Download MAGNITUDE 6,2 EARTHQUAKE STRIKES CENTRAL ITALY

MAGNITUDE 6,2 EARTHQUAKE
STRIKES CENTRAL ITALY
Wednesday Morning,
August 24, 2016
Walter Hays, Global Alliance for
Disaster Reduction, Vienna,
Virginia, USA
ITALY
LOCATION MAP
NATURAL HAZARDS THAT HAVE CAUSED
DISASTERS IN ITALY
FLOODS
GOAL: PROTECT PEOPLE
AND COMMUNITIES
WINDSTORMS
EARTHQUAKES
HIGH BENEFIT/COST FROM
BECOMING DISASTER
RESILIENT
VOLCANOES
WILDFIRES
LANDSLIDES
The moderate magnitude,
SHALLOW (10 km) DEPTH,
earthquake, which struck at
3:36 a.m. local time on
Wednesday morning near
Norcia, 50 miles southeast of
Perugia, was felt more than
100 miles away in Rome
Perugia is the capital city of
the region of Umbria in
central Italy, crossed by the
river Tiber, and also the
capital of the province of
Perugia, located about 164
km from Rome
Strong ground shaking
caused severe damage that
resulted in at least 247
deaths (so far), and many
injuries and homeless,
especially in Amatrice
“AMATRICE, AS A CITY, IS
NO MORE”
DEVASTATION IN AMATRICE
DEVASTATION
DEVASTATION
Immediately, local residents
worked with their bare hands
in efforts to save survivors
trapped in the rubble
A RESCUE IN AMATRICE
International disaster relief
agency, ShelterBox, based in
the UK but with an affiliate
organisation in Milan, sent a
team within 24 hours to assist
in what will be a very difficult
search and rescue
ELEMENTS OF RISK AND
DISASTER
Natural Phenomena That Cause
Disasters
Planet Earth’s
heat flow causes
movement of
lithospheric
plates, which
causes subduction, which
causes EARTHQUAKES
TECTONIC PLATES
ELEMENTS OF EARTHQUAKE
RISK
HAZARDS
EXPOSURE
RISK
VULNERABILITY
LOCATION
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
ARE POTENTIAL DISASTER
AGENTS
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE,
GROUND SHAKING, GROUND
FAILURE (LIQUEFACTION,
LANDSLIDES), AFTERSHOCKS
FAULT RUPTURE
DAMAGE/LOSS
EARTHQUAKE
GROUND
SHAKING
DAMAGE/LOSS
TSUNAMI
DAMAGE/ LOSS
TECTONIC
DEFORMATION
DAMAGE/ LOSS
FOUNDATION
FAILURE
DAMAGE/ LOSS
SITE
AMPLIFICATION
DAMAGE/ LOSS
LIQUEFACTION
DAMAGE/ LOSS
LANDSLIDES
DAMAGE/ LOSS
AFTERSHOCKS
DAMAGE/ LOSS
SEICHE
DAMAGE/ LOSS
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS HAVE
DIFFERENT VULNERABILITIES TO
GROUND SHAKING
MEAN DAMAGE RATIO,
% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
V
VI
VII
INTENSITY
VIII
IX
CAUSES
OF
DAMAGE
INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO
HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING
SOIL AMPLIFICATION
PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT
(SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND
FAILURE)
EARTHQUAKES
IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION
AND PLAN
“DISASTER
LABORATORIES”
FIRE FOLLOWING RUPTURE OF
UTILITIES
LACK OF DETAILING AND
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
INATTENTION TO
NONSTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
A DISASTER CAN HAPPEN
WHEN THE
POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS
OF AN EARTHQUAKE INTERACT
WITH UNPREPARED
COMMUNITIES
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, tsunamis,…)
intersect at a point in space and time.
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.
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.
THE REASONS ARE . . .
• The community is UNPREPARED for what will likely
happen, not to mention the
low-probability of occurrence—
high-probability of adverse
consequences event.
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.
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.
THE REASONS ARE . . .
• The community is INEFFICIENT
during recovery and
reconstruction because it HAS
NOT LEARNED from either the
current experience or the
cumulative prior experiences.
THE ALTERNATIVE TO AN
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER IS
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER
RESILIENCE
EARTHQUAKES
• HAZARDS
•INVENTORY
•VULNERABILITY
•LOCATION
DATA BASES
AND INFORMATION
ACCEPTABLE RISK
RISK
UNACCEPTABLE RISK
ITALY’S
COMMUNITIES
EQ DISASTER
RESILIENCE
POLICY OPTIONS
HAZARDS:
GROUND SHAKING
GROUND FAILURE
SURFACE FAULTING
TECTONIC DEFORMATION
TSUNAMI RUN UP
AFTERSHOCKS
•PREPAREDNESS
•PROTECTION
•FORECASTS/SCENARIOS
•EMERGENCY RESPONSE
•RECOVERY and
RECONSTRUCTION
STRATEGIC COLLABORATION
(I.E., WORKING TOGETHER ON A
COMMON GOAL)
FOR BECOMINMG
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER
RESILIENT
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR
EQ DISASTER RESILIENCE
• MEASURMENT
• DATABASES
TECHNOLOGIES (E.G., • DISASTER
GROUND SHAKING;
SCENARIOS
STRAIN)
• ZONATION OF
• INFORMATION
POTENTIAL DISASTER
TECHNOLOGY
AGENTS AS A TOOL
(E.G., GIS)
FOR POLICY
• RISK MODELING (E.G.,
DECISIONS
HAZUS, INSURANCE
UNDERWRITING)
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR
EQ RESILIENCE
• AUTOMATED
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMEMT
• PREFABRICATION
AND
MODULARIZATION
• ADVANCED
MATERIALS (E.G.,
COMPOSITES)
• COMPUTER AIDED
DESIGN
• PERFORMANCE BASED
CODES AND STANDARDS
• ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
ENERGY DISSIPATION
DEVICES (E.G., BASE
ISOLATION)
• REAL-TIME MONITORING
AND WARNING SYSTEMS
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR
EQ DISASTER RESILIENCE
• PROBABILISTIC
FORECASTS OF
PHYSICAL EFFECTS
• MEASUREMENT
TECHNOLOGIES (E.G.,
SEISMIC NETWORKS,
TSUNAMI WARNING
SYSTEM)
• DATABASES
• SEISMIC ENGINEERING
• MAPS: GROUND
SHAKING, GTOUND
FAILURE, TSUNAMI WAVE
RUNIP
• DISASTER SCENARIOS
• WARNING SYSTEMS
• RISK MODELING (E.G.,
HAZUS, INSURANCE
UNDERWRITING)