91视频

A megathrust earthquake unfolded along the Cascadia subduction zone on Jan. 26, 1700, irreversibly transforming the landscape and wiping out coastal populations from mid-Vancouver Island to Northern California. Later named the 1700 Cascadia earthquake, this natural disaster rocked a magnitude of 8.7 to 9.2. Scientists say there鈥檚 a 37 percent chance this level of earthquake will happen again along the same zone within the next 50 years, and resemble the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake and tsunami that took the lives of more than 22,000 people.

Is Oregon prepared for this inevitability? We鈥檙e working on it. Maintaining a serious commitment to resilience and earthquake preparedness through our infrastructure will help get us there.

According to the Oregon Resilience Plan, released by the state in 2013 and updated in 2018, if such an earthquake were to occur today, approximately 100,000 buildings in the state would be damaged or destroyed, and economic losses would tally upwards of $32 billion. These daunting figures clearly signal the responsibility that those of us in architecture, engineering and construction have of keeping our citizens safe.

On a macro level, resilience addresses all aspects of a community, including infrastructure and buildings of all sizes and uses. Resilience describes the ability to endure or avoid damage, and avert complete destruction. Resilience planning mitigates risk by addressing every potential disaster scenario and outlining procedures for responding to those situations in the moment, and in the days, weeks and months that follow. Also fundamental to resilience is creating a plan for rebuilding, and ultimately attaining functionality that equals or exceeds pre-disaster levels.

It鈥檚 important to qualify that building resilience begins where seismic codes end. Seismic codes were first enacted in Oregon in 1993, with the primary purpose of protecting a building鈥檚 occupants in the event of an earthquake. Under these codes, the state of the building after the disaster is considered secondary to human safety 鈥� this includes the integrity of architectural components, mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) equipment, and even structural fitness. Seismic codes were a game changer in construction, and have no doubt saved countless lives. But they don鈥檛 provide immunity to the damage 鈥� or devastation 鈥� guaranteed by an earthquake. Consider San Francisco, where structures post-earthquake typically required two years of repair before becoming inhabitable again.

Resilience planning, done right, can mitigate immediate and long-lasting damage to structures and communities. Resilience building, in particular, assures the safety of a structure鈥檚 inhabitants and the integrity of all aspects of building itself. All resilience building is geared toward a 鈥渇unctional recovery standard.鈥� This standard is defined by a set of enforceable building codes that outline specific design and construction requirements. They also result in a building that can be maintained or restored to its original level after a major seismic event. A maximum acceptable time for restoration is determined during the design process, and can vary from building to building based on use.

While building for resilience is more commonplace and expected today than ever, there isn鈥檛 a universally adopted protocol. But there are at least three third-party programs that provide resilience guidelines:

• LEED Resilient Design pilot credits 鈥� In this system, resilience credits are allotted for projects that move through the LEED rating process. The three credits include: assessment and planning for resilience, design for enhanced resilience, and passive survivability.
• RELi Action List 鈥� This system was created for both new construction and existing buildings, and primarily focuses on hazard preparedness. Climate adaptation and infrastructure are also integrated, as are regeneration, sustainability and wellness.
• Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi鈩�) Rating System 鈥� Focused on earthquake and flooding resilience, this system was developed to address the gap between what the codes do, and what the public expects them to do. The main focus of this program is reoccupancy and functionality in the wake of a disaster. It also integrates a method for establishing and measuring design resilience objectives at a community level.

To be effective, core principles of resilience must align with long-term community objectives. This includes the almost universally prioritized goal of sustainability. By its very nature, building resilience is sustainable; some even refer to resilience as the new sustainability. Several hallmarks of sustainability are fundamental to resilient buildings:

• Construction for durability to withstand all types of weather and natural disasters;
• Flexible designs to limit the need for substantial future renovation, ultimately prolonging the life of the building;
• Maximization of natural daylight to save on energy costs;
• Integration of renewable and storable energy into the overall building design; and
• Emphasis on use of local materials, products and labor

When building for resilience, communities are called upon to set performance goals that are typically higher than standard construction. Concurrently, developers must understand the area鈥檚 earthquake risk and how the community interacts with and relies upon the built environment. Yes, there鈥檚 an expectation of damage to the built environment in the event of an earthquake, but it鈥檚 balanced out by building codes and policies designed to support future reconstruction.

Remember, when a major earthquake strikes, the financial and emotional toll on a community is immense. It鈥檚 therefore critical that we build communities, infrastructure and buildings that keep occupants safe with minimal or repairable damage, and that all systems are aligned community-wide in the event of a natural disaster. With resilience as our guidepost, when the 鈥淏ig One鈥� strikes, the built environment will not only survive, but thrive.

Dan Mehls is the vice president and general manager of Mortenson鈥檚 Portland office. Contact him at 971-202-4113.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.