Enhancing the resilience of acute care facilities against extreme events

Transcription

1 Enhancing the resilience of acute care facilities against extreme events Michel Bruneau Director, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research

2 VISION STATEMENT The overall goal is to enhance the seismic resiliency of communities through improved engineering and management tools for critical infrastructure systems (water supply, electric power, and hospitals) and emergency management functions. Seismic resilience (technical, organizational, social, and economic) is characterized by reduced probability of system failure, reduced consequences due to failure, and reduced time to system restoration.

3 Reference: A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance Seismic Resilience Earthquake Spectra Journal Michel BRUNEAU (MCEER/University at Buffalo) Stephanie CHANG (University of British Columbia) Ronald EGUCHI (Imagecat Inc.) George C. LEE (MCEER) Thomas D. O'ROURKE (Cornell University) Andrei M. REINHORN (University at Buffalo) Masanobu SHINOZUKA (University of California at Irvine) Kathleen TIERNEY (University of Colorado) William A. WALLACE (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) Detlof VON WINTERFELDT (University of Southern California)

4 Resilience Framework that quantitatively measures The ends of robustness and rapidity The means of resourcefulness and redundancy Dimensions of resilience Technical and Organizational (T & O) Societal and Economic (S & E)

5 Measure of Seismic Resilience Conceptual Definition Quality Of 100 Infrastructure (percent) 50 Loss of Resilience 0 t 0 t 1 time Resilience depends on 4Rs Robustness, Rapidity, Resourcefulness, Redundancy

6 Adding Resourcefulness Dimension Quality Of Infrastructure (percent) 100 Time t t + 1 t 1 t 0 0 Resources

7 Adding Redundancy Dimension Quality Of Infrastructure (percent) 100 Time t - 1 Quality Of Infrastructure (percent) t + 1 t 1 Time t - 1 Linkages 50 0 Hospital #n t 0 Resources t + 1 t 1 t 0 0 Hospital #1 Resources Quality Of Infrastructure (percent) 100 Time t t + 1 t 1 0 t 0 Hospital #2 Resources

8 1985 Mexico City 9,500 Lives 30,000 Injuries $4B Loss 1989 Loma Prieta 62 Lives 3,750 Injuries $8B Loss 1994 Northridge 1988 Armenia 25,000 Lives 20,000 Injuries $16B Loss 1995 Kobe 5,000 Lives 26,000 Injuries $120B Loss 1999 Turkey 17,000 Lives 46,000 Injuries $7.8B Loss 57 Lives 1,500 Injuries $20B Loss 1999 Taiwan 2,300 Lives 10,000 Injuries $14B Loss

9 Research Strategies Observations: Seismic rehabilitation of existing, underdesigned systems is most urgently needed. Well Executed Disaster Management Could Significantly Reduce the Losses

10 Research Strategies Nationwide upgrading of existing inventory is not fiscally prudent. However, protecting critical and essential facilities together with efficient response and recovery is a socio-economically viable national strategy for earthquake loss reduction.

11 Lifelines: Power Systems

12 Lifelines: Pipeline Systems

13 Highways

14 Earthquake Response and Recovery

15 SPOT Image of the I-5/14 Interchange Change Detection Map Overlaid onto USGS after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake Aerial Photo - I-5/14 Interchange (1/17/94) (Changes represented by brown shaded areas)

16 Probability of Faiilure(%) Transformers Circuit Breakers Disconnect Switches PGA(g) 1 Empirical Fragility Functions Repair Rate (Number of Repairs/km) Fit Equation (Steel Distr.): log(y) = 0.88 * log(x) R-squared = 0.90 Steel Distr. CI DI AC Fit Equation (CI): log(y) = 1.21 * log(x) R-squared = 0.84 Fit Equation (DI): log(y) = 1.83 * log(x) R-squared = 0.73 Fit Equation (AC): log(y) = 2.26 * log(x) R-squared = PGV (cm/sec) Repair Rate (Number of Reparis/km) HAZUS AC DI CI Steel Distr. Steel Trunk PGV (cm/sec) Loss Estimation Models Advanced GIS Experiments/Analyses DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS for Preparedness, Emergency Response, and Restoration To Minimize Human Suffering Physical Damage Restoration Time Economic Loss Interruption of Societal Activities

17 Seismic Retrofit of Hospitals

18

19

20 # # IN OUT CEO # #

21 Resilient Community / System PRE-EVENT CONTROL Resilience Assessment and Decision System POST-EVENT CONTROL System Diagram (Schematic Level of Details) Resilience Criteria Community and System Resilience Performance Estimation* System Assessment and Actions Component and System Estimation Sensing & Monitoring Resilience Assessment Decision Support System Resilience Assessment and Decision System Acceptable Not Acceptable Advanced System Modification Adv. Response Modification Rapid Restoration Repair and Retrofit Rapid Organizational Response Recovery Management Resilience Criteria Community and System Resilience Performance Evaluation* Component and System Evaluation Monitoring & Sensing System Assessment and Actions Conventional System Earthquake Information Facility System and / or Community Information Response / Consequences Information Conventional System

22 Resilient Community / System PRE-EVENT CONTROL Resilience Assessment and Decision System POST-EVENT CONTROL System Diagram (Schematic Level of Details) Resilience Criteria Community and System Resilience Performance Estimation* System Assessment and Actions Component and System Estimation Sensing & Monitoring Resilience Assessment Decision Support System Resilience Assessment and Decision System Acceptable Not Acceptable Advanced System Modification Adv. Response Modification Rapid Restoration Repair and Retrofit Rapid Organizational Response Recovery Management Resilience Criteria Community and System Resilience Performance Evaluation* Component and System Evaluation Monitoring & Sensing System Assessment and Actions Conventional System Conventional System Earthquake Information Facility System and / or Community Information Response / Consequences Information Conventional System

23 Resilient Community / System PRE-EVENT CONTROL Resilience Assessment and Decision System POST-EVENT CONTROL Resilience Criteria Acceptable Resilience Assessment Resilience Criteria Not Acceptable Current State-of of- the-art Community and System Resilience Performance Estimation* Resilience Assessment and Decision System System Assessment and Actions Component and System Advanced System Estimation Modification Sensing & Monitoring System Assessment and Actions Conventional System Earthquake Information Decision Support System Rapid Restoration Repair and Retrofit Rapid Organizational Response Recovery Management Facility System and / or Community Information Community and System Resilience Performance Evaluation* Component and System Assessment System Evaluation Adv. Response Modification and Actions Monitoring & Sensing Response / Consequences Information Conventional System

24 Knowledge Needed for New Decision Tools Community and System Resilience Performance Estimation* System Assessment and Actions Component and System Estimation Resilient Community / System PRE-EVENT CONTROL Resilience Assessment and Decision System POST-EVENT CONTROL Acceptable Resilience Assessment Resilience Resilience Criteria Resilience and Decision System Assessment Criteria Not Acceptable Decision Support System Resilience Assessment and Decision System Advanced System Modification Community and System Resilience Performance Evaluation* Component and System Evaluation Sensing & Monitoring Adv. Response Modification Rapid Restoration Repair and Retrofit Rapid Organizational Response Recovery Management Monitoring & Sensing System Assessment and Actions Conventional System Earthquake Information Facility System and / or Community Information Response / Consequences Information Conventional System

25 Resiliency Targets Example: There is a 95% chance that 80% of hospitals can operate at 90% of their capacity within 5 days Communities cannot articulate such resiliency objectives Tools to support such statements don t exist Communities do not operate at this level yet MCEER to develop knowledge needed to create the tools that could provide such formulation (not the numbers themselves)

26 Deliverables A methodical framework that can be used to construct decision support system for critical facilities Lifelines and Hospitals as a stand-alones first Integrate into framework for all critical systems Demonstrate how could work using demonstration projects and specific advanced technologies

27 Decision Support Tools

28 Structural System Considerations 1 Serviceability clean aesthetic Integrity 2 Threshold of collapse 3 Damage states t o Collapse Fragility functions for initial limit state,condition at time t i, and time to recovery also random variables t Advanced Technologies have the potential to reduce some of these uncertainties

29 Example of Integrated Research Project to Seismic Resilience of Acute Care Facilities

30 Importance of nonstructural components and contents

31 Research Integration Road Map

32 MCEER Demonstration Hospitals MCEER Specific Barrier Ground Motion Model (A. Whittaker, UB) (A. Papageorgiou, UB) West Stochastic Cost (Southern Modeling California) Approach East Magnitude-Distance Coast (NY State) Scenarios East and West Coast Ground Motions Near-Field Effects

33 Geotechnical Fragilities GIS Database of Subsurface and Site Characteristics for California Hospital Facilities (T. O Rourke, Cornell)

34 Structural Fragilities Research on Research on Metallic Global Response Dampers Retrofit of of Composite Development Infill of (M. Nonstructural Bruneau, Structures Development UB) by Systems of Panels Semi-Active Weakening Self-Centering Structures and with (A. Control Aref, Systems UB) Seismic Damping Systems Isolation and (G. Lee, UB) (A. Damping Reinhorn, (A. Filiatrault, Systems UB) UB) (M. Constantinou, UB) Spectral Acceleration (g) Base Shear, V 1st Floor ORIGINAL WEAKENED ENHANCED 0 DAMPING Frequency (Hz) Displacements, D 20

35 Shake Table Testing of Piping systems (M. Maragakis, UNR) Numerical Fragility Surfaces for Distributed Equipment (M. Grigoriu, Cornell) Experimental Fragility of Suspended Ceiling Systems (A. Reinhorn, A. Whittaker, UB) Nonstructural Fragilities

36 Development of Rehabilitation Acute Care Hospital Decision Analysis Decision Parameters Model into Integrated Methodologies W. Petak, USC D. Alesch, UW D. Von Winterfeldt, USC Resilience Evaluations

37 Fragility Based Rehabilitation Decision Analysis (M. Grigoriu, Cornell, D. von Winterfeldt, USC) Adaptive Decision Support Model (G. Dargush, UB D.Alesch, UW W. Petak, USC)

38 Research Integration 1) Global Integration

39 Research Integration 1) Local Integration

40 Vision The same approach can be adopted for the development of innovative and integrated solutions to enhance the resilience of infrastructure against extreme events (natural disasters, technological disasters, and acts of terrorism against our society), and is known worldwide for its ability to deliver superior products to its sponsors.

41 Steps to Enhance Resilience Spectrum of Needs Pre-Event Risk and vulnerability assessment, including the development of risk and vulnerability assessment methodologies, to prioritize the allocation of limited resources; System analysis and design, to investigate the ultimate behavior of systems and foster capacity-design principles for fail-safe outcomes; Improved materials, devices, or systems, to enhance the ability of infrastructure components and systems to withstand hazards; Retrofitting prior to an event.

42 Steps to Enhance Resilience Spectrum of Needs During Event Sensing technologies, for structural health monitoring, with possible applications for detection, surveillance and prevention

43 Steps to Enhance Resilience Spectrum of Needs Post-Event Post-event assessment, including the use of remote sensing (airborne or satellite-based) to rapidly locate areas impacted by a disaster, the type of damage suffered, and rapid assessment of losses; Post-event on-site screening methodologies, to assess safety of structures after an event using simple tools based on expert knowledge; Advanced technologies for repair and restoration following an event; Evaluation test-beds, to test and validate new technologies proposed to achieve above objectives.

44 Steps to Enhance Resilience In that perspective, much research results from the field of earthquake engineering could be modified to contribute to this objective. Earthquake engineering research has provided practical solutions to address a number of needs that are similar (although not identical) for a number of hazards.

45 Major Accomplishments World Trade Center Research: Comparing and Contrasting Natural and Human-Induced Disasters Data analysis will advance the conceptualization and quantification of a community s resilience to disasters Engineering and social science knowledge to address the impact of major urban earthquakes

46 Major Accomplishment Hurricane Charley Reconnaissance Report Satellite- Referenced Building Damage Information in the Aftermath of Hurricane Charley

47 Conclusion Definition of resilience allows to frame objectives in a global integrated model that focus on key issues On-going research important to develop the models and technologies to deliver such a framework for acute care facilities Select advanced technologies and demonstration project will be used to provide quantitative data and benchmark for validation

48 Thank you! Questions?