Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-232
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-232
15 Jan 2024
 | 15 Jan 2024
Status: a revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal NHESS.

Testing the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) against observations from Romania

Elena F. Manea, Laurentiu Danciu, Carmen O. Cioflan, Dragos Toma-Danila, and Matt Gerstenberger

Abstract. Evaluating the performance of probabilistic seismic hazard models against recorded data and their potential to forecast future earthquake’s ground shaking is an emerging research topic. In this study, we evaluate and test the results of the recently released European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20; Danciu et al., 2021) against observations for several cities in Romania. The dataset consists of ground shaking recordings and macroseismic observations, which extend the observational time-period to few hundred years. The full distribution of the hazard curves, depicting the epistemic uncertainties of the hazard at the given location was considered and the testing was done for peak ground acceleration (PGA) values i.e., 0.1 g and 0.2 g.

The results show close agreement between the ESHM20 and the observations for the cities located near the Vrancea intermediate-depth source (VRI) for both selected PGA levels. ESHM20 appears to overestimate the VRI recorded ground motions along the Carpathian Mountain Range and underestimate those at the far-field locations outside the Carpathians. Some of these differences might be attributed to the uncertainties in data conversion, local site effects, or differences in the attenuation patterns of the ground motion models. Our analysis suggests that the observed exceedance rates for the selected PGA levels are consistent with ESHM20 estimates, but these results must be interpreted with caution given the limited time and spatial coverage of the observations.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Elena F. Manea, Laurentiu Danciu, Carmen O. Cioflan, Dragos Toma-Danila, and Matt Gerstenberger

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-232', Graeme Weatherill, 31 Jan 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Elena Manea, 15 Jul 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-232', Céline Beauval, 29 Feb 2024
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Elena Manea, 15 Jul 2024
  • RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2023-232', Anonymous Referee #3, 18 Mar 2024
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Elena Manea, 15 Jul 2024
Elena F. Manea, Laurentiu Danciu, Carmen O. Cioflan, Dragos Toma-Danila, and Matt Gerstenberger
Elena F. Manea, Laurentiu Danciu, Carmen O. Cioflan, Dragos Toma-Danila, and Matt Gerstenberger

Viewed

Total article views: 538 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
381 117 40 538 48 27 26
  • HTML: 381
  • PDF: 117
  • XML: 40
  • Total: 538
  • Supplement: 48
  • BibTeX: 27
  • EndNote: 26
Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jan 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Jan 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 527 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 527 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 22 Jul 2024
Download
Short summary
We test and evaluate the results of the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20; Danciu et al., 2021) against observations spamming over a few centuries at twelve cities in Romania. The full distribution of the hazard curves at the given location was considered, and the testing was done 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.
Altmetrics