Page 1

Energy efficiency and disaster resilience: a common approach Gian Michele Calvi IUSS and Eucentre, Pavia

1


Better to invest on Reduction of Seismic Risk

Improving energy efficiency

or

     Milano 2016

Consistent language Consistent tools and approaches Measurable comparison of potential benefits Rational choices An integrated investment strategy 2


A glimpse into energy efficiency assessment and improvement

Milano 2016

3


ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS A large part of the energy consumption in residential buildings are used for direct building related use such as space heating, which accounts for more than 50 % in selected IEA Countries.

Milano 2016

4


LOCAL CLIMATE and DAY DEGREES

Day Degrees a measure to detect the influence of climate on energy consumption the difference between the internal design temperature (20 °C, 68 °F), and the outside average temperature over 24 hours.

HIGHER DAY DEGREES Milano 2016

HIGHER CONSUMPTION DEMAND

5


DAY DEGREES ARE A MEASURE OF CLIMATE HAZARD

Milano 2016

6


ENERGY CLASSIFICATION In most European countries: energy performance (EP) of the building is related to the total (annual) energy consumption due to heating (cooling) and water supply. EP represents the amount of energy, expressed in kWh/m2, consumed in one year.

Milano 2016

7


ENERGY COST (LOSS)

energy cos t energy loss  total building value Energy Expected Annual Loss (or cost, EALE)

EPTOT [ kWh / m 2 ]  unit energy cos t [$ / kWh] EALE  construction [$ / m 2 ]

Milano 2016

8


Basics in seismic risk assessment

Milano 2016

9


Design earthquake and performance levels Vision-2000 (SEAOC (1995) Performance Level

Performance Description

Storey Drift (%)

Fully Operational

Continuous service, negligible damage

0.2 %

Operational

Safe for occupancy, light damage, repairs for non-essential operations

0.5 %

Life Safety

Moderate damage, life safety protected, repair possible but may be impractical

1.5 %

Near Collapse

Severe damage, collapse prevented, falling of non-structural elements

2.5 %

Milano 2016


Assessment parameters Structural damage

deformation damage index (i.e. inter-storey drift)

Non structural damage

peak transient drift (partitions, glazing) peak floor diaphragm acceleration (acoustical ceilings, sprinklers), peak ground acceleration (elevators) ratio of damaged area (paint)

The major relevance of displacement, drift and strain is essentially confirmed Milano 2016

(Mitrani-Reiser (2007))

11


EAL - Expected annual loss The average annual cost to be sustained to repair seismic damage, considering the integral of events and of their effects over time

Reinforced concrete frame buildings, designed in compliance with applicable seismic codes Expected annual loss (EAL) between 0.5 and 1 % of the replacement cost.

Buildings designed in absence of seismic provisions Expected annual loss (EAL) > 2.5 % of the replacement cost. Milano 2016


Performance-based assessment

Milano 2016

PEER methodology


From site to hazard parameters: What is the probability of Sa(T) equal to 1.0g ?

Hazard reference parameters and analysis to estimate an intensity measure of an earthquake expected with a given occurrence, (i.e. with a given yearly probability of exceedence or average return period). PGA (g)

D10 (mm) 500

0.45

300

0.35

0.10 50 50y

475y

2475y

TR

PGA or D10 + spectral shape

50y

475y

2475y

TR


From hazard to response parameters: What is the likely drift if Sa(T) is 1.0g ?

Structural analysis Vbase (kN)

Storey

Δp3

θp1

θp2

θp3

4

Δp2

Δp1 3

P1 P2 P3

2 Ke,p3 ξe,p3 Ke,p2 ξe,p2 Ke,p1 ξe,p1 Displacement (Δ)

1

Inter-storey Drift (θ)

traditional question: “what will be the response of the structure to a given input ground motion” proper question: “what will be the earthquake that will induce a given performance”


From hazard to response parameters: What is the likely drift if Sa(T) is 1.0g ?

Structural analysis ξ = 20%

ξ = 5% 0.50

0.50

0.45

0.45

TR=975y

TR=975y

0.40

0.40

TR=475y

TR=475y

0.35

TR=50y

0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10

Spectral Displacement (m)

Spectral Displacement (m)

TR=2475y

TR=2475y

0.35

TR=50y

0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05

0.05

0.00

0.00 0

1

2

Period (s)

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

Period (s)

traditional question: “what will be the response of the structure to a given input ground motion”

proper question: “what will be the earthquake that will induce a given performance”


Structural analysis

From hazard to response parameters: What is the likely drift if Sa(T) is 1.0g ?

Step changes hazard performance

smooth functions abrupt changes: stiffness or local/global failure

• the definition of a given yearly probability of exceedence is conventional • the association of a performance to physical events is possible and desirable • the economical resources required to reach a given performance are normally changing with finite steps inducing discontinuities in any cost – benefit function. Level of knowledge • Tests guided by possible strengthening choices • Extensive use of back analysis traditional question: “what will be the response of the structure to a given input ground motion” proper question: “what will be the earthquake that will induce a given performance”


From response to damage: If drift demand is 1% what is the partition damage?

100%

RC

RC

RC

Damage analysis 100%

100%

0.01, 1

60%

(NS) 40% NS Acceleration Sensitive Damage

20%

0.05, 1

80% 60%

(NS) 40%

0.003, 0.4 NS Drift Sensitive Damage

20%

0.4, 0

80%

0.02, 0.8

60%

(S) 40% 20%

0% 0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Peak Floor Acceleration (g)

PFA Inter-storey drift (Di) Peak floor acceleration (PFA)

Structural Damage

0.015, 0.3

0.005, 0

0.002, 0.1

0.01, 0.1

0%

0% 0

Percentage of Damage

80%

Percentage of Damage

Percentage of Damage

2, 1

0

0.001, 0

0.005 0.01 0.015 Inter-Storey Drift Ratio

0.02

0

0.01

Di

Structural damage (S) Non structural damage (NS)

0.02 0.03 0.04 Inter-Storey Drift Ratio

0.05

0.06

Di

As a percentage of cost of reconstruction (%RC)


Loss assessment

EAL


COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Milano 2016

20


Cost – benefit analysis

100%

Walls Existing Element/Dampers FPS-Iso

7000 6000 5000

Brittle failure expected in existing structure

Element/ Damper retrofits assume continued pushover

4000 3000 2000 Vbase and Δroof at stick-slip activation of FPS

1000

80%

Direct Loss (% Replacement)

8000

Base Shear (kN)

As built

60% Existing

40%

Elem-50% FPS-Iso

20%

Walls

Design capacity of FPS

Dampers

0%

0

0.00

0.20

0.40

Displacement (m)

0.60

0

1000

2000

3000

Return Period (years)

4000

5000


Modification of damage and collapse modes Strengthening elements/ Locally increasing the deformation capacity

carbon fibres wrapping to increase the shear strength in a column cost about 810 €/el

concrete casting to increase shear and flexural strength cost about 400 €/el

steel encasing for the same purpose cost about 650 €/el

Rough average cost, to be used for a first estimate about 200 € per meter of beam or column


Cost – benefit analysis

100%

Walls Existing Element/Dampers FPS-Iso

7000 6000 5000

Brittle failure expected in existing structure

Element/ Damper retrofits assume continued pushover

4000 3000 2000 Vbase and Δroof at stick-slip activation of FPS

1000

80%

Direct Loss (% Replacement)

8000

Base Shear (kN)

Member strengthening As built

60% Existing

40%

Elem-50% FPS-Iso

20%

Walls

Design capacity of FPS

Dampers

0%

0

0.00

0.20

0.40

Displacement (m)

0.60

0

1000

2000

3000

Return Period (years)

4000

5000


Modification of damage and collapse modes Inserting additional elements

• Steel bracings • Shotcrete • Concrete walls


Cost – benefit analysis

100%

Walls Existing Element/Dampers FPS-Iso

7000 6000 5000

Brittle failure expected in existing structure

Element/ Damper retrofits assume continued pushover

4000 3000 2000 Vbase and Δroof at stick-slip activation of FPS

1000

80%

Direct Loss (% Replacement)

8000

Base Shear (kN)

Added walls As built

60% Existing

40%

Elem-50% FPS-Iso

20%

Walls

Design capacity of FPS

Dampers

0%

0

0.00

0.20

0.40

Displacement (m)

0.60

0

1000

2000

3000

Return Period (years)

4000

5000


Introduction of isolation systems Capacity protecting the existing structures Procedures for devices introduction

Introduction of an isolator: column cutting, temporary support, fixing cost around 150 â‚Ź/m2 of building plan additional measures around 150 â‚Ź/m2


Cost – benefit analysis

100%

Walls Existing Element/Dampers FPS-Iso

7000 6000 5000

Brittle failure expected in existing structure

Element/ Damper retrofits assume continued pushover

4000 3000 2000 Vbase and Δroof at stick-slip activation of FPS

1000

80%

Direct Loss (% Replacement)

8000

Base Shear (kN)

Isolation As built system

60% Existing

40%

Elem-50% FPS-Iso

20%

Walls

Design capacity of FPS

Dampers

0%

0

0.00

0.20

0.40

Displacement (m)

0.60

0

1000

2000

3000

Return Period (years)

4000

5000


Cost – benefit analysis Indirect losses – residential case Assume that each person occupies a building area of 25 m2 Assume that cost (to society or to an insurance company) to relocate is 50 €/day Value of the area occupied by a person: 30,000 € (1,200 [€/m2] × 25 [m2]) Indirect loss due to downtime 50 [€/day] / 30,000 [€] 0.17 % of RC per day

Performance

Interruption

Time (days)

Lossindirect (% of RC)

Fully Operational

1 week

7

1.2 %

Damage Control

4 weeks

30

5.0%

Life Safety

6 months

180

30.0%

Near Collapse

1.5 years

540

90.0%


Cost – benefit analysis

100%

Walls Existing Element/Dampers FPS-Iso

7000 6000 5000

Brittle failure expected in existing structure

Element/ Damper retrofits assume continued pushover

4000 3000 2000 Vbase and Δroof at stick-slip activation of FPS

1000

80%

Direct Loss (% Replacement)

8000

Base Shear (kN)

Isolation system Member Added strengthening walls As built

60% Existing

40%

Elem-50% FPS-Iso

20%

Walls

Design capacity of FPS

Dampers

0%

0

0.00

0.20

0.40

Displacement (m)

0.60

0

1000

2000

3000

Return Period (years)

4000

5000


Cost – benefit analysis Expected annual losses for the strengthened structures Strengthening Strategy

LIMIT STATE

Fully Operational

Damage Control

Life Safety

Near Collapse Expected Annual Loss

Existing* (do-nothing )

Element (50%)

FPS Isolation**

Shear Walls

Added Damping

RP (y)

20

20

20

30

30

LossDirect | O (%)

4.00%

4.00%

4.00%

2.90%

4.00%

LossIndirect | O (%)

1.17%

1.17%

1.17%

1.17%

1.17%

RP (y) LossDirect | DC (%)

72 28.27%

72 28.27%

72 28.27%

140 24.73%

200 28.27%

LossIndirect | DC (%)

5.00%

5.00%

5.00%

5.00%

5.00%

RP (y)

273

975

3400

2000

3200

LossDirect | LS (%)

100%

66.50%

39.8%

62.53%

66.50%

LossIndirect | LS (%)

90.00%

30.00%

5.00%

30.00%

30.00%

RP (y) LossDirect | NC (%)

2475 100%

2475 81.38%

3400 39.8%

4400 81.17%

4300 81.38%

LossIndirect | NC (%)

90.00%

90.00%

5.00%

90.00%

90.00%

EALDirect (%)

1.70%

1.37%

1.20%

0.79%

0.84%

EALDirect+Indirect (%)

2.66%

1.81%

1.41%

1.06%

1.07%

*Brittle collapse is expected at a 273 year return period for the existing building and near collapse downtime is assumed **The FPS Isolation case assumes only damage control level of downtime beyond the stick-slip activation of bearings


Cost – benefit analysis Expected annual losses for the strengthened structures Expected Annual Loss 3.0%

EAL- Direct Loss EAL Direct + Indirect

2.0%

1.5%

1.07%

Dampers 5

0.84%

1.06%

4 Walls

0.79%

1.41%

FPS3 Iso

1.20%

0.5%

1.37%

2.66%

1.81%

1.0%

1.70%

EAL (% of replacement)

2.5%

0.0%

Existing 1

2 Elem-50%


Cost – benefit analysis Breakeven point benefit–cost ratios calculated by dividing the change in near present value (NPV) of expected annual loss (EAL) by the total cost of the retrofit NPV calculated assuming a “design life” of 50 years, an arbitrary and conventional value 50

Benefit NPV Existing  NPVRe trofit  Cost CostRe trofit

t BreakEven

EALExisting

 1  r   t 1

t

50



EALRe trofit

t 1

1  r t

CostRe trofit

CostRe trofit Value   Value / time EALExisting  EALRe trofit


Cost – benefit analysis Breakeven point Strengthening Strategy

Direct Losses

Direct + Indirect Losses

Existing (do-nothing )

Element (50%)

FPS Isolation

Shear Walls

Added Damping

Cost (%RC)

-

16.0%

22.0%

24.0%

22.2%

EALDirect (%RC)

1.70%

1.37%

1.20%

0.79%

0.84%

NPVEAL (%RC)

85.24%

68.55%

59.81%

39.32%

41.87%

Benefit (%RC)

-

16.69%

25.43%

45.92%

43.37%

Benefit-Cost Ratio

-

1.043

1.157

1.913

1.955

tbreak even (y)

-

47.9

43.2

26.1

25.6

EALDirect+Indirect (%RC)

2.66%

1.81%

1.41%

1.06%

1.07%

NPVEAL (%RC)

133.04%

90.52%

70.31%

52.95%

53.57%

Benefit (%RC)

-

42.52%

62.73%

80.08%

79.46%

Benefit-Cost Ratio

-

2.658

2.853

3.336

3.582

tbreak even (y)

-

18.8

17.5

15.0

14.0


Cost – benefit analysis Breakeven point Benefit-Cost Analysis for Considered Retrofit Options

Break-Even Analysis for Considered Retrofit Options

4.0

60.0 Direct Losses

B/C Direct Losses

0.0 Elem-50% 1

FPS2- Iso

Walls 3

Dampers 4

Elem-50% 1

FPS -2Iso

Walls 3

14.0

15.0

26.1

17.5

1.95

1.91

0.0

43.2

3.58

3.34

20.0

10.0

1.16

0.5

2.85

2.66

1.5

30.0

18.8

2.0

40.0

47.9

2.5

1.04

Benefit Cost Ratio

3.0

1.0

Direct + Indirect

50.0

25.6

B/C Direct + Indirect

Time for Break Even (years)

3.5

Dampers 4


Loss assessment:

EAL – Expected Annual Loss

EAL

Reduce probability of NC

Reduce also probability of DC

Reduce probability of DC


A parameter for seismic classification of buildings EAL could be used as a global evaluation parameter of the “seismic quality” or, maybe better, of the “seismic resilience” of a building

“seismic resilience” – SR EALdirect < 0.5 % RC EALdirect < 1.0 % RC EALdirect < 2.0 % RC

SR-A SR-B SR-C

Possible effects of a certified seismic resilience: • insurance companies may use it to define the annual premium • value of a building may increase as a consequence of a strengthening intervention • unsafe buildings may be difficult (or impossible) to be sold • governments may consider to subsidize strengthening intervention on the base of a measurable benefit for the society


6m

3m

6m

Perimeter RC Frames

Lightweight steel framed partitions 5 bay s at 5m = 25 m

PLAN VIEW

Constant storey height hs= 3.3m hs = 3.5

EAST ELEVATION OF BUILDING

A case study frame building.

Milano 2016

37


Milano 2016

38


OPTION 1: no retrofit such that the structure remains as it is OPTION 2: replacement of the existing partitions with well detailed partitions (lightweight steel?) that increase the drift required to exceed zero-loss limit state from 0.3% to 0.7%; OPTION 3: replacement of the partitions (as per OPTION 2) and addition of viscous dampers to reduce the seismic demands at all limit states.

Displacement Capacity (m)

Effective Period (s)

Equivalent Viscous Damping Milano 2016

Retrofit OPTION 1

Retrofit OPTION 2

Retrofit OPTION 3

Zero Loss Limit State

0.023

0.054

0.054

Replacement Limit State

0.154

0.154

0.154

Zero Loss Limit State

1.15

1.15

1.15

Replacement Limit State

1.59

1.59

1.59

Zero Loss Limit State

5%

5%

20%

Replacement Limit State

15%

15%

36%

39


Assessed hazard level for limit state

Local site hazard coefficient, k Cf Probability of exceeding L.S.

Milano 2016

Retrofit OPTION 1

Retrofit OPTION 2

Retrofit OPTION 3

Zero Loss Limit State

93.5% prob. exc. in 50yrs

42.8% prob. exc. in 50yrs

17.1% prob. exc. in 50yrs

Replacement Limit State

5.4% prob. exc. in 50yrs

5.4% prob. exc. in 50yrs

2.3% prob. exc. in 50yrs

Zero Loss Limit State

1.85

1.85

2.15

Replacement Limit State

2.10

2.10

2.20

Zero Loss Limit State

1.41

1.41

1.60

Replacement Limit State

1.56

1.56

1.63

Zero Loss Limit State

0.0753

0.0157

0.0060

Replacement Limit State

0.0017

0.0017

0.0008

40


Class

EAL (storey-specific)

A+

≤ 0.25%

A

0.25% to 0.75%

B

0.75% to 1.5%

C

1.5% to 3.0%

D Milano 2016

≥ 3.0% 41


Description

EAL

Perf. CLASS

Total Retrofit Cost

Retrofit OPTION 1

Do Nothing

1.54%

C

0.00

Retrofit OPTION 2

Replace partitions

0.63%

A

€50,000

Retrofit OPTION 3

Replace partitions and add structural dampers

Tax Rebate (incentive)

0.00

€15,000

Net Retrofit Cost*

0.00

€35,000

(30% rebate) 0.22%

A+

€200,000

€100,000

€100,000

(50% rebate)

* figures should be adjusted to allow for inflation

Milano 2016

42


HAZARD Environmental and Seismic impact metrics may be translated into consistent financial decision making variables

Seismic hazard map expressed as the peak ground acceleration values with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years

“Climatic hazard map”, representing the demand of energy for building heating (“day degrees” 43

Milano 2016


Milano 2016

44


RIDUCTION OF ENERGY COST (LOSS? RISK?)

ENVELOPE IMPROVEMENT • Use of materials with high mass or strong insulation for walls, roof and general external envelope. • High performance windows and fenestration (multiple glazing, use of two or more layers of glass or other insulation techniques; use of low-conductivity gas such as argon; and low-emissivity coatings).

• Shading, shutters and reflection to reduce sun penetration of windows and other glazed areas;


RIDUCTION OF ENERGY COST (LOSS? RISK?) MECHANICAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

• High performance HVAC systems (heat pumps, condensing boilers, energy recovery systems, inverter engines and pumps, etc). • High-tech use of local resources such as geothermal heating systems to provide heating, cooling and water heating. • Renewable energy systems (photovoltaic technology to produce electricity, solar panels for water heating, co-generation to simultaneously produce electricity and useful heat).


Milano 2016

47


Milano 2016

48


CASE STUDIES USE Public Offics School Hospital

LOCATIONS Northern Italy Messina, Italy Istanbul, Turkey Yerevan, Armenia

-Case study 1: HOSPITAL in Milan - 24.803 m3

-Case study 2: SCHOOL in Emilia - 11.882 m3

Milano 2016

49


CASE STUDIES Two different type of building recently constructed are analysed according to different scenarios of initial design (two different locations) in order to evaluate the difference in seismic and energy efficiency demand. Strengthening / refurbishing possibilities are exploited to assess the influence of the interested variables in building performance over its expected life cycle and to calculate the payback period. -Case study 1: HOSPITAL in Milan - 24.803 m3

-Case study 2: SCHOOL in Emilia - 11.882 m3

Milano 2016

50


HOSPITAL

1st Step: HVAC improvement

Location: Milan (Italy) Milano 2016

51


SCHOOL

1st Step: envelope improvement

Location: Emilia Romagna (Italy) Milano 2016

52


RESULTS (energy)

25 Years 50 Years 100 Years

Improved Yerevan (GRI - B) As-built Yerevan (GRI - E) Improved Istanbul (GRI - B) As-built Istanbul (GRI - F) Improved Messina (GRI - B) As-built Messina (GRI - F) Improved Pavia (GRI - B) As-built Pavia (GRI - E)

0

2e+7

4e+7

6e+7

Accumulated Loss (EUR)

Milano 2016

53


RESULTS (earthquake)

25 Years 50 Years 100 Years

Retrofit 5 (GRI - A)

Retrofit 4 (GRI - A) Retrofit 3 (GRI - A)

Retrofit 2 (GRI - A) Retrofit 1 (GRI - A)

As-built (GRI - A)

0.0

2.0e+6

4.0e+6

6.0e+6

8.0e+6

1.0e+7

1.2e+7

Accumulated Loss (EUR)

Milano 2016

54


RESULTS (integrated) Benefit (EUR)

Cost (EUR)

Building Location

Yerevan

Istanbul

Messina

Design Location

Eq. Resilience En. Efficiency Integrated Approach

-1

0

1

2

3

40.00

0.00

1.25e+7

Benefit / Cost Ratio Milano 2016

55


Cost (EUR)

Benefit (EUR)

RESULTS

Building Location

Yerevan

Istanbul

 Initial conditions: greater benefit tends to correspond to initial worse situation

Messina

Design Location

Eq. Resilience En. Efficiency Integrated Approach

-1

0

1

2

4 0

3

3e+7

0

3e+7

Benefit / Cost Ratio

Cost (EUR)

Benefit (EUR)

Building Location

 Use: different effects of season impact on energy benefit

Eq. Resilience En. Efficiency Integrated Approach

Yerevan

Istanbul

Messina

 Relevance of the time window considered

Design Location

0

5

10

20 0

15

5e+6

0.00

1.25e+6 2.50e+6

Benefit / Cost Ratio Benefit (EUR)

Cost (EUR)

Building Location

Yerevan

Istanbul

 Integrated intervention in general more convenient

Messina

Design Location

 No short cut to solution choices

Eq. Resilience En. Efficiency Integrated Approach

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0.0 14

2.5e+7

Benefit / Cost Ratio

0.00

1.25e+7 2.50e+7

 Need for extended studies Milano 2016

56


DIRECT BENEFITS Efficient building:

Safe/resilient building:

• • • • •

• • • • •

Lower operating cost; Increased occupancy; Enhanced building quality; Increased financial return; Enhanced domestic security.

Milano 2016

Lower cost in case of EQ; Lower insurance premium (?); Enhanced domestic security; Reduced down time; Reduced casualties.

57


INDIRECT BENEFITS Efficient building

Safe/resilient building:

• •

• •

Reduction of pollution and lower carbon emissions; Mitigation of green house effects through use of ecological gas; Resilience to systemic failure of public facilities; Reduction of the country energy bill; Increased investment and job opportunities.

Milano 2016

• • •

Reduced cost for the society; Reduced need of alternative lodging; Increased industrial production capacity; More contained increase of inflation; Safer society.

58


25,00%

20,00%

15,00% energy earthquake

10,00%

5,00%

0,00% 1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Time regularity: who is going to benefit? Social help: who is going to benefit? Protection of human life Milano 2016

59


Insurance problems • Compulsory or voluntary? • Fixed rate or based on specific building risk? • In case of event how to reduce legal arguments? • Payment based on actual damage or on some intensity parameters?

Milano 2016

60


Present philosophy of seismic codes • Action: defined at different return period • Performance: implicitly defined as a function of expected loss • Specified performance at given return period actions, as a function of the importance of the building

• No explicitly distinction between economic matters and protection of human life

Milano 2016

61


Hazard: intensity vs. return period or year probability of exceedence 0,9

â&#x20AC;˘ Possibly modified by each insurance company, within limits and with a public statement

0,8

H1

0,7

H2

PGA [% g]

â&#x20AC;˘ Defined by a public body

0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 1,E-04

Note: this should include local amplification

1,E-03

1,E-02

1,E-01

1,E+00

Annual probability of exceedence

10,000 1,000

100

10

RP [year]


Building vulnerability (structural analysis)

â&#x20AC;˘ Expected loss as a function of an intensity parameter, e.g.: PGA

0,9 0,8

Loss [% reconstruction]

â&#x20AC;˘ Defined by owner, based on a certification signed by a registered technician

1

0,7 0,6 0,5

V1

0,4 0,3

V2

0,2 0,1 0 0

0,2

0,4

0,6

PGA [%g]

0,8

1


Expected loss vs. intensity parameter 1

H1V1 H2V1 H1V2 H2V2

Example: H1-V1 EAL ≈ 2,81 % H2-V1 EAL ≈ 1,01 % H1-V2 EAL ≈ 0,65 % H2-V2 EAL ≈ 0,47 %

Loss [% reconstruction]

0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 1,E-04

1,E-03

1,E-02

1,E-01

1,E+00

Annual probability of exceedence

10,000 1,000

100

10

RP [year]


Insurance premium: EAL + cost +

profit

Calculated

Stated

Stated

Insurance payment: From PGA to loss, no damage verification, no legal argument PGA: An accelerometer in the basement, verified and operated by an external body (~200065â&#x201A;Ź?) Milano 2016


Compulsory by law:

• Expected loss as a function of PGA – owner • Definition of probability of exceedence of PGA – public body • As a consequence: certification of EAL – owner Positive effects: • • •

value of a building may increase as a consequence of a strengthening intervention, i.e. of a risk reduction unsafe buildings may be difficult (or impossible) to be sold governments may consider to subsidize strengthening intervention on the base of a measurable benefit for the society 66 Milano 2016


Possible incentives:

• Tax reduction in case of insurance (considering EAL+cost+profit) • Benefit in case of risk reduction: yearly benefit as function of EAL reduction • State subsidized loans, e.g. possibly turning back 90 % of the capital in 10 years, with no interest • Limits: say 50% of the assessed value of reconstruction

Milano 2016

67


Future codes: Clear distintion between clauses related to the protection of human life and clauses related to monetary issues. In general: â&#x20AC;˘ Accepted probability of collapse defined by code â&#x20AC;˘ Performance of critical structures (e.g.: hospitals) defined by code â&#x20AC;˘ All performances related to losses defined and stated by owner/user/registered engineer Milano 2016

68

Kh18 congresso calvi  

Gianmichele Calvi

Kh18 congresso calvi  

Gianmichele Calvi