Comment on “Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?” by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson
Comment on “Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?” by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson
复制标题
朱利安·J·博默 (Julian J. Bommer) 和诺曼·A·亚伯拉罕森 (Norman A. Abrahamson) 评论“为什么现代概率地震灾害分析常常导致灾害估计增加？”
DOI：
10.1785/0120070018
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
J. Klügel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Klügel
本文讨论了在Julian J. Bommer和Norman Abrahamson最近发表的题为“为什么现代概率地震灾害分析经常导致风险估计增加”的文章中观察到的关于正确处理概率地震灾害分析（PSHA）中不确定性的一些启发式偏差。我表明，在地震灾害分析中，选择性变异性和认知不确定性之间的区别代表了一种思维模型，而不是地震发生的客观属性。结果表明，认知不确定性和遗传变异之间的分离依赖于模型。我表明，正确应用这个思维模型不会导致风险估计的增加，因为纳入PSHA模型的总不确定性受到现实世界中观察到的不确定性的限制。地震动变异性不能在统计上被视为地震发生的固有特性。它的统计方法依赖于模型。提出了对认知不确定性和变异性这两个术语的精细化定义。此外，本文还指出，传统的PSHA方法可能导致违反节能原则。最后，总结了当前PSHA方法中一些最有问题的领域。
This comment discusses some heuristic biases with respect to the correct treatment of uncertainty in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA) observed in the recent article titled “Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates” by Julian J. Bommer and Norman Abrahamson. I show that the distinction between aleatory variability and epistemic uncertainty in seismic-hazard analysis represents a think model rather than an objective property of earthquake occurrence. It is demonstrated that the separation between epistemic uncertainty and aleatory variability is model dependent. I show that a correct application of this think model does not lead to an increase of hazard estimates, because the total uncertainty to be incorporated into a PSHA model is bounded by the uncertainty observed in the real world. Ground-motion variability cannot be statistically treated as an inherent property of earthquake occurrence. Its statistical measures are model dependent. A refined definition of the terms epistemic uncertainty and aleatory variability is suggested. Furthermore, the paper addresses the observation that the methodology of traditional PSHA may lead to a violation of the energy conservation principle. Finally, a summary of some of the most problematic areas of current PSHA methodology is given.