Appendix G Sample Workshop Presentations 128 Appendix G Sample Workshop Presentations codes in their community, how they Information ForWorkshop b b - - T can adopt and improve enforce- Leader ment, and where they can go for here is a great deal of material to assistance. The group exercises (half- cover in the half-day workshop. It This Appendix includes material to day workshop) are designed so that is important that you establish help you present workshops on participants begin developing control and keep your presenta- adopting and enforcing seismic tion on track in order to cover all strategies to introduce or enhance building codes. It includes outlines the material. At the same time, seismic protection in their commu- for a sample half-day workshop and allow enough flexibility to nity. a one-hour workshop. The half-day respond to specific local concerns. workshop is best suited for gather- Remember that you can follow up When and Where to Present the ings of professionals, either at a with individuals after the work- Workshops conference or at a specialty seminar shop or at a later date. that you organize. The audience These workshops can be conducted Assigning groups. It will save would have some initial concerns as part of a systematic campaign to time and minimize confusion if about seismic safety but little improve adoption and enforcement you prepare an efficient method knowledge about how to adopt or of seismic codes. You can announce of dividing participants into enforce seismic building codes. The them with press releases (using groups for the group exercises. one-hour workshop is best suited for Appendix H), and workshop One method is to have people audiences who need to be intro- participants can help distribute the count off numbers and then duced to these ideas and convinced brochures in Appendix I to their divide into groups according to of the need for addressing seismic colleagues. their number. Alternatively, you safety. might assign groups on a geo- A survey of code practices (see graphic basis or try to create end of Appendix C) can help you to Target Audience interdisciplinary groups. The best identify specific areas of weakness group size is generally 3-7 people. Candidate participants for these in various parts of your state. This workshops include (a) municipal can help you to determine appropri- Sign-in sheets. For follow-up you officials (e.g., planning, building, ate topics and locations for the will want the attendees' names, engineering, emergency services, workshops. addresses, and telephone num- city council); (b) potential allies in bers. Providing a sign-in sheet at Workshops, particularly the one- the fields of architecture and engi- the beginning of the workshop is hour ones, could also be used to neering; and (c) community leaders a simple way to obtain this build on the increased awareness information. whose influence and support can that often follows an earthquake, assist in adopting improved seismic either a small earthquake nearby or safety provisions. a large newsworthy one elsewhere in the world. A combination of Purpose workshops and press releases could The purposes of these workshops emphasize the value of seismic are to (a) introduce the community's building codes to mitigate losses risk for earthquake damage, (b) from future earthquakes. demonstrate the effectiveness, ease, Half-day workshops might be and low cost of seismic codes, and given for: (c) outline the critical elements of effective code enforcement. A gathering of officials from several neighboring communities. Goals This could be in a region with code adoption or compliance Participants should leave the problems. You should also invite workshop with a clearer under- officials from communities with standing of why they need seismic good code practices. 129 Sample Workshop Presentations for all these visual materials can be * A session at a conference of 0 found in the body of this book. municipal officials. * Check to make sure that an This Appendix also includes a list A session at a conference of local e overhead projector is available of selected notable earthquakes from code officials (but delete the at the workshop site. 36 states (see Handout b). This list is section on the purpose of build- * If you are providing your own a good starting point for identifying ing codes). historic earthquakes from your overhead projector, it's wise to One-hour workshop presentations bring an extra light bulb. region. These tangible examples can might be given to: enhance your presentation. * Always plan to bring a exten- * A conference of municipal sion cord and an outlet officials, architects, or engineers. Equipment adapter. Check to make sure that an over- * City Council study sessions. * If using a computer projection head projector is available at the system, bring back-up over- * Civic groups, such as Rotary, workshop site. If you are providing heads in case you have equip- Kiwanis, or League of Women your ow&n overhead projector, it's ment problems. Voters. wvise to bring an extra light bulb. * If you are using slides, it is best Always plan to bring a extension to provide your ow,%n slide Support Materials cord and an outlet adapter. A carousel wieth the slides projection screen is not essential, as Materials in this Appendix include arranged in presentation you can project your overhead onto an outline of topics for two ork- 'n sequence. any blank, light-colored vatl. shop presentations (half-day and one-hour), along with suggested If you are using slides, it is best to timnlng, directions for when to use provide your own slide carousel the provided handouts and with the slides arranged in presenta- overheads, and key information tion sequence. You may also need to points to make. The additional provide your owrn slide projector. pages provided include visual aids that may be copied onto transpar- Follow-up ency sheets and used with an The group exercises will provide a overhead projector. Transparencies record of the community's thinking are a quick and inexpensive way to and plans about seismic safety visually enhance your presentation. Collect the handouts completed in Some of the overheads also may the group exercises. You may want be photocopied and distributed as to summarize the main points and handouts. A numb er of topical later send a copy to the workshop handouts, u hich summarize key participants or other municipal concepts from the workshop and officials. The material can also form from the text of this book, are also the basis of any local efforts stem- included. ming from the workshop. Color images can probide addi- If possible, you should try to tional impact to the workshop followv up with a tour of local presentation. A selection of images is building stock designed with available at various web sites, such seismic provisions. A comparison to as FEIA and the Earthquake unsafe buildings would also be Engineering Research Center (see useful. A knowvledgeable building Appendix E); you may download official, engineer, or architect should these vithout charge and use a lead this tour. vendor to transfer the images from your disk to color slides or transpar- encies. The National Geophysical Data Center and EERI also have sets of color slides that are available for purchase. Additional factual support A pendix G Ap 130 Half-Day Workshop 8:00 Introduction (15 mins.) ( DEFINE PURPOSE: Today we're going to talk about earthquakes and how they can affect communities. Very few parts of the United States are completely free of potential earthquake damage. This morning's presentation will cover three main areas: SHOW OVERHEAD 1. Community risk for damage from earthquake activity. 1. Purpose of building codes, and how they help to protect the community from seismic risk. 2. Importance of following through by enforcing the building code, and how this too can benefit the community. 3. ASK: How many damaging U.S. earthquakes can they name? SHOW OVERHEAD 2: Known historic earthquakes in 47 states with MMIs of VI-VIII. USE HANDOUTS: A) Seismic hazard map; B) Historic earthquakes in 36 states. SHOW OVERHEAD 3: Seismic hazard map. This map shows the seismic hazards for the entire United States. LOCATE COMMUNITY ON MAP AND EXPLAIN THE LOCAL SEISMIC RISK. POINTS TO MAKE: Many times, if a community hasn't recently experienced any kind of ground-shaking, people tend to think an earthquake just isn't going to happen. It seems like it takes a good earthquake to shake people up. Unfortunately, it's a little late to prepare after the earthquake. And this map, using the best scientific infor- mation available, says this community could be made safer and more secure by preparing now for future earth- quake hazards. ® 8:15 Part 1: Community Risk (15 mins.) USE HANDOUT C: MMI scale explanation, descriptions of effects of various MMIs. GOAL: Explain what it is that earthquakes do and how they can damage and destroy buildings. Explain the idea of lateral forces, ductility, and drift. SHOW OVERHEAD 4. e * Explain the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (describes effects, not magnitude). SHOW OVERHEADS: 5) MMI scale explanation; 6) MMI chart. * Describe effects on buildings of MMI VI, VII, VIII, IX. SHOW OVERHEADS 7-15: Effects and images of typical damage associated with each MMI. Focus on local MMI potential and show additional damage images. SHOW maps and images of historic o local earthquakes, and, if maps are available, anticipated earthquakes. A good source of information is USGS Professional Paper 1527; Handout B is a list, taken from that publication, of example earthquakes from 36 states. ® 8:30 Group Exercise (20 mins.) USE HANDOUT D: Group Exercise #1- Community Earthquake Risk DIRECTIONS FOR GROUPS: We've seen the MMI potential for this community. I'd like you to divide into groups and think about how this community might be affected by an earthquake of that scale. * Describe handout. Ask groups to: Imagine the MMI shaking appropriate to this community Rate community buildings for seismic safety Identify whether buildings were built to seismic codes (see Hints below) Decide where would you most like to be during an earthquake Decide where would you least like to be during an earthquake 131 SampleWorkshop Presentations Ask each group to report their results. * Summarize results. * Collect completed handouts for later follow-up. * Hints for Exercise #1 HIINT 1: The main purpose of this exercise is to raise participants' level of concerns and make them want to find out the answers to these questions. Participants will not be sure how to decide which buildings are most dangerous. You should give them some hints: SHOW OVERHEAD 16. Brick or stone buildings. e * Older buildings (especially large, multistory older buildings). Buildings with irregular shap es. * Buildings that appear to be top-heavy or with open first floors (carports, all windows). * "Tilt-up" low-rise light industrial buildings (one-story warehouse-like buildings common in industrial * or office parks since the 1960s). HINT 2: Participants will not know which buildings were built to seismic codes. They may be able to make educated guesses, based on the age of buildings, if they know the status of the community's code. HINT 3: Once they identify potentially unsafe buildings, they should also pay attention to building Jinction. Some buildings-critical structures-would seriously affect the community if they collapsed or were severely damaged: SHOW OVERHEAD 17. Structures are deemed critical if they (a) are needed immediately after an earthquake (fire and police stations), (b) house needy populations (schools, hospitals, nursing homes), or '(c) can have off-site effects (structures with flammable or toxic materials). ® R:50 Part 2: Purpose and History of Building Codes (15 mins.) USE HANDOUTS: E) Purpose and history of building codes; F) Model building codes POINTS TO MAKE: The safest and most cost-effective way to guard against earthquake damage is to construct buildings that are designed to withstand seismic events. These building specifications are contained in the model building codes. * Cover purpose and history of building codes: SHOW OVERHEAD 18. Suggested HANDOUT: Consider handing out photocopies of Appendix D. * Outline the model building codes: SHOW OVERHEAD 19. Easy to adopt Easy to update Documentation is provided Technical support is provided General cost information. 0 Explain current code situation in state. S ® 9:05 Break (15 mids.) Appendix G 132 ® 9:20 Part 2 continued: Purpose and History of Seismic Code Provisions (15 mins.) USE HANDOUTS: G) Purpose of seismic codes provisions; H) Seismic codes are effective; I) Seismic codes are inexpensive. Discuss seismic provisions in the building codes: Purpose of seismic codes provisions: SHOW OVERHEAD 20. o * History of seismic codes (becoming the national norm): SHOW OVERHEAD 21. Executive Order 12699. e * Seismic codes are effective: SHOW OVERHEAD 22. * Seismic codes are inexpensive: SHOW OVERHEAD 23. · Benefits outweigh the costs: SHOW OVERHEAD 24. * All model codes contain seismic provisions appropriate to the community's level of risk. e 9:35 Group Exercise (15 mins.) USE HANDOUT J: Group Exercise #2 - Responding to Arguments Against Seismic Codes DIRECTIONS FOR GROUPS: We've seen how new construction built to seismic standards can help protect the community from earthquake damage. I'd like you to divide into groups again. This time, I want you to discuss the arguments against introducing seismic codes in this community and think about how you might respond. * Describe handout: List the local arguments against seismic codes How might you respond to these arguments? Consider who is likely to oppose having seismic codes Consider who is likely to support having seismic codes? Ask each group to report their results. · Summarize results. · Collect completed handouts for later follow-up. * 9:50 Arguments in Favor of Seismic Codes (5 mins.) ( USE HANDOUT K: Arguments in favor of seismic codes * Present arguments in favor of seismic codes: SHOW OVERHEAD 25. 9:55 Break (15 mins.) ® 10:10 Part 3: Importance of Enforcement, Following Through (30 mins.) ( USE HANDOUTS: L) Enforcing the seismic code: a critical link; M) Five elements of effective code enforcement POINT TO MAKE: Having a building code with current seismic provisions is the first part of a two-part pro- cess. The second part is following through and making sure the code is enforced. * Explain how poor enforcement results in deficient buildings. SHOW OVERHEAD 26. * Give incentives for enforcement (code effectiveness grading schedule). * Five elements of effective code enforcement: SHOW OVERHEAD 27. Code provisions must be up to date Builders must apply for permits A qualified reviewer must review building plans Construction should proceed according to approved plans A qualified inspector must inspect the construction Discuss an example of plan review and inspection fees (see box in Appendix D, page 112). * SarmpleWorkshop Presentations 133 * Enforcement example: Use one or t'Nro of the case examples inAppendix C (page 85) to explain hoen- forcement could be done in this community. 10.40 Group Exercise (20 mins.) ® NOTE: Workshop leader selects topic for group exercise. USE HANDOUT N or 0: Group Exercise #3a OR 3b -Action Plan for Adoption OR Enforcement DIRECTIONS FOR GROUPS: I'd like you to divide into groups again. This time, I want you to develop action plans to: (a) adopt a building code with current seismic provisions for this community OR (b) improve enforcement of the building code in this communrity * Describe handout for subjectA (adoption): Dev elop a ten-point action plan that l,%dli result in a building code for this community @ OR describe handout for subject B (enforcement): Develop a ten-point action plan that will result in improved code enforcement for this community * Ask each group to rep ort their results. * Summarize results. * Collect completed group handouts for later follo w-up. 11:00 Part 3 continued: Steps for Adoption or Enforcement of Seismic Codes (10 mins.) ® USE HANDOUT P or Q: Steps for Adoption OR Enforcement of Seismic Codes * Discuss howsF these steps relate to the 10-point action plans they developed. SHOW OVERHEAD 28 or 29. 11:10i Recap (30 mins.) © * Review the three group exercises: Community Earthquake Risk Responding to Arguments Against Seismic Codes Action Plan for Adoption/Enforcement * Describe follow-up actions: The next step. * Questions/feedback: Any questions? Reaction to the workshop presentation? Is the information relevant to them? What additional help would they like from the state? NOTE: You may want to develop a short questionnaire to solicit participant feedback. Finally, be sure to have copies of the brochures available for participants to help deliver. 134 Appendix G One-HourWorkshop 1:00 Introduction (5 mins.) ® DEFINE PURPOSE: Today we're going to talk about earthquakes and how they can affect communities. Very few parts of the United States are completely free of potential earthquake damage. This morning's presentation will cover three main areas: SHOW OVERHEAD 1. 1. Community risk for damage from earthquake activity. 2. Purpose of building codes, and how they help to protect the community from seismic risk. 3. Importance of following through by enforcing the building code, and how this too can benefit the community. 1:05 Community Risk (10 mins.) ® ASK: How many damaging U.S. earthquakes can they name? USE HANDOUTS: A) Seismic hazard map; B) Historic earthquakes in 36 states SHOW OVERHEAD 3: seismic hazard map. This map shows the seismic hazards for the entire United States. USE HANDOUT C: MMI scale explanation, descriptions of effects of various MMIs: * Explain Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (describes effects, not magnitude). SHOW OVERHEAD 5. * Focus on local MMI potential and show additional damage images. SHOW: maps and images of historic local earthquakes, and, if maps are available, anticipated earthquakes. A good source of information is USGS Professional Paper 1527; HANDOUT B is a list, taken from that publication, of example earthquakes from 36 states. 1:15 Purpose and History of Building Codes (5 mins.) ® USE HANDOUTS: E) Purpose and history of building codes; F) Model building codes POINT TO MAKE: The safest and most cost-effective way to guard against earthquake damage is to construct buildings that are designed to withstand seismic events. These building specifications are contained in the model building codes. * Purpose and history of building codes: SHOW OVERHEAD 18. 1:20 Seismic Code Provisions (10 mins.) ® USE HANDOUTS: G) Purpose of seismic code provisions; H) Seismic codes are effective; I) Seismic codes are inexpensive DISCUSS: seismic provisions in the building codes. * Purpose of seismic codes provisions: SHOW OVERHEAD 20. * History and of seismic codes (becoming the national norm: Executive Order 12699): SHOW OVERHEAD 21. * Seismic codes are inexpensive: SHOW OVERHEAD 23. · Benefits outweigh the costs: SHOW OVERHEAD 24. * All model codes contain seismic provisions appropriate to the community's level of risk. 1:30 Code Adoption (10 mins.) ® USE HANDOUT P: Steps for adoption of seismic codes * Steps for adoption of seismic codes: SHOW OVERHEAD 28. * Current code situation for this locality and nearby areas. * How the community can adopt a code. SampteWorkshop Presentations 135 1:40 Group Response (10 mnins.) ASK: What is their reaction so far? Do they have any specific concerns or questions? Any objections? USE HANDOUT K: Arguments in favor of seismic codes * Present arguments in favor of seismic codes: SHOW OVERHEAD 25. 1:50 Code Enforcement (5 mins.) USE HKNDOUTS: L) Enforcing the seismic code: a critical link; M) Five elements of effective code enforcement; Q) Steps for enforcement of seismic codes POINT TO MAKE: Having a building code with current seismic provisions is the first part of a two-part process. The second part is folowving through and making sure the code is enforced. * Five elements of effective code enforcement: SHOW OVERHEAD 27. Code provisions must be up to date Builders must apply for permits A qualified reviewer must review building plans Construction should proceed according to approved plans A qualified inspector must inspect the construction · Discuss steps for enforcement: SHOW OVERHEAD 29. 1:55 Questions and Challenges (5 mins.) ® * Questions/feedback: Any questions? Reaction to the workshop presentation? Is the information relevant to them? What other groups do they think could benefit from this presentation? NOTE: You may want to develop a short questionnaire to solicit participant feedback. Finally, be sure to have copies of the brochures available for participants to help deliver. Appendix G 136 List of workshop handouts and overheads Use this list to organize your presentation materials: OVERHEADS: 1. Three Main Areas Covered 2. Known Historic Earthquakes in 47 States U.S. Seismic Hazard Map 3. Seismic Design Concepts (lateral forces, ductility, and drift) 4. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (explanation with MMI maps) 5. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (chart) 6. MMIi VI* Effects 7. Photo Caption: Paintstore affected by the San Fernando earthquake, 1971. MI VII* Effects 8. Photo Caption: Sidewalk in downtown, Oakland, California, 1989. Loma Prietaearthquake. (Photo: Rob Olshansky) 9. MMI VIII* Effects Photo Caption: Downtown, Oakland, California, 1989. Loma Prietaearthquake. (Photo: Rob Olshansky) 10. MMI VIII* Damage Photo Caption: Bakery, Watsonville, California, 1989. Loma Prietaearthquake. (Photo: Rob Olshansky) 11. MMI VIII* Damage Photo Caption: Classroom, Coalinga, California, 1983. (Photo: EERI) 12. MMI VIII* Damage Photo Caption:House damaged in the Loma Prietaearthquake, 1989 (Photo: EERI) 13. MMI IX* Effects Photo Caption: Collapse of 1-880, Oakland California, 1989. Loma Prietaearthquake. (Photo: J. David Rogers) 14. NMI IX* Damage Photo Caption: Strip mall, Northridge, California, 1994. (Photo: Rob 0lshansky) 15. MMI IX* Damage Photo Caption: Northridge, California, 1994. (Photo: Rob Olshansky) 16. Characteristics of Dangerous Buildings 17. Identifying Critical Structures 18. Purpose and History of Building Codes 19. Model Building Codes 20. Purpose of Seismic Code Provisions 21. Seismic Building Code Timeline 22. Seismic Codes are Effective 23. Seismic Codes are Inexpensive 24. Studies Indicate That the Benefits of Seismic Codes Outweigh the Costs Arguments in Favor of Seismic Codes 25. Poor Code Enforcement Results in Deficient Buildings (Hurricane Andrew) 26. Five Elements of Effective Code Enforcement 27. Adopting Seismic Code Provisions 28. Establishing an Effective Building Code Enforcement Program 29. 137 SampleWorkshop Presentations HANDOUTS: a. U.S. Seismic Hazard Map (same as Overhead 3) - b. Historic Earthquakes in 36 States c. M Scale (explanation, descriptions of effects of various MMvffs) d. Group Exercise #1- Community Earthquake Risk Purpose and History -of Building Codes e. Model Building Codes f. Purpose of Seismic Code Provisions g. h. Seismic Codes are Effective Seismic Codes are Inexpensive i. j. Group Exercise #2 - Responding to Arguments Against Seismic Codes Arguments in Favor of Seismic Codes k. 1. Enforcing the Seismic Code: A Critical Link m. Five Elements of Effective Code Enforcement Group Exercise #3a - Action Plan for Adoption n. Group Exercise #3b - Action Plan for Enforcement o. p. Adopting Seismic Codes q. Steps for Enforcement of Seismic Codes Suggested handouts or overheads not included in this appendix: 1. Maps and images of historic local earthquakes, and, if maps are available, anticipated earthquakes. A good source of information is USCS Professional Paper 1527. 2. Consider handing out photocopies of Appendix D. 3. Develop a short questionnaire to solicit participant feedback. Three Aoin Areas Covered 1. Community risk for damage from earthquake activity how they help Purpose of building codes, and to protect the community from seismic risk 3. Importance of following through by enforcing the building code, and how this too can benefit the community 0o SeismicHazard Map Z3o a (I t Overhead 3 Known Historic (15 68-1989) Earthquakes in 47 States Number of Quakes With Reported Maximum MMI of: VilI+ VI] VI State 7 Alabama -A laska . .2..........13. 3 11 Arizona 83 -Ark~ansa U, 0.1t.. ... =....= ..... , . ..... .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 131 66 329 California 2 I Connecticut Delawr 2 Florida - 10 13 30 Hawaii 18 12 Illinois 4 nd-iMna f-E a --S In ,Z a0i 4 2 Kansas =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t; _ f t = 0,,. .,:...... I Louisiana 7 2 Maine 3 7 8 Massachusetts ic I I - -- 3 Minnesota 2-- Mississpp 3 14 2 Missouri iMontana 35 4 d 2 4 Nebraska S .... . 28. Nevada 1 7 2 New Hampshire 3 I 5 New jer New Mexico 7 29 New" ork 16'~~'' ... 6 2... ^_~~^^"' 2 North Carolina, 3 Nrth Da I 9 5 Ohio ~ 2- 9 Okhoma I 10 Oregon 71- ,ennsvai I-3 Rhode Island Z'=== r-- -33- fii,,l r 3 .--S T 17 South Ca__roliAna 6 South Dakota Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional 31 -r - 8 Ua-h Paper 1527, 1993. Vermont I Note:This list includes 3 6 37 Washington only earthquakes that West Viirg i ia affected human r^r ..- .r - . .r settlements. Wyoming 1 8 0 0 Seismic Design Concepts I Lateral forces - Earthquakes exert sideways forces on I K buildings. Seismic design strengthens buildings to withstand lateral forces. I Meul / Ductility This property allows structures to bend before they break. Seismic design makes buildings ductile to avoid catastrophic collapse. PUCTLrr rift (Ab) Drift I*; --- Structures can withstand sideways F;~~~ Iq movement (drift), but their contents or neighboring buildings can be damaged. 0 Cl1- M - 0 -wNP - mwsd b. Seismic design limits drift. 4'- M~odified Mercalli Intensity Scale The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is a qualitative scale that describes the effects of earthquake shaking. Because shaking decreases with distance from the center of an earthquake, the intensity also decreases with distance. Larger earthquakes have higher shaking intensity near the source, and shake a larger area. 5° 5 70' BY75 UV,00 129-o 50 1220 124Q -y- 4 48-v 4 Jrmml4A SPOR"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C t*----- J. == = 460/ -any C\.=n-.s--= --\- _._-_ -L_- = .._ . ogettn _0 . ! .. _ 2i I Northwest Washington earthquakeI Nov. 13, 1939. Charleston,South Carolina earthquake Sept 1, 1886,, Charlestone hingonicrl ISurvey-vProfessional Paier 1527. 1993) . NMrth U.st South Carolinaearthquake, Sept. 1, 1886 A~~thurveva Gt-oloarient 152 7. Puber ~mh e 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11-41Z. 1. . -.-. - - - .- Z 'r, -- -K ---- - --, -- -- - , I iModified Mercalli Intensity Scale The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is a qualitative scale that describes the effects of earthquake shaking. % Seismically Designed Buildings Damaged, E' "!"uX'': x p ec;"''?'"j t ed::!'"''!::'!!'!!': Size of Earthquake According to Standardized Damage States M:M!!!i','t;;, ,,e,,'.Xt';, tt ,t''t,'"''t',: ''-e ''i',t's'i' Distance to Fault | t',S',",0t',,'t,''l.'3,',,,',,'t'd'S't,,,,y,'t,.;,l.,02.,,",, 'il.,,,';,'§,,,';':"l," t' ,, ,,,";13 ,.'1,..Li;!!;.itf!;t ,, t.,,1,;t;,l.<;,,!,>S;,je;j;,;j'fjjjCijj:.fjj,!jj,;'!BSikiii,>;;;,>; l !!flif!ff it si zEiatt;iititif!itiji; iSttiAil ;iiSle.Siit.i.iSlesiBil.illi:lilStjSjjaSjjjj,:j.jjjEjjjjjjjjjjjjj<,,jjjjjjSjjtj,3 ijtajsjsa; jjjji:;,aj jaja; jg; !f>'!f js jsjsjnzsja jajsjajjf j; ;'fatfj"0:;fajt:!!;jajsja'sjejs'fS 40 mi. 35-60% I0-30% <1% 5 mi. 'f!"!f!''!f!'!!!!!:!X!f;'!!;fi!fW!S,'6!'L!'.''!!!!!!!.-!!.!ff-ff!!!!!!!!!!!!!'iSf 35-45% <5% zi.i'<<.isi.<,fg','is 'iz!l l'ffti!!0''!0if kliEieiio>!Xt!iseliI!llif 'id,"iiz, gzllIiEfl S fB 04¢ifB >!¢itf0"> ' ¢0 is'.s'ie iii'lliBl i, ¢'i'i'i' ',ll fi' ti.,itlit.,a,,f't' Qs,0*\,0ilxl,<>ti tLi ,j l>".' aiJ,,it thilj> i<,iiti >dg! i!!i!!!lt .t!ii>;i. iii /ii. yT!f';,;!§jf!b ; !!"!;"i;',!';f;:!!;; f!;;"f;';ffNff ;;f 'fiff f'f ffzff '!'ffti;!i'T;;!E'!!f:ff' Hlfffff!lf;'!isDif'ffS'fif',f'-f'ffff'fj'uel'fi'!flilsEif;IggisSiSf'Eiilf f>llff;S!lfEf Wf f:iilft gN;fi! ,fIftf f! fiti2f'Afii!D!Iifl thiflffiffRi'!f!f Af l!f Ifif IfI itiffe f! !f ff if it if 'I!Ef f'ff,'lf I!f lifI!ffIf i+0D¢' f¢a'Da $'¢-S"j julill'ill- jt's"' + ¢s RfIlElFfifffE!!fiff)'ff'ZfieAffielZishlfI'!!if'!IiEfblsif;Il'iSiliSfffirilf'!lfRifitilDE 5-25% S 5!!,!,fi j ,';' 0,'!!2tti""j-;s}!ijj;,j!'j .'ljijtjj'\ j, jjj. jjjstl6aj.l <5% 5-25% I 0-30% 3 mi. 40-70% ', !li ati;'di itiIi\§Jexii''ftti ;!'iSj'.j! gi" i;',l0Btiiiti'i '; ikiS'l lilE ! !!!.!!!!i!!!!'i!!iSi!!!!.!!!!!;!!!idi!.5ifgggUS;!!'IAs;!!!;i!!!S!;!!ii!Nf!!ii!;!;ii !!: 3,ti; fR i.B ........ j.>ig .... tegt,.Ij,. .E.,l jj jj ji,,.j.lj jjjjjtjjji,,, ... jjSj,jjjjN ',';:;..,!!;.i'S. .;,: ,, ,,'ij,:., '!.".:i';".3".."':. ':i":01l'S"""'t.":.!":E"is, 0 10 1- M Source: EERI Ad Hoc Committee 2 MMI - VI Effects Felt by all people, indoors and out People move about unsteadily Some plaster cracks; fine cracks appear in chimneys Dishes, glassware, and windows break Books and pictures fall Some furniture overturns Objects fall from shelves a '-4 0. MMI - VII Effects Most people are frightened, general alarm Many people find it difficult to stand Water is disturbed and muddied Some sand and gravel streambanks cave in crack to great Chimneys extent; walls crack somewhat Plaster and stucco fall in large amounts Loosenedbricks and tiles fall Sidewalks crack a C- 00 MM - ViIl Effects Alarm approaches panic People driving vehicles notice the disturbance Trees shake strongly, and branches break off Sand and mud are ejected from the ground in small amounts Temporary and permanent changes occur in springs and wells Chimneys, columns, monumentsfall Major structural damage can occur a 'lO I - Vil Damage MMI - a a MM Vill Damage - 0 0M MM Vill Damage - a 0o ID - ~, L- -7 MMI- IX 1i. d = to Effects S-,' %, ' , tI .- '- + People generally panic Ground cracks conspicuously Masonry structures knocked out of plumb Large parts of masonry buildings collapse Somebuildingsshift off of foundations and frames crack Reservoirs are seriously damaged Some underground pipes break Substantial buildings (and elevated freeways such as this) 0 can collapse (A- MMI - IX Damage O~~~~~~~r l a :i3- MMI - IX Damage "M /-*tT trA 4;i~ = -]+el Ads~5 - as~~~~~~~~~~~~) ,,: W I 0 Zr M 0.I Characteristicsof Dangerous Buildings Brick or stone buildings * Older buildings (especially large, multistory * older buildings) Buildings with irregularshapes * Buildings that appearto be top-heavy or with * open first floors (carports,all windows) {"Tilt-up"low-rise light industrialbuildings (one- * story warehouse-like buildings common in industrialor office parks since the 1960s)4 S S 0 Identifying Critical Structures Criticalstructures are ones that would ser ously affect the community if they collapsed or were severely damaged. Structures are deemed critical if they : are needed immediately after an earthquake * (fire and police stations) house needy populations (schools, hospitals, * nursing homes) * can have off-site effects (structures with flammable or toxic materials) Purpose and History of Building Codes Building Codes Protect Public Safety * Regulate building construction and use * Address structural integrity,fire resistance, safe exits, lighting, and ventilation. Regulate construction materials @ * Classify structures by use Building Codes Have a Long History in the U.S. * Have existed in North America since the seventeenth century * Comprehensive building regulations were introduced in the mid- I 800s i The three model building codes used today were initiatedbetween 1927 and 1950 * By 1960 more than 60% of American municipalities had adopted building codes * By 1989 95% ofAmerican municipalitieshad adopted building codes 0 * 0 Model Building Codes Building Officials and Code Administrators International,Inc. (BOCA) * Headquartersin Country Club Hills, Illinois * Formed in 19 15 * Code is titled the "BOCA National Building Code" (BNBC) * Code is revised every three years InternationalConference of Building Officials (ICBO) * Headquartersin Whittier, California · Formed in 1922 · Code is titled the "Uniform Building Code" (UBC) * Code is updated every three years Southern Building Code Congress International,Inc (SB CCI) o Headquartersin Birmingham, Alabama * Founded in 1940 * Publishes the "Standard Building Code" (SBC) * Code is updated every three years Council of American Building Officials (CABO) * Founded in 1972 by BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI * Publishes the One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code Purpose of Seismic Code Provisions Structures built accordingto a seismic code should: * Resist minor earthquakes undamaged Resist moderate earthquakes without significant a structuraldamage even though incurring nonstructuraldamage * Resist severe earthquakes without collapse, allowing safe evacuation of occupants 0o Overheod 2 1 Seismic Building Code Timeline 1905 Model building law published 1976 UBC includes new seismic by NBFU provisions 1906 San Francisco earthquake kills 1978 ATC releases AT'C3-06 report 3,000 1979 BSSC formed 1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1985 FEMA releases NEHIRP with seismic provisions, first provisions for new buildings published by ICBO 1989 Ninety-five percent of 1933 Long Beach earthquake kills American municipalities 115 covered by state-wide codes 1935 Charles Richter devises 1989 Loma Prieta, California, magnitude scale for earthquake kills 63 earthquakes 1990 EO 12699 requires that all 1940 Standard Building Code (SBS) federal agencies incorporate published by SBCCI seismic resistant design in 1949 UBC contains first national new buildings seismic hazard map 1992 All three model codes require 1950 Basic Building Code (now the seismic designs consistent BOCA National Building Code) with NEHRP provisions published by BOCA 1992 Northridge, California, 1960 Sixty-percent of American earthquake kills 57 municipalities had adopted one 1993 E012699 provisions took of the model codes effect Early 1994 ICC formed '70s Study of earthquake-resistant 1994 EQ 12941 establishes seismic design provisions funlded by standards for federally owned NSF or leased buildings 1971 San Fernando earthquake 2000 ICC codes to be finished kills 65 1972 CABO formed 1973 UBC revised because of San Fernando quake Seismic Codes Are Effective Ohbayashi Corporation'sStudy of Buildings Damaged in the January 17, 199S, Earthquake in Kobe, Japan* Green Tags Yellow Tags Red Tags (little or no damage) (some damage) (extensive damage) 42% Pre-1971 Buildings 22% 36% (old seismic code) 11% 17% 72% 1972-1980 (transitional period) Post-1981 Buildings 84% 10% 6% (new seismic code) *in this study, Ohbayashi Corporation reviewed buildings it had constructed to the specifications of various seismic codes and assessed the extent of damage resulting from the 1995 earthquake. Overhead 23 Seismic Codes Are Inexpensive Increase in cost resulting from seismic design. Source: Building Seismic Safety Council, 1985 0 0 0 Studies Indicate That the Benefits of Seismic Codes Outweigh the Costs Estimated costs and benefits of seismic MP 55 95D 755 5z, building codes for Memphis, Tennessee, assuming damage from magnitude 6 and 8 earthquakes in the southern New Ott Madrid fault zone: benefits exceed costs -I% t by a factor of 1.8 for the magnitude 6 I 4-'v event and 10.3 for the magnitude 8 event. -------- ------- The expected damage over forty years is more than three times greaterthan the -> costs of building to code. Benefits are underestimated because they Xi J do not account for the benefits of C7W 3r - o reducing fatalities, injuries, fire potential, .......... or economic losses. 30' - \ XLNTO InRnS{ \XI F F M v~~~~0U1 New Madrid earthquake, Dec. 16, 181 1. This was a U magnitude 8 event. (Map: U.S. Geological Survey, - Professional Paper 1527, 1993) 25- - - LET[ Arguments In Favor of selsmic Codes For elected officials:A damaging earthquake can * occur during your term of office. xFor elected officials: Citizens support seismic codes. * Codes will not hurt business. * A seismic code will improve successful survival of * the next earthquake. Everyone else is doing it. * aIt's easy. It's good for the community. * All communities need a seismic code regardless * of risk. NJ Poor Code Enforcement Results in Deficient Buildings A substantial portion of the I .1.7I 4*N - damage from -.,-3 is" X Ea A I Hurricane Andrew in 1992 was from lack of enforcement of the South Florida Building Code. (Source: FEMA 1993) In a 1993 study, USC researchers found that key items to resist seismic load are frequently (13 to 72 percent of surveyed units) missing or flawed. 0 rb 0 0. Five Elements of Effective Code Enforcement: 1. Code provisions must be up to date 2. Builders must apply for permits 3. A qualified reviewer must review building plans 4. Construction should proceed accordingto approved plans S. A qualified inspector must inspect the construction 0 i;.i h. Adopting Seismic Code Provisions Step I: Determine the current building code requirement (if any) and develop a strategy for incorporatingor initiatingcurrent seismic provisions, Step 2: Gather support for the proposed changes. Step 3: Lobby the decision-making body with information explaining why the changes are needed and describing the kind of support you have gathered. Step 4: Continue your involvement through the administrativeimplementation and enforcement stages once the seismic 0 provisions are approved. (D (a ALi 0a Establishingan Effective Building Code Enforcement Program Step Ia Adopt a model code. Step 2: Establish fee structures for permits and plan review. Step 3. Institute a systematic plan review system. Step 4: Adopt an inspection schedule. Step 5: Maintain a trained, qualified staff. Step 6: Be persistent but patient. 0 (b MT FEMA Seismic Code Workshop Some Selected Notable Earthquakesfrom 36 States This table lists selected notable historical earthquakes from across the United States. Only states with at least one event of Modified Mercalli Intensity V[Il or greater are listed, and at least one such event is described for each state. Only a few illustrative events are listed for highly seismic states, such as California and Alaska. Note that this list is based on the location of the earthquake epicenter; many additional states have been affected by strong earthqu akes in neighboring states. This information is summarized from U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, Seismnicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (rev.), 1993. This publication is a particularly good source of information for historic seismicity in all the states. It contains numerous maps of Modified Mercalli Intensities for historic earthquakes, including ones in your state. This publication can be purchased from the USGS at (800) 435-7627, or it can be obtained from most university or state geological survey libraries. Maximum MMI Magnitude Effects State Date ? lDestroyed numerous chimneys near Birmingham. AL Oct. 18, 1916 VTIT July 10,1958 8.3 5 deaths, massive rockslide and ensuing wrare, extensive damage to AK XI port facilities at Yakutat. 125 deaths (110 from tsunamni), $311 million in property loss. Heavy 9.2 X March 28, 1964 damage from building collapses and landslides in Anchorage; tsunami devastated many coastal areas. 7.4 Centered in Northern Sonora, caused 51 deaths in,Mexico, and AZ May 3, 1887 widespread damage in southeast Arizona from intensities of VIIS, VII[, and IX. 7.7 Part of New-v Madrid earthquake sequence, centered in northeast X1.I AR Dec. 16, 1811 Arkansas. Extensive ground deformation and landsliding throughout sparsely-populated region. Chimneys toppled as far away as Cincin- nati. Sequence includes the largest earthquakes knoivn in 48 states. Walls and floors cracked and dishes broken in Little Rock. 4.3 VI Jan. 1, 1969 XI 7.7 Earthquake and fires killed 3,000 people and caused $524 million in CA April 18, 1906 property damage in and near San Francisco. Buildings and chimneys collapsed, pipelines broke, soft ground severely deformed. Fires destroyed a large part of San Francisco. VEll 6.2 115 people killed, $40 million in property damage. Severe property Mlarch 11, 1933 damage in Long Beach and Compton, particularly to masonry struc- tures, especially those on soft ground. XI 6.6 65 deaths, 2,000 injuries, and property damage of $505 million, mostly Feb. 9, 1971 in San Fernando Valley. Damage to hospitals, freeways, utilities, dams. Older buildings and thousands of chimneys damaged. Fault rupture, ground fracturing, and landsliding -caused extensive damage. Coalinga earthquake caused $10 million in property damage and N/El 6.2 M ay 2, 1983 injured 94 people. 8-block downtown area almost completely de- stroyed, primarily unreinforced brick buildi gs. Newver buildings sustained only superficial damage. Also destroyed hundreds of single- family homes and apartments. DC 7.1 63 deaths, 3,757 injuries, and $6 billion in property damage. Damage Oct. 17, 1989 to freeways and to older buildings on soft soils in San Francisco and Oakland. Severe damage in and near Santa Cruz, primarily to unreinforced brick buildings. Engineered buildings, including those near the epicenter, performed well. of4) Handout B (/ Seismic Code Workshop FEMA Some Selected Notable Earthquakes from 36 States Continued VII 5.3 Foundations, floors, and walls cracked, wiAndow s broke in northern CO Aug. 9,1967 suburbs of Denver. VAI 6.2 Nov. 8, 1882 Minor damage in Colorado and southern Wyoming. Electricity cut off in Denver; plaster fell from the ceiling of a building at the University of Colorado in Boulder. V1I ? Stone walls shaken dow n, tops of chimneys fallen in Middlesex County, CT May 16, 1791 northeast of New Haven. Felt in Boston and Newr York. ? Chimneys toppled and windows broken in -Wilmington area. DE Oct. 9, 1871 V11 7.4 Two deaths, property damage of $4.1 million on island of Hawaii. HI Nov. 29, 1975 VHI Slight to moderate structural damage to 100 buildings from ground- shaking. Widespread ground deformation, subsidence, and faulting. Tsunami caused considerable damage to coastal areas. March 28,1975 VIIT 6.1 Shifted houses from,foundations and toppled chimneys in sparsely- ID populated Pocatello Valley Caused $1 million in damage. IX 7.C Two deaths and $12.5 million in damage in Challis-MacKay area. Oct. 28, 1983 Numerous commercial buildings damaged, primarily those built of masonryr 90 percent of chimneys in Mackay;were damaged. Extensive damage to high school in Challis. VII 5.3 Cracked foundations, dosvned chimneys, broken windom 's in southern IL No'5 1968 9, Illinois. Most buildings with chimney damage were 30 to 50 years old. Felt in parts of 23 states. IN Sept. 27, 1909 5.1 Downed chimneys and cracked plaster in Terre Haute, Covington, and Vii Princeton. Jan. 8, 1906 KS 4.9 Fallen chimneys and cracked plaster in and near Manhattan. VII 5.0 Caused $1 million damage in Maysville to 37 commercial and 269 KY July 27, 1980 residential structures. Old multistory brick structures in the do wntown were affected the most. Fallen chimneys and cracked ground occurred. Felt in parts of 15 states. V1I 5.1 Overthrew chimneys in Washington County Felt throughout New ME March 21, 1904 England. VII MVLA Nov. 18, 1755 ? Up to 1,500 chimneys damaged in Boston, stone fences thrown down, ground cracking. Much of the damage in Boston wotas on filled land near wharfs. Generated a tsunami that affected the Wttest Indies. Earthquake MAIR was centered off Cape Ann. MI July 27, 1905 4.5 Downed many chimneys and broke plate glass windows at Calumet, Houghton County. E10 7.9 Part of New Madrid earthquake sequence. Destroyed town of New MO Feb. 7,1812 Madrid. Many houses damaged in St. Louis. Ground wvarping, fissur- ing, landslides. Sequence includes the largest earthquakes lanolin in 48 states. 6.7 Extensive damage to schools churches, private houses, and almost all Oct. 31, 1895 VII the buildings in the commercial section of Charleston. Extensiv e damage also to public buildings and brick walls in Cairo, Illinois. Felt in parts of 23 states. 6.6 Severe damage to chimneys and schools in Gallatin County. Almost MT June 28,1925 all masonry buildings showed damage. VIEI 6.2 This was the main shock in a series of at least three large earthquakes Oct. 18, 1935 during October. These caused an estimated total of $4 million in prop- erty damage in Helena. Two people were killed and 300 buildings damaged. Damage was most severe to old brick houses. Downed chimneys and cracked plaster common. Severe damage to Helena High School (completed 2 months earlier) and other public buildings. of 4) Handout 8 (2 FEAIA Seismic Code Workshop FEM Seismic Code Workshop Some Selected Notable Earthquakes from 36 States Continued x 28 deaths, and $11 million in damage to highways and timber. Most 7.3 Aug. 18,1959 disastrous effect was from a huge landslide in the Madison River Canyon. Damaged courthouse and school at Columbus, cracked walls. Felt in vII 5.1 Nov. 15, 1877 NE seven states. Major earthquake in an uninhabited region, as is true of most of 7.2 X Dec. 21,1932 NV Nevada's major historical earthquakes. Chimaneys -andwalls fell in Mineral County. Large landslides occurred and boulders were shaken from cliffs. Two similarly-sized earthquakes damaged old houses and chimneys in 5.5 Dec. 20-24,1940 VII NH Carroll County. Also cracked walls, broken pipes, and broken furniture. Minor damage in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont. Damage to chimneys and fallen plaster in Monmouth County. 7 VII June 1, 1927 NJ Damage to chimneys, brick walls, and plaster, especially at schools in 5.0 VII Jan. 23,1966 NM Dulce. Rock falls at Dulce Point. Severe property damage at Jamaica and Amityrille. Fallen chimneys 5.5 VII Aug. 10,1884 NY and cracked walls throughout area. Caused $2 million in property damage at lM'assena, NY, and Cornwall, 5.5 VIIII Sept. 5, 1944 Ontario. At Massena, 90% of chimnreys were damaged, as were many house foundations, plumbing, and masonry. Chimneys were downed in several NY towns. Tops of chimneys and wvindows broken in Waynesville. Minor damage 5.2 V1I Feb. 21,1916 NC in wider area of NC and TN. Damaged almost every chimney in Anna (Shelby 'County), severely 5.4 VIII March 9,1937 OH cracked the schoolhouse, and damaged to ichurches. Felt in tall buildings in Chicago, MilWwaukee, and Toronto. Toppled chimneys and smokestacks, loosened bricks, and broken 5.5 VT- April 9,1952 OK windows at El Reno, Oklahoma City, and Ponca City. Caused 15-meter- long crack in State Capitol building. Caused significant structural damage to many unreinforced brick 5.6 VII March 25, 19993 OR buildings at Scotts hMils and Mollala. Estimated $2 million in uninsured losses, and S12 million damage to public facilities. Cracked State Capitol rotunda. (Source: EERI Newsletter, vol. 27, no. 5, 1993) Chimneys broken, houses shifted from foundations in Umatilla County. 5.8 VII July 16, 1936 Several houses severely damaged, school damaged. Caused $100,000 damage. Many ground cracks formed. 60 deaths, $5-6 million in damage. Most structures in Charleston were 7.O. X Aug. 31,1886 SC seriously damaged. Every brick and stone building was cracked. Large public buildings required extensive repair. 65% of brick buildings were damaged, compared to 7% of wooden buildings. Structural damage also in AL, OH, KY, VA, and WV Extensive cratering and fissuring, severely damaged railroad tracks. (Source: OWA LNuttli, G.A. Bollinger, R.B. Herrmann, The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina,Earthquake-A 1986 Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 985, 1986) Overthrew chimneys, damaged plaster and stone wTalls in Union 4.8 VII Jan. 1, 1913 County. Cracked walls of jail and courthouse in,Union. Chimneys thrown down at Memphis, and chimneys damaged at New 5.O VII Aug. 17,1865 TIN Madrid, MO. Felt from St. Louis to Jackson, MS. All buildings except wvood-frame houses were damaged in Valeentine, 5.8 VIE Aug. 16,1931 TX and all chimneys were toppled or damaged. Schoolhouse had to be rebuilt. Landslides occurred in a wvidespread area. Handout 8 (3 of 41 FEMA Seismic 'Code Workshop Some Selected Notable Earthquakesfrom 36 States Continued hin a sparsely-settled area in Box Elder County but two people were S 6.5 March 12, 1934 VIlI UT killed. Downed chimneys and cracked wTalls in brick buildings. Large rockslides and fissures. Severely damaged many unreinforced brick buildings in Cache 5.8 VII Aug. 30, 1962 Valley. 75% of chimneys collapsed in Richmond, walls of many houses were badly damaged, and several houses were unsafe for occupancy. Property damage of $1 million. Landslides also occurred. Damaged chimneys and brick houses in Giles County especially at 5.6 Mhay 31, 1897 VA Pearisburg. Large area felt Intensity VII1, including Lynchburg, VTA, Bluefield, AWV, and Bristol, TN. Felt from Georgia to Pennsylvania. 8 people killed, $25 million in property damage in Puget Sound area. 6.7 April 13,1949 VITI WA Almost all large buildings wvere damaged in Olympia, including eight on the Capitol grounds. Several structures condemned, including three schoolis, a church, and a library. At Seattle, houses on filled ground were demolished, many old brick buildings were damaged and chimneys toppled. 7 people killed, $12.5 million in property damage. In West Seattle, 6.7 April 29, 1965 two schools wvere severely damaged and chimneys were damaged extensively. Unreinforced brick buildings were damaged most VI11 severely, and wood-frame buildings performed very well. Caused rockfallis, landslides, and cracks in a parking lot at 6.4 June 30, 1975 WY YellowAstone Park. Many park roads were closed. Ti o new geysers formed. This very powerful earthquake was centered about 40 miles south of 8.1 ? Guam August 8,1993 Agana. Generated no tsunamis, no deaths, and comparatively little damage to Guam's code-designed structures. The most significant damage occurred to some of the tall hotels, possibly due to construc- tion quality problems. Significant ground failure problems occurred in waterfront areas. (Source: EERI Newsletter, vol. 27, No. 10, October 1993) f 4) Handout B (4 Seismic Code Workshop FEW Effects of the most common damaging MMl intensity values AM~l MMI Level Effects Level Effects V Felt by most people, indoors and out VIII Ground becomes wAet to some extent, even on steep slopes Buildings tremble Chimneys, columns, monuments fall Dishes and glassware break Damage slight in structures built to with- Small or unstable objects overturn and may fall stand earthquakes Doors and shutters open or close abruptly Damage considerable in ordinary substantial Small objects and furnishings move slightly buildings Liquids in open containers may spill slightly IX People generally panic Ground cracks conspicuously VI Felt by all people, indoors and out Masonry structures knocked out of plumb People move about unsteadily Large parts of masonry buildings collapse Some plaster cracks; fine cracks appear in chimneys Some buildings shift off of foundations Dishes, glassware, and windows break Reservoirs are seriously damaged Books and picture fall Some underground pipes break Some furniture overturns Damage considerable in structures built to withstand earthquakes Damage great in substantial buildings VII Most people are frightened Many people find it difficult to stand X Ground cracks as large as several inches VWater is disturbed and muddied Numerous landslides on riverbanks and Some sand and gravel streambanks cave in steep slopes Chimneys crack to great extent; vwalls cradk Most masonry and frame structures are somewhat destroyed Plaster and stucco fall in large amounts Buried pipelines are torn apart or crushed Loosened bricks and tiles fall Wavy folds open in concrete pavements and Damage negligible in buildings of seismic asphalt surfaces design .and construction Damage considerable in poorly built buildings VIII People are alarmed People driving vehicles notice the disturbance Trees shake strongly, and branches break off Sand and mud are ejected from the around in small amounts Temporary and permanent changes occur in springs and wells Handout C FEMN Seismic Code Workshop Group Exercise #1: Community Risk at MMI * SAFETY RATING SCALE Don't Know Unsafe Very Safe Built to Current Built to Current Safety Rating ? 5 1 2 3 4 Building Code Specs? Seismic Code Specs? Yiln? y/n'? City Hall Building: Fire Station(s): School(s): Hospital(s): Recent large building(s): Other major cormunity building(s): W-here would you like most to be during an earthquake? Where would you like least to be during an earthquake? Handout D Seismic Code Workshop FEM1A Purpose and History of Building Codes * Comprehensive building regula- Building codes regulate building tions were introduced in the mid- construction and use in order to 1800s. Building regulations were of protect the safety of occupants. two types: housing codes and Codes address structural integrity building codes. Housing codes were fire resistance, safe exits, lighting, and ventilation. Codes also regulate intended to reduce the ill effects of residential overcrowding, and their construction materials. introduction paralleled Europe's Building codes d.assify structures housing and sanitation reform. New by use and apply different standards York City in the late 1850s adopted a to each classification. For -example, citywide housing code in order to office buildings and residential provide air and light into dwellings multi-unit buildings are in separate and reduce the risk of fatal hazards. categories with different perfor- Chicago followed by passing its mance (such as strength and stabil- initial tenement housing ordinance ity) requirements. in 1874. Building codes were later enacted to comprehensively specify The validity of building codes is construction methods and materials. based on state police powers, which allow regulation of activities and In 1905 the National Board of Fire property to preserve or promote the Underwriters published a model public health, safety, and general building law aimed at reducing fire welfare. Zoning ordinances and risks. The three model building environmental protection regula- codes used today were initiated tions are also founded in police between 1927 and 1940. The use of powers. codes spread with the growth of new building across the country Building Codes Have a Long particularly after World Wadr II. By History in the U.S. 1960 more than 60 percent of Ameri- Building codes to reduce the loss of can municipalities had adopted building codes. life, limb, and property have existed in North America since the seven- teenth century The -earliestbuilding regulations addressed problems resulting from dense urban con- struction, such as rapid spread of fire. New York City, then called New Amsterdam, first regulated chim- neys and roofing material in 1648. These regulations were aimed at controlling the destructive force of fire in urban areas, as evidenced by London's 1666 fire, New York's 1835 and 1845 fires, and the great Chicago fire of 1871. Handout E Seismic Code Workshop FEW Model Building Codes A model building code is a document public to propose code amendments and hear testimony in meetings containing standardized building organized by the organization, so requirements applicable throughout the United States. Model building members and nonmembers are equal Building Officials and Code participants. Active members of each codes are performance standards Administrators International, organization vote on revisions after specifying the required performance Inc. (BOCA). BOCA, headquar- final testimony is heard during their of all structures. They are published tered in Country Club Hills, by private organizations, whose annual meeting. The content of the Illinois, was formed in 1915. Its voting members are government codes has become more similar over first code, the Basic Building Code time, although they still address jurisdictions. The United States has nowv titled the BOCA ational three prominent model building code regional conditions and practices. Buildbig Code (BNBC), was The newest versions reflect a com- organizations: the International published in 1950 in an attempt to Conference of Building Officials mon code format so that similar standardize existing codes. The (ICBO), Which publishes the Uniform topics can be found in consistently BNBC is revised every three numbered chapters among the codes. Building Code (LIC); the Building years, most recently in 1996, with a new edition due out in 1999. Officials and Code Administrators Although the code organizations International, Inc. (BOCA), which have widespread membership, each International Conference of publishes the BOCA NVatlsoal Building Building Officials (ICBO). ICBO organization's model building code Code (BN\TBC); and the Southern weas formed in 1922 to integrate is predominantly adopted in one Building Code Congress Interna- various design requirements into portion of the United States. The tional, Inc. (SBCCI7, which publishes one code. ICBO published its first BINBC is predominantly adopted in the Standard Building Code (SBC). model code, the Uiniforn Building the northeast and north central Each organization also publishes Code UBC), in 1927 from its states, the SBC predominates in the companion documents covering headquarters in 'Whittier, Califor- southern states east of the M/4issis- mechanical work, plumbing, fire nia. ICBO up dates the UBC every sippi, and the UJBC is predominant in protection, electrical w rork, energv, three years. The latest edition was the western states, including Guam. accessibility, and life safety codes. published in 1994. In addition, BOCA, ICBO, and In addition to writing and up dat- Southern Building Code Con- SBCCI have moved forward on the ing the codes, the organizations offer gress International, Inc. (SBCCI). development of a single model code, a variety of support services, includ- The third model building code the International Building Code. On ing such technical services as training organization, the SECCI was December 9, 1994, the International seminars, code interpretation, founded in 1940. Located in Code Council (ICC) was formed to technical and administrative publica- Birmingham, Alabama, it pub- develop a single set of comprehen- tions, customized consulting, videos, lishes the Standard Buildhing Code sive and coordinated national codes. and softwiare. Each organization (SBC). The SBC is updated every The advantages of a single code are three years, most recently in 1994. offers certification programs to allow numerous. Code enforcement skilled inspectors and plan review ers officials, architects, engineers, Council of American Building to be recognized for their levels of Officials (CABO). CABO was designers, and contractors can have knowledge and experience. For founded in 1972 by BOCA, ICBO, consistent requirements that can be example, BOCA offers certification and SBCCI. The One- and Tim- used across the country and around by examination in tw-enty-twTo Family Dwvellbing Code applies to the world. Manufacturers can put categories and ICBO in nineteen the construction, prefabrication, their efforts into innovative products, categories. SBCCI offers four levels of alteration, repair, use, occupancy7 instead of designing for all three certification in various categories to and maintenance of detached one- regional codes. To date, the ICC has encourage professional growth or tw,,o-family dwellings and one- produced codes that address plumb- through progressive levels of certifi- family town houses not more than ing and private sewage disposal. The cation. three stories in height goal is for the complete family of international codes to be developed The model building codes are by the year 2000. revised periodically by a democratic process. Each organization allowLNs the Handout F Seismic Code Workshop, FEMA Purpose of Seismic Code Provisions Valley in January 1994, and build- Seismic Codes Are Designed to ings performed generally as ex- Help Buildings Resist Earth-quake pected. Shaking It is important to understand that Seismic Codes Reflect Social seismic codes result in earthquake- Judgments RegardingAcceptable resistantbuildings rather than Risk and Cost earthquake-proof buildings. Their purpose is to protect life safety by Seismic design standards reflect preventing building collapse and society's balancing of the risks allowing for safe evacuation. The versus the costs of designing to contents and interiors of buildings, withstand that risk. They do this in even those of well-designed build- twNTo ways: by designing for (a) an ings, may receive extensive damage, appropriate-sized e-vent and (b) an and entire functions of a building appropriate performance goal. may cease. And structural damage Society cannot justify the expense of may occur from major earthquake designing for large but highly ground-shaking. According to the improbable events. So we select a Structural Engineers Association of ground motion event-called the California, structures built according design event-that although large to a seismic code should: and rare has a reasonable chance (10 percent) of being exceeded during a * resist minor earthquakes building's lifetime (50 years). The undamaged, probability selected reflects society's * resist moderate earthquakes attitude toward risk. This is similar without significant structural to the philosophy long used for damage even though incurring flood protection: Society is willing to nonstructural damage, and absorb the cost of designing for a 100-year flood, but with the excep- * resist severe earthquakes without tion of critical facilities it would not collapse. make economic sense to design for Occasionally even a code-designed the 5OC-year or 1,000-year flood. building may collapse due to unique The goal of seismic codes is to site conditions or other factors. A ensure that buildings will not report completed by the Earthquake collapse, thereby killing those Engineering Research Institute inside, if shaken by the design event. (EERI) just prior to the Northridge, Seismic codes are for "life safety" California, earthquake summarized and are not aimed at completely expected earthquake damage to preventing damage to existing buildings designed according to the buildings. Additionally, it is impor- 1991 UBC. It stated, for example, tant to realize that there is a 10 that shaking of Intensity NMII could percent chance of an earthquake cause moderate damage (easily occurring that exceeds the design repairable) to 10 to 30 percent of event. code-designed buildings, and extensive damage Gongg-termn closure, difficult to repair) to Uto 5 percent of code-designed buildings. This was the intensity lev,el experi- enced by much of the San Femando Handout G FEMA FEMSA, Seismnic Code Workshop Seismic Code Seismic Codes Are Effective * construct houses providing for life buildings are not designed for Seismic CodesAre Effective safety in earthquakes at a very seismic shaking. A Magnitude 5.6 Experience with recent earthquakes reasonable added cost-less than 1 earthquake in 1993 at Scotts hMills, in the United States and throughout percent of the purchase price of a Oregon, caused significant structural the world shows that seismic codes new home in most instances." damage to a number of unreinforced work. Cities with seismic codes masonry (brick) buildings in the suffer much less damage than those All Three Mode) Codes Contain area. A high school building was without such codes. significantly damaged and vacated, Seismic Requirements 16 residences and 54 businesses Appropriate to the Community's The Loma Prieta earthquake sustained major damage, and the clearly illustrates the effectiveness of Level of Risk Oregon State Capitol, in Salem, seismic codes. Occurring on October Each model code contains a seismic suffered cracking in the rotunda. The 17,1989, this earthquake measured hazard map, based on current estimated damage cost to public 7.1 on the Richter scale and was the scientific knowledge. Its risk phi- facilities alone was nearly $13 strongest in the United States since losophy is accepted by a broad million. This earthquake confirmed the 1964 Alaskan earthquake. It consensus of scientists and design the susceptibility of unreinforced shook the San Francisco Bay Area and construction professionals. Its buildings to severe damage, even in and killed sixty-three people. use in seismic design was deter- a minor earthquake. Although the ground-shaking was mined by a nationwide consensus intense vithin the metropolitan process conducted by the Building area, few buildings collapsed. Most Seismic Codes Are Inexpensive Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), an of the damage occurred to organization of more than fifty Seismic codes add relatively little to unreinforced masonry buildings construction, professional, and trade the costs of a structure. To assess the built before the adoption of seismic organizations. costs of the INational Earthquake codes. Nearly all major reinforced Hazard Reduction Program (OVEHRP) Portions of thirty-nine states are concrete structures built after World Seismfic Provisions,the BSSC in 1985 considered to have some degree of War 11 survived without collapse. contracted seventeen design firms earthquake hazard. So-me counties Even at the quake's epicenter new from nine U.S. cities to perform two need to design for high levels of buildings and buildings located on designs for each of several typical earthquake ground-shaking, firm ground suffered little damage. building types, first using the Whereas others should design for Informed observers attribute the existing local code and then using relatively less. Conversely, some success to the required UBC seismic the seismic provisions. They found areas, even those with seismic codes, codes. This example illustrates that the average increase in total costs to do not need seismic design at all code requirements reduced the be 0.7 percent for low-rise residential because the risks are so low. damage and loss of life during this buildings, 3.3 percent for high-rise moderate earthquake. Since 1992 all three model codes residential buildings, 1.3 percent for require seismic design standards office buildings, 0.5 percent for A Kyoto University study of the consistent with the IVERP Prov- industrial buildings, and 1.7 percent 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, sions. ICBO has long been a leader in for commercial buildings. Cities Richter magnitude 6.9, found that seismic code development BOCA with previous seismic design damage to reinforced concrete incorporated the 1988 NEHRP provisions in their codes averaged buildinrgs closely paralleled im- Previsionsinto the 1992 BOCA much smaller cost increases (0.9 provements to seismic provisions in Supplement; and SBCCI for the first the Japanese building code. More percent) than did cities wvith no time incorporated seismic design seismic codes at all. than 55 percent of pre-1970 build- provisions in the 1992 amendments ings (old version of code) were A 1992 study by the National to the SBC. Thus, all communities severely damaged, compared with Association of Home Builders that adopt the most recent editions no post-1980 buildings (newest (NAUB) for the Insurance Research of these codes have the most version of code). Results for steel Council examined the incremental advanced seismic codes available. buildings were comparable. costs of building single-family residences to 1991 NEHRP Provi- Even smaller earthquakes can sions. They found that "builders can cause extensive damage where Handout H FEMA FENVI Seismicc Code Workshop Worksh~op iSeismil Seismic Codes Are Inexpensive * Studies Indicate That the Benefits Seismic codes add relatively little to Outweigh the Costs the costs of a structure. To assess the costs of the Nationial Earthquak-e A few studies have attempted to (NEHRP) HazardReduction Program? look at the costs and benefits of Provisions,the BSSC in 1985 Seismnic seismic design provisions. The contracted seventeen design firmns studies generally indicate that the from nine U.S. cities to perform two costs of seismic-resistant construc- designs for each of several typical tion are justified. building types, first using the A 1992 study, Physical Damage and existing local code and then using Humian Loss: The Economfic lImpact of the seismic provisions. They found EarthquakeMitigation A'easures, the average increase in total costs to funded by the National Committee be 0.7 percent for low-rise residen- on Property Insurance (nowse IBHS), tial buildings, 3.3 percent for high- analyzed the estimated costs and rise residential buildings, 1.3 percent benefits of seismic building codes for office buildings, 0.5 percent for for Memphis, Tennessee, assuming industrial buildings, and 1.7 percent damage from magnitude 6 and 8 for commercial buildings. Cities earthquakes in the southern New with previous seismic design Madrid fault zone. It found that provisions in their codes averaged benefits exceed costs by a factor of much smaller cost increases (0.9 1.8 for the magnitude 6 event and percent) than did cities with no 10.3 for the magnitude 8 event. seismic codes at all.- Moreover, the b enefit-cost ratio A 1992 study by the National avreraged over a forty-year time Association of Home Builders horizon, accounting for the expected (NAHB) for the Insurance Research probability of earthquakes in that Council examined the incremental time period, was estimated at 3.3. costs of building single-family Thus, the expected damage over residences to 1991 N\/EHRP Provi- forty years is more than three times sions. They found that "builders can greater than the costs of building to construct houses providing for life code. Furthermore, the benefits are safety in earthquakes at a very underestimated because they do not reasonable added cost-less than 1 account for the benefits of reducing percent of the purchase price of a fatalities, injuries, fire potential, or new home in most instances." economic losses. This recent study provides valuable analytic support Costs of seismic design can vary. to the claim that seismic building It is easier to provide seismic design codes are cost-effective, even in the for simple-shaped structures, with central United States. basic geometric shapes such as a square, and cheaper to do it if seismic considerations are inte- grated into the earliest stages of building design. In certain situa- tions, the costs for the structure are relatively small in proportion to the total project costs. This occurs if the project has expensive contents or high land values. If this is the case, the cost of seismic-resistant design Handout I Seismic Code Workshop FEMIA Group Exercise #2: Responding to Arguments Against Seismic Codes 1. list the local arguments against seismic codes: 2. How might you respond? 3. Who is likely to oppose having seismic codes? 4. Who is likely to support having seismic codes? Handoutj Seismic Code Workshop FENLA Arguments in Favor of Seismic Codes * For elected officials: A damaging In a 1994 telephone survey of things: (a) a community -willnot be earthquake can occur during your residents in six hurricane-prone at an economic disadvantage for term of office. The levels of ground- areas, 91 percent of respondents attracting new business and (b) if shaking represented on the code's indicated that builders should be other communities adopt seismic seismic hazard map have a 0.8 required to follow new, stricter provisions, those that do not have percent chance of occurring in any building codes even though it might this safeguard in place invite four-year period at each point on the add 5 percent to the cost of a home. liability map (such as the community in Codes will not hurt business. It's easy. It doesn't take much to question),-and about a 2 percent Building codes have not hurt the start. Call up a code organization, chance of occurring in any eight- economies of the forty-one states buy the code, develop a fee structure year period. But these are the design that have them, nor have they hurt (to pay for administration, and eveents. What about a lesser earth- the 95 percent of all U.S. cities and contract with the county or another quake? An earthquake half as big as towns that have codes. Seismic nearby agency for initial staffing. the design event could cause severe design adds only approximately 1 to damage to many structures not It's good for the community. 1.5 percent to the cost of a building, meeting the code and little damage AWVith a seismic code, residents will according to a 1985 Building Seismic to structures built according to know that the community is on its Safety Council (BSSC) study. seismic code. Such an event has ivray to seismic safety. The code will about a 4 percent chance of occur- Is there a chance that local reduce long-tern liability costs. A ring in any four-year period and buildings will be shaken by an good -codemay ultimately improve about an 8 percent chance in an earthquake at some point? An the community's insurance rating. A eight-year period. earthquake can devastate the small seismic code is not an admission of businesses in a comnuunity. Foliow- community veakness, but rather a For elected officials: Citizens ing the 1994 Northridge, California sign of community strength. It says support seismic codes. Studies in earthquake, thousands of small that the community values safety California and the central United businesses had to relocate or. tempo- takes itself seriously, and wants to States have shown that most citizens rarily shut dowvn. Such interruptions survive natural disaster. All commu- support seismic building codes, and can be fatal to small businesses. nities need a seismic code regardless that elected officials underestimate Simply the loss of business activity of hazard. Seismic codes supplied by this support. For example, in 1984 can affect neighboring businesses the building code organizations Arizona State University surveyed that are fortunate to survive the account for the unique level of residents and officials in the high earthquake ground-shaking. hazard in each community. If a seismic risk area surrounding the community's hazard is low , the code New Mfadrid fault zone. The survey A seismic code will improve will reflect that. The seismic hazard found that 62 percent of residents successful survival of the next zone map is based on the latest believed that seismic building codes earthquake. People will live and national scientific evaluation of for new structures are "very impor- work in these buildings. Codes earthquake risk, representing the tant,' and most supported codes work. Look at the evidence of consensus of a number of scientific even if substantial costs would be relatively low loss of life in the and professional organizations. The involved. In contrast support by earthquakes in California in 1989 code requirements for each commu- community leaders was much lower and 1994. Either a community is nity reflect that estimate of hazard. at 37 percent. Furthermore, other designed to survive the next earth- studies have shown that community quake, or it is not. leaders greatly underestimate the Everyone else is doing it. The public's concerns about earth- federal government has set an quakes, mistakenly believing public example with Executive Order concern to be less than their owvn. 12699. Seismic codes are becoming more prevalent at all levels of governrment, w'hich means two Handorat K FEWL Seismic Code Workshop Enforcing the Seismic Code:A Critical Link * not enforcing their own code Poor Code Enforcement Results standards for wind resistance. in Deficient Buildings Recent studies following Hurricanes Following Hurricane Andrew, reports by a Dade County grand Hugo and Andrew have shown jury and by the Federal Insurance weaknesses in code enforcement. In 1991 State Farm Insurance Company Administration concluded that a substantial portion of the storm's contracted with SBCCI to evaluate damage was attributable to lack of code compliance in twelve ran- enforcement of the South Florida domly selected coastal communities. Building Code. According to the They found that inspectors and Insurance Services Office, Inc., at reviewers had little Or no training in least one-fourth of the record $15.5 wind-resistant construction and that billion in insured losses caused by there was a general lack of enforce- Andrew were because of construc- ment of adequate connections of tion that failed to meet Dade windovs, doors, and mechanical County's code. Thus, even in equipment to the building frame. About half of the communities were communities with adequate codes, significant damage can be attributed to poor compliance and enforce- -- t-.I.34 - 4 4 .3 ment. Insurers and lenders have begun to realize that adoption and enforcement In a 1993 study, G.G. Schierle -of of building codes in general, and seismic codes in particular, are in their the University of Southern Califor- long-term interest. Accordingly, in 1995 the Insurance Services Office, nia found significant problems in Commercial Risk Services (ISO/CRS) began to phase in a new Building quality control of seismic-resistant Code-Effectiveness Grading Schedule. By the end of the decade, this construction in California. By means schedule will rate the code-enforcement capabilities of every municipality of a survey of design professionals in the United States. and site inspection of 143 projects, the researchers found that key items The insurance industry is developing this new grading schedule to to resist seismic load are frequently reward communities for promoting property and life safety protection (13 to 72 percent of surveyed units) through the use and enforcement of modem codes. The system will be used missing or flawed. Reasons indlude by property insurers to set differential rates among communities based on "inadequate communication, little or code-enforcement practices. Property owners in communities with good code enforcement will pay lower insurance premiums-and owners in no construction observation by communities ivith poor enforcement will pay more. design professionals, ignorance, greed, shortsighted false economy, The grading schedule measures resources and support available to and lack of scrutiny by building building code enforcement efforts. It assesses each municipality's support inspectors." for code enforcement, plan reviewv, and field inspection. The grading process includes interviews with municipal officials, examination of Clearly, much effort needs to be documents, review of training requirements and work schedules, staffing spent on improving code enforce- levels, and certification of staff members. ment. The weaknesses become apparent only at the moment when The new system is comparable to the fire protection grading system and resistance is most needed-when the community rating system for flood insurance already used by ISO/'CRS. the disaster strikes. These two systems use a rating scale of one to ten, with one representing the best protection and ten indicating no protection. For more information, contact the coordinating body, the Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction. Handout L Seism~ic Code Workshop FEMA1 Five Elements of Effective Code Enforcement Code enforcement and administra- the engineers and architects to Element 3: Have a Qualified tion consist of five sequential Reviewer Review Plans oversee key aspects of the construc- elements. tion in order to help verify compli- Plan review is one of the two points ance with the plans. To some extent, at which the local government can Element 1: Keep the Code all government inspection systems affect the details of building con- Provisions UP To Date depend on this obligation by the struction. At a minimum, plan owner, which is inherent in the Simply adopting a code is not review verifies that the design issuance of a permit. enough. A code is an active docu- complies with the building code. ment, evolving to reflect new This is the most cost-effective Element S: Have a Qualified knowledge and new standards of moment to catch mistakes, before Inspector Inspect the practice. Once a jurisdiction makes a any money is spent on construction. Construction commitmnent to use a building code, Some jurisdictions may also review it must be prepared to update its structural calculations. Inspection is the second point at local code on a regular basis. which the local government can Plan reviewers must be fully affect the details of building con- knoxwledgeable about code require- Element 2: Ensure That Builders struction. Inspection verifies ments. Some jurisdictions use Apply for Permits whether construction is proceeding licensed architects and engineers according to the approved plans and Obviously, if builders try to avoid who can go beyond code compli- the conditions of the permit. Irnspec- the code-application process, then ance reviewvr and verify calculations tion is typically required at several the code cannot do its job. A juris- and overall building safety. The key stages in the construction diction must have inspectors out in building department can approve, process. The inspector has a power- the field who know the community. require revisions, or reject the plans. ful enforcement tool called a stop The inspector needs to be alert to Construction cannot begin until the work order. A stop work order is new construction in his Or her building department confirms that issued to the construction firm if the jurisdiction and must be aware of the plans conform to the building inspector finds a code violation that current active permits. code. must be corrected before any further In addition, the building depart- Construction of buildings larger construction is performed. At final ment must cultivate and maintain than one- or two-family dwellings inspection, the building can be cordial relations with the building usually requires architectural and approved for occupancy. and design community. This can be engineering designs. State statutes Depending on the jurisdiction, done by arranging informal meet- require that the licensed professional inspectors may be municipal ings, sending written materials to engineer and/or architect place his employees or contracted trades- local organizations, speaking to or her seal and signature on the people. in either case, building designs. The seal and signature community groups, and maintaining inspectors must be whell qualified. memberships in appropriate trade signify that the design is at the They must know hol rto read and professional organizations. accepted professional standard, building plans and must be familiar which is typically the most recent ea.th the code. More importantly, version of a model building code or they must be familiar with building technical document. practices so they can recognize potential problems. Model code Element 4. Ensure That organizations offer certification Construction Proceeds According programs to recognize the capabili- to Approved Plans ties of inspectors. An owner receives a building permit to construct according to the ap- proved plans, and it is the legal responsibility of the owner to do so. The owner may hire inspectors or Handout M FEMA Seismic Code Workshop Group Exercise #3a: Action Plan to Adopt a Building Code Develop a ten-point action plan that will result in a building code (with current seismic provisions!). for this community: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ifJ. Handout N FEW Seismic Code Workshop Group Exercise #3b: Action Plan to Improve Code Enforcement Develop a ten-point action plan that will result in improved code enforcement for thiS coMmunity: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Handout 0 FEMA Seismic Code Workshop Steps TowardAdopting Seismic Code Provisions Step 3: Lobby the Decision- Step 1: Determine Code Practices Making Body and Options a Explain why the changes are To whatever extent the state e needed and describe the kind of regulates construction, satisfy support you have gathered. yourself that enforcement is adequate. · Gain the support of the · If the state mandates local adop- govemor's office. tion of a specified code, ensure * Consider educational programs that the community has com- or incentive programs that will plied. appeal to governmental officials · If the state does not currently * Consider ways of subsidizing the regulate, or if it allowvs for stricter cost of joining a model building local regulations, gather informa- code organization tion on local code practices and · Monitor the process from explore options at the local level. beginning to end · Options may include developing an original code, modifying an Step 4:Assist Throughout the existing code, or adopting a Adoption, Implenmentation, and model building code. Enforcement Stages If a jurisdiction lacks an adequate E Provide information about code, work to initiate a building seismic hazards in the area, the code. function and effectiveness of seismic codes, elements of code * Model codes are usually the best enforcement, and services pro- option, because of the technical vided by the model code organi- support provided by the code zations organization. Keep informed of implementation a Step 2: Gather Support milestones W ork with state officials V Meet periodically with the e building official(s) *Work with the professional associations of engineers and * Verify that adequate procedures architects have been introduced for plan * Contact ciric groups and service reviewxT, inspection, and staff clubs, relevant businesses and training construction organizations, Inform the building officials of · chambers of commerce, economic any problems development associations, and so forth * Cultivate the media to help educate the general public Handout P FEA'¶A FEMA Seismic Code Workshop Seismic Code Steps for Enforcement of Seismic Codes * electrical and mechanical work and out may prefer to use the fee struc- This section outlines the six steps plumbing. tures suggested by the code organi- toward establishing an effective zations. building code program. Typically, the builder or owner will call for inspection when each Plan review fees typically are Step. I:Adopt a Model Code specified milestone is reached. In based on estimated construction value, which depends on building addition, inspectors occasionally. The first step in establishing a make unannounced inspections' floor area, type of construction, and program is to review^% and adopt a based on their judgment of the work proposed use. For example, under model building code and join the progress and the quality of the the BOCA NBC, the suggested appropriate code Organization. building plan review fee for $1 contractor. Numerous publications and tele- million construction value is $1,250. phone-assistance services will then Step 5: Maintain a Trained, Review for mechanical work, be available to help the new pro- plumbing, energy conservation, or Qualified Staff gram get started. The information electrical work is an additional 25 provided includes organization Ideally some staff members would percent each (i.e., each of these charts, descriptions of staff duties, be licensed engineers and architects, additional reviews, if required, fee structures, suggested proce- but most departments are too small costs $312). dures, and so on. Ne; members to justify this cost. At a minimum, may wevant to take seminars in plan reviewers and inspectors must have Step 3: Institute a Systematic review and inspection before experience in construction, be able officially initiating the code. Plan Review System to read plans, and be familiar with the code. Each of the model building Plans usuallyamust be circulated to NewN, members can request the code organizations offers certifica- several additional departments for model code staff to visit and assist in revie'w, such as the planning, public tion in a number of categories for establishing their program. If inspectors and plan reviewers. More works, and fire departments. It is extensive help is required, the code and more building departments are best to have one department desig- organization may be hired to requiring or rewarding certification nated as the lead and to require provide the needed assistance. It is in order to recognize staff quality multiple plan copies from the easy to get started, because the code applicant so as to facilitate multi- levels. organizations are set up to effec- department reviews. tively and efficiently provide all the Step 6.: Be Persistent But Patient support you need. Applicants should be kept well You need to realize that a new code informed right from the start. Step 2: Establish Fee Structures will not be implemented in one day. Handouts and checklists are very for Permits and Plan Review Adequate enforcement takes many important so that they know what years of -experience and learning materials to submit and how the Building departments collect fees to from mistakes. Procedures evolve plan will be judged. pay for the costs of review, inspec- over time. Building officials, plan tion, and associated administrative reviewers, and inspectors must Step 4:Adopt an Inspection services. The community sets the fee receive technical training and structure based on its needs. Some Schedule continuing education, which cannot communities require the building Each code has a recommended be done overnight. Yet the effort is department to be completely self- inspection schedule based on worth it, as seismic codes afford supporting; others use the fees to construction milestones. For ex- comrmunities a high degree of offset only a portion of their true ample, the BOCA NBC suggests the improved building safety. costs. Communities with significant following inspections for residential experience in code administration buildings: footing forms and can set fees based on previous trenches, basement and foundation budgets. Communities just starting wall forms, footing drains and damp proofing, framing, wallboard, and final. Similar schedules exist for Hondout Q