Search

The latest generation of national and regional probabilistic seismic hazard assessments (PSHAs) in Europe presents stakeholders with multiple representations of the hazard in many regions. This raises the question of why and by how much seismic hazard estimates between two or more models differ, not only where models overlap geographically but also where new models update existing ones. As modern PSHA incorporates increasingly complex analysis of epistemic uncertainty, the resulting hazard is represented not as a single value or spectrum but rather as probability distribution. Focusing on recent PSHA models for France and Germany, alongside the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model, we explore the differences in model components and highlight the challenges and strategy for harmonising the different models into a common PSHA calculation software. We then quantify the differences in the source model and seismic hazard probability distributions using metrics based on information theory, illustrating their application to the Upper Rhine Graben region. Our analyses reveal the spatial variation in and complexity of model differences when viewed as probability distributions and highlight the need for more detailed transparency and replicability of the models when used as a basis for decision-making and engineering design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) is the most recent and up-to-date assessment of seismic hazard for the Euro-Mediterranean region. The new model, publicly released in May 2022, incorporates refined and cross-border harmonized earthquake catalogues, homogeneous tectonic zonation, updated active fault datasets and geological information, complex subduction sources, updated area source models, a smoothed seismicity model with an adaptive kernel optimized within each tectonic region, and a novel ground motion characteristic model. ESHM20 supersedes the 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13; Woessner et al., 2015) and provides full sets of hazard outputs such as hazard curves, maps, and uniform hazard spectra for the Euro-Mediterranean region. The model provides two informative hazard maps that will serve as a reference for the forthcoming revision of the European Seismic Design Code (CEN EC8) and provides input to the first earthquake risk model for Europe (Crowley et al., 2021). ESHM20 will continue to evolve and act as a key resource for supporting earthquake preparedness and resilience throughout the Euro-Mediterranean region under the umbrella of the European Facilities for Seismic Hazard and Risk consortium (EFEHR Consortium). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current practice in strong ground motion modelling for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) requires the identification and calibration of empirical models appropriate to the tectonic regimes within the region of application, along with quantification of both their aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. For the development of the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) a novel approach for ground motion characterisation was adopted based on the concept of a regionalised scaled-backbone model, wherein a single appropriate ground motion model (GMM) is identified for use in PSHA, to which adjustments or scaling factors are then applied to account for epistemic uncertainty in the underlying seismological properties of the region of interest. While the theory and development of the regionalised scaled-backbone GMM concept have been discussed in earlier publications, implementation in the final ESHM20 required further refinements to the shallow-seismicity GMM in three regions, which were undertaken considering new data and insights gained from the feedback provided by experts in several regions of Europe: France, Portugal and Iceland. Exploration of the geophysical characteristics of these regions and analysis of additional ground motion records prompted recalibrations of the GMM logic tree and/or modifications to the proposed regionalisation. These modifications illustrate how the ESHM20 GMM logic tree can still be refined and adapted to different regions based on new ground motion data and/or expert judgement, without diverging from the proposed regionalised scaled-backbone GMM framework. In addition to the regions of crustal seismicity, the scaled-backbone approach needed to be adapted to earthquakes occurring in Europe's subduction zones and to the Vrancea deep seismogenic source region. Using a novel fuzzy methodology to classify earthquakes according to different seismic regimes within the subduction system, we compare ground motion records from non-crustal earthquakes to existing subduction GMMs and identify a suitable-backbone GMM for application to subduction and deep seismic sources in Europe. The observed ground motion records from moderate- and small-magnitude earthquakes allow us to calibrate the anelastic attenuation of the backbone GMM specifically for the eastern Mediterranean region. Epistemic uncertainty is then calibrated based on the global variability in source and attenuation characteristics of subduction GMMs. With the ESHM20 now completed, we reflect on the lessons learned from implementing this new approach in regional-scale PSHA and highlight where we hope to see new developments and improvements to the characterisation of ground motion in future generations of the European Seismic Hazard Model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1400 km long North Anatolian Fault Zone in Türkiye runs through numerous densely populated regions, including the city of Düzce that was recently hit by an MW 6.1 earthquake on 23 November 2022. This was the first moderate event in the region after the devastating MW 7.2 earthquake in 1999, which cost the lives of over 700 people. Despite its moderate size, the earthquake caused unexpected severe damage to a significant number of buildings, as reported by local institutions (Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, AFAD). It is well established that ground motions in the near field can lead to increased damage due to near-field domain effects, such as ground-motion pulses and directivity effects (i.e., when the site is aligned with rupture propagation). We examine potential near-field effects using the strong ground motion database of AFAD-Turkish Accelerometric Database and Analysis Systems. To achieve this, we first analyze the behavior of the ground-motion intensities in terms of their spatial distribution and observe higher peak ground velocity than expected by ground-motion models in spatially constrained azimuthal ranges. Furthermore, we find that the majority of the near-fault recordings contain velocity pulses that are primary concentrated on the fault-parallel component. This outcome questions the widely accepted understanding from the previous studies, which mainly suggested that impulsive ground motions that are associated with directivity effects primarily occur on the fault-normal component of large-magnitude events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a seismic catalog (, https://doi.org/10.5880/GFZ.2.6.2023.010) including energy magnitude Me estimated from P waves recorded at teleseismic distances in the range 20°≤Δ≤98° and for depths shorter than 80 km. The catalog is built starting from the event catalog disseminated by GEOFON (GEOFOrschungsNetz), considering 6349 earthquakes with moment magnitude Mw≥5 occurring between 2011 and 2023. Magnitudes are computed using 1 031 396 freely available waveforms archived in EIDA (European Integrated Data Archive) and IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology) repositories, retrieved through the standard International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks (FDSN) web services (https://www.fdsn.org/webservices/ , last access: March 2024). A reduced, high-quality catalog for events with Mw≥5.8 and from which stations and events with only few recordings were removed forms the basis of a detailed analysis of the residuals of individual station measurements, which are decomposed into station- and event-specific terms and a term accounting for remaining variability. The derived Me values are compared to Mw computed by GEOFON and with the Me values calculated by IRIS. Software and tools developed for downloading and processing waveforms for bulk analysis and an add-on for SeisComP for real-time assessment of Me in a monitoring context are also provided alongside the catalog. The SeisComP add-on has been part of the GEOFON routine processing since December 2021 to compute and disseminate Me for major events via the existing services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To test whether a globally inferred sediment thickness value from geomorphological studies can be used as a proxy to predict earthquake site amplification, we derive site-amplification models from the relation between empirical amplification for sites in Europe and Türkiye and the geomorphological sediment thickness. The new site-amplification predictions are then compared to predictions from site-amplification models derived using the traditional site proxies, VS30 inferred from slope, slope itself, and geological era and slope combined. The ability of each proxy to capture the site amplification is evaluated based on the reduction in site-to-site variability caused by each proxy. The results show that the highest reduction is caused by geological era and slope combined, while the geomorphological sediment thickness shows a slightly larger or equal reduction in site-to-site variability as inferred VS30 and slope. We therefore argue that including geology and geomorphology in site-amplification modelling on regional scale can give an important added value and that globally or regionally inferred models for soil and sediment thickness from fields beyond engineering seismology can have a great potential in regional seismic hazard and risk assessments. Furthermore, the differences between the site-amplification maps derived from different proxies capture the epistemic uncertainty of site-amplification modelling. While the different proxies predict similar features on a large scale, local differences can be large. This shows that using only one proxy when predicting site amplification does not capture the full epistemic uncertainty, which is demonstrated by looking into detail on the site-amplification maps predicted for eastern Türkiye and Syria, where the devastating Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence occurred in February 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]