scholarly journals On the Effect of Synthetic and Real Data Properties on Seismic Intensity Prediction Equations

2019 ◽  
Vol 176 (10) ◽  
pp. 4261-4275
Author(s):  
Roman N. Vakarchuk ◽  
Päivi Mäntyniemi ◽  
Ruben E. Tatevossian
Author(s):  
Ganyu Teng ◽  
Jack W. Baker ◽  
David J. Wald

Abstract This study assesses existing intensity prediction equations (IPEs) for small unspecified magnitude (M ≤3.5) earthquakes at short hypocentral distances (Dh) 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 Mw 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 Dh<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 Dh<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 VS30 as a proxy for site amplification effects. We observe that intensities at sites with VS30 around 300 m/s are consistently higher than at sites with VS30 around 700 m/s and are also closer to the two IPEs. Finally, we conduct hazard disaggregation for earthquakes at close distances (Dh=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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (5) ◽  
pp. 2611-2623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Francesca Ferrario ◽  
Franz Livio ◽  
Stefano Serra Capizzano ◽  
Alessandro M. Michetti

Abstract Earthquakes produce effects on the built and natural environment, the severity of which decays with distance from the epicenter. Empirical relations describing the intensity attenuation with distance are fundamental for seismic hazard assessment and for deriving parameters for preinstrumental events. Seismic intensity is usually assigned based on damage to buildings and infrastructures; this can be challenging for intensity degrees higher than X or when macroseismic fields of multiple events close in time are overlapping. A complementary approach is the study of earthquake environmental effects (EEEs), which are used to assign intensity on the environmental scale intensity (ESI) scale. However, a quantitative comparison between the ESI and traditional scales, and an equation describing the ESI attenuation with distance are still lacking. Here, we analyze 14 historical and instrumental events (time window 1688–2016) in the central and southern Apennines (Italy), comparing ESI and Mercalli–Cancani–Sieberg (MCS) intensities. Our results show that ESI consistently provides higher intensity near the epicenter and the attenuation is steeper than MCS. We derive the first intensity prediction equation for the ESI scale, which computes local intensity as a function of distance and epicentral intensity value. We document that, in the near field, the MCS attenuation for shallow crustal events occurred in the twenty-first century is steeper than previous events, whereas the ESI attenuation shows a consistent behavior through time. This result questions the reliability of current empirical relations for the investigation of future events. We recommend including EEEs in intensity assignments because they can guarantee consistency through time and help in evaluating the spatial and temporal evolution of damage progression during seismic sequences, thus ultimately improving seismic risk assessment.


2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (6) ◽  
pp. 3084-3093 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. M. Atkinson ◽  
C. B. Worden ◽  
D. J. Wald

2020 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 817-832
Author(s):  
Julio Mezcua ◽  
Juan Rueda ◽  
Rosa M. García Blanco

2011 ◽  
Vol 187 (1) ◽  
pp. 327-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Bindi ◽  
S. Parolai ◽  
A. Oth ◽  
K. Abdrakhmatov ◽  
A. Muraliev ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 2005-2031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radu Văcăreanu ◽  
Mihail Iancovici ◽  
Cristian Neagu ◽  
Florin Pavel

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takao Sasaki ◽  
Asril ◽  
Yoshinori Furumoto ◽  
Chisa Hikime ◽  
Tetsuya Oba

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document