Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program maps are erroneous

Kossobokov, Vladimir; Nekrasova, Anastasia

doi:10.3103/s0747923912020065

Cited by 95 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, various studies examine how well maps describe past shaking (Stirling and Peterson, 2006;Albarello and D'Amico, 2008;Stirling and Gerstenberger, 2010;Kossobokov and Nekrasova, 2012;Wyss et al, 2012;Mak et al, 2014;Nekrasova et al, 2014). Although such hindcast assessments are not true tests, in that they compare the maps with data that were available when the map was made, they give useful insight into the maps' performance.…”

Section: Examplementioning

confidence: 97%

“…There is increasing interest in this issue, and a variety of approaches have recently been used (Stirling and Peterson, 2006;Albarello and D'Amico, 2008;Mucciarelli et al, 2008;Miyazawa and Mori, 2009;Stirling and Gerstenberger, 2010;Kossobokov and Nekrasova, 2012;Wyss et al, 2012;Mak et al, 2014;Nekrasova et al, 2014) and are being developed under the auspices of the Global Earthquake Model project.…”

Section: Hazard Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metrics for Assessing Earthquake‐Hazard Map Performance

Stein¹,

Spencer²,

Brooks³

2015

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent large earthquakes that caused great damage in areas predicted to be relatively safe, illustrate the importance of criteria that assess how well earthquake hazard maps used to develop codes for earthquake-resistant construction are actually performing. At present, there is no agreed-upon way of assessing how well a map performed and thus determining whether one map performed better than another. The fractional site exceedance metric implicit in current maps, that during the chosen time interval the predicted ground motion will be exceeded only at a specific fraction of the sites, is useful but permits maps to be nominally successful even if they significantly underpredict or overpredict shaking, or permits them to be nominally unsuccessful but do well in terms of predicting shaking. We explore some possible metrics that better measure the effects of overprediction and underprediction and can be weighted to reflect the two differently and to reflect differences in populations and property at risk. Although no single metric alone fully characterizes map behavior, using several metrics can provide useful insight for comparing and improving hazard maps. For example, both probabilistic and deterministic hazard maps for Italy dramatically overpredict the recorded shaking in a 2200-yr-long historical intensity catalog, illustrating problems in the data (most likely), models, or both.

show abstract

Section: Examplementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Hazard Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metrics for Assessing Earthquake‐Hazard Map Performance

Stein¹,

Spencer²,

Brooks³

2015

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nekrasova 2011, 2012;Wyss et al 2012). The authors of these studies concluded that the common methods of PSHA are inadequate and need to be revised and probably modified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of alternative distributions of ground motion variability on results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Pavlenko

2015

Nat Hazards

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is a regularly applied practice that precedes the construction of important engineering structures. The Cornell-McGuire procedure is the most frequently applied method of PSHA. This paper examines the fundamental assumption of the Cornell-McGuire procedure for PSHA, namely, the log-normal distribution of the residuals of the ground motion parameters. Although the assumption of log-normality is standard, it has not been rigorously tested. Moreover, the application of the unbounded log-normal distribution for the calculation of the hazard curves results in non-zero probabilities of the exceedance of physically unrealistic amplitudes of ground motion parameters. In this study, the distribution of the residuals of the logarithm of peak ground acceleration is investigated, using the database of the Strong-motion Seismograph Networks of Japan and the ground motion prediction equation of Zhao and co-authors. The distribution of residuals is modelled by a number of probability distributions, and the one parametric law that approximates the distribution most precisely is chosen by the statistical criteria. The results of the analysis show that the most accurate approximation is achieved with the generalized extreme value distribution for a central part of a distribution and the generalized Pareto distribution for its upper tail. The effect of replacing a log-normal distribution in the main equation of the Cornell-McGuire method is demonstrated by the calculation of hazard curves for a simple hypothetical example. These hazard curves differ significantly from one another, especially at low annual exceedance probabilities.

show abstract

“…For 9 of 12 events the GSHAP values severely underestimated the observed ones: Δ I 0 ≥ II–IV intervals on the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS). (Modified after Kossbokov and Nekrasova , ; Kossobokov and Nekrasova , ; Panza et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Too generous to a fault? Is reliable earthquake safety a lost art? Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazard estimates

Bela¹

2014

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"One is well advised, when traveling to a new territory, to take a good map and then to check the map with the actual territory during the journey." In just such a reality check, Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) maps (prepared using PSHA) portrayed a "low seismic hazard," which was then also assumed to be the "risk to which the populations were exposed." But time-after-time-after-time the actual earthquakes that occurred were not only "surprises" (many times larger than those implied on the maps), but they were often near the maximum potential size (Maximum Credible Earthquake or MCE) that geologically could occur. Given these "errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazard estimates" revealed globally in these past performances of the GSHAP maps (> 700,000 deaths 2001-2011), we need to ask not only: "Is reliable earthquake safety a lost art?" but also: "Who and what were the 'Raiders of the Lost Art?' "

show abstract

Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program maps are erroneous

Cited by 95 publications

References 21 publications

Metrics for Assessing Earthquake‐Hazard Map Performance

Metrics for Assessing Earthquake‐Hazard Map Performance

Effect of alternative distributions of ground motion variability on results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Too generous to a fault? Is reliable earthquake safety a lost art? Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazard estimates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About