research needs for engineering aspects of natural disasters

4 / JO

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

RESEARCH NEEDS FOR ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF

NATURAL DISASTERS

By James P. Heaney,1 Jon Peterka,2 Members, ASCE, and Leonard T. Wright3

ABSTRACT: Engineering research needs related to the second national assessment of future directions of re-search and applications for more sustainable natural disaster management are presented. The evolution of codesand practice in engineering in general and the development of these practices within the context of hazardsmanagement is described. Next, an overview of the state of the art in current engineering practice is presentedby type of hazard and by type of infrastructure. The bases for engineering design in terms of reducing loss oflife and economic damages are described along with a framework for using this information as a basis forengineering design. Engineering research needs for promoting more sustainable hazards management are enu-merated.

INTRODUCTION

The engineering aspects of a National Science Foundation(NSF) sponsored assessment of research and applications onnatural hazards (Mileti 1998) are described in this paper. This3-year effort involved over 100 scientists and engineers inevaluating all aspects of natural disasters. This effort is anupdate of the 1975 assessment of research on natural hazardsby White and Haas (1975). An important part of the engi-neering contribution to the Second National Assessment is topresent engineering research and research needs within thebroader context of the assessment. Another objective is to pro-vide the nonengineering audience with a fuller appreciation ofthe context within which engineering practice is conducted;that is, how theory and precedent are integrated to determine‘‘accepted’’ practice. The following section reviews how codesand practice have evolved in engineering in general. Then, thedevelopment of these practices within the context of hazardsmanagement is presented. Next, an overview of the state ofthe art in current engineering practice is presented by type ofhazard and by type of infrastructure. The bases for engineeringdesign in terms of reducing loss of life and economic damagesare described in the subsequent section along with a frame-work for using this information as a basis for engineering de-sign. Then, research needs are presented. Finally, a summaryand conclusions are provided.

EVOLUTION OF DESIGN AND SAFETY STANDARDSIN THE UNITED STATES

Florman (1987) provided an overview of ethics and the re-lated evolution of standards in engineering. The appropriatelevel of safety is a societal choice, not a unilateral decision ofmanufacturers or engineers. Traditionally, building codes havebeen designed with primary regard to life safety issues. How-ever, in the past 25 years, the purpose of building regulationshas been expanded to include other considerations includingaccessibility for the disabled, historic preservation, energy

1Prof., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Arch. Engrg., and Facu. Assoc., Ctr.for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Envir. Sys., Univ. of Col-orado, Boulder, CO 80309-0421.

2Prin., Cermak, Peterka, Petersen, Inc., 1415 Blue Spruce Dr., FortCollins, CO 80524.

3Grad. Asst., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Arch. Engrg., and Natural Haz-ards Res. and Applications Information Ctr., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder,CO.

Note. Associate Editor: Sue McNeil. Discussion open until August 1,2000. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must befiled with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paperwas submitted for review and possible publication on August 5, 1998.This paper is part of the Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 6, No.1, March, 2000. qASCE, ISSN 1076-0342/00/0001-0004–0014/$8.00 1$.50 per page. Paper No. 18939.

URNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS / MARCH 2000

J. Infrastruct. Syst

conservation, noise control (‘‘A nontechnical’’ 1995), and,more recently, decrease of economic loss during design-levelevents. Some broader environmental concerns, economic de-velopment issues, and aesthetic considerations also have foundtheir way into some building regulations under the aegis ofpolice power protection within an expanded concept of publicwelfare. According to Perry (1991), an estimated 5,000 build-ing codes exist in the United States. Perusal of the many codesand provisions indicates the complex risk management prob-lem facing designers, constructors, and operators of buildings.Much of the research in natural hazards in civil engineeringfocuses on the structural aspect of buildings. However, it isclear that serious consequences can ensue if other componentsof the system (e.g., electrical) are designed, installed, or op-erated improperly.

Performance or prescriptive codes can be specified (Perry1991). Performance codes specify the loads, material strengths,and the design process under which engineers design. Facili-ties designed under performance codes require significant en-gineering input and are referred to as ‘‘full engineered’’ asopposed to ‘‘marginally engineered,’’ ‘‘preengineered,’’ and‘‘nonengineered’’ (Minor and Mehta 1979). Prescriptive codesspecify the actual sizes and spacing of members, types of con-nectors and other structural details for achieving a specifiedlevel of performance. Most of the damage from natural dis-asters occurs in residential buildings and their contents (e.g.,homeowners incurred approximately 65% of insured Hurri-cane Andrew losses (Lecomte and Gahagan 1998). Unfortu-nately, these buildings are likely to have been nonengineered.Fully engineered systems are typically restricted to more ex-pensive construction.

Historically, engineering codes and standards have at-tempted to take into account acceptable levels of risks andlosses. However the codes and standards have proved to bedifficult to enforce and administer. Lack of building code en-forcement was blamed for much of the widespread buildingfailures during the high winds produced by Hurricane Andrew[National Research Council (NRC) 1994]. Wind load require-ments were ignored. Inappropriate building materials wereused in construction; quality workmanship was not demanded.As a result, many buildings performed very poorly in SouthFlorida, even those not located in areas that received the bruntof the storm. The NRC (1994) also points out that societalvulnerability is dynamic and is generally increasing as popu-lation centers continue to grow in some of the country’s mosthazardous locations. Although codes and standards are notstatic, as they are periodically updated, there may be a longadministrative lag time before new information is incorpo-rated.

An emerging issue with regard to codes is who gets to par-ticipate and by what processes the final choices are made. Un-

. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

der the sponsorship of the Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute Endowment Fund (‘‘Public’’ 1996), a white paper hasbeen prepared that presents a case study of how various stake-holders participated in a process to develop the Los AngelesSteel-Frame Ordinance. The preparation of this white papergrew out of a concern that engineering design requirementsdo not properly incorporate the social, economic and politicalissues important to their adoption. As part of this effort, amultidisciplinary core group was established with representa-tives from structural engineering, seismology, architecture,public policy, building officials, urban planning, and social sci-ence.

HAZARD-BASED STATE OF THEART—ENGINEERING ASPECTS

The state of the art with respect to the engineering aspectsof hazards management in the United States, organized by typeof hazard, is summarized in this section. Each of followingsections will summarize the state of the art for a specific in-frastructure. This two-way taxonomy is needed to present thisinformation because engineering practice has been organizedby hazard and impact on infrastructure.

Earthquakes

Earthquake engineering activities are organized around im-pacts to buildings and lifelines. An extensive literature existsin earthquake engineering due to the availability of federalsupport for external research during the past 20 years. Recentsummaries of the state of the art are contained in Abramset al. (1995), O’Rourke (1995), and Schiff and Buckle (1995).Lumsden (1995) provided an overview of the evolution of life-line engineering activities in the United States. According toLumsden (1995), the 1971 San Fernando earthquake providedthe catalyst for formation of the Technical Council on LifelineEarthquake Engineering. The Technical Council on LifelineEarthquake Engineering participates in the development ofguidelines, prestandards, and standards for the seismic designand construction of lifelines including electric power and com-munications, gas and liquid fuels, transportation, water andsewage, and stormwater.

Floods

Flood control is a classic case of the long-term evolution ofengineering design standards in an area where a wide varietyof structural and nonstructural controls have been used. TheMississippi River Flood of 1993 triggered numerous reeval-uations of federal policies (Sharing 1994). The state of the artin flood proofing is contained in a report by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (Flood 1996).

Hurricanes

Hurricanes are very important disasters whether measuredin terms of loss of life or economic damages. The impact ofHurricane Hugo is summarized in Sill and Sparks (1991). Ka-reem (1985) summarized the impacts of Hurricane Alicia,which hit Texas on August 18, 1983. Hurricane Andrew, whichhit Florida and Louisiana claiming 38 lives and an estimated$32 billion worth of damage, has been called the worst disasterin U.S. history. Hurricane Andrew caused relatively little dam-age to lifelines (Cook 1994). Aboveground utilities, particu-larly electric power lines, performed poorly during HurricaneAndrew. The major damage was to residential structures dueto failure of roofing materials, doors, and windows. These fail-ures led to weather penetration and significant damage. Nearly100% of the manufactured housing in the area was destroyed.Overall, Cook (1994) believed that the major lesson learned

J. Infrastruct. Syst.

from Hurricane Andrew was that the vast majority of the mon-etary damage to buildings was due to penetration of theweather envelope and not by the failure of major structuralcomponents. Improved building inspection was identified as amajor need to decrease economic losses. However, this sameconclusion had also been drawn following storms precedingHurricane Andrew.

High Wind

During the past 25 years, significant progress has been madein improving the U.S. national wind load standard and in im-plementing this standard in local building codes. The currentnational wind load standard, ASCE 7-95 (‘‘Minimum’’ 1995),is now based on 3-s gust speeds in place of the fastest milespeeds that are no longer measured. At the time of this writing,ASCE 7-98 is in the review process and may be selected asthe wind load provision of the new International BuildingCode under development within the United States for use byall major model building codes. This activity may provide thebasis for unifying design wind loads across the United Statesfor the first time. ASCE 7-95 and 7-98 provide added provi-sions for protecting the building envelope (as did earlier ver-sions).

Droughts

The program of the Institute of Water Resources of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers is the only recent, unified effort toevaluate the impacts of droughts (Dziegielewski et al. 1991).Haimes (1990) summarized the results of an NSF sponsoredresearch needs evaluation with regard to scientific knowledge,monitoring, and forecasting of droughts. Wilhite (1993) sum-marized the state of the art in the drought field. Brumbaughet al. (1994) summarized lessons learned from the 1987–1992California drought. Droughts occur slowly and are relativelylong-lasting. Although loss of life and injuries associated withdroughts are minimal, economic impacts are significant. In1993, the California Urban Water Agencies conducted a con-tingent valuation survey of 4,000 customers who had recentlyexperienced a prolonged drought. They found an aggregatewillingness to pay to avoid future droughts of $2 billion/yearfor the state of California alone.

Landslides, Land Subsidence, and Expansive Soils

The NRC (1985b) summarized losses from landslides. Inthe area of mitigation, the main options are prevention throughland use controls and correction by improved constructionpractices to minimize slope instability. An NRC report (1991b)recommended continuing research in this area. Expansive soilscan cause major damage (King and Beikman 1973). Mitigationoptions include avoid building on them, remove them, applyheavy loads to offset swelling pressure, prevent access to wa-ter, presetting, and chemical stabilization. No separate researchprogram is known to exist in this category (Multihazard 1997).

Fires Associated with Disasters

Structural fires caused 4,465 deaths and 21,850 injuries in1991 along with an estimated $8.3 billion in fire-related losses.A very small percentage of these fires are caused by naturaldisasters (e.g., 18 deaths/year are attributable to natural dis-asters and $180,000,000 in economic damages (Multihazard1997). Disaster-related fire fighting includes improving the re-liability of the water supply system in order to have an ade-quate supply of water at the necessary pressure to suppressthese fires. San Francisco and Vancouver provide backup watersupply systems for postearthquake fire fighting. Impacts fromwildfire include losses to natural resources and to the built

JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS / MARCH 2000 / 5

2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

environment. Losses have increased dramatically in recentyears as more suburban-style and semirural construction isbuilt in formerly undeveloped forest or wildland areas proneto fire propagation. Newer approaches for mitigating losses tohabitation from wildfire are contained in two primary docu-ments: the National Fire Protection Association Standard 299(Protection 1991) and the Urban-Wildfire Interface Code(1996) produced by the International Fire Code Institute(IFCI).

Snow

The roof snow load specified in building codes and loadstandards is typically based upon a ground snow load in com-bination with various ground-to-roof conversion factors. Theground snow load is used to characterize the hazard becausethis type of information can be readily obtained from variousexisting sources (Ellingwood and Redfield 1983). In terms ofrisk and losses, drifted snow loads are particularly importantbecause insurance company records indicate that roughly 75%of snow-related structural collapses are due to drifted snow.The environmental hazard for roof drifts is related to the jointoccurrence of driftable snow and strong wind. Unfortunately,such a ‘‘blizzard’’ hazard map is not available, and currentprocedures for establishing roof drifts rely simply upon theground snow load hazard. Mitigation of the snow load hazardfor new building construction is fairly straightforward. Miti-gation of the snow load hazard for existing construction ismore complicated.

HAZARDS ORGANIZED BY TYPE OFINFRASTRUCTURE

The engineering aspects of selected infrastructure compo-nents and how they are designed to manage all hazards aresummarized in this section. The general taxonomy used in thefield is to divide the affected engineering systems into build-ings and lifelines.

Buildings

Petroski (1985) described the evolution of standards inbuildings. The probability of death from a structural failure isapproximately 1 in 10,000,000/year (Petroski 1985). This isequivalent to a total of about 25 deaths/year in the UnitedStates; a small number in comparison with auto fatalities thatare in the range of 40,000–50,000/year. Buildings are complexcombinations of the basic foundation and structure, plumbing,electrical, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and ancillarysystems. The structural aspects of the building consider earth-quake, high wind, flooding, and related disaster loads. How-ever, the direct links of hazards to other aspects of the buildingsystem are less apparent.

Power Systems

Damage to power systems reduces our ability to respondeffectively to natural disasters. Without power, much of thevital infrastructure is rendered inoperable. For example, dam-age to power systems as a result of the Northridge earthquakecaused power disturbances as far away as Denver, Salt LakeCity, and Seattle (Schiff et al. 1995). Northridge representedthe first time that the entire city of Los Angeles and 600,000other customers lost power. Singhai and Bouabid (1995) de-scribed a methodology for the seismic risk assessment of elec-tric power systems. Fragility curves and restoration functionsare used to evaluate damage and loss functions for electricpower components.

6 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS / MARCH 2000

J. Infrastruct. Syst

Water Systems

Water systems are affected by earthquakes, floods, and othernatural disasters. The 1993 Great Flood on the MississippiRiver put the water treatment plant at Des Moines, Iowa, outof commission (Galloway 1995). In response to the recentdrought, communities in southern California are acceleratingtheir physical linkages to provide better reliability duringdroughts and other disasters. Harberg (1997) provided an over-view of the reliability of urban water systems. Water systemswere seismically upgraded as a result of the 1971 San Fer-nando earthquake. These systems performed well during the1994 Northridge earthquake (Lund and Cooper 1995). TheU.S. Army Corps of Engineers has conducted the NationalDrought Study (Dziegielewski et al. 1991). This is the onlysubstantive national effort during the past decade in the UnitedStates.

Wastewater Systems

Wastewater systems are affected by floods when the treat-ment facility is directly inundated. The treatment plant can alsobe overloaded due to high infiltration and inflow because ofthe flood. The overloaded treatment plants must bypass un-treated sewage. Flooding events also cause pipes to surchargeresulting in sewer backups into basements and onto streets,failure of pipes in the system, etc. Lund (1995) summarizedthe effect of the Northridge earthquake on wastewater systems.Damage occurred due to shaking and sloshing in the waste-water-treatment plants. Sewer pipeline damage was not obvi-ous after the earthquake but it is more difficult to assess whensuch damage occurs. Loss of power caused problems in waste-water-treatment and pumping plants. Balantyne (1995) maderecommendations for water and wastewater lifelines affectedby earthquakes.

Communications

Communications outages affect all aspects of buildings andlifelines associated with natural disasters. Because of extensivereporting of the impacts of earthquakes, they will be used toillustrate the impact of communications outages. Wong andTang (1995) summarized the impact of the Northridge earth-quake on communication systems. The outages ranged from3–13.5 h in duration and affected about 3% of the access linesin Los Angeles County. Also, two interexchanges failed forabout 8 h, affecting 1,900,000 customers. Interexchange fail-ures prevent people from making long distance calls. The mainreason for these failures is loss of power. Telephone calls inone area of Los Angeles indicate the impact of the disaster ontelephone activities. The call volume increased to almost fourtimes the daily volume in the immediate aftermath. UnlikeHurricane Andrew, damage to cellular telephone systems wasminimal for Northridge. Radio and television coverage wasaffected by commercial power outages and damage to the sta-tions.

Bridges and Roadways

Bridges and roadways are affected by floods, high winds,soils problems, and earthquakes. Yashinsky (1995) summa-rized the impact of the Northridge earthquakes on bridges androadways. About 1,200 state highway bridges are located inthe immediately affected area of Northridge. Bridges con-structed to Caltrans’ current seismic specifications survived theearthquake with very little damage. Several older bridges, notdesigned to current Caltrans’ standards, did suffer significantdamage. In contrast to state highway bridges, there was verylittle damage to any city or county bridge. This may have beenbecause these local bridges are shorter structures with shorter

. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

spans. As of May 1994, $122,000,000 had been spent on high-way repairs compared with $144,000,000 on bridge repairs.Highway costs include repair of the many bridge approachesthat settled during the earthquake.

Transportation Systems

Floods and earthquakes can cause major disruptions in thetransportation network. Leung et al. (1995) summarized theimpact of the Northridge earthquake on the transportation sys-tem in the Los Angeles area. Northridge closed some highwaysfor several months. Although catastrophic travel conditionswere predicted, except for the first few days after the quake,excessive delays were not experienced, and the transportationsystem continued to function during the reconstruction period.The most effective mitigation measure was to divert express-way traffic to local streets. Ridership on public transit in-creased dramatically in areas where no viable highway optionexisted. However, ridership declined after the highway routeswere reopened.

Gas Systems

As a result of the Northridge earthquake, there were about151,000 gas outages of which 123,000 were unnecessary.There were approximately 14,000 leaks (Lund 1995). No listof research was found for gas systems. However, the recom-mendations would be similar to water and wastewater collec-tion systems.

Dams

Dams and associated reservoirs serve multiple purposes in-cluding water supply, flood control, hydropower generation,navigation, and recreation. However, they also increase risksto downstream entities if they fail. Engineers have developedsophisticated methods to evaluate alternative failure mecha-nisms for dams including foundation conditions; materials; andrare initiating mechanisms such as floods, earthquakes, andlandslides (Nielson 1996). Water agencies in Australia are un-dergoing privatization. Thus, all business risks, including risksassociated with dams, are being reevaluated (Bowles 1996).Dam safety evaluations use relatively sophisticated methods ofrisk analysis including comparative risks across hazards andevaluation of the entire risk management portfolio for the or-ganization.

BASIS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA

Safety is a basic measure of performance for engineeringsystems. In addition to public health and safety, building andlifeline designs are affected by the economics of the situation.Thus, money is being invested for multiple purposes includingprotecting public health and safety, minimizing economicdamages, providing environmental protection, etc. Publichealth and safety are discussed in the next section, and theneconomic impacts are discussed.

Public Health and Safety

Historically, the primary justification for remediating dis-asters has been to reduce fatalities and injuries. For 1990,floods caused an estimated 138 deaths, lightning caused 82deaths, and earthquakes caused 13 deaths. Excessive heat (300deaths) and excessive cold (596 deaths) were more significantcauses of death. The associated annual death rates in 1990 forfloods, lightning, and earthquakes were 0.6, 0.3, and 0.1 deathsper million people (Accidents 1995). Long-term trends in deathrates due to flooding indicate that the recent general trend isstable with the recent average being <0.5 persons per million

J. Infrastruct. Sy

TABLE 1. Typical Recurrence Intervals Used in ContemporaryEngineering Design for Natural Disasters

Category(1)

Recurrenceinterval(years)

(2)Failure

(3)

Urban floodingMinor drainage infrastructureMajor drainage infrastructure

2–101001

Standing water in streetsDamage to property

Agricultural floodingHigh valued crops 20–50 Reduced or eliminated har-

vestLow valued crops 2–20 Reduced or eliminated har-

vestUrban water supply

Indoor uses 1001 Inadequate flow or pres-sure

Outdoor use 10–50 Watering restrictionsFire fighting 1001 Loss of life, injuries, and

property damageResidential buildings

High loads 100–500 Wind, seismic, and/orflood damage

DamsFloodsa

Earthquakeb500–10,000

100,000–1,000,000Collapse of damCollapse of dam

aProbable maximum flood is estimated as ‘‘worst-case scenario.’’bMaximum design earthquake (Fell 1994).

per year. Similar low death rates exist for the other disasters.Thus, an excellent job has been done in mitigating deaths as-sociated with these disasters. Annual death rates below oneperson per million are very low. U.S. EPA uses one in a mil-lion as a ‘‘threshold death rate’’ when deciding whether addedinvestments in environmental protection can be justified (LaGrega et al. 1994).

Economic Impacts

Two measures of the economic impacts of natural disastersare damages avoided and residual damages. Published statis-tics typically are the residual damages from a disaster event.However, it is important to evaluate the avoided damages al-though this calculation is more difficult since a ‘‘without thecontrol’’ scenario needs to be evaluated. For example, reser-voirs in the Missouri River Basin reduced flood damages in1993 by billions of dollars. This number is obtained by run-ning a computer simulation of what the flood damages wouldhave been in the absence of these dams. The residual damagesare measured directly from post-disaster inventories of expen-ditures for disaster relief and recovery. Little reliable data areavailable on residual damages from natural disasters and thisis an important research need. FEMA is currently supportinga major modeling effort called HAZUS which will provide abetter basis for estimating losses from natural disasters (Earth-quake 1997).

INTEGRATING DESIGN CRITERIA INTOENGINEERING PRACTICE

Current Methods of Determining Acceptable Risk

Typical recurrence intervals used for design related to nat-ural disasters and buildings and lifelines are shown in Table1. These recurrence intervals were established based on anexplicit or implicit benefit-cost-risk-analysis. For example, thelevel of protection for agricultural levees is determined bymaximizing net benefits and considering incremental cropdamage versus the added cost of raising the levee. Extremelyhigh levels of protection are often specified for dams, partic-ularly when failure would result in major loss of life and prop-erty.

In Table 1, the recurrence interval for design is given for


st. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

most disciplines as a nominal value before safety factors orload factors are applied. The resulting recurrence interval eventfor initiation of various failure modes is expected to be muchlonger, although in many cases this return period is not wellknown and is a valid subject for future research. There is somemovement in load standards toward definition of a maximumcredible event to be used for design with no safety factor orload factor applied.

Comparative Risks

Much of the earlier work in hazards management has lookedat how the impacts of a single hazard can be reduced, andresearch programs have been established around evaluatingsingle hazards. In the hazards field, we see an increasing useof a multihazards approach that looks at the relative impor-tance of earthquakes, floods, droughts, etc. (Multihazard1997). Of course, engineers have been using a multihazardapproach in designing buildings and lifelines (‘‘Minimum’’1995). For example, buildings are designed to withstand seis-mic, wind, and flood impacts. In the related area of environ-mental management, the U.S. EPA has been sponsoring com-parative environmental risk studies through which states,cities, tribes, and other organizational units compare the rela-tive importance of pollution control strategies for air, land, andwater (U.S. EPA 1993; Davies 1996). An even more funda-mental view of comparative risk analysis is to look at all ofthe risks facing an organization and then to develop a riskmanagement strategy accordingly. These sources of problemscan range from everyday occurrences to rare, major disasters.Evans (1995) described how this approach is used for a waterutility in Australia.

Toward Total Risk Management Framework

The ‘‘bottom line’’ of hazards management is often ex-pressed in terms of reduction of death and injuries, and/orreduction of the monetary losses associated with hazards.What is usually missing from these statistics is an evaluationof the benefits associated with hazardous activities. Fischoffet al. (1978) presented the results of studies wherein partici-pants are asked to estimate the perceived benefits and risksassociated with various activities. Lind (1995) presented gen-eral policy goals for health and safety. Robertson (1995) sug-gested that risks should be managed to maximize the total netbenefits, subject to adequate protection of those at greatestrisk. The key point of this principle is that the goal should notbe to minimize risk but rather to maximize the public net ben-efit. Thus, benefit-cost analysis should be an integral part ofrisk analysis.

Risk and reliability are fundamental to engineering analysis.Engineers combine scientific knowledge and associated theoryto estimate what should work, with professional experiencethat tells what has worked. Engineering planning, design, con-struction, and operating policies are based on formal codifi-cation of this scientific knowledge and experience into ac-cepted practice. Until relatively recently, engineers relied onsafety factors to account for the uncertainty in estimating howthe system would perform. A large engineering literature existson reliability engineering [e.g., Elsayed (1996)]. The analyticaltechniques are very similar. Reliability engineering deals with‘‘failures’’ of any type, whereas the recent interest in risk anal-ysis has been prompted by failures that cause public healthproblems. Ang and Tang (1975, 1984) and Harr (1987) sum-marized applications of reliability engineering to civil engi-neering including disasters. Mays and Tung (1992) presenteda summary of risk analysis applications in water resources.Other major sources of information on the use of risk analysisin water resources are the proceeding of seven engineering


J. Infrastruct. Sy

TABLE 2. Approximate Current Funding Levels for ExtramuralResearch Dealing with Engineering Aspects of Natural Hazards

Hazard(1)

Research(million dollars/

year)(2)

Sponsor(s)(3)

Earthquakes 13 NSFFloods <1 USACE, NSFHurricanes <1 FEMA, USACEHigh Wind 0.75 NSFDroughts 0.5 AWWARF, USBRUSACE, USDALandslides, subsidence, and ex-

pansive soils 1 Bureau of MinesTotal 15.25–17.25

Note: NSF (National Science Foundation), USACE (U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers), FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), USBR(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), AWWARF (American Water Works Assoc.Research Foundation).

foundation conferences on this subject [e.g., Haimes et al.(1996)]. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has taken the leadin developing methods and procedures to use risk analysis intheir evaluations. Explanations of their methodologies and ex-amples are contained in the literature by the Greeley-PolhemusGroup, Inc. (1992).

STRATEGY FOR ENGINEERING-RELATED NATURALHAZARDS RESEARCH

The previous sections of this paper outline how engineeringstandards and codes are established and describe the relativeimportance of disasters in terms of loss of life, injuries, andeconomic damages. With this information as a backdrop, howdoes one develop a strategy for allocating scarce dollars toresearch? The basic principle is akin to a portfolio wherein amix of investments is selected that yields a relatively highreturn with relatively low variability. In the long run, the rateof return for research can be measured in terms of reductionin loss of life and injuries, economic damages, environmentalimpacts, etc. Two basic questions in research and development(R&D) planning are the size of the research budget, and howthe budget should be allocated among the respective topics.For hazards research, existing programs have been organizedby type of hazard and by type of system to be protected.

A wide variety of federal agencies are involved in disaster-related activities including research (Petak and Atkisson 1982).Accordingly, it is difficult to separate research expendituresfor engineering activities from total disaster-related expendi-tures that include large sums for scientific measurement, par-ticularly internal research by federal agencies. A preliminaryestimate of current extramural research funding for the engi-neering aspects of natural disasters is presented in Table 2.How large should the research budget be? Estimates of currentaverage annual damages range from $5 billion to $50 billion(Mileti 1998). A rule of thumb in R&D planning is to spend1–7% of the total budget on research, depending on the natureof the technology. Using a conservative estimate of $10 billionper year in damages and a 1–2% R&D funding level yieldsan estimated hazards research budget of $100,000,000–$200,000,000/year, well beyond current funding levels.

SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH NEEDS

Input on research needs has been solicited from a wide va-riety of groups. It was possible to get a large number of re-search needs from the earthquake engineering field. Conse-quently, the tabulations of research needs based on compilingthe suggestions published in the literature is heavily influenced

st. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

by areas with current funding, which provide the resources tocompile such lists. Another major source of research needs’lists are numerous reports of the NRC that focus on disasterand/or risk management.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Recent research needs assessments are sometimes availablewithin a given specialty area. Other sources of research needsinclude recommendations from individual papers and fromknowledgeable experts involved in this assessment. Althoughwe have tried to present a balanced final list of research needs,the available information leads to an imbalance. For example,a relative abundance of information is available regarding re-search needs in earthquake engineering, because this has beena very active area of research in recent years. By contrast, littleinformation is available on research needs in flood control, anarea where very little external research support from federalagencies has been provided in recent years. In compiling thefinal list, we have cited the key references for the interestedreader. In many cases, the research need is applicable acrossseveral hazard categories. Accordingly, the final list attemptsto focus on these more generic recommendations.

Standards and Codes

Improvements in codes and standards are needed in the en-gineering aspects of disasters. The research-related recommen-dations are listed below:

• Provide funding to attract academic researchers and otherprofessionals to the code arena (Perry 1991)

• Examine socioeconomic issues relative to code accep-tance and enforcement (Perry 1991)

• Redefine building codes to give more attention to factorsin addition to life safety (Lecomte 1994)

• Implement a nationally recognized, minimum, voluntarystandard (Lecomte 1994)

• Expand prescriptive codes (Lecomte 1994)• Develop retrofitting requirements (Lecomte 1994)• Improve building code performance provisions including

national and state uniformity combined with improvedand easier methods for wind load definition and design(NRC 1993).

• Improve analysis and design procedures for building codeprescriptive requirements to ensure that they conform tothe performance requirements of the code in the wind area(NRC 1993).

• Two broad areas for research are evident in the descriptionof the IFCI model code (Urban-wildland 1996). First, theextent that the code will be adopted and enforced is notknown. Research aimed at determining the extent of adop-tion and adherence to the code and at the effectiveness ofits provisions in specific settings will be valuable in futureefforts to upgrade or extend the code.

• Convert the 1996 IFCI code to a ‘‘performance’’ code.• Develop more effective ways to integrate the scientific

input from physical sciences, social sciences, and engi-neering with the views of other stakeholders in the pro-cess of setting codes and standards.

Hazards Engineering Research Laboratories andEquipment

Significant needs remain in upgrading the existing hazardsresearch laboratory and equipment infrastructure. The most up-to-date and complete assessment of funding needs in this areahas been compiled by the earthquake engineering researchcommunity (Abrams et al. 1995). Similar recommendations

J. Infrastruct. Sys

were made for the wind engineering research program (NRC1993). In the flood area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineershas a major laboratory at Vicksburg, Miss. However, little sup-port is available in this area for university facilities. Somehurricane engineering laboratory facilities are available atcoastal engineering laboratories and at the Corps’ Vicksburglaboratory. Drought-related research laboratory facilities areavailable at some land grant universities and USDA labora-tories. The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and EngineeringLaboratory has wind tunnel facilities used for snowdrift mod-eling. In addition, selected universities have wind tunnels and/or water flumes used for snow loading studies. Laboratorystudies are critical to obtain information in a controlled envi-ronment. Exclusive or primary reliance on postdisaster inspec-tion provides very incomplete information because criticalboundary conditions cannot be obtained (e.g., wind velocities)at the site.

Abrams et al. (1995) assessed earthquake engineering re-search needs related to laboratory facilities; the recommenda-tions are summarized below. Many of these recommendationscould be applied to other hazards areas.

Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratories andEquipment

• A comprehensive plan must be developed for experi-mental earthquake engineering research to effectively util-ize existing laboratories and personnel, to upgrade facil-ities and equipment as needed, and to integrate new,innovative testing approaches into the research infrastruc-ture in a systematic manner.

• Experimental research programs must be pursued at anaccelerated rate to advance the state of the art in seismicengineering and construction practices.

• As the highest priority, existing laboratories must be up-graded and modernized with new testing equipment.

• As a second highest priority, a series of new, moderatelysized regional centers must be created with unique andcomplementary capabilities.

• A detailed feasibility study should be undertaken to esti-mate benefit-to-cost ratios associated with development,maintenance, and operation of a single, national test fa-cility.

• Future funding of earthquake engineering research mustbe sought through alternate, innovative sources.

• Existing research programs with other countries should becontinued, and new programs should be established wherethe sharing of facilities, and the exchange of data andresearch results is mutually advantageous.

Flood and Hurricane Engineering Research Laboratoriesand Equipment

• Improve structure relationship with hydrostatic and hy-drodynamic forces on aboveground and basement wallsof buildings (Flood 1996).

• Design standards for foundations to elevated structures(Flood 1996).

• Better standards for the impact and wind resistance ofbuilding envelope components (Cook et al. 1994).

• Appropriate resistance capabilities for fastening of sheath-ing and anchorage of components (Cook et al. 1994).

• Appropriate missiles and impact loads for design of glaz-ing protection as well as wall cladding. A full-scale testfacility would be a tremendous advance by providing ameans for evaluating components and systems subjectedto extreme wind events (Cook et al. 1994).

• Better define wind loads on a variety of structures (NRC1993).


t. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Drought Research Laboratories and Equipment

Laboratory and field testing of failure mechanisms for watersupply infrastructure needs to be performed.

Wind Engineering Laboratories and Equipment

The performance of several of the research needs related towind is likely to require new experimental facilities includinga large wind tunnel, larger laboratory dynamic loading capa-bility, additional and improved field test capability, and otherfacilities.

Snow Laboratories and Equipment

There is a need for improved understanding of the physicsof drift formation that could be developed from model studiesin a water flume or wind tunnel.

Research Needs Organized by Hazard

Earthquake Engineering

Earthquake engineering extramural research programs haveexisted in the United States during the past 20 years with sus-tained support from the NSF and other federal agencies. Sev-eral research needs inventories have been prepared. Needs re-lated to experimental facilities were presented above. Needsrelated to infrastructure will be presented in later sections.

Flood Engineering

The only published research needs in the flood area is inflood proofing (Flood 1996). Heaney et al. (1998) summarizedresearch needs associated with urban wet weather flow qualitymanagement. The list shown below only covers flood proofing(Flood 1996):

• Additional review and evaluation of the effectiveness ofexisting flood proofing measures.

• Inventory flood proofing techniques that communities andindividuals have used to protect existing developmentfrom flooding.

• Additional behavioral research where flood proofing con-cepts have not been embraced.

• Coastal and erosion zone relocation techniques; complex-ities and incentives for moving structures out of hazardsareas.

• Develop and evaluate nonstructural flood proofing optionsthat deal effectively with the flooding problems of older,fully developed areas.

• Investigate floodplain resident and local resistance to non-structural flood proofing.

• Research the parameters needed to guide public fundingof flood proofing.

• Identify and evaluate financial and other incentives to en-courage property owners (particularly low- and moderate-income households) to adopt flood proofing measures.

Hurricane Engineering

Cook et al. (1994) summarized the lessons learned from the1992 hurricanes including research needs that focus on labo-ratory activities, which are presented in the experimental fa-cilities section. Also, research needs related to hurricanes arepresented in the flood proofing and wind engineering sections.NRC (1993) presented a comprehensive evaluation of windengineering research needs.

Drought Research Needs

Dziegielewski et al. (1991) assessed research needs fordroughts based on a national study of the United States. Their


J. Infrastruct. Sy

recommendations do not address engineering-related researchneeds. Ongoing and needed research related to droughts is inimproved real-time control and management of water use forall purposes. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is conductingand supporting research on sophisticated control systems forreducing water demands.

Suggested research needs in the drought area are listed be-low:

• Innovative methods for measuring and controlling wateruse for all purposes.

• Methods to better manage droughts through integratedwatershed management.

• Total risk management for urban water utilities (Harberget al. 1997).

• Develop an integrated research needs inventory.• Improve definitions of risk and reliability in water supply

that incorporate explicit loss functions for failure to meetspecified targets.

Wind Engineering

A comprehensive statement of research needs in wind en-gineering was compiled by the NRC (1993). A $20,000,000/year research program was recommended. They estimated thatonly $750,000/year is currently spent on wind engineering re-search. Research and technology transfer needed to improvethe resistance of buildings to wind loss are summarized below(NRC 1993):

• Develop methods for providing adequate training andtechnology transfer to local building officials or alterna-tive methods for building code enforcement.

• Retrofit methodology to increase the wind resistance ofthe current building stock.

• Evaluation of roofing failures during high wind events toaddress roofing performance including a recognized set ofperformance tests and development of new materials.

• Evaluation of wood frame and masonry frame perfor-mance, to increase structure resistance at lower cost.

Landslides, Land Subsidence, and Expansive Soils

NRC reports on landslides (NRC 1985a) and land subsi-dence (NRC 1991a) describe the existing research programswithin the federal agencies. Only a relatively small portion ofthis research is related to the engineering aspects of the prob-lem. No current research needs assessment could be found inthis area. Thus, the initial research need is to develop a currentstatement of research needs in landslides, land subsidence, andexpansive soils.

Engineering Aspects of Wildfires

Suggested research related to wildfires deals with code is-sues described above.

Engineering Aspects of Snow

• Detailed ground snow load maps, either larger-scale re-gional maps or elevation-snow load relationships.

• A blizzard map is needed (i.e., joint occurrence of snowand wind) to properly characterize this hazard.

• A study of the expected costs and benefits of mitigatingexisting buildings.

Research Needs Organized by Infrastructure

Buildings

Research needs for building systems have been summarizedin the previous sections by type of hazard. Buildings must be

st. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

protected against all of the natural and other hazards. The cur-rent building codes represent an implicit evaluation of the rel-ative importance of the various disasters such as floods, earth-quakes, fires, wind, landslides, etc. A general research need forbuildings is for a more formal multihazard evaluation thatwould provide better guidance as to the relative importance ofthese disasters and more chronic problems facing buildings(e.g., fires caused by faulty equipment). This research programcould be better integrated with the regular code updating pro-cess.

Power Engineering and Earthquakes

Power problems related to earthquakes receive attention aspart of the earthquake engineering research program. Schiff(1995) summarized research needs related to the impact ofearthquakes on power. The Electric Power Research Institutehas a large sponsored research program that includes programsthat evaluate the impact of disasters on the reliability of thepower system. These research needs, identified by Schiff et al.(1995), are related to earthquakes:

• The benefits and costs of revised transformer foundationspecifications and for upgrading existing foundations toreduce the risk of damage from rocking. A related issueis improving seismic performance of high voltage trans-former bushings.

• More cost-effective methods for improving the seismicperformance of bushings for new and used transformersare needed.

• Developing emergency restoration methods to reduce thetime to repair a bushing that has slipped.

• A standardized method for seismic evaluation and testingof transformer buildings is needed.

• Better methods are needed for supporting wave traps andcurrent-voltage transformers so that they do not interactwith and damage other equipment.

• Appropriate procedures and software are needed to facil-itate the collection, cataloging, and evaluation of damageand restoration costs.

Water Supply and Earthquakes

The following research needs are taken from Lund and Coo-per (1995) and reflect lessons learned from the 1994 North-ridge earthquake; several of these research recommendationsapply to other failure modes:

• Consistent performance criteria for water systems facili-ties and equipment so that seismic specifications can beestablished in a consistent manner.

• Methods to reduce the failure rates of water lines. Themerits of increased redundancy in the system also needto be evaluated.

• Study the seismic strength of welded steel bell and spigotjoints and methods to improve the seismic performanceof the joints.

• Improved methods to reduce the risk of tank damage byimproving anchorage, stiffening to prevent buckling, andreducing the effects of sloshing.

• How to better incorporate the effect of sloshing and shak-ing in the design of mechanical equipment and baffles inwater and wastewater-treatment plants.

• Methods to improve the performance of air and vacuumvalves in an earthquake.

• The disruption of commercial power emphasizes the needto improve the reliability of emergency power supplies.

• Continuing refinements in emergency preparedness anddisaster plans are needed.

J. Infrastruct. Sys

• Rapid methods for evaluating the safety of water qualityafter a disaster are needed so that the public is not un-necessarily inconvenienced.

• The vulnerability of water systems in buildings should beevaluated, and standards improved to reduce the lossesand disruptions in these systems, particularly critical fa-cilities such as hospitals.

Communications and Earthquakes

Wong and Tang (1995) described research needs related tothe impact of earthquakes on communications. Similar rec-ommendations could be made for other disasters as follows:

• More dependable backup systems need to be developed.• Cooling system reliability can be improved by better re-

inforcement of equipment mounts. Also, on-site storageshould be provided for emergencies. Cooling towersshould be relocated from rooftops.

• Backup communication systems should be improved in-cluding the cellular system.

• Integrated emergency response plans should be improvedto provide better coordination and interutility assistance.

Roads, Bridges, and Earthquakes

The Northridge earthquake validated much of Caltran’s on-going seismic research (Yashinsky 1995). For example, retrofitstrategies worked very well during the earthquakes. TheNorthridge earthquake has put an emphasis on understandingbridge system behavior, the effect of vertical acceleration onbridges, and some problems with skews and other geometricissues. Research is needed on an overall risk managementstrategy that includes an evaluation of the relative importanceof disasters versus other failure modes for bridges and road-ways.

Transportation and Earthquakes

An in-place data collection system is needed to documentthe actual response of consumers to the natural disaster. Thisdatabase would provide a unique record on how people re-spond to such major disasters. This research should includethe impact of other disasters such as floods.

Dams

A summary of recent work is presented by Heinrichs andFell (1995). No specific research needs for dams was located.However, this has been and remains an active research areaboth nationally and internationally.

Research Needs for Integrated Disaster Analysis

The NSF has launched a major Civil Infrastructure SystemsResearch Program (Civil 1993). Recommendations for re-search related to hazard mitigation are listed below:

• Develop effective and economical methods that can beimplemented in the field to evaluate and retrofit existinghazardous infrastructure systems and components subjectto natural and man-made hazards, including earthquakes,wind, and floods.

• Develop technologies to diagnose and assess the conditionof, and risk inherent in, individual infrastructure systemsand components (for use in pre- and postdisaster situa-tions).

• Develop outage engineering management technologies tolessen facility downtime and to develop rapid rehabilita-tion and construction methods.


t. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

• Establish the knowledge needed to set system perfor-mance standards, evaluation procedures, codes, and cri-teria under seismic and other natural hazard conditions formajor lifeline systems including public and private utili-ties.

• Develop high-tech systems to facilitate infrastructuremaintenance and operations, such as emergency, damagecontrol, quick recovery, and service restoration followinga natural disaster.

In addition to these recommendations cited under the HazardMitigation category, numerous related recommendations arecited in the other infrastructure categories.

Zimmerman and Sparrow (1997) presented the results of a1996 workshop on integrated research for civil infrastructure.This report greatly expands the thinking presented in the 1993NSF report described above by recommending an integratedapproach to simultaneously meet social, economic, technolog-ical, and institutional needs of infrastructure development andmanagement. Zimmerman and Sparrow (1997) explicitlylinked infrastructure research needs to sustainability, which isdefined in terms of four topics and their interrelationships: lifecycle engineering, technology investment, performance mea-sures, and project management. Many of their recommenda-tions are relevant to hazards research.

Another research need for multihazard evaluations is to de-velop consistent methodologies for evaluating the benefits andcosts associated with disasters and their incidence. Relativelygood statistics are available on deaths and injuries associatedwith natural disasters. However, no consistent methods areavailable to measure the economic damages and their inci-dence. Development of such models requires linking modelsof the affected infrastructure and the associated economic ac-tivities. This effort will require close cooperation among en-gineers, physical scientists, and social scientists.

An important overarching research area is to develop meth-ods to support total risk management at the organizationallevel. Only when comparative risks and their relative impor-tance are determined will it be possible to view disaster man-agement in its proper perspective relative to all of the otherrisks that every individual and public and private organizationsmust manage. Engineers are vital to such efforts because theirmodels can be used to predict the physical consequences ofvarious alternatives.

Finally, the evidence in this paper indicates an apparent mis-match between the seriousness of the various disasters mea-sured in terms of public health and economic damages and theallocation of federal agency research funding. For example,floods and hurricanes have greater impacts than earthquakes;yet, earthquakes receive the largest amount of extramuralfunding. However, such comparisons are incomplete in thatthey fail to recognize the potential gain from more research ina given hazard. Multihazards research is needed to better de-fine a methodology for making such trade-offs and for pro-viding an improved basis for determining the size of the totalprogram.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides a broad perspective on how engineeringpractice has evolved in the United States, particularly as re-gards codes and standards of practice related to hazards man-agement. Codes and standards have been promulgated for allareas of hazards management. Affordability is a key factor inwhether codes and standards are changed. For buildings andlifelines, these codes vary widely across the United Statesbased on local perceptions of benefits, costs, and risks. Thus,the establishment and enforcement of codes and standards rep-


J. Infrastruct. Sy

resent a social choice problem and is not based exclusively on‘‘technical’’ feasibility.

It also presents the state of the art in terms of engineeringapproaches to hazards management, summarized by type ofhazard and by type of infrastructure. Mitigation measures havereduced annual mortality rates to below one person per mil-lion. These mitigation measures have had a positive impact oncontrolling economic damages associated with disasters. How-ever, consistent databases on economic damages avoided andresidual economic damages are not yet available; thus existinginformation is not very reliable.

Major progress has been made in the past 25 years in re-ducing mortality rates and economic damages associated withnatural disasters. One could reasonably ascribe some of thesebenefits to engineering hazards research programs. Earthquakeengineering currently gets the largest share of extramural re-search support. One reason for this larger funding is that earth-quake engineering is a relatively new area of inquiry as com-pared with other areas such as flooding, where research hasbeen conducted for a much longer period of time. Also, thereis no federal agency that considers the engineering aspects ofearthquakes as falling within its domain. Thus, there is moreopportunity for extramural funding. By contrast, in the flood-ing area, the US Army Corps of Engineers gets the bulk ofthe flood-related financial support, and little of this moneygoes to extramural research. Other hazards, such as wind, mayreceive relatively little extramural support because the politicalmomentum needed to sustain a research agenda is nonexistent.

Finally, research needs are identified for standards andcodes, laboratory and testing facilities, and by type of hazardand type of infrastructure. Research that integrates engineeringwith other aspects of the hazards management problem is de-scribed. This list is imbalanced in the sense that the activeresearch programs (i.e., earthquake engineering) have devel-oped current lists of research needs whereas the more dormantareas have not because of lack of support to generate suchinformation. The lists are least adequate in the areas outsideearthquake engineering.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is the result of a significant effort by many engineers andother hazards professionals. The writers are responsible for bringing to-gether information from numerous experts and providing the benefit oftheir own expertise. It is apparent that the renaissance disaster engineerhas yet to be created. Each of the contributors brought information fromhis or her specialty area. The writers attempted to fill in gaps in theirtechnical knowledge by finding the right expertise. If that was not pos-sible, the writers did their best to fill in the voids. Draft versions alsowere presented at the 1995 and 1996 Natural Hazards Center meetingsand at the 1997 ASCE Washington conference on disasters. The writersalso received valuable input from a variety of ASCE committees that dealwith disasters. Particular thanks for valuable help go to Conrad Batreal,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock; David Bowles, Utah StateUniversity; Ian Buckle, State University of New York at Buffalo; RileyChung, NIST; David Greenwood, Baker Engineers; Jon Jones, WrightWater Engineers; Walter Lynn, Cornell University; Dennis Mileti, MaryFran Meyer, and David Sample, University of Colorado; Jim McDonaldand Kishor Mehta, Texas Tech; Rawn Nelson, Myers, Nelson, Houghton,Inc.; Michael O’Rourke, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; EleanoraSabadell, NSF; Craig Taylor, Natural Hazards Management Inc.; EricVanmarcke, Princeton University; and Art Zeizel, FEMA. Finally, thecomments and suggestions of the reviewers were very helpful.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Abrams, D. P., et al. (1995). ‘‘Assessment of earthquake engineering re-search and testing capabilities in the United States.’’ Publ. No. WP-01(Executive Summary) and WP-01A (Full Rep.), Earthquake EngineeringResearch Institute, Oakland, Calif.

Accident facts—1995 Edition. (1995). National Safety Council, Itasca,Ill.

Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H. (1975). Probability concepts in engi-neering planning and design, vol. I, basic principles. Wiley, New York.

st. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H. (1984). Probability concepts in engi-neering planning and design, vol. II, decision, risk, and reliability.Wiley, New York.

Balantyne, D. (1995). ‘‘Issues and recommendations in water and waste-water lifeline earthquake engineering.’’ Critical issues and state of theart in lifeline earthquake engineering, A. J. Schiff and I. G. Buckle,eds., ASCE, New York, 41–56.

Bowles, D. S. (1996). ‘‘Reservoir safety: risk management approach.’’Working Paper, Utah Water Res. Lab., Utah State University, Logan,Utah.

Brumbaugh, R., Werick, W., Teitz, W., and Lund, J. (1994). ‘‘Lessonslearned from the California drought (1987–1992), executive sum-mary.’’ IWR Rep. 94-NDS-6, Inst. for Water Resour., U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Va.

Civil infrastructure systems research: Strategic issues. (1993). NationalScience Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Cook, R. A. (1994). ‘‘Overview of Hurricane Andrew in south Florida.’’Hurricanes of 1992, R. A. Cook and M. Soltani, eds., ASCE, NewYork, 70–83.

Cook, R. A., Soltani, M., and Reinhold, T. A. (1994). ‘‘Lessons learnedfrom the hurricanes of 1992.’’ Hurricanes of 1992, R. A. Cook and M.Soltani, eds., ASCE, New York, 799–802.

Davies, T., ed. (1996). Comparing environmental risks. Resources for theFuture, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Dziegielewski, B., et al. (1991). ‘‘National study of water manage-ment during drought: A research assessment.’’ IWR Rep. 91-NDS-3,Inst. of Water Resour., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir,Va.

Earthquake loss estimation methodology: HAZUS. (1997). National In-stitute for Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Ellingwood, B., and Redfield, R. (1983). ‘‘Ground snow loads for struc-tural design.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 109(4), 950–964.

Elsayed, E. A. (1996). Reliability engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading,Mass.

Evans, D. (1995). ‘‘Acceptable risk for public infrastructure: An owner’sperspective.’’ Acceptable risks for major infrastructure, P. Heinrichsand R. Fell, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 53–56.

Fell, R. (1994). ‘‘Design of dams for earthquake—the issues.’’ Accept-able risks for major infrastructure, P. Heinrichs and R. Fell, eds., Bal-kema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 155–162.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B. (1978).‘‘How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towardstechnological risks and benefits.’’ Policy Sci., 9, 127–152.

Flood proofing techniques, programs, and references. (1996). Nat. FloodProofing Com., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

Florman, S. C. (1987). The civilized engineer. St. Martin’s Press, NewYork.

Galloway, G. E. (1995). ‘‘New directions in floodplain management.’’Water Resour. Bull., 31(3), 351–357.

Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. (1992). ‘‘Guidelines for risk and uncer-tainty analysis in water resources planning. Volumes I and II.’’ IWRReps. 92-R-1 and 92-R-2, Inst. for Water Resour., U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Fort Belvoir, Va.

Haimes, Y. Y., ed. (1990). ‘‘Drought research into the 3rd millenium:Assessment of scientific knowledge, monitoring, and forecasting.’’Proc., NSF Workshop, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.,9–59.

