Okay, thanks, Becky, and thanks to PCI for inviting the U.S. Resiliency Council. So I am just going to show my screen here, and hopefully everyone can see the screen now. Yeah, again, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Evan Reese, and I'm one of the founders and directors of the U.S. Resiliency Council, and we'll be talking today a little bit about this concept of resilience-based design and how that is an up-and-coming trend for design professionals, both architects and engineers, and how that can be incorporated into the design and evaluation of buildings today and why that's important. And I'll also give you a little bit of a background on the U.S. Resiliency Council. So the first thing to do is to start off by asking, well, what is resilience? There's a lot of different ways resilience is described, but when it comes to the performance of building stock in disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes and floods, we think of resilience as a measure of how quickly a system can recover from shock, and that system can be different scales. It can be a community. It can be a company. It can be your own family, obviously. You suffer a catastrophic or disastrous event, and the question is, how long does it take you to recover from that? This graphic here kind of shows conceptually what that looks like. You have two different systems here, and one system suffers a large loss in an event and takes a relatively slow time to recover, whereas another system suffers a smaller loss and can recover more quickly. And you can see that there's some value, some cost, if you will, whether it's economic or social to the ability to recover more quickly, and that's really the measure of resilience. We don't assume that systems won't be damaged at all in major disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes, but it's a measure of how quickly they're able to recover. Now this has an actual practical application. This is a graph that I like from the U.S. Geological Survey showing two cities over time, New Orleans and Nashville, and you can see that up until about 2005, both cities are sort of tracking along pretty well economically. The vertical graph is sort of a measure of domestic product or economic output of each city. Well, in 2005, of course, you had Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans. It didn't affect Nashville, and New Orleans suffered a big hit immediately, 80 billion dollars in property and economic losses initially. And then what's really more striking is over the next seven or so years, until 2012 at least, you can see that New Orleans had a real hard time recovering. In fact, by 2012, it still really hadn't recovered from where it was in 2005, where Nashville, which hadn't been affected by the hurricane, continued to go along at a pretty steady pace, improving its economic output. So the point here is not necessarily to compare Nashville, literally, to New Orleans, but to think of Nashville, perhaps, as a proxy for what New Orleans could have been, had it not suffered that loss in Katrina, or what it could have aspired to in terms of recovery and resilience. And you can see that over that intervening time between 2005 and 2012, estimates are that New Orleans lost sort of another 100 plus billion dollars in economic output that it might not have had it been able to recover more quickly. So as you can see, this is a really important and real issue, the issue of resilience. And that's led a number of cities to implement resilience programs all over the country, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, even on sort of a national level, cities have created these really thick documents to put in place long-term resilience and mitigation programs so that they won't suffer that kind of inability to recover like New Orleans did. So this is something that's in the public consciousness, it's very important now, and cities are paying attention. Now there are a lot of different ways to measure resilience if you're a city or a community or really a corporation even, and different organizations like 100 Resilient Cities, which I think many of you have probably heard of, it was implemented by the Rockefeller Foundation under a grant from Rockefeller Foundation, has sort of a graphic here which describes that there are various components of community resilience, it's not just about one thing, it incorporates the governance and the leadership, the social and health well-being of the community, infrastructure of course and the environment, and then economics and finance. So all of these things and sort of sub-sectors of each of these are important in determining whether a community can be called resilient. This other program from We Adapt looks at something similar, it has these sort of three sectors of actions learning and resources that again have to integrate to effect and create community resilience. But there's something that is central to all of these things and something that's obviously central to most of us on the line in the design professional community, is that no matter what element of community resilience you're looking at, whether it's business recovery or even financial recovery, health care, et cetera, central to that is the performance of your building stock. Building performance is not the only thing obviously that is critical to our measure of community resilience, but building performance affects the resilience of almost every other aspect of a community. Why? Because of course we live and we work and we transact business in buildings. So it's key to be able to understand how buildings perform in natural disasters in order to understand the resilience of your community or your corporation. So let's talk a little bit about what resilience based design really means. It's sort of a new word or a new phrase. We're all familiar by now of course with sustainable design and the green movement that started 20 plus years ago with the U.S. Green Buildings Council and others. It has become integrated into the lexicon of the design and evaluation of buildings. The general public understands what lead ratings are, what sustainable design is. Now a lot of jurisdictions and certainly building owners explicitly require certain green features or certifications or ratings for their buildings because it's become sort of an accepted standard socially. The irony though a bit is that while sustainable design is well accepted, it's not easy to quantify sustainability. It's very aspirational, but when it comes down to really measuring how well a building or a community is being sustainable, having a low impact on the environment, it's not that easy to do. And yet nevertheless sustainable design has really become ingrained in our consciousness. Now resilient based design is actually somewhat different. It's not well understood by the public. In fact it's often taken for granted. It's often assumed by building owners, by building tenants, people that want to buy buildings, that buildings built to modern codes are proof if you will against some disaster. That why would we build anything less? If we're building a nice new building, why wouldn't it be earthquake proof or hurricane proof? And so it's almost taken for granted and there's a misunderstanding there, and I'll explain that in a minute, about what we're really getting in terms of resilience with our building stock. But unlike sustainable design, it's actually quite measurable. There are ways, scientific ways and engineering ways that have been developed over the past 20 years really, to measure and quantify how resilient a design is, how likely it is to suffer damage, what amounts of damage, how likely it is to be out of operation let's say for instance. So that's what we're trying to do here with resilient based design. You might think of it this way, sustainable design is a building having a low impact on the environment, whereas resilient based design is the environment having a low impact on the building. And so we're trying to change the mindset and get people to think about resilience based on the slides I showed you previously, particularly with cities like New Orleans. So let's talk about some of these misconceptions. As I said, it's a common misconception that building codes make buildings disaster proof, and that's simply not true. Building codes are a great thing, and they have improved the safety of buildings over the last several decades, and we can all be proud of buildings that are built with a building code, but a code compliant building is essentially in the largest event, a catastrophe, is intended to prevent collapse of a building, not necessarily to prevent injuries, and not necessarily to limit damage or permit quick recovery. A building that complies with a building code in a design level earthquake, let's say, the one that might happen every 500 years, may be safe, but it will be potentially damage to the point where it has to be torn down. Furthermore, it's not well understood how much of an effect architectural and mechanical components can have on building damage. In fact, they can account for 70% or more of a building's losses, because they're not typically designed at the same robust level as the structure itself for earthquakes. And then finally, you only build a building in order to be able to do something valuable inside it, and so business interruption costs for a building that has to be torn down or closed for months or even years for repair can start to exceed the value of the building itself, and that's often something else that's sort of lost in the understanding of what a building code gets you. If the building has to be repaired for a year or two years, the cost of that in terms of business interruption and lost revenue can be huge. So let me give you another example of that, and that is with Christchurch in New Zealand. As you know, there were two very powerful earthquakes very near each other in 2010 and 2011 in Christchurch, and these were considered what we'd call design level or maximum credible events, so sort of like a worst case scenario. What you would design these buildings for in the worst case, and out of the thousands of buildings in the downtown area in Christchurch, only two of them collapsed, and people did die in those buildings, but amongst all the thousands of buildings, you only had two collapses. However, the damage was so significant to so many buildings that over 70 percent of them had to be torn down and demolished, and even today, Christchurch, the downtown business district, is kind of like a ghost town, because so many buildings had to be closed and demolished. And so the obvious question is, well, were the expectations met here? If you talk to structural engineers who say, well, we had thousands of buildings and only two collapsed, and this was a design level maximum event, then yeah, in some senses, the code was met, because only a couple of buildings collapsed out of the many thousands. But obviously if you talk to the people that live there or work there or do business there, it was a disaster. It clearly didn't meet their expectations, because look, I mean, they've had to move out. They've had to close their businesses or relocate them. So this is the fundamental communication issue that we have in understanding from an engineering perspective, if you will, and a stakeholder perspective, and how our buildings perform in natural disasters. So the obvious question then comes up is, well, is it even possible to understand and predict building performance? Is it just something that we don't know about beyond life safety? Well, the answer is actually yes. We've done a lot of work as engineers in predicting building performance over the past 20 plus years, and a number of very important technical organizations, like the Applied Technology Council and the Structural Engineers Associations of California that have developed, and FEMA that have developed a number of important documents, like the ones you see below here, for estimating the performance of buildings and understanding, one, what buildings built to code are likely to get you, and two, how to improve your buildings so that they can perform better and suffer less damage. Well, so I've sort of shown this slide here, because you see in the background there's all these calculations, and that's actually one of the fundamental concerns or challenges with these documents. Because they're very technical. They're hard for the layperson to understand. So while they do the job of predicting building performance, they're really mainly understood by engineers. So it still becomes a challenge of how do you communicate this kind of performance to the lay public and the stakeholders in a way that they can understand that's meaningful to them, that still represents all the hard work and analysis and engineering and testing work that's gone on. Well, it's true, of course, that we have ratings for all sorts of things. You know, I mean, we live our lives seeing ratings every day. You know, if you're sending your child to college and you look at the U.S. News and World Report ranking of colleges, you get a number between like one and a hundred. You can go to any restaurant and see its letter rating from A to F. Car safety rating, you know, and collisions is rated by stars. So there are a number of ways every day, almost, that we see ratings. Now, as simple as these ratings appear on the surface, of course, underneath them is a great deal of technical science and analysis and testing and research that's done to get this rating. So it's not that an A rating is just a very simplistic way of measuring the cleanliness of restaurants. It represents something detailed behind it, and it's just a way one can communicate that to the public. So the challenge is, and there really isn't until now, at least with the U.S. Resiliency Council, a good way to do this for buildings, which seems surprising. You know, you're going to spend thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars sending your child to college, and you want to see a U.S. News and World Report rating. You're going to spend millions of dollars on a building, and you don't necessarily have an understanding of how it performs. Seems incongruous. So we asked ourselves, well, what are the kinds of metrics that people would like to understand about their buildings, you know, how they perform? Well, safety, obviously. You want to understand whether the building is likely to be life-safe, meet the safety requirements of codes, which are not to collapse in a large earthquake. But you also want to understand about damage, how much it's going to cost to repair the building, you know, so that you can either set aside money or that you can get insurance or you can design your building stronger so that it suffers less damage. And then, of course, there's recovery time. How long will it take you to either get back in your building, and also how long will it take you to restore the functions that you built the building for in the first place? So these are three important metrics. Now, others have used other terms. Instead of safety, damage, and recovery, you might have heard of death dollars and downtime. There are all sorts of ways to categorize this, but these are essentially the three key factors, really, in understanding building performance better. So initially, though, you have to ask yourself, well, what does it take to make any kind of rating system useful and valuable? And there are really three elements to any kind of rating, whether it be for colleges or restaurants or buildings, and that is credibility, consistency, and utility. You have to have a credible system that's based on national standards, on technical expertise that isn't just developed in somebody's garage, that's been reviewed, where the ratings themselves are reviewed for technical accuracy, and where there's some level of certification to people doing the rating so that it's not somebody who's untrained in the rating system or the science behind the rating system. Ratings also have to be consistent. They have to be objective. Two different people should be able to rate the same building or the same restaurant and get the same rating, and they have to be fair. It has to be a system that can't be gamed or manipulated in order to achieve just a rating that you want without having an objective reason for that. And, of course, the rating has to have utility. It has to have value. I mean, there's no point in having a rating if you can't make a decision based on it or help make a decision based on it. So it has to be easily understood. It has to help you make market-based decisions about investments. For buildings, you want it to look at potentially multiple hazards, and you need to be able to actually quantify performance in a way that you can make benefit-cost, return-on-investment type decisions. So that's where the U.S. Resiliency Council comes in. The USRC was founded officially back in 2011 with a vision of a world in which building performance in natural hazards is better understood, in which we are able to communicate how buildings perform to stakeholders, to buyers and sellers and tenants and leases and insurers and lenders and anybody else that has a stake in the built environment. We officially launched our earthquake rating system a year ago in November, and that's part of our mission is to establish rating systems that describe performance of buildings not just in earthquakes but other natural hazards as well. We are going to be starting to roll out our plan for looking at a flood rating system and a wind rating system and a blast rating system. But the idea here is to establish a rating system that's credible, that's consistent, and that's valuable. Our roles are to educate the public, to understand the difference between existing building performance, older building performance, even code-level performance, and different measures of performance that they might be looking for. And to also increase the public demand for those things, similar to the way the public demand for sustainable design has increased over the past quarter century. We're also here to develop consensus between the stakeholders and the design professionals and the technical experts so that we can come up with a system that's both credible but also useful. And then, as I say, promote this level of stability and credibility within the industry by establishing certification programs and technical review to make sure that building ratings are done properly. So the heart of the USRC rating system is a three-dimension safety, damage, and recovery rating system with one to five stars in each rating relating the safety or the expected repair costs or the recovery time of the building. And we've structured this in a way so that the code isn't the top five stars across the board. In fact, an average code-type building, a new code building, might come in somewhere here with four to three stars of safety, meaning the building is unlikely to collapse. It's expected to be safe at a large event. But it may suffer significant damage, even to the point where it may or may not be economical to repair it. And it may take weeks, months, or even a year to repair that damage. So this is important because it shows that there is room to grow and improve and make our buildings more resilient and implement resilience-based design. We also have a system of placards, similar to the US Green Buildings Council, for buildings that comply with different levels of these ratings of these stars in each dimension. The expectation is that you could receive a bronze rating for buildings that are compliant with modern codes. And that is certainly a significant step. Some studies have shown that up to 60 percent or more of your typical city's building stock was built to an older code, a code that wouldn't be considered a, quote, modern building code. And so it's not that easy to tell. A lot of buildings get a facelift, and they look kind of new, but they might be a 1960s concrete frame building, which was not built to modern code standards. So even a building that is compliant with modern codes and is expected to be safe in an earthquake or a hurricane is important to highlight that. And so we've offered that rating. And then for buildings that achieve a higher level of performance, both in terms of safety damage and recovery, can achieve higher levels of rating. And so essential facilities, like hospitals or data centers, might achieve a platinum or a gold level rating, because they're expected to have very little damage and be operational or functionally recovered shortly after the event. So how might people use these building ratings? Well, let's say you're an owner of a building. You know, it's a new building, complies with current codes, let's say. You want to understand about business continuity planning. You're a manufacturer, and you do a lot of business in here. You make a lot of products, say, for instance. So you might be...and maybe you have hazardous materials in here. So you're concerned about, well, how do I get people out of the building? What are the most likely exit routes? You're definitely concerned about how much cash I'll need for repairs. I've got a lot of, you know, important equipment in here. Should I set aside money? Should I have an alternate site? Should I buy insurance? And then, of course, you want to understand about your operational downtime. If you make millions of dollars of product in this building a day or a month, you want to know how long it's going to take for you to recover. So a USRC type rating, again, while on the surface it's a fairly simple system, underneath it is detailed, complicated, sophisticated structural analysis can help you answer these questions. And let's suppose you're a tenant. You lease a building, and you're looking to lease a building, and you want to understand if your employees are going to be safe. You don't know. Again, the building looks shiny and new, but is it really a new building? What did it comply with current codes? You know, if you do all your work in here, will our data be secure? Will the landlord even want to repair the building after an event? And of course, how long will it be before we can get back in operation and serve our clients. So again, these are kinds of decisions that you as a tenant or a building owner can make if you have something like a building rating, just like when you're purchasing a car or deciding which college your child should go to or which restaurant to eat at. There's lots of applications. The idea is not just to look at existing buildings, but to give owners a way to say, you know, I'm interested in improving the design of my new building that I'm about to put up so that it will perform better, just like, you know, an owner might say, I'm interested in getting a lead rating for my building so that it'll be more sustainable when it's in operation. This can help an owner strategize about short and long-term planning for, you know, improving the overall resilience of their community or of their company. It can also be used to reduce insurance and lending costs. Buildings that are gonna perform better are gonna be a lower risk to lenders and insurers, and the USRC's been working with both insurers and lenders to look at ways to establish benefits and incentives for getting a higher-performing building. If any of you have worked in the probable maximal loss arena, this is an area where real estate transactions happen in commercial properties, and in earthquake country, you're required to get an estimate of the likely loss in an earthquake, and lending decisions and insurance decisions are made on that. And oftentimes, that system breaks down and is sort of left without any kind of review or consistency. So the USRC rating system provides that level of consistency and conformance to national standards like ASTM. And then, you know, it goes on from there. You know, I'll show you an example of how, in Japan, highly rated or high-performing buildings are actually perceived by the public as being better and have a higher market value. And LEED, USGBC, is now considering a pilot resilience point for buildings that meet certain levels of resilience. And so the USRC is working with them to allow them to use a USRC rating as a way to get a resilience point. So as a quick example, you know, in San Francisco, you make a building LEED compliant or you add all new systems to the building, HVAC, make it a better operational facility, and you can get a higher rent or a higher market value to it. But right now, at least, there's no market demand for enhanced seismic design. And so that doesn't come into play when a tenant, say, you know, is looking at how much it's gonna cost to lease their building. Whereas in a place like Tokyo, they're actually tearing down older buildings and building new ones with base isolation and dampers and other really sophisticated seismic resistance measures. And in fact, they'll even advertise this on TV. You can see TV commercials where they will advertise a base isolated building because there's a public value to that. And in some cases, that value reaches up to 30 or 40% increase in rents or in building value. So that's what we want to achieve with the USRC is that same demand from the public for having buildings that are gonna perform better in natural disasters. An example of a case where we use something like this, this was actually a project before the USRC was founded, but I sort of put it in USRC terms, is the state of California was building a courthouse and the engineer of record was considering two options, a conventional frame building that was bolted to the ground, met the minimum requirements of the building code, and a base isolated building, a building that was a much higher performing structure put on base isolators. It's a $300 million building and the cost of that base isolation was only about 1%, about $3 million. And nevertheless, the state said, well, you're supposed to build a building to the code and we can't really fund these higher performing buildings unless you can show us some return on investment analysis. That conventional frame building would have achieved something like this in terms of the USRC rating system had it been around then, four stars in safety and three stars in damage and recovery. The base isolated building would likely have received five stars across the board, platinum level rating, minimal damage, minimal downtime. And you can see in the analysis that we did for this building for both concepts, exactly that in the graphs below, in a, say a large event, maybe one that occurs every 250 years, the conventional building suffered a significant amount of building damage and operational damage, total damage to the tune of over $60 million potentially in a large event, which is a big portion of the building's cost. But the base isolated scheme suffered almost no damage. And it was this benefit, this reduction in loss that if you translate that into an annualized return on investment, if you think of avoiding loss over time, if you're a building owner that's gonna be in a building for 25 or 50 years, it translates to an actual return. And in this case, that return was on the order of 20% per year. And so the state looked at that and said, well, this makes sense. We should invest in the base isolation because we're getting a positive return. We're gonna have this building for 25, 50, 75 years. So this was a way that a rating type system, again, or this kind of evaluation of the performance of a building could be used for an owner to make a strategic decision about building design. So in summary, the US Resiliency Council is looking to essentially do what the USGBC did, has done for sustainability for the concept of resilience. The USGBC focuses on having a low impact on the environment and the US Resiliency Council's function is on being resilient to the environment. We need to develop the same type of public awareness about performance and resilience-based design and become the market leader for implementing a credible, consistent and valuable system for building performance. And we hope too, that just as the USGBC and LEED have raised the public demand for sustainable design, it will do the same for resilient design so that we avoid in the future, hopefully disasters like Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, we can't avoid the actual event, but we can avoid or reduce the impact that those events have. So I really thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today. Please check out our website, www.usrc.org. And we are a nonprofit organization and so we're always looking for members to help sustain us and help us fulfill our mission of improving the built environment and improving communication so you can consider membership in the USRC. And so again, it's been great to talk with you and I'm gonna turn it back to Becky now so that you can learn about an example of a building that was just recently raided from Clark Pacific. Thank you. Hi, good morning, or I guess afternoon at this point. My name is John Moll. I'm a senior structural engineer with Clark Pacific and I'm gonna be talking here for a few minutes about a structure that we recently got raided and is in the final stages of construction right now. And this is the Roseville City Annex. So thank you very much, Evan, also for your great explanation of the US Resiliency Council and the importance of this. There we go. All right, so this is a picture of the building as it stands today, so it's very close to open. It's a four-story precast office building. Project is located in Roseville, California, in Sacramento region of California. I'm personally very excited about this project because really it highlights that seismic resiliency can really be achieved with thoughtful design without really breaking the budget. So, and I think this is a great case study of how that can be done. So a couple of acknowledgements. I just wanna acknowledge general contractor, DPR Construction, architect was LPAS out of Sacramento. The structural engineer record was Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers. Of course, Clark Pacific was the precaster and the owner was the city of Roseville. So here's just a couple of project highlights. This is a four-story office building, like I said before, 83,000 square feet. This building is a mixed use civic office building, non-essential facility, had leaseable space for a community college and also for a small retail component, light retail. Some of the things that were very important to this project were they wanted to get in, they had about a year to complete the project and get it up. They had a lease agreement in place with the community college. So that was something that was important to them was obviously schedule. Because of the community college component in this building, basically as a code-based design, this was considered a higher risk category, a risk category three. This building was performed just as a basic code-based design, nothing very special about it initially. Sacramento area, so we had very, I guess in California standards, you'd consider these very low seismic acceleration coefficients. The rest of the country might think differently, but these would still be considered high seismic region, but you're kind of on the borderline of considering it high seismic. And obviously the people in Los Angeles wouldn't think of this as that high. The construction on this is scheduled to be completed early 2017 so that the community college can have their spring classes in it. So again, I was talking about this is a code-based design criteria. The owner really didn't have any specific resilience criteria. They really wanted a good performing building, long-term performance, didn't really have any specific criteria. They wanted this to be a prominent building in Roseville and wanted it to reflect their civic pride. So kind of given this information, also the FEMA P-58, which is the document that we were just talking about, basically that gives us a framework for evaluating this for resiliency, was available at the time, but the user-friendly implementation that really makes this practical, which is the Hazleton Baker Risk Group, their SP3 software was not really available yet or commonly available yet, still kind of being worked on. So the preliminary design on this was a steel frame structure with brace frames, and it's pretty common construction in the area, plaster over metal stud exterior. And this is kind of a traditional option for a low-initial cost building. The design team started querying the owner and approached them to try to understand what their performance expectations were as this building was being designed. They wanted to really make sure that what they were providing them was in line with what their expectations were. So they approached them, and of course the owner wanted something that was gonna have low maintenance, high performance exterior skin, all these different things. So eventually the consulting team said, well, geez, why don't you consider a precast option? You might be able to get some of these higher performance goals that you're after if you look at this. So the final design actually ended up being a precast hybrid moment frame construction, and it had integrated architectural precast finishes on the structural frame as well as precast concrete cladding. So what the owner saw from this is he got improved structural performance. So the precast hybrid moment frame, for those of you that aren't familiar with it, it's a moment-resisting frame, special moment-resisting frame, can be used in a high seismic region. It was developed by the PRESS system, tested over the course of probably 20, 30 years now. At its peak down in San Diego, they did a five-story scale test of a building using the system. And it essentially has big rubber bands. They're post-tensioning tenons, but they act as rubber bands, and they basically, as this building is racking back and forth in an earthquake, the compression due to the rubber bands pulls the building back into an upright position, almost kind of like if you had a block rocking on the ground, it would eventually center itself. So it's kind of the same concept with the hybrid frame system that we have here. So you get improved structural performance. You obviously get improved construction logistics and schedule. A precast building can be constructed much more quickly than conventional construction. This was important to the owner. It also helped them achieve their goals of being able to make sure they were open and could fulfill their obligation to the community college. It also helped, you know, because the precast needed less lay-down area, so there was more room on site, it was a very tight site, for the different trade partners, the people building the building, all the other trades. So a couple other side benefits of going to a precast system is we were able to increase the usable space in the building. So one of the things that benefits this was we went with a longer span solution. We eliminated two lines of columns, and it really opened up the floor plan, eliminating those columns, and also reduced the floor area consumed by the exterior steel framing. So you imagine the steel framing is set in from the stucco and metal stud facade, and then you have to put your fireproofing and encase those columns, and they typically stick into your usable space. So with the precast system, the footprint of the exterior of the building was actually slightly smaller. So they gained a little more flexibility overall. And the owner realized all this for just a very nominal cost increase. And after looking at all this, and after getting the pricing, and seeing all the benefits of the precast building, and what we had to offer, the owner agreed that this was a significant increase in value for a very nominal increase in cost, and went ahead with the precast option. So just a couple things, performance considerations with resilient, as far as resiliency. So this was classified as a class category three, risk category three, although not an essential facility, just being a risk category three requires higher performance building. It increases your seismic demands on the building, it also puts limits on drift, and it puts some other limits on the building. It puts some other requirements on the building that just inherently make it a better performing building. The precast concrete structural system and cladding is extremely durable. You know, with the plaster system they were considering before, they would have had a maintenance cycle, they would have had to come in every so many years and paint the exterior and maintain it. With the precast structural system, it's a much more durable and lasts a lot longer. And the precast hybrid moment frame offers a lot of resilience just in its self-writing performance after seismic event. A lot of the cost in repairing a building after a seismic event is that the building is not in an upright position, it's leaning to one side. Basically, whenever the shaking stops, wherever the building is, is where it is. So with the precast hybrid moment frame, the building will actually stop shaking in a vertical and upright position, which can account for, rewriting a building could account for 30% of the cost of repairs. So this was a significant benefit for them. So the resilient design assessment, this was actually performed by Buhler & Buhler Structural Engineers. They used the Hazleton-Baker Risk Group, their SP3 software, which is really a user-friendly implementation of the FEMA P58 method. So this was done after the fact. So this was a pure code-based design building. After the fact, we wanted to, we really just, both us and Buhler & Buhler and everybody on the team was, geez, we're really curious how this would stack up if we were to run an analysis and look at how this would rate using a USRC rating criteria. So we went ahead and we, Buhler invested the time in running the analysis and making sure that, you know, checking it and going through the process and compared the results to the USRC criteria. And it was actually pretty interesting because we always thought that this hybrid frame, we, you know, we really liked the system. It's a really well-performing system. It's got a lot of research behind it. We thought that it would have a really good performance, but really didn't have a good way to quantify it. So this is the results of the analysis that Buhler & Buhler did. So we were expecting it to perform very well from a safety perspective. We were also expecting it to perform very well from a damage perspective, you know, again, because of the hybrid frame and because of the importance factor. What caught us off guard was a little bit was, you know, we weren't expecting it to have a really, a great recovery aspect because, you know, to be honest, this was just a code-based design. We were actually surprised by this a little bit. I think, and even in the slides that you guys have, our initial analysis on this or initial thoughts on this was that it might be a three or maybe even a four-star rating but once Buhler & Buhler completed their full analysis and it was peer-reviewed and all that, we actually did get a five-star rating out of this, which was a median recovery time to regain basic function after a 475-year event is immediately to a few days. So this was significant. This wasn't, I don't think this just was default. They had to work with the owner a little bit, get a disaster plan in place, and I think they also had to do a little bit of retrofit on some of the mechanical equipment on the roof in order to achieve this five-star, but it was actually pretty easy to get with the building that we had. So I wanted to reflect, what you've got here, you've got a picture of the design team and also the mayor of Roseville. Just that's what that picture is, receiving their platinum certificate from the U.S. Resiliency Council. I wanted to reflect a little bit on maybe some of the, this is my opinion, I guess, some of the key features that I think really assisted in achieving this high performance rating. So first and foremost, that classifying this building as a risk category three, increasing the seismic demands and restricting the drifts really played a big role in this because you're just inherently gonna get a better performing building when you do that. The hybrid frame construction, we talked about that, the self-writing aspects of it, it really is a great performing system. And the work we've done with Kurt Hazleton over at Hazleton Baker Risk Group has really kind of showcased that it really does have less damage than a conventional moment frame or most conventional systems. One of the contributing factors that can't be ignored in this site was the relative low seismicity of the site. I mean, it is, it's a high seismic, but it's barely a high seismic. So the fact that we're putting this high performance system in a fairly low seismic site really helped it shine. Really one of the key features in my mind that I really don't think people really think about is when you're designing a building conventionally, there's always a negotiation between the architect and the structural engineer on where can I put the lateral elements? Where can I put this that it's not gonna get in the way? Because your lateral elements are very commonly inside the building. So there's always a negotiation on where they can put them. And sometimes there's a compromise on the part of the structural engineer that, you know, okay, to meet the intent and the form and the function of this building, I'm gonna have to not put the seismic element in the most ideal place. One of the key elements of this building is we actually built the lateral force resisting system into the exterior skin of the building. So the exterior facade was the lateral system. What this allowed us to do is it allowed us to put the lateral system in the absolute ideal position on the outside of the building. It also allowed us to perfectly balance the lateral force resisting system in both directions to minimize torsion. And so you can think your damage mostly comes from drifts in the building, right? Movements in the building. If you can, in any torsion that you have in the building, any twisting in the building is gonna amplify those. You've got a certain amount of it moving back and forth and a certain amount of it twisting. So if you can minimize the amount that the building twists, you really can minimize the amount of drifts and really minimize the amount of damage. And that's exactly what we saw here with this perfectly balanced lateral system on the exterior of the building. You really saw very, very little torsion. I think Buehler and Buehler described it as an extremely regular building. You don't normally see those. And I think that went a long way to assisting us in getting this rating. So a couple of final notes. I just wanted to thank Buehler and Buehler for investing their time in this process. They went through and after the fact, took it upon themselves to evaluate this building and really kind of drive the rating of it. I also wanted to thank Kurt Hazelton for all of his help in developing fragility curves for the hybrid frame system and also for helping out just in general through this whole process. So with that, I will turn it back over to Becky. Thank you.

Evan Reese

U.S. Resiliency Council

resilience-based design

building performance

resilient design

sustainable design

U.S. Resiliency Council rating system

building ratings