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

Active fault databases are a very powerful and useful tool in\udseismic hazard assessment, particularly when singular faults are considered\udseismogenic sources. Active fault databases are also a very relevant\udsource of information for earth scientists, earthquake engineers and even\udteachers or journalists. Hence, active fault databases should be updated and\udthoroughly reviewed on a regular basis in order to keep a standard quality and\uduniformed criteria. Desirably, active fault databases should somehow indicate\udthe quality of the geological data and, particularly, the reliability\udattributed to crucial fault-seismic parameters, such as maximum magnitude and\udrecurrence interval. In this paper we explain how we tackled these issues\udduring the process of updating and reviewing the Quaternary Active Fault\udDatabase of Iberia (QAFI) to its current version 3. We devote particular\udattention to describing the scheme devised for classifying the quality and\udrepresentativeness of the geological evidence of Quaternary activity and the\udaccuracy of the slip rate estimation in the database. Subsequently, we use\udthis information as input for a straightforward rating of the level of\udreliability of maximum magnitude and recurrence interval fault seismic\udparameters. We conclude that QAFI v.3 is a much better database than version 2\udeither for proper use in seismic hazard applications or as an informative\udsource for non-specialized users. However, we already envision new\udimprovements for a future update

Active fault databases: building a bridge between earthquake geologists and seismic hazard practitioners, the case of the QAFI v.3 database