The European [SHARE] Seismic Hazard Model: Genesis, Evolution and Key Aspects L. Danciu , J. Woessner, D. Giardini and the SHARE Consortium

GSHAP  

[1999]  

SESAME  

[2003]  

European  PSHA  Model:  Genesis  

[2013]  

European  PSHA  Model:  Goals  Harmonize  hazard  assessment  across  na.onal  borders  

On  data  level,  modeling  level  and  procedural  level  

Create  a  community-­‐based  Cme-­‐independent  (rock)  reference  hazard  model  for  the  Euro-­‐Mediterranean  region  Keep  close  connec.on  to  engineering  requirements  of  EC8  and  its  future  revision    

European  PSHA  Model:  Goals  

Hazard  So@ware  

“Black  Box”      

INPUT   OUTPUT  

“Easy  Review”    Box  

Data  

Interpreta.ons  

Assump.ons  

All  steps  of  the  seismic  hazard  assessment  have  to  be:  

•  Validated  

•  Benchmarked    •  Reproducible  All  data  is  documented  and    open  to  access!  

Earthquake Catalog: SHEEC

Stucchi  et  al.,  2012  (J.  of  Seismology)  Grünthal  et  al.,  2012  (J.  of  Seismology)  

SHEEC Completeness Super- Zones

M.  Stucchi  ,  A,  Rovida  G.  Grünthal  

http://www.emidius.eu/SHEEC/

Strategy for Mmax in Different Tectonic Regimes

C.  Mele4,  V.  D’Amico  (INGV)    

EPRI  approach  

Distribution of Mmax in Different Tectonic Regimes

C.  MeleX,  V.  D’Amico  (INGV)    

EPRI  approach  

Mmax spatial distribution

Highest  Mmax  

Lowest  weight  (w  =  0.1)  

Lowest  Mmax  

Highest  weight  (w  =  0.5)  

Building the SHARE Source Model

TradiConal  Area  Source  (AS)  Model  

Fault  Source  (FS)  +  Background  (BG)    Model  

Smoothed  Seismicity  Model  (Woo,  1996;  Grünthal  et  al.,  in  prep)  

StochasCc  Earthquake  Source  Model    (Hiemer  et  al.;  Woessner  et  al.;  in  prep.)  

SHARE Source Model – Logic Tree

TradiConal  Area  Source  (AS)  Model  

Area Source Model [As Model]: Crustal Sources

As Model: Subduction Interface

As Model: Subduction Interface

Area Source Model: Crustal and Deep Sources As Model: Crustal + Subduction + Deep Seismicity

As Model: Seismic Activity Computation

-­‐2.5  

-­‐2.0  

-­‐1.5  

-­‐1.0  

-­‐0.5  

0.0  

0.5  

1.0  

3   3.5   4   4.5   5   5.5   6   6.5   7   7.5  

Log  N  

Mw  

Data  post  1800  

Data  post  1965  

Best  fit  

Uncertainty  (1)  

Uncertainty  (2)  

b  0.953   0.916   0.878   0.84   0.802  

5.731   0.009   0.027   0.028   0.010   0.001  A   5.426   0.020   0.073   0.096   0.043   0.006  

5.121   0.021   0.089   0.147   0.085   0.015  4.842   0.015   0.049   0.100   0.073   0.017  4.563   0.002   0.012   0.030   0.028   0.008  

A  is  number  of  events  ≥  0.0  Mw  per  year  

Example:  Corfu  Island,  Greece    

Courtesy  to  R.  Musson  

As Model : Summary of the Activity Parameters

Large  spa*al  varia*on  on  b-­‐values    within  the  same  tectonic  regime  

As Model: Fitting Results

The  beauty  

The  ugly  

As Model: Fitting Results

200yrs  

75  yrs  

The  dangerous  

As Model – Activity Adjustments • Expert  Fiang  

As Model – Adjusted Activity Spatial Distribution

b-­‐value  spa*al  varia*on  was  reduced  

As Model: PGA Hazard Map - PoEs10%50yrs

SHARE Source Model Logic Tree

Fault  Source  (FS)  +  Background  (BG)    Model  

Faults & Background Source Model [FsFb Model]

Faults & Background Source Model [FsFb Model]

Faults & Background Source Model [FsFb Model]

  AcCvity  rates  are  calculated  from  geologic  informaCon:  •  Slip rate •  Fault length / aspect ratio •  Maximum Magnitude

  Recurrence  Rate  Model:  •  Fault Source (M ≥ 6)

Anderson & Luco (1983) Model 2:

•  Background (M < 6.5): modeled like Area Source Model •  b-value assumed to be equal on-/ off-fault

FsFb Model: Activity Estimation

background   faults  

FsFb Model: Activity Estimation (con.nue)  

FsFb Model: PGA Hazard Map 10%PoE 50yrs

R.  Basili  et  al  2013  

hbp://diss.rm.ingv.it/share-­‐edsf/  

SHARE Source Model Logic Tree

StochasCc  Earthquake  Source  Model    (Hiemer  et  al.;  Woessner  et  al.;  in  prep.)  

Kernel Smooth Seismicity and Fault Model

Seismicity   Faults  (SSZ)  

Procedure

1.  Calculate spatial location PDFs   Smoothed Seismicity: PE   Smoothed Faults: PF

2.  Weighting   Linear weighting according to

probabilities PF and PE

3.  Calculate earthquake rate   Only Seismicity: R=PE*N(MW=6.5)   Only Faults: R=PF*N(MW=8.5)

Seismicity  

Faults    

Normalized  Earthquake  Rate      

Kernel Smooth Seismicity and Fault Model

  Optimize kernel using a CSEP likelihood tests   Split catalog in learning and

target period   Optimize on 5 year target

period   Use best likelihood-value to

generate model rates

Learning Period Target Period

1000 2002 2007

Kernel Smooth Seismicity and Fault Model

S.  Hiemer  et  al  2013  

Kernel Smooth Seismicity and Fault Model

PGA  Hazard  Map  10%PoE  50yrs  

Ground Motion Prediction Equations [GMPEs]

Logic Tree

Procedure to the SHARE-GMPE Logic Tree

  Engineering requirements were (WP2) defined as constraint at the beginning of the project (a “wish list”)

  Differences in coverage of magnitude – distance and frequency range poses challenges for hazard computation

Delavaud  et  al.,  2012,  J.  Seis.  

Procedure to the SHARE-GMPE Logic Tree SHARE  -­‐  Strong  Ground  Mo.on  Dataset    

(Scherbaum  et  al.  [2009];    Delavaud  et  al.  [2009])  

Experts  Opin

ion  

Data  Driven    

SHARE - GMPE Logic Tree

Delavaud  et  al.,  2012,  J.  Seis.  

SHARE Logic Tree Weights •  Proposed weighting schemes for active shallow crust:!

GMPEs Weighting Schemes Sensitivity"

GMPEs Weighting Schemes Sensitivity"Percentage Difference Results:!• Area Source: !• The Percentage Difference (%) is within 5 to 11%!•  Highest values when compared with WS7 !

WS6:                                                WS7:  AB2010(0.35)                  AB2010(0.10)  CF2008(0.35)                    CF2008(0.40)        Zhao06(0.10)                    Zhao06(0.10)  CY2008(0.20)                    CY2008(0.40)  

Results

Quality Checks

  Moment comparisons to strain rate model for the single source models

  CSEP rate forecast test vs. independent data of USGS / NEIC

  Comparison to previous hazard assessments

  Sensitivity analysis on   Depth distribution   Point source vs. Extended source

calculations

Mean Seismic Hazard Map As  Model  

Fs  Model  

SEIFA  Model  

10%PoE  50yrs  

PGA: 10% Prob. Of Exceedance in 50y

Difference  to  Mean  Model  

95%  Quan.le  

PGA – Quantile 10% PoE 50y

PGA Disaggregation: Basel 2%PoEs50yrs

EUROPEAN  FACILITY  FOR  HAZARD  AND  RISK  

www.efehr.org  

SHARE Consortium

hlp://www.share-­‐eu.org/