Partitioning Ground Motion Uncertainty When Conditioned on Station Data

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis T. Engler ◽  
C. Bruce Worden ◽  
Eric M. Thompson ◽  
Kishor S. Jaiswal
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Macroseismic Intensity ◽  
Observational Constraints ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Ground Failure ◽  
Strong Motion Station ◽  
Station Data ◽  
Uncertainty Estimates ◽  
The World

ABSTRACT Rapid estimation of earthquake ground shaking and proper accounting of associated uncertainties in such estimates when conditioned on strong-motion station data or macroseismic intensity observations are crucial for downstream applications such as ground failure and loss estimation. The U.S. Geological Survey ShakeMap system is called upon to fulfill this objective in light of increased near-real-time access to strong-motion records from around the world. Although the station data provide a direct constraint on shaking estimates at specific locations, these data also heavily influence the uncertainty quantification at other locations. This investigation demonstrates methods to partition the within- (phi) and between-event (tau) uncertainty estimates under the observational constraints, especially when between-event uncertainties are heteroscedastic. The procedure allows the end users of ShakeMap to create separate between- and within-event realizations of ground-motion fields for downstream loss modeling applications in a manner that preserves the structure of the underlying random spatial processes.

scholarly journals Global Earthquake Response with Imaging Geodesy: Recent Examples from the USGS NEIC

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1357 ◽  
Author(s):  
William D. Barnhart ◽  
Gavin P. Hayes ◽  
David J. Wald
Keyword(s):  
Disaster Response ◽  
Human Impacts ◽  
Earthquake Response ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Ground Failure ◽  
The World ◽  
Source Models ◽  
Impact Products ◽  
Seismic Wavefield

The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center leads real-time efforts to provide rapid and accurate assessments of the impacts of global earthquakes, including estimates of ground shaking, ground failure, and the resulting human impacts. These efforts primarily rely on analysis of the seismic wavefield to characterize the source of the earthquake, which in turn informs a suite of disaster response products such as ShakeMap and PAGER. In recent years, the proliferation of rapidly acquired and openly available in-situ and remotely sensed geodetic observations has opened new avenues for responding to earthquakes around the world in the days following significant events. Geodetic observations, particularly from interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) and satellite optical imagery, provide a means to robustly constrain the dimensions and spatial complexity of earthquakes beyond what is typically possible with seismic observations alone. Here, we document recent cases where geodetic observations contributed important information to earthquake response efforts—from informing and validating seismically-derived source models to independently constraining earthquake impact products—and the conditions under which geodetic observations improve earthquake response products. We use examples from the 2013 Mw7.7 Baluchistan, Pakistan, 2014 Mw6.0 Napa, California, 2015 Mw7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, and 2018 Mw7.5 Palu, Indonesia earthquakes to highlight the varying ways geodetic observations have contributed to earthquake response efforts at the NEIC. We additionally provide a synopsis of the workflows implemented for geodetic earthquake response. As remote sensing geodetic observations become increasingly available and the frequency of satellite acquisitions continues to increase, operational earthquake geodetic imaging stands to make critical contributions to natural disaster response efforts around the world.

scholarly journals Systematic Ground Motion Observations in the Canterbury Earthquakes and Region-Specific Non-Ergodic Empirical Ground Motion Modeling

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 1735-1761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendon A. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Central Business District ◽  
Motion Modeling ◽  
Strong Motion Station ◽  
Systematic Effects ◽  
Canterbury Earthquake Sequence ◽  
Business District ◽  
A Site

This paper presents an examination of ground motion observations from 20 near-source strong motion stations during the most significant ten events in the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence to examine region-specific systematic effects based on relaxing the conventional ergodic assumption. On the basis of similar site-to-site residuals, surfical geology, and geographical proximity, 15 of the 20 stations are grouped into four sub-regions: the Central Business District; and Western, Eastern, and Northern suburbs. Mean site-to-site residuals for these sub-regions then allows for the possibility of non-ergodic ground motion prediction over these sub-regions of Canterbury, rather than only at strong motion station locations. The ratio of the total non-ergodic vs. ergodic standard deviation is found to be, on average, consistent with previous studies, however it is emphasized that on a site-by-site basis the non-ergodic standard deviation can easily vary by ±20%.

First‐Order Mantle Subduction‐Zone Structure Effects on Ground Motion: The 2016 Mw 7.1 Iniskin and 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage Earthquakes

2019 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Everett Mann ◽  
Geoffrey A. Abers
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Zone Structure ◽  
Kenai Peninsula ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Intermediate Depth ◽  
First Order ◽  
Basin Effects ◽  
Order Of Magnitude ◽  
Back Arc

Abstract The 24 January 2016 Iniskin, Alaska earthquake, at Mw 7.1 and 111 km depth, is the largest intermediate‐depth earthquake felt in Alaska, with recorded accelerations reaching 0.2g near Anchorage. Ground motion from the Iniskin earthquake is underpredicted by at least an order of magnitude near Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, and is similarly overpredicted in the back‐arc north and west of Cook Inlet. This is in strong contrast to the 30 November 2018 earthquake near Anchorage that was also Mw 7.1 but only 48 km deep. The Anchorage earthquake signals show strong distance decay and are generally well predicted by ground‐motion prediction equations. Smaller intermediate‐depth earthquakes (depth>70  km and 3<M<6.4) with hypocenters near the Iniskin mainshock show similar patterns in ground shaking as the Iniskin earthquake, indicating that the shaking pattern is due to path effects and not the source. The patterns indicate a first‐order role for mantle attenuation in the spatial variability of strong motion. In addition, along‐slab paths appear to be amplified by waveguide effects due to the subduction of crust at >1  Hz; the Anchorage and Kenai regions are particularly susceptible to this amplification due to their fore‐arc position. Both of these effects are absent in the 2018 Anchorage shaking pattern, because that earthquake is shallower and waves largely propagate in the upper‐plate crust. Basin effects are also present locally, but these effects do not explain the first‐order amplitude variations. These analyses show that intermediate‐depth earthquakes can pose a significant shaking hazard, and the pattern of shaking is strongly controlled by mantle structure.

Ensemble ShakeMaps for Magnitude 9 Earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone

2020 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-211
Author(s):  
Erin A. Wirth ◽  
Alex Grant ◽  
Nasser A. Marafi ◽  
Arthur D. Frankel
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Sedimentary Basins ◽  
Earthquake Rupture ◽  
Logic Tree ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Amplification Factors ◽  
Earthquake Scenarios ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Tree Approach

Abstract We develop ensemble ShakeMaps for various magnitude 9 (M 9) earthquakes on the Cascadia megathrust. Ground-shaking estimates are based on 30 M 9 Cascadia earthquake scenarios, which were selected using a logic-tree approach that varied the hypocenter location, down-dip rupture limit, slip distribution, and location of strong-motion-generating subevents. In a previous work, Frankel et al. (2018) used a hybrid approach (i.e., 3D deterministic simulations for frequencies <1  Hz and stochastic synthetics for frequencies >1  Hz) and uniform site amplification factors to create broadband seismograms from this set of 30 earthquake scenarios. Here, we expand on this work by computing site-specific amplification factors for the Pacific Northwest and applying these factors to the ground-motion estimates derived from Frankel et al. (2018). In addition, we use empirical ground-motion models (GMMs) to expand the ground-shaking estimates beyond the original model extent of Frankel et al. (2018) to cover all of Washington State, Oregon, northern California, and southern British Columbia to facilitate the use of these ensemble ShakeMaps in region-wide risk assessments and scenario planning exercises. Using this updated set of 30 M 9 Cascadia earthquake scenarios, we present ensemble ShakeMaps for the median, 2nd, 16th, 84th, and 98th percentile ground-motion intensity measures. Whereas traditional scenario ShakeMaps are based on a single hypothetical earthquake rupture, our ensemble ShakeMaps take advantage of a logic-tree approach to estimating ground motions from multiple earthquake rupture scenarios. In addition, 3D earthquake simulations capture important features such as strong ground-motion amplification in the Pacific Northwest’s sedimentary basins, which are not well represented in the empirical GMMs that compose traditional scenario ShakeMaps. Overall, our results highlight the importance of strong-motion-generating subevents for coastal sites, as well as the amplification of long-period ground shaking in deep sedimentary basins, compared with previous scenario ShakeMaps for Cascadia.

scholarly journals On the modeling of strong motion parameters and correlation with historical macroseismic data: an application to the 1915 Avezzano earthquake

1995 ◽  
Vol 38 (5-6) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Berardi ◽  
A. Mendez ◽  
M. Mucciarelli ◽  
F. Pacor ◽  
G. Longhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Seismic Energy ◽  
Rupture Process ◽  
Macroseismic Data ◽  
Motion Modeling ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Acceleration Time Histories ◽  
Motion Parameters

This article describes the results of a ground motion modeling study of the 1915 Avezzano earthquake. The goal was to test assuinptions regarding the rupture process of this earthquake by attempting to model the damage to historical monuments and populated habitats during the earthquake. The methodology used combines stochastic and deterministic modeling techniques to synthesize strong ground motion, starting from a simple characterization of the earthquake source on an extended fault plane. The stochastic component of the methodology is used to simulate high-frequency ground motion oscillations. The envelopes of these synthetic waveforms, however, are simulated in a deterministic way based on the isochron formulation for the calculation of radiated seismic energy. Synthetic acceleration time histories representative of ground motion experienced at the towns of Avezzano, Celano, Ortucchio, and Sora are then analyzed in terms of the damage to historical buildings at these sites. The article also discusses how the same methodology can be adapted to efficiently evaluate various strong motion parameters such as duration and amplitude of ground shaking, at several hundreds of surface sites and as a function of rupture process. The usefulness of such a technique is illustrated through the inodeling of intensity data from the Avezzano earthquake. One of the most interesting results is that it is possible to distinguish between different rupture scenarios for the 1915 earthquake based on the goodness of fit of theoretical intensities to observed values.

scholarly journals Stand-Alone Tsunami Alarm Equipment

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akio Katsumata ◽  
Yutaka Hayashi ◽  
Kazuki Miyaoka ◽  
Hiroaki Tsushima ◽  
Toshitaka Baba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Source Area ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Peak Displacement ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Mems Accelerometer ◽  
Current Location ◽  
Strong Ground

Abstract. One of the quickest means of tsunami evacuation is transfer to higher ground soon after strong and long ground-shaking. Strong ground motion means that the source area of the event is close to the current location, and long ground-shaking or large displacement means that the magnitude is large. We investigated the possibility to apply this to tsunami hazard alarm using single-site ground motion observation. Information from the mass media may not be available sometimes due to power failure. Thus, a device that indicates risk of a tsunami without referring to data elsewhere would be helpful to those should evacuate. Since the sensitivity of a low-cost MEMS accelerometer is sufficient for this purpose, tsunami alarms equipment for home use may be easily realized. Several observation values (e.g., strong-motion duration, peak ground displacement) were investigated as candidates. It was found that a suitable value for a single-site tsunami alarm is long-period peak displacement or the product of strong-motion duration and peak displacement. It was possible to detect an earthquake with a magnitude greater than 7.8 with a 0.8 threat score. Application of this method to recent major earthquakes indicated that such equipment could effectively alert people to the possibility of tsunami.

scholarly journals Earthquake ground shaking hazard assessment for the Lower Hutt and Porirua areas, New Zealand

1992 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 286-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Van Dissen ◽  
J. J. Taber ◽  
W. R. Stephenson ◽  
S. Sritheran ◽  
S. A. L. Read ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Spectral Ratio ◽  
Fine Sand ◽  
Geographic Variations ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Earthquake Scenarios ◽  
Shear Wave Velocities ◽  
Strong Ground

Geographic variations in strong ground shaking expected during damaging earthquakes impacting on the Lower Hutt and Porirua areas are identified and quantified. Four ground shaking hazard zones have been mapped in the Lower Hutt area, and three in Porirua, based on geological, weak motion, and strong motion inputs. These hazard zones are graded from 1 to 5. In general, Zone 5 areas are subject to the greatest hazard, and Zone 1 areas the least. In Lower Hutt, zones 3 and 4 are not differentiated and are referred to as Zone 3-4. The five-fold classification is used to indicate the range of relative response. Zone 1 areas are underlain by bedrock. Zone 2 areas are typically underlain by compact alluvial and fan gravel. Zone 3-4 is underlain, to a depth of 20 m, by interfingered layers of flexible (soft) sediment (fine sand, silt, clay, peat), and compact gravel and sand. Zone 5 is directly underlain by more than 10 m of flexible sediment with shear wave velocities in the order of 200 m/s or less. The response of each zone is assessed for two earthquake scenarios. Scenario 1 is for a moderate to large, shallow, distant earthquake that results in regional Modified Mercalli intensity V-VI shaking on bedrock. Scenario 2 is for a large, local, but rarer, Wellington fault earthquake. The response characterisation for each zone comprises: expected Modified Mercalli intensity; peak horizontal ground acceleration; duration of strong shaking; and amplification of ground motion with respect to bedrock, expressed as a Fourier spectral ratio, including the frequency range over which the most pronounced amplification occurs. In brief, high to very high ground motion amplifications are expected in Zone 5, relative to Zone 1, during a scenario 1 earthquake. Peak Fourier spectral ratios of 10-20 are expected in Zone 5, relative to Zone 1, and a difference of up to three, possibly four, MM intensity units is expected between the two zones. During a scenario 2 event, it is anticipated that the level of shaking throughout the Lower Hutt and Porirua region will increase markedly, relative to scenario 1, and the average difference in shaking between each zone will decrease.

scholarly journals The ShakeMaps of the Amatrice, M6, earthquake

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Licia Faenza ◽  
Valentino Lauciani ◽  
Alberto Michelini
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Data Exchange ◽  
Main Shock ◽  
Central Italy ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Rupture Directivity ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Epicentral Area ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Motion Data

In this paper we describe the performance of the ShakeMap software package and the fully automatic procedure, based on manually revised location and magnitude, during the main event of the Amatrice sequence with special emphasis to the M6 main shock, that struck central Italy on the 24th August 2016 at 1:36:32 UTC. Our results show that the procedure we developed in the last years, with real-time data exchange among those institutions acquiring strong motion data, allows to provide a faithful description of the ground motion experienced throughout a large region in and around the epicentral  area. The prompt availability of the rupture fault model, within three hours after the earthquake occurrence, provided a better descriptions of the level of strong ground motion throughout the affected area.  Progressive addition of  station data and  manual verification of the data insures improvements in the description of the experienced ground motions.  In particular, comparison between the MCS intensity shakemaps and preliminary field macroseismic reports show favourable similarities.  Finally the overall  spatial pattern of the ground motion of the main shock is consistent with reported rupture directivity toward NW and reduced levels of ground shaking toward SW probably linked to the peculiar source effects of the earthquake.

scholarly journals Procedure to estimate maximum ground acceleration from macroseismic intensity rating: application to the Lima, Perú data from the October-3-1974-8.1-Mw earthquake

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 93-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Ocola
Keyword(s):  
Wave Propagation ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Peak Ground Acceleration ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Macroseismic Intensity ◽  
Peak Acceleration ◽  
Ground Response ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Rating Data ◽  
Ground Shaking

Abstract. Post-disaster reconstruction management of urban areas requires timely information on the ground response microzonation to strong levels of ground shaking to minimize the rebuilt-environment vulnerability to future earthquakes. In this paper, a procedure is proposed to quantitatively estimate the severity of ground response in terms of peak ground acceleration, that is computed from macroseismic rating data, soil properties (acoustic impedance) and predominant frequency of shear waves at a site. The basic mathematical relationships are derived from properties of wave propagation in a homogeneous and isotropic media. We define a Macroseismic Intensity Scale IMS as the logarithm of the quantity of seismic energy that flows through a unit area normal to the direction of wave propagation in unit time. The derived constants that relate the IMS scale and peak acceleration agree well with coefficients derived from a linear regression between MSK macroseismic rating and peak ground acceleration for historical earthquakes recorded at a strong motion station, at IGP's former headquarters, since 1954. The procedure was applied to 3-October-1974 Lima macroseismic intensity data at places where there was geotechnical data and predominant ground frequency information. The observed and computed peak acceleration values, at nearby sites, agree well.

Ground motion models for shallow crustal and deep earthquakes in Hawaii and analyses of the 2018 M 6.9 Kalapana sequence

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302110445
Author(s):  
Ivan Wong ◽  
Robert Darragh ◽  
Sarah Smith ◽  
Qimin Wu ◽  
Walter Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Epicentral Distance ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Earthquake Hazards ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Strong Motion Data ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Crustal Earthquake ◽  
Deep Earthquakes

The damaging 4 May 2018 M 6.9 Kalapana earthquake and its aftershocks have provided the largest suite of strong motion records ever produced for an earthquake sequence in Hawaii exceeding the number of records obtained in the deep 2006 M 6.7 Kiholo Bay earthquake. These records provided the best opportunity to understand the processes of strong ground shaking in Hawaii from shallow crustal (< 20 km) earthquakes. There were four foreshocks and more than 100 aftershocks of M 4.0 and greater recorded by the seismic stations. The mainshock produced only a modest horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.24 g at an epicentral distance of 21.5 km. In this study, we evaluated the 2018 strong motion data as well as previously recorded shallow crustal earthquakes on the Big Island. There are still insufficient strong motion data to develop an empirical ground motion model (GMM) and so we developed a GMM using the stochastic numerical modeling approach similar to what we had done for deep Hawaiian (>20 km) earthquakes. To provide inputs into the stochastic model, we performed an inversion to estimate kappa, stress drops, Ro, and Q(f) using the shallow crustal earthquake database. The GMM is valid from M 4.0 to 8.0 and at Joyner–Boore (RJB) distances up to 400 km. Models were developed for eight VS30 (time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m) values corresponding to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site bins: A (1500 m/s), B (1080 m/s), B/C (760 m/s), C (530 m/s), C/D (365 m/s), D (260 m/s), D/E (185 m/s), and E (150 m/s). The GMM is for PGA, peak horizontal ground velocity (PGV), and 5%-damped pseudo-spectral acceleration (SA) at 26 periods from 0.01 to 10 s. In addition, we updated our GMM for deep earthquakes (>20 km) to include the same NEHRP site bins using the same approach for the crustal earthquake GMM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document