Download improvement of regional seismic hazard assessment considering

UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS
SCHOOL OF NATURAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
SEISMOLOGICAL LABORATORY
Master Thesis in Engineering Seismology
IMPROVEMENT OF REGIONAL SEISMIC HAZARD
ASSESSMENT CONSIDERING ACTIVE FAULTS
By
ALEXANDROS D. TSIPIANITIS
Environmental Engineer, Technical University of Crete, 2013
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Applied, Environmental Geology & Geophysics
Supervisor: Dr. Efthimios Sokos
Referee: Dr. Akis Tselentis
Referee: Dr. Ioannis Koukouvelas
Patras, 2015
Page intentionally left blank
i
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work presented in this dissertation has been my independent work
and has been performed during the course of my Master of Science studies at the
Seismological Laboratory, University of Patras. All contributions drawn from external
sources have been acknowledged with the reference to the literature.
Alexandros D. Tsipianitis
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.
Efthimios Sokos, for his continuous support of my M.Sc. study and research, for his patience,
motivation and immense knowledge. He helped me significantly to develop my background in
the interesting field of Engineering Seismology.
Besides my supervisor, I would like to thank the co-advisor of my master thesis, Dr.
Laurentiu Danciu, Post-Doctoral researcher of ETH, Zurich, for his excellent guidance and
support of my overall research progress. I would also like to thank the members of the
examination committee, Dr. Akis Tselentis and Dr. Ioannis Koukouvelas, for their
suggestions, remarks and insightful comments.
My sincere thanks goes to the staff of the Seismological Laboratory of University of Patras,
Dr. Paraskevas Paraskevopoulos and the Ph.D. candidate, Mr. Dimitrios Giannopoulos, for
their assistance and cooperation. They provided me an excellent atmosphere for doing
research. I am also grateful to Dr. Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos for his assistance
considering the GIS part of my dissertation.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family and my friends for their continuous
support throughout my studies.
Alexandros D. Tsipianitis
Patras, April 2015
iii
ABSTRACT
Seismic hazard assessment is a required procedure to assist effective designing of structures
located in seismically active regions. Traditionally, in a seismically active region as Greece,
the seismic hazard evaluation was based primarily on the historical seismicity, and to lesser
extent based on the consideration of the geological information. The importance of the
geological information in seismic hazard assessment is significant, for the reason that
earthquakes occur on faults. This approach also covers areas with few instrumental
recordings. Mapping, analyzing and modeling are needed for faults investigation. In the
present dissertation, we examined the seismic hazard for the cities of Patras, Aigion and
Korinthos, considering the seismically active faults. The active faults considered in this
investigation consists of 148 active faults, for which a minimum amount of information was
available (i.e. length, maximum magnitude, slip rate, etc.). For some critical parameters, e.g.
slip rate, if an estimate could not be found in the literature it was calculated based on
empirical laws. Specifically, the slip rate for each fault was resulted from the division of total
displacement with the stratigraphic age. Two different approaches (historical seismicity,
length of faults) were followed for the estimation of total displacement for each fault. A
distribution of slip rates was made because uncertainties are considered. The resulted slip
rates were converted into seismic activity. Thus, we were able to construct a complete
database for our research. Epistemic uncertainties were accounted at both seismic source
models as well as at the ground motion via a logic tree framework resulted in two different
calculation procedures (including or not the b value uncertainty). The seismic hazard model
was implemented following the OpenQuake open standards – NRML, and the seismic hazard
computation was performed for the region of interest. The seismic hazard was quantified in
terms of seismic hazard maps, hazard curves and uniform hazard spectra for the region of
interest. Different intensity measure types were considered, Peak Ground Acceleration,
Spectral Acceleration at two fundamental periods 0.1 and 1.0 sec. Finally, the results of this
thesis were compared with the Greek Seismic Code and other seismic hazard estimations for
the investigation region.
iv
THESIS ORGANIZATION
First chapter depicts an overview of the seismic hazard methodology, with a focus on the
description of the general framework and highlights of the main features. Further, the region
of investigation is introduced and an overview of the existing studies considering seismic
hazard assessments in the regions of Europe, Greece and Patras is provided.
Second chapter describes in greater details the probabilistic framework for ground
motion evaluation. The theoretical aspects are illustrated together with the key elements (e.g.
uncertainty, hazard curves, earthquake models, empirical relations) with a focus on their
mathematical definition.
Chapter three provides an overview of the software used: the OpenQuake hazard
engine. Herein, the focus is the theory, the main concepts, the structure and critical
parameters, e.g. logic tree types, GMPEs, hazard calculators.
Fourth chapter describes the procedures adopted for building the seismic hazard
model. All active faults database used in the present dissertation is described. Approaches and
empirical relations are presented for the estimation of total displacement. The definition and
evaluation of slip rates are also provided. Additionally, the conversion of slip rates into
activity and an implementation of magnitude-frequency distribution are presented. The
seismic sources and GMPE logic trees are provided.
Chapter five contains the output of the seismic hazard evaluation. Hazard maps,
hazard curves and uniform hazard spectra for the region of Corinth Gulf and the cities of
Patras, Aigion and Korinthos are illustrated and commented.
Finally, in chapter six comparisons with previous ground motion estimates are
presented. Additionally, a comparison with the Greek Seismic Code is provided. Also, the
summary, conclusions and remarks are presented herein.
v
Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... iv
Thesis organization................................................................................................................................... v
Contents .............................................................................................................................................. … vi
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 The importance of seismic hazard analysis ...................................................................................1
1.2 Seismic hazard ...............................................................................................................................1
1.3 The importance of geology and neotectonics ...............................................................................3
1.4 The study area ...............................................................................................................................4
1.5 Previous researches .......................................................................................................................5
1.5.1 Europe .................................................................................................................................5
1.5.2 Greece .................................................................................................................................7
1.5.3 Patras................................................................................................................................ 11
2. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) .......................................................................... 12
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Difference between DSHA & PSHA ............................................................................................. 13
2.3 Characterization of seismic sources ........................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Source types ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1.1 Area sources ................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.1.2 Fault sources ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.2 Estimation of rupture dimensios ...................................................................................... 14
2.4 Spatial uncertainty ...................................................................................................................... 14
2.5 Relations of magnitude recurrence ............................................................................................ 16
2.5.1 Distribution of magnitude ................................................................................................ 17
2.5.1.1 Truncated exponential model ...................................................................................... 17
2.5.1.2 Characteristic earthquake models ............................................................................... 18
2.5.1.3 Composite model ......................................................................................................... 19
2.6 Relations of empirical scaling of magnitude vs. fault area ......................................................... 20
2.7 Activity rates ............................................................................................................................... 20
2.8 Earthquake occurrences with time ............................................................................................. 23
2.8.1 Memory-less model.......................................................................................................... 23
2.8.2 Models with memory ....................................................................................................... 24
2.8.2.1 Renewal models ........................................................................................................... 24
2.8.2.2 Markov & semi-Markov models ................................................................................... 28
2.8.2.3 Slip predictable model.................................................................................................. 29
2.8.2.4 Time predictable model ............................................................................................... 30
2.9 Ground motion estimation ......................................................................................................... 30
2.9.1 Parameters of ground motion .......................................................................................... 31
2.9.1.1 Amplitude ..................................................................................................................... 31
2.9.1.2 Frequency content ....................................................................................................... 31
2.9.1.3 Duration........................................................................................................................ 32
vi
2.9.2 Empirical ground motion relations................................................................................... 32
2.9.2.1 Factors affecting attenuation ....................................................................................... 36
2.10 Hazard curves ........................................................................................................................... 38
2.10.1 Hazard disaggregation ...................................................................................................... 39
2.11 Uncertainty ............................................................................................................................... 40
2.11.1 Epistemic uncertainty ....................................................................................................... 40
2.11.2 Logic trees ........................................................................................................................ 40
2.11.3 Aleatory variability ........................................................................................................... 40
3. OpenQuake ..................................................................................................................................... 41
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 41
3.2 OpenQuake-Hazard .................................................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Main concepts .................................................................................................................. 43
3.3 Workflows of calculation ............................................................................................................ 43
3.3.1 Classical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (cPSHA) .................................................. 44
3.4 Description of input .................................................................................................................... 44
3.5 Typologies of seismic sources ..................................................................................................... 45
3.5.1 Description of seismic sources typologies........................................................................ 45
3.5.1.1 Simple fault sources ..................................................................................................... 46
3.6 Description of logic trees ............................................................................................................ 46
3.7 The PSHA Input Model (PSHAim) ............................................................................................... 48
3.7.1 The seismic sources system.............................................................................................. 48
3.7.1.1 Logic tree of seismic sources ........................................................................................ 48
3.7.1.2 Supported branch set typologies ................................................................................. 49
3.7.2 The system of ground motion .......................................................................................... 49
3.7.2.1 The logic tree of ground motion .................................................................................. 50
3.8 Calculation settings ..................................................................................................................... 50
3.9 The Logic Tree Processor (LTP) .................................................................................................. 51
3.9.1 The logic tree Monte Carlo sampler ................................................................................. 51
3.9.1.1 The sampling of seismic source logic tree .................................................................... 51
3.9.1.2 The sampling of ground motion logic tree ................................................................... 51
3.10 The earthquake rupture forecast calculator ............................................................................ 52
3.10.1 ERF creation-fault sources case........................................................................................ 52
3.11 Calculators of seismic hazard analysis ..................................................................................... 52
3.11.1 cPSHA calculator............................................................................................................... 53
3.11.1.1 Calculation of PSHA - Considering a negligible contribution from a sequence of
ruptures in occurrence t ............................................................................................... 53
3.11.1.2 Calculation of PSHA – Accounting for contributions from a sequence of ruptures in
occurrence t ................................................................................................................. 54
4. Description of methodology ........................................................................................................... 55
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 55
4.2 The Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources (GreDaSS) ........................................................... 56
4.2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 56
4.2.2 Types of seismogenic sources .......................................................................................... 57
vii
4.2.3 Properties of seismogenic sources ................................................................................... 58
4.2.4 Parameters of seismogenic sources ................................................................................. 61
4.2.4.1 Individual Seismogenic Sources (ISSs) ......................................................................... 61
4.2.4.2 Composite Seismogenic Sources (CSSs) ...................................................................... 62
4.3 Application of GIS ....................................................................................................................... 62
4.4 Earthquake scaling laws .............................................................................................................. 65
4.4.1 Wells & Coppersmith (1994) ........................................................................................... 65
4.4.1.1 Displacement per event (MD) Vs. Magnitude (M) ...................................................... 65
4.4.1.2 Maximum displacement (MD) Vs. Rupture length (SRL) ............................................. 66
4.4.1.3 Rupture width (RW) Vs. Magnitude (M) ...................................................................... 66
4.4.2 Pavlides & Caputo (2004) ................................................................................................ 66
4.5 Estimation of slip rate - Approaches........................................................................................... 66
4.5.1 Approach 1 – Historical seismicity ................................................................................... 67
4.5.2 Approach 2 – Length of faults .......................................................................................... 68
4.6 Estimation of minimum & maximum fault depth ....................................................................... 69
4.7 Fault characterization ................................................................................................................. 69
4.7.1 Slip rate evaluation........................................................................................................... 69
4.7.2 Conversion of slip rates into seismic activity ................................................................... 70
4.7.3 Magnitude-Frequency Distribution (MFD) ....................................................................... 71
4.8 Model implementation ............................................................................................................... 72
4.9 Configuration .............................................................................................................................. 74
5. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 75
5.1 Model A: mean b-value (no-uncertainty) ................................................................................... 75
5.1.1 Hazard maps of Corinth Gulf ............................................................................................ 75
5.1.2 Hazard curves of Patras .................................................................................................... 77
5.1.3 Hazard curves of Aigion .................................................................................................... 78
5.1.4 Hazard curves of Korinthos .............................................................................................. 79
5.1.5 Uniform hazard spectra.................................................................................................... 80
5.2 Model B: including b-value uncertainty...................................................................................... 82
5.2.1 Hazard maps of Corinth Gulf ............................................................................................ 82
5.2.2 Hazard curves of Patras .................................................................................................... 84
5.2.3 Hazard curves of Aigion .................................................................................................... 85
5.2.4 Hazard curves of Korinthos .............................................................................................. 86
5.2.5 Uniform hazard spectra.................................................................................................... 87
5.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................. 88
5.3.1 Difference between 10% probability of exceedance for mean PGA values between Run
#1 And Run #2 .................................................................................................................. 88
5.3.2 Difference between 2% probability of exceedance for mean PGA values between Run #1
And Run #2 ....................................................................................................................... 88
5.4 Comparisons with the Greek Seismic Code ............................................................................... 89
5.5 Comparisons with previous studies ........................................................................................... 91
6. Summary and conclusions .............................................................................................................. 95
6.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 95
viii
6.2 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix................................................................................................................................................ 97
References ........................................................................................................................................... 111
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The importance of seismic hazard analysis
Many regions around the globe are prone to be affected by earthquakes. The threat to human
activities is something that cannot be omitted, so this triggers a more careful structure design
(Kramer 1996; Koukouvelas et al., 2010). Therefore, an earthquake-resistant building design
has the aim to produce a structure which can sustain a sufficient level of ground motion,
without presenting excessive damages (Kramer, 1996; Stein & Wysession, 2003; Baker,
2008). Generally, the construction of fully earthquake-resistant structures is generally
impossible (Komodromos, 2012).
For the reasons mentioned above, the seismic hazard analysis (SHA) plays a critical
role to the quantitative estimation of the design seismic load, which is related with the
seismicity of the study area, the level of structure‟s vulnerability and the danger that incurs to
humans, which are mainly exposed to the seismic events (Pavlides, 2003; Pitilakis, 2010).
The application of seismic hazard analysis is separated in two categories, which are
mostly implemented for the description of earthquake ground motions (Kramer, 1996; Gupta,
2002; Pavlides, 2003; Orhan et al., 2007). The first category, defined as “deterministic
method” or DSHA (Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis), is applied by using a historical
seismic event that occurred in the past or a specific seismic fault that is seismically active and
it has completely identified spatial and geometric parameters. The second category, defined as
“probabilistic method” or PSHA (Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis), takes into account
the direct uncertainties relevant to the seismic magnitude and the time that of occurrence,
using a strict mathematical way (Kramer, 1996; Koukouvelas et al., 2010; Pitilakis, 2010).
1.2 Seismic hazard
The estimation of hazard caused by seismic events is one of the main purposes of earthquake
prediction, especially referred to the realm of long-term prediction (Scholz, 1990). Generally,
1
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
macro or microzoning maps of a site are some relative applications (Gupta, 2002). Seismic
hazard is defined as “the probability of a certain ground motion parameter to exceed a given
value, for a specific period of time” (Tselentis, 1997; Papazachos et al., 2005; Godinho, 2007;
Tsompanakis et al., 2008; Koukouvelas et al., 2010; Pitilakis, 2010; Koutromanos &
Spyrakos, 2010). The ground motion parameter can be expressed through the seismic strain or
the logarithm of ground acceleration and the time period can be considered as a year or the
lifetime of a conventional building (i.e. 50 years) (Papazachos et al., 2005).
Figure 1.1: Example of seismic hazard plot – PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) vs. Annual frequency
(Koutromanos & Spyrakos, 2010).
Generally, seismic hazard depends on:

the seismicity of the study area,

the source-target distance,

the local site conditions.
The local site conditions (Fig. 1.2) can affect in significant extent the surface ground
motion considering the following ways (Sanchez-Sesma, 1986; Papazachos et al., 2005;
Psarropoulos & Tsompanakis, 2011):
1. The amplification (or the de-amplification, for the case of soft soils and earthquakes of
large magnitude) of ground motion.
2. The extension of seismic duration.
3. The change of frequency spectrum.
4. The spatial variability of the ground response.
2
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.2: Main seismic actions (Tsompanakis & Psarropoulos, 2012).
The arguments mentioned above cannot be neglected for cases such as the seismic
design of high-risk structures (e.g. hospitals, nuclear power plants, dams), seismic risk
assessment and microzonation studies (Esteva, 1977; Ruiz, 1977; Gupta, 2002; Klugel, 2008;
Koutromanos & Spyrakos, 2010).
1.3 The importance of geology and neotectonics
The estimation of seismic hazard for an area demands the specification and mapping of all the
possible seismic sources, and the active faults that can trigger capable seismic tremors (Green
et al., 1994; Pitilakis, 2010). The seismic source definition and the history of the seismicity of
a region are very important parameters. The identification, the definition and the mapping of
the seismic sources is based on the synthesis and analysis of a database, whose main
characteristics are the following (Pitilakis, 2010):

the historical seismicity of the study area,

the information of instrumental recordings,

the geological study of the area,

the information related to neotectonics,

the information from paleoseismological investigations (Fig. 1.3).
3
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.3: Paleoseismological investigation of the Eliki fault, Gulf of Corinth, Greece (Koukouvelas
et al., 2000).
1.4 The study area
The study area of this dissertation is the Corinth Gulf (CG) which contains the city of Patras,
Aigion & Korinthos (Fig. 1.4). All of them are located in the north part of Peloponnese coast.
Corinth Gulf is a very seismic prone area characterized by a high rate of deformation rates
(Pantosti et al., 2004). The CG‟s length is approximately 115 km and its width ranges from 10
to 30 km (Stefatos et al., 2002). This region includes many normal onshore & offshore active
faults that have played an important role to the geomorphological changes of the shorelines
and landscapes (Koukouvelas et al., 2005). The most recent damaging seismic events were the
1981 earthquake sequence of Corinth and the 1995 earthquake of Aigion (Pantosti et al.,
2004).
Figure 1.4: The Corinth Gulf including the active faults from the database.
4
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.5 Previous researches
1.5.1 Europe
In this subchapter, some case studies on seismic hazard estimation are presented. Generally,
many seismic hazard assessments have been carried out for the continent of Europe (ChungHan, 2011). It is worth mentioning the most important investigations:

In the framework of Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP, Fig. 1.5), a
study was done for Europe and the Mediterranean region (Grunthal et al., 1999a,b; ChungHan, 2011).
Figure 1.5: PGA (horizontal) seismic hazard map for an occurrence rate of 10% within 50 yearsGSHAP for the Mediterranean region (Grunthal et al., 1999b).

Project SESAME (Seismotectonic & Seismic Hazard Assessment of the Mediterranean
basin, Fig. 1.6), extended for entire Europe (Jimenez et al., 2003; Chung-Han, 2011).
5
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.6: ESC-SESAME hazard map for the European & Mediterranean region (Jimenez et al.,
2003, www.ija.csic.es).

Project SHARE (Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe, Fig. 1.7), which is the most
updated assessment until now. A probabilistic approach was used and three interpretations
of earthquake rates have been applied in the current project (Giardini et al., 2013):
1. The historical seismicity of moderate to large seismic events. A SHARE
European Earthquake Catalog (SHEEC) was compiled, which contains a
combination of 30377 seismic events in the period 1000-2007, with Mw 3.5.
2. The European Database of Seismogenic Faults (EDSF) includes an amount of
1128 active faults with a total length of 64000 km and models related to three
subduction zones.
3. The deformation rates of earth‟s crust, as studied by GPSs (Global Positioning
Systems.
6
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.7: European seismic hazard map for PGA expected to be exceeded with a 10% probability in
50 years-Application of OpenQuake (Giardini et al., 2013, www.share-eu.org).
1.5.2 Greece
Greece presents an extremely high level of seismicity, thus a lot of scientific reports dedicated
to the seismic hazard analysis of this territory and the surrounding regions exist. The main
studies concerning the SHA of Greece are presented below.

The Greek Seismic Code (EAK 2003).
Figure 1.8: The unified seismic hazard zonation of Greece, return period of 475 years (EAK, 2003).
7
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Tsapanos et al. (2004).
All seismological observations and historical instrumental recordings have been considered
for this SHA. For the reason that the attenuation law was related to shallow seismic events,
only the shallow shocks were taken into account in this case.
Figure 1.9: Probabilistic seismic hazard map of Greece and surrounding regions for PGA values.
Return period of 475 years (10% probability in 50 years) (Tsapanos et al., 2004).

Danciu et al. (2007).
This hazard map (Fig. 1.10) has been generated by applying well known engineering
parameters. The ground motion parameters investigated in this report have been applied
through the use of the attenuation equations of Danciu & Tselentis (2007). These relationships
are mainly based on strong ground motion data of Greek seismic events.
Figure 1.10: Seismic hazard map of Greece for PGA values and probability of 10% in 50 years. Case
of ideal bedrock soil condition (Danciu et al., 2007).
8
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Tselentis & Danciu (2010).
In this study, a PSHA for Greece has been implemented including some significant
engineering parameters (PGA, PGV, Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity) for a lower
acceleration value of 0.05g. The hazard map (Fig. 1.11) has been estimated for a return period
of 475 years.
Figure 1.11: Probabilistic seismic hazard map (PGA), according to Tselentis & Danciu (2010).

Vamvakaris (2010).
The computation of the maximum expected PGA values was achieved by making various
comparisons related to the choice of the suitable attenuation relationships. For each type of
hypocental depth (low, intermediate, high) different equations have been applied.
Figure 1.12: Values of maximum expected PGA for seven return periods (Vamvakaris, 2010).
9
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Segkou (2010).
The methodology followed in this dissertation for the PSHA of Greece (Fig. 1.13) is based on
the survey and appraisal of the respective previously generated hazard maps in global scale.
The PSHA is based on the evaluation of different seismic source models identified by
seismological, geological and geophysical observations, in order to be suitable to the
requirements of Greek region.
Specifically, different processes were applied for the estimation of total expected
ground motion:
-
The linear seismic source model, which is based on the identification of active faults
through geographical, seismological and geological criteria (Papazachos et al., 2001)
and associated to the seismic hazard due to shallow earthquakes.
-
The random seismicity model, based on the analysis of shallow earthquakes seismicity
catalogue. This model corresponds to the estimation of seismic hazard related to
earthquakes with magnitude of 5 to 6.5 R.
-
A seismic source model aiming to describe seismicity associated with the subduction
zone (this seismic source model is called by Segkou as “uniform basement zone”).
Figure 1.13: Seismic hazard map (PGA) for rock basement. Average return period of 475 years
(Segkou, 2010).

Koravos (2011).
A SHA for shallow earthquakes of the Greek territory was made by applying the Ebel-Kafka
method (Fig. 1.14). This method uses synthetic catalogues computed with the Monte Carlo
simulation. For the estimation of seismic hazard, the Ebel-Kafka code was modified for the
purposes of the attenuation relationship suitable to the Greek area. The attenuation equation
10
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
used for the PGA computation of shallow shocks was taken from Skarlatoudis et al. (2003),
because it contains seismicity data from Greece.
Figure 1.14: Illustration of the maximum PGA estimation considering shallow earthquakes for 1000
years seismicity data. The probability of exceedance is 10% (Koravos, 2011).
1.5.3 Patras

Sokos (1998)
The seismic hazard estimation for the city of Patras (Fig. 1.15) was carried out using the
SEISRISK III software. This program has the ability to estimate the maximum level of
ground motion depended on the attenuation relationship considering a certain probability of
exceedance for a specific time period.
The seismic sources that were used in this application were these proposed by
Papazachos (1990), Papazachos & Papaioannou (1997) and for the seismic hazard assessment
of Rio-Antirio Bridge. Three different definitions for the seismic sources were made for the
research of seismic hazard dependency on the seismic sources.
Figure 1.15: Acceleration curves for the city of Patras with 90% probability of exceedance for the
next 50 years (Sokos, 1998)
11
CHAPTER 2
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD
ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.1 Introduction
As inferred by Cornell (1968) and Baker (2008), the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
(PSHA) contains two representative features, the event (how, where, when) and the resulting
ground motion (frequency, amplitude, duration). These characteristics provide a methodology
relative to the quantitative representation of the relationship associated with the probabilities
of occurrence, the potential seismogenic sources and ground motion parameters. “PSHA
computes how often a specified level of ground motion will be exceeded at the site of
interest” (Godinho, 2007; Ross, 2011).
The resulting information is presented by the form of return period or annual rate of
exceedance. Thus, seismic hazard computations provided by PSHA that can be implemented
for seismic risk assessment. Therefore, engineers possess an extremely useful tool concerning
the seismic resistance of a building (Godinho, 2007; Ross, 2011). According to Reiter (1990),
PSHA can be divided into four steps:
1. The first step is referred to the identification and characterization of seismic sources.
This step is similar to the first step of DSHA (Deterministic Seismic Hazard
Assessment), with the difference that there should be a characterization of the
probability distribution of the potential rupture locations within the source.
2. Secondly, there should be a characterization of the seismicity or the distribution of
earthquake occurrence. The aim of a recurrence relationship is the specification of an
average rate, at which a seismic event of some size will occur. Its use is related to the
characterization of the seismicity of each seismogenic source.
12
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
3. In this step, the use of predictive equations should be linked with the produced ground
motion at the area by seismic events of any possible size that occurred at any potential
point in each seismic zone.
4. Finally, a combination between the uncertainties in earthquake size, location and
ground motion parameter prediction is made, in order to obtain the probability of
exceedance of ground motion parameter during a specific period of time.
2.2 Difference between DSHA & PSHA
Before the development of PSHA, the compilation of many seismic hazard assessments was
under the perspective of a deterministic view, using scenarios of location and magnitude for
each source in order to evaluate the ground motion design (Abrahamson, 2006; Baker, 2008).
It can be stated that PSHA is an assessment which is composed of an infinite number of
DSHAs, taking into account all possible seismogenic sources and scenarios of distance and
magnitude (Godinho, 2007; Koukouvelas et al., 2010).
2.3 Characterization of seismic sources
In this section, there is a description of the rate at which earthquakes of given dimensions and
magnitudes take place in a specific location. First of all, the potential sources are identified
and their dimension parameters are modeled. This requires the definition of source type and
the estimation of source dimensions (Godinho, 2007; Baker, 2008; Koutromanos & Spyrakos,
2010).
2.3.1 Source types
2.3.1.1 Area sources
Some seismic faults which have inadequate geological data can be modeled as area sources,
based on data related to their historical seismicity. Therefore, an assumption was made that
seismic zones have unique source properties in time and space. Additionally, the use of area
sources is preferred at the modeling of “background zones” of seismic areas, for the purpose
of the occurrence of seismic events away from known mapped active faults (Abrahamson,
2006; Baker, 2008).
2.3.1.2 Fault sources
The identification and definition of the location of seismic faults is feasible, when adequate
geological data is available. Despite their linear source modeling, many fault source models
have multi-planar characteristics and there is an assumption for the ruptures, which implies
that they are distributed over the entire fault plane (Abrahamson, 2006).
13
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.3.2 Estimation of rupture dimensions
The fault rupture dimensions can be estimated through the following two ways (Wells &
Coppersmith, 1994; Henry & Das, 2001):

based on the size of fault rupture plane,

or based on the size of the aftershock zone.
The measurement of length of fault expression on the free surface and the estimation
of the seismogenic zone, are some actions required for the estimation of fault rupture. The
distinction between primary and secondary source rupture is very important for the estimation
of fault rupture length. The primary source is mainly associated with the tectonic rupture,
which is the fault rupture plane that intersects the ground surface. On the other hand, the
secondary rupture is related to fractures caused by initial rupture effects, such as landslides,
ground shaking or ruptures from earthquakes which were triggered on nearby active faults
(Wells & Coppersmith, 1994; Godinho, 2007). The corner frequency fc of source spectra for
large events (obtained from ground motion recordings) plays an important role concerning the
estimation of rupture dimensions (Molnar et al., 1973; Beresnev, 2002).
The determination of the subsurface rupture length, as indicated by the spatial pattern of
aftershocks, is the second method associated with the estimation of fault‟s dimensions. The
determination of rupture width can also be done through this way. Studies have shown the
reliability of this method, but it is known that there are factors which contribute to its
uncertainty (Godinho, 2007). According to Henry & Das (2001), in the case that time period
after the main seismic event is small, the aftershock territory provides reliable estimates of
rupture dimensions.
2.4 Spatial uncertainty
The tectonic processes play a significant role concerning the dimensions of earthquake
sources (Fig. 2.1). Earthquakes generated in zones that are too small (i.e. seismic events
caused by the activity of volcanoes) are characterized as point sources. The consideration of
two-dimensional (2-D) areal sources can be taken into account in the case that earthquakes
can occur at several different locations and a good definition of the fault planes exists. Threedimensional (3-D) volumetric sources can be considered when there are areas where (Kramer,
1996):

there is an obvious extension of the faulting, so the separation of individual fault is not
possible,
14
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)

there is a poor definition of earthquake mechanisms.
In order to compile a seismic hazard assessment, the source zones should present a
similarity to the real seismogenic source. This depends on the dimensions of the source, the
study area and the completeness of source data (Kramer, 1996).
It is assumed that the distribution of earthquakes usually takes place within a specific
source area. Ground motion parameters are expressed by some predictive relationships in
terms of some measure of source-to-site distance, so the description of spatial uncertainty
should be with respect to the suitable parameter of distance. A probability density function
can describe this uncertainty (Kramer, 1996).
Considering the point source (Fig. 2.1a), the distance,
there is an assumption that the probability that
, is presented as
. Therefore,
is to be 1 and the probability that
is to be zero. In the case of linear source (Fig. 2.1b), the probability that occurs
between
and
is similar to the probability that an occurrence of a seismic
event takes place on a small section of the fault between
and
, so (Kramer,
1996):
()
( )
(
)
where:
( ),
( ) probability density functions for the variables
and .
Figure 2.1: Geometries of source zones: (a) short fault – point source, (b) shallow fault – linear
source, (c) 3-D source zone (Kramer, 1996).
15
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
Figure 2.2: Source-to-site distance variations for different source zone dimensions (Kramer,
1996).
( )
()
(
)
For the assumption of the uniform distribution of the earthquakes over the length of the fault,
()
. Since
the probability density function of
has the following
form (Kramer, 1996):
( )
(
)
√
The evaluation of
( ) by numerical rather than analytical processes is a more
straightforward way for the case of having source zones with complex geometries.
2.5 Relations of magnitude recurrence
The expression of the seismicity of a source is associated with a magnitude recurrence
relation, with the premise that the dimensions of the source are well-defined and a suitable
magnitude scale selected. The characterization of magnitude occurrence equations is referred
to the activity rate of seismogenic sources and a function which describes the magnitude
distribution. The integration of magnitude distribution density function and the scale
considering the activity rate are the principal elements for the computation of a recurrence
relation, as the following (Godinho, 2007):
∫
( )
(
)
16
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
where:
: the average rate of earthquakes with magnitude greater than or equal to a magnitude M,
: a specified magnitude,
: source‟s activity rate,
( ): magnitude distribution density function.
2.5.1 Distribution of magnitude
The definition of randomness in the number of relative number of large, intermediate and
small sized seismic events occurring in a given source, can be done through a probability
density function. There are two model types used for the representation of magnitude
distributions (Godinho, 2007):
1. The truncated exponential model.
2. The characteristic earthquake model.
Studied by Youngs & Coppersmith (1985), the characteristic model is more suitable for
the characterization of individual active faults. There are seismicity models that use a hybrid
approach, i.e. truncated exponential model for small-to-moderate seismicity and characteristic
model for large magnitudes. The resulting difference in seismic hazard between the two
models depends of fault-to-site distance and acceleration level, thus, on the SHA also
(Godinho, 2007).
2.5.1.1 Truncated exponential model
This model, based on Gutenberg-Richter magnitude recurrence relation (Gutenberg-Richter,
1956), is described through the following equation:
(
)
where:
: the a-value, which represents the source activity rate,
: the b-value, which represents the relative likehood of earthquakes with different
magnitudes (values between 0.8-1.0).
In addition, there is an alternative form of the truncated exponential model:
(
)
(
)
17
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
where:
and
(
)
It is obvious that earthquake magnitudes present an exponential distribution. So, the
mean recurrence rate of small magnitude earthquakes is a lot larger than that of large-sized
earthquakes (Godinho, 2007).
Despite the fact that the application of standard Gutenberg-Richter recurrence relation
has to do with an infinite range of magnitudes, the application of bounds at minimum and
maximum values of magnitude is very common because there is a connection between
seismic sources and the capacity for producing maximum magnitude Mmax (Godinho, 2007).
From the viewpoint of engineers, earthquakes of very small magnitudes, which do not cause
some type of damage to buildings, are not being taken into account (Abrahamson, 2006). The
following probability density function, which uses the minimum (Mmin) and maximum (Mmax)
values, is presented through an equation and a graph:
( )
(
(
)
)
(
)
Figure 2.3: Magnitude probability distribution function – truncated exponential model (Godinho,
2007).
2.5.1.2 Characteristic earthquake models
These types of models are based on the hypothesis that individual faults have the tendency to
generate same size, or representative earthquakes (Schwarz & Coppersmith, 1985). According
to Godinho (2007), prior to 1980‟s the magnitude associated with the characteristic
earthquake was based on the assumption that some fraction of total fault length would rupture
(i.e. ¼ of total fault‟s length) (Abrahamson, 2006). Nowadays, the prevailing theory states the
18
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
separation of active fault into segments, which can be used as boundaries of rupture geometry
(Abrahamson, 2006).
The characteristic earthquake model includes a type named as model of “maximum
magnitude” (Godinho, 2007). This form is not applicable to smaller-to-intermediate events.
The basic idea refers to the assumption of Abrahamson (2006), which supports that all
seismic energy is derived from characteristic earthquakes. According to Figure 2.4, this model
can be used only for a narrow range of magnitudes.
Figure 2.4: Magnitude probability density function – truncated normal model (Godinho, 2007).
2.5.1.3 Composite model
Previous investigations have applied a combination of the characteristic and truncated
exponential model, for the accommodation of distribution related to large magnitude
earthquakes (Youngs & Coppersmith, 1985). Therefore, the modeling of characteristic
earthquake behavior is allowed, without other magnitude events being excluded. The
magnitude density function concerning this model (Fig. 2.5) presents an exponential
distribution with some magnitude, M, and a uniform distribution of given width, which is
centered on the mean characteristic magnitude. Additionally, an extra constraint in order to
define the relative amplitudes of two distributions is required (Godinho, 2007). As noted by
Youngs & Coppersmith (1985), the relative amount of the released seismic moment through
small magnitude events and characteristic earthquakes are represented by this constraint. This
model is based on empirical data.
19
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
Figure 2.5: Magnitude probability density function – composite characteristic & exponential
model (Godinho, 2007).
2.6 Relations of empirical scaling of magnitude vs. fault area
Models of magnitude distribution, like those presented in the previous subchapter, have some
limits between minimum and maximum magnitude values. The minimum level of energy
release expected to cause damage to buildings is represented by the minimum magnitudes
(Abrahamson, 2006). On the other hand, maximum magnitudes refer to stress drop and fault
geometry. Specifically, the stress drop is a parameter which describes the distribution of
seismic moment release in time and space (Godinho, 2007). Below, there is a table (Table
2.1) that presents some scaling relations between rupture dimension and magnitude (Godinho,
2006):
Wells & Coppersmith (1994)
All fault types
Wells & Coppersmith (1994)
Strike-slip
Wells & Coppersmith (1994)
Reverse
Ellsworth (2001)
Strike-slip for A>500km2
Somerville et al. (1999)
All fault types
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
Table 2.1: Magnitude (M)-area (A) scaling equations (Godinho, 2007).
2.7 Activity rates
While relative earthquake rate at several magnitudes is provided by magnitude distribution
models for the complete representation of source seismicity through a recurrence relation,
there is a requirement of activity rate (Godinho, 2007). According to Godinho (2007), activity
rate is the rate of earthquakes above a minimum magnitude. The activity rate of a seismic
source can be defined through the following two approaches:
20
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
1. Seismicity
There is a possibility of estimating the activity rates which are based on recordings from
earthquake catalogues. This is applicable to seismically active areas where there is availability
of significant historical data. When the exponential distribution is fitted to the historical data,
the computation of seismicity parameters (b-value in Gutenberg-Richter‟s relation, activity
rate) can be retrieved by using a regression analysis (maximum likelihood method) (Godinho,
2007).
In the case of being based on earthquake catalogues, in order to provide data related to
earthquake occurrence, it must be noted that there is a dependence of the accuracy of the
estimated activity rate with catalogues‟ reliability. Thus, there must be a completeness and
adequacy study of the earthquake data but also an exclusion of the aftershocks and foreshocks
from the study (dependent events) (Abrahamson, 2006; Godinho, 2007).
2. Geological information-slip rate
Slip rate can be useful to the estimation of activity rates for other earthquake models
(characteristic earthquake model). This is feasible when there is adequacy of historical data
for the estimation of activity rates (Youngs & Coppersmith, 1985). The advantage of this
method is its application, because it covers seismic areas with few recordings related to
earthquake occurrence (Godinho, 2007). It also provides further information concerning the
recurrence that allows an improved computation of mean earthquake frequency (Youngs &
Coppersmith, 1985).
A reliable estimate of slip rate must be based both on historical and geological data
(Godinho, 2007). Youngs & Coppersmith (1985) have made some hypotheses concerning the
estimations of these parameters:

The consideration of all observed slip as seismic slip, which can be assumed as an
effect of creep.

Short term fluctuations are not considered, because slip rate represents an average
value.

Slip rates at seismogenic depths and along the entire fault length are assumed to be
represented by all surface measurements.
The computation of activity rate is achieved by balancing the long term accumulation of
seismic moment with is long term release (Godinho, 2007). According to Aki (1979), the rate
of moment build up is expressed through this relation:
21
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
̅
̅̇
(
)
where:
̅̇ : the slip rate (cm/year),
: the fault rupture area,
: the shear modulus.
If a scaling relation is used for the definition of fault‟s characteristic magnitude,
( )
(
)
The amount of moment released by an individual characteristic earthquake can be expressed
by using a moment-magnitude relation.
(
(
)
(
)
)
(
)
The product of the moment release per characteristic earthquake and earthquake occurrence
rate (
) equals the total rate of moment release.
̇
(
)
If the rate of moment release is equated with the rate of moment build-up, the direct
estimation of activity rate is the next step.
̇
̇
(
̇
(
̇
⁄
)
⁄
)
(
)
22
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.8 Earthquake occurrences with time
When the computation of recurrence rate of a given magnitude seismic event has been made,
the next step is the conversion of this rate into a probability of earthquake occurrence
(Godinho, 2007). A hypothesis concerning the earthquake occurrence with time is required,
especially if a “memory” or “memory-less” pattern is followed by a process of earthquake
occurrence (Godinho, 2007).
For a better understanding of the physical process of earthquake occurrence, the
theory of elastic rebound will be described. First introduced by Reid (1911) and also
presented by Kramer (1996), the theory refers that “the occurrence of earthquakes is a product
of the successive build-up and release of strain energy in the rock adjacent to faults”. The
setup of strain energy is an outcome of the movement of earth‟s tectonic plates. This
movement causes shear stresses increased on fault planes, which are considered as plates‟
boundaries (Godinho, 2007). In the case that shear stresses reach the maximum shear strength
of rock, there is failure and release of the accumulated strain energy. A strong rock will
rupture rapidly and the cause will be the sudden release of energy in the form of earthquake
(Kramer, 1996).
2.8.1 Memory-less model
The assumption that earthquake process is memory-less is a basic feature of many PSHAs.
This means that no memory of time, location and size of former events exists. It can be said
that there is no dependence between the probability of an earthquake occurring in a given year
and the elapsed time since the previous seismic event (Godinho, 2007).
Therefore, an exponential distribution of earthquake recurrence intervals is
characteristic of the Poisson process, which defines the occurrence of earthquakes (Godinho,
2007).
( )
( )
∫ ( )
(
∫
)
(
)
where:
: the recurrence rate,
: time between events.
23
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
Figure 2.6: Probability density function of earthquake occurrence - exponential distribution model
(Godinho, 2007).
By using the probability theorem of Bayes, the expression of probability of an
earthquake occurrence within years from former events is the following:
[
]
[
]
[ ]
∫
( )
∫
( )
(
)
( )
( )
(
)
where:
: the elapsed time since the former seismic event,
: the intermit time between events.
The equation changes its form when there is evaluation of the probability expression
using the cumulative distribution function, which is related to the assumption of Poisson:
(
[
)
(
]
)
(
)
It can be noticed that the time which remains since the last earthquake ( ) does not
exist anymore in the probability expression. This demonstrates the nature of “memory-less”
model (Godinho, 2007). The hazard function of exponential distribution can be represented:
( )
( )
( )
(
)
2.8.2 Models with memory
2.8.2.1 Renewal models
A conventional way for the representation of earthquake occurrence with time is to assume it
presents some periodicity (Godinho, 2007). In contrast with Poisson model, which supports
the hypothesis that earthquake occurrence intervals are exponentially distributed, different
24
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
distributions are applied by renewal models that allow the increase of the probability of
occurrence ( ) with elapsed time since the former earthquake (Cornell & Winterstein, 1988).
Four types of typical distributions concerning the earthquake occurrence are examined:

Lognormal,

Brownian Time Passage,

Weibull,

Gamma.
The main characteristics of most renewal model distributions are two statistical
parameters, the covariance and the mean (Godinho, 2007). The first parameter is related to the
measure of periodicity of earthquake recurrence intervals. The second parameter is associated
with the average elapsed time between events (Cornel & Winterstein, 1988; Godinho, 2007).
(a) Lognormal
This distribution is one of the most ordinary distributions practically used:
( )
√
(
(
)
)
(
)
Figure 2.7: Probability density function of earthquake occurrence - lognormal distribution model
(Godinho, 2007).
It is worth to state that this type of mathematic distribution has some important
parameters, such as the median ( ) and the standard deviation (
). The relations which
describe these parameters are the following (Godinho, 2007):
25
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
̅
(
(
)
)
√ (
)
(
)
(b) Brownian Passage Time
This category of distribution is also known as the Wald or Gaussian distribution. The basic
parameters of Brownian Passage Time (BPT) are the mean recurrence interval ( ̅ ) and
parameter, which represents the aperiodicity (Godinho, 2007).
( )
√
̅
*
(
̅)
+
̅
(
)
Figure 2.8: Probability density function of earthquake occurrence - BPT distribution model (Godinho,
2007).
Examined by Matthews et al. (2002), the BPT distribution model is applied in the
characterization of earthquake occurrence using a Brownian relaxation oscillator, which is
represented by the state variable
( ).
( )
( ) (
)
26
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
Figure 2.9: Example of load state paths - Brownian relaxation oscillator (Matthews et al., 2002).
(c) Weibull & Gamma
These distributions have some similarities related to their general form and relation to the
exponential density distribution. The constants
and
are associated with the variation and
the mean distribution (Godinho, 2007):
( )
(
( )
( )
( )
)
(
)
( )
( )
(
)
Figure 2.10: Probability density function of earthquake occurrence - Weibull distribution model
(Godinho, 2007).
27
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
Figure 2.11: Probability density function of earthquake occurrence - Gamma distribution model
(Godinho, 2007).
2.8.2.2 Markov & semi-Markov models
Markov property is a main characteristic of many earthquake occurrence models, which are
based on stochastic processes. Therefore, this transitional probability is conditional only on
the present state. It is also independent of the process‟s state in the past (Patwardhan et al.,
1980; Godinho, 2007).
(
)
(
)
(
)
Figure 2.12: Schematic representation – semi Markov process (Patwardhan et al., 1980).
Developed by Patwardhan et al. (1980) and also noted by Votsi et al. (2010), these
models of earthquake occurrence apply this primary Markov property of one-step memory.
The modeling of waiting time and size of successive earthquakes is allowed from the
application of semi-Markov properties in earthquake occurrence models (Godinho, 2007).
28
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.8.2.3 Slip predictable model
The dependence of future events on time of the last appearance is one conventional property
of most earthquake occurrence memory models (Godinho, 2007). The magnitude of a
successive earthquake, which is reflected by the amount of the released stress, consists of a
function only of the time elapsed since the last earthquake. This is based on the hypothesis
that stress accumulates at a stable rate for some time period and is independent of the former
seismic event‟s magnitude (Kiremidjian & Anagnos, 1984). This shows the representation of
a positive “forward” correlation between successive magnitudes and inter-arrival times, which
are considered to be distributed in a random way (Godinho, 2007). Developed by Kiremidjian
& Anagnos (1984), a schematic representation of the model is shown in Figure 2.13:
Figure 2.13: Slip-predictable model: (a) time history of stress release and accumulation (b)
relationship between time between seismic events and coseismic slip (c) sample path for the Markov
renewal process (Kiremidjian & Anagnos, 1984).
Below there is an illustration of the comparison between the Poisson and the slippredictable model.
Figure 2.14: Comparison between Poisson and slip-predictable model (Kiremidjian & Anagnos,
1984).
29
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.8.2.4 Time predictable model
Based on the hypothesis of time-predictable behavior, an alternative model has been
developed while slip-predictable models use the time between events for the estimation of
earthquake‟s magnitude (Godinho, 2007). In time-predictable models the information is
provided by the magnitude of last earthquake. This means a correlation between earthquake
size and intermit times (Godinho, 2007). Presenting many similarities to the slip-predictable
model, Figure 2.15 is a schematic illustration of the corresponding time-predictable model:
Figure 2.15: Time-predictable model: (a) time history of stress release and accumulation (b)
relationship between time between seismic events and coseismic slip (c) sample path for the Markov
renewal process (Kiremidjian & Anagnos, 1984).
2.9 Ground motion estimation
As studied by Boore (2003), the application of ground motion estimation takes place in
structure‟s design. This is feasible by using the existing building codes or the site-specific
structures‟ design. Despite the efforts related to the gathering of more ground motion data in
seismically active regions, it can be said that there are insufficient amount of data considering
the empirical computation of design ground motions (Godinho, 2007). Therefore, many
scientific projects have been devoted to the development of the estimation of ground motion
parameters, which will be practical for structures‟ design based on the features of seismic
sources, such as distance or magnitude (Godinho, 2007).
30
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.9.1 Parameters of ground motion
2.9.1.1 Amplitude
Peak horizontal acceleration is a basic parameter which is used in the characterization of
ground motion amplitude. Peak ground velocity, which is less sensitive to high frequencies, is
applicable for the computation of structures‟ ground motions, which are vulnerable to
frequencies of intermediate level (tall flexible structures) (Godinho, 2007).
2.9.1.2 Frequency content
As defined by Godinho (2007), the way that ground motion amplitude is distributed amongst
different frequencies is described by the frequency content. Its definition can be through
different types of spectra and spectral parameters.
Studied by Kramer (1996), a plot of Fourier amplitude represents a Fourier spectrum
defined as the product of performing a Fourier time series‟ transformation. Immediate
indications considering the ground motion‟s frequency content are given by the spectrum of
Fourier (Godinho, 2007).
The power spectrum is another type of spectrum which is used in the description of
frequency content. It allows the computation of some statistical parameters used in stochastic
methods for the development of ground motion estimation, with the premise that ground
motion is characterized as a random process (Godinho, 2007).
The maximum response of SDOF (Single Degree Of Freedom, Fig. 2.16) system
containing a specific level of viscous damping (e.g. 5%) as a function of natural frequency is
described by a response spectrum (Fig. 2.16, 2.17). It is commonly applicable to structural
design and engineering purposes. The illustration of response spectrum is on tripartite
logarithm scale, including in the same plot the parameters of velocity, acceleration response
and peak displacement (Godinho, 2007).
Figure 2.16: SDOF system (www.scielo.org.za).
31
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
Figure 2.17: Response spectrum (Godinho, 2007).
2.9.1.3 Duration
The ground motion‟s duration is an important parameter related to the prevention of damage,
which is caused by physical processes that are sensitive to the amount of load reversals (e.g.
the degradation of stiffness and strength, the development of pore water pressuresliquefaction). There is also a correlation between the duration of ground motion and the
length of rupture. Therefore, there is a proportion related to the parameters of an event‟s
magnitude and the duration of ground motion. Specifically, when the size of an earthquake
increases, the duration of the resulting ground motion increases too (Godinho, 2007).
Through the bracketed duration, the duration can be defined as the time between the
first and last exceedance of some threshold acceleration‟s value (e.g. 0.05g) (Bolt, 1969). The
significant duration is an additional applicable parameter of duration, defined as the measure
of time in which there is dissipation of a specified energy amount (Godinho, 2007). Another
parameter, which is conventially used in determining liquefaction potential, is the equivalent
number of ground motion‟s cycles, which consists an alternative expression of duration
(Stewart et al., 2001).
2.9.2 Empirical ground motion relations
A probability distribution function of a specific ground motion parameter (e.g. response
spectra, peak acceleration) is a form that often characterizes the ground motions (Godinho,
2007). Equations named as attenuation relations or Ground Motion Prediction Equations
(GMPE), which are derived through regression analysis of empirical data, determine some
statistical moments such as standard deviation and median. These moments are based on
32
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
seismological parameters (source-to-site distance, magnitude). Table 2.2 presents some
models for ground motion attenuation in active seismic areas:
Magnitude
Range
Distant
Range
(km)
Distance
Measure
Site Parameters
Other
Parameters
5.5-7.5
0-100
rjb
30m-Vs
Fault type
4.7-8.1
3-60
rseism
Soft rock, hard
rock, depth to
rock
Fault type,
hanging wall
>4.7
0-100
r
Soil/rock
Fault type,
hanging wall
4.0-8.0
0-100
r
Soil/rock
Fault type
4.6-7.4
1-100
r
Rock only
Fault type
Atkison &Boore
(1997)
Campbell
(1997, 2000,
2001)
Abrahamson &
Silva (1997)
Sadigh et
al.(1997)
Idriss (1991,
1994)
Table 2.2: Attenuation models for horizontal spectral acceleration in active fault areas (Godinho,
2007).
The expression of the attenuation equation‟s general form is the following:
( )
( )
( )
(
)
( )
(
)
where:
: parameter of ground motion amplitude,
: constants determined by regression analysis,
: moment magnitude,
: source to site distance (Fig. 2.18),
: factor accounting for local site conditions,
: factor accounting for fault type (e.g. reverse, strike-slip),
: factor accounting for hanging-wall effects.
The basis for most attenuation equations is expressed through a number of assumptions
(Stewart et al., 2001):

Uncertainty in ground motions
The uncertainty or variability ( or
) in ground motion amplitudes and the mean ground
motion ( ) are defined by attenuation relations. It is assumed that ground motion amplitudes
33
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
are lognormally distributed, so
( ) and
( )
consist the representations of mean and
uncertainty.

Magnitude dependence
Moment magnitude and other magnitude scales are derived using the logarithm of peak
ground motion parameters. Therefore, there is the hypothesis which supports that
( ) is
proportional to the magnitude of the event ( ).

Radiation damping
The energy, which is released by a seismic fault during the occurrence of a seismic event, is
radiated out through traveling body waves. When they travel away from the seismogenic
source, there is a phenomenon called “radiation damping” which describes the reduction of
wave amplitudes at a rate of ⁄ ( : source-to-site distance).
Figure 2.18: Measures of source-to-site distance – ground motion attenuation models: (a) vertical
faults, (b) dipping faults (Godinho, 2007).
34
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)

Factors that affect attenuation
Various factors associated to site and source characteristics affect the attenuation of ground
motions. Therefore, a reference model is implemented in order to examine the influence on
the attenuation of ground motions.
The model introduced by Campbell & Bozorgnia (2003), consists of near-source
horizontal and vertical ground motion attenuation relations for 5% damped pseudoacceleration response spectra and peak ground acceleration.
(
)
√ (
)
( )
( )
(
)
(
)
It is observable that this model has a similar form to the equation presented above
(2.27). Figure 2.19 presents two examples: M=7.5 and M=5.5 for Peak Spectral Acceleration
(PSA) of 0.1 sec and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA).
Figure 2.19: Attenuation relations: (a) peak spectral acceleration, (b) peak ground acceleration
(Campbell & Bozorgnia, 2003).
35
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.9.2.1 Factors affecting attenuation
1. Site conditions
Many forms can represent the effects of local site conditions, starting from a simple constant
till more complex functions (Godinho, 2007). There are some models applied for a simple
soil/rock soil classification (Abrahamson & Silva, 1997; Sadigh et al., 1997), but others use
more quantitative methods of classification, such as the 30m shear wave velocity (Atkinson &
Boore, 1997). Generally, there is a hypothesis which supports that standard error in
attenuation is unaffected by site conditions (Godinho, 2007).
Figure 2.20: Peak spectral acceleration (damping=5%) using Campbell & Bozorgnia ground motion
attenuation – effects of site conditions (Mw=7.0, rseis=10km, strike-slip fault) (Campbell & Bozorgnia,
2003).
2. Near-fault effects
Many studies, such as Campbell & Bozorgnia (2003), have shown that near-fault effects on
ground motion play a very important role. These surveys have concluded that there is a
sensitivity of ground motion at near-source site to what is considered as “rupture directivity”.
The long period energy of ground motion and the duration are affected by this parameter
36
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
(Godinho, 2007). The phenomenon which takes place when there is fault propagation towards
the site is named “forward directivity”.
Primarily, its effects are founded in the horizontal direction normal to fault rupture.
Therefore, shock wave effects characterize the ground motion, which is associated with a
short duration and large amplitudes at intermediate to long periods. On the other hand, a
relatively low amplitude and long duration describes the ground motions, which are affected
by backward directivity (Godinho, 2007).
3. Tectonic regime
The tectonic region, in which the seismogenic sourced is located, is one of the most basic
factors that affect the features of ground motion. For each subduction, stable continental and
active region zones, there is a development of some attenuation relations. A development of a
large proportion of attenuation equations is observed too, because of the specific amount of
the available ground motion data (Godinho, 2007). There is not availability of very strong
motion data for the case of stable continental areas. Therefore, for these areas the basis of
attenuation relations refers to simulated motions instead of the available recordings (Atkinson
& Boore, 1995-1997b; Toro et al., 1997).
4. Focal mechanism-fault type
As studied by Boore (2003), ground motion parameters (frequency content, amplitude) are
influenced by faulting mechanism. Strike slip faults can be used as a reference of attenuation
relations and additional factors. A larger proportion of higher levels of frequency content for
thrust and reverse active faults and higher mean ground motion are included in some
observations of fault-type effects (Godinho, 2007).
Figure 2.21: Peak spectral acceleration (damping=5%) using Campbell & Bozorgnia ground motion
attenuation – effects of faulting mechanism (Mw=7.0, rseis=10km, firm soil) (Campbell & Bozorgnia,
2003).
37
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
5. Hanging wall effect
Abrahamson & Somerville (1996) have concluded that sites which are located over the
hanging wall of dipping faults present a considerable increase in ground motions. The
experience (e.g. Northridge earthquake, 1994) has shown that this increase can be as much as
50% (Abrahamson & Silva, 1997).
2.10 Hazard curves
The determination of the final seismic hazard can be done when distribution functions
compute and characterize the ground motion estimates. The final step defines the frequency
that a significant level of ground motion (peak ground acceleration, duration, displacement)
will be exceeded at an area of interest (Godinho, 2007). The following equation describes the
individual hazard of a single seismogenic source:
(
)
(
) ∫
∫
( )
( ) ( ) (
)
(
)
where:
: annual rate of events or return period,
: level of ground motion,
: specified level of ground motion to be exceeded,
: magnitude,
: distance,
: number of standard deviation.
The source-to-site distance, the ground motion and the probability density functions
for magnitude are integrated over the above relation. The contribution of a single seismogenic
source is reflected by the hazard expression mentioned above. In addition, a sum of total
hazard contributions for each individual source is necessary, for the case of multiple seismic
sources consideration (Godinho, 2007).
(
)
∑
(
)
(
)
38
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
Then, the value of return period or annual rate of events must be converted into a form
of probability. The likelihood that the ground motion will exceed the level
at least once
during a significant time interval is reflected by this probability (Godinho, 2007).
Figure 2.22: Hazard curves for spectral period of 2 sec – individual source (McGuire, 2001).
2.10.1 Hazard disaggregation
According to Bazzuro & Cornell (1999), disaggregation of hazard is a procedure that
indicates the greatest contribution to the hazard. It is completed using a two-dimensional
disaggregation into bins of different source-to-site distances and earthquake sizes. Then,
Figure 2.23 represents the disaggregation of hazard corresponding to the total contribution for
source hazard curves, shown in the previous graph (Fig. 2.22).
Figure 2.23: Disaggregation of hazard for spectral period of 2 sec and ground motion level of 0.5g
(McGuire, 2001).
39
CHAPTER 2 – PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
2.11 Uncertainty
The definition and treatment of uncertainties are some important features of PSHAs. In the
realm of structural system designing, the limitation of uncertainty is a very crucial and
considerable factor (Tsompanakis et al., 2008). Two types of uncertainties are involved:
epistemic uncertainty and aleatory variability (Godinho, 2007).
2.11.1 Epistemic uncertainty
For the reason that is a product of limited knowledge and data, epistemic uncertainty is
usually referred to as scientific uncertainty. Generally, this category of uncertainty can be
reduced as more information becomes available and the use of alternative models is one of its
characteristics (Godinho, 2007).
2.11.2 Logic trees
Logic trees are a basic characteristic of PSHAs (Fig. 2.24). They are useful for the
determination of design ground motions (Bommer & Scherbaum, 2013). The use of a logic
tree is an ordinary way for handling the epistemic uncertainty related to the inputs to PSHA
(Godinho, 2007; Bommer & Scherbaum, 2013). It provides some ways for the effective
organization and assessment of the credibility of alternative models used in this uncertainty
(Godinho, 2007).
Logic trees have the form of separated branches, in which there are different types of
uncertainties according to the choice of each researcher (Aiping & Xiaxin, 2013).
Figure 2.24: Logic tree used in PSHAs (Godinho, 2007).
2.11.3 Aleatory variability
The innate randomness in a process is the definition of aleatory variability. Generally, it is
included in the calculations, specifically through the parameter of standard deviation and,
therefore, it plays an important role considering the resulting hazard curve (Abrahamson &
Bommer, 2005; Godinho, 2007).
40
CHAPTER 3
OPENQUAKE
3.1 Introduction
OpenQuake (www.openquake.org) is a software used for the calculation of seismic hazard
and risk, developed by the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) (Monelli et al., 2012; Silva et al.,
2012; Crowley et al., 2013). Summer 2010 was the starting date of the application of
OpenQuake, which derives from several GEM‟s projects (GEM Foundation, 2010) using a
wide range of data related to hazard and risk (Danciu et al., 2010; Crowley et al., 2010a;
Crowley et al., 2010b; Pagani et al., 2010; Crowley et al., 2011).
Specifically, OpenQuake is a combination of Python and Java programming code.
Their development was achieved by applying the most usual methods of an open source
software improvement (open mailing lists, public repository, IRC channel) (Crowley et al.,
2011). The released source code can be found on a free and accessible web based repository
(www.github.com/gem). It must be mentioned that open source projects such as Celeryd,
RabbitMQ and OpenSHA played a crucial role to the development of OpenQuake (Crowley
et al., 2011). Therefore, the main characteristics of OpenQuake are the following (Monelli et
al., 2012):

The XML (eXtensible Markup Language) data schema is a basic feature. OpenQuake
uses an alternative form of XML, defined as NRML („Natural hazard‟ Risk Markup
Language). The description of a variety of data structures required for seismic hazard
and risk assessment is feasible through this NRML formal.

It is designed for evaluating seismic hazard models for various global areas and
updated according to the special requirements of each regional seismic hazard/risk
programs.
The figure presented below (Fig. 3.1) is a schematic illustration of OpenQuake‟s structure
and contains (Crowley et al., 2011):
41
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
1. Purple boxes, which are the representation of the crucial modules of the hazard
component.
2. White boxes, with main products estimated by the distinct modules.
3. Orange rectangles, which illustrate the essential input data.
Figure 3.1: Openquake‟s schematic representation (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.2 OpenQuake-Hazard
The basic definition of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) (see §2.1) has been
rapidly developed over the years, and it has been more accurate because of the reduced degree
of uncertainty (Crowley et al., 2011). This resulted from the improvement of instrumental
seismology and the computing power of hardware. EQRISK (McGuire, 1976) and SEISRISK
(Bender & Perkins, 1982, 1987) are programming codes which played an important role
concerning the evolution of PSHA.
Nowadays, many implementations of PSHA are more complex due to the challenges
presented continuously. The location, the geographical scale and, generally, the differences of
each studied case can affect the way of application. On the one hand, PSHA for specific sites
and high-risk structures (e.g. nuclear plants) demand more detailed, complex inputs and a
42
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
more extensive characterization of the parameter of uncertainty (Crowley et al., 2011). On the
other hand, PSHA for urban areas does not demand such complex data and input model
(Crowley et al., 2011).
3.2.1 Main concepts
OpenQuake follows the procedure presented below for the computation of probabilistic
seismic hazard (Crowley et al., 2011):
1. The reading of the PSHA input model (e.g. the combination of the ground motion and
seismic source system) and calculation options.
The required information for the creation of one or many seismic source models can be found
in the seismic source system. The epistemic uncertainties must be considered in such a
calculation, thus the system contains the following tools (Crowley et al., 2011):

One or many Initial Seismic Source Models.

One logic tree, also called „seismic source logic tree‟. It describes the epistemic
uncertainties associated with features and objects that characterize the Initial
Seismic Source Models.
The required information for the use of one or many ground motion models can be found in
the ground motion system. The epistemic uncertainties must be taken into account.
2. The processing of logic tree structures in order to account for epistemic uncertainties,
which are mainly connected with the seismogenic source and ground motion. Finally,
ground motion and seismic source models are created.
The necessary information for the creation of an ERF Earthquake Rupture Forecast (e.g. the
seismicity occurrence probability model) without taking into account any epistemic
uncertainty is contained into the seismic source model. The necessary data for the hazard
computation using a seismic source model is included into a ground motion model.
3. The hazard computation, taking into account as many seismic sources and ground
motion models as needed for the adequate characterization of uncertainties.
4. The post-processing of the obtained results for distinct estimations and the calculation
of simple mathematical statistics.
3.3 Workflows of calculation
Various approaches are followed by the hazard component of OpenQuake-hazard, which
computes seismic hazard analysis (SHA). There are three basic categories of analysis
presented below (Crowley et al., 2011):
43
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
1. Classical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (cPSHA). This type calculates hazard
curves and maps, considering the classical integration method (Cornell, 1968;
McGuire, 1976) as mentioned by Field et al. (2003).
2. Event-Based Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (ePSHA), which calculates ground
motion fields derived from stochastic event sets.
3. Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA). It estimates ground motion fields
from a single earthquake rupture event considering ground motion aleatory variability.
For the purposes of this master dissertation, the Classical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis (cPSHA) is analyzed extensively in the next subchapter and used for the calculation
of Corinth Gulf‟s hazard map.
3.3.1 Classical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (cPSHA)
Input data used for the cPSHA has a PSHA input model, which is provided with a set of
calculation options. Then, the basic calculators applied for the analysis performance are (Fig.
3.1) (Crowley et al., 2011):

Logic Tree Processor
A seismic source model is created by the Logic Tree Processor (LTP), which takes the PSHA
input model as an input data. Specifically, the seismic source model describes the activity
rates and the geometry of each seismogenic source without any epistemic uncertainty. Then, a
ground motion model is created by the LTP (Crowley et al., 2011).

Earthquake Rupture Forecast Calculator (ERF)
The ERF, which estimates the probability of occurrence over a specified time span for each
earthquake rupture produced by the source model, uses the resulted seismic source model as
an input (Crowley et al., 2011).

cPSHA Calculator
The ground motion model and the ERF are used by the cPSHA for the computation of hazard
curves on each area specified in the calculation options (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.4 Description of input
Two basic data blocks are discussed in this chapter, the PSHA input model and calculation
settings. The accurate meaning of a PSHA input model (PSHAim) is taken from Crowley et
al. (2011): “PSHAim defines the properties of the seismic sources of engineering interest
44
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
within the region considered in the analysis and the models capable to describe the properties
of the shaking expected at the site”.
Additionally, two main features are contained: the seismic source system and the
ground motion system. Geometry, location, seismicity occurrence properties of active faults
and probable epistemic uncertainties that affect this information are specified by the seismic
source system. The details of ground motion forecast relationships adopted in the estimation
and the associated epistemic uncertainties are described by the ground motion system
(Crowley et al., 2011).
Therefore, two forms of logic trees define the OpenQuake‟s PSHA input models. The
seismic source logic tree, which describes the epistemic uncertainties related to the formation
of the ERF, and the ground motion logic tree, which considers the uncertainties connected
with the application of models able to forecast the expected ground motion at a region. When
the epistemic uncertainties are inconsiderable, the logic tree structure has one branching level
with only one branch (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.5 Typologies of seismic sources
An amount of sources that belong to a measurable set of possible typologies is included in a
usual OpenQuake input model (PSHAim). This software contains four seismic source
categories; each of them has a limited number of parameters, which are indispensable for the
specification of the geometry and seismicity occurrence. In the next subchapter a more
extensive analysis of the source typologies supported by the OpenQuake software is provided
(Crowley et al., 2011).
3.5.1 Description of seismic source typologies
As mentioned above, four seismic source typologies are supported by OpenQuake (Pagani et
al., 2010; Crowley et al., 2011):
1. Area source: the type with the most frequent use in regional and national PSHA
models.
2. Grid source: for the reason that both area and grid sources model the distributed
seismicity, this type can easily replace the area source category.
3. Simple fault source: the specification of a fault source in OpenQuake program
becomes more fluent using the simple fault type, which is frequently used for the
description of shallow active fault sources. It is also adopted for the purposes of the
current master thesis.
45
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
4. Complex fault source: this application is mostly related to the modeling of
subduction interface sources with a complex geometry.
The main hypotheses accepted in the definition of the above presented source typologies
are the following (Suckale et al., 2005; Crowley et al., 2011):
1. The distribution of seismicity over the source is homogeneous (area & simple fault
sources).
2. A Poissonian model is followed by seismicity temporal occurrence.
3. The frequency-magnitude distribution can be estimated to an evenly discretized
distribution.
3.5.1.1 Simple fault sources
The most applied source type for the modeling of faults is the “simple fault” category. The
dimensions of the seismogenic source acquired by the projection of a trace or polyline along a
dip direction are the meaning of the word “simple” (Crowley et al., 2011). Some interesting
features of simple fault sources taken from Crowley et al. (2011) are:

A fault trace in the form of a polyline.

A rake angle, as specified by Aki & Richards (2002).

A value of the dip angle, as specified by Aki & Richards (2002).

A discrete frequency-magnitude distribution.

A labeling which specifies if magnitude scaling equations are followed by the size of
ruptures and a homogeneous distribution over the fault surface exists, or there is the
acceptance of the assumption that the entire fault surface will always be ruptured by
ruptures within a given magnitude range.
3.6 Description of logic trees
Logic trees (Fig. 3.2 & 3.3) are a tool which purpose is to handle the epistemic uncertainties
of models and parameters contained in a hazard analysis (Crowley et al., 2011). In our case,
we used two types of logic trees. The first category contained the seismic source models with
their adjusted weights. The second type of logic tree included additionally the b value
uncertainty, which was adjusted in each seismic source model in order to attempt the
reduction of the uncertainty parameter.
46
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
Figure 3.2: Example of branch set-epistemic uncertainties of faults dip angle (Crowley et al., 2011).
Crowley et al. (2011) note three fundamental elements included in a logic tree:
1. Branching level.
2. Branch set (Fig. 3.3).
3. Branch.
The distance of a given element from the start of the logic tree is expressed by the
branching level. It can be said that each branching level is connected with a single type
uncertainty, so the number of branching levels is proportional to its complexity (Crowley et
al., 2011). An uncertainty model is described by a branch set, which contains various
exclusive and exhaustive settings (Bommer & Scherbaum, 2008). Finally, a specific
alternative in a set of branches is represented by a branch.
Figure 3.3: Example of OpenQuake‟s logic tree structure (Crowley et al., 2011).
47
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
Figure 3.4: Logic tree data structure-individual branches, branch sets & branching levels (Crowley et
al., 2011).
3.7 The PSHA Input Model (PSHAim)
PSHAim includes (a) the data required for the definition of shape, position, activity rates and
relative epistemic uncertainties of engineering importance seismogenic sources within a given
data, and (b) the use of the ground motion models and related uncertainties for the estimation
of PSHA. The seismic sources and the ground motion system are two corresponding objects
contained in the PSHAim (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.7.1 The seismic sources system
It consists of one or more initial seismic source models (list of seismic source data) and the
seismic sources logic tree (Fig. 3.5). One or several seismogenic sources that account for
distributed seismicity are usually included in a seismic source model (Crowley et al., 2011).
Epistemic uncertainties related to the parameters applied for the characterization of the
initial seismic source models are described by the seismic sources logic tree. During the
application of this type of logic tree, the epistemic uncertainties related to all the parameters
that characterize each source typology can be considered by the user (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.7.1.1 Logic tree of seismic sources
This version of OpenQuake defines the seismic sources logic tree as following (Crowley et
al., 2011):

There is an assumption than one or more substitute initial seismic source models are
described by the first branching level.

Source parameter uncertainties are defined by subsequent branching levels. Each
seismic source in a source model applies parameter uncertainties, which are assumed
that are uncorrelated between various seismogenic sources.
48
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE

Branching level can define one branch set.
3.7.1.2 Supported branch set typologies
Only two built-in typologies of branch set are included in this version of OpenQuake. The
next Figure 3.5 is the illustration of a source model logic tree, containing the settings
available in the current version of this program (Crowley et al., 2011).
Gutenberg-Richter b value uncertainties
These uncertainties are depicted in Figure 3.5 as the branch set in the second branching level
of the current seismic sources logic tree. An infinite amount of branches are contained in this
branch set (Crowley et al., 2011).
Figure 3.5: Seismic sources logic tree (Crowley et al., 2011).
Gutenberg-Richter maximum magnitude uncertainties
For this branch set, a value (positive or negative) can be specified by the user in order to be
added to the Gutenberg-Richter maximum magnitude values (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.7.2 The system of ground motion
The ground motion system is a blend of one or many logic trees, which are related with a
particular tectonic area or a source group. The alternative ground motion models available for
a specific source group are defined by each ground motion logic tree. Only hardcoded Ground
Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) are provided by the OpenQuake program (Fig. 3.6). An
insufficiency of tools which allow the specification of new GMPEs by the user also exists
(Crowley et al., 2011).
49
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
Figure 3.6: Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) contained in OpenQuake and OpenSHA
(Crowley et al., 2011).
3.7.2.1 The logic tree of ground motion
The epistemic uncertainties associated to the ground motion models are represented by the
ground motion logic tree (Crowley et al., 2011). The consideration of multiple GMPE logic
trees, one for each tectonic area category taken into account in the source model, are
supported by OpenQuake given that ground motion models are frequently associated to a
specific tectonic area (Crowley et al., 2011).
This version contains a GMPE logic tree permitted to have one branching level
including one branch set, where a specific GMPE is linked to each individual branch. With
these available options, epistemic uncertainties derived from different models can be
considered, but this does not apply for the case of epistemic uncertainties inside each model
(Crowley et al., 2011).
3.8 Calculation settings
Calculation settings are an object that includes the data available for hazard estimation. Some
relative basic elements are mentioned below (Crowley et al., 2011):

The geographical coordinates of the study area, where the hazard computation is
conducted and the site‟s soil condition (vs,30).


The methodology followed for the hazard estimation (see §4.3).
-
cPSHA.
-
DSHA.
-
ePSHA.
The typology of the expected results computed by the current version of OpenQuake:
-
Hazard maps.
50
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
-
Hazard curves.
3.9 The Logic Tree Processor (LTP)
In this section, the logic tree processor is presented analytically. LTP‟s purpose is the data
processing in a PSHAim, which consists of a seismic source model creation derived from the
seismic source logic tree (see §3.7.1.1) and ground motion model derived from the ground
motion logic tree (see §3.7.2.1) (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.9.1 The logic tree Monte Carlo sampler
The creation of a set of seismic source and ground motion interpretations, which represent the
combinations permitted by the logic tree structure as defined by the user, is the main goal of a
logic tree Monte Carlo sampler (LTMCS) (Crowley et al., 2011). The final results will reflect
the uncertainty introduced by the lack of accurate parameter and model definition (Gupta,
2002; Crowley et al., 2011).
3.9.1.1 The sampling of seismic source logic tree
The LTMCS creates a seismic source model processing all branching levels. In the first
branching level, there is a selection of an initial seismic source model, with a probability
equal to the weight of uncertainty (Crowley et al., 2011). For each branching level that
follows, there is a start of a loop procedure over the seismogenic sources. Then, for each
source there is a random selection of an epistemic uncertainty value (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.9.1.2 The sampling of ground motion logic tree
The ground motion logic tree defines the multiple branch sets that include various ground
motions models (Crowley et al., 2011). It follows a loop procedure over the various tectonic
area categories, which are defined by the user. For each of them, there is a random selection
of a GMPE considering their weights. A ground motion model for each tectonic area
category, taken into account in the source model, will be included in the final sample set
(Crowley et al., 2011).
In addition, the methodology of the inverse transform method (Martinez & Martinez,
2002) is used for the sampling of epistemic weights. The method used for both the source
model and ground motion logic trees, computes the inverse distribution of the epistemic
weights and generate a uniform random value between 0 and 1.0 (Crowley et al., 2011).Then,
an epistemic uncertainty model with a probability equal to the related weight is given
(Crowley et al., 2011).
51
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
3.10 The earthquake rupture forecast calculator
The Earthquake Rupture Forecast (ERF) is a basic concept used in the OpenSHA framework
(Field et al., 2003) and OpenQuake‟s hazard component (Crowley et al., 2011). The initial
procedure of ERF‟s calculation includes a seismic source model, which is created by the LTP
(Crowley et al., 2011).
In the case of epistemic uncertainty‟s absence in the seismic source system, there is a
one-to-one correspondence between the initial seismic source and the seismic source model
applied in the hazard calculation (Crowley et al., 2011). Then, the LTP copies the data of
seismic source model contained in the initial seismic source model and, finally, sources that
produce seismicity in accordance with Poisson temporal occurrence model are supported by
OpenQuake (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.10.1 ERF creation-fault sources case
Two categories of fault sources are mainly supported by OpenQuake. Their differences are
mostly associated to the dimensions of the fault surface. Shallow sources are modeled by fault
sources with a simple geometry. On the contrary, subduction interface sources are modeled by
fault sources which present a more complex geometry (Crowley et al., 2011).
3.11 Calculators of seismic hazard analysis
Probabilistic seismic hazard computed by OpenQuake uses two methodologies: the classical
method (cPSHA) and a method which is based on the generation of a stochastic event set
(Crowley et al., 2011).
The cPSHA methodology, which is used in OpenQuake, is the one mentioned by Field
et al. (2003) and applied in the OpenSHA software. The specific structure mentioned above
and also presented by Chiang et al. (1984), has the considerable feature of using probabilities
during the calculation procedure instead of working with rates of occurrence (Bender &
Perkins, 1987). The decoupling of the probability seismicity occurrence model creation is one
benefit of the OpenSHA methodology (Crowley et al., 2011). The demonstration of Field et
al. (2003) shows that this methodology is very stable by assuming negligible contributions to
hazard derived from multiple occurrences.
On the other hand, the method of stochastic event generation follows recent
approaches in PSHA calculation (Musson, 2000). The basic benefits of the above mentioned
approach are the following (Crowley et al., 2011):
52
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
1. Hazard can be associated to an earthquake sequence.
2. The elements of ground motion remained on each studied area can be taken
into account by considering the ground motion spatial correlation.
3.11.1 cPSHA calculator
This way of calculation is the one considered as the most effective for the PSHA calculation
results (hazard curves, hazard maps, hazard spectra), taking as input the elements presented
below (Crowley et al., 2011):

a ground motion model,

an Earthquake Rupture Forecast (ERF).
3.11.1.1 Calculation of PSHA - Considering a negligible contribution from a sequence of
ruptures in occurrence
The PSHA calculation method which is available in OpenQuake is mainly applied in
OpenSHA (Crowley et al., 2011). It is similar to the classical method considering the
hypothesis of the negligibility of the hazard contribution derived from multiple ruptures (Field
et al., 2003).
The hazard estimation for a unique site (
) and a single parameter of ground
motion ( ) is performed through a repetitive process (Crowley et al., 2011). Then, the
contributions are integrated. These are derived from the ruptures contained in the ERF and
located at a distance from the site parameter, shorter than a minimum value of 200-300 km
(Crowley et al., 2011). During each repetition procedure, a calculation of the probability of
exceedance ( ) in time ( ) is made, by taking a rupture (
) within source (
). All these
are described through the Equation 3.1, taken from Crowley et al. (2011):
(
)
(
) (
)
(
)
On the one hand, the product between the conditional probability of exceedance ( ) at
site and the probability of occurrence in a time t, corresponds to the probability
(
). On the other hand the probability of occurrence linked to
during the creation of ERF is defined by the symbol
(
). The next relationship
(Equation 4.2, taken from Crowley et al., 2011) can be written in an alternative way by
changing the corresponding magnitude and node within source (
(
)
(
) (
) to each rupture.
)
(
)
53
CHAPTER 3 – OPENQUAKE
The product between the probability of
on node (
occurrence
exceedance and probability of magnitude
) corresponds to the probability of exceedance of
in
(Crowley et al., 2011). This is the interpretation of the above mentioned equation. Finally, the
final hazard value located at a site (
) will be acquired by merging the contributions
derived from all of seismic sources taken into account during the process of ERF creation
(Crowley et al., 2011).
(
)
∏
(
(
)
(
)
3.11.1.2 Calculation of PSHA - Accounting for contributions from a sequence of
ruptures in occurrence
In some cases, the hypothesis of negligible contributions to the final hazard value derived
from a sequence of ruptures is not valid. Therefore, in order to conduct more accurate hazard
estimations, it is indispensable to consider any potential contribution, which is a product of
ERF‟s sources (Crowley et al., 2011). Equation 3.4 is presented in order to account for
repeated ruptures (Crowley et al., 2011):
(
)
∑(
) )
(
(
)
(
)
where:
(
): the definition of the probability of a least one exceedance of
one or more ruptures
occurring within source (
given
). Then, Equation 3.5 has the
following form (Crowley et al., 2011):
(
)
∑
(∑(
(
) )
(
))
(
)
54
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
Before the main part of this master thesis, i.e. the estimation of seismic hazard using the
Openquake software, it is necessary to describe the methodology followed for the collection
of the data related to active seismic faults of Greece.
The identification of active faults is the first step of any seismic hazard assessment
(Tselentis, 1997; Mohammadioun & Serva, 2001). The data which are used in this thesis are
taken from two databases, the GreDaSS (Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources,
www.gredass.unife.it) and fault database of the Institute of Geodynamics (National
Observatory of Athens, www.gein.noa.gr) (IG-NOA) (Ganas et al., 2013). Additional
information was taken from bibliographic sources, such as published papers and scientific
books.
The collected data refer to the active faults around the city of Patras (north
Peloponnese, Greece) in a radius of approximately 200 km. It consist of some basic
parameters, such as the code of each seismic fault (i.e. GR0785), the name, the minimum and
maximum depth of the fault‟s surface, the strike, dip and rake, the slip rate, the maximum
recorded magnitude, the location and, finally, the length and width. Pavlides et al. (2007)
separated the faults into five categories, depending on their degree of activity:
1. Holocene active faults (confirmed displacement during the last 10,000 years & high
values of slip rate).
2. Late Quaternary active faults (confirmed displacement during the last 40,000 years).
3. Quaternary active faults (confirmed displacement during the Quaternary & low to
medium values of slip rate).
4. Capable faults of uncertain age, that can be possibly activated in the future.
5. Faults of uncertain activity, which are possibly inactive.
55
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.1: Map of capable faults (Pavlides et al., 2007).
4.2 The Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources (GreDaSS)
4.2.1 Introduction
In this chapter the database of GreDaSS is presented (Fig. 4.2). According to Sboras et al.
(2014), the construction of this database is based on geological information and investigation
techniques. As stated by Sboras et al. (2014), GreDaSS is a project which goals are:
1. The systematic collection of all available information related to neotectonics, active,
capable faults and generally the seismogenic volumes.
2. The critical analysis of the collected data and the quantification of the basic
seismogenic features of several sources including a related degree of uncertainty.
3. Provide a complete view of probable damaging active faults for a better effectiveness
of SHA in Greece.
56
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.2: The form of GreDaSS showing the ISSs & CSSs layers (www.gredass.unife.it).
4.2.2 Types of seismogenic sources
Some fundamental elements of GreDaSS database are also presented, as inferred by Basili et
al. (2008); Sboras et al. (2009). There are two basic categories of seismogenic sources, the
“Individual Seismogenic Sources” (ISS) and the “Composite Seismogenic Sources” (CSS)
(Fig. 4.2 & 4.3).

“Individual Seismogenic Sources” (ISS) are derived from the synthesis of geological
and geophysical data. These types of seismogenic sources include a complete set of
geometric characteristics, such as strike, dip, length, width and depth, kinematic
parameters (rake) and seismological-palaeoseismological features, such as the average
displacement per event, the magnitude, the slip rate and the return period. Their use is
referred to the deterministic seismic hazard assessment (DSHA), the calculation of
earthquake scenarios and geodynamic research.

“Composite Seismogenic Sources” (CSS) have the same initial features concerning the
geometric and kinematic parameters, but the difference is about the looser definition
and the combination of two or more individual sources. This type of seismogenic
sources is not necessarily capable of a specific earthquake, but their possible activity
can be detected from the existing data. Instead of the previous category, the CSSs have
57
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
a complete record of potential earthquake sources and accurate description. In
conclusion, the CSS can be used for the preparation of regional PSHA and the study of
geodynamic procedures.
Figure 4.3: Schematic representation of an ISS (a) & CSS (b) seismogenic source (Sboras, 2011). The
description is presented below, according to Basili et al. (2009).
The depiction of the ISSs is associated with a rectangular (polygon) and a vector
placed at the central part (Fig. 4.3a). The purpose of the rectangular is the representation of
the vertical projection of fault plane on the ground surface. The top edge is associated with
the fault trace, in the case that the fault is characterized as emergent. When the fault is blind,
the section between the hypothetical continuation of ground surface and fault plane appears as
a line parallel to the top edge. Finally, the slip vector of fault‟s motion is represented by a
vector located in the rectangular.
The CSSs (Fig. 4.3b) have a looser shape because of their capability of containing
several fault segments (ISSs) and their incomplete data. The polygon includes two roughly
parallel long sides (such as the ISSs), which correspond to the top and bottom edges of fault
plane and two short lines parallel to the width. The top edge is represented with a thicker line
and in the case of the fault reaches the surface, the scarps or fault traces are followed by the
top edge.
4.2.3 Properties of seismogenic sources
Further and useful information about a seismogenic source can be obtained by clicking on it.
Then, a new web browser window will open, containing the information needed, separated
58
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
into four categories. This form is similar for both CSSs and ISSs. The information window
contains the following metadata pages:
i.
“Source Info Summary”: the basic parameters are contained in this metadata page.
These are the “General Information” (Code, Name, Compilers, Contributors, Latest
update date), the “Parametric Information” (kinematic, geometric, seismotectonic
information) and finally the “Associated Earthquake”, which is referred only to the
ISSs (latest events, associated with a specific source).
ii.
“Commentary”: three sections are included: the “Comments” (contains helpful
comments for a better description of the source, more details about the extra data,
etc.), the “Open Questions” (contains whichever parameter remains doubtful) and the
“Summary” (includes the information related to the source, which can be extracted
from the available bibliography).
iii.
“Pictures”: pictures, figures, maps and images are enclosed in this metadata page.
iv.
“References”: this is the last page, which contains all the literature linked with the
hosted source.
Figure 4.4: Source Info Summary, example of Palaeochori ISS fault (Sboras, 2011).
59
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.5: Commentary, example of Palaeochori ISS fault (Sboras, 2011).
Figure 4.6: Pictures, example of Palaeochori ISS fault (Sboras, 2011).
Figure 4.7: References, example of Palaeochori ISS fault (Sboras, 2011).
60
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
4.2.4 Parameters of seismogenic sources
For a better understanding of GreDaSS‟s environment, a definition and a qualitative
description of the parametric fields is made starting with the ISSs and CSSs. We take into
consideration the necessary precision and completeness. After Sboras (2011).
4.2.4.1 Individual Seismogenic Sources (ISSs)

Location (degrees): this parameter indicates the location of the fault on the map.

Length (km): the length of the fault plane.

Minimum depth (km): this parameter is associated with the vertical distance (depth)
of fault‟s top edge from the ground surface or the sea floor.

Maximum depth (km): the calculated depth of the bottom edge of fault plane from
the surface.

Width (km): the distance between the top and bottom edges of fault plane.

Strike (degrees): it has a similar meaning to fault‟s strike. Values which belong to the
eastern semicircle (0-180o) have a dip direction (plunge) inside the southern semicircle
(90-270o). On the contrary, values which belong to the western semicircle (181-360o)
have a dip direction inside the northern semicircle (271-90o).

Dip (degrees): the dip-angle of fault plane.

Rake (degrees): the measured counter-clockwise angle, formed between the slip
vector and the strike. The rake‟s range is between 0o and 360o.

Slip per event (m): the mean co-seismic displacement on the fault plane is
represented by this parameter. It is usually suggested by the database software based
on empirical laws, or it can be set directly.

Slip rate (mm/a): the ratio between the displacement and the necessary time to
produce it.

Recurrence (years): the recurrence interval time between two characteristic seismic
events.

Magnitude (Mw): this is a representation of the magnitude produced by a specific
seismic event, or the possible magnitude of the fault which is based on scaling laws. In
the realm of magnitude, there is dependence between the fault‟s dimensions and slip
per event.

Last earthquake (years): the date or the time elapsed from the last seismic event is
included in this part.
61
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY

Penultimate earthquake (years): generally, it is a rarely available information
derived from paleoseismological studies and, sometimes, from historical references.

Elapsed time (years): the time interval between the last known seismic event and the
year 2000, which is used as a reference.
4.2.4.2 Composite Seismogenic Sources (CSSs)

Minimum depth (km): description similar to the ISSs.

Maximum depth (km): description similar to the ISSs.

Strike (degrees): it has the same meaning with the ISSs. The only difference has to do
with the requirement of a range of values.

Dip (degrees): description similar to the ISSs.

Rake (degrees): the definition is the same with the ISSs, but in this case a range of
values is required.

Slip rate (mm/a): description similar to the ISSs.

Maximum magnitude (Mw): it is the representation of the potential seismic
magnitude, or the maximum expected magnitude produced by the CSS.

Approximate location (degrees): same definitions with the ISSs. It is the center of
the source.

Total length (km): similar to the ISSs.

Total width (km): similar to the ISSs.

Typical fault length (km): it is based on the maximum magnitude field and
calculated from several scaling laws.

Typical fault width (km): this parameter is based on the maximum magnitude field,
the typical length and the dip angle range. It is derived from calculations between
analytical and scaling laws.

Typical fault slip (m): it has similar meaning to the former two parameters. Typical
fault slip is defined as the average displacement per event, based on scaling laws.
4.3 Application of GIS
The G.I.S. (Geographic Information Systems) software is used in order to create a complete
database for the case study (investigation of the active faults, 200 km away of Patras, north
Peloponnese, Greece). These data files considering the active faults are taken from the
GreDass‟ and IG-NOA‟s database.
62
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
The database related to active faults is classified into three layers, according to the
completeness of the data. The first layer (Fig. 4.8) includes the active faults with complete
data, the second layer (Fig. 4.9) includes the faults with an intermediate level of data
completeness (slip rate, length, max magnitude) and the last category (Fig. 4.10) includes the
seismogenic sources with poor data completeness (only length). Additionally, after the
merging of all shape files, the total faults database is illustrated by Figure 4.11. The attribute
table (Fig. 4.12) of each layer presents the values of the parameters of active faults.
Figure 4.8: 1st layer – complete level of data.
Figure 4.9: 2nd layer – intermediate level of data
63
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.10: 3rd layer – poor level of data.
Figure 4.11: The total faults database.
64
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.12: The attributes table.
4.4 Earthquake scaling laws
In this subchapter the scaling laws used in this dissertation are presented. Generally, these
equations can define various parameters, such as displacement, magnitude, rupture length,
seismic moment, etc. (Billion, 2007). In addition, the validity of models on the mechanics of
seismic rupture can be tested through these empirical relationships (Papazachos et al., 2004).
4.4.1 Wells & Coppersmith (1994)
Displacement vs magnitude and Dmax (maximum displacement) vs length relationships, taken
from Wells & Coppersmith (1994), were applied in this thesis for the estimation of slip rate.
These scaling laws were compiled using a database of approximately 400 seismic events.
Shallow focus, continental, intraplate or interplate earthquakes of magnitude greater than 4.5
are included in this data. On the contrary, there is an exclusion of seismic events that take
place in subduction zones and oceanic labs (Wells & Coppersmith, 1994). In addition, the
rupture width vs magnitude relationship is used for the case that the parameter of width is not
available in the database.
4.4.1.1 Displacement per event (MD) Vs. Magnitude (M)
Figure 4.13: Displacement per event Vs. Magnitude relationship for each type of faults‟ kinematics
(Wells & Coppersmith, 1994).
65
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
4.4.1.2 Maximum displacement (MD) Vs. Rupture length (SRL)
Figure 4.14: Displacement per event Vs. Rupture length relationship for each type of faults‟
kinematics (Wells & Coppersmith, 1994).
4.4.1.3 Rupture width (RW) Vs. Magnitude (M)
Figure 4.15: Rupture width Vs. Magnitude relationship for each type of faults‟ kinematics (Wells &
Coppersmith, 1994).
4.4.2 Pavlides & Caputo (2004)
Magnitude (Ms) vs maximum vertical displacement (MVD) and surface rupture length
empirical equations are proposed for the Aegean region by Pavlides & Caputo (2004). The
equation used for the purposes of this master thesis is the following magnitude versus
maximum vertical displacement relationship:
(
(
)
(
)
⇒
)
(
)
4.5 Estimation of the slip rate – Approaches
The active faults‟ slip rate is one of the most crucial features of seismic hazard analysis.
Except from the literature data, a new database is made in order to present a more
comprehensive distribution for the decrease of parameter uncertainty. The equation that
defines the annual slip rate is associated with the total displacement and the age of each fault
(L. Danciu personal communication):
(
)
66
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Different approaches have been made for the estimation of the parameter of total
displacement. The stratigraphic age of faults was taken from Kokkalas et al. (2006); Marnelis
et al. (2007); Papanikolaou et al. (2007); Pechlivanidis (2012).
4.5.1 Approach 1 – Historical seismicity
Historical seismicity method is based on data related to historical earthquakes, for which
earthquake magnitude can be estimated. The magnitudes of historical earthquakes can be
correlated with empirical relationships. Therefore, many conclusions can be extracted with
respect to active faults which cause large earthquakes. However, it is widely known that in
some regions the historical data are usually incomplete, so the accuracy of this method is
sometimes limited (Koukouvelas et al., 2010).
This approach is based on the assumption that the total displacement of a fault derives
from the sum of the displacements caused by seismic events that occurred near it. This
contains a degree of uncertainty, because in some areas the correlation between past seismic
activity and known fault structures is impossible (Cornell, 1968). Concerning the seismic
events, the Seismicity Catalog (550 B.C-2010 A.D) (Papazachos et al., 2000; Papazachos et
al., 2010) for magnitude greater than 4.5R is used in order to possess a complete data.
Figure 4.16: Historical seismicity of Greece - application in GIS.
In the next step, a buffer zone of 5km around each fault is made in order to link
seismic events most probably related to the fault with fault‟s displacement. The following
illustration (Fig. 4.17) springs from the GIS software. All the events that fall within the buffer
zone are consider to belong to different ruptures of the fault, their magnitude is used as an
67
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
input to scaling laws and a displacement value is calculated. The sum of the calculated
displacements is used together with the age of the fault and eq. 4.2 for the computation of slip
rate.
Figure 4.17: Buffer zone of the Argostoli fault, Kefallonia - application in GIS.
4.5.2 Approach 2 – Length of faults
There are many studies and reports relative to the relationship between maximum
displacement and fault length, for the comprehension of fault geometry over many length
scales (Kim & Sanderson, 2005). In this thesis, the following relationship is used (Fig. 4.13)
(Wells & Coppersmith, 1994):
(
)
(
) (
)
where:
: the maximum displacement (km),
: surface rupture length (km),
coefficients.
Specifically, the maximum displacement is estimated by knowing the total length of
each fault. This can be applied with the premise that the entire length of the fault ruptures
during the occurrence of a seismic event, although observations have shown the opposite
(Petersen et al., 2011). This can lead to the overestimation of seismic hazard. Then, by
knowing the total displacement and the stratigraphic age of a fault, the slip rate can be
estimated through the basic equation (4.2).
68
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
4.6 Estimation of minimum & maximum fault depth
For active faults that the values of minimum and maximum seismogenic depth are not
available (i.e. IG-NOA database), some assumptions are made. Then, the maximum depth
value is taken from the depth of Mohorovic (Moho) discontinuity (the boundary between
Earth‟s crust and upper mantle) for each fault. The range of Moho depth in Greece is
presented in the following map:
Figure 4.18: Map of Moho depths in the Greek territory (Tsokas & Hansen, 1997; modified from
Somieski, 2008).
4.7 Fault characterization
4.7.1 Slip rate evaluation
Slip rate is the most crucial parameter of the present investigation. Uncertainties exist, so a
slip rate distribution was made and each fault contained 9 slip rate estimates. As defined by
Eq. 4.2, it derives from the ratio between total displacement and stratigraphic age of fault. For
the estimation of total displacement, two approaches were considered, historical seismicity
(see §4.5.1) and length of faults (see §4.5.2). Two empirical relations were used for this
69
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
occasion: displacement per event vs magnitude of Wells & Coppersmith (1994) and of
Pavlides & Caputo (2004). The second approach used the surface rupture length vs
displacement empirical relation of Wells & Coppersmith (1994) with the premise that the
entire fault length ruptures during an earthquake (worst case scenario). Thus, for each fault
three values of total displacement were estimated.
The stratigraphic age of faults was derived from the database or from the available
literature. For the reason that uncertainties exist, an average, an upper, and a lower value were
assumed. Each of three values of total displacement was divided with three estimates of
stratigraphic age. Therefore, for each fault 9 slip rate values were resulted.
4.7.2 Conversion of slip rates into seismic activity
According to the methodology of Bungum (2007), fault seismicity derived from slip rates can
be estimated using programs. The initial step of this methodology is the application of the
following two relationships: the cumulative occurrence relationship of Chinnery & North
(1975) (Eq. 4.4) and the total moment release rate equation of Brune (1968) (Eq. 4.5).
(
( )
)
(
)
(
)
where:
N: the number of earthquakes equal to or above magnitude M,
a: the absolute level of activity,
b: the ratio between smaller and larger earthquakes,
M, Mmax: earthquake magnitudes
H: the Heaviside step function.
(
)
where:
: the total moment release rate,
μ: the rigidity,
S: the slip rate,
A: the rupture area.
Combining the above Eqs. (4.4)-(4.5), the relationship of Anderson & Luco (1983)
that determines the number of events N for magnitudes 4-5 R is presented below:
( )
(
̅
̅
̅
)( )
̅(
)
(( ̅
)
)
(
)
70
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
where:
̅
̅
( (
)),
( (
)),
( )) (
√
),
,
( ): seismic moment for Ms=0,
d: the magnitude scaling coefficient.
4.7.3 Magnitude-Frequency Distribution (MFD)
Defined by Crowley et al. (2013), MFD consists of a function describing the rate of
earthquakes per year, across all magnitudes (see §2.5). The double truncated GutenbergRichter distribution is frequently used in PSHAs (Crowley et al., 2013).
Figure 4.19: The double truncated Gutenberg-Richter MFD (Crowley et al., 2013).
As described in the previous paragraph, 9 slip rate estimates were calculated for each fault
following two approaches. For each slip rate, the cumulative a value was estimated for
magnitudes from 0-6.5, as can be seen from the following Figure 4.20:
71
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.20: Cumulative a value vs vMagnitude chart.
The consideration of two approaches provided a wide range of cumulative a-values forming a
zone. Therefore, all distributions were taken into account in the evaluation considering
uncertainties.
4.8 Model implementation
The application of logic trees is an appropriate method of modeling uncertainty. Logic tree
approach allows alternative models assigning in each of them a weighting factor that
represents the probability of that model being correct (Kramer, 1996). In this thesis, two logic
tree approaches are made.
The initial run of the code was done using the nine source models and equal weights to
each one of them (Fig. 4.21). The second run of the code included the b value uncertainty in
the logic tree. The following logic tree of Figure 4.22 contains nine source models and
additionally the b value uncertainty presented in three values (0.9, 1.0, 1.1) with equal
weights to each of them.
72
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 4.21: Logic Tree without b value uncertainty.
Figure 4.22: Logic Tree including b value uncertainty for each source file.
73
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY
4.9 Configuration
After the generation of XML files (source model, logic trees, GMPE logic tree), the
compilation of the configuration file (.ini) follows.
The configuration file controls the input model definition and the parameters used in
the calculation. First of all, the structure and basic parameters for seismic hazard are
described. The next steps contain the specification of the area (i.e. polygon, distance, grid
points, etc.) where hazard will be computed, the logic tree processing, the specification of the
discretization level of the mesh that represents faults and the definition of local soil conditions
(Crowley et al., 2011).
Nine XML files are the seismic sources model of this implementation. The XML file
of logic tree models the epistemic uncertainty related to seismic sources model and b-value
(see
). The GMPE logic tree (Fig. 4.23) is an XML file that includes the following
approaches considered for active shallow crust:

Akkar & Bommer (2010),

Cauzzi & Faccioli (2008),

Chiou & Young (2008),

Zhao et al. (2006).
Figure 4.23: GMPE Logic Tree.
74
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
5.1 Model A: mean b-value (no-uncertainty)
5.1.1 Hazard maps of Corinth Gulf
After the first OpenQuake execution, the hazard maps were generated for PGA values, for
Spectral Acceleration (SA) of 0.1 sec (referred to a three or four-storey building) and SA of
1.0 sec (referred to a multi-storey structure). Considering the probabilities of exceedance, the
values that are used in this survey are the mean values, for 10% probability of exceedance
(POE) in 50 years (return period of 475 years) and 2% POE in 50 years (return period of 2500
years).

PGA – Return period of 475 years
Figure 5.1: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 10% POE in 50 years.

PGA – Return period of 2500 years
Figure 5.2: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 2% POE in 50 years.
75
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS

SA 0.1 sec – Return period of 475 years
Figure 5.3: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 10% POE in 50 years.

SA 0.1 sec – Return period of 2500 years
Figure 5.4: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 2% POE in 50 years.

SA 1.0 sec – Return period of 475 years
Figure 5.5: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 10% POE in 50 years.
76
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS

SA 1.0 sec – Return period of 2500 years
Figure 5.6: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 2% POE in 50 years.
5.1.2 Hazard curves of Patras
Additionally to hazard map calculation, hazard curves for Patras, Aigion and Korinthos were
calculated for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years and. According to Krinitzsky et al.
(1990), different percentiles reflect the range of uncertainty given by the expert in various
seismic-source characteristics.
Figure 5.7: Hazard curves of Patras for PGA, 10% POE in 50 years.
77
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.8: Hazard curves of Patras for SA 0.1 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
Figure 5.9: Hazard curves of Patras for SA 1.0 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
5.1.3 Hazard curves of Aigion
Figure 5.10: Hazard curves of Aigion for PGA, 10% POE in 50 years.
78
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.11: Hazard curves of Aigion for SA 0.1 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
Figure 5.12: Hazard curves of Aigion for SA 1.0 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
5.1.4 Hazard curves of Korinthos
Figure 5.13: Hazard curves of Korinthos for PGA, 10% POE in 50 years.
79
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.14: Hazard curves of Korinthos for SA 0.1 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
Figure 5.15: Hazard curves of Korinthos for SA 1.0 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
5.1.5 Uniform hazard spectra
Finally, uniform hazard spectra were calculated for 10% POE and for the same cities.

Patras
Figure 5.16: Uniform hazard spectra for Patras, 10% POE in 50 years.
80
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS

Aigion
Figure 5.17: Uniform hazard spectra for Aigion, 10% POE in 50 years.

Korinthos
Figure 5.18: Uniform hazard spectra for Korinthos, 10% POE in 50 years.
81
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
5.2 Model B: including b-value uncertainty
The second OpenQuake execution contains hazard maps generated for PGA values, for
Spectral Acceleration (SA) of 0.1 sec (referred to a three or four-storey building) and SA of
1.0 sec (referred to a multi-storey structure). Considering the probabilities of exceedance, the
values that are used in this survey are the mean values, 10% POE in 50 years (return period of
475 years) and 2% POE in 50 years (return period of 2500 years).
5.2.1 Hazard maps of Corinth Gulf

PGA – Return period of 475 years
Figure 5.19: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 10% POE in 50 years.

PGA – Return period of 2500 years
Figure 5.20: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 2% POE in 50 years.
82
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS

SA 0.1 sec – Return period of 475 years
Figure 5.21: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 10% POE in 50 years.

SA 0.1 sec – Return period of 2500 years
Figure 5.22: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 2% POE in 50 years.

SA 1.0 sec – Return period of 475 years
Figure 5.23: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 10% POE in 50 years.
83
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS

SA 1.0 sec – Return period of 2500 years
Figure 5.24: Hazard map of Corinth Gulf, 2% POE in 50 years.
5.2.2 Hazard curves of Patras
Hazard curves for Patras, Aigion and Korinthos were calculated for 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years and different percentiles.
Figure 5.25: Hazard curves of Patras for PGA, 10% POE in 50 years.
Figure 5.26: Hazard curves of Patras for SA 0.1 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
84
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.27: Hazard curves of Patras for SA 1.0 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
5.2.3 Hazard curves of Aigion
Figure 5.28: Hazard curves of Aigion for PGA, 10% POE in 50 years.
Figure 5.29: Hazard curves of Aigion for SA 0.1 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
85
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.30: Hazard curves of Aigion for SA 1.0 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
5.2.4 Hazard curves of Korinthos
Figure 5.31: Hazard curves of Korinthos for PGA, 10% POE in 50 years.
Figure 5.32: Hazard curves of Korinthos for SA 0.1 sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
86
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.33: Hazard curves of Korinthos for SA 1.0sec, 10% POE in 50 years.
5.2.5 Uniform Hazard Spectra
Uniform hazard spectra were calculated for the same towns. These results are comparable to
elastic design spectra of the Greek Seismic Code.

Patras
Figure 5.34: Uniform hazard spectra for Patras, 10% POE in 50 years.

Aigion
Figure 5.35: Uniform hazard spectra for Aigion, 10% POE in 50 years.
87
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS

Korinthos
Figure 5.36: Uniform hazard spectra for Korinthos, 10% POE in 50 years.
5.3 Comparison
In this chapter we examine the differences between the hazard calculations performed in this
thesis and between the published results for the region of Corinth Gulf, Greece. The first
hazard calculation procedure in this thesis didn‟t include the b value uncertainty (Run #1), in
contrast with the second hazard calculation (Run #2) during which the b-value was varied by
0.1.
5.3.1 Difference between 10% probability of exceedance for mean PGA values between
Run #1 and Run #2
Subtracting the acceleration values of both hazard calculations, the difference between Run #1
and Run #2 does not exceed the range ±0.1g. As it can be seen from the following maps, the b
value uncertainty increased slightly the resulting hazard values.
Figure 5.37: Difference map between Run #1 and Run #2 (Run#1 – Run#2) for mean PGA values,
return period of 475 years.
88
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
5.3.2 Difference between 2% probability of exceedance for mean PGA values between
Run #1 and Run #2
Figure 5.38: Difference map between Run #1 and Run #2 (Run#1 – Run#2) for mean PGA values,
return period of 2500 years.
Finally, the conclusion that is made shows that the variability of b-value is not
significant when the return period is increased. The same applies to the other hazard
calculations.
5.4 Comparisons with the Greek Seismic Code
The first comparison is made between the New Hazard Map of Greece and the hazard results
of Run #2, which is considered as the “worst case scenario”.
Figure 5.39: Hazard maps for the comparison of PGA values. 10% probability of exceedance for the
next 50 years (return period of 475 years).
89
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Although a direct comparison of the results is not easy (the hazard map of Greece is the
result of a zonation thus cannot be compared with discrete values. Anyway, it can be observed
that our results gave higher values than the corresponding 0.24g of Greek Seismic Code. Our
highest values range between 0.5g and 0.6g. The Greek Seismic Code is considering the
seismicity while here we considered individual faults.
The uniform hazard spectra (UHS) of our results (Run #2) and of the Greek Seismic
Code for Soil Class A (bedrock) were also compared. The uniform hazard spectrum of the
Greek Seismic Code was adjusted to our study area, so the acceleration has the value 0.24g
because it belongs to Seismic Hazard Zone II and the parameter γ (Importance Factor) has the
value 1.00 because the research is referred to ordinary residential and office buildings,
industrial buildings, hotels, etc.
Figure 5.40: Comparison between Patras UHS & Greek Seismic Code. 10% probability of
exceedance for the next 50 years.
Figure 5.41: Comparison between Aigion UHS & Greek Seismic Code. 10% probability of
exceedance for the next 50 years.
90
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.42: Comparison between Korinthos UHS & Greek Seismic Code. 10% probability of
exceedance for the next 50 years.
The comparison between the second hazard calculation and the Greek Seismic Code
leads us to the same conclusions. Mean UHS of Korinthos is below the standards of Greek
Seismic Code and mean UHS for the cities of Patras and Aigion are upper the regulations.
Thus, it is proposed that the Greek Seismic Code requires a new approach and methodology
in order to be more precise principally for regions that present high levels of seismicity, such
as the Corinth Gulf.
5.5 Comparisons with previous studies
The aim of this subchapter is to compare our estimates with some previous studies. The
results are checked in order to validate the approach that we have made.

SHARE
Figure 5.43: Hazard maps for the comparison of PGA values. 10% probability of exceedance (return
period of 475 years).
91
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
This project is a strong argument considering the checking of our results, because it
consists of a combination of area sources model, seismotectonic characteristics, historical
seismicity, fault sources and strain deformation rates. Comparing the values of PGA
distribution for our survey and for SHARE project, it can be noticed that our estimates (0.35g0.55g approximately) agree with the corresponding approach of SHARE (0.40g-0.45g
approximately) for a return period of 475 years.

Tselentis & Danciu (2010)
Figure 5.44: Hazard maps for the comparison of PGA values. 10% probability of exceedance (return
period of 475 years).
Tselentis & Danciu (2010) examined seismic hazard maps of Greece and of the
surrounding regions including some significant engineering parameters (PGA, PGV, Arias
intensity, cumulative absolute velocity). Considering the mean PGA estimates (0.4g-0.6g
approximately) for Corinth Gulf of the above presented seismic hazard map, there is a very
good correlation with our results (0.35g-0.55g approximately) for the same region.

Segkou (2010)
The seismic hazard estimation for the Greek territory was carried out following some various
approaches relative to seismological, geological and geophysical observations. The linear
source model, the random seismicity model of shallow earthquakes and a seismic source
model of intermediate depth was applied for this implementation.
92
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Figure 5.45: Hazard maps for the comparison of PGA values. 10% probability of exceedance (return
period of 475 years).
For the reason that Segkou (2010) took into account both an approach that includes
source models and historical seismicity, it can be observed that our results distribution (0.35g0.55g approximately) agrees in significant degree with these depicted in Figure 5.16 (0.30g0.45g approximately).

Vamvakaris (2010)
The estimation of maximum PGA values was made using attenuation relationships adjusted in
each type of hypocentric depth (low, intermediate, high).
Figure 5.46: Hazard maps for the comparison of PGA values. 10% probability of exceedance (return
period of 475 years).
93
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
Comparing the hazard maps for a return period of 475 years it can be implied that the
correlation of PGA distributions are quite good. The estimates of Vamvakaris (2010) range
between 0.30g and 0.50g, while our results range between 0.35g and 0.55g.
94
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary

The dissertation examined the seismic hazard assessment for a seismic prone region, Corinth
Gulf (north Peloponnese, Greece), considering the active faults that surround this area. Two
fault databases were used, GreDaSS‟s and Institute of Geodynamics‟.

Three source categories were defined, according to the level of data completeness. The first
category included faults with adequate level of data (i.e. slip rate, dip, rake, etc.), the
corresponding second category included intermediate amount of information (i.e. maximum
magnitude, length) and the third category contained faults with poor level of data (i.e. length).

The unknown values of critical parameters (i.e. displacement, maximum magnitude, length,)
in the attributes table were estimated by the application of empirical laws.

Nine different slip values per fault were calculated. A distribution of slip rates was made
dividing the total displacement with the stratigraphic age of each fault after the assumption of
two approaches, historical seismicity and fault length.

Slip values were converted to seismic activity compiling some Matlab scripts (see Appendix).

The hazard calculation of OpenQuake Engine was divided in two parts. The first part included
the logic tree that contained the seismic sources model without the b value uncertainty. On the
contrary, the second part considered the b value uncertainty in the calculation. Thus, a
comparison of them was made.

We used OpenQuake in order to compute hazard maps-hazard curves and uniform hazard
spectra for PGA, SA (0.1sec & 1.0sec) and uniform hazard spectra for bedrock soil
conditions. All of them are referred to return periods of 475 & 2500 years and compared with
previous research.

The GMPE‟s used in this study were the Akkar & Bommer (2010), Cauzzi & Faccioli (2008),
Chiou & Young (2008) and Zhao et al. (2006) considered for the active shallow crust of
Greece.
95
CHAPTER 6 – SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS
6.2 Results
The scope of this thesis was the estimation of seismic hazard of Corinth Gulf considering
active faults for bedrock soil conditions. The OpenQuake engine, developed by GEM, was
used for this purpose. It is a software that uses an innovative methodology for hazard
calculation. The execution is performed using a configuration file and XML files (seismic
sources model, logic tree, GMPE model). The epistemic uncertainty (i.e. slip rate, b-value)
can also be modeled.

The comparison of two hazard calculations drew the conclusion that b-value uncertainty did
not reflect our estimates. The differences between Run #1 and Run #2 were smoothed when
the return period was increased.

The fault database needs more enhancement because there was a lack of information
considering the slip rate estimates.

Previous implementations considering seismic hazard assessment for PGA and return period
of 475 years were compared with our study and showed that our results are correlated
significantly with their corresponding estimates.

The Greek Seismic Code needs a better and more detailed approach in order to be more
precise, especially for seismic prone areas. The comparison of our uniform hazard spectra
with the corresponding of Greek Seismic Code for the cities of Patras, Aigion and Korinthos
showed that the hazard suggested by the Greek Seismic Code could be underestimated.
96
APPENDIX
PROGRAMMING
Openquake operates by using the NRML format, which is an alternative version of XML data
schema. In order to create these files, some Matlab scripts and functions were compiled for
the purposes of XML-file construction (source model, logic tree) and the conversion of slip
rates to seismic activity, a necessary parameter for SHA. All of them are extensively
presented in the Appendix.
The aim of basic Matlab script is to introduce some fundamental parameters deduced
from the ArcGIS Shape Files (.shp), give specific values to significant parameters (slip rate,
aspect ratio) and create the appropriate XML files needed for the structure of the basic source
model of Openquake. The purpose of this action is to produce several XML files that contain
all faults for nine different slip rates. These nine slip rate values were derived from the
application of :

Displacement vs magnitude relationships of Wells & Coppersmith (1994) and
Pavlides & Caputo (2004) in the historical seismicity approach.

Displacement vs length scaling law of Wells & Coppersmith (1994) in the
length of fault approach.

Three estimates of fault age (minimum, medium and maximum stratigraphic
age)
Thus nine values of slip rate were calculated per fault i.e. three scaling laws and three
fault ages. In addition, this script uses some features from the attributes table of active faults‟
shape files, such as the name, coordinates, dip and rake, which are parameters included in the
XML files. Then, the seismic activity rate is estimated by using the methodology proposed by
Bungum (2007).
97
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
THE BASIC MATLAB SCRIPT
*Original code was provided by Dr. Laurentiu Danciu
function ok = write_simple_fault(filename_shp)
%% Load fault source
rShape=shaperead(filename_shp);
names = fieldnames(rShape)
for j=1:9
% loop over slip rates
for i=1:length(rShape)
% loop over faults
%Fields of the attributes table of each .shp file
code{i}=rShape(i).CODE;
name{i}=rShape(i).NAME;
longitude{i}=rShape(i).X;
latitude{i}=rShape(i).Y;
dip(i)=rShape(i).DIPP;
upper_depth(i)=rShape(i).MINDEPTH;
lower_depth(i)=rShape(i).MAXDEPTH;
rake(i)=rShape(i).RAKE;
maxmag(i)=rShape(i).MAXMAG;
fault_length=rShape(i).LENGTH;
%
20))
%
%
%
%
%aspect ratio_GreeDass_database
if ((rake(i)==170) || (rake(i)==173) || (rake(i)==aspect_ratio(i)=4;
else
aspect_ratio(i)=1;
end
%aspect ratio_Geodynamic_Institute_database
if (rake(i)==180)
aspect_ratio(i)=4;
else
aspect_ratio(i)=1;
end
% prepare the name of the slip rate definition (1-9)
slip_R = ['rShape(i,1).SLIPRT' num2str(j)];
slipRate = eval(slip_R)*0.1; % convert to cm/year
98
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
% case slip = 0
if slipRate==0
slipRate =0.0001;
end
% get a_value
a_cum_value_max(i)=calc_fsz_activity2(fault_length,upper_depth
(i),lower_depth(i),dip(i),maxmag(i),slipRate);
end
% get values for XML file
filenamexml=['SLIP_RATE_' num2str(j) '.xml'];
ok =
writefxml(code,name,longitude,latitude,dip,upper_depth,lower_d
epth,aspect_ratio,maxmag,a_cum_value_max,rake,filenamexml)
end
end
MATLAB FUNCTION FOR THE COMPUTATION OF
CUMULATIVE A VALUE
*Code provided by Dr. Laurentiu Danciu
function [ a_cum_value_max ] = calc_fsz_activity2(
length,upper_depth,lower_depth,dip,maxmag,slipRate)
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Script to compare total moment of seismicity with moment
determined for fault parameters
Incoming:
fBvalue : b-value
fS
: Slip rate (mm/year)
fD
: Average slip (m)
fLength : Fault length (m)
fWidth : Fault width (m)
fM00
: M0(0) for Ms = 0, c in logM0=c-dM
fMmin
: Minimum magnitude
fBinM
: magnitude binnning
fMmax
: Maximum magnitude
fDmoment : d in logM0=c-dM
fRigid : Rgidity in Pascal
Model 2: Anderson and Luco
Units are in CGS
%% Calculate moment from faults
99
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
% Parameters for Seismic Moment from Faults
% b-value
bVal = 1.00;
% Rgidity in GPascals --> miu =30GPa
% convert to dyne/cm2 (CGS units) --> or (N/m^2) (SI units)
% convert shear modulus from Pa (N/m^2, kg/(m * s^2))
% to dyn/cm^2, 1 dyn = 1 g * cm/s^2 = 10^-5 N
% 1 GPa = 10^9 kg/(m * s^2) = 10^12 g/(m * s^2) = 10^10 g/(cm
*s^2)
% = 10e10 dyn/cm^2
miu = 30 * 1.0e10; % this is dyne/cm^2
% d in logM0=c-dM
dKanamori = 1.5;
% c in logM0=c-dM
cKanamori = 16.05;
% : Fault length (km) -->cm (*1.0e05)
fLength = length * 1.0e05;
% Fault width (km) -->mm
fWidth=(abs(upper_depth-lower_depth))/sind(dip)*1.0e05;
% aspect ratio
%aspectRatio = fLength/fWidth;
% fWidth= 10 * 1.0e05;
% Minimum magnitude
Mmin = 0;
% Maximum magnitude
fMmax=maxmag;
% magnitude binnning
deltMFD = 0.1;
% parameters for Recurrence Model
% bbar value
b_bar = bVal * log(10);
% Magnitude scaling coefficient
d_bar = dKanamori * log(10);
% Fault slip-length ratio
alpha = 1.0e-04;
100
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
% Seismic Moment-Magnitude scaling for Mw=0, units are
dyne/cm^2
momZero = 10^cKanamori;
% beta coeficient Model 2: Anderson and Luco
beta_numerator = alpha * momZero;
beta_denominator = miu * fWidth;
beta = sqrt(beta_numerator/beta_denominator);
% MFD
vMagnitude = Mmin:deltMFD:fMmax;
%% Calculation factors for Recurrence MOdel No 2
fFac1 = (d_bar-b_bar) / d_bar;
fFac2 = slipRate / beta;
fFac3 = exp(b_bar * (fMmax - vMagnitude));
fFac4 = exp(-(d_bar / 2) * fMmax);
%% Bungum Equations 7: Originally by Anderson and Luco, BSSA,
1983
vCumNumber = fFac1 * fFac2 * fFac3 * fFac4;
vMagnitude = Mmin:deltMFD:fMmax;
%% compute aGR-value
% cumulative
a_cum_value_max1 = log10(vCumNumber) + bVal * vMagnitude;
a_cum_value_max=a_cum_value_max1(1,1)
MATLAB FUNCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF XML FILES
*Original code was provided by Dr. Laurentiu Danciu
function ok =
writefxml(code,name,longitude,latitude,dip,upper_depth,lower_d
epth,aspect_ratio,maxmag,a_cum_value_max,rake,filename_xml)
%construction of XML file
docNode=com.mathworks.xml.XMLUtils.createDocument('nrml');
nrml=docNode.getDocumentElement;
nrml.setAttribute('xmlns:gml','http://opengis.net/gml');
nrml.setAttribute('xmlns','http://openquake.org/xmlns/nrml/0.4
');
%write source model
source_model_element=docNode.createElement('sourceModel');
101
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
source_model_element.setAttribute('name','Simple Fault
Model');
nrml.appendChild(source_model_element);
%write simple faults source element
for q=1:numel(name) %use of 'for' loop - type all faults in
one XML file
simple_fault_source_element=docNode.createElement('simpleFault
Source');
simple_fault_source_element.setAttribute('id',num2str(code{q})
); %%%
simple_fault_source_element.setAttribute('name',name{q}); %%%
%tectonic region-Active Shallow Crust
simple_fault_source_element.setAttribute('tectonicRegion','Act
ive Shallow Crust');
source_model_element.appendChild(simple_fault_source_element);
%add simple fault geometry
simpleFaultGeometry_element=docNode.createElement('simpleFault
Geometry');
simple_fault_source_element.appendChild(simpleFaultGeometry_el
ement);
gml_LineString=docNode.createElement('gml:LineString');
simpleFaultGeometry_element.appendChild(gml_LineString);
%add the vertex list of each polyline in clock-or counter
clock wise
gml_posList=docNode.createElement('gml:posList');
gml_LineString.appendChild(gml_posList);
llon=longitude{q}
llat=latitude{q}
for i=1:length(llon)-1
%coordinates of each fault
gml_posList.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode([num2str(llon(i
)) ' ' num2str(llat(i)) ' ']))
end
102
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
%add dip
dip_element=docNode.createElement('dip');
simpleFaultGeometry_element.appendChild(dip_element);
dip_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(num2str(dip(q))
)); %%%
%add upper seismogenic depth element
upperSeismoDepth_element=docNode.createElement('upperSeismoDep
th');
simpleFaultGeometry_element.appendChild(upperSeismoDepth_eleme
nt);
upperSeismoDepth_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(nu
m2str(upper_depth(q)))); %%%
%add lower seismogenic depth element
lowerSeismoDepth_element=docNode.createElement('lowerSeismoDep
th');
simpleFaultGeometry_element.appendChild(lowerSeismoDepth_eleme
nt);
lowerSeismoDepth_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(nu
m2str(lower_depth(q)))); %%%
%add magnitude scaling relationship
magScaleRel_element=docNode.createElement('magScaleRel');
simple_fault_source_element.appendChild(magScaleRel_element);
magScaleRel_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('WC1994
'));
%add rupture aspect ratio
ruptAspectratio_element=docNode.createElement('ruptAspectRatio
');
simple_fault_source_element.appendChild(ruptAspectratio_elemen
t);
ruptAspectratio_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(num
2str(aspect_ratio(q)))); %%%
%%add truncGutenbergRichterMFD_element
truncGutenbergRichterMFD_element =
docNode.createElement('truncGutenbergRichterMFD');
truncGutenbergRichterMFD_element.setAttribute('aValue',
num2str(a_cum_value_max(q)));
truncGutenbergRichterMFD_element.setAttribute('bValue',
num2str(1.0));
truncGutenbergRichterMFD_element.setAttribute('maxMag',
num2str(maxmag(q))); %%%
103
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
truncGutenbergRichterMFD_element.setAttribute('minMag',
num2str(4.5));
simple_fault_source_element.appendChild(truncGutenbergRichterM
FD_element);
%add rake
rake_element=docNode.createElement('rake');
simple_fault_source_element.appendChild(rake_element);
rake_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(num2str(rake(q
))));
end
xmlwrite(filename_xml,docNode);
ok=1;
MATLAB FUNCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOGIC TREE
XML FILE
*Original code was provided by Dr. Laurentiu Danciu
function [kk]=logic_tree(filename_xml)
%construction of logic tree XML file
docNode=com.mathworks.xml.XMLUtils.createDocument('nrml');
nrml=docNode.getDocumentElement;
nrml.setAttribute('xmlns:gml','http://opengis.net/gml');
nrml.setAttribute('xmlns','http://openquake.org/xmlns/nrml/0.4
');
logic_tree_element=docNode.createElement('logicTree');
logic_tree_element.setAttribute('logicTreeID','lt1');
nrml.appendChild(logic_tree_element);
%1st branching level for the source models
logic_tree_branching_level_element=docNode.createElement('logi
cTreeBranchingLevel');
logic_tree_branching_level_element.setAttribute('branchingLeve
lID','bl1');
logic_tree_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branching_level_elem
ent);
104
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
logic_tree_branch_set_element=docNode.createElement('logicTree
BranchSet');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.setAttribute('uncertaintyType','
sourceModel');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.setAttribute('branchSetID','bs1'
);
logic_tree_branching_level_element.appendChild(logic_tree_bran
ch_set_element);
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b1');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_1a.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b2');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_2b.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b3');
105
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_3c.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b4');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_4d.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b5');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_5e.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
106
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.112)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b6');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_6f.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b7');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_7g.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b8');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
107
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_8h.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b9');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode('
SLIP_RATE_9i.xml'));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.111)));
%2nd branching level for b_value
logic_tree_branching_level_element=docNode.createElement('logi
cTreeBranchingLevel');
logic_tree_branching_level_element.setAttribute('branchingLeve
lID','bl2');
logic_tree_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branching_level_elem
ent);
logic_tree_branch_set_element=docNode.createElement('logicTree
BranchSet');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.setAttribute('uncertaintyType','
bGRRelative');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.setAttribute('branchSetID','bs21
');
logic_tree_branching_level_element.appendChild(logic_tree_bran
ch_set_element);
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b211');
108
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(n
um2str(0.9)));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.333)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b212');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(n
um2str(1.0)));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.334)));
logic_tree_branch_element=docNode.createElement('logicTreeBran
ch');
logic_tree_branch_element.setAttribute('branchID','b213');
logic_tree_branch_set_element.appendChild(logic_tree_branch_el
ement);
uncertainty_model_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyMo
del');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_model_elemen
t);
uncertainty_model_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(n
um2str(1.1)));
uncertainty_weight_element=docNode.createElement('uncertaintyW
eight');
logic_tree_branch_element.appendChild(uncertainty_weight_eleme
nt);
109
APPENDIX – PROGRAMMING
uncertainty_weight_element.appendChild(docNode.createTextNode(
num2str(0.333)));
%type the logic tree XML file
xmlwrite(filename_xml,docNode);
type(filename_xml);
end
110
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A. (2006). Notes on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis - an overview. Rose
School, Pavia, Italy.
Abrahamson, N.A., Bommer, J.J. (2005). Opinion paper: probability and uncertainty in
seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake spectra, Vol. 21, no.2, pp. 1-5.
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W. (2008). Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground
motion relations. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1):67-97.
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J. (1997). Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for
shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, no.1.
Abrahamson, N.A., Somerville, P.G. (1996). Effects of the hanging wall and footwall on
ground motion recorded during Northridge earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 86, pp. S93-S99.
Agalos, A., Papadimitriou, P., Makropoulos, K. (2007). Source parameters estimation from
broadband regional seismograms for earthquakes in the Aegean region and the Gorda
plate. Bulletin of Geological Society, 40, 1032-1044, Greece.
Aiping, T., Xiaxin, T. (2013). Logic trees for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in low
seismological hazard zone. The 3rd Annual Trilateral of the Strategic Chinese-KoreanJapanese Cooperative Program: Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Next Generation
Map, June 16-19, 2013, Sendai, Japan.
Aki, K. (1966). Generation and propagation of G-waves from Niigara earthquake of June 16,
1964. Estimation of earthquake movement, released energy and stress-strain drop from
G spectrum. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, 44, 23-88.
Aki, K. (1979). Characterization of barriers on an earthquake fault. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 84, issn: 0148-0227.
Aki, K., Richards, P.G. (2002). Quantitative seismology. University Science Books, Sausalito,
California.
111
REFERENCES
Allen, T., Wald, D. (2010). Prediction of macroseismic intensities for global active crustal
earthquakes. Journal of Seismology.
Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary
study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 947.
Ambraseys, N.N. (2001). Reassessment of earthquakes, 1900-1999, in the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Middle East. Geophysical Journal International, 145, 471-485.
Ambraseys, N.W., Jackson, J.A. (1990). Seismicity and associated strain of central Greece
between 1890 and 1988. Geophysical Journal International, 101, 663-708.
Anastasakis, G., Piper, D.J.W., Tziavos, C. (2007). Sedimentological response to
netotectonics and sea-level change in a delta-fed, complex graben: gulf of Amvrakikos,
western Greece. Marine Geology, 236, 27-44.
Anderson, H., Jackson, J. (1987). Active tectonics of the Adriatic region. Geophysical Journal
of the Royal Astronomical Society, 91, 937-983.
Anderson, J.G., Luco, J.E. (1983). Consequences of slip rate constants on earthquake
occurrence relations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73, 471-496.
Angelier, J. (1978). Tectonic evolution of the Hellenic arc since the late Miocene.
Tectonophysics, 49, 23-36.
Angelier, J., Lyberis, N., Le Pichon, X., Barrier, E., Huchon, P. (1982). The tectonic
development of the Hellenic arc and the sea of Crete: a synthesis. Tectonophysics, 86,
159-196.
Atkinson, G.A., Boore, D.M. (2006). Earthquake ground motion prediction equations for
eastern north America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(6):21812205.
Atkinson, G.M., Boore, D.M. (1997). Earthquake ground motion prediction equations for
eastern north America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93, no.1,
pp. 314-331.
Baker, C., Hatzfeld, D., Lyon-Caen, H., Papadimitriou, E., Rigo, A. (1997). Earthquake
mechanisms of the Adriatic sea and western Greece. Geophysical Journal International,
131, 559-594.
Baker, J. (2008). An introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). Vol. 1.3.
Basili, R., Kastelic, V., Valensise, G., and DISS Working Group 2009 (2009). DISS3 tutorial
series: guidelines for compiling records of the database of individual seismogenic
sources, version 3. INGV, Rapporti Technici, 108, 16pp.
112
REFERENCES
Bazzuro, P., Cornell, A.C. (1999). Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bulleting of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 89, no.2, pp. 501-520.
Bell, R.E., McNeill, L.C., Bull, J.M., Henstock, T.J., Collier, R.E.L., Leeder, M.R. (2009).
Fault architecture, basin structure & evolution of the Gulf of Corinth Rift, central
Greece. Basin Research, 21, 824-855.
Bender, B., Perkins, D.M. (1982). SEISRISK II: a computer program for seismic hazard
estimation. Open-file report 82-293, United States, Department of the Interiors,
Geological Survey.
Bender, B., Perkins, D.M. (1987). SEISRISK III: a computer program for seismic hazard
estimation. Bulletin 1772, United States, Geological Survey.
Benedetti, L., Finkel, R., Papanastassiou, D., King, G., Armijo, R. (2002). Post-glacial slip
history of the Sparta fault (Greece) determined by 36Cl cosmogenic dating. Evidence
for non-periodic earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letter, 29(8), 87(1-4).
Benetatos, C., Dreger, D., Kiratzi, A. (2007). Complex and segmented rupture associated with
the 14 August Mw 6.2 Lefkada, Ionian islands, earthquake. Bulletin of Seismological
Society of America, 97(1B), 35-51.
Benetatos, C., Kiratzi, A., Roumelioti, Z., Stavrakakis, G., Drakatos, G., Latoussakis, I.
(2005). The 14 August 2003 Lefkada island (Greece) earthquake: focal mechanisms of
the mainshock and of the aftershock sequence. Journal of Seismology, 9, 171-190.
Beresnev, I.A. (2002). Source parameters observable from the corner frequency of earthquake
spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, no.5, pp. 2047-2048.
Billion, P. (2007). Earthquake slip-length scaling: new insights from an expanded data base.
Master thesis. LGIT, Grenoble.
Boccaletti, M., Caputo, R., Mountrakis, D., Pavlides, S., Zouros, N. (1997). Paleoseismicity
of the Souli fault, Epirus, western Greece. Journal of Geodynamics, 24, 1-4, 117-127.
Bolt, B.A. (1969). Duration of strong motion. Proceedings of the 4 th Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1304-1315. Santiago, Chile.
Bommer, J., Scherbaum, F. (2008). The use and misuse of logic trees in probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra: November 2008, Vol.24, no.4, pp.997-1009.
Boore, D.M. (2003). Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure &
Applied Geophysics, Vol. 160, pp. 635-676.
Boore, D.M., Atkinson, G.M. (2008). Ground-motion prediction equations for the average
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between
0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1):99-138.
113
REFERENCES
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., Fumal, T.E. (1997). Equations for estimating horizontal response
spectra and peak acceleration from western north American earthquakes: a summary of
recent work. Seismological Research Letters, 68(1):128-153.
Brooks, M., Clews, J.E., Melis, N.S., Underhill, J.R. (1988). Structural development of
neogene basins in western Greece. Basin Research, 1, 129-138.
Brooks, M., Ferentinos, G. (1984). Tectonins and sedimentation in the Gulf of Corinth and the
Zakynthos and Kefallinia channels, western Greece. Tectonophysics, 101, 25-54.
Brune, J.N. (1968). Seismic moment, seismicity, and rate of slip along major fault zones.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 73, 777-784.
Bungum, H. (2007). Numerical modeling of fault activities. Computer & Geosciences, 33,
808-820.
Burton, P.W., Melis, N.S., Brooks, M. (1995). Coseismic crustal deformation on a fault zone
defined by microseismicity in the Pavliani area, central Greece. Geophysical Journal
International, 123, 16-40.
Campbell, K.W. (1997). Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and
vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and pseudoabsolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological Research Letters, 68(1):154-179.
Campbell, K.W., Bozorgnia, Y. (2003). Updated near-source ground motion (attenuation)
relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and
acceleration response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.
93, no.1, pp. 314-331.
Campbell, K.W., Bozorgnia, Y. (2008). NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake
Spectra, 24(1):139-171.
Caputo, R. (1990). Geological and structural study of the recent and active brittle deformation
of the neogene-quaternary basins of Thessaly (central Greece). Scientific Annals, 12,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 252.
Caputo, R. (1995). Inference of a seismic map from geological data: Thessaly (central
Greece) as a case of study. Annals of Geophysics, 38, 1, 1-19.
Caputo, R. (1996). The active Nea Anchialos fault system (central Greece): comparison of
geological, morphotectonic, archaeological and seismological data. Annals of
Geophysics, 39, 3, 557-574.
Caputo, R., Helly, B. (2005). The Holocene activity of the Rodia fault, central Greece. Journal
of Geodynamics, 40, 153-169.
114
REFERENCES
Caputo, R., Pavlides, S. (1991). Neotectonics and structural evolution of Thessaly (central
Greece). Bulletin of Geological Society, XXV, 119-133, Greece.
Caputo, R., Pavlides, S. (1993). Late cainozoic geodynamic evolution of Thessaly and
surroundings (central-northern Greece). Tectonophysics, 223, 339-362.
Caputo, R., Zouros, N. (1993). Examples of Alpide deformation from Epirus: local anomalies
or need to re-evaluate the amount of shortening in the western Hellenides? Bulletin of
Geological Society, XXVIII, 1, 315-326, Greece.
Chiang, W.L., Guidi, G.A., Scoof, C.G., Shah, H.C. (1984). Computer programs for seismic
hazard analysis-a user manual (STASHA). Report 62, The J.A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center.
Chinnery, M.A., North, R.G. (1975). The frequency of very large earthquakes. Science, 190,
1197-1198.
Chiou, B.S.-J., Youngs, R.R. (2008). An NGA model for the average horizontal component of
peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 24:173-215.
Chouliaras, G. (2009). Seismicity anomalies prior to 8 June 2008, Mw=6.4 earthquake in
Western Greece. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9, 327-335.
Chousianitis, K., Agalos, A., Papadimitriou, P., Lagios, E., Makropoulos, K. (2010). Source
parameters of moderate and strong earthquakes in the broader area of Zakynthos island
(W. Greece) from regional and teleseismic digital recordings. Bulletin of Geological
Society, 43(4), 2005-2014, Greece.
Chung-Han, C., Grunthal, G. (2011). Hybrid zoneless probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment: test and first application to Europe and the Mediterranean. NERIES, JRA2,
Deliverable 8.
Collier, R.E.L., Pantosti, D., D‟ Addezio, G., De Martini, D.M., Masana, E., Sakellariou, D.
(1998). Paleoseismicity of the 1981 Corinth earthquake fault: seismic contribution to
extensional strain in central Greece and implications for seismic hazard. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 103, 30, 001-30, 019.
Cornell, C.A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, Vol. 58, pp. 1583-1606.
Cornell, C.A., Winterstein, S. (1988). Temporal and magnitude dependence in earthquake
recurrence models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 78, no.4, pp.
1522-1537.
115
REFERENCES
Crowley, H., Cerisara, A., Jaiswal, K., Keller, N., Luco, N., Pagani, M., Porter, K., Silva, V.,
Wald, D., B., W. (2010a). GEM1 seismic risk report: part 2. GEM Technical Report
2010-5. GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Crowley, H., Colombi, M., Crempien, J., Erduran, E., Lopez, M., Liu, H., Mayfield, M.,
Milanesi, M. (2010b). GEM1 seismic risk report: part 1. GEM Technical Report 20105. GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Crowley, H., Monelli, D., Pagani, M., Silva, V., Weatherill, G. (2011). OpenQuake book. The
GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Crowley, H., Monelli, D., Pagani, M., Silva, V., Weatherill, G. (2013). OpenQuake engine
user instruction manual. GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Cundy, A.B., Kortekaas, S., Dewez, T., Stewart, I.S., Collins, P.E.F., Croudace, I.W.,
Maroukian, H., Papanastassiou, D., Gaki-Papanastassiou, P., Pavlopoulos, K., Dawson,
A. (2000). Coastal wetlands as recorders of earthquake subsidence in the Aegean: a case
study of the 1894 Gulf of Atalanti earthquakes, central Greece. Marine Geology, 170, 326.
Danciu, L., Monelli, D., Pagani, M., Wiemer, S. (2010).GEM1 hazard: review of PSHA
software. GEM Technical Report 2010-2. GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Danciu, L., Sokos, E., Tselentis, G.-A. (2007). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in
terms of engineering parameters in Greece. International Symposium on Seismic Risk
Reduction, 26-27 April 2007, Bucharest, Romanian Academy.
Danciu, L., Tselentis, G.-A. (2007). Engineering ground motion parameters attenuation
relationships for Greece. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97, 1-22.
Dewey, J.F., Sengor, M.C. (1979). Aegean and surrounding regions: complex multiplate and
continuum tectonics in a convergent zone. Bulletin of Geological Society of America,
90, 84-92.
Dologlou, E. (2009). Power law relationship between parameters of earthquakes and
precursory electrical phenomena revisited. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,
9, 17-23.
Doutsos, T., Kokkalas, S. (2001). Stress and deformation patterns in the Aegean region.
Journal of Structural Geology, 23, 455-472.
Drakos, A.G., Stiros, S.C., Kiratzi, A.A. (2001). Fault parameters of the 1980 (Mw 6.5)
Volos, central Greece earthquake from inversion of repeated leveling data. Bulletin of
Seismological Society of America, 91, 6, 1673-1684.
116
REFERENCES
Dziewonski, A.M., Ekstrom, G., Franzen, J.E., Woodhouse, J.H. (1988). Global seismicity of
1980: centroid-moment tensor solutions for 515 earthquakes. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, 50, 127-154.
Dziewonski, A.M., Friedman, A., Woodhouse, J.H. (1983). Centroid-moment tensor solutions
for January-March, 1983. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 33, 71-75.
Dziewonski, A.M.,Ekstrom, G., Maternovskaya, N.N. (1998). Centroid-moment tensor
solutions for October-December, 1997. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors,
109(3-4), 93-105.
EAK (2003). Greek seismic code (in Greek). Earthquake planning & protection organization,
ed. Athens-Greece, pp. 72-77 appendixes.
Ekstrom, G., Dziewonski, A.M., Maternovskaya, N.N., Nettles, M. (2005). Global seismicity
of 2003: centroid-moment-tensor solutions for 1087 earthquakes. Physics of the Earth
and Planetary Interiors, 148, 327-351.
Ekstrom, G., Nettles, M. (1997). Calibration of the HGLP seismograph network and centroidmoment tensor analysis of significant earthquakes of 1976. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, 101(3-4), 219-243.
Ekstrom, G., Nettles, M., Dziewonski, A.M. (2012). The global CMT project 2004-2010:
centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors, 200-201, 1-9.
Ekstron, G., England, P. (1989). Seismic strain rates in regions of distributed continental
deformation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, 10231-10257.
Elias, P., Briole, P., Sykioti, O. (2011). Synergy of SAR acquisitions for ground deformation
monitoring by means of PSI, SBAS and DInSAR. Case study of western rift of Corinth,
Greece. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 13, EGU2011-10938.
Esteva, L. (1977). Microzoning: models and reality. Proceedings of the World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 6th, New Delhi.
Feng, L., Newman, A.V., Farmer, G.T., Psimoulis, P., Stiros, S.C. (2010). Energetic rupture,
coseismic and post-seismic response of the 2008 Mw 6.4 Achaia-Elia earthquake in
northwestern Peloponnese, Greece: an indicator of an immature transform fault zone.
Geophysical Journal International, 183, 103-110.
Field, E.H. (2000). A modified ground-motion attenuation relationship for southern California
that accounts for detailed site classification and a basin-depth effect. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 90(6B):S209-S221.
117
REFERENCES
Field, E.H., Jordan, T.H., Cornell, C.A. (2003). OpenSHA - A developing community
modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis. Seismological Research Letters,
74:406-419.
Flotte, N., Sorel, D., Muller, C., Tensi, J.( 2005). Along strike changes in the structural
evolution over a brittle detachment fault: example of the Pleistocene Corinth-Patras rift
(Greece). Tectonophysics, 403, 77-94.
Fokaefs, A., Papadopoulos, G.A. (2004). Historical earthquakes in the region of Lefkada
island, Ionian sea – estimation of magnitudes from epicentral intensities. Bulletin of
Geological Society, 36, 1389-1395, Greece.
Galanakis, D. (1997). Neotectonic structure and stratigraphy of neogene-quaternary sediments
of the Almyros-Pagasitikos, Pilion, Oreon-Trikeri and Maliakos basins. PhD thesis,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Galanakis, D., Pavlides, S., Mountrakis, D. (1998). Recent brittle tectonic in AlmyrosPagasitikos, Maliakos, N.Euboea and Pilio. Bulletin of Geological Society, 42(1), 263273, Greece.
Gallovic, F., Zahradnik, J., Krizova, D., Plicka, V., Sokos, E., Serpetsidaki, A., Tselentis, G.A. (2009). From earthquake centroid to spatial-temporal rupture evolution: Mw 6.3
Movri mountain earthquake, June 8, 2008, Greece. Geophysical Research Letters, 36,
L21310.
Gambini, R., Tozzi, M. (1996). Tertiary geodynamic evolution of the southern Adria
microplate. Terra Nova, 8(6), 593-602.
Ganas, A., Oikonomou, A.I., Tsimi, Ch. (2013). NOAfaults: a digital database for active
faults in Greece. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, Vol. XLVII. Proceedings
of the 13th International Congress, Chania, Greece.
Ganas, A., Papoulia, I. (2000). High-resolution, digital mapping of the seismic hazard within
the Gulf of Evia rift, central Greece, using normal fault segments as line sources.
Natural Hazards, 22, 203-223.
Ganas, A., Pavlides, S., Karastathis, V. (2005). DEM-based morphometry of range-front
escarpments in Attica, central Greece, and its relation to fault slip rates.
Geomorphology, 65, 301-319.
Ganas, A., Roperts, G.P., Memou, T. (1998). Segment boundaries, the 1894 ruptures and
strain patters along the Atalanti fault, central Greece. Journal of Geodynamics, 26(2-4),
461-486.
118
REFERENCES
Ganas, A., Serpelloni, E., Drakatos, G., Kolligri, M., Adamis, I., Tsimi, C., Batsi, E. (2009).
The Mw 6.4 SW-Achaia (western Greece) Earthquake of 8 June 2008: seismological,
field, GPS observations, and stress modeling. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13,
1101-1124.
Ganas, A., Sokos, E., Agalos, A., Leontakianakos, E., Pavlides, S. (2006). Coulomb stress
triggering of earthquakes along the Atalanti fault, central Greece: two April 1894 M6+
events and stress change patterns. Tectonophysics, 420, 357-369.
Ganas, A., Spina, V., Alexandropoulou, N., Oikonomou, A., Drakatos, G. (2007). The Corini
active fault in southwestern Viotia region, central Greece: segmentation, stress analysis
and extensional strain patterns. Bulletin of Geological Society, 37, Greece.
Gawthorpe, R.L., Hardy, S., Ritchie, B. (2003). Numerical modeling of depositional
sequences in half-graben rift basins. Sedimentology, 50, 168-105.
Gawthorpe, R.L., Hurst, J.M. (1993). Transfer zones in extensional basins: their structural
style and influence on drainage development and stratigraphy. Journal of Geological
Society, 150, 1137-1152, London.
GEM Foundation (2010). GEM1 executive summary. GEM Technical Report 2010-1. GEM
Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Giardini, D., Woessner, J., Danciu, L., Cotton, F., Crowley, H., Grunthal, G., Pinho, R.,
Valensise, G., Akkar, S., Arvidsson, R., Basili, R., Cameelbeck, T., Campos-Costa, A.,
Douglas, J., Demircioglou, M.B., Erdik, M., Fonseca, J., Glavatovic, B., Lindholm, C.,
Makropoulos, K., Meletti, C., Musson, R., Pitilakis, K., Rovida, A., Sesetyan, K.,
Stromeyer, D., Stucchi, M. (2013). Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE):
online data resource, doi:10.12686.
Godinho, J. (2007). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis – an introduction to theoretical bases
and applied methodology. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras,
Greece.
Goldsworth, M., Jackson, J. (2001). Migration of activity within normal fault systems:
examples from the quaternary of mainland Greece. Journal of Structural Geology, 23,
489-506.
Goldsworthy, M., Jackson, J. (2000). Active normal fault evolution in Greece revealed by
geomorphology and drainage patterns. Journal of Geological Society, 157, 967-981,
London.
Goldsworthy, M., Jackson, J., Haines, J. (2009). The continuity of active fault system in
Greece. Geophysical Journal International, 148, 596-618.
119
REFERENCES
Green, R.A., Hall, W.J. (1994). An overview of selected seismic hazard analysis
methodologies. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Grunthal, G. (1999a). GSHAP region 3 working group: seismic hazard assessment for central,
north and northwest Europe: GSHAP region 3. Annali di Geofisica, 42(6), 999-1011.
Grunthal, G., Bosse, C., Sellami, S., Mayer-Rosa, D., Giardini, D. (1996b). Compilation of
the GSHAP regional seismic hazard for Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Annali di
Geofysica, 42(6), 1215-1223.
Gupta, I.D. (2002). The state of the art in seismic hazard analysis. ISET, Journal of
Earthquake Technology, paper no.428, Vol.39, no.4, pp.311-346.
Gutenberg, B., Richter, C.F. (1956). Earthquake magnitude, intensity energy and acceleration.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 46, pp. 105-145.
Hanks, T.C., Kanamori, H. (1979). A moment magnitude scale. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 85(B5), 2348-2350.
Haslinger, F., Kissling, E., Ansorge, J., Hatzfeld, D., Papadimitriou, E., Karakostas, V.,
Makropoulos, K., Kahle, H.-G., Peter, Y. (1999). 3D crustal structure from local
earthquake tomography around the Gulf of Arta (Ionian region, NW Greece).
Tectonophysics, 304, 201-218.
Hatzfeld, D. (1999). The present-day tectonics of the Aegean as deduced from seismicity.
Journal of Geological Society, Special Publications, 156, 415-426, London.
Hatzfeld, D., Karakostas, V., Ziazia, M., Kassaras, I., Papadimitriou, E., Makropoulos, K.,
Voulgaris, N., Papaioannou, C. (2000). Microseismicity and faulting geometry in the
gulf of Corinth (Greece). Geophysical Journal International, 141, 438-456.
Hatzfeld, D., Kassaras, I., Panagiotopoulos, D., Amorese, D., Makropoulos, K., Karakaisis,
G., Coutant, O. (1995). Microseismicity and strain pattern in northwestern Greece.
Tectonics, 14, 773-785.
Hatzfeld, D., Pedotti, G., Hatzidimitriou, P., Makropoulos, K. (1990). The strain pattern in the
western Hellenic arc deduced from a microearthquake survey. Geophysical Journal
International, 101, 181-202.
Hatzfeld, D., Ziazia, M., Kementzetzidou, D., Hatzidimitriou, P., Panagiotopoulos, D.,
Makropoulos, K., Papadimitriou, P., Deschamps. A. (1999). Macroseismicity and focal
mechanisms at the western termination of the north Anatolian fault and their
implications for continental tectonics. Geophysical Journal International, 137, 891-908.
120
REFERENCES
Henry, C., Das, S. (2001). Aftershock zones of large shallow earthquakes: fault dimensions,
aftershock area expansion and scaling relations. Geophysical Journal International, Vol.
147, pp. 272-293.
Hollenstein, C., Muller, M.D., Geigen, A., Kahle, H.-G. (2008). Crustal motion and
deformation in Greece from a decade of GPS measurements, 1993_2003.
Tectonophysics, 449, 17-40.
IFP-IGRS. (1966). Etude geologique de l‟ Epire. Ed. Technip, pp. 36.
IGME (Institute of Geological and Mining Research) (1989). Seismotectonic map of Greece.
IGME, scale 1:500,000, Athens.
Jackson, J. (1999). Fault death: a perspective from actively deforming regions. Journal of
Structural Geology, 21, 1003-1010.
Jackson, J., McKenzie, D. (1983). The geometrical evolution of normal fault systems. Journal
of Structural Geology, 5(5), 471-482.
Jackson, J.A., Gagnepain, J., Houseman, G., King, G.C.P., Papadimitriou, P., Soufleris, C.,
Virieux, J. (1982). Seismicity, normal faulting and the geomorphological development
of the gulf of Corinth (Greece): the Corinth earthquakes of February and March 1981.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 57, 377-397.
Jackson, J.A., King, G., Vitza-Frintzi, C. (1982). The neotectonics of the Aegean: an
alternative view. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 61, 303-318.
Jackson. J., McKenzie, D. (1999). A hectare of fresh striations on the Arkitsa fault, central
Greece. Journal of Structural Geology, 21, 1-6.
Jenkins, D.A.L. (1972). Structural development of western Greece. AAPG Bulletin, v. 56,
p.128-149.
Jimenez, M.-J., Giardini, D., Grunthal, G. (2003). The ESC-SESAME unified hazard model
for the European-Mediterranean region. EMSC/CSEM Newsletter, 19, 2-4.
Jolivet, L. (1993). Extension of thickened continental crust from brittle to ductile
deformation: examples from Alpine Corsica and Aegean sea. Annals of Geophysics,
36(2), 139-153.
Kamberis, E., Ioakim, Ch., Tsaila-Monopolis, St., Tsapralis, V. (1992). Geodynamic and
paleogeographic evolution of western Peloponnesus (Greece) during the neogene.
Paleontologia I Evolucio, v. 24-25, 363-376.
Kanamori, H., Anderson, D.L. (1975). Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in
seismology. Bulletion of Seismological Society of America, 65, 1073-1095.
121
REFERENCES
Karakaisis, G.F., Papazachos, C.B., Scordilis, E.M. (2010). Seismic sources and main seismic
faults in the Aegean and surrounding area. Bulletin of Geological Society, 43(4), 20262042. Greece.
Karakostas, V.G., Papadimitriou, E.E., Karamanos, C.K., Kementzetzidou, D.A. (2010).
Microseismicity and seismotectonics properties of the Lefkada-Kefalonia seismic zone.
Bulletin of the Geological Society, 53(4), 2053-2063, Greece.
Karakostas, V.G., Papadimitriou, E.E., Papazachos, C.B. (2004). Properties of the 2003
Lefkada, Ionian islands, Greece, earthquake seismic sequence and seismicity triggering.
Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 94(5), 1976-1981.
Karastathis, V.K., Ganas, A., Makris, J., Papoulia, J., Dafnis, P., Gerolymatou, E., Drakatos,
G. (2007). The application of shallow seismic techniques in the study of active faults:
the Atalanti normal fault, central Greece. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 62, 215-233.
Katopodi, I., Iosifidou, K. (2004). Impact of the Lefkada earthquake (14-08-2003) on marine
works and coastal regions. 7th Pan-hellenic Geographical Conference, October 14-17,
Mytilene, Greece, paper E1K230.
Kementzetzidou, D. (1996). Etude sismotectonique du systeme Thessalie-iles Sporades
(Grece central). PhD Thesis, Observatoire de Grenoble, 151 pp.
Kim, Y.-S., Sanderson, D. (2005). The relationship between displacement and length of
faults: a review. Earth-Science Reviews, 68, 317-334.
King, G., Sturdy, D., Whitney, J. (1993). The landscape geometry and active tectonics of
northwest Greece. Bulletin of Geological Society of America, 105, 137-161.
King, G., Tselentis, A., Gomberg, J., Molnar, P., Roecker, S., Sivhal, H., Soufleris, C., Stock,
J. (1983). Microearthquake seismicity and active tectonics of northwestern Greece.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 66, 279-288.
King, G.C.P., Ouyang, Z.X., Papadimitriou, P., Deschamps, A., Gagnepain, J., Houseman, G.,
Jackson, J.A., Soufleris, C., Virieux, J. (1985). The evolution of the gulf of Corinth
(Greece): an aftershock study of the 1981 earthquakes. Geophysical Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 80, 677-693.
Kiratzi, A., Benetatos, C., Roumelioti, Z. (2007). Distributed earthquake focal mechanisms in
the Aegean sea. Bulletin of Geological Society, Greece.
Kiratzi, A., Louvari, E. (2003). Focal mechanisms of shallow earthquakes in the Aegean sea
and the surrounding lands determined by waveform modeling: a new database. Journal
of Geodynamics, 36, 251-274.
122
REFERENCES
Kiratzi, A.A., Karakaisis, G.F., Papadimitriou, E.E., Papazachos, B.C. (1985). Seismic
source-parameter relations for earthquakes in Greece. Pure and Applied Geophysics,
123, 27-41.
Kiratzi, A.A., Langston, C.A. (1991). Moment tensor inversion of the 1983 January 17
Kefallinia event of Ionian islands (Greece). Geophysical Journal International, 105,
529-535.
Kiremidjian, A., Anagnos, T. (1984). Stochastic time-predictable model for earthquake
occurrences. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 74, no.6, pp. 25932611.
Klugel, J.-U. (2008). Seismic hazard analysis - quo vadis? Earth-Science Reviews, 88, 1-32.
Kokinou, E., Kamberis, E. (2009). The structure of the Kythira Antikythira strait, offshore
SW Greece (35.7° 36.6°N). Journal of Geological Society of London, Special
Publications, 311, 343-360.
Kokinou, E., Kamberis, E., Vafidis, A., Monopolis, D, Ananiadis, G., Zelilidis, A. (2005).
Deep seismic reflection data from offshore western Greece: a new crustal model for the
Ionian sea. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 28(2), 185-202.
Kokkalas, S., Koukouvelas, I., Pavlides, S., Chatzipetros, A. (2004). Evidence of
paleoseismicity in Greece – some case studies for understanding active fault behavior.
5th International Symposium of Eastern Mediterranean Geology, April 14-20, 2004,
Thessaloniki, Greece, Ref: S2-16.
Kokkalas, S., Pavlides, S., Koukouvelas, I., Ganas, A., Stamatopoulos, L. (2007).
Paleoseismicity of the Karapelli fault (eastern Corinth gulf): evidence for earthquake
reccurence and fault behavior. Bulletin of Geological Society, 126(2), 387-395, Italy.
Kokkalas, S., Pavlides, S., Koukouvelas, I., Ganas, A., Tsodoulos, I., Stamatopoulos, L.,
Gountromichou, C., Valkaniotis, S. (2007). Preliminary paleoseismological faults from
Karapelli fault (central Greece): evidence of seismic events for the past 10.000 years.
Hellenic Journal of Geosciences, 42, 65-74.
Kokkalas, S., Xypolias, P., Koukouvelas, I., Doutsos, T. (2006). Postcollisional contractional
and extensional deformation in the Aegean region. Geological Society of America,
Special Paper 409, 97-123.
Komodromos, P. (2012). Advanced structure analysis using computational methods (in
Greek). Course notes. University of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Konstantinou, K.I., Melis, N.S., Lee, S.-J., Evangelidis, C.P., Boukouras, K. (2009). Rupture
process and aftershocks relocation of the 8 June 2008 Mw 6.4 earthquake in northwest
123
REFERENCES
Peloponnese, western Greece. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(6),
3374-3389.
Koravos, G. (2011). A contribution to the study of seismic hazard estimation in the broader
Aegean area based on design earthquakes. PhD thesis. Geophysical Laboratory, School
of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Koukouvelas, I., Mpresiakas, A., Sokos, E., Doutsos, T. (1996). The tectonic setting and
earthquake ground hazards of the 1993 Pyrgos earthquake, Peloponnese, Greece.
Journal of the Geological Society, v. 153, p. 34-39.
Koukouvelas, I.K., Katsonopoulou, D., Soter, S., Xypolias, P. (2005). Slip rates on the Helike
fault, Gulf of Corinth, Greece: new evidence from geoarchaeology. Terra Nova, Vol.17,
no.2, 158-164.
Koukouvelas, I.K., Kokkalas, S., Xypolias, P. (2010). Surface deformation during the Mw 6.4
(8 June 2008) Movri mountain earthquake in the Peloponnese, and its implications for
the seismotectonics of western Greece. International Geology Review, 52(2-3), 249268.
Koukouvelas, I.K., Kokkalas, S.A., Zygouri, V.N. (2010). Geology & earthquakes (in Greek).
Disigma Publications.
Koukouvelas, I.K., Stamatopoulos, L., Katsonopoulou, D., Pavlides, S. (2001). A
palaeoseismological and geoarchaeological investigation of the Eliki fault, Gulf of
Corinth, Greece. Journal of Structural Geology, 23, 531-543.
Koutromanos, I., Spyrakos, K. (2010). Earthquake-resistant buildings (in Greek). Course
notes. Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, NTUA,
Athens.
Kraft, J.C., Rapp, G.JR., Ascenbrenner, S.E. (1975). Late holocene paleogeography of the
coastal plain of the Gulf of Messenia, Greece, and its relationships to arcaeological
settings and coastal change. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 86, 11911208.
Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall International Series
in Civil Engineering & Engineering Mechanics.
Kreemer, C., Chamot-Rooke, N. (2004). Contemporary kinematics of the southern Aegean
and the Mediterranean ridge. Geophysical Journal International, 157, 1377-1392.
Krinitzsky, E.L., Slemmons, D.B. (1990). Neotectonics in Earthquake Evaluation. Geological
Society of America. Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol. VIII.
124
REFERENCES
Ladas, I., Mariolakos, I., Fountoulis, I. (2004). Neotectonic deformation of eastern Pylia (SW
Peloponnese, Greece). Bulletin of Geological Society, 36, 1652-1661, Greece.
Laigle, M., Alfred Hirn, A., Sachpazi, M., Clement, C. (2002). Seismic coupling and structure
of the Hellenic subduction zone in the Ionian islands region. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 200, 243-253.
Laigle, M., Hirn, A., Sapin, M., Lepine, J., Diaz, J., Gallart, J., Nicholich, R. (2000). Mount
Etna dense array local earthquake P and S tomography and implications for volcanic
plumbing. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 148-227.
Leeder, M.R., Collier, R.E.L., Abdul Aziz, L.H., Trout, M., Ferentinos, G., Papatheodorou,
G., Lyberis, E. (2002). Tectono-sedimentary processes along an active marine/lacustrine
half-graben margin: Alkyonides gulf, E. gulf of Corinth, Greece. Basin Research, 14,
25-41.
Leeder, M.R., Seger, M.J., Stark, C.P. (1991). Sedimentation and tectonic geomorphology
adjacent to major active and inactive normal faults, southern Greece. Journal of
Geological Society, 148, 331-343, London.
Lekkas, E. (2001). The Athens earthquake (7 September 1999): intensity distribution and
controlling effects. Engineering Geology, Vol.59, 297-311.
Lekkas, E., Kranis, H., Voulgaris, N. (2007). The Sophades (Thessaly) earthquake revisited:
morphotectonic analysis of the Ekkara fault system and seismic risk assessment of SW
Thessaly. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol.9, 07897.
Louvari, E., Kiratzi, A.A., Papazachos, B.C. (1999). The Cefalonia Transform Fault and its
extension to western Lefkada island (Greece). Tectonophysics, 308, 223-236.
Lyon-Caen, H., Armijo, R., Drakopoulos, J., Baskoutas, J., Delibassis, N., Gaulon, R.,
Kouskouna, V., Latoussakis, J., Makropoulos, K., Papadimitriou, P., Papanastassiou,
D., Pedott, G. (1988). The 1986 Kalamata (south Peloponnese) earthquake: detailed
study of a normal fault evidences for East-West extension in the Hellenic Arc. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 93(B12), 14967-15000.
Makris, J., Papoulia, J., Papanikolaou, D., Stavrakakis, G. (2001). Thinned continental crust
below northern Evoikos Gulf, central Greece, detected from deep seismic soundings.
Tectonophysics, 341, 225-236.
Margaris, B., Papaioannou, C., Theodulidis, N., Savvaidis, A., Anastasiadis, A., Klimis, N.,
Makra, K., Demosthenous, M., Karakostas, C., Lekidis, V., Makarios, T., Salonikios,
T., Sous, S. (2003). Preliminary observations on the August 14, 2003, Lefkada island
(western Greece) earthquake. EERI Special Earthquake Report.
125
REFERENCES
Mariolakos, I., Fountoulis, I., Logos, E., Lozios, S. (1989). Surface faulting caused by the
Kalamata (Greece) earthquakes (13.9.86). Tectonophysics, 163, 197-203.
Mariolakos, I., Fountoulis, I., Logos, S. (1989). Methods to study the torsional neotectonic
deformation: the case of Kalamata area (SW Peloponnesus, Greece). In: Qingxuan
C.(Ed), Regional crustal stability and geological hazards, proceedings of the IGCP
project 250, 3, 15.21.
Mariolakos, I., Fountoulis, I., Marcopoulou-Diacantoni, A., Mirkou, M.R. (1994). Some
remarks on the kinematic evolution of Messinia province (SW Peloponnesus, Greece)
during the pleistocene based on neotectonics, stratigraphic and palaeoecological
observations. Munster. Forsch. Palaont., 76, 371-380.
Mariolakos, I., Schneider, H., Fountoulis, I., Vouloumanos, N. (1992). Paleogeography,
sedimentation and neotectonics implications at the Kambos depression and Kitries bay
area (Messinia, Peloponnesus, Greece). Bulletin of Geological Society, 28(1), 397-413,
Greece.
Marnelis, F., Roussos, N., Rigakis, N., Karakitsios, V. (2007). Structural geology of the
western Greece, fold and thrust belt. Energy earthquake and exhibition 2007, Athens,
Greece.
Martinez, W.L., Martinez, A.R. (2002). Computational statistics handbook with matlab.
Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington D.C.
Matthews, M.V., Ellsworth, W.L., Reasenberg, P.A. (2002). A brownian model for recurrent
earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, no.6, pp. 22332250.
Mavroulis, S., Fountoulis, I., Lekkas, E. (2010). Environmental effects caused by the
Andravida (08-06-2008, ML=6.5, NW Peloponnese, Greece) earthquake. 11th IAEG,
New Zealand.
McGuire, K.K. (1976). Fortran computer program for seismic risk analysis. Open-file report
67-76, United States, Department of the Interiors, Geological Survey. 102 pages.
McGuire, R.K. (2001). Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazards and risks. Solid
dynamics and earthquake engineering, Vol. 21, pp. 377-384.
McKenzie, D. (1972). Active tectonics of the Mediterranean Region. Geophysical Journal of
the Royal Astronomical Society, 30, 109-185.
McNeill,
L.C., Cotterill,
C.J., Bull,
J.M., Henstock,
T.J., Bell,
R., Stefatos,
A. (2007). Geometry and slip rate of the Aigion fault, a young normal fault system in
the western Gulf of Corinth. Geology, 35, 355-358.
126
REFERENCES
Metaxas, C.P. (2008). Active faults hazard on offshore pipelines: case of the submarine gas
pipeline route across the south Evoikos Gulf, central Greece. Earthquake Planning &
Protection Organization, Greece.
Mohammadioun, B., Serva, L. (2001). Stress drop, slip type, earthquake magnitude and
seismic hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91, 694-707.
Molnar, P., Tucker, B.E., Brune, J.N. (1973). Corner frequencies of P and S waves and
models of earthquake sources. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.
63, no.6, pp. 2091-2104.
Monelli, P., Pagani, M., Weatherill, G., Silva, V., Crowley, H. (2012). The hazard component
of OpenQuake: the calculation engine of the Global Earthquake Model. Proceedings of
the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Morewood, N.C., Roberts, G.P. (1999). Lateral propagation of the surface trace of the south
Alkyonides normal fault segment, central Greece: its impact on models of fault growth
and displacement length relationships. Journal of Structural Geology, 21, 635-652.
Moshou, A., Papadimitriou, P., Makropoulos, K. (2007). Teleseismic body wave inversion.
Bulletin of Geological Society, 40, 1177-1186, Greece.
Mountrakis, D., Kilias, A., Pavlides, S., Zouros, N., Spyropoulos, N., Tranos, M., Soulakelis,
N. (1993). Field study of the southern Thessaly highly active fault zone. Proc. 2 nd
Congr. Hellenic Geophysical Union, May 5-8, 1993, Florina, 603-614.
Musson, R.M.W. (2000). The use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment
in the U.K. Annals of Geophysics, 43(1):1-9.
Orhan, A., Seyrek, E., Tosun, H. (2007). A probabilistic approach for earthquake hazard
assessment of the province of Eskisehir, Turkey. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences, 7, 607-614.
Pagani, M., Monelli, D., Crowley, H., Danciu, L., Field, E.H., Wiemer, S., Giardini, D.
(2010). GEM1 hazard: description of input models, calculation engine and main results.
GEM Technical Report 2010-3. GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Pantosti, D., Collier, R., D‟ Addezio, G., Masana, E., Sakellariou, D. (1996). Direct
geological evidence for prior earthquakes on the 1981 Corinth gulf (central Greece).
Geophysical Research Letters, 23(25), 3795-3798.
Pantosti, D., De Martini, P.M., Koukouvelas, I., Stamatopoulos, L., Palyvos, N., Pucci, S.,
Lemeille, F., Pavlides, S. (2004). Palaeoseismological investigations of the Aigion fault
(Gulf of Corinth, Greece). C.R. Geoscience, 336, 335-342.
127
REFERENCES
Pantosti, D., De Martini, P.M., Papanastassiou, D., Palyvos, N., Lemeille, F., Stavrakakis, G.
(2001). A reappraisal of the 1894 Atalanti earthquake surface ruptures, central Greece.
Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 91(4), 760-780.
Papadimitriou, E.E., Karakostas, V.G. (2003). Episodic occurrence of strong (Mw>6.2)
earthquakes in Thessalia area (central Greece). Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
215, 395-409.
Papadimitriou, P., Chousianitis, K., Agalos, A., Moshou, A., Lagios, E., Makropoulos, K.
(2012). The spatially extended 2006 April Zakynthos (Ionias islands, Greece) seismic
sequence and evidence for stress transfer. Geophysical Journal International, 190, 10251040.
Papadimitriou, P., Kaviris, G., Makropoulos, K. (2006). The Mw=6.3 2003 Lefkada
earthquake (Greece) and induced stress transfer changes. Tectonophysics, 423, 73-82.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Daskalaki, E., Fokaefs, A., Giraleas, N. (2010). Tsunami hazard in the
eastern Mediterranean sea: strong earthquakes and tsunamis in the west Hellenic arc and
trench system. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 4(3), 145-179.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Fokaefs, A., Orfanogiannaki, K. (2004). Off-fault aftershock activity:
the case of the 14 August 2003 Lefkada earthquake (Mw 6.2). 5th International
Symposium on Eastern Mediterranean Geology, April 14-20, 2004, Thessaloniki,
Greece, Ref: T5-27.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Karastathis, V., Kontoes, C., Charalampakis, M., Fokaefs, A., Papoutsis,
I. (2010). Crustal deformation associates with east Mediterranean strike slip
earthquakes: The 8 June 2008 Movri (NW Peloponnese), Greece, earthquake (Mw 6.4).
Tectonophysics, 492, 201-212.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Karastathis, V.K., Ganas, A., Pavlides, S., Fokaefs, A., Orfanogiannaki,
K. (2003). The Lefkada, Ionian sea (Greece), shock (Mw 6.2) of 14 August 2003:
evidence for the characteristic earthquake from seismicity and ground failures. Earth
Planets Space, 55, 713-718.
Papanastassiou, D. (1999). Seismic hazard assessment in the area of Mystras-Sparta, south
Peloponnesus, Greece, based on local seismotectonic, seismic, geologic information and
on different models of rupture propagation. Natural Hazards, 18, 237-251.
Papanastassiou, D., Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., Maroukian, H. (2004). Recognition of past
earthquakes along the Sparta fault, Peloponnesus, south Greece. 5th International
Symposium on Eastern Mediterranean Geology, 14-20 April 2004, Ref: T5-30,
Thessaloniki, Greece.
128
REFERENCES
Papanastassiou, D., Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., Maroukian, H. (2005). Recognition of past
earthquakes along the Sparta fault (Peloponnesus, southern Greece) during the
Holocene, by combining results of different dating techniques. Journal of Geodynamics,
40, 189-199.
Papanastassiou, D., Stavrakakis, G., Makris, G., Makaris, D. (2001). Recent micro-earthquake
activity at northern Evoikos gulf, central Greece. Bulletin of Geological Society, 34(4),
1567-1572, Greece.
Papanikolaou, D., Fountoulis, I., Metaxas, Ch. (2007). Active faults, deformation rates and
quaternary paleogeography at Kyparissiakos gulf (SW Greece) deduced from onshore
and offshore data. Quaternary International, 171-172, 14-30.
Papanikolaou, D., Lykousis, V., Chronis, G., Pavlakis, P. (1988). A comparative study of
neotectonic basins across the Hellenic arc: the Messiniakos, Argolikos, Saronikos and
southern Evoikos gulfs. Basin Research, 1, 167-176.
Papanikolaou, D., Metaxas, C., Chronis, G. (2001). Neotectonic structure of the Lakonikos
gulf. Bulletin of Geological Society, 34(1), 297-302, Greece.
Papastamatiou, D., Mouyiaris, N. (1986). The Sophades earthquake occurred on April 30th
1954 – field observations by Yannis Papastamatiou. Geological and Geophysical
Research, Special Issue, 341-362.
Papathanasiou, G., Pavlides, S., Christaras, V., Pitilakis, K. (2004). Liquefaction phenomena
triggered by the earthquake of August 14, 2003, in the island of Lefkada. Bulletin of
Geological Society, 36, 1976-1805, Greece.
Papathanasiou, G., Valkaniotis, S., Chatzipetros, A., Neofotistos, P., Sboras, S., Pavlides, S.
(2008). Liquefaction-induced ground disruption triggered by the earthquake of June 8,
2008, in NW Peloponnesus, Greece. 31st General Aseembly of the European
Seismological Commision, 7-12 September, 2008, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, Short
Papers, 334-341.
Papathanassiou, G., Pavlides, S., Ganas, A. (2005). The 2003 Lefkada earthquake: field
observations and preliminary microzonation map based on liquefaction potential index
for the town of Lefkada. Engineering Geology, 82, 12-31.
Papazachos, B., Kiratzi, A., Karacostas, B., Panagiotopoulos, D., Scordilis, E., Mountrakis,
D.M. (1988). Surface fault traces, fault plane solution and spatial distribution of the
aftershocks of the September 13, 1986 earthquake of Kalamata (southern Greece). Pure
and Applied Geophysics, 126(1), 55-68.
129
REFERENCES
Papazachos, B., Kiratzi, A., Papadimitriou, E. (1991). Regional focal mechanisms for
earthquakes in the Aegean sea. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 136(4), 405-420.
Papazachos, B., Papazachou, C. (1997). The earthquakes of Greece (English edition). Editions
Ziti, 304 pp., Thessaloniki.
Papazachos, B., Papazachou, C. (2003). Oi seismoi tis Ellados (The earthquakes of Greece)
(in Greek). Editions Ziti, 286 pp., Thessaloniki.
Papazachos, B.C. (1999). Seismicity of the Aegean and surrounding area. Tectonophysics,
178, 287-308.
Papazachos, B.C., Comninakis, P.E., Karakassis, G.F., Karakostas, B.G., Papaioannou, C.A.,
Papazachos, C.B., Scordilis, E.M. (2000). A catalogue of earthquakes in Greece and
surrounding area for the period 550BC-1999. Publications Geophysical Lab, University
of Thessaloniki, 1,333 pp.
Papazachos, B.C., Comninakis, P.E., Scordilis, E.M. (1984). Properties of the FebruaryMarch 1981 seismic sequence in the Alkyonides gulf of central Greece. Annals of
Geophysics, 2(5), 537-544.
Papazachos, B.C., Comninakis, P.E., Scordilis, E.M., Karakaisis, G.F., Papazachos, C.B.
(2010). A catalogue of earthquakes in the Mediterranean and surrounding area for the
period 1901-2010. Publications of the Geophysics Laboratory, University of
Thessaloniki.
Papazachos, B.C., Hatzidimitriou, P.M., Karakaissis, G.F., Papazachos, C.B., Tsokas, G.N.
(1993). Rupture zones and active crustal deformation in southern Thessalia, central
Greece. Bull. Geofis. Teor. Applic., XXXV, 139, 363-374.
Papazachos, B.C., Karakaisis, G.F., Chatzidimitriou, P.M. (2005). Introduction to seismology
(in Greek). Ziti Publications.
Papazachos, B.C., Mountrakis, D.M., Papazachos, C.B., Tranos, M.D., Karakaisis, G.F.,
Savvaidis, A.S. (2001). Faults that caused known strong earthquakes in Greece and
surrounding areas from the 5th century B.C. until now (in Greek). 2nd Greek Conference
on Earthquake Engineering & Engineering Seismology, T.E.E., Thessaloniki, 28-30
September, 1, 17-26.
Papazachos, B.C., Panagiotopoulos, D.G., Tsapanos, T.M., Mountrakis, D.M., Dimopoulos,
G.Ch. (1983). A study of the 1980 summer seismic sequence in the Magnesia region of
central Greece. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 75, 155-168.
Papazachos, B.C., Papaioannou, Ch.A., Papazachos, C.B., Savvaidis, A.S. (1997). Atlas of
isoseismal maps for strong shallow earthquakes in Greece and surrounding area
130
REFERENCES
(426BC-1995). University of Thessaloniki, Geophysical Laboratory, Publication No.4,
176 pp.
Papazachos, B.C., Scordilis, E.M., Panagiotopoulos, D.G., Papazachos, C.B., Karakaisis, G.F.
(2004). Global relations between seismic fault parameters and moment magnitude of
earthquakes. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, Vol.XXXVI. Proceedings of
the 10th International Congress, Thessaloniki, April 2004.
Papazachos, C., Papaioannou, Ch.A. (1997). The macroseismic field of the Balkan area.
Journal of Seismology, 1, 181-201.
Papoulia, J., Lykousis, V., Sakellariou, D. (1998). Neotectonic activity and seismic hazard in
central Greece. Bolletino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, Vol.39, N.2, pp. 113-124.
Papoulia, J., Makris, J. (2004). Microseismicity and active deformation of Messinia, SW
Greece. Journal of Seismology, 8, 439-451.
Papoulia, J., Makris, J. (2010). Tectonic processes and crustal evolution on/offshore western
Peloponnese derived from active and passive seismics. Bulletin of Geological Society,
43(1), 357-367, Greece.
Papoulia, J., Makris, J., Drakopoulou, V. (2006). Local seismic array observations at north
Evoikos, central Greece, delineate crustal deformation between the north Aegean trough
and Corinthiakos rift. Tectonophysics, 423, 97-106.
Papoulia, J., Stavrakakis, G., Papanikolaiou, D. (2001). Bayesian estimation of strong
earthquakes in the inner Messiniakos fault zone, southern Greece, based on
seismological and geological data. Journal of Seismology, 5, 233-242.
Patwardhan, A.S., Kulkarni, R.B., Tocher, D. (1980). A semi-Markov model for
characterizing recurrence of great earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 70, pp. 323-347.
Pavlides, S. (1993). Active faulting in multi-fractured seismogenic areas; examples of Greece.
Zeitschrift fuer Geomorphologie. N.F., 94, 57-72.
Pavlides, S. (2003). Earthquake geology (in Greek). University Studio Press, Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Pavlides, S., Caputo, R. (2004). Magnitude versus faults‟ surface parameters: quantitative
relationships from the Aegean region. Tectonophysics, 380, 159-188.
Pavlides, S., Valkaniotis, S., Chatzipetros, A. (2007). Seismically capable faults in Greece
and their use in seismic hazard assessment. 4th International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, paper no. 1609. Thessaloniki.
131
REFERENCES
Pavlides, S.B., Papadopoulos, G.A., Ganas, A., Papathanassiou, G., Karastathis, V.,
Keramydas, D., Fokaefs, A. (2004). The 14 August 2003 Lefkada (Ionian sea)
earthquake. 5th International Symposium on Eastern Mediterranean Geology, April 1420, 2004, Thessaloniki, Greece, Ref: T5-34.
Pavlides, S.B., Valkaniots, S., Ganas, A., Keramydas, D., Sboras, S. (2004). The Atalanti
active fault: re-evaluation using new geological data. Bulletin of Geological Society, 36,
1560-1567, Greece.
Pechlivanidis, A. (2012). Ydrogeologikoi charactires tou ydatikou diamerismatos Attikis me
emfasi sti lekani Kalyvion. Diploma thesis. School of Mining & Metallurgical
Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece.
Perissoratis, C., Angelopoulos, I., Mitropoulos, D. (1991). Surficial sediment map of the
Aegean sea floor. Pagasitikos sheet, scale: 1: 200.000, Ed. IGME, Athens.
Perissoratis, C., Mettos, A., van Andel, T. (1988). Stratigraphy and structure of the south
Evoikos gulf and the greater neogene basin. Bulletin of Geological Society, 23(1), 209221, Greece.
Perissoratis, C., Mitropoulos, D., Angelopoulos, I. (1986). Marine geological research at the
eastern Corinthiakos gulf. Geol. and Geoph. Research (IGME Publications), Special
Issue, 381-401.
Perissoratis, C., Papadopoulos, G. (1999). Sediment instability and slumping in the Aegean
sea and the case history of the 1956 tsunami. Marine Geology, 161, 287-305.
Perissoratis, C., van Andel, T.H. (1991). Sea-level changes and tectonics in the quaternary
extensional basin of the south Evoikos gulf, Greece. Terra Nova, 3(3), 232-348.
Perouse, E. (2013.) Cinematique et tectonique active de l‟ ouest de la Grece dans le cadre
geodynamique de la Mediterranee central et orientale. These de doctorat. Universite
Orsay-Paris Sud (Paris XI).
Petersen, M., Dawson, T., Chen, R., Cao, T., Willis, C., Schwartz, D., Frankel, A. (2011).
Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol.101, no.2, pp. 805-825.
Piccardi, L. (2000). Active faulting at Delphi, Greece: seismotectonic remarks and a
hypothesis for the geologic environment of a myth. Geology, 28, 651-654.
Piper, D.J.W., Perissoratis, C. (2003). Quaternary neotectonics of the south Aegean arc.
Marine Geology, 198, 259-288.
132
REFERENCES
Pirli, M., Voulgaris, N., Chira, A., Makropoulos, K. (2007). The March 2004 Kalamata
seismic sequence: a case of efficient seismicity monitoring in the area of Peloponnese,
southern Greece, by the Tripoli seismic array. Journal of Seismology, 5, 233-242.
Pitilakis, K. (2010). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Editions Ziti, Thessaloniki.
Pondrelli, S., Morelli, A., Ekstrom, G. (2004). European-mediterranean regional centroidmoment tensor catalog: solutions for years 2001-2002. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, 145(1-4), 127-147.
Pondrelli, S., Morelli, A., Ekstrom, G., Mazza, S., Boschi, E., Dziewonski, A.M. (2002).
European-mediterranean regional centroid-moment tensors: 1997-2000. Physics of the
Earth and Planetary Interiors, 130, 71-101.
Pondrelli, S., Salimbeni, S., Morelli, A., Ekstrom, G., Boschi, E. (2007). Europeanmediterranean regional centroid-moment tensor catalog: solutions for years 2003-2004.
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 164(1-2), 90-112.
Pondrelli, S., Salimbeni, S., Morelli, A., Ekstrom, G., Postpischl, L., Vannucci, G., Boschi, E.
(2011). European-mediterranean regional centroid-moment tensor catalog: solutions for
years 2005-2008. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 185, 74-81.
Poscolieri, M., Lagios, E., Gregori, G.P., Paparo, G., Sakkas, V.A., Parcharidis, I., Marson, I.,
Soukis, K., Vassilakis, E., Angelucci, F., Vassilopoulou, S. (2006). Crustal stress and
seismic activity in the Ionian archipelago as inferred by satellite and ground-based
observations, Kefallinia, Greece. Journal of Geological Society, Special Publications,
261, 63-78, London.
Poulimenos, G., Doutsos, T. (1996). Barriers on seismogenic faults in central Greece. Journal
of Geodynamics, 22(1/2), 119-135.
Poulos, S.E., Lykousis, V., Collins, M.B. (1995). Late quaternary evolution of Amvrakikos
gulf, western Greece. Geo-Marine Letters, 15, 9-16.
Poulos, S.E., Lykousis, V., Collins, M.B., Rohling, E.J., Pattiaratchi, C.B. (1999).
Sedimentation processes in a tectonically active environment: the Kerkyra-Kefalonia
submarine valley system (NE Ionian sea). Marine Geology, 160, 25-44.
Psarropoulos, P. & Tsompanakis, Y. (2011). Facing complex problems of geotechnical
earthquake engineering, according to EC8 (in Greek). ETAM conference. Application
to Eurocode 8 for the design & evaluation of civil engineers‟ works, Athens.
Reid, H.F. (1911). The elastic-rebound theory of earthquakes. Berkley, CA. University of
California Press.
133
REFERENCES
Reiter, L. (1990). Earthquake hazard analysis - issues and insights. Columbia University
Press, New York, 254 pp.
Roberts, G., Stewart, I. (1994). Uplift, deformation and fluid involvement within an active
normal fault zone in the gulf of Corinth, Greece. Journal of Geological Society, 151,
531-541, London.
Roberts, G.P., Ganas, A. (2000). Fault-slip directions in central and southern Greece
measured from striated and corrugated fault planes: comparison with focal mechanism
and geodetic data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(B10), 23443-23462.
Roberts, S., Jackson, J. (1991). Active normal faulting in central Greece: an overview. Journal
of Geological Society, Special Publications, 56, 125-142, London.
Rondoyanni, T., Sakellariou, M., Baskoutas, J., Christodoulou, N. (2012). Evaluation of
active faulting and earthquake secondary effects in Lefkada island, Ionian sea, Greece:
an overview. Natural Hazards, 61, 843-860.
Rondoyanni, Th., Sakellariou, M., Baskoutas, J., Christodoulou, N. (2012). Evaluation of
active faulting and earthquake secondary effects in Lefkada island, Ionia sea, Greece: an
overview. Natural Hazards, 61, 843-860.
Ross, Z. (2011). Probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis for reverse faults and surface
rupture scale invariance. Master thesis. School of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
California Polytechnic State University.
Roumelioti, Z., Benetatos, C., Kiratzi, A. (2009). The 14 February 2008 earthquake (M 6.7)
sequence offshore south Peloponnese (Greece): source models of the three strongest
events. Tectonophysics, 471, 272-284.
Roumelioti, Z., Kiratzi, A. (2008). The 14 October 2008 moderate magnitude sequence
offshore NE Evia island (Aegean sea): fast time-domain moment tensors and shake
map. Report submitted to EMSC, 6pp.
Roumelioti, Z., Kiratzi, A., Benetatos, C. (2011). Time-domain moment tensors for shallow
(h=40km) earthquakes in the broader Aegean sea for the years 2006 and 2007: the
database of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Journal of Geodynamics, 51, 179189.
Ruiz, S.E. (1977). Influencia de las condiciones locales en las caracteristicas de los sismos.
Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, 387, pp.65.
Sachpazi, M., Hirn, A., Cl_ment, C., Haslinger, F., Laigle, M., Kissling, E., Charris, P., Hello,
Y., L_pine, J.-C., Sapin, M., Ansorge, J. (2000). West Hellenic subduction and
134
REFERENCES
Cephalonia transform: local earthquakes and plate transport and strain. Tectonophysics,
319, 301-319.
Sadigh, K., Chang, C.Y., Egan, J.A., Makdisi, F., Youngs, R.R. (1997). Attenuation relations
for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. Seismological
Research Letters, Vol. 68, no.1, pp. 180-189.
Sakellariou, D., Lykousis, V., Alexandri, S., Kaberi, H., Rousakis, G., Nomikou, P.,
Georgiou, P., Ballas, D. (2007). Faulting, seismic-stratigraphic architecture and late
quaternary evolution of the gulf of Alkyonides basin-east gulf of Corinth, central
Greece. Basin Research, 19, 273-295.
Sanchez-Sesma, F.J. (1986). On the seismic response of alluvial valleys. Proceedings of the
Summer School organized in Strasbourg, France, July 15-1 August, EMSC.
Sboras, S. (2011). The Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources: seismotectonic implications
for North Greece. Dottorato di ricerca in scienze della terra. Universita degli Studi di
Ferrara.
Sboras, S., Caputo, R., Pavlides, S., Chatzipetros, A., Papathanasiou, G., Valkaniotis, S.
(2009). The Greek Database of Seismogenic faults (GreDass): state-of-the-art. GNGTS.
Sboras, S., Ganas, A., Pavlides, S. (2010). Morphotectonic analysis of the neotectonic and
active faults of Beotia (central Greece), using G.I.S. techniques. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of Greece. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress, Patras.
Scholz, C. (1990). The mechanics of earthquake and faulting. Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, D., Coppersmith, K. (1985). Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes:
examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas fault zones. Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 89, issue B7, pg. 5681-5698.
Scordilis, E.M., Karakaisis, G.F., Karacostas, B.G., Panagiotopoulos, D.G., Comninakis, P.E.,
Papazachos, B.C. (1985). Evidence for transform faulting in the Ionian sea: the
Cephalonia island earthquake sequence of 1983. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 123,
388-397.
Segkou, M. (2010). Estimation of frequency-depended seismic hazard of Greece, using
deterministic and probabilistic methodologies (in Greek). PhD thesis. Faculty of
Geology & Geoenvironment, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.
Serpetsidaki, A., Sokos E., Tselentis, G.-A., Zahradnik, J. (2010). Seismic sequence near
Zakynthos island, Greece, April 2006. Identification of the activated fault plane.
Tectonophysics, 480, 23-32.
135
REFERENCES
Silva, V., Crowley, H., Pagani, M., Monelli, D., Pinho, R (2012). Development and
application of OpenQuake, an open source software for seismic risk assessment.
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, paper n.4917.
Skarlatoudis, A.A., Papazachos, B.C., Margaris, B.N., Theodulidis, N., Papaioannou, C.,
Kalogeras, I., Scordilis, E.M., Karakostas, V. (2003). Empirical peak ground motion
predictive relations for shallow earthquakes in Greece. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 93, 2591-2603.
Skourtsos, E., Lekkas, S. (2011). Extensional tectonics in Mt Parnon (Peloponnesus, Greece).
International Journal of Earth Sciences, 100, 1551-1567.
Sokos, E. (1998). Synthesis of potential ground motions in the city of Patras with emphasis on
local site conditions (in Greek). PhD Thesis, Seismological Laboratory, Department of
Geology, University of Patras.
Somieski, A.E. (2008). Astrogeodetic geoid and isostatic considerations in the North Aegean
Sea, Greece. PhD thesis, No.17790. ETH, Zurich.
Stefatos, A., Papatheodorou, G., Ferentinos, G., Leeder, M., Collier, R. (2002). Seismic
reflection imaging of active offshore faults in the gulf of Corinth: their seismotectonic
significance. Basin Research, 14, 487-502.
Stein, S., Wysession, M. (2003). An introduction to seismology, earthquakes and earth
structure. Blackwell Publishing.
Stewart, I.S., Hancock, P.L. (1990). Brecciation and fracturing within neotectonic normal
fault zones in the Aegean region. Journal of Geological Society, Special Publications,
54, 105-112, London.
Stewart, I.S., Hancock, P.L. (1991). Scales of structural heterogeneity within neotectonic
normal fault zones in the Aegean region. Journal of Structural Geology, 13(2), 191-204.
Stewart, J.P., Chiou, D., Bray, J.D., Graves, R.W., Somerville, P.G., Abrahamson, N.A.
(2001). Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance based design. Peer report
2001/09. Peer Center, College of Engineering, UC Berkley.
Stiros, S., Chasapis, A. (1988). Geodetic constrains to the focal mechanism of the 1980,
Almyros (central Greece) seismic sequence. Bulletin of Geological Society, XXXII (4),
275-281, Greece.
Stiros, S.C., Arnold, M., Pirazzoli, P.A., Laborel, J., Laborel, F., Papageorgiou, S. (1992).
Historical coseismic uplift on Euboea island, Greece. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 108, 109-117.
136
REFERENCES
Stiros, S.C., Psimoulis, P., Pitharouli, S. (2007). Geodetic constraints to the kinematics of the
Kaparelli fault, reactivated during the 1981, gulf of Corinth earthquakes.
Tectonophysics, 440, 105-119.
Suckale, J., Grunthal, G., Regnier, M., Bosse, C. (2005). Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment for Vanuatu. Scientific technical report, ISSN 1610-0956.
Toro, G.R., Abrahamson, N.A., Schneider, J.F. (1997). Model of strong ground motions from
earthquakes in central and eastern north America: best estimates and uncertainty.
Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, no.1, pp. 41-57.
Tsapanos, T.M., Mantyniemi, P., Kijko, A. (2004). A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment
in Greece and the surrounding region including site-specific considerations. Annals of
Geophysics, 47(6), 1675-1688.
Tselentis, A. (1997). Modern Seismology (in Greek). Editions Papasotiriou.
Tselentis, G.-A., Danciu, L. (2010). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Greece-part 1:
engineering ground motion parameters. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10,
1-15.
Tselentis, G.-A., Makropoulos, K., Voulgaris, N. (1989). Cluster and spectral characteristics
of the aftershock activity of the Kalamata, September 13, 1986 earthquake, south
Greece. Tectonophysics, 169, 135-148.
Tselentis, G.-A., Sokos, E., Martakis, N., Serpetsidaki, A. (2006). Seismicity and
seismotectonics in Epirus, western Greece: results from a microearthquake survey.
Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 96, 5, 1706-1717.
Tsodoulos, I.M., Koukouvelas, I.K., Pavlides, S. (2008). Tectonic geomorphology of the
easternmost extension of the Gulf of Corinth (Beotia, central Greece). Tectonophysics,
453, 211-232.
Tsokas, G.N., Hansen, R.O. (1997). Study of the crustal thickness and the subducting
lithosphere in Greece from gravity data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102:2058520597.
Tsompanakis, Y., Lagaros, N.D., Stavroulakis, G.E. (2008). Soft computing techniques in
parameter identification and probabilistic seismic analysis of structures. Advances in
Engineering Software, 39, 612-624.
Tsompanakis, Y., Psarropoulos, P.N. (2012). Dynamic soil-structure interaction: reality
versus seismic norms. CST2012 & ECT2012 Lectures on Computational Methods for
Engineering Science, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 4-7 September 2012.
137
REFERENCES
Valkaniotis, S. (2009). Correlation between neotectonics structures and seismicity in the
broader area of gulf of Corinth (central Greece). Unpublished PhD thesis (in Greek),
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 241 pp.
Vamvakaris, D. (2010). Contribution to the study of time-changing seismicity and seismic
hazard (in Greek). PhD thesis. Faculty of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Van Andel, T.H., Perissoratis, C., Rondoyanni, T. (1993). Quaternary tectonics of the
Argolikos gulf and adjacent basins, Greece. Journal of Geological Society, 150, 529539, London.
Vannucci, G., Gasperini, P. (2003). A database of revised fault plane solutions for Italy and
surrounding regions. Computer and Geoscienses, 29, 903-909.
Vannucci, G., Gasperini, P. (2004). The new release of the database of earthquake
mechanisms of the Mediterranean area (EMMA Version 2). Annals of Geophysics,
supplement to Vol.47, 307-334.
Votsi, I., Limnios, N., Tsaklidis, G., Papadimitriou, E. (2010). Semi-Markov models for
seismic hazard assessment in certain areas of Greece. Bulletin of the Geological Society
of Greece, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress, Patras, May 2010.
Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, J.K. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude,
rupture, length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bulletin of
Seismological Society of America, 84, 974-1002.
Youngs, R.R., Coppersmith, K.J. (1985). Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake
recurrence models for probabilistic seismic hazard estimates. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 75, no.4, pp. 939-964.
Zahradnik, J., Serpetsidaki, A., Sokos, E., Tselentis, G.-A. (2005). Iterative deconvolution of
regional waveforms and a double-event interpretation of the 2003 Lefkada earthquake,
Greece. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 95(1), 159-172.
Zahradnik, J., Sokos, E., Tselentis, G.-A., Martakis, N. (2008). Non-double mechanism of
moderate earthquakes near Zakynthos, Greece, April 2006; explanation in terms of
complexity. Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 341-356.
Zelilidis, A., Kontopoulos, N. (1999). Plio-pleistocene alluvial architecture in marginal
extensional narrow sub-basins: examples from southwest Greece. Geological Magazine,
136(3), 241-262.
Zhao, J.X., Zhang, J., Asano, A., Oyno, Y., Oouchi, T., Takahashi, T., Ogawa, H., Irikura, K.,
Thio, A.K., Somerville, P.G., Fukushima, Y., Fukushima, Y. (2006). Attenuation
138
REFERENCES
relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on
predominant period. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96:898-913.
Zovoli, E., Konstantinidi, E., Koukouvelas, I.K. (2004). Tectonic geomorphology of
escarpments: the cases of Kompotades and Nea Anchialos faults. Bulletin of Geological
Society, XXXVI, 1716-1725, Greece.
Zygouri, V., Verroios, S., Kokkalas, S., Xypolias, P., Koukouvelas, I.K. (2008). Scaling
properties within the Gulf of Corinth, Greece; comparison between offshore & onshore
active faults. Tectonophysics, 453, 193-210.
139