1 LESSLOSS Project SP10 Disaster scenarios and loss modelling in urban areas Emily So University of Cambridge

1

LESSLOSS Project

SP10 Disaster scenarios and loss modelling in urban areas

Emily So

University of Cambridge

LNEC, 25th May 2007 Lisbon Dissemination Workshop 2

1. Introduction

2. University of Cambridge Human Casualty Modeli. Introduction to Casualty Estimationii. Improvements to the existing modeliii. Proposed Methodology

3. Earthquake Surveysi. Reconnaissance to Pakistan and Yogyakartaii. Survey and initial results from analyses

4. Application for LessLoss Citiesi. Overview of global dataset (from research to date)ii. Casualty rates for the 3 LessLoss cities

Contents

LessLoss SP10:LessLoss SP10:Human Casualty EstimationHuman Casualty Estimation



As identified in UCAM’s round of visits to the 3 cities, the modelling of human casulaties in the developed loss estimation models are less than adequate.

Over the past 2 years, work has been done to improve casualty estimates based on Coburn and Spence (1992) as a new module to the loss estimation software developed within SP10.

Human Casualty Estimation

Injured girl from the Kashmir Earthquake of 8th Oct, 2005


•Increased population density leading to development in more hazardous areas.

•Short-term economic factors has resulted in uncontrolled development of potentially high hazard areas.

•In Istanbul, the population has increased more than 12 times since 1950s from one to twelve million.

•More than 7 million people now reside in San Francisco as compared to 340,000 that lived there during the 1906 earthquake.

The primary aim of earthquake protection programmes is to SAVE LIVES.



For loss estimation studies to be useful for earthquake protection, they need to include an assessment of probable levels of human casualties in terms of death and injuries:

Builds on work done in previous projects (National and EU) Develop new database of casualties from important

earthquakes Achieves integration and mutual calibration of

methodologies Involves examining urban authorities’ provision of hospitals

and transportation network Improves understanding of mitigation and planning

opportunities.


Benefits of the SP10 Casualty Study


Based on the The Cambridge University Casualty Model (Coburn and Spence 1992, 2004, SECED) which estimates that structural collapses are responsible for 75% of deaths in earthquakes.

The factors influencing the number of people killed per building collapse are said to fall into five major categories (M1 to M5) and the number of people killed in the collapses of any particular building type could be estimated, based on observed data.

Cambridge University Casualty Model

LessLoss SP10:LessLoss SP10: Human Casualty Modelling Human Casualty Modelling


Occupants at the time of collapse

Trapped Not trapped

Die instantly

Don’t die instantly

Uninjured or lightly injured

Moderately injured

Die later Don’t die later

Seriously injured

Moderately injured

Not injured or lightly injured

M3 1-M3

M4 1-M4

M5 1-M5



Within the SP10 funding period, UCAM have examined published information derived from recent earthquake and carried out a progressive assessment of earthquake casualties to improve the previous model, concentrating on the following:

• seismology• engineering building stock• cultural environment• human responses and behaviour• short and long-term economic issues• local planning and preparedness



In particular, examining ways of approaching calculated vulnerabilities;

Cambridge University Casualty Model:Cambridge University Casualty Model:ImprovementsImprovements

Survey after the Kocaeli Earthquake (Petal, 2004)

Severity of Injury

and including injuries distribution and public health information into the model.

Computer simulation of collapse using DEM, (Kiyono, 2004)


Cambridge University Casualty Model:Cambridge University Casualty Model:UpdateUpdate

Proposed Table of Standardisation of InjuriesAccording to cost and severity Medical Long Term Complete

1 uninjured/ lightly injured Head or Face bruising/ contusions, minor cuts 2Abdomen bruising, minor cuts 1Upper Extremities bruising, minor cuts, sprains 1Lower Extremities bruising, minor cuts, sprains 1

2 moderately injured Head or Face Cuts into soft tissues 2-3Abdomen Cuts into soft tissues 2-3Upper Extremities Dislocation, cuts into soft tissues 2-3Lower Extremities Dislocation, cuts into soft tissues 2-3

Other Dehydration/ exposure; burns 1-2o; unconcious < 1hr 3

3 seriously injured Head or Face Open head or facial wounds, fractures, brain concussionAbdomen Pneumothorax and rib factures, crushing > 3hrs, puncture organs 1-4Upper Extremities Fractures- open, displaced or comminuted (pulverised) 3Lower Extremities Fractures- open, displaced or comminuted (pulverised) 3

Other Uncontrolled bleeding; burns 2-3o (% of body?) ; unconcious > 1hr 3-5

4 critical Head or Face Internal head trauma, severe crushing 5Abdomen Spinal column injuries, internal organ failures due to crushing 5

Upper Extremities Traumatic amputations, arms 5Lower Extremities Traumatic amputations, legs 5Other

5 dead Asphyxiation, burns and smoke inhalation, intracranial injuries, traumatic complications 6

ValueCategory Type of injuries AIS


Cambridge University Casualty Model:Cambridge University Casualty Model:UpdateUpdate

Proposed Methodology


An opportunity to collect information 1st hand and understand the characteristics of these earthquakes.

Explore the casual pathway of injuries and aftercare. Collate data on severities and types of injuries attributed to different

damage states. This data is relevant to European cities even though building types

are very different.

The Casualty Surveys 2006

In collaboration with the University of Peshawar in Pakistan and Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta over 500 interviews have been done after reconnaissance visits to each location.

Taken by Mr Jaz, (another interviewer) at Thandiani

LessLoss SP10: Earthquake Surveys


•73,318 people dead•69,392 people seriously injured•58,896 people suffer from minor injuries, but some have later died from tetanus and other diseases•2.5m people left homeless•203,579 houses completely destroyed •196,574 houses damaged

LessLoss SP10: Earthquake Surveys

Kashmir Earthquake, October 2005Official figures taken from the Government website:


The sample include both affected districts: Pakistan Administered Kashmir (AJK)

North West Frontier Province

Villages identified: Chella Bandi and Mera Bandi (AJK)

Kawai and Ghanool (in the Kaghan Valley)

Garlat (near Balakot)

LessLoss SP10: Kashmir Earthquake

Garlat

Chella Bandi

Mera Bandi

Ghanool

This intensity map illustrates the long reach of the earthquake ranging from Intensity X near the

epicenter (orange = destruction) (www.asc-india.org)


1. Where were you when the earthquake struck?

4. What did you do when you felt the earthquake?

Earthquake Data

LessLoss SP10: The Casualty Survey


7. When were you injured?

Mark on where the injuries were.

Injury Data

Also questions on entrapment, mode of rescue, treatment and thoughts on the future.

LessLoss SP10: The Casualty Survey


Sample Size Pakistan: 2285 people ; 23% injured, 10% killed (of surviving

households) Indonesia: 2661 people, 12% injured, 2% killed

Main injury types Pakistan: upper and lower extremity fractures, internal injuries Indonesia: bruises and minor cuts, head wounds

Cambridge University Casualty Model:Cambridge University Casualty Model:The Casualty Survey ResultsThe Casualty Survey Results

Results from Surveys- Pakistan and Yogyakarta

Casualty Severity Breakdown (Pakistan)

minor, 14%

moderate, 26%

serious, 38%

critical, 23%

Casualty Severity Breakdown (Yogyakarta)

minor, 63%

moderate, 21%

serious, 11%

critical, 4%



Old Adobe housing near Manshera, Pakistan

Typical housing in Java, Indonesia


Causes of Injuries (breakdown for Pakistan)

struc, 90%

contents, 1%

falls, 4%

other, 4%

non-struc, 1%

Causes of Injuries (breakdown for Yogyakarta

struc, 78%

contents, 3%

falls, 9%

fires, 1%

other, 5%

non-struc, 4%



There are published casualty rates related to building types given in HAZUS (indoor and outdoor) based on ATC-13 and a limited historical dataset for 4 injury severity levels, namely:

• Injuries requiring basic medical aid (severity 1)• Hospitalized (severity 2)• Life threatening Injuries (severity 3)• Deaths (severity 4)

These rates have been widely used outside California: adaptation in Australia (Fulford et al, 2005) suggests that HAZUS casualty rates overestimates both fatalities and injury severity 3.

Published Casualty Rates

LessLoss SP10: Human Casualty Estimation


A review of the different types of injuries caused by earthquakes shows that there is considerable variation of types and severity of injuries which appears to correlate with the predominantly affected type of buildings.

In the Armenia earthquake in 1988, 80% of the structures of one building-type were destroyed; in this case, it was the nine-story precast concrete frames known as Series 111 which was the main cause of 25,000 deaths.

For the same earthquake, a case control study carried out by Armenian et al (1992) identified that there is a higher risk of injuries for those who were in taller buildings and who were located on the higher floors of these buildings as well as for those who were indoors during the earthquake

LessLoss SP10: Human Casualty Estimation

Global earthquake casualty data


Kocaeli 1999Seligson et al (2006) analysed in particular the non-ductile concrete buildings in detail from the Golcuk dataset collected by Petal (2004) and found that published models like the ATC and HAZUS, whilst corresponding fairly well with surveyed fatalities, tended to underestimate the percentage of the population suffering non-fatal injuries in buildings of minor and moderate damage.Kobe 1995This figure illustrates the distribution of injuries in lesser damage states and the importance of capturing this data as injuries are associated with partially and moderately collapsed buildings (Murakami et al, 2004).

LessLoss SP10: Published Casualty Rates


The set of injury state parameters for the three cities are derived from a review of collated data from recent earthquakes such as Kobe, Kocaeli and Chi Chi.

The casualty rates from loss estimation models such as HAZUS and ATC13 from the United States are used as reference.

Uses country specific data from previous earthquakes and takes into account of differences in survivability assisted by the presence of national search and rescue programs.

Proposed Casualty Rates for SP10

LessLoss SP10: Proposed Casualty Rates


Includes progressive assessment of casualties stemming from other causal factors. Studies such as the Gölcük survey highlighting non-structural factors and injuries caused by lower damage states are also incorporated.



Sample Output


Main building types in LessLoss city

Distribution of injuries and uninjured as a percentage of total occupants in the buildings

UI I1 I2 I3 I4 I5

Timber (1F) 45.7% 40.0% 12.0% 1.5% 0.1% 0.7%

Timber (2&3F) 43.9% 40.0% 12.5% 1.5% 0.1% 2.0%Timber (>4F) 43.6% 40.0% 13.0% 2.0% 0.1% 1.3%

Masonry (1F) 23.6% 50.0% 12.0% 8.0% 0.4% 6.0%

Masonry (2&3F) 16.5% 50.0% 15.0% 10.0% 0.5% 8.0%Masonry (>4F) 9.4% 50.0% 18.0% 12.0% 0.6% 10.0%

RC (1F) 32.9% 30.0% 19.0% 3.0% 0.2% 15.0%

RC (2&3F) 20.8% 30.0% 23.0% 4.0% 0.2% 22.0%RC (>4F) 9.7% 30.0% 27.0% 5.0% 0.3% 28.0%

Steel (1F) 38.9% 30.0% 15.0% 2.0% 0.1% 14.0%

Steel (2&3F) 25.1% 30.0% 19.0% 3.0% 0.2% 22.8%Steel (>4F) 10.0% 30.0% 23.0% 4.0% 0.2% 32.8%

Damage State D5



In the final phase of this project, global factors will be adapted for each of the cities, taking into account the building stock and likely collapse mechanisms of the local building types and also the likely search and rescue efficiency.

These can form a part of future modification of the 3 loss modelling methodologies.


Thank you

[email protected]

Acknowledgements:

LessLossCAR Ltd

EPSRC

Documents

1 LESSLOSS Project SP10 Disaster scenarios and loss modelling in urban areas Emily So University of Cambridge