RESULTS Results Menu The RESULTS menu has four submenus: DAMAGES, BENEFITCOST RESULTS, INJURIES & DEATHS, and SUMMARY, as follows: Print Benefit Cost Results Injuries & Deaths Summary The contents of these four submenus are discussed below. The four tables in this section of RESULTS summarize four types of damages: scenario damages, expected annual damages, expected avoided annual damages, and expected residual annual damages. These types of damages are defined as follows: Scenario The estimated damages and losses per earthquake event of a Damages given MMI (or range of effective peak ground acceleration, PGA), at the building; Expected Annual Damages Expected Annual Avoided Damages Expected Residual Annual Damages Damages: Existing Building RESULTS The product of scenario damages and the expected annual probability of an earthquake of a given MMI or PGA; The product of expected annual damages and the effectiveness of the rehabilitation measure in reducing expected damages. Expected annual avoided damages are the expected annual benefits of the rehabilitation project. The expected residual annual damages are damages expected to occur even after the rehabilitation is undertaken. Each of these types of damages and losses are subdivided into five major categories: building damage, property (contents), relocation expenses, rental income losses, and the value of lost government services. In each case, the damages and losses are shown for each MMI/PGA bin. A section of the DAMAGES table is shown below: Scenario damage estimates may be useful for some planning or policy purposes because they indicate the magnitude of losses per earthquake event (independent of the probability of such events). Thus, scenario losses indicate the extent of exposure to damage and losses if and when a corresponding earthquake does occur. Damages: Rehabilitated Building RESULTS Expected annual damages (which include the annual probabilities of earthquakes) are central for benefit-cost analysis. These are the probabilistic (expected) annual damages and losses which are potentially avoidable (in full or in part). If the expected annual damages are low, then the benefits of avoiding all or part of these damages will also be low. Expected annual damages may be low, even if scenario damages are high, for areas with low seismic risk. Scenario damage estimates and expected annual damage estimates thus contain complementary information which, in combination, present a complete picture of the damage estimates for the building under consideration. Both scenario damages and expected annual damages apply to the seismic performance of the existing building, and are thus independent of any rehabilitation alternative(s) being considered. Avoided annual damages are the fraction of the expected annual damages, which are avoided as a result of the specific rehabilitation project under evaluation. Avoided annual damage estimates apply only to the specific rehabilitation project under evaluation. Avoided annual damages are the differences between the expected annual damages for the existing building and the residual annual damages for the rehabilitated building. Avoided annual damages are the annual benefits of the specific project under consideration. RESULTS Residual annual damages are the probabilistic (expected) damages remaining after completion of the specific rehabilitation project under consideration. These damages indicate the level of exposure to damage and losses after completion of the rehabilitation project. In combination with the post-rehabilitation scenario damages, the residual annual damages provide a complete picture of the post-rehabilitation damage estimates. RESULTS The tables on this page primarily present the benefit-cost results. However, there are five user-entered parameters in this section: discount rate and planning period, which affect all of the results, and the economic (statistical) values per minor injury, major injury and death, which affect only the benefit-cost results with the value of life. These important parameters substantially affect the magnitude of calculated benefits and thus the calculated benefit- cost ratios. The total costs and benefits (including the expected number of avoided casualties) of each proposed rehabilitation project will vary. However, the societal cost assumed in the model per minor injury, per major injury and per death must be the same (even though the number of avoided casualties will vary from building to building and rehabilitation project to rehabilitation project). Similarly, the discount rate (which reflects the time value of money) must also be the same for all projects under evaluation. To ensure consistency when evaluating alternative rehabilitation projects for a single building or rehabilitation projects for a number of buildings, the same values must be used for the discount rate and the economic (statistical) value per minor injury, major injury and death. Since these are significant policy-related parameters, their values should probably be decided at the agency level rather than on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, the same planning period (or useful lifetime of the rehabilitation projects) should be used for similar projects with possible differences in planning periods reflecting only real differences in rehabilitation project lifetimes. In comparing projects, using differing values for these parameters would substantially distort the benefit-cost results and make comparisons meaningless. RESULTS A. Economic Parameters Discount Rate The discount rate is used to calculate the present value of benefits which occur in the future. Increasing the discount rate lowers the present value of future benefits and lowers benefit-cost ratios. Conversely, assuming a lower discount rate raises the present value of future benefits and increases benefit-cost ratios. Enter the discount rate as a percentage (i.e., enter 10 for 10%). The choice of an appropriate discount rate is frequently one of the most difficult aspects of benefit-cost analysis. For Federally funded projects, a 10% discount rate was previously mandated by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, (Executive Order 12291, 1981). Recently, however, this mandate has been lifted. On October 29, 1992, OMB issued Circular A-94, Revised (Transmittal Memo No. 64), Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. For "public investments" which are not "internal Federal government investments", the Circular recommends a discount rate of approximately 7 percent. For internal Federal government investments, the Circular recommends a discount rate of about 4 percent, which is the "real discount rate", estimated from the current interest rate on long term Treasury bonds less the current rate of inflation. The seismic rehabilitation of Federal government buildings meets OMB's criteria for internal Federal government investments; therefore, a discount rate of about 4% is appropriate. As per the OMB Circular, this rate should be revised periodically to reflect current discount rates. The OMB Circular will be updated annually. Current real discount rates can be obtained from the current 30 year Treasury bond rate less the current rate of inflation. For more details, see Chapter 3 of Volume 2 of this project. RESULTS Planning The planning period (horizon) is the time period over which the Period economic benefits of rehabilitation programs are considered. Longer planning horizons capture more future benefits and thus increase benefit-cost ratios. Short planning horizons capture future benefits for fewer years and thus result in lower benefit-cost ratios. Appropriate planning horizons may be as short as one year for one time public education efforts which have no impact beyond the first year. Planning horizons of 5 to 10 years for equipment purchases, and 30 to 50 years for building projects are typical. For major infrastructure projects such as levees, planning horizons as long as 50 to 100 years may be appropriate. To ensure consistency of assumptions and results from project to project, agencies should probably adopt uniform guidelines for planning horizons. Present Value The discount rate and planning period account for the time value of Coefficient money and the useful lifetime of the rehabilitation, respectively. In combination, they determine the present value coefficient which is a multiplier on expected annual benefits which determines the net present value of such expected annual benefits. None of the compilations of damages and losses discussed previously depend on these parameters. However, the benefit-cost results presented below do depend strongly on the discount rate and planning period. B. Summary of Damages and Economic Losses (Without Value of Life) This section summarizes three categories of expected damages and losses: annual expected, annual avoided, and annual residual. In each case breakdowns are given for the five damage categories: building damage, property (contents), relocation expenses, rental income, and value of lost government services. The right hand column in this table is the present value of the avoided annual losses (for each of the five categories and a total). These are the benefits of the rehabilitation project without including the value of injuries and death. RESULTS The results compare the benefits (present value of total damages and losses avoided) and costs (total costs of the seismic rehabilitation project). Results are shown two ways: 1) as the total benefits minus the costs (present value criterion), and 2) as a benefit-cost ratio. Rehabilitation projects in which benefits exceed costs (on a present value basis) have present value criteria greater than zero and benefit-cost ratios above one. These two benefit-cost results provide complementary information, depending on whether or not total capital requirements are significant in the decision making process. C. Value of Injuries and Deaths Avoided (With the Value of Life) This section considers benefit-cost results including the economic value of avoided casualties in addition to the other damages and losses considered previously. The expected numbers of casualties were presented earlier in the section labeled "Death Losses & Injuries." To convert these estimates into economic losses, dollar values must be assigned to deaths and injuries. Value of Economic values must be assigned to minor and major injuries. Injuries The default value for minor injuries (not requiring hospitalization) is $1,000. The default value for major injuries (requiring hospitalization) is $10,000. Other values may be entered, if desired. Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: Statistical Value of Life: RESULTS Value of a Statistical Life The economic value of human life is an important and difficult issue. The benefit-cost model can be run either including or excluding the statistical value of human life. When the value of life is included, the value of avoided deaths is frequently one of the principal factors producing high benefit/cost ratios for prospective rehabilitation programs, particularly for high occupancy facilities. A consensus value for a statistical human life is approximately $1.74 million, based on several Federal Agency studies. A fuller discussion of the value of life issue is contained in Appendix 1 of Volume 2 of the recently published benefit-cost model. This Value of Life paper is reprinted as Chapter 4 of Volume 2 of this report. The default value in the program is $1.7 million. Other values may be entered, if desired. However, for consistency, agencies should probably make agency-level decisions about appropriate economic values for deaths, minor injuries and major injuries. The right hand column in this table is the present value of the avoided annual losses (for each of the five categories and the totals, shown above). These are the benefits of the rehabilitation project including the value of injuries and death. Federal Emergency Management Agency. "A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings'. Volume 2: Supporting Documentation. Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series 62, FEMA 227. April, 1992. RESULTS Before Rehabilitation After Rehabilitation In a manner analogous to the damage tables discussed above, casualty estimates are summarized in five tables which include estimates of the expected numbers of minor injuries, major injuries and deaths as follows: Scenario casualties (per earthquake event), and expected annual casualties (considering the probabilities of earthquakes). Scenario casualties (per earthquake event), expected annual casualties (considering the probabilities of earthquakes), and avoided (annual) injuries and deaths. As for the non-casualty damages and losses summarized previously, the scenario and expected casualty estimates may be useful for planning or policy purposes. The expected avoided annual casualties are central to the benefit-cost analysis (i.e., the present value of these avoided casualties is counted as a benefit when the value of life is included in the benefit-cost analysis). RESULTS This section summarizes all of the input parameters used in the calculation and summarizes the benefit-cost results, both with and without the value of life being included. Boxes at the top of the summary printout identify the building under consideration and the rehabilitation project being evaluated. A scenario run identification number may be entered (on the Building ID data entry page) to delineate multiple analyses of projects, with varying sets of assumptions. To avoid confusion, users are strongly urged to enter a run identification number whenever multiple analyses of the same project are conducted. The pink data entry box for run identification number also appears on the summary page. All of the input data which affect the calculated benefit-cost results are summarized in two tables: a table of single-value items, and a table of items which are defined for each MMJIPGA bin. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS CHAPTER 7. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Seismic rehabilitation projects for eight Federal buildings were analyzed with the Benefit-Cost program. These example projects were selected to include as much diversity as possible in building type (structural system), location, function, and agency/owner, subject to data availability. These eight example buildings are listed below: Building Name Location Agency/ Building Type l Owner Structural System Veterans' Administration Memphis, TN Veterans' C2 -concrete frame with concrete Medical Center Administration shear wall US Federal Butte, MT General URM -Unreinforced masonry Building/Courthouse Services bearing wall Administration US Federal Building Albuquerque, NM General URM -Unreinforced masonry Services bearing wall Administration Jackson Federal Seattle, WA General S5 -steel frame with infill shear Building Services wails Administration TEAD Motor Pool Tooele Army Depot, UT US Army W1 -Light wood frame Facility, Building 158 Nuclear Facility Storage Mare Island Naval US Navy S2 -Steel braced frame Complex, Shipyard, Building 271 Vallejo, CA Special Weapons Naval Construction US Navy PC -Precast concrete tilt-up Training Center, Battle Center, With flex diaphragm Building 678 San Diego, CA US Coast Guard Station, Boston, MA US Coast URM -Unreinforced masonry I Building 8 Guard bearing wall Narratives describing each of the eight example building analyses are given below. For the first example, the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Memphis, a complete print-out of the benefit-cost I program results is given in Appendix 11. For each example, the summary results pages are printed from the benefit-cost model. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Veterans Administration Medical Center 1030 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN Function This 805,700 square foot building is a large, densely occupied hospital. Occupancy is approximately 3,000. Structure The building composed of a low rise (3 story) rectangular section (approximately 552,000 square feet) and a 15 story tower (approximately 253,000 square feet) rising from the middle of the low rise structure. An open court of about 60'xl 35' lies within the lower section. The low-rise building includes one ground floor basement, two full stories, and a partial third story composed of separate units connected to the tower by passageways. The structure was completed in 1967; some enlargements and renovations were made to the ground floor and basement in 1982. Construction is primarily cast-in-place concrete. Floor and roof construction is generally either one-way pan joists supported on beams, or two-way pan (waffle-type) joists; however, some significant areas have one-way and two-way flat slabs with beams. Vertical loads are transferred to foundations by concrete columns and, in some cases, concrete walls. Lateral load resistance is provided by shear walls and frame action. Foundations for the low rise portion of the building are either individual spread footings, bearing approximately two feet below the ground floor pipe basement, or drilled, bell-bottom caissons installed through areas where the ground story and ground floor pipe basement were not part of the original construction. Approximately 70 columns support the tower and immediately adjacent portions of the low rise. The columns are supported by a 152' by 170' concrete mat, 3" to 4" thick. The building is clad in panels of precast concrete, either with a finish of embedded bricks or exposed concrete. These panels are attached to the concrete building frame with threaded inserts and slotted connectors so that the panels are not subjected to wind- generated shear loads. Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-2 Seismic Evaluation Seismic Rehabilitation BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS In 1985, the Veterans' Administration contracted with Walk Jones & Francis Mah, Inc. and Allen & Hoshall Inc. of Memphis TN to study the feasibility of seismic modification and ward renovations to the Medical Center. Rutherford & Chekene, consulting engineers, San Francisco, evaluated seismic strengthening renovations. The original structural design apparently considered only wind and not seismic forces. Initial investigations revealed that existing floors and shear walls were inadequate to provide the required lateral resistance. Torsional problems due to the location of the existing shear walls were also detected. Expansion joints were inadequate, causing excessive drift. Ted Winstead of Allen & Hoshall, concluded that the damage to the unimproved building would be intense at the upper MMI scale, with possible collapse. Since this outcome is not reflected by one of the existing damage functions for a moment resisting non-ductile concrete building, a specific damage function was devised by Winstead for both the existing and rehabilitated building. Damage to the unimproved building will be intense at MMI VIII, with probable collapse at MMI IX or higher. The shear walls in the tower are grossly inadequate to provide lateral resistance. Torsional problems exist due to the location of the shear wall; there are inadequate expansion joints, and excessive drift. Reinforcing the existing tower by a Four Corners" scheme was proposed for the Medical Center. This scheme places new concrete shafts rising at each corner of the tower, connected to one another at the penthouse level by a concrete "hat girder" at the tower perimeter. The new towers will require the existing foundation to be modified and enlarged. Additional shear walls will also be installed in the low rise portion of the building, and the existing expansion joints will be enlarged. The cost of seismic rehabilitation was estimated in 1985 at $21.1 million excluding any non-seismic construction or renovation work. Selected occupants would have to be relocated during the project. The cost of relocation (assuming an average of 12 months relocation and $2.00 per month per square foot for relocation costs) is approximately $19 million dollars. This relocation cost is included in the cost of the rehabilitation project because it is necessary and directly related to the seismic rehabilitation. On the other hand, the cost of non-seismic renovation is excluded from the benefit-cost analysis because the benefits are not considered in the Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-3 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS seismic benefit-cost calculation. The total cost of the seismic rehabilitation is approximately $40 million. Thus, the seismic benefit-cost calculation counts fully both the costs and the benefits of the seismic portion of the overall rehabilitation/renovation of this hospital. Building Mean The seismic performance of the existing building and the building Damage after rehabilitation are shown in the building's mean damage Functions (expected damages as percentages of replacement value). The mean damage functions for the VA hospital are shown below: BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 High Original 0 25 78 100 100 100 100 rise Building Rehabilitated 0 4 6 12 19 25 30 Low rise Original 0 18 43 70 95 100 100 Building Rehabilitated 0 5 6 13 20 30 40 Whole Original 0 23 67 90.6 98.4 100 100 Building Building Rehabilitated 0 4.3 6 12.3 19.3 26.57 33.1 Benefit-Cost The analysis of this example is particularly interesting because the Results building is highly vulnerable to seismic damage (even collapse), but the building is located in a moderate, rather than high, seismicity area. The total seismic rehabilitation costs are approximately $40.5 million. Without the value of life, the benefits of avoiding damages and losses total about $33.3 million, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.83. This ratio less than one results primarily from the moderate seismicity at this site, and from the relatively expensive rehabilitation project (about 40% of building replacement value). However, even without the value of life, benefits might exceed costs if higher values Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-4 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS were assigned to relocation costs (due to seismic damage) avoided by the rehabilitation and to the value of the services provided by the hospital in the post-earthquake situation. In the present analysis, a post-earthquake continuity premium of approximately 5 times the normal daily cost of providing services was assumed. When the value of casualties avoided is also considered, the total benefits of the rehabilitation rise to nearly $98 million and the resulting benefit-cost ratio is 2.42. The high value of casualties avoided is due to the high occupancy of the building and to the fact that the existing building is expected to collapse in high MMI events. Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-5 Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 Facility Class: Project Description: A.ECONOMIC PARAME Discount Rate: cent Building Damages Contents Damages Relocation Expenses Rental Income Losses Value of Lost Services total Damages and Losses PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 177755 TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE - VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: I BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: Statistical Value of Life: I Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of Minor Injuries Serious Injuries Deaths PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 10. August 4, 1994 SUMMARY Run Identification Final Veterans' Administration Medical 1030 Jefferson Ave. Memphis, TN 38104 Rehab, Project Description: Add shear walls and moment frame Facility Class: Concrete Frame with Concrete Shear Wall Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $115.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 805,700 Total Building Replacement Value $92,65,500 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% Total Contents Value $96,000,000 Cost of Providing Services per day $302,701 Continuity Premium $1,500,000 Value of lost services per day $1,802,701 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs ($1sq.ft.1month): $2.S0 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $40,457,800 Average Day Occupancy 3,000 Average Night Occupancy 2,900 Soil Type S2 Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: MMI VI VI] VIII IX X Xl XII PGA (%g) 4-8 B-16 16-32 32-55 56-80 | 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function 1 25 75 100 100 I 100 100 Modified MDF(%) 1 25 100 100 100 100 100 Minor Injury Rate,(10O 3.000E-02 8.400E+O0 .aOOE+02 S .OOOE01 I.0E+0E01 .OOOE +01 Major Injury Rate/l1000 4.OOOE-03 1.120E+00 3.000E+02 2.SOOE+02 2.000E+02 1.500E+02 1.SOOE+02 Death Rate000 1.000E-03 2.800E-01 5.100Es01 5.OOOE+02 7.000E+02 8.OOOE+02 8.OOOE+02 Content MDF(%) 1 25 75 100 100 100 100 Functiona Downtime (days) 1 25 30 30 30 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 ISO 365 366 365 365 365 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 83 94 88 81 73 67 Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 100 83 94 88 81 73 67 Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1 000 3.000E-03 8AOOE-01 1.000E2+01 .000E+00 .000E+00 5.OOOE+00 5.O0OE+OO Rehab Major Injury RateM000 4.000E-0 1.120E-02 3.000E+00 2.500E+00 2.000E+00 1.500E4100 1.500E+OO Rehab Death Rate/l1OO 1.000E-06 2.800E-04 S.000E-02 .000E-01 7.000E401 8.000E-01 E.000}-41 Annual Number of Earthquakes S.108E-02 1.345E-02 3.541E-03 8.196E-04 2.293E-04 7.75E-05 1.412E-04 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With Value of Life of Lfe PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $33,385,616 $97,892,529 |TOTAL BENEFITS IUINUS TOTAL COSTS:. | $7,072,184)i $57,434,729 Benefit cost ratio: _ 0.83 2.42 Analysis Inc. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS United States Federal Building/Courthouse 400 North Main Street, Butte, MT Function This 62,000 square foot building contains the Federal courts and administrative functions for the region. Occupants include U.S. District Court, U.S. Marshals Service, F.B.I., U.S.D.A. Forest Service, and U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Occupancy is about 285 during business hours. Structure The first phase of this building was constructed in 1902 and the remainder in 1932. This four-story building is unreinforced masonry construction. Seismic A seismic structural evaluation and analysis was completed on July 22, 1992 and listed the following structural deficiencies: Evaluation * The unreinforced masonry bearing walls are inadequate to resist the seismic forces for seismic zone 3. * The masonry bearing walls lack the ductility required under the 1991 UBC for modern structures. . A soft-story problem exists below the second level due to the discontinuity of the existing unreinforced masonry walls at the lightwell below this level. This discontinuity has the tendency to stiffen the building in the upper stories creating an abrupt change at this level which tends to cause more severe earthquake damage and increase the potential for collapse at the soft story level. . Many of the unreinforced masonry walls consist of a series of piers between window openings which, because they are unreinforced, lack the boundary steel to develop their limited in-plane shear capacity and resist rocking. . Unreinforced masonry parapets and balustrades at the roof are on all four sides of the building and at the outer unbraced walls at the lightwell. These pose a serious falling hazard to people on the sidewalks and in parking areas below. US Federal Building, MT 7-8 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS The unreinforced masonry bearing walls on the exterior of the building and in the lightwell are inadequately anchored to the structure. Since these walls support the floor and roof structure, total or partial collapse of the masonry bearing walls will create a falling hazard to occupants in the building, people on sidewalks, and in other areas adjacent to the building. The floor and roof diaphragms of the 1902 and the 1931 buildings were constructed at different times and do not appear to be adequately connected. Because of the insufficient capacity to transfer the lateral loads across this connection, the diaphragms in each building will move independently during an earthquake rather than as a single continuous unit. This will, in effect, produce a plan irregularity in each of the two separate U-shaped diaphragms causing the different wings of the building to vibrate independently and at different frequencies. This vibrational difference will concentrate damage at the inside corners of the building. a The existing straight sheathing at the roof structures of the two portions of the building consists of 1x6 sheathing boards on the wood roof joists. This straight sheathing does not have sufficient shear capacity to resist the shear forces required by the UBC for seismic zone 3. Since the first seismic design for buildings was required under the 1958 Uniform Building Code, this building is considered substandard. It is located in UBC earthquake Zone 3 on S1 soil. Seismic Two rehabilitation options were considered for the building. The Rehabilitation most economical option is a $2.2 million shear wall retrofit to increase the lateral strength of the building. A $4.5 million base isolation project was rejected as too expensive. Building Mean The mean damage functions for the Butte Federal Building, before Damage and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions Functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "standard," which means a building with typical seismic performance for this building class. The rehabilitated building under Option A (shear wall scheme) was, characterized as "special," which means a building specifically designed for seismic performance. Option B (base isolation) was not analyzed, but is included for comparison to Option A. US Federal Building, MT 7-9, BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xi XII Original 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 89.4 100 Building Building shear wall 1.5 2.7 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 Option A retrofit Building base 0.5 1.0 3.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 20 Option B isolation Benefit-Cost This example is a substantially vulnerable building (unreinforced Results masonry) in a moderate seismicity area. Several factors combine to produce very low benefit-cost ratios for this project. First, the rehabilitation project is very expensive -nearly 60% of the building's replacement value. Second, even though the building has major damage at higher MMI events, the damage at lower MMI events is only moderate. Thus, the potential benefits of avoiding these damage are somewhat limited. Third, the seismic risk at the site is modest, because of the location and further because of the S1 (rock) soil conditions at the site. The S1 conditions result in lower intensity ground motions than would be experienced if the building were located on a softer site. The benefit-cost ratios for this rehabilitation project 0.13 and 0.14, without and with the value of life, respectively. US Federal Building, MT 7-10 B.SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: I I I I Present Value of t Building Damages Contents Damages Relocation Expenses rental Income Losses Value of Lost Services Total Damages and Losses PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: TOTAL BENEFITSIMINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS:$ BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 0 C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: Statistical Value of Life: Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of Number Number Number Damages Avoided Minor Injuries Serious Injuries Deaths $ Total Value PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: Analyst Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 SUMMARY Run Identification: Final U.S. Federal Building 400 North Main Street, MT Rehab Project Description: Add shear walls Facility Class: Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $70.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 62,000 Total Building Replacement Value $4,340,000 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 100% Total Contents Value $2,790,000 Cost of Providing Services per day $114,504 Continuity Premium $0 Value of lost services per day $114,504 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs (/sq.ft. month): $1.00 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $2,164,000 Average Day Occupancy 285 Average Night Occupancy 10 Soil Type Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: MMI I VI VII VIII IX X Xi XII PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 Modified MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E+00 6.240E+00 2.460E+01 1.843E+02 2.769E+02 3.450E+02 4.OOOE+02 Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-01 8.320E-01 3.280E+00 2.457E+01 3.691E+01 2.020E+02 4.OOOE+02 Death Rate/1000 3.400E-02 2.080E-01 8.200E-01 6.143E+00 9.229E+00 9.550E+01 2.000E+02 Content MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 Functional Downtime (days) 9 23 30 30 30 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 131 266 365 365 365 365 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 88 77 65 49 28 23 Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 83 88 77 65 49 28 23 Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E-01 6.240E-01 2.460E+00 1.843E+01 2.769E+01 3.450E+01 4.OOOE+01 Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-03 8.320E-03 3.280E-02 2.457E-01 3.691E-01 2.020E+00 4.0OOE+00 Rehab Death Rate/1000 3.400E-05 2.080E-04 8.200E-04 6.143E-03 9.229E-03 9.550E-02 2.OOOE-01 Annual Number of Earthquakes 9.415E-03 1.584E-03 2.445E-04 5.047E-05 1.278E-05 5.587E-06 7.211 E-06 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With Value of Life of Life PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $289,397 $296,473 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($1,874,603) ($1,867,527) Benefit cost ratio: 0.13 0.14 Function Structural BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS United States Federal Building 123 Fourth Street S.W., Albuquerque, NM This 56,400 square foot building is primarily courtroom and related space. Occupancy is approximately 225 during business hours. The Court House was constructed before any seismic codes were adopted, and is located in UBO earthquake zone 2B on soil type S2. The building was constructed in two portions, with other minor alterations and small additions completed at various times during the life of the building. The original portion (the present east section) was constructed from drawings dated 1908. An addition was constructed to the west of the original building from drawings dated 1930. The present total plan dimensions of the building are approximately 165'xl 161. The concrete floor slabs, approximately 811 thick, as well as the structural steel beams and girders in the floors are supported by the unreinforced masonry bearing walls at the exterior of the building with structural concrete and steel columns, and spread footing foundations. The longitudinal and transverse lateral systems are shear walls. The roof diaphragm is wood, while the floor diaphragms are cast-in-place concrete. The roof is composed of wood joists/gluelams; the floor framing is steel beams and flat slabs. When combined, the original 1908 building and the 1930 addition have a U-shaped floor plan at level 3, and the roof. The L-shaped floor and roof of the addition were placed against the original building for the present U-shaped floor configuration, with an opening for the Lightwell in the center of the U at the northern end of the upper levels of the building. There does not appear to be any shear connection between the two separate diaphragms which would cause the two floor diaphragms to move independently during an earthquake rather than a single continuous diaphragm. The plan irregularity in the two, diaphragms will generate torsional effects in the building when subjected to an earthquake. Different wings of the building can vibrate independently and at different frequencies, leading to a concentration of damage at the re-entrant corners of the lightwell walls. Floor diaphragms and unreinforced masonry walls are especially prone to damage in these areas. Because the two US Federal Building, NM7 7-13 Seismic Evaluation BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS separate diaphragms meet at one of the re-entrant corners of the U- shaped diaphragm, and the diaphragms are not connected together, damage will be even more severe at this area. At the lower levels of the building the two diaphragms combine in essentially a rectangular shape, but because they lack a positive connection between the two separate diaphragms, the diaphragms can vibrate independently during an earthquake. Significant damage will most likely be experienced where the two diaphragms meet. In general, the original 1908 building structure consists of reinforced concrete structural floor slabs supported by structural steel floor beams and girders. The concrete floor slab was cast around the structural steel beams and girders to provide support for the floor slab and fire resistance for the steel beams and girders. Drawings of the original building were quite limited, and existing finishes prevented viewing most of the existing structure without demolition, so some portions of the existing structure remain unknown. In two or three locations a small area of the concrete cover had been removed and the steel beams were visible. Field investigation where pipes penetrate the concrete floor slabs indicate the floor slabs are reinforced with expanded metal in the bottom of the slabs. The individual thicknesses of the structural slab and topping slab were not possible to measure and are not known. The concrete floor slabs as well as the structural steel beams and girders in the floors are supported by the unreinforced masonry bearing walls at the exterior of the building and structural steel. There is a soft story below level 2 due to the light well and discontinuous walls. A seismic structural evaluation and analysis was completed on May 24, 1993 and listed the following structural deficiencies: e The unreinforced masonry bearing walls are inadequate to resist the seismic forces for seismic Zone 2B which are mandated by the 1991 UBC. Due to the non-existent reinforcement, the masonry bearing walls in this building lack the ductility required under the 1991 UBC for modern structures. A soft-story problem exists below level 2 due to the discontinuity of the existing unreinforced masonry walls at US Federal Building NM 7.14 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS the north lightwell below this level. The discontinuity has the tendency to stiffen the building in the upper stories creating an abrupt change at this level. This tends to cause more severe earthquake damage and increase the potential for collapse at the soft story level. Many of the unreinforced masonry walls consist of a series of piers between window openings which, because they are unreinforced, lack the boundary steel to develop their limited in plane shear capacity and resist rocking. The unreinforced masonry bearing walls on the exterior of the building are inadequately anchored to the structure. Since these walls support the floor and roof structure total or partial collapse of the masonry bearing walls will create a falling hazard to occupants in the building and people on the sidewalks, in the alley, and other areas adjacent to the building. The floor and roof diaphragms of the 1908 building and the 1930 addition building were constructed at different times and do not appear to be adequately connected. Because of the insufficient capacity to transfer the lateral loads across this connection, the diaphragms in each building will move independently during an earthquake rather than as a single continuous unit. This will in effect, produce a plan irregularity in each of the two separate diaphragms causing the different wings of the building to vibrate independently and at different frequencies which will lead to concentrated damage at the inside corners of the building. * The existing straight sheathing at the roof structures of the two portions of the building consists of 1x6 sheathing boards on the wood roof joists. This straight sheathing does not have sufficient shear capacity to resist the shear forces required by the UBC for seismic Zone 2B. The building is located in UBC seismic Zone 21. Structural seismic assessment of the building based on the 1991 UBC indicated a poor seismic rating. The structure has a fairly high probability of partial or total collapse if an earthquake producing ground motions consistent with seismic Zone 2B occurs near Albuquerque. The building has significantly less than 80 percent of the base shear capacity required for new construction. During a large seismic disturbance, this structure would perform poorly due to the overstress created in the unreinforced masonry shear walls and the lack of ductility in the walls. There could be extensive structural and nonstructural US Federal Building, NM-7-15 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Seismic Rehabilitation damage, potential structural collapse, and/or falling hazards. Smaller earthquakes centered near the site could have the same effects as a very large, more distant earthquake. The building structure does not meet the current code requirements for wall reinforcement and has limited strength to resist the minimum code earthquake forces for seismic Zone 2B. Experience has shown that for a small (Richter Magnitude 5.0 or less) earthquake centered some distance from the site, the limited shear wall capacity in the unreinforced masonry bearing walls should be adequate. Earthquakes as low as approximately Richter magnitude 5.5 that are centered close to the site could cause significant damage to the building. This building is especially vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes and the resultant falling hazards: there is concern for the ability of the building systems to provide safe egress to occupants. Following a major earthquake, it is expected that there would be considerable damage, but if the suggested remedial measures outlined are taken, the potential number of injuries and deaths associated with non-structural items will have been greatly reduced. Two rehabilitation schemes were considered for this building, considered substandard in its original condition: the addition of new concrete shear walls for the full height of the building, costing $1.3 million (option A); and base isolation costing $4.5 million (option B) in 1993. The cost to mitigate non-structural hazards was estimated at approximately $146,000. The base isolation scheme was deemed too expensive. Therefore, we evaluate the shear wall scheme with a total construction cost of about $1.46 million. Including relocation costs of about $225,000, the total cost of this rehabilitation is approximately $1.7 million. Option A (shear walls) would require addition of reinforced concrete shear walls to the inside of the exterior masonry walls at selected locations, connecting the two segments of the building at the interface, placing new footings at the shear walls, anchor exterior walls, and add seismic chords. US Federal Building, NM 7-16 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Building Mean The mean damage functions for the Albuquerque Federal Building, Damage before and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage Functions functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "standard," which means a building with typical seismic performance for this building class. The rehabilitated building under Option A (shear wall scheme) was characterized as "special," which means a building specifically designed for seismic performance. Option B (base isolation) was not analyzed, but is included for comparison to Option A. BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTION Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 MI VI VII VIII I X XI Xli Existing 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 89.4 100 Building Building Shearwall 1.5 2.7 9.0 22.6 34.5 64.7 77.1 Option A rehab _ Building Base 0.5 1.0 3.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Option B Isolation Benefit-Cost This example is a substantially vulnerable building (unreinforced Results masonry) in a moderate seismicity area. Several factors combine to produce moderately low Benefit-Cost ratios for this project. First, the project is moderately expensive, approximately 40% of the building's replacement value. Second, seismic risk at this site is relatively low. Third, the damage percentages at lower MMs, where earthquake probabilities are comparatively high, are only moderate. Thus, the Benefit-Cost ratios for this project are 0.43 and 0.43 without and with the value of life, respectively. The value of casualties avoided is too small to significantly change the Benefit- Cost ratio. The Benefit-Cost ratios for this Albuquerque project are significantly higher than those for the Butte project because of the higher seismic risk, the S2 soil type compared to S1 at Butte, and because the rehabilitation costs are a lower percentage of replacement value. US Federal Building, NM 7-17 Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 Facility Class: Project Description: Rate: percent Planning Period: rears Present Value Coefficient: 3.SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: II I I Present Value Building Damages Contents Damages -. Relocation Expenses Rental Income Losses Value of Lost Services total Damages and Losses PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: E-m I %6.5.,6.d TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: ($.4.74 o BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: L .~i C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND DEATHS: Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: Statistical Value of Life: Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual I Present Value of Minor Injuries Serious Injuries Deaths PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: IML29AL2i Analyst: Goeltel & Homer Inc. 7-18 08104194. 13:55:57. SUMMARY Run Identification-Final U.S. Federal Building 1123 Fourth Street, SW Albuquerque, NM Rehab, Project Description: Add shear walls Facility Class: Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $75.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 56,400 Total Building Replacement Value $4,230,000 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 100% Total Contents Value $2,538,000 Cost of Providing Services per day $110,400 Continuity Premium $0 Value of lost services per day $110400 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs ($1sq.ft.1month): $1.00 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $1,6BS6600 Average Day Occupancy 225 :Average Night Occupancy 10! Sail Type S2 Data used in this analysis that varies by M_ MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xi Xl PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32.55 55-80 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function (%) 9 23 40 I 65 77 89 100 Modified MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 Minor Injury Ratell100 1.020E+00 .240E+00 2.460E+01 1.843E+02 2.769E+02 3.460E+02 4.QOOE+02 Major Injury Ratell00 0 1.360E-01 8.320E-01 3.280E+00 2.457E+01 3.691E+01 2. 020E+02 4.OOOE+02 Death Ratel1000 3.40OE-02 2.0BOE-01 .200E-01 6.143E+00 9.229E+00 9.550E+01 2.OOOE+02 Content MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 Functional Downtime (days) 9 23 30 30 30 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 131 266 365 365 365 365 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 88 77 65 49 28 23 Contents Rehab Effectiveness () .83 88 77 65 49' 28 23 Rehab Minor Injury Rate1000 1.020E-01 6.240E-01 2.460E+00 1.843E+01 2.769E+01 3.450E+01 4.000E+01 Rehabi Major Injury Rate JiO00 1.360E-03 8.320E-03 3.280E-02 2.457E-01 3.691E-01 2.020E+00 4.000E+00 Rehab Death Ratel1000 3.404E-05 2.080E-04 8.200E-04 6.143E-03 9.229E-03 9.56OE-02 2.000E-01 Annual Number of Earthquakes 2.429E-02 41S7E-03 7.117E-04 1.10OE-04 2.276E-05 6.179E-06 8.076E-06 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value I Wdh Value of Life of Life PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $720,926 $730,341 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: _________| ($955,259) 11enefit cost ratio: 0.43 0.43 Function Structural Seismic Evaluation BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Jackson Federal Building 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174 This 315,000 square foot building contains offices for approximately 25 Federal agencies. Occupancy is approximately 3200 during business hours. The Jackson Federal building is a nine story office building constructed in the early 1930s. The first three floors, sub-basement, basement, and the first floor are full floors covering the site, floors two through five are U-shaped, and floors six through nine form a tower. Replacement value is estimated at approximately $35 million. The original building contained timber pilings in the foundation system with poured-in-place concrete floor joists. Concrete slabs were poured on clay tiles, perimeter steel beams encased in concrete, and brick encased vertical steel columns were located at the perimeter. The exterior system of the building consists of brick, CMU, aluminum spandrel panels with brick backing, and terra cotta. The roof consists of concrete joists with steel girders. Diaphragms are cast-in-place concrete. The longitudinal and transverse lateral systems are shear walls. A seismic structural evaluation and analysis was completed on November 23, 1987 and listed the following structural deficiencies: * The exterior masonry walls were overstressed and would be expected to resist the seismic forces before the steel frame. * The corners of the building need to be tied together to transfer diaphragm forces into the shear walls. * Parapets range from 4 to 11 feet in height and are constructed of unreinforced masonry and terra cotta ornamentation. * The exterior of the building is faced with brick and terra cotta ornaments that are not adequately anchored to prevent a falling hazard. Jackson Federal Building, WA 7-20 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS The building is located in UBC seismic Zone 3, located on S-3 soil type. The potential exists for a large amount of structural and non- structural damage from a large scale earthquake. The parapets and building facing represent serious falling hazards. This building has experienced two moderate earthquakes in 1949 and 1965 with relatively little damage and no visible structural damage. Seismic Complete rehabilitation was undertaken, consisting of the following: Rehabilitation complete renovation of interior spaces with main hallways staying historical full height. Concrete shear walls were added. The historical exterior had only risk reduction, with anchors and straps added to reduce failing hazards. Entirely new mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems were installed. The building was brought into general compliance with the 1988 UBC for Zone 3. Structural costs for the project were estimated at about $2.1 million in 1990, with total construction costs, including complete interior renovation, at $17 million. Approximately 50% of the total construction costs are attributable to seismic rehabilitation. The other 50% is for interior renovation, including upgrades to the mechanical and electrical systems, and asbestos abatement. Therefore, for the benefit-cost analysis a construction cost of $8.5 million was assumed. Relocation costs add another $3.8 million, so the total cost of the seismic rehabilitation is estimated at $12.3 million. Building Mean The mean damage functions for the Jackson Federal Building, before Damage and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions were Functions estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "standard," which means a building with typical seismic performance. The rehabilitated building was characterized as "special," which means a building specifically designed for seismic performance. BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 MMI VI VII VII IX X xi X1i Original 1.5 5.7 16.1 30.8 44.9 I 66.1 90.0 Building Rehabilitated Shear wall 1.0 1.5 5.7 16.1 30.8 44.9 66.1 Building rehab _ Jackson Federal Building, WA 7-21 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Benefit-Cost Results The Benefit-Cost ratios for this rehabilitation project are 0.31 and 0.32 without and with the value of life, respectively. These relatively low values arise from the moderate seismicity of the Seattle area,: the fact that this steel framed building is only moderately vulnerable to seismic damage, and because the rehabilitation costs are relatively high (approximately 35% of the replacement value of the building). Jackson Federal Building, WA 7-22 Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation Federal 10,Auqces14, 1994 Facility Class: Project Description: A. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS: Discount Rate: Percent Planning Period: Present Value Coefficient: B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: I II I Present Value f I Building Damages Contents Damages Relocation Expenses Rental Income Losses Value of Lost Services Total Damages and Losses PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: L~~zo TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 0[31 VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: EOrvtzto C.VALUE OF INJURIES AND Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury. Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: Statistical Value of Life: I Annual Expected Annual Avoided I Annual Residual I Present Value of Minor Injuries Serious Injuries Deaths PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: MI 3-3; 536 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: w-,3, ,637) BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 0.32 Analyst Goedel & Horner Inc 08104194. 1433: 59. Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4, 1994 SUMMARY Run Identification: Final U.S. Federal Building 915 Second Ave Seattle, WA 98174 Rehab Project Description: Shear wall retrofit Facility Class: Steel Frame with URM Infill Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $110.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 315,000 Total Building Replacement Value $34,650,000 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 100% Total Contents Value $22,050,000 Cost of Providing Services per day $359,628 Continuity Premium $0 Value of lost services per day $359,628 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs ($/sq. ft. month): $2.00 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $12,280,000 Average Day Occupancy 3,200 Average Night Occupancy 50 Soil Type S3 Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function (%) 2 6 16 21 45 66 78 Modified MDF (%) 2 6 16 21 45 66 78 Minor Injury Rate/1000 9.750E-02 4.800E-01 2.280E+00 4.080E+00 3.OOOE+01 1.920E+02 2.846E+02 Major Injury Rate/1000 1.300E-02 6.400E-02 3.040E-01 .440E-01 4.OOOE+00 2.560E+01 3.794E+01 Death Rate/1000 3.250E-03 1.600E-02 7.600E-02 1.360E-01 1.OOOE+00 6.400E+00 9.486E+00 Content MDF (%) 2 6 16 21 45 66 78 Functional Downtime (days) 2 6 16 21 30 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 0 79 116 309 365 365 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 73 65 23 31 32 15 Contents Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 73 65 23 31 32 15 Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 9.750E-03 4.800E-02 2.280E-01 4.080E-01 3.OOOE+00 1.920E+01 2.846E+01 Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 1.300E-04 6.400E-04 3.040E-03 5.440E-03 4.000E-02 2.560E-01 3.794E-01 Rehab Death Rate/1000 3.250E-06 1.600E-05 7.600E-05 1.360E-04 1.OOOE-03 6.400E-03 9.486E-03 Annual Number of Earthquakes 7.790E-02 2.161E-02 6.335E-03 1.356E-03 3.014E-04 I1.019E-04 1.994E-04 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value of Life With Value of Life PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $3,817,101 $3,915,363 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($8,462,899) ($8,364,637) Benefit cost ratio : 0.31 0.32 7-24 06104194.14:33:45. Function Structure BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS TEAD, Motor Pool Facility Bldg. No. 158 Tooele Army Depot, Utah 84074 This 6936 square foot wood frame building, built in 1942 as a barracks and later converted to provide office space plus temporary housing, was vacant as of December 1991. This building, classified as type W-1 (light wood frame), is a two- story structure measuring 104'x2g9.5'. The building contains many closely spaced partition walls with gypsum board sheathing in both the crosswise and lengthwise directions of the building. These walls provide significant strength and rigidity to the structure even though many of them do not extend to the building foundations. The first floor is constructed over a crawl space, approximately 2-4 feet above the existing grade. The first floor is constructed of 2x8 wood joists spaced at 24", bearing on beams composed of 3 -2x12s spiked together, supported by concrete piers bearing on spread type footings. On top of the joists is 1x8 nominal diagonal wood sheathing which provides a nominal horizontal diaphragm. The second floor is constructed of 2x8 wood joists spaced at 24", which bear on 2x4 wood stud walls. The wood stud walls bear directly on the 2x8 wood joists of the first level floor and do not align with the 3 -2x12 beams below. This floor also has a 1x8 nominal diagonal nominal wood sheathing diaphragm. The roof is 2x6 wood rafters spaced at 24' which bear on the exterior walls at the exterior walls and on 2x4 cripple walls parallel to the center corridor. The cripple walls bear directly on 2x6 ceiling joists spaced at 24t" and are offset from the corridor walls below. The roof rafters are covered with 1x8 straight sheathed wood planks which form a nominal diaphragm. The exterior walls are constructed of 2x4 studs spaced at 24" with a 1x8 nominal horizontal wood sheathing. The building has many non-bearing interior walls constructed of 2x4 wood stud walls with gypsum board sheathing. These walls contribute greatly to the lateral rigidity of the structure even though most of them do not connect to the building foundations. Concrete foundation walls are located at each end of the building. These walls are continuous for the full width of the building and TEAD Motor Pool, UT 7-25 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS return approximately 5' around the corner at each end. Concrete walls also exist around the mechanical room and the stair towers. The remainder of the perimeter and interior of the building is supported on concrete piers with limited lateral force resisting strength. Seismic The following existing structural deficiencies affecting the capacity of Evaluation the lateral system of the building were found: Connections between the wood beams and the concrete foundation walls are incapable of transferring the tension and compression "drag strut" forces to the concrete foundation walls. The building superstructure is not adequately attached to the foundation walls to transfer the shear forces between the wood stud walls and the concrete foundation walls. The existing roof and floor diaphragms exceed the maximum allowable width to length ratios. Interior shear walls must be used to reduce the length to width ratios. The existing shear walls do not have the required shear capacity to safely resist the current design forces according to the 1982 TM 5-809-0 "Seismic Design for Buildings". The roof diaphragm does not have the required shear capacity to safely resist the 1982 design forces. The ends of the shear walls are not adequately attached to the foundation walls for hold down forces to keep the walls from overturning. To attain near-code compliance level of performance, the roof and shear walls will require installation of plywood to develop the required shear transfer forces. Additional hold-down anchors will be required to anchor the shear walls to the concrete foundations and to provide tension capacity of the walls between the first and second levels. Seismic Although a number of deficiencies have been found in this building, Rehabilitation wood structures of this type have generally performed well during earthquakes. ATC-14 states "Wood framed buildings generally do not pose a significant life safety threat during seismic events except in rare cases. But, building contents may be badly shaken. " The recommended measures would not bring the building completely up BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Building Mean Damage Functions to current code requirements, but rather would increase the performance of the building and maintain a "life safety' level of performance. The addition of small corrective measures to structures can increase the lateral resistance greatly, whereas additional expenditures beyond the initial measure achieve diminished effects. To attain a minimum "life safety" level of performance, additional concrete footings and foundation walls, and additional bolts between the existing superstructure and the existing foundation walls should be installed. In 1991, rehabilitation costs to achieve a life safety level of performance were estimated at $41,000. To attain near-code compliance level of performance, the roof and shear walls will require installation of plywood to develop the required shear transfer forces. Additional hold-down anchors will be required to anchor the shear walls to the concrete foundations and to provide tension capacity of the walls between the first and second levels. In 1991, rehabilitation costs to achieve a near-code compliance level of performance were estimated at $1 09,000. The mean damage functions for the TEAD Motor Pool Building, before and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "nonstandard," which means a building with substantially poorer than typical seismic performance. For the life-safety rehabilitation, the rehabilitated building was characterized as "Standard" which means a building with typical seismic performance for this type of building. For the near code rehabilitation, the rehabilitated building was characterized as "special" which means a building with seismic performance similar to a building specifically designed for seismic performance. The benefit-cost analysis was performed for Option A, life-safety, information on Option B, near-code performance, is included for reference. TEAD Motor Pool, UT 7-27 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xi XII Original 4.7 9.2 19.8 24.4 37.3 60 90 Building Option A Life Safety .8 1.5 4.7 9.2 19.8 24.4 37.3 Option B Near-Code 0 0 .8 1.5 4.7 9.2 19.8 Benefit-Cost The Benefit-Cost ratio for this rehabilitation project is quite low, 0.20 Results with and without the value of life. Because the building is vacant, there is no value in avoided casualties. The Benefit-Cost ratio is low because of the relatively low seismicity at the site and because this wood frame structure is not nearly as seismically vulnerable as some other building classes would be. However, the rehabilitation of this building is relatively inexpensive (only about 12% of the building replacement value) and quite effective in reducing seismic damages. If the building were occupied, and especially if the building function had a high post- earthquake continuity premium, the Benefit-Cost ratio for this rehabilitation could be much higher. TEAD Motor Pool, UT 7-28 August 4 1994 Facility Class: Project Description: A.ECONOMIC PARAMETERS: discount Rate: percent Planning Period: 3ars Present Value Coefficient: 3. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: I I I I Present Value or Building Damages Contents Damages Relocation Expenses Rental Income Losses value of Lost Services Total Damages and Losses ,,, PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: Statistical Value of Life: Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of Minor Injuries Serious injuries Deaths PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: 17777--i-e7 800 l TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: I BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: -Y-0-1 20:09:4S. Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4, 1994 SUMMARY Run Identification: Final TEAD Motor Pool Facility Tooele Army Depot Tooele, UT 84074 Rehab Project Description: Shear walls and hold-down anchors Facility Class: Wood (commercial or industrial) Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $50.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 6,936 Total Building Replacement Value $346,800 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% Total Contents Value $34,680 Cost of Providing Services per day $67 Continuity Premium $0 Value of lost services per day $67 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs ($sq. ft. month): $0.00 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $40,960 Average Day Occupancy Average Night Occupancy O Soil Type S2 Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: MMI VI VII VIII IX X xi XII PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function (%) 5 9 20 24 37 42 55 Modified MDF (%) 5 9 20 24 37 42 100 Minor Injury Ratel1000 3.000E-02 1.020E-01 3.000E-01 7.320E-01 2.136E+00 2.676E+00 1.071E+01 Major Injury Rate/1000 4.000E-03 1.360E-02 4.000E-02 9.760E-02 2.848E-01 3.568E-01 1.429E+00 Death Ratel1000 1.OOOE-03 3.400E-03 1.00OE-02 2.440E-02 7.120E-02 8.920E-02 3.571 E-01 Content MDF (%) 5 9 20 24 37 42 55 Functional Downtime (days) 5 9 20 24 30 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 83 76 62 47 42 63 Contents Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 83 76 62 47 42 63 Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 3.000E-03 1.020E-02 3.000E-02 7.320E-02 2.136E-01 2.676E-01 1.071E+00 Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 4.000E-05 1.360E-04 4.000E-04 9.760E-04 2.848E-03 3.568E-03 1.429E-02 Rehab Death Rate/1000 1.OOOE-06 3.400E-06 1.OOOE-05 2.440E-05 7.120E-05 8.920E-05 3.571 E-04 Annual Number of Earthquakes 2.546E-02 4.474E-03 7.864E-04 1.246E-04 2.626E-05 7.217E-06 9.620E-06 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With value of Life of Life PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $8,004 $8,004 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($32,956) ($32,956) Benefit cost ratio : 1 0.20 0.20 7-30 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Building 271 Mare Island Navy Shipyard,5, Vaileio, CA 94592 Function The primary use of this building, part of the Nuclear Facility Storage Complex, is to process and maintain refueling equipment, storage, and process waste. Occupancy during business hours is approximately 40. Structure This 53,720 sq. ft. building, approximately 340'x1 06, was constructed in 1917 with two mezzanine levels (26'x340') and a crane bay. In some places the structure reaches 84' in height. This steel-braced frame (S2) structure was valued at $9.6 million in 1983. This steel-braced frame building is built on a spread footing foundation, with cast-in-place concrete diaphragms. The exterior non-load bearing cladding is industrial glass and metal. The longitudinal lateral system is braced frames; the transverse lateral system is truss and columns. Special features include 7 roof monitors in 13 bays. The concrete roof slab is supported on roof trusses 10' deep; there is one-way frame action and vertical X- bracing. The original structure was designed to have five bays, each 25 ft. long, but was extended to thirteen bays, each 25 ft. long plus a 15 ft. end. The second mezzanine was added below the first, and newer bridge cranes installed. Seven of the 13 bays are 10 ft. higher than the others, forming roof monitors. The distance to the top of the monitor along the south and north walls are approximately 84 and 78 feet six inches above ground level, respectively. Supporting the concrete slab roof are 10-ft.-deep steel trusses spanning 80 and 26 ft. The top chord of the steel trusses supports the roof of the monitor, the bottom chord of the steel trusses support the roof valley between the monitors. Each of the typical 14 transverse bents is made up of three lines of columns and provides support for the roof truss system and the mezzanines. The two southerly rows of columns also support the crane girders for the 80-ton bridge crane. All three columns in each bent are fixed at the foundation level. Mare Island Navy Shipyard, CA 7-31 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS The main lateral load-resisting system in the building's transverse direction is the frame made up of fixed based columns and roof truss. In the longitudinal direction, the main lateral load-resisting system is the vertical cross-bracing. system. Seismic This structure is located in UBC Zone 4, on an unknown soil type. Evaluation Given the location of the building, the structure is probably on fill and, therefore, S4 soil type was assumed. The building's lateral bracing system was judged inadequate to resist Zone 4 force levels. Seismic The rehabilitation consists of strengthening four of the six sets of Rehabilitation existing bracing; welding additional steel onto existing bracing members; and improving connections. The rehabilitation objective was damage control. The total cost of the seismic structural modifications was estimated at $271,000 in 1983. Relocation costs for this project are estimated at $215,000, bringing the total project costs to $486,000. Building Mean The mean damage functions for Mare Island Building 271, before Damage and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions Functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "nonstandard," which means a building with substantially poorer than typical seismic performance. The rehabilitated building was characterized as "standard" which means a building with typical seismic performance for this type of building. It should be noted that this type of building, braced steel frame, has much better seismic performance than other types such as unreinforced masonry. Thus, the percentages of expected damages shown below are relatively low for low-to-moderate intensities of ground shaking. BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII Original 0.8 5.1 10.1 15.8 27.0 38.8 60.0 Building _ _ 27_0 38_ Rehabilitated Strengthen .6 1.8 5.1 10.0 15.8 27.0 38.8 Building Bracing I I Mare Island Navy Shipyard, CA 7-32 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Benefit-Cost Results The Benefit-Cost ratio for this project is very high, 4.16 with and without the value of life, even though this steel frame building is not exceptionally vulnerable to seismic damage. The high ratio arises in part because of the high seismicity and S4 soil type. n addition, however, the project cost is low (only 5% of the building replacement value). Benefits are also high because the value of contents in this building is exceptionally high. Mare Island Navy Shipyard, CA 7-33 Benefit Cost Analysis o the Seismic Rehabilitation o Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4,1994 O14 ,3lcot1a I Reds e , Facility Class: Project Description: k. ECONOMIC PARAME1 Discount Rate Planning Period: Present Value Coefficient: B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: .. I Present Value of I I I I Building Damages Contents Damages Relocation Expenses Rental Income Losses Value of Lost Services Total Damages and Losses PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 034;'361030it. , 1 TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE "VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: MMSOU -All BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: ILLV 00 1.111 C.VALUE OF INJURIES AND Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury Statistical Value of Life: I Annual Expected I Annual Avoided I Annual Residual I Present Value-of Minor Injuries Serious Injuries Deaths PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: 52O0 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: EM O w3 BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: INNAOM6 Analyst: Goettel &Homer Inc. 1.01,August 4, 1S4 SUMMARY Run Identification: Final Building 271 Mare Island Navy Shipyard |Vallejo, CA Rehab Project Description-Modify existing frames Facility Class: Steel Braced Frame Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $179.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 53,720 Total Building Replacement Value $9,615,880 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50%10 Total Contents Value $25,517,000 Cost of Providing Services per day $9,967 Continuity Premium $60,000 Value of lost services per day $59,967 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs ($ sq. ft month): $4.00 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $485,880 Average Day Occupancy 40 Average Night Occupancy I Soil Type S4 Data used in this analysis that varies by MMII. = _ _ MMI VI VII VIII IX X XI XI PGA (g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function (%) 2 5 10 16 27 39 51 Modified MDF (%) 2 5 10 16 27 39 100 Minor Injury Rate/1oo 9.75OE-02 3.000E-01 1.200E+00 2.280E+00 1.056E2+01 2.362E+01 7.629E+01 Major Injury RatelO000 1.300E-02 4.00E-02 1.600E-01 3.040E-01 1A08E+00 3.136E+00 1.017E+01 Death Rate1; 000 3.250E-03 1.000E-02 4.000E-02 7600E-02 3.520E-01 7.840E-01 2.5435+00 Content MDF(%} 2 5 10 i6 27 39 51 Functional Downtime (days) 2 5 10 16 27 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 10 30 77 186 260 365 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 66 64 49 36 41 30 61 Contents Rehab Effectiveness ( 66 64 49 36 41 30 61 Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 9.750E-03 3.000E-02 1.200E-01 2.280E-01 1.056E+00 2,352E400 7.629E00 Rehab Major Injury Rate/ 1.300E-04 4.0O0E-04 1.600E-03 3.040E-03 1.408E-02 3.136E-02 1.017E-01 Rehab Death Rate/l1000 3.250E-06 1.000E-05 4.000E-05 7.600E-05 3.520E.04 7.840E-04 2.543E-03 Annual Number of Earthquakes 1.229E-01 3.558E-02 1.125E-02 2.333E-03 S.876E-04 1.075E-04 2.192E-04 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value. With Value Llfe of Life PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $2,019S535 $2,020,214 , _ LENEFITS MNUS TOTAL COTS_$1,533/655 $1J534, 334 Benefit Cst ratio: 4.16 4.16 Function Structure Seismic Evaluation BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Building 678, Special Weapons Training Facility U.S. Navy, North Island, San Diego, CA This approximately 64,500 square foot building is part of the Special Weapons Training Center at North Island, in San Diego, California. Occupancy during business hours is approximately 130. This 2-story structure, originally constructed in 1958, consists of three structures in an "H" shape. The three parts of the building are separated by 4 1/2 inch expansion joints. The building was constructed of precast concrete tilt-up walls (building type PC1), with steel roof beams and flat slab floors. Diaphragms are cast-in-place concrete; columns are steel, with precast concrete bearing walls on spread footing foundations. The longitudinal and transverse lateral systems are shear walls. Overall, the condition of the building appeared good without signs of extreme weathering, damage, or cracking. The three structures were analyzed separately using the equivalent lateral force procedure (Chapter 4 of ATC-3). The detailed seismic analysis of each structure indicated that the basic shear strength and interconnection of the exterior panels for in-plane loads were adequate. However, the following seismic deficiencies were noted: * The connections of the tilt-up walls to the floor and roof diaphragms at the ground, second, and roof levels were inadequate. The problem occurred at a variety of locations for both in-plane shear loads delivered from the diaphragm and out-of-plane tension loads due to perpendicular forces. * The connections between the precast walls and second floor diaphragms were inadequate to resist the out-of-plane bending due to diaphragm deflections. . The interior masonry walls were not anchored to the floor or structure above and therefore subject to sliding. Additionally, the bending strength in the walls was insufficient for perpendicular loads if the bases and tops were anchored. San Diego, CA 7-36 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Seismic The proposed rehabilitation scheme consists of strengthened Rehabilitation foundations and wall ties anchored at the floor and roof while interior partitions would be strengthened and braced, with additional shear walls. The anticipated structural cost in 1981 was about $2.6 million. The objective of the rehabilitation is damage control. Because the tilt-up concrete panels have sufficient vertical and lateral load strength, it appeared that the best way to correct the connection deficiency was to add new connections. The walls should be reconnected to the roof diaphragm with through-bolts welded to flat plates which are connected to the metal decking. At the ground level, continuous 6x6 angles should be bolted to the tilt- up panels and the continuous foundations. To correct the diaphragm inadequacies and limit the overall diaphragm deflection, additional interior shear walls should be installed, two walls in the east and west units, and an additional wall at the approximate center of the building in the center unit. Building Mean The mean damage functions for Building 678, before and after Damage rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions were Functions estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines, in conjunction with engineering analysis performed by Degenkolb Structural Engineers. The existing building was characterized as "standard" which means a building with typical seismic performance for this building type. For the rehabilitated building, a building- specific estimate of the mean damage function was made, based on available engineering information. BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 MMI' VI VI VIII IX X Xl XII Original Building 1j 1.4 4.8 10.5 18.6 0.5 46.8 64.5 Rehabilitated shear wall .4 1.0 2.4 5.3 9.6 15.2 23.4 Building scheme _ San Diego, CA 7-37 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Benefit-Cost The structure is located on unknown soil type. For the purposes of Results benefit-cost analysis, the soil was assumed to be S2. The Benefit-Cost ratio for this project is 0.18 with and without the value of life. This low ratio arises, despite the high seismicity of this location, for two main reasons. First, the mean damage function for the existing building shows only moderate seismic vulnerability, especially at low-to-moderate MMIs. Second, the cost of the rehabilitation is very high (approximately 60% of the building replacement value). San Diego, CA 7-38 Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seism7no Project Description: I IM A. ECONOMIC PARAMEI Discount Rate: t Planning Period: Present Value Coefficient: B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: I I I I Present Value at Building Damages Contents Damages Relocation Expenses Rental Income Losses Value of Lost Services Total Damages and Losses PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: -I $3,796,000 I TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: ($3,126,010 BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: Statistical Value of Life: I Annual Expected I Annual Avoided I Annual Residual I Present Value of I Minor Injuries Serious Injuries Deaths PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: E i 0 E $74,961 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: ($30. 048 BENEFIT COST RAT10 WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 1.0,August 4, 1994 SUMMARY Run Identification Final Building 678 US Navy San Diego, CA Rehab Project Description: Shear wall retrofit Facility Class: Precast Concrete Tilt-up w/ Flexible Diaphragm Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $100.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 64,500 Total Building Replacement Value $6,450,000 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% Total Contents Value $1,612,500 Cost of Providing Services per day $12,579 Continuity Premium $25,000 Value of lost services per day $37,579 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs ($ sq. ft. month): $2.00 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $3,796,000 Average Day Occupancy 130 Average Night Occupancy Soil Type S3 Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: MMI VI VII VIII IX X XII Xl PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function (%) 1 5 11 19 30 47 64 Modified MDF (%) 1 5 11 19 30 47 100 Minor Injury Rate/1000 3.OOOE-02 3.000E01 1.380E+00 2.820E+00 1.380E+01 4.543E+01 1.766E+02 Major Injury Rate/1000 4.000E-03 4.000E-02 1.840E-01 3.760E-01 1.840E+00 6.057E+00 2.354E+01 Death Ratel1000 1.OOOE-03 1.OOOE-02 4.60E-02 9.400E-02 4.600E-01 1.514E+00 5.886E+00 Content MDF (%) 1 5 11 19 30 47 64 Functional Downtime (days) 1 5 11 19 30 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 0 34 99 190 324 365 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 72 79 77 72 68 68 77 Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 72 79 77 72 68 68 77 Rehab Minor Injury Ratel1000 3.OOOE-03 3.000E-02 1.380E-01 2.820E-01 1.380E+00 4.543E+00 1.766E+01 Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 4.OOOE-05 4.OOOE-04 1.840E-03 3.760E-03 1.840E-02 6.067E-02 2.354E-01 Rehab Death Rate/1000 1.000E-06 1.000E-05 4.600E-05 9.400E-05 4.600E-04 1.514E-03 5.886E-03 Annual Number of Earthquakes 9.453E-02 3.039E-02 1.039E-02 2.600E-03 6.490E-04 2.346E-04 5.319E-04 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value of Life With Value of Life PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $669,990 $674,961 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: _ ($3,126,010) ($3,121,039) Benefit cost ratio : 0.18 0.18 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Building 8, U.S. Coast Guard Support Station, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA Function This 196,000 square foot building is used primarily as storage/warehouse space, but also provides detention facilities, medical/dental offices, the CGES retail exchange, Group Boston and First Coast Guard District armories. On average, 50 persons are employed and/or reside in the building. Structure This building was constructed in approximately 191 0, with 7 stories above grade, 1 story below. The building dimensions are 187'x131, and story height varies from 1 'to 13. Total height is 93'. Diaphragms are cast-in-place concrete. There is a masonry exterior, unreinforced masonry bearing walls and pile foundations. The longitudinal and transverse lateral systems are shear walls. Seismic This building was considered seismically vulnerable because of Evaluation inadequate wall-diaphragm ties, numerous wall openings, and unbraced parapets. This building is constructed on S3 soil. Seismic The rehabilitation project infilled wall openings, strengthened Rehabilitation diaphragms by tying to walls, installed new roof diaphragms, and braced parapets. Rehabilitation is expected to provide great improvement at the lower magnitude intensities. In 1983, the structural cost of rehabilitation was estimated at $325,000; total renovation costs, including complete interior renovation, were estimated at $2.25 million. For the purposes of benefit-cost analysis, $1.25 million was attributed to seismic work. In addition, relocation costs of $3.5 million brought the total cost to approximately $4.8 million. US Coast Guard Support Station, MA 7-41 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS Building Mean The mean damage functions for Building 8, before and after Damage rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions were Functions estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "standard" which means a building with typical seismic performance for this building type. For the rehabilitated building, the building was characterized as "special", which means a building specifically designed to resist seismic forces. BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII Original 2.7 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 89.4 Building With 1.8 2.7 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 Rehabilitation Benefit-Cost The Benefit-Cost ratios for this project are 0.57 without and with the Results value of life. The number of avoided casualties is so small that it does not significantly affect the Benefit-Cost results. Given the moderate seismicity of this location, it is somewhat surprising that the Benefit-Cost ratio is as high as 0.57. The reasons for this include the vulnerability of the existing building, and the fact that the rehabilitation project is moderate in cost (33% of the building replacement value). US Coast Guard Support Station, MA 7-42 Facility Class: Uniform Masonry Wall Project Description: ECONOMIC PARAMETERS: Discount Rate: 1 percent planning Period, present Value Coefficient: years B.SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: I Present Value of I building Damages contents Damages relocation Expenses rental Income Losses value of Lost Services total Damages and Losses present VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $ TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED [NJURIES &DEATHS: BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: of Avoiding a Serious Injury: statistical Value of Life: Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of Number Number Number Damages Avoided Minor Injuries 3erious Injuries Deaths Total Value $285294 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: $ TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE VALUEOF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: ($03488 BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 7 Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August4, 1994 SUMMARY Run Identification: Final Building 8 US Coast Guard 1Boston, MA Rehab Project Description: infill openings, tie diaphragms to walls, brace parapets, new roof diaphragm Facility Class: Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Data used for this analysis: Building Replacement Value per square foot $75.00 Total Floor Area (square feet): 196,000 Total Building Replacement Value $14,700,000 Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% Total Contents Value $10,407,600 Cost of Providing Services per day $7,888 Continuity Premium $0 Value of lost services per day $7,888 Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 Total Relocation Costs ($/sq. ft. month): $2.00 Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $4,778,000 Average Day Occupancy 200 Average Night Occupancy 10 Soil Type S3 Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 Mean Damage Function (%)9 23 40 65 77 89 100 Modified MDF (%) 9 23 40 100 100 100 100 Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E+00 6.240E+00 2.460E+01 1.843E+02 2.769E+02 3.450E+02 4.000E+02 Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-01 8.320E-01 3.280E+00 2.457E+01 3.691E+01 2.020E+02 4.OOOE+02 Death Rate/1000 3.400E-02 2.080E-01 8.200E-01 6.143E+00 9.229E+00 9.550E+01 2.OOOE+02 Content MDF %) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 Functional Downtime (days) 9 23 30 30 30 30 30 Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 131 266 365 365 365 365 Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 60 43 60 35 23 11 Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 100 60 43 60 35 23 11 Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E-01 6.240E-01 2.460E+00 1.843E+01 2.769E+01 3.450E+01 4.000E+01 Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-03 8.320E-03 3.280E-02 2.4S7E-01 3.691E-01 2.020E+00 4.000E+00 Rehab Death Rate/1000 3.400E-05 2.080E-04 8.200E-04 6.143E-03 9.229E-03 9.550E-02 2.000E-01 Annual Number of Earthquakes 5.315E-02 1.125E-02 2.495E-03 4.000E-04 7.180E-05 2.148E-05 3.313E-05 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With Value of Life of Life PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $2,714,880 $2,743,174 TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($2,063,120) ($2,034,826) Benefit cost ratio : 0.57 0. 57