AVOIDING THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE CATASTROPHE IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
What East Asia and the Pacific Can Do to Prepare for the Next Big Earthquake: Developing and Implementing LinkingRegional the World Throughand Countrywide Learning Strengthening Programs 1for Vulnerable Structures
Peter I. Yanev Earthquake Engineering and Risk Management Consultant to the World Bank Yanev Associates, California, USA AVOIDING THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE CATASTROPHE IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Agenda
Recent earthquakes in the Philippines , Indonesia and China
Case study: California 1933–2010
Lessons for countrywide earthquake risk management
Principles of earthquake risk management – countrywide risk reduction programs
Best Practices: ISMEP – Turkey, etc.
Recommendations – Future Action Plan
2 101 Earthquakes & 13 Hurricanes Investigated 1971 - 2010
1971 San Fernando, CA (M6.5) 1989 Hugo (Caribbean, Puerto Rico, So. Carolina) 1999 Western Washington (M5.8) 1972 Managua, Nicaragua (M6.3) 1990 Upland, California (M5.5) 1999 Izmit, Turkey (M7.4) 1973 Point Mugu, CA (M5.9) 1990 Bishop's Castle, Wales (M5.4) 1999 Duzce, Turkey (M7.2) 1973 Managua, Nicaragua (M5.8) 1990 Manjil, Iran (M7.7) 1999 Central Taiwan (M7.6) 1975 Ferndale, CA (M5.5) 1990 Central Luzon, Philippines (M7.7) 1999 Athens, Greece (M5.9) 1975 Lice, Turkey (M6.8) 1991 Valle de la Estrella, Costa Rica (M7.4) 1999 Algeria (M5.5) 1976 Friuli, Italy (M6.5) 1992 Sierra Madre, CA (M5.8) 1999 Hector Mine, California (M7.1) 1977 Vranchia, Romania (M7.4) 1992 Erzincan, Turkey (M6.8) 1999 Floyd (Eastern US) 1978 Izu Peninsula, Japan (M6.7) 1992 Roermond, Netherlands (M5.8) 1999 Lothar 1978 Miyagi-Ken-oki, Japan (M7.4) 1992 Desert Hot Springs, CA (M6.1) 1999 Martin 1978 Santa Barbara, CA (M5.1) 1992 Cape Mendocino, CA (M7.0, 6.0, and 6.5) 2000 Napa, CA (M5.2) 1979 Bishop, CA (M5.8) 1992 Landers-Big Bear, CA (M7.6 and 6.7) 2001 Tottori, Japan (M6.7) 1979 Gilroy, CA (M5.5) 1992 Cairo, Egypt (M5.9) 2001 Gujarat, India (M7.6) 1979 Imperial Valley, CA (M6.6) 1992 Andrew (Florida, Louisiana) 2001 Seattle, WA (M6.8) 1980 Livermore, CA (M5.5 and 5.8) 1992 Iniki (Kauai, Hawaii) 2002 San Simeon (Paso Robles), CA (M6.5 1980 Eureka, CA (M7.0) 1993 Scotts Mill, OR (M5.3) 2005 Katrina (US Gulf Coast) 1980 Mammoth Mt., CA (M6.5, 6.5, 6.7) 1993 Nansei-oki Hokkaido, Japan, (M7.8) 2007 West Sumatra, Indonesia (M6.3) 1981 Brawley, CA (M5.6) 1993 Agana, Guam (M8.2) 2007 Niigata (Kashiwazaki), Japan (M6.8) 1983 Coalinga, CA (M6.7) 1993 Klamath Falls, OR (M5.7) 2008 Wells, Nevada (M6.3) 1983 Borah Mt., Idaho (M6.9) 1994 Northridge, CA (M6.6) 2008 Sichuan, China (M8.0) 1984 Morgan Hill, CA (M6.2) 1994 Tohoko-oki Hoddaido, Japan (M8.1) 2008 Chino Hills, Los Angeles, CA (M5.4) 1985 Santiago, Chile (M7.8 and 7.2) 1995 Great Hanshin (Kobe), Japan (M7.2) 2009 L’Aquila, Italy (M6.3) 1985 Mexico City, Mexico (M8.1 and 7.5) 1995 Pereira, Colombia (M6.5) 2010 Haiti (M6.9) 1986 Painesville, Ohio (M5.0) 1995 Sakhalin Islands, Russia (M7.2) 2010 Chile (M8.8) 1986 Adak Island, Alaska (M7.7 and 6.5) 1995 Antofagasta, Chile (M7.4) 2010 Baja California, Mexico (M7.2) 1986 North Palm Springs, CA (M6.0) 1995 Manzanillo, Mexico (M7.6) 1986 Chalfant Valley, CA (M6.0 and 5.5) 1996 Luis (Northeast Caribbean) 1986 San Salvador, El Salvador (M5.4) 1995 Marilyn (Northeast Caribbean) 1986 Northern Taiwan (M6.8) 1995 Opal (Florida panhandle) 1987 Cerro Prieto, Mexico (M5.4) 1996 Angela (Philippine Islands) 1987 Bay of Plenty, New Zealand (M6.2) 1996 Duvall (Seattle,), WA (M5.3) 1987 Whittier, CA (M5.9) 1996 Calico, CA (M5.0) 1987 Superstition Hills, CA (M6.3) 1996 Umbria, Italy (M5.5) 1988 Gorman, CA (M5.2) 1997 Paka (Guam) 1988 Alum Rock, CA (M5.1) 1998 Adana-Ceyhan, Turkey (M6.2) 1988Saguenay, Quebec (M6.0) 1998 Georges (Northeast Caribbean, 1989Armenia, USSR (M6.9) Puerto Rico, Gulf Coast) 1989Acapulco, Mexico (M6.8) 1999 Armenia, Colombia (M5.0) 1989 Loma Prieta, CA (M7.1) 1999 Puerto Escondido, Mexico (M7.5) 1989 Newcastle, Australia (M5.5)
3 Luzon, Philippines Earthquake of 1990 (M 7.8)
Damage to infrastructure, including bridges, roads, ports and industry. It collapsed many relatively new commercial buildings, particularly multistory hotels in the resort City of Baguio, and caused 1,700 fatalities.
4 Luzon, Philippines Earthquake of 1990 (M 7.8)
Extensive non-structural damage to high-tech facilities in Baguio caused extensive business interruptions
5 West Sumatra, Indonesia Earthquake of 2007 (M6.3)
Magnitude of only 6.3 but caused 66 fatalities, 500 casualties, and severe damage or collapse of nearly 15,000 buildings. 135,000+ people displaced. About 300 school buildings collapsed and another 400 had moderate to severe damage. These are very high numbers for such a moderate earthquake in an area with a long history of much larger earthquakes.
6 Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0)
In area of many past earthquakes with M7 to M8 and near two of China’s well-known earthquake faults.
87,000+ casualties (69,000 deaths and 18,000 missing). Millions injured and homeless. 15 million housing units collapsed.
Schools and hospitals especially hit hard; collapsed while occupied. Many of the buildings were relatively new.
The infrastructure of the affected region, much of it new, suffered severe to extreme damage, especially critical facilities such as power transmission facilities and bridges.
7 Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0)
Collapse of conventional buildings, Beichuan (Prof.Ye Yaoxian)
8 Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0)
220 kV Ertaishan Substation, Yingxhou
9 Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0) - Schools
Junion High School, Juyuan; Built in 1996. 400 students killed
10 Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China Earthquake of 2008 (M8.0) - Schools
Hanwang Hospital (left), Built in 1999 and Xingfu Hospital (right); Built in 1996.
11 Case study: California 1933–2010
1906 San Francisco & 1923 Tokyo earthquakes – start of earthquake science and engineering
1933 Long Beach EQ.; school collapses & Field Act
Special bureau set up for schools; no school has collapsed since
1952 Kern Co. EQ; damage to power facilities
PG&E adopts special requirements
1971 San Fernando, LA EQ; hospitals collapse
Special bureau set up for hospital design and strengthening
1971 San Fernando, LA EQ; dam collapses
Requirements for assessment and strengthening of all dams
12 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (M6.5) Olive View Hospital
The three-month old Olive 1994 Northridge View Hospital collapsed.
The replacement structure was practically undamaged (and the second earthquake was stronger). 13 Case study: Earthquake Risk Management in California 1933–2010
1977/78 Calif. State Capitol building strengthened; first public building to be strengthened. Military starts strengthening program of facilities in California
Early 1980s Private companies and industry start Risk Management Programs and strengthening
1989 San Francisco EQ; Highways and bridges collapse
Major program for strengthening of bridges and highways started by CalTrans. Many hundreds of bridges retrofitted
1994 Northridge, LA EQ; Interior hospital damage
Special requirements for operability of hospitals
14 Key lessons and challenges for countrywide earthquake risk management
Update the earthquake hazard zoning of the country,
Update the codes to the latest knowledge and include requirements for the strengthening of exiting buildings,
Improve the quality of engineering with proper training and licensing; tighten inspection of construction and construction materials,
Start strengthening vulnerable structures using the experience gained by other countries in reducing their risk through earthquake risk management programs like ISMEP project in Turkey.
15 Earthquake risk to (1) buildings and contents and (2) infrastructure and its equipment
Start with the following:
Buildings and their contents
Schools
Hospitals and other medical buildings and their equipment
Critical government buildings
Critical public utility infrastructure and equipment
Highways and bridges
Airports
Electric power systems
Water and waste water systems
Telecommunication systems
17 Earthquake scenarios: A 2005 simulated a M6.7 earthquake in Seattle, WA, USA
18 Principles of earthquake risk management: Developing regional and countrywide earthquake risk reduction programs Three phase program: 1. Risk audit of a specific sector, like public schools or bridges. 2. Detailed risk assessment including cost-benefit analysis for the particular sector and prioritization of assets to strengthen. 3. Implementation – reducing the risk through strengthening of the prioritized buildings and non- structural features and equipment systems. This is mostly construction and is usually about 90% of the total cost.
19 Phase 1 - Risk audit of a specific sector, like public schools or bridges
Establish evaluation criteria and procedure for buildings
Collect all relevant data on the buildings (keep it simple)
Evaluate all buildings to establish their risk (keep it deterministic)
Prioritize the buildings on the basis of their risk and the established evaluation criteria
20 Phase 2 -Detailed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for the particular sector and prioritization of assets to strengthen
Develop performance-based strengthening criteria
Analyze in further detail prioritized buildings that will be strengthened
Design preliminary strengthening
Estimate cost of strengthening
Determine what cost is justified vs. performance- based criteria
Re-prioritize based on results above
21 Phase 3 - Implementation – strengthening of the prioritized buildings and non-structural features (and equipment)
Do final engineering design
Complete design of non-structural upgrades, as needed
Construct the strengthening designs
Complete all necessary refurbishing and upgrading
22 Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)
Schools 23 Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)
Schools
24 Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)
Schools 25 School strengthening (and renovation): Before and after
26 School strengthening (and renovation): Before and after
27 Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)
Strengthened Schools as of Oct. 15, 2010
28 Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)
Treasury secured a World Bank loan to reduce the vulnerability of public buildings and the earthquake risk of Istanbul.
Established a separate government unit – the Istanbul Project Coordination Unit (IPCU) to run the project
IPCU conducts all procurement, and assures quality through independent reviews of designs and construction.
29 Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)
IPCU coordinates all activities with the beneficiaries (i.e. Ministry of Education, individual schools, etc.)
Developed project specific strengthening and rehabilitation guidelines:
Assessment of building condition
Assessment of earthquake deficiencies
Establishment of site-specific earthquake shaking
Analysis procedures
Structural (expected) performance levels
Strengthening details
30 Best Practices: The Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Program (ISMEP)
Enhanced quality of design engineering and construction through requiring Joint Ventures with internationally recognized earthquake engineering design companies for all projects
Encouraged technology transfer through hiring of international consultants to conduct third-party review of all work
The World Bank provided an additional level of technical quality compliance
31 Other “Best Practices” Examples:
University of California’s Berkeley campus
Romania Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project (HRMEP)
Chile - Engineered Confined-Masonry Buildings
32 Other “Best Practices” Examples: University of California’s Berkeley campus
33 Other “Best Practices” Examples: Romania Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project
Buildings undergoing retrofits: two city halls and a dormitory
34 Other “Best Practices” Examples: Chile - Engineered Confined-Masonry Buildings
Unconfined masonry; 2010 earthquake 35 Other “Best Practices” Examples: Chile - Engineered Confined-Masonry Buildings
Undamaged confined masonry in a heavily damaged area
36 Recommendations – Future Action Plan: Short term (1 year):
Initiate at least one narrowly focused earthquake risk reduction program for maximum impact on potential life losses in the public sector in a major metropolitan area – possibly start with schools, hospitals, and power generation and distribution systems.
Assess integration of earthquake risk assessments and risk reduction into infrastructure investments
Review and update existing building codes and their enforcement, specifically for earthquakes
Conduct a critical review of national earthquake risk reduction policies and laws.
37 Recommendations – Future Action Plan: Medium term (5 years):
Complete a large narrowly focused earthquake risk reduction program for maximum impact on life losses as a demonstration project like ISMEP.
Demonstrate that cost-effective strengthening options are available for vulnerable structures and gain public support – schools are easiest
Redefine the earthquake hazardous areas
Redefine tsunami hazardous areas; improve tsunami warning systems
Update the codes
38 Recommendations – Future Action Plan: Medium term (5 years):
Strengthen enforcement of the codes and construction inspection
Conduct training for structural engineers in earthquake risk analysis and risk reduction. Training programs for contractors and the trades would also be very useful.
Mandate professional registration for structural engineers, particularly in the earthquake hazard areas of each country.
39 Recommendations – Future Action Plan: Long term (5 to 10 years):
Initiate long-term earthquake risk reduction programs to impact all key public sectors
Support/initiate long-term earthquake risk reduction programs for the highest risk private structures
Support/initiate long-term earthquake risk reduction programs for the highest risk industries and maximum financial impact
Pass legislation to require strengthening of private sector structures and infrastructure with or without public financing but with incentives.
40