Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
E.. I. tosses From Future Earthquakes Pane! on Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology Committee on Earthquake Engineering Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1989

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice-chail-~an, respectively, of the National Research Council. This study was supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under contract No. EMW-86-G-2366 to the National Academv of Sciences. Anv opinions. ~ , , findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Limited number of copies available without charge from: Committee on Earthquake Engineering Division of Natural Hazard Mitigation 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 202/334-3312 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON EARTlIQUA1lE ENGINEERING tl985-1988) GEORGE W. HOUSNER, Chairman, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CHRISTOPHER ARNOLD, Building Systems Development, Inc., San Mateo, California JAMES E. BEAVERS, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee RAY CLOUGH, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley C. B. GROUSE, The Earth Technology Corporation, Long Beach, California RICHARD DOBRY, Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Roy, New York WlI,[lAM J. HALL, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign ROBERT D. HANSON, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor JOHN LOSS, School of Architecture, University of Maryland College Park FRANK E. MCCLURE, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley JOANNE NIGG, Center for Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Tempe OTTO W. NUTTLl, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Louis University, Missouri ROBERT V. WHITMAN, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Liaison Representatives WILLIAM H. ALLERTON, Division of Inspections, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM A. ANDERSON, Program Director, Division of Critical Engineering Systems, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. C. CHESTER BIGELOW, Division of Advanced Technology Development, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. FRED COLE, Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. ·.. 111

OCR for page R1
JAMES COOPER, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. JAMES F. COSTELLO, Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. CHARLES CULVER, Center for Building Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland RICHARD F. DAVIDSON, Geotechnical Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. A. J. EGGENBERGER, Program Director, Division of Critical Engineering Systems, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. G. ROBERT FULLER, Structural Engineering Division, Office-of Architecture and Engineering Standards, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. WALTER W. HAYS, Office of Earthquakes, Voicanoes, and Engineering, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia JAMES R. HILL, Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. PAUL KRUMPE, Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. EDGAR V. LEYENDECKER, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Colorado RICHARD D. MCCONNELL, Veterans Administration, Washington, D.C. JANINA Z. MIRSKI, Structural Division, Veterans Administration, Washington, D.C. UGO MORELLl, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. ROBERT NICHOLSON, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia MIKE REED, Strategic Structures Branch, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C. CHARLES F. SCHEFFEY, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. JOSEPH TYRELL, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Department of the Navy, Alexandria, Virginia J. LAWRENCE VON THUN, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Denver SPENCER WU, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, U.S. Department of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. 1V

OCR for page R1
AN ZEIZEL, Omce of Nature Ed ~^Dologlca1 Hazards, Federal Emergency Gent Agency, W=b~gton, D.C. StaE Riley At. Cbung, Committee Director 0. Glen Isr~lsen, Consulted Barbara J. Rice, Consultant Editor Lady Cane Anderson, Ad~nlstr~e Secretly Norma A. Glron, Secretly Denise A. Grady, Secretly

OCR for page R1
PANEL ON EARTHQUAKE LOSS ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY ROBERT V. WHITMAN, Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge CHRISTOPHER ARNOLD, Building Systems Development, Inc., San Mateo, California RICHARD N. BOISVERT, Department of AgriculturalEconomics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York GILBERT A. BOLLINGER, Department of Geological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia HENRY J. DEGENKOLB, H. J. Degenkolb Associates, San Francisco, California EDWARD S. FRATTO, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness, Framingham ROBERT P. KENNEDY, Consultant, Yorba Linda, California FRANK E. MCCLURE, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley ROBIN K. MCGUIRE, Risk Engineering, Inc., Golden, Colorado ALVIN MUSHKATEL, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Tempe ROBERT B. RIGNEY, Rediands, California JEAN B. SAVY, Geosciences Group, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, California DANTELE VENEZ1ANO, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge DELBERT B. WARD, Architect Salt Lake City, Utah Consultants GREGORY ANDRANOVICH, Cosmos Corporation, Washington, D.C. ROBERT REITHERMAN, The Reitherman Company, Half Moon Bay, California Ex Officio Member GEORGE W. HOUSNER, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena V1

OCR for page R1
Project Offlcer Prom Sponsoring Agency, FEMA ARTHUR J. ZEIZEL, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards, State and Local Programs and Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Liaison Representatives WILLIAM A. ANDERSON, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. CHARLES CULVER, Center for Building Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland A. 3. EGGENBERGER, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. WALTER HAYS, Office of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Engineering, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia GARY JOHNSON, Earthquakes and Natural Hazards Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. RICHARD KRIMM, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. ROBERT WILSON, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. ·— V11

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface A key question that must be addressed in earthquake hazard reduction is: How much loss might a city or region experience from future earthquakes? The destructiveness of an earthquake depends on its size, its proximity, and the area's state of preparation. When aD three of these elements are adverse they combine to produce a great disaster. Some of these great disasters have permanently impressed themselves upon the public consciousness Lisbon, 1755; San E,rancisco, 1906; Messina, 1908; Tokyo, 1923; Alaska, 1964; Mexico City, 1985; and Armenian S.S.R., 1988. Other earthquake disasters with thousands of deaths and extensive property damage did not receive such widespread publicity and are now remembered chiefly by the local inhabitants. Examples of these are San Juan, Argentina, 1944; Agad~r, Morocco, 1960; Skopje, Yugoslavia, 1963; and Tangshan, China, 1976. A significant feature of each of the more modern events ~ that the disaster focused the attention of the government and the genera] public on the problem of earthquake hazard and led to the adoption of appropriate seismic engineering requirements in building codes to better prepare these cities for future earthquakes. It would, of course, have been better if these cities had assessed the earthquake hazard] and taken loss reduction measures before the event. According to a 1983 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report, in the United States as many an 70 million people in 1X

OCR for page R1
39 states face significant risk from earthquakes and secondary haz- ards, such as earthquake-triggered landslides. The recent relatively modest Whittier Narrows, California earthquake, with a magnitude of 5.9 and less than 5 seconds of ground shaking, resulted in prop- erty damage exceeding $350 million. Loss of life from a single major earthquake, such as those that have occurred in California in the last 150 years, could exceed 20,000, and economic losses could to- tal more than $60 billion. Moreover, many other cities or regions are vulnerable to earthquake threat: Seattle, Washington; Memphis, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; and Boston, Massachusetts. These places are less prepared to withstand earthquake hazards than is California and they would experience devastating consequences if a major earthquake were to occur. The enactment in 1977 of the National Earthquake Hazards Re- duction Act offered the nation for the first time a substantial and organized effort to address the nation's earthquake hazard rrutiga- tion issues. Four principal fecleral agencies (FEMA, U.S. Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, and National Bureau of Stan- dards), in partnership with state and local governments and also with the private sector, are working on several aspects of earthquake haz- ards: prediction, risk assessment, land-use planning, better building design and construction of earthquake-resistant buildings, promotion of better building codes, regional economic impact assessment, emer- gency planning and management, training and education programs, and regional workshops aimed at better technology transfer. Much information has been developed from the national program in the past 10 years. Now FEMA, working with city, county, and state governments, is preparing guidelines on how to assess the earthquake hazard and how to take appropriate steps to counter it. Major questions facing a city, for example, are: What is the maximum disaster that might be reasonably thought to happen? and What is the maximum probable earthquake disaster that has a significant probability of occurring during the time span of a generation? Assessing potential earthquake losses is a difficult but essential task to stimulate and guide earthquake mitigation actions. A number of methods have been used for making estimates of future earthquake losses, and there are significant inconsistencies among them. At the request of FEMA, the Committee on Earthquake Engineering undertook the present study. It is intended to be a consensus set of guidelines for a recommended Toss estimation methodology. It is not possible, at present, to predict accurately when and x

OCR for page R1
where major earthquakes will occur, how many people will die or be injured, and what the damaging effect will be on the wide variety of buildings of different ages and conditions. However, it is possible to make approximate estimates that will medicate the nature and magnitude of the problem faced by a city or region. The Panel on Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology has prepared this report to serve as a guide for those undertaking to estimate earthquake losses. Although the material in the report represents a consensus, it is likely that some differences in the opinions of experts on loss estimation have not yet been reconciled. The pane! has been aided greatly in its work by many people and organizations. In the acknowledgments that follow some of the contributors to the effort are briefly mentioned. For the Committee on Earthquake Engineering, ~ express gratitude for this help. For myself, ~ wish to thank Robert Whitman, pane} chairman, all the pane] members, the liaison representatives from federal agencies, the staff of the National Research Council, the technical consultants, and others who have inspired and facilitated this task. George W. Housner, Chairman Committee on Earthquake Engineering X1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The committee wishes to acknowledge the valuable support of Robert Reitherman, who served as technical consultant to this pane} study. It also wishes to thank the following individuals for their assistance in providing materials for the study and in critically re- viewing and suggesting revisions to the pane} report: S. T. AIger- missen, Walter W. Hays, and Gerald F. Wieczorek, U.S. Geological Survey; Neville Donovan, Dames & Moore; Bruce Douglas, Uni- versity of Nevada; Richard Eisner, Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project; Peter May, University of Washington, Seat- tle; Christopher Rojahn, Applied Technology Council; and David Schodek, Harvard University. In particular the committee wishes to thank Arthur Zeizel, project officer, whose agency, the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency, sponsored the study, for his management coordination and work with the panel; the COSMOS Corporation, which assisted in developing a survey instrument for the user needs workshop; and the National Research Council staff in completing this peel study. ·. X11

OCR for page R1
Contents PART I: PANEL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................. Basic Method, 11 Considerations of Uncertainty, 16 2 USER NEEDS. Conflicts, IB Specific Suggestions, 19 3 GROUND-SHAKING HAZARD Deterministic Methods, 20 Probabilistic Methods, 22 Describing Intensity of Ground Motion, 24 Effects of Local Site Conditions, 25 4 BUILDING DAMAGE AND LOSSES Classification of Buildings, 26 Inventory, 28 Motion-Damage Relationships, 33 Losses Associated With Buildings, 40 5 COLLATERAL HAZARDS Fault Rupture, 46 .6 ..17 ·~. X111 20 26 45

OCR for page R1
Landslides and Liquefaction, 46 Tsunamis, 50 Seiches, 50 6 DAMAGE AND LOSSES TO SPECIAL FACILITIES AND URBAN SYSTEMS ~ ~ 53 Lifelines, 53 Facilities With Essential Emergency Functions, 56 Facilities With a Potential for Large Loss, 59 7 INDIRECT LOSSES 61 Fire, 61 Release of Hazardous Materials, 62 Economic Impacts, 63 8 RAPID POSTEARTHQUAKE LOSS ESTIMATES 64 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66 Summary Guidelines for Multipurpose, Large-Scale Earthquake Loss Estimates, 66 Recommendations for Research and Development, 74 REFERENCES . PART II: WORKING PAPERS - 78 A. Types and Examples of Loss Estimate Studies g5 B. User Needs 100 C. Characterization of Earthquake Hazards for Loss Studies 113 D. Inventory of Facilities 130 E. Relationships of Ground Motion, Damage, and Loss 159 F. Liquefaction and Landslides 195 G. Economic Aspects of Earthquake Loss Estimation 216 REFERENCES XIV ..224

OCR for page R1
Part] Pane} Report

OCR for page R1
Aerl~1 view of ~ portion of the chy of ~ngsh~n' Calm aver the earthquake of July 28, lg76 (~ 7~. The c~us~tlve fault passed under the city, wElcb bad Utter resistance to earthquakes. Tills comb~tlon led to almost total destruction Id ~~ lie ~~ ~ 1~. go comply ~ ~ ~~n