The 2008 U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard models and maps for the central and eastern United States

2013 ◽  
pp. 243-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Petersen ◽  
Arthur D. Frankel ◽  
Stephen C. Harmsen ◽  
Charles S. Mueller ◽  
Oliver S. Boyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Geological Survey ◽  
Hazard Models ◽  
Eastern United States

System-wide seismic vulnerability of aging multiple-span multiple-girder bridges in low-to-moderate seismic hazard regions

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1626-1651
Author(s):  
John E Lens M.EERI ◽  
Mandar M Dewoolkar ◽  
Eric M Hernandez M.EERI
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Cross Sections ◽  
Seismic Vulnerability ◽  
Time History ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Database ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Girder Bridges ◽  
The Status

This article describes the approach, methods, and findings of a quantitative analysis of the seismic vulnerability in low-to-moderate seismic hazard regions of the Central and Eastern United States for system-wide assessment of typical multiple span bridges built in the 1950s through the 1960s. There is no national database on the status of seismic vulnerability of bridges, and thus no means to estimate the system-wide damage and retrofit costs for bridges. The study involved 380 nonlinear analyses using actual time-history records matched to four representative low-to-medium hazard target spectra corresponding with peak ground accelerations from approximately 0.06 to 0.3 g. Ground motions were obtained from soft and stiff site seismic classification locations and applied to models of four typical multiple-girder with concrete bent bridges. Multiple-girder bridges are the largest single category, comprising 55% of all multiple span bridges in the United States. Aging and deterioration effects were accounted for using reduced cross-sections representing fully spalled conditions and compared with pristine condition results. The research results indicate that there is an overall low likelihood of significant seismic damage to these typical bridges in such regions, with the caveat that certain bridge features such as more extensive deterioration, large skews, and varied bent heights require bridge-specific analysis. The analysis also excludes potential damage resulting from liquefaction, flow-spreading, or abutment slumping due to weak foundation or abutment soils.

The Western Limit of Iapetan Rifting in the Eastern United States: A New Assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 3483-3495
Author(s):  
Christine A. Powell ◽  
William A. Thomas ◽  
Robert D. Hatcher
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Atlantic Coastal Plain ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Earthquake Activity ◽  
Blue Ridge ◽  
Mantle Structure ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Appalachian Plateau ◽  
Lithospheric Thickness

Abstract Specifying the extent and location of rifted, crystalline Precambrian crust in the eastern United States is important for seismic hazard evaluation and for models that relate upper-mantle structure to ancient tectonic features and ongoing tectonism. As currently depicted in the National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), the western limit of Iapetan rifted crust is beneath the Appalachian plateau physiographic province, west of the Valley and Ridge province. New estimates of crustal thickness using EarthScope Transportable Array and other data do not support the presence of rifted crust beneath the Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, and Appalachian plateau physiographic provinces. Crustal thicknesses exceed 45 km throughout most of this region. The crust thins to the southeast beneath the southeastern part of the Piedmont physiographic province and is only 36 km thick near the edge of the Atlantic coastal plain. We suggest that the western limit of Iapetan rift-extended crust is east of the Blue Ridge province and is associated with the prominent Appalachian gravity gradient. This location coincides with palinspastic reconstructions based on geologic data for the Iapetan rifted margin. Recognition of thick crust beneath the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge provinces, unextended by Iapetan rifting, will support more robust modeling of the effects of mantle structure (such as delamination and abrupt changes in lithospheric thickness) on ongoing tectonism and earthquake activity in the eastern United States and will provide more accurate seismotectonic zonation in the NSHM.

scholarly journals A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe: regionalisation, model selection and development of a scaled backbone approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 6119-6148
Author(s):  
Graeme Weatherill ◽  
Fabrice Cotton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Seismic Hazard Analysis ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Logic Tree ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Northeastern Europe

Abstract Regions of low seismicity present a particular challenge for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis when identifying suitable ground motion models (GMMs) and quantifying their epistemic uncertainty. The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model adopts a scaled backbone approach to characterise this uncertainty for shallow seismicity in Europe, incorporating region-to-region source and attenuation variability based on European strong motion data. This approach, however, may not be suited to stable cratonic region of northeastern Europe (encompassing Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries), where exploration of various global geophysical datasets reveals that its crustal properties are distinctly different from the rest of Europe, and are instead more closely represented by those of the Central and Eastern United States. Building upon the suite of models developed by the recent NGA East project, we construct a new scaled backbone ground motion model and calibrate its corresponding epistemic uncertainties. The resulting logic tree is shown to provide comparable hazard outcomes to the epistemic uncertainty modelling strategy adopted for the Eastern United States, despite the different approaches taken. Comparison with previous GMM selections for northeastern Europe, however, highlights key differences in short period accelerations resulting from new assumptions regarding the characteristics of the reference rock and its influence on site amplification.

Effects of temporal variations in seismicity on seismic hazard

1981 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 321-334
Author(s):  
Robin K. McGuire ◽  
Theodore P. Barnhard
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Seismic Activity ◽  
Time Window ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Temporal Variations ◽  
Seismogenic Zone ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Ground Shaking

abstract The accuracy of stationary mathematical models of seismicity for calculating probabilities of damaging shaking is examined using the history of earthquakes in China from 1350 A.D. to 1949 A.D. During this time, rates of seismic activity varied periodically by a factor of 10. Probabilities of damaging shaking are calculated in 62 cities in North China using 50 yr of earthquake data to estimate seismicity parameters; the probabilities are compared to statistics of damaging shaking in the same cities for 50 yr following the data window. These comparisons indicate that the seismic hazard analysis is accurate if: (1) the maximum possible earthquake size in each seismogenic zone is determined from the entire seismic history rather than from a short-time window; and (2) the future seismic activity can be estimated accurately. The first condition emphasizes the importance of realistically estimating the maximum possible size of earthquakes on faults. The second indicates the need to understand possible trends in seismic activity where these exist, or to develop an earthquake prediction capability with which to estimate future activity. Without the capability of estimating future seismicity, stationary models provide less accurate but generally conservative indications of seismic ground-shaking hazard. In the United States, the available earthquake history is brief but gives no indication of changing rates of activity. The rate of seismic strain release in the Central and Eastern United States has been constant over the last 180 yr, and the geological record of earthquakes on the southern San Andreas Fault indicates no temporal trend for large shocks over the last 15 centuries. Both observations imply that seismic activity is either stationary or of such a long period that it may be treated as stationary for seismic hazard analyses in the United States.

Current Status and Future of Regional Seismic Network Monitoring in the Central and Eastern United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 91 (2A) ◽  
pp. 660-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Ebel ◽  
Martin C. Chapman ◽  
Won-Young Kim ◽  
Mitchell Withers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Source Parameters ◽  
Seismic Wave Propagation ◽  
Seismic Network ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
The Past ◽  
Earthquake Source Parameters

Abstract The central and eastern United States (CEUS) is an area of generally low-to-moderate seismic hazard with a number of large cities with high seismic risk, a history of occasional damaging earthquakes, and seismic activity induced by wastewater disposal. Seismic monitoring in the CEUS, which began at the beginning 1900s, has undergone many changes through time. Over the past two decades, broadband digital seismic stations connected by internet communications have become widespread. Modern data processing systems to automatically locate earthquakes and assign event magnitudes in near-real time have become the norm, and, since the inception of the Advanced National Seismic System in 2000, more than 10,000 earthquakes have been located and cataloged. Continuously recorded digital seismic data at 100 samples per second are allowing new avenues of research into earthquake source parameters, ground-motion excitation, and seismic wave propagation. Unfortunately, over the past two decades the number of regional seismic network (RSN) centers has diminished due to consolidations and terminations, as funding has tightened. Nevertheless, the public in different parts of the CEUS still looks to local experts for information when earthquakes take place or when they have questions about earthquakes and seismic hazard. The current RSNs must evolve to encompass the need for local seismic information centers and to serve the needs of present and future research into the causes and effects of CEUS earthquakes.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Petersen ◽  
Allison M. Shumway ◽  
Peter M. Powers ◽  
Charles S. Mueller ◽  
Morgan P. Moschetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Salt Lake ◽  
Sedimentary Basins ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Ground Shaking

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 VS30 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document