1404_UBC Seismic Risk Assessment_Building Report_June 18-2012

GLOTMAN SIMPSON JM ENGINEERING Consulting Engineers Consulting Structural Engineer

Suite 608 318 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC 604-683-0595

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

(SUMMARY OF HIGH & VERY-HIGH

SEISMIC RISK BUILDINGS)

Project No. 1404 June 14, 2012



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Executive Summary. 1

1. Introduction. 5 2. Existing Delcan Documentation And Evaluation Criteria. 5 3. UBC Report Expectations. 6 4. Seismic Assessment Evaluation Methodology For This Report. 6 5. Ranking Criteria For Medium, High & Very High Seismic Risk Buildings. 8

6. Reduced Ranking of Seven Buildings From High/Very High To Medium. 9 7. Possible Re-Ranking Of Buildings Based On Full Seismic Analysis. 10 8. Possible Re-Ranking Of Building Based On Full Seismic Analysis and Fixing The Failure Mechanism. 10 9. Possible Re-Ranking Of Buildings Based On Fixing The Failure Mechanism Only (Quick Fix).... 10

10. Comments On Costing Of Seismic Upgrades 11

11. Special Condition Building 724 Powerhouse...... 11 12. Performance Based Seismic Design Benefits For UBC... 12 Appendix Individual Building Data Sheets



Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JM Engineering (partnered with Glotman-Simpson Consulting Engineers) was retained by The University of British Columbia to conduct a seismic review of 49 buildings previously ranked high and very high in the Delcan Report dated Dec 1994 titled Screening Study With Respect To Behaviour Under seismic Loading of University Controlled Campus Buildings. Our review was based entirely on structural related issues unlike the Delcan study which also included non-structural issues such as building importance, building size, building area, use, occupancy density, and duration of use. The ranking criteria of very high, high, and medium risk are outlined in section 5 of the report. We generally followed the 1992 NRC Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings however we focused on the structural elements only. Our review was conducted using the 2006 BC Building Code seismic design criteria and seismic design philosophy. The 1992 NRC guideline document is still currently in use as a method of ranking buildings. It was agreed with UBC that buildings designed after 1994 need not be reviewed. It is our opinion that these buildings should have been designed with a competent lateral resisting system in place with sufficient ductility and capacity to warrant a ranking of low or medium risk. In this report, a total of 49 buildings from the original list supplied by UBC were reviewed which included 13 very high risk and 36 high risk buildings as previously ranked in the Delcan report. After completion of our seismic review, we determined there were 28 very high risk, 12 high risk and 7 buildings that were downgraded to medium risk. Note Buildings 308 & 308-1 (Leonard Klink Building), and 344 & 344-1 (University Center) have been combined into 308 and 344 since the additions to these main buildings created essentially one building from a structural point of view. The seven buildings downgraded to medium from high or very high risk in Delcans report was a result of conducting a more thorough investigation of the structural framing systems and conducting site visits to each building. In all cases we found that these buildings exhibited sufficient lateral framing and ductility to warrant a reduction in risk ranking. From the list of buildings we reviewed, we recommend that a full seismic analysis be conducted on 4 buildings (449 Food, Nutrition and Health, 467 Health Sciences Parkade, 624 George Cunningham Addition, 864 Wesbrook Building) to possibly down grade the risk level to medium. There are another 4 buildings (017 Old Administration Building, 023 Henry Angus Tower, 052 Fraser River Parkade, 536 Woodward Library) where we recommend conducting a full seismic analysis coupled with fixing of the failure mechanism(s) to enable a down grade in the ranking to medium.



Page 2

In addition, we are of the opinion 3 buildings (091 Botanical Garden Garden Pavilion, 148 Chemistry B Block South Wing, 312 MacLeod Building) could be downgraded to medium if the seismic mechanism is corrected. One building of importance, building 724 the Power House, requires a full seismic analysis and detailed site investigation to verify its ranking. With a post disaster importance, the seismic demand on this structure is significant and the various phases (1924, 1946, 1961, 1969) included many non-ductile detailing, brittle materials (block and tile) and unknown diaphragm connections. The ability to accurately rank this building is beyond the scope of this review, but we are of the opinion the very high ranking is justified at this time. It is worth noting that a random review of 8 geotechnical reports was conducted to determine if soil conditions may affect the building seismic risk ranking. We found that all 8 reports (randomly spread over the campus) exhibited consistent and competent soil capacity. In our opinion, soil conditions will not be a factor in the different risk ranking between buildings. The final building inventory, new risk rating, and priority ranking are as follows:



Page 3

BUILDING NAME & NUMBER

NEW RISK RATING

& PRIORITY

RANKING

1994

DELCAN REPORT

RISK RANKING

VERY HIGH SEISMIC RISK BUILDINGS

Brittle Glazing Failure

071-1 Botany Greenhouse 1 Very High 1 High 071-2 Botany Greenhouse 2 Very High - 2 High

387 Forest Sciences Greenhouse Very High 3 High

Buildings With Seismic Mechanism And Building Collapse Highly Likely With No Lateral

System In One Or Both Directions

002-43 Acadia Park Pre-School Very High 4 High 091 Botanical Garden - Garden Pavilion Very High 5 Very High 523-1 D.H. Copp Building Very High 6 High 523-3 Medical Sciences Block C Very High 7 High 525-3 Medical Sciences Block C Addition Very High 8 High 472 International House Very High 9 High 575 Music Building Very High 10 Very High 625 George Cunningham Building Very High 11 Very High 344 & 344-1 University Center & Addition Very High 12 High 386 MacMillan Building Very High 13 High 148 Chemistry B Block South Wing Very High 14 High 570 Museum Of Anthropology Display Area Very High 15 Very High 430 Osborne Center Unit 1 Very High 16 Very High 052 Fraser River Parkade Very High 17 Very High 785 Thunderbird Stadium Very High 18 High

