Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates against accelerometric data in two countries: France and Turkey

Tasan, Hilal; Beauval, Céline; Helmstetter, Agnès; Sandıkkaya, M. Abdullah; Guéguen, Philippe

doi:10.1093/gji/ggu191

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To include more data to achieve a higher power, one can sacrifice the spatial resolution and compare the performance of the PSHA model for a region as a whole, using all observations in that region. Tasan et al (2014Tasan et al ( , pp. 1555Tasan et al ( -1556 summarized this aggregated approach.…”

Section: Methods and Data Aggregated Hazard Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distribution function of the aggregated forecast can be computed accordingly. Albarello and D'Amico (2008) computed this distribution by normal approximation and Tasan et al (2014) computed it by Monte Carlo simulations. Both are not strictly necessary.…”

Section: Methods and Data Aggregated Hazard Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This validation exercise (validation, verification, and testing are used in this article as synonyms, although workers in different fields may assign different meanings to these terms) has been receiving increasing attention in recent years (Ordaz and Reyes, 1999;Stirling and Petersen, 2006;Albarello and D'Amico, 2008;Fujiwara et al, 2009;Miyazawa and Mori, 2009;Stirling and Gerstenberger, 2010;Mezcua et al, 2013;Tasan et al, 2014;Brooks et al, 2016), although it has not yet been a routine and standard process such as how meteorologists treat the weather forecast (e.g., the quality of weather forecasts is regularly published by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts [ECMWF], see Data and Resources). The lack of a standard validation may have induced arguments over whether a PSHA model is serving its purpose, especially after a significant earthquake occurs not in the most expected place and/or is not of the most expected size (Stein et al, 2011(Stein et al, , 2012Hanks et al, 2012;Stirling, 2012;Frankel, 2013a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison between the Forecast by the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps with Recent Ground‐Motion Records

Mak

Schorlemmer

2016

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confidence in scientific models accumulates by continuously validating the model's predictions by observations. We compared the seismic-hazard forecasts of the four published versions of the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps with observed ground motions. A large dataset is necessary for a statistically meaningful comparison, and so our comparison was based on an aggregated approach such that the observations and the forecast in a region (California, and the central and eastern United States [CEUS]) were combined and compared as a whole. We used instrumental records in California and macroseismic intensity in the CEUS since 2000 as the observation, which was largely prospective to the hazard maps. We verified that the observed seismic hazard based on macroseismic intensity was consistent with that based on instrumental records, making model evaluation in the CEUS, for which instrumental records were almost nonexistent, viable. The observed hazard was found to be generally consistent with the forecasted one for peak ground acceleration (PGA) in California and for both PGA and spectral acceleration at 1 s (SA1) in the CEUS. Forecasted hazard for SA1 for California appeared to be conservative. Recent versions of the hazard map were in better agreement with observations in California. Small earthquakes, as expected, were found to have insignificant impact on SA1. Induced earthquakes in the CEUS have increased the observed seismic hazard but did not invalidate the hazard model as a whole. We examined the resolving power of the test by computing its statistical power.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Data Aggregated Hazard Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods and Data Aggregated Hazard Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison between the Forecast by the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps with Recent Ground‐Motion Records

Mak

Schorlemmer

2016

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To test fully a seismic hazard curve at the probability levels of interest for engineering would require many thousands of years' worth of ground-motion recordings. Because in mainland France the first accelerometric stations were installed in the mid-1990s, accelerometric data can be used to test hazard estimates only at very short return periods [see Beauval et al (2008) and Tasan et al (2014) for applications in France].…”

Section: Previous Studies Comparing Estimated Seismic Hazard With Obsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do French macroseismic intensity observations agree with expectations from the European Seismic Hazard Model 2013?

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments are the basis of modern seismic design codes. To test fully a seismic hazard curve at the return periods of interest for engineering would require many thousands of years’ worth of ground-motion recordings. Because strong-motion networks are often only a few decades old (e.g. in mainland France the first accelerometric network dates from the mid-1990s), data from such sensors can be used to test hazard estimates only at very short return periods. In this article several hundreds of years of macroseismic intensity observations for mainland France are interpolated using a robust kriging-with-a-trend technique to establish the earthquake history of every French mainland municipality. At twenty-four selected cities representative of the French seismic context, the number of exceedances of intensity IV, V and VI are determined over time windows considered complete. After converting these intensities to peak ground accelerations using the global conversion equation of Caprio et al. (2015), these exceedances are compared with those predicted by the European Seismic Hazard Model 2013 (ESHM13). In half of the cities, the number of observed exceedances for low intensities (IV and V) is within the range of predictions of ESHM13. In the other half of the cities, the number of observed exceedances is higher than the predictions of ESHM13. For intensity VI, the match is closer, but the comparison is less meaningful due to a scarcity of data. According to this study, the ESHM13 underestimates hazard in roughly half of France, even when taking into account the uncertainty on the conversion from intensity to acceleration. However, these results are valid only for the acceleration range tested in this study (0.01 to 0.09 g)

show abstract

“…Because the maps forecast the shaking expected over periods of hundreds or thousands of years, the short time period since they began to be made makes assessing how well they perform difficult (Beauval et al, 2008(Beauval et al, , 2010. Hence maps can be assessed by comparing the fraction of sites where shaking exceeded the mapped threshold at that site to p. This approach, introduced by Ward (1995) and used in many subsequent analyses (e.g., Albarello and D'Amico, 2008;Fujiwara et al, 2009b;Stirling and Gerstenberger, 2010;Tasan et al, 2014;Nekrasova et al, 2014) considers many sites to avoid the difficulty that large motions at any given site are rare. Given this problem, various studies examine how well maps describe past shaking (Stirling and Petersen, 2006;Albarello and D'Amico, 2008;Stirling and Gerstenberger, 2010;Kossobokov and Nekrasova, 2012;Nekrasova et al, 2014;Wyss et al, 2012;Mak et al, 2014).…”

Section: Figure 1(b)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the effects of smoothing on the performance of earthquake hazard maps

Brooks

Stein

Spencer

2017

IJEIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore whether less detailed probabilistic hazard maps might perform better by assessing how smoothing Japan's national earthquake hazard maps affects their fit to a 510-year record of shaking. As measured by the fractional exceedance metric implicit in such probabilistic hazard maps, simple smoothing over progressively larger areas improves the maps' performance such that in the limit a uniform map performs best. However, using the squared misfit between maximum observed shaking and that predicted as a metric, map performance improves up to a ~75-150 km smoothing window, and then decreases with further smoothing. This result suggests that the probabilistic hazard models and the resulting maps may be over-parameterized, in that including too high a level of detail to describe past and future earthquakes may lower the maps' ability to predict future shaking.

show abstract

Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates against accelerometric data in two countries: France and Turkey

Cited by 25 publications

References 37 publications

A Comparison between the Forecast by the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps with Recent Ground‐Motion Records

A Comparison between the Forecast by the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps with Recent Ground‐Motion Records

Do French macroseismic intensity observations agree with expectations from the European Seismic Hazard Model 2013?

Investigating the effects of smoothing on the performance of earthquake hazard maps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About