06 September 2023

Houses of Straw, Sticks, & Bricks - Increasing Structural Disaster Resiliency to Wildfires, Floods, Earthquakes, Wind Events, & the Big Bad Wolf: Literature Review (2022)

Background Image Purchased from Colourbox (https://www.colourbox.com/vector/house-cross-section-rooms-plan-cartoon-vector-vector-43631087)

To continue with posting past schoolwork, shall we continue with my literature review conducted in 2022 while I was completing my capstone research project at the Justice Institute of British Columbia...


Houses of Straw, Sticks, & Bricks - Increasing Structural Disaster Resiliency to Wildfires, Floods, Earthquakes, Wind Events, & the Big Bad Wolf: Literature Review (2022)
 

V. Andrew McMillan

Justice Institute of British Columbia

ESMS-4900 Capstone

Instructor: Beth Larcombe

Advisor: Bettina Williams

Due Date: 12 June 2022 


Houses of Straw, Sticks, and Bricks – Increasing Structural Disaster Resiliency to Wildfires, Floods, Earthquakes, Wind Events, and the Big Bad Wolf: Literature Review 

The purpose of this research project is to explore the best practices of disaster endurance of the built world as part of a systems approach to improving structural disaster resiliency at the individual, community, business, and governmental level. The research will identify the standards to build right the first time, build back better, as well as address retrofitting current structures to incorporate these best practices for enhanced structural disaster resiliency to wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and wind events (tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones), collectively referred to as the quadruple threats going forward. Finding structural disaster resilient solutions would benefit many citizens in Canada as well as others around the globe (Smith et al., 2016).

This search and review of the literature will establish a baseline of what is currently known and commonly available regarding structural disaster resiliency research. To guide this exploration, the research will seek to answer the following research questions: (a) How to improve structural resiliency to wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and wind events (tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones)? (b) What structural or material characteristics provide greater disaster resilience to the quadruple threat? (c) How does knowing which structural or material characteristics that can provide greater resilience to the quadruple threat, contribute to enhancing resiliency in the community of existing structures requiring retrofits or renovations?

From the answers to those research questions, one expects to find solutions that contribute to hardening the four critical areas of a dwelling: the foundation; the floor, wall, and roof system; the windows and doors; and the exterior cladding/sheathing. 

Search Methodology 

The search of the literature will seek to find peer-reviewed journal articles starting with an online search. This will result in articles that provide solutions, strategies or approaches, and trends in current research. These finds will then be reviewed, digested, analysed, synthesized, and consolidated into the literature review.

The initial search involved using the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC) Library online search engine and Google Scholar. The first round of searching used the following search terms: (a) “Structural Resilience to Wildfires”, (b) “Structural Resilience to Floods”, (c) “Structural Resilience to Earthquakes”, and (d) “Structural Resilience to Wind Events”.

The results of the online search are shown in Figure 1. The additional articles identified as “+1” indicate a snowball sampling find from the original article’s reference list. The primary articles conform to the selection criteria, while the secondary articles provide important supporting data, such as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Map (Petersen et al., 2014), or alternate strategies like preserving coastal mangrove marshes (Sheng et al., 2022), or providing a contrary understanding of flood resilience (Liao, 2012).

The follow up search used replacement terms for wind with “tornado or hurricane or cyclone”; as well as adding a search for “most resilient design” and “built right to begin with”. These searches resulted in six more abstracts to review, however, it only added one article for further review. 


Figure 1  Literature Search Success

Selection Criteria 

There were three influencing categories of information that would determine whether an abstract would be considered for a deeper investigation and potential inclusion in this literature review, namely: (a) Dwelling structures (no more than four-stories tall, concerning “proofing” techniques, strategies, or materials, and/or effective landscaping considerations); (b) Technical aspects of: wildfire/fireproofing, flood/floodproofing, earthquake/quake-proofing, or wind events (tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones)/wind-proofing, and/or systems theory; or (c) Previous literature review. Furthermore, the articles wanted to be recent (2015 or newer) to appraise the current status of research available for review, if available. Articles that considered more than one disaster hazard event were also of interest, as this research will consider four disaster hazards.

From these criteria and the searches of the JIBC Library and Google Scholar a total of 72 abstracts were selected. Of these, 22 articles were read and reviewed for relevance, then 20 articles were selected for further evaluation, consisting of: four articles each for wildfires, floods, and wind events; three articles for earthquakes and five secondary articles. These articles were selected as a representative sample of what researchers would find in the literature when seeking articles on structural resiliency to wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and wind events. The filter on Google Scholar provides a good understanding that the quantity of literature is substantial, although the algorithm does not necessarily extract the literature in the best order to meet the researcher’s needs. The best examples of “proofing” type articles came in the wildfire category (Quarles et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2016; & Syphard et al., 2017) as these provide explicit methods of fireproofing a structure to wildfires. Unfortunately, similar quality articles were not found for the other disaster events, however the other articles do capture components of needed information to create a system that would work to enhance resiliency of the built world against disaster events being explored. Buoyant foundations (English et al., 2021) provide a possible solution to protect buildings in flood zones, while precast concrete structures offer solutions to wildfire, wind events, and possibly to earthquakes and floods (PCI Foundation, 2017). 

Description 

Morrison et al.’s (2018) literature review provides a good starting point. The focus is on flood risk management (FRM) governance and resiliency and does a good job of summarizing the impact floods have on communities in Canada, the UK, and Australia and how important finding solutions would be for increasing flood resiliency socially, economically, and governmentally. With an interest in finding gaps in the scholarship, Morrison et al., provide current research sources, like the International Centre for Water Hazard and Disaster Risk Management (ICHARM) and the European Union STARFlood project (p. 294); which could be worth reviewing. The authors also highlight the concern of research siloing (p. 298), which supports the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) concern that research is not being shared adequately in the emergency management field (FEMA, 2018). Further, the article observes that the public needs to be educated and trained for adapting to the uncertainty created by disasters. This article helps identify what is known in flood resiliency which is a quarter of this research project.

Boughton et al. (2017) present a tool for evaluating building resilience to severe wind events in Australia. This paper focuses on three damage causing mechanisms – wind damage, wind driven rain, and storm surge flooding. The assessment tool uses 95 questions to establish the structural resiliency of the building (p. 1888). The assessment report card helps building owners learn if their building is at risk and what areas of mitigation to focus investments funds to improve resiliency (pp. 1890-1891). Two important factors are illuminated by the authors: (a) Meeting the national building code is only the minimum standard for life safety and does not guarantee structural survival in extreme wind events. Similarly, Stevenson et al.’s (2020) study reviewed extreme wind events in Canada and found the standards in the National Building Code of Canada needs enhancing to survive wind events equivalent to an EF-2 tornado (pp. 5-6). (b) Designers and architects can use the assessment tool during the design phase to enhance building designs resiliency to extreme wind events. Therefore, this research implies the universality of solutions to structural disaster resiliency to wind events would benefit locations around the globe.

With a focus on the importance of building materials to a structure’s survival with wildfire, Syphard et al. (2017) present a convincing argument that structural resiliency requires a system of land use policy, landscaping protocols, and selecting the correct building materials (p. 140). The authors relate this topic from their research based on wildfires in San Diego County and the County’s building code for homes in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Syphard et al. build upon previous research conducted by Quarles et al. (2010) for the University of California, motivated by the 2007 Witch Creek Fire, that destroyed two-thirds of impacted homes (p. 1). Syphard et al. make concrete-solution suggestions that if adopted, would improve structural disaster resiliency to wildfires (pp. 143-146).

Keeping with a wildfire focus, Smith et al. (2016) examine fire-resilient communities using firescapes – a risk-to-resilience framework and the relationship between people and wildfire (p. 131). This research provides case studies from the U.S., U.K., Australia, and Canada which demonstrates universal concern for wildfire resiliency of structures, people, and communities (pp. 132-135). Like, Morrison et al. (2018), Smith et al. share concerns for research being trapped in educational, organizational, and political silos (p. 130). The authors provide concrete examples of adaption, mitigation, and resilience (pp. 141-142); as well as explaining the relationship between the human-wildfire eco-system (pp.136-137). The infographic (p. 143) is valuable to illustrate which components are more or less vulnerable to wildfire ignition.

PCI Foundation (2017) provides industry insights into constructing disaster resiliency using precast/pre-stressed concrete building solutions. This trade publication of professional engineers and architects demonstrates that structures can be built to withstand wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and wind events. PCI’s Executive Editor, Parker, mentions the replacement hospital for Joplin, Missouri, which was destroyed by a 2011 EF-5 tornado, will be a tornado resistant structure (p. 4). This issue also introduces the United States Resiliency Council (p. 6), which warrants further investigation for possible resiliency solutions. Precast concrete structures might offer options for multi-hazard disaster resiliency, if nothing else, it offers a starting point for the discussion on potential solutions.

Lamond and Proverbs (2009) present an encouraging article on urban flood resilience. Beyond observing that flood proofing buildings are less expensive to recover after a flood, they also define flood resistant structures as those that dry proof, while resilient structures use wet proofing (p. 63). Furthermore, the authors recognize that neither flood resistant nor resilient buildings are some magic panacea – one solution solves all flooding problems (p. 63). This almost validates Liao’s (2012) position that flood resistant structures, in fact, reduce community flood resiliency as the population will be less adaptable when the flood structures fail (pp. 53, 55). Lamond and Proverbs identify barriers to implementation, strategies for trumping barriers, and transferring lessons learned. The authors acknowledge that citizens who have experienced flooding events are more likely to be aware of the dangers and less likely to downplay the risks (p. 68). This article assists in understanding why some people would participate in enhancing resiliency of the built world and others would not.

Finally, Alexander (2011) provides practical advice for planners and managers for enhancing earthquake resilience. The author’s list of ten suggestions provides a concise starting point (pp. 112-114). The conclusion that a reduction of casualties and socio-economic impact is achievable even if damage cannot be abated (p. 114) is a good dialogue starting point. However, proximity to the epicentre of an earthquake, duration of the quake, soil type, and construction type will all play into structural survival, it is too soon to concede that all damage cannot be prevented. 

Critical Analysis 

The articles discovered in this search of the literature provide a satisfactory overview of what is known about structural disaster resiliency against the quadruple threats. Despite the quadruple threats being well known, there seems to be inadequate motivation to pursue adopting or implementing hardening techniques (Lamond & Proverbs, 2009, p. 63). Furthermore, research with a focus on multiple disaster threats seems lacking. While English et al. (2017) researched a combination of flooding with wind events, and Boughton et al. (2017) looked at severe wind events and associated challenges of wind driven water inundation; there are few other examples that became known during this search of the literature. This lack of finds could have as much to do with search algorithms and the preferred search criteria, than lack of literature. The most promising solutions originate with precast concrete buildings (PCI Foundation, 2017); however, these solutions need to be verified by an impartial third party.

Many of the articles directly or indirectly implicate the interconnectedness of solutions, which sounds a lot like systems theory; and the need for collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders – governments, researchers, professionals, non-governmental organizations, community groups, and individuals (Bosher et al., 2009; Joyner & Sasani, 2020; Lamond & Proverbs, 2009; Morrison et al., 2018; & Smith et al., 2016). Interestingly, a promising article from Saatcioglu et al. (2009) explores the structural disaster resiliency of reinforced-concrete buildings designed for earthquake resistance to blast events and found favourable results. Which may be an early indicator that designing the built world to thrive against the quadruple threats, may lead to universal characteristics that enhance structural disaster resiliency to more threats. Through this review a dichotomy appears to exist between researchers who see solutions as either resistant or resilient, while others want to use a blended or systems approach.

The research gap is a lack of empirical studies or papers that focus on the quadruple threats which impact structural disaster resiliency. Therefore, pursuing the opportunity to initiate an investigation into this area will advance solutions for the emergency management community. 

Conclusion 

The search and review of the literature was conducted to learn what is the current status regarding research focused on structural disaster resiliency to the quadruple disaster threats. The search isolated 72 abstracts of interest, which was reduced to 20 articles for deeper review. From these, the best examples of articles to meet the selection criteria were from the wildfire category, while the flood category presented a literature review focused on FRM. The flood category offered an innovative solution to retrofit existing structures with buoyant foundations to rise with the flood waters. Many of the reviewed articles confirmed, directly or indirectly, that systems theory and working together was the path to success. The one area of contention was the differing positions on resistant versus resilient solutions, with many authors proposing some sort of hybrid combination of both resistance and resilience forming a best practice solution. Apart from the professional journal from PCI Foundation (2017) and chapter by Boughton et al. (2017), the remaining sources were all peer-reviewed journals. All sources provided credible solutions or added credible information necessary for creating future solutions. There is a need and opportunity for further research to discover disaster resilient structures to the quadruple threats – wildfire, flood, earthquake, and wind events. 

References

Alexander, D. (2011). Resilience against earthquakes: Some practical suggestions for planners and managers. Journal of Seismology & Earthquake Engineering, 13(2), 109-115. http://www.jsee.ir/article_240619.html

Bosher, L., Dainty, A., Carrilo, P., Glass, J., & Price, A. (2009). Attaining improved resilience to floods: A proactive multi-stakeholder approach. Disaster Prevention and Management, 18(1), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560910938501

Boughton, G.N., Falck, D.J., & Henderson, D.J. (2017). Tool to evaluate the resilience of buildings to severe wind events. In H. Hao & C. Zhang (Eds.), Mechanics of structures and materials: Advancements and challenges (pp. 1887-1892). Taylor & Francis Group.

English, E.C., Chen, M., Zarins, R., Patange, P., & Wiser, J.C. (2021). Building resilience through flood risk reduction: The benefits of amphibious foundation retrofits to heritage structures. International Journal Architectural Heritage, 15:7, 976-984. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1695154

English, E.C., Friedland, C.J., & Orooji, F. (2017). Combined flood and wind mitigation for hurricane damage prevention: The case for amphibious construction. Journal of Structural Engineering, 143(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-S41X.0001750

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2018). A proposed research agenda for the emergency management higher education community. https://training.fema.gov/hiedu/docs/latest/2018_fema_research_agenda_final-508%20(march%202018).pdf

Joyner, M.D., & Sasani, M. (2020). Building performance for earthquake resilience. Engineering Structures, 210, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110371

Lamond, J.E., & Proverbs, D.G. (2009). Resilience to flooding: Lessons from international comparison. Urban Design and Planning, 162:DP2, 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2009.162.2.63

Liao, K.H. (2012). A theory on urban resilience to floods - A basis for alternative planning practices. Ecology and Society, 17(4):48. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05231-170448

Morrison, A., Westbrook, C.J., & Noble, B.F. (2018). A review of the flood risk management governance and resilience literature. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, 291-304. DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12315

PCI Foundation. (2017). Ascent designing with precast - Resilient design: Earth. Wind. Fire. Ascent, 27(3). 1-83. https://www.pci.org/PCI_Docs/Publications/Ascent%20Magazine/2017/Ascent_Summer_2017.pdf

Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Frankel, A.D., Zeng, Y., Rezaeian, S., Harmsen, S.C., Boyd, O.S., Field, N., Chen, R., Rukstales, K.S., Luco, N., Wheeler, R.L., Williams, R.A., & Olsen, A.H. (2014). Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. United States Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1091/pdf/ofr2014-1091.pdf

Quarles, S.L., Valachovic, Y., Nakamura, G.M, Nader, G.A., & De LaSaux, M.J. (2010). Home survival in wildfire-prone areas: Building materials and design considerations. Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8393. https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8393.pdf

Saatcioglu, M., Ozbakkaloglu, T., Naumoski, N., & Lloyd, A. (2009). Response of earthquake-resistant reinforced-concrete buildings to blast loading. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36, 1378-1390. DOI: 10-1139/L09-089

Sheng, Y.P., Paramygin, V.A., Riveria-Nieves, A.A., Zou, R., Fernald, S., Hall, T., & Jacob, K. (2022). Coastal marshes provide valuable protection for coastal communities from storm-induced wave, flood, and structural loss in a changing climate. Scientific Reports, 12:3051, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06850-z

Smith, A.M.S., Kolden, C.A, Paveglio, T.B., Cochrane, M.A., Bowman, D.M.J.S., Moritz, M.A., Kliskey, A.D., Alessa, L., Hudak, A.T., Hoffman, C.M., Lutz, J.A., Queen, L.P., Goetz, S.J., Higuera, P.E., Boschetti, L., Flannigan, M., Yedinak, K.M., Watts, A.C., Strand, E.K., ... Abatzoglou, J.T. (2016). The science of Firescapes: Achieving fire-resilient communities, BioScience 66(2), 130-146. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv182

Stevenson, S.A., Kopp, G.A., & El Ansary, A. (2020). Prescriptive design standards for resilience of Canadian housing in high winds. Frontiers in Built Environment. 6:99. 1-22. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.00099

Syphard, A.D., Brennan, T.J., & Keeley, J.E. (2017). The importance of building construction materials relative to other factors affecting structure survival during wildfire. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21(2017), 140-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.11.011


There we have it. Another school project posted to the blogosphere. 

If you missed the previous postings, here are the links:

https://thegoodplanblog.blogspot.com/2023/08/increasing-structural-disaster.html 

https://mtnmanblog.blogspot.com/2023/08/beyond-three-little-pigs-creating_29.html

https://mtnmanblog.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-research-proposal-for-houses-of.html 

I will post more old school projects in the not too distant future. 

Until next time...Get a Haircut, and Real Job!!


Mountainman.


 Update:

Capstone Research Project:

https://mtnmanblog.blogspot.com/2023/11/capstone-research-project-houses-of.html

 

Update:

Bridging the Gap Article:

https://thegoodplanblog.blogspot.com/2023/12/bridging-gap-connecting-resilient.html