Does it make sense from engineering and economic perspectives to design for a 2475-year earthquake?

Special Paper of the Geological Society of America

Volumn 425, Issue , 2007, Pages 353-361

  Searer, G R ^a   Freeman, S A ^a   Paret, T F ^a  

^a WISS JANNEY ELSTNER ASSOCIATES INC   (United States)

Author keywords

2475 year earthquake; 475 year earthquake; Atructural engineering; Economics

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; ECONOMICS; HAZARDS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SEISMIC DESIGN; STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS;

EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT DESIGN; ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE; ECONOMIC RESEARCH; ENGINEERING STANDPOINT; FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; FLOOD HAZARD MAPS; INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE; SEISMIC DESIGN LOAD;

EARTHQUAKES;

BUILDING CODE; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; ECONOMICS; FLOOD; RETURN PERIOD; SEISMIC DESIGN;

EID: 75749139402     PISSN: 00721077     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1130/2007.2425(23)     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Charlier, T., 2003, Quake-Proofing Costly, Difficult: New Building Code Could Shake Skyline: Memphis, Tennessee, GoMemphis.com (last accessed May 2003).
2. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2003, Sample NEHRP Letter to Members of Congress: Oakland, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, p. 1.
3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000, HAZUS99 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States (FEMA 366): Washington, D.C., FEMA, p. 1-32.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2001, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures: Part 2. Commentary, 2000 Edition: Washington, D.C., FEMA, 377 p.
5. Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA), 2004, Ranking of U.S. metropolitan areas with future estimated earthquake losses of more than $10 million per year: http://www.fema.gov/nwz01/nwz01-13a.shtm (August 2005).
6. Frankel, A., 2004, How can seismic hazard in the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?: Seismological Research Letters, v. 75, no. 5, p. 574-585.
7. Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP), 1999, http://www. seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP (January 2006).
8. Gomberg, J., 2003, Research dampens earthquake speculation: http://memphis. bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2003/01/06/daily21.html (August 2005).
9. International Code Council (ICC), 2005, International code adoptions: http:// www.iccsafe.org/government/adoption.html (August 2005).
10. Karter, M.J., 2005, Fire Loss in the United States during 2004: Quincy, Massachusetts, National Fire Protection Association, p. ii.
11. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), 2005, About the NEHRP: http://www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/nehrp/about.shtm (August 2005).
12. Searer, G.R., and Freeman, S.A., 2002, Unintended consequences of code modification, in Proceedings of the Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Boston, Massachusetts): Oakland, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, CD-ROM.
13. Stein, S., 2005, How can seismic hazard in the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?: Comment: Seismological Research Letters, v. 76, no. 3, p. 364-365.
14. Stein, S., Tomasello, J., and Newman, A., 2003, Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes?: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 84, p. 177, 184-185.
15. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (7th edition): Sacramento, California, Structural Engineers Association of California, 83 p.
16. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Ranking tables for metropolitan areas: Population in 2000 and population change in 2000 (PHC-T-3): http://www.census. gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab01.xls (August 2005).
17. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2002, San Francisco Bay region earthquake probability: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/research/seismology/wg02/images/percmap- lrg.jpg (August 2005).
18. Weber, S.F., 1985, Cost impact of the NEHRP recommended provisions on the design and construction of buildings, in Societal Implications: Washington, D.C., Selected Readings, Building Seismic Safety Council, p. 1-1-1-19.