Andrea T. Schulz, CPP, DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection (OIP):
Welcome to the Cutting Edge Resiliency Tools webinar sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate...]]>

and the National Protection Programs Directorate,
Office of Infrastructure Protection.

Thank you for joining us today.
We will now begin the meeting.

If you can hear me now,
you have successfully navigated
the audio portion of this presentation.

I would like to note that audio
can be streamed through your computer speakers or headphones. For users without computer speakers, you can call into the phone bridge.

The phone bridge information is listed
in the bottom left-hand corner of this meeting.

extremely limited phone bridge space, please:
Only use this option if you do not have speakers or a headset.]]>

Before we introduce our topic and our speakers, I would like to take a few minutes to orient you with the webinar.

On the left-hand side of the screen, you will find a vertical box for questions.

If you have any questions throughout this presentation,
please type and submit them in this area.

Your questions are very important to us and will be compiled,
and responses will be provided after the program.

Today’s webinar is entitled, "Cutting Edge Resiliency Tools."

It will be available for viewing via the Homeland Security Information Network –
Critical Sectors, or HSIN-CS.

All registered participants will receive an email,
with an active link once this recording is uploaded on HSIN-CS.
This actually may take a couple weeks.

At this time, we will begin the Cutting Edge Resiliencey Tools webinar.

The webinar will cover three tools for evaluating buildings and infrastructure
that have been developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

After hearing opening remarks from key members of the DHS team
responsible for the development of these tools,

we will get right into presentation and demonstration of the tools,

starting with the Integrated Rapid Visual Screening Tool, IRVS,

followed by the Owners Performance Requirements Tool,

followed by the Owners' Performance Requirements Tool, OPR,

and concluding with the Urban Blast Tool, UBT.

Here, to formally welcome you to our webinar, is Mr. Chris Doyle.

Chris is the Director
of Infrastructure Protection and Disaster Management Division
of the Science and Technology Directorate,

where he is responsible for overseeing research and development initiatives
for emergency response and critical infrastructure protection.

Welcome, Mr. Doyle.

(Mr. Chris Doyle)
Good afternoon.]]>

It's my pleasure to welcome you to this webinar
on Cutting Edge Resiliency Tools.

Our program over the next two hours
will highlight some of the most important work we are doing

at the Department of Homeland Security's
Science and Technology Directorate.

I would like to start by thanking
the many talented people who have worked together
to make this webinar possible.

Today’s built environment relies on a broad array
of building practices that have evolved over time.

U.S. building codes and standards have set minimum requirements,
primarily for health and life safety,

that can be met by substantial portions of the design, construction,
and manufacturing communities.

Adherence solely to minimum requirements, however,
still leads to potential for disruption

to building functions and operations because of structural and nonstructural vulnerabilities from a whole host of disaster events.

As it stands today, building owners and developers have difficulty
justifying investments in new buildings, or improvements to existing buildings,
that exceed these minimum levels of performance.

It is vitally important that the design community
have the tools necessary

to consider and incorporate improvements
in the performance of our national building stock.

Taking on this challenge, DHS has been working for the last two years, in the area of resiliency.

Resiliency is described, by the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, as the ability to reduce the magnitude, and/or duration,
of disruptive events.

We believe there is a national need
to work toward designing and building
the nation's infrastructure, for all hazards,

while at the same time incorporating attributes such as energy efficiency,

environmental sustainability, and durability in project designs to anticipate, absorb, adapt to,

and to readily recover
in case of occurrence of a disruptive event.

We see all of these facility attributes as being important
because a full range of high performance

is critical to returning to normal operations as soon as possible.

In support of this objective,
our High Performance and Integrated Design Resilience Program
seeks to improve the security and resilience of our nation's buildings and infrastructure.

The program's overall goal
is to enhance the ability of buildings and infrastructure
to recover from manmade and natural disaster events...

by analyzing and compiling
a range of high-performance requirements that, in addition to safely and security,

also include energy conservation, environmental footprint,
sustainability, durability, and continuity of operations,

to provide for an improved, comprehensive set
of solutions for our nation's building stock.

We have also focused on the requirement
to consider the quantifiable benefits

of certain measures and strategies,
understanding that return on investment is a central measure
during these times of competing priorities.

The High Performance and Integrated Design Program
has developed a number of tools to provide guidance on building
and infrastructure high-performance design

and protection, risk assessment, and mitigation
against multi-hazard events.

These tools are the first steps in the planning and development of new,
or renovation of existing, infrastructure
that owners, developers, and designers

can take to address the key resilience components
of robustness, resourcefulness, and rapid recovery.

Moreover, these tools can be used by federal, state, local,
and tribal emergency managers and personnel
to plan, prepare, exercise, and respond to events.

As Andrea said at the opening of the program,
today you are going to hear about three of the tools that we are working on i
n the High Performance and Resilience Program:

Integrated Rapid Visual Screening,
Owners Performance Requirements,
and Urban Blast Tool.

We are very excited about the ability of these tools
to assist in achieving resilient infrastructure.

on how to use and benefit from the tools
that have been developed and how these tools can assist you...]]>

in developing high-performance and resilient facilities.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in our webinar.

I hope you can draw upon this information,
and the success of the High Performance and Resiliency Program,

to explore new and creative ways to address resiliency.

At the Science and Technology Directorate,
we will continue to encourage further research,

participate in discussions, and coordinate work among groups
striving for improved resilience, like this one.

(Andrea): Thank you very much, Chris.]]>

Here to provide an overview
of the High Performance and Resiliency Program
within which the Resiliency tools were developed
is the program manager, Ms. Mila Kennett.

(Mila Kennett): I would like to thank you all,
in the name of the Department of Homeland Security,
for participating in this Webinar. ]]>

I have a very brief presentation;
the best will be saved for the other three major presentations
that we are featuring today.

My intention with this presentation
is to provide a framework for the IRVS, OPR, and UBT tools.

These three excellent tools
are part of the DHS High Performance Resilience Program,

which we will call, from now on, the HP Resilience Program.

To create this program,
several things were taken into consideration.

Through a series of workshops that took place
between 2009 and 2011,

a consensus path was identified to help government and private sector
to promote high performance and resiliency,

as an integrated effort to protect
the nation's building inventory and infrastructure.

The workshops covered a large range of topics, which include
resiliency, advance materials, stabilizations of buildings,

aging infrastructure, energy efficiency, environmental sustainability,
ultra-high-performance concrete,

and overall, how to improve the current performance
of buildings and infrastructure in our nation.

During the DHS Workshop, Designing for a Resilient America,
by consensus, the definition for resiliency
included in the National Infrastructure Advisory Council Report of 2009

was adopted as the premises
of the HP Resiliency Program.

The unifying thought behind this definition is that
it is asset based,

it largely equates resilience with the need of the asset
to continue providing service
after impacted by a natural or manmade hazard,

and that the conditions for a successful recovery
are anticipated before the disaster occurs.

The definition also commands us to strengthen our capacity to anticipate,
absorb, and adapt to disastrous events,

and to reduce the magnitude
of the impact of the disaster.

