Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
2. Risk assessment ................................................................................................................. 6
3. References ........................................................................................................................ 11
 1. Introduction:
The San Andreas Fault is a continental transform fault that extends roughly 1,200
kilometers (750 mi) through California. It forms the tectonic boundary between the Pacific
Plate and the North American Plate, and its motion is right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal). The
fault divides into three segments, each with different characteristics and a different degree of
earthquake risk. The slip rate along the fault ranges from 20 to 35 mm (0.79 to 1.38 in)/yr.
The fault was identified in 1895 by Professor Andrew Lawson of UC Berkeley, who
discovered the northern zone. It is often described as having been named after San Andreas
Lake, a small body of water that was formed in a valley between the two plates. However,
according to some of his reports from 1895 and 1908, Lawson actually named it after the
surrounding San Andreas Valley. Following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Lawson
concluded that the fault extended all the way into southern California.
In 1953, geologist Thomas Dibblee concluded that hundreds of miles of lateral
movement could occur along the fault. A project called the San Andreas Fault Observatory at
Depth (SAFOD) near Parkfield, Monterey County, was drilled through the fault during 2004–
2007 to collect material and make physical and chemical observations to better understand fault
behavior.

Fig.1 - Relative motion of the two plates

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault)
 The northern segment of the fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz
Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then up the San Francisco Peninsula,
where it was first identified by Professor Lawson in 1895, then offshore at Daly
City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San
Francisco earthquake. The fault returns onshore at Bolinas Lagoon just north of Stinson
Beach in Marin County. It returns underwater through the linear trough of Tomales Bay which
separates the Point Reyes Peninsula from the mainland, runs just east of Bodega Head through
Bodega Bay and back underwater, returning onshore at Fort Ross. (In this region around the San
Francisco Bay Area several significant "sister faults" run more-or-less parallel, and each of
these can create significantly destructive earthquakes.) From Fort Ross, the northern segment
continues overland, forming in part a linear valley through which the Gualala River flows. It
goes back offshore at Point Arena. After that, it runs underwater along the coast until it
nears Cape Mendocino, where it begins to bend to the west, terminating at the Mendocino
Triple Junction.
The central segment of the San Andreas Fault runs in a northwestern direction from
Parkfield to Hollister. While the southern section of the fault and the parts through Parkfield
experience earthquakes, the rest of the central section of the fault exhibits a phenomenon called
aseismic creep, where the fault slips continuously without causing earthquakes. The southern
segment (also known as the Mojave segment) begins near Bombay Beach, California. Box
Canyon, near the Salton Sea, contains upturned strata associated with that section of the fault.
The fault then runs along the southern base of the San Bernardino Mountains, crosses through
the Cajon Pass and continues northwest along the northern base of the San Gabriel Mountains.
These mountains are a result of movement along the San Andreas Fault and are commonly
called the Transverse Range. In Palmdale, a portion of the fault is easily examined at a roadcut
for the Antelope Valley Freeway. The fault continues northwest alongside the Elizabeth Lake
Road to the town of Elizabeth Lake. As it passes the towns of Gorman, Tejon Pass and Frazier
Park, the fault begins to bend northward, forming the "Big Bend". This restraining bend is
thought to be where the fault locks up in Southern California, with an earthquake-recurrence
interval of roughly 140–160 years. Northwest of Frazier Park, the fault runs through the Carrizo
Plain, a long, treeless plain where much of the fault is plainly visible. The Elkhorn Scarp defines
the fault trace along much of its length within the plain.
The southern segment, which stretches from Parkfield in Monterey County all the way
to the Salton Sea, is capable of an 8.1-magnitude earthquake. At its closest, this fault passes
about 35 miles (56 km) to the northeast of Los Angeles. Such a large earthquake on this southern
segment would kill thousands of people in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and
surrounding areas, and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.
Seismologists discovered that the San Andreas Fault near Parkfield in central California
consistently produces a magnitude 6.0 earthquake approximately once every 22 years.
Following recorded seismic events in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966, scientists
predicted that another earthquake should occur in Parkfield in 1993. It eventually occurred
in 2004. Due to the frequency of predictable activity, Parkfield has become one of the most
important areas in the world for large earthquake research.
In 2004, work began just north of Parkfield on the San Andreas Fault Observatory at
Depth (SAFOD). The goal of SAFOD is to drill a hole nearly 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) into the
Earth's crust and into the San Andreas Fault. An array of sensors will be installed to record
earthquakes that happen near this area.
The San Andreas Fault System has been the subject of a flood of studies. In particular,
scientific research performed during the last 23 years has given rise to about 3,400 publications.
 Fig. 1 - A map displaying each of the seven major faults in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the probability
of an M6.7 earthquake or higher occurring on each fault between 2003 and 2032.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault)
A study published in 2006 in the journal Nature found that the San Andreas fault has
reached a sufficient stress level for an earthquake of magnitude greater than 7.0 on the moment
magnitude scale to occur. This study also found that the risk of a large earthquake may be
increasing more rapidly than scientists had previously believed. Moreover, the risk is currently
concentrated on the southern section of the fault, i.e. the region around Los Angeles, because
massive earthquakes have occurred relatively recently on the central (1857) and northern (1906)
segments of the fault, while the southern section has not seen any similar rupture for at least
300 years. According to this study, a massive earthquake on that southern section of the San
Andreas fault would result in major damage to the Palm Springs–Indio metropolitan area and
other cities in San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties in California, and Mexicali
Municipality in Baja California. It would be strongly felt (and potentially cause significant
damage) throughout much of Southern California, including densely populated areas of Los
Angeles County, Ventura County, Orange County, San Diego County, Ensenada
Municipality and Tijuana Municipality, Baja California, San Luis Rio
Colorado in Sonora and Yuma, Arizona. Older buildings would be especially prone to damage
or collapse, as would buildings built on unconsolidated gravel or in coastal areas where water
tables are high (and thus subject to soil liquefaction).
Nevertheless, in the 14 years since that publication there has not been a substantial
quake in the Los Angeles area, and two major reports issued by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) have made variable predictions as to the risk of future seismic events. The
ability to predict major earthquakes with sufficient precision to warrant increased precautions
has remained elusive.
The U.S. Geological Survey most recent forecast, known as UCERF3 (Uniform
California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 3), released in November 2013, estimated that an
earthquake of magnitude 6.7 M or greater (i.e. equal to or greater than the 1994 Northridge
earthquake) occurs about once every 6.7 years statewide. The same report also estimated there
is a 7% probability that an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 or greater will occur in the next 30
years somewhere along the San Andreas Fault. A different USGS study in 2008 tried to assess
the physical, social and economic consequences of a major earthquake in southern California.
That study predicted that a magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the southern San Andreas Fault
could cause about 1,800 deaths and $213 billion in damage.

Fig.3 - Tectonic evolution of the San Andreas Fault(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault)

 2. Risk assessment
The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the highest seismic risk regions in the United
States. Economic losses from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake Magnitude 7.1 (M=7.1), which
was centered in a rural area of 300,000 people just south of the San Francisco Bay Area, reached
nearly $10 billion while the Federal contribution for recovery programs exceeded $2.5 billion.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the five million citizens in the nine counties
surrounding the San Francisco Bay will most likely experience at least one 6.7 earthquake
within the next 30 years. FEMA, the California Office of Emergency Services, local
governments, utilities, universities, and corporations all have a stake in preparing for and
mitigating against these forecasted earthquakes. That’s why in 1998, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) chose the San Francisco Bay Area as a logical region to begin
implementation of HAZUS to help mitigate losses from future earthquakes. This marks the first
regional implementation of HAZUS, the nationally standardized, earthquake-loss estimation
software.
HAZUS is the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s national risk assessment
system that is currently available to all local governments, utilities, and corporations for free.
Along with the software, users receive databases, training, and technical support.
The project area includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa,
Alameda, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties. The purpose of the
project has been to partner the geographic information system professional community with
earthquake experts and risk managers in order to implement the HAZUS earthquake risk
assessment capabilities for the San Francisco Bay Area. This partnership, known as the San
Francisco Bay Area HAZUS User Group, has become the foundation of an important public-
private partnership of 100 organizations and corporations based on the known regional
earthquake threat. The regional earthquake risk assessment is intended to provide politicians
and risk managers with standardized products to develop plans and strategies so that they can
compare and prioritize local mitigation projects. Preparedness, response, and recovery
applications are also natural outcomes from HAZUS products and the regional earthquake risk
assessment.

Fig. 4 – Earthquake potential in California (www.usgs.com)

 The “what if?” earthquake modeled in the ShakeOut Scenario is a magnitude 7.8 on the
southern San Andreas Fault. Geologists selected the details of this hypothetical earthquake by
considering the amount of stored strain on that part of the fault with the greatest risk of imminent
rupture. From this, seismologists and computer scientists modeled the ground shaking that
would occur in this earthquake. Engineers and other professionals used the shaking to produce
a realistic picture of this earthquake’s damage to buildings, roads, pipelines, and other
infrastructure. From these damages, social scientists projected casualties, emergency response,
and the impact of the scenario earthquake on southern California’s economy and society. The
earthquake, its damages, and resulting losses are one realistic outcome, deliberately not a worst-
case scenario, rather one worth preparing for and mitigating against.
Decades of improving the life-safety requirements in building codes have greatly
reduced the risk of death in earthquakes, yet southern California’s economic and social systems
are still vulnerable to large-scale disruptions. Because of this, the ShakeOut Scenario
earthquake would dramatically alter the nature of the southern California community.
Fortunately, steps can be taken now that can change that outcome and repay any costs many
times over. The ShakeOut Scenario is the first public product of the USGS MultiHazards
Demonstration Project, created to show how hazards science can increase a community’s
resiliency to natural disasters through improved planning, mitigation, and response.
The ShakeOut Scenario goal was to identify the physical, social and economic
consequences of a major earthquake in southern California and in so doing, enable the users of
the scenario to identify what they can change now—before the earthquake—to avoid
catastrophic impact after the inevitable earthquake occurs. To do so, the scenario authors had
to determine the physical damages (casualties and losses) caused by the earthquake and the
impact of those damages on the region’s social and economic systems. To do that, they needed
to estimate the earthquake ground shaking and fault rupture. So they first constructed an
earthquake, taking all available earthquake research information, from trenching and exposed
evidence of prehistoric earthquakes, to analysis of instrumental recordings of large earthquakes
and the latest theory in earthquake source physics. This information was then fed forward into
the rest of the ShakeOut Scenario.

Figure 5. ShakeOut Scenario flow-chart.( Jones, L.M., R. Bernknopf, D. Cox, J. Goltz, K. Hudnut, D. Mileti, S.
Perry, D. Ponti, K. Porter, M. Reichle, H. Seligson, K. Shoaf, J. Treiman, and A. Wein, 2008, The ShakeOut
Scenario, USGS Open File Report 2008-1150)

The Earthquake Source

The ShakeOut Scenario earthquake is a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the southernmost 300 km
(200 mi) of the San Andreas Fault, between the Salton Sea and Lake Hughes. The southern San
Andreas Fault was identified as the most likely source of a very large earthquake in California.
The southern San Andreas Fault has generated earthquakes of ShakeOut size on average every
150 years—and on a portion of the fault that ruptures in the ShakeOut Scenario, the last
earthquake happened more than 300 years ago. The extent of the fault rupture in this earthquake
was determined from geologic characteristics, after considerable discussion among geologic
experts. The most likely rupture initiation point is one of the endpoints of the fault, so the
scenario earthquake starts at the southern end of the San Andreas Fault, and ruptures the fault
to the northwest. It was assumed that the average amount of slip to be released anywhere along
the fault would be the amount accumulated since the last event on that portion of the fault,
ranging from 2 to 7 meters. A randomized variation was then added to the average slip within
each 30 km section of fault.

Figure 6. Earth science steps to design and quantify the earthquake( Jones, L.M., R. Bernknopf, D. Cox, J.
Goltz, K. Hudnut, D. Mileti, S. Perry, D. Ponti, K. Porter, M. Reichle, H. Seligson, K. Shoaf, J. Treiman, and A.
Wein, 2008, The ShakeOut Scenario, USGS Open File Report 2008-1150)

Ground Motions
The sudden rupture of a fault produces shaking as one of its effects. This shaking moves
the ground, and it is these ground motions that we feel and that cause much of the damage in
an earthquake that can also lead to fire following an earthquake. Ground motions were
estimated using physics-based computer simulations of the earthquake with computer systems
developed by the Southern California Earthquake Center information technology research
program. The physics-based simulations modeled numerous factors that effect the shaking,
including site effects, directivity, and radiation pattern, and were validated through comparison
of multiple methods.

To estimate damages from ShakeOut ground motion, the ShakeOut Scenario next
calculated ground motion parameters used by engineers to estimate damage to structures.
Ground motion parameters describe how the ground moves due to different measures of
earthquake waves, and are needed because different kinds of structures are damaged by
different kinds of waves. The ShakeOut Scenario created all the standard ground motion
parameters: peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI), and spectral accelerations at 0.3, 1.0, and 3 seconds.
Secondary Hazards
Secondary hazards were investigated that can be triggered by large earthquakes in
southern California including liquefaction, landslides, tsunamis, and seiches. All of these have
caused significant additional damage in many big earthquakes, but only landslides and
liquefaction will produce significant impacts in the ShakeOut Scenario. The ShakeOut Scenario
earthquake will produce between 10,000 and 100,000 individual landslides, the vast majority
of which will consist of rock falls, rock slides, rock avalanches, soil falls, disrupted soil slides
and soil avalanches. Conditions that can lead to liquefaction are potentially widespread in parts
of the eight-county area impacted by the ShakeOut Scenario earthquake. However, liquefaction
requires both strong shaking and a high ground-water table. Strong ground motions from the
ShakeOut Scenario earthquake mostly occur within the inland desert and mountain regions of
southern California where ground water levels are typically low year-round. As a result, only
the southern Coachella Valley will suffer significant liquefaction impacts in the ShakeOut
Scenario earthquake, particularly to buried lifelines and roads and foundations, with localized
liquefaction otherwise confined mostly to areas adjacent to perennial stream and river channels.

Damage and casualty estimates

The damage and impacts of the ShakeOut Scenario earthquake were estimated
through a three-step process. First, FEMA’s loss estimation program, HAZUS <
http://www.fema.gov/hazus>, was run using the physics-based ground motion model. For Los
Angeles County, HAZUS used a refined database of structures created from tax assessor’s data.
For the other counties, this was not available and the default HAZUS database was used. In
addition, HAZUS default mapping schemes (the relationships between basic inventory data and
the assumed structural characteristics) were modified to reflect available information on
unreinforced masonry buildings tabulated by the California Seismic Safety Commission,
building density concentrations in urban core areas, and construction pattern changes over time
throughout the eight counties. In the second step, expert opinion was collected through 13
special studies and 6 expert panels. Panels generally estimated impacts to public and private
utilities, especially where multiple utility companies provide a public service such as water
supply or electricity. In the third step, the expert evaluations were merged with the HAZUS
results to create the final estimates of probable damages. A fire following earthquake damage
assessment was also conducted.
The ShakeOut Scenario identified five major areas of loss:
 Older buildings built to earlier standards.
 Non-structural elements and building contents that are generally unregulated.
 Infrastructure crossing the San Andreas Fault.
 Business interruption from damaged infrastructure, especially water systems.
 Fire following the earthquake.
The study also found numerous areas where mitigation conducted over the last few
decades by state agencies, utilities and private owners, has greatly reduced the vulnerability.
Because of these mitigation measures, the total financial impact of this earthquake is estimated
to be “only” about $200 billion.
 Shaking in the ShakeOut Scenario earthquake will kill and injure many people, by
causing buildings to collapse, creating falling debris and flying objects, and increasing traffic
accidents when drivers lose control of automobiles. Many additional deaths and injuries will
result in fires that follow the shaking. Estimating the total number of injuries and deaths is very
uncertain particularly because the Scenario posits types of building failures that have not yet
been observed. Because of strong life-safety building codes over the years, the ShakeOut
Scenario estimates only approximately 1,800 deaths, of which about half occur because of the
fires following the earthquake. There will also be about 750 people with very severe injuries
who will require rapid, advanced medical care to survive. Approximately 50,000 people will
have injuries that need emergency room care. The final mortality could increase if hospitals
cannot function because of damage or if the transportation disruptions prevent people getting
to emergency rooms.
The primary earthquake risk in southern California is to buildings and infrastructure
(lifelines), with injuries, loss of life, and loss of services resulting from shaking and fire damage.
Thus engineering solutions can significantly reduce the risk and great improvements have been
made particularly for new buildings, but retrofitting of older buildings can be expensive and
building owners need a reason to act. To address this need, the Los Angeles City Council is
currently considering how to examine nearly 1,500 buildings that were built before 1976 and
to decide whether to require retrofitting. Thus justifying the value of short-term economic costs
for a building owner to create longer-term benefits to society remains a complex issue. While
mitigation of the hazard by improving existing structures and infrastructure clearly reduces the
eventual losses, pre-disaster resilience planning can be a complement to mitigation and can help
reduce the overall losses (Wein et al, 2010).
The ShakeOut Scenario found that previous efforts to reduce losses through mitigation
before the event have been successful. However there are dozens more actions and policies that
could be undertaken at the individual and community levels to further reduce these losses. For
instance, actions to improve the resiliency of the region’s water delivery system would reduce
the loss from business interruption, as well as reduce the risk of catastrophic conflagrations.
Business interruption is a major issue, as these losses are estimated to be nearly half of the total
losses from the earthquake. At an individual and business level, actions to secure non-structural
items in buildings and retrofitting of existing structures will greatly reduce individual risk.
Planning and preparedness can improve personal and business resiliency, and the annual Great
ShakeOut and the ShakeOut Scenario are working to achieve the long-term goal of a resilient
society.
3. References

1. Jones, L.M., R. Bernknopf, D. Cox, J. Goltz, K. Hudnut, D. Mileti, S. Perry, D. Ponti,

K. Porter, M. Reichle, H. Seligson, K. Shoaf, J. Treiman, and A. Wein, 2008, The
ShakeOut Scenario, USGS Open File Report 2008-1150.
2. Perry, S., D. Cox, L. Jones, R. Bernknopf, J. Goltz, K. Hudnut, D. Mileti, D. Ponti, K.
Porter, M. Reichle, H. Seligson, K. Shoaf, J. Treiman, and A. Wein, 2008, The
ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario—A Story That Southern Californians Are Writing,
USGS Circular 1324
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault
4. https://mitigation.eeri.org/files/resources-for-
success/00075.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1Nz63tfrtw3lgIqOpAxzUkq4v5tnv8QlMPqHiLMV_r
vJ4PIszcbu9Pk1I
5. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JB007933
6. www.usgs.com