Comment on “Validating Intensity Prediction Equations for Italy by Observations” by Sum Mak, Robert Alan Clements, and Danijel Schorlemmer

2016 ◽  
Vol 106 (5) ◽  
pp. 2409-2413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Raschke
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Intensity Prediction

Evaluation of Intensity Prediction Equations (IPEs) for Small-Magnitude Earthquakes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ganyu Teng ◽  
Jack W. Baker ◽  
David J. Wald
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ground Truth ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Small Magnitude ◽  
Intensity Prediction ◽  
Central United States ◽  
Hazard Disaggregation

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.

Intensity Prediction Equations for North America

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

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
Keyword(s):  
Real Data ◽  
Seismic Intensity ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Intensity Prediction

scholarly journals Intensity prediction equations for Central Asia

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

Macroseismic intensity prediction equations for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 2005-2031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radu Văcăreanu ◽  
Mihail Iancovici ◽  
Cristian Neagu ◽  
Florin Pavel
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Source ◽  
Macroseismic Intensity ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Intermediate Depth ◽  
Intensity Prediction

scholarly journals Validating Intensity Prediction Equations for Italy by Observations

2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (6) ◽  
pp. 2942-2954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sum Mak ◽  
Robert Alan Clements ◽  
Danijel Schorlemmer
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Intensity Prediction
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document