Download
winning the global war against apathy and ignorance n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST APATHY AND IGNORANCE PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST APATHY AND IGNORANCE

WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST APATHY AND IGNORANCE

136 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST APATHY AND IGNORANCE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST APATHY AND IGNORANCE Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA 

  2. NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO MAKE OUR WORLD DISASTER RESILIENT We can do it through the convergence of realistic thinking and strategic actions that are based on improving community preparedness, protection, response, and recovery.

  3. 7 billion people, and counting Living and competing in an interconnected global economy Producing $60 trillion of products Facing many complex problems (e,g.,5 E’s and 2 S’s) STATUS OF THE WORLD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY

  4. Conflict and terrorism Health care Chronic hunger Increasing risk of pandemic disease Large-scale migration of people Environmental degradation Increased impacts of natural hazards Threats related to global climate change OUR COMPLEX GLOBAL PROBLEMS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY

  5. Unless we devise and implement a realistic, new strategy, OUR problems may grow worse rapidly, and all of us may share in the blame for an unnecessary reduction in the quality of life on Planet Earth. THE REALITY OF THE 21ST CENTURY

  6. To protect and preserve the environment To build capacity for disaster resilience To inform, educate, and train To build equity in all communities in all regions of the World THE FRAMEWORK OF DISASTER RESILIENCE PROVIDES WORTHY GOALS

  7. Working strategically, we can implement a realistic set of scientific, technical, and political solutions--- within OUR administrative, legal, and economic constraints, --- and become disaster resilient. WE KNOW WHAT TO DO, SO JUST DOIT!

  8. CAUSES OF DAMAGE INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING SOIL AMPLIFICATION PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT (SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND FAILURE) IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION AND PLAN EARTHQUAKES TSUNAMI WAVE RUNUP CASE HISTORIES LACK OF DETAILING AND POOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LACK OF ATTENTION TO NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

  9. ANY COMMUNITY CAN EVALUATE THE VULNERABILITY OF ITS BUILDINGS • An Incremental Process CLARIFY VULNERABILTIES INDENTIFY OPTIONS IMPLEMENT BEST SOLUTION OPTIMIZE INITATE ACTIONS EVALUATE

  10. SOURCE OF INFORMATION • The following graphic characterizations of building vulnerability to earthquake ground shaking were developed by an insurance company and provided to facilitate education and training.

  11. BUILDING ELEVATIONS • Horizontal and vertical changes in symmetry, mass, and stiffness will increase a building’s vulnerability to ground shaking

  12. AN IMPORTANT NOTE • NOTE: The local site geology and the construction materials are key parameters in controlling a building’s performance; analysis of their effects is NOT considered here.

  13. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] None, if attention given to foundation and non-structural elements. Rocking may crack foundation and structure. X-Cracks around windows. 1-2 Box

  14. DAMAGED HOUSE:CHINA

  15. ASYMmETRY and lateral changes: CHINA

  16. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] None, if attention given to foundation and non structural elements. Rocking may crack foundation. 1 Pyramid

  17. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Top heavy, asymmetrical structure may fail at foundation due to rocking and overturning. 4 - 6 Inverted Pyramid

  18. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Asymmetry and horizontal transition in mass, stiffness and damping may cause failure where lower and upper structures join. 5 - 6 “L”- Shaped Building

  19. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Vertical transition and asymmetry may cause failure where lower part is attached to tower. 3 - 5 Inverted “T”

  20. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Vertical transition in mass, stiffness, and damping may cause failure at foundation and transition points at each floor. 2 - 3 Multiple Setbacks

  21. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Top heavy asymmetrical structure may fail at transition point and foundation due to rocking and overturning. 4 - 5 Overhang

  22. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal and vertical transitions in mass and stiffness may cause failure on soft side of first floor; rocking and overturning. 6 - 7 Partial “Soft” Story

  23. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Vertical transitions in mass and stiffness may cause failure on transition points between first and second floors. 8 - 10 “Soft” First Floor

  24. THE TYPICAL SOFT-STOREY BUILDING IN TURKEY

  25. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal and vertical transitions in mass and stiffness may cause failure at transition points and possible overturning. 9 - 10 Combination of “Soft” Story and Overhang

  26. ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY BUILDING ELEVATION LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL FAILURE RELATIVE VULERABILITY [1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal transition in stiffness of soft story columns may cause failure of columns at foundation and/or contact points with structure. 10 Building on Sloping Ground

  27. SOFT STORY BUILDING ON SLOPING GROUND: CHINA TRIGGERED LANDSLIDES

  28. TUSCALOOSA, AL: EF5 STORM WITH 466 KPH (280 MPH) WINDS APRIL 27, 2011

  29. TUSCALOOSA, AL: APRIL 27, 2011

  30. PRATT CITY, AL: APRIL 27, 2011

  31. PRATT CITY, AL: APRIL 27, 2011

  32. PRATT CITY; AL: APRIL 27, 2011

  33. PLEASANT GROVE, AL: APRIL 27, 2011

  34. DEBRIS ACROSS HIGHWAY

  35. MOUNT KARANGETANG ERUPTS The 1,784 m (5,853 ft) volcano, which is one of Indonesia’s 129 active volcan-oes, is located on Siau.

  36. VOLCANO HAZARDS (AKA POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS) • LAVA FLOWS • LAHARS • EARTHQUAKES (related to movement of lava) • “VOLCANIC WINTER”

  37. NATURAL HAZARDS FOR WHICH EVACUATION IS TYPICAL FLOODS GOAL: MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF HARM’S WAY HURRICANES TYPHOONS HIGH BENEFIT/COST FOR SAVING LIVES, BUT LOW BEMEFIT/COST FOR PROTECTING PROPERTY TSUNAMIS VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS WILDFIRES

  38. CHRONOLOGY OF THE STORM • Starts in Oklahoma late Thursday (April 14) • Moves to Arkansas on Friday (April 15) • Impacts Mississippi and Alabama

  39. TECTONICS OF INDONESIA REGION • The Australian and Eurasian plates meet in Indonesia, creating a tectonic setting favorable for generating earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions.

  40. Indonesia has 129 active volcanoes, with two of the most active ones — Mount Kelut and Mount Merapi — on the island of Java, where the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, is.

  41. SENSITIZED BY THE 2004 TSUNAMI DISASTER, INDONESIANS HEEDED THE WARNING This time, the tsunami that inundated towns, immobilized air ports, destroyed buildings, and killed 1,000’s in Japan, WAS NOT DEADLY in Indonesia.

  42. IN 2004, TSUNAMI WAVES REACHED BANDA ACHE IN1/2 HOUR, THEN TRAVERSED THE INDIAN OCEAN

  43. 12 COUNTRIES ADJACENT TO THE INDIAN OCEAN WERE IMPACTED

  44. THE 2004 EXPERIENCE • THE TSUNAMI WAS GENERATED BY A SHALLOW, M 9.3 EARTHQUAKE LOCATED 260 KM (155 MI) FROM BANDA ACEH, SUMATRA

  45. THE 2004 EXPERIENCE • THE TSUNAMI WAVES HAD HEIGHTS OF 4 TO 10 M AND RUNUP OF 3.3 KM OR MORE ON THE COAST LINES OF 12 NATIONS

  46. THE 2004 EXPERIENCE • THE EXISTING TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM WAS INEFFECTIVE IN 2004 • RESULT: LITTLE ORNO EVACUATION

  47. THE 2004 EXPERIENCE • AN EXTIMATED 220,000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED (120,000 IN INDONESIA) AND 500,000 WERE INJURED IN 12 COUNTRIES BORDERING THE INDIAN OCEAN