Benefit-cost analyses for the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in downtown Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, were undertaken, considering the seismic hazard, building value, occupant/pedestrian exposure, a variety of strengthening measures, and local construction costs. The analyses are underpinned by building motion-damage relationships developed based on observed damage in past earthquakes in California and New Zealand. The considered upgrading measures ranged from parapet bracing to comprehensive seismic upgrades consistent with local practices. Parapet bracing and other partial retrofits were shown to have favorable benefit-cost ratios and thus be strong candidate measures for risk mitigation programs. Full upgrades were shown to have less favorable benefit-cost ratios. While applied to Victoria, the generality of the methodology and the use of observed damage data from California and New Zealand make the findings of this study particularly relevant for similar locations throughout the Pacific Northwest and abroad.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1985. ATC-13: Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. Redwood City, CA.
2.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1989. ATC-20: Procedures for Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. Redwood City, CA.
3.
BradleyB., and HughesM., 2013. Spatially-distributed ground motion intensity maps: Application for site-specific liquefaction evaluation in Christchurch, 2013 NZSEE Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
4.
CabanasL., BenitoB., and HerraizM., 1997. An approach to the measurement of the potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics26, 79–92.
5.
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, 2012. Volume 4. New Zealand: Government of New Zealand.
ComerioM., 2006. Estimating downtime in loss modeling, Earthquake Spectra22, 349–365.
8.
DerakhshanH., DizhurD., GriffithM., and InghamJ., 2014. Seismic assessment of out-of-plane loaded unreinforced masonry walls in multi-storey buildings, Bulletin of The New Zeal-and Society for Earthquake Engineering47, 119–138.
9.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 1989. Loma Prieta Earthquake: October 17, 1989 - Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Oakland, CA.
10.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 1994. Expected Seismic Performance of Buildings, Oakland, CA.
11.
FarokhniaK., 2013. Nonstructural Vulnerability Functions for Building Categories, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1988. FEMA 156: Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Building, 1st Edition, Washington, D.C.
13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1992. FEMA 227: A Benefit-Cost Model for The Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington, D.C.
14.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1994. FEMA 255: Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings - A Benefit-Cost Model, Washington, D.C.
15.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1994b. FEMA 155: Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, 2nd Edition, Washington, D.C.
16.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006. Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Washington, D.C.
17.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012. HAZUS-MH 2.1: Earthquake Model Technical Manual, Washington, D.C.
18.
GiarettonM., DizhurD., Da PortoF., and InghamJ. M., 2016. Construction details and observed earthquake performance of unreinforced clay brick masonry cavity-walls, Structures6, 159–169.
19.
Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), 2003. Open File 4459, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
20.
Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), 2014. Open File 7576 Fifth Generation Seismic Hazard Model Input Files as Proposed to Produce Values for the 2015 National Building Code of Canada.
21.
HaimesY., 2004. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
22.
InghamJ., and GriffithM., 2011. The Performance of Earthquake Strengthened URM Buildings in Christchurch CBD in 22 February 2011 Earthquake, New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry.
23.
International Code Conference (ICC), 2012. International Existing Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL.
24.
JohnstonD., StandringS., RonanK., LindellM., WilsonT., CousinsJ., AldridgeE., ArdaghM., DeelyJ., JensenS., KirschT., and BissellR., 2014. The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: Context and cause of injury, Natural Hazards73, 627–637.
25.
KingS., KiremidjianA., SarabandiP., and SkokanM., 2002. Correlation of observed building performance with measured ground motion, SMIP02 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Los Angeles, CA, 83–96.
26.
KingS., KiremidjianA., SarabandiP., and PachakisD., 2005. Correlation of Observed Building Performance with Measured Ground Motion, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering CenterStanford, CA.
27.
LamontagneM., HalchukS., CassidyJ., and RogersG., 2008. Significant Canadian earthquakes of the period 1600–2006, Seismological Research Letters79, 211–223.
28.
LizundiaB., DongW., and HolmesW., 1993. Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Damage Patterns in the Loma Prieta Earthquake and Improvement of Loss Estimation Methodologies, U.S. Geological Survey.
29.
MansouriB., KianiA., and Amini-HosseiniK., 2014. A platform for earthquake risk assessment in Iran case studies: Tehran scenarios and Ahar Varzeghan earthquake, Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering16.
30.
MarquisF., KimJ., ElwoodK., and ChangS., 2015. Post-earthquake decisions: A case-study of multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch, 2015 NZSEE Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand.
31.
MillerT., 2000. Variations between countries in values of statistical life, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy34169–188.
32.
MoonL., BiggsD., InghamJ., and GriffithM., 2015. transect survey as post-disaster global rapid damage assessment tool, Earthquake Spectra31, 2443–2457.
33.
MoonL., DizhurD., SenaldiI., DerakhshanH., GriffithM., MagenesG., and InghamJ., 2014. The demise of the URM building stock in Christchurch during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra30, 253–276.
34.
MoonL., GriffithM., InghamJ., and BiggsD., 2012. Review of transect of Christchurch following 22 February 2011 earthquake, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
35.
National Research Council of Canada (NRC), 2010. 2010 National Building Code of Canada, Division B, Part 4: Structural Design, Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
36.
PaxtonB., 2014. Quantifying Unreinforced Masonry Seismic Risk and Mitigation Options in Victoria, BC, M.A. Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia.
37.
PaxtonB., ElwoodK., BarberS., and UmlandC., 2013. Addressing URM seismic risk in Victoria, Canada, 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Vancouver, BC Canada.
38.
PaxtonB., TurnerF., ElwoodK., and InghamJ., 2015. URM bearing wall building seismic risk mitigation on the west coast of the United States: A review of policies and practices, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering48.
39.
PennerO., and ElwoodK. J., 2016. Out-of-plane dynamic stability of unreinforced masonry walls in one-way bending: Parametric study and assessment guidelines, Earthquake Spectra32, 1699–1723.
40.
PorterK., FarokhniaK., ChoH., RosettoT., IoannouI., GrantD., JaiswalK., WaldD., D'AyalaD., MeslemA., SoE., KiremidjianA. S., and NohH., 2012. Global vulnerability estimation methods for the Global Earthquake Model, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
41.
Risk Engineering, 2012. EZ-FRISK v7.62.
42.
Rutherford + Chekene, 1990. Seismic Retrofitting Alternatives for San Francisco's Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, City of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
43.
Rutherford + Chekene, 1997. Development of Procedures to Enhance the Performance of Rehabilitated URM Buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
TurnerF., CourtA., and McCormickD., 2010. SEAOC's earthquake performance evaluation program: An update, 9th U.S./10th Canadian National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada.
46.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), 2013. Guidance on Treatment of The Economic Value of a Statistical Life. Washington, D.C.
47.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1989. Lessons Learned from The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989, Denver, CO.
48.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis, Washington, D.C.
49.
ViscusiK., and AldyJ., 2002. The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA.
