@article{fdi:010079112,
  title = {{T}he influence of source- and ground-motion model choices on probabilistic seismic hazard levels at 6 sites in {F}rance},
  author = {{B}eauval, {C}{\'e}line and {B}ard, {P}. {Y}. and {D}anciu, {L}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{I}n this study focused on {F}rance, we explore the uncertainties related to choices made while building a source model for hazard assessment and we quantify the impact on probabilistic hazard estimates. {E}arthquake recurrence models are initially built from the {F}rench {S}eismic {CAT}alog ({FCAT}, {M}anchuel et al. in {B}ull {E}arthq {E}ng, 2018. 10.1007/s10518-017-0236-1). {W}e set up a logic tree that includes two alternative seismogenic source models ({ESHM}13 and {B}aize et al. in {B}ull {S}oc {G}eol {F}r 184(3):225-259, 2013), two versions of {FCAT} catalog, two alternative declustering algorithms, and three alternative minimum magnitudes for earthquake recurrence modeling. {W}e calculate the hazard for six cities (i.e. {N}antes, {L}ourdes, {C}lermont-{F}errand, {B}riancon, {N}ice and {S}trasbourg) that are located in source zones with a minimum amount of data to work with. {R}esults are displayed for the {PGA} and spectral period 0.2 s, at return periods 475 and 5000 years. {E}xploration of the logic tree shows that the parameters with the most impact on hazard results are the minimum magnitude used in the recurrence modeling (up to 31%) and the selection of the seismogenic source model (up to 30%). {W}e also use the {SHARE} {E}uropean {E}arthquake {C}atalog ({SHEEC}, {W}oessner et al. in {B}ull {E}arthquake {E}ng, 2015. 10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1) to build earthquake recurrence models and compare hazard values obtained with the {FCAT} logic tree. {C}omparisons are limited because of the low number of events available in some sources in {SHEEC}; however, results show that, depending on the site considered, the earthquake catalog selection can also strongly impact the hazard estimates (up to 50%). {T}he {FCAT} logic tree is combined with four ground-motion models ({B}indi et al. in {B}ull {E}arthq {E}ng 12(1):391-430, 2014; {B}oore et al. in {E}arthq {S}pectra 30(3):1057-1085, 2014; {C}auzzi et al. in {B}ull {E}arthq {E}ng 13(6):1587-1612, 2015. 10.1007/s10518-014-9685-y; {D}rouet and {C}otton in {B}ull {S}eismol {S}oc {A}m 105(4):1883-1902, 2015) to account for the epistemic uncertainty on the prediction of ground-motion. {E}xploration of the logic tree shows that the contribution of ground-motion model uncertainties can be larger than, equivalent to, or lower than the contribution of the source-model uncertainties to the overall hazard variability. {W}hich component controls overall uncertainty depends on the site, spectral period and return period. {F}inally, exploring the logic tree provides a distribution for the ratios between hazard levels at 5000 and 475 years return periods, revealing that the ratios only slightly depend on source-model uncertainties, vary strongly from site to site, and can take values between 3 and 5, which is significantly higher than what is commonly assumed in the engineering community.},
  keywords = {{E}arthquake recurrence ; {P}robabilistic seismic hazard ; {U}ncertainties ; {F}rance ; {FRANCE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{B}ulletin of {E}arthquake {E}ngineering},
  volume = {18},
  numero = {10},
  pages = {4551--4580},
  ISSN = {1570-761{X}},
  year = {2020},
  DOI = {10.1007/s10518-020-00879-z},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010079112},
}