Advertisement

Effect of the Los Angeles Soft-Story Ordinance on the post-earthquake housing recovery of impacted residential communities

  • Hua Kang
  • Zhengxiang Yi
  • Henry BurtonEmail author
Original Paper
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Post-earthquake recovery models can be used to quantify the resilience-related benefits of policies intended to mitigate building seismic risk. An assessment of the effect of the Los Angeles Soft-Story Ordinance on the post-earthquake housing recovery of residential communities is presented. An inventory of approximately 8000 buildings located in five Los Angeles neighborhoods is considered. The neighborhoods vary based on the percentage of soft-story buildings, population density and the fraction of renter- and owner-occupied residences. Archetype buildings that are representative of the target inventory are developed based on a building-by-building survey performed using Google Street View. Variations in the number of stories and presence and layout of the soft first story are considered in the development of the archetypes. Analytical building-level damage fragility curves are developed using the results from nonlinear analyses of structural models representing each archetype. A scenario-based damage assessment is performed using shaking intensities generated from the Southern California ShakeOut scenario, and a discrete-time state-based stochastic process model is used to represent post-earthquake recovery. The quantified effect of the Ordinance retrofit varied based on the considered recovery metric. For instance, the initial loss of occupancy for the entire inventory is reduced by 25%. However, if the time to restore 90% occupancy is used as the recovery performance metric, the Ordinance retrofit leads to a 64% reduction.

Keywords

Post-earthquake recovery Seismic resilience Los Angeles Soft-Story Ordinance Earthquake policy evaluation Seismic retrofit 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper is supported by the National Science Foundation CMMI Research Grant No. 1538747.

References

  1. Almufti I, Willford M (2013) REDi Rating System: resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildingsGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE (2016) ASCE/SEI 7-16 minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton HV, Deierlein G, Lallemant D, Lin T (2015) Framework for incorporating probabilistic building performance in the assessment of community seismic resilience. J Struct Eng 142(8):C4015007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton HV, Miles SB, Kang H (2018) Integrating performance based engineering and urban simulation to model post-earthquake housing recovery. Earthq Spectra 34:1763–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole PMS (2003) An empirical examination of the housing recovery process following a disaster. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  6. Comerio MC (1998) Disaster hits home: new policy for Urban housing recovery. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Comerio MC, Blecher HE (2010) Estimating downtime from data on residential buildings after the Northridge and Loma Prieta Earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 26(4):951–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eid MS, El-Adaway IH (2017) Sustainable disaster recovery: multiagent-based model for integrating environmental vulnerability into decision-making processes of the associated stakeholders. J Urb Plan Dev 143(1):04016022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. FEMA (2009) P695 Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  11. Folz B, Filiatrault A (2001) Cyclic analysis of wood shear walls. J Struct Eng 127(4):433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graves RW, Aagaard BT, Hudnut KW, Star LM, Stewart JP, Jordan TH (2008) Broadband simulations for Mw 7.8 southern San Andreas earthquakes: ground motion sensitivity to rupture speed. Geophys Res Lett 35(22):L22302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haas JE, Kates R, Bowden MJ (1977) Reconstruction following disaster. In: Haas JE, Kates RW, Bowden MJ (eds) Reconstruction following disaster. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Huling D, Miles SB (2015) Simulating disaster recovery as discrete event processes using python. In: 2015 IEEE global humanitarian technology conference, Seattle, WA, pp 248–253Google Scholar
  15. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jennings E, Van De Lindt JW, Ziaei E, Bahmani P, Park S, Shao X, Gershfeld M (2015) Full-scale experimental verification of soft-story-only retrofits of wood-frame buildings using hybrid testing. J Earthq Eng 19(3):410–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones LM, Bernknopf R, Cox D, Goltz J, Hudnut K, Mileti D, Seligson H (2008) The shakeout scenario. US Geological Survey Open-File Report, 1150, 308Google Scholar
  18. Kang H, Burton HV, Miao H (2018) Replicating the recovery following the 2014 South Napa earthquake using stochastic process models. Earthq Spectra 34(3):1247–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krawinkler H, Parisi F, Ibarra L, Ayoub A, Medina R (2001) Development of a testing protocol for woodframe structures, vol 102. CUREE, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar S, Diaz R, Behr JG, Toba AL (2015) Modeling the effects of labor on housing reconstruction: a system perspective. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. LADBS (2015) Mandatory wood frame soft-story retrofit program: structural design guidelines. Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  22. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2012) Development and utilization of structural component databases for performance-based earthquake engineering. J Struct Eng 139(8):1382–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin P, Wang N (2017) Stochastic post-disaster functionality recovery of community building portfolios i: modeling. Struct Saf 69:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindell MK, Prater CS (2003) Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Nat Hazards Rev 4(4):176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowes LN, Mitra N, Altoontash A (2003) A beam-column joint model for simulating the earthquake response of reinforced concrete frames. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Intitute, PEER 2003/10. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  26. Massey FJ Jr (1951) The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J Am Stat As 46(253):68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mckenna FT (1997) Object-oriented finite element programming: frameworks for analysis, algorithms and parallel computing. PhD Dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  28. Miles SB, Burton HV, Kang H (2018) Towards a community of practice for disaster recovery modeling. Nat Hazards Rev 20:04018023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2015a) Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems, vol 1, NIST Special Publication 1190, NIST, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2015b) Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems, vol 2, NIST Special Publication 1190-1, NIST, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Nejat A (2011) Modeling dynamics of post disaster recovery. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  32. Nejat A, Ghosh S (2016) LASSO model of post-disaster housing recovery: case study of Hurricane Sandy. Nat Hazards Rev 17:04016007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reitherman R, Cobeen C (2003) Design documentation of woodframe project buildings. CUREE Publication No. W-29Google Scholar
  34. SEAOSC (2017) SEAOSC design guide: city of Los Angeles soft, weak and open-front wall line building ordinance. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  35. Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI (1997) Northridge, California, earthquake of 1994: density of red-tagged buildings versus peak horizontal velocity and intensity of shaking. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 16(3):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xia R, Schleuss J (2016) L.A. releases addresses of 13,500 apartments and condos likely to need earthquake retrofitting. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-quake-risk-20160415-story.html. Accessed 18 July 2018
  37. Zhang Y, Peacock WG (2009) Planning for housing recovery? Lessons learned from Hurricane Andrew. J Am Plan As 76(1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations