Estimating Annualized Earthquake Losses for the Conterminous United States

Jaiswal, Kishor; Bausch, D.; Chen, Rui; Bouabid, Jawhar; Seligson, Hope A.

doi:10.1193/010915eqs005m

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The seismic risk estimates provided by the global model do not replace existing national risk assessments, which are likely to have a greater detail and reliability (e.g. United States—Jaiswal et al, 2015, Turkey—Bommer et al, 2002). The global seismic risk model is a dynamic model, which needs to be improved and updated continuously, as more sophisticated methodologies and data become available.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the recognition of the importance of risk information, probabilistic seismic risk models at the national or subnational level are still scarce and unfortunately only openly available for a few regions (e.g. Crowley et al, 2009; Jaiswal et al, 2015; Salgado-Gálvez et al, 2013; Silva et al, 2014a). Some of the reasons behind this paucity of risk models include the lack of probabilistic seismic hazard models, insufficient data concerning the built-environment, lack of adequate vulnerability functions, and insufficient local capacity to perform complex hazard and risk analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a global seismic risk model

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2015, the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation and its partners have been supporting regional programs and bilateral collaborations to develop an open global earthquake risk model. These efforts led to the development of a repository of probabilistic seismic hazard models, a global exposure dataset comprising structural and occupancy information regarding the residential, commercial and industrial buildings, and a comprehensive set of fragility and vulnerability functions for the most common building classes. These components were used to estimate probabilistic earthquake risk globally using the OpenQuake-engine, an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk analysis. This model allows estimating a number of risk metrics such as annualized average losses or aggregated losses for particular return periods, which are fundamental to the development and implementation of earthquake risk mitigation measures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a global seismic risk model

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) incorporates the USGS hazard models directly in their computer programs to assess earthquake risk to the nation and help communities prepare for earthquake shaking (e.g. FEMA 366 and HAZUS software; Jaiswal et al, 2015, 2017; http://www.fema.gov/hazus/). Other examples of end users are the government agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Interior who use the models to help evaluate earthquake risk for dams and other important facilities as well as geological surveys and other state and local governments who have responsibility for regional and local seismic hazard and risk planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During 2017–2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated as follows: (1) an updated seismicity catalog was incorporated, which includes new earthquakes that occurred from 2013 to 2017; (2) in the central and eastern United States (CEUS), new ground motion models were updated that incorporate updated median estimates, modified assessments of the associated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the western United States (WUS), amplified shaking estimates of long-period ground motions at sites overlying deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas were incorporated; and (4) in the conterminous United States, seismic hazard is calculated for 22 periods (from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform VS30 maps (ranging from 1500 to 150 m/s). We also include a description of updated computer codes and modeling details. Results show increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the CEUS (up to ~30%), as well as near the four urban areas overlying deep sedimentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard estimates, more people live or work in areas of high or moderate seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from forecasted future ground shaking.

show abstract

“…For example, attempts to explain the hypothesized "shallow slip deficit," an apparent discrepancy between fault slip in the shallow (0-3 km) and deeper (>~3 km) crust 3,4 , have appealed to both improved data coverage 5,6 and better quantified uncertainty in the constitutive properties of the shallow crust [6][7][8] . Importantly, our lack of knowledge regarding shallow fault behavior impedes our ability to forecast seismic hazard, with significant financial and public safety consequences 9 . For instance, the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 10 and U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps 11 , which inform insurance rates and emergency plans, depend on measurements of fault slip at Earth's surface that do not consider possible subsurface variations 2,12 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanics of near-field deformation during co- and post-seismic shallow fault slip

Nevitt

Brooks

Catchings

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poor knowledge of how faults slip and distribute deformation in the shallow crust hinders efforts to mitigate hazards where faults increasingly intersect with the expanding global population at Earth's surface. Here we analyze two study sites along the 2014 M 6.0 South Napa, California, earthquake rupture, each dominated by either co-or post-seismic shallow fault slip. We combine mobile laser scanning (MLS), active-source seismic tomography, and finite element modeling to investigate how deformation rate and mechanical properties of the shallow crust affect fault behavior. Despite four orders-of-magnitude difference in the rupture velocities, MLS-derived shear strain fields are remarkably similar at the two sites and suggest deceleration of the co-seismic rupture near Earth's surface. Constrained by the MLS and seismic data, finite element models indicate shallow faulting is more sensitive to lithologic layering and plastic yielding than to the presence of fault compliant zones (i.e., regions surrounding faults with reduced stiffness). Although both elastic and elastoplastic models can reproduce the observed surface displacement fields within the uncertainty of MLS data, elastoplastic models likely provide the most reliable representations of subsurface fault behavior, as they produce geologically reasonable stress states and are consistent with field, geodetic, and seismological observations. strain within compliant zones 30,31 . Such deformation may arise from mechanisms of plastic yielding, for which evidence exists in paleoseismic trenches 32,33 . Although gravitational effects in layered media, including the acceleration of viscoelastic relaxation at long wavelengths and attenuation of the overall vertical displacement field, become important at length scales greater than several elastic plate thicknesses and/or over time periods much greater than the relaxation time, the effect on strains is negligible in the near-field and within a single earthquake cycle [34][35][36][37][38] .Relatively unstudied factors that may affect near-field deformation include layered elastic properties 39,40 and deformation rate (e.g., co-seismic versus post-seismic slip) 41,42 . Without greater confidence in how these proposed factors affect faulting near Earth's surface, we cannot reliably use the results of near-field geodetic analyses to infer shallow deformation, nor can we formulate models to predict fault slip and deformation in future events. Scientific RepoRtS |(2020) 10:5031 | https://doi.www.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ zone surrounding the fault. The corresponding surface deformation fields, however, do not obviously respond to these distinct elastic structures. In addition, the compliant zone width at Saintsbury (Fig. 2f) is nearly twice that of the observed shear zone (Fig. 2d), further indicating that the compliant zone does not strictly control the strain distribution. Our estimate of compliant zone width represents a minimum constraint 28 , since surveys covering the greater Napa ...

show abstract

Estimating Annualized Earthquake Losses for the Conterminous United States

Cited by 33 publications

References 13 publications

Development of a global seismic risk model

Development of a global seismic risk model

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

Mechanics of near-field deformation during co- and post-seismic shallow fault slip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About