Lower seismogenic depth model of western U.S. Earthquakes

Yuehua Zeng; Mark D. Petersen; Oliver S. Boyd

doi:10.1785/0220220174

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70237575

Lower seismogenic depth model of western U.S. Earthquakes

Yuehua Zeng·Mark D. Petersen·Oliver S. Boyd

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present a model of the lower seismogenic depth of earthquakes in the western United States (WUS) estimated using the hypocentral depths of events M > 1, a crustal temperature model, and historical earthquake rupture depth models. Locations of earthquakes are from the Advanced National Seismic System Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog from 1980 to 2021 supplemented with seismicity in southern California for event hypocenters that were relocated by Hauksson et al. (2012) to obtain higher precision and better resolution in the model. We calculated the average depth of the deepest 10% of the merged catalog using an adaptive radius of 50 km or more. Along the San Andreas fault, the deepest seismogenic depths are located at 23 km around the Cholame segment, whereas the shallowest depths are located at about 10 km along the Rodgers Creek and Maacama faults. For the WUS outside California, the depth generally varies between 10 and 25 km with an average around 14 km but could extend to 35 km along Cascadia subduction zone. We find good agreement between the small‐magnitude depths and rupture depths derived from coseismic slip of large earthquakes across the region. Our estimates are generally deeper than the previous seismogenic depths determined for the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 model based on work by Petersen et al. (1996) who used seismicity cross sections along major fault zones in California. Our new seismogenic depth distribution correlates closely with crustal temperature derived from WUS heat flow ( Blackwell et al. , 2011 ). This correlation allowed us to develop a map of the brittle–ductile transition that we use to replace seismogenic depths in the model east of the Intermountain West Seismic Belt where the seismicity rate is low. This updated depth model is useful for recalibrating the lower geologic fault rupture depths, and constraining deformation and seismicity source models in updates of the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model.

Explore related subjects

Seismological Research Letters Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 29.84064389983441° to 48.69096039092549° latitude; -125.33203125° to -103.35937499999999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Yuehua Zeng, Mark D. Petersen, Oliver S. Boyd. 2022-10-12. Lower seismogenic depth model of western U.S. Earthquakes. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220220174

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2026

Intensity prediction equations for intraslab earthquakes in the Cascadia Subduction Zone

In the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW), intraslab earthquakes located within the subducting Juan de Fuca slab are responsible for most of the region’s moderate‐magnitude seismicity. Historically, these earthquakes have caused significant damage, such as the 2001 M 6.8 Nisqually, 1965 M 6.5 Seattle, and 1949 M 6.8 Olympia events. Intensity prediction equations (IPEs) aim to relate source‐to‐site distance and earthquake magnitude to the resultant felt shaking intensity at a particular location, and help to estimate hazard from earthquakes. We find that a commonly used IPE developed by Atkinson et al. (2014) does not accurately describe shaking intensity from most intraslab events in the PNW, likely because it was developed using primarily crustal fault earthquakes. In this study, we develop two new IPEs that provide an improved fit to observed intensities from Cascadia subduction zone intraslab earthquakes. To develop our IPEs, we compute linear mixed‐effects regressions using community decimal intensity data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s ‘Did You Feel It?’ program from 36 intraslab events that occurred in British Columbia, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and northern California from 2000 to 2025. We also investigate the relationship between the new intraslab IPEs and select parameters related to near‐surface conditions and deeper geologic structure that may be related to ground‐motion intensities, but find no correlations. These new IPEs provide a better fit to observations of intraslab earthquakes in the PNW than Atkinson et al. (2014) , particularly within 300 km of the epicenter. They also provide a better fit to the 2018 M 7.1 Anchorage, Alaska, intraslab earthquake, suggesting that they may have broader applicability to global subduction zones.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2026

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