Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Insights from Hazus loss estimations in Israel for Dead Sea Transform earthquakes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

History shows that countries along the Dead Sea Transform, including Israel, have suffered considerable destruction from strong earthquakes, and thus, a modern approach for damage and loss estimations is essential in mitigating damage from future earthquakes. Yet to date, only preliminary damage scenarios have been developed. The present study uses the Hazus MH 2.1 (2012) software to simulate damage and loss estimation for seven earthquakes that may affect Israel. For the first time, over 2,200 different building construction schemes, including a comprehensive nationwide building inventory of over 900K buildings, were simulated in order to identify the high-risk areas and suggest potential mitigation strategies as well as a financial budget plan that would ultimately alleviate the anticipated catastrophe in Israel. The results show excellent ability of Hazus to resolve the expected levels of damage, including damages for various types of buildings, debris and economic losses. Furthermore, it shows that the most intensive damage is expected to concentrate in northern Israel, mainly in the Haifa and Bet Sheàn regions, as well as in areas of older building stock and adjacent to the major fault lines. Comparison between the budget required for strengthening structures and the economic loss expected after a strong earthquake shows that strengthening structures will undoubtedly reduce the disaster magnitude dramatically. The loss estimations can provide decision makers a tool for planning post-earthquake emergency actions including rescue, debris clearance, building inspection, sheltering requirements and directing the civil protection authorities in a focused and proper response during an earthquake event. Although local fragility curves have not yet been developed in Israel, the new scenarios presented here demonstrate that the benefits of realizing already now the rough scope of earthquake damage greatly outdo future gains from as yet unavailable exact assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambraseys NN (2009) Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East, a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit R, Zilberman E, Enzel Y, Porat N (2002) Paleoseismic evidence for time dependency of seismic response on a fault system in the southern Arava valley, Dead Sea rift, Israel. Geo Soc Am Bull 114:192–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avni R (1999) The 1927 Jericho earthquake, comprehensive macroseismic analysis based on contemporary sources. Ph.D. thesis, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel (in Hebrew with English abst.)

  • Baer G, Funning GJ, Shamir G, Wright TJ (2008) The 1995 November 22, Mw 7.2 Gulf of Elat earthquake cycle revisited. Geophys J Int 175:1040–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann H, Simpson DM (2006) Risk assessment and GIS in natural hazards: issues in the application of HAZUS. Int J Risk Assess Manag 6:408–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begin ZB (2005) Destructive earthquakes in the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea: their recurrence intervals and the probability of their occurrence. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/12/2005 (in Hebrew)

  • 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 12:1–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buika JA (2000) A public–private partnership to develop the HAZUS earthquake risk assessment capabilities for the San Francisco Bay Area, California. A paper report in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Mitigation Division

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgina Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthq Spectra 24:139–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Rossi PL (2008) Vs30: proxy for seismic amplification? Seismol Res Lett 79:540–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (Israel), Society and population (2012) http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/cw_usr_view_Folder?ID=141

  • Chock G, Robertson I, Nicholson P, Brandes H, Medley E, Okubo P, Kindred T, Iinuma G, Lau E, Sarwar A, Pino JD, Holmes W (2006) Compilation of Observations of the October 15, 2006 Kiholo Bay (Mw 6. 7) and Mahukona (Mw 6.0) Earthquakes, Hawaii. Report for the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and the Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii, pp 53

  • Coburn AW, Spence RJS (1992) Earthquake protection. Wiley, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability 25 assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 26:173–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdik M, Rashidov T, Safak E, Turdukulov A (2005) Assessment of seismic risk in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:473–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) 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 XX

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Building Sciences (2006) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, HAZUS-MH MR2 technical manual, prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, pp 727

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 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, United States, pp 676

  • Garfunkel Z (1981) Internal structure of the Dead Sea leaky transform in relation to plate kinematics. Tectonophysics 80:81–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GII (Geophysical Institute, Israel) (2013) http://seis.gii.co.il/heb/earthquake/searchEQ.php

  • Goldberg E (2001) Annual report, the State Comptroller and ombudsman, Catalog number: 2001-951, pp 245–270

  • Guidoboni E, Comastri A (2005) Catalogue of earthquakes and tsunamis in the Mediterranean area from the 11th to the 15th century, INGV-SGA? Bologna, Italy

  • Guidoboni E, Comastri A, Traina G (1994) Catalogue of ancient earthquakes in the Mediterranean area up to the 10th century. ING-SGA, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati B (2006) Earthquake risk assessment of buildings: applicability of HAZUS in Dehradun, India. Published Master Degree in International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation ENSCHEDE, The Netherlands, 112 pp

  • Gvirtzman Z, Louie JN (2010) 2D analysis of earthquake ground motion in Haifa Bay. Isr Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:733–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 99:2020–2026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancilar U, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Erdik M (2010) ELER software—a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:2677–2696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen R, Bausch D (2007) A GIS-based methodology for exporting the Hazards US (HAZUS) earthquake model for global applications. http://www.hazus.org/HUG%20DOCUMENTS/GlobalHAZUS.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2007, 64 pp

  • Israel Standard SI (413) 1995/2004. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. The Standards Institution of Israel, Tel-Aviv, Israel. http://www.sii.org.il/1039-he/SII.aspx

  • Israel Standard SI (413) 1995/2004, amendment No. 5, 2012 Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. The Standards Institution of Israel, Tel-Aviv, Israel. http://www.sii.org.il/1039-he/SII.aspx

  • Israteam (2004) National rehabilitation program following an earthquake in Israel, Earthquake scenario for preparedness. Report, 62 pp

  • Jayanta G, Saxena V (2002) Extreme losses from natural disasters—earthquakes, tropical cyclones and extratropical cyclones. Applied Insurance Research Inc. 101 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02199, pp 1–14

  • Kanl AI, Tildy P, Pŕonay Z, Pınar A, Hermann L (2006) V S30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey. Geophys J Int 165:223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz O (2004) Evaluation of earthquake induced landslide hazard in the city of Jerusalem area, Israel Geology Survey Report GSI/12/2004, 34 pp (in Hebrew)

  • Katz O, Hecht H, Almog E (2008) Geological data base for HAZUS: geotechnical and landslides susceptibility maps. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/08/2008 (in Hebrew)

  • Katz O, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F (2010) Rock fall hazard along the railway corridor to Jerusalem, Israel, in the Soreq and Refaim valleys. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-010-9580-z

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz O, Amit R, Yagoda-Biran, G, Hatzor Y, Porat N, Medvedev B (2009) Quaternary earthquakes and landslides in the Sea of Galilee area, the Dead Sea Transform; paleoseismic analysis and evaluation of current hazard. Isr J Earth Sci 58(3/4):275

  • Kircher CA (2003) Near-real-time loss estimation using HAZUS and ShakeMap Data. SMIP03 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, pp 59–66

  • Kircher CA, Nassar AA, Kustu O, Holmes WT (1997) Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation. Earthq Spectra 13:663–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. In: 100th anniversary 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Conference, 2006

  • Kircher CA, Whitman R, Holmes W (2006b) HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7, special issue: Multihazards Loss Estimation and HAZUS: 45–59

  • Klar A, Meirova T, Zaslavsky Y, Shapira A (2011) Spectral acceleration maps for use in SI 413 amendment No. 5. GII Report No. 522/599/11 and NBRI Report No. 2012938, 74 pp (in Hebrew)

  • Korkmaz KA (2009) Earthquake disaster risk assessment and evaluation for Turkey. Environ Geol 57:307–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi T, Salamon A (2010) Preliminary damage simulations of infrastructures facilities by the HAZUS program, in preparation for a strong earthquake in Israel. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/32/2010 (in Hebrew)

  • Levi T, Tavron B, Katz O, Amit R, Hamiel Y, Bar-Lavi Y, Romach S, Salamon A (2010) Earthquake loss estimation in Israel using the new HAZUS-MH software: preliminary implementation. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/11/2010

  • Marco S, Hartal M, Hazan N, Lev L, Stein M (2003) Archaeology, history and geology of the 749 AD earthquake, Dead Sea Transform. Geology 31:665–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36:257–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motazedian D, Hunter JA, Pugin A, Crow H (2011) Development of a Vs30 (NEHRP) map for the city of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Can Geotech J 48:458–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nastev M (2013) Adapting Hazus for seismic risk assessment in Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 490, Rue de la Couronne, Québec, QC G1K 9A9, Canada

  • Neighbors CJ, Cochran ES, Caras Y, Noriega GR (2013) Sensitivity analysis of FEMA HAZUS earthquake model: case study from King County, Washington. Nat Hazards Rev 14:134–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIBS National Institute of Building Science (1997) HAZUS99 technical manual, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 1999

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rein A, Corotis RB (2013) An overview approach to seismic awareness for a “quiescent” region. Nat Hazards 67:335–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remo JWF, Pinter N (2012) Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA. Nat Hazards 63:1055–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronen Y (2010) Strengthening buildings to earthquakes, Knesset, Research and Information Center, 2010, 9 pp (in Hebrew)

  • Rošer J, Gosar A (2010) Determination of Vs30 for seismic ground classification in the Ljubljana area, Slovenia. Acta Geotechnica Slovenica 7:61–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotstein Y, Bruner I, Kafri U (1993) High-resolution seismic imaging of the Carmel fault and its implications for the structure of Mt. Carmel. Isr J Earth Sci 42:55–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagy A, Bartov Y, Sneh A, Rosensaft M (2012) Map of ‘active’ and ‘potentially Active’ faults that rupture the surface in Israel, updates 2012: proposal of the Geological Survey of Israel for Israel Standard 413. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/12/2012 (in Hebrew)

  • Salamon A, Katz O, Crouvi O (2010) Zones of required investigation for earthquake-related hazards in Jerusalem. Nat Hazards 53:375–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligson HA, Shoaf KI (2003) Human impacts of earthquakes, Chapter 28. In: Chen W-F, Scawthorn CR (eds) Earthquake engineering handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir G (1996) The November 22, 1995, Nuweiba earthquake, Gulf of Elat/Aqaba: mechanical analysis, The Geophysical Institute of Israel, Final Report 550/87/96 (114)

  • Shamir G (2007) Earthquake epicenter distribution and mechanisms in northern Israel. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/16/2007 (in Hebrew)

  • Shamir G, Baer G, Hofstetter A (2003) Three-dimensional elastic earthquake modeling based on integrated seismological and InSAR data: the MW = 7.2 Nuweiba earthquake, Gulf of Elat/Aqaba 1995 November. Geophys J Int 154:731–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira A (2002) An updated map of peak ground accelerations for the Israel Standard 413: Israel Geophysical Institute Final Report 592/230/02, 74 p (in Hebrew, with appendices in English)

  • Shapira A, Hofstetter A (2002) Seismic parameters of seismogenic zones: Appendix C, in Shapira, A., 2002, An updated map of peak ground accelerations for the Israel Standard 413: Israel Geophysical Institute Final Report 592/230/02, 74 p (in Hebrew, with appendices in English)

  • Shapira A, Avni R, Nur A (1993) New estimate of the Jericho earthquake epicenter of July 11, 1927. Isr J Earth Sci 42:93–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira A, Hofstetter R, Abdallah AQF, Dabbeek J, Hays W (2007) Earthquake hazard assessments for building codes, final report. Submitted to the U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade, 88 pp

  • Sneh A, Bartov Y, Rosensaft M (1998) Geological map of Israel, 1:200,000 scale, Geological Survey of Israel

  • Tantala MW, Nordenson GJP, Deodatis G, Jacob K (2008) Earthquake loss estimation for the New York City metropolitan region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:812–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavron B, Katz O, Bar- Lavie J, Segal D, Leonard G (2007) Earthquake loss estimation for the City of Jerusalem: a pilot study of implementing HAZUS Software. Report to the Committee for Earthquake Preparedness, 41 pp (in Hebrew)

  • Whitman RV, Anagnos T, Kircher CA, Lagorio HJ, Lawson RS, Schneider P (1997) Development of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology. Earthq Spectra 13(4):643–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wust H, Amit R, Angel D, Hadad A, Enzel Y, Heimann A, Yechieli Y, Lang B, Marco S, Steinitz G, Vulkan U, Wachs D, Zilberbrand M, Zilberman E, Zuber D (1997) The November 22, 1995 Nuweiba Earthquake, Gulf of Elat (Aqaba): post-seismic analysis of failure features and seismic hazard implications. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/3/1997 (in Hebrew)

  • Yankelevsky D, Schwarz S, Ofir Y, Leibovitch E (2009) Preparation of realistic earthquake damage Scenarios and data for decision making, stage I—part 1 Report for the National Earthquake Steering Committee (in Hebrew), p 212

  • Zaslavsky Y, Shapira A (2000) Questioning nonlinear effects in Eilat during MW = 7.1 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake. In: Proceedings of the XXVII General Assembly of the European Seismological Commission (ESC), Lisbon, Portugal, September 10–15, 2000, pp 343–347

  • Zaslavsky Y, Shapira A, Gorstein M, Perelman N, Ataev G, Aksinenko T (2012) Questioning the applicability of soil amplification factors as defined by NEHRP (USA) in the Israel building standards. Nat Sci 4 special issue: 631–639

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thorough and helpful reviews of two anonymous reviewers and the Editor V. Schenk are highly appreciated. This study was funded by the Inter-Governmental Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness in Israel.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, 95501, Jerusalem, Israel

    T. Levi, O. Katz & A. Salamon

  2. FEMA Region VIII, Denver Federal Center, Bldg 710, Denver, CO, 80225, USA

    D. Bausch & J. Rozelle

Authors
  1. T. Levi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Bausch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Rozelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Salamon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Levi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levi, T., Bausch, D., Katz, O. et al. Insights from Hazus loss estimations in Israel for Dead Sea Transform earthquakes. Nat Hazards 75, 365–388 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1325-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1325-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation