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