Digital Cities Roadmap. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ for the case of “resilience” alone, such findings have tripled roughly from 2010 to 2016.

      Figure 1.12 Resilience seismic concept [58].

      Either the word “resilience,” though staying important, has grown with an unprecedented elasticity (Figure 1.12), or the above indicate that “resilience” may have been the base of a modern Tower of Babel, in which all inhabitants speak without comprehension. A term of resilience which implies everything and all to everyone is definitely not an especially useful concept since it avoids meaning, consistency and therefore renders it intangible for practical purposes when the aim is to increase group resilience in the way can be calculated. It highlights the importance that such values and the stringent application of ‘resilience’ be re-established in this unique sense. This is discussed below and reflects in a way important to engineers on durability.

       1.7.2 Quality of Life

      The only approach to measure the quality of life as a proportion of the general population (Figure 1.13(a), (b)) is to calculate the quality of life as a feature. Using the whole stable community without an earthquake.

      That figure does not alter at State level, except for such fatalities that happened in seismically deficient hospitals. In the case of hospitals that are seismically remodeled or not. Injuries suffered after the disaster will periodically contribute to a continued decline in the stable community. All these injuries would cure, and deaths would no longer be added to the toll, in the best case, in the absence of hospital loss.

       First Dilemma

      Until a disaster happens, most of the people don’t care about resilience to the designed infrastructure.

      Figure 1.13 (a) Healthy population (b) Patients-days treatment.

      As seen, for instance, in Figure 1.14(a)—and in the hotel rooms, belongings and passports. However, it was as harshly attacked as this tight regulation was. A significant portion of the central business area was already blocked down on the second anniversary of the disaster. Additional forms of destruction were resulting from unfinished repairs/rebuild (Figure 1.14(b)).

      Some rocking frames (note that the standard for Christchurch new buildings before the earthquake is reinforced concrete buildings). Surprisingly enough, there is also a big controversy on the wish of parishioners to construct again the severely destroyed cathedral in the same steel-making framework on which it was originally designed, but probably reinforced to ensure a degree of ‘collapse protection.’

      Figure 1.14 (a) Building after earthquake, (b) Building two years after earthquake.

       Second Dilemma

      How does a structural designer lead to resilience quantification?

      Population and socioeconomic, environment/ecosystem, integrated municipal systems, build-up urban infrastructure, living style and civic competence, economic growth, as well as social and cultural resources define all seven dimensions of group functioning (not generally by any order of importance as expressed in PEOPLES). The suggested PEOPLES Readiness Model offers the foundation for creation of quantitative and consistency temporal–spatial models that continually assess improvements in functionality and group readiness to adverse incidents or hazards across some of all the above dimensions.

       Strategies of Resilience

      “Mitigation,” requiring either the re-building of current structures or the development of modern construction projects, is essential to achive the goal of sustainable cities, but sometimes neglected or dismissed in the assumption that it is “too expensive”. There appears to be very reasonable cost appetite to remove some danger in some other controlled areas, for example by ordering the elimination of traces of asbestos from crews in hazmat suits or by allowing the elimination after several years of baby car seats due to plastic ageing.

      Nation would stay trapped in the constant process of devastation–reconstruction. However, if the nation wants to see vital services and lifelines working following a tragedy, that is not always the case—the majority of the network should not be overlooked (Figure 1.15).

      Figure 1.15 (a) Improve resilience structure, (b) Reduce probability structural loss, (c) Increase resilience pre earthquake and (d) Improve the structural loss.

       Third Dilemma

      Various owners and stakeholders—with differing goals, interests and purpose—will simultaneously support resilience in the creation of a disaster-resilient society. Some research has been conducted on quantifying resiliency in network environments, such as road networks, electricity grids, delivery structures and the like. For a variety of factors, such networks are radically different from the group of buildings in a city [23, 24].

       First, the network device properties are usually either held by an individual alone or by a group of several broad interdependent shareholders. The highways in one state, for example, are the responsibility of the State Transport Department, with a few exceptions.

       Second, the architecture of such networks is often selfregulated such that the implementation committees for which even such owners are allowed to vote follow the design specifications of such facilities.

       As a consequence of the first two points mentioned above, these owners are willing to step ahead and develop goals for their infrastructural durability. State Transport Ministers, for instance, took the initiative to define vital routes for the network to function during an earthquake which is usually referred to as roads and bridges on lifelines.

      Figure 1.16Building damage by earthquake [55].

      As seen in Figure 1.16, the building with a low-rise stage may have done well alone during the earthquakes but it was nevertheless demolished by the brick shower triggered by the out-of-plan collapse of an unreinforced maçonery wall in the neighboring house. Many well-performing buildings after the earthquake in Christchurch were still unavailable (and thus without functionality) because the owners were refused after the earthquake in the Christchurch Business District. For these reasons, genuinely resilient communities may be at risk for several decades.

СКАЧАТЬ