See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277957840

PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT

AND RETROFIT OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS

Conference Paper June 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 77

3 authors, including:

Armin Bebamzadeh Carlos Ventura

University of British Columbia - Vancouver University of British Columbia - Vancouver
16 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS 232 PUBLICATIONS 1,973 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

System Identification of Modern Structures View project

Earthquake Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Armin Bebamzadeh on 10 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC
ASSESSMENT AND RETROFIT OF LOW-
RISE BUILDINGS
A. Bebamzadeh1, C. E. Ventura2, and M. Fairhurst3

ABSTRACT

The Province of British Columbia (B.C.), which is located in a region with a high risk of
significant seismic activity along the West Coast of Canada, has implemented a program to
mitigate the potential damage of a large seismic event for over 750 provincial low-rise school
buildings. In order to provide a cost-effective tool for seismic assessment and retrofit of these
buildings, a state-of-the-art probabilistic performance-based methodology has been developed.
The development of these requirements is based on probabilistic nonlinear dynamic incremental
analyses using ground motions specific to the hazards in the region.

Seismic Retrofit Guideline, 2nd Edition (SRG2), was issued in 2013 to address the performance-
based seismic assessment and retrofit design of low-rise school buildings. The life safety of
school buildings is the main performance objective in SRG2 and is achieved through reducing
the probability of structural collapse and excessive damage to a level that provides life safety.
This paper explains the extension of SRG2 to achieve enhanced performances other than life
safety. The enhanced performances are obtained by subjecting the school blocks to loss
estimation studies using the new generation of performance based design and loss estimation
methodology under development by the Applied Technology Council (ATC).

The method developed in this paper relieves the engineers from performing sophisticated
nonlinear analysis for individual buildings in order to benefit from the advantages of
probabilistic performance-based design. Instead they can utilize their conventional engineering
knowledge to assess and retrofit structures and use an extensive database of nonlinear analyses to
obtain the required design parameters. This paper describes how this large database is used to
estimate the probability of damage exceedances, and the associated cost and time of repairs.

1
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
3
Graduate Student Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

Bebamzadeh A, Ventura CE, Fairhurst M. Performance-based seismic assessment and retrofit of low-rise buildings.
Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Performance-based Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of

Low-rise Buildings
A. Bebamzadeh1, C. E. Ventura2, and M. Fairhurst3

ABSTRACT

The Province of British Columbia (B.C.), which is located in a region with a high risk of
significant seismic activity along the West Coast of Canada, has implemented a program to
mitigate the potential damage of a large seismic event for over 750 provincial low-rise school
buildings. In order to provide a cost-effective tool for seismic assessment and retrofit of these
buildings, a state-of-the-art probabilistic performance-based methodology has been developed.
The development of these requirements is based on probabilistic nonlinear dynamic incremental
analyses using ground motions specific to the hazards in the region.

Seismic Retrofit Guidelines, 2nd Edition (SRG2), was issued in 2013 to address the performance-
based seismic assessment and retrofit design of low-rise school buildings. The life safety of school
buildings is the main performance objective in SRG2 and is achieved through reducing the
probability of structural collapse and excessive damage to a level that provides life safety. This
paper explains the extension of SRG2 to achieve enhanced performances other than life safety.
The enhanced performances are obtained by subjecting the school blocks to loss estimation studies
using the new generation of performance based design and loss estimation methodology under
development by the Applied Technology Council (ATC).

The method developed in this paper relieves the engineers from performing sophisticated
nonlinear analysis for individual buildings in order to benefit from the advantages of probabilistic
performance-based design. Instead they can utilize their conventional engineering knowledge to
assess and retrofit structures and use an extensive database of nonlinear analyses to obtain the
required design parameters. This paper describes how this large database is used to estimate the
probability of damage exceedances, and the associated cost and time of repairs.

Introduction

A novel, state-of-the-art methodology for seismic assessment: Seismic Retrofit Guidelines 2nd
Edition (SRG2) [1] was issued in 2013, and is currently being used by the British Columbia
Ministry of Education (MOE) for the assessment and retrofit of over 750 of its provincial
schools. This methodology implemented in these guidelines was based on performance-based
design and implemented in order to provide cost and time efficient remediation measures, which
was essential considering the large amount of buildings that required assessment. The Guidelines
were developed after an extensive period of research, development, and collaboration between

1
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
3
Graduate Student Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

Bebamzadeh A, Ventura CE, Fairhurst M. Performance-based seismic assessment and retrofit of low-rise buildings.
Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
academia and the British Columbian government and engineering community and have been
peer-reviewed by both local BC consulting engineers and by an external committee comprised of
several prominent consulting engineers and researchers from California.

In order to simplify and expedite the task of performance-based assessment, an extensive

database was developed comprising a large number of analysis results from a comprehensive
range of structural systems at varying resistance levels. This allows engineers to draw results
from the database rather than performing their own incremental nonlinear dynamic analyses
(INDA) [2].

The main performance objective for the school buildings considered in these guidelines is
life safety performance. Life safety performance simply requires a structure to uphold the safety
of any occupants during strong ground shaking. Shelter performance, which is an enhanced
performance similar to immediate occupancy performance, requires occupant life safety as well,
but also requires the structure to remain safe for occupancy after an intense seismic event. In
SRG2, shelter performance objectives were based on the loss estimation methodology under
development by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) [3].

This paper explains the methodology of SRG2 and describes how it can be combined
with ATC-58 damage fragility curves to get extremely efficient estimates of the loss probability
of a structure due to seismic hazards. Included is an example to illustrate the usage of ATC-58
fragility curves to estimate the damage to the major components of a structure and determine the
appropriate shelter retrofit performance criteria.

Methodology

Performance Objectives

A performance-based methodology was adopted for use in the SGR2 in which the probabilistic
risk of a structure is considered. This method is substantially different to tradition force based
code approaches (such as that specified in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), 2010
[4]) in that inelastic deformations, rather than forces or base shear, is used to quantify building
performance. The key parameter considered to define building damage is the differential
movement between floors, or drift. Probabilistic analyses are conducted in order to assess the
risk of drift exceedance of a building of a specified drift level during a seismic event.

The main performance objective of the Guidelines is life safety. This is defined as a level
of damage that will prevent serious injury or death of any occupants of the building during a
significant seismic event. It does not necessarily consider the usage of the structure post-
earthquake and does not require it to be functional immediately after the event. Life safety
performance is met by limiting the inelastic deformations of the structure under significant
seismic events. To meet life safety performance criteria, a 2% or less probability of drift
exceedance of the design drift limit (DDL) for a 2% in 50 year seismic event is required. The
DDL is based on the results of an extensive range of INDAs and test results and represents a
damage level for the specified system that is considered life safe.
 Another performance objective is also included in the SRG2 framework: shelter (or
enhanced) performance. The shelter performance objective is stricter than life safety
performance and requires the building to be safely occupied after a significant seismic event;
however, damage is still permitted and expected. Shelter performance is typically required for
structures which may be used as shelters or refuge zones after an earthquake, such as school
gymnasiums. The main difference between life safety requirements and shelter performance
requirements is the use of smaller design drifts. The same PDE value of 2% for the design drift
of lateral deformation resisting systems (LDRS) is considered. However, for diaphragms, the
PDE limit is reduced to 1%, due to the significant effect poor diaphragm performance has on the
rest of the system. Additionally, no unreinforced masonry is permitted in a shelter performance
building due to the damage it may cause if it collapses. Shelter performance criteria were
developed to limit the expected damage of structural systems from seismic events through
consideration of ATC-58 fragility curves. This paper describes how the criteria were established
and exemplifies this through a sample Vancouver three story school building.

Principal Elements

There are five principal elements considered in the SRG2 methodology. In order of highest to
lowest risk these are: 1) vertical load-bearing supports; 2) LDRS; 3) partition walls rocking out-
of-plane; 4) diaphragms; 5) connections. Vertical load-bearing supports are classified as the
highest risk, since their failure could lead to a catastrophic collapse of the structure. The LDRS
are also important to maintain lateral stability during strong ground shaking. Partition walls may
rock and may collapse during significant enough motions, which makes them a possible threat to
life safety. Excessive deformations of diaphragms do not generally threaten life safety, but the
severity of earthquake damage may increase due to poor diaphragm performance. Connections
are classified as the lowest risk component since they are typically capacity designed to the
members they link, and are typically designed very conservatively due to the modest price of
installing more or stronger connections.

Nonlinear Behavior

Each type of structural system considered within SRG2, called prototypes, is defined by a drift
limit, strength backbone curve (Fig. 1), hysteretic curve, and damping. SRG2 contains prototypes
that are commonly used structural systems in British Columbian low-rise school buildings.

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Backbone curve for (a) plywood shearwall and (b) squat concrete shearwall.
Prototypes have been defined for LDRS, diaphragms, and unreinforced masonry walls rocking
out-of-plane. Complete nonlinear behavior is modeled, including elastic, post-yielding, and
strength degradation.

Hazard Types

This probable damage methodology considers a wide range of possible seismic events, from
moderate shaking, to extreme shaking levels with a probability of exceedance considerably less
than 2% in 50 years, which is used in the BC building code. The approach permits the
probability of exceeding a certain drift level to be determined for a specified period (e.g. 50
years) and any possible realistic earthquake scenario based on local seismic hazard levels.

The seismic risk as defined in SRG2 is based on three suites of ground motions
considered at all possible levels of shaking. The suites of ground motions were chosen to
represent the three possible earthquake hazards in British Columbia: crustal, subcrustal, and
subduction events. The drift levels associated with the levels of seismic hazards are used to
assess the performance and damage associated with the structure.

Each suite of ground motions and each level of intensity has a level of probability
attached. For each combination of earthquake hazard type and intensity level, an INDA is
performed on a considered model and used to calculate the drift exceedance probabilities.

Seismic Performance Analyzer (Analyzer)

One of the most important and most innovative components of SRG2 is its database approach to
INDA. In the development of SRG2 an extensive number of prototypes at a variety of resistance
levels were considered. INDAs were performed on models of these prototypes over the entire
range of resistances, and compiled into a comprehensive database. 30 unique LDRS, four out-of-
plane masonry prototypes, and six types of diaphragms are included in this database. In total 9
million analyses were conducted in the creation of the database. Results for two example
prototypes are presented in Fig. 2.
30 30
Probability of Drift Exceedance (%)
Probability of Drift Exceedance (%)

Drift = 0.5% Drift = 1%

Drift = 1.0% Drift = 2%
25 25
Drift = 1.5% Drift = 3%
Drift = 2.0% Drift = 4%
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5
2 2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Resistance Rm (%W) Resistance Rm (%W)

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Probability of drift exceedance curves for (a) squat concrete shearwall and (b)
blocked OBS / plywood shear wall.
Users of this database can define their structural system in terms of one of the prototypes with a
specific resistance, and then simply draw results from the database using the web-based tool:
Analyzer. This allows BC engineers to perform performance-based assessment and retrofit
design of low-rise school buildings without performing the prerequisite INDA, which is very
time consuming, computationally demanding, and requires sufficient knowledge of nonlinear
modeling to perform.

Damage Estimates

In order to define a probability of damage associated with a structural system subjected to

significant ground motion, the loss estimation methodology under development by the Applied
Technology Council in ATC-58 was adopted. In this methodology, fragility curves, which have
been developed for a wide variety of structural and non-structural elements for a number of
damage states, are employed to determine the damage probability based on a specified drift level.
By combining these fragility curves with the drift exceedance probabilities determined through
INDA using the database, as explained previously, the probability of loss in a structure can be
estimated based on the entire range of earthquake hazard levels using Eq. 1.

P(L > l) = P(L > l | D = d) P(D > d | E = e) d(e) (1)

Where L is total loss, l is a specified amount of loss, the term P(L > l | D = d) is the
probability of loss for a certain drift (from fragility curves), and the term P(D > d | E = e) is the
probability the drift, D, exceeds a specified drift, d, given the earthquake intensity, e (from
INDA). The term (e) is the attenuation function that gives the rate of earthquake intensity
occurrence.

Perhaps the most prominent disadvantage of the ATC-58 methodology is the large
amount of sophisticated nonlinear analyses that must be performed in order to determine the drift
exceedance probabilities required in Eq. 1 to predict the probability of loss of a structure.
However, this is where the advantages of the SRG2 database can be realized. Users of the
database do not need to build nonlinear models or perform extensive INDAs, because this has
already been done and compiled. They can simply define their system as one of the 40
prototypes considered in the database, and draw the results using the web-based Analyzer. This
exponentially decreases the time and effort required to utilize performance-based design (PBD)
and loss estimation methodology developed under ATC-58.

Example

In order to exemplify this procedure, a sample low-rise school building is considered (Fig. 3).
The school is a three story elementary school with a total area of 1660m2 located in Vancouver,
BC. The main structural system comprises concrete a non-ductile concrete moment frame with
36 columns and 450m2 of reinforced concrete shearwalls. The building also includes 80m2 of 4
glass blocks, 430m2 of 4 pumice block infill (fully connected to the top and bottom with lintels
over openings), and approximately 430m2 of plywood/gypsum partitions.
 Figure 3. Example school ground floor plan and life safety retrofit scheme.

Design Drift Limits and Resistance Values

SRG2 gives life safety DDLs based on limiting inelastic deformations to levels expected to
uphold the safety of building occupants. For the non-ductile moment frame of this building, a
DDL of 1.0% was specified to maintain the life safety of the structure. For the shelter
performance DDL, a DDL that would prevent damage in the columns of the moment frame was
required. For this, the ATC-58 fragility curve for the corresponding category; B1041.031b: ACI
318 OMF with weak joints and beam flexural response; was studied. From this, it was observed
that a story drift of 0.005 rad (0.5%) will result in no damage in any damage state. Due to this, a
shelter performance DDL of 0.5% was chosen.

Also included for example purposes is an intermediate drift limit, called repairable drift.
This limit lies between shelter and life safety performance and is useful because it gives more
insight into the behavior and performance of a building based on its resistance level then would
be possible only considering two cases.

The SRG2 database was employed to determine the required resistance levels of the
LDRS of the structure to meet the three drift limits. The resistance levels, expressed as a
percentage of the weight of a structure, are minimum strength levels required to limit the
probabilities (PDE and CPDE) of exceeding the specified drift limits. The walls for this structure
were considered to be governed by shear with the behavior shown in Fig. 1. Table 1 summarizes
the results for this wall at the three considered drift limits.
 Table 1. DDL and SRG2 resistance summary.

Performance DDL (%) Factored Resistance (Rm)

Criteria (%Ws)
Life Safety 1 20.45
Repairable 0.75 25.21
Shelter 0.5 35.30

Retrofit

In order to conform to these resistance levels, the structure would have to be retrofit. For the life
safety resistance requirement, an additional 49 m2 of 200mm thick reinforced concrete wall
would be required along with proper foundation and anchoring. Additionally, the glass and
unreinforced masonry (URM) could remain, but it would have to be restrained.

To meet the more demanding shelter retrofit criteria, 244 m2 of additional concrete wall
would be required. As well, all glass and URM would have to be removed and replaced with
suitable substitutes. Foundations and other structural components would also be required to be
improved for both retrofit options, yet these do not affect the analysis.

Table 2. Building component quantities.

Quantity
Component
Shelter Life Safety
2
Concrete Walls 694 m 499 m2
Gypsum Partition Walls 860 m2 430 m2
Masonry Walls 0 430 m2
Non-ductile Moment Frame 36 36
(columns)

Analysis

Once fragility curves had been assigned to each component, the SRG2 database was used to
retrieve the drift probabilities of the three systems (life safety, repairable and shelter performance
retrofitted) at all possible intensities of shaking (from 10% to 250% of the design level).
Combining these in the method proposed in Eq. 1 produces a damage probability for each
damage state of the four main components in the building. The results of the concrete walls for
the three retrofit performances are presented in Fig. 4.
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4. Concrete shear wall (a) damage state fragility curves and (b) damage probability
results and URM (c) damage state fragility curves and (d) damage probability.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Damage probability and (b) cost results for three retrofit options.
These results can be correlated to repair costs or downtime through relationships given in ATC-
58 based on the component type and damage state. Fig. 5 presents the expected damage
probability and cost of the structure based on the results of the individual components. Note that
in the shelter result there is no longer any damage associated with URM walls, since they were
required to be replaced.

This procedure can similarly be used for different levels of ground motion intensity. Fig. 6
presents the results of this example structure considering different earthquake return periods.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Cost prediction based on ground motion probability for (a) life safety retrofitted
structure and (b) shelter performance retrofitted structure.

Retrofit Strategy

The results presented above highlight the effectiveness of the shelter performance retrofit design.
By removing the URM, a large part of the cost associated with the damage of the structure was
reduced. Fig. 5d shows that even a shelter performance retrofit design would have little effect on
the cost of the URM since significant damage occurs at very small drift levels. The increased
resistance of the concrete shear wall LDRS lowered the drift in the structure, which resulted in
less damage and cost to the columns. However, the damage to the concrete walls themselves was
not significantly impacted. This is because most of the damage was associated with damage state
1 (DS1), which is only cracking. The walls are cracked even at low drift values (Fig. 4a), which
cannot be avoided through reasonable and cost-effective measures. What was reduced in the
concrete walls was damage associated with DS3, which is sliding and significant cracking.

For brevity, only the cost per square foot of building was considered in this example;
however, this only one of the many criteria that could be assessed using this methodology. The
downtime required to repair the damages could also be studied, as this is another important
measure of the cost of an earthquake. Additionally these results could be used to predict the
annual cost of a building considering its seismic hazard or expanded to include the cost of a
structure over its whole lifecycle considering the seismic hazard of its location.
 Conclusions

This paper presented a process in which fragility curves, such as those proposed in ATC-58,
could be combined with a database of INDAs, such as that utilized in SRG2, to streamline the
process of assessing the damage of a structure under a seismic event. ATC-58 and other similar
fragility curves are very useful for determining the damage, cost, and repair time of a wide
variety of structural components, yet can be challenging to implement as they require an INDA
to determine the probable drift values. Using a database approach remediates this because it
simplifies the process of getting the results of an INDA. Databases, such as the one compiled for
SRG2, can contain an almost unlimited number of results for different structural systems that can
be accessed instantly to provide the necessary drift exceedance probabilities to be combined with
specified fragility curves.

Databases of INDAs are not common outside their use in SRG2 to assess BC low-rise
school buildings, so the scope of this application is currently limited. However, the authors
predict this sort of methodology will become more utilized as demand for performance-based
design and assessment continues to rise and more databases are developed. If this is the case, this
type of methodology could allow for widespread use of performance-based methods to rapidly
assess and quantify the seismic performance and potential seismic hazard costs associated with
an extensive number of low-rise buildings.

Acknowledgements

The development of the unique methodology described in this paper is the result of a highly
supportive and collaborative partnership of the following contributors: the British Columbia
Ministry of Education; the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British
Columbia (APEGBC); the University of British Columbia; the APEGBC Structural Peer Review
Committee (BC engineers); and the APEGBC External Peer Review committee (California
engineers). The authors express their thanks to the Farzad Naeim, Michael Mehrain and Robert
Hanson for providing invaluable guidance to this project in their capacity as members of the
External Peer Review committee.

References

1. APEGBG. Structural engineering guidelines for the performance-based seismic assessment and retrofit of low-
rise British Columbia school buildings 2nd Edition (SRG2). Association of Professional Engineers and
Geoscientists of British Columbia, Burnaby, BC, Canada 2013.
2. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
2002; 31 (3): 491-514.
3. Applied Technology Council. Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings, ATC-58 100%
Draft. Redwood City, California 2012.
4. NRCC. National Building Code of Canada. National Research Council of Canada, Canadian Commission on
Building and Fire Codes, Ottawa, Canada 2010.

View publication stats