Developing a Versatile Rescue Engineering Capability

And How It was Applied in the Canterbury Earthquakes

Dave Brunsdon db@kestrel.co.nz

Engineers Australia Workshop: Supporting Humanitarian Outcomes

Sydney, 20 October 2011

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

Presentation Overview

1. Overview of NZ’s rescue engineering capability

2. The engineering response to the 4 September 2010 earthquake

3. The engineering response to the 22 February 2011 earthquake

4. Engineering issues in the recovery phase – where are things now?

Overview of NZ’s Rescue Engineering Capability

Urban Search and Rescue

Building Safety Evaluation

3

4

5

What is USAR?

Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) involves:

The location, rescue and initial medical stabilisation of victims trapped in confined spaces following a structural collapse

It is an integrated multi-agency response beyond the capability of normal rescue arrangements

Led by the NZ Fire Service

6 6

Origins of USAR

Internationally

1985 Mexico earthquake

New Zealand

Prompted by NZ Earthquake Engineering Society reconnaissance visits following the 1994 Northridge and 1999 Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes

7

NZ Risk Context

consequence

likel

ihoo

d

Single collapse

•Impact •Structural collapse •landslip

A few collapses Multiple structural collapse

•Landslip •Distant or moderate earthquake

•Urban earthquake •Overwhelming earthquake

8 8

9 9

Newcastle Worker’s

Club

13 13

Operational Role of the Engineer

Engineers provide key advice to USAR Task Force teams conducting rescue activities

• Determine potential for further collapse

• Monitoring of building movements

• Identify hazards

• Determine point of entry for search and rescue teams

14 14

Focus of USAR Engineer Training

USAR Engineering Awareness

Target – engineers of any technical discipline and level of experience

Focus – awareness of USAR arrangements and engineering involvement at a collapse site

NZ USAR Engineering Specialist (national operational resource)

Target - Chartered Professional structural & civil engineers (incl. geotechnical)

Focus - operating within a structural collapse site (overall structure & element stability)

15

Graduate Engineers With active interest in rescue engineering

Structural/Geotech Engineers At or near CPEng

USAR Support Engineers (~20 Nationally)

NZ USAR Engineering Specialist (Contracted)

(3-4 per Task Force incl. Geotech; ~12 nationally)

USAR Engineering Capability Objectives

USAR Engineering Specialist Training Course

USAR Engineering Awareness Course

16 16

Current USAR Engineering Capability

24 USAR Engineering Specialists

17 Structural, 3 Civil, 4 Geotechnical

10 contracted to Task Forces

Other support engineers in regional centres

Plus ~60 other Engineers nationally trained for USAR Awareness

Building Safety Evaluation

Scope of Building Safety Evaluation

Overall Damage Survey

Within hours after the event

Emerg Services & Council staff

Rapid Assessment

During period of state of emergency

Volunteer engineers, architects, bldg professionals

Detailed Engineering Evaluation

Immediate for critical structures; longer term for others

Contracted engineers, architects, loss adjusters

• INSPECTED: No restriction on Use or Occupancy

• RESTRICTED USE: No entry except on essential business

• UNSAFE: Do Not enter or occupy

Rapid Assessment Placards Based on ATC-20

Post-Disaster Building Safety Evaluation

‘Inspected’

This building has been briefly inspected on the EXTERIOR ONLY and no apparent

structural hazard has been found

Post-Disaster Building Safety Evaluation

‘Restricted Use’

Some risk from damage in all or part of building

Post-Disaster Building Safety Evaluation

‘Unsafe’

For damaged buildings that are unsafe for occupancy

Newcastle December 1989

Gisborne December 2007

26

Padang, West Sumatra September 2009

Epicentre 7.6 RS 30 September 09 17:16 hrs

Padang Earthquake Overview

• Mw 7.6 earthquake on 30 September 2009 at 1716 hours

• The earthquake caused ~1,195 deaths and significant damage to ~140,000 houses and 4,000 other buildings

• Ten NZ structural engineers volunteered to undertake rapid post-earthquake building safety evaluations of damaged buildings

Enhancing Level 2 Assessment

Assessment Category

Usability Category (Safety Focus)

Light Damage/ Green – Inspected

G1 – Occupiable, no immediate further investigation required

G2 – Occupiable, repairs required

Medium Damage/ Yellow –

Restricted Use

Y1 – No entry to parts until repaired or demolished

Y2 – Short-term entry

Heavy Damage/ Red - Unsafe

R1 – Significant damage – repairs/ strengthening possible

R2 – Significant damage – demolition likely

Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction - AusAid • “Strengthen national and local capacity in

disaster management in Indonesia and a more disaster resilient region” – Training and outreach – Risk and vulnerability modelling – Research and innovation – Partnerships

39

The Engineering Response to the 4 September 2010

Earthquake

40

4 September 2010: Magnitude 7.1 The Wakeup Call

22 February 2011: Magnitude 6.3 The Real Tragedy

13 June 2011: Magnitude 6.3 Another Setback

26 December 2010: Magnitude 5.1 The Warning

The Canterbury Earthquake Series

ESC Meeting, Montpellier, September 9, 2010

Darfield, Canterbury 4 September 2010

M7.1

48

• INSPECTED: No restriction on Use or Occupancy

• RESTRICTED USE: No entry except on essential business

• UNSAFE: Do Not enter or occupy

Rapid Assessment Placards Based on ATC-20

49

50

51

The Engineering Response to the 22 February 2011

Earthquake

52

12:51pm Tuesday 22 February M6.3

56

The NZ USAR Response

TF 2 mobilised within an hour of the earthquake

Most of TF 1 and TF 3 arrived via Air Force Hercules late evening

TF 1 and TF3 equipment and additional personnel via road and ferry arrived in ChCh next morning

A total of 170 Task Force members and National Management Team personnel were active over the following four weeks

Support from the Civil Defence Response Teams and their volunteer members

57

The International USAR Response

Teams from a range of countries arrived over the next few days:

Australia (Queensland and NSW, followed by a composite Aust team)

United States (California TF2)

United Kingdom

Japan

Taiwan

Singapore

China

58

The USAR Engineering Response

14 USAR Engineers responded to Christchurch by the end of Tuesday 22nd; a peak of 19 were involved on the Thursday and Friday

Over the following four weeks, more than 260 person days were worked by 23 USAR Engineers

Plus three USAR Engineers travelled to Japan with the NZ team

59

The USAR Response – Phase 1

Location, medical treatment and extrication of live victims (~70)

PGC - 28 NZ

CTV Building - 18

The Press Building – 4

plus ~ 20 from buildings by crane and helicopter

The last live extrication was on the afternoon of Wednesday 23 February

60

PGC Building

61

PGC Building

CTV Building

63

CTV Building

Hotel Grand Chancellor

65

The USAR Response – Phase 2

Full search of all buildings within the Four Avenues for live victims and the deceased

- Recovery of bodies where encountered (including prolonged operations at PGC and CTV buildings)

- Checking every room in every building was necessary to meet Police Disaster Victim Identification (coronial) requirements

69

The USAR Response – Phase 3

All streets and remaining buildings checked and cleared of live victims and the deceased

- Using controlled deconstruction to access spaces too dangerous for direct USAR access

- Commenced 2 March (Day 9)

- Included supervision of deconstruction to make CBD streets safer for emergency personnel

71

Roles of the USAR Engineers

CBD Buildings

• Direct support of rescue and recovery operations

• Least dangerous and quickest access routes to likely void spaces; stabilisation measures, etc

• Arranging for surveyors to monitor buildings of concern

• Initial accessing of significantly compromised multi-storey buildings, and advising on stabilisation measures

73

74

Roles of the USAR Engineers (2)

Port Hills Landslides

• Checking out premises directly affected by rockfalls and landslips for victims

• Establishing which properties required evacuations

• Establishing monitoring arrangements

• Working with CCC and local Geotechnical engineers to evaluate the stability of hillsides and set criteria for re-occupancy

Unstable rock outcrop (rockfall source)

Rock Bounce into House

Building Evaluation Data Totals As at 0900 4 April 2011

Red Yellow Green Total inspected

Commercial 977 1,093 3,221 5,291 CBD (4 Aves) 1,058 1005 2,253 4,316 Residential 1,776 Not recorded Not recorded 60,951 Heritage 377 Not recorded Not recorded 1,086

Total assessments entered 66,242 (being the total of Commercial and Residential zoned buildings in Christchurch). Light Search and Rescue Teams visited a further 72,000 houses in lesser affected areas.

Engineering Issues in the Recovery Phase

Where are things at now?

79

Department of Building and Housing Engineering Advisory Group

• Two workstreams: Residential and Commercial • Representation from:

– Department of Building and Housing – Earthquake Commission – Building Research Association of NZ (BRANZ) – GNS Science – Structural Engineering Society (SESOC) – NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering – NZ Geotechnical Society

DBH Engineering Advisory Group Objectives

• Preparing technical guidance for assessing, repairing and reconstructing buildings in Canterbury

• Promoting common and consistent approaches

• Aiming to keep engineers, councils and insurers on the same page

• For residential properties, maximising the use of generic solutions and minimising the extent of specific engineering input (geotech and structural) required for the majority of cases

Hazards – Liquefaction and no build areas

Case Study:

Clarendon Towers

Elongation of the beams – pushes out the columns

•Loss of connection: floor - supports

? ?

N-W corner column

Corner pushed

out

Cold-drawn wire mesh fractures

•Middle bay

Interesting Issue . . . . Demolition and Rubble Disposal

• Vast difference in cost of disposing ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ demolition material

• Challenges in resolving the difficulties between owners, insurers and councils

• Including how to handle otherwise undamaged neighbouring buildings

Hotel Grand Chancellor

Neighbouring Hotel

Engineering Issues - Commercial

• Critical Structural Weaknesses typically cause collapses – Critical Configurational Weaknesses – Critical Detailing Weaknesses

• Configurational Weaknesses include

– Vertical Irregularity – Plan Irregularity

Vertical Irregularity Severe Significant Insignificant

Soft Storey Lateral stiffness varies > 150%

Lateral stiffness varies 100– 150%

Lateral stiffness varies < 100%

Mass Discontinuity

Mass varies >150% between adjacent floors

Mass varies 100 to 150% between adjacent floors

Mass varies <100% between adjacent floors

Vertical Discontinuity

Any element contributing > 0.5 stiffness of the lateral force resisting system discontinues vertically

Any element contributing > 0.3 stiffness of the lateral force resisting system discontinues vertically

Elements contributing to the lateral force resisting system are continuous vertically

96

Moderate Earthquake Risk

Low Earthquake Risk

High Earthquake Risk Earthquake Prone Building -

Improvement required under Building Act 2004)

Equivalence to New Building (% of current code)

Earthquake Risk Category

100%

67%

33%

Earthquake Risk Buildings

Engineers and Risk Reduction Think Resilience

• Designing resilience into key facilities and infrastructure networks

• For buildings as a whole, the significance of Importance Levels

• Giving special consideration to parts of buildings that should have particular resilience

Building Importance Levels Table 3.2 AS/NZS 1170 Part 0:2002

1 Structures presenting a low degree of hazard to life and other property

<30m2; farm buildings; isolated structures

2 Normal structures and structures not in other importance levels

Houses, office buildings, car parking buildings

3 Structures that as a whole may contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community or pose risk to people in crowds

Areas of assembly; health care facilities; emerg. facilities not designated as post-disaster

4 Structures with special post-disaster functions

Essential facilities with post-disaster functions

Building Importance Levels Table 3.2 AS/NZS 1170 Part 0:2002

1 Structures presenting a low degree of hazard to life and other property

<30m2; farm buildings; isolated structures

2 Normal structures and structures not in other importance levels

Houses, office buildings, car parking buildings

3 Structures that as a whole may contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community or pose risk to people in crowds

Areas of assembly; health care facilities; emerg. facilities not designated as post-disaster

4 Structures with special post-disaster functions

Essential facilities with post-disaster functions

Importance Level 4 Structures With Special Post-Disaster Functions

Buildings and facilities designated as essential facilities

Utilities or emergency supplies required as backup for buildings and facilities of Importance Level 4

Buildings and facilities with special post-disaster function

Designated emergency centres and ancillary facilities (emergency power, phone or radio)

Medical emergency or surgical facilities

Designated emergency shelters

Emergency service facilities such as fire, police stations and emergency vehicle garages

Buildings and facilities containing hazardous materials capable of causing hazardous conditions that extend beyond the property boundaries

Concluding Observations (1)

• Building a core rescue engineering capability is essential for public safety

• Must be strongly linked into relevant institutions • USAR – Fire • Building Safety Evaluation – Emergency Management

and Building Control • Broader objective: seek to embed professional

engineering within emergency management arrangements

Proposed Key Elements of Post-disaster Building Evaluation Arrangements

1. Appropriate legal mandate 2. Central government agency providing a focal point,

guidance and support for preparedness activities 3. Criteria and process for building re-occupancy

established 4. Local authorities appropriately prepared to set up

and manage a building evaluation operation 5. Appropriate numbers of trained and warranted

building professionals 6. Effective mobilisation arrangements for warranted

building professionals (locally and nationally)

Concluding Observations (2)

• Take every opportunity to demonstrate the value of this capability

• Use offshore deployments to provide assistance and build experience of individuals

• So get prepared, and get involved! – Incident Management training is a good place

to start

Concluding Observations (3) • Engineers must put appropriate emphasis

on the consequences of failure • Maintain focus of

designing resilience into key facilities and infrastructure networks

Developing a Versatile Rescue Engineering Capability

And How It was Applied in the Canterbury Earthquakes

Dave Brunsdon db@kestrel.co.nz

Engineers Australia Workshop: Supporting Humanitarian Outcomes

Sydney, 20 October 2011

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering