Real-time Loss Estimation for Instrumented Buildings

Motivation. A growing number of buildings have been instrumented to measure and record earthquake motions and to transmit these records to seismic-network data centers to be archived and disseminated for research purposes. At the same time, sensors are growing smaller, less expensive to install, and capable of sensing and transmitting other environmental parameters in addition to acceleration. Finally, recently developed performance-based earthquake engineering methodologies employ structural-response information to estimate probabilistic repair costs, repair durations, and other metrics of seismic performance. The opportunity presents itself therefore to combine these developments into the capability to estimate automatically in near-real-time the probabilistic seismic performance of an instrumented building, shortly after the cessation of strong motion. We refer to this opportunity as (near-) real-time loss estimation (RTLE). Methodology. This report presents a methodology for RTLE for instrumented buildings. Seismic performance is to be measured in terms of probabilistic repair cost, precise location of likely physical damage, operability, and life-safety. The methodology uses the instrument recordings and a Bayesian state-estimation algorithm called a particle filter to estimate the probabilistic structural response of the system, in terms of member forces and deformations. The structural response estimate is then used as input to component fragility functions to estimate the probabilistic damage state of structural and nonstructural components. The probabilistic damage state can be used to direct structural engineers to likely locations of physical damage, even if they are concealed behind architectural finishes. The damage state is used with construction cost-estimation principles to estimate probabilistic repair cost. It is also used as input to a quantified, fuzzy-set version of the FEMA-356 performance-level descriptions to estimate probabilistic safety and operability levels. CUREE demonstration building. The procedure for estimating damage locations, repair costs, and post-earthquake safety and operability is illustrated in parallel demonstrations by CUREE and Kajima research teams. The CUREE demonstration is performed using a real 1960s-era, 7-story, nonductile reinforced-concrete moment-frame building located in Van Nuys, California. The building is instrumented with 16 channels at five levels: ground level, floors 2, 3, 6, and the roof. We used the records obtained after the 1994 Northridge earthquake to hindcast performance in that earthquake. The building is analyzed in its condition prior to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. It is found that, while hindcasting of the overall system performance level was excellent, prediction of detailed damage locations was poor, implying that either actual conditions differed substantially from those shown on the structural drawings, or inappropriate fragility functions were employed, or both. We also found that Bayesian updating of the structural model using observed structural response above the base of the building adds little information to the performance prediction. The reason is probably that Real-Time Loss Estimation for Instrumented Buildings ii structural uncertainties have only secondary effect on performance uncertainty, compared with the uncertainty in assembly damageability as quantified by their fragility functions. The implication is that real-time loss estimation is not sensitive to structural uncertainties (saving costly multiple simulations of structural response), and that real-time loss estimation does not benefit significantly from installing measuring instruments other than those at the base of the building. Kajima demonstration building. The Kajima demonstration is performed using a real 1960s-era office building in Kobe, Japan. The building, a 7-story reinforced-concrete shearwall building, was not instrumented in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, so instrument recordings are simulated. The building is analyzed in its condition prior to the earthquake. It is found that, while hindcasting of the overall repair cost was excellent, prediction of detailed damage locations was poor, again implying either that as-built conditions differ substantially from those shown on structural drawings, or that inappropriate fragility functions were used, or both. We find that the parameters of the detailed particle filter needed significant tuning, which would be impractical in actual application. Work is needed to prescribe values of these parameters in general. Opportunities for implementation and further research. Because much of the cost of applying this RTLE algorithm results from the cost of instrumentation and the effort of setting up a structural model, the readiest application would be to instrumented buildings whose structural models are already available, and to apply the methodology to important facilities. It would be useful to study under what conditions RTLE would be economically justified. Two other interesting possibilities for further study are (1) to update performance using readily observable damage; and (2) to quantify the value of information for expensive inspections, e.g., if one inspects a connection with a modeled 50% failure probability and finds that the connect is undamaged, is it necessary to examine one with 10% failure probability

Evaluation of Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings to Earthquakes

National Science Foundation Grant GK-3637

Fragility of Hydraulic Elevators for Use in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

New performance-based earthquake engineering methods developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, the Applied Technology Council, and others include damage analysis at a highly detailed level, requiring the compilation of fragility functions for a large number of damageable generic structural and nonstructural components. This brief paper presents the development of a fragility function for hydraulic elevators. It uses post-earthquake survey data from 91 elevators in nine California locations after two earthquakes. Surveys were used to collect data on facilities and elevators. Ground-motion records from the California Integrated Seismic Network were used to estimate engineering demands at each site. Binary regression analysis was used to fit a fragility function, which takes the form of a lognormal cumulative distribution function with median value of PGA=0.42 g and logarithmic standard deviation of 0.3. The fragility function appears to be reasonable based on four criteria

An Assessment to Benchmark the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming Reinforced-Concrete Moment-Frame Building

This report describes a state-of-the-art performance-based earthquake engineering methodology that is used to assess the seismic performance of a four-story reinforced concrete (RC) office building that is generally representative of low-rise office buildings constructed in highly seismic regions of California. This “benchmark” building is considered to be located at a site in the Los Angeles basin, and it was designed with a ductile RC special moment-resisting frame as its seismic lateral system that was designed according to modern building codes and standards. The building’s performance is quantified in terms of structural behavior up to collapse, structural and nonstructural damage and associated repair costs, and the risk of fatalities and their associated economic costs. To account for different building configurations that may be designed in practice to meet requirements of building size and use, eight structural design alternatives are used in the performance assessments. Our performance assessments account for important sources of uncertainty in the ground motion hazard, the structural response, structural and nonstructural damage, repair costs, and life-safety risk. The ground motion hazard characterization employs a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the evaluation of controlling seismic sources (through disaggregation) at seven ground motion levels (encompassing return periods ranging from 7 to 2475 years). Innovative procedures for ground motion selection and scaling are used to develop acceleration time history suites corresponding to each of the seven ground motion levels. Structural modeling utilizes both “fiber” models and “plastic hinge” models. Structural modeling uncertainties are investigated through comparison of these two modeling approaches, and through variations in structural component modeling parameters (stiffness, deformation capacity, degradation, etc.). Structural and nonstructural damage (fragility) models are based on a combination of test data, observations from post-earthquake reconnaissance, and expert opinion. Structural damage and repair costs are modeled for the RC beams, columns, and slabcolumn connections. Damage and associated repair costs are considered for some nonstructural building components, including wallboard partitions, interior paint, exterior glazing, ceilings, sprinkler systems, and elevators. The risk of casualties and the associated economic costs are evaluated based on the risk of structural collapse, combined with recent models on earthquake fatalities in collapsed buildings and accepted economic modeling guidelines for the value of human life in loss and cost-benefit studies. The principal results of this work pertain to the building collapse risk, damage and repair cost, and life-safety risk. These are discussed successively as follows. When accounting for uncertainties in structural modeling and record-to-record variability (i.e., conditional on a specified ground shaking intensity), the structural collapse probabilities of the various designs range from 2% to 7% for earthquake ground motions that have a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475 years return period). When integrated with the ground motion hazard for the southern California site, the collapse probabilities result in mean annual frequencies of collapse in the range of [0.4 to 1.4]x10 -4 for the various benchmark building designs. In the development of these results, we made the following observations that are expected to be broadly applicable: (1) The ground motions selected for performance simulations must consider spectral shape (e.g., through use of the epsilon parameter) and should appropriately account for correlations between motions in both horizontal directions; (2) Lower-bound component models, which are commonly used in performance-based assessment procedures such as FEMA 356, can significantly bias collapse analysis results; it is more appropriate to use median component behavior, including all aspects of the component model (strength, stiffness, deformation capacity, cyclic deterioration, etc.); (3) Structural modeling uncertainties related to component deformation capacity and post-peak degrading stiffness can impact the variability of calculated collapse probabilities and mean annual rates to a similar degree as record-to-record variability of ground motions. Therefore, including the effects of such structural modeling uncertainties significantly increases the mean annual collapse rates. We found this increase to be roughly four to eight times relative to rates evaluated for the median structural model; (4) Nonlinear response analyses revealed at least six distinct collapse mechanisms, the most common of which was a story mechanism in the third story (differing from the multi-story mechanism predicted by nonlinear static pushover analysis); (5) Soil-foundation-structure interaction effects did not significantly affect the structural response, which was expected given the relatively flexible superstructure and stiff soils. The potential for financial loss is considerable. Overall, the calculated expected annual losses (EAL) are in the range of $52,000 to$97,000 for the various code-conforming benchmark building designs, or roughly 1% of the replacement cost of the building ($8.8M). These losses are dominated by the expected repair costs of the wallboard partitions (including interior paint) and by the structural members. Loss estimates are sensitive to details of the structural models, especially the initial stiffness of the structural elements. Losses are also found to be sensitive to structural modeling choices, such as ignoring the tensile strength of the concrete (40 EAL) or the contribution of the gravity frames to overall building stiffness and strength (15 change in EAL). Although there are a number of factors identified in the literature as likely to affect the risk of human injury during seismic events, the casualty modeling in this study focuses on those factors (building collapse, building occupancy, and spatial location of building occupants) that directly inform the building design process. The expected annual number of fatalities is calculated for the benchmark building, assuming that an earthquake can occur at any time of any day with equal probability and using fatality probabilities conditioned on structural collapse and based on empirical data. The expected annual number of fatalities for the code-conforming buildings ranges between 0.05*10 -2 and 0.21*10 -2 , and is equal to 2.30*10 -2 for a non-code conforming design. The expected loss of life during a seismic event is perhaps the decision variable that owners and policy makers will be most interested in mitigating. The fatality estimation carried out for the benchmark building provides a methodology for comparing this important value for various building designs, and enables informed decision making during the design process. The expected annual loss associated with fatalities caused by building earthquake damage is estimated by converting the expected annual number of fatalities into economic terms. Assuming the value of a human life is$3.5M, the fatality rate translates to an EAL due to fatalities of $3,500 to$5,600 for the code-conforming designs, and $79,800 for the non-code conforming design. Compared to the EAL due to repair costs of the code-conforming designs, which are on the order of$66,000, the monetary value associated with life loss is small, suggesting that the governing factor in this respect will be the maximum permissible life-safety risk deemed by the public (or its representative government) to be appropriate for buildings. Although the focus of this report is on one specific building, it can be used as a reference for other types of structures. This report is organized in such a way that the individual core chapters (4, 5, and 6) can be read independently. Chapter 1 provides background on the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) approach. Chapter 2 presents the implementation of the PBEE methodology of the PEER framework, as applied to the benchmark building. Chapter 3 sets the stage for the choices of location and basic structural design. The subsequent core chapters focus on the hazard analysis (Chapter 4), the structural analysis (Chapter 5), and the damage and loss analyses (Chapter 6). Although the report is self-contained, readers interested in additional details can find them in the appendices

Landslide Risk: Economic Valuation in the North-Eastern Zone of Medellin City

Natural disasters of a geodynamic nature can cause enormous economic and human losses. The economic costs of a landslide disaster include relocation of communities and physical repair of urban infrastructure. However, when performing a quantitative risk analysis, generally, the indirect economic consequences of such an event are not taken into account. A probabilistic approach methodology that considers several scenarios of hazard and vulnerability to measure the magnitude of the landslide and to quantify the economic costs is proposed. With this approach, it is possible to carry out a quantitative evaluation of the risk by landslides, allowing the calculation of the economic losses before a potential disaster in an objective, standardized and reproducible way, taking into account the uncertainty of the building costs in the study zone. The possibility of comparing different scenarios facilitates the urban planning process, the optimization of interventions to reduce risk to acceptable levels and an assessment of economic losses according to the magnitude of the damage. For the development and explanation of the proposed methodology, a simple case study is presented, located in north-eastern zone of the city of Medellín. This area has particular geomorphological characteristics, and it is also characterized by the presence of several buildings in bad structural conditions. The proposed methodology permits to obtain an estimative of the probable economic losses by earthquake-induced landslides, taking into account the uncertainty of the building costs in the study zone. The obtained estimative shows that the structural intervention of the buildings produces a reduction the order of 21 % in the total landslide risk. © Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd

Impact of Seismic Risk on Lifetime Property Values

This report presents a methodology for establishing the uncertain net asset value, NAV, of a real-estate investment opportunity considering both market risk and seismic risk for the property. It also presents a decision-making procedure to assist in making real-estate investment choices under conditions of uncertainty and risk-aversion. It is shown that that market risk, as measured by the coefficient of variation of NAV, is at least 0.2 and may exceed 1.0. In a situation of such high uncertainty, where potential gains and losses are large relative to a decision-maker's risk tolerance, it is appropriate to adopt a decision-analysis approach to real-estate investment decision-making. A simple equation for doing so is presented. The decision-analysis approach uses the certainty equivalent, CE, as opposed to NAV as the basis for investment decision-making. That is, when faced with multiple investment alternatives, one should choose the alternative that maximizes CE. It is shown that CE is less than the expected value of NAV by an amount proportional to the variance of NAV and the inverse of the decision-maker's risk tolerance, [rho]. The procedure for establishing NAV and CE is illustrated in parallel demonstrations by CUREE and Kajima research teams. The CUREE demonstration is performed using a real 1960s-era hotel building in Van Nuys, California. The building, a 7-story non-ductile reinforced-concrete moment-frame building, is analyzed using the assembly-based vulnerability (ABV) method, developed in Phase III of the CUREE-Kajima Joint Research Program. The building is analyzed three ways: in its condition prior to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, with a hypothetical shearwall upgrade, and with earthquake insurance. This is the first application of ABV to a real building, and the first time ABV has incorporated stochastic structural analyses that consider uncertainties in the mass, damping, and force-deformation behavior of the structure, along with uncertainties in ground motion, component damageability, and repair costs. New fragility functions are developed for the reinforced concrete flexural members using published laboratory test data, and new unit repair costs for these components are developed by a professional construction cost estimator. Four investment alternatives are considered: do not buy; buy; buy and retrofit; and buy and insure. It is found that the best alternative for most reasonable values of discount rate, risk tolerance, and market risk is to buy and leave the building as-is. However, risk tolerance and market risk (variability of income) both materially affect the decision. That is, for certain ranges of each parameter, the best investment alternative changes. This indicates that expected-value decision-making is inappropriate for some decision-makers and investment opportunities. It is also found that the majority of the economic seismic risk results from shaking of S[subscript a] < 0.3g, i.e., shaking with return periods on the order of 50 to 100 yr that cause primarily architectural damage, rather than from the strong, rare events of which common probable maximum loss (PML) measurements are indicative. The Kajima demonstration is performed using three Tokyo buildings. A nine-story, steel-reinforced-concrete building built in 1961 is analyzed as two designs: as-is, and with a steel-braced-frame structural upgrade. The third building is 29-story, 1999 steel-frame structure. The three buildings are intended to meet collapse-prevention, life-safety, and operational performance levels, respectively, in shaking with 10%exceedance probability in 50 years. The buildings are assessed using levels 2 and 3 of Kajima's three-level analysis methodology. These are semi-assembly based approaches, which subdivide a building into categories of components, estimate the loss of these component categories for given ground motions, and combine the losses for the entire building. The two methods are used to estimate annualized losses and to create curves that relate loss to exceedance probability. The results are incorporated in the input to a sophisticated program developed by the Kajima Corporation, called Kajima D, which forecasts cash flows for office, retail, and residential projects for purposes of property screening, due diligence, negotiation, financial structuring, and strategic planning. The result is an estimate of NAV for each building. A parametric study of CE for each building is presented, along with a simplified model for calculating CE as a function of mean NAV and coefficient of variation of NAV. The equation agrees with that developed in parallel by the CUREE team. Both the CUREE and Kajima teams collaborated with a number of real-estate investors to understand their seismic risk-management practices, and to formulate and to assess the viability of the proposed decision-making methodologies. Investors were interviewed to elicit their risk-tolerance, r, using scripts developed and presented here in English and Japanese. Results of 10 such interviews are presented, which show that a strong relationship exists between a decision-maker's annual revenue, R, and his or her risk tolerance, [rho is approximately equal to] 0.0075R[superscript 1.34]. The interviews show that earthquake risk is a marginal consideration in current investment practice. Probable maximum loss (PML) is the only earthquake risk parameter these investors consider, and they typically do not use seismic risk at all in their financial analysis of an investment opportunity. For competitive reasons, a public investor interviewed here would not wish to account for seismic risk in his financial analysis unless rating agencies required him to do so or such consideration otherwise became standard practice. However, in cases where seismic risk is high enough to significantly reduce return, a private investor expressed the desire to account for seismic risk via expected annualized loss (EAL) if it were inexpensive to do so, i.e., if the cost of calculating the EAL were not substantially greater than that of PML alone. The study results point to a number of interesting opportunities for future research, namely: improve the market-risk stochastic model, including comparison of actual long-term income with initial income projections; improve the risk-attitude interview; account for uncertainties in repair method and in the relationship between repair cost and loss; relate the damage state of structural elements with points on the force-deformation relationship; examine simpler dynamic analysis as a means to estimate vulnerability; examine the relationship between simplified engineering demand parameters and performance; enhance category-based vulnerability functions by compiling a library of building-specific ones; and work with lenders and real-estate industry analysts to determine the conditions under which seismic risk should be reflected in investors' financial analyses

PEER Testbed Study on a Laboratory Building: Exercising Seismic Performance Assessment

From 2002 to 2004 (years five and six of a ten-year funding cycle), the PEER Center organized the majority of its research around six testbeds. Two buildings and two bridges, a campus, and a transportation network were selected as case studies to “exercise” the PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. All projects involved interdisciplinary teams of researchers, each producing data to be used by other colleagues in their research. The testbeds demonstrated that it is possible to create the data necessary to populate the PEER performancebased framing equation, linking the hazard analysis, the structural analysis, the development of damage measures, loss analysis, and decision variables. This report describes one of the building testbeds—the UC Science Building. The project was chosen to focus attention on the consequences of losses of laboratory contents, particularly downtime. The UC Science testbed evaluated the earthquake hazard and the structural performance of a well-designed recently built reinforced concrete laboratory building using the OpenSees platform. Researchers conducted shake table tests on samples of critical laboratory contents in order to develop fragility curves used to analyze the probability of losses based on equipment failure. The UC Science testbed undertook an extreme case in performance assessment—linking performance of contents to operational failure. The research shows the interdependence of building structure, systems, and contents in performance assessment, and highlights where further research is needed. The Executive Summary provides a short description of the overall testbed research program, while the main body of the report includes summary chapters from individual researchers. More extensive research reports are cited in the reference section of each chapter