@article{fdi:010072845,
  title = {{D}o {F}rench macroseismic intensity observations agree with expectations from the {E}uropean {S}eismic {H}azard {M}odel 2013 ?},
  author = {{R}ey, {J}. and {B}eauval, {C}{\'e}line and {D}ouglas, {J}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{P}robabilistic seismic hazard assessments are the basis of modern seismic design codes. {T}o test fully a seismic hazard curve at the return periods of interest for engineering would require many thousands of years' worth of ground-motion recordings. {B}ecause strong-motion networks are often only a few decades old (e.g. in mainland {F}rance the first accelerometric network dates from the mid-1990s), data from such sensors can be used to test hazard estimates only at very short return periods. {I}n this article, several hundreds of years of macroseismic intensity observations for mainland {F}rance are interpolated using a robust kriging-with-a-trend technique to establish the earthquake history of every {F}rench mainland municipality. {A}t 24 selected cities representative of the {F}rench seismic context, the number of exceedances of intensities {IV}, {V} and {VI} is determined over time windows considered complete. {A}fter converting these intensities to peak ground accelerations using the global conversion equation of {C}aprio et al. ({G}round motion to intensity conversion equations ({GMICE}s): a global relationship and evaluation of regional dependency, {B}ulletin of the {S}eismological {S}ociety of {A}merica 105:1476-1490, 2015), these exceedances are compared with those predicted by the {E}uropean {S}eismic {H}azard {M}odel 2013 ({ESHM}13). {I}n half of the cities, the number of observed exceedances for low intensities ({IV} and {V}) is within the range of predictions of {ESHM}13. {I}n the other half of the cities, the number of observed exceedances is higher than the predictions of {ESHM}13. {F}or intensity {VI}, the match is closer, but the comparison is less meaningful due to a scarcity of data. {A}ccording to this study, the {ESHM}13 underestimates hazard in roughly half of {F}rance, even when taking into account the uncertainty in the conversion from intensity to acceleration. {H}owever, these results are valid only for the acceleration range tested in this study (0.01 to 0.09 g).},
  keywords = {{E}arthquake ; {M}acroseismic intensity ; {S}eismic hazard ; {P}robabilistic ; seismic hazard assessment ; {K}riging ; {F}rance ; {FRANCE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{J}ournal of {S}eismology},
  volume = {22},
  numero = {3},
  pages = {589--604},
  ISSN = {1383-4649},
  year = {2018},
  DOI = {10.1007/s10950-017-9724-7},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010072845},
}