The role of seismicity models in probabilistic seismic hazard estimation: comparison of a zoning and a smoothing approach

Céline Beauval(1,2), Oona Scotti(1) and Fabian Bonilla(1)
Geophysical Journal International, Volume 165, Page 584  - May 2006

Seismic hazard estimations are compared using two approaches based on two different seismicity models: one which models earthquake recurrence by applying the truncated Gutenberg-Richter law and a second one which smoothes the epicentre location of past events according to the fractal distribution of earthquakes in space (Woo 1996). The first method requires the definition of homogeneous source zones and the determination of maximum possible magnitudes whereas the second method requires the definition of a smoothing function. Our results show that the two approaches lead to similar hazard estimates in low seismicity regions. In regions of increased seismic activity, on the other hand, the smoothing approach yields systematically lower estimates than the zoning method. This epicentre-smoothing approach can thus be considered as a lower bound estimator for seismic hazard and can help in decision making in moderate seismicity regions where source zone definition and estimation of maximum possible magnitudes can lead to a wide variety of estimates due to lack of knowledge. The two approaches lead, however, to very different earthquake scenarios. Disaggregation studies at a representative number of sites show that if the distributions of contributions according to source–site distance are comparable between the two approaches, the distributions of contributions according to magnitude differ, reflecting the very different seismicity models used. The epicentre-smoothing method leads to scenarios with predominantly intermediate magnitudes events (5 ≤M≤ 5.5) while the zoning method leads to scenarios with magnitudes that increase with the return period from the minimum to the maximum magnitudes considered. These trends demonstrate that the seismicity model used plays a fundamental role in the determination of the controlling scenarios and ways to discriminate between the most appropriate models remains an important issue.

1-IRSN/BERSSIN, BP 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex, France
2-IRD - Géosciences Azur, 250 av. Albert Einstein, 06560 Valbonne, France.