The 2014 seismic hazard model of the Middle East: overview and results

Şeşetyan, Karin; Danciu, Laurentiu; Tümsa, Mine Betül Demircioğlu; Giardini, Domenico; Erdik, Mustafa; Akkar, Sinan; Gülen, Levent; Zaré, Mehdi; Adamia, Shota; Ansari, Anooshiravan; Arakelyan, A.; Askan, Ayşegül; Avanesyan, M.; Babayan, H.; Chélidzé, T.; Durgaryan, R.; Elias, A.; Hamzehloo, H.; Hessami, Khaled; Kalafat, Doğan; Kale, Özkan; Karakhanyan, A.; Khan, Muhammad Asif; Mammadli, Tahir; Al-Qaryouti, Mahmood; Sayab, Mohammad; Tsereteli, Nino; Utkucu, Murat; Varazanashvili, O.; Waseem, Muhammad; Yalçın, Hilal; Yılmaz, Mustafa Tolga

doi:10.1007/s10518-018-0346-4

Cited by 57 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Caucasus located in the central part of the mobile Alpine-Himalayan belt is the result of a continental collision between the AR-EU plates (Dewey et al, 1973;Khain, 1975;Adamia, 1975;Dercourt et al, 1986;Zonenshain and Le Pichon, 1986;Zonenshain et al, 1987;Philip et al, 1989;Okay and Şahintürk, 1997;Allen et al, 2004;Vincent et al, 2007;Zakariadze et al, 2007;Sosson et al, 2010aSosson et al, , 2017Adamia et al, 2011Adamia et al, , 2017Albino et al, 2014;Cavazza et al, 2017;Alania et al, 2017). The ongoing interaction of these plates controls the present geodynamics and the seismicity of the Caucasus (McKenzie, 1972;Jackson and McKenzie, 1988;Ambraseys and Jackson, 1998;Berberian and Yeats, 1999;Allen et al, 2004;Panahi, 2006;Karakhanyan et al, 2013Karakhanyan et al, , 2017Şeşetyan et al, 2018). The region can be sub-divided into several major tectonic units ( Fig.…”

Section: Geology and Geodynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geodynamics, seismicity, and seismic hazards of the Caucasus

Ismail‐Zadeh

Adamia

Chabukiani

et al. 2020

Earth-Science Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Being a part of ongoing continental collision between the Arabian and Eurasian plates, the Caucasus region is a remarkable site of moderate to strong seismicity, where devastating earthquakes caused significant losses of lives and livelihood. In this article, we survey geology and geodynamics of the Caucasus and its surroundings; magmatism and heat flow; active tectonics and tectonic stresses caused by the collision and shortening; gravity and density models; and overview recent geodetic studies related to regional movements. The tectonic development of the Caucasus region in the Mesozoic-Cenozoic times as well as the underlying dynamics controlling its development are complicated processes. It is clear that the collision is responsible for a topographic uplift / inversion and for the formation of the fold-and-thrust belts of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus. Tectonic deformations in the region is influenced by the wedge-shaped rigid Arabian block indenting into the relatively mobile region and producing near N-S compressional stress and seismicity in the Caucasus. Regional seismicity is analysed with an attention to sub-crustal seismicity under the northern foothills of the Greater Caucasus, which origin is unclearwhether the seismicity associated with a descending oceanic crust or thinned continental crust. Recent seismic tomography studies are in favour of the detachment of a lithospheric root beneath the Lesser and Greater Caucasus. The knowledge of geodynamics, seismicity, and stress regime in the Caucasus region assists in an assessment of seismic hazard and risk. We look finally at existing gaps in the current knowledge and identify the problems, which may improve our understanding of the regional evolution, active tectonics, geodynamics, shallow and deeper seismicity, and surface manifestations of the lithosphere dynamics. Among the gaps are those related to uncertainties in regional geodynamic and tectonic evolution (e.g., continental collision and associated shortening and exhumation, lithosphere structure, deformation and strain-stress partitioning) and to the lack of comprehensive datasets (e.g., regional seismic catalogues, seismic, gravity and geodetic surveys).

show abstract

Section: Geology and Geodynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geodynamics, seismicity, and seismic hazards of the Caucasus

Ismail‐Zadeh

Adamia

Chabukiani

et al. 2020

Earth-Science Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The selected Tier 1 models include several national models, such as the 2014 United States Geological Survey (USGS) national seismic hazard model for Conterminous US (Petersen et al, 2014), the national seismic hazard model for Japan (Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion (HERP), 2014), the 2015 version of the Canada national hazard model (Adams et al, 2015), the 2017 version of the Indonesia national model (Irsyam et al, Submitted), and the 2018 version of the Australia national model (Allen et al, 2020a). Many of the regional models are also Tier 1, including the ESHM13 model in Europe (Woessner et al, 2015), the Earthquake Model of Central Asia (Ullah et al, 2015), and the EMME (Earthquake Model for the Middle East) model in the Middle East (Şeşetyan et al, 2018), each created by an associated project, and the South America Risk Assessment (SARA) project in South America (supported by the Swiss Re Foundation) and the Caribbean and Central America Risk Analysis (CCARA) project in Central America and the Caribbean (supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)), which were constructed during projects carried out in collaboration with partner organizations.…”

Section: The Criteria Used To Compile the Gem Hazard Mosaicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During its first implementation phase, which began in 2009 and concluded in 2014, Global Earthquake Model (GEM) collaborated with various initiatives at regional levels (e.g. Şeşetyan et al, 2018; Ullah et al, 2015; Woessner et al, 2015) and worked at constructing the key ingredients for developing a modern version of a global hazard and risk model (Pagani et al, 2015). These key ingredients included basic data sets such as a global instrumental catalog (Storchak et al, 2013), a global uniform macroseismic earthquake catalog (Albini et al, 2014), a global strain rate model (Kreemer et al, 2014), a global database of active faults (Christophersen et al, 2015), guidelines for modeling ground motions (Stewart et al, 2013), and a computational engine (Pagani et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2018 version of the Global Earthquake Model: Hazard component

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In December 2018, at the conclusion of its second implementation phase, the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation released its first version of a map outlining the spatial distribution of seismic hazard at a global scale. The map is the result of an extensive, joint effort combining the results obtained from a collection of probabilistic seismic hazard models, called the GEM Mosaic. Together, the map and the underlying database of models provide an up-to-date view of the earthquake threat globally. In addition, using the Mosaic, a synopsis of the current state-of-practice in modeling probabilistic seismic hazard at national and regional scales is possible. The process adopted for the compilation of the Mosaic adhered to the maximum extent possible to GEM’s principles of collaboration, inclusiveness, transparency, and reproducibility. For each region, priority was given to seismic hazard models either developed by well-recognized national agencies or by large collaborative projects involving local scientists. The version of the GEM Mosaic presented herein contains 30 probabilistic seismic hazard models, 14 of which represent national or sub-national models; the remainder are regional-scale models. We discuss the general qualities of these models, the underlying framework of the database, and the outlook for the Mosaic’s utility and its future versions.

show abstract

“…Hazard is represented by a full stochastic event set that differs for each country around the world using a full range of spectral acceleration values, with a resolution of 1km x 1km for each event. This is derived from a global analysis via fault and area sources and recurrence relations, including various regional models (SHARE, EMME, SSAHARA, SARA - Giardini et al, 2013;Şeşetyan et al, 2018). The outputs can be derived at any resolution, however the presented resolution is a hexagonal geocell of 0.3° x 0.3°.…”

Section: Moving Towards a Fuller Representation Of Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%