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; April 2006; v. 96; no. 2; p. 754-756; DOI: 10.1785/0120050148
© 2006 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Convertito, V.
Right arrow Articles by Herrero, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Reply

Reply to "Comment on ‘Influence of Focal Mechanism in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis’ by Vincenzo Convertito and André Herrero," by F. O. Strasser, V. Montaldo, J. Douglas, and J. J. Bommer

V. Convertito*,1 and A. Herrero2

1 Università Federico II di Napoli
Department of Physics
Via Cintia
80126 Napoli, Italy
 (V.C.)
2 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
Via di Vigna Murata, 605
00143 Roma, Italy
 (A.H.)

* Present address: Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica and Vulcanologia, Osservatorio, Vesuviano, 80124 Napoli, Italy.

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

We thank F. O. Strasser, V. Montaldo, J. Douglas, and J. J. Bommer for the interest they have shown in our article (Convertito and Herrero, 2004). Strasser et al. (2006) present a critical comment of our work arguing that the solution proposed by Bommer et al. (2003) is a better solution. Note that the authors are nearly the same in both article and comment, except for V. Montaldo. Because this brief article is a reply, we will focus on the arguments directly concerning our article.

The main objection supported by Strasser et al. (2006) is that the method we proposed is not appropriate to "style- of-faulting" correction. We completely agree with this assertion because it is simply not the scope of our article. We speak about "focal mechanism" intended as radiation pattern and nothing else. This point is clearly stated in the introduction of Convertito and Herrero (2004): "in this article we consider that the focal mechanism influence is only expressed by radiation pattern changes. In particular we do not consider any tectonic influence, stress drop variation or dynamic effects." The style-of-faulting parameter, even if its identity is blurred (e.g., Bommer et al., 2003), is an empirical definition of a complex set of physical conditions including the tectonic regime, the medium behavior, rock mechanics, rupture dynamics, and so on. In our opinion, the style of faulting is simply too complex to be used directly in our approach. Because the scope of our article is to show how it is possible to insert inside the main equation of probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA; e.g., Cornell, 1968), simple physical parameters of the seismic source, that is, how it is possible to integrate deterministic parameters inside a probabilistic approach, . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Reply to the Focal Mechanism Comment
 

   PSHA Comment
 

   Conclusion
 

Related articles in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America:

Influence of Focal Mechanism in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Vincenzo Convertito and André Herrero
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2004 94: 2124-2136. [Abstract] [Full Text]  





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