RESULTS
Results Menu 
The RESULTS menu has four submenus: DAMAGES, BENEFITCOST 
RESULTS, INJURIES & DEATHS, and SUMMARY, as 
follows: 
Print 
Benefit Cost Results 
Injuries & Deaths 
Summary 
The contents of these four submenus are discussed below. 
The four tables in this section of RESULTS summarize four types 
of damages: 
scenario damages, 
expected annual damages, 
expected avoided annual damages, and 
expected residual annual damages. 
These types of damages are defined as follows: 
Scenario The estimated damages and losses per earthquake event of a 
Damages given MMI (or range of effective peak ground acceleration, PGA), at 
the building; 
Expected 
Annual 
Damages 
Expected 
Annual 
Avoided 
Damages 
Expected 
Residual 
Annual 
Damages 
Damages: 
Existing 
Building 
RESULTS 
The product of scenario damages and the expected annual 
probability of an earthquake of a given MMI or PGA; 
The product of expected annual damages and the effectiveness of 
the rehabilitation measure in reducing expected damages. 
Expected annual avoided damages are the expected annual 
benefits of the rehabilitation project. 
The expected residual annual damages are damages expected to 
occur even after the rehabilitation is undertaken. 
Each of these types of damages and losses are subdivided into five 
major categories: building damage, property (contents), relocation 
expenses, rental income losses, and the value of lost government 
services. In each case, the damages and losses are shown for 
each MMI/PGA bin. A section of the DAMAGES table is shown 
below: 
Scenario damage estimates may be useful for some planning or 
policy purposes because they indicate the magnitude of losses per 
earthquake event (independent of the probability of such events). 
Thus, scenario losses indicate the extent of exposure to damage 
and losses if and when a corresponding earthquake does occur. 
Damages: 
Rehabilitated 
Building 
RESULTS 
Expected annual damages (which include the annual probabilities 
of earthquakes) are central for benefit-cost analysis. These are the 
probabilistic (expected) annual damages and losses which are 
potentially avoidable (in full or in part). If the expected annual 
damages are low, then the benefits of avoiding all or part of these 
damages will also be low. Expected annual damages may be low, 
even if scenario damages are high, for areas with low seismic risk. 
Scenario damage estimates and expected annual damage 
estimates thus contain complementary information which, in 
combination, present a complete picture of the damage estimates 
for the building under consideration. Both scenario damages and 
expected annual damages apply to the seismic performance of the 
existing building, and are thus independent of any rehabilitation 
alternative(s) being considered. 
Avoided annual damages are the fraction of the expected annual 
damages, which are avoided as a result of the specific rehabilitation 
project under evaluation. Avoided annual damage estimates apply 
only to the specific rehabilitation project under evaluation. Avoided 
annual damages are the differences between the expected annual 
damages for the existing building and the residual annual damages 
for the rehabilitated building. Avoided annual damages are the 
annual benefits of the specific project under consideration. 
RESULTS 
Residual annual damages are the probabilistic (expected) damages 
remaining after completion of the specific rehabilitation project 
under consideration. These damages indicate the level of 
exposure to damage and losses after completion of the 
rehabilitation project. In combination with the post-rehabilitation 
scenario damages, the residual annual damages provide a 
complete picture of the post-rehabilitation damage estimates. 
RESULTS
The tables on this page primarily present the benefit-cost results. 
However, there are five user-entered parameters in this section: 
discount rate and planning period, which affect all of the results, 
and the economic (statistical) values per minor injury, major injury 
and death, which affect only the benefit-cost results with the value 
of life. These important parameters substantially affect the 
magnitude of calculated benefits and thus the calculated benefit-
cost ratios. 
The total costs and benefits (including the expected number of 
avoided casualties) of each proposed rehabilitation project will vary. 
However, the societal cost assumed in the model per minor injury, 
per major injury and per death must be the same (even though the 
number of avoided casualties will vary from building to building and 
rehabilitation project to rehabilitation project). Similarly, the 
discount rate (which reflects the time value of money) must also be 
the same for all projects under evaluation. 
To ensure consistency when evaluating alternative 
rehabilitation projects for a single building or rehabilitation 
projects for a number of buildings, the same values must be 
used for the discount rate and the economic (statistical) value 
per minor injury, major injury and death. Since these are 
significant policy-related parameters, their values should probably 
be decided at the agency level rather than on a case-by-case basis. 
Similarly, the same planning period (or useful lifetime of the 
rehabilitation projects) should be used for similar projects with 
possible differences in planning periods reflecting only real 
differences in rehabilitation project lifetimes. In comparing projects, 
using differing values for these parameters would substantially 
distort the benefit-cost results and make comparisons meaningless. 
RESULTS 
A. Economic Parameters 
Discount Rate The discount rate is used to calculate the present value of benefits 
which occur in the future. Increasing the discount rate lowers the 
present value of future benefits and lowers benefit-cost ratios. 
Conversely, assuming a lower discount rate raises the present 
value of future benefits and increases benefit-cost ratios. Enter the 
discount rate as a percentage (i.e., enter 10 for 10%). 
The choice of an appropriate discount rate is frequently one of the 
most difficult aspects of benefit-cost analysis. For Federally funded 
projects, a 10% discount rate was previously mandated by the 
Office of Management and Budget, OMB, (Executive Order 12291, 
1981). Recently, however, this mandate has been lifted. On 
October 29, 1992, OMB issued Circular A-94, Revised (Transmittal 
Memo No. 64), Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost 
Analysis of Federal Programs. For "public investments" which are 
not "internal Federal government investments", the Circular 
recommends a discount rate of approximately 7 percent. For 
internal Federal government investments, the Circular recommends 
a discount rate of about 4 percent, which is the "real discount rate", 
estimated from the current interest rate on long term Treasury 
bonds less the current rate of inflation. 
The seismic rehabilitation of Federal government buildings meets 
OMB's criteria for internal Federal government investments; 
therefore, a discount rate of about 4% is appropriate. As per the 
OMB Circular, this rate should be revised periodically to reflect 
current discount rates. The OMB Circular will be updated annually. 
Current real discount rates can be obtained from the current 30 
year Treasury bond rate less the current rate of inflation. For more 
details, see Chapter 3 of Volume 2 of this project. 
RESULTS
Planning The planning period (horizon) is the time period over which the 
Period economic benefits of rehabilitation programs are considered. 
Longer planning horizons capture more future benefits and thus 
increase benefit-cost ratios. Short planning horizons capture future 
benefits for fewer years and thus result in lower benefit-cost ratios. 
Appropriate planning horizons may be as short as one year for one 
time public education efforts which have no impact beyond the first 
year. Planning horizons of 5 to 10 years for equipment purchases, 
and 30 to 50 years for building projects are typical. For major 
infrastructure projects such as levees, planning horizons as long as 
50 to 100 years may be appropriate. To ensure consistency of 
assumptions and results from project to project, agencies should 
probably adopt uniform guidelines for planning horizons. 
Present Value The discount rate and planning period account for the time value of Coefficient money and the useful lifetime of the rehabilitation, respectively. In combination, they determine the present value coefficient which is a multiplier on expected annual benefits which determines the net 
present value of such expected annual benefits. None of the 
compilations of damages and losses discussed previously depend 
on these parameters. However, the benefit-cost results presented 
below do depend strongly on the discount rate and planning period. 
B. Summary of Damages and Economic Losses 
(Without Value of Life) 
This section summarizes three categories of expected damages 
and losses: annual expected, annual avoided, and annual residual. 
In each case breakdowns are given for the five damage categories: 
building damage, property (contents), relocation expenses, rental 
income, and value of lost government services. 
The right hand column in this table is the present value of the 
avoided annual losses (for each of the five categories and a total). 
These are the benefits of the rehabilitation project without 
including the value of injuries and death. 
RESULTS 
The results compare the benefits (present value of total damages 
and losses avoided) and costs (total costs of the seismic 
rehabilitation project). Results are shown two ways: 
1) as the total benefits minus the costs (present value criterion), 
and 
2) as a benefit-cost ratio. 
Rehabilitation projects in which benefits exceed costs (on a present 
value basis) have present value criteria greater than zero and 
benefit-cost ratios above one. These two benefit-cost results 
provide complementary information, depending on whether or not 
total capital requirements are significant in the decision making 
process. 
C. Value of Injuries and Deaths Avoided (With the Value of Life) 
This section considers benefit-cost results including the economic 
value of avoided casualties in addition to the other damages and 
losses considered previously. The expected numbers of casualties 
were presented earlier in the section labeled "Death Losses & 
Injuries." To convert these estimates into economic losses, dollar 
values must be assigned to deaths and injuries. 
Value of Economic values must be assigned to minor and major injuries. 
Injuries The default value for minor injuries (not requiring hospitalization) is 
$1,000. The default value for major injuries (requiring 
hospitalization) is $10,000. Other values may be entered, if 
desired. 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
Statistical Value of Life: 
RESULTS
Value of a 
Statistical Life 
The economic value of human life is an important and difficult 
issue. The benefit-cost model can be run either including or 
excluding the statistical value of human life. When the value of life 
is included, the value of avoided deaths is frequently one of the 
principal factors producing high benefit/cost ratios for prospective 
rehabilitation programs, particularly for high occupancy facilities. 
A consensus value for a statistical human life is approximately 
$1.74 million, based on several Federal Agency studies. A fuller 
discussion of the value of life issue is contained in Appendix 1 of 
Volume 2 of the recently published benefit-cost model. This Value 
of Life paper is reprinted as Chapter 4 of Volume 2 of this report. 
The default value in the program is $1.7 million. Other values may 
be entered, if desired. However, for consistency, agencies should 
probably make agency-level decisions about appropriate economic 
values for deaths, minor injuries and major injuries. 
The right hand column in this table is the present value of the 
avoided annual losses (for each of the five categories and the 
totals, shown above). These are the benefits of the 
rehabilitation project including the value of injuries and death. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. "A Benefit-Cost Model for the 
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings'. Volume 2: Supporting Documentation. 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series 62, FEMA 227. April, 1992. 
RESULTS
Before 
Rehabilitation 
After 
Rehabilitation 
In a manner analogous to the damage tables discussed above, 
casualty estimates are summarized in five tables which include 
estimates of the expected numbers of minor injuries, major injuries 
and deaths as follows: 
Scenario casualties (per earthquake event), and expected annual 
casualties (considering the probabilities of earthquakes). 
Scenario casualties (per earthquake event), expected annual 
casualties (considering the probabilities of earthquakes), and 
avoided (annual) injuries and deaths. 
As for the non-casualty damages and losses summarized 
previously, the scenario and expected casualty estimates may be 
useful for planning or policy purposes. The expected avoided 
annual casualties are central to the benefit-cost analysis (i.e., the 
present value of these avoided casualties is counted as a benefit 
when the value of life is included in the benefit-cost analysis). 
RESULTS
This section summarizes all of the input parameters used in the 
calculation and summarizes the benefit-cost results, both with and 
without the value of life being included. 
Boxes at the top of the summary printout identify the building under 
consideration and the rehabilitation project being evaluated. A 
scenario run identification number may be entered (on the Building 
ID data entry page) to delineate multiple analyses of projects, with 
varying sets of assumptions. To avoid confusion, users are 
strongly urged to enter a run identification number whenever 
multiple analyses of the same project are conducted. The pink data 
entry box for run identification number also appears on the 
summary page. 
All of the input data which affect the calculated benefit-cost results 
are summarized in two tables: a table of single-value items, and a 
table of items which are defined for each MMJIPGA bin. 

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
CHAPTER 7. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 
OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
Seismic rehabilitation projects for eight Federal buildings were 
analyzed with the Benefit-Cost program. These example projects 
were selected to include as much diversity as possible in building 
type (structural system), location, function, and agency/owner, 
subject to data availability. These eight example buildings are listed 
below: 
Building Name Location Agency/ Building Type l 
Owner Structural System 
Veterans' Administration Memphis, TN Veterans' C2 -concrete frame with concrete 
Medical Center Administration shear wall 
US Federal Butte, MT General URM -Unreinforced masonry 
Building/Courthouse Services bearing wall 
Administration 
US Federal Building Albuquerque, NM General URM -Unreinforced masonry 
Services bearing wall 
Administration 
Jackson Federal Seattle, WA General S5 -steel frame with infill shear 
Building Services wails 
Administration 
TEAD Motor Pool Tooele Army Depot, UT US Army W1 -Light wood frame 
Facility, 
Building 158 
Nuclear Facility Storage Mare Island Naval US Navy S2 -Steel braced frame 
Complex, Shipyard, 
Building 271 Vallejo, CA 
Special Weapons Naval Construction US Navy PC -Precast concrete tilt-up 
Training Center, Battle Center, With flex diaphragm 
Building 678 San Diego, CA 
US Coast Guard Station, Boston, MA US Coast URM -Unreinforced masonry 
I Building 8 Guard bearing wall 
Narratives describing each of the eight example building analyses 
are given below. For the first example, the Veterans Administration 
Medical Center in Memphis, a complete print-out of the benefit-cost 
I program results is given in Appendix 11. For each example, the 
summary results pages are printed from the benefit-cost model. 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
Veterans Administration Medical Center 
1030 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN 
Function This 805,700 square foot building is a large, densely occupied 
hospital. Occupancy is approximately 3,000. 
Structure The building composed of a low rise (3 story) rectangular section 
(approximately 552,000 square feet) and a 15 story tower 
(approximately 253,000 square feet) rising from the middle of the 
low rise structure. An open court of about 60'xl 35' lies within the 
lower section. The low-rise building includes one ground floor 
basement, two full stories, and a partial third story composed of 
separate units connected to the tower by passageways. 
The structure was completed in 1967; some enlargements and 
renovations were made to the ground floor and basement in 1982. 
Construction is primarily cast-in-place concrete. Floor and roof 
construction is generally either one-way pan joists supported on 
beams, or two-way pan (waffle-type) joists; however, some 
significant areas have one-way and two-way flat slabs with beams. 
Vertical loads are transferred to foundations by concrete columns 
and, in some cases, concrete walls. Lateral load resistance is 
provided by shear walls and frame action. 
Foundations for the low rise portion of the building are either 
individual spread footings, bearing approximately two feet below the 
ground floor pipe basement, or drilled, bell-bottom caissons installed 
through areas where the ground story and ground floor pipe 
basement were not part of the original construction. Approximately 
70 columns support the tower and immediately adjacent portions of 
the low rise. The columns are supported by a 152' by 170' concrete 
mat, 3" to 4" thick. 
The building is clad in panels of precast concrete, either with a finish 
of embedded bricks or exposed concrete. These panels are 
attached to the concrete building frame with threaded inserts and 
slotted connectors so that the panels are not subjected to wind-
generated shear loads. 
Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-2 
Seismic 
Evaluation 
Seismic 
Rehabilitation 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
In 1985, the Veterans' Administration contracted with Walk Jones & 
Francis Mah, Inc. and Allen & Hoshall Inc. of Memphis TN to study 
the feasibility of seismic modification and ward renovations to the 
Medical Center. Rutherford & Chekene, consulting engineers, San 
Francisco, evaluated seismic strengthening renovations. 
The original structural design apparently considered only wind and 
not seismic forces. Initial investigations revealed that existing floors 
and shear walls were inadequate to provide the required lateral 
resistance. Torsional problems due to the location of the existing 
shear walls were also detected. Expansion joints were inadequate, 
causing excessive drift. 
Ted Winstead of Allen & Hoshall, concluded that the damage to the 
unimproved building would be intense at the upper MMI scale, with 
possible collapse. Since this outcome is not reflected by one of the 
existing damage functions for a moment resisting non-ductile 
concrete building, a specific damage function was devised by 
Winstead for both the existing and rehabilitated building. 
Damage to the unimproved building will be intense at MMI VIII, with 
probable collapse at MMI IX or higher. The shear walls in the tower 
are grossly inadequate to provide lateral resistance. Torsional 
problems exist due to the location of the shear wall; there are 
inadequate expansion joints, and excessive drift. 
Reinforcing the existing tower by a Four Corners" scheme was 
proposed for the Medical Center. This scheme places new concrete 
shafts rising at each corner of the tower, connected to one another 
at the penthouse level by a concrete "hat girder" at the tower 
perimeter. The new towers will require the existing foundation to be 
modified and enlarged. Additional shear walls will also be installed 
in the low rise portion of the building, and the existing expansion 
joints will be enlarged. 
The cost of seismic rehabilitation was estimated in 1985 at $21.1 
million excluding any non-seismic construction or renovation work. 
Selected occupants would have to be relocated during the project. 
The cost of relocation (assuming an average of 12 months 
relocation and $2.00 per month per square foot for relocation costs) 
is approximately $19 million dollars. This relocation cost is 
included in the cost of the rehabilitation project because it is 
necessary and directly related to the seismic rehabilitation. On the 
other hand, the cost of non-seismic renovation is excluded from the 
benefit-cost analysis because the benefits are not considered in the 
Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-3 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
seismic benefit-cost calculation. The total cost of the seismic 
rehabilitation is approximately $40 million. Thus, the seismic 
benefit-cost calculation counts fully both the costs and the benefits 
of the seismic portion of the overall rehabilitation/renovation of this 
hospital. 
Building Mean The seismic performance of the existing building and the building 
Damage after rehabilitation are shown in the building's mean damage 
Functions (expected damages as percentages of replacement value). 
The mean damage functions for the VA hospital are shown below: 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
High Original 0 25 78 100 100 100 100 
rise Building 
Rehabilitated 0 4 6 12 19 25 30 
Low rise Original 0 18 43 70 95 100 100 
Building 
Rehabilitated 0 5 6 13 20 30 40 
Whole Original 0 23 67 90.6 98.4 100 100 
Building Building 
Rehabilitated 0 4.3 6 12.3 19.3 26.57 33.1 
Benefit-Cost The analysis of this example is particularly interesting because the 
Results building is highly vulnerable to seismic damage (even collapse), but 
the building is located in a moderate, rather than high, seismicity 
area. 
The total seismic rehabilitation costs are approximately $40.5 
million. Without the value of life, the benefits of avoiding damages 
and losses total about $33.3 million, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio 
of 0.83. This ratio less than one results primarily from the moderate 
seismicity at this site, and from the relatively expensive rehabilitation 
project (about 40% of building replacement value). However, even 
without the value of life, benefits might exceed costs if higher values 
Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-4 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
were assigned to relocation costs (due to seismic damage) avoided 
by the rehabilitation and to the value of the services provided by the 
hospital in the post-earthquake situation. In the present analysis, a 
post-earthquake continuity premium of approximately 5 times the 
normal daily cost of providing services was assumed. 
