Considerations in Comparing the U.S. Geological Survey One‐Year Induced‐Seismicity Hazard Models with “Did You Feel It?” and Instrumental Data

White, Isabel; Liu, Taojun; Luco, Nicolas; Liel, Abbie B.

doi:10.1785/0220170033

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, the comparison in Figure 2 indicates good agreement between the 2016 model and DYFI data in the region of overlap around MMI of IV. Results similar to these are presented in White et al (2017) for other sites, and many show good agreement, providing some confirmation that the hazard model levels are reasonable.…”

Section: Comparison Of Hazard Curves With "Did You Feel It?" Datasupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Given the significant increase in the ground motion hazard shown in Figure 1, a logical question is does this hazard forecast reflect the actual ground motions people have experienced? In White et al (2017), we address this question by comparing the 2016 USGS forecast with the observed and/or felt data from the USGS “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system (Wald et al 2011). The DYFI is an online system that collects and archives macroseismic intensity data reported by the public following earthquakes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparison for OKC between hazard curves converted from the 2016 USGS one-year seismic hazard model and those derived based on the DYFI data from 2014 and 2015. Details of the comparison are provided in White et al (2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This facilitates a direct comparison between the hazard model and hazard curves derived from the DYFI data. Details about the adjustments made to conduct the comparison, and a comprehensive comparison across a broader region, are presented in White et al (2017).…”

Section: Comparison Of Hazard Curves With "Did You Feel It?" Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Increases in Life-Safety Risks to Building Occupants from Induced Earthquakes in the Central United States

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquake occurrence rates in some parts of the Central United States have been elevated for a number of years; this increase has been widely attributed to deep wastewater injection associated with oil and gas activities. This induced seismicity has caused damage to buildings and infrastructure and substantial public concern. In March 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published its first earthquake ground motion hazard model that accounts for the elevated seismicity, producing a one-year forecast encompassing both induced and natural earthquakes. To assess the potential impact of the elevated seismicity on buildings and the public, this paper quantifies forecasted risks of (1) building collapse and (2) the falling of nonstructural building components by combining the 2016 USGS hazard model with fragility curves for generic modern code-compliant buildings. The assessment shows significant increases in both types of risk compared to that caused by noninduced earthquakes alone; the magnitude of the increases varies from a few times to more than 100 times, depending on location, building period (which is correlated to building height), alternatives for the hazard model, and type of risk of interest. For exploratory purposes only, we also estimate revised values of the risk-targeted ground motion that are currently used for designing buildings.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Hazard Curves With "Did You Feel It?" Datasupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Hazard Curves With "Did You Feel It?" Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Increases in Life-Safety Risks to Building Occupants from Induced Earthquakes in the Central United States

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Point-based evaluation methods have been applied in the past to the NSHM using historical intensities, with varied results: the hazard model was found to slightly exceed historical observations in the westernmost United States, while in the CEUS and the southern California subregion, the hazard tended to be lower than historical observations (Stirling and Petersen, 2006). In Oklahoma/Kansas, point-based results showed good agreement with modern DYFI intensities when applied to the short-term forecasts for natural and induced seismicity (White et al, 2018). Recent area-based evaluations of the NSHM have been applied to US subregions with similarly varied results (Ward, 1995).…”

Section: Testing (Conus Only)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

Petersen,

Shumway,

Powers

et al. 2023

Earthquake Spectra

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Characteristics of a new regional seismic-intensity prediction equation for Spain

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerations in Comparing the U.S. Geological Survey One‐Year Induced‐Seismicity Hazard Models with “Did You Feel It?” and Instrumental Data

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Increases in Life-Safety Risks to Building Occupants from Induced Earthquakes in the Central United States

Increases in Life-Safety Risks to Building Occupants from Induced Earthquakes in the Central United States

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

Characteristics of a new regional seismic-intensity prediction equation for Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About