Advanced performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE), as documented by FEMA P-58 provisions, can well serve as the bedrock for a building-specific risk assessment framework. The methodology embraces three main sequential steps: collapse assessment, irreparability assessment, and component-wise loss estimation. The consequence of collapse or irreparability is typically assumed to be the total replacement value of the building. The irreparability model adopted by FEMA P-58 uses the residual drift of the building as the sole predictor. This article proposes a new irreparability prediction model tailored for the PBEE that is distinct because of two main features: (1) the monetary loss as a performance metric is chosen to inform the irreparability, enabling incorporation with the influence of different contributing factors, and (2) irreparability assessment is decoupled from the main body of the loss assessment and included as the post-loss analysis decision-making. Eventually, the proposed irreparability model called “post-loss analysis irreparability model (PLAIM)” is demonstrated through an illustrative example of a four-story wood light-frame building.
ASCE (2019) Resilience-Based Performance: Next Generation Guidelines for Buildings and Lifeline Standards. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
3.
ASCE/SEI 7 (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
4.
ATC-13 (1985) Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
5.
BlackGDavidsonRAPeiSvan de LindtJ (2010) Empirical loss analysis to support definition of seismic performance objectives for woodframe buildings. Structural Safety32(3): 209–219.
6.
BradleyBADhakalRPCubrinovskiMManderJBMacRaeGA (2007) Improved seismic hazard model with application to probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36(June): 2211–2225.
7.
BurtonHRezaeiAZhengxiangRDamianY (2019) Seismic collapse performance of Los Angeles soft, weak, and open-front wall line woodframe structures retrofitted using different procedures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17(4): 2059–2091.
8.
California Earthquake Authority (2019) California Earthquake Authority. California Residential Earthquake Insurance Policies—Homeowners, Renters, Mobile Homes, Condo. Available at: https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/ (accessed 16 August 2019).
9.
ChaseRELielABLucoNBairdBW (2019) Seismic loss and damage in light-frame wood buildings from sequences of induced earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics48(12): 1365–1383.
10.
FattahiFGholizadehS (2019) Seismic fragility assessment of optimally designed steel moment frames. Engineering Structures179(January): 37–51.
11.
FEMA (2003) HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences and Federal Emergency Management Agency (NIBS and FEMA).
12.
FEMA 308 (1998) Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA P-695 (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, DC: FEMA.
15.
FooteMHillierJMitchell-WallaceKJonesM (2017) Natural Catastrophe Risk Management and Modelling: A Practitioner’s Guide. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
GhoshSDattaDKatakdhondAA (2011) Estimation of the Park-Ang damage index for planar multi-storey frames using equivalent single-degree systems. Engineering Structures33(9): 2509–2524.
17.
GodaKTesfamariamS (2015) Multi-variate seismic demand modelling using copulas: Application to non-ductile reinforced concrete frame in Victoria, Canada. Structural Safety56: 39–51.
18.
HuttCMRossettoTDeierleinGG (2019) Comparative risk-based seismic assessment of 1970s vs modern tall steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research159: 598–610.
19.
JampoleEDeierleinGMirandaEFellBSwensenSAcevedoC (2016) Full-scale dynamic testing of a sliding seismically isolated unibody house. Earthquake Spectra32(4): 2245–2270.
20.
JayaramNShomeNRahnamaM (2012) Development of earthquake vulnerability functions for tall buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41: 1495–1514.
21.
KimJH (2015) Quantitive Analysis of Factors Influencing Post-Earthquake Decisions on Concrete Buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand (UBC). Vancouver, BC, Canada: University of British Columbia.
22.
KimJJElwoodKJMarquisFChangSE (2017) Factors influencing post-earthquake decisions on buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand. Earthquake Spectra33(2): 623–640.
23.
KircherCPangWZiaeiEFiliatraultAHeintzJ (2018) Solutions to the short-period building performance paradox. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June, pp. 5212–5222. Los Angeles, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
24.
KoliouMvan de LindtJWFiliatraultA (2016) Evaluation of an alternative seismic design approach for rigid wall flexible wood roof diaphragm buildings through probabilistic loss estimation and disaggregation. Engineering Structures127: 31–39.
25.
MathWorks (2017) MATLAB. MA: Math Works. Available at: www.mathworks.com (accessed 10 March 2019).
26.
MeyerDHessMLoEWittichCEHutchinsonTCKuesterF (2015) UAV-based post disaster assessment of cultural heritage sites following the 2014 South Napa Earthquake. Digital Heritage2015: 421–424.
27.
MirandaE (2010) Enhanced building-specific seismic performance assessment. In: FardisMN (ed.) Advances in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 13. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 183–191.
NDS (2012) National Design Specification for Wood Construction (ASD/LRFD). Leesburg, VA: American Wood Council.
30.
NEHRP FEMA P-1050 (2015) Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. Vol. II. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council.
31.
NIST (2017) Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural Analysis and Design of Buildings. Part I—General. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
32.
Pakdel-LahijiNHochrainer-StiglerSGhafory-AshtianyMSadeghiM (2015) Consequences of financial vulnerability and insurance loading for the affordability of earthquake insurance systems: Evidence from Iran. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance40(2): 295–315.
33.
PanYVenturaCELiam FinnWD (2018) Effects of ground motion duration on the seismic performance and collapse rate of light-frame wood houses. Journal of Structural Engineering144(8): 04018112.
34.
PangWHassanzadeh ShiraziSM (2013) Corotational model for cyclic analysis of light-frame wood shear walls and diaphragms. Journal of Structural Engineering 139(August): 1303–1317.
35.
ParkYAngAH-S (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering111(4): 722–739.
36.
PoleseMDi LudovicoMMarcoliniMProtaAManfrediG (2015) Assessing reparability: Simple tools for estimation of costs and performance loss of earthquake damaged reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44: 1539–1557.
37.
PorterKAFarokhniaKVamvatsikosDChoI (2014) Guidelines for Component-Based Analytical Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings and Nonstructural Elements. Pavia: GEM Foundation.
38.
PorterKAScawthornCRBeckJL (2006) Cost-effectiveness of stronger woodframe buildings. Earthquake Spectra22(1): 239–266.
39.
RamirezCMLielABMitrani-ReiserJHaseltonCBSpearADSteinerJDeierleinGGMirandaE (2012) Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(July): 1455–1475.
SafieyAPangWJavanbargMRokneddinKZiaeiE (2017) Development of earthquake vulnerability functions and risk curves for low and mid-rise hotel buildings using a performance-based loss estimation framework. In:16th world conference on earthquake—WCEE. Santiago, 9–13 January.
42.
SafieyAPangWZiaeiEMajdalaweyhSRokneddinKJavanbargM (2019) Rethinking treatment of irreparability in the context of performance-based earthquake engineering. In: SoulesJG (ed.) Structures Congress 2019: Buildings and Natural Disasters. Orlando, FL: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 230–236.
43.
SafieyAZiaeiEGuMPangWRokneddinKJavanbargM (2018) Influence of irreparability fragility on seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference on earthquake engineering, 25–29 June. Los Angeles, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
44.
StavridisAKoutromanosIShingPB (2012) Shake-table tests of a three-story reinforced concrete frame with masonry infill walls. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(6): 1089–1108.
45.
SutleyEJvan de LindtJW (2016) Evolution of predicted seismic performance for wood-frame buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering22(3): B4016004.
VranesKPielkeR (2009) Normalized earthquake damage and fatalities in the United States: 1900–2005. Natural Hazards Review10(3): 84–101.
48.
WilsonMZuccoKShieldsB (2018) The historic Trefethen Winery: Repair and retrofit in the aftermath of the Napa Earthquake. Structure Magazine (March): 26–28.
49.
WittichCEHutchinsonTCLoEMeyerDKuesterF (2014) The South Napa Earthquake of August 24, 2014: Drone-Based Aerial and Ground-Based Lidar Imaging Survey. Vol. SSRP14/09. Report No. SSRP-2014/09. San Diego, CA: Department of Structural Engineering University of California.
50.
ZiaeiE (2017) Seismic Analysis of Light-Frame Wood Building with a Soft-Story Deficiency. Clemson, SC: Clemson University.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
