S THE SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE AND CIVIL ISSN 0967-859X E … · assessment of risks from ground...

ISSN 0967-859XTHE SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE AND CIVIL

ENGINEERING DYNAMICS

NEWSLETTERVolume 20 No 1

February 2007

SECED NEWSLETTER - FEBRUARY 2007 - Page 1

SE

S E C E DED

Contents

Page 1 One-Day Blast Workshop

Page 5 Monitoring Millimetric GroundMovements from Space

Page 9 Seismic Response Spectra for theDesign of Nuclear Facilities

Page 11 The Eleventh Mallet-Milne Lecture

Page 12 Notable Earthquakes July - August2006

Page 12 International Symposium onSeismic Risk Reduction

Page 12 Forthcoming Events

One-Day Blast WorkshopPiroozan Aminosse reports on this successful event.

Following SECED’s popular blasttechnical meeting in October 2005,which was a joint effort with theInstitution of Structural EngineersNorth Thames Branch, the twoorganisations held another

successful event, which was a one-day blast course in October 2006.

Our three lecturers were ProfessorGeoff Mays of Cranfield University,Dr Peter Smith of Cranfield

Figure 1 Lebanon, US Marine Corps HQ, Beirut Airport, West Beirut


University and PiroozanAminossehe of SHAW, Stone andWebster. The course was rununder the chairmanship ofPiroozan Aminossehe.

The response from professionalsand engineering companies wasoverwhelming and as a result 35professionals attended the course.

The first lecturer was Dr PeterSmith who covered the analyticalside of the subject including blastloading, blast modelling usingAir3d, case history studies and thestructural responses.

He started his lecture with blastmodelling and with the Meyer’sdefinition of an explosion: “achemical reaction or change ofstate effected in an exceedinglyshort period of time with thegeneration of a high temperatureand generally a large quantity ofgas. An explosion produces a

shock wave in the surroundingmedium”.

Peter then went on to explain howblast loading could be representedusing Air3d computer program.

In his case histories lecture, heprovided ten examples and saidthat these examples were notnecessarily the most recent or themost devastating examples ofterrorist activity but had beenselected to illustrate importantdifferent aspects of terrorist bombblasts. Figures 1 and 2 show at aglance the terrorist explosion at theUS Marine Corps HQ in Lebanonin 1983 and the devastationcaused in the City of London inApril 1992 and April 1993 by theProvisional IRA. On 23 October1983, a truck entered the buildingand exploded. The truck contained3600 – 5500 kg equivalent of TNTexplosive material and left 241

dead and 61 wounded. The bombdetonated inside the building.Structures within a radius of 110mwere heavily damaged, thedamages within a radius of 170mwere moderate and within a radiusof 600m all glass was shattered.

In the City of London, bothexplosions occurred during theweekend when the City was notfully operational. The charge sizewas approximately 1000 kg ANFO(or equivalent) in both cases. Thenumber of casualties was onedead in the 1992 incident and twodead plus a number of relativelyminor injuries in the 1993 incident.Although the radius of damagewas extensive and many buildingfacades were breached, themodern framed structuresremained generally intact and onlyone structure (a mediaeval church)was damaged beyond repair.

Figure 2 City of London – the financial district


He then went to the final stage ofhis lecture regarding the analysisof structural response to blastloading and said that in assessingthe effect of a blast load on astructure the calculation ofmaximum responses is oftensufficient for the designer insteadof producing the history responseof the structure. To establish theprinciples of this analysis, theresponse of a single degree offreedom (SDOF) elastic structurewas considered and the linkbetween the duration of the blastload and the natural period ofvibration of the structure wasestablished. This led to theconcept of the ‘impulsive’ and‘quasi-static’ response regimesand the representation of suchresponse on pressure-impulse (P-I) diagrams. Examples of P-Idiagrams for a particular class ofbuilding structure were thenpresented with the addition of aRange-Charge Weight (R-W)overlay to assist interpretation. Theprinciples of analysis for an SDOFsystem were extended to specificstructural elements, which couldthen be converted to equivalentlumped mass SDOF structures bymeans of ‘load factors’ and ‘massfactors’. Total structural resistancecould thus be represented by thesum of an inertial term (associatedwith the mass of the structure) andthe so called “resistance function”(related to the structuralgeometries and materialproperties), which acted inopposition to the applied blastload.

The second lecturer was ProfessorGeoff Mays who covered thedesign side of the subject includingan introduction to the principles ofprotective design and design ofstructural elements to resist blastloading.

He started his lecture with theterrorism activities in the UK by theIRA and pointed out that whilst

engineers in Northern Ireland hadbeen well acquainted with theeffects of explosions on structuresand developed guidelines toenhance building resilience, thismatter had received no attentionon the UK mainland until thecampaign had been directed at theCity of London in 1992.

He then said that after thecatastrophic collapse of the AlfredMurrah building in Oklahoma in1998, the USA government tendsto address the abnormal load andprogressive collapse more directlythan model codes had done in thepublic sector.

During the first part of his lecture,he reviewed legislation in the UK,Europe and the USA and movedthe discussion on to the conceptsof physical security and stand-offtowards reducing threat. Theconcept of an “optimal hardnessrange” was introduced in order tominimise the cost of structuralhardening for a given threatscenario. Other protectivemeasures associated with buildingarrangements including theprotection of vital structuralcomponents and variations to thebuilding arrangements and theneed to protect humans from flyingdebris were discussed.

Geoff concluded part one of hisspeech by demonstrating theeffectiveness of strengtheningFederal buildings in the USA bygiving the example of the resilienceof the Pentagon on 9/11.

The second part of his speechfocused on how to designstructural elements to resist blastloading. He emphasised the roleof the ductility and how flexural

Figure 3 Progressive Collapse -Ronan Point, London, 1968

Figure 4 Structural Strength Saved Pentagon Lives on 9/11


ductility should be utilised toenhance the strength of structureswithout the risk of premature failuredue to brittle behaviour or localinstability.

He then discussed the applicationof the energy balance method forelements subjected to impulseloading and pointed out thismethod is not applicable when thestructure is subjected to dynamicloading.

He concluded his lecture byillustrating his lessons through anumber of examples.

Piroozan Aminossehe was thethird and the last speaker. In his

lecture, he covered a practicalexample through a workshopsession.

The example was a sample blastdesign for a scaled down typicalcontrol building of a petrochemicalcomplex using in-situ reinforcedconcrete and American codes,ASCE and ACI.

He pointed out that, althoughASCE was mainly used for thepetrochemical industry, the methodof analysis and design used therewas also applicable for other typesof structures, including thosestructures used in the nuclearindustry.

The differences between theapplication of the method fornuclear and petrochemicalstructures were also pointed outduring the workshop.

The structure was a reinforcedconcrete box consisting of fourexternal walls and a roof slab,which was supported by the mainbeam and external walls, with themain beam being supported by twocolumns and side walls.

The design proceeded componentby component. Each componentwas designed as an independentuncoupled structural member.

Figures 5 and 6 show the plan ofthe structure and the applied blastloading respectively.

The course was concluded with aQ & A session in which theparticipation of audience wasparticularly enthusiastic and thesession was ended with theapplause of the audience.

Figure 5 Coursework Example

Figure 6 Applied Free Field Blast Wave


INTRODUCTIONSynthetic aperture radarinterferometry (InSAR) has beenavailable to us for over a decade,providing ground deformation dataat cm precision. In the past 5 years,however, new ways of processingsatellite radar images have been

developed (Ferretti et al, 2001) thatallow ground movements to bemapped and monitored down to 1mm per year, over wide areas;thereby opening up newopportunities for practicalapplications.

In Figure 1, early results of thisbreakthrough by Tele-RilevamentoEuropa (TRE), show a number ofstriking ground movement featuresover a 5-year period; a result whichalso illustrates the value of ESA’sarchive of radar scenes stretchingback to 1992.

Monitoring Millimetric Ground Movements from SpaceThe European Space Agency’s GMES Terrafirma Project by Chris Browitt (1), Alice Walker (1), and

Mustafa Aktar (2)

(1) European Mediterranean Seismological Centre, 91680 Bruyeres-le-Chatel, France [email protected](2) Kandilli Observatory, KOERI, Istanbul, Turkey, [email protected]

Figure 1 Interpolated permanent scatterer InSAR (PSI) image of a 900 km2 area of London. (Redindicates subsidence, blue indicates ground heave). (Courtesy of NPA and TRE).


In this PSI image of London, theaverage number of PS points usedis greater than 200 per km2 overthe 5-year study period, 1995-2000.

The blue patch indicates groundheave of 2mm/yr where papermaking, printing and brewingindustries withdrew 30-40 yearsago ending groundwaterabstraction. Groundwater floodingof basements has been notedfollowing the recharge.

In the bottom left, parts of theStreatham area are subsidingaround 3mm/yr, correlating with alowering of the water table. Abovethis red patch, a SW-NE linearfeature is subsidence over anelectricity tunnel.

Above that, a red ribbon, W-Ecrossing the River Thames, followsthe recent extension of the Londonunderground. At 3mm/yr, this wasa level of subsidence predicted byengineers and monitored on theground by them over the 5 yrs.

Further down the Thames to theEast, small patches of subsidenceare observed along the river banksin the old docks area, which isbeing developed and renewedextensively. Concern is whetherlocal subsidence increases floodrisk, the greatest risk to London inthe face of climate change and thepossible tilting downwards of SEEngland. Further studies of theseareas have been prompted by thePSI result.

GMES TERRAFIRMA RATIONALEThe GMES Terrafirma project,sponsored by the European SpaceAgency, and initiated andmanaged by Nigel PressAssociates (NPA) proposes todeliver a ground movement hazardinformation service for Europe,based on this new technology. Thepresentation of this paper is aimedat informing specialists, plannersand the community at large aboutthe new approach to theassessment of risks from groundmovements across Europe andbeyond (including, subsidence,landslides, compressible soils,

earthquake vulnerability, minesand engineered excavations). It willachieve this through practicalexamples of how ESA’s radarsatellites, 800km up in space, cancreate data that, when coupledwith expert knowledge, andground-based geoscience andengineering information, providesinsights into these problems at alevel of detail which was technicallyunprecedented until now. Fewcities and towns are without groundmovement risks, and Terrafirma isfocused on urban areas where itsservices can have the greatestimpact in leading to a safer, lessvulnerable environment, free fromthe massive economic losseswhich are impacting on oursocieties at present. In Italy, alone,the cost from landsliding isestimated to be between €1 and 2billion, annually.As we continue to become a moreurbanised society, often withconstruction spilling onto marginalland, the problem worsens, and theneed for policy-makers, planners,engineers, and the public, to bebetter informed, is heightened.Innovative approaches areneeded, and this is the niche thatGMES Terrafirma is filling.

Within two years, every EuropeanUnion country will have at least onecity with satellite radar coverageprocessed to reveal small groundmovements of around 1 millimetreper year. Landslide sites will alsobe examined. That information willbe in the hands of nationalgeoscience centres and engineersfor expert interpretation utlilisingtheir own data and expertise. They,in turn, will engage with therelevant authorities in theircountries to ensure take up, andaction on the hazards which will beseen in great detail and, in manycases, for the first time. It isintended that these national citieswill lead to national initiatives forfurther studies across eachcountry, and that the examples willbe shared across borders toensure that the community ofEurope benefits from theexperience of its collective expertsand from our European SpaceAgency’s investments in leading

edge technology for practicalpurposes.

GROUND VULNERABILITYMAPPINGSince Terrafirma started in 2003,radar satellite data for many cities,from Dublin to Haifa and Moscowto Sofia, have been used to maptheir ground movements,exploiting the 14-year archive ofraw information now held by theEuropean Space Agency. Withinthis project, a particular focus hasbeen Istanbul with its greatheritage of buildings, its 10 millionpopulation and its vulnerability tolarge earthquakes. The city has along historical record ofearthquake damage related to thewell known North Anatolian Faultthat passes only a few tens ofkilometres away beneath the Seaof Marmara. During the last 5centuries, at least 8 earthquakeswith magnitudes greater than 7.0,have occurred close to Istanbulcausing high casualties anddamage. In 1912 and in 1999, twoearthquakes ruptured both ends ofthe Marmara Sea, leaving thecentral submarine section as themost likely one to slip within comingdecades. Recent studies showthat the probability of anearthquake of magnitude greaterthan 7.0 affecting Istanbul withinthe next 30 years is now 53%,taking into account stress transferfrom the Izmit earthquake of 1999.

Rapid growth of the population (aten-fold increase in the last 50years) has resulted in theproduction of a large volume ofbuilding stock within a limited timeperiod, often not compliant with therequired quality standard. It isestimated that about 65% of thetotal building stock does not satisfythe present earthquake regulationcode.

Stimulated by the Izmit earthquake,a considerable effort is beingdevoted to the assessment of therisk in the urban areas includingthe compilation of inventories ofthe built environment. IstanbulMetropolitan Municipality has takenthe initiative for an extensivemicrozonation project, which will


eventually cover the entiremetropolitan area. Satellite andground-based techniques will beintegrated, including a drillingcampaign and the PSI resultsproduced by GMES Terrafirma.

The new PSI studies have yieldeda subsidence map (Figure 2) givingfirst-hand evidence of the highdegree of spatial variability of theground conditions throughout theurban area of Istanbul. The datafrom 13 years of observations notonly show the general trends thatcorrelate well with the localgeology but also help to revealother characteristics at a smallerscale which would otherwiseremain undetected.

This subsidence map covers alarge area of 50x30 km, and showsa striking pattern that supports theexistence of a widespreadsubsidence on the western part ofthe city (red coloured area incontrast to the green ones that are

stable). This corresponds to theareas that were rapidly urbanisedduring the last two decades on thesmooth topography of youngsedimentary ground cover.

In contrast, the eastern part of thecity, which includes the historicalpart, is located mostly on solid rock,and is generally stable. Within it,however, there are critical localisedzones revealed by the PSI study(see below and Figure 3).Theaverage subsidence of 2-3 mm/year detected in the western part,is probably due to consolidationand compaction triggered byextensive water pumping activitesthat are well documented by localmunicipalities. This subsidence isa clear sign of the presence ofunconsolidated soft sedimentswhich cause high amplificationfactors for seismic ground motion.In fact, much of the destructioncaused by the Izmit earthquakewas concentrated in the westernpart of the city, even though the

earthquake was well to the East.This emphasises the importance ofunderstanding ground conditionsand vulnerability for earthquakeloss mitigation and riskassessment.

The eastern part of Istanbul,including the ancient city, is locatedmostly on hard rock, and the PSIstudy shows subsidence only on avery local scale. It picks out ancientriverbeds and coastal fills (Figure3). Ancient riverbeds are abundantsince the region has experiencedsequences of rapid uplift andinundations during the recentgeological past, leaving behinddeep and narrow gorges filledalternately with coarse gravel andsand. These narrow riverbeds arebarely reflected in the actualtopography, and in most cases arecompletely hidden below themodern city development. A similarsituation exists for coastalformations such as the ancientestuaries and bays that were filled

Figure 2 – Effective Subsidence Map of Istanbul. (Derived from PSI data, with green showing stability,through yellow, to high subsidence areas in red). (Courtesy of TRE and Terrafirma).


with sediments over time, bothnaturally and artificially. In fact, thecoastline of the ancient city was notat all a linear one as it appearstoday but a rugged one with smallports and harbours, as can clearlybe seen in XVIth centuryengravings.

CONCLUSIONSThe European Space Agency’sGMES Terrafirma project is yieldingexamples, across the European-Mediterranean region, which showthe dramatic contribution that PSIcan make to understanding groundmovements and vulnerability thatpose threats to our urbancommunities.

The potential for extensivemapping and follow-up monitoring,over wide areas at low cost, is abreakthrough which can make adifference to reducing risk throughplanning and mitigation measures,when coupled with surface-basedgeological and engineeringexpertise, and data.

This paper has illustrated a numberof applications in relation totunnelling, groundwater andearthquake vulnerability; othersinclude landslides and mining.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to thank theTerrafirma Project Core Team, ledby the Nigel Press Associates(NPA), Tele-Rilevamento Europa(TRE) for the PS processing, andthe European Space Agency(ESA) for its sponsorship of theproject and its radar satellite data.

REFERENCESFerretti, A., Prati, C., and Rocca,F., 2001. Permanent scatterers inSAR interferometry: IEEETransactions on Geoscience andRemote Sensing, v. 39, p. 8-20,doi:10.1109/36.898661.

www.terrafirma.eu.com

Figure 3 – Detail of PSI subsidence data (red) which revealsvulnerable soft foundation geology in the ancient river channels andcoastal embayments of Istanbul. (Courtesy of TRE and Terrafirma).


There appears to be a mistakenbelief amongst some engineersthat HMNII does not accept theprinciple of Uniform HazardSpectra (UHS), but requires thePML piecewise linear spectra(PLS) to be used.

It may be useful to set the recordstraight, to comment on the relativesignificance of the issue of spectra,and to indicate what the UKnuclear industry needs to do if itwishes, despite the relativesignificance, to advance from thePML PLS.

HMNII recognizes the PML PLS tobe based on dated technology andon data, which could now bereplaced with more and betterdata. That is not to say thatchanges in the science necessarilymean that the PML PLS is not agood standard.

HMNII does not set designstandards to be used for nuclearfacilities. HMNII accepted theprinciple of UHS at least 13 yearsago (eg Reference 1). I re-iteratedthis at the BNES/SECEDSymposium in 2004, as reportedin the SECED Newsletter(Reference 2). However, HMNIIhas reservations about the UHSactually submitted as part ofnuclear safety cases to date.

Moreover, HMNII is not convincedthat resolution of these issues isthe most effective means for theUK nuclear industry to reduce anyexcessive conservatism in itsearthquake engineering.

The PML PLS is not onerouscompared to other spectra usedinternationally, including across theChannel. In those cases where theseismic capability of non-

seismically designed nuclearstructures in the UK has beendetermined using high confidenceof a low probability of failure(HCLPF) methods, the vastmajority of structures have beenfound to withstand 0.25g PML PLSwith ALARP improvements almostentirely limited to issues ofanchorage etc of the containedplant. If non-seismically designedstructures can be shown toreasonably withstand seismicloading as defined in the PML PLS,then the appropriate use ofperformance based designmethods should enablereasonably economic design, evenwith the higher confidenceexpected of design as distinct fromassessment.

For the most part the UK nuclearindustry chose not to adopt theseHCLPF methods for theassessment of its existingstructures, but mainly to use elasticanalysis with evaluation ofcapacities based on design codes.Unsurprisingly the resultingseismic capacities have appearedlow. The industry has seenengineering seismology, ratherthan more realistic methods ofassessment, as the solution.

The science of seismology hasproduced about 150 intensityscales in as many years, butengineers require in design dataeither stability or sufficientconservatism as to accommodatechanges in design basis over thelifetime of a facility. At the SECEDmeeting on 27 September 2006Prof Bommer mentioned thatground motion studies made nowwould appear dated in 10 yearstime. However, nuclear facilitieswith perhaps a 50 year design lifemust be demonstrably safe

throughout their lives, and thisrequires robust design data to beused. The changes over the last50 years in UK codes andstandards concerning wind loading- perhaps a more exact sciencethan earthquake ground motionsat present - are a salutary lessonto those who urge HMNIIacceptance of the latest trends indesign spectra. I sometimes citelive floor loadings and the HBloading vehicle for highway bridgesas loads, which have littlesubstance in reality, but over theyears have proved to be usefulconcepts.

For all their recognized technicalflaws the PML PLS have apedigree that should not lightly bediscarded:� The PML PLS have been

thoroughly reviewed;� They were examined at the

Sizewell B Public Inquiry;� They have been scrutinised

internationally by the Europeanbody developing criteria for aLight Water Reactor (LWR),which recommended they bedeveloped for any futureEuropean LWR (Reference 3);

� They compare closely with theEurocode 8 horizontal Type 2(relevant for the UK) spectra(see Figure 1).

Regarding the last point, there isno reason to believe either theEurocode or the PML PLS to be‘correct’. Indeed, Reference 4notes that both may underestimateloads for soft soils in regions of lowto moderate seismicity, such as theUK. However, to adopt spectra,such as the UHS that HMNII hasso far received, which are lessdemanding than those of theEurocode spectra, would be a boldmove for nuclear facilities.

Seismic Response Spectra for the Design of Nuclear Facilities Prompted by the Q&A session at SECED’s September 2006 meeting, “Earthquake Engineering in

the 21st Century”, Andrew Coatsworth from HMNII seeks to set the record straight.


Figure 1: Comparison of normalised PML PLS and Eurocode 8 horizontal spectra.(Reproduced by courtesy of Arup)


Mr Edmund Booth [speaker atthe September 2006 meeting]c i ted S i r Isa iah Ber l in ’sinterpretation of the fragmentby Archi lochus (7th-centuryb.c.e.) The fox knows manythings, but the hedgehog knowsone big thing, and suggestedthat ear thquake eng ineersneeded to be foxes. SimilarlyReference 5 took a w ide-ranging v iew of earthquakeresistance and noted that “theemphas is o f the nuc learindustry in seismic research for20 years has been onattempting to reduce the designbasis seismic hazard, which inthe end remains uncertain. Abetter balance would devotemore effort to understandingseismic performance, wherethere are rea l ga ins to beachieved.”

I f the indust ry nonethe lesswishes to advance from thePML PLS, eg for theconstruct ion of new nuclearfacilities in a few years time, itneeds to:� work with a multi-

disciplinary expert teamworking to the rigours ofthe original SeismicHazard Working Party;

� additionally includeconsideration of theengineering designprocess;

� show that the resultingdeterministic designprocess will result in adesign which meets theoverall risk targets;

� subject the outcome toIndependent NuclearSafety Assessment.

Such a comprehensive studywould be necessary to produceseismic design ground motionssufficiently robust to withstandclose national and internationalscrutiny without being vulnerableto growing knowledge over thenext several decades. Importingtechnical methodologies usedelsewhere, but without the fullrange of discipl ines andmanagement of uncertainty isunlikely to withstand rigorousassessment. Detailed design ofproposed nuclear facilities thatseek to deviate from theestablished practice of the PMLPLS are otherwise undertaken atconsiderable commercial risk.

HMNII is not inflexible, but doesrequire a robust demonstration ofsafety - the publ ic expectsnothing less.

References1. Bye R D, J E Inkester and C MPatchett: 1993: A regulatory viewof uncertainty and conservatismin the seismic design of nuclearpower and chemical plant. NuclearEnergy, 32, No 4, Aug, 235-240.

2. Coatsworth A M: 2005: Seismicassessment of existing nuclearstructures – A Regulator ’sViewpoint. Society of Earthquakeand Civil Engineering Dynamics,newsletter, 18, No 3, followingBNES/SECED Symposium of May2004.

3. OECD/NEA Workshop on theEngineering Characterisation ofSeismic Input: WorkshopProceedings, Brookhaven NationalLaboratory, Upton, New York,U.S.A , 15-17 November 1999; pp.85-96. 2001.

4. Lubkowski, Z.A. and Duan, X(2001) EN1998 Eurocode 8:Design of structures forearthquake resistance.Proceedings of the ICE, CivilEngineering 144, pp 55-60, Paper12642.

5. Coatsworth: 2005: Earthquakeresistant nuclear structures – aregulatory view. The StructuralEngineer. July 2005.

The Eleventh Mallet-Milne Lecture

This will look at what we have and have not achieved in reducing the risks to human life from earthquakes in the last50 years. It will review how success has been achieved in a few parts of the world, and consider what needs to bedone by the scientific and engineering community globally to assist in the future task of bringing earthquake risksunder control.

The first part of the talk will re-examine what we know about the casualties from earthquakes in the last 50 years. Thesecond part will look in more detail at what has been achieved country by country. The final section of the talk willargue that it can be useful to view earthquake protection activity as a public health matter to be advanced in amanner similar to globally successful disease-control measures.

Saving Lives in Earthquakes: Successes and Failures in Seismic Protection Since 1960.By Robin Spence, Cambridge University, 30th May 2007 at the Institute of Civil Engineers, London.

No charge to attend. Seats allocated on a first come, firstserved basis. Informal reception follows the lecture. Ticketsare available in advance at a cost of £10. Seewww.seced.org.uk for more information.


SECED NewsletterThe SECED Newsletter is publishedquarterly. Contributions are welcome andmanuscripts should be sent on a PCcompatible disk or directly by Email.Diagrams, pictures and text should be inseparate electronic files.

Copy typed on paper is also acceptable.Diagrams should be sharply defined andprepared in a form suitable for directreproduction. Photographs should behigh quality (black and white prints arepreferred). Diagrams and photographsare only returned to the authors onrequest.

Articles should be sent to:

John Sawyer,Editor SECED Newsletter,c/o The Secretary,SECED,Institution of Civil Engineers,Great George Street,LondonSW1P 3AA, UK.

E: [email protected]

SECEDSECED, The Society for Earthquake andCivil Engineering Dynamics, is the UKnational section of the International andEuropean Associations for EarthquakeEngineering and is an affiliated society ofthe Institution of Civil Engineers.

It is also sponsored by the Institution ofMechanical Engineers, the Institution ofStructural Engineers, and the GeologicalSociety. The Society is also closelyassociated with the UK EarthquakeEngineering Field Investigation Team.The objective of the Society is to promoteco-operation in the advancement ofknowledge in the fields of earthquakeengineering and civil engineeringdynamics including blast, impact andother vibration problems.

For further information about SECEDcontact:The Secretary,SECED,Institution of Civil Engineers,Great George Street,London SW1P 3AA, UK.

SECED WebsiteVisit the SECED website which can befound at http://www.seced.org.uk foradditional information and links to itemsthat will be of interest to SECEDmembers.Email: [email protected]

28 March 2007Using base isolation to increase the safety ofstructures in seismic areas: recent projects andcode developments.ICE 6.00pm

25 April 2007AGM and This Year’s Earthquake

26 and 27 April 2007International Symposium on Seismic RiskReduction. The JICA Technical CooperationProject in Romania.Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania.

30 May 2007The 11th Mallet-Milne Lecture: Saving lives inearthquakes: successes and failures in seismicprotection since 1960. By Robin Spence,Cambridge University.ICE 6.00pm

2006 3 JUL 14:52 52.64N 1.88W 8 1.6 WALSALL

2006 3 JUL 15:17 56.87N 5.19W 4 1.5 LOCH EIL

2006 8 JUL 20:40 51.21N 179.31W 22 6.6 ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

2006 9 JUL 21:09 56.16N 4.90W 2 1.5 LOCHGOILHEAD

2006 17 JUL 08:19 9.25S 107.41E 34 7.7 JAVA, INDONESIAAt least 665 people killed, another 9,275 injured, around 1,623 buildings either destroyed or damaged, over870 boats destroyed and many roads damaged in Jawa Barat and Jawa Tengah. All deaths and damage were asa result of a tsunami that was generated, with maximum wave heights of 4.6m, recorded at Widarapayung.

2006 22 JUL 01:10 28.00N 104.14E 56 5 SICHUAN, CHINAA landslide in Yanjin County killed 22 people and injured 106 others.

2006 29 JUL 00:11 37.26N 68.83E 34 5.6 TAJIKISTANThree people (all children) killed, 19 injured and over 1,900 houses either destroyed or severely damaged inthe Qumsangir District.

2006 7 AUG 22:18 15.78S 167.80E 141 6.8 VANUATU ISLANDS

2006 14 AUG 16:40 51.09N 3.01W 6 1.9 BRIDGWATER

2006 18 AUG 20:45 63.36N 0.88W 20 3.8 NORWEGIAN SEA

2006 20 AUG 03:41 61.03S 34.37W 10 7 SCOTIA SEA

2006 24 AUG 21:50 51.15N 157.52W 43 6.5 KAMCHATKA

2006 25 AUG 00:44 24.41S 67.03W 184 6.6 ARGENTINA

2006 25 AUG 05:51 28.01N 104.15E 22 5.2 SICHUAN, CHINAOne person killed, 31 injured and several buildings destroyed due to landslides in the Doushaguan and Yanginareas.

2006 29 AUG 16:05 56.49N 4.38W 12 1.9 KILLIN

2006 1 SEP 10:18 6.76S 155.51E 38 6.8 PAPUA NEW GUINEA

2006 4 SEP 15:47 54.64N 3.08W 6 2.2 KESWICK

2006 26 SEP 19:34 52.04N 3.14W 19 2.1 HEREFORD

2006 28 SEP 06:22 16.59S 172.03W 28 6.9 SAMOA ISLANDS

2006 29 SEP 13:08 10.88N 61.76W 53 6.1 TRINIDADThree people injured in the Port-of-Spain area and several buildings damaged on Tobago and in California,Trinidad.

2006 29 SEP 18:23 10.81N 61.76W 52 5.5 TRINIDADOne person killed in Gasparillo, Trinidad.

Issued by: Davie Galloway, British Geological Survey, November 2006.Non British Earthquake Data supplied by: The United States Geological Survey.

NOTABLE EARTHQUAKES JULY - AUGUST 2006Reported by British Geological Survey

YEAR DAY MON TIME LAT LON DEP MAGNITUDES LOCATIONUTC KM ML MB MW

Forthcoming Events

26-27 April 2007 at RomanianAcademy, Bucharest, Romania.

The first day will be devoted to thepresentation of the results of JICAproject, and the second day willcontain presentations fromcontributors. Participation is free.

For further information visit:http://cnrrs.utcb.ro/issrr2007/issrr2007.html

InternationalSymposium onSeismic Risk

Reduction

Date post:	22-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

S THE SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE AND CIVIL ISSN 0967-859X E … · assessment of risks from ground...

Documents