DOCSLIB.ORG

Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Student Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Student Manual CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 State of California Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Student Manual April 2011 Version 11 For current SAP information, please visit our website at www.calema.ca.gov, under the “Recovery” heading, under the “Safety Assessment Program” link there. 1 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 Acknowledgements The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by Global Emergency Management and representatives of the Structural Engineers Association of California, the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Construction Inspectors Association, the California Building Officials, and the State of California Division of the State Architect, Department of Transportation, and the Department of Water Resources for their time and consideration in reviewing and commenting on this document. Cal EMA wishes to acknowledge the many organizations and individuals who contributed or permitted use of their photos for use in this instruction manual. Photo credits are found beneath each individual photo, when known. Cal EMA also acknowledges the assistance of the Applied Technology Council in allowing the reproduction and use of their photographs and diagrams used in this manual as well. 2 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 Table of Contents Title page………………………………………………………………………………………...1 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………………….2 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...…………5 Unit 1: Safety Assessment Program Overview………………………………………………..7 1.1 Concept of Emergency Operations…………………………………………………………..9 1.2 Evaluator Credentials……………………………………………………………………..…11 1.3 Deputizing of Individuals………………………………………………………………..….13 1.4 Liability Issues………………………………………………………………………………13 1.5 Workers Compensation for California Disaster Service Workers (DSWs)…………..……..16 1.6 Program Registration……………………………………………………………………..….17 1.7 Reimbursements……………………………………………………………………….…….18 1.8 Activation Sequence………………………………………………………………...……….19 1.9 Suggested Evaluator Assignments……………………...……………………………………20 1.10 Safety Assessment Responsibilities for Agencies and Organizations…………………..….21 1.11 Evaluator and Local Government Roles and Responsibilities……………….……………..24 1.12 Terminology…………...…………………………………………………………………....25 Unit 2: Safety Assessment Process and Procedures………………………………………….29 2.1 Earthquake Effects…………………………………………….…………………………….31 2.2 Windstorm and Flood Effects…………………………………………………....……….....39 2.3 Explosion Effects……………………………………………………………………………42 2.4 The Safety Assessment Program………………………………………………………...…..44 2.5 Placards Used for Safety Assessment……………………………………….………………45 2.6 Evaluation Process……………………………………………………………………..……61 2.7 Detailed Evaluation……………………………………………………………………...…..66 2.8 Engineering Evaluation……………………………………………………………..……….66 2.9 Evaluation Procedures…………………………………………………………………...…..69 Unit 3: Building Evaluation…………………………...……………………………………….77 3.1 Occupancy of Residential Structures to Reduce Shelter Demand…………………………..79 3.2 Mobile Homes and Manufactured Homes………………………………………………..…80 3.3 Historic Structures…………………………………………………………………………..88 3.4 Individual Activity: Evaluation of Residential Structures…………………………………..96 Unit 4: Safety Assessment Exercise………………………………………………………….103 4.1 Small Group Activity Evaluating Buildings…………………….…………………………105 Unit 5: Lifeline Systems and Facilities…………………………...…………………………..129 5.1 Assessment Form Heading…………………………………………………………………132 5.2 Geotechnical Evaluation……………………………………………………………………134 5.3 Airports……………………………………………………………………………………..141 5.4 Bridges…………………………………………………………………………..………….145 5.5 Roads and Highways………………………………………………………………….……150 5.6 Pipelines…………………………………………………………………………….………155 5.7 Pump Stations………………………………………………………………………...…….161 3 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 5.8 Reservoirs……………………………………………………………………..……………165 5.9 Wastewater Treatment Plants………………………………………………………………171 5.10 Water Treatment Plants…………………………………………………………….……..176 Table of Contents (continued) 5.11 Non-Jurisdictional Dams (California)………………………………….…………………181 Unit 6: Non-Earthquake Hazards…………………………..………………………………..183 6.1 High Winds…………………………..…………………………………………………….185 6.2 Floods………………………………………………………………………………………192 6.3 Fires……………………………………………………………………………….………..200 6.4 Explosions…………………………………………………………………………………..203 Unit 7: Field Safety…………………………………………………..………………………..209 7.1 During Inspections………………………………………………………….………………211 7.2 Critical Incident Stress Disorder………………………………………………...………….217 7.3 Hazardous Materials………………………………………………………………….…….219 7.4 Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Marking System…………………………………..…..225 7.5 Building Assessment Safety Checklist……………………………………………………..229 Appendix……………………………………………………………..………………………..231 4 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 Introduction The Safety Assessment Program (SAP) provides professional resources to local governments to help with the safety evaluation of buildings and infrastructure after a disaster. The goal of the Safety Assessment Program is to perform these safety assessments as quickly as possible. With its origins in the response to the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, SAP has been successful during more recent earthquakes such as Loma Prieta (1989), Landers – Big Bear (1992), Humboldt (1992), Northridge (1994), Napa (2000), San Simeon (2003), and the Baja Earthquake (2010). SAP was also used under the interstate Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) to help local governments in Louisiana and Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina (2005). Private industry volunteers, local government mutual aid, and state agency resources are used to provide professional engineers, architects, geologists, and certified building inspectors to help local governments perform safety evaluations of their built environment after a disaster. The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) manages the Safety Assessment Program, in cooperation with partnering professional organizations. SAP provides two types of resources: SAP Evaluators, who work in the field performing safety evaluations, and SAP Coordinators, who are local government lead personnel that coordinate the field activities. The Evaluator training is the focus of this manual. Cal EMA is pleased that you are interested in participating in this program as an Evaluator. Your role will be essential in the first days after a destructive event to evaluate the safety of potentially damaged structures. There are also some examples of “best practices” obtained over the years that will be passed on to you. Finally, the information that you gather will be very useful for the recovery of the community you are assisting. We look forward to working with you in this program. 5 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 (This page intentionally left blank) 6 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 UNIT 1: SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW 7 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 UNIT 1 – SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW Overview This unit presents an introduction to the Safety Assessment Program and discusses credentials, how the program is organized, how deployment takes place, liability issues, and workers compensation. It ends with a glossary of common terms used in emergency management and safety assessment. Training Goal Provide the participants with a basic understanding of the program so as to see their role in it. Objectives At the end of this unit, participants will be able to: Understand the liability immunity and workers compensation aspects of this program; Know how to be deployed to a disaster; Identify where they fit in the overall emergency operation; and Know and use the common terms used in emergency management and safety assessment. 8 CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011 1.0 Safety Assessment Program Overview Safety assessment is the process by which structures and specific lifeline systems and facilities are evaluated for their safety, either for immediate use, conditional use, or disuse. The Safety Assessment Program (SAP) was developed to help local government building departments after a disaster by providing additional architects, civil engineers, and building inspectors to help rapidly complete the surge of safety evaluations made necessary by the event. The beginnings of this program started with the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, when private industry volunteers asked to help local governments with the demands caused by the event. It became more formalized after the 1986 Whittier-Narrows Earthquake. The Applied Technology Council of Redwood City, CA was contracted by the State of California to standardize safety assessment methods and forms; they produced ATC-20: Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, which became available in 1989, three weeks before the Loma Prieta Earthquake struck. The program was revised after Loma Prieta to improve the placards, and was revamped in 2002 to include damage review from windstorms, floods, and fires. In 2005, damage from explosions was included as part of the program. Jim Alexander and Rick Ranous, SE, both of the California Governor‟s Office of Emergency Services,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Commercial Property Owner's Guide to Earthquake Safety
    Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety 2006 Edition Published by the California Seismic Safety Commission State of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor SSC No. 06-02 This 2006 Edition of the Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety replaces the 1998 Edition on October 1, 2006. Publishing Information The Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety was developed and published by the California Seismic Safety Commission. It was distributed under the provisions of the Library Distribution Act and Government Code Section 11096. Copyrighted 2006 by the California Seismic Safety Commission All rights reserved Legislation This guide has been developed and adopted by the California Seismic Safety Commission as required by the Business and Professions Code Section 10147. Ordering Information Copies of this booklet are available from the California Seismic Safety Commission, 1755 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833. To order call (916) 263-5506 or download via our website at http://www.seismic.ca.gov/sscpub.htm On the Cover: The roof of this department store was not well connected to its walls and partially collapsed in Yucca Valley during the 1992 Landers Earthquake. ii The Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety CONTENTS Page Page INTRODUCTION ..................................................1 OTHER EARTHQUAKE-RELATED Your Commercial Property and the Law ..............2 CONCERNS ........................................... 26 Recommendations ...............................................3
    [Show full text]
  • New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002, August 1994 New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement by Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith Abstract Source parameters for historical earthquakes worldwide are com­ piled to develop a series of empirical relationships among moment magnitude (M), surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, rupture area, and maximum and average displacement per event. The resulting data base is a significant update of previous compilations and includes the ad­ ditional source parameters of seismic moment, moment magnitude, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, and average surface displacement. Each source parameter is classified as reliable or unreliable, based on our evaluation of the accuracy of individual values. Only the reliable source parameters are used in the final analyses. In comparing source parameters, we note the fol­ lowing trends: (1) Generally, the length of rupture at the surface is equal to 75% of the subsurface rupture length; however, the ratio of surface rupture length to subsurface rupture length increases with magnitude; (2) the average surface dis­ placement per event is about one-half the maximum surface displacement per event; and (3) the average subsurface displacement on the fault plane is less than the maximum surface displacement but more than the average surface dis­ placement. Thus, for most earthquakes in this data base, slip on the fault plane at seismogenic depths is manifested by similar displacements at the surface. Log-linear regressions between earthquake magnitude and surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, and rupture area are especially well correlated, show­ ing standard deviations of 0.25 to 0.35 magnitude units.
    [Show full text]
  • Instrumented 7-Storey Reinforced Concrete Building in Van Nuys, California: Description of the Damage from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and Strong Motion Data
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Department of Civil Engineering INSTRUMENTED 7-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING IN VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA: DESCRIPTION OF THE DAMAGE FROM THE 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE AND STRONG MOTION DATA by M.D. Trifunac, S.S. IvanoviüDQG0,7RGRURYVND Report CE 99-02 July, 1999 Los Angeles, California ABSTRACT This report presents photographs and description of the damage in a seven-story reinforced concrete building in the city of Van Nuys in the Los Angeles metropolitan area caused by the Northridge, California, earthquake of 17 January, 1994. This earthquake was of moderate size (ML=6.4), but occurred right beneath the densely populated San Fernando Valley and caused extensive damage to buildings and to the infrastructure. This building was located about 1.5 km east from the epicenter. It has been instrumented since 1967, and has recorded many earthquake and aftershocks, including the 1971 San Fernando, 1987 Whittier-Narrows, 1992 Landers, 1992 Big Bear, and 1994 Northridge earthquakes. This report also describes strong-motion data from nine earthquakes and three aftershocks recorded in this building, up to December of 1994. It is intended to serve as supporting documentation for studies of the seismic response of this building and the damage caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. A brief description of studies of this building conducted by the authors is also included, to illustrate type of analyses these data can be used for. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….i TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………ii 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives.................................................................................................................1 1.2 Organization of this Report...................................................................................... 3 1.3 Review of Selected Studies of the VN7SH Building..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Report
    PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters Kenneth W. Campbell EQECAT, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon and Yousef Bozorgnia Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California, Berkeley PEER 2007/02 MAY 2007 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. PEER 2007/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion Relations for the May 2007 Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground 6. Performing Organization Code Motion Parameters. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Kenneth W. Campbell and Yousef Bozorgnia UCB/PEER 2007/02 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center 325 Davis Hall MC 1792 University of California 11. Contract or Grant No. Berkeley, CA 94720 65A0058 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered California Department of Transportation Technical report through June 2006 Engineering Service Center 1801 30th St., West Building MS-9 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Sacramento, CA 95807 06681 15. Supplementary Notes This study was sponsored by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center’s Program of Applied Earthquake Engineering Research of Lifelines Systems supported by the California Department of Transportation, the California Energy Commission, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 16. Abstract We present a new empirical ground motion model, commonly referred to as an attenuation relationship, which we developed as part of the PEER Next Generation Attenuation of Ground Motion (NGA) Project.
    [Show full text]
  • 1995 Annual Meeting 90089-0740
    0 V Southern California Earthquake Center Science Director Keiiti Aid Southern California Earthquake Center Administration John McRaney, Director Education Curt Abdouch Director Knowledee Transfer Jill Andrews, Director Engineering Applications Geoffrey Martin, Director Southern California Earthquake Center thAeng=University of 1995 Annual Meeting 90089-0740 Institutional Representatives Robert Clayton Seismological Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125 David Jackson arthaDepartment of September 17-19, 1995 UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90024-1567 Ralph Archuleta Institute for Crustal Studies UCSB Santa Barbara, CA 93106-1100 Bernard Minster Scripps Institution of Oceanography Ojai Valley Inn LaJolla,CA • • 92093-0225 Ojai, California Leonardo Seeber t,amont-Doherty Earth Observatory Columbia University Palisades, NY 10964 James Mon USGS - OEVE 525 S. Wilson Ave. Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone (213) 740-5843 FAX (213) 740-0011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1995 SCEC Annual Meeting Agenda 1 1994 SCEC Schedule 4 Participants 5 Field Trip Participants 9 SCEC Organization - 1995 11 SCEC Advisory Council 13 1995 Senior Research liwestigators 14 1994-95 Post-Doctoral Fellows and Visitors 18 1995 SCEC Funding Sources 19 199 1-1995 SCEC Budgets 20 1991-1995 SCEC Science Budgets by Task 21 1995 SCEC Program 23 Reports from Directors Why Fundamental Earthquake Science? 29 Highlights of the Education Program 36 Highlights of the Knowledge Transfer Program 41 1995 Abstracts for the Annual Meeting 46 1995 SCEC ANNUAL MEETING AGENDA Sunday, September 17 10:00 a.m. Field Trip led by Tom Rockwell and Gary Huftile 7:00 p.m. Poster Session and Icebreaker 9:00 p.m. SCIGN Meeting 9:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • 1993 Report Seismological Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125
    cv Southern California Earthquake Center Science Director K. Aki Executive Director T. Henvey Southern California Southern California Earthquake Center Earthquake Center University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089 Institutional Representatives R Clayton 1993 Report Seismological Laboratory Catifornia Institute of Technology Pasadena. CA 91125 D. Jackson prepared for the Department of Earth and Space Sciences UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90024 R. Archialeta Department of Geological Sciences SCEC Annual Meeting UCSB Sanfa Barbara, CA December 10-12, 1993 93106 K. McNally Earth Sciences Board of Studies UCSC Santa Cruz, CA 95064 B. Minster Scripps Institution of Oceanography UCSD La Jolla, CA 92093 L Seeber Lamont-Doherfy Geological Ohs. Columbia University Palisades, NY The Resort at Squaw Creek 10964 Squaw Valley, California T. Heaton USGS - COVE 525 S. Wilson Ave. Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone (213) 740-5843 FAX (213) 740-0011 0 Southern C1ifornia Earthquake Center Science Director K. Aid Executive Director Southern California Southern California Earthquake Center Earthquake Center University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089 Institutional Representatives 1993 Report Seismological Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125 0. Jackson prepared for the Department of Earth and Space Sciences UCL5. Los Angeles, CA 90024 R. Archuleta :ences SCEC Annual Meeting December 10-12, 1993 93106 K. McNally Earth Sciences Board of Studies UCSC Santa Cruz, CA 95064 B. Minster Scripps Institution of Oceanography UCSD
    [Show full text]
  • Contrasting Decay Patterns of the Proximate Large Earthquakes in Southern California Yosihiko Ogata Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo, Japan
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. B6, 2318, doi:10.1029/2002JB002009, 2003 When and where the aftershock activity was depressed: Contrasting decay patterns of the proximate large earthquakes in southern California Yosihiko Ogata Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo, Japan Lucile M. Jones U.S. Geological Survey, Pasadena, California, USA Shinji Toda Geological Survey of Japan, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan Received 4 June 2002; revised 16 February 2003; accepted 14 March 2003; published 25 June 2003. [1] Seismic quiescence has attracted attention as a possible precursor to a large earthquake. However, sensitive detection of quiescence requires accurate modeling of normal aftershock activity. We apply the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model that is a natural extension of the modified Omori formula for aftershock decay, allowing further clusters (secondary aftershocks) within an aftershock sequence. The Hector Mine aftershock activity has been normal, relative to the decay predicted by the ETAS model during the 14 months of available data. In contrast, although the aftershock sequence of the 1992 Landers earthquake (M = 7.3), including the 1992 Big Bear earthquake (M = 6.4) and its aftershocks, fits very well to the ETAS up until about 6 months after the main shock, the activity showed clear lowering relative to the modeled rate (relative quiescence) and lasted nearly 7 years, leading up to the Hector Mine earthquake (M = 7.1) in 1999. Specifically, the relative quiescence occurred only in the shallow aftershock activity, down to depths of 5–6 km. The sequence of deeper events showed clear, normal aftershock activity well fitted to the ETAS throughout the whole period.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Profile
    YUCCA VALLEY COMMUNITY PROFILE YUCCA VALLEY COMMUNITY PROFILE Celebrating 20 Years of Community November 2011 Prepared for: Town of Yucca Valley 57090 Twentynine Palms Highway Yucca Valley, CA 92284 Prepared by: The Planning Center|DC&E 3 MacArthur Place Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Town Council Town Departments Town Manager George Huntington, Mayor Administrative Services Mark Nuaimi Curtis Yakimow, Director Dawn Rowe, Mayor Pro-tem Community Development/ Public Works Isaac Hagerman, Council Member Shane Stueckle, Deputy Town Manager Merl Abel, Council Member Community Services Robert Lombardo, Council Member Jim Schooler, Director Additional thanks to Town staff for their assistance in preparing this document. Copyright © 2011 by the Town of Yucca Valley. All rights reserved. With the exception of use or reproduction for informational or non-commercial uses, or as permitted under current legislation, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical or by photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the Town. All photographs not otherwise attributed are the property of the Town of Yucca Valley and are covered by this copyright. Photographs attributed to individuals or organizations have been reproduced in this publication in accordance with the license requirements required by each individual or organization. Print Version 1.0; November, 2011. 2 YUCCA VALLEY | Community Profile TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Earthquake Cycle Deformation and the Moho: Implications for the Rheology of Continental Lithosphere
    This is a repository copy of Earthquake cycle deformation and the Moho: Implications for the rheology of continental lithosphere. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/80222/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Wright, TJ, Elliott, JR, Wang, H et al. (1 more author) (2013) Earthquake cycle deformation and the Moho: Implications for the rheology of continental lithosphere. Tectonophysics, 609. 504 - 523. ISSN 0040-1951 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.07.029 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Earthquake cycle deformation and the Moho: Implications for the rheology of continental lithosphere. Tim J. Wrighta, John Elliottb, Hua Wangc, Isabelle Ryderd aCOMET+, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, LS2 9JT bCOMET+, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, OX1 3PR cDepartment of Surveying Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China dSchool of Environmental Sciences, 4 Brownlow St, University of Liverpool, UK, L69 3GP Abstract The last 20 years has seen a dramatic improvement in the quantity and quality of geodetic measurements of the earthquake loading cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancheta Et Al., (2013): AEA13; Boatwright Et Al
    PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER PEER NGA-West2 Database Timothy D. Ancheta Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Robert B. Darragh Pacific Engineering and Analysis Jonathan P. Stewart Emel Seyhan University of California, Los Angeles Walter J. Silva Pacific Engineering and Analysis Brian S. J. Chiou California Department of Transportation Katie E. Wooddell Pacific Gas & Electric Company Robert W. Graves United States Geologic Survey Albert R. Kottke Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center David M. Boore United States Geologic Survey Tadahiro Kishida Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER 2013/03 MAY 2013 Jennifer L. Donahue Geosyntec Consultants Disclaimer The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the study sponsor(s) or the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER NGA-West2 Database Timothy D. Ancheta Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Robert B. Darragh Pacific Engineering and Analysis Jonathan P. Stewart Emel Seyhan University of California, Los Angeles Walter J. Silva Pacific Engineering and Analysis Brian S. J. Chiou California Department of Transporation Katie E. Wooddell Pacific Gas & Electric Company Robert W. Graves United States Geological Survey Albert R. Kottke Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center David M. Boore United States Geological Survey Tadahiro Kishida Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Jennifer L. Donahue Geosyntec Consultants PEER Report 2013/03 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Headquarters at the University of California, Berkeley May 2013 ii ABSTRACT The NGA-West2 project database expands on the current PEER NGA ground-motion database to include worldwide ground-motion data recorded from shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes post 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
    CITY OF LA PALMA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN OCTOBER 2019 This page intentionally left blank. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 – Community Profile ............................................................................. 2-1 Chapter 3 – Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 3-1 Chapter 4 – Threat and Vulnerability Assessments .................................. 4-1 Chapter 5 – Hazard Mitigation Strategy ........................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 – Plan Maintenance ................................................................................ 6-1 Appendices – ............................................................................................................................ Appendix A – Meeting Materials ........................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B – Community Outreach Materials .............................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C – Adoption Resolution ..................................................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D – Critical Facilities Inventory ...................................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices – Microsoft Excel Workbooks on Compact Disk
    Appendices – Microsoft Excel Workbooks on Compact Disk The MS Excel spreadsheet format is used for maximum portability. Microsoft pro- vides MS Excel viewer free of charge at its Internet web site. The spreadsheets are kept as simple as possible. If MS Excel complains at the start about the security level of macros please click on Tools then Macro then Security button and adjust the security level to at least medium. The spreadsheet must be exited and re-entered for the change made to take place. The spreadsheets are applicable to the case studies and examples considered in this monograph. A.1 Coordinates of Earthquake Hypocentre and Site-to-Epicentre Distance The coordinates x, y, z are calculated by solution of three equations: 2 2 2 2 (x − xi ) + (y − yi ) + (z − zi ) = di , (A.1.1) where xi , yi , zi are coordinates of seismograph stations, i = 1...3, di is the source to station distance calculated from Equation (1.1). Depending on the orientation of the vertical z axis, the hypocentral depth could have positive or negative sign. A view of the spreadsheet results is shown below (Fig. A1.1). The site to epicentre distance in km and azimuth (the angle measured clockwise from North direction) between them are calculated from the formulae 180 1 − [sin(EN)∗ sin(SN) + cos(EN)∗ cos(SN)∗ cos(SE−EE)]2 Dis tan ce = 111 · · Atn π sin(EN)∗ sin(SN) + cos(EN)∗ cos(SN)∗ cos(SE-EE) ∗ = cos(SN) sin(SE-EE ) , Azimuth Arc sin Dis tan ce·π (A.1.2) sin 111·180 where EN and EE are the northings and eastings (in degrees) of an earthquake epi- centre, SN and SE are the northings and eastings (in degrees) of a seismic station.
    [Show full text]