Evaluation of Ground‐Motion Models for USGS Seismic Hazard Forecasts: Induced and Tectonic Earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States

Research Article| November 20, 2018 Evaluation of Ground‐Motion Models for USGS Seismic Hazard Forecasts: Induced and Tectonic Earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States D. E. McNamara; D. E. McNamara aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar M. D. Petersen; M. D. Petersen aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar E. M. Thompson; E. M. Thompson aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar P. M. Powers; P. M. Powers aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar A. M. Shumway; A. M. Shumway aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar S. M. Hoover; S. M. Hoover aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar M. P. Moschetti; M. P. Moschetti aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar E. Wolin E. Wolin aUSGS NSHMP, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, mcnamara@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2019) 109 (1): 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180106 Article history first online: 20 Nov 2018 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation D. E. McNamara, M. D. Petersen, E. M. Thompson, P. M. Powers, A. M. Shumway, S. M. Hoover, M. P. Moschetti, E. Wolin; Evaluation of Ground‐Motion Models for USGS Seismic Hazard Forecasts: Induced and Tectonic Earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2018;; 109 (1): 322–335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180106 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of the Seismological Society of America Search Advanced Search Abstract Ground‐motion model (GMM) selection and weighting introduce a significant source of uncertainty in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) seismic hazard models. The increase in moderate moment magnitude induced earthquakes (⁠Mw 4–5.8) in Oklahoma and Kansas since 2009 caused by increased wastewater injection related to oil and gas production (Keranen et al., 2013, 2014; McNamara, Hayes, et al., 2015; Weingarten et al., 2015) provides useful near‐source (⁠≤40 km⁠) instrumental ground‐motion observations for comparisons between central and eastern United States (CEUS) induced (Rennolet et al., 2017) and tectonic (Goulet et al., 2014) earthquakes. In this study, we evaluate more than 50 GMMs using two well‐established probabilistic scoring methods: log likelihood (LLH) (Scherbaum et al., 2004, 2009) and multivariate LLH (MLLH) (Mak et al., 2017). The LLH approach compares the mean and standard deviation (⁠σ⁠) of the observed and modeled ground motions. The MLLH approach advances the LLH method by considering the variability (⁠φ,τ⁠) of multiple correlated variables, namely intra‐ (within) and inter‐ (between) event residuals.For the probabilistic scoring GMM evaluation methods (LLH, MLLH), we compute horizontal‐component peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 1‐s pseudospectral acceleration (PSA1.0) total residuals using GMM software (nshmp‐haz) recently implemented by the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model Project (NSHMP). We observe from LLH and MLLH scores that (1) newer GMMs with lower standard deviations (⁠σ,φ,τ⁠) score better than older GMMs with higher published uncertainty; (2) 2014 CEUS GMMs score better for CEUS tectonic earthquakes than induced earthquakes; (3) Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 Project (NGA‐West2), Grazier (2017, referred as G17), and Atkinson (2015, referred as A15) GMMs score well for CEUS induced earthquake ground motions; and (4) Next Generation Attenuation‐East Project (NGA‐East) GMMs score well for CEUS tectonic earthquake ground motions. We also use the LLH and MLLH scores to evaluate GMM weights applied in past USGS seismic hazard forecasts and to inform weighting of GMMs in future seismic hazard forecasts. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.