Mexico has a long historical record of earthquakes. Large magnitude earthquakes in mexico are inevitable. It is absolutely imperative that we do not simply wait for another reminder of the importance of becoming earthquake disaster resilient. Technologies that facilitate preparation of disaster scenarios have been available for many years and are essential for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, planning, and response. This presentation produced by Dr. Walter Hays describes specific measures that a city or a megacity like Mexico City can do to make its buildings less vulnerable to earthquakes

1. 7.2 Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Just North
of Acapulco Mexico on 18 April 2014

2. MEXICO

3. LOCATION MAP
(Note Acapulco)

4. The quake struck around
9:28 a.m. local time (10:28
a.m. ET), 39 kilometers east
of Petatlan, Mexico, in the
southwestern state of
Guerrero, north of the resort
city Acapulco

5. INITIAL REPORTS
Buildings in Mexico City
shook for 30 minutes
No Deaths; No Injuries

6. BACKGROUND

7. NATURAL HAZARDS THAT HAVE CAUSED
DISASTERS IN MEXICO
FLOODS
STORMS
EARTHQUAKES
DUST STORMS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
HIGH BENEFIT/COST FROM
BECOMING DISASTER
NRESILIENT
GOAL: PROTECT PEOPLE
AND COMMUNITIES

8. Mexico has a long historical
record of earthquakes

9. CAUSE OF SEISMICITY
• The ongoing interaction of the
Cocos and North American
plates is the causative factor
for the seismicity of Mexico.

10. INTERACTING PLATES

11. THE COCOS PLATE IS SUB-
DUCTING BENEATH THE NA PLATE

12. ELEMENTS OF RISK AND
DISASTER

13. HAZARDS
ELEMENTS OF EARTHQUAKE
RISK
EXPOSURE
VULNERABILITY LOCATION
RISK

14. EARTHQUAKE
HAZARD MODEL
SEISMICITY TECTONIC
SETTING &
FAULTS

16. FAULTS: COCOS PLATE
SUBDUCTION ZONE

17. EXPOSURE
MODEL
LOCATION OF
STRUCTURE
IMPORTANCE AND
VALUE OF
STRUCTURE AND
CONTENTS

18. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
(the potential disaster
agents)
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE,
GROUND SHAKING, GROUND
FAILURE (LIQUEFACTION,
LANDSLIDES), AFTERSHOCKS

19. TECTONIC
DEFORMATION
EARTHQUAKE
TSUNAMI
GROUND
SHAKING
FAULT RUPTURE
FOUNDATION
FAILURE
SITE
AMPLIFICATION
LIQUEFACTION
LANDSLIDES
AFTERSHOCKS
SEICHE
DAMAGE/LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
DAMAGE/LOSS

20. GROUND SHAKING

21. GTOUND SHAKING HAZARD

22. VULNERABILITY
MODEL
QUALITY OF
DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
ADEQUACY OF
LATERAL-FORCE
RESISTING SYSTEM

23. INTENSITY
V VI VII VIII IX
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
MEANDAMAGERATIO,
%OFREPLACEMENTVALUE
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS HAVE
DIFFERENT VULNERABILITIES TO
GROUND SHAKING

24. INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO
HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING
EARTHQUAKES
SOIL AMPLIFICATION
PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT
(SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND
FAILURE)
IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION
AND PLAN
FIRE FOLLOWING RUPTURE OF
UTILITIES
LACK OF DETAILING AND
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
INATTENTION TO NON-
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
CAUSES
OF
DAMAGE
“DISASTER
LABORATORIES”

25. A DISASTER CAN HAPPEN
WHEN THE
POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS
OF AN EARTHQUAKE INTERACT
WITH MEXICO’S COMMUNITIES
(INCLUDING THE CAPITAL)

26. A DISASTER is ---
--- the set of failures that overwhelm the
capability of a community to respond
without external help when three
continuums: 1) people, 2) community
(i.e., a set of habitats, livelihoods, and
social constructs), and 3) complex
events (e.g., earthquakes, floods,…)
intersect at a point in space and time.

27. Disasters are caused by
single- or multiple-event
natural hazards that, (for
various reasons), cause
extreme levels of mortality,
morbidity, homelessness,
joblessness, economic losses,
or environmental impacts.

28. THE REASONS ARE . . .
• When it does happen, the
functions of the community’s
buildings and infrastructure will be
LOST because they are
UNPROTECTED with the
appropriate codes and standards.

29. THE REASONS ARE . . .
• The community is UN-
PREPARED for what will likely
happen, not to mention the
low-probability of occurrence—
high-probability of adverse
consequences event.

30. THE REASONS ARE . . .
• The community has NO DISASTER
PLANNING SCENARIO or
WARNING SYSTEM in place as a
strategic framework for early threat
identification and coordinated
local, national, regional, and
international countermeasures.

31. THE REASONS ARE . . .
• The community LACKS THE
CAPACITY TO RESPOND in a
timely and effective manner to
the full spectrum of expected
and unexpected emergency
situations.

32. THE REASONS ARE . . .
• The community is INEFFICIENT
during recovery and
reconstruction when it HAS
NOT LEARNED from either the
current experience or the
cumulative prior experiences.

33. EXAMPLES OF MEXOCO’S
PAST EARTHQUAKE
DISASTERS
THE 7:19 AM, M8.1 EARTHQUAKE
OF
SEPTEMBER 19, 1985

34. 1985 MEXICO EARTHQUAKE
• SEPTEMBER 19, 1985
• M8.1
• A SUBDUCTION ZONE
QUAKE
• ALTHOUGH LARGER
THAN USUAL, THE
EARTHQUAKE WAS
NOT A ―SURPRISE‖
• A MODERN BUILDING
CODE ADOPTED AND
IMPLEMENTED
BEFORE THE
EARTHQUAKE WAS
INADEQUATE

35. 1985 MEXICO EARTHQUAKE
• EPICENTER LOCATED
240 KM FROM MEXICO
CITY
• 412 BUILDINGS
COLLAPSED IN OLD
LAKE BED ZONE OF
MEXICO CITY
• 2 SECOND PERIOD
SOIL-STRUCTURE
RESONANCE IN OLD
LAKE BED ZONE WAS
A MAJOR FACTOR IN
COLLAPSES

36. 1985 MEXICO EARTHQUAKE:
SOIL AMPLIFICATION

37. COLLAPSE OF CRITICAL
STRUCTURES--HOSPITALS

38. COLLAPSE: ESSENTIAL
STRUCTURES--SCHOOLS

39. STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS

40. POUNDING

41. NUEVA LEON APARTMENT
BUILDINGS

42. SEARCH AND RESCUE

43. SEARCH AND RESCUE

44. TELECOMMUNICATIONS (SCT)

45. RAILROAD TRACKS

46. IMPACTS
• Although the epicenter was located far
from Mexico city, the soft soil of the old
lake bed the city is sited on amplified
the ground shaking in Mexico City,
damaging 3,124 buildings, collapsing
412 of them and killing between 10,000
– 40,000 people.

47. IMPACTS
• The economic loss was
between $3-4 billion.

48. LARGE MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKES IN
MEXICO ARE INEVITABLE
• ---SO, DON’T WAIT
FOR ANOTHER
REMINDER OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF
BECOMING
EARTHQUAKE DIS-
ASTER RESILIENT.

49. THE ALTERNATIVE TO AN
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER IS
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER
RESILIENCE

50. TURKEY’S
COMMUNITIES
DATA BASES
AND INFORMATION
HAZARDS:
GROUND SHAKING
GROUND FAILURE
SURFACE FAULTING
TECTONIC DEFORMATION
TSUNAMI RUN UP
AFTERSHOCKS
• EARTHQUAKE
HAZARDS
•INVENTORY
•VULNERABILITY
•LOCATION
EARTHQUAKE RISK
RISK
ACCEPTABLE RISK
UNACCEPTABLE RISK
EARTHQUAKE
DISASTER RESILIENCE
•PREPAREDNESS
•PROTECTION
•FORECASTS/SCENARIOS
•EMERGENCY RESPONSE
•RECOVERY and
RECONSTRUCTION
POLICY OPTIONS

51. LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT
DISASTER RESILIENCE
ALL EARTHQUAKES
PREPAREDNESS FOR
ALL OF THE LIKELY
AND UNLIKELY
HAZARDS AND
RISKS IS ESSENTIAL
FOR DISASTER
RESILIENCE

52. LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT
DISASTER RESILIENCE
ALL EARTHQUAKES
PROTECTION OF
BUILDINGS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
AGAINST COLLAPSE
AND LOSS OF
FUNCTION IS
ESSENTIAL FOR
DISASTER
RESILIENCE

53. LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT
DISASTER RESILIENCE
ALL EARTHQUAKES
TECHNOLOGIES
THAT FACILITATE
PREPARATION OF
DISASTER
SCENARIOS ARE
ESSENTIAL FOR
DISASTER
RESILIENCE

54. LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT
DISASTER RESILIENCE
ALL EARTHQUAKES
TIMELY
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE IS
ESSENTIAL FOR
DISASTER
RESILIENCE

55. STRATEGIC COLLABORATION
(I.E., WORKING TOGETHER ON A
COMMON GOAL)
FOR BECOMING
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER
RESILIENT

56. QUESTION
• WHAT DOES A CITY OR A
MEGACITY DO TO MAKE ITS
BUILDINGS LESS VULNERABLE
TO EARTHQUAKES?