Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Status Report on
Catastrophic Earthquake Response Planning
for the New Madrid Seismic Zone Region
Amr S. Elnashai
Bill and Elaine Hall Endowed Professor of Engineering
Director, MAE Center
Project Team
Amr Elnashai, Principle Investigator
Theresa Jefferson, Co-PI
Jack Harrald, Co-PI
Tim Gress, Project Manager
Lisa Cleveland, Technical Project Manager
Emergency Response
Public Awareness
Public Policy
Bottom-up format
Combines planning and exercise
Includes Operations and Planning personnel
Incorporates a number of site-specific scenarios
Suitable for rapid exercise application
Utilizes FEMA HAZUS-MH for modeling
Selected advanced models using MAEviz
Integrated Response
Identifies needs of all stakeholders
Elaborates the interdependence between private,
1.0
Site
Response
Attenuation
Mid-America Earthquake Center
Fragility
1.0
Liquefaction
10
11
Northeast Segment
Central Segment
Southwest Segment
Indiana
Missouri
Illinois
Kentucky
Tennessee
Legend
Arkansas
No ne
Very Lo w
Mississippi
Al abama
Low
Mod era te
Hi gh
Very Hi gh
12
Updated
Inventory
Essential Facilities
Hospitals
Schools
Fire Stations
Police Stations
Emergency Operation Centers
1,074
18,455
5,032
3,982
353
1,262
19,785
10,212
4,378
308
Transportation Facilities
Highway Bridges
Highway Tunnels
Railway Bridges
Railway Facilities
Railway Tunnel
Bus Facilities
Port Facilities
Ferry Facilities
Airports
Light Rail Facilities
Light Rail Bridges
104,048
11
1,663
990
2
310
1,738
6
2,435
0
38
112,311
11
1,868
1,000
67
394
1,931
50
3,556
456
38
Utility Facilities
Communication Facilities
Electric Power Facilities
Natural Gas Facilities
Oil Facilities
Potable Water Facilities
Waste Water Facilities
3,160
554
464
138
918
4,518
135,053
8,720
3,116
1,000
9,330
26,074
15,098
20,153
0
15
17,238
27,485
0
15
Infrastructure Category
Specific improvements
Communication: +133,000
Waste Water: +21,500
Potable Water: +8,400
Highway Bridges: +8,300
Hazmat: +7,300
Fire Stations: +5,200
13
14
Displaced Casualties
Population
Total Direct
Economic Loss
Alabama *
6,000
1,600
200
$1 billion
Arkansas
110,000
1,000
125,000
14,000
$20 billion
Illinois
30,000
500
50,000
6,000
$35 billion
Indiana **
16,000
27,000
3,000
$7 billion
Alabama
Arkansas
Illinois
Indiana
15
No. Damaged
Buildings
No. Damaged
Bridges
Kentucky
80,000
200
78,000
10,000
$45 billion
Mississippi
45,000
75
20,000
4,000
$10 billion
Missouri
85,000
1,300
122,000
15,000
$40 billion
Tennessee
175,000
1000
260,000
60,000
$60 billion
Kentucky
Mississippi
Displaced Casualties
Population
Missouri
Total Direct
Economic Loss
Tennessee
16
simultaneously
Designed to reflect historic series of earthquakes within the
constraints of HAZUS modeling
workshop in Chicago
Work completed by CUSEC State Geologists and lead by
CUSEC Geologist Bob Bauer (ISGS)
17
from ex-USGS
researcher Chris
Cramer (now at UM)
Utilize new soil
characterization maps
Utilizes new
liquefaction
susceptibility maps
18
Essential facilities
Transportation lifelines
Utility lifelines
High potential-loss facilities
National Bridge
Inventory 2008
National elevation data
from USGS and FEMA
New inventory
categories
19
New Building
Fragilities
HAZUS-Compatible
Timber Structures
Masonry Structures
Parameterized Fragilities
New Bridge
Fragilities
Bridge types common to
CEUS
Component fragilities
used to build system
fragility using advanced
analysis
Mid-America Earthquake Center
20
fragility relationship
Classify infrastructure
as likely or unlikely to
incur damage
Values based on review
of literature and basic
analytical simulation
Long-span bridges,
dams, levees and
hazmat facilities
21
Transportation Network
Modeling
22
Uncertainty
Characterization (now)
Quantify uncertainty in
Optimization of
Temporary Housing
Minimize social disruption,
23
Critical Counties
Assessment
of Impact
Short Term
Building Stock
Emergency Shelter,
Temporary Housing
Housing
Relocation,
Displacement
At Risk Populations
Prison Populations
Shelter Gap Analysis
Pet Sheltering
Infrastructure
Systems
Transportation
Systems
Critical
Facilities
Social Vulnerability
Physical
Damage
Casualties, Fatalities,
Health Care Disruption
Emergency Supplies,
Family Separation
Economic
Loss
Health
Social
Disruption
Fiscal Impacts,
Business Failure,
Job Loss,
Reconstruction
Psychological
Distress,
Chronic Injury
Family Stress,
Neighborhood
Disruption
24
10 scenarios
Best available hazard at the time
Partial soil amplification map
Extensive improvements to inventory
Existing fragilities
Some new social impact models
25
26
27
28
29
Radio Interviews
Congressional briefing in
summer 2007
Telephone conversations
with Secretary of Chairman
of the Science and
Technology Committee