winning the war against apathy, ignorance and forgetting history's lessons
DESCRIPTION
Now is a good time to make our world disaster resilient. We can do it through the convergence of realistic thinking and strategic actions that are based on improving community preparedness, protection, response, and recovery. Presentation courtesy of Dr. Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster ReductionTRANSCRIPT
SOFT STORY BUILDING ON
SLOPING GROUND: CHINA TRIGGERED LANDSLIDES
WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST APATHY AND
IGNORANCE
NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO MAKE OUR WORLD
DISASTER RESILIENT
We can do it through the convergence of realistic thinking and strategic actions that are based on improving community preparedness, protection, response, and recovery.
STATUS OF THE WORLD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY
• 7 billion people, and counting• Living and competing in an interconnected global economy• Producing $60 trillion of products• Facing many complex problems (e,g.,5 E’s and 2 S’s)
OUR COMPLEX GLOBAL PROBLEMS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY
•Conflict and terrorism•Health care• Chronic hunger• Increasing risk of pandemic disease• Large-scale migration of people• Environmental degradation• Increased impacts of natural hazards • Threats related to global climate change
THE REALITY OF THE 21ST CENTURY
Unless we devise and implement a realistic, new strategy, OUR problems may grow worse rapidly, and all of us may share in the blame for an unnecessary reduction in the quality of life on Planet Earth.
THE FRAMEWORK OF DISASTER RESILIENCE PROVIDES WORTHY GOALS
•
•To protect and preserve the environment• To build capacity for disaster resilience• To inform, educate, and train• To build equity in all communities in all regions of the World
WE KNOW WHAT TO DO, SO JUST DO IT!
• Working strategically, we can implement a realistic set of scientific, technical, and political solutions--- within OUR administrative, legal, and economic constraints, --- and become disaster resilient.
INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING
EARTHQUAKESEARTHQUAKES
SOIL AMPLIFICATION
PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT (SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND
FAILURE)
IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION AND PLAN
TSUNAMI WAVE RUNUP
LACK OF DETAILING AND POOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
LACK OF ATTENTION TO NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
CAUSES OF DAMAGE
CAUSES OF DAMAGE
CASE HISTORIESCASE HISTORIES
CLARIFY VULNERABILTIES
CLARIFY VULNERABILTIES
ANY COMMUNITY CAN EVALUATE THE VULNERABILITY OF ITS BUILDINGS
EVALUATEEVALUATE
INITATE ACTIONSINITATE ACTIONS
INDENTIFY OPTIONS
INDENTIFY OPTIONS
OPTIMIZE OPTIMIZE
IMPLEMENT BEST SOLUTION
IMPLEMENT BEST SOLUTION
• An Incremental ProcessAn Incremental Process
SOURCE OF INFORMATION
• The following graphic The following graphic characterizations of building characterizations of building vulnerability to earthquake vulnerability to earthquake ground shaking were developed ground shaking were developed by an insurance company and by an insurance company and provided to facilitate education provided to facilitate education and training.and training.
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
• Horizontal and vertical Horizontal and vertical changes in symmetry, mass, changes in symmetry, mass, and stiffness will increase a and stiffness will increase a building’s vulnerability to building’s vulnerability to ground shakingground shaking. .
AN IMPORTANT NOTE
• NOTE: The local site geology NOTE: The local site geology and the construction materials and the construction materials are key parameters in are key parameters in controlling a building’s controlling a building’s performance; analysis of their performance; analysis of their effects is NOT considered here.effects is NOT considered here.
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
1-21-2
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
None, if attention given to foundation and non-structural elements. Rocking may crack foundation and structure. X-Cracks around windows.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
BoxBox
DAMAGED HOUSE:CHINA
ASYMMETRY AND LATERAL CHANGES: CHINA
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
11
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
None, if attention given to foundation and non structural elements. Rocking may crack foundation.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
PyramidPyramid
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
4 - 64 - 6
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Top heavy, asymmetrical structure may fail at foundation due to rocking and overturning.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
Inverted PyramidInverted Pyramid
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
5 - 65 - 6
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Asymmetry and horizontal transition in mass, stiffness and damping may cause failure where lower and upper structures join.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
““L”- Shaped BuildingL”- Shaped Building
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
3 - 53 - 5
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Vertical transition and asymmetry may cause failure where lower part is attached to tower.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
Inverted “T”Inverted “T”
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
2 - 32 - 3
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Vertical transition in mass, stiffness, and damping may cause failure at foundation and transition points at each floor.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
Multiple SetbacksMultiple Setbacks
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
4 - 54 - 5
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Top heavy asymmetrical structure may fail at transition point and foundation due to rocking and overturning.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
OverhangOverhang
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
6 - 76 - 7
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Horizontal and vertical transitions in mass and stiffness may cause failure on soft side of first floor; rocking and overturning.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
Partial “Soft” StoryPartial “Soft” Story
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
8 - 108 - 10
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Vertical transitions in mass and stiffness may cause failure on transition points between first and second floors.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
““Soft” First FloorSoft” First Floor
THE TYPICAL SOFT-STOREY BUILDING IN TURKEY
THE TYPICAL SOFT-STOREY BUILDING IN TURKEY
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
9 - 109 - 10
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Horizontal and vertical transitions in mass and stiffness may cause failure at transition points and possible overturning.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
Combination of “Soft” Combination of “Soft” Story and OverhangStory and Overhang
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
RELATIVE VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)]
1010
ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE
Horizontal transition in stiffness of soft story columns may cause failure of columns at foundation and/or contact points with structure.
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
Building on Sloping Building on Sloping GroundGround
SOFT STORY BUILDING ON
SLOPING GROUND: CHINA TRIGGERED LANDSLIDES
TUSCALOOSA, AL: EF5 STORM WITH 466 KPH (280 MPH) WINDS
APRIL 27, 2011
TUSCALOOSA, AL: APRIL 27, 2011
PRATT CITY, AL: APRIL 27, 2011
PRATT CITY, AL: APRIL 27, 2011
PRATT CITY; AL: APRIL 27, 2011PRATT CITY; AL: APRIL 27, 2011
PLEASANT GROVE, AL: APRIL 27, 2011
DEBRIS ACROSS HIGHWAY
MOUNT KARANGETANG ERUPTS
The 1,784 m (5,853 ft) volcano, which is one of Indonesia’s 129 active volcan-oes, is located on Siau.
VOLCANO HAZARDS (AKA POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS)
• LAVA FLOWS
• LAHARS
• EARTHQUAKES (related to movement of lava)
• “VOLCANIC WINTER”
NATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICH NATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICH EVACUATION IS TYPICALEVACUATION IS TYPICAL
NATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICH NATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICH EVACUATION IS TYPICALEVACUATION IS TYPICAL
FLOODS
HURRICANES
TYPHOONS
TSUNAMIS
VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS
WILDFIRES
HIGH BENEFIT/COST FOR SAVING LIVES, BUT LOW BEMEFIT/COST FOR PROTECTING PROPERTY
HIGH BENEFIT/COST FOR SAVING LIVES, BUT LOW BEMEFIT/COST FOR PROTECTING PROPERTY
GOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUT GOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF HARM’S WAYOF HARM’S WAY
GOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUT GOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF HARM’S WAYOF HARM’S WAY
CHRONOLOGY OF THE STORM
• Starts in Oklahoma late Thursday (April 14)
• Moves to Arkansas on Friday (April 15)
• Impacts Mississippi and Alabama
TECTONICS OF INDONESIA REGION
• The Australian and Eurasian plates meet in Indonesia, creating a tectonic setting favorable for generating earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions.
Indonesia has 129 active
volcanoes, with two of the most active ones — Mount Kelut and Mount Merapi — on the island of Java, where the Indonesian
capital, Jakarta, is.
SENSITIZED BY THE 2004 TSUNAMI DISASTER, INDONESIANS HEEDED THE
WARNING
This time, the tsunami that inundated towns, immobilized air ports, destroyed buildings, and killed 1,000’s in Japan, WAS NOT DEADLY in Indonesia.
IN 2004, TSUNAMI WAVES REACHED BANDA ACHE IN1/2 HOUR, THEN TRAVERSED THE
INDIAN OCEAN
12 COUNTRIES ADJACENT TO THE INDIAN OCEAN WERE IMPACTED
THE 2004 EXPERIENCE
• THE TSUNAMI WAS GENERATED BY A SHALLOW, M 9.3 EARTHQUAKE LOCATED 260 KM (155 MI) FROM BANDA ACEH, SUMATRA
THE 2004 EXPERIENCE
• THE TSUNAMI WAVES HAD HEIGHTS OF 4 TO 10 M AND RUNUP OF 3.3 KM OR MORE ON THE COAST LINES OF 12 NATIONS
THE 2004 EXPERIENCE
• THE EXISTING TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM WAS INEFFECTIVE IN 2004.
• RESULT: LITTLE OR NO EVACUATION.
THE 2004 EXPERIENCE
• AN EXTIMATED 220,000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED (120,000 IN INDONESIA) AND 500,000 WERE INJURED IN 12 COUNTRIES BORDERING THE INDIAN OCEAN