14

Chapter 4How States Can Adopt Seismic BuildingCodes

FIGURE 4.1 Historic earthquake locationssuperimposed on map of states withmandatonj building codes for alloccupancies. Most states haveearthquakes, but not all of them requirebuilding codes. (Sources: earthquakelocations, USGS, 1989; states withmandatory codes, IIPLR now IBHS],1996)

This chapter describes how to adopta state seismic code. An alternativeapproach is to encourage theadoption of seismic codes at thelocal level; that topic is taken up inchapter 5.

Background Information

Code Practices Vary Among theStates, From Centralized to Local

All states have a legal right toregulate construction, but not allstates exercise this right. Currentlyforty states and the District ofColumbia mandate building coderequirements and ten states do not.A statewide code assures a mini-mum level of protection throughoutthe state. The most common formsof state building regulation are:

Total preemption. A state agencyresponsible for building regulationsdevelops the regulations for localimplementation and enforcement.

Partial preemption. The statebuilding regulations are minimumstandards, and local jurisdictionsmay adopt equal or more restrictiveregulations.

California system. State lawdirects local jurisdictions to adopt aset of uniform codes for enforcementat the local level; the law only allowsamendments reflecting special localconditions.

State Code Requirements:Statutory vs. Administrative

States that mandate building codesdescribe their powers within eitherthe state's statutes or its administra-tive code.

Statutory code. Because a statestatute is difficult to amend, requiringa building code in statute formassures a degree of permanence andis a statement of the state's long-termcommitment to building safety. Thebest approach is to enact permanentpolicy statements into a statute and toplace the details that need periodicrevision into administrative regula-tions. In order for a building code tobecome statutory law, a state legisla-tor must sponsor a building code bill,maneuver it through the propercommittees, and obtain a positivevote, usually from two houses of thelegislature. Once the bill passes, it canbe signed by the governor andbecome law.

Administrative code. Where abuilding code is required in adminis-trative code, an administrative body,usually a commission or board, isinvested with rule-making authority.Additions or revisions to the adminis-trative code do not require legislativeapproval. An open, public process isrequired, which is not as involved asstatutory reform.

Creating a New Code vs.Adoptinga Model Building Code

States may create their own buildingcode or adopt all or parts of anexisting recognized model building

How States Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes

No

How To Adopt a State-Wide Seismic CodeGoals: The model code in use throughout the state (a) must be up to date and

(b) must not delete or modify the seismic provisions

Does your state have a model building code?

Yeso

Is the code up to date?

Yes

T

Does the code includeseismic provisions?

YesY

Up ae yourcode to includelatest seismic

Provisions

CongratulationsThe seismic code your state has adopted will reducedamage and loss of life in the event of an earthquake.

code. Because of the complexity,cost, and time of writing an originalbuilding code, most states choose toadopt a model building code. Byadopting such a code, the statebuilding agency can obtain directtechnical assistance from the mod-elbuilding code organization.

Enforcement at State or LocalLevel

With a statewide building code inplace, the state may delegate theenforcement to local governments.Sometimes the state delegates onlyto those local governments that canprove that they have adequatequalified staff to review plans and

implementationand enforcement

Is ta e

provide inspections. This can increasecode compliance wvhile avoiding theneed for a large state enforcementagency.

Importance of Periodic Updates

Ideally the statute or administrativecode pro[vides for the periodicadoption of the most current buildingcode edition. The three model build-ing codes issue new editions everythree years. It is important to notethat a government must explicitlyadopt each new edition of the code. Alaw cannot state that "the mostrecent" edition of a code is automati-cally the operative one. Rather, a lawcan state an intent to update or can

Over the past ten years, the U.S.Virgin Islands have dealt with anumber of serious hurricanes.

Hurricane Hugo struck theVirgin Islands on September 17-18, 1989.1 This category 4 hurri-cane caused $3 billion in damagein the Virgin Islands and Puerto'Rico. St. Croix and St. Thomassuffered tremendous damagefrom an unusually prolongedbattering of hurricane forcewinds, with sustained windspeeds estimated at 127 mph at St.Croix and 98 mph at St. Thomas.Some areas were completelydevastated. At the time, buildingconstruction was governed by the1972 Virgin Islands BuildingCode, mandatory throughout theterritory. The lateral; ind loads inthis code were based on sustainedwind speeds of 81 mph.

The most damaging hurricane,Marilyn, hit the Virgin Islands onSeptember 15-16, 1995. The stormwas officially recorded as acategory 3 storm with winds of110 mph as it passed over St.Thomas. The estimated cost ofreconstruction, as of October 1995,was about $3 billion.2

After Hurricane Marilyn,FEMA worked with the TerritorialGovernment to assist in thedevelopment of building codesincorporating mitigation for alltypes of structures. In October1995 the Virgin Islands adopted,by statute, the UBC for publicbuildings and other structures aswell as 'Chapters 1-7, 10, and 14-35of the 1994 IJ7BC and Chapters 1-9,18, 22, and 2847 of the CABOOne- and Two-Family Dwelling Codefor all other buildings and otherstructures. FENMA has providedboth technical and financialassistance to assist in enforce-ment, education, and trainingconcerning the neLw codes. 3

i_7930

Is

No

11'

No

----------- -3--

Chapter 4

4 - 4* - 0

Step 1:Determine your state's currentbuilding code requirement (ifany) and develop a strategy forincorporating or initiatingcurrent seismic provisions.

Step 2:Gather support for the pro-posed changes.

Step 3:Lobby the decision-makingbody (state legislature oradministrative board orcommission) with informationexplaining why the changes areneeded and describing the kindof support you have gathered.

Step 4:Continue your involvementthrough the administrativeimplementation and enforce-ment stages once the seismicprovisions are approved.

mandate that the adopted code must"equal or exceed the standards" ofthe latest published edition of acode. In any event, the specificpublished edition of the code mustexplicitly be adopted as such (withwhatever minor revisions the statedesires to add).

The following sections describe astep-by-step strategy to achievestatewide seismic provisions.

Step 1: Determine YourState's Current BuildingCode Requirement (IfAny)The first step in pursuing anystrategy to incorporate or initiateseismic provisions is to ascertainwhat building requirements alreadyexist. You will need to describedeficiencies in the existing code andsuggest appropriate actions tocorrect those deficiencies.

It is important to understand theprocess followed in your state andlearn how to use that processsuccessfully. The process of adopt-ing statewide seismic provisions willvary greatly among states, depend-ing on whether your state currentlymandates a building code.

If your state does have a code,determine what amendments areneeded to incorporate currentseismic provisions and pursue theseamendments.

If your state does not have a code,consider the possibility of introduc-ing a state code that contains currentseismic provisions. An alternative isto pursue widespread adoption ofseismic provisions in local buildingcodes, although this would be amore resource-intensive effort (seechapter 5).

To ensure the highest level ofstatewide seismic safety, you shouldfocus your efforts on the two mostimportant points: (a) the code mustbe up to date and (b) the code mustinclude the latest seismic provisions.

If Your State Does Not HaveBuilding Code Requirements

If your state lacks a building coderequirement, you need to take actionin order to encourage the adoption ofa statewide code. There are severalways to establish an appropriate statebuilding code that contains currentseismic provisions.

A new code can be establishedlegislatively or administratively. Thebest way to ensure long-term safebuilding practices is to establish thecode by statute, using the legislativeprocess. At a minimum, the legisla-tion should specify local adoption ofone of the three model codes withseismic provisions. It is much easierto adopt a model code than it is towrite an original code. To ensure aminimum level of safety throughoutthe state, the legislation also mustspecify a procedure for periodic codeupdates.

Legislation may be quite detailedor may simply mandate an adminis-trative process of code review andadoption. For example, the legislationmay specify the model code to useand the topics to include, or it mayleave those decisions to the rule-making board. Examples of legisla-tion are contained in Appendix B; thelegislative process is described belowin step 3.

You should realize that anylegislative enactment of a coderequirement also will entail anadministrative rule-making process,so you need to understand bothprocesses. The point is this: Wherethe legislation leaves off, the adminis-trative regulations begin. See step 4below.

Whether you pursue an adminis-trative or legislated code, alwaysremember your two primary goals:The code in use throughout the state(a) must be up to date (the latestpublished edition of an acceptedmodel building code) and (b) mustnot delete or modify the seismicprovisions.

1 6

How States Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes

If Your State Has a Building CodeBut Does Not incorporateSeismic Provisions

Where a state building code existsbut does not contain seismic provi-sions, it should be relatively easy torequire seismic design. If the statecode is based on onre of the threemodel codes, all of which nowcontain seismic requirements, allthat may be required is adopting themost recent edition of your modelcode.

There are several ways to incorpo-rate seismic provisions into a codethat is not based on one of the threemodel codes. For example, theseismic provisions can be establishedby the state, or the state legislaturecan simply mandate local adoptionof any of the model seismic codes.Politically it should be easier toamend an existing state code than toenact a new code.

Statutory code. To amend a codeestablished through legislation, youmust find a legislator to sponsor anamendment to the state building actand then work to create support forthe proposed changes. Legislativeenactment is preferable to revisingan administrative code, becausestatutes are harder to amend orrepeal. The legislative process isdescribed below in step 3.

Administrative code. Amendingan administrative code to incorpo-rate seismic provisions is typicallyless cumbersome than amending astatutory code. You should learn thefollowing information about youradministrative code: Are the regula-tions reviewed periodically? When isthe next review scheduled? What arethe opportunities for public com-ment?

Whether your state code isestablished by statute or administra-tive rule, instituting the revised codewAill be a multistep process. You willneed to plan a strategy before youbegin. The strategy should involvesteps similar to those for code

adoption: gather support, lobby thedecision-making body and monitorimplementationr and enforcement.

Step 2: Gather Support forAdopting SeismicProvisions

First, get the backing of yourdepartment and other relevant statedepartments and agencies. Identifyinterest groups whose support youwill need and whose arguments you

will have to answer. Seek supportfrom a wide range of professionalassociations. The wider the range ofassociations, the stronger supportwill be for your proposed changes.At a minimum you will need thesupport of representatives fromhigh-earthquake-risk areas. If theydo not support the changes, it willbe nearly impossible to convinceothers.

Preparing a sound case forseismic provisions will help toadvance your position and generateneeded support. Solid arguments infavor of seismic provisions arepresented in Step 2 of Chapter 5 andin Appendix C.

To gainr support, contact organ-izations that may be affected byand are interested in code adoptionand enforcement in your state.Addresses and phone numbers ofseveral relevant national-scaleorganizations are included inAppendix E. You should reviewthese lists to get ideas useful foryour situation and to identifypotential supporting organizations.

Municipal leagues. You cancommunicate with local govern-ments collectively by means of theirprofessional and lobbying organiza-tions. Every state except Hawaii hasa state municipal league. You canfind out how to locate the league inyour state by contacting the Na-tional League of Cities (see App en-dix E). Most state leagues probablyhave a newsletter or magazine, anannual conference, and perhaps

E_(j p r a p

Is the code statutory or admin-istrative?

* Is the code designed by a stateagency or by local choice? Isthe responsible level of govern-ment adequately funded toimplement the code?

* Is the code unique to your stateor a model code? If it's aunique state code, does thestate office provide technicalsupport to local governmentsto implement the code?

If it's a model code, which oneis it? Has your state modifiedit? If so, how and to whatextent? Which edition iscurrently adopted? Is it themost recent?

e How,% is the code updated?How often? By wrhom? Bywhat process?

e Have all local jurisdictionsbeen granted the authority toadopt and enforce a code?

* Does the code have seismicprovisions? Are the model codeseismic provisions modified? Ifso, how and to what extent? Dothe seismic provisions reflectthe latest NVEHRP Provisions?(The 1992 SBCCI and BOCASupplement model codes arethe first editions of the codes toincorporate all the NEHRPProvisions; the 1991 UBC is alsoconsistent with the NEHRPProvisions.) All local codesbased on these or subsequenteditions are consistent with theIEHIRP Provisions.

17

Chapter 4

State Seismic SafetyAdvisory Committees4

What Are They?

Seismic safety advisory committees are voluntarybodies selected to advise the state on seismic policymatters. Most often, they are selected by andanswerable to the governor, but they also may beadvisory to the state legislature. Several states nowhave such bodies, including Arkansas, Kentucky,Missouri, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, as well as theoriginal one in California.

Advisory committees usually consist of representa-tives from the following interests: relevant stateagencies, universities, utilities, local governments inhigh-risk areas, technical and professional organiza-tions, energy companies, civic organizations, andsometimes legislators from high-risk areas. Usuallythe governor's office selects the members, for termsranging from one year to indefinite. Members arechosen for both their expertise and their interest inreducing seismic hazards. Committee members taketheir duties seriously, and most work surprisinglyhard for little or no money.

What Do They Do?

Seismic safety advisory committees typically meettwo to six times per year. In addition, they usuallydivide up into several subcommittees (e.g., aware-ness, mitigation, response, public health). Thesesubcommittees often do the real work of the organi-zation. They usually consist of three to six members,who informally communicate and assign tasksthroughout the year. Reports of activities in progressare presented at the regular committee meetings.Seismic safety advisory committees serve severalfunctions:

* Make knowledge of local experts available to thelegislature and administrative agencies.

* Coordinate the earthquake preparedness activitiesof state agencies.

* Keep earthquake issues in the public eye.

* Serve as advocates for seismic safety.

* Prepare policy reports and draft legislation.

* Involve people who are interested in and knowl-edgeable about seismic safety.

* Promote communication between state agencies,local agencies, professional design organizations,and the construction industry.

- 4 -NW -1 AY_ *

Arkansas formed an Earthquake Advisory Councilin 1984, with representatives from state agencies,utilities, universities, hospitals, local agencies, andother interested parties. In the late 1980s, theCouncil adopted seismic code provisions as a highpriority.

Council members drafted a bill and gave publicpresentations. The bill was introduced in Novem-ber 1990 (coincident with the aftermath of theLoma Prieta, California, disaster) and cleared thelegislature in March 1991-with no oppositionvotes. Act 1100 requires that all "public structures"be designed to resist seismic forces, in accordancewith the minimum requirements of the 1993revision to the 1991 Standard Building Code or thelatest edition with revisions.

Why Do We Need One?

A seismic safety advisory committee can help reduceearthquake hazards in many different ways. TheArkansas Seismic Advisory Committee played acrucial role in drafting and gathering support for the1991 bill (see Appendix B) that requires all publicstructures to be designed to resist seismic forces.They can encourage better construction practices,promote earthquake awareness and professionaltraining, provide advice on siting critical publicfacilities, and help agencies to inventory existinghazards. An active committee can make a realdifference in a state's ability to survive the nextearthquake.

How Do We Form One?

The easiest way to form a seismic safety advisorycommittee is by an executive order of the governor.Typically, the idea would be initiated by the governoror by the director of emergency management orgeological survey. The governor would then requestone of these agencies, in consultation with others, topropose a list of members, all of whom have agreedto serve if selected. The governor's office would thenrevise and approve the list, and issue the executiveorder. A seismic safety advisory committee may alsobe established by the state legislature, with theadvantage that the organization becomes morepermanent (a disadvantage is that it is much morecumbersome to initiate). The legislature must alsoconsider how to appoint members.

I a

How States Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes

local dinner meetings. Tap into thisnetwork:

* Submit an article to their maga-zine or newsletter.

* Participate in their conferences.

a Organize workshops and invitethem.

Building officials. Contact thenearest model building code organi-zation (see Appendix D) to identifynearby jurisdictions -with codes andto learn the names of the buildingofficials.

Civil engineers. The AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers (ASCE, seeAppendix E) is the largest profes-sional organization for civil engi-neers. The ASCE has sixteen sectionsdivided into branches that covermajor metropolitan areas. Many ofthese groups have regular meetings.ASCE also has tbwenty-one regionalcouncil organizations.

Structural engineers. The ASCEincludes structural engineers, andsome states have their own profes-sional structural engineers associa-tions. You might also make use ofthe expertise offered by local mem-bers of the Earthquake EngineeringResearch Institute (EERI, see Appen-dix E).

Professional engineers. Somestates have associations of profes-sional engineers representinglicensed engineers in the state,including civil, structural, mechani-cal, and others. Contact the NationalSociety of Professional Engineers(NSPE, see Appendix E) for informa-tion about your state organization.

Architects. The American Insti-tute of Architects (AIA) is the largestprofessional organization of archi-tects. Contact the national office (seeAppendix E) for information on yourstate or local chapter.

Home builders or contractors.Most states and localities haveassociations of home builders andbuilding contractors. You will needto meet with them to institute or

strengthen codes. Some constructionassociations, such as the NationalAssociation of Home Builders andthe Associated General Contractorsof America, are members of theBuilding Seismic Safety Council(NAHB, ACCA, and BSSC, seeAppendix E).

City and county managers. Chiefadministrators of cities and countiesbelong to the International City/County Management Association(ICLMA, see Appendix E). The ICMVAhas chapters in every state.

Chambers of commerce. Manybusinesses belong to the Chamber ofCommerce. The businesses can bevaluable supporters if you convincethem of the business disruptionsthat damaging earthquakes cancause.

The media. The media can bevery helpful in educating the publicto the benefits of seismic provisionsand generating public support forthe proposed changes. Try todevelop a personal relationship withreporters at major state newspapersand television stations. Offer toprovide background information(see Appendix H for sample pressreleases), and be available forinterviews when a newsworthyearthquake elsewhere generatesinterest in your state.

Finally do not limit your effortsto potential supporters. You mustalso identify potential opponents,and convince them of the value ofyour proposed changes. It is betterto remove one opponent than to addten supporters.

Step 3: Lobby theDecision-Making BodyThe state legislature or some admin-istrative board or commission hasthe authority to amend the existingcode or adopt a code. You shouldlobby this decision-making bodywith information explaining whythe changes are needed (i.e., seismicprovisions) and describing the kindof support you have gathered.

* Professional engineering andarchitectural organizations.Coordinate with organizationssuch as the American Society ofCivil Engineers and theAmerican institute of Archi-tects. Each group represents alarge and influential constitu-ency, and they can lendcredible support expertise, anda network of lobbyists. Lettersof support from architectureand engineering associationswere very helpful in theenactment of Arkansas' seismicrequirement.

a Building and comnerceassociations. Try to gain thesupport of a building orcommerce association. TheMasonry Institute of Tennessee,for example, has been veryactive in promoting seismicdesign and construction.

* Local civic organizations.Meet with local groups andwork to gain communitysupport. The League of WomenVoters in w estern Kentuckywas instrumental in m akingearthquakes a public issue inthat state.

* Seismic safety advisorycommittee. If your state orlocality does not have such acommittee, form one. This is avery effective away to keepearthquake issues on the publicagenda and can greatly help toinitiate new programs andlegislation for seismic safety.See page 18.

19

20 Chapter 4

FIGURE 4.2 Kenhcky has a statewidebuilding code requirement (state capitolshown above). (Source: KentuckyLegislative Research Commission)

E = _. 0

u I- .C

* Find a member of the legisla-ture to introduce your pro-posed legislation.

* Gain the support of theGovernor's office.

* Research and prepare the draftlegislation. Focus on your twomain goals: (a) the code mustbe up to date and (b) the codemust include the latest seismicprovisions.

* Testify before committeehearings. Be clear, concise,persuasive, and authoritativein your comments.

* Lobby the legislature (bothhouses) once the bill is re-ported out of committee.

* Monitor the bill throughout thelegislative process, includingits final stage in the governor'soffice.

Implementing changes to thestate code may require legisla tiveaction. This process can be some-what involved. The followingparagraphs describe how to initiatechanges at the legislative level;many of the suggestions given areappropriate for dealing with anydecision-making body.

Find a member of the legislatureto introduce the bill. You must finda legislator sympathetic to yourcause-perhaps he or she lives in anearthquake-prone part of the state orhas a reputation for promotingpublic safety issues. Demonstrate tothe legislator that you have builtwidespread support for the legisla-tion.

Gain the support of theGovernor's office. In the end, youwill need the Governor to sign thelegislation into law. The sooner youcan get the Governor's support, thebetter. Furthermore, many legisla-tors will look to the Governor'soffice for leadership during thelegislative process.

Research and prepare the draftlegislation. A legislative researchdepartment usually is available todraft the actual bill. If you are ableto submit a well-drafted bill or canprovide technical support to the

legislative staff, their job will be madeeasier and the process will be facili-tated. The more complete yourpackage, the farther it will go throughan overworked legislature.

A good strategy is to prepare thebill in advance so that you can movequickly when a window of opportu-nity opens. Such opportunitiestypically occur when there is a smallearthquake in your state or a disas-trous earthquake elsewhere in theworld. For example, interest inseismic codes increased in the centraland eastern United States followingthe 1988 Armenian and 1989 LomaPrieta, California earthquakes.Sometimes fires or building collapsescause renewed interest in buildingcode legislation. The statewidebuilding code requirements in bothTennessee and Kentucky (see Appen-dix B, C) were enacted following fatalfires. At the very least, after the nextearthquake scare the state legislaturemight be willing to pass a statewideseismic design requirement, asMissouri and Arkansas did in 1991(see Appendix B, C).

Testify before committee hear-ings. Following its introduction, thebill is assigned to one or morecommittees. Each committee sched-ules hearings at which interestedorganizations and lobbyists maypresent their comments. The hearingschedule usually is tight. Thus,testimony must be well organized,concise, and effectively presented.You must be able to convince thecommittee members, in clear andpersuasive language, that seismiccodes are necessary for the welfareand economic well-being of the stateand that voting for the proposed billwill enhance their reputations.Information from this book will help.You should address the followingquestions:

What are the chances of a largeearthquake happening in yourstate, and what damage would itdo?

* Why is legislation needed?

20 Chapter 4

How States 'Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes

* How would the legislation affectthe state?

* What are its benefits?

* What is the evidence for thesesupposed benefits?

What are the costs, and whopays?

How do the benefits justify thecosts?

* Why does your organizationsupport the legislation?

* What other organizations supportit?

Remember that dozens of legisla-tive bills are introduced for everyone that succeeds, and it's possiblethat your bill will die in committee,requiring you to begin the processagain. If your experience convincesyou that legislative approval is notrealistic, consider the alternativeroute of encouraging widespreadadoption of local seismic codeprovisions (see chapter 5).

Lobby the legislature once thebill is reported out of committee.Once the committee recommendsthe bill to the legislature as a whole,make sure that all the legislators inboth houses are provided withcomplete information about thevalue of the bill, including docu-mentation of the support you havegathered.

Monitor the bill throughout thelegislative process. To succeed, thebill must pass both houses, and thegovernor must sign it into law.Lacking a positive vote in eitherhouse, the bill wlill die. Once the billis passed by one house, it moves tothe other house, where the process isrepeated. Because there may beattempts to amend the bill along theway or in a conference cormmittee ofboth houses, you must keep moni-toring the bill throughout the entireprocess and maintain support forthe bill.

if the bill passes the legislature,the governor may sign or veto it.

Again, make sure that thegovernor's office is provided withcomplete information about thevalue of the bill, including docu-mentation of the support you havegathered. If you have done yourwork well there should be no last-minute opposition, and the gover-nor is likely to sign it into law.

Step 4:The Last Mile:AdministrativeImplementation andEnforcement

Once you have established thenecessary rules changes or statutesand the seismic provisions areapproved, continue your involve-ment through the administrativeimplementation and enforcementstages.

An administrative departmentwill be directed to develop the rulesand regulations for implementationand enforcement. An administratorwill need to conduct additionalpublic hearings to consider theproposed rules. You should stayinformed of the date(s) of hearingsand look for opportunities to presentwritten comments and publictestimony.

Draft rules tIpically will bepublished for a fixed period ofpublic reviews You must stay intouch with the administrator toensure that you are notified -of thereview period as soon as it is knownand that you receive the draft rulesas soon as they are available. Therewill then be adequate time for youand other supporters to review theproposed rules and provide in-formed analysis and comments. Aswith the legislative process, themore persuasive your commentsand the more authoritative thecommentators, the better yourchances for success.

For ongoing enforcement issuessee chapter 6, 'ihnproving CodeEnforcement."

MI_

JsllzIjgtIU.

* Organize your support ahead'of time. Be prepared to actwhen the proposed rules arereleased.

* Find out when the reviewperiod wili be so that yoursupporters can be readyy

* Obtain a copy of the draft rulesthe day they are released.

* Use your supporters to reviewand comment on the rules.

' Submit written comments andpublic testimony and be sureyour supporters submitcomments.

* Be clear, concise, persuasive,and authoritative in yourcomments.

NOTES

1 Golden, Joseph H., et al., Hurricane Hugo:

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and

South Carolina, prepared for the Commnt-tee on Natural Disasters, NationalResearch Council, National Academy ofSciences (Washington, DC), 1994.

2 lMlorro-w, B.H., and Ragsdale, A.K, EarlyResponse to Hurricane Marilyn in the U.S.Vigin islands, University of Colorado,Natural Hazards Center, Quick ResponseReport#82, 1996.

3 Information provided by the VirginIslands Department of Planning andNatural Resources, Division of Permits.

4 Condensed from Gishansky, R., Reducing

Earthquake Hznards in the Central UnitedStates: State Seismic Safety AdvisoryCoin'nittees, prepared by the Department

of Urban and Regional Planning, Univ er-sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,and distributed by the Central U.S.Earthquake Consortium, 1992; also seeSeismic Safety Comnmission of California,Creatfing a Seisic Safety Advisory Bocard,

FEMA #266, August 1995.

21

22

Chapter 5How Cities and Counties Can AdoptSeismic Building Codes

This chapter takes up the issues andprocesses involved in adopting seis-mic provisions at the city and countylevel-a viable, albeit time-consum-ing, alternative to adopting a stateseismic code, described in chapter 4.

How To Improve Local CodeRequirements

State seismic managers and localofficials may find it easiest to adoptseismic provisions through localgovernmental bodies rather than on

the state level. In most cases, locali-ties can take effective action regard-less of state requirements.

Step 1: Determine LocalCode Practices andOptionsCurrent regulation at the state levelwill govern options for action at thelocal level. If your state regulates alllocal construction, there is little foryou to do, although you shouldsatisfy yourself that enforcement isadequate. If your state mandateslocal adoption of a specified code,check to ensure that the communityhas complied.

If your state does not currentlyregulate, or if it allows for stricterlocal regulations, there are numer-ous options at the local level. Themunicipality or county can developits own original code, modify theexisting code of a neighboringmunicipality, or adopt a modelbuilding code. If the jurisdictionlacks an adequate code, it is up tothe state seismic program managerand local officials to convince thecomnmunity to initiate a buildingcode.

Statewide inventory of localpractices. State seisnmic programmanagers should collect informationon local practices, to determinewhich localities within a state aredeficient in code adoption andenforcement. At a minimum,communities in the most seismicallyhazardous parts of the state shouldbe targeted. This information canhelp identify communities most inneed of assistance. Key questions toask include the following:

* Has a local code been adopted?

* If so, when was it adopted and bywhat means?

How To Adopt a City or County Seismic CodeBe sure your locality (a) adopts the most recent version of a model building code, (b) establishes a

process for updating the code, and (c) does not delete or modify the seismic provisions

Is your locality covered by a state, city, or county code?

Yes { No

Is the code up to date? |rspporat the state and local

leve oradopt!ng

Yes No

Does the code include Persadet loca

se ism i c p rovisio ns?gnovernment to adoptcode or improve

Yes No enforcement

CongratulationsThe seismic code your locality has adopted will reducedamage and loss of life in the event of an earthquake

How Cities and Counties Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes

a Is it the latest version?

s Are building permits required?

* How many architects and engi-neers are on staff?

What is the name and phonenumber of the building -official?

What method is used to update thecode?

* How frequently is it updated?

* What type(s) of construction areregulated?

* Are seismic requirements part ofthe current code?

The state of Illinois gathered thiskind of information from 300 jurisdic-tions in the southern part of the state.See their survey instrument inAppendix C.

State seismic managers also canuse the information on local codedeficiencies to help make an argu-ment to the state for a statewide code(see chapter 4). Documenting thenumber of communities, or thenumber of people in communities,without building codes can be apersuasive argument, especially ifthey are in a seismically vulnerablepart of the state.

Authority to adopt a local code.The authority to adopt a local code isusually granted by the state legisla-ture under its police powers, whichallow the municipality or county toadopt a building code to promote thepublic health, safety, and welfare. Youneed to be sure you have this author-ity to adopt a code.

Building code regulations areenacted through local ordinances.Municipalities and counties mustformally adopt a building codeordinance via a local legislativeprocess. Typically the building codeordinance is drafted, reviewed forlegality, proposed, debated throughpublic hearings, and voted on by thecity council or county board. Oncethe ordinance is approved, themunicipality or county becomes theenforcement agent.

Model codes are usually the bestoption. It is highly unlikely that amunicipality would have the exper-tise, budget, or time to develop anoriginal document. Most localities,therefore, identify a model buildingcode in order to make code adoptioneasy.

If the municipality adopts one ofthe model building codes, draftingand detailed legal review are notnecessary. In addition, each modelbuilding code organization supplies asample ordinance in its code book.These sample ordinances have beenused successfully by other munici-palities.

The model building code organiza-tions also provide administrative andtechnical assistance to the municipal-ity during adoption, in addition toother support, such as code provisioninterpretation, continuing education,and inspector testing and certification(see detailed information in Appen-dix D). The adoption of a modelbuilding code is more than thereferencing of a document: It involvesbecoming a member of a professionalorganization.

The model building code organiza-tions do not require adoption ofcodes in their entirety. Specific codesections may be revised to reflectlocal conditions. The organizationscan provide direct assistance in somecases. However, municipalitiesshould be careful that revisions ofone section do not adversely affectanother section. Remember thatthrough the seismic hazard map theseismic provisions already accountfor local conditions.

Use of a model code means thatthe public debate over the code'stechnical details has already beenconducted at the national level. Localopponents questioning technicalaspects of the code or the seismiczone maps for your state can be toldthat the code represents a nationalconsensus of hundreds of engineersand building officials. The maps andthe seismic force calculations are

E erj-iF~rw~r~a)('llEI-flraEEIf

The general steps involved ina opting seismic provisions at thelocal level are the same as for thestate level, with some modifica-tions.

Step 1:Determine local code practicesand what state regulations (ifany) govern options for actionat the local level.

Step 2:Gather support at the state andlocal levels.

Step 3:Persuade the local governmentto adopt code or improve codeenforcement that includesseismic provisions.

Step 4:Provide technical assistancethroughout the adoption,implementation, and enforce-ment stages.

23

Chapter 5

* If your state regulates all localconstruction, satisfy yourselfthat enforcement is adequate.

* If your state mandates localadoption of a specified code,ensure that communities havecomplied.

* If your state does not currentlyregulate, or if it allows forstricter local regulations, gatherinformation on local codepractices and explore youroptions at the local level.

* Options may include develop-ing an original code, modifyingthe existing code of a neighbor-ing municipality, or adopting amodel building code.

* If a jurisdiction lacks anadequate code, convince thecommunity to initiate abuilding code.

* Model codes are usually thebest option, because of thetechnical support provided bythe code organization.

based on the best current knowl-edge, are designed by nationalexperts in the field, and are re-viewed by committees of engineersand geologists throughout thecountry. The codes also recognizethe realities of local enforcement:The voting members of the modelcode organizations include the localbuilding officials of your state andregion.

Key points. To ensure that alocality has the most current widelyaccepted standards of seismicdesign, be sure that it: (a) adopts oneof the three model codes, (b) adoptsthe most recent version of the code,(c) establishes a process for periodicupdating of the code, and (d) doesnot delete or modify the seismicprovisions.

Step 2: Gather Support atthe State and Local LevelsWide public support is needed toenact a new community buildingcode. Information gathered in step 1can help to obtain state support forchanging or introducing the localcode. It is also important to have theactive support of local chapters ofprofessional associations of engi-neers and architects, such as theNational Society of ProfessionalEngineers, American Society of CivilEngineers, and American Institute ofArchitects. Form partnerships withthese organizations (see AppendixE).

Civic groups and local serviceclubs, such as the League of WomenVoters and Rotary Clubs, canprovide valuable support. As youpursue contacts in the community,you should also seek support andacceptance by business and con-struction organizations, such as localbusinesses, economic developmentassociations, and the Chamber ofCommerce. Arrange to give presen-tations to these groups. Materials forsample workshop presentations areincluded in Appendix G.

Good rapport with the localmedia can help your case. Find areceptive reporter and explain thehazards the community faces.Personal relationships work best, asyou will need the media's trust if thebattle over code adoption gets hot.Even if you do not connect with aparticular reporter, there are actionsyou can take. Send out press releasesfollowing earthquakes, to accom-pany local presentations, or toaccompany announcements of stateinitiatives. Sample press releases areincluded in Appendix H. Try to beinterviewed on a local news or talkprogram. Send an editorial to thelocal newspaper. Use material fromthis book to help make your case!

Opposition typically comes frombusiness and development interestswho are afraid that any change inlocal regulations will scare awaynew business. A local economy isoften somewhat fragile-businesspeople may worry that if theircommunity is perceived as beinguncooperative with new business,then economic development will goelsewhere.

To avoid eruption of unexpectedcontroversy during the code-adoption process, you should meetbeforehand with the professional,business, and labor organizationslikely to be affected. These meetingswill be mutually educational. Mostof these groups will be surprised toknow that the earthquake risk isreal, and that seismic codes arewidely accepted as a cost-effectivetechnique to reduce hazards.Conversely, you will find that theirconcerns are genuine and that youmay need to design your codeimplementation process to accountfor some of their concerns. Try tointegrate the concerns of each groupinto your proposal.

Past experience has shown thatinitial opponents find that they canlive with building codes becausecodes do not drive business fromcommunities. Businesses have manymore important factors than codes

24

How Cities and Counties Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes 25

to consider in their location deci-sions. In the words of one buildingofficial, "I've never heard of anindustry not coming to townbecause of seismic requirements."

It is true that local officials tend torespond to short-term concerns and,furthermore, prefer results that arevisible and immediate. Still, manylocalities can be persuaded to acceptthe model building codes. Anticipat-ing some common objections, youmight try the arguments givenbelow.

For elected officials: A damagingearthquake can occur during yourterm of office. The levels of ground-shaking represented on the code'sseismic hazard map have a 0.8percent chance of occurring i anyfour-year period at each point on themap (such as the community inquestion), and about a 2 percentchance of occurring in any eight-year period. But these are the designevents (see page 10). What about alesser earthquake? An earthquakehalf as big as the design event couldcause severe damage to manystructures not meeting the code andlittle damage to structures builtaccording to seismic code. Such anevent has about a 4 percent chanceof occurring in any four-year periodand about an 8 percent chance in aneight-year period.

For elected officials: Citizenssupport seismic codes. Studies inCalifornia and the central UnitedStates have shown that most citizenssupport seismic building codes, andthat elected officials underestimatethis support. For example, in 1984Arizona State University surveyedresidents and officials in the highseismic risk area surrounding theNew Madrid fault zone.' The surveyfound that 62 percent of residentsbelieved that seismic building codesfor new structures are "very impor-tant, " and most supported codeseven if substantial costs would beinvolved. In contrast, support bycommunity leaders was much lowerat 37 percent. Furthermore, other

A - *L .': L.A.7 *: :.

In early 1989 the city of Jonesboro,Arkansas, adopted the 1988Standard Butilding Code (SBC),the first edition of this code withseismic requirements. The sameyear representatives of a proposedindustrial facility were negotiat-ing with city officials, attemptingto win as many concessions fromthe city as possible. The state wasvery eager to have the facility. Thedevelopment representativesasked Jonesboro to revoke theseismic provisions. The citycouncil agreed to do it on October16, the day before the LomaPrieta, California earthquake. Inthe words of a city official, thiswas "bad timing." Because ofsubsequent public pressure theseismic provisions were restoredto the code.

It turns out that the entirecontroversy was unnecessary.What the development represen-tatives did not know was that the

structural engineering firmdesigning the facility was design-ing it to the 1988 SBC and hadnever intended to do otherwise.The plant was, in fact, alreadyconsistent with the 1988 SBC andbuilt with the seismic provisionsin the code. Jonesboro hascontinued to grow, with the codein place.

FIGURE 5.1 New constrictioncontinues toflouirish in Jonesboro.(Source: City of Jonesboro)

studies have shown that communityleaders greatly underestimate thepublic's concerns about earthquakes,mistakenly believing public concernto be less than their own.2

In a 1994 telephone survey ofresidents in six hurricane-proneareas, 91 percent of respondentsindicated that builders should berequired to follow new, stricterbuilding codes even though it mightadd 5 percent to the cost of a home.3

Codes will not hurt business.Building codes have not hurt theeconomies of the forty-one states thathave them, nor have they hurt the 95percent of all U.S. cities and townsthat have codes. Seismic design addsonly approximately 1 to 1.5 percent tothe cost of a building, according to a1985 BSSC study. 4

Is there a chance that local build-ings will be shaken by an earthquakeat some point? An earthquake can

How Cities and Counties Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes 25

Chapter 5

- ' . . .

Address the concerns of potentialopponents by emphasizing thesekey points:

* For elected officials: A damag-ing earthquake can occurduring your term of office.

* For elected officials: Citizenssupport seismic codes.

* Codes will not hurt business.

* A seismic code will improvesuccessful survival of lives,properties, and businesses inthe next earthquake.

* Everyone else is doing it.

* It's easy.

* It's good for the community.

~9-1 4

Consider educational programs orincentive programs that willappeal to local governmentalofficials:

* Sponsor workshops on how touse the codes.

* Buy the code books anddistribute them yourself.

* Take local officials on anearthquake field trip.

* Consider ways of subsidizingthe cost of joining the modelbuilding code organizations.

* Provide relevant information tothe decision-making commit-tee.

* Monitor the process frombeginning to end.

devastate the small businesses in acommunity. Following the 1994Northridge, California, earthquake,thousands of small businesses had torelocate or temporarily shut down.Some never opened again. Suchinterruptions can be fatal to smallbusinesses. Simply the loss ofbusiness activity can affect neighbor-ing businesses that are fortunate tosurvive the earthquake ground-shaking.

A seismic code will improvesuccessful survival of the nextearthquake. People will live andwork in these buildings. Codeswork. Look at the evidence ofrelatively low loss of life in theearthquakes in California in 1989and 1994. Either a community isdesigned to survive the next earth-quake, or it is not.

Everyone else is doing it. Thefederal government has set anexample with Executive Order12699. Seismic codes are becomingmore prevalent at all levels ofgovernment, which means twothings: (a) a community will not beat an economic disadvantage forattracting new business and (b) ifother communities adopt seismicprovisions, those that do not havethis safeguard in place invite liabil-ity.

It's easy. It doesn't take much tostart. Call up a code organization,buy the code, develop a fee structure(to pay for administration), andcontract with the county or anothernearby agency for initial staffing.

It's good for the community.With a seismic code, residents willknow that the community is on itsway to seismic safety. The code willreduce long-term liability costs. Agood code may ultimately improvethe community's insurance rating(see chapter 6). A seismic code is notan admission of community weak-ness, but rather a sign of communitystrength. It says that the communityvalues safety, takes itself seriously,and wants to survive natural disas-

ter. All communities need a seismiccode regardless of hazard. Seismiccodes supplied by the building codeorganizations account for the uniquelevel of hazard in each community.If a community's hazard is low, thecode will reflect that. The seismichazard zone map is based on thelatest national scientific evaluationof earthquake risk, representing theconsensus of a number of scientificand professional organizations. Thecode requirements for each commu-nity reflect that estimate of hazard.

Step 3: Persuade LocalGovernment to AdoptCode or Improve CodeEnforcementAs part of gaining approval of yourproposed changes, consider educa-tional programs or incentive pro-grams that will appeal to localgovernmental officials:

* Sponsor workshops on how toadopt and enforce the codes.Sample workshop materials areprovided in Appendix G. Thesecan be supplemented with areamaps and with examples of themodel codes.

* Buy the code books and distrib-ute them yourself. You canpurchase the codes and othermaterials directly from the modelcode organizations. If localofficials can see the quality ofmaterials and support providedby the model code organizations,they may be less reluctant.

* Take local officials on an earth-quake field trip. For the cost of abus rental and several lunches,you can show local officialsnearby earthquake faults, evi-dence of past earthquakes, areassusceptible to seismic groundfailure, and seismically unsafebuildings.

* Consider ways of subsidizing thecost of joining the model buildingcode organizations. In some

26Chapter 5

How Cities and Counties Can Adopt Seismic Building Codes

cases, state agencies may bewilling to subsidize the cost oflocal code adoption and enforce-ment.

Previous experience has shownthat it helps to cultivate an insideadvocate. Find one or more councilmembers sympathetic to your causeand help them to craft persuasivearguments. Inside advocates mightbe people who have experienced anearthquake or other disaster, have aprofessional interest in the subject,or are particularly concerned aboutpublic safety issues.

Once the proposed ordinance isprepared a nd introduced, it usuallyis assigned to a standing committeeor subcommittee, which conducts apublic hearing. You will need towork with the committee, providerelevant information, and stayinformed regarding its scheduledmeetings. Proponents must maketheir presentations clear, concise,and professional. They shouldprovide factual and persuasiveresponses to the concerns of interestgroups in the jurisdiction. Some ofthe information presented elsewherein this book can help in preparingpresentations (see step 3 in chapter4).

If the committee recommendsthat the ordinance be passed, thegoverning body usually will call theordinance up for debate. A strongpositive vote by the committee willlessen the possibility of a longdebate by the governing body.

You should monitor the approvalprocess carefully from beginning toend, and be prepared to testify andprovide additional information asneeded to ensure approval.

Step 4:Assist LocalGovernments ThroughouttheAdoption,Implementation, andEnforcement Stages

The state seismic program managerand local advocates should beprepared to provide technicalassistance throughout the code-adoption process, including theimplementation and enforcementstages. Assistance may includeinformation on:

* Seismic hazard in the state

* Function and effectiveness ofseismic codes

• Elements of code enforcement

* Services provided by the modelcode organization

Government officials interested ininitiating a new code, or improvingtheir -code enforcement may find ituseful to obtain a copy of this entirebook.

Implementation and enforcementwill follow once the code is adoptedand the ordinance is assigned to anagency or department, such as thebuilding or engineering department.In many cases, the new code willinitiate a building department thathad not previously existed.

The building officials then needto revise existing procedures, suchas plan review, permit issuance, andinspection. Personnel training mustalso be updated as required. Staffmembers should take courses andreceive training materials offered bythe appropriate model building codeorganization (see Appendix ID).

It will take some time before thedepartment becomes effective atimplementing the ordinance.Professional organizations in thecommunity can help this process bymonitoring it and informing thebuilding officials of any problems.(See chapter 6, "Improving CodeEnforcement.) }

W_

• Provide information aboutseismic hazards in the state, thefunction and effectiveness ofseismic codes, elements of codeenforcement, and servicesprovided by the model codeorganizations.

* Keep informed of implementa-tion milestones.

* Meet periodically with thebuilding official(s).

Verify that adequate proce-dures have been introduced forplan review , inspection, andstaff training.

Inform the building officials ofany problems.

NOTESIl ushkatel, AH., and Nigg, J.M,

"Opinion Congruence and the Formna-tion of Seismic Safety Policies," PolicyStudies Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, May 1987.

2 E.g., Wyner, AlJ., and Mann, D.E.,Preparingfor Californias' Earfthquakes:

L ocal Goverrnment and Seismic Safety,

Institute of Governmental Studies,Uiniversity of California at Berkeley,1986.

3 Insurance Institute for Property LossReduction (nowv IBlHS), Public OpinionConcerning Various Issues Relating toHome Builders, Building Codes andDanmage A'fitigation, UPLR (Boston,M4A), 1995.

4 Building Seismic Safety Council, SocietalImplications: Selected Readings, IFEMLA

#84, June 1985.

27

28

Chapter 6Improving Code Enforcement:A CriticalLink

"

4, �� 5, � � �� � " !.1;

;� ;. -1 A��

FIGURE 6.1 A substantial portion of thedamage fom Hurricane Anidrew in 1992was fron lack of enforcement of the SouithFlorida Building Code.' (Source: FEMA1993)

A building code is just a book.Enforcement and effective adminis-tration of a good code are the keysto achieving the goal of buildingsafer buildings. The information inthis chapter applies to any level ofgovernment implementing the code,be it state, county, or municipal.

Poor Code Enforcement Resultsin Deficient Buildings

Recent studies following HurricanesHugo and Andrew have shownweaknesses in code enforcement. In1991 State Farm Insurance Companycontracted with SBCCI to evaluatecode compliance in twelve ran-domly selected coastal communities.They found that inspectors andreviewers had little or no training inwind-resistant construction and thatthere was a general lack of enforce-ment of adequate connections ofwindows, doors, and mechanicalequipment to the building frame.About half of the communities werenot enforcing their own codestandards for wind resistance:

Following Hurricane Andrew,reports by a Dade County grandjury and by the Federal Insurance

Administration concluded that asubstantial portion of the storm'sdamage was attributable to lack ofenforcement of the South FloridaBuilding Code. According to theInsurance Services Office, Inc., atleast one-fourth of the record $15.5billion in insured losses caused byAndrew were because of construc-tion that failed to meet DadeCounty's code. Thus, even incommunities with adequate codes,significant damage can be attributedto poor compliance and enforce-ment.

In a 1993 study, G.G. Schierle ofthe University of Southern Califor-nia found significant problems inquality control of seismic-resistantconstruction in California. By meansof a survey of design professionalsand site inspection of 143 projects,the researchers found that key itemsto resist seismic load are frequently(13 to 72 percent of surveyed units)missing or flawed. Reasons include"inadequate communication, little orno construction observation bydesign professionals, ignorance,greed, shortsighted false economy,and lack of scrutiny by buildinginspectors." 4

Clearly, much effort needs to bespent on improving code enforce-ment. The weaknesses becomeapparent only at the moment whenresistance is most needed-whenthe disaster strikes.

Insurers Recognize the CriticalImportance of Code Enforcement

The code enforcement problemsdiscovered in the wake of HurricaneAndrew have prompted the insur-ance industry to initiate a BuildingCode-Effectiveness GradingSchedule, in order to identifycommunities with good enforce-ment practices. It is planned that

Improving Code EnforcemnentA Critical Link

property owners in communitieswith such practices will be rewardedwith lowered insurance premiums(see box on page 30). This newsystem, phased in over a five-yearperiod beginning in 1995, shouldgain the attention of local officialsand property owners and improvethe political environment for localsupport of code enforcement.

Elements of CodeEnforcement

Code enforcement and administra-tion consist of five sequentialelements. The most importantaspects of enforcement are planrevie-wA and construction inspection,but effective code administrationmust consider the entire sequence.

Element 1: Keep the CodeProvisions Up To Date

Simply adopting a code is notenough. A code is an active docu-ment, evolving to reflect newAknowledge and new standards ofpractice. Once a Jurisdiction makes acommitment to use a building code,it must be prepared to update itslocal code on a regular basis.

Element 2: Ensure That BuildersApply for Permits

Obviously, if builders try to avoidthe code-application process, thenthe code cannot do its job. A jurisdic-tion must have inspectors out in thefield who know the community. Theinspector needs to be alert to newconstruction in his or her jurisdic-tion and must be aware of currentactive permits.

In addition, public relations is animportant aspect of code enforce-ment. The building departmentmust cultivate and maintain cordialrelations with the building anddesign communuity. This can be doneby arrangoing informal meetings,sending written materials to localorganizations, speaking to commu-nity groups, and maintaining

memberships in appropriate tradeand professional organizations.

Element 3: Have a QualifiedReviewer Review Plans

Plan review is one of the two pointsat which the local government canaffect the details of building con-struction. At a minimum, planreview verifies that the designcomplies with the building code.This is the most cost-effectivemoment to catch mistakes, beforeany money is spent on construction.Some jurisdictions may also reviewstructural calculations.

Plan reviewers must be fullyknowledgeable about code require-ments. The code organizations offercertification programs to recognizethe capabilities of plan reviewers.So-me jurisdictions use licensedarchitects and engineers wvho can gobeyond code compliance review andverify calculations and overallbuilding safety. An applicant for abuilding permit must submit plansfor reviews and approval. Thebuilding department can approve,require revisions, or reject the plans.Construction cannot begin until thebuilding department confirms thatthe plans conform to the buildingcode.

Construction of buildings largerthan one- or twt0o-family dwellingsusually requires architectural andengineering designs. Architects andengineers must be certified orlicensed in order to practice in astate. State statutes require that thelicensed professional engineer and/or architect place his or her seal andsignature on the designs. The sealand signature signify that the designis at the accepted professionalstandard, which is typically the mostrecent version of a model buildingcode or technical document. Anadded incentive for conformity isthe legal liability the engineers andarchitects assume when the seal andsignature are placed on the docu-ment.

k~fl= . Cr _

A recent study by the EarthquakeEngineering Research Instituteexamined why poor constructionpractices remain a key cause ofearthquake damages. It found thata key problem is deficient trainingfor those who construct andinspect buildings.

Specific findings were: (a) seismicresistance is not currently apriority topic for building offi-cials, inspectors, or the trades, (b)there is a lack of conceptualunderstanding of buildingperformance in an earthquake, (c)there is inadequate communica-tion among education providers,(d) training materials are inad-equate in content and deliverymethods are inefficient (e) there isa lack of certification and continu-ing education programs, and (f)there is a need for improved on-the-job training.

The message is clear: We must doa better job of training thoseindividuals wNThose work isdirectly linked to the performanceof buildings during earthquakes. 5

29'

Chapter 6

0-91= ~ . - ' . - - M 4

Insurers and lenders have begun to realize that adoption and enforcementof building codes in general, and seismic codes in particular, are in theirlong-term interest. Accordingly, in 1995 the Insurance Services Office,Commercial Risk Services (ISO/CRS) began to phase in a new BuildingCode-Effectiveness Grading Schedule. By the end of the decade, thisschedule will rate the code-enforcement capabilities of every municipalityin the United States.

The insurance industry is developing this new grading schedule toreward communities for promoting property and life safety protectionthrough the use and enforcement of modern codes. The system will be usedby property insurers to set differential rates among communities based oncode-enforcement practices. Property owners in communities with goodcode enforcement will pay lower insurance premiums-and owners incommunities with poor enforcement will pay more.

The grading schedule measures resources and support available tobuilding code enforcement efforts. It assesses each municipality's supportfor code enforcement, plan review, and field inspection. The gradingprocess includes interviews with municipal officials, examination ofdocuments, review of training requirements and work schedules, staffinglevels, and certification of staff members.

The new system is comparable to the fire protection grading system andthe community rating system for flood insurance already used by ISO/CRS.These two systems use a rating scale of one to ten, with one representing thebest protection and ten indicating no protection.

For more information, contact the coordinating body, the Institute forBusiness and Home Safety (formerly lIPLR; address in Appendix E).

affect the details of building con-struction. Inspection verifies whetherconstruction is proceeding accordingto the approved plans and theconditions of the permit. Inspectionis typically required at several keystages in the construction process.The inspector has a powerful en-forcement tool called a stop workorder. A stop work order is issued tothe construction firm if the inspectorfinds a code violation that must becorrected before any further con-struction is performed. At finalinspection, the building can beapproved for occupancy.

Depending on the jurisdiction,inspectors may be municipal em-ployees or contracted tradespeople.In either case, building inspectorsmust be well qualified. They mustknow how to read building plansand must be familiar with the code.More importantly, they must befamiliar with building practices sothey can recognize potential prob-lems. Model code organizations offercertification programs to recognizethe capabilities of inspectors.

Element 4: Ensure ThatConstruction Proceeds Accordingto Approved Plans

An owner receives a building permitto construct according to the ap-proved plans, and it is the legalresponsibility of the owner to do so.The builder uses the plans to ordermaterials and construct the building.The owner may hire inspectors orthe engineers and architects tooversee key aspects of the construc-tion in order to help verify compli-ance with the plans. To some extent,all government inspection systemsdepend on the owner's obligation toconstruct according to the approvedplans, which is inherent in theissuance of a permit.

Element 5: Have a QualifiedInspector Inspect theConstruction

Inspection is the second point atwhich the local government can

How to Establish anEffective Building CodeEnforcement ProgramThis section outlines the six stepstoward establishing an effectivebuilding code program. In addition,detailed case studies of six cities andcounties are contained in Appendix C.

Step l:Adopt a Model Code

The first step in establishing aprogram is to review and adopt amodel building code and join theappropriate code organization.Numerous publications and tele-phone-assistance services will thenbe available to help the new programget started. The information pro-vided includes organization charts,descriptions of staff duties, feestructures, suggested procedures,and so on. New members may wantto take seminars in plan review and

30

Improving Code EnforcementiA Critical Link

inspection before officially initiatingthe code.

New members can request themodel code staff to visit and assist inestablishing their program (seeinformation in Appendix D). Ifextensive help is requited, the codeorganization may be hired to pro-vide the needed assistance. It is easyto get started, because the codeorganizations are set up to effec-tively and efficiently provide all thesupport you need.

Step 2: Establish Fee Structuresfor Permits and Plan Review

Building departments collect fees topay for the costs of review, inspec-tion, and associated administrativeservices. The community sets the feestructure based on its needs. Somecommunities require the buildingdepartment to be completely self-supporting; others use the fees tooffset only a portion of their truecosts. Communities with significantexperience in code administrationcan set fees based on previousbudgets. Communities just startingout may prefer to use the fee struc-tures suggested by the code organi-zations.

Plan review fees typically arebased on estimated constructionvalue, which depends on buildingfloor area, type of construction, andproposed use. For example, underthe BOCA NBC, the suggestedbuilding plan review fee for $1million construction value is $1,250.Review for mechanical work,plumbing, energy conservation, orelectrical work is an additional 25percent each (i.e., each of theseadditional reviews, if required, costs$312).

Once plans are reviewed, a permitis issued. Typically the buildingpermit requires an additional fee topay for inspection costs. As withplan review, the fee is based on theestimated construction value. Underthe BOCA NBC, additional permitsare suggested for mechanical work,

31

plumbing, and so forth, for anadditional 25 percent each.

Fee schedules suggested by thethree model building code organiza-tions are provided in Appendix D.

Step 3: Institute a SystematicPlan Review System

A reviewe process must serve theneeds of the commuuity and thepublic agencies. Reviews must bedone as quickly as possible so as notto unduly disrupt the constructionindustry. Clearly, smaller projectsshould be expected to take less timethan larger projects. Applicantsshould be informed up-front of thetime required for review so they canplan their design and constructionschedule accordingly. Some depart-ments promise turnaround for smallprojects within a specified numberof days. Some jurisdictions offerfast-track reviews for an additionalfee.

Plans usually must be circulatedto several additional departmentsfor review, such as the planning,public works, and fire departments.It is best to have one departmentdesignated as the lead and torequire multiple plan copies fromthe applicant so as to facilitatemulti-department reviews.

Applicants should be kept wellinformed right from the start.Handouts and checklists are veryimportant so that they know whatmaterials to submit and how theplan will be judged.

Step 4:Adopt an InspectionSchedule

Each code has a recommendedinspection schedule based onconstruction milestones. For ex-ample, the BOCA NTBC suggests thefollowing inspections for residentialbuildings: footing forms andtrenches, basement and foundationwall forms, footing drains anddamp proofing, framing, wallboard,and final. Similar schedules exist for

- S MO -M-

Element 1:Keep the code provisions up todate.

Element 2-Ensure that builders apply forpermits.

Element 3:Havre a qualified reviewerrendew plans.

Element 4:Ensure that constructionproceeds according to ap-proved plans.

Element 5:Havte a qualified inspectorinspect the construction.

E=_uR4Wm 1

A twvo-day training course hasbeen developed for buildingofficials in Standard BuildingCode states that must now enforcethe seismic provisions in the latestSBC (NC, SC, MSS, TN, AR). Thepurposes of the course, developedby CUSEC, SBCCI, FEMA, BSSC,and IBHS, are to (a) raise the levelof awareness and understandingof the seismic provisions of theSBC and (b) increase understand-ing and support of building codeadoption and enforcement.Building officials in these statescan request the course from theirstate emergency managementagency Instruction is providedjointly by the state earthquakeprogram manager and an SBCCIinstructor.

32

Chapter 6

I I * II. I - Mr I -

The Massachusetts State Legislature has passed a law requiring that allbuilding inspectors be certified. Inspectors of Buildings or Building Com-missioners must complete the CABO exam as well as the BOCA NationalCode Exam. In addition to these requirements, they must also possess fiveyears of experience in building inspection and construction. The require-ments certify adequate education and training to ensure quality construc-tion and compliance with building codes.

Recently state building inspectors took the ATC-20 course, enabling themto assess damage after an earthquake occurs. This training paid off whenthese inspectors were called upon to estimate damage after a tornadooccurred in the state.

A serious fire in Quincy destroyed a retail warehouse and caused anestimated $7 million in damage. In response to this fire, the state initiatednew codes covering the use and occupancy of large retail warehouses.

These initiatives demonstrate the importance of updating enforcementand inspection

I~~u1=gcVJ1effigw

Step 1:Adopt a model code.

Step 2:Establish fee structures forpermits and plan review.

Step 3:Institute a systematic planreview system.

Step 4:Adopt an inspection schedule.

Step 5:Maintain a trained, qualifiedstaff.

Step 6:Be persistent but patient.

electrical and mechanical work andplumbing.

Typically, the builder or ownerwill call for inspection when eachspecified milestone is reached. Inaddition, inspectors occasionallymake unannounced inspectionsbased on their judgment of the workprogress and the quality of thecontractor.

Step 5: Maintain a Trained,Qualified Staff

Qualified staff members are a must.Ideally some staff members wouldbe licensed engineers and architects,but most departments are too smallto justify this cost. At a minimum,reviewers and inspectors must haveexperience in construction, be ableto read plans, and be familiar withthe code. Training in engineering orarchitecture is a plus.

Each of the model building codeorganizations offers certification in anumber of categories for inspectorsand plan reviewers. More and morebuilding departments are requiringor rewarding certification in order tcrecognize staff quality.

Step 6: Be Persistent But Patient

You need to realize that a new codewill not be implemented in one day.Adequate enforcement takes manyyears of experience and learningfrom mistakes. Procedures evolveover time. Building officials, planreviewers, and inspectors mustreceive technical training andcontinuing education, which cannotbe done overnight.

Still, once you adopt a code, thecode organizations and otherprofessional organizations offernumerous services to teach youwhat they have learned over theyears. The effort is worth it, asseismic codes afford communities ahigh degree of improved buildingsafety, which will save lives.

NOTES1 Federal Insurance Administration,

Building Performance: Hurricane Andrew

in Florida, FIA-22, December 1992.

2 Southern Building Code CongressInternational, Coastal Building Depart-

ment Survey, National Committee onProperty Insurance (now IBHS, inBoston), 1992.

3 Federal Insurance Administration,Building Performance: Hurricane Andrewin Florida, FIA-22, December 1992.

4 Schierle, G.G., Quality Control in SeismicResistant Construction, report to theNational Science Foundation, School ofArchitecture, University of SouthernCalifornia, 1993.

5 Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute. Construction Quality,Education, and Seismic Safety. EERIEndowment Fund White Paper,Oakland, California, April 1996.

Chapter 632

AppendixA:History and Principles of Seismic Design

34

Appendix AHistory and Principles of Seismic Design

FIGURE A.1 This 8-storiy reinforcedconcrete building was one of scores thatcollapsed during the 1923 Tokyo (Kanto)earthquake. The disasteru promnpted a limiton building heights (Sonce: Carl VSteinbrugge Collection, EarthquakeEngineering Reseat ch Center)

History of SeismicStandards

The first quantitative seismic codewas developed by an Italian com-mission following the 1908 Messina-Reggio earthquake, which killed160,000 people. Following the 1923earthquake in Kanto, Japan, whichkilled 140,000 people, the HomeOffice of Japan adopted a seismiccoefficient and a limit on buildingheights.'

First U.S. Seismic Codes: UBC andSEAOC in California

The earliest seismic design provi-sions in the United States wereintroduced in the appendix to the1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC),as a result of the 1925 Santa Barbaraearthquake. The 1930 editionincluded strict specifications formortar and workmanship onmasonry (brick) buildings. However,damage from the Long Beachearthquake of 1933 (Richter magni-tude 6.8) proved that unreinforcedmortar is unstable in earthquakes.Eighty-six percent of unreinforcedmasonry buildings in the city of

Long Beach experienced eithercollapse or extensive damage,rendering the buildings useless.Seventy-five percent of schools wereheavily damaged. Soon after thisearthquake California enacted theField Act, which specified seismicdesign forces for school buildings,and the Riley Act, which mandatedseismic design for most publicbuildings throughout the state.

By the 1950s some Californiamunicipalities had ad opted addi-tional seismic-resistant design andmaterial specifications. UBC was thefirst model building code to incorpo-rate comprehensive seismic designrequirements, though they remainedin the appendix for many years. The1949 edition of the UBC containedthe first national seismic hazardmap.

In 1957 the Structural EngineersAssociation of California (SEAOC)began to develop seismic standardsfor use throughout the state. SEAOCin 1959 published the first edition ofReconmended Lateral Force Require-ments and Commnientary, commonlycalled the Blue Book. The Blue Bookreflected the latest knowledge ofseismic design and was usedthroughout California. The seismicdesign provisions remained in anappendix to the UBC until theInternational Conference of BuildingOfficials (ICBO) adopted the BlueBook provisions into the main codein 1961. The seismic requirements ofthe UBC remained largely un-changed, except for some maprevisions, until after the 1971 SanFernando earthquake. Revisionswere made to the 1973 UBC, andnew requirements, based on thework of SEAOC, were introduced inthe 1976 edition.

History and Principles of Seismic Design

Federal Involvement Expands:The ATC Project

Early in the 1970s the NationalScience Foundation (NSF) funded aproject, under the guidance of theNational Bureau of Standards (NBS,now the National Institute ofStandards and Technology ),toevaluate existing earthquake-resistant design provisions. In 1974the NBS contracted the project to theApplied Technology Council (ATC).The ATC is a nonprofit corp orationestablished in 1971 to assist thedesign practitioner in structuralengineering. It is guided by a Boardof Directors with representativesfrom various structural and civilengineering organizations. ATC alsoidentifies and encourages researchand develops consensus opinions onstructural engineering issues.

Over three years ATC publishedseveral drafts, which receivedextensive peer review. In 1978 ATCpublished the final report titledTentative Provisionsfor tim Develop-ment of Seismnic Regulations forBuildings (ATC 3-06). The SEAOCand UJBC used the ATC 3-06 reportto revise their recommendations andbuilding code.

The NBS in the late 1970s pub-lished a Plan for the Assessment anidImplementation of Seismic DesignProvisions for Buildimgs. This plananalyzed ATC 3-06 and facilitated itsdevelopment into design standardsand building codes.

Further Federal Involvement:NEHRP and the BSSC

In the late 1970s the U.S. Congresspassed the Earthquake HazardsReduction Act of 1977 &PL 95-124),establishing the National Earth-quake Hazards Reduction Program(NEI{RP), a multi-agency programto fund research and improvepractice in reducing earthquakehazards. Since 1977 NERIP hasbeen the primary source of fundingfor earthquake research. In 1979 theFederal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEIMIA) was established as

the lead federal agency for coordi-nating NCERP.

The Building Seismic SafetyCouncil (BSSC) was established in1979 as an independent voluntarybody under the auspices of theNational Institute of BuildingScience (NIBS). The purpose of theBSSC is to provide a national forumto foster seismic safety The conceptof the BSSC was develop ed by theATC, SEAOC, NIBS, NSF, NationalBureau of Standards (now theNational Institute of Science andTechnology), FEMA, and AmericanSociety of Civll Engineers (ASCE).Currently members of BSSC comefrom more than fifty organizations,such as the American ConsultingEngineers Council, Masonry Insti-tute of America, and American lionand Steel Institute, all havinginterest in seismic-related issues.

Under a contract with FEvIA,BSSC revised ATC 3-06 through aconsensus process of its members.After balloting BSSC members twiceand receiving approval, FEMAreleased the recommendations in1985 under the title INEHRP Recoin-

:nended Provisionsfor the Developmientof Seismic Regulations for New Build-ings, commonly called the NVEHRPProvisions. The BSSC, with FEMVIAfunding, continues to update theseismic recommendations using aconsensus process. The most currentedition was published by FEMA in1994, and the 1997 edition ;vill bepublished in early 1998.

Federal Buildings: EO 12699& EO 12941

The federal government, underpresidential Executive Order 12699(January 5, 1990), now requiresseismic design for its new buildings.According to the executive order,titled Seismic Safetj of Federal andFederally Assisted- or Regulated NewoBuilding Construction, federalagencies must by February 1993require appropriate seismic designand construction standards for newfederal and federally assisted,

35

36 Appendix A

FIGURE A.2 All new federal buildings,such as thisfederal courthouse in Urbana,Illinois, must be built with seismic designappropriate to the region. (Photo: R.Walker)

leased, and regulated buildings. EO12699 is significant for state andlocal governments, because it makesseismic design more prevalentthroughout the nation and increasesthe number of experienced seismicdesigners and contractors.

Executive Order 12699 is far-reaching, because all new buildingsthat are owned, leased, or receivefederal assistance now must haveseismic-resistant design. Alsocovered are federally regulated orassisted buildings, including single-family homes with Federal HousingAdministration or Veterans Admin-istration mortgages.3

Under Executive Order 12699, theseismic design provisions used maybe those of the municipality or statein which the building is built, solong as the responsible agency orthe Interagency Committee onSeismic Safety in Construction(ICSSC) finds that they provideadequately for seismic safety.4

Accordingly, the ICSSC in 1992recommended the use of standardsand practices that are substantiallyequivalent to the seismic safetylevels in the 1988 NEHRP Provisions.Each of the following model codeshas been found to provide a level ofseismic safety substantially equiva-lent to the 1988 NEIIRP Provisions:the 1991 ICBO Uniform BuildingCode, the 1992 Supplement to the

BOCA National Building Code, andthe 1992 Amendments to the SBCCIStandard Building Code.

In a May 17, 1995, Recommenda-tion, the Interagency Committee onSeismic Safety and Constructionupdated this finding. They foundthat the 1994 UBC, 1993 BNBC, and1994 SBC provide a level of seismicsafety substantially equivalent tothat of the 1991 NEHRP Provisions.In addition, they found that theNational Consensus Standard ASCE7-93 also provides an acceptablelevel of seismic safety Any localitythat enforces the current seismicrequirements of one of the modelcodes meets this condition.

The American Society of CivilEngineers' Minimum Design LoadsforBuildings and Other Structures (ASCE7-95; see Appendix E for address ofASCE), which supersedes theAmerican National StandardsInstitute A58.1 standards andsubsequent maps adopted forfederal use in accord with the order,may be used to determine theseismic hazards in various parts ofthe country. ASCE 7-95 includesspecifications for calculating forcesthat the building must support, suchas earthquake, wind, snow, andbuilding material forces.

Because of EO 12699, it is in thebest interests of local governmentsto adopt seismic codes. To bestfacilitate the possibility of federalfinancial assistance for new build-ings, local governments would bewell advised to adopt one of themodel codes that have been foundto be seismically adequate. Forexample, the federal agenciesproviding financial assistance forhousing construction (VA, FHA,HUD) all now require adequateseismic design and construction.

EO 12941, by adopting theStandards of Seismic Safetyfor ExistingFederally Owned or Leased Buildings,by the Interagency Committee onSeismic Safety and Construction(ICSSC), promulgates a set ofseismic standards for federally

36 Appendix A

History and Principles of Seismic Design 37

owned or leased buildings. It alsoestablishes five triggers for evalua-tion and possible mitigation of risksin a building. For example, whenthere is a change of building func-tion, a building is significantlyaltered, or it has to be rebuiltfollowing a disaster, the buildingmust be evaluated according to theICSSC standards. 5

Federal Agency Practices Prior toEO 12699: Some Examples

Prior to EO 12699, many agencies ofthe federal government had promul-gated their own building regula-tions for federally owned andfunded projects. Because of theinfluence of the federal agencies'standards, increasing numbers ofstructures throughout the UnitedStates have been built to seismic-resistant standards.

The recognized authorities forhighway bridge earthquake-resis-tant design are the AmericanAssociation of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO)and the Federal Highway Adminis-tration (FHWA). AASHTO haspublished The Standard Specificationsfor Highway Bridges since 1931 (seeAppendix E for address ofAASHTO). AASHTO's expressedpurpose for publishing thesespecifications is to guide the prepa-ration of state specifications. Thelatest edition was published in 1995,and supplements are releasedyearly. Although seismic designstandards were not incorporatedinto AASHTO's specifications until1991, they had been adopted asguidelines since 1983. States mustuse AASHTO specifications in orderto receive federal highway funds.

The federal government, throughthe Interagency Committee on DamSafety, has published Federal Guide-lines for Earthquake Analysis andDesign of Dams. These guidelineswere created to develop consistencyamong federal agencies involved inthe planning, design, construction,

operation, maintenance, and regula-tion of dams.

The 1971 San Fernando, Califor-nia, earthquake caused a VeteransAdministration hospital to collapse.Since then the VA has required itsfacilities to be designed with earth-quake-resistant provisions, inaccordance with a seismic designmanual published by the VA Officeof Facilities.

FIGURE A.3 Following the collapse of theVeteran's Administration hospital in theSan Fernando earthquake of 1971, the VAhas required seismic design for all itsfacilities. The hospital building shown inthis photo was constructed in 1925 withconcreteframes and concrete floors, andhollow-tile walls. This type of building isknown to be hazardous in the event of astrong earthquake. (Source: EngineeringFeatures of the San Fernando Earthquake,California Institute of Technology, EERL,1971)

Principles of SeismicDesign6

The Goals of Seismic Design

Seismic design provisions areintended to protect the safety of abuilding's occupants during andimmediately following an earth-quake. Building codes are primarilydesigned to save lives and reduceinjuries, not to eliminate propertyloss. Their purpose is to allow forsafe evacuation of a building.Seismic provisions attempt toprevent general failures (totalcollapse), but allow for local damage(damage to noncritical sections).Therefore, a building in compliancewith the code probably will notcollapse, but it may be renderedunfit for continued use. Accordingto the Structural Engineers Associa-tion of California, structures built

History and Principles of Seismic Design 37

AppendixA

according to a seismic code shouldresist minor earthquakes undam-aged, resist moderate earthquakeswithout significant structuraldamage even though incurringnonstructural damage, and resistsevere earthquakes without collapse.Building codes are only minimumdesign standards.

Lateral Earthquake Forces

Today's seismic provisions specifyhow to calculate the unique earth-quake-induced lateral force. These arehorizontal forces generated by theground's side-to-side movement inan earthquake.

The purpose of earthquakeengineering and earthquake-resistant design is to constructbuildings that can resist horizontalforces. This notion is central toseismic building design. All build-ings are designed to stand under thevertical forces of gravity, an obviousconstraint because it is alwayspresent. Less apparent is the need todesign for the occasional occurrenceof horizontal forces. Many citieshave learned the hard way, after it istoo late, that their brick or adobebuildings (or concrete and steelbuildings not seismically designed)cannot withstand earthquakeground-shaking.

In designing a building, a struc-tural engineer combines the earth-quake-induced lateral force withother code-specified forces, such aswind or snow load, to obtain themaximum probable force. Thestructure is designed based on themaximum combination. The calcu-lated earthquake forces may be lessthan the wind or snow force.

Buildings that are tall or haveunusual shapes require moreextensive design analysis. When abuilding has a complex shape thedesigner must employ a dynamicstructural response analysis, acomputer analysis that simulates thebuilding's swaying (side-to-sidemovement) during an earthquake.

The model reflects the building'sbehavior, conceptually similar to avibrating string. The dynamicanalysis is more accurate than thesimple or "static" analysis but ismore time-consuming and costly;therefore it is only used for large-scale structures in which manypeople could be hurt.

The Council of American Build-ing Officials (CABO) has incorpo-rated construction specifications thatincrease earthquake resistance forone- and two-family dwellings. TheCABO One- and Two-Family DwellingCode contains specific requirementsfor reinforcing chimneys andfireplaces, tying the building frameto the foundation, and providingwalls more resistant to earthquakemotion (shear walls). These provi-sions help to prevent chimneys fromfalling and homes from shifting offtheir foundation.

Ductility

Another aspect of seismic design iscalled ductility, the flexibility ofbuildings. In simple terms, buildingsare designed to bend rather thanbreak under earthquake forces.Ductility is the ability of a materialto deform without fracturing. Forexample, ductility is an inherentproperty of steel. Steel will bendsignificantly before it ultimatelyfails, which is called ductile failure.Designing an entire structure to beductile allows for the parts of abuilding to deflect in an earthquakebefore they fail.

In contrast to ductile failure,brittle failure occurs without priorvisual indication. Unreinforcedmasonry and unreinforced concretestructures are inherently brittlematerials. Steel reinforcementtransforms concrete's behavior frombrittle to ductile. The AmericanConcrete Institute (ACI) through itsBuilding Code RequirementsforReinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89)provides specific criteria for struc-tural design of reinforced concretestructures. One provision is the

38

History and Principles of Seismic Design

specification of a minimum amountof reinforcing steel to provide forductile behavior.

Drift

The codes also try to limit the swayof buildings. This is to preventnonstructural damage and equip-ment and inventory damage.Although the structural frame canresist stresses and strains created bydr ft, or horizontal movement of onefloor relative to the other, items thatare attached to the frame or wdithinits interior may not The JohnHancock Building in Boston in the1970s had problems caused byexcessive drift. Windowvs crashed tothe ground as the building swayedin the wind, until the building wasretrofitted to reduce the amount ofsway. Damage occurred in MexicoCity's 1985 earthquake whenswaying buildings pounded intoeach other. Pounding ivas a signifi-cant factor in 40 p ercent of thecollapsed buildings? The drift wasdue to inadequate stiffness inbuilding frames and the smalldistances separating buildings.

Seismic Hazard Maps

All the model codes include aseismic hazard map that indicateslikely levels of earthquake gound-shaking and, therefore, potentialstructural damage in every part ofthe United States. The hazard map isbased on the probability that aspecified earthquake intensity willoccur during a defined time period.

First Seismic Hazard Map WasBased on Maximum HistoricEarthquakes'

The first seismic hazard map waspublished in 1948 by the U.S. Coastand Geodetic Survey and wasadopted in the 1949 edition of theUBC, as w ell as subsequent editionsuntil 1970. In 1969 S.T. Algernmissenof the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) published a seismic hazardmap for the contiguous forty-eight

states. The original map was createdby plotting historical earthquakeoccurrences and was based only onthe recorded maximum earthquakeintensities. Because of this, portionsof the northeast United States wereassig ned the same hazard anddesign requirements as areas inCalifornia. This map was the basisfor the zoning map in the 1970 UBC,which divided the United States intofour zones numbered 0 through 3. Azone 4 was added to California inthe 1976 UBC.

1976, Map: Probabilities of(iro und-Shaking

In 1976 Algermissen and coworkersrefined the map to incorporate theprobable frequency of variousearthquake intensities. Thus, areaswith more frequent earthquakeswould be subject to stricter stan-dards of design. They mapped thepeak ground acceleration, a measureof the maximum force of earthquakeground-shaking, according todifferent earthquake intensitiesexpected across the United States.The 1976 map by Algermissen andothers depicts the peak groundacceleration that has a 10 percentprobability of being exceeded everyfifty years. The fifty-year period istypically used as a structure's designlifespan, and 10 percent is consid-

.7F;P~iE: IM 7 OF yet/ 1 sts s --------- - -4

Wi1 to %-' 2-

_ S'It- He-

FIGURE A.4 The 1948 seismic hazardmap. (Source: U.S. Coast and GeodeticSurvey)

39

40 Appendix A

State State Code Name Basis* Edition

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDist. of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingGuamPuerto RicoVirgin Islands

Alabama State CodeAlaska State CodeNoneArkansas Fire Prevention CodeCalifornia Building CodeUBCConnecticut State Building CodeNone (done at county level)DC Building Code SupplementSBC, EPCOT, So. Florida Bldg. CodeGeorgia State Minimum Std. Bldg. CodeNone (done at county level)UBCState (plumbing only)Indiana Building CodeIowa State Building CodeNone (uses UBC)Kentucky Building CodeState Uniform Construction CodeNoneModel Performance CodeMassachusetts State Building CodeBuilding Code RulesMinnesota State Building CodeNoneNoneAdmin. Rules of Montana, Ch. 70State Fire Marshall ActNevada State Fire Marshall RegulationState StatuteState Uniform Construction CodeNew Mexico Building CodeUniform Fire Prevention & Bldg. CodeState Building CodeCentury CodeOhio Basic Building CodeTitle 61, Oklahoma StatutesOregon Structural Specialty CodeNoneState Building CodeSBCFire Safety StandardsSBCNoneUtah Uniform Building Standards ActVermont Fire Prevention & Bldg. CodeVirginia Uniform Statewide Bldg. CodeState Building CodeState Building CodeBldg., Heating, Ventilation & A/C CodeState Code, Ch. 9, Fire PreventionUBCPuerto Rico Building CodeUBC

SBC 1994UBC 1994

SBCUBCUBCBNBC

BNBC

SBC

UBCStateUBCUBCUBCBNBCSBC

BNBCBNBCBNBCUBC

UBCUBCUBCBNBCBNBCUBCStateSBCUBCBNBCBNBCUBC

BNBCSBCUBCSBC

UBCBNBCBNBCUBCBNBCStateUBCUBC

UBC

1991199419911992

199019941994

1994199319911991199119931991

1993198719931994

199419791991199019931991199519941994199319931991

1990199119911994

19941987199319941990

1994

1994

*Model code on which state code is based.Sources: Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction (now IBHS), April 1996; information on territories was collected by the authorsfrom FEMA and NCSBCS.

I

40 Appendix A

History and Principles of Seismic Design

ered to be a large enough probabilityto warrant concern.

It is important to appreciate theprobabilistic nature of theAlgermissen map. WAe cannot justifythe expense of designing for largebut highly improbable events. So weselect an -event (called the designevent) that, although large and rare,has a reasonable chance (10 percent)of being exceeded during abuilding's lifetime (fifty years). Theprobability selected reflects society'sattitude tow ard risk. This riskacceptance may vary for differentuses. Nuclear power plants, forexample, are built to much morestringent seismic standards.

It is also important to realize thatthere is always a chance that anevent will exceed the design event-indeed, there is a 10 percent chanceof an earthquake that exceeds thedesign standard. Seismic designstandards represent society'sbalancing of the risks and the costsof designing to withstand that risk.

Finally, one must realize that thezone boundaries themselves arebased on probability. There isnothing sacred about the lines on themap; a structure on one side of azone line is not markedly safer thana structure immediately on the otherside. But these maps do represent aconsensus of informed scientificopinion of the likelihood of earth-quake ground-shaking and itseffects. By using these maps asguides to design, we reduce theoverall chances of damage tobuildings in a region.

ATC Adaptation of theProbabilistic 1976 Map

The ATC revised the 1976Algermissen map by converting thepeak ground acceleration values toeffective peak acceleration (EPA)values, another way of describingearthquake ground-shaking. Thereis no single perfect measure. How-

ever, in making the map more user-friendly, it lost accuracy. The effec-tive peak acceleration maps depictpeak ground acceleration that has a5 to 20 percent probability of occur-ring in a fifty-year period.

From effective peak acceleration,ATC also developed an effectivepeak velocity map. Effective peakvelocity measures the sustainedground movement during anearthquake and is more suitable forbuilding code application to tallerbuildings. En addition, the ATCmaps were revised to followtheboundaries of political jurisdictionsto clarify the zones for local buildingcode administration. These maps inATC 3-06 were used as the basis forthe zone map in the NTEHRP Provi-sions. A more refined map by theU.S. Geologic Survey appeared inthe 1988 NEHRP Provisions and hassince been adopted by BOCA andSBCCI The current UBC modelbuilding uses similar informationfor its seismic zone map. The mapdivides the United States into sixearthquake risk zones: 0, 1, 2a, 2b, 3,and 4.

Current Efforts by USGS

The U.S. Geological Survey hasrecently developed a new genera-tion of seismic hazard maps. Thesemaps are based on the more com-plete spectrum of ground responseto seismic waves, rather than thetraditional acceleration and velocitymaps. They also use shakingexceedance probabilities of 2 percentand 5 percent in 50 years, in addi-tion to the probability of 10 percentin 50 years that has traditionallyformed the basis of seismic hazardmaps.9 The maps currently beingballoted for inclusion in the NEHRPProvisions are based on the 2 percentin 50 year USGS map, with somechanges in high-seismic near-faultareas. The maps will be publishedwith the 1997 edition of the NEHRPProvisions and wl ultimately beused in the 2000 InternationalBuilding Code.

41

AppendixA

NOTES1 Building Seismic Safety Council,

Improving the Seismic Safety of NewBuildings: A Community Handbook ofSocietal Implications, FEMA #83, July1986 edition.

2 This history of seismic codes comesfrom a number of sources, mostnotably: Beavers, James E., 'Perspec-tives on Seismic Risk Maps and theBuilding Code Process," in A Review of

Earthquake Research Applications in theNational Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program: 1977-1987, Walter Hays, ed.,U.S. Geological Survey Open-FileReport 88-13-A, 1988, 407-432;Whitman, R.V., and Algermissen, S.T.,"Seismic Zonation in Eastern UnitedStates," Proceedings, Fourth International

Conference on Seismic Zonation, Vol. I,Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute, 1991, 845-869; Martin, H.W.,"Recent Changes to Seismic Codes andStandards: Are They Coordinated orRandom Events?" Proceedings, 1993National Earthquake Conference, Vol. II,Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium,1993, 367-376.

3 National Institute of Standards andTechnology, Guidelines and ProceduresforImplementation of the Executive Order onSeismic Safety of New Building Construc-tion, ICSSC RP2.1A, NISTIR 4852, June1992.

4 Ibid.

5 Todd, Diana, ed., Standards of SeismicSafetyfor Existing Federally Owned orLeased Buildings, National Institute ofStandards and Technology Report NISTIR5382, Interagency Committee of SeismicSafety and Construction RecommendedPractice 4 (ICSSC RP 4), February 1994.

6 This summary of seismic design comesfrom a number of sources, most notablyfrom the Building Seismic SafetyCouncil: Improving the Seismic Safety of

New Buildings: A Community Handbook of

Societal Implications, FEMA #83, July

1986 edition; Seismic ConsiderationsforCommunities at Risk, FEMA #83,

September 1995 edition; and Nontechni-

cal Explanation of the NEHRP Recom-

mended Provisions, FEMA #99, Septem-

ber 1995. Also see EERI Ad HocCommittee on Seismic Performance,Expected Seismic Performance of Buildings,Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute, February 1994; and Lagorio,Henry J., Earthquakes, An Architect'sGuide to Nonstructural Seismic Hazards,John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1990.

7 Geis, Donald A., et al., "Architecturaland Urban Design Lessons from the1985 Mexico City Earthquake," LessonsLearnedfrom the 1985 Mexico Earthquake,Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute, 1989, 226-230.

8 The information on seismic hazardmaps comes from a number of sources,most notably: Beavers, James E.,"Perspectives on Seismic Risk Mapsand the Building Code Process," in AReview of Earthquake Research Applica-tions in the National Earthquake HazardsReduction Program: 1977-1987, WalterHays, ed., U.S. Geological SurveyOpen-File Report 88-13-A, 1988, 407-

432; Whitman, R.V., and Algermissen,S.T., "Seismic Zonation in EasternUnited States," Proceedings, FourthInternational Conference on SeismicZonation, Vol. I, Earthquake Engineer-ing Research Institute, 1991, 845-869;U.S. Department of the Interior,Geological Survey, USGS SpectralResponse Maps and Their Relationshipwith Seismic Design Forces in BuildingCodes, Open-File Report 95-595, 1995;and Leyendecker, Edgar V.,Algermissen, S.T., and Frankel, Arthur,Use of Spectral Response Maps andUniform Hazard Response Spectra inBuilding Codes, Fifth National Confer-ence on Earthquake Engineering, July1994.

9 Leyendecker, E.V., et al., USGS SpectralResponse Maps and Their Relationship with

Seismic Design Forces in Building Codes,U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report95-596, 1995. The most recent versionsare available at http://gldage.cr.usgs.gov/eg/

42