This paper looks at several example buildings in California, seeking to answer two primary questions - (a) what Functional Recovery time are we expecting for a new code-compliant design of the building, and (b) how could we design the building to recover more quickly (looking at both prescriptive code approaches and other direct resilient design approaches). FEMA P-58 analysis is used to evaluate the building performance and the primary conclusions are: 1. Current code-compliant buildings do not deliver functional recovery. This is because functional recovery is not a goal of the current code. The functional recovery time for design level shaking ranges from six months to two years. 2. General changes to prescriptive building code "nobs" (e.g. Ie = 1.5, Ip = 1.5, and Risk Category Ⅳ) are shown to result in improved performance but do not result in short functional recovery times that may be desired. Note that these nobs could be "turned up more" to achieve acceptably low functional recovery times, but this would increase design requirements on all components (many of which are not preventing building function) so a more targeted approach may be desirable. 3. More direct and targeted resilient design can be used to improve the specific components that are impeding function of the building. This can be done to both (a) achieve the desired time to regain function, and (b) avoid overdesigning components that do not need it. This paper then proposes a next step of using this FEMA P-58 analysis process to calibrate building design requirements that can be shown to deliver acceptably short functional recovery times for new buildings.
展开▼
