the role of earthquake impact assessment in mitigation ... · mid-america earthquake center...
TRANSCRIPT
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
The Role of Earthquake Impact Assessment
in Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Congressional Hazards Caucus and
Congressional Hazards Caucus Alliance Briefing
Amr S. Elnashai, FREng
Bill and Elaine Hall Endowed Professor
Director of MAE Center
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Earthquake Risk Management in the MAE Center
Current projects
St. Louis
Illinois
Central USA
Istanbul
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
State-Level Impact Assessment
Worst-case impact assessment for each state
Estimates for State and counties Damaged structures
Damage and functionality
Essential facilities
Roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure
Utility facilities, pipeline distribution networks, electric service
Fire ignitions
Debris
Social impacts (shelter and casualties)
HAZMAT vulnerability
Direct Economic losses
Five Detailed site-specific studies of rural and urban sites
Alabama
67 Counties
Arkansas
75 Counties Illinois
102 Counties
Indiana
92 Counties
Kentucky
120 Counties
Mississippi
82 Counties
Missouri
115 Counties
Tennessee
95 Counties
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
City-Level Impact Assessment
Five Detailed site-specific studies of rural and urban sites
St. Louis, MO
Cairo, IL
Memphis, TN
Wickliffe, KY
Charleston, MO
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Objective
Provide the Most Credible Estimates of
Impact of New Madrid and Wabash Valley
Earthquakes with Associated Uncertainty
….
Estimates that can Stand Scientific
and Political Scrutiny
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
The Total Earthquake Risk Cycle
Risk
Identification
Consequence
Assessment
Planning and
Mitigation
Response to
Incident
Recovery
to Normality
Hazard-Generated
Needs
Response-
Generated Needs
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
?Preference Plots
Comparison of Alternatives for C2M Structures
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
No Action Rehab_LS Rehab_IO New
Alternatives
Eq
uiv
ale
nt
Co
st (
$ M
illio
n)
Rehab+Repair Cost
Loss of Function
Life Loss
Overall
?Preference Plots
Comparison of Alternatives for C2M Structures
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
No Action Rehab_LS Rehab_IO New
Alternatives
Eq
uiv
ale
nt
Co
st (
$ M
illio
n)
Rehab+Repair Cost
Loss of Function
Life Loss
Overall
Components of Impact Assessment
HAZARD
Description of the ground shaking
INVENTORY
Assets that are subjected to the Hazard
FRAGILITY
Sensitivity of the assets to damage
from intensity of shaking
0 0.25
0.5 0.75
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
S a
(g) No. of Stories
F(
S a )
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Tools: HAZUS and MAEviz
HAZUS is FEMA’s Loss Assessment Software
It includes three levels, I, II and III
MAEviz is the MAE Center specialized loss
assessment software
It is complementary to HAZUS
It has transportation modeling and
decision-support capabilities
Level 2 (User-supplied Data Analysis)
Level 1 (Default Data Analysis)
Level 3 (Advanced Data and Models Analysis)
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
HAZUS Advanced Analysis
Preliminary Results
For 240 out of 745 Counties
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
General Building Stock
Ground failure more than doubles damage to regional buildings, making it the single most critical factor influencing building damage, particularly collapse
Building stock data is based on aggregated census tract data and improved data is likely to increase damage and economic loss as the number of buildings increases
At Least Moderate Complete At Least Moderate Complete At Least Moderate Complete
Light Wood Frame 61,126 142 64,049 442 118,148 63,242
Unreinforced Masonry 48,854 5,734 73,852 13,754 76,534 21,673
Mobile Home 109,736 3,564 99,089 13,839 101,097 22,667
Level I Improved Level I Level II
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Transportation Facilities
Railway Bridge DamageAt Least Moderate^̀ 0.0 - 0.15^̀ 0.15 - 0.3^̀ 0.3 - 0.45^̀ 0.45 - 0.6^̀ 0.6 - 0.75
Airport Facilitiy DamageAt Least Moderateo 0.0 - 0.15o 0.15 - 0.3o 0.3 - 0.45o 0.45 - 0.6o 0.6 - 0.75o 0.75 - 0.96
Railway Segment DamageAt Least Moderate
0.0 - 0.050.05 - 0.10.1 - 0.150.15 - 0.20.2 - 0.25
^̀^̀
^̀̂̀^̀
^̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀
^̀
^̀
^̀^̀
^̀̂̀^̀̂̀̂̀̂̀^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂
^̀
^̀
^̀̀̂̀̂̂̀
^̀^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀^̀ ^̀ ^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̀̂̀̂^̀̂̀
^̀
^̀ ^̀^̀
^̀^̀
^̀
^̀
^̀
^̀
^̀
^̂̀`^̀
^̀
^̀^̀
^̀̂̀̂̀̂̀
^̀
^̀^̀
^̀^̀
^̀
^̀^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀
^̀^̀̂̀^̀
^̀^̀
^̀̀̂̀̂
^̀ ^̀
^̀
^̀
^̀
^̀^̀ ^̀
^̀^̀
^̀^̀̀̂̀̂
^̀ ^̀^̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀`̂̀̂̀^̀
^̀̀̂̀̂^̀̂̀^̀
^̀̀̂̂̀^̀̀̂
^̀ ^̀
^̀ ^̀
^̀
^̀̀̂̂̀
^̂̀` ^̀̂̀
^̀̀̂̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂ ^̀̂̀^̀̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̂̀ ^̀
^̀
^̀̂̀̂̀
^̀^̀
^̀ ^̀^̀^̀ ^̀^̀
^̀̀̂^̀̂̀̀̂ ^̀^̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̀̂̀̂̂̀
^̀^̀̂̀̀̂̀̂̂̀̂̀ ^̀^̀̀̂̀̂̂̀
^̀^̀^̀̂̀
^̀̀̂^̀
^̀^̀
^̀̀̂^̀̂̀̂̀̂̀
^̀
^̀^̀^̀^̀̂̀
^̀^̀̂̀^̀
^̀ ^̀^̀ ^̀̂̀^̀
^̀ ^̂̀̂̀`^̀̀̂̀̂^̀^̀
^̀^̀
^̀
^̀^̀̀̂̀̂̂̀̂̀̀̂
^̀^̀^̀
^̀̀̂^̀^̂̀`̀̂^̀
^̀^̀̂̀̂̀
^̀̂̀
^̀̂̀^̀ ^̀^̀
^̀̂̀̂̀̀̂̀̂̂̀̀̂^̀^̀^̀^̀ ^̀̀̂̂̀̂̀̂̀
^̀^̀̀̂^̀
^̀^̀ ^̀
^̀^̀̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂
^̀
^̀̀̂^̀
^̀̀̂ ^̀̂̀̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂^̀ ^̀^̀
^̀̂̀̂̀
^̀̂̀^̀ ^̀
^̀^̀^̀^̀ ^̀^̀
^̀̀̂̀̂^̀^̀̂̀
^̀^̀̀̂^̀
^̀^̀^̀
^̀̀̂̀̂^̀
^̂̀`̂̀
^̀ ^̀^̀
^̀̀̂̀̂
^̀ ^̀^̀̂̀
^̀
^̂̀`̂̀^̀
^̀^̀
^̀^̀
^̀̀̂̀̂̀̂^̀̀̂ ^̀
^̀^̀ ^̀
^̀̂̀
^̀ ^̀̂̀^̀̂̀̂̀̂̀̂̀
^̀^̀^̀̀̂̂̀ ^̀̂̀^̀̂̀^̀
o
o
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
oo
oo
oooo o
oo
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
oooo
ooo
o
ooo
ooo
o
ooo
o
o
o
ooo
oo
o
o
o o
oo
o
o
o
oooo
o o
o
oo
o
oo
oo
ooo
o
oo
o
o
o o
ooo
o
oo
ooo
o
o
oo
ooo
o
oo
o
o
oo
oo
o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
oo
oooooo
oo
o oo
oo
ooo
oo
o
ooo
o
o
oooooo
o
oo
oo
oo
oo
o oo
o
oo
o
o
oooo
o
o
o
o
o oo
o
o
o
o
oo
oo
ooo
o
o
o
o
oo
oo
o
o
o
o
o
oooo
o
ooo
o
o
ooo oooo
o
oooo
o
oo
o
o
o
o
oo
oo o o
oo
o
oooo
oo
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
oo
oo
o o
o
oo
oo
ooo
oooo
o
ooo
o
o
o
o
oo
oo
o
o
oo
o
o o
oo
o o
ooo
oo
o
o
oo ooo
o
ooo
o
ooo
o
oo
ooooo o
oo
ooo
ooo
o
o
o
o
oo
oo
o o
o
o o
o
o ooooo
ooooo o
o
o
oo
o
o
ooo ooo
oooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo o
o
oo
o
oo o
o o
o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
oo
o
ooo
oo
o
oooo
ooo
o
o ooo
oooo
o
oo ooooo
ooo
ooo oooo
oo
o
oo
oo
oo
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
ooo
oo
o
o oo
o o
o
oooo o
oo
oo
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
ooo
o oo
o
oo
o
o
o
o
oo
oo
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
o
o o o
oo
ooo
o
o
ooo
oo
oo
o
o
o
ooooo
o
ooo
oooo
o
o
o
o
ooo
ooo o
oo
o
o
o
oo
oo
o
o
oo
oo
oo oo
o
o
oo
o
oo oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
Level I Improved Level I Level II
Highway Bridges 379 1,179 1,987
Railway Facilties 42 46 85
Port Facilities 38 114 138
Airport Facilities 6 48 64
30,000 bridges in region, Level II incurs greatest number of bridges with at least moderate damage
Improved inventories are likely to show more structures than HAZUS default
Better inventories will elicit more damage and economic loss
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Transportation Networks
Over 86,000 miles of highways in 230 county study region
Effect is CATASTROPHIC
Dense Memphis transportation grid is most vulnerable to southwest source event
Updated roadway fragilities and regional inventory is likely to increase regional highway damage
Highway Segment DamageAt Least Moderate
0 - 0.040.04 - 0.080.08 - 0.120.12 - 0.160.16 - 0.200.20 - 0.25
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Utility Facilities
Wastewater facilities are
largest inventory category
and thus most facilities
damaged – waste water
services will be hit very hard
Underestimation of utility
inventory, making damage
and loss estimates less
reliable
Improved inventory is likely
to increase damage rates at
all levels
Waste Water Facilities Damage
At Least Moderate
%2 0.0 - 0.2
%2 0.2 - 0.4
%2 0.4 - 0.6
%2 0.6 - 0.8
%2 0.8 - 1.0
Electric Power Facility Damage
At Least Moderate
%L 0.0 - 0.2
%L 0.2 - 0.4
%L 0.4 - 0.6
%L 0.6 - 0.8
%L 0.8 - 1.0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0 #0#0
#0 #0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0#0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0 #0
#0 #0
#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0#0
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2%2%2
%2%2%2%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2%2%2%2
%2
%2%2%2%2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2%2%2%2%2 %2
%2%2%2
%2%2%2 %2%2%2
%2%2%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2%2%2%2
%2%2
%2%2%2
%2%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2 %2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2%2%2
%2%2%2%2 %2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2 %2%2%2%2%2
%2%2%2%2 %2%2 %2%2 %2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2 %2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2 %2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2 %2 %2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2 %2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2 %2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2 %2%2 %2%2 %2
%2
%2%2%2%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2 %2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2 %2%2
%2
%2%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2%2%2%2%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2%2%2%2
%2
%2%2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2 %2%2%2
%2%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2 %2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2%2%2%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2%2 %2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2 %2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2%2%2
%2
%2%2
%2
%2
%2%2 %2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
%L %L%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L%L%L%L
%L %L
%L
%L%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L%L%L
%L
%L%L%L%L
%L
%L %L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L%L
%L%L %L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L%L%L
%L%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L%L%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L%L %L %L%L%L%L%L %L%L
%L
%L %L
%L
%L
%L%L
%L%L%L
%L%L %L%L
%L
%L%L
%L%L%L%L%L %L
%L%L
%L%L
%L%L
%L%L
%L
%L
%L%L
Facility Type Level I Improved Level I Level II
Potable Water 8 36 36
Waste Water 47 180 180
Natural Gas 2 12 12
Oil 8 12 12
Electric Power 5 17 17
Communication 25 111 111
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Utility Networks
All utility networks are based
on assumed pipeline lengths,
not actual field surveys
Addition of HSIP pipelines for
major distribution lines only
Overall pipeline damage is
unreliable, additional network
data will indicate a major
increase in damage
Total Pipeline Length
(kms)
Number of
Leaks
Number of
Breaks
Potable Water 500,560 39,540 58,974
Waste Water 300,336 31,273 46,643
Natural Gas 200,224 33,430 49,860
Natural Gas Pipelines
Oil Pipelines
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Social Impacts and Essential Facilities
Fire ignitions at approximately 50 for higher levels of analysis
Debris generation increases from 7 to 18 million tons
These numbers are likely to increase as building inventories and regional demographics are updated to current values
Level I Improved Level I Level II
Displaced Households 18,837 27,513 118,743
Temporary Housing 5,849 8,095 34,181
Casualties 13,616 21,026 36,350
Very significant impact on hospitals, fire and police stations as analysis levels increase, thus fewer services in hardest hit areas are available
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Direct Economic Losses
The southwest extension event produces the
greatest regional losses at every level of analysis
These values provide a lower bound due to
uncertainties in each of the three components of
earthquake impact assessment
It is highly probable that inventory improvements,
updated fragilities and refining regional hazard will
increase direct economic losses
Direct Loss Cetegory Level I Improved Level I Level II
Buildings $12,942,294,000 $19,656,812,898 $34,383,750,000
Transportation $575,128,000 $1,286,888,816 $5,044,643,000
Utility $2,033,110,000 $8,506,970,890 $11,034,740,000
Total $15,550,532,000 $29,450,672,604 $50,463,133,000
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
HAZUS Advanced Analysis
Parameters Influencing Impact Analysis
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Factors Influencing Assessment Improvement
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Fin
al Im
pact
Valu
e/C
urr
en
t
Imp
act
Valu
e R
ati
o
Haz
ard
Def
inition
- W
abas
h
Haz
ard
Def
inition
- New
Mad
rid
Reg
iona
l and
Loc
al S
ite C
onditio
ns
Ess
entia
l Fac
ilitie
s In
vent
ory
Trans
porta
tion
Facilit
ies In
vent
ory
Trans
porta
tion
Net
wor
k In
vent
ory
Cell P
hone
Tow
er In
vent
ory
Utility
Fac
ilitie
s In
vent
ory
Utility
Net
wor
k In
vent
ory
Tasks
Current Impact
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Factors Influencing Assessment Improvement
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Fin
al Im
pact
Valu
e/C
urr
en
t
Imp
ac
t V
alu
e R
ati
o
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials F
acilitie
s
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials C
hem
ical In
vent
ory
Building
Fragilities
Trans
porta
tion
Fragilities
Utility
Net
wor
k Fra
gilities
Spe
cial S
tructur
es In
vent
ory
Dyn
amic T
raffic M
odeling
Site
-Spe
cific
Stu
dies
High-
Rise
Building
Fragilities
Cell T
ower
Fra
gilities
Tasks
Current Impact
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Upcoming Activities
Planned Work Finalize regional hazard for New Madrid and Wabash
scenarios
Determine hazard for site-specific scenarios
Obtain best available inventory for as many categories as possible of the following:
Hazardous materials facilities and storage
Highway bridges – including long-span bridges
Essential facilities
Pipeline networks
Electric power networks
Cell phone towers and communications facilities
Levees
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Upcoming Activities
Planned Work – cont’d Development of analytical fragilities for high-rise buildings
for St. Louis and Chicago
Development of fragilities for communications systems
Develop detailed response and recovery models
Implement the Temporary Housing Optimization module in MAEviz
Use of MAEviz for local assessments, including transportation traffic modeling, utilities networks flow, decision-making tool and uncertainty quantification
Mid-America Earthquake Center Assessment, Mitigation, Response and Recovery
Q and A