REDi Rating System 2013 基于韧性的下一代建筑抗震设计计划

精品

VIP专免

史蒂文 2025-11-10 61 4.83MB 68 页 20星币

侵权投诉

REDi™ Rating System

Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative

for the Next Generation of Buildings

Version 1.0

October 2013

EARTHQUAKES

Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi™) Rating SystemResilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi™) Rating System 32

Ron Alameida

San Francisco Dept. of Public Works

Prof. Mary Comerio

UC Berkeley

Damian Grant

Structural/Earthquake Engineer, Arup

Amit Khanna

Mechanical Engineer, Arup

Jason Krolicki

Structural/Earthquake Engineer, Arup

Sean Merrield

Structural/Earthquake Engineer, Arup

Ken Paige

Building Owner

Tom Tobin

Tobin & Associates

Chuck Wright

Tishman Speyer

Prof. Jack Baker

Stanford University

Craig Davis

Los Angeles Dept. of Power and Water

Bob Hanson

Technical Leader for Mitigation, FEMA

Laurence Korneld

Special Assistant to City of SF for Seismic Safety

Prof. Steve Mahin

UC Berkeley

Peter Morris

Davis Langdon

Andy Thompson

Risk Consultant, Arup

Prof. Andrew Whittaker

SUNY Buffalo

Acknowledgments

Main Authors

Ibrahim Almufti

Arup

Michael Willford

Arup

Main Contributors

Michael Bade

Assistant Vice Chancellor and

Campus Architect

UC San Francisco

Prof. Gregory Deierlein

Stanford University

Michael Delucchi

Trans Pacic National Bank

Russ Drinker

HOK

Prof. Leonardo Duenas-Osorio

Rice University

David Friedman

Forell/Elsesser Engineers

Audrey Galo

Architecture for Humanity

Stuart Inglis

Risk Consultant, Arup

Laurie Johnson

Laurie Johnson Consulting

Mary Kasaris

First Republic Bank

Shaun Landman

Electrical Engineer, Arup

Renee Lee

Risk Management Solutions

Andrew Lusardi

Turner Construction

Lindsey Maclise

Forell/Elsesser Engineers

Stephen McLandrich

Geotechnical Engineer, Arup

Acknowledgments

Additional Contributors

Prof. Eduardo Miranda

Stanford University

Prof. Judith Mitrani Reiser

Johns Hopkins University

Prof. Ramin Motamed

University of Nevada, Reno

Gregory Nielsen

Structural/Earthquake Engineer, Arup

Nick O’Riordan

Geotechnical Engineer, Arup

Cole Roberts

Sustainability Consultant, Arup

Katherine Shelton

First Republic Bank

Michael Steiner

Architecture for Humanity

Geza Szakats

Fire Engineer, Arup

Jenni Tipler

Stanford University

Colm Tully

Cost Estimator, Arup

Alex Wilson

Resilient Design Institute

Armin Wolski

Fire Engineer, Arup

Deborah Wylie

Associate Vice President

Capital Resources Management

UC Ofce of the President

Troy Zezula

Facades Consultant, Arup

Arup Seismic Skills Network

including:

Graham Aldwinckle

Hans-Erik Blomgren

Yuli Huang

Ziggy Lubkowski

Murat Melek

Andrew Mole

Tim Mote

Simon Rees

Rob Smith

SEAONC Building Ratings

Committee:

Marguerite Bello

Mathew Bittleston

Stephen Bono

David Bonowitz

Ron Mayes

Dave McCormick

Evan Reis

Kate Stillwell

Graphics Team:

Matt Reid

Tim Pattinson

Vinh Tran

Ian Bruce

The main authors would like to thank all of the contributors for their time and expertise. Resilience is a complex topic that requires

consideration of various opinions from many stakeholders. This is not necessarily a consensus document but the content of the

guideline reects the authors’ best effort to reect the majority while also weighing their own personal views. The authors would also

like to thank the Investment in Arup program for the research funding which generously supported their time.

Front Cover: The REDi™ logo is the lotus ower, which rises out of muddy river bottoms to bloom. It can live for over 1000 years

and can even revive after being dormant. Ancient Egyptians associate the lotus with resurrection while Hinduism associates it with

eternity.

Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi™) Rating SystemResilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi™) Rating System 54

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................6

REDi™ Roadmap to Resilience .......................................................8

REDi™ Resilience Objectives .........................................................10

Glossary of Terms ...................................................................12

REDi™ Guidelines and Criteria .......................................................17

Contents .......................................................................18

Guiding Principles for Criteria ....................................................19

1.0 Organizational Resilience ......................................................26

1.1 Resilience Planning .......................................................27

1.2 External Utility Supply Chain ...............................................28

1.2 External Utility Supply Chain ...............................................29

1.3 Mitigate Impeding Factors ..................................................32

1.4 Business Continuity .......................................................36

1.5 Advocacy for Resilience ....................................................37

2.0 Building Resilience ............................................................38

2.1 Seismic Hazard ...........................................................39

2.2 Enhanced Structural Design .................................................41

2.3 Enhanced Non-structural Design .............................................44

2.4 Capacity Design ..........................................................47

2.5 Safer Egress .............................................................49

2.6 Structural Analysis ........................................................50

2.7 Peer Review & Quality Assurance ............................................52

3.0 Ambient Resilience ............................................................54

3.1 Earthquake-induced Hazards ................................................55

4.0 Loss Assessment ..............................................................60

4.1 General Assessment Guidelines ..............................................61

4.2 Direct Financial Loss Assessment ............................................63

4.3 Downtime Assessment .....................................................64

A4.3 Downtime Assessment Methodology ........................................65

INTRODUCTION ........................................................65

MOTIVATION ...........................................................65

DEFINING DOWNTIME RECOVERY STATES ...............................67

BACKGROUND: FEMA P-58 REPAIR TIME ESTIMATES ......................68

DEFINING REPAIR CLASSES FOR DAMAGE ASSESSMENT ..................73

DOWNTIME DUE TO REPAIRS ............................................80

DOWNTIME DUE TO DELAYS ............................................90

DOWNTIME DUE TO UTILITY DISRUPTION ...............................109

CALCULATING TOTAL DOWNTIME ......................................118

CONCLUSIONS .........................................................122

References .........................................................................124

This publication is designed to provide general information in regard to the subject

matter covered and is not intended to provide specic advice or create a client

relationship with Arup and/or a basis for reliance. The views expressed in this

publication are those of the author(s) and the publication is proprietary to Arup. The

publisher / editor / author and contributors do not accept any responsibility for the

contents or any loss or damage which might occur as a result of following or using

data or advice given in this publication. The publication should be used as a guide

only to aid in design and planning; the nal design of the building must conform to the

requirements of the jurisdiction having authority. The publication is not intended to,

and should not, substitute the advice of a qualied professional engineer. Actual future

events depend on a number of factors which cannot be guaranteed and may differ

from those assumed, and expected conditions are subject to change. Arup makes no

warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the use of the publication and assumes

no liability with respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in the

publication.

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

亲，本站95%以上的标准规范都面向会员免费，办理VIP会员下载更省钱，平均每篇不到2元

立即下载 VIP免费下载

标签： #抗震设计

摘要：

该标准由奥雅纳牵头，联合多家单位于2013年在FEMA-P58的基础上开展了建筑抗震韧性指标的研究，建立了一套3个等级、4个维度、65个指标的建筑抗震韧性指数评估体系“REDi Rating System”（Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative for the Next Generation of Building）。其中评价指标又区分为必选项和可选项。具体项目评级时，根据中断时间、直接经济损失和人员安全的量化结果评定；项目设计前可以依据65个评级指标策划实施路径。

展开>> 收起<<

REDi Rating System 2013 基于韧性的下一代建筑抗震设计计划.pdf

共68页,预览3页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

声明：本文档系会员上传，若文档所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私，请立即通知，我们立即给予侵权申诉删除！

REDi Rating System 2013 基于韧性的下一代建筑抗震设计计划

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

相关内容

热门标签

举报选择: