Petersen Et Al 2019 The 2018 Update of The Us National Seismic Hazard Model Overview of Model and Implications

Research paper
Earthquake Spectra
The 2018 update of the US 2020, Vol. 36(1) 5–41
Ó The Author(s) 2019
National Seismic Hazard Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Model: Overview of model DOI: 10.1177/8755293019878199

journals.sagepub.com/home/eqs
and implications
Mark D. Petersen, M.EERI1, Allison M. Shumway1,

Peter M. Powers, M.EERI1, Charles S. Mueller1,
Morgan P. Moschetti, M.EERI1, Arthur D. Frankel, M.EERI2,
Sanaz Rezaeian1, Daniel E. McNamara1, Nico Luco, M.EERI1,
Oliver S. Boyd, M.EERI1, Kenneth S. Rukstales1,
Kishor S. Jaiswal, M.EERI1, Eric M. Thompson1,
Susan M. Hoover1, Brandon S. Clayton1,
Edward H. Field, M.EERI1, and Yuehua Zeng1
Abstract
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 associ-
ated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the west-
ern 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 incor-
porated; 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 sedi-
mentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard esti-
mates, 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.
Keywords
seismic hazard, seismic risk, earthquake rupture-forecast, ground motion model
Date received: 19 December 2018; accepted: 16 August 2019
1
US Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO, USA
2
US Geological Survey, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Corresponding author:
Mark D. Petersen, US Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, P.O. Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, CO 80225, USA.
Email: mpetersen@usgs.gov
6 Earthquake Spectra 36(1)
Introduction
Over the past four decades, the US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) Project of the
US Geological Survey (USGS; for example, Algermissen and Perkins, 1976; Frankel et al.,
1996, 2002; Petersen et al., 1996, 2008, 2014, 2015) has provided science-based hazard infor-
mation for use in seismic provisions of US codes for buildings, bridges, railways, and defense
facilities, among other structures; risk assessments for insurance and disaster management
planning; and federal, state, and local governmental policy and planning documents. These
probabilistic seismic hazard models define the potential for earthquake shaking by integrat-
ing two fundamental inputs (Cornell, 1968): (1) earthquake rupture forecast models, which
define a potential range of earthquakes that could strike at any location across the United
States and (2) ground motion models (GMMs), which provide estimates of the distribution
of ground shaking from each event. Seismic hazard analyses show where and how often
future earthquakes may occur and the predicted strength of the ground shaking. Seismic
forecasts may be employed to encourage safer building designs in areas with high shaking
potential while saving resources in areas with lower shaking hazard. Hazard information
coupled with prudent mitigation strategies can facilitate more resilient communities and
enable building functionality following an earthquake-related disaster.
The NSHM was updated during 2017–2018 for the conterminous United States; Alaska
and Hawaii models are updated separately. Figure 1 shows a 2018 chance-of-damage map for
100 years with population density superimposed. Many populated centers are coincident with
areas of medium to high ground shaking hazard, not only across the western United States
(WUS) where most earthquakes occur but also within the central and eastern United States
Figure 1. Map showing the chance of minor damaging earthquake shaking in 100 years from the 2018
NSHM. The shaking is equivalent to Modified Mercalli Intensity VI and is based on the average 1-s horizontal
spectral response acceleration. Ground motions are amplified using topographic-based VS30 values (Wald
and Allen, 2007). Population density (from LandScan with 1 km 3 1 km resolution Dobson et al., 2000) is
superimposed on the map.
Petersen et al. 7
(CEUS) where earthquakes are less common. In this article, we provide an overview of the
2018 NSHM update, comparisons with the 2014 NSHM, final products (e.g. maps, hazard
curves, deaggregations), and general implications of the model for seismic hazard and risk.
The model is built on the methodologies and parameters defined in previous versions of the
NSHMs. We describe published information that was submitted before March 2017 and dis-
cussed at our 2018 NSHM Update Workshop. Changes to the model fall into these primary
areas: (1) new earthquake catalogs and forecasts that account for locations of future earth-
quakes based on past seismicity, (2) new models for assessing earthquake shaking within the
CEUS, (3) new models for assessing ground motions over deep sedimentary basins underlying
WUS urban areas, and (4) new suites of maps for 22 periods and eight uniform VS30 maps
across the conterminous United States. We also include a description of updated computer
codes and modeling details.
Results of our updated analysis show that earthquake risk is quite high in many regions of
the country which can be mitigated through improved engineering analyses. For example, the
NSHMs are an important consideration in developing building codes, with the goal of more
resilient and safer communities. Engineers have responsibility for safety of construction in
high hazard areas, so they are a key end user of the NSHMs and provide requests to USGS
on the types of hazard products needed for building code improvements. The Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC, 2019) Provisions Update Committee and Project 17 worked
with the USGS to improve building code procedures by connecting the best available science
and data with sound engineering principles. In past versions of their seismic provisions, the
BSSC recommended development of peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) as well as
0.2- and 1-s spectral accelerations (SA) that define simplified response spectral shapes with a
firm-rock site condition of 760 m/s VS30 (time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper
30 m of the crust). The new building provisions allow for increased seismic safety of buildings
in areas of high seismic risk and this is one of the most important applications of these mod-
els. The new model provides more complete ground shaking information for engineering
purposes.
In addition to the building code committees, the insurance industry, government agencies,
risk modelers, and policy makers are also important end users of the NSHMs and use this
information to evaluate earthquake risk and mitigation priorities. The insurance and nuclear
industries typically apply hazard and risk models generated by third-party risk modeling
groups who use information from the NSHMs that are needed for estimating the impacts of
ground shaking peril on losses. Government officials, emergency management, and public
policy makers use the NSHMs to address local efforts and to understand and reduce seismic
risk. For example, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) incorporates the
USGS hazard models directly in their computer programs to assess earthquake risk to the
nation and help communities prepare for earthquake shaking (e.g. FEMA 366 and HAZUS
software; Jaiswal et al., 2015, 2017; http://www.fema.gov/hazus/). Other examples of end
users are the government agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Department of Interior who use the models to help evaluate earth-
quake risk for dams and other important facilities as well as geological surveys and other
state and local governments who have responsibility for regional and local seismic hazard
and risk planning. The NSHMs can be useful for prioritizing retrofit schedules, reassessing
vulnerable structures, or developing risk mitigation strategies. This document provides
important information on the likelihood and consequences of earthquakes which benefits
these important communities. An updated assessment of the population that is exposed at
alternative risk levels is presented in this publication.
One of the primary improvements to the 2018 model is incorporating new GMMs and site
amplification factors that increase the number of period and site classes compared to GMMs
applied in earlier NSHMs. New ground shaking information recently became available
through a decade-long ground motion research study that was released as the Next
Generation Attenuation Relationships for the central and eastern North America Region
(NGA-East, Goulet et al., 2017, 2018) and corresponding site amplification factors (Hashash
et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2020). Previous versions of the CEUS GMMs did not allow for
calculations of many periods and site classes that were available in the WUS GMMs.
However, these new NGA-East equations enable the USGS to directly calculate the ground
shaking at similar periods and site classes as in the WUS GMMs (i.e. multi-period response
spectra: https://www.nibs.org/page/bssc_P17C). These more detailed products were
requested by the BSSC and serve to improve building code design procedures. In the 2018
NSHM update, we calculate shaking across the United Sates for more than double the peri-
ods and site classes than for the 2014 NSHM (Shumway et al., 2018).
The NSHMs consider both short and long-period ground shaking levels because building
design codes require short-period (high frequency) ground motions for designing smaller
(one- or two-story) structures and long-period ground motions for designing tall buildings
and long-span bridges. In this update, we concentrate on better defining the long periods
[T] ø 1 s in the WUS by using supplemental information on depths of sedimentary basins
and basin amplification factors provided in the GMMs. It is clear from ground motion obser-
vations and three-dimensional (3D) simulations (e.g. Aagaard et al., 2008; Frankel et al.,
2018; Graves et al., 2011; Moschetti et al., 2017) that deep sedimentary basins amplify long-
period ground motions (defined in this article as periods [T] ø 1 s) due to reflecting, refract-
ing, and focusing of waves that are trapped within the basin structure. We account for modi-
fied shaking using the NGA-West2 GMMs (Abrahamson et al., 2014; Boore et al., 2014;
Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2014; Chiou and Youngs, 2014). Considering both the seismic velo-
city models for urban regions and GMMs with deep basin effects allows us to improve the
calculations of long-period ground shaking potential for sites overlying sedimentary basins.
This requires that new hazard models incorporate detailed information about the geometry
and velocities of basin structure. In previous NSHMs, we did not consider basin-depth terms
because (1) the building code committees were not requesting long-period ground motion
maps, (2) we wanted to construct uniform maps across the United Sates, and (3) detailed 3D
velocity models were not uniformly available at a scale useful for hazard evaluations. During
this 2018 update, Project 17 requested long-period information for consideration in the design
procedures, and we decided that it would be preferable to provide information on a regional
basis instead of waiting for this uniform velocity information to be developed across the
country. In this update, we are considering, for the first time, seismic velocities and depths of
sedimentary basins that can be explicitly used to assess the long-period shaking for four areas
that have been characterized at a sufficiently detailed scale: Seattle, San Francisco Bay area,
greater Los Angeles region, and areas surrounding Salt Lake City. In other areas, we use
average models that implicitly account for basin shaking conditioned on the shallower site
parameter, VS30.
In developing updates to the 2018 NSHM, the USGS makes every reasonable effort to
include the best science, data, models, and methods available at the time of publication for
these important applications (e.g. building codes, risk analyses, public policy). Collaborators
provide technical advice, review model details, and assess the reasonability of the models;
they include (1) nine members of the NSHM Steering Committee who serve as active partici-
patory experts in the development and review of the model; (2) more than 100 technical
experts from the USGS and other federal, state, and local government agencies as well as
Petersen et al. 9
from academia and industry who provide essential input information and review; and (3) the
public who attended our 2018 NSHM workshop and/or submitted comments during our
review period. The public workshop was held from 7 to 8 March 2018, in Newark, CA, to
build community consensus on the best methods, data, and models to apply in the assessment
and was attended in person and online by about 140 science and engineering experts across
the country. Meeting presentations are posted at our website: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/
hazards/workshops/update2018.php. The model was also open for comments by any inter-
ested members of the public from 7 November to 7 December 2018. Additional figures and
supporting information can be found at the USGS ScienceBase Catalog (Rukstales and
Petersen, 2019). The new model will be considered for incorporation in the 2020 National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provisions, 2022 ASCE7 Standard, 2024
IBC, as well as other building code, risk, and policy implementations.
Update of earthquake catalog and rate models

We use fault models from the 2014 NSHM (Boyd et al., 2015; Frankel et al., 2015; Haller
et al., 2015; Mueller et al., 2015; Petersen et al., 2014, 2015; Powers and Field, 2015) to model
large earthquakes, and apply gridded, smoothed seismicity models from an earthquake cata-
log to account for smaller earthquakes on and off the faults. To facilitate this update, we
developed new seismicity catalogs for the CEUS and WUS including earthquakes from 2013
through 2017 that occurred since the last model was constructed. Between 2013, when the
catalog was last updated, and 2018, strongly felt earthquakes (magnitude 4+) occurred in
almost half of the states in the United States (e.g. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming;
Figure 2). In this section, we describe the earthquake catalog development and the gridded
(smoothed) seismicity model.
Earthquake catalog development

A critical component of the NSHMs is an earthquake catalog that can be used to assess the
sizes and locations of past earthquakes and guide us in our assessment of the location and
rate of future earthquakes. The catalog used for the 2014 NSHM starts in 1700 and ends in
December 2012. To update the catalogs for both the CEUS and WUS through 2017, we
incorporated new data from the USGS, the Geological Survey of Canada, and Saint Louis
University. We used the methodology described by Mueller (2019) to develop catalogs for
seismic hazard analyses: converting original magnitudes to uniform moment magnitudes,
deleting duplicate events, deleting non-tectonic events, and declustering. We use the notation
M to represent moment magnitude in the rest of the article. We exclude induced earthquakes
in the CEUS following the method described in Petersen et al. (2016a: Table 1). In several
cases, such as Oklahoma, southern Kansas, and north-central Arkansas, the polygon bound-
aries used for the 2018 NSHM have been updated from 2014. As shown by Petersen et al.
(2016a), new zones have also been added (e.g. near Alice, Texas, and Perry, Ohio). The
induced earthquakes were removed because they are ephemeral features, change quite rapidly
over short times, and are not appropriate for consideration in a long-term hazard model. We
have considered these earthquakes in several short-term (1-year) forecasts for the CEUS
(Petersen et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018). The catalog and earthquake sources for California
are not updated for the 2018 NSHM because the California earthquake rates are interwoven
into the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast model (UCERF3; Field et al.,
Figure 2. The 2018 NSHM declustered seismicity catalogs: (M ø 2.7) for the central and eastern United
States (CEUS) (red) and (M ø 4.0) for the western United States (blue). New CEUS magnitude
completeness zones shown as green polygons. CEUS completeness years (M2.7+, M3.7+, M4.7+) for seven
completeness zones for the 2018 NSHM: C1 (1970, 1880, 1800), C2 (1930, 1750, 1700), C3 (1970, 1880,
1800), C4 (1970, 1880, 1800), C5 (1980, 1920, 1850), C6 (1980, 1920, 1850), and C7 (1980, 1920, 1850).
2014). We examined the rate grids for California using an updated catalog through 2017
to compare with the 2012 catalog applied in UCERF3 and found that differences were typi-
cally less than 20%, very localized, and often in areas of active faults which dominate the
hazard.
There are several challenges in developing the NSHM catalogs and seismicity-based statis-
tical models that rely on an independent set of tectonic earthquakes. One challenge is to con-
sistently and uniformly estimate M for small earthquakes and for some older earthquakes.
One way to lessen the impact of these uncertainties is to raise the minimum magnitude of
completeness used in the seismicity recurrence analysis, for example, from M2.7 to M3.0. In
the future, more refined classifications of the data by source catalog, era, or region might also
lead to improved procedures for estimating M and for identifying duplicates. Another chal-
lenge is to develop declustered models that remove dependent foreshocks and aftershocks.
For this analysis, the NSHM catalogs are declustered using the methodology of Gardner and
Knopoff (1974), which is based on California data. Assessment of various declustering methods
suggest that this method of declustering is reasonable for tectonic earthquakes across the United
States (e.g. CEUS–SSCn, 2012). A third challenge is to identify explosions, induced earthquakes,
and mining-related seismic events using the limited available information (Mueller, 2019).
Petersen et al. 11
Table 1. Logic tree for Updated Seed GMMs

Geometric spreading Model type Model Model weight
(\50–70 km)
R–1 (0.33) Point Sourcea (0.67) B_bca10db (0.3) 0.06633

B_ab95b (0.1) 0.02211
B_bs11b (0.1) 0.02211
2CCSPb (0.25) 0.055275
2CVSPb (0.25) 0.055275
Traditional Empiricala,c (0.33) Graizer16d (0.5) 0.05445
Graizer17e (0.5) 0.05445
R–1.3 (0.33) Hybrid Empirical-Stochastica (0.33) PZCT15_M1SSb (0.5) 0.05445
PZCT15_M2ESb (0.5) 0.05445
Hybrid Empirical-Broadbanda (0.33) SP16f (1.0) 0.1089
Stochastic Equivalent Point YA15b (1.0) 0.1122
Sourcea (0.34)
Otherg (0.34) Other (1.0) HA15b,h (0.33) 0.1122
Frankelb,i (0.33) 0.1122
PEER_GPFrankelb,i (0.34) 0.1156
GMM: ground motion model.
a
Details are in Goulet et al. (2017, 2018).
b
Acronyms for NGA-East seed models from Table 1.2 of Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (2015).
c
Spectral shapes developed for the western United States empirically adjusted to central and eastern United States.
d
Graizer16 is an update of the NGA-East seed model Graizer.
e
Graizer17 is an alternative to the Graizer16 model.
f
SP16 is an update of the NGA-East seed model SP15.
g
Geometric spreading different from R–1 or R–1.3.
h
Reference Empirical.
i
Simulation-based Hybrid.
Gridded or smoothed seismicity-based rate models

As in the previous NSHM, gridded and smoothed earthquake rate forecasts were developed
separately for the CEUS and WUS (outside of California) using the updated catalogs, assum-
ing that future earthquakes will occur near the locations of past events. To accomplish this,
earthquakes are counted and rates are computed on a 0.1°-latitude-by-0.1°-longitude grid for
each region, accounting for catalog completeness. Completeness varies by region, reflecting
patterns of written history and seismic network coverage.
The models assume that earthquakes follow an exponential magnitude-frequency distribu-
tion as in previous models (e.g. Petersen et al., 2014). Regional b values used in the analysis
are unchanged from the 2014 NSHM: 1.0 for the CEUS (the Charlevoix, Canada source was
b = 0.9 in the 2014 NSHM but was updated to 1.0 after a sensitivity study indicated no sig-
nificant changes in US hazard) and 0.8 for the WUS. To smooth the gridded rates, we apply
fixed-kernel and adaptive-kernel (nearest-neighbor) smoothing methods (Frankel, 1995;
Helmstetter et al., 2007; Moschetti, 2015; Petersen et al., 2014). As in the 2014 logic tree, the
fixed-kernel model is assigned three-fifth (0.6) weight and the adaptive-kernel model two-
fifth (0.4) weight. Parameters such as minimum magnitudes of completeness, b values, and
smoothing distances differ for the fixed- and adaptive-smoothing models. The two models
represent an important epistemic uncertainty in the NSHM source model (Moschetti et al.,
2015). Both models consider statistical-based counts of earthquakes in a particular grid cell
(10a values; Frankel, 1995). The 2014 version of the UCERF3 smoothed seismicity model
(Field et al., 2014; Powers and Field, 2015) is used for California, so the seismicity rate fore-
casts have not changed for the 2018 update.
The fixed-kernel smoothing applies a two-dimensional (2D) Gaussian operator with 50 or

75 km correlation length (Frankel, 1995). This model uses a fixed value to assign reasonable
distances between future and past earthquakes. The WUS completeness model for areas out-
side of California is unchanged from previous NSHMs: M4+ since 1963, M5+ since 1930, and
M6+ since 1850. The CEUS completeness zonation consists of seven zones (Figure 2), and it
is modified in two ways from the 2014 NSHM, which was roughly based on CEUS–SSCn
(2012): (1) the zone encompassing the Washington–New York–Boston corridor is extended
southwestward into central Virginia, and (2) the westernmost zone is divided at –100° longi-
tude and extended westward to the NSHM CEUS boundary. We determine completeness
years for magnitudes 2.7+, 3.7+, and 4.7+ for each of the seven completeness zones by exam-
ining numbers of earthquakes in magnitude and time bins; results are similar to the 2014
NSHM. Figure 2 shows the 2018 CEUS earthquake catalog and completeness zonation that
we apply for the fixed-kernel smoothing model.
The adaptive-kernel smoothing employs smoothing distances that are based on a nearest-
neighbor parameter (Helmstetter et al., 2007). This model has the effect of spatially concen-
trating seismicity rates in regions of high seismicity and of diffusing seismicity rates in regions
of low seismicity, relative to fixed-kernel smoothing. The method uses event-specific smooth-
ing parameters that are identified by optimizing a likelihood parameter (Helmstetter et al.,
2007; Werner et al., 2011), which is separately computed for the WUS (Petersen et al., 2014)
and CEUS (Moschetti, 2015). For the 2018 NSHM, we used the smoothing parameters
derived in these previous studies, but with updated earthquake catalog durations. The
smoothing parameters for the adaptive-kernel method correspond to (1) specific catalog
durations and (2) minimum magnitudes of completeness. Therefore, we use the same mini-
mum magnitudes of completeness from the 2014 NSHM. To maintain the catalog duration,
we advance the completeness year of the earthquake catalog by five additional years to
account for the increased duration in the 2018 earthquake catalog. The reason we need to
maintain the catalog duration is that if we apply the constant nearest-neighbor parameter to
a longer catalog, this would have the effect of spatially concentrating the seismicity more
than is supported by the likelihood testing. The effect on the earthquake rates and hazards of
this choice in catalog duration is minimal, less than 0.05 g differences everywhere with two
exceptions (slightly larger differences appear over very small areas in eastern Utah and
southern Montana). For the adaptive-kernel smoothing models, we used neighbor num-
bers of 3 for the WUS (Petersen et al., 2014) and 4 for the CEUS (Moschetti, 2015), with
the updated earthquake catalogs. For the WUS, the minimum magnitude of completeness
was M = 4 since 1963, with a b value of 0.8 applied across the entire region. For the
CEUS, the minimum magnitude of completeness was M = 3.2 with a b value of 1.0
applied uniformly across this CEUS region, and with spatially variable completeness times
defined using the zones described by Petersen et al. (2014) and completeness values com-
puted by Moschetti (2015).
We tested the sensitivity of the seismic hazard to raising the magnitude threshold (Mmin) in
the fixed-smoothed seismicity recurrence calculation from Mmin = 2.7 to Mmin = 3.0 in the
CEUS. The result was sensitive to single earthquakes in areas of sparse seismicity, was not
robust, and resulted in minimal changes to the hazard over small areas. We have not applied
this alternative in the 2018 update.
Update of GMMs in the CEUS

In developing the 2014 NSHM, we applied GMMs for the CEUS that were developed by
individual teams of ground motion experts that applied their independent opinions of the best
Petersen et al. 13
science and physical principles (Rezaeian et al., 2015). However, the modeling decisions and
output parameters (e.g. site conditions, magnitude, and distance ranges) differed between
teams making it difficult to compare alternative models and apply these in an NSHM. One of
the purposes of the NGA-East models was to overcome these inconsistencies by standardizing
the input data and output parameters through a collaborative process (Goulet et al., 2017). In
developing the 2018 NSHM, we use the new GMMs developed by the NGA-East Project
(Goulet et al., 2017), new estimates of aleatory variability (sigma; Stewart el al., 2019), and
new estimates of site amplification factors (Hashash et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2020). These
models result in significant changes to ground shaking hazard.
CEUS median GMMs and weights

We used two sets of GMMs that were developed during the NGA-East Project: (1) 19
adjusted seed GMMs developed by independent modelers (Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER), 2015) and (2) 17 updated ‘‘NGA-East for USGS’’ GMMs devel-
oped by an integrator team that account for epistemic uncertainty in the median ground
motions as a function of magnitude, distance, and oscillator period (Goulet et al., 2017, and
addendum). The adjusted seed GMMs were developed by independent modelers using a con-
sistent set of data and simulations with their own interpretation of the best science. Two of
the seed GMMs were updated following the 2015 PEER report to account for new informa-
tion and enhanced modeling techniques: Graizer (2016) and an alternative Graizer (2017),
and Shahjouei and Pezeshk (2016). Based on expert recommendations, we reduced the num-
ber of seed GMMs from 19 models to 14 models, which we refer to as the Updated Seed
GMMs. Following some iteration with the NGA-East Technical Integration (TI) team
(Goulet et al., 2017, with addendum), the 17 NGA-East for USGS models ended up being
identical to the 17 final NGA-East models for nuclear facilities, which were released after this
2018 NSHM model was completed (Goulet et al., 2018).
The new CEUS’s GMMs used in the 2018 NSHM are based on two sets of GMMs
(Updated Seed GMMs and NGA-East for USGS GMMs) and on a reference site condition
described by VS30 of 3000 m/s and kappa (high-frequency decay of Fourier Spectra) of
0.006 s (Hashash et al., 2014), magnitudes from M4 to 8, distances of 0 out to 1500 km (we
only apply the models out to 1000 km), and median (RotD50) 5%-damped SAs for periods
from 0.01 to 10 s. Logic tree weights assigned to the Updated Seed GMMs are based on the
2014 NSHM methodology that groups GMMs based on their model types and geometric
spreading features, as well as some judgment on our confidence in their performance based
on extrapolations and available residual analysis (Table 1; McNamara et al., 2018; Rezaeian
et al., 2015). Weights for the NGA-East for USGS GMMs are provided by the NGA-East
TI team and are based on Sammon’s mapping methodology (Sherbaum et al., 2010). Overall,
the Updated Seed GMMs receive one-third (0.333) weight to account for alternative models
that are developed by independent modelers and may account for physics-based alternatives
while the NGA-East for USGS GMMs receive the other two-third (0.667) weight to account
for the additional effort by the developers to quantify the epistemic uncertainty more fully,
as discussed at the 2018 NSHM Update Workshop. The new 2018 NSHM CEUS GMMs
represent a significant advancement in the forecasting of ground shaking in the CEUS for
many new periods based on a new uniformly developed strong-motion database and earth-
quake simulations.
Figure 3 shows the mean of the weighted medians for each set of CEUS GMMs consid-
ered in the 2014 and 2018 NSHMs for a variety of oscillator periods and for M7 and M5
earthquakes on hard rock (VS30 = 3000 m/s) at short distances (10 km) and longer distances
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 3. Median ground motion versus period plots showing comparisons of central and eastern United
States (CEUS) ground motion models (M = 5, 7) for (a) VS30 = 3000 m/s, distance (R) = 10 km, (b)
VS30 = 3000 m/s, R = 50 km, (c) VS30 = 760 m/s, R = 10 km, and (d) VS30 = 760 m/s, R = 50 km. Note that
the 2014 NSHM ground motions were not calculated between peak ground acceleration and 0.1 s spectral
acceleration.
(50 km). The new NGA-East for USGS and Updated Seed averaged GMMs are similar to
the averaged value of the group of GMMs applied in the 2014 NSHM, with the exception of
oscillator periods lower than about 0.1 s. Most of the ground motion values are similar for
periods longer than about 0.1 s SA, varying by less than 10% from one another; differences
are also quite low, typically less than 0.03 g.
Aleatory variability (sigma)

The new aleatory variability (i.e. sigma) model for the CEUS GMMs is based on a logic tree
with two branches: (1) an updated version of Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI,
2013) recommended by the NGA-East for USGS report (Goulet et al., 2017), and (2) a work-
ing group model that accounts for additional aleatory within-event site-to-site variability
(fS2S, Stewart et al., 2019). Figure 4a shows the two branches and final model. We only
apply the central branch of the NGA-East for USGS sigma model because a sensitivity study
showed application of additional branches did not cause significant differences in mean
ground shaking hazard.
Petersen et al. 15
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4. Comparison of the (a) updated EPRI, Working Group, and final weighted 2018 CEUS sigma
models for M = 7.5, VS30 < 1200 m/s. Comparison of the sigma models for the central and eastern United
States (CEUS) and western United States (WUS) for (b) VS30 < 1200 m/s and (c) VS30 ø 1500 m/s.
The NGA-East Project developers originally recommended that the USGS apply an ergodic
sigma model that is an updated version of the EPRI (2013) model (Al Atik, 2015; Table 5.5 of
Goulet et al., 2017) for VS30 = 3000 m/s. This model was vetted in a Senior Seismic Hazard
Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process and is largely based on analysis of ground motion varia-
bility in active regions like California. During the 2018 NSHM Update Workshop, concerns
were raised regarding potential differences in ground motion variability in the CEUS relative to
active regions. It was concluded that an additional model was needed in the aleatory variability
logic tree that would account for additional site-to-site variability arising from lack of knowledge
of site conditions in the CEUS and from VS30 being a less effective proxy for site effects in the
1
CEUS relative to the WUS (Parker et al., 2018). We convened a working group, which ulti-
mately developed a model that increases aleatory variability for shorter periods while leaving the
longer periods similar but lower than the original model recommendation and the 2014 CEUS
and WUS crustal GMM sigmas (EPRI, 2013; Goulet et al., 2017, Figure 4).
Our final, total aleatory variability model gives the updated EPRI model four-fifth (0.8)
weight and the working group model (Stewart et al., 2019) one-fifth (0.2) weight. The latter
model is weighted lower because even though workshop participants felt strongly about the
need for inclusion of site-to-site variability, the model is based on smaller magnitude earth-
quakes in the CEUS (no records from large events are available) and this leads to large
uncertainties in the analysis. The CEUS typically has a broader range of stress drops than
earthquakes in the WUS, so we expect higher sigmas in the CEUS; more research is needed
to better ascertain these uncertainties.
Figure 4b and c shows comparisons of the sigma models and illustrates that the 2018
CEUS sigma model is higher than the 2014 CEUS model for periods up to about 1-s SA,
regardless of site class. As discussed earlier, the 2018 model sigmas for the CEUS should not
drop significantly, if at all, below the sigmas applied in the WUS. Because of the weighting,
the final sigmas are very similar to the EPRI and WUS sigmas for long periods. Figure 4a
shows comparisons of the working group model, updated EPRI and 2018 final models, and
demonstrates that the working group model is higher than both the EPRI and 2018 models
up to about 1-s period. It is interesting to note that the sigmas for M5 are considerably larger
than those applied for M7 earthquakes.
Site amplification factors

The NGA-East results only account for ground shaking on hard-rock site condition of
2
VS30 = 3000 m/s. Therefore, the USGS funded a CEUS amplification working group to
consider how to account for site amplification across the East as a function of VS30. This
group developed new CEUS site amplification factors for the 2018 NSHM that included
both linear and nonlinear terms (Hashash et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2020). These factors
convert the NGA-East hard-rock site condition (VS30 = 3000 m/s) to a firm-rock site condi-
tion (VS30 = 760 m/s) and then to the specific site condition defined by VS30 between
2000 m/s and 200 m/s. Although the model as published is recommended for use down to
VS30 = 200 m/s, the VS30 term is essentially flat at VS30 less than about 250 m/s and captures
increasing uncertainty as VS30 decreases. Based on discussions with the modelers, we apply
the model down to VS30 = 150 m/s to compute ground motions for NEHRP site class E. In
Figure 5, we compare the new models for VS30 = 760 m/s to the Frankel et al. (1996) and
Atkinson and Boore (2011) models applied in the 2014 NSHM. For periods greater than
about 0.2 s, the new firm-rock amplification models are lower than previous models. Figure 5
also shows linear, nonlinear, and total amplification factors at (Figure 5b) VS30 = 2000 m/s
and (Figure 5c) VS30 = 260 m/s.
The final CEUS model was developed by the working group in coordination with the
NSHM Project and Steering Committee. The final model includes VS30-dependent weighting
of site profiles that were more gradual (gradient model) and profiles characterized by sharp
velocity contrasts (strong impedance model; Stewart et al., 2020). The impedance model is
strongly peaked between 0.075 and 0.15 s and, at the recommendation of our Steering
Committee, we smoothed the impedance model term and associated uncertainty at 0.1 s via
interpolation. The modified term at 0.1 s is well within 61s uncertainty envelope of the
impedance model. Key elements of the amplification model include (1) flatter VS30 scaling
and (2) alternative models for VS30 = 760 m/s amplification relative to the hard-rock
VS30 = 3000 m/s amplification (the F760 term in Stewart et al., 2020). The interpolated
impedance model is available as part of our NGA-East for USGS implementation in
nshmp-haz (Powers, 2017).
Petersen et al. 17
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 5. (a) Comparison of central and eastern United States (CEUS) amplification factors (M7,
distance = 10 km) from hard rock to VS30 = 760 m/s used in the 2014 NSHM (Atkinson and Boore, 2011;
Frankel et al., 1996) and the 2018 NSHM. Linear, nonlinear, and total amplification factors at (b)
VS30 = 2000 m/s and (c) VS30 = 260 m/s.
The updated CEUS amplifications differ in several ways from WUS amplification models:
(1) the CEUS model for stiff site conditions is peaked at 0.1 s due to the presence of strong
impedance (shallow soil and weathered rock over hard rock) compared to WUS amplifica-
tions that are generally peaked at 0.2–0.3 s; (2) the shape of the CEUS model rises and falls
much more rapidly and generally has higher peaks for short periods than WUS crustal mod-
els; (3) spectra for different site classes are not as evenly spaced; and (4) the CEUS model
shows larger differences between VS30 of 2000 and 760 m/s compared to models in the WUS
GMMs (Figure 6).
GMMs in the WUS

For the 2018 NSHM, we implemented the same WUS GMMs (crustal GMMs and subduc-
tion interface and intraslab GMMs) that were used to calculate the most recent set of maps
for the 2014 NSHM (Shumway et al., 2018). This set excludes the Atkinson and Boore (2003,
Figure 6. Ground motion versus period plots showing comparisons of central and eastern United States
(CEUS) and western United States (WUS) median ground motions (M7, distances (R) of 10 and 50 km) at
various NEHRP site classes.
2008) subduction GMMs and Idriss (2014) NGA-West2 crustal GMM that were included in
the original 2014 update, because these models do not have the required features to allow for
calculation of hazard at additional periods and site classes. The Atkinson and Boore (2003,
2008) GMMs did not include periods beyond 3 s, and the Idriss (2014) GMM does not sup-
port soil site conditions below 450 m/s. For the 2018 NSHM, we required that GMMs be
valid (or reasonably extrapolated) for a broad range of spectral periods (i.e. 0.01–10 s) and
site conditions (i.e. VS30 values between 1500 and 150 m/s), consistent with new building code
requirements. The exclusions do not reflect the quality of the models, only their limited range
of applicability; they may be appropriate for other applications.
Basin amplification of ground shaking in the WUS

The 2014 NSHM did not consider basin depths directly in the hazard calculations for the
WUS. The model did, however, apply VS30 site terms as a proxy for basin depth, given that
softer soils are more likely to occur in deeper basins and commonly result in larger long-
period ground motions (this proxy assumption is not as useful for the Puget Sound area in
the Pacific Northwest region). For the 2018 NSHM, we identified four urban regions in the
WUS for which geophysical information is available to characterize depths to various shear-
Petersen et al. 19
wave velocity horizons and which should improve the longer-period calculations of the 2018
NSHM. This basin-specific depth information is input into the NGA-West2 GMMs to
account for enhanced shaking from sedimentary basin deposits. In this section, we discuss (1)
acquisition of velocity information, (2) application of the basin factors using the NGA-
West2 equations, and (3) modification of subduction GMMs to include basin terms for the
Seattle region.
Velocity information
To update the NSHM, we explored published scientific literature to find urban regions built
on sedimentary basins for which 3D shear-wave velocity models are available. Basin amplifi-
cation and deamplification in the NGA-West2 GMMs relies on depths to a shear-wave velo-
city of 2.5 km/s (Z2.5, Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2014, referred to hereafter as CB14) or
1.0 km/s (Z1.0, Abrahamson et al., 2014, referred to hereafter as ASK14; Chiou and Youngs,
2014, referred to hereafter as CY14; and Boore et al., 2014, referred to hereafter as BSSA14).
While tomographic velocity models are available that span the conterminous United States,
we concluded that these large scale models often have resolutions that are several tens of
kilometers between points and would not characterize details of the basins sufficiently for the
NSHM. We instead identified published community velocity models for four WUS urban
regions that we felt had sufficient resolution for purposes of identifying basin velocities: Los
Angeles (Lee et al., 2014), San Francisco Bay area (Aagaard et al., 2008), Seattle
(Stephenson, 2007 and Stephenson et al., 2017), and Salt Lake City (Magistrale et al., 2008).
Some of the local velocity models spanned a broader geographic area than the four limited
regions we defined. For example, the Aagaard et al. (2008) velocity model includes portions
of the Central Valley basin, which we exclude because including (1) portions of a basin intro-
duces spatial discontinuities in the hazard results and (2) ground motion simulations for the
Central Valley, unlike for the other basins we include, are not consistent with the NGA-
West2 basin terms. Other basins may be considered in future updates when more analyses
are completed.
Figure 7 shows polygons around the four urban areas in the WUS in which local seismic
velocity model data are considered in the 2018 NSHM. Models show Seattle, Los Angeles,
and Ventura basins have maximum Z2.5 depths of 7–8 km (Lee et al., 2014; Stephenson,
2007). The Livermore basin and other basins in the San Francisco Bay area have Z2.5 values
down to about 4 km (Aagaard et al., 2008). Based on the Magistrale et al. (2008) model, the
maximum Z2.5 depths in the Salt Lake City basin are slightly greater than 3 km only in a few
small areas north and south of Salt Lake City. These velocity models are incorporated in the
2018 NSHM only when they primarily influence long-period ground shaking.
Application of basin factors in GMMs

We apply NGA-West2 GMMs in our hazard calculations for crustal earthquakes in active
tectonic regions which include factors that account for basin amplification and deamplifica-
tion based on Z1.0 and Z2.5. The four NGA-West2 GMMs in the 2018 NSHM account for
basin depth directly (CB14) or a differential basin depth, defined as the difference between
depth and the mean depth conditioned on VS30 (referred to here as ‘‘default basin depth’’;
ASK14, BSSA14, and CY14). Table 2 shows the default basin depths used in the NGA-
West2 GMMs conditioned on VS30 (VS30 values used to define site class and site class bound-
aries are from Shumway et al., 2018). While basin effects are well known to be complex and
influenced by many factors besides the depth of the basin at the location of the station, the
Figure 7. Map of the local seismic velocity models used in the 2018 NSHM, showing the outlines of the
basin areas where ground motions are amplified when Zx terms from the local velocity models are greater
than the default terms calculated from the NGA-West2 ground motion models. The local seismic velocity
models used in the 2018 NSHM are Los Angeles (Lee et al., 2014), the San Francisco Bay Area (Aagaard
et al., 2008), Salt Lake City (Magistrale et al., 2008), and Seattle (Stephenson, 2007; Stephenson et al., 2017).
Table 2. NGA-West2 default basin depths (km)

Site class VS30 (m/s)a ASK14 (Z1.0)b BSSA14 (Z1.0)c CB14 (Z2.5)d CY14 (Z1.0)e
A 2000 0 0 0.201 0
A/B 1500 0 0.001 0.279 0.001
B 1080 0.005 0.005 0.406 0.005
B/C 760 0.048 0.041 0.607 0.041
C 530 0.213 0.194 0.917 0.194
C/D 365 0.401 0.397 1.4 0.4
D 260 0.475 0.486 2.07 0.485
D/E 185 0.497 0.513 3.06 0.513
E 150 0.502 0.519 3.88 0.519
NGA: Next Generation Attenuation.
a
VS30 is time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m of the crust. Values used to define VS30 from Shumway et al.
(2018).
b
ASK14 (Abrahamson et al., 2014).
c
BSSA14 (Boore et al., 2014).
d
CB14 (Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2014).
e
CY14 (Chiou and Youngs, 2014).
Petersen et al. 21
Figure 8. Five-second amplification factors for NGA-West2 ground motion models. ASK14 (Abrahamson
et al., 2014), CY14 (Chiou and Youngs, 2014), and BSSA14 (Boore et al., 2014) use Z1.0, and CB14
(Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2014) use Z2.5 to calculate default basin depths. Note that for the first three, if
Z1.0 is equal to the default value, the amplification factor is 1. For CB14, the amplification factor is 1, for Z2.5
between 1- and 3-km depth.
GMM developers included this predictor variable because it explained the average trends in
ground motions from the NGA-West2 database with basin depth, particularly at longer peri-
ods. Figure 8 shows the basin amplification and deamplification factors at 5-s SA as a func-
tion of velocity horizon (Z1.0 or Z2.5) for each of the NGA-West2 GMMs, given a VS30. The
horizontal lines give the default basin depths for NEHRP site class boundary B/C
(VS30 = 760 m/s; dashed black line) and NEHRP site class D (VS30 = 260 m/s; dashed gray
line). For the GMMs using Z1.0, there is no modification to ground motion at the default
basin depth. If the basin depth is greater than the default, the basin factors amplify the
ground motion and if the basin depth is less, they deamplify the ground motion. For CB14,
basin effects are not purely dependent on VS30, and for default depths between 1 and 3 km,
the CB14 amplification factor is 1.0.
Many scientists at the March workshop supported the use of Z1.0 and Z2.5 values derived
from local 3D seismic velocity models in densely populated regions in the update of the
NSHM. However, wholesale use of these factors results in either amplification or
deamplification of ground motions, depending on whether the local model indicated basin
depths deeper or shallower, respectively, than the default basin depths conditioned on VS30.
This is consistent with how the GMMs were developed. Other participants preferred that we
only apply the basin models where they produce amplification of ground motions (deamplifi-
cation effects excluded) at long periods. For shallower sites, the default basin depths would
be used, which effectively ‘‘turns off’’ the basin models.
For this 2018 NSHM update, we apply basin factors at sites over deep basins for periods
ø 1 s. We define deep basins using the following two criteria: (1) Z2.5 ø 3.0 km when apply-
ing CB14 with a depth taper between 1.0 and 3.0 km and (2) Z1.0 ø 0.5 km when applying
ASK14, BSSA14, and CY14 with a depth taper between 0.3 and 0.5 km. The Z1.0 deep basin
definition is based on regression between Z2.5 and Z1.0 depth from the NGA-West2 database
(described below). For Z1.0 depths less than 0.3 km and Z2.5 less than 1.0 km, we apply
default ground motions. This application primarily amplifies ground motions except at soft
soil sites where the default basin depth may be deeper than that of the velocity model, result-
ing in slight deamplification of ground motions over and just below the depth taper range.
To maintain a smooth spectral shape, we also taper basin effects at 0.75-s SA via log-period
interpolation.
We only consider basin effects over the deepest portion of the sedimentary basins for this
2018 update. The primary consideration here is that there have been numerous observations
that the edges of sedimentary basins, which are shallow, can focus S-waves and produce
basin-edge generated surface waves. These increased ground shaking levels observed in the
data and simulations are not well understood and are arguably not parameterized by simple
depth constraints applied in the NGA-West2 basin factors. In addition, there are several
examples of amplified shaking near the basin edge. For example, the Santa Monica area near
the northern edge of the Los Angeles basin had amplification and enhanced damage during
the 1994 M6.7 Northridge earthquake, caused by S-wave focusing and/or basin-edge-
generated surface waves (Alex and Olsen, 1998; Davis et al., 2000; Graves et al., 1998). The
increased ground shaking and damage from the Nisqually earthquake observed in west
Seattle, located on shallow bedrock near the edge of the Seattle basin, were also attributed to
S-wave focusing from the southern edge of the Seattle basin (Frankel et al., 2009; Stephenson
et al., 2006). This basin-edge effect was also recognized in damage patterns of the 1995 Kobe
earthquake (Kawase, 1996). In addition, preliminary findings of recent research using data
from southern California basins indicates that deamplification effects in current basin models
are mostly from broad, relatively shallow basin structures and not from the edges of deep
basins (Nweke et al., 2018). All of these factors can explain why basin-edge sites tend to have
larger aleatory variability than mid-basin sites and may require additional considerations in
the calculations of ground shaking.
Given all of these uncertainties, and the fact that directivity effects are also not explicitly
modeled in the NSHMs, which contribute to the large uncertainties, we felt it would not be
prudent to lower ground motions with respect to defaults in areas of shallow basin edges that
are often characterized by complex shaking. Even though opinions are mixed about how to
incorporate basin ground shaking, most workshop participants agreed that the amplifications
relative to the default for sites that overlie the deepest portion of the basins are reliable.
Special considerations for Seattle

In 2013 and 2018, workshops of engineers and seismologists were convened by the city of
Seattle and the USGS to discuss incorporation of basin amplification effects into the Risk-
Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motions used in the design of
Petersen et al. 23
high-rise buildings in Seattle (Chang et al., 2014; Wirth et al., 2018a, 2018b). An important
recommendation from the 2013 workshop was to use Z2.5 rather than Z1.0 to characterize
basin amplification in Seattle. Because much of Seattle is situated on stiff glacial sediments,
for which the Z1.0 values are relatively shallow (often less than 500 m; Stephenson et al.,
2017), the Z1.0-based GMMs predict no-to-weak amplification from the Seattle basin.
However, these sites are observed to have amplification of factors of two to three relative to
rock sites with similar VS30 values south of the Seattle basin, for crustal and intraslab earth-
quakes, and in this region, Z2.5-based models of basin amplification better reproduce
observed ground motion trends with basin depth (e.g. Chang et al., 2014; Frankel et al.,
2009). Furthermore, the two workshop reports pointed out that the NGA-West2 data set
included few strong-motion recordings from sites with conditions similar to what is observed
in the Seattle basin (deep basins with VS30 values of 400–700 m/s), and the NGA-West2 mod-
els of basin amplification were largely based on data from California and Japan, and did not
consider data from the Seattle region.
For the reasons discussed above, we preferred the use of the Z2.5 values, rather than Z1.0
values, from the Seattle basin to characterize the basin depths for ground motion amplifica-
tions from crustal earthquakes. As we want to use all of the NGA-West2 equations, we
needed Z1.0 values that are compatible with the Z2.5 values of the Seattle basin. To this end,
we calculated a Z1.0,eff parameter, which is the effective value obtained from Z2.5 using an
equation similar to that derived by Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007). Use of the regressed Z1.0
values ensures consistency of basin amplifications between the Z1.0- and Z2.5-based GMMs.
We regressed Z1.0 as a function of Z2.5 using two databases: (1) the NGA-West2 site database
(Ancheta et al., 2013) and (2) basin depths from the most recent southern California seismic
velocity model (Lee et al., 2014). Use of the two databases represents an epistemic uncertainty
in computing the basin depth parameters for the Seattle basin. We only considered values for
sites with appreciable sediment thicknesses (Z1.0 . 0.05 km and Z2.5 . 0.5 km). The ortho-
gonal regression assumes a linear relation and minimizes the Euclidean distance between the
line and all points, through the sum of squared distances. Equal weights were assigned to
each data point. Regression equations derived from the two databases are as follows:
Z1:0, eff = 0:1146Z2:5 + 0:2826 ð1Þ
Z1:0, eff = 0:0933Z2:5 + 0:1444 ð2Þ
where Z1.0,eff and Z2.5 are depths in kilometers. Standard deviations of the residuals (Z1.0,eff–
Z1.0) are high from both of the two regressions to both databases, 0.41 and 0.17, respectively.
These large uncertainties are likely due to regional variations in seismic velocity structure,
uncertainties in the basin depth parameters, and differing methods for characterizing Z1.0
and Z2.5. We apply equal weight to the two regressions.
The Z1.0,eff represents the effective depth derived from Z2.5, which we apply to the NGA-
West2 equations to calculate ground shaking for crustal earthquakes in the Seattle region.
The Z1.0,eff derived from these equations are typically larger than the Z1.0 values derived from
the velocity model. For example, the result of applying these models in the Seattle basin is to
increase the Z1.0 values by as much as 1 km compared to the Z1.0 values from the basin velo-
city model.
Modification of subduction GMMs with basin terms for the Seattle region
We applied the CB14 basin term based on Z2.5 to modify the existing subduction GMMs used
in the 2014 NSHMs for earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction zone. We acknowledge that
there are substantial epistemic uncertainties with the application of this and with other NGA-
West2 basin models. Decomposing the VS30 and basin-depth site terms from the subduction
GMMs is not straightforward because, among other reasons, these equations are not based
on the same reference rock velocity definitions, and there are significant incompatibilities
between VS30 terms in the different subduction GMMs. There are several alternative ways to
account for basin amplification and deamplification effects in the NSHMs, and we considered
several methods. For the final hazard assessment, we ended up simply adding the basin depth
term from CB14 to the ground motions obtained from the VS30 amplified GMMs as done by
Chang et al. (2014). This is a simple method that allows for inclusion of the native VS30 terms
while still including basin effects using the CB14 GMM which does not depend directly on
the VS30 term. Generally, we only modify ground motions within the defined regional poly-
gons and for the deepest portion of the basin. Consistent with the application of basin effects
in the crustal GMMs (described above), the CB14 basin term is included in the subduction
GMMs only at periods ø 1 s (with a period taper at 0.75-s SA) and where basin depth values
.3 km (with a depth taper between 1 and 3 km).
Recent 3D simulations for Cascadia M9 earthquakes show higher amplifications of long-
period (1–10 s) motions in the Seattle basin (factors of 2–3) than predicted from the basin
terms in Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014; factor of ;1.5) and Chiou and Youngs (2014; fac-
tor of ;1.3) derived from crustal earthquake data (Figure 8; assuming Z1.0 = 0.9 km and
Z2.5 = 6.7 km for a site in Seattle, WA). The higher amplifications of the simulations were
consistent with observed amplifications from an earthquake located just below the plate
interface (Frankel et al., 2018). Therefore, it is justified to apply the higher amplification fac-
tors in this region for subduction zone GMMs based on the CB14 terms, rather than using
the lower factors from some of the other NGA-West2 relations.
Effects of considering basin effects on hazard

The hazard has primarily increased across the four basin areas compared to the default/aver-
age model that is a function of VS30 only (Figure 9). These basin effect models, which are part
of the NGA-West2 equations, increase ground motions between 0.75- and 10-s oscillator peri-
ods. Ground motions are most influenced for the rock results (from 2000 m/s down to about
760 m/s) at long periods, because the default basin depths are shallowest for rock VS30 values.
Ground motions calculated for other site classes generally show increases of up to 60% at
long periods greater than about 1 s.
The 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years ground shaking for 5-s SA at a Seattle site
(VS30 = 500 m/s) has a default ground motion of about 0.10 g and a basin-amplified motion
of 0.15 g (50% increase). The ground shaking for 1-s SA at the same site increases by 39%.
M9 simulation results are more than a factor of 2 higher than the NGA-West2 equations,
which depend on basin depth, for periods greater than about 2 s (Frankel et al., 2018).
Similar ratios between basin-amplified and default ground motions for a VS30 of 260 m/s
are also predicted in the deepest portions of the Los Angeles area basins (including the
Ventura Basin), San Francisco Bay area basins, and Salt Lake City area basins (Figure 9).
Relative to the 2014 NSHM, ground shaking hazard for the regions near Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and Salt Lake City have increased or remained the same due to the assumptions
discussed above. There are essentially no changes (compared to the 2014 NSHM) to ground
motion hazard in the city centers of Los Angeles and San Francisco, where basin depths are
shallow. Other locations within their metropolitan areas have significantly increased ground
shaking due to basin amplification (e.g. Long Beach and San Jose). Salt Lake City is in a
Petersen et al. 25
Figure 9. Ratio maps showing the difference in 5-s spectral acceleration total mean hazard for (a) Seattle,
(b) Salt Lake City, (c) the San Francisco Bay area, and (d) Los Angeles when basin depths from local seismic
velocity models are used versus when default basin depths calculated from NGA-West2 ground motion
models are used. The plots are for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years and for NEHRP site class D
(VS30 = 260 m/s).
generally shallower basin, and only a small area to the northwest of Salt Lake City shows
amplified ground motions.
Final seismic ground motion maps

In this section, we discuss seismic ground motion maps produced at a 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years for PGA, 0.2- and 1-s SA on a firm-rock site condition
(VS30 = 760 m/s), as well as 5-s SA produced on a stiff soil site condition (VS30 = 260 m/s).
Seismic hazard maps for additional periods (i.e. PGA, 0.2 s, 1 s, 5 s for VS30 = 760 m/s and
VS30 = 260 m/s) and probabilities of exceedance (5% and 10% in 50 years) are available at
the USGS ScienceBase Catalog (Rukstales and Petersen, 2019). Figure 10 shows mean
hazard maps for (Figure 10a) 0.2 s at VS30 = 760 m/s and (Figure 10b) 5 s at
VS30 = 260 m/s. Hazard is highest for regions that contain active sources capable of generat-
ing future earthquakes (e.g. the San Andreas fault system and Cascadia subduction zone,
and the Intermountain West seismic belt that is centered on the Wasatch and Teton faults)
and regions that have experienced large earthquakes in the past (e.g. historical earthquakes
in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) and Charleston, SC, occurred more than a cen-
tury ago).
Figure 11 shows difference and ratio maps comparing 0.2-s SA ground shaking on a uni-
form firm-rock site of VS30 = 760 m/s and illustrates where ground motions have changed
from 2014 to 2018. The ground shaking has increased across a broad region within 1000 km
of the NMSZ (e.g. up 16% at Memphis, TN, 25% at Chicago, IL, and 30% at St. Louis,
MO) mostly due to changes in the GMM. Decreases in seismic hazard are located in the
northeast United States (down 12% at New York City, NY), the Eastern Tennessee seismic
zone, and across the Intermountain West which are mostly due to catalog changes. We find
that ground motions increased in areas where new earthquakes occurred (e.g. Delaware,
Ohio, Kansas, Alabama, and the NMSZ in the CEUS, and Nevada and Idaho in the WUS)
and decreased in areas where seismicity abated (e.g. northeast portion of the United States).
Table 3 presents a summary of changes from 2014 to 2018 for PGA, and 0.2- and 1-s SA for
10 sites across the United States. Hazard is up at Chicago, St. Louis, and Memphis at all
three periods, but hazard changes are larger at shorter periods (PGA and 0.2 s) than at lon-
ger periods (1 s). Hazard is down at New York City at all three periods. Hazard is up at
PGA and 0.2 s at Charleston, but down at 1 s. In addition, changes in hazard for 5-s SA
(VS30 = 260 m/s) for five WUS sites are shown. Ground shaking at 5-s SA has increased in
four WUS urban areas (Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay area, Seattle, and Salt Lake City)
by up to 50% compared to the 2014 NSHM maps that used default basin depths. These
increases are due to the influence of deep sedimentary basin amplification of ground shaking.
At short periods, the small changes in hazard (i.e. 1%–2%) seen at WUS sites can be contrib-
uted to increased near-field discretization of gridded seismicity sources (see ‘‘Computer
Codes and Implementation Details’’ section below), and/or updates to the seismicity catalog
(in sites outside California).
Figure 12a shows 2018 and 2014 NSHM 0.2 s total mean hazard curves (VS30 = 760 m/
s), highlighting various customary exceedance levels, for the same sites as in Table 3. Hazard
is highest for sites in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle in the WUS, and Charleston
and Memphis in the CEUS. Ground motions are an order of magnitude or more lower in
Chicago and New York City than those found in the more active regions. Figure 12b shows
5 s total mean hazard curves (VS30 = 260 m/s) for ten sites in the WUS. At longer periods
and softer soil sites, the effect of basin amplification (relative to default basin depths) is evi-
dent in Long Beach, Ventura, San Jose, Vallejo, and Seattle. At longer periods and softer site
conditions, the effect of the modification of the subduction GMMs can be seen at Seattle.
Additional periods and site classes

For the 2014 NSHM, we computed ground motions for three periods and one reference site
class applied by the building code procedures (Petersen et al., 2014, 2015). However, we also
calculated additional period and site class maps later for the WUS (11 periods and 8 site
Petersen et al. 27
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Total mean hazard maps for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years calculated for the 2018
NSHM at: (a) 0.2-s spectral acceleration, NEHRP site class boundary B/C (VS30 = 760 m/s) and (b) 5-s
spectral acceleration, NEHRP site class D (VS30 = 260 m/s), for the conterminous United States.
(a)
(b)
Figure 11. (a) Difference and (b) ratio maps showing comparisons between total mean hazard from
the 2018 NSHM and the 2014 NSHM for the conterminous United States. Maps are for 0.2-s spectral
acceleration, 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, and NEHRP site class boundary B/C
(VS30 = 760 m/s).
Petersen et al. 29
(a) (b)
Figure 12. (a) Comparison of total mean hazard curves for ten sites across the United States is shown for
the 2018 NSHM (solid lines) versus the 2014 NSHM (dashed lines). Hazard curves are plotted for 0.2-s
spectral acceleration and NEHRP site class boundary B/C (VS30 = 760 m/s). (b). Comparison of total mean
hazard curves for ten sites in the western United States are shown for the 2018 NSHM (solid lines) versus
the 2014 NSHM (dashed lines). Hazard curves are plotted for 5-s spectral acceleration and NEHRP site
class D (VS30 = 260 m/s).
classes) and CEUS (7 periods and 2 site classes) (Shumway et al., 2018). Not all of the 2014
CEUS GMMs contained factors for various periods and soils so we could only calculate
ground motions for limited periods and site classes. With the implementation of the 2018
NGA-East GMMs and CEUS amplification model, we are now able to compute 22 periods
(from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform VS30 maps (ranging from 1500 m/s to 150 m/s) for the con-
terminous United States (Shumway et al., 2019).
Ground motions calculated for soils with VS30 less than ;200 m/s and greater than
1500 m/s have high uncertainties and in some cases are extrapolated beyond the limits rec-
ommended by some modelers. Two of the NGA-West2 models (BSSA14 and CB14) are valid
for VS30 of 150 m/s but the other two (ASK14 and CY14) are only valid for higher VS30 val-
ues of 180 m/s. Most of the developers felt that extrapolation down to 150 m/s was reason-
able; however, concern was expressed that the ASK14 equation would benefit from further
consideration of nonlinearity effects of the soft soil sites. We compared each of the individual
GMMs to assess the behavior of the NGA-West2 equations. Our comparison of the models
for M between 6.5 and 7.5 and at distances ranging from 10 to 50 km shows similar shaking
levels for ASK14 compared to the other models and especially the CB14 and BSS14 models
that were developed for VS30 down to 150 m/s. The NGA-West2 GMMs follow similar pat-
terns and generally differ by about 50% or less at periods greater than 0.2 s, which is well
within the uncertainties of the data. We also compared the GMMs for hard-rock site condi-
tions. The ASK14 GMM was not developed for VS30 higher than 1000 m/s but extrapolation
to higher values is very similar to other models that were developed for the values up to
1500 m/s. The developers felt that additional research should be conducted if we were to
release VS30 of 2000 m/s or greater maps and that in future versions of the models, it may be
advantageous to more completely consider the influence of lower kappa values and larger
short-period ground shaking for these hard-rock sites (Abrahamson, 2019, written communi-
cation). After our assessment of the extrapolations for higher or lower VS30 values, we felt
30
Table 3. Comparison of changes in total mean hazard (differences and ratios) of the 2018 and 2014 NSHMs for PGA, 0.2-, 1-, and 5-s SA at 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years
Site Longitude Latitude PGA, VS30 = 760 m/sa 0.2 s, VS30 = 760 m/sa 1 s, VS30 = 760 m/sa 5 s, VS30 = 260 m/sb
Difference (Ratio) Difference (Ratio) Difference (Ratio) Difference (Ratio)
Chicago, IL –87.7 41.9 0.013 g (23%) 0.028 g (25%) 0.011 g (20%) NA

St. Louis, MO –90.2 38.6 0.070 g (26%) 0.136 g (30%) 0.026 g (19%)
New York City, NY –74 40.8 –0.004 g (–2%) –0.034 g (–12%) –0.004 g (–8%)
Charleston, SC –80 32.8 0.143 g (16%) 0.065 g (3%) –0.034 g (–7%)
Memphis, TN –90.1 35.2 0.129 g (19%) 0.190 g (16%) 0.014 g (4%)
Los Angeles, CA –118.3 34.1 –0.018 g (–2%) –0.022 (–1%) 0.007 g (1%) 0.000 g (0%)
San Francisco, CA –122.4 37.8 –0.008 g (–1%) –0.021 g (–1%) –0.003 g (0%) 0.000 g (0%)
Portland, OR –122.7 45.5 –0.026 g (–6%) –0.063 g (–7%) –0.005 g (–1%) –0.001 g (–1%)
Seattle, WA –122.3 47.6 –0.015 g (–2%) –0.031 g (–2%) 0.175 g (43%) 0.079 g (50%)
Salt Lake City, UT –111.9 40.8 –0.002 g (–2%) –0.007 g (0%) 0.014 g (3%) –0.001 g (–2%)
NSHM: US National Seismic Hazard Model; PGA: peak horizontal ground acceleration; SA: spectral accelerations.
a
2% in 50 years probability of exceedance, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program site class boundary B/C (VS30 = 760 m/s).
b
2% in 50 years probability of exceedance, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program site class D (VS30 = 260 m/s).
Earthquake Spectra 36(1)
Petersen et al. 31
that in spite of the deficiencies, these models represent the best available science and that
releasing them as well as short-period maps would be preferable to not having this informa-
tion available. Nevertheless, while we are releasing VS30 maps between 150 m/s and 1500 m/s
in this version of the NSHM (we have excluded softer soils and firmer rock classes), we rec-
ommend: (1) caution in applying these end-member GMMs and (2) future improvements to
the hard rock and soft soil models be made.
With the availability of the new CEUS GMMs, Project 17 recommended transitioning
from a simplified spectrum defined at two spectral periods (i.e. 0.2 and 1 s) to a more repre-
sentative spectrum defined at multiple periods. They are also moving away from the use of
site factor tables, toward using the GMMs to compute ground motions for soil sites directly
(BSSC, 2019). The 2018 NSHM additional period and site class maps are currently being
considered by the building code update committees.
Figure 13 shows response spectra for additional periods and site classes at selected sites
across the United States. WUS sites include Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. The
spectra at periods greater than about 0.2-s SA for different VS30 values are evenly spaced, and
accelerations increase with decreasing VS30. The CEUS sites include Charleston, Memphis,
and New York City. The spectra for the CEUS sites look different than spectra for the WUS
in that they (1) have a sharper peak at 0.1-s SA; (2) are unevenly spaced with varying VS30;
and (3) exhibit decreased amplitudes between about 0.2- and 1-s oscillator periods caused by
the nonlinear effects (Hashash et al., 2020). The spectra at Charleston, SC, and Memphis,
TN, have similar amplitudes at 0.1 s compared to the sites in the WUS.
Changes in earthquake shaking, exposure, and risk

In this section, we discuss the shaking hazard and exposure analyses performed using the
most recent version of high-resolution LandScan population exposure data set produced by
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (LandScanä Database, 2017). In this, we consider the prob-
abilistic PGA hazard curve at each site, assuming a reference site condition to be NEHRP site
class boundary B/C, which refers to VS30 = 760 m/s, and convert it into a Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI, relates observed shaking to observed effects; Wood and Neumann, 1931)
hazard curve using the Worden et al. (2012) intensity conversion relationship. Using log inter-
polation, we develop MMI hazard maps for 50% (likely), 10% (infrequent), and 2% (rare
but possible) intensities with probabilities of exceedance in 50 years as shown in Figure 14.
The 50% in 50-year (likely) hazard map may require consideration of the full rather than
declustered catalog to account for the total strong ground shaking. This map may underesti-
mate shaking in areas where large earthquakes with associated aftershocks occur. The MMI
values are obtained after rounding to an integer value, for example, the numeric value of
MMI 5.50 and 6.49 are rounded to intensity level of VI. Analogous to the Jaiswal et al.
(2015) study, we compared the MMI hazard and population exposure using the most perti-
nent exposure data sets and provided an estimate of population exposure based on 1996,
2002, 2008, 2014, and 2018 hazard models. Changes in population exposure reflect both the
geospatial change in population due to population growth as well as the spatial variation of
changes in the estimates of seismic hazard, both of which have changed over time. Such anal-
yses are not only helpful for discussing the changes in hazards (defined in terms of MMI,
which are relatively easier to communicate) between different versions of hazard models but
also for understanding their impact in terms of change in the number of people (a proxy for
built environment) exposed to various levels of shaking hazards.
Figure 13. Uniform hazard response spectra are plotted for six sites in the United States for a 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. Sites are calculated for NEHRP site classes A (VS30 = 2000 m/s), B
(VS30 = 1080 m/s), C (VS30 = 530 m/s), D (VS30 = 260 m/s), and E (VS30 = 150 m/s) and site class
boundaries A/B (VS30 = 1500 m/s), B/C (VS30 = 760 m/s), C/D (VS30 = 365 m/s), and D/E (VS30 = 185 m/s).
The analyses show that earthquake shaking, and its impact, is not limited to Californians
or the larger West Coast population but is spread over a much wider geographic region.
Clearly, more Americans are at risk to damaging levels of earthquake shaking than ever
before (Table 4). As many as 34 million people (or 1 in 9) are expected to experience a strong
level of shaking at least once in their lifetime. Considering the ground shaking intensities with
average rate of 1/475 per year (i.e. 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years), there have
been significant increases in the number of people exposed to MMI VIII and above, that is,
from 28.0 million for the 2014 model to 32.2 million for the 2018 model. While the population
growth from 2013 to 2017 is modest (;3%), this increase of 14% in exposure is mainly attrib-
uted to the relatively larger area, mainly in the CEUS, estimated to experience damaging
ground motions. Similarly, when considering low probability ground motions (2% probability
of exceedance in 50 years), the exposure analysis shows one in three Americans may be
exposed to MMI VII and above, which reflects an increase of ;10% in human exposure
between the 2014 and 2018 hazard models. Such a level of increase is also evident for virtually
all levels of shaking intensities, indicating that the hazard has increased considerably between
the two versions of the maps.
Petersen et al. 33
Figure 14. The 2018 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) hazard maps of the conterminous United States
showing estimates of earthquake shaking in terms of (a) 50% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years
(likely), (b) 10% PE in 50 years (infrequent), and (c) 2% PE in 50 years (rare).
Table 4. Estimated counts (in thousands) of population exposurea at various Modified Mercalli Intensity
(MMI) shaking thresholds during different national probabilistic seismic hazard map cycles
Map year Total population estimates at MMI
øV øVI øVII (Very øVIII øIX
(Moderate shaking) (Strong shaking) strong shaking) (Severe shaking) (Violent shaking)
50% PE in 50 years (~72 years return period, Poisson probability converted to annual rate of exceedance)
1996 41,844 31,945 19,827 1935 19
2002 45,375 35,313 21,103 1388 –
2008 45,045 34,001 16,490 97 –
2014 43,376 32,294 9198 93 –
2018 45,806 34,461 11,946 119 –
10% PE in 50 years (~475 years return period)
1996 104,715 54,268 39,642 26,381 10,506
2002 104,591 59,463 44,109 29,967 9336
2008 82,286 56,632 45,240 27,922 5064
2014 97,597 62,685 47,259 28,061 3969
2018 107,580 65,460 48,324 31,357 3878
2% PE in 50 years (~2475 years return period)
1996 235,236 164,769 95,654 45,393 30,051
2002 247,753 169,004 95,179 49,208 33,052
2008 241,898 155,909 84,193 49,558 32,021
2014 242,069 163,748 97,364 52,632 34,761
2018 267,586 183,411 106,368 57,520 38,481
PE: probability of exceedance.
a
Population counts are estimates based on LandScan data sets for the conterminous United States and are rounded up to
the nearest 1000. The total population counts for the conterminous United States according to LandScan data sets are:
LandScan 1998, 268,411,000; LandScan 2003, 288,883,000; LandScan 2009, 304,937,000; LandScan 2013, 313,940,000; and
LandScan 2017, 323,535,000.
Computer codes and implementation details

For past NSHMs, we calculated hazard using a computer code written in Fortran. For the
2014 NSHM, the California model (UCERF3; Field et al., 2014; Powers and Field, 2015) and
hazard calculations were implemented in OpenSHA (Field et al., 2003). Following publica-
tion of the 2014 NSHM, we developed nshmp-haz (Powers, 2017), a Java platform derived
from OpenSHA, that uses a well-defined XML source model format. This development
allows us to support hazard and related calculations (e.g. deaggregation) for both current and
past NSHMs with a single codebase and makes it easier to develop and deploy web services
that support our online web application, the Unified Hazard Tool (UHT; https://earthqua-
ke.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive). The UHT consolidates legacy web applications that were
usually developed on a per-NSHM basis into a single application supporting multiple model
editions. Key modifications and improvement to nshmp-haz to support the 2018 NSHM
include the following:
For the CEUS, implemented (1) the NGA-East for USGS median, hard-rock GMM
and associated aleatory variability logic tree (Goulet et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2019)
and (2) the CEUS ergodic site amplification model (Hashash et al., 2020; Stewart
et al., 2020) leading to support for 22 spectral periods and site classes spanning
150 < VS30 < 3000 m/s. We smoothed the impedance model term and associated
uncertainty at 0.1 s via interpolation.
Petersen et al. 35
For the CEUS, eliminated the clamping of median and truncation of high ground
motions introduced in previous versions of the NSHMs.
Updated WUS GMMs to support 22 spectral periods via interpolation and reasonable
extrapolation.
Updated NGA-West2 GMMs to support basin effects at spectral periods ø 1 s and
modified WUS Subduction GMMs to use the CB14 basin term at spectral periods
ø 1 s, when considering basin depths within the defined basin polygons.
Updated the 2012 BC Hydro GMM (Addo et al., 2012; used in 2014 NSHM) to be
consistent with Abrahamson et al. (2016).
Added support for multi-branch GMMs. Multi-branch GMMs are composed of
underlying logic trees of median ground motion and aleatory variability (sigma) mod-
els. Such GMMs include NGA-East for USGS GMM, the Updated Seed GMM, and
the NGA-West2 GMMs with additional epistemic uncertainty (Rezaeian et al., 2015).
Multi-branch GMM support also includes correct calculation of deaggregation, and
hazard from cluster models (e.g. in the NMSZ and along the Wasatch Fault in the
vicinity of Salt Lake City).
Added deaggregation by period-specific intensity measure level to support epsilon cap-
ping as required by the BSSC and Project 17 (BSSC, 2019).
Increased near-field discretization of gridded seismicity sources, which removes arti-
facts in hazard that result from the relatively coarse (0.1°) distribution of grid sources.
Updated the southern border of the US hazard map region to include Key West, FL.
Nshmp-haz is available publicly on GitHub (https://github.com/usgs/nshmp-haz) along

with the 2018 NSHM (https://github.com/usgs/nshm-cous-2018). The version of the code
used for these hazard calculations is v1.2.0 (https://github.com/usgs/nshmp-haz/releases/tag/
v1.2.0). The version of the source model used for these hazard calculations is v5.0.0 (https://
github.com/usgs/nshm-cous-2018/releases/tag/v5.0.0). Bug fixes and other modifications will
increment these values. Older source models (i.e. 2014 NSHM and the 2008 NSHM) are also
available on GitHub and can be run with the new code. Converting previously released
source models (e.g. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) to work with nshmp-haz,
which will make future updates to these models more straightforward. The 2018 NSHM
release will be version 5.0.0 (bug fixes and other modifications will increment this value) and
will be deployed to the UHT shortly after publication of the model.
Conclusion
We have updated the NSHM for the conterminous United States by applying an updated
earthquake catalog, new GMMs for the CEUS, basin terms for long periods in the WUS,
and by updating our seismic hazard computer code. We have calculated the hazard for sev-
eral additional periods and site classes across the entire WUS than in previous models. The
ground motions are mostly higher across the CEUS due to new GMMs having higher sigma
and amplification at periods less than about 2 s. In the WUS, long-period shaking for soils is
higher over the deepest portions of the sedimentary basins. This article summarizes the data,
methods, and models applied in the 2018 NSHM update. Additional period and site class
maps, hazard curves, and methods to calculate deaggregations are available at the USGS
ScienceBase Catalog (Rukstales and Petersen, 2019; Shumway et al., 2019) and on GitHub
(https://github.com/usgs/nshmp-haz).
This update required several different types of inputs: (1) introduction of alternative mod-
els that were widely agreed on in the workshop and review process (e.g. CEUS GMMs and
basin amplification models), (2) development of models that were required for implementa-
tion of multi-period and site classes but that did not exist (e.g. subduction zone site amplifi-
cation models), and (3) changes that were implemented in one way but that could have been
implemented in a logic tree containing alternative models (CEUS shallow soil amplification
factors). As the quality assurance process continues and additional improvements are made,
subsequent NSHMs will be revised to bring in new science and more robust and efficient
methods and data for calculating the hazard.
While the models we have included are reasonable and consistent with the available data,
future updates and follow-on studies may consider important improvements that were not
made because either they were not vetted at the time of this publication or due to time con-
straints that limited the content of this update. Updates that we are considering for future
NSHMs include reevaluation of the acceptance criteria of GMMs based on period and site
class and associated weighting schemes for assessing epistemic (Sammon’s map) and fully
ergodic and non-ergodic aleatory uncertainties, more complete calculation of uncertainties
(fractiles) in the hazard models, assessment of earthquake magnitude-frequency distributions
on faults and especially those with unknown or poorly defined slip rate data, regionalization
of input models and implementation of non-ergodic inputs, appraisal of time-dependent fore-
casts of large earthquakes on faults, improvements of fault slip rate information and the asso-
ciated joint inversion of geologic and geodetic models, development and implementation of
physics-based source and ground motion computer simulation models, consideration of alter-
native decluster models (e.g. for induced and swarm-like earthquakes), improvements of shal-
low site amplification models (especially in the CEUS), enhancements of sedimentary basin
models and better models for anticipating long-period basin effects over shallow basins and
basin edges, simplification of complex model inputs (e.g. UCERF3), and generation of effi-
cient and effective computer algorithms and hazard outputs. We welcome discussions of the
inputs and methodologies that will improve future versions of the NSHM.
Acknowledgments
Many scientists and organizations (e.g. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) and
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC)) contributed to the development of the local velocity
models, earthquake catalogs, seismicity models, ground motion models (GMMs), standard deviation
(sigma) models, and soil amplification models. We thank the many people who significantly improved
the manuscript through reviews and discussions including Jill McCarthy, Bruce Worden, Grace Parker,
Bill Stephenson, Gail Atkinson, Jon Ake, Janet Slate, working groups that produced important inputs
that are acknowledged within the paper, participants at the 2018 US National Seismic Hazard Model
(NSHM) Update workshop, the NSHM Steering Committee, US Geological Survey editors and
reviewers, Earthquake Spectra editors and reviewers, and the public who participated in the open com-
ment period. Jon Stewart and an anonymous reviewer both made important comments in the
Earthquake Spectra review that substantially improved the manuscript. Any use of trade, firm, or prod-
uct names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: The U.S. Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program provided fund-
ing for this research and publication.
Petersen et al. 37
Notes
1. Aleatory sigma working group composed of experts Jonathan P Stewart, Grace A Parker, Linda Al
Atik, Gail M Atkinson, and Christine A Goulet.
2. Working group on amplification models for central and eastern United States composed of experts
Jonathan P Stewart, Youssef MA Hashash, Gail M Atkinson, David M Boore, Robert B Darragh,
and Walter J Silva.
References
Aagaard BT, Brocher TM, Dolenc D, et al. (2008) Ground-motion modeling of the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake, part II: Ground-motion estimates for the 1906 earthquake and scenario events. Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America 98: 1012–1046.
Abrahamson NA, Gregor N and Addo K (2016) BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for
subduction earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 32(1): 23–44.
Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ and Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for
active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1025–1055.
Addo K, Abrahamson N and Youngs R (2012) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) model,
volume 3: Ground motion characterization (GMC) model. Engineering report no. E658, Vol. 3.
Vancouver, BC, Canada: BC Hydro.
Al Atik L (2015) NGA-East: Ground-motion standard deviation models for central and eastern North
America. Report no. 2015/07. Berkeley, CA: PEER, 217 pp.
Alex CM and Olsen KB (1998) Lens-effect in Santa Monica? Geophysical Research Letters 25:
3441–3444.
Algermissen ST and Perkins DM (1976) A probabilistic estimate of the maximum acceleration in rock in
the contiguous United States. Open-File report no. 76-416, 2 plates, scale 1:7,500,000. Reston, VA:
US Geological Survey, 45 pp.
Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, et al. (2013) PEER NGA-West2 database. Report no. 2013/03.
Berkeley, CA: PEER, 134 pp.
Atkinson GM and Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone
earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 93(4): 1703–1729.
Atkinson GM and Boore DM (2008) Erratum to empirical ground-motion relations for subduction
zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bulletin of the Seismological
Atkinson GM and Boore DM (2011) Modifications to existing ground-motion prediction equations in
light of new data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(3): 1121–1135.
Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, et al. (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and
5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1057–1085.
Boyd OS, Haller K, Luco N, et al. (2015) Seismic hazard in the nation’s breadbasket. Earthquake
Spectra 31(S1): S109–S130.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2019) BSSC Project 17 Final Report: Development of Next
Generation of Seismic Design Value Maps for the 2020 NEHRP Provisions. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Building Sciences.
Campbell KW and Bozorgnia Y (2007) Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA ground motion relations for the
geometric mean and horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. Report no.
2007/02. Berkeley, CA: PEER, 240 pp.
Campbell KW and Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal
components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake
Spectra 30(3): 1087–1115.
CEUS–SSCn (2012) Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear
Facilities. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, US DOE, and US NRC.
Chang SW, Frankel AD and Weaver CS (2014) Report on workshop to incorporate basin response in the
design of tall buildings in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Open-File report no. 2014-1196.
Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, 28 pp.
Chiou BS-J and Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average
horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 30(3):
1117–1153.
Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58:
1583–1606.
Davis PM, Rubinstein JL, Liu KH, et al. (2000) Northridge earthquake damage caused by geologic
focusing of seismic waves. Science 289(5485): 1746–1750.
Dobson JE, Bright EA, Coleman PR, et al. (2000) LandScan: A global population database for
estimating populations at risk. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 66: 849–857.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2013) EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM)
review project. Report no. 3002000717. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 67 pp.
Field EH, Arrowsmith RJ, Biasi GP, et al. (2014) Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast,
version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
104(3): 1122–1180.
Field EH, Jordan TH and Cornell CA (2003) OpenSHA: A developing community-modeling
environment for seismic hazard analysis. Seismological Research Letters 74(4): 406–419.
Frankel A (1995) Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States. Seismological
Research Letters 66(4): 8–21.
Frankel A, Chen R, Petersen M, et al. (2015) 2014 update of the Pacific Northwest portion of the U.S.
National Seismic Hazard Maps. Earthquake Spectra 31(S1): S131–S148.
Frankel A, Mueller C, Barnhard T, et al. (1996) National seismic hazard maps—Documentation June
1996. Open-File report no. 96-532. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, 110 pp.
Frankel A, Stephenson W and Carver D (2009) Sedimentary basin effects in Seattle, Washington:
Ground-motion observations and 3D simulations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
99: 1579–1611.
Frankel A, Wirth E, Marafi N, et al. (2018) Broadband synthetic seismograms for magnitude 9
earthquakes on the Cascadia megathrust based on 3D simulations and stochastic synthetics, Part 1:
Methodology and overall results. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 108(5A): 2347–2369.
Frankel AD, Petersen MD, Mueller CS, et al. (2002) Documentation for the 2002 update of the national
seismic hazard maps. Open-File report no. 02-420. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, 33 pp.
Gardner JK and Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with
aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 64(5): 1363–1367.
Goulet CA, Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson N, et al. (2018) Central and eastern North America ground—
motion characterization—NGA-East final report. Report no. 2018/08. Berkeley, CA: PEER, 817 pp.
Goulet CA, Bozorgnia Y, Kuehn N, et al. (2017) NGA-East ground-motion models for the US Geological
Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps. Report no. 2017/03. Berkeley, CA: PEER, 207 pp., and 12
pp. addendum.
Graizer V (2016) Ground-motion prediction equations for central and eastern North America. Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America 106: 1600–1612.
Graizer V (2017) Alternative (G-16v2) ground-motion prediction equations for central and eastern
North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 107(2): 869–886.
Graves R, Jordan TH, Callaghan S, et al. (2011) Cybershake: A physics-based seismic hazard model for
southern California. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168(3–4): 367–381.
Graves RW, Pitarka A and Sommerville PG (1998) Ground-motion amplification in the Santa Monica
area: Effects of shallow basin structure. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 88:
1224–1242.
Haller KM, Moschetti MP, Mueller CS, et al. (2015) Seismic hazard in the Intermountain West.
Earthquake Spectra 31(S1): S149–S176.
Hashash YMA, Ilhan O, Harmon JA, et al. (2020) Nonlinear site amplification model for ergodic
seismic hazard analysis in central and eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra 36(1): 69–86.
Petersen et al. 39
Hashash YMA, Kottke AR, Stewart JP, et al. (2014) Reference rock site condition for central and
eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104(2): 684–701.
Helmstetter A, Kagan YY and Jackson DD (2007) High-resolution time-independent grid-based
forecast for M ø 5 earthquakes in California. Seismological Research Letters 78(1): 78–86.
Idriss IM (2014) An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values
generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1155–1177.
Jaiswal K, Bausch D, Rozelle J, et al. (2017) HazusÒ estimated annualized earthquake losses for the
United States. Report no. P-366. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 78 pp.
Jaiswal KS, Petersen MD, Rukstales K, et al. (2015) Earthquake shaking hazard estimates and exposure
changes in the conterminous United States. Earthquake Spectra 31(S1): S201–S220.
Kawase H (1996) The cause of damage belt in Kobe: ‘‘The basin-edge effect,’’ constructive interference
of the direct S-wave with the basin-induced diffracted/Rayleigh waves. Seismological Research
Letters 67(5): 25–34.
LandScanä Database (2017) High resolution global population data set [LS1998, LS2003, LS2009,
LS2013, LS2017]. UT-Battelle, LLC, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at: http://
landscan.oml.gov/ (accessed 18 November 2019).
Lee E-J, Chen P, Jordan TH, et al. (2014) Full-3-D tomography for crustal structure in southern
California based on the scattering-integral and the adjoint-wavefield methods. Journal of Geophysical
Research 119: 6421–6451.
McNamara DE, Petersen MD, Thompson EM, et al. (2018) Evaluation of ground motion models for
USGS seismic hazard forecasts: Induced and tectonic earthquakes in the Central and Eastern U.S.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 109(1): 322–335.
Magistrale H, Olsen KB and Pechmann JC (2008) Construction and verification of a Wasatch Front
community velocity model. Technical report no. HQGR.060012. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
Moschetti MP (2015) A long-term earthquake rate model for the central and eastern United States from
smoothed seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105(6): 2928–2941.
Moschetti MP, Hartzell S, Ramı́rez-Guzmán L, et al. (2017) 3D Ground-motion simulations of Mw 7
earthquakes on the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone: Variability of long-period
(T ø 1 s) ground motions and sensitivity to kinematic rupture parameters. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 107(4): 1704–1723.
Moschetti MP, Powers PM, Petersen MD, et al. (2015) Seismic source characterization for the 2014
update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model. Earthquake Spectra 31(S1): S31–S57.
Mueller CS (2019) Earthquake catalogs for the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps. Seismological
Research Letters 90(1): 251–261.
Mueller CS, Boyd OS, Petersen MD, et al. (2015) Seismic hazard in the eastern United States.
Nweke CC, Wang P, Brandenberg SJ, et al. (2018) Reconsidering basin effects in ergodic site response
models. UCLA. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6048v74k (accessed 18 November
2019).
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2015) NGA-East: Adjustments to median
ground-motion models for central and eastern North America. Report no. 2015/08. Berkeley, CA:
PEER, 129 pp.
Parker GA, Stewart JP, Hashash YMA, et al. (2018) Empirical linear seismic site amplification in
central and eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra 35(2): 849–881.
Petersen MD, Bryant WA, Cramer CH, et al. (1996) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the
state of California. Open-File report no. 96-706. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, 56 pp.
Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, et al. (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United
States National Seismic Hazard Maps. Open-File report no. 2008-1128. Reston, VA: US Geological
Survey, 61 pp.
Petersen MD, Moschetti MP, Powers PM, et al. (2014) Documentation for the 2014 update of the United
States National Seismic Hazard Maps. Open-File report no. 2014-1091. Reston, VA: US Geological
Survey, 243 pp.
Petersen MD, Moschetti MP, Powers PM, et al. (2015) The 2014 United States National Seismic
Hazard Model. Earthquake Spectra 31(S1): S1–S30.
Petersen MD, Mueller CS, Moschetti MP, et al. (2016a) 2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the
central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. Open-File report no. 2016-
1035. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, 52 pp.
Petersen MD, Mueller CS, Moschetti MP, et al. (2016b) Seismic-hazard forecast for 2016 including
induced and natural earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Seismological Research
Letters 87(6): 1327–1341.
Petersen MD, Mueller CS, Moschetti MP, et al. (2017) One-year seismic-hazard forecast for the central
and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters
88(3): 772–783.
Petersen MD, Mueller CS, Moschetti MP, et al. (2018) 2018 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the
central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. Seismological Research
Letters 89(3): 1049–1061.
Powers PM (2017) National Seismic Hazard Model Project computer code (nshmp-haz), software.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZW1K31 (accessed 18 November 2019).
Powers PM and Field EH (2015) The 2014 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model in California.
Rezaeian S, Petersen MD and Moschetti MP (2015) Ground motion models used in the 2014 U.S.
National Seismic Hazard Maps. Earthquake Spectra 31(S1): S59–S84.
Rukstales KS and Petersen MD (2019) Data release for 2018 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard
Model: Overview of model and implications. US Geological Survey data release. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.5066/P9WT5OVB
Shahjouei A and Pezeshk S (2016) Alternative hybrid empirical ground-motion model for central and
eastern North America using hybrid simulations and NGA-West2 models. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 106(2): 734–754.
Sherbaum F, Kuehn NM, Ohrnberger M, et al. (2010) Exploring the proximity of ground-motion
models using high-dimensional visualization techniques. Earthquake Spectra 26(4): 1117–1138.
Shumway AM, Clayton BS and Rukstales KS (2019) Data release for additional period and site class
maps for the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States. US
Geological Survey data release. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5066/P9RQMREV (accessed 18
November 2019).
Shumway AM, Petersen MD, Powers PM, et al. (2018) Additional period and site class maps for the 2014
National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States. Open-File report no. 2018-1111.
Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, 46 pp.
Stephenson WJ (2007) Velocity and density models incorporating the Cascadia subduction zone for 3D
earthquake ground motion simulations. Open-File report no. 2007-1348. Reston, VA: US Geological
Survey, 24 pp.
Stephenson WJ, Frankel AD, Odum JK, et al. (2006) Toward resolving an earthquake ground motion
mystery in West Seattle, Washington State: Shallow seismic focusing may cause anomalous chimney
damage. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L06316.
Stephenson WJ, Reitmann NG and Angster SJ (2017) P- and S-wave velocity models incorporating the
Cascadia subduction zone for 3D earthquake ground motion simulations—Update for OFR 2007-1348.
Open-File report no. 2017-1152. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, 40 pp.
Stewart JP, Parker GA, Al Atik L, et al. (2019) Site-to-site standard deviation model for central and
eastern North America. UC E-Scholarship publication. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/
item/2sc5g220 (accessed 18 November 2019).
Stewart JP, Parker GA, Atkinson GM, et al. (2020) Ergodic site amplification model for central and
eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra 36(1): 42–68.
Wald DJ and Allen TI (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and
amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97(5): 1379–1395.
Werner MJ, Helmstetter A, Jackson DD, et al. (2011) High-resolution long-term and short-term
earthquake forecasts for California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(4):
1630–1648.
Petersen et al. 41
Wirth EA, Chang SW and Frankel AD (2018a) 2018 report on incorporating sedimentary basin response
into the design of tall buildings in Seattle, Washington. Open-File report no. 2018-1149. Reston, VA:
US Geological Survey, 19 pp.
Wirth EA, Frankel AD, Marafi N, et al. (2018b) Broadband synthetic seismograms for magnitude 9
earthquakes on the Cascadia megathrust based on 3D simulations and stochastic synthetics, Part 2:
Rupture parameters and variability. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 108(5A):
2370–2388.
Wood HO and Neumann F (1931) Modified Mercalli Intensity scale of 1931. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 2: 277–203.
Worden CB, Gerstenberger MC, Rhoades DA, et al. (2012) Probabilistic relationships between ground
motion parameters and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Bulletin of the Seismological

Petersen Et Al 2019 The 2018 Update of The Us National Seismic Hazard Model Overview of Model and Implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Petersen Et Al 2019 The 2018 Update of The Us National Seismic Hazard Model Overview of Model and Implications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petersen Et Al 2019 The 2018 Update of The Us National Seismic Hazard Model Overview of Model and Implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research paper

Model: Overview of model DOI: 10.1177/8755293019878199

Mark D. Petersen, M.EERI1, Allison M. Shumway1,

Date received: 19 December 2018; accepted: 16 August 2019

Update of earthquake catalog and rate models

Earthquake catalog development

Table 1. Logic tree for Updated Seed GMMs

R–1 (0.33) Point Sourcea (0.67) B_bca10db (0.3) 0.06633

Gridded or smoothed seismicity-based rate models

The fixed-kernel smoothing applies a two-dimensional (2D) Gaussian operator with 50 or

Update of GMMs in the CEUS

CEUS median GMMs and weights

Aleatory variability (sigma)

Site amplification factors

GMMs in the WUS

Basin amplification of ground shaking in the WUS

Application of basin factors in GMMs

Table 2. NGA-West2 default basin depths (km)

Special considerations for Seattle

Z1:0, eff = 0:1146Z2:5 + 0:2826 ð1Þ

Z1:0, eff = 0:0933Z2:5 + 0:1444 ð2Þ

Effects of considering basin effects on hazard

Final seismic ground motion maps

Additional periods and site classes

Chicago, IL –87.7 41.9 0.013 g (23%) 0.028 g (25%) 0.011 g (20%) NA

Changes in earthquake shaking, exposure, and risk

Computer codes and implementation details

Nshmp-haz is available publicly on GitHub (https://github.com/usgs/nshmp-haz) along

Declaration of conflicting interests

You might also like