ESSENTIAL FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STUDY FOR SEISMIC SCENARIOS IN MANHATTAN by MICHAEL W. TANTALA GEORGE DEODATIS Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 • This research seeks to provide a forecast of the types of losses that the New York area could suffer after an earthquake
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 The Jan 17, 2001 M=2.4 miniquake miniquake: a reminder to be prepared : a reminder to be prepared The Jan 17, 2001 M=2.4 Courtesy of Dan O’Brien, NYSEMO
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Courtesy of USGS
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Earthquakes of New England and Adjacent Regions (1638-1995)
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 INTRODUCTION • This research seeks to provide a forecast of the types of losses that the New York area could suffer after an earthquake • Risk is typically defined by 3 components: • a hazard (the earthquake, hurricane, terrorist attacks) • the assests involved (our focus is the building stock), and • the fragility of those assests • There is a low probability of recurrence of earthquakes HOWEVER the NYC area is high risk because of: • portfolio concentration, and • the fragility of that portfolio – most structures are not seismically designed like those on the West Coast – the 1st seismic code was just passed in 1995 • Scenarios were performed using the HAZUS (or Hazards US ) modeling GIS code • Essential/Critical Facilities Studied…this presentation focuses on this part
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Risk Exposure: What does Manhattan have to risk? Within the 27 square mile region, there are 298 census tracts: • 717,000 households • 1.5 million people • 37,000 buildings with 2.2 billion square feet • with a replacement value of $347 B (not contents) [2001 $] Industrial Industrial Other $6.0 B Other $5.3 B $18.6 B Commercial 2% $16.5 B Commercial 2% 5% $125.3 B 5% $111.3 B 36% 36% Residential Commercial Industrial Other Residential Residential $175.0 B $197.1 B 57% 57%
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 HAZUS or HAZARDS US Standardized Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology (future plans for other hazards)
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Deterministic Scenario Earthquakes (M5, M6 and M7 at an 1884 historic epicenter location) - - 7 7 4 4 - - 7 7 3 3 - - 7 7 2 2 = epicenter location Connecticut New York Manhattan 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 New Jersey 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 - - 7 7 4 4 - - 7 7 3 3 - - 7 7 2 2 60 60 0 0 60 60 120 M 120 M iles iles Probabilistic Scenarios were also considered (specified by recurrence intervals, i.e. a 2500 year event). These and other scenarios are discussed with detailed results in this conference paper.
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Soil Map of Manhattan, Provided by Dr. Klaus Jacob, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University default modified Only one soil type “D” Note: Soil Classes Softer soils will tend to amplify ground motion and increase the likelihood of damage Soil Classes Hard Rock Rock Dense Soil/Soft Rock Soft Soils Special Soils
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4000 3000 Number 1895 2000 4000 Washington Heights, 1000 Number 3000 109 88 35 Inwood 1592 0 2000 Morningside Heights, Wood Steel URM Concrete 1000 Collected detailed information on: 84 184 21 Hamilton Heights, Building Type 0 Manhattanville Wood Steel URM Concrete 4000 Building Type 3000 Number 2097 2000 structure type 525 1000 Central Harlem, 4000 6 72 3129 Polo Grounds 0 use 3000 Number Wood Steel URMConcrete 2000 572 Building Type Lincoln Square, 1000 168 building area 4 0 Upper West Side, Wood Steel URMConcrete Manhattan Valley height 4000 Building Type Number 3000 1627 2000 quality of construction 4000 344 1000 14 84 East Harlem 3000 0 building type Number Wood Steel URM Concrete Flatiron, 2000 1605 1334 Building Type Midtown 1000 age 150 2 0 4000 3665 Wood Steel URM Concrete 3000 Number Damage State 2000 4000 739 Upper East Side, 1000 348 etc … 2684 1 3000 Number Yorkville, 0 2000 Carnegie Hill, Chelsea, Wood Steel URM Concrete 385 1000 210 0 Lenox Hill Clinton 0 Building Type Wood Steel URM Concrete 4000 Building Type 3000 2358 Number 2000 640 Gramercy, 1000 221 1 Murray Hill, 4044 0 This building damage will be used 4000 Turtle Bay, Wood Steel URM Concrete 3000 Number Tudor City Damage State to predict casualties, shelter and 2000 4000 1000 335 151 7 3000 4000 Number 3258 rescue needs and fire and 0 2000 3000 1178 Number Wood Steel URM Concrete 1000 333 2000 water demands, etc. 160 Building Type 3 1000 336 0 125 12 0 Wood Steel URM Concrete Soho, Greenwich Village, Wood Steel URM Concrete Building Type Chinatown, Little Italy, Building Type Noho Financial District, Tribeca, Seaport, East Village, Lower East Side, Battery Park City Tompkins Square
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Pre-1945 Lower Manhattan Buildings are shaded Red Distribution of Year of Construction 12000 Number of Buildings 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1882 1890 1898 1906 1914 1922 1930 1938 1945 1953 1961 1969 1977 1985 1993 Year of Construction
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Manhattan is unique in that it has a significant number of buildings greater than 20 stories
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Average number of stories of buildings District Key Average Number of stories per square quarter-mile Under 2 Average # Number of Neighborhoods 10 Stories Financial District, Tribeca, 1 10.1 Battery Park City, Seaport Soho, Greenwich Village, 2 5.2 Chinatown, Little Italy, Noho East Village, Lower East Side, 3 5.9 Tompkins Square 4 5.8 Chelsea, Clinton 20 5 11.2 Flatiron, Midtown Gramercy, Murray Hill, Turtle 6 8.7 Bay, Tudor City Lincoln Square, Upper West 7 7.0 Side, Manhattan Valley Upper East Side, Yorkville, 8 7.1 Carnegie Hill, lenox Hill Morningside Heights, Hamilton 9 5.6 Above 30 Heights, Manhattanville 10 4.6 Central Harlem, Polo Grounds 11 5.2 East Harlem 12 4.5 Washington Heights, Inwood All 6.7
Recommend
More recommend
