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 Reduction
3. 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.
4. 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)
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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
10. CLARIFY
VULNERABILTIES
CLARIFY
VULNERABILTIES
ANY COMMUNITY CAN EVALUATE THE VULNERABILITY OF
ITS BUILDINGS
EVALUATEEVALUATE
INITATE
ACTIONS
INITATE
ACTIONS
INDENTIFY
OPTIONS
INDENTIFY
OPTIONS
OPTIMIZEOPTIMIZE
IMPLEMENT
BEST SOLUTION
IMPLEMENT
BEST SOLUTION
• An Incremental ProcessAn Incremental Process
11. SOURCE OF INFORMATION
• The following graphicThe following graphic
characterizations of buildingcharacterizations of building
vulnerability to earthquakevulnerability to earthquake
ground shaking were developedground shaking were developed
by an insurance company andby an insurance company and
provided to facilitate educationprovided to facilitate education
and training.and training.
12. BUILDING ELEVATIONS
• Horizontal and verticalHorizontal and vertical
changes in symmetry, mass,changes in symmetry, mass,
and stiffness will increase aand stiffness will increase a
building’s vulnerability tobuilding’s vulnerability to
ground shakingground shaking..
13. AN IMPORTANT NOTE
• NOTE: The local site geologyNOTE: The local site geology
and the construction materialsand the construction materials
are key parameters inare key parameters in
controlling a building’scontrolling a building’s
performance; analysis of theirperformance; analysis of their
effects is NOT considered here.effects is NOT considered here.
14. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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”
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
26. 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
27. 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 SlopingBuilding on Sloping
GroundGround
37. VOLCANO HAZARDS
(AKA POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS)
• LAVA FLOWS
• LAHARS
• EARTHQUAKES (related to
movement of lava)
• “VOLCANIC WINTER”
38. NATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICHNATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICH
EVACUATION IS TYPICALEVACUATION IS TYPICAL
NATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICHNATURAL 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 OUTGOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUT
OF HARM’S WAYOF HARM’S WAY
GOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUTGOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUT
OF HARM’S WAYOF HARM’S WAY
39. CHRONOLOGY OF THE
STORM
• Starts in Oklahoma late
Thursday (April 14)
• Moves to Arkansas on Friday
(April 15)
• Impacts Mississippi and
Alabama
40. TECTONICS OF INDONESIA
REGION
• The Australian and Eurasian
plates meet in Indonesia,
creating a tectonic setting
favorable for generating
earthquakes, tsunamis, and
volcanic eruptions.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. IN 2004, TSUNAMI WAVES REACHED BANDA
ACHE IN1/2 HOUR, THEN TRAVERSED THE
INDIAN OCEAN
46. THE 2004 EXPERIENCE
• THE TSUNAMI WAS GENERATED BY
A SHALLOW, M 9.3 EARTHQUAKE
LOCATED 260 KM (155 MI) FROM
BANDA ACEH, SUMATRA
47. 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
48. THE 2004 EXPERIENCE
• THE EXISTING TSUNAMI WARNING
SYSTEM WAS INEFFECTIVE IN
2004.
• RESULT: LITTLE OR NO
EVACUATION.
49. 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