Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Susan E. Hough

Publications and source records attributed to Susan E. Hough.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2026

The digital archivist: Automating legacy macroseismic data processing using large language models

Macroseismic data are a key resource to investigate shaking and damage from preinstrumental and early instrumental eras. However, data are often stored as inconsistently formatted reports describing observed shaking and damage, making manually parsing and interpreting accounts labor‐intensive. We introduce a novel workflow using Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro large language model (LLM) to automate the extraction and structuring of macroseismic observations from summary reports. We apply this workflow to the 22 March 1957 M 5.3 Daly City, California, earthquake as a case study. We used Gemini to extract addresses, originally assigned modified Mercalli intensity values, and descriptions from each report. To address coordinate precision limits, addresses were geocoded via Google’s Geocoding application programming interface. This workflow yielded over 2300 geocoded intensity reports for the Daly City earthquake. We use the geocoded accounts, with the original report intensity assignments, to develop a shaking intensity map that in some respects rivals modern Did You Feel It? Maps. We also extract and present data for the 9 February 1971 M L 6.7 Sylmar, California, earthquake. Our results demonstrate the potential of LLMs for reliably extracting and analyzing large, unstructured macroseismic datasets. LLMs offer a scalable solution for rapidly digitizing macroseismic archives, enabling their broader use to constrain ground‐motion models in modern seismic hazard analysis and to improve our understanding of site effects in urban areas. The concepts explored here may also be applied to the handling of other legacy seismological and earth science data.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2026

Only very strong shaking can break a tree

A handful of credible accounts, both recent and historical, describe trees being broken during earthquakes. Apart from landslides and tsunamis, such accounts are uncommon, suggesting that trees break only when ground acceleration is extreme or when trees are especially vulnerable to breakage. Here, I consider the question: what ground acceleration is required to break a living tree? I present simplified first‐principles calculations, considering the properties of common trees, focusing on tall, thin trees that can be approximated as uniform vertical cantilevers. The results suggest that, possibly excepting tall trees with heavy canopies, standing trees can only be broken by shaking approaching or exceeding 1 g , as anticipated by the rarity of documented accounts of snapped trees. I briefly consider several well‐documented instances of tree damage during strong earthquakes, drawing inferences about local ground motions.

The Seismic Record↗
USGS2026

Preface to the focus section on intraplate earthquakes

More than a half century after plate tectonics provided an overarching framework to explain earthquakes along active plate boundaries, numerous theories have been proposed to explain where, why, and how often earthquakes occur well away from active plate boundaries, but a paradigm remains elusive. Even the classification of earthquakes away from active plate boundaries as "intraplate" raises issues, with potentially important distinctions between Stable Continental Regions and more actively deforming regions including passive margins and failed rifts. Some of the largest known intraplate earthquakes themselves remain enigmatic, having occurred before the modern instrumental era. Hazard assessments are often data-limited: low fault-slip rates relative to landscape modification rates result in poor discoverability of fault sources, challenging the characterization of source zones and earthquake recurrence; the completeness and homogenization of instrumental earthquake catalogs using uncertain magnitude conversions can lead to uncertainties in earthquake recurrence; and, limited strong-motion observations for large-magnitude events at near-source distances leads to uncertainties in the selection and development of ground-motion models for seismic hazard studies. Data from recent intraplate earthquakes around the world—from the moment magnitude M 7.7 2001 Bhuj, India, earthquake 25 years ago to the 2024 M 4.8 Tewksbury, New Jersey earthquake—have yielded both new insights and new questions. The papers in this special focus discuss many of the long-standing challenges involved with intraplate earthquake investigations and provide a snapshot of the state of the art with current research to advance our understanding.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2025

Did they feel it? Legacy maroseismic data illuminates an engimatic 20th century earthquake

The challenges and the importance of preserving legacy instrumental records of earthquakes are now well-recognized (e.g., Richards & Hellweg, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200053 ). Seismologists may not be aware of parallel challenges and opportunities with legacy macroseismic data for earthquakes in the United States. For much of the 20th century, macroseismic data were collected by a series of U.S. government agencies using a standard questionnaire distributed on postcards. Published summaries of postcards provide macroseismic data akin to modern Did You Feel It? questionnaire responses. In this paper we focus on the M 6.5 Fickle Hill, California earthquake, on 21 December 1954 (Hellweg et al., 2025) as a proof-of-concept, illustrating the potential of what we dub Did They Feel It? (DTFI) data to improve our understanding of significant 20th century U.S. earthquakes for which instrumental data are sparse. Legacy macroseismic data interpreted following modern conventions can potentially constrain traditional ShakeMaps at a level of detail and accuracy that in some respects rival maps for modern earthquakes. The updated ShakeMap for the 1954 Fickle Hill earthquake, also drawing from recently published media and first-person accounts, supports the location, depth, and stress drop value estimated from available instrumental data (Hellweg et al., 2025).

