Abstract
AbstractSeismic hazard varies greatly during an earthquake sequence. Understanding this variation can be useful to end-users, such as emergency managers, as it would enable them to make more informed decisions about potential risk reduction measures. This article presents examples of how two commonly-used products of probabilistic seismic hazard assessments: uniform hazard spectra and disaggregated earthquake scenarios, vary during two severe seismic sequences in western Greece. These calculations are made using a recent time-dependent seismic hazard model based on a Bayesian ETAS approach. The examples show that time-dependent uniform hazard spectra for short return periods (1 and 10 years) are significantly higher than standard time-independent spectra but that uniform hazard spectra for the commonly-used return periods of 475 and 2475 years are similar to those from time-independent assessments. The time-dependent spectra generally converge within a couple of days to the time-independent spectra. The examples also show that the dominant earthquake scenarios evidenced by the disaggregation for the time-dependent assessment can show significant differences from the time-independent scenarios. This is particularly true when the earthquake sequence is distant from the location of interest as the aftershocks contribute greatly to the overall hazard. To show these changes more clearly this article introduces a new graphical representation of the disaggregated results: contour maps showing the magnitude or distance of the dominant earthquake scenario with axes of the structural period and response spectral acceleration.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geophysics,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology,Building and Construction,Civil and Structural Engineering
Reference32 articles.
1. ASCE7-5 (2005) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA
2. Azarbakht A, Rudman A, Douglas J (2021) A decision-making approach for operational earthquake forecasting. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 66:1–13
3. Azarbakht A, Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F, Douglas J (2022) Variations in hazard during earthquake sequences between 1995 and 2018 in western Greece as revealed by a Bayesian ETAS model. Geophys J Int 231(1):27–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggac177
4. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(2):501–520
5. Bondár I, Storchak D (2011) Improved location procedures at the International Seismological Centre. Geophys J Int 186(3):1220–1244