Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA 354/November 2000
A Policy Guide to
Steel Moment Frame
Construction

DISCLAIMER
This document provides information on the seismic performance of steel moment-frame structures and the
results and recommendations of an intensive research and development program that culminated in a series
of engineering and construction criteria documents. It updates and replaces an earlier publication with the
same title and is primarily intended to provide building owners, regulators, and policy makers with summary
level information on the earthquake risk associated with steel moment-frame buildings, and measures that
are available to address this risk. No warranty is offered with regard to the recommendations
contained herein, either by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the SAC Joint Venture, the
individual Joint Venture partners, or their directors, members or employees or consultants. These
organizations and their employees do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any of the information, products or processes included in
this publication. The reader is cautioned to review carefully the material presented herein and
exercise independent judgment as to its suitability for specific applications. This publication has been
prepared by the SAC Joint Venture with funding provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
under contract number EMW-95-C-4770.
Cover Art. The background photograph on the cover of this guide for Policy Makers is a cityscape of a
portion of the financial district of the City of San Francisco. Each of the tall buildings visible in this
cityscape is a steel moment-frame building. Similar populations of these buildings exist in most other
American cities and many thousands of smaller steel moment-frame buildings are present around the
United States as well. Until the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many engineers regarded these buildings as
highly resistant to earthquake damage. The discovery of unanticipated fracturing of the steel framing
following the 1994 Northridge earthquake shattered this belief and called to question the safety of these
structures.
A Policy Guide to
Steel Moment-frame Construction
SAC Joint Venture
a partnership of:
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
Applied Technology Council (ATC)
California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe)
Prepared for SAC Joint Venture by
Ronald O. Hamburger
Project Oversight Committee
William J. Hall, Chair
Shirin Ader
John M. Barsom
Roger Ferch
Theodore V. Galambos
John Gross
James R. Harris
Richard Holguin
Nestor Iwankiw
Roy G. Johnston
Len Joseph
Duane K. Miller
John Theiss
John H. Wiggins
SAC Project Management Committee
SEAOC: William T. Holmes
ATC: Christoper Rojahn
CUREe: Robin Shepherd
Program Manager: Stephen A. Mahin
Project Director for Topical Investigations:
James O. Malley
Project Director for Product Development:
Ronald O. Hamburger
SAC Joint Venture
Structural Engineers Association of California
www.seaoc.org
Applied Technology Council
www.atcouncil.org
California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
www.curee.edu
November, 2000
THE SAC JOINT VENTURE
SAC is a joint venture of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the Applied
Technology Council (ATC), and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe),
formed specifically to address both immediate and long-term needs related to solving performance
problems with welded, steel moment-frame connections discovered following the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. SEAOC is a professional organization composed of more than 3,000 practicing structural
engineers in California. The volunteer efforts of SEAOC’s members on various technical committees
have been instrumental in the development of the earthquake design provisions contained in the Uniform
Building Code and the 1997 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. ATC is a nonprofit
corporation founded to develop structural engineering resources and applications to mitigate the effects of
natural and other hazards on the built environment. Since its inception in the early 1970s, ATC has
developed the technical basis for the current model national seismic design codes for buildings; the defacto
national standard for post earthquake safety evaluation of buildings; nationally applicable guidelines
and procedures for the identification, evaluation, and rehabilitation of seismically hazardous buildings; and
other widely used procedures and data to improve structural engineering practice. CUREe is a nonprofit
organization formed to promote and conduct research and educational activities related to earthquake
hazard mitigation. CUREe’s eight institutional members are the California Institute of Technology,
Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at Davis, the
University of California at Irvine, the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of California at
San Diego, and the University of Southern California. These university earthquake research laboratory,
library, computer and faculty resources are among the most extensive in the United States. The SAC
Joint Venture allows these three organizations to combine their extensive and unique resources,
augmented by consultants and subcontractor universities and organizations from across the nation, into
an integrated team of practitioners and researchers, uniquely qualified to solve problems related to the
seismic performance of steel moment-frame structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for Phases I and II of the SAC Steel Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of Steel
Moment-Frame Structures was principally provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with
ten percent of the Phase I program funded by the State of California, Office of Emergency Services.
Substantial additional support, in the form of donated materials, services, and data has been provided by
a number of individual consulting engineers, inspectors, researchers, fabricators, materials suppliers and
industry groups. Special efforts have been made to maintain a liaison with the engineering profession,
researchers, the steel industry, fabricators, code-writing organizations and model code groups, building
officials, insurance and risk-management groups, and federal and state agencies active in earthquake
hazard mitigation efforts. SAC wishes to acknowledge the support and participation of each of the above
groups, organizations and individuals. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the contributions provided by
the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Lincoln Electric Company, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, and the Structural Shape Producers
Council. SAC also takes this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the project participants – the
managers, investigators, writers, and editorial and production staff – whose work has contributed to the
development of these documents. Finally, SAC extends special acknowledgement to Mr. Michael
Mahoney, FEMA Project Officer, and Dr. Robert Hanson, FEMA Technical Advisor, for their continued
support and contribution to the success of this effort.
1
INTRODUCTION
The Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994,
caused widespread building damage throughout
some of the most heavily populated communities
of Southern California including the San
Fernando Valley, Santa Monica and West Los
Angeles, resulting in estimated economic losses
exceeding $30 billion. Much of the damage
sustained was quite predictable, occurring in
types of buildings that engineers had previously
identified as having low seismic resistance and
significant risk of damage in earthquakes. This
included older masonry and concrete buildings,
but not steel framed buildings. Surprisingly,
however, a number of modern, welded, steel,
moment-frame buildings also sustained
significant damage. This damage consisted of a
brittle fracturing of the steel frames at the welded
joints between the beams (horizontal framing
members) and columns (vertical framing
members). A few of the most severely damaged
buildings could readily be observed to be out-ofplumb
(leaning to one side). However, many of
the damaged buildings exhibited no outward
signs of these fractures, making damage
detection both difficult and costly. Then, exactly
one year later, on January 17, 1995, the city of
Kobe, Japan also experienced a large
earthquake, causing similar unanticipated
damage to steel moment-frame buildings.
Following discovery of hidden damage in
Los Angeles area buildings, the potential for
similar, undiscovered damage in San
Francisco and other communities affected by
past earthquakes was raised.
Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando
Valley. Many of these buildings had hidden
damage.
Prior to the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe
earthquakes, engineers believed that steel
moment-frames would behave in a ductile
manner, bending under earthquake loading, but
not breaking. As a result, this became one of
the most common types of construction used for
major buildings in areas subject to severe
earthquakes. The discovery of the potential for
fracturing in these frames called to question the
adequacy of the building code provisions dealing
with this type of construction and created a crisis
of confidence around the world. Engineers did
not have clear guidance on how to detect
damage, repair the damage they found, assess
the safety of existing buildings, upgrade
buildings found to be deficient or design new
steel moment-frame structures to perform
adequately in earthquakes. The observed
damage also raised questions as to whether
buildings in cities affected by other past
earthquakes had sustained similar undetected
damage and were now weakened and potentially
hazardous. In fact, some structures in the San
Francisco Bay area have been discovered to
have similar fracture damage most probably
dating to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
In response to the many concerns raised by
these damage discoveries, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
sponsored a program of directed investigation
and development to identify the cause of the
damage, quantify the risk inherent in steel
structures and develop practical and effective
2
engineering criteria for mitigation of this risk.
FEMA contracted with the SAC Joint Venture, a
partnership of the Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC), a
professional association with more than 3,000
members; the Applied Technology Council
(ATC), a non-profit foundation dedicated to the
translation of structural engineering research into
state-of-art practice guidelines; and the
California Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering (CUREe), a consortium
of eight California universities with
comprehensive earthquake engineering
research facilities and personnel. The resulting
FEMA/SAC project was conducted over a period
of 6 years at a cost of $12 million and included
the participation of hundreds of leading
practicing engineers, university researchers,
industry associations, contractors, materials
suppliers, inspectors and building officials from
around the United States. These efforts were
coordinated with parallel efforts conducted by
other agencies, including the National Science
Foundation and National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), and with concurrent
efforts in other nations, including a large
program in Japan. In all, hundreds of tests of
material specimens and large-scale structural
assemblies were conducted, as well as
thousands of computerized analytical
investigations.
As the project progressed, interim guidance
documents were published to provide practicing
engineers and the construction industry with
important information on the lessons learned, as
well as recommendations for investigation,
repair, upgrade, and design of steel momentframe
buildings. Many of these
recommendations have already been
incorporated into recent building codes. This
project culminated with the publication of four
engineering practice guideline documents.
These four volumes include state-of-the-art
recommendations that should be included in
future building codes, as well as guidelines that
may be applied voluntarily to assess and reduce
the earthquake risk in our communities.
This policy guide has been prepared to provide a
nontechnical summary of the valuable
information contained in the FEMA/SAC
publications, an understanding of the risk
associated with steel moment-frame buildings,
and the practical measures that can be taken to
reduce this risk. It is anticipated that this guide
will be of interest to building owners and tenants,
members of the financial and insurance
industries, and to government planners and the
building regulation community.
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 353 / July, 2000
Recommended Seismic
Design Criteria For
New Steel Moment-
Frame Buildings
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 352 /July, 2000
Recommended Seismic
Design Criteria For
New Steel Moment-
Frame Buildings
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 351 /July, 2000
Recommended Seismic
Design Criteria For
New Steel Moment-
Frame Buildings
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 350 / July, 2000
Recommended Seismic
Design Criteria For
New Steel Moment-
Frame Buildings
FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic Design
Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame
Buildings
FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluation
and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded
Steel Moment-Frame Buildings
FEMA 352 Recommended Post-earthquake
Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded
Steel Moment-Frame Buildings
FEMA 353 Recommended Specifications and
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel
Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic
Applications
3
AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
What is a steel moment-frame building?
All steel-framed buildings derive basic structural
support for the building weight from a skeleton
(or frame) composed of horizontal steel beams
and vertical steel columns. In addition to being
able to support vertical loads, including the
weight of the building itself and the contents,
structures must also be able to resist lateral
(horizontal) forces produced by wind and
earthquakes. In some steel frame structures,
this lateral resistance is derived from the
presence of diagonal braces or masonry or
concrete walls. In steel moment-frame
buildings, the ends of the beams are rigidly
joined to the columns so that the buildings can
resist lateral wind and earthquake forces without
the assistance of additional braces or walls.
This style of construction is very popular for
many building occupancies, because the
absence of diagonal braces and structural walls
allows complete freedom for interior space
layout and aesthetic exterior expression.
Columns
Beams
Beam/
Column
Connection
Vertical
Force
Lateral
Force
A steel moment-frame is an assembly of
beams and columns, rigidly joined together
to resist both vertical and lateral forces.
Construction of a modern steel frame
building in which the ends of beams are
rigidly joined to columns by welded
connections.
Are all steel moment-frame buildings
vulnerable to the type of damage that
occurred in the Northridge earthquake?
The steel moment-frame buildings damaged in
the 1994 Northridge earthquake are a special
type, known as welded steel moment-frames
(WSMF). This is because the beams and
columns in these structures are connected with
welded joints. WSMF construction first became
popular in the 1960s. In earlier buildings, the
connections between the beams and columns
were either bolted or riveted. While these older
buildings also may be vulnerable to earthquake
damage, they did not experience the type of
connection fractures discovered following the
Northridge earthquake. Generally, welded steel
moment-frame buildings constructed in the
period 1964-1994 should be considered
vulnerable to this damage. Buildings
constructed after 1994 and incorporating
connection design and fabrication practices
recommended by the FEMA/SAC program are
anticipated to have significantly less vulnerability.
4
What does the damage consist of?
The damage discovered in WSMF buildings
consists of a fracturing, or cracking, of the
welded connections between the beams and
columns that form the frame, or skeleton, of the
structure. This damage occurs most commonly
at the welded joint between a column and the
bottom flange of a beam. Once a crack has
started, it can continue in any of several different
patterns and in some cases has been found to
completely sever beams or columns.
Steel backing
Column flange
Beam bottom flange
Weld
Fracture
Column flange
Beam bottom
flange
Damage consists of fractures or cracks that
initiate in the welded joints of the beams to
columns.
Damage ranges from small cracks that are
difficult to see, to much larger cracks. Here,
a crack began at the weld and progressed
into the column flange, withdrawing a divot
of material.
What does the damage look like?
There are several common types of damage,
each of which looks somewhat different. The
most common cracks initiate in the weld itself or
just next to the weld. These cracks often are
very thin and difficult to see. In a few cases,
cracks cannot be seen at all. In some cases,
cracks cause large scoop-like pieces of the
column flange, called divots, to be pulled out. In
still other cases, the cracks run across the entire
column, practically dividing it into two
unconnected pieces.
What is the effect of the damage?
WSMF buildings rely on the connections
between their beams and columns to resist wind
and earthquake loads. When the welded joints
that form these connections break, the building
loses some of the strength and stiffness it needs
to resist these loads. The magnitude and
significance of this capacity loss depends on the
unique design and construction attributes of
each building, as well as the extent and type of
damage sustained. Few buildings were
damaged so severely in the Northridge
earthquake that they represented imminent
collapse hazards. However, significant
weakening of some buildings did occur. Once
the welded joints fracture, other types of damage
can also occur including damage to bolted joints.
Damage that results in the complete severing of
beams or columns or their connections poses a
serious problem and could result in the potential
for localized collapse.
Fracturing of welded connections can lead to
damage to the bolted connections that hold
the beams onto the columns, creating
potential for localized collapse.
5
Why did this damage occur?
We now understand that the vulnerability of
WSMF structures is a result of a number of interrelated
factors. Early research, conducted in the
1960s and 70s suggested that a particular style
of connection could perform adequately.
Designers then routinely began to specify this
connection in their designs. However, the
particular style of connection tends to
concentrate high stresses at some of the
weakest points in the assembly, and in fact,
some of the early research showed some
potential vulnerability. As the cost of
construction labor increased, relative to the price
of construction materials, engineers adopted
designs that minimized the number of
connections in each building, resulting in larger
members and increased loads on the
connections. At the same time, the industry
adopted a type of welding that could be used to
make these connections more quickly, but
sometimes resulted in welds that were more
susceptible to cracking. Although building codes
required that inspectors ensure the quality of this
welding, the inspection techniques and
procedures used were often not adequate.
Finally, the steel industry found new ways to
economically produce structural steel with higher
strength. Although the steel became stronger,
designers were unaware of this and continued to
specify the same connections. Often, these
connections did not have adequate strength to
match the newer steel material and were
therefore, even more vulnerable. In the end, the
typical connections used in WSMF buildings
were just not adequate to withstand the severe
demands produced by an earthquake.
Fractures commonly initiate at the welded
joint of the beam bottom flange to column.
Beam
Column
Welds
The typical connection used prior to 1994.
Severe stress concentrations inherent in its
configuration were not considered in the
design.
How widespread was this damage?
Although no comprehensive survey of all of the
steel buildings affected by the Northridge
earthquake has been conducted, the City of Los
Angeles did enact an ordinance that required
mandatory inspection of nearly 200 buildings in
areas that experienced the most intense ground
shaking. Initial reports from this mandatory
inspection program erroneously indicated that
nearly every one of these buildings had
experienced damage and in some cases, that
this damage was extensive. It was projected
that perhaps thousands of buildings had been
damaged. It is now known that damage was
much less widespread than originally thought
and that many of the conditions that were
originally identified as damage actually were
imperfections in the original construction work.
Of the nearly 200 buildings that were inspected
under the City of Los Angeles ordinance, it now
appears that only about 1/3 had any actual
earthquake damage and that more than 90% of
the total damage discovered occurred within a
small group of approximately 30 buildings.
Therefore, although this damage was significant,
and does warrant a change in the design and
construction practices prevalent prior to 1994, it
appears that the risk of severe damage to
buildings is relatively slight, except under very
intense ground shaking.
6
Engineers expect steel to be ductile, capable
of extensive bending and deformation
without fracturing, as shown in this test
specimen. The development of cracks in the
steel at relatively low levels of loading was
unexpected.
Why was this damage a surprise?
In its basic form, steel is a very ductile material,
able to undergo extensive deformation and
distortion before breaking. This is the type of
behavior desired for earthquake resistance, so
engineers believed WSMF buildings would be
quite earthquake resistant. Following the 1971
San Fernando earthquake, the 1987 Whittier
Narrows earthquake, and the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, there were few reports of significant
damage to steel buildings, especially as
compared to other types of construction,
confirming this general belief. However,
relatively few WSMF buildings were subjected to
severe ground motion in these events. As the
industry’s confidence in the ability of WSMF
buildings to resist earthquake damage grew,
design practice, material production processes
and construction techniques changed, adding
unexpected vulnerability. The 1994 Northridge
earthquake was the first event in which a large
number of recently constructed WSMF buildings
were subjected to strong ground motion.
Have other earthquakes caused similar
damage?
When damaged WSMF buildings were first
discovered following the Northridge earthquake,
there was speculation that this was a result of
some peculiar characteristic of the earthquake
itself or of local design and construction
practices in the Los Angeles region. It has now
been confirmed that similar damage occurred to
some buildings affected by the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake and also the 1992 Landers and Big
Bear earthquakes. In 1995, the Kobe
earthquake resulted in damage to several
hundred steel buildings, and the collapse of 50
older steel buildings. Japanese researchers
have confirmed problems similar to those
experienced in the Northridge earthquake.
Engineering researchers around the world have
recognized this behavior as a common problem
for welded steel moment-frame buildings
designed and constructed using practices
prevalent prior to the Northridge earthquake and
have been working together to find solutions.
Many steel moment-frame buildings were
damaged in the 1995 Kobe earthquake. The
building shown here, lying on its side, is one
of more than 50 older steel buildings that
collapsed.
7
How many WSMF buildings are there?
Thousands of WSMF buildings have been
constructed in all regions of the United States.
One of the factors contributing to the
seriousness of this problem is that WSMF
construction is often used in many of the nation’s
most important facilities, including hospital
buildings, emergency command centers and
other federal, state and local government office
buildings. It is commonly used for commercial
office structures. Most high-rise buildings
constructed in the United States in the last 30
years incorporate this type of construction.
WSMF construction has also frequently been
used for mid-rise and to a lesser extent, low-rise
commercial and institutional construction,
auditoriums and other assembly occupancies,
and has seen limited application in industrial
facilities. It is relatively uncommon in residential
construction, although some high-rise
condominium type buildings are of this
construction type.
Many of the tallest buildings in our major
cities are of WSMF construction.
Are existing WSMF structures safe?
No structure is absolutely safe and, if subjected
to sufficiently large loads, a structure made of
any material will collapse. Building codes in the
United States permit structures to be damaged
by strong earthquakes, but attempt to prevent
collapse for the most severe levels of ground
motion which can be expected at the site. No
WSMF structure in the United States has ever
collapsed as a result of earthquake loading.
However, research conducted as part of the
FEMA/SAC project confirms that WSMF
structures with the style of beam-column
connection typically used prior to the Northridge
earthquake have a higher risk of earthquakeinduced
collapse than desired for new buildings.
How does the risk of WSMF structures
compare to other types of buildings?
Many other types of buildings present much
greater risks of collapse than do WSMF
buildings. Based on observations from past
earthquakes, buildings that present greater risks
include buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction, buildings of concrete and masonry
construction that pre-date the mid-1970s,
buildings of precast concrete construction and
even some types of wood frame construction.
However, many WSMF buildings are large and
house many occupants. The earthquake-induced
collapse of one such structure could result in a
very large and unacceptable life loss.
Older concrete frame, tilt-up and masonry buildings are generally more prone to earthquakeinduced
collapse than WSMF buildings.
8
AFTER THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE
Can one tell if a WSMF building is
damaged?
Some damaged WSMF buildings permanently
lean to one side after an earthquake and have
severe damage to finishes, providing a clear
indication that the building has sustained
structural damage. However, many WSMF
buildings do not exhibit any obvious signs of
damage. To determine if these buildings are
damaged, it is necessary to conduct an
engineering inspection of the framing and
connections. To conduct these inspections, it is
necessary first to remove building finishes and
fireproofing. These inspections can be disruptive
of occupancy and very expensive, ranging from
a few hundred dollars to more than one
thousand dollars per connection. Large
buildings may have several thousand
connections. The presence of asbestos,
sometimes used in fireproofing in buildings
constructed prior to 1979, substantially increases
the inspection costs.
The most severely damaged buildings will
often lean to one side. However, there may
be no obvious indications of the damage in
some buildings.
Is it safe to occupy a damaged building?
If a building is severely damaged, there is a risk
that aftershocks or subsequent strong winds or
earthquakes may cause partial or total collapse
of the building. The more severe the damage,
the higher this risk. Most buildings damaged by
the Northridge earthquake were judged to be
safe for continued occupancy while repairs were
made. FEMA 352 provides engineering
procedures that can be used by building officials
and engineers to quantify the risk associated
with continued occupancy of damaged buildings.
FEMA 352 also provides recommendations as to
when a building should be deemed unsafe for
further occupancy.
How does an owner know if a building is
safe?
Following an earthquake, building departments
will typically perform rapid inspections of affected
buildings to identify buildings that may be
unsafe. Once such an inspection has been
performed, the building department will typically
post the building with a placard that indicates
whether the building is safe for occupancy.
FEMA 352 provides procedures that building
officials can use to conduct these rapid
inspections. If the building department doesn’t
provide this service, building owners can retain
private engineers or inspection firms for this
purpose.
9
Is the building department inspection
enough?
Rapid inspections conducted by building
departments after an earthquake are intended to
identify those buildings at greatest risk of
endangering the public safety. They are not
adequate to detect all damage a building has
sustained. If a building has experienced strong
ground motion, the building owner should retain
an engineer to conduct more thorough
inspections in accordance with FEMA 352, even
if the building department posts the building as
safe.
After an earthquake, is it necessary to
inspect every WSMF building?
The amount of damage sustained by a building
is closely related to the severity of ground motion
at the building site. Unless a building
experiences strong ground motion, it is unlikely
that it will sustain significant damage. FEMA 352
recommends that all buildings thought to have
experienced ground motion in excess of certain
levels be subjected to detailed inspections to
determine if they sustained significant damage.
Because detailed inspections can be time
consuming and costly, FEMA 352 also
recommends that an initial, rapid investigation be
performed to look for obvious signs of severe
damage that could pose an immediate threat to
life safety.
Is it necessary to inspect every
connection in a building?
The only way to ensure that all damage in a
structure is found is to inspect all of the
connections. However, as previously discussed,
connection inspections are costly and disruptive.
Therefore most owners would prefer not to
inspect every connection, if possible. Because
damage tends to be distributed throughout a
structure, it is possible to inspect a sample of the
total number of connections in a building and
make judgments as to how widespread damage
is likely to be throughout the entire building.
FEMA 352 provides recommendations for
selecting an appropriate sample and drawing
conclusions on the condition of the building,
based on the damage found in the sample.
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 352 / July, 2000
Recommended Post-earthquake
Evaluation and Repair Criteria
for Welded Steel Moment-Frame
Buildings
FEMA 352 contains recommended
procedures for identifying earthquake
damage in WSMF buildings and the risk of
continued occupancy.
Is it possible to repair any damaged
building?
It is technically possible to repair almost any
damaged building. However, if a building is
severely damaged, the cost of repair may
exceed the replacement cost. Repair may be
particularly difficult and costly if a building has
experienced large, permanent sideways
displacement, sometimes called drift. In such
cases, the structure may even be unsafe for
occupancy even for repair. In these cases, it
may make more sense to demolish a building
and replace it rather than to repair it. Following
the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the owner of
one building elected to do this.
10
How is the fracture damage repaired?
Each type of fracture requires a somewhat
different repair procedure. FEMA 352 provides
recommendations for many types of repair.
Generally, repairs consist of local removal of the
damaged steel using cutting torches or electric
arcs, and welding new, undamaged material
back in its place. To do this cutting and welding
safely, it is necessary first to remove any
combustible finishes from the work area and
also to provide ventilation to remove potentially
harmful fumes. In some cases, it may be
necessary to provide temporary shoring of the
damaged element while the repair work is done.
These operations are disruptive to normal
occupancy of the immediate work area and also
quite costly. Typical connection repair costs can
range from $10,000 to $20,000. Additional costs
are associated with the temporary loss of use of
floor space during repair operations.
Flange removal and replacement
per Figure 6-6, if required
Weld access holes as required
for weld terminations
FEMA 352 provides detailed repair
procedures for different types of damage.
One repair procedure is shown here as an
example.
11
DEALING WITH THE RISK OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
Is it possible to upgrade an existing
WSMF building?
It is technically feasible to upgrade an existing
steel moment-frame building and improve its
probable performance in future earthquakes.
The most common methods are upgrades of the
individual connections, addition of steel braces,
concrete or masonry walls, or addition of energy
dissipation systems. Each of these approaches
may offer advantages in particular buildings.
Buildings can be upgraded by modifying
connections, adding braces and other
methods.
Connections can be upgraded by welding or
bolting new plates onto the beams and
columns to change the connection shape
and reduce stress concentrations. In some
cases, it may also be appropriate to replace
defective welds and welds with low
toughness with welds with improved
toughness and workmanship.
What is a connection upgrade?
Connection upgrades are the most direct
approach to improving the seismic performance
of an existing steel moment-frame structure. As
previously discussed, existing connections can
fracture because their shape results in the
development of large stress concentrations;
some welds have large defects that reduce their
strength and the weld metal itself may be of low
toughness and unable to resist the large
stresses imposed on it. Connection upgrades
address these problems directly by modifying the
shape of the connection to reduce the stress
concentrations. In addition, depending on the
approach used, the upgrade may include
replacement of defective welds and welds with
low toughness with new welds that have
improved toughness and better workmanship.
FEMA 351 provides information and design
criteria for a number of alternative methods of
upgrading connections.
12
How does the addition of braces or walls
upgrade a building?
Connection fractures occur when the force
delivered by the earthquake exceeds the
connection strength or when connection
elements experience low-cycle fatigue. This is
similar to what happens to a paper clip, when it
is bent back and forth repeatedly. As the metal
is bent back and forth, it dissipates energy, but
also becomes damaged. Eventually, so much
damage occurs that the metal breaks. If a
connection is bent through a large angle of
deformation, or is relatively weak or brittle, it may
only be able to withstand one or two cycles, that
is, be bent back and forth once or twice.
However, if the bending deformation is relatively
small, or if the connection material has high
toughness, the connection may be able to
withstand a number of such cycles.
Earthquakes produce many cycles of motion.
When steel braces or masonry or concrete walls
are added to a building, they stiffen it and reduce
the amount that the building will sway in an
earthquake. This reduces the amount of
bending on the connections. Guidance on the
use of these techniques is already available in
such publications as FEMA-273, NEHRP
Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
and, therefore, is not repeated in FEMA 351.
Energy dissipation systems are typically
installed in buildings as part of a vertical
bracing system that extends between the
building’s floors.
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 351 / July, 2000
Recommended Seismic
Evaluation and Upgrade
Criteria for Existing Welded
Steel Moment-Frame
Buildings
FEMA 351 provides engineering procedures
for evaluating the probable performance of
buildings in future earthquakes. These
procedures address the safety as well as
financial aspects of earthquake performance.
What is an energy dissipation system?
Energy dissipation systems reduce the amount
that buildings sway in an earthquake by
converting the earthquake’s energy into heat.
Several types of energy dissipation devices are
available. One type is a hydraulic cylinder,
similar to the shock absorbers in an automobile.
Other types dissipate energy through friction. In
order for these systems to be effective, one end
of the device must move relative to the other
end. The most common way to do this is to
install the dissipation devices as part of a
bracing system between the building floors. As
the building sways in an earthquake and one
floor moves relative to another, this drives the
device and dissipates the energy as heat.
Detailed guidance on the design of energy
dissipation systems is already available in such
documents as FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings and,
therefore, is not covered in detail in the steel
moment-frame criteria documents.
13
What type of upgrade is best?
No one type of upgrade is best for all buildings.
Basic factors that affect selection of an optimal
alternative include the individual building’s
characteristics, the severity of motion anticipated
at the building site, desired building
performance, cost of the upgrade, the feasibility
of performing upgrade work while the building
remains occupied, and the effect of the upgrade
on building appearance and space utilization.
Addition of diagonal bracing may be the least
costly alternative; however, its effect on building
appearance and functionality may be viewed by
some owners as unacceptable. Addition of
energy dissipation devices will result in better
performance of the building, but may cost more.
Modification of individual connections would
have the least effect on building appearance, but
would inconvenience the existing tenants more
than some other approaches and may cost more
to implement.
How does an owner pick an appropriate
upgrade approach?
To determine the best method of upgrading a
building, an owner should retain an engineer to
evaluate the building’s probable earthquake
performance. An upgrade should be considered
if the probable performance is unacceptable. In
the absence of ordinances that require upgrade
of buildings, it will be necessary for each owner
to decide what constitutes acceptable
performance. The engineer can assist the
owner in understanding the various options.
Once a performance objective is selected, the
engineer can prepare preliminary designs for
various upgrade approaches, together with
estimates of probable construction cost. The
owner can then select the most appropriate
design considering the cost, structural
performance improvements, aesthetics and
other impacts of each upgrade approach on the
building.
Should all existing WSMF buildings be
upgraded?
A building should be upgraded only if the risk of
losses associated with its probable performance
in future earthquakes is deemed unacceptable.
Individual owners may make this judgement, or
in some cases, the local community may decide
that risk is unacceptable. The severity of
earthquake risk associated with a building’s
performance in future earthquakes, as well as
the acceptability of this risk, must be determined
on a building-specific basis. The earthquake
performance of some WSMF buildings housing
critical occupancies and located in zones likely to
experience frequent intense ground motion may
be unacceptable, whereas many other WSMF
buildings will be capable of performing
adequately in the levels of ground motion they
are likely to experience. To determine if a
building should be upgraded, an owner should
retain the services of an engineer to evaluate the
building’s probable performance in future
earthquakes, permitting the owner to balance the
assessed risks against the cost of mitigation.
What is the cost of upgrading a WSMF?
Upgrade costs are dependent on a number of
factors including the upgrade approach selected,
the structural configuration of the building, the
specific seismic deficiencies present, the
severity of earthquake motion used as a basis
for design, the intended performance of the
upgraded building, the building’s occupancy, and
the nature of tenant improvements and
furnishings. Costs can range from about $10
per square foot of building floor area to as much
as $30 or more. This can be compared to the
typical costs associated with new building
construction. Exclusive of the costs of land
acquisition, planning and design, the
construction cost of a new steel frame building
shell will range from about $70 to $125 per
square foot. The cost of tenant improvements,
including interior partitions, ceilings, lighting, and
furnishings can equal the building construction
costs.
14
When is the best time to upgrade?
Much of the cost of performing a seismic
upgrade relates to the need to demolish and
restore architectural finishes and to displace
tenants temporarily from construction work
areas. In many commercial buildings these
costs are incurred on a regular, periodic basis as
leases expire and tenants in a building change.
Therefore, the most economical time to perform
an upgrade is during a change of tenant
occupancy. Most buildings have many tenants
with staggered lease periods. If upgrade work is
to be done when tenant space is being changed
from one leaseholder to the next, it will usually
be necessary to phase the work over a period of
years. If such an approach is taken, the
probable performance of the building in the
event that an earthquake occurs while it is only
partially upgraded should be evaluated for each
of the potential stages of completion, to ensure
that an unsafe condition is not created
inadvertently. Another beneficial time to perform
upgrade work is at the time of property transfer.
If upgrade work is done as part of a building
ownership transfer, financing can include
additional funding to perform the upgrade work.
Is upgrading economically feasible?
The feasibility of an upgrade depends on the
individual economic circumstances of each
building, its tenants and owners. Earthquakes
are infrequent events. Even in areas of high
seismic risk, like California, most buildings will
experience at most only one or perhaps two
damaging earthquakes over their lives. Seismic
upgrades can greatly reduce the financial and
life losses that occur as a result of such
earthquakes. However, because the probability
of occurrence of a damaging earthquake is
usually small, the present value of these avoided
losses rarely exceeds the initial cost of the
upgrade unless there are large life loss or
occupancy interruption costs associated with the
potential damage. If upgrades are performed
concurrently with other building renovation work,
such as remodeling or asbestos removal, the
upgrade work will cost less and produce a more
attractive return on the investment.
How can an owner evaluate a building’s
probable future performance?
To determine the probable performance of a
building in future earthquakes, an owner should
retain an engineer. FEMA 351 provides
structural engineers with several methods for
evaluating the probable performance of buildings
in future earthquakes. These methods include
Simplified Loss Estimation, Detailed Loss
Estimation and Detailed Performance
Evaluation, a procedure that is compatible with
modern performance-based design approaches.
How can an owner tell if a building will
be safe in future earthquakes?
FEMA 351 presents engineering procedures that
can be used to estimate the probability that a
building will experience life-threatening damage
in future earthquakes. The ability of a building to
resist earthquakes without endangering life is
dependent on two primary factors, the capacity
of the building and the intensity of future
earthquake ground motion. It must be
remembered that any building has the potential
to experience life-threatening damage, if it
experiences sufficiently intense ground motion.
In typical regions with significant earthquake risk,
earthquakes that produce low levels of ground
motion may be felt relatively frequently, perhaps
one time every ten to twenty years. Such ground
motion rarely causes damage. Intense ground
motion, capable of causing severe damage to
modern buildings, will occur much less
frequently, perhaps only one time in a few
hundred to a few thousand years. The
procedures of FEMA 351 allow determination of
the probability that a building will experience
either partial or total collapse, if earthquake
ground motion of a specified intensity occurs. To
use this method, the owner and engineer must
agree upon an appropriate return period for the
ground motion to be used as a basis for the
evaluation. The return period is the average
number of years, for example, 100, 500, etc.,
between damage-causing earthquakes.
15
What is the Simplified Loss Estimation
Methodology?
The Simplified Loss Estimation Methodology
contained in FEMA 351 consists of a series of
graphs that indicate the probability that WSMF
buildings will experience various levels of
damage if they are subjected to certain levels of
ground motion. These graphs were compiled
from data obtained for buildings in the Los
Angeles area following the 1994 Northridge
earthquake. To use these graphs, an engineer
must estimate an intensity of ground motion to
which a building will be subjected. Using the
graph, an engineer can obtain an estimate of the
percentage of the building’s connections that will
be damaged and the probable cost of connection
repairs, if the building experiences an
earthquake of a certain intensity. These graphs
do not take into account the individual
characteristics of a building, except in an
approximate manner and, therefore, do not
provide precise estimates. Rather, they provide
an indication of the potential range of damage
and repair costs and the probability that damage
and repair costs will exceed certain amounts,
based on the behavior of the buildings that were
affected by the Northridge earthquake.
The Simplified Loss Estimation Methodology
uses a series of graphs to relate probable
earthquake losses to ground motion
intensity.
What is the Detailed Loss Estimation
Methodology?
In addition to the Simplified Loss Estimation
Methodology, FEMA 351 also presents a
procedure for developing building-specific,
damage and loss estimates for WSMF buildings.
This method can be implemented in HAZUS,
FEMA’s nationally applicable loss estimation
model, to explore the potential benefits to a
community of requiring upgrade of steel
buildings. The method can also be used to
develop loss estimates for individual buildings to
assist owners in making upgrade decisions.
Loss estimates generated using this technique
take into consideration the specific
characteristics of individual buildings and,
therefore, provide a more accurate basis for
cost-benefit studies for seismic upgrades.
However, the method is somewhat complex and
requires specialized expertise and training to
implement.
How safe should an existing building
be?
There is no single commonly accepted minimum
level of safety for existing buildings. However, it
is always useful to compare the safety of an
existing building with that intended for new
buildings as well as with that of other existing
buildings. New buildings are designed to provide
a high level of confidence, on the order of 90%,
that they will survive the most severe ground
motion likely to be experienced, every 1,000 to
2,500 years, without collapse. Therefore, it is
unlikely that most new buildings would ever
experience earthquake-induced collapse. Most
existing buildings will not be capable of providing
the same performance as a new building. An
existing building may be acceptably safe if it can
provide high confidence that it will resist collapse
under ground motion intensities likely to occur
every 500 years or so. The selection of an
acceptable level of safety depends on a number
of factors including the number of occupants in
the building, and its use. FEMA 351 presents
evaluation procedures that can be used to
estimate the probability that a building will
collapse in future earthquake ground motion and
to associate a confidence level with this
estimate.
16
Will it be possible to reuse a building
after an earthquake?
In addition to safety concerns, many owners and
tenants in buildings are concerned with their
ability to return to a building after an earthquake,
and continue to live or work in it. FEMA 351
provides an evaluation procedure that may be
used to determine the probability that a building
will experience so much damage that it should
not be reoccupied following an earthquake. To
use this procedure, it is necessary for the owner
and the engineer to select an appropriate return
period for the ground motion upon which this
evaluation will be based and the performance
that will be acceptable if this ground motion
occurs.
Is it cost effective to upgrade?
While earthquakes can cause catastrophic
damage, in most cases the probability that a
building will be affected by such an event is low.
Even in the most seismically active regions of
California, ground motions likely to cause
substantial damage to WSMF buildings are
currently projected to affect a building site only
one time every hundred years or so. Given that
many investors retain ownership in a building
asset for a relatively small number of years, the
likelihood that a loss will actually occur during an
ownership period is low. Therefore, when
owners balance the cost of a seismic upgrade
program against the probable economic benefit
to be gained during their ownership period, a
good return on investment is often found to exist
only if post-earthquake occupancy of a building
is perceived to be critical for economic or other
reasons, or if life loss is anticipated and the
economic value of such loss is included in the
evaluation.
Why is building performance expressed
in probabilities?
The amount of damage that a building will
sustain in an earthquake depends on a number
of factors including the configuration and
strength of the building, the quality of its
construction, and the specific characteristics of
the ground motion produced by the earthquake.
Although engineers can develop estimates of
each of these factors, it is not possible to predict
any of these things precisely. Therefore,
engineers must express future building
performance in probabilistic terms.
Should communities adopt mandatory
upgrade programs for steel frame
buildings?
Given the low benefit/cost ratio for seismic
upgrade of steel frame buildings, it is unlikely
that many owners will perform such upgrades
voluntarily. Mandatory upgrade ordinances can
be an effective measure to assure that these
buildings are upgraded. For example, a number
of California cities, including Los Angeles and
San Francisco, have successfully implemented
ordinances requiring upgrade of unreinforced
masonry buildings, a type of building that can
collapse in even moderate earthquakes.
However, similar ordinances requiring upgrade
of WSMF buildings may not be an effective
application of the limited resources available to a
community. It is likely that other financial and
health risks faced by the community are more
significant than the hazards posed by the
earthquake performance of steel frame
buildings. Indeed, many communities have large
inventories of buildings that are far more
hazardous than typical steel frame buildings,
including unreinforced masonry buildings and
older concrete buildings. Before adopting a
mandatory upgrade ordinance for steel frame
buildings, communities should carefully consider
the costs and benefits on a community-wide
basis and weigh these against other potential
applications of the limited resources available.
FEMA’s HAZUS loss estimation model is
available to communities and can be used to
provide guidance in deciding on the advisability
of adopting a mandatory upgrade ordinance.
17
CRITERIA FOR NEW BUILDING DESIGN
How should new buildings be designed?
Buildings must be designed to meet minimum
criteria specified in building codes. Model
building codes are developed on a national basis
by professional organizations representing
engineers, architects, building officials and fire
marshals, and are adopted, sometimes with
modification, by individual cities, counties and
states. Prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake,
the building codes contained prescriptive
requirements for the design and construction of
steel moment-frame buildings. These
requirements included specification of minimum
permissible strength and stiffness for resisting
earthquake loading, and specific requirements
for connections between beams and columns.
The Northridge earthquake demonstrated that
some of these prescriptive requirements were
not adequate. Following that discovery, the
prescriptive requirements were removed from
building codes used in regions of high
earthquake risk and replaced with a requirement
that designs include test data to show that
reliable performance could be achieved for each
new building. These new requirements were
both costly and difficult to enforce and resulted in
a decrease in the number of steel momentframe
buildings constructed.
Studies conducted under the FEMA/SAC
program to reduce earthquake hazards in
welded moment-resisting steel frames confirm
that some of the design requirements contained
in the building codes prior to the Northridge
earthquake were inadequate. In the time since,
some of these inadequate requirements have
been improved based on interim findings and
recommendations of the FEMA/SAC program.
Now that the program is complete, FEMA 350
presents a series of additional criteria for the
design and construction of steel moment-frame
buildings that should make performance of these
structures in future earthquakes much more
reliable. It is recommended that the building
codes adopt these new recommendations and
that, until this occurs, engineers and owners
voluntarily adopt these criteria when developing
new buildings.
What types of changes to design and
construction practice does FEMA 350
recommend?
The FEMA 350 recommendations affect nearly
all phases of the design and construction
process. The recommendations address the
types of steel used, the way in which columns
and beams are connected, the way the steel is
fabricated, the type of welding that is performed,
and the techniques that are used to assure that
the construction work is performed properly.
In addition, FEMA 350 provides engineers with a
series of performance-based design criteria that
can be used to design and construct buildings to
resist earthquakes reliably while sustaining less
damage than anticipated by building codes.
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 350 / July, 2000
Recommended Seismic
Design Criteria For
New Steel Moment-
Frame Buildings
FEMA 350 provides recommendations for
design and construction of new steel
moment-frame buildings. These
recommendations affect the materials of
construction, design and construction
procedures, and methods of quality
assurance.
18
What are the recommended changes to
the types of structural steel that should
be used?
In the last few years, the steel industry in the
United States has undergone rapid change with
old rolling mills phased out and new mills, using
more modern technologies, coming on line.
Although the chemical composition and physical
properties of steel have changed rapidly during
this period, industry standard specifications and
design practice largely neglected this. Working
with the FEMA/SAC project, the American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) developed
new industry standard specifications for
structural steel material. These new
specifications provide better control of the critical
properties that are important to earthquake
performance. FEMA 350 recommends the use
of these more modern steels and also
recommends design procedures that properly
account for the high strength of modern steel
materials.
Methods of steel production have undergone
dramatic change in recent years and industry
standard design and material production
specifications did not adequately reflect the
material currently produced. FEMA 350
updates the code requirements to assure
specification of proper materials and proper
treatment in design.
If inadequately constructed, welded joints in
moment-frames can be weak links that fail
prematurely. FEMA 350 recommends careful
control of the materials, workmanship and
procedures used to make these joints and
verify their adequacy.
Are there any changes to welding
requirements?
FEMA 350 and its companion document, FEMA
353, present extensive new recommendations
for welding of moment-resisting connections in
frames designed for seismic applications. The
new recommendations address the types of
materials that may be used for this work, the
welding processes and procedures that should
be followed, the environmental conditions under
which welding should be performed, and the
level of training and workmanship required of
welders and inspectors engaged in this work. In
addition, FEMA 353 provides detailed
recommendations for quality control, quality
assurance and inspection procedures that
should be put into place to assure that this
critical work is properly performed. These new
recommendations affect all segments of the
design and construction process and require
designers, producers, fabricators, welding
electrode manufacturers, welders and
inspectors, among others, to adopt new
practices. These recommendations have been
submitted to the American Welding Society for
incorporation into the structural welding code.
19
What is different about the new design
procedures?
Prior to the Northridge earthquake, most steel
moment-frame designs used a standard
connection that was prescribed by the building
code. We know now that the configuration of
these connections was problematic and resulted
in unreliable connection performance. Following
this discovery, the building codes were changed
to require testing of each new connection
design. This was very costly and difficult to
implement. FEMA 350 presents a series of new
connection configurations that are
recommended as prequalified for use in
moment-frames conforming to certain
limitations. The use of these prequalified
connections will greatly simplify the design
process and make the construction of new
moment-frame buildings more economical and
more reliable.
1
2
3
General:
Applicable systems OMF, SMF
Hinge location distance sh dc/2
Critical Beam Parameters:
Depth Up to W36 (OMF)
Up to W30 (SMF)
Minimum Span OMF: 15 ft.
SMF: 20 ft.
bf/2tf of flange 52ÖFy ; 35ÖFy recommended minimum
Flange thickness Up to 1-1/4” (OMF)
Up to ¾” (SMF)
Permissible Material Specifications A36, A572 Grade 50, A992
Critical Column Parameters:
Depth Not Limited
Permissible Material Specifications A572, Grade 50; A913 Grade 50
Minor Axis Connection Prequalified
OMF: Yes
SMF: No
Beam/Column Relations:
PZ strength Section 3.3.3.2 for SMF; Cpr=1.2; Rv/Ru < 1.2 (recommended)
Column/beam bending strength Section 2.8.1; Cpr=1.2
Connection Details
Web connection Section 3.5.3.2. Welding QC Level 2.
Continuity plate thickness Section 3.3.3.1
Flange welds Section 3.5.3.1: Welding QC Level 1.
Weld electrodes CVN 20 ft-lbs at -20oF and 40 ft-lbs at 70oF
Weld access holes Not Applicable
FEMA 350 provides prescriptive criteria for
prequalified beam-to-column connections
capable of reliable performance.
The Reduced Beam Section, or “dog bone”
connection is one of 12 different types of
prequalified connections that engineers can
specify without project-specific testing.
How many different types of
connections are prequalified?
FEMA 350 contains design criteria for twelve
different types of prequalified, welded and bolted
beam-to-column connections. Each
prequalification includes specification of the
limiting conditions under which the connection
design is valid, the materials that may be used,
and the specific design and fabrication
requirements.
What is the basis for the new
prequalified connections?
The new prequalified connections contained in
FEMA 350 are based on extensive laboratory
and analytical investigations including more than
120 full-scale tests of beam-to-column
connection assemblies and numerous analytical
studies of the behavior of different connection
types. Connections were prequalified only after
their behavior was understood, analytical models
were developed that could predict this behavior
and laboratory testing demonstrated that the
connections would behave reliably.
20
What is the best type of connection to
use?
Each of the prequalified connections offers
certain advantages with regard to design
considerations, fabrication and erection
complexity, construction cost, and structural
performance capability. No one connection type
will be most appropriate for all applications. It is
likely that individual engineers and fabricators
will develop preferences for the use of specific
types of connections, and that certain
connections will see widespread use in some
parts of the country but not others.
Do the prequalified connections cover
all possible design cases?
The prequalifed connections should be
applicable to many common design conditions.
However, they are not universally applicable to
all structures and, in particular, are limited in
applicability with regard to the size, types and
orientation of framing members with which they
can be used. If a design requires the use of
types or sizes of framing that are not included in
the ranges for a prequalified connection, FEMA
350 recommends that supplemental testing of
the connection be performed to demonstrate that
it will be capable of performing adequately.
Is it possible to use types of
connections other than those that are
prequalified?
FEMA 350 contains information on several types
of proprietary connections that are not
prequalified and nothing in FEMA 350 prevents
engineers from developing or using other types
of connection designs. However, FEMA 350
does state that, when other types of connections
are used, a testing program should be
conducted to demonstrate that these
connections can perform adequately. FEMA 350
also presents information on the types of testing
that should be conducted and how to determine
if connection performance is acceptable.
Will designs employing these new
recommendations cost more?
The cost of a steel frame building is generally
dependent on the amount of labor required to
fabricate and erect the steel and the total
number of tons of steel in the building frame.
The new design recommendations both
formalize and simplify design procedures that
generally have been in use by engineers since
the 1994 Northridge earthquake. They do not
result in an increase in steel tonnage or
significantly greater labor for fabrication and
erection. However, more extensive construction
quality assurance measures are recommended
and these will result in some additional
construction cost. It is anticipated that this
additional cost will amount to less than 1% of the
total construction cost for typical buildings.
Will buildings designed to the new
recommendations be earthquake proof?
It is theoretically possible to design and construct
buildings that are strong enough to resist severe
earthquakes without damage, but it would not be
economical to do so and we could not afford to
construct many such buildings. The objective of
most building codes is to design buildings such
that they might be damaged by severe
earthquakes but not collapse and endanger
occupants in any earthquake they are likely to
experience. The FEMA 350 recommendations
adopt this same design philosophy. It is
anticipated that there would be a very low risk of
life threatening damage in buildings designed
and constructed in accordance with the FEMA
350 recommendations. However, they may
experience damage that will require repair,
including permanent bending and yielding of the
framing elements and possible permanent lateral
drift of the structure. Although it is possible that
some connections designed using the new
procedure may fracture, it is anticipated that this
will not be widespread.
21
Will the new recommendations be
included in the building codes?
The seismic provisions of current building codes
are largely based on the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations of Buildings
and Other Structures, supplemented by standard
specifications developed by industry
associations, including the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) and the American
Welding Society (AWS). Many of the design
recommendations contained in FEMA 350 have
already been incorporated into the standard
design specifications developed by AISC and are
directly referenced by the 2000 International
Building Code. The remaining
recommendations are being proposed for
incorporation into later editions of the AISC and
AWS specifications. This material is also being
included in the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations of New
Buildings and Other Structures. Some of the
earlier material has already been included in the
1997 edition (FEMA 302/303) and the remainder
of the material will be incorporated into the new
2000 edition (FEMA 368/369), due to be
released in spring 2001. It is anticipated that
many jurisdictions around the United States will
adopt building codes based on these criteria as
the basis for building regulation in their
communities.
Is it possible to design to the new
recommendations before the new
building codes are adopted?
Many of the new design recommendations are
compatible with existing building code
regulations that are already in force around the
United States. It should be possible for
engineers to utilize the new recommendations,
on a voluntary basis, as a supplement to the
existing building code requirements. However,
the local building official is the ultimate authority
as to the acceptability of this practice. Engineers
should verify that the building official will accept
the new documents prior to using them to design
buildings.
Is it possible to design for better
performance?
As an option, FEMA 350 includes a methodology
which engineers can use to design for superior
performance relative to that anticipated by the
building code. This approach is similar to the
procedures contained in FEMA 351 for the
evaluation and upgrade of existing buildings. In
these procedures, a decision must be made as
to what level of performance is desired for a
specific level of earthquake motion. As an
example, one of the available performance
levels, termed Immediate Occupancy, results in
such slight damage that the building should be
available for occupancy immediately following
the earthquake. The performance-based
procedures of FEMA 350 can be used to design
a building such that there is a high probability the
building will provide Immediate Occupancy
performance for any level of earthquake intensity
that is desired. As a minimum, however,
buildings should be designed to satisfy the
prescriptive criteria of the applicable building
code, which are intended to protect life safety.
22
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE
What is construction quality control?
Construction quality control includes that set of
actions taken by the contractor to ensure that
construction conforms to the specified material
and workmanship standards, the requirements
of the design drawings and the applicable
building code. Construction quality control
includes hiring workers and subcontractors that
have the necessary training and experience to
perform the construction properly; making sure
that these workers understand the project
requirements and their responsibility to execute
them; and performing routine inspections and
tests to confirm that the work is properly
performed. Some contractors may retain
independent inspection and testing agencies to
assist them with their quality control functions.
What is construction quality assurance?
Construction quality assurance is that set of
actions, including inspections, observations and
tests, that are performed on the owner’s behalf
to ensure that the contractor is conforming to the
design and building code requirements. In
essence, construction quality assurance
represents a second line of defense and
supplements the contractor’s own quality control
program. Building codes specify minimum levels
of quality assurance for different types of
construction. If the contractor on a project does
not perform adequate quality control it may be
appropriate to provide more quality assurance
than required by the applicable building code.
Quality assurance tasks are typically performed
by design professionals and special inspection
and testing agencies specifically retained by the
owner for this purpose. It is recommended that
the engineer assist the owner in determining the
level of quality assurance appropriate to a
specific project, and also that the engineer be
retained by the owner to actively monitor and
participate in the quality assurance process.
Why is construction quality control and
quality assurance important?
Investigations performed after every earthquake
indicate that much of the damage that occurs is
a result of structures not being constructed in
accordance with the applicable building code or
the designer’s intent. This problem has affected
nearly every type of building construction,
including wood frame, masonry, concrete and
steel buildings. Construction errors and
construction work that is improperly performed
create weak links where damage in structures
can initiate. Earthquakes can place extreme
loading on structures and, if structures contain
improper construction, damage is likely to occur
where that poor construction occurs.
Was inadequate construction quality a
significant factor in the damage
sustained by steel buildings in the
Northridge earthquake?
One of the contributors to the damage sustained
by steel moment-frame buildings in the
Northridge earthquake was construction that did
not conform to the applicable standards. In
particular, investigations conducted after the
earthquake revealed that critical welds of beams
to columns were not made in accordance with
the building code requirements. A number of
defects were commonly found in the construction
including: welds that had large slag inclusions
and lack of fusion (bonding) with the steel
columns, welds that were placed too quickly and
with too much heat input into the joint; and
welding aids including backing and weld tabs
that were improperly installed. These
construction defects resulted in welded joints
that had lower strength and toughness than
should have been provided, resulting in a
propensity for damage.
23
Who is responsible for construction
quality control and assurance?
Each of the participants in building construction,
including the design engineer, the contractor, the
building official, and special inspectors, plays a
critical role in assuring that construction meets
the appropriate standards. The engineer must
specify the applicable standards and the quality
assurance measures that are to be used. The
contractor must perform the work in the required
manner and perform inspections to verify that
this occurs. Building codes require that the
owner retain a special inspection agency to
perform detailed inspections and assure that the
contractor is executing the work properly. The
responsible building official typically monitors the
entire process and makes sure that each of the
parties fulfills their individual responsibilities.
Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of
Steel Moment Frame Structures
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 353 / July, 2000
Recommended Specifications
and Quality Assurance
Guidelines for Steel
Moment-Frame Construction
for Seismic Applications
FEMA 353 provides recommended
specifications for fabrication, erection, and
quality assurance of steel moment-frame
structures designed for seismic applications.
Where can one find recommendations
on appropriate quality control and
quality assurance procedures?
FEMA 353 provides detailed recommendations
for procedures that should be followed to assure
that steel moment-frame construction complies
with the applicable standards. It includes
information that is useful to engineers, building
officials, contractors and inspectors. This
information is presented in the form of
specifications that can be included in the project
specifications developed by engineers for
specific projects. It also includes commentary
that explains the basis for the recommendations
and methods that can be used to implement
them.
Are the new quality recommendations
significantly different than those
required in the past?
Many of the recommendations contained in
FEMA 353 are a restatement and clarification of
requirements already contained in building codes
and in the standard AISC and AWS
specifications. There are also some important
new recommendations. These include new
requirements intended to assure that weld filler
metals and welding procedures are capable of
providing welded joints of adequate strength and
toughness. In addition, comprehensive
recommendations are provided as to the extent
of testing and inspection that should be
performed on different welded joints. In part,
these new requirements are based on findings
that the inspection methods traditionally used in
the past to assure weld quality are incapable of
reliably detecting nonconforming construction. It
is anticipated that many of these new
requirements will be incorporated into the AWS
standards in the future.
24
PREPARING FOR THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE
What should communities do before the
next disaster occurs?
Before the next disaster strikes, communities
should conduct a thorough examination of their
vulnerability to natural hazards and the risks they
may present to their citizens. In addition to a
potential earthquake threat, communities may be
vulnerable to other significant hazards, such as
flooding, high winds, hurricanes, tornadoes,
tsunami, etc. While this publication addresses
the potential earthquake risk of steel momentframe
buildings, communities may have more
significant risks from other more hazardous
types of buildings, such as unreinforced
masonry, non-ductile concrete frame or tilt-up
concrete buildings. Communities should carefully
consider all of these potential risks and how they
may affect the different types of construction
present.
Regardless of the risk posed by existing
construction, before the next disaster occurs
communities should adopt reliable building
codes and building regulation practices that will
ensure that new buildings are adequately
designed and constructed to resist the future
earthquakes and other disasters that will
inevitably occur. Building codes that incorporate
the latest edition of the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulation for Buildings
and Other Structures are strongly
recommended.
Communities may wish to encourage building
owners to upgrade their existing hazardous
buildings to minimize potential damage,
economic and life loss. FEMA 351 can be used
as a technical basis for both voluntary and
mandatory upgrade programs. In addition,
communities should put emergency response
systems into place. Building departments should
train their personnel to conduct building
inspections. In large cities, building departments
will quickly become overwhelmed by this
responsibility. Before the next earthquake, the
building department should make arrangements
for assistance from outside the affected area.
Some states have agencies that will facilitate
this. Communities should also consider adopting
ordinances to govern the post-earthquake
building inspection and repair process.
Experience has shown that some building
owners will not act responsibly to inspect and
repair buildings, unless required by law to do so.
FEMA 352 can be used as a basis for
developing post-earthquake inspection and
repair ordinances.
Is help available?
FEMA has developed a number of tools that
communities can use to identify their exposure to
natural disasters, including both earthquake and
flood hazard maps. FEMA has also developed
standardized, GIS-based computer software that
can help a community to assess the risk that
these hazards present. This software package,
called HazardsUS, or HAZUS, presently
addresses earthquake risk, however modules
are currently under development that will also
address the risk from floods and high winds.
FEMA has also published a series of guidance
documents for both technical and non-technical
audiences to assist in addressing specific
hazard-related issues. All of these aids are
available, without charge, from FEMA.
Once the hazard and risk are known, FEMA has
a community-based initiative called Project
Impact to help encourage the implementation of
pre-disaster prevention, or mitigation, activities.
This initiative, which may include a one-time
seed grant, encourages the formation of
community-based partnerships between public
and private stakeholders. For more information
on this and other programs, visit FEMA’s website
at www.fema.gov.
Project Impact assists communities to form
public and private partnerships to reduce the
potential for natural disaster losses.
25
THE FEMA/SAC PROJECT AND DISSEMINATING ITS RESULTS
Why did FEMA elect to undertake such
an effort?
FEMA, as part of its role in the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP), is charged with reducing the everincreasing
cost of damage in earthquakes.
Preventing losses before they happen, or
mitigation, is the only truly effective way of
reducing this cost. In this light, the role of this
nation's building codes and standards in mitigating
earthquake losses is critical, and FEMA is
committed to working with this nation's seismic
codes and standards to keep them among the
best in the world. Because the damage that
resulted from the Northridge earthquake called
into question the design assumptions and building
code requirements associated with steel momentframe
construction and because of the unknown
life safety hazard of the damaged buildings, it was
crucial that adequate repair and retrofitting
procedures be quickly identified. This was
particularly critical for FEMA, because many of the
damaged steel buildings were publicly owned and
therefore the cost of damage repair was eligible
for funding under the public assistance provisions
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act. To fully respond to
this need, development of reliable and costeffective
methods for use in the various building
codes and standards that address the design of
new construction and the repair and/or upgrading
of existing steel moment-frame buildings was
necessary.
The solution of this problem required a
coordinated, problem-focused program of
research, investigation and professional
development with the goal of developing and
validating reliable and cost-effective seismicresistant
design procedures for steel momentframe
structures. This work involved
consideration of many complex technical,
professional and economic issues including
metallurgy, welding, fracture mechanics,
connection behavior, system performance, and
practices related to design, fabrication, erection
and inspection.
How were related policy issues
addressed by the FEMA/SAC project?
As part of the project, an expert panel with
representation from the financial, legal,
commercial real estate, construction, and
building regulation communities was formed to
review social, economic, legal and political
issues related to the technical
recommendations. This panel was charged with
evaluating the potential impact of the
recommended design and construction criteria
on various stakeholder groups, identifying
potential barriers to effective implementation of
the recommendations and advising the project
team on potential ways of making the guidelines
more useful and effective. The panel held a
workshop in October 1997 that brought together
representatives of these constituencies, and
their recommendations were considered during
the development of technical recommendations
and in the preparation of this publication.
Why did it take so long to develop the
necessary information?
The damage experienced by steel momentframe
structures in the Northridge earthquake
called to question the entire portions of building
codes that addressed this type of construction,
and which had been developed over a period of
more than 20 years. This project basically had
to start from scratch and either revalidate all of
the existing criteria, or when this criteria was
found to be inadequate, develop new design
criteria and construction standards that could be
relied upon. This involved a complete reevaluation
of the properties of structural steels
and welding materials, the assumptions used in
designing and evaluating different types of
moment-connections, and the methods used in
inspecting and evaluating these connections and
their behavior. In the process, all of this material
had to be developed and presented in a rigorous
and scientifically defensible manner so that it
would be recognized as reliable and used by the
building design, construction and regulatory
communities. This project accomplished in six
years what originally evolved over 20 years.
26
How will this information be put unto
practice?
The new FEMA guidance documents are now
being widely disseminated to the structural
engineering and building regulation
communities. Three of these publications
provide recommended criteria for design of more
reliable new construction (FEMA 350), upgrading
existing structures to minimize the potential for
future damage (FEMA 351), and evaluating and
repairing buildings after an earthquake (FEMA
352). The fourth provides technical
specifications and quality assurance guidelines
(FEMA 353). Much of the information contained
in these publications, especially for new
construction, is being incorporated into both the
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulation of Buildings and Other Structures and
the latest standard design specification
published by AISC. Together, these publications
serve as the consensus design standard for
steel structures nationwide. This standard is
routinely adopted by reference into the model
building codes where it is in turn used as part of
state and/or local building codes. AISC has also
published a design guide, developed jointly with
NIST, for upgrade of existing structures, and
which compliments the recommendations
contained in FEMA 351.
How can one obtain additional
information?
The four FEMA publications described above
can be ordered free of charge by calling 1-800-
480-2520. In addition, a series of state-of-the-art
reports have been developed which summarize
the current state of knowledge that forms the
technical basis for the recommended criteria
publications. These reports are available from
FEMA in CD-ROM format (FEMA 355).
Individual reports on the technical investigations
performed in support of the FEMA/SAC project
are available as well. These technical reports
and FEMA 355 may be purchased in hard copy
format from the SAC Joint Venture. The SAC
Joint Venture will also continue to maintain a
publicly accessible site on the World Wide Web
at www.sacsteel.org. Future information and
training opportunities will be available from the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
and other organizations. Consult AISC’s World
Wide Web site at www.aisc.org for additional
information.
27
INDEX
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2,
18, 21, 23, 26
American Welding Society (AWS), 21, 23
building code, 1, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25
collapse, 4, 7, 8, 14, 20
connection, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 25
construction, 20
cost, 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25
crack, cracks, cracking 4, 5, 6
damage, i, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20,
21, 22, 25, 26
design, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
23, 25, 26
FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic Design Criteria
for New Moment Resisting Steel Frame Buildings,
2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26
FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluation and
Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Frame
Buildings, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 26
FEMA 352 Recommended Post Earthquake
Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel
Moment Frame Buildings, 2, 8, 9, 10, 24, 26
FEMA 353 Recommended Specifications and Quality
Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment Frame
Construction for Seismic Applications, 2, 18, 23,
26
fracture, 1, 4, 10, 20, 25
inspection, 5, 8, 9, 23, 24, 25
Kobe, 1, 6
Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1, 6
materials, 19
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), 2, 26
National Science Foundation (NSF), 2
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulation of Buildings and Other Structures
(FEMA 302/303), 12, 21, 25
Northridge earthquake, i, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19,
20, 22, 25
quality assurance, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26
quality control, 22, 23
repair, 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25
safety, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15
upgrade, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21
welding, 4, 11, 18, 22, 23
welded joint, 1, 4
The term “mitigation” describes actions
which can help reduce or eliminate
your long-term risk from natural
disasters. With mitigation, you can
avoid losses and reduce your risk of
becoming a disaster victim.
There are many low-cost mitigation
measures you can take to protect
yourself, your home, or your business
from losses. For example:
FLOODING
¦ Move valuables and appliances out
of the basement of your home or business if it is
prone to flooding. This will increase the chance
that your belongings will remain dry when a
flood occurs.
¦ Have the main breaker or fuse box and the
utility meters elevated above the anticipated
flood level in your home or business, so that
flood water won’t damage your utilities.
¦ Buy flood insurance to cover the value of your
home and its contents. Not only will it give
you greater peace of mind, but it will also
greatly speed your recovery if a flood occurs.
To learn more about flood insurance, contact
your insurance company or agent, or call
1-800-427-4661.
EARTHQUAKES
¦ Bolt or strap cupboards and bookcases to the
wall, and keep heavy objects on the lower
shelves. This will reduce both damages and the
possibility of injury to those in your home or
business.
¦ Strap your water heater to a nearby wall using
bands of perforated steel (commonly known as
“plumber’s tape”). If a gas water heater falls
during an earthquake, it could break the gas line
and start a fire.
¦ Install bolts to connect your home to its
foundation. Anchor bolts cost as little as $2 a
piece, but can prevent thousands of dollars of
damage. Have them installed every six feet
around the perimeter of your home.
HAZARD
MITIGATION WORKS,
AND IT CAN SAVE YOU MONEY.
IT HELPS PROTECT YOUR FAMILY, YOUR
BUSINESS AND YOUR PROPERTY
FROM THE EFFECTS
OF NATURAL
DISASTERS.
HURRICANES AND
TORNADOES
¦ Have hurricane straps installed in your home or
business to better secure the roof to the walls
and foundation. This will reduce the risk of
losing your roof to high winds.
¦ Install and maintain storm shutters to protect
all exposed windows and glass surfaces, and
use them when severe weather threatens.
Besides protecting against wind, shutters also
prevent damage from flying debris.
¦ Have your home inspected by a building
professional to ensure that roof and other
building components are capable of
withstanding wind effects.
WILDFIRES
¦ Move shrubs and other landscaping away from
the sides of your home or deck. All too often,
homes burn when plantings around them catch fire.
¦ Install tile or flame-retardant shingles on your
roof, instead of wood shakes or standard
shingles. This will reduce the chance that
airborne burning debris will end up destroying
your home.
¦ Clear dead brush and grass from your property
so that it will not provide fuel for a spreading
fire.
MAKE SURE TO
MITIGATE PROPERLY —
THE FIRST TIME!
Most communities have building
codes and ordinances which guide
construction practices. Many of
these are designed to reduce your
risk from all types of hazards,
including floods, earthquakes, high
winds, and wildfires.
If you have any questions about local
codes or ordinances, and how they
may impact mitigation efforts in your
home or business, contact a
professional or your building official.
Either should be able to provide you
with the assistance you need to
mitigate right the first time.
Mitigation Begins
With You — Learn to
Build Stronger,
Safer, Smarter!
To learn more about hazard mitigation measures that
you can take to reduce your risk from disasters,
visit FEMA’s Internet site (www.fema.gov), or call
1-800-480-2520 to have a list of available mitigation
publications mailed to your home or office.
You can also contact the FEMA Regional Office nearest
you:
FEMA Region I (serving CT, NH, ME, MA, RI, VT)
J.W. McCormack Post Office
Courthouse Bldg., Rm. 442
Boston, MA 02109 tel: (617) 223-9540
FEMA Region II (serving NJ, NY, PR, VI)
26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1337
New York, NY 10278 tel: (212) 225-7209
FEMA Region III (serving DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)
Liberty Square Bldg., 2nd Floor
105 S. Seventh St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106 tel: (215) 931-5608
FEMA Region IV (serving AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Koger Center - Rutgers Bldg.
3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341 tel: (770) 220-5200
FEMA Region V (serving IL, IN, OH, MN, WI)
175 W. Jackson Blvd., 4th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604 tel: (312) 409-5518
FEMA Region VI (serving AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Federal Regional Center
800 N. Loop
Denton, TX 76201 tel: (817) 898-5127
FEMA Region VII (serving IA, KS, MO, NE)
2323 Grand Blvd., Ste. 900
Kansas City, MO 64108 tel: (816) 283-7060
FEMA Region VIII (serving CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 710
Box 25267
Denver, CO 80225 tel: (303) 235-4830
FEMA Region IX (serving AZ, CA, HI, NV)
Building 105, the Presidio
San Francisco, CA 94129 tel: (415) 923-7175
FEMA Region X (serving AK, ID, OR, WA)
Federal Regional Center
130 228th St., SW
Bothell, WA 98021 tel: (206) 481-8800
Is your family, home, or
business protected from
natural disasters?
They can be.
REDUCE
YOUR RISK
FROM
N ATURAL
DISASTERS
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Reach us on the Internet
at http://www.fema.gov
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SEISMIC SAFETY OF BUILDINGS
Sources of information for design professionals and other decision makers in
earthquake hazard mitigation
EXISTING BUILDINGS
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic
Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA-I 54, 1988, 185 pages) and
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic
Hazards: Supporting Documentation (FEMA-I 55,1988,137
pages). Prepared by the Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City, CA (ATC-21 and ATC-21 -1).
The Handbook presents a method for quickly identifying buildings
posing risk of death, injury, or severe curtailment in use
following an earthquake. The methodology, “Rapid Screening
Procedure (RSP),” can be used by trained personnel to identify
potentially hazardous buildings on the basis of a 15 to 30 minute
exterior inspection, using a data collection form included in the
Handbook. Twelve basic structural categories are inspected,
leading to a numerical “structural score” based on visual inspection.
Building inspectors are the most likely group to implement
an RSP, although this report is also intended for building
officials, engineers, architects, building owners, emergency managers
and interested citizens. The Supporting Documentation
reviews the literature and existing procedures for rapid visual
screening.
NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings (FEMA-178, 1992, 227 pages). Prepared by the
Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
The Handbook presents a nationally applicable method for
engineers to identify buildings or building components that
present unacceptable risks in case of an earthquake. Four
structural subsystems in which deficits may exist are identified:
vertical elements resisting horizontal loads; horizontal elements
resisting lateral loads; foundations; and connections
between structural elements or subsystems. Fifteen structural
categories are defined for the evaluation of buildings by
engineers. The Handbook is formulated to be compatible with
NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings (FEMA-172/1992).
NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings (FEMA-172, 1992,197
pages). Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington, DC.
This handbook presents techniques for solving a variety of
seismic rehabilitation problems. intended for engineers concerned
with seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, the
handbook identifies and describes seismic rehabilitation
techniques for a broad spectrum of building types and building
components (both structural and nonstructural). Most
techniques are illustrated with sketches, and the relative
merits of the techniques are discussed. Designed to be
compatible with the NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic
Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA-178/1992), this
publication is based on a prelimary version prepared by
URS/John A. Blume and Associates, Technique for
Seismically Rehabilitating Existing Buildings (FEMA-
172/1989).
Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings: Volume 1: Summary, Second Edition (FEMA-
156, 1994, approx. 70 pages); Volume 2: Supporting
Documentation, Second Edition (FEMA-1 57,
1995,approx. 102 pages). Prepared by the Hart Consultant
Group, Inc. Santa Monica, CA. [FEMA-156, 1994 AND
FEMA-157, 1995 SUPERSEDE FEMA-156, 1988 AND
FEMA-157. 1988].
Typical Costa for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings: Volume I: Summary second Editionprovides
a methodology that enables users to estimate the costs of
seismic rehabilitation projects at various locations in the
United States. This greatly improved edition is based on a
sample of almost 2100 projects. The data were collected by
use of a standard protocol, given a stringent quality control
verification and a reliability rating, and then entered into a
database that is available to practitioners. A sophisticated
statistical methodology applied to this database yields costs
estimates of increasing quality and reliability as more and
more detailed information on the building inventory is used
in the estimation process. Guidance is also provided to calculate
a range of uncertainty associated with this process.
The Supporting Documentation contains an in-depth discussion
of the approaches and methodology that were used
in developing the second edition.
Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Hazardous
Buildings. Volume 1: A User’s Manual (FEMA-227,
1992, approx. 68 pages); Volume 2: Supporting Documentation
(FEMA-228, 1992, approx. 62 pages); and Computer
Software for Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilifation
of Hazardous Buildings. Prepared by VSP Associates,
Inc., Sacramento, CA.
The two benefit-cost models presented in this report are designed
to help evaluate the economic benefits and costs of
seismic rehabilitation of existing hazardous buildings. The
single class model analyzes groups of buildings with a single
structural type, a single use, and a single set of economic assumptions.
The multi-class model analyzes groups of buildings
that may have several structural types and uses. The
User's manual presents background information on the development
of the benefit-cost model and an introduction to the
use of benefit/cost analysis in decision making. It reviews the
economic assumptions of benefit-cost models, with and without
including the value of life. The User’s Manual guides the
user through the model by presenting synopses of data entries
required, example model results, and supporting information.
Seven applications of the models are presented: five of the
single-class model; two of the multi-class model.
Supporting Documentation complements the User’s Manual
by providing four appendices that help the user understand
how the benefit-cost models were constructed. The appendices
include: 1 ) a review of relevant literature; 2) a section on
estimating costs for seismic rehabilitation; 3) a compilation of
tables for the Seattle building inventory; and 4) some insights
into the building rehabilitation of the nine cities visited during
this project.
Computer Software to run the benefit/cost models is also available.
The programs are on 3½” diskettes and can be used on
IBM compatible personal computers.
Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/
Cost Model. Volume 1: A User’s Manual (FEMA 255,1994,
approx. 158 pages); Volume 2: Supporting Documentation
(FEMA-256, 1994, approx. 71 pages) and Computer Software
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings.
Prepared by VSP Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA.
This User’s Manuel and accompanying software present a
second generation cost-benefit model for the seismic rehabilitation
of federal and other government buildings. Intended
for facility managers, design professionals, and others involved
in decision making, the cost/benefit methodology provides
estimates of the benefits (avoided damages, avoided
losses, and avoided casualties) of seismic rehabilitation, as
well as estimates of the costs necessary to implement the
rehabilitation. The methodology also generates detailed scenario
estimates of damages, losses, and casualties. The
Manual describes the computer hardware and software required
to run the program. It also explains how to install the
program, how to use Quattro Pro for Windows, and how to
enter necessary data. A tutorial provides a fully worked example.
Benefit/Cost analyses of eight federal buildings are
included. The Supporting Documentation contains background
information for theUser’s Manual including information
on valuing public sector services, discount rates and multipliers,
the dollar value of human life, and technical issues
that affect benefit/cost analysis, such as seismic risk assessment
and sensitivity analysis.
Computer Software to run the benefit/cost model is available
on 3 1/2” diskettes and can be used on IBM compatible
personal computers with at least 386 CPU. The computer
must also have Windows and Quattro Pro.
Establishing Programs and Priorities for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings: handbook(FEMA-174,1989,122
pages) and Establishing Programs and Priorities for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: Supporting Report
(FEMA-173, 1989, 190 pages). Prepared by Building Systems
Development, Inc. with integrated Design Services and
Claire B. Rubin.
These two volumes provide the information needed to develop a
seismic rehabilitation? program, with particular reference establishing
priorities. The Handbook is intended to assist local jurisdictions
in making informed decisions on rehabilitating seismically
hazardous existing buildings by providing nationally applicable
guidelines. It discusses the pertinent issues that merit consideration,
both technical and societal, and suggests a procedure
whereby these issues can be resolved. The Supporting Report
includes additional information and commentary directly related
to sections in the Handbook supporting documentation, annotated
bibliographies, and reproductions of selected laws and ordinances
that are presented in summary form in the Handbook.
Financial Incentives for Seismic Rehabilitation of Hazardous
Buildings - An Agenda for Action. Volume 1: Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendations (FEMA-198,
1990,104 pages); Volume 2: State and Local Case Studies
and Recommendations (FEMA-199, 1990, 130 pages); and
Volume 3: Applications Workshops Report (FEMA-216,
1990, about 200 pages). Prepared by Building Technology,
Inc., Silver Spring, MD.
The intent of these documents is to identify and describe the
existing and potential regulatory and financial mechanisms and
incentives for lessening the risks posed by existing buildings
in an earthquake. Volume 1 includes a discussion of the methodology
used for these documents, background information
on financial incentives, as well as findings, conclusions and
recommendations for use by decision makers at local, state
and national levels. Volume 2 includes detailed descriptions
of the twenty case studies that were examined as part of this
project. Volume 3 reports on workshops for the development
of local agendas for action in seismic rehabilitation. It includes
directions for convening additional workshops and teaching
materials which can be used in such workshops. This information
is directed primarily to groups that are interested in
planning for local seismic mitigation in existing buildings who
wish to convene a workshop to initiate the process.
Development of Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings - Phase 1: issues identification and Resolution
(FEMA-237, November 1992, 150 pages). Prepared by the
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City CA (ATC-28).
This report is intended to assist in the preparation of Guidelines
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.
The report identifies and analyzes issues that may impact
the preparation of the Guidelines and offers alternative as
well as recommended solutions to facilitate their development
and implementation. Also discussed are issues concerned
with the scope, implementation, and format of the
Guidelines, as well as coordination efforts, and legal, political,
social, and economic aspects. Issues concerning historic
buildings, research and new technology, seismicity and
mapping, as well as engineering philosophy and goals are
discussed. The report concludes with a presentation of issues
concerned with the development of specific provisions
for major structural and nonstructural elements.
Publications concerning existing buildings can be obtained at no charge from the FEMA Distribution Center, P.O. Box 2012, Jessup,
MD 20794. Telephone: 1-800-480-2520; Fax: (301 ) 497-6378.
This list was prepared by the Information Service, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 304 Capen Hall,
University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-2200. Telephone: (716) 645-3377; Fax: (716) 645-3379;
E-Mail: nernceer@ ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu; WWW: http://nceer.eng.buffalo.edu. Revised 10/20/95