To date, more than 7300 in situ stress orientations have been compiled as part of the World Stress Map project. Of these, over 4400 are considered reliable tectonic stress indicators, recording horizontal stress orientations to within <±25°. Remarkably good correlation is observed between stress orientations deduced from in situ stress measurements and geologic observations made in the upper 1–2 km, well bore breakouts extending to 4–5 km depth and earthquake focal mechanisms to depths of ∼20 km. Regionally uniform stress orientations and relative magnitudes permit definition of broad-scale regional stress patterns often extending 20–200 times the approximately 20–25 km thickness of the upper brittle lithosphere. The “first-order” midplate stress fields are believed to be largely the result of compressional forces applied at plate boundaries, primarily ridge push and continental collision. The orientation of the intraplate stress field is thus largely controlled by the geometry of the plate boundaries. There is no evidence of large lateral stress gradients (as evidenced by lateral variations in stress regime) which would be expected across large plates if simple resistive or driving basal drag tractions (parallel or antiparallel to absolute motion) controlled the intraplate stress field. Intraplate areas of active extension are generally associated with regions of high topography: western U.S. Cordillera, high Andes, Tibetan plateau, western Indian Ocean plateau. Buoyancy stresses related to crustal thickening and/or lithospheric thinning in these regions dominate the intraplate compressional stress field due to plate-driving forces. These buoyancy forces are just one of several categories of “second-order” stresses, or local perturbations, that can be identified once the first-order stress patterns are recognized. These second-order stress fields can often be associated with specific geologic or tectonic features, for example, lithospheric flexure, lateral strength contrasts, as well as the lateral density contrasts which give rise to buoyancy forces. These second-order stress patterns typically have wavelengths ranging from 5 to 10+ times the thickness of the brittle upper lithosphere. A two-dimensional analysis of the amount of rotation of regional horizontal stress orientations due to a superimposed local stress constrains the ratio of the magnitude of the horizontal regional stress differences to the local uniaxial stress. For a detectable rotation of 15°, the local horizontal uniaxial stress must be at least twice the magnitude of the regional horizontal stress differences. Examples of local rotations of SHmax orientations include a 75°–85° rotation on the northeastern Canadian continental shelf possibly related to margin-normal extension derived from sediment-loading flexural stresses, a 50°–60° rotation within the East African rift relative to western Africa due to extensional buoyancy forces caused by lithospheric thinning, and an approximately 90° rotation along the northern margin of the Paleozoic Amazonas rift in central Brazil. In this final example, this rotation is hypothesized as being due to deviatoric compression oriented normal to the rift axis resulting from local lithospheric support of a dense mass in the lower crust beneath the rift (“rift pillow”). Estimates of the magnitudes of first-order (plate boundary force-derived) regional stress differences computed from modeling the source of observed local stress rotations magnitudes can be compared with regional stress differences based on the frictional strength of the crust (i.e., “Byerlee's law”) assuming hydrostatic pore pressure. The examples given here are too few to provide a definitive evaluation of the direct applicability of Byerlee's law to the upper brittle part of the lithosphere, particularly in view of uncertainties such as pore pressure and relative magnitude of the intermediate principal stresses. Nonetheless, the observed rotations all indicate that the magnitude of the local horizontal uniaxial stresses must be 1–2.5+ times the magnitude of the regional first-order horizontal stress differences and suggest that careful evaluation of such local rotations may be a powerful technique for constraining the in situ magnitude stress differences in the upper, brittle part of the lithosphere.

/pdf/first-and-second-order-patterns-of-stress-in-the-lithosphere-595hs86ljh.pdf

First‐ and second‐order patterns of stress in the lithosphere: The World Stress Map Project

Geological atlas of western and central Europe

Seismic anisotropy beneath continents is analyzed from shear-wave splitting recorded at more than 300 continental seismic stations. Anisotropy is found to be a ubiquitous property that is due to mantle deformation from past and present orogenic activity. The observed coherence with crustal deformation implies that the mantle plays a major, if not dominant, role in orogenies. No evidence is found for a continental asthenospheric decoupling zone, suggesting that continents are coupled to general mantle circulation.

/pdf/seismic-anisotropy-beneath-the-continents-probing-the-depths-4f88qj5fdh.pdf

SEISMIC ANISOTROPY BENEATH THE CONTINENTS: Probing the Depths of Geology

Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: An overview

. Damage assessments of natural hazards supply crucial information to decision support and policy development in the fields of natural hazard management and adaptation planning to climate change. Specifically, the estimation of economic flood damage is gaining greater importance as flood risk management is becoming the dominant approach of flood control policies throughout Europe. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art and identifies research directions of economic flood damage assessment. Despite the fact that considerable research effort has been spent and progress has been made on damage data collection, data analysis and model development in recent years, there still seems to be a mismatch between the relevance of damage assessments and the quality of the available models and datasets. Often, simple approaches are used, mainly due to limitations in available data and knowledge on damage mechanisms. The results of damage assessments depend on many assumptions, e.g. the selection of spatial and temporal boundaries, and there are many pitfalls in economic evaluation, e.g. the choice between replacement costs or depreciated values. Much larger efforts are required for empirical and synthetic data collection and for providing consistent, reliable data to scientists and practitioners. A major shortcoming of damage modelling is that model validation is scarcely performed. Uncertainty analyses and thorough scrutiny of model inputs and assumptions should be mandatory for each damage model development and application, respectively. In our view, flood risk assessments are often not well balanced. Much more attention is given to the hazard assessment part, whereas damage assessment is treated as some kind of appendix within the risk analysis. Advances in flood damage assessment could trigger subsequent methodological improvements in other natural hazard areas with comparable time-space properties.

/pdf/review-article-assessment-of-economic-flood-damage-2cxqtnpv6j.pdf

Review article "Assessment of economic flood damage"

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13) results from a community-based probabilistic seismic hazard assessment supported by the EU-FP7 project “Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe” (SHARE, 2009–2013). The ESHM13 is a consistent seismic hazard model for Europe and Turkey which overcomes the limitation of national borders and includes a through quantification of the uncertainties. It is the first completed regional effort contributing to the “Global Earthquake Model” initiative. It might serve as a reference model for various applications, from earthquake preparedness to earthquake risk mitigation strategies, including the update of the European seismic regulations for building design (Eurocode 8), and thus it is useful for future safety assessment and improvement of private and public buildings. Although its results constitute a reference for Europe, they do not replace the existing national design regulations that are in place for seismic design and construction of buildings. The ESHM13 represents a significant improvement compared to previous efforts as it is based on (1) the compilation of updated and harmonised versions of the databases required for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, (2) the adoption of standard procedures and robust methods, especially for expert elicitation and consensus building among hundreds of European experts, (3) the multi-disciplinary input from all branches of earthquake science and engineering, (4) the direct involvement of the CEN/TC250/SC8 committee in defining output specifications relevant for Eurocode 8 and (5) the accounting for epistemic uncertainties of model components and hazard results. Furthermore, enormous effort was devoted to transparently document and ensure open availability of all data, results and methods through the European Facility for Earthquake Hazard and Risk (
 www.efehr.org
 ).

/pdf/the-2013-european-seismic-hazard-model-key-components-and-5copowyzi9.pdf

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP), a demonstration project of the UN/International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction, was conducted in the 1992-1998 period with the goal of improving global standards in seismic hazard assessment. The GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Map has been compiled by joining the regional maps produced for different GSHAP regions and test areas; it depicts the global seismic hazard as Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years, corresponding to a return period of 475 years.

/pdf/the-gshap-global-seismic-hazard-map-1m4c6xwlws.pdf

The GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Map

The number of different macroseismic scales that have been used to express earthquake shaking in the course of the last 200 years is not known; it may reach three figures. The number of important scales that have been widely adopted is much smaller, perhaps about eight, not counting minor variants. Where data sets exist that are expressed in different scales, it is often necessary to establish some sort of equivalence between them, although best practice would be to reassign intensity values rather than convert them. This is particularly true because difference between workers in assigning intensity is often greater than differences between the scales themselves, particularly in cases where one scale may not be very well defined. The extent to which a scale guides the user to arrive at a correct assessment of the intensity is a measure of the quality of the scale. There are a number of reasons why one should prefer one scale to another for routine use, and some of these tend in different directions. If a scale has many tests (diagnostics) for each degree, it is more likely that the scale can be applied in any case that comes to hand, but if the diagnostics are so numerous that they include ones that do not accurately indicate any one intensity level, then the use of the scale will tend to produce false values. The purpose of this paper is chiefly to discuss in a general way the principles involved in the analysis of intensity scales. Conversions from different scales to the European Macroseismic Scale are discussed.

/pdf/the-comparison-of-macroseismic-intensity-scales-2j7n4tne7i.pdf

The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales

Minimization of the loss of life, property damage, and social and economic disruption due to earthquakes depends on reliable estimates of seismic hazard. National, state, and local governments, decision makers, engineers, planners, emergency response organizations, builders, universities, and the general public require seismic hazard estimates for land use planning, improved building design and construction (including adoption of building construction codes), emergency response preparedness plans, economic forecasts, housing and employment decisions, and many more types of risk mitigation. The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) was designed to assist in global risk mitigation by providing a useful global seismic hazard framework and by serving as a resource for any national or regional agency for further detailed studies applicable to their needs. GSHAP was launched in 1992 by the International Lithosphere Program (ILP) with the support of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and endorsed as a demonstration program in the framework of the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (UN/IDNDR). GSHAP promoted a regionally coordinated, homogeneous approach to seismic hazard evaluation, including the production and distribution of the Global Seismic Hazard Map (GSH Map), a special issue of Annali di Geofisica (December 1999) describing the map and project, and a Web site (http://seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/) containing regional reports, GSHAP yearly reports, summaries, and maps of seismicity, source zones, and seismic hazard values.

The GSHAP strategy was to establish a mosaic of regions under the coordination of regional centers (Figure 1). The goal in the first implementation phase (1993-1995) was to establish for each region or test area a working group of national experts covering the different fields required for seismic hazard assessment, to produce common regional earthquake catalogs and databases, and to assess the regional seismic hazard. The second phase (1995-1998) of GSHAP involved expansion of these regional efforts to …

/pdf/the-gshap-global-seismic-hazard-map-3blbyutpxz.pdf

The catalogue by Grunthal et al. (J Seismol 13:517–541, 2009a) of earthquakes in central, northern, and north-western Europe with M
 w ≥ 3.5 (CENEC) has been expanded to cover also southern Europe and the Mediterranean area. It has also been extended in time (1000–2006). Due to the strongly increased seismicity in the new area, the threshold for events south of the latitude 44°N has here been set at M
 w ≥ 4.0, keeping the lower threshold in the northern catalogue part. This part has been updated with data from new and revised national and regional catalogues. The new Euro-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC) is based on data from some 80 domestic catalogues and data files and over 100 special studies. Available original M
 w and M
 0 data have been introduced. The analysis largely followed the lines of the Grunthal et al. (J Seismol 13:517–541, 2009a) study, i.e., fake and duplicate events were identified and removed, polygons were specified within each of which one or more of the catalogues or data files have validity, and existing magnitudes and intensities were converted to M
 w. Algorithms to compute M
 w are based on relations provided locally, or more commonly on those derived by Grunthal et al. (J Seismol 13:517–541, 2009a) or in the present study. The homogeneity of EMEC with respect to M
 w for the different constituents was investigated and improved where feasible. EMEC contains entries of some 45,000 earthquakes. For each event, the date, time, location (including focal depth if available), intensity I
 0 (if given in the original catalogue), magnitude M
 w (with uncertainty when given), and source (catalogue or special study) are presented. Besides the main EMEC catalogue, large events before year 1000 in the SE part of the investigated area and fake events, respectively, are given in separate lists.

/pdf/the-european-mediterranean-earthquake-catalogue-emec-for-the-1pk5nox7wp.pdf

Gottfried Grünthal

Papers

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

The GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Map

The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales

The GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Map

The European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue EMEC for the last millennium