Geology topics

Susan M. Hoover

Publications and source records attributed to Susan M. Hoover.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Where, why, and how much probabilistic ground motion maps changed

The 2018 US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) incorporates new data and updated science to improve the underlying earthquake and ground motion forecasts for the conterminous United States. The NSHM considers many new data and component input models: (1) new earthquakes between 2013 and 2017 and updated earthquake magnitudes for some earlier earthquakes; (2) two updated smoothed seismicity models to forecast earthquake rates; (3) two suites of new central and eastern US (CEUS) ground motion models (GMMs) to translate ground shaking for various earthquake sizes and source-to-site distances considered in the model; (4) two CEUS GMMs for aleatory variability; (5) two CEUS site-effect models that modify ground shaking based on alternative shallow site conditions; (6) more advanced western US (WUS) lithologic and structural information to assess basin site effects for selected urban regions; and (7) a more comprehensive range of outputs (22 periods and 8 site classes) than in previous versions of the NSHMs. Each of these new datasets and models produces changes in the probabilistic ground shaking levels that are spatially and statistically analyzed. Recent earthquakes or changes to some older earthquake magnitudes and locations mostly result in probabilistic ground shaking levels that are similar to previous models, but local changes can reach up to +80% and −60% compared to the 2014 model. Newly developed CEUS models for GMMs, aleatory variability, and site effects cause overall changes up to ±64%. The addition of the WUS basin amplifications causes changes of up to +60% at longer periods for sites overlying deep soft soils. Across the conterminous United States, the hazard changes in the model are mainly caused by new GMMs in the CEUS, by sedimentary basin effects for long periods (≥1 s) in the WUS, and by seismicity changes for short (0.2 s) and long (1 s) periods for both areas.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2020

2018 and 2023 U. S. National Seismic Hazard Models

During 2017-2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated by incorporating (1) new median ground motion models, new estimates of their epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors for the central and eastern U.S., (2) amplification of long-period ground motions in deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas, (3) an updated seismicity catalog, which includes new earthquakes that occurred between 2012 and 2017, and (4) improved computer code and implementation details. Results show significantly increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the central and eastern U.S., and increased ground shaking in the four urban areas (listed above) that overlie deep sedimentary basins in the western U.S. During 2019-2023, the NSHM will consider additional updates for the 2023 NSHM including: 3D simulations in urban areas of Los Angeles and Seattle, additional soil amplification models for other urban areas (e.g., eastern and southern coastal plains of the U.S., Reno, and Las Vegas), non-ergodic ground motion models that reconsider epistemic and aleatory uncertainty, topographic amplification, and new geological and geodetic models for faults. These maps will be considered by the Building Seismic Safety Council, American Society of Civil Engineers, and International Building Code committees for inclusion in upcoming building codes. Due to population growth, more people live and work in areas of moderate or high seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from future ground shaking.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2019

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

During 2017–2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated as follows: (1) an updated seismicity catalog was incorporated, which includes new earthquakes that occurred from 2013 to 2017; (2) in the central and eastern United States (CEUS), new ground motion models were updated that incorporate updated median estimates, modified assessments of the associated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the western United States (WUS), amplified shaking estimates of long-period ground motions at sites overlying deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas were incorporated; and (4) in the conterminous United States, seismic hazard is calculated for 22 periods (from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform V S30 maps (ranging from 1500 to 150 m/s). We also include a description of updated computer codes and modeling details. Results show increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the CEUS (up to ~30%), as well as near the four urban areas overlying deep sedimentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard estimates, more people live or work in areas of high or moderate seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from forecasted future ground shaking.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2018

Evaluation of ground motion models for USGS seismic hazard forecasts: Induced and tectonic earthquakes in the Central and Eastern U.S.

Ground motion model (GMM) selection and weighting introduces a significant source of uncertainty in United States Geological Survey (USGS) seismic hazard models. The increase in moderate moment magnitude induced earthquakes (Mw 4 to 5.8) in Oklahoma and Kansas since 2009, due to increased wastewater injection related to oil and gas production (Keranen et al., 2013; 2014; Weingarten et al., 2015; McNamara et al., 2015a), provides useful near-source (< 40 km) instrumental ground-motion observations for comparisons between central and eastern US (CEUS) induced (Rennolet et al., 2017) and tectonic (Goulet et al., 2014) earthquakes. In this study, we evaluate over 50 GMMs using two well-established probabilistic scoring methods: log likelihood (LLH) (Scherbaum et al., 2004; 2009) and multivariate LLH (MLLH) (Mak et al., 2017). The LLH approach compares the mean and standard deviation (σ) of the observed and modeled ground motions. The MLLH approach advances the LLH method by considering the variability (φ,τ) of multiple correlated variables namely intra- (within) and inter- (between) event residuals. For the probabilistic scoring GMM evaluation methods (LLH, MLLH), we compute horizontal component peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 1s period pseudo spectral acceleration (PSA1.0) total residuals using GMM software (nshmp-haz) recently implemented by the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model Project (NSHMP). We observe from LLH and MLLH scores that: 1) newer GMMs with lower standard deviations (σ,φ,τ) score better than older GMMs with higher published uncertainty; 2) 2014 CEUS GMMs score better for CEUS tectonic earthquakes than induced earthquakes; 3) NGA-West2, G17 and A15 GMMs score well for CEUS induced earthquake ground motions; and 4) NGA-East GMMs score well for CEUS tectonic earthquake ground motions. We also use the LLH and MLLH scores to evaluate GMM weights applied in past USGS seismic hazard forecasts and to inform weighting of GMMs in future seismic hazard forecasts.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2018

Ground motions from induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas

Improved predictions of earthquake ground motions are critical to advancing seismic hazard analyses and earthquake response. The high seismicity rate from 2009 to 2016 in Oklahoma and Kansas provides an extensive data set for examining the ground motions from these events. We evaluate the ability of three suites of ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs)—appropriate for modeling tectonic earthquakes in active crustal and stable continental regions—to reproduce the observed ground motions. Mixed‐effects regressions are used to separate the ground‐motion residuals into bias, between‐event, and within‐event terms. Although the residuals depict differing accuracies in the ability of the three GMPE suites to predict the ground motions, some consistent trends emerge in the period, magnitude, and distance dependence. The trends suggest that aspects of the ground motions from these induced earthquakes are not well modeled by current tectonic GMPEs. Most important, we find evidence for relatively poor overall fit to the ground motions, by all of the GMPE suites, at periods less than about 0.2 s and above 3 s, greater‐than‐predicted magnitude scaling for small to moderate‐magnitude events ( ⁠ M ≲ 5 "> M ≲ 5 ⁠ ), higher‐than‐predicted within‐event variability above 3 s, and an apparent geometric attenuation that is stronger than average predictions at close distances ( ⁠ R ≲ 20    km "> R ≲ 20 km ) and short periods ( ⁠ T ≲ 1 s "> T ≲ 1 s ). Our results indicate that regionally appropriate GMPEs for induced earthquakes should be used for predicting ground motions in Oklahoma and Kansas.

Kansas, Oklahoma↗

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

Variabilities in probabilistic seismic hazard maps for natural and induced seismicity in the central and eastern United States

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) characterizes ground-motion hazard from earthquakes. Typically, the time horizon of a PSHA forecast is long, but in response to induced seismicity related to hydrocarbon development, the USGS developed one-year PSHA models. In this paper, we present a display of the variability in USGS hazard curves due to epistemic uncertainty in its informed submodel using a simple bootstrapping approach. We find that variability is highest in low-seismicity areas. On the other hand, areas of high seismic hazard, such as the New Madrid seismic zone or Oklahoma, exhibit relatively lower variability simply because of more available data and a better understanding of the seismicity. Comparing areas of high hazard, New Madrid, which has a history of large naturally occurring earthquakes, has lower forecast variability than Oklahoma, where the hazard is driven mainly by suspected induced earthquakes since 2009. Overall, the mean hazard obtained from bootstrapping is close to the published model, and variability increased in the 2017 one-year model relative to the 2016 model. Comparing the relative variations caused by individual logic-tree branches, we find that the highest hazard variation (as measured by the 95% confidence interval of bootstrapping samples) in the final model is associated with different ground-motion models and maximum magnitudes used in the logic tree, while the variability due to the smoothing distance is minimal. It should be pointed out that this study is not looking at the uncertainty in the hazard in general, but only as it is represented in the USGS one-year models.

The Leading Edge↗

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↗

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↗

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↗