IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i3p1200-d1582271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Loss and Downtime Assessment of RC Dual Wall–Frame Office Buildings Toward Resilient Seismic Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Marco F. Gallegos

    (Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad del Bio-Bio, Concepcion 4051381, Chile
    Department of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 7820436, Chile)

  • Gerardo Araya-Letelier

    (School of Civil Construction, Faculty of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320165, Chile
    Concrete Innovation Hub UC (CIHUC), Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320165, Chile)

  • Diego Lopez-Garcia

    (Department of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 7820436, Chile
    Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management (CIGIDEN) ANID FONDAP 1523A0009, Santiago 7820436, Chile)

  • Carlos Molina Hutt

    (Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada)

Abstract

This study quantitatively assesses the impact of seismic design strategies on the performance of reinforced concrete (RC) dual wall–frame office buildings by comparing direct and indirect economic losses and downtime in life-cycle terms. A high-rise archetype building located in Santiago, Chile, on stiff soil was evaluated as a benchmark case study. Three design strategies to potentially enhance the seismic performance of a building designed conventionally were explored: (i) incorporating fluid viscous dampers (FVDs) in the lateral load-resisting structure; (ii) replacing conventional non-structural components with enhanced ones (ENCs); and (iii) a combination of the previous two strategies. First, probabilistic structural responses were estimated through incremental dynamic analyses using three-dimensional nonlinear models of the archetypes subjected to a set of hazard-consistent Chilean ground motions. Second, FEMA P-58 time-based assessment was conducted to estimate expected annual losses (EALs) for economic loss estimation. Finally, for downtime assessment, a novel probabilistic framework, built on the FEMA P-58 methodology and the REDi guidelines, was employed to estimate the expected annual downtimes (EADs) to achieve specific target recovery states, such as reoccupancy (RO) and functional recovery (FR). Results revealed that seismically enhancing RC dual wall–frame buildings with FVDs significantly improves resilience by reducing loss and downtime. For example, the enhanced building with FVDs achieved an EAL of 0.093% and EAL of 8.6 days for FR, compared to the archetype base building without design improvements, which exhibited an EAL of 0.125% and an EAD of 9.5 days for FR. In contrast, the impact of ENCs alone was minor, compared to the effect of FVDs, with an EAL of 0.106% and an EAD of 9.1 days for FR. With this detailed recovery modeling, probabilistic methods, and a focus on intermediate recovery states, this framework represents a significant advancement in resilience-based seismic design and recovery planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco F. Gallegos & Gerardo Araya-Letelier & Diego Lopez-Garcia & Carlos Molina Hutt, 2025. "Loss and Downtime Assessment of RC Dual Wall–Frame Office Buildings Toward Resilient Seismic Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-26, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:1200-:d:1582271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/1200/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/1200/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vyshnavi Pesaralanka & S. P. Challagulla & Felipe Vicencio & P. Suresh Chandra Babu & Ismail Hossain & Mohammed Jameel & Uppari Ramakrishna, 2023. "Influence of a Soft Story on the Seismic Response of Non-Structural Components," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:1200-:d:1582271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.