FEMA P-58 Overview, Recent Adoption on Projects, and the Future in our Profession

Transcription

1 Resilience-Based Design & Risk Management using FEMA P-58 1 FEMA P-58 Overview, Recent Adoption on Projects, and the Future in our Profession Curt B. Haselton, PhD, PE Professor of Civil CSU, Chico Seismic Performance Prediction Program (SP3)

2 Agenda for this Session 2 Quick orientation to FEMA P-58 and applications Recent innovative projects being done using this new FEMA P-58 method More detail on the FEMA P-58 method FEMA P-58 & SP3 resilient design example FEMA P-58 & SP3 for seismic risk assessment Plans for future work and development Next Session: Interactive risk assessment and resilient design using FEMA P-58 and SP3

3 What is Resilience-Based Design? 3 Code Design (ASCE7, etc.) Safety Goal - Yes Performance-Based Design (AB 083, ASCE 41, etc.) Safety Goal Yes Can consider other goals, but typically not done in current practice. Enhanced modeling and design scrutiny Resilience-Based Design (or PBD Generation 2 ) Safety Goal Yes Repair Time Goal Yes Repair Cost Goal Yes Also enhanced modeling and design scrutiny

4 FEMA P-58 4 FEMA P-58 is a probabilistic performance prediction methodology (10+ years in the making, $12M+ invested, development ongoing) FEMA P-58 is tailored for building-specific analysis (in contrast to most risk assessment methods) FEMA P-58 output results: Repair costs Repair time Safety: Fatalities & injuries

5 FEMA P-58 Modeling Approach 5 Ground Motion Hazard Structural Response Casualties Economic Loss Repair Time Component Damage

6 FEMA P-58: Benefits 6 Comprehensive and credible: $12M, 10 years to develop, team of 100+ really smart researchers and practitioners Transparent and open-source: FEMA P-58 is open to the public. Building-specific: The analysis incorporates the specific nuances of the building, rather than being based on building class. Standardized and repeatable: Consistent FEMA P-58 damage and repair cost databases are used consistently for all analyses (created based on 20+ years of research).

7 FEMA P-58 Applications 7 Applications: New design (resilience-based design) Retrofit Risk evaluations for mortgage (PML) and insurance Risk evaluations for specialized buildings Building ratings Contrasting Methods: Code design (safety-only and prescriptive), performance-based design (typically also safety-only) ASCE 41 (mostly safety-only, except for if using IO) Experience and judgement-based approaches, which do not handle much building-specific information (e.g. Hazus, ATC-13, ST-Risk, SeismicCat, etc.). [same as above] Ratings are new; can use FEMA P-58 methods or checklist-based)

8 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 8 In my book, these are exciting times. I am excited about what is starting to be done with FEMA P-58 for resilient design and enhanced risk assessment.

9 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 9 New Design: Municipal Center (not named) Figure Source: SOM/NYASE 2016 SEAOC presentation

10 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 10 New Design: Municipal Center (not named) Figure Source: SOM/NYASE 2016 SEAOC presentation

11 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 11 New Design: Municipal Center (not named) Design Objectives (for design earthquake): Safe (few or no injuries) Minimal repair cost (>5%) Minimal reoccupancy time (>1 week) Minimal functionality time (>1 month) REDi: ~Gold Performance USRC: 4-5 Star Performance Figure Source: SOM/NYASE 2016 SEAOC presentation

12 What can I now do with FEMA P-58? 12 Retrofit Projects: San Francisco, Sacramento, etc.

13 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 13 Risk Assessments: Property Transaction Due-Diligence

14 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 14 Risk Assessments: Detailed Assessments of High-Value Items Risk to high-value content.

15 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 15 Risk Assessments: Detailed Assessments of High-Value Items Post-earthquake operability of production facilitates.

16 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 16 Assessments for Innovating Structural Systems Figures:

17 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 17 Assessments for Innovating Structural Systems Figures:

18 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 18 Assessments for Innovating Structural Systems Figures:

19 What can I now do with FEMA P-58? 19 Assessments for Innovating Structural Systems Structural Repair Cost $60 $50 CIP System PHMF System $49 M REPAIR COST (MIL $) $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 $10 M DBE $0.7 M MCE $3.4 M

20 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 20 Building ratings and the U.S. Resiliency Council rating system: articulates FEMA P-58 results to star ratings (e.g. < 5% cost is 5-star). is useful to communicate performance simply (and my hope is that it will lead to a push for more resilient design). is fully implemented in SP3 (SP3 will compute the rating).

21 Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects 21 Building ratings and the REDi Rating System (also implemented in SP3):

22 FEMA P-58: More Details Under the Hood 22 Ground Motion Hazard Structural Response Casualties Economic Loss Repair Time Component Damage

23 FEMA P-58: Summary of Steps 23 Step 1: Site Hazard Soil and hazard curve Ground motions (if needed) Step 2: Structural Responses Option #1: Structural analysis Option #2: Predictive equations Step 3: Damage Prediction Contents Fragility curves Step 4: Loss Estimation (repair cost, repair time, etc.) Step 5: Aggregate to building-level consequences Thousands of Monte Carlo simulations The simulations provide detailed statistical information on building performance

24 FEMA P-58: Ground Motions 24 Step 1: Define ground motion hazard curve (with soil type) Option #1: SP3 can provide for the U.S. (given an address) Option #2: User-specified

25 FEMA P-58: Structural Response 25 Step 2: Predict engineering demand parameters Story drift ratio at each story Peak floor acceleration at each floor For wall buildings, also wall and coupling beam rotations Option #1: Structural analysis Option #2: Statistically calibrated predictive equations

26 FEMA P-58: Component Damage 26 Step 3: Quantify component damage First, establish what components are in the building. Types and quantities of can be specified or estimated from building size and occupancy type Windows Piping Partitions Structural components

27 FEMA P-58: Component Damage 27 Step 3: Quantify component damage We end up with a list of component types, quantities and locations

28 FEMA P-58: Component Damage 28 Step 3: Quantify component damage Each component type has a fragility function that specifies the probability that a structural demand causes damage

29 FEMA P-58: Consequences of Damage 29 Step 4: Quantify consequences of the component damage (component repair costs, repair times, etc.). Cost per 100 ft. Labor per 100 ft. Cracked wallboard $2, person-hours Crushed gypsum wall $5, person-hours Buckled studs $31, person-hours These are median values each also has uncertainty Fragility functions have been calibrated for hundreds of components from test data, and repair cost and labor has been developed by cost estimators.

30 FEMA P-58: Building-Level Consequences 30 Step 5: Aggregate to building-level consequences Repair costs are the sum of component repair costs (considering volume efficiencies) Windows $26,892 Partitions $43,964 Piping $5,456 Structural Components $77,920 Recovery time is aggregated from component damage, but is more complex (mobilization, staffing, construction sequencing, ) Sum = $253,968

31 FEMA P-58: Monte Carlo Simulations 31 Step 5: Aggregate to building-level consequences For a given building and ground shaking intensity, repeat the following steps several thousand times: 1. Simulate each structural response parameter 2. Simulate damage to each component 3. Simulate repair costs and repair time for each component 4. Aggregate to compute total repair cost and recovery time We can then look at the mean cost, 90 th percentile, etc.

32 FEMA P-58: Summary 32 Step 1: Site Hazard Soil and hazard curve Ground motions (if needed) Step 2: Structural Responses Option #1: Structural analysis Option #2: Predictive equations Step 3: Damage Prediction Contents Fragility curves Step 4: Loss Estimation (loss curves) and other consequences Step 5: Aggregate to building-level consequences Thousands of Monte Carlo simulations The simulations provide detailed statistical information on building performance.

33 FEMA P-58: Benefits 33 Comprehensive and credible: $12M, 10 years to develop, team of 100+ really smart researchers and practitioners Transparent and open-source: FEMA P-58 is open to the public. Building-specific: The analysis incorporates the specific nuances of the building, rather than being based on building class. Standardized and repeatable: Consistent FEMA P-58 damage and repair cost databases are used consistently for all analyses (created based on 20+ years of research).

34 FEMA P-58: Summary 34 Step 1: Site Hazard Soil and hazard curve Ground motions (if needed) Step 2: Structural Responses Option #1: Structural analysis Option #2: Predictive equations Step 3: Damage Prediction Contents Fragility curves Step 4: Loss Estimation (loss curves) and other consequences Typical Reactions: Looks extremely complicated!!! Great method, but it s a Cadillac and I would only use it for special projects!!!

35 Enabling SP3 Commercial Software 35 A barrier to widespread FEMA P-58 adoption has been related to software and ease-of-use. FEMA P-58 is a great methodology but FEMA is expressly not in the business of maintaining software. Software has been barrier to adoption. Need: To better enable use of FEMA P-58, a commercial-grade software is needed. In 2014, Jack Baker and Curt Haselton decide to fill the software need by: a) Creating user-friendly software to implement P-58. [released Dec. 2014] b) Maintaining software over time (fragilities, etc.). [e.g. working on some expansions to fragility library now] c) Improving and extending the methodology in the future. [e.g. advanced repair time estimates, enhanced method for structure responses, etc.] ATC Coordination: We have been in coordination with ATC/FEMA from the start (so all pulling in same direction).

36 Enabling SP3 Commercial Software 36 Step 1: Site Hazard Soil and hazard curve Ground motions (if needed) Step 2: Structural Responses Option #1: Structural analysis Option #2: Predictive equations Step 3: Damage Prediction Contents Fragility curves Step 4: Loss Estimation (repair cost, repair time, etc.) SP3 implements the FEMA P-58 method, plus a number of other features.

37 Enabling SP3 Commercial Software 37 Step 1: Site Hazard Soil and hazard curve Ground motions (if needed) Step 2: Structural Responses Option #1: Structural analysis Option #2: Predictive equations Step 3: Damage Prediction Contents Fragility curves Step 4: Loss Estimation (repair cost, repair time, etc.) USGS Soil and ground motion database information embedded Statistically calibrated structural response methods embedded Full FEMA P-58 fragility database embedded, building contents are auto-populated (with FEMA P-58 methods and enhanced options) Two-level structure: 1) Use pre-populated values (Goal: Analysis in hours rather than weeks). 2) Modify inputs to dig deeper Structure: Cloud-based computational platform, flexible reporting options

38 Why Does SP3 Exist? 38 The Goal: Enable widespread and mainstream use of FEMA P-58 for building-specific risk assessment. The Intended Outcome: We believe that this better understanding of risk will (a) facilitate design of more resilient buildings and (b) enable better decisionmaking for both mortgage risk and insurance risk. The Strategy: Provide a software that enables these assessments at a rapid pace, so feasible for nearly all projects (taking hours not weeks).

39 Current Status of SP3 Software 39 Focus for 2014: Create the initial v.1.0 SP3 tool. Focus for : To get started, put intentional focus on new resilient design and retrofit. Gain broad adoption in the structural engineering market (for design). Work with engineering users to comprehensively vet the SP3 tool. Secure $980,000 of funding for development. Do extensive streamlining of the tool to make the analysis process efficient (done in an matter of hours), in order to enable broader use in due-diligence. Focus for 2017: Now that tool is vetted and streamlined (efficient), broaden usage to support enhanced seismic risk assessment (e.g. PML+). Build an early-adopter group in the due-diligence arena and achieve broad usage in this arena. Further expand and improve the tool (in response to early-adopter users).

40 Output Examples: Repair Cost 40 8-story concrete frame in Los Angeles 100% 90% Loss Contributions by Component Type for a 50 Year Ground Motion Loss Ratio = % 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 16% 10% 0% 8% Structural Components Partitions Interior Finishes 0% Cladding 3% 3% Plumbing and HVAC Other Components 0% 0% Collapse Residual Drift

41 Output Examples: Repair Cost 41 8-story concrete frame in Los Angeles 100% 90% Loss Contributions by Component Type for a 475 Year Ground Motion Loss Ratio = % 70% 60% 50% 40% 37% 32% 30% 20% 19% 10% 0% Structural Components Partitions 7% Interior Finishes 1% 1% 2% 1% Cladding Plumbing and HVAC Other Components Collapse Residual Drift

42 Output Examples: Repair Cost 42 8-story concrete frame in Los Angeles 100% 90% Loss Contributions by Component Type for a 2475 Year Ground Motion Loss Ratio = % 70% 60% 54% 50% 40% 30% 26% 20% 10% 0% Structural Components 12% Partitions 2% 2% 0% 1% Interior Finishes Cladding Plumbing and HVAC Other Components 3% Collapse Residual Drift

43 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 43

44 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 44 Average Repair Times (REDi, 2013): 14 Repair Time Output at a 43 Year Earthquake MONTHS REDi Re-Occupancy REDi Functional Recovery REDi Full Recovery

45 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 45 Average Repair Times (REDi, 2013): 14 Repair Time Output at a 475 Year Earthquake MONTHS REDi Re-Occupancy REDi Functional Recovery REDi Full Recovery

46 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 46 Average Repair Times (REDi, 2013): 14 Repair Time Output at a 2475 Year Earthquake MONTHS REDi Re-Occupancy REDi Functional Recovery REDi Full Recovery

47 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 47 Average Repair Times (Figure Source: REDi, 2013): 14 Repair Time Output at a 2475 Year Earthquake MONTHS REDi Re-Occupancy REDi Functional Recovery REDi Full Recovery

48 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 48 Safety (fatalities and injuries): 3.0 Mean Casualties at a 43 Year Earthquake Injuries (From Falling Hazards) Fatalities (From Falling Hazards) Injuries (From Collapse) Fatalities (From Collapse) 0.2 Total Injuries 0.0 Total Fatalities

49 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 49 Safety (fatalities and injuries): 3.0 Mean Casualties at a 475 Year Earthquake Injuries (From Falling Hazards) Fatalities (From Falling Hazards) Injuries (From Collapse) Fatalities (From Collapse) Total Injuries 0.0 Total Fatalities

50 FEMA P-58: Output Examples 50 Safety (fatalities and injuries): Mean Casualties at a 2475 Year Earthquake Injuries (From Falling Hazards) 0.0 Fatalities (From Falling Hazards) 0.1 Injuries (From Collapse) Fatalities (From Collapse) Total Injuries Total Fatalities

51 Agenda for this Session 51 Quick orientation to FEMA P-58 and applications Recent innovative projects being done using this new FEMA P-58 method More detail on the FEMA P-58 method FEMA P-58 & SP3 resilient design example FEMA P-58 & SP3 for seismic risk assessment Plans for future work and development Next Session: Interactive risk assessment and resilient design using FEMA P-58 and SP3

52 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 52 Project: Municipal office building Building: Design a 10-story RC Wall (coupled core), office occupancy Site: LA high-seismic, S DS = 1.1g, S D1 = 0.6g. Design Objectives: USRC five-star performance in all categories Repair Cost < 5% Functional Recovery Time < 5 days Safety high (low collapse, no/few injuries, good egress) Showing example for design, but also applicable to assessment. Figure Source: SOM/NYASE 2016 SEAOC presentation

53 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 53 Step #1: Start with code-compliant design to see where that gets us... Repair Cost = 8% [4-star] Recovery Time = 6.5 months [3-star] 3.0 months mechanical and electrical (HVAC, lighting, switchgear) 2.0 months structural (mostly walls) 1.5 months non-structural drift-sensitive (partitions, stairs, piping, fire sprinklers) Safety [3-star] (discussed at the end)

54 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 54 Step #2: Design wall to be essentially elastic (very strong) and remove coupling beams. Staggered Shear Wall Openings to avoid Link Beams

55 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 55 Step #3: Design mechanical and electrical components to be functional at the 10% in 50 year (anchorage, equipment, lighting, etc.). Result for Steps #2-3: Repair Cost = 5.5% [still 4-star] Recovery Time = 2.5 months [still 3-star] 1.0 month slab-column connections 1.5 months partition walls

56 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 56 Step #4: Reduce the shear on the slab-column connections. Step #5: Use less damageable partition walls. Result: Repair Cost = 3.5% [now a 5-star] Recovery Time = 6 weeks [still a 3-star] 3 weeks slab-column connections 3 weeks partition walls

57 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 57 Step #6: Stiffen the building (longer walls, more coupling, etc.). Reduces the maximum drifts from around 1.4% to 1.0%. Result: Repair Cost = 2% [5-star] Recovery Time = 2 days [moved from 3-star to 5-star] Step #7: Now that building has less drift, move back to higher shear slab-column connections. Result: Repair Cost = Still 2% [still a 5-star] Recovery Time = Still 2 days [still a 5-star]

58 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 58 Step #8: Now that building has less drift, see if we can move back more damageable partition walls. Result: Repair Cost = 2.5% [5-star] Recovery Time = 2 weeks [would moved down to 4-star] **Move back to less damageable partition walls to keep a 5-star recovery time.

59 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 59 Step #9: Safety checks Overview of safety checks: Fatalities. Show good collapse safety (limit fatalities). Injuries. Check injury prediction from FEMA P-58 (would require additional non-structural bracing to get to 5-star). Residual Drifts. Very low (essentially elastic). Stairs and Egress. Check probability of non-functionality (direct outputs from the FEMA P-58 detailed results).

60 Quick Resilience-Based Design Example 60 Figure Source: SOM/NYASE 2016 SEAOC presentation Final Design Outcomes: Repair Cost: 2% [5-star] (Typically 10-20% for new code) Recovery Time: 0 days [5-star] (Typically 6-9mo. for new code) Safety: Low fatality+injury risk and good egress [5-star] This example was for new design, but FEMA P-58 offers this same level of building-specific detail when doing performance assessments as well.

