Comparing subduction ground-motion models to observations for Cascadia

• Published in: Earthquake spectra Vol. 40; no. 3; pp. 1787 - 1817
• Main Authors: Smith, James A, Moschetti, Morgan P, Thompson, Eric M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.08.2024
• Subjects: data comparison; M9 simulations; subduction ground-motion models; Cascadia subduction zone; basin effects; Cascadia earthquake hazard; ground-motion residual analysis; Ground-motion model evaluation; 2023 NSHM update
• ISSN: 8755-2930; 1944-8201
• DOI: 10.1177/87552930241256673

We evaluate Cascadia subduction ground-motion models (GMMs), considered for the 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) update, by comparing observations to model predictions. The observations comprise regional recordings from intraslab earthquakes, including contributions from 2021 and 2022 events in southern Cascadia and global records from interface earthquakes. Since the 2018 NSHM update, new GMMs for Cascadia have been published by the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-Subduction Project that require independent evaluation. In the regional intraslab comparisons, we highlight a characteristic frequency dependence for Cascadia data, with short periods having lower ground motions and longer periods being comparable to other subduction zones. We evaluate differences in northern and southern Cascadia and find that the NGA-Subduction GMMs developed using southern Cascadia data perform better in this region than the model that did not consider these data. We compare ground-motion variability in Cascadia with the NGA-Subduction model predictions and find differences at short periods (T = 0.1 s) due to the use of global versus regional data in the development of these models. Moreover, the within-event component of aleatory variability from the GMMs overpredicts the standard deviation of Cascadia recordings at very short periods (T < 0.05 s). Using global interface earthquakes as a proxy to evaluate the Cascadia GMMs, we find long-period overprediction from a simulation-based GMM and some of the empirical GMMs. When comparing recent observations, we find a similar misfit to GMMs and the 2010 and 2022 Ferndale earthquakes. Finally, we observe different basin amplification factors arising in different subsets of the data, which indicate that differences in basin factors between empirical GMMs could arise from the data selection choices by the developers. As part of evaluating the regional basin terms, we apply basin amplification factors from the magnitude 9 Cascadia earthquake simulations to the empirical GMMs for interface earthquakes. The comparisons presented in this study indicate that the NGA-Subduction GMMs for Cascadia perform well relative to observations and older subduction GMMs.