USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “earthquake hazards”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,045 records · Page 58Linked to original sources
USGS2023

Induced seismicity and its impact on existing seismic hazard analysis

We develop a scheme for mapping changes in earthquake rates within a region in near-real-time. A specific goal of the work is to track recent changes in the rates of induced earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. We map rates in a time window of interest, map rates in a preceding time window, and then ratio the two maps to show changes. A proof-of-concept map is first prepared, comparing rates during the first six months of 2010 with rates from the preceding five years; this demonstration map shows, among other things, the growth of induced seismicity in Oklahoma during 2010. We then present a series of ten ratio maps: the first six months of 2018 compared with the preceding five years, and so on in six-month increments through the end of 2022. These maps show changes in the rates and locations of induced earthquakes, as well as other seismicity trends. Map regions, time windows, and other model parameters are easily adaptable for other applications.

Technical Letter Report↗
USGS2007

Earthquake likelihood model testing

INTRODUCTION The Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) project aims to produce and evaluate alternate models of earthquake potential (probability per unit volume, magnitude, and time) for California. Based on differing assumptions, these models are produced to test the validity of their assumptions and to explore which models should be incorporated in seismic hazard and risk evaluation. Tests based on physical and geological criteria are useful but we focus on statistical methods using future earthquake catalog data only. We envision two evaluations: a test of consistency with observed data and a comparison of all pairs of models for relative consistency. Both tests are based on the likelihood method, and both are fully prospective ( i.e. , the models are not adjusted to fit the test data). To be tested, each model must assign a probability to any possible event within a specified region of space, time, and magnitude. For our tests the models must use a common format: earthquake rates in specified “bins” with location, magnitude, time, and focal mechanism limits. Seismology cannot yet deterministically predict individual earthquakes; however, it should seek the best possible models for forecasting earthquake occurrence. This paper describes the statistical rules of an experiment to examine and test earthquake forecasts. The primary purposes of the tests described below are to evaluate physical models for earthquakes, assure that source models used in seismic hazard and risk studies are consistent with earthquake data, and provide quantitative measures by which models can be assigned weights in a consensus model or be judged as suitable for particular regions. In this paper we develop a statistical method for testing earthquake likelihood models. A companion paper ( Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger 2007 , this issue) discusses the actual implementation of these tests in the framework of the RELM initiative. Statistical testing of hypotheses is a common task and a wide range of possible testing procedures exist. Jolliffe and Stephenson ( 2003 ) present different forecast verifications from atmospheric science, among them likelihood testing of probability forecasts and testing the occurrence of binary events. Testing binary events requires that for each forecasted event, the spatial, temporal and magnitude limits be given. Although major earthquakes can be considered binary events, the models within the RELM project express their forecasts on a spatial grid and in 0.1 magnitude units; thus the results are a distribution of rates over space and magnitude. These forecasts can be tested with likelihood tests. In general, likelihood tests assume a valid null hypothesis against which a given hypothesis is tested. The outcome is either a rejection of the null hypothesis in favor of the test hypothesis or a nonrejection, meaning the test hypothesis cannot outperform the null hypothesis at a given significance level. Within RELM, there is no accepted null hypothesis and thus the likelihood test needs to be expanded to allow comparable testing of equipollent hypotheses. To test models against one another, we require that forecasts are expressed in a standard format: the average rate of earthquake occurrence within pre-specified limits of hypocentral latitude, longitude, depth, magnitude, time period, and focal mechanisms. Focal mechanisms should either be described as the inclination of P -axis, declination of P -axis, and inclination of the T -axis, or as strike, dip, and rake angles. Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger ( 2007 , this issue) designed classes of these parameters such that similar models will be tested against each other. These classes make the forecasts comparable between models. Additionally, we are limited to testing only what is precisely defined and consistently reported in earthquake catalogs. Therefore it is currently not possible to test such information as fault rupture length or area, asperity location, etc. Also, to account for data quality issues, we allow for location and magnitude uncertainties as well as the probability that an event is dependent on another event. As we mentioned above, only models with comparable forecasts can be tested against each other. Our current tests are designed to examine grid-based models. This requires that any fault-based model be adapted to a grid before testing is possible. While this is a limitation of the testing, it is an inherent difficulty in any such comparative testing. Please refer to appendix B for a statistical evaluation of the application of the Poisson hypothesis to fault-based models. The testing suite we present consists of three different tests: L-Test, N-Test, and R-Test. These tests are defined similarily to Kagan and Jackson ( 1995 ). The first two tests examine the consistency of the hypotheses with the observations while the last test compares the spatial performances of the models.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2018

Holocene fault reactivation in the eastern Cascades, Washington

Significant uncertainty remains concerning how and where crustal shortening occurs throughout the eastern Cascade Range in Washington State. Using light detection and ranging (lidar) imagery, we identified an ∼ 5 ‐ km ‐ long "> ∼5‐km‐long lineament in Swakane canyon near Wenatchee, roughly coincident with a strand of the Entiat fault. Topographic profiles across the lineament reveal a southwest‐side‐up break in slope, with an average of 2–3 m of vertical separation of the hillslope surface. We consider a range of possible origins for this feature, including differential erosion across a fault‐line scarp, slope failure (sackung or landslide), and surface deformation across an active fault strand. Based on trenching, radiocarbon and luminescence dating, and ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) across the lineament, we conclude that warped saprolite observed in the shallow subsurface is most consistent with southwest‐side‐up folding caused by blind reverse faulting at depth. Following this reasoning, dating of overlying colluvial deposits suggests that at least one Holocene earthquake occurred on this strand of the southern Entiat fault, with an approximate vertical separation of ≥ 1    m "> m ≥1 m . GPR reveals up to 4 m of cumulative vertical separation of the saprolite, suggesting a history of multiple earthquakes on the structure. Taken in context with other potential fault‐related lineaments along the Entiat fault, our interpretation of Holocene earthquakes in Swakane canyon could suggest reactivation of longer sections of the Entiat fault, as well as of other bedrock faults in the eastern Cascades. Although active erosion and slow strain rates lead to a subdued geomorphic expression of recent deformation, we conclude that the reactivated Entiat fault represents a seismogenic structure that should be considered in regional seismic hazard analyses. The difficulty of recognizing low‐slip‐rate structures in forested and mountainous terrain underscores the importance of additional lidar surveys and geological and geophysical studies for fully understanding seismic hazard in regions with infrequent but potentially large earthquakes.

Washington↗
USGS2001

A seismic hazard uncertainty analysis for the New Madrid seismic zone

A review of the scientific issues relevant to characterizing earthquake sources in the New Madrid seismic zone has led to the development of a logic tree of possible alternative parameters. A variability analysis, using Monte Carlo sampling of this consensus logic tree, is presented and discussed. The analysis shows that for 2%-exceedence-in-50-year hazard, the best-estimate seismic hazard map is similar to previously published seismic hazard maps for the area. For peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration at 0.2 and 1.0 s (0.2 and 1.0 s Sa), the coefficient of variation (COV) representing the knowledge-based uncertainty in seismic hazard can exceed 0.6 over the New Madrid seismic zone and diminishes to about 0.1 away from areas of seismic activity. Sensitivity analyses show that the largest contributor to PGA, 0.2 and 1.0 s Sa seismic hazard variability is the uncertainty in the location of future 1811-1812 New Madrid sized earthquakes. This is followed by the variability due to the choice of ground motion attenuation relation, the magnitude for the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes, and the recurrence interval for M>6.5 events. Seismic hazard is not very sensitive to the variability in seismogenic width and length. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Engineering Geology↗
USGS2014

Geodesy- and geology-based slip-rate models for the Western United States (excluding California) national seismic hazard maps

The 2014 National Seismic Hazard Maps for the conterminous United States incorporate additional uncertainty in fault slip-rate parameter that controls the earthquake-activity rates than was applied in previous versions of the hazard maps. This additional uncertainty is accounted for by new geodesy- and geology-based slip-rate models for the Western United States. Models that were considered include an updated geologic model based on expert opinion and four combined inversion models informed by both geologic and geodetic input. The two block models considered indicate significantly higher slip rates than the expert opinion and the two fault-based combined inversion models. For the hazard maps, we apply 20 percent weight with equal weighting for the two fault-based models. Off-fault geodetic-based models were not considered in this version of the maps. Resulting changes to the hazard maps are generally less than 0.05 g (acceleration of gravity). Future research will improve the maps and interpret differences between the new models.

Arizona;Colorado;Idaho;Montana;New Mexico;Nevada;O↗
USGS2014

Earthquake mechanism and seafloor deformation for tsunami generation

Tsunamis are generated in the ocean by rapidly displacing the entire water column over a significant area. The potential energy resulting from this disturbance is balanced with the kinetic energy of the waves during propagation. Only a handful of submarine geologic phenomena can generate tsunamis: large-magnitude earthquakes, large landslides, and volcanic processes. Asteroid and subaerial landslide impacts can generate tsunami waves from above the water. Earthquakes are by far the most common generator of tsunamis. Generally, earthquakes greater than magnitude (M) 6.5–7 can generate tsunamis if they occur beneath an ocean and if they result in predominantly vertical displacement. One of the greatest uncertainties in both deterministic and probabilistic hazard assessments of tsunamis is computing seafloor deformation for earthquakes of a given magnitude.

