The authors would like to first acknowledge the support of the discussant panel: Donald B. For this reason, the authors contacted many individuals to solicit their input in the preparation of this paper. Other efforts that may have been conducted with the support of private funds are not documented here, unless otherwise noted.īecause of the wide variety of lifeline systems, it is impossible for any one individual to list and summarize the research results. ![]() The third section of this paper attempts to highlight these efforts, where known. In addition to the NSF, other organizations have provided some money to study this earthquake. Information on organizations and individuals who were awarded research grants by the NSF was provided by Drs. The primary organization providing research money to study this earthquake was the NSF. This procedure was used in the preparation of this paper. For most government-sponsored research, the identification of ongoing efforts can usuallyīe made by contacting the funding organizations and requesting a list of awards. In this paper, the emphasis is on connected systems, that is:Įven in the specialized area of lifeline earthquake engineering, it is difficult to identify all research efforts conducted as a result of an earthquake. Discrete lifelines may be classified as terminal or source facilities, for example, ports, harbors, and airports. Connected systems generally include those that rely on transmission lines to convey service. The applicability of these lessons to more than one lifeline will depend on whether they are connected or discrete systems. While the lifeline area covers many different systems, several of the lessons learned apply to more than one lifeline. In particular, the emphasis is on research conducted to better understand the behavior of lifelines during earthquakes. The purpose of this paper is to summarize practical lessons learned from research conducted as a result of the Loma Prieta earthquake. Identifying practical measures that can be applied to the seismic design, retrofit, and construction of lifeline systems is an essential first step in this overall process. Taking advantage of the lessons learned from previous earthquakes offers an opportunity to enhance the seismic resistance of these systems. Finally, many systems are aged and ready for reconstruction or replacement. Many areas are still without electric power service. As can be seen today in Florida, full recovery after Hurricane Andrew is slow, due in part to a lack of utility service. Second, the recovery of cities after major natural disasters will depend in large part on the survivability of lifeline systems. Protecting these assets during natural disasters deserves special attention. First, from the standpoint of replacement cost, life-lines account for approximately $4.5 trillion, or roughly 22 percent of the total built environment (Jones, 1993). ![]() In general, research has been directed at explaining why certain design or construction measures work and why others do not.Īnalyzing the earthquake vulnerability of our nation's lifeline systems is critical for several reasons. ![]() In many cases, failure of lifeline systems was prevented because of these measures in some cases, new vulnerabilities were uncovered. In the lifeline area, this earthquake allowed a detailed examination of seismic design procedures originally introduced as a result of the San Fernando event. The Loma Prieta earthquake offered a number of unique research opportunities. From this perspective, post-earthquake research has been problem focused. On problems or issues uncovered as a result of these events.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |