Circular 1242
At the March 13-14, 2001, invitational workshop held to provide input for this
draft plan, participants identified several aspects of NEHRP post-earthquake
investigations that are deficient. These deficiencies diminish the potential
contribution of NEHRP to risk reduction in the United States. Aspects in need
of improvement include the following:
• Comprehensiveness—Investigations of earthquake impacts do not comprehensively
cover all aspects of the natural, built, and socioeconomic environments.
• Efficiency—Emerging new information and technologies can greatly
increase the quality and quantity of data collection, while lowering costs.
• Data storage and retrieval—Much of the data that has been collected
in past earthquakes has been effectively lost. If data collection is to become
even more comprehensive, data management, archiving, and linking to existing
data must be improved.
The following recommendations propose solutions to these interrelated deficiencies.
The objectives of the first 3 recommendations are to improve the scope (Recommendation
1), the quality and quantity (Recommendation 2), and the utility (Recommendation
3) of data acquired during post-earthquake investigations. Recommendation 4
proposes mechanisms for funding these improvements.
Issue—Impacts on built and socioeconomic environments are not well
documented
Research on the impacts of earthquakes on the natural environment (for example,
seismology, ground motion, and permanent ground deformation) is relatively well
organized and documented by NEHRP because the USGS has both budgetary and operational
responsibility in this area. The result has been significant improvement by
both USGS and non-USGS scientists in the basic understanding of the natural
consequences of earthquakes, such as shaking and permanent ground deformation.
In contrast, performance data on the built environment (for example, buildings
and lifelines) are not systematically compiled. Documentation of the seismic
performance of nonstructural components in facilities is particularly lacking.
This failure to document fully the physical impacts of an earthquake has serious
consequences because full-scale testing of the performance of engineered systems
under dynamic loading is often impractical. Because damaging earthquakes are
infrequent, each failure to systematically document damage is a lost opportunity
to improve:
• Performance-based design.
• Loss estimation.
• Safety assessments of badly damaged structures.
The current trend in earthquake engineering is to base seismic risk evaluations
and design decisions on the predicted behavior of structures and their components
during assumed levels of earthquake ground shaking. This approach, called performance
based earthquake engineering, shows great promise as a framework to enhance
the ability of both the private and public sectors to identify and to quantify
levels of risk, to develop cost-effective strategies for risk reduction activities,
and to implement efficient seismic rehabilitation. Yet these techniques rely
completely on assumptions on the part of engineers of the actual performance
of the built environment. An overly optimistic view can overlook significant
risks or lead to ineffective designs. In the other extreme, excessive conservatism
leads to unnecessarily high costs or, worse yet, inaction in the face of a seemingly
insurmountable problem. Effective decisions on the part of building owners and
managers, insurance and financial institutions, and public policymakers require
realistic predictions of expected behavior in a statistical context. Extensive
documentation of actual behavior, good and bad, of a broad range of structures
subjected to real earthquakes will provide the data to meet this critical need.
These data that document performance of the built environment are also essential
for improving earthquake loss estimation models. Predictions of earthquake impacts
with computer-based loss estimation models are becoming increasingly common
in both the private and public sectors because the rarity of large damaging
earthquakes does not permit robust actuarial estimates of future losses. Comprehensive
documentation of the impacts of future earthquakes will improve model-based
estimates of structural and nonstructural damage, casualties, and financial
loss.
Documentation of the performance of the socioeconomic environment also is very
incomplete. Increasingly post-earthquake investigations include social, organizational,
and economic issues, but much more progress is needed. For example, despite
their obvious importance, relatively little emphasis is currently being placed
on the systematic collection of data on earthquake-related deaths and injuries,
both for U.S. and foreign earthquakes. The same can be said for other topics
of major societal relevance such as the short- and long-term social and economic
impacts of earthquakes, including impacts on regional economies, communities,
households, and businesses. Because of its importance, the organization and
effectiveness of emergency response and relief activities should be routinely
documented.
Potential Solutions
Built Environment
Two aspects of structural performance surveys are particularly important—(1)
adequate inventories of the building stock and others structures at risk and
(2) systematic documentation and compilation of both damaged and undamaged structures.
The lack of adequate data inventories hampers assessment of the significance
of observed damage in many cases. Inventories make it possible to characterize
the damage data and place it in proper context. For example, the knowledge that
1,000 steel buildings in the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, suffered significant
damage is incomplete information and fails to answer questions such as “How
many steel buildings were subject to strong ground shaking?” or “Where
were the damaged buildings located relative to the fault?”
Fortunately, with the increasing application of standardized procedures for
(1) seismic design of structures, (2) pre-event evaluation and rehabilitation
of structures [see FEMA 310 (ASCE,1998a) and 356 (ASCE, 1998b)], (3) post-event
evaluation and repair of structures [FEMA 306/307/308 (ATC, 1998a,b,c)], and
(4) damage prediction [FEMA 154 (ATC, 1988), HAZUS© (HAZUS, 1999)], a framework
is emerging in the United States for both the collection of performance data
and the development of inventories. For example, HAZUS©, which was developed
by FEMA to standardize loss estimates from earthquakes and other natural hazards,
provides a framework for inventories of facilities and the description of performance.
This plan recommends that NEHRP adopt a format for documenting performance that
is consistent with these methodologies. It also recommends that NEHRP through
FEMA also promote the development of robust inventories of structures by working
with HAZUS© users groups and others who have adopted and adapted these
procedures. Important work in these areas is already ongoing at the NSF-funded
earthquake engineering and research and education centers.
This plan recommends that the systematic documentation and compilation of damaged
and nondamaged structural performance, as well as the documentation of earthquake
resisting properties of structures, be spearheaded by FEMA and NIST, because
the data also would ultimately be used to improve building codes and standards
and practices for structures and lifelines. The format for this documentation
shall be established by FEMA and NIST before the next earthquake and could be
similar to the ATC-38 post-earthquake building performance assessment form (ATC,
2000) and the EERI clearinghouse report form (S. McAfee, written commun., 2001;
EERI, 1996). The actual surveys could be conducted by a contract with engineering
organizations, such as American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), National
Council of Structural Engineers Association (NCSEA), and ATC under the supervision
of FEMA and NIST. In the absence of the success of Recommendation 4 for supplemental
funding, it is unclear how the post-earthquake damage surveys will be funded.
The extensive and detailed information on the damage to facilities that is
routinely compiled by FEMA as a part of the disaster assistance funding process
and by private structural engineering and design firms are existing valuable
sources of information that are not currently available for research purposes.
Coordination with FEMA and private firms to capture these data would provide
a large source of additional data3.
Once the collection of data on the built environment is improved, the data must
be appropriately archived and made available. This can be accomplished by promotion
of a NEHRP database (see Recommendation 3).
Socioeconomic Environment
A wider range of disciplines and specialists also needs to be incorporated
into post-earthquake reconnaissance activities. Although there has been movement
in the direction of greater disciplinary diversity, post-earthquake reconnaissance
activities are undertaken primarily by earth scientists and engineers. Groups
that remain underrepresented in post-earthquake investigations include public
health specialists (such as epidemiologists), researchers from the various social
science disciplines (for example, economics, sociology, geography, and political
science), and experts from the emergency management and public policy communities.
Mechanisms must be established to encourage greater participation by investigators
with expertise in the social science and public health fields, experts in economic
modeling, and others who can contribute to the collection and analysis of data
on the pre- and post-impact social environment. NEHRP should coordinate and
work with organizations involved in studying the socioeconomic and public health
aspects of disasters to recruit and train a cadre of qualified health and social
science investigators who can participate in future post-earthquake studies.
A partial list of these organizations include the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the University of California at Los Angeles Center for Public
Health and Disasters, leading social science centers such as the Natural Hazards
Research and Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado and
hazard-focused geographic information system (GIS) laboratories such as the
Hazards Research Lab at the University of South Carolina, and professional associations
such as the International Research Committee on Disasters. As an initial step,
EERI should initiate outreach efforts aimed at informing social science and
public health researchers about NEHRP-related post-earthquake data collection
opportunities and more effectively integrate members of these groups into post-earthquake
investigations.
EERI should also seek input from social scientists on how to improve the quantity
and quality of data that are collected on the societal aspects of earthquakes.
As is the case with other disciplines involved in post-earthquake investigations,
new protocols are needed to ensure that the data-collection strategies and instruments
that are used toobtain data on the social, economic, and health impacts of earthquakes
are standardized, so that comparisons can be made across time and across earthquake
events. Existing documents such as the EERI Post-earthquake Investigation Field
Guide outline in broad terms the types of social and economic impact data that
should be obtained during the post-earthquake reconnaissance phase. This guide
should be reviewed, revised, and expanded to incorporate a broader range of
social science data as well as to provide more systematic frameworks for recording
those data. When revised, the guide should be distributed widely within the
social science research community.
Agencies that sponsor post-earthquake investigations should also recognize that gaps in knowledge exist because many disciplines and topics lack adequate funding. In making funding decisions, NEHRP agencies should examine how to ensure better disciplinary coverage so that significant research topics—including those focusing on the socioeconomic environment—are not overlooked. Both the Investigations Coordinator and the entities responsible for organizing the Phase II and III meetings to set priorities shall be responsible for ensuring that significant socioeconomic issues are included in the research plans that are developed and that adequate funding is available to support that work. Finally, societal impact data must be placed in a larger context. For example, this could be done through the systematic collection of data on both pre- and post-event characteristics of affected communities, populations, and economies.
Issue—Information Technology (IT) offers opportunities to improve collection
of data
Data that are amenable to collection using remote sensing, digital imaging,
global positioning system, and other new and emerging technologies are distributed
widely within the natural, built, and social environments. A wide variety of
data, which previously could not be collected or only collected at great effort,
can now be collected and analyzed rapidly, often in near-real time. Examples
include the following:
• Regional geodetic and geological effects.
• Recordings of strong shaking on the ground and in engineered structures
during the main shock.
• Aftershocks.
• Ground deformations associated with faulting, liquefaction, landslides,
and shaking.
• Direct and indirect damage to structures and lifelines (both in a regional
statistical sense and in detailed studies of selected structures).
• System responses, such as pressures and flows in gas, water, and wastewater
systems, telephone demand surges, and traffic patterns.
• Collateral dynamic phenomena, such as growth and spread of post-earthquake
fires and spills of hazardous materials.
• Data on earthquake casualties and on other social and economic impacts.
Potential Solution
Advances in information technologies now permit rapid, cost-effective collection
and analysis of virtually exhaustive data sets in each of the above categories.
A few examples of current, but only recently available technologies include
the following:
•PDA-GPS-digital camera technology to permit standardized but rapid and
extensive digital descriptions of georeferenced damage data for regional and
detailed structure and lifeline damage studies.
• Remote sensing (for example, InSAR, LIDAR) for compilation of inventories
of the visible built environment before and immediately after the main event,
for regional assessments of damage.
• Digital recording and near-real-time dissemination of strong shaking
measurements throughout the affected built environment during the occurrence
of damage from the main earthquake to provide the quantitative recordings needed
for emergency response, performance-based engineering, and the rebuilding of
a safer society.
• High-resolution low-altitude vertical and oblique aerial photographs
as a mandatory part of the NEHRP post-earthquake reconnaissance, to be made
available free on the Internet.
•On-site digital video image capture by special image-capture vans with
mounted digital cameras to document building status on both sides of a street
immediately following the event.
•Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data for understanding
of the real-time impacts and response to earthquakes of distributed systems
such as gas, water, and wastewater systems. SCADA systems have emerged as a
typical feature of lifeline networks over the last several decades—the
data are generally available but have been little used for studying the effects
of earthquakes, damage and post-earthquake response, and demands on distributed
systems.
It should also be mentioned that while not observational data, both ShakeMap
and HAZUS© results can be valuable adjuncts to post-earthquake investigations
(in addition to emergency response). Existing GIS inventories of the built environment
can guide comprehensive inspection and data collection for essential facilities
and infrastructure.
These are only a few examples of relatively new technologies that can be used
more effectively in post-earthquake investigations. IT is developing so rapidly
that new tools and applications are emerging constantly. In order to enhance
post-earthquake investigations and analyses, this plan recommends that NSF,
USGS, NIST, and FEMA support ongoing research into applications of IT and ways
to analyze and use the collected data. The NSF-funded earth science organizations
and earthquake engineering research and education centers provide excellent
resources for this effort. We also recommend that, in the immediate response
to the event, NSF, USGS, NIST, and FEMA support equipment and other resource
needs and facilitate access to and use of selected IT assets that may be beyond
the resources of individual investigators (for example, if FEMA tasks national
reconnaissance assets to fly over a domestic earthquake the imagery should be
available to NEHRP-supported investigations to the maximum extent feasible).
If NIST is conducting an investigation under the authority of the National Construction
Safety Team Act, NIST will support this solution to the extent possible.
Issue—Collected data are not well archived and therefore are effectively
lost
It is critical to develop strategies for the formal and systematic archiving
of data collected during post-earthquake investigations. These data, which focus
on the natural, built, and socioeconomic environments, address a wide variety
of phenomena. The data are voluminous and are acquired in many forms (for example,
digital recordings, digital images, clipboard survey sheets, photographs, and
narratives). If not organized and archived soon after an earthquake event, these
data are often lost. No mechanism currently exists either to archive these data
or to make them readily accessible to the research community. Because of this
failure to adequately document, preserve, and access data, an enormous volume
of highly relevant data has been effectively lost.
Potential Solution
Management of these data requires:
Research on cost-effective field data collection—Much of the initial
data from post-earthquake investigations are collected on foot in the field.
Use of georeferenced personal digital assistants and digital and video cameras
with GPS capability and other efficient data collection tools should be encouraged
by the development and free dissemination of standardized software applications
and associated data protocols for use both in the field and for downloading
data.
• Development of a consensus-based repository for collected data—Rather than relying on physical repositories, technology now permits most data to be digitally recorded and stored. Therefore, this plan recommends the creation of a virtual web-based archive, analogous to the structure and functioning of the Consortium of Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) Virtual Data Center (http://db.cosmos-eq.org/). This new database, to be called the “National Earthquake Experience Database” (NEED) should be maintained at individual centers, but retrievable from a single or mirrored Internet site using time stamps and a geocoded referencing system. NEED would be addressable with all of the tools of a modern GIS, as well as with modern relational database technology on the Internet. Researchers could contribute to it from any location, according to established quality control guidelines. NEED will fill the need for a permanent, interactively managed national and international archive for the unprecedented data sets to be collected from future damaging earthquakes.
One approach to this effort would be to require each recipient of NEHRP funding
(NSF grantee, the earthquake centers, USGS awardees, NIST, and others) to budget
a percentage of the grant funds (for example, 1 or 2 per cent) for archiving
raw and reduced data in NEED. Alternatives for management and maintenance of
NEED include:
(1) Integration into and management by the Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES).
(2) Residency in the National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering
(NISEE), and with oversight by a board consisting of representatives of organizations
such as MCEER, PEER, MAE, EERI, Seismological Society of America (SSA), ATC,
and Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE).
NEED could reside on the NISEE server with mirror servers on the MAE, MCEER,
and PEER servers.
(3) Residency in the NSF Digital Library for Earth Science Education (DLESE).
The costs associated with implementing this solution range from research funding
focused specifically on the integration of new technologies into post-earthquake
investigations to providing funds for a workshop where investigators share information
on their data collection and archiving strategies and to supporting a Web site
where data-sharing will be accomplished. Each level of effort has an associated
cost. Once the data repository format has been established, implementation of
a consensus-based repository can be accomplished. Dedicated costs for creation
and maintenance of NEED would be perhaps two staff-years to start, and one staff-year
annually thereafter, with hardware and expenses perhaps in the tens of thousands
of dollars annually. Contribution of data into NEED would be a distributed cost,
borne by each contributing investigation. This plan recommends that all NEHRP-supported
investigations be required to budget a small fraction of the investigation’s
overall costs for this purpose.
Issue—Funding of post-earthquake investigations is inadequate
The absence of readily available financial resources to fund immediate, short-term,
and long-term post-earthquake investigations has resulted in the failure to
collect valuable data vital for development of earthquake disaster reduction
measures and has handicapped substantial follow-up research investigations.
For the 1989 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake, Congress enacted “Emergency
Supplemental Funds” for use by the NEHRP agencies for post-earthquake investigations.
The emergency supplemental funding provided by Congress following the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake was $20 million, of which $8 million was designated for post-earthquake
investigations administered by USGS. The emergency supplemental funding provided
by Congress following the 1994 Northridge earthquake was $13 million. It was
recognized that this is neither the best nor the most efficient means to fund
these efforts 4. The report to Congress
by FEMA (1993), which was requested in the 1990 reauthorization bill, provides
an excellent summary of the benefits of post-earthquake investigations and suggests
several alternative approaches to establishing a fund for this purpose. It was
clear that the four principal NEHRP agencies could not agree on a single best
approach.
Potential Solution
One possible solution for funding domestic post-earthquake investigations to
be used when an earthquake has been designated as a Presidentially declared
disaster could be obtained by establishing a separate fund during the next NEHRP
reauthorization that could then be drawn upon for Federally-declared earthquake
disasters; such funds could be administered by FEMA. Another possibility could
be to designate and utilize existing agency programs to fund these activities.
However, in the absence of such funds, all of the NEHRP agencies shall be prepared
to submit a request through FEMA to Congress for appropriate emergency supplemental
funding following a significant domestic earthquake. Such a template could be
used as well for post-event investigations of other types of disasters, including
natural and terrorist events, which would allow for the documentation of information
that would help improve the protection of the Nation’s infrastructure from
future events.
Foreign post-earthquake investigations could continue to be funded on a basis
of need from each of the NEHRP agencies.
Background—The issue of funding of post-earthquake investigations
is a very significant one and received considerable attention at the March 2001
workshop and subsequently by the authors. One alternative that was explored
but ultimately not included in the recommendations was the possibility of utilizing
the Stafford Act to provide funds for post-disaster investigations. The amount
of funds could be equal to 1 percent times the Section 406 disaster relief funds5.
For the Loma Prieta earthquake this would have amounted to about $28 million,
and for the Northridge earthquake it would have totaled about $60 million. The
funds made available by such change in the Stafford Act could also be used to
provide post-disaster funds for disaster related investigations following other
natural events such as hurricanes and, even more significantly, man-made events
such as acts of terrorism. However, this alternative was not included in the
report’s recommendations because any proposed new language modifying the
Stafford Act would require action by Congress, which is unlikely at the present
time.
Because the funding of post-earthquake investigations remains a crucial issue,
this plan recommends that all NEHRP agencies be prepared to submit a request
through FEMA to Congress for appropriate emergency supplemental funding following
a significant domestic earthquake.
Recommended Administration—With any of the funding mechanisms discussed
above, this plan recommends that FEMA, as lead NEHRP agency, be responsible
for the identification of investigation topics, distribution of the funds, and
reporting of the results to Congress6.
For earthquake disasters, it is recommended that the NEHRP Policy Coordinating
Group, Presidentially appointed individuals from the four principal NEHRP agencies,
create a standing nine-member post-earthquake investigation Selection Committee
to assist FEMA in fulfilling these responsibilities. This Selection Committee
shall be mobilized within days after a significant earthquake, attend all briefings,
participate in the joint NSF/USGS/FEMA/NIST priority-setting workshop, and be
responsible for identifying the basic and problem-focused investigation efforts
required to maximize learning from the specific earthquake disaster. On the
basis of the outcomes and recommendations of the workshop, the Selection Committee
shall recommend to FEMA topical areas and funding levels for each area. FEMA
would determine the funds to be allocated to each NEHRP agency. Each NEHRP agency
shall be responsible for the identification of appropriate projects and investigators,
administration of its grants, project supervision, and be accountable for funds
allocated to their agency in their topical areas. They will actively contribute
to the report to Congress. The nine members of the Selection Committee shall
consist of one member from each of the four principal NEHRP agencies and at
least four members from the non-Federal earthquake community.
| Abbreviations | Domestic Earthquakes | Foreign Earthquakes |
| Main Page |
U.S. Department of the Interior |
U.S. Geological Survey
URL:
Page Contact Information:
Page Last Modified:
