The notion that there is a disconnect between the anticipated performance of buildings in a major earthquake, and what the public understands or expects, is not new. Bridging this communication gap has been discussed in a number of different forums, including U.S.-Japan workshops (ATC-JSCA, 2010, 2014). The idea of a building rating system has arisen on a national level in the NEHRP Workshop on Meeting the Challenges of Existing Buildings (ATC-71, 2008), Prioritized Research for Reducing the Seismic Hazards of Existing Buildings (ATC-73, 2007), and Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research, A Community Workshop Report (National Academies, 2011). Input on creating such a rating system was obtained in the FEMA-funded Workshop on a Rating System for the Earthquake Performance of Buildings (ATC-71-2, 2011). The thought was that if the public could be made more aware of their potential seismic risk, they could be expected to make better-informed decisions on owning and leasing properties, and market forces would eventually drive the building design, management, and procurement process into more resilient seismic design. Seismic performance assessment techniques have reached level of sophistication and maturity that we now feel capable of distilling complex measures of performance into meaningful sound-bite information that is expected to be useful to owners, developers, tenants, lenders, and insurers in their building procurement transactions. Efforts to develop a building rating system have included many technical and philosophical challenges, but the U.S. Resiliency Council ® (USRC) has formed a diverse coalition of technical organizations, engineering firms, individuals, industry supporters, and government agencies to develop a consensus-based approach to solving these challenges. This paper describes the need for a building rating system, the potential users, the information it provides and the measures that will be used to maintain the long term credibility of the system. Another paper in this session (Mayes and Reis, 2015) covers the goals and objectives, organization, and founding principles of the USRC. Two additional papers describe the two evaluation * Loss of life likely in the building Expected performance results in conditions associated with building collapse, which has a high potential to cause death within or around the building.
This report is one of a series of reports documenting the methods and findings of a multi-year, multi-disciplinary project coordinated by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER and funded by the California Earthquake Authority (CEA). The overall project is titled “Quantifying the Performance of Retrofit of Cripple Walls and Sill Anchorage in Single-Family Wood-Frame Buildings,” henceforth referred to as the “PEER–CEA Project.” The overall objective of the PEER–CEA Project is to provide scientifically based information (e.g., testing, analysis, and resulting loss models) that measure and assess the effectiveness of seismic retrofit to reduce the risk of damage and associated losses (repair costs) of wood-frame houses with cripple wall and sill anchorage deficiencies as well as retrofitted conditions that address those deficiencies. Tasks that support and inform the loss-modeling effort are: (1) collecting and summarizing existing information and results of previous research on the performance of wood-frame houses; (2) identifying construction features to characterize alternative variants of wood-frame houses; (3) characterizing earthquake hazard and ground motions at representative sites in California; (4) developing cyclic loading protocols and conducting laboratory tests of cripple wall panels, wood-frame wall subassemblies, and sill anchorages to measure and document their response (strength and stiffness) under cyclic loading; and (5) the computer modeling, simulations, and the development of loss models as informed by a workshop with claims adjustors. This report is a product of Working Group 2: Development of Index Buildings and focuses on the identification of common variations and combinations of materials and construction characteristics of California single-family dwellings. These were used to develop “Index Buildings” that formed the basis of the PEER–CEA Project testing and analytical modeling programs (Working Groups 4 and 5). The loss modeling component of the Project (Working Group 6) quantified the damage-seismic hazard relationships for each of the Index Buildings.
This report is one of a series of reports documenting the methods and findings of a multi-year, multi-disciplinary project coordinated by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) and funded by the California Earthquake Authority (CEA). The overall project is titled “Quantifying the Performance of Retrofit of Cripple Walls and Sill Anchorage in Single-Family Wood-Frame Buildings,” henceforth referred to as the “PEER-CEA Project.” The overall objective of the PEER–CEA project is to provide scientifically based information (e.g., testing, analysis, and resulting loss models) that measure and assess the effectiveness of seismic retrofit to reduce the risk of damage and associated losses (repair costs) of wood-frame houses with cripple wall and sill anchorage deficiencies as well as retrofitted conditions that address those deficiencies. Tasks that support and inform the loss-modeling effort are: (1) collecting and summarizing existing information and results of previous research on the performance of wood-frame houses; (2) identifying construction features to characterize alternative variants of wood-frame houses; (3) characterizing earthquake hazard and ground motions at representative sites in California; (4) developing cyclic loading protocols and conducting laboratory tests of cripple wall panels, wood-frame wall subassemblies, and sill anchorages to measure and document their response (strength and stiffness) under cyclic loading; and (5) the computer modeling, simulations, and the development of loss models as informed by a workshop with claims adjustors. This report is a product of Working Group 7: Reporting and is a summary of the PEER–CEA Project work performed by Working Groups 1–6. This report does not present new information apart from the rest of the project, and its purpose is to serve as a reference for researchers and catastrophe modelers wishing to understand the objectives and key findings of the project. The key overall findings of the PEER–CEA Project are summarized in Chapters 8 and 10, which describe the efforts of the WG5 and WG6 Working Groups. The reader is referred to the individual reports prepared by the Working Groups for comprehensive information on the tasks, methodologies, and results of each.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.