Articles | Volume 24, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1795-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1795-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
23 May 2024
Research article |
| 23 May 2024
| 23 May 2024
Modelling seismic ground motion and its uncertainty in different tectonic contexts: challenges and application to the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20)
Graeme Weatherill
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Seismic Hazard and Risk Dynamics, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, 14467, Germany
Sreeram Reddy Kotha
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, IRD, Univ. Gustave Eiffel, ISTerre, 38000 Grenoble, France
Laurentiu Danciu
Swiss Seismological Service (SED), ETH, Zürich, Switzerland
Susana Vilanova
Instituto Superior Tecnico (IST), Lisbon, Portugal
Fabrice Cotton
Seismic Hazard and Risk Dynamics, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, 14467, Germany
Institute of Geosciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Related authors
Graeme Weatherill, Fabrice Cotton, Guillaume Daniel, Irmela Zentner, Pablo Iturrieta, and Christian Bosse
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3755–3787, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3755-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3755-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
New generations of seismic hazard models are developed with sophisticated approaches to quantify uncertainties in our knowledge of earthquake processes. To understand why and how recent state-of-the-art seismic hazard models for France, Germany, and Europe differ despite similar underlying assumptions, we present a systematic approach to investigate model-to-model differences and to quantify and visualise them while accounting for their respective uncertainties.
Laurentiu Danciu, Domenico Giardini, Graeme Weatherill, Roberto Basili, Shyam Nandan, Andrea Rovida, Céline Beauval, Pierre-Yves Bard, Marco Pagani, Celso G. Reyes, Karin Sesetyan, Susana Vilanova, Fabrice Cotton, and Stefan Wiemer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3049–3073, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3049-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3049-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) is the latest seismic hazard assessment update for the Euro-Mediterranean region. This state-of-the-art model delivers a broad range of hazard results, including hazard curves, maps, and uniform hazard spectra. ESHM20 provides two hazard maps as informative references in the next update of the European Seismic Design Code (CEN EC8), and it also provides a key input to the first earthquake risk model for Europe.
Karina Loviknes, Fabrice Cotton, and Graeme Weatherill
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1223–1247, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1223-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1223-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Earthquake ground shaking can be strongly affected by local geology and is often amplified by soft sediments. In this study, we introduce a global geomorphological model for sediment thickness as a protentional parameter for predicting this site amplification. The results show that including geology and geomorphology in site-amplification predictions adds important value and that global or regional models for sediment thickness from fields beyond engineering seismology are worth considering.
Irina Dallo, Michèle Marti, Nadja Valenzuela, Helen Crowley, Jamal Dabbeek, Laurentiu Danciu, Simone Zaugg, Fabrice Cotton, Domenico Giardini, Rui Pinho, John F. Schneider, Céline Beauval, António A. Correia, Olga-Joan Ktenidou, Päivi Mäntyniemi, Marco Pagani, Vitor Silva, Graeme Weatherill, and Stefan Wiemer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 291–307, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-291-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-291-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
For the release of cross-country harmonised hazard and risk models, a communication strategy co-defined by the model developers and communication experts is needed. The strategy should consist of a communication concept, user testing, expert feedback mechanisms, and the establishment of a network with outreach specialists. Here we present our approach for the release of the European Seismic Hazard Model and European Seismic Risk Model and provide practical recommendations for similar efforts.
Bénédicte Donniol Jouve, Anne Socquet, Céline Beauval, Jesus Piña Valdès, and Laurentiu Danciu
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1789–1809, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1789-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1789-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate how geodetic monitoring enhances accuracy in seismic hazard assessment. By utilizing geodetic strain rate maps for Europe and the European Seismic Hazard Model 2020 source model, we compare geodetic and seismic moment rates across the continent while addressing associated uncertainties. Our analysis reveals primary compatibility in high-activity zones. In well-constrained regions of lower activity, we also observed an overlap in the distribution of seismic and geodetic moments.
Elena F. Manea, Laurentiu Danciu, Carmen O. Cioflan, Dragos Toma-Danila, and Matthew C. Gerstenberger
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We test and evaluate the results of the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) against observations spanning a few centuries at 12 cities in Romania. The full distributions of the hazard curves at the given locations were considered, and the testing was performed for two relevant peak ground acceleration (PGA) values. Our analysis suggests that the observed exceedance rates for the selected PGA levels are consistent with ESHM20 estimates.
Roberto Basili, Laurentiu Danciu, Céline Beauval, Karin Sesetyan, Susana Pires Vilanova, Shota Adamia, Pierre Arroucau, Jure Atanackov, Stéphane Baize, Carolina Canora, Riccardo Caputo, Michele Matteo Cosimo Carafa, Edward Marc Cushing, Susana Custódio, Mine Betul Demircioglu Tumsa, João C. Duarte, Athanassios Ganas, Julián García-Mayordomo, Laura Gómez de la Peña, Eulàlia Gràcia, Petra Jamšek Rupnik, Hervé Jomard, Vanja Kastelic, Francesco Emanuele Maesano, Raquel Martín-Banda, Sara Martínez-Loriente, Marta Neres, Hector Perea, Barbara Šket Motnikar, Mara Monica Tiberti, Nino Tsereteli, Varvara Tsironi, Roberto Vallone, Kris Vanneste, Polona Zupančič, and Domenico Giardini
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3945–3976, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3945-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3945-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents the European Fault-Source Model 2020 (EFSM20), a dataset of 1248 geologic crustal faults and four subduction systems, each having the necessary parameters to forecast long-term earthquake occurrences in the European continent. This dataset constituted one of the main inputs for the recently released European Seismic Hazard Model 2020, a key instrument to mitigate seismic risk in Europe. EFSM20 adopts recognized open-standard formats, and it is openly accessible and reusable.
Graeme Weatherill, Fabrice Cotton, Guillaume Daniel, Irmela Zentner, Pablo Iturrieta, and Christian Bosse
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3755–3787, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3755-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3755-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
New generations of seismic hazard models are developed with sophisticated approaches to quantify uncertainties in our knowledge of earthquake processes. To understand why and how recent state-of-the-art seismic hazard models for France, Germany, and Europe differ despite similar underlying assumptions, we present a systematic approach to investigate model-to-model differences and to quantify and visualise them while accounting for their respective uncertainties.
Athanasios N. Papadopoulos, Philippe Roth, Laurentiu Danciu, Paolo Bergamo, Francesco Panzera, Donat Fäh, Carlo Cauzzi, Blaise Duvernay, Alireza Khodaverdian, Pierino Lestuzzi, Ömer Odabaşi, Ettore Fagà, Paolo Bazzurro, Michèle Marti, Nadja Valenzuela, Irina Dallo, Nicolas Schmid, Philip Kästli, Florian Haslinger, and Stefan Wiemer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3561–3578, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3561-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3561-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Earthquake Risk Model of Switzerland (ERM-CH23), released in early 2023, is the culmination of a multidisciplinary effort aiming to achieve, for the first time, a comprehensive assessment of the potential consequences of earthquakes on the Swiss building stock and population. ERM-CH23 provides risk estimates for various impact metrics, ranging from economic loss as a result of damage to buildings and their contents to human losses, such as deaths, injuries, and displaced population.
Laurentiu Danciu, Domenico Giardini, Graeme Weatherill, Roberto Basili, Shyam Nandan, Andrea Rovida, Céline Beauval, Pierre-Yves Bard, Marco Pagani, Celso G. Reyes, Karin Sesetyan, Susana Vilanova, Fabrice Cotton, and Stefan Wiemer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3049–3073, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3049-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3049-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) is the latest seismic hazard assessment update for the Euro-Mediterranean region. This state-of-the-art model delivers a broad range of hazard results, including hazard curves, maps, and uniform hazard spectra. ESHM20 provides two hazard maps as informative references in the next update of the European Seismic Design Code (CEN EC8), and it also provides a key input to the first earthquake risk model for Europe.
Konstantinos Trevlopoulos, Pierre Gehl, Caterina Negulescu, Helen Crowley, and Laurentiu Danciu
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2383–2401, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2383-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2383-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The models used to estimate the probability of exceeding a level of earthquake damage are essential to the reduction of disasters. These models consist of components that may be tested individually; however testing these types of models as a whole is challenging. Here, we use observations of damage caused by the 2019 Le Teil earthquake and estimations from other models to test components of seismic risk models.
Karina Loviknes, Fabrice Cotton, and Graeme Weatherill
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1223–1247, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1223-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1223-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Earthquake ground shaking can be strongly affected by local geology and is often amplified by soft sediments. In this study, we introduce a global geomorphological model for sediment thickness as a protentional parameter for predicting this site amplification. The results show that including geology and geomorphology in site-amplification predictions adds important value and that global or regional models for sediment thickness from fields beyond engineering seismology are worth considering.
Dino Bindi, Riccardo Zaccarelli, Angelo Strollo, Domenico Di Giacomo, Andres Heinloo, Peter Evans, Fabrice Cotton, and Frederik Tilmann
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 1733–1745, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1733-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1733-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The size of an earthquake is often described by a single number called the magnitude. Among the possible magnitude scales, the seismic moment (Mw) and the radiated energy (Me) scales are based on physical parameters describing the rupture process. Since these two magnitude scales provide complementary information that can be used for seismic hazard assessment and for seismic risk mitigation, we complement the Mw catalog disseminated by the GEOFON Data Centre with Me values.
Maren Böse, Laurentiu Danciu, Athanasios Papadopoulos, John Clinton, Carlo Cauzzi, Irina Dallo, Leila Mizrahi, Tobias Diehl, Paolo Bergamo, Yves Reuland, Andreas Fichtner, Philippe Roth, Florian Haslinger, Frédérick Massin, Nadja Valenzuela, Nikola Blagojević, Lukas Bodenmann, Eleni Chatzi, Donat Fäh, Franziska Glueer, Marta Han, Lukas Heiniger, Paulina Janusz, Dario Jozinović, Philipp Kästli, Federica Lanza, Timothy Lee, Panagiotis Martakis, Michèle Marti, Men-Andrin Meier, Banu Mena Cabrera, Maria Mesimeri, Anne Obermann, Pilar Sanchez-Pastor, Luca Scarabello, Nicolas Schmid, Anastasiia Shynkarenko, Bozidar Stojadinović, Domenico Giardini, and Stefan Wiemer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 583–607, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Seismic hazard and risk are time dependent as seismicity is clustered and exposure can change rapidly. We are developing an interdisciplinary dynamic earthquake risk framework for advancing earthquake risk mitigation in Switzerland. This includes various earthquake risk products and services, such as operational earthquake forecasting and early warning. Standardisation and harmonisation into seamless solutions that access the same databases, workflows, and software are a crucial component.
Irina Dallo, Michèle Marti, Nadja Valenzuela, Helen Crowley, Jamal Dabbeek, Laurentiu Danciu, Simone Zaugg, Fabrice Cotton, Domenico Giardini, Rui Pinho, John F. Schneider, Céline Beauval, António A. Correia, Olga-Joan Ktenidou, Päivi Mäntyniemi, Marco Pagani, Vitor Silva, Graeme Weatherill, and Stefan Wiemer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 291–307, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-291-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-291-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
For the release of cross-country harmonised hazard and risk models, a communication strategy co-defined by the model developers and communication experts is needed. The strategy should consist of a communication concept, user testing, expert feedback mechanisms, and the establishment of a network with outreach specialists. Here we present our approach for the release of the European Seismic Hazard Model and European Seismic Risk Model and provide practical recommendations for similar efforts.
Max Schneider, Fabrice Cotton, and Pia-Johanna Schweizer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2505–2521, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2505-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2505-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Hazard maps are fundamental to earthquake risk reduction, but research is missing on how to design them. We review the visualization literature to identify evidence-based criteria for color and classification schemes for hazard maps. We implement these for the German seismic hazard map, focusing on communicating four properties of seismic hazard. Our evaluation finds that the redesigned map successfully communicates seismic hazard in Germany, improving on the baseline map for two key properties.
Juan Camilo Gómez Zapata, Massimiliano Pittore, Nils Brinckmann, Juan Lizarazo-Marriaga, Sergio Medina, Nicola Tarque, and Fabrice Cotton
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2203–2228, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2203-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2203-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
To investigate cumulative damage on extended building portfolios, we propose an alternative and modular method to probabilistically integrate sets of single-hazard vulnerability models that are being constantly developed by experts from various research fields to be used within a multi-risk context. We demonstrate its application by assessing the economic losses expected for the residential building stock of Lima, Peru, a megacity commonly exposed to consecutive earthquake and tsunami scenarios.
John Douglas, Helen Crowley, Vitor Silva, Warner Marzocchi, Laurentiu Danciu, and Rui Pinho
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-991, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-991, 2023
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
Estimates of the earthquake ground motions expected during the lifetime of a building or the length of an insurance policy are frequently calculated for locations around the world. Estimates for the same location from different studies can show large differences. These differences affect engineering, financial and risk management decisions. We apply various approaches to understand when such differences have an impact on such decisions and when they are expected because data are limited.
Audrey Bonnelye, Pierre Dick, Marco Bohnhoff, Fabrice Cotton, Rüdiger Giese, Jan Henninges, Damien Jougnot, Grzegorz Kwiatek, and Stefan Lüth
Adv. Geosci., 58, 177–188, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-58-177-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-58-177-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The overall objective of the CHENILLE project is to performed an in-situ experiment in the Underground Reaserch Laboratory of Tournemire (Southern France) consisting of hydraulic and thermal stimulation of a fault zone. This experiment is monitored with extensive geophysical means (passive seismic, active seismic, distributed fiber optics for temperature measurements) in order to unravel the physical processes taking place during the stimulation for a better charactization of fault zones.
Juan Camilo Gomez-Zapata, Nils Brinckmann, Sven Harig, Raquel Zafrir, Massimiliano Pittore, Fabrice Cotton, and Andrey Babeyko
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3599–3628, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3599-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3599-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present variable-resolution boundaries based on central Voronoi tessellations (CVTs) to spatially aggregate building exposure models and physical vulnerability assessment. Their geo-cell sizes are inversely proportional to underlying distributions that account for the combination between hazard intensities and exposure proxies. We explore their efficiency and associated uncertainties in risk–loss estimations and mapping from decoupled scenario-based earthquakes and tsunamis in Lima, Peru.
Cited articles
Abrahamson, N., Gregor, N., and Addo, K.: BC Hydro Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra, 32, 23–44, https://doi.org/10.1193/051712EQS188MR, 2016.
Abrahamson, N., Kuehn, N., Gulerce, Z., Gregor, N., Bozorgnia, Y., Parker, G., Stewart, J., Chiou, B., Idriss, L. M., Campbell, K., and Youngs, R. R.: Update of the BCHydro Subduction Ground-Motion Model Using the NGA-Subduction Dataset, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, https://doi.org/10.55461/OYCD7434, 2018.
Abrahamson, N. A. and Gulerce, Z.: Summary of the Abrahamson and Gulerce NGA-SUB ground-motion model for subduction earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 2638–2681, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221114374, 2022.
Abrahamson, N. A., Silva, W. J., and Kamai, R.: Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions, Earthq. Spectra, 30, 1025–1055, https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS198M, 2014.
Akkar, S., Sandıkkaya, M. A., and Bommer, J. J.: Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East, B. Earthq. Eng., 12, 359–387, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4, 2014a.
Akkar, S., Sandikkaya, M. A., Senyert, M., Azari Sisi, A., Ay, B. Ö., Traversa, P., Douglas, J., Cotton, F., Luzi, L., Hernandez, B., and Godey, S.: Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE), B. Earthq. Eng., 12, 311–339, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8, 2014b.
Al Atik, L.: NGA-East: Ground-Motion Standard Deviation Models for Central and Eastern North America, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, https://peer.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/webpeer-2015-07-linda_al_atik.pdf (last access: June 2020), 2015.
Al Atik, L. and Youngs, R. R.: Epistemic Uncertainty for NGA-West2 Models, Earthq. Spectra, 30, 1301–1318, https://doi.org/10.1193/062813EQS173M, 2014.
Asch, K.: The 1:5 Million International Geological Map of Eurioe and Adjacent Areas (Digital Dataset), Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Sammlungen-Grundlagen/GG_geol_Info/Karten/Europa/IGME5000/IGME_Project/IGME_Projectinfo.html;jsessionid=77F5C1F7313160F6F8293D75155F2C62.internet012?nn=1556480 (last access: June 2020), 2005.
Atkinson, G. M. and Boore, D. M.: Empirical Ground-Motion Relations for Subduction-Zone Earthquakes and Their Application to Cascadia and Other Regions, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 93, 1703–1729, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020156, 2003.
Atkinson, G. M., Bommer, J. J., and Abrahamson, N. A.: Alternative Approaches to Modeling Epistemic Uncertainty in Ground Motions in Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analysis, Seismol. Res. Lett., 85, 1141–1144, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140120, 2014.
Baker, J. W., Bradley, B. A., and Stafford, P. J.: Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781108348157, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108425056, 2021.
Basili, R., Brizuela, B., Herrero, A., Iqbal, S., Lorito, S., Maesano, F. E., Murphy, S., Perfetti, P., Romano, F., Scala, A., Selva, J., Taroni, M., Tiberti, M. M., Thio, H. K., Tonini, R., Volpe, M., Glimsdal, S., Harbitz, C. B., Løvholt, F., Baptista, M. A., Carrilho, F., Matias, L. M., Omira, R., Babeyko, A., Hoechner, A. Gürbüz, M., Pekcan, O., Yalçıner, A., Canals, M., Lastras, G., Agalos, A., Papadopoulos, G., Triantafyllou, I., Benchekroun, S., Agrebi Jaouadi, H., Ben Abdallah, S., Bouallegue, A., Hamdi, H., Oueslati, F., Amato, A., Armigliato, A., Behrens, J., Davies., G, Di Bucci, D., Dolce, M., Geist, E., Gonzalez Vida, J. M., González, M., Macías Sánchez, J., Meletti, C., Ozer Sozdinler, C., Pagani, M., Parsons, T., Polet, J., Power, W., Sørensen, M., and Zaytsev, A.: The Making of the NEAM Tsunami Hazard Model 2018 (NEAMTHM18), Front. Earth Sci., 8, 616594, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.616594, 2021.
Bindi, D., Massa, M., Luzi, L., Ameri, G., Pacor, F., Puglia, R., and Augliera, P.: Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5 %-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset, B. Earthq. Eng., 12, 391–430, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9525-5, 2014.
Bindi, D., Kotha, S. R., Weatherill, G., Lanzano, G., Luzi, L., and Cotton, F.: The pan-European engineering strong motion (ESM) flatfile: consistency check via residual analysis, B. Earthq. Eng., 17, 583–602, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0466-x, 2019.
Bommer, J. J.: Challenges of Building Logic Trees for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, Earthq. Spectra, 28, 1723–1735, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000079, 2012.
Bommer, J. J. and Scherbaum, F.: The Use and Misuse of Logic Trees in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, Earthq. Spectra, 24, 997–1009, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2977755, 2008.
Bommer, J. J. and Stafford, P. J.: Selecting Ground-Motion Models for Site-Specific PSHA: Adaptability versus Applicability, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 110, 2801–2815, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200171, 2020.
Bommer, J. J., Douglas, J., Scherbaum, F., Cotton, F., Bungum, H., and Fäh, D.: On the Selection of Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Seismic Hazard Analysis, Seismol. Res. Lett., 81, 783–793, https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.783, 2010.
Bommer, J. J., Coppersmith, K. J., Coppersmith, R. T., Hanson, K. L., Mangongolo, A., Neveling, J., Rathje, E. M., Rodriguez-Marek A. M., Scherbaum, F., Shelembe, R., Stafford, P. J., and Strasser, F. O.: A SSHAC Level 3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for a New-Build Nuclear Site in South Africa, Earthq. Spectra, 31, 661–698, https://doi.org/10.1193/060913EQS145M, 2015.
Boore, D. M., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., and Atkinson, G. M.: NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5 % Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra, 30, 1057–1085, https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M, 2014.
Bozorgnia, Y. and Stewart, J. P.: Data resources for NGA-Subduction Project, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley, https://doi.org/10.55461/RDWC6463, 2020.
Bradley, B. A., Bora, S., Lee, R. L., Manea, E. F., Gerstenberger, M. C., Stafford, P. J., Atkinson, G. M., Weatherill, G., Hutchinson, J., de la Torre, C. A., Hulsey, A. M., and Kaiser, A. E.: The Ground‐Motion Characterization Model for the 2022 New Zealand National Seismic Hazard Model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 114, 329–349, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120230170, 2023.
Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R.: A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation, Econometrica, 47, 1287–1294, https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963, 1979.
Campbell, K. W.: Proposed methodology for estimating the magnitude at which subduction megathrust ground motions and source dimensions exhibit a break in magnitude scaling: Example for 79 global subduction zones, Earthq. Spectra, 36, 1271–1297, https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019899957, 2020.
Campbell, K. W. and Bozorgnia, Y.: NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5 % Damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra, Earthq. Spectra, 30, 1087–1115, https://doi.org/10.1193/062913EQS175M, 2014.
Campbell, K. W., Bozorgnia, Y., Kuehn, N., and Gregor, N.: An evaluation of partially nonergodic PGA ground-motion models for Japanese megathrust earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 2611–2637, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221104840, 2022.
Caramenti, L., Menafoglio, A., Sgobba, S., and Lanzano, G.: Multi-source geographically weighted regression for regionalized ground-motion models, Spatial Stat., 47, 100610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2022.100610, 2022.
Cauzzi, C., Faccioli, E., Vanini, M., and Bianchini, A.: Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records, B. Earthq. Eng., 13, 1587–1612, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9685-y, 2015.
Chen, Y.-S., Weatherill, G., Pagani, M., and Cotton, F.: A transparent and data-driven global tectonic regionalization model for seismic hazard assessment, Geophys. J. Int., 213, 1263–1280, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy005, 2018.
Chiou, B. S.-J. and Youngs, R. R.: Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthq. Spectra, 30, 1117–1153, https://doi.org/10.1193/072813EQS219M, 2014.
Crowley, H., Dabbeek, J., Despotaki, V., Rodrigues, D., Martins, L., Silva, V., Romão, X., Pereira, N., Weatherill, G., and Danciu, L.: European Seismic Risk Model (ESRM20), https://doi.org/10.7414/EUC-EFEHR-TR002-ESRM20, 2021.
Dabbeek, J., Crowley, H., Silva, V., Weatherill, G., Paul, N., and Nievas, C. I.: Impact of exposure spatial resolution on seismic loss estimates in regional portfolios, B. Earthq. Eng., 19, 5819–5841, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01194-x, 2021.
Danciu, L., Nandan, S., Reyes, C., Basili, R., Weatherill, G., Beauval, C., Rovida, A., Vilanova, S., Sesetyan, K., Bard, P. Y., Cotton, F., Wiemer, S., and Giardini, D.: The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Models – ESHM20: Model Overview, https://doi.org/10.12686/a15, 2021.
Delavaud, E., Cotton, F., Akkar, S., and Scherbaum, F.: Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe, J. Seismol., 16, 451–473, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9281-z, 2012.
Derras, B., Bard, P. Y., and Cotton, F.: Towards fully data driven ground-motion prediction models for Europe, B. Earthq. Eng., 12, 495–516, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9481-0, 2014.
Douglas, J.: Capturing Geographically-Varying Uncertainty in Earthquake Ground Motion Models or What We Think We Know May Change, in: Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering in Europe, vol. 46, edited by: Pitilakis, K., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 153–181, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_6, 2018.
Drouet, S., Ameri, G., Le Dortz, K., Secanell, R., and Senfaute, G.: A probabilistic seismic hazard map for the metropolitan France, B. Earthq. Eng., 18, 1865–1898, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00790-7, 2020.
Fülöp, L., Jussila, V., Aapasuo, R., Vuorinen, T., and Mäntyniemi, P.: A Ground-Motion Prediction Equation for Fennoscandian Nuclear Installations, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 110, 1211–1230, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190230, 2020.
García, D., Singh, S. K., Herráiz, M., Ordaz, M., and Pacheco, F.: Inslab earthquakes of Central Mexico: Peak ground‐motion parameters and response spectra, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 2272–2282, 2005.
Ghasemi, H., Cummins, P., Weatherill, G., McKee, C., Hazelwood, M., and Allen, T.: Seismotectonic model and probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Papua New Guinea, B. Earthq. Eng., 18, 6571–6605, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00966-1, 2020.
Goulet, C. A., Abrahamson, N. A., Somerville, P. G., and Wooddell, K. E.: The SCEC Broadband Platform Exercise: Methodology for Code Validation in the Context of Seismic Hazard Analysis, Seismol. Res. Lett., 86, 17–26, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140104, 2015.
Goulet, C. A., Bozorgnia, Y., Kuehn, N., Al Atik, L., Youngs, R. R., Graves, R. W., and Atkinson, G. M.: NGA-East Ground-Motion Models for the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, https://doi.org/10.55461/QOZJ4825, 2017.
Goulet, C. A., Bozorgnia, Y., Kuehn, N., Al Atik, L., Youngs, R. R., Graves, R. W., and Atkinson, G. M.: NGA-East Ground-Motion Characterization model part I: Summary of products and model development, Earthq. Spectra, 37, 1231–1282, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211018723, 2021.
Grad, M., Tiira, T., and The ESC Working Group: The Moho depth map of the European plate, Geophys. J. Int., 176, 279–292, 2009.
Gregor, N., Addo, K., Abrahamson, N. A., Al Atik, L., Atkinson, G. M., Boore, D., M., Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K. W., Chiou, B. S.-J., Gülerce, Z., Hassani, B., Kishida, T., Kuehn, N., Mazzoni, S., Midorikawa, S., Parker, G. A., Si, H., Stewart, J. P., and Youngs, R. R.: Comparisons of the NGA-Subduction ground motion models, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 2580–2610, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221112688, 2022.
Grünthal, G. and Wahlström, R.: The European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium, J. Seismol., 16, 535–570, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9302-y, 2012.
Grünthal, G., Stromeyer, D., Bosse, C., Cotton, F., and Bindi, D.: The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany – version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability, B. Earthq. Eng., 16, 4339–4395, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0315-y, 2018.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Ilhan, O., Harmon, J. A., Parker, G. A., Stewart, J. P., Rathje, E. M., Campbell, K. W., and Silva, W. J.: Nonlinear site amplification model for ergodic seismic hazard analysis in Central and Eastern North America, Earthq. Spectra, 36, 69–86, https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019878193, 2020.
Hassani, B. and Atkinson, G. M.: Equivalent Point-Source Ground-Motion Model for Subduction Earthquakes in Japan, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 111, 951–974, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200257, 2021.
Hayes, G. P., Moore, G. L., Portner, D. E., Hearne, M., Flamme, H., Furtney, M., and Smoczyk, G. M.: Slab2, a comprehensive subduction zone geometry model, Science, 362, 58–61, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4723, 2018.
Ivan, I. A., Enescu, B. D., and Pantea, A.: Input for seismic hazard assessment using Vrancea source region, Rom. J. Phys., 43, 619–636, 1998.
Kale, Ö., Akkar, S., Ansari, A., and Hamzehloo, H.: A Ground-Motion Predictive Model for Iran and Turkey for Horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5 % Damped Response Spectrum: Investigation of Possible Regional Effects, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 105, 963–980, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140134, 2015.
Kotha, S. R.: From a Regionalized Ground-Motion Model for Europe and Middle-East to Site-specific Seismic Hazard Assessments in Low-to-Moderate Seismicity Regions, SIGMA 2 Deliverable, SIGMA2-2019-D3-029/1, https://www.sigma-2.net/medias/files/sigma2-2019-d3-029-1-deliverable-3.2.2-approved-public--1.pdf (last access: May 2024), 2020.
Kotha, S. R. and Traversa, P.: A Bayesian update of Kotha et al. (2020) ground-motion model using Résif dataset, Bull. Earthquake. Eng., 22, 2267–2293, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01853-1, 2024.
Kotha, S. R., Bindi, D., and Cotton, F.: Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and Middle-East, B. Earthq. Eng., 14, 1245–1263, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9875-x, 2016.
Kotha, S. R., Weatherill, G., Bindi, D., and Cotton, F.: A regionally-adaptable ground-motion model for shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe, B. Earthq. Eng., 18, 4091–4125, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00869-1, 2020.
Kotha, S. R., Weatherill, G., Bindi, D., and Cotton, F.: Near-source magnitude scaling of spectral accelerations: analysis and update of Kotha et al. (2020) model, B. Earthq. Eng., 20, 1343–1370, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01308-5, 2022.
Kowsari, M., Halldorsson, B., Hrafnkelsson, B., Snæbjörnsson, J. Þ., and Jónsson, S.: Calibration of ground motion models to Icelandic peak ground acceleration data using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation, B. Earthq. Eng., 17, 2841–2870, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00569-5, 2019.
Kowsari, M., Sonnemann, T., Halldorsson, B., Hrafnkelsson, B., Snæbjörnsson, J. Þ., and Jónsson, S.: Bayesian inference of empirical ground motion models to pseudo-spectral accelerations of south Iceland seismic zone earthquakes based on informative priors, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 132, 106075, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106075, 2020.
Kowsari, M., Ghasemi, S., Bayat, F., and Halldorsson, B.: A backbone seismic ground motion model for strike-slip earthquakes in Southwest Iceland and its implications for near- and far-field PSHA, B. Earthq. Eng., 21, 715–738, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01556-z, 2023.
Kuehn, N.: A comparison of nonergodic ground-motion models based on geographically weighted regression and the integrated nested laplace approximation, B. Earthq. Eng., 21, 27–52, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01443-7, 2023.
Kuehn, N., Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K., and Gregor, N.: Partially Non-Ergodic Ground-Motion Model for Subduction Regions using the NGA Subduction Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, https://doi.org/10.55461/NZZW1930, 2020.
Kuehn, N. M. and Scherbaum, F.: A partially non-ergodic ground-motion prediction equation for Europe and the Middle East, B. Earthq. Eng., 14, 2629–2642, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9911-x, 2016.
Landwehr, N., Kuehn, N. M., Scheffer, T., and Abrahamson, N.: A Nonergodic Ground-Motion Model for California with Spatially Varying Coefficients, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 106, 2574–2583, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160118, 2016.
Lanzano, G., Luzi, L., Russo, E., Felicetta, C., D'Amico, M. C., Sgobba, S., and Pacor, F.: Engineering Strong Motion Database (ESM) flatfile [Data set], INGV – Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia [data set], https://doi.org/10.13127/esm/flatfile.1.0, 2018.
Lanzano, G., Sgobba, S., Luzi, L., Puglia, R., Pacor, F., Felicetta, C., D'Amico, M., Cotton, F., and Bindi, D.: The pan-European Engineering Strong Motion (ESM) flatfile: compilation criteria and data statistics, B. Earthq. Eng., 17, 561–582, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0480-z, 2019.
Lanzano, G., Luzi, L., D'Amico, V., Pacor, F., Meletti, C., Marzocchi, W., Rotondi, R., and Varini, E.: Ground motion models for the new seismic hazard model of Italy (MPS19): selection for active shallow crustal regions and subduction zones, B. Earthq. Eng., 18, 3487–3516, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00850-y, 2020.
Lanzano, G., Sgobba, S., Caramenti, L., and Menafoglio, A.: Ground-Motion Model for Crustal Events in Italy by Applying the Multisource Geographically Weighted Regression (MS-GWR) Method, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 111, 3297–3313, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210044, 2021.
Lavrentiadis, G., Abrahamson, N. A., and Kuehn, N. M.: A non-ergodic effective amplitude ground-motion model for California, B. Earthq. Eng., 21, 5233–5264, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01206-w, 2023a.
Lavrentiadis, G., Abrahamson, N. A., Kuehn, N. M., Bozorgnia, Y., Goulet, C. A., Babic, A., Macedo, J., Dolsek, M., Gregor, N., Kottke, A. R., Lacour, M., Liu, C., Meng, X., Phung, V.-B., Sung, C.-H., and Walling, M.: Overview and introduction to development of non-ergodic ground motion models, Bull. Earthq. Eng., 21, 5121–5150, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01485-x, 2023b.
Lee, R. L., Bradley, B. A., Stafford, P. J., Graves, R. W., and Rodriguez-Marek, A.: Hybrid broadband ground-motion simulation validation of small magnitude active shallow crustal earthquakes in New Zealand, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 2548–2579, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221109297, 2022.
Lin, P.-S. and Lee, C.-T.: Ground-Motion Attenuation Relationships for Subduction-Zone Earthquakes in Northeastern Taiwan, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98, 220–240, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060002, 2008.
Lucazeau, F.: Analysis and Mapping of an Updated Terrestrial Heat Flow Data Set, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 20, 4001–4024, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GC008389, 2019.
Luzi, L., Lanzano, G., Felicetta, C., D'Amico, M. C., Russo, E., Sgobba, S., Pacor, F., and ORFEUS Working Group: Engineering Strong Motion Database (ESM) (Version 2.0), https://doi.org/10.13127/ESM.2, 2020.
Maechling, P. J., Silva, F., Callaghan, S., and Jordan, T. H.: SCEC Broadband Platform: System Architecture and Software Implementation, Seismol. Res. Lett., 86, 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140125, 2015.
Mak, S., Clements, R. A., and Schorlemmer, D.: Empirical Evaluation of Hierarchical Ground-Motion Models: Score Uncertainty and Model Weighting, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 107, 949–965, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160232, 2017.
Manea, E. F., Cioflan, C. O., and Danciu, L.: Ground-motion models for Vrancea intermediate-depth earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 407–431, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211032985, 2022.
Mayor, J., Traversa, P., Calvet, M., and Margerin, L.: Tomography of crustal seismic attenuation in Metropolitan France: implications for seismicity analysis, B. Earthq. Eng., 16, 2195–2210, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0124-8, 2018.
Miller, A. C. and Rice, T. R.: Discrete Approximations of Probability Distributions, Manage. Sci., 29, 352–362, 1983.
Mitchell, B. J., Cong, L., and Ekström, G.: A continent-wide map of 1-Hz Lg coda Q variation across Eurasia and its relation for lithospheric evolution, J. Geophys. Res., 113, B04303, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005065, 2008.
Montalva, G. A., Bastías, N., and Rodriguez-Marek, A.: Ground-Motion Prediction Equation for the Chilean Subduction Zone, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 107, 901–911, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160221, 2017.
Mooney, W. D., Ritsema, J., and Hwang, Y. K.: Crustal seismicity and the earthquake catalog maximum moment magnitude M_cmax in stable continental regions (SCRs): Correlation with the seismic velocity of the lithosphere, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 357–358, 78–83, 2012.
Mosca, I., Sargeant, S., Baptie, B., Musson, R. M. W., and Pharaoh, T. C.: The 2020 national seismic hazard model for the United Kingdom, B. Earthq. Eng., 20, 633–675, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01281-z, 2022.
Ornthammarath, T., Douglas, J., Sigbjörnsson, R., and Lai, C. G.: Assessment of ground motion variability and its effects on seismic hazard analysis: a case study for iceland, B. Earthq. Eng., 9, 931–953, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9251-9, 2011.
Pacor, F., Felicetta, C., Lanzano, G., Sgobba, S., Puglia, R., D'Amico, M., Russo, E., Baltzopoulos, G., and Iervolino, I.: NESS1: A Worldwide Collection of Strong-Motion Data to Investigate Near-Source Effects, Seismol. Res. Lett., 89, 2299–2313, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180149, 2018.
Pagani, M., Monelli, D., Weatherill, G., Danciu, L., Crowley, H., Silva, V., Henshaw, P., Butler, L., Nastasi, M., Panzeri, L., Simionato, M., and Vigano, D.: OpenQuake Engine: An Open Hazard (and Risk) Software for the Global Earthquake Model, Seismol. Res. Lett., 85, 692–702, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130087, 2014.
Pagani, M., Garcia-Pelaez, J., Gee, R., Johnson, K., Poggi, V., Silva, V., Simionato, M., Styron, R., Viganò, D., Danciu, L., Monelli, D., and Weatherill, G.: The 2018 version of the Global Earthquake Model: Hazard component, Earthq. Spectra, 36, 226–251, https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020931866, 2020.
Paolucci, R., Mazzieri, I., Smerzini, C., and Stupazzini, M.: Physics-Based Earthquake Ground Shaking Scenarios in Large Urban Areas, in: Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, vol. 34, edited by: Ansal, A., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 331–359, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07118-3_10, 2014.
Paolucci, R., Smerzini, C., and Vanini, M.: BB‐SPEEDset: A Validated Dataset of Broadband Near‐Source Earthquake Ground Motions from 3D Physics‐Based Numerical Simulations, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 111, 2527–2545, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210089, 2021.
Parker, G. A., Stewart, J. P., Boore, D. M., Atkinson, G. M., and Hassani, B.: NGA-subduction global ground motion models with regional adjustment factors, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 456–493, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211034889, 2022.
Pavel, F., Vacareanu, R., Douglas, J., Radulian, M., Cioflan, C., and Barbat, A.: An Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Romania and Comparison with the Approach and Outcomes of the SHARE Project, Pure Appl. Geophys., 173, 1881–1905, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1223-6, 2016.
Pezeshk, S., Zandieh, A., and Tavakoli, B.: Hybrid Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Using NGA Models and Updated Seismological Parameters, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 101, 1859–1870, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100144, 2011.
Razafindrakoto, H. N. T., Cotton, F., Bindi, D., Pilz, M., Graves, R. W., and Bora, S.: Regional Calibration of Hybrid Ground-Motion Simulations in Moderate Seismicity Areas: Application to the Upper Rhine Graben, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 111, 1422–1444, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200287, 2021.
RESORCE: RESORCE, reference database for seismic ground-motion prediction in Europe, https://www.resorce-portal.eu/ (last access: May 2024), 2024.
Rovida, A., Antonucci, A., and Locati, M.: The European Preinstrumental Earthquake Catalogue EPICA, the 1000–1899 catalogue for the European Seismic Hazard Model 2020, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 5213–5231, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-5213-2022, 2022.
Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., and Fonnesbeck, C.: Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e55, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55, 2016.
Scherbaum, F., Delavaud, E., and Riggelsen, C.: Model Selection in Seismic Hazard Analysis: An Information-Theoretic Perspective, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 99, 3234–3247, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080347, 2009.
Schiappapietra, E., Felicetta, C., and D'Amico, M.: Fling-Step Recovering from Near-Source Waveforms Database, Geosciences, 11, 67, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020067, 2021.
Seyhan, E. and Stewart, J. P.: Semi-Empirical Nonlinear Site Amplification from NGA-West2 Data and Simulations, Earthq. Spectra, 30, 1241–1256, https://doi.org/10.1193/063013EQS181M, 2014.
Sgobba, S., Felicetta, C., Lanzano, G., Ramadan, F., D'Amico, M., and Pacor, F.: NESS2.0: An Updated Version of the Worldwide Dataset for Calibrating and Adjusting Ground-Motion Models in Near Source, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 111, 2358–2378, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210080, 2021.
Si, H., Midorikawa, S., and Kishida, T.: Development of NGA-Sub ground-motion prediction equation of 5%-damped pseudo-spectral acceleration based on database of subduction earthquakes in Japan, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 2682–2706, https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221090326, 2022.
Sigbjörnsson, R., Snæbjörnsson, J. Th., Higgins, S. M., Halldórsson, B., and Ólafsson, S.: A note on the Mw 6.3 earthquake in Iceland on 29 May 2008 at 15:45 UTC, B. Earthq. Eng., 7, 113–126, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9087-0, 2009.
Silva, V.: Critical Issues in Earthquake Scenario Loss Modeling, J. Earthq. Eng., 20, 1322–1341, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1138172, 2016.
Silva, V., Amo-Oduro, D., Calderon, A., Costa, C., Dabbeek, J., Despotaki, V., Martins, L., Pagani, M., Rao, A., Simionato, M., Viganò, D., Yepes-Estrada, C., Acevedo, A., Crowley, H., Horspool, N., Jaiswal, K., Journeay, M., and Pittore, M.: Development of a global seismic risk model, Earthq. Spectra, 36, 372–394, https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019899953, 2020.
Skarlatoudis, A. A., Papazachos, C. B., Margaris, B. N., Ventouzi, C., Kalogeras, I., and the EGELADOS Group: Ground-Motion Prediction Equations of Intermediate-Depth Earthquakes in the Hellenic Arc, Southern Aegean Subduction Area, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 103, 1952–1968, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120265, 2013.
Sokolov, V., Bonjer, K.-P., Wenzel, F., Grecu, B., and Radulian, M.: Ground-motion prediction equations for the intermediate depth Vrancea (Romania) earthquakes, B. Earthq. Eng., 6, 367–388, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9065-6, 2008.
Stafford, P. J.: Continuous integration of data into ground-motion models using Bayesian updating, J. Seismol., 23, 39–57, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9792-3, 2019.
Stafford, P. J., Strasser, F. O., and Bommer, J. J.: An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region, B. Earthq. Eng., 6, 149–177, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9053-2, 2008.
Stewart, J. P., Parker, G. A., Atkinson, G. M., Boore, D. M., Hashash, Y. M. A., and Silva, W. J.: Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America, Earthq. Spectra, 36, 42–68, https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019878185, 2020.
Sung, C.-H., Abrahamson, N. A., Kuehn, N. M., Traversa, P., and Zentner, I.: A non-ergodic ground-motion model of Fourier amplitude spectra for France, B. Earthq. Eng., 21, 5293–5317, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01403-1, 2023.
Traversa, P., Maufroy, E., Hollender, F., Perron, V., Bremaud, V., Shible, H., Drouet, S., Guéguen, P., Langlais, M., Wolyniec, D., Péquegnat, C., and Douste-Bacque, I.: RESIF RAP and RLBP Dataset of Earthquake Ground Motion in Mainland France, Seismol. Res. Lett., 91, 2409–2424, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190367, 2020.
Vacareanu, R., Radulian, M., Iancovici, M., Pavel, F., and Neagu, C.: Fore-Arc and Back-Arc Ground Motion Prediction Model for Vrancea Intermediate Depth Seismic Source, J. Earthq. Eng., 19, 535–562, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.990653, 2015.
Van Houtte, C., Drouet, S., and Cotton, F.: Analysis of the Origins of (Kappa) to Compute Hard Rock to Rock Adjustment Factors for GMPEs, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 101, 2926–2941, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100345, 2011.
Vilanova, S. P., Fonseca, J. F. B. D., and Oliveira, C. S.: Ground-Motion Models for Seismic-Hazard Assessment in Western Iberia: Constraints from Instrumental Data and Intensity Observations, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 102, 169–184, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110097, 2012.
Wald, D. J., and Allen, T. I.: Topographic Slope as a Proxy for Seismic Site Conditions and Amplification. B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 97, 1379–1395, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060267, 2007.
Weatherill, G.: eshm20_gmms, GitLab [code], https://gitlab.seismo.ethz.ch/efehr/eshm20_gmms (last access: May 2024), 2024.
Weatherill, G. and Cotton, F.: A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe: regionalisation, model selection and development of a scaled backbone approach, B. Earthq. Eng., 18, 6119–6148, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00940-x, 2020.
Weatherill, G., Bindi, D., Cotton, F., Danciu, L., and Luzi, L.: Building a New Ground Motion Logic Tree for Europe: Needs, Challenges and New Opportunities from European Seismological Data, in: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 18–21 June 2018, Thessaloniki, 2018.
Weatherill, G., Kotha, S. R., and Cotton, F.: A regionally-adaptable “scaled backbone” ground motion logic tree for shallow seismicity in Europe: application to the 2020 European seismic hazard model, B. Earthq. Eng., 18, 5087–5117, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00899-9, 2020.
Weatherill, G. A., Crowley, H., Roullé, A., Tourlière, B., Lemoine, A., Gracianne Hidalgo, C., Kotha, S. R., Cotton, F., and Dabbeek, J.: European Site Response Model Datasets Viewer (v1.0), https://maps.eu-risk.eucentre.it/map/european-site-response-model-datasets/#4/53.96/4.57 (last access: May 2024), 2021.
Weatherill, G., Crowley, H., Roullé, A., Tourlière, B., Lemoine, A., Gracianne, C., Kotha, S.-R., and Cotton, F.: Modelling site response at regional scale for the 2020 European Seismic Risk Model (ESRM20), B. Earthq. Eng., 21, 665–714, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01526-5, 2023.
Weatherill, G. A. and Danciu, L.: Regional variation of spectral parameters for seismic design from broadband probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 47, 2447–2467, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3092, 2018.
Woessner, J., Danciu, L., Giardini, D., Crowley, H., Cotton, F., Grünthal, G., Valensise, G., Arvidsson, R., Basili, R., Demicioglu, M. B., Hiemer, S., Meletti, C., Musson, R. W., Rovida, A. N., Sesetyan, K., Stucchi, M., and the SHARE Consortium: The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results, B. Earthq. Eng., 13, 3553–3596, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1, 2015.
Youngs, R. R., Chiou, B. S.-J., Silva, W. J., and Humphrey, J. R.: Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relationships for Subduction Zone Earthquakes, Seismol. Res. Lett., 68, 58–73, 1997.
Zhao, J. X.: Attenuation Relations of Strong Ground Motion in Japan Using Site Classification Based on Predominant Period, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 96, 898–913, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050122, 2006.
Zhao, J. X., Zhou, S., Zhou, J., Zhao, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Gao, P., Lan, X., Rhoades, D., Fukushima, Y., Somerville, P. G., and Irikura, K.: Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Shallow Crustal and Upper-Mantle Earthquakes in Japan Using Site Class and Simple Geometric Attenuation Functions, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 106, 1552–1569, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150063, 2016a.
Zhao, J. X., Liang, X., Jiang, F., Xing, H., Zhu, M., Hou, R., Zhang, Y., Lan, X., Rhoades, D. A., Irikura, K., Fukushima, Y., and Somerville, P. G.: Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Interface Earthquakes in Japan Using Site Class and Simple Geometric Attenuation Functions, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 106, 1518–1534, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150034, 2016b.
Zhao, J. X., Jiang, F., Shi, P., Xing, H., Huang, H., Hou, R., Zhang, Y., Yu, P., Lan, X., Rhoades, D. A., Somerville, P., Irikura, K., and Fukushima, Y.: Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Slab Earthquakes in Japan Using Site Class and Simple Geometric Attenuation Functions, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 106, 1535–1551, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150056, 2016c.
Short summary
The ground motion models (GMMs) selected for the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) and their uncertainties require adaptation to different tectonic environments. Using insights from new data, local experts and developments in the scientific literature, we further calibrate the ESHM20 GMM logic tree to capture previously unmodelled regional variation. We also propose a new scaled-backbone logic tree for application to Europe's subduction zones and the Vrancea deep seismic source.
The ground motion models (GMMs) selected for the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) and...
Special issue
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint