Post on 20-Jun-2015
description
transcript
THE ART AND SCIENCE OF MAKING A COMMUNITY RESILIENT TO EARTHQUAKES
MAKING OUR FUTURE BETTER THAN OUR PAST
UNDER-STANDUNDER-STAND
IDENT-IFY
IDENT-IFY
HEARHEAR
PERSON-ALIZE
PERSON-ALIZE ACTACT
PERIOD OF INTEGRATION
1990-2012
WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY
2012
PERIOD OF IMPLEMENTATION
NOW
COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK FROM
• FLOODS• SEVERE
WINDSTORMS• EARTHQUAKES• TSUNAMIS• DROUGHTS• VOLCANIC
ERUPTIONS• LANDSLIDES• WILDFIRES
A COMMUNITY’S BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE RESILIENT TO GROUND SHAKING AND GROUND FAILURE
A COMMUNITY’S BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE RESILIENT TO GROUND SHAKING AND GROUND FAILURE
HAZARDSHAZARDS
THE RISK TO A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO
ITS VULNERABILITIES
THE RISK TO A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO
ITS VULNERABILITIES
EXPOSUREEXPOSURE
VULNERABILITIESVULNERABILITIES LOCATIONLOCATION
RISKRISK
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT A CITY AND ITS BUILT ENVIRONMENT (B.E.)
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT A CITY AND ITS BUILT ENVIRONMENT (B.E.)
• CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT AND THE B.E.’s VULNER-ABILITIES
• CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT AND THE B.E.’s VULNER-ABILITIES
INADEQUATE BUILDING CODES
EARTHQUAKESEARTHQUAKES
INADEQUATE LIFELINE STANDARDS
SITING IN LOCATIONS PRONE TO SURFACE FAULTING, LAND-SLIDES, &
LIQUEFACTION
IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION AND PLAN
INADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
SITING ON SOFT SOILS
INADEQUATE ANCHORAGE OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
CAUSES OF VULNER-ABILITIES
CAUSES OF VULNER-ABILITIES
“DISASTER LABORATORIES”
“DISASTER LABORATORIES”
INJURIES AND DEATHS
INJURIES AND DEATHS
CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIES
CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIES
DAMAGE AND COLLAPSE
DAMAGE AND COLLAPSE
LOSS OF FUNCTIONLOSS OF FUNCTION ECONOMIC LOSSECONOMIC LOSS
RISKRISK
EVERY COMMUNITY CAN MAKE ITS FUTURE BETTER
THAN ITS PAST
GOAL 1: LEARN FROM THE PAST
GOAL 2: REDUCE COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIES THAT INCREASE RISK FOR PEOPLE, PROPERTY, AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
PAST DISASTERS PROVIDE A REALITY CHECK
Source: Munich Re and many past earthquakes
ALL VULNERABILITIES CAN BE FIXED
ALL VULNERABILITIES ARE FIXABLE
ALL VULNERABILITIES ARE FIXABLE
ALL VULNERABILITIES ARE FIXABLE
ALL VULNERABILITIES ARE FIXABLE
ALL VULNERABILITIES ARE FIXABLE
ALL VULNERABILITIES ARE FIXABLE
• A UTILITY CORRIDOR IS VULNERABLE TO LOSS OF FUNCTION WHEN ROUTED THROUGH SOILS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION.
• A UTILITY CORRIDOR IS VULNERABLE TO LOSS OF FUNCTION WHEN ROUTED THROUGH SOILS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
• WHAT LEVEL OF CASUALTIES WILL OCCUR IN A FUTURE EARTHQUAKE IF THE VULNERABILITIES IN THE B.E. ARE NOT FIXED?
• WHAT LEVEL OF ECONOMIC LOSSES WILL OCCUR IN A FUTURE EARTHQUAKE IF THE VULNER-ABILITIES IN THE B.E. ARE NOT FIXED?
INADEQUATE SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS
(I.E., BUILDING CODES AND
LIFELINE STANDARDS)
MEAN 1) INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING2) COLLAPSE OF BUILDINGS AND LOSS OF FUNCTION OF LIFELINES
NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS
• SAN FRANCISCO • 1906
EARTHQUAKE & FIRE
• 3,000 CASUALTIES• $ 524 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)• $ 180 M INSURED LOSS
NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS
• TOKYO • 1923
EARTHQUAKE & FIRE
• 142,807 CASUALTIES• $ 2,800 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ 590 M INSURED LOSS
NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS
• MANAGUA • 1972
EARTHQUAKE
• 11,000 CASUALTIES• $ 800 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)• $ 100 M INSURED LOSS
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• TANGSHAN • 1976
EARTHQUAKE
• 240,000 + CASUALTIES• $ 5,600 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ ---0 M INSURED LOSS
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• MEXICO CITY • 1985
EARTHQUAKE
• 9,500 CASUALTIES• $ 4,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ 275 M INSURED LOSS
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• LOMA PRIETA (SAN FRANCISCO)
• 1989 EARTHQUAKE
• 61 CASUALTIES• $ 5,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ 1,000 M INSURED LOSS
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA
• 1994 EARTHQUAKE
• 61 CASUALTIES
• $ 44,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)
• $ 15,300 M INSURED LOSS
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• KOBE, JAPAN• 1995
EARTHQUAKE
• 6,400 CASUALTIES• $ 100,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ 3,000 M INSURED LOSS
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• IZMET, TURKEY• 1999
EARTHQUAKE
• 17,200 CASUALTIES• $ 12,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ 600 M INSURED LOSS
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• BAM, IRAN • 2003
EARTHQUAKE
• 40,000 CASUALTIES• $ ?000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ --00 M INSURED LOSS
2003 Bam, Iran Earthquake
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• BANDA ACHE, INDONESIA
• 2004 EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI
• 240,000 CASUALTIES• $ 4,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ ?--00 M INSURED LOSS
2004 BANDA ACHE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI
2004 BANDA ACHE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI
PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS
• SICHUAN PROVINCE, CHINA
• 2008 EARTHQUAKE
• 80,000 CASUALTIES• $ 13,300 M LOSS (ORIGINAL
VALUES)• $ --00 M INSURED LOSS
SICHUAN, CHINA EARTHQUAKE INADEQUATE BUILDING CODE
TWENTY-ONE DAYS LATER
45,690,000 people were affected by the disaster.
HAITI EARTHQUAKE: INADEQUATE BUILDING CODE; JANUARY 12, 2010
TSUNAMI: JAPANMARCH 12, 2011