Jun 2004
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2004eostr..85..236w&link_type=abstract
EOS Transactions, AGU, Volume 85, Issue 24, p. 236-null
Mathematics
Logic
1
Seismology: Seismic Hazard Assessment And Prediction, Seismology: Earthquake Ground Motions And Engineering, Forum
Scientific paper
Musson's comments on our article, ``Communicating with uncertainty: A critical issue with probabilistic seismic hazard analysis'' are an example of myths and misunderstandings. We did not say that probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is a bad method, but we did say that it has some limitations that have significant implications. Our response to these comments follows. There is no consensus on exactly how to select seismological parameters and to assign weights in PSHA. This was one of the conclusions reached by a senior seismic hazard analysis committee [SSHAC, 1997] that included C. A. Cornell, founder of the PSHA methodology. The SSHAC report was reviewed by a panel of the National Research Council and was well accepted by seismologists and engineers. As an example of the lack of consensus, Toro and Silva [2001] produced seismic hazard maps for the central United States region that are quite different from those produced by Frankel et al. [2002] because they used different input seismological parameters and weights (see Table 1). We disagree with Musson's conclusion that ``because a method may be applied badly on one occasion does not mean the method itself is bad.'' We do not say that the method is poor, but rather that those who use PSHA need to document their inputs and communicate them fully to the users. It seems that Musson is trying to create myth by suggesting his own methods should be used.
Kiefer John D.
Shi Baoping
Wang Zhenming
Woolery Edward W.
No associations
LandOfFree
Reply does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Reply, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Reply will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-892046