Geology topics

Nico Luco

Publications and source records attributed to Nico Luco.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

2025 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: Overview of model and hazard results

The U.S. Geological Survey recently updated the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). The first version of the PRVI NSHM was released in 2003, and therefore this 2025 update includes over 20 years of new geologic, geophysical, and engineering data, methods, and models. Updates follow similar efforts performed in the recent 2023 50-state NSHM. However, this is the first NSHM in which we: (1) apply an inversion methodology to subduction interface fault sources in the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) model; (2) develop scaled backbone median ground-motion models and independent aleatory variability models that are applied in the ground-motion characterization (GMC) model; and (3) calculate epistemic uncertainty related to alternative scenarios in the ERF and GMC models for all grid points in the study region. Long-term time-independent mean hazard calculations were performed for peak ground acceleration and 5%-damped pseudospectral acceleration at 21 spectral periods from 0.01- to 10.0-s, for eight National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program site conditions ranging from V S30 = 150 to 1500 m/s, and for 2%, 5%, and 10% in 50-year probabilities of exceedance (return periods of 2475, 975, and 475 years, respectively). Epistemic uncertainty, in the form of selected percentiles, is also provided for a suite of test sites and all grid points in the study region for limited periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. Selected results, including comparisons with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, are shown and discussed for selected periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. When comparing the 2025 PRVI NSHM with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, hazard is generally higher at shorter periods and lower at longer periods, as a result of updates in both ERF and GMC models. The 2025 PRVI NSHM is applicable for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

A scientific vision and roadmap for earthquake rupture forecast developments, a USGS perspective

We articulate a scientific vision and roadmap for the development of improved Earthquake Rupture Forecast models, which are one of the two main modeling components used in modern seismic hazard and risk analysis. One primary future objective is to provide fully time-dependent models that include both elastic rebound and spatiotemporal clustering nationwide, which is particularly important for shorter-term hazard and risk considerations (e.g., earthquake insurance products). We also discuss the importance and perennial challenges associated with quantifying epistemic uncertainties, including those associated with deformation-model slip rates, un-quantified sampling errors with respect to off-fault seismicity, and any spatial covariances. The need for more physics-based approaches is also emphasized, as is the benefit of adding model valuation (quantifying usefulness) to our verification and validation protocols. Given the multidisciplinary and system-level nature of this activity, modular design is critical. Future updates will also draw from best-available science by both the United States Geological Survey and the external community. The primary goal of this paper is to highlight plans that guide research and facilitate community engagement with model development, especially with respect to lowering the entry barrier for early career scientists and engineers. The paper is written so readers can focus on the sections that interest them most (see table of contents), with the Introduction and Discussion providing a stand-alone overview and summary.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2025

Engineering and risk research—A strategic vision for extending USGS earthquake science to risk assessment and mitigation

As a part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area, the Engineering and Risk Project (ERP) of the Geologic Hazards Science Center conducts civil engineering research to extend natural hazards science to risk assessments. The ERP includes predominantly, but not exclusively, staff funded by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. A major focus of the ERP is to deliver actionable information to decisionmakers that helps promote the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The report discusses briefly the ERP’s evolution and scope, its organization structure, describes key products and deliverables, their efforts to engage with external partners, and its strategy and vision in conducting range of engineering and risk research. The research topics outlined in this report, as developed by the ERP, may be used to facilitate project planning activities during the next 10 years and serve as a longer-term planning resource for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and Geologic Hazards Science Center.

Circular↗

USGS2025

Simulating human behavior under earthquake early warning

Earthquakes are a rapid-onset hazard where advance planning and learning plays a key role in mitigating injuries and death to individuals. Recent advances in earthquake detection have resulted in the development of earthquake early warning (EEW) systems. These systems can provide advance warning to predetermined geographic regions that an earthquake is in progress, which may result in individuals receiving warning seconds before significant shaking is felt at their location. This additional time could allow individuals to take more effective protective actions during the immediate disaster. To demonstrate this, we created an agent-based simulation of a basic apartment that allowed us to randomly and repeatedly simulate an individual receiving and responding to an EEW message. The results of our preliminary simulation show that, in our study environment, earthquake early warning alerts have the potential to allow for sufficient time for individuals to take protective actions.

Washington↗

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

U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program decadal science strategy, 2024–33

Executive Summary Earthquakes represent one of our Nation’s most significant and costly natural hazards, with estimated annual loses from earthquakes close to $15 billion in 2023. Over the past two centuries, 37 U.S. States have experienced an earthquake exceeding a magnitude of 5, and 50 percent of States have a significant potential for future damaging shaking; these statistics speak to the need for nationwide interest and investment in earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction. Authorized under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) provides the scientific information, situational awareness, and knowledge necessary to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis, landslides, and soil liquefaction. The EHP supports activities in three focused topical areas: (1) earthquake monitoring, (2) hazard assessment, and (3) applied research, using the results of each—and the coordination among them—to further support risk translation and communication in regions at risk nationwide. For earthquake monitoring, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a cooperative effort of USGS networks, university partner regional seismic networks, and real-time geodetic networks, collects and analyzes data on earthquakes; issues timely, reliable notifications of their occurrence and impacts; and provides data for earthquake research, hazard, and risk assessment as a foundation for building an earthquake-resilient Nation. The USGS-operated ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system is a recent addition to EHP’s ANSS infrastructure. In the realm of earthquake hazard assessment, the EHP contributes to earthquake risk mitigation strategies by developing the National Seismic Hazard Model and maps, and other related products, that describe the likelihood and potential effects of earthquakes nationwide, especially in the urban areas of highest risk. The EHP also conducts research on the causes, characteristics, and effects of earthquakes and prioritizes work that directly increases the accuracy and precision of earthquake hazards assessments, earthquake forecasts, and earthquake monitoring and situational-awareness products and that supports the Nation’s earthquake mitigation practices. Bridging the EHP’s efforts across research, hazard assessments, and earthquake monitoring is a broad and comprehensive collection of earthquake information products, including the National Seismic Hazard Model, ShakeAlert, and other products describing impact, such as ShakeMap and PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), which have been developed and integrated into EHP’s real-time monitoring systems. EHP funds external partners to carry out many important collaborative activities through an active external grants program—one of the largest in the USGS—and through cooperative agreements with other partners such as the university-operated regional seismic networks, funded as part of the ANSS. To continue its support of earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction, the EHP aims to strengthen its foundational products and practices while positioning itself to respond to the evolving needs of the Nation and follow best practices of the scientific community. This document describes a strategy for the program to ensure it can meet these demands. The foundational priorities outlined in this strategy represent those activities that remain critical to the core functionality of the program and those that can be supported under current fiscal year 2024-level appropriations. Priorities described as aspirational are important for future growth, and to maintain the program’s position as a leading global resource in earthquake science, but would require increases in appropriated funding to be fully realized. Across the program’s portfolio of activities, several major themes have been identified as the most critical activities to advance EHP science over the coming decade. Together, these activities provide the framework necessary to integrate critical hazard characterization and risk reduction activities across the program. They provide the structure for research to advance the understanding of where, when, and why earthquakes occur and how we can use improved knowledge to drive short-term and actionable forecasts of seismic activity. They expand the usefulness of critical earthquake products and advance the sophistication of those products to keep pace with the rapidly evolving needs of an ever-expanding user base while maintaining the position of the USGS as a global leader in earthquake science. Focus on system-level science. Establish an automated earthquake-processing pipeline. Enhance the accuracy and reliability of the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system and plan for extension to other regions. Implement time-dependent earthquake forecasting. Develop physically realistic models. Expand computational capacity. This science strategy is organized into three primary sections. The first section provides an overview of the EHP and its budget, governance, and program council. Readers familiar with the program may wish to focus on the second section, which describes the core of the science strategy, including priorities across each of the EHP’s major program activities in monitoring, hazard assessment, and targeted research. The third section outlines science priorities that cut across program activities, including those involving collaborations external to the EHP.

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, U↗

USGS2024

Quantitative risk of earthquake disruption to global copper and rhenium supply

Earthquakes have the potential to substantially affect mining operations, potentially leading to supply chain disruptions and adversely affecting the global economy. This study explores the quantification of earthquake risk to copper and rhenium commodity supply by examining the spatial concentration of high earthquake hazard areas and the commodity-specific mining, smelting, and refining operations across the globe. Because many of the largest facilities are concentrated geographically near the highly seismic regions of South America, East Asia, and the Pacific, there is a potential for cascading effects on the entire supply chain. The analysis indicates that the expected annual disruption of global production is 0.3–1.1 percent for copper mines, 1.8–4.0 percent for smelters, and 1.5–3.3 percent for refineries. Expected annual disruption of global rhenium production capacity is 0.32–1.32 percent. The research highlights that the potential lost revenue from earthquake disruptions is from $315 million to $1.29 billion for copper mining, $1.92 billion to $4.33 billion for copper smelting, $2.06 billion to $4.52 billion for copper refining, and $337,000 to $1.40 million for rhenium production capacity.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2024

Integration of rupture directivity models for the US National Seismic Hazard Model

Several rupture directivity models (DMs) have been developed in recent years to describe the near-source spatial variations in ground motion amplitudes related to propagation of rupture along the fault. We recently organized an effort towards incorporating these directivity effects into the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), by first evaluating the community's work and potential methods to implement directivity adjustments into probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Guided by this evaluation and comparison among the considered DMs, we selected an approach that can be readily implemented into the USGS hazard software, that provides an azimuthally varying adjustment to the median ground motion and its aleatory variability. This method allows assessment of the impact on hazard levels and provides a platform to test the DM amplification predictions using a generalized coordinate system, necessary for consistent calculation of source-to-site distance terms for complex ruptures. We give examples of the directivity-related impact on hazard, progressing from a simple, hypothetical rupture, to more complex fault systems, composed of multiple rupture segments and sources. The directivity adjustments were constrained to strike-slip faulting, where DMs have good agreement. We find that rupture directivity adjustments using a simple median and aleatory adjustment approach can impact hazard both from a site perspective and on a regional scale, increasing shaking off the end of the fault trace up to 30--40\% and potentially reducing it for sites along strike. Statewide hazard maps of California show that the change in shaking along major faults can be a factor to consider for assessing long-period (>ls) near-source effects within the USGS NSHM going forward, reaching up to 10--20\%. Finally, we suggest consideration of minimum parameter ranges and baseline requirements as future DMs are developed to minimize single approach adaptations, to enable more consistent application within both ground motion and hazard studies.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

Challenges in developing vertical hazard for seismic analysis of concrete dams

The seismic response of concrete dams depends on both the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) components of ground motion (GM), and excluding the V components when conducting response history analyses (RHAs) may underestimate the seismic fragility. Although V components of GM time series could be selected to be consistent with the hazard, hazard curves for the V component (or for short, V hazard curves) are rarely available for evaluating such hazard consistency. One of the challenges in developing V hazard curves in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is the lack of ground motion models (GMMs) that directly estimate intensity measures (IMs) for the V component of GM. In this study, we compare alternative approaches of developing V hazard curves. Using a case study in California, we compare V hazard curves computed from GMMs for the V component of GM against those from applying GMMs for the V/H ratios and those from selecting multicomponent time series that are consistent with the H hazard. We discuss and invite feedback on issues such as availability of GMMs, applicability of GMMs, and choice of inputs for ground motion selection and modification (GMSM).

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↗

USGS2023

Findings from a decade of ground motion simulation validation research and a path forward

Simulated ground motions have the potential to advance seismic hazard assessments and structural response analyses, particularly for conditions with limited recorded ground motions such as large magnitude earthquakes at short source-to-site distances. However, rigorous validation of simulated ground motions is needed for hazard analysts, practicing engineers, or regulatory bodies to be confident in their use. A decade ago, validation exercises were mainly limited to comparisons of simulated-to-observed waveforms and median values of spectral accelerations for selected earthquakes. The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Ground Motion Simulation Validation (GMSV) group was formed to increase coordination between simulation modelers and research engineers with the aim of devising and applying more effective methods for simulation validation. Here, we summarize what has been learned in over a decade of GMSV activities, principally reflecting the views of the SCEC research community but also extending our findings and suggestions for a path forward to broader United States and worldwide simulation validation efforts. We categorize different validation methods according to their approach and the metrics considered. Two general approaches are to compare validation metrics from simulations to those from historical records or to those from semi-empirical models. Validation metrics are categorized into ground motion characteristics and structural responses. We discuss example validation studies that have been impactful in the past decade and suggest future research directions. Key lessons learned are that validation is application-specific, our outreach and dissemination need improvement, and much validation-related research remains unexplored.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2022

Preliminary national-scale seismic risk assessment of natural gas pipelines in the United States

Although the gas pipeline infrastructure in the United States is vulnerable to the seismic hazards of (i) strong ground shaking, and (ii) ground failures induced by surface faulting, liquefaction, or landslides, limited national guidance exists for operators to consistently evaluate the earthquake response of their pipelines. To provide additional information for stakeholders and establish more consistency at a national scale, we attempt to quantify seismic risk for gas transmission pipelines in the conterminous United States using a metric such as average annual loss, which helps readily distinguish geographic areas of high and low relative risk. Specifically, we integrate the 2018 National Pipeline Mapping System, the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model, and several candidate models from the literature for estimating pipeline damage. Through this effort, we highlight major research needs for ultimately reducing the many uncertainties associated with a comprehensive seismic risk assessment of gas pipelines.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2022

Open-source resources help navigate new IM regulations

The revision of federal safety regulations for integrity management of gas transmission pipelines to require explicit consideration of seismicity increases the importance for operators to be actively identifying high-consequence areas (HCAs), evaluating seismic-related threats, and choosing a risk model to support risk management decisions. To ensure equal access to information by both operators and inspectors, the authors have compiled publicly available data and tools for practical seismic risk assessments, such as Microsoft building footprints, the USGS National Seismic Hazard Models, and the USGS Ground Failure product.

Oil & Gas Journal↗

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↗

USGS2022

Earthquake early warning: Toward modeling optimal protective actions

Over the past few years early earthquake warning systems have been incorporated into earthquake preparation efforts in many locations around the globe. These systems provide an excellent opportunity for advanced warning of ground shaking and other hazards associated with earthquakes. This study aims to optimize this advanced warning for individuals inside a building when the alert is received. A conceptual framework is presented for modeling optimal protective actions during earthquakes when an earthquake early warning system is available to the individual. Various factors impacting the ability of an individual to take protective action are considered for the modeling process.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2021

Hazard-consistent seismic losses and collapse capacities for light-frame wood buildings in California and Cascadia

We evaluate the seismic performance of modern seismically designed wood light-frame (WLF) buildings, considering regional seismic hazard characteristics that influence ground motion duration and frequency content and, thus, seismic risk. Results show that WLF building response correlates strongly with ground motion spectral shape but weakly with duration. Due to the flatter spectral shape of ground motions from subduction events, WLF buildings at sites affected by these earthquakes may experience double the economic losses for a given intensity of shaking, and collapse capacities may be reduced by up to 50%, compared to those at sites affected by crustal earthquakes. These differences could motivate significant increases in design values at sites affected by subduction earthquakes to achieve the uniform risk targets of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 standard.

Alaska, California, Oregon Washington↗

USGS2021

The seismic hazard implications of declustering and poisson assumptions inferred from a fully time‐dependent model

We use the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model (UCERF3‐ETAS) to evaluate the effects of declustering and Poisson assumptions on seismic hazard estimates. Although declustering is necessary to infer the long‐term spatial distribution of earthquake rates, the question is whether it is also necessary to honor the Poisson assumption in classic probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. We use 500,000 yr, M ≥ 2.5 synthetic catalogs to address this question, for which UCERF3‐ETAS exhibits realistic spatiotemporal clustering effects (e.g., aftershocks). We find that Gardner and Knopoff (1974) declustering, used in the U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard models, lowers 2% in 50 yr and risk‐targeted ground‐motion hazard metrics by about 4% on average (compared with the full time‐dependent [TD] model), with the reduction being 5% at 40% in 50 yr ground motions. Keeping all earthquakes and treating them as a Poisson process increases these same hazard metrics by about 3%–12%, on average, due to the removal of relatively quiet time periods in the full TD model. In the interest of model simplification, bias minimization, and consideration of the probabilities of multiple exceedances, we agree with others ( Marzocchi and Taroni, 2014 ) that we are better off keeping aftershocks and treating them as a Poisson process rather than removing them from hazard consideration via declustering. Honoring the true time dependence, however, will likely be important for other hazard and risk metrics, and this study further exemplifies how this can now be evaluated more extensively.

California↗

USGS2021

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground motion models in the western US

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.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, N↗