Statistical analysis of time-dependent earthquake occurrence and its impact on hazard in the low seismicity region Lower Rhine Embayment

The time-dependence of earthquake occurrence is mostly ignored in standard seismic hazard assessment even though earthquake clustering is well known. In this work, we attempt to quantify the impact of more realistic dynamics on the seismic hazard estimations. We include the time and space dependences between earthquakes into the hazard analysis via Monte Carlo simulations. Our target region is the Lower Rhine Embayment, a low seismicity area in Germany. Including aftershock sequences by using the epidemic type aftershock-sequence (ETAS) model, we find that on average the hypothesis of uncorrelated random earthquake activity underestimates the hazard by 5–10 per cent. Furthermore, we show that aftershock activity of past large earthquakes can locally increase the hazard even centuries later. We also analyse the impact of the so-called long-term behaviour, assuming a quasi-periodic occurrence of main events on a major fault in that region. We found that a significant impact on hazard is only expected for the special case of a very regular recurrence of the main shocks.     

Do French macroseismic intensity observations agree with expectations from the European Seismic Hazard Model 2013?

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments are the basis of modern seismic design codes. To test fully a seismic hazard curve at the return periods of interest for engineering would require many thousands of years’ worth of ground-motion recordings. Because strong-motion networks are often only a few decades old (e.g. in mainland France the first accelerometric network dates from the mid-1990s), data from such sensors can be used to test hazard estimates only at very short return periods. In this article, several hundreds of years of macroseismic intensity observations for mainland France are interpolated using a robust kriging-with-a-trend technique to establish the earthquake history of every French mainland municipality. At 24 selected cities representative of the French seismic context, the number of exceedances of intensities IV, V and VI is determined over time windows considered complete. After converting these intensities to peak ground accelerations using the global conversion equation of Caprio et al. (Ground motion to intensity conversion equations (GMICEs): a global relationship and evaluation of regional dependency, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105:1476–1490, 2015), these exceedances are compared with those predicted by the European Seismic Hazard Model 2013 (ESHM13). In half of the cities, the number of observed exceedances for low intensities (IV and V) is within the range of predictions of ESHM13. In the other half of the cities, the number of observed exceedances is higher than the predictions of ESHM13. For intensity VI, the match is closer, but the comparison is less meaningful due to a scarcity of data. According to this study, the ESHM13 underestimates hazard in roughly half of France, even when taking into account the uncertainty in the conversion from intensity to acceleration. However, these results are valid only for the acceleration range tested in this study (0.01 to 0.09 g).     

The role of seismicity models in probabilistic seismic hazard estimation: comparison of a zoning and a smoothing approach

Seismic hazard estimations are compared using two approaches based on two different seismicity models: one which models earthquake recurrence by applying the truncated Gutenberg-Richter law and a second one which smoothes the epicentre location of past events according to the fractal distribution of earthquakes in space ( Woo 1996 ). The first method requires the definition of homogeneous source zones and the determination of maximum possible magnitudes whereas the second method requires the definition of a smoothing function. Our results show that the two approaches lead to similar hazard estimates in low seismicity regions. In regions of increased seismic activity, on the other hand, the smoothing approach yields systematically lower estimates than the zoning method. This epicentre-smoothing approach can thus be considered as a lower bound estimator for seismic hazard and can help in decision making in moderate seismicity regions where source zone definition and estimation of maximum possible magnitudes can lead to a wide variety of estimates due to lack of knowledge. The two approaches lead, however, to very different earthquake scenarios. Disaggregation studies at a representative number of sites show that if the distributions of contributions according to source–site distance are comparable between the two approaches, the distributions of contributions according to magnitude differ, reflecting the very different seismicity models used. The epicentre-smoothing method leads to scenarios with predominantly intermediate magnitudes events (5 ≤ M ≤ 5.5) while the zoning method leads to scenarios with magnitudes that increase with the return period from the minimum to the maximum magnitudes considered. These trends demonstrate that the seismicity model used plays a fundamental role in the determination of the controlling scenarios and ways to discriminate between the most appropriate models remains an important issue.     

Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe

The Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe (SHARE) project, which began in June 2009, aims at establishing new standards for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in the Euro-Mediterranean region. In this context, a logic tree for ground-motion prediction in Europe has been constructed. Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) and weights have been determined so that the logic tree captures epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion prediction for six different tectonic regimes in Europe. Here we present the strategy that we adopted to build such a logic tree. This strategy has the particularity of combining two complementary and independent approaches: expert judgment and data testing. A set of six experts was asked to weight pre-selected GMPEs while the ability of these GMPEs to predict available data was evaluated with the method of Scherbaum et al. (Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3234?C3247, 2009). Results of both approaches were taken into account to commonly select the smallest set of GMPEs to capture the uncertainty in ground-motion prediction in Europe. For stable continental regions, two models, both from eastern North America, have been selected for shields, and three GMPEs from active shallow crustal regions have been added for continental crust. For subduction zones, four models, all non-European, have been chosen. Finally, for active shallow crustal regions, we selected four models, each of them from a different host region but only two of them were kept for long periods. In most cases, a common agreement has been also reached for the weights. In case of divergence, a sensitivity analysis of the weights on the seismic hazard has been conducted, showing that once the GMPEs have been selected, the associated set of weights has a smaller influence on the hazard.