Geology topics

Mark D. Petersen

Publications and source records attributed to Mark D. Petersen.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults

In this paper we summarize data, methods, and models developed for a probabilistic assessment of fault displacement hazards across the U.S. We compare earthquake displacement data and empirical fault displacement models that have been developed for normal faults, strike-slip faults, and reverse faults. In general, the data and models are similar near the center of the fault for the three faulting types, but differ near the ends with the strike-slip data being lower than the reverse and normal faulting data. We also compare these U.S. models with data and equations developed using Japanese fault displacement data. The Japan model is also similar to the U.S. models near the center of the fault but decays less rapidly near the ends of the fault. In addition, we discuss impacts of models developed to analyze off-fault strain on secondary faults, multi-strand displacement hazard, and various mapping quality factors. For our study, we show example fault displacements for a M 7 fault with recurrence of 800 and 1600 years. We conclude that a deterministic assessment of fault displacements is often higher than the probabilistic displacements for less active faults with earthquake rupture recurrence that is longer than the hazard return period of interest. Fault displacement hazard is applied in engineering applications for buildings, bridges, pipelines, and nuclear facilities. We present three applications for fault displacement hazard at nuclear facilities and important structures.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2018

Preliminary 2018 national seismic hazard model for the conterminous United States

The 2014 U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard model for the conterminous U.S. will be updated in 2018 and 2020 to coincide with the Building Seismic Safety Council’s Project 17 timeline for development of new building code design criteria. The two closely timed updates are planned to allow more time for the Provisions Update Committee to analyze the consequences of the hazard model changes in the design criteria. To prepare the 2018 update we held a workshop (March 7-8, 2018) with scientists and engineers to solicit feedback on the model. The 2018 model will be available for public comment during the summer of 2018. The purpose of this paper is to solicit feedback on the modeling choices and results. The 2018 NSHM considers an updated seismicity catalog and certain key changes in the way ground motions are calculated. First, we implemented new Next Generation Attenuation Relationships for the Central and Eastern North America Region and other published models that allow for the calculation of ground motions at additional periods and site classes in the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS). Second, basin depth terms were implemented in the ground motion models in select regions of the western U.S. (WUS) to account for enhanced long-period ground motions at softer soil sites overlying sedimentary basins. Preliminary results indicate higher ground motions for all periods in parts of the CEUS and for long-periods and soft soils in urban areas overlying sedimentary basins in the WUS.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2018

The science, engineering applications, and policy implications of simulation-based PSHA

We summarize scientific methods for developing probabilistic seismic hazard assessments from 3-D earthquake ground motion simulations, describe current use of simulated ground motions for engineering applications, and discuss on-going efforts to incorporate these effects in the U.S. national seismic hazard model. The 3-D simulations provide important, additional information about earthquake ground-shaking, which is critical to proper characterization of potential ground motions. Example uses of these simulations for engineering applications provide alternative approaches to introducing the effects of deep basins on long-period ground motions into design requirements. In Seattle, Washington tall building design includes requirements for accounting for the effect of the Seattle basin, and one method for including this effect relies upon local 3-D simulations. In Los Angeles, California a working group of scientists and engineers is advancing the use of local 3-D simulations for local building codes. In light of the benefit to ground motion characterization from the use of 3-D simulations, similar efforts are underway for national-scale seismic hazard analyses, which seek to make use of the extensive work applied from local efforts; current methods for incorporating these effects on a national-scale are presented.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2017

2017 One‐year seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

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.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2016

Seismic‐hazard forecast for 2016 including induced and natural earthquakes in the central and eastern United States

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.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2016

2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a 1-year seismic hazard forecast for 2016 for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes. The model assumes that earthquake rates calculated from several different time windows will remain relatively stationary and can be used to forecast earthquake hazard and damage intensity for the year 2016. This assessment is the first step in developing an operational earthquake forecast for the CEUS, and the analysis could be revised with updated seismicity and model parameters. Consensus input models consider alternative earthquake catalog durations, smoothing parameters, maximum magnitudes, and ground motion estimates, and represent uncertainties in earthquake occurrence and diversity of opinion in the science community. Ground shaking seismic hazard for 1-percent probability of exceedance in 1 year reaches 0.6 g (as a fraction of standard gravity [g]) in northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and about 0.2 g in the Raton Basin of Colorado and New Mexico, in central Arkansas, and in north-central Texas near Dallas. Near some areas of active induced earthquakes, hazard is higher than in the 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NHSM) by more than a factor of 3; the 2014 NHSM did not consider induced earthquakes. In some areas, previously observed induced earthquakes have stopped, so the seismic hazard reverts back to the 2014 NSHM. Increased seismic activity, whether defined as induced or natural, produces high hazard. Conversion of ground shaking to seismic intensity indicates that some places in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Arkansas may experience damage if the induced seismicity continues unabated. The chance of having Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VI or greater (damaging earthquake shaking) is 5–12 percent per year in north-central Oklahoma and southern Kansas, similar to the chance of damage caused by natural earthquakes at sites in parts of California.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Get your science used—Six guidelines to improve your products

Introduction Natural scientists, like many other experts, face challenges when communicating to people outside their fields of expertise. This is especially true when they try to communicate to those whose background, knowledge, and experience are far distant from that field of expertise. At a recent workshop, experts in risk communication offered insights into the communication challenges of probabilistic hazard products, suggested tips, and shared their strategies for making products that a targeted audience can understand and use. Although the workshop was held to broaden the understanding and use of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), the workshop outcomes presented in this report can benefit anyone who develops products based on technical information. On the basis of research and practice into how people think, use tools, make decisions, and understand scientific/technical information, the social and behavioral scientists, marketers, and social-impact designers at the NSHM workshop provided remarkably consistent guidelines to develop successful science products, such as text, maps, and other products. In this report the guidelines are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of order to fit each project and your resources.

Circular↗

USGS2016

Assessing the seismic risk potential of South America

We present here a simplified approach to quantifying regional seismic risk. The seismic risk for a given region can be inferred in terms of average annual loss (AAL) that represents long-term value of earthquake losses in any one year caused from a long-term seismic hazard. The AAL are commonly measured in the form of earthquake shaking-induced deaths, direct economic impacts or indirect losses caused due to loss of functionality. In the context of South American subcontinent, the analysis makes use of readily available public data on seismicity, population exposure, and the hazard and vulnerability models for the region. The seismic hazard model was derived using available seismic catalogs, fault databases, and the hazard methodologies that are analogous to the U.S. Geological Survey’s national seismic hazard mapping process. The Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system’s direct empirical vulnerability functions in terms of fatality and economic impact were used for performing exposure and risk analyses. The broad findings presented and the risk maps produced herein are preliminary, yet they do offer important insights into the underlying zones of high and low seismic risks in the South American subcontinent. A more detailed analysis of risk may be warranted by engaging local experts, especially in some of the high risk zones identified through the present investigation.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2016

Earthquake probabilities for the Wasatch front region in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming

In a letter to The Salt Lake Daily Tribune in September 1883, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologist G.K. Gilbert warned local residents about the implications of observable fault scarps along the western base of the Wasatch Range. The scarps were evidence that large surface-rupturing earthquakes had occurred in the past and more would likely occur in the future. The main actor in this drama is the 350-km-long Wasatch fault zone (WFZ), which extends from central Utah to southernmost Idaho. The modern Wasatch Front urban corridor, which follows the valleys on the WFZ’s hanging wall between Brigham City and Nephi, is home to nearly 80% of Utah’s population of 3 million. Adding to this circumstance of “lots of eggs in one basket,” more than 75% of Utah’s economy is concentrated along the Wasatch Front in Utah’s four largest counties, literally astride the five central and most active segments of the WFZ.

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming↗

USGS2016

2016 update on induced earthquakes in the United States

During the past decade people living in numerous locations across the central U.S. experienced many more small to moderate sized earthquakes than ever before. This earthquake activity began increasing about 2009 and peaked during 2015 and into early 2016. For example, prior to 2009 Oklahoma typically experienced 1 or 2 small earthquakes per year with magnitude greater than 3.0 but by 2015 this number rose to over 900 earthquakes per year of that size and over 30 earthquakes greater than 4.0. These earthquakes can cause damage. In 2011 a magnitude 5.6 earthquake struck near the town of Prague, Oklahoma on a preexisting fault and caused severe damage to several houses and school buildings. During the past 6 years more than 1500 reports of damaging shaking levels were reported in areas of induced seismicity. This rapid increase and the potential for damaging ground shaking from induced earthquakes caused alarm to about 8 million people living nearby and officials responsible for public safety. They wanted to understand why earthquakes were increasing and the potential threats to society and buildings located nearby.

Book chapter↗

USGS2015

Seismic hazard in the Intermountain West

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%.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

Seismic hazard in the Nation's breadbasket

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%.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

Seismic hazard in the eastern United States

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.

eastern United States↗

USGS2015

Seismic source characterization for the 2014 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

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.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

2014 Update of the Pacific Northwest portion of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps

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.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

Ground motion models used in the 2014 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps

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.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

Earthquake shaking hazard estimates and exposure changes in the conterminous United States

A large portion of the population of the United States lives in areas vulnerable to earthquake hazards. This investigation aims to quantify population and infrastructure exposure within the conterminous U.S. that are subjected to varying levels of earthquake ground motions by systematically analyzing the last four cycles of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (published in 1996, 2002, 2008 and 2014). Using the 2013 LandScan data, we estimate the numbers of people who are exposed to potentially damaging ground motions (peak ground accelerations at or above 0.1g). At least 28 million (~9% of the total population) may experience 0.1g level of shaking at relatively frequent intervals (annual rate of 1 in 72 years or 50% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years), 57 million (~18% of the total population) may experience this level of shaking at moderately frequent intervals (annual rate of 1 in 475 years or 10% PE in 50 years), and 143 million (~46% of the total population) may experience such shaking at relatively infrequent intervals (annual rate of 1 in 2,475 years or 2% PE in 50 years). We also show that there is a significant number of critical infrastructure facilities located in high earthquake-hazard areas (Modified Mercalli Intensity ≥ VII with moderately frequent recurrence interval).

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

The 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model

New seismic hazard maps have been developed for the conterminous United States using the latest data, models, and methods available for assessing earthquake hazard. The hazard models incorporate new information on earthquake rupture behavior observed in recent earthquakes; fault studies that use both geologic and geodetic strain rate data; earthquake catalogs through 2012 that include new assessments of locations and magnitudes; earthquake adaptive smoothing models that more fully account for the spatial clustering of earthquakes; and 22 ground motion models, some of which consider more than double the shaking data applied previously. Alternative input models account for larger earthquakes, more complicated ruptures, and more varied ground shaking estimates than assumed in earlier models. The ground motions, for levels applied in building codes, differ from the previous version by less than ±10% over 60% of the country, but can differ by ±50% in localized areas. The models are incorporated in insurance rates, risk assessments, and as input into the U.S. building code provisions for earthquake ground shaking.

Earthquake Spectra↗