The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Abstract

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)

The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany—version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability

“…Respective figures of the magnitude frequency relations and tabulated rates for all magnitude bins are given in the accompanying report to this paper. A specific feature concerns differences in the frequency of observed yearly rates of smaller versus larger magnitudes, as it was also observed by Woessner et al (2015). We found a considerable difference in the annual frequencies of smaller and larger magnitude earthquakes in, for example, SSZ of the URG (Fig.…”

“…Therefore we employ three SASZ models, which were originally derived independently from each other. SASZ model C is based on Burkhard and Grünthal (2009), which was extended by Grünthal et al (2009a) and later provided for the project SHARE (Woessner et al 2015) as model for Germany. For its application in SHARE, it needed simplifications concerning those SASZs with too small seismic activity because of a higher magnitude threshold used in the SHARE project.…”

“…Therefore, this could be one reason for the limitation at e max = 3, as it is used e.g. by Woessner et al (2015). Another rationale would be tests to check, what values of e max would result in calculated load parameters, which would be sufficiently near to the case that no truncation at all is applied.…”

“…Another harmonized Euro-Mediterranean seismic hazard map was calculated on behalf of the Global Earthquake Modeling Project GEM1 . The most recent and most elaborated harmonized European seismic hazard map is the one produced in the framework of the EU-FP7 project SHARE (Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe) (Woessner et al 2015).…”

Seismic performance assessment of conventional steel and steel-concrete composite moment frames using CFST columns

“…Lagos), was considered in this study, both for design and seismic performance assessment purposes. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) was performed for the site in question, using the open source software OpenQuake (Pagani et al [13] and the seismic hazard model developed in SHARE (Woessner et al [14]), whilst also including additional hazard sources (Vilanova and Fonseca [15]) and employing the ground motion prediction equations from Atkinson and Boore [16] and Akkar and Bommer [17], with a weight of 70% and 30%, respectively (Silva et al [18]). Disaggregation of the seismic hazard (Bazurro and Cornell [19]) on magnitude, distance and  was performed.…”