, Eric M. Thompson, Susan M. Hoover, Brandon S. Clayton, Edward H. Field, Yuehua Zeng. 2021-01-28. The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Where, why, and how much probabilistic ground motion maps changed. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020988016

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

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

Suite of regional seismic velocity models for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (CPVMv2.0): Incorporating epistemic uncertainty in velocity models

The U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (CP) sediments are kilometers-thick, low-velocity deposits underlain by high-velocity bedrock that create regional patterns of amplification and attenuation of ground motions. Capturing these effects is challenging because of the limited subsurface information available, particularly the shear wave velocity ( V S ) structure down to bedrock (or assumed reference rock condition) and the associated uncertainties. This paper introduces a new suite of regional velocity models for the CPs, called CPVMv2.0, which builds upon previous efforts integrating geology, V S measurements, and sediment thickness in the region. CPVMv2.0 uses 750 measured V S profiles and identifies nine surficial-geologic-age-based and geography-based groups (with alternative physiographic-province-based subgroupings) to create surface-based median V S profiles. This suite of new models also includes six subsurface-based median profiles developed using geologic age boundaries from depth-dependent stratigraphic sequences extracted from the U.S. Geological Survey National Crustal Model. In addition to quantifying aleatory variability in sediment velocity, weathered-rock velocity, bedrock velocity, and the depth to the top of weathered rock and bedrock, CPVMv2.0 provides alternative profile models that allow for the characterization of the epistemic uncertainty. This is a unique and relevant feature of CPVMv2.0. Our suite of models was validated using measured and estimated fundamental resonant frequencies as well as other V S models in the region. CPVMv2.0 enables the incorporation of crustal velocities (and their associated variability and uncertainty) into physics-based ground-motion simulations in the eastern United States and into the development of new ground-motion models aiming to characterize systematic site effects via V S30 , depths to V S isosurfaces, and/or sediment thickness in the region.

U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains↗