Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 113–132 | Cite as

Earthquake scenario in a national drill, the case of “Turning Point 6”, 2012, Israel

  • T. Levi
  • A. Salamon
  • D. Bausch
  • J. Rozelle
  • A. Cutrell
  • S. Hoyland
  • Y. Hamiel
  • O. Katz
  • R. Calvo
  • Z. Gvirtzman
  • B. Ackerman
  • I. Gavrieli
Original Paper
  • 119 Downloads

Abstract

National exercises are an excellent opportunity to practice earthquake preparedness. Such exercises can greatly benefit from productive communication between the civil protection agencies (CPs) and the earth sciences community (SC). The challenge of the scientists in this interaction is to properly formulate their message and convey their perspective in a manner understandable to the responsible emergency agencies. On October 2012, Israel held its first national earthquake emergency exercise (TP6) that examined the response of the country’s systems at large to an Mw ~ 7 earthquake. The exercise greatly benefited from brain storming meetings between the CPs and researchers from the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) that were held prior to the drill. These helped in choosing the earthquake scenario and establish the concept of the exercise. Geological hazards and damage maps, including numerous discrete events, were prepared in advance with the HAZUS Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation software and were conveyed to the drilled authorities during the exercise. The exercise also benefitted from close collaboration between researchers of FEMA and the GSI. During the drill, the GSI and its relevant scientists practiced the preparation and transfer of the relevant material to the decision makers in “real time.” The drill provided the following lessons: (1) In real time, the damage maps should be delivered by earthquake researchers, thereby helping the CP agencies to grasp the information. (2) Damage maps should be prepared in advance and accessibly stored by the CP agencies for a range of probable scenarios. (3) Damage maps based on dot density that represent number of buildings damaged, number of casualties and weight of debris were found to be the most comprehensible when presenting the scope of the damage. The lessons learned from the collaboration between the CP and SC in TP6 provide an excellent example for optimal planning of national earthquake exercises, thereby helping in minimizing the anticipated impact of destructive earthquakes.

Keywords

National earthquake exercises Hazus Damage maps Loss estimation Dead Sea Transform Israel 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the exercise management, and Meir Ben-Yishai, Itai Peleg, Shaul Atiya and Gil Paran in particular, for their help in crystallizing the damage picture of the exercise. Thanks to Bat-Sheva Cohen, Nili Almog and Hannah Nezer-Cohen, who worked diligently in producing the maps and the published report and thanks to Amir Sagy who worked with us during the day of TP6. The work was fully supported by the Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness in Israel.

Supplementary material

11069_2018_3194_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4756 kb)

References

  1. Ambraseys NN (2009) Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartov Y, Sneh A, Rosensaft M (2009) Map of ‘active’ and ‘potentially active’ faults in Israel. Geological Survey of Israel (Israel standard 413), JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Menahem A, Nur A, Vered M (1976) Tectonics, seismicity and structure of the Afro-Eurasian junction—the breaking of an incoherent plate. Phys Earth Planet Inter 12:1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings. Developed by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC, pp 335Google Scholar
  5. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Institute of Building Sciences (2012) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model HAZUS-MH 2.1 technical manual, prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USA, p 676Google Scholar
  6. Freund R, Zak I, Garfunkel Z (1968) Age and rate of sinistral movement along the Dead Sea rift. Nature 220:253–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frydman S, Salamon A, Zviely D, Biton R, Katz O (2007) Geotechnical assessment of the liquefaction potential in the western Zevulun Plain, Israel. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report # GSI/09/2007 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  8. Garfunkel Z (1981) Internal structure of the Dead Sea leaky transform (rift) in relation to plate kinematics. Tectonophysics 80:81–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfunkel Z (2014) Lateral motion and deformation along the Dead Sea Transform. In: Garfunkel Z et al (eds) Dead Sea Transform fault system: reviews, modern approaches in solid earth sciences, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 109–150Google Scholar
  10. Guidoboni E, Comastri A (2005) Catalogue of earthquakes and tsunamis in the Mediterranean area from the 11th to the 15th century. INGV-SGA, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  11. Guidoboni E, Comastri A, Traina G (1994) Catalogue of ancient earthquakes in the Mediterranean area up to the 10th century. ING-SGA, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  12. Gvirtzman Z, Zaslavsky Y (2009) Map of areas suspected on exceptional amplification. Explanation remarks. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report # GSI/15/2009 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  13. Hall JK, Calvo R (2005) Digital shaded relief maps of Israel (1:500,000). In: Hall JK, Krasheninnikov VA, Hirsch F, Benjamini C, Flexer A (eds) Geological framework of the Levant, Plate XIGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamiel Y, Amit R, Begin ZB, Marco S, Katz O, Salamon A, Zilberman E, Porat N (2009) The seismicity along the Dead Sea Fault during the last 60,000 years. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2020–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamiel Y, Piatibratova O, Mizrahi Y (2016) Creep along the northern Jordan Valley section of the Dead Sea Fault. Geophys Res Lett 43:2494–2501.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofstetter A, Dorbath C, Dorbath L (2014) Instrumental data on the seismic activity along the Dead Sea Transform. In: Garfunkel Z et al (eds) Dead Sea Transform fault system: reviews, modern approaches in solid earth sciences, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 263–278Google Scholar
  17. Israel Standard SI (413) (2013) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, Amendment No. 3. The Standards Institution of Israel. http://www.sii.org.il/1039-he/SII.aspx
  18. Kanari M (2008) Evaluation of rock fall hazard to Qiryat Shemona—possible correlation to earthquakes. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/24/2008Google Scholar
  19. Katz O (2004) Evaluation of the danger of slope slides during earthquakes in the Jerusalem city area. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/12/2004 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  20. Katz O, Almog A (2006a) Map of countrywide danger of slope slides in Israel, northern sheet, scale: 1:200,000. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/38/2006 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  21. Katz O, Almog A (2006b) Evaluation of the danger of slope slides in the city of Haifa and the northern Carmel during an earthquake. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/03/2006 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  22. Katz O, Crouvi A (2003) Evaluation of the danger of slope slides during an earthquake. Part A: Zefat sheet. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/25/2003 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  23. Katz O, Hecht H, Almog A (2008a) Map of countrywide danger of slope slides in Israel, center sheet, scale: 1:200,000. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/07/2008 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  24. Katz O, Hecht H, Almog E (2008b) National hazard map for earthquake induced landslides in Israel; Central Sheet, Scale 1: 200,000. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/07/2008 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  25. Katz O, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F (2011) Rock fall hazard along the railway corridor to Jerusalem, Israel, in the Soreq and Refaim valleys. Nat Hazards 56:649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levi T, Bausch D, Katz O, Rozelle J, Salamon A (2014) Insights from Hazus loss estimations in Israel for Dead Sea Transform earthquakes. Nat Hazards 75:365–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marco S, Klinger Y (2014) Review of on-fault palaeoseismic studies along the Dead Sea Fault. In: Garfunkel Z et al (eds) Dead Sea Transform fault system: reviews, modern approaches in solid earth sciences, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 183–205Google Scholar
  28. Quennell AM (1959) Tectonics of the Dead Sea rift. In: XX International Geological Congress Association of African Geological Services, pp 385–405Google Scholar
  29. Sadeh M, Hamiel Y, Ziv A, Bock Y, Fang P, Wdowinski S (2012) Crustal deformation along the Dead Sea Transform and the Carmel Fault inferred from 12 years of GPS measurements. J Geophys Res 117:1–14 (B08410) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sagy A, Sneh A, Rosensaft M, Bartov Y (2013) Map of ‘active’ and ‘potentially active’ faults that rupture the surface in Israel. Updates 2013 for Israel Standard 413: Definitions, comments and clarifications. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report # GSI/02/2013 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  31. Salamon A (2009) Areal maps of potential tsunami inundation along the Mediterranean coast of Israel, in Haifa Bay, the Tel-Aviv area Ashdod and Ashqelon. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/24/2009Google Scholar
  32. Salamon A, Hofstetter A, Garfunkel Z, Ron H (2003) Seismotectonics of the Sinai subplate—the eastern Mediterranean region. Geophys J Int 155:149–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salamon A, Zviely D, Na’aman I (2006) Zones of required investigation for liquefaction hazard in the Western Zevulun Valley, Israel. Israel J Earth Sci 55:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salamon A, Katz O, Crouvi O (2010) Zones of required investigation for earthquake-related hazards in Jerusalem. Nat Hazards 53:375–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sneh A, Weinberger R (2014) Major Structures of Israel and Environs, scale 1:500,000. Geological Survey of Israel, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  36. Thio HK (2009) Tsunami hazard in Israel. Prepared for the Geological Survey of Israel by URS (United Research Services) Corp, Pasadena, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002Google Scholar
  38. Zion C, Katz O, Ben-Avraham Z (2004) Evaluation of earthquake induced landslides hazard in Arbel and Tiberias quadrangles of topographic map. Final report, Israel Geological Survey report #GSI/26/2004 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  39. Zohar M, Salamon A, Rubin R (2016) Reappraised list of historical earthquakes that affected Israel and its close surroundings. J Seismol 20:971–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zohar M, Salamon A, Rubin R (2017) Earthquake damage history in Israel and its close surrounding—evaluation of spatial and temporal patterns. Tectonophysics 1–13:696–697.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.12.015 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Survey of IsraelJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Pacific Disaster CenterKiheiUSA
  3. 3.FEMA Region VIIIDenver Federal CenterDenverUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeosciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations