Natural disasters impact Australian communities every year. They disrupt communities and, on average, cause billions in losses annually in response activity, recovery needs and economic disruption. While the more frequent flood and wind events feature prominently, Australian earthquakes can cause catastrophic consequences that are generally not well understood and can be difficult to manage when they occur. Do we understand the demands they can impose? Are we adequately informed as to the options for reducing this risk? Are we really ready for the next big shake?
Earthquake risk is the combination of the hazard severity, the assets exposed and the susceptibility of these to severe ground motion. In bringing these three components together an understanding can be developed of the potential impacts of credible earthquake events that are presently beyond Australia’s settled experience. For emergency managers it can provide insights into events they have not encountered to enable planning for the management of similar. They can also provide information in a quantified form that can inform decisions and incentives to invest in changing earthquake risk through vulnerability reduction and improved community resilience. There is a particular need for targeted investment as earthquake hazard has not been considered in the design of both buildings and critical infrastructure for most of Australia’s settled history.
This paper describes collaborative research being undertaken to better understand more holistically the consequences of the next big shake. The very non-linear nature of impact severity with longer average recurrence intervals is highlighted and how this information is supporting emergency management planning is described. The paper also describes how this research is developing knowledge of the factors behind the vulnerability in the built environment and the opportunities to mitigate this. The software tool named System for Infrastructure Facility Resilience Analysis (SIFRA) is described. It enables infrastructure facility components to be examined in the context of earthquake vulnerability, system criticality, repair cost and restoration time. The sensitivities in developing information with infrastructure managers are outlined and how these are being addressed is discussed in gaining access to and sharing data, information and specialist expertise. Finally, a research project focussed on earthquake mitigation strategies for vulnerable buildings is highlighted as an example of local engagement in addressing community risk.
Presented at the 2018 Australian Earthquake Engineering Society (AEES)