1 - 3 O ct ob er 2016 - AFPS

BRGM/ DRP/ NT IDRIM, Isfahan, 1 st -3rd Oct ober 2016 1

Vulnerability Assessment: Key role in Disaster Risk Management Case Study #1

N. Taillefer

BRGM French Geological Survey

7th I nternat ional Conf erence on I ntegrated Disaster Risk Management

I sf ahan, I RAN

1- 3 October 2016

Special Session on Experience Sharing

Example of Overall Seismic Security Engineering

Vulnerability Assessment: Key role in Disaster Risk Management

Case Studies #1: Vulnerability assessment at city level: describing existing situation to enhance DRM action plans

Examples of four Iranian cities and Nice (France)

N. Taillefer Present at ion made f rom dat a provided by DKP, BRGM and Risk-UE part ners

Acknowledgement C. Negulescu, T. Wint er, O. Sedan, M. Belvaux, B. Gat rimi and O. Alemzabe (DKP)

IDRIM 1st-3rd Octobre 2016


Context Iran France

Location 4 cities Ex Qavzin: 1M people in 2001

1 urban area 0.5 M people, 60 000 housing, 72km²

Context Action plan Research and capacity building

Hazard (RP=475y)

High level PGA= [0.10-0.32g] Medium Level PGA= [0.16-0.18g]

Contribution of VA

Baseline for vulnerability reduction measures

Crisis management, preparation


Seismic risk

> 4

Risk

Hazard

Vulnerabilit y

Exposure


Risk scenarios

1. Inventory of buildings and infrastructures

2. Vulnerability assessment

3. Hazard mapping

4. Simulation of damages

5. Mapping


3 approaches to assess vulnerability of buildings:

> Level 0 – Statistical approach. • Basis: census data

• Simplified assumption: period of construction type of structure

> Level 1 –typology • Basis: analysis of ground use

– empirical: Vulnerability indexes (RISK-UE level I).

– mechanical: Fragility curves( HAZUS).

> Niveau 2 – mechanical (structural) approach • Modeling of individual building

• Simulation of the structural response

Capacity curve

Vulnerability assesment


What level of analysis do you need?

Action plan, regulatory texts

Crisis management preparation

Earthquake risk exposition (insurance)

Retroffitting N

ive

au

0

Niv

ea

u 1

Niv

ea

u 2

Strategic buildings vulnerability


Remarque : ces scenarii peuvent être réalisés à l’échelle d’une région ou d ’une ville

Challenges for vulnerability assessments at regional level

> Size of the area • Number of buidings

• Spatial varaibility

> Building characteristics • Building practices, history

• Urbanization

• Material, techniques


> Advantages: • Common ground with post-disaster actions

• Reallistic

Ranking scale, related to post-disaster observations

How can potential damages be represented?

BRGM/ DRP/ NT IDRIM, Isfahan, 1 st -3rd Oct ober 2016 10 > 10

Remarque : ces scenarii peuvent être réalisés à l’échelle d’une région ou d ’une ville

Damages

> Probable damage state • Building

• Asset

• Mean value for a given area

> Annual probability of collapse • Building

• Building type

> Further analyses • Losses (human, economic)

• Individual risk


> Outcome: • Identify most

vulnerable buildings

• Help communication about risks

• Provide basis for decisions concerning risk reduction

• Contribute to preparedness

Risk scenario: tool to raise awareness and decision tool

Risk scenarios procedure

Vulnerability

Buildings

Hazard)


Study of 4 Iranian cities

Kermanshah

Qazvin

Hamadan

Zanjan


Context


Example of buildings

BRGM/ DRP/ NT IDRIM, Isfahan, 1 st -3rd Oct ober 2016 15 lundi 10 octobre 2016 > 15

CURRENT BUILDINGS-Inventory and vulnerability classification Kermanshah


CURRENT BUILDINGS-Inventory and vulnerability classification Qazvin


CURRENT BUILDINGS-Inventory and vulnerability classification Hamadan


CURRENT BUILDINGS-Inventory and vulnerability classification Zanjan


475 years RP results

Fig. 5: % of heavy damaged buildings , 475 year return period scenario, Kermanshah

Fig. 6: % of heavy damaged buildings , 475 year return period scenario, Qazvin


The backbone of an action plan…

Risk

Awareness

Prevention

Policy

Risk

Knowledge

Mitigation

Policy Risk

Assessment

Preparedness

for Crisis


> Selected recommendations for action plan • Mitigation and

prevention: Land use, planning, construction codes

• Preparedness: information, training, actions

• Crisis management: scenarios, training

• Recovery plans: reconstruction needs and rehabilitation

Outputs

> Specific work • Adaptation of fragility

curves to Iranian constructions

• Lessons learned from Bam and Manjil post seismic field missions

• Local, regional and national measures

• indicators


Study of Nice


Context


Example of buildings


Studies

Fig. 7: Simulation of the intensity of two historical earthquakes on today’s Nice city

• 23 building t ypes

• Local and regional hazard

• DHA/ PSHA

992000.00 994000.00 996000.00 998000.00 1000000.00

162000.00

164000.00

166000.00

168000.00

170000.00

172000.00

174000.00

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.20

0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

2.00

2.80

992000.00 994000.00 996000.00 998000.00 1000000.00

162000.00

164000.00

166000.00

168000.00

170000.00

172000.00

174000.00

1644 1887

PGA (m/s²)


Outputs

> Methodology • Pan-european

methodology

• Vulnerability assessment for urban areas

• Capacity building

• Seismic scenarios

• Damage assessment

> After the projects • Study of other urban

characteristics

• Assesment of economic and uman impatcs

• Risk reduction plans


Conclusions

> National and regional level action plans

> Risk reduction measures needed

> Potential damages to illustrate effects of earthquakes • Which one to be simulated?

> Capacity building

Documents

1 - 3 O ct ob er 2016 - AFPS