scholarly journals Insights on the European Fault-Source Model (EFSM20) as input to the 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Basili ◽  
Laurentiu Danciu ◽  
Michele Matteo Cosimo Carafa ◽  
Vanja Kastelic ◽  
Francesco Emanuele Maesano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Source Model ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Active Faulting ◽  
Horizon 2020 ◽  
Bull Earthquake ◽  
Seismicity Rates ◽  
Seismic Design Code ◽  
Fault Source

<p>The H2020 Project SERA (WP25-JRA3; http://www.sera-eu.org) is committed to updating and extending the 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13; Woessner et al., 2015, Bull. Earthquake Eng.) to form the basis of the next revision of the European seismic design code (CEN-EC8). Following the probabilistic framework established for ESHM13, the 2020 update (ESHM20) requires a continent-wide seismogenic model based on input from earthquake catalogs, tectonic information, and active faulting. The development of the European Fault-Source Model (EFSM20) fulfills the requirements related to active faulting.</p><p>EFSM20 has two main categories of seismogenic faults: crustal faults and subduction systems. Crustal faults are meant to provide the hazard model with seismicity rates in a variety of tectonic contexts, including onshore and offshore active plate margins and plate interiors. Subduction systems are meant to provide the hazard model with both slab interface and intraslab seismicity rates. The model covers an area that encompasses a buffer of 300 km around all target European countries (except for Overseas Countries and Territories, OTCs), and a maximum of 300 km depth for slabs.</p><p>The compilation of EFSM20 relies heavily on publicly available datasets and voluntarily contributed datasets spanning large regions, as well as solicited local contributions in specific areas of interest. The current status of the EFSM20 compilation includes 1,256 records of crustal faults for a total length of ~92,906 km and four subduction systems, namely the Gibraltar Arc, Calabrian Arc, Hellenic Arc, and Cyprus Arc.</p><p>In this contribution, we present the curation of the main datasets and their associated information, the criteria for the prioritization and harmonization across the region, and the main strategy for transferring the earthquake fault-source input to the hazard modelers.</p><p>The final version of EFSM20 will be made available through standard web services published in the EFEHR (http://www.efehr.org) and EPOS (https://www.seismofaults.eu) platforms adopting FAIR data principles.</p><p>The SERA project received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No.730900.</p>

scholarly journals Seismic hazard of the Canterbury region, New Zealand

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Stirling ◽  
Matthew Gerstenberger ◽  
Nicola Litchfield ◽  
Graeme McVerry ◽  
Warwick Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Source Model ◽  
Southern Alps ◽  
Earthquake Source ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ◽  
Regional Pattern ◽  
New Methods

We present a new probabilistic seismic hazard model for the Canterbury region, the model superseding the earlier model of Stirling et al. (1999, 2001). The updated model incorporates new onshore and offshore fault data, new seismicity data, new methods for the earthquake source parameterisation of both datasets, and new methods for estimation of the expected levels of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) across the region. While the overall regional pattern of estimated hazard has not changed since the earlier seismic hazard model, there have been slight reductions in hazard in some areas (western Canterbury Plains and eastern Southern Alps), coupled with significant increases in hazard in one area (immediately northeast of Kaikoura). The changes to estimated acceleration for the new versus older model serve to show the extent that major changes to a multidisciplinary source model may impact the final estimates of hazard, while the new MMI estimates show the added impact of a new methodology for calculating MMI hazard.

OpenQuake Implementation of the Canterbury Seismic Hazard Model

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (6) ◽  
pp. 2227-2235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Van Houtte ◽  
Elizabeth Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Source Model ◽  
Time Varying ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Practical Model ◽  
Prospective Model ◽  
Time Varying Models ◽  
Practical Constraints

ABSTRACT This article describes the release of the GNS Science Canterbury Seismic Hazard Model (CSHM), as implemented in the Global Earthquake Model’s OpenQuake software. Time‐varying models are implemented for the 50 yr time period between 2014 and 2064, as well as the 1 yr period from 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2019. Previous implementations have been confined to GNS in‐house software, and although source model input files have been made publicly available, this implementation improves the levels of visibility, documentation, and version control. Because of practical constraints in preparing a model for routine analysis, some corrections and changes to the previous implementations have been made. These constraints highlight issues for consideration when developing future hazard models, particularly the necessity of maintaining a balance between best‐practice science and practical model implementation. By implementing the CSHM in OpenQuake, the model is now in a form that allows users to obtain model outputs for engineering design, risk analyses, and prospective model testing.

scholarly journals 2021 US National Seismic Hazard Model for the State of Hawaii

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302110520
Author(s):  
Mark D Petersen ◽  
Allison M Shumway ◽  
Peter M Powers ◽  
Morgan P Moschetti ◽  
Andrea L Llenos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Adaptive Methods ◽  
Source Model ◽  
Historical Seismicity ◽  
The State ◽  
Caldera Collapse ◽  
Maximum Magnitude ◽  
Ground Shaking

The 2021 US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the State of Hawaii updates the previous two-decade-old assessment by incorporating new data and modeling techniques to improve the underlying ground shaking forecasts of tectonic-fault, tectonic-flexure, volcanic, and caldera collapse earthquakes. Two earthquake ground shaking hazard forecasts (public policy and research) are produced that differ in how they account for declustered catalogs. The earthquake source model is based on (1) declustered earthquake catalogs smoothed with adaptive methods, (2) earthquake rate forecasts based on three temporally varying 60-year time periods, (3) maximum magnitude criteria that extend to larger earthquakes than previously considered, (4) a separate Kīlauea-specific seismogenic caldera collapse model that accounts for clustered event behavior observed during the 2018 eruption, and (5) fault ruptures that consider historical seismicity, GPS-based strain rates, and a new Quaternary fault database. Two new Hawaii-specific ground motion models (GMMs) and five additional global models consistent with Hawaii shaking data are used to forecast ground shaking at 23 spectral periods and peak parameters. Site effects are calculated using western US and Hawaii specific empirical equations and provide shaking forecasts for 8 site classes. For most sites the new analysis results in similar spectral accelerations as those in the 2001 NSHM, with a few exceptions caused mostly by GMM changes. Ground motions are the highest in the southern portion of the Island of Hawai’i due to high rates of forecasted earthquakes on décollement faults. Shaking decays to the northwest where lower earthquake rates result from flexure of the tectonic plate. Large epistemic uncertainties in source characterizations and GMMs lead to an overall high uncertainty (more than a factor of 3) in ground shaking at Honolulu and Hilo. The new shaking model indicates significant chances of slight or greater damaging ground motions across most of the island chain.

scholarly journals Earthquake Rupture Forecasts for the MPS19 Seismic Hazard Model of Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Visini ◽  
Bruno Pace ◽  
Carlo Meletti ◽  
Warner Marzocchi ◽  
Aybige Akinci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Large Range ◽  
Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Earthquake Rupture ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Seismicity Rates ◽  
Smoothed Seismicity ◽  
Elicitation Procedure

In recent years, new approaches for developing earthquake rupture forecasts (ERFs) have been proposed to be used as an input for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA). Zone- based approaches with seismicity rates derived from earthquake catalogs are commonly used in many countries as the standard for national seismic hazard models. In Italy, a single zone- based ERF is currently the basis for the official seismic hazard model. In this contribution, we present eleven new ERFs, including five zone-based, two smoothed seismicity-based, two fault- based, and two geodetic-based, used for a new PSH model in Italy. The ERFs were tested against observed seismicity and were subject to an elicitation procedure by a panel of PSHA experts to verify the scientific robustness and consistency of the forecasts with respect to the observations. Tests and elicitation were finalized to weight the ERFs. The results show a good response to the new inputs to observed seismicity in the last few centuries. The entire approach was a first attempt to build a community-based set of ERFs for an Italian PSHA model. The project involved a large number of seismic hazard practitioners, with their knowledge and experience, and the development of different models to capture and explore a large range of epistemic uncertainties in building ERFs, and represents an important step forward for the new national seismic hazard model.

A Hybrid Time‐Dependent Probabilistic Seismic‐Hazard Model for Canterbury, New Zealand

2016 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 1311-1318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Gerstenberger ◽  
David A. Rhoades ◽  
Graeme H. McVerry
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard

scholarly journals PSHA after a strong earthquake: hints for the recovery

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Peruzza ◽  
R. Gee ◽  
B. Pace ◽  
G. Roberts ◽  
O. Scotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Central Italy ◽  
Safety Evaluation ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Source Model ◽  
Aftershock Sequence ◽  
Earthquake Occurrence ◽  
Central Italy Earthquake ◽  
Complex Fault ◽  
Fault Source

<p>We perform aftershock probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (APSHA) of the ongoing aftershock sequence following the Amatrice August 24th, 2016 Central Italy earthquake. APSHA is a time-dependent PSHA calculation where earthquake occurrence rates decrease after the occurrence of a mainshock following an Omori-type decay. In this paper we propose a fault source model based on preliminary evidence of the complex fault geometry associated with the mainshock. We then explore the possibility that the aftershock seismicity is distributed either uniformly or non-uniformly across the fault source. The hazard results are then computed for short-intermediate exposure periods (1-3 months, 1 year). They are compared to the background hazard and intended to be useful for post-earthquake safety evaluation.</p>

An Assessment of Earthquake Scaling Relationships for Crustal Earthquakes in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Endra Gunawan
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Active Faults ◽  
Hazard Model ◽  
Strike Slip ◽  
Coseismic Deformation ◽  
Maximum Magnitude ◽  
Scaling Relationships ◽  
Rupture Length ◽  
Scaling Relationship ◽  
Earthquake Scaling

Abstract To estimate the hazard posed by active faults, estimates of the maximum magnitude earthquake that could occur on the fault are needed. I compare previously published scaling relationships between earthquake magnitude and rupture length with data from recent earthquakes in Indonesia. I compile a total amount of 13 literatures on investigating coseismic deformation in Indonesia, which then divided into strike-slip and dip-slip earthquake cases. I demonstrate that a different scaling relationship generates different misfit compared to data. For a practical practice of making seismic hazard model in Indonesia, this research shows the suggested reference for a scaling relationship of strike-slip and dip-slip faulting regime. On a practical approach in constructing a logic tree for seismic hazard model, using different weighting between each published earthquake scaling relationship is recommended.

LOFAR4SW – Space Weather Science and Operations with LOFAR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Rothkaehl ◽  
Barbara Matyjasiak ◽  
Carla Baldovin ◽  
Mario Bisi ◽  
David Barnes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Radio Telescope ◽  
Space Weather ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Civic Society ◽  
Horizon 2020 ◽  
Final Design ◽  
Areas Of Interest

&lt;p&gt;Space Weather (SW) research is a very important topic from the scientific, operational and civic society point of view. Knowledge of interactions in the Sun-Earth system, the physics behind observed SW phenomena, and its direct impact on modern technologies were and will be key areas of interest.&amp;#160; The LOFAR for Space Weather (LOFAR4SW) project aim is to prepare a novel tool which can bring new capabilities into this domain. The project is realised in the frame of a Horizon 2020 INFRADEV call.&amp;#160; The base for the project is the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) - the worlds largest low frequency radio telescope, with a dense core near Exloo in The Netherlands and many stations distributed both in the Netherlands and Europe wide with baselines up to 2000 km.&amp;#160; The final design of LOFAR4SW will provide a full conceptual and technical description of the LOFAR upgrade, to enable simultaneous operation as a radio telescope for astronomical research as well as an infrastructure working for Space Weather studies.&amp;#160; In this work we present the current status of the project, including examples of the capabilities of LOFAR4SW and the project timeline as we plan for the Critical Design Review later in 2021.&lt;/p&gt;

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document