Book chapter↗
USGS1976

Tectonic aspects of the Guatemala earthquake of 4 February 1976

The locations of surface ruptures and the main shock epicenter indicate that the disastrous Guatemala earthquake of 4 February 1976 was tectonic in origin and generated mainly by slip on the Motagua fault, which has an arcuate roughly east-west trend across central Guatemala. Fault breakage was observed for 230 km. Displacement is predominantly horizontal and sinistral with a maximum measured offset of 340 cm and an average of about 100 cm. Secondary fault breaks trending roughly north-northeast to south-southwest have been found in a zone about 20 km long and 8 km wide extending from the western suburbs of Guatemala City to near Mixco, and similar faults with more subtle surface expression probably occur elsewhere in the Guatemalan Highlands. Displacements on the secondary faults are predominantly extensional and dip-slip, with as much as 15 cm vertical offset on a single fracture. The primary fault that broke during the earthquake involved roughly 10 percent of the length of the great transform fault system that defines the boundary between the Caribbean and North American plates. The observed sinistral displacement is striking confirmation of deductions regarding the late Cenozoic relative motion between these two crustal plates that were based largely on indirect geologic and geophysical evidence. The earthquake-related secondary faulting, together with the complex pattern of geologically young normal faults that occur in the Guatemalan Highlands and elsewhere in western Central America, suggest that the eastern wedge-shaped part of the Caribbean plate, roughly between the Motagua fault system and the volcanic arc, is being pulled apart in tension and left behind as the main mass of the plate moves relatively eastward. Because of their proximity to areas of high population density, shallow-focus earthquakes that originate on the Motagua fault system, on the system of predominantly extensional faults within the western part of the Caribbean plate, and in association with volcanism may pose a more serious seismic hazard than the more numerous (but generally more distant) earthquakes that are generated in the eastward-dipping subduction zone beneath Middle America.

Science↗
USGS1988

Forecasting California’s earthquakes

The first official earthquake forecast for California emphasizes the broad extent of the hazard and the uncertainties involved in predicting the next quakes. For the first time, researchers have reached to a consensus on the threat of large earthquakes to California, things look no worse for Los Angles than before. It still has about a 60 percent chance of being shaken by a large earthquake sometime during the next 30 years. But other heavily populated areas of California, such as San Bernardino and the East Bay area of San Francisco, are now getting their fair share of attention. The new consensus also points up the considerable uncertainties invloved in earthquake forecasting.

California↗
USGS2013

Applying the Land Use Portfolio Model with Hazus to analyse risk from natural hazard events

This paper describes and demonstrates the integration of two geospatial decision-support systems for natural-hazard risk assessment and management. Hazus is a risk-assessment tool developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to identify risks and estimate the severity of risk from natural hazards. The Land Use Portfolio Model (LUPM) is a risk-management tool developed by the U.S. Geological Survey to evaluate plans or actions intended to reduce risk from natural hazards. We analysed three mitigation policies for one earthquake scenario in the San Francisco Bay area to demonstrate the added value of using Hazus and the LUPM together. The demonstration showed that Hazus loss estimates can be input to the LUPM to obtain estimates of losses avoided through mitigation, rates of return on mitigation investment, and measures of uncertainty. Together, they offer a more comprehensive approach to help with decisions for reducing risk from natural hazards.

International Journal of Risk Assessment and Manag↗
USGS2017

Large earthquakes and creeping faults

Faults are ubiquitous throughout the Earth's crust. The majority are silent for decades to centuries, until they suddenly rupture and produce earthquakes. With a focus on shallow continental active-tectonic regions, this paper reviews a subset of faults that have a different behavior. These unusual faults slowly creep for long periods of time and produce many small earthquakes. The presence of fault creep and the related microseismicity helps illuminate faults that might not otherwise be located in fine detail, but there is also the question of how creeping faults contribute to seismic hazard. It appears that well-recorded creeping fault earthquakes of up to magnitude 6.6 that have occurred in shallow continental regions produce similar fault-surface rupture areas and similar peak ground shaking as their locked fault counterparts of the same earthquake magnitude. The behavior of much larger earthquakes on shallow creeping continental faults is less well known, because there is a dearth of comprehensive observations. Computational simulations provide an opportunity to fill the gaps in our understanding, particularly of the dynamic processes that occur during large earthquake rupture and arrest.

Reviews of Geophysics↗
USGS2004

Recalculated probability of M ≥ 7 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara, Turkey

New earthquake probability calculations are made for the Sea of Marmara region and the city of Istanbul, providing a revised forecast and an evaluation of time-dependent interaction techniques. Calculations incorporate newly obtained bathymetric images of the North Anatolian fault beneath the Sea of Marmara [Le Pichon et al., 2001; Armijo et al., 2002]. Newly interpreted fault segmentation enables an improved regional A.D. 1500-2000 earthquake catalog and interevent model, which form the basis for time-dependent probability estimates. Calculations presented here also employ detailed models of coseismic and postseismic slip associated with the 17 August 1999 M = 7.4 Izmit earthquake to investigate effects of stress transfer on seismic hazard. Probability changes caused by the 1999 shock depend on Marmara Sea fault-stressing rates, which are calculated with a new finite element model. The combined 2004-2034 regional Poisson probability of M≥7 earthquakes is ~38%, the regional time-dependent probability is 44 ± 18%, and incorporation of stress transfer raises it to 53 ± 18%. The most important effect of adding time dependence and stress transfer to the calculations is an increase in the 30 year probability of a M ??? 7 earthquake affecting Istanbul. The 30 year Poisson probability at Istanbul is 21%, and the addition of time dependence and stress transfer raises it to 41 ± 14%. The ranges given on probability values are sensitivities of the calculations to input parameters determined by Monte Carlo analysis; 1000 calculations are made using parameters drawn at random from distributions. Sensitivities are large relative to mean probability values and enhancements caused by stress transfer, reflecting a poor understanding of large-earthquake aperiodicity.

Sea Of Marmara↗
USGS2010

Seismic hazard and risk assessments for Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan, China, area

Seismic hazard and risk in the Beijing–Tianjin–Tangshan, China, area were estimated from 500-year intensity observations. First, we digitized the intensity observations (maps) using ArcGIS with a cell size of 0.1 × 0.1°. Second, we performed a statistical analysis on the digitized intensity data, determined an average b value (0.39), and derived the intensity–frequency relationship (hazard curve) for each cell. Finally, based on a Poisson model for earthquake occurrence, we calculated seismic risk in terms of a probability of I ≥ 7, 8, or 9 in 50 years. We also calculated the corresponding 10 percent probability of exceedance of these intensities in 50 years. The advantages of assessing seismic hazard and risk from intensity records are that (1) fewer assumptions (i.e., earthquake source and ground motion attenuation) are made, and (2) site-effect is included. Our study shows that the area has high seismic hazard and risk. Our study also suggests that current design peak ground acceleration or intensity for the area may not be adequate.

North China Plain↗
USGS2024

Late-Quaternary surface displacements on accretionary wedge splay faults in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Implications for megathrust rupture

Because splay faults branch at a steep dip angle from the plate-boundary décollement in an accretionary wedge, their coseismic displacement can potentially result in larger tsunamis with distinct characteristics compared to megathrust-only fault ruptures, posing an enhanced hazard to coastal communities. Elsewhere, there is evidence of coseismic slip on splay faults during many of the largest subduction zone earthquakes, but our understanding of potentially active splay faults and their hazards at the Cascadia subduction zone remains limited. To identify the most recently active splay faults at Cascadia, we conduct stratigraphic and structural interpretations of near-surface deformation in the outer accretionary wedge for the ~400 km along-strike length of the landward vergence zone. We analyze recently acquired high-frequency sparker seismic data and crustal-scale multi-channel seismic data to examine the record of deformation in shallow slope basins and the upper ~1 km of the surrounding accreted sediments and to investigate linkages to deeper décollement structure. We present a new fault map for widest, most completely locked portion of Cascadia from 45 to 48°N latitude, which documents the distribution of faults that show clear evidence of recent late Quaternary activity. We find widespread evidence for active splay faulting up to 30 km landward of the deformation front, in what we define as the active domain, and diminished fault activity landward outside of this zone. The abundance of surface-deforming splay faults in the active outer wedge domain suggests Cascadia megathrust events may commonly host distributed shallow rupture on multiple splay faults located within 30 km of the deformation front.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2025

Seismic response of rock towers at the Trona Pinnacles (U.S.A.) to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence: Theory, observations, and models

We analyze the seismic response of a class of fragile geologic features (FGFs), referred to as rock towers (RTs) at the Trona Pinnacles, a group of RTs in southern California that suffered strong shaking during the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. FGFs, including RTs, may provide maximum constraints on past earthquake shaking intensity, and thereby support probabilistic seismic hazard assessments (PSHAs). In a rare case study, we explore the hypothesis that RT structural integrity is time dependent, as damage accumulates progressively. We develop finite‐element method (FEM) models of the RTs using photogrammetric shape models. We validate the models by comparing numerical simulations of their response to broadband ground shaking with low‐intensity seismic recordings obtained at the Pinnacles. Results of our simulations are in good agreement with the seismic recordings of actual earthquake aftershocks. We next use the results of the FEM models to analyze the response and evolution of RTs. Our analyses elucidate the influence of geometry over their seismic response, providing a rationale that may explain the rarity of slender RTs at Trona: high‐aspect‐ratio structures that respond in bending develop detrimental tensile stresses that crack the rock, whereas low‐aspect‐ratio ones’ response also includes shearing, which does not compromise material integrity as much as tension. Field measurements with a rebound hammer support this finding, suggesting that the material around the base of slender rocks has been weakened relative to other parts of the RT. We also study how to define simplified mechanical models (“archetypes”) to predict the natural frequencies of RTs. Results from our work illuminate the fundamental mechanisms of seismic response and progressive failure of RTs, and open new avenues of research to potentially incorporate these geologic features as long‐return period constraints on PSHA, in ways analogous to those of the widely used precariously balanced rocks.

California↗
USGS2000

Accounting for site effects in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses of southern California: Overview of the SCEC Phase III Report

This article presents an overview of the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Phase-III effort to determine the extent to which probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) can be improved by accounting for site effects. The contributions made in this endeavor are represented in the various articles that compose this special issue of BSSA. Given the somewhat arbitrary nature of the site-effect distinction, it must be carefully defined in any given context. With respect to PSHA, we define the site effect as the response, relative to an attenuation relationship, averaged over all damaging earthquakes in the region. A diligent effort has been made to identify any attributes that predispose a site to greater or lower levels of shaking. The most detailed maps of Quaternary geology are not found to be helpful; either they are overly detailed in terms of distinguishing different amplification factors or present southern California strong-motion observations are inadequate to reveal their superiority. A map based on the average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m, however, is found to delineate significantly different amplification factors. A correlation of amplification with basin depth is also found to be significant, implying up to a factor of two difference between the shallowest and deepest parts of the Los Angeles basin. In fact, for peak acceleration the basin-depth correction is more influential than the 30-m shear-wave velocity. Questions remain, however, as to whether basin depth is a proxy for some other site attribute. In spite of these significant and important site effects, the standard deviation of an attenuation relationship (the prediction error) is not significantly reduced by making such corrections. That is, given the influence of basin-edge-induced waves, subsurface focusing, and scattering in general, any model that attempts to predict ground motion with only a few parameters will have a substantial intrinsic variability. Our best hope for reducing such uncertainties is via waveform modeling based on first principals of physics. Finally, questions remain with respect to the overall reliability of attenuation relationships at large magnitudes and short distances. Current discrepancies between viable models produce up to a factor of 3 difference among predicted 10% in 50-yr exceedance levels, part of which results from the uncertain influence of sediment nonlinearity.

California↗
USGS2010

High-resolution seismic-reflection data offshore of Dana Point, southern California borderland

The U.S. Geological Survey collected high-resolution shallow seismic-reflection profiles in September 2006 in the offshore area between Dana Point and San Mateo Point in southern Orange and northern San Diego Counties, California. Reflection profiles were located to image folds and reverse faults associated with the San Mateo fault zone and high-angle strike-slip faults near the shelf break (the Newport-Inglewood fault zone) and at the base of the slope. Interpretations of these data were used to update the USGS Quaternary fault database and in shaking hazard models for the State of California developed by the Working Group for California Earthquake Probabilities. This cruise was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Catastrophic Hazards project. Seismic-reflection data were acquired aboard the R/V Sea Explorer, which is operated by the Ocean Institute at Dana Point. A SIG ELC820 minisparker seismic source and a SIG single-channel streamer were used. More than 420 km of seismic-reflection data were collected. This report includes maps of the seismic-survey sections, linked to Google Earth? software, and digital data files showing images of each transect in SEG-Y, JPEG, and TIFF formats.

Open-File Report↗