Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (19) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bommer, J. J. Articles by Abrahamson, N. A. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?

¹ Civil & Environmental Engineering Department
Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus
London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
j.bommer{at}imperial.ac.uk
 (J.J.B.)
² Geosciences Department
Pacific Gas & Electricity
San Francisco, California 94105
 (N.A.A.)

The basic elements of probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA) were established almost four decades ago and PSHA has now become the most widely used approach for estimating seismic-design loads. Although the use of PSHA is widespread, considerable confusion remains regarding the details of how the calculations should be performed. This situation is largely a result of the way the discipline of PSHA evolved through a series of articles, reports, and software packages. This article demonstrates that the feature of PSHA about which there is perhaps the greatest degree of misunderstanding is the treatment of the aleatory variability in ground- motion prediction equations, which exerts a very pronounced influence on the calculated hazard. Probabilistic hazard studies performed in recent years have frequently resulted in appreciably higher design ground motions than had been obtained in previous assessments carried out in the 1970s and 1980s, often sparking controversial debate. Although several factors may contribute to the higher estimates of seismic hazard in modern studies, the main reason for these increases is that in the earlier studies the ground-motion variability was either completely neglected or treated in a way that artificially reduced its influence on the hazard estimates.

Related articles in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America:

Comment on "Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?" by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson

Jens-Uwe Klügel
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2007 97: 2198-2207. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Reply to "Comment on ‘Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?’ by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson" by Jens-Uwe Klügel

Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2007 97: 2208-2211. [Extract] [Full Text]  

Comment on "Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?" by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson

Zhenming Wang and Mai Zhou
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2007 97: 2212-2214. [Extract] [Full Text]  

Reply to "Comment on ‘Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?’ by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson" by Zhenming Wang and Mai Zhou

Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2007 97: 2215-2217. [Extract] [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Barani, D. Spallarossa, and P. Bazzurro Disaggregation of Probabilistic Ground-Motion Hazard in Italy Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2009; 99(5): 2638 - 2661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Beauval, L. Honore, and F. Courboulex Ground-Motion Variability and Implementation of a Probabilistic-Deterministic Hazard Method Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2009; 99(5): 2992 - 3002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-U. Klugel Comment on "Sigma: Issues, Insights and Challenges" by F. O. Strasser, N. A. Abrahamson, and J. J. Bommer Seismological Research Letters, May 1, 2009; 80(3): 494 - 498. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. O. Strasser, N. A. Abrahamson, and J. J. Bommer Sigma: Issues, Insights, and Challenges Seismological Research Letters, January 1, 2009; 80(1): 40 - 56. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Jayaram and J. W. Baker Statistical Tests of the Joint Distribution of Spectral Acceleration Values Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2008; 98(5): 2231 - 2243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Rhoades, J. X. Zhao, and G. H. McVerry A Simple Test for Inhibition of Very Strong Shaking in Ground-Motion Models Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2008; 98(1): 448 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-U. Klugel Comment on "Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?" by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2007; 97(6): 2198 - 2207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Bommer and N. A. Abrahamson Reply to "Comment on 'Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?' by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson" by Jens-Uwe Klugel Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2007; 97(6): 2208 - 2211. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Bommer and N. A. Abrahamson Reply to "Comment on 'Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?' by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson" by Zhenming Wang and Mai Zhou Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2007; 97(6): 2215 - 2217. [Full Text] [PDF]