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

Disaster Vulnerability of Businesses in the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake

This paper examines the impacts of the February, 2001, Nisqually earthquake on businesses. Focusing on two hard-hit business districts in Seattle, the study investigates the extent of losses, patterns of disparities, and underlying loss factors. A conceptual framework is proposed of how business vulnerability dimensions contribute to disaster loss. Interviews were conducted with owners and managers of 107 businesses. Data were gathered on impacts, methods of finance, and disaster preparedness. Results showed that business losses were much greater than what standard statistical data would imply. Analysis found that a composite index of vulnerability—based on business sector, size, and building occupancy tenure—provides a very powerful predictor of business loss. Physical damage was a much weaker predictor of loss. Moreover, business recovery was influenced not only by characteristics of the business itself, but also by conditions in the neighborhood

An Equity Model for Locating Environmentally Hazardous Facilities

This paper develops a multiobjective mathematical location model to identify possible locations for environmentally hazardous facilities. Risk and equity are recognized as the most important criteria in determining site selection. In contrast to earlier models, the equity objective explicitly considers the existing distribution of environmental burdens when siting new hazardous facilities. Proposed environmentally hazardous facilities are located so that the burdens associated with new and existing hazards are shared as equally as possible among all areas. The application of the model, in a case study of the Greenpoint/Williamsburg neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, illustrates the trade-offs associated with various risk and equity scenarios. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate how the existing distribution of environmental burdens may act as a constraint and limit the degree of equity that may be obtained when locating new facilities

The Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis for Evaluation of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Decisions

This report provides an overview of benefit-cost analysis (BCA); an application of benefit-cost analysis to the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) framework; consideration of critical issues in using benefit-cost analysis for PBEE; and a discussion of issues, criticism, and limitations of benefit-cost analysis. Our objective is to provide an understanding of the economic dimensions of PEER’s framework equation. A focus on economic evaluation will broaden the framework so that facility damage in earthquakes can be related to functionality, business interruption and revenue loss, and to repair costs. Such an analysis needs to consider issues such as the time value of money, uncertainty, and the perspectives of different stakeholders. The application of BCA to PBEE has produced a number of important findings. First, an example is developed that illustrates the way in which performance criteria can be operationalized in an economic context. Next, a number of benefit categories are identified (cost of emergency response and loss of long-term revenue) that have not been previously considered in studies of seismic mitigation decision making. Additionally, several critical issues are examined, most notably multiple stakeholders and uncertainty, that need to be considered when carrying out a benefit-cost analysis in a performance-based engineering context. Throughout the report, particular attention is paid to issues of concern to PEER researchers and the seismic-mitigation community, most notably, the differences between BCA and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). These differences are extensively discussed and illustrated. Finally the ways in which the value of human life can be economically evaluated are examined