English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The terms aleatory variability and epistemic uncertainty mean different things to people who routinely use them within the fields of seismic hazard and risk analysis. This state is not helped by the repetition of loosely framed generic definitions that actually inaccurate. The present paper takes a closer look at the components of total uncertainty that contribute to ground-motion modelling in hazard and risk applications. The sources and nature of uncertainty are discussed and it is shown that the common approach to deciding what should be included within hazard and risk integrals and what should be pushed into logic tree formulations warrants reconsideration. In addition, it is shown that current approaches to the generation of random fields of ground motions for spatial risk analyses are incorrect and a more appropriate framework is presented.

Variability and Uncertainty in Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction for Probabilistic Hazard and Risk Analyses