Skip to main content

Person

Edward Brooks

thumbnail
Recent large earthquakes that did great damage in areas predicted to be relatively safe illustrate the importance of criteria to assess how well earthquake hazard maps used to develop codes for earthquake-resistant construction are actually performing. At present, there is no agreed way of assessing how well a map performed and thus whether one map performed better than another. The metric implicit in current maps, that during the chosen time interval the predicted ground motion will be exceeded only at a specific fraction of the sites, is useful but permits maps to be nominally successful although they significantly underpredict or overpredict shaking, or to be nominally unsuccessful but do well in terms of predicting...
Categories: Data, Publication; Types: Citation
thumbnail
Following the 2011 magnitude 9.1 Tohoku earthquake, Geller (2011) argued that “all of Japan is at risk from earthquakes, and the present state of seismological science does not allow us to reliably differentiate the risk level in particular geographic areas,” so a map showing uniform hazard would be preferable to the existing map. We explore this by comparing how well a 510‐yr‐long record of earthquake shaking in Japan is described by the Japanese national‐hazard (JNH) maps, uniform maps, and randomized maps. Surprisingly, as measured by the metric implicit in the JNH maps (i.e., a metric that requires only a specific fraction of the sites during the chosen time interval to exceed the predicted ground motion), both...
Categories: Publication; Types: Citation
thumbnail
Recent large earthquakes that caused ground shaking larger than anticipated have generated interest in how to improve earthquake hazard mapping. Issues under discussion include how to evaluate maps’ performance, how to assess their uncertainties, how to make better maps, and how to best use maps given their limitations. An important question is what to do after an earthquake yielding shaking larger than anticipated. Hazard mappers have two choices. One is to regard the high shaking as a low‐probability event allowed by the map, which used estimates of the probability of future earthquakes and the resulting shaking to predict the maximum shaking expected with a certain probability over a given time (Hankset al.,...
Categories: Publication; Types: Citation
ScienceBase brings together the best information it can find about USGS researchers and offices to show connections to publications, projects, and data. We are still working to improve this process and information is by no means complete. If you don't see everything you know is associated with you, a colleague, or your office, please be patient while we work to connect the dots. Feel free to contact sciencebase@usgs.gov.