Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Vincent Quitoriano

Publications and source records attributed to Vincent Quitoriano.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Quantifying and Qualifying USGS ShakeMap Uncertainty

We describe algorithms for quantifying and qualifying uncertainties associated with USGS ShakeMap ground motions. The uncertainty values computed consist of latitude/longitude grid-based multiplicative factors that scale the standard deviation associated with the ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) used within the ShakeMap algorithm for estimating ground motions. The resulting grid-based 'uncertainty map' is essential for evaluation of losses derived using ShakeMaps as the hazard input. For ShakeMap, ground motion uncertainty at any point is dominated by two main factors: (i) the influence of any proximal ground motion observations, and (ii) the uncertainty of estimating ground motions from the GMPE, most notably, elevated uncertainty due to initial, unconstrained source rupture geometry. The uncertainty is highest for larger magnitude earthquakes when source finiteness is not yet constrained and, hence, the distance to rupture is also uncertain. In addition to a spatially-dependant, quantitative assessment, many users may prefer a simple, qualitative grading for the entire ShakeMap. We developed a grading scale that allows one to quickly gauge the appropriate level of confidence when using rapidly produced ShakeMaps as part of the post-earthquake decision-making process or for qualitative assessments of archived or historical earthquake ShakeMaps. We describe an uncertainty letter grading ('A' through 'F', for high to poor quality, respectively) based on the uncertainty map. A middle-range ('C') grade corresponds to a ShakeMap for a moderate-magnitude earthquake suitably represented with a point-source location. Lower grades 'D' and 'F' are assigned for larger events (M>6) where finite-source dimensions are not yet constrained. The addition of ground motion observations (or observed macroseismic intensities) reduces uncertainties over data-constrained portions of the map. Higher grades ('A' and 'B') correspond to ShakeMaps with constrained fault dimensions and numerous stations, depending on the density of station/data coverage. Due to these dependencies, the letter grade can change with subsequent ShakeMap revisions if more data are added or when finite-faulting dimensions are added. We emphasize that the greatest uncertainties are associated with unconstrained source dimensions for large earthquakes where the distance term in the GMPE is most uncertain; this uncertainty thus scales with magnitude (and consequently rupture dimension). Since this distance uncertainty produces potentially large uncertainties in ShakeMap ground-motion estimates, this factor dominates over compensating constraints for all but the most dense station distributions.

Open-File Report

ShakeMap manual: technical manual, user's guide, and software guide

ShakeMap (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/shakemap) --rapidly, automatically generated shaking and intensity maps--combines instrumental measurements of shaking with information about local geology and earthquake location and magnitude to estimate shaking variations throughout a geographic area. The results are rapidly available via the Web through a variety of map formats, including Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages. These maps have become a valuable tool for emergency response, public information, loss estimation, earthquake planning, and post-earthquake engineering and scientific analyses. With the adoption of ShakeMap as a standard tool for a wide array of users and uses came an impressive demand for up-to-date technical documentation and more general guidelines for users and software developers. This manual is meant to address this need. ShakeMap, and associated Web and data products, are rapidly evolving as new advances in communications, earthquake science, and user needs drive improvements. As such, this documentation is organic in nature. We will make every effort to keep it current, but undoubtedly necessary changes in operational systems take precedence over producing and making documentation publishable.

Techniques and Methods

Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps for the Nisqually, Washington, earthquake of 28 February 2001

We present isoseismal maps, macroseismic intensities, and community summaries of damage for the MW=6.8 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake of 28 February, 2001. For many communities, two types of macroseismic intensity are assigned, the traditional U.S. Geological Survey Modified Mercalli Intensities (USGS MMI) and a type of intensity newly introduced with this paper, the USGS Reviewed Community Internet Intensity (RCII). For most communities, the RCII is a reviewed version of the Community Internet Intensity (CII) of Wald and others (1999). For some communities, RCII is assigned from such non-CII sources as press reports, engineering reports, and field reconnaissance observations. We summarize differences between procedures used to assign RCII and USGS MMI, and we show that the two types of intensity are nonetheless very similar for the Nisqually earthquake. We do not see evidence for systematic differences between RCII and USGS MMI that would approach one intensity unit, at any level of shaking, but we document a tendency for the RCII to be slightly lower than MMI in regions of low intensity and slightly higher than MMI in regions of high intensity. The highest RCII calculated for the Nisqually earthquake is 7.6, calculated for zip code 98134, which includes the ?south of downtown? (Sodo) area of Seattle and Harbor Island. By comparison, we assigned a traditional USGS MMI 8 to the Sodo area of Seattle. In all, RCII of 6.5 and higher were assigned to 58 zip-code regions. At the lowest intensities, the Nisqually earthquake was felt over an area of approximately 350,000 square km (approximately 135,000 square miles) in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and southern British Columbia, Canada. On the basis of macroseismic effects, we infer that shaking in the southern Puget Sound region was somewhat less for the 2001 Nisqually earthquake than for the Puget Sound earthquake of April 13, 1949, which had nearly the same hypocenter and magnitude. Allowing for differences in hypocenter, shaking in the 2001 earthquake was very similar to that produced by the Puget Sound earthquake of April 25, 1965. First-person accounts of the effects of the 2001 earthquake on individual households are given for some communities.

Open-File Report

Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California

We have developed regression relationships between Modified Mercalli Intensity ( I mm ) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) and velocity (PGV) by comparing horizontal peak ground motions to observed intensities for eight significant California earthquakes. For the limited range of Modified Mercalli intensities ( I mm ), we find that for peak acceleration with V ≤ I mm ≤ VIII, I mm = 3.66 log ( PGA ) − 1.66, and for peak velocity with V ≤ I mm ≤ IX, I mm = 3.47 log ( PGV ) + 2.35. From comparison with observed intensity maps, we find that a combined regression based on peak velocity for intensity > VII and on peak acceleration for intensity < VII is most suitable for reproducing observed I mm patterns, consistent with high intensities being related to damage (proportional to ground velocity) and with lower intensities determined by felt accounts (most sensitive to higher-frequency ground acceleration). These new I mm relationships are significantly different from the Trifunac and Brady (1975) correlations, which have been used extensively in loss estimation.

California