Seminar and Workshop on

Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings

November 3-6, 2017
Novotel Manila, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City

Performance-based Evaluation and Seismic

Loss Estimation of Non-structural
Components
Naveed Anwar, PhD
Why performance based
evaluation of nonstructural
components?

2
 Importance of Nonstructural Components

Cost breakdown of sample buildings

120%
Total cost of building

100% 20% 17%

44% Content
80%

60% 62% Nonstructural component

70%
40% 48%
Structural component
20% 20% 13% 8%
0%
Office Hotel Hospital

(Whittaker and Soong, 2003) 3

 Importance of Nonstructural Components

Nonstructural components cost breakdown of four sample buildings

Percentage of total construction cost

Apartments 4-7 story

40
Hospitals 4-8 story
30
Hotel 8-28 story
20

10 Office 5-10 story

0
Exterior Roofing Interior Conveying Mechanical Electrical Special
Construction

PEER, 2003 4
Is this acceptable?
Even though it satisfies CBD and PBD

5
 Lesson Related to Nonstructural Damage

Eastern Japan Earthquake, March 11, 2011

 Very little major structural damage
 Majority of nonstructural damage in large cities including Tokyo and
Sendai

For example,
Ceiling damage or collapse Fallen exterior wall panels
Overturning of contents
Damage or collapse older facade panels

Source: Report of the Building Research Institute of Japan Fallen ceiling 6

 Lesson Related to Nonstructural Damage
2010 and 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquakes

• Magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively

• Good structural behavior
• Small number of collapses or fatalities
• Large amount of Nonstructural damage
• Economical loss = US$17 billion
• Long-lasting effect for the economy

Exterior Glazing

7
Report of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (2011) Exterior Glazing
Risk posed by Drift, Acceleration and Velocity Demand Parameters
Drift sensitive damage Acceleration sensitive damage Velocity sensitive damage

8
The SPONSE Workshop in China, 2014
 Risk posed by Nonstructural Damage in Previous Earthquakes

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Fallen light fixtures, 1994 Northridge 1994 Northridge
(Robert Reitherman) Earthquake(Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associate) Earthquake (Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates)

Fallen ceiling and flexible ducts

Compressor overturning (Wiss, Broken sprinkler pipe, Olive View Medical
1994 Northridge Earthquake.
(Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates )
Janney, Elstner Associates) Center, 1994 Northridge Earthquake .
 Seismic Risk Prediction in Bangkok

No: of expected
Loss distribution of each building component type Earthquake levels collapsed
Earthquake (in % of total loss) Total loss buildings
levels (Million baht) SLE 0
Structural Nonstructural Building
DBE 0-4
components components contents
MCE 4 - 17
SLE 1 75 24 318
DBE 15 68 17 8,402
MCE 16 65 19 23,325

• A total of 1433 buildings were assessed

• Buildings are 12 to 88-story high
• SLE: Service Level Earthquake (43-year return period)
• DBE: Design Based Earthquake (475-year return period)
• MCE: Maximum Considered Earthquake (2500-year return period)

10
The Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Department of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA)
Why performance based evaluation of nonstructural components?

• Even if buildings are seismically designed and structurally safe, nonstructural components
and contents are fragile and easily overturned because these components are not attached
and connected under seismic design standards.

• Nonstructural components are designed and available in markets without consideration of

seismic risk (Bob Reitherman)

• Falling down nonstructural hazard post life threatening to residents and costly damage for
owners.

• Significant nonstructural damage can disrupt building functionality, post costly damage,
hinder businesses operability and be danger livelihoods.

• After earthquake shaking, buildings were inoperable for long duration due to excessive
damage to architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.

11
 Design Approaches

Resilience
Based Design
Consequences
and Risk
Performance Based Design
Based Design
Code Based
Design

12
 Resilience Based Earthquake Design
• A holistic approach which seeks to identify all hazard-
induced risks (including those outside the building
envelope) and mitigate them using integrated multi-
disciplinary design and contingency planning to Economic Loses
achieve swift recovery objectives in the aftermath of
a major earthquake.

• The key principle in resilience-based design is to limit

expected damage to structural and architectural
Loss of Loss of
components and egress systems (elevators, stairs, Quality of Community
and doors) Life and Culture

Go Beyond Life
Safety
13
 Link Performance to other Indicators

Restaurant Restaurant nt
ura
sta
Re

Operational (O) Immediate Occupancy (IO) Life Safety (LS) Collapse Prevention (CP)

0% Damage or Loss 99 %

Lowest Casualties Highest

Lowest Downtime for Rehab Highest
Lowest Rehab Cost to Restore after event Highest

Highest Retrofit Cost to Minimize Consequences Lowest

Lowest Impact on Sustainability of Community Highets

14
Ref: FEMA 451 B
 Green Buildings Resilient Buildings

Main authors : Arup

Supported by USRC and many others 15
ARUP 16
Methodologies for
Performance Assessment of
Nonstructural Components

17
 Seismic Losses

a) Repair cost (direct economic cost): This is the cost required to repair or replace the
physical damage of nonstructural components and bring their performance back to
pre-earthquake condition.
b) Serious injury and casualty: It is the number of serious injuries (requiring
hospitalization) or loss of life inside the building envelop.
c) Downtime: It is the required time to recover the damaged nonstructural components
back to pre-earthquake condition.
d) Business interruption cost (indirect economic cost): It is the loss (in terms of
cost) due to interruption of business or the building’s serviceability due to the damage
of nonstructural components.

18
 Performance Assessment Methodologies
(PEER)’s Performance-based Earthquake
Engineering Methodology

(FEMA P-58)’s Performance Assessment

Methodology

Component-based Loss Estimation Method

Downtime Assessment Methodology by REDi™

19
 (PEER)’s Performance-based Earthquake Engineering Methodology

• Select representative ground motion sets

IM
NOTE:

• Simulate nonlinear dynamic structural response to IM = Intensity Measure

EDP collapse, uncertainty in response EDP = Engineering Demand
Parameters
DM = Damage Measure
• Calculate probabilities of being in each damage state for DV = Decision Variable
DM each component and assembly

• Calculate repair cost for each component and assembly

DV

20
Performance Earthquake Engineering Research Center (Keith A.Porter, 2003)
 (FEMA P-58)’s Performance Assessment Methodology

FEMA P-58 (Volume-1) , 2012 21

 Component-based Loss Estimation Method

Data collection program

Earthquake scenario selection

Structural modeling and analysis

Damage analysis

Loss analysis

Kanokwan Artudorn (2016) 22

 Downtime Assessment by REDi™
Utility Disruption
Earthquake
Occurrence
Impeding Factors Building repair

Utility Disruptions Impeding Factors

 Electricity  Post-earthquake Inspection

 Water  Engineering Mobilization and Review
 Gas  Financing
 Contractor mobilization
 Permitting
 Long-lead time components

23
REDi™ Rating System
 Downtime Assessment by REDi™
Recommended number of labor for each component type Recommended number of labor for repair sequence

Number of Workers per Max. Number of Workers per Repair Sequence

Repair sequences Component Type
Square Foot Per Floor Repair Low-rise Medium-rise High-rise
Pipes/Sprinklers sequence (less than 5 (Between 6 and (greater than 20
HVAC Distribution s stories) 20 stories) stories)
A 1 worker/1000sf A 15 30 45
Partitions B 15 30 45
Ceilings
C 9 18 27
Exterior
D 9 18 27
B Partitions 1 worker/1000sf
Cladding / Glazing E 6 12 18
F 6 12 18
Number of Workers per
Repair sequences Component Type
Damage unit Maximum number of labor
C
Mechanical
3 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2.5 x 10−4 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡 + 10, 20 ≤ 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 260
Equipment
D Electrical Systems 3
Where;
E Elevators 2
𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑥 = the maximum number of workers on site
F Stairs 2
𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡 = the total floor area of the building (sq. feet)
24
Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi™) Rating System
 Downtime Assessment by REDi™
Downtime (days)

Electricity
Utility Water
Disruption
Gas
 Inspection
 Financing
 Engineering Review
 Contractor Mobilization
 Permitting

Long Lead
Roof

Floor 3

Repairs Floor 2

Long Lead
Floor 1

25
 Why the REDi™ ?
Limitations on FEMA P-58, 2012 Address in REDi™, 2013
 Consider downtime, longer than repair time
 Repair time for damage only
 Impeding Factors
 Does not account for delay of repair intitation and
 utility disruption
utility disruption
 Duilding repair
 Repair time affected by long lead times are not  Long Lead time for damaged components is
explicitly calculated consider
 Re-occupy recovery state
 Full recovery state
 Functionality recovery state

 Building repair: no repair sequence  Repair Class: logic repair sequence

 Unrealistic labor allocation

 Allocating Labours for each floor
 Labour hours
 Number of worker per damaged components
 Limit to maximum labour hour
 Maximum number of workers per repair sequences
 Repair time = worker-days required to repair a
 Maximum number of workers on site
damaged component
26
A Typical Performance Based
Evaluation and Loss
Estimation Framework

27
 Performance Based Evaluation Framework
Collect building data

Review hazard Analysis

Review structural analysis

Determine nonstructural damage

Determine nonstructural performance

Direct economic loss Downtime

* Repair cost * Downtime

Direct social loss Indirect economic loss

*Serious injury and casualty * Business interruption cost 28

 Scope of a Typical Performance Assessment Framework

1) Review the detailed structural analysis carried out by the structural engineer for the
building code design procedure under earthquakes.
2) Review of architectural layout and nonstructural systems of building from the drawings.
3) Specify the component fragility functions according to FEMA fragility specification for
individual nonstructural component in building.
4) Quantify nonstructural components using actual architectural layouts or FEMA
normative quantity estimation.
5) Carry out nonstructural damage assessment under earthquakes.
6) Carry out seismic performance of nonstructural components using component-based
loss estimation method.

29
Classification of Nonstructural Components

30
 Classification of Nonstructural Component
Sensitivity
Nonstructural
component systems Drift-Sensitive component
Architectural
component
Acceleration-Sensitive component

Mechanical Drift-Sensitive component

Nonstructural
components and Electrical
component Acceleration-Sensitive component

Acceleration-Sensitive component
Building
Content
Velocity-Sensitive component
31
 Nonstructural Damage Assessment

None Quantity of Probability of No: of component being

damage component none damage in none damage state
state

Damage Quantity of Probability of No: of component being

state-1 component damage state-1 in damage state-1
Quantify Assign
nonstructural Component
component fragility
Damage Quantity of Probability of No: of component being
state-2 component damage state-2 in damage state-2
FEMA-P-58

Damage Quantity of Probability of No: of component being

state-3 component damage state-3 in damage state-3
Ceramic wall fragility (FEMA-P-58)
1
0.8
P (DS ≥ Dsi )

0.6
0.4 Total number of damaged
0.2
0
component being in damage states
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Drift
32
 Nonstructural Damage Assessment by Fragility curve

Ceramic wall fragility curve (FEMA-P-58)

1
0.9 P (none damage state)
0.8
0.7
P (DS ≥ Dsi )

0.6 Moderate damage state

0.5 P ( moderate damage state)
0.4 Complete damage state
0.3
0.2
0.1
P ( complete damage state)
0
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018 0.021 0.024
Drift
33
 Fragility Curves by FEMA P-58

Gypsum partition wall fragility Sanitary piping fragility (FEMA-P-58)

(FEMA P-58) 1
1 0.8

P (DS ≥ Dsi )
0.8
0.6
More than 700 fragility
P(DS ≥ DSi))

0.6
0.4
0.4 funtions have been provide by
0.2 0.2
FEMA P-58
0 0
0 0.008 0.016 0.024 0.032 0.04 0 2 4 6 8
Drift Acceleration (g)

Ceramic wall fragility (FEMA-P-58) Cabinet fragility (FEMA-P-58)

1 1
Slight damage state
0.8
P (DS ≥ Dsi )

0.8
Moderate damage state
P (DS ≥ Ds i)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 Complete damage state

0.2 0.2

0
0
0 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024 0 1 2 3 4
Drift Velocity (m/sec)
34
 Direct Economic Cost Framework

Quantity of damaged Replacement

X Loss Ratio
DS-1 components X Cost
Sensitive Quantity of damaged Replacement
DS-2 Loss Ratio
Type-1 components X X Cost

DS-3 Quantity of damaged Replacement

components X Loss Ratio X Cost

Nonstructural Sensitive Same as above

component Type-2 Cost
FEMA P-58 Estimator

Sensitive Repair Cost of nonstructural component type-1

Same as above
Type-3
Where; DS = Damage state
35
 Serious Injury or Casualty Framework
1 Number of
DS-1 damaged
component
Sensitive
X FEMA-P-58
Type-1 DS-2
Casualty-affected
area
DS-3 X
Population per unit
Nonstructural area
Sensitive
component Same as X Number of serious injury or
Type-2 above casualty from nonstructural
2 Number of 3 component in DS-1
occupant in
casualty -affected
area
Sensitive X Total number of serious
Same as Percentage of
Type-3 injury or casualty due to
above serious injury or nonstructural component
casualty damage

4 36
 An Example from FEMA Consequence Database

Casualty-
Ceilings’ damage Percentage of Percentage
affected planar
states serious injury casualty
area (Sq-ft)
DS 1 (slight damage) 0 0 0
DS 2 (moderate
0 0 0
damage)
DS 3 (complete
250 10 0
damage)

Fragile equipment’s Casualty-affected Percentage of serious Percentage

damage state planar area (Sq-ft) injury casualty

DS 1 (complete damage) 16 10 0

37
 Residential Building Population Distribution

Population Model
FEMA-Daytime FEMA-Nighttime HAZUS-Daytime HAZUS-Nighttime
population population population population

50% of residential 100% of residential 52.5% of daytime 98.9% of nighttime

population population residential population residential population

38
 Downtime Assessment Framework
Utility disruption
Delay time
Impeding factors
Interior repair
Downtime
Exterior repair

Mechanical repair
Repair time
Electrical repair

Elevator repair

Utility Disruptions Impeding Factors Stair repair

 Electricity  Post-earthquake Inspection
 Water  Engineering Mobilization and Review
 Gas  Financing
 Contractor mobilization
 Permitting
39
 Downtime Assessment
Downtime Method Delay Time Delay Time Repair Time

 Repair in series
REDi™ Guideline (1)  Repair sequence by sequence
Utility disruption Impeding factors
 Recommended no: of labor by REDi™
Guideline
 Repair in paralle
REDi™ Guideline (2) Utility disruption Impeding factors  Maximum no: of worker by REDi™
Guideline
 Repair in parallel
REDi™ Guideline (3) Utility disruption Impeding factors
 Half of maximum worker by REDi™
 Repair in parallel
 Maximum no: of worker by REDi™
REDi™ Guideline (4) Utility disruption Impeding factors
Guideline
 12 hour per a day (Overtime work)
 Repair in parallel
REDi™ Guideline (5) Utility disruption Impeding factors  Half of maximum worker by REDi™
 12 hour per a day (Overtime work)
40
 Business Interruption Cost Framework

Business
interruption cost

Rental cost per

Downtime x Breakdown area x area
month m² cost / 1 m² / month

41
Some limitations on the way

The collapse mode may not be determined in buildings

under different earthquake scenarios.

The casualties or serious injuries which could occur

outside the building envelope may not be predicted.

Uncertainty involved in specified component fragility

functions according to FEMA fragility specifications

42
Thank You