<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.16** Variation in $\delta c_{3,k}$ at Sa (≈ 0.1 s) for France according to the ESM dataset (left) and the RESIF data set (right). Figure taken from Kotha (2020)</figcaption></figure>

The regionalization adopted by Kotha (2020) for France groups most of France and the UK into a single zone, likewise for Iberia. Recognising that a more detailed insight is needed, we explore possible data sets that may explain the slower attenuation in these regions. Note that $\delta c_{3,k}$ is a *residual* attenuation, meaning that it is a statistical property of the data and cannot disaggregate between different factors that may contribute to faster or slower attenuation. In that sense, both crustal attenuation (Q) and depth to the Moho are properties that would be expected to have an effect.

Taking this into account we consider the distribution of the bedrock geology in Europe, shown in **Fig. 4.17**. From this we can identify blocks of older Phanerozoic bedrock that span southern Portugal, northern Spain, the Pyrenees, northwestern France, western UK and Norway. In these environments we have older, stable rock commonly associated with slower attenuation, which would be consistent with the observations of $\delta c_{3,k}$ that we have for the Pyrenees and western France.

We therefore delineate a set of regions following the most extensive blocks of older bedrock, within which we do not use the general default backbone model, but rather the $\delta c_{3,cl5}$ distribution that characterizes regions of slow attenuation. These are shown in the blue shaded regions in Figure 6.19.

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.17** Map of bedrock geological age in western Europe (left) with manually assigned “cluster 5” (slow attenuation) regions highlighted in blue (right)</figcaption></figure>
4.5.2 Iceland

The second special case area for which we have data that allow us to refine the calibration of the logic
tree is Iceland. No data from Iceland was available within the ESM dataset; hence it was not included
within the regionalized GMM of Kotha et al. (2020).

However, observations from Iceland were available in the previous RESORCE strong motion database
resulting in 116 records from 18 events with a reported M<sub>w</sub> value. These records and events are mostly
from the southwest seismic zone of Iceland and span a magnitude range from 4.5 ≤ M<sub>w</sub> ≤6.5 and a
distance range 3 ≤ R<sub>JB</sub> ≤ 100 km (Fig. 4.18)

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.18** (left) Location of earthquakes (red dots) and stations (yellow triangles) for the set of Icelandic strong motion records from RESORCE. (right) Magnitude and distance distribution of the Icelandic records.</figcaption></figure>

From this data set of Icelandic records, we retrieve the between ($\delta B_{e,i}$) and within-event residuals ($\delta W_{ij}$) with respect to the unregionalised Kotha et al. (2020) GMM, and then to the adjustments for each of the five cluster regions.

As most of the ground motion data are taken from distances shorter than 80 – 100 km the influence of
the residual attenuation cluster is minimal; however, the distribution of δWij did marginally favour
cluster 3 (fast attenuation), which is expected given that this particular cluster is defined by records from
western Italy and central Greece, where volcanism is having an influence on the attenuation. The
attenuation region cluster applied to the active regions of central and southern Iceland is therefore
cluster 3.

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4.19 Distribution of between-event residuals and fit model of δL2Ll and τL2L for Iceland</figcaption></figure>
Greater differences between the observations and the model can be found in the between-event
residuals. Here we find predominantly negative residuals at short periods, transitioning to moderately
positive residuals at long periods.

The residuals alone do not unambiguously identify the cause of this trend, though we speculate that lower stress drops from shallower hypocentral depths in a predominantly volcanic environment may be a significant factor. Taking the mean of the normalized residuals for each period we can define a term equivalent to $\delta L2L_l(T)$, which we then smooth across the period range.

The observed variance of this parameter is found to be very close to $\tau_{L2L}^2$ from the original Kotha et al. (2020) GMM. Given these observations we define a modified logic tree for Iceland in which the median ground motions from the default shallow seismicity backbone model are adjusted according to the $\delta L2L_l$ model shown in Fig. 4.19, but the original $\pm\varepsilon \cdot \max(\tau_{L2L}, \sigma_\mu)$ factors are retained.

The resulting logic tree for Iceland is also shown in Figure 6.18 and this is applied to the active sources
following the mid-Atlantic rift in southern and central Iceland. For the lower seismicity sources outside
of this region the default shallow crustal GMM logic tree is retained.
# 5 Model Implementation and Hazard Calculation

Computation of the seismic hazard for a large-scale region, covering the entire Euro-Mediterranean region as illustrated in Fig. 5.3 is not trivial. The main challenges are linked to the complexity of the seismogenic source model, the logic tree, the size of the region, as well as the output types: seismic hazard maps, hazard curves, uniform hazard spectra and disaggregation.

OpenQuake-engine v13.3 is used for computing the ground shaking estimates hazard of the ESHM20. The computational engine is open-source, community driven and it is developed under a test-driven framework. For computation of the ESHM20, we adopted the classical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) calculator that estimates the probabilities that various earthquake-induced ground motion levels will be exceeded at a given location in a given time period by solving the PSHA integration procedure (Pagani et al 2014). Note, that for the risk calculation the stochastic event set calculator is used (Crowley et al 2021).

## 5.1 Seismogenic Source Model – implementation

First and foremost, the unified earthquake catalogue's format is standardized according to the template of the OpenQuake hazard modeler toolkit (https://github.com/gem/oq-engine, Weatherill et al 2014) with following fields: eventID, longitude, latitude, year, month, day, hour, minute, second, magnitude, depth, source catalogue, source_eventID.

The earthquake catalogue is declustered with the Grünthal time window algorithm, and further separated in two sub-catalogues for shallow crust seismicity and deep seismicity. An additional filter is applied to the shallow earthquakes to remove the earthquakes with Mw > 6.5 on top of the subduction interface, to avoid the double counting. Similarly, the volcanic seismicity is removed from the sub-catalogue of shallow earthquakes. The activity parameters are estimated for the area sources: shallow, deep and volcanic using the corresponding earthquake sub-catalogues and the completeness time-magnitude intervals described in Chapter 3. The procedure of estimating the activity rates of the area sources is implemented in Python, as an extension of the hazard modeler toolkit (https://github.com/gem/oq-engine, Weatherill et al 2012). The methodology is outlined in Bollinger et al (1989, 1993), Weichert (1980), Berril and Davis (1980) and Herrmann (1977) and the main assumptions are described in Chapter 4. Similarly, an extension to the hazard modeler toolkit was developed to compute the activity rates for the active faults. For developing the smoothed seismicity, a MATLAB toolbox was used.

Next, we used the seismic source definitions of OQ-hazard engine User's Manual v3.13 (Pagani et al 2014, Pagani et al 2021) as the blueprints to define and parametrize the individual seismogenic sources. The minimum magnitude ($M_{min}$) is 4.5 for all models but active faults. $M_{min}$ for active faults represents the threshold magnitude ($M_{thr}$) that separates the contribution of each fault from the background seismicity. The upper and lower seismogenic depths control the extension of the ruptures within the Earth's crust. In this implementation, the mean values (i.e. MINDEPTH and MAXDEPTH attributes) are used for all source typologies, without considering their uncertainty due to its impact on the seismic hazard estimates. Sensitivity analyses conducted during the development and implementation phase of the model indicate a minor effect of the upper and lower seismogenic depth to the return periods of interest (i.e. 475yrs and 2500yrs). A summary of the seismogenic source models' attributes are provided in Appendix B: ESHM20 Input Datasets – Summary and Files Format.
### 5.1.1 Area Source Zones

The template of each area source includes its geometry attributes and the magnitude scaling relationship. This relationship controls the size of floating ruptures as a function of magnitude. Sensitivity analysis conducted on the impact of extensive ruptures vs the point ruptures to the hazard results, found that with the current ground motion model the impact of the extensive rupture was less than 5% for the return periods of interest (RP475yrs to 2500yrs). Hence, to speed up the calculation, we used the point ruptures.

The geometry includes the definition of polygon location, style-of-faulting, and depth. Style-of-faulting is defined by the predominant strike, rake and dip angle values. We used a probability mass function to characterize the aleatory uncertainty, which comprises a set of strike, dip and rake angles, each with their associated weights. This implementation is valid for each source of the area source model and the point sources of the smoothed seismicity model. The predominant style of faulting is defined for each source as it was found that it has a minor effect on the hazard estimates. Furthermore, since extensive ruptures are modelled as point ruptures, we collapsed the depth distribution to a weighted value to optimize the computational time.

The magnitude frequency distribution (MFD) for individual area sources is described by two recurrence models as given in the **Figure 4.3 section 5**: a) double truncated GR exponential distribution and b) Pareto tapered distribution (Kagan 2002). The double truncated GR exponential distribution (the default recurrence distribution of OpenQuake Manual, section 2.2, Pagani et al 2021) and defined by a lower and upper magnitude bounds and the two GR parameters: aGR and bGR.

Similarly, the Pareto truncated distribution is expressed by the aGR and bGR parameters, the minimum and maximum magnitudes. This distribution is not supported by the current version of OpenQuake, and it is implemented as a discrete incremental magnitude-frequency distribution.

The special case of the two GR double truncated distribution applies to two area sources in Italy i.e. ITAS308, ITAS331 and two area sources off-shore Portugal i.e PTAS390 and ZZAS506. This special MFD is defined by the $M_{min}$, aGR, two bGR values and $M_{max}$ and implemented also as a discrete incremental magnitude-frequency distribution. The incremental distribution is defined by incremental annual rates reported in the center of the magnitude bin. The magnitude bin size is 0.1 units of magnitude.

The area source of deep seismicity and subduction in-slab are implemented in the same way as the shallow crust sources.

### 5.1.2 Active Faults and Subduction Interface

Following OpenQuake User's Manual (v3.12, Pagani et al. 2021), crustal faults are modelled as simple faults, and the subduction interface zones are represented as complex faults. A simple fault describes a fault surface projected along strike and dip. A complex fault does not require a dip angle because the geometry can be described by combinations of fault edges to describe top, mid or bottom of a fault surface. This model used the default attribute values as provided by the compilers as best estimates of the multiple parameters and assumptions. Thus, in this implementation no additional uncertainties are applied to the parameters describing the fault's geometry, style of faulting, upper and lower seismogenic depth and similarly, for the subduction interface implementation.

The uncertainties of the slip-rates and maximum magnitudes are characterized as epistemic uncertainties and are used to characterize the seismic productivity of each fault. We use a doubly-truncated GR exponential distribution to describe the MFD of each fault, as well as of the subduction
interface. This MFD is defined with lower and upper magnitude bounds, and the two GR parameters: aGR and bGR.

The lower magnitude corresponds to $M_{thr}$ (a magnitude that separates the background seismicity from the fault seismic productivity), the upper bounds are described by three $M_{max}$ values. The bGR-value is retained from the TECTO zones and the aGR values are directly linked to the slip-rates values (lower, average and high). The resulting 9 end-branches describing the epistemic uncertainties of the correlated aGR and $M_{max}$ are illustrated in Fig. 5.2.

The MFD of the subduction interface is a doubly-truncated GR exponential distribution defined by a lower and upper magnitude, and aGR, bGR parameters estimated out of a complex logic tree with more than 2800 logic tree end-branches. To facilitate the hazard calculation, only the central model of this distribution was used. Note that the subduction interface sources are used as a proxy for generating earthquakes of magnitude $M_w \ge 6.5$, thus the $M_{min}= 6.5$.

The smoothed seismicity is represented as point sources of a grid spanning across the entire region, which are grouped according to the corresponding area source in which they are situated. All point sources within an area source share source attributes such as style of faulting, depth, upper and lower seismogenic source. At each grid location, the magnitude frequency distribution is described as double truncated GR exponential distribution, and implemented as an evenly discretized incremental distribution. The incremental annual rates are reported in the center of each magnitude bin and magnitude bin size is 0.2 units of magnitude to speed up the calculation. In the proximity of the faults, the length of the incremental distribution is controlled by the lower magnitude bound $M_{min}$ (i.e. 4.5) and the upper magnitude bound $M_{thr}$ inherited from the overlaying fault's buffer. This avoids double counting the seismicity rate.

The smoothed seismicity model complements the active faults logic tree branch and is provided without additional epistemic uncertainty.

