Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 100, No. 6, pp. 3083–3096, December 2010, doi: 10.

1785/0120100101

A Revised Ground-Motion and Intensity Interpolation

Scheme for ShakeMap
by C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua

Abstract We describe a weighted-average approach for incorporating various types

of data (observed peak ground motions and intensities and estimates from ground-
motion prediction equations) into the ShakeMap ground motion and intensity mapping
framework. This approach represents a fundamental revision of our existing ShakeMap
methodology. In addition, the increased availability of near-real-time macroseismic
intensity data, the development of new relationships between intensity and peak ground
motions, and new relationships to directly predict intensity from earthquake source
information have facilitated the inclusion of intensity measurements directly into
ShakeMap computations. Our approach allows for the combination of (1) direct
observations (ground-motion measurements or reported intensities), (2) observations
converted from intensity to ground motion (or vice versa), and (3) estimated ground
motions and intensities from prediction equations or numerical models. Critically, each
of the aforementioned data types must include an estimate of its uncertainties, including
those caused by scaling the influence of observations to surrounding grid points and
those associated with estimates given an unknown fault geometry. The ShakeMap
ground-motion and intensity estimates are an uncertainty-weighted combination of
these various data and estimates. A natural by-product of this interpolation process
is an estimate of total uncertainty at each point on the map, which can be vital for
comprehensive inventory loss calculations. We perform a number of tests to validate
this new methodology and find that it produces a substantial improvement in the
accuracy of ground-motion predictions over empirical prediction equations alone.

Introduction
ShakeMap is a system for rapidly characterizing the
extent and distribution of strong ground shaking following
significant earthquakes worldwide (e.g., Wald et al., 2008).
Current ShakeMap systems are deployed and operating at
several regional networks within the United States (U.S.),
in various networks worldwide, and at the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center
(NEIC) in Golden, Colorado, for the production of Shake-
Maps for important global earthquakes.
The increased availability of worldwide seismic inten-
sity data immediately following significant earthquakes
offers the opportunity to supplement (oftentimes scarce)
instrumental data for the rapid characterization of ground
shaking. Internet users worldwide can also now report the
effects of earthquakes on themselves and their surroundings
through the “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) Web site (see Data and
Resources section; see Wald, Quitoriano, Dengler, et al.
[1999] for a discussion of the DYFI system and Dewey et al.
[2000] for the relation of these internet felt reports to tradi-
tional Modified Mercalli Intensity [MMI] reports). Within
minutes of major earthquakes, hundreds to thousands of
these reports are received and converted to seismic intensity
by the USGS. With minor filtering and with sufficient num-
bers, the intensity data reported through DYFI have been
found to be a remarkably consistent and reliable measure
of earthquake effects (e.g., Atkinson and Wald, 2007). In
fact, DYFI data have been shown to be consistent with USGS
MMI assignments over the entire range of intensities (Dewey
et al., 2002), with only minor differences at the lowest inten-
sities in which DYFI data appear to be more consistent and
complete.
In addition, for reconstructing shaking distributions for
historical events, macroseismic observations can provide
valuable constraints; often they are abundant, whereas
strong-motion recordings are sparse for such events. An
example of the value of adding historic macroseismic data
as constraints for ShakeMaps in the process of developing
earthquake loss-models is documented in the ShakeMap
Atlas (Allen et al., 2008) and subsequent exposure and loss
catalog (Allen, Marano, et al., 2009; Allen, Wald, et al.,
2009). While we expect that the interpolation methodology
described herein will work with traditional MMI as well as

3083
3084
intensity from DYFI, our testing (see Discussion and Testing)
uses DYFI data exclusively.
However, direct incorporation of macroseismic data into
ground shaking maps is not possible because of the differ-
ences in the units of measurement. Thus, another important
advancement in the combined use of ground-motion and
macroseismic data is the ability to convert intensity to peak
ground motion (PGM) and vice versa (e.g., Wald, Quitoriano,
Heaton, et al., 1999; Atkinson and Kaka, 2007; Faenza and
Michelini, 2010). These ground-motion/intensity conversion
equations (GMICE) allow us to supplement instrumental
ground-motion data (e.g., peak ground velocity, PGV) with
another independent data set (e.g., MMI converted to
PGV), although doing so introduces the uncertainty of the
conversion.
Since its inception, ShakeMap has used well-
documented empirical ground-motion prediction equations
(GMPEs) (e.g., that of Boore et al., 1997) to supplement
sparse observational data. Prior ShakeMap implementations
combined recorded and predicted ground motions, giving
priority to recorded values over predicted values at and
nearby the recording station locations. Intensity values
(the intensity grid), in contrast, were derived by simply com-
bining and converting the peak acceleration and velocity map
grid values via the relations of Wald, Quitoriano, Heaton,
et al. (1999). To incorporate macroseismic observations into
the PGM maps, the observations were converted to peak
acceleration and velocity values (using the inverted equations
of Wald, Quitoriano, Heaton, et al. [1999]) and were treated
as if they were recorded ground motions. This simple ap-
proach was useful to provide constraints for the intensity
and ground-motion maps in areas of sparse seismic station
coverage, but it suffered from several approximations and
limitations. These are addressed in the improved ShakeMap
approach that we describe here.
First, the appropriate use of observations in each grid
layer should consider whether or not the parameter is native
or converted. For example, ground-motion observations are
well constrained in the ground-motion layer, and intensity
observations converted to ground-motion have greater uncer-
tainty because of added uncertainty associated with the
conversion process. In contrast, for the intensity grid, macro-
seismic values are native, and recorded ground motions con-
verted to intensity values carry additional uncertainties.
Second, the conversion of intensity to ground motion is con-
trary to the intended use of many GMICE. For example,
Wald, Quitoriano, Heaton, et al. (1999) developed a relation
for deriving intensity from PGM but using it in the reverse
direction is not necessarily as well constrained (and violates
its intended purpose). Finally, the uncertainty of predicted
values depends on whether or not the source dimensions
are known. With an unknown source dimension, predicted
ground-motion values may be less certain than converted in-
tensity values (because the distance to the source is poorly
constrained). These uncertainties must be treated rigorously
C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua
to ensure that better constrained observations or predictions
are weighted and treated appropriately.
With the introduction of intensity observations and their
utilization for constraining PGM maps, a more rigorous
consideration of the uncertainties involved is required. Thus,
our goal was twofold: (1) combine traditional instrumental
observations and predicted ground motions with converted
observations of another ground-motion parameter and (2) pro-
cess the intensity map directly, using intensity data as the
native observation and converted peak ground acceleration
(PGA) and PGV as supplemental data.
Therefore, we desired a systematic means of combining
various data types in a given map. Ebel and Wald (2003)
proposed a Bayesian approach to weighting the various
contributions, using probability density functions derived
from the uncertainties associated with those contributions.
Cua and Wald (2008) suggested that a simpler, weighted-
average approach provides a more direct, analytic solution
to the problem while accomplishing the same ends as the full
probability based approach of Ebel and Wald. Here, we fol-
low Cua and Wald (2008) and take advantage of the recent
development of intensity prediction equations (IPEs) to
extend Cua and Wald’s approach to incorporate intensity as
a native ground-motion parameter. Thus, our treatment of
observed intensity is fully analogous to our treatment of
PGM and pseudospectral acceleration (PSA).
The estimation of uncertainties depends upon the map
layer in question. For native and converted observations we
incorporate an uncertainty-with-distance-from-observation
formula presented by Boore et al. (2003, appendix), though
our framework allows for other interstation amplitude corre-
lation functions. As mentioned previously, additional
variance is included for converted observations. For GMPE-
based predictions (or IPE-based predictions for the intensity
layer), we use the published variance of the GMPE (IPE).
Naturally, the variance caused by unknown fault geometry
greatly increases this uncertainty (Electric Power Research
Institute, 2003; Wald et al., 2008). Hence, we continue to
modify the variance when the source dimensions are not
known, as described in Wald et al. (2008) but now extend that
treatment to weight the contribution of the GMPE to the aver-
aged ground motions.
In the sections that follow, we first describe the metho-
dology of our new approach to computing ShakeMaps.
We then discuss some of the advantages of this new approach
and its implementation over our previous versions of
ShakeMap. Finally, we discuss a series of validation exercises
that demonstrate the viability and benefits of our new
implementation.
Methodology
Under our new approach, the input to ShakeMap for any
particular ground-motion parameter (PGA, PGV, PSA, inten-
sity) consists of three distinct types of data: (1) measured
instrumental ground-motion or macroseismic observation
A Revised Ground-Motion and Intensity Interpolation Scheme for ShakeMap
data at specific sites; we call these data “native observa-
tions;” (2) converted data, based on an observation of one
type that is converted (by use of an empirical or theoret-
ical relationship) to another type [e.g., MMI
fPGV or
PGV
gMMI]; we call these data “converted observa-
tions;” and (3) ground-motion estimates, based on a GMPE
(or IPE) or from numerical waveform modeling. Our over-
arching goal is to combine the three types of data in a manner
that (a) is consistent across the different map types (PGM,
PSA, and intensity); (b) weights the various data appropri-
ately given how well they are constrained; and (c) produces
a computed variance for each grid point.
(In the discussion that follows, we will frequently refer
to the GMPE or GMPE-based estimates. It should be noted
that the discussion applies generally to both ground motions
and intensities, but to avoid excessive repetition the reader
should assume that GMPE means GMPE or IPE.)
How Observations Influence Nearby
Ground-Motion Estimates
The approach here follows Cua and Wald (2008) in
weighting the relative contribution of a datum by a function
of its uncertainty (i.e., its variance, σ2 ). The essential geome-
try of this approach is illustrated in Figure 1a. The observa-
tion, Y obs , is scaled to remove the observation point’s site
amplification effects relative to the point x; y, where a pre-
diction is desired. The amplitude is also scaled by a factor to
account for the difference in distance to the source from the
observation and the point of interest. (This distance correc-
tion generalizes well to a geometry correction in situations
where the predictions include effects like radiation pattern,
directivity, source-time functions, wave propagation effects,
(a) Observation Point (Obs) (b)
r∆
Grid Point (x,y)
rObs
rxy
Source
Figure 1. Illustrations of the relative geometry of observations and grid points: (a) a grid point, x; y, relative to an observation (Obs),
defining the various distance measures rΔ , rxy , and rObs ; (b) the three possible configurations of grid points relative to an observation point:
rΔ < rROI , rROI < rΔ < rmax , and rΔ > rmax .
3085
etc.) Thus, the predicted amplitude, Y obs;xy , at a grid point
x; y from a nearby observation, Y obs , is


Y GMPE;xy
Y obs;xy
Y obs × × Csite ; (1)
Y GMPE;obs
where Csite is the term to correct the relative site amplifica-
tion (or site amplification at grid point x; y=site
amplification at location of obs), Y GMPE;obs and Y GMPE;xy
are the ground-motion predictions at the observation point
and the point x; y, respectively, and their ratio corrects for
the relative distance-to-source (i.e., rxy versus robs in Fig. 1a)
and other source and path effects when the predictions come
from more sophisticated methods.
Equation 1 holds whether the observation is native or
converted. In the case of a converted observation, Y obs in
equation 1 is replaced by Y conv
fY obs , where f repre-
sents the application of a GMICE.
Uncertainty due to the Influence of Observations
on Nearby Ground-Motion Estimates
Observations are assumed to have a radius of influence
within which variance decreases as a function of distance,
reaching zero at the observation site itself (using the function
in the Boore et al., 2003, appendix). Similarly, converted
observations have a variance associated with the conversion
itself, which is added to the distance-dependent variance.
Predictions from GMPEs will have a variance, typically
(although not universally) constant for a given ground-
motion parameter, that is determined by the study used to
develop the GMPE.
r∆
Grid Point (x,y)
Observation Point (Obs)
rmax
rROI
3086 C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua

10
The value of the standard deviation associated with the
GMPE, σGMPE , as provided by the relevant study’s authors, is 9
often broken down into interevent and intraevent terms that 8
are combined to produce a total uncertainty for the GMPE.
7
If enough observations are available, ShakeMap attempts
to compute an interevent bias for each event (i.e., a magni-

Weight Ratio
6
tude adjustment that minimizes the residual between the
5
observations and predictions; see the Discussion and Testing
section for more on computing the bias). Applying this event 4
bias should effectively compensate for the interevent uncer- 3
tainty of the GMPE. Thus, if an event bias can be obtained
from the observations, and if the GMPE in question provides 2

the interevent and intraevent terms, ShakeMap will use the 1

intraevent term only. In all other cases, we use the com-
0
bined term. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 1b illustrates the geometry used in computing σ Distance (km)
as a function of distance (rΔ ) from the observation point
x; y, using a modified Boore et al. (2003) approach. That Figure 2. The weight assigned to an observation relative to the
is, σobs;xy
frΔ , where σobs;xy is the standard deviation weight of the GMPE prediction (i.e., σ2GMPE =σ2xy ) as a function of
distance with rROI
10 km and rmax
15 km.
expected for a remote observation at the point x; y.
Specifically,
p q
σobs;xy
σGMPE · 1  exp 0:6 · rΔ  σconvobs;xy
σ2obs;xy  σ2conv ; (3)
for rΔ ≤ rROI ; (2a)
after Boore et al. (2003), equation A1 and A2, where σconv is the uncertainty introduced by the observa-
tion’s conversion from another ground-motion parameter
rmax  rROI such that
σobs;xy
σr
rROI ·
rmax  rΔ 

0 for native observations
for rROI < rΔ < rmax ; (2b) σconv ; (4)

σGMICE for converted observations

where σGMICE is the standard deviation associated with

σobs;xy
∞ for rΔ ≥ rmax ; (2c)
where rROI is an empirically determined distance at which
the observation’s standard deviation is equal to the GMPE’s
(i.e., the radius of influence of the observation), and rmax is
the distance at which the influence of the observation decays
to zero. The choice of rmax is somewhat arbitrary and is used
to smooth the transition between the distance at which the
contributions of an observation and the GMPE are approxi-
mately equal, to a distance at which the GMPE is the sole
contributor. From the previous equations, we see that σobs;xy
increases asymptotically toward σGMPE out to a distance rROI
and then increases rapidly to infinity at rmax . Figure 2 shows
the weight ascribed to an observation at a remote loca-
tion relative to the weight of a GMPE prediction (i.e.,
σ2GMPE =σ2obs;xy ) as a function of distance with rROI
10 km
and rmax
15 km. The graph shows that the weight of an
observation will strongly dominate the final average within
the observation’s nearfield, peaking to infinite weight at the
observation point itself, and then falling off so that the inter-
polation becomes more collaborative at distances greater
than approximately one kilometer.
A generalized expression for the contribution of an
observation (possibly converted) to the uncertainty at point
x; y is given by
the GMICE.
For direct observations of intensity there is an additional
source of variance. By their nature, intensity observations are
an average over an areal extent. Thus, unlike ground-motion
observations, they do not exist at a point, and as an average,
have some built in variance. In recognition of this fact, we
assign a zero-distance sigma to intensity observations, and
combine that uncertainty (in the manner of equation 3) with
the distance-related uncertainty discussed previously. The
exact value of this uncertainty will likely vary with the size
of the area and the number of responses, and more research is
needed to better quantify this number. For the purposes of
this study, we use a value of 0.5 intensity units for the zero-
distance standard deviation, which some very preliminary
work indicates is likely conservative.
Combining Multiple Observations, Converted
Observations, and GMPE Estimates
In its most general form, the weighted-average approach
of Cua and Wald (2008) states that the ground-motion esti-
mate at point x; y is a weighted sum of the different types of
contributing information. Each contributor is weighted by
the inverse of its variance. The total variance is the inverse
A Revised Ground-Motion and Intensity Interpolation Scheme for ShakeMap 3087

of the sum of the weights. The ground-motion estimate at Implementation

x; y and its variance can be most generally expressed as
Equation (7) provides a very concise statement of our
Pk Yj approach, but it is not particularly efficient to implement
j
1 σ2
Y
xy
Pk j
; (5) after including site amplification and the correction for rela-
1
j
1 σ2j tive distance-to-source (see Fig. 1a) that must be computed
for each observation that contributes to any grid point. As a
and consequence, we reorganize the equation to make the com-
1 putations more efficient. We first remove the site amplifica-
σY
xy
Pk 1
; (6) tion term from all observations, bringing the observations
j
1 σ2
j onto the same relative site conditions as those produced
where there are k different types of information. Considering by the GMPE. We then modify equation (7) to include the
contributions from the GMPE, and distinguishing between amplitude correction for relative distance-to-source (per
the contributions of surrounding native and converted obser- equation 1):

Y GMPE;xy Pn Y obs;xy;i Y GMPE;xy

 P 
m Y conv;xy;j Y GMPE;xy

σ2GMPE
 i
1 σ2 × Y GMPE;obs;i  j
1 σ2 × Y GMPE;conv;j
Y
xy
obs;xy;i
Pn Pm conv;xy;j
; (9)
σ2
1
 i
1 σ2 1
 j
1 σ2 1
GMPE obs;xy;i conv;xy;j

which reduces to

Pn  Y obs;xy;i
 P 
Y conv;xy;j

1
σ2GMPE
 × σ2 1
i
1 Y GMPE;obs;i  m
j
1 Y GMPE;conv;j × σ2
1

Y
xy
Y GMPE;xy × P obs;xy;i P conv;xy;j

: (10)
1
σ2GMPE
 ni
1 σ2 1  m j
1 σ2
1
obs;xy;i conv;xy;j

Y
vations, equation (5) (with k
3, ranging over GMPE, The site corrections and the dividend Y GMPE;obs;i
obs;xy;i
 (and the
native, and converted observations) can be written as similar dividend for the converted values) are computed once
for each observation in simple On operations. The two
Y GMPE;xy P Y P Y conv;xy;j summations in the numerator are computed independently
σ2GMPE
 ni
1 σ2obs;xy;i  mj
1 σ2conv;xy;j
Y
xy
Pn obs;xy;i
Pm ; (7) of one another (to simplify the computation of σT ) while
1
σ2GMPE
 i
1 σ2 1
 j
1 σ2 1 keeping track of the total weights needed for the summations
obs;xy;i conv;xy;j
in the denominator. The entire quotient in equation (10) is
computed for every point in the output grid, and then that
(after Cua and Wald, 2008, equation 6), where Y GMPE;xy and
grid is multiplied by a grid of GMPE predictions (represented
σ2GMPE are the amplitude and variance, respectively, at the
by Y GMPE;xy ). As a final step, a site amplification factor is
point x; y as given by the GMPE, Y conv;xy;j are the converted
applied to each output point to scale the amplitude from
amplitudes scaled to the point x; y, and σ2conv;xy;j is the var-
the GMPE-native site condition to that of the site itself.
iance associated with converted observation j. For points
The implementation described here requires a consider-
zero or near-zero-distance from an observation, σobs;xy is
ably greater computational effort than previous versions of
fixed at a small, nonzero value that ensures that the observa-
ShakeMap. The implementation also lends itself very well
tion will dominate the total ground motion, while avoiding
to array operations. Because we work extensively with geo-
the singularity in the equation. Similarly,
graphic grids, we have for some time found the Generic
Mapping Tools (GMT; Wessel and Smith, 1995) to be con-
1 venient for most of the mapping and visualization, but with
σ
2Y

Pn Pm ; (8)
xy 1
σ2GMPE
 i
1 σ2
1
 j
1 σ2
1 this new implementation we have delegated much of the
obs;xy;i conv;xy;j
computational work to GMT’s grdmath program. This ap-
proach provides us with very efficient computation, while
is the total variance at a given point. keeping most of our development in the convenient Perl
Because GMPEs for various tectonic regimes are rela- programming language.
tively more common than IPEs, we allow for virtual-IPEs that
are the combination of a GMPE and a GMICE. The variance Improvements over Previous Versions of ShakeMap. Read-
for the IPE in this case is determined by combining the var- ers familiar with previous versions of ShakeMap will recog-
iance of the GMPE with the variance of the GMICE. nize that this new implementation is a substantial departure
3088 C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua

350 350 350

(a) (b) (c)
300 300 300
samples: 3245 samples: 3245 samples: 3245
250 mean: 0.7225 250 mean: 0.0939 250 mean: −0.0929
std: 0.8756 std: 0.7201 std: 0.5889

Count
200 200
Count

Count
200

150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Error (ln(Obs) − ln(Pred); percent−g) Error (ln(Obs) − ln(Pred); percent−g) Error (ln(Obs) − ln(Pred); percent−g)

Figure 3. Histograms of log PGA raw error [lnobservation  lnprediction] for three cases: (a) unbiased GMPE, (b) biased GMPE,
and (c) ShakeMap predictions. std = standard deviation.

from the old. The output products and many of the support-
ing programs are essentially the same (with a few important
differences), but the computational element is essentially all-
new and based on the methodology described herein. Some
of the advantages of this new approach are listed as follows:
• Our previous implementation of ShakeMap used a surface
of continuous curvature, fit to the data and estimates, to
produce an interpolated grid. However, it is debatable as
to whether such a surface correctly represents the distribu-
tion of ground motion. Additionally, because the new
approach interpolates each point independently of its
neighbors, it does not impose curvature or artificial con-
straints on point-to-point continuity, as a surface-fitting in-
terpolation does.
• Similarly, with a surface fit, there is a tradeoff between
fitting the observations precisely and generating high-
frequency artifacts. This tradeoff is represented by the ten-
sion parameter in GMT’s program surface. With the new
approach, a station’s data dominate the result near the sta-
tion, but the approach does not employ a mathematical
spline that could generate artifacts elsewhere.
• Also because of fitting with surface, the results at each
output point were dependent on the dimensions of the in-
terpolated grid, the data within the mapped area, and any
padding added to the gridded area. The new approach gen-
function within surface. The new approach gives us com-
plete control of the method.
• The previous use of a coarse grid of estimates could miss
near-fault details because of the low resolution of the es-
timate grid. While this limitation was mitigated somewhat
by the ability to use a finer grid of predictions near the
source, our new approach utilizes estimates at every point
in the output grid, guaranteeing that source features will
not be missed or aliased beyond the limitations imposed
by the output grid resolution.
• Similarly, the coarse grid of estimates could miss GMPE
corner distances or other real features produced by the
model, which would be smoothed over by the fitting (even
simple interpolation would break down here). Again, by
computing estimates at every grid point, the new approach
will reflect any predicted features within the resolution of
the output grid.
• Uncertainty was computed using the distance from the
nearest station only (possibly modified by the unknown-
source aleatory), but the current approach reflects the
combined uncertainty from proximity to multiple nearby
observations, further constrained by the GMPE.
1.8
Mean Absolute Residual |ln(Obs) − ln(Pred)|

ShakeMap Prediction
1.6 Biased GMPE
erates a result at each grid point that is independent of grid Unbiased GMPE
size, mapped area, or any data beyond rmax .
1.4
• The prior surface fitting was something of a black box,
dependent on the specific implementation of the fitting 1.2

Table 1 1
Residual {abslnObserved  lnPredicted} of
ShakeMap Predictions vs. the Biased and Unbiased 0.8
GMPE, Using PGM and Converted MMI Observations
0.6
Biased Unbiased
Parameter n ShakeMap* GMPE* GMPE*
0.4
PGA 3245 Mean 0.4571 0.5631 0.9347
Std† 0.3827 0.4583 0.6441 0.2
PGV 3105 Mean 0.4466 0.5391 0.7691 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Std† 0.3679 0.4313 0.5656 Event

*Units for PGA are lnpercent-g, and for PGV are lncm=s. Figure 4. Mean PGA error for events with at least ten predic-
†
Std = standard deviation. tions, sorted by increasing mean error of ShakeMap predictions.
A Revised Ground-Motion and Intensity Interpolation Scheme for ShakeMap 3089

1.6
Table 3
Mean Absolute Residual |ln(Obs) − ln(Pred)|
ShakeMap Prediction
Biased GMPE
Unbiased GMPE
Summary Statistics of PGA Residual as a Function of the
1.4
Number of Nearby Stations Contributing to a Prediction

1.2 Nearby Mean Error Standard Deviation

Contributors [lnpercent-g] [lnpercent-g] n Samples

1 0.5533 0.4324 488

1
2 0.4860 0.3994 394
3 0.5179 0.4347 309
0.8 4 0.5234 0.4532 283
5 0.4349 0.3850 211
0.6 6 0.4425 0.3676 200
7 0.3902 0.3183 131
8 0.4368 0.3627 124
0.4
9 0.3923 0.3289 146
10 0.3789 0.2925 128
0.2 11 0.3470 0.2551 112
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
12 0.3669 0.3070 139
Event
13 0.4079 0.3058 135
Figure 5. Mean PGV error for events with at least 10 predic- 14 0.3566 0.2625 108
15 0.3807 0.3472 81
tions, sorted by increasing mean error of ShakeMap predictions.
16 0.3600 0.2687 77

• Our previous version would cull predictions and converted n Samples is the number of predictions contributing to the mean in
observations near seismic stations in order to ensure that each bin.
the best-quality data would dominate the solution near
the observation. Now these data are combined with the As mentioned earlier, ShakeMap attempts to compute a
observations, via weighting by quality, utilizing all avail- GMPE bias factor for each event. If enough stations (config-
able information and reducing overall uncertainty. urable, but usually at least six) are near the source (i.e., with-
in the valid range of the GMPE), the event magnitude (as
provided to the GMPE) is adjusted to minimize the misfit
Discussion and Testing between the observed and predicted values. The definition
of “misfit” is also configurable, but here we have used the
We can test our approach by computing the ShakeMap absolute deviation (i.e., the L1 norm) of the difference in
predicted amplitudes at the location of ground-motion obser- log amplitudes. It should be noted that in southern California,
vations (rather than on a uniform grid), excluding the obser- from where our test data originate, the interevent bias is
vation itself, and then comparing our prediction to the usually well constrained by dense station coverage; it may
observation. This is a test of our ShakeMap methodology not perform as well in areas with sparse observations. Also
specifically and not of the accuracy of the maps themselves; as mentioned earlier, when a GMPE bias is available for an
in operation, ShakeMap produces estimates on a rectangular event, the uncertainty of the GMPE is reduced to the intrae-
grid, which would not, in general, be expected to be identical vent term (if so supplied), rather than the combined intrae-
vent and interevent terms used otherwise. This reduced
with the ground motion at a nearby station or stations.
uncertainty will have a very minor effect on the relative con-
However, the results discussed here give us confidence that
tribution of the predictions of the GMPE in the averaging pro-
our predictive grids will be better, in general, than GMPE or
cess (because the contributions of the observations are
IPE predictions, especially in the proximity of one or more
relative to the uncertainty of the GMPE; see equations 2a
seismic stations or intensity observations. and 5) but will reduce the computed uncertainty for every
output point in the map. In cases where a bias is computed,
Table 2 but separate intraevent and interevent GMPE uncertainty
Residual (abslnObserved  lnPredicted) of ShakeMap terms are not available, the computed ShakeMap uncertainty
Predictions and the Biased and Unbiased GMPE, will be somewhat greater than the actual uncertainty as, to
Using PGM Observations Only some extent, the interevent uncertainty contribution has been
Biased Unbiased removed by the bias correction (although it cannot be in-
Parameter n ShakeMap* GMPE* GMPE* cluded mathematically).
PGA 3066 Mean 0.4576 0.5648 0.9503 In the process of computing the bias, ShakeMap finds
Std† 0.3847 0.4668 0.6501 and removes outliers (another configuration choice; here,
PGV 3069 Mean 0.4431 0.5389 0.7714 we consider an amplitude an outlier if it lies in excess of
Std† 0.3657 0.4322 0.5658
four standard deviations from the biased GMPE estimates).
*Units for PGA are lnpercent-g, and for PGV are lncm=s. Outliers are removed from the misfit calculation, and the bias
†
Std = standard deviation. is recomputed in an iterative process until no additional
3090 C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua

Table 4 GMPE prediction (the biased GMPE if a bias can be com-

Residual (abslnObserved  lnPredicted) of ShakeMap puted, unbiased otherwise). Including these non-data-
Predictions and the Biased and Unbiased GMPE, Using PGM informed predictions in our analysis would not change our
Observations Only, and the Boore and Atkinson (2008) GMPE
overall conclusions, but they would tend to dilute the differ-
Biased Unbiased ences between our methodology and that of using the GMPE
Parameter n ShakeMap* GMPE* GMPE*
alone, and it is that difference we are trying to discern here.
PGA 3076 Mean 0.4747 0.5718 0.8537
It is important to remember, however, that a production
Std† 0.3981 0.4793 0.6956
PGV 3079 Mean 0.4531 0.5645 0.7964 ShakeMap will, in general, consist of both data-informed
Std† 0.3744 0.4524 0.6105 predictions and GMPE-only predictions.
As a baseline test, we use the GMPE of Chiou and
*Units for PGA are lnpercent-g, and for PGV are lncm=s.
†
Youngs (2008) (adapted to include the southern California
Std = standard deviation.
small-to-moderate magnitude adjustments from Chiou et al.,
outliers are removed. Outliers, therefore, do not contribute to 2010), hereafter CY08, and the GMICE from Wald, Quitor-
the bias, and they are not used in the computation of the iano, Heaton, et al. (1999). Histograms of the raw differences
ShakeMap predicted ground motions. They are, however, in- are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3a shows the peak of the un-
cluded in the observations used to find the total residual pre- biased GMPE residual distribution to be off center, indicating
sented here because they are valid data. Observations that that the GMPE is systematically underpredicting the ampli-
have been flagged by the network operators as unreliable tudes for these events. However, applying the event bias
(glitches or clipped or incomplete records) are used in neither (Fig. 3b) recenters the distribution near-zero and somewhat
ShakeMap nor the residual calculations. shortens its tails. The new ShakeMap methodology (Fig. 3c
For our testing, we used 131 southern California earth- further tightens the distribution, although it shows a slight
quakes from the past several years with a moment magnitude tendency toward overprediction for these events. To get a
4.0 or greater (see Data and Resources for a list of event IDs). sense of the median value (and therefore the tendency toward
Of these earthquakes, 114 also had zip-coded DYFI intensity underprediction or overprediction), we apply bootstrapping
data associated with them. We computed ShakeMap predic- to resample (with replacement) the residual data and com-
tions as well as predictions from both a biased and unbiased pute the mean for each of 1000 such resamplings then
GMPE and found the residual (observed minus predicted) in produce a mean and standard deviation of the resulting
natural-log amplitude for PGA and PGV. For our analysis, we distribution. As expected, the unbiased GMPE shows a sig-
retain data within 100 km of the source and for which the nificant tendency to underpredict PGA (mean
0:7221,
ShakeMap prediction at a location is informed by at least standard deviation
0:0156), while the biased GMPE
one other observation or converted observation within range (mean
0:0935, standard deviation
0:0129) and the Sha-
of the ShakeMap rmax setting (in this case, 15 km was used). keMap predictions (mean
0:0929, standard deviation
In all cases, the ShakeMap predictions (whether informed by
0:0107) produce much more centered distributions. That
native, converted, or a combination of native and converted the biased GMPE has a slight tendency to underpredict sug-
observations) are compared with native observations only. gests that the outliers removed from the bias process tend to
Converted observations are not used as ground truth because be amplitudes that are too large, rather than too small.
they contain their own uncertainty, and thus, it would be un- Indeed, below a certain predicted amplitude, the bias routine
clear if a reduction in the residuals corresponded to an actual of ShakeMap does not reject outliers. The tendency of
improvement in prediction accuracy. ShakeMap to slightly overpredict data-informed amplitudes
In cases where the ShakeMap prediction is not data- suggests that large (nonoutlier) amplitudes pull the weighted
informed, the ShakeMap prediction is identical with the average upward somewhat more than necessary. If this result
1200 1200 1200
(a) (b) (c)
1000 samples: 5626 1000 samples: 5626 1000 samples: 5626
mean: −0.2235 mean: −0.0029 mean: −0.0023
800 std: 0.2275 800 std: 0.1783 800 std: 0.1475
Count

Count

Count

600 600 600

400 400 400

200 200 200

0 0 0
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
Error (Obs − Pred) Error (Obs − Pred) Error (Obs − Pred)

Figure 6. Histograms of intensity raw error (observation  prediction) for three cases: (a) unbiased IPE, (b) biased IPE, (c) ShakeMap
predictions. std = standard deviation.
A Revised Ground-Motion and Intensity Interpolation Scheme for ShakeMap 3091

0.7
is consistent over other datasets, we may find it productive to ShakeMap Prediction
Biased IPE
devise a means of compensating for this bias.

Mean Absolute Residual |Obs − Pred|

0.6 Unbiased IPE
Turning now to the absolute residuals, which provide a
measure of how well we predict individual ground-motion 0.5
values, the histograms in Figure 3 suggest that ShakeMap
predictions are better, on average, than those produced by 0.4
the GMPE. Table 1 provides summary statistics that confirm
these observations. In general, the unbiased GMPE produces 0.3
the worst-case predictions (the interevent sigma is unknown),
and they are used by ShakeMap only in situations where there 0.2
are not enough ground-motion observations to compute a re-
liable GMPE bias. Where there are enough stations to compute 0.1
the bias, the biased GMPE represents a substantial improve-
ment over the unbiased estimates, both in the mean residual, 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
and the variance about the mean. In locations where there are
Event
one or more nearby observations, the ShakeMap estimates are
a further improvement over the biased GMPE, again in both Figure 7. Mean intensity error for events with at least ten pre-
mean and variance, and by an impressive margin. dictions, sorted by increasing mean error of ShakeMap predictions.
We can also look at the results on a per-event basis. For
PGA in Figure 4 and for PGV in Figure 5 are plots of the mean observations may contribute a higher percentage of the data-
absolute log residual for events with at least 10 measure- informed PGM predictions. Similarly, from the tables we see
ments. The horizontal axis in these plots is arbitrary; we have that the inclusion of the converted intensity observations in
sorted the events in order of increasing mean residual of the the biasing of the GMPE does not detract from the effective-
ShakeMap predictions for the purpose of making visual ness of the bias. This is especially important given that there
examination more straightforward. This sorting, however, were substantially more intensity observations in the data set
renders invalid event-to-event comparisons between these than PGM observations. This result is mitigated somewhat by
figures. The figures indicate that for the majority of events, the fact that the converted intensity observations are down-
the ShakeMap predictions are at least as good as the biased or weighted (by their uncertainty) in the bias calculation, thus,
unbiased GMPEs and in most cases are better. In a minority we would expect biases computed with only converted inten-
of cases, however, the GMPE works better. Our analysis to sities to be less accurate, on average, than ones that include
date has not identified a common element that would account significant numbers of PGM observations.
for situations in which the ShakeMap predictions are inferior One of our basic assumptions in this new methodology
to those of the GMPE. is that the use of the weighted-average of nearby observa-
Excluding contributions from the converted DYFI inten- tions will improve the predictions. If that assumption is true,
sity observations produces very similar prediction errors for we should see a general improvement in prediction accuracy
ShakeMap, as seen in Table 2. This is a distinctly positive as the number of nearby contributors grows. Table 3 provides
result: converting intensity to PGM introduces considerable summary statistics showing the absolute error for PGA as of
uncertainty into the data mix, but here we confirm that results function of the number of nearby contributors. While not
including DYFI intensity are as good but include more total monotonic or entirely conclusive, the table does show a gen-
eral trend toward smaller residual mean and variance as the
data points than using PGM alone. Thus maps combining
number of contributors grows, as expected.
PGM and intensity will have larger areas of data-informed
We note that our results are relatively insensitive to the
predictions without sacrificing predictive accuracy. The con-
choice of GMPE, as long as the GMPE is an appropriate one
tribution of DYFI to the PGM maps is somewhat obscured in
for the given tectonic environment. Table 4 shows the result
our data by the high density of seismic stations in southern
California. In areas of lower station density, the intensity Table 6
Residual [absObserved  Predicted] of ShakeMap
Table 5 Predictions and the Biased and Unbiased GMPE,
Residual [absObserved  Predicted] of ShakeMap Converted to Intensity via the GMICE of Wald,
Intensity Predictions (MMI units) and the Biased Quitoriano, Heaton, et al. (1999)*
and Unbiased TA09 IPE
Biased Unbiased
Biased Unbiased Parameter n ShakeMap GMPE GMPE
Parameter n ShakeMap IPE IPE
Intensity 5385 Mean 0.2036 0.1960 0.3600
Intensity 5626 Mean 0.1059 0.1335 0.2568 Std† 0.1922 0.2028 0.3885
Std* 0.1027 0.1182 0.1891
*Units are MMI.
†
*Std = standard deviation. Std = standard deviation.
3092
if we substitute the GMPE of Boore and Atkinson (2008)
(BA08) for CY08. These results are directly comparable
to Table 2. While BA08 does somewhat less well than
CY08 (except for the unbiased PGA residual), the difference
is not dramatic, and we note that BA08 was developed for
earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 and greater (unlike our CY08
module, which has adjustments for small-magnitude to mod-
erate-magnitude earthquakes per Chiou et al., 2010), and our
dataset contains many earthquakes of M 4.0–M 5.0. As one
might expect of a GMPE derived for larger events, the un-
biased BA08 tends to overpredict for our dataset. The choice
of an inappropriate GMPE, however, can have greater conse-
quences. In areas of sparse data, ShakeMap predictions may
be largely based on the GMPE, and in some cases it may be
the unbiased GMPE. Even in cases where data-availability is
sufficient to compute a bias, the bias procedure itself may not
respond well to an inappropriate GMPE and could produce
spurious results. We reiterate that the choice of GMPE will
Figure 8. ShakeMap intensity map of the M 5.4 Diamond Bar earthquake. This map was made using the old ShakeMap methodology of
PGM converted to intensity. The small triangles on the map indicate the location of seismic stations reporting PGM.
C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua
affect the overall accuracy of the maps, and it therefore be-
hooves the ShakeMap operator to make a careful selection
of GMPE. Those seeking guidance in this matter and in the
matter of GMICE selection are referred to Cua et al., 2010,
which reviews the options for a wide range of geographic
areas and tectonic settings.
In all cases previously mentioned, the GMICE was used
in the reverse manner for which it was designed, that is, we
used it to generate ground motions from known intensities,
rather than intensities from known ground motions. Neither
of the GMICEs we use here (Wald, Quitoriano, Heaton, et al.,
1999; Atkinson and Kaka, 2007) was regressed in this direc-
tion, and our usage must be considered decidedly off label.
We await with anticipation the development of GMICEs that
are two-way (i.e., they intend both PGM-to-intensity and
intensity-to-PGM conversions), however we find the current
equations to behave admirably under these less-than-ideal
circumstances. (We note that Faenza and Michelini [2010]
A Revised Ground-Motion and Intensity Interpolation Scheme for ShakeMap
do have a two-way relation for Italian intensity data, derived
by orthogonal distance regression, but they employ Mercali-
Cancani-Seiberg intensities and for a limited, lower range of
intensity values.) We do, however, restrict the use of PGM
derived from small intensities because our work here had in-
dicated that these derived amplitudes are a significant source
of error. This higher error is likely the result of the lower
intensities deriving from a wider range of PGMs than that
of the higher intensities. This wider PGM range is apparent,
for example, in figure 4 of Atkinson and Kaka (2007).
ShakeMap, therefore, only uses PGVs derived from intensi-
ties greater than or equal to 4, and PGAs from intensities 3
and larger (these thresholds were determined from our test-
ing). In addition, many GMICEs do not provide conversions
for PSA, so ShakeMap PSA predictions are not always sup-
plemented by nearby intensity observations.
Our results for macroseismic intensity (here we use
DYFI MMI-equivalent specifically) are similar to those for
PGM. In the case of intensity, however, we use linear rather
than logarithmic differences for our residual computations
because the MMI scale is constrained to a limited range of
values from 1 to 10. Here, we chose the IPE developed by
Allen et al. (unpublished manuscript), and the GMICE of
Figure 9. DYFI intensity map of the M 5.4 Diamond Bar earthquake.
3093
Wald, Quitoriano, Heaton, et al. (1999). (Note that here we
are using the GMICE as it was intended, although we use the
IPE for magnitudes below the M 4.9–M 7.9 range for which
it was developed.) Figure 6 shows the residual histograms
of the unbiased (Fig. 6a) and biased IPE (Fig. 6b), and
ShakeMap predictions (Fig. 6c). As with PGM, we see the
bias of the IPE, and the ShakeMap methodology leading to
tighter, more centered distributions. The unbiased IPE tends
to overpredict with the center of the distribution at a mean
position of (0:2235), while the biased IPE and ShakeMap
predictions are near-zero at (0:0030) and (0:0023), re-
spectively. Table 5 presents the summary statistics for the
absolute error. Here again, we see a dramatic reduction in
the residual mean and variance with the implementation
of a per-event IPE bias and additional improvement through
the use of the data-informed ShakeMap methodology. It is
notable, however, that even the unbiased IPE is able to predict
mean intensities within one-quarter intensity unit of the data,
with a moderate variance, suggesting that intensity is consid-
erably more spatially stable than PGM. This is perhaps not
unexpected in that MMI is by definition an average of obser-
vations over some (variable) spatial extent. Finally, Figure 7
presents the per-event mean prediction error for those events
3094
with at least 10 data-informed amplitudes. As with PGM, the
ShakeMap predictions are superior to the IPE for most of the
events in our dataset.
In our earlier discussion of the development of the new
ShakeMap methodology, we asserted the importance of treat-
ing intensity as a native data source similar to PGM, rather
than as a derived parameter as had been our previous ap-
proach. We can test the merits of this decision by approximat-
ing the approach of earlier versions of ShakeMap: we produce
PGM predictions at the locations of the intensity observations
and then convert those ground motions into intensities. Table 6
presents the summary statistics from this approach, which
may be compared directly with the statistics in Table 5. The
converted PGM approach shows a marked inferiority to the
native intensity approach, producing greater absolute error
and variance under all data-availability scenarios.
Figure 10. ShakeMap intensity map of the M 5.4 Diamond Bar earthquake. This map was made using the new ShakeMap methodology
described in this paper. The small triangles on the map indicate the location of seismic stations reporting PGM, and the small circles show the
locations of intensity data from DYFI.
C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua
An interesting example of the value of native intensity
approach over the converted PGM approach is found in the
M 5.4 earthquake of 29 July 29 2008 near the city of
Diamond Bar, California (event ID 14383980). Figure 8
shows the intensity map derived by the previous ShakeMap
system, showing an area of intensity VI southwest of the
epicenter running to the coast. This feature was much more
subtle and of lower intensity on the DYFI maps for the same
event (Fig. 9), and upon examination, we found that the high
ShakeMap intensities were derived from PGVs that were
likely the result of energy amplified within the basin but
of a low enough frequency that it did not generate commen-
surate increased macroseismic effects. Figure 10 shows the
map that the new system would create using both PGM and
DYFI data. The revised map is much more consistent with the
observed intensities (Fig. 9).
A Revised Ground-Motion and Intensity Interpolation Scheme for ShakeMap 3095

Table 7 certainties. This data combination adds additional function-

Southern California Seismic Network Event IDs ality to the ShakeMap methodology, allowing the utilization
for Earthquakes in This Study of intensity data in addition to (oftentimes less abundant)
Event ID ground-motion data. Rigorous incorporation of the intensity
10006857* 10059745* 10070917 10097009* 10147909* data facilitates comparison of estimated ground-motion maps
10148369* 10148421* 10148829* 10185301 10185397* and shaking values with loss and damage data, a combination
10185465* 10207681* 10215753* 10221893 10222185 that is fundamental for loss-model development and
10223765* 10230869* 10275733* 10276197* 10277865* calibration.
10285533* 10295849* 10296113* 10319993 10321561*
10321585* 10347253* 10365233* 10366101* 10366249*
We have tested our enhanced methodology by comput-
10368325* 10370141* 10374021* 10399889* 10403777* ing the ShakeMap predicted amplitudes at locations of
10406593* 10410337* 10411545* 10477949* 10480301* ground-motion observations and comparing our predictions
10489253* 12245763* 13935988* 14065532 14073800* to the observations. In cases where no data are available, the
14077668* 14086684* 14095628* 14116972* 14118096*
14138080* 14139108 14146956* 14151344* 14155260*
ShakeMap prediction is identical with the GMPE prediction.
14158696* 14165408 14169456 14178184* 14178188* With the addition of a per-event bias correction to the GMPE
14178212* 14178236 14178248* 14179292* 14179736* (or IPE), the ShakeMap estimates represent a substantial
14186612* 14201764* 14219360* 14233052* 14236768* improvement over the unbiased GMPE estimates. Further,
14239764* 14263712* 14282008 14285168* 14285760
in locations where there are one or more nearby observations,
14288992* 14295640* 14312160* 14330056* 14335368
14346868* 14348196* 14348588* 14348592* 14348824 the ShakeMap estimates are an improvement over the biased
14348840* 14349400* 14351140* 14351300* 14352012* GMPE by a considerable margin. Finally, converting intensity
14352020* 14358796 14367532* 14375776* 14376612* observations to PGM introduces additional uncertainty into
14383980* 14396336* 14403732* 14404512* 14406196* the data mix, but we confirm that including converted inten-
14406304* 14407020* 14408052* 14418600* 14433456*
14435776* 14443616* 14462064* 14477000* 14481152* sity data is an improvement over empirical predictions alone.
14512436* 14512580* 14517500* 14519756* 14519764* We have also demonstrated that our native intensity
14519780* 14519860* 14519868* 14519940* 14520476* approach shows a marked superiority over converting PGM
14520900* 14523676* 9108645*† 9854597* 9949793 predictions to intensities and allows the incorporation of
9966033* 9966449 9983429* Landers*‡ Northridge*§
Whittier_Narrows*||
native intensity observations into the ShakeMap processing.
This suggests that using observed intensity data may be
*All listed events have ShakeMap input data available and DYFI data beneficial even in regions where instrumental observations
associated with them (see Data and Resources section). Note that the are abundant if one goal is to produce the most accurate in-
asterisk is not part of the event ID. The DYFI event IDs for the
tensity map in addition to producing well-constrained peak-
named events are given as follows. We use the aggregated, zip-coded
data for all of our analysis here. ground-motion maps. Because of regional variability in the
† availability, reliability, and spatial resolution of observed
Event 9108645 is commonly known as the Hector Mine Earthquake.
The DYFI event ID is “hectormi.” intensities, their incorporation in ShakeMap will be at the
‡
For DYFI, the event ID for Landers is “landers.”
§For DYFI, the event ID for Northridge is “northrid.”
operator’s discretion. But even without their use, the new
||
For DYFI, the event ID for Whittier_Narrows is “whittier.” methodology should improve the accuracy of the inten-
sity maps.

To determine the degree of misfit between the maps, we

sampled the each of the systems’ output intensity grids at the
locations of the DYFI observations and computed the resi-
duals versus the DYFI observations and found that the older
system, with PGM only, had a mean absolute error of 0.7571
(MMI units) and a standard deviation of 0.3881, while the
new system using PGM and DYFI data had a mean error
of 0.3085 and a standard deviation of 0.2873, a very substan-
tial improvement. The bias of the older approach was also
much larger than the new system (0:7351 versus 0:2028),
as an inspection of the figures would suggest.
Conclusions
We have introduced improved ShakeMap interpolation
algorithms that allow for a natural combination of observed
ground motions and intensities with estimated peak ground
motions, weighted proportionally to the inverse of their un-
Data and Resources
A list of the southern California Seismic Network Event
IDs of the earthquakes used in this study are in Table 7.
Shake-Map input data (PGA, PGV, and PSA when available)
may be obtained from the downloads page of each Shake-
Map event in either text or XML under the heading “Station
Lists” at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/
(last accessed October 2010; where “<evid>” is replaced
with the Event ID of the earthquake of interest from Table 7).
DYFI data may be obtained as text or XML from the Down-
loads tab at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/
(last accessed October 2010) under “Intensity Summary”
with a like substitution from Table 7 for “<evid>” for the
numeric event IDs, except in the case of seven-digit event
IDs, in which a zero should be prepended to the listed Event
ID (e.g., 9983429 should be given as 09983429).
3096
Acknowledgments
This manuscript was improved by comments from several reviewers.
Internal reviews by Morgan Moschetti at the USGS and J. Sexton at
GNS were very helpful in improving and focusing the paper. Reviews by
L. Sirovich and an anonymous reviewer also contributed substantially.
We thank BSSA Associate Editor Hiroshi Kawase for his assistance in pre-
paring the final manuscript for publication. We would also like to thank the
many operators of regional ShakeMap systems for their input and contribu-
tions and in particular Pete Lombard (U.C. Berkeley) for supplying code and
debugging. We also thank Vince Quitoriano for producing the DYFI zoom
map of the Diamond Bar earthquake (Fig. 9). This work was supported in
part by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
References
Allen, T. I., K. D. Marano, P. S. Earle, and D. J. Wald (2009). PAGER-CAT:
A composite earthquake catalog for calibrating global fatality models,
Seismol. Res. Lett. 80, no. 1, 57–62.
Allen, T. I., D. J. Wald, A. J. Hotovec, K. Lin, P. S. Earle, and K. D. Marano
(2008). An Atlas of ShakeMaps for selected global earthquakes,
U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 2008-1236, 47 pp.
Allen, T. I., D. J. Wald, P. S. Earle, K. D. Marano, A. J. Hotovec, K. Lin, and
M. G. Hearne (2009). An Atlas of ShakeMaps and population
exposure catalog for earthquake loss modeling, Bull. Earthq. Eng.
7, 701–718.
Atkinson, G. M., and S. I. Kaka (2007). Relationships between felt intensity
and instrumental ground motion in the central United States and
California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, 497–510.
Atkinson, G. M., and D. J. Wald (2007). “Did You Feel It?” intensity data: A
surprisingly good measure of earthquake ground motion, Seismol. Res.
Lett. 78, 362–368.
Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson (2008). Ground-motion prediction
equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and
5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthq.
Spectra 24, no. 1, 99–138.
Boore, D. M., J. F. Gibbs, W. B. Joyner, J. C. Tinsley, and D. J. Ponti (2003).
Estimated ground motion From the 1994 Northridge, California,
earthquake at the site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard
Bridge collapse, West Los Angeles, California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
93, 2737–2751.
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal (1997). Equations for estimat-
ing horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western
North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work, Seismol.
Res. Lett. 68, 128–153.
Chiou, B. S.-J., and R. R. Youngs (2008). An NGA model of the average
horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra,
Earthq. Spectra 24, no. 1, 173–215.
Chiou, B. S.-J., R. R. Youngs, N. Abrahamson, and K. Addo (2010).
Ground-Motion attenuation model for small-to-moderate shallow
crustal earthquakes in California and its implications on regional-
ization of ground-motion prediction models, Earthq. Spectra 26,
no 4.
Cua, G., and D. J. Wald (2008). Calibrating PAGER (“Prompt Assessment
of Global Earthquakes for Response”) ground shaking and human
impact estimation using worldwide earthquake datasets: Collaborative
research with USGS and the Swiss Seismological Service, NEHRP
Final Report (Award number: 06HQGR0062).
C. B. Worden, D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, K. Lin, D. Garcia, and G. Cua
Cua, G., D. J. Wald, T. I. Allen, D. Garcia, C. B. Worden, M. Gerstenberger,
K. Lin, and K. Marano (2010) “Best Practices” for Using Macroseis-
mic Intensity and Ground Motion-Intensity Conversion Equations for
Hazard and Loss Models in GEM1, GEM Technical Report
number XX, GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Dewey, J., D. Wald, and L. Dengler (2000). Relating conventional USGS
Modified Mercalli Intensities to intensities assigned with data collected
via the Internet, Seismol. Res. Lett. 71, 264.
Dewey, J. W., M. G. Hopper, D. J. Wald, V. Quitoriano, and E. R. Adams
(2002). Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps for the Nisqually,
Washington, earthquake of 28 February 2001, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Open-File Rept. 02-0346.
Ebel, J., and D. J. Wald (2003). Bayesian estimations of peak ground
acceleration and 5% damped spectral acceleration from Modified
Mercalli Intensity data, Earthq. Spectra 19, no. 3, 511–529.
Electric Power Research Institute (2003). CEUS Ground Motion Project:
Model Development and Results, EPRI Report 1008910, EPRI, Palo
Alto, California, 105 pp.
Faenza, L., and A. Michelini (2010). Regression analysis of MCS Intensity
and ground motion parameters in Italy and its application in Shake-
Map, Geophys. J. Int. 180, 1138–1152.
Wald, D., V. Quitoriano, L. Dengler, and J. Dewey (1999). Utilization of the
Internet for rapid community intensity maps, Seismol. Res. Lett. 70,
680–697.
Wald, D. J., V. Quitoriano, T. H. Heaton, and H. Kanamori (1999). Relation-
ships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and mod-
ified Mercalli Intensity in California, Earthq. Spectra 15, 557–564.
Wald, D. J., K. Lin, and V. Quitoriano (2008). Quantifying and qualifying
ShakeMap uncertainty, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 2008-1238,
27 p.
Wessel, P., and W. H. F. Smith (1995). New Version of the Generic Mapping
Tools Released, Eos Trans. AGU 76, 329.
Synergetics, Inc.
1520 S. College Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(C.B.W.)
U.S. Geological Survey
Golden, Colorado
(D.J.W., K.L., D.G.)
Geoscience Australia
Canberra, Australia
(T.I.A.)
ETH Zurich
Zurich, Switzerland
(G.C.)
Manuscript received 19 April 2010