Timothy Siegel - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Timothy Siegel

7th US National Conf. …, 2002

... Jawhar Bouabid 1 , Ivan Wong 2 , Gilles Bureau 3 , William Graf 4 , Charles Huyck 5 , Allan P... more ... Jawhar Bouabid 1 , Ivan Wong 2 , Gilles Bureau 3 , William Graf 4 , Charles Huyck 5 , Allan Porush 6 , Timothy Siegel 7 , Walter Silva 8 , Michael Swigart 9 , Ronald Eguchi 10 , Jeff Rouleau 11 , John Knight 12 , and Tammie Dreher 13 ... Aiken Oconee Pickens Greenville ...

Earthquake Spectra, 2005

A comprehensive earthquake loss assessment for the state of South Carolina using HAZUS was perfor... more A comprehensive earthquake loss assessment for the state of South Carolina using HAZUS was performed considering four different earthquake scenarios: a moment magnitude ͑M͒ 7.3 "1886 Charleston-like" earthquake, M 6.3 and M 5.3 events also from the Charleston seismic source, and an M 5.0 earthquake in Columbia. Primary objectives of this study were ͑1͒ to generate credible earthquake losses to provide a baseline for coordination, capability development, training, and strategic planning for the South Carolina Emergency Management Division, and ͑2͒ to raise public awareness of the significant earthquake risk in the state. Ground shaking, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced landsliding hazards were characterized using regionspecific inputs on seismic source, path, and site effects, and ground motion numerical modeling. Default inventory data on buildings and facilities in HAZUS were either substantially enhanced or replaced. Losses were estimated using a high resolution 2-kmϫ 2-km grid rather than the census tract approach used in HAZUS. The results of the loss assessment indicate that a future repeat of the 1886 earthquake would be catastrophic, resulting in possibly 900 deaths, more than 44,000 injuries, and a total economic loss of $20 billion in South Carolina alone. Schools, hospitals, fire stations, ordinary buildings, and bridges will suffer significant damage due to the general lack of seismic design in the state. Lesser damage and losses will be sustained in the other earthquake scenarios although even the smallest event could result in significant losses.

7th US National Conf. …, 2002

... Jawhar Bouabid 1 , Ivan Wong 2 , Gilles Bureau 3 , William Graf 4 , Charles Huyck 5 , Allan P... more ... Jawhar Bouabid 1 , Ivan Wong 2 , Gilles Bureau 3 , William Graf 4 , Charles Huyck 5 , Allan Porush 6 , Timothy Siegel 7 , Walter Silva 8 , Michael Swigart 9 , Ronald Eguchi 10 , Jeff Rouleau 11 , John Knight 12 , and Tammie Dreher 13 ... Aiken Oconee Pickens Greenville ...

Earthquake Spectra, 2005

A comprehensive earthquake loss assessment for the state of South Carolina using HAZUS was perfor... more A comprehensive earthquake loss assessment for the state of South Carolina using HAZUS was performed considering four different earthquake scenarios: a moment magnitude ͑M͒ 7.3 "1886 Charleston-like" earthquake, M 6.3 and M 5.3 events also from the Charleston seismic source, and an M 5.0 earthquake in Columbia. Primary objectives of this study were ͑1͒ to generate credible earthquake losses to provide a baseline for coordination, capability development, training, and strategic planning for the South Carolina Emergency Management Division, and ͑2͒ to raise public awareness of the significant earthquake risk in the state. Ground shaking, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced landsliding hazards were characterized using regionspecific inputs on seismic source, path, and site effects, and ground motion numerical modeling. Default inventory data on buildings and facilities in HAZUS were either substantially enhanced or replaced. Losses were estimated using a high resolution 2-kmϫ 2-km grid rather than the census tract approach used in HAZUS. The results of the loss assessment indicate that a future repeat of the 1886 earthquake would be catastrophic, resulting in possibly 900 deaths, more than 44,000 injuries, and a total economic loss of $20 billion in South Carolina alone. Schools, hospitals, fire stations, ordinary buildings, and bridges will suffer significant damage due to the general lack of seismic design in the state. Lesser damage and losses will be sustained in the other earthquake scenarios although even the smallest event could result in significant losses.