Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Kishor S. Jaiswal

Publications and source records attributed to Kishor S. Jaiswal.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2020

Assessing the long-term earthquake risk for the US National Bridge Inventory (NBI)

We estimate annualized earthquake loss associated with over 600,000 bridges located throughout the contiguous United States. Each year, the Federal Highway Administration, in partnership with State Departments of Transportation, undertake a massive exercise to update the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) by combining data from states, federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and tribal governments. The NBI captures pertinent details related to individual bridges (e.g., their usage, repairs, or retrofits). We make use of the 2018 NBI that contain the necessary engineering attributes needed to assign the appropriate Hazus bridge class for each bridge, which can then be used for engineering risk analyses. Basic structural data, component dimensions, and regional replacement cost factors are used to develop an economic exposure model. This is a significant improvement over previous replacement costs, and as a result of this study, results are now available within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazus platform. Earthquake hazard is defined using the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model. For each bridge location, we obtain an earthquake shaking hazard curve defined in terms of spectral acceleration at a vibration period of 1.0 sec, ensuring that it properly reflects the site-specific soil conditions. We then integrate it with the bridge-specific fragility curve to compute annual probabilities of exceeding various damage states. Next, we perform economic loss analyses using the repair costs associated with specific damage states, resulting in an estimate of mean total annual financial loss for each bridge; this long-term measure of seismic risk enables us to illustrate the distribution of overall financial risk with respect to geographical region, era of construction, or type of bridge.

contiguous United States↗
USGS2020

2018 and 2023 U. S. National Seismic Hazard Models

During 2017-2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated by incorporating (1) new median ground motion models, new estimates of their epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors for the central and eastern U.S., (2) amplification of long-period ground motions in deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas, (3) an updated seismicity catalog, which includes new earthquakes that occurred between 2012 and 2017, and (4) improved computer code and implementation details. Results show significantly increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the central and eastern U.S., and increased ground shaking in the four urban areas (listed above) that overlie deep sedimentary basins in the western U.S. During 2019-2023, the NSHM will consider additional updates for the 2023 NSHM including: 3D simulations in urban areas of Los Angeles and Seattle, additional soil amplification models for other urban areas (e.g., eastern and southern coastal plains of the U.S., Reno, and Las Vegas), non-ergodic ground motion models that reconsider epistemic and aleatory uncertainty, topographic amplification, and new geological and geodetic models for faults. These maps will be considered by the Building Seismic Safety Council, American Society of Civil Engineers, and International Building Code committees for inclusion in upcoming building codes. Due to population growth, more people live and work in areas of moderate or high seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from future ground shaking.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2019

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

During 2017–2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated as follows: (1) an updated seismicity catalog was incorporated, which includes new earthquakes that occurred from 2013 to 2017; (2) in the central and eastern United States (CEUS), new ground motion models were updated that incorporate updated median estimates, modified assessments of the associated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the western United States (WUS), amplified shaking estimates of long-period ground motions at sites overlying deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas were incorporated; and (4) in the conterminous United States, seismic hazard is calculated for 22 periods (from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform V S30 maps (ranging from 1500 to 150 m/s). We also include a description of updated computer codes and modeling details. Results show increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the CEUS (up to ~30%), as well as near the four urban areas overlying deep sedimentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard estimates, more people live or work in areas of high or moderate seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from forecasted future ground shaking.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2019

Earthquakes, PAGER

PAGER, short for Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response, is an automated system developed and run by the US Geological Survey (USGS) that produces information concerning the impact of significant earthquakes around the world within approximately 20 min of any magnitude 5.5 or larger event. PAGER rapidly assesses earthquake impacts by combining populations exposed to estimates of shaking intensity with models of economic and fatality losses based on past earthquakes in each country or region of the world. The main purpose of the PAGER system is to inform emergency responders, government and aid agencies, and the media regarding the scope of the potential disaster. Earthquake alerts – which were formerly sent based on event magnitude and location or population exposure to shaking – are generated based on the estimated range of fatalities and/or economic losses.

Book chapter↗
USGS2019

Natural hazards and mineral commodity supply: Quantifying risk of earthquake disruption to South American copper supply

Mineral resources, and their mining and enrichment operations, are not equally distributed across Earth. The concentration of mineral supply in certain regions, owing to the geology or geography of the mineral resource, raises the level of risk related to supply disruption. Where mineral production coincides with areas prone to natural hazards, supply may be especially at risk. However, the level of risk that natural hazards pose to mineral supply has yet to be quantified on a global or regional scale. Using copper in South America as a case study, this paper offers methods for quantifying (i) the coincidence of mineral production and seismic hazards, and (ii) the Expected Annual Disruption (EAD) of the mineral supply from earthquakes. The first of these methods indicates that, of the 101 copper producing facilities in South America considered, 76 are located within an area of high seismic hazard, taken here as the area with>85% chance of exceeding Modified Mercalli Intensity VI earthquake shaking in 50 years. Collectively, the 76 facilities comprise 82%, 87%, and 91% of the 2015 South American mine production, smelter capacity, and refinery capacity, respectively. For each of the 101 facilities, the second method calculates the EAD using a full earthquake shaking hazard forecast at the location, the annualized copper production of the facility, and models of the vulnerability of that production to shaking. The EADs are summed by country, here within South America, as a demonstration of how supply risk could eventually be quantified globally. Consideration of two illustrative vulnerability models shows that future work is needed to determine percentages of disruption to mineral production for different levels of earthquake shaking. Ultimately, the methods presented herein could be applied to other mineral commodities and/or adapted for other natural hazards, and the resulting EADs could be summed. Results from these methods could be used to focus more detailed risk assessments where the risk is highest.

Resources Policy↗
USGS2018

Seismic hazard, risk, and design for South America

We calculate seismic hazard, risk, and design criteria across South America using the latest data, models, and methods to support public officials, scientists, and engineers in earthquake risk mitigation efforts. Updated continental scale seismic hazard models are based on a new seismicity catalog, seismicity rate models, evaluation of earthquake sizes, fault geometry and rate parameters, and ground‐motion models. Resulting probabilistic seismic hazard maps show peak ground acceleration, modified Mercalli intensity, and spectral accelerations at 0.2 and 1 s periods for 2%, 10%, and 50% probabilities of exceedance in 50 yrs. Ground shaking soil amplification at each site is calculated by considering uniform soil that is applied in modern building codes or by applying site‐specific factors based on V S 30 "> V S 30 shear‐wave velocities determined through a simple topographic proxy technique. We use these hazard models in conjunction with the Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) model to calculate economic and casualty risk. Risk is computed by incorporating the new hazard values amplified by soil, PAGER fragility/vulnerability equations, and LandScan 2012 estimates of population exposure. We also calculate building design values using the guidelines established in the building code provisions. Resulting hazard and associated risk is high along the northern and western coasts of South America, reaching damaging levels of ground shaking in Chile, western Argentina, western Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, and in localized areas distributed across the rest of the continent where historical earthquakes have occurred. Constructing buildings and other structures to account for strong shaking in these regions of high hazard and risk should mitigate losses and reduce casualties from effects of future earthquake strong ground shaking. National models should be developed by scientists and engineers in each country using the best available science.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2018

Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Risk Map

The Global Earthquake Risk Map (v2018.1) comprises four global maps. The main map presents the geographic distribution of average annual loss (USD) normalized by the average construction costs of the respective country (USD/m2 due to ground shaking in the residential, commercial and industrial building stock, considering contents, structural and non-structural components. The normalized metric allows a direct comparison of the risk between countries with widely different construction costs. It does not consider the effects of tsunamis, liquefaction, landslides, and fires following earthquakes. The loss estimates are from direct physical damage to buildings due to shaking, and thus damage to infrastructure or indirect losses due to business interruption are not included. The Global Earthquake Hazard Map depicts the geographic distribution of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, computed for reference rock conditions (shear wave velocity of 760-800 m/s). The Global Exposure Map depicts the geographic distribution of residential, commercial and industrial buildings. The Global Seismic Fatalities Map depicts an estimate of average annual human losses due to earthquake-induced structural collapse of buildings. The results for human losses do not consider indirect fatalities such as those from post­ earthquake epidemics. The average annual losses and number of buildings are presented on a hexagonal grid, with a spacing of 0.30 x 0.34 decimal degrees (approximately 1,000 km2 at the equator). The average annual losses were computed using the event-based calculator of the OpenQuake engine, an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk analysis developed by the GEM Foundation. The seismic hazard, exposure and vulnerability models employed in these calculations were provided by national institutions, or developed within the scope of regional programs or bilateral collaborations. These global maps and the underlying databases are based on best available and publicly accessible datasets and models. Due to possible limitations in the model, regions portrayed with low risk may experience potentially damaging earthquakes. The GEM Risk Map is intended to be a dynamic product, which will be updated when new datasets and models become available. Updated versions of the hazard, exposure, and average annual losses will be released on a regular basis. Additional metrics for each country can be explored at globalquakemodel.org/gem.

Report↗
USGS2018

Developing a global earthquake risk model

The understanding of earthquake risk is the first step towards the development and implementation of disaster risk reduction measures. However, in many countries, especially the countries of the developing world, earthquake risk models either do not exist or are publicly inaccessible. The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation and its partners have been supporting regional programmes and bilateral collaborations to develop a global earthquake risk model, due by the end of 2018. This paper describes how the main components (seismic hazard, exposure models and vulnerability functions) of this global effort are being collected, developed or improved. The calculations are being performed using the OpenQuake-engine, the open-source software for seismic hazard and risk calculations supported by GEM. This model will be able to provide estimates of critical risk metrics such as annualized average economic and human losses or aggregated losses for particular return periods, which are fundamental to the development of efficient and effective mitigation planning.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2018

Development of a domestic earthquake alert protocol combining the USGS pager and FEMA Hazus systems

The U.S. Geological Survey’s PAGER automated alert system provides rapid (10-20 min) loss estimates in terms of ranges of fatalities and economic impact for all significant earthquakes around the globe. In contrast, FEMA’s Hazus software, which is currently operated manually by FEMA personnel internally within several hours of any large domestic earthquake, provides more detailed loss information quantified in terms of physical damage to the building stock, as well as a broad range of social and economic consequences estimated at a much higher spatial resolution (census-tract level). Hazus was originally designed for FEMA’s mitigation planning, but has been used of late for post-earthquake situational awareness. While the quick alerts generated automatically by the PAGER system are a suitable way to initially identify consequences for earthquakes, there remains a need to provide detailed loss information for facilitating a wider array of post-earthquake decisions among emergency managers. As such, we have developed a prototype summary product that takes advantage of the benefits of both these loss models for significant domestic earthquakes. The signature product, a new twoPAGER report, will serve as a supplement to the widely deployed standard onePAGER product for all significant domestic earthquakes. Page one is the standard, automated PAGER alert content, with summary alert levels for overall fatality and economic loss estimates, as well as summary content on recent earthquakes, structure vulnerability, and historical secondary hazards. As soon as the Hazus run using the most up-to-date version of the USGS ShakeMap is completed and reviewed by both agencies, the second alert page will be generated and delivered via the USGS website as an update. This second page will contain a summary of the more comprehensive Hazus model results, including spatially distributed estimates of: affected population, economic impact, non-fatal injuries, displaced households, and damage to structures (including potential building safety evaluation requirements). This enhancement does not affect the timeliness and the importance of the initial (onePAGER) alerting content for significant earthquakes; however, the twoPAGER report will provide more detailed, damage and loss/impact content for the Nation in the critical hours following a damaging earthquake.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey National Strong-Motion Project strategic plan, 2017–22

The mission of the National Strong-Motion Project is to provide measurements of how the ground and built environment behave during earthquake shaking to the earthquake engineering community, the scientific community, emergency managers, public agencies, industry, media, and other users for the following purposes: Improving engineering evaluations and design methods for facilities and systems; Providing timely information for earthquake early warning, damage assessment, and emergency response action; and Contributing to a greater understanding of the mechanics of earthquake rupture, groundmotion characteristics, and earthquake effects.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Implementing Nepal's national building code—A case study in patience and persistence

The April 2015 Gorkha Nepal earthquake revealed the relative effectiveness of the Nepal Standard, or national building code (NBC), and irregular compliance with it in different parts of Nepal. Much of the damage to more than half a million Nepal's residential structures may be attributed to the prevalence of owner-built or owner-supervised construction and the lack of owner and builder responsiveness to seismic risk and training in the appropriate means of complying with the NBC. To explain these circumstances, we review the protracted implementation of the NBC and the role played by one organization, the National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET), in the NBC's implementation. We also share observations on building code compliance made by individuals in Nepal participating in workshops led by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute's 2014 class of Housner Fellows.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2017

Using structural damage statistics to derive macroseismic intensity within the Kathmandu valley for the 2015 M7.8 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake

We make and analyze structural damage observations from within the Kathmandu valley following the 2015 M7.8 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake to derive macroseismic intensities at several locations including some located near ground motion recording sites. The macroseismic intensity estimates supplement the limited strong ground motion data in order to characterize the damage statistics. This augmentation allows for direct comparisons between ground motion amplitudes and structural damage characteristics and ultimately produces a more constrained ground shaking hazard map for the Gorkha earthquake. For systematic assessments, we focused on damage to three specific building categories: (a) low/mid-rise reinforced concrete frames with infill brick walls, (b) unreinforced brick masonry bearing walls with reinforced concrete slabs, and (c) unreinforced brick masonry bearing walls with partial timber framing. Evaluating dozens of photos of each construction type, assigning each building in the study sample to a European Macroseismic Scale (EMS)-98 Vulnerability Class based upon its structural characteristics, and then individually assigning an EMS-98 Damage Grade to each building allows a statistically derived estimate of macroseismic intensity for each of nine study areas in and around the Kathmandu valley. This analysis concludes that EMS-98 macroseismic intensities for the study areas from the Gorkha mainshock typically were in the VII–IX range. The intensity assignment process described is more rigorous than the informal approach of assigning intensities based upon anecdotal media or first-person accounts of felt-reports, shaking, and their interpretation of damage. Detailed EMS-98 macroseismic assessments in urban areas are critical for quantifying relations between shaking and damage as well as for calibrating loss estimates. We show that the macroseismic assignments made herein result in fatality estimates consistent with the overall and district-wide reported values.

Kathmandu Valley↗
USGS2017

Development and utilization of USGS ShakeCast for rapid post-earthquake assessment of critical facilities and infrastructure

The ShakeCast system is an openly available, near real-time post-earthquake information management system. ShakeCast is widely used by public and private emergency planners and responders, lifeline utility operators and transportation engineers to automatically receive and process ShakeMap products for situational awareness, inspection priority, or damage assessment of their own infrastructure or building portfolios. The success of ShakeCast to date and its broad, critical-user base mandates improved software usability and functionality, including improved engineering-based damage and loss functions. In order to make the software more accessible to novice users—while still utilizing advanced users’ technical and engineering background—we have developed a “ShakeCast Workbook”, a well documented, Excel spreadsheet-based user interface that allows users to input notification and inventory data and export XML files requisite for operating the ShakeCast system. Users will be able to select structure based on a minimum set of user-specified facility (building location, size, height, use, construction age, etc.). “Expert” users will be able to import user-modified structural response properties into facility inventory associated with the HAZUS Advanced Engineering Building Modules (AEBM). The goal of the ShakeCast system is to provide simplified real-time potential impact and inspection metrics (i.e., green, yellow, orange and red priority ratings) to allow users to institute customized earthquake response protocols. Previously, fragilities were approximated using individual ShakeMap intensity measures (IMs, specifically PGA and 0.3 and 1s spectral accelerations) for each facility but we are now performing capacity-spectrum damage state calculations using a more robust characterization of spectral deamnd.We are also developing methods for the direct import of ShakeMap’s multi-period spectra in lieu of the assumed three-domain design spectrum (at 0.3s for constant acceleration; 1s or 3s for constant velocity and constant displacement at very long response periods). As part of ongoing ShakeCast research and development, we will also explore the use of ShakeMap IM uncertainty estimates and evaluate the assumption of employing multiple response spectral damping values rather than the single 5%-damped value currently employed. Developing and incorporating advanced fragility assignments into the ShakeCast Workbook requires related software modifications and database improvements; these enhancements are part of an extensive rewrite of the ShakeCast application.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2017

Hazus® estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States

Large earthquakes can cause social and economic disruption that can be unprecedented to any given community, and the full recovery from these impacts may or may not always be achievable. In the United States (U.S.), the 1994 M6.7 Northridge earthquake in California remains the third costliest disaster in U.S. history; and it was one of the most expensive disasters for the federal government. Internationally, earthquakes in the last decade alone have claimed tens of thousands of lives and caused hundreds of billions of dollars of economic impact throughout the globe (~90 billion U.S. dollars (USD) from 2008 M7.9 Wenchuan China, ~20 billion USD from 2010 M8.8 Maule earthquake in Chile, ~220 billion USD from 2011 M9.0 Tohoku Japan earthquake, ~25 billion USD from 2011 M6.3 Christchurch New Zealand, and ~22 billion USD from 2016 M7.0 Kumamoto Japan). Recent earthquakes show a pattern of steadily increasing damages and losses that are primarily due to three key factors: (1) significant growth in earthquake-prone urban areas, (2) vulnerability of the older building stock, including poorly engineered non-ductile concrete buildings, and (3) an increased interdependency in terms of supply and demand for the businesses that operate among different parts of the world. In the United States, earthquake risk continues to grow with increased exposure of population and development even though the earthquake hazard has remained relatively stable except for the regions of induced seismic activity. Understanding the seismic hazard requires studying earthquake characteristics and locales in which they occur, while understanding the risk requires an assessment of the potential damage from earthquake shaking to the built environment and to the welfare of people—especially in high-risk areas. Estimating the varying degree of earthquake risk throughout the United States is critical for informed decision-making on mitigation policies, priorities, strategies, and funding levels in the public and private sectors. For example, potential losses to new buildings may be reduced by proper land-use planning, applying most current seismic design codes and using new technologies and specialized construction techniques. However, decisions to spend money on any of those solutions require benefit and cost comparison against the perceived risk. Previous versions of the FEMA 366 studies are the only nationally accepted criteria and methodology for comparing seismic risk across regions.

Report↗
USGS2016

Annualized earthquake loss estimates for California and their sensitivity to site amplification

Input datasets for annualized earthquake loss (AEL) estimation for California were updated recently by the scientific community, and include the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), site‐response model, and estimates of shear‐wave velocity. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s loss estimation tool, Hazus, was updated to include the most recent census and economic exposure data. These enhancements necessitated a revisit to our previous AEL estimates and a study of the sensitivity of AEL estimates subjected to alternate inputs for site amplification. The NSHM ground motions for a uniform site condition are modified to account for the effect of local near‐surface geology. The site conditions are approximated in three ways: (1) by VS30 (time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity in the upper 30 m) value obtained from a geology‐ and topography‐based map consisting of 15 VS30 groups, (2) by site classes categorized according to National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classification, and (3) by a uniform NEHRP site class D. In case 1, ground motions are amplified using the Seyhan and Stewart (2014) semiempirical nonlinear amplification model. In cases 2 and 3, ground motions are amplified using the 2014 version of the NEHRP site amplification factors, which are also based on the Seyhan and Stewart model but are approximated to facilitate their use for building code applications. Estimated AELs are presented at multiple resolutions, starting with the state level assessment and followed by detailed assessments for counties, metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and cities. AEL estimate at the state level is ∼$3.7 billion, 70% of which is contributed from Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, and Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario MSAs. The statewide AEL estimate is insensitive to alternate assumptions of site amplification. However, we note significant differences in AEL estimates among the three sensitivity cases for smaller geographic units.

California↗
USGS2016

Get your science used—Six guidelines to improve your products

Introduction Natural scientists, like many other experts, face challenges when communicating to people outside their fields of expertise. This is especially true when they try to communicate to those whose background, knowledge, and experience are far distant from that field of expertise. At a recent workshop, experts in risk communication offered insights into the communication challenges of probabilistic hazard products, suggested tips, and shared their strategies for making products that a targeted audience can understand and use. Although the workshop was held to broaden the understanding and use of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), the workshop outcomes presented in this report can benefit anyone who develops products based on technical information. On the basis of research and practice into how people think, use tools, make decisions, and understand scientific/technical information, the social and behavioral scientists, marketers, and social-impact designers at the NSHM workshop provided remarkably consistent guidelines to develop successful science products, such as text, maps, and other products. In this report the guidelines are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of order to fit each project and your resources.

Circular↗
USGS2016

Assessing the seismic risk potential of South America

We present here a simplified approach to quantifying regional seismic risk. The seismic risk for a given region can be inferred in terms of average annual loss (AAL) that represents long-term value of earthquake losses in any one year caused from a long-term seismic hazard. The AAL are commonly measured in the form of earthquake shaking-induced deaths, direct economic impacts or indirect losses caused due to loss of functionality. In the context of South American subcontinent, the analysis makes use of readily available public data on seismicity, population exposure, and the hazard and vulnerability models for the region. The seismic hazard model was derived using available seismic catalogs, fault databases, and the hazard methodologies that are analogous to the U.S. Geological Survey’s national seismic hazard mapping process. The Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system’s direct empirical vulnerability functions in terms of fatality and economic impact were used for performing exposure and risk analyses. The broad findings presented and the risk maps produced herein are preliminary, yet they do offer important insights into the underlying zones of high and low seismic risks in the South American subcontinent. A more detailed analysis of risk may be warranted by engaging local experts, especially in some of the high risk zones identified through the present investigation.

Conference Paper↗