Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time

Sattar, Siamak

doi:10.6028/nist.sp.1254

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The content used to create this document was considered by the Committee of Experts in developing the NIST-FEMA report. As such, these materials, findings, and summary points pre-date the final development of the NIST-FEMA report [6].…”

Section: Summary and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Workshop findings were considered by the Committee of Experts and informed their development of the report to Congress. The final NIST-FEMA report, titled: "FEMA P-2090/NIST SP-1254: Recommended options for improving the built environment for postearthquake reoccupancy and functional recovery time", was submitted to Congress in January 2021 [6].…”

Section: Functional Recovery Workhop Report Improving Post-earthquake Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ultimately, the first recommendation in the NIST-FEMA report is that a Framework for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Objectives should be developed [6]. This framework should help define what community functions and services need to be in place to promote recovery after a seismic event, as well as acceptable timeframes for recovery; develop design criteria for what performance attributes, capacity, or level of function a component of infrastructure must achieve to reach reoccupancy or functional recovery status; and determine the appropriate earthquake hazard levels on which to base recovery objectives.…”

Section: Breakout Session 1: Developing a Functional Recovery Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, fire stations and hospitals were consistently placed in the Hours recovery category, and police stations were categorized in Hours in 26 out of 27 instances. 6 Components related to energy/electricity, food/water resources, and telecommunications/information were placed in the Hours and Days recovery time categories in 73 out of 81 instances. • Participants expressed more variability in judgment on buildings and infrastructure related to functions other than life safety and life essentials.…”

Section: B Early Stages Of Recovery (Hours and Days) Were More Consistent Across Communities Than Later Stages (Weeks And Months)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In response to a Congressional mandate, NIST and FEMA provided a report to Congress, "FEMA P-2090/NIST SP-1254: Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time" [6], that recommends options for improving the built environment and critical infrastructure systems. As part of this effort, NIST and FEMA conducted stakeholder workshops to inform the Committee of Experts.…”

Section: Summary and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

NIST-FEMA post-earthquake functional recovery workshop report

Abrahams¹,

Pay²,

Sattar³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To strengthen America's resilience, the Federal Government recognizes a need to reduce interruptions to services and jobs, and to lessen disruption to social and economic community functions after earthquake events. Current building codes and standards largely focus on saving lives. However, maintaining services and functionality will require new mechanisms that more effectively limit damage to buildings and lifelines infrastructure systems.In response to a U.S. Congressional mandate, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Federal Emergency Management Administration 1 convened a Committee of Experts to recommend and assess "options" for improving post-earthquake reoccupancy and functional recovery time across the built environment. To inform the Committee of Experts and assist in their development of a report to Congress, stakeholder workshops were held in five cities across the country to gather information from subject matter experts and professionals in the earthquake community. This document details the processes for gathering input from stakeholders at workshops. It summarizes participants' reactions to functional recovery concepts and options, particularly with respect to information that can help determine appropriate recovery times, as well as criteria for assessing various implementation options. In particular, workshop participants provided insights regarding which community functions were viewed as critical to postearthquake recovery, and when components of the built environment that support those functions would need to recover in order to maintain community stability. Generally, participants categorized components of the built environment important in the short term (hours and days) more consistently than the components slated for return in longer timeframes (weeks and months). Participants noted the importance of local values and community contexts to these assignments. Attendees were also asked to consider what factors a policy maker could use to effectively assess and compare options to improve functional recovery. Cost, benefit, feasibility, effectiveness, and equity were the five categories of evaluative criteria identified most clearly and frequently across attendees.Overall, participants supported the idea of developing a national framework for functional recovery, while emphasizing the importance of flexibility and adaptability of the framework such that it can be utilized as a tool for planning at the local level. Additional key themes stakeholders identified as important for inclusion in the report to Congress are detailed in Section 5. Input from a diversity of stakeholder perspectives gathered at the workshops were essential to help develop the concept of functional recovery and inform the report to Congress. In the future, additional feedback will be needed to develop specific resilience goals, set public policy, and prioritize the investment of resources to produce functional recovery performance.

show abstract

Section: Summary and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Functional Recovery Workhop Report Improving Post-earthquake Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Breakout Session 1: Developing a Functional Recovery Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Early Stages Of Recovery (Hours and Days) Were More Consistent Across Communities Than Later Stages (Weeks And Months)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

NIST-FEMA post-earthquake functional recovery workshop report

Abrahams¹,

Pay²,

Sattar³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Methods for Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Buildings

2023

Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Machine‐learning‐based optimization framework to support recovery‐based design

Issa

Silva‐Lopez

Baker

et al. 2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recovery‐based design links building‐level engineering and broader community resilience objectives. However, the relationship between above‐code engineering improvements and recovery performance is highly nonlinear and varies on a building‐ and site‐specific basis, presenting a challenge to both individual owners and code developers. In addition, downtime simulations are computationally expensive and hinder exploration of the full design space. In this paper, we present an optimization framework to identify optimal above‐code design improvements to achieve building‐specific recovery objectives. We supplement the optimization with a workflow to develop surrogate models that (i) rapidly estimate recovery performance under a range of user‐defined improvements, and (ii) enable complex and informative optimization techniques that can be repeated for different stakeholder priorities. We explore the implementation of the framework using a case study office building, with a 50th percentile baseline functional recovery time of 155 days at the 475‐year ground‐motion return period. To optimally achieve a target recovery time of 21 days, we find that nonstructural component enhancements are required, and that increasing structural strength (through increase of the importance factor) can be detrimental. However, for less ambitious target recovery times, we find that the use of larger importance factors eliminates the need for nonstructural component improvements. Such results demonstrate that the relative efficacy of a given recovery‐based design strategy will depend strongly on the design criteria set by the user.

show abstract

Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time

Cited by 22 publications

References 10 publications

NIST-FEMA post-earthquake functional recovery workshop report

NIST-FEMA post-earthquake functional recovery workshop report

Methods for Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Machine‐learning‐based optimization framework to support recovery‐based design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About