Understanding Seismic Hazard and Risk: A Gap Between Engineers and Seismologists

Abstract eng:
Seismologists often say that “this hazard or risk assessment represents the best available science” or “this is the number that engineers want.” On the other hand, engineers often say that “we just need a number and we can design it” or “seismologists tell us that this is the best estimate.” What seismologists provide may differ from what engineers really need for seismic design, however. Furthermore, the seismic hazard and risk provided may not represent the best available science. For example, although ground motions with 10, 5, and 2 percent probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years have been said to represent the best available science, they are hard to explain and understand. The methodology used to derive those ground motions has been found to be inconsistent with modern earthquake science. In other words, the ground motions with 10, 5, and 2 percent PE in 50 years do not represent the best available science and are neither seismic hazard nor risk. Clearly, there is a gap between engineers and seismologists in defining and understanding seismic hazard and risk. This gap has hindered development of more cost-effective policy and engineering design in the United States, as well as in other countries. The consequence is obvious.

• Export as: BibTeX | MARC | MARCXML | DC | EndNote | NLM | RefWorks
• Add to your basket