Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70101100

Spatial variability of "Did You Feel It?" intensity data: insights into sampling biases in historical earthquake intensity distributions

Susan E. Hough
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent parallel development of improved quantitative methods to analyze intensity distributions for historical earthquakes and of web‐based systems for collecting intensity data for modern earthquakes provides an opportunity to reconsider not only important individual historical earthquakes but also the overall characterization of intensity distributions for historical events. The focus of this study is a comparison between intensity distributions of historical earthquakes with those from modern earthquakes for which intensities have been determined by the U.S. Geological Survey “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) website (see Data and Resources). As an example of a historical earthquake, I focus initially on the 1843 Marked Tree, Arkansas, event. Its magnitude has been previously estimated as 6.0–6.2. I first reevaluate the macroseismic effects of this earthquake, assigning intensities using a traditional approach, and estimate a preferred magnitude of 5.4. Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) values for the Marked Tree earthquake are higher, on average, than those from the 2011 >Mw 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake for distances ≤500 km but comparable or lower on average at larger distances, with a smaller overall felt extent. Intensity distributions for other moderate historical earthquakes reveal similar discrepancies; the discrepancy is also even more pronounced using earlier published intensities for the 1843 earthquake. I discuss several hypotheses to explain the discrepancies, including the possibility that intensity values associated with historical earthquakes are commonly inflated due to reporting/sampling biases. A detailed consideration of the DYFI intensity distribution for the Mineral earthquake illustrates how reporting and sampling biases can account for historical earthquake intensity biases as high as two intensity units and for the qualitative difference in intensity distance decays for modern versus historical events. Thus, intensity maps for historical earthquakes tend to imply more widespread damage patterns than are revealed by intensity distributions of modern earthquakes of comparable magnitude. However, intensity accounts of historical earthquakes often include fragmentary accounts suggesting long‐period shaking effects that will likely not be captured fully in historical intensity distributions.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Susan E. Hough. 2013-09-30. Spatial variability of "Did You Feel It?" intensity data: insights into sampling biases in historical earthquake intensity distributions. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120285

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Efficient physics‐informed ground‐motion simulations with reduced‐order models: CyberShake implications and high‐resolution site terms for southern San Andreas fault earthquakes

Recent advances in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) leverage physics‐based ground‐motion simulations to estimate seismic hazard, such as the CyberShake project. However, computational costs quickly escalate when performing PSHA for numerous faults or sites and can become prohibitively expensive. To reduce computational demands, CyberShake uses reciprocity and interpolates physics‐informed corrections from simulations conducted at fewer locations, but the accuracy of these interpolations remains poorly quantified. To quantify the interpolation accuracy, we derive high‐resolution, frequency‐dependent site terms for southern California and compare them with interpolated site terms using the CyberShake approach. We accomplish this by performing a set of earthquake point‐source simulations distributed along the nonplanar fault geometry for the southern San Andreas fault (SSAF) extending from Bombay Beach to Lake Hughes. Using SeisSol, we simulate three minutes of viscoelastic seismic wave propagation for these sources and store the horizontal‐component Green’s functions for 480,000 sites. We then use a scientific machine learning approach based on interpolated proper orthogonal decomposition to construct an accurate reduced‐order model of the Green’s functions to efficiently predict effective amplitude spectra (EAS) for finite‐source rupture models of SSAF earthquakes. Using minimum curvature interpolation with tension, as used in CyberShake, we compare the interpolated site terms against our high‐resolution site terms. We identify local discrepancies with EAS differing by up to a factor of approximately three. Furthermore, we identify locations where unexpectedly high or low ground motions are missed when using the interpolated dataset for these earthquakes. We estimate that our approach may be used within CyberShake to reduce the time‐to‐solution by a factor of 336 for the entire earthquake rupture forecast. Our analysis of physics‐based site terms provides more insight into the seismic hazard due to SSAF ruptures and guides future developments by combining high‐performance computing and reduced‐order modeling techniques for PSHA.

California↗
USGS2026

Simulation-based scenario ShakeMaps for large magnitude (MW6.5+) crustal earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults, Washington, USA

Scenario ground‐motion maps based on empirical ground‐motion models (GMMs) provide a rapid and generally reliable means of estimating the amplitude and distribution of earthquake shaking. However, because GMMs are designed for broad applicability, they often rely on simplified representations of Earth structure, which can limit their accuracy in regions with complex source, path, and site effects. This can substantially impact the accuracy of predicted shaking in areas like western Washington State, where deep, interconnected basin structure exerts a strong influence on seismic‐wave propagation. In this study, we present a new suite of simulation‐based scenario ShakeMaps that characterize ground shaking from large‐magnitude ( ⁠ M W 6.5–7.5) earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults. These maps are developed using results from recent 3D wave propagation simulations ( Stone et al. , 2022 , 2023 , 2025 ) that incorporate realistic rupture geometries, variable slip distributions, and a regional 3D seismic velocity model with shallow soils. Broadband ground motions are estimated by combining the low‐frequency (<1 Hz) deterministic seismograms from these studies with high‐frequency (1–10 Hz) stochastic seismograms. Simulated ground motions are corrected to account for the enforced minimum shear‐wave velocity and nonlinear site response. The resulting ShakeMaps represent median ground‐shaking estimates derived from multiple rupture scenarios with varying slip distributions and hypocenter locations for each fault. To extend ShakeMap coverage beyond the simulation domain (i.e., into eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia), we scale GMM‐based ground‐motion estimates using amplification patterns observed in the simulations. These new ShakeMaps reveal the substantial influence of deep basin structure on shaking intensity, underscoring the importance of considering crustal structure complexity in regional hazard assessments for the Pacific Northwest.

Washington↗
USGS2026

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States↗