Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70263622

On algorithmically determined versus traditional macroseismic intensity assignments

Abstract

The utility of macroseismic data, defined as the effects of earthquakes on humans and the built environment, has been increasingly recognized following the advent of online systems that now produce unprecedented volumes of macroseismic intensity information. Contributed reports from the U.S. Geological Survey “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) system ( Wald et al ., 1999 ) are used to generate intensity values with an algorithm based on seminal work by Dengler and Dewey (1998) . The algorithm was developed initially to reproduce intensity values assigned by expert opinion using questionnaire results collected by telephone survey. In this article, I discuss reasons why intensity values from (self‐selected) DYFI responses can differ from values that would be assigned by expert opinion given more complete data from randomly selected participants. For example, with the data used by Dengler and Dewey (1998) , intensities near 4 could be determined from the percentage of people who felt shaking in each town. With less spatially rich data from self‐selected participants, this percentage often cannot be determined reliably. Audible noises are key additional diagnostic criteria for modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 4, but, although the DYFI system includes a question about noise, following Dengler and Dewey (1998) , the DYFI algorithm does not include a noise indicator. At the upper end of the scale, as defined the DYFI algorithm yields a maximum intensity value of 9.05, nominally corresponding to peak ground acceleration of 75% g . These and other factors can result in DYFI values that are low compared to traditional MMI values assigned using expert opinion, even absent factors that can bias traditional MMI assignments. Modern ground‐motion intensity conversion equations determined using DYFI intensities are expected to be appropriate for DYFI intensities, but the results of this study suggest that biases may be introduced if DYFI and traditional intensities are assumed to be interchangeable.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Susan E. Hough. 2024-11-18. On algorithmically determined versus traditional macroseismic intensity assignments. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220240266

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Distinguishing natural sources from anthropogenic events in seismic data

As seismic data are increasingly used to investigate a diverse range of subsurface phenomena beyond regular fast-rupturing earthquakes (Peng and Gomberg, 2010; Beroza and Ide, 2011), it is important to acknowledge that human-generated ground vibrations may be mistaken for naturally generated subsurface processes (Larose et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018). Correct discrimination of natural processes from anthropogenic noise is especially pressing given the trend in seismic detection research toward automated algorithms and machine learning methods (Yoon et al., 2015; Kong et al., 2019;Mousavi and Beroza, 2022) and the growth in seismic data collection in new environments such as urban and industry settings (e.g., Díaz et al.,2017).

Seismological Research Letters

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