Geology topics

John G. Anderson

Publications and source records attributed to John G. Anderson.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Panel review of Ground Motion Characterization Model in 2023 NSHM

The 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM; Petersen et al., 2023) has two major components – a seismic source characterization (SSC) model and a ground motion characterization (GMC) model. The US Geological Survey (USGS) established separate panels to review and provide input on these two models. Both panels are advisory, meaning that they provide input on technical issues for consideration by the USGS NSHM team, but they do not have decision making authority. Here, we report on the activities and recommendations of the Ground Motion Characterization Panel, made up of the authors of this review. Final modeling decisions are presented in separate USGS documents, including Petersen et al., (2023) and Moschetti et al., (2023). Where modeling decisions depart from our recommendations, the rationale is explained in those publications.

Report↗

USGS2021

Improved scaling relationships for seismic moment and average slip of strike-slip earthquakes incorporating fault slip rate, fault width and stress drop

We develop a self‐consistent scaling model relating magnitude M w to surface rupture length ( ⁠L E ⁠ ), surface displacement D E ⁠ , and rupture width W E ⁠ , for strike‐slip faults. Knowledge of the long‐term fault‐slip rate S F improves magnitude estimates. Data are collected for 55 ground‐rupturing strike‐slip earthquakes that have geological estimates of L E ⁠ , D E ⁠ , and S F⁠ , and geophysical estimates of W E ⁠ . We begin with the model of Anderson et al. (2017) , which uses a closed form equation for the seismic moment of a surface‐rupturing strike‐slip fault of arbitrary aspect ratio and given stress drop, Δτ C ⁠ . Using W E estimates does not improve M w estimates. However, measurements of D E plus the relationship between Δτ C and surface slip provide an alternate approach to study W E ⁠ . A grid of plausible stress drop and width pairs were used to predict displacement and earthquake magnitude. A likelihood function was computed from within the uncertainty ranges of the corresponding observed M w and D E values. After maximizing likelihoods over earthquakes in length bins, we found the most likely values of W E for constant stress drop; these depend on the rupture length. The best‐fitting model has the surprising form W E ∝logL E —a gentle increase in width with rupture length. Residuals from this model are convincingly correlated to the fault‐slip rate and also show a weak correlation with the crustal thickness. The resulting model thus supports a constant stress drop for ruptures of all lengths, consistent with teleseismic observation. The approach can be extended to test other observable factors that might improve the predictability of magnitude from a mapped fault for seismic hazard analyses.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2015

Incorporating induced seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model: results of the 2014 workshop and sensitivity studies

The U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated in 2014 to account for new methods, input models, and data necessary for assessing the seismic ground shaking hazard from natural (tectonic) earthquakes. The U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model project uses probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to quantify the rate of exceedance for earthquake ground shaking (ground motion). For the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model assessment, the seismic hazard from potentially induced earthquakes was intentionally not considered because we had not determined how to properly treat these earthquakes for the seismic hazard analysis. The phrases “potentially induced” and “induced” are used interchangeably in this report, however it is acknowledged that this classification is based on circumstantial evidence and scientific judgment. For the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model update, the potentially induced earthquakes were removed from the NSHM’s earthquake catalog, and the documentation states that we would consider alternative models for including induced seismicity in a future version of the National Seismic Hazard Model. As part of the process of incorporating induced seismicity into the seismic hazard model, we evaluate the sensitivity of the seismic hazard from induced seismicity to five parts of the hazard model: (1) the earthquake catalog, (2) earthquake rates, (3) earthquake locations, (4) earthquake Mmax (maximum magnitude), and (5) earthquake ground motions. We describe alternative input models for each of the five parts that represent differences in scientific opinions on induced seismicity characteristics. In this report, however, we do not weight these input models to come up with a preferred final model. Instead, we present a sensitivity study showing uniform seismic hazard maps obtained by applying the alternative input models for induced seismicity. The final model will be released after further consideration of the reliability and scientific acceptability of each alternative input model. Forecasting the seismic hazard from induced earthquakes is fundamentally different from forecasting the seismic hazard for natural, tectonic earthquakes. This is because the spatio-temporal patterns of induced earthquakes are reliant on economic forces and public policy decisions regarding extraction and injection of fluids. As such, the rates of induced earthquakes are inherently variable and nonstationary. Therefore, we only make maps based on an annual rate of exceedance rather than the 50-year rates calculated for previous U.S. Geological Survey hazard maps.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1996

The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989: Main shock characteristics

The October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta, Calif., earthquake (0004:15.2 G.m.t. October 18; lat 37.036º N., long 121.883º W.; 19-km depth) had a local magnitude (M L ) of about 6.7, a surface-wave magnitude (M S ) of 7.1, a seismic moment of 2.2x10 19 N-m to 3.5x10 19 N-m, a source duration of 6 to 15 s, and an average stress drop of at least 50 bars. Slip occurred on a dipping fault surface about 35 km long and was largely confined to a depth of about 7 to 20 km. The slip vector had a large vertical component, and slip was distributed in two main regions situated northwest and southeast of the hypocenter. This slip distribution caused about half of the earthquake's energy to be focused toward the urbanized San Francisco Bay region, while the other half was focused toward the southeast. Had the rupture initiated at the southeast end of the aftershock zone, shaking in the bay region would have been both longer and stronger. These source parameters suggest that the earthquake was not a typical shallow San Andreas-type event but a deeper event on a different fault with a recurrence interval of many hundreds of years. Therefore, the potential for a damaging shallow event on the San Andreas fault in the Santa Cruz Mountains may still exist.

California↗