Modeling Decision Variables: Dollars, Deaths, and Downtime Judith Mitrani-Reiser (JHU) James L. Beck (Caltech) PEER Annual Meeting San Francisco, CA January.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Recent Experience in Turkey for Building Vulnerability and Estimating Damage Losses P. Gülkan and A. Yakut Middle East Technical University.

Advertisements

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Improving USGS Input into HAZUS & Other Loss Estimation Tools Nicolas Luco – Research Structural.

Example Effects of NEES Research on Structural Design Practice Bill Holmes Rutherford + Chekene San Francisco March 3, NEES Governance Board Workshop.

Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.

HISTORY OF ENGINEERING-BASED EARTHQUAKE CASUALTY MODELING.

1 Holmes IRCC Workshop October 18, 2006 Motivation and Development of PBEE for Existing and New Buildings William T. Holmes Structural Engineer Rutherford.

Chile Observatories Earthquake Readiness Workshop La Serena, Chile December Seismic Retrofit of Existing Observatories Chile Observatories Earthquake.

Charles SCAWTHORN Junji KIYONO Kyoto University Earthquake Risk Reduction 3- Mitigation and ERR Program Development 1. Concepts and Terminology 2. Hazard,

Proposed Project – “Toward a Methodology for Tsunami Risk Analysis” Project Motivation (from Project Motivation (from NTHMP Strategic Plan ) NTHMP.

Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.

ATC 58 Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT)

Stability Degradation and Redundancy in Damaged Structures Benjamin W. Schafer Puneet Bajpai Department of Civil Engineering Johns Hopkins University.

EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models SCEC GMSV Workshop: Summary of Other Validation Methodologies/Applications Nicolas Luco, Research Structural.

IRENG07 1 Seismic Consideration Discussion for The Interaction Region Fred Asiri-SLAC.

FEMA HAZUS Risk Assessment Capabilities Project, SCEC Presentation Damage Estimation for Buildings and Lifelines Brian Kehoe, S.E. Wiss, Janney, Elstner.

Structural models Christine Goulet, Presenter

Panel Discussion: PBEE Practice and Needs Paul Somerville, URS Joe Maffei, R&C Ron Hamburger, SGH Lloyd Cluff, PG&E Tom Shantz, Caltrans Jim Malley, Degenkolb.

PBEE Decision Variable Considerations DISCUSSION PEER TESTBED MEETING 5/23/02.

Fatality Modeling and the PEER Testbeds Shoaf and Seligson Casualty Project Kickoff UCLA CPHD 27 January 2003 Keith Porter, California Institute of Technology.

© Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. 1 Development of Performance-based Seismic Design Standards & Criteria Ronald O. Hamburger, SE, SECB Senior.

PBEE Practice and Needs Panel Discussion Lloyd Cluff, PG&E Paul Somerville, URS Joe Maffei, R&C Ron Hamburger, SGH Tom Shantz, Caltrans Jim Malley, Degenkolb.

Quantifying risk by performance- based earthquake engineering, Cont’d Greg Deierlein Stanford University …with contributions by many 2006 IRCC Workshop.

Risk Decision Making for Buildings – From Owners to Society Mary Comerio University of California, Berkeley PEER Summative Meeting 13 June 2007.

The use of risk in design: ATC 58 performance assessment procedure Craig D. Comartin.

6/23/2015 Risk-Informed Process and Tools for Permitting Hydrogen Fueling Stations Jeffrey LaChance 1, Andrei Tchouvelev 2, and Jim Ohi 3 1 Sandia National.

Demand and Capacity Factor Design: A Performance-based Analytic Approach to Design and Assessment Sharif University of Technology, 25 April 2011 Demand.

1 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Structural Models: OpenSees and Drain RC Frames and Walls Curt B. Haselton - PhD.

What Will a Large Earthquake be Like? Tom Heaton Caltech.

PEER Tall Buildings Initiative—Task 2 Workshop April 18, Background of Seismic Codes and Performance Expectations.

Implementation, Adoption, and Stakeholder Perspectives Peter J. May University of Washington PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007.

Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U. PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007.

PEER Summative Meeting 13 June 2007 Implementation, Adoption, and Stakeholder Perspectives Peter J. May University of Washington.

Assessing Effectiveness of Building Code Provisions Greg Deierlein & Abbie Liel Stanford University Curt Haselton Chico State University … other contributors.

Mitigation of Seismic Risk in Older Concrete Buildings NEES-R Grand Challenge Thalia Anagnos, Mary Comerio, Tara Hutchinson, Ricky Lopez, Adolfo Matamoros,

Thoughts on minimum strength & stiffness requirements for seismic design Greg Deierlein Stanford University PEER/SF-AB Tall Building Discussion Feb. 23,

PEER “Sponsored” Research Projects Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E. PEER Associate Director October 9, 2007.

LESSONS FROM PAST NOTABLE EARTHQUAKES. Part III Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA.

Outline: Lecture 4 Risk Assessment I.The concepts of risk and hazard II.Shaking hazard of Afghanistan III.Seismic zone maps IV.Construction practice What.

S OUTHERN C ALIFORNIA E ARTHQUAKE C ENTER Southern California: A Natural Laboratory for Earthquake Science SCEC annual meeting, 2000.

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

California Department of Transportation District 4 Oakland Seismic Retrofit Project Presentation to the California Transportation Commission July 26, 2007.

Time-dependent vulnerability assessment of RC buildings considering

Preliminary Investigations on Post-earthquake Assessment of Damaged RC Structures Based on Residual Drift Jianze Wang Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Kaoshan.

Learning Package 1: Disaster Risk Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment Dr Richard Haigh Disaster Risk By Dr Richard Haigh – licensed under the.

PEER EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE-ENGINEERING INTERFACE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE Allin Cornell Stanford University SCEC WORKSHOP Oakland, CA.

Incorporating Catastrophe Models in Property Ratemaking Prop-8 Jeffrey F. McCarty, FCAS, MAAA State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 2000 Seminar on Ratemaking.

Chris Tokas S.E. Manager, Hospital Seismic Retrofit Program Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Status of the California Hospital Seismic.

Earthquake Vulnerability and Exposure Analysis Session 2 Mr. James Daniell Risk Analysis Earthquake Risk Analysis 1.

Feasibility Level Evaluation of Seismic Stability for Remedy Selection Senda Ozkan, Tetra Tech Inc. Gary Braun, Tetra Tech Inc.

Opportunities for NEES Research Utilization Robert D Hanson Professor Emeritus University of Michigan.

Performance-based Earthquake Engineering – A Very Short Introduction (why taking Dynamics of Structures) Dr. ZhiQiang Chen UMKC Spring,2011.

Southern San Andreas Earthquake Scenario Faulting and Shaking Kenneth W. Hudnut U. S. Geological Survey Earthquake Country Alliance Southern California.

Risk Assessment Public Safety Geoscience Program – Earth Sciences Sector Centre for Natural Hazards Research Nicky Hastings, Bert Struik, Murray Journeay,

Potential Uses of OEF at PG&E Norm Abrahamson Mar 16, 2015.

Estimation of Future Earthquake Annualized Losses in California B. Rowshandel, M. Reichle, C. Wills, T. Cao, M. Petersen, and J. Davis California Geological.

University of Palestine

SEISMIC HAZARD. Seismic risk versus seismic hazard Seismic Hazard is the probability of occurrence of a specified level of ground shaking in a specified.

LESSONS FROM PAST NOTABLE EARTHQUAKES. Part IV Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA.

Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.

NEEDS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Overview of the “Recommended LRFD Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges” Ian M. Friedland, P.E. Bridge Technology Engineer Federal Highway.

Foundations and Earthwork Stott Bushnell, Cathryn Cecil, Tyler Cecil, and Craig Fowler – BFCC Engineering Residential foundations are very stiff, often.

Villanova University Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering CEE 3704 Statistical and Numerical Analysis 1 Group Project #2 Energy Dissipation Capacity.

Some General Implications of Results Because hazard estimates at a point are often dominated by one or a few faults, an important metric is the participation.

The Role of Building Codes in Delivering Seismic Performance John Hooper Director of Earthquake Engineering Magnusson Klemencic Associates.

Progress towards Structural Design for Unforeseen Catastrophic Events ASME Congress Puneet Bajpai and Ben Schafer The Johns Hopkins University.

GEM Vulnerability: Uncertainty in Nonstructural Guidelines GVC team meeting Oakland CA 1 Aug 2012 K Porter & K Farokhnia | GEM Vulnerability Consortium.

Effect of Earthquake on Fire Protection Systems

Crisis Planning & Strategy: Using Earthquakes as a Case Study

Presentation transcript:

Modeling Decision Variables: Dollars, Deaths, and Downtime Judith Mitrani-Reiser (JHU) James L. Beck (Caltech) PEER Annual Meeting San Francisco, CA January 19, 2007

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Outline Methodology to estimate building safety for PEER’s PBEE framework (using ATC-20 guidelines). M ethodology to estimate probability of fatalities and downtime for PEER’s PBEE framework. Applied comprehensive damage and loss analysis to PEER’s benchmark study. Express all performance metrics in economic terms for a benefit-cost analysis.

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 PBEE methodology for PEER: collaboration for benchmark study C. Goulet J. Stewart C. Haselton G. Deierlein J. Mitrani-Reiser J. Beck K. Porter

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Facility definition: benchmark site LA Bulk Mail Facility, Bell, CA, 7 miles SE of downtown L.A. Representative of urban area in highly seismic region. Site is within 20 km of 7 known faults, but no one fault dominates the site hazard. Near-fault effects are not a concern at this site. High-quality geotechnical data is available for this site. from USGS (by way of Goulet)

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Facility definition: benchmark building RC 4-story frame building Typical office building 4 x 6 bays (bay width = 30 ft) T 1 = 1 sec from Haselton

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Design Description A: Baseline perimeter frame design. B: Same as A, but with code min strengths. C: Same as A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. E: Baseline space frame design. Benchmark Building Design Variants Structural analysis performed using Opensees software. Fiber and lumped plasticity models used to estimate structural response for a range of hazard levels. S a (T 1 ) used as IM in benchmark study.

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Repair Cost: component contribution Repair costs for damageable building components.

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Repair Cost: vulnerability functions 10%-in-50yr2%-in-50yr Sum repair costs at each hazard level

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Repair Cost : expected annual loss where is the mean annual rate of events where: Spectral Acceleration (g)

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Results of Benchmark Study: EAL Design DescriptionEAL ($) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. 66,585 B: Same as A, but with code minimum strengths. 95,656 C: Same as A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 51,933 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision.112,930 E: Baseline space frame design. 49,422

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Results of Benchmark Study: EAL Design DescriptionEAL ($) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. 66,585 B: Same as A, but with code minimum strengths. 95,656 C: Same as A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 51,933 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision.112,930 E: Baseline space frame design. 49,422 43% increase

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Results of Benchmark Study: EAL Design DescriptionEAL ($) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. 66,585 B: Same as A, but with code minimum strengths. 95,656 C: Same as A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 51,933 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision.112,930 E: Baseline space frame design. 49, % increase

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 EAL Contributions Contribution from collapse ~ 1% Baseline Perimeter-Frame Design

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 ATC 20 guidelines (ATC 1985, 1995, 1996) Event Tree Building Safety: virtual inspector

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 ATC 20 guidelines (ATC 1985, 1995, 1996) Event Tree Building Safety: virtual inspector

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Building Safety: rapid evaluation results

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Building Safety: detailed evaluation results

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Life Safety Event Tree P[C|im] determined by structural analysis P[LC|im, NC] determined by virtual inspector p DM from epidemiological studies and expert opinion

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Life Safety P[C|im] determined by structural analysis P[LC|im, NC] determined by virtual inspector p DM from epidemiological studies and expert opinion Event Tree

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Life Safety: mean population at risk Mean # occupants determined from ATC-13 (1985).

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Building Characteristics Fatality Model Damage State (DM) For all construction types except light steel and wood frame. ATC-13 (1985) LC0.01 C0.20 Reinforced-concrete (non- near-field ground motions) Coburn et al. (1992) LC0.31 C0.49 Mid-rise concrete moment frame HAZUS 99- SR2 (2002) LC C0.1 Mid-rise non-ductile reinforced-concrete frame Shoaf and Seligson (2005) LC0.015 C0.131 Life Safety: fatality probabilities

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Building Characteristics Fatality Model Damage State (DM)E[Y n |DM]Var[Y n |DM] For all construction types except light steel and wood frame. ATC-13 (1985) LC C Reinforced-concrete (non- near-field ground motions) Coburn et al. (1992) LC C Mid-rise concrete moment frame HAZUS 99- SR2 (2002) LC C Mid-rise non-ductile reinforced-concrete frame Shoaf and Seligson (2005) LC C Life Safety: number of fatalities Use Binomial distribution to estimate mean and variance of fatalities.

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Design Description EANF (*10 -3 ) A: Baseline perimeter frame design.1.4 B: Same as A, but with code-min strengths. 1.3 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 1.6 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision.22.8 E: Baseline space frame design.1.0 Life Safety: expected annual number of fatalities

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Design Description EANF (*10 -3 ) EALF ($) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. 1.44,900 B: Same as A, but with code-min strengths. 1.34,550 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 1.65,600 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision ,800 E: Baseline space frame design.1.03,500 Life Safety: expected annual loss due to fatalities

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 ABAG’s building inspection data from over 700 buildings after the Loma Prieta earthquake, 10 days (Blecher and Comerio 2006). Estimate by expert, 1 month (Scawthorne 2006). Estimate from Stanford case study of closed buildings after Loma Prieta earthquake, 6 months (Comerio 2006). Results from the Virtual Inspector. Downtime: mobilization delay Use Virtual Inspector results to determine mobilization delay.

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Baseline Perimeter-Frame Design Downtime: mobilization delay & repair time 10%-in-5yr DT ~ 4 months 2%-in-50yr DT ~ 17 months

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Design Description Down- time Type S a (T 1 ) EALD ($USD) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. Total (days) ,519 B: Same as A, but with code- min strengths. Total (days) ,362 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. Total (days) ,207 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. Total (days) ,726 E: Baseline space frame design. Total (days) ,517 Comerio (2006) Downtime: economic losses

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Comerio (2006) months Downtime: economic losses Design Description Down- time Type S a (T 1 ) EALD ($USD) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. Total (days) ,519 B: Same as A, but with code- min strengths. Total (days) ,362 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. Total (days) ,207 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. Total (days) ,726 E: Baseline space frame design. Total (days) ,517

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Downtime: economic losses Design Description Down- time Type S a (T 1 ) EALD ($USD) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. Total (days) ,519 B: Same as A, but with code- min strengths. Total (days) ,362 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. Total (days) ,207 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. Total (days) ,726 E: Baseline space frame design. Total (days) ,517 28% increase in EALD for code-min design.

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Downtime: economic losses Design Description Down- time Type S a (T 1 ) EALD ($USD) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. Total (days) ,519 B: Same as A, but with code- min strengths. Total (days) ,362 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. Total (days) ,207 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. Total (days) ,726 E: Baseline space frame design. Total (days) ,517 47% increase in EALD for non-code-conforming design.

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Design Description EAL ($) EALD ($) EALF ($) EAL TOTAL ($) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. 66,58520,5194,90092,004 B: Same as A, but with code-min strengths. 95,65628,3624,550128,568 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 51,93322,2075,60079,740 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. 112,93032,72679,800225,456 E: Baseline space frame design. 49,42219,5173,50072,439 Summary of Results: “3 D” Losses

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Design Description EAL ($) EALD ($) EALF ($) EAL TOTAL ($) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. 66,58520,5194,90092,004 B: Same as A, but with code-min strengths. 95,65628,3624,550128,568 C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 51,93322,2075,60079,740 D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. 112,93032,72679,800225,456 E: Baseline space frame design. 49,42219,5173,50072,439 Summary of Results: “3 D” Losses

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Design Description EAL ($) EALD ($) EALF ($) EAL TOTAL ($) E[PVL(50yr)] ($M) A: Baseline perimeter frame design. 66,58520,5194,90092, B: Same as A, but with code-min strengths. 95,65628,3624,550128, C: Same A, but with uniform beam/column throughout. 51,93322,2075,60079, D: Same as C, but no SCWB provision. 112,93032,72679,800225, E: Baseline space frame design. 49,42219,5173,50072, Summary of Results: “3 D” Losses

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Benefit-Cost Analysis A risk-neutral decision maker will choose the space-frame design!

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Summary Established framework for estimating the 3 D’s (dollars, deaths and downtime) as part of PEER’s PBEE framework. Used PEER benchmark study to illustrate this loss framework. Results show that all metrics are important in estimating overall building performance, and should all be included in a building loss estimation and BCA. We hope that this effort will contribute to the ongoing ATC-58 effort (downtime & deaths).

PEER Annual MeetingJanuary 19, 2007 Thank You!