California↗
USGS2025

Revisiting an enigma on California's north coast: The Mw6.5 Fickle Hill earthquake of 21 December 1954

Many earthquakes occur along the North Coast of California in the vicinity of the Mendocino Triple Junction (MTJ), where the Pacific, Gorda, and North American (NA) plates meet, and on the adjacent plate boundaries. The MTJ marks the nexus of the Mendocino and San Andreas faults with the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ). Historically, most large earthquakes around the MTJ have been within the offshore Gorda plate and its subducted portion beneath the NA plate. North of the MTJ, active faults mapped in the NA plate are part of the CSZ fold‐and‐thrust belt. Although some events have been detected in the NA plate, no large historic events have been associated with mapped surface faults. The 21 December 1954 M w 6.5 earthquake in Humboldt County is one possible exception. Using published data from catalogs and articles, unpublished data from Berkeley’s archives, and S ‐ P times interpreted from two U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) accelerometers, we determine a probability cloud for the earthquake’s hypocenter using NonLinLoc. The highest probability location lies beneath Fickle Hill just east of the city of Arcata, California, at 40.87° N, 124.03° W, and ∼11 km depth. Using P ‐wave polarities from Berkeley stations and the digitized waveforms from the accelerometers, we find that the focal mechanism most consistent with the data indicates thrust movement with strike, dip, and rake of 350°, 10°, and 90°, respectively, at a depth of 14 km. Given the depth uncertainties of both this event and the megathrust, this implies that the earthquake most likely took place on the subduction interface rather than on the mapped faults in the Mad River fault zone that trend 322° and dip to the northeast. The revisited intensity in the epicentral region also supports a location beneath Fickle Hill to the east of the city of Arcata, California.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2025

Reflections on a trio of North American earthquakes in 1925

In 1925, three moderately large damaging earthquakes occurred in North America over four months: the 28 February (local time; LT) M 6.2 Charlevoix, 27 June (LT) M 6.6 Montana, and 29 June M 6.5 Santa Barbara earthquakes. The centennial anniversaries of these events motivated this retrospective consideration focused on the ground motions generated by the three events, including a reconsideration of early intensity assignments for the Montana earthquake. At the time, these three earthquakes appeared to support the arguments of some geologists who downplayed the severity of seismic hazard in southern California relative to other parts of the country. Some of the arguments advanced at that time, for example that Los Angeles “has the least to fear from ‘Acts of God’ of any city under the American flag,” ( Hill, 1928 ) sound naïve if not laughable now, but a comparison of well‐constrained shaking distributions for the three earthquakes reveals the dramatic difference in wave propagation efficiency in western versus eastern North America (ENAM), which leads to moderate ENAM events being felt to much larger distances. At M 6.2, the 1925 Charlevoix earthquake was a notably large event in ENAM. This earthquake was the largest event in eastern Canada since 1870 and caused damage in the epicentral region in addition to towns as far away as 200 km, with felt shaking extending over 1000 km. In contrast, felt shaking from the Santa Barbara earthquake barely extended beyond ∼200 km. Compiling published intensity distributions for larger ENAM earthquakes, we show that perceptible earthquake shaking is not uncommon in ENAM over century time scales, but experience with weakly felt shaking may incline people to downplay potential earthquake risk.

California, Montana, Quebec↗
USGS2025

Macroseismology

In this chapter I discuss the use of so-called macroseismic data, i.e., reports of damage and other effects of shaking on humans and the built environment, to improve the characterization of earthquakes and the ground motions they produce. Macroseismic data are critical not only to investigate earthquakes that occurred before the start of the instrumental era in seismology, but are also, by virtue of the spatially rich nature of the data, of tremendous potential importance to investigate early instrumental and even recent earthquakes. Fueled by both the advent of on-line systems that now produce unprecedented volumes of macroseismic intensity data and by recognition of the importance of understanding key historical earthquakes, there has been a growing appreciation for the value of macroseismic data. It is, however, critical to understand both the unique challenges and the unique opportunities associated with these data. I review the evolution of thought and practices regarding analysis of macroseismic data, and the use of such data to improve the characterization of historic and early instrumental earthquakes.

Book chapter↗
USGS2025

What 25+ years of "Did You Feel It" intensities tell us about shaking in California

“When will the Big One happen?” is a question that people often have for earthquake scientists. But while waiting for the “Big One” to occur, people will usually experience frightening or damaging shaking from multiple relatively smaller‐magnitude earthquakes. Given this context, it raises the question: “Where does most of the damage come from?” Could smaller, yet more frequent, earthquakes account for the majority of reported impactful shaking? To explore this question, we consider reports of earthquake damage and felt shaking experiences from a catalog of community‐collected intensity values from the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” system. Comparing these intensities to expectations from a ground‐motion model, we find that earthquakes of magnitudes smaller than expected are responsible for most reported intensities of community decimal intensities (CDI) 4.5 and above (moderate and higher shaking intensity levels). (Here “expected value” is meant in its mathematical sense of the mean or equivalently median shaking intensity.) We also present a regional analysis of observed earthquake shaking for specific areas, detailing the maximum intensity experienced within a predetermined area. We identify several instances of M < 4.5 events that generated maximum intensities of CDI > 5 in regions in California surrounding the cities of Eureka, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Our results motivate the need to include smaller‐magnitude earthquakes in communications about earthquake hazard and risk reduction.

California↗
USGS2025

Haunted Summerville: Ghostly lights or earthquake lights?

Among the colorful local lore in the Charleston, South Carolina, area, are a number of ghost stories, shared not only over campfires but also in published books. Among the most well-known of the stories is the tale of the Summerville Light. Local lore holds that a strange light sometimes seen in a remote area is a lantern carried by the ghost of a local woman who once waited hours for her husband, who turned out to have been decapitated earlier that day in a train accident (DePoppe, 2023). Extant sources suggest the ghost stories began to circulate in the 1950s to 1960s. So pervasive was the lore that (Old) Sheep Island Road became known among local residents as Light Road, with a local stretch of road known today as Old Light Road. Reviewing the location where the lights appear as well as the nature of accounts, I suggest that many if not all of the anecdotal observations can be most readily attributed to natural phenomena, including earthquake lights from earthquakes that were too small to be felt. Accounts of lights near Summerville cluster in proximity to the generally accepted epicenter of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, where foreshocks to the 1886 mainshock were apparently concentrated, and within a few kilometers of three M3.5 – 4.4 earthquakes in 1959 and 1960.

South Carolina↗
USGS2025

Reply to, “Comment on ‘The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake: Relic railroad offset reveals rupture,’ by Roger Bilham and Susan E. Hough”

We welcome this opportunity to respond to Pratt et al. (2024) (hereinafter P24). Bilham and Hough (2023) proposed a “first-cut” elastic deformation model for the 1886 earthquake, a quantitative source model constrained by identified coseismic constraints. A key observation was the measurement of a lateral offset of a railroad line south of Summerville, leading to a model with predominately dextral slip and minor convergence, from which we concluded that active faulting had raised the Penholoway Marine Terrace >6 m since ∼770 ka. P24 questioned these constraints and proposed an alternative rupture model with predominantly reverse slip. This alternative model is neither consistent with coseismic constraints nor with other geophysical data. In a revised model presented here, we recognize that uplift of the Penholoway Terrace is confined to the eastern edge of the terrace, which we conclude results from active folding and tectonic transpression centered on the dextral fault that offset the railroad in 1886.

South Carolina↗
USGS2024

On algorithmically determined versus traditional macroseismic intensity assignments

The utility of macroseismic data, defined as the effects of earthquakes on humans and the built environment, has been increasingly recognized following the advent of online systems that now produce unprecedented volumes of macroseismic intensity information. Contributed reports from the U.S. Geological Survey “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system ( Wald et al ., 1999 ) are used to generate intensity values with an algorithm based on seminal work by Dengler and Dewey (1998) . The algorithm was developed initially to reproduce intensity values assigned by expert opinion using questionnaire results collected by telephone survey. In this article, I discuss reasons why intensity values from (self‐selected) DYFI responses can differ from values that would be assigned by expert opinion given more complete data from randomly selected participants. For example, with the data used by Dengler and Dewey (1998) , intensities near 4 could be determined from the percentage of people who felt shaking in each town. With less spatially rich data from self‐selected participants, this percentage often cannot be determined reliably. Audible noises are key additional diagnostic criteria for modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 4, but, although the DYFI system includes a question about noise, following Dengler and Dewey (1998) , the DYFI algorithm does not include a noise indicator. At the upper end of the scale, as defined the DYFI algorithm yields a maximum intensity value of 9.05, nominally corresponding to peak ground acceleration of 75% g . These and other factors can result in DYFI values that are low compared to traditional MMI values assigned using expert opinion, even absent factors that can bias traditional MMI assignments. Modern ground‐motion intensity conversion equations determined using DYFI intensities are expected to be appropriate for DYFI intensities, but the results of this study suggest that biases may be introduced if DYFI and traditional intensities are assumed to be interchangeable.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2024

A journey to the center of the USGS National Strong-motion Project processing and beyond

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Strong Motion Project (NSMP) has the primary U.S. government responsibility to acquire, process, and disseminate significant strong-motion earthquake ground motion records measured at surficial free-field stations, structures (buildings, dams, and bridges, and geotechnical arrays to the earthquake engineering community. As a result of the deployment of modern seismic instrumentation and growth of tools such as web-services, earthquake data from U.S. and international seismic networks are more accessible than ever. Our mission is to provide raw and processed strong-motion waveforms with PGA values greater than 0.1%g for M3.0 earthquakes and larger in California and M4.0 and larger within the conterminous US, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska. Datasets of interest to the engineering and geophysics communities, such as event sequences in areas of induced seismicity and significant global events, are also processed and posted at the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) at strongmotioncenter.org when available through collaboration with the international strong-motion data community. Here we outline (1) the NSMP’s current workflow to acquire, process, and distribute data at CESMD; (2) our new endeavours and collaborations focusing on comparison and integration of waveform processing software, development of techniques for metadata quality checks before and after earthquakes, and construction of a dynamic site characterization repository; and (3) our topics for possible collaboration topics across the global strong-motion community.

Conference Paper↗