Seismic Vulnerability Risk

Assessment for Essential

Structures in Clark County
Nevada
Ronald L. Sack
Tyson Day

Arya Ebrahimpour
Jared R. Keller
Josh Baird
of 47 May 27, 2005 2
Scope of the Project
Part of a larger project entitled Earthquakes in
Southern Nevada Uncovering Hazards and
Mitigating Risk.
The objectives are to:
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.
of 47 May 27, 2005 3
Literature
Design provisions:
NEHRP Recommended Provisions, ASCE-7,
UBC, and IBC (2000, 2003)
Evaluation tools:
ATC Reports, FEMA RVS Method, and HAZUS-
MH Program (Levels 1, 2 & 3)
Technical articles
McCormack et al. (1997), Perry and ODonnell
(2001), Hwang, et al. (2000), etc.
of 47 May 27, 2005 4
Tools, Sources, & Communications
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/

of 47 May 27, 2005 5
Remainder of the Presentation
Josh Baird:
Building Classifications
Example of Building Data Retrieval
Jared Keller:
Overview of FEMA 154 and HAZUS-MH
Example of Building Evaluation
Running HAZUS (after the presentation)
of 47 May 27, 2005 6
Building Classifications
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 7
Description of Model Building Types

W1: Wood Light Frame
W2: Wood Frames Commercial and Industrial
S1: Steel Moment Frames
S2: Steel Braced Frames
S3: Steel Light Frames
S4: Steel Frames with Concrete Shear Walls
S5: Steel Frame with Infill Masonry Shear Walls
C1: Concrete Moment Frames
C2: 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
of 47 May 27, 2005 8
W2: Wood Frames, Commercial and Industrial
Large apt.
complexes,
Commercial or
Industrial
structures
Usually 1-3 stories
5,000 ft
2
or more
Few interior walls
(if any)
of 47 May 27, 2005 9
W2: Wood Frames, Commercial and Industrial
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.
of 47 May 27, 2005 10
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 11
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.

of 47 May 27, 2005 12
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
Foundations
consist of brick or
concrete-spread
footings.
of 47 May 27, 2005 13
Information Retrieval
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 14
Typical School
Hal Smith
Elementary School
Find
Address
No. Stories
Year Built
Total Floor Area
Building Name
of 47 May 27, 2005 15
Information Retrieval
Address
From Compiled List
5150 East Desert Inn
Road, Las Vegas, NV,
89122
No. Stories
From Wall Elevations
15-20 feet / story
1 story
of 47 May 27, 2005 16
Information Retrieval
Year Built
From Plans
1999
of 47 May 27, 2005 17
Information Retrieval
Code Used
From Structural Drawings (usually)
1994 UBC
of 47 May 27, 2005 18
Information Retrieval
Building Type
of 47 May 27, 2005 19
Information Retrieval
Building Type
of 47 May 27, 2005 20
Information Retrieval
Total Floor Area
From Plans






of 47 May 27, 2005 21
Information Retrieval
Total Floor Area






Total = 60,105 ft
2

of 47 May 27, 2005 22
Hal Smith E.S.
Address
No. Stories
Year Built
Total Floor Area
Building Name
Falling Hazards
Building Type
Comments
Code Used
of 47 May 27, 2005 23
Analysis Overview
FEMA 154

HAZUS-MH
of 47 May 27, 2005 24
FEMA-154 Overview
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 25
FEMA-154 Uses
Ranking a communitys 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
of 47 May 27, 2005 26
FEMA-154 Procedure Overview
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 27
FEMA-154 Procedure Overview
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 28
FEMA-154 Procedure Overview
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 29
FEMA-154 Procedure Overview
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 structures primary lateral-load-resisting system
of 47 May 27, 2005 30
FEMA-154 Procedure Overview
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 cut-
off 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
of 47 May 27, 2005 31
FEMA-154 Advantages/Disadvantages
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 32
HAZUS-MH Overview
Hazards, USMulti-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.
of 47 May 27, 2005 33
HAZUS-MH Overview
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g

s
)
Demand-Capacity Curves
Probability Distribution
Structural Fragility Curves
N
o
n
e
S
l
ig
h
t
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
iv
e
C
o
m
p
le
t
e
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Spectral Displacement (inches)
PGA[C]
PGA[E]
PGA[M]
PGA[S]
S
D
[S] S
D
[C] S
D
[E] S
D
[M]
Spectral Displacement (inches)
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
M
E
C
S
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Capacity Curve
of 47 May 27, 2005 34
HAZUS-MH Uses
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 35
HAZUS-MH Overview
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 36
HAZUS-MH Overview
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.
of 47 May 27, 2005 37
HAZUS-MH Advantages/Disadvantages
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 38
Example
Hal Smith Elementary School
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)
of 47 May 27, 2005 39
ExampleFEMA
Since


FAILS
Therefore it will
require additional
evaluation
0 . 2 7 . 1
of 47 May 27, 2005 40
ExampleHAZUS-MH
Hal Smith E.S.
of 47 May 27, 2005 41
ExampleHAZUS-MH
HAZUS Developed Long Period (1.0 sec)
Contour Map
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
*
of 47 May 27, 2005 42
ExampleHAZUS-MH
Estimated Structural Damage:








Estimated Functionality
N
o
n
e
S
l
ig
h
t
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
iv
e
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Name None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Hal Smith E.S. (259) 72.30% 14.60% 10.90% 2.20% 0.10%
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%
of 47 May 27, 2005 43
ExampleComparison
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 44
Project Update
Building Analysis
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 45
Issues
Seismic Event
What is an appropriate event?
What is a likely event?
Magnitude
Epicenter
Depth
etc.
Data Entry
Database manipulation
Software compatibility
Manual entry
of 47 May 27, 2005 46
Proposed Project Uses
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
of 47 May 27, 2005 47