Time-to-Functionality Fragilities for Performance Assessment of Buildings
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Overview
Building Performance Model and Ground Motion Requirements
Loss Analysis
Repair Sequencing Using REDi Methodology
Repair class | Repair description |
---|---|
3 | Heavily damaged nonstructural or structural components that pose a life-safety risk and must be repaired for reoccupancy |
2 | Damaged nonstructural components that inhibit the functionality of the structure, but do not pose a life-safety risk; required for functional recovery |
1 | Minimal or minor cosmetic damage to structural or nonstructural components that inhibit the return of the structure to its prehazard state; required for full recovery |
Source: Data from Almufti and Willford (2013).
Impeding factor | Building | Mitigation measure | Other conditions | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inspection | All facilities | BORP equivalent | — | 1 day | 0.54 |
Essential facility | — | — | 2 days | 0.54 | |
Non-essential facility | — | — | 5 days | 0.54 | |
Engineering mobilization and review/redesign | All facilities | Engineer on contract | Max structural RC = 1 | 2 weeks | 0.32 |
Max structural RC = 3 | 4 weeks | 0.54 | |||
Complete redesign | 42 weeks | 0.45 | |||
— | Max structural RC = 1 | 6 weeks | 0.40 | ||
Max structural RC = 3 | 12 weeks | 0.40 | |||
Complete redesign | 50 weeks | 0.32 | |||
Financing | All facilities | Pre-arranged Credit line | — | 1 week | 0.54 |
— | Insurance | 6 weeks | 1.11 | ||
— | Private loans | 15 weeks | 0.68 | ||
— | SBA-backed loans | 48 weeks | 0.57 | ||
Contractor mobilization | Essential facility stories | GC on contract | Max RC = 1 | 3 weeks | 0.66 |
Max RC = 3 | 7 weeks | 0.35 | |||
— | Max RC = 1 | 7 weeks | 0.60 | ||
Max RC = 3 | 19 weeks | 0.38 | |||
Non-essential facility stories | GC on contract | Max RC = 1 | 3 weeks | 0.66 | |
Max RC = 3 | 7 weeks | 0.35 | |||
— | Max RC = 1 | 11 weeks | 0.43 | ||
Max RC = 3 | 23 weeks | 0.41 | |||
stories | GC on contract | Max RC = 1 | 3 weeks | 0.66 | |
Max RC = 3 | 7 weeks | 0.35 | |||
— | Max RC = 1 | 28 weeks | 0.30 | ||
Max RC = 3 | 40 weeks | 0.31 | |||
Permitting | All facilities | — | Max structural RC = 1 | 1 week | 0.86 |
— | Max structural RC = 3 | 8 weeks | 0.32 |
Source: Data from Almufti and Willford (2013).
Time-to-Functionality Fragility Curves
Illustrative Example: Two-Story CLT Building with Rocking Walls
Building Overview
Building Performance Model and IDA
Loss Analysis
Structural Fragility Selection
Damage state | ELL | YUFP | YCLT | SCLT | CCLT | LLP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interstory drift limit (%) | 0.4 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 4.6 | 7.3 | 4.2 |
Sources: Data from Akbas et al. (2017); Ganey et al. (2017).
Note: ELL = effective linear limit; YUFP = yielding of UFPs; YCLT = yielding of CLT; SCLT = splitting of the CLT (exceedance of the splitting strain at compression edge of the wall); CCLT = crushing of CLT (exceedance of the compression strain at compression edge of wall); and LLP = yielding of PT bars.
Category | EDP | Damage state description | Q | Repair time (person-days) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQ | UQ | ||||||
CLT rocking wall—lateral force-resisting system including PT bars, two CLT walls, and UFP connectors | SDR | Yielding of UFPs | SM 22.3 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 1 |
Yielding of PT bars | 2 | 1 | |||||
Crushing of CLT | 23 | 23 | |||||
Splitting of the composite material | 23 | 23 |
Note: EDP = engineering demand parameter; SDR = story drift ratio; Q = quantity; LQ = lower quantity; UQ = upper quantity; and SM = square meter.
Nonstructural Fragility Selection
Category | EDP | Damage state description | Q | Repair time (person-days) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQ | UQ | ||||||
C1011.001c–partition wall–gypsum with metal studs–fixed below, slip track above | SDR | Minor damage that can be repaired without replacement of wallboard. | SM 120.8 | 1 | 1.36 | 10 | 0.366 |
Severe damage such that replacement of wallboards is necessary. | 2.85 | 0.863 | |||||
Damage to wallboard and framing (replacement of wall is necessary). | 5.46 | 1.64 | |||||
B2022.011—glazing–midrise stick-built curtain wall, configuration: asymmetric insulating glass units, laminated, annealed, | SDR | Gasket seal failure. | SM 2.8 | 20 | 0.905 | 100 | 0.482 |
Glass cracking. | 1.3 | 0.696 | |||||
Glass falls out. | 1.04 | 0.74 | |||||
C3032.003a—ceiling–suspended ceiling, SDC D, E (), area (A): A , Vert and Lat support | PFA | 5% of ceiling grid and tiles damaged. | SM 23.2 | 1 | 0.697 | 10 | 0.211 |
30% of ceiling grid and tiles damaged. | 5.41 | 1.62 | |||||
50% of ceiling grid and tiles damaged. | 11.2 | 3.34 | |||||
D3031.023b–cooling tower–capacity: t–equipment that is either hard anchored or is vibration isolated with seismic snubbers/restraints–equipment fragility only | PFA | Damage to equipment and attached piping but the anchorage is OK. | EA 1 | 1 | 8.36 | 5 | 2.79 |
D3031.013b–chiller–capacity: <100 t–equipment that is either hard anchored or is vibration isolated with seismic snubbers/restraints–equipment fragility only | PFA | Damaged, inoperative but anchorage is OK. | EA 1 | 1 | 14.3 | 5 | 4.76 |
D3032.013b compressor–capacity: small non-medical air supply–equipment that is either hard anchored or is vibration isolated with seismic snubbers/restraints–equipment fragility only | PFA | Equipment does not function but the anchorage is OK. Motor is damaged. | EA 1 | 1 | 0.971 | 5 | 0.794 |
Equipment does not function but the anchorage is OK. Equipment damaged beyond repair. | 0.635 | 0.159 | |||||
D3041.002c HVAC fan in line fan, fan independently supported but not on vibration isolators, SDC D, E, F | PFA | Bellows fail at fans. | EA 10 | 1 | 9.06 | 5 | 7.41 |
D3041.011c HVAC galvanized sheet metal ducting less than 6 sq. ft in cross sectional area, SDC D, E, or F | PFA | Individual supports fail and duct sags–1 failed support per 1,000 ft of ducting. | LM 92.9 | 1 | 0.841 | 5 | 0.688 |
Several adjacent supports fail and sections of ducting fall–60 ft of ducting fall per 1,000 ft of ducting. | 2.99 | 1.49 | |||||
D3041.103b HVAC fan–capacity: all–equipment that is either hard anchored or is vibration isolated with seismic snubbers/restraints–equipment fragility only | PFA | Damaged, inoperative but anchorage is OK. | EA 1 | 1 | 3.43 | 5 | 2.81 |
D4011.023a fire sprinkler water piping–horizontal mains and branches–old style victaulic–thin wall steel–poorly designed bracing, SDC D, E, or F, PIPING FRAGILITY | PFA | Spraying and dripping leakage at joints–0.02 leaks per 20 ft section of pipe. | LM 92.9 | 3 | 0.451 | 10 | 0.369 |
Joints break and major leakage–0.02 breaks per 20 ft section of pipe. | 0.937 | 0.313 | |||||
D4011.053a fire sprinkler drop standard threaded steel–dropping into braced lay-in tile SOFT ceiling–6 ft. long drop maximum, SDC D, E, or F | PFA | Spraying and dripping leakage at drop joints–0.01 leaks per drop. | EA 100 | 2 | 0.649 | 5 | 0.531 |
Drop joints break and major leakage–0.01 breaks per drop. | 0.179 | 0.0612 |
Note: EDP = engineering demand parameter; SDR = story drift ratio; Q = quantity; Q = lower quantity; UQ = upper quantity; PFA = peak floor acceleration; LM = linear meter; SM = square meter; TN = ton; and EA = each.
Repair Sequencing
Component | Average damage states () | ||
---|---|---|---|
CLT rocking wall—lateral force-resisting system including PT bars, two CLT walls, and UFP connectors | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Partition walls–gypsum with metal studs–fixed below, slip track above | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Ceiling—suspended ceiling | 1 | 3 | 3 |
Glazing–midrise stick-built curtain wall | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Cooling tower–capacity: t | 2 | — | — |
Chiller–capacity: t | 2 | — | — |
Compressor–capacity: small non-medical air supply | 2 | — | — |
Fire sprinkler drop standard | 2 | 3 | — |
HVAC fan in line fan | 2 | — | — |
HVAC galvanized sheet metal ducting | 3 | 3 | — |
Fire sprinkler water piping–horizontal mains and branches | 2 | 3 | — |
Synthesis of Time-to-Functionality Fragility Curves
Conclusions
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
References
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
History
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
Cited by
- Dustin T. Cook, Abbie B. Liel, Amir Safiey, Earthquake Functional Recovery in Modern Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering, 10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12904, 150, 9, (2024).
- Tian You, Biniam Tekle Teweldebrhan, Wei Wang, Solomon Tesfamariam, Seismic loss and resilience assessment of tall-coupled cross-laminated timber wall building, Earthquake Spectra, 10.1177/87552930231152512, (875529302311525), (2023).
- Maria J. Echeverria, Negar Mohammadgholibeyki, Abbie B. Liel, Maria Koliou, Achieving Functional Recovery through Seismic Retrofit of Existing Buildings: Barriers and Opportunities, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 10.1061/JPCFEV.CFENG-4395, 37, 4, (2023).
- S. Tesfamariam, Performance-Based Design of Tall Timber Buildings Under Earthquake and Wind Multi-Hazard Loads: Past, Present, and Future, Frontiers in Built Environment, 10.3389/fbuil.2022.848698, 8, (2022).
- Yuxin Pan, Md Shahnewaz, Thomas Tannert, Seismic Performance and Collapse Fragility of Balloon-Framed CLT School Building, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10.1080/13632469.2022.2123067, (1-21), (2022).
- Hamed Hasani, Keri L. Ryan, Effect of partition walls on the seismic response of mass-timber buildings with a post-tensioned rocking wall system, Engineering Structures, 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114316, 262, (114316), (2022).