Suggested Enhancements to the Geologic Model Complexity Rating System

  • Jeffrey KeatonEmail author
  • Rosalind Munro
Conference paper


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.


Variability Uncertainty Analytic hierarchy process 


  1. 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
  2. Hoek, E.: Putting numbers to geology—an engineer’s viewpoint (Second Glossop Lecture). Q. J. Eng. Geol. 32, 1–19 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Saaty, T.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences 1(1), 83–98 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wood, PlcLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations