new capacity development lesson learn from mw 7.8 earthquake · 2015. 11. 3. · 11 november 2012,...

Capacity Development Lesson Learn from Mw 7.8

earthquake

Teraphan Ornthammarath, PhD,

Technical Advisor

Regional Integrated Multi Hazard Early Warning Systems (RIMES)

[email protected]

Presentation Content:

• Introduction about ShakeCast@RIMES

• Sustainability

• Observed Seismic Risk

• Microzonation?

• Building Code

ShakeCast@RIMES

Operated @ RIMES since 2012

Evaluated more than 1,000 events

Largest evaluated event in RIMES

Member states was magnitude

7.8 in Nepal

An automated post-earthquake

response system firstly developed

by USGS

ShakeCast & Critical Infrastructure

ShakeCast at CaltransShakeCast at Caltrans

11 November 2012, magnitude 6.8 Shwebo earthquake

Generated within 30 minutes

Preliminary solution indicating

no severe damage to Mandalay

Other two cities near epicenters

could be prioritized for rescue efforts

What we know from ShakeCast@RIMES

What we do not know from current

ShakeCast@DMH Nay Pyi Taw

How many and how extensive

of damaged buildings?

Local emergency commands are safe?

Any damaged infrastructures (road,

gas pipeline, bridges, dams)?


Estimated damage by ShakeCast with building data from MES

� More than 3,370 buildings from 3 cities (Bago, Sagaing, and Taungoo) based on survey

data by MES.

� These buildings are classified according to structural and occupancy types.

� There are different structural types in these three cities such as Bamboo, Wooden, and

Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings.

� There are different occupancy types in these three cities such as Resident, Commercial,

Education, Government buildings.

� The damage state information of these buildings could be useful for relevant stakeholders

after damaging earthquakes.

Sustainability by working with local partners

Timber-Framed Masonry building

Timber building

Reinforced Concrete (RC) building

Unreinforced Masonry (URM) building

Different structural types

Sustainability by working with local partners

Residential building

Temple

Commercial building

Government building

Different occupancy types

Different states of building condition in Sagaing

44%

23%

33%

CONDITION

Average

Good

Poor

29%

50%

21%

YEAR OF BUILT

<10

10_30

30+

67%

33%

SOFT STOREY

No

Yes75%

12%

3%

3%6% 1%

OCCUPANCY TYPE

RES

COM

GOV

EDU

REL

IND

50 % of

buildings are

10 to 30 years

old

44 % of buildings

are in poor

conditions

33 % of buildings

are prone to soft

story collapse

during earthquake

75 % of

buildings are

residential

buildings


Estimated damage by ShakeCast with building data from MES

No expected damage in Mandalay and Sagaing

In Sagaing, all buildings are labeled as green color (no or slight damage)

25 April 2015, magnitude 7.8 Gorkha earthquake



severe damage to epicentral region

Many cities within rupture zone (including

Katmandu should be prioritized for

rescue efforts


What we do not know from current

ShakeCast@RIMES

How many and how extensive

of damaged buildings?

Local emergency commands are safe?

Any damaged infrastructures (road,

gas pipeline, bridges, dams)?

30 Minutes2 days

12 May 2015, magnitude 7.3 aftershock earthquake



severe damage to epicentral region

(this time to the east of Katmandu)

Different search and rescue should

be provided to eastern part not same

as previous case.

Katmandu could have some damage also




• Sustainability


• Microzonation?

• Building Code

Sustainability

• Local partners need to maintain and update the input information for

ShakeCast at their own facility

• Data input should be updated and inputted to ShakeCast at local partner

facility (e.g. Government facilities, hospital, school) before earthquake

happen

• Training of ShakeCast system at RIMES or local partner facility how to

maintain and update the system.

• Local rescue authorities need to be able to access this information



• Sustainability


• Microzonation?

• Building Code

Dr. Pennung Warnitchai Asian Institute of Technology

Dr. Punchet Thammarak Asian Institute of Technology

Dr. Nakhorn Poovarodom Thammasart University

Dr. Sutat Leelataviwat King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi

Dr. Chatpan Chintanapakdee Chulalongkorn University

Dr. Teraphan Ornthammarath Mahidol University / RIMES

Dr. Soravit Vitoontus Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

Mr. Andrew Robinson Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

Nepal Earthquake Damage Reconaisance: 13-17 July 2015

Wind and Earthquake Engineering subcommittee, Engineering Institute of

Thailand

Nepal Earthquake Damage Reconaisance: 13-17 July 2015

Wind and Earthquake Engineering subcommittee, Engineering Institute of

Thailand

Katmandu• Damage is

localized

• Infrastructure,

normal life, trade,

school could be

able to resume

after few months

after earthquake

• Observation of

retrofitting

damaged

structures

Observed Damage• Damaged

structures are

mostly

concentrated in

non-engineered

structure, e.g.

stone and

masonry

structures

• These non-

engineered

structures are

prone to

earthquake

damage.

• Damaged masonry

structures

Observed Damage

Observed Damage• Modern structures

using Reinforced

Concrete (RC) is

more earthquake

resistant.

• Damaged RC

structures could

also be found for

those with bad

construction

control, bad

detailing.

• However, RC

structures are less

damage compared

to stone and

masonry buildings.



• Sustainability


• Microzonation?

• Building Code

6

6. Sitapaila

Observed damaged is localizedObserved damaged is localizedObserved damaged is localizedObserved damaged is localized

Goda et al. (2015)

200

-200

200

-200

150

-150

24 March 2011 Mw

6.8 Myanmar

� Much less than firstly predicted around 3 times

Ground MotionGround MotionGround MotionGround Motion

Ornthammarath (2013)

24 March 2011 Mw

6.8 Myanmar

24 March 2011 Mw

6.8

Myanmar

� Energy released mostly damage to tall buildings

24 March 2011 Mw

6.8 Myanmar


0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 2.0 4.0 10.0 T (sec)


� Energy released mostly damage to tall buildings



• Sustainability


• Microzonation?

• Building Code

Building Code

• Nepal National

Building Code

for Seismic

Resistant

initiated due to

earthquake in

1988

• Working group

drafting it from

1991-1993

Building Code

• There are

separated in to

several steps

• State-of-the-art

Design

• Professionally

Engineered

Structure

• Small structures

less than 3

stories need to

follow Rules of

Building Code

(DUDBC, NEPAL)

Example “Rule of Thumb”

(DUDBC, NEPAL)

Example“Guideline”

(DUDBC, NEPAL)

Example“Guideline”

Cause of Damage• For RC structures

• Buildings have

been built not

according to

building plan.

• Poor building

material.

• Irregular

structures, bad

reinforced

detailing, site

effect, slope

failure.

Cause of DamageBuildings have

not been

built according to

building plan

Cause of DamageMasonry used

inside concrete

column

Bad Detailing of

reinforcing bars

Cause of Damage

Damaged to small buildingsSmall buildings

need to be

controlled

according to

guideline.

Damaged to small buildings

Small buildings

contribute to the

largest total loss

Earthquake Safety DayShould be implemented

regularly

(THAPA, K, DUDBC, NEPAL)

Shelter and Rescued area

• Any plan for urban

area?

• Shelter and rescued

area for each sub

district

Retrofiting

Need to be done by

professional engineers

Temporary shelters

Temporary shelters tend

to be permanent shelter

and this could increase

causalities

Thank you for your attention

shakecast.rimes.int

Teraphan Ornthammarath, PhD,

Technical Advisor

Regional Integrated Multi Hazard Early Warning Systems (RIMES)

[email protected]

new capacity development lesson learn from mw 7.8 earthquake · 2015. 11. 3. · 11 november 2012,...

Documents