US Resiliency Council

PART 1: Mission, Organization, and Strategy for an Earthquake Performance Rating System

Presented by

Ron MayesCo-Founder of USRC

The Earthquake Risk Exposure Dilemma

• People lack the information they need to make better risk management choices for themselves

• This has serious and large societal consequences

• Current choices are made within a complex, entrenched system

Improving this situation requires new risk information to be created, delivered and shared in ways that can significantly

impact what people believe and do.

Potential Buildings at Risk

• Unreinforced masonry buildings • 30%+/- of concrete buildings, those built before 1976• Pre-cast and flat slab concrete structures• Concrete tilt-ups pre-1997• Welded steel moment frame buildings pre-1994 • Multistory wood frame with tuck under parking• Soft story buildings

Barriers to Understanding and Communicating the Risks

• Predicting and conveying the earthquake performance of a building, and its implications, are difficult tasks

• Most people have mistaken beliefs about what current code means for performance

– Common perception: buildings will perform better than they actually will

Quote from 1990’s Uniform Building Code

(emphasis added)

“These Recommendations primarily

are intended to safeguard against

major failures and loss of life, not to

limit damage, maintain functions, or

provide for easy repairs.”

Three Types of Hazard Input Assumptions That Can Be Used to Assess Performance

Design Basis – Code Design Level 2/3 MCE with return periods ranging from 350 to 800 years

Scenario EventSpecific Magnitude Earthquake – e.g. 7.5

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)Collapse Prevention is Code Goal

2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years but with an upper bound cap.

Return periods ranging from 1500 to 2500 years

Quotes from ASCE 7-10 Seismic Code(2000 onwards)

• There is a low likelihood of collapse in the Maximum considered earthquake (MCE)

• Life threatening damage will be unlikely in the Design level earthquake, which is 2/3 the MCE

• Given the occurrence of an MCE, there will be substantial damage in many structures rendering these unfit for occupancy or use

Christchurch Earthquake NZ 22 Feb. 2011

• September 2010 was the design earthquake • February 2011 was the maximum credible event

70% of buildings in downtown are now demolished

• Did building codes provide the performance expected ? – Depends who answers the

question– Structural engineers say yes – Public are shocked and say no

Christchurch Earthquake NZ 22 Feb. 2011

The Future: Performance Based Design

ATC 58: a 10-year $12M FEMA Funded Project

Earthquake performance expressed in

Deaths, Dollars, and Downtime

Results and implications are expressed in ways that decision makers can understand, afford, and implement.

Confluence of Three Major Developments

• ATC 58 provides inputs for a multi-dimensional rating

• Rating systems currently available– Existing building: – New buildings:

• Mayor Garcetti’s State of the LA City Speech (4/10/14)– “Develop the first rating system in the US to detail the earthquake

safety of our buildings”

Without these tools a discussion of implementing a rating system would not have been possible five years ago.

US Resiliency Council

Founded in 2011 to be the administrative vehicle for implementing rating systems for buildings (similar to USGBC-LEED)

Strategy:

– Use information and market forces to incentivize action

– Bring together diverse stakeholders and technical experts into leadership and advisory positions

– Promote quality, usability, and fairness to increase public acceptance, adoption and implementation

Vision:

– Expandable to multi-hazards (hurricanes/tornadoes, flood, blast etc)

OwnersLendersInsurersTenantsElecteds

RegulatorsContractorsEngineers

Current USRC Structure – 501(c)3 non-profit

Technical Advisory Board

Board of Directors

Accredited Professionals

Peer Reviewers

Executive Director

Users of Ratings

Stakeholders Advisory Board

EngineersProfessional

Organizations

Committed Founding Members of the USRC

• All major professional organizations in EQ Engineering – SEAOC, NCSEA, EERI, ATC, LA Tall Building Council, PEER

• San Francisco City and major structural engineering firms. Current Founding Members of USRC

Firm Firm Arup Newmark Capital ATC Partner Engineering &Science Bentley PEER Brandow and Johnston Rutherford & Chekene Buehler & Buehler San Francisco City Core Brace Saif Hussain & Associates CSI Saunders Retrofit Constractors David Friedman SEAOCDegenkolb SEAOCC DIS SEAONC EERI SEAOSCEPS SEAOSD Forell/Elsesser SGH Hilti SikaHohbach-Lewin & Assoc. Simpson Strong TieHolmes Group SOM John A Martin Structural Focus Kate Stillwell Thornton Tomasetti KPFF Walter P. Moore LA Tall Building Council Weidlinger Marx Okubo ZFA Nabih Youssef & Assoc.

USRC’s Strategy and Theory of Change for Earthquake Performance Ratings

Review, approve, adapt, and utilize

existing evaluation methodologies

Provide training, accreditation,

quality control, and information access

services

Make valid, usable,

trustworthyrisk information

accessible to people who

need it

Spurs actions and systemic change that reduces seismic risk in the building stock

USRC…

and…

to… which then…

Activities OutputsIntermediate and

Long Term Outcomes

Overall increased disaster resilience in the broader community.

leading to…

Potential Seismic Rating “Stakeholders”

Includes :• On-site—tenants, lessees, employees • Building professionals—engineers, architects, contractors• Real estate—

o developers, brokers, property managerso owners and potential owners (investors, corporations,

governments, individuals)

• Financial sector—lenders, insurers, re-insurers• Public sector—utilities, planners, local agencies, schools,

religious institutions, federal agencies

Evidence of Stakeholder Perceptions: 2011 ATC 71-2 Workshop

Over 40 participants representing:

Earthquake Performance Rating System Workshop (FEMA, SEAONC)

Owners

Banking

Insurance

Real EstateEngineering

Architecture

Universities

Key Elements of a Rating SystemATC 71-2 Workshop

DDDMultiple Dimensions

Peer Review

Appropriate Cost Structure

Credibility of System

Communication Format

ATC 71-2 Workshop Findings

• Significant majority of attendees were in favor of having a system

• Implement it ASAP

Key Unresolved Issues:

Who should produce a rating?

How can quality, credibility, and fairness be assured?

How much will it cost?

ATC 71-2 Workshop Findings: Rating Dimensions

• Report 3 Dimensions– Safety– Repair Cost– Time to Regain Function

• Potentially combine 2 or more dimensions into 1 rating for certain uses– e.g., a city or business may choose to use just 1 dimension such as

safety

Two Rating Systems Have Been Developed

• 6-year SEAONC effort to develop Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS) for existing buildings– Translates the results of an ASCE 31/41 evaluation

• REDi system developed by Arup for the design of new buildings – Provides recommendations for performance goals that exceed

those inherent in current code requirements, and a planning process for achieving them

Attributes of a SEAONC and REDi Rating

Safety

Repair Cost

Time to Regain Function

Three Dimensions – similar to ATC 58

USRC Rating Definitions Provide a Standardized Way to Communicate Expected Performance

Cod

e

Min

imu

mLe

nding Healthcar

eEventually Multi-hazard: Seismic Wind Flood …

USRC Rating Types

Owner Wants a Rating

Verified Rating Issued by USRC Full peer review

Costs TBD

Professional Rating Issued by USRC

1 in X projects peer reviewed Costs TBD

For display on building and marketing material or

Required by Jurisdiction

For use by financial and real estate professionals

USRC Ratings Process

Owner Wants a Rating

Owner hires a USRC “Certified” Engineer

Certified Engineer performs evaluation. Sends USRC

prelim. rating with fee TBD

USRC Organizes Peer Review and Issues

Verified Rating

USRC Tracks and Issues Professional Rating.

USRC also organizes random audit of 1 in X projects

Engineer may use Appeal Process if they believe Rating is better

than methodology provides, Costs TBD

Anyone can check with USRC on Validity of Rater

and Rating – no details revealed

“Certification” Process

• Many organizations including LEED require formal accreditation to perform evaluations

• It is important to have competent licensed engineers with the needed experience and expertise to perform ratings analyses

• SEAOC has been asked to recommend required credentials

• These recommendations will be reviewed and approved by the USRC Technical and Stakeholders Advisory Boards, and then implemented by USRC

Different terms can be used to describe this process, e.g., certification, credentialing, accreditation. Does it matter to you which?

Peer Review

• SEAOC has also been asked to recommend a peer review and appeal process

• Peer review will be mandated for all Verified Ratings and 1 in 7 (+/-) Professional Ratings

• Qualifications of peer reviewers will include overall experience and appropriate expertise with specific building types

• The review be completed blind

• SEAOC recommendations will be reviewed and approved by the Technical and Stakeholders Advisory Boards

Highest Priority Areas Needing Your Input

USRC has reviewed the available rating systems

The next step is to tailor them for appropriate contexts of use and to build coalitions for implementation:

1. Identify the applications for the ratings

2. Address barriers to use

3. Develop trust and external support

1. Organizational structure– inclusivity, credibility, adaptability

2. USRC’s overall approach to adding value– Training, accreditation, and peer review processes– How it is bridging stakeholders and technical groups together– Multi-hazard potential

3. Collect specific issues to address in next segment

Part 1 Discussion: Your Comments & Questions So Far

US Resiliency Council

PART 2: Rating System Details and

Appropriate Applications

Presented by

Ron MayesCo-Founder of USRC

Outline of Topics For Your Feedback

RATING DEFINITIONS &

DIMENSIONS

Making sure ratings portray

understandable and

meaningful consequences

DDDAPPLICATIONS

Identifying the most appropriate and promising program contexts

REDi™ Rating System

A framework to implement

“resilience-based earthquake

design” for achieving

‘beyond-code’ resilience

objectives.

Key Precepts of REDi Rating System

• “True resilience” can only be achieved by adopting enhanced design and planning measures

• Promote speedy functional recovery by targeting beyond-code performance targets

• Resilience objectives are for a consistent return period, have confidence levels and are described in terms understandable to stakeholders

• Assessment of recovery times must consider externalities otherwise they will be unrealistic

Key Precepts of REDi Rating System

• Assessment of recovery times and financial losses must consider performance of all damageable non-structural components and contents

• The loss assessment must be robust (based on P-58) and could be applicable to all buildings, including existing buildings

• Try not to over-complicate or over-simplify what it takes to achieve a resilient building

REDi Resilience Objectives

The REDi Roadmap - Resilience by Design and Preparedness

External Verification of a REDi Resilience Assessment

Defining Post-Earthquake Recovery States

Re-occupancy

Functionality

Full recovery

Time after earthquake

Refer to “Glossary of Terms” in REDi Guidelines for full definition

Paths to Re-occupancy and Functional Recovery if Building Undamaged

Utilities Restored or Back-up Systems

Earthquake Occurs

Functional RecoveryRe-occupancy

Paths to Functional Recovery if Building Damaged

Earthquake OccursInspection

$$$

EngineersPermitting

Contractors

Long-lead Items

Building Repairs

Impeding Factors

Earthquake Occurs

Functional Recovery

Utilities Restored or Back-up Systems

Consideration of Externalities for Functionality

Features Code Platinum Gold Silver

Utility disruption1

Impeding Factors

Impact from damaged adjacent buildings and non-building structures Rec. Rec.

Not located in high liquefaction or tsunami hazard zone Rec. Rec.

Other ground failures: landslide, fault-rupture, avalanche, etc

Business impact assessment incl. employee availability, site access, continuity of transit networks, and supply chain

Rec. Rec.

1 See REDi Resilience Objectives

Consideration of Externalities for Functionality

Features Code Platinum Gold Silver

Utility disruption

Impeding Factors

Explicitly considered in Downtime assessment

History of SEAONC’sEarthquake Performance Rating System

• 6-year SEAONC effort to develop Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS) for Existing Buildings– Translates the results of an ASCE 31/41 evaluation

Insight #1

We do not need a new evaluation tool…

Rating System Insight #1

Attributes of the SEAONC Rating System

• Multi-objective: 3 Dimensions– Safety– Repair Cost– Time to Regain Function

• Symbolic: star count, 5 levels for each dimension – This assists in reaching non-native English speakers

• Positively-framed– “the more stars the better”– A “No Rating” option

• Anchored on a very low performance level; “typical” or “average” performance level is unknown

Attributes of SEAONC’s EPRS

Resilience Dimensions

Economic

Social

Safety

Damage

Function

3 Rating Dimensions

Semi-independent consequences:All spring from the same damage

Resilience Definitions Rating Dimensions

Five levels within Each Dimension

• Enough to capture (almost) the full range of performance • Still relatively broad bins• Not quintiles

– Counts of buildings in each bin are unknown– No expectation that every level will be full of or have same # of

buildings

Five Levels within Each Dimension

Pragmatic Distinctions

• Safety– Clearest expression of owner/tenant interest– Most critical for correcting impressions about what “to code”

means

• Repair cost– Industry and regulatory precedent– More intuitive to owners than “estimated loss”

• Recovery– Re-occupancy functional recovery full recovery

Pragmatic Distinctions

A “No Rating” Option

• Because the methodologies are limited– ASCE 31 says nothing about Repair Cost

• Allows flexibility

• A useful cost saver and clarifying feature for ratings programs

A “No Rating” Option

The 3-part EPRS Rating Levels

Safety5« Entrapment

Unlikely

4« Injuries Unlikely

3« Death Unlikely

2« Death in isolated locations

1« Death in multiple locations

NR No rating

Repair cost5« Within operating

budget (< 5%)

4« Under deductible (< 10%)

3« Industry SEL standard (< 20%)

2« Repairable(< 50%)

1« Substantial(50%+)

NR No rating

Recovery5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

EPRS Dimensions & Thresholds

What an EPRS Rating Represents

• “EPRS Ratings are intended to correspond to average performance given a single earthquake with ground shaking of that used for the design of a new building.”

• A prediction is not a promise

• Degree of uncertainty differs for each dimension

What an EPRS Rating Means

Clarifying the Assumed Seismic Hazard

• “Design earthquake” not “Maximum credible”

• Design earthquake is 2/3 MCE

• Open question:– Should MCE performance be considered for safety but not the

other dimensions?

Clarifying the Assumed Seismic Hazard

SEAONC Rating Scope

In:– Structure, Nonstructural Elements, Geologic– Some fixed equipment– Associated non-building structures

Out:– Most contents– Utilities, other “externalities” beyond

immediate on-site structures• different to REDi system

ASCE 31/41 Scope of Evaluation

SEAONC Ratings Definitions: Safety

«««««

Entrapment (highly) unlikely.Performance would not lead to conditions commonly associated with earthquake-related entrapment.

«««« Injuries (highly) unlikely Performance would not lead to conditions commonly associated with earthquake-related injuries requiring more than first aid.

««« 

Deaths (highly) unlikely.Performance would not lead to conditions commonly associated with earthquake-related death.

«« Death in isolated locations expected.Performance in certain locations within or adjacent to the building would lead to conditions known to be associated with earthquake-related death.

« 

Death in multiple or widespread locations expected.Performance as a whole would lead to multiple or widespread conditions known to be associated with earthquake-related death.

NR No rating.The rating methodology does not justify or support a Safety Rating, or no Safety Rating was requested.

EPRS Rating Definition: Safety

Safety Dimension Definition and Comments

• How to balance clear communication with acknowledgement of uncertainties

• What does it take—in terms of building performance and the analysis burden—to get more stars?– To exceed ««« safety rating, knowledge of additional

factors (falling hazards, factors affecting egress) is necessary

– These are typically excluded from a conventional structural evaluation

Safety Dimension Definition and Issues

DDD

SEAONC Ratings Definitions: Repair Cost

««««« 

Within typical operating budget.Performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs commonly costing less than 5% of building replacement value.

«««« Within typical insurance deductible.Performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs commonly costing less than 10% of building replacement value.

««« 

Within industry Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) limit.Performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs commonly costing less than 20% of building replacement value.

«« 

Repairable damage.Performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs commonly costing less than 50% of building replacement value.

« 

Substantial damage.Performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs costing more than 50% of building replacement value (as used by the International Building Code as an upgrade trigger).

NR No rating.The rating methodology does not justify or support a Repair Cost Rating, or no Repair Cost Rating was requested.

EPRS Rating Definition: Repair Cost

Safety Dimension Definition and Comments

• Appropriate duration of rating relevance– Should a rating “expire” or carry a disclaimer for

like standards of engineering or financial practice, property values, and prices changes?

• How well can methodologies estimate cost in the wake of a major regional event?

Repair Cost Dimension Definition and Issues

DDD

• “Recovery” is a bumpy process that goes through stages• The EPRS rating focuses on basic resumption of uses

SEAONC Ratings Definitions: RecoveryEPRS Defines Recovery as Functionality

The Recovery Triangle

Time

Functionality orService Level

TEQTfullTreoccupancy Tfunctional

The Recovery Triangle

SEAONC Ratings Definitions: Recovery

««««« 

Within hours (or within hours to days).Performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within hours following the earthquake.

«««« Within days (or within days to weeks) .Performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within days following the earthquake.

««« 

Within weeks (or within weeks to months).Performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within weeks following the earthquake.

«« 

Within months (or within months to years).Performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within months following the earthquake.

« 

Within years.Performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within years following the earthquake.

NR No rating.The rating methodology does not justify or support a Recovery Rating, or no Recovery Rating was requested.

EPRS Rating Definition: Recovery DDD

Unpredictable Recovery Bottlenecks and Hurdles

Earthquake OccursInspection

$$$

EngineersPermitting

Contractors

Long-lead Items

Building Repairs

Impeding Factors

Earthquake Occurs

Functional Recovery

Utilities Restored or Back-up Systems

• Wording: Time to regain functionality?

• The concept and prediction of functionality:– Understandable

• Basic fitness for intended use, feasible to operate—assuming utilities

– Usefulness• Much more helpful than predicted “green, yellow, or red” tag• Predicting full recovery timetable is not feasible

• How important is it to include impeding factors, even if doing so makes the prediction less certain and harder to produce?

Recovery Dimension Definition and Comments

Recovery Dimension Definition & Issues

DDD

Rating System Insight #2

• One rating system cannot serve every rating program.

• Rating program varieties:– “Mandatory” or “voluntary”– By an authority or by parties– Public or private information

• A comprehensive system is more adaptable to diverse perspectives– Focus on stakeholder needs– Develop “Specialized Ratings”

Rating System Insight #2

Initial ASCE 31 Mapping

Safety5« Entrapment Unlikely

4« Injuries Unlikely

3« Death Unlikely

2« Death in isolated locations

1« Death in multiple locations

NR No rating

Repair cost5« Within operating

budget (< 5%)

4« Under deductible (< 10%)

3« Industry SEL standard (< 20%)

2« Repairable(< 50%)

1« Substantial(50%+)

NR No rating

Recovery5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

Full Life Safety< Life Safety

Full Immediate Occupancy

More Translation Mappings

Safety

5« No entrapment

4« No injuries

3« No death

2« Death in isolated locations

1« Death in multiple locations

NR No rating

Repair cost

5« Within operating budget (< 5%)

4« Under deductible (< 10%)

3« Industry SEL standard (< 20%)

2« Repairable(< 50%)

1« Substantial(50%+)

NR No rating

Recovery

5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

Reoccupancy

5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

REDi Gold REDi Platinum

ASCE 41-16 EHR

Operational

“Specialized Ratings”

• REDi Gold– Immediate reoccupancy– Functional recovery < 1 month– SEL < 5%– Injury “unlikely”

“Specialized Ratings”

Specialized Ratings: SPUR

• SPUR Level C– Safe

• “Significant structural damage”

– Usable after repairs• Yellow tag likely• 4 month to 3 year repair

time likely

Specialized Ratings: SPUR

Specialized Rating Mappings

Safety

5« No entrapment

4« No injuries

3« No death

2« Death in isolated locations

1« Death in multiple locations

NR No rating

Repair cost

5« Within operating budget (< 5%)

4« Under deductible (< 10%)

3« Industry SEL standard (< 20%)

2« Repairable(< 50%)

1« Substantial(50%+)

NR No rating

Recovery

5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

Reoccupancy

5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

REDi Gold SPUR C

Specialized Targets

Safety

5« No entrapment

4« No injuries

3« No death

2« Death in isolated locations

1« Death in multiple locations

NR No rating

Repair cost

5« Within operating budget (< 5%)

4« Under deductible (< 10%)

3« Industry SEL standard (< 20%)

2« Repairable(< 50%)

1« Substantial(50%+)

NR No rating

Recovery

5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

Reoccupancy

5« Within hours

4« Within days

3« Within weeks

2« Within months

1« Within years

NR No rating

L.A. Residential?

PML?

S.F. “Soft Story”

Key Rating Program Features

1. What is the universe of affected properties? • code year, building type, occupancy class, use,

#stories, #units, and/or ownership

2. Who performs the rating analysis and why?

3. Who will have access to the rating information? • Only the parties to a transaction, future buyers and

tenants, insurers, everyone ?

Program Examples: Soft-Story Policies in the SF Bay Area

Note:• All these programs started from some kind of inventory• Inventories can be based on more or less broad and distinct criteria , goals, &

assumptions, which directly affects the number of buildings involved or persons burdened in some way as well as the likelihood of different classification errors

• Berkeley’s program may still progress into a mandatory retrofit phase

Inventory Only

Notification Only

Mandatory Screening

Mandatory Evaluation

Mandatory Retrofit

Santa Clara County

San Leandro Oakland Berkeley Fremont

Richmond AlamedaSan

Francisco

The Coercion Spectrum

Applications Where a USRC Rating System Might Be Used: Finding Appropriate Fits

Short Term Possibilities:• New construction as part of permit process

– Voluntarily by developers if market demand is perceived– Mandated for buildings with some criteria

• Rating as part of a real estate transaction (commercial)• Alternative to the current PML process• Public buildings

Unlikely in the Short Term:• Mandated for all existing buildings

1. Dimensions– Understandability and meaningfulness

• Terminology• Handling of uncertainty

– Re-occupancy/functional recovery• Impeding factors• Externalities

2. Applications – Appropriate contexts or program formats

3. Collect specific issues to address in written comments and next round

Part 2 Discussion: Your Comments & Questions on the Rating System & Programs

Validity

UtilityFairness

• Understandable• Comprehensive• Affordable• Decisive

• Accuracy• Precision• Reliability

• Consistency• Appropriate Access• Credibility/Trust• Downsides Minimized• Accountability• Proportionate Outcomes

Desirable Features in Risk Communication

S. Rabinovici

Validity

UtilityFairness

Key Elements of USRC’s Approach

• Multidimensional• Market value• Personalized

• Technical Vetting• Training• Accreditation• Periodic Update

• Standardization• Peer Review• Verification• Open Process

S. Rabinovici

Follow-up to this meeting

LA City program timeline

Next SAC meeting– Implementation– Barriers to use– Fostering external support

Your Recommendations

Next Steps: Written Feedback and 2nd SAC Meeting

Who else should we be talking to?

Multi-Level Qualitative

The Value of a Rating Is a Net Effect

Consider an owner—Having a rating can have many desirable and undesirable effects:– Possible public relations benefit– New awareness of multiple types of risk exposure– New knowledge about potential implications of not taking action

and about what taking action might entail or result in– New information (or desire for it) about how their building

compares to others– Raises the question of whether to keep the building as is, upgrade

it, or sell– May create new disclosure or liability concerns– Raises insurance issues– May decrease how much they can sell for or rent out

Examples:

• LA Restaurant Hygiene

• Water Quality Report Cards

• Hospital Safety

• School Quality

Grading or Report Card Systems

Simple Labels or Warnings

Too Many Approaches Muddles the Message