JMpotletsi

8/14/2019 JMpotletsi

1/35

Potencial de Letalidad Sismica

y Opciones de Mitigacion

Jorge F. Meneses, Ph.D.Departamento de Ingenieria Estructural

Universidad de California, San Diego

IV Curso Internacional Uso de la Informacion de Peligros Naturales en la Formulacion de Proyectos de

InversionCISMID, Facultad de Ingenieria Civil, Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria

October 13-31, 2003Lima, Peru


2/35

Contenido

Sostenibilidad, medio ambiente ydesastres

Planes de mitigacion elaborados con laparticipacion de la comunidad



3/35

Mitigacion Accion tomada para reducir o eliminar el riesgo

a largo plazo para la gente y propiedad deamenazas naturales y sus efectos Mitigacion debe ser la piedra angular para

reducir la vulnerabilidad de una nacion adesastres causados por amenazas naturales Su enfoque de largo plazo y naturaleza pro-

activa distingue a la mitigacion de lasactividades inmediatas y reactivas adoptadasdurante preparacion, respuesta y recuperacionde desastres


4/35

Mitigacion Es la fase del manejo de desastres

dedicado a romper el ciclo dao,reconstruccion, y dao repetido.

Incluye actividades que abarcan deingenieria estructural y codigos de diseohasta planeamiento de uso del terreno y

adquisicion de propiedad


5/35

Mitigacion de Riesgo Sismico

Mitigacion es mas effectivo al nivel local(Project Impact)

Mitigacion se convierte en parte de lacultura de la comunidad


6/35

1BuildingPartnerships

2AssessingRisk

3PrioritizingNeeds& ImplementingMitigationActions

4Keeping Your CommunityInformed andCelebratingSuccesses

PROJECT IMPACT4 Phases to a Disaster-Resistant Community


7/35

First Phase:Building Partnerships

Organize a Disaster-Resistant CommunityPlanning Committee Comprised of: business and industry public works and utilities volunteer/community groups government

education, health care, workforce


8/35

Second Phase: Are YouVulnerable?

Risk Assessment

What are the communitys risks for naturaldisasters?

What specific structures and areas aremost vulnerable?


9/35

Third Phase: Taking ActionSetting Priorities

Identify mitigation priorities Identify the measures you will take and do

it! Identify and secure resources


10/35

Fourth Phase: It Takes Everyone!Communicate Your Progress

Keep your community informed as youtake actions

Promote involvement of your partners Maintain support for your long-term

initiatives


11/35

- Identification of community- Secure agreement of a local adopting entity

- Assess comunity support- Identify/Build community planning team

- Awareness local workshops with stakeholders

- Develop mitigation objectives- Write a mitigation plan with an implementation

strategy and action plan- Prioritize mitigation actions

- Approval of the adopting entity- Facilitate mitigation plan implementation

- Fund a high priority mitigation action- Monitor, evaluate and update mitigation plan

- Identify and assess earthquake hazard- Inventory assets: describe vulnerability and

exposure- Estimate earthquake risk: human and

economic losses- Analyze local lapacity

- Training regional workshops with community

leaders

Step One:ORGANIZATION OF

COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Step Two: ASSESSMENT OF

EARTHQUAKE RISK &LOCAL CAPACITY

Step Three:DEVELOPMENT WITH

LOCALSTAKEHOLDERS OF A

MITIGATION PLAN

Step Four:FACILITATE

IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE MITIGATION PLAN AND M&E OF PROGRESS

Community-based Mitigation Planning

(India)


12/35


13/35

El metodo del Potencial de

Letalidad Sismica evalua : El riesgo sismico de una comunidad,

Las fuentes de ese riesgo, y La efectividad de las varias opciones de

mitigacion.


14/35

El metodo para evaluar el Potencialde Letalidad Sismica es:

Una evaluacion con la participacion de lacomunidad

Motivacional Significativo

Facilmente entendible Economico


15/35

Some Definitions ofEarthquake Risk

Risk of economic loss (tocommunity, city, nation, world)

Risk of social/political disruption Risk of loss of cultural heritage

Risk of life loss Combination of all of above


16/35

1950-1999

Collapse ofmasonry buildings

Collapse of timberbuildings

Collapse ofRC buildings

Fire followingearthquake

Landslides

Other causes

Share of 700,000 fatalities

1900-1949

Collapse of masonrybuildings

Collapse oftimber buildings

Collapse ofRC buildings

Fire followingearthquake

Landslides

Other causes

Share of 795,000 fatalities

Letalidad Sismica Mundial en el Siglo XX


17/35


Numero de perdidas humanas en una

comunidad debido a un sismo con unaprobabilidad de excedencia del 10% enuna ventana de tiempo de 50 aos


18/35

MethodBuilding

Fatality Potential

LandslideFatality Potential

FireFatality Potential

+

+

Search and RescueLife Saving Potential

Medical CareLife Saving Potential--

EQ Fatality Potential=


19/35

EQ Fatality Potential

Ground Shaking

Building Stock

Building

Damage

Building FatalityPotential

Building InjuryPotential

Ground Shaking

Topography

Climate

LandslideOccurrence

Landslide FatalityPotential

Landslide Injury

Potential

Searchand RescueCapability

Medical CareCapability

Ignition Risk

Spread Risk

Suppression Ability

FireOccurrence

Fire FatalityPotential

Fire InjuryPotential

People whoneed rescue

People whoneed medical

care

BuildingFatality

Potential

LandslideFatality

Potential

Searchand RescueLife Saving

Potential

FireFatality

Potential

MedicalCare Life

SavingPotential

+

+

-

-

=


20/35

BuildingSafety

Building vulnerability is criticalto earthquake risk. Collapsedbuildings caused about threequarters of all earthquakefatalities during the 20thcentury, and they continue toform the bulk of the earthquakerisk in most cities of the world.


21/35

School Safety

5 0 5 10

IndustrializedCountries

DevelopingCountries

School Age

Percentage of Total Population

A g e

( y e a r s

)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 80

The assessment is repeated for the schools in each city. To do this, the ELP method replaces thebuilding inventory with an inventory of school buildings and assumes an even distribution of schoolsaround the city. The number of children who attend school replaces the total population. All otheraspects of the analysis remain the same.


22/35


23/35

Fire Suppression CapabilityFire-fighting activities can make abig difference in how far a firespreads and in the resultingdamage. GESI looks at threeaspects of fire fighting:Availability of water Institutional capacity, andEase of city access.In addition, it looks at the generalcity emergency responsepreparedness to see whether itwill help or hinder the fire fightingefforts.

FireFire

FireFireThe great 1923 Kanto Earthquakeignited a fire that killed more than100,000 people.

Fire Suppression Capability

Fire-fighting activities can make a bigdifference in how far a fire spreads andin the resulting damage. The ELPmethod looks at three aspects of firefighting:

Availability of water Institutional capacity, and Ease of city access .


24/35

Search

Rescue

&

Trapped people remainalive for 48 hours.

Each rescue requires between 40

and 90 person-hours by searchand rescue professionals.


25/35

Medical Care Life Saving Potential measures the capacity of the medicalcommunity to handle many casualties after a damaging earthquaketaking into account the possibility that the medical capacity might bereduced.

EMERGENCYMEDICAL

RESPONSE


26/35

Products Risk of Casualties Sources of Risk Effectiveness of Risk Mitigation Options

All of above for Schools


27/35

The Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI)

(2000-2001)


28/35

Risk of Casualties

San Salvador Manila Kathmandu

25k

50k

75k


29/35

Sources of Risk - Kathmandu & San Salvador

Kathmandu

San Salvador

Building Collapse

Landslides

Fires

Search and RescueProblemsEmergency ResponseProblemsMedical Care Problems


30/35

Risk Mitigation Options -Kathmandu

All new buildings arewell-built for 5 years

Improved emergencypreparedness

Improved medicalpreparedness

Percentage Reduction of Expected Casualties

0-5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% >25%


31/35


32/35

Expected Outcomes

Awareness of the most at-risk Indian citiesand their mitigation options

Strengthened government organizations andNGOs

Mitigation programs launched in 5 cities


33/35

Conclusiones El metodo para evaluar el PLS y comparar

opciones de mitigacion es un metodo rapido,economico, confiable y razonablemente preciso El metodo estima perdidas humanas, propone

acciones de mitigacion, e incentiva su adopcion El metodo fue ensayado en un proyecto piloto

en 20 ciudades alrededor del mundo y mostro

ser confiable y capaz de motivar programas demitigacion


34/35

Agradecimientos: University of California, San Diego GeoHazards International Tokyo Soil Research Co. Ltd., Japan


35/35

Gracias!

Para mayor informacion contactenme a:

Jorge Meneses, [email protected]

Documents

JMpotletsi