Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; October 2006; v. 96; no. 5; p. 1624-1633; DOI: 10.1785/0120050195
© 2006 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Page, M. T.
Right arrow Articles by Carlson, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Methodologies for Earthquake Hazard Assessment: Model Uncertainty and the WGCEP-2002 Forecast

Morgan T. Page1 and J. M. Carlson1

1 Department of Physics
University of California at Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California 93106-9530
pagem{at}physics.ucsb.edu
carlson{at}physics.ucsb.edu

Model uncertainty is prevalent in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) because the underlying statistical signatures for hazard are unknown. Although methods for incorporating parameter uncertainty of a particular model in PSHA are well understood, methods for incorporating model uncertainty are more difficult to implement because of the high degree of dependence between different earthquake-recurrence models. We show that the method used by the 2002 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP-2002) to combine the probability distributions given by multiple earthquake-recurrence models has several adverse effects on their results. In particular, WGCEP-2002 uses a linear combination of the models that ignores model dependence and leads to large uncertainty in the final hazard estimate. Furthermore, model weights were chosen based on data, which has the potential to systematically bias the final probability distribution. The weighting scheme used in the Working Group report also produces results that depend on an arbitrary ordering of models. In addition to analyzing current statistical problems, we present alternative methods for rigorously incorporating model uncertainty into PSHA.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
E. H. Field
A Summary of Previous Working Groups on California Earthquake Probabilities
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 2007; 97(4): 1033 - 1053.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the Seismological Society of America.