61 What are we going to do about this for design? 61 Cost: Recent resilience-based design projects have estimated that resilient seismic performance costed between 0% and 1% of the project budget. Performance Results: Repair cost of ~2% rather than ~10-20%. Repair time of nearly zero rather than ~6-24 months. **With these methods, we can design buildings that are not disposable. The Question for Us All: With these resilience-based design methods now available, and with costs being reasonable, why wouldn t we do resiliencebased design for all new buildings?

62 Agenda for this Session 62 Quick orientation to FEMA P-58 and applications Recent innovative projects being done using this new FEMA P-58 method More detail on the FEMA P-58 method FEMA P-58 & SP3 resilient design example FEMA P-58 & SP3 for seismic risk assessment Plans for future work and development Next Session: Interactive risk assessment and resilient design using FEMA P-58 and SP3

63 FEMA P-58 and SP3 for Due-Diligence? 63 FEMA P-58 provides a method that is: Comprehensive and credible ($12M, 10 years, 100+ developers) Transparent (open-source method for all to see) Building-specific (not just for building class) Standardized and repeatable (standard research-based databases provide the foundation) SP3 provides: A software that makes FEMA P-58 feasible at the rapid pace of duediligence projects (hours, not days or weeks). Easy access to the extensive FEMA P-58 building-specific risk information accessible (SEL and SUL, but also detail on damaged components driving your losses, repair time estimates, etc.).

64 FEMA P-58 and SP3 for Due-Diligence? 64 Currently in the PML market: There are many methods one can use for due-diligence: ST-Risk, SeismicCat, TZ, ATC-13, Hazus, etc. These current methods are a mix of judgment, experience, and some data. The risk assessment results (SEL and SUL) will depend heavily on the method used. Some people equate this current situation to the consumer credit rating arena. In the past, there were many credit scores. To have a consistent basis for lending decisions, the credit industry decided to choose one, and they chose the FICO score. Most agree that FEMA P-58 is superior to other available methods, and it has now been streamlined in the SP3 software (now quick to use). Some are suggesting that the FEMA P-58 method become the FICO Score for the due-diligence arena.

65 Agenda for this Session 65 Quick orientation to FEMA P-58 and applications Recent innovative projects being done using this new FEMA P-58 method More detail on the FEMA P-58 method FEMA P-58 & SP3 resilient design example FEMA P-58 & SP3 for seismic risk assessment Plans for future research and development Next Session: Interactive risk assessment and resilient design using FEMA P-58 and SP3

66 Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment 66 The FEMA P-58 method and SP3 software are complete and ready for use. FEMA P-58 method and SP3 are being used increasingly in our structural engineering industry for: New resilient design Retrofit projects PML and more advanced risk assessment We are also continuing further SP3 development with $980k from National Science Foundation: Make the methods cover all structural systems and conditions (already covers nearly all of them). Further streamline the analysis methods to make the analysis quicker.

67 Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment 67 Cover all structural systems:

68 Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment 68 Cover all structural systems:

69 Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment 69 Streamline analysis with the enhanced Statistical Response Method (to estimate structural responses without a complete structural model)

70 Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment 70 Streamline analysis with the enhanced Statistical Response Method (to estimate structural responses without a complete structural model)

71 Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment 71 Streamline analysis with the enhanced Statistical Response Method (to estimate structural responses without a complete structural model)

72 Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment 72 Further SP3 software development SP3-Engineering SP3-PML SP3 Fragility Clearinghouse SP3 Engine

73 What are we going to do about this for design? 73 Cost: Recent resilience-based design projects have estimated that resilient seismic performance costed between 0% and 1% of the project budget. Performance Results: Repair cost of ~2% rather than ~10-20%. Repair time of nearly zero rather than ~6-24 months. **With these methods, we can design buildings that are not disposable. The Question for Us All: With these resilience-based design methods now available, and with costs being reasonable, why wouldn t we do resiliencebased design for all new buildings?

74 Agenda for this Session 74 Quick orientation to FEMA P-58 and applications Recent innovative projects being done using this new FEMA P-58 method More detail on the FEMA P-58 method FEMA P-58 & SP3 resilient design example FEMA P-58 & SP3 for seismic risk assessment Plans for future work and development Next Session: Interactive risk assessment and resilient design using FEMA P-58 and SP3

75 Questions and Discussion 75 Thank you for your time. Our goal is to support adoption of resilience-based design and risk assessment, and we welcome feedback and suggestions. Time for questions and discussion! Curt Haselton: (530) Jack Baker: