A Framework for Post-Earthquake Response Planning in Emerging Seismic Regions: An Oklahoma Case Study

Abstract

This paper presents a framework for establishing post-earthquake response protocols in regions facing emerging seismic hazards through a case study of Oklahoma bridges. First, it establishes the need for new attenuation models for the Oklahoma area because of the poor fit of current attenuation models. Then, two methods are established to inspect bridges after an earthquake: smart inspection radii and ShakeCast. The smart radii use a modified version of the Campbell (2003) attenuation model to determine seismic demand and a trigger S₁ value to represent bridge capacity. This trigger S₁ value is validated by calculating slight HAZUS fragility curves for past earthquakes. ShakeCast is an online resource from USGS that uses real-time ground motion data (i.e., a ShakeMap) as seismic demand and modified HAZUS fragility curves to represent bridge capacity. Because of better-informed data on the ground shaking levels, ShakeCast recommends significantly fewer inspections than inspection radii, translating to cost savings for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2009. Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, Washington, D.C.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-2010, Reston, Virginia.

Atkinson

G. M.

2015. Ground-motion prediction equation for small-to-moderate events at short hypocentral distances, with application to induced-seismicity hazards, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105, 981–992. doi:10.1785/0120140142.

Atkinson

G. M.

and Boore

D. M.

2006. Earthquake ground-motion predition equations for Eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96, 2181–2205. doi:10.1785/0120050245.

Basöz

and Mander

J. B.

1999. Enhancement of the Highway Transportation Lifeline Module in HAZUS. Tech. rep., National Institute of Building Sciences.

Beyer

and Bommer

J. J.

2006. Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for different definitions of the horizontal component of motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96, 1512–1522. doi:10.1785/0120050210.

Biasi

Mohammed

M. S.

and Sanders

D. H.

2017. Earthquake damage estimations: ShakeCast case study on Nevada bridges, Earthquake Spectra 33, 45–62. doi:10.1193/121815EQS185M.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2009. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. FEMA

Washington, D.C.

Campbell

K. W.

2003. Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical methods and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 1012–1033. doi:10.1785/0120020002.

10.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003. Multi-hazard loss estimation method: Earthquake model: HAZUS MR4 technical manual. Washington, D.C.

11.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1995. Recording and coding guide for the structure inventory and appraisal of the nation's bridges. Office of Engineering Bridge Division FHWA-PD-96-001 edn.

12.

Frankel

A. D.

Mueller

Barnhard

Perkins

Leyendecker

Dickman

Hanson

and Hooper

1996. National Seismic-Hazard Maps: Documentation. Tech. Rep. 96-532, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

13.

Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER), 2016. The Geotechnical Aspects of the September 3, 2016 M5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma Earthquake. Tech. rep.

14.

Gupta

Baker

J. W.

and Ellsworth

W. L.

2017. Assessing ground-motion amplitudes and attenuation for small-to-moderate induced and tectonic carthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Seismological Research Letters. doi:10.1785/0220160199. In press.

15.

Hough

S. E.

2014. Shaking from injection-induced earthquakes in the central and eastern United States, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104, 2619–2626. doi:10.1785/0120140099.

16.

Keranen

K. M.

Savage

H. M.

Abers

G. A.

and Cochran

E. S.

2013. Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake, Geology 41, 699–702. doi:10.1130/G34045.1.

17.

McGarr

Bekins

Burkardt

Dewey

J. P.

Earle

W. E.

Hickman

Holland

A. E.

Majer

J. R.

and Sheehan

2015. Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection, Science 347, 830–831. doi:10.1126/science.aaa0494.

18.

Owens

T. J.

Crotwell

H. P.

Groves

and Oliver-Paul

2004. SOD: standing order for data, Seismological Research Letters 75, 515–520. doi:10.1785/gssrl.75.4.515-a.

19.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2015. NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region. Tech. Rep. 2015/04, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

20.

Petersen

Moschetti

Powers

Mueller

Haller

Frankel

Zeng

Rezaeian

Harmsen

Boyd

Field

Chen

Rukstales

Luco

Wheeler

Williams

and Olsen

2014. Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. Tech. Rep. Open-File Report 2014-1091, U.S. Geological Survey.

21.

Petersen

M. D.

Frankel

A. D.

Harmsen

S. C.

and Mueler

C. S.

et al., 2008. Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps. Tech. Rep. Open-File Report 2008-1128, U.S. Geological Survey.

22.

Petersen

M. D.

Mueller

C. S.

Moschetti

M. P.

Hoover

S. M.

Rubinstein

J. L.

Llenos

A. L.

Michael

A. J.

Ellsworth

W. L.

McGarr

A. F.

Holland

A. A.

and Anderson

J. G.

2016. 2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard Forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from Induced and Natural Earthquakes. Tech. Rep. Open-File Report 2016-1035, U. S. Geological Survey.

23.

Petersen

M. D.

Mueller

C. S.

Moschetti

M. P.

Hoover

S. M.

Shumway

A. M.

McNamara

D. E.

Williams

R. A.

Llenos

A. L.

Ellsworth

W. L.

Michael

A. J.

Rubinstein

J. L.

McGarr

A. F.

and Rukstales

K. S.

2017. 2017 one-year seismic-hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes, Seismological Research Letters 88. doi:10.1785/0220170005.

24.

Robert

C. P.

and Casella

2004. Monte Carlo Statistical Methods. 2nd ed. Springer New York, NY.

25.

Shahjouei

and Pezeshk

2016. Alternative hybrid empirical ground-motion model for central and eastern North America using hybrid simulations and NGA-West2 models, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 106, 734–754. doi:10.1785/0120140367.

26.

Silva

Gregor

and Darragh

2002. Development of Regional Hard Rock Attenuation Relations for Central and Eastern North America. Tech. Rep. ML042310569, Pacific Engineering and Analysis, El Cerrito, CA.

27.

Somerville

Collins

Abrahamson

Graves

and Saikia

2001. Ground Motoin Attenuation Relations for the Central and Eastern United States. Tech. Rep. Award No. 99HQGR0098, U.S. Geological Survey.

28.

Tavakoli

and Pezeshk

2005. Empirical-stochastic ground-motion prediction for eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95, 2283–2296. doi:10.1785/0120050030.

29.

Toro

G. R.

Abrahamson

N. A.

and Schneider

J. F.

1997. Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in the central and eastern North America: best estimates and uncertainties, Seismological Research Letters 68, 41–57. doi:10.1785/gssrl.68.1.41.

30.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2010. Custom

V_{s}^{30}

Mapping. Earthquake Hazards Program, archived version available at https://web.archive.org/web/20150518094331/http://earthquake.usgs.gov:80/hazards/apps/vs30/ (last accessed 18 June 2015).

31.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2015a. Cloud Installation Guide. ShakeCast V3.0, available at https://my.usgs.gov/confluence/display/ShakeCast/ShakeCast+V3.0 (last accessed 26 October 2015.

32.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2015b. Search Earthquake Catalogue. Earthquake Hazards Program, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ (last accessed 30 June 2015).

33.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2015c. ShakeCast V3 User Guide. ShakeCast V3.0, available at https://my.usgs.gov/confluence/display/ShakeCast/ShakeCast+V3.0 (last accessed 10 November 2015).

34.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016a. M 5.0 - 3km W of Cushing, Oklahoma. Earthquake Hazards Program, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us100075y8#executive (last accessed 22 December 2016).

35.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016b. M 5.1 - 31km NW of Fairview, Oklahoma. Earthquake Hazards Program, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20004zy8#executive (last accessed 28 November 2016).

36.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016c. M 5.7 - Oklahoma. Earthquake Hazards Program, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usp000jadn#executive (last accessed 28 November 2016).

37.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016d. M 5.8 - 14km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma. Earthquake Hazards Program, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10006jxs#executive (last accessed 28 November 2016).

38.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016e. ShakeMap. Earthquake Hazards Program, available at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap/ (last accessed November 10, 2016).

39.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2017. Induced Earthquakes. Earthquake Hazards Program, available at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/overview.php (last accessed 17 February 2017).

40.

Wald

D. J.

Lin

K.-W.

Porter

and Turner

2008. ShakeCast: automating and improving the use of ShakeMap for post-earthquake decision-making and response, Earthquake Spectra 24, 533–553. doi:10.1193/1.2923924.

41.

Worden

B. C.

Wald

D. J.

Allen

T. I.

Lin

Garcia

and Cua

2010. A revised ground-motion and intensity and interpolation scheme for ShakeMap, Bulletin of the Seimological Society of America 100, 3083–3096. doi:10.1785/0120100101.

42.

Zwillinger

1995. CRC Standard Matematical Tables and Formulae. CRC Press Boca Raton, FL.