| 固体地球科学(S) |
| セッション小記号 |
地震学(SS)
|
| セッションID |
S-SS04
|
| タイトル |
和文 |
Rethinking Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
|
| 英文 |
Rethinking Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
|
| タイトル短縮名 |
和文 |
Rethinking PSHA
|
| 英文 |
Rethinking PSHA
|
| 代表コンビーナ |
氏名 |
和文 |
Schorlemmer Danijel
|
| 英文 |
Danijel Schorlemmer
|
| 所属 |
和文 |
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
|
| 英文 |
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
|
|
共同コンビーナ 1
|
氏名 |
和文 |
Matthew Gerstenberger
|
| 英文 |
Matthew Gerstenberger
|
| 所属 |
和文 |
GNS Science
|
| 英文 |
GNS Science
|
|
共同コンビーナ 2
|
氏名 |
和文 |
Ken Xiansheng Hao
|
| 英文 |
Ken Xiansheng Hao
|
| 所属 |
和文 |
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster(NIED)
|
| 英文 |
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster(NIED)
|
|
共同コンビーナ 3
|
氏名 |
和文 |
Marco Pagani
|
| 英文 |
Marco Pagani
|
| 所属 |
和文 |
Global Earthquake Model
|
| 英文 |
Global Earthquake Model
|
| 国際セッション開催希望 |
国際セッションとしての開催を希望する
|
| 発表主要言語 |
英語
|
| スコープ |
和文 |
The core methods behind probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) were first formalized by Cornell in 1968. Since that time, the fundamental components have largely remained unchanged in most applications: 1) a source model, often made up of zones of expected activity, or an active fault model coupled with a smoothed seismicity model based on catalog data, and; 2) empirically based ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) that are based on several basic parameters, such as moment magnitude and distance. The development of the individual components has become increasingly complex in recent years, however the basic structure has largely remain unchanged. In this session we invite presentations that explore some of the key assumptions currently used in PSHA and their implications for hazard, or alternative PSHA methods that might provide different insight into the hazard. Some examples might be the improved quantification of uncertainty in the source modeling, and moving beyond the typical Poisson-based formulations. The development of PSH models is challenged by the independence of fault and catalog datasets; Can hybrid models be used to improve the forecasting skill of PSHA? How can time dependence of earthquake activity be best built into PSHA? How can fault segmentation be overcome? Can earthquake simulators contribute to PSHA? How can we best incorporate GMPEs into PSHA when the models are becoming increasingly complex, and all parameters need to be specified in advance? Are there viable modeling alternatives for PSHA (e.g., an integrated source model) that can improve current best-practice? Finally, given the uncertainties in source modeling, are the current outputs of PSHA the most effective way of communicating our understanding to end-users in the risk and decision making communities?
|
| 英文 |
The core methods behind probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) were first formalized by Cornell in 1968. Since that time, the fundamental components have largely remained unchanged in most applications: 1) a source model, often made up of zones of expected activity, or an active fault model coupled with a smoothed seismicity model based on catalog data, and; 2) empirically based ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) that are based on several basic parameters, such as moment magnitude and distance. The development of the individual components has become increasingly complex in recent years, however the basic structure has largely remain unchanged. In this session we invite presentations that explore some of the key assumptions currently used in PSHA and their implications for hazard, or alternative PSHA methods that might provide different insight into the hazard. Some examples might be the improved quantification of uncertainty in the source modeling, and moving beyond the typical Poisson-based formulations. The development of PSH models is challenged by the independence of fault and catalog datasets; Can hybrid models be used to improve the forecasting skill of PSHA? How can time dependence of earthquake activity be best built into PSHA? How can fault segmentation be overcome? Can earthquake simulators contribute to PSHA? How can we best incorporate GMPEs into PSHA when the models are becoming increasingly complex, and all parameters need to be specified in advance? Are there viable modeling alternatives for PSHA (e.g., an integrated source model) that can improve current best-practice? Finally, given the uncertainties in source modeling, are the current outputs of PSHA the most effective way of communicating our understanding to end-users in the risk and decision making communities?
|
| 発表方法希望 |
口頭および（または）ポスターセッション
|
| 招待講演 |
|
|