What does this research mean for the field?

Current physics-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) calculations fail to account for method aleatory variability, requiring new approaches to separate this variability from epistemic uncertainty to transition the method into practical application. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate differences between traditional empirical ground-motion models and physics-based 3D simulations, identifying key uncertainty modeling gaps that prevent the practical adoption of physics-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.

August 27, 2026Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Advancing the Use of Simulated Ground Motions in Physics-Based Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis from Research to Practice

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

ILIrene Liou FCFabrice Cotton GWGraeme Weatherill

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Methodological analysis reveals missing method aleatory variability in physics-based seismic hazard models, highlighting critical pathways to bridge simulation research and practical engineering.

Key Points

To evaluate differences between traditional empirical ground-motion models and physics-based 3D simulations, identifying key uncertainty modeling gaps that prevent the practical adoption of physics-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.
Compared traditional empirical probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with 3D numerical physics-based simulation workflows.
Analyzed the contribution of numerical simplifications and scientific input errors to standard deviation misfits during ground-motion validation.
Identified that current physics-based seismic hazard calculations fail to account for method aleatory variability caused by simulation simplifications.
Demonstrated that validation misfits conflate method-driven variability with parametric epistemic uncertainty in the median response.
Formulated methodological recommendations to isolate uncertainties and validate ground-motion distributions for engineering practice.

Cite This Study

Liou et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8fe99e10c91c1e92621571 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120250281

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 27, 2026Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Advancing the Use of Simulated Ground Motions in Physics-Based Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis from Research to Practice

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

ILIrene Liou FCFabrice Cotton GWGraeme Weatherill

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Methodological analysis reveals missing method aleatory variability in physics-based seismic hazard models, highlighting critical pathways to bridge simulation research and practical engineering.

Key Points

To evaluate differences between traditional empirical ground-motion models and physics-based 3D simulations, identifying key uncertainty modeling gaps that prevent the practical adoption of physics-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.
Compared traditional empirical probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with 3D numerical physics-based simulation workflows.
Analyzed the contribution of numerical simplifications and scientific input errors to standard deviation misfits during ground-motion validation.
Identified that current physics-based seismic hazard calculations fail to account for method aleatory variability caused by simulation simplifications.
Demonstrated that validation misfits conflate method-driven variability with parametric epistemic uncertainty in the median response.
Formulated methodological recommendations to isolate uncertainties and validate ground-motion distributions for engineering practice.

Cite This Study

Liou et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8fe99e10c91c1e92621571 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120250281

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark