See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258611193

A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region

Article  in  Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America · April 2012

DOI: 10.1785/0120110015

CITATIONS READS
34 900

11 authors, including:

Belén Benito Eduardo Camacho

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Universidad de Panamá, Panamá, Panamá
130 PUBLICATIONS   817 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alvaro Climent Marroquin Griselda

Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, El Salvador
11 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Servicio de Actualización del Análisis de Riesgo Sísmico (RISMUR) en la Región de Murcia View project

MERISUR (Methodology for an Effective seismic Risk assessment of Urban Areas) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alvarado Induni Guillermo on 11 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp. 504–523, April 2012, doi: 10.1785/0120110015

A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region

by M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho*, Á. Climent†, G. Marroquín, E. Molina,
W. Rojas†, J. J. Escobar, E. Talavera, G. E. Alvarado†, and Y. Torres

Abstract A new evaluation of seismic hazard in Central America has been carried
out as part of the cooperation project named RESIS II under the auspices of the
Norway Cooperation Agency (NORAD). Several seismic-hazard experts from Costa
Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panamá, Norway, and Spain par-
ticipated in the study, which was aimed at obtaining results suitable for seismic design
purposes. The analysis started with a thorough revision of the national seismic cat-
alogs from which a catalog for Central America has been compiled and homogenized
to moment magnitude, Mw . Seismotectonic models proposed for the region were re-
vised, and a new regional zonation was proposed, taking into account seismotectonic
data, seismicity, focal mechanisms, and GPS observations. Besides, ground-motion
prediction equations (GMPEs) for subduction, volcanic, and crustal zones were
revised, and the most suitable ones were calibrated with Central American strong-
motion data. Subsequently, a seismic-hazard analysis was developed in terms of peak
ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral accelerations SA (T) for periods of 0.1, 0.2,
0.5, 1, and 2 s, by means of the probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment (PSHA) ap-
proach. As a result, different hazard maps were obtained for the quoted parameters,
together with uniform hazard spectra (UHS) for six of the capital cities of Central
America. Disaggregation was also carried out in these capitals for the target
motion given by the PGA and SA (1 s) and obtained for return periods of 500 years and
2500 years. Therefore, the control earthquakes for motions of short and long periods
were derived. This is the first study developed in Central America at a regional scale
after 10 years.

Online Material: Table of the largest Central American earthquakes in historical

times.

Introduction
At a national scale, the first studies and research regard-
ing seismic hazard in Central America were carried out after
the 1972 Managua and 1976 Guatemala earthquakes by the
John Blume Earthquake Engineering Center at Stanford
University (California). At a regional level, different studies
were developed between 1990 and 2000 (Rojas, Bungum,
and Lindholm, 1993; Rojas, Cowan, et al. 1993; the Global
Seismic Hazard Assessment Program [GSHAP] from Shed-
lock, 1999). Most of these studies were enforced by the
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. In this
framework, the RESIS I project, supported by the Norway
Cooperation Agency (NORAD) and the Centro de Coordina-
ción para la Reducción de Desastres en América Central
*Previously at Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México (UNAM), as postgrado en Ciencias de la Tierra.
†
Also at Red Sismológica Nacional de Costa Rica (RSN: ICE-UCR),
San José, Costa Rica.
(CEPREDENAC) aimed at the evaluation of seismic hazard
for Central America. It is important to underline the main
results of this study, namely: (1) a regional strong-motion
database (Taylor et al., 1992); (2) several spectral attenuation
models (Climent et al., 1994; Dahle et al., 1995; Schmidt
et al., 1997); (3) a regional seismic catalog (Rojas, Bungum,
and Lindholm, 1993); (4) several empirical relationships for
homogenization to moment magnitude Mw (Rojas, Cowan,
et al. 1993); (5) the creation of the Central American Seismo-
logical Center (CASC); (6) microzonation studies for several
main cities in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panamá; and
(7) seismic-hazard assessments for the countries of the region.
A new generation of seismic-hazard maps with specific
results for six of the capital cities has been obtained through a
new project, RESIS II, which is a continuation of the previous
one, also supported by NORAD and CEPREDENAC. The study
has been carried out by seismologists from all the countries of

504
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region
Central America, with the exception of Belize. These seis-
mologists worked together in two workshops, one of them
held in El Salvador (February 2008) and the other one at
the Technical University of Madrid (April 2008). Decisions
about issues related to seismic-hazard evaluation, such as seis-
mic catalog, seismogenic zonation, and selection of ground
motion models, among others, have been made with the con-
sensus established by all of them. A summary of the study and
the main results is presented here.
This paper shows the results of a first study developed for
Central America in the twenty-first century, with the agree-
ment among specialists from the six countries of the region
and with up-to-date local information gathered in the national
seismic databases. For this study, a new regional seismic
catalog and a strong-motion database updated up to Decem-
ber 2010 have been developed. The strong-motion database,
including earthquake records from El Salvador (2001), Nica-
ragua (2005), and Costa Rica (2003 and 2005) were used to
contrast it with the attenuation models used for the seismic-
hazard calculations. The strong-motion database provides
valuable information on the strong-motion characteristics for
various tectonic environments: crustal, subduction interplate,
and subduction in-slab. Different and specific ground-motion
prediction equations (GMPEs) for these three tectonic envir-
onments have been included in this study, which is a great
improvement in comparison with the previous studies.
Seismotectonic Frame
Central America is located in the western limit of the
Caribbean plate. This plate is surrounded by the North
American, Cocos, Nazca, and South American plates. The
Cocos and Caribbean plates are bounded by the Central
American subduction zone. Nazca and the Caribbean plates
are limited by the southern Panamá deformed belt. The trans-
current faults of Polochic–Motagua–Chamelecón, the Pana-
má fracture zone, and the Atrato suture zone are the
boundaries of the North American–Caribbean plates, Cocos–
Nazca plates, and the Caribbean–South America plates,
respectively. Other important tectonic units are: the Hess
scarp, Nicaragua depression, and the southern Panamá fault
zone (see Fig. 1). Recently, it has been proposed by Kellogg
and Vega (1995) and Trenkamp et al. (2002) that the southern
half of Costa Rica, Panamá, and northwest Colombia consti-
tute an individual block named the Panamá microplate. In
Central America relative plate motions vary between
2 cm=yr and 9 cm=yr and are accompanied by active volcan-
ism and shallow and intermediate seismicity.
Five main tectonic features have been distinguished in
the region: (1) the subduction zone in the plate boundary
Cocos–Caribbean; (2) the local faults situated in the volcanic
chain; (3) the Polochic–Motagua in the North America–
Caribbean plate boundary; (4) the Panamá fracture zone in
the Cocos–Nazca boundary; and (5) the north Panamá
deformed belt, which is the northern margin of the Panamá
microplate. Many destructive earthquakes have occurred in
505
Figure 1. Tectonic map of Central America. The country codes
fulfill the ISO 3166–2 norm. Codes for seismogenic structures are
CPF, Chixoy–Polochic fault; MF, Motagua fault; JCF, Jocotán–
Chamelecón fault; NPB, north Panamá belt; NWCB, northwest
Colombia belt; PFZ, Panamá fracture zone; ASZ, Atrato’s
suture zone.
the last 500 years, with high or moderate magnitudes
(8:0 ≤ Mw ≤ 6:0) associated with these five tectonic fea-
tures. Figure 1 shows the tectonic map of the region.
Many destructive earthquakes in the region occur in the
volcanic chain fault systems, having moderate magnitudes
(Mw ∼ 6:5), very shallow foci, and epicenters close to the
main population centers, such as the 1972 Managua Mw 6.2
earthquake, which caused more than 10,000 deaths in
Managua, Nicaragua. But the most destructive event in the
last decades was the earthquake associated with the Motagua
fault, Mw 7.6, causing 22,000 deaths in Guatemala City. Other
earthquakes produced in the subduction zone with higher
magnitudes, Mw > 7:5, have caused less damage due to their
larger focal depth and epicentral distance from the main pop-
ulation centers, as the one in January 2001 in El Salvador.
The last destructive earthquakes in the region occurred in
Costa Rica (8 January 2009) and Honduras (28 May 2009).
The first, with magnitude Mw 6.2 and located in the
central part of the country, was associated with a strike-slip
fault of the volcanic chain and caused hundreds of landslides
and nearly 20 deaths. The epicenter of the second one was
located in the Caribbean Sea, with magnitude 7.7, and pro-
duced widespread damage in Honduras, causing seven deaths.
Seismic-Hazard Approach
The seismic-hazard analysis was carried out according
to the well-known probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment
(PSHA) approach. To take into account the epistemic uncer-
tainty related to the ground-motion models, a logic tree was
506 M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.

formulated. In the first phase, the inputs for the application of
this method have been prepared: seismic catalog, seismo-
genic models, and GMPEs; these aspects will be discussed
in detail in the following paragraphs.
Regional Seismic Catalog
A regional catalog has been created and updated up to
December 2010, based on the catalog proposed by Rojas,
Bungum, and Lindholm (1993), on the seismic information
gathered in the CASC database and the national catalogs of
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
and Panamá. An expert from each country has analyzed
the seismicity inside the assigned polygon (Fig. 2a) based
on their own catalog, covering the entire region of Central
America. A careful revision was carried out in order to avoid
duplicity of events, especially close to the national bound-
aries. The catalog in SEISAN (Earthquake Analysis Software)
format (Rojas, Bungum, and Lindholm, 1993) includes
macroseismic events reported since 1522 and instrumental
recorded events from global and national seismic networks.
The magnitude has been homogenized to Mw , using
relationships derived from the different countries. After the
revision, depuration, and homogenization, the regional cat-
alog was compiled, including 29,918 events with Mw > 3:5
(Benito et al., 2010).
The completeness analysis over the previous catalog
was carried out by means of the Stepp (1973) method, taking
the seismicity clustered in intervals of 0.5° magnitude.
Examination of the temporal distribution for each interval
provides the reference year from which we can consider that
the seismicity is complete inside the interval. In this analysis,
we distinguished between earthquakes with focal depth less
than or equal to 25 km (crustal events) and earthquakes with
greater focal depth (subduction events). The catalogs contain
different information for both types of events. The reference
years obtained in this analysis are shown in Table 1 and were
taken into account in the seismicity-rate estimation of the
seismogenic zones.
In a last step the catalog was filtered for fore- and after-
shocks to accomplish the basic hypothesis of our zoning
models: the seismicity of each zone fits to a Poisson model.

Largest Earthquakes in the Region

Central America has been struck since 1522 by many
earthquakes that caused destruction in the population, both
in the subduction zone and in the local faults of the volcanic
chain. The earthquakes produced in the first place reached
higher magnitudes than the ones in the second, being the
maximum magnitude of subduction Mw 8, but these events
were less frequent and caused less damage than the local
fault events because their epicenters are located offshore and
their depths are usually h ≥ 25 km. The events in the volca-
nic chain reached moderate magnitude Mw ≤ 6:7, but also
caused more damage because their epicenters are usually
located close to the population centers and they are crustal
events with h < 25 km.

Table 1
Reference Years for Different Magnitude Intervals
Derived from the Completeness Analysis
Magnitude Reference Year for Reference Year for
(Mw ) h ≤ 25 km* h > 25 km*

3.5–3.9 1984 1983

4.0–4.4 1976 1980
4.5–4.9 1971 1972
5.0–5.4 1957 1965
5.5–5.9 1932 1959
6.0–6.4 1865 1953
6.5–6.9 1745 1850
7.0–7.4 1732 1825
7.5–7.9 1522 1522
Figure 2. (a) Seismic catalogs developed by different > 8:0 1522 1522
countries (black polygons). (b) Biggest earthquakes I
MM ≥ VIII
or Mw ≥ 7. *h is the depth of the hypocenters.
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region 507

The list of the largest earthquakes that occurred in the
region, with magnitude Mw ≥ 7 and/or macroseismic inten-
sity IMM ≥ VIII, is Ⓔ available in the electronic supplement
to this paper. Figure 2b shows the epicenters of these events,
which are representative of the highest seismicity reported in
the region.
Seismogenetic Zones and Seismic Parameters
A regional seismogenic zonation has been proposed
combining tectonic and seismic criteria. This zonation con-
tains three types of zones: crustal, subduction interface, and
subduction in-slab. The zones are defined at a national level
(small scale), but they are coherent at a regional scale, avoid-
ing discontinuities at the national boundaries. Moreover, the
adopted zoning has been agreed by the experts of each of the
participant countries.
In order to estimate the recurrence models of the zones,
the seismicity has been associated with zones as follows: sur-
face seismicity (h ≤ 25 km) to crustal zones, intermediate
seismicity (25 km < h ≤ 60 km) to interface zones, and deep
seismicity (h > 60 km) to in-slab zones. Figure 3a,b,c shows
the three groups of zones superimposed with their correspond-
ing seismicity. The description of the zones for the three
tectonic regimes is included in E. Camacho et al. (“A New
Central America Seismic Zonation,” unpublished manuscript)
and Benito et al. (2010).
The seismicity of each zone is fit to a Gutenberg–Richter
model truncated to a minimum magnitude m0 4:5
Mw  given
by the equation: log N
m0   a  bm. Therefore, we esti-
mate the annual rate of events with m ≥ m0 , N
m0 , and the
parameters of the Gutenberg–Richter relation (a and b) for
characterizing the recurrence of each zone. The computation

Figure 3. Seismogenic zones adopted for the seismic-hazard assessment. (a) Crustal zones superimposed to surface seismicity.
(b) Interplate zones superimposed to intermediate seismicity. (c) In-slab zones superimposed to deep seismicity.
508 M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.

Table 2
Seismic Parameters for the Seismogenic Zones Defined in This Study within the Three Tectonic Features:
Crustal, Subduction Interface, and Subduction In-Slab
Maximum Magnitude Seismic Parameters

Country/Zone Name Code Depth (km) Dip Angle E
M* M1 † M2 ‡ a§ b§ N
m0∥

Crustal Seismicity
Guatemala/Guatemala Pacifico Central G1 20 – 7.5 7.2 7.7 4.71 0.92 3.51
Guatemala/Guatemala–El Salvador Antearco G2–S2 20 – 6.3 6.0 6.5 4.83 1.03 1.60
Central
Guatemala/Arco Volcánico Oeste G3 10 – 6.7 6.5 7.0 2.27 0.67 0.18
Guatemala/Arco Volcánico Este G4 10 – 7.0 6.8 7.3 3.03 0.72 0.65
Guatemala/Guatemala–El Salvador–Honduras G5–S5–H1 10 – 6.8 6.5 7.0 3.95 0.88 0.97
Depresión Central
Guatemala/Guatemala Polochic–Motagua Oeste G6 10 – 7.8 7.5 8.0 3.81 0.82 1.32
Guatemala/Guatemala Polochic–Motagua Noreste G7 10 – 7.8 7.5 8.0 3.47 0.78 0.93
Guatemala/Guatemala Norte (Peten–Belize) G8 10 – 6.7 6.5 7.0 3.37 0.78 0.75
Honduras/Guatemala–El Salvador–Honduras G5–S5–H1 10 – 6.8 6.5 7.0 3.95 0.88 0.97
Depresión Central
Honduras/Honduras Altiplano Central H2 10 – 6.3 6.0 6.5 5.32 1.21 0.73
Honduras/Honduras–Nicaragua Zona Gayape H3–N11 10 – 6.3 6.0 6.5 4.44 1.09 0.36
El Salvador/El Salvador Pacífico Central S1 20 – 7.5 7.2 7.7 8.03 1.56 9.77
El Salvador/Guatemala–El Salvador Antearco G2–S2 20 – 6.3 6.0 6.5 4.83 1.03 1.60
Central
El Salvador/El Salvador Arco Volcánico Central S3 10 – 7.0 6.8 7.3 4.00 0.87 1.18
El Salvador/El Salvador–Nicaragua Arco Volcánico S4–N5–H4 10 – 6.6 6.4 6.9 4.09 0.97 0.52
(Golfo Fonseca)
El Salvador/Guatemala–El Salvador–Honduras G5–S5–H1 10 – 6.8 6.5 7.0 3.95 0.88 0.97
Depresión Central
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Pacífico Oeste N1 10 – 8.0 7.6 8.3 6.47 1.18 13.73
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Pacífico SE–Costa N2–C1 20 – 7.4 7.1 7.6 7.73 1.41 25.03
Rica–Papagayo
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Antearco Oeste N3 20 – 6.8 6.5 7.0 4.09 0.88 1.35
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Antearco Este N4 20 – 6.8 6.5 7.0 4.06 1.02 1.05
Nicaragua/El Salvador–Nicaragua Arco Volcánico S4–N5–H4 10 – 6.6 6.4 6.9 4.08 0.97 0.52
(Golfo Fonseca)
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Arco Volcánico Central N6–N7 10 – 6.5 6.2 6.7 4.50 0.95 1.68
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Arco Volcánico SE N8 10 – 6.8 6.5 7.0 2.50 0.68 0.27
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Depresión Tras Arco N9–N10 10 – 6.8 6.7 7.0 1.61 0.50 0.24
Nicaragua/Honduras–Nicaragua Zona Gayape H3–N11 10 – 6.3 6.0 6.5 4.46 1.09 0.36
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Caribe Sur N12 10 – 6.2 5.9 6.4 5.11 1.21 0.44
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Caribe Noroeste N13–N14 10 – 6.2 5.9 6.4 4.64 1.08 0.57
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Pacífico SE–Costa N2–C1 20 – 8.0 7.7 8.3 7.73 1.40 25.03
Rica–Papagayo
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Antearco Noroeste C2 20 – 7.2 7.0 7.5 4.81 0.993 2.20
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Antearco Pacífico Central C3 15 – 7.3 7.1 7.5 4.78 0.917 4.56
Costa Rica/Panamá–Costa Rica Zona de Fractura de P1–C4 5 – 7.5 7.4 7.6 6.09 1.06 19.61
Panamá–Burica
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Arco Volcánico Guanacaste C5 10 – 6.6 6.5 7.0 4.19 0.931 1.00
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Cordillera Volcánica Central C6 10 – 7.1 6.9 7.2 4.04 0.89 1.09
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Talamanca C7 10 – 7.1 6.9 7.5 5.74 1.18 2.76
Costa Rica/Panamá Cinturón Deformado Norte P8–C8 15 – 7.8 7.7 8.0 4.30 0.86 2.60
Panamá–Limón
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Tras Arco Norte C9 10 – 6.3 6.1 7.0 3.77 0.97 0.25
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Caribe Central–Parismina C10 20 – 6.2 6.8 6.6 4.72 1.13 0.44
Panamá/Panamá–Costa Rica Zona de Fractura de C4–P1 5 – 7.5 7.4 7.6 6.09 1.06 19.61
Panamá–Burica
Panamá/Panamá Cinturón Deformado Sur–Panamá P2 10 – 7.1 6.8 7.5 4.63 0.92 2.97

(continued)
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region 509

Table 2 (Continued)
Maximum Magnitude Seismic Parameters

Country/Zone Name Code Depth (km) Dip Angle E
M* M1 † M2 ‡ a§ b§ N
m0∥

Panamá/Panamá Antearo Colombia P3 20 – 7.0 6.5 7.5 3.78 0.87 0.73

Panamá/Panamá Zona de Sutura Atrato P4 10 – 7.2 7.0 7.5 4.71 0.98 1.93
Panamá/Panamá Occidental P5 10 – 6.5 6.3 6.7 6.10 1.37 0.89
Panamá/Panamá Central P6 10 – 6.7 6.5 7.2 3.68 1.06 0.08
Panamá/Panamá Este–Darien P7 10 – 7.4 7.1 7.6 3.35 0.73 1.12
Panamá/Panamá Cinturón Deformado Norte P8–C8 15 – 7.8 7.7 8.0 4.30 0.86 2.60
Panamá–Limón
Interface Seismicity
Guatemala/Guatemala Interplaca Gsi 9 26–70 30°N 7.9 7.7 8.2 4.07 0.83 2.14
El Salvador/El Salvador Interplaca Ssi 5 26–70 30°NNE 7.9 7.7 8.2 5.11 1.00 3.93
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Interplaca Noroeste Nsi 15 26–70 45°NE 7.9 7.7 8.2 6.61 1.33 4.32
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Interplaca Sureste Nsi 16 26–70 45°NE 7.9 7.7 8.2 3.79 0.78 1.94
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Interplaca Nicoya Csi 11 26–63 35°NE 7.8 7.7 8.0 2.03 0.54 0.38
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Interplaca Quepos Csi 12 26–51 28°NE 7.0 6.8 7.4 3.87 0.90 0.65
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Interplaca Osa Csi 13 26–52 23°NE 7.4 7.3 7.6 1.29 0.48 0.14
Panamá/Panamá Interplaca Sur Panamá Psi 9 26–50 20°N 7.1 6.7 7.5 3.90 0.92 0.58
Panamá/Panamá Interplaca, San Blas Psi 10 50 Fijo 0° 7.5 7.0 7.7 3.65 0.79 1.16
Darien–Choco
México/Chiapas Interplaca Chsi 1 25–120 35°NE 7.0 6.8 7.2 5.30 0.89 18.93
In-Slab Seismicity
Guatemala/Guatemala Intraplaca Gsp 10 61–250 60°N 7.9 7.7 8.2 4.84 0.92 5.00
El Salvador/El Salvador Intraplaca Ssp 6 61–200 60°N 7.9 7.7 8.2 5.11 1.00 4.49
Nicaragua/Nicaragua Intraplaca Nsp 17 61–200 75°NE 7.3 7.0 7.5 6.53 1.20 13.76
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Intraplaca Noroeste Csp 14 40–177 65°NE 7.0 6.5 7.4 4.70 1.05 0.98
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Intraplaca Central Csp 15 40–155 50°NE 7.4 7.3 7.6 2.94 0.71 0.54
Costa Rica/Costa Rica Intraplaca Sureste Csp 16 40–82 38°N 6.8 6.2 7.4 2.19 0.70 0.11
Panamá/Panamá Intraplaca Sur Psp 11 50–100 70°S 7.1 6.6 7.5 1.81 0.59 0.14

*E
M expected value of Mmax defined by expert criteria.

†
M1 is the minimum value of Mmax defined from the historical catalog.
‡
M2 is the maximum value of Mmax defined from geologic criteria.
§a and b are the parameters of the Gutenberg–Richter relationship.
∥
N
m0 is number of events with Mw ≥ m0 ; m0  4:5.

of a and b was done by two independent methods, least-
squares and maximum likelihood, but no significant differ-
ences were found. The range of variation for the b values
obtained is coherent with the typical values found in other
regions with similar tectonic regimes.
Maximum magnitude was also assigned to each zone,
taking into account the maximum historical earthquakes and
maximum rupture lengths with geological criteria. Values of
the parameters are given in Table 2, while the complete pro-
cess for their estimation is described in Benito et al. (2010)
and E. Camacho et al. (“A New Central America Seismic
Zonation,” unpublished manuscript).
To account for the epistemic uncertainty in the maxi-
mum magnitude Mmax , a truncated Gaussian distribution is
taken between two extreme values of Mmax corresponding
to the maximum historical earthquake (minimum value of
Mmax ,) and maximum potential magnitude based on tectonic
criteria (maximum value of Mmax ).
Figure 4 shows the three regimes, and the range of var-
iation of the aforementioned parameters is shown in Table 3.

Selection of Ground-Motion Prediction Equations

We developed a thorough study aimed at choosing the
most suitable strong-motion prediction equations for seis-
mic-hazard analysis in Central America. After a careful
revision of the state of the art, different models developed
for subduction and volcanic crustal zones, in certain tectonic
environments similar to those of Central America, were
selected. The summary of these models is presented in
Table 4. The models were calibrated with accelerograms
Figure 4. Subduction and crustal zones. from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and El Salvador.
510 M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.

Table 3
Variation of the Seisimic Parameters for the Three Tectonic Regimes
Magnitude Mmax a* b*
National Zoning Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Crustal 6.0 8.0 1.61 8.03 0.50 1.56

Interface 6.8 8.2 1.29 6.61 0.48 1.33
In-slab 6.2 8.2 1.81 6.53 0.59 1.20

*a and b are the parameters of the Gutenberg–Richter relation.

Three subdatabases were prepared, one per type of
source (interface, in-slab, and shallow crust). The association
of an earthquake with a specific source was based on the seis-
mic reports, considering particularly the focal mechanism
and the hypocenter depth. Events with focal depths less than
25 km were initially categorized as shallow crustal events;
events with focal depths from 25 km through 60 km were
considered as interface subduction events; and events with
focal depths greater than 60 km were considered as in-slab
events (if they were located in the subduction zone). This
classification is based on results from Costa Rica (Sallares
et al., 2000; De Shon et al., 2003; Warren et al., 2008) and
worldwide observations where interface events typically
occur at depths shallower than 60 km (Tichelaar and Ruff,
1993; Youngs et al., 1997; Zhao et al., 2006). A second
criterion was used for filtering the events of each group,
based on the focal mechanism: strike slip or normal fault for
the shallow crustal events, reverse fault for intraplate, and
normal faults for in-slab events.
Site categories of the recording sites were also sorted
according to the geological and geotechnical information
available, and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program classification was attempted. The data from each
group were used for comparison with the selected attenuation
models in hard site conditions.
The PGA and SA (T) derived from the records were
compared with the ones predicted by the models in similar
conditions of magnitude, distance, and soil category. The
type of magnitude (Ms , Mb , Mw ), distance (Rhyp , Rrup , etc.),
and ground motion parameter (maximum horizontal compo-
nent, geometrical mean, etc.) were taken into account in the
comparison with the real data.
In order to identify the models that better fit the data, an
analysis of residuals was carried out, considering the differ-
ence of the logarithms of observed (y) and predicted (Y  )
values for similar magnitude, distance, and soil conditions:
residual  ln y  ln Y  or residual  log y  log Y . The
analysis was done for crustal, subduction interface, and sub-
duction intraplate sources independently and taken as ground
motion parameter the values of PGA and SA (1 s). In each
case, corrections for converting the component of ground
motion (PGA max, quadratic mean, etc.), the type of magni-
tude (Mw , Ms , etc.), and the type distance (Rrup , Rjb , Rhyp ,
etc.) according to the ones used by each model were done
applying the factors summarized by Bommer et al. (2005).
Some statistical parameters were considered, such as the
normalized residual z  residual=σ, the likelihood of an
observation u
z0 , and the parameter defined from the tails
of the z0 distribution, LH
z0   2u
jz0 j. These parameters
were used following the criteria proposed by Scherbaum et al.
(2004) for quantifying the goodness of each model according
to the residual distributions. We considered that a model fits
the data when the following criteria are accomplished: the
residuals distribution present zero mean (μ), constant variance
(σ2 ), and more than 65% of observations lying within the
confidence intervals μ  1σy, μ  2σ, and LH value > 0:5.
As a result of the analysis, the models presenting a best
fit with the local data were identified: Climent et al. (1994)

Table 4
Selected Ground Motion Prediction Equations for the Hazard Assessment
Dependent Variable
Equation Database Component Source Type Distance (km) Mw *

Youngs et al. (1997) (YOUN97) Worldwide Geometric mean Interface, in-slab 10–500 5.0–8.2
Atkinson and Boore (2003) (AYB03) Worldwide Both horizontal Interface, in-slab 10–400 5.0–8.3
(random)
García et al. (2005) (GAR05) Mexico Quadratic mean In-slab 4–400 5.2–7.4
Cepeda et al. (2004) (CEP04) El Salvador Random, geometric In-slab, crust 10–400 0–100 5.0–8.3 5.1–7.2
mean
Climent et al. (1994) (CLI94) Central America, Largest horizontal Interface, shallow crust 5–400 4.0–8.0
Mexico
Zhao et al. (2006) (ZH06) Japan Geometric mean Interface, in-slab, 10–300 5.0–8.2
shallow crust
Spudich et al. (1999) (SEA99) Worldwide Geometric mean Shallow crust 0–100 5.1–7.2
Schmidt et al. (1997) (SCH97) Costa Rica Largest horizontal Shallow crust 6–200 3.7–7.6

*Mw is the moment magnitude.

A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region 511

for crustal zones, Youngs et al. (1997) for subduction inter-
face and in-slab, and Zhao et al. (2006) for crustal and in-slab
zones (these models are named CLI94, YOUN97, and ZH06,
respectively).
The study made for calibration of the models is pre-
sented in detail in Á. Climent et al. (unpublished manuscript,
2011). The plot with the GMPE finally adopted is displayed
in Figure 5.
Seismic-Hazard Estimation
With the input previously described, hazard was esti-
mated using CRISIS2007 software (see Data and Resources),

Figure 5. Plot of the GMPEs chosen for the study: (a) Shallow crustal models; (b) subduction interface models; (c) subduction
in-slab models.
512
Figure 6. Scheme of the node for GMPE in the logic tree.
for points of a grid of 0.1° in latitude and longitude covering all
of Central America. Hazard was estimated for PGA and SA (T)
for T  0:1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, and 2 s, and for return periods of 500,
1000, and 2500 years.
Four combinations of the chosen ground motion models
(each combination mixed models for crustal, interface, and
in-slab zones) have been used for hazard estimation, config-
uring four branches of a logic tree (Fig. 6):
1. CLI94+YOUN97+YOUN97
2. CLI94+YOUN97+ZH06
3. ZH06+YOUN97+YOUN97
4. ZH06+YOUN97+ZH06
All the combinations are assigned the same weight
(0.25), because we did not find the criteria for considering
one branch more probable than others, and the sum of the
weights of the four branches is 1. Note that in our case, each
branch of the logic tree does not correspond to a simple GMPE,
but instead to a combination of three of them, one for each
tectonic regime. The influence of the crustal, intraplate,
and in-slab events in the seismic hazard for each point of
Central America requires this approach for considering the
attenuation in the computations. This is one of the main par-
ticularities of the study zone. In this sense, the procedure is a
little bit different than the common philosophy in the use of
the GMPEs. Usually different models are used in different
branches and “the branches must be mutually exclusive
and collectively exhaustive” (Bommer and Scherbaum,
2008, p. 997). But each branch represents only one model,
not a combination of models, as is presented in our case.
Through the different combinations we are capturing the glo-
bal variability of the results due to the global epistemic uncer-
tainty, conditioned to the inherent uncertainty to each model
and to their possible combinations.
The estimations are done for rock sites, since no local
site effects are included in this analysis.
Results
Hazard Maps
Maps of PGA and SA (1 s) were obtained for three return
periods: 500, 1000, and 2500 years. These maps represent
M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.
mean values obtained with the four combinations of the
attenuation models. Figure 7 shows the maps of PGA for
the three return periods, and Figure 8 shows similar results
in terms of SA (1 s). Analysis of these figures allows empha-
sizing the following results:
• Greatest values of PGA are predicted for the three return
periods in the Panamá fracture zone, south of Guatemala,
and in some areas of the volcanic chain, where the influ-
ence of the local faults are added to the effects of the
subduction.
• For a return period of 500 years, PGA reaches maximum
values of 600 cm=s2 in the Panamá fracture zone and south
Guatemala, and 500 cm=s2 in some places located in the
volcanic chain along Guatemala, El Salvador, and
Nicaragua. Outside these zones parallel to the coast, PGA
decreases toward the interior, reaching values less than
300 cm=s2 . An exception is found in south Guatemala,
where the isolines are not parallel to the coast, and PGA
decreases more slowly than in other countries, showing
the influence of the Motagua fault. Honduras and north
of Nicaragua present the lowest hazard of Central America,
as expected, due to their minor level of seismicity.
• The shape of the PGA isolines for return periods of 1000 and
2500 years is quite similar, but these maps show greatest
PGA, reaching values of 700 and 850 cm=s2 , respectively,
in the zones with maximum hazard. The most remarkable
difference in the morphology of the three maps is found in
the shape of that corresponding to 2500 years return period,
where the greatest values are entirely located in south Gua-
temala, probably due to the confluence of three seismic tec-
tonic features: subduction, local faults of the volcanic chain,
and the Motagua fault in the North America–Caribbean
plate boundary with significant weight of the last one for
the longer return periods.
• In the hazard maps in terms of SA (1 s) the nucleus of
high hazard around the volcanic chain disappears, and
the greatest values are observed at the coast, making evi-
dent the larger influence of the subduction activity for this
structural period. Values reaching 300 cm=s2 , 400 cm=s2 ,
and 500 cm=s2 for return periods of 500, 100, and
2500 years, respectively, are also found.
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region 513

Figure 7. seismic-hazard maps of Central America in terms of PGA obtained in this study for return periods of (a) 500 years,
(b) 1000 years, and (c) 2500 years. Capital cities are GC, Guatemala City; SS, San Salvador; T, Tegucigalpa; M, Managua; SJ, San José;
and PC, Panamá City.
514 M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.

Figure 8. Seismic-hazard maps of Central America in terms of SA (1 s) obtained in this study for return periods of (a) 500 years,
(b) 1000 years, and (c) 2500 years. Capital cities are GC, Guatemala City; SS, San Salvador; T, Tegucigalpa; M, Managua; SJ, San José;
and PC, Panamá City.
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region
Figure 9. Hazard curves obtained in the study in the six capital cities of Central America in terms of PGA and SA (T) for T  0:1, 0.2,
0.5, 1, and 2 s.
Specific Results for Capital Cities: Hazard Curves,
Uniform Hazard Spectra and Disaggregation
We also obtained hazard results that were specific for six
of the capitals of Central America: Guatemala City, San
Salvador, Managua, Tegucigalpa, San José, and Panamá City.
For each of these cities we calculated the hazard curves for the
six ground motion parameters (PGA and SA [T]), the uniform
515
hazard spectra (UHS) for the three return periods (500, 1000,
and 2500 years), and the results of the disaggregation in terms
of moment magnitude and hypocentral distance (Mw , Rhyp )
for the target motion given by the PGA and SA (1 s) for
the return periods of 500 and 2500 years.
Figure 9 shows the hazard curves obtained for six of
the capitals of Central America, for all the parameters
516 M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.

Table 5
Hazard Results in Capital Cities
Seismic-Hazard Parameters
Return Period Peak Ground Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral
(years) Acceleration (cm=s2 ) Acceleration (0.1 s)* Acceleration (0.2 s) Acceleration (0.5 s) Acceleration (1.0 s) Acceleration (2.0 s)

Guatemala City
500 524 1297 1234 646 353 158
1000 646 1641 1555 805 447 204
2500 840 2211 2070 1063 593 279
San Salvador
500 510 1253 1180 625 331 146
1000 624 1576 1485 775 419 188
2500 810 2115 1967 1018 554 258
Managua
500 507 1298 1138 586 288 122
1000 605 1584 1392 710 351 152
2500 763 2061 1782 903 453 200
San José
500 513 1307 1154 586 297 125
1000 628 1627 1440 731 376 161
2500 810 2175 1901 969 505 222
Tegucigalpa
500 231 521 506 282 157 70
1000 283 653 628 347 197 90
2500 361 869 832 454 260 125
Panamá City
500 252 529 504 302 152 68
1000 315 669 637 386 194 89
2500 414 898 858 520 265 123

*Spectral accelerations for different periods are given in cm=s2 .

characteristic of the ground motion used in our study: PGA
and SA (0.1 s), SA (0.2 s), SA (0.5 s), SA (1 s), and SA (2 s).
The numerical results for return periods of 500, 1000, and
2500 years are given in Table 5.
As expected, in all the cases the greatest values corre-
spond to the spectral accelerations at 0.1 s and 0.2 s, and
their corresponding hazard curves are almost coincident. The
PGA curves are similar to the SA (0.5 s) curves, and the SA
(1 s) and SA (2 s) curves lie below.
It can be noticed that the greatest hazard corresponds to
Guatemala City and San Salvador. Following in decreasing
order, San José and Managua curves show very similar values,
but in the first one the values are slightly lower for return
periods of 500 years and greater for the longest return periods.
Panamá City and Tegucigalpa show the lowest hazard, with
expected ground motion values much lower than in the rest of
the Central American capitals for all the return periods.
The uniform hazard spectra in the six capitals, for the
three return periods, are shown in Figure 10. These spectra
are being used for checking the design spectra in the respec-
tive codes.
Figure 11 shows the (Mw , Rhyp ) contributions to PGA for
return periods of 500 years for each capital, obtained from
the disaggregation analysis. Similar results for SA (1 s) are
shown in Figure 12.
Analysis of these figures reveals the control earthquakes
corresponding to the dominant magnitude-distance (Mw ,
Rhyp ) pair for the chosen return period. Additionally, even
though the results are not shown here, the analysis for a
2500-year return period was also done. The control earth-
quakes, which contribute the most to the short and long
structural periods, for return periods of 500 and 2500 years,
are shown in Table 6. It is interesting to note how in many
cases, the disaggregation charts present bimodal distribu-
tions, showing two possible control earthquakes in different
intervals of distance; however, usually one of them has a
greater probability density. It is also worthy to be noted how
in some capitals significant changes occur with the return
period and/or the structural period, demonstrating that the
control earthquake can vary with both. For short structural
periods, it is expected that near earthquakes will have greater
influence, while for long structural periods distant earth-
quakes become more significant.
Once the results have been reviewed for each capital, the
following aspects are evident:
• The pair Mw 6:5 and Rhyp  15 km constitutes a clear
control earthquake in Guatemala City disaggregation. This
event is predominant in all the return periods, for the short
structural period, represented by the PGA, and the long
one, represented by the SA (1 s). Besides, there is another
contribution, but with a lower probability density, of an
earthquake with Mw 7–7.5 and distances Rhyp = 135–
150 km for 500 years return period and another pair with
Mw 7.25–7.5 and Rhyp = 150–180 km for a return period of
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region
Figure 10. Uniform hazard spectra (UHS) obtained in the six capital cities of Central America for return periods of 500, 1000, and
2500 years.
2500 years. All indicate that for all cases the hazard is
dominated by near faults, but there is also a contribution
from a more distant subduction event. Such a contribution
is greater for the long periods. For the 2500 years of return
period, the greater influence of an earthquake from the
Motagua fault is evident.
• Something similar occurs in San Salvador, with a clear
control earthquake given by the pair Mw 6:5 and Rhyp 
15 km dominating all the cases. A second earthquake, with
517
a smaller contribution, is evident for the long structural
period, corresponding to the pair Mw ∼ 7:2 and R
between 150 and 180 km, which probably corresponds to
a subduction earthquake. It is also interesting to note that
the results do not change noticeably for 500 to 2500 years
of return period.
• For Managua, just as in the other two capitals, the hazard is
dominated by a local event, but with a lower magnitude
(Mw 6) and a distance Rhyp  15 km, which represents
518 M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.

Figure 11. Results of disaggregation in the capitals of the six countries of Central America. Contributions of the
M; R pair are
represented for the target motion given by PGA for the return period of 500 years.

an earthquake from the volcanic belt. Only for the long struc- City and San Salvador, this is identified as a subduc-
tural period SA (1 s), an influence of a second earthquake tion event.
appears with Mw ∼ 7:2 and Rhyp  75 km. Because Mana- • The contributions of the (Mw , Rhyp ) pairs to the hazard in
gua is closer to the Central American trench than Guatemala San José are completely different than for the former cases.
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region 519

Figure 12. Results of disaggregation in the capitals of the six countries of Central America. Contributions of the
M; R pair are
represented for the target motion given by SA (1 s) for the return period of 500 years.

Here, there is just one control earthquake with Mw 6:5 and
Rhyp  15 km for a 500-year return period. For 2500-year
return periods the magnitude increases to 7.2. It seems that
the subduction earthquake does not play a crucial role in
the case of San José.
• Tegucigalpa shows a first control earthquake with
Mw 6.75–7 and Rhyp  210 km for all the structural
periods. A second event, just for the short period, appears
at a closer distance Rhyp = 0–15 km and Mw 4.5–5.75, with
a lower contribution. This may indicate that even though
520 M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.

Table 6
Control Earthquakes in Capital Cities: Disaggregation Results
Peak Ground Analysis Spectral Acceleration Peak Ground Analysis Spectral Acceleration
(cm=s2 )* (1 s, cm=s2 )* (cm=s2 )† (1 s, cm=s2 )†
Capital City Control Earthquake‡ Mw § Rhyp (km)∥ Mw § Rhyp (km)∥ Mw § Rhyp (km)∥ Mw § Rhyp (km)∥

Guatemala City
CE1 6.5 15 6.5 15 6.5 15 6.5 15
CE2 7.0–7.5 135–150 7.25–7.5 135–150 7.25–7.5 150–180 7.25–7.5 135–180
San Salvador
CE1 6.5 15 6.5 15 6.5 15 6.5 15
CE2 – – 7.25 180 – – 7.25 150–180
Managua
CE1 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15
CE2 – – 7.25 75 – – 7.25 75
San José
CE1 6.5 15 6.75 15 6.75 15 6.75 15
CE2 – – – – – – – –
Tegucigalpa
CE1 6.75 210 6.75 210 7 210 7.25 210
CE2 4.5–5.75 0–15 – – 4.5–5.75 0–15 – –
Panamá City
CE1 4.5–7.0 45–60 6.75 60 4.75–7.0 45–60 7 60
CE2 – – – – – – – –

*Return period is 500 years.

†Return period is 2500 years.
‡
CE1 represents the most probable control earthquake. CE2 represents a second possible control earthquake.
§
Mw is the moment magnitude.
∥R
hyp (km) is the hypocentral distance given in kilometers.

the hazard is dominated by a distant event, either from the
subduction zone or the Motagua fault, near moderate earth-
quakes contribute significantly at short structural periods.
• Finally, in the case of Panamá City, for the short structural
period there is not a clear control earthquake, but a range of
events with an Mw 4.5–7 and Rhyp = 45–60 km. However,
for the long structural period, the contributions cluster
around the pair Mw 6.7 and Rhyp = 60 km pair for return
periods of 500 and 2500 years. This may indicate that for
the long period the main influence comes from the subduc-
tion earthquakes and for the short period events the main
influence comes from different magnitudes and distances
contributing in a similar manner.
Discussion
The results of this study, under the auspices of the RE-
SIS II project, constitute a new progress in the knowledge of
seismic hazard in Central America and provide the third
generation of seismic-hazard maps for this region.
After the results presented in previous regional studies
by Rojas, Cowan et al. (1993) and Montero et al. (1997),
there had not been any other study of this kind for the whole
region of Central America. National studies and wider
studies including Central America have been performed.
Among these we can mention the Global Seismic Hazard
Assessment Program (GSHAP) project (Shedlock, 1999)
and the study of seismic hazard in México, Central America,
South America, and the Caribbean (Tanner and Shedlock,
2004), both performed using the PSHA approach and a super-
ficial zonation. Another hazard study of Central America,
using the Kernel method (Woo, 1996), was done with the
purpose of earthquake loss assessment (Yong et al., 2002).
The next paragraphs compare and discuss the results ob-
tained in the present study and other previous analyses.
The PGA values for return periods of 500 and 1000 years
obtained in this study are, in general, greater than those
obtained by Rojas, Cowan, et al. (1993) and Montero et al.
(1997). The corresponding hazard maps show a very different
morphology, with more irregular isolines that cluster around
the highest hazard zones. This can be explained by the inclu-
sion of smaller seismogenic zones in our study, with greater
detail, which in principle results in more realistic data.
A similar difference is found when the maps are com-
pared with the 475 year maps from GSHAP (Shedlock, 1999)
and Tanner and Shedlock (2004), which also include SA
(0.2 s) and SA (1 s) maps. These maps were developed using
wide zones, showing a uniform influence for the whole of
Central America from the subduction zones and the volcanic
belt. In general, the values given for PGA, SA (0.2 s), and SA
(1 s) are similar to the values obtained in the present study, but
with less geographical variations. Another important differ-
ence in both sets of maps is that in those from GSHAP and
Tanner and Shedlock (2004), the maximum values concen-
trate around some coastal zones, which are influenced by the
earthquakes at the plate boundary. In the maps from the
present study, the maximum values are grouped around
elongated zones, which extend parallel to the trench and
A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region
the volcanic belt, with two exceptions in southern Guatemala
and Costa Rica.
The maps proposed by Yong et al. (2002), which were
obtained using a Kernel method to estimate maximum earth-
quakes in cells of 0.5° by 0.5°, show hazard values expressed
as PGA for a 10% exceedance probability in 50 years, greater
than those obtained in our study, with evident clustering in
some coastal cells, which reflect the greater amount of earth-
quakes in the Cocos–Caribbean plate boundary. The attenua-
tion relations used in that study were developed by Martin
(1990) and McGuire (1993) for Chile and Argentina, without
a previous calibration using local data.
When the results for the capitals were compared, we
noticed that Rojas, Cowan, et al. (1993) obtained consider-
ably lower PGA values for 10% probability of exceedance
in 50 years (475 years of return period) than those obtained
in our study for a return period of 500 years. These differ-
ences may be attributed to the fact that Rojas, Cowan, et al.
(1993) used the attenuation model proposed by Fukushima
and Tanaka (1990) for all the tectonic features. This model
was developed from strong-motion records from Japan and
the western United States, while our study uses a combina-
tion of different attenuation models for crustal, subduc-
tion interface, and in-slab events, previously calibrated with
local data. This has led us to obtain more reliable results.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper has shown the results of the first study devel-
oped for Central America in the last 10 years, with the agree-
ment among experts from all the countries of the region (with
the exception of Belize) and with up-to-date local informa-
tion from the national seismic data banks.
A new regional seismic catalog and a strong-motion
database updated up to December 2010 have been developed.
The latter includes earthquake records from El Salvador,
2001; Nicaragua, 2005; and Costa Rica, 2003 and 2005, pro-
viding valuable information on the strong motion in several
tectonic environments: crustal, interplate, and in-slab. The
database was used to identify the GMPE with the best fit to
the local data used in the seismic-hazard calculations. In
addition, a seismogenic zonation has been proposed for the
entire region, considering the three tectonic regimes, with
zones defined at a national level (detailed scale) but coherent
at a regional scale, avoiding discontinuities along the national
boundaries.
The fact that three distinct seismotectonic zonations,
according to the three tectonic regimes, with their correspond-
ing GMPEs provides an extra value to this study and allows
assuming that the results are more realistic than those pre-
viously obtained using simpler models.
The seismic-hazard assessment was performed follow-
ing a probabilistic PSHA approach. A logic tree was added
to include the epistemic uncertainty in the attenuation mod-
els, which use four combinations of crustal, interface, and
in-slab models.
521
For the first time in Central America, the seismic hazard
has been assessed for five spectral accelerations at 0.1, 0.2,
0.5, 1, and 2 s, plus PGA, allowing the generation of UHS and
the hazard curves for six of the Central American capital
cities. In all the cases, the sites were considered to be located
on rock. All the results have been obtained for return periods
of 500, 1000, and 2500 years, and aimed at applications for
both checking of seismic codes and large civil engineering
works. As a new contribution, the 2D disaggregation results
for the six capital cities have also been obtained, providing
the
M; R pairs with largest contributions to the hazard, or
control earthquakes.
From the resulting hazard maps we can conclude: for all
the return periods, maximum PGA values are predicted in the
Panamá fracture zone, south Guatemala, and certain zones of
the volcanic chain. Isolines are quite parallel to the coast,
and PGA decreases toward the continent. An exception is
observed in southern Guatemala, where PGA decreases more
slowly than in other countries, perhaps due to the influence
of the Motagua fault. Maximum PGA values are: 600, 700,
and 850 cm=s2 for return periods of 500, 1000, and
2500 years, respectively. The morphology of the SA (1 s)
maps changes, and greater hazard is predicted for coastal
zones, the most extensive at southern Guatemala, making
clear the biggest influence of the subduction zone for the
structural period of 1.0 s. Maximum values around 300,
400, and 500 cm=s2 are expected for the three respective re-
turn periods.
Looking at the hazard curves and UHS in the capital
cities, the greatest hazards are expected in Guatemala City
and San Salvador, followed by Managua and San José (quite
similar), and notably lower in Tegucigalpa and Panamá City.
In the cities of Guatemala and San Salvador, two
possible control earthquakes are identified, with a major
contribution from a moderate and near earthquake, and other
significant but smaller contributions from a greater magni-
tude and more distant event. This probably represents the
influence of crustal and subduction events, respectively. In
San José and Managua, hazard seems to be dominated by
a local control earthquake with moderate magnitude, while
in Tegucigalpa the dominant shock is a major and distant
event, perhaps associated with the Motagua fault. In Panamá
a clear control earthquake does not appear, but events in the
Mw 4.5–7 and Rhyp = 45–60 km ranges.
The hazard study presented here is the first one in
terms of PGA and different SA (T) values for the entire
Central American region. The results provide new informa-
tion to be considered in the revision of the national seis-
mic codes.
Data and Resources
The national seismic catalogs used in this study have
been provided by the following organizations: Guatemala:
National Institute for Seismology, Vulcanology, Meteorology
and Hydrology (INSIVUMEH) at www.insivumeh.gob.gt/
522
(last accessed August 2011); Nicaragua: Nicaraguan
Institute of Territorial Studies (INETER) at www.ineter
.gob.ni/ (last accessed July 2011); Costa Rica: National Seis-
mic Network (University of Costa Rica–Costa Rican Institute
of Electricity) at http://www.rsn.geologia.ucr.ac.cr/ (last
accessed October 2011); El Salvador: National Service of Ter-
ritorial Studies (SNET) at http://www.snet.gob.sv/ (last ac-
cessed July 2011); Panamá: Geosciences Institute,
University of Panamá at http://www.geocienciasPanamá
.org/ (last accessed October 2011); Central American Seismo-
logical Center (CASC) at http://www.geologia.ucr.ac.cr/
ceninves.htm (last accessed February 2011); and Coordina-
tion Center for Natural Disaster Prevention (CEPREDENAC)
at http://www.sica.int/cepredenac/ (last accessed Au-
gust 2011). Some seismic catalogs have been depurated using
SEISAN, Earthquake Analysis Software at http://www.uib.no/
rg/geodyn/artikler/2010/02/software (last accessed Janu-
ary 2010). The calculation of the seismic hazard has been
made using CRISIS. The software can be downloaded at
http://www.iingen.unam.mx/ (last accessed March 2011).
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the research project SISMOCAES
(CGL2009-14405-C02-01) from the Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation and the RESIS II project from the Norwegian government.
The authors wish to acknowledge their support, as well as the contribution
of other institutions: CASC, RMS, and Instituto Colombiano de Geología y
Minería. We are also very grateful to Mario Ordaz, Mercedes Perez-
Escalante, Jorge Gaspar-Escribano, Ma José García, and Alicia Rivas for
their personal contributions.
References
Atkinson, G., and D. M. Boore (2003). Empirical ground-motion relations
for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and
other regions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, no. 4, 1703–1729.
Benito, B., C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, Á. Climent, G. Marroquín, E. Molina,
W. Rojas, E. Talavera, J. J. Escobar, G. Alvarado, Y. Torres, and M.
Perez-Escalante (2010). Amenaza sísmica en América Central, Benito
Oterino, M. B., and Y. Torres Fernández (Editors), Entimema, Madrid,
Spain, 371 pp. (in Spanish).
Bommer, J., F. Scherbaum, H. Bungum, F. Cotton, F. Sabetta, and
N. A. Abrahamson (2005). On the use of logic trees for ground-motion
prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 95, no. 2, 377–389, doi 10.1785/0120040073.
Bommer, J., and F. Scherbaum (2008). The use and misuse of logic trees in
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Earthq. Spectra 24, 997–1009,
doi 10.1193/1.2977755.
Cepeda, J. M., B. Benito, and E. A. Burgos (2004). Strong motion charac-
teristics of January and February, 2001 earthquakes in El Salvador
Geol. Soc. Am., Special paper, “Natural Hazards in El Salvador,”
75, 375–425.
Climent, Á, W. Taylor, M. Ciudad Real, W. Strauch, M. Villagran, A. Dahle,
and H. Bungum (1994). Spectral strong motion attenuation in Central
America, NORSAR Technical Report No. 2-17, 46 pp.
Dahle, A., A. Climent, W. Taylor, H. Bungum, P. Santos, M. Ciudad-Real, C.
Lindholm, W. Strauch, and F. Segura (1995). New spectral strong mo-
tion attenuation models for Central America, in Proc. of the 5th Inter-
national Conf. on Seismic Zonation, vol. II, Nice, France, 17–
19 October 1995, 1005–1012.
M. B. Benito, C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, et al.
De Shon, H., S. Schwartz, S. Bilek, L. Dorman, V. González, J. Protti,
E. Flueh, and T. Dixon (2003). Seismogenic zone structure of the
southern Middle America Trench, Costa Rica, J. Geophys. Res.
108, 2491–2294.
Fukushima, Y., and T. Tanaka (1990). A new attenuation relation for peak
horizontal acceleration of strong-earthquake ground motion in Japan,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 80, 757–783.
García, D., S. K. Singh, M. Herráiz, M. Ordaz, and J. F. Pacheco (2005).
Inslab earthquakes of Central México: Peak ground-motion parameters
and response spectra, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, 2272–2282
Kellogg, J. N., and V. Vega (1995). Tectonic development of Panamá,
Costa Rica and the Colombian Andes: Constraints from global posi-
tioning geodetic systems and gravity, in P. Mann (Editor), Geologic
and tectonic development of the Caribbean plate boundary in South-
ern Central America, GSA Special Paper, 295, 75–90.
Martin, A. (1990). Hacia una Nueva Regionalización y Cálculo del Peligro
Sísmico en Chile, Master’s Thesis, Dept. of Geophysics, University of
Chile, Santiago, Chile (in Spanish).
McGuire, R. K. (1993). Computations of seismic hazard, Ann. Geofis. 36,
181–200.
Montero, W., H. Peraldo, and W. Rojas (1997). Proyecto de Amenaza
Sísmica de América Central, Informe final del proyecto del Instituto
Panamericano de Geografía e Historia (IPGH), Septiembre 1997,
79 pp. (in Spanish).
Rojas, W., H. Bungum, and C. Lindholm (1993). Historical and recent earth-
quakes in Central America, Rev. Geol. Amer. Central 16, 5–21.
Rojas, W., H. Cowan, A Lindholm, C. Dahle, and H. Bungum (1993).
Regional seismic zonation for Central America: A preliminary model,
Program of Reduction of Natural Disasters in Central America. Report
of the Research Council of Norway (NORSAR), 40 pp.
Sallares, V., J. J. Dañobeitia, and E. R Flueh (2000). Seismic
tomography with local earthquakes in Costa Rica, Tectonophysics
329, 61–78.
Scherbaum, F., F. Cotton, and P. Smit (2004). On the use of response spectra
reference data for the selection of ground motion models for seismic-
hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: The case of rock
motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, no. 6, 2164–2185.
Schmidt, V., A. Dahle, and H. Bungum (1997). Costa Rican spectral strong
motion attenuation, NORSAR, Technical Report, 45 pp.
Shedlock, K. M. (1999). Seismic hazard map for North and Central America
and the Caribbean, Ann. Geofis. 42, 799–997.
Spudich, P., W. B. Joyner, A. G. Lindh, D. M. Boore, B. M. Margaris, and J.
B. Fletcher (1999). SEA99: A revised ground motion prediction rela-
tion for use in extensional tectonic regimes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89,
1156–1170.
Stepp, J. C. (1973). Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample
in the Puget Sound area, in S. T. Harding (Editor). Contributions
to seismic zoning, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Report ERL 267-ESL 30, Washington,
D.C., 16–28.
Tanner, J., and K. M. Shedlock (2004). Seismic hazard maps of Mexico,
the Caribbean, and Central and South America, Tectonophysics
390, 159–175.
Taylor, W., P. Santos, A. Dahle, and H. Bungum (1992). Digitization of
strong motion data and estimation of PGA attenuation, Tech. Report
2-4, NORSAR.
Tichelaar, B. W., and L. J. Ruff (1993). Depth of seismic coupling along the
subduction zones, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 2017–2037.
Trenkamp, R., J. N. Kellog, J. T. Freymueller, and H. P. Mora (2002). Wide
plate margin deformation, southern Central America and northwestern
South America, CASA GPS observations, J. South Am. Earth Sci. 15,
157–171.
Warren, L. M., M.A. Langstaff, and P. G. Silver (2008). Fault plane orienta-
tion of intermediate-depth earthquakes in the Middle America trench,
J. Geophys. Res. 113, B01304, doi 10.1029/2007JB0050028.
Woo, G. (1996). Kernel estimation methods of seismic hazard area model-
ling, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 353–362.
 A New Evaluation of Seismic Hazard for the Central America Region 523

Yong, C., C. F. Ling, O. Güendel, and L. J. Kulhánek (2002). Seismic Servicio Nacional de Estudios Territoriales (DGSNET)
hazard and loss estimation for Central America, Nat. Hazards 25, San Salvador, El Salvador
161–175. (G.M.)
Youngs, R. R., S. J. Chiou, W. J. Silva, and J. R. Humphrey (1997). Strong
ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earth-
quakes, Seismol. Res. Lett. 68, no. 1, 58–73. Instituto de Sismología
Zhao, J. X., J. Zhang, A. Asano, Y. Ohno, T. Oouchi, T. Takahashi, Vulcanología, Meteorología e Hidrología (INSIVUMEH)
H. Ogawa, K. Irikura, H. K. Thio, and P. G. Somerville (2006). Guatemala City, Guatemala
Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site (E.M.)
classification based on predominant period, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
96, 898–913.
Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR)
ETSI Topografía, Geodesia y Cartografía San José, Costa Rica
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (W.R.)
Madrid, Spain
mariabelen.benito@upm.es
(M.B.B.)
Universidad de Honduras
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
(J.J.E.)
NORSAR
Oslo, Norway
(C.L.) Instituto Nacional de Estudios Territoriales (INETER)
Managua, Nicaragua
(E.T.)
Universidad de Panamá (UPA)
Panamá City, Panamá ETSI Topografía
(E.C.) Geodesia y Cartografía
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Madrid, Spain
(Y.T.)
Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE)
San José, Costa Rica
(Á.C., G.E.A.) Manuscript received 13 January 2011

View publication stats