the art and science of identifying and eliminating vulnerabilities to earthquakes in a community’s...
TRANSCRIPT
THE ART AND SCIENCE OF IDENTIFYING AND ELIMINATING
VULNERABILITIES TO EARTHQUAKES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, University of
North Carolina, USA
OUR WORLD IS AT RISK• FLOODS
• SEVERE WINDSTORMS
• EARTHQUAKES
• TSUNAMIS
• DROUGHTS
• VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS
• LANDSLIDES
• WILDFIRES
HAZARDSHAZARDSHAZARDSHAZARDS
VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE
RISKRISK
VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE
RISKRISK
EXPOSUREEXPOSUREEXPOSUREEXPOSURE
VULNERABILITYVULNERABILITYVULNERABILITYVULNERABILITY LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION
RISKRISKRISKRISK
A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTUREBUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTUREBUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
WHAT HISTORY TEACHESWHAT HISTORY TEACHES
• CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT AND MAN’S CAPACITY TO ELIMINATE THE VULNERABILITIES
• CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT AND MAN’S CAPACITY TO ELIMINATE THE VULNERABILITIES
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
INJURIES AND INJURIES AND DEATHSDEATHS
INJURIES AND INJURIES AND DEATHSDEATHS
CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIESVULNERABILITIES
CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIESVULNERABILITIES
DAMAGE AND DAMAGE AND COLLAPSE COLLAPSE
DAMAGE AND DAMAGE AND COLLAPSE COLLAPSE
LOSS OF LOSS OF FUNCTIONFUNCTIONLOSS OF LOSS OF FUNCTIONFUNCTION ECONOMIC LOSSECONOMIC LOSSECONOMIC LOSSECONOMIC LOSS
RISKRISKRISKRISK
SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS
SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS
SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS
SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS
SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS
SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS
SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS
• 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.
THE REALITY CHECK PROVIDED BY PAST
DISASTERS Source: Munich Re and
many others
INADEQUATE BUILDING CODES
EARTHQUAKESEARTHQUAKES
INADEQUATE LIFELINE STANDARDS
SITING IN LOCATIONS OF SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND FAILURE
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”
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
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
REALITY CHECK
•The CEO is the only individual in the community who can bring all the stakeholders to the table to develop a realistic action plan and ensure its implementation.
REALITY CHECK
•Professionals have to assist the CEO develop a book of knowledge on past and potential disasters affecting the community and an action plan for vulnerability reduction.
STEPS
•Key Component 1: Identification of Hazards and the Vulnerabilities of the Community’s Built Environment
STEPS
•Key Component 2: Loss Estimation that can be Correlated with specific Vulnerabilities
STEPS
•Key Component 3: A Prevention/Mitigation Plan for: a) Life Safety Protection, b) the Prevention of Physical Damage, and c) the Reduction of Financial Loss
STEPS
•Key Component 4: A Reliable Communications Network
STEPS
•Key Component 5: A Chain of Command
THE ULTIMATE REALITY
•The brunt of the expense and hardship of most disasters is borne by households, local businesses, and local governments, NOT insurance.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF FACT
• WHAT LEVEL OF CASUALTIES SHOULD BE EXPECTED IN A FUTURE EVENT?
• WHAT LEVEL OF ECONOMIC LOSSES SHOULD BE EXPECTED IN A FUTURE EVENT?
MAKING THE FUTURE BETTER THAN THE PAST
UNDER-STAND
UNDER-STAND
IDENT-IFY
IDENT-IFY
HEARHEAR
PERSON-ALIZE
PERSON-ALIZE ACTACT
PERIOD OF PERIOD OF INTEGRATIONINTEGRATION
WINDOW OF WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITYOPPORTUNITY
PERIOD OF PERIOD OF IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION