Ronald L. Sack
Tyson Day
Arya Ebrahimpour
Jared R. Keller
Josh Baird

– Perform risk assessment of the critical infrastructure in Clark County, Nevada (65 Fire Stations, 18
Police Stations, 3 Hospitals, 277 Schools); and
– Develop a web- and GIS-based visualization product for general public, planners, and emergency response specialists.
May 27, 2005 2 of 47

– NEHRP Recommended Provisions, ASCE-7,
UBC, and IBC (2000, 2003)
– ATC Reports, FEMA RVS Method, and HAZUS-
MH Program (Levels 1, 2 & 3)
– McCormack et al. (1997), Perry and O’Donnell
(2001), Hwang, et al. (2000), etc.
May 27, 2005 3 of 47

• Evaluation tools selected:
– FEMA-154 and HAZUS-MH (Level 2)
• Sources of information
– Building plans, web sites (longitudes and latitudes, addresses, etc.), CC Building Dept., CC School District, and UNLV faculty and students.
• Communications
– Web-based bulletin board
– E-mail, telephone, mail, FAX, etc.
– Project website: http://www.isu.edu/engineer/earthquake/
May 27, 2005 4 of 47

– Building Classifications
– Example of Building Data Retrieval
– Overview of FEMA 154 and HAZUS-MH
– Example of Building Evaluation
– Running HAZUS (after the presentation)
May 27, 2005 5 of 47

• Using FEMA 154 - Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards
– Federal Emergency Management Agency
– Data collection Forms
– Building classifications
• Explain Classifications
• Example of a typical building
May 27, 2005 6 of 47

W1: Wood Light Frame
W2: Wood Frames Commercial and Industrial
S1: Steel Moment Frames
S2:
S3:
S4:
Steel Braced Frames
Steel Light Frames
Steel Frames with Concrete Shear Walls
S5:
C1:
C2:
Steel Frame with Infill Masonry Shear Walls
Concrete Moment Frames
Concrete Shear Wall Buildings
C3: Concrete Frame with Infill Masonry Shear Walls
PC1: Precast/Tilt-up Concrete Shear Wall Buildings
PC2: Precast Concrete Frames
RM1: Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings with Flexible Diaphragms
RM2: Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings with Stiff Diaphragms
URM: Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings
May 27, 2005 7 of 47

W2:
• Large apt. complexes,
Commercial or
Industrial structures
• Usually 1-3 stories
• 5,000 ft 2 or more
• Few interior walls
(if any)
May 27, 2005 8 of 47

W2:
• The floor and roof framing consists of wood or steel trusses, glulam or steel beams, and wood posts or steel columns.
•
Lateral forces are resisted by wood diaphragms and exterior stud walls .
May 27, 2005 9 of 47

PC1: Precast/Tilt-up Concrete Shear Wall Buildings
• One or more stories
• Precast concrete perimeter wall panels cast on site and tilted into place
• Steel plates provide connections (#7)
•
Lateral forces resisted by the precast concrete perimeter wall panels
May 27, 2005 10 of 47

PC1: Precast/Tilt-up Concrete Shear Wall Buildings
• Wall panels may be solid, or have large window and door openings.
• Foundations consist of concrete-spread footings or deep pile foundations.
May 27, 2005 11 of 47

RM1: Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings with Flexible Diaphragms
• Bearing walls that consist of reinforced brick or concrete block masonry (cmu)
• Wood floor and roof framing consists of steel beams or open web joists, steel girders and steel columns (flexible)
• Lateral forces resisted by the reinforced brick or concrete block masonry shear walls
May 27, 2005
•Foundations consist of brick or concrete-spread footings.
12 of 47

• Compiled List
– Addresses
• Plans (from website)
– Year Built
– No. of Stories
– UBC Code used
– Building Type
– Total Floor Area (If not exact, estimated)
• FEMA Data Form
May 27, 2005 13 of 47

• Hal Smith
Elementary School
• Find
– Address
– No. Stories
– Year Built
– Total Floor Area
– Building Name
May 27, 2005 14 of 47

• Address
– From Compiled List
– 5150 East Desert Inn
Road, Las Vegas, NV,
89122
• No. Stories
– From Wall Elevations
– 15-20 feet / story
– 1 story
May 27, 2005 15 of 47

– From Plans
– 1999
May 27, 2005 16 of 47

– From Structural Drawings (usually)
– 1994 UBC
May 27, 2005 17 of 47

May 27, 2005 18 of 47

May 27, 2005 19 of 47

– From Plans
May 27, 2005 20 of 47

– Total = 60,105 ft 2
May 27, 2005 21 of 47

• Address
• No. Stories
• Year Built
• Total Floor Area
• Building Name
• Falling Hazards
• Building Type
• Comments
– Code Used
May 27, 2005 22 of 47

May 27, 2005 23 of 47

• Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) of Buildings for Potential
Seismic Hazards
• Developed by the Applied Technology Council of Redwood
City California under contract from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)
• Established a method for performing rapid on-site “sidewalk” surveys of existing buildings without requiring structural calculations
• Using statistical analysis, a “structural score” for a building is developed; this score is then compared to a predetermined
“cut-off score”
• Buildings receiving a score lower than the “cut-off score” are determined as a potential seismic risk
May 27, 2005 24 of 47

• Ranking a community’s seismic rehabilitation needs
• Design seismic mitigation programs
• Develop inventories of buildings for use in regional earthquake damage and loss impact assessments
• Planning post earthquake building safety evaluations
• Developing building specific seismic vulnerability information
May 27, 2005 25 of 47

• Planning:
– Selection of desired buildings to participate in the survey
– Determination of “cut-off” score
• The calculated final score is an estimate of the probability that the building will collapse; therefore a “cut-off” score is used to establish desirable seismic reliability
– A score of 3 implies that there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the building will collapse
– A score of 2 implies that there is a 1 in 100 chance that the building will collapse
• A higher “cut-off” value implies greater desired safety but increased rehabilitation costs prior to an earthquake
• A lower “cut-off” value equates to increased seismic risk with lower rehabilitation costs prior to an earthquake
• A “cut-off” score of 2.0 is suggested based present seismic design criteria; therefore, for the purpose of this survey, a “cut-off” score of 2.0 will be used
May 27, 2005 26 of 47

• Planning:
– Selection and Review of Data Collection Form
• There are three predefined seismicity regions, namely High, Moderate, and
Low)
• Seismicity regions are defined based upon either the short or long period spectral acceleration response (SAR) for a given location
– Low: Long Period (1.0 sec) SAR < 0.067g
– Moderate: 0.067g < Long Period (1.0 sec) SAR < 0.200g
– High:
0.200g < Long Period (1.0 sec) SAR
• Seismicity regions can be determined by using NEHRP developed maps or the USGS web page
• A seismicity region of “High” will be used for this study
May 27, 2005 27 of 47

• Completing the Data Collection Form:
– Year built:
• Used to determine if the building was built before or after significant changes to seismic design code were implemented
– Total Floor Area:
• Not directly used in calculating the structural score; however can be useful in determining rehabilitation/replacement costs
– Building Sketches:
• Used to determine if any vertical or plan irregularities exist
• Can also aid in estimating total floor area
May 27, 2005 28 of 47

• Completing the Data Collection Form (Cont):
– Soil Type:
• The soil types are defined in accordance to NEHRP 1997
Provisions
• Used to determine the modified structural score if applicable since buildings constructed on Hard Rock will behave differently than those constructed on Soft Soil
• The basic structural scores presented in FEMA-154 were developed for an assumed Soil Type B (Rock) in accordance with the NEHRP 1997 Provisions
– Building Type:
• The building type is categorized into one of 15 classes based upon the structure’s primary lateral-load-resisting system
May 27, 2005 29 of 47

• Obtaining the “Structural Score”
– The final “structural score” is determined by adding (or subtracting) the various score modifiers from the “Basic
Structural Hazard Score”
• Completing the Analysis
– If the obtained final “structural score” is below the “cutoff” score the building will require additional evaluation with the aid of a qualified structural engineer
– If the obtained final “structural score” is greater than the
“cut-off” score the building should perform well in a seismic event
May 27, 2005 30 of 47

• Advantages:
– Simplicity
– Relatively low cost to gather the required field data
– Provides effective estimates for determining future emergency planning or mitigation
– Effective screening process for detailed evaluations
• Disadvantages:
– Generalized results for each building type
– Pass/Fail results
– Three pre-determined seismicity regions (lack of refinement)
– Does not incorporate seismic event when determining the final
“structural score”
– Very conservative
May 27, 2005 31 of 47

• Hazards, US—Multi-hazards
• Developed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) by the National Institute of Building
Sciences (NIBS)
• Nationally applicable methodology for estimating potential earthquake losses on a regional basis.
• Developed by a team of earthquake loss experts composed of earth scientists, engineers, architects, emergency planners, etc.
May 27, 2005 32 of 47

Demand-Capacity Curves
Capacity Curve
PGA[C]
PGA[E]
PGA[M]
PGA[S]
S
D
[S] S
D
[M] S
D
[E] S
D
[C]
Spectral Displacement (inches)
1.00
Structural Fragility Curves
S
0.75
M
0.50
E
C
0.25
Spectral Displacement (inches)
May 27, 2005
100%
75%
Sl ig ht
50%
N on e
Mo de ra te
25%
Ext en si ve
C omp le te
0%
Probability Distribution 33 of 47

• Anticipating the possible nature and scope of emergency response needed to cope with an earthquake related disaster
• Developing plans for recovery and reconstruction following a disaster
• Mitigating the possible consequences of earthquakes
• Generate an estimate of the consequence to a city, region, or location for a given earthquake with a specified magnitude and location
May 27, 2005 34 of 47

• Planning:
– Selection of buildings to analyze
– Selection of scenario seismic event
• Independent research
• Provided historic seismic events
• Select a location from a list of provided/known fault lines
– Determine desired level of analysis/results
• Structures
• Lifelines
• Economic/Social impact
May 27, 2005 35 of 47

• Data Collection:
– Same as FEMA-154 with a few changes
• Year Built helps determine seismic design level (High, Moderate, or Low)
• Floor Area is used to calculate expected building damage both physically as well as financially
– Additionally:
• Latitude and Longitude to adequately determine the ground response with respect to a given seismic event
• Construction Quality: Inferior, Meets, or Superior to code
• Estimated building cost
• Occupancy load during different times of the day
• Shelter capacity
• Number of beds for hospitals or trucks for fire stations
• Back-up power
• Etc.
May 27, 2005 36 of 47

• Advantages:
– Flexibility
– GIS platform
– Provide estimates of the loss of functionality or percent damage for a given structure/facility
– Provides effective estimates for determining future emergency planning or mitigation
– Incorporates seismic event when determining probabilities
• Disadvantages:
– Complex data setup/collection (data manipulation)
– Flexibility
– Must perform a Level 2 analysis for competent results
– Does not directly incorporate building characteristics such as soft stories or vertical/plan irregularities
May 27, 2005 37 of 47

– 5150 E. Desert Inn Rd
Lat: 36.1295
Long: -115.0637
– Year Built: 1999
– Building Type: RM1
– Design Code: UBC 1994
– Area: 60,105 ft 2
– Plan Irregularities: Yes
– No. Stories: 1
– Vertical irregularities: No
– Soil Type: D (assumed)
May 27, 2005 38 of 47

Since
1 .
7

2 .
0
FAILS
Therefore it will require additional evaluation
39 of 47 May 27, 2005

Hal Smith E.S.
40 of 47 May 27, 2005

• Seismic Event:
– Location of epicenter:
(36.290, -115.160)
– Fault name: Eglington
– Magnitude: 6.30
– Depth: 12 km
– Rupture Length: 12.94 km
– Rupture Orientation: 0.00°
– Attenuation Function:
WUS Shallow Crustal
Event-Extension
*
HAZUS Developed Long Period (1.0 sec)
Contour Map
41 of 47 May 27, 2005

Estimated Structural Damage:
Name
Hal Smith E.S. (259)
None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
72.30% 14.60% 10.90% 2.20% 0.10%
100%
N on e
75%
50%
25%
Sl ig ht
Mo de ra te
Ext en si ve
C omp le te
0%
Estimated Functionality
Name @ Day 1 @ Day 3 @ Day 7 @ Day 14 @ Day 30 @ Day 90
Hal Smith E.S. (259) 72.20% 72.60% 86.40% 86.80% 97.70% 98.80%
May 27, 2005 42 of 47

• FEMA-154
– Ranks the building as a potential hazard
– With a final score of 1.7 the probability of collapse is 2%
• HAZUS-MH
– Verifies that the high seismicity FEMA region is appropriate
– Demonstrates that significant damage is possible
May 27, 2005 43 of 47

– 20 of 65 Fire Stations
– 3 of 18 Police Stations
– 3 of 3 Hospitals
– 73 of 187 Elementary Schools
– 0 of 51 Middle Schools
– 14 of 39 High Schools
May 27, 2005 44 of 47

• Seismic Event
– What is an appropriate event?
– What is a likely event?
• Magnitude
• Epicenter
• Depth
• etc.
• Data Entry
– Database manipulation
– Software compatibility
– Manual entry
May 27, 2005 45 of 47

• FEMA-154 Results:
– Develop a list of potentially hazardous buildings
• HAZUS-MH Results:
– Estimate regions that are more susceptible to seismic events
– Estimate loss of functionality for specific buildings
• Overall
– Develop a mitigation plan for seismic rehabilitations
– Develop a list of buildings that may be used as shelters
– Develop a better understanding of building behavior for a given building type (RM1, PC1, etc)
– Develop a contingency plans for emergency response
May 27, 2005 46 of 47

May 27, 2005 47 of 47