Search

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is the scientific foundation of seismic design regulations in the United States and is regularly updated to consider the best available science and data. The 2018 update of the conterminous U.S. NSHM includes significant changes to the underlying ground motion models (GMMs), most of which are necessary to enable the new multi-period response spectra (MPRS) requirements of seismic design regulations that use hazard results for 22 spectral periods and eight site classes. This article focuses on the GMMs used in the western United States (WUS) and is a companion to a recent article on the GMMs used in the central and eastern United States (CEUS). In the WUS, for crustal and subduction earthquakes, two models used in previous versions of the NSHM are excluded to provide consistency over all considered periods and site classes. To more accurately estimate ground motions at long periods in the vicinity of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, and Seattle, the 2018 NSHM incorporates deep sedimentary basin depth from local seismic velocity models. The subduction GMMs considered lack basin depth terms and are modified to include an additional scale factor to account for this. This article documents the WUS GMMs used in the 2018 NSHM update and provides detail on the changes to GMM medians, aleatory variability, epistemic uncertainty, and site-effect models. It compares each of these components with those considered in prior NSHMs and discusses their total effect on hazard.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is the scientific foundation of seismic design regulations in the United States and is regularly updated to consider the best available science and data. The 2018 update of the conterminous US NSHM includes major changes to the underlying ground motion models (GMMs). Most of the changes are motivated by the new multi-period response spectra requirements of seismic design regulations that use hazard results for 22 spectral periods and 8 site classes. In the central and eastern United States (CEUS), the 2018 NSHM incorporates 31 new GMMs for hard-rock site conditions [Formula: see text], including the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-East GMMs. New aleatory variability and site-effect models, both specific to the CEUS, are applied to all median hard-rock GMMs. This article documents the changes to the USGS GMM selection criteria and provides details on the new CEUS GMMs used in the 2018 NSHM update. The median GMMs, their weights, epistemic uncertainty, and aleatory variability are compared with those considered in prior NSHMs. This article further provides implementation details on the CEUS site-effect model, which allows conversion of hard-rock ground motions to other site conditions in the CEUS for the first time in NSHMs. Compared with the 2014 NSHM hard-rock ground motions, the weighted average of median GMMs increases for large magnitude events at middle to large distance range, epistemic uncertainty increases in almost all situations, but aleatory variability is not significantly different. Finally, the total effect on hazard is demonstrated for an assumed earthquake source model in the CEUS, which shows an increased ring of ground motions in the vicinity of the New Madrid seismic zone and decreased ground motions near the East Tennessee seismic zone.

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.

As part of the update of the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States (CONUS), new ground motion and site effect models for the central and eastern United States were incorporated, as well as basin depths from local seismic velocity models in four western US (WUS) urban areas. These additions allow us, for the first time, to calculate probabilistic seismic hazard curves for an expanded set of spectral periods (0.01 to 10 s) and site classes (VS30 = 150 to 1500 m/s) for the CONUS, as well as account for amplification of long-period ground motions in deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas. Two sets of 2018 NSHM hazard data (hazard curves and uniform-hazard ground motions) are available: (1) 0.05°-latitude-by-0.05°-longitude gridded data for the CONUS and (2) higher resolution 0.01°-latitude-by-0.01°-longitude gridded data for the four WUS basins. Both sets of data contain basin effects in the WUS deep sedimentary basins. Uniform-hazard ground motion data are interpolated for 2, 5, and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years from the hazard curves. The gridded data for the hazard curves and uniform-hazard ground motions, for all periods and site classes, are available for download at the U.S. Geological Survey ScienceBase Catalog ( https://doi.org/10.5066/P9RQMREV ). The design ground motions derived from the hazard curves have been accepted by the Building Seismic Safety Council for adoption in the 2020 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Recommended Seismic Provisions.

We evaluated the performance of 12 ground-motion models (GMMs) for earthquakes in the tectonically active shallow crustal region of southern California using instrumental ground-motion observations from the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence (Mw 4.0–7.1). The sequence was well recorded by the Southern California Seismic Network and rapid response portable aftershock monitoring stations. Ground-motion recordings of this size and proximity are rare, valuable, and independent of GMM development, allowing us to evaluate the predictive powers of GMMs. We first compute total residuals and compare the probability density functions, means, and standard deviations of the observed and predicted ground motions. Next we use the total residuals as inputs to the probabilistic scoring method (log-likelihood [LLH]). The LLH method provides a single score that can be used to weight GMMs in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) logic trees. We also explore GMM performance for a range of earthquake magnitudes, wave propagation distances, and site characteristics. We find that the Next Generation Attenuation West-2 (NGAW2) active crust GMMs perform well for the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence and thus validate their use in the 2018 USGS NSHM. However, significant ground-motion residual scatter remains unmodeled by NGAW2 GMMs due to complexities such as local site amplification and source directivity. Results from this study will inform logic-tree weights for updates to the USGS National NSHM. Results from this study support the use of nonergodic GMMs that can account for regional attenuation and site variations to minimize epistemic uncertainty in USGS NSHMs.

The selection and weighting of ground-motion models (GMMs) introduces a significant source of uncertainty in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project (NSHMP) forecasts. In this study, we evaluate 18 candidate GMMs using instrumental ground-motion observations of horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5%-damped pseudospectral acceleration (0.02–10 s) for tectonic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, to inform logic-tree weights for the update of the USGS seismic hazard model for Hawaii. GMMs are evaluated using two methods. The first is a total residual visualization approach that compares the probability density function (PDF), mean and standard deviations σ, of the observed and predicted ground motion. The second GMM evaluation method we use is the common total residual probabilistic scoring method (log likelihood [LLH]). The LLH method provides a single score that can be used to weight GMMs in the Hawaii seismic hazard model logic trees. The total residual PDF approach provides additional information by preserving GMM over- and underprediction across a broad spectrum of periods that is not available from a single value LLH score. We apply these GMM evaluation methods to two different data sets: (1) a database of instrumental ground motions from historic earthquakes in Hawaii from 1973 to 2007 (Mw 4–7.3) and (2) available ground motions from recent earthquakes (Mw 4–6.9) associated with 2018 Kilauea eruptions. The 2018 Kilauea sequence contains both volcanic eruptions and tectonic earthquakes allowing for statistically significant GMM comparisons of the two event classes. The Kilauea ground observations provide an independent data set allowing us to evaluate the predictive power of GMMs implemented in the new USGS nshmp-haz software system. We evaluate GMM performance as a function of earthquake depth and we demonstrate that short-period volcanic eruption ground motions are not well predicted by any candidate GMMs. Nine of the initial 18 candidate GMMs fit the observed ground motions and meet established criteria for inclusion in the update of the Hawaii seismic hazard model. A weighted mean of four top performing GMMs in this study (NGAsubslab, NGAsubinter, ASK14, A10) is 50% lower for PGA than for GMMS used in the previous USGS seismic hazard model for Hawaii.

Instrumental ground‐motion recordings from the 2018 Anchorage, Alaska (Mw 7.1), earthquake sequence provide an independent data set allowing us to evaluate the predictive power of ground‐motion models (GMMs) for intraslab earthquakes associated with the Alaska subduction zone. In this study, we evaluate 15 candidate GMMs using instrumental ground‐motion observations of peak ground acceleration and 5% damped pseudospectral acceleration (0.02–10 s) to inform logic‐tree weights for the update of the U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard model for Alaska. GMMs are evaluated using two methods. The first is a total residual visualization approach that compares the probability density function, mean, and standard deviations σ of the observed and predicted ground motion. The second GMM evaluation method we use is the common total residual probabilistic scoring method (log likelihood [LLH]). The LLH method provides a single score that can be used to weight GMMs in the Alaska seismic hazard model logic trees. To test logic branches in previous seismic hazard models, we evaluate GMM performance as a function of depth and we demonstrate that some GMMs show improved performance for earthquakes with focal depths greater than 50 km. Ten of the initial 15 candidate GMMs fit the observed ground motions and meet established criteria for inclusion in the next update of the Alaska seismic hazard model.

During 2017–2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated as follows: (1) an updated seismicity catalog was incorporated, which includes new earthquakes that occurred from 2013 to 2017; (2) in the central and eastern United States (CEUS), new ground motion models were updated that incorporate updated median estimates, modified assessments of the associated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the western United States (WUS), amplified shaking estimates of long-period ground motions at sites overlying deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas were incorporated; and (4) in the conterminous United States, seismic hazard is calculated for 22 periods (from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform VS30maps (ranging from 1500 to 150 m/s). We also include a description of updated computer codes and modeling details. Results show increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the CEUS (up to ~30%), as well as near the four urban areas overlying deep sedimentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard estimates, more people live or work in areas of high or moderate seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from forecasted future ground shaking.

We produce a one‐year 2017 seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes that updates the 2016 one‐year forecast; this map is intended to provide information to the public and to facilitate the development of induced seismicity forecasting models, methods, and data. The 2017 hazard model applies the same methodology and input logic tree as the 2016 forecast, but with an updated earthquake catalog. We also evaluate the 2016 seismic‐hazard forecast to improve future assessments. The 2016 forecast indicated high seismic hazard (greater than 1% probability of potentially damaging ground shaking in one year) in five focus areas: Oklahoma–Kansas, the Raton basin (Colorado/New Mexico border), north Texas, north Arkansas, and the New Madrid Seismic Zone. During 2016, several damaging induced earthquakes occurred in Oklahoma within the highest hazard region of the 2016 forecast; all of the 21 moment magnitude ( M ) ≥4 and 3 M ≥5 earthquakes occurred within the highest hazard area in the 2016 forecast. Outside the Oklahoma–Kansas focus area, two earthquakes with M ≥4 occurred near Trinidad, Colorado (in the Raton basin focus area), but no earthquakes with M ≥2.7 were observed in the north Texas or north Arkansas focus areas. Several observations of damaging ground‐shaking levels were also recorded in the highest hazard region of Oklahoma. The 2017 forecasted seismic rates are lower in regions of induced activity due to lower rates of earthquakes in 2016 compared with 2015, which may be related to decreased wastewater injection caused by regulatory actions or by a decrease in unconventional oil and gas production. Nevertheless, the 2017 forecasted hazard is still significantly elevated in Oklahoma compared to the hazard calculated from seismicity before 2009.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a one‐year (2016) probabilistic seismic‐hazard assessment for the central and eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes that are constructed with probabilistic methods using alternative data and inputs. This hazard assessment builds on our 2016 final model (Petersen et al. , 2016) by adding sensitivity studies, illustrating hazard in new ways, incorporating new population data, and discussing potential improvements. The model considers short‐term seismic activity rates (primarily 2014–2015) and assumes that the activity rates will remain stationary over short time intervals. The final model considers different ways of categorizing induced and natural earthquakes by incorporating two equally weighted earthquake rate submodels that are composed of alternative earthquake inputs for catalog duration, smoothing parameters, maximum magnitudes, and ground‐motion models. These alternatives represent uncertainties on how we calculate earthquake occurrence and the diversity of opinion within the science community. In this article, we also test sensitivity to the minimum moment magnitude between M 4 and M 4.7 and the choice of applying a declustered catalog with b =1.0 rather than the full catalog with b =1.3. We incorporate two earthquake rate submodels: in the informed submodel we classify earthquakes as induced or natural, and in the adaptive submodel we do not differentiate. The alternative submodel hazard maps both depict high hazard and these are combined in the final model. Results depict several ground‐shaking measures as well as intensity and include maps showing a high‐hazard level (1% probability of exceedance in 1 year or greater). Ground motions reach 0.6 g horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and about 0.2 g PGA in the Raton basin of Colorado and New Mexico, in central Arkansas, and in north‐central Texas near Dallas–Fort Worth. The chance of having levels of ground motions corresponding to modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) VI or greater earthquake shaking is 2%–12% per year in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas and New Madrid similar to the chance of damage at sites in high‐hazard portions of California caused by natural earthquakes. Hazard is also significant in the Raton basin of Colorado/New Mexico; north‐central Arkansas; Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas; and in a few other areas. Hazard probabilities are much lower (by about half or more) for exceeding MMI VII or VIII. Hazard is 3‐ to 10‐fold higher near some areas of active‐induced earthquakes than in the 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), which did not consider induced earthquakes. This study in conjunction with the LandScan TM Database (2013) indicates that about 8 million people live in areas of active injection wells that have a greater than 1% chance of experiencing damaging ground shaking (MMI≥VI) in 2016. The final model has high uncertainty, and engineers, regulators, and industry should use these assessments cautiously to make informed decisions on mitigating the potential effects of induced and natural earthquakes.

The National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHMs) are an important component of seismic design regulations in the United States. This paper compares hazard using the new suite of ground motion models (GMMs) relative to hazard using the suite of GMMs applied in the previous version of the maps. The new source characterization models are used for both cases. A previous paper ( Rezaeian et al. 2014 ) discussed the five NGA-West2 GMMs used for shallow crustal earthquakes in the Western United States (WUS), which are also summarized here. Our focus in this paper is on GMMs for earthquakes in stable continental regions in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), as well as subduction interface and deep intraslab earthquakes. We consider building code hazard levels for peak ground acceleration (PGA), 0.2-s, and 1.0-s spectral accelerations (SAs) on uniform firm-rock site conditions. The GMM modifications in the updated version of the maps created changes in hazard within 5% to 20% in WUS; decreases within 5% to 20% in CEUS; changes within 5% to 15% for subduction interface earthquakes; and changes involving decreases of up to 50% and increases of up to 30% for deep intraslab earthquakes for most U.S. sites. These modifications were combined with changes resulting from modifications in the source characterization models to obtain the new hazard maps.

The 2014 national seismic-hazard model for the conterminous United States incorporates new scientific results and important model adjustments. The current model includes updates to the historical catalog, which is spatially smoothed using both fixed-length and adaptive-length smoothing kernels. Fault-source characterization improved by adding faults, revising rates of activity, and incorporating new results from combined inversions of geologic and geodetic data. The update also includes a new suite of published ground motion models. Changes in probabilistic ground motion are generally less than 10% in most of the Intermountain West compared to the prior assessment, and ground-motion hazard in four Intermountain West cities illustrates the range and magnitude of change in the region. Seismic hazard at reference sites in Boise and Reno increased as much as 10%, whereas hazard in Salt Lake City decreased 5–6%. The largest change was in Las Vegas, where hazard increased 32–35%.

We present the updated seismic source characterization (SSC) for the 2014 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. Construction of the seismic source models employs the methodology that was developed for the 1996 NSHM but includes new and updated data, data types, source models, and source parameters that reflect the current state of knowledge of earthquake occurrence and state of practice for seismic hazard analyses. We review the SSC parameterization and describe the methods used to estimate earthquake rates, magnitudes, locations, and geometries for all seismic source models, with an emphasis on new source model components. We highlight the effects that two new model components—incorporation of slip rates from combined geodetic-geologic inversions and the incorporation of adaptively smoothed seismicity models—have on probabilistic ground motions, because these sources span multiple regions of the conterminous United States and provide important additional epistemic uncertainty for the 2014 NSHM.

The U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard maps for the central and eastern United States were updated in 2014. We analyze results and changes for the eastern part of the region. Ratio maps are presented, along with tables of ground motions and deaggregations for selected cities. The Charleston fault model was revised, and a new fault source for Charlevoix was added. Background seismicity sources utilized an updated catalog, revised completeness and recurrence models, and a new adaptive smoothing procedure. Maximum-magnitude models and ground motion models were also updated. Broad, regional hazard reductions of 5%–20% are mostly attributed to new ground motion models with stronger near-source attenuation. The revised Charleston fault geometry redistributes local hazard, and the new Charlevoix source increases hazard in northern New England. Strong increases in mid- to high-frequency hazard at some locations—for example, southern New Hampshire, central Virginia, and eastern Tennessee—are attributed to updated catalogs and/or smoothing.

The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps were updated in 2014 and included several important changes for the central United States (CUS). Background seismicity sources were improved using a new moment-magnitude-based catalog; a new adaptive, nearest-neighbor smoothing kernel was implemented; and maximum magnitudes for background sources were updated. Areal source zones developed by the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities project were simplified and adopted. The weighting scheme for ground motion models was updated, giving more weight to models with a faster attenuation with distance compared to the previous maps. Overall, hazard changes (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, across a range of ground-motion frequencies) were smaller than 10% in most of the CUS relative to the 2008 USGS maps despite new ground motion models and their assigned logic tree weights that reduced the probabilistic ground motions by 5–20%.

Several aspects of the earthquake characterization were changed for the Pacific Northwest portion of the 2014 update of the national seismic hazard maps, reflecting recent scientific findings. New logic trees were developed for the recurrence parameters of M8-9 earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) and for the eastern edge of their rupture zones. These logic trees reflect recent findings of additional M8 CSZ earthquakes using offshore deposits of turbidity flows and onshore tsunami deposits and subsidence. These M8 earthquakes each rupture a portion of the CSZ and occur in the time periods between M9 earthquakes that have an average recurrence interval of about 500 years. The maximum magnitude was increased for deep intraslab earthquakes. An areal source zone to account for the possibility of deep earthquakes under western Oregon was expanded. The western portion of the Tacoma fault was added to the hazard maps.

The U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHMs) have been an important component of seismic design regulations in the United States for the past several decades. These maps present earthquake ground shaking intensities at specified probabilities of being exceeded over a 50-year time period. The previous version of the NSHMs was developed in 2008; during 2012 and 2013, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey have been updating the maps based on their assessment of the “best available science,” resulting in the 2014 NSHMs. The update includes modifications to the seismic source models and the ground motion models (GMMs) for sites across the conterminous United States. This paper focuses on updates in the Western United States (WUS) due to the use of new GMMs for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions developed by the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA-West2) project. Individual GMMs, their weighted combination, and their impact on the hazard maps relative to 2008 are discussed. In general, the combined effects of lower medians and increased standard deviations in the new GMMs have caused only small changes, within 5–20%, in the probabilistic ground motions for most sites across the WUS compared to the 2008 NSHMs.

The probabilistic methodology developed by the U.S. Geological Survey is applied to a new seismic hazard assessment for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Modeled seismic sources include gridded historical seismicity, subduction-interface and strike-slip faults with known slip rates, and two broad zones of crustal extension with seismicity rates constrained by GPS geodesy. We use attenuation relations from western North American and worldwide data, as well as a Caribbean-specific relation. Results are presented as maps of peak ground acceleration and 0.2- and 1.0-second spectral response acceleration for 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years (return periods of about 2,500 and 500 years, respectively). This paper describes the hazard model and maps that were balloted by the Building Seismic Safety Council and recommended for the 2003 NEHRP Provisions and the 2006 International Building Code.

The 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2007) presents the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2). This model comprises a time-independent (Poisson-process) earthquake rate model, developed jointly with the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program and a time-dependent earthquake-probability model, based on recent earthquake rates and stress-renewal statistics conditioned on the date of last event. The models were developed from updated statewide earthquake catalogs and fault deformation databases using a uniform methodology across all regions and implemented in the modular, extensible Open Seismic Hazard Analysis framework. The rate model satisfies integrating measures of deformation across the plate-boundary zone and is consistent with historical seismicity data. An overprediction of earthquake rates found at intermediate magnitudes (6.5≤ M ≤7.0) in previous models has been reduced to within the 95% confidence bounds of the historical earthquake catalog. A logic tree with 480 branches represents the epistemic uncertainties of the full time-dependent model. The mean UCERF 2 time-dependent probability of one or more M ≥6.7 earthquakes in the California region during the next 30 yr is 99.7%; this probability decreases to 46% for M ≥7.5 and to 4.5% for M ≥8.0. These probabilities do not include the Cascadia subduction zone, largely north of California, for which the estimated 30 yr, M ≥8.0 time-dependent probability is 10%. The M ≥6.7 probabilities on major strike-slip faults are consistent with the WGCEP (2003) study in the San Francisco Bay Area and the WGCEP (1995) study in southern California, except for significantly lower estimates along the San Jacinto and Elsinore faults, owing to provisions for larger multisegment ruptures. Important model limitations are discussed.

This paper presents the development of spectral hazard maps for Sumatra and Java islands, Indonesia and microzonation study for Jakarta city. The purpose of this study is to propose a revision of the seismic hazard map in Indonesian Seismic Code SNI 03-1726-2002. Some improvements in seismic hazard analysis were implemented in the analysis by considering the recent seismic activities around Java and Sumatra. The seismic hazard analysis was carried out using 3-dimension (3-D) seismic source models (fault source model) using the latest research works regarding the tectonic setting of Sumatra and Java. Two hazard levels were analysed for representing 10% and 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years ground motions for Sumatra and Java. Peak ground acceleration contour maps for those two hazard levels and two additional macrozonation maps for 10% PE in 50 years were produced during this research. These two additional maps represent short period (0.2 s) and long-period (1.0 s) spectra values at the bedrock. Microzonation study is performed in order to obtain ground motion parameters such as acceleration, amplification factor and response spectra at the surface of Jakarta. The analyses were carried out using nonlinear approach. The results were used to develop contour of acceleration at the surface of Jakarta. Finally, the design response spectra for structural design purposes are proposed in this study.

Ground-shaking hazard maps based on sound earth-science research are effective tools for mitigating damage from future earthquakes. Assuming that future earthquakes will occur on active faults or near previous events and that the ground shaking from these events will fall within the range of globally recorded ground motions leads to probabilistic hazard maps that predict ground-shaking potential across a region. Developing hazard and risk maps requires technical interactions between earth scientists and engineers to estimate the rate of potential earthquakes across a region, quantify likely ground-shaking levels at a site, and understand how buildings respond to strong ground shaking. For the past 25 years the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and California Geological Survey (CGS) have cooperated with government officials and professional organizations to incorporate hazard maps and other hazard products in public and corporate documents such as building codes, insurance rate structures, and earthquake risk mitigation plans (Algermissen and Perkins 1982; Frankel et al. 1996, 2002; Petersen et al. 1996). Because these hazard products are used in making public-policy decisions, it is essential that the official USGS-CGS hazard models reflect the “best available science.” This qualification is also required by the statute that regulates the California Earthquake Authority, which provides most earthquake insurance in the state. To adequately represent the “best available science,” hazard maps need to be updated regularly to keep pace with new scientific advancements. The methodologies, computer codes, and input data used in developing these products need to be openly available for review and analysis. Input parameters and codes for current hazard maps may be obtained at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps and http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs. At these Web sites a user may access documentation that describes methodologies and parameters, a relational database and tables that contain explanations of how the fault parameters and uncertainties were chosen, interactive …

We compare the historical record of earthquake hazard experienced at 78 towns and cities (sites) distributed across New Zealand and the continental United States with the hazard estimated from the national probabilistic seismic-hazard (psh) models for the two countries. The two psh models are constructed with similar methodologies and data. Our comparisons show a tendency for the psh models to slightly exceed the historical hazard in New Zealand and westernmost continental United States interplate regions, but show lower hazard than that of the historical record in the continental United States intraplate region. Factors such as non- Poissonian behavior, parameterization of active fault data in the psh calculations, and uncertainties in estimation of ground-motion levels from historical felt intensity data for the interplate regions may have led to the higher-than-historical levels of hazard at the interplate sites. In contrast, the less-than-historical hazard for the remaining continental United States (intraplate) sites may be largely due to site conditions not having been considered at the intraplate sites, and uncertainties in correlating ground-motion levels to historical felt intensities. The study also highlights the importance of evaluating psh models at more than one region, because the conclusions reached on the basis of a solely interplate or intraplate study would be very different.

In this article we present and explore the source and ground-motion model uncertainty and parametric sensitivity for the 2002 update of the California probabilistic seismic hazard maps. Our approach is to implement a Monte Carlo simulation that allows for independent sampling from fault to fault in each simulation. The source-distance dependent characteristics of the uncertainty maps of seismic hazard are explained by the fundamental uncertainty patterns from four basic test cases, in which the uncertainties from one-fault and two-fault systems are studied in detail. The California coefficient of variation (cov, ratio of the standard deviation to the mean) map for peak ground acceleration (10% of exceedance in 50 years) shows lower values (0.1–0.15) along the San Andreas fault system and other class A faults than along class B faults (0.2–0.3). High cov values (0.4–0.6) are found around the Garlock, Anacapa-Dume, and Palos Verdes faults in southern California and around the Maacama fault and Cascadia subduction zone in northern California.

We test the sensitivity of seismic hazard to three fault source models for the northwestern portion of Gujarat, India. The models incorporate different characteristic earthquake magnitudes on three faults with individual recurrence intervals of either 800 or 1600 years. These recurrence intervals imply that large earthquakes occur on one of these faults every 266–533 years, similar to the rate of historic large earthquakes in this region during the past two centuries and for earthquakes in intraplate environments like the New Madrid region in the central United States. If one assumes a recurrence interval of 800 years for large earthquakes on each of three local faults, the peak ground accelerations (PGA; horizontal) and 1-Hz spectral acceleration ground motions (5% damping) are greater than 1 g over a broad region for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years’ hazard level. These probabilistic PGAs at this hazard level are similar to median deterministic ground motions. The PGAs for 10% in 50 years’ hazard level are considerably lower, generally ranging between 0.2 g and 0.7 g across northwestern Gujarat. Ground motions calculated from our models that consider fault interevent times of 800 years are considerably higher than other published models even though they imply similar recurrence intervals. These higher ground motions are mainly caused by the application of intraplate attenuation relations, which account for less severe attenuation of seismic waves when compared to the crustal interplate relations used in these previous studies. For sites in Bhuj and Ahmedabad, magnitude (M) 7 3/4 earthquakes contribute most to the PGA and the 0.2- and 1-s spectral acceleration ground motion maps at the two considered hazard levels. D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The ground motion hazard for Sumatra and the Malaysian peninsula is calculated in a probabilistic framework, using procedures developed for the US National Seismic Hazard Maps. We constructed regional earthquake source models and used standard published and modified attenuation equations to calculate peak ground acceleration at 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for rock site conditions. We developed or modified earthquake catalogs and declustered these catalogs to include only independent earthquakes. The resulting catalogs were used to define four source zones that characterize earthquakes in four tectonic environments: subduction zone interface earthquakes, subduction zone deep intraslab earthquakes, strike-slip transform earthquakes, and intraplate earthquakes. The recurrence rates and sizes of historical earthquakes on known faults and across zones were also determined from this modified catalog. In addition to the source zones, our seismic source model considers two major faults that are known historically to generate large earthquakes: the Sumatran subduction zone and the Sumatran transform fault. Several published studies were used to describe earthquakes along these faults during historical and pre-historical time, as well as to identify segmentation models of faults. Peak horizontal ground accelerations were calculated using ground motion prediction relations that were developed from seismic data obtained from the crustal interplate environment, crustal intraplate environment, along the subduction zone interface, and from deep intraslab earthquakes. Most of these relations, however, have not been developed for large distances that are needed for calculating the hazard across the Malaysian peninsula, and none were developed for earthquake ground motions generated in an interplate tectonic environment that are propagated into an intraplate tectonic environment. For the interplate and intraplate crustal earthquakes, we have applied ground-motion prediction relations that are consistent with California (interplate) and India (intraplate) strong motion data that we collected for distances beyond 200 km. For the subduction zone equations, we recognized that the published relationships at large distances were not consistent with global earthquake data that we collected and modified the relations to be compatible with the global subduction zone ground motions. In this analysis, we have used alternative source and attenuation models and weighted them to account for our uncertainty in which model is most appropriate for Sumatra or for the Malaysian peninsula. The resulting peak horizontal ground accelerations for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years range from over 100% g to about 10% g across Sumatra and generally less than 20% g across most of the Malaysian peninsula. The ground motions at 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years are typically about 60% of the ground motions derived for a hazard level at 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The largest contributors to hazard are from the Sumatran faults.

We investigate the impact of different rupture and attenuation models for the Cascadia subduction zone by simulating seismic hazard models for the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. at 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. We calculate the sensitivity of hazard (probabilistic ground motions) to the source parameters and the attenuation relations for both intraslab and interface earthquakes and present these in the framework of the standard USGS hazard model that includes crustal earthquakes. Our results indicate that allowing the deep intraslab earthquakes to occur anywhere along the subduction zone increases the peak ground acceleration hazard near Portland, Oregon by about 20%. Alternative attenuation relations for deep earthquakes can result in ground motions that differ by a factor of two. The hazard uncertainty for the plate interface and intraslab earthquakes is analyzed through a Monte-Carlo logic tree approach and indicates a seismic hazard exceeding 1 g (0.2 s spectral acceleration) consistent with the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps in western Washington, Oregon, and California and an overall coefficient of variation that ranges from 0.1 to 0.4. Sensitivity studies indicate that the paleoseismic chronology and the magnitude of great plate interface earthquakes contribute significantly to the hazard uncertainty estimates for this region. Paleoseismic data indicate that the mean earthquake recurrence interval for great earthquakes is about 500 years and that it has been 300 years since the last great earthquake. We calculate the probability of such a great earthquake along the Cascadia plate interface to be about 14% when considering a time-dependent model and about 10% when considering a time-independent Poisson model during the next 50-year interval.

We examine the difference between expected earthquake rates inferred from the historical earthquake catalog and the geologic data that was used to develop the consensus seismic source characterization for the state of California [California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Petersen et al., 1996; Frankel et al., 1996]. On average the historic earthquake catalog and the seismic source model both indicate about one M 6 or greater earthquake per year in the state of California. However, the overall earthquake rates of earthquakes with magnitudes ( M ) between 6 and 7 in this seismic source model are higher, by at least a factor of 2, than the mean historic earthquake rates for both southern and northern California. The earthquake rate discrepancy results from a seismic source model that includes earthquakes with characteristic (maximum) magnitudes that are primarily between M 6.4 and 7.1. Many of these faults are interpreted to accommodate high strain rates from geologic and geodetic data but have not ruptured in large earthquakes during historic time. Our sensitivity study indicates that the rate differences between magnitudes 6 and 7 can be reduced by adjusting the magnitude-frequency distribution of the source model to reflect more characteristic behavior, by decreasing the moment rate available for seismogenic slip along faults, by increasing the maximum magnitude of the earthquake on a fault, or by decreasing the maximum magnitude of the background seismicity. However, no single parameter can be adjusted, consistent with scientific consensus, to eliminate the earthquake rate discrepancy. Applying a combination of these parametric adjustments yields an alternative earthquake source model that is more compatible with the historic data. The 475-year return period hazard for peak ground and 1-sec spectral acceleration resulting from this alternative source model differs from the hazard resulting from the standard CDMG–USGS model by less than 10% across most of California but is higher (generally about 10% to 30%) within 20 km from some faults.

The formulas for the estimation of expected loss from probabilistic seismic hazard are presented systematically by using the basics of calculating expected values and the concept of distributing the total loss between the insurer and the insured. The conversion from acceleration to intensity and then to loss factor (the ratio of damage value to the property value) is applied in the calculation. The seismic hazard used in the loss calculation is for four locations in California. These locations are representative of high and low hazards in California and of the two most populated areas in northern and southern California. The calculated loss values show a strong dependence on the hazard and the soil conditions. The deaggregation of total loss with respect to intensity, acceleration, and loss factor shows that a greater portion of the total loss in the high-hazard region is from large intensities and accelerations compared with the low-hazard region. The deaggregation with respect to loss factor reveals that most of the loss is from loss factors below 15-20%, even for the high-hazard regions. This result has a significant impact on the amount of the loss that is greater than the deductible. The calculation of loss to the insurer shows that a mere 5% deductible reduces the loss to the insurer by 40-50% for a high-hazard region and by more than that for a low-hazard region. Underinsurance and inflation have the effect of increasing the loss to the insurer but are less significant than the effect of deductible in reducing the loss to the insurer. These calculations suggest that updating the relation converting ground motion to loss factor is critical. In addition, the correction for soil condition needs to be calibrated with more recent strong-motion and earthquake damage data.

We analyzed the historical seismicity in southern California to develop a rational approach for calculating the seismic hazard from background seismicity of magnitude 6.5 or smaller. The basic assumption for the approach is that future earthquakes will be clustered spatially near locations of historical mainshocks of magnitudes equal to or greater than 4. We analyzed the declustered California seismicity catalog to compute the rate of earthquakes on a grid and then smoothed these rates to account for the spatial distribution of future earthquakes. To find a suitable spatial smoothing function, we studied the distance (r) correlation for southern California earthquakes and found that they follow a 1/rµ power-law relation, where µ increases with magnitude. This result suggests that larger events are more clustered in space than smaller earthquakes. Assuming the seismicity follows the Gutenberg-Richter distribution, we calculated peak ground accelerations (PGA) for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 yr. PGA estimates range between 0.25 and 0.35 g across much of southern California. These ground-motion levels are generally less than half the levels of hazard that are obtained using the entire seismic source model that also includes geologic and geodetic data. We also calculated the overall uncertainty for the hazard map using a Monte Carlo method and found that the coefficient of variation is about 0.24 ± 0.01 for much of the region.

The southern San Jacinto fault zone is characterized by high seismicity and a complex fault pattern that offers an excellent setting for investigating interactions between distinct faults. This fault zone is roughly outlined by two subparallel master fault strands, the Coyote Creek and Clark-San Felipe Hills faults, that are located 2 to 10 km apart and are intersected by a series of secondary cross faults. Seismicity is intense on both master faults and secondary cross faults in the southern San Jacinto fault zone. The seismicity on the two master strands occurs primarily below 10 km; the upper 10 km of the master faults are now mostly quiescent and appear to rupture mainly or solely in large earthquakes. Our results also indicate that a considerable portion of recent background activity near the April 9, 1968, Borrego Mountain rupture zone (M_L=6.4) is located on secondary faults outside the fault zone. We name and describe the Palm Wash fault, a very active secondary structure located about 25 km northeast of Borrego Mountain that is oriented subparallel to the San Jacinto fault system, dips approximately 70° to the northeast, and accommodates right-lateral shear motion. The Vallecito Mountain cluster is another secondary feature delineated by the recent seismicity and is characterized by swarming activity prior to nearby large events on the master strand. The 1968 Borrego Mountain and the April 28, 1969, Coyote Mountain (M_L=5.8) events are examples of earthquakes with aftershocks and subevents on these secondary and master faults. Mechanisms from those earthquakes and recent seismic data for the period 1981 to 1986 are not simply restricted to strike-slip motion; dipslip motion is also indicated. Teleseismic body waves (long-period P and SH) of the 1968 and 1969 earthquakes were inverted simultaneously for source mechanism, seismic moment, rupture history, and centroid depth. The complicated waveforms of the 1968 event (M_o=1.2 × 10^(19) Nm) are interpreted in terms of two subevents; the first caused by right-lateral strike-slip motion in the mainshock along the Coyote Creek fault and the second by a rupture located about 25 km away from the master fault. Our waveform inversion of the 1969 event indicates that strike-slip motion predominated, releasing a seismic moment of 2.5 × 10^(17) Nm. Nevertheless, the right-lateral nodal plane of the focal mechanism is significantly misoriented (20°) with respect to the master fault, and hence the event is not likely to be associated with a rupture on that fault. From this and other examples in southern California, we conclude that cross faults may contribute significantly to seismic hazard and that interaction between faults has important implications for earthquake prediction.

s with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. 428. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Reichle, M.S., and Real, C.R., 1997, Seismic ground-motion hazard mapping incorporating site effects for Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties, California—A Geographical Information System application: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 87, p. 249–255. Petersen, M., Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, C., Cramer, C., Davis, J., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G., Tan, S., Taylor, G., Toppozada, T., Treiman, J., and Wills, C., 1999, Seismic shaking hazard maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48. Petersen, M.D., Dewey, J., Hartzell, S., Mueller, C., Harmsen, S., Frankel, A.D., and Rukstales, K., 2004, Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Sumatra, Indonesia and across the southern Malaysian Peninsula: Tectonophysics, v. 390, p. 141–158. Petersen and others, 2007, Preliminary documentation for the 2007 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, in press.