Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-5
Regional seismic velocity model for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains based on measured shear wave velocity,sediment thickness,and surface geology
The Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (CPs) are characterized by widespread accumulations of low-velocity sediments and sedimentary rock that overlay high-velocity bedrock. Geology and sediment thickness greatly influence seismic wave propagation, but current regional ground motion amplification and seismic hazard models include limited characterization of these site conditions. In this study, a new regional seismic velocity model for the CPs is created by integrating shear wave velocity (VS) measurements, surface geology, and a sediment thickness model recently developed for the CPs. A reference rock VS of 3000 m/s has been assumed at the bottom of the sedimentary columns, which corresponds to the base of Cretaceous and Mesozoic sediments underlying the Atlantic CP and the Gulf CP, respectively. Measured VS profiles located throughout the CPs are sorted into five geologic groups of varying age, and median VS profiles are developed for each group by combining measured VS values within layer thicknesses defined by an assumed layering ratio. Statistical analyses are also conducted to test the appropriateness of the selected groups. A power law model with geology-informed coefficients is used to extend the median velocity models beyond the depths where measured data were available. The median VS profiles provide reasonable agreement with other generic models applicable for the region, but they also incorporate new information that enables more advanced characterizations of site response at regional scales and their effective incorporation into seismic hazard models and building codes. The proposed median velocity profiles can be assigned within a grid-based model of the CPs according to the spatial distribution of geologic units at the surface.
AagaardBTGraymerRWThurberCHRodgersAJTairaTCatchingsRDGouletCAPleschA (2020) Science plan for improving three-dimensional seismic velocity models in the San Francisco Bay region, 2019–24. Open-File Report No. 2020–1019. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
2.
AbrahamsonNSilvaW (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 67–97.
3.
AhdiSK (2018) An improved framework for the analysis and dissemination of seismic site characterization data at varying resolutions. PhD Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2161215647/abstract/5A13D7208C74B7EPQ/1 (accessed March 9th, 2023).
4.
AhdiSKStewartJPAnchetaTDKwakDYMitraD (2017) Development of VS profile database and proxy-based models for VS30 Prediction in the Pacific Northwest Region of North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(4): 1781–1801.
5.
Al AtikLAbrahamsonN (2021) A methodology for the development of 1D reference VS profiles compatible with ground-motion prediction equations: Application to NGA-West2 GMPEs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(4): 1765–1783.
6.
AndersonJGHoughSE (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America74(5): 1969–1993.
7.
BaiseLGKaklamanosJBerryBMThompsonEM (2016) Soil amplification with a strong impedance contrast: Boston, Massachusetts. Engineering Geology202: 1–13.
8.
BakerJBradleyBStaffordP (2021) Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BaramAYagoda-BiranGKamaiR (2019) Evaluation of generic reference rock site conditions for Israel. Seismological Research Letters90(4): 1584–1591.
10.
BodinPHortonS (1999) Broadband microtremor observation of basin resonance in the Mississippi embayment, Central US. Geophysical Research Letters26(7): 903–906.
11.
BommerJJCoppersmithKJCoppersmithRTHansonKLMangongoloANevelingJRathjeEMRodriguez-MarekAScherbaumFShelembeRStaffordPJStrasserFO (2015) A SSHAC level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new-build nuclear site in South Africa. Earthquake Spectra31(2): 661–698.
12.
BooreDM (2016) Determining generic velocity and density models for crustal amplification calculations, with an update of the Boore and Joyner (1997) generic site amplification for VS(Z) = 760 m/s. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(1): 313–317.
13.
BooreDMJoynerWB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America87(2): 327–341.
14.
BooreDMThompsonEMCadetH (2011) Regional correlations of VS30 and velocities averaged over depths less than and greater than 30 meters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(6): 3046–3059.
15.
BorcherdtRD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America60(1): 29–61.
16.
BoydOS (2020) Calibration of the US Geological Survey national crustal model. Open-File Report 2020–1052. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, p. 23.
17.
BoydOSChurchwellDMoschettiMPThompsonEMChapmanMCIlhanOPrattTLAhdiSKRezaeianS (2023) Sediment thickness map of Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain strata, Central and Eastern U.S., and their influence on earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra. Epub ahead of print 23November. DOI: 10.1177/87552930231204880
18.
CabasARodriguez-MarekAGreenRAJiC (2022) Quantifying the error associated with the elastic halfspace assumption in site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering148(10): 04022081.
19.
ChapmanMCConnA (2016) A model for Lg propagation in the Gulf Coastal Plain of the Southern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(2): 349–363.
20.
ChapmanMCGuoZ (2021) A response spectral ratio model to account for amplification and attenuation effects in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(4): 1849–1867.
21.
ChapmanMCMartinJROlgunCGBealeJN (2006) Site-response models for Charleston, South Carolina, and vicinity developed from shallow geotechnical investigations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96(2): 467–489.
22.
CoxBRTeagueDP (2016) Layering ratios: A systematic approach to the inversion of surface wave data in the absence of A Priori information. Geophysical Journal International207(1): 422–438.
23.
CunninghamELekicV (2020) Constraining properties of sedimentary strata using receiver functions: An example from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(2): 519–533.
24.
DharMSCramerCH (2018) Probabilistic seismic and liquefaction hazard analysis of the Mississippi embayment incorporating nonlinear effects. Seismological Research Letters89(1): 253–267.
FosterKMBradleyBAMcGannCRWotherspoonLM (2019) A VS30 map for New Zealand based on geologic and terrain proxy variables and field measurements. Earthquake Spectra35(4): 1865–1897.
27.
Gann-PhillipsCVCabasACramerCHMilitelloZMKaklamanosJ (2023) Development of a site response and hazard model for the US Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In: ChingJNajjarSWangL (eds) Geo-Risk 2023: Hazards and Climate Change, 23–26 July (Geotechnical Special Publication No. 344). Arlington, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 184–193.
28.
GeyinMMaurerBW (2023) US national VS30 models and maps informed by remote sensing and machine learning. Seismological Research Letters94(3): 1467–1477.
29.
GouletCABozorgniaYKuehnNAl AtikLYoungsRRGravesRWAtkinsonGM (2021a) NGA-East ground-motion characterization model part I: Summary of products and model development. Earthquake Spectra37(S1): 1231–1282.
GuoZChapmanMC (2019) An examination of amplification and attenuation effects in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain using spectral ratios. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(5): 1855–1877.
32.
HardinBO (1978) The nature of stress-strain behavior for soils. In: From volume I of Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics—Proceedings of the ASCE geotechnical engineering division specialty conference, Pasadena, CA, 19–21 June. Available at: https://trid.trb.org/view/74543 (accessed May 9th, 2023).
33.
HarmonJHashashYMAStewartJPRathjeEMCampbellKWSilvaWJIlhanO (2019a) Site amplification functions for Central and Eastern North America—Part II: Modular simulation-based models. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 815–847.
34.
HarmonJHashashYMAStewartJPRathjeEMCampbellKWSilvaWJXuBMusgroveMIlhanO (2019b) Site amplification functions for Central and Eastern North America—Part I: Simulation data set development. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 787–814.
35.
HashashYMAKottkeARStewartJPCampbellKWKimBMossCNikolaouSRathjeEMSilvaWJ (2014) Reference rock site condition for Central and Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(2): 684–701.
36.
HeathDCWaldDJWordenCBThompsonEMSmoczykGM (2020) A global hybrid VS30 map with a topographic slope–based default and regional map insets. Earthquake Spectra36(3): 1570–1584.
37.
HimelAKWoodCM (2023) An approach for developing site signature consistent deep shear wave velocity profiles for the Mississippi embayment using generalized power-law functions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering164: 107652.
38.
HirakawaEAagaardB (2022) Evaluation and updates for the USGS San Francisco Bay region 3D seismic velocity model in the East and North Bay portions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America112(4): 2070–2096.
39.
KaklamanosJBradleyBAMoolacattuANPicardBM (2020) Physical hypotheses for adjusting coarse profiles and improving 1D site-response estimation assessed at 10 KiK-net sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(3): 1338–1358.
40.
KingPBBeikmanHM (1974) Explanatory text to accompany the geologic map of the United States. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 901. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
41.
KruiverPPVan DedemERomijnRDe LangeGKorffMStafleuJGunninkJLRodriguez-MarekABommerJJVan ElkJDoornhofD (2017) An integrated shear-wave velocity model for the Groningen gas field, the Netherlands. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(9): 3555–3580.
42.
KtenidouOCottonFAbrahamsonNAAndersonJG (2014) Taxonomy of κ: A review of definitions and estimation approaches targeted to applications. Seismological Research Letters85(1): 135–146.
43.
KwakDYAhdiSKWangPZimmaroPBrandenbergSJStewartJP (2021) Web portal for shear wave velocity and HVSR databases in support of site response research and applications. UCLA Geotechnical Engineering Group, San Pedro, CA. Available at https://vspdb.org/login/index.php (accessed November 9th, 2022).
44.
LeeRLBradleyBAGhisettiFCThomsonEM (2017) Development of a 3D velocity model of the Canterbury, New Zealand, region for broadband ground-motion simulation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(5): 2131–2150.
45.
LiMRathjeEMCoxBRYustM (2022) A Texas-specific VS30 map incorporating geology and VS30 observations. Earthquake Spectra38(1): 521–542.
46.
LinY-CJohS-HStokoeKH (2014) Analyst J: Analysis of the UTexas 1 surface wave dataset using the SASW methodology. In: Proceedings of the geo-congress 2014: Geo-characterization and modeling for sustainability, Atlanta, GA, 23–26 February, pp. 830–839. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
47.
MarafiNAGrantAMaurerBWRateriaGEberhardMOBermanJW (2021) A generic soil velocity model that accounts for near-surface conditions and deeper geologic structure. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering140: 106461.
48.
MarcusonWFWahlsHE (1972) Time effects on dynamic shear modulus of clays. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division98(12): 1359–1373.
49.
MuellerCS (1999) Site response in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal plains and Mississippi embayment. US Geological Survey, Interagency Agreement RES-99-002. Denver, CO: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
50.
MuellerCS (2008) Mapping site response in the Coastal Plain and Mississippi embayment regions of the Southeastern United States. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
51.
ParkerGAHarmonJAStewartJPHashashYMAKottkeARRathjeEMSilvaWJCampbellKW (2017) Proxy-based VS30 estimation in Central and Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(1): 117–131.
52.
ParkerGAStewartJPHashashYMARathjeEMCampbellKWSilvaWJ (2019) Empirical linear seismic site amplification in Central and Eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 849–881.
53.
PetersenMDShumwayAMPowersPMMuellerCSMoschettiMPFrankelADRezaeianSMcNamaraDELucoNBoydOSRukstalesKSJaiswalKThompsonEMHooverSMClaytonBFieldEHZengY (2020) The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 5–41.
54.
PrattTL (2018) Characterizing and imaging sedimentary strata using depth-converted spectral ratios: An example from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the Eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(5A): 2801–2815.
55.
PrattTLSchleicherLS (2021) Characterizing ground-motion amplification by extensive flat-lying sediments: The seismic response of the Eastern US Atlantic Coastal Plain strata. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(4): 1795–1823.
56.
PrattTLHortonJWJrMuñozJHoughSEChapmanMCOlgunCG (2017) Amplification of earthquake ground motions in Washington, DC, and implications for hazard assessments in Central and Eastern North America. Geophysical Research Letters44(24): 12150–12160.
57.
RahimiSWoodCBernhardt-BarryMHimelAK (2019) Updated reference shear wave velocity curves for near-surface site characterization. In: International conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering, pp. 324–333. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Available at: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482131.033 (accessed 23 December 2023).
58.
RomeroSMRixGJ (2005) Ground motion amplification of soils in the upper Mississippi embayment. MAE Center CD Release 05-01. Mid-America Earthquake Center. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/2142/8940 (accessed May 3rd, 2021).
59.
SasanakulIGassmanS (2019) Deep soil test borings to determine shear wave velocities across South Carolina. FHWA-SC-19-04. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Transportation.
60.
SchleicherLSPrattTL (2021) Characterizing fundamental resonance peaks on flat-lying sediments using multiple spectral ratio methods: An example from the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(4): 1824–1848.
61.
SchrubenPGArndtREBawiecWJKingPBBeikmanHM (1994) Geology of the conterminous United States at 1:2,500,000 scale—A digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman map. US Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-11. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
62.
SeyhanEStewartJP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1241–1256.
63.
ShiJAsimakiD (2018) A generic velocity profile for basin sediments in California conditioned on VS30. Seismological Research Letters89(4): 1397–1409.
StephensonWJOdumJMcnamaraDWilliamsRAngsterS (2015) Ground-motion site effects from multimethod shear-wave velocity characterization at 16 seismograph stations deployed for aftershocks of the August 2011 mineral, Virginia earthquake. Special Paper of the Geological Society of America509: 47–65.
66.
StewartJPParkerGAHarmonJAAtkinsonGMBooreDMDarraghRBSilvaWJHashashYMA (2017) Expert panel recommendations for ergodic site amplification in Central and Eastern North America. PEER report 2017/04. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Engineering Research Institute.
67.
SykoraDW (1987) Examination of existing shear wave velocity and shear modulus correlations in soils. US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Available at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA214721.pdf (accessed May 9th, 2023).
68.
TeagueDPCoxBR (2016) Site response implications associated with using non-unique Vs profiles from surface wave inversion in comparison with other commonly used methods of accounting for Vs uncertainty. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering91: 87–103.
69.
TeagueDPCoxBRRathjeEM (2018) Measured vs. predicted site response at the Garner Valley Downhole Array considering shear wave velocity uncertainty from borehole and surface wave methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering113: 339–355.
70.
ThompsonEMWaldDJWordenCB (2014) A VS30 map for California with geologic and topographic constraints. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2313–2321.
71.
ThomsonEMBradleyBALeeRL (2020) Methodology and computational implementation of a New Zealand Velocity Model (NZVM2. 0) for broadband ground motion simulation. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics63(1): 110–127.
72.
WillsCJClahanKB (2006) Developing a map of geologically defined site-condition categories for California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96(4A): 1483–1501.
73.
YassminhRGallegosASandvolENiJ (2019) Investigation of the regional site response in the Central and Eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(3): 1005–1024.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
