|
|
9:00 a.m. - Noon
Hall E
Room
134 / 235 |
Joint Plenary Sessions
The 1906 earthquake - a centennial perspective on what happened and what we learned from it in the following several years, including current perspectives on the historic setting; the earthquake; engineering aspects; response/recovery; and their effects on earthquake practices in the ensuing years. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Chris Poland
Conference Chair
President & CEO
Degenkolb Engineers |
Conference opening statements, dignitaries, announcements. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Kevin Starr Professor of History,
University of Southern California |
The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake
Historical overview of the societal setting, the earthquake, its effect on the city, including failures, fire, emergency response
and recovery, and long-term impacts on public policy and preparedness. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Dr. Mary Lou Zoback
Senior Research Scientist,
USGS Menlo Park |
The 1906 Earthquake - Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten,
and Future Directions. - An IRIS/SSA Distinguished Lecture
The 1906 earthquake was the first to be systematically documented and analyzed in terms of both the cause and the effects of earthquakes. The San Andreas Fault was identified as a major active structure extending nearly the length of the state and the concept of an earthquake cycle, a cycle of slow strain accumulation and rapid release, was established. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Thomas D. O'Rourke
Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering
Cornell University |
Liquefaction, Lifelines, and Fire Following the
1906 San Francisco Earthquake
Overview of ground failure and associated lifeline/fire impacts.
The 1906 earthquake resulted in the greatest single fire loss in US history, with 490 city blocks burned to the ground and an additional 32 partially destroyed. The fire damage was influenced by the disruption of the water supply, which in turn was influenced by ground failures caused by soil liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction on water supply lifelines will be explained, and the relationship between areas destroyed by fire, locations of liquefaction, and damaged water pipelines will be illustrated. The historic implications of liquefaction in 1906 will be explored with respect to the design of the current fire protection system in San Francisco, the development of modern practices for fire protection in cities vulnerable to earthquakes, and the evolution of policy for water distribution and emergency response procedures. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Stephen Tobriner
Professor of Architecture University of California, Berkeley |
What really happened in San Francisco in the earthquake of 1906
This talk presents a radically new approach to the earthquake of 1906. For the first time the history of
San Francisco's complex topography and built environment has been studied in relationship to the actual performance
of specific buildings in the earthquake of 1906. Buildings are as important to a discussion of San Francisco's
earthquake as levees are to a discussion of Katrina's impact on New Orleans. One of the reasons that fatalities in
the earthquake were a fraction of one percent of the population and complete collapses were so few is that well
before 1906 engineers and architects attempted to build structures with earthquake-resistant features.
The 1906 fire caused at least ninety percent of the damage to the city and perhaps more.
City officials and citizens emphasized the fire in order to receive insurance payments.
Ironically, they couldn't over-emphasize the consequences of the fire because a majority
of damage was due to the fire. But engineers and architects did learn from the earthquake.
They quietly continued to build earthquake-resistant buildings, and put into effect a strong
\building code that addressed earthquake danger. After the earthquake, the citizens responded
by voting to build a huge water system dedicated to fighting fires, which was earthquake-resistant as well.
|
|
8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Hall E
Room
134 / 235 |
Joint Plenary Sessions
Lessons learned from recent large Earthquakes - a century of progress in earthquake risk reduction, with emphasis on recent large earthquakes, including earthquake ground motions and ground failure; losses to the built environment and to our ability to continue economic and life-sustaining activities; and emergency response and recovery. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Norm Abrahamson
Pacific Gas & Electric Company |
The recent large magnitude earthquakes have lead to a dramatic increase in the number of available strong ground motion data close to large magnitude shallow crustal earthquakes. The median T<1 sec ground motions from these large earthquakes are smaller than predicted by commonly used models and they have larger variability. A key issue facing the earthquake engineering in California is whether or not the ground motion from these recent earthquakes are applicable to California. If so, are they representative of future large magnitude earthquakes and should they be used to revise the hazard maps for the state?
|
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Mary Comerio |
Earthquake Safety in the 20th Century
Popular images of the 1906 earthquake focus on the destruction of San Francisco, but the engineers of that time
had learned from previous events, and tried to design their buildings to withstand the shaking. Throughout the last
100 years, engineers have advanced their knowledge of how buildings and bridges perform in earthquakes, and at the
same time, worked with social scientists, planners, and emergency managers to address land use isses, mitigation for
existing buildings, housing safety, as well as post-event sheltering and recovery strategies. The relationship between
science and policy continues to be critical to reducing losses in future earthquakes.
|
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Richard Andrews, Ph.D.
Senior Director, Homeland Security, NC4 |
Seismic Risk and Comprehensive Emergency Management: Lessons
Learned and Future Challenges
In the United States, the 2005 hurricane season prompted
an unprecedented national debate regarding emergency management. Despite
important technological advances in communications, information management,
and logistics, large-scale emergencies in metropolitan areas present
special challenges that are only occasionally met by emergency management
systems.
This address focuses on examples from the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the 1999 Marmara earthquake as well
as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe and Hurricane Katrina in
assessing what lessons have been learned and what challenges remain to be
met in developing comprehensive emergency management systems commensurate
with the risks we face. |
|
8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Hall E
Room
134 / 235 |
Joint Plenary Sessions
What if the 1906 earthquake happened today?- a scenario study of a 2006 repeat of the 1906 earthquake, including ground motion simulations, expected losses, emergency response and recovery, and how mitigation and planning have improved our situation and can further improve it through risk reduction measures. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Greg Beroza |
Greg Beroza begins the three part session by presenting the newest USGS ground motion studies including research on "The Big One." |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Charlie Kircher |
Using the ground motions generated as part of the USGS study, Charlie Kircher analyzes HAZUS data to propose probable damage and loss estimates including deaths, dollars, and downtime. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Richard K. Eisner
Regional Administrator
Governor's Office of Emergency Services Coastal Region and CISN & Earthquake Program |
Based on the probable loss from Charlie Kircher's presentation, Mr. Eisner will discuss emergency response plans and post-event recovery required after "The Big One."
|
|
10:30a.m. - Noon
Hall E Room 134 / 235 |
Joint Plenary Sessions
Looking Beyond 2006 - Visions for continued progress. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Kerry Sieh Robert P. Sharp Professor of Geology, Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. |
Earthquake science: Why the disconnect between scientific progress and human suffering?
Earthquake science has made progress that was unimaginable in 1906, yet life and property losses continue to climb.
|
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Greg Deierlein, PhD., P.E. Professor
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
|
Earthquake Engineering: Challenges and Innovations in a Sustainable World
Tremendous advancements have been made in earthquake engineering over the past century to mitigate earthquake losses and casualties. Yet, significant earthquake threats persist, particularly in large urban environments with aging buildings and infrastructure. This lecture will examine these issues in light of innovative new engineering strategies and technologies that will enable more informed and cost-effective earthquake risk mitigation. |
|
 |
|
Speaker:
Henry Renteria, Director Governor's Office of Emergency (OES)
|
Emergency Management Today:
The essentials for survival - Cooperation,
Collaboration and Coordination
Natural and human caused disasters are becoming more devastating.
Increasing populations living in high risk areas combined with more complex
infrastructure and volatile world politics are formulas for continued
catastrophes. The future requires a reliable robust emergency management
system that involves more than first responders. The public sector,
private sector and individuals must cooperate, collaborate and coordinate
to survive. Increased education and awareness of the public is critical.
Also crucial is partnership with the media before, during and after a
disaster.
|
Noon - 1:30 p.m. Hall E
Room 134 / 235 |
Joint Closing Session
A Centennial Challenge for Earthquake Professionals Worldwide
Moderator: Chris Poland, Chair, 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference
Panelists: Craig Comartin, President, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
The 100th Anniversary has provided the opportunity for earthquake professionals - scientists, engineers, and emergency
managers - to come together, exchange information, and determine what needs to be done to better control the damaging
effects earthquakes. At the closing session, Chris Poland will offer a challenge related to what needs to be done and
lead discussion between the leaders of the co-convening organizations that will focus on what each organization plans
to do, when they need to work together, and how they will continue to speak with a common voice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|