Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 Introduction
M.L. Gavrilova et al. (Eds.): Trans. on Comput. Sci. XVIII, LNCS 7848, pp. 121–136, 2013.
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
122 I. Kirillov, S. Metcherin, and S. Klimenko
large resources (both human and financial) were spent world-wide in attempts
to provide an acceptable level of safety and security via hardening of the build-
ings/structures, development of the new protective technologies, materials, tech-
nical standards, and organizational procedures.
Security and safety of the civil inhabitants of the modern cities is subjected to
the multiple hazards of different nature. Devastating hurricanes in US, terrorist
explosions in trains in Spain or metro in U.K., flooding in Central Europe are just
some of the mostly known examples during the last years. Mentioned challenges
have caused specific reactions, such as enhanced security at transport junctions
or planning of global monitoring networks. This ”mono-hazard” approach is not
enough to cope with the modern challenges, especially taking into account a
growing terrorist threat. Current trends require a more comprehensive, holistic
approach for disaster prediction and prevention.
The 9/11 tragedy in New York demonstrates clearly that high rise buildings
are vulnerable specifically to combined hazards. A blend of perilous effects —
mechanical impact, short-duration explosion and long-lasting fire resulted in
progressive collapse of the building. The WTC towers had enough structural
resistance to cope with the primary mechanical impacts and the subsequent
fuel-air explosive combustion. However, their integral resistance was not enough
to survive under the loading by post-impact fires.
Due to absence of knowledge on synergetic (joint) action of the combined
hazards, nobody — neither fire protection experts, nor explosion experts or civil
structure engineers were able to predict the mode of building collapse and the
remaining time till collapse. At the same time, the duration of the pre-collapse
period was vitally important for occupant behaviour, egress and implementation
of the emergency operations of the first responders. Different types of combined
hazards can also threaten the other key structures of the built environment, such
as the multi-floor transport junctions/hubs, bridges, tunnels, multiple-use public
sites, etc..
The problem of the multi-hazards for the built environment has a timeless na-
ture. In the past, people were concerned not only with earthquake consequences
but also with the subsequent large-scale fires. Today, mechanical impact, sub-
sequent BLEVE and fuel-air explosion and long-lasting fire can be a threat to
people in different urban structures as a result of a transport accident or malevo-
lent terrorist attack. In the future, it will be highly un-probable, that complexity,
high energy-loading and strong interdependence of the different sub-systems of
structures, energy supply and communication of modern cities will diminish. It
means, that the necessity in understanding and prediction of the consequences
of the combined hazardous effects (multi-hazards) will be going to stay in the
list of research priorities. The 9/11 case just accentuates with utmost intensity
Towards Multi-hazard Resilience as a New Engineering Paradigm 127
– June 2002 – June 2004: Russian-Dutch research project ”Hazard and Risk
Analysis of Aircraft Collision with High-Rise Building” (11 Russian research
establishments, TNO and TU Delft from Dutch side) [23],
– 10-12 June 2004: ”Results of the Aircraft-Building-Crash project” Dissemi-
nation day for the Dutch Royal Fire Brigades and Russian Ministry of Emer-
gency,
– 16-18 July, 2007: NATO Advanced Research Workshop ”Resilience of Build-
ing against Combined Threats”, 17 invited participants from NATO coun-
tries, 32 participants from Russia [24],
– 2008: ”Resilience of Cities to Terrorist and Threats: learning from 9/11 and
further research issues” [25].
– Enhancing the resilience of the built environment is the key option for the
protection of society from multi-hazard incidents.
– Current empirically-based building regulations and risk assessment technolo-
gies cannot cope with 1) multi-hazard threats (e.g., combinations of impact,
explosion, fire, storm, seismic movements, toxic dispersion, etc.), 2) and are
not suitable for risk assessment at the scale of a building (only for regional
or national scales).
– A comprehensive and cost-effective methodology is urgently needed to rem-
edy this deficiency. Such a methodology must enable society to both assess
the risk and prepare for, and to efficiently respond to such incidents
– Addressing issues with multi-hazard resilience of built environment will have
a profound effect on national and international peace, prosperity, and secu-
rity. Essential work must be conducted in several important areas that in-
clude natural science and engineering topics, as well as socio-economics and
public policy.
Towards Multi-hazard Resilience as a New Engineering Paradigm 129
Following to [11, 26] the next working definition of the resilience of built envi-
ronment can be proposed.
Resilience is a capability of buildings/structure to maintain their functions and
structure in the face of internal and external change and to degrade gracefully,
that provides opportunities to reasonably avoid intolerable (or un-acceptable)
harm to peoples or losses to the building, associated with potential dangerous
direct effects or in-direct consequences of a multi-hazard accident.
The proposed working definition is, in first turn, intended to reach a con-
sensus between stakeholders with different backgrounds. It speaks to the issues
of human safety, construction damage, but gives no specific guidance on how
one should be protected during, or recovered after, an accident. So, associated
functional definitions are needed.
In order to be operational, the above mentioned general definition can be
articulated as a set of the functional requirements or technical goals for design
or maintenance of a building/construction, considered as a system, comprising
structural, engineering and safety/security components (Fig. 3 below):
the severity of the hazard during accident, and to ”bounce back” to enhanced
functioning under post-accident conditions,
– information and communication sub-systems of building (network-enabled
sensors and video surveillance, communication channels) are to provide ”as
Complete As Reasonably Possible a Common Operational Picture” shared
between people inside the building and rescue/ambulance/ emergency teams/
systems outside the building, subjected to multi-hazard risks.
Fig. 4. Concept map for resilience management of built environment (top-tier repre-
sentation)
Today integrated safety and security of the built environment is, mainly, provided
by using a widely accepted paradigm of risk management [28]. This paradigm has
a proven track record in military and disaster/emergency applications, in high
technology - nuclear energy, aerospace, off-shore platforms - and many other
civil applications. However, in spite of a long list of successful applications of
risk management, and a scientific and engineering maturity of this approach,
there are still many problems and issues, which cannot be solved within the
framework of the currently available technologies and techniques of risk analysis
and management.
Towards Multi-hazard Resilience as a New Engineering Paradigm 131
9 Conclusions
1. The resilience of the built environment is, probably, the only available now,
under-estimated resource and systemic factor, which can really reduce multi-
hazard risks in the near future.
2. Resilience of the built environment should become a goal and standard for
provision of integrated safety and security of modern cities.
3. The proposed paradigm of ”multi-hazard resilience management” is a natural
evolution and extension of the risk management paradigm.
4. Management of resilience of the built environment should include at least
three components:
(a) network-enabled management of Shared Situational Awareness,
(b) multi-hazard risk-informed management of Existing Vulnerabilities,
(c) multi-hazard risk-informed management of Available Adaptive Capabil-
ities.
5. The attaining of this formidable goal can permit to transform the imple-
mentation of BE to resist specific hazard combinations and thus enhance
the quality of life, economic prosperity, safety, and security. A transforma-
tional engineering approach, which will be developed, permitting to enable
society to build more resilient and robust civil constructions and systems.
Whereas the new research will not create new infrastructures per se (that
would take billions of dollars), new engineering design approaches and tools
will emerge from this vital effort in multi-hazard research that will enable
safer, more economical, and more secure BE.
References
1. Carpenter, G.: Reinsurance Market Review 2010. Guy Capenter & Company (2010)
2. EU SEVESO II Directive, EU (1982)
3. Rasmussen, N.: The Reactor Safety Study WASH-1400. Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission (1975)
4. A Framework for an Integrated Risk Informed Decision Making Process, Insag-25.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2011)
5. Risk-Informed Decisionmaking for Science and Technology, Center for Technology
and National Security Policy National Defense University, USA (2010)
6. Transportation security, Comprehensive Risk Assessments and Stronger Internal
Controls Needed to Help Inform TSA Resource Allocation, GAO, USA (2009)
7. Kröger, W.: Critical infrastructures at risk: A need for a new conceptual ap-
proach and extended analytical tools. In: Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
vol. 93(12), pp. 1781–1787 (2008)
Towards Multi-hazard Resilience as a New Engineering Paradigm 135
8. Bosher, L. (ed.): Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built-in Resilience.
Taylor and Francis, Loughborough University (2008)
9. Vale, L.J., Campanella, T.J.: The Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from
Disaster. Oxford University Press (2005)
10. Burby, R.J., Deyle, R.E., Godschalk, D.R., Olshansky, R.B.: Creating Hazard Re-
silient Communities through Land-Use Planning. Natural Hazards Review 1(2)
(2000)
11. Allenby, B., Fink, J.: Toward Inherently Secure and Resilient Societies. Science 309,
1034–1036 (2005)
12. Allenby, B.: Environmental Threats and National Security: An International Chal-
lenge to Science and Technology. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1999)
13. Holling, C.S.: Resilience and Stability of Ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 4, 1–23 (1973)
14. Bodin, P., Wiman, B.: Resilience and other stability concepts in ecology: notes on
their origin, validity and usefulness. ESS Bulletin 2(2), 33–43 (2004)
15. Resilience Alliance (1999), http://www.resalliance.org/
16. Stockholm Resilience Centre (2007), http://www.stockholmresilience.org/
17. Business continuity in Europe (2007),
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emcc/content/
source/eu04021a.htm?p1=reports&p2=null
18. Standard on business continuity (2012),
http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/iso-22301-business-continuity/
19. Domestic Security: Civil Contingencies and Resilience in the United Kingdom.
Chatham House, UK (2007)
20. UK government counter-terrorism strategy (2011),
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/news/news-by-category/
government/new-government-counter-terrorism-strategy-published.html
21. National Inrastructure Advisory Council: Critical Infrastructure Resilience (2009),
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/niac/
niac critical infrastructure resilience.pdf
22. The Homeland Security Blog: DHS Reorienting around Resilience (2010),
http://www.thehomelandsecurityblog.com/2010/04/23/
dhs-reorienting-around-resilience/
23. Hazard and Risk Analysis of Aircraft Collision with High-Rise Building, Russian-
Dutch research project, suported by NWO (NL) and RFBR (RU) (2002-2004)
24. Nato scientific publications (2012),
http://www.nato.int/science/2012/scientific_publications.pdf
25. Pasman, H., Kirillov, I.: Resilience of Cities to Terrorist and Threats: learning from
9/11 and further research issues. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C,
Environmental Security. Springer (2008)
26. Kirillov, I.A., Klimenko, S.V.: Platos Atlantis Revisited: Risk-informed, Multi-
Hazard Resilience of Built Environment via Cyber Worlds Sharing. In: 2010 Inter-
national Conference on Cyberworlds (CW), Singapore, October 20-22, pp. 445–450
(2010), 10.1109/CW.2010.38
27. Wybo, J.L.: Mastering risks of damage and risks of crisis: the role of organisational
learning. International Journal of Emergency Management 2(1/2) (2004)
28. Commission Staff Working Paper, Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for
Disaster Management, Brussels, 1626 final (2010)
29. NIST and the World Trade Center (2011), http://wtc.nist.gov/
136 I. Kirillov, S. Metcherin, and S. Klimenko
30. ARMONIA: Assessing and Mapping Multiple Risks for Spatial Planning - project
(2007), http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/publications/
fp6/natural hazards//armonia.pdf
31. MATRIX: New Multi-Hazard and Multi-Risk Assessment Methods for Europe
(2010), http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/downloads/
Fact-sheet-matrix-general.pdf
32. SMARTeST: Smart Resilience Technology, Systems and Tools (2009),
http://www.citg.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/Faculteit/CiTG/
Over de faculteit/Afdelingen/Afdeling Waterbouwkunde/
sectie waterbouwkunde/people/personal/gelder/doc/SMARTest.pdf
33. Delvosalle, C., Fievez, C., Pipart, A., Londiche, H., Debray, B.: Effect of Safety
Systems on the Definition of Reference Accident Scenarios in Seveso Establish-
ments. In: WP 1, ARAMIS Project (2004),
http://mahb.jrc.it/fileadmin/ARAMIS/downloads/wp1/WP1_LP_04.pdf