contributions of earthquake engineering

to Protecting Communities and Critical Infrastructure from Multihazards

Contributions of Earthquake Engineering

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Contributions of Earthquake Engineeringto Protecting Communities and

Critical Infrastructure from Multihazards

A report prepared by the Steering Committee of the EERI Workshop on

Contributions of Earthquake Engineering, Seismology, and Social Science

Thomas D. O’Rourke, ChairThomas Holzer

Christopher RojahnKathleen Tierney

August 2008

© 2008 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)499 14th Street, Suite 320Oakland, California 94612-1934Telephone: (510) 451-0905Fax: (510) 451-5411Website: http://www.eeri.org

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means with-out the prior written permission of the publisher.

Publication and distribution of this report were funded by FEMA/U.S. Department of Home-land Security under grants #EMW-2004-CA-0297 and #EMW-2001-CA-0237.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of FEMA/U.S. Department of Homeland Security or EERI.

EERI is a nonprofit corporation. The objective of EERI is to reduce earthquake risk by advanc-ing the science and practice of earthquake engineering; by improving the understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the physical, social, economic, political, and cultural environment; and by advocating comprehensive and realistic measures for reducing the harmful effects of earth-quakes.

ISBN #978-1-932884-40-1EERI Publication No. CE-2008

Printed in the United States of America

COVER IMAGES: Top left: After the 1989 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake, buildings in the Marina District of San Francisco were braced by residents and firefighters to reduce the hazard of further collapse until they could be demolished under controlled conditions (source: Loma Prieta IV, Marina District, EERI Slide Set, #5, John Egan).Top right: During the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake, several spans of the Gavin Canyon Undercrossing, a tall, highly skewed bridge located on I-5, became unseated and fell. (source: Northridge I [Overview] EERI Slide Set, #25, Jack Moehle).Bottom left (and Figure 32b, page 46): Break in the levee in the 9th ward, New Orleans, August 30, 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (source: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA). Bottom right (and Figure 27, page 37): Members of the Los Angeles County search-and-rescue team participated in operations after the World Trade Center disaster (source: Andrea Booher/FEMA).

Table of Contents

Preface v

Acknowledgments vii

Executive Summary ix

1. Introduction 1

2. Planning for Catastrophes 5

3. Advanced Technologies 17

4. Emergency Response 33

5. Engaging the Community 39 6. Summary 45

Bibliography 47

Appendix A: List of Workshop Participants 57

PrefaceThe National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is the backbone of protection for U.S. citizens from the life-threatening and economically disruptive effects of earthquakes. NEHRP provides federal support for research, information dissemination, development and implementation of technology, and the application of planning and management procedures to reduce seismic risk. NEHRP is also an incubator for technology and policy that extend well beyond seismic risk to improve the security and economic well-being of U.S. citizens and other members of the world community.

The contributions of earthquake engineering are wide ranging. They affect our lives through improvements in the perception, quantification, and communication of risk. They involve advanced technologies for reinforcing and monitoring the built environment, loss assessment methodologies, emergency response procedures, and a process for achieving disaster prepared-ness. They also involve a unique, multidisciplinary culture that integrates basic and applied research into design codes, construction methods, and public policy.

The intention of this report is to lay out the contributions of earthquake engineering that en-hance public safety and improve the protection of U.S. communities from hazards beyond earth-quakes. Four categories are chosen to identify major contributions and present representative examples: planning, advanced technologies, emergency response, and community engagement.

At one level the purpose of this document is education. It is written to inform members of the earthquake community about their collective contributions to improvements in civil infrastruc-ture and community resilience. It is also written for the general public, governmental agencies, and elected representatives and their staff. It is hoped that this document will be used by mem-bers of the earthquake community and others to articulate the importance and long-lasting benefits of programs made possible through NEHRP.

At another level the purpose of this document is to help define and encourage leadership. The earthquake community has earned a strong reputation for advances in technology, planning, and policy that reduce seismic risk. These achievements are well regarded by those who work on other natural hazards, engineering and planning personnel responsible for civil infrastructure, and organizations responsible for emergency response and public protection. Leadership in earthquake engineering, supported through NEHRP, sets a high standard of performance.

Future performance will be viewed increasingly in a multihazard context. Perhaps the most important leadership challenge, therefore, is for the earthquake community to define its role in a multihazard world. As indicated by the many examples in this report, the earthquake community plays an enormously important role in multihazard mitigation. By informing readers about con-tributions beyond earthquakes, it is hoped that this report will stimulate dialogue and planning for improvements in seismic risk reduction that are developed with both awareness and under-standing of their contributions to multihazard mitigation.

It is important for the earthquake community to articulate its contributions. Given the impor-tance of NEHRP, this articulation needs to be voiced with the governmental agencies that are either responsible for or can find partnerships in NEHRP. This message also needs to be voiced with elected representatives responsible for legislative support. It is again hoped that this docu-ment will provide a better understanding for those in public service of the impact and value of their investments in NEHRP.

Thomas D. O’Rourke Past President, EERI, 2003-2004 Past Co-Chair, NEHRP Coalition, 2005-2008

vi

AcknowledgmentsThe Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) acknowledges the support of the Fed-eral Emergency Management Agency and the EERI Endowment Fund in the preparation of this report .

This report grew from a small project that was initially supported by EERI’s Special Projects and Initiatives Committee. Its development was encouraged by participants in a two-day workshop that was organized by EERI to explore how national investments in earthquake engineering and science enhance public safety and improve the protection of U.S. communities from hazards beyond earthquakes. The workshop involved many experts in various engineering disciplines, geoscience specialties, and applied social sciences. Information gathered from participants in preparation for and during the workshop provided the initial material for developing this report. Additional information and contributions were obtained from other experts as various drafts of the manuscript were prepared and edited.

The members of the workshop steering committee were Thomas O’Rourke (chair), Thomas Holzer, Christopher Rojahn, and Kathleen Tierney. Other participants in the workshop included William Anderson, Richard Andrews, Martha Baer, Donald Ballantyne, Nesrin Basoz, Harvey Bernstein, Ian Buckle, Mary Comerio, C. Allin Cornell, Ronald Eguchi, Richard Eisner, Thomas Hanks, Robert Hanson, Eve Hinman, Jeremy Isenberg, Wilfred Iwan, Milagros Kennett, Michael Lindell, Sami Masri, Farzad Naeim, William Petak, Carla Prater, Keith Porter, Lawrence Reaveley, David Schwartz, Mark Sereci, Haresh Shah, Paul Somerville, Bill Spencer, Alex Tang, Charles Thiel, and Susan Tubbesing. All participants contributed important ideas and helped to develop early versions of the draft manuscript for the report, which was edited and added to by members of the steering committee. Others who made important written contributions to various chap-ters include Ronald Mayes, Andrei Reinhorn, Charles Scawthorn, Tsu-Teh Soong, and Andrew Whittaker.

The preparation of this report would not be possible without the dedication and contributions of the EERI staff. In particular, those members of the staff who helped to edit and organize the report include Marjorie Greene, James Godfrey, Eloise Gilland, and Susan Tubbesing.

Executive SummaryThe purpose of this document is to articulate, with examples, the ways earthquake engi-neering has enhanced public safety and improved the protection of U.S. communities from hazards beyond earthquakes.

Incubator of New Ideas and Applications

For decades, earthquake engineering has been an incubator for new ideas, advanced tech-nologies, and public policy. Earthquakes are associated with extreme, widespread disruption that occurs suddenly, without reliable short-term prediction. The technology used to reduce earthquake risk has been developed through multidisciplinary research and the implementation of methodologies that depart from conventional problem solving. This process encourages innovation and generates products and practices that fundamentally change our ways of mod-eling, design, and construction. Advances in earthquake engineering improve community safety against many different natural disasters such as fire, flood, and wind, and from human threats such as terrorism and severe accidents.

The development of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is a good example of inno-vation stimulated by earthquake engineering. The concepts and procedures originally embodied in this hazard analysis approach have been applied to hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe storms. The analytical process and modeling methods that evolved from PSHA are used world-wide by the insurance industry to distribute the risk associated with all types of natural hazards. The methodology also forms the underpinning for risk transfer to capital markets through catastrophe bonds.

� CONTRIBUTIONS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

The application of post-earthquake building inspection protocols to evaluate the state of damage of buildings surrounding the World Trade Center site after September 11, 2001, is an example of earthquake technology leveraged into critically important contributions for disaster recovery. Rapid procedures for post-earthquake building inspection were applied shortly after September 11 and helped speed the restoration of New York City businesses and world financial markets.

Improved Infrastructure Management

The U.S. infrastructure is complex and highly interdependent. Modeling and managing inter-dependent systems, such as electric power, water supplies, gas and liquid fuel delivery, and telecommunications, requires simulation capabilities that can accommodate the many geographic and operational interfaces within and among the different networks.

Earthquake engineering contributes powerful methods of modeling complex lifeline system performance. Characterization of diverse component behavior, multiscale modeling techniques, reliability-based decision making, and computer visualizations have been enhanced through investments in earthquake engineering. They are available now as a body of knowledge and technology for improved infrastructure management.

A map of buildings surrounding the World Trade Center. Within days of the tower collapses, the structural integrity of 406 buildings in the area was assessed using post-earthquake inspection guidelines (FEMA, 2002).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY �i

Structural health monitoring, protective systems, remote sensing, and Web-based GIS are technologies described in this report that were improved significantly through earthquake engineer-ing applications. These technologies provide enormous benefits through improved surveillance and management of critical infrastructure in real time, and thus establish the platform for truly “intelligent” systems. The experience gained with wide-band wireless, massive high-end compu-tation, and the processing of geographically distributed data with advanced seismic monitoring networks offers an important opportunity to improve the safety and operation of critical U.S. infrastructure.

The structural integrity of a building can be monitored remotely in real time. (left) Information from sensors placed at various locations throughout the structure is collected by an on-site server and transmitted to building owners and managers via the internet (Celebi et al., 2004);. (right) Milikan Library at Caltech, an e�ample of a monitored building.

Improved Multihazard Mitigation

Virtually every technology and planning or management process identified in this report can be extended to other natural hazards and, in most cases, to severe accidents and the destructive acts of terrorism. In several notable instances, technologies developed initially for earthquakes are being applied to hurricanes. For example, remote-sensing technologies and Web-based GIS developed for earthquake reconnaissance were applied in reconnaissance missions and response planning for Hurricane Charlie in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Reconnaissance, guided by high-resolution satellite images and aerial photographs in combination with GPS-coordinated databases and GIS, helps quantify the extent of damage and provides dynamic data systems to aid in the subsequent recovery of communities. In addition, the systematic collection and syn-thesis of regional data sets aid greatly in correlating the degree of damage with parameters such as wind speed, exposure, inundation levels, and building characteristics, enabling the application of improved loss estimation to future natural disasters.

�ii CONTRIBUTIONS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Satellite imagery, refined through earthquake reconnaissance missions, is used to assess flood damage in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (images and te�t courtesy of ImageCat).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY �iii

Magnetorheological dampers initially developed for the control of earthquake vibration applied to control wind- and rain-induced vibration of the Dongting Lake Bridge, Hunan, China (Spencer and Nagarajaiah, 2003).

Protective systems that use semi-active damping devices protect buildings during earthquakes and bridges during extreme wind and rainstorm conditions. Studies of the public’s perception of earthquake warnings and forecasts supply information critical for effective preparation and management of evacuations during floods and hurricanes. Investigations of earthquake recovery led to improved procedures for post-disaster reconstruction applicable for all natural hazards and human threats.

Multihazard Legislation and Policy

The reauthorization of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act in 2004 was used as the legisla-tive vehicle for introducing and passing the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. The multi-agency oversight of NEHRP was used as the model for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP). Both programs are administered with the assistance of a Federal interagency committee for coordination and an external national advisory group that provides guidance and recommendations for program activities. NEHRP has not only served as a model for legislation and a national program to mitigate the effects of windstorms, but has also informed federal policy for U.S. disaster reduction. Members of the earthquake community provided advice to the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction of the National Science and Technology Council when formulating the six grand challenges for disaster reduction that are intended to guide federal investments in support of disaster-resilient communities (Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, 2005). The earthquake community provides leadership for disaster reduction. Its members make notable contributions to address the disaster reduction grand challenges and promote the technical and social advances needed for effective multihazard risk mitigation.

�iv CONTRIBUTIONS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Plan (left) and the Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction (right) benefit from legislation and policy informed by NEHRP and the advice of engineers, geoscientists, and social scientists who work on earthquake hazards and risk reduction.

Culture of Multidisciplinary Innovation

Advances in earthquake risk reduction were accomplished through the collective enterprise of architects, emergency managers, engineers, geoscientists, and social scientists. This integrated approach is reflected in hazard-resistant design, guidelines, and codes; national loss estimation methodology; performance-based engineering; lifeline systems management; improved decision-making; and loss reduction partnerships. Federally funded earthquake hazard reduction pro-grams consistently emphasize the social, economic, and policy factors that govern the adoption and implementation of loss reduction measures. Strategies for research and development are guided by the broader community and socioeconomic contexts in which they are applied.

The multidisciplinary nature of earthquake engineering is one of its most significant legacies, providing a model for the future mitigation of natural hazards and human threats. Substantial opportunities exist for the earthquake community to continue its leadership, with the recognition that its contributions have extraordinary value not only for seismic risk reduction, but also for multihazard mitigation and the improved performance of critical infrastructure.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY �v

Cragmont School in Berkeley, California, under construction. California has very strict re-quirements for new public school construction, legislation that has grown out of e�perience with damaging earthquakes, an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the hazard, and engineering and code developments. The state invests significant resources in a seismic hazard mapping program, and individual jurisdictions as well as property owners are making large investments in mitigation. This school in Berkeley is one such e�ample — the “old” school, which was actually the newest school in the district, was torn down because of an increased understanding of its high seismic risk, and this new school erected (photo: City of Berkeley).

Earthquake engineering, as practiced in the United States, draws on the expertise of architects, engineers, geoscientists, emergency managers, and social scientists. Experts in diverse fields reg-ularly interact with each other so that the integrated views of many specialists are embodied in the concepts and practices applied to seismic risk reduction.

Investments in earthquake engineering make a significant impact on life safety and the protec-tion of property. Earthquake engineering is responsible for developing basic procedures for the perception and assessment of seismic risk, advanced technologies for reinforcing and mon-itoring the built environment, loss assessment methodologies, emergency preparedness and response procedures, and a culture for integrating basic and applied research into design codes, construction methods, and public policy.

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) forms the backbone of protection for U.S. citizens from the life-threatening and economically disruptive effects of earthquakes. Since 19771, NEHRP has provided federal support for research, information dissem-ination, and development and implementation of technology and management procedures to reduce seismic risk. The program is administered through four federal agencies. Basic research is advanced by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Applied research and earthquake monitoring is conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This research is supplemented by testing at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the development of new products. This new information is made available to the public by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through seismic design codes, guidelines for best practices, and decision support tools and planning procedures at the local community level. As reauthorized in 20042, NEHRP provides continuing support for seismic risk reduction through coordinated federal agency management.

1 NEHRP was established by the 1977 Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act (P.L. 95-124, Sec.3).2 NEHRP was reauthorized in October 2004 by passage of H.R. 2608 for the period 2005-2009.

Chapter 1: Introduction


Research supported by NEHRP not only contributes to improved seismic performance at home, but also distinguishes the U.S. as being at the forefront of important, life-saving technology throughout the world. The U.S. gains leverage from earthquake engineering research through improvements in safety, protection of life, and the exportation of technology and engineering services overseas. NEHRP also contributes to improved U.S. infrastructure performance under normal, daily demands and to emergency response and recovery associated with other natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes, floods, windstorm, fire, etc.), severe accidents, and terrorist activities. Earthquake engineering investments are leveraged into improved safety and reliability of all components of the nation’s civil infrastructure, including buildings, transportation systems, water supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks, electric power, telecommunications, and waste disposal facilities.

This report concentrates specifically on the process and products that enhance the safety and security of our built environment under normal operations, during other natural disasters, and in response to human threats in the form of accidents and premeditated acts of violence. The examples provided were developed with input from participants at a special workshop convened by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and contributions by experts who were contacted during the writing and editing of the report. The examples are intended to pro-vide a representative cross-section of important contributions with broad impact. They offer a diverse but not exhaustive view of the outreach and influence of earthquake engineering. How this Report is Organized

The report is organized into six chapters. The first provides introductory and background information. The second through fifth chapters provide examples of significant contributions. A final chapter provides a summary of the contributions, and offers guidance to government, sponsoring agencies, and the earthquake engineering community for evaluating the significance of its services and for developing the appropriate vision and planning to achieve optimal future outcomes.

Four categories were chosen to identify major contributions and present representative exam-ples. The categories are planning, advanced technologies, emergency response, and community engagement. Each category is the topic of a separate chapter. Brief descriptions of the cate-gories and their significance are provided under the following subheadings.

Planning for Catastrophes

Effective planning and decision-making are central to all good management. Because earth-quakes are events with relatively low probability but potentially catastrophic consequences, decisions need to be made in ways that account for probability and provide for a structured assessment of risk and potential losses.

Earthquake engineering has contributed to public safety through building codes and standards. It has pioneered the development of a loss estimation methodology, which combines the

INTRODUCTION �

systematic assessment of regional hazards with building inventories and the visualization of losses through geographic information systems. This loss estimation process provides the framework for similar assessments applied to windstorm and floods. It is used by all major insurance and reinsurance companies for risk securitization related to natural hazards. Models to predict the regional economic losses associated with earthquakes are now being applied to various natural hazards, severe accidents, and terrorist activities.

Advanced Technologies

Advanced technologies conceived and incubated for earthquake engineering demonstrate real value for improved daily performance and are often directly transferable to other hazards. Ad-vanced technology is the engine that drives the economies of developed nations. Investments that stimulate advanced technology produce an immediate benefit in the form of enhanced technical capabilities and cost-efficient operations. They also contribute to economic competi-tiveness that improves the ability of U.S. industry to renew its infrastructure and export services and products abroad. Technologies stimulated by earthquake engineering are focused on enhanc-ing performance under extreme conditions, but the technical products and services that emerge from this process frequently have substantial value for promoting higher levels of reliability and safety under normal operating conditions.

Emergency Response

After September 11, 2001, the U.S. placed great emphasis on homeland security and the corres-ponding development of emergency response procedures to address the threat of terrorism. A significant example of the transfer in knowledge and technology from the earthquake commu-nity to emergency responders is the implementation of post-earthquake inspection protocols to evaluate and reoccupy the buildings surrounding the World Trade Center (WTC) complex after the collapse of the Twin Towers. For many years, researchers and practitioners in earthquake engineering have studied emergency response activities, and have investigated the patterns of social service and economic recovery that take place as a result of major seismic disruptions. The knowledge gained from these investigations and the attendant expertise that is vested in the earthquake community are used in planning and implementing emergency response procedures for human threats.

Large-scale efforts to coordinate the response of federal, state, and local agencies to catastrophic disasters, such as the Federal Response Plan, arose from concerns about the threat of a cata-strophic U. S. earthquake. Lessons learned from the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes helped to improve intergovernmental preparedness for all types of disasters. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, these lessons continued to inform preparedness efforts under the National Response Plan and the more recent National Response Framework. The idea of funding and equipping urban search and rescue teams, which proved critical in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center attacks, developed out of response experience gained after international earthquakes.


Figure 1: U.S. national urban search-and-rescue teams, developed out of experiences of Fairfax County and Miami/Dade fire departments in devastating earthquakes such as Armenia (left, photo F. Krimgold), played an important role in searching for survivors following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (right, photo M. Rieger, FEMA News Photo).

Engaging the Community

Earthquakes kill and injure people, damage property, and alter the economic and social fabric of communities. The widespread and complex effects of earthquakes have stimulated social science and technical studies to assess their life-threatening effects, damage patterns, short and long-term consequences to regional economies, human reactions to disaster, and public perceptions of risk.

Earthquake investigations contribute to improvements in the communication of risk, forecasts, and warnings. They elucidate the factors affecting social and economic vulnerability to extreme events, as well as public and organizational responses after disasters. The results of earthquake research provide a framework for engaging communities in disaster reduction planning. With the emergence of new threats after September 11, 2001, there is a growing recognition that social science and technical knowledge, gained from earthquake research, provides perspectives and tools that can be applied directly to homeland security.

Chapter 2: Planning for CatastrophesA core competency of earthquake engineering is planning for potentially catastrophic events. Planning, as practiced by the earthquake community, involves the promulgation of codes for the design and construction of new facilities as well as the rehabilitation and strengthening of existing ones. Planning also involves the allocation and securitization of risk, the estimation of potential seismic losses, and the management of geographically distributed lifeline networks, such as water supplies, electric power systems, and transportation facilities. More recently, planning for poten-tially catastrophic earthquakes has focused on performance-based engineering (PBE), in which building design is governed by performance objectives for life safety, extent of damage, and the duration of lost functionality. These planning activities provide good examples for other hazards. In this chapter, various dimensions of the earthquake planning process are reviewed with commentary as to how the earthquake preparation process has been or could be adapted to other hazards.

Risk Analysis, Hazard Assessment, and Loss Estimation

One of the most influential contributions of earthquake engineering is the application in practice of risk analysis, a general methodology for assessing risk for natural hazards and human threats. This fundamental process is used by insurance companies worldwide not only for assessing the potential losses from natural hazards and terrorism, but also for the transfer of risk to capital markets through catastrophe bonds. Wide acceptance and application by the earthquake engineering community of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), fragility curves, and decision-making under uncertainty were catalysts for the development and application of risk analysis worldwide.

PSHA involves the description of an earthquake source in terms of frequency or probability of occurrence of different magnitudes at different locations (Figure 2), coupled with models that estimate how earthquake motion is propagated from a source to the site of interest. The result of PSHA is a probability that a certain level of seismic motion will be exceeded within a


given time frame (e.g., Cornell, 1968; Kramer, 1996; McGuire, 2004). Quantifying the likelihood of occurrence on a consistent basis allows for comparisons with other risks and provides an excellent framework for decisions. Such an approach is compatible with the decision-making procedures that underpin financial management and the distribution of risk by the insurance industry.

The PSHA approach evolved into a general methodology for assessing risk and making deci-sions on how to mitigate the effects of future extreme events. Similar loss estimation models, involving integration over space, time, and random effects, have been developed for other nat-ural hazards such as hurricane, tornado, and severe storm effects (wind, wave, surge, etc.). Such modeling techniques have also been applied to human threats and the effects of terrorism.

Loss estimation models have evolved in ways that enable insurance companies and financial managers to deal with catastrophe risk. At the same time, advances in information technology make it possible for the insurance industry to evaluate large portfolio losses, even in cases where the portfolios encompass hundreds of thousands or even millions of properties. Loss estimation and financial models have changed the way both insurance and reinsurance institutions set rates and distribute risk in the U.S. and around the world.

Probabilistic hazard analysis and risk modeling provide the technical foundation for insurance against natural hazards. They were used to establish the California Earthquake Authority insur-ance pool, the Florida Hurricane Pool, and other national and regional natural hazard insurance mechanisms that protect the homes and assets of millions of people.

Figure 2: Example of U.S. national probabilistic ground motion map created with PSHA. Map estimates the peak ground acceleration (PGA) at bedrock sites in the coterminous United States that has a 2% chance of be-ing exceeded in 50 years. Units of acceleration are in g, the acceleration of Earth’s gravity. Stars are state capitals (USGS, 2008).

PLANNING FOR CATASTROPHES �

The probabilistic modeling of earthquake losses provides the framework for a new asset class that emerged in the 1990s, referred to as catastrophe bonds (“cat” bonds) or alternative risk transfer (Froot et al., 1995; EERI, 2000). This innovation used the results of research and devel-opment, largely conducted by the earthquake community with NEHRP funding (Scawthorn et al., 2002). Cat bonds permit insurance companies and other bearers of large risks to diversify their risk through transfer in the capital markets. Diversification of risk in this manner carries a major advantage because capital markets are significantly larger than insurance markets. Cat bonds are accepted by investors and rating agencies because their pricing is based on a solid foundation of data and rational mathematical analysis. To date, a multitude of cat bonds and related instruments have been floated on the capital markets, with billions of dollars of capitalization.

Projecting Multihazard Losses with Estimation Software

A national procedure for estimating multihazard losses, including earthquakes, floods, and wind-storms, was developed by the earthquake engineering community. The software is distributed to communities throughout the U.S. by FEMA, free of charge.

Sudden, unexpected disasters such as earthquakes pose unique problems to emergency managers at local, state, and federal levels of government. To gain a better understanding of the physical, economic, and social implications of earthquake disasters, FEMA, with funding from the Na- tional Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), developed a standardized loss estima-tion methodology and computer program. HAZUS (for Hazards United States) provides data for scenarios that are used in preparation for and exercises related to earthquake disasters. A new version, HAZUS Multi-Hazard (MH), is now able to model losses from both wind and flood disasters, in addition to earthquakes (www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/index.shtm).

In 1990, when the development of HAZUS began, the primary goals were to raise awareness of potential local earthquake risks, to provide local emergency responders with reasonable descriptions of post-earthquake conditions for planning purposes, and to provide consistent loss estimates in various regions to allow valid comparison and analysis. The loss estimation methodol-ogy was intended to be comprehensive and cover not only building losses, but also damage to transportation systems, ports, utilities, and critical facilities. The program uses census data and other available physical and economic databases to develop a model of local conditions. Seismic events can be modeled and losses estimated. Losses include direct damage, business interruption, and casualties, as well as loss of utilities, loss of housing units, and many other parameters of use to emergency planners.

When databases of known seismic features are combined with building and construction in-ventories, estimates of housing losses and projections of where those losses will occur can help responders to direct limited resources efficiently (Figure 3).

HAZUS provides estimates of damage before a disaster occurs, which can help planners to build safer communities. By enabling planners to anticipate the scope of disaster-related damage, areas at high risk of catastrophic hazard can be identified, leading to building or land use codes that will mitigate the impact. Those mitigation projects can be prioritized by assessing the vulner-ability of essential facilities and housing and estimated potential losses from different disasters.

8 CONTRIBUTIONS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Earthquake Design, Guidelines, and Codes

Much has been accomplished by the earthquake engineering community under NEHRP, with respect to the development of codes and standards, including methods for predicting earthquake damage (ATC, 1985; NIBS, 1999), designing new buildings to resist earthquakes (BSSC, 2000), evaluating the seismic capacity of existing buildings (ATC, 2002; ATC, 1987; ATC, 1989b; BSSC, 1992; ASCE, 1998), rehabilitating buildings to improve their seismic resistance (ATC, 1997; ASCE, 2000 [Figure 4]), and evaluating and repairing earthquake-damaged buildings (ATC, 1998a; ATC, 1998b; ATC, 1998c). The bridge community has developed seismic design specifications through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Earthquake-resistant design procedures have been incorporated into the International Building Code (ICC, 2000), which is promulgated by one recognized international building code authority, and into the standard, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, promulgated by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2006).

The process for the codification of design and construction standards, developed by the earth-quake engineering profession, serves as a model for code development and adoption by the building industry for other severe loading conditions. Earthquake engineering not only provides a process for code development, but also offers methods that directly enhance resistance to ex-treme loads from other sources. Earthquake-resistant design, for example, has been recognized as contributing alternative load paths and reinforcement against damage incurred by blast effects. As indicated by the authors of FEMA 2��, The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving Building Performance through Multi-Hazard Mitigation (1996), the physical damage and extent of

Figure 3: HAZUS map showing displaced households and shelter loca-tions in the greater Memphis, Tennessee, area after a projected M�.5 earthquake on the New Madrid fault (New Madrid Earthquake Project, FEMA).

PLANNING FOR CATASTROPHES �

Figure 4: (left) A seismic retrofit of this three-story unreinforced masonry (URM) building was completed only two months before the 2003 San Simeon, California, earthquake. The seismic improvements were driven by a state policy to strengthen URM buildings. Retrofit measures included strengthening floor diaphragms and tying them into the walls and a new roof structure. This building sustained no structural damage and limited non-structural damage in the earthquake (photo: A. Lynn). (right) In the same earthquake, a URM building that had not been retrofit collapsed, killing two people (photo: J. Marrow).

progressive collapse inflicted on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building would have been lessened if the original design had incorporated seismic detailing.

Safer Buildings through Performance-Based Engineering

A model for future code development for hazards such as windstorms, floods, and blast effects can be found in the principles of performance-based engineering (PBE), in which buildings are designed to achieve specified performance levels in an earthquake, rather than simply meeting code requirements based primarily on life safety.

Experience acquired after earthquakes demonstrates that building or facility damage frequently exceeds the level anticipated by building owners, even though the structure was designed in accordance with modern codes. The current generation of seismic design codes is prescriptive — intended to promote structures that achieve life safety for a specified level of ground shaking. Such codes largely achieve this goal, but other consequences may materialize that exceed individual owner or community expectations. For example, loss of life during the 1994 Northridge earthquake was very low, in contrast to a very large economic loss of approximately $44 billion.

The current generation of codes does not involve an explicit process for the designer to ascertain if other levels of performance will be attained. During an earthquake, a code-designed building should prevent loss of life and severe injury, but could sustain extensive structural and nonstruc-tural damage and be out of service for an extended period of time (Bachman et al., 2003).

To address the issue of building performance, the earthquake engineering community engaged in research and development activities to produce a new generation of design principles in which


the desired performance level for a given structure (including the nonstructural components inside) at the initiation of the design process is defined in accordance with a specified level of stress and/or deformation.

PBE is a process that supports the design of new buildings or upgrades to existing buildings, with a realistic understanding of the risk of life, occupancy, and economic losses that may occur as a result of future earthquakes (FEMA, 2006). Engineers model a building’s design and simulate the performance of that design for various earthquake events. Each simulation provides information on the level of damage, if any, sustained by the structure, which in turn permits the estimation of life, occupancy, and economic losses that may occur. The design of the building can then be adjusted until the projected risks of loss are deemed acceptable, given the cost of achieving the targeted performance.

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, the Murrah Building in 1995, and the Pentagon in 2001 substantially altered the attitude of the structural engineering community, building owners, and insurers regarding the blast design of commercial building construction, and there is renewed design professional interest in blast engineering (Whittaker et al., 2004). The current prescriptive design procedures for blast are indirect, of unknown reliability, and may result in inefficient and costly construction. PBE provides the opportunity to design buildings with an explicit understanding of the risk of loss (physical, direct economic, and indirect economic) that might occur as a result of future blast attack, earthquake shaking, or both (Whittaker et al., 2004).

Managing Lifeline Systems

Lifelines are the systems for delivering resources and services necessary for the health, economic well-being, and security of modern communities. They are generally grouped into six principal systems: electric power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications, transportation, waste disposal, and water supply. Transportation includes various sectors, such as highways, railroads, mass tran-sit, ports and waterways, and air transportation facilities.

Earthquake engineering has contributed greatly to improvements in lifeline modeling and management through sustained research and practical applications to transportation, water supply, electric power, and gas and liquid fuel delivery networks. Practical applications include the seismic retrofitting of hundreds of previously vulnerable California bridges (Figure 5). The investigation of complex system response during earthquakes has revealed important charac-teristics of network performance under extreme conditions (e.g., O’Rourke, et al., 2008) and has helped to improve our understanding of the interdependencies among different systems (e.g., O’Rourke, 2007). Modeling procedures, visualization techniques, and decision support systems developed for earthquakes are available for the evaluation of interdependent lifeline performance under multihazard conditions and human threats (see Boxes 1 and 2).

Advances in lifeline earthquake engineering include the development of multicriteria evaluation models and risk assessment procedures for the seismic strengthening of bridges (e.g., Basöz and Kiremidjian, 1996). Such risk assessment procedures have been implemented by the state trans-portation departments of California, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington. They set the

PLANNING FOR CATASTROPHES 11

Figure 5:

(top) Collapse of an overpass of the Santa Monica Free-way in the Northridge earthquake, 1��4. Similar sections of major Los An-geles routes were closed for months (photo: EERI).

(bottom)Fortunately, a retrofit program had been started after the 1�8� Whittier Narrows earthquake and many retrofit bridges and overpasses performed well in the Northridge earth-quake. This freeway overpass is essentially undam-aged (photo: M. Yashinsky).

After Northridge, Caltrans accelerated its retrofit program, and freeways and bridges throughout Cali-fornia have now been retrofitted to withstand com-parable earthquake effects.

stage for the next generation of decision support systems for safeguarding critical infrastructure under multihazard threats. Work on the earthquake performance of transportation systems contributed to the modeling of complex networks under conditions of widespread disruption, including specialized software to estimate how earthquake damage to highways affect post-earthquake traffic flows (Werner et al., 2004). Modeling capabilities for post-disaster traffic patterns enable decision-makers to rank risk reduction options with respect to post-disaster safety, travel times, emergency response, and regional impact.


Box 1: Applying earthquake risk analysis to water system security

The methodology originally used for earthquake risk analysis of water systems has been ap-plied to security vulnerability assessments of water systems (Ballantyne, 2003). Earthquake risk is calculated as:

Risk = Hazard Probability x Vulnerability x Consequence of Failure

Where:

Hazard Probability = specified probability of exceeding an earthquake shaking intensity in a defined time period (e.g., 10% probability of exceeding 30 percent times gravity lateral load-ing in 50 years)

Vulnerability = probability of the facility becoming inoperable when subjected to the earth-quake shaking intensity

Consequence of Failure = the resulting loss of life, damage to property, impact on system operability, and associated economic impacts, if facility becomes inoperable.

The Risk is calculated in terms of the probability of expected losses in the defined time period. Following the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the Environmental Protection Agency was given the responsibility to develop a plan to protect U.S. drinking wa-ter supplies from terrorists. Working with the American Water Works Research Foundation and Sandia National Laboratories, the Risk Assessment Methodology for Water (RAM-W) was developed to evaluate the security risk of water systems (Sandia National Laboratories, 2003). The risk equation formulation used in this methodology is similar to that used histori-cally for earthquake risk assessments of water systems. A design threat is established for the hazard parameter: e.g., three people with hand tools and small explosives. (RAM-W assumes a probability of occurrence of 100%, as there were no data available to estimate probability of an attack. The net risk is therefore a relative risk.) The vulnerability parameter uses the same approach: i.e., with a given hazard, the design threat, what is the probability that the attackers will be successful? The consequence of fail-ure is the same as that used for the earthquake analysis: i.e., what is the resulting loss of life, damage to property, and impact on system operability?


Box 2: Modeling the vulnerability of electrical systems

Methodologies for evaluating the post-earthquake performance of electric transmission systems were applied to the Los Angeles area to show how im-provements in transformer resilience affect system reliability during earthquakes (Shinozuka and Chang, 2004; Shinozuka et al., 2003). Figure 6 shows the ratio of mean power supply in the damaged network to that of the undamaged one for a scenario earthquake (based on an Mw 7.3 Malibu Coast earthquake).

Such work provides an understanding of the vulnerability and potential for cascading losses in large regional electric power systems, such as the one oper-ated by the Western States Coordinating Council (WSCC). This system cov-ers approximately 1.8 million mi.2 and provides electric power for 71 million people in 14 states. Power flow simulations, initially undertaken for earthquake effects in Los Angeles, were expanded to investigate the loss of critical trans-mission facilities in the WSCC network (Shinozuka, et al., 2003). The simula-tions showed that the entire Los Angeles area can be blacked out by the disrup-tion of one transmission line at the border of Washington and Oregon.

Figure 6: An illustration of system behavior in terms of power supply ratio for various degrees of enhanced transformer performance, corresponding to Cases 1, 2, and 3, for no retrofit, 50% enhancement, and 100% enhancement of transformers, respectively. The steady improvement in power flow can be seen as transformer response improves from Case 1 to Case 3 (Shinozuka et al., 2003; O’Rourke et al., 2004).


The Lessons of Earthquake Reconnaissance

Because earthquake occurrences are rare, unpredictable, and can cause such widespread devasta-tion, a reconnaissance of the area in the days after the event will capture unique time-sensitive data of great value for improved understanding of earthquakes and real-world testing of existing models. Reconnaissance serves as a model for the organization of field research, data collection, and information dissemination for various disasters.

A typical reconnaissance team studies the seismology and geotechnical aspects of the earth-quake; the effects on lifelines and structures; and such social science issues as the efficiency of emergency response and public behavior during or after an event.

A study of the location and description of the earthquake fault and its relation to local geologic structures can serve as an analogy to help understand similar fault structures elsewhere. Mea-surements of ground shaking, combined with an inspection of the range of structures that are damaged, can point to the types of construction that are vulnerable in an earthquake, generating further research into mitigation efforts that can be taken to secure vulnerable communities.

A good example of how post-disaster research of an event can improve community safety is the SAC Steel Project, described in Box 3 on the next page.

Figure 7. (left) Members of EERI’s reconnaissance teams investigating damage after the Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake in 1�� and (above) the Niigata Ken Cheutsu, Japan, earthquake, October 2004. Teams brought back valuable lessons for earth scientists and engineers from both events (photos: left, Mark Milstein, Atlantic News Service; above, R. Kayen).


Box 3: The SAC Steel Project:Applying lessons learned from earthquakes

Since the 1960s, many engineers believed that steel moment-frame buildings were among the most ductile systems in the building code. Earthquake-induced collapse was not thought to be possible. Investigations of buildings damaged by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, how-ever, revealed that a number of steel moment-frame buildings had experienced fractures at the beam-to-column connections. When studies of ground movements were combined with damage assessment data of building types, damaged steel moment-frame buildings were found over a large geographical area, including sites that experienced only moderate levels of ground shaking. Damaged buildings were new or as old as 30 years. Similar causes of damage were found in one-story buildings and in structures as tall as 26 stories. In general, the build-ings met the basic intent of the codes: they suffered limited structural damage, but did not collapse. The newly discovered flaws in buildings considered to be safe was of great concern for the steel building construction industry and generated research into the problem. Within months after the earthquake, the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the Applied Technology Council (ATC), and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) formed the SAC Joint Venture to investigate damage to welded steel moment-frame buildings and develop repair techniques and new design ap-proaches that would minimize damage to similar construction in future earthquakes. FEMA provided $12.5 million over six years to the SAC Joint Venture. Researchers funded by NSF and NIST were also involved. There were 120 SAC tests conducted at over a dozen universi-ties (combined with tests conducted by industry, 500 test results were catalogued); practicing engineers conducted field studies; computer simulations were conducted to assess proposed improvements; cost and other socio-economic impacts were assessed. The culmination of the project was the publication of interim and final guidelines in a form suitable for implement-ing needed changes in building regulations, engineering procedures, and industry practices.

Figure 8: (left) A beam-column fracture found in a typical steel frame previously thought to be seismically resistant (Northridge earthquake, 1��4). (right) For resisting earthquake loads in the direction of its short dimension, this six-story building has two moment frames, one at each end. Virtually every beam-column joint in these two frames had at least one weld fracture, usually a weld between a bottom beam flange and column flange (photos: EERI).

Chapter 3: Advanced Technologies

Each of the disciplines involved in earthquake engineering has developed highly advanced technologies that can ensure society’s safety from hazards other than earthquakes. Tools used in the study of seismology are used by countries to cooperatively monitor nuclear tests. The causes of dramatic accidents and terrorist attacks can be determined with the same technology used to measure and locate earthquake motion. The resilience of structures to extreme hazards is mon-itored in real time, allowing rapid inspection and recovery after an event. The same technologies developed to damper the ground motion of earthquakes is used to keep bridges safe in extreme winds. Satellite imagery and other remote sensing tools are used by the earthquake community to assess widespread damage; hurricane recovery operations use the same tools. To share exper-imental data and prove new technologies, a nationwide network of earthquake engineering simulation was developed; it can be a model for the sharing of increasingly complex and expensive technologies in other scientific fields.

Seismology and Nuclear Test/Explosion Monitoring

Archived records of earthquake strong motion and seismological models improve the detection, characterization, and location of nuclear tests and explosions or collapse related to terrorism and industrial accidents.

Since the end of the Cold War, international protocols negotiated by NEHRP agencies for earthquake hazard research have served the important secondary purpose of providing data that have been used for test ban monitoring research. This requires an understanding of how seismic waves are generated and transmitted through rock and soil formations, and how sensors record and relay measurements of motion for analysis (Figure 9). Environmental concerns about easily detectable surface nuclear tests forced testing to be conducted underground. Limitations on underground testing imposed by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty required seismic monitoring


of nuclear explosions. The major challenge in nuclear test monitoring is discriminating underground nuclear explosions from earthquakes (Bolt 1976). A significant effort by NEHRP seismologists has been directed at understanding the physics of fault rupture during earthquakes and the resulting seismic signal (e.g., Spudich et al., 1998; Olsen et al., 1997) to discriminate nuclear tests from earthquakes. More recently, seismic networks provided insights into large chemical explosions from accidents, crimes, and acts of terrorism. This led to a new field, forensic seismology.

As part of normal NEHRP-supported operations, seismologists compile, archive, and interpret the recordings from seismic monitoring networks. These archives, known as earthquake catalogs, are essential because they help earth scientists relate earthquakes to crustal structure in seismi-cally active regions, identify active faults, and refine crustal velocities. They also are important for nuclear test monitoring. In the context of international efforts to monitor nuclear tests, the catalogs serve to build confidence within the international community by providing information about non-nuclear seismic events that other nations might suspect are U.S. nuclear tests.

International Cooperation in Seismology

One of the goals of NEHRP has been to learn lessons from earthquakes outside the United States that can be applied to reduce earthquake risk in the U.S. This has fostered strong interna-tional contacts and cooperation. Efforts include specific programs to install seismic recording equipment that is jointly supported by the host country and the participating NEHRP agency. The China Digital Seismic Network (now the China Earthquake Administration) was founded in

Figure 9: The seismogram (right) of a “Lonesome P-wave” recorded at College Outpost, Alaska, from the Gnome underground nuclear explosion near Carlsbad, New Mexico, on December 10, 1961, illustrates how underground nuclear explosions (above) may create seismograms that differ substantially from those created by earthquakes (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey).

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES 19

1983 in cooperation with the State Seismological Bureau and received partial support from the U.S. Department of Defense. The Joint Seismic Program installed modern seismometers with digital recorders in the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Data from these worldwide seismic recorders are freely available. Before the end of the Cold War, there was little or no international cooperation in research on nuclear test monitoring, and no data were shared between countries. Thus, the protocols negotiated by NEHRP agencies for earthquake hazard research served an important dual use by providing data that were also used in test ban monitoring research.

Forensic Seismology: Applying Seismology Data to Crimes and Disasters

Seismic networks provide insight into the timing and nature of chemical explosions associated with accidents, crimes, and acts of terrorism.

Following the Oklahoma City bombing, seismic recordings by NEHRP scientists were used both to confirm that a single bomb had been detonated and to estimate the size of the bomb (Figure 10). Conspiracy advocates had proposed that the two arrested bombers, who were ulti-mately convicted, had been set up and their bomb used as cover for a subsequent larger and more damaging bomb that was detonated by a foreign government at the Alfred J. Murrah Federal Building. The seismic recordings clarified the bombing scenario and publication of the results partially discouraged a conspiracy defense by the convicted bombers (Holzer et al., 1996). Seismic recordings of explosions that doomed the Russian submarine Kursk revealed details that otherwise may have remained Russian state secrets and helped rebut the Russian contention that a foreign vessel had collided with the submarine (Koper et al., 2001). Seismic recordings of a New Mexico gas pipeline explosion indicated multiple ignitions. The time between ignitions, which was recorded at nearby seismometers, became a consideration in determining the degree of pain and suffering (and cost to the pipeline company) of the 11 victims of the explosions (Pinsker, 2002). Seismic recordings of the September 11, 2001, collapses of the two towers of the World Trade Center permitted estimates that ground shaking generated by the collapses was not a major contributor to damage or collapse of surrounding buildings (Kim et al., 2001).

Seismic Monitoring Networks

Distributed earthquake sensors and large-scale regional monitoring provide a model for the monitoring and data collection of buildings, transportation facilities, and utilities, improving service for normal operation as well as extreme events.

The USGS monitors seismic activity by operating the U.S. National Seismograph Network (USNSN), the National Strong Motion Program (NSMP), and the National Earthquake Infor-mation Center (NEIC) in Golden, Colorado (FEMA, 2001). The networks implement large numbers of sensors and related large-scale data collection. NEHRP-sponsored programs were early adopters of wide-area wireless technology. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, for example, FEMA funded an upgrading of the southern California seismic network with digital


broadband recording instruments that transmit measurements in virtual real time. The network, known as the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), is able to locate the epicenters and determine the magnitudes of significant earthquakes within minutes of their occurrence. Seismic monitoring networks are immensely useful for emergency management. Web sites showing con- tours of earthquake severity have become an integral part of the decision-making process for allocating resources and organizing emergency response (Figure 11). CISN’s goal is to fully integrate the multiple systems of seismic monitoring, standardize methodologies and instrumen-tation, and calibrate the earthquake catalogs of the partner institutions. CISN uses an internet-based display system to notify emergency management agencies of earthquakes, ground mo-tions, and to issue tsunami warnings, watches, and bulletins.

The USGS is using CISN as the framework for developing the Advanced National Seismic Sys- tem (ANSS). ANSS will consist of 6,000 new ground-based and structural seismometers concen- trated in 26 high-risk urban areas to monitor ground shaking and the response of buildings and structures, together with upgraded regional networks and data centers. Structural instruments can help to calibrate building design and retrofit codes, calibrate post-earthquake evaluation pro-cedures, and advance new methods such as performance-based engineering standards (USGS, 2003). The data from ANSS ground and structure recording sites will improve current design standards for buildings, lifelines, and other structures. Critical weaknesses of current structures may also be identified.

Figure 10: Demolition of the bomb-ravaged Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building with explosives on May 23, 1995. Previously on April 19, a terrorist bombing brought down nearly half of the nine-story reinforced concrete building and left the remainder unstable. The portable seismograph in the foreground was part of an array deployed by NEHRP scientists with the USGS to monitor seismic wave propagation in the Oklahoma City area that resolved questions about whether or not the terrorists had acted alone in the bombing (photo courtesy of Scott Andrews/Newsweek; reprinted with permission).


Figure 11: (left) ShakeMap of the 1999 Hector Mines earthquake, M 7.1 (CISN); (right) Physical evidence of the same earthquake — fault rupture cutting across the countryside (photo: Paul “Kip” Otis-Diehl, USMC, 29 Palms).

Information technology being developed and deployed by geoscientists and earthquake engineers provides for remote data acquisition and interpretation, coupled with rapid communication and visualization for effective emergency management. In the future, the technology harnessed for earthquake applications will help establish and unify the decision-making procedures that guide community behavior after extreme events. For example, the USGS provides a portal through its web site for descriptions of the shaking and damage experienced by individuals after an earth-quake. After the reports are sorted by zip code, combined, and plotted, maps of seismic intensity are developed and used in conjunction with other sources of data described above. Hence, per-sonal accounts of conditions on the ground are rapidly integrated into the response process.

Monitoring the Health of Structures

Real-time structural health and performance monitoring provides for rapid decision making under extreme adverse conditions. There is an ever-increasing need for very quick response to disasters. To be most effective, a focused response to natural and human threats needs to be initiated and executed during the height of the crisis. Real-time health and performance data provide information about structural, mechanical, and critical service (e.g., water, electric power, etc.) systems; the type of damage incurred; and the capacity of the building or facility to perform its intended functions.


In addition to seismic monitoring networks, which cover large geographic areas, earthquake engineering advances include the structural health monitoring of individual buildings and transportation facilities. Technology for structural health monitoring is relevant for and applic-able to decisions about building safety and repair after windstorms, floods, and bomb blasts. One of the challenges after a catastrophic event is the assessment of structural integrity. Such an assessment can be a significant expense both in time and money. The expense is multiplied substantially when many structures need to be evaluated.

Structures internally but not obviously damaged in an earthquake may be in danger of collapse during aftershocks. Assessment of structural integrity under these circumstances is critically important to enable evacuation of building occupants and contents. Furthermore, after natural disasters, it is imperative that emergency facilities and evacuation routes, including bridges and highways, be assessed for safety.

In San Francisco, the Building Occupancy Resumption Program allows building owners to pre-certify private post-earthquake inspection of their building by qualified licensed engineers. The owner’s engineers can post red, yellow, or green placards in accordance with ATC-20 guidelines in lieu of city-authorized inspectors, who would typically be unfamiliar with the building and may not be available for several days following an earthquake. An owner of a new, steel moment- frame structure in downtown San Francisco chose to participate in the city program and in-stalled a monitoring system to help assess issues related to possible earthquake connection in-spection, retrofit, and repair of the building (Figure 12, left). Depending on the deformation pattern observed in the building, the monitoring system would allow direct initial inspections toward locations in the building that experience peak drifts during an earthquake. The owner deployed accelerometers at specific locations in the building to measure the actual structural response, which could indicate occurrence of damage and lead to making timely, consequential decisions. (Celebi et al., 2004)

Much attention has been focused in recent years on the declining state of the aging infrastruc-ture in the United States. The ability to monitor and control continuously the integrity of struc-tures in real time provides for increased safety to the public, particularly for aging structures. Detecting damage at an early stage can reduce the costs and down time associated with repair. Observing or predicting the onset of dangerous structural behavior allows for advance warning.

As more structures are instrumented with real-time monitoring systems, refined decision making will greatly assist risk managers, emergency responders, property owners and managers, and the general public. The widespread deployment of sensors to monitor civil infrastructure systems promotes fundamental change in building and facility management. Indeed, a National Research Council report (2002) notes that the use of networked systems of embedded computers and sensors throughout society could well dwarf previous milestones in the development of infor-mation technology.


Protective Systems

Technologies employed in protective systems for earthquakes can also safeguard structures against wind and intense rain, and can be adapted to reduce the damaging effects of explosions. There have been substantial product developments by the earthquake engineering community to create protective systems that shield structures from the undesirable consequence of strong ground motion.

Base isolation is one system used to protect moderate-sized buildings. It works by decoupling or isolating the structure from its foundation through the introduction of bearings, with low horizontal stiffness, between the structure and foundation (Buckle and Mayes, 1990). When the structure is isolated from its foundation by such bearings, lateral forces are significantly reduced. The building moves in a slow, controlled fashion, resulting in substantially reduced damage to the structure and its contents. This type of protective system has been incorporated into billions of dollars of U.S. construction and has contributed significantly to the seismic safety of such critical facilities as the city halls of Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco; the Salt Lake City and County Building; emergency operations centers in California and Washington; major hospitals and medical centers throughout the western United States; several biotechnology manufacturing facilities; and hundreds of bridges (Figures 13 and 14).

Another system for building protection, passive energy dissipation, involves a range of materials and devices for enhancing damping, stiffness, and strength. They enhance energy dissipation in structural systems for both seismic hazard mitigation and the rehabilitation of aging or deficient structures. These devices utilize such energy dissipation mechanisms as frictional sliding, yielding

Figure 12: (left) General schematic of data acquisition and transmittal for seismic monitoring of a building in San Francisco (Celebi et al., 2004); (right) Milikan Library at Caltech, an example of such an instrumented building.


Figure 13: Oakland City Hall. Built in 1914 and severely damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, it was ret-rofitted with a base isolation system to protect it against future earthquake effects (Steiner and Elsesser, 2004).

Figure 14: One of 113 laminated rubber-steel base isolators in place to protect Oak-land City Hall (Steiner and Elsesser, 2004).


of metals, deformation of viscoelastic solids or fluids, and fluid orificing (Soong and Spencer, 2002; Constantinou, et al., 1998; Soong and Dargush, 1997).

A notable example of passive energy dissipation is the Torre Mayor Office Building in Mexico City (Post, 2003). This 55-story building is the largest in Latin America and is built to resist earthquake forces without significant damage in one of the most active seismic locations in the world. The combined damping/bracing system was instrumental in reducing insurance pre-miums by 33% (Post, 2003). As shown in Figure 15, the most distinctive feature of the damping system—and what will afford the structure a remarkable degree of stability during a significant seismic event—is that the system is installed not only at the base of the tower but also within the body of the structure as well (Powell, 2003). The 7.6 M Colima earthquake that destroyed numerous buildings in Mexico City had a negligible effect on Torre Mayor.

Protective systems are also used to shield structures from the harmful effects of wind and rain. Figure 16 shows an example of a bridge structure in China that employs semi-active control to

Figure 15: Protective systems of integrated viscous dampers and structural braces for the Torre Mayor office building in Mexico City (images courtesy of Ahmad Rahimian, president of WSP Cantor Seinuk Structural Engineeers).

Damper clusters couple large mega- trusses to obtain an efficient “coupled-truss wall” developed by Rahimian.


mitigate wind-rain induced vibration of the cables. Retrofitted with cable-stay dampers, the Dongting Lake Bridge in Hunan constitutes the first full-scale implementation of magneto-rheological (MR) fluid dampers for bridge structures. These dampers work with fluids that are able to reversibly change from a free-flowing viscous liquid to semi-solid with controllable yield strength in milliseconds when exposed to a magnetic field (Spencer and Nagarajaiah, 2003). Long steel cables, which are used in cable-stayed bridges and other structures, are prone to vibra-tion induced by weather conditions, particularly wind combined with rain, that may cause cable galloping. Two MR dampers are mounted on each cable of the Dongting Lake Bridge to mitigate cable vibration.

Figure 16: Magnetorheological dampers deployed to control wind- and rain-induced vibration of the Dongting Lake Bridge, Hunan, China (Spencer and Nagarajaiah, 2003).

Remote SensingRemote sensing enables information to be quickly retrieved, geo-coded, and assembled in map- based systems for visualization and decision-making. Earthquake reconnaissance teams have been using digital cameras and videos linked to location by global positioning systems (GPS) as standard data-gathering equipment for many years. Advanced sensor and geographical infor-mation systems (GIS) technology are currently deployed after severe hurricanes and tsunamis.

Recently, several new technologies were incorporated into earthquake reconnaissance missions that vastly improve the quality and speed with which information can be obtained and processed. These technologies include web-based GIS, high-resolution satellite imagery, and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) equipment (e.g., Rathje and Adams, 2008).

Web-Based GIS

To effectively harness the remote sensing and GPS-linked data sets available through technol-ogies such as high-resolution satellite imagery and LIDAR, a map-based digital platform must be used to integrate and visualize interrelationships among the data. GIS provides the software that allows for comprehensive manipulation and assessment of geospatial databases. Of special in-


terest is the use of GIS within an internet environment, in which databases can be accessed from a host of diverse sites and assembled in a central GIS that is in turn rapidly accessible by interested users. The ability to compile and rapidly organize a comprehensive GIS is important to emergency managers because it enables them to visualize complex geospatial data, to integrate information from the field, and to direct the deployment of resources and services.

The earthquake engineering community is pioneering ways to accelerate the construction of emergency response web sites with flexible GIS by using software with an embedded internet map server (Lembo et al., 2004). Using conventional GIS approaches, the construction of a new GIS web site with suitable data processing for emergency response may take from several days to a week. However, the applications of advanced GIS after the 2004 Niigata ken Chuetsu earth-quake and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami demonstrate that a suitable web-based GIS can be or-ganized in three to four hours.

High-Resolution Optical Satellite Imagery

With the modern Quickbird and IKONOS commercial satellite systems, high-resolution imagery at the sub-meter level is readily available. Research shows that this type of imagery can be used rapidly to determine the location and severity of building damage (e.g., Adams et al., 2004b; Eguchi et al., 2003; Huyck and Adams, 2002). Building collapse produces a distinct textural sig-nature compared with undamaged structures. Changes between pre-event and post-event satellite images are processed with damage detection algorithms, and the resulting patterns are displayed in a map of the affected area.

A satellite imaging tool, known as VIEWS (Visualizing the Impacts of Earthquakes with Satel-lites), was deployed with the U.S. reconnaissance team that traveled to Bam, Iran (Adams et al., 2004a) (see Box 4).

Satellite imagery was used after Hurricane Charley in August 2004. The hurricane was particular-ly damaging, causing more than $15.4 billion in losses. Moreover, Charley was one of an unprec- edented four severe hurricanes that made landfall in Florida over a period of six weeks in the fall of 2004. The aggregate direct losses from these hurricanes exceeded $50 billion. The wide-spread and severe impact illustrates the need to acquire information rapidly on the extent and geographic locations of losses both for emergency response and recovery planning. The acquisi-tion of this information, especially during the critically important hours and days immediately after the event, is impeded by blocked roadways, extensive loss of electric power, and malfunc-tioning traffic control infrastructure.

High-resolution satellite imagery technology developed for earthquakes was deployed to assess the extent of flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The two satellite images shown in Figure 19 enabled engineers to plan where resources could be best deployed to efficiently clear and rebuild flood-damaged areas.


Box 4Assessing catastrophic damageHigh-resolution satellite imagery was used to evaluate patterns of building damage after the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran (Adams et al., 2004a). This earthquake caused upwards of 26,000 deaths and destroyed between 75% and 90% of the buildings in Bam. A satellite im-aging tool, known as VIEWS (Visualizing the Impacts of Earthquakes with Satellites), was deployed with the US reconnaissance team. VIEWS software, which was loaded into note-book computers, allowed members of the reconnaissance team to compare pre- and post-earthquake satellite images to identify the most severely affected areas, and even to identify individual buildings for field inspection. Data collected on the ground in the form of digital photos and notes were linked by GPS with the actual locations of acquisition and displayed on the satellite image base map.

In Figure 17, a Quickbird image three months before the earthquake is next to an image taken eight days after. The textural changes in the post-earthquake image are evident. Us-ing damage detection algorithms, a city-wide damage map was generated (Figure 18). The highest concentrations of collapsed structures, indicated by the red and orange blocks, are widespread throughout the eastern portions of the city. Visual comparison with a USAID damage map shows good agreement with data validated by block-to-block mapping in the field.

Figure 18: Damage assessed post-earthquake by high-resolu-tion satellite im-agery compared with damage mapped by the U.S. Agency for International Development (Adams et al., 2004a).

Figure 17: High-resolution satellite images of Bam, Iran, before and after the 2003 Bam earthquake (Adams et al., 2004a).


Figure 19: Satellite imagery, refined through earthquake reconnaissance missions, is used to assess flood damage in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (images and text courtesy of ImageCat).


LIDAR

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technology involves the use of computer-controlled laser scanning to provide high-resolution images of terrain, ground failures, and constructed facilities from remote positions either on the ground or deployed in aircraft. LIDAR was applied after the World Trade Center disaster to scan the collapsed structures and debris piles, to provide images to guide emergency responders, and to assist in the planning of reconstruction (Figure 20).

Figure 20: How LIDAR images are created. Laser is used to scan the landscape from a distance. GPS systems assign coordinates. A number of images create a composite three-dimensional image, such as the view of Ground Zero on the right (USGS, Defense Update Magazine).

Earthquake researchers deployed LIDAR in reconnaissance for the 2004 Niigata ken Chuetsu earthquake to create three-dimensional digital terrain models of earthquake-related ground, structural, and lifeline deformation (Figure 21). An early version of the technology was tested during research on the World Trade Center collapse in 2001. A key feature of this technology is the collection of data from a large geographic area that is inaccessible by foot or in unstable condition or a dangerous location. The technology not only adds substantially to the range of data collection and improves safety, but also provides digital three-dimensional data that can be moved and rotated into a variety of 3-D perspectives to assist in interpretation and analysis. Deployment of LIDAR during earthquake reconnaissance demonstrates the effectiveness of the technology and has led to improved practical uses and procedures for data acquisition in the field. Deformation measurement with LIDAR can be performed accurately within a matter of minutes in an area that would have taken many hours or days with conventional devices. Moreover, the LIDAR data can be used for precise measurements of offsets, gaps, displacements, and structural dimensions.


Figure 21: LIDAR equipment being used in reconnaissance after the Niigata ken Chuetsu earthquake in Japan. Here it is used to scan a road embankment failure. The system can be easily transported by vehicle, backpack, or as checked baggage on an airplane (photo: S. Ashford).

George E. Brown, Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)

The George E. Brown, Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) is a nation-wide resource of advanced research equipment sites networked through a high-performance internet system. It is a model for networking and collaboration in other nationwide programs for the development of technology, and is a test bed for advanced sensor technology for critical civil infrastructure.

The network is focused on improving the seismic design and performance of U.S. public and private works through advances in the technologies applied in civil, mechanical, and telecommu-nication systems (O’Rourke, 2003). The network uses state-of-the-art experimental and numeri-cal simulation capabilities to understand the behavior of critical facilities under complex earth-quake loadings and to test and validate the analytical and computer models needed for effective engineering. NEES links sites throughout the U.S. and globally to create a shared resource that benefits from open access and the contributions of leading researchers at multiple locations (Figure 22). Participation in NEES involves educators, students, practitioners, public sector orga-nizations, and interested individuals, all of whom have access to equipment, data, models, and software developed through the network (Figure 23).

The entire NEES enterprise is based on the concept of a collaboratory, where advanced IT capa-bilities are used to make a distributed set of research facilities available for collaborative research on a shared-use basis (NEES Consortium, Inc., 2005). Shared use means that investigators with NSF NEES research grants have research access to any facility in the network, irrespective of their affiliations with the institutions that operate the equipment sites.

Experiments can be performed on various parts of the same structure or facility at different NEES sites and conjoined in real time by means of the cyberinfrastructure that connects the equipment sites. The net effect is that a structure can be tested simultaneously at two or more sites, each of which simulates a different part of the structural system. The simultaneous testing of different parts is integrated through the coordinated interaction of testing equipment and numerical simulation at different locations to provide a unified assessment of performance. The experiments can be viewed in real time by interested parties worldwide through internet access.


Figure 22: U.S. map

showing locations of

NEES equip-ment sites

(source: NEES Consortium,

Inc. http://www.nees.org/

index.php).

Figure 23. Testing and outreach activities at several of the NEES sites: (A) the NEES Buffalo site preparing for a test of a full-scale model of a multistory woodframe building (photo: MCEER); (B) the NEES Cornell site simulating fault rupture across a pipeline (photo: Cornell University School of Civil and Environmental Engineering); (C) Faculty from the NEES University of Texas at Austin site explaining Thumper, part of their testing equipment, to elementary school children (photo: E. Rathje).

Chapter 4: Emergency Response

By nature, emergency response is multidisciplinary. Response decisions after catastrophic disasters must be made quickly in cooperation with a number of agencies, each of which has its own mission and procedures. Major earthquakes stimulated the development of organizational systems for rapid post-disaster response and the efficient use of limited resources under emergency conditions.

Post-Disaster Building Inspection The development of a standardized assessment of earthquake building damage established the protocol available for building inspection after acts of terrorism, severe accidents, and natural disasters. In the days following the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC), the ATC-20 proce-dures for post-earthquake safety evaluation of buildings (ATC, 1989) were adapted to evaluate buildings adjacent to the collapsed WTC towers, exemplifying the ease with which existing pro-cedures developed for earthquake hazard reduction can be adapted to other hazards (Figure 24).

The evaluation process consisted of an initial rapid visual inspection of 406 buildings near the WTC by members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). The concept of using members of the local structural engineers association to assess the safety of damaged buildings was a direct adaptation of the well-established and well-known process widely used in California to evaluate buildings damaged by earthquakes. Similarly, the criteria and placards developed for use in earthquake-damaged areas, as documented in the ATC-20 Report, Procedures for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, and the companion ATC-20-1, Field Manual for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, were immediately recognized by members of SEAoNY as having direct applicability for use in assessing damage to buildings within a few blocks of the collapsed towers.


The initial inspection was performed within a day and was followed by a detailed evaluation of approximately 30 buildings requiring additional inspection. The initial rapid assessment process was supplemented by the evaluation of fly-over high-resolution photos to check for roof debris and damage. The detailed inspections were carried out by four teams, each with two engineers from the private sector and two from the New York City Department of Buildings. The entire

process required one week and resulted in the identification of approximately 384 buildings that were not structurally impaired, 13 that were badly damaged, and 18 requiring limited facade repairs (Figure 24).

Organization of Emergency Response

Systems to organize a multi-agency response to large-scale disasters grew out of the two most recent major earthquakes in the United States.

In the early 1970s, the fire services were confronted with numerous large and complex fire events that required the integration of multiple agencies, jurisdictions, and resources from federal state and local governments (Figure 25). To facilitate that integration, the Incident Command System (ICS) was created. During the 1994 Northridge earthquake, FEMA and the California Office of Emergency Services implemented and adapted ICS to an earthquake envi-

Figure 24: A map of buildings surrounding the World Trade Center, inspected with ATC-20 evaluation guidance (FEMA, 2002).

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 35

ronment. The earthquake response community refined and expanded ICS to function in a multi-hazard environment; it was adopted at the city, county, and state operations level where inter-agency coordination is essential. After September 11, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a similar version, the National Incident Management System, to coordinate a multi-agency, federal response to catastrophic disasters.

Experience during earthquakes has shown the need to expand emergency services and establish permanent offices that can plan for and respond to seismic events. The 1989 Loma Prieta and

Figure 25: The Incident Command System (ICS) developed as a way for the fire services to manage complex fires. (left) California Department of Forestry air tanker drops fire retardant on the Forty-Niner Fire, 1988 (photo: Robert A. Eplett/California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services); (right) ICS grew into a tool to manage all complex emergencies. Here, crews from all local county and cities operate the New Hanover County Emergency Operations Center in Wilmington, North Carolina, coordinating all disaster information related to the effects of and responses to Hurricane Floyd in 1999 (photo by Dave Gatley/FEMA).

1994 Northridge earthquakes prompted local governments to include longer-term recovery op-erations in their plans. Today, fully staffed emergency management offices enable governments to respond quicker and to coordinate long-term operations with a number of agencies from vari-ous levels of government. Such coordination was crucial in the WTC event, where enormous resources from other states and the federal government were needed very early in the response operation to save thousands of lives.

FEMA’s Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams grew from the experiences in the early 1980s of the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue and the Metro-Dade County Fire departments in provid-ing search-and-rescue support after earthquakes in Mexico City, the Philippines, and Armenia (Figure 26). FEMA established the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System in 1989, in which specialized teams of medical and fire responders, together with structural engineers,


are trained throughout the country. In 1991 FEMA incorporated this concept into the Federal Response Plan, sponsoring 25 such national urban search and rescue teams, and there are now 28 such teams. When a major catastrophe occurs, teams nearest to the disaster are deployed in less than six hours to support local responders. Plans and agreements grew from the resulting experience to formalize coordination among different government agencies, various adminis-trative levels within those agencies, and private experts. Now in every response to a major urban disaster, structural engineers work with search-and-rescue specialists to first assess the situation upon arriving. When the former and current layouts of buildings are understood through blueprints and computer modeling of collapse, careful search through wreckage begins, with each step reviewed by a management team of rescue and structural specialists. The same system of incident management that evolved from multi-agency earthquake response was used to coordinate the multi-agency rescue operations in the terrorist bombings of buildings in Oklahoma, 1995, and in the WTC disaster (Figure 27).

Figure 26: Search and rescue experts from U.S. fire departments assist in rescue operations after the Armenia (top) and Mexico City (bottom) earthquakes. Their experi-ences developed into the National Urban Search and Rescue System (photos: F. Krimgold).

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 37

Figure 27: There are now 28 highly trained search-and-rescue teams across the United States, many of which participated in operations after the World Trade Center disaster: (A) members of the LA County team (photo: Andrea Booher/FEMA News Photo); (B) members of the California Task Force 3 work on cutting steel and clearing rubble; (C) members of the Florida Urban Search and Rescue Task Force 1 prepare to enter Ground Zero to search for victims (photos B and C: Michael Rieger/FEMA News Photos).

Chapter 5: Engaging the CommunityThis chapter describes the significant contributions of NEHRP, especially those of social scientists, to community programs designed to promote multidisciplinary activities, risk communication, public and organizational response after disasters, improved decision making, and loss reduction partnerships. The chapter also describes contributions to federal legislation for multihazards and policy formulation for disaster reduction.

Integrated Multidisciplinary Approach

The earthquake engineering community encourages research and applications that focus on integrated, holistic solutions to the challenges that hazards present. Research supported under this program shows that when safety is promoted, consideration is needed for the broader community, societal, and political-economic contexts in which those strategies will be applied. Social science research on earthquakes and other hazards also highlights loss reduction as a process, starting first with research-based solutions and continuing through actual design, construction, and code enforcement activities.

For more than a quarter century, earthquake engineering-related activities united the research, policy making, and practitioner communities. Such communities can drift apart and work in isolation unless conscious, sustained efforts are made to foster cross-communication and collabora-tive relationships. For example, EERI takes a leadership role in bringing together members of these communities through conferences, committees, post-earthquake reconnaissance activities, and project-focused task forces. FEMA links engineering research and practice through the dissemination of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, and NEHRP-sponsored researchers participate directly in bodies that revise seismic codes and standards. Collaboration with industry and other users of research is encouraged by NSF-sponsored earthquake engineering research. Through these and many other boundary-spanning activities, the earthquake engineering community demonstrates how to shorten the time between the development of new knowledge and its application and how to ensure that policies and programs take advantage of new scientific discoveries.


With the emergence of new threats following the events of September 11, 2001, as well as the widespread disruption caused by Hurricane Katrina, there is a growing recognition that social science knowledge, much of which is based on earthquake research, provides important perspec-tives and tools that can be applied directly to issues related to the security of our communities.

Risk Communication, Forecasts, and Warnings

Beginning with early work in the 1970s, social science research has been concerned with earth-quake prediction, forecasting, and warning. Various empirical studies focused on individual and organizational responses to various types of information on the earthquake threat, including information about earthquake “precursors,” nonscientific “predictions,” newly disseminated scientific information on earthquakes, official earthquake predictions, short-term warnings, and after- shock warnings. This research resulted in the development of conceptual and empirical models of risk perception, risk communication, and warning responses that were described in previous chapters. It also provided major insights on the appropriate design of warning systems for all types of hazards and threats, as well as guidance on how to develop risk communication and warning strategies that effectively motivate action. Advances in mapping and modeling the physical vulnerability of a region, through GIS and other information technologies, significantly im-prove our understanding of how disasters put different social groups at risk.

Social scientists in the earthquake community have identified key issues related to public risk perceptions, information sources influencing those perceptions, and the relationship between perceptions concerning hazards and subsequent behavior. Such studies led to a deeper understanding of how the public responds to low probability/high consequence hazards and how to encourage self-protective action through risk communication (Figure 28). Additionally, research explored perceptual, social, and economic factors associated with the adoption of mitigation and pre-paredness measures by households and businesses.

Figure 28: (left) Viewing posters at a tsunami education fair in Humboldt County, California. Scientists em-phasize the similarities between the tsunami risk in Indonesia, where the rupture zone for the 2004 earthquake (center) is compared with the expected rupture zone for a Cascadia subduction zone event (right) (photo and figures: L. Dengler).

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY 41

Public and Organizational Response Following Disasters

Extensive research on post-disaster responses by members of the public, first-response organi-zations (e.g., fire, police), and other governmental entities has been carried out after earthquakes in the United States and other countries. The studies have helped planners understand post-disaster search and rescue processes in high-damage areas and building collapses; public responses, such as post-disaster sheltering behavior and disaster volunteering; and interorganiza-tional and intergovernmental coordination following earthquake disasters. Many of the social and organizational responses to the World Trade Center disaster—e.g., the intense convergence of volunteers and resources, issues related to interorganizational communication and coopera-tion—are consistent with patterns documented after earthquakes and other major disasters.

Social science research following major earthquakes made a significant contribution to both theory and practice in the area of disaster response. Studies focused both on public behavior and organized mobilization in the aftermath of earthquake disasters. They identified common patterns and problems that are consistent with those documented for other types of disasters. Because of NEHRP support for studies on post-disaster response, there is a substantial body of knowledge about response-related challenges and behavioral expectations in large-scale disasters of all types. The research findings now serve as the foundation for preparedness and response strategies based on the human and organizational dynamics that emerge during disasters.

Earthquake-related studies focused on factors influencing recovery options for societies, com-munities, and subgroups within affected populations; post-disaster reconstruction decision making; long-term economic and social consequences of earthquakes; and the extent to which earthquake experience leads to changes in hazard mitigation policies and programs (Figure 29). Research also demonstrated the importance of pre-earthquake planning for post-earthquake re-covery. As in other areas discussed here, NEHRP research has broader applicability across the entire range of hazard types, including homeland security hazards.

Figure 29: Family members partici-pate in a community rebuilding workshop in Jefferson Parish, Louisi-ana. NEHRP studies have helped identify the importance of community involvement in rebuild-ing activities (Marvin Nauman/FEMA photo).


Loss Reduction Partnerships

Efforts in the earthquake community to enhance stakeholder involvement, advocate for seismic safety, and place earthquakes on the public agenda are broadly applicable to other hazards. NEHRP pioneered the concept of community and regional hazard reduction alliances and part-nerships. The Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project and the Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project, both established in the early 1980s and functional for about a decade, were highly innovative programs that sought to achieve earthquake loss reduction objec-tives through community-based public-private partnerships. The programs were supported by the California Seismic Safety Commission and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Both programs worked with the USGS and the California Division of Mines and Geology (now California Geological Survey) to provide technical assistance to local governments and businesses, helping them to develop plans as well as educational materials about earthquakes and the les-sons to be learned from the 1985 Mexico City and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes. The programs represented joint federal-state investments in ongoing (as opposed to one-time or sporadic) ef-forts to raise awareness and reduce losses through sustained outreach and partnership-building efforts. Regional alliances such as the Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium seek to mobilize public and political support for loss reduction (www.cusec.org). Strategic lessons learned from these efforts can serve as a basis for partnership-building in other areas, including homeland security. Among those lessons are the need for long-term, collaborative, intergovernmental, and inter-agency initiatives that can keep attention focused on the potentially catastrophic consequences of low-probability events. Such initiatives serve to maintain institutional momentum—a chal-lenge that is especially difficult for very infrequent events, such as major earthquakes and large-scale terrorist attacks.

In addition to advancing basic knowledge on individual, group, and organizational behavior in crises, these research findings have made major contributions to improving the practice of emergency management in the United States (see Figure 30 and Box 5). For example, lessons learned through social science research on earthquakes have been incorporated into courses at the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Emergency Management Institute and disseminated widely through training programs and in publications aimed at the emergency management community.

Figure 30: A FEMA representative explains mitigation to residents in Jackson, Mississippi. Federal and state officials teamed up at the State Fair to take this message more directly to the people. NEHRP programs helped identify the important role of miti-gation in disaster reduction (photo: Mark Wolfe/FEMA).

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY 43

Box 5Partnership for public education about earthquakesIn 1995 the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), USGS, and a large group of partners developed a 32-page color handbook entitled Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country on earthquake science, mitigation, and preparedness. For the 10-year anniversary of the Northridge earthquake, a new version was produced by SCEC and the newly-formed Earthquake Country Alliance of scientists, engineers, emergency managers, response agen-cies, news media, and others. The updated handbook features current understanding of when and where earthquakes will occur in Southern California, how the ground will shake as a result, and descriptions of what information will be available online. The preparedness section is now organized according to the “Seven Steps on the Road to Earthquake Safety.” These steps provide a simple set of guidelines for preparing and protecting people and property. Through the fall of 2005, over 400,000 copies had been printed with funding from the California Earthquake Authority (CEA), FEMA, NSF, the USGS and others. Copies of the document have been distributed at home improvement centers, by the American Red Cross and by many others. The handbook is available at www.earthquakecountry.info.

In 2005 the USGS led a multi-organizational effort to create a version of Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country for the San Francisco Bay Area, in advance of the 100th an-niversary of the 1906 earthquake. The handbook was revised with Bay Area hazards, and a new section (“Why Should I Prepare?”) was added with scenarios for likely damage and ca-sualties. Over 750,000 copies were printed with funding from the California Earthquake Au-thority, FEMA, EERI, the Red Cross, OES, CDMG, and several others. More than 500,000 of these copies were inserted into the San Francisco Chronicle, with coupons for furniture straps and other safety products. The handbook was also made available at home improve-ment stores throughout the Bay Area and online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/2005/15.


Multihazard Legislation and Policy

Community engagement at the highest levels of government extends to national legislation and policy that addresses national needs. NEHRP has not only informed policy makers concerned with disaster reduction, but has also played an indispensable role in the enactment of legislation, such as the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act, that addresses natural hazards and seeks to develop hazard resilient communities.

The reauthorization of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act in 2004 was used as the legisla-tive vehicle for introducing and passing the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. The multi-agency oversight of NEHRP was used as the model for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP). Both programs are administered with the assistance of a federal interagency committee for coordination and an external national advisory group that pro-vides guidance and recommendations for program activities. The multi-agency model for NEHRP, consisting of NIST, NSF, USGS, and FEMA, was used for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) that engages four agencies—NIST, NSF, NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration), and FEMA—in roles similar in scope for windstorms to those for earthquakes associated with the NEHRP agen-cies. Moreover, the coordinated agency contributions to NWIRP are similar to those that have evolved for NEHRP. An interagency working group and external national advisory committee are required under NWIRP, similar to the interagency coordinating council and external national advisory committee associated with NEHRP.

Not only has NEHRP served as a model for legislation and a national program to mitigate the effects of windstorms, but it has also informed federal policy for U.S. disaster reduction (Figure 31). Members of the earthquake community provided advice to the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction of the National Science and Technology Council when formulating the six grand challenges for disaster reduction that are intended to guide federal investments in support of disaster-resilient communities (National Science and Technol-ogy Council, 2005). The earthquake community provides leadership for disaster reduction. Its members make notable contributions to address the disaster reduction grand challenges and promote the technical and social advances needed for effective multihazard risk mitigation.

Figure 31. The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Plan (left) and the Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction (right) benefit from legislation and policy informed by NEHRP and the advice of engineers, geoscientists, and social scientists who work on earth-quake hazards and risk reduction.

Chapter 6: Summary

This report shows the value of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), the partnership of FEMA, NIST, NSF, and the USGS, which has protected U.S. residents from the life-threatening and economically disruptive effects of earthquakes for almost thirty years (Figure 32). NEHRP is not only the backbone of seismic protection in the U.S., but also an incubator and development platform for technology, process, and policy that extend well beyond seismic risk to improve the security and economic well-being of both U.S. citizens and members of the world community.

Monitoring of seismic motion caused by earthquakes around the world helped to develop international cooperation in the monitoring of nuclear weapons. Structural evaluation procedures and remote-sensing technologies such as high-resolution satellite imagery and LIDAR, developed independently by researchers in unrelated fields, were applied by earthquake engineers to analyze the widespread effects of natural and man-made catastrophic disasters.

Advances in earthquake engineering benefit the daily protection of society. Monitoring systems originally created for structures in seismically prone regions now analyze and report on the structural health of lifeline systems, bridges, and buildings in real time. Public buildings and private construction in regions vulnerable to earthquakes now incorporate motion-damping devices in their foundations—technology that is now applied to mitigate wind forces on bridges and is being considered for blast protection of public buildings.

Catastrophe bonds, created from innovative risk analysis models for earthquakes, help to secure the insurance and reinsurance industries against the massive costs of major disasters, as well as providing a new investment vehicle for capital markets. Loss estimation software originally devel-oped for earthquakes is now used in recovery planning for floods and hurricanes.

Social research on the effects of earthquakes led to better systems for the multi-agency manage-ment of emergency response operations. In the past twenty years the concepts of urban search-


and-rescue teams (critical in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma bombing and 2001 World Trade Center disaster) and the National Incident Management System grew from the social analysis of response operations after international earthquakes and experience acquired after the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes. The longstanding collaboration of government and private organizations in the development of earthquake education materials provides an effective framework for crafting public information and issuing warnings for floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis.

By continuing to support NEHRP and collaborating with the various disciplines of earthquake engineering, government and private organizations will contribute to advances in technology and social systems that secure communities from the risk of extreme natural and man-made disasters.

18565.8

18915.818915.7

18925.818925.8

19695.7

19695.6

19795.7

19275.9

18995.9

18565.818615.8

18645.9

18645.618655.8

18665.618665.6

18665.9

18705.8

18705.6

19025.9

19105.8

19805.8

6.11903 1911

6.56.1

18816.1

1884

6.11858

6.119266.1

1926

18896.0

1836

6.5

1890

6.3

19846.2

6.11903

6.5

1865

1892

6.4

1892

6.4

1897

6.3

18986.3

Incompleterecord

before1850

1838

6.8

1989

6.9

1868

6.9

1906

7.8

1906

7.8

62% probability

for at least one magnitude

6.7 or greater quake

2003 to 2032

1850

19001906

1906

1950

1950

2000

2000

Thefuture

6.0 to 6.5

Greater than 6.5

EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES

5.5 to 5.9

Increasing quake probabilityA

Figure 32: The influence of NEHRP-related research is wide ranging. (A) Scientists help communities prepare by showing earth-quake activity in the 75 years leading to and following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake as well as the probabilities of more earthquakes in the coming decades (USGS).(B) New Orleans devastated in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina was the site three years later for the 2008 EERI Annual Meet-ing, where lessons learned from earthquakes with NEHRP support were shared and infor-mation exchanged with New Orleans community leaders and interested parties from govern-ment, industry, and academia (photo: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA). B

Bibliography

CHAPTER 2

Risk Analysis, Hazard Assessment, and Loss EstimationCornell, C. A., 1968. Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological of America,

58 (5), 1583-1606.Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2000. Financial Management of Earthquake

Risk. EERI Endowment Fund White paper, Oakland, CA: EERI. Froot, K. A., Murphy, B., Stern, A., and Usher, S., 1995. The Emerging Asset Class: Insurance Risk.

Special Report, Guy Carpenter & Co.Kramer, S. L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Inc.Kunreuther, H., and Roth, R. J., Sr., 1998. Paying the Price — The Status and Role of Insurance

Against Natural Disasters in the United States. National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

McGuire, R. K., 2004. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Earthquake Engineering Monograph MNO-10. Oakland, CA: EERI.

Scawthorn, C. S., Kunreuther, H. A., and Roth, R. J., 2002. Insurance and Financial Risk Transfer, in Earthquake Engineering Handbook. Chen and Scawthorn, eds.

Strojanovski, P., Shah, H., Dong, W., 2003. Bridging the Gap Between Earthquake Engineering and Insurance. Proceedings, 40 Years of Earthquake Engineering, Skopje, Macedonia.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008. National Seismic Hazard Map, U.S. Open-file Report 2008-1128, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/.

HAZUS MHFEMA. HAZUS MH, http://www.fema.gov/hazus/hz_index.shtm. Washington, D.C.Holmes, W., 2007. Existing Buildings — Evaluation and Retrofit, Designing for Earthquakes,

FEMA 454. Washington, D.C.: FEMA. Whitman, R. V., Anagnos, T., Kircher, C. A., Lagorio, H. J., Lawson, R. S., and Schneider, P.,

1997. Development of a National Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. Earthquake Spectra 13 (4), 663-682.


Earthquake Design Guidelines and Codes

ASCE, 1998. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings – A Prestandard, FEMA 310. Prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for FEMA. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

ASCE, 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356. Prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for FEMA. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

ASCE, 2006. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

ATC, 1985. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, ATC-13 Report. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1987. Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings, ATC-14 Report. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1989a. Procedures for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, ATC-20 Report. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1989b. A Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Preliminary), ATC-22 Report. (Revised by BSSC and published as FEMA-178, 1992) Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1995. Addendum to the ATC-20 Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, ATC-20-2 Report. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273. Prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-33 project) for the Building Seismic Safety Council for FEMA. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

ATC, 1998a. Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Pro-cedures Manual, FEMA 306. Developed for FEMA under a contract with the Partnership for Response and Recovery, a Joint Venture of Dewberry & Davis and Woodward-Clyde. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1998b. Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Technical Resources, FEMA 307. Developed for FEMA under a contract with the Partnership for Response and Recovery, a Joint Venture of Dewberry & Davis and Woodward-Clyde. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1998c. The Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, FEMA 308. Developed for FEMA under a contract with the Partnership for Response and Recovery, a Joint Venture of Dewberry & Davis and Woodward-Clyde. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 2002. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, FEMA 154, second edition. Prepared by the Applied Technology Council for FEMA. Washington D.C.: FEMA

BSSC, 1992. NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, FEMA 178. Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for FEMA. Washington D.C.: FEMA.

BSSC, 2000. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, and Commentary, FEMA 368 and 369. Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for FEMA. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

FEMA, 2007. Designing for Earthquakes, FEMA 454. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.FEMA, 1996. The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving Building Performance through Multi-

Hazard Mitigation, FEMA 277. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 49

ICC, 2006. 2006 International Building Code. International Code Council: Falls Church, VA.NIBS, 1999. Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology HAZUS, Technical Manual, Vol. 1. Prepared

by the National Institute of Building Sciences for FEMA, Washington, D.C.

Performance-Based Engineering

ATC, FEMA-funded. ATC-58 Project, Development of Next-General Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings, http://www.atcouncil.org/ atc-58.shtml. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

Bachman, R. E., Hamburger, R. O., Comartin, C. D., Rojahn, C. and Whittaker, A. S., 2003. ATC-58 Framework for Performance-Based Design of Nonstructural Components. Proceedings of ATC-29-2 Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities, ATC-29-2 Report, 49-61. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

FEMA, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273. Prepared by the Applied Technology Council. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

FEMA, 2000a. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA 368. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

FEMA, 2000b. Pre-Standard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Building, FEMA 356. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

FEMA, 2000c. Recommended Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Construction, FEMA 350. Prepared by the SAC Joint Venture. Washington, D.C. FEMA.

FEMA 2006. Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings FEMA 445. Prepared by the Applied Technology Council. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

Whittaker, A., Hamburger, R., Comartin, C., Mahoney, M., Bachman, R., and Rojahn, C., 2004. Performance-Based Engineering of Buildings and Infrastructure for Extreme Loadings. http://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/Whittaker2.pdf. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

Lifeline Systems Management

ASCE, 1993. Illinois DOT Ranks Risky Bridges. Civil Engineering Magazine 63 (3:27). Babaei, K., and N. Hawkins, 1993. Bridge Seismic Retrofit Planning Program. Report No WA-

RD217.1. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Transportation.Ballantyne, D., 2003. Multi-Hazard Risk Assessments of Water Systems, Elements in Common

with Seismic, Security, and Other Risk Studies, Proceedings of the Third US-Japan Workshop on Water Systems Seismic Practices, organized by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, supported by the AwwaRF, August 6-8.

Basöz, N. and Kiremidjian, A. S., 1996. Risk Assessment for Highway Transportation Systems. The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Technical Report No.118, November.

Chang, S. E., Seligson, H. A., and Eguchi, R. T., 1996. Estimation of the Economic Impact of Multiple Lifeline Disruption: Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division Case Study. Technical Report NCEER-96-0011, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo.


Chang, S. E., Svekla, W. D., and Shinozuka, M., 2002. Linking Infrastructure and Urban Economy: Simulation of Water Disruption Impacts in Earthquakes, Environment and Planning B 29 (2), 281-301.

Chang, S. E., 2003. Transportation Planning for Disasters: An Accessibility Approach. Environment and Planning A, 35, 1051-1072.

Gilbert (Sardo), A., 1993. Developments in Seismic Prioritization of Bridges in California. Division of Structures. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.

Kakumoto, S., Hatayama, M., and Kameda, H., 2000. Advanced GIS Applications for Earthquake Disaster Mitigation. Proceedings of the 1st MCEER Workshop on Mitigation of Earthquake Disaster by Advanced Technologies. Buffalo, NY: MCEER, pp. 211-216.

O’Rourke, T. D., 1998. An Overview of Geotechnical and Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Geo- technical Special Publication No. 75, Reston, VA: ASCE; Proceedings of the Geotechnical Earth- quake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Conference. August, Seattle, WA, Vol. 2, pp. 1392-1426.

O’Rourke, T. D., 2007. “Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience,” The Bridge, National Academy of Engineering, Spring.

O’Rourke, T. D., Wang, Y., and Shi, P., 2004. Advances in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6, Paper No. 5003 (Keynote), Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada,

O’Rourke, T. D., Lembo, A. J., and Nozick, L. K., 2003. Lessons Learned from the World Trade Center Disaster About Critical Utility Systems. Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-disaster Research, Program on Environment and Behavior. Special Publication #39, April, Natural Hazards Research and Information Center. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, pp. 269-290.

O’Rourke, T. D., Palmer, M. C., Jezerski, J. M., Olson, N. A., Abdoun, T., Ha, D., and O’Rourke, M., 2008. “Geotechnics of Pipeline System Response to Earthquakes”, Keynote Paper, Proceedings, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV (GEESD), Sacramento, CA, May.

O’Rourke, T. D., Stewart, H.E., and Jeon, S-S, 2001. Geotechnical Aspects of Lifeline Engineering. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering, 149 (1) January, 13-26.

Rose, A. and Liao, S-Y., 2003. Understanding Sources of Economic Resiliency to Hazards: Mod-eling the Behavior of Lifeline Service Customers. Research Progress and Accomplishments 2001-2003. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, pp. 149-160.

Sandia National Laboratories, 2003. Security Risk Assessment Methodology for Water Utilities, http://www.sandia.gov/ram/index.htm, Albuquerque, NM.

Shinozuka, M. and Chang, S. E., 2004. Evaluating the Disaster Resilience of Power Networks and Grids. Modeling Spatial Economic Impacts of Disasters. Springer-Verlag, edited by Y. Okuyama and S. E. Chang.

Shinozuka, M., Feng, M., Dong, X., Chang, S. E., Cheng, T.-C., Jin, X., and Ala Saadeghvaziri, M., 2003. Advances in Seismic Performance Evaluation of Power Systems. Research Progress and Accomplishments 2001-2003. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, pp. 1-16.

Shinozuka, M., and Hwang, H.H.M., 1998. Seismic Performance of Electric Power System. Engineering and Socioeconomic Impacts of Earthquake: An Analysis of Electricity of Lifetime Distributions in New Madrid Area, Monograph Series No. 2. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, pp. 33-43.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 51

Shirole, A., 1992. Interim Seismic Policy Concerning Bridges Programmed for Rehabilitation. New York Department of Transportation.

Vasishth U., Murray, R. H. and Jacobson, J. S., 1995. Seismic Prioritization and Retrofit of Bridges in Washington State. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seismic Zonation Conference. Nice, France, Vol. 1, pp. 518-525.

Wallace, W.A., Mendonca, D., Lee, E. E., Mitchell, J. E. and Chow, J. H., 2003. Managing Disruptions to Critical Interdependent Infrastructures in the Context of the 2001 World Trade Center Attack. Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research, Program on Environment and Behavior. Special Publication #39, Natural Hazards Research and Information Center. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, pp. 165-198.

Werner, S. D., Taylor, C. E., Sungbin, C., Laroie, J-P., Hyuck, C. K., Eitzel, C., Eguchi, R.T., and Moore J. E, 2004. New Developments in Seismic Risk Analysis of Highway Systems. http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/resaccom/04-sp01/15_werner.pdf. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

Learning from EarthquakesFEMA, 2000a, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings,

FEMA 350. Washington, D.C: FEMA.SAC Joint Venture Project, www.sacsteel.org. EERI. Learning from Earthquakes Program, www.eeri.org/lfe.html. Oakland, CA.

CHAPTER 3

Seismology and Nuclear Test/Explosion Monitoring

Bolt, B. A., 1976. Nuclear Explosions and Earthquakes: The Parted Veil, San Francisco, CA: W. H Freeman and Company, 308 p.

Engdahl, E. R., van der Hilst, R., Buland, R., 1998. Global teleseismic earthquake relocation with improved travel times and procedures for depth determination, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 722-743.

Engdahl, E. R., and Villaseñor, A., 2003. Global seismicity: 1990-1999, International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A, edited by W.H.K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P.C. Jennings, and C. Kisslinger. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 665-690.

Fletcher, J. B., and McGarr, A., 2005. Moment tensor inversion of ground motion from mining-induced earthquakes, Trail Mountain, Utah, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95 (1), 48-57.

Fuis, G. S., 1998. West margin of North America—a synthesis of recent synthetic transects, Tectonophysics 288, 265-292.

Holzer, T. L., Fletcher, J. B., Fuis, G. S., Ryberg, T., Brocher, T. M., and Dietel, C., 1996. Seismograms offer insight into Oklahoma City bombing, EOS 77(41), 393, 398-399.

Kim, W. Y., Sykes, L. R., Armitage, J. H., Xie, J. K., Jacob, K. H., Richards, P. G., West, M., Waldhauser, F., Armbruster, J., Seeber, L., Du, X. U., and Lerner-Lam, A., 2001. Seismic waves generated aircraft impacts and building collapses at World Trade Center, New York City, EOS 82(47), 37, 565, 570-571.


Koper, K. D., Wallace, T. C., Taylor, S. R., and Hartse, H. E., 2001. Forensic seismology and the sinking of the Kursk, EOS 82(4), 37, 45-46.

Mooney, W. D., Prodehl, C., and Pavlenkova, N. I., 2002. Seismic velocity structure of the continental lithosphere from controlled source data, International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A, edited by W.H.K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, and C. Kisslinger. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 887-910.

Mooney, W. D., Laske, G., and Masters, T. G., 1998. CRUST 5.1: A global crustal model at 5° x 5°, J. Geophys. Res. 103 (B1), 727-747.

Olsen, K. B., Madariaga, R., and Archuletta, R. J., 1997. Three-dimensional simulation of the 1992 Landers earthquake, Science 278, 834-838.

Pinsker, L. M., 2002. Seismic testimony in pipeline explosion, Geotimes, 47(8) 6. Richards, P. G., 2002. Seismological methods of monitoring compliance with the Comprehensive

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A, edited by W.H.K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, and C. Kisslinger. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 369-382.

Spudich, P., Guatteri, M., Otsuki, K., Omagawa. J., 1998. Use of fault striations and dislocation models to infer tectonic shear stress during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 413-427.

Seismic Monitoring Networks

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2001. Partners on Earthquake Mitigation, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Report to Congress Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, report prepared in collaboration with National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, and United States Geological Survey.

United States Geological Survey. 1999. An Assessment of Seismic Monitoring in the United States—Requirement for an Advanced National Seismic System, USGS Circular 1188. Reston, VA: USGS.

United States Geological Survey, 2003. ANSS—Reducing the Devastating Effects of Earthquakes, USGS Fact Sheet FS-046-03. Denver CO: USGS.

Structural Health Monitoring

Celebi, M., Sanli, A., Sinclair, M., Gallant, S., Radulescu, D., 2004. Real-Time Seismic Monitoring Needs of a Building Owner—and the Solution: A Cooperative Effort, Earthquake Spectra 20 (2), 333-346.

National Research Council Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 2002. Embedded Everywhere, a Research Agenda for Networked Systems of Embedded Computers. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, p 236.

Protective Systems

Buckle I. G. and Mayes, R. L., 1990. Seismic Isolation: History, Application and Performance – A World View. Earthquake Spectra 6 (2) May, 161-202.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 53

Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F., 1998. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for Structural Design and Retrofit. MCEER Monograph 1. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER).

Hanson, R. D., and Soong, T. T., 2001. Seismic Design with Supplemental Energy Dissipation Devices. Monograph MNO-8. Oakland, CA: EERI.

Post, N. M., 2003. Damper-studded diamonds: Buildings in seismic Mexico City raise bar on earthquake resistance. Engineering News Record , June 30, 34-38.

Powell, A. E., 2003. Editor’s Note. Civil Engineering, June, 45. Rahimian, A. and Romero, E.M., 2003. “Standing Tall,” Modern Steel Construction, American

Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., April.Soong, T. T., and Constantinou, M.C., (eds.), 1994. Passive and Active Structural Vibration Control

in Civil Engineering. Vienna and New York: Springer-Verlag. Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F., 1997. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural

Engineering. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Soong, T.T. and B.F. Spencer, Jr., 2002. Supplemental Energy Dissipation; State-of-the-Art and

State-of-the-Practice. Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, pp. 243–259, 2002.Spencer, Jr., B.F. and S. Nagarajaiah, 2003. State of the Art of Structural Control. Journal of

Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 7, pp. 845–856, 2003.Steiner, F. and E. Elsesser, 2004. Oakland City Hall Repair and Upgrades. Publication No. 4,

Series on Applied Seismic Design of Buildings, Oakland, CA: EERI.

Remote Sensing

Adams, B. J., Huyck, C. K., Mansouri, B., Eguchi, R., and Shinozuka, M., 2004a. Application of High-Resolution Optical Satellite Imagery for Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment: 2003 Boumerdes(Algeria) and Bam (Iran) Earthquakes. Research Progress and Accomplishments 2003-2004. Buffalo, NY: MCEER, pp 174-186.

Adams, B. J., Womble, J. A., Mio, M. Z., Tujrner, J. B., Mehta, K. C., and Ghosh, S., 2004b. Collection of Satellite-Referenced Building Damage Information in the Aftermath of Hurricane Charley. Field Report. Buffalo, NY: MCEER, p. 15.

Eguchi, R. T., Huyck, C. K., Adams, B. J., Mansouri, B., Houshmand, B., and Shinozuka, M., 2003. Resilient Disaster Response: Using Remote Sensing Technologies for Post-disaster Damage Detection. Research Progress and Accomplishments 2001-2003. Buffalo, NY: MCEER, pp 125-138.

Huyck, C. K. and Adams, B. J., 2002. Emergency Response in the Wake of the World Trade Center Attacks: The Remote Sensing Perspective. Special Report MCEER-02-SP05, Buffalo, NY: MCEER.

Huyck, C. K., Eguchi, R. T., and Houshmand, B., 2002. Advanced Technologies for Loss Estimation: Bare-Earth Algorithms for Use with SAR and LIDAR Digital Elevation Models. Technical Report, MCEER-02-0004. Buffalo, NY: MCEER.

Kayen, R., Pack, R. T., Bay, J., Sugimoto, S., and Tanaka, H., 2006. Terrestrial-LIDAR Visualization of Surface and Structural Deformations of the 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu, Japan, Earthquake, Special Issue I, Earthquake Spectra 22, March, S147-S162.


Lembo, A. J., Bonneau, A., O’Rourke, T. D., 2004. Advanced Web-based GIS Management Technologies. Research Progress and Accomplishments 2003-2004. Buffalo, NY: MCEER, pp 27-40.

Rathje, E. M. and Adams, B. J., 2008. The Role of Remote Sensing in Earthquake Science and Engineering, Earthquake Spectra 24 (2), 471-492, May.

Saito, K. and Spence, R., 2004. Using High-Resolution Satellite Images for Post Earthquake Building Damage Assessment: A Study following the 26.1.01 Gujurat Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 20 (1), 145-169.

Yusuf, Y., Mutsuoka, M., and Yamazaki, F., 2002. Detection of Building Damage due to the 2001 Gujurat, India Earthquake, Using Satellite Remote Sensing. Proceedings of the 7th US National Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Boston, MA.

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering System

NEES Consortium, Inc., 2005. http://www.nees.org/index.php. O’Rourke, T. D., 2003. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program: Past, Present, and

Future. Testimony before US House of Representatives Committee on Science, (see http://www.eeri.org/news/nehrp/index.html), Washington, D.C.

CHAPTER 4

Post Disaster Building Inspection

ATC, 1989. Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, ATC-20 Report. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

ATC, 1995. Addendum to the ATC-20 Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, ATC-20-2 Report. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

FEMA, 2002. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (FEMA 403), Washington, D.C.: FEMA. Figure 1-9B, p. 1-13.

CHAPTER 5

Social Science, Policy, and Practice

Aguirre, B. E., Wenger, D., Glass, T. A., Diaz-Murillo, M. and Vigo, G., 1995. The Social Organization of Search and Rescue: Evidence from the Guadalajara Gasoline Explosion. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13c, 93-106.

Berke, P. R., Kartez, J., and Wenger, D. Recovery After a Disaster: Achieving Sustainable Development, Mitigation, and Equity. Disasters 17, 93-109.

Birkland, T. A., 1997. After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 55

Bolin, R. C., 1993. Household and Community Recovery After Earthquakes. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.

Bolin, R. C. and Stanford, L., 1998. The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster. New York: Routledge.

Chang, S. E., 2001. Structural Change in Urban Economies: Recovery and Long-Term Impacts in the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Journal of Economics and Business Administration 183 (1), 49-69.

Comerio, M. C., 1998. Disaster Hits Home: New Policy for Urban Housing Recovery. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Comfort, L. K., 1999. Shared Risk: Complex Systems in Seismic Response. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Cutter, S. L. (ed.), 2001. American Hazardscapes: The Regionalization of Hazards and Disasters.

Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Drabek, T. E. ,1985. Managing the Emergency Response. Public Administration Review 45

(special issue), 85-92.Drabek, T. E., 2003. Strategies for Coordinating Disaster Responses. Boulder, CO: Institute of

Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.

Fothergill, A., 2004. Heads Above Water: Gender, Class, and Family in the Grand Forks Flood. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kendra, J. M. and Wachtendorf, T., 2003a. Reconsidering Convergence and Converger Legitimacy in Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. In L. B. Clarke (ed.), Terrorism and Disaster: New Threats, New Ideas: Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 11, 97-122. Elsevier Science.

Kendra, J. M. and Wachtendorf, T., 2003b. Creativity in Emergence Response After the World Trade Center Attack. In Beyond September 11: An Account of Post-Disaster Research, pp. 121-146. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.

Kreps, G. A. and Bosworth, S. L., with Mooney, J. A., Russell, S. T. and Myers, K. A., 1994. Organizing, Role Enactment, and Disaster: A Structural Theory. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press.

Lambright, W. H., 1985. The Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project: Evolution of an ‘Earthquake Entrepreneur.’ International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 3, 75-94.

Lindell, M. K. and Perry, R. W., 1992. Behavioral Foundations of Community Emergency Manage-ment. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

Lindell, M. K. and Perry, R. W., 2004. Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Commu-nities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lindell, M. K. and Perry, R. W., 2000. Household Adjustment to Earthquake Hazard: A Review of Research. Environment and Behavior 32, 590-630.

Mileti, D. S. and Fitzpatrick, C. The Great Earthquake Experiment: Risk Communication and Public Action. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.

National Science and Technology Council, 2005. Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction, Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C., http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/grandchallenges.pdf


National Science and Technology Council, 2006. Windstorm Impact Reduction Implementation Plan, Washington, D.C., http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/windstorm_impact_reduction_implementation_plan_final.pdf

Neal, D. M. “Reconsidering the Phases of Disasters.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 15, Issue 2, pp. 239-264.

O’Brien, P. and Mileti, D. S., 1992. Citizen Participation in Emergency Response Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 10, 71-89.

Peacock, W. G., Morrow, B. H., and Gladwin, H., 1997. Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender and the Sociology of Disasters. London: Routledge.

Phillips, B. D., 1993. Cultural Diversity in Disasters: Sheltering, Housing, and Long-Term Recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 11, 99-110.

Phillips, B. D., 1998. Sheltering and Housing of Low-Income and Minority Groups in Santa Cruz County after the Loma Prieta Earthquake. In J. M. Nigg (ed.) The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Recovery, Mitigation, and Reconstruction. Professional Paper 1553-D. Washington, DC: U. S. Geological Survey.

Rose, A., Benavides, J., Chang, S., Szczesniak, P., and Lim, D., 1997. The Regional Economic Impact of an Earthquake: Direct and Indirect Effects of Electricity Lifeline Disruptions. Journal of Regional Science 37 (3), 437-458.

Rose, A. and Lim, D., 2002. Business Interruption Losses from Natural Hazards: Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Case of the Northridge Earthquake. Environmental Hazards 4, 1-14.

Rose, A. and Liao, S-Y., 2003. Understanding Sources of Economic Resiliency to Hazards: Modeling the Behavior of Lifeline Service Customers. Research Progress and Accomplishments 2001-2003. Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, pp. 149-160.

Russell, L. A., Goltz, J. D. and Bourque, L. B., 1995. Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation Activities Before and after Two Earthquakes. Environment and Behavior 27, 744-770.

Tierney, K. J., Lindell, M. K. and Perry, R. W., 2001. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M. and Heller Paz, D., 1986. Waiting for Disaster: Earthquake Watch in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

U.S. Public Law 108-360, 108th Congress, 25 October 2004, Title I, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2004, amends sections of Public Law 95-124, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

U.S. Public Law 108-360, 108th Congress, 25 October 2004, Title II, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004.

Webb, G. R., Tierney, K. J. and J. M. Dahlhamer., 2000. Businesses and Disasters: Empirical Patterns and Unanswered Questions. Natural Hazards Review 1, 83-90.

Webb, G. R., Tierney, K. J. and Dahlhamer, J. M., 2004. Predicting Long-Term Business Recovery from Disaster: A Comparison of the Loma Prieta Earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Environmental Hazards 4, 45-58.

Wenger, D., E. and James, T. F., 1994. The Convergence of Volunteers in a Consensus Crisis: The Case of the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake. In Dynes, R. R. and Tierney, K. J. (eds.), Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social Organization. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, pp. 229-243.

Appendix A

Workshop ParticipantsWilliam Anderson, National Academy of Sciences Richard Andrews, Homeland Security, National Center for Crisis & Continuity Coordination (NC4) and Candle Corporation Christopher Arnold, Building Systems Development Martha Baer, freelance journalistDonald Ballantyne, ABS Consulting Group Nesrin Basoz, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, CATRisk Technology Harvey Bernstein, ASCE Civil Engineering Research FoundationIan Buckle, University of Nevada Reno, Dept. of Civil Engineering Mary Comerio, University of California Berkeley, Dept. of ArchitectureC. Allin Cornell, Stanford University, Dept. of Civil & Environmental EngineeringRonald Eguchi, ImageCat, Inc. Richard Eisner, California Homeland Security Agency, Office of Emergency Services James Godfrey, EERIThomas Hanks, U.S. Geological Survey Robert Hanson, Professor Emeritus Eve Hinman, Hinman Consulting Engineers Thomas Holzer, U.S. Geological Survey Jeremy Isenberg, Weidlinger Associates Inc. Wilfred Iwan, California Institute of Technology, EQ Engineering Research Lab Michael Lindell, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, College of Architecture, Texas A&M UniversitySami Masri, University of Southern California, Dept. of Civil EngineeringFarzad Naeim, John A. Martin & Associates Thomas O’Rourke, Cornell University, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering William Petak, University of Southern California, School of Policy Planning & Development Keith Porter, California Institute of Technology Carla Prater, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, College of Architecture, Texas A&M UniversityLawrence Reaveley, University of Utah, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Christopher Rojahn, Applied Technology Council Mark Sereci, Digitexx Data Systems, Inc.Haresh Shah, Risk Management Solutions, Inc. Paul Somerville, URS CorporationBill Spencer, University of Illinois, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Alex Tang, Nortel Networks, Design Engineering Charles Theil, Jr., Telesis Engineers Kathleen Tierney, University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center Susan Tubbesing, EERI

contributions of earthquake engineering

Documents