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

It is shown that considering a fixed increment of a given magnitude at afault is equivalent to factoring the mechanical moment at the fault as done instructural engineering with the applied loads, by the most currently usedstructural engineering standards (e.g. Eurocodes). A special safety factor isintroduced and related to the partial factor acting on the mechanical momentrepresenting the fault. A comparison is then made between the hazard mapsobtained for Italy with the Neo Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA)technique, using two approaches for the definition of the seismic sourcesconsidered for the computation of the synthetic seismograms. The first one isbased on the magnitude of the events listed in the earthquake catalogue, andlocated within the active seismogenic zones. This is the standard approach,used in most of the NDSHA computations performed up to now. It is adequate forcountries, like Italy, where the catalogue can be reasonably consideredcomplete for events of M=5 and above. When the catalogue completeness is barelyadequate, another approach can be adopted for the definition of the earthquakesources. It uses the seismogenic nodes identified by means of patternrecognition techniques applied to morphostructural seismic zonation (MSZ), andincreases the reference magnitude by a constant variation tuned thanks to thesafety factor. The two approaches have been compared for Italy using the safetyfactor 2.0: they mostly produce comparable hazard maps. As the two sets arefully independent and the catalogue is very long, this implies a validation ofthe seismogenic nodes method and a tuning of the safety factor at about 2.Notable exception is seen in the Central Alps, where nodes tend to overestimatethe "observed" hazard, and in southeastern Sicily, where the nodesunderestimation is only apparent and can be negligible within experimentalerrors.

Seismogenic nodes as a viable alternative to seismogenic zones and observed seismicity for the definition of seismic hazard at regional scale