Buildings With Seismic Mechanism And Partial Collapse Most Likely But Still Exhibiting

Some Degree Of Capacity

144 Chemistry C Block East Wing Very High 19 High 562 Frank Forward Building Very High 20 High 732 Douglas Kenny Building Very High 21 High 023 Henry Angus Office Tower Very High 22 Very High 028 Fred Lasserre Building Very High 23 High 018 General Services Administration Building Very High 24 High 308 & 308-1 Leonard Klinck & Addition Very High 25 High 064 Biological Sciences Building (Center Blk) Very High 26 High 656 Hebb Building Very High 27 Very High 724 Power House Very High 28 Very High



Page 4

HIGH SEISMIC RISK BUILDINGS

Buildings With Seismic Mechanism Likely Resulting In Localized Collapse Only But

Having A Defined Lateral System With Low Capacity

540-1 Totem Park Residences Common Blk High 1 High 467 Health Sciences Parkade High 2 High 021 Landscape Architecture Annex High 3 High 431 Osborne Centre Unit 2 High 4 Very High 536 Woodward Library High 5 High 312 MacLeod Building High 6 High 017 Old Administration Building High 7 High

Buildings With No Mechanism But Having A Defined Lateral System With Low Capacity

066 Biological Sciences North Wing High 8 High 447 Chemistry A Block Chem-Phys Building High 9 High 449 Food Nutrition & Health High 10 Very High 624 George Cunningham Building Addition High 11 High 864 Wesbrook Building High 12 High

MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK BUILDINGS

002-1 Acadia Park Highrise Medium High

029 Campus & Community Planning 2 Medium High

081 Bookstore / NEC / Michael Smith Labs Medium High

515 Sedgewick Library Medium Very High

869-2 Walter Gage Residence South Tower Medium High 869-3 Walter Gage Residence North Tower Medium High 872-1 Walter Gage Residence East Tower Medium High



Page 5

1. INTRODUCTION JM Engineering (partnered with Glotman-Simpson Engineers) was retained by The University of British Columbia to conduct a seismic review of 49 buildings previously ranked high and very high in the Delcan Report dated Dec 1994 titled Screening Study With Respect To Behaviour Under seismic Loading of University Controlled Campus Buildings. Our mandate was to conduct a more detailed seismic review of the buildings with the goal of updating the buildings ranking solely based on structural related issues as prescribed in the current 2006 BC Building Code using the current code seismic design philosophy. We understand that one of the goals of the report was to prioritize the buildings in each category to provide UBC with updated seismic risk information to aid in future planning decisions.

2. EXISTING DELCAN DOCUMENTATION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA We were in possession of the following Delcan reports which form the basis of the current ranking of the high and very high seismic risk buildings: Delcan Report dated December 1994 titled Screening Study With Respect To Behaviour Under Seismic Loading of University Controlled Campus Buildings o Part 1 Structural Review o Appendix 1.1 Inspection Form Data Sheets (Seismic Vulnerability: Very High Priority) o Appendix 1.2 Inspection Form Data Sheets (Seismic Vulnerability: High Priority) The Delcan reports are based on following the seismic screening survey approach outlined in the 1992 NRC Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings. Their inspection forms are a modified version of the NRC Seismic Screening Inventory Form. In summary, the NRC screening approach is best suited for providing a quick seismic risk assessment of a large inventory of buildings; ideally suited for UBC. The NRC 1992 Guidelines are still currently used to screen and rank buildings. This screening involves a quick review of the building drawings, a site visit to each building, followed by completion of a screening form appended to the NRC document. The screening does not allow nor is it intended that a comprehensive seismic analysis be conducted. The NRC screening is a very quick review that provides a ranking based on structural and building related information. It is intended to generate a general grouped ranking of buildings to provide an overview of the condition of the building inventory.



Page 6

3. UBC REPORT EXPECTATIONS

UBCs primary objective was to receive an updated seismic risk assessment list of high and very high buildings. This list was to be based on structural related issues unlike the Delcan study which was based on the NRC screening guidelines which included non-structural issues such as building importance, building size, building area, use, occupancy density, and duration of use. In addition, UBC requested we rank each building within the very high risk and the high risk group from highest risk to lowest risk.

UBC was also interested in understanding whether the seismic performance of the building and its corresponding ranking was a result of an overall building structural deficiency (such as lack of ductility or lack of capacity) or an isolated deficiency (such as a soft storey or short column). This information could be beneficial in providing a more economical repair which might drastically improve the buildings safety (thereby reducing the risk) by fixing a serious structural failure mechanism without having to seismically upgrade the entire building. Approximate seismic upgrading costs were also to be estimated for each building.

4. SEISMIC ASSESSMENT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR THIS REPORT To achieve the goals outlined by UBC noted above, we generally followed the screening procedures outlined in the 1992 NRC Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings. However, we deviated from the NRC guidelines in that we did not include any building information details that might affect the structural ranking of the buildings. In addition, our review differed from the NRC guidelines when it came to reviewing the structural aspects of the building. We conducted a more thorough review of the buildings structural framing with the goal of determining the seismic deficiencies as well as the seismic failure mechanism (if applicable). The seismic design criteria outlined in the 2006 BC Building Code formed the basis of our structural review. It should be noted that the 1992 NRC Guidelines are still currently used to rank buildings however we felt it necessary to exceed the level of structural review to achieve the goals outlined by UBC for this report. In order to identify the seismic performance mechanism, we conducted the following seismic assessment review procedure for this report:

Obtain all available structural drawings for each building from Records

Review Delcans report for each building on the high and very high list Conduct a detailed structural review of each buildings structural drawings identifying

the gravity framing and the lateral resisting system. For a relatively small number of buildings where drawings were insufficient or site visits were necessary to confirm framing conditions, field reviews were conducted. Field reviews were conducted for the following buildings:



Page 7

002-1 Acadia Towers 022-43 Acadia Pre School 017 Old Administration Building 021 Landscape Architecture Annex 029 Campus & Community Planning 2 052 Fraser Parkade 091 Botanical Garden Garden Pavilion 430 Osborne Unit 1 431 Osborne Unit 2 467 Health Sciences Parkade 515 Sedgewick Library 869-2 Walter Gage South Tower 869-3 Walter Gage North Tower 872-1 Walter Gage East Tower

The lateral resisting system was reviewed in detail to determine how the building might be expected to perform during a low, medium, and high seismic event.

In particular we concentrated on identifying the type of deficiencies that were inherent within each individual buildings lateral resisting system. This allowed us to categorize each building into medium, high or very high risk ranking.

In some cases, we were able to reduce the current Delcan ranking to medium risk based on the ranking criteria outlined below in section 5..

In particular, we looked for the following items when conducting the detailed drawing review:

Did the building exhibit a defined lateral load resisting system (LLRS) in one or both directions. An LLRS is any structural framed element designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions outlined in the current building code to safely resist the shear and overturning moments (forces) generated from a seismic event. Typical systems include reinforced concrete shear walls, moment frames consisting of specially reinforced concrete or steel columns and beams, x-bracing steel frames, reinforced concrete block walls, plywood sheathed timber shear walls.

Was the LLRS adequate for current code design values or to what level of compliance might the LLRS be capable of resisting

Was the LLRS continuous to foundations

Ductility of the LLRS and critical elements which experience significant deflections

Was the diaphragm adequate for the spans

Was the diaphragm well tied to the LLRS

Could all the walls be properly engaged by the diaphragm

Placement of the LLRS on plan and resulting torsion

Short column affect short columns are where a column element is made significantly stiffer attracting more seismic load due to partial height block wall or clay tile infill, or deep spandrel beams

Soft storeys at discontinuous walls soft storeys are where concrete walls are supported on column elements which are susceptible to collapse if they are inadequately sized or reinforced

Type and amount of reinforcement and embedment

Types and sizes of footings



Page 8

Our structural review did not include the following:

We did not conduct any destructive demolition to determine structural framing

No detailed seismic analysis was carried out

We did not confirm on site whether each and every buildings LLRS was still 100% intact as per the original structural drawings renovations may have occurred over time which may have reduced capacity

5. RANKING CRITERIA FOR MEDIUM, HIGH, AND VERY HIGH SEISMIC RISK

BUILDINGS The following criteria were used to determine the ranking of the buildings: Very High Risk Buildings: The basic characteristic of very high risk ranked buildings is that, in our opinion , they exhibit some combination or all of the following deficiencies: o Building is likely to have full or partial collapse during a moderate seismic event or

higher loss of life probable o Lateral load resisting system is non-existent or very low capacity (less than

approximately 10% capacity) in one or two directions o Building components such as reinforced concrete walls and moment frames have no

ductility leading to brittle failures o Failure mechanisms have been identified resulting in significant probability of

building partial or full collapse if the mechanism was triggered. These include such items as soft storeys, no ductility and short columns

o The building exhibits no redundancy in the lateral load resisting system High Risk Buildings: High risk buildings are ranked if, in our opinion, they exhibit some combination or all of the following deficiencies: o Building may experience partial localized collapse during a moderate seismic event

or higher with loss of life probable. Damage to the building is likely localized o Lateral resisting system is defined but is typically insufficient and only exhibits low

capacity (less than approximately 30% capacity) in both directions o Building components such as reinforced concrete walls and moment frames have

limited ductility but are capable of supporting low level seismic events o There are no apparent catastrophic failure mechanisms that can lead to a pre-

mature brittle or catastrophic collapse of the entire building o The building exhibits some redundancy in the lateral load resisting system such that

load sharing is possible if lateral resisting load elements became damaged.



Page 9

Medium Risk Buildings: Buildings were ranked medium risk if the following was found in a building: o The buildings have a well defined lateral load resisting system in place in both

directions. o The lateral load resisting system is capable of resisting at least approximately 30%

of current code capacity in both directions. o The buildings lateral system has redundancy. o There are no apparent failure mechanisms. o The building is expected to survive a large seismic event with no anticipated loss of

life but extensive damage is expected in the structural framing system.

6. REDUCED RANKING OF SEVEN BUILDINGS FROM HIGH/VERY HIGH TO MEDIUM During our review we found that seven of the 49 buildings previously ranked high or very high risk were able to be re-ranked as medium risk. These buildings and a brief explanation are outlined below: 002-1 Acadia Park Highrise: Delcans report categorically ranked all highrise structures

as high risk. Our reviewed showed a well developed lateral load resisting system in place. Based on the framing, we are of the opinion this building is a medium risk.

029 Campus & Comm Planning These two buildings have sufficient framing in place and

the seismic demand on the lateral system would be, in our opinion, sufficiently low to reduce the risk to medium.

081 Bookstore The bookstore, NEC, and Micheal Smith Labs complex are

structurally one building. The bookstore was seismically upgraded when the Micheal Smith Lab bldg was built.

515 Sedgewick Library The building is essentially located underground. This pre-

cast building was thought to be high risk due to the lack of connection between pre-cast elements. The bearing of the pre-cast slabs is such that, in our opinion, the building would have to undergo such extreme building movements which was not practical.

869-2 Walter Gage South Delcans report categorically ranked all highrise structures


869-3 Walter Gage North Delcans report categorically ranked all highrise structures




Page 10

872-1 Walter Gage East Delcans report categorically ranked all highrise structures


7. POSSIBLE RE-RANKING OF BUILDINGS BASED ON FULL SEISMIC ANALYSIS We found that, in our opinion, a total of four buildings may benefit from conducting a full seismic analysis which includes modeling the building and conducting a non-linear dynamic analysis. These buildings are all currently ranked high. They have a defined lateral resisting system however it is estimated they are capable of only resisting lower level seismic forces. We did not observe any obvious seismic failure mechanism. There is sufficient framing and redundancy in place which, in our opinion, justifies the need for a full seismic analysis. The goal of this analysis would be to reduce the ranking from high to medium. These buildings include: 449 Food Nutrition & Health 467 Health Sciences Parkade 624 George Cunningham Building Addition 864 Wesbrook Building

8. POSSIBLE RE-RANKING OF BUILDINGS BASED ON FULL SEISMIC ANALYSIS

AND FIXING THE FAILURE MECHANISM There were another four buildings with similar potential benefits from conducting a full seismic analysis as outlined in section 7 above, but with a seismic mechanism that must also be fixed. The fix of the seismic mechanism is a localized element which would have limited intrusion in the building and be relatively economical to remediate. The fix would not bring the building into compliance with current seismic design levels, although the fix would be designed to the current code. The goal with the analysis and fix is to be able to downgrade the buildings from high or very high to medium. These buildings include: 017 Old Administration Building 023 Henry Angus Office Tower 052 Fraser River Parkade 536 Woodward Library

9. POSSIBLE RE-RANKING OF BUILDINGS BASED ON FIXING THE FAILURE

MECHANISM ONLY (QUICK FIX) Similar to item 8 above, we identified three buildings where, in our opinion, it would be possible to employ a quick localized fix of the seismic mechanism which would enable the building to be downgraded from high or very high to medium.



Page 11

The fix would not bring the building into compliance with current seismic design levels, although the fix would be designed to the current code. These buildings include: 091 Botanical Garden Garden Pavilion 148 Chemistry B Block South Wing 312 MacLeod Building

10. COMMENTS ON COSTING OF SEISMIC UPGRADES We have provided estimates of the anticipated seismic upgrade costs for each building based on previous experience with seismic upgrades of other buildings. These are our best approximation based on this level of review. A full seismic analysis would enable these costs to be firmed up. The costs should be based on the $/sq ft x the building area noted in our building forms. These may differ from the areas of the buildings UBC have on file. Our area is based on framed area which often differs from the building area. At this time we have allowed an equal per sq ft cost allocated towards architectural, mechanical, and electrical upgrades/repairs. Where the buildings are obviously light on finishes, such as parkades or gymnasia, we have lowered the Arch/Mech/Elec costs. The total cost for the seismic upgrade is the cumulative costs of the structural component and the arch/mech/elec component. The costs are based on a seismic upgrade to 100% of current code design criteria (unless noted specifically as less on the individual building sheet). There is precedent in the City of Vancouver for reducing the level of upgrade to 75% of current code if the costs to upgrade or the difficulty to go to 100% are prohibitive. These costs do not include soft costs.

11. SPECIAL CONDITION BUILDING 724 POWER HOUSE The Power House building would be considered a post disaster building by current codes. This carries a seismic factor of 1.5 over normal buildings. UBC should confirm this building warrants this classification. The building is currently ranked very high in the Delcan report. A review of the drawings and a quick site visit was not adequate to properly assess this building due to the complexity of the framing, the multiple phases that have been built over the years (1924, 1946, 1961, 1969). The building is constructed of concrete, steel, block, and tile. The roof and floor diaphragm connections to the main vertical elements, the brittle nature of the tile and block, the lack of ductility in the walls, and the importance that this building plays in a post disaster role has led us to recommend that a separate full seismic analysis be conducted on this building (which may include some destructive demolition) to properly rank this building. Until that time, we recommend the very high ranking remain.



Page 12

12. PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN BENEFITS FOR UBC There is an opportunity of using Performance Based Design to retrofit the buildings at UBC ranked high and very high risk which may help reduce the seismic upgrade costs from the current conventional seismic design approach used in the 2006 BC Building Code. If UBC Regulatory would accept this approach to seismic upgrade, we estimate that seismic upgrade cost savings might be in the order of approximately 20% for each building. There is precedent for using Performance Based Design in BC. Currently the Seismic Retrofit Guidelines for BC Low Rise School Buildings September 30, 2011 is based on a Performance Based Design approach. The intent of using this design approach is to achieve life safety by reducing the probability of structural collapse to acceptable risk levels instead of concentrating on damage prevention. Performance Based Design involves using higher order structural analysis and design techniques to evaluate a buildings reaction to seismic loading. A three dimensional finite element computer model is developed that accurately predicts the structural behaviour of each element of the structure and how the elements are connected together. The modeling includes how the elements react to loads that exceed their resistance and how the loads will re-distribute through the adjacent elements as a result. This computer model is then subjected to cyclic seismic loading records developed from historical earthquake recordings where the load intensity and direction vary with time. The resulting non-linear time history analysis can be used to evaluate how a structure will behave under earthquakes of different types and magnitudes and further to evaluate how changes to those structures will affect their response. The ability to accurately evaluate how a structure will behave under earthquakes of different types and magnitudes allows for a much more thorough assessment of a buildings risk under seismic loading. Assessments can be made as to what type and magnitude of earthquake will lead to different levels of damage or, ultimately, to collapse. Based on the probability of these different types and magnitudes of earthquakes an accurate numerical assessment of risk can be made for individual buildings, such as the return period of earthquake that will likely lead to collapse. These numerical assessments can be used to rank buildings for seismic risk. The seismic risk rankings can be combined with impact rankings, such as number of occupant days per year, to develop a very detailed evaluation of the relative benefit gained from upgrading each building. The ability to accurately evaluate how changes to a buildings structure will affect their response to seismic loading allows for a much more targeted approach to upgrading. Different upgrading approaches can be evaluated to achieve minimalist approaches to reducing risk to acceptable levels, such as moving a building from a high risk category to a medium risk based on the return period seismic event that would lead to collapse. Alternatively, specific collapse mechanisms can be addressed without having to upgrade the entire structure. Finally, it is likely that non-linear time history analysis can be used to show that some of the buildings that have been reviewed may behave much better than anticipated under seismic loading with the goal to downgrade these buildings from the very high or high risk category to medium risk.



Page 14

APPENDIX

INDIVIDUAL BUILDING DATA SHEETS

The following Appendix presents the individual data sheets for each of the buildings reviewed. The following provides guidance in reviewing the data sheets: - the buildings are presented in numerical order based on UBC Building Number - the year built was based on information obtained from the drawings - the design code is based either on information on the drawings or if not stated based on the

assumed applicable code at that time - the rank is the applicable rank based on the corresponding risk level - the areas noted in the cost portion are based on approximate structural framed areas and

may not correspond to the areas that UBC uses our costing estimate has assumed these areas. The areas should not be adjusted without adjusting the corresponding cost per sq ft.

- the approximate costs outlined on the project data sheets do not include soft costs - the total cost of the seismic upgrade is the cumulative costs of the structural component and

the arch/mech/elec component - where (Partial Upgrade Only) is noted, these are the estimated costs to upgrade the building

sufficiently to reduce the risk level to medium - no ranking or costing has been provided for medium ranked buildings


UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review May 2012

UBC Building No.

002-1

UBC Building Name

ACADIA PARK

HIGHRISE

Year Built

1967

Design Code

Assumed 1965 National Building Code Of Canada

Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

Not applicable

Gravity Framing

Description

- 15 storey tower - reinforced concrete slabs, columns and walls - conventional strip & spread footings

Lateral Resistance Framing System

- nominal ductile concrete shear walls - redundancy with several walls in each direction - torsional capacity available

Description Of

Seismic Deficiencies

- the concrete shear walls have nominal ductility which are

capable of resisting medium level seismic events but would be deficient for higher level seismic events

Description Of Seismic Failure

Mechanism

- not applicable due to medium ranking

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade

Recommend Seismic Analysis Simple Seismic Complex Seismic For Possible Re-Ranking Upgrade Upgrade

Description Of

Possible Seismic Upgrade Or Analysis

Not Applicable

Order Of Magnitude of Cost For Seismic

Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

002-43

UBC Building Name

ACADIA PARK PRE

SCHOOL

Year Built

1967

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

4

Gravity Framing

Description

- one storey building - timber stud walls around perimeter with timber posts supporting

vaulted roof trusses - clerestory windows all around perimeter - brick veneer up to clerestory likely not tied to stud walls


- none apparent

Description Of


- roof diaphragm is discontinuous - no defined shear walls and posts/beams not tied - brick veneer likely not restrained


Mechanism

- anticipated catastrophic failure as roof diaphragm shears off the

top of the clerestory posts - possible falling of brick veneer walls all around perimeter



Description Of


Recommend replacement of the building as upgrade costs will

likely equal a new building


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

X



UBC Building No.

017

UBC Building Name

OLD

ADMINISTRATION

BUILDING

Year Built

1959

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

7

Gravity Framing

Description

- two storey building with one partial basement - assumed timber framed stud walls and timber floors/roof


- assumed drywall sheathed interior walls and strapped perimeter

walls with stucco

Description Of


- no defined shear walls - clerestory in basement level walls along west side plus returns

creates a soft storey


Mechanism

- collapse of west wall due to soft storey in basement



Description Of


It may be possible to reduce the building to a medium level of risk

by completing a full seismic assessment using the NRC Seismic

Screening Guidelines AND fixing the soft storey condition


Upgrade

Structural

$5/sq ft

22,000 sq ft

(Partial Upgrade Only)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$5/sq ft

22,000 sq ft


X



UBC Building No.

018

UBC Building Name

GENERAL

SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

BUILDING

Year Built

1969

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

24

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storeys plus basement - reinforced concrete slabs, columns & walls


- a few concrete shear walls east west, some discontinuous - no concrete shear walls north south

Description Of


- lack of shear walls in both directions - no ductility in the few walls that do exist - discontinuous walls bearing a beams or columns below


Mechanism

- brittle failure in low seismic events - collapse of soft storey supporting columns



Description Of


Extensive and complex fix to address the discontinuous walls.

Need many new concrete shear walls both directions. Also

possible to augment the seismic system using steel x-bracing

around the perimeter columns.


Upgrade

Structural

$25/sq ft

80,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$25/sq ft

80,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

021

UBC Building Name

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTURE

ANNEX

Year Built

1921

Design Code

Assumed No Building

Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

3

Gravity Framing

Description

- 2-1/2 storey timber framed building consisting of stud walls and

columns with joists/beams


- assumed timber stud walls with drywall - exterior stud walls with board strapping and unreinforced clay

tile infill

Description Of


- lack of defined plywood sheathed shear walls - brittle clay tile infill


Mechanism

- shear failure due to lack of shear walls and hold downs



Description Of


Add new shear walls and hold downs in both directions, tie floor

diaphragms to new walls, and remove clay tile infill walls


Upgrade

Structural

$ 20./sq ft

5,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$20./sq ft

5,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

023

UBC Building Name

HENRY ANGUS

OFFICE TOWER

Year Built

1965

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

22

Gravity Framing

Description

- 9 storey building with reinforced concrete slabs supported on

columns/walls and perimeter loadbearing pre-cast mullions


- discontinuous end reinforced concrete shear walls with

continuous stair and elevator cores shafts

Description Of


- soft storey at discontinuous shear walls on small columns - no ductility in existing concrete walls - lack of tie at perimeter pre-cast mullions - lack of seismic joint with classroom block


Mechanism

- brittle shear collapse with failure of soft storey columns and failure of pre-cast perimeter mullions



Description Of


Add new concrete shear walls and remove soft storey mechanism

by continuing walls down to the foundations. Carbon fibre

existing walls. May be possible to reduce to medium with full

analysis and addressing soft storey and carbon fibre. Full

upgrade will require new walls.


Upgrade

Structural

$40/sq ft

48,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40/sq ft

48,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X X



UBC Building No.

028

UBC Building Name

FRED LASSERRE

BUILDING

Year Built

1962

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

23

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey with basement and penthouse consisting of reinforced

concrete slabs with supporting concrete columns & walls - penthouse roof supported on pre-cast columns


- reinforced concrete shear walls with discontinuous walls at each

of the stairs and interior locations

Description Of


- existing concrete walls have very low ductility - soft storeys due to discontinuous walls - lack of shear walls - unreinforced block between columns


Mechanism

- failure of supporting columns due to block infill and soft storeys - failure of pre-cast penthouse columns



Description Of


Remove unreinforced perimeter block walls, address soft storeys

at the discontinuous concrete shear walls, add new bracing or

shear walls to foundations


Upgrade

Structural

$30./sq ft

55,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft

55,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

029

UBC Building Name

CAMPUS &

COMMUNITY

PLANNING 2

Year Built

1953

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

Not applicable

Gravity Framing

Description

- 2 buildings connected by breezeway - one storey timber framed building with crawl space - two storey timber framed with perimeter block unreinforced

walls


- one storey likely strapped stud walls with drywall - two storey unreinforced block walls around perimeter

Description Of


- one storey (medium) not applicable - two storey (high) unreinforced block walls


Mechanism




Description Of


Not Applicable


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

052

UBC Building Name

FRASER RIVER

PARKADE

Year Built

1982

Design Code

1980 National Building Code Of

Canada

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

17

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey parkade - pre-cast double tees, beams and concrete shear walls - jointed topping on top of double tees acting as diaphragm


- six short pre-cast concrete walls in e/w direction, two longer pre-

cast walls adjacent to the ramps n/s

Description Of


- no visible tying of pre-cast double tees or beams to columns

and no visible ties between floor diaphragm to pre-cast walls - concrete topping acting as diaphragm slab in significantly

jointed


Mechanism

- possible collapse of framing due to pre-cast double tees and/or

beams falling off supporting corbels



Description Of


Introduce ductile ties between pre-cast horizontal and vertical

elements will reduce to a high. Recommend full seismic analysis to determine if tying is sufficient

to reduce to a medium or if additional shear walls are required.


Upgrade

Structural

$5./sq ft ties $ 12./sq ft new walls + ties

135,000 sq ft

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Not applicable

X X



UBC Building No.

064

UBC Building Name

BIOLOGICAL

SCIENCES BLDG

(CENTER BLOCK)

Year Built

1948

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

26

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey building with small penthouse and basement - reinforced concrete ribbed slab with concrete columns, walls,

and pre-cast perimeter mullions


- a few short concrete walls with no ductility - conceptually moment frames may have been envisioned but

these have essentially no ductility

Description Of


- lack of shear walls and no ductility in the existing walls - lack of ductility in perimeter pre-cast mullions - torsional resistance issue


Mechanism

- shear failure due to lack of shear walls and torsion



Description Of


This building is irregularly shaped which makes the seismic

upgrade very intrusive and costly. New concrete shear walls or

bracing is required which will have significant interface issues

with the rest of the building systems.


Upgrade

Structural

$40./sq ft

68,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft

68,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

066

UBC Building Name

BIOLOGICAL

SCIENCES NORTH

WING

Year Built

1974

Design Code

1970 National

Building Code of Canada

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

8

Gravity Framing

Description

- 4 storey building with basement - reinforced concrete ribbed slab with concrete columns, walls,

and pre-cast perimeter mullions


- short none ductile eccentric reinforced concrete walls

Description Of


- lack of shear walls - no ductility in walls


Mechanism

- shear and flexural failure due to lack of walls



Description Of


Add more concrete shear walls or bracing. Consider reducing

shear demand by removing pre-cast vertical elements.


Upgrade

Structural

$25./sq ft

63,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$25./sq ft

63,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

071-1

UBC Building Name

BOTANY

GREENHOUSE 1

Year Built

1982

Design Code

Unknown

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

1

Gravity Framing

Description

- aluminum tube framing with glass


- none

Description Of


- no lateral system in place


Mechanism

- shattered glass



Description Of


No further comments.


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

071-2

UBC Building Name

BOTANY

GREENHOUSE 2

Year Built

1982

Design Code

Unknown

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

2

Gravity Framing

Description



- none

Description Of




Mechanism

- shattered glass



Description Of


No further comments.


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

081

UBC Building Name

BOOKSTORE/NEC/

MICHAEL SMITH

LABS

Year Built

1981/1990/2002

Design Code

1998 BC

Building Code

Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

Not applicable

Gravity Framing

Description

- original is reinforced concrete slabs, columns, walls - NEC is structural steel, x-braces, concrete shear walls - M Smith is concrete slabs, columns, walls plus an upgrade to

the original for gravity & lateral


- reinforced concrete shear walls and steel x-bracing

Description Of


- none noted recently upgraded in


Mechanism

- not applicable



Description Of


No Further Comments


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

091

UBC Building Name

BOTANICAL

GARDEN

GARDEN PAVILION

Year Built

1981

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

5

Gravity Framing

Description

- post & beam timber framed one storey pavilion on top of a

reinforced concrete basement - timber columns appear to cantilever off the concrete slab


- there is some capacity of the cantilevered timber columns

Description Of


- the roof framing is not tied to the cantilevered columns and the

clerestory currently in place prevents this connection


Mechanism

- collapse of roof framing by shearing off columns



Description Of


Tie roof framing/diaphragm to the ring beam by removing the

clerestory and adding framing to tie the two together. This would

reduce the ranking to medium.


Upgrade

Structural

$15./sq ft

3600.


Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$15./sq ft

3600.


X



UBC Building No.

144

UBC Building Name

CHEMISTRY C

BLOCK

EAST WING

Year Built

1962

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

19

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey building with basement and penthouse - reinforced concrete one way slabs with beams supported on

columns and walls


- reinforced concrete walls in one direction and assumed

concrete non ductile moment frame in the other

Description Of


- moment frame is non-ductile - penthouse has no lateral system - concrete walls are none-ductile


Mechanism

- brittle failure from moment frame column collapse and/or

penthouse collapse



Description Of


Add lateral system to support penthouse. Add shear walls or

bracing in the weak direction and upgrade existing concrete walls.


Upgrade

Structural

$40/sq ft

40,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft

40,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

148

UBC Building Name

CHEMISTRY B

BLOCK

SOUTH WING

Year Built

1958

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

Left Wing HIGH Right MEDIUM Link VERY HIGH

Rank

14

Gravity Framing

Description

- left reinforced concrete one way slabs and beams supported

on columns and walls - right reinforced concrete rib slab and beams supported on

columns and walls - link concrete slabs & beams supported on columns


- left & right reinforced concrete shear walls with nominal

ductility - link no system in place

Description Of


- left - insufficient ductility in shear walls and no system in

penthouse - right insufficient ductility in shear walls - link no system in place


Mechanism

- left collapse of penthouse roof - link collapse of supporting columns



Description Of


Left introducing penthouse lateral system will reduce ranking to medium. Right is already a medium. Link tie ends to the buildings and add buttresses or similar for out of plane seismic.


Upgrade

Structural

Left - $5./sq ft (50,000 sq ft)

Link - $100./sq ft (1500 sq ft)

(Partial Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Left - $5./sq ft (50,000 sq ft)

Link - $100./sq ft (1500 sq ft)

(Partial Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

308

UBC Building Name

LEONARD KLINCK

BUILDING

Year Built

1947

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

25

Gravity Framing

Description

- four storey building consisting of reinforced concrete waffle slab

& beams supported on columns and shear walls


- short reinforced concrete shear walls, many are discontinuous

Description Of


- lack of shear walls and non ductility in existing walls - soft storey due to discontinuous shear walls - torsional issues - diaphragm issues in cantilevered wings


Mechanism

- soft storey failure of supporting columns at discontinuous walls - shear failure due to lack of walls - column failure due to torsion



Description Of


This is a complex fix that will be quite intrusive. All discontinuous

concrete walls to be upgraded and many new concrete shear

walls need to be added. Diaphragm could be acceptable if

sufficient walls are added


Upgrade

Structural

$30./sq ft

128,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft

128,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

308-1

UBC Building Name

LEONARD KLINK

BUILDING ADDITION

Year Built

1966

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

25

Gravity Framing

Description

- see building 308 (part of 308 this is not a separate building)


- see building 308

Description Of


- see building 308


Mechanism

- see building 308



Description Of



Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

312

UBC Building Name

MACLEOD

BUILDING

Year Built

1962

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

6

Gravity Framing

Description

- 4 storey building consisting of reinforced concrete one way

slabs and beams supported on columns and walls


- reinforced concrete shear walls with low ductility but lots of

redundancy

Description Of


- there are two offset wall issue on the 3

rd floor

- walls have low ductility


Mechanism

- the supporting columns at the offset walls could fail



Description Of


Strengthen the supporting columns at the offset walls and the

building could be downgraded to medium.


Upgrade

Structural

$5./sq ft

71,000 sq ft


Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$5./sq ft

71,000 sq ft


X



UBC Building No.

344

UBC Building Name

UNIVERSITY

CENTER

Year Built

1958

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

12

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey building constructed with pre-cast slabs bearing on

cast-in-place concrete beams with supporting columns and walls


- a couple of short concrete walls in one direction

Description Of


- lack of concrete shear walls in both directions with no ductility in

existing walls - weak diaphragm - pre-cast planks not tied and could fall off supporting beams


Mechanism

- shear failure of columns and collapse of pre-cast slabs



Description Of


Add new concrete shear walls or bracing in both directions, tie

pre-cast slabs to supporting beams, upgrade diaphragm.

Intrusive fix.


Upgrade

Structural

$40./sq ft

38,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft

38,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

344-1

UBC Building Name

UNIVERSITY

CENTER ADDITION

Year Built

1967

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

Very High

Rank

12

Gravity Framing

Description

- one storey addition consisting of reinforced concrete slabs,

walls, columns


- a few short concrete walls - the system is not well defined

Description Of


- lack of shear walls or bracing - stepped diaphragm which needs detailed assessment - discontinuous shear walls from above bearing on columns


Mechanism

- failure of supporting columns at discontinuous shear walls - failure of diaphragm - shear failure of interior columns due to deflections



Description Of


See main University Building 344 for comments. This phase

would be upgraded at the same time as 344 due to how tied

together they are.


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

X



UBC Building No.

386

UBC Building Name

MACMILLAN

BUILDING

Year Built

1965

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

13

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey multi-wing building framed with reinforced concrete

ribbed slab supported on columns and walls


- reinforced 6 and 8 concrete shear walls

Description Of


- buildings are irregularly shaped with many expansion /seismic joints where diaphragm/slab is not supported seismically resulting in significant lack of walls (ie wings are not tied together)

- long diaphragms with large openings - shear failure in columns due to pounding between wings - shear failure in columns due to soft storey


Mechanism

- brittle failure of columns in shear or crushing - large deflections in diaphragm and failure at the expansion

joints



Description Of


Intrusive and complex fix including many new shear walls or

braces. Upgrading diaphragm or adding more walls in-span.

Connections of diaphragm to the shear walls or introduction of

new walls.


Upgrade

Structural

$40./sq ft

150,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft

150,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

387

UBC Building Name

FOREST SCIENCES

GREENHOUSE

Year Built

1986

Design Code

Unknown

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

3

Gravity Framing

Description



- none

Description Of




Mechanism

- shattered glass



Description Of


No further comment.


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

430

UBC Building Name

OSBORNE CENTRE

UNIT 1

Year Built

1969

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

16

Gravity Framing

Description

- 2 storey gymnasium with pre-cast tee roof slabs spanning to

concrete walls. The central portion has reinforced ribbed slabs and beams supported on columns and walls.


- reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of


- pounding between gym wings and central core (not tied) - diaphragm not tied together sufficiently - no walls in one direction (n/s) and e/w walls need to be tied to

the roof tees - out of plane issues at gable end walls


Mechanism

- failure of diaphragm and separation of roof slabs from

supporting walls plus no capacity in n/s direction collapse possible



Description Of


Add steel x-bracing to u/s of roof slabs for diaphragm, tie roof

slab to concrete walls, add n/s walls in the central core and at

each end of the gymnasiums


Upgrade

Structural

$30./sq ft

40,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$20./sq ft

40,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

431

UBC Building Name

OSBORNE CENTRE

UNIT 2

Year Built

1971

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

4

Gravity Framing

Description

- 2 storey 3 gym building with structural steel roof supported on

concrete columns tied with tilt-up concrete wall panels


- tilt-up concrete wall panels

Description Of


- diaphragm tie to walls deficient - transfer of diaphragm forces to tilt-up panels weak - supporting concrete columns have out-of plane issues - open court roof not restrained


Mechanism

- separation of tilt-up panels from columns/roof diaphragm

possible - column shear issues at open court roof



Description Of


Tie tilt-up wall panels to columns and roof diaphragm, add drag

struts to transfer diaphragm loads to supporting walls, add

bracing in the open court framing.


Upgrade

Structural

$30./sq ft

30,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$20./sq ft

30,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

447

UBC Building Name

CHEMISTRY A

BLOCK

CHEM-PHYS BLDG

Year Built

1986

Design Code


Canada

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

9

Gravity Framing

Description

- 4 storey building with reinforced concrete flat slabs supported

on columns and walls



Description Of


- lack of walls in the e/w direction - existing walls have limited ductility


Mechanism

- no obvious failure mechanism



Description Of


Need to add more concrete shear walls, particularly in the e/w

direction. This is an intrusive fix based on the building layout.


Upgrade

Structural

$ 15./sq ft

100,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$15,/sq ft

100,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

449

UBC Building Name

FOOD, NUTRITION,

& HEALTH

BUILDING

Year Built

1980

Design Code


Canada

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

10

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey building consisting of reinforced concrete flat slabs

supported on columns and walls



Description Of


- lack of concrete shear walls - plan irregularity resulting in large torsional forces


Mechanism

- no obvious failure mechanism



Description Of


Recommend carrying out a detailed seismic assessment to

determine if the existing system may be capable of being

downgraded to medium. If not, add more concrete walls or

bracing.


Upgrade

Structural

$15./sq ft

70,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$15./sq ft

70,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X X



UBC Building No.

467

UBC Building Name

HEALTH SCIENCES

PARKADE

Year Built

1980

Design Code


Canada

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

2

Gravity Framing

Description

- 4 storey parkade with reinforced concrete slabs & beams

supported on columns and walls


- folded plate frame and reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of


- lack of walls in the e/w direction - possible deflections in folded plate frame - possible short column issues at ramp columns


Mechanism

- possible collapse due to lack of walls



Description Of


Recommend detailed seismic assessment due to non-

conventional seismic system. May be able to reduce ranking to

medium. Otherwise add concrete walls or bracing in both

directions.


Upgrade

Structural

$ 7./sq ft

260,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$2./sq ft

260,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X X



UBC Building No.

472

UBC Building Name

INTERNATIONAL

HOUSE

Year Built

1958

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

9

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey reinforced concrete slab building supported on columns

and walls


- reinforced concrete walls in one direction

Description Of


- discontinuous diaphragm - soft storey in columns - no walls in e/w direction - existing walls have no ductility


Mechanism

- anticipate collapse in moderate seismic event or greater



Description Of


Add concrete walls or bracing in both directions, address short

columns issues (remove or gap block walls), upgrade diaphragm.


Upgrade

Structural

$80./sq ft

15,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$80./sq ft

15,000 sq ft

(Full Upgrade)

X



UBC Building No.

515

UBC Building Name

Sedgewick Library

Year Built

1970

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

Not applicable

Gravity Framing

Description

- 2 storey underground building consisting of precast double tee

slabs, pre-cast beams, and pre-cast columns with cast-in place foundation walls


- reinforced concrete foundation walls in one direction

Description Of


- pre-cast elements not tied but bearing seats are large - no walls n/s in upper level


Mechanism




Description Of


Not applicable


Upgrade

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work



UBC Building No.

523-1

UBC Building Name

D.H. COPP

BUILDING

Year Built

1961

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

6

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey plus penthouse building consisting of reinforced one

way concrete slabs & beams supported on columns and walls


- a few short walls & non-ductile moment frames

Description Of


- moment frames are non-ductile - very few concrete walls - short columns due to deep spandrel beams - torsion issues


Mechanism

- shear failure of moment frame columns



Description Of


Upgrade would be similar to the Friedman upgrade. Add concrete

walls in both directions. Strengthen short columns.


Upgrade

Structural

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

X



UBC Building No.

523-3

UBC Building Name

MEDICAL SCIENCES

BLOCK C

Year Built

1965

Design Code


Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

7

Gravity Framing

Description

- 3 storey plus penthouse building consisting of reinfo

Documents

1404_UBC Seismic Risk Assessment_Building Report_June 18-2012