Potential Impacts and Mitigation Strategies
Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Scenarios

Doug Bausch,
FEMA
July 2015

 

How does Hazus estimate losses?

Hurricane

Describe impact

Analyze impact

Determine what
is at risk

Characterize
hazard

Understand physical
environment

 

Nationwide Databases
Demographics Population, Employment, Housing

Building Stock Residential, Commercial,
Industrial

Essential Facilities Hospitals, Schools, Police
Stations, Fire Stations

Transportation Highways, Bridges, Railways,

Tunnels, Airports, Ports and Harbors, Ferry Facilities

Utilities Waste Water, Potable Water, Oil, Gas,
Electric Power, Communication Facilities

High Potential Loss Facilities Dams and
Levees, Nuclear Facilities, Hazardous Material Sites,
Military Installations

 

Hazus and Disaster Management

RM INVENTORY

?ma?a? COMPREHENSIVE 
RISK ASSESSMENT

MITIGATION RESPONSE AND AWARENESS AND
STRATEGIES RECOVERY PREPAREDNESS

. PERFORMANCE
MEASURES QUICK SITUATION PLANNING AND
ASSESSMENT EXERCISE SCENARIOS

. BUILDING CODE

ADMINISTRATION

GROUND TRUTHING
FUTURE LAND USE
PLANNING 

 

What is ShkeMap?

9



- Map based product of
US. Geological Survey
(USGS) Earthquake
Hazards Program and
regional seismic

 

network operators

- Provides near-real?
time maps of ground
motion following
significant earthquakes

 

ShakeMap Real Scenario
Real event: Events Scenario:

Created automatically Developed for hypothetical
using data from regional earthquakes using ground
seismic networks motion models and expert

judgme

 

.


 

Scenarios Utilizing Hazus-
ShakeMap Demonstration Projects

New England (Northeast US) 
2011

Reno/Carson City (Nevada) 
2011 2012

Washington State 2012

New Madrid (Central US) 
2011

California?Many

 

Estimated Building Inspection Needs -
Earthquake Scenario: Salt Lake City Segment, UT

we: I  1' rift   7.0 Salt
f? I . 
I   - 'f Estimated#of

Inspectors
Needed



Estim ated 
of Structures

(Complete Damage)

Yellow Tag
(Extensive Damage)

Green Tag
(Slight??uderate Damage)

*1 Dot 101] [by census tract]

Fault Source

Ir?lterstate



 

 



'6 The startling projections of a quake in Sat! Lake City: What you need to know Deseret News - Windows I   i

 

 

 

    
   
  
    

 

 

 

Epreparedness EXPIOM REJEI v?  I d, A I  deser? newg Shakeout  
 If? youtubexom I A   
Favorites TimeBtAttendance
?pmpar?dne?sncw'wmm  Eage' ?afety' TQols' i rm. Eagev Eafety" Tools?Ir 9' 
re are-one I .
You Tube :1 SS 0 pea - 

I Deseret News

FYEDGFEUHESS NOW

    ons of a quake in Salt Lake.

111'

255.0%





HM Font 1? Comments 14:39 
. Preparedness Ho'Internet Protected Mode: On

 

11 phat-33 .-

Bob Carey gives a tour of
the emergency bunker at
the Capitol in Salt Lake
City. Tuesday. April 
2015.

Chelsey Hider. Deseret New



 

4' I

 

Downloading picture Internetl Protected Mode: On 42.10095 7

Focus is Working Together

?The scenario product may not be as useful as the
process of bringing stakeholders together,
examining possible alternative futures, and
understanding interconnectedness of community
planning issues?

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)

 

DFW Hazus Scenario Summary

- Exposure is 8.5 million people, 3 million
buildings with $1 trillion in building value

1- Adjusted residential URMs from 11% to 5%
based on relatively younger DFW residential
buildings

Counts and values were updated in 2014-15

 

Napa injury from
collapsed fireplace

?7 Napa collapsed
 fireplace

 

 5.6 DFW Scenario Summary

There is a possibility for injuries, including fatalities

$11 .58 direct economic losses to buildings
Structural 
Non?Structural $6.08
Contents $4.48

80,000 buildings with at least slight damage, 700 with

more serious damage

Inspections will be required for bridges (287), levees,
dams and other critical infrastructure

No essential facilities are expected to be "moderately
greater" damaged.

 

Perceived Ground Shaking-
Earthquake Scenario: Dallaleort Worth 5.6

 

5.6 Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AZJO 17L 359d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

USGS ShakeMap
.
Perceived Shaking
Modified-Mercam
intensity 
La 
ff Iv (nght)
Mk -r I (Moderate)
VI (Strong)
VII (Very Strong:53

HUGS 
FEMA-MOTF 
Loss esiimation based on FEMA Hazus modeling
Ground motions provided by USGS ShakeMao
Esri. --ERE. Delnorme aep?gree?'?hpco?mnd .
the 'ser- om.- unlty/ Sourcea. Esri uses norm

 

 

 

   

 

 

Direct Economic Loss to Buildings-

 

Earthquake Scenario: Dallas/Fort Worth 5.6

 

5.6 Scenario

USGS ShakeMap

 

 

 

AZIO 9L 359d

 

 

 

. - @3103 Perceived Shaking 
Li? 'ille 
.21 -. - (Moderate)
c-r 11'. r! . . . Flori-t .
. VI (Strong)
VII (Very Strong)
1 Dot= I
- memo-
. Total Direct Economic Loss: $11.65
. Cost Cost Non- Total Loss
Structural Structural [Including
'CountyiI Damage Damage Contents}
. . Collin $9.052 $253540 34?9.?65
I .a I Dallas 54.383969 $9.561,420
- . Benton 526 $240. ?15? 3422.163
Tarrant $240011 $585946 $1,055.0d6
all others $1.005 $25,542 
1' Total $405,595 $6,011,454 $11,575,127?
All table 1.ialues are thousands of dollars
Milos 1L
FEMA-MOTF
. ross estimation based on FEMA Hazus modeling
a Ground motions provided by USES Shaker-darn

 

 



Hill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11m Esri HERE De LoT?r?i?eEJ OpenSti'eetit-Iap contributors. and Copyright it}: 201:1 Esn. 
the GIS user community" Sources Esri. USES. NORA

 

AZ l0 9L 359d

Estimated Building Inspector Needs-
Earthquake Scenario: Dallas/Fort Worth 5.6

 

 

 

Jilli-
Hair-i
lie-111': u'l Harm'-
'Da'll'r?r: 
L1 1 mg: .
F-I?ifll'
Hill

 

 

 

 

Eeri Sources Esrl J3EE. NORA F.er HEQFW

091 ?me- rr?13l7m'pm  Open?treetiulae commuter-5 and the GIS nee-r

 

5.6 Scenario
USGS ShakeMap

 

0 Red Tag {Complete Damage}

Yellow Tag [Extensive Damage)

Green Tag
{SlighUModerate Damage)

 

1 Dot 1 Building
933.29%" aTraeL 

 

Estimated it of Estimated of

 

 

 

 

 

Structures Inspectors Needed I
205 2

mm.? 1,512 20
{Extensive} . 

Green

{Slight} 33,549 55?
Modern]
Total 35.266 5:9

Estimated number of inspectors Headed
to complete Inspections in 3D days

 

 

-055 ESieriaElOI'l 13a sed on FEMA Hazus modeling

5.
C- 1'3- 3 4'2- 6 15- '9
AL
Miles

1

FEMA-MOTF

Ground motions provided by USGS ShakeMap

 

 

 

:3mmumlg

 

El

Copgr'ngluss' 2014 Earl
Sauces Esrr USGS. NCAA

 

 

AZ 40 LL 959d

Estimated Highway Bridge Inspection Needs-
Earthquake Scenario: Dallas/Fort Worth 5.6

 

5.6 Scenario
USGS ShakeMap

    

 

 

 

CD 0
Wm! 
?cP 9%  [wait 8 mm 0 0 Highway Bridge Inspections
0 
5? an 3% a c. ?-1960 on on ?3 I Needing inspection 

:95 200%? 0' 0 No Bridge Inspection
Perceived Shaking (MMIBead, 5, an 0 iv (Light(Moderate30:3 0e 0&6: 00% a 00 VI (Strong)
8 VII (Very Strong)

 

do 0 (f those with a 10% or greater chance
00 of exceeding slight damage.

 

 

0%met, Bridges requiring inspection are
0?09] Hagar I . a Qb c; o?J 
000%@5 a 00 [11334.5on
?an '3 c?:38 0 man out! 
a Miles
(593 FEMA-MDTF
a on '9 cbqacg a C9 0 .035 estimation based on FEMA Hazus modeling
0 0 a 0'3 Ground motions provided by USGS ShakeMap
201.4 Esri. Esri. Moog. Esri HEREW 
Dim 0 DEton?% vii Op?t?S?eewap contriE?utors, 531d the (3:5 user Copyrighti?g?l 2014 ESFISources. Esri. esos NOAA

 

 

 

 

 

 4.8 DFW Scenario Summary

There is small possibility for minor injuries.

$2.58 direct economic losses to buildings
Structural 
Non?Structural $1 .48
Contents $1 .08

2,600 buildings with slight damage, 170 with at

least moderate damage

Inspections will be required for bridges (48),
levees, dams and other critical infrastructure

No essential facilities are expected to be
'moderately or greater" damaged.

 

Perceived Ground Shaking-
Earthquake Scenario: Dallas/Fort Worth 4.8

 

 

AZ 40 6L 359d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.8 Scenario
USGS Shake-Map

 

Perceived Shaking
Modi?ed-Meme?:
intensity 

(Weak)
IV (Light)
i i (Moderate)

VI (Strong)

 

 

 

 

 




eton I ff
Mam 
_l

Emil}; Emirates-?]
[Em tn:? 


1-: 1! 17:1 33
1-2?1
hides 1L
FEMA-MOTF

,ess estimation based on FEMA Hams modeling
Ground motions prowded by USGS ShakeMap

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 

 

 

Sources. ESri, USGS. NDAA

 

 

 

AZ 40 oz 359d

Direct Economic Loss to Buildings-

 

Earthquake Scenario: Dallas/Fort Worth 4.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived Shaking 
Lc 
Hr. rel IV (nght)
Flam-
(Moderate)
- VI (StrongJ1EEQEEQL
i . .
. Toto! DirectEconomic Loss: $2.Cost Cost Non- Total Loss
i in Structural Structural {Including
. . a. . . . a County Damage Damage Contents}
- 0 . I . 5215 525.223 $43 ?42
g' I 1. Dallas $9.593 312131.053 52.324.634
I 5" - Demon 5155 521716 33Tarrant 5604 559.415. 5104.453
. . eliethers 515 51.094 51.952
. Total $19,600 $1,333,50? 52.511033
. I 'Alltablevaluesare thousandsofooriars
 
- Loss estimation based on FEMA Hazus modeling
Ground motions provided by USGS Shake-Map
Cr.- rl :1 
Hill
Esrl. HERE 5:10panStreetl?e1ap contributors and 2014 Earl.
the GISusercomlenity Sources Esn USES NORA

 

 

 

 

 

AZJO LZ 959d

Estimated Building Inspector Needs-

Earthquake Scenario: Dallas/Fort Worth 4.8

 

WEE

Fer-z'. ri?r
i .1 rl




 

 



#11 





 

 

 

4.8 Scenario

USGS ShakeMap

 

. Red Tag {Complete Damage}

Yellow Tag {Extensive Damage}
 Green Tag
 {SlightiModerate Damage)

 

1 Dot= 1 Building
by Census Tract

 

 

Estimated 3 Btimated it of

 

 

 

 

Structures Inspectors Needed
0 
233 4
[Exte nswe]
Green 
HIM 3:503 24
Moderate] 
Total 3,886 23

 

 

Estimated number of inspectors needed
to complete inspections. in 30 days

 

 

.oes estimation based on FEMA Hazus modeling



M-Iea

FEMA-MOTF

Ground motions prowded by USGS ShakeMap

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyrighteg' 20*4 Esn, Sources. Esn USGS, NCAA E311. HERE
GIS ueer

DeLorme Mapmy?mla. and the
community

 

El

202:4 Esn. 
Souroes' Eeri, USGS. 

 

 

 

AZ 40 zz 959d

Estimated Highway Bridge Inspection Needs-
Earthquake Scenario: Dallaleort Worth 4.8

 

4.8 Scenario
USGS ShakeMap

   

 

 

0: Fri?9cm L'w??i?iue 
(90 cn 0 a Highway Bridge Inspections

:25 on game-b :5 I Needing Inspection (48)
6?
eg 0 0 No Bridge Inspection
0
3 Q: g, 6?0 0 gig: Perceived Shaking (MMI030 ??oo  V(Light)
0 no
0
aocg 00 e930; 00% gave 0 (Moderate)

Oatg? 0 gm .30 VI (StrongBridges requiring inspection are

those with a 10% or greater chance
of exceeding slight damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 %u oiesaeoroe
?890 
eg a on We 5  

930 00690080 'gq?f?a QDOO 019 (P a a -055 estimation based on FEMA Hazus modeimg
0 a 00 0 0-: Ground motions provided by USES ShakeMap
000Copyh?ght?- 26H Esri. S'ources; Esri. USGS Esrr HERE 
Rm 0 '0 a f-JIapmy-ir?i?ia.  Op nS'ii'eetaiap contributors 361d the GIS user Copyright-112014 ESFI. 
a Don coin?"- In'ii'y 8 Sources Esri USGS. 

 

 

Nonstructural Fire Protection

1.

One sprinkler head impacted duct and broke in a
County Office Building. It ran for five hours, causing
severe water damage resulting in several months of closure.

 

Nonstructural - Water Heater Strapping

Failures of water heater 
strapping were observed. 
Recent guidance calls for
stronger connections.

 

Nonstructural Damage: ?3
Shelving Damage and 
Overturning Failures

 

Mitigation Strategies

- Incorporate credible scenarios into emergency
management planning.
- ATC-20 Inspector Training (FEMA NETAP)
- Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) (FEMA NETAP)
- FEMA 74 Mitigating Non Structural Hazards
- Bridge and other critical infrastructure safety
inspection program

- Installation of Water Heater Straps

 

Questions?