2013 EERI Annual Meeting Session: Tsunami Design

1. EERI 2013 Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA
“Building Resilient Communities through Policy and
Mitigation”
Project Safe Haven: Planning for Multi-Functional Tsunami
Vertical Evacuation Structures
Omar El-Anwar, PhD
Assistant Professor
Construction Management Dept.
University of Washington
Monday, March 04, 2013
www.washington.edu

2. Outline
 Introduction
 Project Safe Haven
 Shelter Types
 Methodology
 Findings & Conclusions
2

3. Introduction
Potential Hazard:
M 9.1 local Cascadia subduction zone earthquake
300-500 years of average interval (last in Jan, 1700)
80 miles off of coast
6 feet subsidence
5-6 minutes
30 feet tsunami waves
40 minutes away
(CREW, 2005 and 2011)
Hazard Profile 3

4. Introduction
WA Coastal Communities:
Low-lying, mostly flat land
Lacking natural high ground
Aging permanent population
General awareness of tsunami risk
Low density
Seasonal tourism
Communities Profile 4

5. Introduction
WA Coastal Communities:
Low-lying, mostly flat land
Lacking natural high ground
Aging permanent population
General awareness of tsunami risk
Low density
Seasonal tourism
Communities Profile 5

6. Introduction
Ground shaking, Tsunami waves, Subsidence, and Liquefaction:
Destruction of buildings and infrastructure
Isolated populations from high ground
Communities permanently immersed
Breaking into disconnected islands and wetlands
What if? 6

7. Project Safe Haven
Tsunami vertical evacuation project concept for WA coast:
• Community-driven planning and design process to identify potential locations for
integrating tsunami vertical evacuation structures within natural and built environment
• First results on attempted implementation of FEMA P646
• Conceived by Washington Emergency Management
• Funded by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program
Brief Introduction 7

8. Project Safe Haven
Objective: Develop a strategy for tsunami-related community resiliency by
addressing alternative life safety and post-event recovery
Scope: Pacific, Grays Harbor and Clallam Counties
Shoalwater, Quinault, Quileute, and Makah tribal communities
Clallam
Grays Harbor
Pacific
Objective and Scope 8

9. Project Safe Haven
Participants:
University of Washington
County emergency management agencies
Washington State Emergency Management
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Tribal officials
Other stakeholder groups
Participants 9

10. Vertical Evacuation
Shelters design criteria:
(1) Provide immediate life safety shelter
(2) Meet non-emergency community needs (economic feasibility)
Design Objectives: Project Safe Haven 10

11. Vertical Evacuation
Engineered Berms
Towers
Buildings
Building Components
Hybrid
Types 11

12. Vertical Evacuation
Engineered Berms
Towers
Buildings
Building Components
Hybrid
Types 12

13. Vertical Evacuation
Engineered Berms
Towers
Buildings
Building Components
Hybrid
Types 13

14. Vertical Evacuation
Engineered Berms
Towers
Buildings
Building Components
Hybrid
Types 14

15. Research Methodology
Non-Engaging Community Engaging
Research Products
Community Tasks Tasks
1. Establish steering
committee / prepare scope Inundation maps
of work / Literature review
2. Visit sites by team Design assumptions
3. Identify vertical Candidate configurations for
evacuation alternatives vertical evacuation alternatives
Potential locations and types of
4. Develop vertical design
vertical evacuation structures
Strategies (World Café)
listed
5. Identify preferred vertical
Selected locations and types of
evacuation strategies (SWOT
vertical evacuation structures
analysis)
6. Community reflection and Community engagement via
assumptions verifications social media (Facebook page)
7. Conduct of on-site design Multi function designs for
Charrette vertical evacuation structures
Conceptual cost estimates for
8. Prepare cost estimates
structures
9. Present final plans / determine Final Vertical Evacuation Plans
priorities / evaluate process and Final report
15

16. Research Methodology
1. Establish Steering Committee for Each Locality:
Coordinate study with community
Guide research process
Provide oversight for planning and design
Range from local officials to emergency managers and scientists
E.g. City of Long Beach:
Washington State Emergency Management
Washington Department of Natural Resources
US Geological Survey
NOAA
FEMA Region X
Pacific County Emergency Management Agency
16

17. Research Methodology
2. Conduct Site Visits:
Collect preliminary geographical, demographic, and physical characteristics
Identify opportunities for and barriers against vertical evacuation structures
17

18. Research Methodology
3. Identify preliminary vertical evacuation alternatives:
Experts present an overview of the hazard
Outline vertical evacuation strategies from FEMA P646
Ocean Shores
First community wide meeting 18

19. Research Methodology
3. Identify vertical evacuation alternatives:
Solicit ideas using a World Café methodology:
(a) Participants sit in stations for each shelter type
Ocean Shores South Beach
First community wide meeting 19

20. Research Methodology
3. Identify vertical evacuation alternatives:
Solicit ideas using a World Café methodology
(b) Use hazard maps, walking circles, and buildings models
Grayland/Westport
First community wide meeting 20

21. Research Methodology
3. Identify vertical evacuation alternatives:
Solicit ideas using a World Café methodology
(c) Rotate at stations
North Beach Ocean Shores
First community wide meeting 21

22. Research Methodology
3. Identify vertical evacuation alternatives:
Solicit ideas using a World Café methodology
(d) Report group recommendations
North Beach Ocean Shores
First community wide meeting 22

23. Research Methodology
4. Develop candidate vertical evacuation strategies:
Assess the location and type of each proposed structure
Develop a number of candidate strategies (configurations of structures)
cover life safety gaps
minimize coverage
overlaps
23

24. Research Methodology
5. Identify preferred strategy (SWOT Analysis):
Present candidate vertical evacuation strategies to community
North Beach
Second community wide meeting 24

25. Research Methodology
5. Identify preferred strategy (SWOT Analysis):
Analysis SWOT of each strategy
Second community wide meeting 25

26. Research Methodology
5. Identify preferred strategy (SWOT Analysis):
Identify preferred strategy
Second community wide meeting 26

27. Research Methodology
6. Community reflection and assumptions verification
Mulling: provide opportunities for formal and informal discussions
Verify proposed sites investigations
Verify assumptions on walking distances and speeds
27

28. Research Methodology
6. Community reflection and assumptions verification
28

29. Research Methodology
7. Conduct Charrette designs:
Introduce multi-functionality into the proposed structures
Incorporate community input on the physical context of structures
1. Refine site selection
2. Refine structure type
3. Determine multi-function uses
4. Design structure’s form: physical context, local culture, history
5. Explore structure access
6. Identify associated amenities and facilities
Third community wide meetings: 3-day Charrettes 29

30. Research Methodology
Long Beach Peninsula Tokeland
Third community wide meetings: 3-day Charrettes 30

31. Research Methodology
Third community wide meetings: 3-day Charrettes 31

32. Research Methodology
8. Perform conceptual cost estimating:
Support studying economic feasibility, benefit/cost analysis
1. Select representative sample structures: typology, location, priority
2. Select structural system
3. Estimate cost
4. Develop cost templates
32

33. Research Methodology
9. Present final plans:
Formally present the final product
Prioritize the development of structures
Long Beach Peninsula
Fourth community wide meeting: Open House 33

34. Findings
1. Strategies differ with community and sense of place
• Non-native residents vs. coastal tribes
2. Importance of Multi-Functional Structures
34

35. Conclusions
Presented a strategy for achieving resiliency for tsunami-prone populations
Discussed Project Safe Haven’s nine-step methodology:
1. Establishing steering committee
2. Conducting site visits
3. Identifying vertical evacuation alternatives
4. Developing vertical evacuation strategies
5. Identifying preferred strategy using SWOT analysis
6. Incorporating community reflections and verifying assumptions
7. Conducting Charrette designs
8. Performing conceptual cost estimating
9. Presenting final plans
35

36. Further Thoughts…
When post-event in-place recovery is not an option,
is achieving resilience for tsunami-prone populations possible?
When residents survive but the community’s built environment lost,
can the community be resilient?
36

37. Thank You