FM

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 103.60.209.217 on 04/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Resilience-Based Performance
Next Generation Guidelines for Buildings

and Lifeline Standards
Prepared by
Risk and Resilience Measurement Committee
Sponsored by
Infrastructure Resilience Division of the
American Society of Civil Engineers
Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: American Society of Civil Engineers. Infrastructure Resilience Division. Risk and
Resilience Measurement Committee, editor. | American Society of Civil Engineers.
Infrastructure Resilience Division, sponsoring body.
Title: Resilience-based performance : next generation guidelines for buildings and lifeline
standards / prepared by Risk and Resilience Measurement Committee ; sponsored by
Infrastructure Resilience Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Description: Reston, Virginia : American Society of Civil Engineers, [2019] | Includes
bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018061671 | ISBN 9780784415276 (print : alk. paper) | ISBN
9780784482063 (PDF)
Subjects: LCSH: Buildings–Performance–Standards–United States. | Emergency management–
Standards–United States. | Community life–United States. | Infrastructure (Economics)–
United States.
Classification: LCC TH453 .R47 2019 | DDC 690.02/1873–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018061671
Published by American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191-4382
www.asce.org/bookstore | ascelibrary.org
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement
made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product,
process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty
thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a
standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts,
regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or
warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness,
suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this
publication, and assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials
should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for
any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability
arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE
publications can be requested by sending an e-mail to permissions@asce.org or by locating a
title in the ASCE Library (http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link.
Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784415276.
Copyright © 2019 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978-0-7844-1527-6 (print)
ISBN 978-0-7844-8206-3 (PDF)
Manufactured in the United States of America.
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 1 2 3 4 5
Cover photography by Michael Mieler, used with permission.
Contents
Preface................................................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................vii
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction...........................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework for Developing Resilience-Based

Performance Standards..................................................................................5
2.1 Assumptions Relevant to the Proposed Framework ................................7
2.2 Types of Assessment................................................................................................. 8
Chapter 3: Characterizing a Community and Its Supporting

Infrastructure .....................................................................................................11
3.1 Structure of a Community .................................................................................. 11
3.2 Vital Community Functions ................................................................................ 12
3.3 Supporting Infrastructure..................................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Buildings and Building Clusters ......................................................... 15
3.3.2 Lifeline Systems and Components................................................... 17
3.3.3 Interdependence across Building and Lifeline Systems........ 19
Chapter 4: Hazard Assessment........................................................................................ 23

4.1 Hazard Sources and Perils................................................................................... 23
4.2 Categories and Current Practice for Single Hazards ............................. 25
4.3 Categories and Current Practice for Design against
Multihazards and Multiple Hazards................................................................ 30
4.4 Hazard Characterization........................................................................................ 31
4.4.1 Event-Based Characterization.............................................................. 31
4.4.2 Scenario-Based Characterization........................................................ 33
4.4.3 Time-Based Characterization ............................................................... 35
4.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter 5: Metrics and Assessment Methods for Community

Resilience .................................................................................................. 39
5.1 Measuring Community Resilience ................................................................... 39
5.2 Assessing Community Resilience..................................................................... 42
5.3 Resilience Objectives for Communities ........................................................ 44
iii
iv CONTENTS
Chapter 6: Metrics and Assessment Methods for Building and

Lifeline Performance.....................................................................................49
6.1 Buildings....................................................................................................................... 49
6.1.1 Building Codes, Performance Standards and Guidelines ..... 49
6.1.2 Metrics of Building Performance....................................................... 52
6.1.3 Building Cluster Performance Objectives...................................... 53
6.1.4 Building Performance Assessment Methods............................... 54

6.2 Energy............................................................................................................................ 57
6.2.1 Metrics ............................................................................................................ 58
6.2.2 Assessment Methods and Models.................................................... 59
6.3 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 61
6.3.1 Metrics ............................................................................................................ 61
6.4 Water and Wastewater ......................................................................................... 63
6.4.1 Metrics ............................................................................................................ 64
6.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 7: Summary and Next Steps.......................................................................... 75

7.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 75
7.1 Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix: Glossary of Resilience Terms ..................................................... 79

Index.................................................................................................................................................. 81
Preface
Since the turn of the century, there has been a marked increase in research,
education, and advocacy toward developing strategies for increasing the resilience
of communities to natural and man-made hazards. While resilience is defined in
many ways, it generally refers to the ability of different social units (individuals,
households, organizations, communities, regions and nations) to minimize the
effect of, adapt to, and recover from disruptive events. Achieving resilience is a
complex problem that must consider and integrate what communities need from
their social, economic, natural, and built environments. This work specifically
focuses on what enhancements are needed in the design and construction of
buildings and lifeline systems to support a community’s social stability, economic
vitality, and environmental sustainability.
A major challenge in enhancing a community’s built environment stems from
the current approach used to establish the performance goals of buildings and
infrastructure systems. Current code-based standards are primarily focused on
individual facilities and are out of sync with the resilience needs of the broader
community. The emphasis on life safety and a lack of consideration of the
consequences of loss of functionality will result in extensive socioeconomic
disruptions and slow recovery after a major hazard event. A new generation of
standards is needed, which redefines the current design approach such that it
integrates community-level resilience goals with functional recovery-based design
standards for individual facilities. It requires a convergent approach that brings
together engineers, social scientists, economists, environmentalists, and more.
Building on the framework that was advanced by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology’s Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infra-
structure, the Risk and Resilience Measurements Committee (RRMC) of ASCE has
embarked on a long-term project to develop the needed, next-generation, resil-
ience-based design standards for buildings and lifeline systems. This book
represents a foundation and first step in what promises to be a long and complex
transition.
The RRMC is one of four committees within the newly formed ASCE
Infrastructure Resilience Division. The division was organized and chartered to
advance resilient practices and improve the performance of civil infrastructure
and lifeline systems recognizing their interdependent relationships and using risk
and uncertainty principles.
Chris Poland and Henry Burton, Co-chairs, RRMC
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by members of the Risk and Resilience Measurements
Committee within the ASCE Infrastructure Resilience Division. The primary
authors, their affiliations, and specific contributions include the following:
Henry Burton, Assistant Professor, University of California, Los Angeles: project

co-lead and primary author for Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 6
Chris Poland, Consulting Engineer: project co-lead and primary author for
Chapter 7
Madeleine Flint, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech: primary author for Chapters 2
and 4
Michael Mieler, Risk and Resilience Engineer, Arup: primary author for
Chapters 3 and 5
Mehrdad Sasani, Professor, Northeastern University: primary author for
Chapters 3, 4 and 6
Aaron Michel, Senior Research Scientist, Global Parametrics: primary author for
Chapter 4
Hiba Baroud, Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University: primary author for
Chapter 6
Bilal Ayyub, Professor, University of Maryland: committee chair and project
oversight
Shady Salem, Doctoral Candidate, McMaster University: primary author for
Glossary of Resilience Terms (Appendix)
The following individuals are acknowledged for serving as external reviewers

and providing invaluable input on the content of the report:
Emin Atkin, Drexel University

Sue McNeil, Rutgers University
John W. van de Lindt, Colorado State University
Craig Davis, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Therese McAllister, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Richard Wright, ASCE IRD Executive Committee
Yue Li, Case Western University
Reproductions or modifications to figures 2-2, 2-3, 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 should
acknowledge their author, Madeleine Flint.
vii
This page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
Built infrastructure, which includes buildings, building clusters, lifeline systems,

and other engineered systems, is critical to the functionality of communities.
Through a complex network of interactions and interdependencies, the built
environment supports economic, social, cultural, and other types of community
development. However, the physical, functional, geo-spatial, and informational
interdependencies within the components and systems of the built environment
are such that physical damage caused by natural hazard events can have enduring
adverse effects on a range of community activities. A community that is resilient to
natural hazards can minimize the initial impacts of, adapt to, and quickly recover
from a natural hazard event. The performance of built infrastructure under
normal operating and extreme loading, and its specific role in supporting normal
functioning, are key considerations in assessing and enhancing community
resilience. However, current codes and standards generally do not explicitly
consider the function of an infrastructure system or component in establishing
its desired performance in hazard events. In most cases, the safety of users is the
primary (and often, only) criterion.
The primary objective of this book is to create a roadmap for the next
generation of resilience-based performance standards and guidelines for the built
environment. Central to the notion of resilience-based standards is an explicit link
between the performance targets for buildings and lifelines and the high-level
resilience goals of the community. A conceptual framework is proposed, which
takes on a hierarchical structure, connecting community resilience goals with the
performance objectives defined at the infrastructure system scale (e.g., building
clusters and lifelines) and the component level (e.g., individual buildings and
lifeline components and subsystems). A focused review of the ongoing research
and practice toward the development of resilience-based standards is also pre-
sented. The specific goals of this review are: to summarize and synthesize the state
of research and practice on infrastructure performance and community resilience,
to identify the existing tools and methods that are relevant to advancing the
proposed conceptual framework, and to highlight future research needs. The
review is divided into four thematic areas: characterizing communities and their
supporting infrastructure, characterizing hazards, measuring and assessing com-
munity resilience, and measuring and assessing infrastructure performance. The
main findings from these four areas are summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
The proposed conceptual framework begins with the implementation of a
stakeholder-driven process to establish community resilience goals. Performance
objectives for “vital functions”—those goods, services, activities, and exchanges
that support normal community functioning (e.g., energy, transportation,
ix
x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
communication, water)—are derived from the high-level resilience goals. The

functions and vulnerabilities of the built infrastructure (buildings, building
clusters, and lifeline systems and components) supporting each vital function
must then be defined. Traditionally, the vulnerability of an infrastructure system
or component to a hazard event describes the relationship between a load effect
and infrastructure damage and safety. However, in the context of community
resilience planning and development, infrastructure vulnerability should be

assessed and described in relation to the potential for disrupting functionality.
Issues of redundancy, function transferability, and timing relative to the occur-
rence of a hazard effect must also be considered. Performance objectives for
building clusters and lifeline systems are directly linked to those of the vital
functions they support and are used as the basis for establishing performance
targets at the individual building and lifeline component scales.
Quantifying community resilience requires a spatially and temporally explicit
characterization of multiple hazard events. Current hazard characterization
methods vary widely based on the use of empirical versus physics-based models,
and consideration of uncertainty and spatial variation. In this book, three major
categories have been identified as being able to uniquely contribute to the
development of community-resilience-based performance standards. Event-based
hazard characterization, which is the basis of most current design practices,
defines the spatial variation of hazard intensity based on a uniform return period
(e.g., a 475-year earthquake). For community resilience assessments, the disad-
vantage of this approach is its inability to capture realistic spatial variations of
loading effects from real events. A risk-based approach to defining this spatial
variation could address this limitation. Scenario-based hazard characterization is
commonly used for regional-scale disaster planning and to assess the performance
of geographically distributed infrastructure systems (e.g., water delivery systems).
For community-resilience-based assessments, multiple scenarios can be used to
capture the potential variations in spatial damage pattern, which will also affect the
spatial distribution of impacts. Time-based characterization probabilistically
combines all possible scenarios or hazard levels. This is the most complex and
computationally expensive of the three categories. However, it is the only method
that can support the use of fully probabilistic community goals or system
objectives.
A diverse set of community resilience metrics have been published in the
literature. However, most of these metrics have not been rigorously validated to
determine how well they measure the intended function. In general, metrics are
distinguished based on their ability to identify potential vulnerabilities before an
event (e.g., percentage of non-elderly population) versus those that can be used to
simulate or monitor recovery after an event (e.g. number of occupiable homes).
The tools and methods for assessing community-scale resilience are currently in
the early stages of development. Such methods need to consider not only built
infrastructure, but the human and natural infrastructure as well. The complex
dynamic interactions among these three elements of a community present major
challenges in model development. Currently, most resilience assessment methods
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi
are indicator-based: they incorporate quantifiable variables that are intended to

represent specific characteristics of community resilience. A limitation of this
approach stems from the need to condense the complex dynamic community
interactions into a few variables, which are often selected as a matter of conve-
nience. A limited number of studies have attempted to develop analytical and/or
simulation-based approaches to assessing community resilience. However, more
robust and validated quantitative assessment methods are needed for each vital
function and ultimately, entire communities. Central to the conceptual framework
proposed in the current book is the link between performance goals, objectives,
and targets, across different scales. A systematic consensus-driven process for
establishing this link is not yet available. Such a process needs to balance the need
for flexibility (i.e., the ability of a community to customize performance goals and
objectives) and consistency (some level of uniformity in performance objectives
across communities is desirable).
To support community resilience assessments, the metrics and methods for
assessing infrastructure system and component performance need to provide a
clear quantitative and/or qualitative roadmap between component/system and
community-level performance. This book distinguishes between the metrics and
assessment methods needed for buildings, building clusters, and lifelines. The
ideal building performance metrics should be directly related to community
recovery. Examples of such metrics (listed in order of relevance to resilience-
based performance standards) include post-event functionality, inhabitability and
repairability, hazard-event-induced economic losses, and collapse safety. Across
different hazards, there are differences in the degree to which methods of assessing
building performance using these resilience-related metrics have been developed.
For example, the performance-based earthquake engineering framework has
produced significant advancements in this regard. However, methods for linking
individual building and cluster-level performance are still in the early stages of
development. In recent years, there has been a surge of efforts in research and
practice to advance building performance metrics and methods for other hazards,
including wind, tornadoes, tsunamis, flooding, and fires.
Overall, the available tools and techniques for quantifying resilience-related
infrastructure performance are more advanced for buildings than they are for
lifelines. In this book, the chapter on assessing lifeline performance is limited to
those related to energy, transportation, and water/wastewater. Communication
and solid waste infrastructure are briefly discussed in the chapter on “Character-
izing Communities and their Supporting Infrastructure,” but metrics and methods
for assessing their performance are not covered. The complex interactive nature of
lifeline systems has led to a wide range of performance metrics being proposed and
implemented in research and practice. These metrics can be distinguished based
on their relevance to normal operations and post-hazard-event performance
characterization. For the latter, most of the currently available metrics seek to
aggregate the performance of a lifeline network into a single composite index,
which can be used to measure immediate post-event performance or model the
restoration profile. Among the utilities, simulation-based and analytical methods
xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
for assessing post-hazard-event restoration (mostly after earthquakes and hurri-

canes) have been developed for water, power, and gas systems. Post-earthquake
recovery-of-functionality models have also been developed for individual bridges
and bridge networks. Similar models are not yet available for other types of
transportation systems and components. A major challenge related to the
development of community-resilience-based performance standards is ensuring
some level consistency in the performance assessment metrics and methods across
different types of lifeline systems. The significant differences in component types,
spatial configurations, and physical and functional interactions presents a major
hurdle in achieving this goal.
Infrastructure interdependence (physical, functional, informational, and geo-
spatial) is another important consideration in community-resilience-based assess-
ments. Most of the current methods in research and practice focus on the
interdependence of components within a single type of system (e.g., a water
distribution system). However, to assess community resilience, methods for
capturing interdependence across buildings and different types of lifeline systems
are needed.
Based on the in-depth review of the current research and practice in the area
of built infrastructure resilience, this book advocates commencing a formal
process toward establishing resilience-based performance guidelines and stan-
dards. While gaps in knowledge, tools, and procedures have been identified, the
ongoing advancements in both research and practice will continue to fill those
gaps and can take place simultaneously with the guidelines and standards
development.

FM

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FM

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 103.60.209.217 on 04/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Next Generation Guidelines for Buildings

Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Infrastructure Resilience Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework for Developing Resilience-Based

Chapter 3: Characterizing a Community and Its Supporting

Chapter 4: Hazard Assessment........................................................................................ 23

Chapter 5: Metrics and Assessment Methods for Community

Chapter 6: Metrics and Assessment Methods for Building and

6.1.4 Building Performance Assessment Methods............................... 54

Chapter 7: Summary and Next Steps.......................................................................... 75

Appendix: Glossary of Resilience Terms ..................................................... 79

Henry Burton, Assistant Professor, University of California, Los Angeles: project

The following individuals are acknowledged for serving as external reviewers

Emin Atkin, Drexel University

Built infrastructure, which includes buildings, building clusters, lifeline systems,

communication, water)—are derived from the high-level resilience goals. The

resilience planning and development, infrastructure vulnerability should be

are indicator-based: they incorporate quantiﬁable variables that are intended to

for assessing post-hazard-event restoration (mostly after earthquakes and hurri-

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi