Click for next page ( 86


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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

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

OCR for page 85
Working Paper A Types and Examples of Loss Estimation Studies Potential users of loss estunates have different objectives, and a loss estimate study can only be called successful when it meets the purposes for which it is intended. Loss estunate studies can be categorized according to: type of losses estimated, kinds of facilities encompassed, certainty and detail, time span, and geographic scope. These considerations can be combined in a variety of ways in a particular study, and it would be impossible to discuss all of them. The categorization scheme depicted in Figure A-1 is only one way of structuring this subject matter. Other ways of categorizing and ana- lyzing earthquake loss estimation methods may be found in reviews of the field conducted from the 1930s to the present by Freeman (1932), McClure (1973), Boissonade and Shah (1982), Steinbrugge (1982, 1986), Reitherman (1985), Scawthorn (1986), and Whitman (1986~. Table A-1 divides earthquake loss estimation methods into five basic types, which can be characterized in terms of the combination of aspects presented in Figure A-1. Type I: General Type IT: Hazard Reduction Type IlI: Emergency Planning Type IV: Financial Risk ~ Type V: Economic Impact The methods presented in Figure A-1 all have a low degree of 85

OCR for page 85
86 TYPE OF LOSS Monetary cost of damage Casualties Homeless Functionality of essential facilities Safety problems of potentially high hazard facilities Economic impact National security KINDS OF FACILITIES Selected facilities (e.g., occupancy, ownership, construction) Essential facilities Lifeli nes Large potential for loss All buildings or structures CERTAINTY DETAI L high low high low TIME SPAN Hypothesized (scenario) Cumulative set of Predicted Actual earthquake earthquakes to earthquake earthquake occur in time span , ~ , G EGG RAPH IC SCALE Local Regional/state National FIGURE A-1 Aspects of earthquake loss estimation studies. certainty, which reflects the inherent uncertainty in the field of earth- quake loss estimation and is not necessarily indicative of method- ological errors or weaknesses in any particular method. In many engineering applications, the term accurate connotes a method that can reliably produce estimates that do not deviate much, say no more than perhaps 10 percent, from the actual results. Earthquake loss estimation methods that ace reliably of such accuracy (even in the case of facility-specific studies with high levels of effort) do not exist. Earthquake loss estimates that might prove to be in error by a factor of 3* are often considered accurate in this field. The word certainty is used here to describe the degree of confidence in a Toss estimate; an estimate with low certainty will have a large range of uncertainty *See footnote 2 in Chapter 4.

OCR for page 85
87 TABLE A-1 Purposes, Users, and Examples of Types of Lose Estimation Studies Type of Study Purpose Users Examples I: General Identify the general scope General public J. H. Wiggins of the earthquake problem as well as Company and to establish a basis for all other Engineering planning, prioritizing, users listed Geologists, and funding earthquake below Inc.1979; risk reduction efforts Algermissen et al., 1972 II: Hazard Guide hazard reduction Legislative, Alfors et al., reduction actions to reduce regulatory 1973; Ward, physical damage bodies; 1986; Office government of State officials Architect, and staffs; 1982; Los utilities and Angeles City corporations Planning Department, 1980 III: Emergency Facilitate more efficient Emergency Algerminsen planning emergency response response et al., 1972; agencies; D avis et al., utilities 1982a,b and corporations IV: Financial Rate earthquake risks of Insurance, Freeman, 1932; individual properties or mortgage California collective risk of lending, and Department of portfolios investment Insurance, industries 1985; Working Group Earth- quake Hazard Reduction, 1978 V: Economic Estimate economic losses National Applied impact (including indirect, security Technology long-term economic agencies and Council, 1985 impacts) national or regional planners about the best estimate, and conversely one with high certainty will have a small range of uncertainty. Specific examples of loss studies follow. TYPE I: GENERAL An example of this broadest type of loss study is the research

