Seismic risk mapping for Germany

International audienceThe aim of this study is to assess and map the seismic risk for Germany, restricted to the expected losses of damage to residential buildings. There are several earthquake prone regions in the country which have produced Mw magnitudes above 6 and up to 6.7 corresponding to observed ground shaking intensity up to VIII?IX (EMS-98). Combined with the fact that some of the earthquake prone areas are densely populated and highly industrialized and where therefore the hazard coincides with high concentration of exposed assets, the damaging implications from earthquakes must be taken seriously. In this study a methodology is presented and pursued to calculate the seismic risk from (1) intensity based probabilistic seismic hazard, (2) vulnerability composition models, which are based on the distribution of residential buildings of various structural types in representative communities and (3) the distribution of assets in terms of replacement costs for residential buildings. The estimates of the risk are treated as primary economic losses due to structural damage to residential buildings. The obtained results are presented as maps of the damage and risk distributions. For a probability level of 90% non-exceedence in 50 years (corresponding to a mean return period of 475 years) the mean damage ratio is up to 20% and the risk up to hundreds of millions of euro in the most endangered communities. The developed models have been calibrated with observed data from several damaging earthquakes in Germany and the nearby area in the past 30 years

Interpreting intraplate tectonics for seismic hazard : a UK historical perspective

It is notoriously difficult to construct seismic source models for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in intraplate areas on the basis of geological information, and many practitioners have given up the task in favour of purely seismicity-based models. This risks losing potentially valuable information in regions where the earthquake catalogue is short compared to the seismic cycle. It is interesting to survey how attitudes to this issue have evolved over the past 30 years. This paper takes the UK as an example, and traces the evolution of seismic source models through generations of hazard studies. It is found that in the UK, while the earliest studies did not consider regional tectonics in any way, there has been a gradual evolution towards more tectonically based models. Experience in other countries, of course, may differ

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

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, 2009–2013). 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 accounting for epistemic uncertainties of model components and hazard results. Furthermore, enormous effort was devoted to transparently document and ensure open availability of all data, results and methods through the European Facility for Earthquake Hazard and Risk (www.​efehr.​org)

Earthquake activity and hazard in the Carpathian Basin I

The seismicity and seismic hazard of the Carpathian Basin are studied in this paper based on a recent comprehensive database cataloging over 20 thousands earthquakes between 456 and 1995. The epicentre distributions of these events indicate the geographical positions of the most active tectonic processes in the region. Among them the south-eastern bend of the Carpathians (Háromszék-Vrancea zone, Romania) and the area of south-eastern Alps have the highest seismic activity. The former source area is very specific by its strong seismicity from the intermediate depth domain (70-170 km). The intermediate-depth sources are deepening nearly vertically but in somewhat SW direction and the separation of the crustal earthquakes from the events connected to the lithospheric plate subsiding into the astenosphere is well observed at about 50 km, which is the depth of the Mohorovičić discontinuity (MOHO) in this region. The lithospheric plate subsiding to the depth of 150-200 km is supposed to be disconnected around 50 km. Some weakness of this slab can also be assumable based on the lower seismic activity observed between 100-120 km

The use of Artificial Neural Networks to estimate seismic damage and derive vulnerability functions for traditional masonry

This paper discusses the adoption of Artificial Intelligence-based techniques to estimate seismic damage, not with the goal of replacing existing approaches, but as a mean to improve the precision of empirical methods. For such, damage data collected in the aftermath of the 1998 Azores earthquake (Portugal) is used to develop a comparative analysis between damage grades obtained resorting to a classic damage formulation and an innovative approach based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). The analysis is carried out on the basis of a vulnerability index computed with a hybrid seismic vulnerability assessment methodology, which is subsequently used as input to both approaches. The results obtained are then compared with real post-earthquake damage observation and critically discussed taking into account the level of adjustment achieved by each approach. Finally, a computer routine that uses the ANN as an approximation function is developed and applied to derive a new vulnerability curve expression. In general terms, the ANN developed in this study allowed to obtain much better approximations than those achieved with the original vulnerability approach, which has revealed to be quite non-conservative. Similarly, the proposed vulnerability curve expression was found to provide a more accurate damage prediction than the traditional analytical expressions.SFRH/BPD/122598/2016info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The danger of mapping risk from multiple natural hazards

In recent decades, society has been greatly affected by natural disasters (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes), losses and effects caused by these disasters have been increasing. Conventionally, risk assessment focuses on individual hazards, but the importance of addressing multiple hazards is now recognised. Two approaches exist to assess risk from multiple-hazards; the risk index (addressing hazards, and the exposure and vulnerability of people or property at risk) and the mathematical statistics method (which integrates observations of past losses attributed to each hazard type). These approaches have not previously been compared. Our application of both to China clearly illustrates their inconsistency. For example, from 31 Chinese provinces assessed for multi-hazard risk, Gansu and Sichuan provinces are at low risk of life loss with the risk index approach, but high risk using the mathematical statistics approach. Similarly, Tibet is identified as being at almost the highest risk of economic loss using the risk index, but lowest risk under the mathematical statistics approach. Such inconsistency should be recognised if risk is to be managed effectively, whilst the practice of multi-hazard risk assessment needs to incorporate the relative advantages of both approaches