ESSENTIAL FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STUDY FOR SEISMIC SCENARIOS IN - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STUDY FOR SEISMIC SCENARIOS IN MANHATTAN by MICHAEL W. TANTALA GEORGE DEODATIS Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Courtesy of Dan O’Brien, NYSEMO
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Courtesy of USGS
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
– most structures are not seismically designed like those on the West Coast – the 1st seismic code was just passed in 1995
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Residential $175.0 B 57% Commercial $111.3 B 36% Industrial $5.3 B 2% Other $16.5 B 5%
Residential Commercial Industrial Other
Commercial $125.3 B 36% Industrial $6.0 B 2% Residential $197.1 B 57% Other $18.6 B 5%
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
HAZUS or HAZARDS US
Standardized Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology (future plans for other hazards)
60 60 120 M iles
4
4
3
3
2
2 4 4 4 1 4 1
60 60 120 M iles
4
4
3
3
2
2 4 4 4 1 4 1
New Jersey Connecticut New York
Deterministic Scenario Earthquakes (M5, M6 and M7 at an 1884 historic epicenter location)
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Probabilistic Scenarios were also considered (specified by recurrence intervals, i.e. a 2500 year event). These and other scenarios are discussed with detailed results in this conference paper.
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Soil Classes
Only one soil type “D” Soil Classes Soil Map of Manhattan, Provided by Dr. Klaus Jacob, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
35 109 1895 88 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number 6 72 2097 525 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URMConcrete
Building Type Number 3 333 1178 160 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number 1 640 2358 221 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Damage State Number 14 84 1627 344 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number 1 739 3665 348 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number 7 335 4044 151 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number 21 84 1592 184 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number 4 572 3129 168 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URMConcrete
Building Type Number 12 125 3258 336 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number
Financial District, Tribeca, Seaport, Battery Park City Soho, Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Little Italy, Noho East Village, Lower East Side, Tompkins Square Upper East Side, Yorkville, Carnegie Hill, Lenox Hill Gramercy, Murray Hill, Turtle Bay, Tudor City East Harlem Central Harlem, Polo Grounds Washington Heights, Inwood Morningside Heights, Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville Lincoln Square, Upper West Side, Manhattan Valley Flatiron, Midtown Chelsea, Clinton
385 2684 210 1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete
Building Type Number
2 1334 1605 150
1000 2000 3000 4000
Wood Steel URM Concrete Damage State Number
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Collected detailed information on:
structure type use building area height quality of construction building type age etc …
This building damage will be used to predict casualties, shelter and rescue needs and fire and water demands, etc.
Pre-1945 Lower Manhattan Buildings are shaded Red Distribution of Year of Construction
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 1882 1890 1898 1906 1914 1922 1930 1938 1945 1953 1961 1969 1977 1985 1993 Year of Construction Number of Buildings
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Manhattan is unique in that it has a significant number of buildings greater than 20 stories
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Under 2 Above 30 10 20 Average Number of stories per square quarter-mile
# Average Number of Stories Neighborhoods 1 10.1 Financial District, Tribeca, Battery Park City, Seaport 2 5.2 Soho, Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Little Italy, Noho 3 5.9 East Village, Lower East Side, Tompkins Square 4 5.8 Chelsea, Clinton 5 11.2 Flatiron, Midtown 6 8.7 Gramercy, Murray Hill, Turtle Bay, Tudor City 7 7.0 Lincoln Square, Upper West Side, Manhattan Valley 8 7.1 Upper East Side, Yorkville, Carnegie Hill, lenox Hill 9 5.6 Morningside Heights, Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville 10 4.6 Central Harlem, Polo Grounds 11 5.2 East Harlem 12 4.5 Washington Heights, Inwood All 6.7
District Key
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
District Key Above 15,000 Under 1,000 8,000 4,000 Average Number of People per square quarter-mile
# Population (Thousands) % of Total Neighborhoods 1 31 2.1% Financial District, Tribeca, Battery Park City, Seaport 2 94 6.3% Soho, Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Little Italy, Noho 3 156 10.5% East Village, Lower East Side, Tompkins Square 4 89 6.0% Chelsea, Clinton 5 37 2.5% Flatiron, Midtown 6 140 9.4% Gramercy, Murray Hill, Turtle Bay, Tudor City 7 208 14.0% Lincoln Square, Upper West Side, Manhattan Valley 8 211 14.2% Upper East Side, Yorkville, Carnegie Hill, lenox Hill 9 107 7.2% Morningside Heights, Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville 10 99 6.6% Central Harlem, Polo Grounds 11 111 7.4% East Harlem 12 206 13.8% Washington Heights, Inwood All 1,487 100% Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
District Key Under 4,000 Above 45,000 16,000 32,000 Distribution of Square footage per square quarter-mile
# Total Square Footage (thousands) Percentage of Total Neighborhoods 1 219,047 9.9% Financial District, Tribeca, Battery Park City, Seaport 2 128,511 5.8% Soho, Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Little Italy, Noho 3 104,646 4.7% East Village, Lower East Side, Tompkins Square 4 172,803 7.8% Chelsea, Clinton 5 414,024 18.7% Flatiron, Midtown 6 286,292 12.9% Gramercy, Murray Hill, Turtle Bay, Tudor City 7 189,741 8.5% Lincoln Square, Upper West Side, Manhattan Valley 8 354,126 16.0% Upper East Side, Yorkville, Carnegie Hill, lenox Hill 9 64,407 2.9% Morningside Heights, Hamilton Heights, Manhattanville 10 63,365 2.9% Central Harlem, Polo Grounds 11 113,794 5.1% East Harlem 12 108,748 4.9% Washington Heights, Inwood All 2,219,504 100%
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Manhattan facilities were identified: police stations fire stations hospitals schools medical care facilities Detailed information was compiled on:
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
police stations fire stations hospitals schools Key
Facility Number Fire Station 54 Police Station 36 Hospital 20 School 626 Total 736
60 60 120 M iles
4
4
3
3
2
2 4 4 4 1 4 1
60 60 120 M iles
4
4
3
3
2
2 4 4 4 1 4 1
New Jersey Connecticut New York
Deterministic Scenario Earthquakes (M5, M6 and M7 at an 1884 historic epicenter location)
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Probabilistic Scenarios were also considered (specified by recurrence intervals, i.e. a 2500 year event). These and other scenarios are discussed with detailed results in this conference paper.
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
6.0M 5.0M 7.0M Deterministic (Fixed Location) PGA, Peak Ground Acceleration
Above 0.70 PGA, % g acceleration District Key
District # Average PGA 1 0.2021 2 0.1828 3 0.1901 4 0.1378 5 0.1273 6 0.1401 7 0.1007 8 0.1041 9 0.0885 10 0.1055 11 0.1197 12 0.0760 All 0.1312 District # Average PGA 1 0.3784 2 0.3494 3 0.3601 4 0.2927 5 0.2858 6 0.3023 7 0.2342 8 0.2438 9 0.2039 10 0.2335 11 0.2540 12 0.1769 All 0.2763 District # Average PGA 1 0.6753 2 0.6079 3 0.6297 4 0.5418 5 0.5397 6 0.5572 7 0.4613 8 0.4891 9 0.4011 10 0.4174 11 0.4416 12 0.3535 All 0.5096
0.20 0.40 Above 0.60 0.05
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Central Harlem, Polo Gardens
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Damage Categories:
30,000
# 2001$ (Thousands) % 1 126,100 17% 2 87,271 12% 3 68,018 9% 4 77,292 10% 5 138,507 19% 6 100,900 14% 7 23,336 3% 8 56,182 8% 9 7,719 1% 10 14,319 2% 11 32,200 4% 12 9,078 1% All 741,485 100% # 2001$ (Thousands) % 1 1,788,845 18% 2 1,007,499 10% 3 749,408 8% 4 1,020,821 10% 5 1,896,613 19% 6 1,305,355 13% 7 427,608 4% 8 732,339 7% 9 125,148 1% 10 213,304 2% 11 466,507 5% 12 160,700 2% All 9,907,983 100% # 2001$ (Thousands) % 1 7,099,119 16% 2 3,115,885 7% 3 2,323,419 5% 4 3,924,535 9% 5 9,661,923 22% 6 6,277,506 15% 7 2,274,407 5% 8 4,037,941 9% 9 667,250 2% 10 904,743 2% 11 1,829,316 4% 12 937,338 2% All 43,141,264 100%
Above 400,000 120,000 240,000
Total Loss
2001$ (Thousands) by census tract District Key
Scenario Earthquakes
Structural
+
Contents
+
Loss of Use
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
District Key
Casualties (Instant Death) – 2pm earthquake
2pm % 1 89 33% 2 14 5% 3 18 6% 4 10 4% 5 71 26% 6 33 12% 7 6 2% 8 6 2% 9 3 1% 10 6 2% 11 10 4% 12 6 2% All 271 100% CAS 4 Instant Death District #
2 At least 24 8 16 # of People per census tract
CAS 4 Instant Death 2pm 1
# 2pm % 1 9 46% 2 2 10% 3 2 10% 4 1 5% 5 3 16% 6 2 8% 7 1% 8 1% 9 < 1% 10 1% 11 2% 12 1% All 21 100% District # CAS 4 Instant Death
Scenario Earthquakes
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Manhattan facilities were identified: police stations fire stations hospitals schools medical care facilities Detailed information was compiled on:
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
police stations fire stations hospitals schools Key
Facility Number Fire Station 54 Police Station 36 Hospital 20 School 626 Total 736
people in need of hospitalization District Key
Essential Facilities – Medical (Hospitals) and those requiring hospitalization
distance to nearest major medical facility (meters) 300 Above 4,000 1,200 2,400 medical facility functionality at day 0 (%)
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-100
each dot is 5 five people
2pm % 1 983 33% 2 157 5% 3 193 6% 4 114 4% 5 776 26% 6 358 12% 7 64 2% 8 63 2% 9 35 1% 10 67 2% 11 106 4% 12 61 2% All 2978 100% Need Hospital District # Need Hospital 2pm 1
# 2pm % 1 102 46% 2 22 10% 3 22 10% 4 11 5% 5 36 16% 6 18 8% 7 3 1% 8 2 1% 9 1 < 1% 10 1 1% 11 5 2% 12 2 1% All 223 100% District # Need Hospital
Average Functionality
96%
Average Functionality
63%
Average Functionality
26%
beds available
9,387
beds available
6,130
beds available
2,627
Scenario Earthquakes
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
people in need of hospitalization
Essential Facilities Medical (Hospitals) and those requiring hospitalization
distance to nearest major medical facility (meters) 300 Above 4,000 1,200 2,400 medical facility functionality at day 0 (%)
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-100
each dot is
person
2pm % 1 983 33% 2 157 5% 3 193 6% 4 114 4% 5 776 26% 6 358 12% 7 64 2% 8 63 2% 9 35 1% 10 67 2% 11 106 4% 12 61 2% All 2978 100% Need Hospital District #
Average Functionality
26%
beds available
2,627
District Key
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
District Key
Essential Facilities – School Functionalities and PGA
0.05 Above 0.70 0.20 0.40 Contoured PGA, % g 0-10 School Functionality at Day 0 (%) 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-100
Average Functionality
78%
Average Functionality
22%
Average Functionality
5%
Shelter Provided: 244,140 Needed: 0 Shelter Provided: 68,860 Needed: 15,725 Shelter Provided: 15,650 Needed: 114,985
Scenario Earthquakes
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
District Key
Essential Facilities – Police Stations and those in need of rescue (immediate medical attention)
people in need
distance to nearest major police station (meters) 300 Above 4,000 1,200 2,400 police station functionality at day 0 (%)
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-100
each dot is 2 five people
2pm % 1 89 33% 2 14 5% 3 18 6% 4 10 4% 5 71 26% 6 33 12% 7 6 2% 8 6 2% 9 3 1% 10 6 2% 11 10 4% 12 6 2% All 271 100% CAS 3 Need Rescue District # CAS 3 Need Rescu 2pm 1
# 2pm % 1 9 46% 2 2 10% 3 2 10% 4 1 5% 5 3 16% 6 2 8% 7 1% 8 1% 9 < 1% 10 1% 11 2% 12 1% All 20 100% District # CAS 3 Need Rescue
Average Functionality
56%
Average Functionality
19%
Average Functionality
4%
Scenario Earthquakes
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Essential Facilities Police Stations and those in need of rescue
people in need
distance to nearest major police station (meters) 300 Above 4,000 1,200 2,400 police station functionality at day 0 (%)
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-100
each dot is
person
2pm % 1 89 33% 2 14 5% 3 18 6% 4 10 4% 5 71 26% 6 33 12% 7 6 2% 8 6 2% 9 3 1% 10 6 2% 11 10 4% 12 6 2% All 271 100% CAS 3 Need Rescue District #
Average Functionality
4%
District Key
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Average Functionality
14%
Ignited Fire Water Demands to Fight Fires (gallons per minute, GPM) under 1,000 Above 12,000 4,000 8,000 Fire stations each star is 1 fire ignited
Average Functionality
50%
Average Functionality
7%
Essential Facilities – Fire Stations and Ignitions
10 ignitions 111 ignitions 169 ignitions
Scenario Earthquakes
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
A 5.0 2,475 10 216 362 50% 10,218 108,000 9% B 6.0 19,500 111 632 24,620 14% 153,764 30,240 508% C 7.0 160,000 169 15,200 68,638 7% 213,518 15,120 1412% D 5.0 2,475 10 216 362 50% 10,218 108,000 9% E 6.0 same
49%
0% F 7.0 same 14 16 108 47% 9,992 101,520 10% G N/A 100
98%
0% H N/A 500
16%
0% I N/A 2,500 117 6,300 19,045 7% 145,656 15,120 963% Probabilistic Probabilistic Deterministic Fixed Location Variable Location $ Exposed (Millions) # Ignitions Average Fire Stations % Functionality Scenario Type Magnitude Average Return Period (Years) Likely GPM Supply % capacity GPM Demand People Exposed
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Essential Facilities – Fire Stations and Ignitions
District Key 0.05 Above 0.70 0.20 0.40 Contoured PGA, % g Debris: Brick, Wood, Steel and Concrete each dot represents 10,000 tons
Scenario Earthquakes Debris Generated
88 k tons 5,700 k tons 27,178 k tons
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
A 5.0 2,475 362 10,218 136 B 6.0 19,500 24,620 153,764 9,256 C 7.0 160,000 68,638 213,518 25,804 D 5.0 2,475 362 10,218 136 E 6.0 same
7.0 same 108 9,992 41 G N/A 100
N/A 500
N/A 2,500 19,045 145,656 7,160 Relative to Manhattan Truck Loads of Garbage in One Day (times greater) Probabilistic Probabilistic Deterministic Fixed Location Variable Location Scenario Type Magnitude Average Return Period (Years) Truck Loads Required Debris Generated (thousand tons)
Debris Generated
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Ocean Burlington Morris Sussex Atlantic Salem Warren Monmouth Hunterdon Cumberland Bergen Somerset Mercer Middlesex Gloucester Camden Passaic Essex Cape May Union Hudson Mahwah Westwood Paramus Oakland Alpine Wyckoff Saddle River Teaneck Ramsey Franklin Lakes Tenafly Lodi Fair Lawn Ridgewood Lyndhurst Carlstadt Closter Englewood Montvale Hackensack Oradell Hillsdale Allendale Fort Lee Norwood East Rutherford Garfield Emerson Haworth Ridgefield Park Ridge Glen Rock Bergenfield Dumont Cresskill Northvale Leonia Rutherford Waldwick Demarest New Milford Saddle Brook Elmwood Park North Arlington Ho Ho Kus Little Ferry River Edge Moonachie Maywood Englewood Cliffs Midland Park Teterboro Bogota Fairview Wallington Wood Ridge Palisades Park Edgewater North Bergen Newark Livingston Fairfield Caldwell West Orange Short Hills Montclair Nutley Bloomfield Verona Belleville Roseland Irvington Cedar Grove Maplewood Millburn East Orange Orange South Orange Essex Fells Little Falls
Essex Bergen
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Michael W. Tantala and George Deodatis, Princeton University Urban Hazards Forum, NY “Essential Facilities Performance Study for Seismic Scenarios in Manhattan” Wednesday, January 23, 2002