1 | In this report, impact modelling refers to casualties and |
---|
2 | damage to residential buildings as a result |
---|
3 | of the inundation described in Section \ref{sec:results}. It is assumed |
---|
4 | that the event occurs at night. |
---|
5 | Exposure data are sourced from the National Building Exposure Database (NBED), |
---|
6 | developed by GA\footnote{http://www.ga.gov.au/urban/projects/ramp/NBED.jsp}. |
---|
7 | It contains information about residential buildings, people and the |
---|
8 | cost of replacing buildings and contents. |
---|
9 | |
---|
10 | To develop building damage and casuality estimates, |
---|
11 | residential collapse vulnerability models and casualty models were developed. |
---|
12 | The vulnerability models have been developed for |
---|
13 | framed residential construction using data from the Indian Ocean tsunami event. The models predict the collapse |
---|
14 | probability for an exposed population and incorporates the following |
---|
15 | parameters known to influence building damage \cite{papathoma:vulnerability}, |
---|
16 | |
---|
17 | \begin{itemize} |
---|
18 | \item inundation depth at building |
---|
19 | \item distance from the coast |
---|
20 | \item building material (residential framed construction) |
---|
21 | \item inundation depth in house above floor level |
---|
22 | \end{itemize} |
---|
23 | |
---|
24 | The collapse vulnerability models used are presented in Table \ref{table:collapse}. |
---|
25 | %In applying the model, all structures in the inundation zone were |
---|
26 | %spatially located and the local water depth and building row |
---|
27 | %number from the exposed edge of the suburb were determined for each %structure. |
---|
28 | |
---|
29 | Casualty models were based on the |
---|
30 | storm surge models used for the Cairns Cyclone Scenario and |
---|
31 | through consultation with Dr David Cooper of NSW Health, \cite{cooper:2005}. |
---|
32 | The injury probabilities for exposed populations were determined |
---|
33 | based on the nocturnal nature of the event, the collapse outcome |
---|
34 | for the structure, the water depth with respect to |
---|
35 | sleeping height (1.0 m) and the limited warning noise for people |
---|
36 | in the first three city blocks (six house rows) that could potentially |
---|
37 | awaken them. The three injury categories correspond with the |
---|
38 | categories presented in HAZUS-MH \cite{NIBS:2003} for earthquake |
---|
39 | related injury. The casualty model used is presented in Table |
---|
40 | \ref{table:casualty} |
---|
41 | and the injury categories are presented in Table \ref{table:injury}. |
---|
42 | Input data comprised of resident population data at census |
---|
43 | district level derived from the ABS 2001 Census. |
---|
44 | |
---|
45 | There are an estimated |
---|
46 | ? residential structures and a population of approximately ? |
---|
47 | in Port Hedland\footnote{Population is determined by census data and the 1999 |
---|
48 | ABS housing survey}. |
---|
49 | The damage to the residential structures in the Onslow community |
---|
50 | is summarised in Table \ref{table:damageoutput}. The percentage |
---|
51 | of repair cost to structural value shown is based on the total structural value |
---|
52 | of \$60M. Likewise, the percentage of contents loss shown is |
---|
53 | based on the total contents value of \$85M for |
---|
54 | the Onslow region. |
---|
55 | %The injuries sustained is summarised in Table \ref{table:injuries}. |
---|
56 | The HAT scenario is the only scenario to cause damage |
---|
57 | to Onslow with around 10-15\% of the population affected. |
---|
58 | |
---|
59 | \begin{table}[h] |
---|
60 | \begin{center} |
---|
61 | \caption{Residential damage sustained for the MSL, HAT and LAT scenarios.} |
---|
62 | \label{table:damageoutput} |
---|
63 | \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline |
---|
64 | &Houses & Houses & Structural & Repair Cost \% & Contents & Contents Loss \% \\ |
---|
65 | &Inundated & Collapsed & Repair Cost |
---|
66 | & of Total Value & Losses & of Total Value \\ \hline |
---|
67 | %MSL & & 1 & \$ & \% & \$ & \% \\ \hline |
---|
68 | HAT 68& 1&\$6M & &\$13M & & \\ \hline |
---|
69 | %LAT & & & & & & \\ \hline |
---|
70 | \end{tabular} |
---|
71 | \end{center} |
---|
72 | \end{table} |
---|
73 | |
---|
74 | %\begin{table}[h] |
---|
75 | %\begin{center} |
---|
76 | %\caption{Injuries sustained for the MSL, HAT and LAT scenarios.} |
---|
77 | %\label{table:injuries} |
---|
78 | %\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline |
---|
79 | %&Minor & Moderate & Serious & Fatal \\ \hline |
---|
80 | %MSL & & & & \\ \hline |
---|
81 | %HAT & & & & \\ \hline |
---|
82 | %LAT & & & & \\ \hline |
---|
83 | %\end{tabular} |
---|
84 | %\end{center} |
---|
85 | %\end{table} |
---|
86 | |
---|
87 | Tsunami impact on indigeneous communities should be considered |
---|
88 | especially as a number of communities exist in coastal regions of north west WA. |
---|
89 | These communities are typically not included in national residential databases |
---|
90 | and would be therefore overlooked in damage model estimates. |
---|
91 | |
---|
92 | There are four indigeneous communities located in this study area. |
---|
93 | The community located in a potentially vulnerable |
---|
94 | position |
---|
95 | (on the headland) is Tjalka Boorda whose population is not registered. |
---|
96 | |
---|
97 | During the HAT scenario, over ?m of water will inundate parts of the community causing significant impact? |
---|
98 | |
---|
99 | \begin{center} |
---|
100 | \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}\hline |
---|
101 | Easting & Northing & Community & Population \\ \hline |
---|
102 | 677055.85& 7742819.31& Tjalkli Warra& 100 \\ \hline |
---|
103 | 690756.92& 7746148.99& Jinparinya& 30 \\ \hline |
---|
104 | 691091.39& 7747119.61& Punju Ngarugundi Njamal& 22 \\ \hline |
---|
105 | 669526.15& 7752820.51& Tjalka Boorda & 0 \\ \hline |
---|
106 | \end{tabular} |
---|
107 | \end{center} |
---|
108 | |
---|
109 | |
---|
110 | |
---|