WEBVTT Kind: captions Language: en-US 00:00:01.020 --> 00:00:02.880 [Silence] 00:00:02.960 --> 00:00:06.500 Okay. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming to 00:00:06.500 --> 00:00:11.300 this week’s department – ESC seminar. 00:00:12.180 --> 00:00:18.280 I have just a few announcements, and one – first is that we’re starting right 00:00:18.280 --> 00:00:26.580 on time because there is an all-hands meeting with Mark Sogge today at 11:30. 00:00:27.660 --> 00:00:30.840 So many of us may be interested in attending that, 00:00:30.840 --> 00:00:34.360 so we want to end at 11:30. 00:00:34.360 --> 00:00:38.660 Secondly, I want to remind everybody that we have 00:00:38.660 --> 00:00:44.300 an ESC all-hands meeting on Friday at 11:00. 00:00:49.020 --> 00:00:54.600 Now, for logistic and seminar information, first I want to remind 00:00:54.609 --> 00:01:00.079 people to – if you’re not the one speaking, please mute your microphone 00:01:00.080 --> 00:01:05.480 and turn off your video camera so we can see and hear the speaker. 00:01:05.800 --> 00:01:09.860 Secondly, at the end of the talk, we’ll have question and answers 00:01:09.870 --> 00:01:13.680 through the chat window, so you can use the chat to answer – 00:01:13.680 --> 00:01:17.690 to ask your questions, or you can turn your microphone and sound back – 00:01:17.690 --> 00:01:21.040 and unmute yourself to ask the question as well. 00:01:23.340 --> 00:01:27.140 Next week, we will have another ESC seminar, and our speaker 00:01:27.140 --> 00:01:33.710 will be Chad Trexler, our very own Mendenhall at the USGS. 00:01:33.710 --> 00:01:36.680 And his title will be Exploring the Transition from Subduction to Slab 00:01:36.680 --> 00:01:41.340 Breakoff – Structural Insights from the Western Greater Caucasus Mountains. 00:01:41.340 --> 00:01:43.730 So stay tuned for that. 00:01:43.730 --> 00:01:50.000 Next, I’ll turn it over to Keith Knudsen to introduce our speaker. 00:01:50.680 --> 00:01:53.200 - Hi, everyone. I’m delighted to introduce 00:01:53.200 --> 00:01:57.940 David Bonowitz, this year’s EERI Distinguished Lecturer. 00:01:57.940 --> 00:02:01.440 David and I got to know each other about 20 years ago when we were 00:02:01.440 --> 00:02:06.620 both spending way to much time on the northern California chapter 00:02:06.620 --> 00:02:10.640 of EERI and its Quake ’06 campaign. 00:02:10.640 --> 00:02:13.320 David is a structural engineer who has been really active 00:02:13.320 --> 00:02:17.780 in a number of structural engineers’ associations. 00:02:17.780 --> 00:02:24.640 He’s also played a part in almost every significant Bay Area engineering 00:02:24.640 --> 00:02:30.860 or policy improvement directed at reducing impacts of earthquakes. 00:02:30.860 --> 00:02:35.900 In my opinion, there are – there’s a relatively small handful of people 00:02:35.909 --> 00:02:43.859 who have – who are responsible for most of the innovation and risk reduction 00:02:43.859 --> 00:02:48.749 and increases in resiliency that we’ve accomplished here in the Bay Area, 00:02:48.749 --> 00:02:54.129 and David is most definitely on that short list. So I thank him for that. 00:02:54.129 --> 00:02:56.680 If I remember correctly, David is a Cleveland Indians fan. 00:02:56.680 --> 00:02:59.930 Is that right? - No. Oh, my god, no. 00:02:59.930 --> 00:03:02.369 Oh, no. [laughs] - Who was it? 00:03:02.369 --> 00:03:06.439 - I’m from Ohio, but I shifted my allegiance to the Giants 00:03:06.439 --> 00:03:09.719 years and years ago. - Oh, okay. You’re just saying that 00:03:09.719 --> 00:03:12.299 because of the audience. - And I have lived more than 00:03:12.299 --> 00:03:15.870 half of my life in the Bay Area. I decided it was time. 00:03:15.870 --> 00:03:18.219 - Okay. - Plus, who doesn’t love Buster Posey? 00:03:18.219 --> 00:03:22.140 - Okay. Well, that’s good to hear. 00:03:22.140 --> 00:03:27.129 So today David will discuss his thinking on functional recovery. 00:03:27.129 --> 00:03:29.920 He’s working with FEMA and NIST and lots of other people 00:03:29.920 --> 00:03:33.680 on this topic, and I’m looking forward to what he has to say. 00:03:35.120 --> 00:03:38.880 - Thank you, Keith. So I’m going to share my screen here. 00:03:38.880 --> 00:03:41.760 And we’ll get going. 00:03:41.760 --> 00:03:44.860 That's a very gracious introduction. Thank you so much. 00:03:44.860 --> 00:03:47.510 There are, as you know, so many other people involved in this. 00:03:47.510 --> 00:03:50.239 And Keith is obviously one of them looking to 00:03:50.239 --> 00:03:52.739 do things in an interdisciplinary way. 00:03:52.739 --> 00:03:56.330 Though, as Keith mentioned, my background is in structural engineering. 00:03:56.330 --> 00:03:59.900 So the bad news is I don’t have a lot to say today about ground motions. 00:03:59.900 --> 00:04:03.500 The good news is, I’m not going to say much about structural engineering, either. 00:04:03.500 --> 00:04:09.829 Because really, the focus of this talk is about public policy and kind of 00:04:09.829 --> 00:04:15.069 a design philosophy or design paradigm that we’ve been following 00:04:15.069 --> 00:04:19.850 for [audio garbled] now and how we might be shifting that given 00:04:19.850 --> 00:04:23.420 both new preferences and new opportunities to think about 00:04:23.420 --> 00:04:26.410 designing for what you see here is called community resilience. 00:04:26.410 --> 00:04:28.720 So there’s two pieces of jargon in the title. 00:04:28.720 --> 00:04:34.400 Functional recovery – what it means to design for community resilience. 00:04:34.400 --> 00:04:37.500 And that means I’m going to start by talking about what those 00:04:37.500 --> 00:04:41.080 two terms mean, starting with community [audio cuts out]. 00:04:41.090 --> 00:04:43.120 You may have heard this term floating around. 00:04:43.120 --> 00:04:48.160 It’s actually been associated with design of the urban environment 00:04:48.160 --> 00:04:53.480 for at least 20 years now. It has a longer history in academia 00:04:53.480 --> 00:05:00.280 related to economics and psychology and environmentalism. 00:05:00.280 --> 00:05:04.900 But, in the building world, or the design world, it’s been about 20 years. 00:05:04.910 --> 00:05:08.160 And about 10 years ago, we began to see it get [audio garbled] 00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:10.160 into some documents that have been trying to define it. 00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:14.060 And here’s a few of them. All these are kind of government agency documents. 00:05:14.060 --> 00:05:16.320 And I’m going to come back and talk about the one on the right – 00:05:16.320 --> 00:05:22.540 the 2016 Community Resilience Planning Guide – a little later. 00:05:23.400 --> 00:05:27.860 [audio cuts out] list of ideas. Some of them – most of them public 00:05:27.860 --> 00:05:30.710 sector, some of them private sector. And, I think if you read through these 00:05:30.710 --> 00:05:33.940 [garbled] of what we’re trying to do, I’ve done that, and I think you can 00:05:33.940 --> 00:05:37.280 pull from this four themes that are common even though there’s 00:05:37.280 --> 00:05:40.800 no one definition that is consistent all the way throughout. But if you look at these, 00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:44.240 I see there are four kind of common themes that I want to focus on. 00:05:44.240 --> 00:05:50.300 One is that resilience is an attribute of human organizations or social units, 00:05:50.300 --> 00:05:52.970 not of buildings or pieces of infrastructure. 00:05:52.970 --> 00:05:55.700 And that’s [audio cuts out] to us in the design world because we want to 00:05:55.700 --> 00:05:59.690 think about designing a physical thing. But we want to talk about resilience 00:05:59.690 --> 00:06:02.680 as an attribute of an organization or a social unit. 00:06:02.680 --> 00:06:06.460 It's primarily about recovery of function, meaning changing the focus away 00:06:06.460 --> 00:06:14.360 from going to measure it as a recovery, not just as damage, but in regard to 00:06:14.360 --> 00:06:17.530 a natural hazard. Now, there are a lot of people in the resilience – larger resilience 00:06:17.530 --> 00:06:23.500 community who also want to talk about what they call systemic, or everyday, 00:06:23.500 --> 00:06:26.710 stressors in an environment as opposed to just the shock of a natural hazard. 00:06:26.710 --> 00:06:30.590 But, for our purposes as engineers, we want to think about this 00:06:30.590 --> 00:06:32.620 as natural hazard. And today we’ll be 00:06:32.620 --> 00:06:35.240 talking about it specifically with regard to earthquakes. 00:06:35.240 --> 00:06:40.710 So, in that long list of documents you see there, finally, in 2018, 00:06:40.710 --> 00:06:45.600 with the re-authorization of the NEHRP program, and as USGS 00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:50.260 [garbled], I don’t think I need to explain to you what the NEHRP is. 00:06:50.260 --> 00:06:56.000 But finally, in 2018, when Europe was re-authorized [phone ringing] … 00:06:58.480 --> 00:07:01.980 Thank you for putting that on mute. Appreciate that. 00:07:01.980 --> 00:07:06.520 So, in 2018, we got a definition of resilience finally written into 00:07:06.520 --> 00:07:12.940 federal statute. So it’s now – there’s at least a consensus definition that, 00:07:12.940 --> 00:07:15.310 even if you don’t like it – and I have some quibbles we’ll talk about – 00:07:15.310 --> 00:07:18.360 it’s there now in federal law, and that’s really helpful. 00:07:18.360 --> 00:07:21.900 So here’s that definition of community resilience in the NEHRP re-authorization. 00:07:21.900 --> 00:07:25.580 The ability of a community to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, 00:07:25.580 --> 00:07:28.430 and more successfully adapt to adverse seismic events. 00:07:28.430 --> 00:07:32.680 So we can now check this against those four big themes, or the key components, 00:07:32.680 --> 00:07:36.380 that I mentioned a minute ago. It’s an attribute of an organization, 00:07:36.380 --> 00:07:38.170 not of a building. In this case, we’re talking about 00:07:38.170 --> 00:07:42.860 community resilience, so the organization is a community, whatever that means. 00:07:42.860 --> 00:07:44.800 It’s focused on function, not just safety. 00:07:44.800 --> 00:07:51.460 And we can read that in the emphasis on recovery, not just about survival. 00:07:51.460 --> 00:07:55.680 We’re going to measure it over time. Or it has to have some metric from this – 00:07:55.680 --> 00:07:59.150 this word “successfully” implies some kind of a metric. 00:07:59.150 --> 00:08:02.440 And, because of the emphasis on recovery, we know recovery is measured 00:08:02.440 --> 00:08:07.060 over time. And it’s going to focus on a natural hazard. So that part’s easy. 00:08:07.060 --> 00:08:09.870 Now, we can probably have a better definition of this. 00:08:09.870 --> 00:08:12.140 I have, again, a couple of quibbles. What does it mean to have the 00:08:12.140 --> 00:08:16.500 ability to prepare? Really, it should just say the ability to absorb, 00:08:16.500 --> 00:08:20.360 recover from, etc. Or maybe you could say resilience is having 00:08:20.360 --> 00:08:24.950 a preparation, having prepared. But that’s a quibble. 00:08:24.950 --> 00:08:26.670 Again, here it’s talking about community resilience. 00:08:26.670 --> 00:08:29.110 In the engineering world, we want to think about resilience, 00:08:29.110 --> 00:08:33.340 not just at the community scale, but the scale of any organization. 00:08:33.340 --> 00:08:35.940 Of course, this is in NEHRP, so it’s focused on seismic. 00:08:35.950 --> 00:08:40.199 We can refer this to other – use a similar definition for other natural hazard events. 00:08:40.199 --> 00:08:42.550 And, again, the metric is not quite as clear as it could be. 00:08:42.550 --> 00:08:45.290 So we could write a clearer definition. We don’t have to. 00:08:45.290 --> 00:08:49.389 And, in fact, although I’m tempted, always, to write my own definitions, 00:08:49.389 --> 00:08:54.480 and here’s one for your consideration, now that it’s in federal statute, 00:08:54.480 --> 00:08:59.470 we ought to not waste too much time quibbling over that kind of definition. 00:08:59.470 --> 00:09:00.850 The important thing is not the sentence. 00:09:00.850 --> 00:09:05.279 It’s the four key ideas – the four components listed here. 00:09:05.279 --> 00:09:09.040 And, in the end, even if you’ve satisfied all those four components about defining 00:09:09.040 --> 00:09:12.640 what resilience is, the next challenge to us is to say, well, what do we do – 00:09:12.640 --> 00:09:15.019 how do we engineer for this? How do we measure this? 00:09:15.019 --> 00:09:17.680 How do we design for it? How can we tell what is resilient 00:09:17.680 --> 00:09:21.069 and what isn’t? That’s where we need to bring this – 00:09:21.069 --> 00:09:26.680 bring this back to our precedents in the engineering world. 00:09:26.680 --> 00:09:31.279 So you might have heard the phrase “deaths, dollars, and downtime” as a – 00:09:31.279 --> 00:09:35.990 kind of a crass way that engineers refer to the categories of earthquake loss. 00:09:35.990 --> 00:09:39.180 If you flip those over, the inverse of deaths of safety. 00:09:39.180 --> 00:09:43.430 The inverse of dollars is repair cost or economy. 00:09:43.430 --> 00:09:47.060 The inverse of downtime is re-occupancy and recovery. 00:09:47.060 --> 00:09:50.060 So these are the attributes of buildings that we now can recognize as 00:09:50.060 --> 00:09:54.759 categories of performance for any piece of the built environment – a building 00:09:54.759 --> 00:09:56.779 or a piece of infrastructure. How do we get this? 00:09:56.780 --> 00:09:58.360 How do we predict this? 00:09:58.360 --> 00:10:01.430 Well, we’re better at predicting this than we’ve ever been because we’re better at 00:10:01.430 --> 00:10:05.249 predicting damage than we’ve ever been. But damage alone does not tell you 00:10:05.249 --> 00:10:08.559 what the safety or the economy is. You need to know something more 00:10:08.559 --> 00:10:12.800 about the use or occupancy of the facility you’re talking about. 00:10:12.800 --> 00:10:16.790 So if we can predict the damage and then add to that information about the use and 00:10:16.790 --> 00:10:21.509 occupancy, then we can predict these performance categories, or these loss – 00:10:21.509 --> 00:10:25.649 and we can make these loss estimates as attributes of individual buildings. 00:10:25.649 --> 00:10:29.440 Now, this is useful. It ties us back to where we’ve been with deaths, dollars, 00:10:29.440 --> 00:10:32.720 and downtime. But it still doesn’t mention the word “resilience.” 00:10:32.720 --> 00:10:37.019 Again, because resilience is, by respectful definition, 00:10:37.019 --> 00:10:40.649 and in coordination with the rest of the community outside of engineering, 00:10:40.649 --> 00:10:43.540 we want to make sure we’re talking about resilience as an attribute of the 00:10:43.540 --> 00:10:47.379 organization or the social unit, not the attribute of an individual building. 00:10:47.379 --> 00:10:52.899 So we have to add to these four measures of loss or measures of performance 00:10:52.899 --> 00:10:56.829 something about those organizational qualities or the social unit qualities. 00:10:56.829 --> 00:11:01.189 And, when we do that, we can get these other terms you may have seen. 00:11:01.189 --> 00:11:04.949 And, finally, there is resilience. Now, this is my diagram. 00:11:04.949 --> 00:11:11.360 It’s my model. And I don’t expect anyone else to adopt the whole thing the way 00:11:11.360 --> 00:11:13.790 it’s shown. And it’s a little bit confusing to read. I understand that. 00:11:13.790 --> 00:11:17.040 But I think it’s very useful for helping us tie what we know as engineers and 00:11:17.040 --> 00:11:20.509 what we’ve been working on as engineers and our paradigms 00:11:20.509 --> 00:11:23.300 into the larger understanding of what resilience is. 00:11:23.300 --> 00:11:27.720 So, as an attribute of an organization, we could be talking about a household, 00:11:27.720 --> 00:11:30.920 a campus, a corporation, a neighborhood. 00:11:30.930 --> 00:11:34.110 When we talk about community resilience, as we do in the NEHRP 00:11:34.110 --> 00:11:37.730 re-authorization, obviously, the organization of interest is the community. 00:11:37.730 --> 00:11:41.240 So we have this diagram now, and the first thing you should notice, of course, 00:11:41.240 --> 00:11:46.949 is that resilience is not just safety-plus. It’s not even on the same line. 00:11:46.949 --> 00:11:50.500 You have to bring in new ideas in order to move from safety to resilience. 00:11:50.500 --> 00:11:54.819 And, as a hint of where we’re going to find ourselves in a couple minutes, 00:11:54.819 --> 00:11:59.420 you can see there’s a – there’s a quality of, you can’t get there from here – from – 00:11:59.420 --> 00:12:03.069 that comes out of a diagram like this that maybe designing for safety 00:12:03.069 --> 00:12:06.949 seems like we’re missing the point. That if resilience is really associated 00:12:06.949 --> 00:12:09.040 with the attributes of buildings or infrastructure, 00:12:09.040 --> 00:12:11.560 it’s about the re-occupancy and recovery. 00:12:11.560 --> 00:12:13.069 So we’re probably going to find ourselves focusing 00:12:13.069 --> 00:12:14.899 there in just a few minutes. 00:12:14.899 --> 00:12:17.899 Here’s an illustration of what we mean by the difference between 00:12:17.899 --> 00:12:20.999 safety and resilience. You probably are familiar with the 00:12:20.999 --> 00:12:25.649 Christchurch earthquake in 2011. Pretty much all of the loss of life 00:12:25.649 --> 00:12:30.430 happened in two concrete buildings, and yet the other buildings adjacent 00:12:30.430 --> 00:12:33.990 to it were shut down for repairs. And the whole neighborhood – 00:12:33.990 --> 00:12:37.670 in fact, the whole Central Business District was closed for well over a year – 00:12:37.670 --> 00:12:43.079 for several years. And it’s still just recovering. So that’s finding yourself 00:12:43.079 --> 00:12:46.449 in a situation where you achieved the goal of safety, but you’re 00:12:46.449 --> 00:12:50.420 not even close to being resilient or recovered. 00:12:50.420 --> 00:12:53.180 So that’s a key difference. One of the other four key components 00:12:53.180 --> 00:12:55.999 was this idea that we’re going to measure this over time. 00:12:55.999 --> 00:12:58.379 So this is a concept called the Resilience Triangle. 00:12:58.380 --> 00:13:02.000 You start with a certain functional level before the earthquake, the earthquake 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:04.800 happens, you lose some function, and then you bounce back. 00:13:04.800 --> 00:13:09.730 And, over time, you achieve – you return to your pre-earthquake 00:13:09.730 --> 00:13:12.449 function or service level. And this is the Resilience Triangle, 00:13:12.449 --> 00:13:15.819 a concept that’s been in our literature for about – at least 20 years. 00:13:15.819 --> 00:13:19.160 Now, you’ll sometimes see it drawn as a triangle, sometimes as a smooth curve. 00:13:19.160 --> 00:13:23.199 It’s actually never a smooth curve at all. There’s lots of milestones along the way. 00:13:23.199 --> 00:13:25.730 At the bottom of the screen, you can see three of those milestones – 00:13:25.730 --> 00:13:29.411 re-occupancy, FR – which we’re going to call functional recovery 00:13:29.411 --> 00:13:32.019 and get to in a minute, and kind of full recovery. 00:13:32.019 --> 00:13:36.619 So the idea is, if you can figure out what the functionality you need to have some 00:13:36.619 --> 00:13:40.589 kind of a basic functional recovery in, let’s say, you’re building, then you can 00:13:40.589 --> 00:13:43.700 talk about the time associated with that. 00:13:43.700 --> 00:13:49.290 So we’re going to begin to talk about resilience and recovery in terms of time. 00:13:49.290 --> 00:13:51.959 And why do we need time at all? Why can’t we just focus on the actual 00:13:51.959 --> 00:13:56.269 loss as a measure of – some percentage of loss from the pre-earthquake level? 00:13:56.269 --> 00:13:59.040 And the reason is because decisions are made over time. 00:13:59.040 --> 00:14:04.800 The same damage means something entirely different if the time to repair 00:14:04.800 --> 00:14:08.300 or recover from it is two days versus two weeks versus two months. 00:14:08.300 --> 00:14:12.089 And, in fact, I think we’re seeing that now, as we go through the pandemic, 00:14:12.089 --> 00:14:15.519 that how much time your business or your housing is closed makes 00:14:15.519 --> 00:14:18.589 a big difference. So we’re going to measure this with time. 00:14:18.589 --> 00:14:21.449 So, to bring this back to engineering, where we’ve been for a generation in 00:14:21.449 --> 00:14:26.879 performance-based engineering is to talk about different performance states or – 00:14:26.879 --> 00:14:31.449 and you can see performance levels. You can see three [audio cuts out] 00:14:31.449 --> 00:14:35.119 be familiar with – operational, life safety, collapse prevention. 00:14:35.119 --> 00:14:39.249 But – and what I say about time – well, to be operational implies 00:14:39.249 --> 00:14:42.750 we want a very, very fast recovery time – maybe even no downtime at all. 00:14:42.750 --> 00:14:46.089 And we need this for, like, a hospital. And that’s what the current code tells us. 00:14:46.089 --> 00:14:48.629 But, if we’re going to start to talk about these other performance levels 00:14:48.629 --> 00:14:51.420 in terms of time, we have to move them down on a timeline. 00:14:51.420 --> 00:14:55.400 Because we can see that, when you’re designing for life safety, 00:14:55.410 --> 00:14:57.510 you’re basically saying nothing about time. 00:14:57.510 --> 00:15:01.019 You’re saying, okay, as a secondary thought, maybe we’ll be able to recover. 00:15:01.019 --> 00:15:04.119 And the problem with this, of course, is that we now see more than ever 00:15:04.119 --> 00:15:07.380 that private businesses can’t be down for more than a couple months, 00:15:07.380 --> 00:15:11.149 or they have problems. And social services that have a special 00:15:11.149 --> 00:15:14.800 role to play after an earthquake or other natural hazard event, they need 00:15:14.800 --> 00:15:19.759 to be recovered within days or weeks. Not everybody has to be as good or as – 00:15:19.759 --> 00:15:23.149 as a fire station or a hospital, but we know that there is some aspect of time 00:15:23.149 --> 00:15:27.740 that we’re missing right now in our current design codes. 00:15:27.740 --> 00:15:30.879 This idea of time is not new, of course. We’ve seen it – but not in the 00:15:30.879 --> 00:15:34.569 engineering field – we’ve seen it in the emergency planning field 00:15:34.569 --> 00:15:37.250 for quite some time. This is from a FEMA document. 00:15:37.250 --> 00:15:40.839 And all it shows is that there’s an understanding that different 00:15:40.839 --> 00:15:43.189 functions and services recover over time. 00:15:43.189 --> 00:15:46.360 We can see this in local plans as well. This is the Emergency Response Plan 00:15:46.360 --> 00:15:50.040 from San Francisco in 2008. And, in a very rough way, 00:15:50.040 --> 00:15:54.360 they identified our goals after a big San Francisco earthquake is we want to 00:15:54.360 --> 00:15:57.369 certain services to be recovered and be available within about a week, 00:15:57.369 --> 00:16:01.300 others within about a month, and others are going to come later. 00:16:01.300 --> 00:16:05.920 So, in 2009, an organization I work with called SPUR – San Francisco 00:16:05.920 --> 00:16:09.540 Planning and Urban Research – took this idea and looked at it 00:16:09.540 --> 00:16:13.149 in a much more granular way and came up with a table like this, 00:16:13.149 --> 00:16:16.899 which lists down the side all the different functions and services that comprise 00:16:16.899 --> 00:16:20.389 what we think of as a community. And then, across the top, a timeline. 00:16:20.389 --> 00:16:23.000 And then you can begin to fill in the boxes to set goals 00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:25.680 or to establish where you want to be, etc. 00:16:25.680 --> 00:16:30.740 Now, a shorter version that’s more readable on the screen looks like this, 00:16:30.740 --> 00:16:34.910 where you can list the services. And then associate with them 00:16:34.910 --> 00:16:37.600 a target recovery time. So we’re building in here the idea 00:16:37.600 --> 00:16:40.619 that we’re going to measure our performance in terms of time. 00:16:40.619 --> 00:16:43.559 And, as a structural engineer, the first thing I see – and other 00:16:43.559 --> 00:16:45.110 structural engineers should notice here – 00:16:45.110 --> 00:16:46.709 is that we’re no longer talking about safety. 00:16:46.709 --> 00:16:50.100 We’re talking about functionality. Not only that, we’re not talking 00:16:50.100 --> 00:16:53.540 about concrete, steel – we’re not talking about the physical structure. 00:16:53.540 --> 00:16:55.720 We’re talking about the use and occupancy. 00:16:55.720 --> 00:16:58.220 So it’s not about safety. It’s about recovery. 00:16:58.220 --> 00:17:01.920 And it’s not about the structure. It’s about the use and occupancy. 00:17:01.930 --> 00:17:06.730 So this concept, or the format, of listing the services down the side 00:17:06.730 --> 00:17:10.620 and a timeline across the top has now become a very accepted understanding – 00:17:10.620 --> 00:17:13.850 and a way of presenting these ideas. This is from the Oregon recovery plan. 00:17:13.850 --> 00:17:15.880 And this is from the state of Washington recovery plan – 00:17:15.880 --> 00:17:18.970 all borrowing from that original idea from SPUR. 00:17:18.970 --> 00:17:21.579 And we see it now in the NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide. 00:17:21.579 --> 00:17:25.720 Again, services down the side, timeline across the top, and then you can fill it in. 00:17:25.720 --> 00:17:29.620 And this now, in one image, represents what we are talking about 00:17:29.620 --> 00:17:33.730 when we talk about a community’s resilience is – can be measured 00:17:33.730 --> 00:17:37.059 in sectors and measured over time. 00:17:37.059 --> 00:17:39.740 So that’s what we’re talking about when we talk about community resilience. 00:17:39.740 --> 00:17:43.370 One final idea about that is that you will still hear the word “resilience” 00:17:43.370 --> 00:17:46.370 thrown around to mean whatever anybody else wants it to mean. 00:17:46.370 --> 00:17:48.190 And sometimes that’s well-intentioned but naive, 00:17:48.190 --> 00:17:53.380 and sometimes it’s disingenuous. My point is that there are a lot of things 00:17:53.380 --> 00:17:58.010 in the world that are really good ideas in regard to earthquake engineering. 00:17:58.010 --> 00:18:01.520 But they are not necessarily resilience. And if we want to be clear and make 00:18:01.520 --> 00:18:05.860 good progress in a clear direction about working on resilience, we need to 00:18:05.860 --> 00:18:09.410 be able to recognize that some things do not have the four key components. 00:18:09.410 --> 00:18:12.640 They’re good ideas. Let’s do them. But we don’t have to call having 00:18:12.640 --> 00:18:16.690 a good idea resilience. If you’re interested in this idea, 00:18:16.690 --> 00:18:19.990 I’ve given a totally separate topic. You can find it by searching online 00:18:19.990 --> 00:18:24.640 in YouTube for EERI and Bonowitz, and you’ll find another presentation that goes 00:18:24.640 --> 00:18:29.960 into my many minutes of griping about all the misuse of the word “resilience.” 00:18:29.960 --> 00:18:32.240 But the four key components are here. 00:18:32.240 --> 00:18:36.110 So if we’re talking about these four things, we’re talking about resilience. 00:18:36.110 --> 00:18:41.390 So the other – the second idea in the title was functional recovery – 00:18:41.390 --> 00:18:43.540 or, here, just abbreviated to recovery. 00:18:43.540 --> 00:18:47.360 And, again, our traditional design path – what we’ve been designing for safety, 00:18:47.370 --> 00:18:51.940 and that’s been the paradigm written into building codes and standards for years 00:18:51.940 --> 00:18:55.551 is taking us in a very useful direction, but it’s not the direction that’s most 00:18:55.551 --> 00:18:58.789 convenient for getting to resilience. We probably want – if we’re going to 00:18:58.789 --> 00:19:03.289 take advantage of the new interest in resilience, to shift our design focus 00:19:03.289 --> 00:19:06.000 and take a different design path where we put more emphasis 00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:09.260 on designing for recovery. 00:19:09.260 --> 00:19:12.470 So this idea was then developed and written up in a whitepaper 00:19:12.470 --> 00:19:16.450 by EERI published last year. I was one of the authors on it. 00:19:16.450 --> 00:19:19.630 And if you just look at the title of the slide, there’s a useful analogy there, 00:19:19.630 --> 00:19:23.260 that, when we talk about community resilience, or rather community resilience 00:19:23.260 --> 00:19:28.049 is to the community as functional recovery is to the individual building 00:19:28.049 --> 00:19:30.809 or piece of infrastructure. So that’s a useful analogy. 00:19:30.809 --> 00:19:33.679 It’s not perfect, but it’s useful to keep in mind, and you’re going to 00:19:33.680 --> 00:19:37.400 see that link in this paper which makes this point. 00:19:37.400 --> 00:19:42.380 Functional recovery is the link between design provisions applied to individual 00:19:42.380 --> 00:19:45.960 buildings and community resilience, which is holistic and measured at 00:19:45.960 --> 00:19:52.220 a broader scale. We can illustrate that same idea with a very useful grid. 00:19:52.220 --> 00:19:54.580 I don’t know anything about the Meister Consultants Group except that 00:19:54.580 --> 00:20:01.000 they came up with format for showing – for plotting the different ideas and 00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:04.820 documents, programs, plans, that were all emerging in the last decade 00:20:04.830 --> 00:20:10.519 or so claiming to be about resilience. And they had the very useful thought 00:20:10.519 --> 00:20:13.289 that, well, let’s see if we can either relate these to each other or distinguish 00:20:13.289 --> 00:20:16.700 them in some meaningful way. And they came up with this grid where, 00:20:16.700 --> 00:20:20.230 on the vertical axis, starting at the top, is the technical side. 00:20:20.230 --> 00:20:23.110 And that’s about the physical stuff that we design – the structure, 00:20:23.110 --> 00:20:26.139 the nonstructural components. And at the bottom are the more holistic 00:20:26.139 --> 00:20:30.440 understanding of the uses of a piece of infrastructure or the services being 00:20:30.440 --> 00:20:33.899 delivered, the function, and the purpose. And then, on the horizontal axis, 00:20:33.899 --> 00:20:39.100 we can go from programs, ideas, codes, designs that are about 00:20:39.100 --> 00:20:42.460 one facility on the left, to something that’s more 00:20:42.460 --> 00:20:46.919 community-minded or broader on the right. 00:20:46.919 --> 00:20:51.919 So where are we? The definition of community resilience 00:20:51.919 --> 00:20:54.340 that I showed before from the NEHRP reauthorization, I put that 00:20:54.340 --> 00:20:57.519 in a category called Thinking. It’s very broad. It’s very vague. 00:20:57.519 --> 00:21:03.779 It’s important and useful, but it’s kind of vague and holistic, and it’s 00:21:03.779 --> 00:21:07.010 definitely at the community level. So it belongs, in a very useful way, 00:21:07.010 --> 00:21:10.270 down in the bottom-right quadrant of this grid. 00:21:10.270 --> 00:21:13.860 And the problem, of course, is that we do most of our design up here. 00:21:13.860 --> 00:21:16.779 It’s much more technical. Applied to one building at a time. 00:21:16.779 --> 00:21:21.950 That’s just the way our historic use – historic design practice has been. 00:21:21.950 --> 00:21:25.380 And the challenge to us is going to be, can we relate these two things. 00:21:25.380 --> 00:21:27.780 I think we can. 00:21:27.789 --> 00:21:31.919 But it’s going to give us lessons about how we go forward in both directions. 00:21:31.919 --> 00:21:33.910 It works in both directions. 00:21:33.910 --> 00:21:37.179 From an engineering perspective, if all we have is that kind of 00:21:37.179 --> 00:21:40.950 fuzzy thinking about what community resilience is, it really doesn’t mean 00:21:40.950 --> 00:21:44.780 anything to us as engineers until we can translate it into something that 00:21:44.780 --> 00:21:48.850 we can apply in a technical way, in a defined way, to a project. 00:21:48.850 --> 00:21:52.419 At the same time, as we develop building codes, and here – these are 00:21:52.419 --> 00:21:57.529 the engineers working in the top left, we have to be cognizant of the idea 00:21:57.529 --> 00:22:01.600 that resilience is broader than just that one building technical design. 00:22:01.600 --> 00:22:04.770 So, as we develop our new codes, we want to make sure that we’re 00:22:04.770 --> 00:22:09.399 doing it in such a way that this new resilience-based code or standard, 00:22:09.399 --> 00:22:12.269 when applied in the aggregate, will actually make a meaningful 00:22:12.269 --> 00:22:17.659 contribution to community resilience in a holistic community broad way. 00:22:17.659 --> 00:22:22.090 So that’s going to be the challenge to us. And we can replace those specific ideas 00:22:22.090 --> 00:22:26.270 with the broader idea that functional recovery is about the building, 00:22:26.270 --> 00:22:31.160 and community resilience is about the community and is more holistic. 00:22:31.160 --> 00:22:36.620 So, as Keith mentioned earlier on, that FEMA and NIST, in part of the 00:22:36.620 --> 00:22:39.650 NEHRP reauthorization, charged FEMA and NIST to put 00:22:39.650 --> 00:22:43.769 together a committee of experts, so-called, to write a report talking 00:22:43.769 --> 00:22:48.210 about how to improve the functional recovery and re-occupancy 00:22:48.210 --> 00:22:49.500 of the built environment. 00:22:49.500 --> 00:22:52.200 I was a member of that committee. We’ve submitted our report to 00:22:52.200 --> 00:22:54.881 FEMA and NIST. If all goes according to plan, they should 00:22:54.881 --> 00:22:57.940 be tweaking it in whatever way they need to and then submitting 00:22:57.940 --> 00:23:02.320 that to Congress, I think by July 1st. 00:23:02.320 --> 00:23:05.789 So that’s out of our hands by now, but part of that work that we did over 00:23:05.789 --> 00:23:10.330 the last year was to actually have to write a definition for functional recovery. 00:23:10.330 --> 00:23:13.180 There were some precedents for this, but in the end, we ended up here. 00:23:13.180 --> 00:23:15.889 And here, the ellipses show where I’m not talking about infrastructure. 00:23:15.889 --> 00:23:18.630 Of course, that’s just as important. But if we focus on buildings, 00:23:18.630 --> 00:23:22.450 it now reads as, functional recovery – a post-earthquake performance state 00:23:22.450 --> 00:23:25.789 in which a building is maintained or restored to support the basic intended 00:23:25.789 --> 00:23:28.940 functions associated with the pre-earthquake use or occupancy. 00:23:28.940 --> 00:23:32.429 So we can now check this against the four key ideas. 00:23:32.429 --> 00:23:34.830 Is it focused on natural hazards? Yes. 00:23:34.830 --> 00:23:37.820 Is it focused on function, not just safety? Yes. 00:23:37.820 --> 00:23:40.389 Is it the attribute of an organization? No. 00:23:40.389 --> 00:23:42.340 Now we’ve shifted over to functional recovery. 00:23:42.340 --> 00:23:45.019 It’s the attribute of an individual building. 00:23:45.019 --> 00:23:47.850 And then, where is that element of time? That’s not shown here yet. 00:23:47.850 --> 00:23:50.779 And that’s because we borrowed a concept from performance-based 00:23:50.779 --> 00:23:55.509 engineering where you separately define the performance state, shown here, 00:23:55.509 --> 00:23:58.780 and then add to it your level of acceptability, or what you’re 00:23:58.780 --> 00:24:02.070 shooting for, in a separate definition, which we now call 00:24:02.070 --> 00:24:06.759 the functional recovery objective. And that is achieving functional recovery 00:24:06.759 --> 00:24:09.830 within an acceptable time following the specified earthquake. 00:24:09.830 --> 00:24:13.660 So that’s where we plug in the hazard level of interest. And where 00:24:13.660 --> 00:24:17.279 the acceptable time might differ for various building uses and occupancies. 00:24:17.279 --> 00:24:21.570 So there’s the idea of time being built in, and now we have the four ideas, except 00:24:21.570 --> 00:24:25.600 with the distinction that resilience was about the community or the organization, 00:24:25.600 --> 00:24:28.100 and recovery is now something we’re going to design for in 00:24:28.100 --> 00:24:31.230 the physical component. So here you see that relationship again. 00:24:31.230 --> 00:24:35.070 This is what we’re trying to achieve and what the whitepaper by EERI was about. 00:24:35.070 --> 00:24:37.870 And that became a useful reference document for the 00:24:37.870 --> 00:24:41.180 NIST/FEMA report now about to go to Congress. 00:24:42.130 --> 00:24:46.020 In the paper, the other thing we wanted to focus on was, okay, if we’ve identified 00:24:46.039 --> 00:24:49.690 this idea, and everyone has bought into that, where do we go from here? 00:24:49.690 --> 00:24:52.760 What happens next? How are we going to develop this idea in a useful way? 00:24:52.760 --> 00:24:58.320 And we identified four different areas of inquiry or study or concepts 00:24:58.320 --> 00:25:00.780 or issues that we are going to have to work out. 00:25:00.780 --> 00:25:03.690 They’re all going to be related. You can imagine that. 00:25:03.690 --> 00:25:08.190 And you can imagine how challenging it’s going to be to do this. 00:25:08.190 --> 00:25:12.470 In particular, a point that the paper makes is that we know that different groups 00:25:12.470 --> 00:25:18.460 of people work on these different areas and that it’s really tempting, 00:25:18.460 --> 00:25:23.039 or it’s paralyzing, sometimes, if you’re the engineer saying, 00:25:23.039 --> 00:25:25.740 well, we can’t write the technical documents until we know 00:25:25.740 --> 00:25:27.751 what the policy is going to be. Or we know how it’s 00:25:27.751 --> 00:25:30.769 going be implemented. Or, we can’t write the policy 00:25:30.769 --> 00:25:33.490 until we know exactly what the definitions are. 00:25:33.490 --> 00:25:36.690 So you can see how it’s going to be easy to get paralyzed. 00:25:36.690 --> 00:25:39.029 And the point that the paper makes is, don’t do that. 00:25:39.029 --> 00:25:42.279 Go forward. Make some progress. Don’t worry. 00:25:42.279 --> 00:25:44.610 The other – the other three areas are going to catch up, and we’re going to 00:25:44.610 --> 00:25:49.230 get them coordinated as we go. But if we wait for all the ducks in a row 00:25:49.230 --> 00:25:52.850 outside of our area to be in line, we’re never going to make any progress. 00:25:52.850 --> 00:25:56.860 So all the groups that have been working on earthquake-based design – 00:25:56.860 --> 00:26:00.320 earthquake-resistant design for years should keep going. 00:26:00.330 --> 00:26:03.590 We should understand the new ideas and the new definitions, but that shouldn’t 00:26:03.590 --> 00:26:08.179 stop us from trying to make progress with each of the individual areas. 00:26:08.179 --> 00:26:11.700 So we’ll spend a little time looking at what these four issue areas are. 00:26:11.700 --> 00:26:14.120 And here is where we can see the number of questions that are going to 00:26:14.120 --> 00:26:17.240 be challenging and a lot of fun to think about as we go on. 00:26:17.240 --> 00:26:20.039 The first is, what do we mean by functional recovery? 00:26:20.039 --> 00:26:24.289 What are those basic intended functions in that definition of functional recovery? 00:26:24.289 --> 00:26:27.310 So you remember this diagram where I showed that – well, there’s re-occupancy. 00:26:27.310 --> 00:26:31.080 That’s pretty easy to define. Full recovery – that’s pretty easy to define. 00:26:31.080 --> 00:26:34.700 [chuckles] We picked the hardest one to focus on – functional recovery. 00:26:34.700 --> 00:26:36.370 Because we don’t know exactly what this means. 00:26:36.370 --> 00:26:39.580 But that’s the question is, what does it mean to be functionally recovered 00:26:39.580 --> 00:26:42.830 for a given building? Is it different for different buildings? 00:26:42.830 --> 00:26:46.220 So when I presented this talk the first time in March at the national conference, 00:26:46.220 --> 00:26:48.300 I gave this example. We were all sitting in the 00:26:48.300 --> 00:26:52.779 conference room at the Sheraton Conference Center in San Diego. 00:26:52.779 --> 00:26:55.259 And the question is, okay, what does it mean for this facility 00:26:55.259 --> 00:26:56.870 to be functionally recovered? 00:26:56.870 --> 00:27:00.049 If the conference center is ready but the hotel is not, does that count? 00:27:00.049 --> 00:27:03.789 If the hotel is ready, but the conference center is not, does that count? 00:27:03.789 --> 00:27:09.049 Even if you separate out the multiple uses, if I have some hotel rooms ready 00:27:09.049 --> 00:27:11.960 to be used, and others not, because maybe that whole wing 00:27:11.960 --> 00:27:15.769 to the right is down for repairs, or maybe the elevators – 00:27:15.769 --> 00:27:19.659 only a couple of them are available. Or maybe I have the kitchen, or I don’t, 00:27:19.659 --> 00:27:23.470 or the fitness center or the business center as opposed to the rooms. 00:27:23.470 --> 00:27:26.019 What exactly are the functions of this building? 00:27:26.019 --> 00:27:29.080 And you can see it goes way beyond the structure to think about 00:27:29.080 --> 00:27:31.559 the use in a very holistic way. We are we trying to – what does 00:27:31.559 --> 00:27:34.320 it mean to have a functioning hotel? 00:27:34.320 --> 00:27:36.919 So that’s the definitional question. And I would encourage you to 00:27:36.919 --> 00:27:39.500 go through the same kind of thought experiment with whatever building 00:27:39.500 --> 00:27:43.840 you happen to be sitting in now, or where you work or do your shopping. 00:27:43.840 --> 00:27:46.620 Here’s where I’m sitting. So you can see the same 00:27:46.640 --> 00:27:50.060 questions can apply here. It’s a residential building. 00:27:50.060 --> 00:27:53.120 It’s got two commercial uses in the ground floor – a nail salon 00:27:53.120 --> 00:27:56.659 and a doughnut shop. And what does it mean for this 00:27:56.659 --> 00:27:59.010 building to be functionally recovered? Would it mean something different 00:27:59.010 --> 00:28:02.220 if this was a rental building as opposed to a condo? 00:28:02.220 --> 00:28:04.960 So those are the questions we have to go through. 00:28:04.960 --> 00:28:07.389 And then we call those the definitional area. 00:28:07.389 --> 00:28:12.159 The second issue area is about the policy. Once we have sorted out, or even 00:28:12.159 --> 00:28:15.250 while we’re sorting out, those definitions, the question is, 00:28:15.250 --> 00:28:17.350 what should the acceptable recovery time be? 00:28:17.350 --> 00:28:21.870 For a given building about to be designed, what goal should we set? 00:28:21.870 --> 00:28:24.919 Should we imagine that the use is going to change over the lifetime 00:28:24.919 --> 00:28:27.450 of that building? Maybe the answer is going to 00:28:27.450 --> 00:28:30.049 be different depending on the existing building stock that’s 00:28:30.049 --> 00:28:33.730 already there in a given city. So those are some of the questions, 00:28:33.730 --> 00:28:38.840 we think, in a short-term or interim way, at least, we can borrow from and 00:28:38.840 --> 00:28:42.390 make an analogy to what’s in the building code now? 00:28:42.390 --> 00:28:45.470 If you’re familiar with the building code, anytime a new building is designed, 00:28:45.470 --> 00:28:50.200 you look up in Table 1604.5 what the use of that building is. 00:28:50.200 --> 00:28:54.250 And it gets assigned to a risk category. Now, this is primarily about safety, 00:28:54.250 --> 00:28:58.740 but there are four risk categories, and you can imagine that, if we were to 00:28:58.740 --> 00:29:02.110 develop a recovery-based building code, it could take the same approach 00:29:02.110 --> 00:29:06.409 in a very broad way. You can imagine that – not exactly 00:29:06.409 --> 00:29:10.220 the same list of uses, but you can imagine a table that would say, 00:29:10.220 --> 00:29:13.330 we’re going to put you in a certain recovery category where the acceptable 00:29:13.330 --> 00:29:17.870 recovery time is, let’s say, less than one month or less than one week, 00:29:17.870 --> 00:29:22.500 based on the use of that building. So this analogy is available to us. 00:29:22.500 --> 00:29:27.649 But picking these acceptable recovery times is a policy question. 00:29:27.649 --> 00:29:31.260 And, as a policy question, we know it’s going to be, hopefully, 00:29:31.260 --> 00:29:34.350 guided by social science, but it’s also normative. 00:29:34.350 --> 00:29:37.490 Meaning it’s going to reflect the preferences of the community. 00:29:37.490 --> 00:29:41.259 So we know that that’s happening, but that’s going to be one of the exercises, 00:29:41.259 --> 00:29:44.160 and it’s going to be up to the whole community to set that type of policy 00:29:44.160 --> 00:29:48.620 in the same way that, even the current building code, this is not necessarily 00:29:48.620 --> 00:29:53.090 all engineers making decisions about assigning buildings to categories. 00:29:53.090 --> 00:29:58.919 The question about being city-specific, here’s a [audio cuts out] San Francisco, 00:29:58.919 --> 00:30:01.610 and there’s another one. And I focused on these because 00:30:01.610 --> 00:30:06.360 tourism and the hotel industry is really important to San Francisco’s economy. 00:30:06.360 --> 00:30:10.679 So, if San Francisco is thinking about its recovery as a community, does it maybe 00:30:10.679 --> 00:30:15.070 want to give special attention to hotels and to the tourism industry? Maybe. 00:30:15.070 --> 00:30:18.460 And maybe that would be less true elsewhere. 00:30:18.460 --> 00:30:23.669 Maybe other jurisdictions would have particular uses that are of 00:30:23.669 --> 00:30:27.000 special importance to them. That’s an open question about the policy. 00:30:27.000 --> 00:30:32.350 Finally, we move into the technical issue area, that if someone could 00:30:32.350 --> 00:30:37.789 tell you that you’re going to design for a functional recovery time of one week, 00:30:37.789 --> 00:30:40.519 how would you do that? How would you demonstrate it? 00:30:40.519 --> 00:30:42.679 What code would you rely on? How would you prove it to 00:30:42.679 --> 00:30:45.110 the building official? How would you prove it to yourself? 00:30:45.110 --> 00:30:48.769 Do we have the criteria that we feel comfortable will give us a building 00:30:48.769 --> 00:30:52.370 with a certain functional recovery time? That’s the technical question. 00:30:52.370 --> 00:30:56.889 And part of that, of course, is about picking the ground motion to go with it. 00:30:56.889 --> 00:31:00.010 So we think that a useful – again, we have an analogy from 00:31:00.010 --> 00:31:03.260 performance-based engineering, which we currently use for safety. 00:31:03.260 --> 00:31:07.580 And we can write a performance objective in a very technical way. 00:31:07.580 --> 00:31:10.039 And we kind of do this. You won’t find this in the building code, 00:31:10.039 --> 00:31:14.210 but in the background documents, you’ll see performance-based objectives 00:31:14.210 --> 00:31:18.259 can be written in a way like this. The probability of collapse – that’s how 00:31:18.259 --> 00:31:23.809 we measure safety is that it’s a proxy – collapse is a proxy for safety. 00:31:23.809 --> 00:31:28.340 The probability of collapse should be small, given your design earthquake, 00:31:28.340 --> 00:31:31.799 which, as you know, is two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake. 00:31:31.799 --> 00:31:34.970 So that’s a safety-based objective. We can write it in a formal way like this. 00:31:34.970 --> 00:31:38.539 So, by analogy, we can do the same thing for functional recovery. 00:31:38.540 --> 00:31:41.800 The probability that your expected recovery time will be longer than 00:31:41.800 --> 00:31:45.580 the acceptable recovery time – that’s a bad thing – so the probability of that 00:31:45.580 --> 00:31:48.960 bad thing should also be small. Maybe not the same percentage 00:31:48.970 --> 00:31:53.970 as for safety, but some number, again, given a design hazard. 00:31:53.970 --> 00:31:57.629 And maybe the design hazard will be the same – two-thirds MCE – 00:31:57.629 --> 00:32:00.820 maybe it won’t. But it’s open-ended. You can see the things that have to 00:32:00.820 --> 00:32:04.130 be plugged in here then. So we’re going to need to set the hazard level. 00:32:04.130 --> 00:32:08.580 And then, for any given acceptable recovery time, we’re going to have to 00:32:08.580 --> 00:32:13.020 define, in a code or in standard, what exactly you have to do – the steps you 00:32:13.020 --> 00:32:18.240 have to go through to show that you’ve achieved that acceptable recovery time. 00:32:18.240 --> 00:32:20.659 What we’re saying, then, if you remember back to this slide, 00:32:20.659 --> 00:32:23.110 is that we already have an understanding in engineering 00:32:23.110 --> 00:32:26.009 about operational performance versus life safety performance. 00:32:26.009 --> 00:32:28.049 And we had nothing in the gap. 00:32:28.049 --> 00:32:31.440 So answering the technical question to develop the concept 00:32:31.440 --> 00:32:35.340 of functional recovery means coming up with criteria to fill this gap. 00:32:35.340 --> 00:32:38.649 Now, we have a way that we do that in the engineering world. 00:32:38.649 --> 00:32:42.870 Several of you are probably participating, or at least aware of, the NEHRP 00:32:42.870 --> 00:32:48.249 provisions, which become the basis as a resource document for the national 00:32:48.249 --> 00:32:53.440 design standard ASCE 7, which becomes the basis for the building code. 00:32:53.440 --> 00:32:55.790 So we have a model by which we develop these things. 00:32:55.790 --> 00:33:00.049 And, for the forthcoming NEHRP provisions, a number of us were asked 00:33:00.049 --> 00:33:04.679 to write a resource paper describing how a resilience-based code might 00:33:04.679 --> 00:33:08.940 be developed in future cycles. So that’s what this paper is about. 00:33:08.940 --> 00:33:13.799 It’s available now. And we had the input of Nico Luco 00:33:13.799 --> 00:33:18.389 representing USGS and, of course, anybody involved on the provisions 00:33:18.389 --> 00:33:22.650 update committee from the BSSC will have seen this. 00:33:22.650 --> 00:33:25.929 One of the things that the paper recommends is that, okay, we could 00:33:25.929 --> 00:33:30.049 write a whole brand-new standard about functional recovery starting from scratch. 00:33:30.049 --> 00:33:32.340 But it would probably – even if we wanted to do that, would probably 00:33:32.340 --> 00:33:34.900 borrow from some ideas that we already have in there. 00:33:34.900 --> 00:33:39.019 I mean, that’s the idea of risk category and seismic design category. 00:33:39.019 --> 00:33:43.909 So the idea is, if we can take the current design strategies that we already use 00:33:43.909 --> 00:33:49.610 and are familiar with, can we associate them with certain recovery times by 00:33:49.610 --> 00:33:52.909 consensus, which is the way we work to develop codes and standards, 00:33:52.909 --> 00:33:56.440 in a way that we can say, if you do the following things, we’ll grant you 00:33:56.440 --> 00:34:00.380 that we think you’re acceptable – your recovery time is going to be acceptable. 00:34:00.380 --> 00:34:03.080 So we have a number of categories of strategies we already use – 00:34:03.080 --> 00:34:06.799 structural, nonstructural stuff – that’s in the building code now. 00:34:06.799 --> 00:34:09.100 At the bottom – the two yellow arrows at the bottom are interesting 00:34:09.100 --> 00:34:14.399 because we don’t currently design most buildings to consider the contents 00:34:14.400 --> 00:34:17.820 and what’s inside that. And that could be equipment, furniture, etc. 00:34:17.820 --> 00:34:20.900 If it’s not a permanent part of the building, usually it gets ignored. 00:34:20.909 --> 00:34:23.690 But if we want to think about real recovery of certain uses, 00:34:23.690 --> 00:34:26.490 we’re going to have to think about some of those contents. 00:34:26.490 --> 00:34:31.530 In addition, of course, we want to think about infrastructure, which is not thought 00:34:31.530 --> 00:34:35.390 about in the building code right now except for Risk Category 4 buildings. 00:34:35.390 --> 00:34:38.130 And, even then, the whole thing is, well, you have to provide 00:34:38.130 --> 00:34:41.730 your own emergency backups. But, in concept, if we have these 00:34:41.730 --> 00:34:45.280 categories, and we have design strategies that we know are effective right now, 00:34:45.280 --> 00:34:49.629 if we can begin to associate those with recovery times, maybe we 00:34:49.629 --> 00:34:53.800 would say something like this. And this is very conceptual, that if you’re 00:34:53.800 --> 00:34:57.960 shooting for an acceptable recovery time of one day, you have to do certain things. 00:34:57.960 --> 00:35:01.119 And if you’re – only you’re – shooting for one week or one month, 00:35:01.119 --> 00:35:03.410 maybe you have to do less. So that’s a way that we begin to 00:35:03.410 --> 00:35:08.329 fill in this gap between immediate and eventually is by associating 00:35:08.329 --> 00:35:11.710 our current design strategies with different acceptable recovery times. 00:35:11.710 --> 00:35:15.700 Again, I highlight the bottom category about infrastructure. 00:35:15.700 --> 00:35:19.240 That’s one kind of externality. Here’s an example from the 00:35:19.240 --> 00:35:23.260 Napa earthquake you might remember. It’s a pizza place in Napa, and if you 00:35:23.260 --> 00:35:26.750 look closely, you can see the red, yellow, and green tags on the door. 00:35:26.750 --> 00:35:29.480 Why there are three different tags is an interesting question, and it’s partly 00:35:29.480 --> 00:35:32.710 because of what’s happening behind. Here’s the note on the door from 00:35:32.710 --> 00:35:35.640 the owner. The building is safe. The retrofit worked. 00:35:35.640 --> 00:35:38.290 We are closed only because of the building behind us. 00:35:38.290 --> 00:35:42.380 So if we’re thinking about externalities, and if we’re thinking about recovery 00:35:42.380 --> 00:35:46.150 in this broader way, we may have to think outside the footprint of 00:35:46.150 --> 00:35:49.780 the building to those externalities. Infrastructure is a big one. 00:35:49.780 --> 00:35:51.660 Adjacent buildings are another. 00:35:51.660 --> 00:35:54.420 And the fourth category – and I won’t spend any time on this unless you 00:35:54.420 --> 00:35:58.329 want to talk about it in Q-and-A – are all the logistical questions of, 00:35:58.329 --> 00:36:01.990 you’re rolling out a new thing, what kind of training do we need? 00:36:01.990 --> 00:36:05.700 Is your license going to cover it? Those are implementation questions 00:36:05.700 --> 00:36:08.420 as well. They have to be dealt with now, but we hope they 00:36:08.420 --> 00:36:11.140 won’t interfere with progress on the other three. 00:36:11.140 --> 00:36:13.630 So there’s four ways for all of us to participate. 00:36:13.630 --> 00:36:16.359 And by all of us, I mean you and me and anyone 00:36:16.359 --> 00:36:19.570 who’s interested in this – EERI members. 00:36:19.570 --> 00:36:25.560 And it all starts now. So I’ve lain out here a vision. 00:36:25.560 --> 00:36:28.600 It’s a little bit ambitious, but if we start now, we can 00:36:28.609 --> 00:36:33.160 do some things in the first year. Some things are ready and ripe, 00:36:33.160 --> 00:36:37.780 and we can roll them out as soon as the decision-makers are interested. 00:36:37.780 --> 00:36:42.100 And then – those include just meeting with voluntary efforts. 00:36:42.110 --> 00:36:45.500 We can do that. Now, you may be sticking your neck out, but we know 00:36:45.500 --> 00:36:49.260 that we’re already seeing developers who are interested in this idea. 00:36:49.260 --> 00:36:53.619 And the leading design practitioners can help them, and we can do that right now. 00:36:53.619 --> 00:36:55.660 In fact, it’s already being done. 00:36:55.660 --> 00:36:58.819 If we do that, we’ll develop best practices. We’ll develop examples. 00:36:58.819 --> 00:37:01.380 We’ll write conference papers and make presentations, and people will 00:37:01.380 --> 00:37:05.500 see that it’s feasible, and that will make it easier for followers to follow. 00:37:05.500 --> 00:37:09.910 Meanwhile, while that’s happening, we can start the process of turning 00:37:09.910 --> 00:37:14.109 this into a technical standard so that, in 10 years, we have 00:37:14.109 --> 00:37:18.430 maybe routine use of a resilience-based building code. 00:37:18.430 --> 00:37:23.460 In fact, by routine, I mean it’ll be so – it’ll be transparent. 00:37:23.460 --> 00:37:26.559 You won’t even know you’re doing it. It’ll be in the same way you use the 00:37:26.559 --> 00:37:30.420 building code now, designing for safety. You don’t see the word “safety” or 00:37:30.420 --> 00:37:32.730 probability of collapse in the building code, and you probably won’t see 00:37:32.730 --> 00:37:35.420 the same thing with recovery. But we will have gone through 00:37:35.420 --> 00:37:40.619 the effort to translate our design practice into these other new terms. 00:37:40.619 --> 00:37:44.400 Once we have that, it makes it easy to be adopted into national policies 00:37:44.400 --> 00:37:48.920 like FEMA disaster assistance plans. 00:37:48.920 --> 00:37:51.119 Now, the 10-year stuff here takes a long time. 00:37:51.119 --> 00:37:52.859 That doesn’t mean it starts 10 years from now. 00:37:52.859 --> 00:37:58.030 It means, if we start now, we can be done in 10 years. But it does have to start now. 00:37:58.030 --> 00:38:00.480 So here’s eight ideas. I’m going to blow through them 00:38:00.480 --> 00:38:03.359 very quickly in the interest of time. They’re color-coded to match 00:38:03.359 --> 00:38:08.310 that one-year, five-year, 10-year timeline I’ve laid out. 00:38:08.310 --> 00:38:11.579 First one – voluntary work. We have examples now of projects 00:38:11.579 --> 00:38:16.000 that are being designed explicitly and intentionally for fast recovery time, 00:38:16.000 --> 00:38:20.410 or at least for defined recovery time. And these provide best practices 00:38:20.410 --> 00:38:23.690 that are available for engineers to look at and follow. 00:38:23.690 --> 00:38:27.510 And they show us the feasibility. They change the terms of performance 00:38:27.510 --> 00:38:29.589 and the way we talk with our clients about it. 00:38:29.589 --> 00:38:32.510 And they give us examples. And they force the engineers, 00:38:32.510 --> 00:38:35.890 who are doing this work, to think through that process. 00:38:35.890 --> 00:38:38.280 And that’s where these ideas are going to develop from. 00:38:38.280 --> 00:38:41.760 We haven’t talked a whole lot about re-occupancy so far, but this comes up 00:38:41.760 --> 00:38:47.280 in the context of what we can do as well. It’s very hard to retrofit an existing 00:38:47.280 --> 00:38:51.150 collapse-prone building for fast recovery. What we can do, however, 00:38:51.150 --> 00:38:56.250 is retrofit it for re-occupancy. So, as we think about goals, 00:38:56.250 --> 00:38:58.351 we may want to limit ourselves when we’re talking about the 00:38:58.351 --> 00:39:00.589 existing building stock. But it goes back to this example 00:39:00.589 --> 00:39:04.290 I showed just a couple minutes ago that, if we’re really thinking about retrofitting 00:39:04.290 --> 00:39:07.130 for re-occupancy, we ought to – we need, maybe, to think about 00:39:07.130 --> 00:39:09.370 some things we haven’t traditionally thought about. 00:39:09.370 --> 00:39:13.160 So there’s two things we can voluntarily do with our clients right now. 00:39:13.160 --> 00:39:16.960 And I’ve linked them now up to the four issue areas. 00:39:16.960 --> 00:39:20.100 Because these would be voluntary, there’s really no policy development 00:39:20.100 --> 00:39:23.050 or implementation. It’s just going to fall on the particular 00:39:23.050 --> 00:39:26.440 projects to define for themselves what it is they want to do. 00:39:26.440 --> 00:39:30.890 But, as we can now turn that into policy, moving into a few years from now, 00:39:30.890 --> 00:39:33.849 we’ll see that we’re going to need something like a resilience-based 00:39:33.849 --> 00:39:37.609 inventory, and then we can go to some planning and policymaking 00:39:37.609 --> 00:39:40.740 that will implement these ideas. What do I mean by resilience-based 00:39:40.740 --> 00:39:44.080 inventory? I showed you this concept of the hotels in San Francisco 00:39:44.090 --> 00:39:48.200 and why they might be important. We can do that with any occupancy type. 00:39:48.200 --> 00:39:52.950 Here’s housing. It could be multi-family housing, single-family housing. 00:39:52.950 --> 00:39:56.250 Wood frame is most of our housing, but it’s not the only housing we have. 00:39:56.250 --> 00:39:59.900 And when we begin to think about buildings in terms of their uses, 00:39:59.900 --> 00:40:03.010 not in terms of their structure type, it becomes clear that, well, 00:40:03.010 --> 00:40:06.290 this steel-frame building is also housing, and concrete buildings are also housing. 00:40:06.290 --> 00:40:11.620 So, again, the focus is on the function, not on the structure type. 00:40:11.620 --> 00:40:16.560 So, if we have that perspective, that tells us a different way to do our inventory. 00:40:16.560 --> 00:40:20.020 Instead of focusing just on vulnerable structure types, as we traditionally have 00:40:20.020 --> 00:40:24.420 done, we want to start with the recovery-critical uses and occupancies. 00:40:24.420 --> 00:40:26.780 And we also want to get the denominators so we can show them 00:40:26.780 --> 00:40:30.579 in context. Now, I submit that, if every jurisdiction just had – 00:40:30.579 --> 00:40:34.670 filled in a chart like this, we would have an enormous amount of really 00:40:34.670 --> 00:40:39.579 great resilience-based data that will help us make policy decisions going forward. 00:40:39.579 --> 00:40:43.150 And the key ideas here are, there’s that list of functions down the side. 00:40:43.150 --> 00:40:45.990 We’ve seen that. So it’s not just about the structure type. 00:40:45.990 --> 00:40:49.230 The structure type is across the top. These are all those vulnerable structure 00:40:49.230 --> 00:40:52.940 types that we, as engineers, know about. Your soft story and unreinforced 00:40:52.940 --> 00:40:56.140 masonry, nonductile concrete – you’ve heard of these too. 00:40:56.140 --> 00:40:58.570 Importantly, at the far right is the “other.” 00:40:58.570 --> 00:41:00.650 That’s what I mean about getting the denominator. 00:41:00.650 --> 00:41:05.300 We have to know how many buildings we’re talking about in a context of the 00:41:05.300 --> 00:41:09.760 overall community so we can begin to make some priorities. 00:41:09.760 --> 00:41:13.060 If we take a shorter version of that grid I just showed you, 00:41:13.060 --> 00:41:15.400 we can look at it like this. Here’s the functional – 00:41:15.400 --> 00:41:17.300 recovery-critical functions down the side, 00:41:17.300 --> 00:41:18.920 the vulnerable structure types across the top. 00:41:18.920 --> 00:41:22.440 And, for a given jurisdiction, if we do this inventory right, 00:41:22.440 --> 00:41:26.559 it’s going to reveal some things to us that are not just the worst buildings – 00:41:26.559 --> 00:41:29.680 the URMs – or the most urgent buildings – the hospitals. 00:41:29.680 --> 00:41:34.450 That’s where we’ve done all of our work at the edges of this grid traditionally. 00:41:34.450 --> 00:41:37.829 But if we do a resilience-based inventory, we can begin to see combinations out 00:41:37.829 --> 00:41:41.829 in the field of this chart, some of which are really critical. 00:41:41.829 --> 00:41:43.970 And this kind of thinking is why San Francisco has 00:41:43.970 --> 00:41:46.720 a mandatory soft story retrofit ordinance. 00:41:46.720 --> 00:41:50.970 Because it’s thinking about the loss of housing, not thinking about what’s going 00:41:50.970 --> 00:41:55.790 to kill people or what we need in the emergency response phase. 00:41:55.790 --> 00:41:58.790 The NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide from 2016, 00:41:58.790 --> 00:42:03.010 if you are not familiar with this, you can just search online for NIST 00:42:03.010 --> 00:42:07.410 and resilience and you’ll find it – helps go through this process. 00:42:07.410 --> 00:42:11.819 And I think of the NIST CRPG as a bridge between this thinking 00:42:11.819 --> 00:42:16.819 and the design in the upper left. As you take that broad thinking and 00:42:16.819 --> 00:42:22.710 you break the community into sectors or functions the way that CRPG does, 00:42:22.710 --> 00:42:27.550 you’re moving to the left. As you take the idea of holistic recovery 00:42:27.550 --> 00:42:31.349 and you begin to apply certain criteria and specific times to it, 00:42:31.349 --> 00:42:37.890 you’re moving up. So this is a bridge, I think, between the two extremes. 00:42:37.890 --> 00:42:42.609 The CRPG is about finding resilience gaps. What’s a resilience gap? 00:42:42.609 --> 00:42:45.369 If I showed you two buildings, and I can predict what the recovery time 00:42:45.369 --> 00:42:49.869 is going to be, which building is worse? Well, obviously, B is worse than A 00:42:49.869 --> 00:42:52.560 because it has a longer recovery time. But that’s only if you’re thinking 00:42:52.560 --> 00:42:57.000 about the time on its own. As soon as you apply an objective to it, 00:42:57.000 --> 00:43:00.490 we may find that that’s not the answer. The priority will be depending on 00:43:00.490 --> 00:43:04.309 what’s happening inside that building. What is the use on the upper floor? 00:43:04.309 --> 00:43:08.300 If that’s vulnerable housing or some particular function that we need, 00:43:08.300 --> 00:43:11.800 and the desired recovery time is only three days, well, then you find that 00:43:11.800 --> 00:43:15.450 one week is more critical than in the other building where you’re willing to 00:43:15.450 --> 00:43:21.020 live with a couple months of repair time. So that concept here is – again, we’re 00:43:21.020 --> 00:43:24.849 talking about the use and occupancy. And if we can identify the target 00:43:24.849 --> 00:43:27.990 in recovery time, we now need to add to that some understanding 00:43:27.990 --> 00:43:30.920 about where we are in the community in order to plan 00:43:30.920 --> 00:43:34.740 and prioritize what we want to do. So if you know you want your housing 00:43:34.740 --> 00:43:38.430 to be re-occupied pretty soon, but your existing housing is really deficient, 00:43:38.430 --> 00:43:43.850 that’s going to show you a resilience gap. So, again, the same chart – functions 00:43:43.850 --> 00:43:48.350 on the side, timeline across the top. And, for a given row, like housing, 00:43:48.350 --> 00:43:53.690 you can see where our goal might be and the 90% block. 00:43:53.690 --> 00:43:56.030 And the blue X represents where we think we are now. 00:43:56.030 --> 00:43:58.360 Now, again, this table is not for any particular jurisdiction. 00:43:58.360 --> 00:44:00.840 It’s just conceptual. But if you go through the 00:44:00.840 --> 00:44:04.220 resilience-basecd inventory, and you identify where you are 00:44:04.220 --> 00:44:06.880 versus where you want to be, that’s your gap. 00:44:06.880 --> 00:44:09.430 The bigger the gap, the more urgent the needed policy. 00:44:09.430 --> 00:44:12.250 So it’s a way of doing the planning. It takes us back to something 00:44:12.250 --> 00:44:15.109 that can start now. If we do the resilience-based inventory, 00:44:15.109 --> 00:44:19.150 then we can do the resilience-based planning, and that may turn into some 00:44:19.150 --> 00:44:23.660 kind of a building code amendment. Very quickly, I’ll blow through these. 00:44:23.660 --> 00:44:27.550 This is not new. Communities have been calling for better than code, 00:44:27.550 --> 00:44:31.450 quote, unquote, for years now. And we’ve begun, in San Francisco, 00:44:31.450 --> 00:44:34.990 at least, to identify that to mean, well, we think better than code means faster 00:44:34.990 --> 00:44:38.810 re-occupancy and faster recovery. With a community advisory panel, 00:44:38.810 --> 00:44:43.000 the city of San Francisco talked about this and said, well, what do you, 00:44:43.000 --> 00:44:47.380 as members of the community, think the appropriate recovery goals ought to be? 00:44:47.380 --> 00:44:51.540 And they came up with a list like this, which all those building types 00:44:51.550 --> 00:44:54.850 on the left – all those uses would currently, under the current code, 00:44:54.850 --> 00:44:59.200 be assigned to Risk Category 2. They’d all have exactly the same kind of design. 00:44:59.200 --> 00:45:02.240 But when you think about it in this way, and you get the community preferences, 00:45:02.240 --> 00:45:05.520 you see that, well, maybe some things are more critical than others, even though 00:45:05.520 --> 00:45:09.619 they’re all currently categorized as Risk Category 2, housing for vulnerable 00:45:09.619 --> 00:45:12.500 populations, we really ought to be designing for a faster recovery. 00:45:12.500 --> 00:45:14.840 And some other things on this list as well. 00:45:14.840 --> 00:45:17.700 It’s not just San Francisco. Here is the Oregon resilience plan 00:45:17.700 --> 00:45:21.109 saying we need a broader understanding of what an essential facility is. 00:45:21.109 --> 00:45:24.100 That’s should be familiar to us now from living through the pandemic. 00:45:24.100 --> 00:45:26.800 It’s at the state level. I don’t know what the prospects 00:45:26.809 --> 00:45:31.430 for this bill will be, but there’s been a bill for a couple years now to try to 00:45:31.430 --> 00:45:36.040 compel the state of California to think through the process of what it would 00:45:36.040 --> 00:45:40.290 mean for California to develop a recovery-based building code. 00:45:40.290 --> 00:45:44.569 It’s even at the national level where there was an executive order from the Obama 00:45:44.569 --> 00:45:49.490 administration to encourage federal agencies to go beyond the codes and 00:45:49.490 --> 00:45:52.920 standards and begin thinking about their designs as resilience- and 00:45:52.920 --> 00:45:56.180 recovery-based. “Encourage to consider” is extremely 00:45:56.180 --> 00:45:59.600 weak, but it’s as strong as we’ve seen at a national level. 00:46:00.680 --> 00:46:02.900 Meanwhile, we don’t want to forget that we have some tools 00:46:02.900 --> 00:46:04.349 available to us already. 00:46:04.349 --> 00:46:07.770 I showed you this idea that there’s the risk categories now, and we can 00:46:07.770 --> 00:46:11.480 imagine the idea of recovery categories in the future. 00:46:11.480 --> 00:46:14.050 But we shouldn’t neglect the fact that we have risk categories now. 00:46:14.050 --> 00:46:17.780 We have Risk Category 4 for our most essential functions – 00:46:17.780 --> 00:46:20.569 hospitals, fire stations, etc. 00:46:20.569 --> 00:46:23.299 We can use those now. We also have retrofit triggers and 00:46:23.299 --> 00:46:28.540 mandates that are very rarely applied, but if we are careful about doing it, 00:46:28.540 --> 00:46:32.920 we can use the tool of a retrofit trigger or a risk category assignment to work 00:46:32.920 --> 00:46:38.900 with our current documents to encourage recovery-based design and retrofit. 00:46:38.900 --> 00:46:42.360 Supplementing the design strategies are supplemental strategies. 00:46:42.369 --> 00:46:45.650 Because it’s not just in what you do in your – in your design. 00:46:45.650 --> 00:46:49.630 If you really want to make this happen, your city has to have its own recovery 00:46:49.630 --> 00:46:54.119 plan where it’s thought through how it’s going to allow re-occupancy and 00:46:54.119 --> 00:46:56.869 recovery, how it’s going to give out permits in an expedited way, 00:46:56.869 --> 00:46:59.020 how it’s going to have mutual aid agreements, etc. 00:46:59.020 --> 00:47:04.020 Here’s a document from FEMA that actually talks about some of these ideas. 00:47:04.020 --> 00:47:08.720 We recommend it. But at the building level, you can also do this right now too. 00:47:08.720 --> 00:47:12.680 Separate from your design, you can have a recovery plan for your building. 00:47:12.680 --> 00:47:16.400 Some of these we went through and discussed in a recent report for the city of 00:47:16.400 --> 00:47:20.400 San Francisco about their tall buildings. Because we recognize, well, you’re 00:47:20.400 --> 00:47:23.680 not going to be able to design every tall building for fast recovery. 00:47:23.680 --> 00:47:25.840 Plus you’ve got all these existing tall buildings, and you’re not 00:47:25.849 --> 00:47:28.230 going to be able to retrofit them. But there are some ways that we 00:47:28.230 --> 00:47:33.079 can achieve faster recovery if we do planning, which is not a design strategy, 00:47:33.080 --> 00:47:35.830 but a planning strategy, at the building level. 00:47:36.380 --> 00:47:40.839 The last two then are just research and code development. 00:47:40.839 --> 00:47:44.579 Again, we’re years away from that. But if we start now, we can get there. 00:47:44.579 --> 00:47:49.160 They have, as you know, protocols that take a long time to get research 00:47:49.160 --> 00:47:53.460 done in the right way, which is correct, and to develop codes in the right way, 00:47:53.460 --> 00:47:56.420 which is necessary and correct. I’ll just say this. 00:47:56.420 --> 00:48:00.680 Every cell on this chart represents a research opportunity. 00:48:00.690 --> 00:48:04.230 Which functions should be listed? What are the expected recovery times? 00:48:04.230 --> 00:48:06.619 What should the desired recovery times be? 00:48:06.619 --> 00:48:09.760 How should we subdivide these things, or split them? 00:48:09.760 --> 00:48:12.630 Those are all research opportunities. 00:48:12.630 --> 00:48:15.240 And then finally, on the code development, we know that 00:48:15.240 --> 00:48:18.089 there’s a long process about that. There’s this paper I mentioned before, 00:48:18.089 --> 00:48:21.510 and it talks about it in ICC – the organization that publishes 00:48:21.510 --> 00:48:25.220 the building code is also trying to think about this as well. 00:48:25.220 --> 00:48:29.819 In the end, the bottom line on code development is we want to make sure 00:48:29.819 --> 00:48:33.670 that, when we design our codes for functional recovery, that when they’re 00:48:33.670 --> 00:48:37.980 applied in the aggregate, they will make a contribution to community resilience. 00:48:37.980 --> 00:48:41.380 So, to sum up, I’ve presented these two ideas. 00:48:41.380 --> 00:48:43.849 The jargon of functional recovery and community resilience, 00:48:43.849 --> 00:48:45.420 how they relate to each other. 00:48:45.420 --> 00:48:49.130 EERI and others have identified these four issues areas, which we hope will 00:48:49.130 --> 00:48:52.920 all progress independently, but with some coordination. 00:48:52.920 --> 00:48:55.830 And then eight recommendations for things we can do starting now. 00:48:55.830 --> 00:48:59.660 The most important of which is, if you’re ready to lead on this, you can lead. 00:48:59.660 --> 00:49:03.040 There are examples of people doing that right now. 00:49:03.040 --> 00:49:06.800 There is my email address if you want to contact me, 00:49:06.800 --> 00:49:11.000 but we have a few minutes left. I’m happy to do Q-and-A. 00:49:13.180 --> 00:49:17.980 - All right. Thank you very much, David. That was an excellent talk. 00:49:17.980 --> 00:49:24.520 Please, if you have any questions, just type them into the meeting chat. 00:49:24.520 --> 00:49:27.849 So we have a question from Keith. Can you talk a little more about 00:49:27.849 --> 00:49:31.220 the tall building issues? I’m wondering how these – 00:49:31.220 --> 00:49:34.440 both existing and those in design – fit into your thinking. 00:49:34.440 --> 00:49:39.049 I’m worried about people or functions, like the pizza place owner in Napa, 00:49:39.049 --> 00:49:43.200 in the shadow of tall buildings or the Christchurch experience. 00:49:43.900 --> 00:49:46.880 - Yeah. So one of the issues that did come up when we were 00:49:46.890 --> 00:49:51.000 thinking about this for San Francisco was the idea of cordon and 00:49:51.000 --> 00:49:54.360 how cordons affects the ability to recover a neighborhood. 00:49:54.360 --> 00:50:00.540 And the idea there is, if the kind of default cordoning strategy is based on 00:50:00.549 --> 00:50:03.460 the height of the building that’s damaged, and as you start doing that 00:50:03.460 --> 00:50:06.820 in a downtown like San Francisco, before you know it, you’ve killed 00:50:06.820 --> 00:50:11.560 the whole downtown. So basically, the thought in the report is, 00:50:11.569 --> 00:50:14.280 hey, you need to go study this and think about how you want to do this 00:50:14.280 --> 00:50:18.890 in a more thoughtful way without just putting up yellow tape everywhere. 00:50:18.890 --> 00:50:24.619 Otherwise, the report makes a number of recommendations about – they’re 00:50:24.619 --> 00:50:28.570 specific to the idea, not just that it has to be – not just that the building is tall, 00:50:28.570 --> 00:50:34.200 but that it is big, complex, difficult to inspect after an earthquake, 00:50:34.200 --> 00:50:38.130 and probably – in the policies that we have right now for dealing with 00:50:38.130 --> 00:50:42.309 triggering retrofits in the building code do not really apply very well to big, 00:50:42.309 --> 00:50:46.569 complicated buildings because they are relatively rare except when you get 00:50:46.569 --> 00:50:50.160 to a downtown like this, where they’re concentrated. 00:50:50.160 --> 00:50:53.119 So it’s about thinking through building code changes. 00:50:53.119 --> 00:50:56.440 We can find – this report is published, and you can find it online, 00:50:56.440 --> 00:51:01.140 I think at the ATC site, but definitely from the city of San Francisco. 00:51:01.140 --> 00:51:04.900 One of the things we report there is, again, the – 00:51:04.920 --> 00:51:07.860 we know you’re not going to be able to do with design. 00:51:08.480 --> 00:51:12.040 Even a good design right now for a tall building, probably we’re looking 00:51:12.040 --> 00:51:16.109 at a couple weeks of recovery time, just for logistical purposes, but also 00:51:16.109 --> 00:51:21.170 because it does get more expensive to design these buildings for tighter drifts. 00:51:21.170 --> 00:51:23.460 We think we’re going to get that. More people are starting to 00:51:23.460 --> 00:51:27.730 do that now voluntarily. But even when you have 00:51:27.730 --> 00:51:30.710 a very good design, it’ll have to be supplemented with some of these 00:51:30.710 --> 00:51:35.670 planning strategies, such as having engineers and inspectors on retainer. 00:51:35.670 --> 00:51:39.430 A program that San Francisco started after Loma Prieta called BORP – 00:51:39.430 --> 00:51:43.100 Building Occupancy Resumption Program – where the owner has agreed 00:51:43.100 --> 00:51:47.059 in advance and has coordinated with the city to let the engineer of the owner’s 00:51:47.059 --> 00:51:50.700 choosing come in and tag the building. It doesn’t change the damage. 00:51:50.700 --> 00:51:54.869 It just changes the speed with which you’re able to get back in and re-occupy. 00:51:54.869 --> 00:51:58.650 If we can extend that idea from just looking at the structural safety to 00:51:58.650 --> 00:52:03.950 also thinking about the ability to recover uses for a public accommodation 00:52:03.950 --> 00:52:09.180 like a restaurant or a hotel, that would be a very valuable thing too. 00:52:10.840 --> 00:52:13.840 [Silence] 00:52:13.840 --> 00:52:15.200 - Okay. 00:52:16.840 --> 00:52:28.119 Also from Keith, he’s asking, do hazard – what role do you see 00:52:28.120 --> 00:52:32.960 we can play in these discussions? He says, since I am the only one asking 00:52:32.960 --> 00:52:36.800 questions, and since your audience is merely people who monitor [laughs] 00:52:36.809 --> 00:52:40.980 and study earthquakes, and do hazard assessments, 00:52:40.980 --> 00:52:46.000 what role do you see we can play in these discussions? 00:52:46.000 --> 00:52:54.640 - Well, participate in these national – I think you can play all these roles. 00:52:54.640 --> 00:52:57.870 You know, even though you’re – as Earth scientists, obviously 00:52:57.870 --> 00:53:01.490 you can be EERI members. You can join committees. 00:53:01.490 --> 00:53:05.440 Some of you are active in your local communities talking – sometimes – 00:53:05.440 --> 00:53:09.359 I know a lot of Earth scientists are called to give testimony at a city council 00:53:09.359 --> 00:53:14.510 meeting about earthquake hazards. And sometimes we cringe, as engineers, 00:53:14.510 --> 00:53:18.130 when we see Earth scientists talking about buildings, but that’s okay. 00:53:18.130 --> 00:53:22.110 You have the opportunity. As long as you’re familiar with the ideas, 00:53:22.110 --> 00:53:25.420 it’s a great way to be in the community and to be 00:53:25.420 --> 00:53:29.790 bringing awareness to these ideas. On the technical side, I do want to 00:53:29.790 --> 00:53:33.380 go back to this idea that, when we develop a technical standard, 00:53:33.380 --> 00:53:37.920 there is this open question about, what should hazard be? And if we 00:53:37.920 --> 00:53:42.520 are going to – right now, as you know, we have risk-based hazard maps. 00:53:44.210 --> 00:53:48.300 And we may find ourselves in the same position that we’re going to 00:53:48.310 --> 00:53:52.310 need a new set of maps if we decide that the hazard for recovery-based design 00:53:52.310 --> 00:53:56.400 should be different from the hazard for safety-based design. 00:53:56.400 --> 00:53:59.440 Also, what’s interesting is that, when you begin to think at the 00:53:59.440 --> 00:54:00.890 community level, as you know, 00:54:00.890 --> 00:54:05.170 when you’re designing an individual building, you have a very site-specific 00:54:05.170 --> 00:54:10.099 hazard level that comes from the maps. But that’s not the way we would maybe 00:54:10.099 --> 00:54:12.390 do it if we were thinking about a whole community. 00:54:12.390 --> 00:54:15.680 We might want to focus our hazard on the scenario event. 00:54:15.680 --> 00:54:18.450 So the development of scenarios is also very useful. 00:54:18.450 --> 00:54:22.420 I’m sure a lot of you participated in the HayWired study. 00:54:22.420 --> 00:54:28.700 But that same kind of scenario-based planning can really be – apply these 00:54:28.710 --> 00:54:32.620 ideas of community resilience. So that’s a really good way 00:54:32.620 --> 00:54:34.580 to be involved as well. 00:54:35.430 --> 00:54:38.000 - Thank you. I do actually have a question. 00:54:38.000 --> 00:54:40.010 Might be a bit naive. 00:54:40.010 --> 00:54:43.869 So how accurately are the acceptable recovery times translated 00:54:43.869 --> 00:54:47.320 into building design? Like, if you over-design, 00:54:47.320 --> 00:54:49.280 you’re just wasting money. If you’re under-design, 00:54:49.280 --> 00:54:51.680 the building is not safe. How accurately do you think 00:54:51.680 --> 00:54:57.810 these acceptable recovery times translate into the correct amount of design? 00:54:57.810 --> 00:55:00.860 - Fantastic question. The answer is, not at all. 00:55:00.860 --> 00:55:03.740 Not because they don’t but because we just don’t know. 00:55:03.740 --> 00:55:07.310 Because we’re shifting the paradigm to this new terminology to begin to 00:55:07.310 --> 00:55:10.530 talk about these things, we have some new software, 00:55:10.530 --> 00:55:16.930 new ATC projects and FEMA projects – you may have heard of FEMA P-58 – 00:55:16.930 --> 00:55:21.530 trying to predict in a better way what the downtime will be. 00:55:21.530 --> 00:55:27.170 So we’re making our best stab at that. It’s extremely hard to do – 00:55:27.170 --> 00:55:30.320 much harder than you would think to do, but there are academics who are 00:55:30.320 --> 00:55:33.099 modeling and working with that now trying to predict that. 00:55:33.099 --> 00:55:37.250 In the meantime, I’ve moved to this slide because one of the things 00:55:37.250 --> 00:55:41.510 about developing a standard is that this is how we make progress 00:55:41.510 --> 00:55:44.799 in the absence of perfect knowledge. 00:55:44.799 --> 00:55:49.170 If we knew what the recovery time for a given design was going to be, 00:55:49.170 --> 00:55:51.420 we could just, you know, run the numbers, and we wouldn’t – 00:55:51.420 --> 00:55:53.780 we wouldn’t need a standard. We could just design for it. 00:55:53.780 --> 00:55:57.119 The fact is, we don’t know that. And that’s why we follow 00:55:57.119 --> 00:56:02.310 a consensus-based process of getting practitioners and academics 00:56:02.310 --> 00:56:05.910 in a room together and deciding on what it is we think we’re going to 00:56:05.910 --> 00:56:10.730 call the necessary criteria to achieve a recovery time of one week. 00:56:10.730 --> 00:56:13.339 And, believe it or not, that’s how we developed 00:56:13.339 --> 00:56:16.920 the safety-based code right now. We said, here’s the things we think 00:56:16.920 --> 00:56:21.589 we’re going to need to be able to call a building, quote, unquote, safe. 00:56:21.589 --> 00:56:25.839 And every three years, that list changes. Because the building code changes. 00:56:25.839 --> 00:56:28.310 And every five years, when ASCE 7 comes out, 00:56:28.310 --> 00:56:31.680 there are new thoughts involved in there. Mostly it moves in one direction. 00:56:31.680 --> 00:56:34.760 Every now and then, it moves to be a little more relaxed. 00:56:34.760 --> 00:56:38.569 We’re going to find ourselves in the same position here, 00:56:38.569 --> 00:56:43.160 using a consensus-based code and standard [audio cuts out] 00:56:43.160 --> 00:56:47.279 to figure out, what are the design strategies that make sense and 00:56:47.279 --> 00:56:51.000 apply to different recovery times. And we’ll be wrong. 00:56:51.000 --> 00:56:55.190 So the shame is not in being – not in missing the bull’s-eye. 00:56:55.190 --> 00:56:57.500 The shame is in aiming at the wrong target. 00:56:57.500 --> 00:57:00.450 So, as long as we’re aiming at the right target, I feel comfortable 00:57:00.450 --> 00:57:05.150 we’re on the right path. We are now, with recovery-based design, 00:57:05.150 --> 00:57:09.270 where the whole idea of performance- based design was about 30 years ago. 00:57:09.270 --> 00:57:12.900 And if you talk to the engineers who were involved then, including, like, 00:57:12.900 --> 00:57:14.900 Jack Moehle – some of you may know. 00:57:14.900 --> 00:57:17.180 They’ll tell you the stories from 30 years ago. 00:57:17.190 --> 00:57:21.060 Engineers sitting in a room saying, huh, what do we think “safety” means? 00:57:21.060 --> 00:57:23.750 And now we’re in the same kind of position where we think, 00:57:23.750 --> 00:57:25.730 what do we think “recovery” means? 00:57:25.730 --> 00:57:30.720 So it’s challenging, but it’s exciting, and it’s a real opportunity coming. 00:57:31.360 --> 00:57:34.700 - Thank you very much. That’s an excellent answer. 00:57:34.700 --> 00:57:40.540 We have a question from Kishor Jaiswal. I hope I’m pronouncing his name right. 00:57:40.540 --> 00:57:44.160 Excellent presentation, David. Can you share your thinking on assessing 00:57:44.160 --> 00:57:47.290 the resilience and functional recovery in an environment where the design 00:57:47.290 --> 00:57:52.771 criteria is not just based on one sizeable earthquake like MCE event but 00:57:52.780 --> 00:57:57.400 a long sequence with potential multiple strong aftershocks? 00:57:58.460 --> 00:58:03.460 - I cannot. Except that [chuckles] that’s why we have you guys, to help us 00:58:03.470 --> 00:58:07.830 figure that – I noticed this morning there was a big earthquake in Chile. 00:58:07.830 --> 00:58:12.170 And, you know, as a structural engineer, I just wonder, okay, is that related? 00:58:12.170 --> 00:58:16.470 Is it part of the same sequence from several years ago? I don’t know. 00:58:16.470 --> 00:58:21.770 But, as you know, Kishor, [audio cuts out] the current code 00:58:21.770 --> 00:58:26.350 is not real sophisticated in terms of how it describes the hazard. 00:58:26.350 --> 00:58:28.520 There is a ton of work, obviously, behind it. 00:58:28.520 --> 00:58:32.040 But, as you know, the engineer goes in and pulls out one number and 00:58:32.040 --> 00:58:37.349 goes forward with design. So, yes, that’s the real role for the 00:58:37.349 --> 00:58:41.450 Earth science community and the ground motion researchers to 00:58:41.450 --> 00:58:48.380 be contributing to the ASCE 7 and the NEHRP provisions in just that way. 00:58:48.380 --> 00:58:51.349 If you think we ought to be doing more, thinking about sequences and 00:58:51.349 --> 00:58:55.520 aftershocks, yeah, let’s move that forward and get it in in some way. 00:58:55.520 --> 00:59:01.039 In the end, it probably has to be, you know, feasible and pragmatic to apply. 00:59:01.040 --> 00:59:04.540 But if we’re missing something, let’s get it in. 00:59:05.060 --> 00:59:07.960 - All right. Thank you very much. You have [chuckles] – you have 00:59:07.960 --> 00:59:13.520 a lot of thank-you messages in the chat. We will have to wrap up right now 00:59:13.530 --> 00:59:17.650 for the – for the next meeting. Thank you very much for this excellent talk. 00:59:17.650 --> 00:59:21.740 And thank you, everybody, for joining us today. And see you next week. 00:59:22.860 --> 00:59:23.920 - Thank you. - Thank you, David. 00:59:23.930 --> 00:59:24.940 - Thank you. 00:59:24.940 --> 00:59:25.940 - [clapping] 00:59:25.940 --> 00:59:26.940 - Thank you. 00:59:26.940 --> 00:59:29.080 - [clapping] 00:59:29.080 --> 00:59:31.500 - Thanks a lot, David. That was great. 00:59:31.500 --> 00:59:34.540 - You’re welcome. I hope I didn’t go too long. 00:59:36.960 --> 00:59:40.420 - Excellent. - You saw my – you saw 00:59:40.430 --> 00:59:44.210 my email there on the last slide. Feel free – if anyone has any questions, 00:59:44.210 --> 00:59:46.260 you can feel free to share that. 00:59:47.060 --> 00:59:48.140 - Great. 00:59:49.360 --> 00:59:53.740 - [inaudible] Kathryn, Noha, thank you very much for organizing this. 00:59:53.740 --> 00:59:56.900 I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to say this during the talk, 00:59:56.900 --> 01:00:00.140 but I really thank USGS for this invitation. 01:00:00.140 --> 01:00:06.559 And always want to thank EERI for their [audio cuts out] 01:00:06.559 --> 01:00:08.900 honor to talk about these ideas with you. 01:00:08.900 --> 01:00:12.640 - Thank you so much, David. It was a great talk. Thank you. 01:00:14.680 --> 01:00:17.119 - Okay. Thanks, again. Off to the next meeting. 01:00:17.120 --> 01:00:18.340 - [chuckles] Okay. - Thank you. 01:00:18.340 --> 01:00:19.200 - Thank you. - Bye. 01:00:19.200 --> 01:00:20.440 - Bye bye.