When the value of casualties avoided is also considered, the total 
benefits of the rehabilitation rise to nearly $98 million  and the 
resulting benefit-cost ratio is 2.42. The high value of casualties 
avoided is due to the high occupancy of the building and to the fact 
that the existing building is expected to collapse in high MMI events. 
Veterans Administration Medical Center, TN 7-5 
Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 
Facility Class: 
Project Description: 
A.ECONOMIC PARAME 
Discount Rate: cent 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages 
Relocation Expenses 
Rental Income Losses 
Value of Lost Services 
total Damages and Losses 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 
177755 
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE -
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: I 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
Statistical Value of Life: 
I Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of 
Minor Injuries 
Serious Injuries 
Deaths 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND INJURIES AVOIDED: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 10. August 4, 1994 
SUMMARY Run Identification Final 
Veterans' Administration Medical 1030 Jefferson Ave. Memphis, TN 38104 
Rehab, Project Description: Add shear walls and moment frame 
Facility Class: Concrete Frame with Concrete Shear Wall 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $115.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 805,700 
Total Building Replacement Value $92,65,500 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% 
Total Contents Value $96,000,000 
Cost of Providing Services per day $302,701 
Continuity Premium $1,500,000 
Value of lost services per day $1,802,701 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($1sq.ft.1month): $2.S0 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $40,457,800 
Average Day Occupancy 3,000 
Average Night Occupancy 2,900 
Soil Type S2 
Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: 
MMI VI VI] VIII IX X Xl XII 
PGA (%g) 4-8 B-16 16-32 32-55 56-80 | 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function 1 25 75 100 100 I 100 100 
Modified MDF(%) 1 25 100 100 100 100 100 
Minor Injury Rate,(10O 3.000E-02 8.400E+O0 .aOOE+02 S .OOOE01 I.0E+0E01 .OOOE +01 
Major Injury Rate/l1000 4.OOOE-03 1.120E+00 3.000E+02 2.SOOE+02 2.000E+02 1.500E+02 1.SOOE+02 
Death Rate000 1.000E-03 2.800E-01 5.100Es01 5.OOOE+02 7.000E+02 8.OOOE+02 8.OOOE+02 
Content MDF(%) 1 25 75 100 100 100 100 
Functiona Downtime (days) 1 25 30 30 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 ISO 365 366 365 365 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 83 94 88 81 73 67 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 100 83 94 88 81 73 67 
Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1 000 3.000E-03 8AOOE-01 1.000E2+01 .000E+00 .000E+00 5.OOOE+00 5.O0OE+OO 
Rehab Major Injury RateM000 4.000E-0 1.120E-02 3.000E+00 2.500E+00 2.000E+00 1.500E4100 1.500E+OO 
Rehab Death Rate/l1OO 1.000E-06 2.800E-04 S.000E-02 .000E-01 7.000E401 8.000E-01 E.000}-41 
Annual Number of Earthquakes S.108E-02 1.345E-02 3.541E-03 8.196E-04 2.293E-04 7.75E-05 1.412E-04 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With Value 
of Life of Lfe 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $33,385,616 $97,892,529
|TOTAL
BENEFITS IUINUS TOTAL COSTS:. | $7,072,184)i $57,434,729 
Benefit cost ratio: _ 
0.83 2.42 
Analysis Inc.
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
United States Federal Building/Courthouse 
400 North Main Street, Butte, MT 
Function This 62,000 square foot building contains the Federal courts and 
administrative functions for the region. Occupants include U.S. 
District Court, U.S. Marshals Service, F.B.I., U.S.D.A. Forest 
Service, and U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Occupancy is about 285 
during business hours. 
Structure The first phase of this building was constructed in 1902 and the 
remainder in 1932. This four-story building is unreinforced masonry 
construction. 
Seismic A seismic structural evaluation and analysis was completed on July 
22, 1992 and listed the following structural deficiencies:
Evaluation 
* The unreinforced masonry bearing walls are inadequate to 
resist the seismic forces for seismic zone 3. 
* The masonry bearing walls lack the ductility required under 
the 1991 UBC for modern structures. 
. A soft-story problem exists below the second level due to the 
discontinuity of the existing unreinforced masonry walls at the 
lightwell below this level. This discontinuity has the tendency 
to stiffen the building in the upper stories creating an abrupt 
change at this level which tends to cause more severe 
earthquake damage and increase the potential for collapse at 
the soft story level. 
. Many of the unreinforced masonry walls consist of a series of 
piers between window openings which, because they are 
unreinforced, lack the boundary steel to develop their limited 
in-plane shear capacity and resist rocking. 
. Unreinforced masonry parapets and balustrades at the roof 
are on all four sides of the building and at the outer unbraced 
walls at the lightwell. These pose a serious falling hazard to 
people on the sidewalks and in parking areas below. 
US Federal Building, MT 7-8 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
The unreinforced masonry bearing walls on the exterior of the 
building and in the lightwell are inadequately anchored to the 
structure. Since these walls support the floor and roof 
structure, total or partial collapse of the masonry bearing 
walls will create a falling hazard to occupants in the building, 
people on sidewalks, and in other areas adjacent to the 
building. 
The floor and roof diaphragms of the 1902 and the 1931 
buildings were constructed at different times and do not 
appear to be adequately connected. Because of the 
insufficient capacity to transfer the lateral loads across this 
connection, the diaphragms in each building will move 
independently during an earthquake rather than as a single 
continuous unit. This will, in effect, produce a plan irregularity 
in each of the two separate U-shaped diaphragms causing 
the different wings of the building to vibrate independently 
and at different frequencies. This vibrational difference will 
concentrate damage at the inside corners of the building. 
a The existing straight sheathing at the roof structures of the 
two portions of the building consists of 1x6 sheathing boards 
on the wood roof joists. This straight sheathing does not 
have sufficient shear capacity to resist the shear forces 
required by the UBC for seismic zone 3. 
Since the first seismic design for buildings was required under the 
1958 Uniform Building Code, this building is considered 
substandard. It is located in UBC earthquake Zone 3 on S1 soil. 
Seismic Two rehabilitation options were considered for the building. The 
Rehabilitation most economical option is a $2.2 million shear wall retrofit to 
increase the lateral strength of the building. A $4.5 million base 
isolation project was rejected as too expensive. 
Building Mean The mean damage functions for the Butte Federal Building, before 
Damage and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions 
Functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as 
guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "standard," 
which means a building with typical seismic performance for this 
building class. The rehabilitated building under Option A (shear wall 
scheme) was, characterized as "special," which means a building 
specifically designed for seismic performance. Option B (base 
isolation) was not analyzed, but is included for comparison to Option 
A. 
US Federal Building, MT 7-9, 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xi XII 
Original 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 89.4 100 
Building 
Building shear wall 1.5 2.7 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 
Option A retrofit 
Building base 0.5 1.0 3.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 20 
Option B isolation 
Benefit-Cost This example is a substantially vulnerable building (unreinforced 
Results masonry) in a moderate seismicity area. Several factors combine to 
produce very low benefit-cost ratios for this project. First, the 
rehabilitation project is very expensive -nearly 60% of the building's 
replacement value. Second, even though the building has major 
damage at higher MMI events, the damage at lower MMI events is 
only moderate. Thus, the potential benefits of avoiding these 
damage are somewhat limited. Third, the seismic risk at the site is 
modest, because of the location and further because of the S1 
(rock) soil conditions at the site. The S1 conditions result in lower 
intensity ground motions than would be experienced if the building 
were located on a softer site. 
The benefit-cost ratios for this rehabilitation project 0.13 and 0.14, 
without and with the value of life, respectively. 
US Federal Building, MT 7-10 
B.SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
I I I I Present Value of t 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages 
Relocation Expenses 
rental Income Losses 
Value of Lost Services 
Total Damages and Losses 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: 
TOTAL BENEFITSIMINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS:$ 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 0 
C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
Statistical Value of Life: 
Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of 
Number Number Number Damages Avoided 
Minor Injuries 
Serious Injuries 
Deaths $ 
Total Value 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
Analyst 
Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 
SUMMARY Run Identification: Final 
U.S. Federal Building 400 North Main Street, MT 
Rehab Project Description: Add shear walls 
Facility Class: Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $70.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 62,000 
Total Building Replacement Value $4,340,000 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 100% 
Total Contents Value $2,790,000 
Cost of Providing Services per day $114,504 
Continuity Premium $0 
Value of lost services per day $114,504 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs (/sq.ft. month): $1.00 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $2,164,000 
Average Day Occupancy 285 
Average Night Occupancy 10 
Soil Type 
Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: 
MMI I VI VII VIII IX X Xi XII 
PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 
Modified MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 
Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E+00 6.240E+00 2.460E+01 1.843E+02 2.769E+02 3.450E+02 4.OOOE+02 
Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-01 8.320E-01 3.280E+00 2.457E+01 3.691E+01 2.020E+02 4.OOOE+02 
Death Rate/1000 3.400E-02 2.080E-01 8.200E-01 6.143E+00 9.229E+00 9.550E+01 2.000E+02 
Content MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 
Functional Downtime (days) 9 23 30 30 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 131 266 365 365 365 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 88 77 65 49 28 23 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 83 88 77 65 49 28 23 
Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E-01 6.240E-01 2.460E+00 1.843E+01 2.769E+01 3.450E+01 4.OOOE+01 
Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-03 8.320E-03 3.280E-02 2.457E-01 3.691E-01 2.020E+00 4.0OOE+00 
Rehab Death Rate/1000 3.400E-05 2.080E-04 8.200E-04 6.143E-03 9.229E-03 9.550E-02 2.OOOE-01 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 9.415E-03 1.584E-03 2.445E-04 5.047E-05 1.278E-05 5.587E-06 7.211 E-06 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With Value 
of Life of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $289,397 $296,473 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($1,874,603) ($1,867,527) 
Benefit cost ratio: 0.13 0.14 
Function 
Structural 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
United States Federal Building 
123 Fourth Street S.W., Albuquerque, NM 
This 56,400 square foot building is primarily courtroom and related 
space. Occupancy is approximately 225 during business hours. 
The Court House was constructed before any seismic codes were 
adopted, and is located in UBO earthquake zone 2B on soil type S2. 
The building was constructed in two portions, with other minor 
alterations and small additions completed at various times during the 
life of the building. The original portion (the present east section) 
was constructed from drawings dated 1908. An addition was 
constructed to the west of the original building from drawings dated 
1930. The present total plan dimensions of the building are 
approximately 165'xl 161. 
The concrete floor slabs, approximately 811 thick, as well as the 
structural steel beams and girders in the floors are supported by the 
unreinforced masonry bearing walls at the exterior of the building 
with structural concrete and steel columns, and spread footing 
foundations. The longitudinal and transverse lateral systems are 
shear walls. The roof diaphragm is wood, while the floor 
diaphragms are cast-in-place concrete. The roof is composed of 
wood joists/gluelams; the floor framing is steel beams and flat slabs. 
When combined, the original 1908 building and the 1930 addition 
have a U-shaped floor plan at level 3, and the roof. The L-shaped 
floor and roof of the addition were placed against the original 
building for the present U-shaped floor configuration, with an 
opening for the Lightwell in the center of the U at the northern end of 
the upper levels of the building. There does not appear to be any 
shear connection between the two separate diaphragms which 
would cause the two floor diaphragms to move independently during 
an earthquake rather than a single continuous diaphragm. The plan 
irregularity in the two, diaphragms will generate torsional effects in 
the building when subjected to an earthquake. Different wings of the 
building can vibrate independently and at different frequencies, 
leading to a concentration of damage at the re-entrant corners of the 
lightwell walls. Floor diaphragms and unreinforced masonry walls 
are especially prone to damage in these areas. Because the two 
US Federal Building, NM7 7-13 
Seismic 
Evaluation 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
separate diaphragms meet at one of the re-entrant corners of the U-
shaped diaphragm, and the diaphragms are not connected together, 
damage will be even more severe at this area. 
At the lower levels of the building the two diaphragms combine in 
essentially a rectangular shape, but because they lack a positive 
connection between the two separate diaphragms, the diaphragms 
can vibrate independently during an earthquake. Significant 
damage will most likely be experienced where the two diaphragms 
meet. 
In general, the original 1908 building structure consists of reinforced 
concrete structural floor slabs supported by structural steel floor 
beams and girders. The concrete floor slab was cast around the 
structural steel beams and girders to provide support for the floor 
slab and fire resistance for the steel beams and girders. Drawings 
of the original building were quite limited, and existing finishes 
prevented viewing most of the existing structure without demolition, 
so some portions of the existing structure remain unknown. In two 
or three locations a small area of the concrete cover had been 
removed and the steel beams were visible. 
Field investigation where pipes penetrate the concrete floor slabs 
indicate the floor slabs are reinforced with expanded metal in the 
bottom of the slabs. The individual thicknesses of the structural slab 
and topping slab were not possible to measure and are not known. 
The concrete floor slabs as well as the structural steel beams and 
girders in the floors are supported by the unreinforced masonry 
bearing walls at the exterior of the building and structural steel. 
There is a soft story below level 2 due to the light well and 
discontinuous walls. 
A seismic structural evaluation and analysis was completed on May 
24, 1993 and listed the following structural deficiencies: 
e The unreinforced masonry bearing walls are inadequate to 
resist the seismic forces for seismic Zone 2B which are 
mandated by the 1991 UBC. 
Due to the non-existent reinforcement, the masonry bearing 
walls in this building lack the ductility required under the 1991 
UBC for modern structures. 
A soft-story problem exists below level 2 due to the 
discontinuity of the existing unreinforced masonry walls at 
US Federal Building NM 7.14 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
the north lightwell below this level. The discontinuity has the 
tendency to stiffen the building in the upper stories creating 
an abrupt change at this level. This tends to cause more 
severe earthquake damage and increase the potential for 
collapse at the soft story level. 
Many of the unreinforced masonry walls consist of a series of 
piers between window openings which, because they are 
unreinforced, lack the boundary steel to develop their limited 
in plane shear capacity and resist rocking. 
The unreinforced masonry bearing walls on the exterior of the 
building are inadequately anchored to the structure. Since 
these walls support the floor and roof structure total or partial 
collapse of the masonry bearing walls will create a falling 
hazard to occupants in the building and people on the 
sidewalks, in the alley, and other areas adjacent to the 
building. 
The floor and roof diaphragms of the 1908 building and the 
1930 addition building were constructed at different times and 
do not appear to be adequately connected. Because of the 
insufficient capacity to transfer the lateral loads across this 
connection, the diaphragms in each building will move 
independently during an earthquake rather than as a single 
continuous unit. This will in effect, produce a plan irregularity 
in each of the two separate diaphragms causing the different 
wings of the building to vibrate independently and at different 
frequencies which will lead to concentrated damage at the 
inside corners of the building. 
* The existing straight sheathing at the roof structures of the 
two portions of the building consists of 1x6 sheathing boards 
on the wood roof joists. This straight sheathing does not 
have sufficient shear capacity to resist the shear forces 
required by the UBC for seismic Zone 2B. 
The building is located in UBC seismic Zone 21. Structural seismic 
assessment of the building based on the 1991 UBC indicated a poor 
seismic rating. The structure has a fairly high probability of partial or 
total collapse if an earthquake producing ground motions consistent 
with seismic Zone 2B occurs near Albuquerque. The building has 
significantly less than 80 percent of the base shear capacity required 
for new construction. During a large seismic disturbance, this 
structure would perform poorly due to the overstress created in the 
unreinforced masonry shear walls and the lack of ductility in the 
walls. There could be extensive structural and nonstructural 
US Federal Building, NM-7-15 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Seismic 
Rehabilitation 
damage, potential structural collapse, and/or falling hazards. 
Smaller earthquakes centered near the site could have the same 
effects as a very large, more distant earthquake. 
The building structure does not meet the current code requirements 
for wall reinforcement and has limited strength to resist the minimum 
code earthquake forces for seismic Zone 2B. Experience has 
shown that for a small (Richter Magnitude 5.0 or less) earthquake 
centered some distance from the site, the limited shear wall capacity 
in the unreinforced masonry bearing walls should be adequate. 
Earthquakes as low as approximately Richter magnitude 5.5 that are 
centered close to the site could cause significant damage to the 
building. 
This building is especially vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes 
and the resultant falling hazards: there is concern for the ability of 
the building systems to provide safe egress to occupants. 
Following a major earthquake, it is expected that there would be 
considerable damage, but if the suggested remedial measures 
outlined are taken, the potential number of injuries and deaths 
associated with non-structural items will have been greatly reduced. 
Two rehabilitation schemes were considered for this building, 
considered substandard in its original condition: the addition of new 
concrete shear walls for the full height of the building, costing $1.3 
million (option A); and base isolation costing $4.5 million (option B) 
in 1993. The cost to mitigate non-structural hazards was estimated 
at approximately $146,000. The base isolation scheme was 
deemed too expensive. Therefore, we evaluate the shear wall 
scheme with a total construction cost of about $1.46 million. 
Including relocation costs of about $225,000, the total cost of this 
rehabilitation is approximately $1.7 million. 
Option A (shear walls) would require addition of reinforced concrete 
shear walls to the inside of the exterior masonry walls at selected 
locations, connecting the two segments of the building at the 
interface, placing new footings at the shear walls, anchor exterior 
walls, and add seismic chords. 
US Federal Building, NM 7-16 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Building Mean The mean damage functions for the Albuquerque Federal Building, 
Damage before and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage 
Functions functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as 
guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "standard," 
which means a building with typical seismic performance for this 
building class. The rehabilitated building under Option A (shear wall 
scheme) was characterized as "special," which means a building 
specifically designed for seismic performance. 
Option B (base isolation) was not analyzed, but is included for 
comparison to Option A. 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTION 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
MI VI VII VIII I X XI Xli 
Existing 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 89.4 100 
Building 
Building Shearwall 1.5 2.7 9.0 22.6 34.5 64.7 77.1 
Option A rehab _ 
Building Base 0.5 1.0 3.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 
Option B Isolation 
Benefit-Cost This example is a substantially vulnerable building (unreinforced 
Results masonry) in a moderate seismicity area. Several factors combine to 
produce moderately low Benefit-Cost ratios for this project. First, the 
project is moderately expensive, approximately 40% of the building's 
replacement value. Second, seismic risk at this site is relatively low. 
Third, the damage percentages at lower MMs, where earthquake 
probabilities are comparatively high, are only moderate. 
Thus, the Benefit-Cost ratios for this project are 0.43 and 0.43 
without and with the value of life, respectively. The value of 
casualties avoided is too small to significantly change the Benefit-
Cost ratio. 
The Benefit-Cost ratios for this Albuquerque project are significantly 
higher than those for the Butte project because of the higher seismic 
risk, the S2 soil type compared to S1 at Butte, and because the 
rehabilitation costs are a lower percentage of replacement value. 
US Federal Building, NM 7-17 

Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 
Facility Class: 
Project Description: 
Rate: percent 
Planning Period: rears 
Present Value Coefficient: 
3.SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
II I I Present Value 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages -. 
Relocation Expenses 
Rental Income Losses 
Value of Lost Services 
total Damages and Losses 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: E-m 
I %6.5.,6.d
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: ($.4.74 
o
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: L .~i 
C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND DEATHS: 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
Statistical Value of Life: 
Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual I Present Value of 
Minor Injuries 
Serious Injuries 
Deaths 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: IML29AL2i 
Analyst: Goeltel & Homer Inc. 
7-18 
08104194. 13:55:57. 
SUMMARY Run Identification-Final 
U.S. Federal Building 1123 Fourth Street, SW Albuquerque, NM 
Rehab, Project Description: Add shear walls 
Facility Class: Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $75.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 56,400 
Total Building Replacement Value $4,230,000 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 100% 
Total Contents Value $2,538,000 
Cost of Providing Services per day $110,400 
Continuity Premium $0 
Value of lost services per day $110400 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($1sq.ft.1month): $1.00 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $1,6BS6600 
Average Day Occupancy 225 
:Average Night Occupancy 10! 
Sail Type S2 
Data used in this analysis that varies by M_ 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xi Xl 
PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32.55 55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%) 9 23 40 I 65 77 89 100 
Modified MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 
Minor Injury Ratell100 1.020E+00 .240E+00 2.460E+01 1.843E+02 2.769E+02 3.460E+02 4.QOOE+02 
Major Injury Ratell00 0 1.360E-01 8.320E-01 3.280E+00 2.457E+01 3.691E+01 2. 020E+02 4.OOOE+02 
Death Ratel1000 3.40OE-02 2.0BOE-01 .200E-01 6.143E+00 9.229E+00 9.550E+01 2.OOOE+02 
Content MDF (%) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 
Functional Downtime (days) 9 23 30 30 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 131 266 365 365 365 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 88 77 65 49 28 23 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness () .83 88 77 65 49' 28 23 
Rehab Minor Injury Rate1000 1.020E-01 6.240E-01 2.460E+00 1.843E+01 2.769E+01 3.450E+01 4.000E+01 
Rehabi Major Injury Rate JiO00 1.360E-03 8.320E-03 3.280E-02 2.457E-01 3.691E-01 2.020E+00 4.000E+00 
Rehab Death Ratel1000 3.404E-05 2.080E-04 8.200E-04 6.143E-03 9.229E-03 9.56OE-02 2.000E-01 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 2.429E-02 41S7E-03 7.117E-04 1.10OE-04 2.276E-05 6.179E-06 8.076E-06 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value I Wdh Value 
of Life of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $720,926 $730,341 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: _________| ($955,259) 
11enefit cost ratio: 0.43 0.43 
Function 
Structural 
Seismic 
Evaluation 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
Jackson Federal Building 
915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174 
This 315,000 square foot building contains offices for approximately 
25 Federal agencies. Occupancy is approximately 3200 during 
business hours. 
The Jackson Federal building is a nine story office building 
constructed in the early 1930s. The first three floors, sub-basement, 
basement, and the first floor are full floors covering the site, floors 
two through five are U-shaped, and floors six through nine form a 
tower. Replacement value is estimated at approximately $35 million. 
The original building contained timber pilings in the foundation 
system with poured-in-place concrete floor joists. Concrete slabs 
were poured on clay tiles, perimeter steel beams encased in 
concrete, and brick encased vertical steel columns were located at 
the perimeter. The exterior system of the building consists of brick, 
CMU, aluminum spandrel panels with brick backing, and terra cotta. 
The roof consists of concrete joists with steel girders. Diaphragms 
are cast-in-place concrete. The longitudinal and transverse lateral 
systems are shear walls. 
A seismic structural evaluation and analysis was completed on 
November 23, 1987 and listed the following structural deficiencies: 
* The exterior masonry walls were overstressed and would be 
expected to resist the seismic forces before the steel frame. 
* The corners of the building need to be tied together to 
transfer diaphragm forces into the shear walls. 
* Parapets range from 4 to 11 feet in height and are 
constructed of unreinforced masonry and terra cotta 
ornamentation. 
* The exterior of the building is faced with brick and terra cotta 
ornaments that are not adequately anchored to prevent a 
falling hazard. 
Jackson Federal Building, WA 7-20 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
The building is located in UBC seismic Zone 3, located on S-3 soil 
type. The potential exists for a large amount of structural and non-
structural damage from a large scale earthquake. The parapets and 
building facing represent serious falling hazards. 
This building has experienced two moderate earthquakes in 1949 
and 1965 with relatively little damage and no visible structural 
damage. 
Seismic Complete rehabilitation was undertaken, consisting of the following: 
Rehabilitation complete renovation of interior spaces with main hallways staying 
historical full height. Concrete shear walls were added. The 
historical exterior had only risk reduction, with anchors and straps 
added to reduce failing hazards. Entirely new mechanical, electrical, 
and plumbing systems were installed. The building was brought into 
general compliance with the 1988 UBC for Zone 3. Structural costs 
for the project were estimated at about $2.1 million in 1990, with 
total construction costs, including complete interior renovation, at 
$17 million. 
Approximately 50% of the total construction costs are attributable to 
seismic rehabilitation. The other 50% is for interior renovation, 
including upgrades to the mechanical and electrical systems, and 
asbestos abatement. Therefore, for the benefit-cost analysis a 
construction cost of $8.5 million was assumed. Relocation costs 
add another $3.8 million, so the total cost of the seismic 
rehabilitation is estimated at $12.3 million. 
Building Mean The mean damage functions for the Jackson Federal Building, before 
Damage and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions were 
Functions estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The 
existing building was characterized as "standard," which means a 
building with typical seismic performance. The rehabilitated building 
was characterized as "special," which means a building specifically 
designed for seismic performance. 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
MMI VI VII VII IX X xi X1i 
Original 1.5 5.7 16.1 30.8 44.9 I 66.1 90.0 
Building 
Rehabilitated Shear wall 1.0 1.5 5.7 16.1 30.8 44.9 66.1 
Building rehab _ 
Jackson Federal Building, WA 7-21 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Benefit-Cost 
Results 
The Benefit-Cost ratios for this rehabilitation project are 0.31 and 
0.32 without and with the value of life, respectively. These relatively 
low values arise from the moderate seismicity of the Seattle area,: 
the fact that this steel framed building is only moderately vulnerable 
to seismic damage, and because the rehabilitation costs are 
relatively high (approximately 35% of the replacement value of the 
building). 
Jackson Federal Building, WA 7-22 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation Federal 
10,Auqces14, 1994 
Facility Class: Project Description: 
A. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS: 
Discount Rate: Percent 
Planning Period: 
Present Value Coefficient: 
B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
I II I Present Value f I 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages 
Relocation Expenses 
Rental Income Losses 
Value of Lost Services 
Total Damages and Losses 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: L~~zo 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 0[31 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: EOrvtzto 
C.VALUE OF INJURIES AND 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury. 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
Statistical Value of Life: 
I Annual Expected Annual Avoided I Annual Residual I Present Value of 
Minor Injuries 
Serious Injuries 
Deaths 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: MI 3-3; 536 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: w-,3, ,637) 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 0.32 
Analyst Goedel & Horner Inc 
08104194.
1433: 59. 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4, 1994 
SUMMARY Run Identification: Final 
U.S. Federal Building 915 Second Ave Seattle, WA 98174 
Rehab Project Description: Shear wall retrofit 
Facility Class: Steel Frame with URM Infill 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $110.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 315,000 
Total Building Replacement Value $34,650,000 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 100% 
Total Contents Value $22,050,000 
Cost of Providing Services per day $359,628 
Continuity Premium $0 
Value of lost services per day $359,628 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($/sq. ft. month): $2.00 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $12,280,000 
Average Day Occupancy 3,200 
Average Night Occupancy 50 
Soil Type S3 
Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII 
PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%) 2 6 16 21 45 66 78 
Modified MDF (%) 2 6 16 21 45 66 78 
Minor Injury Rate/1000 9.750E-02 4.800E-01 2.280E+00 4.080E+00 3.OOOE+01 1.920E+02 2.846E+02 
Major Injury Rate/1000 1.300E-02 6.400E-02 3.040E-01 .440E-01 4.OOOE+00 2.560E+01 3.794E+01 
Death Rate/1000 3.250E-03 1.600E-02 7.600E-02 1.360E-01 1.OOOE+00 6.400E+00 9.486E+00 
Content MDF (%) 2 6 16 21 45 66 78 
Functional Downtime (days) 2 6 16 21 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 0 79 116 309 365 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 73 65 23 31 32 15 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 73 65 23 31 32 15 
Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 9.750E-03 4.800E-02 2.280E-01 4.080E-01 3.OOOE+00 1.920E+01 2.846E+01 
Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 1.300E-04 6.400E-04 3.040E-03 5.440E-03 4.000E-02 2.560E-01 3.794E-01 
Rehab Death Rate/1000 3.250E-06 1.600E-05 7.600E-05 1.360E-04 1.OOOE-03 6.400E-03 9.486E-03 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 7.790E-02 2.161E-02 6.335E-03 1.356E-03 3.014E-04 I1.019E-04 1.994E-04 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value 
of Life 
With Value 
of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $3,817,101 $3,915,363 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($8,462,899) ($8,364,637) 
Benefit cost ratio : 0.31 0.32 
7-24 
06104194.14:33:45. 
Function 
Structure 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
TEAD, Motor Pool Facility Bldg. No. 158 
Tooele Army Depot, Utah 84074 
This 6936 square foot wood frame building, built in 1942 as a 
barracks and later converted to provide office space plus temporary 
housing, was vacant as of December 1991. 
This building, classified as type W-1 (light wood frame), is a two-
story structure measuring 104'x2g9.5'. The building contains many 
closely spaced partition walls with gypsum board sheathing in both 
the crosswise and lengthwise directions of the building. These walls 
provide significant strength and rigidity to the structure even though 
many of them do not extend to the building foundations. 
The first floor is constructed over a crawl space, approximately 2-4 
feet above the existing grade. The first floor is constructed of 2x8 
wood joists spaced at 24", bearing on beams composed of 3 -2x12s 
spiked together, supported by concrete piers bearing on spread type 
footings. On top of the joists is 1x8 nominal diagonal wood 
sheathing which provides a nominal horizontal diaphragm. 
The second floor is constructed of 2x8 wood joists spaced at 24", 
which bear on 2x4 wood stud walls. The wood stud walls bear 
directly on the 2x8 wood joists of the first level floor and do not align 
with the 3 -2x12 beams below. This floor also has a 1x8 nominal 
diagonal nominal wood sheathing diaphragm. 
The roof is 2x6 wood rafters spaced at 24' which bear on the 
exterior walls at the exterior walls and on 2x4 cripple walls parallel to 
the center corridor. The cripple walls bear directly on 2x6 ceiling 
joists spaced at 24t" and are offset from the corridor walls below. 
The roof rafters are covered with 1x8 straight sheathed wood planks 
which form a nominal diaphragm. 
The exterior walls are constructed of 2x4 studs spaced at 24" with a 
1x8 nominal horizontal wood sheathing. The building has many 
non-bearing interior walls constructed of 2x4 wood stud walls with 
gypsum board sheathing. These walls contribute greatly to the 
lateral rigidity of the structure even though most of them do not 
connect to the building foundations. 
Concrete foundation walls are located at each end of the building. 
These walls are continuous for the full width of the building and 
TEAD Motor Pool, UT 7-25 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
return approximately 5' around the corner at each end. Concrete 
walls also exist around the mechanical room and the stair towers. 
The remainder of the perimeter and interior of the building is 
supported on concrete piers with limited lateral force resisting 
strength. 
Seismic The following existing structural deficiencies affecting the capacity of 
Evaluation the lateral system of the building were found: 
Connections between the wood beams and the concrete 
foundation walls are incapable of transferring the tension and 
compression "drag strut" forces to the concrete foundation 
walls. 
The building superstructure is not adequately attached to the 
foundation walls to transfer the shear forces between the 
wood stud walls and the concrete foundation walls. 
The existing roof and floor diaphragms exceed the maximum 
allowable width to length ratios. Interior shear walls must be 
used to reduce the length to width ratios. 
The existing shear walls do not have the required shear 
capacity to safely resist the current design forces according to 
the 1982 TM 5-809-0 "Seismic Design for Buildings". 
The roof diaphragm does not have the required shear 
capacity to safely resist the 1982 design forces. 
The ends of the shear walls are not adequately attached to 
the foundation walls for hold down forces to keep the walls 
from overturning. 
To attain near-code compliance level of performance, the roof and 
shear walls will require installation of plywood to develop the 
required shear transfer forces. Additional hold-down anchors will be 
required to anchor the shear walls to the concrete foundations and 
to provide tension capacity of the walls between the first and second 
levels. 
Seismic Although a number of deficiencies have been found in this building, 
Rehabilitation wood structures of this type have generally performed well during 
earthquakes. ATC-14 states "Wood framed buildings generally do 
not pose a significant life safety threat during seismic events except 
in rare cases. But, building contents may be badly shaken. " The 
recommended measures would not bring the building completely up 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Building Mean 
Damage 
Functions 
to current code requirements, but rather would increase the 
performance of the building and maintain a "life safety' level of 
performance. 
The addition of small corrective measures to structures can increase 
the lateral resistance greatly, whereas additional expenditures 
beyond the initial measure achieve diminished effects. 
To attain a minimum "life safety" level of performance, additional 
concrete footings and foundation walls, and additional bolts between 
the existing superstructure and the existing foundation walls should 
be installed. In 1991, rehabilitation costs to achieve a life safety 
level of performance were estimated at $41,000. 
To attain near-code compliance level of performance, the roof and 
shear walls will require installation of plywood to develop the 
required shear transfer forces. Additional hold-down anchors will be 
required to anchor the shear walls to the concrete foundations and 
to provide tension capacity of the walls between the first and second 
levels. In 1991, rehabilitation costs to achieve a near-code 
compliance level of performance were estimated at $1 09,000. 
The mean damage functions for the TEAD Motor Pool Building, 
before and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage 
functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as 
guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "nonstandard," 
which means a building with substantially poorer than 
typical seismic performance. For the life-safety rehabilitation, the 
rehabilitated building was characterized as "Standard" which means 
a building with typical seismic performance for this type of building. 
For the near code rehabilitation, the rehabilitated building was 
characterized as "special" which means a building with seismic 
performance similar to a building specifically designed for seismic 
performance. 
The benefit-cost analysis was performed for Option A, life-safety, 
information on Option B, near-code performance, is included for 
reference. 
TEAD Motor Pool, UT 7-27 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xi XII 
Original 4.7 9.2 19.8 24.4 37.3 60 90 
Building 
Option A Life Safety .8 1.5 4.7 9.2 19.8 24.4 37.3 
Option B Near-Code 0 0 .8 1.5 4.7 9.2 19.8 
Benefit-Cost The Benefit-Cost ratio for this rehabilitation project is quite low, 0.20 
Results with and without the value of life. Because the building is vacant, 
there is no value in avoided casualties. The Benefit-Cost ratio is low 
because of the relatively low seismicity at the site and because this 
wood frame structure is not nearly as seismically vulnerable as 
some other building classes would be. 
However, the rehabilitation of this building is relatively inexpensive 
(only about 12% of the building replacement value) and quite 
effective in reducing seismic damages. If the building were 
occupied, and especially if the building function had a high post-
earthquake continuity premium, the Benefit-Cost ratio for this 
rehabilitation could be much higher. 
TEAD Motor Pool, UT 7-28 
August 4 1994 
Facility Class: 
Project Description: 
A.ECONOMIC PARAMETERS: 
discount Rate: percent 
Planning Period: 3ars 
Present Value Coefficient: 
3. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
I I I I Present Value or 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages 
Relocation Expenses 
Rental Income Losses 
value of Lost Services 
Total Damages and Losses ,,, 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
Statistical Value of Life: 
Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of 
Minor Injuries 
Serious injuries 
Deaths 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: 17777--i-e7 800 l 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: I 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: -Y-0-1 
20:09:4S. 
Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4, 1994 
SUMMARY Run Identification: Final 
TEAD Motor Pool Facility Tooele Army Depot Tooele, UT 84074 
Rehab Project Description: Shear walls and hold-down anchors 
Facility Class: Wood (commercial or industrial) 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $50.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 6,936 
Total Building Replacement Value $346,800 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% 
Total Contents Value $34,680 
Cost of Providing Services per day $67 
Continuity Premium $0 
Value of lost services per day $67 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($sq. ft. month): $0.00 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $40,960 
Average Day Occupancy 
Average Night Occupancy O 
Soil Type S2 
Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X xi XII 
PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%) 5 9 20 24 37 42 55 
Modified MDF (%) 5 9 20 24 37 42 100 
Minor Injury Ratel1000 3.000E-02 1.020E-01 3.000E-01 7.320E-01 2.136E+00 2.676E+00 1.071E+01 
Major Injury Rate/1000 4.000E-03 1.360E-02 4.000E-02 9.760E-02 2.848E-01 3.568E-01 1.429E+00 
Death Ratel1000 1.OOOE-03 3.400E-03 1.00OE-02 2.440E-02 7.120E-02 8.920E-02 3.571 E-01 
Content MDF (%) 5 9 20 24 37 42 55 
Functional Downtime (days) 5 9 20 24 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 83 76 62 47 42 63 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness (%) 83 83 76 62 47 42 63 
Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 3.000E-03 1.020E-02 3.000E-02 7.320E-02 2.136E-01 2.676E-01 1.071E+00 
Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 4.000E-05 1.360E-04 4.000E-04 9.760E-04 2.848E-03 3.568E-03 1.429E-02 
Rehab Death Rate/1000 1.OOOE-06 3.400E-06 1.OOOE-05 2.440E-05 7.120E-05 8.920E-05 3.571 E-04 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 2.546E-02 4.474E-03 7.864E-04 1.246E-04 2.626E-05 7.217E-06 9.620E-06 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With value 
of Life of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $8,004 $8,004 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($32,956) ($32,956) 
Benefit cost ratio : 1 0.20 0.20 
7-30 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
Building 271 
Mare Island Navy Shipyard,5, Vaileio, CA 94592
Function The primary use of this building, part of the Nuclear Facility Storage 
Complex, is to process and maintain refueling equipment, storage, 
and process waste. Occupancy during business hours is 
approximately 40. 
Structure This 53,720 sq. ft. building, approximately 340'x1 06, was 
constructed in 1917 with two mezzanine levels (26'x340') and a 
crane bay. In some places the structure reaches 84' in height. This 
steel-braced frame (S2) structure was valued at $9.6 million in 1983. 
This steel-braced frame building is built on a spread footing 
foundation, with cast-in-place concrete diaphragms. The exterior 
non-load bearing cladding is industrial glass and metal. The 
longitudinal lateral system is braced frames; the transverse lateral 
system is truss and columns. Special features include 7 roof 
monitors in 13 bays. The concrete roof slab is supported on roof 
trusses 10' deep; there is one-way frame action and vertical X-
bracing. 
The original structure was designed to have five bays, each 25 ft. 
long, but was extended to thirteen bays, each 25 ft. long plus a 15 ft. 
end. The second mezzanine was added below the first, and newer 
bridge cranes installed. 
Seven of the 13 bays are 10 ft. higher than the others, forming roof 
monitors. The distance to the top of the monitor along the south 
and north walls are approximately 84 and 78 feet six inches above 
ground level, respectively. 
Supporting the concrete slab roof are 10-ft.-deep steel trusses 
spanning 80 and 26 ft. The top chord of the steel trusses supports 
the roof of the monitor, the bottom chord of the steel trusses support 
the roof valley between the monitors. 
Each of the typical 14 transverse bents is made up of three lines of 
columns and provides support for the roof truss system and the 
mezzanines. The two southerly rows of columns also support the 
crane girders for the 80-ton bridge crane. All three columns in each 
bent are fixed at the foundation level. 
Mare Island Navy Shipyard, CA 7-31 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
The main lateral load-resisting system in the building's transverse 
direction is the frame made up of fixed based columns and roof 
truss. In the longitudinal direction, the main lateral load-resisting 
system is the vertical cross-bracing. system. 
Seismic This structure is located in UBC Zone 4, on an unknown soil type. 
Evaluation Given the location of the building, the structure is probably on fill 
and, therefore, S4 soil type was assumed. The building's lateral 
bracing system was judged inadequate to resist Zone 4 force levels. 
Seismic The rehabilitation consists of strengthening four of the six sets of 
Rehabilitation existing bracing; welding additional steel onto existing bracing 
members; and improving connections. The rehabilitation objective 
was damage control. The total cost of the seismic structural 
modifications was estimated at $271,000 in 1983. Relocation costs 
for this project are estimated at $215,000, bringing the total project 
costs to $486,000. 
Building Mean The mean damage functions for Mare Island Building 271, before 
Damage and after rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions 
Functions were estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as 
guidelines. The existing building was characterized as "nonstandard," 
which means a building with substantially poorer than 
typical seismic performance. The rehabilitated building was 
characterized as "standard" which means a building with typical 
seismic performance for this type of building. It should be noted that 
this type of building, braced steel frame, has much better seismic 
performance than other types such as unreinforced masonry. Thus, 
the percentages of expected damages shown below are relatively 
low for low-to-moderate intensities of ground shaking. 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII 
Original 0.8 5.1 10.1 15.8 27.0 38.8 60.0 
Building _ _ 27_0 38_ 
Rehabilitated Strengthen .6 1.8 5.1 10.0 15.8 27.0 38.8 
Building Bracing I I 
Mare Island Navy Shipyard, CA 7-32 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Benefit-Cost 
Results 
The Benefit-Cost ratio for this project is very high, 4.16 with and 
without the value of life, even though this steel frame building is not 
exceptionally vulnerable to seismic damage. The high ratio arises in 
part because of the high seismicity and S4 soil type. n addition, 
however, the project cost is low (only 5% of the building replacement 
value). Benefits are also high because the value of contents in this 
building is exceptionally high. 
Mare Island Navy Shipyard, CA 7-33 
Benefit Cost Analysis o the Seismic Rehabilitation o Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4,1994 
O14 ,3lcot1a I Reds e , 
Facility Class: 
Project Description: 
k. ECONOMIC PARAME1 
Discount Rate 
Planning Period: 
Present Value Coefficient: 
B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: .. 
I Present Value of I
I I I 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages 
Relocation Expenses 
Rental Income Losses 
Value of Lost Services 
Total Damages and Losses 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 034;'361030it. , 1 
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 
"VALUE 
OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 
MMSOU -All 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: ILLV 00 1.111 
C.VALUE OF INJURIES AND 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury 
Statistical Value of Life: 
I Annual Expected I Annual Avoided I Annual Residual I Present Value-of 
Minor Injuries 
Serious Injuries 
Deaths 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: 52O0 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: EM O w3 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: INNAOM6 
Analyst: Goettel &Homer Inc. 
1.01,August 4, 1S4 
SUMMARY Run Identification: Final 
Building 271 Mare Island Navy Shipyard |Vallejo, CA 
Rehab Project Description-Modify existing frames 
Facility Class: Steel Braced Frame 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $179.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 53,720 
Total Building Replacement Value $9,615,880 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50%10 
Total Contents Value $25,517,000 
Cost of Providing Services per day $9,967 
Continuity Premium $60,000 
Value of lost services per day $59,967 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($ sq. ft month): $4.00 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $485,880 
Average Day Occupancy 40 
Average Night Occupancy I 
Soil Type S4 
Data used in this analysis that varies by MMII. = _ _ 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X XI XI 
PGA (g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%) 2 5 10 16 27 39 51 
Modified MDF (%) 2 5 10 16 27 39 100 
Minor Injury Rate/1oo 9.75OE-02 3.000E-01 1.200E+00 2.280E+00 1.056E2+01 2.362E+01 7.629E+01 
Major Injury RatelO000 1.300E-02 4.00E-02 1.600E-01 3.040E-01 1A08E+00 3.136E+00 1.017E+01 
Death Rate1; 000 3.250E-03 1.000E-02 4.000E-02 7600E-02 3.520E-01 7.840E-01 2.5435+00 
Content MDF(%} 2 5 10 i6 27 39 51 
Functional Downtime (days) 2 5 10 16 27 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 10 30 77 186 260 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 66 64 49 36 41 30 61 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness ( 66 64 49 36 41 30 61 
Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 9.750E-03 3.000E-02 1.200E-01 2.280E-01 1.056E+00 2,352E400 7.629E00 
Rehab Major Injury Rate/ 1.300E-04 4.0O0E-04 1.600E-03 3.040E-03 1.408E-02 3.136E-02 1.017E-01 
Rehab Death Rate/l1000 3.250E-06 1.000E-05 4.000E-05 7.600E-05 3.520E.04 7.840E-04 2.543E-03 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 1.229E-01 3.558E-02 1.125E-02 2.333E-03 S.876E-04 1.075E-04 2.192E-04 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value. With Value 
Llfe of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $2,019S535 $2,020,214 
, _ LENEFITS MNUS TOTAL COTS_$1,533/655 $1J534, 334 
Benefit Cst ratio: 4.16 4.16 
Function 
Structure 
Seismic 
Evaluation 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
Building 678, Special Weapons Training Facility 
U.S. Navy, North Island, San Diego, CA 
This approximately 64,500 square foot building is part of the Special 
Weapons Training Center at North Island, in San Diego, California. 
Occupancy during business hours is approximately 130. 
This 2-story structure, originally constructed in 1958, consists of 
three structures in an "H" shape. The three parts of the building are 
separated by 4 1/2 inch expansion joints. 
The building was constructed of precast concrete tilt-up walls 
(building type PC1), with steel roof beams and flat slab floors. 
Diaphragms are cast-in-place concrete; columns are steel, with 
precast concrete bearing walls on spread footing foundations. The 
longitudinal and transverse lateral systems are shear walls. Overall, 
the condition of the building appeared good without signs of extreme 
weathering, damage, or cracking. 
The three structures were analyzed separately using the equivalent 
lateral force procedure (Chapter 4 of ATC-3). The detailed seismic 
analysis of each structure indicated that the basic shear strength 
and interconnection of the exterior panels for in-plane loads were 
adequate. However, the following seismic deficiencies were noted: 
* The connections of the tilt-up walls to the floor and roof 
diaphragms at the ground, second, and roof levels were 
inadequate. The problem occurred at a variety of locations 
for both in-plane shear loads delivered from the diaphragm 
and out-of-plane tension loads due to perpendicular forces. 
* The connections between the precast walls and second floor 
diaphragms were inadequate to resist the out-of-plane 
bending due to diaphragm deflections. 
. The interior masonry walls were not anchored to the floor or 
structure above and therefore subject to sliding. Additionally, 
the bending strength in the walls was insufficient for 
perpendicular loads if the bases and tops were anchored. 
San Diego, CA 7-36 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Seismic The proposed rehabilitation scheme consists of strengthened 
Rehabilitation foundations and wall ties anchored at the floor and roof while 
interior partitions would be strengthened and braced, with additional 
shear walls. The anticipated structural cost in 1981 was about $2.6 
million. The objective of the rehabilitation is damage control. 
Because the tilt-up concrete panels have sufficient vertical and 
lateral load strength, it appeared that the best way to correct the 
connection deficiency was to add new connections. The walls 
should be reconnected to the roof diaphragm with through-bolts 
welded to flat plates which are connected to the metal decking. At 
the ground level, continuous 6x6 angles should be bolted to the tilt-
up panels and the continuous foundations. 
To correct the diaphragm inadequacies and limit the overall 
diaphragm deflection, additional interior shear walls should be 
installed, two walls in the east and west units, and an additional wall 
at the approximate center of the building in the center unit. 
Building Mean The mean damage functions for Building 678, before and after 
Damage rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions were 
Functions estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines, in 
conjunction with engineering analysis performed by Degenkolb 
Structural Engineers. The existing building was characterized as 
"standard" which means a building with typical seismic performance 
for this building type. For the rehabilitated building, a building-
specific estimate of the mean damage function was made, based on 
available engineering information. 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
MMI' VI VI VIII IX X Xl XII 
Original 
Building 
1j 1.4 4.8 10.5 18.6 0.5 46.8 64.5 
Rehabilitated shear wall .4 1.0 2.4 5.3 9.6 15.2 23.4 
Building scheme _ 
San Diego, CA 7-37 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Benefit-Cost The structure is located on unknown soil type. For the purposes of 
Results benefit-cost analysis, the soil was assumed to be S2. 
The Benefit-Cost ratio for this project is 0.18 with and without the 
value of life. This low ratio arises, despite the high seismicity of this 
location, for two main reasons. First, the mean damage function for 
the existing building shows only moderate seismic vulnerability, 
especially at low-to-moderate MMIs. Second, the cost of the 
rehabilitation is very high (approximately 60% of the building 
replacement value). 
San Diego, CA 7-38 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seism7no
Project Description: I IM 
A. ECONOMIC PARAMEI 
Discount Rate: t 
Planning Period: 
Present Value Coefficient: 
B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
I I I I Present Value at 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages 
Relocation Expenses 
Rental Income Losses 
Value of Lost Services 
Total Damages and Losses 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: 
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: -I $3,796,000 I 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: ($3,126,010 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
Statistical Value of Life: 
I Annual Expected I Annual Avoided I Annual Residual I Present Value of I 
Minor Injuries 
Serious Injuries 
Deaths 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: E i 0 E $74,961 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: ($30.
048 BENEFIT 
COST RAT10 WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
1.0,August 4, 1994 
SUMMARY Run Identification  Final 
Building 678 US Navy San Diego, CA 
Rehab Project Description: Shear wall retrofit 
Facility Class: Precast Concrete Tilt-up w/ Flexible Diaphragm 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $100.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 64,500 
Total Building Replacement Value $6,450,000 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% 
Total Contents Value $1,612,500 
Cost of Providing Services per day $12,579 
Continuity Premium $25,000 
Value of lost services per day $37,579 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($ sq. ft. month): $2.00 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $3,796,000 
Average Day Occupancy 130 
Average Night Occupancy 
Soil Type S3 
Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X XII Xl 
PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%) 1 5 11 19 30 47 64 
Modified MDF (%) 1 5 11 19 30 47 100 
Minor Injury Rate/1000 3.OOOE-02 3.000E01 1.380E+00 2.820E+00 1.380E+01 4.543E+01 1.766E+02 
Major Injury Rate/1000 4.000E-03 4.000E-02 1.840E-01 3.760E-01 1.840E+00 6.057E+00 2.354E+01 
Death Ratel1000 1.OOOE-03 1.OOOE-02 4.60E-02 9.400E-02 4.600E-01 1.514E+00 5.886E+00 
Content MDF (%) 1 5 11 19 30 47 64 
Functional Downtime (days) 1 5 11 19 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 0 34 99 190 324 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 72 79 77 72 68 68 77 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 72 79 77 72 68 68 77 
Rehab Minor Injury Ratel1000 3.OOOE-03 3.000E-02 1.380E-01 2.820E-01 1.380E+00 4.543E+00 1.766E+01 
Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 4.OOOE-05 4.OOOE-04 1.840E-03 3.760E-03 1.840E-02 6.067E-02 2.354E-01 
Rehab Death Rate/1000 1.000E-06 1.000E-05 4.600E-05 9.400E-05 4.600E-04 1.514E-03 5.886E-03 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 9.453E-02 3.039E-02 1.039E-02 2.600E-03 6.490E-04 2.346E-04 5.319E-04 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value 
of Life 
With Value 
of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $669,990 $674,961 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: _ ($3,126,010) ($3,121,039) 
Benefit cost ratio : 0.18 0.18 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 
Building 8, U.S. Coast Guard Support Station, 
427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA 
Function This 196,000 square foot building is used primarily as 
storage/warehouse space, but also provides detention facilities, 
medical/dental offices, the CGES retail exchange, Group Boston 
and First Coast Guard District armories. On average, 50 persons 
are employed and/or reside in the building. 
Structure This building was constructed in approximately 191 0, with 7 stories 
above grade, 1 story below. The building dimensions are 187'x131, 
and story height varies from 1 'to 13. Total height is 93'. 
Diaphragms are cast-in-place concrete. There is a masonry 
exterior, unreinforced masonry bearing walls and pile foundations. 
The longitudinal and transverse lateral systems are shear walls. 
Seismic This building was considered seismically vulnerable because of 
Evaluation inadequate wall-diaphragm ties, numerous wall openings, and 
unbraced parapets. This building is constructed on S3 soil. 
Seismic The rehabilitation project infilled wall openings, strengthened 
Rehabilitation diaphragms by tying to walls, installed new roof diaphragms, and 
braced parapets. Rehabilitation is expected to provide great 
improvement at the lower magnitude intensities. 
In 1983, the structural cost of rehabilitation was estimated at 
$325,000; total renovation costs, including complete interior 
renovation, were estimated at $2.25 million. For the purposes of 
benefit-cost analysis, $1.25 million was attributed to seismic work. 
In addition, relocation costs of $3.5 million brought the total cost to 
approximately $4.8 million. 
US Coast Guard Support Station, MA 7-41 
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Building Mean The mean damage functions for Building 8, before and after 
Damage rehabilitation, are shown below. The damage functions were 
Functions estimated by Larry Reaveley, using ATC-36 data as guidelines. The 
existing building was characterized as "standard" which means a 
building with typical seismic performance for this building type. For 
the rehabilitated building, the building was characterized as 
"special", which means a building specifically designed to resist 
seismic forces. 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS 
Effective PGA 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII 
Original 2.7 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 89.4 
Building 
With 1.8 2.7 9.0 22.6 39.5 64.7 77.1 
Rehabilitation 
Benefit-Cost The Benefit-Cost ratios for this project are 0.57 without and with the 
Results value of life. The number of avoided casualties is so small that it 
does not significantly affect the Benefit-Cost results. 
Given the moderate seismicity of this location, it is somewhat 
surprising that the Benefit-Cost ratio is as high as 0.57. The 
reasons for this include the vulnerability of the existing building, and 
the fact that the rehabilitation project is moderate in cost (33% of the 
building replacement value). 
US Coast Guard Support Station, MA 7-42 
Facility Class: Uniform Masonry Wall 
Project Description: 
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS: 
Discount Rate: 1 percent 
planning Period, 
present Value Coefficient: 
years 
B.SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
I Present Value of I 
building Damages 
contents Damages 
relocation Expenses 
rental Income Losses 
value of Lost Services 
total Damages and Losses 
present VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $ 
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED [NJURIES &DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 
of Avoiding a Serious Injury: 
statistical Value of Life: 
Annual Expected Annual Avoided Annual Residual Present Value of 
Number Number Number Damages Avoided 
Minor Injuries 
3erious Injuries Deaths Total Value $285294 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: $ 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUEOF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: ($03488 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 7 
Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August4, 1994 
SUMMARY  Run Identification: Final 
Building 8 US Coast Guard 1Boston, MA 
Rehab Project Description: infill openings, tie diaphragms to walls, brace parapets, new roof diaphragm 
Facility Class: Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
Data used for this analysis: 
Building Replacement Value per square foot $75.00 
Total Floor Area (square feet): 196,000 
Total Building Replacement Value $14,700,000 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 50% 
Total Contents Value $10,407,600 
Cost of Providing Services per day $7,888 
Continuity Premium $0 
Value of lost services per day $7,888 
Total Private Monthly Rental Revenue $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($/sq. ft. month): $2.00 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs $4,778,000 
Average Day Occupancy 200 
Average Night Occupancy 10 
Soil Type S3 
Data used in this analysis that varies by MMI: 
MMI VI VII VIII IX X Xl XII 
PGA (%g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%)9 23 40 65 77 89 100 
Modified MDF (%) 9 23 40 100 100 100 100 
Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E+00 6.240E+00 2.460E+01 1.843E+02 2.769E+02 3.450E+02 4.000E+02 
Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-01 8.320E-01 3.280E+00 2.457E+01 3.691E+01 2.020E+02 4.OOOE+02 
Death Rate/1000 3.400E-02 2.080E-01 8.200E-01 6.143E+00 9.229E+00 9.550E+01 2.OOOE+02 
Content MDF %) 9 23 40 65 77 89 100 
Functional Downtime (days) 9 23 30 30 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary: 0 131 266 365 365 365 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness (%) 100 60 43 60 35 23 11 
Contents Rehab Effectiveness (% 100 60 43 60 35 23 11 
Rehab Minor Injury Rate/1000 1.020E-01 6.240E-01 2.460E+00 1.843E+01 2.769E+01 3.450E+01 4.000E+01 
Rehab Major Injury Rate/1000 1.360E-03 8.320E-03 3.280E-02 2.4S7E-01 3.691E-01 2.020E+00 4.000E+00 
Rehab Death Rate/1000 3.400E-05 2.080E-04 8.200E-04 6.143E-03 9.229E-03 9.550E-02 2.000E-01 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 5.315E-02 1.125E-02 2.495E-03 4.000E-04 7.180E-05 2.148E-05 3.313E-05 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With Value 
of Life of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $2,714,880 $2,743,174 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($2,063,120) ($2,034,826) 
Benefit cost ratio : 0.57 0. 57