Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70029324

Comment on "How can seismic hazard around the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?" by Arthur Frankel

Z. Wang·B. Shi·J. D. Kiefer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A recent paper in the September/October 2004 issue of Seismological Research Letters, “How Can Seismic Hazard around the New Madrid Seismic Zone Be Similar to That in California?”, by Arthur Frankel, concludes “I have demonstrated how probabilistic seismic hazard for New Madrid can be greater than that at San Francisco at low probabilities for PGA and similar at low probabilities for 5 Hz S.A. By low probabilities, I mean annual probabilities less than the reciprocal of the return time of the New Madrid characteristic source, that is, 1/500. This is a consequence of the higher ground motions, for PGA and 5 Hz S.A. (and other high-frequency measures), expected for large New Madrid characteristic earthquakes compared to San Andreas earthquakes with similar magnitudes.” His conclusion is confusing and not necessarily true. The fundamental differences in assessing seismic hazard between San Francisco and the New Madrid seismic zone are the uncertainties, especially the uncertainties associated with the ground-motion attenuation relationship. The larger ground-motion uncertainties in both the median and its standard deviation derive a higher hazard in the New Madrid area. The larger standard deviation, in particular, derives a higher hazard at low annual probabilities of exceedance. Moreover, Frankel also equated the hazard (annual probability of exceedance) defined in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) with the average recurrence rate defined in engineering risk analysis. There is a fundamental difference in defining risk between PSHA and the engineering risk analysis. The risks—10%, 5%, and 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years—defined in PSHA are not interchangeable with those defined in engineering risk analysis. Hence, though Frankel's stated intention was to improve understanding of PSHA among nonpractitioners, the paper may cause more confusion and problems for users of the U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard maps.

Explore related subjects

Seismological Research LettersArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Z. Wang, B. Shi, J. D. Kiefer. 2005. Comment on "How can seismic hazard around the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?" by Arthur Frankel. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.76.4.466

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters↗
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↗