Panel Review of the USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. Time-Independent Earthquake Rupture Forecast

Author:

Jordan Thomas H.1ORCID,Abrahamson Norm2ORCID,Anderson John G.3ORCID,Biasi Glenn4ORCID,Campbell Ken5ORCID,Dawson Tim6ORCID,DeShon Heather7ORCID,Gerstenberger Matthew8ORCID,Gregor Nick9,Kelson Keith10ORCID,Lee Yajie11ORCID,Luco Nicolas12ORCID,Marzocchi Warner13ORCID,Rowshandel Badie14,Schwartz David15,Shome Nilesh16,Toro Gabriel17,Weldon Ray18,Wong Ivan17

Affiliation:

1. 1Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

2. 2SC Solutions, Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A.

3. 3Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A.

4. 4U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Pasadena, California, U.S.A.

5. 5Science & Analytics, CoreLogic Inc., Irvine, California, U.S.A.

6. 6California Geological Survey, Sacramento, California, U.S.A.

7. 7Huffington Department of Earth Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.

8. 8GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

9. 9Gregor Consulting, Oakland, California, U.S.A.

10. 10USACE Dam Safety Production Center, Sacramento, California, U.S.A.

11. 11ImageCat Inc., Long Beach, California, U.S.A.

12. 12U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Hazards Center, Golden, Colorado, U.S.A.

13. 13University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy

14. 14California Earthquake Authority, Sacramento, California, U.S.A.

15. 15U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Science Center, Moffett Field, California, U.S.A.

16. 16Moody’s RMS, Newark, California, U.S.A.

17. 17Lettis Consultants International, Concord, California, U.S.A.

18. 18Earth Sciences Department, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.

Abstract

ABSTRACT This report documents the assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Rupture Forecast (ERF) Review Panel of the draft ERF for the conterminous United States (CONUS-ERF23) proposed for the 2023 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23). Panel members participated with the ERF Development Team in several verification and validation exercises, including spot checks of the hazard estimates at key localities. The ERF23 forecast is substantially different from its predecessor, yielding relative differences in hazard that exceed ±50% in some low-hazard areas. These stem primarily from the new model ingredients—new faults, revised deformation rates, and updated seismicity catalogs—rather than from changes in the modeling methodology. The panel found that the main hazard changes are scientifically justified at the long return periods (≥475 yr) for which NSHM23 is applicable. Based on its evaluation of the model, the panel offered six actionable recommendations for improvements to the draft ERF23 for the western United States and two for the Cascadia subduction zone. All eight recommendations were adopted by the USGS for the revised ERF, as documented by Field et al. (2023). The panel concluded that CONUS-ERF23 represents a significant scientific advance over ERF18 and should be incorporated, after suitable revision, into NSHM23. The panel also considered changes to the CONUS-ERF that cannot be feasibly implemented in NSHM23 but could lead to future improvements. Among these aspirational recommendations, the panel prioritized the development of time-dependent extensions of ERF23 that include models of seismic renewal and clustering. The panel endorsed USGS efforts to extend the NSHM to a national earthquake forecasting enterprise capable of continually updating and disseminating authoritative information about future earthquake occurrence through a well-designed hazard-risk interface. Operational earthquake forecasting will place new and heavy demands on USGS cyberinfrastructure, requiring a more integrated approach to software development and workflow management.

Publisher

Seismological Society of America (SSA)

Subject

Geochemistry and Petrology,Geophysics

Reference98 articles.

1. Summary of the ASK14 ground-motion relation for active crustal regions;Abrahamson;Earthq. Spectra,2014

2. Canada’s 6th generation seismic hazard model, as prepared for the 2020 National Building Code of Canada;Adams,2019

3. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis

4. The current unlikely earthquake hiatus at California’s transform boundary paleoseismic sites;Biasi;Seismol. Res. Lett.,2019

5. Steps and gaps in ground ruptures: empirical bounds on rupture propagation;Biasi;Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.,2016

Cited by 7 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3