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.

The US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used to calculate earthquake ground-shaking intensities for design and rehabilitation of structures in the United States. The most recent 2014 and 2018 versions of the NSHM for the conterminous United States included major updates to ground-motion models (GMMs) for active and stable crustal tectonic settings; however, the subduction zone GMMs were largely unchanged. With the recent development of the next generation attenuation-subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs, and recent progress in the utilization of “M9” Cascadia earthquake simulations, we now have access to improved models of ground shaking in the US subduction zones and the Seattle basin. The new NGA-Sub GMMs support multi-period response spectra calculations. They provide global models and regional terms specific to Cascadia and terms that account for deep-basin effects. This article focuses on the updates to subduction GMMs for implementation in the 2023 NSHM and compares them to the GMMs of previous NSHMs. Individual subduction GMMs, their weighted averages, and their impact on the estimated mean hazard relative to the 2018 NSHM are discussed. The updated logic trees include three of the new NGA-Sub GMMs and retain two older models to represent epistemic uncertainty in both the median and standard deviation of ground-shaking intensities at all periods of interest. Epistemic uncertainty is further represented by a three-point logic tree for the NGA-Sub median models. Finally, in the Seattle region, basin amplification factors are adjusted at long periods based on the state-of-the-art M9 Cascadia earthquake simulations. The new models increase the estimated mean hazard values at short periods and short source-to-site distances for interface earthquakes, but decrease them otherwise, relative to the 2018 NSHM. On softer soils, the new models cause decreases to the estimated mean hazard for long periods in the Puget Lowlands basin but increases within the deep Seattle portion of this basin for short periods relative to the 2018 NSHM.

The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increases and decreases compared to previous NSHMs) are substantial because the new model considers more data and updated earthquake rupture forecasts and ground-motion components. In developing the 2023 model, we tried to apply best available or applicable science based on advice of co-authors, more than 50 reviewers, and hundreds of hazard scientists and end-users, who attended public workshops and provided technical inputs. The hazard assessment incorporates new catalogs, declustering algorithms, gridded seismicity models, magnitude-scaling equations, fault-based structural and deformation models, multi-fault earthquake rupture forecast models, semi-empirical and simulation-based ground-motion models, and site amplification models conditioned on shear-wave velocities of the upper 30 m of soil and deeper sedimentary basin structures. Seismic hazard calculations yield hazard curves at hundreds of thousands of sites, ground-motion maps, uniform-hazard response spectra, and disaggregations developed for pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 oscillator periods and two peak parameters, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and 8 site classes required by building codes and other public policy applications. Tests show the new model is consistent with past ShakeMap intensity observations. Sensitivity and uncertainty assessments ensure resulting ground motions are compatible with known hazard information and highlight the range and causes of variability in ground motions. We produce several impact products including building seismic design criteria, intensity maps, planning scenarios, and engineering risk assessments showing the potential physical and social impacts. These applications provide a basis for assessing, planning, and mitigating the effects of future earthquakes.

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.

We update the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. The update includes the use of new ground-motion models (GMMs) in the Cascadia subduction zone; an adjustment to the central and eastern United States (CEUS) GMMs to reduce misfits with observed data; an updated boundary for the application of GMMs for shallow, crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (i.e. western United States (WUS)) and stable continental regions (i.e. CEUS); and the use of improved models for the site response of deep sedimentary basins in the WUS and CEUS. Site response updates include basin models for the California Great Valley and for the Portland and Tualatin basins, Oregon, as well as long-period basin effects from three-dimensional simulations in the Greater Los Angeles region and in the Seattle basin; in the CEUS, we introduce a broadband (0.01- to 10-s period) amplification model for the effects of the passive-margin basins of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In addition, we summarize progress on implementing rupture directivity models into seismic hazard models, although they are not incorporated in the 2023 NSHM. We implement the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 NSHM in the US Geological Survey’s code for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, nshmp-haz-v2, and present the sensitivity of hazard to these changes. Hazard calculations indicate widespread effects from adjustments to the CEUS GMMs, from the incorporation of Coastal Plain amplification effects, and from the treatment of shallow-basin and out-of-basin sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region, as well as locally important changes from subduction-zone GMMs, and from updated and new WUS basins.