Measuringg and Improving the Resilience of Measuringg and Improving the ResilieaBuilt Environment in a Community

4XDQZDQJJ /L4 JJ'HSDUWPHQW�RI�&LYLO�(QJLQHHULQJ��7VLQJKXD�8QLYHUVLW\JYLO�(QJLQHH

2FW�����WKJ�HULQJJ��7VQHH

��WK������

International Workshop on Modeling of Physical, Economic, and Social Systems for Resilience Assessment

66FKRRO6FKRRO

33XEOLF�VHUYLFH 3XEOLF�

VHUYLFH

3XEOLF�VHUYLFH

3XEOLF�VHUYLFH

5HVLGHQWLDO

5HVLGHQWLDO

5HVLGHQWLDO

5HVLGHQWLDO

%XVLQHVV

%XVLQHVV

%XVLQHVV%XVLQHVV

%XVLQHVV

5HVLGHQWLDO 5HVLGHQWLDO

5HVLGHQWLDO

5HVLGHQWLDO

5HVLGHQWLDO

%XVLQHVV

%%XVLQHVV

Built environment within a a ccommunity

1

Residential Commercial

Education government

%XLOGLQJ�6HFWRUV��LQWHUGHSHQGHQW LQ�WKHLU�IXQFWLRQV

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-43

Natural Hazards

� Hurricanes

� Earthquakes

� Landslides

� Floods and storm surge

� ȾȾȾȾ

2

Resilience of built environment

3

Modifications before disruptive events

Time

Functionality

LostFunctionality

ResidualFunctionality

Time to full recovery

Repair after the disruptive events to restore system functionality

0HDVXUH�RI�)XQFWLRQDOLW\�QHHG�WR�EH�GHILQHG�

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-44

Undesired outcome

� An Undesired Outcome is an event whose occurrence would adversely impact a community’s ability to function normally.

� Population Outmigration (PO) is chosen as a community resilience metric.

� Community Functionality is defined as the percentage of population remaining in the community.

4

An Undesired Outcome is an event whose o

Essential community functions

5

� 4 essential community functionsHousing (1); Employment(2); Education(3); Public service (4)

The functions are supported by building sectors

po,i: Probability of PO conditioned on the loss of function i onlypo,ij: Probability of PO conditioned on the loss of both functions i &jpo,ijk or po,ijkh : Probability of PO conditioned on the loss of more functions

Pi: Probability of function i being lost (independent)

� Measuring community functionality

� � � � � �4 44 4 4

, , , ,1234 1 2 3 41 , 1 11 1

, ,,

1 1 1PO o i i j o ij i j k i o jkh j k h oi i j ij k

i j j k h ij i k i j

P p P P p PP P P p P P P p PP PP

z zz z

� � � � � �¦ ¦ ¦� �

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-45

Measuring community functionality

6

1-FC{li}

[DAM]

� � � �

^ `

4 44 4

, ,1 , 11 1

,

,12 ,1 ,1 ,13 ,1 ,3 ,14 ,1 ,4,1 1 1 1

,12 ,1 ,1 ,23 ,2 ,3 ,24 ,2 ,42 ,2 2 2

,13 ,1

1 1

2 2 2

2 2 2 = 1 1 1 1

PO o i i j o ij i j ki i jj k

i jj i k i j

o o o o o o o o oo

o o o o o o o o oo

o o

P p P P p PP P

p p p p p p p p pp P P P

p p p p p p p p pP p P P

p p

zz z

� � �

� � � � � �

� � � � � �

� �

¦ ¦� �

1

2

3,3 ,23 ,2 ,3 ,34 ,3 ,43 3 ,3 3

4

,14 ,1 ,4 ,24 ,2 ,4 ,34 ,3 ,44 4 4 ,4

2 2 2

2 2 2

o o o o o o oo

o o o o o o o o oo

PPPp p p p p p p

P P p PP

p p p p p p p p pP P P p

ª º« »« »

­ ½« »° °« » ° °

« » ® ¾� � � �« » ° °« » ° °¯ ¿« »� � � � � �« »« »¬ ¼

� Community Functionality

^ `> @ ^ `4 14 41 1 1 1 1C iF l

uu � DAM

>'$0@�FDQ�EH�GHWHUPLQHG�E\�DQDO\VHV�RI�GDWD�IURP�SUHYLRXV�KD]DUG�HYHQWV��RU�E\�FRPSXWDWLRQDO�PRGHOV�IRU�SK\VLFDO�GDPDJH�DQG�VRFLR�HFRQRPLF�LPSDFW�DVVHVVPHQWV

Calibration according to o Mieler’ss work

7

Mieler, M., Stojadinovic, B., Budnitz, R., Comerio, M., & Mahin, S. (2015). “A framework for linking community-resilience goals to specific performance targets for the built environment”. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1267-1283.

OutcomesFunction

Green Yellow Orange Red

Residents P1�2% P1�10% P1�20% P1>20%

Business P2�5% P2�20% P2�50% P2>50%

Education P3�5% P3�10% P3�20% P3>20%

Public Service P4�5% P4�20% P4�50% P4>50%

If two or more functions are in read, or three or more functions are in yellow, significant outmigration may occur

> @1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4 4

0.128 0.297 0.373 0.2680.297 0.0436 0.279 0.1010.373 0.279 0.126 0.2780.268 0.101 0.278 0.051

l l ll l ll l ll l l l

ª º« »« » « »« »¬ ¼

DAM FC,cri = 0.87

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-46

Beijing urban area

8

(((

(

((

55 5

5

5

5 5

%%

%%

%

3

33

3

3

%

5 5

An assumed community

9

BuildingSector

BuildingCategory Number of Buildings Design Seismic

Intensity Level (SIL)

Residential buildings

R6 162 6 (0.07g)R7 203 7 (0.13g)R8 41 8 (0.25g)

Businessbuildings

B6 24 6 (0.07g)B7 32 7 (0.13g)B8 6 8 (0.25g)

Educationbuildings

E6 23 6 (0.07g)E7 23 7 (0.13g)E8 12 8 (0.25g)

Public service buildings

P6 13 6 (0.07g)P7 13 7 (0.13g)P8 6 8 (0.25g)

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-47

Seismic behavior

10

ba PGAT H � �

6HLVPLF�IUDJLOLW\ � � � � ln1 crR crF IM P IM im T

T

T OT T[

§ ·� ! �)¨ ¸

© ¹

A power-law relationshipbetween structural inter-story drift ratio, T, and seismic intensity measure, PGA.

It is assumed the building becomes unoccupiable as Texceeds 1%.

Community functionality vs. seismic intensity

11

Communityperformance needs to be improved

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-48

Retrofit Cost

12

*

0, 1ii i i i

i

aC C n ka

§ · � � � �¨ ¸

© ¹

� Retrofit cost of building cluster i is give by:

� Optimum retrofit strategy:

Cost efficiency of retrofitting sector

Optimum retrofit strategy

13

Mainly enhances building sectors which are relatively less in amount as well as in retrofit costs, resulting higher cost efficiencies

430.7

0.66

0.59

0.72

0.63

0

0.22

0.24

0.31

R

B

E

P

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-49

Support of traffic system to recovery

� Traffic system provides support to the recovery process of damaged buildings

� recourse supply rate of an individual building

� Weighted supply rate of a community

14

s

n

r 3 3

4s,

1 ,4

1

jiji

j i n ji

jij i

wr

w

33

¦¦

¦¦

resources needed daily for recovery with full speed

resources shipped daily for recovery through traffic system

jCji

j i

fFwf

ww �w w3

A traffic networkrk-k- Beijing City

15

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-50

Bridge Fragility

16

Bridges on second and third ring roads Bridges on forth and fifth ring roads

Damage State Slight Moderate Severe Collapse

Remained Capacity 1.0 0. 75 0.5 0.0

˄❖⊐ᆷˈेӜᐲᐲẕằᣇ䴷ᙗ㜭Ⲵ⧠⣦ˈljᐕ〻ᣇ䴷оപ᭩䙐NJ2012˅

Assumptions

� The damages of individual bridges are assumed to be independent.

� For each zone, the needed resource

� An optimization problem

Target: maximizing the weighted supply rate

using Simplex algorithm

17

4 5

,1 1

n zone ij iji j

n

3 3¦¦

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-51

Probability distribution of supply rate

18

Mean = 0.567 Mean = 0.820

0.02

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.22

0.25

0.12

0.02 0.01

0.02 0.04

0.09

0.17

0.29 0.29

0.09

Immediately after the disruptive event One month after the disruptive event

Subjected to an earthquake with seismic intensity of 8

Recovery trajectory

19

Averagely, the community is back to normal after 3 months

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0 1 2 3 4

Co

mm

un

ity

Fun

ctio

nal

ity

Recovery time (month)

90 percentile

Mean

10 percentile

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-52

Seismic retrofitting to the bridges

20

All bridges are retrofitted to the seismic intensity of level 9

Retrofitting effect ct –– Comparison of supply rate

21

0.02 0.06

0.12

0.18 0.22

0.25

0.12

0.02 0.01 0.03

0.07

0.24

0.49

0.10 0.07

Current

retrofitted

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09

0.17

0.29 0.29

0.09

0.01

0.16

0.80

0.03

current

retrofitted

Immediately after the disruptive event One month after the disruptive event

Mean: 0.567 vs. 0.703 Mean: 0.820 vs. 0.922

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-53

Retrofitting effect ct –– Comparison of recovery

22

The average time to be back to normal: 3 months

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0 1 2 3 4

Co

mm

un

ity

Fun

ctio

nal

ity

Recovery time (month)

90 percentile

Mean

10 percentile

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0 1 2 3 4

Co

mm

un

ity

Fun

ctio

nal

ity

Reconvery time (month)

90 percentile

Mean

10 percentile

The average time to be back to normal: 2 months

Traffic system is not retrofitted Traffic system is retrofitted

Summary

23

� A measurement of community functionality is proposed, and its application is demonstrated

� The methodology to optimize the retrofitting strategy is developed.

� The supply rate is propposed to evaluate the performance of traffic system to support the recovery of built environment

Thank you for your attention!

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-54

Dueñas-Osorio, L., Craig, J. I., Goodno, B. J., & Bostrom, A. (2007). Interdependent response of networked systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 13(3), 185-194.

Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M. (2012). Restoration of bridge networks after an earthquake: multicriteria intervention optimization. Earthquake Spectra, 28(2), 426-455.

Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R., Lee, G., O’Rourke, T., Reinhorn, A.M., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W., and Winterfelt, D.V. (2003). “A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities.” Earthquake Spectra, 19 (4), 733–752.

Chang S E, Shinozuka M. (2004). “Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities”. Earthquake Spectra, 20(3): 739-755.

Cutter, S.L. Burton, C.G., and Emrich, C.T. (2010). “Disaster resilience indictor for benchmarking baseline conditions.” J. Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1): Article 51.

Francis, R., and Behailu, B. (2014). "A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems." Reliability Engineering & System Safety 121, 90-103.

Goldberg A.V.(1998). “Recent Developments in Maximum Flow Algorithms”, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Lin P., Wang N. and Ellingwood BR. (2016). “A Risk De-aggregation Framework that Relates Community Resilience Goals to Building Performance Objectives”. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure add DOI

Lin, Y. (2009). “Development of algorithms to estimate post-disaster population dislocation: A research-based approach”. Ph.D. thesis, Texas A & M University.

Lounis, Z., & McAllister, T. P. (2016). Risk-based decision making for sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, F4016005.

McAllister, T. (2013). “Developing Guidelines and Standards for Disaster Resilience of the Built Environment: A Research Needs Assessment” National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Note 1795, March 2013.

Mieler, M., Stojadinovic, B., Budnitz, R., Comerio, M., & Mahin, S. (2015). “A framework for linking community-resilience goals to specific performance targets for the built environment”. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1267-1283.

Miles, S.B. and Chang, S.E. (2006) “Modeling community recovery from earthquakes,” Earthquake Spectra, 22(2): 439–458.

NIST. (2015). Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems. Volume 1 and Volume 2. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA.

Xiao, Y., and Van Zandt, S. (2012). Building community resiliency: Spatial links between household and business post-disaster return. Urban Studies,49(11), 2523-2542.

Pre-Workshop Draft for Workshop Attendees Only. 4-55