 |
| 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... |
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
No comments:
Post a Comment