Virginia Tech The Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering

# CEE 4554 -- NATURAL DISASTER MITIGATION AND RECOVERY

**Spring 2001**

**Meeting Time and Place:** 12:20 -- 1:10 p.m., Monday, Wednesday,
Friday

207 Patton Hall

**Instructors:** CEE Faculty (see course topic list)

**Course Coordinator:** James R. Martin 111-B Patton Hall

Phone: 231-3934; email: [jrm@vt.edu](mailto:jkm@vt.edu)

Office Hours: MWF 2 -- 3:00 PM

**Teaching Assistant:** Jesse Jacobson -- 20 Patton Hall

Office Hours: anytime

**Course Objectives:**

To develop the knowledge, understanding and skills needed to do the
following:

-   identify and describe the destructive forces and effects of extreme
    events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and
    landslides.

-   evaluate the resistance of the natural ground and existing
    facilities and structures to the forces imposed by the extreme
    events.

-   assess the risks of loss of life and property.

-   define, evaluate, and choose among acceptable risk mitigation,
    emergency response, and disaster recovery alternatives.

-   Identify and evaluate social and environmental issues associated
    with natural hazards and their mitigation.

-   Identify and assess the impact of engineering, industrial, and
    social activities upon the effects of natural disasters.

-   develop disaster-resistant preliminary designs for structures and
    facilities.

-   apply current knowledge and understanding of civil engineering
    principles and methods to solution of difficult problems that are
    generated by extreme forces of nature.

**Texts and Reading:**

> There is no required text. Relevant reference materials on the topics
> in the course will be identified that include texts, scientific and
> technical papers, slide sets, videos, and internet web site addresses.
> A set of course notes are required for the course and these will be
> made available for purchase at the beginning of the semester. From
> time to time, a collection of reference materials will be held on
> reserve in the Ozawa Geotechnical Library, Room 20 Patton Hall. Note
> that the Ozawa Library operates on an honor system, so please help us
> make it work!

Examples of some suitable reference materials for the different topics
include:

Ambrose, J. and D. Vergun (1990) Simplified Building Design for Wind and
Earthquake Forces, Wiley Interscience, 307 pp.

<http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/index.html>

Hwang, N. C. and R. J. Houghtalen (1996) Fundamentals of Hydraulic
Engineering Systems, Prentice Hall, 416 pp.

Kramer, S. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall,
653 pp.

Spector, T. (1997) "Ethical Dilemmas and Seismic Design," Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 13, No. 3, August, pp. 489-504.

**Prerequisites:**

> To provide the needed background for the investigations, analyses, and
> designs that form a part of this course, students should have
> completed the following courses or their equivalents: CEE 3514 for the
> behavior of soils during earthquake events, CEE 3404 for understanding
> structural behavior, CEE 3684 for necessary knowledge of materials
> used in structures, CEE 3314 for analysis of fluid flows, and CEE 3014
> for understanding of construction procedures. Students with
> uncertainties concerning prerequisite background knowledge should
> contact Professor Martin.

**Grading:**

> Homework 20%

Project 20%

Midterms 30%

Final Exam 30%

**Homework:**

Assignments will be due one week after being handed out unless otherwise
specified. A transmittal memorandum is required for each problem
assignment in which results are summarized and evaluated and conclusions
are drawn about their significance.

**Writing:**

> [Note]{.underline}: this course is designated as a Writing Intensive
> Course, and therefore, it can be used to satisfy the University's
> writing intensive requirements. Writing assignments will include a
> minimum of 15 pages divided among two assignments, with opportunity
> for revision after instructor comments prior to final grading. The
> grading of individual student papers will focus on both the quality of
> writing and content. Students having difficulty in proper written
> expression will be encouraged to take advantage of the assistance
> provided by the Writing Center.

**Final Exam:**

Saturday 5 May, 2001, 10:05 AM to 12:05 PM

Virginia Tech The Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering

# CE 4984 -- NATURAL DISASTER MITIGATION AND RECOVERY

**Spring 2001**

**[Tentative]{.underline} Class Schedule**

(January 24, 2001)

(Subject to revision)

+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| **Da  | **No. | **Tentative Topic**             | **Instructor**    |
| tes** | of    |                                 |                   |
|       | Peri  |                                 |                   |
|       | ods** |                                 |                   |
+=======+=======+=================================+===================+
| Jan.  | 3     | *Global distribution,           | Jimmy Martin      |
| 15,   |       | characteristics, destructive    |                   |
| 17,   |       | forces; Social and economic     |                   |
| 19    |       | impacts of tornadoes,           |                   |
|       |       | hurricanes, floods, earthquakes |                   |
|       |       | and landslides*                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Jan.  | 3     | Obtaining the necessary         | Randy Dymond      |
| 22,   |       | information and data            |                   |
| 24,26 |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Jan.  | 2     | Pubic policy issues associated  | Bill Cox          |
| 29,31 |       | with natural disasters          |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Feb.  | 1     | In-class skit -- mock natural   | Jimmy Martin,     |
| 2     |       | disaster                        | Randy Dymond      |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Feb.  | 4     | Probability and risk assessment | David Kibler      |
| 5,    |       | as applied to quantification of |                   |
| 7     |       | risk and reliability analyses   | Martin Chapman    |
| ,9,12 |       | associated with natural         |                   |
|       |       | hazards. Poisson distributions, | Jimmy Martin      |
|       |       | basics of probability theory,   |                   |
|       |       | USGS hazard maps, etc.          |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Feb.  | 3     | *Geotechnical earthquake        | Jimmy Martin      |
| 14,   |       | engineering -- earthquake       |                   |
| 16,19 |       | basics*                         |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
|       |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Feb.  | 2     | *Landslides, identification and | Mike Duncan       |
| 21,   |       | mitigation of landslide risk,   |                   |
| 23    |       | landslide repair*               |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Feb.  | 1     | ***Midterm #1***                |                   |
| 26    |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Feb.  | 3     | *Geotechnical earthquake        | Jimmy Martin      |
| 28    |       | engineering -- ground failure   |                   |
|       |       | under seismic loading, ground   |                   |
| Mar.  |       | improvement methods and         |                   |
| 2,12  |       | strategies, performance in      |                   |
|       |       | earthquakes*                    |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Mar.  |       | Spring Break                    |                   |
| 3     |       |                                 |                   |
| --11  |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Mar.  | 5     | *Hydrologic and hydraulic       | Dave Kibler       |
| 14,   |       | considerations in protection    |                   |
| 1     |       | against floods; methods and     |                   |
| 6,19, |       | strategies for protective       |                   |
| 21,23 |       | systems*                        |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
|       | 1     | Special lecture on inflatable   | Ray Plaut, George |
|       |       | levees                          | Filz              |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Mar.  | 7     | *Structural analysis and design | Rich Barker       |
| 2     |       | to resist wind and earthquake   |                   |
| 6,28, |       | loads*                          |                   |
|       |       |                                 |                   |
| 30    |       |                                 |                   |
| Apr.  |       |                                 |                   |
| 2,    |       |                                 |                   |
| 4,6,9 |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Apr.  | 3     | *Construction in the            | Gerardo Flintsch  |
| 11,   |       | post-disaster period;           |                   |
| 13,   |       | restoration of lifelines and    |                   |
| 16    |       | critical facilities; social and |                   |
|       |       | political influences*           |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Apr.  | 1     | ***Midterm No. 2***             |                   |
| 18    |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| Apr.  | 2     | *Guest Speakers*                | Mike Vorster      |
| 20,   |       |                                 |                   |
| 23    |       |                                 | Fred Krimgold     |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| April | 3     | *Student Project Presentations* |                   |
| 25,   |       |                                 |                   |
| 27,30 |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| May 2 | 1     | Last day, wrap up.              | Jimmy Martin      |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
|       |       |                                 |                   |
+-------+-------+---------------------------------+-------------------+

Virginia Tech The Charles E. Via Jr. Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering

# CEE 4984 -- Natural Disaster Mitigation and Recovery

**Term Project, Spring Semester 2001**

The term project for this course is to prepare a carefully researched,
well-documented, in-depth paper on some civil engineering aspects of a
natural disaster. You may choose from among the topics listed below, or
you may propose one of your own, provided it meets with the instructor's
approval. Important elements of this assignment are as follows.

## Teams

This project is to be done in teams of three. It is expected that [each
of you will contribute equally]{.underline} to the information
gathering, analysis, organization, and writing of the report.

## The Task

With respect to the topic you choose, please focus your review of
information, analyses, conclusions, and recommendations on the following
considerations (to the extent that they are applicable):

-   Development and defense of a position; e.g., with respect to a
    zoning law, a design loading condition, the cause of a failure, the
    prediction of an extreme event.

-   Application of material, ideas, and methods from class to the
    problem under study.

-   Explanation of complex technical material so that it can be
    understood by all members of the class.

-   Comparison of alternative explanations for what happened,
    alternative designs, different mitigation strategies, costs, etc.

-   Policy issues involved in and/or raised by the disaster, the
    project, or the mitigation strategies.

-   Incorporation of personal experiences, if relevant.

## 

## 

## Learning Objectives

This assignment has the following objectives:

-   To provide opportunity to learn in more depth about some aspects of
    civil engineering as applied to natural disaster effects, mitigation
    and recovery.

-   To provide opportunity to improve written communication skills.

-   To attain one or more of the objectives listed in the course
    syllabus.

## Audience

Write your paper so that it appeals to the other students in the class
who, we assume, will also have an interest in the topic, but not the
time to dig out and evaluate all the information that you can.

## Sources

You may use any information sources available to you, including the
course instructors, handouts, other faculty, classmates, libraries, the
internet, engineering reports, etc. You must be very careful to properly
acknowledge the sources of any information that is given to you.
References must be cited completely; i.e., author(s), title, journal,
volume, issue number, date, page numbers, publisher (in the case of a
book), internet address. Use the format followed by the American Society
of Civil Engineers in technical journal articles.

Be especially careful to avoid anything that could be considered
**plagiarism**. That is, anything that you copy must be referenced as to
source, and credit must be given. It is not sufficient to simply change
a word or two in somebody else's written work and then call it your own.
If you have any questions at all concerning proper use of other's
written work, please see Professor Martin.

## Format

Please adhere to the following guidelines in preparation of your report:

-   A minimum of 15 pages of text, and a maximum of 20 pages of text.

-   Double spacing of text

-   Type font size of 12 point, Times New Roman or Arial preferred.
    Single-sided text only.

-   Include an informative abstract of about 250 words between the
    title/author block and the introduction.

-   Include figures and tables at the end of your report. Be sure that
    they are called out properly in the text.

-   Include a table of contents and lists of figure and table captions
    after the title page (this will count as one of the 15 pages)

-   Do not include appendices to the report, unless the information in
    them is absolutely essential to the meaning and value of the report
    (if the material is that important, it should probably be in the
    main body of the text).

-   Your report should be spiral bound, with a clear plastic cover over
    a title page.

## 

## Critical Dates

-   Monday, 19 March: - Last day to advise Professor Martin of your
    group members and choice of topic via informal memo.

-   Monday 23 April -- Submission of draft of report. Text must be
    essentially complete, and illustrations must be identified.

-   Friday & Monday, April 27 & 30 -- 5 minute presentations of reports.

-   Wednesday, May 2-- Final report due.

### Criteria for Evaluation

The project counts as 20 percent of the course grade. Points will be
assigned according to the following scale:

> Technical content 5
>
> Independent thinking and ideas 3
>
> Lessons learned 3
>
> Clarity and effectiveness of writing 5
>
> Organization 2
>
> Appearance 2

### Topics

Following are some suggestions of topics that you may choose from for
your project. Some of them will be suitable for study by two-person
teams, and these are so noted. The topics are unsorted with respect to
disaster type or specialty area within civil engineering. These titles
and descriptions are necessarily brief. For virtually all of them, it
should be possible to summarize some lessons learned and to identify
some implications for the future. Should you desire further elaboration
about any of them please consult with the instructor.

1.  **Differences in seismic risk between the eastern and western United
    States**. Both the seismic history and the nature of earthquakes
    that have affected the eastern and western U. S. differ. Why? What
    are the impacts on seismic preparedness?

2.  **Hurricane Mitch** -- what happened, impacts on the infrastructure,
    recovery from the devastation, mitigation strategies for the future.
    This project should be suitable for a team study to enable dealing
    with several aspects; e.g., the storm and flood, damage and its
    causes, relief efforts, rebuilding the infrastructure.

3.  **Collapse of the Schoharie Bridge in New York State** -- This
    failure resulted from flood-caused scour of bridge foundations --
    What happened? Why? How prevent such failures in the future?

4.  **1940 Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge** -- Why did "Galloping
    Gertie" gallop? How has this influenced the design of suspension
    bridges? This could be a team project, with one student focusing on
    wind loading and the failure and the other on design of bridges that
    are safe under high wind loads.

5.  **Slope failures in Hong Kong**. The mountainous territory of Hong
    Kong is plagued by failures of decomposed granite residual soils
    caused by intense rains. How has this problem been addressed, and
    what mitigation strategies are now being used? This project is
    suitable for a team effort, taking into account, for example, the
    geological and soil conditions, the nature of the storms, the
    stability problems, slope stabilization, other mitigation
    strategies.

6.  **Overtopping of the Vaiont Dam in Italy in 1963**. A massive sudden
    landslide into the Vaiont Reservoir caused overtopping of this 858
    ft high arch dam. More than 2000 people lost their lives as the
    flood raced through the valley below. What happened? What can be
    done to avoid similar disasters in the future?

7.  **Great floods in Virginia: causes, controls and flood management
    systems**. The Nov.\' 85 flood in SW VA is the flood of record in
    Roanoke and caused about \$200M damage. There are other more recent
    events, one being the flood of1992 which caused \$2.6 M damage on
    the VT campus. These floods, the evolution of massive storm systems,
    and the impacts of urban development could be studied and combined
    as a team project.

8.  **Dam breaks in Virginia** - A review of earth-fill dams in VA and
    their vulnerability to overtopping failure. A case study of the
    Timber Lake dam failure in June \'95 is a very good example which
    was just settled recently in a litigation case.

9.  **The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and its role in earth dam
    design**. This concept is one of the more controversial elements in
    hydrologic assessment of dam failure potential. Many elements of
    meteorology and surface hydrology are involved in this study. This
    may be suitable for a team study.

10. **The Dam Safety Program in Virginia**. What does it do? How did it
    evolve? How does it tie in with the Virginia Division of Emergency
    Services?

11. **The past, present and future of the National Flood Insurance
    Program**. This is a program to subsidize flood insurance for people
    living at water's edge. Should we do this, or is some other
    non-structural alternative a better option from a social-economic
    perspective?

12. **The role of big flood control dams and extensive flood protection
    works on major rivers** -- This issue has raised a number of
    important questions about our ability to control and mitigate major
    floods. The flood of summer \'93 in the mid-west helped focus this
    issue. The floods of \'93 and the technical and policy issues that
    they raise would be a good team study.

13. **Ground failures caused by the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964**.
    What happened? What soil and topographic conditions were involved?
    What was learned about the responses of different soil types? What
    mitigation repair and strategies were investigated and used? At what
    cost? This topic is suitable for subdivision into a team project.

14. **Landslides** -- assessment of risks, influences of geologic and
    soil conditions, triggering mechanisms, mitigation of landslide
    risk, with inclusion of illustrative case histories. This topic is
    suitable for subdivision into a team project.

15. **Performance of bridges under earthquake loading** -- a comparative
    study of bridges in the Great Alaska (1964), San Fernando (1971),
    Loma Prieta (1989), Northridge (1994), and Kobe (1995) earthquakes,
    with emphasis on lessons learned for minimizing bridge failure risk
    in future earthquakes. This study can be done as a team project.

16. **Building performance in recent earthquakes**. Lessons were learned
    about many aspects of building performance in recent earthquakes;
    e.g., masonry buildings in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; moment
    resistant steel frame buildings in the 1994 Northridge earthquake;
    small framed houses with heavy roofs in the 1995 Kobe earthquake.
    What are these lessons? How have building codes been impacted? How
    is the post-earthquake condition of a damaged building assessed?
    This topic can be undertaken as a team project.

17. **Protecting against wind** -- evaluating wind loads on structures,
    practical upper limits of protection, construction material
    responses to wind loads, are tornado-proof structures possible? Are
    they practical?

18. **Mitigation of failure risk and retrofitting of (structures)
    (buildings) (bridges) (foundations) (dams) and the actual
    performance of the retrofitted facilities in earthquakes**. This
    would be a suitable team project.

19. **Earthquake prediction** -- Where do we stand? Is it possible? What
    is the scientific basis? What are the policy, political, and
    economic ramifications?

20. **Lifelines** -- their protection against and restoration after a
    (flood), (hurricane), (earthquake), (wildfire). This study could
    focus on a specific type of lifeline; e.g., transportation system,
    water supply, electric transmission and distribution system, gas
    system, pipeline, communication system. It could focus on a
    particular community or region, leading to a plan.

21. **Evacuation of Coastal Cities in the event of a Hurricane** - With
    current weather technologies we can predict with good accuracy the
    advent of hurricanes that may affect coastal cities. Therefore, we
    can plan ahead and evacuate the areas of higher risk. Good
    evacuation procedures require efficient, well-planned, and
    signalized evacuation routes. How should these routes be selected
    and designed? How could ITS technologies be used to provide
    information and guidance during the evacuation?

22. **Post-Earthquake Reconstruction and Retrofitting of Transportation
    Systems -** Transportation systems have become an integral necessity
    of today metropolitan areas. Recent earthquakes, in particular the
    1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area, the 1994
    Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area, and the 1995
    earthquake in Kobe, Japan, caused enormous damage to urban
    transportation infrastructure and great disruption of daily life.
    How did the responses in California and Japan compare? How we can
    design our transportation systems to minimize the delays and
    disruptions due to failed structures in the event of an earthquake?
    This topic is well suited for a team project.

23. **Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation --** Select one of
    the following cases that are described in FEMA 331, *Protecting
    Business Operations.* August 1998*.* Copies of this publication were
    distributed in class. Contact the writers of the case studies
    (identified in the Acknowledgements section of the report) and/or
    the representative of the business, also identified in the
    Acknowledgements. Expand the write-up of the case you have chosen to
    include more detailed and specific information about what was done,
    including designs if appropriate. Information from other sources can
    also be used. For example, the Questar Corporation used base
    isolation systems, and you might want to learn about them so that
    you could give a fuller explanation in your report. The cases you
    may select from are: Bell South, Andritz, Inc., Hewlett-Packard
    Company, Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., Questar Corporation,
    and Kingsford Manufacturing.

**Note:** These topics are only *suggestions.* It is not required that
you select one of them, nor is it necessary that you focus your study
only in the directions indicated.