Abstract Historical seismic intensity data are useful for myriad reasons, including assessment of the performance of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) models and corresponding hazard maps by comparing their predictions to a dataset of historically observed intensities in the region. To assess PSHA models for California, a long and consistently interpreted intensity record is needed. For this purpose, the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) has compiled a dataset that combines and reinterprets intensity information that has been stored in disparate and sometimes hard-to-access locations. The CHIMP dataset also includes new observations of intensity from archival research and oral history collection. Version 1 of the dataset includes 46,502 intensity observations for 62 earthquakes with estimated magnitudes ranging from 4.7 to 7.9. The 162 yr of shaking data show observed shaking lower than expected from seismic hazard models. This discrepancy is reduced, but persists, if historical intensity data for the largest earthquakes are smoothed to reduce the effects of spatial undersampling. Possible reasons for this discrepancy include other limitations of the CHIMP dataset, the hazard models, and the possibility that California seismicity throughout the historical period has been lower than the long-term average. Some of these issues may also explain similar discrepancies observed for Italy and Japan.

Prior studies have repeatedly shown that probabilistic seismic hazard maps from several different countries predict higher shaking than that observed. Previous map assessments have not, however, considered the influence of site response on hazard. Seismologists have long acknowledged the influence of near-surface geology, in particular low-impedance sediment layers, on earthquake ground-motion at frequencies of engineering concern. Although the overall effects of site response are complex, modern ground-motion models (GMMs) account for site effects using terms based on VS30, the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m of the Earth’s surface. In this study, we consider general implications of incorporating site terms from modern GMMs using site-specific VS30 as a proxy in probabilistic seismic hazard maps for California. At the long periods (1–5 s) that affect tall buildings, site terms amplify the mapped hazard by factors of 1–3 at many sites relative to maps calculated for the standard reference soft-rock site condition, VS30 = 760 m/s. However, at the short periods of ground-motion that are the main contributors to peak ground acceleration (PGA) and thus affect smaller structures, only negligible effects occur due to nonlinear deamplification of strong ground-motion at high frequencies. Nonlinear deamplification increases as the shaking level increases. For very strong shaking, deamplification can overcome the linear amplification, yielding net deamplification. We explore the implications of these results for the evaluation of hazard maps. Because site effects do not change the maps appreciably at short periods, we can exclude site response as an explanation for why the maps overpredict historically observed shaking as captured by the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) dataset. The results are expected to be generalizable to regions that are comparable to California in terms of structure and seismicity rates. In low-to-moderate-seismicity regions where the hazard reflects weaker shaking, nonlinear site response is expected to be less important for the hazard.

<div> <p>Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments forecast levels of earthquake shaking that should be exceeded with only a certain probability over a given period of time are important for earthquake hazard mitigation. These rely on assumptions about when and where earthquakes will occur, their size, and the resulting shaking as a function of distance as described by ground-motion models (GMMs) that cover broad geologic regions. Seismic hazard maps are used to develop building codes.</p> </div><div> <p>To explore the robustness of maps’ shaking forecasts, we consider how maps hindcast past shaking. We have compiled the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) dataset of the maximum observed seismic intensity of shaking from the largest Californian earthquakes over the past 162 years. Previous comparisons between the maps for a constant V<sub>S30</sub> (shear-wave velcoity in the top 30 m of soil) of 760 m/s and CHIMP based on several metrics suggested that current maps overpredict shaking.</p> <p>The differences between the V<sub>S30</sub> at the CHIMP sites and the reference value of 760 m/s could amplify or deamplify the ground motions relative to the mapped values. We evaluate whether the V<sub>S30 </sub>at the CHIMP sites could cause a possible bias in the models. By comparison with the intensity data in CHIMP, we find that using site-specific V<sub>S30</sub> does not improve map performance, because the site corrections cause only minor differences from the original 2018 USGS hazard maps at the short periods (high frequencies) relevant to peak ground acceleration and hence MMI. The minimal differences reflect the fact that the nonlinear deamplification due to increased soil damping largely offsets the linear amplification due to low V<sub>S30</sub>. The net effects will be larger for longer periods relevant to tall buildings, where net amplification occurs. </p> <div> <p>Possible reasons for this discrepancy include limitations of the dataset, a bias in the hazard models, an over-estimation of the aleatory variability of the ground motion or that seismicity throughout the historical period has been lower than the long-term average, perhaps by chance due to the variability of earthquake recurrence. Resolving this discrepancy, which is also observed in Italy and Japan, could improve the performance of seismic hazard maps and thus earthquake safety for California and, by extension, worldwide. We also explore whether new nonergodic GMMs, with reduced aleatory variability, perform better than presently used ergodic GMMs compared to historical data.</p> </div> </div>

Estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes is crucial for assessing seismic hazard. Magnitudes of early-instrumental earthquakes can be inferred using a combination of instrumental records, field observations, and the observed distribution of shaking intensity determined from macroseismic observations. For earthquakes before 1900, shaking intensity distributions often provide the only information to constrain earthquake magnitude. Considerable effort has been made to develop methods to estimate the magnitude of moderate-to-large historical earthquakes using shaking intensities derived from macroseismic data. In this study, we consider earthquakes in California with known instrumental magnitudes to explore uncertainties in estimating the magnitude of historical earthquakes from intensity information alone. We use three California-specific intensity prediction equations (IPEs) and an IPE based on a global ground-motion model (GMM) to determine optimum intensity-based magnitudes for 33 moderate-to-large California earthquakes between 1979 and 2021. Intensity-based magnitudes are close to instrumental magnitudes on average. However, intensity-based magnitudes for individual events differ by as much as 2.2 magnitude units from instrumental magnitudes. This result reflects the weak dependence of ground motions and shaking intensities on moment magnitude and their strong dependence on stress drop. Considering the intensity distributions of the 1906 San Francisco and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes, we show that information that could constrain rupture length is discarded when considering only the 2D decay of intensity with distance. We also show that ground-motion intensity conversion equations used in a GMM-based approach may cause a systematic overestimation of large historical earthquake magnitudes. This study underscores both the reducible and potentially irreducible uncertainties associated with using intensity data to estimate magnitudes of historical earthquakes using IPEs and highlights the value of using additional information to constrain rupture dimensions. Using intensity observations alone, moment magnitude uncertainties are typically on the order of a full unit.