Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
1 Wind Hazarc~s and Relatec' Issues THE POWER OF WIND Wind in the lower atmosphere affects a wide variety of human activities and can be both ha~ful and beneficial. Globally, w~ndstorm-related events cause an average of 30,000 deaths and several billion dollars in direct Tosses annually (National Research Council, 1987~. In the United States alone, the insurance industry spent nearly $23 billion on wind-related catastrophic events from 1981 to 1990 (Insurance Information Institute, 1992~. Every year, residents along the Atiantic Coast face the threat of severe windstorms, some of which develop into hurricanes. Hurricane Hugo, which struck the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina in 1989, inflicted over $10 billion in total losses, causing over 100 deaths and disrupting the lives of millions. New OrIeans, Tampa Bay, Miami, and other cities along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are notably susceptible to mass inundation by storm surge because of the shape of their bays and coastlines. Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms also constitute major wind hazards over much of the United States, often occurring unexpectedly and with devastating effect. For instance, the May 1987 tornado in Saragosa, Texas, killed 30 people-most of them children-wi~hin cr=onncic- i'N~3tir~n~i D=c^~r~h Council, 1991b). Worldwide, vulnerability to natural disasters is rising due to the conjunction of several factors: rapid population growth concentrated in urban areas, especially in housing developments along coastlines; increasing capital outlays for buildings and lifelines; deteriorating infrastructure systems; and a growing interdependence among local, national, and global communities. This rise in vulnerability is particularly marked in the case of windstorm-related catastrophes. United Nations statistics covering about 400 disasters since the beginning of the century indicate that roughly 15 percent of these events are windstorms, and lists of major disasters since the 1960s indicate that more than half are due to extreme winds. But wind is not always an agent of disaster; it can be a boon as well. For instance, wind is a natural energy producer with the potential to contribute significantly to the nation's energy security. In 1989, wind power plants in California provided a capacity of 1335 MW, equivalent to a medium-sized utility power plant (National Research Council. j99 1 ~ N Tntl~.~1 ~ . ~ ~~ +1~ r ~ 1~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~ 4~1 ~11 W I L1, L11~ pa, U1 L11~; Clean Alr ACt and later amendments, wind engineering for energy production activities and industrial development was acknowledged as a key factor in economic progress. However, the conversion of wind energy to usable forms remains in the early stages of development. Wind is also a beneficial, natural transport medium that can be used to advantage in several ways. For instance, management of snow deposition 6
Fund Hazards and Related Issues 7 over the nation's central and northern maims could improve grain nrnrill~tinn · · ^~ s~gn~cant~y. in these areas, where snow accounts for 15 to 45 percent of the annual precipitation, the use of stubble, rows of tab wheat grass, or level benches to deposit w~nd-driven snow could bring about a moisture distribution more favorable for plant growth. Much research remains to be done in the area of agricultural meteorology. . _ ~ ~ O J Wind also transports and dilutes air pollutants, thus controlling air quality. This can be either advantageous or disadvantageous for the local populace, depending upon wind Ejection, distance from the pollution source, source strength, and height of release. Management for optimum air quality requires careful analysis of wind characteristics in the area and control methodologies for sources, followed by well-planned and enforced zoning for industnal, residential, and business development. Wind has a host of other effects as well. For instance, wind can remove heat from buildings during cold weather and, thus, increase heating costs. Wind also contributes to high rates of soil erosion and evaporation during dry periods and, therefore, impacts drought conditions. WIND ENGINEERING Given the widespread impacts of wind, it is not surprising that wind engineering for human safety and comfort is of increasing concern. As the number of tall buildings has increased in cities throughout the United States, wind impacts have grown more visible. High winds induced at street level between high rises have caused numerous injuries (McKean, 1984), and w~nd- excited building motion has resulted in the evacuation of tenants in some buildings. Wind engineering derives largely from the traditional disciplines of fluid mechanics, meteorology, and structural mechanics. Wind includes flow associated with a variety of meteorological phenomena: tornadoes, hurricanes, downsiope flows, thunderstorms, boundary-layer flows, and near-calm conditions. Interactions of wind with buildings, towers, bndges, transmission lines, transport vehicles, plants, people, pollution sources, and other terrestrial objects provide a multitude of challenges for wind engineering in the areas of planning, analysis, design, construction, and maintenance. The goals of wind engineering are to minimize wades adverse ejects and to maximize its beneficial ones. Only through a planned, long-range program of wind- engineering research and development can the knowledge and information necessary to attain these goals be developed. Such a program watt require an integrated effort by meteorologists and engineers backed by a parallel effort to develop the economic analyses and political tools necessary to implement the results of this research.
8 Wind and He Built Enuronmer't THE CRITICAL ROLE OF STRUCTURES Proper design arid construction of struchlres and lifeline systems are critical elements in the effort to minimize losses from all natural disasters, including extreme winds. Partial or total coHaps~w~th the consequent financial and personal losses-may result when structures are poorly designed or constructed. Nor are w~nd-induced losses confined to total or partial collapses. Other forms of structural damage, such as the compromise of roof systems or wads, can also render a structure useless after an intense windstorm. Further, past case studies show that, In many cases, structural damage is caused by flying glass or debris from neighbonug structures. Thus, improperly built structures can cause negative impacts beyond their own direct losses (National Research Council, 1984~. Indirect losses can far exceed direct losses in many cases. For example, damage to a building's contents could idle a business located therea potentially fatal blow, especially for a small business. In the case of large corporations and factories, a few days closure could seriously impact the local economy, which often depends heavily on those large businesses for survival. In addition, economic losses are not limited to the built environment (buildings, structures, and lifeline systems) but can affect agriculture, forestry, and tourism as well, as occurred on the Caucus Peninsula after Hurncane Gilbert in 1988 and in South Carolina after Humcane Hugo in 1989. Tornado sheltering is a special issue for engineers. These violent events often confound modern meteorological prediction and can cause sudden loss of life and property. It is not feasible, nor is it economical, to build structures to withstand the highest tornado wind speeds. However, affordable in- residence tornado shelters have been designed bv wind enS,ine~rc ulna ran he retrofitted to existing homes. ALL ~ ~ ~ ~ c7 a -A -Do ' ~ ~-~ _~' V_ ~ 11C talus OI emergent shelters and the ~nctionali~ of critical facilities such as hospitals, fire stations, an" communication systems are of paramount importance for a commun~t~y's survival in the wake of a major wind or away other natural disaster. In this light, the use of school buildings as emergency shelters should be addressed. In many jurisdictions, the design and construction of school buildings are exempt from local building code requirements, in spite of the fact that many of these buildings, especially vmnasiums. awe Aesimnatecl ,qc n,~hlir, chPltPrC Art ~q-~-q] A; _ - , ~ ~ r~~^~ v- _ - - _~ ~~, Cal ~1l~a;~L~l;~. Unfortunately, these buildings sometimes become death traps because of their inadequate design and construction, as happened at the East Coldenham Elementary School in Newburgh, New York, in November 1989. It is absolutely necessary to apply proper building codes to the design and construction of school buildings. Further, the building code provisions applied to them should be strictly enforced by inspection because of their use as safe havens during major windstorms. In recent years, engineers have emphasized the better design and construction against seismic loadings of hospitals, fire stations, and some communication systems (such as towers and switchboard buildings) located in earthquake-prone areas, especially in California. However, the same is not
Wnd Hazards and Related Issues 9 true for facilities in wind-hazard-prone areas in the United States, and their functioning after a wind event is often compromised by damage to nonstructural components. these lactates are a major community investment and should perform dependably in both normal and emergency situations; therefore, it is vital that they be designed and built accordingly. 1 _ _ _ _ . ~ ~ · ~ · ~ WIND-INDUCED LOSSES: VICTIMS AND COSTS Society as a whole bears the burden of wind loss. Individuals; renters; homeowners; farmers; businesses; and federal, state, and local goverrunents are all called upon to pay the price of losses attributable to hurncanes; tornadoes; severe, local winter storms; and other wind hazards. In human terms, this price includes death, injury, and personal suffering. The monetary cost of this personal suffering cannot be finitely measured and, generally, is not indemnified. In the event of death or injury, medical and funeral expenses are borne directly by the victim or the victim's family and, in many instances, borne indirectly by insurers or government. The costs are thus redistributed to the purchasers of insurance or absorbed by taxpayers. Economic losses-the monetary value of the property, goods, and services destroyed, damaged, or interrupted by a wind event-can be quantified and are redistributed in several ways: they can be carried directly by the victim; redistributed through the insurance mechanism; or borne by federal, state, and local governments and, ultimately, the taxpayer (Haas et al., 1977~. Hose individuals and businesses in the path of the wind event are its victims and directly bear any loss attributable to the event. To the extent that they are not insured, or are not eligible for government-funded relied they bear the direct impact of the economic losses incurred. Insurance represents a means by which victims of the wind event may be indemnified if they purchased coverage. Insurance also provides a means whereby the losses of a few are distributed among the many. Losses incurred are redistributed through the pricing mechanism for the coverage purchased. In the case of hurricanes, the event is likely to occur in a relatively restricted geographic area and involve a massive exposure to an unpredictable occurrence. In turn, the losses may result in a market failure among insurers, at least regionally. In these cases, insurers have been called upon to provide coverage through mandated pools. Losses are distributed to the insurance community within the affected state and, through the rate-making mechanism, back to the policyholders in the state. Federal, state, and local governments provide additional services and relief to victims when a catastrophic event occurs. Governments also bear the cost of repairing damage to or replacing the infrastructure and government property. Additionally, governments are generally responsible for the cost of debris removal and for emergency police, fire, and medical sentences. Ultimately, all government costs are borne by the taxpayer. ;7 ,
10 Wind and He Built Environment Although it is not possible to place a value on the pain and suffering caused by wind events, it is possible to present data on the direct economic impact of these events. Table 1-l, based on data developed by the Natural Hazards Research Program of the Travelers Insurance Company (Fnedman, 1989), displays the doBar costs for hurricanes, severe local storms, and winter storms during 198~1989. For this Midyear period (in 1990 dollars and projected market), the insurance industry spent over $23.8 billion on w~nd- related catastrophic events. Of this total, 30.4 percent was spent on humcanes, 51.3 percent on severe local storms, and 18.3 percent on winter storms. It must be emphasized that these totals do not reflect all w~nd- related losses. Rather, they detail the cost to the insurance industry for events that were designated catastrophes Cuing the period. To be designated a catastrophe, an event must cause at least $5 million in insured loss and involve a significant number of individual claims. The ~nsured-Ioss payment figures for the 10 most costly hurricanes in the United States since 1950 are presented in Table I-2. Every year, the nation also assumes the direct costs of disaster relief and recovery efforts. Expenditures related to these activities are not easy to estimate. The Federal Emergengy Management Agency (FEMA) alone has spent an average of close to $400 million per year for disaster relief during the last 20 years (National Research Council, 1989~. This represents only a small portion of the total federal costs incurred in coping with natural disasters. Simply restoring vital transportation links destroyed by natural disasters costs the Department of Transportation about $160 million annually. The expenditure breakdown of losses attributed to wind hazards is even more difficult to estimate. Hurricane Hugo, a recent wind hazard that had dramatic impact on the United States, serves as an example. In addition to insured damages exceeding $4.1 billion, government financial support reached staggering proportions. In the interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report for Humcarze Hugo (FEMA, 1989), it was reported that in South Carolina alone, relief needs in the amount of half a billion dollars were identified a month after the event. These included: . $179 million in public assistance; $~15 million in project applications; $90 million for debris removal; $20 million for protective measures; $15 million for roads and bridges, water control facilities, and other purposes; and $80 million for use on repair or replacement of public buildings. The final tally has not been made for Hurricane Hugo, but these early figures-for South Carolina only-are alarming indicators of the potential future costs resulting from catastrophic wind events.
Go Go o · - Ha · - a U) E o - V) - ~: ._ 3 so: en - U) o - Cal C) V) ._ - a C,7 U. to Cat is: a: o ~ Z 1 8 ~ C:~^ e. on ~ 8 ~l L- ·Eb'R) .~ h ·- ~ ~ O ~ al h ~ - o C: Cd U) S a: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ in. to g - ~ ~o or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ID ~ 00 ~ CO Or ~ ~ \0 0 0 _ _ ~ o or ~ V) ~ _ to to ~ or ~ - , t _ co ~ Or ~ ~ ~ 0 _ _ rat _ § ~ - - O ~ _' - ~ - - - o8 Oc 0 r~ - ~ ~r - ~ % ~^ -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 8 ~ O ~ a, ~ cp o~ h ~c ~ '~ oi ~ _ ,= ~ ~ ~ - 8 60;bc ~ c~ ~o _ o ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ C~ o Ci _ _ _ ~ Q~ ~ q" ~ _ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' . ~ o~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~o Cr~ ~ r~ _ Q Q Q ~ Q Q V _ ~ :~ _ CD CC ~ - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c3 CD ~ CD O O ~ C~ _ C~ CD - - C10 ~ % - O ~ _ ~ ~ ~ L a~ ~ g O O ° ~= g g O8 gQ Q o8 D c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ V) CD - - o - o - ~o . - - - ~ ~ co - - ~ - c~ ~ - ; ~ ~ o '] ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 'S 8 ~ ~ ci 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ cc _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ L- ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ O _ ~ C,\ - , o _ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ 0 L- w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. o L- c~ ~ ~ P O ~ _ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ - go L- ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ CO 8 ~ ~c ~ ~ cf ~ ~ ~ CD CD ~ ~ ·El>=;'G i~ o~ ~ vt ~ P; ~ ~ §}~ , v? ~ ~ - ~ ~ z ~i6 == O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ca o~ ~ ~ O ~ Ch QC CO Q~ C~ CO Q' CO C~ CO ~ O ~ O~ V~ V4` C7~ r-^ V~ O ,~, ~O, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ O' 11 0\ 00 0\ ct & o et c~ - oo ._ V · . o C~
12 Wnd and He Built Environment TABLE 1-2 Insured Loss Payment Figures for the Ten Most Costly Hurricanes Estimated Insured Constant 1982- Date Place Loss (dollars)' 1986 Dollarsb Hugo Sept. 17-18, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Georgia 4,19S,000,000 3,383,060,000 21-22, 1989 Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina Betsy Sept. 7 - 10, 196S Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi 715,000,000 2,269,840,000 Frederic Sept. 12-14, 1979 Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 752~510,000 1,036,520,000 Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York Celia Aug 3, 1970 Southeastern Texas 309,950,000 798,840,000 Alicia Aug. 18, 1983 Southeastern Texas 675,520,000 678,230,000 Camille Aug. 17-18, 1969 Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida 225,000,000 613,080,000 Panhandle Elena Aug 30 Sept. 3, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida 543,300,000 504,930,000 1985 Aug. 3031, 1954 New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 129,700,000 482,160,000 Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey Gloria Sept. 26 27,1985 North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, 418,750,000 389,170,000 Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine Iwa Nov. 23 24, 1982 Hawaii 137 oGo 000 141 970 000 . . . . ' Source: Proper Maim Services Division, American Insurance Services Group, Inc. b 1982~84 = TOO; deflated by Consumer Price Index WHAT DOES THE FIlTURE HOLD? Several trends with the potential to affect the frequency, severity, and toll that wind events take in both human suffering and economic terms are apparently now converging. Taken together, these trends must have significant bearing on the path society sets for the preparation, mitigation, recovery, and response to wind events. Although not all of these trends are universally accepted, they cannot be overlooked in any reasonable analysis of the nation's future wind peril. First, some climatologists predict increases in the frequency and severity of intense tropical cyclones in the next few decades. For example, it has been suggested that, given the multi-decadal cycle of West African precipitation and its apparent linkage to the weather cycle, it is likely that we will see a return to an increased incidence of intense hurricanes in the United States during the 1990s and the early twenty-first century. Should this higher incidence of hurricanes occur, the increased coastal development that has taken place will bring greater property damage than has ever before been experienced (Gray, 1990~.
Fund Hazards and Related Issues 13 In addition, recent computer simulations comparing the damage impact of humcanes of the present climatic regime with those that may occur In a greenhouse-caused transitional climate indicate that the sea-surface temperatures will likely increase, bringing an earlier beginning and later ending of the hurricane season. Some investigators believe this could translate into an additional period of about 20 days when landfallina storms could occur (Friedman. 19891. Further, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released statistics regarding projected population growth along selected state coastlines (Table I-3) that graphically illustrate the significant population increases expected along the Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts. Estimates of the population per mile of coastline suggest that, by the year 2010, the population density on Flonda's east and west coasts win increase about 130 percent from 1988 levels. This increase in coastline population density watt occur during the same time frame in which increases in the frequency and intensity of landfalling hurricanes are predicted. Still another trend with implications for w~nd-induced losses shows that the nation's population is aging. The U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates that by the year 2030, over 22 percent of the population will be 65 or older, compared with just 12 percent in 1987. The special concerns of an older population migrating toward the Sun Belt coastal states, with many of them TABLE 1-3 Projected Population Growth Along State Selected Coastlines Estimated Population Coastal per Mile of Increase 2010 State Population Coastline (percent) Projection (percent) 1960 1988 Florida (East Coast) 100 824 2075 152 2689 Florida (West Coast) 100 433 1064 146 1411 Texas 31 798 1517 90 1956 Mississippi 13 527 928 76 1102 Alabama 12 599 800 34 886 Louisiana 62 248 352 42 420 South Carolina 25 176 303 72 365 North Carolina 11 140 202 44 234 Georgia 6 144 158 10 179 Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concentrating in manufactured houses during a period in which wind events are predicted to increase, must thus become a factor in future disaster planning. Growing affluence, the development of attractive communities, numerous career opportunities, and the freedom of movement facilitated by
14 Wind and He Built Environment low-cost transportation have served as magnets to draw the U.S. population into harm's way. Table 14 shows that the growth of residential and commercial coastal construction in the first tier of coastal counties of the Gulf Coast and the AtIantic states resulted In a 64 percent increase In insured property exposure dunug 19801988 (AIl-IndustIy Research Advisory Council, 1989~. The $~.86 trillion in the structural value of this residential and co~runercial property is a staggering economic indicator of the catastrophic damage potential. Adding to the disaster potential is the gradual deterioration of many elements of the nation's transportation in~astr,ucture. For example, the compromise of critical transportation links, such as coastal bridges and overpasses essential to emergency evacuation and response, could measurably increase the vulnerability of the populations served by these elements. Yet despite the well-documented need for infrastructure improvement calculated at roughly AS billion per year (Office of Technology Assessment, 1990) the actual funding for such essential maintenance has steadily declined. Coupling an increasingly frail transportation system with an aging population concentrated in a geographic zone predicted to experience more severe wind events in the future is a likely recipe for disaster. DIE CRITICAL ROLE OF DESIGN STANDARDS, CODES, CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND PI^NNING REGUI^TIONS The development of design standards and the adoption and enforcement of building codes are deliberate and time-consum~ng processes. Yet they are the most powerful and direct tools available to reduce the impact from wind hazards. The Committee on Natural Disasters has repeatedly observed in its postdisaster reports over the past 20 years that communities that have adopted and enforced certain building codes are less affected by the occurrence of wind events than those with no such requirements (e.g., National Research Council, 1985~. Development of codes and standards is a continuous process. It demands a sustained level of effort to conduct the research needed to improve the state-of-the-art practice of wind engineenug. This requires adequate funding, which has been lacking in the last two decades. Code development also requires an efficient means of transferring the results of research to those responsible for formulating local codes an effort that must be multidisciplinary in nature to be effective. More importantly, a strong political base is needed to promote w~nd-disaster-reduction issues. This base is particularly critical to the issues of code implementation and enforcement. Local governments must be informed of the importance of wind engineering so that they develop the political will to ensure that building codes, once adopted through the legislative process, are effectively implemented and enforced dunug the design and construction of community facilities. Qualified individuals must be brought into local building inspection departments, given the outdone to
pro ~3 v, v, o x o - ~ In - v - o v v, - cd ~3 Ed - - ~- - on ~Q ~ YJ- a a_ O co ~ ~ u, a. ~ ~ ~ ~ v, ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AUKfitAftOOtTOCOOT \8 \0 to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ To N o ~ ~ oo o' ~ - - - - - - d. ~ ~ r~ ~ so ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ c~ O ~ c~ s x o ~ ~ oY ~4 - oo ~ ~ ~ ~ o' - so c~ oK ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )~ (o ~ oK o~o ~o~ ~ ~ ~ q _4 0 \0 U}~C 1 ~0 t\0 1~ 00 ~ O ~ ~ C~ O - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ - - ~ ~ c~ ~o ~ 0 ~ ~ ~o c~ ~ c~ ~ _ 0 cr' ~ c~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~4 c~ ~ ~ ~ cO o~ ~ o clo oD c~ ~ ~ c~ v\~~ - ~ o~v\ - ~o^ - ~ - o- - S ~cs ~ c~ ~ ~ r~ _ ~ c~o c~ r~ o~ U) ~ 0 ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ oo ~ U~ C~ C~ ~ ~ CO 0 0 ~ o. so ~ 0 ~ ~o ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ C~ %_ ~ ~ ~ u~ oK ~ r~ c~ ~ \0 - = ~- 4 0\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ U) ~ _ C~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ C;~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 C~ ~ ~ U, - - o' ~ ~ ~CO ~ _ o~o ~ _4 ~ %= o~ ~ o~ ~ ~ CO 0 ~4 C~ ~ ~ ~ C~ r~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ CX) ~ ~ _I _' ~ 0 o~ CO _4 _ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~o _ ~D ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ c~ 0 ~ =~m ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~D ~ CO ~ 0\ ~ ~ ~ ~ q. ~ U~ C5` ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ o ~ Yo ~ c~ ~ vL - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - Y ~ oY ~o ~ c~ ~ _ ~ r~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ c7 ~ ~ ~ ~- o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - oK ~ ~ ~ · o o ~o 0 o~ ~ a' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ 0 - ~`om_ -m~o~0m- _~ =~ c~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ cx' ~ O oo~ C)O ~ ~ _ ~ ~ O O v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~D ~ ~ _ \0 ~ 0 ~ ~ c~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0\ ~o ~ v, ~ c~ ~ \4 0 ~ ~ ~ \0 ~ ~ ~ aQ O - _ - O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 _ ~ o~ r~ co ~ ~o so ~ 0 ~ oo 0 ~ 0 c~ ~o ~ ~ _ o~ 0` ~ ~ 0\ ~ ~ c~ 0` ~ 0 0` ~ ~ ~ c~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~o ~ _ ~o ~ co ~o ~ ~ ~o ~ ~_ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ co 0 v~ ut ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ o o o~ ~ c~ ~ o~ ~ 0 ~ 0` ~ ~ 1^ ~ ~ ~ ~ O \0 _ _ ~ ~ O 0 _~ C~ _ ~ ~ _ \0 C~ 4 ~ \0~~ <~ _ C~ ~ O sQ PO O ~ ~ q. oO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo 9- _ ~ ~ ~ ~ so c~ ~ ~ r~ v, ~ _ 0\ ~ c~ c~ 0 0\ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ _ C~ O ~ O ~ 00 `4 ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 0 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~r ~ ~4 c~ ~ o~ c~ v, ~ 0 ~ ~ O4 r~ so ~ _ ~D O \0 C~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SQ ~ O ~ ~ \0 ~~ ~ ~ O ~ _. f~ ~s as to -~' ~ ~ ° C E~ E y ~ ~ _ ~ 15 C~ o~ C~ V~ ~5 ~o ~o C~ rn o ~O4 _~ ~ C~ ~ ~ o o~ o ~- as _ a' O - - ~ c~ - .-a o o~ u: ·~: u' - - - · ~ o
16 Hind and the Built Environment enforce the codes, and be provided with continuous educational opportunities to stay abreast of progress made in standards and codes development. Design and construction using proper standards and building codes would enable new buildings to perform satisfactorily during wind events. However, they would not solve the problem of existing buildings. To retrofit or strengthen existing buildings cost effectively is one of the most challenging tasks faced by wind engineers today. Often, the solution lies in the perceived financial acceptability of the retrofit from the owner's viewpoint, rather than in the difficulties encountered in landing technics] q~tinnC in rumba`' the situation. ~ _~O ___ ~~ ever L~ ~ ~111~~ t11~ Proper land-use planning can also be a powerful tool to reduce the impact of extreme winds on a community, but the community must often be ready to pay a price for the use of this tool, since lands subject to wind hazards, such as the coastal zones, almost invariably are the best real estate properties in the community. For this reason, legislated policies on land-use planning are perhaps some of the most difficult and unwelcome pieces of news for a community. As a consequence of this unpopularity, beachfront houses have almost always been rebuilt in the same location immediately after wind disasters, in spite of the best technical advice. Community emergency preparedness, which is largely a local or state government effort, must be viewed as an integral part of a community's strategy for coping with extreme wind events. Proper emergency preparedness should include the planning and use of evacuation routes, the provision of safe buildings as emergency shelters, and an emphasis on the functioning of hospitals, fire stations, and emergency power supplies after the event. Emergency preparedness planning should occur in close consultation with the wind-engineering community, which can provide technical information to make the overall plan more comprehensive and effective. STRATEGIES AND INCENTIVES Losses from w~nd-related hazards are mounting, especially in the United States. As indicated in Reducing Disasters' Tod (National Research Council, 1039), one major reason for the nation's inability to deal with these mounting losses is that U.S. efforts in hazard mitigation have evolved slowly over many decades and are fragmented. Responsibility for those efforts is shared among federal, state, and local governments, and with the private sector, professional organizations, voluntary organizations, the insurance industry, and the public. This fragmentation stems partly from the historic role in government reserved for states arid localities, and partly from the traditional perspective that natural hazards are acts of God for which little anticipatory action is possible and to which pos~disaster humanitarian relief is the most imnartans recnnnc~ as well as a much-Dublic~zed noble cause --a -~ ~~~~~ ~fir -I U.S. efforts in hazard management lack coordination and a coherent focus. At the federal level, the present research and implementation program reflects a piecemeal accumulation of activities initiated incrementally by
Wild Hazards and Related Issues 17 Congress. Examples are the 1968 Flood Insurance Program and the 1977 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which address specific areas of concern. Wind-hazard efforts are a Apical example of the nation's inadequate and fragmented management capability, which is focused mostly focused on near-term and postdisaster activities. The United States as a whole spends no more than $4 million each year on wind hazard mitigation, most of which is for storm warning capability (National Research Council, 1989~. Through its National Weather Service, NOAA is responsible for meeting the nation's needs in weather forecasting. It also conducts research relevant to humcanes, tornadoes, floods, arid droughts. The National Science Foundation, the nation's primary agent y supporting science and engineering research, spends no more than $750,000 each year in w~nd-engineering mitigation research. FEMA's efforts are almost exclusively in disaster relief. Other agencies, such as the Departments of Energy and Defense, which own and operate a number of facilities nationwide, often suffer significant damage from extreme wind events. Nonetheless, their support for the wind programespecially wind eng~neeringmaimed at reducing these losses is almost nonexistent. Although the National Weather Service is undergoing a slow, steady modernization program to advance its forecasting capabilities, the w~nd-eng~neering discipline has suffered a period of stagnation, even disintegration, over the past decade. No U.S. organization is welling to spearhead the drive to advocate w~nd-hazard mitigation. From time to time immediately following a major hurricane or tornadoa surge of interest stirs poli<;ymakers to debate what should be done in the future, but this interest dissipates rapidly because of the urgency of addressing the short- term needs of communities. The United States needs the political wall to develop long-term goals and objectives to deal effectively with wind-hazard issues. The threat from extreme winds is real and dramatic for all Atlantic and Gulf coast states, for Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and for inland states as well. The nation's apparent indifference to this threat is astonishing and perplexing. How can this be rectified? Advocates must arise from within the impacted communities, and they must be augmented by a strong voice from the w~nd-related professions. Perhaps the Wind Engineering Research Counci} could serve as this voice, in a role similar to that played by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute for its constituents. Through these advocates, communities must then approach Congress to establish a NAWSEP (National Wind Science and Engineenng Program). Such a national program watt allow the relevant agencies with responsibilities for sponsoring research, conducting research, and transferring technology to develop comprehensive programs to meet the mandates set forth in the national program. The NAWSEP would seek to emulate the most successful aspects of such programs as the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program and the National Flood Insurance Program. It could help to integrate w~nd-disaster planning into local codes and land-use policies. It could also
18 Wnd arid the Built Environment foster a collaborative approach to wind research and raise public awareness of wined vulnerability. As part of the NAWSEP, partnerships should be established between the federal government and local and state governments for the implementation of wind-hazard mitigation strategies. These partnerships should also be extended to the private sector so that w~nd-m~ti~ation measures can be developed on a fair, affordable, and effective basis. Ratter AceAl o~~ +~ ~^ ~ ~ ___ ~ . a ~ _ __ `~ I ~~ 111~` l~t;~-~;n In must also accompany a NAWSEP. The current debate over national funding priorities in light of a possible "peace dividend" offers an excellent opportunity to present the case for supporting such a program. A higher level of funding will allow the nation as a whole to develop a long-term strategy in the area of w~nd-hazard research. It will rekindle the interest of the research comrnun~ty, especially at universities, arid allow work to proceed on critical research topics that remain unfunded today. Such an action wall undoubtedly trigger many educational initiatives vital to the nation's ability to deal with wind hazards in the future. To ensure the success of the NAWSEP, an annual budget of $20 million for the first five years is projected as necessary. Table I-5 provides a preliminary breakdown of this proposed budget. TABLE 1-5 Proposed Annual Budget (first five years) for a National Wind Science and Engineering Program (NAWSEP) , Cost (million dollars) 1. Conduct of post-w~nd-disaster investigations and longer-term research into nonstructural factors, such as code implementation, interorgam7ational communication, and evacuation planning, that directly affect the DreDarat~c~n for response to, and recovery from wind events 2. ' -a ~ ~~ Research in developing or improving analytical, numerical, and eypenmental methodologies, including both laboratory wind tunnel and full-scale field tests 3. Educational development in wind engineering, including establishment of undergraduate fellowships to attract young talents into wind engineering; curnculum development at undergraduate and graduate levels; and institution of cont~nu~g education programs such as seminar series and short courses 4. Data archiving, particularly by taking advantage of new weather forecasting systems to develop a comprehensive wind-speed data base for upgrading the guidelines, standards, and codes used in the design and construction of uind- resistant structures 2.0 1.0 2.0 5. Development of effective technology transfer techniques to apply research 2.0 results to the design of wind-resistant structures and huildina ~nmnnn'~nte and to update local building codes. TOTAL D r ~ 20.0
