USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70023733

Correlation of ground motion and intensity for the 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake

Abstract

We analyze the correlations between intensity and a set of groundmotion parameters obtained from 66 free-field stations in Los Angeles County that recorded the 1994 Northridge earthquake. We use the tagging intensities from Thywissen and Boatwright (1998) because these intensities are determined independently on census tracts, rather than interpolated from zip codes, as are the modified Mercalli isoseismals from Dewey et al. (1995). The ground-motion parameters we consider are the peak ground acceleration (PGA), the peak ground velocity (PGV), the 5% damped pseudovelocity response spectral (PSV) ordinates at 14 periods from 0.1 to 7.5 sec, and the rms average of these spectral ordinates from 0.3 to 3 sec. Visual comparisons of the distribution of tagging intensity with contours of PGA, PGV, and the average PSV suggest that PGV and the average PSV are better correlated with the intensity than PGA. The correlation coefficients between the intensity and the ground-motion parameters bear this out: r = 0.75 for PGA, 0.85 for PGV, and 0.85 for the average PSV. Correlations between the intensity and the PSV ordinates, as a function of period, are strongest at 1.5 sec (r = 0.83) and weakest at 0.2 sec (r = 0.66). Regressing the intensity on the logarithms of these ground-motion parameters yields relations I ?? mlog?? with 3.0 ??? m ??? 5.2 for the parameters analyzed, where m = 4.4 ?? 0.7 for PGA, 3.4 ?? 0.4 for PGV, and 3.6 ?? 0.5 for the average PSV.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. Boatwright, K. Thywissen, L. C. Seekins. 2001. Correlation of ground motion and intensity for the 17 January 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990049

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