USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70269526

What 25+ years of "Did You Feel It" intensities tell us about shaking in California

Abstract

“When will the Big One happen?” is a question that people often have for earthquake scientists. But while waiting for the “Big One” to occur, people will usually experience frightening or damaging shaking from multiple relatively smaller‐magnitude earthquakes. Given this context, it raises the question: “Where does most of the damage come from?” Could smaller, yet more frequent, earthquakes account for the majority of reported impactful shaking? To explore this question, we consider reports of earthquake damage and felt shaking experiences from a catalog of community‐collected intensity values from the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” system. Comparing these intensities to expectations from a ground‐motion model, we find that earthquakes of magnitudes smaller than expected are responsible for most reported intensities of community decimal intensities (CDI) 4.5 and above (moderate and higher shaking intensity levels). (Here “expected value” is meant in its mathematical sense of the mean or equivalently median shaking intensity.) We also present a regional analysis of observed earthquake shaking for specific areas, detailing the maximum intensity experienced within a predetermined area. We identify several instances of M < 4.5 events that generated maximum intensities of CDI > 5 in regions in California surrounding the cities of Eureka, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Our results motivate the need to include smaller‐magnitude earthquakes in communications about earthquake hazard and risk reduction.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.534156° to 42.009247° latitude; -124.409591° to -114.134768° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jenna Marie Chaffeur, Jessie K. Saunders, Sarah E. Minson, Annemarie S. Baltay, Elizabeth S. Cochran, Susan E. Hough, Vince Quitoriano, Morgan T. Page, James Luke Blair. 2025-01-29. What 25+ years of "Did You Feel It" intensities tell us about shaking in California. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220240393

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 discoveries

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