IMPACT OF NATURAL DISASTERS ON INFRASTRUCTURES AND

THE ENVIRONMENT: DESIGNING FOR SAFETY AND STABILITY

LEADS TO SUSTAINABILITY

Andres Winston C. Oreta, D. Eng.

Professor in Civil Engineering
De La Salle University – Manila, Philippines
Email: andyoreta@yahoo.com, oretaa@dlsu.edu.ph

Abstract: Structural and geotechnical engineers have significantly contributed towards the
protection and conservation of the natural environment especially when we consider the
impact of natural disasters, like earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides, on infrastructures and
the environment. Today, the emphasis of sustainability is on how to deal with the issues of
limited resources and how to reduce the impacts on the natural environment. But in an
environment frequently attacked by natural disasters like seismic countries, Japan and the
Philippines, the primary considerations in the design and construction of infrastructures are
safety and stability. When structures and foundations are properly designed for safety and
stability, the accumulation of construction waste and disaster-caused debris waste is
minimized and the consumption of non-renewable natural resources is reduced. This paper
highlights the contribution of structural and geotechnical engineers to the preservation of the
environment.

Key Words: Sustainability, Natural Disasters, Environmental Impact, Safety, Stability

1. INTRODUCTION: Today, there is an

increasing demand for engineers to focus their
efforts on the protection and preservation of the
environment. The civil engineering community,
which includes structural and geotechnical
engineers, plays a major role in maintaining the
balance and harmony between the built and
existing natural environment. Provision of
proper housing and the necessary infrastructure
for transport, communication, water supply and
sanitation, energy, commercial and industrial
activities to meet the needs of a growing
worldwide population, at the same time Figure 1. Infrastructure Development
reducing the environmental impact, pose a (Photo by A. Oreta)
major challenge to civil engineers (Figure 1).
2. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The built environment, which includes infrastructures such as residential houses, high-rise
buildings, long-span bridges, roads and expressways, and large civil structures like dams and
reservoirs, provide for a livable atmosphere for all. However, the impact of these
infrastructures on the natural environment should be a concern. The environmental impact of
infrastructure development with respect to the depletion of our natural resources and
production of waste is staggering (Figure 2).

Richardson (2002) summarizes the realities of infrastructure impact on the environment as

follows:
It is said that 50% of the world population lives in cities today and this may grow to 75% by 2030.
Cities are said to cause 75% of the world’s pollution and consume 75% of the world’s energy.
Buildings are reported to produce 40% of the world’s CO2, consume 50% of the energy derived
from fossil fuels, consume 3 billion tonnes of raw materials in construction each year and
consume 75% of all energy used through artificial lighting, heating and cooling every day. 25%
of all wood harvested is used in building construction.

Maydl (2004) emphasizes that the construction sector is the most important contributor in
resource consumption and waste production. According to him, within the European Union
(EU), half of all materials that are taken from the earth’s surface are used in the construction
sector and more than one fourth of the amount of the total waste is construction waste. In
Austria, the share of the total waste from building sites including excavation material amounts
to 57% of the total waste per year (Maydl 2004).

In the case of the United Sates, Webster (2004) summarizes the following information:
There are 83 million residential buildings, 4.7 million commercial buildings and 230,000

Figure 2. Two major impacts of infrastructure development:

(a) Depletion of natural resources, and (b) Accumulation of construction waste

industrial buildings in the US. Residential and commercial buildings consume 39% of the
nation’s prime energy, consume 71% of its electricity and emit 38% of the greenhouse gases.
Building construction and demolition (C&D) generated 123 million metric tons of waste in
1996, equivalent to ½ ton per person per year. Approximately 43% of the waste came from
residential sources and 57% from non-residential sources. Of this waste, about 40% went to
C&D landfills, 20 to 30% was recovered or recycled and the bulk of the remainder was
deposited in landfills, buried or burned on-site. Construction waste accounted for 8% of the
total, renovation waste 44%, and demolition waste 48%.

3. IMPACT OF NATURAL DISASTERS

The natural environment, through natural disasters, in a way contributes to its deterioration.
Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, typhoons and volcanic eruptions spoil both the built
and natural environment. Aside from
causing numerous deaths and
injuries to people, natural disasters
had caused the destruction of
important infrastructures such as
buildings, bridges and roads and
devastation of nature which
contributed to environmental
degradation. Consider the following
examples:

The 1985 Mexico City earthquake

resulted in a death toll of at least
9,500, 30,000 injuries and more than
100,000 people left homeless. It is
estimated that the quake seriously
affected an area of approximately
825,000 square kilometers, caused
between 3 and 4 billion U.S. dollars
of damage, and was felt by almost 20 Figure 3. News of a disaster brings grief
million people. Four hundred twelve (Headline from the Philippine Daily Inquirer)
buildings collapsed and another
3,124 were seriously damaged in
Mexico City. About 60 percent of
the buildings were destroyed at
Ciudad Guzman, Jalisco (USGS
website).

The July 16, 1990 earthquake (M

7.8) which struck northern and
central Luzon Island in the
Philippines resulted in substantial
morbidity and mortality and
widespread damage. Among the
areas severely affected were the
Figure 4. Collapsed Hyatt Hotel- Baguio City
mountain city of Baguio; the coastal
(Photo from Hawaiian Webmaster)
areas in La Union; Dagupan city in
Pangasinan; and the central plain area - primarily Cabanatuan city in Nueva Ecija and
mountainous Nueva Viscaya. Buildings in Baguio and Cabanatuan suffered extensive
structural failure, and buildings in the coastal areas in La Union and in Dagupan suffered
foundation failure or the effects of liquefaction. In Baguio City, of more than 350 inspected
edifices, consisting of public, publicly-used and private buildings, 190 structures were
pronounced building hazards, 110 edifices were deemed partially damaged and may be
partially occupied, and 54 buildings showed no observable damage or only minor damage
thus allowing resumption of their normal operation (Baguio Midland Courier/August 5, 1990).

The Hyogo-ken Nanbu or the “Great Hanshin” earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale
hit the city of Kobe and surrounding areas in Hyogo prefecture on January 17, 1995. Over
6,000 fatalities and close to 35,000 serious injuries were caused by the earthquake. 88% of the
deaths were instantaneous, caused by building collapse, which literally crushed people in their
sleep. Nearly 55,000 houses collapsed and 32,000 houses were severely damaged in the city
of Kobe. Traditional wooden houses with heavy tiled roofs suffered the most severe impact.
Most of these collapsed. Many of the new timber houses with light roofs partially collapsed.
Both of these types of houses caught fire easily, leading to the destruction of over 23,000
buildings by fire. In total, over 500,000 persons effectively lost their place to live as a direct
result of the quake; 100,209 housing units were officially classified as 'totally damaged', with
107,074 designated as 'severely damaged'. The cost of reconstruction of buildings alone was
roughly estimated at between US $61-70 billion
(http://www.cohre.org/cohrelibrary2/country/kobe.html).

The 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in

Taiwan caused 2,415 deaths, 1,441
severely wounded, US$9.2 billion
worth of damage, 44,338 houses
completely destroyed and 41,336
houses severely damaged
(Wikipedia).

The 2001 Gujarat earthquake in

India was the most devastating
earthquake in India in recent
history. As many as 15,000 -
20,000 people were initially
reported dead but within a few
days after the earthquake, the
Figure 5. Earthquake waste and debris - 1995 Hyogo- death toll kept on rising reaching
ken Nanbu Earthquake (Photo by K. Kawashima)
more than 30,000. The quake
destroyed 90 percent of the homes
in Bhuj, several schools, and flattened a hospital. Considerable damage occurred also at
Bhachau. In Ahmedabad, Gujarat's commercial capital and a city of 4.5 million, as many as
50 multistory buildings collapsed and several hundred people were killed. Total property
damage was estimated at more than $5.5 billion (Wikipedia).
The 2004 Niigata - Chuetsu earthquake in Japan caused more than 3,000 injuries and over one
hundred thousand people fled their homes. The earthquakes caused houses to collapse in
Ojiya and damaged thousands in the area. For the first time in its history, a Shinkansen train
derailed while in service. Eight out of ten cars of the Toki 325 (a 200 Series Shinkansen)
derailed on the Joetsu Shinkansen line between Nagaoka Station in Nagaoka and Urasa
Station in Yamato East Japan Railway Company stopped aall trains in Niigata Prefecture,
including the extensively damaged Joetsu Line, Shinetsu Main Line, Iiyama Line, Tadami
Line and Echigo Line. Part of Nagaoka Station appeared ready to collapse as a result of an
aftershock, but after a brief closure, the station has reopened. The segment of the Joetsu
Shinkansen between Echigo Yuzawa Station and Nagaoka Station closed. Buses transferred
passengers between the two operating segments of the line: Tokyo Station–Echigo Yuzawa
Station and Nagaoka Station–Niigata Station.

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami affected about 11 countries in Southeast Asia
including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, the Maldives, Somalia, Myanmar, Malaysia
and Seychelles. The number of people killed and missing has reached more than 200,000 in
Indonesia. More than half a million were left homeless. The toll in Sri Lanka, which was
second hardest hit by the catastrophe, was 30,957 (Wikipedia).

As a consequence of the destruction brought about by natural disasters, the natural resources,
materials and energy that have been utilized in constructing these infrastructures have been
put to waste. Moreover, the large amount of disaster-caused waste and debris poses another
environmental problem (Figure 5). Debris removal is a major component of every disaster
recovery operation. Much of the debris generated from natural disasters is not hazardous. Soil,
building material, and green waste, such as trees and shrubs, make up most of the volume of
disaster debris. Debris from hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and fires falls into a
few major categories (Table 1).

Table 1. Disaster Debris (from US EPA)

Major Categories of Disaster Debris

Damaged Personal Ash and Charred

Sediments Green Waste
Buildings Property Wood

Hurricanes X X X X

Earthquakes X X X X X

Tornadoes X X X

Floods X X X X

Fires X X X

The most severe natural disasters generate debris in quantities that can overwhelm existing
solid waste management facilities or force communities to use disposal options that otherwise
would not be acceptable. Debris estimates for major earthquakes in the US range from
500,000 tons for a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward Fault, to 2.5 million tons for a
magnitude 7.7 on the San Andreas Fault (DiMartino 1999).

The Impact of the Environment on Infrastructures

ƒ Disasters due to natural hazards (earthquakes, tsunamis,
landslides, flashfloods, volcanic eruptions, typhoons)
ƒ Destruction and collapse of infrastructures causing deaths
and injuries
ƒ Structural deterioration (steel corrosion, foundation
settlement, etc.) due to severe environment

Infrastructures and
Natural Environment
the Built Environment
The Impact of Infrastructures on the Environment
ƒ Construction and operation of infrastructures uses natural
resources and energy
ƒ Costly repairs and rehabilitation of damaged infrastructures
use more resources and leads to wastage
ƒ End-of-life effects of structures and debris of structures
damaged by disasters cause disposal problems

Figure 6. Understanding the Relationship between Infrastructures and the Environment

4. CONTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS IN
DISASTER-PRONE COUNTRIES
The negative impacts between infrastructures and the environment are summarized in Figure
6. Natural disasters like earthquakes spoil the built environment. The negative impact of
infrastructures on the environment, on the other hand, aggravates especially when natural
disasters occur. How do structural
and geotechnical engineers
contribute towards the reduction of
these negative impacts in a region
where natural disasters like
earthquakes, typhoons and
landslides are prevalent?
I believe the basic but critical
factor in reducing the negative
impacts of natural disasters on both
the built and natural environment
is “designing for safety and
stability.” Structural and
geotechnical engineers have Figure 7. Updating of codes and retrofitting of
significantly contributed towards existing structures may prevent similar failures -
the protection and conservation of 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake (Photo by K.
the natural environment especially Kawashima)
when we consider the impact of
natural disasters, like earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides, on infrastructures and the
environment. Today, the emphasis of sustainability is on how to deal with the issues of
limited resources and how to reduce the impacts on the natural environment. But in an
environment frequently attacked by natural disasters like seismic countries, Japan and the
Philippines, the primary considerations in the design and construction of infrastructures are
safety and stability. However, engineers, when they properly design structures and
foundations for safety and stability, are actually contributing significantly to the preservation
of the natural environment. Proper analysis, design and construction of structures will
minimize damage or collapse. Refined modeling, testing and analysis of soil may prevent
foundation failures. Strengthening and improvement of unstable slopes will control the
occurrence of landslides. When structures are strengthened or retrofitted, the usable life of the
structure is extended reducing end-of-life waste. These primary responsibilities of structural
and geotechnical engineers regarding safety and stability, in the end, leads to the reduction of
non-renewable natural resources consumption and minimizing the accumulation of
construction waste and disaster-caused debris waste. Engineers, even if they do not directly
address the issue of the environment by using tools such as Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) or
adopting “sustainable engineering” concepts in their design, always contribute to the
preservation of the environment, especially in the event of the occurrence natural disasters.
The lack of understanding on the impact of structural and foundation failures of built
structures on the environment is one of the chief impediments to achieving the greatest
possible reduction in the environmental impact of infrastructures. The responsibility of
structural and geotechnical engineers in designing for safety and stability and the role they
play concerning the maintenance of environment especially in disaster-prone countries must
be appreciated by everyone including the so-called “environmentalists.”
Sustainability of the Built Environment in Seismic Regions
Research Group 3 (RG3) of the JSPS Core University Program on Environmental
Engineering addresses issues related to the safety and stability of infrastructures in highly
urbanized and densely populated regions against environmental impacts especially
earthquakes. The group recognizes the interrelationship between the natural environment and
the built environment. The natural environment through geotechnical and seismic hazards
affects the safety and stability of various infrastructures such as buildings, bridges, slopes and
reclaimed lands. The built environment, on the other hand, introduces negative impacts in the
natural environment through the use, reuse, wastage and disposal of construction materials.
Thus RG3, aside from finding clever solutions to safety, economy and serviceability,
addresses also the issue of sustainability to diminish the social and ecological impact. This
can be done by understanding the impact of natural hazards to infrastructures, finding ways of
improving the design, enhancing the performance and upgrading the construction of new
structures and extending the lifespan of existing structures – these activities would result to an
efficient use of non-renewable materials and reduction of waste materials from damaged or
collapsed structures, and mitigation of damage or collapse of structures which causes injury
and death.

The researches (Table 2) conducted by Philippine visiting scientists through the JSPS Core
University Program on Environmental Engineering can be categorized into three major
themes:
I. Evaluation and assessment of structural and geotechnical hazards
II. Evaluation and improvement of the performance of structures and foundations through
refined modeling, analysis and design
III. Development and implementation of programs to mitigate the effects of natural hazards.

5. DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Sustainability in the built environment must consider the entire lifetime of structures “from
cradle to grave”. Although the major responsibility of structural and geotechnical engineers is
designing for safety and stability, they should also appreciate the fundamentals of sustainable
development and have the know-how to interpret the environmental labeling and quality
standards. The material and resource selection eventually based upon the environment
qualities and friendliness must also be addressed at the initial stage of the design. The system
and the form of structure which plays an important role in aesthetics, cost factor and the speed
in implementation are factors to consider in sustainable design. A structural engineer should
try to maintain a balance between the prefabricated elements or mass produced units and the
self-built or indigenous technologies together using newer and innovative approaches to the
design. Faster construction, reductions of on-site activities, optimization of resources and cost
effectiveness are innovations that must be introduced in a structural design and
implementation. The design of structures should now be aimed towards the following
important considerations – the “ 4 S and 1 E” : (a) safety, (b) stability, (c) serviceability, (d)
sustainability, and (e) economy.
 Table 2. Summary of JSPS Research Topics (Philippines)

Research Topic / Researcher I II III

1. Parametric Investigation on the Flexure and Shear Behavior of RC X
Column to Evaluate its Seismic Performance” by Bernardo Lejano
(TUP/DLSU)
2. Lateral Resistance of Piles Subjected to Liquefaction-Induced X X
Lateral Flow by Jonathan Dungca (DLSU)
3. Performance of Neural Network Models in Predicting the Confined X
Concrete Strength and Strain of Circular Columns” by Andres Oreta
(DLSU)
4. Structural Damage Detection for Bolted Connection between Two X
Steel Plates Using Laser Doppler Vibrometry by Giovanni J. Enecio
(USC)
5. An Improved Implicit Integration Algorithm for the Sekiguchi-Ohta X
Constitutive Equation by Mark Albert H. Zarco (UPD)
6. Seismic Vulnerability Rating of Philippine Bridges by Romeo X X
Estanero
7. Interaction of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer and Lateral Steel X
Ties in Circular Concrete Columns as Confinement by Jason M.C.
Ongpeng (DLSU)
8. Natural Vibration and Damping Characteristics of a Steel Bridge by X
Gerardo Apor (Xavier University)
9. Use of Microtremor for Evaluating Shallow and Deep Geologic X X
Profile by Glenn Pintor (UPLB)
10. Prediction of Deflection of RC Beams Strengthened with Carbon X
Fiber Fabric and Carbon Plate by Alan Tan (UPD)
11. Quantitative non-destructive testing and evaluation of ultrasound X X
wave propagation in anisotropic media by Raymund Dimagiba (UPD)
12. Embedment effect on the bearing capacity of spread footing in sand X
by Mary Ann Adajar (DLSU)

6. PHOTO ARCHIVES ON IMPACT OF NATURAL DISASTERS

To increase awareness about the impact of natural disasters on built infrastructures and the
impact of structural and geotechnical failures on the environment, a photo archive and slide
show video presentation was developed. Highlighted in the photo archive and video
presentation are some important natural disasters like earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis and
volcanic eruptions and their effects on built structures. Through these photos, lessons on the
cause of the damage or collapse of structures may be learned and corresponding response can
be done to reduce the impact of natural hazards.

A photo slide show video presenting the collections of this photo archive was also developed
and saved as an mpeg file in both VCD and DVD codec. This can be viewed using the
Windows Media Player.
 Figure 8. Photo Slide Show Presentation on
“The Impact of Natural Disasters and on Infrastructures and the Environment”
References
Webster, Mark D. (2004). “Relevance of Structural Engineers to Sustainable Design of Buildings, “, Structural
Engineering International, J. of the IABSE, Vol. 14, No. 13, pp. 181-185.

Maydl, Peter (2004). “Sustainable Engineering: State-of-the-Art and Prospects,” Structural Engineering
International, J. of the IABSE, Vol. 14, No. 13, pp. 176-180.

Richardson, John (2004). “The Realities of Sustainability,” Proc. IABSE Symposium, Melbourne

USGS, http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/world/1985_09_19.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/

http://www.cohre.org/cohrelibrary2/country/kobe.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001734.htm

US EPA, “Planning for disaster debris” http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disaster/dstr-

pdf.pdf#search='disaster%20debris'

Dimartino, C. (1999) “Picking-up the pieces II,” http://sept11.wasteage.com/ar/waste_picking_pieces_part

Hawaiian Webmaster, http://www.cityofpines.com/baguioquake/quake.html

Acknowledgement

This project was conducted under the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Core University
Program on Environmental Engineering. The author expresses his thanks to Prof. Hideki Ohta for serving as the
Japanese host professor. The assistance of the Ohta laboratory faculty and staff especially to Dr. Ohno, Dr.
Thirapong and Miss Akiko Nozawa is appreciated.

The author wish to express their gratitude to those who contributed their original photos: Prof. Ohta,
Prof. Orense, Prof. Honda, Prof. Suemasa, Prof. Towhata, Prof. Kawashima, Prof. Pennung, Prof.
Konagai, Prof. Kuwano, Prof. Katada, Prof. Nakajima and Dr. A. Lazaro III and PHIVOLCS.