University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 5-2014 Integrating Seismic Activity Into Land Use Management: A Case Study From Central Arkansas Using HAZUS Software Application Robert Dean Breashears University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Nature and Society Relations Commons, and the Physical and Environmental Geography Commons Recommended Citation Breashears, Robert Dean, "Integrating Seismic Activity Into Land Use Management: A Case Study From Central Arkansas Using HAZUS Software Application" (2014). Theses and Dissertations. 2366. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2366 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Integrating Seismic Activity Into Land Use Management: A Case Study From Central Arkansas Using HAZUS Software Application Integrating Seismic Activity Into Land Use Management: A Case Study From Central Arkansas Using HAZUS Software Application A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography by Robert Dean Breashears University of Arkansas Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Geography, 2001 May 2014 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ____________________________________ Dr. Tom Paradise Thesis Director ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Dr. John Dixon Dr. Gregory Dumond Commitee Member Commitee Member ABSTRACT Almost 20 years after a remarkable swarm of more than 30,000 micro-earthquakes, a new swarm revisited the same region of central Arkansas, less than 30 miles northeast of Conway, Arkansas. A main shock on May 4, 2001 of magnitude MR = 4.4 was followed by a large number of aftershocks in a small crustal volume about 2,500 events for about 2 months. Preliminary locations of aftershocks from the portable network together with the locations based on data from regional networks lead us to conclude that both swarms (2001 and 1982) occupy virtually the same crustal volume. In following years several other active faults were found in Arkansas, yet few studies have been done to investigate the potential damages that an earthquake would produce in Central Arkansas. The HAZUS-MH software tool, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences was used to identify areas most physically and socially vulnerable to earthquake ground shaking and to present earthquake loss estimations for downtown Conway, Arkansas for this study. As the thrust of this research, it was found that the accuracy of the loss estimation is dependent on several factors. The greatest amount of losses occurred when (a) stronger ground shaking occurred greater than MR=5.0 hitting (b)unreinforced masonry such as non rebar brick and mortar and (c)commercial buildings such as large open-beamed warehouses (d) in the afternoon 3pm-5pm. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Tom Paradise, for his guidance, patience, and consideration. I’d like to thank my wife who has tolerated my work without complaint. I am glad that I finally accomplished this research project and thesis with by her my side. DEDICATION Integrating Seismic Activity Into Land Use Management: A Case Study From Central Arkansas Using HAZUS Software Application dedicated to all my family and fellow students at the University of Arkansas. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Focus .......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 HAZUS-MH ............................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 2: Study Site ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 9 2.1.1 Soils of Conway ...................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Geology of Conway ............................................................................................... 12 2.2 Cultural ...................................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Demographics ............................................................................................................ 23 2.3.1 History...................................................................................................................... 23 2.4 Economic and Commerce .......................................................................................... 26 2.5 Climate and Hydrology .............................................................................................. 27 Chapter 3: Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 35 3.1 General Hazard .......................................................................................................... 35 3.1.1 Disaster ................................................................................................................... 36 3.1.2 Schools of Thought Regarding Hazard Research .................................................. 37 3.1.3 Studies ..................................................................................................................... 40 3.1.4 Trends in Seismic Hazard Research ....................................................................... 42 3.2 Seismic Hazards ......................................................................................................... 44 3.2.1 Seismic History of Region ...................................................................................... 45 3.2.2 Regional Seismic History ...................................................................................... 49 3.2.3 Commerce Geophysical Lineament ....................................................................... 62 3.3 Hazard/Risk Perception .......................................................................................... 66 3.4 Hazard and Policy Law ............................................................................................. 72 3.4.1 Federal Seismic Laws and Policies ......................................................................... 74 3.4.2 California State Legislation .................................................................................... 77 3.4.3 Regional Seismic Laws and Policies ...................................................................... 80 3.4.4 Arkansas State Legislation ...................................................................................... 81 Chapter 4: Methodology .............................................................................................................. 84 4.1 Earthquake Scenarios.................................................................................................. 86 4.2 Validation.................................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 5: Results & Analysis ..................................................................................................... 91 Chapter 6: Discussion .................................................................................................................. 96 6.1 Influence of the Natural Environment on Loss .......................................................... 96 6.2 Influence of the Urban Environment on Loss ........................................................... 97 Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 105 7.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 108 Chapter 8: Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 113 Chapter 9: Appendix .................................................................................................................. 126 Appendix A: Common Earthquake Scales .................................................................... 126 Appendix B: Earthquake Maps/Information about Maps .............................................. 129 Appendix C: Arkansas Earthquake Laws ...................................................................... 133 Appendix D: Arkansas Geological Formations ............................................................. 141 Appendix E: Occupancy class descriptions as described in FEMA and NIBS (2006b) 152 Appendix F: Adapting HAZUS-MH for a Japanese Setting ........................................ 151 Appendix G: Summary of HAZUS inputs as summarized in FEMA (2004) ................ 173 Appendix H: Loss Estimations ...................................................................................... 181 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Arkansas Aeromagnetic and Gravity Map ..................................................................