English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this study focused on France, we explore the uncertainties related to choices made while building a source model for hazard assessment and we quantify the impact on probabilistic hazard estimates. Earthquake recurrence models are initially built from the French Seismic CATalog (FCAT, Manchuel et al. in Bull Earthq Eng, 2018. 10.1007/s10518-017-0236-1). We set up a logic tree that includes two alternative seismogenic source models (ESHM13 and Baize et al. in Bull Soc Géol Fr 184(3):225–259, 2013), two versions of FCAT catalog, two alternative declustering algorithms, and three alternative minimum magnitudes for earthquake recurrence modeling. We calculate the hazard for six cities (i.e. Nantes, Lourdes, Clermont-Ferrand, Briançon, Nice and Strasbourg) that are located in source zones with a minimum amount of data to work with. Results are displayed for the PGA and spectral period 0.2 s, at return periods 475 and 5000 years. Exploration of the logic tree shows that the parameters with the most impact on hazard results are the minimum magnitude used in the recurrence modeling (up to 31%) and the selection of the seismogenic source model (up to 30%). We also use the SHARE European Earthquake Catalog (SHEEC, Woessner et al. in Bull Earthquake Eng, 2015. 10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1) to build earthquake recurrence models and compare hazard values obtained with the FCAT logic tree. Comparisons are limited because of the low number of events available in some sources in SHEEC; however, results show that, depending on the site considered, the earthquake catalog selection can also strongly impact the hazard estimates (up to 50%). The FCAT logic tree is combined with four ground-motion models (Bindi et al. in Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):391–430, 2014; Boore et al. in Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085, 2014; Cauzzi et al. in Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1587–1612, 2015. 10.1007/s10518-014-9685-y; Drouet and Cotton in Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(4):1883–1902, 2015) to account for the epistemic uncertainty on the prediction of ground-motion. Exploration of the logic tree shows that the contribution of ground-motion model uncertainties can be larger than, equivalent to, or lower than the contribution of the source-model uncertainties to the overall hazard variability. Which component controls overall uncertainty depends on the site, spectral period and return period. Finally, exploring the logic tree provides a distribution for the ratios between hazard levels at 5000 and 475 years return periods, revealing that the ratios only slightly depend on source-model uncertainties, vary strongly from site to site, and can take values between 3 and 5, which is significantly higher than what is commonly assumed in the engineering community.

The influence of source- and ground-motion model choices on probabilistic seismic hazard levels at 6 sites in France