Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This investigation was undertaken to assess the sensitivity of the Hazus-MH (v2.0) earthquake model to model parameters and to guide the selection of these parameters for realistic earthquake-loss assessment in the central USA. To accomplish these goals, we performed several sensitivity analyses and a validation assessment using earthquake damage surveys from the 2008 M5.2 Mt. Carmel, Illinois earthquake. We evaluated the sensitivity of the Hazus-MH earthquake model to the selection of seismic hazard data, attenuation function, soils data, liquefaction data, and structural fragility curves. These sensitivity analyses revealed that earthquake damage, loss, and casualty estimates are most sensitive to the seismic hazard data and selection of the attenuation function. The selection of the seismic hazard data and attenuation function varied earthquake damages and capital-stock losses by ±68 % and casualty estimates by ±84 %. The validation assessment revealed that Hazus-MH overpredicted observed damages by 68–221 % depending on the model parameters employed. The model run using region-specific soils, liquefaction, and structure fragility curves produced the most realistic damage estimate (within 68 % of actual damages). Damage estimates using default Hazus-MH parameters were overpredicted by 155 %. The uncertainties identified here are similar to uncertainties recognized in other Hazus-MH validation assessments. Despite uncertainties in Hazus-MH earthquake-loss estimates, such estimates are still useful for planning and response so long as the limitations of the results are properly conveyed to planners, decision makers, emergency responders, and the public.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) Ground-motion relations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(1):17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer RA, Su WJ (2007a) Soil site class map for the comprehensive seismic loss modeling of the state of Illinois. Illinois State Geologic Survey, 12 pp

  • Bauer RA, Su WJ (2007b) Liquefaction susceptibility map for the comprehensive seismic loss modeling of the state of Illinois. Illinois State Geologic Survey, 5 pp

  • Bauer AB, Kiefer J, Hester N (2001) Soil amplification maps for estimating earthquake ground motions in the central U.S. Eng Geol 62:7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buechler J (2010) Indiana and Illinois inventory update strategies. Hazus-MH Hot Zone, Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4157. Accessed 3 Jan 2012

  • Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion relations in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1012–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) Association of State Geologists (2008) CUSEC state geologists’ procedures for New Madrid catastrophic planning Phase II 8-state soils site class, liquefaction susceptibility, and spoil response maps. CUSEC, Memphis

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn AW, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection. Wiley, West Sussex, p 420

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] (2011) Hazus-MH—MH 2.0 earthquake model technical manual. FEMA, Mitigation Division, Washington, DC, Unites States. Accessed 8 July 2011

  • Field EH, Seligson HA, Gupta N, Gupta V, Jordan TH, Campbell KW (2005) Loss estimates for a Puente Hills blind-thrust earthquake in Los Angeles, California. Earthq Spectra 21(2):329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel AD, Petersen MD, Muller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Leyendecker EV, Wesson RL, Harmsen, SC, Cramer CH, Perkins DM, Rukstales KS (2002) Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps U.S. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report: 02-420. http://pubs.usg.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-420/OFR-02-420.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2011

  • Frankel A, Mueller C, Barnhard T, Perkins D, Leyendecker EV, Dickman N, Hanson S, Hopper M (1996) National seismic hazard maps, June 1996, Documentation: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report 96-532, 100 pp

  • Gencturk B, Elnashai AS, Song J (2007) Fragility relations for populations of building based on inelastic response. Mid-America Earthquake Center, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Gencturk B, Elnashai AS, Song J (2008) Fragility relationship for populations of wood frame structures based on inelastic response. J Earthq Eng 12(S2):11–128. doi:10.1080/13632460802013818

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough SE, Bilham R, Muller K, Stephenson W, Williams R, Odum J (2005) Wagon loads of sand blows in White County, Illinois. Seismol Res Lett 76(3):373–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaka SI, Atkinson GM (2005) Empirical ground-motion relations for ShakeMap applications in southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 76(2):274–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher CA, Seligson HA, Bouabid J, Morrow GC (2006a) When the big one strikes again-estimated losses due to a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Earthq Spectra 22:S297–S339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT (2006b) Hazus-MH earthquake-loss estimation methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):45–59. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) (2009) New Madrid seismic zone catastrophic earthquake response planning project, Impacts of the New Madrid Seismic Zone Earthquake on the Central USA, 193 pp

  • Munson PJ, Obermeier SF, Munson CA, Hajic ER (1997) Liquefaction evidence for Holocene and latest pleistocene seismicity in the Southern Halves of Indiana and Illinois: preliminary overview. Seismol Res Lett 3(4):521–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Building Science (2001) Hazus99-SR1 validation study. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC, United States

  • Olson SM, Green RA, Obermeier SF (2005) Revised magnitude-bound relations for the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone of the Central Unites States. Seismol Res Lett 68(4):611–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler, RL, Wesson, RL, Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH, Wills, CJ, Rukstales KS (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report 2008-1128, 61 pp

  • Ploeger SK, Atkinson GM, Samson C (2010) Applying the Hazus-MH software tool to assess seismic risk in downtown Ottawa, Canada. Nat Hazards 53:1–20. doi:10.1007/s11069-009-9408-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pond EC, Martin JR (1997) Estimating magnitudes and accelerations associated with prehistoric earthquakes in the Wabash valley region of the central Unites States. Seismol Res Lett 68(4):611–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price JG, Hastings JT, Goar LD, Armeno LD, Johnson G, Depolo CM, Hess RH (2010) Sensitivity analysis of loss estimation modeling using uncertainties in earthquake parameters. Environ Eng Geosci 16:357–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers JD, Karadeniz D (2010) Overview of the seismic threat in the central United States. In: Fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, CA, pp 1–15

  • Somerville P, Collins N, Abrahamson N, Graves R, Saikia C (2001) Ground motion attenuation relations for the Central and eastern United States, final report, June 30, 2001: report to U.S. Geological Survey for award 99HQGR0098. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/99HQGR0098.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2011

  • Street RL, Bauer RA, Woolerly (2004) Short note: magnitude scaling of prehistoric earthquakes in the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone of the central Unites States. Seimol Res Lett 75(5):637–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toro GR, Abrahamson NA, Schneider JF (1997) Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in the central and eastern North America: best estimates and uncertainties. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2011) American fact finder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html Accessed 20 May 2011

  • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2012) ShakeMap archive. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/ Accessed 29 Mar 2012

  • U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 2006. ShakeMap manual: technical manual, user’s guide and software guide. http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2005/12A01/pdf/508TM12-A1.pdf Accessed 12 Dec 2011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environmental Resources, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA

    Jonathan W. F. Remo

  2. Department of Geology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA

    Nicholas Pinter

Authors
  1. Jonathan W. F. Remo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Pinter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan W. F. Remo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Remo, J.W.F., Pinter, N. Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA. Nat Hazards 63, 1055–1081 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0206-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0206-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation