GLOTMAN SIMPSON

Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
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

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer
Suite 608 – 318 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC 604-683-0595

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

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

9.

Appendix – Individual Building Data Sheets

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

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 Delcan’s 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 1

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

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 2

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer
Suite 608 – 318 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC 604-683-0595

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
071-2 Botany Greenhouse 2
387 Forest Sciences Greenhouse

Very High – 1
Very High - 2
Very High – 3

High
High
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 3

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer
Suite 608 – 318 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC 604-683-0595

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
029 Campus & Community Planning 2
081 Bookstore / NEC / Michael Smith Labs
515 Sedgewick Library
869-2 Walter Gage Residence – South Tower
869-3 Walter Gage Residence – North Tower
872-1 Walter Gage Residence – East Tower

Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium

High
High
High
Very High
High
High
High

Page 4

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

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 building’s 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 5

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

3.

UBC REPORT EXPECTATIONS

UBC’s 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 building’s 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 building’s 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 Delcan’s report for each building on the high and very high list
Conduct a detailed structural review of each building’s 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 6

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

002-1
022-43
017
021
029
052
091
430
431
467
515
869-2
869-3
872-1


Acadia Towers
Acadia Pre School
Old Administration Building
Landscape Architecture Annex
Campus & Community Planning 2
Fraser Parkade
Botanical Garden – Garden Pavilion
Osborne Unit 1
Osborne Unit 2
Health Sciences Parkade
Sedgewick Library
Walter Gage – South Tower
Walter Gage – North Tower
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 7

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

Our structural review did not include the following:


5.

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

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
o
o
o
o

Building is likely to have full or partial collapse during a moderate seismic event or
higher – loss of life probable
Lateral load resisting system is non-existent or very low capacity (less than
approximately 10% capacity) in one or two directions
Building components such as reinforced concrete walls and moment frames have no
ductility leading to brittle failures
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
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
o
o
o
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
Lateral resisting system is defined but is typically insufficient and only exhibits low
capacity (less than approximately 30% capacity) in both directions
Building components such as reinforced concrete walls and moment frames have
limited ductility but are capable of supporting low level seismic events
There are no apparent catastrophic failure mechanisms that can lead to a premature brittle or catastrophic collapse of the entire building
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 8

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

Medium Risk Buildings:
Buildings were ranked medium risk if the following was found in a building:
o
o
o
o
o

6.

The buildings have a well defined lateral load resisting system in place in both
directions.
The lateral load resisting system is capable of resisting at least approximately 30%
of current code capacity in both directions.
The building‘s lateral system has redundancy.
There are no apparent failure mechanisms.
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.

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:

Delcan’s 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 precast 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

Delcan’s 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.

869-3 Walter Gage – North

Delcan’s 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.
Page 9

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer
Suite 608 – 318 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC 604-683-0595

872-1 Walter Gage – East

7.

Delcan’s 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.

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:

8.

449 – Food Nutrition & Health
467 – Health Sciences Parkade
624 – George Cunningham Building Addition
864 – Wesbrook Building

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:

9.

017 – Old Administration Building
023 – Henry Angus Office Tower
052 – Fraser River Parkade
536 – Woodward Library

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 10

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer
Suite 608 – 318 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC 604-683-0595

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:

10.

091 – Botanical Garden – Garden Pavilion
148 – Chemistry B Block South Wing
312 – MacLeod Building

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 11

GLOTMAN SIMPSON
Consulting Engineers

JM ENGINEERING
Consulting Structural Engineer

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

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 12

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer
Suite 608 – 318 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC 604-683-0595

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

Page 14

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

002-1

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1967

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

ACADIA PARK
HIGHRISE
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
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

-

not applicable due to medium ranking

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Not Applicable

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

002-43

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1967

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

Gravity Framing
Description

-

ACADIA PARK PRE
SCHOOL
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
4

-

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

none apparent

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
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 Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Recommend replacement of the building as upgrade costs will
likely equal a new building
Structural

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

017

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1959

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

OLD
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
Assumed 1953
National Building
Code Of Canada
7

Gravity Framing
Description

-

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

assumed drywall sheathed interior walls and strapped perimeter
walls with stucco

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

no defined shear walls
clerestory in basement level walls along west side plus returns
creates a soft storey

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

collapse of west wall due to soft storey in basement

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

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
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$5/sq ft
22,000 sq ft
(Partial Upgrade Only)

$5/sq ft
22,000 sq ft
(Partial Upgrade Only)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

018

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1969

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

GENERAL
SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
24

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storeys plus basement
reinforced concrete slabs, columns & walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

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.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$25/sq ft
80,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$25/sq ft
80,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
ANNEX

UBC Building No.

021

UBC Building Name

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

lack of defined plywood sheathed shear walls
brittle clay tile infill

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shear failure due to lack of shear walls and hold downs

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Add new shear walls and hold downs in both directions, tie floor
diaphragms to new walls, and remove clay tile infill walls
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$ 20./sq ft
5,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$20./sq ft
5,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

023

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1965

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

HENRY ANGUS
OFFICE TOWER
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
22

Gravity Framing
Description

-

9 storey building with reinforced concrete slabs supported on
columns/walls and perimeter loadbearing pre-cast mullions

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

discontinuous end reinforced concrete shear walls with
continuous stair and elevator cores shafts

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

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.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40/sq ft
48,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40/sq ft
48,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

028

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1962

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

Gravity Framing
Description

-

FRED LASSERRE
BUILDING
Assumed 1953
National Building
Code Of Canada
23

3 storey with basement and penthouse consisting of reinforced
concrete slabs with supporting concrete columns & walls
penthouse roof supported on pre-cast columns

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls with discontinuous walls at each
of the stairs and interior locations

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Remove unreinforced perimeter block walls, address soft storeys
at the discontinuous concrete shear walls, add new bracing or
shear walls to foundations
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft
55,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$30./sq ft
55,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

029

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1953

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

CAMPUS &
COMMUNITY
PLANNING 2
Assumed 1941
National Building
Code Of Canada
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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

not applicable due to medium ranking

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Not Applicable

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

052

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1982

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

FRASER RIVER
PARKADE
1980 National
Building Code Of
Canada
17

Gravity Framing
Description

-

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

six short pre-cast concrete walls in e/w direction, two longer precast walls adjacent to the ramps n/s

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

no visible tying of pre-cast double tee’s or beams to columns
and no visible ties between floor diaphragm to pre-cast walls
concrete topping acting as diaphragm slab in significantly
jointed

-

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

possible collapse of framing due to pre-cast double tee’s and/or
beams falling off supporting corbels

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

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.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$5./sq ft – ties
$ 12./sq ft – new walls + ties
135,000 sq ft

Not applicable

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

064

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1948

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES BLDG
(CENTER BLOCK)
Assumed 1941
National Building
Code Of Canada
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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

-

shear failure due to lack of shear walls and torsion

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

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.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft
68,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40./sq ft
68,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES NORTH
WING

UBC Building No.

066

UBC Building Name

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

short none ductile eccentric reinforced concrete walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

lack of shear walls
no ductility in walls

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shear and flexural failure due to lack of walls

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add more concrete shear walls or bracing. Consider reducing
shear demand by removing pre-cast vertical elements.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$25./sq ft
63,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$25./sq ft
63,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

none

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

no lateral system in place

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shattered glass

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

No further comments.

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
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

-

aluminum tube framing with glass

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

none

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

no lateral system in place

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shattered glass

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

No further comments.

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
BOOKSTORE/NEC/
MICHAEL SMITH
LABS

UBC Building No.

081

UBC Building Name

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls and steel x-bracing

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

none noted – recently upgraded in

-

not applicable

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

No Further Comments

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

091

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1981

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

Gravity Framing
Description

5

-

post & beam timber framed one storey pavilion on top of a
reinforced concrete basement
timber columns appear to cantilever off the concrete slab

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

there is some capacity of the cantilevered timber columns

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

the roof framing is not tied to the cantilevered columns and the
clerestory currently in place prevents this connection

-

collapse of roof framing by shearing off columns

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

BOTANICAL
GARDEN
GARDEN PAVILION
Assumed 1975
National Building
Code Of Canada

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

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.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$15./sq ft
3600.
(Partial Upgrade Only)

$15./sq ft
3600.
(Partial Upgrade Only)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

144

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1962

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

CHEMISTRY C
BLOCK
EAST WING
Assumed 1953
National Building
Code Of Canada
19

Gravity Framing
Description

-

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete walls in one direction and assumed
concrete non ductile moment frame in the other

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

brittle failure from moment frame column collapse and/or
penthouse collapse

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add lateral system to support penthouse. Add shear walls or
bracing in the weak direction and upgrade existing concrete walls.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40/sq ft
40,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40./sq ft
40,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

148

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1958

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

Gravity Framing
Description

Left Wing – HIGH
Right – MEDIUM
Link – VERY HIGH
-

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

Rank

CHEMISTRY B
BLOCK
SOUTH WING
Assumed 1953
National Building
Code Of Canada
14

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

-

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

-

left – collapse of penthouse roof
link collapse of supporting columns

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

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.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Left - $5./sq ft (50,000 sq ft)
Link - $100./sq ft (1500 sq ft)
(Partial Upgrade)

Left - $5./sq ft (50,000 sq ft)
Link - $100./sq ft (1500 sq ft)
(Partial Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

308

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1947

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

LEONARD KLINCK
BUILDING
Assumed 1941
National Building
Code Of Canada
25

Gravity Framing
Description

-

four storey building consisting of reinforced concrete waffle slab
& beams supported on columns and shear walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

short reinforced concrete shear walls, many are discontinuous

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

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

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

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
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft
128,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$30./sq ft
128,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

308-1

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1966

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

LEONARD KLINK
BUILDING –
ADDITION
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
25

Gravity Framing
Description

-

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

see building 308

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

see building 308

-

see building 308

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis
Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

312

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1962

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

MACLEOD
BUILDING
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
6

Gravity Framing
Description

-

4 storey building consisting of reinforced concrete one way
slabs and beams supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls with low ductility but lots of
redundancy

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

there are two offset wall issue on the 3 floor
walls have low ductility

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

the supporting columns at the offset walls could fail

rd

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Strengthen the supporting columns at the offset walls and the
building could be downgraded to medium.

Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$5./sq ft
71,000 sq ft
(Partial Upgrade Only)

$5./sq ft
71,000 sq ft
(Partial Upgrade Only)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

344

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1958

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

UNIVERSITY
CENTER
Assumed 1953
National Building
Code Of Canada
12

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey building constructed with pre-cast slabs bearing on
cast-in-place concrete beams with supporting columns and
walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

a couple of short concrete walls in one direction

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

-

shear failure of columns and collapse of pre-cast slabs

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add new concrete shear walls or bracing in both directions, tie
pre-cast slabs to supporting beams, upgrade diaphragm.
Intrusive fix.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft
38,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40./sq ft
38,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

344-1

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1967

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

Very High

Rank

UNIVERSITY
CENTER ADDITION
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
12

Gravity Framing
Description

-

one storey addition consisting of reinforced concrete slabs,
walls, columns

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

a few short concrete walls
the system is not well defined

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

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

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

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.
Structural

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

386

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1965

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

MACMILLAN
BUILDING
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
13

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey multi-wing building framed with reinforced concrete
ribbed slab supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced 6” and 8” concrete shear walls

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies
Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

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

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

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.
Structural
Arch/Mech/Elec Work
$40./sq ft
150,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40./sq ft
150,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
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

-

aluminum tube framing with glass

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

none

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

no lateral system in place

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shattered glass

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

No further comment.

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

430

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1969

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

OSBORNE CENTRE
UNIT 1
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
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.

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

-

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

failure of diaphragm and separation of roof slabs from
supporting walls plus no capacity in n/s direction – collapse
possible

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

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
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft
40,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$20./sq ft
40,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

431

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1971

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

OSBORNE CENTRE
UNIT 2
Assumed 1970
National Building
Code Of Canada
4

Gravity Framing
Description

-

2 storey 3 gym building with structural steel roof supported on
concrete columns tied with tilt-up concrete wall panels

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

tilt-up concrete wall panels

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

separation of tilt-up panels from columns/roof diaphragm
possible
column shear issues at open court roof

-

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

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.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft
30,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$20./sq ft
30,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

447

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1986

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

CHEMISTRY A
BLOCK
CHEM-PHYS BLDG
1985 National
Building Code Of
Canada
9

Gravity Framing
Description

-

4 storey building with reinforced concrete flat slabs supported
on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

no obvious failure mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Need to add more concrete shear walls, particularly in the e/w
direction. This is an intrusive fix based on the building layout.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$ 15./sq ft
100,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$15,/sq ft
100,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

449

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1980

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

FOOD, NUTRITION,
& HEALTH
BUILDING
1977 National
Building Code Of
Canada
10

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey building consisting of reinforced concrete flat slabs
supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

no obvious failure mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

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.
Structural
Arch/Mech/Elec Work
$15./sq ft
70,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$15./sq ft
70,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

467

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1980

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

HEALTH SCIENCES
PARKADE
1977 National
Building Code Of
Canada
2

Gravity Framing
Description

-

4 storey parkade with reinforced concrete slabs & beams
supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

folded plate frame and reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

-

possible collapse due to lack of walls

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Recommend detailed seismic assessment due to nonconventional seismic system. May be able to reduce ranking to
medium. Otherwise add concrete walls or bracing in both
directions.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$ 7./sq ft
260,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$2./sq ft
260,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

472

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1958

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

INTERNATIONAL
HOUSE
Assumed 1953
National Building
Code Of Canada
9

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey reinforced concrete slab building supported on columns
and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete walls in one direction

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

anticipate collapse in moderate seismic event or greater

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add concrete walls or bracing in both directions, address short
columns issues (remove or gap block walls), upgrade diaphragm.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$80./sq ft
15,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$80./sq ft
15,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

515

UBC Building Name

Sedgewick Library

Year Built

1970

Design Code

Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada

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

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete foundation walls in one direction

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

not applicable due to medium ranking

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Not applicable

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

523-1

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1961

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

D.H. COPP
BUILDING
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
6

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey plus penthouse building consisting of reinforced one
way concrete slabs & beams supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

a few short walls & non-ductile moment frames

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shear failure of moment frame columns

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Upgrade would be similar to the Friedman upgrade. Add concrete
walls in both directions. Strengthen short columns.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

523-3

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1965

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

MEDICAL SCIENCES
BLOCK C
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
7

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey plus penthouse building consisting of reinforced one
way concrete slabs & beams supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

a few short walls & non-ductile moment frames

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shear failure of moment frame columns

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Upgrade would be similar to the Friedman upgrade. Add concrete
walls in both directions. Strengthen short columns.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

525-3

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1967

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

MEDICAL SCIENCES
BLOCK C ADDITION
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
8

Gravity Framing
Description

-

4 storey plus penthouse building consisting of reinforced one
way concrete slabs & beams supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

a few short walls & non-ductile moment frames

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

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

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

shear failure of moment frame columns

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Upgrade would be similar to the Friedman upgrade. Add concrete
walls in both directions. Strengthen short columns.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

Similar To Friedman Upgrade

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

536

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1963

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

WOODWARD
LIBRARY
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
5

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey with penthouse building comprised of reinforced flat
slab supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

lack of walls with existing walls having no ductility
existing concrete walls not engaged very well – diaphragm tie
failure at existing walls

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

no obvious failure mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

This building warrants a full seismic assessment to check if it can
be downgraded to a medium assuming the original building is
also tied better to the addition. If doing a full seismic upgrade,
additional concrete walls or bracing plus diaphragm upgrade
would need to be required.
Structural
Arch/Mech/Elec Work
$25./sq ft
84,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$25./sq ft
84,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

540-1

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1964

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

TOTEM PARK
RESIDENCES –
COQUIHALA
COMMON BLOCK
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
1

Gravity Framing
Description

-

2 storey building consisting of one way reinforced concrete slab
supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls offset to one side

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

torsion issues due to offset shear walls
lack of walls top floor
no ductility in existing shear walls
discontinuous walls
no seismic system at penthouse

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

collapse of penthouse framing
failure of columns supporting discontinuous shear walls

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add shear wall at discontinuous walls, add shear walls at the front
of the building full height to resist torsion, brace the penthouse
framing
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$ 25./sq ft
46,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$25./sq ft
46,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

562

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1966

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

FRANK FORWARD
BUILDING
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
20

Gravity Framing
Description

-

5 storey building with reinforced one way slabs and post
tensioned beams supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

weak diaphragm with large opening in the middle which wants
to separate the building wings
one discontinuous wall
non ductile walls
failure of columns on grid B

-

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

possible collapse if the diaphragm separates in the middle of
the building
column failures at grid B and discontinuous wall

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add new concrete shear walls or bracing, strengthen weak
columns, consider introducing a seismic joint in the middle of the
building with strategic wall placement
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft
68,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40./sq ft
68,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

570

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1973

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

MUSEUM OF
ANTHROPOLOGY –
DISPLAY AREA
Assumed 1970
National Building
Code Of Canada
15

Gravity Framing
Description

-

pre-cast post-tensioned roof beams supported on pre-cast wall
elements

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

concrete moment frame

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

no defined roof diaphragm
poor connections between pre-cast beams and walls elements

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

potential collapse if connections between pre-cast elements fail
brittle failure of glazing

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

The fix would need to be creative and innovative to maintain the
architectural integrity. Possible strengthening of the moment
frame top connections and upgrade of the diaphragm.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$60./sq ft
15,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$60./sq ft
15,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

575

UBC Building Name

MUSIC BUILDING

Year Built

1967

Design Code

Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

10

Gravity Framing
Description

-

4 storey building with concrete slab on steel beams supported
on steel columns and concrete walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

lack of concrete shear walls
no ductility in existing walls
connections of the pre-cast panels to the building
weak columns supporting the pre-cast terrace canopy

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

collapse of pre-cast terrace canopy
failure of pre-cast panels
diaphragm failure at existing shear walls
collapse possible due to lack of shear walls

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

This is a complex fix involving new concrete shear walls or
bracing with an upgrade to the floor diaphragm. Also all pre-cast
connections require upgrading. Strengthening of the terrace
canopy columns required.
Structural
Arch/Mech/Elec Work
$40./sq ft
77,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40./sq ft
77,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

624

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1971

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

GEORGE
CUNNINGHAM
BUILDING ADDITION
1965 National
Building Code Of
Canada
11

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey building with one way reinforced concrete slabs &
beams supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

concrete walls have no ductility
short columns due to spandrel depth

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

failure of short columns

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

A full seismic assessment may permit reclassification to medium.
Add shear walls or bracing on grids A & C may limit deformation
and address short columns – re-rank to medium. Add new shear
walls or bracing for full upgrade.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft
20,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$30./sq ft
30,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

625

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1960

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

GEORGE
CUNNINGHAM
BUILDING
Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada
11

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey building with one way reinforced slabs & beams
supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete walls and non ductile moment frames

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

lack of walls both directions and no ductility in existing walls
short columns due to deep spandrels

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

collapse of short columns
collapse of moment frame columns

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Intrusive fix to add reinforced concrete shear walls or bracing
sufficient to eliminate the short column issue, or fix the short
column issue as well
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$50./sq ft
28,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$50./sq ft
28,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

656

UBC Building Name

Hebb Building

Year Built

1964

Design Code

Assumed 1960
National Building
Code Of Canada

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

27

Gravity Framing
Description

-

4 storey with penthouse building with one way reinforced
concrete slab and beams supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls
non-ductile moment frames

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

failure of moment frame columns
soft storey at discontinuous walls
lack of walls in the east/west direction
torsional issues

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

failure of columns under discontinuous shear walls above
failure of moment frame columns
failure of columns in torsion

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add walls below the discontinuous walls. Add shear walls or
bracing in the east/west direction.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$30./sq ft
38,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$30./sq ft
38,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

724

UBC Building Name

POWER HOUSE

Year Built

1924, 1946, 1961,
1969

Design Code

Various Editions of
the National Building
Code Of Canada

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

28

Gravity Framing
Description

-

reinforced concrete slabs, concrete beams, steel beams,
concrete columns and walls, steel columns, block walls, tile
walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

some concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

lack of clear defined lateral resisting system
connection of the diaphragms to the vertical elements
stiff building attracting large seismic forces

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

without a detailed analysis, the ability of the building to
withstand post disaster performance without damage is unlikely

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

We recommend that a full seismic study including detailed field
investigation and seismic analysis be carried out to properly rank this
building and determine it’s expected performance to various levels of
seismic events
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

To Be Determined

To Be Determined

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

732

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1983

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

West Wing– Medium
East Wing-Very High
Bridges-Very High

Rank

DOUGLAS KENNY
BUILDING
1980 National
Building Code Of
Canada
21

Gravity Framing
Description

-

4 storeys and penthouse building with structural steel
penthouse framing and two way reinforced concrete slab &
beams on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

two building wings are not tied together
each wing will act independently – west wing okay if bridges fail
but east wing has eccentric shear wall layout

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

bridges will collapse
east wing will undergo significant torsion with column or wall
failure likely

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Add concrete shear walls or bracing in the east wing so it has an
independent seismic resisting system. Redo the bridges so they
don’t collapse
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$25./sq ft
90,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$25./sq ft
90,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

785

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1966

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

VERY HIGH

Rank

THUNDERBIRD
STADIUM
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
18

Gravity Framing
Description

-

open air grandstand roof structure constructed with glulam/T&G
deck, pre-stressed concrete roof beams hung from reinforced
concrete towers

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

no lateral system

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

roof diaphragm poorly tied to glulam beams
pre-stressed concrete towers and beams non-ductile
boundary beams at cable ties inadequate
short column affect in the back of the building

-

anticipate collapse under moderate event

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

Complex upgrade - almost every element needs upgrading.
Consider replacing the stadium.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$40./sq ft
35,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$40./sq ft
35,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

864

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1949

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

HIGH

Rank

WESBROOK
BUILDING
Assumed 1940
National Building
Code Of Canada
12

Gravity Framing
Description

-

3 storey building in ‘V’ shape with reinforced concrete ribbed
slab supported on columns and walls

Lateral Resistance
Framing System

-

non-ductile reinforced concrete shear walls

Description Of
Seismic Deficiencies

-

non-ductile walls
short column issue due to spandrel beam depth
diaphragm span issue

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

-

short column failure

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

X

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

X

There are lots of walls. Recommend doing a full seismic
assessment to check deflections to see if the short columns do
fail. If not, the building could be re-ranked medium. For full
upgrade add shear walls mid-span of diaphragm.
Structural

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

$20./sq ft
85,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

$20./sq ft
85,000 sq ft
(Full Upgrade)

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

869-2

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1970

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

WALTER GAGE –
SOUTH TOWER
HIGHRISE
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
Not applicable

Gravity Framing
Description

-

17 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

-

not applicable due to medium ranking

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Not Applicable

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

869-3

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1970

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

WALTER GAGE –
NORTH TOWER
HIGHRISE
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
Not applicable

Gravity Framing
Description

-

17 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

-

not applicable due to medium ranking

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Not Applicable

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

JM ENGINEERING

Consulting Engineers

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Building Seismic Risk Assessment Review – May 2012
UBC Building No.

872-1

UBC Building Name

Year Built

1970

Design Code

Seismic Risk Level

MEDIUM

Rank

WALTER GAGE –
EAST TOWER
HIGHRISE
Assumed 1965
National Building
Code Of Canada
Not applicable

Gravity Framing
Description

-

17 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

-

not applicable due to medium ranking

Description Of
Seismic Failure
Mechanism

Description Of Proposed Seismic Analysis Or Upgrade
Recommend Seismic Analysis
For Possible Re-Ranking

Simple Seismic
Upgrade

Description Of
Possible Seismic
Upgrade Or Analysis

Not Applicable

Structural
Order Of Magnitude
of Cost For Seismic
Upgrade

Complex Seismic
Upgrade

Arch/Mech/Elec Work

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.