Analyses of site effects in the 2020 M 5.6 Magna mainshock and aftershocks and development of shallow site amplification factors for Salt Lake Valley,Utah
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2025
Analyses of site effects in the 2020 M 5.6 Magna mainshock and aftershocks and development of shallow site amplification factors for Salt Lake Valley,Utah
The 18 March 2020 M 5.6 Magna, Utah earthquake near Salt Lake City was recorded by more than 160 strong motion/broadband stations. The ground motions compare favorably with the NGA-West2 ground motion models (GMMs) using estimates of VS30 but there are numerous exceptions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the site effects at 26 seismic stations located in the Salt Lake Valley. We evaluated the data from the mainshock and seven largest aftershocks (M 3.9 to 4.6) and performed a one-dimensional (1D) random vibration theory equivalent-linear site response analysis (SRA). We compared our predicted site amplification with the recorded ground motions to evaluate which features in the data could be predicted using a 1D approach. We first updated the 2008 Utah Geological Survey shallow shear-wave velocity (VS) database. Shallow VS profiles were assigned to each seismic station and extended to the source depth of 7 km using the Wasatch Front Community Velocity Model. Next an inversion was performed to evaluate stress drops, kappa, and Q(f) using recordings from 109 earthquakes (M 2.9 to 5.6). The resulting parameters were then used in the SRA for four Salt Lake Valley site categories to compute linear amplification factors (AFs). These factors were then compared with the AFs (response spectra) implied by the NGA-West2 GMMs for the 26 seismic stations. Horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios were also calculated from the recorded data and compared with the AFs (Fourier amplitude spectra) from the SRA to evaluate the consistency of the predicted site resonant frequencies. Our predicted AFs for the mainshock generally agree with the NGA-West2 AFs except for the softest unit where we predict more soil nonlinearity and higher long-period amplification. Our results also show an underprediction at short periods and close-in distances which may be due to a source effect, for example, radiation pattern and/or rupture directivity.
AbrahamsonNSilvaWKamaiR (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground-motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra30: 1025–1055.
2.
AshlandFRollinsK (1999) Seismic zonation using geotechnical site-response mapping, Salt Lake Valley, Utah. Utah Geological Survey Final Technical Report Prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey NEHRP, Contract No. 1434-HQ-97-GR-03126, 31 p.
3.
BayJSasanakulI (2005) Measurement of nonlinear dynamic properties of Bonneville silty-clays. Report Submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey Under Award Number: 04HQGR0055.
4.
BooreD (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73: 1865–1894.
5.
BooreD (2010) Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100: 1830–1835.
6.
BooreDStewartJSeyhanEAtkinsonG (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30: 1057–1085.
7.
BozorgniaYAbrahamsonNAl AtikLAnchetaTAtkinsonGBooreDCampbellKChiouBDarraghRDaySDonahueJGravesRGregorNHanksTIdrissIKamaiRKishidaTKottkeAMahinSRezaeianSRowshandelBSeyhanEShahiSShantzTSilvaWSpudichPStewartJWatson-LampreyJWooddellKYoungsR (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra30: 973–987.
8.
BruneJ (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research75: 4997–5002.
9.
BruneJ (1971) Correction: Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research76: 5002.
10.
CampbellKBozorgniaY (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30: 1087–1115.
11.
CarpenterNWangZWooleryERongM (2018) Estimating site response with recordings from deep boreholes and HVSR: Examples from the Mississippi embayment of the central United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 1199–1209.
12.
ChiouBYoungsR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA ground motion model for average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30: 1117–1153.
13.
DarraghRAbrahamsonNSilvaWGregorN (2015) Development of hard rock ground motion models for region 2 of Central and Eastern North America,. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER Report 2015/04: 51–84.
14.
DarraghRWongISilvaW (2019) Evaluating Kappa, Q(f) and stress parameter in the southern Colorado Rocky Mountains of central Colorado. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109: 586–599.
15.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) Guidelines for determining design basic ground motions, v. 1–5: Method and guidelines for estimating Earthquakes ground motion in Eastern North America. EPRI Report TR-102293.
16.
HanksTMcGuireR (1981) The character of high-frequency strong ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America71: 2071–2095.
HoltJWhiddenKKoperKPankowKMayedaKPechmannJEdwardsBGökRWalterW (2021) Toward robust and routine determination of Mw for small earthquakes: Application to the 2020Mw 5.7 Magna, Utah, seismic sequence. Seismological Research Letters92: 725–740.
19.
KimHLinFPechmannJHardwickCMcKeanA (2025) Seismic imaging of the Salt Lake Basin using joint inversion of receiver functions and Rayleigh wave data. Seismological Research Letters130: e2024JB030927.
20.
KonnoKOhmachiT (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America88: 228–241.
21.
KottkeAAbrahamsonNBooreDBozorgniaYGouletCHollenbackJKishidaTKiureghianAKtenidouOKuehnNRathjeESilvaWThompsonEWangX (2018) Selection of random vibration procedures for the NGA-East Project. PEER report 2018/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
22.
KtenidouODarraghRSilvaWTraversaPBozorgniaY (2021) Kappa effects at hard rock sites. Electric Power Research Institute, 9November EPRI TR-3002020750, Palo Alto, CA.
23.
KtenidouOSilvaWDarraghRAbrahamsonNKishidaT (2017) Squeezing Kappa (κ) out of the transportable array: A strategy for using bandlimited data in regions of sparse seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 256–275.
24.
LevandowskiWBoydOAbdelHameidDMcNamaraD (2021) Crustal seismic attenuation of the central United States and Intermountain West. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth126: e2021JB022097.
25.
McDonaldGAshlandF (2008) Earthquake site conditions in the Wasatch Front urban corridor, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Special Study125, p. 41.
26.
MagistraleHOlsenKPechmannJ (2008) Construction and verification of a Wasatch Front community velocity model: Collaborative research with San Diego State University and the University of Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report submitted to NEHRP, p. 14.
27.
MoschettiMChurchwellDThompsonERekoskeJWolinEBoydO (2021) Seismic wave propagation and basin amplification in the Wasatch Front, Utah. Seismological Research Letters92: 3626–3641.
28.
MoschettiMHartzellSRamirez-GuzmanLFrankelAAngsterSStephensonW (2017) 3D ground motion simulations of Mw 7 earthquakes on the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault zone: Variability of long-period (T ≥ 1 s) ground motions and sensitivity to kinematic rupture parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 1704–1723.
29.
NakamuraY (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface,. Railway Technical Research Institute Quarterly Reports30(1).
30.
OuGHerrmannR (1990) A statistical model for ground motion produced by earthquakes at local and regional distances. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America80: 1397–1417.
31.
PangGKoperKMesimeriMPankowKBakerBFarrellJHoltJHaleJRobersonPBurlacuRPechmannJWhiddenSSolomonKHoltMAllamADuRossC (2020) Seismic analysis of the 2020 Magna, Utah, earthquake sequence: Evidence for a listric Wasatch fault. Geophysical Research Letters47: 1–10.
32.
PechmannJWongIDuRossCHyllandMCroneAPersoniusSMcKeanAArabaszWSchwartzDOligSLundWDinterD (2023) A logic tree for the subsurface geometry of the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault in light of the 2020 Magna, Utah, earthquake (abs.). In: Proceedings Volume 2022 Basin and Range Earthquake Summit, Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication, pp. 177.
33.
PetersenMShumwayAPowersP (2024) The 2023 U.S. 50-state national seismic Hazard model: Overview and implications. Earthquake Spectra40: 5–88.
34.
PhillipsWMayedaKMalagniniL (2013) How to invert multi-band, regional phase amplitudes for 2-D attenuation and source parameters: Tests using the USArray. Pure and Applied Geophysics171: 469–484.
35.
PollitzFWicksCSvarcJ (2021) Coseismic fault slip and associated afterslip associated with the 18 March 2020 M 5.7 Magna, Utah, earthquake. Seismological Research Letters92: 741–754.
36.
RekoskeJThompsonEMoschettiMHearneMAagaardBParkerG (2020) The 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence ground motions: Processed records and derived intensity metrics. Seismological Research Letters91: 2010–2023.
37.
RongMFuLWangZLiXCarpenterNWooleryELyuY (2017) On the amplitude discrepancy of HVSR and site amplification from strong-motion observations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 2873–2884.
38.
RotenDOlsenKPechmannJ (2011) 3D simulations of M 7 earthquakes on the Wasatch fault, Utah, Part 1: Long-period (0–1 Hz) ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101: 2045–2063.
39.
SedaghatiFRahpeymaSAnsariAPezeshkSZareMDaneshvaranS (2020) A study of horizontal-to-vertical component spectral ratio as a proxy for site classification in central Asia. Geophysical Journal International223: 1355–1377.
40.
SilvaW (1976) Body waves in a layered anelastic solid. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America66: 1539–1554.
41.
SilvaWAbrahamsonNToroGCostantinoC (1996) Description and validation of the stochastic ground motion model. Unpublished report prepared for Brookhaven National Laboratory by Pacific Engineering and Analysis.
42.
SilvaWLeeK (1987) WES RASCAL code for synthesizing earthquake ground motions: State-of-the-art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States. Report 24: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, p. 120.
43.
SilvaWDarraghRKishidaTKtenidouOPikoulisE (2021) INL—SSHAC Level 3 Study: Estimation of source, path and site parameters and their uncertainty: Idaho National Laboratory. INL/EXT-21-65281.
44.
Site Effects Assessment Using Ambient Excitations (SESAME) (2004) Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations measurements, processing and interpretation,. SESAME European Research Project WP12—Deliverable D2312.
45.
TheodulidisNBardP (1995) Horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio and geological conditions: An analysis of strong motion data from Greece and Taiwan (SMART-1). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering14: 177–197.
46.
VantasselJ (2025) Hvsrpy: An open-source Python package for microtremor and earthquake horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio processing. Seismological Research Letters96: 1–12. DOI: 10.1785/0220240395.
47.
VantasselJIlgacMAthanasopoulos ZekkosAYongAHassaniBMartinA (2024) Are the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios of earthquakes and microtremors the same?Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114: 3078–3092.
48.
WellsDLomaxABakerBBartleyJPankowK (2024) Wasatch fault structure from machine learning arrival times and high-precision earthquake locations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114: 1902–1919.
49.
WGUEP (Working Group on Utah Earthquake Probabilities)WongILundWDuRossCThomasPArabaszWCroneAHyllandMLucoNOligSPechmannJPersoniusSPetersenMSchwartzDSmithRBowmanS (2016) Earthquake probabilities for the Wasatch Front region in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming: Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 16-3, 164 p., 5 appendices.
50.
WongIThomasP (2024) Hazard implications of synchronous fault rupture: Case study of the Wasatch and West Valley faults, Utah. Earthquake Spectra40: 107–120.
51.
WongIDarraghRSmithSWuQSilvaWKishidaT (2022a) Ground motion models for shallow crustal and deep earthquakes in Hawaii and analyses of the 2018 M 6.9 Kalapana sequence. Earthquake Spectra38: 579–614.
52.
WongISilvaWOligSThomasPWrightDAshlandFGregorNPechmannJDoberMChristensonGGerthR (2002) Earthquake scenario and probabilistic ground shaking maps for the Salt Lake City, Utah, metropolitan area, Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication MP-02-05, 50 p. with CD-ROM.
53.
WongIThomasPPechmannJ (2022b) The implications of a listric Wasatch fault for seismic hazard, design, and risk along Utah’s Wasatch Front: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (conference website).
54.
WongIWuQPechmannJ (2021) The 18 March 2020 M 5.7 Magna, Utah earthquake: Strong motion data and implications for seismic hazard in the Salt Lake Valley. Seismological Research Letters92: 1–14.
55.
XuKOlsenKYehT (2025) Three-dimensional 0-10 Hz physics-based simulations of the 2020 Magna, Utah earthquake sequence. Earthquake Spectra41 (published online).
56.
ZhuCCottonFPilzM (2020) Detecting site resonant frequency using HVSR: Fourier versus response spectrum and the first versus the highest peak frequency. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110: 427–440
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.
