David Wald, Vincent Quitoriano, Bruce Worden

1
David Wald
- SCEC/HAZUS Workshop HAZUS User Group -
November 13, 2001ShakeMap Scenario Earthquakes

• David Wald, Vincent Quitoriano, Bruce Worden
• U. S. Geological Survey
• Pasadena, California

Scrivner now in Washington
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological
Survey
2
What are the Primary ShakeMap Uses?
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore

• Rapid, Post-Earthquake Emergency Response
  Public/Scientific Information
• Enhanced Post-Earthquake Loss Estimation.
• Earthquake Response Planning, Preparedness,
  Education.
• Understanding past earthquakes and preparing for
  future events using Scenario Earthquakes.

3
What are the Primary ShakeMap Uses?
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore

• Emergency Response Public Information
• Post-earthquake Loss Estimation.
• Response Planning and Preparedness.

4
Loss Estimation

• ShakeMap provides shaking levels it does not
  give losses. They must be estimated separately
  with a knowledge of building/infrastructure
  inventory and how building types behave when
  shaken at different levels.
• FEMA and the California Office of Emergency
  Services (OES) can now use ShakeMap for direct
  loss estimation from the recorded ground motions,
  rather than from magnitude and epicenter alone.

5
HAZUS Input

• GIS Shapefiles (each comprised of 3 files, .shp,
  .dbf, .shx) for pga, pgv, spectral acceleration
  at 1.0 and 3.0 Hz. Instrumental Intensity is
  provided for visualization, but is not used in
  loss estimation.
• For each parameter, sampling interval is
  specified (e.g., 1 inch/second for velocity).
• All 15 files are zipped into a single file
  hazus.zip.

6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
What are the Primary ShakeMap Uses?
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore

• Emergency Response Public Information
• Post-earthquake Loss Estimation.
• Response Planning and Preparedness.

9
ShakeMap Scenario Fundamentals

• Planning response, preparedness, and loss
  estimation should be done with same tools
  expected following a damaging earthquake.
• That is, Planning Scenario delivery and use of
  should mimic Post-Earthquake response delivery
  and use.
• Strive for consistency with Probabilistic Hazard
  Maps (Same source locations/magnitudes,
  regressions, site corrections. In addition, no
  directivity, other complexities not in the hazard
  maps).

10
ShakeMap Scenarios
11
ShakeMap Flowchart
INPUT
Earthquake Info
Recorded Ground Motion Amplitudes
ShakeMap Processing Modules
Geologic Data Site Corr.
ShakeEmail
PUSH
PAGER
WWW Pages
OUTPUT
12
ShakeMap Flowchart
INPUT
Scenario Info
Predicted Ground Motion Amps
ShakeMap Processing Modules
Geologic Data Site Corr.
ShakeEmail
PUSH
PAGER
WWW Pages
OUTPUT
13
ShakeMap Flowchart
INPUT
Scenario Info
3D Simulation Amplitudes
ShakeMap Processing Modules
Geologic Data Site Corr.
ShakeEmail
PUSH
PAGER
WWW Pages
OUTPUT
14
Making ShakeMap Scenarios
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore

• Same software as online system
• Flagged events (named _se) appear on Scenario
  Archive and Disclaimers are plentiful.
• Fully automated need only fault segment (or
  polygon) and Mw.
• Includes
• Fault Finiteness (for calculating distance for
  BJF97 empirical attenuation relationships).
• Site Amplification using CDMG Statewide site
  conditions maps, and nonlinear,
  frequency-dependent amplifications (NEHRP
  factors).
• Does not include
• Event-Specific Rupture Directivity (average
  directivity, yes).
• This means motions are independent of epicentral
  location (choice).
• 3D Wave Propagation Effects (Basin effects, edge
  effects, focusing, etc.)

15
California Statewide Site Classification Map
(Calif. Div. Mines Geology)
16
Pasadena
Los Angeles
Hard Rock
Long Beach
Soft Soil
17
Amplification Factors from Borcherdt (1994)
18
CDMG Segmentation
M. Legg Segmentation
19
Site Corrected No
Site Correction
20
No Directivity
Directivity
(Somerville et al., 97, 00)
21
No Directivity
Directivity
22
No Directivity
Directivity
23
Depth To Basement Term
Site Effect Only
24
Example Scenario ShakeMap Uses
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore
25
(No Transcript)
26
Used at Los Angles Co. Emergency Operations
Center, By LA County Office of Emergency
Management for Training Scenario, November 9,
2000.
LA County Emergency Operations Center
27
USGS Working Group 99 San Francisco Bay Area
Probability Maps
28
USGS Working Group 99 Example Scenario Maps
29
Recent Scenario ShakeMap Users
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore
Southern California Edison Exercises L.A. Dept.
Water Power Exercises Getty Center Response
Exercise OES (ESRI Conf., Intl Disaster Conf.,
others) LA County EOC Exercise (County wide) EERI
Annual Meeting, 2002, Long Beach USGS Working
Group 99 Maps ( FEMA)
30
Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California Peak
Ground Acceleration 10 Probability of being
exceeded in 50 years
Prepared by the California Division of Mines and
Geology in cooperation with the U.S. Geological
Survey
31
San Andreas fault
San Jacinto fault
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
ShakeMap Scenarios Earthquake Web Pages
Hard Disk
Online
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
Scenario Issues
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore

• Who are the customers, and what do they need
  (Usage, Degree of Complexity)?
• Engineers /Scientists Time Series, Spectral
  Values, 3D Effects, Directivity.
• Loss Estimation PGA, Spectral Values,
  HAZUS-formatted Input.
• Emergency Response Intensity, GIS formats.
• Planners (local/regional Govt, Utilities,
  Businesses, etc.) GIS.
• Public/Media Intensity, Web based, TVShakeMap
• Role of Historical Events, Scenario Events,
  Deterministic Maps? (Site specific needs --gt
  worst case scenarios?)
• What are the liabilities associated with
  providing site-specific scenarios?

42
Scenario Issues, Continued
Note I believe after this meeting youll not be
satisfied with just reporting magnitude and
location anymore

• (What is state-of-the-art, and where should
  it go?)
• With consideration of the potential users in
  mind, what is suitable level of detail?
• Deaggregation (Statewide, plus nationwide with
  USGS Hazards Maps) a goal?
• Add randomness for more realistic variations in
  ground motion? -gt no longer reproducible, nor in
  Hazard Maps. Skip ahead of Hazard Maps?
• Depth to Basement, distance to basin edge,
  directivity, etc.
• Appropriateness given absence in the
  Probabilistic Hazard Maps?
• Appropriateness given a priori information about
  source location?
• Broadband synthetics (hybrid deterministic
  stochastic/empirical).
• 3D calculations are more detailed, but not
  necessarily more accurate - need validation (do
  we need frequency dependent validation to map
  uncertainty?).
• For complete source/propagation scenario, source
  parameterization controls many details of the
  ground motions (including many propagation
  effects)?
• Slip distribution (assumed, stochastic, e.g.,
  Northridge)
• Rupture velocity (Izmit)
• Rise time distribution (e.g, Kobe)
• Source geometry, hypocentral location (Chi-Chi)

43
Chi-Chi (M7.6), Taiwan Rupture Geometry
From Brad Aagaard (USGS) In Effect of Fault Dip
and Slip Rake on Near-Source Ground Motions Why
Chi-Chi was a relatively mild M7.6 Earthquake
(PEER, 2001)
44
From Kim Olsen Site Amplification in the Los
Angeles Basin from 3D Modeling of Ground
Motion BSSA 90, S77-S94 (2000).
45
From Arben Pitarka (URS Corp.) Modeling the
effect of the Puget basin on strong ground motion
from earthquakes in the Seattle fault, 1999 SRL.
46
The End
www.trinet.org/shake
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological
Survey
47
Instrumental Intensity Scale