Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Considerations in Comparing the U.S. Geological Survey One‐Year Induced‐Seismicity Hazard Models with “Did You Feel It?” and Instrumental Data

2017; Seismological Society of America; Volume: 89; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1785/0220170033

1938-2057

Isabel White, Taojun Liu, Nicolas Luco, Abbie B. Liel,

Seismic Waves and Analysis

Research Article| December 06, 2017 Considerations in Comparing the U.S. Geological Survey One‐Year Induced‐Seismicity Hazard Models with “Did You Feel It?” and Instrumental Data Isabel J. O. White; Isabel J. O. White aU.S. Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S.A., iwhite@usgs.gov, nluco@usgs.govcAlso at Colorado School of Mines, 1500 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401 U.S.A. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Taojun Liu; Taojun Liu bUniversity of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, ECOT 440 UCB 428, Boulder, Colorado 80309 U.S.A., liutaojun@hotmail.com, abbie.liel@colorado.edudAlso at U.S. Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S.A. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Nicolas Luco; Nicolas Luco aU.S. Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S.A., iwhite@usgs.gov, nluco@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Abbie B. Liel Abbie B. Liel bUniversity of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, ECOT 440 UCB 428, Boulder, Colorado 80309 U.S.A., liutaojun@hotmail.com, abbie.liel@colorado.edu Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Isabel J. O. White aU.S. Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S.A., iwhite@usgs.gov, nluco@usgs.govcAlso at Colorado School of Mines, 1500 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401 U.S.A. Taojun Liu bUniversity of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, ECOT 440 UCB 428, Boulder, Colorado 80309 U.S.A., liutaojun@hotmail.com, abbie.liel@colorado.edudAlso at U.S. Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S.A. Nicolas Luco aU.S. Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S.A., iwhite@usgs.gov, nluco@usgs.gov Abbie B. Liel bUniversity of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, ECOT 440 UCB 428, Boulder, Colorado 80309 U.S.A., liutaojun@hotmail.com, abbie.liel@colorado.edu Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 06 Dec 2017 Online Issn: 1938-2057 Print Issn: 0895-0695 © Seismological Society of America Seismological Research Letters (2018) 89 (1): 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170033 Article history First Online: 06 Dec 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Isabel J. O. White, Taojun Liu, Nicolas Luco, Abbie B. Liel; Considerations in Comparing the U.S. Geological Survey One‐Year Induced‐Seismicity Hazard Models with “Did You Feel It?” and Instrumental Data. Seismological Research Letters 2017;; 89 (1): 127–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170033 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietySeismological Research Letters Search Advanced Search ABSTRACT The recent steep increase in seismicity rates in Oklahoma, southern Kansas, and other parts of the central United States led the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop, for the first time, a probabilistic seismic hazard forecast for one year (2016) that incorporates induced seismicity. In this study, we explore a process to ground‐truth the hazard model by comparing it with two databases of observations: modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) data from the “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system and peak ground acceleration (PGA) values from instrumental data. Because the 2016 hazard model was heavily based on earthquake catalogs from 2014 to 2015, this initial comparison utilized observations from these years. Annualized exceedance rates were calculated with the DYFI and instrumental data for direct comparison with the model. These comparisons required assessment of the options for converting hazard model results and instrumental data from PGA to MMI for comparison with the DYFI data. In addition, to account for known differences that affect the comparisons, the instrumental PGA and DYFI data were declustered, and the hazard model was adjusted for local site conditions. With these adjustments, examples at sites with the most data show reasonable agreement in the exceedance rates. However, the comparisons were complicated by the spatial and temporal completeness of the instrumental and DYFI observations. Furthermore, most of the DYFI responses are in the MMI II–IV range, whereas the hazard model is oriented toward forecasts at higher ground‐motion intensities, usually above about MMI IV. Nevertheless, the study demonstrates some of the issues that arise in making these comparisons, thereby informing future efforts to ground‐truth and improve hazard modeling for induced‐seismicity applications. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.