source: production/pt_hedland_2006/report/damage.tex @ 3375

Last change on this file since 3375 was 3375, checked in by sexton, 19 years ago

inputting reviewer's comments

File size: 4.8 KB
Line 
1In this report, impact modelling refers to casualties and
2damage to residential buildings as a result
3of the inundation described in Section \ref{sec:results}. It is assumed
4that the event occurs at night.
5Exposure data are sourced from the National Building Exposure Database (NBED),
6developed by GA\footnote{http://www.ga.gov.au/urban/projects/ramp/NBED.jsp}.
7It contains information about residential buildings, people and the
8cost of replacing buildings and contents.
9
10To develop building damage and casuality estimates,
11residential collapse vulnerability models and casualty models were developed.
12The vulnerability models have been developed for
13framed residential construction using data from the Indian Ocean tsunami event. The models predict the collapse
14probability for an exposed population and incorporates the following
15parameters 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
24The 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
29Casualty models were based on the
30storm surge models used for the Cairns Cyclone Scenario and
31through consultation with Dr David Cooper of NSW Health, \cite{cooper:2005}.
32The injury probabilities for exposed populations were determined
33based on the nocturnal nature of the event, the collapse outcome
34for the structure, the water depth with respect to
35sleeping height (1.0 m) and the limited warning noise for people
36in the first three city blocks (six house rows) that could potentially
37awaken them. The three injury categories correspond with the
38categories presented in HAZUS-MH \cite{NIBS:2003} for earthquake
39related injury. The casualty model used is presented in Table
40\ref{table:casualty} 
41and the injury categories are presented in Table \ref{table:injury}.
42Input data comprised of resident population data at census
43district level derived from the ABS 2001 Census.
44
45There are an estimated
46? residential structures and a population of approximately ?
47in Port Hedland\footnote{Population is determined by census data and the 1999
48ABS housing survey}.
49The damage to the residential structures in the Onslow community
50is summarised in Table \ref{table:damageoutput}. The percentage
51of repair cost to structural value shown is based on the total structural value
52of \$60M. Likewise, the percentage of contents loss shown is
53based on the total contents value of \$85M for
54the Onslow region.
55%The injuries sustained is summarised in Table \ref{table:injuries}.
56The HAT scenario is the only scenario to cause damage
57to 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
68HAT 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
87Tsunami impact on indigeneous communities should be considered
88especially as a number of communities exist in coastal regions of north west WA.
89These communities are typically not included in national residential databases
90and would be therefore overlooked in damage model estimates.
91
92There are four indigeneous communities located in this study area.
93The community located in a potentially vulnerable
94position
95(on the headland) is Tjalka Boorda whose population is not registered.
96
97During 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
101Easting  & Northing     & Community     & Population \\ \hline
102677055.85&      7742819.31&      Tjalkli Warra& 100 \\ \hline
103690756.92&      7746148.99&      Jinparinya&    30 \\ \hline
104691091.39&      7747119.61&      Punju Ngarugundi Njamal&       22 \\ \hline
105669526.15&    7752820.51& Tjalka Boorda & 0 \\ \hline
106\end{tabular}
107\end{center}
108
109
110
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.