Publications

BibTex format

@article{Stirling:2021:10.1785/0220200197,
author = {Stirling, MW and Oskin, ME and Arrowsmith, JR and Rood, AH and Goulet, CA and Ludwig, LG and King, TR and Kottke, A and Lozos, JC and Madugo, CM and McPhillips, D and Rood, DH and Sleep, NH and Wittich, CE},
doi = {10.1785/0220200197},
journal = {Seismological Research Letters},
pages = {314--324},
title = {Evaluation of seismic hazard models with fragile geologic features},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220200197},
volume = {92},
year = {2021}
}

Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - We provide an overview of a 2019 workshop on the use of fragile geologic features (FGFs) to evaluate seismic hazard models. FGFs have been scarcely utilized in the evaluation of seismic hazard models, despite nearly 30 yr having passed since the first recognition of their potential value. Recently, several studies have begun to focus on the implementation of FGFs in seismic hazard modeling. The workshop was held to capture a “snapshot” of the stateoftheart in FGF work and to define key research areas that would increase confidence in FGFbased evaluation of seismic hazard models. It was held at the annual meeting of the Southern California Earthquake Center on 8 September 2019, and the conveners were Mark Stirling (University of Otago, New Zealand) and Michael Oskin (University of California, Davis). The workshop attracted 44 participants from a wide range of disciplines. The main topics of discussion were FGF fragility age estimation (age at which an FGF achieved its current fragile geometry), fragility estimation, FGFbased evaluation of seismic hazard models, and ethical considerations relating to documentation and preservation of FGFs. There are now many scientists working on, or motivated to work on, FGFs, and more types of FGFs are being worked on than just the precariously balanced rock (PBR) variety. One of the ideas presented at the workshop is that fragility ages for FGFs should be treated stochastically rather than assuming that all share a common age. In a similar vein, new studies propose more comprehensive methods of fragility assessment beyond peak ground acceleration and peak ground velocitybased approaches. Two recent studies that apply PBRs to evaluate probabilistic seismic hazard models use significantly different methods of evaluation. Key research needs identified from the workshop will guide future, focused efforts that will ultimately facilitate the uptake of FGFs in seismic hazard analysis.
AU  - Stirling,MW
AU  - Oskin,ME
AU  - Arrowsmith,JR
AU  - Rood,AH
AU  - Goulet,CA
AU  - Ludwig,LG
AU  - King,TR
AU  - Kottke,A
AU  - Lozos,JC
AU  - Madugo,CM
AU  - McPhillips,D
AU  - Rood,DH
AU  - Sleep,NH
AU  - Wittich,CE
DO  - 10.1785/0220200197
EP  - 324
PY  - 2021///
SN  - 0895-0695
SP  - 314
TI  - Evaluation of seismic hazard models with fragile geologic features
T2  - Seismological Research Letters
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220200197
UR  - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000606812500002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR  - https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article/92/1/314/592209/Evaluation-of-Seismic-Hazard-Models-with-Fragile
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/90220
VL  - 92
ER  -

Download

DrDylanRood

Contact

Location

Summary

Citation

BibTex format

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)