Haimes, Y. Y., Moser, D. A., and Stakhiv, E. Z., eds. (1996). Risk-baseddecision making in water resources VII. ASCE, New York.

Harberg, R., et al. (1997). Reliability of urban water systems. AmericanWater Works Association, Denver.

Harr, M. E. (1987). Reliability-based design in civil engineering. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York.

Heaney, J. P., Wright, L. T., and Sample, D. (1998). ‘‘Wet-weather re-search needs.’’ Rep., Water Environment Research Foundation, Alex-andria, Va.

Heinrichs, P., and Fell, R., eds. (1995). Acceptable risks for major infra-structure. Ballkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Kareem, A., ed. (1985). Hurricane Alicia: One year later. ASCE, NewYork.

King, P. B., and Beikman, H. M. (1973). ‘‘Expansive soils—the hiddendisaster.’’ Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 43(8), 49–51.

Le Grega, M. D., Buckingham, P. L., Evans, J. C., and the EnvironmentalResources Management Group. (1994). Hazardous waste management.McGraw-Hill, New York.

Lecomte, E. L. (1994). ‘‘Redefining the roles insurers and engineers playin hurricane preparedness and mitigation.’’ Hurricanes of 1992, R. A.Cook and M. Soltani, eds., ASCE, New York, 1–9.

Lecomte, E., and Gahagan, K. (1998). ‘‘Hurricane insurance protection

J. Infrastruct. Sy

in Florida.’’ Chapter 5, Paying the price, H. Kunreuther and R. J. Roth,eds., Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C., 97–124.

Leung, S., Yee, A., and Wesemann, L. (1995). ‘‘Overview of transporta-tion systems.’’ Northridge earthquake-lifeline performance and post-earthquake response, A. J. Schiff, ed., ASCE, New York, p. 236–251.

Lind, N. C. (1995). ‘‘Policy goals for health and safety.’’ Risk Analysis,15(6), 639–644.

Lumsden, J. L. (1995). ‘‘Lifeline engineering in New Zealand.’’ Lifelineearthquake Engineering, Tech. Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engrg.Monograph No. 6, M. J. O’Rourke, ed., ASCE, New York, 565–572.

Lund, L. V. (1995). ‘‘Lifeline utilities lessons, Northridge earthquake.’’Lifeline earthquake engineering, Tech. Council on Lifeline EarthquakeEngrg. Monograph No. 6, M. J. O’Rourke, ed., ASCE, New York, 676–683.

Lund, L. V., and Cooper, T. (1995). ‘‘Water systems.’’ Northridge earth-quake-lifeline performance and post-earthquake response, A. J. Schiff,ed., ASCE, New York, 96–131.

Lund, L. V. (1995). ‘‘Wastewater systems.’’ Northridge earthquake-life-line performance and post-earthquake response, A. J. Schiff, ed.,ASCE, New York, 132–139.

Mays, L. W., and Tung, Y. (1992). Hydrosystems engineering and man-agement. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Mileti, D. (1998). Disasters by design. Joseph Henry Press, Washington,D.C.

‘‘Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.’’ (1995).ASCE 7-1995, ASCE, New York.

Minor, J. E., and Mehta, K. C. (1979). ‘‘Wind damage observations andimplications.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 105(11), 2279–2291.

Multihazard identification and risk assessment. (1997). Federal Emer-gency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. (1985a). Engineering in society. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. (1985b). Reducing losses from landsliding inthe United States. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. (1991a). Uses of risk analyses to achievebalanced safety in building design and operations. National AcademyPress, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. (1991b). Mitigating losses from land sub-sidence in the United States. National Academy Press, Washington,D.C.

National Research Council. (1993). Wind and the built environment: U.S.needs in wind engineering and hazard mitigation, panel on the assess-ment of wind engineering issues in the United States. National Acad-emy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. (1994). Facing the challenge: The US na-tional report to the IDNDR world conference on natural disaster re-duction. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Nielsen, N. (1996). ‘‘Development of an asset management strategy.’’Proc., ANCOLD Seminar on Asset Mgmt. of Dams.

‘‘A nontechnical explanation of the 1994 NEHRP recommended provi-sions.’’ (1995). FEMA 99, Federal Emergency Management Agency,Washington, D.C.

O’Rourke, M. J., ed. (1995). Lifeline earthquake engineering. Tech.Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engrg. Monograph No. 6, ASCE, NewYork.

Perry, D. C. (1991). ‘‘Lessons learned from the building code process:The good, the bad, and the ugly.’’ Hurricane Hugo—One year later,B. L. Sill and P. R. Sparks, eds., ASCE, New York, 170–189.

Petak, W. J., and Atkisson, A. A. (1982). Natural hazard risk assessmentand public policy. Springer, New York.

Petroski, H. (1985). To engineer is human. St. Martin’s Press, New York.Protection of life and property from wildfire. (1999). National Fire Pro-

tection Agency, Quincy, Mass.‘‘Public policy and building safety.’’ (1996). ERRI Endowment Fund

White Paper, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Ca-lif.

Robertson, J. A. L. (1995). ‘‘Policy goals for health and safety: Anotherview.’’ Risk Analysis, 15(3), 289–292.

Schiff, A. J., ed. (1995). Northridge earthquake-lifeline performance andpost-earthquake response. ASCE, New York.

Schiff, A. J., and Buckle, I. G., eds. (1995). Critical issues and state-of-the-art in lifeline earthquake engineering, ASCE, New York.

Schiff, A. J., Tognazzini, R., and Ostrom, D. (1995). ‘‘Power systems.’’Northridge earthquake-lifeline performance and post-earthquake re-sponse, A. J. Schiff, ed., ASCE, New York, 9–95.

Sill, B. L., and Sparks, P. R., eds. (1991). Hurricane Hugo—One yearlater. ASCE, New York.

Singhai, A., and Bouabid, J. (1995). ‘‘Seismic reliability assessment ofelectric power systems.’’ Lifeline earthquake engineering, Tech. Coun-cil on Lifeline Earthquake Engrg. Monograph No. 6, M. J. O’Rourke,ed., ASCE, New York, 360–367.


st. 2000.6:4-14.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 08

/23/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Sharing the challenge: Floodplain management into the 21st century.(1994). Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee,Washington, D.C.

Urban-wildland interface code. (1996). International Fire Code Institute.Whittier, Calif.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). A guidebook to compar-ing risks and setting environmental priorities. EPA 230-B-93-003,Washington, D.C.

White, G. F., and Haas, E. J. (1975). Assessment of research on naturalhazards. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Wilhite, D. A., ed. (1993). Drought assessment, management and plan-


J. Infrastruct. Sys

ning: Theory and case studies. Natural Resource Management and Pol-icy, Kluwer Academic, Boston.

Wong, K., and Tang, A. (1995). ‘‘Communications.’’ Northridge earth-quake-lifeline performance and post-earthquake response, Schiff, A. J.,ed., ASCE, New York, 140–157.

Yashinksy, M. (1995). ‘‘Bridges and roadways.’’ Northridge earthquake-lifeline performance and post-earthquake response, A. J. Schiff, ed.,ASCE, New York, 158–209.

Zimmerman, R., and Sparrow, R. (1997). ‘‘Workshop on integrated re-search for civil infrastructure.’’ Final Rep. to National Science Foun-dation, Washington, D.C.

t. 2000.6:4-14.

research needs for engineering aspects of natural disasters

Documents