Development of recommendations for the implementation of seismic risk mitigation policy in the Russian Federation based on world experience

DOI: 10.37153/2618-9283-2023-3-48-72

Authors:  
Rubric:     Theoretical and experimental studies   
Key words: seismic risk, seismic retrofit policy, earthquake resilience, building safety, risk mitigation
Annotation:

The current state of practice of seismic risk mitigation policy in the following countries is analyzed: Japan, USA, China, Italy and the Russian Federation. In particular, the paper compares seismic retrofit policies for existing buildings and financing mechanisms for comprehensive seismic risk mitigation in the context of each country's regulatory framework. The analysis of the current seismic risk mitigation policy in the Russian Federation leads to the conclusion that it needs serious modernization and reorganization, including: 1) development of a new generation of standards specifying nonlinear analysis methods and 2) development of effective financing mechanisms for the seismic evaluation and seismic modernization of the existing building stock.

            The aim of this paper is to identify best practices in seismic retrofitting policy that may be useful for the implementation and adjustment of seismic risk mitigation policies in the Russian Federation at the federal and regional levels.

            The result of the paper is a set of recommendations based on the most effective seismic risk mitigation policy instruments, grouped according to the key stages of the seismic amplification process:

–   risk assessment of existing buildings;

–   knowledge transfer;

–   setting targets for the seismic modernization;

–   implementation of the seismic strengthening policy;

–   policy implementation monitoring.

Used Books:

1.     Egbelakin T., Wilkinson S., Ingham J. Economic impediments to successful seismic retrofitting decisions. Structural Survey. 2014, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 449–466.

2.     Coburn A.W., Spence R.J.S., Pomonis A. Factors determining human casualty levels in earthquakes: Mortality prediction in building collapse. Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference. 1992.

3.     Kenny C. Why do people die in earthquakes? The Costs, Benefits And Institutions Of Disaster Risk Reduction In Developing Countries. 2009. 114 p. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-4823.

4.     Holmes W.T. et al. Seismic Performance Objectives for Tall Buildings. 2008. 114 p.

5.     Jaiswal K.S. et al. Estimating annualized earthquake losses for the conterminous United States. Earthquake Spectra. 2015, vol. 31, pp. 221–243. doi: 10.1193/010915EQS005M.

6.     Georgescu E. S. et al. Seismic and energy renovation: A review of the code requirements and solutions in Italy and Romania. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2018, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1561–1597. doi: 10.3390/su10051561.

7.     Filippova O., Noy I. Earthquake-strengthening policy for commercial buildings in small-town New Zealand. Disasters. 2020, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 179–204. doi: 10.1111/disa.12360.

8.     Markhvida M., Baker J.W. Unification of seismic performance estimation and real estate investment analysis to model post-earthquake building repair decisions. Earthquake Spectra. 2018, vol. 34, no 4, pp. 1547–1555. doi: 10.1193/030118EQS048M.

9.     Tomohiro H. The building center of Japan. Japan. 2013. 237 p.

10. World Bank. Converting disaster experience into a safer built environment: The case of Japan. 2018.

11. Ando S. Evaluation of the Policies for Seismic Retrofit of Buildings. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture. 2012, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 391–402. doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2012.04.001.

12. Jaiswal K., Wald D.J. Creating a global building inventory for earthquake loss assessment and risk management. US Geological Survey open-file report-1160. 2008. 110 p.

13. Lee Preston B. et al. Updating the Costs of Compliance for California’s Hospital Seismic Safety Standards. 2019. 125 p.

14. Jacques C.C. et al. Resilience of the canterbury hospital system to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthquake Spectra. 2014, vol. 30, no 1, pp. 533–554. doi: 10.1193/032013EQS074M.

15. Hui T. The cost of compliance. San Francisco Apartment Association. 2017.

16. Pan P., Shan M. Seismic reinforcement policies for urban communities. City and Disaster Reduction. 2019, vol. 5, pp. 71–76.

17. Fiorentino G. et al. Damage patterns in the town of Amatrice after August 24th 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2018, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1399–1423. doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-0254-z.

18. Basaglia A. et al. Assessing community resilience, housing recovery and impact of mitigation strategies at the urban scale: a case study after the 2012 Northern Italy Earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2020, vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 6039–6074. doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-00919-8.

19. Pinto P. E., Franchin P. Eurocode 8: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. 2011.

20. Dolce M. The Italian national seismic prevention program. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal. 2012. 24 p.

21. Cosenza E. et al. The Italian guidelines for seismic risk classification of constructions: technical principles and validation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2018, vol. 16, no. 12,   pp. 5905–5935. doi: 10.1007/s10518-018-0431-8.

22. Caterino N., Cosenza E. A multi-criteria approach for selecting the seismic retrofit intervention for an existing structure accounting for expected losses and tax incentives in Italy. Eng Struct. 2018, vol. 174, pp. 1085–1100. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.090.

23. Formisano A., Vaiano G., Fabbrocino F. A seismic-energetic-economic combined procedure for retrofitting residential buildings: A case study in the Province of Avellino (Italy). AIP Conference Proceedings. 2019. doi: 10.1063/1.5114435.

24. Kantorovich L.V., Keylis-Borok V.I., Molchan G.I. Seismic risk and seismic zoning principles.

Vychislitelnaya Seysmologiya. 1974, no. 6, pp. 3–20. (In Russian)

25. Abaev Z., Schildkamp M., Valiev A. Base shear seismic demand comparison for buildings with natural stone walls in Nepal, Russia and Tajikistan. Earthquake engineering. Constructions safety. 2022, no. 6, pp. 18–45. doi: 10.37153/2618-9283-2022-6-18-45 (In Russian)

26.    The government of Moscow. Government Ordinance on the draft law of the city of Moscow “On monitoring the technical condition of residential buildings in the city of Moscow”: 619. 2021 (In Russian)

27. Charles A. Kircher. Near-Real-Time Loss Estimation Using Hazus and Shakemap Data. SMIP03 Seminar Proceedings. 2003.

28. FEMA. Hazus [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/hazus (дата обращения: 14.05.2023).

29. Zhang Y. et al. Review of Seismic Risk Mitigation Policies in Earthquake-Prone Countries: Lessons for Earthquake Resilience in the United States. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2022, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 6208–6235. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2021.1911889.

30. Gunes O. Turkey’s grand challenge: Disaster-proof building inventory within 20 years. Case Studies in Construction Materials. 2015, vol. 2, pp. 18–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2014.12.003.

31. Ghafory-Ashtiany M., Jafari M. H., Tehranizadeh M. Earthquake hazard mitigation achievement in Iran. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland, New Zealand. 2000.

32. Protezione Civile (Dipartimento della Protezione Civile P. del C. dei M). Seismic risk [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://rischi.protezionecivile.gov.it/en/seismic-0/ (дата обращения: 14.05.2023).

33. Vacareanu R. et al. Seismic Vulnerability of RC Buildings in Bucharest, Romania. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2004.

34. Turner F. Revisiting earthquake lessons - Unreinforced masonry buildings [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.seaoc.org/news/486967/Revisiting-Earthquake-Lessons%2014Unreinforced-Masonry-Buildings.h... (дата обращения: 14.05.2023).

35. John R. Hayes J., Steven L. McCabe, Michael Mahoney. Implementation Guidelines for Executive Order 13717: Establishing a Federal Earthquake Risk Management Standard. USA. 2017. 57 p.

36. Searer G.R., Rosenboom O. Seismic Repercussions-IEBC Code Requirements Regarding Additions and Alterations. 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (10NCEE). Anchorage, Alaska. 2014.

37. McKernon W. From solar to seismic: The rise of C-PACE [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://cleanfund.com/ (дата обращения: 01.05.2023).

38. Kenneth W. Hudnut et al. The HayWired earthquake scenario – We can outsmart disaster. 2018. doi.org/10.3133/fs20183016.