Session No. 7

# Course Title: Hazard Mapping and Modeling

**Session 7: Modeling Earthquake Hazards**

## Time: 4 hrs

Objectives:

**7.1 Clarify the nature of an earthquake as a hazard and its impacts.**

**7.2 Explain the factors that influence the nature and characteristics
of earthquakes.**

**7.3 Explain how earthquakes are measured Explain the development of
risk assessment of earthquake hazards and its relation to the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).**

**7.4 Discuss the development of assessments of risk for earthquake
hazards in the United States and the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program.**

**7.5 Provide examples of models used in examining the risk of
earthquakes in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program**

**7.6 Explain the elements of earthquakes and insurance**

**7.7 Explain the elements of earthquake risk.**

**7.8 Clarify the capabilities of HAZUS-MH Earthquake program.**

**Overall Goal: This course is to contribute to the reduction of the
growing toll (deaths and injuries, property loss, environmental
degradation, etc.) of disasters in the United States by providing an
understanding of the significant role of mapping and modeling in the
management of hazards.**

**Session Goal: This session provides an introduction to the nature of
earthquakes and their impacts as well as means of mapping and modeling
this hazard.**

**Scope:**

This session provides an introduction to the nature and extent of
earthquakes as a natural hazard and their social, economic and
environmental impacts on society. Modeling earthquake hazards and
earthquake risk will be examined to identify the type of information
needed to characterize the area affected by an earthquake and to make
loss estimates. The role of earthquake modeling in the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program will be discussed along with
earthquake insurance. The session closes by examining the HAZUS-MH
Earthquake software and clarifying its capabilities to characterize the
societal impacts of earthquakes.

Readings:

*Student Reading:*

United Nations (2005) *Know Risk,* Tudor Rose Publisher, London, 376 p.

Walter W. Hays (2004) Earthquakes, in Stoltman, Joseph P., Lidstone,
John, and Dechano, Lisa (Editors), *International Perspectives on
Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and Consequences , Advances
in Natural and technological Research*, v. 21; Chapter 1, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 11-37.

McGuire, Robin K., (2004) *Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis,* Monograph
10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 221 p.

Frankel, A. D., C. S. Mueller, T. P. Barnhard, E. V. Leyendecker, R. L.
Wesson, S. C. Harmsen, F. W. Klein, D. M. Perkins, N. C. Dickman, S. L.
Hanson, and M. G. Hopper (2000) USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps,
*Earthquake Spectra,* v. 16, no. 1, pp.1-20.

Leyendecker, E. V., R. J. Hunt, A. D. Frankel, and K. S. Ruckstales
(2000) Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps,
*Earthquake Spectra,* v. 16, no. 1, pp.21-40.

Holmes, William T. (2000) The 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, *Earthquake
Spectra*, v. 16, no. 1, pp.101-114.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, (1997), *Multi-Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment, A Cornerstone of the National
Mitigation Strategy*: Washington, D. C., 369 p.

# 

# United States Geological Survey (1994) *The Dynamic Earth: The Story of Plate Tectonics,* Government Printing Office, Washington, D/ C., 77 p. 

# United States Geological Survey (1994) *The Dynamic Planet: World Map of Earthquakes, Impact Craters, and Plate Tectonics,* Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 

# 

# United States Geological Survey (1994) U. S. Earthquakes, Professional Paper 1527, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (1993) Hazard Assessment,
Monograph 1, Memphis, TN, 199 p.

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (1993) Socioeconomic
Impacts, Monograph 5, Memphis, TN, 199 p.

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (1993) Preparedness,
Awareness, and Public Education, Monograph 3, Memphis, TN, 199 p.

*Instructor Reading:*

United Nations (2005) *Know Risk,* Tudor Rose Publisher, London, 376 p.

Hays, Walter W, (2004) Earthquakes, in Stoltman, Joseph P., Lidstone,
John, and Dechano, Lisa (Editors), *International Perspectives on
Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and Consequences , Advances
in Natural and technological Research,* v. 21; Chapter 1, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, , pp. 11-37.

McGuire, Robin K., (2004) Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Monograph
10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 221 p.

Frankel, A. D., C. S. Mueller, T. P. Barnhard, E. V. Leyendecker, R. L.
Wesson, S. C. Harmsen, F. W. Klein, D. M. Perkins, N. C. Dickman, S. L.
Hanson, and M. G. Hopper (2000) USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps,
*Earthquake Spectra*, v. 16, no. 1, pp.1-20.

Leyendecker, E. V., R. J. Hunt, A. D. Frankel, and K. S. Ruckstales
(2000) Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps,
*Earthquake Spectra*, v. 16, no. 1, pp.21-40.

Holmes, William T. (2000) The 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, *Earthquake
Spectra*, v. 16, no. 1, pp.101-114.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, (1997), *Multi-Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment, A Cornerstone of the National
Mitigation Strategy*: Washington, D. C., 369 p.

# United States Geological Survey (1994) The Dynamic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics, Government Printing Office, Washington, D/ C., 77 p. 

# United States Geological Survey (1994) The Dynamic Planet: World Map of Earthquakes, Impact Craters, and Plate Tectonics, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 

# 

# United States Geological Survey (1994) U S Earthquakes, Professional Paper 1527, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 400 p.

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (1993) Hazard Assessment,
Monograph 1, Memphis, TN, 199 p.

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (1993) Preparedness,
Awareness, and Public Education, Monograph 3, Memphis, TN, 199 p.

**General Requirements:**

Handouts 7-1 and 7-2 are provided.

Power point slides are provided for the instructor's use, if so desired.

It is recommended that students with limited knowledge of earthquakes
and earthquake hazards acquire a general understanding of this hazard.
The USGS Web site <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps> is an excellent
place to begin as is also the FEMA publication "Multi-hazard:
Identification and Risk Assessment Report," which is a student reading
for this session. This publication provides an excellent introduction to
earthquake hazards. <http://www.fema.gov/fhm/ft_mhira.shtm>

**Objective 7.1 - Clarify the nature of earthquakes as a hazard and
their impacts** (see Slide 2)**.**

Requirements:

This session provides a general overview of earthquakes as a hazard and
why it is so critical to understand the nature and extent of an
earthquake's impacts in a local community.

# Review the reference, United States Geological Survey (1994) U S Earthquakes, Professional Paper 1527, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

This reference shows the locations of past historical earthquakes in the
United States and describes some of the physical phenomena and societal
impacts associated with the largest magnitude earthquakes. These data,
which are maintained by the United States Geological Survey's National
Earthquake Information Center (NEIC( in Golden, Colorado, are one of the
inputs into FEMA's HAZUS-MH (Hazards United States -- Multi-Hazard)
earthquake loss estimation program. (O'Connor, 2003).

**Remarks:**

**Class Activity**: Where do earthquakes occur in the United States?
What geologic conditions cause these earthquakes?

> Distribute Handouts. Divide the class into small groups and ask the
> following questions:
>
> 1\. Identify where the largest earthquakes (i.e., M7.0 or greater)
> have occurred in the United States and describe their causative
> mechanisms.

2\. Name some of the Nation's 30,000 local jurisdictions that were
affected?

3\. Do large earthquakes occur in the geographic areas you would expect?

I.  **Nature of Earthquakes**

> A. An earthquake is a natural event associated with movements on a
> global scale of tectonic plates and the rupture of faults on a
> regional scale as a result of that movement (Slide 2).
>
> 1\. Instrumental monitoring and research studies have shown that more
> than twelve million earthquakes are generated each year by slip on
> local and regional faults triggered as tectonic plates slowly
> converge, diverge, or slide past each other over time.
>
> 2\. These plates are moving slowly over the globe with speeds ranging
> from a fraction of an inch (fraction of a centimeter) to about 5
> inches (12 centimeters) per year on an underlying layer of hot, almost
> molten rock (known as the asthenosphere).
>
> 3\. The rate, amount, and physics of the relative movement and the
> plate interactions are the basic causes of earthquakes worldwide.
>
> B. Earthquakes occur as the result of the slow, ongoing, interactive
> convergence, divergence, and shearing motion of the Earth's tectonic
> plates. They occur throughout the world as shown on Slide 4 & 5.
>
> 1\. This is a geologic process that has continued fairly uniformly
> during the past 1.5 million years.
>
> 2\. This process has caused the continents to move from a location
> where they were collocated to their present positions where they are
> separated by thousands of miles.
>
> C. Most earthquakes occur when faults located at or near the
> boundaries of a tectonic plate rupture.
>
> 1\. Earthquakes release strain energy that has accumulated over time
> as a result of the plate movement.
>
> 2\. They also occur as faults located in the interior of a plate
> rupture.
>
> a\. A **fault** is a fracture, a zone of fractures, or a system of
> fractures in the earth along which displacement of the two sides
> relative to one another has occurred as a consequence of compression,
> tension, or shearing stresses (Slides 6 & 7).
>
> D. Earthquakes cause elastic deformation (temporary conditions such as
> ground shaking) and inelastic deformation (permanent conditions such
> as ground failure liquefaction and landslides) on the Earth's surface.
>
> F. Earthquakes are geologic phenomena. In contrast, atmospheric
> phenomena produce hurricanes and hydrologic phenomena produce floods
> (Slide 8).
>
> G. Millions of earthquakes occur around the world each year, making
> earthquakes one of the most common global natural hazards (Slide 9).
>
> 1\. Only about one hundred of these earthquakes will have magnitudes
> of 6 or greater.
>
> 2\. The level of energy release that is sufficient to cause damage,
> economic loss, and loss of function to property and
> infrastructure**.**
>
> H. Earthquakes occur frequently in 45 of the 50 states and in the
> territories of the United States (Slide 10)**.**
>
> 1\. In any given year, the United States will experience thousands of
> small earthquakes.
>
> 2\. They occur mostly in Alaska and California, but only ten or less
> of these will have magnitudes of 6 or greater and cause damage,
> economic loss, and loss of function.
>
> I. Even in Alaska or California, large destructive earthquakes may
> occur only once in a person's lifetime; whereas, in that same period
> of time, many floods will occur.
>
> J. The moderate, large, and great earthquakes (i.e., having magnitudes
> of 6 or greater) pose the greatest threat to society (Slide 11).
>
> 1\. The maximum magnitude is related to the length of the fault
> system, with long faults able to generate larger-magnitude earthquakes
> than short faults.
>
> 2\. Long fault systems (e.g., the San Andreas fault system in
> California) generate earthquakes of all magnitudes and are capable of
> generating large- to great- magnitude earthquakes.
>
> 3\. Short fault systems only generate small earthquakes. .

