USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70283507

Potential benefits of seismic monitoring for ground shaking estimation and loss assessment

Abstract

Seismic networks are fundamental to compute ground shaking in regions affected by destructive events, which can then be used for damage and loss assessment. Ground‐motion data recordings can be used to estimate the event bias (or interevent residual) for one or multiple ground‐motion models, as well as to condition the ground‐shaking estimation process to reduce the intraevent residuals at sites near seismic stations. We evaluate how the error in the estimation of the event bias and ground shaking for a set of target sites can be reduced by incorporating an increasing number of seismic stations, using recordings from the 1999 M 7.7 Chi‐Chi, Taiwan, earthquake and a large set of ground‐motion fields for Taiwan using stochastic simulations. Then, we evaluate how the incorporation of data from seismic stations in the estimation of several impact metrics (i.e., economic losses, collapsed buildings, and fatalities) can reduce both the bias and the uncertainty, using the district of Lisbon (Portugal) as a case study. The results from this study indicate that the error in the estimation of the impact metrics can be reduced by one order of magnitude if at least 10 stations are considered, especially if the configuration of the seismic network considers the location of vulnerable buildings or the spatial distribution of earthquake risk.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 21.7526226° to 25.4001158° latitude; 119.8541685° to 122.06292428477894° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vitor Silva, David J. Wald, Amir Taherian. 2025-01-27. Potential benefits of seismic monitoring for ground shaking estimation and loss assessment. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120240014

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↗