Skip to content

Open File Errata

Jump to bottom
Peter Powers edited this page Feb 4, 2021 · 11 revisions

2014 NHSMP Open-File Report: Errors, ommissions, and clarifications

Central & Eastern US

  • p.19 (Figure 13): Adaptive smoothing should have 0.4 wieght, fixed [kernel] 0.6 weight. Smoothing terminology should also be consistent with text and Figure 34 (CEUS); pick one or the other.

  • p.26 (Table 2): The column headers should read Zone, Mw>=4.7, Mw>=3.7, and Mw>=2.7 (2nd and 4th columns are switched).

  • p.27 (Figure 18): Figure caption should read: Maps showing incremental seismicity-rate grids from alternative smoothing methods. A, fixed-correlation-length smoothing method and B, adaptive-correlation-length smoothing method . Scale bar should be labeled 10^a-value.

  • p.34 (Figure 23): Earthquake recurrence model branches [500yr | 750yr & 1500yr] should be connected to 500yr box in previous column.

  • p.46 (Figure 31): The USGS Meers fault model, in both 2008 and 2014, is only represented by a 'characterisitc' of 'full-source' rupture of MW=7 with uncertainty. The 'partial-source rupture' should be removed and the weight of the 'full-source rupture' increased to 0.5.

Western US

  • p.50-51, or p.55-58: Except in discussion of Oregon, no mention is made of what smoothing methods were used to computs the rate of deep (slab) seismicity sources: Gaussian kernel with a fixed correlation length of 50km.

  • p.51 (Figure 34):

    • 'earthquakes' instead of 'earthquakies' (3rd column).
    • Smoothing weights should be 0.4 (nearest-neighbor) and 0.6 (fixed-distance); terminology should be consistent with Figure 13.
    • Truncated GR mMax should be 7.5.

  • p.54 (Figure 36): Figure caption should read: Maps showing incremental seismicity-rate grids from alternative smoothing methods. A, fixed-correlation-length smoothing method and B, adaptive-correlation-length smoothing method . Scale bar should be labeled 10^a-value.

  • p.55 (Figure 37): The intraslab discussion indicates 50/50 weight for each mMax branch. The implementations, however, assign 90/10 weight to mMax=7.5/8.0. This recently identified inconsistency is up for review in the 2018 update; see nshm-cous-2014 #38.

  • p.67: The full Wasatch floater is stated to be M7.4 ± 0.2 but it's actually a 6.5 to 7.4 GR MFD (± 0.2 mMax epsitemic uncertainty). It is also stated to float at 3 km intervals, but it floats at 1 km intervals in input files.

  • p.68: For Model 1, the full-source magnitude value listed for the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch Fault source is Mw7.03+/-0.2. The Mw value in the input file wasatch_slc.noclus.in is listed as Mw7.07+/-0.2. The input file is correct.

  • p.69, p.71, and p.73 (Figures 44, 45, and 47): Title for Figures 44c, 45c, and 47c should read 'C. 5-hertz spectral acceleration ratio', not 'C. 5-hertz spectral acclerationratio'.

  • p.70: For Model 2, the Mw values listed for the Cottonwood-East Bench fault, a hypothetical tear fault, and the Warm Springs fault are listed as Mw6.9+/-0.2, Mw5.4+/-0.2, and Mw 6.7+/-0.2, respectively. The Mw values in the input file wasatch_slc.cluster.in for the hypothetical tear fault and the Warm Springs fault are listed as Mw4.2+/-0.2 and Mw6.23+/-0.2, respectively. The input file is correct.

  • p.85 It should be noted that the faults that are represented by zones in the Peter Bird geodetic model are removed from the fintie source model. As written, one might assume that the faults are still present, but with their slip rates halved.

  • p.85 (Table 10): Table should include the following rows for the Peter Pird zone in Oregon:

Name State 2008 Rate Bird Rate Slip Sense Lengnth Dip
Grant Butte Orgeon ?? ?? Normal 9.38 50
Lacamas Lake Oregon ?? ?? Strike slip 23.65 90
Sandy River Oregon ?? ?? Strike slip 16.60 90

  • p.102 (Table 11): The weight for the 'Northern zone' should be 0.125 instead of 0.1

  • p.103 (Figure 65): Per the weight change in the previous item and latitude values being reversed, figure needs to be updated to: PCMAC/NSHMP/FINAL_IP-052282Documentation/FinalFIGS fig65v2.ai

  • Cascadia: Additional documentation explaining the Cascadia source model, its weights, and rates that was never published. These documents were the basis for the writeup of the Cascadia model in the 2014 NSHM open-file report, however, the subtleties of the model are not well articulated and users may find these supporting documents helpful:

Ground Motion Models
  • p.169 (Table 19): 2014 weights listed for AB(03)Global, AB(03)Cascadia, Zhao et al(06), and BCHydro(12) are listed as 0.1667, 0.1667, 0.33, and 0.33, respectively. Input files (e.g. CAdeep.2014.in) list the weights as 0.1665, 0.1665, 0.334, and 0.333, respectively.
Results

  • p.194 (Figure 140): Figures for 140-B and 140-C are identical.

  • p.195 (Figure 141): Figures for 141-B and 141-C are identical.

 U.S. Geological Survey – National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (NSHMP)

Clone this wiki locally