UBC Seismic Risk Assessment - Eight Buildings Final Report - Feb 7-2013

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
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE FOLLOWING
HIGH & VERY-HIGH SEISMIC RISK BUILDINGS:
BLDG 017 OLD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
BLDG 023 HENRY ANGUS OFFICE TOWER
BLDG 052 FRASER RIVER PARKADE
BLDG 449 FOOD NUTRITION & HEALTH
BLDG 467 HEALTH SCIENCES PARKADE
BLDG 536 WOODWARD LIBRARY
BLDG 624 GEORGE CUNNINGHAM ADDITION
BLDG 864 WESBROOK
Project No. 1666

February 6, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Executive Summary.
1.
Introduction.
2.
Purpose Of Conducting The Detailed Seismic Assessment..
3.
Seismic Upgrading Philosophy For UBC Buildings In This Report...
4.
Design Criteria Defining Medium Seismic Risk.
5.
Detailed Seismic Assessment Philosophy.
6.
Interface With Other Building Systems.
7.
Detailed Seismic Assessment Results & Discussions.

7.1 017 Old Administration Building....
7.2 023 Henry Angus Office Tower.
7.3 052 Fraser River Parkade..
7.4 449 Food Nutrition & Health..
7.5 467 Health Sciences Parkade...
7.6 536 Woodward Library
7.7 624 George Cunningham Addition
7.8 864 Wesbrook..
7
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
20
8.
Estimated Order Of Magnitude Costing For Seismic Upgrades...
22
9.
Comments On Achieving Full Seismic Upgrading..
24
Appendix SSKs Structural Plans
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JM Engineering conducted a detailed seismic assessment of eight buildings identified in our
previous seismic report titled: University of British Columbia Seismic Risk Assessment Report
(Summary of High & Very-High Seismic Risk Buildings) dated June 14, 2012.
The eight buildings previously identified include the following:
Bldg 017 Old Administration Building.................
Bldg 023 Henry Angus Office Tower.
Bldg 052 Fraser River Parkade..
Bldg 449 Food Nutrition & Health..
Bldg 467 Health Sciences Parkade...
Bldg 536 Woodward Library...
Bldg 624 George Cunningham Addition
Bldg 864 Wesbrook Building....
High Seismic Risk

Very High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
Our assessment yielded the following results:

1) Buildings 449 Food Nutrition & Health and 624 George Cunningham Addition have
been re-classified to Medium Seismic Risk with no structural upgrading required.
2) The remaining buildings could be reduced to Medium Seismic Risk with varying degrees
of structural upgrades. Anticipated costs to achieve this re-ranking are outlined in
section 8 of the report and are summarized below:
Bldg 017
Bldg 023
Bldg 052
Bldg 467
Bldg 536
Bldg 864
Old Administration Building

Henry Angus Office Tower
Fraser River Parkade
Health Sciences Parkade
Woodward Library
Wesbrook
UBC Seismic Assessment

Project No. 1666
$
$
$
$
$
$
465,000.
675,000.
300,000. (excluding topping issue)
490,000.
535,000.
600,000.
Page 1
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
1.
INTRODUCTION
JM Engineering (partnered with Glotman-Simpson Engineers) was retained by The University of

British Columbia to conduct a detailed seismic assessment of eight buildings identified in our
previous seismic report titled: University of British Columbia Seismic Risk Assessment Report
(Summary of High & Very-High Seismic Risk Buildings) dated June 14, 2012.
The eight buildings previously identified include the following:
Bldg 017 Old Administration Building.................
Bldg 023 Henry Angus Office Tower.
Bldg 052 Fraser River Parkade..
Bldg 449 Food Nutrition & Health..
Bldg 467 Health Sciences Parkade...
Bldg 536 Woodward Library...
Bldg 864 Wesbrook Building....
High Seismic Risk

Very High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
High Seismic Risk
UBC is interested in understanding the scope of structural upgrading required to reduce the
seismic risk of these eight buildings from high or very high seismic risk to medium seismic risk.
2.
PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT
In our previous report, we identified eight buildings which we were of the opinion might benefit
from conducting a detailed seismic assessment.
We suggested that a full detailed seismic assessment of the following four buildings may result
in a reduction in risk level based on existing building seismic resisting capacity only without
requiring any structural upgrade. These buildings included:
Bldg 449 Food Nutrition & Health
Bldg 467 Health Sciences Parkade
Bldg 864 Wesbrook Building
In addition, we identified another four buildings exhibiting varying degrees of seismic resisting
capacity but also containing a seismic failure mechanism. By mechanism we mean the
building contains a definable weak link that may result in partial or full collapse during a seismic
event. We were of the opinion that if the mechanism was corrected, there may be a chance
for the building to be re-classified to a lower risk level with little or nominal additional structural
upgrading. These buildings included:
Bldg 017 Old Administration Building
Bldg 023 Henry Angus Office Tower
Bldg 052 Fraser River Parkade
Bldg 536 Woodward Library

Project No. 1666
Page 2
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
The ultimate goal of the detailed seismic assessment and this report was as follows:
i)
Determine if any of the eight buildings could be re-classified to medium seismic risk level
with no structural upgrade (ie. the existing seismic resisting system is sufficient for the
building to be re-classified as medium seismic risk).
ii) Determine if fixing just the seismic mechanism in four of the buildings would be
sufficient to re-classify the building to medium seismic risk level.
iii) Depending on the results from goals i) and ii) above, identify the structural upgrades
required to be able to re-classify all eight of these buildings as medium seismic risk level.
iv) Provide an order of magnitude costing for implementing these structural upgrades.
3.
SEISMIC UPGRADING PHILOSOPHY FOR UBC BUILDINGS IN THIS REPORT
It is our understanding that UBCs overall goal and philosophical intent of undertaking the
seismic upgrading of these eight high and very high seismic risk buildings is to achieve the
following:
i)
Either confirm or improve the seismic resisting capacity of the eight buildings to provide
a reasonable level of safety to enable occupants to evacuate the building safely during
a medium seismic event.
ii) Given the age of the buildings, economic loss of the building is not a primary concern
during these seismic events.
iii) Identify the most economical course of action to reduce the seismic risk of these eight
buildings to medium seismic risk.
4.
DESIGN CRITERIA DEFINING MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK
We are not aware of any definitive definition or design criteria that identifies what medium
seismic risk actually means.
In attempting to define this level of risk, we looked to the intent of the code with respect to
providing life safety versus economic loss.
In our opinion, medium seismic risk means that the building would have a chance of surviving a
1:100 year earthquake, which was essentially the design philosophy of the previous code. The
2006 BC Building Codess seismic philosophy has increased the return period (ie increased the
force level) to also provide improved building performance to reduce economic loss.
Using the Vancouver Building ByLaw seismic upgrading module as a benchmark, we note that
the wording of the City of Vancouver's "Alterations to Existing Buildings - Acceptable Solutions
#2" document indicates that for existing buildings a level of seismic resistance less than the full
Project No. 1666
Page 3
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
amount required for new buildings is acceptable. The design parameters used for new building
design is that of an earthquake with a 2% chance of exceeding in any 50 year period, or
equivalent to a return period of 1 in 2475 years.
In Vancouver this results in a design earthquake for new buildings with a Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) of .46g. Other commonly used 50 year exceedance probabilities together
with their proportional PGA, return period, percent of force level relative to full code design
requirements, approximate Richter magnitude and approximate expected duration are:
2% in 50 Year;
5% in 50 Year;
10% in 50 Year;
40% in 50 Year;
.46 PGA;
.33 PGA;
.25 PGA;
.12 PGA;
1:2475 return period

1:1000 return period
1:475 return period
1:100 return period
100%
70%
50%
25%
M7.5
M6.5
M6
M5.3
30 seconds
20 seconds
12 seconds
4 seconds
By reducing the design earthquake return period to less than that required for new buildings the
design loading is reduced making the cost and complexity of upgrading easier. However, it must
be noted this creates a risk that the capacity of the building could be exceeded in a design event
consistent with the 2% in 50 year event.
The seismic loading specified by National Research Council Canada publication "Guidelines for
Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings" dated 1992 used for the structural survey of a
buildings seismic system equates to approximately 30% of the current code requirements for a
new building with similar structure. As noted in the table above this equates to a design
earthquake with a return period of 1:100. It has generally been accepted locally that this is an
appropriate force level on which to base an S3 level seismic upgrade.
From a design assessment point of view, we defined the various seismic risk levels for UBC
Buildings as follows:
SEISMIC RISK
LEVEL
SEISMIC BASE
SHEAR
CAPACITY/DEMAND
RATIO
ACTUAL MATERIAL STRAINS
DRIFT LIKELY
TO CAUSE
DAMAGE
CONCRETE
REINFORCEMENT
Very High
10% +/- &

Catastrophic Failure
Mechanism
>%
> 0.005
> 0.05
High
10% +/-
> 1%
> 0.005
> 0.05
Medium
30% +/-
>1%
< 0.005
< 0.05
Low
60% +/-
> 2%
< 0.005
< 0.05

Project No. 1666
Page 4
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
Using the above criteria, the medium risk design check included the following:
5.
Satisfy 1:100 yr earthquake which equates to approximately 30% of the current code
seismic base shear
Verify no seismic mechanism exists
Check interstorey and total building drift < 1 %
Confirm low strains in concrete and reinforcement
Check moment capacity/demand ratios less than or equal to shear capacity/demand
rations for ductile response
Check compression is not overstressed in the shear walls or non-seismic resisting
column elements
Satisfying the above implies that a brittle seismic failure will not occur before 30% of
seismic base shear
Therefore classify building as medium seismic risk
DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Due to the existing buildings age and the low to non-existent ductility inherent in the existing
framing and reinforcement detailing, we used the following design parameters in all seismic
assessments:
Fc = 25 Mpa (concrete)
Fy = 300 Mpa (reinforcement)
Rd=1.5
Ro=1.3
I=1.0
Site Classification E
The eight buildings were modeled in Etabs and a linear dynamic analysis was completed for
each building. The entire building including reinforced concrete shear walls, columns, and slabs
were modeled enabling building elements to be analyzed and checked for response to the
seismic forces.
The buildings were subjected to 100% of the current code seismic base shear based on the
design requirements outlined in Part 4 the 2012 BC Building Code. Seismic capacity/demand
ratios were calculated for critical structural members including shear walls and non-seismic
resisting elements such as columns and floor diaphragms. The capacity/demand ratios were
calculated using expected material properties.
Seismic mechanisms were also identified before the Etabs run to ensure appropriate
mechanism elements were correctly modeled.
The base building model was run on Etabs and the seismic shear capacity/demand ratios were
calculated for the seismic resisting elements. If the following criteria were met for all structural
elements;

Project No. 1666
Page 5
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
JM ENGINEERING
Seismic base shear capacity/demand ratio > 30%

Material strains less than identified in the table above
Interstorey drifts < 1 %
Seismic moment capacity/demand rations less than seismic base shear
capacity/demand ratios
Then the building was classified as having satisfied the criteria for medium seismic risk.
It quickly became apparent that seismic mechanisms failed to satisfy all the above criteria. In
these situations, the mechanism was upgraded with additional shear walls or other structural
elements deemed appropriate. The Etabs model was updated and then the building was run
again. This became an iterative process until the above criteria was satisfied. When this was
achieved, we had an understanding of the upgrading required to satisfy the medium seismic risk
design criteria.
Similarly, a building with no apparent seismic mechanism that failed to meet the medium
seismic risk design criteria meant the buildings seismic resisting system was deficient and
required upgrading. After reviewing the seismic base shear capacity/demand ratios, we
introduced new seismic elements as necessary and re-ran the Etabs model making adjustments
as necessary until the building satisfied the medium seismic risk design criteria.
This process was repeated for all eight buildings.
6.
INTERFACE WITH OTHER BUILDING SYSTEMS
Since our mandate was to identify the most direct structural upgrade required to bring the
building to a Medium Seismic Risk level, we did not consider the interface and implications of
the architectural, mechanical, or electrical systems during the seismic assessment.
For example, we are aware that bringing the four corner walls down to grade in Building 023
Henry Angus Office Tower may pose a significant architectural issue both from aesthetics and
functionality point of view. But it is the most direct structural solution to address the seismic
mechanism and to achieve a medium seismic risk level for the building.
These other building systems, we felt, could be explored during the design phase if and when
UBC decides to proceed with the seismic upgrading.

Project No. 1666
Page 6
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
7.
DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
7.1
BUILDING 017 OLD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
7.1.1
Framing Description
The Old Administration Building is a 2 storey with partial full basement and partial
crawlspace structure constructed with timber stud wall and timber floor joist/beam
framing.
The building has seen several renovations and additions. The west addition included
some structural steel OWSJ and metal deck roof framing supported on steel
beams/posts.
The exterior walls are, as far as we know, stucco on lath/plaster on stud framing. There
are no known timber shear walls inside the building. There are some block walls at the
junction of one addition, but little is known of the extent. All interior walls are covered
with drywall. Most of the ceiling is drywall.
7.1.2
Reason For Initial High Seismic Risk Ranking

There are no defined shear walls, and the west addition contains a soft storey by way of
the clerestorey windows that existing all along the west basement wall returning 20ft on
the north and south walls.
The clerestorey presents a seismic mechanism that can lead to collapse of the west
wall.
7.1.3
Results From Seismic Analysis

We conducted the analysis in accordance with the National Research Council of Canada
publication "Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings" dated 1992.
Based on the NRC guidelines, we permitted the contribution of the exterior stucco/lath &
plaster walls as well as the interior drywall in calculating the buildings capacity to resist
the current code seismic base shear (realizing current code does not allow the use of
these materials to contribute to the seismic resistance of a building in new construction):
Using 100% of the current seismic base shear, we calculated the following :
i)
ii)
The building was only capable of resisting approximately 12% of the current base
shear in either direction.
The basement clerestorey windows do create a soft storey seismic mechanism
as there are no defined adjacent shear walls to stiffen the floor diaphragm and
prevent the perimeter wall seismic forces to be collected and resolved elsewhere.

Project No. 1666
Page 7
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
iii)
iv)
7.1.4
JM ENGINEERING
The beam/column ties were not checked in the crawlspace, but based on our
experience with other buildings at UBC of similar age, we would assume there
are no beam/column ties.
The existing floor diaphragms are adequate.
Structural Upgrading Required

Refer to the attached sketch SSK-017-01 for the recommended structural upgrades.
These include the following:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
7.1.5
Install new timber sheathed shear walls with hold downs all along the interior of
the perimeter walls (existing windows to be maintained).
Introduce new timber sheathed shear walls in the main interior corridor full height
including hold downs and footings as required.
Eliminate some of the basement clerestorey windows and infill with new timber
shear walls matching the window profile above.
Tie the beam/columns and the column/footing connections in the crawlspace.
Conclusions
The building is deficient in resisting the seismic base shear in both directions due to the
lack of defined shear walls. The addition of timber sheathed defined shear walls in the
building as noted including hold downs, the remedial re-framing at the clerestorey, and
the beam/column tying within the crawlspace will improve this building, in our opinion, to
the point where it can be re-ranked as MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK.

Project No. 1666
Page 8
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.2
BUILDING 023 HENRY ANGUS OFFICE TOWER
7.2.1
Framing Description
JM ENGINEERING
The Henry Angus Office Tower is a 9 storey office building consisting of 8 storeys of
reinforced concrete flat plate slabs supported on reinforced concrete stair and elevator
walls, interior concrete columns and pre-cast mullion perimeter columns. The top floor is
framed with structural steel.
7.2.2
Reason For Initial Very High Seismic Risk Ranking

This office towers seismic resisting system consists of non-ductile reinforced concrete
shear walls. The elevator and stair concrete walls are continuous full height, however
there are four perimeter north/south walls that are discontinuous and only start at the
second floor.
Not only is there a lack of reinforced concrete shear walls in the north/south direction,
but the very high seismic risk ranking was warranted because of the soft storey
seismic failure mechanism that existed at the second floor level where the four perimeter
shear walls started. These walls are supported on small non-ductile column elements at
the ground floor level which were expected to perform poorly in a seismic event.
There was also concern about possible pre-cast mullion failure if the interstorey drifts
were large.
7.2.3

The existing buildings slab diaphragms, walls, and all column elements were modeled in
Etabs. In particular, the discontinuous shear walls and supporting column elements
were carefully modeled.
i)
The existing builds shear capacity/demand ratio was 22% in the N/S direction
and 49% in the E/W direction. In addition, the concrete columns supporting the
discontinuous walls were overstressed and not capable of supporting the seismic
loads and it is our opinion they would fail catastrophically.
Based on these results, we revised the Etabs model with the seismic mechanism
removed. We modeled the tower with the discontinuous walls extended down to the
base assuming proper ductile detailing and appropriate foundations. The results from
that Etabs run were as follows:
i)
The revised building framing yielded a seismic base shear capacity/demand

ratio of 39% in the N/S direction and 43% in the E/W direction.

Project No. 1666
Page 9
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
JM ENGINEERING
The maximum concrete strain was 0.00171 << 0.005

The maximum reinforcement strain was 0.027 << 0.050
The maximum drift was approximately 1.30% in either direction < 1 %
The moment capacity/demand ratios < shear capacity/demand ratios
By removing the seismic mechanism which consisted of extending the discontinuous

shear walls to the foundation, we were able to satisfy the design criteria for achieving a
medium seismic risk level.
7.2.4

Our analysis indicated that in order to achieve a medium seismic risk ranking, the
following upgrading would be required (see attached sketches SSK-023-1 & SSK-023-2):
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
7.2.5
Extend all four perimeter walls down to the foundations.

Existing foundation walls and footings in the southeast and southwest corners
would need to be removed. Existing column footings and column elements at all
four shear wall elements would need to be reworked to accommodate the new
shear wall.
New concrete shear wall foundations will require soil anchors.
The new concrete walls would extend up through the 2nd floor to the u/s of the
third floor encompassing the existing second floor wall.
Steel tension elements would continue at each end of all four perimeter shear
walls on the inside of the building up to the u/s of the 6th floor.
These new walls cannot have any openings.
Conclusions
By extending the four perimeter reinforced concrete shear walls at each corner down to
new foundations with soil anchors and properly engaging the upper concrete walls, we
found that the seismic mechanism was resolved and the buildings ability to resist the
design seismic base shear improved sufficiently to be able to re-classify the building, in
our opinion, as MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK.

Project No. 1666
Page 10
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.3
BUILDING 052 FRASER RIVER PARKADE
7.3.1
Framing Description
JM ENGINEERING
The Fraser River Parkade consists of a 3 storey concrete building comprised of pre-cast
double tee planks and pre-cast beams supported on pre-cast walls. The interior walls
form part of the ramp framing. There are also four stair cores located at each corner of
the building.
Also of importance is that there is a topping on the pre-cast planks creating the slab
diaphragm. There are nominal embedded plate connections visible between the precast planks and the pre-cast walls.
7.3.2
Reason For Initial Very High Seismic Risk Ranking

The parkade building is ranked very high seismic risk because of the short length of the
6 north/south non-ductile walls.
The embedded plate connections between the slab diaphragm and the beams and walls
are nominal to non-existent which may result in pre-cast elements falling off supporting
members. The ability of the slab diaphragm to transfer shear into the walls was
questionable.
Also the slab diaphragm topping slab is jointed on a regular grid of approximately 20ft
o/c. The depth of jointing is unknown but if it extends down to the top of the pre-cast
planks, then this topping does not work structurally and the diaphragm is seriously
deficient.
7.3.3

The existing buildings slab diaphragms and walls were modeled in Etabs. The fact that
they were pre-cast elements and the connections are suspect was ignored in the Etabs
run. We rationalized we could ensure adequate tying of the elements in the upgrades to
ensure the elements worked together.
We also ignored most of the perimeter corner stair walls with the exception of the wall
actually engaged by the slab diaphragm as it was felt that we would not be able to
actually get the load into the other walls.
i)
The minimum shear capacity/demand ratio was 23% in the north/south direction
and 39% in the east/west direction. The 6 short north/south walls require
upgrading.

Project No. 1666
Page 11
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
JM ENGINEERING

The maximum drift was approximately 0.08% in the east/west direction and
0.20% in the north/south direction < 1 %
The moment capacity/demand ratios > shear capacity/demand ratios in the short
walls.
There are no details illustrating the embedded plate connections between the pre-cast
planks and the walls. They appear nominal and we would suspect they would not be
capable of transferring the minimum 30% of the base shear.
The very small drifts confirmed that improving the pre-cast planks bearing detail to the
pre-cast beams would not be necessary. There is insufficient movement to expect the
planks from falling off the bearing seats.
7.3.4

Refer to the attached sketch SSK-052-01 for the recommended structural investigations
& upgrades. These include the following:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
7.3.5
We would recommend that the topping slab be investigated at a couple of the

joint locations to verify the joints have not affected the topping slabs integrity. If it
has, then the slab diaphragm would be considered seriously deficient and would
require significant upgrade.
The shear transfer between the pre-cast planks and the wall elements requires
upgrading. This can be achieved by installing structural steel drag struts
consisting of angles and plates anchor bolted to the slab and walls. This applies
to all walls in both directions.
We recommend adding carbon fiber reinforcement on one side of the existing six
short pre-cast concrete walls noted in the attached plan full height from top of
footing to u/s roof slab. The connection of these walls at the pre-cast joints would
also need to be upgraded including connection of the pre-cast walls to the
footing.
Improve all pre-cast beams to pre-cast column connections typical all floors.
Conclusions
The building is deficient in resisting the seismic base shear in the north/south direction
and transferring this shear into the concrete shear walls. There is also a concern
regarding the integrity of the topping slab. Upon investigating the topping slab (and
replacing/repairing if necessary), and with the application of carbon fiber reinforcement
and drag struts / beam & column connection improvements as noted above, this building
could, in our opinion, be re-ranked as MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK.

Project No. 1666
Page 12
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.4
BUILDING 449 FOOD NUTRITION & HEALTH
7.4.1
Framing Description
JM ENGINEERING
The Food, Health & Nutrition building consists of a 3 storey reinforced concrete building
with one basement level. The reinforced concrete flat plate slabs are supported on a
series of concrete walls and long rectangular columns. The slab floor plate increases in
dimension on one side of the building increasing at each level which introduces
significant P-delta effects onto the long rectangular columns.
7.4.2

This buildings seismic resisting system consists of limited ductile reinforced concrete
shear walls and was ranked high seismic risk in our previous report.
The ranking was justified by the irregular L shaped building layout, the offset
cantilevered building profile generating large P-delta effects, and the non-continuity of
several stair walls within the center portion of the building.
All these factors led us to believe there may be a potential for large torsional forces at
the ends of the building and the potential for significant interstorey drifts. As well, the
capacity of the existing walls was a concern.
This building did not have an obvious seismic mechanism. It was considered as
generally lacking in seismic capacity for the points noted above.
7.4.3

The existing buildings slab diaphragms, walls, and all column elements were modeled in
Etabs. In particular, the offset floor plates were carefully modeled as well as the
discontinuous concrete shear walls and the long rectangular column elements.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
The minimum shear capacity/demand ratio was approximately 36% in both

directions
The maximum reinforcement strain was 0.028<<0.050
The maximum drift was 0.20%
The existing building was found to be capable of resisting the offset cantilevered floor
plate, the irregular building layout resulting in large torsional shears, and the long
rectangular columns were capable of supporting the P-delta effects.

Project No. 1666
Page 13
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.4.4
JM ENGINEERING
Conclusions
The building satisfies the minimum design criteria for medium seismic risk ranking and
can therefore, in our opinion, be re-ranked as MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK with no structural
upgrading.

Project No. 1666
Page 14
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.5
BUILDING 467 HEALTH SCIENCES PARKADE
7.5.1
Framing Description
JM ENGINEERING
The Health Sciences Parkade consists of a 4 storey building comprised of reinforced

concrete one way slabs and beams supported on concrete walls and columns.
There are six short interior concrete shear walls in the north/south direction and none in
the east/west direction. There are also four stair cores located at each corner of the
building.
This parkade has a unique seismic lateral resisting system. The seismic system
consists of the short concrete shear walls in the north/south direction, and a folded plate
diaphragm system incorporating the ramp slabs to transfer the shears down to the
basement foundation walls in the east/west direction.
7.5.2

The parkade is ranked high seismic risk primarily because of the lack of walls or length
of walls in the north/south direction. The folded plate system in the east/west direction
was also considered unique and could not be considered acceptable without conducting
a detailed seismic analysis on the diaphragm forces.
Also short column effect was also considered possible along the ramp supporting
columns.
7.5.3

The existing buildings slab diaphragms including the folded plate system and concrete
walls were modeled in Etabs. We ignored the four perimeter stair cores because they
were not being engaged by the slab diaphragms.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
The minimum shear capacity/demand ratio was 9% in the north/south direction

and 49% in the east/west direction. The six short north/south walls require
upgrading.
The maximum drift was approximately 0.50% in the east/west direction and
0.90% in the north/south direction < 1 %
The moment capacity/demand ratios > shear capacity/demand ratios in the short
walls.

Project No. 1666
Page 15
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
The folded plate diaphragm was found to be able to resist the forces generated from
30% of the base seismic shear.
The small interstorey drifts limited the forces in the short columns along the ramp. Short
column effect is not an issue in this parkade.
7.5.4

i)
7.5.5
The six short north/south walls require the addition of carbon fibre reinforcement.
New tension elements are required each end on four of the walls. These walls
will also require soil anchors.
Conclusions
The building is deficient in resisting the seismic base shear in the north/south direction.
The application of carbon fiber reinforcement and select tension elements with soil
anchors as noted above on the short walls will improve this buildings seismic capacity, in
our opinion, to the point where it can be re-ranked as MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK.

Project No. 1666
Page 16
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.6
BUILDING 536 WOODWARD LIBRARY
7.6.1
Framing Description
JM ENGINEERING
The Woodward Library consists of a 3 storey building comprised of the original building
and an addition literally saw toothed into the original building. The combined building is
constructed with reinforced concrete slabs utilizing drop panels and column capitals
supported on reinforced concrete walls and columns.
7.6.2

This buildings seismic resisting system consists of non-ductile reinforced concrete shear
walls. The shear walls include stair cores located at each perimeter corner, and one
central stair and elevator.
This building was ranked high seismic risk due to the arrangement of the shear walls
around the perimeter and in inability of the slab diaphragm to engage these walls.
Because of the arrangement of the shear walls within the floor plate, the building lacks
sufficient shear walls. In addition, we were concerned the diaphragm contained high
localizes drag strut forces which were not adequately resolved.
7.6.3

The existing buildings slab diaphragms, walls, and column elements were modeled in
Etabs. Any perimeter stair walls which were not engaged directly by the slab were
eliminated from the Etabs run. The shear transfer from the slab diaphragm into the
shear walls was also checked to determine if additional drag struts were required.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
The minimum shear capacity/demand ratio was 14% in the east/west direction
and 32% in the north/south direction. Several concrete walls require upgrading in
the east/west direction.
The maximum concrete strain was0.0017 << 0.005
The maximum reinforcement strain was0.026 << 0.050
The maximum drift was approximately 0.30% in either direction X-direction and
0.35% in the Y-direction < 1 %
The shear transfer from the slab diaphragm into the concrete shear walls was also found
to be less than 30% of the base seismic shear in various locations. Steel drag struts will
be required in these locations.

Project No. 1666
Page 17
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.6.4
JM ENGINEERING

i)
ii)
7.6.5
Add carbon fiber reinforcement on one side of the existing concrete walls noted
in the attached plan full height from top of footing to u/s roof slab.
Add structural steel drag struts anchor bolted to the u/s of the slab and to the
shear walls at the locations shown on the plan. This would be required at each
floor and roof slab.
Conclusions
The building is deficient in resisting the seismic base shear in the east/west direction and
transferring this shear into the concrete shear walls. With the application of carbon fiber
reinforcement and addition of steel drag struts as noted above, this building could, in our
opinion, be re-ranked as MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK.

Project No. 1666
Page 18
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.7
BUILDING 624 GEORGE CUNNINGHAM ADDITION
7.7.1
Framing Description
JM ENGINEERING
The George Cunningham Addition building consists of a 4 storey reinforced concrete

structure constructed with one way concrete slabs supported on concrete walls and
columns. There is a deep perimeter spandrel beam at the slab edge all around the
building.
7.7.2

This buildings seismic resisting system consists of non-ductile reinforced concrete shear
walls. The high seismic ranking was due to the lack of shear walls and the short length
of these shear walls in the north/south direction.
In addition, the building contains a seismic mechanism in the way of short columns as a
result of the deep spandrel beams.
7.7.3

Etabs. In particular, the deep spandrel beams were carefully modeled as well as the
perimeter columns to check the forces and drifts in these columns.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
The minimum shear capacity/demand ratio was approximately 37%

The maximum reinforcement strain was 0.038<<0.050
The maximum drift was 0.25% << 1 %
The existing building columns were checked for short column effect. Due to the small
drifts, the columns were found to be capable of safely resisting the effects from a
medium level seismic event.
7.7.4
Conclusions
The building satisfies the minimum design criteria for medium seismic risk ranking and
can therefore, in our opinion, be re-ranked as MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK with no structural
upgrading.

Project No. 1666
Page 19
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.8
BUILDING 864 - WESBROOK
7.8.1
Framing Description
JM ENGINEERING
The Wesbrook building is a 3 storey structure with one basement constructed with
reinforced concrete rib /beam slab system supported on reinforced non-ductile concrete
walls and columns.
The building is an irregular V shape with long slab diaphragms out to the ends of the
wings. The center block contains the larger volume lecture theatres. Deep spandrel
beams form the edge of the slabs creating possible short columns.
7.8.2

The Wesbrook buildings seismic resisting system consists of non-ductile reinforced
concrete shear walls. The shear walls reinforcement is not called up on the drawings so
assuming minimum reinforcement, the non-ductile walls were considered inadequate in
shear, especially at the ends of the wings which would experience significant torsional
forces.
In addition, the high seismic risk ranking was warranted due to the possible short
column affect assuming large interstorey drift at the ends of the wings, as well as
diaphragm span issues.
7.8.3

Etabs. Careful attention was given to the slab edge spandrel beams and the perimeter
column arrangement.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
The minimum shear capacity/demand ratio was 19%. Several concrete walls
require upgrading to improve their shear capacity.
The maximum reinforcement strain was 0.045 < 0.050
The maximum drift was approximately 0.75% < 1 %
The small interstorey drifts eliminated any short column concerns as these forces were
small. The long span diaphragms were checked and found acceptable.
The above results were based on assuming minimum wall reinforcement since the
drawings did not show any wall reinforcement. We recommend the walls are scanned or
chipped to verify existing reinforcement.

Project No. 1666
Page 20
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
7.8.4
JM ENGINEERING

i)
Add carbon fiber reinforcement on one side of the existing concrete walls noted
in the attached plan full height from top of footing to u/s upper most slab.
This upgrade is based on the assumption the existing wall reinforcement is minimum
horizontal and vertical as required by code. If, for example, the wall reinforcement was
twice minimum, then no carbon fibre reinforcement would be required.
7.8.5
Conclusions
We recommend the reinforcement in existing select walls be verified. Assuming
minimum reinforcement, the building is deficient in resisting the seismic base shear in
several concrete shear walls, or the shear capacity/demand ration was lower than the
moment capacity/demand ratio. With the application of carbon fiber reinforcement as
noted above, this building could, in our opinion, be re-ranked as MEDIUM SEISMIC
RISK.

Project No. 1666
Page 21
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
8.
JM ENGINEERING
ESTIMATED ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTING FOR SEISMIC UPGRADING
The following provides an order of magnitude costing for the proposed structural seismic
upgrades to achieve medium seismic risk. It is important to note the following:
i)
The proposed upgrades do not take into account the architectural seismic
upgrade feasibility in implementing the upgrades. The upgrades are the most
structurally efficient method of achieving the upgrade.
ii)
Due to the nature of the proposed seismic upgrades, we assume the mech/elec
costs are nominal.
iii)
Due to the nature of the proposed seismic upgrades, we assume the typical
architectural costs are essentially limited to select demolition and reinstating
finishes.
iv)
The cost estimates provided do not assume any soft costs, expenses, taxes, OH,
etc.

Project No. 1666
Page 22
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
Estimated Order Of Magnitude Seismic Upgrading Costs
Building
No.
Building Name
Seismic Upgrade Costs To Achieve Medium Seismic

Risk
Structural ($)
A/M/E ($)
Total ($)
017
Old Administration
Building
225,000.
235,000.
465,000.
023
Henry Angus Office

Tower
425,000.
250,000.
675,000.
052
Fraser River Parkade
300,000.
(Excluding
Topping Issue)
---
300,000.
(Excluding
Topping Issue)
449
Food Health Nutrition
---
---
---
467
Health Sciences
Parkade
490,000.
---
490,000.
536
Woodward Library
285,000.
250,000.
535,000.
624
George Cunningham
Addition
---
---
---
864
Wesbrook
250,000.
350,000.
600,000.

Project No. 1666
Page 23
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
9.
JM ENGINEERING
COMMENTS ON ACHIEVING FULL SEISMIC UPGRADING
In all eight buildings, the scope of work to achieve a full seismic upgrade which is compliant to
the 2012 BC Building Code seismic base shear requirements is significant.
It is our opinion having modeled each building that all six of the buildings would require
essentially a full demolition scenario with not just carbon fiber upgrades of select walls, but the
need to add new concrete shear walls or steel x-bracing, new soil anchors, and the installation
of new drag struts to augment the existing seismic resisting system.
Similarly, the two parkades would also require the addition of new seismic resisting elements
such as concrete shear walls or steel bracing. Due to the inherent open nature of the parkades,
and the less stringent aesthetics and exiting issues, this may be achieved much easier than with
a building (ie the seismic elements might be added to the perimeter of the parkade).
Therefore the cost of a full seismic upgrade is many times the cost of the upgrades identified in
this report in order to achieve a partial seismic upgrade which improves building performance to
a Medium Seismic Risk level only.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Yours Very Truly

JM Engineering
Jim Mandelli, P. Eng.

Principal

Project No. 1666
Page 24
February 5, 2013
GLOTMAN SIMPSON
JM ENGINEERING
APPENDIX
SSKS
STRUCTURAL PLANS

Project No. 1666
Page 25
February 5, 2013
NEW TIMBER SHEATHED SHEAR WALLS WITH HOLD

DOWNS INSTALLED ON THE INTERIOR FACE OF THE
EXTERIOR WALLS OR ON EITHER SIDE OF THE
INTERIOR WALLS. SHEAR WALL TO EXTEND TO
EXISTING FOUNDATION WALLS OR TO NEW
FOOTINGS IN THE CRAWLSPACE.
CLERESTOREY WINDOWS TO BE REMEDIATED TO
FOLLOW THE WINDOW OPENINGS IN THE WALLS
ABOVE. SHEAR WALLS WORK AROUND THE
EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS.
SSK-017-01
TIE ALL BEAM/

COLUMN
CONNECTIONS IN
THE
CRAWLSPACE
NEW TIMBER SHEATHED

SHEAR WALL ALONG ONE
SIDE OF THE INTERIOR
CORRIDOR INCLUDING
NEW FOOTINGS IN THE
CRAWL SPACE.
SSK-017-02
NEW TIMBER SHEATHED SHEAR

WALLS TO CONCRETE FOOTINGS/
WALLS INCLUDING HOLD DOWNS
INSTALLED ON THE INSIDE FACE OF
THE PERIMETER WALLS TYPICAL
NOTED THUS (SEE PLAN AS WELL).
REVISED CLERESTROEY
FRAMING TO ACCOMMODATE
NEW SHEAR WALLS AND
ELIMINATE THE SOFT STOREY
ISSUE. TYPICAL SHOWN THUS.
SSK-017-03
NEW REINFORCED
CONCRETE WALLS AND
FOOTINGS INCLUDING SOIL
ANCHORS ALL FOUR
CORNERS.
NEW REINFOIRCED
CONCRETE SHEAR
WALLS GROUND TO U/S
3RD TYPICAL ALL FOUR
CORNERS
SSK - 023-1
THESE CONCRETE WALLS EXIST

STARTING THE THE SECOND
FLOOR. WE WOULD NEED TO
AUGMENT THESE WALLS TO
ENGAGE THEM FULL HEIGHT TO
THE U/S OF THE 3RD FLOOR AND
IMPROVE THE SLAB CONNECTION
AT LEVEL 2. TYPICAL ALL FOUR
CORNERS.
ADD STEEL TENSION
ELEMENTS AT THE
EXISTING WALL ENDS UP
TO U/S OF LEVEL 6
TYPICAL ALL FOUR
CORNER WALLS EACH
END
SSK-023-2
CARBON FIBER ONE SIDE OF

EACH WALL CLOUDED THUS
FULL HEIGHT. IMPROVE
SHEAR CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN PRE-CAST WALL
ELEMENTS AT ALL JOINTS.
EXPOSE AND IMPROVE PRECAST WALL CONNECTION TO
FOOTINGS.
IMPROVE BEAM/
COLUMN
CONNECTIONS
TYPICAL
ADD STEEL DRAG STRUTS AS

REQUIRED ANCHOR BOLTED
TO SLAB AND WALLS TO
IMPROVE SHEAR TRANSFER
INTO THE PRE-CAST WALLS.
TYPICAL ALL SIX WALLS BEING
CARBON FIBER REINFORCED.
INVESTIGATE THE JOINTING IN

THE TOPPING SLAB TO VERIFY
IT'S ABILITY TO ACT AS A
DIAPHRAGM. IMPROVE AS
NECESSARY. TYPICAL ALL
LEVELS.
SSK-052-01
IMPROVE BEAM/
COLUMN
CONNECTIONS
TYPICAL ALL
LEVELS
ADD STEEL
DRAG STRUTS
AS REQUIRED
CONNECTING
SLAB TO THE
WALLS TYPICAL
CARBON FIBER
THESE WALLS
ON GRIDS 3 AND
8 FULL HEIGHT (6
WALLS TOTAL)
SSK-052-02
ADD STEEL TENSION ELEMENTS

AND SOIL ANCHORS AS
REQUIRED AT BOTH ENDS OF
FOUR WALLS AS NOTED THUS
FROM FOUNDATIONS TO U/S OF
ROOF LEVEL.
ADD CARBON FIBRE

REINFORCEMENT ONE SIDE
OF EACH WALL FULL
HEIGHT FROM TOP OF
FOOTING TO U/S ROOF
SLAB TYPICAL 6 WALLS.
SSK-467-01
ADD STEEL DRAG STRUTS

ANCHOR BOLTED TO THE
UNDERSIDE OF THE SLAB AND
THE SIDE OF THE CONCRETE
SHEAR WALLS TYPICAL SHWON
THUS. ASSUME THIS IS
REQUIRED ON ALL FLOORS AND
ROOF SLAB.
CARBON FIBER ONE

SIDE OF THESE WALLS
(FOUR TOTAL) FULL
HEIGHT TYPICAL
SHOWN THUS
SSK-536-01
ADD CARBON FIBRE ON ONE SIDE OF

THIS WALL FULL HEIGHT. APPEARS
TO HAVE DUCTS ON ONE SIDE AND
ELEVATOR ON INSIDE...MAY BE
EASIER TO LOCK OFF THE ELEVATOR
AND DO IT FROM THE INSIDE TYPICAL
TWO ELEVATORS.
ADD CARBON FIBER

REINFORCEMENT ON THESE
WALLS FROM TOP OF
FOOTINGS TO TOP OF THE
WALL - WHICH DOES NOT GO
UP TO THE ROOF.TYPICAL
FOR ALL WALLS EXCEPT AT
THE ELEVATORS
SSK-864-01

UBC Seismic Risk Assessment - Eight Buildings Final Report - Feb 7-2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UBC Seismic Risk Assessment - Eight Buildings Final Report - Feb 7-2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GLOTMAN SIMPSON

Consulting Structural Engineer

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

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Project No. 1666

Consulting Structural Engineer

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

Purpose Of Conducting The Detailed Seismic Assessment..

Seismic Upgrading Philosophy For UBC Buildings In This Report...

Design Criteria Defining Medium Seismic Risk.

Detailed Seismic Assessment Philosophy.

Interface With Other Building Systems.

Detailed Seismic Assessment Results & Discussions.

Estimated Order Of Magnitude Costing For Seismic Upgrades...

Comments On Achieving Full Seismic Upgrading..

Appendix SSKs Structural Plans

Consulting Structural Engineer

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

High Seismic Risk

Our assessment yielded the following results:

Old Administration Building

UBC Seismic Assessment

Consulting Structural Engineer

JM Engineering (partnered with Glotman-Simpson Engineers) was retained by The University of

High Seismic Risk

PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT

UBC Seismic Assessment

Consulting Structural Engineer

SEISMIC UPGRADING PHILOSOPHY FOR UBC BUILDINGS IN THIS REPORT

DESIGN CRITERIA DEFINING MEDIUM SEISMIC RISK

Consulting Structural Engineer

1:2475 return period

ACTUAL MATERIAL STRAINS

10% +/- &

UBC Seismic Assessment

Consulting Structural Engineer

UBC Seismic Assessment

Consulting Structural Engineer

Seismic base shear capacity/demand ratio > 30%

INTERFACE WITH OTHER BUILDING SYSTEMS

UBC Seismic Assessment

Consulting Structural Engineer

DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

BUILDING 017 OLD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Reason For Initial High Seismic Risk Ranking

Results From Seismic Analysis

UBC Seismic Assessment

Consulting Structural Engineer

Structural Upgrading Required

UBC Seismic Assessment

BUILDING 023 HENRY ANGUS OFFICE TOWER

Consulting Structural Engineer

Reason For Initial Very High Seismic Risk Ranking

Results From Seismic Analysis

The revised building framing yielded a seismic base shear capacity/demand

UBC Seismic Assessment

Consulting Structural Engineer

The maximum concrete strain was 0.00171 << 0.005

By removing the seismic mechanism which consisted of extending the discontinuous

Structural Upgrading Required

Extend all four perimeter walls down to the foundations.

UBC Seismic Assessment

BUILDING 052 FRASER RIVER PARKADE