3-D or median map? Earthquake scenario ground-motion maps from physics-based models versus maps from ground-motion prediction equations

Abstract:

There are two common ways to create a ground-motion map for a hypothetical earthquake: using ground motion prediction equations (by far the more common of the two) and using 3-D physics-based modeling. The former is very familiar to engineers, the latter much less so, and the difference can present a problem because engineers tend to trust the familiar and distrust novelty. Maps for essentially the same hypothetical earthquake using the two different methods can look very different, while appearing to present the same information. Using one or the other can lead an engineer or disaster planner to very different estimates of damage and risk. The reasons have to do with depiction of variability, spatial correlation of shaking, the skewed distribution of real-world shaking, and the upward-curving relationship between shaking and damage. The scientists who develop the two kinds of map tend to specialize in one or the other and seem to defend their turf, which can aggravate the problem of clearly communicating with engineers.The USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction’s (SAFRR) HayWired scenario has addressed the challenge of explaining to engineers the differences between the two maps, and why, in a disaster planning scenario, one might want to use the less-familiar 3-D map.