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 (.5) 1989 Hugo (Caribbean, Puerto Rico, So. Carolina) 1999 Western Washington (.8) 1972 Managua, Nicaragua (M6.3) 1990 Upland, California (M5.5) 1999 Izmit, Turkey (.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 (.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 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