Advertisement

Resilience-Based Design for Blast Risk Mitigation: Learning from Natural Disasters

Chapter

Abstract

Recent anthropogenic hazards to structures and infrastructure alike defy classical risk assessment schemes, in that the broader consequences of a catastrophic event such as the bombing of a building of strategic or symbolic importance can hardly be estimated by actuary science. The level of uncertainty associated with the aftermath of a terrorist attack can only be dealt with, in a robust fashion, by adopting resilience–based strategies. In the specific case of a sensitive building under the risk of blast hazard, the framework presented herein suggests the adoption of two primary metrics for developing best design and assessment practices, namely, functionality loss and downtime. The included example, inspired by the Oklahoma City bombing, demonstrates the step–by–step process that leads to a rational estimate of the resilience of an office building threatened by an external explosion. The resilience indices introduced by this framework provide the designer with simple and expedient tools to guide the best allocation of resources for the purpose of risk mitigation, wherein an optimal balance need be found between perimeter protection and structural strengthening.

References

  1. Almufti, I., & Willford, M. (2013). REDiTM rating system: Resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildings. Arup Co.Google Scholar
  2. ASCE. (2011). Blast protection of buildings. ASCE 59–11, (American Society of Civil Engineers, ed.), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, VA.Google Scholar
  3. Attoh-Okine, N. O., Cooper, A. T., & Mensah, S. A. (2009). Formulation of resilience index of urban infrastructure using belief functions. IEEE Systems Journal, 3(2), 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayyub, B. M. (2015). Practical resilience metrics for planning, design, and decision making. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Bier, V. M., Nagaraj, A., & Abhichandani, V. (2005). Protection of simple series and parallel systems with components of different values. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 87(3), 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., et al. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burby, R. J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corley, W. G., Sozen, M. A., Thornton, C. H., & Mlakar, P. F. (1996). The Oklahoma City bombing: Improving building performance through multi-hazard mitigation.Google Scholar
  9. CSA. (2012). CSA S850-12 Design and assessment of buildings subjected to blast loads. Mississauga, ON, Canada: Canadian Standards Association.Google Scholar
  10. Dell EMC. (2017). Smart cities and communities—GDT Smart City Solutions on Intel®-based Dell EMC infrastructure. Hopkinton, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  11. FEMA-426. (2011). BIPS 06/FEMA 426: Reference manual to mitigate potential terrorist attacks against buildings. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Google Scholar
  12. FEMA. (2012a). Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Volume 3—Performance assessment calculation tool (PACT) version. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  13. FEMA. (2012b). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Volume 2—Implementation Guide. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  14. FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team. (2006). Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast building performance observations, recommendations, and technical guidance. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Google Scholar
  15. Fitzpatrick, J. H. (2005). The Impact of a new large-scale terrorism attack on insurance, reinsurance and the economy. Workshop Session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, 2001–2003.Google Scholar
  16. Ghosn, M., & Moses, F. (1998). Redundancy in highway bridge superstructures.Google Scholar
  17. Grant, M., & Stewart, M. G. (2012). A systems model for probabilistic risk assessment of improvised explosive device attacks. International Journal of Intelligent Defence Support Systems, 5(1), 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant, M., & Stewart, M. G. (2015). Probabilistic risk assessment for improvised explosive device attacks that cause significant building damage. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 29(5), B4014009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helbing, D. (2013). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497(7447), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marjanishvili, S. (2017). Resilient bridge design to extreme events. In Y. Bazilevs & J. S. Chen (Eds.), Engineering Mechanics Institute Conference. San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Morrill, K. B., Malvar, L. J., Crawford, J. E., & Ferritto, J. M. (2004). Blast resistant design and retrofit of reinforced concrete columns and walls. Structures 2004 (pp. 1–8). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  22. NIAC (National Infrastructure Advisory Council). (2010). A framework for establishing critical infrastructure resilience goals. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  23. Quiel, S. E., Marjanishvili, S. M., & Katz, B. P. (2016). Performance-based framework for quantifying structural resilience to blast-induced damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8), C4015004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rinaldi, S., Peerenboom, J., & Kelly, T. (2001). Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. Control Systems, IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. Salem, S., Campidelli, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., & Tait, M. (2017). Blast resilient design of infrastructure subjected to ground threats. Volume 4: Fluid-Structure Interaction, ASME, Hawaii, USA, V004T04A018.Google Scholar
  26. Salem, S., Campidelli, M., El-Dakhakhni, W. W., & Tait, M. J. (2018). Resilience-based design of urban centres: Application to blast risk assessment. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 3(2), 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sozen, M. A., Thornton, C. H., Corley, W. G., & Sr., P. F. M. (1998). The Oklahoma city bombing: Structure and Mechanisms of the Murrah building. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 12(3), 120–136.Google Scholar
  28. Strong, E. E. (2000). Repetition: A study of the structural bay. The proposal of a concert hall for the Virginia Symphony on Belle Isle, Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
  29. Swiss Re Ltd. (2016). Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2015: Asia suffers substantial losses. Zurich, Switzerland: Swiss Re Ltd.Google Scholar
  30. UN (United Nations). (2004). World Population to 2300. (U. Nations, ed.), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  31. USACE, U. A. C. of E. (2005). Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. USACE, U. A. C. of E. (2008). User’s guide for the single-degree-of-freedom blast effects design spreadsheets (SBEDS). ACE Protective Design Centre, USA, PDC TR-06-01 Rev 1, Omaha, NE.Google Scholar
  33. Van Riper, P. (1997). A concept for future military operations on urbanized terrain. Quantico, VA: Gazette.Google Scholar
  34. WEF (World Economic Forum). (2018). The global risks report 2018 (13th Ed.). World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentThe British University in EgyptEl-Sherouk City, CairoEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Institute for Multi-Hazard Systemic Risk Studies—Interface, Department of Civil EngineeringMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations