front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |review |
Retrofitting existing
buildings (e.g., anchoring houses, bracing walls) can be expensive,
and
many
owners do not have the funds for compliance even with minor
strengthening requirements.
Thus, a policy of selectively retrofitting buildings on the basis of
relative risk may be appropriate.
For example, in the case of unreinforced masonry buildings,
Durkin and Thiel's research shows that many injuries in recent
California earthquakes have occurred outside the buildings, often to
occupants attempting to evacuate (31,79,98).
This finding suggests that protecting the evacuation route
out of URM buildings and along the buildings' perimeters may yield
substantial reductions in the number of injuries and deaths at a
modest cost (99).
Other relatively simple modifications that may increase the
probability that severe damage will cause fewer injuries include
strengthening stair wells or bathrooms or creating "safe" corridors
(95).
Finally, many of the 22,000
highway bridges in California are at risk of severe damage or
collapse in a major earthquake (77).
Any plan for earthquake hazard mitigation in a seismically
active area such as California should also give high priority to the
systematic retrofitting of transportation structures.
|