PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 7, 2024Earthquake Spectra4 citationsOpen Access

The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model

View Full Paper
PPPeter M. PowersJAJason AltekruseALA. L. Llenos

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

US Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used extensively for seismic design regulations in the United States and earthquake scenario development, as well as risk assessment and mitigation for both buildings and infrastructure. This 2023 update of the long-term, time-independent Alaska NSHM includes substantial changes to both the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) and ground motion models (GMMs). The ERF includes numerous additions to the finite-fault model, considers two deformation models, and introduces updated declustering and smoothing algorithms in the gridded background seismicity model. For the Alaska–Aleutian subduction zone, megathrust earthquakes occur on an updated structural and segmentation model, and the moment magnitude (M) 8+ rupture and rate model include a logic tree branch that considers slip rates derived from geodetic models of interface coupling. The megathrust model considers multiple models of down-dip width, and magnitudes are computed using newly developed scaling relations. For subduction intraslab events and subduction interface events with M < 7, the 2023 update uses a smoothed seismicity model with rupture depths derived from Slab2. The 2023 model updates GMMs in all tectonic settings using the recently published Next Generation Attenuation Subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs for subduction interface and intraslab events, and the NGA-West2 GMMs for active crustal settings. Collectively, additions and updates to the Alaska NSHM result in hazard increases across most of south-central Alaska relative to the previous model, published in 2007. These changes are primarily due to the adoption of updated rate models for the large-magnitude interface events and the NGA-Sub GMMs that have much higher aleatory variability (sigma), consistent with global observations, and that include models of epistemic uncertainty.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Powers et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5d246b6db6435875682cehttps://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241266741
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 14. Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Seismic Horizontal Ground Acceleration on Rock in Alaska and the Adjacent Continental Shelf1985 · 11 citations
  2. 2B‐Positive: A Robust Estimator of Aftershock Magnitude Distribution in Transiently Incomplete Catalogs2021 · 203 citations
  3. 3Plate boundary localization, slip-rates and rupture segmentation of the Queen Charlotte Fault based on submarine tectonic geomorphology2019 · 63 citations
  4. 4Probabilistic seismic hazard maps of Alaska1999 · 53 citations
  5. 5Magnitude and Slip Scaling Relations for Fault-Based Seismic Hazard2023 · 36 citations