Contribución a la peligrosidad sísmica de las fallas activas de la zona intraplaca de Iberia: la Falla Alentejo-Plasencia

We present the earthquake potential characterisation of the Alentejo-Plasencia Fault (APF) in the intraplate area of the Iberian Peninsula. The APF displays clear deformation of geomorphic surfaces and sediments of Neogene and younger age and, thus, we consider it to be active within the current tectonic regime. APF fault slip rate values range from 0.01 to 0.1 mm/yr with a preferred value of 0.05 mm/yr. Mw associated to fault rupture ranges from 6.6 to 8.7 using different segmentation models (segments ranging from 20 to 500 km) and various fault scaling relationships. Recurrence intervals derived from slip rate and Mw range from 10 ka to 4 Ma, with preferred values between 20 and 30 ka. Other faults in the interior of Iberia present similar values. Hazard curves produced using all fault sources from the intraplate Iberia show that active faults of the intraplate Iberia do not contribute significantly to seismic hazard at short return periods typical of the building codes (~ 500 year return periods). However, they can be important contributors to hazard at critical facilities (high hazard dams, nuclear power plants, emergency response buildings) where return periods of interest may be 10,000 years or more. Our fault source characterisation is very preliminary (with large uncertainties) and further detailed studies of active faults across the whole plate boundary are required to confirm the values for the intraplate faults presented here.En este trabajo se presenta la caracterización del potencial sísmico de la falla Alentejo-Plasencia (APF) situada en la región intraplaca de la Península Ibérica. La APF muestra una clara deformación de superficies geomorfológicas y sedimentos de edad neógena y más reciente, de modo que la consideramos una falla activa dentro del régimen tectónico vigente. Los valores de velocidad de movimiento de la APF van de 0.01 a 0.1 mm/yr con un valor preferido de 0.05 mm/yr. El valor de magnitud Mw asociada a la falla oscila entre 6.6 y 8.7 utilizando diferentes modelos de segmentación (con longitudes de segmento que van de 20 a 500 km) y varias relaciones de escala. Los intervalos de recurrencia derivados de la velocidad de movimiento y de la Mw oscilan de 10 Ka a 4 Ma, estando los valores preferidos entre los 20 Ka y los 30 Ka. Otras fallas en el interior de Iberia presentan valores similares. Las curvas de peligrosidad generadas utilizando todas las fallas-fuente de la zona intraplaca de Iberia muestran que las fallas activas de esta zona no contribuyen de forma significativa a la peligrosidad sísmica para los cortos periodos de retorno generalmente considerados en los códigos de construcción (para períodos de retorno de ~ 500 años). Sin embargo, dichas fallas pueden contribuir de modo importante a la peligrosidad sísmica para instalaciones críticas (presas de elevado riesgo, centrales nucleares, edificios de servicios de emergencia) donde los periodos de retorno de interés pueden ser de 10.000 años o más. Nuestra caracterización de la falla como fuente sismogénica es muy preliminar (presenta importantes incertidumbres) y se requieren estudios detallados adicionales de las fallas activas a lo largo de todo el límite de placa para confirmar los valores de las fallas intraplaca presentados aquí

Measurement of the W+W-gamma Cross Section and Direct Limits on Anomalous Quartic Gauge Boson Couplings at LEP

The process e+e- -> W+W-gamma is analysed using the data collected with the L3 detector at LEP at a centre-of-mass energy of 188.6GeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 176.8pb^-1. Based on a sample of 42 selected W+W- candidates containing an isolated hard photon, the W+W-gamma cross section, defined within phase-space cuts, is measured to be: sigma_WWgamma = 290 +/- 80 +/- 16 fb, consistent with the Standard Model expectation. Including the process e+e- -> nu nu gamma gamma, limits are derived on anomalous contributions to the Standard Model quartic vertices W+W- gamma gamma and W+W-Z gamma at 95% CL: -0.043 GeV^-2 < a_0/Lambda^2 < 0.043 GeV^-2 0.08 GeV^-2 < a_c/Lambda^2 < 0.13 GeV^-2 0.41 GeV^-2 < a_n/Lambda^2 < 0.37 GeV^-2

The e+e- -> Z gamma gamma -> q q gamma gamma Reaction at LEP and Constraints on Anomalous Quartic Gauge Boson Couplings

The cross section of the process e^+ e^- -> Z \gamma\gamma -> qq \gamma \gamma is measured with 215 pb^-1 of data collected with the L3 detector during the final LEP run at centre-of-mass energies around 205 GeV and 207 GeV. No deviation from the Standard Model expectation is observed. The full data sample of 713 pb^-1, collected above the Z resonance, is used to constrain the coefficients of anomalous quartic gauge boson couplings to: -0.02 GeV^-2 < a_0/\Lambda^2 < 0.03 GeV^-2 and -0.07 GeV^-2 < a_c/\Lambda^2 < 0.05 GeV^-2, at 95% confidence level

Study of the W+W-gamma Process and Limits on Anomalous Quartic Gauge Boson Couplings at LEP

The process e+e- -> W+ W- gamma is studied using the data collected by the L3 detector at LEP. New results, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 427.4 pb-1 at centre-of-mass energies from 192 GeV to 207 GeV, are presented. The W+W- gamma cross sections are measured to be in agreement with Standard Model expectations. No hints of anomalous quartic gauge boson couplings are observed. Limits at 95% confidence level are derived using also the process e+e- --> nu nubar gamma gamma

Triage of patients with venous and lymphatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic – The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale (VELTAS):: A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology (UIP), Australasian College of Phlebology (ACP), American Vein and Lymphatic Society (AVLS), American Venous Forum (AVF), European College of Phlebology (ECoP), European Venous Forum (EVF), Interventional Radiology Society of Australasia (IRSA), Latin American Venous Forum, Pan-American Society of Phlebology and Lymphology and the Venous Association of India (VAI)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semiurgent (to be attended to within 30-90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/nonurgent- (to be seen within 6-12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale aims to standardise the triage of patients with venous and lymphatic disease or vascular anomalies by providing an international consensus-based classification of clinical categories and triage urgency. The scale may be used during pandemics such as the current COVID-19 crisis but may also be used as a general framework to classify urgency of the listed conditions

Study of the e+e- -> Z gamma gamma -> q q~ gamma gamma Process at LEP

The process e^+e^- -> Z gamma gamma -> q q~ gamma gamma is studied in 0.5 fb-1 of data collected with the L3 detector at centre-of-mass energies between 130.1 GeV and 201.7 GeV. Cross sections are measured and found to be consistent with the Standard Model expectations. The study of the least energetic photon constrains the quartic gauge boson couplings to -0.008 GeV-2 < a_0/\Lambda^2 < 0.005 GeV-2 and -0.007 GeV-2 < a_c/\Lambda^2 < 0.011 GeV-2, at 95% confidence level

The national seismic hazard model for New Zealand, and the Mw7.1 4 September Darfield earthquake

A team of earthquake geologists, seismologists and engineering seismologists from GNS Science, NIWA, University of Canterbury, and Victoria University of Wellington have collectively produced an update of the 2002 national probabilistic seismic hazard (PSH) model for New Zealand. The new model incorporates over 200 new onshore and offshore fault sources, and utilises newly developed New Zealand-based scaling relationships and methods for the parameterisation of the fault and subduction interface sources. The background seismicity model has also been updated to include new seismicity data, a new seismicity regionalisation, and improved methodology for calculation of the seismicity parameters. Background seismicity models allow for the occurrence of earthquakes away from the known fault sources, and are typically modelled as a grid of earthquake sources with rate parameters assigned from the historical seismicity catalogue. The Greendale Fault, which ruptured during the M7.1, 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake, was unknown prior to the earthquake. However, the earthquake was to some extent accounted for in the PSH model. The maximum magnitude assumed in the background seismicity model for the area of the earthquake is 7.2 (larger than the Darfield event), but the location and geometry of the fault are not represented. Deaggregations of the PSH model for Christchurch at return periods of 500 years and above show that M7-7.5 fault and background source-derived earthquakes at distances less than 40 km are important contributors to the hazard. Therefore, earthquakes similar to the Darfield event feature prominently in the PSH model, even though the Greendale Fault was not an explicit model input