Closure to 'Review of Methods to Assess, Design for, and Mitigate Multiple Hazards' by Yue Li, Aakash Ahuja, and Jamie E. Padgett

摘要

The authors would like to thank the discussers for their interest in discussing the original paper and providing additional references to this topic. The authors also appreciate the discusser's salient complement to the perspective of design for multiple hazards by providing more systematic distinction of the following two cases: two independent hazards (i.e., wind and earthquakes) and two dependent hazards (i.e., wind and storm surge). This is a valuable addition to the original paper, because it proves the practical significance of the two different ways of design for multiple hazards, given that the authors also presented the cases of two independent or dependent hazards in the original paper, including Figs. 6 and 7. The discussers further point to some of the key practical concerns in code-based implementation of design for multiple hazards, which require additional attention in the community. The authors would like to add that the ASCE/Structural Engineering Institute Technical Committee on Multihazard Mitigation, which is chaired by the authors, had a very interesting and germane discussion on several issues raised in the original article and by the discussers during the April 15, 2012, committee-held meeting at the Structures Congress in Chicago. The committee members agreed that design for multiple hazards should be divided into independent and dependent hazards to facilitate practical consideration in design and facilitate common language and understanding across the community. The committee also emphasized the importance of clarifying the role of concurrent hazards (i.e., snow and earthquake), which may be either dependent or independent hazards that occur simultaneously, versus triggered/correlated hazards (i.e., fire after earthquake), which are dependent and may have a time delay.