Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2010 NZ SCHOOLS and DECISION MAKING Gregory MacRae SEE6 2011 Schools Workshop Tehran, Iran.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "2010 NZ SCHOOLS and DECISION MAKING Gregory MacRae SEE6 2011 Schools Workshop Tehran, Iran."— Presentation transcript:

1 2010 NZ SCHOOLS and DECISION MAKING Gregory MacRae SEE6 2011 Schools Workshop Tehran, Iran

2 1)NZ School Seismic Risk 2) Use of a Scenario to as a Decision Tool for Earthquake Risk 3) University of Canterbury Recent Decisions with Earthquake Risk 4) Damage to Schools in the Canterbury Earthquakes OUTLINE

3 NZ School Seismic Risk Acknowledgements to: Brian Mitchell, Ministry of Education


5 New Zealand has a wide variety of school building. The, majority of school buildings are one- or two-storey braced timber-frame constructions with low vulnerability to earthquake damage. NZ SCHOOL BUILDINGS

6 The New Zealand Building Act regulates building design and construction. The Department of Building and housing administers this act and approves standards for loadings and all types of construction. Schools and other buildings must be designed and constructed, and inspected to ensure that they meet these standards. Design for ductility started in 1976 so buildings before this date were susceptible NZ LEGAL FRAMEWORK

7 Mitchell et al. (2004) NZ BUILDING VULNERABILITY

8 Ministry of Education developed requirements to minimize building seismic risk involving review of: (i)buildings of heavy construction (i.e. with concrete floors), and (ii)all buildings with major assembly areas, and (iii)school buildings with a heavy tile roof If buildings did not meet code levels (with 1.2 factor), they needed to be strengthened to those levels. In addition, - conventional timber-framed and floored school buildings with light roofing were reviewed against two-third threshold of the full requirement levels. - all other pre-1976 blocks containing at least two storeys were evaluated using a Rapid Evaluation (RE) MINIMIZING SCHOOL RISK

9 Implementation – to prevent life loss (1998- 2001) (i)Ministry of Education commissioned a structural survey by registered engineers of all 21,100 individual buildings at 2,361 state schools (ii)Potential defects that required a more detailed investigation were identified (iii)The key finding of the survey: NZ school buildings and site structures were generally in sound structural condition given the size and diverse nature of the school property portfolio. Only four buildings were found to have an unacceptable level of structural risk. Corrective action was undertaken immediately. MINIMIZING SCHOOL RISK

10 Approximately 11% of the buildings were found to have at least one structural defect that required remedial work. Typical defects (Mitchell 2004): MINIMIZING SCHOOL RISK

11 SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO - A Decision-Making Tool for Seismic Risk Acknowledgements to: The Seattle Fault Scenario Project Team

12 Fault Surface Rock Site R 2a Ground Motions Magnitude M 1 Faulting 2b 3 Response 4 Loss ($$$) Damage Death Downtime BACKGROUND

13 Fault Surface Rock Site R 2a Ground Motions - Seismologists Magnitude M 1 Rupture - Geologists 2b 3 Controlling Response - Engineers How are these decisions made? 4. Loss Related Decisions - People - Government - Business - Planners ( Planning, Preparation, Response, Recovery) BACKGROUND

14 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS To Perform Mitigation for a Future Disaster, the Decision-Maker must: (Based on Petak) 1) Be Aware of the Problem- E.g. Earthquake 2) Be Aware of Possible Solutions- E.g. Design/Retrofit 3) Be Prepared to Allocate Resources to address This Need, Rather than Competing Needs Based on - empirical evidence - studies (science/engineering) Based on - empirical evidence - studies (engineering/science) Based on - evidence from technical experts - support from stakeholders - ability to raise necessary funds Lobbyists/Media are involved. It requires Policy BACKGROUND

15 Fault Surface Rock Site R 2a Ground Motions - Seismologists Magnitude M 1 Rupture - Geologists 2b 3 Controlling Response - Engineers 4. Loss Related Decisions - People - Government - Business - Planners ( Planning, Preparation, Response, Recovery) ENGINEERING POLICY SCIENCE BACKGROUND

16 The Disconnect: Engineers/Scientists Decision Makers Need to coordinate/communicate to: (a) Decide what should be done + (b) Ensure it is done BACKGROUND

17 Armenia, 1988 (EERI) Northridge, 1994 (EERI) BACKGROUND

18 Turkey, 1999 EQE Kobe, 1995 EERI, EQE BACKGROUND

19 Taiwan, 1999, (DRPI) Bhuj, 2001, (R. Goel) BACKGROUND

20 Good building codes Good structures = Base Isolated Demonstration Building Pelabuhan Ratu EERI, Taniwangsa BACKGROUND

21 The Hierarchy of Denial (Cowan 2011) 1.It wont happen 2.Or If it does happen it wont affect me 3.Or, If it happens to me it wont be too bad 4.Or If its bad, there is nothing I can do SO..... Why are you worrying me with this? BACKGROUND

22 Why is there a problem? - Different Priorities - Different Languages - Different Questions BACKGROUND

23 Different Languages E.g. Neotectonic Magnitude Liquefaction potential Ductility Business Interruption Reinsurance Loss of market share BACKGROUND

24 Scientists (e.g. Geologists/Seismologists) ask : - What? and Why? Engineers (e.g. Geotechnical and Structural) ask : - Why? and How? Planners ask : - How can we get a good consensus? Businesses ask : - Do I need to do anything? - Where are the facts in a form that I can understand so that I can make a decision as to what I can do? Different Questions/Culture BACKGROUND

25 Fault Surface Rock Site R 2a Ground Motions - Seismologists Magnitude M 1 Rupture - Geologists 2b 3 Controlling Response - Engineers 4. Loss Related Decisions - People - Government - Business - Planners ( Planning, Preparation, Response, Recovery) ENGINEERING POLICY SCIENCE BACKGROUND

26 A scenario is a story …… Types: analytic physical manipulations Scenario studies are vivid and highlight strengths/weaknesses pertinent to future events help decision makers think through ramifications of events may provide fuel for stakeholders wanting change Why A Scenario? BACKGROUND

27 EERI wanted a methodology for Scenario development Previous studies existed … e.g. Hayward Fault Scenario (EERI, 1996) …. but there have been changes since 1996 Increased knowledge about Seattle faults Better tools for estimating losses (e.g. HAZUS) The 2001 Nisqually earthquake affecting Seattle had just occurred BACKGROUND


29 THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO The result is a publication

30 THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO LOSSES: Deaths Deaths – > 1,600 Injuries– > 24,000 Damage Buildings destroyed – About 9,700. Buildings unsafe to occupy - About 29,000. Buildings with restricted use – About 150,000. Fires – 130, causing $500m loss Property and economic loss – About $33 billion Downtime Business Interruption - Months Full repair - Years

31 Project coordination team - 12 volunteers Areas of expertise - Earthquake risk, emergency preparedness, lifelines, geotechnical engineering, management and decision making, planning, seismology, and structural engineering. Employment: - Consulting engineers, consulting planners, or as public servants with the University of Washington, National Science Foundation, Fire Department, City of Seattle Emergency Management, Washington Military Department Emergency Management or the United States Geological Survey (USGS) PROJECT TEAM THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO




35 Scenario Shaking Intensities THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO


37 Residential Housing Damage (HAZUS) THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO

38 CALL TO ACTION Priority Recommendations : Establish an Independent State Seismic Safety Board or Commission Implement Risk Reduction Plan for Critical Public Facilities Retrofit of High Risk Buildings Protect the Transportation Infrastructure General Recommendations: i) Accelerate Earthquake Hazard Assessments, Geological Mapping and the Use of these Studies, ii) Develop Incentives for Increased Seismic Safety, iii) Expand Public Education Programs with Emphasis on Self-Sufficiency; iv) Enhance the Pacific Northwest Seismographic Network; v) Establish an Earthquake Information Clearinghouse. THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO

39 METHODS OF COMMUNICATION Technical Information - No technical jargon Executive Summary Detailed Information Glossy colour photos including damage - Regional damage after past earthquakes - Photos relevant to region or to similar situations General Interest Information in text boxes Non-Technical Information Prologue Introduces a school teacher, a businessman, a tourist, mother, etc. Chapter Introductions Describes what happens to these people as the day progresses It was apparent to Lisa and Marjorie Bona that they were not going to get home to Bainbridge Island; at this point, all they wanted was to escape from the horrors of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, portions of which lay amid twisted cars and bodies …… All transportation had stopped and they did not know what to do. THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO

40 MEASURES OF SUCCESS The impact of the scenario is quantified by - awareness raised regarding earthquake risk - activities initiated to better consider or manage earthquake risk which can be attributed in some part to the scenario effort. There were several presentations to interested groups (of up to 100 people including city organisations such as planners, engineers, fire, police, emergency responders, insurance underwriters) both during the development of the scenario, as well as after the scenario. At the rollout meeting in February 2004, 450 people from different professions attended. The local mayor spoke and the state governors office was represented. THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO

41 MEASURES OF SUCCESS More than a dozen television and radio interviews and newspaper stories including a big multi-page feature story starting on the front page of the Sunday Seattle Times Presentations to interested groups Distribution of 4,100 reports. Downloadable copy at: Significant presentations were made to the Washington State Senate Transportation Committee and to the Puget Sound Region Freight Mobility Roundtable in Autumn 2004. Funding for renovation of the University of Washington Seismic Laboratory. The State Seismic Safety Committee was reconstituted. Washington State EMD used the scenario for its March 2006 response exercise. The City of Seattle proposal to analyze the cost effectiveness of retrofit investments THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO

42 Seattle Times Editorial - Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 12:00 AM Puget Sound's Katrina The fundamental lesson of the Gulf states' hurricane miseries is that the worst can happen. Puget Sound will be pummeled by storms and floods, but catastrophic earthquakes are the real natural menace here. These issues get to Puget Sound's economic survival and recovery. The failure of layers of government to talk and function after the hurricanes haunts the Gulf states. The Seattle Fault runs from Hood Canal in the west, through Puget Sound and south Seattle, and east through Bellevue and Issaquah roughly parallel to Interstate 90. Last year, a panel of experts looked at the region's earthquake hazards and picked this one to jolt the Bellevue gathering with an extreme disaster. Scenario losses include: 1,600 deaths; 24,000 injuries; 9,700 buildings destroyed; 29,000 buildings too damaged to occupy; 154,000 moderately damaged buildings with restricted use; and 130 fires. Estimated property damage and economic loss: about $33 billion. For the next two days, the thinking gets ramped up several grim notches to contemplate physical destruction and institutional failures that would have been unimaginable before Hurricane Katrina. MEASURES OF SUCCESS THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO

43 Planners were initially noticeably uninterested in the scenario until Hurricane Katrina. They (the authorities) knew there was a problem, they knew that it was only a matter of time, and they did nothing! Planners started to evaluate their own vulnerability and risks to natural hazard. American Planners Association is using this window of awareness to provide seminars on planning. The local APA branch is referencing the scenario document. Many communities, including smaller ones without large planning staff, are participating. MEASURES OF SUCCESS THE SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO

44 SCENARIO CONCLUSIONS Communication between all stakeholders is important A scenario may be a useful tool leading to the implementation of earthquake disaster mitigation methods


46 Canterbury Earthquakes 1.Saturday 4 September 2010, 4:40am M7.1 40km West of Christchurch to 20km West of Christchurch PGA in CBD: About 0.23g Casualties: 0 2. Tuesday 22 February 2011, 12:50pm M6.3 8km South of Christchurch PGA in CBD: About 0.50g Casualties: 183 + many significant aftershocks BACKGROUND


48 48 Christchurch Botanical Gardens Records (From Brendon Bradley, U. Canterbury, New Zealand) N-S W-E V BACKGROUND

49 Canterbury Earthquakes 4 September 2010 22 February 2011 BACKGROUND

50 50 1.Rapid Damage Assessment 2A. Structural System Evaluation for Damage 2B. Structural System Risk Evaluation 3. Life Safety Systems Evaluation 4. Remediation (i.e. Hazard Removal) 5. Building WOF Led by Facilities Management + Jeff Clendon (Holmes Consulting) Many engineers participating from BECA, GHD, Holmes, UoC …. - As described by Jeff Clendon FIVE STEP PROCESS

51 51 Step 1. Rapid Damage Assessment (Week 1) External and internal walk-through inspection for obvious damage that could limit access Tagging Red, Orange, Green FIVE STEP PROCESS




55 55 Step 1. Rapid Damage Assessment (Week 1) FIVE STEP PROCESS

56 56 Step 1. Rapid Damage Assessment (Week 1) FIVE STEP PROCESS

57 57 Step 2A. Structural System Evaluation for Damage (Weeks 2-3) Detailed evaluation of structural damage in all buildings - Locations of potential damage identified from plans - Involved - inspection of ceiling spaces - removal of wall linings - lifting of carpets, etc. Revised tagging Red, Orange, Green FIVE STEP PROCESS

58 58 Step 2B. Structural System Risk Evaluation (Weeks 2-6) Life safety check of all UC buildings under a bigger earthquake ( CTV Building Issue) - All buildings rated in terms of risk: H – High risk M – Medium Risk L – Low Risk This involves inspecting all buildings and going through plans plus some simple analysis. Brittle failure modes of special concern. Some relatively undamaged buildings which failed this check are: - Siemon building (which poses a threat to other buildings) - Jack Mann auditorium (Dovedale campus) - UCSA Building FIVE STEP PROCESS

59 59 FIVE STEP PROCESS Step 2B. Structural System Risk Evaluation (Weeks 2-6) CTV Building Issue Not damaged in 9/2010 M7.1 earthquake People were permitted to go back to work Collapse occurred in 2/2011 M6.3 earthquake (117 deaths/183) ((117earthquakein view=detail&id=D08AF3EC98D82EA260818F63535616D30F5BA5A2 &first=31&FORM=IDFRIR LifeStream/timthumb.php?src= nz/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/CIMG1586_ctv.jpg&w= 580&zc=1 D08AF3EC98D82EA260818F63535616D30F5BA5A2&first=3 1&FORM=IDFRIR

60 60 Step 2B. Structural System Risk Evaluation (Weeks 2-6) Some drawings FIVE STEP PROCESS

61 61 Step 2B. Structural System Risk Evaluation (Weeks 2-6) Some drawings FIVE STEP PROCESS

62 62 Step 3. Life Safety System Evaluations Electrical HVAC Sprinklers Firewalls Water/Toilets Data Systems, etc. FIVE STEP PROCESS

63 63 Step 4. Remediation (i.e. Hazard Removal) Major risk issues identified in Steps 1 – 3 including: - Ceiling tiles (All heavy tiles throughout the university are being replaced with much lighter tiles) - Major seismic joint effects on passage e.g. top of stairs, between different buildings - Structural issues Note: Some minor issues such as gypsum board cracking, left for later work FIVE STEP PROCESS

64 64 Step 5. Building Warrant-of-Fitness (WOF) Tasks in Steps 1-4 are reviewed and actions approved This is conducted by an independent consultant (SGS) who: - Reviews Step 2 and 3 reports - Reviews remediation carried out FIVE STEP PROCESS

65 65 Additional issues: Inspections made of alternative teaching premises E.g. Avonhead Baptist Church Mandeville Houses Etc., Etc. FIVE STEP PROCESS

66 66 Result of 5 step process: An overall reduction in risk for staff and students with: - remediation work, and - high risk buildings (Step 2B) not occupied FIVE STEP PROCESS

67 67 James Height Building: ( Some damage where the building is tied together at levels 2 and 4. SOME UC STRUCTURES

68 68 Mushroom: ( Some rotation and movement affecting linkage structures, Step 2B issues SOME UC STRUCTURES

69 69 Registry Building: ( Some beam- column joint damage, basement damage + 2B issues. SOME UC STRUCTURES

70 70 Commerce Building: ( Atrium Damage East Stairwell damage 2B issues SOME UC STRUCTURES

71 71 Boiler chimney: Behaved well Some slight cracking Some existing cracks enlarged Cracks are being grouted Environmental concrete damage is being repaired SOME UC STRUCTURES

72 72 Boilerhouse: Red tagged Roof issues SOME UC STRUCTURES

73 73 Law Building: Step 1 – OK Green Step 2A/2B – OK Green Step 3 – Cracking of floor found under carpetOrange SOME UC STRUCTURES

74 74 Tent teaching: SOME UC STRUCTURES

75 UC Update – 11 May 2011 More than 200 of 240 campus structures have now been approved for general access. By the end of May relatively few buildings will remain closed to general access. Those still subject to investigation and make safe remediation in June are likely to include: Law (early June access); Erskine faculty offices; Engineering College Office, E1 & E4; Student Services Centre; Warehouse; Science Lecture Theatre (7 lecture theatres); Registry; UCSA; parts of the Recreation Centre (Sports Science and Offices); Te Pourewa; Wheki; Commerce; Siemon; EPS Library; Engineering Mushroom; Hydrology Tower; Ilam Homestead. The Business Recovery Group continues to focus on opening teaching, study, and laboratory spaces and social spaces for students. Work related to remediation is underway in 17 buildings on site. More than 200 Hawkins staff and sub-contractors are on site and there are four full-time project managers assigned to earthquake remediation project management. We have eight engineers on site dedicated to assessment, remediation design and oversight, with others off-site undertaking modelling and support. Any discussion of relocating the University has to take account of the fact that no buildings fell down and at this stage none have been condemned. In addition, 72 per cent of our students live within 2.5 km of the University and Halls of Residence provide accommodation for more than 1,000 students. The 87 ha campus is fit for purpose and this week more than 2,000 programmes and courses were being delivered by the University of Canterbury. The University is well on the way to being back in business with the James Hight Library due for re-opening by end of this month and all but a few special purpose laboratories are already accessible for general use. UC Press Release

76 TYPICAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES Joes Beer!Food! Beer!Food! Beer! Food! Ref: Ron Hamburger, FEMA273 Target Performance(?) F0 IO LS NC FE DBE MCE LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

77 LOW DAMAGE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS a)Elastically Responding b) Base isolated c) Supplementally damped d) Post-tensioned beam e) Rocking f) Friction g) Other devices LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

78 78 Concrete post-tensioned beam systems E.g. VUW Campus, Wellington, March 2010 - Dunning-Thornton (Cattenach), Concrete Structure LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

79 79 A. LEAD DISSIPATOR: with Mander, Chase, Dhakal and Mander Steel low damage systems LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

80 80 B. SLIDING HINGE JOINT CONCEPT Steel low damage systems MacRae et al. 2010 LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS


82 82 Deformations: 1 Column Force Displacement LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

83 83 Deformations: Column Force Displacement 2 LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

84 84 Deformations: 3 Column Force Displacement LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

85 85 Deformations: 4 Column Force Displacement LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

86 86 Deformations: 5 Column Force Displacement LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

87 87 Deformations: 6 Column Force Displacement LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

88 88 DETAILS: 360UB44.7 310UC158 1.5m 2.0m Mackinven and MacRae, 2006 LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

89 89 Steel Shims LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS


91 Courtesy: Darrin Bell of Connell-Wagner, 2007 LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS

92 Courtesy: Geoff Sidwell, Aurecon LOW DAMAGE SYSTEMS



95 Hallswell Primary After September 2010 earthquake:

96 St Margarets College After February 2011 earthquake:

97 Christ's College From

98 Avonside Girls High School After February 2011 earthquake:

99 Avonside Girls High School After February 2011 earthquake:

100 Avonside Girls High School After February 2011 earthquake:

101 Avonside Girls High School After February 2011 earthquake:

102 Linwood North School

103 Aranui High School


105 Aranui Primary School

106 South New Brighton School

107 Mount Pleasant School

108 Redcliffs School,_Redcl iffs.JPG

109 Christchurch Schools,_Redcl iffs.JPG Over 15,000 students were effected by the earthquake ….. (Daily telegraph)

110 Questions?


Download ppt "2010 NZ SCHOOLS and DECISION MAKING Gregory MacRae SEE6 2011 Schools Workshop Tehran, Iran."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google