Geology topics

Morgan P. Moschetti

Publications and source records attributed to Morgan P. Moschetti.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Ensemble smoothed seismicity models for the new Italian Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map

We develop a long‐term (a few decades or longer) earthquake rate forecast for Italy based on smoothed seismicity for incorporation in the 2017–2018 Italian Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps (IPSHM). Because the earthquake rate models from previous IPSHM were computed using source zones that were drawn around seismicity and tectonic provinces, the present model will be the first introduction of the smoothed seismicity method into the IPSHM. Smoothed seismicity models are constructed from both historical CPTI15 (Catalogo Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani, 1000–2014) and instrumental (1981–2016) earthquake catalogs and use both fixed and adaptive smoothing methods. We compute spatial likelihood values comparing the spatial distribution of observed earthquakes with a suite of trial earthquake rate models to optimize smoothing parameters and catalogs. Then we produce an ensemble model using two different smoothing models (adaptive and fixed) and two earthquake catalogs (historical and instrumental), which are weighted equally through a logic‐tree approach to improve the forecast capability. We also compare our optimized smoothed seismicity models with the best two models of the Italian Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) experiment and retrospectively test them with the CSEP methodology. We observed that the ensemble model performs slightly better than the optimized fixed and the adaptive smoothing seismicity models obtained in this study and the best time‐independent model of the CSEP Italian experiment. The preferred ensemble model forecasts an annual rate of 1.47 M ≥ 5.0 "> M ≥ 5.0 earthquakes, with higher rates mainly concentrating along the Apennines chain, eastern Alps, Calabria, and northeast Sicily. Finally, six ensemble models are created from the different smoothing methods using different weights through a logic‐tree approach to estimate the uncertainty associated with the model.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2018

2018 one‐year seismic hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

This article describes the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2018 one‐year probabilistic seismic hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. For consistency, the updated 2018 forecast is developed using the same probabilistic seismicity‐based methodology as applied in the two previous forecasts. Rates of earthquakes across the United States M ≥ 3.0 "> M ≥ 3.0 grew rapidly between 2008 and 2015 but have steadily declined over the past 3 years, especially in areas of Oklahoma and southern Kansas where fluid injection has decreased. The seismicity pattern in 2017 was complex with earthquakes more spatially dispersed than in the previous years. Some areas of west‐central Oklahoma experienced increased activity rates where industrial activity increased. Earthquake rates in Oklahoma (429 earthquakes of M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 and 4 M ≥ 4 "> M ≥ 4 ), Raton basin (Colorado/New Mexico border, six earthquakes M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 ), and the New Madrid seismic zone (11 earthquakes M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 ) continue to be higher than historical levels. Almost all of these earthquakes occurred within the highest hazard regions of the 2017 forecast. Even though rates declined over the past 3 years, the short‐term hazard for damaging ground shaking across much of Oklahoma remains at high levels due to continuing high rates of smaller earthquakes that are still hundreds of times higher than at any time in the state’s history. Fine details and variability between the 2016–2018 forecasts are obscured by significant uncertainties in the input model. These short‐term hazard levels are similar to active regions in California. During 2017, M ≥ 3 "> M ≥ 3 earthquakes also occurred in or near Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2018

Integrate urban‐scale seismic hazard analyses with the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

For more than 20 yrs, damage patterns and instrumental recordings have highlighted the influence of the local 3D geologic structure on earthquake ground motions (e.g., M "> M M 6.7 Northridge, California, Gao et al. , 1996 ; M "> M M 6.9 Kobe, Japan, Kawase, 1996 ; M "> M M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, Frankel, Carver, and Williams, 2002 ). Although this and other local‐scale features are critical to improving seismic hazard forecasts, historically they have not been explicitly incorporated into the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM, national model and maps), primarily because the necessary basin maps and methodologies were not available at the national scale. Instead, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), its partners, and external groups developed urban seismic hazard maps (urban models and maps) that consider detailed site effects in local areas (e.g., Wong et al. , 2002 ; Cramer et al. , 2006 ; Frankel et al. , 2007 ; Graves et al. , 2011 ). The disconnect between the urban and national hazard models, however, means that the national models, which underlie U.S. building codes and other applications, do not make use of all of the scientific results informing earthquake ground‐shaking hazards. We recommend that future U.S. national seismic hazard assessment make use of all available regional information, including that in urban models. In this column, we describe the roles of and differences between the urban and national models, and discuss the obstacles to and benefits of integrating the urban models with the national model. Future progress on this issue will require further coordination and implementation efforts between the USGS and external partners.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2018

A flatfile of ground motion intensity measurements from induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas

We have produced a uniformly processed database of orientation-independent (RotD50, RotD100) ground motion intensity measurements containing peak horizontal ground motions (accelerations and velocities) and 5-percent-damped pseudospectral accelerations (0.1–10 s) from more than 3,800 M ≥ 3 earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas that occurred between January 2009 and December 2016. Ground motion time series were collected from regional, national, and temporary seismic arrays out to 500 km. We relocated the majority of the earthquake hypocenters using a multiple-event relocation algorithm to produce a set of near-uniformly processed hypocentral locations. Ground motion processing followed standard methods, with the primary objective of reducing the effects of noise on the measurements. Regional wave-propagation features and the high seismicity rate required careful selection of signal windows to ensure that we captured the entire ground motion record and that contaminating signals from extraneous earthquakes did not contribute to the database. Processing was carried out with an automated scheme and resulted in a database comprising more than 174,000 records ( https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F73B5X8N ). We anticipate that these results will be useful for improved understanding of earthquake ground motions and for seismic hazard applications.

Kansas, Oklahoma↗

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

3D ground‐motion simulations of Mw 7 earthquakes on the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone: Variability of long‐period (T≥1 s) ground motions and sensitivity to kinematic rupture parameters

We examine the variability of long‐period ( T ≥1 s) earthquake ground motions from 3D simulations of M w 7 earthquakes on the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone, Utah, from a set of 96 rupture models with varying slip distributions, rupture speeds, slip velocities, and hypocenter locations. Earthquake ruptures were prescribed on a 3D fault representation that satisfies geologic constraints and maintained distinct strands for the Warm Springs and for the East Bench and Cottonwood faults. Response spectral accelerations (SA; 1.5–10 s; 5% damping) were measured, and average distance scaling was well fit by a simple functional form that depends on the near‐source intensity level SA 0 ( T ) and a corner distance R c :SA( R , T )=SA 0 ( T )(1+( R / R c )) −1 . Period‐dependent hanging‐wall effects manifested and increased the ground motions by factors of about 2–3, though the effects appeared partially attributable to differences in shallow site response for sites on the hanging wall and footwall of the fault. Comparisons with modern ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs) found that the simulated ground motions were generally consistent, except within deep sedimentary basins, where simulated ground motions were greatly underpredicted. Ground‐motion variability exhibited strong lateral variations and, at some sites, exceeded the ground‐motion variability indicated by GMPEs. The effects on the ground motions of changing the values of the five kinematic rupture parameters can largely be explained by three predominant factors: distance to high‐slip subevents, dynamic stress drop, and changes in the contributions from directivity. These results emphasize the need for further characterization of the underlying distributions and covariances of the kinematic rupture parameters used in 3D ground‐motion simulations employed in probabilistic seismic‐hazard analyses.

Utah↗

USGS2017

Finite‐fault Bayesian inversion of teleseismic body waves

Inverting geophysical data has provided fundamental information about the behavior of earthquake rupture. However, inferring kinematic source model parameters for finite‐fault ruptures is an intrinsically underdetermined problem (the problem of nonuniqueness), because we are restricted to finite noisy observations. Although many studies use least‐squares techniques to make the finite‐fault problem tractable, these methods generally lack the ability to apply non‐Gaussian error analysis and the imposition of nonlinear constraints. However, the Bayesian approach can be employed to find a Gaussian or non‐Gaussian distribution of all probable model parameters, while utilizing nonlinear constraints. We present case studies to quantify the resolving power and associated uncertainties using only teleseismic body waves in a Bayesian framework to infer the slip history for a synthetic case and two earthquakes: the 2011 M w 7.1 Van, east Turkey, earthquake and the 2010 M w 7.2 El Mayor–Cucapah, Baja California, earthquake. In implementing the Bayesian method, we further present two distinct solutions to investigate the uncertainties by performing the inversion with and without velocity structure perturbations. We find that the posterior ensemble becomes broader when including velocity structure variability and introduces a spatial smearing of slip. Using the Bayesian framework solely on teleseismic body waves, we find rake is poorly constrained by the observations and rise time is poorly resolved when slip amplitude is low.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

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

Likelihood testing of seismicity-based rate forecasts of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas

Likelihood testing of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas has identified the parameters that optimize the forecasting ability of smoothed seismicity models and quantified the recent temporal stability of the spatial seismicity patterns. Use of the most recent 1-year period of earthquake data and use of 10–20-km smoothing distances produced the greatest likelihood. The likelihood that the locations of January–June 2015 earthquakes were consistent with optimized forecasts decayed with increasing elapsed time between the catalogs used for model development and testing. Likelihood tests with two additional sets of earthquakes from 2014 exhibit a strong sensitivity of the rate of decay to the smoothing distance. Marked reductions in likelihood are caused by the nonstationarity of the induced earthquake locations. Our results indicate a multiple-fold benefit from smoothed seismicity models in developing short-term earthquake rate forecasts for induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas, relative to the use of seismic source zones.

Kansas, Oklahoma↗

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↗

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↗