Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Vince Quitoriano

Publications and source records attributed to Vince Quitoriano.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
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

Site-specific, extended ShakeMaps for earthquake engineering applications

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routinely produces ShakeMaps of shaking intensity across the globe. Due to practical constraints, the number of response spectral periods was limited to three standard periods (0.3, 1.0, and 3.0 sec). We have recently developed the tools that are necessary to expand this functionality to include 22 periods (matching the current U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model periods) as well as the orientation-independent components (e.g., “RotD50”). We refer to ShakeMap products that include these extensions as “extended ShakeMaps.” The added level of complexity motivated us to also develop a user-friendly tool called the “ShakeMap Sampling Tool” (SST) that gives all the estimated shaking metrics for a specific location (or list of locations). Additionally, we develop a web application where users can input locations of interest and view/download the SST results. We further familiarize users with the concept of “Composite ShakeMaps.” For earthquakes sequences such as a mainshock and larger foreshocks and aftershocks, this provides a map of the maximum value of each shaking metric, which is useful for overall loss estimates, the full extent of ground failure triggering potential, and a better portrayal of the repeated shaking levels at a given point for a series of earthquakes. Such a site-specific shaking history facilitates earthquake forensics at building or infrastructure sites for which damage may be of concern, as described in the Disproportionate Damage Earthquake trigger specified in the IEBC (2018, Section 405.2.2) and in developing ATC-145 guidelines (Guidelines for Post-Earthquake Assessment, Repair, and Retrofit of Buildings). The composite ShakeMap can be combined with the SST for a variety of earthquake-hazard applications, such as systematically inferring triggering shaking estimates at specific sites of geotechnical interest for landsliding, liquefaction, and lateral-spreading hazards.

Kahramanmaraş↗
USGS2024

The 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake: A retrospective analysis

The 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake was a watershed event, with far-reaching societal and scientific impacts. The earthquake, which occurred in the early days of both broadband seismic networks and the Internet, spurred advances in seismic monitoring, real-time systems, and development of data products. Motivated by the 30th anniversary of the earthquake, we present a brief retrospective of the earthquake and its impact, and reconsider both ground motions and the aftershock distribution using modern tools and best-available data. With improvements in instrumentation and analysis methodology, recent earthquakes continue to reveal increasing complexity of ground motions, fault systems, and earthquake ruptures. Even in the absence of data from state-of-the art instrumentation, a retrospective consideration of ground motion data from the Northridge earthquake reveals complexities beyond what could be characterized (and modeled) thirty years ago. Aftershock relocations for both the 1971 Sylmar and 1994 Northridge earthquakes also reveal an updated view of fault complexity. Our study does provide a cautionary tale regarding legacy data sets and research results that are not easily accessible, which can result in discrepancies between catalog data and products from best-available science. We also briefly describe outreach products produced as part of the anniversary commemoration.

California↗
USGS2021

Quantifying nuisance ground motion thresholds for induced earthquakes

Hazards from induced earthquakes are a growing concern with a need for effective management. One aspect of that concern is the “nuisance” from unexpected ground motions, which have the potential to cause public alarm and discontent. In this article, we borrow earthquake engineering concepts to quantify the chance of building damage states and adapt them to quantify felt thresholds for induced earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States. We compare binary data of felt or not-felt reports from the “Did You Feel It” database with ShakeMap ground motion intensity measures (IM) for ∼360 earthquakes. We use a Monte Carlo logistic regression to discern the likelihood of perceiving various degrees of felt intensity, given a particular IM. These best-fit nuisance functions are reported in this article and are readily transferable. Of the shaking types considered, we find that peak ground velocity tends to be the best predictor of a felt earthquake. We also find that felt thresholds tended to decrease with increasing earthquake magnitude, after M ∼3.9. We interpret this effect as related to the duration of the event, where events smaller than M 3.9 are perceived as “impulsive” to the human senses. Improved quantification of the nuisance from induced earthquake ground motions could be utilized in management of the public perception of their causal operations. Although aimed at anthropogenic earthquakes, thresholds we derive could be useful in other realms, such as establishing best practices and protocols for earthquake early warning.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2021

Amateur radio operators help fill earthquake donut holes

If you’ve ever seen tall antennas rising from everyday residences in your community and wondered what they are for, it could be that those homes belong to ham radio enthusiasts who enjoy communicating with each other over the airwaves. In addition to having fun with their radios and finding camaraderie, many ham radio operators are also prepared to help neighbors and authorities communicate during disasters. One such group of radio enthusiasts is poised now to serve yet another important role: They will be contributing to a more robust delivery mechanism for critical seismic intensity reports after major earthquakes through the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Did You Feel It? (DYFI) system.

Utah↗
USGS2020

Human behavioral response in the Ridgecrest earthquakes: Assessing immediate actions based on data from “Did You Feel It?”

Human behavioral response to earthquake ground motion has long been a subject of multidisciplinary interest and research. In most versions of seismic intensity scales, human perceptions and behavior are one component of the assignment of intensity. Public health research has shown that actions taken during earthquakes have a significant impact on the incidence of injury or the maintenance of safety. Based on this research, emergency managers and organizations promoting emergency preparedness have advocated strategies such as drop, cover, and hold on (DCHO) and promoted this safety measure through public education and annual drills. The “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) mapping system (see Data and Resources) based on an online questionnaire developed and maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey has provided opportunities for those who have experienced an earthquake to report this experience worldwide since 2004. The DYFI questionnaire, although designed to assign intensity, also contains questions regarding the behavior in which one has engaged during the earthquake. The questionnaire includes other important information that may elucidate behavioral response to earthquakes, including assigned intensity, emotional reaction, and whether damage occurred at the location where the earthquake was experienced. The very large number of people who completed DYFI questionnaires following the July 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquakes provides a robust dataset for analysis and suggests that as intensity and levels of fear increase, behavior becomes more active in terms of physical movement to locations of presumed safety. Among active responses including DCHO, going to a doorway, and running outside, DCHO was the least likely to be implemented. The study provides possible explanations for low participation in DCHO despite active campaigns to promote this strategy.

California↗
USGS2020

USGS “Did You Feel It?” — Science and lessons from twenty years of citizen science-based macroseismology

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system is an automatic method for rapidly collecting macroseismic intensity data from Internet users’ shaking and damage reports and for generating intensity maps immediately following felt earthquakes. DYFI has been in operation for nearly two decades (1999-2019) in the United States, and for nearly 15 years globally. During that period the amount of data collected is astounding: Over 5 million individual DYFI intensity reports—spanning all magnitude and distance ranges—have been amassed and archived. DYFI allows for macroseismic data collection at rates and quantities never before imagined, and thus high-quality macroseismic intensity maps can be made almost immediately, and with more complete coverage at higher resolution than in the past. DYFI also allows for valuable positive interactions of the citizenry with a Federal science agency. In essence, the widespread adoption of DYFI—along with ShakeMap—has facilitated the general acceptance of the very concept of shaking intensity, fundamentally improving our agency’s ability to communicate both hazard and risk to the population. DYFI effectively confirms the importance of reporting and inculcating the public’s understanding of intensity—in addition to magnitude—for a proper perspective of earthquake risk-related decision-making. Furthermore, the vast amount of DYFI data allow for data-rich analyses of otherwise intractable seismological, sociological, and earthquake impact studies that range from quantifying the shaking due to induced earthquakes, to human response and risk perception, to relating recorded shaking metrics to macroseismic effects, and the attenuation of intensity with magnitude and distance. Naturally, web-based data collection also poses challenges. After two decades of experience acquiring data with the DYFI system, we address some of these hallenges by documenting refinements to our algorithmic and operational procedures that have evolved over that time. Lastly, we outline new opportune research and development directions for our DYFI approach to citizen seismology.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗
USGS2020

Earthquakes, did you feel it?

The US Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” ® (DYFI) system is an automated system for rapidly collecting macroseismic intensity data from Internet users’ shaking and damage reports and generating intensity maps immediately following earthquakes. Although the collection and assignment of DYFI-based Macroseismic Intensity (MI) data depart from traditional assignments, they are made more quickly, provide more complete coverage at higher spatial resolution, offer citizen input and interaction, and allow data collection at rates and quantities that were not previously possible. These aspects of Internet-based data collection, in turn, allow for data analyses, graphics, and ways to communicate with the public, opportunities that were not feasible with traditional data-collection approaches.

Book chapter↗
USGS2020

An update of USGS bear-real-time earthquake shaking and impact products

We report on advancements in both hazard and consequence modeling that form the core of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) strategy to improve rapid earthquake shaking and loss estimates. Whereas our primary goal is to improve our operational capabilities of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center, the science, software, and datasets behind these systems continue to advance uses and studies of earthquake shaking and impact by the seismological, engineering, financial, and risk modeling communities. Several important updates to our integrated shaking and impact products are outlined and we introduce new earthquake information products that have recently been brought online, including rapid ground failure estimates and more spatially refined loss estimates domestically (in the U.S). We continue to compile, develop, and refine key openly available models and datasets that contribute to calibrating these systems and report on the collection and storage of new inventories. We also describe some of the basic operational considerations in the current generation of these shaking and loss-estimation systems. A key aspect of the product integration and development is leveraging earthquake-hazard and loss-modeling science done internally (within the USGS) and by external researchers and collaborators. Lastly, we outline new opportunities for further research and development by emphasizing scientific, data, and application gaps and challenges that must be solved in order to improve our shaking and impact information tools.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2018

The intensity signature of induced seismicity

We analyze a comprehensive database of &#x223C; 63 , 000 "> ∼ 63 , 000 geocoded community intensity observations from &gt; 400 "> > 400 earthquakes of moment magnitude M &#x2265; 3.5 "> M ≥ 3.5 in Oklahoma from 2010 to 2016 to define the intensity signature of induced events. We show that natural and induced events have similar average intensities within 10 km of the epicenter. At greater distances, induced events have low‐average intensities compared with deeper natural events. These trends are predictable based on ground‐motion prediction equations. They are a consequence of two focal‐depth effects that have offsetting impacts on the strength of ground motion: (1) the epicenter is near the source for shallow events, and (2) the stress parameter scales with focal depth.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2015

National Earthquake Information Center systems overview and integration

Overview The primary mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) is comprehensive global earthquake monitoring (M4.5 or larger) and complete seismic monitoring of the United States for all significant earthquakes (M3.0 or larger or felt). In recent years, the NEIC has assumed a more prominent role in local and regional seismic monitoring, backup capabilities, and special studies. The NEIC uses numerous scientific algorithms to produce information products for local, national, and international disaster responders; infrastructure corporations (for example, utility providers and insurers); U.S. embassies worldwide; news agencies; national and international earth science research communities; and millions of public users. To support this mission, the NEIC operates a constant service to derive numerous information products as rapidly and accurately as possible. Derived information products and data sets provide a wealth of related earthquake information and include products such as location, magnitude, maps of shaking intensity, moment tensors, phase arrivals, and loss and damage reports. These information products are automatically derived in near real-time and refined over time. Earthquake information products vary from well formatted text files, to binary files, to directories full of many files. A team of analysts, who provide constant coverage, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, review the acquired data and automatically derived products (1) in near real-time for rapid release and (2) in the weeks following events to produce historical catalogs of global earthquakes in support of scientific research. Data and products are reviewed both in near real-time for rapid release and in the weeks following events to produce historical catalogs of global earthquakes in support of scientific research. At the present time, the NEIC publishes data for approximately 25,000 earthquakes annually. The NEIC software system that supports this service and mission comprises many subsystems. The internals of each subsystem are often complex, but the integration between all of the subsystems is well defined, standardized, and straightforward. This Open-File Report describes the systems&rsquo; integration infrastructure and how all the subsystems fit together. It provides summary views of the system as a whole, along with detailed views of the inputs, outputs, and dependencies for each subsystem. It also outlines the many shared data services that support these subsystems and applications as well as external customers. The NEIC systems-integration effort is ongoing. Additional integration steps, needed to reach our goals, are discussed. It is important to note that this document provides a brief introduction to the work of dozens of software developers and IT specialists, spanning in many cases more than a decade. References to significant amounts of supporting documentation, code, and information are supplied within.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

Did you feel it? Community-made earthquake shaking maps

Since the early 1990's, the magnitude and location of an earthquake have been available within minutes on the Internet. Now, as a result of work by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and with the cooperation of various regional seismic networks, people who experience an earthquake can go online and share information about its effects to help create a map of shaking intensities and damage. Such 'Community Internet Intensity Maps' (CIIM's) contribute greatly in quickly assessing the scope of an earthquake emergency, even in areas lacking seismic instruments.

California, Washington↗
USGS1999

TriNet "ShakeMaps": Rapid generation of peak ground motion and intensity maps for earthquakes in southern California

Rapid (3-5 minutes) generation of maps of instrumental ground-motion and shaking intensity is accomplished through advances in real-time seismographic data acquisition combined with newly developed relationships between recorded ground-motion parameters and expected shaking intensity values. Estimation of shaking over the entire regional extent of southern California is obtained by the spatial interpolation of the measured ground motions with geologically based frequency and amplitude-dependent site corrections. Production of the maps is automatic, triggered by any significant earthquake in southern California. Maps are now made available within several minutes of the earthquake for public and scientific consumption via the World Wide Web; they will be made available with dedicated communications for emergency response agencies and critical users.

California↗