Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
2. RESILIENCE CONCEPTSResilience for both physical and social systems can be further defined as consisting ofthe following properties:• Robustness: strength, or the ability of elements, systems, and other units ofanalysis to withstand a given level of stress or demand without sufferingdegradation or loss of function;• Redundancy: the extent to which elements, systems, or other units ofanalysis exist that are substitutable, i.e., capable of satisfying functionalrequirements in the event of disruption, degradation, or loss of functionality;• Resourcefulness: the capacity to identify problems, establish priorities, andmobilize resources when conditions exist that threaten to disrupt someelement, system, or other unit of analysis.• Rapidity: the capacity to meet priorities and achieve goals in a timelymanner.As such the vertical and horizontal axes in Figure 1 (left) address the ends ofresilience, namely robustness and rapidity. However, Figure 1 can be expanded in 3-D and 4-D to capture the means of resilience as is illustrated in Figures 1 (right) by athird axis, that added resources can be used to reduce time to recovery. In theory, ifinfinite resources were available, time to recovery would asymptotically approachzero. Practically, even in the presence of enormous financial and labor capabilities,human limitations will dictate a practical minimum time to recovery.3. RESILIENCE OF ACUTE CARE FACILITIESResidents in seismic areas have expressed their strong expectation that acute carefacilities should be available and operational following an earthquake (Nigg 1998).As such, fulfillment of this expectation would significantly contribute to enhancingthe seismic resilience of communities. California has already taken steps in thatdirection by enacting ordinance SB1953 which requires that acute care facilities beretrofitted by 2030 to a levelthat would allow them to beOption 1: Quality of LifeHealthyfully operational followingPopulationBaseline correctedto eliminate effectsof naturalan earthquake.100%population growthDeathsTo quantify the seismicIf no deaths resultingresilience, the quantity to beDLHCCfrom hospital lossesmeasured by the vertical axisof the resilience chart mustfirst be defined.A first option is to quantifyDeaths due to loss inHealth Care CapacityNot dead butunhealthy w/r baselinequality of life as thet ot long term picturepercentage of healthypopulation (Figure 2). UsingFigure 2. Quality of life — measure of performance.163
the total healthy population in absence of an earthquake as a reference basis, andnormalizing it to eliminate the effect of population growth over time, the horizontalline drawn at 100% on the vertical axis represents the healthy population that residesin an area that could be affected by a scenario earthquake. A first drop in populationhealth would occur when individuals are killed by seismically deficient structures.Injuries suffered during the earthquake would account for the remaining reduction inthe healthy population at time t 0 . In the best of scenario, in absence of hospital losses,all these injuries would heal, and no more deaths would be added to the toll.Conversely, deaths due to loss in health care capacity (DLHCC) would occur, i.e.,deaths that could have been prevented if the health care system capability had notbeen reduced by the earthquake. This approach has the advantage that it seeks toquantify the impact of an earthquake on the health of a population, a significantmeasure for the purpose of policy making.A second, alternative, option focuses on relating the seismic resilience offacilities to the number of patients/day that can be provided as a measure of thetreatment capacity of the health care facilities (Figure 3). For example, prior to anearthquake, the impact of SB1953 is shown (Figure 3) as resulting in the loss of somepatients/day capacity, asOption 2: Treatment Capacitysome hospitals areof Total Hospital Infrastructureexpected to close. Patients-daysCollapsed / closedhospitalsFollowing the major loss ofpatients/day capacitydirectly attributed to theearthquake, is the shortburst of recovered patients/day capacity as a consequenceof the “parkinglot”medicine providedoutside of hospitalfacilities. In Figure 3, forconvenience, two distinctand concurrent recovery100%Proportionate to avoideddeaths in collapsed hospitals*Repair of facilitiesEffects of SB-1953(hospital closures)t o * Parking lot palliative interimmeasures until weather inclementor until National Guard leavesRebuildingof capacity(decoupledfor illustrationpurposes only)Could beentirelyabsorbed byoverflow todistanthospitalst long termImportant to not let this temporary measuredistort the long term health measure- Focus on physical facilitiesFigure 3. Hospital capacity — measure ofperformance.activities are illustrated as sequential, namely: repair of capacity and rebuilding ofcapacity.The advantage of this second approach is that it focuses on the physicalinfrastructures and their ability to provide their intended function, which facilitatesengineering quantification. This framework makes it possible for a coordinatedearthquake engineering research effort to contribute in a focused and effective mannerto the broader problem. While the engineering effort and resources needed tocompletely address all issues likely still requires the concerted efforts of multiplegovernment agencies and considerable funding, it is possible for smaller scaleengineering efforts to develop some of the tools and methodologies that could beintegrated into decision support systems. In this respect, these engineering164
- Page 130 and 131: CHANGING THE PARADIGM FOR PERFORMAN
- Page 132 and 133: Ideally, the preliminary design of
- Page 134 and 135: ModelM1M2M3Table 1. Description of
- Page 136 and 137: Sample results from the response-hi
- Page 138 and 139: In FEMA 273/356, the intersection o
- Page 140 and 141: (M8 and M9) and the isolated frames
- Page 142 and 143: THE ATC-58 PROJECT PLAN FOR NONSTRU
- Page 144 and 145: The development of next-generation
- Page 146 and 147: for these flexible nonstructural co
- Page 148 and 149: spectra is several times larger tha
- Page 150 and 151: The variability is associated with
- Page 152 and 153: functions for a wide variety of non
- Page 154 and 155: SIMPLIFIED PBEE TO ESTIMATE ECONOMI
- Page 156 and 157: One can show (Porter et al. 2004) t
- Page 158 and 159: ( )FDM| EDP= xdm = 1 −FRdm , + 1,
- Page 160 and 161: 1. Facility definition. Same as in
- Page 162 and 163: Table 1. Approximation of seismic r
- Page 164 and 165: The EAL values shown in Figure 3 mi
- Page 166 and 167: ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE I
- Page 168 and 169: where e -λτ is the discounted fac
- Page 170 and 171: IDR 3[rad]σPFAIDR34(g)σ PFA4media
- Page 172 and 173: Figure 3a, shows an example of frag
- Page 174 and 175: P(C LVCC i |IM )1.00.80.60.40.20.00
- Page 176 and 177: E [ L T | IM ]$ 10 M$ 8 M$ 6 M$ 4 M
- Page 178 and 179: SEISMIC RESILIENCE OF COMMUNITIES
- Page 182 and 183: quantification tools could be used
- Page 184 and 185: structure remains elastic. This is
- Page 186 and 187: of Figure 7a will be used. It is as
- Page 188 and 189: Nigg, J. M. (1998). Empirical findi
- Page 190 and 191: acceleration with a 475-year return
- Page 192 and 193: limit states, the suggestions given
- Page 194 and 195: ∆NSLsi= SϑH(5)iTFor column-sway
- Page 196 and 197: Pinto et al., 2004). The probabilit
- Page 198 and 199: The main difficulty in assigning a
- Page 200 and 201: Crowley, H., R. Pinho, and J. J. Bo
- Page 202 and 203: analytical models generally have si
- Page 204 and 205: Figure 2. Structure of the response
- Page 206 and 207: can be used as a random variable of
- Page 208 and 209: 4. DERIVATION OF THE VULNERABILITY
- Page 210 and 211: 5. CONCLUSIONSDerivation of vulnera
- Page 212 and 213: REFERENCESAbrams, D. P., A. S. Elna
- Page 214 and 215: In general, these types of bench-mo
- Page 216 and 217: where & x&(t ) = acceleration at th
- Page 218 and 219: science building. The lateral load-
- Page 220 and 221: emain the same, the magnitude of sl
- Page 222 and 223: of sliding thresholds, are desirabl
- Page 224 and 225: Retrofit of Nonstructural Component
- Page 226 and 227: was developed to accommodate these
- Page 228 and 229: tested by Meinheit and Jirsa are us
2. RESILIENCE CONCEPTSResilience for both physical and social systems can be further defined as consisting <strong>of</strong>the following properties:• Robustness: strength, or the ability <strong>of</strong> elements, systems, and other units <strong>of</strong>analysis to withstand a given level <strong>of</strong> stress or demand without sufferingdegradation or loss <strong>of</strong> function;• Redundancy: the extent to which elements, systems, or other units <strong>of</strong>analysis exist that are substitutable, i.e., capable <strong>of</strong> satisfying functionalrequirements in the event <strong>of</strong> disruption, degradation, or loss <strong>of</strong> functionality;• Resourcefulness: the capacity to identify problems, establish priorities, andmobilize resources when conditions exist that threaten to disrupt someelement, system, or other unit <strong>of</strong> analysis.• Rapidity: the capacity to meet priorities and achieve goals in a timelymanner.As such the vertical and horizontal axes in Figure 1 (left) address the ends <strong>of</strong>resilience, namely robustness and rapidity. However, Figure 1 can be expanded in 3-D and 4-D to capture the means <strong>of</strong> resilience as is illustrated in Figures 1 (right) by athird axis, that added resources can be used to reduce time to recovery. In theory, ifinfinite resources were available, time to recovery would asymptotically approachzero. Practically, even in the presence <strong>of</strong> enormous financial and labor capabilities,human limitations will dictate a practical minimum time to recovery.3. RESILIENCE OF ACUTE CARE FACILITIESResidents in seismic areas have expressed their strong expectation that acute carefacilities should be available and operational following an earthquake (Nigg 1998).As such, fulfillment <strong>of</strong> this expectation would significantly contribute to enhancingthe seismic resilience <strong>of</strong> communities. <strong>California</strong> has already taken steps in thatdirection by enacting ordinance SB1953 which requires that acute care facilities beretr<strong>of</strong>itted by 2030 to a levelthat would allow them to beOption 1: Quality <strong>of</strong> LifeHealthyfully operational followingPopulationBaseline correctedto eliminate effects<strong>of</strong> naturalan earthquake.100%population growthDeathsTo quantify the seismicIf no deaths resultingresilience, the quantity to beDLHCCfrom hospital lossesmeasured by the vertical axis<strong>of</strong> the resilience chart mustfirst be defined.A first option is to quantifyDeaths due to loss inHealth Care CapacityNot dead butunhealthy w/r baselinequality <strong>of</strong> life as thet ot long term picturepercentage <strong>of</strong> healthypopulation (Figure 2). UsingFigure 2. Quality <strong>of</strong> life — measure <strong>of</strong> performance.163
Change language