Putting USGS Research to Use:

cypriotcamelUrban and Civil

Nov 29, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

66 views

Putting USGS Research to Use:

User Perspectives on Research Evolution,

Accomplishments, and Challenges


USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP)





Lloyd S. Cluff

Director, Geosciences Department

Earthquake Risk Management

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

San Francisco, California

Congressional Briefing on Earthquakes


Natural Hazards Science:

Reducing America’s Risk From Earthquakes

May 12, 2006


Pacific Gas and Electric


70,000 square miles

of service territory


15 million people served


4.1 million gas customers


5 million electric customers


3,400 buildings

San Andreas fault

70% of SA fault traverses

PG&E service territory

Active faults

PG&E at a Glance

EHP
-
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/Private

Partnership

(1991
-
2006)

Active Faults

SF

Monterey Bay

San Francisco

Sacramento

Active faults

All PG&E Facilities


Earthquake Risk Management Policy* for Utilities
and Transportation Systems



Program to understand hazards and system
vulnerabilities


Plan to implement risk management options


Dedicated staff


Dedicated budget


Accountability






*California Seismic Safety Commission, 1990

Public/Private Partnership

Lifelines 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 Scenario

UC Berkeley

Nishenko 2006

Hayward Fault Scenario

PG&E Seismic Retrofit Projects for
Earthquake Performance Improvements


(1986 to 2006
)




Facilities

Cost ($ millions)


Buildings

300

Substations


45

Dams and Related Hydro Facilities


75

Power Plants


60

Gas Pipeline Replacement 1950

Loma Prieta Repairs


75


TOTAL INVESTMENT

~
$
2.5 billion





Earthquake Performance Mitigation Improvements
for Utilities and Transportation Systems

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

Rupture Length ~ 354 km

Maximum right slip ~ 8.8 m

Trans
-
Alaska Pipeline Success Story

November 3, 2002 M 7.9 Eq & Denali fault rupture

TAPS

T. Dawson, 2002

Not a drop of oil was spilled !

P. Haeussler 2002

P. Haeussler 2002



Denali fault
-
crossing design zone

Pipeline

Denali fault crossing


Teflon
-
coated concrete

and steel beams

Teflon
-
coated pipeline

support shoes

L. Cluff, 1976


Denali fault crossing design zone

L. Cluff, 1976

2000 ft








Fault rupture through Denali fault crossing design zone

2000 ft

Most likely location

Right slip will cause pipeline

to experience axial compression




Denali fault
-
crossing

design parameters



Horizontal, 20 feet


Vertical, 5 feet

Up

Pipeline performed as

designed; and not a

drop of oil was spilled !


November 3, 2002 rupture



Horizontal, 18 feet



Vertical, 3.5 feet



Axial compression, 11 feet

7.5 ft

10.5 ft

Fault displacement 18 ft

Width of deformation 660 ft

Fault displacement design zone

2,000 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