Cost-benefit assessment is used to evaluate the effectiveness of various seismic retrofit strategies to address concerns about earthquake safety and damage to older concrete frame buildings. The benefits of mitigation are quantified in monetary terms by assessing the reductions in risk of building damage (repairs) and occupant fatalities. When evaluated considering repair costs only, the maximum cost of retrofitting that offers a positive rate of return is 10% to 30% of the building replacement value. Since seismic retrofits generally cost more than this, this result suggests that reduced risk of damage and repairs alone does not warrant the expense of retrofitting. However, the added benefits of reduced fatality risks would make retrofitting cost-effective if it costs as much as 60% of the building replacement cost. The cost-benefit approach provides an important tool to evaluate the merits of seismic mitigation in light of competing demands for finite public and private resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318, Farmington Hills, MI.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05, Reston, VA.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2007. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA.
4.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2011. Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings ATC-58 75% Draft, prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Redwood City, CA.
5.
BaiJ.-W., 2003. Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
6.
BakisC. D., BankL. C., BrownV. L., CosenzaE., DavalosJ., LeskoJ., MachidaA., RizkallaS., and TriantafillouT., 2002. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction: State-of-the-art review, Journal of Composites for Construction6, 73–87.
7.
BalboniB. (ed.), 2007. Means Square Foot Costs, R.S. Means Co., Inc., Kingston, MA, 472 pp.
8.
BousiasS., SpathisA.-L., and FardisM. N., 2007a. Seismic retrofitting of columns with lap spliced smooth bars through FRP or concrete jackets, Journal of Earthquake Engineering11, 653–674.
9.
BousiasS. N., BiskinisD. E., FardisM. N., and SpathisA.-L., 2007b. Strength, stiffness and cyclic deformation capacity of concrete jacketed members, ACI Structural Journal104, 521–531.
10.
CoburnA., SpenceR., and PomonosA., 1992. Factors determining human casualty levels in earthquakes: Mortality prediction in building collapse, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 19–24 July 1992, Madrid, Spain.
11.
ComerioM. C., 2006. Estimating downtime in loss modeling, Earthquake Spectra22, 349–365.
12.
FardisM. N., and BiskinisD. E., 2003. Deformation capacity of RC members, as controlled by flexure or shear, in Otani Symposium, University of Tokyo, Japan, 511–530.
13.
FeinbergK. R. E., BirosC. S., FeldmanJ. H. E., GreenspanD. E. E., and ZinsJ. E. E., 2004. Final Report of the Special Master for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
14.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1994. Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, FEMA 156, 2nd ed., Washington, D.C.
15.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Engineering Guidelines for Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation, FEMA P-420, prepared by Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
16.
GalalK., ArafaA., and GhobarahA., 2005. Retrofit of RC square short columns, Engineering Structures27, 801–813.
17.
GouletC. A., HaseltonC. B., Mitrani-ReiserJ., BeckJ. L., DeierleinG. G., PorterK. A., and StewartJ. P., 2007. Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building: From seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36, 1973–1997.
18.
Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), 2010. State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Mather, CA.
19.
HaimesY. Y., 2008. Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
20.
HaseltonC. B., LielA. B., and DeierleinG. G., 2011. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings: I. Assessment of ductile moment frames, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 481–491.
21.
HaseltonC. B., LielA. B., Taylor LangeS., and DeierleinG. G., 2008. Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings, PEER Report 2007/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley.
22.
IacobucciR. D., SheikhS. A., and BayrakO., 2003. Retrofit of square concrete columns with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer for seismic resistance, ACI Structural Journal100, 785–794.
23.
International Council of Building Officials (ICBO), 1967. Uniform Building Code, Pasadena, CA.
24.
International Code Council (ICC), 2003. International Building Code, Falls Church, VA.
25.
JulioE., BrancoF., and SilvaV. D., 2005. Reinforced concrete jacketing: Interface influence on monotonic loading response, ACI Structural Journal102, 252–257.
26.
KapposA. J., and DimitrakopoulosE. G., 2008. Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves, Natural Hazards45, 33–54.
27.
KunreutherH., CyrC., GrossiP., and TaoW., 2001. Using cost-benefit analysis to evaluate mitigation for lifeline systems, MCEER Research Progress and Accomplishments 2000-1, MCEER, Buffalo, NY.
28.
LielA. B., and DeierleinG. G., 2008. Assessing the Collapse Risk of California's Existing Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures: Metrics for Seismic Safety Decisions, Technical Report No. 166, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
29.
LielA. B., HaseltonC. B., DeierleinG. G., and BakerJ. W., 2009. Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings, Structural Safety31, 197–211.
30.
LielA. B., HaseltonC. B., and DeierleinG. G., 2011. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings: II. Comparative assessment of non-ductile and ductile moment frames, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 492–502.
31.
LielA. B., 2011. Communication with professional engineers J. Heintz (of the Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA), J. Maffei and W. Holmes (of Rutherford and Chekene Engineers, San Francisco, CA), and E. Reis (of Certus Consulting, Oakland, CA).
32.
MirandaE., AslaniH., and TaghaviS., 2004. Assessment of seismic performance in terms of economic losses, in Proceedings, International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design: Concepts and Implementation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley, 149–160.
33.
Mitrani-ReiserJ., 2007. An Ounce of Prevention: Probabilistic Loss Estimation for Performance Based Earthquake Engineering, Ph.D. Dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
34.
NutiC., and VanziI., 2003. To retrofit or not to retrofit, Engineering Structures25, 701–711.
35.
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), 2012. Open-source software framework for simulating the seismic response of structural and geotechnical systems, open-sees.berkeley.edu.
36.
PadgettJ. E., DennemannK., and GhoshJ., 2010. Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost-benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment, Structural Safety32, 165–173.
37.
Pate-CornellM. E., 1985. Costs and benefits of seismic upgrading of some buildings in the Boston area, Earthquake Spectra1, 721–740.
38.
Pate-CornellM. E., 1984. Discounting in risk analysis: Capital vs. human safety, in Proceedings of Symposium on Structural Technology and Risk, Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 17–32.
39.
PorterK. A., and KiremidjianA. S., 2001. Assembly-Based Vulnerability of Buildings and its Uses in Seismic Performance Evaluation and Risk Management Decision-Making, Technical Report No. 309, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
40.
PorterK. A., ScawthornC. R., and BeckJ. L., 2006. Cost-effectiveness of stronger woodframe buildings, Earthquake Spectra22, 239–266.
41.
RamirezC. M., LielA. B., Mitrani-ReiserJ., HaseltonC. B., SpearA. D., SteinerJ., DeierleinG. G., and MirandaE., 2012. Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics41, 1455–1475.
42.
RodriguezM., and ParkR., 1994. Seismic load tests on reinforced concrete columns strengthened by jacketing, ACI Structural Journal91, 150–159.
43.
SauseR. H., HarriesK., WalkupS. L., PessikiS., and RiclesJ. M., 2004. Flexural behavior of concrete columns retrofitted with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer jackets, ACI Structural Journal101, 708–716.
44.
SeibleF., PriestleyM. J. N., HegemierG. A., and InnamoratoD., 1997. Seismic retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon fiber jackets, Journal of Composites for Construction1, 52–62.
45.
SmythA., AltayG., and DeodatisG., 2004. Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: Evaluating measures for apartment houses in turkey, Earthquake Spectra20, 171–203.
46.
TakahashiY., Der KiureghianA., and AngA., 2004. Life-cycle cost analysis based on a renewal model of earthquake occurrences, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics33, 859–880.
47.
VamvatsikosD., and CornellC. A., 2002. Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics31, 491–514.
48.
WenY. K., and KangY. J., 2001a. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria I. Methodology, Journal of Structural Engineering127, 330–337.
49.
WenY. K., and KangY. J., 2001b. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria II. Applications, Journal of Structural Engineering127, 338–346.
50.
ZareianF., and KrawinklerH., 2007. Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36, 1901–1914.
