fema p-58 method, enabling sp3 software, and recent...

1

Curt B. Haselton, PhD, PE

Professor of Civil Engineering @ CSU, Chico

Co-Founder @ Seismic Performance Prediction Program (SP3)

www.hbrisk.com

Resilience-Based Design & Risk

Management using FEMA P-58

FEMA P-58 Method, Enabling SP3

Software, and Recent Adoption in

our Profession

2

© HB Risk Group

The FEMA P-58 method

Enabling SP3 software

Recent innovative projects being done with P-

58/SP3

FEMA P-58 & SP3 for resilient design

FEMA P-58 & SP3 for seismic risk assessment

Plans for future work and development

Next Session:

Resilient design case study

Demo and training: Interactive resilient design

using FEMA P-58 and SP3

Agenda for this Session

3

© HB Risk Group

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

What is “Resilience-Based Design”?

4

© HB Risk Group

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

FEMA P-58: Overview

5

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Overview

EQ: 11122, Sacomp

(T=1sec): 1.02g

Deierlein, Haselton, Liel (Stanford University)

Ground Motion Hazard

Component DamageEconomic

Loss

Casualties

Repair

Time

Structural Response

6

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Benefits

Comprehensive and credible: $12M, 10 years to develop,

team of 100+ really smart researchers and practitioners

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).

Building-specific: The analysis incorporates the specific

nuances of the building, rather than being based on a

building class.

Transparent and open-source: FEMA P-58 is open to the

public and you can see all the details of how the assessment

is done.

7

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58 provides the

comprehensive and standardized

building-specific risk assessment.

SP3 provides a user-friendly

software to integrate all steps in a

FEMA P-58 risk assessment.

The initial assessment should take

a couple hours and not days or

weeks.

FEMA P-58 and SP3 Software

8

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Applications

New design

(resilience-based design)

Retrofit

Risk evaluations for

mortgage (PML) and

insurance

Risk evaluations for

specialized buildings

Building ratings

Applications:

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)

Contrasting Methods:

9

© HB Risk Group

Big Picture Comparison of Methods

Building Code:

Safety - yes

Repair Cost - no

Repair Time - no

New Design: Retrofit:

ASCE 31/41:

Safety - yes

Repair Cost - no

Repair Time – yes

(but on/off checks

and not the focus)

FEMA P-58:

Safety – not the focus

Repair Cost – yes (quantitatively)

Repair Time - yes (quantitatively)

Risk

Assessments:

Current Methods:

Safety - yes

Repair Cost - yes

Repair Time –

sometimes

Methods typically

from judgment,

sometimes data

Perform-Based:

Safety - yes

Repair Cost - no

Repair Time - no

FEMA P-58 (only if you want more

than safety)

FEMA P-58 (was created exactly to

meet this need in a

credible manner)

10

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Overview

EQ: 11122, Sacomp

(T=1sec): 1.02g


Ground Motion Hazard

Component DamageEconomic

Loss

Casualties

Repair

Time

Structural Response

11

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Summary of Steps

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

12

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Ground Motions

Step 1: Define ground motion hazard curve (with soil

type)

• Option #1: SP3 can provide (given an address)

• Option #2: User-specified

13

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Structural Response

Step 2: Predict “engineering

demand parameters”

• Story drift ratio at each story

• Peak floor acceleration at each floor

• For wall buildings, also wall

rotations and coupling beam

rotations

Option #1: Response-history

structural analysis

Option #2: Statistically calibrated

predictive equations

Option #3: Modal analysis (soon)

EQ: 11122, Sacomp

(T=1sec): 1.02g


14

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Component Damage

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

15

© HB Risk Group

We end up with a

list of component

types, quantities

and locations



16

© HB Risk Group

Each component type has a

“fragility function” that

specifies the probability that

a structural demand causes

damage



17

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Consequences of Damage

Fragility functions have been calibrated for hundreds of components from test

data, and repair cost and labor has been developed by cost estimators.

Cost per 100 ft. Labor per 100 ft.

Cracked wallboard $2,730 24 person-hours

Crushed gypsum wall $5,190 45 person-hours

Buckled studs $31,100 273 person-hoursThese are median values—each also has uncertainty

Step 4: Quantify consequences of the component damage

(component repair costs, repair times, etc.).

18

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Building-Level Consequences

Repair costs are the sum of component repair

costs (considering volume efficiencies)

Recovery time is aggregated from component

damage, but is more complex (mobilization,

staffing, construction sequencing, …)

Windows $26,892

Partitions $43,964

Piping $5,456

Structural

Components

$77,920

… …

Sum = $253,968

Step 5: Aggregate to building-level consequences

19

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Monte Carlo Simulations

For a given building and ground shaking intensity, repeat

the following steps 2,000-10,000 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, 90th percentile, etc.

Step 5: Aggregate to building-level consequences

20

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Summary

Step 1: Site Hazard







• Contents


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.

21

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Summary

Step 1: Site Hazard







• Contents


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!!!

22

© HB Risk Group

Enabling SP3 Commercial Software

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 this 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.]

23

© HB Risk Group


Step 1: Site Hazard







• Contents




SP3 implements the

FEMA P-58 method,

plus a number of other

features.

24

© HB Risk Group


Step 1: Site Hazard







• Contents




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)

Structure: Cloud-based computational platform, flexible reporting options

Two-level structure:

1) Use pre-populated values (Goal:

Analysis in hours rather than

weeks).

2) Modify inputs to dig deeper

25

© HB Risk Group

Why Does SP3 Exist?

The Goal: Enable widespread and mainstream use of

FEMA P-58 for building-specific seismic 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 decision-making for both mortgage risk and

insurance risk.

The Strategy: Provide a software that enables these

assessments at a rapid pace, so it’s feasible to use for

nearly all projects (taking hours and not days or weeks).

26

© HB Risk Group

Current Status of SP3 Software

Focus for 2014: Create the initial v.1.0 SP3 tool.

Focuses for 2015-2016:

• 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 risk

assessments.

Extensions in 2017:

• Now that tool is vetted and streamlined (efficient), begin promoting this for

enhanced seismic risk assessment (e.g. PML+).

• Look to early-adopters for input on further development priorities.

• Further expand and improve the tool (in response to early-adopter users).

27

© HB Risk Group

8%

70%

16%

0%3% 3%

0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

StructuralComponents

Partitions InteriorFinishes

Cladding Plumbingand HVAC

OtherComponents

Collapse Residual Drift

Loss Contributions by Component Type for a 50 Year Ground Motion

Output Examples: Repair Cost

8-story concrete frame in Los Angeles

Loss Ratio = 0.04

28

© HB Risk Group



37%32%

7%1% 1% 2% 1%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




OtherComponents



Loss Ratio = 0.15

29

© HB Risk Group



26%

12%

2% 2% 0% 1% 3%

54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




OtherComponents



Loss Ratio = 0.44

30

© HB Risk Group

FEMA P-58: Output Examples

31

© HB Risk Group


Average Repair Times (REDi, 2013):

0.8 0.9

3.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

REDi Re-Occupancy REDi Functional Recovery REDi Full Recovery

MO

NT

HS

Repair Time Output at a 43 Year Earthquake

32

© HB Risk Group



6.06.3

9.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


MO

NT

HS


33

© HB Risk Group



10.711.0

13.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


MO

NT

HS


34

© HB Risk Group


Average Repair Times (Figure Source: REDi, 2013):

10.711.0

13.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


MO

NT

HS


35

© HB Risk Group


Safety (fatalities and injuries):

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2

0.00.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Injuries (FromFalling Hazards)

Fatalities (FromFalling Hazards)

Injuries (FromCollapse)

Fatalities (FromCollapse)

Total Injuries Total Fatalities

Mean Casualties at a 43 Year Earthquake

36

© HB Risk Group



1.3

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.3

0.00.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0







37

© HB Risk Group



2.5

0.00.1

0.8

2.6

0.8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0







38

© HB Risk Group




58/SP3




Next Session:


Demo and training: Interactive resilient design using

FEMA P-58 and SP3


39

© HB Risk Group

Mid-Presentation Stretch

40

© HB Risk Group




58/SP3




Next Session:



FEMA P-58 and SP3


41

© HB Risk Group

Recent Innovative Resiliency/Risk Projects

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.

42

© HB Risk Group

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).


43

© HB Risk Group

Building ratings and the REDi Rating System (also implemented in

SP3):


44

© HB Risk Group


New Design: Municipal Center (not named)

Figure Source: SOM/NYASE 2016 SEAOC presentation

45

© HB Risk Group




46

© HB Risk Group




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

47

© HB Risk Group

Retrofit Projects: San Francisco, Sacramento, etc.

http://www.forell.com/pre-northridge/

What can I now do with FEMA P-58?

48

© HB Risk Group


Risk Assessments: Property Transaction Due-Diligence

50

© HB Risk Group

Risk to high-value content.


Risk Assessments: Detailed Assessments of High-Value Items

Post-earthquake operability

of production facilitates.

51

© HB Risk Group


Assessments for Innovating Structural Systems

Figures: http://cenews.com/userfiles/image/SE1111_44.jpg, http://precast.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/defying_rubber_band.jpg

54

© HB Risk Group


$10 M

$49 M

$0.7 M$3.4 M

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

DBE MCE

RE

PA

IR C

OS

T (

MIL

$)Structural Repair Cost

CIP System

What can I now do with FEMA P-58?

56

© HB Risk Group

• Project: Municipal office building

• Building: Design a 10-story RC Wall (coupled core), office occupancy

• 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)

FEMA P-58 and SP3 for Resilient Design


We will do this resilient design

example in Session 2 today.

58

© HB Risk Group

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 due-

diligence 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.).


59

© HB Risk Group

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 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 FICO.

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.


61

© HB Risk Group

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.

Future Develop. in Resiliency/Risk Assessment

64

© HB Risk Group

Streamline analysis with the enhanced Statistical Response

Method (to estimate structural responses without a complete

structural model)


67

© HB Risk Group

Further SP3 software development


SP3 Engine

SP3-

EngineeringSP3-PML

SP3 Fragility

Clearinghouse

68

© HB Risk Group




58/SP3




Next Session:


Demo and training: Interactive resilient design

using FEMA P-58 and SP3


69

© HB Risk Group

Questions and Discussion

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: [email protected], (530) 514-8980

Jack Baker: [email protected]

www.hbrisk.com

fema p-58 method, enabling sp3 software, and recent...

Documents