Building damage after an earthquake, or other hazard event, can interrupt businesses, displace households, and significantly disrupt a community for years. As a result, policymakers and engineers are working toward new design guidelines and policies that reduce the vulnerability of the built environment through improved building functional recovery performance. This study proposes a method for assessing post-earthquake building performance states of function and reoccupancy within the architecture of performance-based earthquake engineering, targeted at US construction, making use of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58 fragility and consequence models. This is accomplished by mapping component damage states to systems-level operational performance, and then to building-level performance states, through a series of fault trees. The study also proposes a repair scheduling algorithm to estimate the time taken to restore building reoccupancy or function, considering impeding factors that delay the start of repairs. The result is a probabilistic approach that extends the performance-based engineering framework to explicitly quantify post-earthquake building function performance states, thus facilitating design and mitigation decisions for recovery-based performance objectives.
AghababaeiMKoliouMPilkingtonSMahmoudHVan de LindtJWCurtisASmithSAjayakumarJWatsonM (2020) Validation of time-dependent repair recovery of the building stock following the 2011 Joplin Tornado. Natural Hazards Review. Epub ahead of print 17July. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000408.
2.
AleschDJHollyJN (1998) Small business failure, survival and recovery: Lessons from the January 1994 Northridge Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the NEHRP conference and workshop on research on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Richmond, CA.
AlmuftiIKrolickiJCrowtherA (2016) The resilience-based design of the 181 Fremont Tower. Structure Magazine, June, 2016 pp. 42–46.
5.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1989) ATC-20: Procedures for Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
6.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2000) ATC-38: Database on the Performance of Structures Near Strong-Motion Recordings: 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
7.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2005) ATC-20: Procedures for Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. 2nd ed.Redwood City, CA: ATC.
8.
BlaikiePCannonTDavisIWisnerB (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.
9.
BonowitzD (2011) Resilience criteria for seismic evaluation of existing buildings. A 2008 special projects initiative report, Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), San Francisco, CA.
10.
BruneauMChangSEEguchiRTLeeGCO’RourkeTDReinhornAMShinozukaMTierneyKWallaceWAVon WinterfeldtD (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra19(4): 733–752.
11.
BurtonHVDeierleinGGLallemantDLinT (2015) Framework for incorporating probabilistic building performance in the assessment of community seismic resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE142(8): C4015007.
12.
BurtonHVKangHMilesSBNejatAYiZ (2019) A framework and case study for integrating household decision-making into post-earthquake recovery models. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction37: 101167.
CeskavichRSasaniM (2018) Methodology for evaluating community resilience. Natural Hazards Review19(1): 1–13.
15.
ChangSE (2010) Urban Disaster Recovery: A Measurement Framework and Its Application to the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
16.
ChangSEFalit-BaiamonteA (2002) Disaster vulnerability of businesses in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards4(2–3): 59–71.
17.
CimellaroGPPiquéM (2016) Resilience of a hospital Emergency Department under seismic event. Advances in Structural Engineering19(5): 825–836.
18.
ComerioMC (2000) Paying for the next big one. Issues in Science and Technology16: 65–72.
19.
ComerioMC (2006) Estimating downtime in loss modeling. Earthquake Spectra22(2): 349–365.
20.
ComerioMCBlecherHE (2010) Estimating downtime from data on residential buildings after the Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra26(4): 951–965.
21.
ComerioMC (2014) Disaster Recovery and Community Renewal: Housing Approaches. Cityscape 16(2): 51–68.
22.
CookDT (2021a) Advancing performance-based earthquake engineering for modern resilience objectives. PhD Dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO.
23.
CookDT (2021b) PBEE-recovery: Matlab codebase for quantifying building-specific functional recovery and reoccupancy based on a probabilistic performance-based earthquake engineering framework. Available at: https://github.com/OpenPBEE/PBEE-Recovery (accessed January 2, 2022).
24.
CookDTLielABDeBockDJHaseltonCB (2021) Benchmarking FEMA P-58 repair costs and unsafe placards for the Northridge Earthquake: Implications for performance-based earthquake engineering. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction56: 102117.
25.
CremenGSevilleEBakerJW (2020) Modeling post-earthquake business recovery time: An analytical framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction42: 101328.
26.
DahlhamerJMTierneyKJ (1998) Rebounding from disruptive events: Business recovery following the Northridge earthquake. Sociological Spectrum18(2): 121–141.
27.
DavisCA (2019) Infrastructure system resilience: Functionality and operability. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on natural hazards and infrastructure (ICONHIC’2019), Chania, 23–26 June.
28.
DavisMPorterKA (2016) The public’s role in seismic design provisions. Earthquake Spectra32(3): 1345–1361.
29.
DeierleinGGMoehleJ (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August.
30.
DeierleinGGYenWYHulseyAMGalvisFBakerJWHuttCM (2020) Safety of tall pre-Northridge steel frame buildings and implications on cordoning and recovery. In: Proceedings of the 17th world conference on earthquake engineering, Sendai, Japan, 13–18 September.
31.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2019) Functional Recovery: A Conceptual Framework with Policy Options. Oakland, CA: EERI.
32.
EguchiRTChangSE (1996) Losses associated with building damage in Memphis. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–28 June. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).
33.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2012) FEMA P-58: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA.
34.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2018) FEMA P-58: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. 2nd ed.Washington, DC: FEMA.
35.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2019) FEMA P—2055: Post—Disaster Building Safety Evaluation Guidance—Report on the Current State of Practice, Including Recommendations Related to Structural and Nonstructural Safety and Habitability. Washington, DC: FEMA.
36.
FussellJBPowersGJBennettsRG (1974) Fault trees: A state of the art discussion. IEEE Transactions on Reliability23(1): 51–55.
37.
HulseyAMDeierleinGGBakerJW (2018) Quantifying the post-earthquake downtime induced by cordons around damaged tall buildings. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.
38.
HuttCMRossettoTDeierleinGG (2019) Comparative risk-based seismic assessment of 1970s vs modern tall steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research159: 598–610.
39.
International Code Council (ICC) (2009) IBC 2009: International Building Code. Washington, DC: ICC.
40.
JacquesCCMcIntoshJGiovinazziSKirschTDWilsonTMitrani-ReiserJ (2014) Resilience of the Canterbury hospital system to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthquake Spectra30(1): 533–554.
41.
KangHBurtonHVMiaoH (2018) Replicating the recovery following the 2014 south Napa Earthquake using stochastic process models. Earthquake Spectra34(3): 1247–1266.
42.
KrollCALandisJDShenQStrykerS (1991) The economic impacts of the Loma Prieta earthquake: A focus on small business. Berkeley Planning Journal5: 38–58.
43.
LanzanoGSalzanoEde MagistrisFSFabbrocinoG (2013) Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines. Reliability Engineering & System Safety117: 73–80.
44.
LielABDeierleinGG (2013) Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk mitigation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Spectra29(4): 1391–1411.
45.
LinPWangN (2017a) Stochastic post-disaster functionality recovery of community building portfolios I: Modeling. Structural Safety69: 96–105.
46.
LinPWangN (2017b) Stochastic post-disaster functionality recovery of community building portfolios II: Application. Structural Safety69: 106–117.
47.
MarquisFKimJJElwoodKJChangSE (2017) Understanding post-earthquake decisions on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(2): 731–758.
48.
MasoomiHBurtonHVTomarAMoslehA (2020) Simulation-based assessment of postearthquake functionality of buildings with disruptions to cross-dependent utility networks. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE146(5): 04020070.
49.
MielerMWMitrani-ReiserJ (2017) Review of the state of the art in assessing earthquake-induced loss of functionality in buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE144(3): 04017218.
50.
MielerMWStojadinovicBBudnitzRComerioMMahinS (2015) A framework for linking community-resilience goals to specific performance targets for the built environment. Earthquake Spectra31(3): 1267–1283.
51.
MielerMWUmaSRMitrani-ReiserJ (2016) Using failure analysis tools to establish seismic resilience objectives for building components & systems. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering49(1): 86–97.
52.
MilesSBChangSE (2011) ResilUS: A community based disaster resilience model. Cartography and Geographic Information Science38(1): 36–51.
53.
MilesSBBurtonHVKangH (2018) Community of practice for modeling disaster recovery. Natural Hazards Review20(1): 04018023.
54.
Mitrani-ReiserJMahoneyMHolmesWTde la LleraJCBissellRKirschT (2012) A functional loss assessment of a hospital system in the Bío-Bío province. Earthquake Spectra28(1): 473–502.
55.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (1999) 1994 Northridge earthquake. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal8(1): 843–853.
56.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2018) NIST Special Publication 1224: Research Needs to Support Immediate Occupancy Building Performance Objective Following Natural Hazard Events. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
57.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2021) NIST-FEMA Special Publication FEMA P-2090/NIST SP-1254: Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
58.
PaulNLeeJSMielerMAlmuftiI (2018) Improving estimates of earthquake-induced downtime in individual buildings using the REDi methodology. In: Proceedings of the structures congress, Fort Worth, TX, 19–21 April.
59.
PetakWJElahiS (2000) The Northridge earthquake, USA, and its economic and social impacts. In: Proceedings of the EuroConference on global change and catastrophe risk management earthquake risks, Laxenburg, 6–9 July.
60.
PorterKA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on application in statistics and probability in civil engineering, San Francisco, CA, 6–9 July.
61.
PorterKA (2016a) Not safe enough: The case for resilient seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 2016 SEAOC convention, Maui, HI, 12–15 October.
62.
PorterKA (2016b) Safe enough? A building code to protect our cities and our lives. Earthquake Spectra32(2): 677–695.
63.
PorterKARamerK (2012) Estimating earthquake-induced failure probability and downtime of critical facilities. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning5(4): 352–364.
64.
SattarSMahoneyMKerstingRHeintzJJohnsonKArendtLDavisCScottPAbrahamsL (2020) Recommended options for improving the functional recovery of the built environment. In: Proceedings of the 17th world conference on earthquake engineering, Sendai, Japan, 13–18 September.
65.
SpenceRSoEJenkinsSCoburnARuffleSJ (2011) A global earthquake building damage and casualty database. In: SpenceRSoEScawthornC (eds) Human Casualties in Earthquakes. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 65–79.
TerzicVKolozvariK (2020) Evaluation of post-earthquake functional recovery for a 42-Story building located in Los Angeles. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Los Angeles tall buildings structural design council conference, Los Angeles, CA, 9 October.
68.
TerzicVVillanuevaP (2021) Method for probabilistic evaluation of post-earthquake functionality of building systems. Engineering Structures241: 112370.
69.
US Resiliency Council (USRC) (2015) USRC Building Rating System for Earthquake Hazards, Implementation Manual. San Francisco, CA: USRC.
70.
Van de LindtJWPeacockWGMitrani-ReiserJRosenheimNDenizDDillardMTomiczekTKoliouMGraettingerACrawfordPSHarrisonKBarbosaATobinJHelgesonJPeekLMemariMSutleyEJHamidehSGuDCauffmanSFungJ (2020) Community resilience-focused technical investigation of the 2016 Lumberton, North Carolina, flood: An interdisciplinary approach. Natural Hazards Review21(3): 04020029.
71.
YavariSChangSEElwoodKJ (2010) Modeling post-earthquake functionality of regional health care facilities. Earthquake Spectra26(3): 869–892.
72.
YooDY (2016) Repair time model for different building sizes considering the earthquake hazard. Master’s Thesis, The California State University, Long Beach, CA.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
