2013 EERI Annual Meeting Session: Linking Performance-Based Seismic Design with Sustainability

1. ATC-86: Integrating Seismic and
Environmental Performance
Metrics
Kathrina Simonen, RA, SE
ATC 86-1 Team Member
Assistant Professor of Architecture
University of Washington
ksimonen@uw.edu
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

2. Contents
 Background Context
 Project Team
 ATC-58/PACT Background
 LCA: Quantifying Environmental Impacts
 ATC-86-1: Methodology for Assessing
Environmental Impacts
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

3. Standard Performance Levels
Operational Immediate Life Collapse
Occupancy Safety Prevention
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

4. The PBD Process
Select Performance Objectives
Perform Preliminary Design
Assess Performance Capability
No Revise
Acceptable?
Design
Yes
Construction
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

5. Performance-Prediction Process
FEMA P-58/PACT
D
Ground Structural Damage
Motion Response
Impacts
Economic, Human, & Social
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

6. Performance-Prediction Process
D
Ground Structural Damage
Motion Response
FEMA P-58/PACT
Impacts
Economic, Human, & Social
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

7. Adding Environmental Impacts
D
Ground Structural Damage
Motion Response
ATC-86
Impacts
Environmental Economic, Human, & Social
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

8. Project Team
 Project Management Committee
– Anthony B. Court (Project Tech. Director)
– Peter Morris
– Kathrina Simonen
– Wayne Trusty
– Mark Webster
– Jon A. Heintz (ex-officio)
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

9. Project Team
 FEMA
– Erin Walsh, Task Monitor
– Michael Mahoney, Project Officer
– Robert D. Hanson, Technical Monitor
 ATC
– Jon A. Heintz (Project Manager)
 ATC-58 Project Representatives
– Ronald O. Hamburger
– John D. Hooper
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

10. Next-Generation Performance
 Probabilistic rather than Deterministic
 Consequences of building response to
earthquakes, including:
– Casualties (deaths & serious injuries)
– Direct economic loss
(repair and replacement costs)
– Indirect economic and social loss
(red tags, repair and re-occupancy time)
– Environmental impacts including: energy, carbon
and solid waste
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

11. Building Performance Model
3rd E-W Curtain wall
2nd Story N-S Shear walls 3rd Story Contents
3rd Story N-S Shear walls
3rd Story N-S Curtain wall 2nd E-W Curtain wall
3rd E-W Story glazing
2nd E-W Story glazing
1st E-W Story glazing
1st Story N-S Storefront
1st Story N-S Beam-column joints
1st Story N-S Shear walls
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

12. Fragility Specifications
Fragility Specification
B1044.000 Reinforced Concrete Shearwalls
BASIC COMPOSITION Reinforced concrete and finishes both sides
Units for basic quantities Square feet of wall area
DAMAGES STATES, FRAGILIITES, AND CONSEQUENCE FUNCTIONS
DS1 DS2 DS3
Flexural cracks < 3/16" Flexural cracks > 1/4" Max. crack widths >3/8"
DESCRIPTION
Shear (diagonal) cracks < 1/16" Shear (diagonal) cracks > 1/8" Significant spalling/ loose cover
No significant spalling Moderate spalling/ loose cover Fracture or buckling some r/f
ILLUSTRATION
(example photo or drawing)
MEDIAN DEMAND
1.5% 3.0% 5.0%
BETA 0.2 0.3 0.4
CORRELATION (%) 70%
Patch cracks each side with caulk Remove loose concrete Shore
Paint each side Patch spalls with NS grout Demo existing wall
DAMAGE FUNCTIONS
Replace
Patch cracks each side with caulk
Paint each side Patch and paint
CONSEQUENCE FUNCTION
Max. consequence up to lower quantity
$4.00 per sq ft up to 800 sq ft $10.00 per sq ft up to 800 sq ft $50.00 per sq ft up to 200 sq ft
Min consequence over upper quantity $2.00 per sq ft over 4000 sq ft $5.00 per sq ft over to 4000 sq ft $30.00 per sq ft over 2000 sq ft
Beta (consequence) 0.2 0.3 0.3
TIMEFRAME TO ADDRESS CONSEQUENCES days weeks months
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

13. Scenario or Intensity Assessments
 50% probability that repair cost will not exceed $1M
 90% probability that repair costs will not exceed $1.5M
 Expected repair cost is $1.1M
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

14. Predicting Performance
 It is impossible to predict performance
precisely
 Each step of the process entails many
uncertainties
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

15. Ground Motion Uncertainty
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

16. Modeling Uncertainty
 Strength of individual
members
 Compliance of soils
beneath foundations
 Inherent damping
 Live load present at
each column
 Quality of construction
 Interaction of
nonstructural elements
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

17. Damage Uncertainty
 Similarity of test
specimens to actual
component
 Number of cycles of
motion and sequence
of application
 Boundary conditions
in test
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

18. Consequence Uncertainty
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

19. Calculate Performance
 Monte Carlo Process
 Hundreds to
thousands of “spins”
 For each “spin” termed
a “realization”
 Unique
– Demands
– Damage
– Consequences
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

20. For Each Realization
We Compute Building Performance
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

21. ATC-86: Methodology
D
Ground Structural Damage
Motion Response
ATC-86
Impacts
Environmental Economic, Human, & Social
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

22. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Standardized (ISO)
method of tracking and
reporting the
environmental impacts
of a product (e.g.
flooring, a building) from
cradle to grave
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

23. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

24. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Integrate Probabilistic Risk of
Seismic Damage/Repair into LCA
‘Use Stage’
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

25. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Typical LCA Impacts
 Global Warming Potential (CO2eq)
 Primary Energy Use (inventory)
 Eutrophication
 Acidification
 Human Health Impacts
 Waste Volume
 Etc.
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

26. Integrating LCA, P-58 & PACT
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

27. LCA: Two Methods
Unit Process EIO
‘Classic’ LCA Economic Input Output
 Detailed  General
 Process specific  Sector average
 Integrates with  Integrates with
detailed project economic analysis
data
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

28. Integrating LCA into P-58/PACT
Method One: BOM (unit process)
 Cost estimates exist for
each damage state
 Expand cost estimate to
generate bill of materials
(BOM)
 Use BOM to develop
specific LCA data
Damage
 Could also improve
precision of cost data by
aggregating BOMs for
realization
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

29. Method One: BOM
Advantages
 More detailed/engineering-based
 Similar to P-58 cost precision
 Typically more accurate, transparent & credible
Disadvantages
 More effort (time and $$) to create
 Hurdles to obtain emissions/impact data
 Challenge to integrate with commercial LCA tools
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

30. Integrating LCA into P-58/PACT
Method Two: EIO
 Total damage per
realization reported per
fragility group
 Can assign fragility groups
to EIO sector(s)
 Develop relative
magnitudes of
environmental impacts
 Use methodology similar
to existing downtime
estimates
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

31. Method Two: EIO
Advantages
 Less work than BOM
 Potentially useful for big-picture decision making
 Enables preliminary testing of LCA integration
Disadvantages
 Less detailed, likely less accurate and credible
 More dependent on expert opinion
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

32. Data Management: BOM
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

33. Data Management: EIO
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

34. ATC-86 Recommendations
Near Term Option
 Implement EIO method
Long Term Option
 Integrate BOM method as time and
resources permit
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

35. Next Steps
Publish ATC-86 Recommendations
 FEMA review complete
 Will be published with P-58 Documentation
Begin implementation
 Integrated into the next stage of ATC-58
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

36. Special Acknowledgements
The work forming the basis for this publication was
conducted pursuant to a contract with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The substance
of such work is dedicated to the public.
Additional acknowledgements include members of
the SEAOC and ASCE Sustainability Committees
for the review of and comments to the draft report.
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology

37. Thank You
ATC-86: Integrating Seismic and
Environmental Performance
Metrics
Kathrina Simonen, RA, SE
ATC 86-1 Team Member
Assistant Professor of Architecture
University of Washington
ksimonen@uw.edu
ATC-86/ATC-86-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings – Environmental Methodology