Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale

Not to be confused with Japan Meteorological Agency magnitude scale.

Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale

The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Seismic Intensity Scale (known in Japan as the Shindo seismic scale) is a seismic intensity scale used in Japan to categorize the intensity of local ground shaking caused by earthquakes.

Map of Japan showing the distribution of maximum JMA Seismic Intensities by prefecture for the 2011 Tōhoku Earthquake

The JMA intensity scale differs from magnitude measurements like the moment magnitude (Mw) and the earlier Richter scales, which represent how much energy an earthquake releases. Similar to the Mercalli scale, the JMA scale measures the intensity of ground shaking at various observation points within the affected area. Intensities are expressed as numerical values called shindo (震度, "seismic intensity"); the higher the value, the more intense the shaking. Values are derived from peak ground acceleration and duration of the shaking, which are themselves influenced by factors such as distance to and depth of the hypocenter (focus), local soil conditions, and nature of the geology in between, as well as the event's magnitude; every quake thus entails numerous intensities.

Intensity data is collected from 4,300 observation stations equipped with "Model 95" accelerometers that measure strong ground motion. The agency provides the public with real-time reports through the media and Internet giving event time, epicenter (location), magnitude, and depth followed by intensity readings at affected localities.

Scale overview

The JMA scale is expressed in levels of seismic intensity from 0 to 7 in a manner similar to that of the Mercalli intensity scale, which is not commonly used in Japan. The JMA uses seismic intensity meters to automatically calculate peak ground acceleration in real-time, reporting intensities based on measurements from observation points. Because intensity depends on both ground acceleration and shaking duration, the values in the following table are approximate.

JMA Seismic Intensity Scale

Intensity	Instrumental Intensity	Effects on people	Indoors	Outdoors	Residential buildings	Other structures	Utilities	Ground and slopes	Peak ground acceleration	Mercalli equivalent (appr.)
0	≤0.5	Imperceptible to most people.	Indoor objects will not shake.			No damage			<0.008 m/s2	I
1	0.5–1.4	Perceptible to some people in the upper stories of multi-story buildings	Objects may sway or rattle.			No damage			0.008–0.025 m/s2	I–II
2	1.5–2.4	Perceptible to most people indoors. Awakens light sleepers.	Hanging objects sway.		Shaking without damage.	No damage			0.025–0.08 m/s2	II–III
3	2.5–3.4	Perceptible to everyone indoors. Frightens some people.	Objects inside rattle noticeably and can fall from raised surfaces.	Overhead power lines sway. Perceptible to people outdoors.	Houses may shake intensely. Light damage possible to homes with low earthquake resistance.	Light damage to older buildings with low earthquake resistance. Light damage possible to earthquake-resistant buildings.	Unaffected		0.08–0.25 m/s2	III–IV
4	3.5–4.4	Most people are frightened by the shaking. Some seek escape. Most sleepers are awoken.	Hanging objects swing and dishes inside cupboards rattle. Unsecured objects topple over. Moving objects produce loud noises.	Power lines sway. Tremors are perceptible to people outside.	Light damage to less earthquake-resistant homes. Most homes shake intensely and walls may crack. Apartment buildings will shake.	Light damage to non-residential buildings. Little damage to earthquake-resistant structures.	Interruptions (esp. electricity) are possible.	No landslides or ground cracking	0.25–0.80 m/s2	IV–VI
5− (5弱)	4.5–4.9	Most people are frightened, and feel the need to hold on to something stable to support themselves. Some may try to escape from danger by running outside. Some people find it difficult to move.	Hanging objects swing. Most unsecured objects topple. Dishes fall from cupboards and books on shelves fall to the ground. Unsecured furniture will move.	Utility poles swagger. Windows may break or fall, unreinforced cinderblock walls topple, some road damage	Wall and column damage to low earthquake-resistant residential structures	Wall cracks in low earthquake-resistant buildings. Light damage to regular and earthquake-resistant structures	Automatic valves cut residential gas. Some water supply interruptions. Blackouts.	Soft ground may crack. Rockfalls and small slope failures possible	0.80–1.40 m/s2	V–VII
5+ (5強)	5.0–5.4	Many people are considerably frightened and find it difficult to move. Most road users will stop their vehicles, as the shaking makes it extremely difficult to drive.	Most dishes in a cupboard and most books on a bookshelf fall. Occasionally, a TV set on a rack falls down, heavy furniture such as drawers fall over, and sliding doors slip out of their grooves. Due to earthquake-induced deformation of doorframes, it may become impossible to open or close interior doors after the shaking stops.	Unreinforced concrete-block walls can collapse and tombstones overturn. Poorly installed vending machines can fall over.	Less earthquake-resistant homes and apartments suffer heavy/significant damage to walls and pillars and can lean.	Medium to large cracks are formed in walls. Crossbeams and pillars of less earthquake-resistant buildings and even highly earthquake-resistant buildings also have cracks.	Gas pipes and water mains are damaged. (Gas service and/or water service are interrupted in some regions.)	Cracks may appear in soft ground. Rockfalls and small slope failures would take place.	1.40–2.50 m/s2	VI–VIII
6− (6弱)	5.5–5.9	Difficult to keep standing.	A lot of heavy and unanchored furniture moves or falls. Due to earthquake-induced deformation of doorframes, it is impossible to open interior doors in many cases. All objects will shake violently.	Strongly and severely felt outside. Light posts swing, and electric poles can fall down, causing fires.	Less earthquake-resistant houses collapse, and walls and pillars of earthquake-resistant buildings homes are damaged. Apartment buildings can collapse from their floors falling down onto each other.	Less earthquake-resistant buildings easily receive heavy damage and may be destroyed. Even highly earthquake-resistant buildings have large cracks in walls and will likely be moderately damaged, at the very least. In some buildings, wall tiles and windowpanes are damaged and fall.	Gas pipes and/or water mains will be damaged. Gas, water and electricity are interrupted.	Small to medium cracks appear in the ground, and larger landslides take place.	2.50–3.15 m/s2	VII–IX
6+ (6強)	6.0–6.4	Impossible to stand; cannot move without crawling.	Most heavy and unanchored furniture moves or becomes displaced.	Trees can fall down due to violent shaking. Bridges and roads suffer moderate to severe damage.	Less earthquake-resistant houses will collapse or be severely damaged. In some cases, highly earthquake-resistant residences are heavily damaged. Multi-story apartment buildings will fall down partially or completely.	Many walls collapse, or at least are severely damaged. Some less earthquake-resistant buildings collapse. Even highly earthquake-resistant buildings suffer severe damage.	Occasionally, gas and water mains are damaged. (Electrical service is interrupted. Occasionally, gas and water service are interrupted over a large area.)	Cracks can appear in the ground, and landslides take place.	3.15–4.00 m/s2	VIII–X
7	≥6.5	It is impossible to move at will due to the intense shaking, which can throw those who do not secure themselves around.	Most heavy and unanchored furniture moves or becomes displaced.	In most buildings, wall tiles and windowpanes are damaged and fall. In some cases, reinforced concrete-block walls collapse.	Most or all residences collapse or receive severe damage, no matter how earthquake-resistant they are.	Most or all buildings (even earthquake-resistant ones) suffer severe damage.	Electrical, gas and water service are interrupted.	The ground is considerably distorted by large cracks and fissures, and slope failures and landslides take place, which can change topographic features.	>4 m/s2	IX–XII

History

Establishment and revision

Seismic observations in Japan began in 1872. In 1884, Sekiya Seikei, Director of the Earthquake Division under the Home Ministry, compiled the 18-article "Earthquake Report Guidelines" and initiated data collection from 600 county offices nationwide. This was Japan’s first unified seismic intensity scale. At that time, the scale had four levels: bishin (微震, faint tremor), jakushin (弱震, weak tremor), kyōshin (強震, strong tremor), and retsushin (烈震, violent tremor). For example, a faint tremor event was described with a brief explanation, such as "Slightly felt by those who have experience of earthquakes".

In 1898, the scale was expanded to include "faint tremor (no sensation)" and intermediate levels such as "weak tremor (slightly weaker intensity)" and "strong tremor (slightly weaker intensity)." The scale expanded to 7 levels, numbered from 0 to 6, but at this point, explanatory text was omitted. In 1908, explanatory text was reinstated for each level. In 1936, the "Earthquake Observation Law," which is the current guideline for seismic observation, was established, and the terms for faint tremor (no sensation), weak tremor (slightly weaker intensity), and strong tremor (slightly weaker intensity) were renamed to "no feeling," "light tremor," and "moderate tremor". During this time, the number of observation points increased further. According to materials from the JMA, in 1904, there were 1,437 observation points including both official weather stations and private contracted stations (e.g., local observation posts), and this number remained stable until the 1950s (around 1955-1964).

In January 1949, the "Earthquake Observation Law" was revised to establish intensity level 7, and the scale expanded to 8 levels, from 0 to 7. This was because there was a concern that the damage caused by the 1948 Fukui earthquake, which saw over 90% house collapse in some areas, could not be accurately expressed with intensity level 6. Furthermore, the judgment for level 7 was based on a field survey conducted later by the JMA's mobile observation team, with specific criteria like "house collapse rate of 30% or more." However, the detailed circumstances and the basis for the 30% house collapse rate have not been clarified. During this revision, the terms "no feeling," "faint tremor," "light tremor," "weak tremor," "moderate tremor," "strong tremor," "violent tremor," and "extreme tremor" were assigned to each intensity level (these terms were derived from expressions like minor, moderate, and severe). Also, seismic intensity was made a factor in tsunami forecasting, with descriptions of the sensation of intensity 4 and 6 added to the explanatory text for quicker judgment. Later, in 1978, the sensation of all intensity levels was added.

Transition to instrumental measurements

Previously, JMA staff determined seismic intensity by observing ground shaking and building damage, matching their observations to a guideline chart. Although guidelines existed, intensity assessments were subjective and lacked consistency. In the early years of the Heisei era, it took around 10 minutes or longer for each meteorological station to collect seismic information and issue a report along with the estimated scale.

Between 1958 and 1969, the number of seismic observation points dropped from over 1,000 to about 150 due to station consolidations and closures.

As a result, issues such as a lack of seismic observation points, subjective judgments by observers, variability in damage from intensities above level 5, and delays in issuing intensity reports emerged. These challenges led to the consideration of using unmanned instruments for seismic intensity measurement, and in 1985, a committee was established within the JMA to explore the use of instruments. In 1988, based on the committee's report, experimental measurements using seismometers began, and by March 1994, seismometers were installed at all observation points. During this period, observation points increased to 300 in 1993 and 600 in 1996.

Meanwhile, major earthquakes such as the 1994 offshore Sanriku earthquake and the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake revealed issues like wide variability in damage in areas with intensities 5 and 6, as well as delays in determining intensity 7 (which required field surveys by the JMA’s mobile observation team). These issues highlighted the need for quicker and more detailed damage assessment.

On April 1, 1996, the seismic intensity scale was revised, eliminating the sensory-based observations and fully transitioning to instrument-based measurements, making it one of the scales among the non-Cancani group of intensity scales and distinguishing it from the 12-degree Cancani family such as the Modified Mercalli or European macroseismic scales. Levels 5 and 6 were subdivided into "lower" and "upper," creating a 10-level scale. As a result, terms like "faint tremor" and "light tremor" were discontinued, and a new "related explanatory table" was created to provide explanations previously contained in the old descriptions. Additionally, seismic intensity level 7, which had been determined by damage rates, was standardized with instrumental observations, with a level of 6.5 or higher on the instrumental scale being classified as intensity 7 on the 10-level scale. Furthermore, in addition to the approximately 600 Meteorological Agency observation points, data from around 800 sites operated by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED) and about 2,800 local government sites were also used for Meteorological Agency reports, increasing the total number of observation points to about 4,200, a significant increase from previous levels.

Sensory and instrumental seismic intensity

Research comparing the old JMA seismic intensity scale (using sensory data from the 1968 Tokachi earthquake to the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake, including experimental instrumental data in the 1990s) and the instrumental seismic intensities calculated based on the current methods has been conducted.

According to this research, for intensities 3 and above, there is generally a good correlation between the old JMA scale and the current instrumental seismic intensity, maintaining statistical continuity. However, for intensity levels 2 and below, the correlation was poor. For example, seismic intensity recorded as 0 on the old scale at certain observation points was calculated to range from 0 to 2.7 (intensities 0 to 3) when based on strong seismic records, with concentrations around instrumental seismic intensities of 1.0 to 1.8 (intensities 1 to 2). This indicates that even if an instrumental intensity of 1 or 2 is recorded, the sensation might still be classified as "no feeling."

Intensity 7

Intensity 7 (震度7, Shindo-nana) is the highest level on the JMA seismic intensity scale, applied to earthquakes with an instrumental intensity (計測震度) of 6.5 or higher. At Intensity 7, movement becomes nearly impossible without external support. The intensity was created following the 1948 Fukui earthquake. It was observed for the first time in the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake and categorized as "brutal earthquakes".

Intensity 7 earthquakes

Earthquake	Date	Magnitude	Area of Intensity 7
1995 Great Hanshin earthquake	January 17, 1995	6.9 Mw	Kobe, Nishinomiya, Ashiya, Takarazuka, Tsuna, Hokudan, Ichinomiya (Hyogo)
2004 Chūetsu earthquake	October 23, 2004	6.6 Mw	Kawaguchi (Niigata)
2011 Tōhoku earthquake	March 11, 2011	9.0 Mw	Kurihara (Miyagi)
2016 Kumamoto earthquakes	April 14, 2016	6.2 Mw	Mashiki (Kumamoto)
	April 16, 2016	7.0 Mw	Nishihara, Mashiki (Kumamoto)
2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi earthquake	September 6, 2018	6.6 Mw	Atsuma (Hokkaido)
2024 Noto earthquake	January 1, 2024	7.5 Mw	Shika, Wajima (Ishikawa)

Seismic intensity measurement

Observation system

Since April 1997, Japan has been using automated strong ground motion accelerometers known as the "seismic intensity meter" (計測震度計) to measure and report the strength of earthquakes based on the JMA scale. This replaces the old system that relied on human observation and damage assessment.

The installation of these meters began in 1991 with the "Model 90 seismic intensity meter," which didn't have the capability to record waveforms. In 1994, an upgraded version, the "Model 93 seismic intensity meter," was introduced. This model could record digital waveforms on memory cards. Later, the "Model 95 seismic intensity meter" was introduced, which had several improvements including the ability to observe acceleration double the previous limit and a higher sampling rate. Today, all of JMA's seismic intensity meters are of this "Model 95" type.

Specifications of the Model 95 Seismic Intensity Meter

Observation components: NS (North-South), EW (East-West), UD (Up-Down) – three orthogonal components (seismic intensity is a composite of the three components)

Measurement range: 2048 gal to -2048 gal

Sampling: 100Hz rate, 24-bit

Recording standard: Seismic intensity of 0.5 or higher (collected in one-minute intervals)

Recording medium: IC memory card

By the end of 2009, about 4,200 of these meters were in use for JMA's "seismic intensity information," and by August 2011, this number had grown to 4,313. This was a significant increase from the roughly 600 units in use when the switch to measured seismic intensity was made. This shows that Japan's network for observing seismic activity is one of the most comprehensive in the world. Of these meters, around 600 are managed by the JMA, about 780 by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED), and roughly 2,900 by local government bodies.

The network was designed with the aim of having one seismometer in each municipality before the major municipal mergers of the Heisei era. Additional units were installed in remote islands and areas with low populations to ensure complete coverage.

Besides the seismic intensity meters used by JMA, many other meters have been installed by local government bodies that are not used by JMA. Public institutions and transportation agencies have installed their own meters to monitor critical infrastructure such as dams, rivers, and railways.

Instrument installation

To ensure the accuracy of earthquake intensity measurements, there are specific guidelines for setting up seismic intensity meters. The JMA doesn't use data from meters that are set up in unsuitable locations for their earthquake intensity information.

Meters must be installed on specially designed sturdy stands. Because the ground can shake more on embankments or cliffs, the meters should be set up outside on flat, stable ground with no steps nearby, and at least two-thirds of the stand should be buried in the ground. There are also rules about nearby structures. The meters should be far enough away from trees or fences that could fall over and hit the meter. If the meters are set up inside, they should be placed near the pillars on the ground floor, and they can be set up anywhere from the basement to the second floor. Meters aren't set up in buildings that have earthquake isolation or control construction.

Seismic intensity meters should be securely attached to the stand or, if they're inside, to the floor. It's recommended to follow the setup instructions provided for each type of meter and, if possible, to secure them with anchor bolts.

The JMA rates the installation of seismic intensity meters used for earthquake intensity information, by adding the points assigned for each evaluation item regarding the installation environment and ranking the total score on a scale from A to E. Grades A to C are acceptable, D-rated meters are generally not used but may be used after careful consideration, and E-rated meters are not used.

Seismic Intensity Meter Installation Environment Evaluation Grades

Grade	Evaluation content	Usage restrictions in JMA information announcements
A	Good installation environment	None
B	No problems for observation of seismic intensity information used in initial response decisions. However, there are points to be improved.
C	The environment allows for observation of seismic intensity information used in initial response decisions, but there are many points to be improved in the installation environment.
D	Depending on the scale of the earthquake and the relative position with the hypocenter, the observed seismic intensity may differ by approximately one level compared to the surrounding area. Therefore, it is necessary to check the observed values each time for inclusion in seismic intensity information used for initial response decisions.	Excluded from processing for Earthquake Early Warning; used after data quality confirmation.
E	The observed seismic intensity is highly likely to differ by one or more levels compared to the surrounding area, and it is not suitable for seismic intensity observation for information used in initial response decisions, especially in the case of large seismic intensities.	Not used for any seismic intensity information.

However, there have been cases where earthquake intensity information was used even though the meters were set up in unsuitable locations, and later the accuracy of the information was questioned and corrected. For instance, during the July 2008 Iwate earthquake, an earthquake intensity of 6+ (later changed to 6−) was recorded in Ono, Hirono Town, Iwate Prefecture. This intensity was much higher than in nearby municipalities, which led to an investigation. On October 29 of the same year, the JMA announced that the meter in Ono was in an unsuitable location for earthquake observation and removed it from the earthquake intensity data, correcting the maximum intensity from 6+ to 6−. Since the meter in Ono was originally rated as acceptable, it's been suggested that other meters could also be in deteriorating setup locations.

Station density and maximum observed intensity

The number of seismic monitoring stations significantly grew in 1996, thanks to the JMA increasing the number of seismic observation points. This growth has made it easier to detect strong earthquakes near their origin point. For example, the 1984 Nagano earthquake, which caused a lot of damage but was only rated as a 4 in terms of seismic intensity, and the 1946 Nankai earthquake, a huge earthquake that was rated as a 5, would have been given lower ratings if there weren't any monitoring stations near their origin points before 1995. After the increase in monitoring stations, even if an earthquake is the same size as before, it's likely to be given a higher seismic intensity rating, and high intensity ratings like 6− are reported more often. The increase in seismic observation points has made it possible to detect earthquake intensities closer to their origin point, and the JMA is studying the differences between the highest earthquake intensities detected at all monitoring stations and the intensities measured at JMA offices, to understand how the increase in monitoring stations has changed the maximum seismic intensities. Here are a few examples:

Comparison between maximum intensities recorded at observation stations and maximum intensities recorded at JMA offices

Event name	Max. intensity observed by station		Max. intensity observed by JMA offices
	Intensity	Station location	Intensity	Office location
2004 Chūetsu earthquake	7 (6.5)	Kawaguchi, Kawaguchi Town	5− (4.5)	Otemachi, Joetsu City (Takada)
2005 Fukuoka earthquake	6− (5.7)	Maizuru, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka	5+ (5.1)	Ohori, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka
2007 Noto earthquake	6+ (6.4)	Hashide, Monzen-cho, Wajima City	6+ (6.1)	Hoshi-cho, Wajima City
2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake	6+ (6.3)	Chuo-cho, Kashiwazaki City	5+ (5.3)	Otemachi, Joetsu City (Takada)
2008 Iwate–Miyagi Nairiku earthquake	6+ (6.2)	Ichihasama, Kurihara City	5− (4.6)	Sendai Miyagino-ku Gorin
July 2008 Iwate earthquake	6− (5.8)	Furudate, Ito Town	5+ (5.4)	Ofunato, Ofunato City
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami	7 (6.6)	Tsukidate, Kurihara City	6− (5.8)	Kanamachi, Mito City
2016 Kumamoto earthquakes (April 16 mainshock)	7 (6.7)	Miyazono, Mashiki Town	6+ (6.0)	Kumamoto Nishi-ku Kasuga
2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi earthquake	7 (6.5)	Kanuma, Atsuma Town	4 (4.4)	Katsuno-cho, Otaru City
2024 Noto earthquake	7 (6.6)	Kano, Shika Town	6+ (6.2)	Fugeshimachi, Wajima City

Distribution of seismic intensity observation points for the offshore Miyagi earthquakes in 1978 and 2005. The former had a magnitude of 7.4 with a maximum seismic intensity of 5, while the latter had a magnitude of 7.2 with a maximum seismic intensity of 6-. The density of observation points was higher in 2005.

In earthquakes with smaller magnitudes, the range of Intensity 6− becomes narrower. Even so, if there are many observation points, some will fall within the range of Intensity 6−. However, if there are fewer observation points, there is a high possibility that the maximum seismic intensity will be lower because it will not be captured by the observation points. Before 1995, an earthquake with a maximum seismic intensity of 6 was certainly a "major earthquake" in terms of magnitude. However, since 1996, even very shallow minor earthquakes are more likely to report seismic intensities of 5 or 6, so it is not appropriate to treat "earthquakes with a maximum seismic intensity of 6" on par with those before 1995. It may seem as if there have been more earthquakes since the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, but this is not because there have been more earthquakes, but because there have been more reports of seismic intensity.

Furthermore, seismic intensity observation points are not uniformly distributed by area. They are often installed in regions with high population density, especially in urban areas. This tendency is particularly strong for observation points set up by local public entities. In these high population density areas, there tends to be a higher amplification rate of seismic intensity in the surface soil layer.

Intensity calculation

The seismometers used by the JMA and others observe shaking through accelerometers. They first measure the three components of motion – vertical, north–south, and east–west – as time-domain signals of acceleration. The instrumental seismic intensity is calculated using the following steps:

1. Seismic signals from vertical, north–south, and east–west motions are analyzed using Fourier transform to convert them into frequency-domain data.
2. To correct for the effects of the earthquake wave period, filtering is applied to each of the frequency-domain signals of vertical, north–south, and east–west motion. The filter used here is a product of several filters, each of which is a function of frequency ($f$).
   • Low-cut (low frequency elimination) filter: ${\sqrt {1-\exp \left(-\left({\frac {f}{0.5}}\right)^{3}\right)}}$
   • High-cut (high frequency elimination) filter: ${\frac {1}{\sqrt {1+0.694x^{2}+0.241x^{4}+0.0557x^{6}+0.009664x^{8}+0.00134x^{10}+0.000155x^{12}}}}$ (where $x={\frac {f}{10}}$)
   • Periodic effect filter: ${\sqrt {\frac {1}{f}}}$
3. The filtered frequency-domain signals are converted back into time-domain acceleration signals using the inverse Fourier transform.
4. Sum the three components of vertical, north–south, and east–west movements to create a single composite acceleration.
5. Find a threshold value $a$ such that for exactly 0.3 seconds, the absolute value of the composite acceleration is $a$ or more.
6. Calculate $I=2\log _{10}a+0.94$.
7. Round $I$ to two decimal places, then truncate the second decimal place to determine the instrumental seismic intensity.

Round the instrumental seismic intensity to the nearest integer to determine the seismic intensity level from 0 to 7. If the instrumental seismic intensity is negative, it is considered Intensity 0; if ≥8, it is considered Intensity 7. In the case of intensities 5 and 6, it is further divided into lower and upper depending on whether it is rounded up or down (refer to the Scale overview section).

Information dissemination

Earthquake Information bulletins

When an earthquake occurs, the JMA announces the observed seismic intensity, the epicenter of the earthquake, and the presence or absence of a tsunami as “Earthquake Information" (地震情報) bulletins. Among them, those related to the seismic intensity are listed below.

Seismic Intensity Flash Report (震度速報)

About a minute and a half after the earthquake, names of areas with Intensity 3 or higher are announced.

Epicenter and Seismic Intensity Information (震源・震度に関する情報)

(When conditions such as Intensity 3 or higher are met) Names of areas and municipalities with Intensity 3 or higher, as well as municipalities where the seismic intensity is not yet confirmed but is estimated to be at least 5−, are announced.

Detailed Seismic Intensity Report (各地の震度に関する情報)

(For Intensity 1 or higher) Seismic intensity observation points with Intensity 1 or higher, as well as points where the seismic intensity is not yet confirmed but is estimated to be at least 5−, are announced.

Other Information (その他の情報)

(Depending on the situation, such as frequent earthquakes) The number of earthquakes of Intensity 1 or higher is announced.

Estimated Seismic Intensity Distribution Map (推計震度分布図)

(At least Intensity 5−) A detailed distribution map is presented as gridded data, showing regions with Intensity 4 or higher.

The seismic intensity distribution was estimated on a 1km square grid before January 31, 2023, and on a 250m square grid after February 1, 2023.

When the initial seismic waves are observed at multiple locations and the maximum intensity is estimated to be at least 5−, an Earthquake Early Warning is issued for areas with an estimated intensity of 4 or higher. This is an alert to warn of strong earthquake tremors, not the observed seismic intensity.

JMA website

On March 7, 2013, the JMA updated its website’s color scheme for earthquake information to unify weather displays and improve accessibility for visually impaired and elderly users.

All seismic intensity indicators are now displayed in different colors. Intensity 7 is indicated in dark purple (⬤), 6+ indicated in dark red (⬤), 6− indicated in red (⬤), 5+ indicated in orange (⬤), 5− indicated in yellow (⬤), 4 indicated in cream (⬤), 3 indicated in blue (⬤), 2 indicated in light blue (⬤) and 1 indicated in white (⬤).

The display for the epicenter was also modified. Previously, a red “×” mark (×) was used; after the update, a red “×” mark with a yellow border is now used.

Disaster response based on seismic intensity

Administrative agencies obtain seismic intensity information from the JMA and other sources and use this information as a criterion for deciding the initial actions to be taken immediately after an earthquake. Generally, at a seismic intensity of 4 to 5− or higher, the National Police Agency and Fire and Disaster Management Agency (through a line of prefectural police headquarters to police stations, and prefectural fire and disaster management divisions to fire headquarters) begin investigations. If the intensity reaches 5− or higher, the Japan Coast Guard and Ministry of Defense carry out damage assessments. Specifically, helicopters from the regional Coast Guard offices that recorded the maximum intensity, fighter jets scrambled by Air Self-Defense Force squadrons, and maritime patrol aircraft deployed by the Maritime Self-Defense Force are dispatched, and the crews conduct visual inspections. Additionally, if the intensity reaches 4 or higher, the Cabinet Office estimates earthquake damage. When an intensity of 5+ is recorded in Tokyo's 23 wards or 6− or higher elsewhere, staff members are convened in the underground "Cabinet Crisis Management Center" (内閣危機管理センター) of the Prime Minister's Office.

Since October 2007, the JMA has implemented the Earthquake Early Warning system for the general public. This system issues warnings when the estimated maximum intensity is 5− or greater, targeting regions expected to feel an intensity of 4 or more. For advanced users, the criteria include observations of ground accelerations over 100 gal, an estimated magnitude of 3.5 or higher, and an estimated maximum intensity of 3 or greater.

However, some experts highlight the need for citizens to understand the changes in the "weight" or significance of seismic intensity due to the increased installation of seismometers. Before the introduction of these devices (around 1995), seismic observations were limited to approximately 160 meteorological stations nationwide. Today, this number has increased roughly 25-fold to 4,300 locations. This denser distribution reduces the likelihood of "observation gaps" in minor earthquakes that might not have been detected before, and it allows for the detection of higher intensities that might have been missed in major quakes. As a result, earthquakes previously rated as intensity 4 might now be rated as intensity 5 or 6, and quakes that would not have been recorded might now be recorded as intensity 3 or 4. This indicates a lighter "weight" in the current intensity scale, leading to a significant increase in earthquake reports and generally higher intensity readings. Thus, it is incorrect to simplistically believe that "earthquakes are increasing recently" (quantitative assessment is better determined by magnitude trends).

The current scale relies on peak ground acceleration and focuses on short-period waves (0.1 to 1 second), which align with human perception but may overestimate intensity for earthquakes with strong short-period components. Small-magnitude earthquakes tend to have shorter periods, and since smaller quakes occur more frequently (as explained by the Gutenberg–Richter law), more intense readings are often observed even for relatively minor earthquakes.

While the current intensity scale is emphasized for very short periods (0.1 to 1 second) that match human perception, damage to buildings is often associated with periods of 1 to 2 seconds. It has been proposed that for higher intensity levels, calculating intensity based on the elastic velocity response at 1 to 2 seconds correlates more closely with building damage and maintains continuity with the pre-1996 seismic intensity scale derived from observed damage.

The current method of calculating seismic intensity poses issues highlighted by records from the Great Hanshin Earthquake. Calculations from the Kobe Marine Meteorological Observatory yielded an intensity of 6.43, Osaka Gas Fukiai Supply Station recorded 6.49 (horizontal component), and JR Takatori Station recorded 6.48 (horizontal component). Despite similar intensity values, building collapse rates differed significantly: approximately 3% near the Kobe observatory, 20% near Fukiai, and 59% near Takatori. This discrepancy corresponded to differences in 1 to 2-second period components, with the Kobe observatory recording about half the strength of Takatori. Therefore, relying solely on records distributed by official sources like the JMA may not be sufficient to claim earthquake resistance without also considering data from Fukiai or Takatori. Similarly, in the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, the seismic intensity at Kurihara, Miyagi, which recorded intensity 7, was dominated by extremely short-period components (0.5 seconds or less), with high peak ground acceleration but lower 1 to 2-second period components that contribute to building damage, resulting in zero house collapses in the area. Thus, claims of safety based on enduring "7 or 6+ intensities from the Tohoku Earthquake" are not always valid.

Additionally, unlike traditional macroseismic scales, the modern JMA scale determines intensity using instrumental ground motion data, rather than observed effects. Critics argue that this reliance has distanced the scale from macroseismology's original purpose: to describe human and structural impacts of earthquakes. The JMA scale’s reliance on Japanese ground motion parameters and its unique subdivisions also make it less suited for international comparisons, posing challenges when used outside Japan.

Use outside Japan

In Taiwan, the seismic intensity scale used is a 10-point system similar to Japan’s, known as the Central Weather Administration seismic intensity scale. Prior to this, Taiwan had adopted a scale identical to Japan's pre-September 1996 system, which had been established on August 1, 2000. However, this earlier scale did not include the subdivisions of intensity levels 5 and 6 into "upper" and "lower" categories, which had been introduced later in Japan. In January 2020, Taiwan added these subdivisions, making their scale nearly identical to Japan's current system.

In South Korea, a seismic intensity scale modeled after Japan’s was used in the past, but since 2001, the country has switched to the Mercalli Intensity Scale.

See also

• Earthquake engineering
• Japanese Coordinating Committee for Earthquake Prediction
• List of earthquakes in Japan
• Nuclear power in Japan (seismicity section)
• Seismic intensity scales
• Seismic magnitude scales

References

Cited references

• 震度の活用と震度階級の変遷等に関する参考資料 [Reference Materials on the Use of Seismic Intensity and the Transition of Seismic Intensity Classes] (PDF) (in Japanese), Japan Meteorological Agency, 2009, archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-12-17, retrieved 2024-12-20

External links

• Recent earthquakes in Japan listed by time of occurrence with localities, magnitude, and maximum intensity. Click on the time of occurrence to see a map showing affected areas; click an affected area on the map to see a more localized shake map showing distribution of intensities (in English).
• The JMA Seismic Intensity Scale with detailed descriptions (in English).