Advertisement

A New Probabilistic Shift Away from Seismic Hazard Reality in Italy?

  • A. Nekrasova
  • A. PeresanEmail author
  • V. G. Kossobokov
  • G. F. Panza
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 163)

Abstract

Objective testing is a key issue in the process of revision and improvement of seismic hazard assessments. Therefore we continue the rigorous comparative analysis of past and newly available hazard maps for the territory of Italy against the seismic activity observed in reality. The final Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) results and the most recent version of Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe (SHARE) project maps, along with the reference hazard maps for the Italian seismic code, all obtained by probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), are cross-compared to the three ground shaking maps based on the duly physically and mathematically rooted neo-deterministic approach (NDSHA). These eight hazard maps for Italy are tested against the available data on ground shaking. The results of comparison between predicted macroseismic intensities and those reported for past earthquakes (in the time interval 1000–2014) show that models provide rather conservative estimates, which tend to over-estimate seismic hazard at the ground shaking levels below the MCS intensity IX. Only exception is represented by the neo-deterministic maps associated with a fixed return period of 475 or 2475 years, which provide a better fit to observations, at the cost of model consistent 10 % or 2 % cases of exceedance respectively. In terms of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit criterion, although all of the eight hazard maps differ significantly from the distribution of the observed ground shaking reported in the available Italian databases, the NDSHA approach appears to outscore significantly the PSHA one.

Keywords

Return Period Seismic Hazard Peak Ground Acceleration Seismic Hazard Assessment Empirical Distribution Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was completed during the visit of A.K. Nekrasova at the Structure and Nonlinear Dynamics of the Earth (SAND) Group of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Miramare—Trieste, Italy. AKN and VGK acknowledge the support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR grants \({\mathcal {N}}\) o 13-05-91167 and \({\mathcal {N}}\) o 14-05-92691).

References

  1. 1.
    C. Beauval, P.-Y. Bard P-Y, S. Hainzl, P. Guguen, Can strong motion observations be used to constrain probabilistic seismic hazard estimates? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98(2), 509–520 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Folladore, Neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment and earthquake recurrence, Master Thesis, Università degli studi di Trieste, Facoltà di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Naturali (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Giardini, G. Grünthal, K.M. Shedlock, P. Zhang, The GSHAP global seismic hazard map. Ann. Geofis. 42(6), 1225–1228 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Giardini, G. Grünthal, K.M. Shedlock, P. Zhang, The GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Map, in International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, International Geophysics Series 81 B, ed. by W. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. Jennings, C. Kisslinger (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003), pp. 1233–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Giardini, J. Woessner, L. Danciu, F. Cotton, H. Crowley, G. Grünthal, R. Pinho, G. Valensise, S. Akkar, R. Arvidsson, R. Basili, T. Cameelbeck, A. Campos-Costa, J. Douglas, M.B. Demircioglu, M. Erdik, J. Fonseca, B. Glavatovic, C. Lindholm, K. Makropoulos, C. Meletti, R. Musson, K. Pitilakis, A. Rovida, K. Sesetyan, D. Stromeyer, M. Stucchi, Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE) (2013). doi: 10.12686/SED-00000001-SHARE
  6. 6.
    D. Giardini, J. Woessner, L. Danciu, Mapping Europe’s seismic hazard. Eos Trans. AGU, Eos 95(29) (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Grünthal, R. Wahlström, D. Stromeyer, The SHARE European earthquake catalogue (SHEEC) for the time period 1900–2006 and its comparison to the European mediterranean earthquake catalogue (EMEC). J. Seismolog. 17(4), 1339–1344 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s10950-013-9379-y
  8. 8.
    M. Indirli, H. Razafindrakoto, F. Romanelli, C. Puglisi, L. Lanzoni, E. Milani, M. Munari, S. Apablaza, Hazard evaluation in Valparaiso: the MAR VASTO Project. Pure Appl. Geophys. 168(3–4), 543–582 (2011)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    V.G. Kossobokov, A.K. Nekrasova, Global seismic hazard assessment program maps are erroneous. Seismic Instrum. 48(2) (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.3103/S0747923912020065. (Allerton Press Inc, pp. 2012162–2012170)
  10. 10.
    S. Mak, R.A. Clements, D. Schorlemmer, The statistical power of testing probabilistic seismic-hazard assessments. Seismol. Res. Lett. 85(4), 781–783 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Marzocchi, Seismic hazard and public safety. Eos 94(27), 240–241 (2013)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Meletti, V. Montaldo, Stime di pericolosità sismica per diverse probabilità di superamento in 50 anni: valori di ag. http://esse1.mi.ingv.it/d2.html, Deliverable D2 (2007)
  13. 13.
    A. Nekrasova, V. Kossobokov, A. Peresan, A. Magrin, The comparison of the NDSHA. PSHA seismic hazard maps and real seismicity for the Italian territory. Nat. Hazards 70(1), 629–641 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G.F. Panza, F. Romanelli, F. Vaccari, Seismic wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media: theory and applications to seismic zonation. Adv. Geophys. 43, 1–95 (2001)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.F. Panza, C. La Mura, A. Peresan, F. Romanelli, F. Vaccari, Seismic Hazard Scenarios as Preventive Tools for a Disaster Resilient Society, in Advances in Geophysics, ed. by R. Dmowska (Elsevier, London, 2012), pp. 93–165Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.F. Panza, A. Peresan, C. La Mura, Seismic Hazard and Strong Ground Motion: An Operational Neo-deterministic Approach from National to Local Scale, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Geophysics and Geochemistry, Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, ed. by UNESCO-EOLSS Joint Commitee (Eolss Publishers, Oxford, 2013), pp. 1–49Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.F. Panza, V. Kossobokov, A. Peresan, A. Nekrasova, Why are the standard probabilistic methods of estimating seismic hazard and risks too often wrong? in Earthquake Hazard, Risk, and Disasters (Chapter 12), ed. by M. Wyss (2014), pp. 309–357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394848-9.00012-2
  18. 18.
    A. Peresan, A. Magrin, A. Nekrasova, V.G. Kossobokov, G.F. Panza, Earthquake Recurrence and Seismic Hazard Assessment: A Comparative Analysis Over the Italian Territory, in Proceedings of the ERES 2013 Conference. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, vol. 132 (2013), pp. 23–34. doi: 10.2495/ERES130031, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
  19. 19.
    K.M. Shedlock, D. Giardini., G. Grünthal, P. Zhang, The GSHAP global deismic hazard Map. Seismol. Res. Lett. 71(6), 679–686 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Stucchi, R. Camassi, A. Rovida, M. Locati, E. Ercolani, C. Meletti, P. Migliavacca, F. Bernardini, R. Azzaro, DBMI04, il database delle osservazioni macrosismiche dei terremoti italiani utilizzate per la compilazione del catalogo parametrico CPTI04. Quad. Geof. 49, 38 (2007), http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/DBMI04/
  21. 21.
    Stucchi et al., The SHARE European earthquake catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899. J. Seismolog. (2012). doi: 10.1007/s10950-012-9335-2
  22. 22.
    S. Stein, R. Geller, M. Liu, Why earthquake hazard maps often fail and what to do about it. Tectonophysics 562–563, 1–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Wyss, A. Nekrasova, V. Kossobokov, Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazard estimates. Nat. Hazards 62, 927–935 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Zuccolo, F. Vaccari, A. Peresan, G.F. Panza, Neo-deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard assessments: a comparison over the Italian territory. Pure Appl. Geophys. 168, 69–83 (2011)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Nekrasova
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Peresan
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
    Email author
  • V. G. Kossobokov
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • G. F. Panza
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical GeophysicsRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussian Federation
  2. 2.The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, SAND GroupTriesteItaly
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and GeosciencesUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly
  4. 4.Institut de Physique du Globe de ParisParisFrance
  5. 5.International Seismic Safety Organization (ISSO)ArsitaItaly
  6. 6.Institute of GeophysicsChina Earthquake AdministrationBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations