|
Latest News
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environment
|
 |
|
Planning for safer structures |
ARTHQUAKES don't kill, buildings do. This is an adage that has been proved beyond doubt in Gujarat. So what is it that we can do to make our cities, towns and villages safer?
Prof Housner says a great disaster may occur if three conditions are net: (a) an earthquake of sufficiently large magnitude, (b) occurrence of the earthquake does enough to a population center and, (c) the population center having buildings which are not earthquake resistant.
When all these conditions are met catastrophe occurs as in Gujarat. But what can we do to make sure that this is not repeated. Obviously the first condition is not in our control, and when we have chosen to consciously from large habitation is risk zones, neither is the second. The third is the only condition that we can hope to ever influence.
We must first build safer new structures. And since no building can be made safe against all earthquakes, the best bet is to conform to the prevailing structural codes that define the provision required according to the risk zone in which the structure is to be located. Secondly, we must retrofit old structure that do not confirm to the identified risks.
Elaborate codes are available that recommend ways to strengthen existing structures, both engineered and non engineered. In fact Indian codes are fairly elaborate and one exists even for mud structures.
For this one immediate step would be to make people aware about the need to use professional help get the law to clearly define who is competent to design the safe building.
Together with this architects must be trained to develop a conceptual under standing of building safe structures. But considering the availability of the number of professionals competent to do the job, simple guidelines must be made available to users to build smaller safe structures on their own.
It is essential that construction workers be taught the basic of building safe structure this means that where available, the elaborate codes for non-engineered structure must be interpreted, and where non applicable new guidelines must be developed. After all, in a large number of cases it is these masons and workers who are the only technical help available to users.
One another angle that we seem to be missing out is that of coordinated planning in a city. Recent earthquakes, even in developed countries have amply demonstrated that the civic infrastructure is the first casualty.
Planners must take in to consideration that as we come to depend more on large flyovers and bridges in a city, the transport infrastructure can collapse and disrupt relief efforts: We are now laying gas pipelines in cities, a fire has already take place when one government agency, during its digging operation, punctured a gas pipeline. Any damage to these pipelines in case of an earthquake can add another significant dimension to the problem .
Critical lifelines such as power plants, transmission equipment, water treatment plants, the pipelines, the underground metro public structure such as the hospitals, fire station and various control rooms must be planned to withstand risks higher than those application for other structures.
A workable strategy for disaster preparation that relies on the skills and strengths of people themselves, both those technically qualified and otherwise, is essential maybe we can learn lessons from Japan, where being prepared for earthquakes is part of the country's life and culture.
The problem today is not the lack of codes. In fact there are many codes and provisions that are today define in many different documents and subdocuments, which are regularly updated. The problem is that these are difficult to keep track of. What could held considerably in improving their implementation is for them to be brought together in one publication, which is revised as often as necessary.
The Economics Times Ahmedabad
Febuary 12, 2001.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|