Javascript must be enabled to continue!
On Algorithmically Determined Versus Traditional Macroseismic Intensity Assignments
View through CrossRef
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.
Title: On Algorithmically Determined Versus Traditional Macroseismic Intensity Assignments
Description:
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.
Related Results
A real-time prediction model for macroseismic intensity in China
A real-time prediction model for macroseismic intensity in China
AbstractThe macroseismic intensity spatial distribution is an important input for most rapid loss modeling and emergency work. Data from a total of 175 earthquakes (Ms ≥ 5.0) in Ch...
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
This section provides current contact details and a summary of recent or ongoing clinical trials being coordinated by International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Clinical tria...
Magnitude and location of historical earthquakes in Japan and implications for the 1855 Ansei Edo earthquake
Magnitude and location of historical earthquakes in Japan and implications for the 1855 Ansei Edo earthquake
Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) intensity assignments IJMA are used to derive intensity attenuation models suitable for estimating the location and an intensity magnitude Mjma fo...
Shorthand Homework Assignments in Selected Kansas Secondary Schools
Shorthand Homework Assignments in Selected Kansas Secondary Schools
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the current homework assignment practices in shorthand in selected secondary schools in Kansas, the comparison of homework practices in t...
Assessment of Community Internet Intensity (CII) in Sakhalin Island
Assessment of Community Internet Intensity (CII) in Sakhalin Island
<p>Sakhalin Island is a region with high rate of seismic activity. Tens of felt earthquakes occur within the studied area every year. Rapid macroseismic observation t...
The (December 28th, 1891) January 9th, 1892 Larissa (Central Greece) earthquake
The (December 28th, 1891) January 9th, 1892 Larissa (Central Greece) earthquake
During the period 1941-1980 Thessalia (Eastern Central Greece) experienced a series of strong earthquakes, which caused damage to a large number of localities and to all its major ...
Elastic Tubing Resistance Training and Autonomic Modulation in Subjects with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Elastic Tubing Resistance Training and Autonomic Modulation in Subjects with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
This study addresses evidence concerning elastic tubing resistance training (ET) on autonomic modulation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Autonomic dy...
Macroseismic Study of 4th January 2016, Manipur Earthquake, and its Implications
Macroseismic Study of 4th January 2016, Manipur Earthquake, and its Implications
Abstract
An earthquake of magnitude 6.7 M (Latitude 24.834N; Longitude 93.656E) on the Richter scale rocked in the Noney area, Tamenglong district, Manipur on 4th Ja...

