Natural Hazards

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 1055–1081 | Cite as

Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA

  • Jonathan W. F. Remo
  • Nicholas Pinter
Original Paper


This investigation was undertaken to assess the sensitivity of the Hazus-MH (v2.0) earthquake model to model parameters and to guide the selection of these parameters for realistic earthquake-loss assessment in the central USA. To accomplish these goals, we performed several sensitivity analyses and a validation assessment using earthquake damage surveys from the 2008 M5.2 Mt. Carmel, Illinois earthquake. We evaluated the sensitivity of the Hazus-MH earthquake model to the selection of seismic hazard data, attenuation function, soils data, liquefaction data, and structural fragility curves. These sensitivity analyses revealed that earthquake damage, loss, and casualty estimates are most sensitive to the seismic hazard data and selection of the attenuation function. The selection of the seismic hazard data and attenuation function varied earthquake damages and capital-stock losses by ±68 % and casualty estimates by ±84 %. The validation assessment revealed that Hazus-MH overpredicted observed damages by 68–221 % depending on the model parameters employed. The model run using region-specific soils, liquefaction, and structure fragility curves produced the most realistic damage estimate (within 68 % of actual damages). Damage estimates using default Hazus-MH parameters were overpredicted by 155 %. The uncertainties identified here are similar to uncertainties recognized in other Hazus-MH validation assessments. Despite uncertainties in Hazus-MH earthquake-loss estimates, such estimates are still useful for planning and response so long as the limitations of the results are properly conveyed to planners, decision makers, emergency responders, and the public.


Earthquake-loss modeling Hazus-MH Sensitivity analyses Validation assessment Central United States Wabash Valley Seismic Zone 


  1. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) Ground-motion relations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(1):17–30Google Scholar
  2. Bauer RA, Su WJ (2007a) Soil site class map for the comprehensive seismic loss modeling of the state of Illinois. Illinois State Geologic Survey, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer RA, Su WJ (2007b) Liquefaction susceptibility map for the comprehensive seismic loss modeling of the state of Illinois. Illinois State Geologic Survey, 5 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer AB, Kiefer J, Hester N (2001) Soil amplification maps for estimating earthquake ground motions in the central U.S. Eng Geol 62:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buechler J (2010) Indiana and Illinois inventory update strategies. Hazus-MH Hot Zone, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed 3 Jan 2012
  6. Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion relations in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1012–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) Association of State Geologists (2008) CUSEC state geologists’ procedures for New Madrid catastrophic planning Phase II 8-state soils site class, liquefaction susceptibility, and spoil response maps. CUSEC, MemphisGoogle Scholar
  8. Coburn AW, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection. Wiley, West Sussex, p 420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] (2011) Hazus-MH—MH 2.0 earthquake model technical manual. FEMA, Mitigation Division, Washington, DC, Unites States. Accessed 8 July 2011Google Scholar
  10. Field EH, Seligson HA, Gupta N, Gupta V, Jordan TH, Campbell KW (2005) Loss estimates for a Puente Hills blind-thrust earthquake in Los Angeles, California. Earthq Spectra 21(2):329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frankel AD, Petersen MD, Muller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Leyendecker EV, Wesson RL, Harmsen, SC, Cramer CH, Perkins DM, Rukstales KS (2002) Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps U.S. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report: 02-420. Accessed 1 July 2011
  12. Frankel A, Mueller C, Barnhard T, Perkins D, Leyendecker EV, Dickman N, Hanson S, Hopper M (1996) National seismic hazard maps, June 1996, Documentation: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report 96-532, 100 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Gencturk B, Elnashai AS, Song J (2007) Fragility relations for populations of building based on inelastic response. Mid-America Earthquake Center, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  14. Gencturk B, Elnashai AS, Song J (2008) Fragility relationship for populations of wood frame structures based on inelastic response. J Earthq Eng 12(S2):11–128. doi: 10.1080/13632460802013818 Google Scholar
  15. Hough SE, Bilham R, Muller K, Stephenson W, Williams R, Odum J (2005) Wagon loads of sand blows in White County, Illinois. Seismol Res Lett 76(3):373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaka SI, Atkinson GM (2005) Empirical ground-motion relations for ShakeMap applications in southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 76(2):274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kircher CA, Seligson HA, Bouabid J, Morrow GC (2006a) When the big one strikes again-estimated losses due to a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Earthq Spectra 22:S297–S339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT (2006b) Hazus-MH earthquake-loss estimation methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):45–59. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) (2009) New Madrid seismic zone catastrophic earthquake response planning project, Impacts of the New Madrid Seismic Zone Earthquake on the Central USA, 193 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Munson PJ, Obermeier SF, Munson CA, Hajic ER (1997) Liquefaction evidence for Holocene and latest pleistocene seismicity in the Southern Halves of Indiana and Illinois: preliminary overview. Seismol Res Lett 3(4):521–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Institute of Building Science (2001) Hazus99-SR1 validation study. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  22. Olson SM, Green RA, Obermeier SF (2005) Revised magnitude-bound relations for the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone of the Central Unites States. Seismol Res Lett 68(4):611–623Google Scholar
  23. Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler, RL, Wesson, RL, Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH, Wills, CJ, Rukstales KS (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report 2008-1128, 61 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Ploeger SK, Atkinson GM, Samson C (2010) Applying the Hazus-MH software tool to assess seismic risk in downtown Ottawa, Canada. Nat Hazards 53:1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9408-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pond EC, Martin JR (1997) Estimating magnitudes and accelerations associated with prehistoric earthquakes in the Wabash valley region of the central Unites States. Seismol Res Lett 68(4):611–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Price JG, Hastings JT, Goar LD, Armeno LD, Johnson G, Depolo CM, Hess RH (2010) Sensitivity analysis of loss estimation modeling using uncertainties in earthquake parameters. Environ Eng Geosci 16:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers JD, Karadeniz D (2010) Overview of the seismic threat in the central United States. In: Fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, CA, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  28. Somerville P, Collins N, Abrahamson N, Graves R, Saikia C (2001) Ground motion attenuation relations for the Central and eastern United States, final report, June 30, 2001: report to U.S. Geological Survey for award 99HQGR0098. Accessed 15 May 2011
  29. Street RL, Bauer RA, Woolerly (2004) Short note: magnitude scaling of prehistoric earthquakes in the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone of the central Unites States. Seimol Res Lett 75(5):637–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toro GR, Abrahamson NA, Schneider JF (1997) Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in the central and eastern North America: best estimates and uncertainties. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Census Bureau (2011) American fact finder. Accessed 20 May 2011
  32. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2012) ShakeMap archive. Accessed 29 Mar 2012
  33. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 2006. ShakeMap manual: technical manual, user’s guide and software guide. Accessed 12 Dec 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental ResourcesSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations