This article presents results from a case study seismic assessment of an existing hotel structure located in Quito, Ecuador, using a practice-oriented story-loss-based assessment methodology. The building, constructed in the late 1950s and considered a city landmark, has undergone several renovations and repairs but has yet to be seismically retrofitted. A detailed building survey was conducted, and extensive data on structural layout, dynamic characteristics, and the damageable inventory was developed with the aid of Building Information Modeling. The building numerical models were compared against available ambient noise vibration measurements, and using the collected survey data, fragility and vulnerability functions were derived from non-linear dynamic analyses. The results showed that the building has a notable expected annual loss, primarily due to repair costs associated with nonstructural elements and contributions from potential collapse. Overall, the results provide a benchmark example for conducting seismic loss assessment of non-code-compliant and other vulnerable structures in Ecuador and the South American context in general.
ACI Committee 318 (2019) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318–19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). American Concrete Institute.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/SEI 7-16 (2017) Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: ASCE.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/SEI 41-17 (2017) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Reston, VA: ASCE.
BakerJW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE137(3): 322–331.
6.
BakerJW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra31(1): 579–599.
7.
BeauvalCMarinièreJYepesHAudinLNocquetJ-MAlvaradoABaizeSAguilarJSingauchoJ-CJomardH (2018) A new seismic hazard model for Ecuador. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 1443–1464.
8.
CalabreseAAlmeidaJPPinhoR (2010) Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering14(suppl. 1): 38–68.
9.
CardoneDPerroneG (2015) Developing fragility curves and loss functions for masonry infill walls. Earthquakes and Structures9(1): 257–279. DOI:10.12989/eas.2015.9.1.000
10.
ChavezCWBinderB (1996) A hospital as victim and responder: The Sepulveda VA Medical Center and the Northridge earthquake. Journal of Emergency Medicine14(4): 445–454.
11.
CruzCMirandaE (2021) Damping ratios of the first mode for the seismic analysis of buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE147(1): 04020300.
12.
DávalosHMirandaE (2019) Evaluation of the scaling factor bias influence on the probability of collapse using Sa(T1) as the intensity measure. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 679–702.
13.
EadsLMirandaELignosDG (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44(12): 2057–2073.
14.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58 (2018) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA.
15.
JalayerF (2003) Direct Probabilistic Seismic Analysis: Implementing Non-Linear Dynamic Assessments. Stanford, CA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
16.
Kijewski-CorreaTPirniaJD (2007) Dynamic behavior of tall buildings under wind: Insights from full-scale monitoring. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings16(4): 471–486.
17.
KohrangiMKothaSRBazzurroP (2018) Ground-motion models for average spectral acceleration in a period range: Direct and indirect methods. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16(1): 45–65.
18.
McCormickJAburanoHIkenagaMNakashimaM (2008) Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October.
19.
ManderJBPriestleyMJNParkR (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE114(8): 1804–1826.
20.
MartinsLSilvaV (2021) Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk analyses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering19(15): 6719–6745.
21.
MirandaEMosquedaGRetamalesRPekcanG (2012) Performance of nonstructural components during the 27 February 2010 Chile Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra28(suppl. 1): S453–S471.
22.
NafehAMBO’ReillyGJ (2023) Simplified pushover-based seismic loss assessment for existing infilled frame structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering22: 951–995.
23.
NEC-15 (2014) Norma Ecuatoriana de la Construcción—NEC: NEC—E—S—Peligro Sísmico/Diseño Sismo Resistente. Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda.
24.
O’ReillyGJSullivanTJ (2018) Probabilistic seismic assessment and retrofit considerations for Italian RC frame buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16(3): 1447–1485.
25.
O’ReillyGJHasegawaKShahnazaryanDPovedaJFukutomiYKusakaANakashimaM (2023) On the fragility of non-structural elements in loss and recovery: Field observations from Japan. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics53: 1125–1144.
26.
PaganiMMonelliDWeatherillGDanciuLCrowleyHSilvaVHenshawPButlerLNastasiMPanzeriLSimionatoMViganoD (2014) OpenQuake engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismological Research Letters85(3): 692–702.
27.
PapadopoulosANVamvatsikosDKazantziAK (2019) Development and application of FEMA P-58 compatible story loss functions. Earthquake Spectra55(1): 95–112.
28.
RamirezCMMirandaE (2009) Building-Specific Loss Estimation Methods & Tools for Simplified Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering.
29.
RamirezCMMirandaE (2012) Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(11): 1477–1493.
30.
RamirezCMLielABMitrani-ReiserJHaseltonCBSpearADSteinerJDeierleinGGMirandaE (2012) Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(11): 1455–1475.
31.
ScottMHFenvesGL (2006) Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam–Column elements. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE132(2): 244–252.
32.
ShahnazaryanDO’ReillyGJ (2021) Integrating expected loss and collapse risk in performance-based seismic design of structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering19(2): 987–1025.
33.
ShahnazaryanDO’ReillyGJMonteiroR (2021) Story loss functions for seismic design and assessment: Development of tools and application. Earthquake Spectra37(4): 2813–2839.
34.
TaghaviSMirandaE (2003) Response assessment of nonstructural building elements. PEER report 2003-05, 5 January. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley.
35.
TamuraYYoshidaAZhangL (2004) Evaluation Techniques of Damping in Buildings. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, pp. 158–165.