K. Moderate, large, and great earthquakes generate a series of smaller
earthquakes (called aftershocks) that can last for a period ranging from
weeks to years.

L. Other causes of earthquakes include volcanic eruptions, impoundment
of water in large reservoirs, and following large underground explosions

> M. A small earthquake or a series of small earthquakes occurring
> before a larger magnitude earthquake can be considered as the
> precursor (s) or foreshocks of it.

I.  **Financial Impacts from Earthquakes.**

> A. Floods are the most frequent and most costly natural hazard on an
> annual basis in the United States, occurring in every state and
> territory and causing an average of \$5 billion damage each year
> (Schildgen, 1999),
>
> B. Even in Alaska or California, large destructive earthquakes may
> occur only once in a lifetime; whereas, in that same period of time,
> many floods will occur.
>
> C. However, a single earthquake (e.g., the 1994 Northridge, California
> quake, which caused economic losses of \$52 billion) has the potential
> for causing greater economic loss within a minute than floods do for
> an entire year. The average annual loss from earthquakes in the United
> States is \$ 4 billion, at present (Slide 12).
>
> D. Despite advances in earthquake science and implementation of
> Federal hazard-reduction policies, financial damage from earthquakes
> continues to escalate (Pielke and Downton, 2000).
>
> E. FEMA estimates that 44 of the 50 states are at high to very high
> risk from earthquakes with nearly 200million households and tens of
> trillions in property at risk**.** (FEMA 1997).
>
> F. An earthquake disaster occurs when: a) the magnitude (an index of
> the energy released by the fault rupture) is 6 or greater, b) the
> causative fault is located within 50 miles of elements of the
> community's built environment that are fragile when subjected to
> ground shaking, and c) the community does not have social systems in
> place to respond, recover from, and mitigate the physical and societal
> impacts (Slide 13).
>
> G. Property damage from earthquakes results from a combination of the
> great power of ground shaking, surface fault rupture, ground failure,
> and flowing water and inundation from tsunami wave run when people and
> property are concentrated along coasts.

H. The Northridge, California earthquake, which occurred on January 17,
1994, provided a good example of the direct economic impacts from
earthquakes in the United States.

1\. This earthquake was the costliest earthquake disaster in U.S.
history.

> 2\. It affected Southern California, but direct losses reached an
> estimated \$52 billion, with insurance indemnifying about one-half of
> the total direct loss.
>
> I. Damage from the Northridge earthquake affected housing, office
> buildings, schools, hospitals, transportation structures, and utility
> systems.
>
> J. The economic losses associated with the Northridge earthquake were
> exceeded one year later in the January 17, Kobe, Japan earthquake when
> direct losses reached an estimated \$200 billion. Insurance
> indemnification was only about \$3 million.
>
> K. The Worldwatch Institute determined that between 1985 and 1999, 37%
> of the recorded natural disaster events in the world were windstorms,
> 28 % floods, and 15% earthquakes. Events such as fires and landslides
> accounted for the remaining 20% (Abramovitz 2001).
>
> L. Economic losses from these disasters have reached catastrophic
> proportions measured in 1999 dollars, the \$608 billion in economic
> losses during the 1990's was more than three times the figure in the
> 1980's, almost nine times that in the 1960's and more than 15 times
> the total in the 1950's (Abramovitz 2001 p.7).
>
> M. According to the Worldwatch Institute, North America suffered 33%
> of the economic losses from all types of natural disasters from 1985
> through 1999 despite the fact that the number of deaths during the
> period was low (1%). (See Figure 6 in Abramovitz 2001).
>
> N. Prediction and early warning systems are not yet reliable for
> earthquakes (Slide 13).
>
> 1\. Disaster mitigation measures (i.e., building codes, construction
> materials, and retrofit and strengthening) and preparedness measures
> (e.g., earthquake hazard maps and disaster planning scenarios) are
> significant factors in keeping the death toll for earthquakes low
> relative to that for floods in the United States (Slide 14).

I.  **Fatalities from earthquakes**

A. In the United States, earthquakes cause fewer fatalities than floods.

> 1\. On the average, fatalities from earthquakes are only about
> one-third of the 160 fatalities that floods cause annually (Schildgen,
> 1999; FEMA 1999).
>
> 2\. Most of the injuries and deaths from earthquakes occur when people
> are trapped in buildings that are either severely damaged or collapse
> during strong ground shaking.
>
> B. One of the common misconceptions about building codes is that they
> protect buildings from damage during earthquakes. They do not. The
> stated goal is " to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
> general public by minimizing the earthquake related risk to life."
>
> C. Between 1985 and 1999, nearly 561,000 people died throughout the
> world in natural disasters, according to data collected by Munich
> Reinsurance.
>
> 1\. Only 6% of the fatalities for all natural disasters were in
> industrial countries.
>
> 2\. The company reported that 77% of the deaths were in Asia, 10% in
> South America, 6% in Africa and Central America, 2 % in the Caribbean,
> and only about 1% each in Europe and North America.
>
> D. The Worldwatch Institute determined that half of all deaths from
> natural disasters were due to floods. Earthquakes were the second
> biggest killer, claiming 169,00 lives.
>
> 1\. According to the Worldwatch Institute, the United States has only
> a small portion of fatalities from natural disasters when compared
> with the rest of the countries of the world (Abramovitz 2001).
>
> 2\. Warning systems and disaster mitigation (building codes; retrofit
> and rehabilitation) and disaster preparedness (hazard maps, disaster
> planning scenarios) have been a significant factor in keeping the
> death toll in the United States from being even higher.
>
> E. Fatalities associated with earthquakes are mostly a result of
> damage to buildings during ground shaking.
>
> 1\. Not all fatalities are associated with ground shaking. The tsunami
> that swept the entire Indian Ocean after the December 26, 2004 Great
> Sumatra Earthquake (M0.3) centered near Banda Aceh, Indonesia killed
> an estimated 309,000 people in twelve countries (United Nations,
> 2005).

# Question for Class Discussion

1\. In what parts of the world do most fatalities from earthquakes
occur? What explanation do you have for the fewer numbers of earthquake
fatalities in the United States as compared with fatalities in other
countries or in comparison with floods?

> Most fatalities from earthquakes have occurred in developing countries
> that usually have not implemented and enforced adequate disaster
> mitigation policies **(i.e., building codes, construction materials,
> and retrofit and strengthening) and preparedness measures (e.g.,
> earthquake hazard maps and disaster planning scenarios).** Between
> 1985 and 1999, nearly 561,000 people died in natural disasters,
> according to data collected by Munich Re. Only 6% of the fatalities
> were in industrial countries. The company reported that 77% of the
> deaths were in Asia, 10% in South America, 6% in Africa and Central
> America, 2 % in the Caribbean, and only about 1% each in Europe and
> North America. The Worldwatch Institute determined that half of all
> deaths were due to floods. Disaster mitigation (building codes;
> retrofit and rehabilitation) and disaster preparedness (hazard maps,
> disaster planning scenarios) that have been a significant factor in
> keeping the death toll from earthquakes in the United States and
> Europe from being higher, are lacking or are inadequate in developing
> counties in other regions.

**Objective 7.2 -- Explain the factors that influence the nature and
characteristics of earthquakes**

**Requirements:**

This session explains the factors that influence the nature and
frequency of earthquakes and examines where earthquakes have occurred in
the United States. Students are encouraged to clarify how the nature and
frequency of earthquakes differ throughout the United States and other
parts of the world.

**Remarks:**

**I. Factors influencing the nature and frequency of earthquakes**.

To understand earthquakes, one has to understand plate tectonics. There
are sixteen major and minor tectonic plates, each of which varies from
50 to 100 km (30-60 miles) in thickness that are moving slowly over the
globe(United States Geological Survey, 1994). In terms of earthquake
activity in the United States, the tectonic plates of greatest interest
are the North American, Pacific, Juan de Fuca, South American,
Caribbean, and Eurasian plates. Plate movement, the ultimate cause of
earthquakes, has been remarkably constant over the past 200 million
years. Convection currents generated within the Earth's interior power
the slow, continuing movement of the plates, which interact in three
basic ways:

A.  Zones where two plates are diverging or separating as a result of
    tension (e.g., the Eurasian and North American plates).

B.  Zones where the plates are converging and undergoing collision as a
    result of compression (e.g., the Eurasian and African plates; the
    Eurasian and Indio-Australian plates) or subduction (e.g., the
    Pacific and North American plates, Cocos and North American plates,
    Nazca and South American plates, and Caribbean and North American
    plates).

C.  Zones where the plates are sliding past one another along a great
    transform fault zone without colliding or separating as a result of
    shear(e.g., the Pacific and North American plates along the San
    Andreas fault zone, the Arabian and Sinai plates along the Dead Sea
    rift zone).

D.  The plate margins (called interplate regions) exhibit seismic
    activity (called seismicity) and tend to have the most frequent and
    largest earthquakes.

E.  The interior of a plate (called intraplate regions) exhibit a lower
    level of seismicity, although they do sometimes generate large- to
    great-magnitude earthquakes.

    1.  The western margin of California is an example of an interplate
        region.

    2.  The New Madrid region in the Midwest is an example of an
        intraplate region that has experienced large earthquakes.

F.  Even in Alaska or California, large destructive earthquakes may
    occur only once in a lifetime; and even much less frequently in the
    New Madrid region; whereas, in that same period of time, many floods
    will occur.

**II. Earthquake-prone Regions of the United States.**

Although Alaska and California experience the largest number of damaging
earthquakes each year, other regions of the United States and its
territories are also earthquake prone and have the potential for
generating large, damaging earthquakes. The earthquake prone regions
include the following geographic areas:

A.  A transform fault boundary of the North American plate, marked on
    the surface by the 1,000 km-long (600 mile-long) San Andreas fault
    system in California, which generated two historic great-magnitude
    (i.e., M \> 8) events in 1857 and 1906, respectively.

B.  Plate boundary subduction zones, which include the Pacific
    Northwest, (Alaska, Washington, and Oregon) and the Puerto
    Rico-Virgin Islands area in the Caribbean).

> 1\. The Pacific and Caribbean plates, respectively, are converging
> with and being over-thrust (e.g., in the Pacific Northwest) or
> underthrust (e.g., in the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands) by the North
> American plate.

C.  Guam and American Samoa.

D.  Hot spots beneath Hawaii and Yellowstone National Park.

E.  The western basin and range province encompassing parts of Nevada,
    Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah which is characterized by young, active
    faults exposed at the surface (such as the Wasatch fault system) and
    crustal deformation.

F.  An intracontinental rift zone and zone of crustal stretching and
    thinning depicted by the buried New Madrid seismic zone, a complex
    zone of buried rifting about 150 km (90 miles) long in the Central
    Mississippi River valley, which was delineated in the 1970\'s.

G.  Buried, intraplate earthquake zones in the stable plate interior,
    such as in the Wabash Valley of the Midwest where large-magnitude
    prehistoric earthquakes have occurred**.**

H.  The Atlantic continental margin and coastal zone, such as in the New
    England area where the Cape Ann earthquake occurred offshore Boston
    in 1755 and Charleston, South Carolina, where a large magnitude
    earthquake occurred in 1886, both on buried fault systems.

III\. Seismicity (i.e., earthquake activity) and active faults
characterize earthquake-prone areas. The number and frequency of
earthquakes is highest when the faults mark the margins or boundaries of
tectonic plates. Two of the most notable fault systems in the United
States that illustrate the diversity of causative mechanisms are:

A.  The San Andreas fault system in California, a right-lateral
    strike-slip fault, which marks the boundary between the North
    American and Pacific tectonic plates.

B.  The Juan de Fuca tectonic plate and subduction zone in the
    Washington and Oregon area, which mark the boundary between the
    North American and Pacific tectonic plates.

IV\. Other notable fault systems in the United States that extend to the
surface within the North American tectonic plates include:

A.  The Wasatch fault zone, a normal fault system in Utah.

B.  Several hundred to several thousand geologically young faults have
    been identified in the interior of California. Although located far
    away from the plate margin marked by the San Andreas fault zone,
    many are capable of generating damaging earthquakes..

V. In every community throughout the United States, there are many fault
systems that are not visible at the surface. These faults complicate
earthquake hazard and risk assessments and confound decision making for
earthquake risk management. The most notable examples are:

A.  The \"blind\" thrust faults underlying the greater Los Angeles
    basin. A \"blind fault\" is the term used to describe a thrust fault
    system that is not visible at the surface of the ground and can only
    be detected by monitoring and geophysical techniques such as
    drilling, seismic reflection profiles, gravity profiles, or magnetic
    profiles.

B.  The buried faults, the best known of which are the New Madrid
    seismic zone, in the Midwestern United States.

C.  The subduction zone faults located offshore in Alaska, the Puget
    Sound, Washington-Oregon area, and in the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands
    area. Subduction zones are locations of thrust fault systems created
    by one tectonic plate descending beneath another tectonic plate
    (e.g., the Pacific plate descending beneath the North American Plate
    in Alaska).

VI\. When a fault system undergoing tension, compression, or shear,
ruptures, the following kinds of physical phenomena (called earthquake
hazards, each of which is a potential disaster agent) occur, with the
nature, severity, and spatial extent varying as a function of the amount
of energy released and the location

A.  Ground shaking **\--** Earthquake ground shaking is the single most
    important potential disaster agent and typically the principal cause
    of damage, economic loss, and loss of function to buildings and
    aboveground infrastructure. Damage and collapse will occur when
    structures are not designed to withstand the amplitude, frequency
    composition, and duration of horizontal ground shaking. Most
    structures are much less susceptible to damage from vertical ground
    shaking than from horizontal ground shaking.

> 1\. Ground shaking is caused by the body and surface waves, which
> propagate elastically from the causative fault through the earth to a
> building site.
>
> 2\. Structural engineers use strong motion records of ground shaking.
>
> 3\. These are recorded close to the causative fault at free-field
> sites and in buildings and on other structures to establish a basis
> for the earthquake-resistant design of buildings (model building
> codes) as are infrastructure (lifeline standards).
>
> 4\. They use peak acceleration, peak velocity, peak displacement,
> response spectra, and duration of shaking to characterize the design
> ground motion for a range of magnitudes, distances, and site
> conditions.
>
> 5\. The principal technical issues are:
>
> a\) how the ground motion attenuates with distance,
>
> b\) how the amplitude and duration of the horizontal ground shaking
> varies with magnitude and distance for periods between 0.05 and 10
> seconds, and
>
> c\) how the near-surface soil deposits will modify and amplify or
> deamplify bedrock ground shaking.

B.  Ground failure - Ground failure, induced by earthquake ground
    shaking, is the principal cause of damage, loss of function, and
    economic loss to underground infrastructure that is not designed to
    withstand the permanent ground displacements induced in soil and
    rock.

> 1\. Ground failure refers to the permanent deformation of the soil
> and/or rock triggered by ground shaking as a function of site-specific
> geologic conditions and the physical properties of soil and rock.
>
> 2\. Liquefaction, a specific type of ground failure, results in a
> temporary loss of bearing strength that occurs mainly in young,
> shallow, loosely compacted, water saturated sand and gravel deposits
> when subjected to ground shaking.
>
> 3\. Lateral spreading (i.e., lateral movement of the surface soil
> toward a free surface such as a river or a bay) is a consequence of
> deep-seated liquefaction.
>
> 4\. Landslides (i.e., falls, topples, spreads, slides, and flows of
> soil and rock) are another type of permanent ground displacement that
> occurs when soil and/or rock on unstable slopes is excited into motion
> by ground shaking.

C.  Surface fault rupture - Surface fault rupture is a secondary hazard,
    but the sudden permanent displacements cause damage, loss of
    function, and economic loss to the buildings and infrastructure
    constructed in or close to the rupture zone. The societal impacts
    are limited spatially by the fact that only M 5.5 and larger
    earthquakes are capable of rupturing the Earth's surface.

D.  Regional tectonic deformation - Regional tectonic deformation, a
    feature of great-magnitude earthquakes (e.g., the M 9.2 Prince
    William Sound, Alaska earthquake), is a secondary earthquake hazard.
    It can cause major damage, loss of function, and economic loss to
    ports and harbors.

E.  Tsunami flood wave run up - Tsunami flood wave run up is also a
    secondary earthquake hazard, but a devastating cause of damage, loss
    of function, destruction, mortality, morbidity, and economic loss to
    elements of the built environment and people located in coastal
    areas. The societal impacts are limited geographically in the United
    States to the Western United States, including Hawaii and Guam, and
    to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. Not all
    submarine faults generate tsunamis. The causative earthquake must
    have a magnitude of 7 or greater and the fault rupture must have a
    strong vertical component of movement.

F.  Seiche **-** A secondary hazard, the term seiche refers to the
    standing waves generated in a standing body of water, such as a
    lake, by ground shaking.

G.  Aftershocks **-** Aftershocks follow the main shock for a period
    lasting weeks to years, depending upon the magnitude and geographic
    location of the main shock. Aftershocks are disruptive and can
    exacerbate the damage to buildings. A large- to great-magnitude
    earthquake (e.g., the 1906 San Francisco earthquake or the 1811-1812
    New Madrid earthquakes) can be followed by hundreds of strong
    aftershocks, each capable of causing or exacerbating damage, loss of
    function, and economic loss.

**Questions for Group Discussion:**

1\. What is an earthquake and what factors influence the generation of
earthquakes and their societal impacts?

> An earthquake is a naturally occurring event having a geologic origin.
> An earthquake generates physical effects (called earthquake hazards).
> The frequency, severity, and destructiveness of an earthquake's
> physical effects (hazards) vary as a function of the specific
> earthquake, where, when, how, and why it occurs, its magnitude (or
> size in terms of energy release, as determined by networks of
> instruments called seismographs), and the fragility (or vulnerability)
> of each element of the community's built environment..
>
> Thousands of earthquakes occur each year in the United States,
> including Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
> Hawaii, and are recorded on local, regional, and global networks..
> Alaska and California and other parts of the Western United States and
> the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands area are the most active seismic areas
> and the Eastern Seaboard is the least active area. Earthquakes result
> from global-scale geologic processes characterized by the interaction
> of tectonic plates and the local release of strain energy when a fault
> undergoing compression or tension ruptures and releases strain energy.
> Other geologic causes of earthquakes include "volcanic earthquakes"
> associated with volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes induced by the
> impoundment of large reservoirs.

2\. Many factors impact the nature and extent of the earthquake hazards
of ground shaking, ground failure, and tsunami wave run up. Given your
understanding of local and regional conditions, what factors impact the
nature and extent of earthquake hazards in your area?

> Encourage the students to discuss the above factors that impact the
> nature and extent of earthquake hazards in their hometown or a region
> that they know. Stress that the factors in each part of the United
> States are different just as they are in other parts of the world and
> these differences influence the nature and extent of earthquakes.

# Class Activity (see Slides 14-20):

# 

1.  Examine informative documents on seismicity and probabilistic maps
    of the ground shaking hazard to be downloaded from the USGS Web site
    [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps](http://earthqueke.usgs.gov/hazmaps).

# United States Geological Survey (1994) U S Earthquakes, Professional Paper 1527, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Frankel, A. D., C. S. Mueller, T. P. Barnhard, E. V. Leyendecker, R. L.
Wesson, S. C. Harmsen, F. W. Klein, D. M. Perkins, N. C. Dickman, S. L.
Hanson, and M. G. Hopper (2000) USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps,
Earthquake Spectra, v. 16, no. 1, pp.1-20.

> The first document describes the historical earthquake activity for
> the United States; the second shows probabilistic maps of the ground
> shaking hazard for a 50 year exposure time with a 10 percent
> probability of exceedance during that period of time.

2.  Identify the significant historic earthquakes that have impacted
    your area of the United States. Were you aware of these historic
    earthquake events?

3.  Describe the notable earthquakes that have impacted the Northeastern
    Coast, Southeastern Coast, Gulf Coast, or Western Coast of the
    United States? How do they differ?

4.  Which coasts are most likely to experience tsunami wave run up?
    Least prone? Why?

**Objective 7.3 -- Explain how an earthquake is measured** (Slide 21)

**Requirements:**

This session clarifies magnitude and intensity, two terms that relate,
respectively, to the size and damageability of an earthquake. They are
measured differently. Frequency is also discussed. These concepts are
critical in describing earthquakes events, constructing probabilistic
ground shaking hazard maps, and assessing the risk from ground shaking
and other hazards generated in an earthquake.

**Remarks:**

I.. Magnitude - A numerical quantity (e.g., M8.0) developed from
instrumental records, magnitude is based on a logarithmic base-10 scale
that was devised by the late American Professor, Charles F. Richter in
the 1930\'s as a standardized way to compare one earthquake with another
anywhere in the world (Slides 22- 27).

II\. Scientists use instrumental recordings of each earthquake recorded
at locations around the world to characterize the largest of the more
than 12 million earthquakes that occur each year in terms of the total
energy they released.

III\. Empirical rules are used to adjust for the differences in
epicentral distance and focal depth of each earthquake.

A.  The logarithmic, magnitude scale is open-ended.

> 1\. The three largest earthquakes of the 20^th^ and 21^st^ centuries
> were the M 9.5 Chile earthquake of 1960, the M9.3 Banda Aceh
> earthquake of 2004, and the M 9.2 Alaska earthquake of 1964.
>
> 2\. These earthquakes and all others having magnitudes of 8.0 and
> greater are great earthquakes.

B.  The moment magnitude was devised in the 1980's as an extension of
    the Richter scale. This extension enables scientists to characterize
    the great earthquakes more accurately and prevents errors associated
    with the saturation of recording instruments.

C.  For each unit increase in magnitude, the energy increases
    exponentially.

> 1\. For example, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake releases 31.5 times more
> energy than a magnitude 5.0 earthquake, and (31.5) (31.5), or
> approximately 1,000, times more energy than a magnitude 4.0
> earthquake.
>
> 2\. The earthquakes having magnitudes of 5.5 to 6.9 are called
> moderate. Earthquakes having magnitudes of 7.0 to7.9 are called large
> earthquakes.
>
> 3\. Earthquakes having magnitudes of 8.0 and greater are called great
> earthquakes.

IV**.** Intensity -- (Slides 28 - 33) Intensity, a subjective index of
the state-of-damage at a site, is denoted by a different numerical
quantity than that used for magnitude. Universally used by both
scientists and engineers, the value of intensity assigned to a damaged
building after an earthquake is determined on the basis of subjective
observations, not instrumental measurements, by scientists and engineers
of the nature and spatial distribution of the damage caused by the
earthquake.

A.  The Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) scale is used in the United
    States and MSK scale is used in Europe. The MMI scale, like the
    magnitude scale, is also nonlinear, containing values ranging from I
    to XII to denote twelve different damage states.

B.  The upper end members, X to XII, denotes varying degrees of severe
    destruction. Intensity IX denotes severe structural damage, with
    some collapses; intensity VIII denotes structural damage (PGA of
    0.25 g); intensity VIII denotes architectural damage (PGA of 0.12
    g); and intensity VI (PGA of 0.06 g) denotes the threshold for the
    onset of soil liquefaction, a type of ground failure. Ground failure
    can occur for intensities VI to XII, depending on the geologic
    conditions.

IV\. **Earthquake Frequency** (Slides 34 & 35)**,** or the chance of a
earthquake occurring at a specific location in a given interval of time,
can be estimated by plotting a graph of the number, N, of earthquakes
known to have occurred for an area versus their magnitude, M, and
determining empirically how often earthquakes of a particular size may
occur.

A.  This graph is constructed as a Log N versus M graph where the
    relationship has the linear form log N = a -- b M.. The slope of the
    line, given by "b" is called the "b value," and is approximately 1.0
    on a global scale. The level of seismicity is given by the
    intercept, the "a value," which varies from region to region
    throughout the world.

**Class Activity (**Slides 36 - 39)**:**

> Class Activity: Go to the USGS Web site
> [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps](http://earthqueke.usgs.gov/hazmaps)
> and

#  Refer to the document, United States Geological Survey (1994) U S Earthquakes, Professional Paper 1527, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

> 1\. Select the longitudes and latitudes bounding the area where you
> are located in the United States and download a probabilistic ground
> shaking map for this area.
>
> 2\. Develop the data for determining the magnitude and intensity
> distribution of past earthquakes within a 300 mile radius from your
> area.
>
> 3\. Is it easier to estimate the frequency of earthquakes per century
> or per year? Why?

# Objective 7.4 -- Discuss the development of assessments of risk from earthquake hazards in the United States and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)

# Requirements: 

# 

# In this session, students will become familiar with the legislative developments that are important milestones for developing the capability for assessing risk (i.e., the chance of damage, economic loss, loss of function, mortality, and morbidity) from earthquake hazards in the United States. 

**I. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act (Public Law 95-124)**.

Public Law 95-124 established in 1977 a comprehensive basis for
implementing seismic safety policy on mitigation, preparedness,
emergency response, and recovery and reconstruction in the United States
(Slides 41 -- 46). The law calls for strategic actions to save lives and
protect property and infrastructure, including:

A.  Research into the basic causes and mechanisms of earthquakes.

B.  Development of methods to predict the time, place, magnitude, and
    probability of future earthquakes.

C.  Development of information and guidelines for zoning land use in
    light of seismic risk in all parts of the United States and
    preparation of seismic risk analyses useful for emergency planning
    and community preparedness.

D.  Undertaking studies of foreign experience with all aspects of
    earthquakes.

E.  Development of ways for state, county, local and regional
    governments to use existing and developing knowledge about the
    regional and local variations of seismic risk in making their
    land-use decisions.

F.  Development of tools for seismic hazard and risk assessments,
    including seismic zonation.

## II. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) (Slides 47 -51). 

## 

## Public Law 95-124, as amended, is the legal mandate for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). NEHRP is an integrated national program of basic and applied research on the hazard, built, and policy environments and corresponding applications. 

## 

## NEHRP was enacted into law in October 1977 and amended every two to three years thereafter to strengthen leadership, improve coordination, accelerate implementation of earthquake loss reduction measures, and meet specific national, regional, states, and local needs. 

## 

## Four Federal agencies: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the lead agency providing coordination, United States Geological Survey, (USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), administer NEHRP\'s annual budget of about \$ 100 million. In 2004, NIST was named the lead Agency, replacing FEMA, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security.

## 

## NEHRP supports interdisciplinary studies on the hazard, built, and policy environment and calls for a concerted effort for earth scientists, architects, engineers, social scientists, planners, emergency managers, and policy makers to collaborate in the pursuit of the policy goals specified in P.L 95-124, as amended. 

**III. NEHRP Post-Earthquake Studies (Public Law 101-614).**

Since 1990, an explicit national mandate has existed for
interdisciplinary postearthquake studies of damaging earthquakes
nationally and internationally. They are conducted under the auspices of
NEHRP in cooperation with national and international colleagues and
organizations to accelerate the rate of learning.. Before 1990, studies
were conducted on a case-by-case basis, or the opportunity to use the
earthquake as a laboratory for learning was ignored.

A.  Coordinated postearthquake investigations were carried out after the
    January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake. This earthquake provided
    considerable new data and experience on the impact of a major
    earthquake on an urban center.

B.  Cooperative postearthquake studies were carried out after the
    January 17, 2005 Kobe, Japan earthquake. This earthquake was the
    costliest in the world, to date.

C.  Risk Assessment for Earthquake Hazards

    1.  The Federal Government has invested in risk assessments of
        earthquake hazards since the early 1900's, with a primary
        interest in California. But, it was not until after the M9.2
        Prince William Sound, Alaska earthquake in February 1964 that
        the first major programmatic effort was created and 1977 that a
        national program of end-to-end research and research
        applications was mandated by law.

    2.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
        the United States Geological Survey were early leaders in
        initiatives to characterize the nature of earthquakes and
        understand their impacts. In 1973 , the responsibility for
        national leadership was assigned to USGS and elements of NOAA's
        earthquake program were merged with USGS' earthquake program.

    3.  Unlike for floods, there is no National Earthquake Insurance
        Program because of the relative unpredictability of earthquakes
        and the low annual frequency of large, destructive earthquakes
        in comparison with floods.

    4.  Private-sector casualty insurance companies and reinsurance
        companies have made earthquake insurance available in earthquake
        prone areas of the United States such as California and some,
        but not all, parts of the world. Regulations to govern rates and
        ensure adequacy and solvency of underwriting activities have
        been developed and are implemented by appropriate Federal and
        State agencies.

    5.  For background, it is important to note that in 1983, HUD
        convened a group of experts to advise on the best standard for
        risk assessment and management for floods.

> a\. The group including federal agencies agreed on the 100 year flood
> (a one percent annual chance of flooding) as the standard for
> floodplain management.
>
> b\. This standard was considered to represent a degree of risk and
> damage worth protecting against, but was not considered to impose
> stringent requirements or burdens of excessive cost on property owners
> (FEMA 1983).
>
> c\. The 100-year event represents a compromise between minor floods
> and the greatest flood likely to occur in a given area, that the
> highest recorded flooding level reflects what has happened rather than
> what could happen, and that in many cases the 100-year flood level is
> less than the flood of record.
>
> d\. The 1-percent-annual-chance flood and the associated floodplain
> have been widely adopted as the common design and regulatory standard
> in the U.S.
>
> 1\. This 1-percent annual chance earthquake was established formally
> as a standard for use by Federal agencies with the issuance of
> Executive Order for floodplain Management, E.O. 11988 in 1977.
>
> 2\. The 1-percent annual chance flood is the standard used by most
> Federal and state agencies and by the National Flood Insurance Program
> (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the
> need for earthquake insurance.

6.  The analogous concept of a 100-year earthquake or a 500-year
    earthquake is not feasible, so it is not used.

> a\. For earthquakes, the term of reference is the level of ground
> shaking expected at a given location in a 50-year exposure time (i.e.,
> the nominal life time of major civil structures) with a 10 percent
> probability of exceedance.
>
> b\. A 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years corresponds to
> a 475-year return period for that level of ground shaking.

7.  The 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is the standard
    used in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
    for ground shaking hazard maps and the seismic design provisions of
    model building codes .

> a\. The level of ground shaking expected from thousands of earthquakes
> during a 50 year period can be expected to damage as many as one-half
> of the modern buildings and an even larger number of older buildings.

8.  The development of earthquake models and earthquake ground shaking
    maps for use in building codes was considered by the NEHRP agencies
    as a primary means for reducing earthquake risk.

> a\. The earthquake maps would provide a basis for managing the
> development and use of earthquake prone areas and lead to a better
> understanding the likelihood of earthquakes that are expected to
> generate strong ground motion. .

Question for Discussion (Slides 52 -56):

> 1\. Go to the USGS web site
> [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps](http://earthqueke.usgs.gov/hazmaps)
> and download a ground shaking hazard map of the contiguous United
> States.
>
> 2\. Identify the date when the map was prepared.
>
> 3\. Describe the physical parameter that is mapped
>
> 4\. What is the exposure time?
>
> 5\. What is the probability of exceedance?
>
> 6\. Do you believe that the map accurately reflects the nature of
> earthquakes in your area?
>
> 7\. Given the factors that contribute to earthquakes in a local area,
> has there been residential, commercial or industrial development that
> might impact earthquake risks?
>
> 8\. Has there been major construction of infrastructure (i.e., systems
> that provide the essential services of supply, disposal,
> transportation, and communication) that could change the perceived
> seismic risk in your area?

Objective 7.5. Provide examples of models used in examining the risk
from earthquakes in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Slide 57 .

Requirements:

This section provides examples of earthquake models the USGS has
developed to construct earthquake ground shaking hazard maps for use in
examining and assessing the risk from earthquakes in the United States,
and, for the Department of State, abroad. Users include: the US Army
Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Transportation, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HUD, VA, Department of State Foreign Buildings Program in carrying out
planning and regulatory missions as well as by the private sector (e.g.,
casualty insurance companies) to better understand the nature and extent
of earthquakes in the United States. This section of the class provides
a brief description of models used in the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program. The results of these discussions may be used to
increase understanding of HAZUS-MH Earthquake.

Remarks

I. Modeling Earthquake Hazards

A.  A map format is the best way to integrate characteristics of: 1) the
    community's hazards environment and correlate them with
    characteristics of the built environment for use in forming policy
    for risk mitigation.

> 1\. The parameters of the hazard environment control the primary
> earthquake hazards of ground shaking and ground failure and the
> secondary hazards of surface fault rupture, tsunami flood wave run up,
> seiche, regional tectonic deformation, and aftershocks (Slide 58).
>
> 2\. The parameters of the built environment control what is at risk
> and its relative vulnerability to specific hazards such as ground
> shaking.

B.  The map format can be probabilistic (PHSA), or deterministic (DHSA)
    Slide 59).

C.  The first step in the construction of a probabilistic ground shaking
    map for a region is to choose the parameter to be mapped (Slides
    60 - 62). The following parameters are typically mapped:

1\. Intensity, using the Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI scale) or the
MSK scale.

2\. Peak ground acceleration (PGA), focusing mainly on the horizontal
component.

3\. Peak ground velocity (PGV), focusing mainly on the horizontal
component.

**Spectral acceleration (Sa) ordinates of the horizontal ground shaking
at selected periods (e.g., Sa for 0.2 seconds, Sa for 1.0 second), which
are related, respectively, to the fundamental period of vibration of
low- and high-rise buildings, or to short-stiff and long-flexible types
of infrastructure.**

D.  The second step is to select a scale that is appropriate for the
    application (Slide 64).

> (e.g., 1:7,500,000 or 1:24,000) and to prepare a grid of points (e.g.,
> 0.05 degree increments in longitude and latitude) for the
> calculations.
>
> E. The third step (Slide 65 & 66): A Geographic Information System
> (GIS) can be used to manage the multiple layers of information, which
> include:
>
> 1\. The geographic boundaries and all cultural features of the
> community at risk,
>
> 2\. the fault systems,
>
> 3\. the seismicity,
>
> 4\. the seismic wave attenuation functions, and
>
> 5\. the properties of the soil and rock at the site of interest.
>
> F. Understanding the long-term future effects of earthquakes is
> necessary to predict how a society will be threatened by earthquakes
> and what long-term actions are most appropriate in managing that
> threat.
>
> 1\) Such understanding is vital for developing seismic building codes
> and other policies that are important to protecting lives and property
> through seismic risk reduction, and that require a long-term strategy
> for decreasing societal vulnerability.

G.  Modern experience has found that the now-outdated approach of
    deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) is not very well suited
    for achieving adequate understanding of the seismic threat or for
    developing long-term risk reduction policy.

> 1\) In DHSA, an earthquake size and location is typically specified
> for a seismic source (e.g., fault or area of unknown faulting) of
> interest, and the severity level of a chosen hazard parameter (e.g.,
> peak ground acceleration \[PGA\]) is estimated from an empirically
> derived function (e.g., attenuation law).
>
> 2\) The principal problem with DSHA is that it focuses on a single
> earthquake scenario, whereas multiple earthquake scenarios are
> possible (in other words, the timing, location, and severity of
> earthquakes and their effects are all uncertain) -- and worse still,
> DHSA does not develop any basis to understand the likelihood of
> occurrence of the chosen scenario.
>
> 3\) The results of a DSHA are subject to much arbitrariness in how the
> deterministic scenario is chosen and applied.
>
> 4\) Typically, the DSHA practitioners would attempt to select a
> conservative "worst-case" scenario based on their own judgment and
> experience.
>
> 5\) Since analysts' judgments and experiences vary -- and an
> individual analyst does not usually have adequate understanding of
> societal risk tolerance/preference -- DSHA methodology has produced
> both unexpected consequences and undesired levels of risk.
>
> 6\) DSHA practitioners did not explicitly acknowledge the chance that
> their chosen "worst-case" scenario would be exceeded (in fact, they
> typically would communicate to the client/user that they have
> postulated the worst-case), and hence, there was often the mistaken
> belief on the part of both the client/user and practitioner that
> absolute safety was attained.
>
> 7\) The fallacy of such belief, however, has been revealed through
> many spectacular failures of engineering structures and works,
> designed on the basis of DSHA, as a result of the occurrence of
> historical and modern earthquakes.

H.  Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) helps to explain these
    observed failures (and better manage failure potential) by
    explicitly evaluating the likelihoods of exceedance of the various
    severity levels of the earthquake threat.

> In essence, PSHA accounts for the meaningful set of all possible
> earthquake scenarios, and their corresponding chances of occurrence.
>
> In general, for any finite chosen level of seismic severity, there
> exists some likelihood (however small) that the severity level may be
> exceeded in any chosen time period.
>
> In the general case, there will always be some finite probability that
> a given structure or facility may fail, even if properly engineered
> and constructed.
>
> The logical design constraint, then, is that the likelihood of
> unacceptable performance be explicitly specified on the basis of the
> desired level of societal protection and economy.
>
> In contrast to DSHA, PSHA enables this type of rational, realistic
> performance criteria to be developed. The output from a PSHA is a
> curve or other relationship that expresses the likelihood of exceeding
> a given severity of a seismic hazard parameter versus the level of the
> severity (e.g., annual exceedance frequency for PGA versus the PGA
> value).
>
> Some related figures of merit that has been used in past and recent
> generations of seismic design codes, for instance, include: horizontal
> ground acceleration that has a 90 percent probability of not being
> exceeded in 50 years (475-year design event), and horizontal ground
> acceleration for which a structure has 98 percent probability of
> surviving over a 50 year design life (\~2500-year design event). More
> sophisticated PSHA studies and results will take into account the
> spectral (frequency domain) and/or the temporal (time domain)
> characteristics of earthquakes corresponding to chosen threat levels
> (i.e., exceedance likelihoods) of interest.

I.  PSHA is not a new methodology, but has been reported in the
    engineering and seismological literature for about 40 years, and has
    been applied extensively and successfully in engineering practice
    for over the past 20 years.

> The robustness of the methodology is demonstrated by its original
> in-depth development and application for seismic design and risk
> assessment for nuclear power facilities, where safety requirements are
> among the most stringent (if not the most stringent) in engineering
> practice.
>
> Although such early applications of PSHA were performed at
> considerable expense, PSHA has now entered the
> cost-effective/inexpensive mainstream of engineering practice through
> the development of user-friendly solution tools and databases that can
> be implemented on most any modern desktop computer or over the
> Internet.

J.  The value at each location on the map grid is related to a specific
    exposure time (e.g., 50 years), a specific probability of exceedance
    during that exposure time (e.g., 10-percent), and a specific site
    geology (e.g., bedrock or stiff soil). More than one map is required
    to characterize the ground-shaking hazard completely for all
    possible applications.

K.  Applications of probabilistic ground shaking maps include
    regulations for land-use planning, waste disposal, and sitting of
    nuclear power plants; disaster scenarios,; risk assessments, loss
    estimation, (e.g., as a part of the FEMA's loss estimation model,
    HAZUS); model building codes (e.g., the NEHRP Recommended Seismic
    Design Provisions); and lifeline standards.

L.  Geologists, seismologists, engineering seismologists, and
    geotechnical engineers have important roles in the analysis of
    strong ground motion records and in the construction of
    probabilistic ground shaking maps. The ground motion recorded on a
    strong motion instrument is characterized by four parameters, each
    varying as a function of magnitude, the distance from the causative
    fault, and local site geology. They are:

    1.  Peak amplitude (e.g., peak amplitude of horizontal ground
        acceleration (PGA), or the maximum value of the spectral
        acceleration (Sa) for a specific period).

    2.  Frequency composition (i.e., as depicted by a response spectra)

    3.  Duration.

    4.  Energy.

Objective 7.6: Explain the basic elements of earthquake insurance (Slide
68).

**Requirements:**

# This session focuses on issues related to the role of earthquake insurance in the United States. This discussion may be helpful in understanding HAZUS-MH Earthquake software. 

**Remarks**

> I. The business of insurance, including life and health insurance,
> plays a major financial role in our society, making up about 15
> percent of the national gross domestic product. Insurance plays a
> major role in providing security for major assets such as the home
> (Slide 69 ).
>
> II\. In the United States, there are over 3,000 insurance companies,
> most of which focus on a specific market or line such as auto, title
> insurance, health, or life (Slide 70). Only large, multi-line and
> multi-state insurers insure catastrophes, and about 200 of these sell
> earthquake insurance along with other lines.

A.  The capability for accurate risk assessments (i.e., loss estimation)
    is a critical part of the business of insurance. Insurance is a
    contract whereby one party attempts to indemnify (compensate)
    another party against a loss, damage, or a liability arising from a
    contingent or an unknown event.

B.  Insurance is a financial mechanism to spread losses and to speed up
    payments of defined amounts for the repair of earthquake damage.
    Insurance payments speed the economic recovery of individuals,
    families, and communities impacted by an earthquake.

C.  In the United States, insurance is sold by both private industry and
    government. Insurance for floods is administered by the Federal
    Insurance Administration, a part of the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency. For example, there are severe windstorm insurance pools in
    some states that are administered by state governments.

D.  Earthquakes, like floods, are considered to be insurable, although
    the uncertainty in loss estimates for earthquakes is greater than
    for floods.

E.  Earthquake insurance is sold generally by private insurance
    companies, which are either mutual (owned by the policy holders) or
    stock companies (owned by stockholders).

F.  California has a State-managed and regulated program. The California
    Insurance Department has divided the state into discrete earthquake
    zones.

G.  Insurance is a product. It focuses on a market. It has a value to
    the customer and a price (the premium).

H.  The insurance company assumes the risk. The cost (risk) to the
    insurance company is determined after the product is sold, not
    before.

I.  Actuaries estimate the insurers\' expected losses and expenses
    beforehand. The insurance industry exists because of the "Law of
    large numbers." (Slide 71) This law means that the average loss that
    insurers will pay in claims will converge very quickly to a
    predictable number with low uncertainty as the number of claims
    increases.

J.  Underwriting is the process of determining whether to insure the
    risk, what fraction of the risk should be covered, and at what
    price.

> The underwriting process advises against insuring houses made
> vulnerable by very poor construction, poor soil conditions, or close
> proximity to known active faults.
>
> Underwriting uses deductibles to share responsibility for the losses
> with the insured party and to eliminate the numerous small losses that
> occur in an earthquake.
>
> The policyholder is responsible for the deductible, which can be as
> much as 10 to 15 percent of the insured value of the house.
>
> Underwriting can also use exclusions to eliminate coverage for certain
> structures, such as swimming pools, or losses from certain earthquake
> hazards, such as landslides.

K.  The Probable Maximum Loss (PML) is an estimate of the largest loss
    an insurance company (or a community, or a company) might incur if
    the largest possible single event in a geographic area occurred
    (i.e., a worst case scenario) at a time when the company had
    insurance contracts in force for either a specific property, or a
    portfolio of insured properties in the area.

> The PML provides the insurer with an estimate of the potential loss it
> might sustain in a catastrophic event. For example, if an insurer had
> sold earthquake insurance on 100,000 homes in the San Francisco Bay
> Region with an average replacement cost of \$200,000, the aggregate
> replacement cost might be \$20 billion.
>
> This is a worst case estimate, because it is unlikely that an
> earthquake event would destroy all 100,000 houses in the San Francisco
> Bay Region.

L.  The California Department of Insurance multiplies the replacement
    cost of insured homes by a PML percentage factor of 1.7 obtained
    from postearthquake studies of damaged insured single family
    dwellings in the San Francisco Bay Region.

> The product is the expected average loss to all of the insured single
> family dwellings in a defined earthquake zone in the San Francisco Bay
> Region. having a 10 percent deductible.
>
> This technique indicates that the expected average loss to single
> family dwellings from a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay
> Region would be \$340 million (\$20 billion x 1.7 percent).

M.  If the business manager of the insurance company only wanted to
    commit \$250 million of the company's resources (i.e., the company's
    chosen capacity for that event---a business decision) to a possible
    earthquake event in the San Francisco Region, the \$340 million
    estimate indicates that the company is overexposed by \$90 million
    until it increases its capacity for that event by \$90 million.

N.  The PML percent for single family dwellings (and every other element
    of the built environment) varies from fault zone to fault zone.

O.  Rating is the process of determining the proper rate that will be
    applied to a specific policyholder.

> Rating considers the risk characteristics of what is being insured.
>
> For earthquake insurance on a building, the rate is based on the
> building and the building's contents susceptibility to damage from
> ground shaking, the proximity of the building to known active faults,
> the recurrence intervals of the faults, and the physical properties of
> the soil under the structure.

P.  Reinsurance is the process by which one insurance company insures
    another insurance company as a strategy for controlling capacity
    (Slide 72). For example, one insurance company might insure a \$40
    million commercial building for earthquake damage, then find another
    insurer to share half the risk for half the premium. In this case,
    they would share any loss equally.

Question for Discussion (Slide 73):

1.  Explain the importance of assessing and insuring to distribute the
    earthquake risk in a your community:

2.  Describe the steps that would be required for all businesses in your
    community to be self-insured.

The capability for accurate risk assessments (i.e., loss estimation) is
a critical part of the process of assessing the need for insurance in
your community. Finding an insurer (and reinsurer) to provide the
coverage you need at an affordable premium is also critical.

**Objective 7.7 Explain the elements of earthquake risk (Slide 74 ).**

**Requirements**

This session provides an overview of earthquake risk, the chance of loss
to people, property, and infrastructure in a community as a result of
damage, loss of function, economic impacts, morbidity, and mortality. It
shows why it is so critical to understand the interactions between the
hazard, built, and policy environments of a community.

**Remarks**

**I.. Modeling Earthquake Risk**

> A. Earthquake risk assessment has increased dramatically in the past
> decade as a method for analyzing the chance of loss from future
> earthquakes, or the actual loss after one occurs, and the benefit to
> cost ratios for specific mitigation and preparedness policies to
> reduce risk.
>
> B. Risk assessment involves the probabilistic integration of five
> interlinked parameters into a comprehensive seismic risk model (Slides
> 75 & 76). They are:
>
> 1\. The hazard (e.g., earthquakes, and their potential disaster agents
> of ground shaking, etc) that are governed by the hazard environment.
>
> 2\. The exposure (e.g., people, and elements of the community's built
> environment, which represent the quantity of loss that is possible).

3\. The vulnerability (or fragility) of each element comprising the
exposure.

4\. The location of each element of the exposure in relation to the
hazard.

5\. The uncertainty in parameters characterizing the hazard and built
environments.

**II. Required Information (Slides 77 - 79)**

> A. Geologists, seismologists, engineering seismologists, geotechnical
> engineers, architects, and structural engineers acquire the following
> kinds of information for use in the construction of a probabilistic
> ground shaking hazard map. They include:

1.  **Location of active faults**. Earthquake sources (i.e., active
    faults) are identified and characterized on the basis of geologic,
    geophysical, and instrumental, historical, prehistorically data, and
    in recent years, paleoseismicity data. Each active fault is
    classified in terms of its mode of rupture (e.g., strike-slip,
    normal, thrust, blind thrust, and subduction zone) and idealized as
    a point, line, planar, or volume source. Each type of fault
    contributes to the signature of the amplitude, frequency
    composition, and duration of ground shaking at a site. Magnitude is
    controlled by: the length of the fault, its segmentation, the
    coupling of the individual fault segments, the dynamics of the fault
    rupture, and the physical dimensions of the fault rupture surface.

2.  **Geometry of the faults**. The mode of rupture of faulting (i.e.,
    strike slip, reverse or thrust, and normal) and the fault geometry
    (i.e., the dip, depth, and source dimensions of the earthquake
    rupture plane) can affect both the amplitude and the geometric
    attenuation of earthquake ground motion. The style of faulting
    affects the radiation pattern of the seismic waves, and together
    with the geometry of the earthquake rupture plane, controls the rate
    of decay of ground motion with distance from the fault plane.

> B. **Regional tectonic setting**. It is important that the active
> faults in the region of interest be classified and mapped in terms of
> their tectonic environment. The amplitude and geometric attenuation
> characteristics of strong ground motion vary considerably between
> earthquakes that occur in interplate (plate-margin regions such as
> **California, Japan, and Oregon**) and those that occur in intraplate
> regions (e.g., **Midwestern United States).**
>
> C. **Spatial and temporal characteristics of seismicity.** Although
> knowledge of the seismic cycle and clustering of large-magnitude
> earthquakes is still vague for all but a few well-studied fault
> systems, integration of the historical seismicity record (i.e., the
> database consisting of Modified Mercalli intensity data, instrumental
> data, historical data, and paleoseismicity data) with the geologic
> database on the earthquake sources is a critical factor for estimating
> \"**where**,\" \"**how big**,\" \"**how often**,\" \"**when,**\" and
> \"**how likely**\" future earthquakes will recur. The estimates are
> more certain when the geologic database includes information on the
> age of the most recent fault displacements, fault slip rate data, and
> detailed paleoseismicity investigations of historic and prehistoric
> surface faulting events.
>
> D. **Rate of decay of seismic energy with distance from the point of
> fault rupture**. Knowledge of the regional attenuation function for
> the ground motion parameter being mapped is essential in the
> construction of a ground-shaking map. The greatest uncertainty is
> knowledge of the attenuation characteristics close to the earthquake
> source (i.e., within 10 km (6 miles) of the causative fault).
>
> E**. Magnitude, other source parameters, and geologic structure
> (Slides 15 & 16)**. The magnitude governs the long periods of ground
> shaking and the stress drop controls the short periods. The shape and
> amplitude of the source spectrum control the overall amplitude,
> frequency content, and duration of strong ground motion. Therefore, it
> is important that the maximum moment magnitude, the stress drop, and
> shape of the source spectrum be determined, to the extent possible,
> for all active faults in the region of interest. Also, it is important
> to identify and map important crustal reflectors (e.g., Mohorovicic
> discontinuity and other mid-crustal reflectors (e.g., the Conrad
> discontinuity)) in the vicinity of all active faults in the region of
> interest.
>
> F. **Site response**. The physical properties of shallow, near-surface
> soils (i.e., to a depth of approximately 30 m (100 feet) have the most
> important influence on the site response. A soil deposit at a site
> will cause the amplitude, frequency composition, and duration of
> shaking to differ from those on bedrock. The presence of
> sediment-filled basins may further modify site response as a function
> of the geometry of the basin and the properties of the basin
> sediments. Local topography (i.e., steep slopes, hills, and valleys)
> can also influence site response.
>
> G. **Exposure (buildings and infrastructure -- Slides 80 -87)**: The
> existing buildings and infrastructure in a typical community are
> constructed of different materials (e.g., wood, unreinforced concrete,
> reinforced concrete, steel, aluminum, and unreinforced masonry),
> non-engineered (i.e., no building code or lifeline standard),
> engineered (i.e., constructed in accordance with a building code or
> lifeline standards, but at different periods of time. It includes the
> following elements, each of which has a unique vulnerability
> (fragility) function and a dominant period of vibration:
>
> 1\. Single-family dwellings (the largest element of every community's
> and every Nation's building inventory).
>
> 2\. Multiple-family buildings.
>
> 3\. Low-rise office and commercial buildings.
>
> 4\. High-rise residential buildings.
>
> 5\. High-rise commercial buildings.
>
> 6\. Historic buildings, monuments, museums, and other national
> treasures
>
> 7\. Industrial facilities and factories.
>
> 8\. Government office buildings and related facilities (including
> embassies).
>
> 9\. Schools, colleges, and universities.
>
> 10\. Military bases and related facilities.
>
> 11\. Hospitals.
>
> 12\. Police and fire stations.
>
> 13\. Houses of worship.
>
> 14\. Nursing homes and day care centers
>
> 15\. Hotels and resorts
>
> 16\. Shopping malls
>
> 17\. Parking structures.
>
> 18\. Theaters.
>
> 19\. Sports arenas and stadiums.
>
> 20\. Financial institutions and facilities (e.g., banks, stock market
> exchanges).
>
> 22\. Highways (The largest element of every community's and every
> Nation's infrastructure inventory) (Slide 88).
>
> 23\. Bridges.
>
> 24\. Utility systems (i.e., gas electricity, water, wastewater, and
> telephone).
>
> 25\. Tunnels.
>
> 26\. Railways.
>
> 27\. Mass transit systems.
>
> 28\. Water transport systems.
>
> 29\. Telecommunication systems (Slide 89).
>
> 30\. Waterways, ports, and harbors.
>
> 31\. Dams and levees (Slide 90).
>
> 32\. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.
>
> 33\. Storage tanks for water and hazardous materials.
>
> 34\. Airports and related facilities (Slide 90).

# H. Community Vulnerability (Slides 92 - 99): A community's vulnerability (fragility) to earthquake ground shaking is the result of flaws that enter during the processes involving planning, siting, design, construction, use, and maintenance of individual buildings and elements of infrastructure. Vulnerability is created in varying degrees in every community as a result of factors such as the following: 

1.  Varying designs, ranging from non-engineered (e.g., a single-family
    dwelling) to engineered (e.g., a high-rise building) to very
    advanced engineering (e.g., a hospital or a nuclear power plant).

2.  Varying ages of construction, which also means varying editions of
    the building code.

3.  Varying configurations (i.e., elevations and floor plans).

4.  Varying construction materials (e.g., wood, unreinforced masonry,
    unreinforced concrete, reinforced concrete, light metal, and steel).

5.  Varying service lives (e.g., 30 years for the half-life of a class
    of buildings).

6.  Varying usage functions from building to building (e.g., the
    functions represented by single family dwellings, multiple family
    dwellings, high-rise buildings, government centers, commercial
    buildings, industrial facilities, schools, hospitals, and places of
    public assembly).

7.  Varying levels of public and private use, which varies with the time
    of day, holidays, and seasons of the year.

> **I. Uncertainty in the values of physical parameters.** Estimates of
> the uncertainty of the mean and median values of the parameters of the
> hazard and built environment are needed in loss estimates.
>
> 1\. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology.
> They arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning
> earthquakes and their effect upon buildings and infrastructure, and in
> part from the generalizations, assumptions, and simplifications
> necessary for comprehensive analyses.
>
> 2\. Quantification of the uncertainty requires parameter sensitivity
> studies and data acquisition programs following damaging earthquakes
> (e.g., the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes) to
> collect perishable data and fill in gaps in knowledge, verify
> assumptions, and assure the completeness of databases.

IV\. Risk Reduction (Slides 100 & 101 )

> A. Reliable risk assessments are essential for good decision making on
> local, regional, state, and national levels to reduce the risk towards
> more acceptable levels. Once the seismic risk is known with some
> reasonable certainty, steps can be taken to reduce it to most
> acceptable levels. The following steps are representative of the range
> of realistic actions:
>
> 1\. Cost minimization - Costs of capital for communi8ty development
> should always be minimized, as there are other societal needs
> competing for the same resources.
>
> 2\. Loss reduction - Potential losses can always be reduced during the
> planning stage and the construction stage through innovative
> mitigation and preparedness measures. Potential. Although more
> difficult after a structure has been constructed, losses can b e
> reduced through repair, strengthening, rehabilitation, retrofit, and
> active and passive energy dissipation dev ices.
>
> 1\. Earthquake Insurance - Earthquake insurance is an important
> consideration in any project, ranging from home owners to owners of
> very large commercial buildings and projects. Insurance spreads the
> risk and speeds recovery when a damaging earthquake does occur.

**Objective 7.8 Clarify the capabilities and levels of analysis of
HAZUS-MH Earthquake program.**

# Requirements

This session provides an overview of the data requirements for the
HAZUS-MH Earthquake program, a comprehensive, state-of-the-art, loss
estimation methodology that has been established as the standard for
loss estimation by governments in the United States. Private-sector
companies (e.g., insurers) may elect to use their own proprietary loss
estimation models that may differ from HAZUS in some areas of analysis.
The instructor is encouraged to review the First Chapter of the
Technical Manual of the HAZUS-MH Earthquake program to gain an
introduction to the purpose and capabilities of the program.

# Remarks

**I. HAZUS (HAZARDS UNITED STATES) (Slide 102)**

> A. In the early 1990's FEMA and the National Institute of Building
> Sciences embarked on an undertaking to expand the Nation's capacity to
> estimate losses from major types of natural hazards (Slide 103).
>
> 1\. This project was designated as Hazards United States (HAZUS) and
> is an integrated software package.
>
> 2\. Within HAZUS-MH there are separate modules for characterizing and
> estimating the losses from each hazard.
>
> B. The capability for reliable loss estimation is essential to good
> decision making on risk reduction at the local, region, state, and
> national levels of government. This undertaking started with
> earthquakes and was expanding later to include floods and severe
> windstorms.
>
> 1\. More than 137 earthquake and software professionals contributed to
> the development of the program through working groups, oversight
> groups, pilot studies in Boston, MA and Portland, OR, and calibration
> studies using the unprecedented data and experience gained from the
> 1989 Loma Prieta, CA and 1994 Northridge, CA earthquakes, and other
> important, but less notable earthquakes (Slide 104).
>
> C. Users of HAZUS for earthquakes will benefit by planning their loss
> estimation work as an interdisciplinary team and analyzing the results
> with full consideration of the strengths and limitations of the HAZUS
> methodology, as noted below:
>
> D. HAZUS is a work in progress that can only get better with time as
> new data and experiences are added from future damaging earthquake.
> For example, fragility curves showing the performance of the element
> when subjected to strong ground shaking are not yet available for all
> of the elements comprising a typical built environment.
>
> E. HAZUS will provide relative answers, but not absolute answers for
> all communities and all situations, but like the "Law of large
> numbers" underpinning the business of insurance, the answers will
> converge and provide a reasonable solution that can be used for
> decision making by local, regional, state, and national governments.
>
> F. HAZUS develops (Slide 105) a loss estimation scenario that is based
> on specific information on the community's hazard and built
> environments to be provided by the user ( i.e., an earthquake of a
> specified magnitude occurring at a specific location on a specific
> fault relative to a specific community having a specific built
> environment.)
>
> G. HAZUS contains the basic databases needed for a generic loss
> estimation anywhere that earthquakes pose a threat to the community.
> These databases include the characterization of the hazard,
> characterization of elements of the exposure, characterization of
> element vulnerability, and characterization of parameter uncertainty.
> But, HAZUS does not contain community-specific databases.
>
> E. HAZUS provides the user with the option of replacing the basic
> databases (i.e., the "default" databases) with community-specific
> databases, if available, that represent the best possible information
> on the community's hazard and built environments.
>
> F. HAZUS is most accurate when applied to a class of buildings and
> infrastructure in the community that are very similar to those in the
> default database, and least accurate when applied to a specific
> building or element of infrastructure.
>
> G. Losses from earthquakes of M6.0 or less tend to be overestimated,
> but losses from great earthquakes of M8.0 to 9.5 may be so
> catastrophic that they are meaningless.
>
> H. Loss estimates for communities in the Eastern United States will
> have greater uncertainty than loss estimates for communities in
> California, or the Western United States. Nevertheless, they can be
> used to form public policy for risk reduction.
>
> 1\. The loss estimates provided by HAZUS will agree with answers
> expected on the basis of physics and engineering judgment honed by
> more than 70 years experience with damaging earthquakes. For example,
> the following outcomes are to be expected:
>
> 2\. The performance of engineered buildings and infrastructure in
> earthquakes is linked to the effectiveness of the public process for
> the adoption and enforcement of building codes and lifeline standards.
> Good performance correlates with good enforcement.

1.  Engineered buildings and infrastructure typically perform much
    better than non-engineered buildings and infrastructure (i.e., less
    damage and continuation of function).

> 4\. Buildings are more susceptible than buried infrastructure to
> damage from ground shaking, and buried infrastructure is more
> susceptible than buildings to damage from ground failure and surface
> fault rupture.
>
> 5\. Physical vulnerability is caused by flaws in public policies that
> govern the planning, siting, design, construction, and use of
> buildings and infrastructure.

6\. Social and physical vulnerability are exposed in every damaging
earthquake.

> I. FEMA recommends that for the best results from the use of HAZUS-MH
> Earthquake, the loss analysis should be performed by a team **(Slides
> 106 & 107)**consisting of:
>
> 1\. Geologist (s), from state geological survey
>
> 2\. Seismologist (s), from university
>
> 3\. Structural engineer(s)
>
> 4\. Geotechnical engineer (s)
>
> 5\. Economist(s) -- finance officers
>
> 6\. Sociologist(s) from University and/or American Red Cross
>
> 7\. Emergency planner(s), from state office of emergency services
>
> 8\. Public works personnel
>
> 9\. Loss estimation users.
>
> 10\. Local business leader
>
> 11\. GIs specialist, with some level of familiarity or expertise in
> data management and GIS

**Questions:**

1\. What is the value of the USGS' Advanced National Monitoring Network
and regional seismicity and strong motion networks for understanding
earthquake hazards and developing input data for HAZUS?

> The USGS' Advanced National Monitoring Network and regional seismicity
> networks provides data on parameters of the hazard environment: active
> faults, seismicity, magnitude, attenuation functions, site response,
> and building response. These data are used in the construction of
> hazard maps and the development of hazard and risk assessmens.

**References**

Algermissen, S. T., and D. M. Perkins, A Probabilistic Estimate of
Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States, U S
Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-416, Washington, D. C., 77 p.
(1976).

Algermissen, S. T. and others, Probabilistic Ground Motion Hazard Maps
of Response Spectral Ordinates for the United States, in Proceedings of
Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Stanford,
California, pp. 687-694, (1991).

# Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project, Putting Seismic Safety Policies to Work, A Project of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento, California, 40 p. (1988).

Bolt, Bruce A., Estimating Seismic Ground Motions, *Earthquake Spectra,*
v. 15, no. 2, pp. 187-197. (1999).

Brown, R. D. Jr., and W. J. Kockelman, Geologic Principles for Prudent
Land-Use, US *Geological Survey Professional Paper* 946, Washington, D.
C., 97p, (1983).

California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Planning Scenario
for a Magnitude 7.5 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco
Bay Area, Special Publication 78, 260 p., (1987).

California Seismic Safety Commission, California Loss Reduction Plan:
1987-2001, SSC-97-02, Sacramento, California, 49 p, (1997).

California Seismic Safety Commission, California at Risk---Steps to
Earthquake Safety for Local Government, Sacramento, California, 56 p.
(1988). Central United States Earthquake Consortium, [Hazard
Assessment]{.underline}, Monograph 1, Memphis, TN, 199 p. (1993).

# 

# Central United States Earthquake Consortium, [Mitigation of Damage to the Built Environment]{.underline}, Monograph 2, Memphis, TN, 199 p. (1993).

# 

# Central United States Earthquake Consortium, [Preparedness, Awareness, and Public Educatio]{.underline}n Monograph 3, Memphis, TN, 199 p. (1993).

# 

# Central United States Earthquake Consortium, [Emergency Response and Recovery]{.underline} Monograph 4, Memphis, TN. 199 p. (1993).

# 

# Central United States Earthquake Consortium, [Socioeconomic Impacts]{.underline}, Monograph 5, Memphis, TN, 199 p. (1993).

# Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Bridging the Future: A New Generation of Codes, standards, and Earthquake Engineering Professionals, 1999 Annual Meeting, Proceedings, Oakland, California, 68 p. (1999).

# Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Lessons Learned Over Time: Innovative Earthquake Recovery in India\` Learning From Earthquakes Series, v. 11, Oakland, CA., 95 p. (1999).

# 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1997) Insurance, Earthquake
Basics, no. 3, Oakland, CA., 14 p.

# 

# Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Postearthquake Investigation Field Guide, Publication 96-1, Oakland, CA, 114 p, (1996).

# 

# Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1996) Construction Quality, Education, and Seismic Safety, Oakland, California, p. 68. 

# Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, (1995)The January 17, 1995 Great Hyogo-Ken Nambu, Japan (Kobe) Earthquake, Oakland, CA, p. 234.

# 

# Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1988) The Mexico Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Oakland, California, 410 p. 

# Federal Emergency Management Agency (1998) NEHRP: Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake Losses: Strategic Plan of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Washington, D. C., 77 p.

# 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2001). Chapters 1 and 2.
*Understanding Your Risks:*

*Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses.*
<http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_toc3.shtm>

# 

# Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997) Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation, Washington, D. C., Report, 42 p.

# Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997) Project Impact, Washington, D. C., 40 p. 

# 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 1997). *Multi Hazard Identification
and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy*.
Washington, DC. (pages 135 -- 167)
<http://www.fema.gov/fhm/ft_mhira.shtm>

# Federal Emergency Management Agency (1996) Plan for Developing and Adopting Seismic Design Guidelines and Standards for Lifelines, FEMA 271, Washington, D. C., 58 p. 

# 

# Federal Emergency Management Agency, (1992) The Federal Response Plan, (for Public Law 93-288, as amended), Washington, D. C., 247 p..

Hays, Walter W. (2004) Earthquakes in Stoltman, Joseph P., Lidstone,
John, and Dechano, Lisa (Editors), [International Perspectives on
Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and Consequences]{.underline}
, Advances in Natural and technological Research, v. 21; Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands, Chapter 1, pp. 11-37.

# Hays, W. W., Earthquake Mechanics and Effects, A CD- ROM prepared for the 1999 Summer Institute on Earthquake Protective Design, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD and US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. (1999).

# Hays, W. W., Fasking, D., Gahagan, K,; and Huey, L, [Earthquakes: Causes, Consequences, and Considerations for Insurers]{.underline}, Monograph 1, Institute of Business & Home Safety and United States Geological Survey, Boston, 145 p. (1999).

# Hays, W. W., B. Mohammadioun, and J. Mohammadioun, [Seismic Zonation: A Framework for Linking Earthquake Risk Assessment and Earthquake Risk Management]{.underline}: A Monograph, Ouest Editions---Presses Academiques, Nantes, France, 157 p. (1998)

# Hays, W. W., Postearthquake Investigations: A Laboratory for Learning, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM Proceedings, Elsevier Science, Holland, (1996).

# Hays, W. W., Worldwide Assessment of the Status of Seismic Zonation, Fourth International Forum on Seismic Zonation, Proceedings, U S Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-424, Washington, D. C., 44 p. (1994).

# Hays W. W., Hazard and Risk Assessments in the United States, Episodes, v. 14, no. 1, pp. 

# 7-12, (1991).

# Hays, W. W. (Editor), Facing Geologic and Hydrologic Hazards, US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1041-B, 77 p. Washington, D. C., (1982).

# Hays, W. W., Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, U S Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 77 p.).

# Housner, George (1989) [Coping with Natural Disasters, The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction:]{.underline} The Second Mallet-Milne Lecture, Thomas Telford Bookshop, London, 74 p. 

Ingleton, Jon, [Natural Disaster Management, A Presentation to
Commemorate the International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction]{.underline}, Tudor Rose, London, 320 p. (1999).

# 

# Institution of Civil Engineers (1995) [Megacities,]{.underline} Thomas Telford Publications, London, 170 p. 

# Institution of Civil Engineers, [Structures to Withstand Disasters]{.underline}, Thomas Telford Publications, London, 185 p. (1995).

# 

# International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1996) Cities at Risk---Making Cities Safer Before Disaster Strikes, Stop Disasters, Geneva, Switzerland, 39 p.

McGuire, Robin K., (2004) Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Monograph
10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA , 221 p.

Meleti, Dennis (Editor), [Disasters by Design, A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States]{.underline}, Joseph Henry Press,
Washington, D. C., 349 p. (1999).

# 

# Ministry of Construction (1994) Disasters Around the World\--A Global and Regional View, Information Paper No. 4, World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan, 87 p, 

National Research Council. (1999) The impacts of natural disasters: a
framework for loss estimation. Commission on Geosciences, Environment,
and Resources. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. .

# 

# National Research Council, Estimating Losses From Future Earthquakes, Report of Panel on Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 231 p. (1989).

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, Local Hazard Mitigation
Planning Manual, Raleigh, NC, 94 p. (1998).

# 

Office for Disaster Reduction Research (2005) Disaster Reduction
Technology List on Implementation Strategies, Committee on Research and
Development for Disaster Reduction, Government of Japan, Kobe, Japan,
238 p.

# 

# Office of Technology Assessment, Reducing Earthquake Losses, Report of Advisory Council, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 162 p. (1997).

# Office of the Vice President of the United States, Harnessing Information and Technology for Disaster Management, Report of Disaster Information Task Force, Government Printing Office, Washington, D., C., 115 p. (1997).

# 

# Organization of American States, Disasters, Planning, and Development: Managing Natural Hazards to Reduce Loss[,]{.underline} Washington, D. C., 79 p., (1990).

# 

# Petak, William, J., Natural Hazard Mitigation: Professionalism of the Policymaking Process, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, v 2, no. 2, pp. 285-302, (1984).

Schiff, Anshel J. ( Editor), Guide to Improved Earthquake Performance of
Electric Power Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers, Technical
Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Manual of Engineering
Practice 96, 368 p, (1996).

Schiff, Anshel J. )Editor), [Guide to Postearthquake Investigations of
Lifelines]{.underline}, American society of Civil Engineers, Technical
Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph 3, 267 p. (1991).

Schildgen, R. (1999), "Unnatural disasters." *Sierra*, v. 86, p. 68-57.

# Science and Technology Agency, Earthquake Disaster Reduction Technology, Proceedings of International Symposium on Earthquake Disaster Reduction Technology, Tsukuba, Japan, 55 p., (1992).. 

# 

# State Farm Insurance Company, Movers & Shakers, A videotape, Bloomington, Illinois, (1991).

# 

# State of California, Competing Against Time, Report of the Governors Board of Inquiry on the Loma Prieta Earthquake, North Highlands, California, 264 p, (1990).

# 

# State of California, Northridge Earthquake, Turning Loss to Gain, Seismic Safety Commission Report 95-01, Sacramento, California, 160 p, (1995).

# 

United Nations (2005) *Know Risk,* Tudor Rose Publisher, London, 376 p.

# 

# United States Geological Survey, The Dynamic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics, Government Printing Office, Washington, D/ C., 77 p. (1994).

# United States Geological Survey, The Dynamic Planet: World Map of Earthquakes, Impact Craters, and Plate Tectonics, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., (1994).

# 

# United States Geological Survey, U S Earthquakes, Professional Paper 1527, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., (1994).

# United States Geological Survey, Probabilities of Large Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, U S Geological Survey Circular 1053, Washington, D. C., 84 p., (1990).

# United States Geological Survey, Probabilities of Large Earthquakes Occurring in California on the San Andreas Fault, U S Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-398, Washington, D.C., 51 p, (1988)..

# University of Hawaii at Manoa. Engineering for Mitigating Natural Hazards Damage, Proceedings, Second U.S.-Asia Conference, 410 p. (1992).

# Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, A Guide to Reducing Losses From Future Earthquakes in Utah---A Consensus Document, Miscellaneous Publication 91-1, 30 p. (1991).

# World Bank, Managing Natural Disasters and the Environment, Proceedings, Washington, D.C., 215 p, (1990).