OCR for page 85
88 funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) that produced property loss estimates for earthquakes as well as floods, expansive soil, landslides, hurricanes, and tornadoes Hi. H. Wiggins Company and Engineering Geology Consultants, Inc., 1979) for cumulative property losses during the years 1970 to 2000. Life loss was also estimated to some degree as well as the reduction in losses that could be expected by application of hazard reduction actions. The scope of such a study is very broad both geographically and in terms of considering more than one hazard. Although the results are more aggregated and less certain than those from studies focus- ing on an individual region and only one hazard, such comprehensive estimates are needed. Comparisons among hazards, between the con- tinuation of policies or the initiation of certain preventive actions and between the losses that would likely occur In the near term versus the Tong term, can be useful decision-making tools, especially at the national policymaking level. This type of study also enables compar- isons between the relative degree of risk faced by different states in relation to fixed analytical benchmarks, in contrast to comparisons of Tosses resulting from scenario events that vary in likelihood from one study to another. General studies are necessary if the intended application, such as selecting among policy options and evaluating the effectiveness of loss reduction programs, requires statements that say, for exam- ple: "Unless significant new steps are taken, the costs of replacing or repairing buildings destroyed and damaged by the nine natural hazards studied, during a typical year, are likely to increase more than 85 percent in the Midyear period between 1970 and 2000" Hi. H. Wiggins Company and Engineering Geologists, Inc., 1979~. Figure A-2 illustrates the characteristics combined in Type national-scale Toss estunation study using the above-mentioned study as the example. The types of losses estunated by such a study may vary, but two basic components are direct monetary cost of damage and casualties. The time variable is defined In terms of the cumulative losses estimated to occur in a given time span, in this case 197(}2000. The scope in terms of the kinds of facilities extends to all buildings, and both certainty and detail are relatively low. This study could also qualify as a Type T! (hazard reduction) study, which illustrates the overlap between categories. Regional Type ~ studies have fulfilled a variety of purposes, perhaps their most frequent use being as an emergency planning resource. The first of the studies (AIgermissen et al., 1972) sponsored

OCR for page 85
89 TYPE OF LOSS Monetary cost of damage Casualties Homeless Functionality of essential facilities Safety problems of potentially high hazard facilities Economic impact National security KINDS OF FACILITIES Selected facilities (e.g., occupancy, ownership, construction) Essential facilities Lifelines Large potential for loss All buildings or structures CERTAINTY DETAIL high low high low TIME SPAN Hypothesized (scenario) earthquake Cumulative set of Predicted Actual earthquakes to earthquake earthquake occur in time span l GEOGRAPHIC SCALE Local Regional/state National FIGURE A-2 Aspects of a Type I, national-scale loss estimation study, using the example of J. H. Wiggins and Engineering Geology Consultants, Inc. (1979~. Key: = aspects that pertain to this type of study. by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a typical example of a Type ~ regional-scale study. This study of the San Francisco area projects a broad range of losses. Later NOAA and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies are quite similar in their broad scope. (~n the mid-1970s, earthquake loss estimation projects and staff were shifted from NOAA to USGS with no significant change in the type of studies undertaken nor the methods used.) Casualties were estimated by time of day, by county, and according to hazard sources, that is, casualties that would occur within hospitals, schools, or dwellings are differentiated from other injuries and fatalities. Outages of utility services, transportation routes, and other types of functional losses suffered by lifelines were estimated. Property lodes involved only single-family dwellings. An updating loss study (Steinbrugge et al., 1981) also estimated property

OCR for page 85
go losses for commercial and most other building types. Figure A-3 shows the table of contents from the first NOAA study in order to indicate its scope, which is sunilar to later NOAA-USGS studies. Type ~ studies are often the first type of study to be conducted in a region. They are essential tools of seismic safety advocacy. As public policy, earthquake hazard reduction, or emergency planning activities develop, other studies with narrower foci may be conducted to support more specialized risk reduction efforts. Type ~ study elements are often adapted for use in other kinds of studies, and in some cases a Type ~ study can serve some of the more specific purposes requiring Type Il. Ill, IV, or V studies (Figure Add. The regional-scale study ~ much finer in detail than a national study, but at the cost of a smaller geographic scope. This trade-off between covering a larger area at a shallower level versus a smaller area in-depth is an inescapable constraint on all earthquake loss estimation studies. Figure A-4 categorizes a Type ~ regional study as including all but the overall econorn~c Trip act and national security types of losses; it may include the entire range of kinds of facilities. Its Toss statements have usually been predicated upon scenario events, and the certainty and especially its detail are greater than in the case of national-scale studies. In most cases, it is unportant that the study area boundaries or subarea boundaries match political boundaries demarcating cities or counties. TYPE II: HAZARD REDUCTION Type IT studies primarily support hazard reduction efforts, and the primary user is government agencies which adopt building codes regulating new construction or retroactive ordinances pertaining to existing hazardous facilities, land-use plans, and other laws and poli- cies. Type ~ studies are often used for this purpose, but Type IT studies emphasize this hazard reduction purpose with more specific reference to the codes, ordinances, voluntary standards, or other concrete policy options under consideration, and limit their scope to the specific physical hazards, resources, or jurisdictions of interest. On a state scale, cumulative losses over future time spans have been estimated in studies of California (Alfors et al., 1973) and Utah (Ward, 1986~. These two studies fit the pattern shown in Figure A-5, with the scope of the California study extending to all buildings and the Utah study focusing on particular types of facilities, such as schools and hospitals. By using a multidecade time

OCR for page 85
91 Table of Contents PART A: ISOSEISMAL STUDIES. PART B: CASUALTIES AND DA\lAG E Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Bases for Analysi s Section 3: Effects on Local Medical Resources Major Hospitals Health Manpower. Medical Supplies . Bloodbanks Hospital Reserve Disaster Inventory (HRDI) Modules . Packaged Disaster Hospitals . Clinical Laboratories . . . . . . . . Ambulance Services . Nursing Homes Section 4: Demands on Medical Resources . Deaths and Inj uric s, Ex eluding Dam s Dams . . ~ Section 5: Effects on Immediate and Vital Public Needs Public Structures . Communications Transportation. Public Utilities. . Schools . . . . . . . . . c ~ . Mercantile, Industrial ~ and Warehousing . Homeless . ~ . . Fire Following Earthquake Selected Bibliography . . . 1 8 34 34 55 61 68 76 80 87 93 102 108 108 126 ~ 133 133 146 153 172 i88 194 200 208 215 FIGURE A-3 Table of contents of the first of the joint National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Geological Survey studies. Source: Algermissen et al. (1972~.

OCR for page 85
92 TYPE OF LOSS Monetary cost of damage Casualties Homeless Functionality of essential facilities Safety problems of potentially high hazard facilities Economic impact National security r '~ KINDS OF FACILITIES Selected facilities (e.g., occupancy, ownership, construction) Essential facilities Lifeli nes Large potential for loss All buildings or structures CERTAINTY DETAIL ~ high low high low TIME SPAN Hypothesized (scenario) Cumulative set of Predicted Actual earthquake earthquakes to earthquake earthquake occur in time span . . GEOGRAPHIC SCALE Local Regional/state National FIGURE A-4 Aspects of a Type I, regional-scale loss estimation study, using the example of Algermmsen et al. (1972~. Key: = aspects that pertain to this type of study. span and estimating cumulative losses, these studies provide a way for policymakers to develop long-term risk reduction strategies. The study of 229 hospitals having 1,077 buildings in six southern California counties (Office of State Architect, 1982) is a Type IT study of a large urban region within one state, with the scope limited to one kind of occupancy. Vuinerabilities were rated without regard to scenario or cumulative losses. On a broader geographic scale, limited also to one kind of facility, a survey of 800 major buildings on University of California campuses was conducted (McClure, 1984~. Losses in this case were estimated in terms of the relative risks faced by building occupants, assuming the buildings were subjected to the same strong level of shaking. These last two examples of studies indicate that for some hazard reduction purposes, relative

OCR for page 85
93 TYPE OF LOSS Monetary cost of damage Casualties Homeless Functionality of essential facilities Safety problems of potentially high hazard facilities Economic impact National security KINDS OF FACILITIES Selected facilities (e.g., occupancy, ownership, construction) Essential facilities Lifeli nes Large potential for loss All buildings or structures _ CERTAINTY DETAI L ~ high low high low TIME SPAN Hypothesized (scenario) earthquake Cumulative set of Predicted Actual earthquakes to earthquake earthquake occur in time span GEOGRAPHIC SCALE Local Regional/state National E`IGURE A-5 Aspects of a Type II, state-scale loss estimation study, using the examples of Alfors et al. (1973) and Ward (1986~. Key: = aspects that pertain to this type of study. risk ratings rather than estimated numbers of casualties In a given scenario earthquake may be the appropriate goal of the analysis. An example of a local-scale hazard reduction study is the en- vironmental impact report accompanying an ordinance that went into effect in Los Angeles in 1981 requiring the hazards of about 8,000 unreinforced masonry buildings to be reduced (Los Angeles City Planning Department, 19803. In this study, only one kind of structure was studied, only life losses were of concern, the time span was in terms of a future scenario earthquake, and the certainty and detail were higher than with typical Type ~ studies (Figure A-6. This Toss estimate study was calibrated with the earlier NOAA study of losses estimated for a broader area and without an explicit breakdown of casualties related to classes of construction (AIgermis- sen et al., 1973~. The 1980 L08 Angeles study provided the conclusion

OCR for page 85
94 TYPE OF LOSS Monetary cost of damage Casualties Homeless Functionality of essential facilities Safety problems of potentially high hazard facilities Economic impact National security Kl N DS OF FACI LITI ES Selected facilities (e.g., occupancy, ownership, construction) Essential facilities Lifeli nes Large potential for loss All buildings or structures CERTAINTY DETAIL ~ high low high low TIME SPAN Hypothesized (scenario) Cumulative set of Predicted Actual earthquake earthquakes to earthquake earthquake occur in time span _ . GEOGRAPHIC SCALE I Local Regional/state National FIGURE A-6 Aspects of a Type II, local-scale lose estimation study, using the example of Los Angeles City Planning Department (1980~. Key: ~ = aspects that pertain to this type of study. that in a great earthquake (the same scenario earthquake used in the 1973 NOAA study), the number of fatalities within the city would de- cTine from 8,500 to 1,500 if the retroactive standards for unreinforced brick buildings were implemented. TYPE m EMERGENCY PLANNING The NOAA-USGS study (Type I) also fits this category, but another example is the work done by the California Division of Mines and Geology to identify functional losses to lifelines in the urban areas of Los Angeles (California Division of Mines and Geology, in progress; Davis et al., 1982a) San Francisco (Davis et al., 1982b; Steinbrugge et al., in progress), and San Diego (ReichIe et al., in progress). The characteristics of this type of study, at the regional scale, are shown

OCR for page 85
95 TYPE OF LOSS Monetary cost of damage Casualties Homeless Functionality of essential facilities Safety problems of potentially high hazard facilities Economic impact National security KINDS OF FACILITIES Selected facilities (e.g., occupancy, ownership, construction) Essential facilities Lifelines Large potential for loss All buildings or structures CERTAINTY DETAIL high low high low Tl M E SPAN Hypothesized (scenario) Cumulative set of Predicted Actual earthquake earthquakes to earthquake earthquake occur in time span rim ~ GEOGRAPHIC SCALE Local Regional/state National FIGURE A-7 Aspects of a Type III, regional-scale loss estimation study, using the examples of Davis et al. (1982 a,b). Key: ~ = aspects that pertain to this type of study. in Figure A-7. When such a study is devoted to a smaller geographic area, the detail of the results increases, as shown by the finer scale of the maps used to portray the results. The fire department of Orange County, California has extended the detail of one type of emergency planning study concerning transportation routes to the level of the neighborhood surrounding each fire station, looking at each roadway route that leads from the station to the outside area and considering potential route blockages such as collapsing bridges or building debris (C. Nicola, Orange County, California, Fire Department, personal communication, 1986~. This might be called the "street map" scale of Type ITI studies.

OCR for page 85
223 knowledge of a region's interindustry relations would suggest that the secondary (or indirect) eEects stemming from the initial damage are likely to be substantial. It would be useful to link our estimates of damage to buildings and other facilities with their economic function. This information could assist recovery by helping to set priorities for reconstruction of essential services and perhaps to identify the location of industries that use toxic or other hazardous substances that could be released during the earthquake. The key question is, however, At what cost? Data to imple- ment the procedures do not exist, en c! if the inventory of facilities had to include data on economic function, the costs of this phase would increase substantially (by as much as 40 percent by one esti- mate). furthermore, even if there were reliable estimates of direct losses to structures by economic function, serious problems remain in trying to relate direct losses to changes in final demand and other interindustry relationships. These difficulties can only be resolved through additional research. Regardless of how rapidly some of the research problems are resolved, it is unlikely that comprehensive economic analysis will be viewed in the near future as an integral part of what has been called Type ~ studies (general purpose, large scale) in Working Pa- per A. This does not mean that the procedures used in future loss estunation studies should be insensitive to the data requirements of more complete economic analysis of the consequences of catastrophic earthquakes. At a minimum, researchers should collect inventory information that relates construction class to economic and social function or undertake specific research to establish any systematic relationships that Knight exist. Furthermore, to be useful for hazard reduction, emergency plan- ning, and recovery planning efforts, the level of detail in terms of econorn~c and social function does not need to be fine enough to differentiate all 470 sectors. A reasonable objective would be to look initially at the 25 to 30 major economic classifications defined by the SIC, with the expectation that there might be a Landfill of impor- tant individual industries in any region that could be exaTruned in greater detail. These would depend on the location being studied and the purpose of the study. Major defense contractor plants and military bases could be studied in greater detail if the purpose is defense-related, as In the case of ATC-13.

OCR for page 85
References Alexander, R. H. 1987. Recent developments in digital map data bases and geographic information systems (GIS) as they may apply to earthquake loss estimation. Synopsis of presentation to the Earthquake Loss Estimation Panel, January 8, 1987, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Alfors, J. T., J. L. Burnett, and T. E. Gay, Jr. 1973. Urban Geology Master Plan For California: The Nature, Magnitude, and Costs of Geologic Hazards in California and Recommendations for Their Mitigation. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology. Algermissen, S. T., and K. V. Steinbrugge. 1984. Seismic hazard and risk assessment: Some case studier. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, vol. 9, no. 30, January 1984. Algermissen, S. T., M. Hopper, K. Campbell, W. A. Rinehart, D. Perkins, K. V. Steinbrugge, H. J. Lagorio, D. F. Moran, L. S. Cluff, H. J. Degenkolb, C. M. Duke, G. O. Gates, N. N. Jacobson, R. A. Olson, and C. R. Allen. 1973. A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Los Angeles California Area. Washington, D.C.: Federal Disaster Assistance Administration. Algermissen, S. T., W. A. Rinehart, J. Dewey, K. V. Steinbrugge, H. J. Degenkolb, L. S. CluE, F. E. McClure, and R. F. Gordon. 1972. A Study of Earthquake Losses in the San Francisco Bay Area: Data and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency Preparedness, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Allen and Hoshall, Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc., and Systan, Inc. 1985. An Assessment of Damage and Casualties for Six Cities in the Central United States Resulting from Earthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 224

OCR for page 85
225 American Society for Photgrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS). 1987. GIS 1987, San Francisco, California: Second International Annual Confer- ence, Exhibits and Workshops on Geographic Information Systems. Two Volumes. Falls Church, Va.: ASPRS. Anderson, L. R., J. R. Keaton, J. E. Spitzley, and A. C. Allen. 1986. Liquefaction Potential Map for Salt Lake County, Utah. Final report to the U.S. Geological Survey by Utah State University, Logan. Contract No. 14-08- 0001-19910. Applied Technology Council (ATC). 1985. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California (ATC-13~. Redwood City, Calif.: ATC. Arnold, C. 1985. Damage estimates as a basis for urban earthquake disaster policy and planning. In Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Workshop on Urban Earthquake Hazards Reduction. E1 Cerrito, Calif.: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). Arnold, C., and R. K. Eisner. 1984. Planning Information for Earthquake Hazard Response and Reduction. San Mateo, Calif.: Building Systems Development, Inc. Bills, N. L., and A. Barr. 1968. An input-output analysis of the Upper South Branch Valley of West Virginia. West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 568T (June). Boissonade, A., and H. Shah. 1982. Earthquake Damage and Loss Estima- tion: Review of Available Methods. Stanford University, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. Boisvert, R. N., and N. L. Bills. 1976. Non-Survey Technique for Regional I-O Models. A.E. Res. 76-19. Ithaca, N.Y.: Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University. Brabb, E. 1985. Analyzing and Portraying Geologic, Cartographic and Hydro- logic Information for Land Use Planning and Decisionmaking. Menlo Park, Calif.: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Building Seismic Safety Council. 1987. Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Life- lines: Proceedings of a Workshop on Development of an Action Plan. Washington, D.C.: Building Seismic Safety Council. California Department of Insurance. 1985. California Earthquake Zoning and Probable Maximum Loss Evaluation Program. Sacramento: California Department of Insurance. California Division of Mines and Geology. In progress. A Study of the Impact of a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone in the Los Angeles Area. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology. Chelapati, C. V., S. K. Takahashi, and T. K. Lew. 1978. Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, North Island Naval Air Station. San Diego, Calif.: Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Cities of E1 Cerrito, Richmond, and San Pablo. 1973. Tri-Cities Seismic Safety and Environmental Resources Study. E1 Cerrito, Calif.: City of E1 Cerrito. City of Long Beach. 1977. Subdivision 80 of the Long Beach Municipal Code: Earthquake Hazard Regulations for Rehabilitation of Existing Structures Within the City. Long Beach, Calif.: City of Long Beach. Cochrane, H. 1984. Book review of A. Sorkin, Economic Aspects of Natural Hazards, 1982. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66:114. Cooper, J. D., ed. 1984. Proceedings of a Symposium on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: Performance, Design, and Construction. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

OCR for page 85
226 Culver, C. G., H. S. Lew, G. C. Hart, and C. W. Pinkham. 1975. Natural Hazards Evaluation of Existing Buildings. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards. Davis, J. F., J. H. Bennett, G. A. Borchardt, J. E. Kahle, S. J. Rice, and M. A. Silva. 1982a. Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California. Special Publication 60. Sacremento: California Division of Mines and Geology. Davis, J. F., J. H. Bennett, G. A. Borcherdt, J. E. Kahle, S. J. Rice, and M. A. Silva. 1982b. Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in the San E`rancisco Bay Area. Special Publication 61. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology. Degenkolb, H. J. 1984. Summary Report of Structural Hazards and Damage Patterns: Pre-Earthquake Planning For Post-Earthquake Rebuilding. San Francisco, Calif.: H. J. Degenkolb Associates. Degenkolb, H. J. 1986. Notes prepared for the Panel on Earthquake Loss Estimation, May 28-29, 1986. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Duke, C. M., and D. F. Moran. 1972. Earthquakes and city lifelines. San Fernando Earthquake of February 9, 1971 and Public Policy. Sacramento: Joint Committee on Seismic Safety for the California Legislature. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). 1977. Learning from Earth- quakes: Planning and Field Guides. Appendix III-A. Berkeley, Calif.: EERI. EERI. 1984. Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engi- neering. E1 Cerrito, Calif.: EERI. Eguchi, R. T. 1984. Seismic risk and decision analysis of lifeline systems. In J. D. Cooper, ea., Proceedings of a Symposium on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: Performance, Design, and Construction. New York: ASCE. EQE, Inc. 1985. An Earthquake Loss-Prediction Methodology for High-Technol- ogy Industries. San Francisco, Calif.: EQE, Inc. Evans, D., and C. Arnold. 1986. Earthquake recovery: A triage approach to the physical reconstruction of housing. Proceedings of the Third U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. E1 Cerrito, Calif.: EERI. Evernden, J. F., end M. Thomson. 1985. Predicting seismicintensities. J. I. Ziony, ea., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region An Earth-Science Perspective. USGS Professional Paper 1360. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Executive Office of the President. 1972. Standard Industrial Classification Man- ual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1985a. National Multihazard Survey Instructions (TR-84~. Washington, D.C.: FEMA. FEhLA. 1985b. Data Base Catalog. Washington, D.C.: FEMA. Finefrock, J. A. 1980. Quake-prone buildings and city inaction. San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, February 3. Freeman, J. R. 1932. Earthquake Damage and Earthquake Insurance: Studies of A Rational Basis for Earthquake Insurance. Also, Studie~ of Engineering Data For Earthquake-Resisting Construction. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gauchat, U. P., and D. L. Schodek. 1984. Patterns of Housing Type and Density: A Basis for Analyzing Earthquake Resistance. Department of Architecture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

OCR for page 85
227 Gulliver, R. 1986. Estimation of Homeless Caseload for Disaster Assistance Due to an Earthquake. Washington, D.C.: FEMA. Haney, T. In progress. Regional Emergency Response and Recovery Management System. Los Angeles, Calif.: Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project. Hopper, M. G., C. J. Langer, W. J. Spence, A. M. Rogers, S. T. Algermissen, B. C. Olson, H. J. Lagorio, and K. V. Steinbrugge. 1975. A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Puget Sound, Washington, Area. Open-File Report 75-375. Washington, D.C.: USGS. Hwang, H., and W. Maki. 1979. Users' Guide to the Minnesota Two-Region Input-Output Computer Model. REIFS Report No. 9. Minneapolis: De- partment of Agricultural and Applied Economics and Agricultural Exper- iment Station, University of Minnesota. Insurance Services Office (ISO). 1977. Commercial Earthquake Insurance Man- ual. San Franci~co, Calif.: ISO. ISO. 1983. Guide For Determination of Earthquake Classifications. New York: ISO. Ishihara, K. 1985. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A. A. Balkema Publishers. Jones, B., D. M. Manson, C. M. Hotchkiss, M. J. Savonis, and K. A. Johnson. 1986. Estimating building stocks and their characteristics. Paper presented at the Materials Distribution Workshop, September 8-11, 1986, Hanover, New Hampshire, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Keefer, D. K. 1984. Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geological Society of America Bulletin 95:406 421. Kircher, C. A., and M. W. McCann. 1983. Development of fragility curves for estimation of earthquake-induced damage. Proceedings of Conference XXIII: A Workshop on Continuing Actions to Reduce Potential Losses from Future Earthquakes in Arkansas and Nearby States. Open-File Report 81- 437. Washington, D.C.: USGS. Kircher, C. A., and M. W. McCann. 1984. Appendix A: Development of Seismic Fragility Curves for Sixteen Types of Structures Common to Cities of the Mississippi Valley Region. Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, written as part of the study by Allen and Hoshall (1985~. Mountain View, Calif.: Jack Benjamin and Associates. Kustu, O., D. M. Miller, and S. T. Brokken. 1982. Development of Dam- age Functions for High Rise Building Components. San Francisco, Calif.: URS/Blume and Associates. Lee and Eguchi. 1977. Cited by Gulliver (1986~. Legg, M., J. Sloan, and R. Eguchi. 1982. Seismic hazards for lifeline vul- nerability analyses. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Microzonation, Seattle, Washington. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. Leontief, W. 1951. The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1939. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Liao, S., D. Veneziano, and R. V. Whitman. 1988. Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability. ASCE Journal of Gcotcchnical Engineering 114~4~:389-411.

OCR for page 85
228 Lofting, E., and C. Davis. 1973. A Multisector Model of Pacific an* Mountain Interstate Trade Flows. Ft. Belvoir, Va.: Institute of Water Resources, UeS. Army Corps of Engineers. Los Angeles City Planning Department. 1980. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings Constructed Before 1934 in the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles, Calif.: City Planning Department. Malik, L. E. 1986. Use of ATC-13 damage probability matrices for a seismic risk analysis of the Boston metropolitan area. Presented to the Panel on Earthquake Loss Estimation, National Research Council, San Francisco, California, September 22-24, 1986. Martel, R. R. 1964. Earthquake damage to Type III buildings in Long Beach, 1933. Earthquake Investigations in the Western United States, 1931-1964. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Marx, R. W. 1986. The Tiger System Automating the Geographic Structure of the United States Census. Government Publications Review, Vol. 13, pp. 181-201. McClure, F. E. 1967. Studies in Gathering Earthquake Damage Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast and Geodetic Surrey. McClure, F. E. 1973. Surrey and Evaluation of Existing Buildings. Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards. McClure, F. E. 1984. Development and implementation of the University of California Seismic Safety Policy. Pp. 850865 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2. E1 Cerrito, Calif.: EERI. McClure, F. E., H. J. Degenkolb, K. V. Steinbrugge, and R. A. Olson. 1979. Evaluating the Seismic Hazard of State Owned Buildings. Sacramento: California Seismic Safety Commission. McDonough, P. W., and C. E. Taylor. 1986. Assessing seismic response of Utah gas systems. Earthquake Spectra 2~4~. McGuire, R. K. 1987. Seismic hazard analysis methodology. Presented at the course on Recent Advances in Earthquake Resistant Design, University of California at Berkeley, July 2~24, 1987. Murphy, J. R., and L. J. O'Brien. 1977. The correlation of peak ground ac- celeration amplitude with seismic intensity and other physical parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 67:877-915. Mushkatel, A. H., and J. M. Nigg. 1987. Eject of Objective Risk on Key Actor Support for Seismic Mitigation Policy. Environmental Management 11~1~. National Research Council. 1986. Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. 1987. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Newmark, N. M. 1965. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Gcotcchraq~c 15~2~:139-160. Nilsen, T., and R. H. Wright. 1979. Relative Slope Stability and Land-Use Planning: Selected Examples from San Franciso Bay Region, California. Professional paper 944. Washington, D.C.: USGS. Office of Emergency Services. 1979. Data on building damage. Unpublished, cited by Gulliver (1986~.

OCR for page 85
229 Office of Emergency Services. 1986. Critical Facilities by Counties. Sacramento, Calif.: Office of Emergency Services. Office of State Architect. 1982. Earthquake Survivability Potential for General Acute G are Hospitals in the Southern California Uplift Area. Sacramento, Calif.: Office of State Architect. Perkins, J., A. Moreland, S. Hoolkins, H. J. Lagorio, M. Bouhafs, C. Carroll, H. J. Degenkolb, and P. M. Wilson. 1986. Building Stock and Earthquake Losses: The San Francisco Bay Area Example. San Francisco, Calif.: Association of Bay Area Governments. Reichle, M. S., J. F. Davis, J. E. Kahle, T. G. Atkinson, E. H. Johnson, R. A. Olson, H. J. Lagorio, K. V. Steinbrugge, and L. S. Cluff. In progress. Scenario or a magnitude 6.8 earthquake on the Silver Strand Fault, San Diego-Tijuana area. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology. Reitherman, R., G. Cusner, G. Smith, and T. Zsutty. 1984. Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Coalinga, California, Earthquake of May 2, 1983. E1 Cerrito, Calif.: EERI. Reitherman, R. 1985. A Review of Earthquake Damage Estimation Methods. Spectra 1~4~:(August). Richter, C. F. 1958. Elementary Seismology. San Francisco, Calif.: W. H. Freeman Co. Rinehart, W., S. T. Algermissen, and M. Gibbons. 1976. Estimation of Earth- quake Losses to Single Family Dwellings. Open-File Report 76-156. Wash- ington, D.C.: USGS. Rogers, A. M., S. T. Algermissen, W. W. Hays, D. M. Perkins, D. O. Van Strein, H. C. Hughes, R. C. Hughes, H. J. Lagorio, and K. V. Steinbrugge. 1976. A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Salt Lake City, Utah Area. Open-File Report 76-89. Washington, D.C.: USGS. Scawthorn, C., and W. E. Gates. 1983. Estimation of Earthquake Losses in Los Angeles. San Francisco, Calif.: Dames and Moore. Scawthorn, C., ed. 1986. Techniques for Rapid Assessment of Seismic Vulnera- bility. New York: ASCE. Schulz, P. 1983. California Division of Mines and Geology, Environmental Sys- tems Research Institute, MESA-2, San Bernardino County, Southern Cal- ifornia Association of Governments, TEMJAM Corporation, Pilot Project for Earthquake Hazard Assessment. Los Angeles: Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project. Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1982. Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Monograph series. Berkeley, Calif.: EERI. Seed, H. B., K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder, and R. M. Chung. 1984. The Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Stance Evaluations. Report no. UBC/EERC-84/15. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. Sharpe, R., S. Freeman, and B. Safavi. 1982. An Investigation of the Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Performance. Redwood City, Calif.: ATC. Shaw, H. C., and J. R. Benjamin. 1977. Lifeline seismic criteria and risk: A state of the art report. Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: The Current State of Knowledge. New York: ASCE. Smith, D. J. 1981. Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: The Current State of Knowledge. New York: ASCE.

OCR for page 85
230 Sorkin, A. 1982. Economic Aspects of Natural Hazards. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co. Spangle, W. 1984. Pre-earthquake planning for post-earthquake rebuilding in the City of Los Angeles. Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. El Cerrito, Calf.: EERI. Standard and Poor's Corporation. n.d. Natural Hazards Site/Structure Report- ing Form: Earthquake. New York: Standard and Poors. Steinbrugge, K. V., F. E. McClure, and A. J. Snow. 1969. Studies in Seismicity and Earthquake Damage Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Steinbrugge, K. V., W. K. Cloud, and N. H. Scott. 1970. The Santa Rosa, Cal- ifornia Earthquakes of October 1, 1969. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Sciences Services Administration, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Steinbrugge, K. V., S. T. Algermissen, H. J. Lagorio, L. S. Cluff, and H. J. Degenkolb. 1981. Metropolitan San Francisco and Los Angeles Earthquake Loss Studies: 1980 Assessment. Open-File Report 81-113. Washington, D.C.: USGS. Stembrugge, K. V. 1982. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tsunamis: An Anatomy of Hazards. New York: Skandia America Group. Steinbrugge, K. V. 1986. Earthquake lose estimation on a regional basis: Ob- servations on practices and problems. Seismic Hazard and Vulnerability. E1 Cerrito, Calif.: EERI. Steinbrugge, K. V., J. H. Bennett, H. J. Lagorio, J. F. Davis, G. Borchardt, and T. R. Toppozada. In progress. Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay area. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology. URS/Blume and Associates. 1974. San E`rancisco Seismic Safety Investigation. San Etrancisco, Calif.: San Francisco City Planning Department. Wailes, C. D., Jr., and A. C. Homer. 1933. Survey of earthquake damage at Long Beach, California. Files of City of Long Beach Department of Building and Safety, published in abbreviated form as Earthquake damage analyzed by Long Beach oHicials,~ Engineering News-Record, May 25, 1933. Ward, D. B. 1986. Earthquake loss estimation methodology uses in Utah. Pre- sentation to User Needs Workshop, Panel On Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, National Research Council, San Francisco, September 22-24, 1986. Whitman, R. V., J. W. Reed, and S. T. Hong. 1973. Earthquake damage prob- ability matrices. Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. El Cerrito, Calif.: EERI. Whitman, R. V., and others. 1974. Methodology and Pilot Application. Cam- bridge: Civil Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy. Whitman, R. V., and others. 1975. Analysis of Earthquake Risk for Lifeline Systems. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Whitman, R. V. 1986. Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. Berlin: Earth- quake Prognostics. Wieczorek, G. F., R. C. Wilson, and I:. L. Harp. 1985. Map Showing Slope Sta- bility During Earthquakes in San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1257-E. Washington, D.C.: USGS.

OCR for page 85
Wiggins, J. H., and D. F. Moran. 1971. Earthquake Safety in the City of Long Beach Based on the Concept of Balanced Risk. Redondo Beach, Calif.: J. H. Wiggins co. wigging, J. H., Company and Engineering Geology Consultants, Inc. 1979. Building Losses from Natural Hazards: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. Wilson, R. 1982. Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis for Economic Impact As- sessment. Washington, D.C.: Information Resources Management Office, FEMA. Wilson, R. 1987. Comments on the fourth meeting of the Panel on Earth- quake Loss Estimation, National Research Council, January 8-9, 1987, Washington, D.C. Wilson, R. C., and D. K. Keefer. 1983. Dynamic analysis of a slope failure from the 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake, California, Earthquake. Bulletin of the Scumological Society of America 73~3~:863-877. Wilson, R. C., and D. K. Keefer. 1985. Predicting areal limits of earthquake- induced landsliding. Pp. 317-34S in Evaluation of Earthquake Hazards in the Lies Angeles Region An Earth-Science Perspective, J. I. Ziony, ed. Professional Paper 1360. Washington, D.C.: USGS. Working Group on Earthquake Hazards Reduction. 1978. Earthquake Hazards Reduction: Issues for an Implementation Plan. Washington, D.C.: Office of Science and Technology Policy. Youd, T. L. 1980. Ground failure displacement and earthquake damage to buildings. Proceedings of the Conference on Civil Engineering and Nuclear Power. New York: ASCE. Youd, T. L., and D. M. Perkins. 1978. Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure potential. ASCE Journal of the Gcotcchr~cal Enginecring Division 104(GT4) :433-446. Youd, T. L., and D. M. Perkins. 1987. Mapping of Liquefaction Severity Index. ASCE Journal of Gcotcch~ca] Enginecnng 113~113:1374-1392. Youd, T. L., and J. B. Perkins. 1985. Map Showing Liquefaction Susceptibility of San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-257-G. Washington, D.C.: USGS. Youd, T. L., J. C. Tinsley, D. M. Perkins, E. J. King, and R. F. Preston. 1978. Liquefaction potential map of San Fernando Valley, California. Pp. 268-278 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Microzonation for Safety Construction Research and Applications, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. 231

OCR for page 85

OCR for page 85