putting usgs research to use: user perspectives on research evolution, accomplishments, and...
TRANSCRIPT
Putting USGS Research to Use:Putting USGS Research to Use:User Perspectives on Research Evolution,User Perspectives on Research Evolution,
Accomplishments, and ChallengesAccomplishments, and Challenges
USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP)USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP)
Lloyd S. CluffLloyd S. CluffDirector, Geosciences Department
Earthquake Risk ManagementPacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, California
Congressional Briefing on EarthquakesCongressional Briefing on Earthquakes
Natural Hazards Science:Natural Hazards Science:Reducing America’s Risk From EarthquakesReducing America’s Risk From Earthquakes
May 12, 2006May 12, 2006
Pacific Gas and ElectricPacific Gas and Electric
70,000 square miles70,000 square milesof service territoryof service territory
15 million people served15 million people served
4.1 million gas customers4.1 million gas customers
5 million electric customers5 million electric customers
3,400 buildings3,400 buildings
San Andreas faultSan Andreas fault
70% of SA fault traversesPG&E service territory Active faults
PG&E at a Glance
EHP-AccomplishmentsEHP-Accomplishments
• Learning from earthquakes
• National Hazards Maps
• Surface fault rupture effects characterized
• Near-source ground motions characterized
• Regional hazards assessments
• Earthquake forecasts and Shake-Maps
San Francisco Bay Area(1992-2006)
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) on Earthquake Hazards
Public/PrivatePartnership(1991-2006)
Active Faults
SF
San Francisco
Sacramento
Active faults
All PG&E Facilities
Earthquake Risk Management Policy* for Utilities Earthquake Risk Management Policy* for Utilities and Transportation Systems and Transportation Systems
Program to understand hazards and system Program to understand hazards and system vulnerabilitiesvulnerabilities
Plan to implement risk management optionsPlan to implement risk management options Dedicated staffDedicated staff Dedicated budgetDedicated budget AccountabilityAccountability
*California Seismic Safety Commission, 1990
Public/Private PartnershipLifelines User-Driven Research Program (1996-2006)
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center• PG&E• Caltrans• California Energy Commission• Other stakeholders for specific projects (USGS,
FEMA, and the Southern California Earthquake Center)
• $15 million leveraged funding
Nishenko 2006
Nishenko 2006
Nishenko 2006
San Andreas Fault Rupture
Rodgers Creek Fault Rupture
Hayward Fault Rupture
Gas transmission
Scenarios
Hayward Fault ScenarioHayward Fault Scenario
UC Berkeley
Nishenko 2006
Hayward Fault Scenario
PG&E Seismic Retrofit Projects for Earthquake Performance Improvements –
(1986 to 2006)
Facilities Cost ($ millions)
Buildings 300Substations 45 Dams and Related Hydro Facilities 75Power Plants 60 Gas Pipeline Replacement 1950Loma Prieta Repairs 75
TOTAL INVESTMENT ~ $2.5 billion
Earthquake Performance Mitigation Improvements Earthquake Performance Mitigation Improvements for Utilities and Transportation Systemsfor Utilities and Transportation SystemsSan Francisco Bay Area (1989 to 2006)San Francisco Bay Area (1989 to 2006)
PG&E – Gas and electric systems Caltrans – Bridge and highway systems East Bay MUD – Water systems BART – Rail transportation system San Francisco Water Department
Combined existing and planned expenditures ~ $15 billion
Susitna Glacier fault
Epicenter
Denali fault
Totschunda fault
Rupture Length ~ 354 kmMaximum right slip ~ 8.8 m
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Success Story November 3, 2002 M 7.9 Eq & Denali fault rupture
TAPSTAPS
T. Dawson, 2002
Not a drop of oil was spilled !
P. Haeussler 2002
P. Haeussler 2002
Denali fault-crossing design zone
71-Fault characterization data sites
Pipeline
Denali fault crossing
Teflon-coated concrete and steel beams
Teflon-coated pipeline support shoes
L. Cluff, 1976L. Cluff, 1976
Denali fault crossing design zone
L. Cluff, 1976L. Cluff, 1976
2000 ft
Fault rupture through Denali fault crossing design zoneFault rupture through Denali fault crossing design zone
2000 ftMost likely location
Right slip will cause pipeline to experience axial compression
Denali fault-crossingdesign parameters
Horizontal, 20 feet Vertical, 5 feet
Up
Pipeline performed asdesigned; and not adrop of oil was spilled !
November 3, 2002 ruptureNovember 3, 2002 rupture• Horizontal, 18 feet• Vertical, 3.5 feet• Axial compression, 11 feet
7.5 ft7.5 ft
10.5 ft10.5 ft
Fault displacement 18 ftFault displacement 18 ftWidth of deformation 660 ftWidth of deformation 660 ft
Fault displacement design zone2,000 ft wide
Conclusions and Recommendations
Seismic safety must be given priority• 39 states have significant seismic exposure• They will experience painful deaths and
staggering economic losses• The losses are preventable by implementing
mitigating measures
Conclusions and Recommendations The USGS must initiate a leadership role:
A complete analysis of the consequences of catastrophic California earthquakes (San Francisco Bay Area / Southern California Region
Integrate all hazards threats to develop a comprehensive emergency response for all infrastructure elements that will institute a full and speedy recovery for society
The lessons learned in this demonstration project would be applicable to all national extreme disasters
Conclusions and Recommendations
There is an urgent need to fully implement the USGS Advanced National Seismic System through appropriations that are consistent with Congressional Authorizations
It is in the public interest to support research for lifelines infrastructure and buildings
•Multi-hazard emphasis•User-driven•Standardized post-event data collection Successes Challenges