avoiding the next earthquake catastrophe in...

AVOIDING THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE CATASTROPHE IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFICCATASTROPHE IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

What East Asia and the Pacific Can Do to Prepare for the

Linking the World Through Learning

Next Big Earthquake: Developing and Implementing Regional and Countrywide Strengthening Programs

1for Vulnerable Structures

Peter I. YanevEarthquake Engineering and Risk Management Consultant

to the World BankYanev Associates, California, USA

AVOIDING THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE CATASTROPHE IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFICIN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

AgendaRecent earthquakes in the Philippines Indonesia Recent earthquakes in the Philippines , Indonesia and China

Case study: California 1933–2010Case study: California 1933 2010 Lessons for countrywide earthquake risk

management Principles of earthquake risk management –

countrywide risk reduction programsB t P ti ISMEP T k t Best Practices: ISMEP – Turkey, etc.

Recommendations – Future Action Plan

2

101 Earthquakes & 13 HurricanesInvestigated 1971 - 2010Investigated 1971 - 2010

1971 San Fernando, CA (M6.5)1972 Managua, Nicaragua (M6.3)1973 Point Mugu, CA (M5.9)

1999 Western Washington (M5.8)1999 Izmit, Turkey (M7.4)1999 Duzce Turkey (M7 2)

1989 Hugo (Caribbean, Puerto Rico, So. Carolina)1990 Upland, California (M5.5)1990 Bishop's Castle Wales (M5 4)g ( )

1973 Managua, Nicaragua (M5.8)1975 Ferndale, CA (M5.5)1975 Lice, Turkey (M6.8)1976 Friuli, Italy (M6.5)1977 Vranchia, Romania (M7.4)1978 Izu Peninsula, Japan (M6.7)1978 Miyagi-Ken-oki, Japan (M7.4)1978 Santa Barbara, CA (M5.1)1979 Bishop, CA (M5.8)

1999 Duzce, Turkey (M7.2)1999 Central Taiwan (M7.6)1999 Athens, Greece (M5.9)1999 Algeria (M5.5)1999 Hector Mine, California (M7.1)1999 Floyd (Eastern US)1999 Lothar1999 Martin2000 Napa, CA (M5.2)2001 Tottori Japan (M6 7)

1990 Bishop s Castle, Wales (M5.4)1990 Manjil, Iran (M7.7)1990 Central Luzon, Philippines (M7.7)1991 Valle de la Estrella, Costa Rica (M7.4)1992 Sierra Madre, CA (M5.8)1992 Erzincan, Turkey (M6.8)1992 Roermond, Netherlands (M5.8)1992 Desert Hot Springs, CA (M6.1)1992 Cape Mendocino, CA (M7.0, 6.0, and 6.5)1992 Landers-Big Bear CA (M7 6 and 6 7)p, ( )

1979 Gilroy, CA (M5.5)1979 Imperial Valley, CA (M6.6)1980 Livermore, CA (M5.5 and 5.8)1980 Eureka, CA (M7.0)1980 Mammoth Mt., CA (M6.5, 6.5, 6.7)1981 Brawley, CA (M5.6)1983 Coalinga, CA (M6.7)1983 Borah Mt., Idaho (M6.9)1984 Morgan Hill, CA (M6.2)

2001 Tottori, Japan (M6.7)2001 Gujarat, India (M7.6)2001 Seattle, WA (M6.8)2002 San Simeon (Paso Robles), CA (M6.52005 Katrina (US Gulf Coast)2007 West Sumatra, Indonesia (M6.3)2007 Niigata (Kashiwazaki), Japan (M6.8)2008 Wells, Nevada (M6.3) 2008 Sichuan, China (M8.0)2008 Chino Hills Los Angeles CA (M5 4)

1992 Landers-Big Bear, CA (M7.6 and 6.7)1992 Cairo, Egypt (M5.9)1992 Andrew (Florida, Louisiana)1992 Iniki (Kauai, Hawaii)1993 Scotts Mill, OR (M5.3)1993 Nansei-oki Hokkaido, Japan, (M7.8)1993 Agana, Guam (M8.2)1993 Klamath Falls, OR (M5.7)1994 Northridge, CA (M6.6)1994 Tohoko oki Hoddaido Japan (M8 1)9 g , ( )

1985 Santiago, Chile (M7.8 and 7.2)1985 Mexico City, Mexico (M8.1 and 7.5)1986 Painesville, Ohio (M5.0)1986 Adak Island, Alaska (M7.7 and 6.5)1986 North Palm Springs, CA (M6.0)1986 Chalfant Valley, CA (M6.0 and 5.5)1986 San Salvador, El Salvador (M5.4)1986 Northern Taiwan (M6.8)1987 Cerro Prieto, Mexico (M5.4)

2008 Chino Hills, Los Angeles, CA (M5.4)2009 L’Aquila, Italy (M6.3)2010 Haiti (M6.9)2010 Chile (M8.8)2010 Baja California, Mexico (M7.2)

1994 Tohoko-oki Hoddaido, Japan (M8.1)1995 Great Hanshin (Kobe), Japan (M7.2)1995 Pereira, Colombia (M6.5)1995 Sakhalin Islands, Russia (M7.2)1995 Antofagasta, Chile (M7.4)1995 Manzanillo, Mexico (M7.6)1996 Luis (Northeast Caribbean)1995 Marilyn (Northeast Caribbean)1995 Opal (Florida panhandle)1996 Angela (Philippine Islands)1987 Cerro Prieto, Mexico (M5.4)

1987 Bay of Plenty, New Zealand (M6.2)1987 Whittier, CA (M5.9)1987 Superstition Hills, CA (M6.3)1988 Gorman, CA (M5.2)1988 Alum Rock, CA (M5.1)1988Saguenay, Quebec (M6.0)1989Armenia, USSR (M6.9)1989Acapulco, Mexico (M6.8)1989 Loma Prieta, CA (M7 1)

1996 Angela (Philippine Islands)1996 Duvall (Seattle,), WA (M5.3)1996 Calico, CA (M5.0)1996 Umbria, Italy (M5.5)1997 Paka (Guam)1998 Adana-Ceyhan, Turkey (M6.2)1998 Georges (Northeast Caribbean,

Puerto Rico, Gulf Coast)1999 Armenia, Colombia (M5.0)1999 P t E did M i (M7 5)1989 Loma Prieta, CA (M7.1)

1989 Newcastle, Australia (M5.5) 1999 Puerto Escondido, Mexico (M7.5)

3

Luzon, Philippines Earthquake of 1990 (M 7.8), pp q ( )

Damage to infrastructure, including bridges, roads, ports and industry. It collapsed many relatively p y p y ynew commercial buildings, particularly multistory hotels in the resort City of Baguio, and caused 1 700 fatalities1,700 fatalities.

4

Luzon, Philippines Earthquake of 1990 (M 7.8), pp q ( )

Extensive non-structural damage to high-tech facilities in Bag io ca sed e tensi e b sinessfacilities in Baguio caused extensive business interruptions

5

West Sumatra, Indonesia Earthquake of 2007 (M6.3)

Magnitude of only 6.3 but caused 66 fatalities, 500 casualties, and severe damage or collapse of nearly 15,000 buildings.

of 2007 (M6.3)

and severe damage or collapse of nearly 15,000 buildings. 135,000+ people displaced. About 300 school buildings collapsed and another 400 had moderate to severe damage. These are very high numbers for such a moderate earthquake y g qin an area with a long history of much larger earthquakes.

6

Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0)Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0)

In area of many past earthquakes with M7 to M8 and near two of China’s well-known earthquake faults.near two of China s well known earthquake faults.

87,000+ casualties (69,000 deaths and 18,000 missing). Millions injured and homeless. 15 million housing units collapsed.

Schools and hospitals especially hit hard; collapsed while occupied Many of the buildings were relativelywhile occupied. Many of the buildings were relatively new.

The infrastructure of the affected region, much of it g ,new, suffered severe to extreme damage, especially critical facilities such as power transmission facilities and bridgesand bridges.

7


C ll f ti l b ildi B i h (P f Y Y i )Collapse of conventional buildings, Beichuan (Prof.Ye Yaoxian)

8


220 kV E t i h S b t ti Yi h220 kV Ertaishan Substation, Yingxhou

9

Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0) - SchoolsEarthquake of 2008 (M8.0) Schools

Junion High School, Juyuan; Built in 1996. 400 students killed

10

Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0) - SchoolsEarthquake of 2008 (M8.0) Schools

Hanwang Hospital (left), Built in 1999 and Xingfu Hospital (right); Built in 1996.

11

Case study: California 1933–2010y

1906 San Francisco & 1923 Tokyo earthquakes start 1906 San Francisco & 1923 Tokyo earthquakes – start of earthquake science and engineering

1933 Long Beach EQ.; school collapses & Field Actg Q ; p Special bureau set up for schools; no school has collapsed since

1952 Kern Co. EQ; damage to power facilities PG&E adopts special requirements

1971 San Fernando, LA EQ; hospitals collapseS i l b t f h it l d i d t th i Special bureau set up for hospital design and strengthening

1971 San Fernando, LA EQ; dam collapses Requirements for assessment and strengthening of all dams Requirements for assessment and strengthening of all dams

12

1971 San Fernando Earthquake (M6.5) Olive View HospitalOlive View Hospital

1994 NorthridgeThe three-month old Olive 1994 NorthridgeView Hospital collapsed.

The replacement structure was practically undamaged (and the second earthquake was stronger).

13

Case study: Earthquake Risk Management in y q gCalifornia 1933–2010

1977/78 Calif State Capitol building strengthened; first 1977/78 Calif. State Capitol building strengthened; first public building to be strengthened. Military starts strengthening program of facilities in California

Early 1980s Private companies and industry start Risk Management Programs and strengthening1989 S F i EQ Hi h d b id ll 1989 San Francisco EQ; Highways and bridges collapse Major program for strengthening of bridges and highways started

by CalTrans. Many hundreds of bridges retrofitted

1994 Northridge, LA EQ; Interior hospital damage Special requirements for operability of hospitals

14

Key lessons and challenges for countrywide th k i k tearthquake risk management

Update the earthquake hazard zoning of the country, Update the codes to the latest knowledge and include

requirements for the strengthening of exiting buildings, Improve the quality of engineering with proper training Improve the quality of engineering with proper training and licensing; tighten inspection of construction and construction materials,

Start strengthening vulnerable structures using the experience gained by other countries in reducing their risk through earthquake risk management programsrisk through earthquake risk management programs like ISMEP project in Turkey.

15

Update the earthquake hazard zoning of the country

From: British Geological Survey

The History of Earthquakes in the Region and the Risk Maps Are InconsistentThe History of Earthquakes in the Region and the Risk Maps Are InconsistentMajor (7.2+) Earthquakes in 1933, 1948, 1955, 1973, 1976, etc.

16

Earthquake risk to (1) buildings and contents and (2) i f t t d it i tinfrastructure and its equipment

Start with the following: Buildings and their contents

Schools Hospitals and other medical buildings and their equipment Critical government buildings

Critical public utility infrastructure and equipment Critical public utility infrastructure and equipment Highways and bridges Airports Electric power systems Water and waste water systems

Telecommunication systems Telecommunication systems

17

Earthquake scenarios: A 2005 simulated a M6.7 earthquake in Seattle, WA, USAearthquake in Seattle, WA, USA

18

Principles of earthquake risk management: Developing regional and countrywideDeveloping regional and countrywide earthquake risk reduction programs

Three phase program:

1. Risk audit of a specific sector, like public schools or bridges.

2. Detailed risk assessment including cost-benefit analysis for the particular sector and prioritization of assets to strengthenassets to strengthen.

3. Implementation – reducing the risk through strengthening of the prioritized buildings and non-g g p gstructural features and equipment systems. This is mostly construction and is usually about 90% of the total costtotal cost.

19

Phase 1 - Risk audit of a specific sector, likePhase 1 Risk audit of a specific sector, like public schools or bridges

Establish evaluation criteria and procedure for buildings

ll ll l d h b ld (k Collect all relevant data on the buildings (keep it simple)

Evaluate all buildings to establish their risk (keep it Evaluate all buildings to establish their risk (keep it deterministic)

Prioritize the buildings on the basis of their risk and gthe established evaluation criteria

20

Phase 2 -Detailed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for the particular sector and prioritization

of assets to strengthen

Develop performance-based strengthening criteria Analyze in further detail prioritized buildings that will

b h dbe strengthened Design preliminary strengthening

E ti t t f t th i Estimate cost of strengthening Determine what cost is justified vs. performance-

based criteriabased criteria Re-prioritize based on results above

21

Phase 3 - Implementation – strengthening of the prioritized buildings and non-structural

features (and equipment)

Do final engineering design Complete design of non-structural upgrades, as needed

Construct the strengthening designs Complete all necessary refurbishing and upgrading

22

Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)

23

Schools


S h l

24

Schools


25

Schools

School strengthening (and renovation): Before and afterBefore and after

26

School strengthening (and renovation): Before and afterBefore and after

27


Strengthened Schools as of Oct. 15, 2010

28

Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and gEmergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)

Treasury secured a World Bank loan to Treasury secured a World Bank loan to reduce the vulnerability of public buildings and the earthquake risk of Istanbul. a d t e ea t qua e s o sta bu

Established a separate government unit – the Istanbul Project Coordination Unit (IPCU) to j ( )run the project

IPCU conducts all procurement, and assures p ,quality through independent reviews of designs and construction.

29

Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)

IPCU coordinates all activities with the beneficiaries (i.e. Ministry of Education, individual schools, etc.)

Developed project specific strengthening and rehabilitation guidelines: Assessment of building condition Assessment of earthquake deficiencies Establishment of site-specific earthquake shaking Establishment of site specific earthquake shaking Analysis procedures Structural (expected) performance levels Strengthening details

30

Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation andBest Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)

Enhanced quality of design engineering and construction through requiring Joint Ventures with internationally recognized earthquakewith internationally recognized earthquake engineering design companies for all projects

Encouraged technology transfer through Encouraged technology transfer through hiring of international consultants to conduct third-party review of all workt d pa ty e e o a o

The World Bank provided an additional level of technical quality complianceq y p

31

Other “Best Practices” Examples:Other Best Practices Examples:

University of California’s Berkeley campus Romania Hazard Risk Mitigation and g

Emergency Preparedness Project (HRMEP) Chile - Engineered Confined-Masonry g y

Buildings

32

Other “Best Practices” Examples: University of California’s Berkeley campusCalifornia s Berkeley campus

33

Other “Best Practices” Examples: Romania Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Projectg g y p j

Buildings undergoing retrofits: two city halls

d d itand a dormitory

34

Other “Best Practices” Examples: Chile Engineered Confined Masonry BuildingsChile - Engineered Confined-Masonry Buildings

35Unconfined masonry; 2010 earthquake

Other “Best Practices” Examples: Chile - Engineered Confined-Masonry BuildingsChile Engineered Confined Masonry Buildings

36

Undamaged confined masonry in a heavily damaged area

Recommendations – Future Action Plan:h ( )Short term (1 year):

Initiate at least one narrowly focused earthquake risk reduction program forearthquake risk reduction program for maximum impact on potential life losses in the public sector in a major metropolitan area – possibly start with schools, hospitals, and power generation and distribution systems.

Assess integration of earthquake risk assessments Assess integration of earthquake risk assessments and risk reduction into infrastructure investments

Review and update existing building codes and their p g genforcement, specifically for earthquakes

Conduct a critical review of national earthquake risk d ti li i d lreduction policies and laws.

37

Recommendations – Future Action Plan:Medium term (5 years):

Complete a large narrowly focused earthquake risk p g y qreduction program for maximum impact on life losses as a demonstration project like ISMEP. Demonstrate that cost effective strengthening options Demonstrate that cost-effective strengthening options are available for vulnerable structures and gain public support – schools are easiest

Redefine the earthquake hazardous areas Redefine tsunami hazardous areas; improve tsunami

warning systems Update the codes

38

Recommendations – Future Action Plan:Medium term (5 years):

Strengthen enforcement of the codes and construction inspection Conduct training for structural engineers in earthquake Conduct training for structural engineers in earthquake risk analysis and risk reduction. Training programs for contractors and the trades would also be very useful.

Mandate professional registration for structural engineers, particularly in the earthquake hazard areas of each countryeach country.

39

Recommendations – Future Action Plan:Long term (5 to 10 years):

Initiate long-term earthquake risk reduction Initiate long term earthquake risk reduction programs to impact all key public sectors

Support/initiate long-term earthquake risk reduction programs for the highest risk private structures

Support/initiate long-term earthquake risk reduction programs for the highest risk industries andprograms for the highest risk industries and maximum financial impact

Pass legislation to require strengthening of private g q g g psector structures and infrastructure with or without public financing but with incentives.

40

avoiding the next earthquake catastrophe in...

Documents