1 / 29

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS (the potential disaster agents)

SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE, GROUND SHAKING, GROUND FAILURE (LIQUEFACTION, LANDSLIDES), AFTERSHOCKS. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS (the potential disaster agents). LOCATION OF STRUCTURE. IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS. EXPOSURE MODEL. QUALITY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

axelle
Download Presentation

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS (the potential disaster agents)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

  3. QUALITY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY OF LATERAL-FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM VULNERABILITY IS THE ULTIMATE CAUSE OF RISK VULNERABILITY MODEL

  4. 35 30 25 UNREINFORCED MASONRY, BRICK OR STONE 20 REINFORCED CONCRETE WITH UNREINFORCED WALLS 15 10 REINFORCED CONCRETE WITH REINFORCEDWALLS STEEL FRAME ALL METAL & WOOD FRAME 5 0 V VI VII VIII IX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS HAVE DIFFERENT VULNERABILITIES TO GROUND SHAKING MEAN DAMAGE RATIO, % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE INTENSITY

  5. An element’s vulnerability (fragility) is the result of a community’s actions or policies that change its resistance to ground shaking

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

  7. THE GUJARAT, INDIA EARTHQUAKE DISASTERJANUARY 26, 2001

  8. AN INTRAPLATE EARTHQUAKE 400 KM FROM PLATE BOUNDARY-- “A SURPRISE”

  9. GUJARAT EARTHQUAKE • MAGNITUDE 7.7 • JUST BEFORE 0900 ON A HOLIDAY (51st Republic Day) • 20,000 DEAD • 167,000 INJURED • 400,000 HOMES DESTROYED • 600,000 HOMELESS

  10. STRICKEN URBAN CENTERS • BHUJ, (150,000), 20 km from epicenter • Devastated • AHMEDABAD (5.6 MILLION) • 50 multi-story buildings collapsed

  11. Over 1 million structures damaged or destroyed. ESTIMATED LOSS: $5.5 BILLION

  12. GUJARAT EARTHQUAKE

  13. GUJARAT EARTHQUAKE

  14. SEARCH AND RESCUE

  15. GUJARAT EARTHQUAKE

  16. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD

  17. The impacted area was re-equipped with all the basic facilities along with state-of-the-art upgrades; Bhuj, for examples, now has a better hospital, town and first-aid center

  18. A DISASTER is --- --- the set of failures that overwhelm the capability of a community torespond 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.

  19. THE REASONS ARE . . . • When it does happen, the functions of the community’s buildings and infrastructure can beLOST for long periods.

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

  21. THE REASONS ARE . . . • The community has NODISASTER PLANNING SCENARIO orWARNING SYSTEM in place as a strategic framework for early threat identification and coordinated local, national, regional, and international countermeasures.

  22. THE REASONS ARE . . . • The community LACKS THE CAPACITY TO RESPOND in a timely and effective mannerto the full spectrum of expected and unexpectedemergency situations.

  23. THE ALTERNATIVE TO AN EARTHQUAKE DISASTER ISEARTHQUAKE DISASTER RESILIENCE

  24. RISK ASSESSMENT • VULNERABILITY • EXPOSURE • EVENT • COST • BENEFIT EARTH-QUAKES EXPECTED LOSS POLICY ADOPTION • CONSEQUENCES POLICY ASSESSMENT MOVING TOWARDS EARTHQUAKE DISASTER RESILIENCE

  25. QUAKE HAZARDS • PEOPLE & BLDGS. • VULNERABILITY • LOCATION • PREPAREDNESS • PROTECTION • EARLY WARNING • EMERGENCY RESPONSE • RECOVERY and • RECONSTRUCTION EARTHQUAKE RISK POLICY OPTIONS ACCEPTABLE RISK RISK UNACCEPTABLE RISK GOAL: EARTHQUAKE DISASTER RESILIENCE INDIA’S COMMUNITIES DATA BASES AND INFORMATION HAZARDS: GROUND SHAKING GROUND FAILURE SURFACE FAULTING TECTONIC DEFORMATION TSUNAMI RUN UP AFTERSHOCKS

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

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

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

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

More Related