### 5.1.3 Logic Tree Seismogenic Sources and OpenQuake Input Files

An important aspect of the seismogenic source model implementation for hazard calculation is the consideration of correlated uncertainties of the activity parameters i.e. aGR, bGR and $M_{max}$. Correlation of the uncertainties would mean applying alternative branches of aGR, bGR and $M_{max}$ (e.g. low, middle, high) across all sources in the same end branch. For a single source model with three aGR, bGR and three $M_{max}$ values, this would result in 9 logic tree branches; however, the upper and lower branches would correspond to extreme cases (i.e. all sources producing the upper/lower $M_{max}$ and/or high/low activity rates simultaneously) yielding exceptionally high or low activity rates with non-trivial weights. Uncorrelated uncertainties, in contrast, require permutation of all of the combinations of aGR, bGR and $M_{max}$ for all of the sources.

Here the distribution of the total activity rates across all of the sources on each branch will reflect the sum of underlying distributions more accurately; however, the total number of end branches in this case would correspond to 9NSRCS where NSRCS is the number of sources in the source model. For a regional model on the scale of Europe, which may contain hundreds of sources, uncorrelated uncertainties yield intractably large logic trees. In the current version of OpenQuake, it is not computationally feasible to compute a logic tree with uncorrelated branches, thus we opt for correlated branches. Thus, each source model is described by a default source model for which the activity parameters are assigned to the upper, mid and lower values.
Along the first branch of the logic tree (i.e. area sources model) the correlated aGR, bGR and Mmax values are used to generate the OpenQuake input files. The combination of the range of values for the activity parameters for area source activity parameters are given in **Fig. 5.1**. Noteworthy is the combination of the parameters for the two MFD models, resulting in nine end-branches for the exponential double truncated GR and the three end-branches for the Pareto distribution.

Along the second branch (i.e. active faults) of the logic tree, the correlation between aGR and Mmax is illustrated in **Fig. 5.1**. The xml input files are generated following the combination of the aGR from slip-rates values (lower, average and high) with the Mmax values.

In summary, the logic tree of the seismogenic source model is described by source model end-branches with correlated values of the activity parameters. Each end-branch is a complete model consisting of different source typologies: area sources for shallow crust, deep seismicity, subduction inslab and volcanic regimes; point sources for the smoothed seismicity model, simple faults for shallow crust faults and complex faults for subduction interface.

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.1** Illustration of the source model end-branches for the area source model. The logic tree considers correlated values for the activity parameters aGR, bGR and Mmax.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5.2 Illustration of the source model end-branches for the active fault sources model. The logic tree considers correlated values for the activity parameters aGR and Mmax.</figcaption></figure>

## 5.2 Ground Motion Model – implementation

### 5.2.1 Implementation of the Ground Motion Models

The OpenQuake implementation of the complete suite of ground motion model logic trees for the different tectonic regions (described fully in chapter 6) requires a change of approach in comparison to the ESHM13 and other models that adopt a “weights-on-multiple-models” approach to developing the GMM logic tree. The fundamental difference here is that in the present version we are considering a small number of core backbone GMMs to which we then apply a set of adjustments. The concept of a user adjustable GMM, one in which arguments can be passed by the user from the GMM logic tree configuration file that modify the operation of the GMM, has been supported in OpenQuake for several years. The new GMMs required for the ESHM20 have been implemented around this framework, with the adjustments needed to construct the full scaled backbone logic tree supported as configurable parameters. These will be illustrated in the following sections.

#### 5.2.1.1 GMM Logic Tree for Shallow Crustal Seismicity Regions

The core class supporting the Kotha et al. (2020) GMM that forms the regionalisable scaled backbone ground motion model for crustal seismicity in ESHM20 is implemented as *KothaEtAl2020ESHM20*. This model requires as input the earthquake magnitude and hypocentral depth, the Joyner-Boore distance, $V_{S30}$, a Boolean term indicating whether the $V_{S30}$ refers to a “measured” or an “inferred” site condition, and finally the cluster region to which the site belongs. This last term indicates to the code which of the $\delta c_{3,clp}$ distributions for each of the 5 clusters should be applied to the site. This is expressed as the site property “region”, for which a single integer should be input in the range 0 – 5, where values greater than 0 define the cluster region to which the site belongs, while 0 indicates that the default (unassigned) distribution should be used.

For the maximum possible flexibility, adjustments to the model based on $\delta L2L_l$ and/or $\delta c_3$ can be input in one of two ways: i) the specific values of $\delta L2L_l(T)$ and/or $c_3(T)$ can be input in the form of a dictionary that associates the specific $\delta L2L_l$ and/or $c_3$ value to the intensity measure type (e.g. PGA, Sa (T)) in question, or ii) as a value of $\varepsilon$ that indicates to the code the number of standard deviations to multiply either $\tau_{L2L}$ or $\tau_{c_3}$ (where $\tau_{c_3}$ will correspond to $\tau_{c_3,clp}$ for the cluster to which the site belongs).
The four controlling arguments are therefore:

* `sigma mu epsilon`: The number of standard deviations (ε) by which to multiply the regional stress parameter scaling, such that $ln ln Y = ln ln \underline{Y} + \varepsilon \cdot (\tau_{L2L}, \sigma_{statistical})$

* `c3 epsilon`: The number of standard deviations (ε) by which to multiply the residual attenuation scaling such that $c_3 = \underline{c_3} + \varepsilon \cdot \tau_{c_3}$, where $\underline{c_3}$ is the either original $c_3$ value of the Kotha et al. (2020) model or $c_3 + \delta_{c_3,clp}$ for the respective cluster p.

* `dl2l`: The explicit $\delta L2L_t$ value for each period and/or intensity measure type such that $ln ln Y(T) = \underline{ln ln Y(T)} + \delta L2L_t(T)$

* `c3`: The explicit $c_3(T)$ value to be used for each intensity measure type

Note that `sigma mu epsilon` and `dl2l` are mutually exclusive operators, as too are `c3 epsilon` and `c3`, meaning that only one or the other should be input. If both `sigma mu epsilon` and `dl2l` are input, then the `dl2l` value will override the `sigma mu epsilon`. Likewise, `c3` will override `c3 epsilon` in the case that both are input.

Finally, a non-ergodic version of the GMM can be run in which $\sigma = \sqrt{\tau_0^2 + \phi_0^2}$ and $\phi_{S2S}$ is set to 0, in the case that the model is to be used for site-specific seismic hazard analysis. This can be selected by setting the keyword `ergodic` from True (its default value) to False.

### 5.2.1.2 GMM Logic Tree for Cratonic Regions

The scaled backbone ground motion model for application to the stable cratonic part of Europe is implemented in the OpenQuake class `ESHM20Craton`. It is parameterized with $M_w$, rupture distance ($R_{RUP}$) and $V_{S30}$, but in contrast to the model for shallow crustal seismicity there is no need to specify whether the site in question refers to a measured or inferred case. The configurable parameters that can be passed to the GMM in order to apply the different scaling factors are:

* `epsilon`: The number of standard deviations (ε) by which to multiply the epistemic uncertainty on median ground motion ($\sigma_\mu$) term such that $ln ln Y = ln ln \underline{Y} + \varepsilon \cdot \sigma_\mu$

* `site epsilon`: The number of standard deviations ($\varepsilon_s$) by which to multiply the epistemic uncertainty on site amplification ($\sigma_{\mu,S}$).

As with the shallow crustal seismicity scaled backbone GMM, a non-ergodic version of the GMM can be run by seeing the keyword argument `ergodic` to False.

### 5.2.1.3 GMM Logic Tree for Subduction and Deep Seismicity Regions

The backbone ground motion model for subduction and deep seismicity is an adaptation of the original subduction GMM of Abrahamson et al. (2016). The new GMM is implemented under the name `BCHydroESHM20Sinter` and `BCHydroESHM20SSlab`. The required parameters are $M_w$, distance to the rupture ($R_{RUP}$) for interface events or distance to the hypocentre ($R_{HYPO}$) for in-slab and/or Vrancea DSZ sources, $V_{S30}$ and distance of the site to the forearc/backarc front (or volcanic front), $x_{vf}$ (km). Configurable parameters include:

* `sigma mu epsilon`: The number of standard deviations (ε) by which to multiply the epistemic uncertainty on median ground motion ($\sigma_\mu$) term such that $ln ln Y = ln ln \underline{Y} + \varepsilon \cdot \sigma_\mu$

* `theta6 adjustment`: The adjustment factor ($\delta\theta_6$) to be applied to the anelastic attenuation term ($\theta_6$) such that $\theta'_6 = \theta_6 + \delta\theta_6$

* `faba taper model`: The choice of functional form to use for the forearc/backarc scaling region, from "step" (default, behaves as the original GMM with an immediate transition from forearc to backarc across the front), "Linear" (a linear transition model), "SFunc" (an S-function, see equation 6.8),
"Sigmoid" (a sigmoid function) or "Gaussian" (a Gaussian cumulative distribution function). Depending on the choice of taper model additional parameters configure the shape of the function (and vary depending on the function). These include a, b (the end limits over which the function is applied), "sigma" (the bandwidth for the Gaussian function), "width" (the length of the distance transition for the linear model"), and "c" the shape parameter of the sigmoid model.

As with the other models, a non-ergodic version of this GMM can be run by setting *ergodic* to False.

## 5.3 OpenQuake Calculation Settings

The hazard calculation is optimized for the computational grid (see Fig. 5.3), logic tree structure (both the seismogenic source model and the ground motion backbone model), output and the hardware capacity.

The calculation is performed for three different regions: 1) the main inland Europe plus Turkey, 2) Southwest Islands and 3) Iceland. It is worth mentioning that the logic tree of the seismogenic source model is identical for all regions, but a different ground motion logic tree was used for Iceland (see chapter 6, section 6.5.2).

From the calculation point of view, we made pragmatic decisions to optimize the computational time and the hardware availability:

- single branch of the smoothed seismicity

- single branch of the subduction interface

- 12 correlated end-branches for the area source model describing the shallow crust, volcanic, deep and inslab sources

- 9 correlated end-branches for the active shallow crust faults

- reduce the number of the computational grid-points, mainly off-shore (computational geo-grid (~130 000 grids points)

- use point ruptures as they are not critical for the return period of interest (RP=475yrs)

- use the weighted depth for area and point sources

- use the predominant style-of-faulting for area and point sources

- reduce the size of the incremental distribution for smoothed seismicity by clipping the annual incremental rates lower than $10^{-6}$ (1/1million occurrence not contributing to the return period of interest)

- fault source mesh sampling intervals to 2km

- complex fault mesh spacing of 50km

- use of 0.2 magnitude bin for the smoothed seismicity

- 16 IMTs to cover peak ground acceleration (PGA), and response spectra acceleration with 5% damping at predominant periods in the range of 0.05s to 5s.

- ground motion discretization levels, 25 intervals from 0.0005g to 5g (i.e. x-axis of the hazard curve)

- use the point source gridding approximation (with the following parameters: *point_source_distance* set to 75, and *ps_gridSpacing* set to 50, based on https://docs.openquake.org/oq-engine/advanced/point-source-gridding.html)

- random sampling technique implemented in OpenQuake is used to sample 10000 logic tree end-branches.

With the above settings, the calculation runtime is about 20hours in a server with 128CPU and 0.5T SDRAM. The config file of the ESHM20 calculation for OpenQuake is provided together with the main input files, see chapter 7 Data Resources. The results of the hazard calculation are given in the next chapter.
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.3** Computational grid for seismic hazard calculation of ESHM20 – the grid points are equally spaced at 0.1 to 0.1 degrees – total number of grid points 97920.</figcaption></figure>
# 6 Main Results

The ESHM20 results depict time-independent earthquake ground-shaking exceedance levels for a uniform rock site condition of Vs,30 ≥ 800 m/s and valid for GRot50 horizontal ground motion as specified on the ground motion models (chapter 6). For additional and supplementary materials, we recommend the reader to consult chapter 7: Data, Products and Resources.

The main results of the ESHM20 are:

- Hazard maps for specified intensity measure types (PGA, spectra acceleration with 5% damping at predominant periods in the range of 0.05s to 5s) and five mean return periods (i.e. 50, 475, 975, 2500 and 5000 years).

- Hazard curves at every computational site, depicting the mean, median (50th) and four quantiles (5th, 16th, 84th and 95th) for all intensity measure types.

- Uniform Hazard Spectra depicting the mean, median (50th) and four quantiles (5th, 16th, 84th and 95th) and five mean return periods (i.e. 50, 475, 975, 2500 and 5000 years) estimated at every location of the computational grid.

- Disaggregation of the hazard results. Seismic hazard disaggregation is a technique that allows identifying the earthquake scenarios that significantly contribute to a specified exceedance probability of ground motion levels. Ground motion is represented by the PGA or acceleration response spectra at different periods (0.05 to 5s). It is foreseen that in the next year, the disaggregation of the hazard results will be provided as an online tool.

**Important notes:**

The ESHM20 results constitute an updated reference for the European region and Turkey, but these results do not replace nor modify the existing national design regulations and seismic provisions. Furthermore, in Europe the ground motion hazard estimates do not directly translate into design values; these must be conformed for seismic design and construction of buildings at the national level provided by the national design codes or by Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) in EN Eurocodes.

Hazard curves are computed up to very low annual probabilities (10-4, corresponding to 10000 years return periods) – however, caution is to be used when interpreting the curves at very low probability levels because a regional hazard model has limitations and uncertainties that cannot be resolved at a regional scale. We therefore limit result representation for hazard maps to 5000 years mean return period.

## 6.1 Seismic Hazard Maps

### 6.1.1 475yrs ground shaking hazard maps

Figure 8 illustrates the spatial distribution of the PGA mean values for a 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years, corresponding to a mean annual frequency of exceedance of about 0.002107, and to a mean return period of 475 years (1/0.002107 ~ 475 years). The mean seismic hazard map incorporates the range of uncertainty defined at the level of seismogenic sources combined with the spatially variable backbone ground motion model. The range around the mean estimates are given by the percentile estimates (16th, 50th, 84th) and illustrated in Fig. 6.1(a to d).

As it might be expected, the contours of equal probabilistic ground motion follow the patterns of the regions where earthquakes were observed in the past or in the proximity of the active faults.
<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.1** Ground shaking hazard maps for PGA [g] mean (a), median(b), 16% quantiles (c) and 84% quantiles (d) values for a return period of 475yrs.</figcaption></figure>

## 6.2 Comparison with ESHM13

The seismic hazard maps for this update and the 2013 maps are shown for PGA for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years on a uniform rock site condition (Vs,30>800m/s) in Fig. 6.2.

Noteworthy, ESHM20 as ESHM13 also, provides more than 500 hazard maps, for various intensity measure types (PGA, spectra acceleration with 5% damping at predominant periods in the range of 0.05s to 5s) and five mean return periods (i.e. 50, 475, 975, 2500 and 5000 years). In the interest of space, we provide only the comparison for the PGA mean hazard values. Additional comparison maps are provided online at the ESHM20 GitLab repository (Danciu et al 2021, https://doi.org/10.12686/a16).

Generally, the ESHM13 and ESHM20 maps have a similar spatial pattern with the new hazard maps being overall lower in most of the areas, as shown in Fig. 6.2 together with a map of the ESHM20-ESHM13 values differ at each site. However, increased values are also observed in some areas in Romania, Albania, Greece, Western Turkey, Southern Spain and Southern Portugal. The largest reduction between the two models is observed in Iceland, which is due to the changes on the earthquake catalogues, active faults and calibrated ground motion models. These differences are likely caused by the updated seismogenic sources and new backbone ground motion models.
<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.2** Spatial variability of the PGA [g] difference on mean values of the ESHM20 versus ESHM13 for a return period of 475yrs. Red color indicates an increase of PGA values when compared with the ESHM13 estimates, and the blue color indicates the opposite. The 475yrs – PGA[g] hazard maps for ESHM20 (top left) and for ESHM13 (top right) are also illustrated.</figcaption></figure>

Changes in the seismogenic sources cause many of the local differences across the entire region. Regional discrepancies in the earthquake rates are likely caused by the new earthquake catalogue, new completeness time-magnitude intervals, new magnitude frequency distributions (Pareto Tapered Distribution and exponential GR distribution), updated slip-rates and maximum magnitude of the faults,
new adaptive-smoothing technique, new subduction sources, new logic tree and its implementation. To investigate these changes the *ensemble* earthquake rate forecast of the ESHM20 minus that of ESHM13 are compared at each grid site for two magnitudes, Mw 5.5 and Mw 6.5, in **Fig. 6.3**.

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.3** Maps of annual earthquake rate forecast of ESHM20 and ESHM13 ensemble models for magnitude M>5.5 and M>6.5 (left column) and the difference maps i.e. ESHM20 – ESHM13(right column).</figcaption></figure>

Weatherill et al. (2020) discuss the comparison between the two ground motion models as illustrated by the trellis plot comparisons (see Fig. 6.4) of the new model versus those GMMs used for shallow crustal regions in the ESHM13. The latter include Akkar and Bommer (2010), Cauzzi and Faccioli (2008), Chiou and Youngs (2008), and Zhao et al. (2006) for “active shallow crustal regions”, plus Toro (2002) and Campbell (2003), which were added for “stable shallow crustal regions” (excluding the Shield region).

For those magnitudes and distances well-constrained by the data (typically MW < 6.0 and 10 ≤ RJB (km) ≤ 100) the centre and range of this backbone agree relatively well with the range predicted by the ESHM13 selection for active shallow crust for periods greater than approximately 0.2 - 0.3s.
<figure><img src="image_68.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.4** Trellis plots comparing the response spectra of the nine-branch default shallow logic tree against the ESHM13 shallow GMPE selection Delavaud et al. (2012) for a strike-slip earthquake with hypocentral depth between 10 and 20 km, assuming a measured site condition of VS30 800 m/s (from Weatheril and Cotton 2020)</figcaption></figure>

The greatest differences can be seen at very short periods (< 0.1 s) where the new models seem to predict lower motions in general. Greater divergences emerge at longer distances, where the general trend of the new models is toward faster attenuation and thus the centre and body of the new GMM logic tree predict lower motions in general.

There are several that may be influential in accounting for this discrepancy. The first is that the parameterisation of site properties Engineering Strong Motion (ESM) Database (Lanzano et al., 2019) is improved with respect to previous models, resulting in improved characterisation of the site scaling at short periods. This trend toward lower short period motion on rock has been seen in ground motion models from many parts of the world, including the preceding generation of European GMMs based on the RESORCE strong motion database.

Additionally, in comparison to the previous strong motion databases for Europe, particularly that used by Akkar and Bommer (2010), the proportion of records from the central and northern Apennine region in Italy, is significantly increased and therefore skews the centre of the data set toward these conditions, which are generally faster attenuating than the rest of Europe on the whole. This effect is mitigated for the seismically active regions of southern Europe, however, by use of the regionally calibrated attenuation coefficients.

Compounding the first two factors is the fact, that the ESHM13 model selection contains GMMs constrained by data from other regions outside Europe and the Middle East, including those that may be more slowly attenuating or display particular source or site characteristics that are distinct from those of the records found in the ESM Database.
## 6.3 Hazard Contribution per Source Model

The ground shaking hazard maps estimated for each of the two input seismogenic source models, the area sources model (ASM) and the hybrid active faults plus background smoothed seismicity model (FS+BG) are illustrated in the following for a mean return period of 475 years. Spatial distribution of PGA[g] mean values for ASM is given in Fig. 6.5(a), for FS+GB in Fig. 6.5(b). Additionally, the two complementary PGA maps for subduction inslab plus deep seismicity and subduction interface are given in Fig. 6.5(c) and in Fig. 6.5(d), respectively.

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.5** Ground shaking hazard maps for PGA [g] mean as an outcome of ASM(a), FS+BG(b), deep seismicity (c) and subduction interface (d) models for a return period of 475yrs.</figcaption></figure>

## 6.4 Site Specific Hazard Estimates

### 6.4.1 Uniform Hazard Spectra

In this section, examples of the uniform hazard spectra for the four cities of Rhodes, L'Aquila, Lisbon and Cologne (same as in Wössner et al 2015) for a mean return period of 475 years are illustrated in **Fig. 6.6** Mean, median and four quantiles (5%, 16%, 84%,95%) as obtained from the ESHM20 full logic tree are also compared with those of ESHM13 (**Fig. 6.6**). Noteworthy is the reduction of the ESHM20 when compared with ESHM13 for Cologne and Lisbon, and the consistency of the two models for Rhodes.

For L'Aquila the median values are consistent for short spectral ordinates (<0.1s) and ESHM20 values increase above this spectral period; the mean and quantile values of ESHM20 are lower than those of
ESHM13. Overall the uncertainty range (16% to 84%) of the ESHM13 is higher than the corresponding ESHM20 range for Rhodes, Cologne and Lisbon; in fact, the observed uncertainty 16% to 84% range of ESHM13 is higher than the 9% to 95% of ESHM20. For L'Aquila, the uncertainty range of ESHM13 is significantly lower than the one of ESHM20.

As mentioned above, these differences can be described by the changes in the earthquake rates, ground motion models, but also on the way the logic tree of the two models have been implemented. For instance, in the ESHM13 only the variability due to ground motion models was explored, as the seismogenic source model was collapsed to a mean branch per model, whereas in ESHM20, the logic tree of both seismogenic source and ground motion models are randomly sampled, resulting in more robust distribution around the central values (mean and median).

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.6** Uniform Hazard Spectra for a mean return period of 475yrs at the selected locations: L'Aquila (Italy), Rhodes (Greece), Cologne (Germany) and Lisbon (Portugal). Mean, median and 16% and 84% quantiles for ESHM20 and ESHM13 (Wössner et al 2015)</figcaption></figure>

### 6.4.2 Hazard Curves

The hazard curves at the same cities of Wössner et al 2015, i.e. Rhodes, L'Aquila, Lisbon and Cologne, are shown in **Fig. 6.7** for mean, median and two quantiles (16% and 85%). Similarly, with the trend observed when new estimates of ESHM20 are compared with the ESHM13, there are changes that are due to differences of the main components of the two models, from the earthquake rates forecast to ground motion models, and their implementation for hazard calculation.
<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

Hazard curve for **Cologne, Germany** (50.942, 6.958)

ESHM20: SWislands44_iceland43_main32_merged vs ESHM13: 70

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

Hazard curve for **Lisbon, Portugal** (38.745, -9.160)

ESHM20: SWislands44_iceland43_main32_merged vs ESHM13: 70

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.7** Hazard curves for PGA at the selected locations: L’Aquila (Italy), Rhodes (Greece), Cologne (Germany) and Lisbon (Portugal). Mean, median and 16% and 84% quantiles for ESHM20 and ESHM13 (Wössner et al 2015)</figcaption></figure>
# 7 Data, Products and Resources

## 7.1 Open Data and Licensing

The EFEHR Consortium decided in its first General Assembly in September 2020 to openly release all products associated with the European hazard and risk models. The source data, input models, software and outputs of ESRM20 are thus being openly released with a Creative Commons CC-BY International 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This license allows re-users to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. Each product is released with a clear notice on how it should be cited in order to abide by the license.

## 7.2 OQ input Files

The OpenQuake input files follow two distinct paths of the logic tree source model listed in Fig.5.1 and Fig. 7.1 Each path computational path consists of a full seismogenic source model describing:

1. Area Source Branch:

a. shallow area sources

b. deep and subduction in-slab area sources

c. subduction interface sources

d. volcanic area sources

2. Fault Source + Smoothed Seismicity Branch:

a. Active Faults for shallow crust seismicity

b. Smoothed seismicity

c. deep and subduction in-slab area sources

d. subduction interface sources

e. volcanic area sources

The hazard calculation is divided into three regions: region_main, region_SWislands, region_iceland. These regions are defined in the region filter shapefile and are the name of the highest-level folder. The main shape files are available at ESHM20 main input file repository https://doi.org/10.12686/A16.

### 7.2.1.1 Region Main:

The OpenQuake input files for Region main are available at:
https://gitlab.seismo.ethz.ch/efehr/eshm20/-/tree/master/oq_computational/oq_configuration_eshm20_v12e_region_main

- configuration files to run the hazard calculation: `config_eshm20_v12e_main_region.ini`

- list of computational grid points: `eshm20_site_model_v06d.csv`

- ground motion logic tree describing the backbone logic tree: `gmpe_complete_logic_tree_5br.xml`

- source model logic tree: `source_model_logic_tree_eshm20_model_v12e.xml`

- directory of the `source概念`, available at

### 7.2.1.2 Region SWislands:

The OpenQuake input files for Region SW Islands are available at:
https://gitlab.seismo.ethz.ch/efehr/eshm20/-/tree/master/oq_computational/oq_configuration_eshm20_v12e_region_swislands
- configuration files to run the hazard calculation: `config_eshm20_v12e_oceanic.ini`

- list of computational grid points: `oceanic_site_model_5km.xml`

- ground motion logic tree describing the backbone logic tree: `gmpe_complete_logic_tree_5br.xml`

- source model logic tree: `source_model_logic_tree_eshm20_oceanic_v12e.xml`

- directory of the `source_models`

#### 7.2.1.3 Region Iceland:

The OpenQuake input files for Region Iceland are available at:
https://gitlab.seismo.ethz.ch/efehr/eshm20/-/tree/master/oq_computational/oq_configuration_eshm20_v12e_region_iceland

- configuration files to run the hazard calculation: `config_eshm20_v12e_iceland.ini`

- list of computational grid points: `eshm20_iceland_site_model.xml`

- ground motion logic tree describing the backbone logic tree: `gmpe_complete_logic_tree_iceland_5branch.xml`

- source model logic tree: `source_model_logic_tree_eshm20_model_iceland_v12e.xml`

- directory of the `source_models`

### 7.3 Online Resources:

An overview of the ESHM2020 project, complete with links to the main elements is available from http://hazard.efehr.org/en/Documentation/specific-hazard-models/europe/eshm2020-overview/

The data is available from the EFEHR web service, available at http://hazard.efehr.org/en/web-services/

Specific web service links follow:

- Hazard Curve data is available from

- http://hazard.efehr.org/en/web-services/hazard-curve-data/

- Hazard Map data is available from

- http://hazard.efehr.org/en/web-services/hazard-map-data/

- Uniform hazard spectra data is available from

- http://hazard.efehr.org/en/web-services/uniform-hazard-spectra/

#### Tools

QGis available from https://www.qgis.org

GeoPandas https://geopandas.org

OpenQuake https://www.globalquakemodel.org
# References

## Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue

Grünthal G and Wahlström R (2012) The European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium. Journal of Seismology. 16: 535–570

Grünthal G, Wahlström R, Stromeyer D (2013) The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) for the time period 1900–2006 and its comparison to the European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC). Journal of Seismology. 17: 1339–1344.

Kadirioglu FT, Kartal RF, Kılıç T, et al. (2018) An improved earthquake catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900 – 2012). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 16: 3317–3338

INFP (2018) Data file of Romanian earthquakes. National Institute for Earth Physics, Bucharest, Romania (http://www.infp.ro/)

Manchuel K, Traversa P, Baumont D, et al. (2018) The French seismic CATalogue (FCAT-17). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 16: 2227–2251.

Rovida A, Locati M, Camassi R, et al. (2020) The Italian earthquake catalogue CPTI15. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 18: 2953–2984.
Živčić M (2018) Data file “Earthquake Catalogue of Slovenia” of the Seismology and Geology Office. Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia

## Historical Earthquake Catalogue

Albini P., Locati M., Rovida A., Stucchi M. (2013). European Archive of Historical EArthquake Data (AHEAD). Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV). https://doi.org/10.6092/ingv.it-ahead

Bakun W.H., Wentworth C.M. (1997). Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity data. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 87, 1502-1521.

Basili R., Carafa M.M.C., Kastelic V., Maesano F.E., Tiberti M.M., Rovida A., Antonucci A., Weatherill G., Lammers S., Danciu L. (2018). D25.2 – Updated databases of seismicity, faults, and strain rates for ESHM20. Deliverable 25.2, WP25 of the SERA (Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Alliance for Europe) Project, Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, grant agreement No 730900, 70 pp.

Bungum H., Lindholm C.D., Dahle A. (2003). Long-period ground-motions for large European earthquakes, 1905–1992, and comparisons with stochastic predictions. J Seismol 7, 377–396.

Gasperini P., Bernardini F., Valensise G., Boschi E. (1999). Defining seismogenic sources from historical earthquake felt reports. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 89, 94-110.

Gasperini P., Vannucci G., Tripone D., Boschi E. (2010). The Location and Sizing of Historical Earthquakes Using the Attenuation of Macroseismic Intensity with Distance. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 100, 2035–2066.

Gomez Capera A.A., Rovida A., Gasperini P., Stucchi M., Viganò D. (2015). The determination of earthquake location and magnitude from macroseismic data in Europe. Bull Earthq Eng, 13, 5, 1249-1280, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9672-3

Grünthal G., Wahlström R., Stromeyer, D. (2009). The unified catalogue of earthquakes in central, northern and northwestern Europe (CENEC) – updated and expanded to the last millennium, J Seismol 13, 4, 514-541, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-008-9144-9

Hammerl Ch., Lenhardt W.A. (2013). Erdbeben in Niederösterreich von 1000 bis 2009 n. Chr. Abhandlungen Der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, Band 67, 297 pp, Wien.Hammerl Ch., Lenhardt W.A. (2013). Erbeben in Niederösterreich von 1000 bis 2009 n. Chr. Abhandlungen Der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, Band 67, 297 pp, Wien.

Leydecker G. (2011). Earthquake Catalogue for Germany and Adjacent Areas for the Years 800-2008. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Hannover.

Locati M., Rovida A., Albini P., Stucchi M. (2014). The AHEAD portal: a gateway to European historical earthquake data. Seismol Res Lett 85, 3, 727-734. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130113

Manchuel K., Traversa P., Baumont D., Cara M., Nayman E., Durouchoux C. (2018). The French seismic CATalogue (FCAT-17). Bull Earthquake Eng, 16, 6, 2227-2251 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0236-1.

Musson R.M.W., Jimenéz M.J. (2008). Macroseismic estimation of earthquake parameters. NA4 deliverable D3, NERIES Project.

Rovida A., Antonucci A. (2021a). EPICA - European PreInstrumental Earthquake CATalogue, version 1.1. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV).Dataset. https://doi.org/10.13127/epica.1.1

Rovida A., Antonucci A. (2021b). EPICA - European PreInstrumental Earthquake CATalogue, version 1.1. Technical report Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), in preparation.

Rovida A., Locati M. (2015). Archive of Historical Earthquake Data for the European-Mediterranean Area. In: A. Ansal (ed.), Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering 39, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16964-4_14

Rovida A., Locati M., Antonucci A., Camassi R. (eds.) (2017). Italian Archive of Historical Earthquake Data (ASMI). Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV). https://doi.org/10.13127/asmi

Rovida A., Locati M., Camassi R., Lolli B., Gasperini P. (eds), (2016). CPTI15, the 2015 version of the Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. https://doi.org/10.6092/INGV.IT-CPTI15

Rovida A., Locati M., Camassi R., Lolli B., Gasperini P. (2020a). The Italian earthquake catalogue CPTI15. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 2953-2984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00818-y

Rovida A.N., Albini P., Locati M., Antonucci A. (2020b). Insights into Preinstrumental Earthquake Data and Catalogs in Europe. Seismol Res Lett 91, 5, 2546-2553. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200058

Stucchi M., Rovida A., Gomez Capera A.A., Alexandre P., Camelbeeck T., Demircioglu M.B., Gasperini P., Kouskouna V., Musson R.M.W., Radulian M., Sesetyan K., Vilanova S., Baumont D., Bungum H., Fäh D., Lenhardt W., Makropoulos K., Martinez Solares J.M., Scotti O., Živčić M., Albini P., Batllo J., Papaioannou C., Tatevossian R., Locati M., Meletti C., Viganò D., Giardini D. (2013). The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1000-1899. J Seismol 17, 523-544, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9335-2

## Active Faults and Subduction

Akoglu, A. M., Cakir, Z., Meghraoui, M., Belabbes, S., El Alami, S. O., Ergintav, S., & Akyüz, H. S. (2006). The 1994–2004 Al Hoceima (Morocco) earthquake sequence: Conjugate fault ruptures deduced from InSAR. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 252(3–4), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.10.010

Allen, T. I., & Hayes, G. P. (2017). Alternative Rupture-Scaling Relationships for Subduction Interface and Other Offshore Environments. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(3), 1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160255

Amante, C. (2009). ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model: Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis [Data set]. National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5C8276M
Árnadóttir, T., Geirsson, H., & Jiang, W. (2008). Crustal deformation in Iceland: Plate spreading and earthquake deformation. Jökull, 58, 59–74.

Arroucau, P., Custódio, S., Civiero, C., Silveira, G., Dias, N., Díaz, J., et al. (2021). PRISM3D: a 3-D reference seismic model for Iberia and adjacent areas. Geophysical Journal International, 225(2), 789–810. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggab005

Asch, K. (2005). The 1:5 Million International Geological Map of Europe and Adjacent Areas - final version for the internet.- BGR, Hannover. Retrieved from https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Sammlungen-Grundlagen/GG_geol_Info/Karten/Europa/IGME5000/IGME Project/I GME_Downloads.html

Atanackov, J., Jamšek Rupnik, P., Jež, J., Celarc, B., Novak, M., Milanič, B., et al. (2021). Database of Active Faults in Slovenia: Compiling a New Active Fault Database at the Junction Between the Alps, the Dinarides and the Pannonian Basin Tectonic Domains. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 604388. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.604388

Basili, R., Kastelic, V., Demircioglu, M. B., Garcia Moreno, D., Nemser, E. S., Petricca, P., et al. (2013, March 1). The European Database of Seismogenic Faults (EDSF) compiled in the framework of the Project
SHARE. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), doi: 10.6092/INGV.IT-SHARE-EDSF. Retrieved July 14, 2020, from http://diss.rm.ingv.it/share-edsf/

Basili, R., Carafa, M. M. C., Kastelic, V., Maesano, F. E., Tiberti, M. M., Rovida, A., et al. (2018). D25.2 - Updated databases of seismicity, faults, and strain rates for ESHM20. Deliverable 25.2, WP25 of the SERA (Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Alliance for Europe) Project, Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, grant agreement No 730900 (p. 70).

Basili, R., Brizuela, B., Herrero, A., Iqbal, S., Lorito, S., Maesano, F. E., et al. (2021). The Making of the NEAM Tsunami Hazard Model 2018 (NEAMTHM18). Frontiers in Earth Science, 8, 616594. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.616594

Bell, R. E., McNeill, L. C., Bull, J. M., Henstock, T. J., Collier, R. E. L., & Leeder, M. R. (2009). Fault architecture, basin structure and evolution of the Gulf of Corinth Rift, central Greece. Basin Research, 21(6), 824–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00401.x

Bergerat, F., Angelier, J., & Villemin, T. (1990). Fault systems and stress patterns on emerged oceanic ridges: a case study in Iceland. Tectonophysics, 179(3-4), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(90)90290-0

Bilek, S. L., & Lay, T. (1999). Rigidity variations with depth along interplate megathrust faults in subduction zones. Nature, 400(6743), 443–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/22739

Bird, P. (2003). An updated digital model of plate boundaries. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GC000252

Borque, M. J., Sánchez-Alzola, A., Martin-Rojas, I., Alfaro, P., Molina, S., Rosa-Cintas, S., et al. (2019). How Much Nubia-Eurasia Convergence Is Accommodated by the NE End of the Eastern Betic Shear Zone (SE Spain)? Constraints From GPS Velocities. Tectonics, 38(5), 1824–1839. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018TC004970

Canora, C., Vilanova, S. P., Besana-Ostman, G. M., Carvalho, J., Heleno, S., & Fonseca, J. (2015). The Eastern Lower Tagus Valley Fault Zone in central Portugal: Active faulting in a low-deformation region within a major river environment. Tectonophysics, 660, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2015.08.026

Caputo, R., & Pavlides, S. (2013). Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources (GreDaSS): A compilation of potential seismogenic sources (Mw &gt;t; 5.5) in the Aegean Region [Text/html, application/vnd.google-earth.kml+xml, image/jpg].

University of Ferrara, Italy. https://doi.org/10.15160/UNIFE/GREDASS/0200

Carafa, M. M. C., Kastelic, V., Bird, P., Maesano, F. E., & Valensise, G. (2018). A "Geodetic Gap" in the Calabrian Arc: Evidence for a Locked Subduction Megathrust? Geophysical Research Letters, 45(4), 1794–1804. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl076554

Civiero, C., Strak, V., Custódio, S., Silveira, G., Rawlinson, N., Arroucau, P., & Corela, C. (2018). A common deep source for upper-mantle upwellings below the Ibero-western Maghreb region from teleseismic P-wave travel-time tomography. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 499, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.07.024

Danciu, L., Şeşetyan, K., Demircioglu, M., Gülen, L., Zare, M., Basili, R., et al. (2018). The 2014 Earthquake Model of the Middle East: seismogenic sources. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3465–3496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0096-8

Davies, J. H. (2013). Global map of solid Earth surface heat flow: Global Surface Heat Flow Map. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14(10), 4608–4622. https://doi.org/10.1002/ggge.20271

Delavaud, E., Cotton, F., Akkar, S., Scherbaum, F., Danciu, L., Beauval, C., et al. (2012). Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe. Journal of Seismology, 16(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9281-z

Demircioglu, M. B., Şeşetyan, K., Duman, T. Y., Çan, T., Tekin, S., & Ergintav, S. (2018). A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Turkish territory: part II—fault source and background seismicity model. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3399–3438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0130-x

Devoti, R., Riguzzi, F., Cuffaro, M., & Doglioni, C. (2008). New GPS constraints on the kinematics of the Apennines subduction. Earth and

Planetary Science Letters, 273(1–2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.06.031

Diaconescu, M., Craiu, A., Moldovan, I. A., Constantinescu, E. G., & Ghita, C. (2019). Main active faults from eastern part of Romania (Dobrogea and Black Sea). Part II: Transversal and oblique faults system. Romanian Reports in Physics, 71(2), 708.

Diaconescu, M., Craiu, A., Toma-Danila, D., Craiu, G. M., & Ghita, C. (2019). Main active faults from Romania, Part I: Longitudinal and faults system. Romanian Reports in Physics, 71(1), 702.

Diaconescu, M., Craiu, A., Ghita, C., Moldovan, I. A., Oros, E., Constantinescu, E. G., & Marius, M. (2021). Main active faults from Romania. Part III: Fault systems from Dacia tectonic unit. Romanian Reports in Physics, 73, 710.

DISS Working Group. (2021). Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), version 3.3.0. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), DOI: 10.6092/INGV.IT-DISS3.3.0. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/

Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S., Şaroğlu, F., Olgun, Ş., Elmacı, H., & Çan, T. (2018). Active fault database of Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3229–3275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2

Escartín, J., Cowie, P. A., Searle, R. C., Allerton, S., Mitchell, N. C., MacLeod, C. J., & Slootweg, A. P. (1999). Quantifying tectonic strain and magmatic accretion at a slow spreading ridge segment, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 29°N. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 104(B5), 10421–10437. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JB0900097

Fadil, A., Vernant, P., McClusky, S., Reilinger, R., Gomez, F., Ben Sari, D., et al. (2006). Active tectonics of the western Mediterranean: Geodetic evidence for rollback of a delaminated subcontinental lithospheric slab beneath the Rif Mountains, Morocco. Geology, 34(7), 529. https://doi.org/10.1130/G22291.1

Fernández-Blanco, D., de Gelder, G., Lacassin, R., & Armijo, R. (2019). A new crustal fault formed the modern Corinth Rift. Earth-Science Reviews, 199, 102919.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102919

Forslund, T., & Gudmundsson, A. (1991). Crustal spreading due to dikes and faults in southwest Iceland. Journal of Structural Geology, 13(4), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(91)90017-D

Ganas, A. (2021). NOAFAULTS KMZ layer Version 3.0.1 (2021 update) (Version V3.0.1) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4897894

Ganas, A., & Parsons, T. (2009). Three-dimensional model of Hellenic Arc deformation and origin of the Cretan uplift. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(B6), B06404. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005599

Garcia, S., Angelier, J., Bergerat, F., & Homberg, C. (2002). Tectonic analysis of an oceanic transform fault zone based on fault-slip data and earthquake focal mechanisms: the Húsavík–Flatey Fault zone, Iceland. Tectonophysics, 344(3–4), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00282-7

Garcia-Mayordomo, J., Insua-Arévalo, J. M., Martinez-Díaz, J. J., Jiménez-Díaz, A., Martín-Banda, R., Martín-Alfageme, S., et al. (2012). The Quaternary Active Faults Database of Iberia (QAFI v.2.0). Journal of Iberian Geology, 38(1), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_JIGE.2012.v38.n1.39219

Geist, E. L., & Bilek, S. L. (2001). Effect of depth-dependent shear modulus on tsunami generation along subduction zones. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(7), 1315–1318. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012385

Giardini, D., Woessner, J., Danciu, L., Valensise, G., Arvidsson, R., Sesetyan, K., et al. (2013). Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe (SHARE): Online Data Resource. Retrieved from http://portal.share-eu.org:8080/jetspeed/portal/, doi: 10.12686/SED-00000001-SHARE

Global Volcanism Program. (2013). Volcanoes of the World, v. 4.3.4. Venzke, E (ed.). Smithsonian Institution.

https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.VOTW4-2013 [Data set]. Retrieved from https://volcano.si.edu/database/webservices.cfm

Gold, R. D., Friedrich, A., Kübler, S., & Salamon, M. (2017). Apparent Late Quaternary Fault-Slip Rate Increase in the Southern Lower Rhine Graben, Central Europe. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(2), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160197
Gomez, F., Barazangi, M., & Bensaid, M. (1996). Active tectonism in the intracontinental Middle Atlas Mountains of Morocco: synchronous crustal shortening and extension. Journal of the Geological Society, 153(3), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.153.3.0389

Gómez-Novell, O., García-Mayordomo, J., Ortuño, M., Masana, E., & Chartier, T. (2020). Fault System-Based Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of a Moderate Seismicity Region: The Eastern Betics Shear Zone (SE Spain). Frontiers in Earth Science, 8, 579398. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.579398

Gómez-Novell, O., Chartier, T., García-Mayordomo, J., Ortuño, M., Masana, E., Insua-Arévalo, J. M., & Scotti, O. (2020). Modelling earthquake rupture rates in fault systems for seismic hazard assessment: The Eastern Betics Shear Zone. Engineering Geology, 265, 105452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105452

Grad, M., Tiira, T., & ESC Working Group. (2009). The Moho depth map of the European Plate. Geophysical Journal International, 176(1), 279-292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03919.x

Gutscher, M.-A., Roger, J., Baptista, M.-A., Miranda, J. M., & Tinti, S. (2006). Source of the 1693 Catania earthquake and tsunami (southern Italy): New evidence from tsunami modeling of a locked subduction fault plane. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(8), L08309. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025442

Gutscher, M.-A., Dominguez, S., Westbrook, G. K., & Leroy, P. (2009). Deep structure, recent deformation and analog modeling of the Gulf of Cadiz accretionary wedge: Implications for the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Tectonophysics, 475(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.11.031

Halpaap, F., Rondenay, S., & Ottemöller, L. (2018). Seismicity, Deformation, and Metamorphism in the Western Hellenic Subduction Zone: New Constraints From Tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(4), 3000-3026. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB015154

Halpaap, F., Rondenay, S., Perrin, A., Goes, S., Ottemöller, L., Austrheim, H., et al. (2019). Earthquakes track subduction fluids from slab source to mantle wedge sink. Science Advances, 5(4), eaav7369. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav7369

Hayes, G. P., Moore, G. L., Portner, D. E., Hearne, M., Flamme, H., Furtney, M., & Smoczyk, G. M. (2018). Slab2, a comprehensive subduction zone geometry model. Science, 362(6410), 58-61. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4723

Herrero-Barbero, P., Álvarez-Gómez, J. A., Martínez-Díaz, J. J., & Klimowitz, J. (2020). Neogene Basin Inversion and Recent Slip Rate Distribution of the Northern Termination of the Alhama de Murcia Fault (Eastern Betic Shear Zone, SE Spain). Tectonics, 39(7). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019TC005750

Heuret, A., Lallemand, S., Funiciello, F., Piromallo, C., & Faccenna, C. (2011). Physical characteristics of subduction interface type seismogenic zones revisited: SUBDUCTION-TYPE SEISMOGENIC ZONES. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 12(1), n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GC003230

Hollenstein, Ch., Müller, M. D., Geiger, A., & Kahle, H.-G. (2008). Crustal motion and deformation in Greece from a decade of GPS measurements, 1993-2003. Tectonophysics, 449(1-4), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2007.12.006

Howell, A., Jackson, J., Copley, A., McKenzie, D., & Nissen, E. (2017). Subduction and vertical coastal motions in the eastern Mediterranean. Geophysical Journal International, 211(1), 593-620. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx307

IGME. (2015). QAFI v.3: Quaternary Faults Database of Iberia. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from http://info.igme.es/QAFI

Johnston, A. C. (1994). Seismotectonic interpretations and conclusions from the stable continental region seismicity database (The Earthquakes of Stable Continental Regions—v. 1 Assessment of Large Earthquake Potential, A. C. Johnston, K. J. Coppersmith, L. R. Kanter, and C. A. Cornell (Editors) No. Report TR102261V1). Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.

Jomard, H., Cushing, E. M., Palumbo, L., Baize, S., David, C., & Chartier, T. (2017). Transposing an active fault database into a seismic hazard fault model for nuclear facilities – Part 1: Building a database of potentially active faults (BDFA) for metropolitan France. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(9), 1573-1584. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1573-2017

Koulali, A., Ouazar, D., Tahay, A., King, R. W., Vernant, P., Reilinger, R. E., et al. (2011). New GPS constraints on active deformation along the Africa-Iberia plate boundary. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 308(1-2), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.05.048

LaFemina, P. C., Dixon, T. H., Malservisi, R., Árnadóttir, T., Sturkell, E., Sigmundsson, F., & Einarsson, P. (2005). Geodetic GPS measurements in south Iceland: Strain accumulation and partitioning in a propagating ridge system: GPS IN SOUTH ICELAND. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 110(B11). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003675

Leonard, M. (2010). Earthquake Fault Scaling: Self-Consistent Relating of Rupture Length, Width, Average Displacement, and Moment Release. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5A), 1971-1988. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090189

Leonard, M. (2014). Self-Consistent Earthquake Fault-Scaling Relations: Update and Extension to Stable Continental Strike-Slip Faults. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(6), 2953-2965. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140087

MacDonald, K. C., & Luyendyk, B. P. (1977). Deep-tow studies of the structure of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge crest near lat 37°N. GSA Bulletin, 88(5), 621-636. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1977)88<621:DSOTSO>2.0.CO;2

Maesano, F. E., Tiberti, M. M., & Basili, R. (2017). The Calabrian Arc: three-dimensional modelling of the subduction interface. Sci Rep, 7(1), 8887. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09074-8

Martínez-Loriente, S., Gràcia, E., Bartolome, R., Sallarès, V., Connors, C., Perea, H., et al. (2013). Active deformation in old oceanic lithosphere and significance for earthquake hazard: Seismic imaging of the Coral Patch Ridge area and neighboring abyssal plains (SW Iberian Margin). Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14(7), 2206-2231. https://doi.org/10.1002/ggge.20173

Martínez-Loriente, S., Gràcia, E., Bartolome, R., Perea, H., Klaeschen, D., Dañobeitia, J. J., et al. (2018). Morphostructure, tectono-sedimentary evolution and seismic potential of the Horseshoe Fault, SW Iberian Margin. Basin Research, 30, 382-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.12225

Müller, R. D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C., & Roest, W. R. (2008). Age, spreading rates, and spreading asymmetry of the world's ocean crust: DIGITAL MODELS OF THE WORLD'S OCEAN CRUST. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9(4), n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743

Neres, M., Carafa, M. M. C., Fernandes, R. M. S., Matias, L., Duarte, J. C., Barba, S., & Terrinha, P. (2016). Lithospheric deformation in the Africa-Iberia plate boundary: Improved neotectonic modeling testing a basal-driven Alboran plate: NEOTECTONIC MODELING IN AFRICA-IBERIA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 121(9), 6566-6596. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013012

NOAA National Geophysical Data Center. (2009). ETOPO1 1 arc-minute global relief model. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Retrieved from https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/Nocquet, J.-M. (2012). Present-day kinematics of the Mediterranean: A comprehensive overview of GPS results. Tectonophysics, 579, 220-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.03.037

Palano, M., González, P. J., & Fernández, J. (2015). The Diffuse Plate boundary of Nubia and Iberia in the Western Mediterranean: Crustal deformation evidence for viscous coupling and fragmented lithosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 430, 439-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2015.08.040

Pastor, A., Babault, J., Owen, L. A., Teixell, A., & Arboleya, M.-L. (2015). Extracting dynamic topography from river profiles and cosmogenic nuclide geochronology in the Middle Atlas and the High Plateaus of Morocco. Tectonophysics, 663, 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2015.06.007

Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R., et al. (2006). GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B5), n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004051
Rigby, M. (2008). Recent faulting and active shortening of the Middle Atlas Mountains, Morocco, within the diffuse African-Eurasian plate boundary (Master of Science Degree Thesis). Faculty of the Graduate School, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Rögnvaldsson, S. T., Gudmundsson, A., & Slunga, R. (1998). Seismotectonic analysis of the Tjörnes Fracture Zone, an active transform fault in north Iceland. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B12), 30117–30129. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JB02789

Rust, D., & Whitworth, M. (2019). A unique ~12 ka subaerial record of rift-transform triple-junction tectonics, NE Iceland. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 9669. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45903-8

Sachpazi, M., Laigle, M., Charalampakis, M., Diaz, J., Kissling, E., Gesret, A., et al. (2016). Segmented Hellenic slab rollback driving Aegean deformation and seismicity. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(2), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066818

Sallarès, V., & Ranero, C. R. (2019). Upper-plate rigidity determines depth-varying rupture behaviour of megathrust earthquakes. Nature, 576(7785), 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1784-0

Sallarès, V., Gailler, A., Gutscher, M.-A., Graindorge, D., Bartolomé, R., Gràcia, E., et al. (2011). Seismic evidence for the presence of Jurassic oceanic crust in the central Gulf of Cadiz (SW Iberian margin). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 311(1–2), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.09.003

Sanz de Galdeano, C., Azañón, J. M., Cabral, J., Ruano, P., Alfaro, P., Canora, C., et al. (2020). Active Faults in Iberia. In C. Quesada & J. T. Oliveira (Eds.), The Geology of Iberia: A Geodynamic Approach (pp. 33–75). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10931-8_4

Scala, A., Lorito, S., Romano, F., Murphy, S., Selva, J., Basili, R., et al. (2020). Effect of Shallow Slip Amplification Uncertainty on Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis in Subduction Zones: Use of Long-Term Balanced Stochastic Slip Models. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 177(3), 1497–1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02260-x

Stich, D., Serpelloni, E., de Lis Mancilla, F., & Morales, J. (2006). Kinematics of the Iberia–Maghreb plate contact from seismic moment tensors and GPS observations. Tectonophysics, 426(3–4), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.08.004

Styron, R., & Pagani, M. (2020). The GEM Global Active Faults Database. Earthquake Spectra, 36(1_suppl), 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020944182

Syracuse, E. M., van Keken, P. E., & Abers, G. A. (2010). The global range of subduction zone thermal models. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 183(1–2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2010.02.004
Thiebot, E., & Gutscher, M.-A. (2006). The Gibraltar Arc seismogenic zone (part 1): Constraints on a shallow east dipping fault plane source for the 1755 Lisbon earthquake provided by seismic data, gravity and thermal modeling. Tectonophysics, 426(1–2), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.02.024

Vanneste, K., Camelbeeck, T., & Verbeeck, K. (2013). A Model of Composite Seismic Sources for the Lower Rhine Graben, Northwest Europe. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(2A), 984–1007. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120037

Wdowinski, S., Ben-Avraham, Z., Arvidsson, R., & Ekström, G. (2006). Seismotectonics of the Cyprian Arc. Geophysical Journal International, 164(1), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02737.x
van der Woerd, J., Dorbath, C., Ousadou, F., Dorbath, L., Delouis, B., Jacques, E., et al. (2014). The Al Hoceima Mw 6.4 earthquake of 24 February 2004 and its aftershocks sequence. Journal of Geodynamics, 77, 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2013.12.004

## Ground Motion Models

Abrahamson NA, Gregor N, Addo K (2016) BC Hydro Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra. 32(1): 23–44

Abrahamson NA, Keuhn N, Gülerce Z, et al. (2018) Update of the BC Hydro Subduction Ground-Motion Model using the NGA-Subduction Dataset. PEER Technical Report 2018/02.

Abrahamson N and Gülerce Z (2020) Regionalized Ground-Motion Models for Subduction Earthquakes Based on the NGA-SUB Database. PEER Technical Report No. 2020/25

Al Atik L and Youngs RR (2014) Epistemic uncertainty for NGA-West2 models. Earthquake Spectra. 30: 1301–1318.

Al Atik L (2015) NGA-East: ground-motion standard deviation models for Central and Eastern North America. PEER Technical Report, Report No. 2015/07

Basili R, Brizuela B., Herrero A, et al. (2019) NEAMTHM18 documentation: the making of the TSUMAPS-NEAM. In Tech. rep., Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.34066 25N

Boore DM (2010) Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 100: 1830–1835

Fülöp J, Lussila V, Aapasuo R, et al. (2020) A ground-motion prediction equation for Fennoscandian Nuclear Installations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 110(3): 1211–1230.

Ghasemi H, Cummins P, Weatherill G, et al. (2020) Seismotectonic model and probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Papua New Guinea. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 18: 6571–6605.

Goulet C, Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson NA, et al. (2018) Central and Eastern North America ground-motion characterization: NGA-East Final Report. PEER Technical Report No. 2018/08.

Grad M, Tiira T, the ESC Working Group (2009) The Moho depth map of the European plate. Geophysical Journal International. 176: 279–292.

Hashash YMA, Ilhan O, Harmon JA, et al. (2020) Nonlinear site amplification model for ergodic seismic hazard analysis in Central and Eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra. 36(1): 69–86

Kuehn N, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW, Gregor N (2020) Partially Non-Ergodic Ground-Motion Model for Subduction Regions using the NGA-Subduction Database. PEER Technical Report 2020/04.

Kotha S -R, Bindi D, Cotton F. (2016) Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and the Middle East. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 14: 1245 - 1263

Kotha S -R, Weatherill G, Cotton F (2020a) A regionally adaptable ground-motion model for shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 18:4091 – 4125

Kotha S -R (2020) From a Regionalised Ground-Motion Model for Europe and the Middle East to Site-specific Seismic Hazard Assessments in Low-to-Moderate Seismicity Regions. Sigma 2 Deliverable SIGMA2-2019-D3-029/1.

Kotha S -R, Weatherill G, Bindi D, Cotton F (2022) Near-source Magnitude Scaling of Spectral Accelerations: Analysis and Update of the Kotha et al. (2020) Model. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, submitted.

Lanzano G, Sgobba S, Luzi L, et al. (2019) The pan-European Engineering Strong Motion (ESM) flatfile: compilation criteria and data statistics. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 17: 561 – 582

Lucazeau F (2019) Analysis and mapping of an updated terrestrial heat flow data set. Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geosystems. 20: 4001–4024

Mak S, Clements RA, Schorlemmer D (2017) Empirical Evaluation of Hierarchical Ground-Motion Models: Score Uncertainty and Model Weighting. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 107(2): 949–965.

Miller AC and Rice TR (1983) Discrete approximations of probability distributions. Management Science. 29(3): 352 – 362

Mitchell BJ, Cong L, Ekström G (2008) A continent-wide map of 1-Hz Lg coda Q variation across Eurasia and its relation to lithospheric evolution. Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: B04303

Mooney WD, Ritsema J, Hwang YK (2012) Crustal seismicity and the earthquake catalog maximum moment magnitude mcmax in stable continental regions (SCRs): correlation with the seismic velocity of the lithosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 357–358: 78–83.

Parker GA, Stewart JP, Boore DM, et al. (2020) NGA-Subduction Global Ground-Motion Models with Regional Adjustment Factors. PEER Technical Report, Report No. 2020/03.

Pezeshk S, Zandieh A, Tavakoli B (2011) Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 101(4): 1859–1870.
Rodriguez-Marek A, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA, et al. (2013) A model for single-station standard deviation using data from various tectonic regimes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 103(6): 3149-3163.

Scasserra G, Stewart J, Bazzurro P, et al. (2009) A comparison of NGA ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 99(5): 2961-2978.

Stewart JP, Parker GA, Atkinson GM, et al. (2020) Ergodic site amplification model for Central and Eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra. 36(1): 42-68.

Szwillus W, Alfonso JB, Ebbing J, Mooney WD (2019) Global crustal thickness and velocity structure from geostatistical analysis of seismic data. Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth. 124: 1626-1652.

Vacareanu R, Radulian M, Iancovici M, et al. (2015) Fore-Arc and Back-Arc Ground Motion Prediction Model for Vrancea Intermediate Depth Seismic Source. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 19: 535-562

Weatherill G, Kotha S-R, Cotton F. (2020a) A regionally adaptable "scaled backbone" ground motion logic tree for shallow seismicity in Europe: application to the 2020 European seismic hazard model. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 18: 5087-5117

Weatherill GA and Cotton F (2020) A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe: regionalization, model selection and development of a scaled backbone approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 18: 6119-6148

## Unified Earthquake Catalogue

Gardner, J. K. and Knopoff, L. (1974). Is the sequence of aftershocks in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, poissonian?. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 64(5): 1363-1367.

Grünthal, G., Wahlström, R. and Stromeyer D. (2013). The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) for the time period 1900-2006 and its comparison to the European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC). Journal of Seismology, 17, 1339-1344, doi:10.1007/s10950-013-9379-y

Grünthal G., Wahlström R., Stromeyer, D. (2009a), The unified catalogue of earthquakes in central, northern and northwestern Europe (CENEC) - updated and expanded to the last millennium, Journal of Seismology, 13(4), 514-541.

Mignan, A., M. J. Werner, S. Wiemer, C.-C. Chen, and Y.-M. Wu (2011), Bayesian estimation of the spatially varying completeness magnitude of earthquake catalogs, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 101, doi:10.1785/0120100223.

Ogata, Y., and K. Katsura (1993), Analysis of temporal and spatial heterogeneity of magnitude frequency distribution inferred from earthquake catalogues, Geophys. J. Int., 113, 727-738.

Zaliapin, I., A. Gabrielov, V. Keilis-Borok, and H. Wong (2008), Clustering Analysis of Seismicity and Aftershock Identification, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101(1), 1-4, 6, 22, 23

## Seismogenic Source Model

Anderson JG, Luco JE (1983) Consequences of slip rate constraints on earthquake occurrence relations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:471-496.

Basili R, Valensise G, Vannoli P et al (2008) The Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), version 3: summarizing 20 years of research on Italy's earthquake geology. Tectonophysics 453:20-43. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2007.04.014

Hiemer, S., J. Woessner, R. Basili, L. Danciu, D. Giardini and S. Wiemer, (2014), A smoothed stochastic earthquake rate model considering seismicity and fault moment release for Europe, Geophys. J. Int., 198, 1159-1172, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu186.

Hiemer, S., Jackson, D.D., Wang, Q., Kagan, Y.Y., Woessner, J., Zechar, J.D. & Wiemer, S., (2013). A stochastic forecast of California earthquakes based on fault slip and smoothed seismicity, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 103(2A), 799-810.

Kagan, Y. Y. (2002), Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. statistical results, Geophys. J. Int., 148, 520-541.

Maesano F.E., Tiberti M.M. and Basili R. (2017), The Calabrian Arc: three-dimensional modelling of the subduction interface, Scientific

Reports volume 7, Article number: 8887 (2017), http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11221

Musson, R M W. 2011. The Effect Of Magnitude Uncertainty On Activity Rates. Bulletin of The Seismological Society Of America, Submitted.

Pagani M., J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli, 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1, The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Global Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1) Reasenberg, P., 1985. Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969-1982. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 90(B7), pp.5479-5495.

Rhoades, D. A., Schorlemmer, D., Gerstenberger, M. C., Christophersen, A., Zechar, J. D., and Imoto, M. (2011). Efficient testing of earthquake forecasting models. ActaGeophysica, 59(4):728-747.

Rydelek, P. A., and I. S. Sacks (1989), Testing the completeness of earthquake catalogs and the hypothesis of self-similarity, Nature, 337, 251-253.

Schorlemmer, D., and J. Woessner (2008), Probability of detecting an earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98, doi:10.1785/0120070105.

Shi, Y., and B. A. Bolt (1982), The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b-value, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 72, 1677-1687.

Stucchi, M. et al., (2012). The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1000-1899, J. Seismol., 17(2), 523-544.

Uhrhammer R (1986) "Characteristics of northern and southern California seismicity: Earthquake Notes", v. 57, p. 21.

van Stiphout, T., J. Zhuang, and D. Marsan (2012), Seismicity declustering, Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis, doi:10.5078/corssa-52382934. Available at

http://www.corssa.org

Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974-1002

Weichert, D H. 1980. Estimation of The Earthquake Recurrence Parameters for Unequal Observation Periods For Different Magnitudes. Bulletin of The Seismological Society of America, Vol. 70, 1337-1346.

Wössner, J., and S. Wiemer (2005), Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: Estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, doi:10.1785/012040007.

Wössner, J., D. Laurentiu, D. Giardini, H. Crowley, F. Cotton, G. Grünthal, G. Valensise, R. Arvidsson, R. Basili and M. B. Demircioglu (2015). The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: Key Components and Results, B Earthq Eng 13, 3553-3596

Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ, (1985) Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75: 939-964.

## Model Implementation

Crowley H., Monelli D., Pagani M., Silva V., Weatherill G., (2015), OpenQuake Engine User Instruction Manual

Monelli D, Pagani M, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Garcia J (2014) Modeling Distributed Seismicity for Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analysis: Implementation and Insights with the OpenQuake Engine. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4): 1636-1649. doi: 10.1785/0120130309

Pagani, M., D. Monelli, G. Weatherill, L. Danciu, H. Crowley, V. Silva, P. Henshaw, L. Butler, M. Nastasi, L. Panzeri, M. Simionato, and D. Vigano, OpenQuake Engine: An Open Hazard (and Risk) Software for the Global Earthquake Model, Seismological Research Letters, May/June 2014, v. 85, p. 692-702, doi:10.1785/0220130087

Pagani, M., Monelli, D., Weatherill, G. A. and Garcia, J. (2014). The OpenQuake-engine Book: Hazard. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Technical Report 2014-08, doi: 10.13117/-GEM OPENQUAKE TR 2014.08, 67 pages.

Weatherill GA (2014) OpenQuake Hazard Modeller's Toolkit - User Guide. Global Earthquake Model (GEM). Technical Report.
# Appendix A: Earthquake Catalogue Completeness – Summary

In this appendix the time intervals of completion for all completeness super-zones (CSZs) are provided. These magnitude -time completeness intervals were used together with the declustered catalogue to estimate the activity parameters of the seismogenic source model.

<table><caption>Table A.1: Magnitude of completeness table for all CSZ</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">CSZs ID</th><th colspan="7">Completeness time steps (Year and Mc)</th><th rowspan="2">1812</th><th rowspan="2">1826</th></tr><tr><th>1152</th><th>1590</th><th>1670</th><th>1691</th><th>1794</th><th>1814</th><th>1875</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SZ01</td><td>6.1</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.7</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ02</td><td>1295</td><td>1524</td><td>1729</td><td>1774</td><td>1821</td><td>1835</td><td>1846</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ03</td><td>5.5</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.5</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ04</td><td>1000</td><td>1828</td><td>1949</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ05</td><td>1014</td><td>1373</td><td>1579</td><td>1708</td><td>1730</td><td>1747</td><td>1772</td><td>1812</td><td>1826</td></tr><tr><td>SZ06</td><td>6.1</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>SZ07</td><td>1133</td><td>1795</td><td>1816</td><td>1839</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ08</td><td>4.7</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ10</td><td>1092</td><td>1753</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ11</td><td>1125</td><td>1693</td><td>1828</td><td>1972</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ12</td><td>6.3</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ13</td><td>1508</td><td>1684</td><td>1813</td><td>1825</td><td>1838</td><td>1852</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ14</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.7</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ15</td><td>1497</td><td>1819</td><td>1857</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ16</td><td>1671</td><td>1851</td><td>1906</td><td>1951</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ17</td><td>6.5</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.7</td><td>4.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ18</td><td>1509</td><td>1818</td><td>1858</td><td>1890</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ19</td><td>7.1</td><td>5.5</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ20</td><td>1444</td><td>1837</td><td>1853</td><td>1893</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ21</td><td>6.9</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ22</td><td>1308</td><td>1862</td><td>1882</td><td>1916</td><td>1963</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ23</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ24</td><td>1073</td><td>1828</td><td>1839</td><td>1884</td><td>1947</td><td>1965</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ25</td><td>6.9</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ26</td><td>1204</td><td>1791</td><td>1839</td><td>1859</td><td>1886</td><td>1911</td><td>1952</td><td>1963</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ27</td><td>7.3</td><td>6.5</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.5</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.7</td><td>4.3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ28</td><td>1555</td><td>1870</td><td>1904</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ29</td><td>6.3</td><td>5.3</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ30</td><td>1236</td><td>1668</td><td>1868</td><td>1895</td><td>1947</td><td>1966</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ31</td><td>7.7</td><td>6.5</td><td>6.1</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">CSZs ID</th><th colspan="5">Completeness time steps (Year and Mc)</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th></tr><tr><th>1182</th><th>1903</th><th>1924</th><th>1973</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SZ25</td><td></td><td>6.7</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ26</td><td></td><td>1829</td><td>1872</td><td>1896</td><td>1932</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ27</td><td></td><td>7.3</td><td>6.1</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ28</td><td></td><td>1816</td><td>1926</td><td>1939</td><td>1958</td><td>1979</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ29</td><td></td><td>8.3</td><td>6.7</td><td>6.3</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ30</td><td></td><td>1915</td><td>1972</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ31</td><td></td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ32</td><td></td><td>1899</td><td>1928</td><td>1967</td><td>1981</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ33</td><td></td><td>7.3</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.3</td><td>4.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ34</td><td></td><td>1826</td><td>1907</td><td>1983</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ35</td><td></td><td>6.9</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ36</td><td></td><td>1517</td><td>1857</td><td>1875</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ37</td><td></td><td>6.9</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ38</td><td></td><td>1809</td><td>1935</td><td>1952</td><td>1979</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ39</td><td></td><td>5.3</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ40</td><td></td><td>1821</td><td>1892</td><td>1938</td><td>1968</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ41</td><td></td><td>5.1</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ42</td><td></td><td>1065</td><td>1501</td><td>1688</td><td>1738</td><td>1779</td><td>1857</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ43</td><td></td><td>6.3</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.5</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ44</td><td></td><td>1530</td><td>1850</td><td>1900</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ45</td><td></td><td>7.3</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ46</td><td></td><td>1052</td><td>1362</td><td>1789</td><td>1857</td><td>1870</td><td>1900</td><td>1970</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ47</td><td></td><td>7.1</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.7</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.3</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ48</td><td></td><td>1190</td><td>1717</td><td>1900</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ49</td><td></td><td>6.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>4.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ50</td><td></td><td>1003</td><td>1911</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ51</td><td></td><td>6.3</td><td>5.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ52</td><td></td><td>1023</td><td>1549</td><td>1641</td><td>1828</td><td>1877</td><td>1892</td><td>1903</td><td>1962</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ53</td><td></td><td>7.7</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ54</td><td></td><td>1045</td><td>1255</td><td>1866</td><td>1900</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ55</td><td></td><td>7.9</td><td>7.3</td><td>6.9</td><td>4.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ56</td><td></td><td>1182</td><td>1753</td><td>1767</td><td>1806</td><td>1866</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ57</td><td></td><td>6.1</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.7</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ58</td><td></td><td>1923</td><td>1938</td><td>1950</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ59</td><td></td><td>5.9</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ60</td><td></td><td>1632</td><td>1759</td><td>1834</td><td>1865</td><td>1879</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ61</td><td></td><td>5.5</td><td>5.3</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.7</td><td>3.7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ62</td><td></td><td>1309</td><td>1722</td><td>1962</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SZ63</td><td></td><td>8.3</td><td>5.9</td><td>4.1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
# Appendix B: ESHM20 Input Datasets: Summary and File Formats

This appendix presents the data summary tables describing the main input datasets used in the development of the seismogenic source model. The aim of these table is to assist the documentation of the seismogenic source model and its conversion to OpenQuake input files. The main databases that we consider are:

1. The earthquake catalogue used as basis for the computation.

2. Superzones of completeness regions

3. Superzones of the maximum magnitudes

4. Superzones of tectonic regimes

5. The parameters used for the computation of the area source model branches

6. The parameters of the fault source and background model

7. The parameters of the smoothed seismicity model

We provide the parameters of these datasets in tables when possible. The data used to create the ESHM20 input files for OpenQuake are provided as Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI) shapefiles (ESRI, 1998), which is readable by programs such as ArcGIS, QGIS, and the GeoPandas Python module. Shapefile fieldnames must be 10 characters or less in length, and are limited in to text or a single numerical value per field.

These shape files of the ESHM20 input datasets reside on the gitlab repository of the hazard.EFEHR.org https://gitlab.seismo.ethz.ch/efehr/eshm20_source_model/-/tree/master/inputShapefiles.

The interested reader is encouraged to use this online repository to examine the input shape files. For the purpose of documentation, we describe the attributes of each table following the structure of the main directory:

1. eshm20_input_a_unified_eq Shapefile (see B.1)

2. eshm20_input_b_completenessent zones (see B.2)

3. eshm20_input_c_tecto zones (see B.3)

4. eshm20_input_d_asm_shallow crust (see B.4)

5. eshm20_input_e_fs_model (see B.5)

6. eshm20_input_f.smoothed_seismicity (see B.6)

7. eshm20_input_g_CALCRegions NRML filter (see B.7)

8. eshm20_input_h_simpleIndividual_buffer (see B.8)

9. eshm20_input_i_tecto_iceland (see B.3)

10. eshm20_input_j_asz_iceland (see B.4)

11. eshm20_input_k_tecto-deep (see B.3)

12. eshm20_input_m_asm-deep (see B.4)

13. eshm20_input_m_asz_volcanic(see B.4)
## B.1 Catalogue file:

<table><caption>Table B.1 Homogenized catalogue shapefile attributes</caption><thead><tr><td>Attribute</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>longitude</td><td>Epicentral longitude of the event</td></tr><tr><td>latitude</td><td>Epicentral latitude of the event</td></tr><tr><td>year</td><td>year of the event</td></tr><tr><td>month</td><td>month of the event</td></tr><tr><td>day</td><td>day of the event</td></tr><tr><td>hour</td><td>hour of the event</td></tr><tr><td>minute</td><td>minute of the event</td></tr><tr><td>second</td><td>second of the event</td></tr><tr><td>magnitude</td><td>Magnitude,</td></tr><tr><td>depth</td><td>Hypocentral depth, in km. If unknown, randomly assigned according to tectonic region</td></tr><tr><td>source_cat</td><td>Catalogue from which this event was imported: {'EMECv20191114', 'EMME14_Pre1900', 'SERA_histogram1.1'}</td></tr><tr><td>eventID</td><td>Generated ID for each event</td></tr><tr><td>depth_orig</td><td>Depth, in km, from original catalogue.</td></tr><tr><td>winGT_fs01</td><td>is Background seismicity after Gruenthal declustering</td></tr><tr><td>winGK_fs01</td><td>is Background seismicity after Gardiner-Knopoff declustering</td></tr><tr><td>rb_rfact10</td><td>is Background seismicity after Reasenberg declustering, rfact 10, tmax100, fs017</td></tr><tr><td>rb_rfact20</td><td>is Background seismicity after Reasenberg declustering, rfact 20, tmax100, fs017</td></tr><tr><td>rb_rfact30</td><td>is Background seismicity after Reasenberg declustering, rfact 30, tmax100, fs017</td></tr><tr><td>Date</td><td>string date representation mostly "YYYY-MM-DD", but 'd-m-y' for EMME14_Pre1900 events</td></tr><tr><td>geometry</td><td>Point representation of the earthquake epicenter</td></tr></tbody></table>
B2 Completeness Superzones (CSZ) shape file

<table><caption>Table B.2 Completeness superzone (CSZ) shapefile attributes</caption><thead><tr><th>ZONE_ID</th><th>ID of source area</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CSZ_ID</td><td>ID of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source</td></tr><tr><td>CSZ_NAME</td><td>NAME of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source</td></tr><tr><td>CSZ_ID13</td><td>ID of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source of the ESHM13</td></tr><tr><td>CSZ_NAME13</td><td>ID of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source of the ESHM13</td></tr><tr><td>a_val</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - best estimate</td></tr><tr><td>a_hi</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - upper curve</td></tr><tr><td>a_mid</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - median curve</td></tr><tr><td>a_lo</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - lower curve</td></tr><tr><td>b_val</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - best estimate</td></tr><tr><td>b_hi</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - upper curve</td></tr><tr><td>b_mid</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - median curve</td></tr><tr><td>b_lo</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - lower curve</td></tr><tr><td>sigma_a</td><td>Std Dev. in a-values</td></tr><tr><td>sigma_b</td><td>Std Dev. in b-values</td></tr><tr><td>sigma_b</td><td>Std Dev. in b-values</td></tr><tr><td>cum_cov_ab</td><td>Covariance between a-values and b-values</td></tr><tr><td>areakm2</td><td>Area of source zone in km<sup>2</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>
B.3 Tectonic Zone (TECTO) shape files

<table><caption>Table B.3 Tectonic zone (TECTO) shapefile attributes</caption><thead><tr><th>ZONE_ID</th><th>ID of source area</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>areakm2</td><td>Area of source zone in km<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>CSZ_ID</td><td>ID of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source</td></tr><tr><td>TECTO_ID</td><td>ID of Tectonic Region (TECTO) source, same as ZONE_ID</td></tr><tr><td>region_lev</td><td>"TECTO" reflecting that these zones belong to the TECTO regime</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAG01</td><td>Lower maximum magnitude for Gutenberg-Richter models</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAG02</td><td>Middle maximum magnitude for Gutenberg-Richter models</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAG03</td><td>Upper maximum magnitude for Gutenberg-Richter models</td></tr><tr><td>a_val</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - best estimate</td></tr><tr><td>a_hi</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - upper curve</td></tr><tr><td>a_mid</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - median curve</td></tr><tr><td>a_lo</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - lower curve</td></tr><tr><td>sigma_a</td><td>Std Dev. in a-values</td></tr><tr><td>b_val</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - best estimate</td></tr><tr><td>b_hi</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - upper curve</td></tr><tr><td>b_mid</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - median curve</td></tr><tr><td>b_lo</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - lower curve</td></tr><tr><td>sigma_b</td><td>Std Dev. in b-values</td></tr><tr><td>ref_mag</td><td>Magnitude at which the occurrence observation table starts</td></tr><tr><td>cum_cov_ab</td><td>Covariance between a-values and b-values</td></tr><tr><td>mag_corner</td><td>Corner magnitude for Pareto model</td></tr><tr><td>dxcorner</td><td>difference between each corner bin, for pareto models</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAGP1</td><td>Effective Max Magnitude for Pareto model with lowest corner magnitude</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAGP2</td><td>Effective Max Magnitude for Pareto model with corner magnitude of (magcorner + dx corner)</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAGP3</td><td>Effective Max Magnitude for Pareto model with corner magnitude of (mag corner + 2 * dx corner)</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_bval1</td><td>b-value for magnitude bins below the inflection point magnitude utsu Minfl, for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_bval2</td><td>b-value for magnitude bins greater than the inflection point magnitude utsu Minfl, for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_aval</td><td>b-value for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_Minfl</td><td>Magnitude of inflection point. Magnitude at which the B-value changes from utsu_bval1 to utsu_bval2, for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>geometry</td><td>Polygon that defines this zone</td></tr></tbody></table>
## B.4 Area Source Zone (ASZ) shape files

<table><thead><tr><td>Attribute</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ZONE_ID</td><td>ID of source area</td></tr><tr><td>areakm2</td><td>Area of source zone in km<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>tctCluster</td><td>Tectonic Region Type</td></tr><tr><td>CSZ_ID</td><td>ID of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source</td></tr><tr><td>TECTO_ID</td><td>ID of Tectonic Region (TECTO) source</td></tr><tr><td>region_lev</td><td>"ASZ" reflecting that these zones belong to the ASZ regime</td></tr><tr><td>magScaleRe</td><td>Magnitude-area rupture scaling relationship</td></tr><tr><td>MC_ID</td><td>ID of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source, used for determining Magnitude of Completeness</td></tr><tr><td>SS</td><td>Percentage of Strike-Slip component</td></tr><tr><td>NF</td><td>Percentage of Normal Fault component</td></tr><tr><td>TF</td><td>Percentage of Thrust Fault component</td></tr><tr><td>MINDEPTH</td><td>Upper depth of earthquakes in the source zone in km</td></tr><tr><td>MAXDEPTH</td><td>Lower depth of earthquakes in the source zone in km</td></tr><tr><td>HYPODEPTH1</td><td>Shallow Depth hypocenter in km</td></tr><tr><td>HYPODEPTH2</td><td>Mid Depth hypocenter in km</td></tr><tr><td>HYPODEPTH3</td><td>Lower depth hypocenter in km</td></tr><tr><td>WHDEPTH1</td><td>Weight applied to HYPODEPTH1</td></tr><tr><td>WHDEPTH2</td><td>Weight applied to HYPODEPTH2</td></tr><tr><td>WHDEPTH3</td><td>Weight applied to HYPODEPTH3</td></tr><tr><td>WMAXMAG01</td><td>Weighting for MAXMAG01</td></tr><tr><td>WMAXMAG02</td><td>Weighting for MAXMAG02</td></tr><tr><td>WMAXMAG03</td><td>Weighting for MAXMAG03</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAG01</td><td>Lower maximum magnitude for Gutenberg-Richter models</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAG02</td><td>Middle maximum magnitude for Gutenberg-Richter models</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAG03</td><td>Upper maximum magnitude for Gutenberg-Richter models</td></tr><tr><td>STRIKE1</td><td>Strike in degrees from north, used with DIP1</td></tr><tr><td>STRIKE2</td><td>Strike in degrees from north, used with DIP2</td></tr><tr><td>STRIKE3</td><td>Strike in degrees from north, used with DIP3</td></tr><tr><td>STRIKE4</td><td>Strike in degrees from north, used with DIP4</td></tr><tr><td>DIP1</td><td>Rupture dip in degrees, used with STRIKE1</td></tr><tr><td>DIP2</td><td>Rupture dip in degrees, used with STRIKE2</td></tr><tr><td>DIP3</td><td>Rupture dip in degrees, used with STRIKE3</td></tr><tr><td>DIP4</td><td>Rupture dip in degrees, used with STRIKE4</td></tr><tr><td>aspRatio</td><td>Aspect ratio for pseudo-rupture length-width scaling</td></tr><tr><td>a_val</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - best estimate</td></tr><tr><td>a_hi</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - upper curve</td></tr><tr><td>a_mid</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - median curve</td></tr><tr><td>a_lo</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter a-value - lower curve</td></tr><tr><td>sigma_a</td><td>Std Dev. in a-values</td></tr><tr><td>b_val</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - best estimate</td></tr><tr><td>b_hi</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - upper curve</td></tr><tr><td>b_mid</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - median curve</td></tr><tr><td>b_lo</td><td>Gutenberg-Richter b-value - lower curve</td></tr><tr><td>sigma_b</td><td>Std Dev. in b-values</td></tr><tr><td>ref_mag</td><td>Magnitude at which the occurrence observation table starts</td></tr><tr><td>cum_cov_ab</td><td>Covariance between a-values and b-values</td></tr><tr><td>mag_corner</td><td>Corner magnitude for Pareto model</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table B.4 Area source zone (ASZ) shapefile attributes</caption><tr><td>dx_corner</td><td>difference between each corner bin, for pareto models</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAGP1</td><td>Effective Max Magnitude for Pareto model with lowest corner magnitude</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAGP2</td><td>Effective Max Magnitude for Pareto model with corner magnitude of (mag_corner + dx_corner)</td></tr><tr><td>MAXMAGP3</td><td>Effective Max Magnitude for Pareto model with corner magnitude of (magcorner + 2 * dxcorner)</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_bval1</td><td>b-value for magnitude bins below the inflection point magnitude utsu_Minfl, for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_bval2</td><td>b-value for magnitude bins greater than the inflection point magnitude utsu_Minfl, for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_aval</td><td>b-value for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>utsu_Minfl</td><td>Magnitude of inflection point. Magnitude at which the B-value changes from utsu_bval1 to utsu_bval2, for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>geometry</td><td>Polygon that defines this zone</td></tr></table>

## B.5 Active fault source model shapefile

<table><caption>Table B.5 Fault source model shapefile attributes</caption><thead><tr><td>Attribute</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>index</td><td>Id of this fault</td></tr><tr><td>AR</td><td>Rupture aspect ratio</td></tr><tr><td>rake</td><td>Fault Rake</td></tr><tr><td>dip</td><td>Fault Dip</td></tr><tr><td>upper_seis</td><td>Upper depth of earthquakes in the fault in km</td></tr><tr><td>lower_seis</td><td>Lower depth of earthquakes in the fault in km</td></tr><tr><td>a_value</td><td>a-value for the truncated Gutenberg-Richter Model</td></tr><tr><td>b_value</td><td>b-value for the truncated Gutenberg-Richter Model</td></tr><tr><td>min_mag</td><td>Min Mag for the truncated Gutenberg-Richter Model</td></tr><tr><td>max_mag</td><td>Max Mag for the truncated Gutenberg-Richter Model</td></tr><tr><td>geometry</td><td>MultiLineSources that specifies the fault trace geometry</td></tr></tbody></table>
## B.6 Background seismicity SEIFA shapefile

<table><caption>Table B.6 Background seismicity shapefile attributes</caption><thead><tr><td>Attribute</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>TECTO_ID</td><td>ID of Tectonic Region (TECTO) source, same as ZONE_ID</td></tr><tr><td>FMDtyp</td><td>Model type used at this grid point: tGR for Gutenberg-Richter, twinGR for Utsu</td></tr><tr><td>CSZ_ID</td><td>ID of Completeness Zonation (CSZ) source</td></tr><tr><td>CSZ_NAME</td><td>Name of the CSZ</td></tr><tr><td>areakm2</td><td>Area of source zone in km^2</td></tr><tr><td>X</td><td>Longitude</td></tr><tr><td>Y</td><td>Latitude</td></tr><tr><td>areagrid</td><td>Area, in km^2 represented by this grid point</td></tr><tr><td>tct_a_val</td><td>a-value for the TECTO zone</td></tr><tr><td>tct_b_val</td><td>b-value for the TECTO zone</td></tr><tr><td>tct_b_val2</td><td>2nd (upper) b-value for the TECTO zone, if a zone has FMDtyp "twinGR"</td></tr><tr><td>max_mag</td><td>Maximum magnitude for Gutenberg-Richter models</td></tr><tr><td>mag_inflec</td><td>Magnitude of inflection point. Magnitude at which the B-value changes from utsu_bval1 to utsu_bval2, for use with UTSU (Twin-GR) model</td></tr><tr><td>bin_width</td><td>magnitude bin width</td></tr><tr><td>first_bin</td><td>Center of the first magnitude bin</td></tr><tr><td>last_bin</td><td>Center of the last magnitude bin</td></tr><tr><td>a_grid</td><td>a-value for this grid point</td></tr><tr><td>b_grid</td><td>b-value for this grid point</td></tr><tr><td>Mmax_ssmBa</td><td>-- ? --</td></tr><tr><td>ssm_1 through ssm_30</td><td>All fields "ssm_X" contain the incremental annual occurrence rate for the bin centered at first_bin + (x-1)*bin_width</td></tr><tr><td>geometry</td><td>Point representation of this location</td></tr></tbody></table>
## B.7 Region Filter shapefile

<table><caption>Table B.7 Region filter shapefile attributes</caption><thead><tr><td>Attribute</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>calcRegIds</td><td>ID of calculation region</td></tr><tr><td>geometry</td><td>polygons representation each region</td></tr></tbody></table>

## B.8 Fault buffer shapefile

<table><caption>Table B.8 Fault buffer shapefile attributes</caption><thead><tr><td>Attribute</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IDFS</td><td>ID of fault</td></tr><tr><td>geometry</td><td>Polygon representing fault's region of influence upon the smoothed seismicity model</td></tr></tbody></table>