European–Mediterranean regional centroid-moment tensors: 1997–2000

Pondrelli, Silvia; Morelli, A.; Ekström, Göran; Mazza, Salvatore; Boschi, E.; Dziewoński, Adam M.

doi:10.1016/s0031-9201(01)00312-0

Cited by 242 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tectonic regionalisation exploits various large-scale public datasets, including the International Geological Map of Europe (IGME 5000 : Asch 2005) and the crustal model CRUST 2.0 (Bassin et al 2000), as well as datasets of more localized geological and tectonic features such as volcanoes (Siebert and Simkin 2002), spreading ridges (Müller et al 2008), plate boundaries (Bird 2003), earthquake focal mechanisms (Dziewonski et al 1981;Pondrelli et al 2002), and the SHARE earthquake and fault databases described earlier (Figs. 2, 3).…”

Section: Tectonic Regionalisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

486

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13) results from a community-based probabilistic seismic hazard assessment supported by the EU-FP7 project "Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe" (SHARE, 2009(SHARE, -2013. The ESHM13 is a consistent seismic hazard model for Europe and Turkey which overcomes the limitation of national borders and includes a through quantification of the uncertainties. It is the first completed regional effort contributing to the "Global Earthquake Model" initiative. It might serve as a reference model for various applications, from earthquake preparedness to earthquake risk mitigation strategies, including the update of the European seismic regulations for building design (Eurocode 8), and thus it is useful for future safety assessment and improvement of private and public buildings. Although its results constitute a reference for Europe, they do not replace the existing national design regulations that are in place for seismic design and construction of buildings. The ESHM13 represents a significant improvement compared to previous efforts as it is based on (1) the compilation of updated and harmonised versions of the databases required for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, (2) the adoption of standard procedures and robust methods, especially for expert elicitation and consensus building among hundreds of European experts, (3) the multi-disciplinary input from all branches of earthquake science and engineering, (4) the direct involvement of the CEN/TC250/SC8 committee in defining output specifications relevant for Eurocode 8 and (5)

show abstract

Section: Tectonic Regionalisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

486

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in western Greece earthquakes of all four mechanisms occur within a region of only a couple of degrees square (e.g. Pondrelli et al, 2002). Therefore, the effect of these four different mechanisms on recorded ground motions was investigated here as has been done previously in western America for the differences between ground motions from strike-slip and reverse earthquakes (e.g.…”

Section: Comparisons To Previous Equationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equations for the Estimation of Strong Ground Motions from Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Using Data from Europe and the Middle East: Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Acceleration

Ambraseys

Douglas²,

Sarma

et al. 2005

Bull Earthquake Eng

447

386

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, only about 2% of the CENEC entries have truly original M w determined directly from digital records or are subject of special studies with M w derived, e.g., from intensity data points. Such data, i.e., the M w after Pondrelli et al (2002Pondrelli et al ( , 2007 available since 1997 and the Swiss moment tensor solutions (SMTS) available since 1999, together with the M w from special studies, have the highest rank in the priority scheme of CENEC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(SMTS and Pondrelli et al 2002) vs. M w given by local catalogues and data files used in CENEC. The M w values of SMTS and Pondrelli et al (2002) are given in CENEC, having higher hierarchy rank than the ones in the local catalogues. b M w from moment tensor solutions (SMTS andPondrelli et al 2002, 2007) vs. M w calculated from other strength measures according to the algorithms for the local catalogues in CENEC established by Grünthal et al (2009) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two different approaches have been followed to investigate the compatibility of the different M w sets throughout CENEC. The first harmonization check is performed using M w from moment tensor solutions from SMTS and Pondrelli et al (2002Pondrelli et al ( , 2007. The method to derive the SMTS is described, e.g., by Braunmiller et al (2002) and Bernardi et al (2004) and the data are available in greater extent since 1997.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Harmonization check of M w within the central, northern, and northwestern European earthquake catalogue (CENEC)

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large data sets covering large areas and time spans, and composed from many different independent sources, raise the question of the obtained degree of harmonization. The present study is an analysis of the harmonization with respect to the moment magnitude M w within the earthquake catalogue for central, northern and northwestern Europe (CENEC). The CENEC earthquake catalogue (Grünthal et al., J Seismol, 2009) contains parameters for over 8,000 events in the time period 1000-2004 with magnitude M w ≥ 3.5. Only about 2% of the data used for CENEC has original M w magnitudes derived directly from digital data. Some of the local catalogues and data files providing data give M w , but calculated by the respective agency from other magnitude measures or intensity. About 60% of the local data give strength measures other than M w and these have to be transformed by us using available formulae or new regressions based on original M w data. Although all events are thus unified to M w magnitude, inhomogeneity in the M w obtained from over 40 local catalogues and data files and 50 special studies is inevitable. Two different approaches have been followed to investigate the compatibility of the different M w sets throughout CENEC. The first harmonization check is performed using M w from moment tensor solutions from SMTS and Pondrelli et al. (2002, 2007). The method to derive the SMTS is described, e.g., by Braunmiller et al. (2002) and Bernardi et al. (2004) and the data are available in greater extent since 1997. One check is made against the M w given in national catalogues and another against the M w derived by applying different empirical relations developed for CENEC. The second harmonization check concerns the vast majority of data in CENEC related to earthquakes prior to 1997 or where no moment tensor based M w exists. In the case, an empirical relation for the M w dependence on epicentral intensity (I 0 ) and focal depth (h) was derived for 41 master events, i.e., earthquakes, located all over central Europe, with high-quality data. To include also the data lacking h, the corresponding depth independent relation for these 41 events was also derived. These equations are compared with the different sets of data from which CENEC has been com-G. Grünthal, D. Stromeyer, R. Wahlström 614 posed and the goodness of fit is demonstrated for each set. The vast majority of the events are very well or reasonably consistent with the respective relation, so that the data can be said to be harmonized with respect to M w , but there are exceptions, which are discussed in detail.

show abstract

European–Mediterranean regional centroid-moment tensors: 1997–2000

Cited by 242 publications

References 33 publications

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Equations for the Estimation of Strong Ground Motions from Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Using Data from Europe and the Middle East: Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Acceleration

Harmonization check of M w within the central, northern, and northwestern European earthquake catalogue (CENEC)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About