Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70230088

Evaluation of intensity prediction equations (IPEs) for small-magnitude earthquakes

Abstract

This study assesses existing intensity prediction equations (IPEs) for small unspecified magnitude ( M ≤3.5) earthquakes at short hypocentral distances ( ⁠ D h ⁠ ) and explores such earthquakes’ contribution to the felt shaking hazard. In particular, we consider IPEs by Atkinson and Wald (2007) and Atkinson et al. (2014) , and evaluate their performance based on “Did You Feel It” (DYFI) reports and recorded peak ground velocities (PGVs) in the central United States. Both IPEs were developed based on DYFI reports in the central and eastern United States with moment magnitudes above M w 3.0. DYFI reports are often used as the ground truth when evaluating and developing IPEs, but they could be less reliable when there are limited responses for small‐magnitude earthquakes. We first compare the DYFI reports with intensities interpolated from recorded PGVs. Results suggest a minimal discrepancy between the two when the intensity is large enough to be felt (i.e., M >2 and D h < 15 km ⁠ ). We then compare intensities from 31,617 DYFI reports of 3049 earthquakes with the two IPEs. Results suggest that both the IPEs match well with observed intensities for 2.0< M <3.0 and D h < 10 km ⁠ , but the IPE by Atkinson et al. (2014) matches better for larger distances. We also observe that intensities from DYFI reports attenuate faster compared with the two IPEs, especially for distances greater than 10 km. We then group DYFI reports by inferred V S 30 as a proxy for site amplification effects. We observe that intensities at sites with V S 30 around 300 m/s are consistently higher than at sites with V S 30 around 700 m/s and are also closer to the two IPEs. Finally, we conduct hazard disaggregation for earthquakes at close distances ( ⁠ D h = 7.5 km ⁠ ) using the observed records. Results suggest that earthquakes with magnitudes below M 3.0 contribute more than 40% to the occurrence of felt shaking.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ganyu Teng, Jack W. Baker, David J. Wald. 2021-11-02. Evaluation of intensity prediction equations (IPEs) for small-magnitude earthquakes. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210150

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