Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics
Seismic hazard assessment (SHA), or analysis, plays a crucial role in building design and informing decision making for the mitigation of seismic risk. In the last decades a large number of studies in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment have been published where different criteria have been used for characterizing the source zone model, for selecting the most suitable ground motion models in the study area, for computing hazard itself, etc. Therefore, it is important to check whether the output of a seismic hazard study is compatible with the input, and to compare approaches and software packages used in SHA. The aim of the present study is to analyse three approaches for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and their associated software packages: OpenQuake, the most recent software for seismic hazard and risk assessment (Crowley et al, 2013; Pagani at al., 2014); M3C (Musson, 1999; Musson et al., 2009) and EqHaz (Assatourians & Atkinson, 2013), based both on Monte Carlo simulations to calculate the hazard. The comparison is made in terms of methodology, computer performance of the software packages and hazard results, including hazard curves and maps.
The main conclusion from the present work is that if the input parameters are identical, the outputs from any type of approach for seismic hazard analysis have an excellent agreement. Results computed from M3C and OpenQuake are very similar to each other; whereas, the discrepancies between EqHaz and the other two software packages are explained by inherent features of the code EqHaz.