Presentation made by Carlos Molina Hutt @ University of Porto during the OpenSees Days Portugal 2014 workshop

1. Seismic Loss and Downtime Estimates for
Existing Tall Buildings and Strategies for
Increased Resilience
Carlos Molina Hutt, PE
Michael Willford (Arup), Ibbi Almufti (Arup) & Greg Deierlein (Stanford)
OpenSees Days Portugal
Friday, July 4, 2014

2. DISCLAIMER
LS‐DYNA
2
36

3. OUTLINE
• Introduction ‐ Research Context
• Research Aims and Objectives
• Methodology
• Case Study: San Francisco, CA
• Results
• Future Work
• Questions
3
36

4. INTRODUCTION – RESEARCH CONTEXT
‐ Tall buildings and socio‐economic activity
‐ Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD)
‐ Tall building design prior to PBSD
‐ Resilience
View of downtown San Francisco from Twin Peaks
4
36

5. RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Assess the Seismic Performance of Existing Tall Buildings:
• Communicate Performance to Decision Makers
• Individual Buildings:
‐ Direct economic losses?
‐ Downtime?
‐ Strategies for enhanced performance?
‐ Cost‐benefit analysis?
• Closure of Surrounding Areas
Christchurch, New Zealand
Red Zone Cordon, April 2011
Source: canterburyearthquake.org.nz
5
36

6. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
6
36

7. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
7
36

8. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
RANK BY
HEIGHT
NAME HEIGHT (m) STORIES YEAR COMPLETED ADDRESS
53 Hilton Financial District 111 30 1971 750 Kearny
41 Two Embarcadero Center [Embarcadero Center] 126 30 1974 255 Clay
42 595 Market Street 125 30 1979 595 Market
39 Providian Financial Building 127 30 1981 201 Mission
40 Three Embarcadero Cent.. [Embarcadero Center] 126 31 1977 155 Clay
37 JPMorgan Chase Building 128 31 2002 560 Mission
36 Russ Building 133 32 1927 235 Montgomery
82 The Summit 96 32 1965 999 Green
33 One California 134 32 1969 1 California
49 The Westin St. Francis.. [The Westin St. Francis] 120 32 1972 335 Powell
64 Renaissance Parc 55 107 32 1984 55 Cyril Magnin
68 InterContinental San Francisco 104 32 2008 868 Howard
26 100 Pine Center 145 33 1972 100 Pine
28 333 Market Street 144 33 1979 333 Market
80 W Hotel 96 33 1999 181 3rd
30 555 Mission Street 140 33 2008 555 Mission
29 Hartford Building 142 34 1964 650 California
23 Pacific Gas & Electric Building 150 34 1971 77 Beale
27 Bechtel Building 145 34 1978 45 Fremont
52 Westin San Francisco -- Market Street 114 34 1984 50 3rd
45 Embarcadero West [Embarcadero Center] 123 34 1989 275 Battery
58 Grand Hyatt San Francisco 108 35 1972 345 Stockton
24 50 California Street 148 37 1972 50 California
65 The Infinity, Phase I [The Infinity] 107 37 2008 300 Spear
17 McKesson Plaza 161 38 1969 1 Post
18 425 Market Street 160 38 1973 425 Market
15 Shaklee Terraces 164 38 1979 444 Market
19 Telesis Tower 152 38 1982 1 Montgomery
16 First Market Tower 161 39 1973 525 Market
34 San Francisco Marriott 133 39 1989 55 4th
8 Chevron Tower [Market Center] 175 40 1975 575 Market
47 Four Seasons Hotel 121 40 2001 735 Market
38 The Paramount 128 40 2002 680 Mission
31 The Infinity, Phase II [The Infinity] 137 41 2009 300 Spear
25 St. Regis San Francisc.. [St. Regis San Francisc..] 148 42 2005 125 3rd
8
36

9. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1900-
1910
1911-
1920
1921-
1930
1931-
1940
1941-
1950
1951-
1960
1961-
1970
1971-
1980
1981-
1990
1991-
2000
2001-
2009
Number of
Buildings Built
Year Range
40
30
20
10
0
Steel MF
Other System
Unknown System
< 20 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 > 45
Number of
Buildings
Number of Stories
9
36

10. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
10
36

11. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
11
36

12. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
12
36

13. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
13
36

14. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
Existing Tall Buildings
San Francisco, CA
Source: GoogleMaps
14
36

15. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
15
36

16. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
Source: USGS
16
36

17. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SA (g)
Period (s)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SA (g)
Period (s)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
SA (g) Period (s)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SA (g)
Period (s)
17
36

18. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
18
36

19. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
Splice
Column
Panel Zone
Beams
19
36

20. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA (Component: Beams)
20
36

21. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA (Component: Columns)
21
36

22. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA:
Panel Zones Column Splices
22
36
Source: Bruneau and Mahin (1990)

23. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA (Results)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
IDR-X
Transient
Transient
Residual
Residual
0% 1% 2%
IDR-Y
0% 1% 2%
V-X (m/s)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
V-Y (m/s)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
A-X (g)
0.0 0.5 1.0
A-Y (g)
0.0 0.5 1.0
23
36
Storey Level

24. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
24
36

25. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
5. Building Performance Model
Source: ATC‐58
25
36

26. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
5. Building Performance Model (Loss)
• Damage State 1 (DS1):
Minor damaged that can be repaired by patching.
• Damage State 2 (DS2):
Severe cracking requiring gypsum board replacement.
• Damage State 3 (DS3):
Severe damage requiring replacement of entire partition.
Source: Araya‐Letelier, G. and Miranda E. (2012).
26
36

27. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
5. Building Performance Model (Loss)
Source: ATC‐58
27
36

28. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
5. Building Performance Model (Downtime)
Earthquake
Occurrence Impeding Factors Building Repairs Re‐occupancy
Source: Adapted from Almufti , I. And Willford, M. (2013)
Earthquake
Occurrence
Utilities
Impeding Factors
Building Repairs Functional
Recovery
28
36

29. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
29
36

30. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
IDR-X
IDR-Y
‐Structural
Elastic Spine
Base Isolation
Transient
Transient
Residual
Residual
Transient
Transient
Residual
Residual
‐Non‐structural
Standard
Enhanced
‐Risk Management
V-X (m/s)
V-Y (m/s)
V-Y (m/s)
A-X (g)
A-X (g)
A-Y (g)
A-Y (g)
Standard
Enhanced Source: Araya‐Letelier, G. and Miranda E. (2012).
30
36
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0% 1% 2%
0% 1% 2%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Storey Level
((BEalasest Iisco Slpatinioen))
0
0% 1% 2%
0% 1% 2%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0

31. METHODOLOGY
1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building)
2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection)
3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions
4. Numerical Model for NLRHA
5. Building Performance Model (Losses and Downtime)
6. Strategies for Increased Resilience
7. Results
31
36

32. RESULTS
Loss and Downtime Estimates
32
36

33. RESULTS
Loss and Downtime Estimates
33
36
Egress,
31%
Façade,
25%
Structure,
16%
Office
Fitouts,
21%
MEP, 6%
[ Expected Losses: $35M ]
Egress,
21%
Façade,
31%
Structure,
14%
MEP,
8%
Office
Fitouts,
26%
[ Expected Losses: $29M ]
Egress,
6%
Façade,
33%
MEP,
12%
Structure,
29%
Office
Fitouts,
20%
[ Expected Losses: $9M ]
Egress,
53%
MEP, 4%
Façade,
4%
Office
Fitouts,
10%
Structure,
29%
[ Expected Losses: $19M ]
Egress,
44%
Façade,
Structure,
30%
Office
Fitouts,
15%
MEP, 5%
7%
[ Expected Losses: $13M ]
Egress,
15%
Façade,
9%
MEP, 1%
Office
Fitouts,
3%
Structure,
72%
[ Expected Losses: $4M ]

34. FUTURE WORK
Outstanding tasks:
• Individual Buildings:
‐ Direct economic losses?
‐ Downtime?
‐ Strategies for enhanced performance?
‐ Cost‐benefit analysis?
• Closure of Surrounding Areas:
‐ Function of Structural Performance?
‐ Visualize the impact of enhanced performance strategies?
34
36

35. 35
36
HAPPY 4TH OF JULY

36. Questions
36
36