eprintid: 1473
rev_number: 14
eprint_status: archive
userid: 2
dir: disk0/00/00/14/73
datestamp: 2015-02-17 07:54:31
lastmod: 2017-02-08 12:21:32
status_changed: 2015-04-27 12:10:57
type: article
metadata_visibility: show
creators_name: Castanos, Heriberta
creators_name: Lomnitz, Cinna
creators_id: 
creators_id: cinna@prodigy.net.mx
corp_creators: Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas, National University of Mexico, Mexico
corp_creators: Instituto de Geofısica, National University of Mexico, Mexico
title: PSHA: is it science?
ispublished: pub
subjects: MP3
divisions: EPOS-P
full_text_status: none
keywords: Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; Deterministic seismic hazard analysis; Earthquakes
abstract: Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is beginning to be seen as unreliable. The problem with PSHA is that its data
are inadequate and its logic is defective. Much more eliable, and more scientific, are deterministic procedures, especially when coupled with engineering judgment.
date: 2002-11
date_type: published
publication: Engineering Geology
volume: 66
number: 3-4
publisher: Elsevier Science
pagerange: 315-317
id_number: doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00039-X
refereed: TRUE
issn: 0013-7952
official_url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00039-X
access_IS-EPOS: limited
owner: Publisher
citation:   Castanos, Heriberta and Lomnitz, Cinna  (2002) PSHA: is it science?  Engineering Geology, 66 (3-4).  pp. 315-317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00039-X <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00039-X>