Functional recovery of buildings for seismic resilience of communities: Lessons from the 2024 Hualien, Taiwan earthquake
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1760Abstract
Functional recovery is a new design strategy in earthquake engineering that prioritises rapid recovery and building re-use after severe natural disasters. It suggests holistic building performance goals focused on structural robustness, enhanced safety, and a rapid return to operations post-event. To paint a realistic picture of post-earthquake building recovery trajectories, there remains a significant gap in knowledge for calibrating existing building seismic performance assessment frameworks using empirical data from earthquakes. The 2024 Hualien Earthquake in Taiwan provides a unique opportunity to calibrate this approach and improve our understanding of building seismic performance and how the functional recovery of buildings affects community resilience. A reconnaissance trip was undertaken in Hualien, and damage data from 16 buildings were collected to generate functional recovery lessons and benchmark the FEMA-P58 framework using SP3 software. The research suggests that the closure or limited use of some residential buildings was largely due to extensive damage to non-structural elements, including egress and elevators, ceilings, partitions, facades, and glazing. Business disruptions were mainly caused by restricted access or cordons put in place for the safe demolition of adjacent buildings. The adaptive resilience and preparedness of building owners, residents, and businesses appeared to play a significant role in the re-use of buildings. The functional recovery data and lessons learned from Hualien, particularly the positive outcomes of its building retrofit programmes, would support the ongoing development of low-damage design guidelines and seismic design practice in New Zealand that can enhance the seismic performance and recovery of buildings.
References
Chang SE, Taylor JE, Elwood KJ, Seville E, Brunsdon D and Gartner M (2014). “Urban disaster recovery in Christchurch: The central business district cordon and other critical decisions”. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1): 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1193/022413eqs050m DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/022413EQS050M
Marquis F, Kim JJ, Elwood KJ and Chang SE (2017). “Understanding post-earthquake decisions on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand”. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(2): 731–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9772-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9772-8
FEMA (2018). “FEMA P-58-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings”. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington DC, 340pp. https://femap58.atcouncil.org/documents/fema-p-58/24-fema-p-58-volume-1-methodology-second-edition/file
MBIE (2024). “Low Damage Seismic Design Resources”. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.building.govt.nz/getting-started/seismic-work-programme/seismic-risk-series/low-damage-seismic-design
Stanway JM, Sullivan TJ and Dhakal RP (2020). “Design, construction and seismic performance of non-structural elements in New Zealand”. 2020 SEAOC Convention, September 9–12, Hawaii, 11pp.
EERI (2019). “Functional Recovery: A Conceptual Framework with Policy Options”. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). Oakland, CA, 21pp. https://www.eeri.org/images/policy/EERI-Functional-Recovery-Conceptual-Framework-White-Paper-201912.pdf
QuakeCoRE (2025). “Inter-disciplinary Programme 1: Functional Recovery with Repairable Multi-storey Buildings”. QuakeCoRE. https://quakecore.nz/research-qc2/ip1/
Almufti I and Willford M (2013). “REDiTM Rating System: Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative for the Next Generation of Buildings”. ARUP, 134pp. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ibrahim-Almufti/publication/326331951_REDi_Rating_System_Resilience-based_Earthquake_Design_Initiative_for_the_Next_Generation_of_Buildings/links/5b466d82aca272c609377b8d/REDi-Rating-System-Resilience-based-Earthquake-Design-Initiative-for-the-Next-Generation-of-Buildings.pdf
ATC (2021). “Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 8 – Methodology for Assessment of Functional Recovery Time”. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, CA, 49pp. https://femap58.atcouncil.org/documents/fema-p-58/34-atc-138-3-volume-8-methodology-for-assessment-of-functional-recovery-time/file
Li L, Chang-Richards A, Boston M, Elwood K and Hutt CM (2023). “Post-disaster functional recovery of the built environment: A systematic review and directions for future research”. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 95: 103899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103899 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103899
Porter KA (2003). “An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology”. Ninth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, July 6–9, San Francisco, CA, 8pp. https://apps.peer.berkeley.edu/research/peertestbeds/Cct/Porter%20(2003)%20PEER%20methodology%20overview.pdf
Bozorgnia Y and Bertero VV (Editors) (2004). Earthquake Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 976pp. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203486245 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203486245
Moehle J and Deierlein G (2004). “A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering”. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1–6, Vancouver, BC, 13pp. https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_679.pdf
NIBS & FEMA (1999). “Earthquake loss estimation methodology HAZUS99: Software and technical manual”. National Institute of Building Sciences and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS and LeGrue JS (2001). “Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation”. Earthquake Spectra, 17(2): 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586176
Grossi P and Kunreuther H (Editors) (2005). Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk. Springer, New York, NY, 245pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/b100669
FEMA (2018). “FEMA P-58-2 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings”. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington DC, 378pp. https://femap58.atcouncil.org/documents/fema-p-58/25-fema-p-58-volume-2-implementation-second-edition/file
Terzic V and Villanueva PK (2021). “Method for probabilistic evaluation of post-earthquake functionality of building systems”. Engineering Structures, 241: 112370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112370 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112370
Hutt CM, Vahanvaty T and Kourehpaz P (2022). “An analytical framework to assess earthquake-induced downtime and model recovery of buildings”. Earthquake Spectra, 38(2): 1283–1320. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211060856 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211060856
Li L, Chang-Richards A, Boston M, Elwood K and Hutt CM (2025). “Modelling post-earthquake building recovery under human resource constraints”. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 122: 105389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105389
Hulsey AM, Baker JW and Deierlein GG (2022). “High-resolution post-earthquake recovery simulation: Impact of safety cordons”. Earthquake Spectra, 38(3): 2061–2087. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221075364 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221075364
Baker JW, Cremen G, Giovinazzi S and Seville E (2016). “Benchmarking FEMA P-58 performance predictions against observed earthquake data – A preliminary evaluation for the Canterbury earthquake sequence”. NZSEE 2016, April 1–3, Christchurch, New Zealand, 7pp. https://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/2016/Papers/O-19%20Baker.pdf
Cremen G and Baker JW (2019). “A methodology for evaluating component-level loss predictions of the FEMA P-58 seismic performance assessment procedure”. Earthquake Spectra, 35(1): 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1193/031618eqs061m DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/031618EQS061M
Vecchio CD, Ludovico MD, Pampanin S and Prota A (2018). “Repair costs of existing RC buildings damaged by the L’Aquila earthquake and comparison with FEMA P-58 predictions”. Earthquake Spectra, 34(1): 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1193/122916eqs257m DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/122916EQS257M
Cook DT, Liel AB, DeBock DJ and Haselton CB (2021). “Benchmarking FEMA P-58 repair costs and unsafe placards for the Northridge Earthquake: Implications for performance-based earthquake engineering”. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 56: 102117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102117
Hariri-Ardebili MA and Speicher MS (2025). “Reconnaissance-informed post-earthquake functional recovery: Observations and challenges”. Earthquake Spectra, 41(1): 88–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241290488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241290488
FEMA-NIST (2021). “FEMA P-2090/NIST SP-1254. Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time”. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), Washington DC, 135pp. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1254.pdf
Zhan SJ, Chang-Richards A, Elwood K and Boston M (2022). “Post-earthquake functional recovery: A critical review”. NZSEE 2022 Annual Conference, April 27, Wellington, New Zealand, 12pp. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362080739_Post-earthquake_functional_recovery_A_critical_review
Cook DT, Liel AB and Safiey A (2024). “Earthquake functional recovery in modern reinforced concrete buildings”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 150(9). https://doi.org/10.1061/jsendh.steng-12904 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12904
Lee BY, et al. (2026). “The 2024 Hualien, Taiwan earthquake: NZSEE learning from earthquakes reconnaissance report”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (Available online). https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1762 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1762
MBIE (2014). “Field Guide: Rapid Post Disaster Building Usability Assessment – Earthquakes”. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Wellington, New Zealand, 104pp. https://www.building.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/managing-buildings/post-emergency-building-assessment/earthquake-field-guide-1-1.pdf
Haselton Baker Risk Group (2022). “Seismic Performance Prediction Program (SP3)”. Haselton Baker Risk Group. https://www.hbrisk.com
NCREE (2025). “Taiwan Shakemap Assessment System”. National Centre for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE). https://seaport.ncree.org/smap/
Rashid M, Dhakal RP and Sullivan T (2021). “Seismic design of acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements in New Zealand: State-of-practice and recommended changes”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 54(4): 243–262. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.54.4.243-262 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.54.4.243-262
Sumer A (2023). “2023 Turkiye earthquake sequence: Performance of hospitals”. 5th Kenji Ishihara Colloquium Series on Earthquake Engineering, October, Online.
Shegay AV et al. (2025). “2024 Hualien Earthquake: Reinforced Concrete Building Disaster Survey Report (NCREE-25-004)”. National Centre for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE), Taipei, Taiwan, 302pp. https://www.ncree.niar.org.tw/publication/technical/page/12212
