Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70033849

Modifications to existing ground-motion prediction equations in light of new data

Abstract

We compare our recent ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for western North America (WNA; Boore and Atkinson, 2008 [BA08]) and eastern North America (ENA; Atkinson and Boore, 2006 [AB06]; Atkinson, 2008 [A08]) to newly available ground-motion data. Based on these comparisons, we suggest revisions to our GMPEs for both WNA and ENA. The revisions for WNA affect only those events with M ≤ 5:75, while those for ENA affect all magnitudes. These are simple modi[1]fications to the existing GMPEs that bring them into significantly better agreement with data. The wealth of new data clearly demonstrates that these modifications are warranted; we therefore recommend the use of the updated equations for seismic hazard analyses and other applications. More detailed studies are under way by many investigators (including ourselves) to develop a new generation of ground-motion models in both WNA and ENA from scratch, through a comprehensive reevaluation of source, path, site, and modeling issues. In time, those more complete models will replace those proposed in this study. However, as the new models will be several years in development, we recommend using the modified models proposed herein, labeled BA08′ (for WNA), AB06′ (for ENA), and A08′ (for ENA, to replace A08), as interim updates to our existing models. The proposed models are in demonstrable agreement with a rich database of ground motions for moderate-magnitude earthquakes in both WNA and ENA and are constrained at larger magnitudes by the BA08 magnitude and distance scaling.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G. M. Atkinson, D.M. Boore. 2011-05-29. Modifications to existing ground-motion prediction equations in light of new data. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100270

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