Skip to main content

Suggested Enhancements to the Geologic Model Complexity Rating System

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 504 Accesses

Abstract

The suggested Geologic Model Complexity Rating System, introduced in 2014, was developed considering the 1993 Oregon rockfall hazard rating system with four rating levels. Five of the nine Geologic Model Complexity Rating System components pertained to geologic complexity: four regional components (genetic, structural/deformation, alteration/dissolution, and weathering/erosion) and one site-scale component. The other Geologic Model Complexity Rating System components were: terrain features, information quality, geologist competency, and level of effort. A pairwise comparison of components for a landslide hazard study, using a multi-factor decision analysis procedure called Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), weighted geologist competency highest (20%), followed by genetic complexity and deformation (each 18%) and site-scale complexity and level of effort (each ~11%). The other four components had weights from 8 to 3%. The 1–9 scoring for AHP, with 1 indicating that components are equal and 9 indicating one is extremely more important, appeared to be useful for objective comparisons. The AHP matrix configuration lists components in the same order in rows and columns. Regional complexity is now being considered as a single four-element component that depends not only on the basic geology of the site area, but also on the purpose of the geologic evaluation. Thus, the suggested enhancements streamline the Geologic Model Complexity Rating System, reducing it from nine components to six, but also complicates it by considering basic geology and purpose of evaluation as fundamentally important to the geologic model. These enhancements bring the suggested Geologic Model Complexity Rating System into alignment with the Oregon rockfall hazard rating system, which included facility components (i.e., what is at risk) for which the hazard was being rated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • FGDC: FGDC digital cartographic standard for geologic map symbolization. US geological survey geologic data subcommittee, Federal geographic data committee document number FGDC-STD-013-2006, 33 (plus 250 pages of appendices) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, E.: Putting numbers to geology—an engineer’s viewpoint (Second Glossop Lecture). Q. J. Eng. Geol. 32, 1–19 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keaton, J.: Engineering geology: fundamental input or random variable? In: Withiam, J.L., Phoon, K.K., Hussein, M.H. (eds.) Foundation engineering in the face of uncertainty: Geotechnical Special Publication 229, pp. 232–253. VA, ASCE, Reston (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keaton, J.: A suggested geologic model complexity rating system. In: Lollino, G., Giordan, D., Thuro, K., Carranza-Torres, C., Wu, F., Marinos, P., and Delgado, C. (eds.) Engineering Geology for Society and Territory: Proceedings of XII IAEG Congress, Torino, Italy, Vol. 6, Applied Geology for Major Engineering Projects, Springer, Switzerland, 363–366 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Keaton, J., Munro, R.: Analytic hierarchy process: a possible semi-quantitative alternative to “on the other hand…” for Geologic Complexity (abstract). AEG Annual Meeting Program with Abstracts Colorado Springs, CO, 68, (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, L.A., van Vickle, R.: Rockfall hazard rating system—participants’ manual. Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-SA-93-057, Washington, D.C. (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences 1(1), 83–98 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Keaton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Keaton, J., Munro, R. (2019). Suggested Enhancements to the Geologic Model Complexity Rating System. In: Shakoor, A., Cato, K. (eds) IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Francisco, California, 2018—Volume 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93142-5_31

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics