Earthquake Damage and Fragilities of Industrial Facilities
An industrial facility consists of many integrated components and processes. As such, operation of a facility depends upon the performance of its critical components. The greatest risk from an earthquake is that to life safety. However, in large earthquakes, industrial buildings and related machinery and equipment damaged may be costly to repair and there may be additional damage from fire and chemical spills. As such, the design (or seismic retrofit) of industrial facilities should preferably be based on performance-based methodologies with the objective of controlling structural and non-structural damage and the triggered technological disasters. In this paper industrial damages and losses that took place in past important earthquakes, especially in the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, will be summarized. A general description of industrial-sector and component based earthquake performance and vulnerabilities will be provided.
KeywordsWenchuan Earthquake Seismic Design Industrial Facility Earthquake Damage American Petroleum Institute
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- ALA (2005), Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe American Lifeline Alliance, ASCE.
- Coburn, A., and Spence, R., 1992, Earthquake Protection; John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, 355 p.Google Scholar
- EERI (1999), The Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999, EERI Special Earthquake Report-Learning From Earthquakes-October 1999, Also available online: www.eeri.org/Reconn/Turkey0899/Turkey0899.htmlGoogle Scholar
- EMS-98 (1998), European Macroseismic Scale 1998, G. Grünthal Editor, European Seismological Commission, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- Erdik, M. and E.Durukal (2002), Earthquake Damage and Vulnerabılıty of Industry in The 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake, The World Bank Group Disaster Management Facility, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Erdik. M. (2000), Report on 1999 Kocaeli and Duzce (Turkey) Earthquakes, Proc. Of the 3rd Intl. Workshop on Structural Control, Paris – France, 6-8 July 2000, p, 149-186.Google Scholar
- Erdik. M. and N. Aydinoglu (2002), Earthquake Performance and Vulnerability of Buildings in Turkey, Report Prepared for ProVention Consortium – World Bank, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
- FEMA-450 (2003) NEHRP Recommendations for New Buildings and Other Structures.Google Scholar
- Gates, W.E. and McGavin, G. 1998, ″Lessons Learned from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake on the Vulnerability of Nonstructural Systems,″ Proceedings of the Seminar on Seismic Design, Retrofit, and Performance of Nonstructural Components, ATC 29-1, San Francisco, CA, 93-106.Google Scholar
- HAZUS 2012, Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, FEMA, USAGoogle Scholar
- Jaiswala O.R., Durgesh C. R. and Sudhir K. J., Review of Seismic Codes on Liquid-Containing Tanks Earthquake Spectra, Volume 23, No. 1, pages 239–260, February 2007.Google Scholar
- MCEER (2000), The Marmara, Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999: Reconnaissance Report, Ed by C. Scawthorn, The Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Universty of Buffalo, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Uckan, E. “Lifeline Damage Caused In the 23 October (Mw=7.2) 2011 and 9 November (M=5.6) 2011, Van Earthquakes in Eastern Turkey” Sixth China Japan US trilateral Symposium on Lifeline Engineering,May 28th-June 13th, 2013, Chengdu Sichuan,China.Google Scholar
- Uckan,E., Durukal, E., Demircioğlu, M., Siyahi B., and Erdik, M. “Observed damage at buried pipelines during the 1999 Kocaeli (Izmit) –Turkey, Earthquake” Proc. European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly, EGU 05-A-10583,Vienna, April 2005.Google Scholar
- Krausmann, E., A.M.Cruzand B.Affeltranger (2010), The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010).Google Scholar