Geology topics

Henry Mason

Publications and source records attributed to Henry Mason.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Effective site coefficients for the 2024 International Building Code (IBC)

The U.S. National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs), developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), have long been the scientific foundation of seismic design guidelines and have been used to compute design ground motions for construction of new buildings and retrofit of existing buildings in the United States and its territories. The 2018 NSHM is adopted by the 2024 International Building Code (IBC). Prior to the 2018 NSHM update, hazard calculations were required only at one reference site condition defined by V S30 =760 m/s (where V S30 is the time-averaged shear wave velocity from the surface to a depth of 30 m) and three periods (peak ground acceleration, PGA, and pseudo spectral accelerations at periods of 0.2 and 1 s, S s and S 1 ). Site coefficients, F PGA , F a , and F v , were then defined by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Provisions Update Committee (PUC) in the site-specific procedures of National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Seismic Provisions to calculate ground motions for other site classes with different V S30 values at the given periods. The design ground motions at other periods were then estimated using a generic spectral shape that was also defined by the BSSC PUC in NEHRP provisions. In recent years, the engineering community has realized there were deficiencies with the F a and F v site coefficients and the generic spectral shape. To avoid potentially dangerous underestimations of design ground motions for long period structures on soft site conditions in high seismicity regions, the BSSC PUC recommended the use of multi-period response spectra (MPRS) in 2017. As a result, the USGS produced multi-period and multi-V S30 response spectral values in the 2018 NSHM for calculations of design ground motions and the site coefficients F a and F v were eliminated from the 2020 NEHRP Provisions. As these site coefficients were widely used inside and outside of the United States, in this study we back-calculate the “effective” site coefficients F a,eff , and F v,eff by comparing MPRS for various site classes with the MPRS for the reference site condition, and discuss the changes that are observed in the 2024 IBC compared to its previous version in 2021. The effective site coefficients are presented for test site locations and their dependence on various factors including period, ground motion intensity, and regional models are discussed. Ratio maps between the new effective site coefficients and the old ones are then presented for soft site classes and for short and long periods. For soft site classes at short periods, the new effective site coefficients are lower than the old site coefficients for high seismicity regions and higher for low seismicity regions. As it was expected, for soft site classes at long periods and high seismicity regions, the new effective site coefficients are much larger than the old site coefficients without imposing the 50% increase as a penalty that was suggested in the 2021 IBC, whereas they could be much smaller if the 50% increase would have been imposed particularly around New Madrid and Charleston high seismicity regions. For low seismicity regions, the long period effective site coefficients can be smaller or larger by 20% compared to the 2021 IBC coefficients.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2024

Are field observations of surface rupture useful? An example from the 2023 Mw 7.8 Pazarcık, Turkey (Türkiye), earthquake

Field investigations have long been an important component of the scientific response to surface‐faulting earthquakes. However, in light of advances in remote data and models, the question arises whether field‐based observations of surface rupture remain useful for understanding rupture processes and seismic hazards. We approach this question using a field‐based study of the central 2023 M w 7.8 Pazarcık, Turkey (Türkiye), earthquake rupture, at the intersection of the east Anatolian fault (EAF) and Narlı fault. Our field observations include the surface rupture expression and extent of the central EAF and northernmost Narlı fault in generally forested and steep terrain and 68 measurements of left‐lateral surface displacement. These data improve our understanding of the Pazarcık rupture complexity, resolve the surface geometry of the Narlı fault–EAF connection, and exhibit a clear (>2 m) change in surface displacement across this intersection zone that confirms remote‐based coseismic slip models. Our study shows that focusing field efforts in areas of obscured or low‐resolution remote data can yield essential data for refining rupture extent, documenting perishable on‐fault displacement, and improving postearthquake situational awareness. A comparison of similarly large‐magnitude continental surface‐rupturing earthquakes indicates that displacement uncertainties relate to a complex set of factors, including measurement methods, rupture complexity, and displacement magnitude. Our study validates the need for postearthquake field observations, which, when driven by clear motivating questions and knowledge of methodological strengths and limitations, provide high‐resolution rupture data that complement remote‐based models.

Pazarcık↗

USGS2024

Effects of stochastically-simulated near-fault ground motions on soil liquefaction

The scarcity of historically recorded near-fault ground motions poses a challenge to systematically understanding the influence of near-fault effects on various types of seismic demands for engineering purposes. In particular, the current state of knowledge of the influence of ground-shaking intensity on soil liquefaction and its consequences does not specifically account for the effects of near-fault ground motion characteristics. In this study, the influence of near-fault ground motions on liquefaction triggering and lateral spreading are investigated using non-linear modeling of a hypothetical liquefiable soil column in the finite-element computational platform OpenSees subjected to simulated ground motion time series that represent strong earthquake shaking in the near field. The simulated ground motion time series and resulting datasets are based on a parametric stochastic model and are developed for a range of source and path parameters to represent a realistic variability of ground motion characteristics. Dependencies between ground motion intensity measures (IMs) and liquefaction demand parameters are investigated for near-fault pulse and nonpulse-like ground motion sets. Evolutionary IMs, such as cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and the time-varying magnitude-adjusted peak ground acceleration (PGAM), are considered in developing liquefaction triggering probability density functions. Post-liquefaction triggering responses such as lateral spreading displacements are examined in relation to PGA M and CAV. The ground motion simulations are validated by comparing their liquefaction-capacity PGA M fragilities and post-triggering CAV vulnerability relationships to historical records from the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California, USA. Finally, a path forward for future studies that includes finding systematic differences in the IM-liquefaction demand relationships between near-fault and far-field stochastic ground motion sets is outlined.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2024

The influence of anthropogenic regulation and evaporite dissolution on earthquake-triggered ground failure

Remote sensing observations of Searles Lake following the 2019 moment magnitude 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake reveal an area where surface ejecta is arranged in a repeating hexagonal pattern that is collocated with a solution-mining operation. By analyzing geologic and geotechnical data, here we show that the hexagonal surface ejecta is likely not a result of liquefaction. Instead, we propose dissolution cavity collapse (DCC) as an alternative driving mechanism. We support this theory with pre-event Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data, which reveals differential subsidence patterns and the creation of subsurface void space. We also find that DCC is likely triggered at a lower shaking threshold than classical liquefaction. This and other unknown mechanisms can masquerade as liquefaction, introducing bias into liquefaction prediction models that rely on liquefaction inventories. This paper also highlights the opportunities and drawbacks of using remote sensing data to disentangle the complex factors that influence earthquake-triggered ground failure.

California↗

USGS2024

Liquefaction timing and post-triggering seismic energy: A comparison of crustal and subduction zone earthquakes

The objective of the study is to assess when liquefaction is triggered in a suite of ground motions following simplified approaches and measure the remaining post-triggering energy content of those ground motions. For liquefaction-induced deformations, current simplified analysis procedures do not directly incorporate temporal effects and rely on peak transient intensity measurements. Liquefaction hazard from short-duration, small to moderate-magnitude (M) earthquakes (M4.5–7.5) is adequately expressed using transient intensity measurements. However, subduction-zone interface earthquakes can have magnitudes greater than 9.0, with ground-motion durations exceeding 300 s. Using 525 ground motions from the NGA-Subduction (NGA-Sub) database for subduction-zone earthquakes with M8.25–9.25, the timing of liquefaction was calculated using cyclic counting procedures by assuming a reference stress condition and incorporating cyclic strengths from laboratory element testing. A complementary analysis was completed using 514 crustal ground motion records from the NGA-West2 database for M6.75–7.75. Several trends were identified during this study. First, liquefaction will likely trigger during the first half of the ground motion duration, independent of the earthquake source type. However, subduction-zone motions have larger post-triggering energy content compared to crustal earthquakes. The findings from this work indicate that accurately predicting liquefaction-induced deformations from subduction-zone earthquakes may be substantially improved by using robust time-based liquefaction analysis procedures.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2023

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increases and decreases compared to previous NSHMs) are substantial because the new model considers more data and updated earthquake rupture forecasts and ground-motion components. In developing the 2023 model, we tried to apply best available or applicable science based on advice of co-authors, more than 50 reviewers, and hundreds of hazard scientists and end-users, who attended public workshops and provided technical inputs. The hazard assessment incorporates new catalogs, declustering algorithms, gridded seismicity models, magnitude-scaling equations, fault-based structural and deformation models, multi-fault earthquake rupture forecast models, semi-empirical and simulation-based ground-motion models, and site amplification models conditioned on shear-wave velocities of the upper 30 m of soil and deeper sedimentary basin structures. Seismic hazard calculations yield hazard curves at hundreds of thousands of sites, ground-motion maps, uniform-hazard response spectra, and disaggregations developed for pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 oscillator periods and two peak parameters, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and 8 site classes required by building codes and other public policy applications. Tests show the new model is consistent with past ShakeMap intensity observations. Sensitivity and uncertainty assessments ensure resulting ground motions are compatible with known hazard information and highlight the range and causes of variability in ground motions. We produce several impact products including building seismic design criteria, intensity maps, planning scenarios, and engineering risk assessments showing the potential physical and social impacts. These applications provide a basis for assessing, planning, and mitigating the effects of future earthquakes.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2022

Evolution of design ground motions in California: NEHRP 2009 to 2020

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is used in construction codes, such as the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provisions, to develop ground motions for structural and geotechnical design. When the NSHM is updated (e.g. changes to its earthquake rupture forecast or ground motion models), or the manner in which it is implemented in construction codes changes, design ground motion values can increase or decrease at a given location. This study presents an analysis of 21 sites in California to characterize how design ground motion values (SS, S1, SMS, SM1) have changed from the 2009 to 2015 to 2020 NEHRP Provisions. Four sites are presented in greater detail: two in Southern California and two in Northern California. The results show that significant changes in design ground motion values between NEHRP releases are explained by major changes in the NSHM science (e.g., inclusion of basin effects) and its use (e.g., for a broader range of site classes), but in ways that are difficult to ascertain beforehand. It is therefore likely that design ground motion values may continue to evolve between NSHM and construction code updates as the earthquake science and engineering field's understanding continues to advance.

California↗