The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) for the time period 1900–2006 and its comparison to the European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC)

Grünthal, Gottfried; Wahlström, Rutger; Stromeyer, Dietrich

doi:10.1007/s10950-013-9379-y

Cited by 88 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A kernel-smoothed, zonation-free stochastic earthquake rate model that considers SEIsmicity and accumulated FAult moment (hereinafter SEIFA-model). Activity rates are based on the frequency-magnitude distribution model of the SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC, Grünthal and Wahlström 2012;Stucchi et al 2012;Giardini et al 2013a;Grünthal et al 2013), while the spatial distribution of model rates depends on the density distributions of earthquakes and fault slip rates.…”

Section: Data Preparation and Modelling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the scope of the project we compiled a new homogeneous earthquake catalogue (SHEEC-the "SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue"; Stucchi et al 2012;Grünthal et al 2013). The catalogue consists of two parts: (a) 1000-1899, compiled from historical earthquake data and from information gathered in the Archive of Historical EArthquake Data (AHEAD) (Locati et al 2014) after reassessing all earthquake parameters, based either on raw macroseismic data or on existing, selected regional catalogues (GomezCapera et al 2014);and(b) 1900-2006, harmonised from existing national catalogues and numerous special studies as described in Grünthal and Wahlström (2012) and Grünthal et al (2013).…”

Section: The Share European Earthquake Cataloguementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The catalogue consists of two parts: (a) 1000-1899, compiled from historical earthquake data and from information gathered in the Archive of Historical EArthquake Data (AHEAD) (Locati et al 2014) after reassessing all earthquake parameters, based either on raw macroseismic data or on existing, selected regional catalogues (GomezCapera et al 2014);and(b) 1900-2006, harmonised from existing national catalogues and numerous special studies as described in Grünthal and Wahlström (2012) and Grünthal et al (2013). The catalogue was extended to cover Central and Eastern Turkey for a more homogeneous hazard analysis.…”

Section: The Share European Earthquake Cataloguementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

Self Cite

501

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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)

show abstract

Section: Data Preparation and Modelling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Share European Earthquake Cataloguementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Share European Earthquake Cataloguementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

Self Cite

501

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1900-2006 has been compiled by GFZ Potsdam in the framework of an independent project and represents a temporal and spatial excerpt of ''The EuropeanMediterranean Earthquake Catalogue'' (EMEC) for the last millennium (Grünthal and Wahlström 2012) with a few modifications that are described in Grünthal et al (2013).…”

Section: Comparison With Previously Published Cataloguesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The French seismic CATalogue (FCAT-17)

Manchuel¹,

Traversa²,

Baumont³

et al. 2017

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In regions that undergo low deformation rates, as is the case for metropolitan France (i.e. the part of France in Europe), the use of historical seismicity, in addition to instrumental data, is necessary when dealing with seismic hazard assessment. This paper presents the strategy adopted to develop a parametric earthquake catalogue using moment magnitude M w , as the reference magnitude scale to cover both instrumental and historical periods for metropolitan France. Work performed within the framework of the SiHex (SIsmicité de l'HEXagone) (Cara et al. Bull Soc Géol Fr 186:3-19, 2015. doi:10.2113 and SIGMA (SeIsmic Ground Motion Assessment; EDF-CEA-AREVA-ENEL) projects, respectively on instrumental and historical earthquakes, have been combined to produce the French seismic CATalogue, version 2017 (FCAT-17). The SiHex catalogue is composed of *40,000 natural earthquakes, for which the hypocentral location and M w magnitude are given. In the frame of the SIGMA research program, an integrated study has been realized on historical seismicity from intensity prediction equations (IPE) calibration in M w detailed in Baumont et al. (submitted) companion paper to their application to earthquakes of the SISFRANCE macroseismic database (BRGM, EDF, IRSN), through a dedicated strategy developed by Traversa et al. (Bull Earthq Eng, 2017. doi:10. 1007/s10518-017-0178-7) companion paper, to compute their M w magnitude and depth. Macroseismic data and epicentral location and intensity used both in IPE calibration and inversion process, are those of SISFRANCE without any revision. The inversion process allows the main macroseismic field specificities reported by SISFRANCE to be taken into 123Bull Earthquake Eng DOI 10.1007/s10518-017-0236-1 account with an exploration tree approach. It also allows capturing the epistemic uncertainties associated with macroseismic data and to IPEs selection. For events that exhibit a poorly constrained macroseismic field (mainly old, cross border or off-shore earthquakes), joint inversion of M w and depth is not possible, and depth needs to be fixed to calculate M w . Regional a priori depths have been defined for this purpose based on analysis of earthquakes with a well constrained macroseismic field where joint inversion of M w and depth is possible. As a result, 27% of SISFRANCE earthquake seismological parameters have been jointly inverted and for the other 73% M w has been calculated assuming a priori depths. The FCAT-17 catalogue is composed of the SIGMA historical parametric catalogue (magnitude range between 3.5 up to 7.0), covering from AD463 to 1965, and of the SiHex instrumental one, extending from 1965 to 2009. Historical part of the catalogue results from an automatic inversion of SISFRANCE data. A quality index is estimated for each historical earthquake according to the way the events are processed. All magnitudes are given in M w which makes this catalogue directly usable as an input for probabilistic or deterministic seismic hazard studies. Uncertainties on magnitude...

show abstract

“…The hierarchy among the catalogs (ID in Table 1) is chosen based on the following assumptions: we assign the highest ranks to publications focusing on single or only a few historical events (ID 1-6), followed by one of the longest (1000 until 2006 C.E. ), most reliable and complete available catalogs for the region, the European Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC; ID 7; Grünthal and Wahlström, 2012a;Grünthal and Wahlström, 2012b), followed by instrumental catalogs in which the highest rank is given to the local catalog of the Geophysical Institute of Israel (ID 8), followed by other global sources (ID 9-11), complemented with both purely instrumental catalogs (ID 12,13), the Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe (SHARE) project catalog (SHEEC; Stucchi et al, 2013;Grünthal et al, 2013), as well as the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) Turkey catalog (ID 14,15). Interesting to note here is that some query builders, for example, NCEDC a and NCEDC b (Northern California Earthquake Data Center), which should query the same database, yield slightly different query results (for details on the data sources, see Data and Resources).…”

Section: Historical Seismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Data‐Driven Seismic‐Hazard Models Prepared for a Seismic Risk Assessment in the Dead Sea Region

Haas

Agnon

Bindi

et al. 2016

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We derive a probabilistic seismic-hazard model for the Dead Sea region to allow for seismic risk estimation, which will be part of a subsequent study. This hazard model relies as much as possible on data-driven approaches, utilizing a seismic catalog compiled for the region by integrating data from different sources. We derive seismicity models using two different smoothing approaches and estimate a hypocentral depth distribution from historical observations. We do not include paleoseismological evidence apart from the observed seismicity. Because ground-motion records are sparse in the region, we formulate the model in the European Macroseismic intensity scale from 1998. However, the collected macroseismic intensity data are still too few to derive a local intensity prediction equation (IPE). Thus, we choose among existing equations derived for different regions and combine them in a logic tree. Here, motivated by Scherbaum et al. (2010), we propose a two-step approach to select the IPEs for the logic tree. First, we cluster a set of 10 candidate IPEs to identify groups of models that can be considered similar with respect to the distribution of the predicted values for a selection of the explanatory variables (i.e., magnitude and distance), using a k-mean approach (Steinhaus, 1956). Then, we apply different ranking techniques (Scherbaum et al., 2009;Kale and Akkar, 2013) to identify within each cluster the most suitable model to be included in the logic tree. The resulting hazard models are consistent with existing probabilistic seismic-hazard models for the region. We estimate a moderate-to-high hazard of intensity grade VII-VIII with 10% probability of exceedance within 50 years in close vicinity to the Dead Sea transform fault, the dominant seismogenic structure in this region.

show abstract

The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) for the time period 1900–2006 and its comparison to the European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC)

Cited by 88 publications

References 4 publications

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

The French seismic CATalogue (FCAT-17)

Data‐Driven Seismic‐Hazard Models Prepared for a Seismic Risk Assessment in the Dead Sea Region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About