FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA-255 / Sept 1994 
Seismic Rehabilitation 
of Federal Buildings: 
A Benefit/Cost Model 
Volume 1-A User's Manual 
Issued by FEMA in furtherance of the 
Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. 
NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS 
REDUCTION PROGRAM 
SEISMIC REHABILITATION
OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS:
A BENEFIT-COST MODEL
VOLUME 1
A USER'S MANUAL
Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
Under Contract No. EMW-92-6-3976 
by 
VSP Associates, Inc. 
455 University Avenue, Suite 340 
Sacramento, CA 96825 
June 30,1994 
FEMA DISCLAIMER 
Any opinion, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication and in the accompanying software do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, neither FEMA nor any of its employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, product, or process included in this publication. 
This report was prepared under Contract EMW-92-6-3976 between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and VSP Associates, Inc. 
For further information regarding this document, additional copies, or the software to operate the model, contact the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Directorate, Washington, DC 20472. 
VSP DISCLAIMER 
The information presented in this report is believed to be correct. However, the material presented in this publication, and in the accompanying software, should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination by qualified professionals of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability. Users of information from this publication and the accompanying software assume all liability arising from such use. 
FEMA FORWARD
FEMA is pleased to have sponsored the development of these two new publications 
(Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit-Cost Model. Volume 1: A 
Users Manual and Volume 2: Supporting Documentation), and the associated 
software, for inclusion in the series of documents dealing with the seismic safety of existing buildings. In this endeavor, FEMA gratefully acknowledges the expertise and efforts of VSP Associates, Inc., its consultants, the Advisory Panel, and Ms. Diana Todd of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technical Advisor to FEMA. 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VSP Associates, Inc. was the prime contractor and is fully responsible for the content of this report. Mr. Robert A. Olson, President of VSP Associates, Inc., was the project manager. The other members of the project team include: 
* Dr. Kenneth A. Goettel, Senior Scientist, VSP Associates, Inc. 
* Mr. David B. Hauls, Architect, Building Technology Inc. 
* Mr. William T. Holmes, Engineer, Rutherford & Chekene 
* Dr. Gerald L. Horner, Consulting Economist 
* Mr. Brian Mannix, Consulting Economist 
* Dr. Lawrence D. Reaveley, Consulting Engineer 
* Mr. James E. Russell, Consulting Engineer 
We gratefully acknowledge the expertise and experience contributed by the members 
of the Project Advisory Panel, including: 
* Mr. Christopher Arnold, Architect, Building Systems Development 
Dr. James Lefter, Visiting Professor, University of Illinois, Department of Civil
* Engineering 
* Dr. Jerome W. Milliman, Consulting Economist 
* Dr. Chester Newland, Professor, University of Southern California, School of 
Public Administration 
Maurice S. Power, Engineer, Geomatrix Consultants
* Mr. 
* Mr. Karl V. Steinbrugge, Consulting Structural Engineer 
* Mr. Fred Mature, Engineer, California Seismic Safety Commission 
VSP Associates, Inc. also gratefully acknowledges the valuable assistance, support, cooperation and constructive reviews of draft materials by Mr. Ugo Morelli, FEMA Project Officer, and Ms. Diana Todd, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA Technical Advisor. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
FEMA's program for reducing seismic hazards in existing buildings includes development of a body of consensus engineering criteria on how to evaluate and reduce the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. This comprehensive program is also concerned with the societal and economic aspects of the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. This report and accompanying software present a benefit-cost model for the seismic rehabilitation of Federal buildings. 
Is it worth it? This is the primary question about seismic rehabilitation projects which are designed to reduce expected damages and casualties from future earthquakes. Decision making about the prospective seismic rehabilitation of existing Federal buildings may be difficult because of the myriad of complex and often contentious engineering and public policy issues involved. In many cases, life safety (avoiding casualties) is the principal motivation for implementing seismic rehabilitation programs, while in some instances property protection or continued functionality of important government services may be the driving economic force. 
Benefit-cost analysis is a powerful tool which can help determine whether the future benefits of a prospective seismic rehabilitation are sufficient to justify the present costs of the project. The benefit-cost methodology in this report (and accompanying software) provides estimates of the benefits (i.e., avoided future damages, losses and casualties) of the seismic rehabilitation of Federal government buildings. The benefit cost model is also applicable to state and local government buildings. 
There are two primary intended applications for this methodology: first, to roughly screen or prioritize a large list of buildings and second, to evaluate in detail one or more specific alternatives on a single building for which detailed engineering analysis exists. 
To screen a large list of buildings, a rough analysis could be made using typical or default data built into the computer program, although incorporation of more detailed building specific information would improve the validity of the results. To evaluate one or more specific rehabilitation options for a single building, detailed engineering analyses of the alternatives are essential. 
The benefit-cost methodology presented in this report is intended for use by facility managers, design professionals (engineers and architects), and others involved in decision making about the seismic rehabilitation of Federal buildings. A technical background is not a prerequisite for using the methodology. However, a working knowledge about the general principles and terminologies relevant to the seismic performance of buildings, and some basic personal computer skills are necessary. 
The benefit-cost model performs the necessary calculations to determine how the expected future benefits of a specific seismic rehabilitation project compare to the costs. The model also generates detailed scenario damage estimates of expected damages, other economic losses, and casualties per earthquake event (as a function of Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI, and effective peak ground acceleration, PGA). These scenario damage, loss, and casualty estimates may prove useful to decision makers. 
Benefit-cost analysis does not provide an absolute answer about whether or not to undertake the seismic rehabilitation of a building because decisions about rehabilitations usually depend on a great many factors and policy decisions well outside the confines of benefit-cost analysis. For example, basic policy decisions about what level of life safety and what level of post-earthquake performance are desired cannot be decided by a benefit-cost program. Furthermore, the quality of input data and the resulting uncertainty in benefit-cost results must be considered in all decision making using the results of benefit-cost analysis. Notwithstanding these limitations, the benefit cost model presented in this report is a powerful tool to assist decision-makers concerned with the seismic rehabilitation of Federal buildings. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1-1
FEMA's Program for Reducing Seismic Hazards in Existing Buildings 1-1
Private-Sector Buildings 1-3
Federal Buildings 1-4
Publications 1-5
The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis in the Seismic Rehabilitation 
of Existing Buildings 1-6
What Is 
Benefit-Cost Analysis 7 1-6
Is it Worth it? 1-6
The Benefit-Cost Model 1-7
What Data Are Needed to Run the Model? 1-8
Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment 1-8
What Are the Intended Applications 7 1-8
Who Are the Intended Users? 1-9
What the Benefit-Cost Model Can Do 1-9
What the Benefit-Cost Model Cannot Do. 1-9
CHAPTER 2
GETTING STARTED 2 -1
Hardware and Software Required 2-1
Computer Hardware -2-1
Computer Software 2
Windows 2-2
Quattro Pro for Windows 2-3
Installing the Program 2-4
Network Systems 2-4
Stand-Alone Computers 2-4
CHAPTER 3
PROGRAM BASICS 3-1
Starting Quattro Pro (QPW) 3-1
Start Windows 3-1
Start QPW 3-1
Opening Files 3-2
Screen Display 3-3
Moving Around in the Program 3-4
Benefit-Cost Menu Tree 3-5
Menu Tree 3-6
Naming and Saving Files 3-7
Oops! 3-8
To Start A New Analysis 3-9
To Exit From the Program 3-9
Cell Colors 3-10
Data Entry 3-11
Correcting Errors 3-11
Commas, Dollars 3-12
CHAPTER 4: TUTORIAL -WORKED EXAMPLE 
Starting the Worked Example 
Step One 
Step Two 
Step Three 
Step Four 
Data Input 
Building ID 
Building Type 
Building Description 
Mean Damage Function 
Benefit-Cost Results 
A. Economic Parameters
B. Summary of Damages ;and Economic Losses. 
C. Value of Injuries and Deaths 
CHAPTER 5: DATA ENTRY .
Menu Trees .
Model Menu .
Building Menu .
Engineering Menus .
Building ID .
Building Type 
Building Description .
Mean Damage Function 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage 
Modified Mean Damage Function 
Building Contents .
Relocation Time 
Death & Injury Rates .
Use & Function Menus .
Occupancy Data 
Occupancy 
Value of Government Services Lost .
Rental Values for Support of Agency Function. 
Post-Earthquake Continuity Premium 
Functional Downtime .
Building Rental Income .
Rehabilitation Menus 
Rehabilitation Project Description .
Rehabilitation Project Costs .
Effectiveness of the Rehabilitation 
Death and Injury Rates .
Seismic Menus .
Seismic Risk .
Default Method 5-22
Site-Specific Geotechnical Method 5-23 
Other Data Inputs 
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS 6-1
Results Menu 6-1 
Damages 6-1
Scenario Damages 6-1 
Expected Annual Damages .6-2Expected Annual Avoided Damages 6-2
Expected Residual Annual Damages 6-2
Damages: Existing Building 6-2
Damages: Rehabilitated Building 6-3
Benefit-Cost Results 6A. 
Economic Parameters 6-6
Discount Rate 6-6Planning Period 6-7
Present Value Coefficient .6 B-7
B. Summary of Damages and Economic Losses 
(Without Value of Life) 6-7
C. Value of Injuries and Deaths Avoided 
(With the Value of Life) 6-8
Value of Injuries 6 -8
Value of a Statistical Life 6-9
Death Loss & Injuries 6-10
Before Rehabilitation 6-10
After Rehabilitation 6-10
Summary 6-11
CHAPTER 7
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF EIGHT FEDERAL BUILDINGS 7-1
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Memphis, TN 7-2
United States Federal Building/Courthouse, Butte, MT 7-8
United States Federal Building, Albuquerque, NM 7-13
Jackson Federal Building, Seattle, WA 7-20
TEAD Motor Pool Facility, Tooele Army Depot, Utah 7-25
Building 271, Mare Island Navy Shipyard, Vallejo, CA 7-31
Building 678, Special Weapons Training Facility, San Diego, CA 7-36
Building 8, U.S. Coast Guard Support Station, Boston, MA 7-41 
CHAPTER 8
GLOSSARY 8-1
REFERENCES R-1
APPENDIX 1
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AN D EQUATIONS A-1
Benefit-Cost Model Without the Value of Life A-1
Benefit-Cost Model With the Value of Life 
Economic Assumptions for Modeling Benefits A-4
Underlying Assumptions .
Detailed Economic Assumptions and Equations 
Without the Value of Life 
Scenario Damages .
Building Damages A-6
Contents Damages A-7
Relocation Expenses A-7
Rental Income Losses A-7
Government Services Lost A-8
Expected Annual Damages A-9
Expected Avoided Damages. A-9
Expected Annual Benefits A-9
Detailed Economic Assumptions and Equations: 
With the Value of Life .
Value of Deaths Avoided A-10
Value of Injuries Avoided A-11
Definitions of Economic Terms 
Benefit-Cost Analysis A-12
Cost-Benefit Analysis A-12
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis A-12
Economic Efficiency A-13
Economic Impact Assessment A-13
Risk-Benefit Analysis  A-10
Informal Benefit-Cost Analysis .
APPENDIX 2
PRINTOUT OF FULL BENEFIT-COST MODEL EXAMPLE A-1 5

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 
It is widely recognized that the greatest hazards to life loss, injury, 
property damage and other economic losses from earthquakes are 
posed by existing buildings that were not designed and constructed 
to resist strong ground motions. Therefore, one of the objectives of 
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-124) was 
"...the development of methods for...rehabilitation, and utilization of 
manmade works so as to effectively resist the hazards imposed by 
earthquakes..."' The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program submitted to the Congress by the President on June 22, 
19178, stressed that "...it is important that hazards be reduced from 
those (substandard) structures presenting the greatest risks in terms 
of occupancy and potential secondary impact." 
FEMA's Program for Reducing Seismic Hazards in Existing Buildings 
Since 19184, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMIA) 
has had underway a comprehensive, closely coordinated program to 
develop a body of engineering practices to increase the ability 'of 
existing buildings to withstand the forces of earthquakes. Societal 
implications and economic issues related to the use of these 
improved practices have also been examined. The first project was 
the formulation of a comprehensive 5-year plan on what needed to 
be done and what the required resources would be. This plan was 
completed in 1985 and published under the title An Action Plan for 
Reducing Earthquake Hazards of Existing Buildings (FEMA 90). 
This plan identified priority actions to be taken by the public and 
private sectors. FEMA has used this plan as the basis for 
developing a multi-volume, continuing series on the seismic 
rehabilitation of existing buildings. 
At a cost of about $15 million, two dozen publications and a number 
of software programs and audio-visual training materials have 
already been produced and distributed for the use of design 
professionals, buildings regulatory personnel, educators, 
researchers, and the general public. The program has proceeded 
along separate, but parallel approaches in dealing with private-
sector buildings and Federal buildings. 
Private-Sector Buildings 
The "technical platform" of consensus criteria on how to deal with 
some of the major engineering aspects of seismic rehabilitation of 
buildings is already available to private-sector practitioners and 
other interested parties. This technical material is contained in a 
trilogy, with supporting documentation, completed in 1989: 1) a 
method for rapid visual screening of buildings that might be 
hazardous in future earthquakes that can be conducted without 
gaining access to the buildings themselves; 2) a methodology for a 
more detailed evaluation of a building that identifies structural flaws 
that have caused collapse in past earthquakes and might do so 
again in future earthquakes; and 3) a compendium of the most 
commonly used techniques of seismic rehabilitation. 
In addition to these engineering topics, the program has also been 
concerned with the societal and economic implications of seismic 
rehabilitation. The costs of seismically rehabilitating buildings were 
first reviewed in 1988 and have just recently been updated, 
expanded in scope, and improved in accuracy. Two benefit-cost 
models and associated software for application to both private-
sector buildings and Federal buildings have also been developed. 
Further, for the use of decision makers at the local level, a series of 
volumes present an array of socio-economic issues that are likely to 
arise in a locality that undertakes seismic rehabilitation of its building 
stock; ways to identify problems and methods to analyze them; and 
means to stimulate interest in seismic rehabilitation of buildings in 
appropriate localities. 
The culminating program activity for private-sector buildings will be 
the completion in the fall of 1997 of a comprehensive set of 
nationally applicable guidelines with commentary, on how to 
rehabilitate buildings so that they will better withstand earthquakes. 
This is a multi-year, multi-million dollar effort that represents a first of 
its kind in the United States. The guidelines will allow practitioners 
to choose design approaches consistent with different levels of 
seismic safety as required by geographic location, performance 
objective, type of building, occupancy, or other relevant 
considerations. Before being issued, the two documents will be 
given consensus review by representatives of a broad spectrum of 
users, including the construction industry, building regulatory 
organizations, building owners and occupants' groups 
academic and research institutions, financial establishments, local, 
State and Federal levels of government, and the general public. 
This process is intended to insure their national applicability and 
encourage their widespread acceptance and use by practitioners 
once the documents are completed. It is expected that, with time, 
this set of guidelines will be adopted by model building code 
organizations and standards-setting groups, and thus will diffuse 
widely into the building practices of the United States. 
Significant corollary products of this activity are also expected. 
Principal among them will be improved seismic rehabilitation cost 
data; an engineering applications handbook; a plan for a structured 
transfer of the technology embodied in the guidelines; and an 
identification of the most urgent research and development needs. 
Federal Buildings 
A set of technical criteria intended to provide Federal agencies with 
minimum standards for both the seismic evaluation and the seismic 
rehabilitation of buildings in their inventories is in advanced stages 
of preparation. The performance level established in these 
standards is life-safety for building occupants and the general public. 
To facilitate the application of the standards by users, a commentary 
has also been prepared. In addition, an Executive Order to 
promulgate the standards has been drafted. These materials were 
given consensus approval by the Interagency Committee on Seismic 
Safety in Construction (ICSSC) which represents 30 Federal 
Departments and Agencies, and are expected to be ready for 
submission to the Executive Office of the President for consideration 
by the summer of 1994. 
INTRODUCTION
Publications 
By the end of 1993, the following publications in this series had been 
published: A handbook (and supporting documentation) on how to 
conduct a rapid, visual screening of potentially hazardous 
buildings -Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential 
Seismic Hazards (FEMA 154 and 155). 
* The first collection (and supporting documentation) of typical 
costs for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings -Typical Costs 
for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 156 
and 157). 
* An engineering report which identifies the generally accepted 
techniques for the seismic rehabilitation of hazardous 
buildings -Techniques for Seismically Rehabilitating Existing 
Buildings (FEMA 172). 
* A handbook (and supplemental readings) on establishing 
priorities for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings Establishing 
Programs and Priorities for the Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 173 and 174). 
* A handbook (and supporting documentation) on a 
methodology for evaluating the seismic safety of existing 
buildings -Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Structures 
(FEMA 175 and 178). 
* An evaluation of existing and potential financial incentives in 
the private and public sectors that would encourage a locality 
to undertake a seismic rehabilitation program -Financial 
Incentives for Seismic Rehabilitation of Hazardous Buildings An 
Agenda for Action (FEMA 198 and 199). 
A methodology (and accompanying software) for conducting 
benefit-cost analysis of private sector buildings -A Benefit-
Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 
227 and 228). 
* An examination of most significant technical and societal 
issues likely to confront the writers of the planned set of 
guidelines on the seismic rehabilitation of buildings with 
suggested solutions -Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Phase 
: Issues Identification and Resolution (FEMA 237). 
The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis 
in the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings 
What Is Benefit-cost analysis provides estimates of the "benefits" and "costs" 
Benefit-Cost of a proposed seismic rehabilitation project. This methodology 
Analysis? estimates the seismic performance of a building before and after the 
proposed rehabilitation project, including expected damages to the 
building and contents, casualties, and extent of loss of functionality 
of the building. Estimated future expected benefits are reduced to 
their net present value and summed. When benefits are greater 
than costs the benefit-cost ratio is greater than one and the 
proposed project is economically sound. 
Is it Worth it? This is the primary question about seismic rehabilitation projects 
which are designed to reduce expected damages and casualties 
from future earthquakes. Decision making about the prospective 
seismic rehabilitation of existing Federal buildings may be difficult 
because of the myriad of complex and often contentious engineering 
and public policy issues involved. 
Benefit-cost analysis is a powerful tool which can help determine 
whether the future benefits of a prospective seismic rehabilitation 
are sufficient to justify the present costs of the project. The benefit-
cost methodology in this report (and accompanying software) 
provides estimates of the benefits (i.e., avoided future damages and 
losses) of the seismic rehabilitation of Federal government buildings. 
The model is also applicable to state and local government 
buildings. 
The Benefit-
Cost Model 
Benefit-cost analysis provides estimates of the "benefits" and "costs" 
of a proposed seismic rehabilitation project. The benefits 
considered are avoided future damages and losses which are 
expected to accrue as a result of the rehabilitation project. Costs 
considered are those necessary to implement the specific 
rehabilitation project under evaluation. Costs are generally well 
determined for specific projects for which engineering design studies 
have been completed. Benefits, however, must be estimated 
probabilistically because they depend on the improved performance 
of the building in future earthquakes, the timing and severity of 
which must be estimated probabilistically. In the present model, the 
benefits included are: avoided damages to the building and 
contents, avoided rental income losses, avoided relocation costs, 
avoided loss of government services, and avoided casualties. 
The "benefits" calculated by the methodology are expected future 
benefits which are calculated over a "planning horizon" (i.e., the 
useful lifetime of the rehabilitation project). To account for the time 
value of money, a net present value calculation must be performed. 
This calculation is done automatically in the program, using the 
discount rate and project useful lifetime entered by the user. 
Results of benefit-cost calculations are presented two ways: first, 
the benefit-cost ratio (benefits divided by costs) and second, the 
present value criterion (benefits minus costs). A benefit-cost ratio 
above one, or, equivalently, a positive present value indicates that 
benefits exceed costs and that the rehabilitation is economically 
justified, under the assumptions made in the calculation. The 
validity of a benefit-cost calculation and the robustness of 
conclusions drawn there from depend entirely on the validity of the 
data used in the calculations. Calculations based on detailed, 
building-specific engineering analysis will be much more accurate 
(and correspondingly more useful), than calculations based largely 
on typical or default values of input parameters. Therefore, decisions 
should not be made solely on the basis of benefit-cost results. 
Rather, prudent decision making must include assessment of the 
reliability of the benefit-cost results. 
What Data Are 
Needed to Run 
the Model? 
Probabilistic 
Seismic 
Risk 
Assessment 
What Are the 
Intended 
Applications? 
For any benefit-cost analysis, basic information about the building 
under consideration is required, including: building type (structural 
system) of the building (e.g., unreinforced masonry), floor area, 
replacement value, occupancy, use and function and others. Most 
importantly, estimates of the buildings seismic performance both in 
its existing condition and post-rehabilitation must be made. Default 
or reference values are provided for most of the input parameters 
(based on the building type). However, more reliable analyses are 
obtained when additional building-specific information, including 
expected seismic performance, is available. 
Seismic risk assessment for benefit-cost analysis must be 
probabilistic because the timing and severity of future earthquakes is 
unknown. The benefit-cost program uses the expected annual 
probability of earthquakes in each "bin" or level of seismic ground 
motions (expressed as Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI, and 
effective peak ground acceleration, PGA) to perform an expected 
value calculation. For example, if at a site under consideration, the 
annual probability of earthquakes of MMI VIII is 1%, then there is a 
one percent chance per year of such an earthquake. If each such 
earthquake causes $1,000,000 in damages, then on average (over 
a long time period) there will be $10,000 per year in damages. The 
$10,000 per year in average damages is the "expected" or statistical 
average damages per year. If these damages are avoided by a 
rehabilitation project, then the expected or statistical average 
damages avoided (i.e., the benefits) are $10,000 per year. To count 
fully the benefits of a seismic rehabilitation, the expected benefits of 
avoiding damages from the full range of damaging earthquakes 
must be counted, rather than simply considering one scenario or 
design earthquake. 
There are two primary intended applications for this methodology: 
first, to roughly screen or prioritize a large list of buildings and 
second, to evaluate in detail one or more specific alternatives on a 
single building for which detailed engineering analysis exists. To 
screen a large list of buildings, a rough analysis could be made 
using typical or default data, although incorporation of more detailed 
building specific information would improve the validity of the results. 
To evaluate one or more specific rehabilitation options for a single 
building, detailed engineering analyses of the alternatives are 
essential. 
Who Are the 
Intended 
Users? 
What the 
Benefit-Cost 
Model Can Do 
What the 
Benefit-Cost 
Model Cannot 
Do 
The benefit-cost methodology presented in this report (and 
accompanying software) is intended for use by facility managers, 
design professionals (engineers and architects), and others nvolved 
in decision making about the seismic rehabilitation of Federal 
buildings. A technical background is not a prerequisite for using the 
methodology. However, a working knowledge about the general 
principles and terminologies relevant to the seismic performance of 
buildings, and some basic personal computer skills are necessary. 
The benefit-cost model performs the necessary calculations to 
determine how the expected future benefits of a specific seismic 
rehabilitation project compare to the costs. The model also 
generates scenario damage estimates of expected damages, other 
economic losses, and casualties per earthquake event (as a function 
of Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI, and effective peak ground 
acceleration, PGA). These scenario damage, loss, and casualty 
estimates may prove useful to decision makers. 
The benefit-cost model cannot make a decision about whether or 
not to undertake the seismic rehabilitation of a building because 
decisions about rehabilitations usually depend on a great many 
factors and policy decisions well outside the confines of benefit-cost 
analysis. For example, basic policy decisions about what level of 
life safety and what level of post-earthquake performance are 
desired cannot be decided by a benefit-cost program. Similarly, 
seismic rehabilitations are frequently done in combination with other 
building renovation, such as interior refurbishing, upgrading 
electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems, or hazardous material 
(e.g., asbestos) abatements. The seismic benefit-cost model cannot 
evaluate such projects as a whole because the model only 
considers seismic benefits and costs. In addition, decisions about 
whether or not to rehabilitate a building frequently depend on other 
factors such as budgets available, priorities for seismic safety vs. 
other program needs. As with new construction, decisions about 
rehabilitation of existing buildings may also be made partially on 
factors such as building location, desirability, availability of 
alternative space, and so on. Therefore, while the model can 
determine how the benefits of specific rehabilitation alternatives 
compare to the costs, it does not provide an absolute answer as to 
whether or not to undertake the seismic rehabilitation of a building. 

CHAPTER 2: GETTING STARTED
This chapter describes the computer hardware and software 
required to run the program and how to install the benefit-cost 
program on your computer. Chapter 3 (Program Basics) describes 
the basics of using Quattro Pro for Windows (QPW), how to get 
around in the program, and how to enter the data requested. 
Chapter 4 (Tutorial -Worked Example) provides a fully worked 
example with guidance for the novice user. 
QPW works, very much like other spreadsheet programs such as 
Lotus 1-2-3, or Excel, so that experience with any of them is almost 
100% transferrable to QPW. However, even ifyou have little or no 
experience with spreadsheet programs, the benefit-cost program is 
self-contained and easy to use. 
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIRED 
Computer 
Hardware 
This program requires an IBM-compatible computer (PC). The CPU 
must be a 386 or higher; the program will run faster with a 486 or 
Pentium CPU. In addition, the computer must have: 
1. At least 4 megabytes of memory (RAM). 
2. A hard drive with at least 15 megabytes of free disk 
space. 
3. A high density (HD) 3.5" floppy disk drive. 
The benefit-cost program files require a large amount of disk space, 
about 2 megabytes per file saved. Therefore, it is desirable to have 
a large hard disk ifyou anticipate saving a substantial number of 
files. Alternatively, files can be saved on high density (HD) floppy 
disks. However, because of the file size, the files must be 
compressed using utilities available on recent versions of DOS or as 
separate utility programs (such as PKZIP). 
GETTING STARTED 
Computer This program is a Windows program; therefore, your computer must 
Software have Windows (Version 3.1 or higher) installed. 
Windows To install Windows: 
1. Turn on your computer. 
2. Insert the Windows Disk I in the drive you want to use for 
the installation and close the drive door. 
Windows Setup lets you use any active disk drive. 
3. To make the installation drive active, type the drive letter 
followed by a colon (A: or B:) and press Enter. 
4. Type setup and press Enter. 
5. Follow the instructions on the screen. 
The Setup program's instructions should be self-explanatory. 
But, if you do have questions about any of the procedures or 
options, you can request on-line Help by pressing the F1 key. 
For more information, see roicrosoft Windows User's 
Guide. 
HINT: The installation routine will ask if you want to choose a 
"custom" installation or allow Windows to perform a 
"standard" installation. Most computers will operate well if 
you allow Windows to self-install, i.e., select the "standard" 
installation, not the "custom" installation. 
GETTING STARTED 
The benefit-cost program runs as templates in QUATTRO PRO 
FOR WINDOWS (QPW). You must have QPW (Version 5.0) 
installed on your computer. 
Quattro Pro for To install QPW: 
Windows 
1. Be sure you are in WINDOWS (i.e., install WINDOWS first): 
open WINDOWS if it does not automatically come up when 
you turn on your computer. To open WINDOWS, at the DOS 
prompt, C:> type WIN 
2. Insert the QPW Disk I in the drive you want to use for the 
installation and close the drive door. 
3. With your mouse, point the cursor on File on the menu bar 
(at the top of your screen), press and hold the left button of 
your mouse. This will highlight the selected item. While 
holding down the left mouse button, move the mouse until 
Run is highlighted. 
4. On the Command Line, i.e., inside the box which will appear 
next on your screen, type 
a:instali.exe 
or b1:install.exe 
depending on which drive the QPW disk is in. Be sure to 
type the command exactly as written: do not add spaces or 
change punctuation. Then left-click the mouse on OK. 
5. Enter the requested information in the Installation dialog box 
which will appear on your screen. Accept the default choice 
of QPW for the Quattro Pro directory. 
6. Quattro Pro will ask you for various information during the 
installation. Simply type the response and press Enter or 
click the mouse on OK. The default setting are usually 
suitable for your first installation of Quattro Pro. 
7. After entering the information requested in the Installation 
Dialog Box (e.g., your name), click on Install] to continue. 
8. Follow instructions (e.g., change from Disk 1 to Disk 2) as 
they appear. 
9. Your QPW installation is complete! 
GETTING STARTED 
INSTALLING THE PROGRAM 
Network Computer networks may be set up and managed in many different 
Systems ways. Therefore, this manual cannot give detailed instructions for 
installing the program on a specific network system. To install the 
benefit-cost program on computer which is connected to a network 
system, give the program disk and the User Guide to your computer 
system operator. After installation is completed, go to the Start 
QPW section on page 1 of Chapter 3. 
Stand-Alone 1. Turn on your computer. 
Computers 
2. If you are not at a DOS prompt (such as C:\>) either exit 
from WINDOWS to DOS, or select a DOS prompt from within 
WINDOWS. To exit from WINDOWS, highlight File on the 
menu, hold down the mouse button and highlight Exit. The 
program will display: "This will end your Windows Session." 
Click on OK. Your screen should show: C:\> 
If your hard disk drive is designated D, or some other letter, 
that letter will appear in place of C; 
3. Insert the Benefit-Cost Program diskette (3.5") in either the A 
or B drive of your computer (whichever floppy drive is the 
high density 3.5" drive); 
4. At a DOS prompt (C:\>), 
If the Program diskette is in the a drive, type: a:install 
If the Program diskette is in the b drive, type: b:install 
5. 
The install program will automatically create a new 
subdirectory on your C drive: C:\FB 
6. Two files will be loaded into the C:XFB directory: 
A. An example file with all data entries filled in: 
BCEXAMP.WB1 
B. A blank file, for user data input: 
BCBLANK.WB1 
7. PROGRAM INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE! 

CHAPTER 3: PROGRAM BASICS 
Start Windows 
Start QPW 
This chapter provides basic information about starting and running 
Quattro Pro and the benefit-cost program, along with helpful hints. 
STARTING QUATTRO PRO (QPW) 
Quattro Pro is a WINDOWS program; therefore you must first start 
WINDOWS before starting Quattro Pro. If you are not already in 
Windows, type WIN at a DOS prompt to start Windows. 
After starting WINDOWS, click the left mouse button on 
the symbol (the "icon") or the group window labeled 
Quattro Pro for Windows (QPWN. Then, double-click 
the left mouse button on the QPW icon within the 
window.
Quattro Pro for Windows works very much like any other Windows 
spreadsheet or any other Windows program, including word 
processors. Quattro Pro commands are initiated by clicking on pull-
down menus at the top of the screen or by clicking on the speed 
buttons below the menu lines. 
To use the Benefit-Cost Program, you need to know only a little 
about Quattro Pro. Once the Benefit-Cost Program is loaded, the 
data entry, calculations, and printing of results can be accomplished 
entirely within the program, with minimal use of Quattro Pro 
commands. 
Opening Files 
PROGRAM BASICS 
The menu bar along the upper edge of the QPW window will display 
a File command at the left side. Click on the File command. When 
the menu opens, click on the Open... line. 
The screen will display two boxes side by side: File Name and 
Directories. 
Click on the C: in the Directories box on the right side of the 
screen. Use the mouse to move the cursor to the FB directory 
where the benefit-cost model is located, and double click. 
Double click on the BC EXAMP.WB1 line to load a completed 
example, or on BCBLANK.WBI to load a blank spreadsheet. Or, 
click once on the file you wish to open, then click on OK. 
The computer will load the benefit-cost model. Loading will take 
only a few seconds on a fast computer, but may take up to several 
minutes on a slow computer. The bottom right corner of the screen 
(Status line) will display WAIT while the model is loading and 
READY when the model is loaded. 
As you continue to use the Benefit-Cost Program and save files, the 
File Name box will contain the names of all of your files which have 
the .WB1 ending. Double-clicking on the desired file will open any 
of these files. Please see NAMING AND SAVING FILES on page 3-7. 
PROGRAM BASICS
Screen Display When the Benefit-Cost Analysis program is loaded, the first screen visible is the Sign-On Screen. 
Benefit-Cost Analysis of the 
Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings 
Version 1.0 
June 15. 1994 
Building Name: Court House 
Address, 123 1St 
City, State, Zp: Ekalaka, MT 21345 
Analyst: GLH 
Rehabilitation Project: Install shear walls 
Run identification: 123456 
If the words extend past the right-hand side of your computer screen 
or if the image is too small, change the Zoom List by following 
these steps: 
1. CLICK on the Zoom List arrow, located in 
the first row of symbols (the If Speed Bar) 
at the top of the screen; 
2. While holding down the left-hand mouse button, move the 
mouse until the correct value (e.g., 80) is highlighted. It may 
take a little trial-and-error to determine the best value for your 
screen. 
PROGRAM BASICS
Moving There are several easy ways to move around the Benefit-Cost 
Around in the Program: 
Program 
1. Use the mouse to place the cursor wherever you want to be 
on a page and click on that location. 
2. To move left-right on a page, use the cursor arrows on the 
keyboard, or the horizontal scroll bar at the bottom right of the 
screen. 
3. To move up-down on a page, use the cursor arrows on the 
keyboard, or the vertical scroll bar at the right hand edge of 
the screen. 
4. To move to the top of any page in the program, press the 
Home button on the keyboard. 
5. To move to a specific location within the program, use the 
custom Menu Tree (described next) which appears at the top 
of the screen. Click on the desired menu item; the submenu 
(a list of available choices) appears. Click on the desired 
submenu item. 
Benefit-Cost 
Menu Tree 
PROGRAM BASICS 
The benefit-cost model is driven from a customized menu tree. The 
menu appears at the top of the display screen (after the model is 
loaded): 
The Model Building Rehab Seismic Results Print 
The underscored letter of the name indicates that this menu item 
can be accessed by clicking on the menu or by the X keyboard 
command, where 'x indicates the underscored letter in the menu 
name. For example, Rehab can be accessed by typing R. 
In addition to the main menu, there are submenus which appear 
when the main menu heading is clicked on. Submenus are 
accessed in the same manner as the main menu heading. 
For example, to move to the Mean Damage Function screen, click 
on Building. The Engineering submenu appears, and displays 
seven choices, including the Mean Damage Function. Move the 
cursor down until Mean Damage Function is highlighted. 
* Rehab Seismic Results Print 
Building Identification 
Use& Function Building Type 
Building Description 
Building Contents 
Relocation Time 
Death, Injury Rates 
The complete Benefit-Cost Menu Tree is given on the following 
page. 
PROGRAM BASICS
Menu Tree CUSTOMIZED BENEFIT-COST MENU TREE 
File 
Save 
Save As... 
Quit 
Model 
Version 
Building 
Engineering 
Building Identification 
Building Type 
Building Description 
Mean Damage Function 
Building Contents 
Relocation Time 
Death, Injury Rates 
Use & Function 
Occupancy Data 
Value of Lost Gov't Services 
Functional Downtime 
Rental Income 
Rehab 
Project Description 
Costs 
Effectiveness of the Rehab 
Death, Injury Rates 
Seismic 
Results 
Damages 
Benefit Cost Results 
Injuries & Deaths 
Summary 
Print 
Model Version 
Building Engineering 
Facility Class 
Mean Damage Function 
Building Use & Function 
Occupants 
Rental Income 
Rehab 
Seismic Information 
PROGRAM BASICS
Naming and 
Saving Files 
Results 
Damages 
Benefit-Cost Results 
Death & Injuries 
Summary 
All Data Tables 
All Tables 
Each benefit-cost analysis file must be saved with a new name to 
avoid overwriting previous files. Each file that you want to save 
MUST have a unique name. 
New names can be entered, as a file is saved, by using the Save 
As, command. To enter a new name for an open file, click on File 
(in the menu on the second line of the screen), then click on Save 
As, and enter a new name in the file name box. Names can have 
up to eight letters or numbers, then a period, followed by three 
letters or numbers: e.g., TUTORIAL.WBI 
g Model 
Quite 
HELPFUL HINT: 
Save benefit-cost program files with an extension of .WBI 
For example: if you want to save a file as Run17, save the 
file as Run17.WB1. 
When you use the File/Open command, Quattro Pro 
automatically lists all files in which the extension (the three 
letters after the period) begin with MW and thus your program 
files will be easy to find. 
Edit Block Data 
PROGRAM BASICS 
Oops! If you accidentally overwrite one of the original program files by 
saving a file with user-entered data without changing the name, the 
original program file will be lost (overwritten by the new file). 
To recreate the original program file, check to see if a backup copy 
exists: it will have the same name, followed by a .bak extension 
(ending), e.g., sample.bak or example.bak. Copy this file to the 
original. 
1. Click on the File6 menu at the top of the screen. 
2. Next, Open the .bak file (see page 6 for instructions 
on opening a file). 
3. Select Save As and save the file with a new name, as 
described on page 3-7, Naming and Saving Files. 
Helpful Hint: If all else fails, reinstall the file from the original floppy 
disk as described in Chapter 2, Installing the Program. 
PROGRAM BASICS
To Start A New If you want to do another analysis: 
Analysis 
1. First, save the existing open file with a new name (see 
NAMING AND SAVING FILES, page 3-7). 
2. Quit the Quattro Pro file which you have been using: 
with the cursor highlight File and Quit, since the file is 
already saved under a new name. 
Model 
As... 
3. Next, click on File, then click on Open to start a new 
analysis (see Opening Files, page 3-2). 
IC Edit Block at a 1 
New Ctri+N. 
9.. I I 
To Exit From First, save your work with a new name, by using the 
the Program File/Save As command described above. 
Click on File, then click on OK to leave Quattro Pro. 
PROGRAM BASICS
Cell Colors Before you begin the data entry process, note that all areas 
(cells) of the program screens are color coded to remind the user 
what type of information each cell contains. 
The cell type appears in the Style List window when the cursor is 
clicked on a cell. The Style List window is in the upper Speed Bar. 
There are six cell colors which indicate different types of entries: 
Cells are color coded to inform the user what the cell contains. The cell format name 
appears in the center Style List window of the first speedbar when the cell is activated by 
the cursor. 
Green cells require the user to enter data concerning the building 
or project. Green cell data entries directly affect the calculated 
results. Style List Title: Data Input 
Pink cells contain information about the building or project. Pink cell 
entries do not affect the calculated results. Style List Title: Information. 
_ Purple cells contain information that was entered by the user in other 
screens. Style List Title: Carry Over. 
Orange cells contain default data. The values cannot be changed. 
Style List Title: Default. 
Blue cells can be used to override default data with project specific data. 
Style List Title: Override Default. 
| Yellow cells contain calculated results from the model. Style List 
Title: Results. 
Data Entry
Correcting 
Errors 
PROGRAM BASICS 
To enter data into a cell (block) in the program, first move the cursor 
to the cell where you want to enter the data. Then, type the desired 
information. As you type, the characters appear in the input line 
below the menus and speed buttons. 
Cross Headquarters 
Only when you press Enter or an arrow key or click the check mark 
button (/) does Quattro Pro move the characters into the program 
cell. 
If you attempt to enter data in cells which are not GREEN, BLUE, or 
PINK, you will see a "protected cell" error message. Other cells are 
'protected" to prevent inadvertent changes to the program. As with 
other error messages, click on OK or press the Esc key to return to 
data entry. 
If you make a mistake while typing, press Backspace to erase. To 
clear the entire entry, click the X box to the left of the input line or 
press the Esc button on the keyboard. 
After pressing Enter, if you find you made a typing mistake or want 
to change an entry, type the entry over again or click inside the text 
on the input line and edit it there. To delete an entry without 
replacing it, just select the cell (by clicking on the mouse in the 
selected cell) and press the De] button on the keyboard. 
Another option is to use the Erase button to delete the entry. 
Move the cursor to the mistake, then move the mouse to the 
Erase button (on the SpeedBar) and click. 
To Undo any entry or change, move the cursor to the item, 
then highlight and click on the pencil eraser icon (on the 
SpeedBar). 
PROGRAM BASICS 
Commas, QPW won't accept number entries which include a dollar sign ($) or 
Dollars commas (,). Thus, twenty thousand square feet should be entered 
20000 and a cost of $10,000 should be entered as 10000: $ and, 
are inserted automatically. If you forget and include a "$" or a "," the 
model will respond with a "Syntax error" message. Click on the OK, 
or press the Esc keyboard button, then enter correctly the 
information requested. 

TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE
CHAPTER 4: TUTORIAL -WORKED EXAMPLE 
The purpose of this chapter is to guide you through a sample data 
entry exercise. This example is provided for the convenience of the 
less experienced computer user. 
STARTING THE WORKED EXAMPLE 
Step One Start Quattro Pro for Windows (QPW). See instructions in Chapter 
3. 
Step Two Open the desired Benefit-cost program file. See instructions in 
Chapter 3. For the worked example, open the BCEXAMP.WBI 
file. 
Step Three The Sign-On Screen appears after the benefit-cost program is 
loaded. Adjust the zoom factor if necessary. See instructions in 
Chapter 3. 
Step Four Proceed through the Data Input process, as outlined below in the 
tutorial example. This example leads you through a sampling of the 
data input process. 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE
DATA INPUT 
D 9 
Begin Data 
Entry 
Building Name 
Address 
OOPS! 
This tutorial will lead you through part of the data entry process for a 
sample project. 
Click on Building in the menu at the top of the screen. Then click 
on Engineering, and finally, click on Building Identification. 
The following screen appears: 
Building Name: 
Address: 
City, State, Zip: 
Analyst: 
Run ID: 
Managing Agency! 
Contact Person: 
Address: 
City, State, Zip: 
Telephone: 
PINK BLOCKS (information only): With your mouse, move the 
cursor to the first pink-colored block, Building Name, and click on 
the cell. Type the name of the building, e.g., Federal Building. 
Press the Enter key. 
IMPORTANT: the cursor must be in the 
first space on the left inside the pink 
box. 
Then, with the mouse or the arrow keys, move the cursor to the 
street Address and enter it in the following way: 
1000 First St 
If you forget to start your entry with an apostrophe, an error 
message will be displayed. 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE
Error Message: 
Help 
City, State, Zip 
Code 
Analyst 
Run ID 
Managing 
Agency 
Contact Person 
The address (and all combinations of numbers and letters which 
begin with a number) MUST be entered with a single apostrophe, 
preceding the address, e.g., '1000 First St. If not entered this way, 
a "syntax error" message will appear: click on the OK of the error 
message or press the Esc key. Add the apostrophe, then press 
Enter. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter the city, state and zip code 
for the building: San Jose, CA 90000. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter the name of the person 
performing this analysis. Enter: A. Analyst. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter a name or number to 
distinguish this rehabilitation scheme from others which may be 
analyzed. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter the name of the agency 
which owns or manages the building. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter the name and other 
information about the building's manager. 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE
Building Type 
Update Default 
Data 
GREEN BLOCK (Data input): Enter P (as a CAPITAL letter) in the 
left GREEN block. The screen will display the corresponding 
building description (Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall) from the 
list. 
If you make a mistake, use the backspace key to erase, and enter 
the information correctly. If you have already pressed the Enter 
key, use the mouse to point the cursor at the GREEN cell and click. 
Then enter the correct letter. 
You MUST click on the UPDATE DEFAULT DATA button to update 
the default data presented later in the model. Otherwise, incorrect 
default data will be presented for your review, and if not 
overridden (see below), will be used in the benefit-cost 
calculation. 
Use the mouse to highlight the Building/Engineering/Building 
Description in the menu, or click on the BuildID tab at the screen 
bottom. 
* Rehab Seismic Results Print 
Building Identification 
Building Contents 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE
Total Floor Area square feet): |I Calculated| 
Building Replacement Value per square 
Total Building Replacement Value 
Number of Stories Above Grade: 
Date of Construction 
Historic Building Controls?
Floor Area GREEN block (Data entry): Enter 20000 as the total floor area of 
the building in square feet. 
Helpful Hint: The program won't accept numbers which include a 
dollar sign ($) or commas. Thus, twenty thousand square feet 
should be entered 20000 and a cost of $10,000 should be entered 
as 10000: $ and , appear automatically. If you forget and include a 
"$" or a "," the model will respond with a "syntax error" message. 
Click on the OK, then enter correctly the Information requested. 
Building Value GREEN block (Data entry): Enter 150 as the building replacement 
(per Sq. Ft.) value per square foot. 
Total Building GREEN block (Data entry): Enter 3000000 as the total building 
Value replacement value. The model will display $3,000,000. 
Stories PINK block (Information): Enter 3 as the number of stories above 
ground in this building. 
Date PINK block (Information): Enter 1955 as the year the building was 
constructed. 
Historic PINK block (Information): Enter NO, no historic building controls 
Building exist for this structure. 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE
Mean Damage 
Function 
Use the mouse to move the cursor to Building on the menu at the 
top of the screen. Click the left mouse button on Engineering and 
again on Mean Damage Function, or click on the MDF tab at the 
screen bottom. 
Building Identification 
Building Contents 
The following screen will appear: 
Facility Class: MSVI = =I 
Building Replacement Value: 0_ sq ft L x 1,000 Total 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 
Describe the buildings seismic deficiencies: 
DEFAULT ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING BUILDING: 
MMI V VI | VII | IX X Xi X 
Select e or Construction A B CD from the Table Above OR Enter Your Own Estimates: 
User Entered Estimated
Modified MDF: 
PURPLE BLOCKS (Carry over): The model displays information 
entered on the first screen in PURPLE blocks. If any of this 
information is incorrect, return to the data entry screens, Building ID 
and Building Description and make necessary changes there. 
Demolition 
Threshold 
Building 
Seismic 
Deficiencies 
Default 
Estimates 
Construction 
Type 
User Entered 
Estimate 
Modified MDF 
Tutorial Note 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE 
GREEN block (Data input): Enter 65 as the percentage of damage, 
relative to the building replacement value, at which the structure 
would be demolished and replaced rather than repaired. 
PINK block (Information): Enter See Smith & Brown report for 
seismic performance engineering evaluation. This comment box 
can be used to annotate building deficiencies or to reference 
information sources about the building. 
ORANGE BLOCKS (Default): The model displays default estimates 
for the estimated damage, as a percentage of the building 
replacement value, expected to occur in various MMI bins. For 
reference, four different mean damage functions are shown. 
GREEN BLOCK (Data input): Enter B, for typical construction, in 
the GREEN block. This selects typical" as the default mean 
damage function most appropriate for the building under 
consideration. 
BLUE BLOCKS (Override default): In this example, leave these 
blocks empty. 
However, when entering information on 
actual projects, the model will produce 
better results with building-specific 
information. 
YELLOW Blocks (Results): The model displays calculated values 
for the mean damage function modified for the demolition threshold 
entered above. 
To perform a complete benefit-cost analysis of a real project, 
additional data entries are required. These entries are accessed 
like those described above, by clicking on the menu headers and 
filling in the requested information. 
Each data entry is described in detail in Chapter 5. However, this 
tutorial covers only a sample of the total data entries. 
The following section of this tutorial describes the Results section, 
with the remaining data entries already completed. 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE 
Click the mouse on Results, then click on Benefit-Cost Results to 
view the results calculated by the model. 
Facility Class: 
Project Description: 
A. ECUNUIVICL 
Discount Rate: percent 
Planning Period: tars 
Present Value Coefficient: 
A. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS 
Discount Rate GREEN block (Data input): Enter 7 for the discount rate. 
Planning GREEN block (Data input): Enter 30 years for the planning 
Period. 
Present Value YELLOW block (Calculated results): The model displays 
Coefficient 12.41 as the Present Value Coefficient, the present value of 
$1 per year in benefits received over the project useful 
lifetime period. 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE 
B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES 
excluding the value of life 
B. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
I |I 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 INJURIES &DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
YELLOW blocks (Calculated results): The model displays 
calculated values for the annual expected, annual avoided, and 
annual residual damages and losses; and the present value of 
damages avoided for building and contents damages, relocation 
expenses, rental income losses and the value of lost services. 
Avoided 
Losses 
In the individual YELLOW blocks, the model displays the calculated 
results of the model. The first amount, $615,090, is the present 
value of the damages and economic losses excluding the value of 
life, which would be avoided if the proposed rehabilitation project is 
undertaken. This value is the calculated benefits of the seismic 
rehabilitation project. 
Project Cost The second amount, $560,000, is the total cost of the proposed 
rehabilitation project 
Net Benefits The third amount, $55,090, is the value of the net benefits of the 
proposed project (total benefits minus total costs). 
Benefit-Cost 
Ratio 
The last number, 1.10, is the ratio of net benefits to net costs, 
excluding the value of life, for the proposed rehabilitation project. 
Minor Injury 
Major Injury 
Statistical Life 
Avoided 
Losses 
Project Cost 
Benefit-Cost 
Ratio 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE 
C. VALUE OF INJURIES AND DEATHS 
C. VALUE OF INJURIES ANI 
Value of Avoiding a Minor Injury: 
Value of Avoiding a Serious Injury. 
Statistical Value of Life: 
Annual Expected1 _.I. b 
Annual Avoided 
Minor Injuries 
Serious Injuries 
Deaths 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES, ECONOMIC LOSSES, DEATHS AND 
INJURIES AVOIDED: I 7 . 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WTH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES &DEATHS: 
GREEN block (Data input): The model displays $1,000 as the 
value of a minor injury. In this example, do not change this value. 
GREEN block (Data input): The model displays $10,000 as the 
value of avoiding a serious injury. Do not change this value. 
GREEN block (Data input): The model displays $1,700,000 as the 
value of a statistical life. In this example, do not change this value. 
YELLOW blocks (Calculated results): The model displays 
calculated values for the annual expected, annual avoided, and 
annual residual costs; and the present value of damages avoided for 
minor injuries, major injuries, and statistical life. 
In the individual YELLOW blocks, the model displays the calculated 
results of the model. The first amount, $766,969, is the present 
value of the damages and economic losses including the value of 
life, which would be avoided if the proposed rehabilitation project is 
undertaken. This value is the calculated benefits in the benefit-
cost model of the seismic rehabilitation project when the value 
of casualties avoided is included. 
The second amount, $206,969, is the total net benefit of the project 
(benefits minus costs) including the value of life. 
The third number, 1.37, is the benefit-cost ratio including the value 
of life. 
TUTORIAL: WORKED EXAMPLE
To Exit From To exit from the tutorial, click on File, then click on Quit. 
the Tutorial 

Menu Trees 
DATA ENTRY 
This chapter describes the input data parameters and the data entry 
process. For guidance on moving around within data entry screens, 
entering data, erasing mistakes, etc., see the Chapter 3, Program 
Basics, and Chapter 4, Tutorial -Worked Example, or see the 
Quattro Pro. Manual. 
The benefit-cost model is driven from a customized Quattro Pro 
menu tree. The main menu headings appear at the left of the menu 
line at the top of the display screen (after the model is loaded). 
The main customized menu tree for the benefit-cost model is 
integrated with the normal Quattro-Pro screen and appears as 
follows: 
File Model Building Rehab Seismic Results Print 
The underscored letter of the menu indicates that, in addition to 
clicking on the menu word, that this menu can be accessed by an X 
keyboard command, where X is the underscored letter in the menu 
label. 
The first seven menu labels above are custom labels for the benefit-
cost software. Each menu accesses a range of information about 
the model: 
File controls saving and naming files and closing the 
current analysis 
Model version, date and authors 
Building data about the existing building 
Rehab data about a specific rehabilitation project 
Seismic risk data for the site under consideration 
Results summary of damages and losses, casualties, 
benefit cost results and summary of all data 
input parameters 
Print controls printing of all data and results pages 
Model Menu 
Building Menu 
DATA ENTRY 
Clicking on Model brings up the Version submenu header. Clicking 
on Version brings up the title screen of the benefit-cost model. The 
title screen identifies the version number, date of the version being 
run, and author identification. 
The Building menu label accesses data entry screens for the 
existing building (before seismic rehabilitation). There are two 
submenus: Engineering and Use & Function. The Engineering 
menu has seven submenus: Building Identification, Building Type, 
Building Description, Mean Damage Function, Building Contents, 
Relocation Time, and Death, Injury Rates: 
11110-IM Rehab Seismic Results Print 
Building Identification 
I Use & Function Building Type 
Building Description 
Building Contents 
Relocation Time 
Death, Injury Rates 
The Use & Function menu has four submenus: Occupancy Data, 
Value of Lost Government Services, Functional Downtime, and 
Rental Income: 
I Rehab Seismic Results Print I 
Functional Downtime 
Rental Income 
Building 
Information 
Analyst 
Run Id 
Managing 
Agency 
Contact Person 
DATA ENTRY 
Engineering Menus 
Building Name 
Address 
City, State, Zip 
Enter the basic identifying information about the building under 
consideration: building name, address, city, state and zip code. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): 
Enter the name of the analyst(s) conducting the benefit cost 
analysis. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter a name or number to 
distinguish this rehabilitation scheme from others which may be 
analyzed. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter the name of the agency 
which owns or manages the building. 
PINK BLOCK (information only): Enter the name, address, 
complete address, and telephone number for the building's 
manager. 
Building Type 
Building type denotes the primary structural systems of buildings. 
Select the building type most appropriate for the building under 
consideration from the building type table by entering the 
appropriate capital letter in the shaded box. 
DATA ENTRY
Building type: enter CAPITAL letter code In the green box. 
Click button If building type Is changed. 
FEMA Letter 
178 Code Common Building Types 
WI A Wood Light Frame 
W2 B Wood commercial or Industrial) 
Si C Steel Moment Frame 
S2 D Steel Braced Frame 
S3 E Steel Light Frame 
S4 F Steel Frame with Concrete Shear Walls 
S5 G Steel Frame with URM Infill 
C1 H Concrete Moment Frame 
C2 I Concrete Frame with Concrete Shear Wall 
C3 J Concrete Frame with URM Infill 
PCI K Precast Concrete Tilt-up w/ Flexible Diaphragm 
PC2 L Precast Concrete Frame w/ Concrete Shear Walls 
none M Precast Frame w/o Shear Walls 
RMI N Reinforced Masonry w/ Flexible Diaphragm 
RM2 0 Reinforced Masonry w/ Precast Concrete Diaphragm 
URM P Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
none Q Mobile Homes 
The designation of building type is a very important data input for the 
benefit-cost analysis because many of the default parameters in the 
analysis, including the building's damage function, depend on 
building type. Therefore, unless building-specific input parameters 
are entered later in the data entry process, designation of building 
type will markedly affect the results of the analysis. 
If none of the listed building types are appropriate for the building 
under consideration, enter select the "OTHER" option by entering 
"R" in the building type selection box. If the "OTHER" option is 
selected, then default values cannot be provided by the program 
and all data parameters must be user-entered. 
Click button if building type is changed.| 
The model will recalculate after you enter your selection only if you 
either click on the button underneath the Green box where you 
entered your selection. However, if you have split the screen to 
display both this and the Results pages, you must click on this 
button to see the recalculated results. 
DATA ENTRY
This section contains additional descriptive information about the 
building. Enter the total floor area of the building, the building 
replacement value per square foot and the total building 
replacement value. The program calculates the building 
replacement value and f it is inconsistent with the entered value, 
displays an error message. Re-enter the correct values so that the 
calculated values (in the yellow blocks) and the entered values 
agree. If the total square feet and total building replacement value 
are entered, the model will calculate and display (in the yellow 
blocks) the replacement value per square foot. 
Total Floor Area (square feet): Calculated I 
Building Replacement Value per square foot 
Total Building Replacement Value as "01092 
Number of Stories Above Grade: 
Date of Construction 
Historic Building Controls is 
Replacement building value (per square foot) is the cost of replacing 
a building with a new building of equivalent function. Seismic 
damages are estimated as percentages of replacement value. In 
some cases, a distinction may be made between "reproduction" 
which is duplication of the previous building, and "replacement" 
which refers to duplicating a building's function with another 
(generally more modern) construction type. In most cases, however, 
the costs to replace a destroyed building with a similar building are 
readily identifiable. This value is for the building only, excluding 
contents. 
For historic buildings, reproduction value, rather than replacement 
value, may be a more appropriate measure of building value. If 
desired, the reproduction value of a historic building can be entered 
in the "replacement value" data entry box. 
Demolition 
Threshold 
Damage 
Percentage 
DATA ENTRY 
The last three data entries under the Building Description section 
are for informational purposes only (i.e., they are intended to help 
guide the user in analyzing the building, but entries in these boxes 
do not affect the benefit-cost results calculated). These entries 
include: number of stories, date of construction, and historic 
building controls? (yes or no). 
Purple cells contain information carried forward after being entered 
earlier in the model. 
The demolition threshold damage' percentage reflects the fact that 
many buildings will be demolished rather than repaired when the 
cost of repairing seismic damage exceeds some percentage of the 
replacement cost. For older, somewhat substandard buildings, the 
demolition threshold may be quite low (e.g., 20 or 30%). For typical, 
relatively modern buildings, the demolition threshold will be higher 
(e.g., circa 50%). For some particularly important historical 
buildings, the demolition threshold may approach 100%. The 
demolition threshold damage percentage may substantially affect 
the benefit-cost results when the threshold is set lower than the 
percentage damages expected in earthquakes. For example, if in a 
given MMI or PGA bin, the MDF is 70% damage and the threshold is 
50%, then this MDF bin is adjusted to show 100% damage because 
the building will be demolished if 70% damage occurs. 
Enter the Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage in the green 
cell. 
DATA ENTRY
Comment Box 
Mean Damage 
Functions 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: a 
The pink comment box is intended for a brief synopsis of the seismic 
evaluation of the building or for any other comments relevant to the 
building's seismic performance. If a detailed engineering analysis is 
available for the building, this comment box may also be used to 
identify reports or other sources of information on the building. 
Building mean damage functions (MDFF) indicate a buildings seismic 
vulnerability by showing the expected levels of damage (as a 
percentage of building replacement value) for each MMIIPGA bin. 
For reference, up to four typical building mean damage functions are 
provided for the building type of the building under consideration. 
DEFAULT ESTIMATES: 
The user may select one of these "default mean damage functions 
by entering the appropriate letter in the green box or may enter a 
user-determined, building-specific MDF for the building. For some 
building types, the model will display blanks and inconsistencies in 
the data because these values are taken directly from the original 
data sources. 
DATA ENTRY 
The "poor," "typical," and "seismic design" default estimates are from 
Earthquake Loss Evaluation Methodologies and Databases for Utah, 
Technical Report: Task 7, Appendix E and F, dated March 10, 
1994, prepared by the Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, 
California, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(unpublished). These data have neither been tested nor evaluated. 
Furthermore, these damage functions are specifically for Utah. 
These damage functions may approximately represent buildings in 
other states without a long history of seismic design requirements 
(i.e., most states other than California). 
"Typical" indicates a structure of normal or common construction for 
the building type. "Poor" indicates a building with substantially 
worse than normal seismic performance due to poor design and/or 
poor condition. "Seismic design" indicates a building specifically 
engineered to resist lateral forces. 
The "Typical California" default damage functions are for California 
buildings and are taken from ATC-13 (Earthquake Damage 
Evaluation Data for California, Applied Technology Council, 1985). 
For the MDF, as for all other data input parameters, better data input 
means better results and, therefore, users are strongly encouraged 
to enter building-specific data whenever possible. In entering a 
building-specific MDF, the user should consider the full range of 
engineering information about the building, including plan and 
vertical irregularities and any other seismic deficiencies. The 
program can handle any type of building accurately, as long as a 
MDF commensurate with the building is entered. 
Individual buildings may have much worse seismic performance 
than typical buildings (or even poor buildings), depending on the 
details of the design and construction. Building irregularities, such 
as soft first stories, may profoundly affect building performance. A 
truly poor building, in which full or partial collapse is expected in 
moderate earthquakes would be a prime candidate for seismic 
rehabilitation. If the benefit-cost results are to reflect accurately the 
true seismic vulnerability of such a building (and thus to reflect 
accurately the benefits of rehabilitation) the irregularities and other 
deficiencies of a building MUST be reflected in the MDF. Thus, 
engineering judgment and analysis must be used to ensure that the 
MDF entered for a specific building accurately reflects the expected 
seismic performance of the building. 
DATA ENTRY
Mean Damage Function (MDF) is one 
of the critical input parameters. The 
selected MDF must be a reasonable 
representation of the building under 
evaluation or else the results will be 
inaccurate. Use building-specific 
values whenever possible to produce 
valid results! 
Modified Mean Modified mean damage functions (MMDF) reflect the impact of the 
Damage demolition threshold as shown below: 
Function 
In this case, these is no difference between the MIDF and the MMDF 
because the demolition threshold percentage is higher than the 
highest damage percentage in the MDF. If, for example, the 
demolition threshold were 20%, then damage percentages in the 
MMI Xl and XII bins in the MMDF would both become 100%, 
because the damage percentage in the MDF for these bins exceeds 
the demolition threshold percentage. 
In the pink box enter a brief description of the building's contents. 
First, enter the estimated value of total building contents (per square 
foot) in the $/sf box. The total building contents value is calculated 
automatically. 
Second, an estimate for the contents mean damage function must 
be made. The default assumption is that the contents MDF is the 
same as the building MDF. The building MDF (entered previously) 
is shown for reference. 
DATA ENTRY 
Users may either accept the default contents MDF estimate, or enter 
a building-specific estimate. Because the seismic fragility of 
contents may differ significantly (either higher or lower) than the 
building fragility, users are strongly encouraged to enter building-
specific contents MDF estimates. 
Seismic damage to a building may necessitate relocation while the 
building is repaired. Default estimates of the number of days of 
relocation necessary, based on the building MMDF, are provided for 
reference. 
Users may accept the default relocation estimates or enter a 
building-specific estimate. As always, users are strongly 
encouraged to enter building-specific estimates whenever possible. 
Total relocation costs (dollars per square foot per month) are 
calculated as the sum of the added costs of relocation per day plus 
the costs of renting alternative space. The costs of relocation per 
day include extra operating costs (transportation, communications, 
etc.) incurred as a result of a forced relocation due to seismic 
damage. Such costs are highly locality-specific and agency-specific 
and thus no default values are provided. 
DATA ENTRY
Life safety concerns are often one of the prime drivers of seismic 
rehabilitation projects. Therefore, estimating the life safety threat in 
the existing building and the efficacy of the rehabilitation in reducing 
expected future casualties are particularly important data input 
decisions. For reference, default death and injury (minor and major) 
rates per 1,000 occupants are shown in this section. These values 
are from ATC-1 3 (interpolated) for the building mean damage 
function selected or entered. 
Default Minor Injury Rate 
User Entered Estimate: 
Default Major Injury Rate 
User Entered Estimate: 
Default Death Rate 
User Entered Estimate: 
Users may accept the default values or enter user-specified 
estimates in the appropriate green boxes. Users are strongly 
encouraged to enter building-specific estimates. 
The importance of entering building-specific estimates for death and 
injury rates when possible cannot be overestimated. User-entered 
casualty rates must be consistent with the mean damage function 
estimates entered previously. The life safety threat posed by 
specific buildings may vary drastically from "typical" values, 
depending on the seismic damage pattern, the prevalence of failing 
object hazards and the age and health of building occupants. 
A comment box is provided at the end of the Death and Injury 
section for user comments and/or references to supporting 
documentation for casualty estimates. 
DATA ENTRY
USE & FUNCTION MENUS 
Occupancy 
The Use and Function submenu of the Building menu contains 
information on occupancy, value of government services, functional 
downtime, and building rental income. 
Enter the average number of persons (employees and visitors) for 
both daytime and nighttime, along with the days per week and hours 
per day for which these day and night occupancy averages apply. 
The program calculates the average building occupancy over a 24hour, 
7-days per week period. 
OCCUPANCY: 
Average Number of Occupants: 
Days per Week: 
Hours per Day 
Average Occupancy (24 hours, 7 days per week): 
DATA ENTRY
The value of government services, which may be lost due to seismic 
damage, is determined using the Quasi-Willingness To Pay 
(QVWTP) model, which is described more fully in Chapter 1 of 
Volume 2. Briefly, QWTP assumes that government services are 
worth what it costs to provide them. For example, if an agency 
spends $1,000,000 per month to provide services from a given 
building, then the loss of these services for one month is valued at 
$1,000,000. For QWTP evaluation, the full costs of providing 
government services must be counted, including salaries and 
benefits, utilities and other non-wage operating costs, and either rent 
or a rent-proxy (if the building is agency owned). Rent proxy is an 
approximate equivalent to rent for owner-occupied buildings 
(described below). 
Complete EITHER Section I or 2 (they are equivalent): 
(DO NOT count pass through funds such as social security payments.] 
lb. Does this include rent? (yes, no) 
2a. Number of full4lme-equivalent persons working in the building: 
2b. Average annual salary-plus-benefits paid to the above: 
2c. Average annual utilities, and other non-wage operating expenses: 
Rental Values For Support of Agency Functions 
Sa. Amount of floor space occupied by government tenants (sq. ft.): 
Proxy annual rent estimate (if la. does not include rent): 
Daily cost of providing services from this building: 
Post-Earthquake Continuity Premium 
Based on the nature of the services in this building, how much extra cost per day would 
the tenant agencies be willing to spend to, maintain agency functions after an earthquake: -I M g 
TOTAL VALUE OF LOST SERVICES PER DAY: ii 
In compiling costs for the QWTP evaluation, pass through costs 
such as Social Security payments or other transfers should not be 
counted. Only the direct costs of providing the government services 
should be counted. 
Rental Values 
for Support of 
Agency 
Function 
Post-
Earthquake 
Continuity 
Premium 
Functional 
Downtime 
DATA ENTRY 
Enter either the total annual operating budget for the building (in 
box I a) or the more detailed breakdown in boxes 2a, 2b, and 2c 
(number of fulltime equivalent employees, average wages and 
benefits, average annual utilities and other non-wage operating 
costs). If total annual operating costs are entered in Box a, it is 
not necessary to fill in Boxes 2a, 2b, and 2c. If all boxes are filled in, 
the program uses the more detailed values from Boxes 2a, 2b, and 
The proxy annual rent is calculated from the building's replacement 
value and the discount rate; this value (shown in Box 3a) is used 
unless the annual operating costs in Box la includes rent. If a value 
for total operating costs is entered in Box I a, and a "1" is included in 
Box lb (total operating costs includes rent), and Boxes 2a, 2b, and 
2c are not filled in then the proxy rent value in Box 3b is not used to 
calculate the daily cost of providing government services from the 
building. 
The above QWTP calculation is for "normal" government services 
(i.e., not in the post-earthquake environment). Some government 
services, such as emergency response or emergency medical care, 
may be more valuable than normal in the post-earthquake time 
period. If desired, a post-earthquake continuity premium, the dollar 
amount agencies would be willing to pay to maintain agency 
functions after the earthquake, can be included. The QWTP value 
of government services is the sum of the normal cost to provide 
government services plus the continuity premium. 
For the QWTP evaluation of the value of lost government services, it 
is necessary to estimate how long government services will not be 
provided as a result of seismic damage. Default estimates are 
provided, based on the building's Mean Damage Function. The 
default functional downtime estimates are capped at 30 days, 
because it is assumed that government services will be 
reestablished within 30 days, in temporary quarters if necessary. 
DATA ENTRY
MMI 
PGA [percent of g) 
Building Damage W.) 
Default Downtime Days] 
User Entered (days) 
Users may accept the default estimates of functional downtime, or 
enter user-specified estimates in the blue boxes provided. 
Functional downtime is distinct from relocation time (see Relocation 
Information section). Estimates for each time will generally be quite 
different. Relocation time refers to the amount of time that agencies 
will be relocated out of a damaged building, and, thus, relocation 
time may be significantly longer than functional downtime. 
This data entry screen enables the user to enter building-specific 
rental income information for non-Government tenants. Rental 
income from Government tenants is considered a transfer payment 
and not included as a loss in true income. 
On this data entry screen, enter the amount of rental space and the 
rental rate. 
DATA ENTRY 
Rehabilitation Menus
All of the previously discussed input data are applicable to the 
existing building, and thus are applicable to any rehabilitation 
project(s) under consideration. The following rehabilitation project 
data, however, are project-specific (i.e., they apply to a specific 
project with defined objectives, engineering design and construction, 
and costs). A range of alternative rehabilitation schemes can be 
analyzed sequentially by entering appropriate data and obtaining 
benefit-cost results for each in turn. 
This section provides spaces for a brief description of the 
rehabilitation project under evaluation and a statement of the 
objective of the rehabilitation. 
risk reduction: any measure to lower seismic risk; 
collapse prevention: the minimum structural strengthening to 
avoid collapse; 
substantial life safety: collapse prevention and ensuring post-
earthquake access and egress; 
damage control: limiting the extent of seismic damage; 
and 
immediate occupancy: denotes virtually no disruption of function. 
If more than one rehabilitation project is being considered, user must 
be careful to ensure that all of the inputs which apply to the 
rehabilitation project are commensurate with the specific 
rehabilitation under evaluation (i.e., costs and effectiveness in 
avoiding building damages, contents damage, and casualties). 
DATA ENTRY
This section allows input of the full range of rehabilitation project 
costs. Data entry boxes are provided for: direct construction costs, 
indirect costs such as architectural and engineering fees, testing, 
permits, etc. and for project management. For reference, a data 
entry box is provided for the base year of costs. 
To estimate relocation costs associated with the rehabilitation 
project (which are included in the total costs of the project), the user 
must enter the estimated number of months of relocation necessary. 
Relocation costs are then calculated automatically from relocation 
cost information entered previously. 
Total project costs are calculated from a summation of the above 
costs. 
Default values are not provided for costs because costs are project-
and locality-specific. Rehabilitation project cost estimates are 
readily obtainable using standard construction cost estimating 
methods. 
DATA ENTRY
Effectiveness 
in Avoiding 
Building 
Damage 
The effectiveness of a seismic rehabilitation project is the extent to 
which the project reduces expected future damages and losses. 
Effectiveness is characterized by the percentage reduction in 
expected damages. Five effectiveness estimates must be entered, 
for: building damages, contents damages, and casualties (minor 
injury rate, major injury rate and death rate). 
The effectiveness of a specific rehabilitation project in avoided future 
building damages may be viewed from two perspectives. One 
perspective is to consider the mean damage function (MDF) of the 
rehabilitated building compared to the MDF of the existing building. 
Several MDFs for the building type under consideration are shown 
for reference. The user may select one of these or enter a user-
specified, building-specific estimate of the MDF for the rehabilitated 
building. Percentage effectiveness of the prospective seismic 
rehabilitation project are calculated from the MDFs for the existing 
and rehabilitated building. 
The effectiveness of seismic rehabilitation projects in avoided future 
damages may vary markedly from very small percentages for minor 
risk reduction projects to nearly 100% for projects designed to 
ensure continued functionality and immediate occupancy in the 
largest earthquake considered. In general, the effectiveness of 
many types of rehabilitation projects declines as the intensity of 
ground shaking increases. 
Effectiveness 
In Avoiding
Contents 
Damage 
DATA ENTRY 
The estimated effectiveness in reducing building damages is an 
extremely important input parameter because avoided building 
damages typically constitute the largest component of benefits 
(without the value of life). Furthermore, all of the other benefits 
(avoided contents damages, avoided rental income losses, avoided 
relocation costs, avoided loss, of government services, and avoided 
deaths and injuries) depend on the expected building mean damage 
function after rehabilitation. Therefore, all of the estimated benefits 
of the rehabilitation project depend on the estimated effectiveness of 
the rehabilitation in avoiding building damages. 
The effectiveness of the proposed rehabilitation project in avoiding 
contents damage must also be estimated. The default assumption 
is that the effectiveness for contents, is the same as the 
effectiveness for the building. 
Users may accept this default assumption (which may not always be 
a good assumption) or enter building-and contents-specific 
estimates in the appropriate data entry boxes. As always, users are 
strongly encouraged to enter building-specific estimates whenever 
possible. 
Effectiveness 
in Avoiding 
Casualties 
The effectiveness of the proposed rehabilitation project in avoiding 
casualties (deaths, major injuries and minor injuries) must also be 
estimated. For reference, the casualty rates for the existing building 
(entered previously) are shown. Default estimates are provided 
based on the assumption that the rehabilitation project reduces 
minor injuries by a factor of 10, major injuries by a factor of 100, and 
deaths by a factor of 1,000. These default casualty reduction factors 
are based on the premise that life safety is the driving force for most 
seismic rehabilitations. 
The effectiveness of rehabilitation projects in avoided casualties 
may vary markedly depending on the type of building and on the 
objective and implementation of the rehabilitation. Therefore, it is 
very important to enter building-specific, project-specific estimates 
whenever possible. 
In some cases, where occupancy is high and a building is expected 
to undergo partial or full collapse at moderate levels of ground 
shaking, benefit-cost results may be predominantly determined by 
the casualties avoided by the rehabilitation. Therefore, estimation of 
expected casualty rates for the existing building and the reduction in 
expected casualty rates for the rehabilitated building are among the 
most important data input decisions. 
DATA ENTRY
Seismic Menus
Seismic risk, the expected annual number (or probability) of 
earthquakes for the range of MMI/PGA bins, is the single most 
important determinant of benefit-cost results. Seismic risk may vary 
by several orders of magnitude from one location n the United 
States to another. All other factors being equal, benefit-cost results 
are directly proportional to seismic risk. A more technical review of 
seismic risk is given in Technical Issues chapter of Volume 2. 
Soil Type Specify the soil type in the green box provided. 
The expected level of ground shaking in any given earthquake event 
depends on the soil type at the site. Site-specific soil conditions 
may markedly impact the actual ground shaking experienced during 
earthquakes. Therefore, to model seismic risk it is essential to 
consider the effects of soils at each site. Soil effects are modeled 
using a five step soil classification from NEHRP. 
For the Default Method (seismic risk based on two pairs of input 
data) the user must classify the site on a simple five point scale (SO, 
S1, S2, S3, and S4). Seismic risk estimates at a site are adjusted 
according to the consensus soils multipliers compiled by the Design 
Values Panel (1993) which is currently reviewing proposed NEHRP 
1993 standards. Because of soil amplification effects, the expected 
annual number of earthquakes in a given MMI/PGA bin depends on 
the soil type. The soil multipliers used are shown below: 
Soil Description Class 
Hard rock So 
Very dense soil S2 
Soft soil . 94 
If Option 2 (the Site-Specific Geotechnical Estimate, below) is 
chosen, then soil effects are assumed to be incorporated into the 
geotechnical estimate and the soil multipliers shown above are not 
used. 
DATA ENTRY
Seismic Risk 
Assessment 
1) Default 
Method 
a) Tabulated 
Values 
Seismic risk, the expected annual number of earthquakes as a 
function of the MMI/PGA bins, for a specific site may be estimated in 
two ways in the model: 
1) DEFAULT METHOD: from tabulated values for about 300 
cities in the Seismic Risk Table (below), or by entering values 
of acceleration and exceedance probability from the 1991 
NEHRP appendix maps; or 
2) SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL METHOD: enter data from 
a site-specific geotechnical study. 
The user must estimate seismic risk in only one of the above ways. 
The first method provides approximate estimates of seismic risk, 
based on regional seismicity contours. This method requires 
entering two pairs of data for spectral acceleration (as a percentage 
of g, the acceleration of gravity) with a 10 percent chance of 
exceedance in two time intervals (e.g., 50 years and 250 years). 
More accurate estimates can be obtained from a site-specific 
geotechnical study. Therefore, users are strongly encouraged to use 
site-specific geotechnical data whenever possible. 
The Seismicity Estimates for Major Cities Table (Table 3.1) contains 
seismic risk data for approximately 260 cities in the United States. 
These cities include the 200 largest cities, plus an additional smaller 
cities in higher seismicity areas. For cities in this table, the user can 
copy the two tabulated spectral acceleration data points into the 
appropriate boxes on the Seismic Risk data entry screen. These 
data points were obtained from the spectral acceleration contours on 
the 1991 NEHRP maps (as described below). From these data 
points, the program automatically calculates the expected annual 
number of earthquakes shown in the "default estimate" line of the 
Seismic Risk Table. 
Using the tabulated values in the Cities Tables is convenient; 
however, seismic risk estimates derived from these tables are 
subject to two significant uncertainties. First, the spectral 
acceleration contours on which the tabulated values may not fully 
reflect all local faults. Second, particularly for cities of large 
geographic extent, the average values for a city may not reflect 
important local differences, depending on the location of the major 
fault(s). 
DATA ENTRY 
b) NEHRP Another option is to enter spectral acceleration contour data (i.e., as 
Maps shown in Table 3.1) for the city of interest. This option may be 
useful for cities not shown in Table 3.1 or cities of large geographic 
extent where it may be possible to read the contours to a higher 
precision than the average city values shown in Table 3.1. This 
option is still, of course, subject to uncertainties in the contours, 
which may not accurately reflect all local faults. 
The 1991 NEHRP Appendix maps showing contours of spectral 
acceleration for a period of 0.3 seconds are used to estimate the 
expected annual numbers of earthquakes for each bin of effective 
peak acceleration. For cities outside California, Maps 5 and 9, 10%1 
exceedance probabilities in 50 and 250 years are used. For cities 
within California, Maps 6 and 10 are used. 
When using the default seismic risk method, you must click on the 
Update Seismic Button if any of the seismic values are changed. 
2) Site-Specific The second option is to enter site-specific data in the blue blocks. If 
Geotechnical available this is by far the preferred option, because it incorporates 
Method detailed site-specific information and analysis of local faults and is 
thus, likely to produce more accurate results than the default method. 
The preferred option is to have the expected annual numbers of 
earthquakes in each MMIIPGA bin calculated directly as part of the 
detailed site-specific geotechnical seismic evaluation. 
Table 5.1 
Seismicity Estimates for Major U.S. Cities 
State City 50 yr 250 yr State City 50 yr 250 yr 
AK Anchorage CA Rancho Cucamonga 100 200 
AK Juneau CA Riverside 90 175 
AL Birmingham 20 45 CA Sacramento 19 37 
AL Huntsville 15 30 CA Salinas 150 220 
AL Mobile 1 6.5 CA San Bernardino 200 300 
AL Montgomery 11 28 CA San Diego 110 300 
AR Fayetteville 4 11 CA San Francisco 200 300 
AR Fort Smith 5 14 CA San Jose 185 250 
AR Little Rock 13.5 29 CA Santa Ana 95 225 
AR Pine Bluff 15 35 CA Santa Clarita 90 200 
AZ 
AZ 
Flagstaff 
Glendale 
15 
8 
40 
22 
CA 
CA 
Santa Rosa 
Simi Valley 
78 
80 
175 
165 
AZ Mesa 7 19 CA Stockton 25 40 
AZ Phoenix 8 21 CA Sunnyvale 190 300 
AZ Scottsdale 7.5 19 CA Thousand Oaks 95 200 
AZ Sierra Vista 15 35 CA Torrance 120 300 
AZ Sun City 8.1 22 CA Vallejo 85 190 
AZ Tempe 7.5 21 CO Aurora 2.5 10.5 
AZ Tucson 8.5 28 CO Colorado Springs 3 12.5 
AZ Yuma 25 50 CO Denver 3 11 
CA Anaheim 95 200 CO Lakewood 3 11 
CA Bakersfield 50 110 CO Pueblo 4 12.5 
CA Berkeley 150 250 CT Bridgeport 38.5 85 
CA Chula Vista 110 300 CT Hartford 36 82 
CA Citrus Heights 18 40 CT New Haven 40 86 
CA Concord 100 200 CT Stamford 38 85 
CA East Los Angeles 110 250 CT Waterbury 38.5 83 
CA El Monte 110 290 DC Washington 14 28 
CA Escondido 75 150 DE Dover 15 34 
CA Fremont 130 300 FL Fort Lauderdale 1 2 
CA Fresno 18 38 FL Hialeah 1 2 
CA Fullerton 90 175 FL Hollywood 1 2 
CA Garden Grove 110 275 FL Jacksonville 8 22 
CA Glendale 105 250 FL Miami 1 2 
CA Hayward 130 275 FL Orlando 6 20 
CA Huntington Beach 110 300 FL St. Petersburg 1 4 
CA 
CA 
Inglewood 
Irvine 
110 
105 
300 
240 
FL 
FL 
Tallahassee 
Tampa 
5 
1 
17.5 
6.5 
CA 
CA 
Long Beach 
Los Angeles 
120 
110 
300 
250 
GA 
GA 
Atlanta 
Columbus 
19 
11 
44 
28 
CA Modesto 20 38 GA Macon 10 27 
CA Moreno Valley 100 175 GA Savannah 14 30 
CA Oakland 130 275 HI Honolulu 
CA Oceanside 105 275 IA Cedar Rapids 2 7 
CA Ontario 90 180 IA Des Moines 2 2 
CA Orange 90 190 ID Boise City 9 22 
CA Oxnard 120 180 ID Coeur d'Alene 8 19 
CA Pasadena 110 250 ID Idaho Falls 10 25 
CA Pomona 90 190 ID Lewiston 7.5 15 
State City 50 yr 250 yr State City 50 yr 250 yr 
ID Pocatello 22 50 MT Missoula 12 27 
ID, Twin Falls 8.6 25 NC Charlotte 14 29 
IL Chicago 5.5 18.5 NC Durham 10C 24 
IL Peoria 7 16 NC Greensboro 12 28 
IL Rockford 6 19 NC Raleigh 9.5 22 
IL Springfield 7 17.5 NC Winston-Salem 13 29 
IN Evansville 21 50 ND Bismarck 1 2 
IN Fort Wayne 7.5 17.5 NE Lincoln 15.5 33 
IN Gary 5 15 NE Omaha 14 25 
IN Indianapolis 15 40 NH Concord 30 50 
IN South Bend 5 15.5 NH Manchester 32 53 
KS Kansas City 7 18 NJ Elizabeth 38 85 
KS Overland Park 7 18 NJ Jersey City 38 85 
KS Topeka 10 23 NJ Newark 38 85 
KS Wichita 10 25 NJ Paterson 38 85 
KY Lexington-Fayette 16 34 NJ Trenton 37.5 83 
KY Louisville 15 30 NM Albuquerque 28 55 
LA Baton Rouge 1 8.5 NM Santa Fe 7.5 20 
LA Metairie 1 8 NV Carson City 65 155 
LA New Orleans 1 8 NV Las Vegas 13 32 
LA Shreveport 2 10 NV Paradise 13 35 
MA Boston 36 89 NV Reno 62 155 
MA Lowell 37.5 70 NY Albany 25 50 
MA Springfield 35 88 NY Buffalo 23 58 
MA Worcester 40 82 NY New York 38 84 
MD Baltimore 15 30 NY Rochester 23 83 
ME Augusta 20 50 NY Syracuse 9 20 
ME Portland 30 58 NY Yonkers 38 85 
Ml Ann Arbor 8 22 OH Akron 15 40 
Ml Detroit 8.5 23 OH Cincinnati 15.5 33 
Ml Flint 6 17 OH Cleveland 15 40 
Ml Grand Rapids 5 16 OH Columbus 13 30 
Ml Lansing 6.5 16.5 OH Dayton 15.5 30 
Ml Livonia 8.5 22 OH Toledo 13 30 
Ml Sterling Heights 8.5 20 OK Oklahoma City 10.5 22 
Ml Warren 9 21 OK Tulsa 8.5 20 
MN Minneapolis 2.5 11 OR Albany 33 80 
MN St. Paul 2 10 OR Corvallis 37 87 
MO Independence 6 18 OR Eugene 31 82 
MO Jefferson City 7.5 17.5 OR Grants Pass 24 801 
MO Kansas City 7 18 OR Klamath Falls 15 40 
MO Springfield 6 17 OR Medford 19 60. 
MO St. Louis 27 61 OR Portland 42 82 
MS Jackson 3.5 10 OR Salem 39 80 
MT Billings 2 5.5 OR The Dalles 25 50 
MT Bozeman 37 93 PA Allentown 32 80e 
MT Butte 20 65 PA Erie 15 30 
MT Great Falls 6 13 PA Harrisburg 27 60 
MT Helena 32 83 PA Philadelphia 37 84 
MT Kalispell 45 125 PA Pittsburgh 6 14 
State City 50 yr 250 yr State City 50 yr 250 yr 
RI Providence 40 83 WA Seattle 84 150 
SC Columbia 30 65 WA Spokane 11 21 
SD Pierre 7.5 21 WA Tacoma 85 147 
SD Sioux Falls 4 14 WA Vancouver 45 82 
TN Chattanooga 21.5 48 WA Yakima 28 58 
TN Knoxville 23 53 WI Madison 5 16 
TN 
TN 
Memphis 
Nashville-Davidson 
60 
14 
150 
30 
WI 
WVV 
Milwaukee 
Charleston 
5.5 
8 
17 
18 
TX Abilene 1 6.6 WY Casper 3 12 
TX Amarillo 7.5 20 WY Cheyenne 2 11 
TX 
TX 
Arlington 
Austin 
4 
1 
12.5 
7.2 
WY 
WY 
Laramie 
Sheridan 
2 
2.5 
12 
10 
TX Beaumont 1 7.8 
TX Corpus Christi 1 7.5 
TX Dallas 5 14 
TX El Paso 2.5 15 
TX Fort Worth 3.5 12.5 
TX Garland 5 14 
TX Houston 1 8 
TX Irving 5 13 
TX Laredo 1 5 
TX Lubbock 2 7 
TX Mesquite 5 12.5 
TX Pasadena 1 8.5 
TX Plano 6 18 
TX San Antonio 1 7.2 
TX Waco 1 7 
UT Logan 48 100 
UT Ogden 37 85 
UT Provo 37 90 
UT Salt Lake City 35 75 
UT Tooele 25 64 
VA Alexandria 13.8 29 
VA Arlington 14 29 
VA Chesapeake 12.5 27 
VA Hampton 15 35 
VA Newport News 14 34 
VA Norfolk 13 28 
VA Portsmouth 12.5 25 
VA Richmond 20 74 
VA Virginia Beach 10 20 
VT Montpelier 14.5 28 
WA Bellevue 83 141 
WA Bellingham 64 110 
WA Bremerton 83 150 
WA Everett 74 140 
WA Longview 50 85 
WA Olympia 75 136 
WA Richland 18 32 
DATA ENTRY
Other Data Inputs 
There are five additional data inputs required: discount rate, 
planning horizon, and three value of life amounts for deaths, minor 
injuries, and major injuries. These data inputs are discussed in 
Chapter 6 (Results) in the Benefit-Cost Results section because 
they are independent of either the existing building or the 
rehabilitated building. 
These economic inputs strongly affect any benefit-cost calculation. 
For consistency, we suggest that decisions about these economic 
inputs should probably be made at the agency level, rather than on 
a building-by-building basis. Agency-wide consistency is essential if 
benefit-cost results are to be used as part of the decision-making 
process of prioritization of seismic rehabilitation projects. 

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 

GLOSSARY
Avoided Future 
Damages and 
Losses 
Building 
Damages 
Contents 
Damages 
Continuity 
Premium 
Deaths 
Avoided 
Default Values 
The avoided future damages and losses are the net present value of 
the reduced losses due to the rehabilitation project. Avoided future 
damages and losses reflect the extent to which the rehabilitation 
project is effective in reducing expected future damages and losses, 
and counted in the benefit-cost analysis. 
Building damages are the expected damages to the structure as a 
percentage of the building's replacement value for earthquakes of 
each MMI or PGA range. Structural damages include both structural 
and non-structural elements, including mechanical, electrical, and 
plumbing systems but excluding the building's contents. 
Contents damages are the expected damages to the building's 
contents as a percentage of the total contents' replacement value for 
earthquakes of each MMI or PGA range. Contents damages include 
furniture, office equipment, light fixtures, flooring, and other items 
specific to individual tenants' usages, but exclude mechanical, 
electrical, and plumbing systems. 
Some government services, such as emergency response or 
emergency medical care, may be more valuable than normal in the 
post-earthquake time period. A post-earthquake continuity premium 
is the dollar amount agencies would be willing to pay to maintain 
agency functions after the earthquake. 
The annual value of avoided earthquake death losses is determined 
by the building size, average occupancy, the change in the expected 
death rate between unrehabilitated and rehabilitated buildings, and 
the dollar value assigned to a statistical human life, approximately 
$1.74 million, based on several Federal Agency studies. 
Default or reference values are the estimated "typical" values "built-in"
to the model which, if used, will facilitate a rough benefit-cost 
analysis. However, since few, if any, specific buildings are "typical" 
in all areas relevant to seismic rehabilitation benefit-cost analysis, 
applying the results of a "typical" building analysis to a specific 
building may yield inaccurate results. 
Demolition 
Threshold 
Damage 
Percentage 
Discount Rate 
Exceedance 
Probability 
Expected 
Annual 
Damages 
Expected 
Annual 
Avoided 
Damages 
Expected 
Annual 
Residual 
Damages 
Functional 
Downtime 
Government 
Services Lost 
GLOSSARY 
The demolition threshold damage percentage is the level of damage 
(expressed as a percentage of the building's replacement value) at 
which the building will be demolished rather than repaired. This 
percentage usually varies by the type, style, and/or age of the 
structure. 
The discount rate, entered as a percentage, calculates the present 
value of benefits and costs 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. 
The exceedance probability is the probability of exceeding a 
particular value in a stated time period. For example, in a particular 
location there may be a 10% probability of exceeding a given PGA 
in 50 years. 
The expected annual damages are the statistical average amount of 
damages expected from earthquakes for an "average" year at the 
building's site before any proposed rehabilitation project. 
The expected annual avoided damages are the annual number of 
expected earthquakes multiplied by the expected effectiveness of 
the proposed rehabilitation project in reducing damages. Expected 
annual avoided damages are the expected annual benefits of the 
benefit-cost analysis. 
The expected annual residual damages are the difference between 
the expected annual damages and the expected annual avoided 
damages after rehabilitation. 
Functional downtime is the time that an agency is unable to provide 
its services due to earthquake damage. If an agency's building is 
badly damaged in an earthquake, an agency would likely reestablish 
its function in temporary, alternate quarters, thus 
minimizing the loss of its function, or functional downtime. 
The value of government services lost when the building becomes 
unusable during an earthquake are valued by estimating what an 
agency spends each month to provide services from a given 
building. This includes salaries and benefits, utilities and other non-
wage operating costs, and either rent or a rent-proxy (if the building 
is agency-owned). This method is known as Quasi-Willingness-to-
Pay (QWTP). 
Major Injuries 
Mean Damage 
Function MDF) 
Minor Injuries 
MMI bin 
Modified Mean 
Damage 
Function 
(MMDF) 
Net Present 
Value 
PGA 
Planning 
Horizon 
Quasi-
Willingness to 
Pay (QVWTP) 
GLOSSARY 
Major injuries are defined as those which require hospitalization. 
The default average value for major injuries included in the benefit-
cost model is $10,000. 
The mean damage function is the expected amount of damage 
which a particular building will sustain over the range of possible 
ground motions. The expected damage is listed separately by MMI 
and PGA bins as a percentage of building replacement value. 
Minor injures are defined as those which do not require 
hospitalization. The default average value for minor injuries in the 
benefit-cost model is $1,000. 
Modified Mercalli Intensity scale ratings, arranged in bins from -XII. 
As the MMI number increases, so does the expected intensity of the 
shaking from an earthquake. The MMI bins, or intensity rankings, 
parallel the Percent of G (PGA). intervals. 
The modified mean damage function is the expected damage to a 
structure (as a percentage of the building's replacement value) after 
including the demolition threshold damage percentage (DTDP). If 
the default or user-entered values are greater than the D'TDP, then 
the benefit-cost model assumes that all values equal to or greater 
than the DTDP are 100%, i.e., the building will be demolished. 
The net present value of benefits and costs accounts for the time 
value of money. Dollars received in the future are worth less than 
dollars received immediately due to risk and uncertainty. Benefits 
are expected to accrue in the future. Thus, the expected net 
present value of a seismic rehabilitation project is the sum of the 
present value of net benefits expected to accrue each year over the 
life of the project, minus the net costs of the rehabilitation project. 
Effective peak ground acceleration, or PGA, is a quantitative 
measure of the level of ground shaking, expressed as a percentage 
of g, the acceleration of gravity. 
The planning horizon, or useful lifetime, of the rehabilitation project 
varies depending on the type of project, with 30 to 50 years being 
common for building projects. 
For public sector buildings, the value of government services lost 
when the building becomes unusable during an earthquake must be 
included. Government services are valued using the Quasi-
Willingness to Pay (QWTP) model. QWTP assumes that 
government services are worth what is paid to provide the services. 
Rental Income 
Losses 
Relocation 
Expenses 
Scenario 
Damages 
Soil Types 
Spectral 
Acceleration 
Value of Life 
GLOSSARY 
Rental income losses are lost payments paid by private tenants for 
all or a portion of the building. Inter-or intra-agency rents within the 
Federal Government are not counted because such payments are 
generally transfers and their loss does not represent a true 
economic loss. Other private sector economic losses (such as lost 
wages) are not considered because they are assumed to be 
generally negligible for Federal Government buildings. 
Relocation expenses occur when a structure is damaged badly 
enough in an earthquake to require repairs before it is usable. 
Relocation expenses are defined as the product of relocation costs 
per month and the expected period for which the building will be 
unusable due to seismic damage. 
Scenario damages are the total damages per earthquake of a given 
MMI (or range of effective peak ground acceleration, PGA) to the 
building and contents, the relocation costs, rental income losses, 
and the value of lost governmental services. 
SO -Hard rock 
S1 -Rock 
S2 -Very dense soil 
S3 -Stiff soil 
S4 -Soft soil 
A quantitative measure of ground motion, including the frequency of 
motion, used in NEHRP maps. 
The value of life is the value placed on a statistical life. A consensus 
value for a statistical human life is approximately $1.74 million, 
based on several Federal Agency studies. 

References
Andrews, R.N.L. (1982) Benefit-Cost Analysis as Regulatory Reform, in Cost-Benefit 
Analysis and Environmental Regulations: Politics. Ethics, and Methods, D. Swartzman, R.A. 
Liroff, and K.G. Croke (editors), The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 
Applied Technology Council (In progress). Earthquake Loss Evaluation 
Methodologies and Data Bases for Utah ATC-36), Redwood City, CA. 
Applied Technology Council (1985). Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for 
California (ATC-13) Redwood City, CA. 
Borland International Inc. (1993). Quattro Pro for Windows, Version 5.0, Scoffs Valley, 
CA. 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-124). 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1992). Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Phase 
: Issues Identification and Resolution (FEMA 237), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1992). A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Buildings. V2: Supporting Documentation (FEMA 228), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1992). A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Buildings. VI: A User's Manual (FEMA 227), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1992). NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic 
Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 178), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1992). NEHRP Handbook for Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 172), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1990). Financial Incentives for Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Hazardous Buildings -An Agenda for Action. V2 -State and Local Case 
Studies and Recommendations (FEMA 199), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1990). Financial Incentives for Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Hazardous Buildings -An Agenda for Action. V -Findings, Conclusions, 
and Recommendations (FEMA 198), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1989). Seismic Evaluation of Existing 
Buildings: Supporting Documentation (FEMA 175), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1989). Establishing Programs and Priorities 
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: A Handbook (FEMA 174), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1989). Establishing Programs and Priorities 
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: Supporting Report (FEMA 173), Washington, 
D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1988). Typical Costs for Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. V2: Supporting Documentation (FEMA 157), 
Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1988). Typical Costs for Seismic 
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. V1: Summary (FEMA 156), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1988). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings 
for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation (FEMA 155), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1988). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings 
for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA 154), Washington, D.C. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1985). An Action Plan for Reducing 
Earthquake Hazards of Existing Buildings (FEMA 90), Washington, D.C. 
Hurter, A.P. Jr., G.S. Tolley and R.G. Fabian (1982) Benefit-Cost Analysis and the 
Common Sense of Environmental Policy, in Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental 
Regulations: Politics. Ethics and Methods, D. Swartzman, R.A. Liroff, and K.G. Croke 
(editors), The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 
Leman, C.K. (1989) The Forgotten Fundamental: Successes and Excesses of Direct 
Government, in Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action, L.M. Salamon 
(editor), The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 
National Earthquake Hazards Reductions Program (NEHRP) (1992) NEHRP 
Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. 
FEMA: Washington, DC. 
Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-94, Revised (Transmittal Memo No. 64) 
(October 29, 1992), Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 
Programs, Washington, D.C. 
Ward, W.A. and B.J. Deren (1991) The Economics of Project Analysis, A Practitioner's 
Guide. Economic Development Institute of the World Bank. 

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS
APPENDIX 1 ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS 
AND EQUATIONS 
The economic assumptions and equations which define the benefit-
cost analysis of seismic rehabilitation projects are summarized in 
this chapter. 
Benefit-Cost Model Without the Value of Life 
The benefits of a hazard rehabilitation project are the avoided future 
damages and losses (i.e., the extent to which the rehabilitation 
project is effective in reducing expected future damages and 
losses.). The net present value of benefits accounts for the time 
value of money, because benefits, are expected to accrue in the 
future and dollars received in the future have a present value which 
is less than dollars received immediately. The expected net present 
value of a seismic rehabilitation project is the sum of the present 
value of net benefits expected to accrue each year over the life of 
the project, minus the initial cost of the rehabilitation project. The 
expected net present value, NPV, is defined as: 
NPV= + B2 + + + BT -INV 
where: 
Bt is the expected annual net benefit of the rehabilitation 
project for year t; 
i is the annual discount rate; 
T is the length of the planning horizon (useful life of the 
rehabilitation project); and 
INV is the initial investment (the cost of the project). 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
Each year's expected net benefit is discounted to its present value 
and then added together to yield the total expected net present 
value. The planning horizon, or useful lifetime of the rehabilitation 
project, varies depending on the type of project, with 30 to 50 years 
being common for building projects. The discount rate corrects 
benefits expected in the future to their net present value. 
If expected net benefits are constant each year over the life of the 
project, the expected net present value equation is simplified to the 
constant annual benefits and one discount term representing the 
present value for the entire planning horizon. With this 
simplification, the expected net present value equation is reduced to: 
For completeness, we mention two other factors which could be 
included in the expected net present value calculation: the salvage 
value of the rehabilitation investment at the end of the planning 
horizon and the annual costs to maintain the effectiveness of the 
rehabilitation project. However, the present value of the salvage 
value of seismic rehabilitation projects is generally quite small, 
because of the long planning horizons appropriate for building 
projects. Similarly, the annual maintenance costs of typical seismic 
projects are generally negligible. Thus, in the present benefit-cost 
model, neither the salvage value nor the annual maintenance costs 
are included. 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
Benefit-Cost Model With the Value of Life 
The benefit-cost model discussed above does not include the value 
of life. However, reducing the expected number of deaths and 
injuries is often the principal motivation for seismic hazard 
rehabilitation projects. The model can be modified to include the 
value of expected deaths avoided by retrofitting. 
The expected net present value including the value of life is the 
expected net present value without the value of life, plus the present 
value of expected annual deaths and injuries avoided by seismic 
rehabilitation. The expected net present value including the value of 
life is thus defined as: 
NPV o = NPV + (VDA + VIA) + 
where: 
NPt0o is the expected net present value including the 
value of life; 
NPV is the expected net present value excluding the 
value of life; 
VDA is the annual value of expected deaths avoided; 
VIA is the annual value of expected injuries avoided; 
i is the annual discount rate; and 
T is the planning horizon. 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
Economic Assumptions for Modeling Benefits 
Underlying The benefits of a seismic hazard rehabilitation project are the 
Assumptions reduction in damages that would otherwise be expected. Expected 
annual benefits are defined as the sum of expected avoided 
damages and losses. There are three different types of damages 
which are considered: scenario damages, expected annual 
damages, and expected annual avoided damages. Definitions of 
these terms are: 
Scenario Damages: 
the expected damages per earthquake event of a given MMI 
(or range of effective peak ground acceleration, PGA) at the 
building, 
Expected Annual Damages: 
the product of scenario damages and the expected annual 
probability of an earthquake of a given MMI or PGA, and 
Expected Annual Avoided Damages: 
the product of expected annual damages and the 
effectiveness of the rehabilitation measure in reducing 
expected damages. 
A schematic example illustrating these damage terms is given 
below: 
Table I 
Earthquake Scenario Annual Expected Effectiveness Expected 
(MMI) Damages Earthquake Annual of Avoided 
Probability Damages Rehabilitation Damages 
Measure 
VI $20,000 10% $2,000. 100% $2,000. 
VH $25,000 5% $1,250. 80% $1,000. 
VIII $35,000 2% $700. 50% $350. 
IX $50,000 1% $500. 25% $125. 
Total: $4,450. Total: $3,475. 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
In this example, the scenario damages indicate the expected 
damages each time an earthquake of the given Modified Mercalli 
Intensity (MMI) occurs at the site of the building. Scenario damages 
may also be characterized in ranges of effective peak ground 
acceleration instead of or in addition to characterization by MML 
Scenario damages do not depend on how frequently such 
earthquakes are expected to occur. The annual earthquake 
probabilities indicate the degree of seismic risk at the specific site 
under consideration The expected annual damages are the product 
of scenario damages and annual earthquake probability. Expected 
annual damages ($4,450 in this, example) are the best estimate of 
the average damages per year expected at this site; such estimates 
do not indicate that these damages will occur every year. Expected 
annual damages are those without undertaking the rehabilitation 
measure. The effectiveness of the rehabilitation measure is an 
estimate of how much expected damages will be reduced by the 
rehabilitation measure under consideration. The expected avoided 
damages (i.e., the benefits) are the product of expected annual 
damages and the effectiveness of the rehabilitation measure. The 
expected avoided damages ($3,475 in this example) are thus the 
expected benefits of undertaking the rehabilitation measure. 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
Detailed Economic Assumptions and Equations 
Without the Value of Life 
Scenario Scenario damages (SCDEQ) are the sum of building damages (BD), 
Damages contents damages (CD), relocation costs (REL), rental income 
losses (RENT), and the value of lost services (VLS) for earthquakes 
of each MMI or PGA range: 
SCD EQ = BD EQ + CD EQ + REL EQ + RENT EQ + VLS EQ 
where: 
BDEQ are scenario building damages; 
CDEQ are scenario contents damages; 
RELEQ are scenario relocation costs; 
RENTEQ are scenario rental income losses; and 
VLSEQ is the scenario value of lost government 
services. 
Building Building damages (BDEQ) are estimated as the product of floor area 
Damages of the buildings (FA), replacement value of the building per square 
foot (RV), and expected damage as a percentage of replacement 
value for earthquakes of each MMI or PGA range: 
BD EQ FA RV EDEQ 
where: 
FA is the floor area of the building (in square feet); 
RV is the replacement value of the building (per 
square foot); and 
EDEQ is expected damage percentage for 
earthquakes of each MMI or PGA range. 
Contents 
Damages 
Relocation 
Expenses 
Rental Income 
Losses 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
Contents damages (CDEQ) are estimated as the product of floor area 
of the buildings (FA), replacement value of the building contents per 
square foot (RVC), and expected contents damage percentage 
(ECDEQ) for earthquakes of each MMI or PGA range: 
CD EQ = FA RVC ECD EQ 
where: 
FA is the floor area of the building (in square feet); 
RVC is the replacement value of the building contents 
(per square foot); and 
ECDEQ is expected damage percentage for contents, for 
earthquakes of each MMI or PGA range. 
Relocation expenses (RELEQ) are defined as the product of 
relocation costs per month (REL) and the expected period for which 
the residence will be unusable (LOFEQ). 
REL EQ = REL LOF EQ 
where: 
REL is the relocation cost per month; and 
LOFQ is the estimated number of months of loss of 
function for earthquakes of each MMI or PGA 
range. 
Rental income losses (RENTEQ) are included fall or a portion of the 
building are rented to private tenants. Inter-or intra-agency rents 
within the Federal Government are not counted because such 
payments are generally transfers and loss of such payments does 
not represent a true economic loss. Other private sector economic 
losses, (such as lost wages) are not considered because they are 
assumed to be generally negligible for Federal Government 
buildings. Rental income losses are the product of rental rate per 
month per square foot of gross leasable area (RR), gross leasable 
floor area (GLA), and the expected number of months that the rental 
income will be lost (LOFEQ). 
RENTEQ = RR GLA LFEQ 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS
Government 
Services Lost 
where: 
RR is the rental rate per month per square foot; 
GLA is gross leasable floor area in square feet; and 
LOFEQ is the estimated number of months of loss of 
function for earthquakes of each MMI or PGA 
range. 
For public sector buildings, the value of government services lost 
(VLSEQ) when the building becomes unusable during an earthquake 
must be included. Government services are valued using the Quasi-
Willingness to Pay (QWTP) model. QWTP is a simple methodology 
that assumes that government services are worth what we pay to 
provide the services. A detailed review of the assumptions in the 
QWTP model is given as Chapter 2 of Volume 2. 
VLSEQ is the sum of agency wages (WAGE) plus benefits (BENE) 
and support budget (SUPP) per day, multiplied by the number of 
days of loss of agency function (LOAFEQ). The period of lost 
services depends on the agency's ability to find alternative quarters 
and to establish normal functions. This period may vary depending 
on the structure, size and function of the agency and the availability 
of suitable quarters after the earthquake. Note that the period of 
loss of agency function may be much shorter than the period of 
relocation necessary due to seismic damage, because agencies will 
resume their functions in temporary quarters, where: 
VLSEQ = (WAGE + BEN + SUPP) LOAF EQ 
where: 
VLSEQ is the value of lost agency services for an 
earthquake of a given MMI or PGA range; 
WAGE is the total wages paid to the resident work force 
per day; 
BENE is the total benefits paid to the resident work 
force per day; 
SUPP is the support expenditures per day; and 
LOAFEQ is the period of loss of agency function for an 
earthquake of a given MMI or PGA range. 
A-8 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS
Expected 
Annual 
Damages 
Expected 
Avoided 
Damages 
Expected 
Annual 
Benefits 
Expected annual damages (AD"'),are the product of scenario 
damages (SCDEl) and the expected annual probability of an 
earthquake of a given MMI or range of PGA (EAEEQ): 
ADEQ = SCD EQ EAEEQ 
where: 
SCDEQ are scenario damages (as defined previously); 
and 
EAEEQ is the expected annual number of earthquakes 
of a given MMI or PGA range. 
Expected avoided damages (AVDEQ) are the product of scenario 
damages (SCDEQ), the expected annual probability of an earthquake 
(EAEEl), and the effectiveness of the rehabilitation measure 
(EFFEQ): 
AVDEQ = SCDEl EAEEQ EFFEQ 
where: 
SCDEQ are scenario damages for each damaging 
earthquake of a given MMI or PGA range; 
EAEEQ is the expected annual probability of an 
earthquake of a given MMI or PGA range; and 
EFFEQ is the effectiveness of the rehabilitation measure 
in reducing expected damages for earthquakes 
of a given MM[ or PGA range. 
The expected annual benefits (AB) of a seismic hazard rehabilitation 
project are the sum of expected avoided damages (AVD) summed 
over the full range of damaging earthquakes considered (e.g., MMI 
VI to MMI XII or ranges of effective peak ground accelerations, 
PGA). 
max 
AB = E AVD EQ 
EQ=min 
where: 
EQ is the damaging earthquake considered (MMI or 
PGA); 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
min is the minimum damaging earthquake 
considered; 
max is the maximum earthquake considered; and 
AVDEQ are the expected annual avoided damages from 
earthquakes of each MMI or PGA bin being 
considered. 
Detailed Economic Assumptions and Equations: 
With the Value of Life 
The benefit-cost model discussed above does not include the value 
of life. However, reducing the expected number of deaths and 
injuries is often the principal motivation for seismic hazard 
rehabilitation projects. The model can be modified to include the 
value of expected deaths avoided by retrofitting to life-safety 
standards. 
Value of Deaths The annual value of avoided earthquake death loss is assumed to 
Avoided be the product of the area of the building in square feet, times the 
average occupancy per square foot, times the difference in expected 
death rates between unrehabilitated and rehabilitated buildings, 
times the dollar value of one human life. The annual value of 
reducing the earthquake death loss due to rehabilitation is thus 
defined as: 
max 
VDA = E EAE EQ (FA OCP (DR EQ -DRR EQ)) VOL 
EQ=min 
where: 
VDA is the annual value of expected deaths avoided 
by rehabilitating buildings to life-safety 
standards; 
EAEEQ is the expected annual probability of an 
earthquake of given MMI or PGA range; 
FA is the floor area of the building in square feet; 
OCP is the average occupancy rate per square foot; 
DREQ is the expected death rate; 
Value of Injuries 
Avoided 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
DRREQ is the expected death rate after rehabilitation; 
and 
VOL is the dollar value of one statistical human life. 
Similarly, the value of injuries avoided, VIA, is, estimated: 
max 
where: 
IREQ is the expected injury rate in the existing 
building; 
IRREQ is the expected injury rate after rehabilitation; 
and 
Vol is the dollar value of one statistical injury. 
In the benefit-cost model, injuries are considered in two categories: 
minor injures, which do not require hospitalization and major injuries, 
which do require hospitalization. 
Benefit-cost results are always presented both with and without 
including the value of life so that the benefits of avoiding physical 
damages and the benefits of avoiding deaths and injuries can be 
analyzed separately. 
Benefit-Cost 
Analysis 
Cost-Benefit 
Analysis 
Cost-
Effectiveness 
Analysis 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
Definitions of Economic Terms 
Benefit-cost analysis provides estimates of the "benefits" and "costs" 
of a proposed project or change. The term "benefit-cost analysis" is 
used to denote economic analyses that apply either the maximum 
present value criterion or the benefit-cost ratio criterion to evaluate 
prospective actions. Both costs and benefits are discounted to their 
net present value. The maximum present value criterion subtracts 
costs from benefits to determine if benefits exceed costs. 
Benefit/cost ratios provide an alternative evaluation: prospective 
actions in which benefits exceed costs have benefit-cost ratios 
above one. The logic of benefit-cost analysis requires that benefit-
cost ratios, and/or the present value criterion, be compared across 
competing alternatives. 
Cost-benefit analysis has identical economic assumptions to benefit-
cost analysis and differs only in the nomenclature used to describe 
the analysis. Subtle differences in meaning between benefit-cost 
and cost-benefit analysis have been discussed by Hurter et al. 
(1982). These authors prefer the term benefit-cost for three 
reasons: 
1) determining benefits is often the most difficult aspect of the 
analysis; if costs are placed first, the emphasis is wrong; 
2) when ratios are used to compare projects, the ratio used is 
benefit-cost, not cost/benefit; and 
3) placing the word "costs" first seems to suggest a negative 
attitude toward projects. It should be noted, however, that 
economic concepts, particularly as reflected in benefit-cost 
analysis, are completely neutral with respect to the 
undertaking of projects. 
Cost-effectiveness analysis identifies the least-cost way to achieve a 
stated objective; it is strictly a comparison among means to a given 
end (Andrews, 1982). Thus, cost effectiveness is the ability to 
achieve a given benefit at a minimum cost. In cost effectiveness 
analysis. the merits of the objective itself are not evaluated in 
economic terms. This approach is typically used to select methods 
of achieving specific environmental standards. 
The Stafford Act uses cost-effectiveness when it means that benefits 
exceed costs in 404, Hazard Mitigation, and 406, Public 
Assistance. 
Economic 
Efficiency 
Economic 
impact 
Assessment 
Informal 
Benefit-Cost 
Analysis 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS 
Economic efficiency is attained when the economy is functioning in a 
way that maximizes the value of society's consumption over time 
(Ward and Deren, 1991). Economic efficiency may also be viewed 
as the contribution to overall social welfare (Leman, 1989). It is 
generally accepted that a benefit-cost ratio above one indicates an 
improvement in economic efficiency. Benefit-cost analysis however 
does not indicate whether the project is the "most efficient" 
allocation of scarce resources for two reasons. First, benefit-cost 
analysis is an average rather than a marginal concept. The ratio 
indicates the relationship between benefits and costs for a given 
project size. Economic efficiency, however, requires that a project 
be sized where marginal benefits equal marginal costs, which 
maximizes the total net benefits. Second, the typical project benefit-
cost analysis does not survey the complete array of spending 
alternatives for all public projects/programs unrelated to the project 
under analysis. Economic efficiency under a budget constraint 
would require that the marginal benefits for all public spending 
alternatives be equal. 
Economic impact assessment is both simpler and broader than 
either benefit-cost analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis in that it 
does not necessarily require aggregation or even categorization of 
effects as costs or benefits. It requires only the projection of 
economic effects of proposed actions and the listing of these for 
consideration. Impact assessment is broader than benefit-cost or 
cost-effectiveness analysis, because it includes identification of all 
economic impacts: the changes in total (direct, indirect and 
induced) regional employment and income created by the proposed 
project. The inclusion of indirect and induced regional economic 
benefits and costs in the formal benefit-cost analysis is not generally 
accepted by the economics profession. Many economists maintain 
that such indirect and induced economic impacts represent a 
change in the distribution of economic activity and should not be 
confused with true gains in economic efficiency. 
Informal benefit-cost analysis embraces an indefinite range of 
procedures for the general identification and balancing of desirable 
and undesirable effects of proposed actions on society. Thus, 
informal benefit-cost analysis simply approximates pure common 
sense, and it should not be compared with formal economic 
analyses of prospective projects. 
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND EQUATIONS
Risk-Benefit Risk benefit analysis compares the economic benefits of a proposed 
Analysis project with the environmental and/or health-safety risks that are 
also created by the project. Ideally, the environmental and/or 
health-safety risks should be quantified in economic terms which in 
many cases is almost, if not impossible. 

BENEFIT-COST MODEL EXAMPLE 
APPENDIX 2: BENEFIT-COST MODEL EXAMPLE 
This appendix consists of a full print-out of an example benefit-cost 
analysis for the Veterans' Administration Medical Center, Memphis, 
Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4, 1994 
Benefit-Cost Analysis of the 
Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings 
Version 1.0 
August4, 1994 
Building Name: Veterans' Administration Medical Center 
Address: 1030 Jefferson Ave. 
City, State, Zip: Memphis, TN 38104 
Analyst: Goettel & Horner Inc. 
Rehabilitation Project: Add shear walls and moment frame 
Run Identification: Final 
Prime Contractor: Technical Assistance: 
VSP Associates, Inc. Goettel & Horner Inc. 
455 University Avenue, Suite 340 2725 Donner Way 
Sacramento, CA 95825 Sacramento, CA 95818 
Telephone: (916) 648-9112 Telephone: (916) 451-4160 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal ullkfinp3 Version 1.0, August4, 1994 
I I 
Building Name: 
Address: 
City, State, Zip: 
Analyst: 
Run ID: 
Managing Agency 
Contact Person: 
Address: 
City, State, Zip: 
Telephone: 
Building type: enter CAPITAL letter code in the green box. 
Click button if building type is changed. 
FEMA Letter 
178 Code Common Building Types 
W/ A Wood Light Frame 
W2 B Wood (commercial or industrial) 
Si C Steel Moment Frame 
S2 D Steel Braced Frame 
S3 E Steel Light Frame 
S4 F Steel Frame with Concrete Shear Walls 
S5 G Steel Frame with URM Infill 
C H Concrete Moment Frame 
C2 I Concrete Frame with Concrete Shear Wall 
C3 J Concrete Frame with URM Infill 
PCI K Precast Concrete Tilt-up w/ Flexible Diaphragm 
PC2 L Precast Concrete Frame w/ Concrete Shear Walls 
none M Precast Frame w/o Shear Walls 
RM1 N Reinforced Masonry w/ Flexible Diaphragm 
RM2 0 Reinforced Masonry w/ Precast Concrete Diaphragm 
URM P Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
none 0 Mobile Homes 
OTHER (Please specify)
______7R 
Total Floor Area (square feet): Calculated 
Building Replacement Value per square foot ZI 
Total Building Replacement Value ZZLZ 86CAO 040 
Number of Stories Above Grade: 
Date of Construction 
Historic Building Controls? 
Anaors1: Goettel &Homer Inc 
Benefd[Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 41 994 
Building Replacement Value: x x sq ft.
1,000 Total 
Demolition Threshold Damage Percentage: 
DEFAULT ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING BUILDING: 
MMI MVI VII I VII I IX X Xi XII I 
Modified MDF: 
DESCRIPTION & VALUE OF BUILDING CONTENTS: $ sq. ft. Total ($1,000) 
MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTION FOR CONTENTS: 
MMI I VI I Vii I VII I iY I xl I Y I ill I 
PGA (percent of g) 
Default (%damage) 
User Entered (%damage) 
Default Estimate (days) 
User Entered (days) 
I 
Relocation costs ($/sflmo) Rental Cost ($/sffmo) Total Relocation Costs ($/sq.ft.imo) 
a_ A *-_~~~~~~~~~~9& mm 
II II 
Default Minor Injury Rate 
User Entered Estimate: 
I I
Default Major Injury Rate 
User Entered Estimate: 
I
I
I
Default Death Rate 
User Entered Estimate: 
I 
.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Analyst Goene & Homer Inc. 
Analyst: UOOOCI &turner ICC. 
A-18
OCCUPANCY: 
Average Number of Occupants: 
Days per Week: 
Hours per Day 
Average Occupancy (24 hours, 7 days per week): 
Complete EITHER Section or 2 (they are equivalent): 
1a. Total annual operating budget of government functions in this building. 
(DO NOT count pass through funds such as social security payments.) 
lb. Does this include rent? (1yes, 2=no) 
2a. Number of full-time-equivalent persons working in the building: 
2b. Average annual salary-plus-benefits paid to the above. 
2c. Average annual utilities, and other non-wage operating expenses: 
Rental Values For Support of Agency Functions 
3a. Amount of floor space occupied by government tenants (sq. ft.): 5
3b. Proxy annual rent estimate (if la. does not include rent): L" 885 $ 3
Daily cost of providing services from this building: -02,0 
Post-Earthquake Continuity Premium 
Based on the nature of the services in this building, how much extra cost per day would the tenant agencies be willing to spend to maintain agency functions after an earthquake: 1,000
TOTAL VALUE OF LOST SERVICES PER DAY: ($ 802J1 
Functional downtime is the number of days to restore government service after an earthquake, either 
in the existing building or in temporary quarters. Functional downtime is different from relocation time 
and may be much shorter 
Building Damage (%) 
Default Downtime (Days) 
Space Rented to Private Entities Average Rental Rate Total Private Rent 
Analyst Goetel & Homer Inc. 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0, August 4 1994 
Building Type: 
Project Description: 
Objective of Rehabilitation: Io 
Direct Construction Costs 
Base Year of Costs 
A&E Fees, Testing, Permits 
Project Management 
Other Costs 
Duration of Occupant Relocation (months) 
Lost of Occupant Relocation per sq. ft. per month 
Cost of Relocation of occupants 
Total Seismic Rehabilitation Costs 1 
BUILDING MEAN DAMAGE FUNCTIONS: 
MMI VI I | VI I VIII IX X Xl XII 
PGA (percent of g) 4-8 | 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 I 80-100 I >100 
EXSITING BUILDING: _A mm 
REHABILITATION EFFECTIVENESS: (percentage of damage avoided) 
00 1 V1,14, 411 V31M108IMP,11 1 I 11110K0ii 4i
BUILDING 
CONTENTS Default: 
User Entered Estimate: 
Estimated
Before Rehab
Estimated Before Rehab 
Estimated After Rehab 
User Entered Estimate: 
Major 
Estimated Before Rehab 
Estimated After Rehab 
User Entered Estimate: 
DEATHS I 
Estimated Before Rehab 
Estimated After Rehab 
User Entered Estimate: 
To estimate the expected annual number of earthquakes at the site under consideration: 
a) specify the soil type (SO, Si, S2, S3, or S4) in the green box below 
b) choose ONE of the seismic risk assessment methods below: 
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSEMENT METHODS: 
I) DEFAULT METHOD: Enter two .3 second spectral acceleration values in the green boxes below. 
These values may be obtained from the Seismic Risk Table for about 300 cities which is in the Users Guide, 
or may be read from the 1991 NEHRP maps. 
|spectral Acceleration Contours|| Effective Peak Acceleration Click button 
Adjustment Factor if seismic data 
11% o a 11 I Time Period 
2) SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL METHOD. Enter numbers from a site-specific geotechnical seismic risk 
assessment, if available, in the blue line below 
SEISMIC RISK TABLE 
PGA (percent of g) 
Default Estimate 
Geotechnical Estimate: 
Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4, 1994 
Facility Class: 
Project Description I S~5 
SCENARIO DAMAGES ($ per earthquake event): 
PGA (percent 2_5599 I 80-100 I >100fn 
Building Dam 
Contents Dan 
Relocation 
Rental Income 
Value of Lost 
Total Losses 
EXPECTED ANNU 
Building Damages 
Contents Damages 
Relocation Expenses 
Rental Income Losses 
Value of Lost Service 
Total Losses 
RESIDUAL A 
Building Damage
Contents Damage 
Relocation Exp 
Rental Income I 
Value of Lost S 
total Losses 
Analyst: Goentel & Homer Inc. 
0MI 
DGA (percent of g) 
VI 
4-8 
VII 
8-16 
VII 
16-32 
| 
I 
IX 
32-55 
X 
55-80 
Xi 
80-100 j Xl 
>100 
%Mean Damage Function ; 1 7 100 0 100 100 
SCENARIO INJURIES & DEATH 
Number of Minor Injuries 
Number of Serious Injuries 
Number of Deaths 
EXPECTED INJURIES & DEA1 
Number of Minor Injuries 
Number of Serious Injuries 
Number of Deaths 
SCENARIO INJURIES & DEATHS WITH REHABILITATION: 
Number of Minor Injuries 
Number of Serious Injuries -3 I8 
54SE01 1 `48E 
143E 
Number of Deaths W 8_2600 
Number of Minor Injuries 
Number of Serious Injuries 
Number of Deaths 
Number of Minor Injuries 
Number of Serious Injuries 
Number of Deaths 
Analysis o the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 1.0,August 4, 1994
Bene8UtCost 
Facility Class: 
Project Description: E 
k. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS: 
discount Rate: percent 
Planning Period: ears 
Present Value Coefficient: 
3. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: 
II I I Present value or 
3uilding 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: 109~'2199MEc$Xy 
L71
TOTAL COSTS OF THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION PROJECT: TF4SWl! 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITHOUT THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: (129. 7O2,1 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: LIS "I 
C.VALUE OF INJURIES AND DEATHS: 
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: 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS WITH THE 
VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH THE VALUE OF AVOIDED INJURIES & DEATHS: 1' 2.42 
Analyst: Goettel & Homer Inc. 
A-24
08/04194.
12:56:50. 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings Version 
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 $92,655,500 
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 $0 
Total Relocation Costs ($/sq. ft month)-$2.50 
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 VII VIII IX X Xl xi 
PGA (g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 |55-80 80-100 >100 
Mean Damage Function (%) 1 25 75 100 100 100 100 
Modified MDF (%) 1 25 100 100 100 100 100 
Minor Injury Rate  000 3.00E-02 .400E+00 1.00DE+02 S.OOE+01 5.00OE401 5.aOOE+01 E.OOOE+01 
Major Injury Ratel10 00 4.0oaE-03 1.120E+00 3.000E+02 2.500E+02 2.00OE402 1.500E+02 1.500E+02 
Death Rate ll 000 1.OOOE-03 2.80OE-01 5.000E+01 5.OOOE+02 7.000E+02 8.000E402 8.OOOE+02 
Content MDF (%) 1 25 75 100 100 100 100 
Functional Downtime (days) 1 25 30 30 30 30 30 
Days of Relocation Necessary, 0 150 365 365 365 365 365 
Building Rehab Effectiveness () 1 o 83 94 88 81 73 67 
Contents. Rehab Effectiveness () 100 83 94 88 81 73 67 
Rehab Minor Injury Ratel1000 3.000E-03 8.400E-01 1.OO0E+01 5OOOE+OO S.OOOE*OO S.OOOE+O 5.000E+00 
Rehab Major Injury RatelO000 4.000E-05 1.120E-02 3.000E+00 2.50OE+0O 2.000E+00 1.SOE+OO 1 .5005+00 
Rehab Death Ratel1O O 1.0OOE-06 2.800E-D4 S.OOOE-02 5.000E-01 7.OOE-01 8.OOOE-01 8.00OE-01 
Annual Number of Earthquakes 5.1 O8E-02 1.34SE-02 3.541E-03 8.196E-04 2.293E-04 7.675E-05 1.412E-04 
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES: Without Value With Value 
of Life of Life 
PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DAMAGES AND ECONOMIC LOSSES AVOIDED: $33,385,616 $97,892,529 
TOTAL BENEFITS MINUS TOTAL COSTS: ($7,072,184) $57,434,729 
Benefit cost ratio: jn0.83 2.42 
A-25
A81d4. 12:55:54,