Reconnaissance‐Informed Post‐Earthquake Functional Recovery: Observations and Challenges

Earthquake reconnaissance trips often serve as the “tip of the spear” for assessing the real‐world performance of buildings and infrastructure. Earthquakes are nature’s laboratory experiments, exposing weaknesses and flaws by testing the structural integrity of each building. Traditional data collection approaches typically include documenting damage (or lack thereof) with photographs, taking measurements on structural characteristics (e.g., rebar cover, concrete cracking, residual drift, foundation settlement), and taking additional notes on qualitative damage (e.g., drywall cracking, stairway damage). The importance of incorporating recovery considerations into the design process has gained increased recognition to help maintain the health and vibrancy of the community after life safety measures have been assured. Though traditional activities remain valuable, the emphasis on systematically documenting building functionality, or predicting a return to functionality, during reconnaissance trips has been limited. The concept of functional recovery encompasses the readiness of a building to support its pre‐earthquake uses, beyond providing shelter. The majority of research on building functional recovery has focused on fully defining the concept and identifying the most influential factors. Some studies have pushed further to quantify functional recovery targets for individual buildings, taking into account shaking intensity, building response, component damage, and other relevant factors. Though functional recovery concepts have historically been implicitly embedded in different areas of the model international building codes for decades (e.g., importance factors), explicit treatment of the topic has been absent. This paper presents an effort undertaken after the 2023 Türkiye earthquake to collect functional recovery information approximately two months following the event. It provides a summary of the challenges encountered when attempting to collect functional recovery data during the post‐earthquake reconnaissance. Examples are given of a set of schools and hospitals, incorporating field observations and discussions with residents to glean any available information. By documenting these experiences, this paper highlights needed activities in the field of functional recovery and offers recommendations for further research.