|
Released: Almaty, Kazakhstan, October 28,
1996
ALMATY, KAZAKHSTAN--Half of the six million people of the
Central Asian Republics live, work and go to school in buildings
that are extremely vulnerable to collapse during earthquakes.
The tragedies of Armenia and Sakhalin will be repeated in Kazakhstan,
Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan unless structures
throughout the urban regions of these nations are strengthened
before the next major earthquake, which has a high probability
of striking within the next 2 decades.
This grim warning was
issued today by an international team of structural and geophysics
experts meeting here to assess the earthquake hazards of major
cities in the region and to devise possible ways to mitigate
those hazards. The results of the meeting, a NATO Advanced Research
Workshop, were presented today to Nikolay M. Makivesky, Deputy
Prime Minister of Kazakhstan and director of the Kazakh State
Committee for Emergencies.
"The bad news is that the uniformity of Soviet construction
makes the seismic risk unusually widespread. The good news is
that, once a workable rehabilitation scheme is devised, it can
be applied throughout the region. This could make reducing earthquake
risk from structural failure affordable," explained Brian Tucker,
co-director of the workshop and President of GeoHazards International,
a non-profit organization dedicated to improving urban earthquake
risk management in the world's most vulnerable communities.
</p>
The problem is urgent. One of the workshop's findings, reported
by Dr. Bruce Bolt, Emeritus Professor of Seismology of the University
of California, Berkeley, was that "There is a high probability
that a severe earthquake will occur near the capital of one
or more of the Central Asian Republics within the next 20 years,
with consequences as devastating as those in Leninakan, Armenia
in 1988." Dr. Tursunby Rashidov, of the Uzbekistan Institute
of Mechanics and Seismic-Resistant Construction, concluded that
the consequences would be worse than those in Armenia, given
the massive political, social and economic changes now occurring
in Central Asian societies.
Such an earthquake will produce, in the nearby capital city,
ground shaking equal to that experienced in the 1988 Spitak,
Armenia earthquake, namely, intensity IX on the MSK scale, devised
by Soviet engineers. The MSK scale classifies the effects of
earthquakes on nature and man-made structures from a level of
I (indicating no effects) to a level of XII (indicating total
destruction).
The effect would be similar to what happened in Armenia in
1988 and in Sakhalin in 1995. The devastating collapse of standard
residential buildings in the town of Leninakan (Armenia) was
detailed in a keynote lecture opening the conference. In this
earthquake, 80 percent of the structures of one building-type
were destroyed. In this case, it was the nine-story panel-frame
building known as Series 111. Due to the widespread collapse
of schools and the fact that school was in session when the
earthquake struck, more children than adults perished. In Neftegorsk
(Sakhalin), 60 percent of the residents died, most in five-story
"khrushchoby"-type structures built in the late 60s and early
70s. According to Professor Mustafa Erdik, Chairman of the Department
of Earthquake Engineering at the Bosphorous University in Istanbul,
Turkey, "World-wide experience in developing countries indicates
that ground shaking of an intensity level of IX on the MSK scale
will result in a fatality rate of at least 5% of the exposed
population and an injury rate of 20%." (In Leninakan, the fatality
rate was about 5%, but in Sakhalin it was about 60%.) For a
city the size of Almaty, Kazakhstan, this would mean approximately
85,000 deaths and 340,000 injuries. The estimated consequences
for all the Central Asian capitals are summarized in the following
table:
ESTIMATED CONSEQUENCES OF AN EARTHQUAKE
PRODUCING MSK IX LEVEL SHAKING IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN CAPITALS
| CAPITAL CITY |
CURRENT POPULATION (millions) |
ESTIMATED DEATHS (thousands) |
ESTIMATED INJURIES (thousands) |
| Almaty, Kazakhstan |
1.5 |
75 |
300 |
| Ashkabad, Turkmenistan |
0.7 |
35 |
140 |
| Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan |
0.6 |
30 |
120 |
| Dushanbe, Tajikistan |
0.6 |
30 |
120 |
| Tashkent, Uzbekistan |
2.7 |
135 |
540 |
More than one-half of all residential buildings in the Central
Asian capitals would likely collapse or be damaged beyond repair
if exposed to an MSK IX level of shaking. A detailed description
of the expected damage to the most prevalent building types
found in Central Asia, when subjected to different levels of
shaking, was prepared by a working group chaired by Mr. Christopher
Rojahn, Executive Director of the Applied Technology Council.
Their results are summarized in the following table:
EXPECTED DAMAGE TO PREVALENT BUILDING TYPES
OF CENTRAL ASIA, WHEN SUBJECTED TO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SHAKING
| BUILDING TYPE |
MSK INTENSITY |
| |
VI |
VII |
VIII |
IX |
| Brick-Wood |
slight-moderate |
moderate-heavy |
partial collapse |
total collapse |
| Brick-Precast: Pre 1957 |
none- slight |
slight- moderate |
heavy-partial collapse |
partial collapse |
| Brick-Precast: Post 1957 |
none |
none- slight |
moderate- heavy |
heavy-partial collapse |
| Weak First Story |
none |
slight |
heavy |
heavy- total collapse |
| Precast- Frame |
none |
slight |
moderate- heavy |
heavy-partial collapse |
| Adobe |
slight- moderate |
heavy |
partial- total collapse |
total collapse |
| Large Panel |
none |
none- slight |
slight- moderate |
moderate |
The workshop began with a tour of current and Soviet-era construction
in Almaty. This "eyes-on" approach continued later in the workshop
with a second tour--this time of Almaty's lifelines, neighborhoods
and geotechnical hazards. After this, the assembled experts
heard an overview of the seismic hazard of Central Asia, and
a review of successful earthquake risk reduction strategies
used in the United States.
Dr. Tucker, co-chair of the workshop, explained that the Armenian
and Sakhalin disasters were "wake-up calls"--warnings to neighboring
regions that should have been heeded. But, he said, "At the
very time that the awareness of this region's high seismic vulnerability
has been growing, political developments have resulted in a
dramatic decrease in the ability of local engineers and scientists
to assess and mitigate this risk.
"When the USSR broke up, many of the region's most experienced
seismic risk specialists were Russians who left the region,
and collaboration became difficult among the new governments
in the Central Asian Republics. In short," Tucker concluded,
"the earthquake experts in Central Asia have become dramatically
fewer in number, more isolated and less well trained." This
was the first gathering of the Central Asian participants in
more than 5 years.
Drawing a parallel to the 1971 "wake-up call" in the United
States when the San Fernando earthquake alerted governments
to devise new standards for commercial buildings, hospitals
and highway bridges, Tucker noted that "much had been done by
the time of the Northridge event in 1994. The Central Asian
Republics had no chance to respond to their wake-up call and
we hope that this workshop will help fill that void."
An accurate assessment of the structural vulnerability in the
region had not previously been made. Thus, the workshop's purpose
was to determine the likelihood of strong ground shaking, to
estimate the number of buildings at risk, to understand the
cause of their vulnerability, and to design risk management
strategies.
A major goal of the workshop was to identify resources available
to implement those strategies. "Rather than only ask for money
from their governments," Tucker said, "the workshop participants
committed themselves to steps they could take themselves."
The Central Asian delegates will urge their governments, despite
the tremendous challenges facing the Central Asian republics
during this transitional period, to raise the importance currently
placed on addressing the earthquake safety of schools, day-care
centers, hospitals, emergency response agencies, and critical
lifelines. "The very future of Central Asia is dependent on
the integrity and continued functioning of these facilities,"
said Professor Bolt.
The delegates will seek to initiate cooperative projects with
the international communities in each of the capital cities
in which joint Central Asian and international teams of engineers
would design and implement retrofit measures for facilities
critical to these communities. Professor Lawrence Reaveley,
chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering of the University
of Utah, said, "This work might be financed by international
organizations and would result in a cadre of well-trained local
engineers, capable of pursuing similar projects on their own
in the future."
Finally, the delegates created a Joint Central Asian Urban
Earthquake Risk Management Working Group, consisting of the
heads of the delegations of the five republics and foreign experts.
The group's purpose is to promote urban earthquake risk management
throughout Central Asia, by carrying on such activities as:
improving the exchange of information among the Central Asian
republics and with external organizations; training professionals,
especially students; contributing to the creation of new legislation
that governs earthquake safety; raising public awareness of
earthquake risk; rehabilitating residential construction to
a minimum level of seismic safety; establishing a strong-motion
network of five digital stations in each capital with uniform
data processing, common instrumentation, and free data exchange.
Professor Erdik has proposed that the Working Group's first
meeting is scheduled for July, 1997 in Istanbul, Turkey, where
the Central Asian members of the group will present a concrete
plan of action, which will be discussed and agreed upon. In
the workshop, representatives from each of the five Central
Asian republics provided detailed information about their geographic
region in general and their capital cities in particular. Representatives
from each nation included a specialist on earth science, a specialist
on structural engineering, and a public official.
The information was organized as responses to a series of
questions. The detailed information brought by the Central Asian
delegates in response to the questionnaire included geologic,
structural, and organizational information necessary to design
programs to reinforce multistory apartment buildings against
future earthquakes. Maps with major seismic features relevant
to the capital cities helped assess the risk of future earthquakes.
A detailed accounting of past earthquakes, their magnitude and
the extent of damage to various types of buildings along with
a current inventory of building types in each city, helped researchers
predict future earthquake damage if no actions are taken.
In particular, the number of multistory residential buildings
constructed since 1960 using "Soviet" construction techniques
was tabulated. The number of people living in each type of construction
was also estimated for each capital city. Descriptions of existing
building regulations and the governmental organizations involved
in regulation and reconstruction were provided.
Using this information from the republics, the experts formed
working groups to devise programs for each country to reduce
the seismic vulnerability of buildings. These programs would
work with existing governmental organizations using demonstrated
technologies.
Technologies and programs to strengthen these structures were
identified. These technologies spring from efficient ways to
identify and strengthen seismically vulnerable structures that
have been successfully applied in areas as diverse as California
and Ecuador. In Ecuador, for example, once the most vulnerable
public schools were identified, local funding was raised for
their retrofit. The working groups also estimated costs, identified
the necessary people and resources, and proposed feasible statutes
and policies that would be effective in carrying out the proposed
programs. All agreed a long-term commitment was needed in each
republic.
The organizing committee of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop
included: Juha Uitto, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan;
Toeleby Zhunusov, of the Kazakh Institute of Earthquake Engineering
and Seismoprotection, Atmaty, Kazakhstan; Mustafa Erdik, Bosphorous
University, Istanbul, Turkey; L. Thomas Tobin, Tobin and Associates,
Mill Valley, California; Wilfred Iwan, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, California; and Christopher Rojahn,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California; as well
as Dr. Tucker and Dr. Khalturin.
Organizations providing funding included: North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO); the United Nations University; The Foreign
Office of the Republic of Germany; World Seismic Safety Initiative
of the International Association of Earthquake Engineering;
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO); the IRIS Consortium, The Joint Seismic Program of
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, The American University
of Armenia; the U.S. National Center for Earthquake Engineering;
the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the
Earth's Interior (IASPEI) Commission on the International Decade
of Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR); the Aga Khan Foundation;
OYO Corporation, and the Cecil and Ida Green Foundation.
In his closing remarks, Dr. Tucker said: "We applaud the candid
discussions and commitment of the Central Asian participants.
Our understanding of the urban seismic risk in Central Asia
was greatly advanced. While knowledge is power, only action
by Central Asians to reduce that risk will serve the human needs
of Central Asia."
#######
For further information contact:
Brian Tucker
GeoHazards International
(650) 614-9050
tucker@geohaz.org
|
