|
<br />
<br />The next section examines three North Carolina initiatives that use three tools to
<br />assess and model vulnerability: (1) NCEMO's Program to Evaluate Public Schools
<br />and Other Critical Facilities: (2) OCM's Shoreline Mapping Program; and (3) Char,
<br />lotte-Mecklenburg COUnty's GIS Capability.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />
<br />Mitigation Success: Evaluating Public Schools
<br />for Non-Structural Earthquake Hazards
<br />California excluded, the most compre-
<br />hensive effort to evaluate public schools
<br />for potential earthquake damage to non-
<br />structural building elements is found in
<br />North Carolina,
<br />
<br />While California has a well,recognized
<br />earthquake hazard, with damaging
<br />earthquakes occurring every decade or so, few people understand North Carolina's
<br />seismic risk, The western portion of the state is vulnerable to earthquakes from the
<br />Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, the second most active zone in the eastern United
<br />States. However. the area with the greatest dollar exposure is around Charlotte-
<br />Mecklenburg, Two of the factors contributing to this are the reiative proximity to
<br />the Charleston, South Carolina seismic zone, and high density development includ-
<br />ing thousands of unteinforced masonry structures20 The] 886 Charleston earth-
<br />quake, estimated at a magnitude 7,3, caused considerable damage in North Caro,
<br />lina,
<br />
<br />While the degree of risk is moderate, state officials are concerned with potentiai
<br />damage to public schools In the western part of the state, These buildings typically
<br />are older, unreinforced masonry structures that are neither designed nor con,
<br />structed to resist earthquakes, Moreover, as the state's Earthquake Program
<br />Manager stated:
<br />"School children, our next generation, spend a good parr of their year in
<br />buildings, which are vulnerable to earthquakes", the good news is that we
<br />know how buildings perform in earthquakes, We have the tools to evaluate
<br />these structures, and with relatively little money we can make them safer,
<br />This is our primary objective, In the process, we can contribute to public
<br />awareness of earthquake hazards"
<br />- Dr, Kenneth Taylor, NCEMO, March 26, 1999
<br />
<br />In 1992, the >"CEMO embarked on a program to conduct field assessments of
<br />schools and other public buildings in western >"orth Carolina, The assessment
<br />included documentation of existing non,structural elements subject to damage such
<br />as unsecured bookshelves and television sets that could fall and cause injury. The
<br />field assessments were part of a broader initiative with components to:
<br />document existing non~structural earthquake hazards.
<br />identify mitigation retrofits to reduce those hazards,
<br />
<br />--=, :"'4,,~+A'Y4.""'" ".,,'.. :
<br />~:>0\.'#'b+4iJ~ff4,~,,',""(~!,;;...;;,)'
<br />
<br />August 1999
<br />
|