Assessment of seismic damage to buildings in resilient Byblos City

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Assessment of seismic damage to buildings in resilient Byblos City Nisrine Makhoul a,n, Christopher Navarro b, Jong Lee b, Alda Abi-Youness a a b

Civil Engineering Department, University of Balamand – Al Kurah, Lebanon P.O. Box 100, Tripoli, Lebanon National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champain, IL 61820, USA

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 29 December 2015 Received in revised form 18 May 2016 Accepted 22 May 2016 Available online 24 May 2016

Byblos, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is indeed a resilient city that has thrived for more than 7000 years while mitigating shocks and stresses. Byblos, at the threshold of the 21st century, is still adapting, growing and changing. In this paper, aiming to bridge between international heritage resilience and disaster risk management: first, the resilience of international heritage is discussed in general and resilience qualities of Byblos in particular; second earthquakes, one of the main threats faced by Byblos is identified; and third the earthquake damage to Byblos buildings is assessed by mean of different likely earthquake scenarios. For that purpose, data for Byblos building inventory have been gathered through a ground survey. The earthquake hazard for the region has been defined, hazard maps have been digitized, and structural vulnerability functions were assigned. After preparation of the needed files using the Geographic Information System, the Ergo platform was used to model the earthquake-induced building damage. It was obtained that the unreinforced masonry structure type is the most vulnerable to earthquakes, the reinforced masonry structures type is the second most vulnerable, followed by reinforced concrete frame structures, and finally by reinforced concrete frames with shear walls structures. It was recommended to upgrade, whenever possible, the unreinforced masonry buildings to reinforced masonry buildings while preserving their historical aspect, and to strengthen the frame concrete buildings by adding shear walls whenever possible. All new buildings to be constructed in the future are recommended to strictly follow the codes. This study helps to gain a better understanding of the extent of potential damage; it allows establishing an earthquake preparedness strategy and recovery plan to enhance the resilience of the city. & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquake damage estimations Building Byblos Resilience International heritage

1. Introduction International heritage needs to be preserved by enhancing its resilience, since it is a drive to community resilience, and thus extends to city resilience. Therefore dialogue and bridges needs to be held among world heritage and disaster risk management experts proposing better risk management preparedness, planning strategy and recovery. Especially insistence needs to be set on preparedness rather than recovery. This paper intent is to assess seismic damage to buildings in Byblos resilient city, and bridge between international world heritage and disaster risk management. Since Byblos is a world heritage site, in order to achieve our target, the following three objectives were set. First objective is to understand the multidisciplinary resilience aspects of Byblos City. To this end, an indepth literature review of the international heritage resilience was n

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Makhoul).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.05.007 2212-4209/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

conducted to understand its influence on and its tight relationship with disaster risk management, then the history of Byblos was willingly investigated with the aim to highlight and understand its multidisciplinary resilience aspects. Second objective is to study the identified seismic threat encountered by the city, therefore the seismicity of the Lebanon area was detailed. Indeed even though the seismicity of the Levant region was very low in the last century, Lebanon is considered to be part of a moderate to high seismic risk region. Indeed several studies have addressed Lebanon seismicity [15,17,3,25–27,43,53,66,10]. Nevertheless despite its seismicity, minimal research has focused on estimating earthquake damage in Lebanon. Moreover, fewer have discussed urban inventories and vulnerability functions needed to accurately assess seismic losses. This led to target the third and main objective of this paper, which is to assess the earthquake-induced building damage in the event of likely earthquakes in order to enhance Byblos resilience. The purpose is to grant the adequate authorities and the Lebanese government a chance to take possible risk-mitigating actions.

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

2. International heritage resilience "Resilience is everywhere, …, we are all expected to be resilient … If nothing else, resilience-thinking has encouraged a range and depth of dialogue across the disciplines that, even a generation ago, would have been difficult" was noted in [13], hence we all need to adapt in order withstand shocks and survive disasters. Cities of the future are also required to be resilient, their qualities in addition to the necessity of an adequate modeling tool was discussed in [42]. The resilience of international heritage, which privilege a city or a site and endows it with a unique identity, needs to be ensured. The accurate history of world cultural heritage is tightly linked to UNESCO [45]. Cultural heritage was discussed for the first time within the broader field of disaster risk reduction policy and programs in 2005, during World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction [34,38], and was retackled in 2016 [35]. It was acknowledge that despite many initiatives, historic properties and cultural heritage sites already altered by time and urbanization, are progressively more harmed by both natural and human-caused threats [12,29,57]. Nevertheless their deterioration, which is an often neglected aspect, surpasses the physical damage and encompasses a loss to societies that cannot be quantified thus often neglected or lightly considered. Indeed communities are closely related to their cultural heritage; its loss has a great psychological effect on them therefore this loss cannot be underestimated [29]. "At the same time, cultural heritage (including tangible and intangible, movable and immovable) is increasingly recognized as a driver of resilience that can support efforts to reduce disaster risks broadly, since it continues to perform its role as source of meaning and identity for communities" was noted in [34] and similarly it was expressed in [12,34,36,8,38,9,44,50,64,69] and [56]. Heritage is a vital resource that contributes to enhancing the resilience of communities, both before and after the occurrence of a disaster. "Cultural diversity has the capacity to increase the resilience of social systems, since it is the result of centuries of slow adaptation to the hazards that affect local environments. Therefore the maintenance of cultural diversity into the future, and the knowledge, innovations and outlooks it contains increase the capacity of human systems to adapt and to cope with change" [34]. Indeed he noted that during the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake, many traditional buildings "performed well demonstrating traditional knowledge for earthquake mitigation that has been accrued over generations through successive trials and errors". Conversely, many inadequate reinforced concrete buildings collapsed completely [34,38]. Moreover many heritage sites served as shelters and refuge areas, as it was evidenced in 2011 following the East Japan great earthquake and Tsunami. Conversely, very few heritage properties have established suitable disaster risk management plans and procedures, even among the ones of the World Heritage List, and the level of preparedness is still very low [21,29,35]. Therefore the following measures were proposed in [34,38,55]: First, to raise awareness that heritage is an "asset for building resilient communities"; second to mitigate the effect of disasters to cultural heritage properties; third to develop a "greater understanding of the relationship between a well-conserved heritage and the resilience of societies and of the potential for integrating heritage"; and forth since in disaster risk management, heritage is still not given satisfactory consideration, it is needed to incorporate heritage in disaster mitigation plans at national and local levels focusing on prevention and preparedness, rather than post disaster response and recovery [21,4,39,40,46,60,61,39,58,59]. A better dialogue, an improved coordination, and a joint work between the two sectors of heritage management and disaster risk reduction need to be established since they are still largely unaware of each other. Indeed those measures are critical for effective

13

disaster risk management [21,23,24,29,51,57,7,63]. Moreover "Heritage is a cross-sectoral area that has strong links with various development sectors" [63,9]. Feilden and Stovel [21,63] discussed the need to organize emergency response simulations and remarked that heritage experts need to be present on relief teams and be given sufficient authority during the whole stage of disaster mitigation, from preparedness until post-disaster response and recovery. Indeed they noted that cultural heritage often gets destroyed due to the uninformed action of rescue and relief agencies because often similar standard principles are applied for contemporary and historic buildings. Therefore, many have proposed manuals and trainings, as in [31,67,63], and many offered examples as in [29,34,41]. The interesting reference [55] detailing similarly the discussed in this paper, offers an additional list of detailed references. Furthermore [34] resumed "Critical cultural assets and infrastructures in cities need to be identified and actions taken to reduce risks. The challenge is to implement this policy at National and local levels, which requires considerable building of capacities at these levels and the setting up of the necessary institutional mechanisms, complemented by data collection and monitoring". The later issue is what this paper aim to achieve through: first seismic hazard identification, second data gathering and assessment of seismic damages to buildings in Byblos City. The study goal is to give heritage sufficient consideration in disaster risk management, by concentrating on prevention and preparedness, rather than post disaster response and recovery. 2.1. Byblos – a resilient city The city of Byblos was chosen to be studied as a prototype, given its very old history and the presence of many building typologies compared with other regions in Lebanon. Byblos, meaning papyrus or the “Book”, known as Jebeil by the local people [33], is located on the Lebanese coast approximately 40 km north of the capital, Beirut. The city area is 5 km2, and its population is approximately 40,000. The 8000-years-old site of Byblos city, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is considered to be one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world. From one side, knowing the history and major contributions of Byblos helps us understand its resilience. One of the most important contributions of the city, as a part of Phoenicia, was the Phoenician alphabet. Most modern alphabets derive from the Phoenician alphabet, which diffusion was helped by their thalassocracy. Indeed, in the 7th century BCE, they had already reached the Atlantic Ocean, sailing their Phoenician ships built with Lebanese Cedar wood [33]. Actually the role of innovation and knowledge was recognized as drive to society resilience as noted in [34]. From the other side, many aspects of its resilience were also due to the great contribution of other civilizations in Byblos’ heritage: certainly, exchanging expertise and skills between many civilizations is enriching: it widens one's vision and helps solve problems. The role of diversity in increasing resilience of social systems was tackled by [34]. Historical periods and civilizations that marked Byblos, and left building traces all over the city, as listed by [14] were as follows: the Neolithic period (5250–3800) when "Houses were huts", in the first urban period (3000–2800) when "houses became densely spread; the structures were supported by columns, designed with several rooms, and grouped into districts; roads were narrow and formed a well-drawn network; and water was evacuated through canals. The city was surrounded by a wall, and the area of the city was 5 ha (50,000 m2)". The developed urban period (2800–2500), when "Houses were very solid, and temples were monumental. At this time, along the Nile, the very first stone

14

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

usage in construction was occurring". Those periods were followed mainly by the Amorite, Assyrian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Mamluk and Ottoman periods. Byblos was chosen by the Rockefeller Foundation as one of the 100 Resilient Cities in 2014, as noted by [52]: " Byblos has survived and thrived in the face of 6000 years of shocks and stresses. Byblos has safeguarded historical buildings alongside timeless traditions and cultural heritage, maintained a lively economy, and generally prospered despite war, shifting empires, and centuries of natural disasters. Its history is a six-thousand-year study in resilience ". Today, after 7000 years, the city is a mixture between modern sophistication and traditional heritage. What does the city need now? Byblos resilience priorities simultaneously try to address threats faced by both the old city, which must preserve its heritage, and the new city, which must preserve its role as a dynamic Middle Eastern city. To achieve the established goal, the main risks

faced by the new and old city were identified by its experts and authorities as the following: erosion that threatens the historical buildings; pollution; regional instability with short- and long-term impacts on the prosperity of the city; sea storms; sea level rise; the natural hazards of earthquakes and tsunami; the weak infrastructure; and rapid urbanization. Nevertheless no specific earthquake disaster risk management strategy was proposed to be further studied other than earthquake and tsunami simulations, as per the recently announced resilient strategy [49]. Therefore to fill the gap, this paper has chosen to address the vulnerable aspect of Byblos to the seismic threat as detailed in Section 3. The identification of Lebanon seismicity allows furthermore the evaluation of the possible seismic damage to buildings in Byblos city, which is an attempt to help authorities make better decisions and thus enhance the resilience of Byblos.

Fig. 1. Active faults of Lebanese restraining bend. Map projected upon Shuttle Radar Topography Mission relief and new SHALIMAR EM300 bathymetry. Red circles are coastal cities that suffered Tsunami effects during the 551 A. D. event. City abbreviations: Ar – Arqa; Ba – Batroun; By – Byblos; Ch – Chekka; Sa – Sarafand. Courtesy [15]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

3. Lebanon seismicity "Historical records document strong earthquakes which have struck Lebanon and its surroundings since 2150 BCE, causing wide scale destruction and high death tolls. " was reported in [28]. Lebanon, on the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, is mainly influenced by the Levant fault system (LFS), which is the fault system between the Dead Sea fault system (DSF) to the south and the Ghab fault system (GhF) to the north, which extends further to join the East Anatolian fault system (EAF). In Lebanon, the fault system becomes a more complex weaved fault system [66] known as the Lebanese Restraining Bend (LRB). Its major active faults are Yammouneh (YF), Rachaya (RaF), Seghraya (SF), Roum (RF) and the Mount Lebanon Thrust (MLT). The minor faults are the Aakkar thrust (AT), Niha thrust (NT), Tripoli thrust (TT), Zrariye-Chabriha fault (ZCF), Saida fault (SaF), and Rankine-Aabdeh fault (r-AF). Lebanese faults are presented in Fig. 1 courtesy of [15]. As noted in [16] Yammouneh is capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude greater than 7 with a return period of 1000 years, Mount Lebanon Thrust, lately discovered by the SHALIMAR marine geophysical campaign [6], is capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude greater than 7 with a return period of 1500–1750 years as suggested by [15], and Seghraya is capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude greater than 7 with a return period of 2000 years. Roum Faults, Rachaya Fault and other smaller Faults in Lebanon are capable of generating earthquakes of magnitudes up to 6 and 6.5. Therefore, Lebanon is historically considered to be an active region that encounters moderate to severe earthquakes with moderate to low probability of occurrence. The list of large earthquakes along the Dead Sea Transform Fault from 2150 BCE to 1837 CE was offered by [28]; a more extended list of earthquakes that occurred in the area of the Dead Sea Transform Fault from 2150 BCE to 1997 CE was offered by [37]. Another similar detailed list of the most damaging earthquakes in Lebanon occurring from 303 CE to 1956 CE was offered by [17] and then was compared with the seismicity of the latest century by listing the earthquakes of mainly low magnitude that occurred from 1907 to 1997. In this paper earthquakes are classified in two categories before and after 1900. This choice was made for the following two reasons. First reason: before 1900 no earthquake recordings were available and magnitudes are computed as function of seismic intensities which were based on damage (therefore damage was included for each mentioned earthquake); after 1900 the instrumented earthquake events were presented. Second reason: is to compare and demark between high seismicity before the 20th century and low seismicity after the 20th century for Lebanon region, as demonstrated in [17,37], indeed few earthquakes after 1900 were recorded to have a magnitude greater than 5. Earthquakes which occurred before 1900 and damaged Byblos the most were reported in Table 1. They are presented in terms of Seismic Moment Magnitude, Mw. Moment Magnitude, relates to the seismic moment, Mo, which is a measure that describes most accurately the size of the largest earthquakes. The formula of Mw was given in [54] by:

Mw = ( 2/3)log10Mo−6. 0

(1)

where Mo is expressed in Nm, since it is the produced couple by equal and opposite forces involved when the fault is ruptured. Lessons learned: the tsunami which followed the 551 earthquake was clear evidence that a fault exists in the sea. This fact triggered many investigations leading to discover the MLT, by SHALIMAR [6]. After each great earthquake, a great percentage of the coastal populations relocated in mountains and many cities have lost their major role for centuries such as Beirut after the 552 earthquake [48].

15

Table 1. Earthquakes with Mw 47 which occurred in Lebanon before 1900 and affected Byblos the most. DATE

Mw Area affected, damage

306

7.1

9 Jul 551

7.5

15 Aug 1157

7.3

25 Nov 1759

7.4

Many buildings collapsed, thousands of people killed. Area affected: Sidon, Tyre, Caesarea, Byblus It was felt as far north as Laodicea and Antioch, and as far south as Alexandria and mesopotamia. Tsunami: It generated a seismic sea-wave off the Lebanese coast: Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Tripolis, Byblus. An intensity of IX-X for Byblus. It was felt over an area of 3 million sq.km and killed many thousands of people. Probably less serious damage was sustained in Gabala, Byblus, Tripolis, Tyre, Sidon and Beirut Along the northern Dead Sea fault system occurred within the Bekaa valley.

Table 2. Earthquakes in Lebanon after 1900 with Ms, and Mc greater than 5. DATE

Ms

29/9/1918 20/4/1921 16/3/1956 16/3/1956 26/3/1997 26/3/1997 15/2/2008 11/5/2012

6.3 5.38 6 5.7 5.6 5

Mc

5 5.5

Table 2 shows earthquakes in Lebanon after 1900 with surface magnitude, Ms, and coda duration magnitude Mc, which are greater than 5. Earthquakes from 1900 until 2006 were measured using Ms, because prior to this date, no accurate data were recorded by the Lebanese National Center for Geophysical Research in Bhannes which uses the magnitude Mc, as a better measurement for local earthquakes magnitude. The surface wave magnitude, Ms, is widely used for great epicentral distances, but it is valid for any epicentral distance and for any type of seismograph. Ms can be evaluated by the following formulation, given in [54]:

MS = log( A/T )+1. 66logΔ+2. 0

(2)

where A is spectral amplitude, the horizontal component of the Rayleigh wave, with a period of 20 s, measured on the ground surface in microns, T is the period of the seismic wave in seconds, and Δ is the epicentral distance in km. For the period after 2006, Bhannes Center provided the list of earthquakes that occurred in Lebanon within the geographic region between latitudes 33° and 35°N and longitudes 35° and 37°E. Bhannes Center estimates the coda wave magnitude Mc by the following formula for the Lebanon region:

Mc =0. 08 + 1. 63×log10( T )+0. 0009×D

(3)

where T is the coda duration in seconds and D is the epicentral distance in kilometers. Lessons learned: The 16 March 1956 earthquake of Ms ¼6 which affected a relatively densely inhabited area, when 122 people were killed in 33 settlements and villages. It was felt as far north as Baniyas, in Damascus, Amman, within a radius of 170 km. Therefore it triggered a series of studies of Lebanon seismicity later on such as the one presented by [25,43,47,66]. After the earthquake of 2008 of Mc ¼ 5, which has caused many insignificant to moderate damage to houses especially in south of Lebanon, the government has encouraged to enforce the application of seismic codes which were imposed by the board of engineers since 2005. Nevertheless no measures were taken or proposed regarding the

16

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

greater percentage of existing structures in the event of great or medium earthquakes, based on real earthquake damage estimations. Therefore this study is proposed to help highlighting the issue of existing structures and to point the need to strengthen the vulnerable ones based on engineering modeling.

4. Assessment of seismic damage to Byblos buildings 4.1. Methodology The earthquake loss estimation procedure followed in this paper is based on four main modules: Seismic Hazard, Building Inventory, Structural Vulnerability, and Earthquake Damage Estimations. The Ergo platform was chosen to model Byblos seismic damage to buildings. The open-source Ergo software was well presented in [22] as "A Hazard (primarily Seismic) Risk Assessment tool, based on Consequence-based Risk Management (CRM) to help coordinate planning and event mitigation, response, and recovery". Ergo, previously known as m-HARP or MAEviz [18,19], benefits from the global initiative work of a developer community and has received one of the most positive reviews in [68]. First a local data repository is created, where were ingested and stored: Lebanon map, seismic hazard, building inventory, fragility, fragility mapping, default sets, etc. Then the following steps related to the four modules are achieved. Seismic Hazards: seismic hazards are created with two possibilities; the scenario hazard using attenuation function or probabilistic hazard by probabilistic data (hazard map). Building Inventory: Building dataset is created; its development needs to be done by using appropriate tools (i.e. QGIS, GIS, Excel, Text editor, etc.), the building shapefile is created (GIS data), then the data is exported to ESRI shapefile, finally the required building dataset is imported (ingested) into Ergo as input for the modeling. Structural Vulnerability: adequate fragility curve dataset and a fragility mapping dataset are ingested. Building Attributes will determine the Fragility Mapping, i.e. Mapping rules determine which fragility curves to use based on details of the inventory dataset. Earthquake Damage Estimations Modeling: once all previous steps achieved, finally the building damage analysis can be execute by creating and running several scenarios for Lebanon, based on the chosen inputs of ingested data. The methodology is explained with further details in the following sections.

were referred to by "HM1", "HM2", and "HM3" respectively, and to the related obtained damage results by D1, D2, and D3 respectively. In addition to the three hazard maps HM1, HM2 and HM3, Byblos building damage were modeled by using, from [27], the two offered hazard maps of Lebanon in terms of PGA for 475, and 950 years earthquake return period. Those maps were developed for all models using the seismic hazard analysis software EZFRISKTM, then using the Geographic Information System, GIS. This study considers, in the hazard modeling, the Mount Lebanon Thrust and the next generation attenuation (NGA) equation developed by [30]. The maximum PGA, obtained through this modeling were 0.3 g and 0.35 g respectively for the 475- and 950-year earthquake return periods. In the following the Hazard Maps for 475- and 950-year earthquake return periods were referred to by "HM4" and "HM5" respectively, and to the related obtained damage results by D4 and D5 respectively. All five maps were fed into the Geographic Information System, GIS, and were prepared in form of raster files for whole Lebanon surface and then into Ergo to evaluate the damage of the building stock in Byblos in the event of likely earthquakes occurring in the region. Moreover, one of the recommended attenuation relationships for Middle East region by EMME project [20], [2], was implemented using java in the hazard plugin in Ergo platform. Other attenuations will be modeled and fed in coming studies. The attenuation relationship of [2] was used to simulate a probable earthquake scenario for Byblos: the scenario of the 551 CE earthquake which occurred near Byblos city along Mount Lebanon Thrust at a latitude of 34.14 and a longitude of 35.46 [47] and which had a moment magnitude, Mw of 7.5. Indeed Ergo software can simulate any kind of earthquake scenario as many times as required. The generated scenario was then ingested as deterministic hazard and used to model an additional scenario of earthquake damage to Byblos building. The maximum PGA obtained for the 551 CE earthquake was 0.9 g: it is a great improvement of the previously studied scenarios which underestimated the seismicity of Byblos region, since the 551 CE earthquake is located near Byblos city. In the following, the obtained deterministic Hazard Map of the 551 CE earthquake scenario was referred to by "HM6", and the damage results obtained by this scenario by D6. 4.3. Building inventory

4.2. Seismic hazards assessment The only available hazard maps for Lebanon region were the ones presented in [17,27]. Another recent study, on a regional scale, was completed through the EMME project (Earthquake Model Middle East region) [20]. Nevertheless, even though Lebanon has a relatively small surface, it is endowed with a very complex geology; therefore this study is not of great interest to our model regarding hazard maps. In this paper the uniform hazard maps of Lebanon, in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) for 475-, 1000- and 2500-year earthquake return periods were used in the modeling of the three scenarios of damage for Byblos buildings. They were obtained by using the European attenuation relationship of [1] and were computed by using the computer program EQRISK (McGuire, 1976), and source zone characteristics as presented in [17]: since by the time of the latter study, the Mount Lebanon Thrust was not accurately identified yet, and no other more adequate attenuation relationships were available for Middle East region. The maximum, Peak Ground accelerations, PGA, obtained through this modeling were 0.2 g, 0.3 g and 0.5 g respectively for the 475-, 1000- and 2500-year earthquake return periods. In the following the Hazard Map for 475-, 1000- and 2500-year earthquake return periods

Byblos city, having a small area, was easily divided into 2 census zones based on the year of building construction because the new city was built all around the old city. The first zone is the historical zone, in which; most of the buildings predate 1850 and are considered to be of historical heritage. The second is the relatively new zone; where the majority of buildings postdate 1850 and are recent residential buildings. This study limit itself to earthquake damage estimates of the new census zone because no fragility functions are available for building predating 1850 in Ergo software fragility functions library or elsewhere considering the specificity of Byblos building typologies such as historical buildings and archeological monuments. Indeed the historical zone of Byblos includes buildings which are more than 200 years old and many goes back to 3000 years old BC; this part will be considered in a specific study. 4.3.1. Data collection The data were gathered through ground surveys, on a buildingby-building basis using GPS tools, GIS maps, and satellite maps. The data gathered as recommended by [62] were: Structure type, Number of stories in the structure, Number of dwelling units in the structure, Area of the entire structure, Year in which the structure

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

was constructed, Appraised value of the structure, Value of contents contained within the structure, Description of essential facility status of structure, Occupancy class for the structure, Building footprint configuration, X-coordinate of structure location, Ycoordinate of structure location, and the Street name and Building number, if available. After the data for Byblos buildings were gathered, they were fed into the Geographic Information System (GIS) to prepare the adequate "shapefiles", which are needed to model earthquake damage estimations of Byblos buildings through the Ergo platform. The data were verified and compared to the 1/1500 scale digital map. The colored satellite imagery obtained from GEOEYE-1 on 2 March 2013 has a resolution of 50 cm and an angle of incidence of 68°. The needed special adjustments for the Byblos buildings data to conform with the satellite map image were achieved. 4.3.2. Building stock The total number of buildings investigated was 829, including 68 buildings located in Blat, the suburb region of Byblos. The total numbers of each identified structural building typologies were as follow: 408, Concrete Frame (C1); 215 Concrete Frame with shear walls (C2); 55 reinforced masonry (RM); and 150 unreinforced masonry (URM); and one Steel Structure building (S3). The number of buildings constructed before 1800 is 9, the number constructed between 1800 and 1900 is 68, the number constructed between 1900 and 1970 is 380, and the number constructed after 2000 is 372. Table 4 shows structural type versus year built; it is noted that the number of buildings constructed in the last 45 years is nearly equal to the number of those constructed in the first 70 years of the 20th century, thus reflecting the rapid urbanization of Byblos City. Table 5 shows structural type versus number of stories; it is noted that the number of low-rise buildings is much greater than the number of mid-rise buildings. Buildings with more than 8 stories are few. 4.4. Structural vulnerability Fragility functions allow, once the analysis is set, to obtain the damage that might be encountered in the event of an earthquake. Since no fragility functions were developed until now for Lebanon, Ergo available fragility function's library was used for modeling. The USA Hazus fragilities were not considered as very adequate: the masonry works are very different relating to masonry material and mortar joints, and the concrete work in Lebanon is less controlled in most of commercial residential building. The other possibility was to use Turkish fragility functions derived using the Parameterized Fragility Method (PFM) by [32], which are luckily more adapted caused by regional neighboring. Indeed given the proximity of Lebanon and Turkey and the linked history for many centuries, it was noticed that construction site procedures for buildings tend to be quite similar. First the masonry work in Table 4. Buildings type versus year of construction. Total

Year interval Year r 1800

C1 408 C2 215 RM 55 URM 150 S3 1 SUM 829 TOTAL 829

0 0 2 7 0 9

1800o Year r 1900 3 1 31 33 0 68 829

1900o Year r1970 Year 41970

237 17 20 106 0 380

168 197 2 4 1 372

17

Table 5. Buildings type versus number of stories. Total

C1 C2 RM URM S3 SUM TOTAL

408 215 55 150 1 829 829

Number of stories 1

2

3

50 0 16 81 1 148 829

113 11 25 59 0 208

109 16 12 7 144

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

75 26 2 2

35 29

18 56

6 57

2 15

3

1

1

105

65

74

63

17

3

1

1

1

Middle East region is quite very similar, and is very similar for most of the Mediterranean region. Second as evidenced by [5], many concrete constructions suffer despite the recommendations of the codes, from similar weaknesses such as: Lack of control, poor material and low material quality, and low material quality control, hand mixing of the concrete, poor detailing than needed, specially poor confinement, poor workmanship, design and constructions not made in accordance with the codes. In Lebanon small engineering offices and contracting companies sometimes avoid to follow the complete requirements of the codes, especially in commercial residential buildings, since the control is not very strict. Moreover both the great percentage of foreign manpower and the local manpower are trained on the job and similar issues than the ones noted by [5] are sometimes encountered. Therefore the Turkish fragilities were considered more suitable. Indeed they provide more accurate results, while waiting to develop fragility functions for Lebanon typologies, in order to increase the accuracy level even if it will be for a small improvement. Another interesting method was developed and presented in [65]. It proposes three city models for loss estimates: the simplest describe the city model by one coordinate point; the most sophisticated model would have the position, type, occupancy of every building known; and the intermediate model is used when the information concerning the parameters needed for loss estimates is limited. Trendafiloski et al. [65] concluded that: " in developing countries, where less is known about buildings than in Romania, it is important to use observations of building performance in past earthquakes for distributing building types correctly into vulnerability classes or to construct new vulnerability curves, valid for the country in question". Nevertheless as noted by [68]: the software QLARM-WARMERR used by this approach, is not downloadable, is closed access, and the software code is not available. Therefore it will be difficult, to use and adapt it to Lebanon, by adding i.e. attenuation relationships, hazard maps, and fragility functions. Moreover for the study presented in this article, already the sophisticated model was targeted since more detailed data at building level was already gathered (assigning for each building a point, with the list of characteristics mentioned in Section 4.3.1). Moreover since Lebanon has not witnessed any earthquakes in the last century, no observations for building performance were made, therefore it was acknowledge in [65] the importance of building new fragility curves, similarly to the deduced in this paper. 4.5. Earthquake damage estimations modeling To obtain earthquake damage estimations of Byblos buildings through the Ergo platform, the following steps were performed. First, the buildings data were collected and fed into GIS. Second, five hazard maps HM1, HM2, HM3, HM4, HM5 were fed into GIS. Third the shapefiles were carefully prepared using GIS per Ergo modeling requirements. Fourth, the shapefiles were imported into the Ergo platform. Fifth the HM6 was created in Ergo. Sixth, the

18

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

Fig. 2. Buildings data implemented as red points in GIS over the satellite image of Byblos. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

fragility functions were selected from the Ergo library. Finally, the analysis was set up and Ergo iterated through each building in the building dataset, retrieved the building's fragility curve, assessed the hazard at the building's location, and computed the likely Byblos buildings damage. Following the Consequence-based Risk Management CRM paradigm, retrofits can be applied to the identified critical structures suffering from extensive damage and the damage analysis re-run. These results can then be analyzed by the user to see if they meet their loss criteria and, the user can iterate the analysis as necessary, as noted by [18,19]. Fig. 2 shows the building data implemented as red points in GIS over a satellite image of Byblos. The obtained results are presented and detailed in Section 4.6. 4.6. Results and recommendations Modeling through the Ergo platform allowed obtaining the following results for the six scenarios D1 to D6. The structures that

suffered greatest damage while facing damage threat were the unreinforced masonry then presented in a decreasing order it was followed by; the reinforced masonry, the reinforced concrete frame structures, and the reinforced concrete frames with shear walls as shown in Fig. 3. The results were presented by means of the following tables: Tables 6, 7 and 8 that show the analysis results of Byblos buildings structural damage for D1 to D3, respectively; Tables 9 and 10 that show the analysis results of Byblos buildings structural damage for D4 and D5, respectively; and Table 11 that shows the analysis results of Byblos buildings structural damage D6 for the generated 551 CE earthquake scenario. The six tables report the following: probability of performance level (IO, Immediate Occupancy; LS, life Safety; CP, Collapse Prevention), and probability of damage state (INS, Insignificant; MOD, Moderate; HEA, Heavy; COM, Complete; MD, Mean damage). Table 12 shows the comparative results of Byblos building structural mean damage obtained for D1 to D6. According to the results resumed in Table 12, the scenario providing greater damage was the scenario

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

19

Table 9. Analysis results of Byblos building structural damage for scenario D4. D4

Fig. 3. Damage for Byblos buildings typologies obtained for the six scenarios D1, 2, D3, D4, D5 and D6.

Table 6. Analysis results of Byblos buildings structural damage for scenario D1.

Structure Probability of performance level

Probability of damage state

Type

IO

LS

CP

INS

MOD

HEA

COM

MD

C1 C2 RM S3 URM

0.26 0.11 0.36 0.41 0.46 0.26

0.05 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.19 0.07

0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01

0.74 0.89 0.64 0.59 0.54 0.73

0.22 0.1 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.2

0.04 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.05

0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01

0.07 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.08

Table 10. Analysis results of Byblos building structural damage for scenario D5.

D1

D5

Structure Probability of performance level

Probability of damage state

Type

IO

LS

CP

INS

MOD

HEA

COM

MD

C1 C2 RM S3 URM

0.12 0.04 0.22 0.24 0.31 0.14

0.01 0 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.03

0 0 0 0 0.02 0.01

0.88 0.96 0.78 0.76 0.69 0.86

0.11 0.04 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.11

0.01 0 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.02

0 0 0 0 0.02 0.01

0.03 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.04

Table 7. Analysis results of Byblos buildings structural damage for scenario D2.

Structure Probability of performance level

Probability of damage state

Type

IO

LS

CP

INS

MOD

HEA

COM

MD

C1 C2 RM S3 URM

0.42 0.22 0.49 0.57 0.58 0.4

0.11 0.03 0.21 0.23 0.28 0.12

0.02 0 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.03

0.58 0.78 0.51 0.43 0.42 0.6

0.31 0.19 0.28 0.34 0.29 0.27

0.09 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.1

0.02 0 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.03

0.12 0.05 0.17 0.19 0.24 0.12

Table 11. Analysis results of Byblos building structural damage for scenario D6.

D2

D6

Structure Probability of performance level

Probability of damage state

Type

IO

LS

CP

INS

MOD

HEA

COM

MD

C1 C2 RM S3 URM

0.23 0.09 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.23

0.04 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.06

0.01 0 0 0.01 0.05 0.01

0.77 0.91 0.67 0.62 0.57 0.76

0.19 0.09 0.22 0.26 0.25 0.18

0.03 0.01 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.05

0.01 0 0 0.01 0.05 0.01

0.06 0.02 0.1 0.11 0.15 0.07

Table 8. Analysis results of Byblos building structural damage for scenario D3.

Structure Probability of performance level

Probability of damage state

Type

IO

LS

CP

INS

MOD

HEA

COM

MD

C1 C2 RM S3 URM

0.66 0.44 0.68 0.79 0.74 0.63

0.26 0.09 0.38 0.45 0.45 0.26

0.07 0.02 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.08

0.34 0.56 0.32 0.21 0.26 0.38

0.39 0.34 0.3 0.34 0.29 0.36

0.2 0.07 0.3 0.34 0.25 0.18

0.07 0.02 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.08

0.23 0.11 0.28 0.34 0.37 0.23

Table 12. Comparative results of Byblos building structural mean damage for the six earthquake scenarios D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6.

D3 Structure Probability of performance level

Probability of damage state

Type

IO

LS

CP

INS

MOD

HEA

COM

MD

C1 C2 RM S3 URM

0.35 0.17 0.43 0.5 0.52 0.33

0.08 0.02 0.17 0.18 0.24 0.09

0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.02

0.65 0.83 0.57 0.5 0.48 0.63

0.27 0.15 0.26 0.32 0.28 0.22

0.06 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.06

0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.02

0.09 0.04 0.14 0.16 0.2 0.09

D6 using the hazard map HM6 generated by the earthquake scenario of 551 CE. Indeed the more advanced and updated attenuation relationship of [2] adequate for Middle East region used to generate HM6 for D6 scenario provided more accurate results. The results obtained for the latter D6 scenario were: 39% of reinforced concrete frame structures, 30% of reinforced masonry

Structure Type

D1 MD

D2 MD

D3 MD

D4 MD

D5 MD

D6 MD

C1 C2 RM S3 URM

0.03 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.04

0.06 0.02 0.1 0.11 0.15 0.07

0.09 0.04 0.14 0.16 0.2 0.09

0.07 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.08

0.12 0.05 0.17 0.19 0.24 0.12

0.23 0.11 0.28 0.34 0.37 0.23

structures, 29% of unreinforced masonry structures, and 34% of structures with reinforced concrete frames with shear walls would suffer moderate damage; 20% of reinforced concrete frame structures, 30% of reinforced masonry structures, 25% of unreinforced masonry structures, and 7% of structures with reinforced concrete frames with shear walls would suffer heavy damage; 7% of reinforced concrete frame structures, 7% of reinforced masonry structures, 20% of unreinforced masonry structures, and 2% of

20

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

Fig. 4. Results of Byblos building damage in term of mean damage obtained through Ergo for scenario D6.

structures with reinforced concrete frames with shear walls would suffer complete damage. The only steel structure has a 34% probability of suffering moderate damage, has a 34% probability of suffering heavy damage, and has a 10% probability of suffering complete damage. Moreover all structure types (reinforced concrete frames, reinforced masonry, unreinforced masonry, reinforced concrete frames with shear walls) would suffer more damage in the event of greater earthquakes with longer return periods. Therefore damage was greater for D3 than for D2 than for D1, and the damage was greater for D5 than for D4. The damage obtained from D2, was slightly lower than the one obtained from D4. Moreover the damage obtained from D3, was lower than the one obtained from D5, as it is clearly shown in Table 12, and Fig. 3. Fig. 3 compares the results by showing the damage to each Byblos building typology obtained through Ergo for the six scenarios D1 to D6. Fig. 4 shows the results of Byblos building damage in term of mean damage obtained through Ergo for D6. Obviously, as noted above, unreinforced masonry buildings would suffer more than reinforced masonry buildings; therefore, it is recommended to strengthen the unreinforced masonry buildings while preserving their historical aspect. The frame concrete buildings are recommended to be strengthened by adding shear walls whenever possible. New buildings to be constructed in the future are required have dual system structures or at least have some shear walls. No recommendations could be offered for steel structures because the city has just one steel building. Nevertheless, all new buildings to be constructed in the future are

required to strictly follow the codes. Since in the late century, no important earthquake event has affected Lebanon region, an attempt to validate our study was done by comparing the damage reported for the well documented historical event: the 9 July 551 CE earthquake to the results obtained by the same modeled scenario D6. A study by Darawcheh et al., [11] suggested the surface-wave magnitude of the earthquake (Ms), to be about 7.1–7.3, and estimated its seismic intensity of IX-X intensity for Byblos. It suggested that the strike-slip leftlateral Roum fault is a possible causative fault of the earthquake. Nevertheless this assumption was clarified after the Mount Lebanon Thrust was discovered [6]. Indeed its movement has actually generated the earthquake of a moment magnitude Mw of around 7.5, noting that this fault has a recurrence period between 1500 and 1750 years of a great earthquake [15]. The damage caused by the 551 CE earthquake as reported by historical files gathered by [11]: "The cities of Byblus, Tyrus and Tripolis were also destroyed with their inhabitants". If the damage caused by the 551CE earthquake event is compared to the likely damage nowadays by a similar event, then only the damage to unreinforced masonry buildings can be compared, since it was the only building typology which existed at that time. The results obtained by the modeled scenario D6 of the 551 earthquake suggested for unreinforced masonry: 26% of insignificant damage, 29% of moderate damage, 25% of heavy damage and 20% of complete damage. In total around 74% of the unreinforced masonry buildings will be damaged, which is considered to be a great loss. Those results are very close to the ones obtained by the 551 CE

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

earthquake event of IX-X intensity. Several reasons might explain the slightly less damage result: First, common masonry houses back then, had weaker masonry links than the ones used in the last century. Second this earthquake was reported to be followed by a Tsunami, as reported by [11] " It was a shallow-focus earthquake, associated with a regional tsunami along the Lebanese coast", which magnified the damage by that time; while this study just limit itself to damage from the earthquake, without looking in further interaction between the two events of earthquake and Tsunami. Finally the event would have been followed by at least one aftershock as reported by [11] "Although historical sources did not mention occurrence of aftershocks, it is more likely that this large earthquake should be followed by at least one less-magnitude (felt) aftershock. Sometimes this is encountered, as the historical sources report only the larger events"; aftershocks were not considered by this study.

5. Conclusions In this article the seismic damage to buildings in Byblos Resilient City was assessed, aiming to bridge between international world heritage and disaster risk management, insisting on preparedness rather than recovery. To that purpose first the International heritage resilience was investigated. It was deduced that enhancing the resilience of international heritage ensures its preservation. Moreover international heritage, was identified to be a driver to community resilience, and thus extends to city or region resilience. Then Byblos history was investigated to identify some of the factors that made the city resilient, continuously embracing life for more than 7000 years and bouncing back over and over again. The present requirements for the city to grow while mitigating shocks and stresses were identified. Second earthquakes, one of the main threats faced by Byblos were identified and the seismicity of Lebanon area was detailed further. Third, the assessment of building damage in the city in the event of moderate to severe earthquakes was modeled: Seismic hazards were detailed, Byblos building data were gathered through a ground survey and then structural vulnerability functions were chosen. The needed files were prepared through the Geographic Information System and then modeled through Ergo. Finally, earthquake-induced building damage results in the event of likely earthquakes were offered. It was recommended to upgrade, whenever possible, the unreinforced masonry buildings to reinforced masonry buildings while preserving their historical aspect and convert the frame concrete buildings to dual system structures or frame structures with some shear walls. All new buildings to be constructed in the future are recommended to strictly follow the codes. This study is vital to gain a better understanding of the extent of potential damage, allowing us to establish an earthquake preparedness strategy and recovery plan as part of enhancing the resilience of the city. Indeed this study might be of great interest to Byblos Municipality, since lately Byblos resilience strategy of the 100RC Resilient Cities of the Rockefeller Foundation was proposed. Nevertheless the recommended strategy pillars targeted mainly daily stresses. The presented study could be complementary to their actual work offering concrete results for possible retrofitting works based on engineering modeling of seismic damage estimations to Byblos buildings. Indeed following the CRM paradigm, retrofits can be applied to the identified critical structures suffering from extensive damage and the damage analysis re-run, until it meets targeted loss criteria. Thus actual measurement for retrofit could be considered to reduce future likely damage.

21

Acknowledgments We thank Pr Amr Elnashai, who encouraged us to model using Ergo ((ex-MAEviz)). We thank the University of Balamand Research Council for their support, especially Pr Chafic Mokbel. We thank Dr Marleine Brax for providing seismological data for Lebanon after year 2006 as measured by the Lebanese National Center for Geophysical Research. Finally we thank Ergo partners, especially Dr Himmet Karaman for providing Turkish fragility functions.

References [1] N. Ambraseys, K. Simpson, T. Bommer, Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 25 (1996) 371–400. [2] S. Akkar, M.A. Sandıkkaya, J.J. Bommer, Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 12 (2014) 359–387. [3] R. Asbahan, Evaluation of seismic hazard of Lebanon: implications of recent earthquakes and new technical developments. MS thesis, American University Of Beirut., Lebanon 2001, p. 92. [4] P. Baldi. The risk map of cultural heritage, 2016 (accessed 11.05.95) Available online from: 〈http://www.uni.net/aec/riskmap/english.htm〉. [5] H. Binici, H. Temiz, C. Kayadelen, H. Kaplan, M.Y. Durgun, Retaining wall failure due to poor construction and engineering, Electron. J. Constr. Technol. 6 (1) (2010) 46–61. [6] A. Briais, S.C. Singh, P.E. Tapponnier, A. Elias, A. Sursock, R. Jomaa, H. Carton, M. Daeron, G. King, E. Jacques, Neogene and active shortening offshore the reactivated Levant margin in Lebanon; results of the SHALIMAR cruise. Abstract # T53B-0490. American Geophysical Union, 2004 fall meeting, EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 85(47 suppl.), 2004. [7] D. Bumbaru. Changing attitudes and building partnerships: lessons from the Quebec summit on heritage and risk preparedness in Canada 1997. in: H. Saito (Ed.) Kobe/Tokyo International Symposium Risk Preparedness for Cultural Properties: Development of Guidelines for Emergency Response, Chuo-Koron Bijutsu Shuppan, Tokyo, 1999. [8] A. Clayson, Standing up to natural disasters: UNESCO contributions to the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDND)R 1990–2000, United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization (UNESCO),, 1991. [9] Council of Europe (COE). The protection of the architectural heritage against natural disasters, in: Proceedings, (The European colloquy on regulatory measures concerning the protection of the architectural heritage against natural disasters in Europe, 15–17 November 1989. Italy, Ravello. Architectural heritage series) no. 2, 1989. [10] M. Daëron, Y. Klinger, P. Tapponnier, A. Elias, E. Jacques, A. Sursock, Sources of the large A.D. 1202 and 1759 Near East earthquakes, Geol. (Boulder) 33 (7) (2005) 529–532. [11] R. Darawcheh, M.R. Sbeinati, C. Margottini, S. Paolini, The 9 July 551 CE Beirut earthquake, Eastern Mediterranean region, J. Earthq. Eng. 4 (2000) 403–414. [12] V. Dorge, S.L. Jones, Building an emergency plan; a guide for museums and other cultural institutions, in: Valerie Dorge, Sharon L. Jones (Eds.), Getty Publications, 1999. [13] M. Duffield, How did we become unprepared? Emerg. Resil. Uncertain. World Br. Acad. Rev. 21 (2013) 55–58. [14] M. Dunand, BYBLOS, Its history, ruins and legends, Librairie Adrien – Maisonneuve. 11, Rue Saint – Sulpice., Paris VIe, 1973. [15] A. Elias, P. Tapponnier, S.C. Singh, G.C.P. King, A. Briais, M. Daeron, H. Carton, A. Sursock, E. Jacques, R. Jomaa, Y. Klinger, Active thrusting offshore Mount Lebanon: source of the tsunamigenic A.D. 551 Beirut-Tripoli earthquake, Geology 35 (8) (2007) 755–758. [16] A. Elias, Short notice on earthquake hazard in Lebanon, American University Of Beirut,, 2012, Geology Department. 23 January 2012. [17] A.S. Elnashai, R. El-Khoury, Earthquake Hazard in Lebanon, Imperial College Press., London, 2004. [18] A. Elnashai, S. Hampton, J.S. Lee, T. McLaren, J.D. Myers, C. Navarro, B. Spencer, N. Tolbert, Architectural Overview of MAEviz – HAZTURK, J. Earthq. Eng. 12, S2 (2008) 92–99. [19] A.S. Elnashai, S. Hampton, H. Karaman, J.S. Lee, T. Mclaren, J. Myers, C. Navarro, M. Şahin, B. Spencer, N. Tolbert, Overview and Applications of Maeviz-Hazturk 2007, J. Earthq. Eng. 12 (S2) (2008) 100–108. [20] EMME, Earthquake Model of the Middle East Region: Hazard, Risk Assessment, Economics and Mitigation), (2010). 〈www.emme-gem.org/〉. Accessed 16 December 2015. [21] B.M. Feilden, Between two earthquakes: cultural property in seismic zones, Getty Publications,, 1987. [22] S. Giovinazzi, H. Wenzel, D. Powell, J.S. Lee, Consequence-based decision making tools to support natural hazard risk mitigation and management: evidences of needs following the Canterbury (NZ) Earthquake sequence 2010– 2011, and initial activities of an open source software development Consortium, in: Proceedings NZSEE Conference, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering's 2013 Technical Conference and AGM, Wellington, New

22

N. Makhoul et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18 (2016) 12–22

Zealand, 2013, 26–28 April. [23] K. Graham, Disaster management and cultural heritage: an investigation of attitudes, Charles Sturt University,, 2002. [24] K. Graham, D.H.R. Spennemann, Disaster management and cultural heritage: an investigation of perceptions held by New South Wales Rural Fire Service Brigade Captains, Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. (1) 〈http://www.massey. ac.nz/  trauma/issues/2006–1/graham.htm〉. [25] M.H. Harajli, C. Tabet, S. Sadek, M. Mabsout, S. Moukaddam, M. Abdo, Seismic hazard assessment of Lebanon: zonation maps, and structural seismic design regulations, Research Report Directorate of Urbanism, Ministry Of Public Works, Beirut., Lebanon, 1994. [26] M.H. Harajli, S. Sadek, R. Asbahan, Evaluation of the seismic hazard of Lebanon, J. Seism. 6 (2) (2002) 257–277. [27] C. Huijer, M. Harajli, S. Sadek, Implications of the recent mapping of the offshore thrust fault system on the seismic hazard of Lebanon, Research Report Lebanese National Council For Scientific Research (LNCSR)., Beirut, Lebanon, 2010. [28] C. Huijer, M. Harajli, S. Sadek, Upgrading the seismic hazard of Lebanon in light of the recent discovery of the offshore thrust fault system, Leban. Sci. J. 12 (2) (2011) 67–82. [29] ICMS, ICOM, Guidelines for disaster preparedness in museums. International Committee for Museum Security (ICM)S), International Council Of Museums (ICO)M,, 1993. [30] I.M. Idriss, An NGA Empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra 24 (1) (2008) 217–242. [31] B. James, Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation, United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization (UNESCO),, 2007. [32] S.-H. Jeong, A.S. Elnashai, New three-dimensional damage index for RC buildings with planar irregularities, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (9) (2006) 1482–1490. [33] N. Jidéjian, Byblos through the ages, 3rd ed., Dar An – Nahar., Beirut, Lebanon, 1968. [34] R. Jigyasu, Building Resilience by Reducing Disaster Risks to Cultural Heritage, 2015. 〈http://www.preventionweb.net/experts/guest/collection/44401〉. (accessed 10.05.16). [35] R. Jigyasu, Cultural Heritage Getting #SeriousAboutSendai: Reducing Risks and Building Resilience, 2016. Us/ICOMOS. 〈http://www.usicomos.org/culturalheritage-getting-seriousaboutsendai-reducing-risks-and-building-resilience/〉. [36] R. Jigyasu, M. Murthy, G. Boccardi, C. Marrion, D. Douglas, J. King, G. O’Brien, G. Dolcemascolo, Y. Kim, P. Albrito, M. Osihn, Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities for REDUCING Disaster Risks, Icomos, Unisdr, Unesco AND Iccrom,, 2013. [37] K. Khair, G.F. Karakaisis, E.E. Papadimitriou, Seismic zonation of the Dead Sea transform fault area, Ann. Di Geofis. 43 (1) (2000) 61–79. [38] J. King, G. Wijesuriya, J. Copithorne, Integrating traditional knowledge systems and concern for cultural and natural heritage into risk management strategies, in: Proceedings of the International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC), Davos, Switzerland, 2006, 31 August. [39] D.W. Look. The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings. Conference Workbook, Western Chapter of the Association of Preservation Technology, San Francisco, CA, 1991. [40] D.W. Look, D.H.R. Spennemann, Disaster preparedness, planning and mitigation, Cult. Resour. Manag. 24 (8) (2001) 3–4. [41] D.W. Look, T. Wong, S.R. Augustus, The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings. Preservation Brief, US National Park Service., Washington, DC, 1997. [42] N. Makhoul, From sustainable to resilient and smart cities, in: Proceedings of the IABSE Geneva Conference Structural Engineering: Providing Solutions to Global Challenges. IABSE Symposium Report 105 (6), International Associaton for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [43] S.A. Mokaddem, Assessment of Seismic Hazard of Lebanon, MS Thesis, American University Of Beirut., Lebanon 1994, p. 120. [44] H.R. Meier, T. Will, Cultural Heritage and Natural Disasters: (risk) (preparedness and the limits of prevention ¼ Kulturerbe und Naturkatastrophen: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Prävention, Tudpress,, 2008. [45] J. Musitelli, Opinion world heritage, between universalism and Globalization, Int. J. Cult. Prop. 11 (2) (2002) 323–336. [46] C.L. Nelson, Protecting the past from natural disasters. Preservation Press, National Trust For Historic Preservation., Washington, 1991. [47] J. Plassard, B. Kogoj, Sismicité du Liban, Conseil National De La Recherche Scientifique., Beirut, 1981. [48] L. Pico, J.P. Amat, Temps urbain, temps sismique et ruptures: le cas de

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54] [55] [56]

[57] [58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63] [64]

[65]

[66]

[67] [68]

[69]

Beyrouth, Interaction Nature-Société, Analyse ET Modèles. UMR6554 LETG, La Baule, 2006. Resilient Byblos. Resilient Byblos connecting with our past, creating our future, 2016. 〈http://www.resilientbyblos.org/pdf/Byblos_Strategy.pdf〉 (accessed 13.05.16). A.V. Rohit, Disaster risk management of cultural heritage in urban areas: a training guide, World Heritage Centre And The Division Of Cultural Heritage At UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS,, 2013. B.O. Roberts, Risk preparedness for cultural property: an international perspective. in H. Saito (Ed) 1997 Kobe/Tokyo International Symposium Risk Preparedness for Cultural Properties: Development of Guidelines for Emergency Response, Tokyo: Chuo-Koron Bijutsu Shuppan, 1999. S. Rosenstein. Resilient Byblos – Home to the Middle East's First Office of Resilience, blog post, 13 August 2014. 100 Resilient Cities, New York, Rockefeller Foundation, 2014. 〈http://www.100resilientcities.org/blog/entry/re silient-byblos-home-to-the-middle-easts-first-office-of-resilience〉 (accessed 21.06.15). S. Sadek, M.H. Harajli, R. Asbahan R, A GIS-based framework for the evaluation of seismic geo-hazards in the greater Beirut area, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and the 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 2004. T.K. Sen, Fundamentals of Seismic Loading on Structures, Wiley., United Kingdom, 2009. D.H.R. Spennemann, K. Graham, The importance of heritage preservation in natural disaster situations, Int. J. Risk Assess. Manag. 7 (6/7) (2007) 993–1001. D.H.R. Spennemann, K. Graham, 2007. The importance of heritage preservation in natural disaster situations. Int. J. Risk Assessment and Management, Vol. 7, Nos. 6/7. D.H.R. Spennemann, Cultural heritage conservation during emergency management; luxury or necessity? Int. J. Public Adm. 22 (5) (1999) 745–804. D.H.R. Spennemann, PKM397 Heritage Site Management, Module 4 Disaster Management Plans, Charles Sturt University, Faculty Of Science And Agriculture, Wagga, 2005. D.H.R. Spennemann, Risk assessments in heritage planning in Victoria and New South Wales: a survey of the status quo. Australasian, J. Environ. Manag. 12 (2) (2005) 89–96. D.H.R. Spennemann, D.W. Look, Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites. San Francisco and Albury, NSW, Association for Preservation Technology, Western Chapter and Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University,, 1998. D.H.R. Spennemann, D.W. Look, From conflict to dialogue, from dialogue to cooperation, from cooperation to preservation, in: D.H.R. Spennemann, D. W. Look (Eds.), Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites. San Francisco and Albury, NSW, Association for Preservation Technology, Western Chapter and Johnstone Centre, eds,Charles Sturt University, 1998, pp. 175–188. J. Steelman, J. Song, J.F. Hajjar, Integrated data flow and risk aggregation for consequence-based risk management of seismic regional losses, Mid-America Earthquake Center Report, January 2007, University Of Illinois At UrbanaChampaign Urbana., Illinois, USA, 2007. H. Stovel, Risk Preparedness: A Management Manual for World Cultural Heritage, ICCROM, 1998. H. Stovel. Two current initiatives to improve risk preparedness for cultural heritage at the national and international levels, in: Proceedings of the 1997 Kobe/Tokyo International Symposium Risk Preparedness for Cultural Properties: Development of Guidelines for Emergency Response, Tokyo: H. Saito. Chuo-Koron Bijutsu Shuppan, 1999. G. Trendafiloski, M. Wyss, P. Rosset, G. Marmureanu, Constructing City Models to Estimate Losses due to Earthquakes Worldwide: Application to Bucharest, Romania, Earthq. Spectra 25 (3) (2008) 665–685. C.D. Walley, A braided strike-slip model for the northern continuation of the Dead Sea Fault and its implications for Levantine tectonics, Tectonophysics 145 (1–2) (1988) 63–72. ICCROM UNESCO, IUCN ICOMOS, Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage, UNESCO,, 2010. World Bank Report, Understanding Risk: Review of Open Source and Open Access Software Packages Available to Quantify Risk from Natural Hazards, Global Facility For Disaster Reduction And Recovery Report., Washington, USA, 2014. World Heritage Committee, Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage: World Heritage Committee, thirty-first session, UNESCO, 2007.