While large earthquakes have been documented in stable continental regions, such as the central United States, they occur too infrequently to provide reliable observations of earthquake-related impacts. Using the state of Indiana as a case study, we investigate the impacts of five deterministic scenarios—three occurring outside the borders of the state and two within the state. They include a M7.3 Wabash Valley event in southern Illinois, a M7.6 New Madrid event in southeastern Missouri, a M6.2 event in west central Ohio, a M6.2 event near Evansville, Indiana, and a M5.8 Indianapolis event. The locations and magnitudes are based on known fault locations and credible interpretations of the earthquake history in the region. We use a combination of the US Geological Survey’s ShakeMap and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazus software packages to assess earthquake-triggered ground shaking and its effects on the built environment. We also use the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Failure estimation tool to examine the spatial distribution of anticipated earthquake-induced landslides and liquefaction. The five main deterministic scenario models indicate that moderate-sized urban earthquakes may represent a greater threat to a state like Indiana than a large-magnitude event from the New Madrid seismic zone. To better understand the influence of earthquake source parameters on impacts, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for earthquakes near Indianapolis and Evansville, where we reviewed losses due to differences in magnitude, depth, strike, and dip. Based on the model projections, magnitude and depth have first-order and relatively predictable influence on losses. The orientation and dip of the causative fault in relation to populated areas can alter economic losses for an event of the same magnitude by 13%–32%. Deterministic scenario analyses, such as those presented here, can potentially be of widespread utility for understanding earthquake impacts in the central United States and other low-seismicity, stable continental regions.
AlgermissenST (1972) A Study of Earthquake Losses in the San Francisco Bay Area: Data and Analysis. Rockville, MD: Environmental Research Laboratories, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department of Commerce.
2.
AlgermissenSTPerkinsD (1973) A technique for seismic zoning: General consideration and parameters. Contributions to Seismic Zoning: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) technical report ERL, NOAA, Washington, DC, pp. 1–15.
3.
AllstadtKEThompsonEMJibsonRWWaldDJHearneMHunterEJFeeJSchovanecHSloskyDHaynieKL (2022) The US Geological Survey ground failure product: Near-real-time estimates of earthquake-triggered landslides and liquefaction. Earthquake Spectra38(1): 5–36.
4.
AochiHUlrichT (2015) A probable earthquake scenario near Istanbul determined from dynamic simulations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(3): 1468–1475.
5.
AtkinsonGMBeresnevIA (2002) Ground motions at Memphis and St. Louis from M 7.5-8.0 earthquakes in the New Madrid seismic zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92(3): 1015–1024.
6.
BakunWHHopperMG (2004) Magnitudes and locations of the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94(1): 64–75.
7.
BollingerGA (1973) Seismicity of the southeastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America63(5): 1785–1808.
8.
BristolHMTreworgyJD (1979) The Wabash Valley fault system in southeastern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey circular 509. Urbana, IL: Illinois State Geological Survey.
9.
CalaisECamelbeeckTSteinSLiuMCraigTJ (2016) A new paradigm for large earthquakes in stable continental plate interiors. Geophysical Research Letters43(20): 10621–10637.
10.
Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) (2003) Comparison Study of the 1985 CUSEC Six Cities Study Using HAZUS. Memphis, TN: CUSEC.
11.
CornellCA (1971) Probabilistic analysis of damage to structures under seismic loads. In: HowellsDA, Haigh IP and Taylor C (eds) Dynamic Waves in Civil Engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 473–488.
12.
CramerCHBauerRAChungJ-WRogersDPierceLVoigtVMitchellBGauntDWilliamsRHoffmanDHempenGLSteckelPBoydOSWatkinsCMTuckerKMcCallisterN (2017) St. Louis area earthquake hazards mapping project; Seismic and liquefaction hazard maps. Seismological Research Letters88(1): 206–223.
13.
DetweilerSWeinA (2018) The HayWired earthquake scenario—Earthquake hazards (version.1.1). Scientific investigations report no. 2017-5013-A-H, March, 126 pp. Menlo Park, CA: US Geological Survey. First posted April 24, 2017. Revised December 13, 2018.
14.
EarlePSWaldDJJaiswalKSAllenTIHearneMGMaranoKDHotovecAJFeeJM (2009) Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER): A system for rapidly determining the impact of earthquakes worldwide. Open-file report no. 2009-1131, 15 pp. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. July 2, 2009.
15.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2020) San Diego Earthquake Planning Scenario: Magnitude 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Oakland, CA: EERI.
16.
EllsworthWLLlenosALMcGarrAFMichaelAJRubinsteinJLMuellerCSPetersenMDCalaisE (2015) Increasing seismicity in the US midcontinent: Implications for earthquake hazard. The Leading Edge34(6): 618–626.
17.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2019a) Hazus Earthquake Model: FEMA Standard Operating Procedure for Hazus Earthquake Data Preparation and Scenario Analysis. Washington, DC: Mitigation Division, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
18.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2019b) Hazus Earthquake Model User Guidance (Hazus version 4.2.3). Washington, DC: Mitigation Division, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
19.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2020) Hazus Earthquake Model Technical Manual (Hazus 4.2 SP3). Washington, DC: Mitigation Division, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
20.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2021a) FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Hazus. Washington, DC: Mitigation Division, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
21.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2021b) Hazus Inventory Technical Manual (Hazus 4.2 service pack 3). Washington, DC: Mitigation Division, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
22.
GalganaGAHamburgerMW (2010) Geodetic observations of active intraplate crustal deformation in the Wabash Valley seismic zone and the southern Illinois basin. Seismological Research Letters81(5): 699–714.
23.
GencturkBElnashaiASSongJ (2008) Fragility relationships for populations of woodframe structures based on inelastic response. Journal of Earthquake Engineering12(suppl. 2): 119–128.
GuptaHKMohanIRastogiBKRaoMNRamakrishna RaoCV (1993) A quick look at the Latur earthquake of30September1993. Current Science65(7): 517–521.
26.
HaaseJSNowackRL (2011) Earthquake scenario ground motions for the urban area of Evansville, Indiana. Seismological Research Letters82(2): 177–187.
27.
HaaseJSChoiYSBowlingTNowackRL (2011) Probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment including site effects for Evansville, Indiana, and the surrounding region. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(3): 1039–1054.
28.
HamburgerMWRuppJA (1988) The June 1987 southeastern Illinois earthquake: Possible tectonism associated with the La Salle anticlinal belt. Seismological Research Letters59(4): 151–157.
29.
HamburgerMWShoemakerKHortonSDeShonHWithersMPavlisGLSherrillE (2011) Aftershocks of the 2008 Mt. Carmel, Illinois, earthquake: Evidence for conjugate faulting near the termination of the Wabash Valley fault system. Seismological Research Letters82(5): 735–747.
30.
HanksTCJohnstonAC (1992) Common features of the excitation and propagation of strong ground motion for North American earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America82(1): 1–23.
31.
HerrmannRBWithersMBenzH (2008) The April 18, 2008 Illinois earthquake: An ANSS monitoring success. Seismological Research Letters79(6): 830–843.
32.
HoughSE (2004) Scientific overview and historical context of the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquake sequence. Annals of Geophysics47(2–3): 523–537.
33.
HoughSEMartinSBilhamRAtkinsonGM (2002) The 26January2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake: Observed and predicted ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92(6): 2061–2079.
JaiswalKWaldDJ (2011) Rapid Estimation of the Economic Consequences of Global Earthquakes. Reston, VA: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.
36.
JaiswalKWaldDJEarlePSPorterKHearneM (2011) Earthquake casualty models within the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system. In: SpenceRSoEScawthornC (eds) Human Casualties in Earthquakes. Berlin: Springer, pp. 83–94.
37.
JohnstonACSchweigES (1996) The enigma of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811–1812. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences24(1): 339–384.
38.
JonesLMBernknopfRCoxDGoltzJHudnutKMiletiDPerrySPontiDPorterKReichleMSeligsonHShoafKTreimanJWeinA (2008) The ShakeOut scenario. US Geological Survey Open-file report no. 2008-1150 and California Geological Survey preliminary report 25. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. May 22, 2008.
39.
KimW-Y (2003) The 18 June 2002 Caborn, Indiana, earthquake: Reactivation of ancient rift in the Wabash Valley seismic zone?Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(5): 2201–2211.
McGuireRK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85(5): 1275–1284.
42.
McGuireRK (2001) Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazards and risks. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering21(5): 377–384.
43.
McNamaraDEPetersenMDThompsonEMPowersPMShumwayAHooverSMMoschettiMPWolinE (2019) Evaluation of ground motion models for USGS seismic hazard forecasts: Induced and tectonic earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(1): 322–335.
44.
MaurerROblitasK (2001) Gujarat earthquake recovery program: Assessment report. Joint report by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to the Governments of Gujarat and India, World Bank, Washington, DC, 14March.
45.
Mid-America Earthquake Center (2009) New Madrid Seismic Zone Catastrophic Earthquake Response Planning Project, Impacts of the New Madrid Seismic Zone Earthquake on the Central USA. Urbana, IL: Mid-America Earthquake Center.
46.
MuellerKHoughSEBilhamR (2004) Analysing the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes with recent instrumentally recorded aftershocks. Nature429(6989): 284–288.
47.
MunsonPJMunsonCAPondEC (1995) Paleoliquefaction evidence for a strong Holocene earthquake in south-central Indiana. Geology23(4): 325–328.
48.
MunsonPJObermeierSFMunsonCAHajicER (1997) Liquefaction evidence for Holocene and latest Pleistocene seismicity in the southern halves of Indiana and Illinois: A preliminary overview. Seismological Research Letters68(4): 521–536.
49.
NateghiFA (2001) Earthquake scenario for the mega-city of Tehran. Disaster Prevention and Management10(2): 95–101.
50.
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) (2001) HAZUS99-SR1 Validation Study. Washington, DC: NIBS.
51.
NeighborsCJCochranESCarasYNoriegaGR (2013) Sensitivity analysis of FEMAHAZUSearthquake model: Case study from King County, Washington. Natural Hazards Review14(2): 134–146.
52.
Nowicki JesseeMAHamburgerMWAllstadtKWaldDJRobesonSMTanyasHHearneMThompsonEM (2018) A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface123(8): 1835–1859.
53.
NuttliOW (1973) The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812: Intesities, ground motion and magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America63(1): 227–248.
54.
NuttliOW (1979) Seismicity of the central United States. Reviews in Engineering Geology4: 67–93.
55.
NuttliOW (1983) Average seismic source-parameter relations for mid-plate earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73(2): 519–535.
56.
NuttliOWBollingerGAHerrmannRB (1986) The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake—A 1986 perspective. US Geological Survey circular no. 985, 52 pp. Denver, CO: US Geological Survey.
57.
ObermeierSFBleuerNRMunsonCAMunsonPJMartinWSMcWilliamsKMTabaczynskiDAOdumJKRubinMEggertDL (1991) Evidence of strong earthquake shaking in the lower Wabash Valley from prehistoric liquefaction features. Science251(4997): 1061–1063.
58.
ObermeierSFMunsonPJMunsonCAMartinJRFrankelADYoudTLPondEC (1992) Liquefaction evidence for strong Holocene earthquake(s) in the Wabash Valley of Indiana-Illinois. Seismological Research Letters63(3): 321–335.
59.
OpršalIFähDMaiPMGiardiniD (2005) Deterministic earthquake scenario for the Basel area: Simulating strong motions and site effects for Basel, Switzerland. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth110(B4): B04305.
60.
PageMTHoughSE (2014) The New Madrid seismic zone: Not dead yet. Science343(6172): 762–764.
61.
PetersenMDMoschettiMPPowersPMMuellerCHallerKFrankelAZengYRezaeianSHarmsenSBoydOSFieldEHChenRRukstalesKSLucoNWheelerRLWilliamsROlsenAH (2015) The 2014 United States national seismic hazard model. Earthquake Spectra31(1 suppl.): S1–S30.
62.
PetersenMDShumwayAMPowersPMMuellerCSMoschettiMPFrankelADRezaeianSMcNamaraDELucoNBoydOSRukstalesKSJaiswalKSThompsonEMHooverSMClaytonBSFieldEHZengY (2020) The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 5–41.
63.
PorterKJonesLCoxDGoltzJHudnutKMiletiDPerrySPontiDReichleMRoseAZScawthornCRSeligsonHAShoafKITreimanJWeinA (2011) The ShakeOut scenario: A hypothetical Mw7.8 earthquake on the Southern San Andreas Fault. Earthquake Spectra27(2): 239–261.
64.
PowellCABollingerGAChapmanMCSibolMSJohnstonACWheelerRL (1994) A seismotectonic model for the 300-kilometer-long eastern Tennessee seismic zone. Science264(5159): 686–688.
65.
PriceJGHastingsJTGoarLDArmenoHJohnsonGDepoloCMHessRHBallardCM (2010) Sensitivity analysis of loss-estimation modeling using uncertainties in earthquake parameters. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience16(4): 357–367.
66.
ReiterL (1991) Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights. New York: Columbia University Press.
67.
RemoJWFPinterN (2012) Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA. Natural Hazards63(2): 1055–1081.
68.
RobinsonTR (2020) Scenario ensemble modelling of possible future earthquake impacts in Bhutan. Natural Hazards103(3): 3457–3478.
69.
RobinsonTRRosserNJDensmoreALOvenKJShresthaSNGuragainR (2018) Use of scenario ensembles for deriving seismic risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115(41): E9532–E9541.
70.
SbarMLSykesLB (1977) Seismicity and lithospheric stress in New York and adjacent areas. Journal of Geophysical Research82(36): 5771–5786.
71.
SchmidtleinMCShaferJMBerryMCutterSL (2011) Modeled earthquake losses and social vulnerability in Charleston, South Carolina. Applied Geography31(1): 269–281.
72.
SchwartzSYChristensenDH (1988) The 12 July 1986 St. Marys, Ohio earthquake and recent seismicity in the Anna, Ohio seismogenic zone. Seismological Research Letters59(2): 57–62.
73.
StauderWNuttliOW (1970) Seismic studies: South central Illinois earthquake ofNovember9, 1968. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America60(3): 973–981.
74.
SteinbruggeKV (1987) Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 7.5 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area. Sacramento, CA: Division of Mines and Geology, California Department of Conservation.
75.
StreetRLCouchDKonklerJ (1986) The Charleston, Missouri Earthquake ofOctober31, 1895. Seismological Research Letters57(2): 41–51.
76.
StreetRLHerrmannRBNuttliOW (1974) Earthquake mechanics in the central United States. Science184(4143): 1285–1287.
77.
SykesLR (1978) Intraplate seismicity, reactivation of preexisting zones of weakness, alkaline magmatism, and other tectonism postdating continental fragmentation. Reviews of Geophysics16(4): 621–688.
78.
SykesLRSbarML (1973) Intraplate earthquakes, lithospheric stresses and the driving mechanism of plate tectonics. Nature245(5424): 298–302.
79.
TateEMuñozCSuchanJ (2015) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the HAZUS-MH flood model. Natural Hazards Review16(3): 04014030.
80.
TaylorKBHerrmannRBHamburgerMWPavlisGLJohnstonALangerCLamC (1989) The southeastern Illinois earthquake of10June1987. Seismological Research Letters60(3): 101–110.
81.
ThompsonEMWaldDJ (2016) Uncertainty in VS30-based site response. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(2): 453–463.
82.
ToppozadaTR (1988) Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Sacramento, CA: Division of Mines and Geology, California Department of Conservation.
83.
TuttleMPSchweigESSimsJDLaffertyRHWolfLWHaynesML (2002) The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92(6): 2080–2089.
84.
WaldDJAllenTI (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97(5): 1379–1395.
WaldDJLinKWQuitorianoV (2008) Quantifying and qualifying USGS ShakeMap uncertainty. Open-file report no. 2008-1238, 27 pp. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. August 2008.
87.
WaldDJSeligsonHARozelleJBurnsJMaranoKJaiswalKSHearneMBauschD (2020) A domestic earthquake impact alert protocol based on the combined USGS PAGER and FEMA Hazus loss estimation systems. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 164–182.
88.
WaldDJWordenCBThompsonEMHearneM (2022) ShakeMap operations, policies, and procedures. Earthquake Spectra38(1): 756–777.
89.
WangZ (2011) Seismic hazard assessment: Issues and alternatives. Pure and Applied Geophysics168(1): 11–25.
90.
WangZCobbJC (2013) A critique of probabilistic versus deterministic seismic hazard analysis with special reference to the New Madrid seismic zone. In: CoxRTTuttleMPBoydOSLocatJ (eds) Recent Advances in North American Paleoseismology and Neotectonics East of the Rockies. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, pp. 259–275.
91.
WellsDLCoppersmithKJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America84(4): 974–1002.
92.
WestTRWarderDL (1983) Geology of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience20(2): 105–124.
93.
WheelerRLCramerCH (2002) Updated seismic hazard in the southern Illinois basin: Geological and geophysical foundations for use in the 2002 USGS National Seismic-hazard Maps. Seismological Research Letters73(5): 776–791.
94.
WongIGBouabidJGrafWHuyckCPorushASilvaWSiegelTBureauGEguchiRTKnightT (2005) Potential losses in a repeat of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. Earthquake Spectra21(4): 1157–1184.
95.
WongIGSilvaWBottJWrightDThomasPGregorNLiSMabeyMSojournerAWangY (2000) Earthquake scenario and probabilistic ground shaking maps for the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. Portland Hills Fault M 6.8 earthquake, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR, January.
96.
WoodNRatliffJSchellingJWeaverC (2014) Comparing population exposure to multiple Washington earthquake scenarios for prioritizing loss estimation studies. Applied Geography52: 191–203.
97.
WordenCBWaldDJ (2016) ShakeMap Manual Online: Technical Manual, User’s Guide, and Software Guide. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, pp. 1–156.
98.
WordenCBWaldDJAllenTILinKGarciaDCuaG (2010) A revised ground-motion and intensity interpolation scheme for ShakeMap. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(6): 3083–3096.
99.
YangXPavlisGLHamburgerMWSherrillEGilbertHMarshakSRuppJLarsonTH (2014) Seismicity of the Ste. Genevieve seismic zone based on observations from the EarthScope OIINK flexible array. Seismological Research Letters85(6): 1285–1294.
100.
ZhuJBaiseLGThompsonEM (2017) An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(3): 1365–1385.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