The graphic at the right side of this slide
shows three curves.

These curves exemplify the fact that if we introduce mitigation
and preparedness before an event,

the chances for recovery increase exponentially,

and that the particular asset has greater opportunities
to continue operating after a disaster

and thus, to provide the functions for which it was originally designed.

As a result of the process described before,
the HP ResiliencY Program was created.

The model that was selected is based on the concept of high performance,

which means that assets and facilities should perform
beyond life safety,

that they should be able to continue to operate
after a disaster event,

and that the selected mitigations measures should be cost-effective
and easy to adopt by the industry.

The model also promotes the concept of an integrated design,
which means that it is an all-hazard approach.

An integrated design is of high importance
for the protection our inventories.

It means that the logical path to achieve high performance is to consider—
during the design or retrofit phase of a project—

all major hazards,
such as blast, chemical, biological, and radiological threats;

and earthquakes, floods, high winds, and fire hazards.

The Department of Homeland Security understands
that we cannot do this alone.

For this effort to succeed,
it has to be an effort of equal partnership between
government and private sector.

In this slide we show many of our current partners,
which includes researchers, federal agencies, local governments,

law enforcement agencies, first responders,
engineers, architects, and the construction industry.

This slide shows, the major efforts
that the Department of Homeland Security is currently undertaking
under the HP Resiliency Program.

As shown in this slide,
the program has a variety of products.

It has design tools that can be used broadly
by researchers
and by the design and first responder communities.

The program also holds a wide range of assessment tools
for buildings, mass transit, and tunnels.

In addition, it has a tool, currently under development,
that helps in the assessment of facilities
that have already been impacted by a hazard

and may present a risk to first responders
when they are called to attend a particular site
after a disaster event.

In addition, the program includes a range of publications,
which I will show you in my next slide.

These publications,
which officially we roll out today,

were designed to address major concerns
of the design and first responders communities

in terms of protection of our buildings and infrastructure
and to promote the concepts of high performance and resiliency.

The HP Resiliency Program is also devoted
to promote the use of advance materials,
especially, ultra-high-performance concrete.

Current efforts are directed at advancing
ultra-high-performance concrete
and the possibilities of commercializing this material,

which will offer high levels of performance and durability to industry
at a reasonable cost.

The publications produced under the HP Resilience Program
are collected under the name BIPS:
Buildings and Infrastructure Protection Series.

I would like to high light a few of the BIPS publications.
BIPS 06 is an update of a publication
very well known by many.

the Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential
Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings.]]>

Primer to Design Safe Schools,
devotes a whole chapter to school shootings ]]>

and provides a series of case studies
which exemplifies how to introduce some safety measures to protect students
from the impact of these undesirable events.

The rest of the publications cover a variety of topics,
from aging infrastructure to performance-based design,
and preventing structures from collapsing.

To finish this presentation, I would like to reiterate
that the backbone of the HP Resilience Program

that the back bone of the HP Resilience Program is to promote the adoption of high performance and resiliency in a cost-effective manner;

to promote an integrated design approach that includes all hazards,

and to promote an effort that will benefit the resilience of our national inventories

to save lives and expedite recovery
in case of occurrence of a natural or manmade hazard.

All the details of the HP Resiliency Program
can be found on our website.

Products are downloadable and free of charge.

I would appreciate very much if you take note
of the URL of the High Performance Resiliency Program.
Thanks very much.

(Andrea Schultz:) Thank you very much Mila. Now let’s get right into the HP resilience tools.]]>

The first of our three technical presenters today is Dr. Mike Chipley,

who will provide an overview of the Integrated
Rapid Visual Screening tool, or IRVS,

followed by a demonstration video of the tool in use.

Dr. Mike Chipley has over 30 years of consulting experience
in the areas of risk assessments,
critical infrastructure protection,

control systems, cyber security, and sustainable buildings and energy.

including the FEMA 426 Reference Manual
to Mitigate Buildings Against Terrorist Attacks, ]]>

"How To" Guide,
and the Integrated Rapid Visual Screening Tool. ]]>

He is an Adjunct Faculty member at George Mason University,
and the Executive Vice President of the Security Analysis
and Risk Management Association.

(Dr. Mike Chipley): Thank you, Andrea. On behalf of the IRVS project team,
I am delighted to give you a short overview
of the Integrated Rapid Visual Screening Tool.]]>

The IRVS tool is designed to prepare rapid, but comprehensive, assessments,
using a combination of a catalogue of questions,
visual observation, and inputting answers into the IRVS database software.

The IRVS tool can be used to assess buildings,
transit, and tunnels.

IRVS is a simple, quick, and reliable tool
for obtaining a preliminary risk assessment rating
and can be used to support other, more thorough, detailed assessments.

IRVS is an all-hazard approach.
with 22 natural-hazard and manmade-threat scenarios.

The IRVS computes risk and resilience,
providing scores and ratings,
using government and industry standards and guides.

IRVS is a flexible methodology,
based on dictionaries and scores
which are easy to adapt to institutional needs.

The IRVS is expected to save millions of dollars to federal, state,
local government, and private sector by significantly reducing the time,
number of assessment team members,

and level of subject-matter expertise
needed to conduct an assessment
and achieve repeatable and consistent results.

]]>

The IRVS family is comprised
of three handbooks and field guides.

The first generation of IRVS, FEMA 455, was deployed in 2008
and has been extensively used by government and the private sector,
but it assessed manmade threat and risk ratings only.

This next generation of the IRVS is all-hazards,
has both quantitative risk and resiliency ratings,
and interfaces with other tools, such as Google Earth.

An IRVS for Airports is in development
and expected to be available by late summer 2012.
]]>

As Mila mentioned earlier, the IRVS catalogues
and the database are available
on the DHS S&T website, at the link below.

The IRVS database has all three tools (buildings, transit, and tunnels),
included, and only has to be downloaded once,
but each catalogue has to be downloaded separately.

The audience for the IRVS is meant to be broad
and represent the traditional Architect & Engineer designers,
facility management,

and security professionals; owner/operators;
and community, law, fire, emergency management,
and building officials. (Next slide.)

IRVS Database User Manual
is included in the .ZIP file
when you download the IRVS. ]]>

The user guide provides step-by-step instructions
to install and use the software.

To use IRVS, you will need
hardware and software shown on the slide.

The database has an optional plotting function
to display IRVS site coordinates
and screening information on a digital map.

The plotting function requires the use of a mapping program
capable of displaying a KML-type file,
such as Google Earth®..
]]>

IRVS works as a two-step process.
The database is loaded on the home headquarters system,
and a mobile field data version is loaded onto a laptop or an iPad.

The headquarters system is used to create a new assessment and input the pre-field data.

The pre-field data collections consists of the basic building information,
such as address, type of building,
the hazards and threats to be evaluated,

which DHS sector is applicable,
and identification of collateral infrastructure,
using Google Earth and the target density worksheet.

After the site survey and field visit,
the data from the mobile version is imported into the headquarters database,
and the field version can then be deleted.

This ensures that a limited amount of data
is potentially at risk of loss,
should a laptop or iPad be lost or stolen.

When the IRVS was being developed,
there were several key elements or features considered.

IRVS could be used by all 18 sectors
to evaluate the full range of buildings, transit, and tunnels.

Second, was using the visual observation and catalogue process,
reduce the amount of time assessments it has been taking
from a multi-assessor, multi-day process,

to become 1 to 2 assessors with limited expertise to just a few hours.

We wanted to enable pre-field data collection, using Google Earth.
We wanted to make it easy to use questions
that were grouped by tabs,

and answers that are selected from a drop-down list.

We wanted to be able to quickly provide
automatic risk scoring and printable reports.

And lastly, make the IRVS risk and resiliency ratings analysis
such that those assets that are at high risk or low resiliency
become readily apparent

and if needed, they can then be further analyzed by other subject matter experts.

For example, if the IRVS identifies the building
is in a seismic zone, and the site survey finds the building has structural cracking or spalled concrete columns,

the IRVS assessors would consult with the structural engineer
to determine if there is a problem
and evaluate mitigation options.

IRVS assessments are applicable to a particular building,
a group or cluster of buildings,
or buildings situated
in different geographic locales,

such as a city, a region, or a nation.
Assessments are based on building features
that can be observed during a visual inspection,

including such as the site property line and building perimeter,
the building façade and roof type,
and selected interior areas,

such as lobbies, elevator and stairwell core areas.

The IRVS pre-field data
is the work that can be done at home station,
such as to review prior assessments,

identify the building characteristics,
such as structural type, façade and roof,
assemble the site and floor plans,

identify the other DHS sectors'
collateral infrastructures near the building,
using the Target Density worksheet and Google Earth,

and review emergency-management, evacuation, and shelter-in-place plans, business recovery, or continuity-of-operation plans.

What is the IRVS analytical background?
First, the methodology:

The IRVS builds on the tranditional FEMA and DHS Risk Mitigation publications and tools,

and combines them in a matrix with assigned weights.
Risk deals with target attractiveness (for manmade hazards); and for natural hazards, it uses probability of occurrence.

Risk is calculated as follows, with risk equaling the Consequence, (times) the threat (times) the Vulnerabilty.

Resilience is computed using Robustness, Resourcefulness, and Recovery,
using information such as hardening, training, and redundancies.

Resilience is calculated as follows:
Resilience equals Robustness Times Resourcefulness Times Recovery.

Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Standard
for Private Sector Buildings,]]>

and from the COOP/COG for government buildings.

The IRVS catalogue contains the embedded subject-matter expertise
and has the IRVS question on the left,
along with pictures and graphics to illustrate the intent of the question,

and the answers to select from on the right.
There are three catalogues, one for buildings, transit, and tunnels.

The User Guide for the software installation and use is in the appendix of the catalogue.

The dictionaries are the content of each catalogue,
divided into three sections:
Consequences; Threat and Hazard; and Vulnerabilities.

The IRVS software tabs follow this order.
]]>

For each question-and-answer pair in the IRVS software,
at the bottom of the screen is a Help button.

When a specific row is highlighted, such as Site,
the corresponding question and answer pair appear in the pdf file.

As assessors become familiar with the questions and answers,
and the descriptions and examples in the catalogue,
their speed significantly increases.

Let’s take an example by selecting the Site Population question.

The catalogue opens to the proper dictionary and page
and provides the definition, the range of possible answers,
and pictures of different types of buildings.

The answers are given as an order of magnitude;
all the assessor has to do is count how many floors the building has.

The IRVS is not meant to be a data-intensive modeling effort;
it is a visual-observation level of detail.

IRVS contains a total of 22 hazard scenarios
for manmade threats and natural-hazard events.

The manmade threats come from the DHS
Interagency Security Committee criteria
and use the threat ratings of the Design Basis Threat report.

These ratings can be changed to reflect an organization's
specific data and threat level.

The natural hazards are the major events
that cause large-scale loss of life and property damage
and are associated with the primary authoritative source,

such as USGS for seismic, NOAA for hurricane,
and FEMA for flood.

The IRVS produces several reports and [analyses].

The Risk and Resiliency [Rating] report provides a summary
of each of the hazards, consequences, and vulnerability scores,
along with the total risk score, using a 1-to-100 scale.

The resiliency score is shown at the bottom-left.
This is a major feature of IRVS and one of the first tools
to provide a quantitative resiliency score.

Note that the risk and resiliency scores
are not inverses of each other;
they compute a score using different question sets.

A building can have high risk, but also have high resiliency;
or could have low risk and low resiliency
but be mission-critical.

IRVS process is both a screening of one facility
and a management tool for many facilities.

IRVS can also be used to provide a summary risk
of all screenings [for] all assessments.

In areas where there are buildings, transit, and tunnels, this allows multiple infrastructure analysis.

Once an IRVS assessment has been completed,
any IRVS asset can be copied
and used to create a new record with a new name.

IRVS can be used to do What If scenarios
and compare different risk and resiliency mitigation options
to determine an optimal solution.

Currently, the IRVS for Transit and Tunnels
is on the DHS website.

The Buildings version will be available
in March 2012.

By the end of summer 2012,
several additional enhancements to the IRVS
will be released.

These enhancements provide additional levels
of security and functionality to the tool.

In addition, several hazards have been automated
to populate the answers
based on the geographic coordinates.

Lastly, there is an iPad app in development,
scheduled for an April 2012 release.

The iPad app will add a significant ease of use
for the assessor.

In addition to the database and catalogue,
the ability to capture photos and video will make
field data capture faster and more accurate.
]]>

The iPad app will be available by March of 2012,
and other tablet apps are being developed
and should be available in the near future.

Why use the IRVS?
First, it's an overall process for obtaining a risk and resiliency rating for a building, or a group of buildings,
or different types of infrastructures.

Second:It is a very quick tool designed to facilitate higher assessments, when needed.

It's a support tool that helps decision makers
prioritize risk and resource allocation.

And lastly, it's a convenient solution to test
different mitigation measures that may be implemented
or planned, and come up with the optimal solution.

What are he IRVS benefits?
It's flexible and adaptable to the needs and requirements
of federal agencies and the private sector,

It allows individual facility assessments to be customized to specific protection and mitigation strategies.

It allows the prioritization of inventories of facilities and infrastructures, based on resilience and resource allocation,

And finally, dramatic reductions in facility assessment cost,
time, and the expertise needed
to actually conduct the assessments.

Before we take questions, we will show a short video
of IRVS in use.

I.R.V.S—
Integrated Rapid Visual Screening—

is a comprehensive screening system
designed to help you evaluate risks and resiliency
for building, mass-transit-station, and tunnel facilities,

from multiple potential threats, such a blast, chemical,
biological, and radiological releases.

as well as natural hazards, such as floods,
hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes.

We're going to focus on buildings,
but the other facility types follow the same process.

Police and fire personnel, as well as facility owners and managers,
can easily use the IRVS;
a building-design backround is not required.

Developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the IRVS system allows the user to quickly identify, inventory,
and rank building and infrastructure for both risk and resiliency, using a secure process.

This is simply accomplished by providing data about the site,
answering a series of questions in the IRVS software,
and letting the program do the rest.

The IRVS is available for use, free of charge, to state and local governments, federal agencies, and the private sector.

Performing the IRVS is a three-step process,
where you will answer pre-field, field, and post-field questions.

Using the IRVS software, you'll first spend some time at your office, researching and entering data about your facility.

Then, you'll carry the software into the field,
on a laptop or tablet,
where you will answer the built-in questions.

On your return to the office, you'll modify entries,
supply missing data,
and publish your risk and resiliency assessment.

In the pre-field process, you'll enter basic information
about your facility into software.

First, you'll access the program
through a secure, password-protected login,
and come to screens which let you create and manage records,

and enter a brief description about the facility,
based on information that you've gathered
from your records and the Internet.

One of the helpful features of the software
is that it integrates with Google Earth.

Google Earth helps to locate and evaluate
both the site and its surrounding environment.

To assess manmade hazards, for instance,
you can establish one hundred, three hundred, and thousand-foot radiuses
around the asset being evaluated.

Google Earth also helps identify and record
the latitude and longitude of the faciility.

Once you've entered the basic facility data,
the next step is to go to the site-evaluation form
to answer questions about the facility.

For buildings, these questions revolve around
potential manmade and natural hazards,

and general pre-field questions
about building use, structure type, and value.

Expect to spend one to two hours on this step
for a single building.

Now you are ready for the field inspection.

After filling in initial data at the office,
it's time to head to the site,
meet with the facility engineer and security personnel,

and conduct the field assessment.

It will usually require two to four hours to take pictures
and enter all of your observation data on a laptop
for a single building.

The site scoring form guides you through the evaluation.

It will already have been pre-populated with questions,
based on the answers provided in the site evaluation form,
regarding hazards and resiliency.

Click on the tabs at the top of the screen
to select categories of questions that cover
everything from hazards and consequences,

to architecture, the building enclosure,
and cybersecurity.

There is also a sophisticated Help function.
If you are in the field and don't understand a question,

such as what a "steel-moment building frame" looks like,
the Help button opens a catalog
with detailed pictures and explanations.

So: You've answered the form questions
and returned to your office.

Now you are ready to perform
the post-field part of IRVS.

You will transfer all of your data
to the desktop version of the software
and erase the sensitive data off your laptop or tablet.

Once you've made any last-minute changes
to the pre-field, site-evaluation,
and site-scoring entry forms,

Click on the Summary button to generate the results
shown on the Risk and Resiliency Summary screen.

This screen provides an overview of the risks, resiliency,
and multihazard interactions of all the threat and hazard scenarios
evaluated at the site.

Results are displayed
using a color-coded evaluation.

In the upper section of the screen
are the scores for manmade hazards.

In the middle of the screen
are scores for natural events and fire.

Ratings for Resiliency and each of its components--
Robustness, Resourcefulness, and Recovery--
are provided here.

A unique feature of the tool
is its consideration of interactions
between six hazards.

Summaries of the risk scores for each threat and hazard,
as well as total resiliency and risk scores,
are displayed in this box.
]]>

The Total Risk score is very useful
if you are managing multiple sites
to compare and assess the risk of individual sites
or across your entire portfolio.

Once you have reviewed your answers
and the results you have generated,

you can create an Executive Summary
to highlight the critical information about the site.

The summary—along with point-of-contact and team-member information, photos taken, GIS information, and drawings or models—

creates a robust, centralized assessment of your facility,
all in one place.

With IRVS, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
puts in the hands of both the public and private sector
a comprehensive process

designed to conduct a robust and through evaluation
of risk, resiliency, and multihazards,
for facilities and infrastructure.

IRVS's combination of questionnaires and software analysis
ensures a comprehensive and structured approach
that can be conducted quickly and efficiently.

Over the last several years,
IRVS has been used successfully
by a number of federal, state, local, and municipal agencies.

For more information, or to get access to the tool,
please visit the DHS HP IDR website
(www.dhs.gov/bips).
]]>

(Andrea Schultz of DHS OIP) Thank you very much, Mike.
Now we're gonna focus on a few questions
about the IRVS.]]>

Can you first explain what the financial benefits
of using the IRVS are?

(Mike Chipley) Sure, Andrea. Improving risk and resilience to buildings
can have several direct financial benefits.]]>

By improving risk and resiliency of buildings,
cost impacts from natural and manmade disasters
should be reduced.

Second, by taking advantage of these multihazard interactions,
the ultimate cost of hazard mitigation should decrease.

while also improving safety,
which in itself is also a cost-savings measure.

(Andrea Schultz) Mike, I have another question for you.
Can you tell me how I can use the IRVS to manage and improve resiliency?]]>

(Mike Chipley) One of the unique features of the IRVS
is that it produces an objective value for building resiliency
and for mass transit stations and tunnels, as well.]]>

By performing a "What if..."investigation on different answers
to the questions in IRVS and studying how
the resulting building resiliency changes,

a better understanding of the parameters
that affect building resiliency can be gained.

By improving these parameters, the building resiliency
should improve accordingly, which in turn makes recovery and return to operations faster.

Speed of recovery is critical
to the organization in a community.

If a disruption lasts longer than two weeks,
history shows that upward of eighty percent of those businesses,
and of people affected, do not return.

(Andrea) Mike, you mentioned a "multihazards
interaction matrix" during your presentation. ]]>

Can you tell me how I can take advantage
of the multihazards interaction matrix?

(Mike) Certainly. When a multihazards interactive matrix
shows moderate or higher numbers
between two different hazards, ]]>

it indicates a need to have a closer look
at decisions regarding each hazard.

Higher numbers in the matrix are showing
that such decisions have a high impact
on how the building will respond to the other hazard.

Accurate considerations of these high interactions
can either improve safety, or reduce cost,
or both.

(Andrea) Okay, I think I have a much better understanding, now,
but I still have another question for you:]]>

How can I use the IRVS
for planning or mitigation analysis?

(Mike) Andrea, by changing the different responses
to different questions,
mostly in the vulnerability section of the tool,]]>

the computed Risk and Resiliency scores will change.

Those changes can be used to reflect different
possible mitigation and improvement schemes.

then compare those results [with] changes in Risk and Resiliency scores.

The most efficienty mitigation scheme will result
in the most reductions in risk,
and/or [a] rise in the Resiliency scores.

(Andrea) Thank you for your presentation, Mike,
and also for taking the time to answer those questions.]]>

That's all the questions we're going
to be able to get to, right now.

But, everyone remember: If we didn't get
to your question, we're going to provide answers
to all the questions at a later date.

Also, as we continue forward throughout the program,
please remember:

You can go onto the lefthand side of the screen
and type your questions in the box.
We're really looking forward to everyone's questions.

Our next presenter is Mr. Earl Kennett,
who will provide an overview
of the Owners' Performance Requirement Process

or the OPR, and demonstrate the OPR tool.

Earl Kennett is the Chief Operating Officer
of the National Institute of Building Sciences,

where he is responsible for millions of dollars
in building-related federal research.

Prior to NIBS, he was an administrator for research
at the American Institute of Architects.

He has degrees in Architecture and Engineering.
Earl?

(Earl Kennett): Thanks, Andrea.
Today, I'm going to present
the Owners' Project Requirements (OPR) tool.]]>

The National Institute of Building Sciences
manages this effort
for the Department of Homeland Security.

The institute is a nonprofit organization
that was established by the U.S. Congress
to work with federal agencies and the private sector

on issues of national importance.

To perform this project, we put together a team
of recognized experts in a range of areas,

dealing with the building envelope,
including the architectural, fenestration, mechanical, strcutural, and owner committees.

First, it's important to understand
what the OPR tool actually does.

It's a web-based system that allows building owners
to establish performance-based project requirements.

It also evaluates tradeoffs
between high-performance goals required,

including the energy, environmental,
natural disasters, and manmade disasters.

These performance goals may range from
minimum requirements—those that are in,
for instance, building codes and industry standards—

all the way to very high-performance solutions.

It produces the owner's project requirements
to initiate a commissioning process based on

the expectatons and decisions that the owner makes, using this tool.

In this version, it's limited to building enclosures,
but later I'll talk to you about the final version
of this tool,

and when it will be available.

is high-performance-based design?]]>

High-performance-based design takes place
early in the life cycle of a project.

Before design, it focuses on functional performance,
expectations from the owner,
not just prescriptive solutions,

given to the design team.

It evaluates a range of alternatives and scenarios—
again, based on the performance requirements
of the owner—

and it includes measurable goals
and reference standards.

The end result is a plan
that can be given over to the project team

informs the design process;
it doesn't dictate solutions to the design team.]]>

Let's also define what we mean
when we talk about "building enclosure."

The building enclusore system includes
the building wall system,
the fenestrations or openings in the system,

the roof, and also basement walls.

Why is a building enclosure so important?
Well, buildings make up about a third
of the global CO2 in this country.

And HVAC makes up the largest share of a building's energy use: about 38 percent.

So almost forty percent of the building energy consumption
can be saved by just providing airtight
and well-constructed building enclosures.

most important part of the building,
in terms of sustainability, energy, and—
as you'll see in a few moments—]]>

manmade disasters and natural disasters.

The enclosure system is a challenge
because it has competing demands
between energy, environmental, and resilience.

It's the first line of defense and natural and manmade disasters,

it integrates a wide range of components,

the prescriptive codes mandate minimum performance,

but if you want to increase performance
beyond these minimums,

it requires the owner to go through
an evaluation and analysis process,
working with the project design team.

There's a lot of research and industry efforts out there
oriented towards the building enclosure.

The institute itself has a number of councils.

There's at least four Department of Energy Laboratory efforts on building enclosure,

and a range of industry standards and industry certification programs.

including enclosure commissioning,
and including the Department of Homeland Security program that we're talking about today.

There's a range of specific federal agency standards,
including GSA and the military,
that deal with the building enclosure system.

This whole tool is based on the definition for "high-performance buildings" found in the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)of 2007.

The definition of "high-performance buildings"
in that legislation deals with the integration and optimization
of a range of attributes for buildings,

including energy, sustainability, environmental,
security, safety, durability,
and a whole range of other operational considerations.

The attributes that were listed in EISA that are relevant to this Building Envelope OPR Tool

include security, durability—which includes service life—
operation, interrruption of operations,

energy conservation, including thermal, air leakage;
environmental—the carbon footprint of the building—

and safety (seismic, wind, floor, and fire resistance).

Also, wer'e going to go through a few definitions of key concepts I'll be talking about in this presentation.

When I refer to "attributes," those are the specific performance characteristics that we're dealing with.

For instance, energy; or safety; or security,
in terms of blast; and a range of other attributes.

Demands are those natural forces or manmade events that impact a building.

Could be an earthquake; could also be the climate, in terms of energy.

Metrics are those quantifiable measurements:
How are we gonna measure that performance?

The systems are the major functional parts of the building:
the enclosure system, mechanical system.

Baselines are those performance levels that are realized in minimum requrements right now.

the building code, industry standards, federal agency standards;

and bechmarks are those areas of increased performance
that we can attach specific levels to.

And verification is the method by which we make sure
that that benchmark is validated.

Also I want to mention three concepts
that we talk about in the tool:

"Resilience," which is really a function of
Robustness, Resourcefulness, and Recovery:

How much time is it gonna take for this particular building to regain its functional loss?

"Risk," which is the probability realized
of the probability of occurrence of a natural event;

and "Operation" is a function of that performance level
of that facility, depending on what the actual demand level
[or] the consequences of that particular event are.

So in other words, we've defined "attributes,"
we've defined "demands,"in terms of manmade hazards,
natural hazards, other environmental conditions,

and these demands are placed on the building systems.

and we're getting certain levels of performance—
maybe a baseline performance, which is a minimum,

or we may want to go all the way up to High Performance.

And the outcomes of these are Risk, Resilience—
the continued operation or function of that building—

and Operational Cost—in essence, energy consumption cost, utility cost.

And now I want to go through some of these
actual attributes
that these committees dealth with.

In terms of the Architectural Committee,
we dealt with water penetration;
moisture migration, in terms of mold;

air leakage through the enclosure system;

thermal transfer; acoustic transmission; and service life—
the actual life of the enclosure system.

The Structural Committee dealt with blast protection,
seismic resistance, wind resistance,
flood resistance, and fire protection.

The Mechanical Committee dealt with chem/bio;
radiological protection; the carbon footprint of the facility;
and renewable energy, in terms of solar.

The Fenestration Committee again dealt with the windows of the building, in terms of thermal transfer;
daylighting; natural ventilation;
[and] ballistic, seismic, and wind resistance.

And the Owner Committee really oversaw
the development of the tool, realizing that the owner requirements
in terms of cost/benefit, life cycle;

risk analysis; serviceability; continuity of operations;
and performance evaluation, had to take place
within the design and implementation of the OPR tool.

Now, we've talked about the various attributes,

and selecting those levels of performance
allows the owner to decide
what actual attributes and what levels of performance for those attributes

are most important for their business case.

So, for instance, the building owner may pick a very high level of performance, in terms of energy,

and a much lower area of performance in terms of acoustics.

If he's not in a seismic risk zone,
he may pick a lower level of seismic,

and increased risk from manmade catastrophic events.

This, too, allows him to go through the whole range of attributes and pick the performance level that's most appropriate for his business-case model.

The OPR tool itself,
which I will demonstrate in a few minutes,

is a Web-based planning tool. It allows the owner to establish requirements, and view the results of those performance expectations,

allows the owner to change those performance objectives
and evaluate a range of scenarios,

and then, based on the scenario that's picked,
develop a performance-based plan for the design team,

which can be coordinated with commissioning
of the enclosure system.

This tool also applies to existing retrofit enclosures, as well as new design.

The building owner will create a project,
and for the new building, he will input a range of information

including his expectations for performance,
and he will then be able to evaluate the results
of the performance levels.

In terms of an existing building,
basically the same process takes place,
except the input information will obviously be different,

and he will select a strategy from the Envelope Retrofit.

The owner will compare alternative scenarios
that he's identified during the process,
]]>

each one with different performance expectations
and different performance results.

The owner will select the particular scenario
that most meets his business-case model,

and then he will be able to print out a Project Requirements Report,
which basically identifies the whole range of attributes

the performance levels that have been ascertained by the owner, and quantifiable as descriptive information on those performance levels

and verification standards that can be used
to verify the actual design of those performance levels
within his particular building.

The general report that provides all the assumptions
and the process and the modeling for this tool
is now available.

There is a second phase to this project,
that will extend the first phase to cover the whole building.

including the structural system itself,
the electrical and lighting system,
and the mechanical system.

We're working with the team from Phase I,
and this total / whole-building OPR tool
should be available by September 2012.

The OPR tool itself can be accessed at www.oprtool.org.

It's free and accessible to anyone who wants to use it,.

I'd like to now do a short demonstration of the OPR tool.

The first thing you see when you go to the website www.oprtool.org
is the home page.

This allows you to go in and access the tool,
using your own secure password.

You go into the tool, you'll see a range of information,
that you can access in terms of user guides
and other information on the OPR tool,

including your own particular address.

You can then go in and add a new project.
Now you should be aware that the data itself
resides on your hard drive.

We do not store your data on our website.
You can add a new project, and create a project
or you can import a project from your particular hard drive
if you've been working on one.

If you go into an existing program,
you'll be able to see the various scenarios
of that individual project,

and you can edit, copy, delete, or actually develop a report.

Once you select the actualy scenario that you're working on,
you will add scenario information,
which primarily deals with the size and height
of your particular building;

This is where you can also make a decision
as to whether or not you want an existing building retrofit;

You'll be asked specific information
from the Building Enclosure Retrofit.

Or, in this particular case, we're actually doing a new building construction project,

and again you'll be asked for building area,
total floors, and a range of other information

and most importantly,
what your performance benchmark expectations are.

And these will deal with Risk, Resiliency, and Operational—
I discussed those in the earlier presentation—

and Risk—you can define whether High, Moderate, or Low Risk—
most meets your project.

You'll then be asked for Resilience performance expectation level,
and these you can act as Minimum,
or Enhanced, or High Performance.

You'll then go into a screen where you're asked for life-cycle information,
including the user period, energy cost,
service and maintence costs, and other variables.

their default values (if you don't agree with
the default values, you can put your own value).

The first screen,
in terms of actual performance levels,
is Facility Resilience,

dealing with facility safety, seismic.

You'll go in and identify
what particular seismic zone your facility is in.

Once you've made that determination,
then you'll be asked to actually identify
the performance expectations for Seismic.

You'll do this either for Life Safety, which is the minimum building code,
Reduced Property Damage, or
Continued Operation of Your Facility.

You'll also then be able to input a range of information
pertaining to the flood zone, any wind,
and also fire areas.

Your next screen will then deal with Facility Security,
which is primarily involved with manmade disasters, including blast.

what you think your blast charge may be,
your blast range,]]>

and again, the acceptable damage
that you're willing to take for your particular facility.

Ballistics and CBR is also included as potential performance expectations.

You'll then go into your Facility Operations input,
which deals with energy and environmental.

You can enter your glass percentage,
enter your energy benchmark,

And then you'll be able to pick up other requirements,
including air leakage and rain penetration.

as well as what the baseline and benchmarks of your Building Life,
your Exterior Wall Life, Fenestration, and Roof System Life is.

These performance levels can be Improved Performance,
Enhanced Performance, or High Performance.

Once you've inputted this data, you'll be taken to your OPR dashboard,
where you'll see the resuls of this.

And you'll see the results in terms of
what your actual performance levels are,
your Operational Performance Level,

your Resilience Performance Level,
and your Risk Performance Level is.

This color [coding shows your levels] in Red, Yellow, and Red,
from Good, Moderate, and Poor.

You'll be able to see what your capital expenses are for your expectations—
in this particular case, for Building Safety.

and you'll be able to see what your exposure is—
in other words, how much property damage you would have to pay for if that particular disaster occurred.

You'll also be able to look at your Energy Capital Investment
and your Energy Savings over the life of the building.

As well as your Durability Requirements—
increasing the service life of your various systems.

The next dashboard you'll see will distribute your attributes by cost
so you'll be able to see how much money you're spending on Security,

versus Safety versus Energy,

and those capital costs, and your performance expectations
will be shown
over Energy and Resilience.

The next slide will show what your relationship is
in terms of your baseline building life,

and the building life, or envelope life, fenestration life,
roof system life, that you've established.

You'll then go into our OPR Dashboard
and you'll be able to see the range of strategies
that you've selected—

in this case, Thermal Transfer, Air Leakage, Daylighting—
You'll be able to see what your actual capital costs are,

and what your improvement will be,
based on operational energy consumption.

One of your final dashboards will lay all this out in a Summary,

and you'll be able to see a range of areas,
including your Capital Expenses for your Safety/Security,

and your Capital Expenses and Operational Savings
for your Energy, as well as your Increased Service Life.

Once you've gone through a range of alternatives,
you'll be able to pick the scenarios
that most meet your business case.

—in this particular case, we've picked three scenarios—

You can see the Total Capital Expenses and your Exposure—
in this particular case, for Resilience—

and you can see how much many you're spending on Capital Expense,
and how much Property Damage Reduction
that you're getting from those performance strategies.

Once you've decided on what particular scenario
most meets your business case,
you can select that scenario,

and then you'll be able to then go to the actual OPR Report
that will allow you to review a range of attributes that you've selected,

the performance levels you've selected for those attributes,

you'll be able to see the quantifiable requirements
to meet those performance levels,
as well as descriptive information;

You'll be able to identify what Risk and Resilience factors you used;

and you'll be able to see the Financial Results,
in terms of Capital Expenses, and either your
Operational Savings or your Exposure Buy-Down.

You'll also be given a range
of performance standards that can be used

to verify and validate that those performance levels
have been met by your project design team
as a building owner.

This concludes my presentation of the OPR Tool demo.

Again, you can reach it at OPRTool.org.
It's free and accessible to anyone who would like to use it.

Thank you very much.

(Andrea) Thank you very much, Earl, for that demonstration.]]>

I do have just a few questions for you about the OPR Tool.

The first question I want to ask you is:
How can I utilize the OPR to produce
the best-possible design choices within a limited budget?

(Earl Kennett) Thanks, Andrea.
By developing several different scenarios,
while keeping capital expenses within your available budget for the owner,]]>

you can change these scenarios to reflect
different performance levels, risk, and resiliency;

and then you can choose the scenario that has the lowest risk
and the highest resiliency and performance levels
possible for your project.

You keep experimenting by using the highest-performance
metrics for the building attributes that are most important,

and while using the lower-performance metrics
in areas of lesser importance.

keep this performance level higher,
and experiment with other attributes,]]>

noting that the seismic performance will provide
a level of wind and blast resistance
based on the interactions between the requirements for each.

(Andrea) Okay, well I have another question for you, too:
How can the OPR Tool help manage risk for a project?
That's really important.

(Earl Kennett) Well, the OPR Tool can help you manage risk
by helping you to design it out of your building
when you are planning the project.]]>

By comparing the tool's computed exposures against
future finding, you can can address risk assessment.

By varying different physical building design parameters
and studying how much variations can reduce computed risk levels,

you can select the right level of risk assessment,
from the start.

FInally, by computing exposure and life-cycle expenditures for different scenarios,

and offering those comparisons to the owner
and other decision makers,
you're communicating risk-level choices to them.

(Andrea Schultz) Okay, this is the last question I'm gonna ask you before you go:]]>

—I think a lot of people have this rolling through their mind—

Can the OPR Tool help the owner
and the design teams work together,
or is this gonna cause some conflict?

(Earl Kennett) Well this gets to the basic heart of what the OPR Tool is trying to accomplish.]]>

The OPR Tool addresses numerous technical, structural, architectural, mechanical, financial—

in terms of capital expenditure, rate of return—
and managerial, desired performance, risk,
and resilience levels, service life—

It addresses all these issues, in an objective manner.
Making the appropriate choices required by the OPR process
for each of these areas to develop viable scenarios

between the different disciplines in the project design team,
early in the planning process, in order to be effective.]]>

This has the potential to add more teamwork
to the whole group from the very beginning.

(Andrea Schultz) That's great. Thank you very much. ]]>

That's all the time I have for these questions, ]]>

but I just want to remind everyone
to please type your questions in

because even if we don't get to your question today,
we're still gonna make a point to get responses
for everyone in the future.

The next presenter is Dr. Bob Smilowitz,
who will provide an overview and demonstrate
the Urban Blast Tool, or UBT.

Bob Smilowitz is a principal at the Applied Sciences Division of Weidlinger Associates,
and an adjunct professor of Engineering at The Cooper Union.

Dr. Smilowitz has over 34 years' experience
analyzing and designing hardened and conventional structures
subjected to dynamic shock and vibration loading.

Dr. Smilowitz performed protective design and vulnerability studies
of numerous federal courthouses, federal office buildings, embassy structures, visitor centers,
airline terminals, financial institutions, and commercial properties.

Dr. Smilowitz is a GSA National Peer Professional
and a Registered Engineer in the states of New York, California, and West Virginia. Bob?

(Bob Smilowitz) Thank you, Andrea. I'm pleased to do a presentation of the Urban Blast Tool.]]>

Weidlinger Associates is a full-service structural engineering firm with over sixty years' experience designing conventional structures, long-span structures,

and providing protective design services
to both public- and private-sector projects.

All the analytical software that Weidlinger Associates develops
for evaluating explosive effects is extensively validated.

The Urban Blast Tool—
otherwise known as the UBT—

displays the results of detailed Computational Fluid Dynamics calculations
of Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices

in the New York City Financial District.

This fast-running software allows law enforcement, first responders,
and building designers to quickly evaluate the effects of detonations
relative to column damage, glass debris hazard,

and the performance of emergency evacuation,
rescue, and recovery systems.

When an explosion occurs in the atmosphere,
blast waves radiate spherically in all directions.

The blast load intensity is reduced
as the energy is distributed
over an ever-expanding shockfront.

Although the peak pressures are reduced
with increased distance from the detonation,
the duration of the pressure pulse is increased.

When an explosion occurs on a rigid surface,
the energy is reflected off the rigid surface
and the shockfront propagates hemispherically, upward and outward.

This focuses more of the energy towards the target structure.

Both of these idealized conditions
are well-represented by semiempirical relations.

When an explosion occurs in an urban environment,
blast loads are reflected off of adjacent structures
and are channeled around corners or diffused over buildings.

This complex pattern of blast loads are not
well-represented by the semiempirical relations.
]]>

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses are required
to perform these computationally extensive calculations.

CFD calculations of the entire streetscape
may take several days to complete

and this runtime is not feasible
when the results are required in response to an emergency.

The blast loads themselves are represented
by peak pressure and the impulse,

which is the area under the Pressure Versus Time curve.

The Urban Blast Tool allows a user to calculate
the complex pattern of blast loads on buildings

as the shockwave propagates through the dense urban streetscape.

The UBT then evaluates the likely performance
of representative steel-frame or representative concrete-frame columns,
and responds to the calculated blast loads.

The UBT similarly evaluates the likely performance of representative glaives, facade, and determines the likely glass debris hazard.

Finally, the UBT determines the likely survival
of critical life-safety equipment.

This equipment is referred to
as the Emergency Evacuation Rescue and Recovery,
or E-E-R-R, systems.

law-enforcement personnel, who might need to determine the safe evacuation distance from a suspicious vehicle located in a dense urban streetscape; ]]>

first responders, who would benefit from an
evaluation of the likely extent of damage
as they race to the scene of an event—]]>

—they might also use the tool
to help plan for disaster management—

and design engineers and architects,
who might be incorporating protective measures
into the design of new buildings
or the retrofit of existing buildings.]]>

The Urban Blast Tool is able to instantaneously
produce the blast loads throughout the urban streetscape
due to a range of explosive threats

because it accesses a database
of pre-calculated Computational Fluid Dynamics calculations.

A suite of CFD calcuations were performed over a period
of months, and the results of these calcuations were distilled
into the database for a specified urban environment.

Similarly, a suite of first-principles finite-element calculations
were performed for representative structural elements,

and the results of these calculations
are similarly stored in the database.

The performance of representative glass elements were similarly represented within the database in the form of pressure impulse charts;

and finally, the performance of representative E.E.R.R. systems
were calculated in order to determine fragility
of these various building systems.

The Computational Fluid Dynamics Model is based on
a five-foot resolution throughout the entire streetscape.

The "detonation" can be placed at a grid
of pre-defined threat locations,
and the magnitude of the threat can be defined by the user.

The results are displayed upon a graphical user interface
that allows a user to interactively rotate,
zoom, and pan the elements of the streetscape.

Individual buildings can be hidden
to display results on different surfaces.

The various output options are displayed on a table
and may be selected interactively.

The extent of the initial UBT database is displayed
on the following map, and the resolution of the buildings
that are represented within the database is shown.

geometry of the building (to the right)
is displayed alongside the UBT representation of the building (to the left).]]>

This shows all the buildings within the database
with contours of the building elevations displayed on each building.

The grid of all the calculated threat locations is shown on the right.

Although the threats are constrained to originate at these locations,
the magnitude of the threats may be identified by the user.

This allows a user to perform sensitivity studies to determine
the effect of varying the magnitude, and the location of the threat,
on the performance of the surrounding structures.

A second database was developed
for a significantly larger urban streetscape.

This streetscape requires a significantly larger
Computational Fluid Dynamics model
to calculate the blastwave propagation,

and to determine the blast loading on every building.

A grid of all the threat locations
within this second urban streetscape is shown, along with the image of all the buildings within the model.

The size of this urban model
pushed the computer hardware to its limits,

and required innovative analysis techniques
to capture the relevant shock physics.

Finite-element models were developed for representative building types.

These models were analyzed
to determine the performance of individual components,

and to determine the potential for progressive collapse
in response to blast loading.

Steel-moment frame, concrete-moment frame,
and concrete flat-slab structures were extensively studied.

Structural details of the representative systems
were varied in order to determine the sensitivity
of the different structures in response to blast effects,

and this behavior was captured in the database.

A fast-running analysis tool for assessing the potential for progressive collapse following initiating damage,
ProCAT, was developed several years ago
for the Technical Support Working Group.

This analysis tool is being incorporated into the next version
of the UBT to provide a building-specific capability.

The ProCAT tool was validated against detailed finite-element analyses
and small-scale testing of structural models within a centrifuge.

Emergency Evacuation Rescue and Recovery Systems—E.E.R.R.—
are those building components that are critical
to the safe evacuation of occupants following a disaster.

These systems include stair enclosures, stair pressurization,
fire doors, smoke detection, sprinklers, communications,

emergency lighting, emergency generators,
emergency elevators, air ducts, and conduit chases.

Representative systems were studied,
and probabilistic fragility curves were developed.

The UBT is being upgraded to incorporated general-database capability.

Users will be able to input building-specific information
to generate more-accurate response and performance predictions.

Existing databases of buildings and below-grade infrastructure
within the urban region will also be
accommodated in the next version of the code.

Models of other cities may be developed
in order to extend the utility of the UBT,

and a generic air-blast model is also being developed

in order to provide UBT capabilities
to a wide range of urban streetscapes.

Other utilities are being developed that allow users
to calculate the potential for injury, measure distances within the model,
and to document the results.

Finally, a Classified and an Unclassified version
of the UBT will be developed.

The UBT is currently developed for
the New York City Financial District and Midtown Manhattan.

An Unclassified, "For Official Use Only" version,
and a Classified, "Secret" version,
will be available to users with the appropriate clearance.

The UBT provides an effective approach
for creating fast and accurate air-blast predictions
for site-specific urban streetscapes.

Databases of high-fidelity CFD analyses can be quickly accessed
and displayed on models of the streetscape.

This capability is being extended to other urban centers.

The investigation of Emergency Evacuation Rescue and Recovery
Systems is effective for planning for future emergencies,

and may be extended as new systems are identified.

The investigation of progressive collapse
and the incorporation of the ProCAT tool

will enable users to evaluate the potential for collapse
for a wide range of structures.

And now, I'll be sharing a demo of the UBT software.

This is a demo of [an] Urban Blast Tool session.

The first screen displays the model of the urban environment.

We can zoom in.

We can rotate...about different axes.

And...we can define the magnitude of the explosive threat.

We next locate the position of the detonation.

as one of the predefined "dots" on the urban streetscape.

Here we've identified the location of the threat.

And we now calculate the threat effects.

In this image, the Peak Pressures are displayed on all the buildings.

And...we can zoom in...and we can locate
the effects on any particular structure of interest.

The scale—the magnitude of the maximum value of the contours—
can be adjusted if we want to change the resolution of the contours.

And we can recompute.

We can now—instead of looking at Peak Pressures—
we can look at impulses;

We can look at the effects of the blast,
in terms of glass hazard,

where red is High Hazard, yellow is Low Hazard,
and green is Undamaged.

We can look at column damage,
whether it's a steel column or a concrete column.

And we can look at the various E.E.R.R. components
throughout the region.

Once again, red represents Failure,

orange represents Damage,

and green represents Functionality.

We're now gonna change the magnitude
of the explosive threat and redo the calculation.

...Instantaneously, it redisplays the results in that region,

for any of the various components, whether it's Peak Pressure,
whether it's Glass Hazard, whether it's Column Damage,
or any of the E.E.R.R. components.

If we want to look at one area of interest,
we can zoom in, we can zone that area,
and erase all the remaining buildings surrounding that zone.

This allows us to look at different surfaces
that might otherwise be hidden by the remaining structures.

Here we're gonna actually focus in on a single building,

and rotate that building
so you can see the effects on all its surfaces.

And, once again, we can restore the model back to the full view.

(Andrea Schultz) Thank you very much, Bob.
We're now gonna answer a few questions
regarding the UBT tool.]]>

Can you first tell me how first responders can make the best use
of the Emergency Evacuation, Rescue, and Recovery feature
you mentioned that's in the UBT?

(Bob Smilowitz) The UBT enables first responders to determine
the levels of damage to the emergency-evacuation
rescue-and-recovery systems for different threat scenarios.]]>

This lets them know which emergency systems
are likely to be available, before they arrive,
and allows them to develop contingency plans.

Furthermore, by studying the different scenarios,
first responders can coordinate with building owners
to try to upgrade the vulnerable emergency systems.]]>

(Andrea Schultz) Okay, I have another question here, for you:
What are some of the different planning and mitigation uses
of the UBT tool?]]>

(Bob Smilowitz) The UBT may be used
to establish adequate setback distances, ]]>

identify efficient window retrofit systems,

create efficient and realistic training scenarios for first responders,

and make quick estimates of progressive collapse potential,
and the need for retrofitting structural systems.

(Andrea Schultz) I have one last question for you before you go:
"I really liked how the UBT showed the different threat scenarios,]]>

but can it be used for a mutiple-event scenario?"

(Bob Smilowitz) Actually, the UBT does not account
for cumulative damage resulting from multiple-event scenarios.]]>

However, the UBT can provide insight into the extensive damage
that might result from each event independently.

(Andrea Schultz) I want to thank Mike, Earl, and Bob
for those great presentations.]]>

These are really impressive and powerful tools
from DHS Science and Technology.

Mila, I'd like to come back to you now, and ask you
to let us know where you see the High-Performance
Resilience Program going from here. Mila?

(Mila Kennett) Thank you, Andrea.
I'm very excited about the rollout of these fine tools.]]>

The future direction of the HP Resiliency can be summarized as follows:

We are working to expand the coverage of the tools.

For example: We are adding more facility types for the IRVS,
such as airport buildings and terminals, hospitals and schools,

and adding cybersecurity to the dictionaries of the IRVS.

More systems and facility types for the OPR:
We are adding full structural, mechanical, electrical,
and lighting systems to the OPR.

And, to create a generic model for the UBT
that allows more citizens of the United States to use this tool.

We also are improving usability of the tools
by adding features and creating new platforms
and expanding existing ones.

DHS is currently working with many nonprofit organizations
and standards and professional societies like ASTM,

and we're reaching out to all the federal agencies
and state and local and municipal governments
beyond those we are already working with.

And finally, DHS is committed to improve the safety and security
of our nation's infrastructure, always on the lookout for what else we can do.

(Andrea Schultz) Thank you very much, Mila.
As you know, our team has always worked very closely with yours,and we always really enjoy any new programs you have because they're very impactful for the private sector and for the building community.

For the users today, I'm sorry: That's all the time we have. (END)