![]() ![]() C., Neely, J., Stein, S., Abrahamson, N., Williams, T., & Hough, S. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. New Methodology for Unbiased Ground-Motion Intensity Conversion Equations (GMICE. Statistical comparison of national probabilistic seismic hazard maps and frequency of recorded JMA seismic intensities from the K-NET strong-motion observation network in Japan during 1997-2006. ![]() įujiwara, H., Morikawa, N., Ishikawa, Y., Okumura, T., & J, M. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: A primer. The particle problem in the general theory of relativity. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(3). A probabilistic seismic hazard map for metropolitan France. ĭrouet, S., Ameri, G., Le Dortz, K., Secanell, R., & Senfaute, G. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58(5). Assessing earthquake hazard map performance for natural and induced seismicity in the central and eastern United States. Comparing the performance of Japan’s earthquake hazard maps to uniform and randomized maps. International Journal of Earthquake and Impact Engineering, 2(2). Investigating the effects of smoothing on the performance of earthquake hazard maps. Assessments of the performance of the 2017 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States via simulated earthquake shaking data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(2). Exploring Australian hazard map exceedance using an Atlas of historical ShakeMaps. Geophysical Journal International, 175(3). Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates by comparison with observations: An example in Italy. These results may be generally applicable to maps elsewhere, although M Min will vary for different historical datasets.Īlbarello, D., & D’Amico, V. Thus, M Min inconsistencies contribute to, but are not the sole cause of, the discrepancy between predicted and historically observed shaking. These reductions are not enough to bring the maps and data in alignment. Increasing the hazard map's M Min to 6 and 6.6 respectively reduces the discrepancy between predicted and observed shaking by approximately 10-20% and 30-35%. Disaggregating the maps shows that earthquakes smaller than M 6 and 6.6 respectfully contribute about 25% and 45% of the hazard across California. We estimate that CHIMP has a magnitude completeness between M 6-6.6, whereas California hazard maps assume a minimum magnitude ( M Min) of 5. Current probabilistic seismic hazard maps for California appear to predict stronger short period shaking than historical maxima captured by the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) dataset between 18. To explore whether this discrepancy arises because of incompleteness in historical datasets, we consider maps and historical data from California. Maps developed for different countries appear to overpredict shaking relative to historical shaking datasets. A recent topic of interest is the performance of probabilistic seismic hazard maps relative to historical shaking datasets. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |