Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Seismic Loss and Downtime Estimates of Existing Tall Buildings and Strategies for Increased Resilience

744 views

Published on

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

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Seismic Loss and Downtime Estimates of Existing Tall Buildings and Strategies for Increased Resilience

  1. 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. 2. DISCLAIMER LS‐DYNA 2 36
  3. 3. OUTLINE • Introduction ‐ Research Context • Research Aims and Objectives • Methodology • Case Study: San Francisco, CA • Results • Future Work • Questions 3 36
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 10. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building) 10 36
  11. 11. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building) 11 36
  12. 12. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 1. Existing Tall Building Database (Archetype Building) 12 36
  13. 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. 14. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 2. GIS Mapping (Representative Site Selection) Existing Tall Buildings San Francisco, CA Source: GoogleMaps 14 36
  15. 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. 16. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 3. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions Source: USGS 16 36
  17. 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. 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. 19. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4. Numerical Model for NLRHA Splice Column Panel Zone Beams 19 36
  20. 20. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4. Numerical Model for NLRHA (Component: Beams) 20 36
  21. 21. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4. Numerical Model for NLRHA (Component: Columns) 21 36
  22. 22. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4. Numerical Model for NLRHA: Panel Zones Column Splices 22 36 Source: Bruneau and Mahin (1990)
  23. 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. 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. 25. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 5. Building Performance Model Source: ATC‐58 25 36
  26. 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. 27. CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 5. Building Performance Model (Loss) Source: ATC‐58 27 36
  28. 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. 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. 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. 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. 32. RESULTS Loss and Downtime Estimates 32 36
  33. 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. 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. 35 36 HAPPY 4TH OF JULY
  36. 36. Questions 36 36

×