Morgan P Moschetti, PhD
Morgan Moschetti is a research scientist in the Earthquake Hazards Program.
Professional Experience
2017–present Adjunct faculty, Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado
2011–present Research Geophysicist, USGS, Golden, Colorado
Project chief, Ground Motion Project (2018–present)
NAT External grants coordinator (2017–present)
2009–2011 Research Geophysicist–Mendenhall postdoctoral, USGS, Golden, Colorado
Education and Certifications
PhD, Geophysics, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, 2009, Dissertation title: Radially anisotropic shear-velocity structure of the crust and uppermost mantle beneath the western US from ambient noise tomography
MS, Geo-engineering (Applied Geophysics), Univ. of California, Berkeley, 2005
MS, Chemistry (Physical Chemistry), Univ. of California, Berkeley, 2004
BS with College Honors, Biochemistry, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, 1998
Science and Products
Basin and site effects in the U.S. Pacific Northwest estimated from small‐magnitude earthquakes
Inter-source interferometry of seismic body waves: Required conditions and examples
Seismic wave propagation and basin amplification in the Wasatch Front, Utah
The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground motion models in the western US
The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground motion models in the central and eastern US
Temporal seismic velocity variations: Recovery following from the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California earthquake
The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Where, why, and how much probabilistic ground motion maps changed
Spectral inversion for seismic site response in central Oklahoma: Low-frequency resonances from the Great Unconformity
A machine learning approach to developing ground motion models from simulated ground motions
The 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence ground motions: Processed records and derived intensity metrics
Evaluation of ground‐motion models for U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard forecasts: Hawaii tectonic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
Evaluation of ground‐motion models for U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard models: 2018 Anchorage, Alaska, Mw 7.1 subduction zone earthquake sequence
Science and Products
- Science
- Data
- Maps
- Publications
Filter Total Items: 57
Basin and site effects in the U.S. Pacific Northwest estimated from small‐magnitude earthquakes
Earthquake hazards in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW) are increased by the presence of deep sedimentary basins that amplify and prolong ground shaking. To better understand basin and site effects on ground motions, we compile a database of recordings from crustal and intraslab earthquakes. We process 8028 records with magnitudes from 3.5 to 6.8 and hypocentral depths up to 62 km to compute FourieAuthorsJohn Rekoske, Morgan P. Moschetti, Eric M. ThompsonInter-source interferometry of seismic body waves: Required conditions and examples
Seismic interferometry is widely applied to retrieve wavefields propagating between receivers. Another version of seismic interferometry, called inter-source interferometry, uses the principles of seismic reciprocity and expands interferometric applications to retrieve waves that propagate between two seismic sources. Previous studies of inter-source interferometry usually involve surface-wave andAuthorsP. Saengduean, Morgan P. Moschetti, R. SniederSeismic wave propagation and basin amplification in the Wasatch Front, Utah
Ground‐motion analysis of more than 3000 records from 59 earthquakes, including records from the March 2020 Mw 5.7 Magna earthquake sequence, was carried out to investigate site response and basin amplification in the Wasatch Front, Utah. We compare ground motions with the Bayless and Abrahamson (2019; hereafter, BA18) ground‐motion model (GMM) for Fourier amplitude spectra, which was developed onAuthorsMorgan P. Moschetti, David Henry Churchwell, Eric M. Thompson, John Rekoske, Emily Wolin, Oliver S. BoydThe 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground motion models in the western US
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is the scientific foundation of seismic design regulations in the United States and is regularly updated to consider the best available science and data. The 2018 update of the conterminous U.S. NSHM includes significant changes to the underlying ground motion models (GMMs), most of which are necessary to enable the new multi-pAuthorsPeter M. Powers, Sanaz Rezaeian, Allison Shumway, Mark D. Petersen, Nicolas Luco, Oliver S. Boyd, Morgan P. Moschetti, Arthur Frankel, Eric M. ThompsonThe 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground motion models in the central and eastern US
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) is the scientific foundation of seismic design regulations in the United States and is regularly updated to consider the best available science and data. The 2018 update of the conterminous US NSHM includes major changes to the underlying ground motion models (GMMs). Most of the changes are motivated by the new multi-pAuthorsSanaz Rezaeian, Peter M. Powers, Allison Shumway, Mark D. Petersen, Nicolas Luco, Arthur Frankel, Morgan P. Moschetti, Eric M. Thompson, Daniel McNamaraTemporal seismic velocity variations: Recovery following from the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California earthquake
We investigated seismic velocity changes (dv/v) associated with the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence with high‐frequency autocorrelations of ambient seismic noise data. Daily autocorrelation functions were computed for the entirety of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 for broadband stations within the region, including the temporary broadband stations installed during the aftershock deploymentAuthorsJoshua Dakota Boschelli, Morgan P. Moschetti, C Sens-SchonfelderThe 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Where, why, and how much probabilistic ground motion maps changed
The 2018 US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) incorporates new data and updated science to improve the underlying earthquake and ground motion forecasts for the conterminous United States. The NSHM considers many new data and component input models: (1) new earthquakes between 2013 and 2017 and updated earthquake magnitudes for some earlier earthquakes; (2) two updated smootheAuthorsMark D. Petersen, Allison Shumway, Peter M. Powers, Charles S Mueller, Morgan P. Moschetti, Arthur Frankel, Sanaz Rezaeian, Daniel McNamara, Nicolas Luco, Oliver S. Boyd, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Kishor Jaiswal, Eric M. Thompson, Susan M. Hoover, Brandon Clayton, Edward H. Field, Yuehua ZengSpectral inversion for seismic site response in central Oklahoma: Low-frequency resonances from the Great Unconformity
We investigate seismic site response by inverting seismic ground‐motion spectra for site and source spectral properties, in a region of central Oklahoma, where previous ground‐motion studies have indicated discrepancies between observations and ground‐motion models (GMMs). The inversion is constrained by a source spectral model, which we computed from regional seismic records, using aftershocks asAuthorsMorgan P. Moschetti, Stephen H. HartzellA machine learning approach to developing ground motion models from simulated ground motions
We use a machine learning approach to build a ground motion model (GMM) from a synthetic database of ground motions extracted from the Southern California CyberShake study. An artificial neural network is used to find the optimal weights that best fit the target data (without overfitting), with input parameters chosen to match that of state-of-the-art GMMs. We validate our synthetic-based GMM withAuthorsKyle Withers, Morgan P. Moschetti, Eric M. ThompsonThe 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence ground motions: Processed records and derived intensity metrics
Following the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence, we compiled ground‐motion records from multiple data centers and processed these records using newly developed ground‐motion processing software that performs quality assurance checks, performs standard time series processing steps, and computes a wide range of ground‐motion metrics. In addition, we compute station and waveform metricAuthorsJohn Rekoske, Eric M. Thompson, Morgan P. Moschetti, Mike Hearne, Brad T. Aagaard, Grace Alexandra ParkerEvaluation of ground‐motion models for U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard forecasts: Hawaii tectonic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
The selection and weighting of ground‐motion models (GMMs) introduces a significant source of uncertainty in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project (NSHMP) forecasts. In this study, we evaluate 18 candidate GMMs using instrumental ground‐motion observations of horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5%‐damped pseudospectral acceleration (0.02–10 s) for tectoniAuthorsDaniel E. McNamara, Emily Wolin, Peter M. Powers, Allison Shumway, Morgan P. Moschetti, John Rekoske, Eric M. Thompson, Charles Mueller, Mark D. PetersenEvaluation of ground‐motion models for U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard models: 2018 Anchorage, Alaska, Mw 7.1 subduction zone earthquake sequence
Instrumental ground‐motion recordings from the 2018 Anchorage, Alaska (Mw 7.1), earthquake sequence provide an independent data set allowing us to evaluate the predictive power of ground‐motion models (GMMs) for intraslab earthquakes associated with the Alaska subduction zone. In this study, we evaluate 15 candidate GMMs using instrumental ground‐motion observations of peak ground acceleration anAuthorsDaniel E. McNamara, Emily Wolin, Peter M. Powers, Allison Shumway, Morgan P. Moschetti, John Rekoske, Eric M. Thompson, Charles Mueller, Mark D. Petersen