DISASTER

MANAGEMENT
Assignment-3
Role of architect and planners in disaster management
A building is a combination of art and science, which are put
together to function as a living structure. The increasing
complexity of integrity ensures simpler functioning of the
building. Therefore, building science is an unending process,
which achieves its perfection at infinity. There is no end to
the possibilities for improvement.
Building construction is a complex phenomenon involving
many parameters and factors, such as planning, designing,
construction, management, logistics and budgeting.
Therefore, it clearly requires expertise from various fields
and brainstorming by many specialists, professionals and
technicians, including architects, civil engineers, project
managers, contractors and various other authorities who
contribute in sequential or parallel processes involved in
construction. They work together to produce a design, which
is simple, sustainable in functioning, aesthetically pleasing
and structurally strong. Therefore, the three most important
aspects of building design are:
(i) Function
(ii) Form
(iii) Strength.
The practicality of a structure is more important than the
aesthetics. This could not be more significant in today’s
world where the natural and anthropogenic catastrophes
have hit the world in the form of deadly disasters. These
disasters, such as earthquakes that severely damage
buildings, prove fatal to life. However, the truth remains that
it is not the disasters that are responsible for the loss of lives,
but the buildings that are incapable of withstanding these
disasters. Loss life can be drastically reduced by ensuring that
the structures of buildings are strong enough to bear the
impact of earthquakes.
Ideally, buildings should be designed to serve different
purposes. They should be:
• Structurally strong
• Practical
• Suitable for use
• Aesthetically pleasing
It is up to the architect to take up the challenge of designing
a building, which will not only serve all these purposes but
also conform to building regulations, codes and budgets. The
architect is solely responsible if the building is not fit for the
functional usage. In India, earthquakes are still viewed
as rare events that occur once in a 100 years. In the face of
such a conception, the client is unwilling to allocate a
significant part of the budget on seismic strength, preferring
to spend instead on architectural form, which costs less and
gives more habitable space. As a result, more habitable
space in lesser area and superficial beautification becomes
the focus of building design. The common configuration
problems, mostly seen in the conventional construction
system in India are as follows:
1. Soft Storey and Weak Storey
The ‘soft storey’ problem is the existence of a building floor
that possesses 70% lesser lateral stiffness than the
immediate superior floor or 80% lesser average stiffness of
the three floors Above.The ‘weak storey’ problem is the
existence of a building floor that possesses 80% lesser lateral
strength than the immediate superior floor. These
deformities are found in places, where more space with large
span (without structural obstruction), is required, for
example, parking lots, large assemble areas, shopping
complexes and display areas with large openings. These
result from little consideration given to the strength of
building with an intention of having maximum area to be
occupied for use.
2. Variation in Perimeter Strength and Stiffness
The issue of seismic strength arises when there is wide
variation in strength and stiffness of the building perimeter.
The building may appear to be geometrically regular, but the
design and planning of building elements like elevators and
staircases along one side of the perimeter makes it
seismically irregular. The center of mass shifts due to the
extra elements and makes the structure vulnerable to
damage (Figure 6).

Designing the ‘problem causing building elements’ at the

center or near the center of mass, without lining with the
perimeter or providing uniform strength and stiffness to the
perimeter, can be an easy solution. There can be many other
solutions possible, which may remove or at least decrease
the problem to a manageable extent in the early stages of
design.
3. Re-entrant Corners
The buildings with shapes like L, T and H or a combination of
these tend to produce differential motions be- tween
different wings of the building, for the same earthquake
force. This results in differential concentration of stress and
torsion in different wings, making them vulnerable to
breakage (Refer figures 7 and 8). Of course, this effect may
depend on a number of factors like:
• Characteristics of ground motion
• Mass of building
• Type of structural system
• Length of the wing and
aspect ratio
• Height of wing and height/
depth ratio
4. Captive Column and Short column
This is the case when a structural column is lined by a
structural or non-structural member, only up to a
specific height. This makes the single structural member
(column) behave as two distinct members and alter its
envisioned performance. The column is weaker at the open
junction and tends to deform easily under earthquake loads.
There can be various reasons for this configuration problem
(Refer figures 9 and 10), such as provision of ventilation in
basements, open corridors in building complexes, and
building on slopes are a few of them. Location of other
building elements, such as a staircase, beam, slab or girder
framed at different heights of columns by splitting them, can
also be possible reasons for the same.
Consideration of this issue during designing of the building
plan can help eliminate the problem. For the location of
building elements placed at different heights of the columns,
a new structural member or a wall can be erected in order to
take the load of those elements. This would help in
delimiting the issue of short column or captive column in the
structure.
The methodological proposal requires to elucidate:
• The referential variables of seismoresistant seismology and
engineering which should necessarily be analyzed during
SRA’s development, study and research, such as:
a) The dynamic nature of seismic activity.
b)Seismic intensity.
c) Epicentral distance ( near and far epicenter).
d) Three-dimensional resistant systems (spatial behaviour)
e) Short columns.
f) Flexible floors.
g) Seismic torsion.
h) Ductility.
Structural Design Requirements
a)To avoid short columns. b)To exclude any unnecessary
weight, and to use lightweight materials. c) To use rigidly
framed structures of high hyperstaticity in order to attain
ductility. d) To prevent seismic torsion. e) To promote
symmetric plans. f) To prevent building collision. g) To avoid
flexible floors. h) To avoid liquefiable soils. i) To consider
epicentral distance. j) To design either flexible or stiff
buildings according to the predominant period of the
foundation soil. k) To prevent pseudo-resonance
STANDARDS OF COMPATIBILIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL
AND STRUCTURAL DESIGNS
• Flexible Floors
This situation arises when, at a certain floor, the stiffness of a
tall building is considerably reduced in relation to the
contiguous floors. This situation causes a strong
concentration of seismic forces on the site, giving rise to a
dangerous stepping mechanism of the building resistance.
The morphological answer is to avoid this feature in the
architectural design. Whenever a floor with large separations
between columns is required, it should be the last one or it
should be placed outside the tower site, preferably designed
as a single level.
• Building Collision
This phenomenon takes place when there are no joints
between contiguous buildings and the collision is produced
when the oscillations are not synchronized. This is a
completely abnormal situation which must be definitively
avoided. The morphological answer is building separation, as
current rules specify. It is recommended to take into
consideration into the design the various functions of the
completely separated bodies for the case of the same
building, in order to prevent building collision, to provide a
uniform structure and also to avoid sudden stiffness changes
in plan and elevation.
• Seismic Torsion
This effect is produced whenever the Stiffness Center (SC)
and the Torsion Center (TC) do not coincide, thus causing
additional constraints especially in those elements which are
far removed from the SC, which might lead to the stepping of
the seismoresistant capacity of the building.
Although this problem is considered in the structural
analysis, it is completely undesirable since it generates large
additional and disbalanced seismic forces in the set of
columns, giving rise to the stepping of the seismoresistant
capacity of the building. The morphological solution is met
by designing buildings with a symmetrical plan and elevation.
In addition, the structural and non-structural interacting
elements symmetry is required, as well as the functional
symmetry of the architectural site.
• Pseudo-Resonance
This phenomenon arises whenever the period of the building
matches the predominant period of the foundation soil. This
condition remarkably increases the seismic effects. On the
other hand, if the fundamental vibration period of the
building depends on its dimensions and structure stiffness,
then, the morphological solution is to manipulate these
parameters.
CASE STUDY OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN ON
THE DISASTER LIFE CYCLE IN JAPAN
Japan as a disaster-prone country
Japan is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the
world. Its location, on the boundaries of four tectonic plates
(Philippine Sea Plate, Pacific Plate, Eurasian Plate, and North
American Plate), mean that it is highly susceptible to major
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the nation's history
records several devastating fires that have destroyed huge
swaths of densely populated urban areas that were packed
with wooden houses. Furthermore, the nation's steep
mountainous landscape and rapid river currents often
combine to subject urban areas to intense flooding. As a
result of these adverse environmental factors, the Japanese
nation as a whole has evolved what can be termed a
"disaster-resistant culture" and have worked diligently to
develop and incorporate disaster-resistant urban designs and
architectural forms. For example, the relative frequency of
earthquakes has motivated engineers to design improved
earthquake-resistant reinforcements for existing structure
while designing regulations that will ensure the safety of new
buildings. Furthermore, the extreme damage suffered by
seacoast villages due to tsunami has resulted in the
development of tsunami evacuation buildings. It is of worth
to consider architectural vocabulary related to disaster in
Japan such as the before-mentioned examples, in order to
appropriately prepare physical environment for future
disasters.
Methodology
First, earthquake-resistant buildings, fire-resistant houses
and towns, urban parks designed as evacuation places,
vernacular villages, urban development, and architectural
vocabulary will be introduced with those backgrounds and
meanings. Second, examples based on the Disaster Life Cycle
theory of disaster management will be presented to show
how activities can be classified into the four categories of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Then, in
the final section, systematic scheme aimed at helping explain
the somewhat indistinct relationship between spatial design
and disaster management.
Diverse architectural designs relevant to disaster planning
are readily apparent in Japan. In this section, six examples
are introduced: some were to designed to prevent damage
from future disasters such as strong wind, fire, volcanic
eruptions, and earthquakes. Others are the results of
disasters themselves.
Stone walls in response to Typhoon in Ehime
Historically, a region's disasters are closely connected to its
climate and geography, and these environments had
developed some regional characteristic vernacular designs.
Rudofsky (1965) called architecture of vernacular,
anonymous, spontaneous, indigenous, and rural in the
world, in Architecture without Architects. However, we will
now observe such vernacular villages from the viewpoint of
disaster management. Photograph 1 shows stone walls of
Sotodomari, a mountainous village in Ehime Prefecture. The
stone walls were constructed in the 19th century to prevent
damage from both salt corrosion and strong typhoon winds
Pinewoods to respond to Tsunami in Akita
A coastal area in Noshiro City, Akita Prefecture, is surrounded
by pine trees as shown in Photograph 2. Although the trees
were originally planted to serve as a windbreak and to
prevent sand mitigation from coastal areas, they also
contributed to reducing the damage caused by the tsunami
that followed the 1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earthquake. This
green belt demonstrates both efficiency and the possibility
of landscape designs in the disaster prevention and
mitigation in coastal area. This form of coastal greenery also
proved to be effective against tsunami in several other
countries when the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami occurred.
Stand-up Dam in response to Volcanic Eruption in Nagasaki
When Mount Unzen, which is located in Nagasaki Prefecture,
erupted in 1990 after being dormant for about 200 years, it
caused serious damage to a number of local communities.
The most severe damage occurred when the largest
pyroclastic flow of the volcano struck Shimabara city in June
1991, killing 43 people. After the volcanic activity abated, the
government constructed a sand-trap dam (Photograph 3) in
an effort to prevent future pyroclastic flows from destroying
other villages. This mountain scenery has been said to leave
an unforgettable impression on most visitors.

Architecture and urban design after the catastrophic

disasters
As can be seen many of the most recent disasters such as the
Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008, Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
and the Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004, natural disaster can
sometimes damage a city catastrophically. In the recovery
phase following most disasters, both short- and long-term,
design elements are typically discussed, including recovery
policies and the implementation of plans for affected
members of the public. Photograph 4 shows temporary
housing constructed after the Miyagiken Hokubu Earthquake
in 2003.
Temporary housings in Japan are systematically constructed
based on Disaster Relief Act, and standardized to
immediately respond after the event. It can be more
architecturally considered to improve living environment for
victims, readiness for quick response to disasters, and
architectural life cycle considering disposal after the
resettlements. Various forms of temporary housing exist
around the world. For example, the Saou Tribe living in the
mountainous area of central Taiwan built traditional shelters
from bamboo after the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake; and victims
living in northeast Sri Lanka produced thatched rooms to
cover the temporary shelters provided by NGOs after the
2004 Sumatra Tsunami.
Serious disaster damage to a city can sometimes result in
dramatic changes to the physical environment of the
affected area and it is often possible to identify cities that
were tremendously influenced by catastrophic events.
Examples include Chicago after the Great Fire in 1971,
London after the Great Fire in 1666, and Tokyo which was
seriously damaged twice; once by the Great Kanto
Earthquake in 1923 and by aerial bombardment in 1945.
After the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake, the most affected
region of Kobe City developed into HAT Kobe (Photograph 5)
which is a new urban complex area including resettlement
residential sites for victims as well as business/cultural
districts. In order to make urban recovery plans after an
event occurs, it is necessary to have a future vision as well as
a sufficient amount of expertise. In the most cases, architects
joined with (local) governments during efforts to make urban
recovery plans.
Earthquake-resistant reinforcement work
Most of the deaths, approximately 90%, that occurred in
1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake were caused by collapsing
houses and buildings. Thus, strengthening buildings is one of
the most significant measures that can be taken in
preparation for future earthquakes. However some districts
in Tokyo remain densely packed with small wooden houses
as shown in Photograph 6. These congested districts pose
serious problems, not only in Tokyo, but in other cities of
Japan, because such old-style wooden houses are extremely
vulnerable to earthquakes, and should one occur, the debris
resulting from house collapses are almost certain to spread
fire. Educated by the experiences of the 1995 Earthquake,
the Japanese Government began serious work on
earthquake-resistant reinforcement plans. Because public
facilities are considered to be a critical part of the response
to various disasters, the work on school buildings are being
conducted as a top priority. Because of this, the façades of
reinforced buildings are sometimes changed, as can be seen
in Photograph 7. This indicates that the methods used to
reinforce buildings will be important factor for ex-post
architectural design.
Shirahige Higashi Disaster Prevention Base in Tokyo
More than 100 thousand peopled died in the 1923 Great
Kanto Earthquake, hundreds of thousands of buildings were
damaged or destroyed and a major part of the city burnt to
the ground. Although those burnt areas were redeveloped,
many of the unburned areas in the eastern part of Tokyo
remain as vulnerable as before. In the 1960s, in order to
reduce the potential damage of future earthquakes or great
fire in the area, the government in began consideration of
disaster prevention plan which would include a complex set
of open evacuation spaces, urban disaster facilities, and a
series of high rise apartments building that would serve as a
1.2 km long firewall aimed at preventing the spread fires
from the congested part of the city to another. The plan,
which is now known as the Shirahige Higashi Disaster
Prevention Base, was realized in 1986, as shown in
Photograph 8. The disaster prevention base contains various
facilities including firewalls, a school, a kindergartens, a
hospital, evacuation areas, ground, storage areas, shutter,
drencher, water tanks, and other assets. While very rare, this
project offers an example of how a gigantic urban area can
be redesigned to incorporate urban safety plans
REFRENCES:
• www.iitk.ac.in
• archnet.org
• www.slideshare.net
• www.researchgate.net