2014disaster resilient infrastructure

8/10/2019 2014disaster Resilient Infrastructure

1/9

1990-2000a

LaboratoryofHydraulics,Hydrology and Glaciology

oftheSwissFederal InstituteofTechnology, Zurich

for World

In

Copingstudyon

DISASTER RESILIENT

INFRASTRUCTURECornmissioned by the

Secretariat for the International Decade for

Natural Disaster Reduction

for the

Forum 1999

"Partnershipsfor safer world in the 21 century"


2/9

...-

PREFACE

In December 1998 an agreement was signed to provide support for the organization ofIDNDRProgram Forum to be held in July 1999 and its preparatory process through undertaking acoping studyonthe themeDisaster Resilient InfrastructurebyVersuchsanstalt fr Wasserbau,Hydrologie und Glaziologie(VAW)ofETHZurich withintheproject "Coping StudiesonResearch Needs for Future Disaster Reduction". These coping studies implemented andcoordinated bytheGraduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, the Programme for theStudyofInternational Organizations

VAWisdoing research only in some fields of natural hazardsimpulse waves and ice avalanches. Therefore, it was necessaryto

floods, debris flow,partners to contributeto

this report. Fortunately it was possible to find experts in each field of natura! hazard that werewilling to write a chapterofthis report.Itake this opportunity to all authors for theirvaluable conmbutions.Adetailed list of authorsisprovided.

To to the study wasachalienge. It is not easytosummarize the essentialsonsuch limited space.Andifthe report gets too voluminous it would be toodifficulttcread. 1hopethatthe right equilibriumwasfound and this report introducesthereaderonthe main

problems,risks,butalso research needs and necessary activities to be taken in relationtonatural hazards.

IwanttothankDr. Warner, DirectorofPIIO,the project coordinator for the excellentcooperation and Dr. forhavingcoordinated asaproject head.

Prof. Dr. H.-E. Minor


3/9

-v-

Contributing Authors

Ammann, Walter

Boll, Albert

Bonnard, Christophe

Dr., Head, Swiss Federal Institute forSnowand AvalancheResearch (SLF), Flelastrasse11,7260Davos Dorf

WSL, Abtl. Wasser-, Erd- und Felsbewegungen,8903

SoilMechanics Laboratory,SwissFederal InstituteofTechnology (EPFL,),1015

Conedera, Marco FNPSottostazioneSud Alpi, Via 22,6504

Descoeudres,

M.E.

Funk,Martin

Prof. Dr., Rock Mechanics Laboratory, Swiss Federal Instituteof Technology(EPFL),1015Lausanne

Dr.,Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research(SLF), Flelastrasse 11,7260 Davos Dorf

Dr., Laboratory for Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology(VAW),SwissFederal InstituteofTechnology8092 Zrich

Ger ber, Erd- Felsbewegungen,8903

Prof.DI-.,LaboratoryforHydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology(VAW),Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

8092 Ziirich

Lnbiouse, Vincent Dr., Rock Mechanics Laboratory, Swiss Federal Instituteof Technology (EPFL), 1015 Lausanne


4/9

-1-

CONTENTS

GENERALREMARKANDSUMMARY

1.

5

9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Introduction

Static and dynamic wind loads

Codes

Possibilitiestoprevent disasters

9

9

10

10

1.4.21.4.31.4.41.4.5

1.4.7

1.4.8

RoofsExterior walls and

and tentsScaffolding and cranesTanks, vesselsandcooling towers

and stacksBridges

Erection stages

10

11111313

131314

Reference

2.SNOWAVALANCHES

15

17

2.1 Introduction 17

2.2 Avalanche and damage scenarios 18

2.3 Avalanche protection measures 19

2.3.12.3.22.3.32.3.4

Avalanche forecastinghazard mapping

Technicalf

1919

222325


5/9

4.ROCKFALLS 37

4.1

4.2

tion

Rockfallresilient infrastructure

37

38

4.2.14.2.2

methodsProtecting measures

3838

4.3 Wire net rockfall barriers 39

4.3.1

4.3.2

4.3.4

IntroductionFull-scale testingofrockfall barriersForces and design criteria

Summaryand outlook

394041

424.4 Rocksheds 43

4.4.14.4.24.4.34.4.4

4.4.6

IntroductionDescriptionofproblemTest deviceQuantitative evaluation of forcesInclined impactsConclusions

434343454646

References

5 .LANDSLIDES

46

49

5.1 Introduction 49

5.2

5.3

Mainfactors

Slide resilient

landslide resilient infrastructure 49

50

5.3.1

5.3.25.3.3

Modificationofslope geometry 50

515152

5 4 Debris flow 53


6/9

-3-

7.EARTHQUAKES 65

7.1 Characteristics and damages 657.2

7.3

Importanceofinfrastructure for disaster response

Vulnerabilityofinfrastructure

rehabilitation 66

66

7.3.17.3.27.3.3

characteristicsofVulnerabilityofVulnerabilityof

systems

components

67

67

68

7.4 Risk mitigation 68

8 .FORESTFIRES 71

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

Introduction

Forest fire data bases

Fire history

Effectsofforest fires

Fire risk prediction

Fire

Fire

Conclusions

71

71

71

72

73

73

74

74

References 75

9.FLOOD9.1

9.2

ANDINFRASTRUCTURALDEFENSEpower

anddisposalplants,transportation schemes

77

77

78


7/9

-5-

GENERAL REMARK AND SUMMARY

Minor

Economic losses attributable to natural hazardsrisesteadily as the figuresofMunichReensurance demonstrate. And eacn yearanotable ofpersonsare ordisplaced atleastforsometime from their homeareas.Thereare reasons for the increaseofimpactby natural hazards:

Extensionofsettlementsincluding the corresponding infrastructure and productive plantsiscontinuing. Not only the growing numberofpeopleisa reason but also the steadyimprovement of the built environment. Globalizationandthepronounced divisionoflabor

in world economy add even moreinthefuture.

There is and will bemore infrastructurein the future that canbedamaged;itscost is increasing.

Human activities withitssettlements and infrastructure spread into endangered areassometimes brcause no other spaceisavailable. Thisisconvenient just onashort sight.

at flood plains for examplearelower than on hilly ground.Sincefloodsoccurnotevery year, larger floods more than five years ago are normaly forgotten.

Sports-activities andtourismalso push into more extreme areas and addtotheinfrastructure.

All these are exposed to a highriskbut at the time theyareexpectedtowithstand disastrous impacts during natural hazards. This is not always possible. Man mustrealize that100% doesnot exist,especiallynotif structures are exposed consciouslytonatural hazard. They cannot be made safe against all possible impacts of natural hazards.some cases itissimply not possible because of lackoftechnical means whileitwouldbemuch

tooexpensive in other situations.

Another approach istodefinehazard zones.In the most critical zones with a high hazardpotential construction couldbeprohibited,inthe second zone with a potential hazard,

i i h ld b d i h l h d d i hi d


8/9

scenario, but all natural hazards of a site should be investigated atthesametimedefinethecombinedriskof endangered areas.

In this context it must be mentioned that different hazardsaretreated separately by thecorresponding specialist. However, two or more hazards mayin teractand the expertshavetocome up with a common definitionofsolution.Futureresearch has to takethisaspectalsointo account.

The different chapters of this report aimtopresent the specific research needs in more detailordefine the necessary activitiestobeas regarded by the authors.

outtomake infrastructure more disaster resilient,


9/9

Table1Possibilities of hazard intervention

Hazard

Lone

snowavalanches

iceavalanches

landslides debris flow impulse wave: earthquake forestfires

or slope geometry, check dams instructures, retaining and scour

measures,

stabilize

slides,

nonerelease ofavalanches, none ment,

asforlandslide draw downreservoir,

none none

silviculture,reforestation

drainage.

Large, steepslopes

cannotstabilized

controlslide velocity

I

deviation structures to protection dams RetentionI

little,retaining

divertavalanche

variousstructures none

tokeepdebris

of nonebasins,flood

vortexshedding retarding

away from to holdbrick

vaiunerablestructures

reservoir

structures

of

Japanese trap anddriftwood

increaseimpact landslides vcry limited designof river capacity,

state structures limited rock arccsscntially structures, flooddykes,of thedesign

not able to resistlands-

lide

butalso more spaceforriver,increaseerosion

resistance

2014disaster resilient infrastructure

Documents