APPENDIX A
SAMPLE DATA SHEETS:
DATA COLLECTION FORM
NATURAL HAZARDS EFFECTS (Extreme Winds, Earthquakes)
A. GENERAL DATA1. Facility No. 2. Building Name 3. Address 4. City 
5. State 6. Zip Code 7. Year Built 8. Date of Major Modifications or Additions, if any9. Building Code Jurisdiction: City r County: State D -Federal D10. Latitude 11. Longitude 12. Current Bldg. Use Orig. Bldg. Use 13. Basement Yes No Number of Basements No. of Stories Above Basement (See also Item A23)
14. Height of First Story ft.
15. Upper Story Height ft. Special Story Height ft.
16. Is the exterior of first story different from upper stories?
Street Front Side Yes No Other Sides Yes No17. Approximate Roof Overhang Distance -Side18. Proximity to Adjacent Buildings: Sketch Below with North Arrow North Side South Side -East Side West Side Note Street or Alley Sides To be filled in by Field Supervisor.
SiJD Appendix A 55ATC-21 -1
NBS 61DC-219. Are plans available? If so, where obtainable Are original calculations available?
where obtainable Name of: Architect Contractor Regulatory Agency 20. Basic Building Plan Engineer. Sketch overall plan.
b. Locate shear walls, if any.
c. Locate main frames.
d. Locate expansion joints, if any.
e. Give approximate north arrow and Show street or alley sides.
f. Note any common or party walls.
S. If plan changes in upper floors,
label sides "A", "B", "C", "D", etc.
sketch this plan and note level of(Use additional sheet if necessary)
56 Appendix A If so,
NBS 61DC-321. Elevation of Exterior Walls.
Sketch: a. All openings or note pattern of openings.
b. Note exterior finish and appendages.
c. Note material of walls.
d. Major cracks or other damage. (Note if cracks are larger at one end.)
e. Note previously repaired damage.
f. Note any evidence of damage to cladding or appendages.
(Use additional sheet if necessary)
Appendix A 57ATC-21 -1
of Interior Shear Walls.
a. All openings.
b. Major cracks or other damage. (Note if cracks are larger at one end.)
a. Note any previously repaired damage.
S13 Appendix AA TC-21 -1
NBS 61DC-523. Adaptability of Basement to Storm Shelter.
a. Floor Over Basement -Concrete 2 Other b. If concrete, give thickness c. Available Space (approximate) sq. ft.
d. Dangerous Contents. Storage of Flammable Liquids E Presence of Transformers or Other Dangerous Equipment Q Other Hazards;
None 24. Is this a Vault-like Structure? Yes Q No D Appendix A 5
NBS 61 DC-6 EXTERIOR WALL SUMMARY SHEET Exterior Characteristics Side A Side B Side C Side D Extensive Architectural: .
Ornaments or Veneer Metal Curtain Wall Precast Concrete Curtain Wall Stone Brick Concrete Block Concrete Other For Concrete Block and Brick, indicate R for Running Bond S for Stacked Bond Condition of Wall*
OPENINGS| 
Percent of Open A reaper Story 1.2.3.4.5.
No cracks, good mortar.
Few visible cracks.
Many cracks Evidence of minor repairs.
Evidence of many repairs.
60 Appendix A25.
A TC-21 -1
NBS 61DC-7B. SITE RELATED INFORMATION1. Exposure a. Centers of large city b Very rough hilly terrain c. Suburban areas, towns, city outskirts, wood areas, or rolling terrain d. Flat, open country a. Flat coastal belts f. Other
*2. Topography a. Building on level ground j b. Building on sloping ground E c. Building located adjacent to embankment
*3. Geologic formation 
*4 Location of known faults: Name Miles 
*5. Depth of water table ft. When measured: (Month) (Year)
*6. Depth of bedrock ft.
*7. Soil type
*8. Bearing capacity psf., or blows per inch
*9. Proximity to potential wind-blown debris -Type Location Distance To be filled In by Field Supervisor.
Appendix A 61
NBS 61DC-6C. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 1. Material Concrete Masonry [Steel Wood 2. Vertical load Resisting System Frame Bearing Wall 'Wall and Pilasters For frame system, check one for typical column cross-section 0 L H Other o 0 El E3. Lateral Load Resisting System Masonry Shear Wall [Braced Frame Concrete Shear Wall Moment Resisting Frame Plywood Shear Wall E Are resisting systems
symmetrically located ? Yes C]
NO4. Floor System Frame Concrete Beams Steel Beams Steel Bar Joist Deck Concrete Flat Plate Concrete Flat Slab 
Concrete Waffle Slab C Steel Deck Wood Joists F]
Wood Plank L J Note if concrete topping slab is plank.
Wood Beams No Framing Members recast Concrete Beams Straight Sheathing Plywood Sheathing LTJ Diagonal Sheathing recast Concrete Deck Concrete Joists r Concrete Plank used over metal decks or concrete62 Appendix AA TC-21 -1
Connection Details Bolted Welded metal Clips Wire Fastener No Connection Nailed Metal Hangers Framing
Decking To 
Anchorage Floor to Walls Type Spacing 
5. Roof System Frame Concrete Beams Steel Beams Steel Bar Joist Wood Beams Wood Rafters Deck Concrete Flat Slab =
Metal Decking Concrete Slab Concrete Joists I Steel Truss Wood Truss No Framing Members =
Precast Concrete Beam or Teen 
I Concrete Waffle Slab =
Plywood Sheathing Diagonal Sheathing I Straight Sheathing I precast Decking Concrete Fill yes 
Appendix A 
NBS 61DC-10 Connection Details Framing Docking to Framing Bolted Welded Metal Clips Wire Fastener No Connection Nailed Metal Hangers Anchorage Roof to Walls Type Spacing D. NONSTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 1. Partitions Type Partial Height Full Height Floor-To-Ceiling Floor To Floor Movable Composition Lath and Plaster F|
Typical Corridor
Gypsum Wallboard I Concrete Block =
Clay Tile 
Metal Partitions ET64 Appendix AATC-21 -1
NBS 61DC-li2. Ceiling Typical Room Material Acoustical Tile Gypsum Board [ Plaster Method of Attachment Suspended = Metal Channels = Tee Bar Grid Attached Directly to Structural Elements I Typical Corridor Material Acoustical Tile l Gypsum Board Plaster Method of Attachment Suspended M metal Channels = Tee Bar Grid Attached Directly to Structural Elements 
3. Light Fixtures Typical Room Recessed Surface Mounted Pendant (Suspended) = typical Corridor Recessed Surface Mounted Pendant (Suspended)
4. Mechanical Equipment Location of Mechanical Equipment Room Basement = Other Floor Which Floor Roof Is Equipment Anchored to Floor? No Q Yes Location of The Following Units Liquid Storage Tank Cooling Tower Air Conditioning Unit Appendix A 65ATC-21 -1
NBS 61DC-125. Roofing Description Flat Arched G Gabled If arched or gabled, sketch section.
Pitched E Slope: 12)
Parapet No 3 Yes  Height (ft. in.) Thickness (in.)
Material Special Anchorage or Bracing Yes No 5TypeBuile-up gravel Q Asphalt or Wood Shingles Q Clay Tile D Other E6. Windows Type Fixed Q Movable Frame Material:
Aluminum Steel Q Stainless Steel 0 Wood Size: Average Size of Casing (ft. x ft.)
Average Size of Glazing (ft. in. x ft. in.)
How Casing is Attached to Structure Bolted [Screwed 0 Clipped z Welded Wailed 0Glazing Attachment to Casing Elastomeric Gasket C Glazing Bead z Aluminum or Steel Retainer Q Other Q7. Gas Connection Flexible Connection to Building 3 Rigid Connection to Building 5Automatic Shut-off 5 None 5 Unknown 5 INSPECTED BY DATE FIELD SUPERVISOR 66 Appendix A
NBS 61 FORM FMA-1 FACILITY NO. EXPECTED SITE MODIFIED NERCALLI INTENSITYFIELD EVALUATION METHODSTRUCTURAL SYSTEMS -EARTHQUAKEAND WIND RATINGVERTICAL RESISTING ELEMENTS General Symmetry 1 Present 2 Rating GR Symmetry Quantity Condition Sub-Rating Type E -J w S) (Q) Rating (SQR) (PC) (SR1)
TRANSVERSE LOADING-I I I I LONGITUDINAL LOADING FOOTNOTES
Symmetry Quantity Rating (SQR) u S 222. Sub-rating SR-1 3Q+ CTYPE GENERAL RATING (GR)
Earthquake Wind Steel Moment Resistant Frames 1 1B Steel Frames -Moment Resistance Capability Unknown 2 2C Concrete Moment Resistant Frames 1 1D Concrete Frames -Moment Resistance Capability Unknown 2 2E Masonry Shear Walls -Unreinforced 4 2 or 3F Masonry or Concrete Shear Walls -Reinforced 1 1G Combination -Unreinforced Shear Walls and Moment Resistant Frames 2 2E Combination -Reinforced Shear Walls and Moment Resistant Frames 1 1J Braced Frames I 1 1K Wood Frame Buildings, Walls Sheathed or Plastered 1 or 2 or 3L Wood Frame Buildings, Walls Without Wood Sheathing or Plaster 4 4SYMMETRY (of Resisting Elements) QUANTITY (of Resisting Elements)
i Symmetrical 1 Many Resisting Elements2 Fairly Symmetrical I Medium Amount of Resisting Elements2 or 3 Symmetry Poor 3 Few Resisting Elements3 or 4 Very Unsymmetrical 4 Very Few Resisting Elements NOTE: Add 1 (not to exceed 4) to each NOTE: If exterior shear walls are rating if a high degree of vertical at least 752 of building length, non-uniformity in stiffness occurs. this rating will be 1.
PRESENT CONDITION (of Resisting Elements)
No Cracks, No Damage Few Minor Cracks Many Minor Cracks or Damage Major Cracks or Damage.
NOTE: If masonry walls, note quality of mortar -good or poor. If lime mortar is poor, use next higher rating.
Appendix A 671234IA7: C-21-1
FACILITY NO. 
FIELD EVALUATION METHODSTRUCTURAL SYSTEMS -EARTH AND WIND RATINGFORM FKA-2HORIZONTAL RESISTING ELEMENTS Type Rigidity Anchorage& Chords C.) Type Ri t Connections Longitudinal Transverse (SbRa [Roof 5)Floors Note: Sub-rating SR2 s Largest of R, A or C.
Type Rigidity -Ratings A Diaphragm 1. Rigid Steel Horizontal Bracing 1.5 Semi-rigid2.0 Semi-flexLble2.5 Flexible Anchorage and Connections -Ratings1 Anchorage confirmed -capacity not computed, but probably adequate.
2 Anchorage confirmed -capacity not computed, but probably inadequate.
3 Anchorage unknown.
4 Anchorage absent.
Chords -Ratings1 Chords confirmed, but capacity not computed.
2 Chords unknown, but probably present.
3 Chords unknown, but probably not present.
4 Chords absent.
68 Appendix ANBS 61
FIELD EVALUATION METHODEXIT CORRIDOR AND STAIR ENCLOSURE WALLS -EARTHQUAKE RATINGTYPE REINFORCEMENT ANCHORAGEOF-ID-RATINGWALL Not Mortar Screws Not WALL Preset Present Known Only Dowels or Bolts Other KnownBrickBrickConcreteBlockConcreteBlockReinforcedConcreteTilt-up or Precast Concrete Steel Studs &
Plaster 
Studs &
Plaster 
Hollow Tile &
Plaster NOTE: W ll Rating on Basis of A, B, C, and X.
0C\0IliC)
NBS 61 FACILITY NO.FORM FMB-2 FIELD EVALUATION METHOD OTHER LIFE HAZARDS -EARTHQUAKE RATING RSA =
B =CX a Good Fair Poor Unknown *A description of some of the ratings for Exterior Appendages and Wall Cladding are:
Description Rating Spacing of anchors appears satisfactory A Size and embedment of anchors satisfactory A Spacing of anchors appears to be too great Size and embedment of anchors appears unsatisfactory Anchorage unknown Anchorage corroded or obviously loose C No anchorage C70 Appendix ATYPE OF RISK Partitions Other Than on Corridors or Stair Enclosures 
Glass Breakage Ceiling Light Fixtures Exterior Appendages and Wall Cladding*
RATING
NBS 61 FACILITY NO FORM FME FIELD EVALUATION METHOD CAPACITY RATIOS EARTHQUAKEA ND WIND RATING General Rating Sub-Rating R Basic Structural Capacious (GR) SR1 SR2 Rating * Ratio EARTHQUAKE WIND Basic Structural Rating -GR + 2 (Largest of SRI or SR2)
Capacity Ratio for wind shall be obtained from Form FMC-l. For earthquake,
the ratio is obtained from the Basic Structural Rating divided by the Intensity Level Factor at the site as determined from the table below.
Modified Mercalli Scale Intensity Level Factor VIII or Greater 1VII 2VI 3V or Less 4A description of Modified Mercalli Scale is included on table 3.3.
Capacity Ratio Rating Capacity Ratio Rating (In Terms of Risk)
Less than 1.0 Good1 through 1.4 Fair1.5 through 2.0 Poor Over 2.0 Very Poor Appendix A 71
NATURAI, HAZARD VULNERABILITY SURVEY e.8nt11 wcn section 
A. STRUCTURE TYPE (Enter)
1. Quonset. steel frame Wood frame L Wadlbearing4. Steel 
OAKLANDCONSTRUCTIONS OCCUPANCY s CONFIGURATIONS CONTENTS TYPE * I USE CODE 4.# STORIES HAZARDOUS PRE 1939 VITAL X IMPORTANT PRE 1973 HIGH DENSITY PLAN J5.228DATE VULNERABLE CMPLX ELEY Decorations RENOVATED ).8AM-6PM SOFT STORY HEAVYDATE 6PM-MDNT OPEN FRONT OVERHANGINGMDNT-8AM H S 6 PUBLIC WAYCONSTRUCTIONEXI. WALLS. FACADE SIDES 6 GINT. WALLS s BEARING PARTITIONS DIAPHRAGMS t FLOOR ROOF
FRAME, BRACED, M.OMENT RESISTING; Others MISC CONFIGURATION STIFFNESS DISTRIBUTION. PLAN Sketches PLAN L-SA.
ELEVATION SO MISC.
FUNCTION AND OCCUPANCY FLOORS USES I WA W HOUSE/FLOORS t USES/FLOORS: USES.
FI0URE A l-2.
Sample Building Information Sheet.
74 Appendix A
OAKLAND Construction Types Code:
Bearing Wall:
B-UM Unreinforced Masonry B-RM Reinforced Masonry B-RC Reinforced Concrete B-PC Pre-cast Concrete B-WD Wood (stud wall)
Frame:
F-ST-(HI,
F-RC-(
F-WD-(
Use Codes:
LI, HC, LC) Steel Reinforced Concrete t Exte1 Wood (heavy timber)
Exterior skin (heavy infill, light infill, heavy curtain, light curtain)
Frame material 01 Apartment 02 Hotel 03 Office 04 Retail 05 Restaurant 06 Theatre 07 Auditorium 08 Gymnasium 09 Church 10 School 11 Hospital 12 Parking 13 Car Servicing 14 Manufacturing 15 Warehouse 16 Public facility 17 Public utility FIGURE Al-3. Key to sample Building Information Sheet.
NEW MADRID CRITICAL FACILITIES FIELD INSPECTION BUILDING DATA SHEET NAME OF BUILDING BLDG. ADDRESS NO. OF OCCUPANTS COUNTY
YEAR BUILT 5. BLDG. SIZE (SQUARE FEET)
NO. OF STORIES/FLOOR 7. BASEMENT YES
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM A.
B.
D.
E.
F.
6.
K.
STEEL FRAMESTEEL FRAME (REINFQRCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALL AROUND CENTRALCORE}
WALL BEARINGPRECAST COLUMN AND BEAMREINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMEREINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME (REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLAROUND CENTRAL CORE)
FLAT PLATE CONCRETE SLABWOOD FRAMEPLANK AND BEAM FRAMEPRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDINGOTHER STRUCTURAL TYPES DESCRIBE9. FOUNDATION TYPE A.
D.
 E.
WALL TYPE
SPECIAL ON GROUND OTHER 13. SPECIAL SOIL CONDITIONS 76 Appendix 
NEW MADRID SINGLE AND M1ULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DATA SHEET CENSUS. TRACT (DISTRICT);
PREDOMINATE FOUNDATION TYPESA, SLAB ON GROUND-B.-poured CONCRETE OR MASONRY Blocks .STONE FOUNDATION Walls. OTHER-2) PREDOMINATE EXTERIOR WALL, VENEER OR FINISHA. BRICK/MASONRY B. Stones WOOD-SIDING. OR SHINGLES D. Stucco.:OTHER 3) CIIMNEYS, PARAPETSJ ORNAMENTATION OR OTHER FALLINGFOUNDATION WALLHAZARDS4) AGE 5) HEIGHT 
5) NO. OF OCCUPANTS DAY; NIGHTB. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDE UCS PREDOMINANT STRUCTURAL TYPE A, STEEL FRAMEB. WALL BEARING CA CONCRETE Framed FLAT PLATEE. WOOD FRAME PLANK AND BEAM 2) NO. OF OCCUPANTS DAY .NIGHT 3) AGE 4 L) HEIGHT
5) STORIES/FLOORS 
Appendix A 
NEW MADRID CENSUS TRACT NO. OF BLDGS
STEEL FRAMEWALL-BEAR INGCONCRETE FRAMEFLAT PLATEWOOD FRAMEPLANK AND BEAMPRE-ENG I NEEREDI STORY/FLOOR2-56-10OVER 10 STORIES/FLOORSAGE78 Appendix A
PALO ALTOBUILDING ADDRESS: BUILD (AM):
NAME OF BUSINESS TEXTS, OWNERS ADDRESS:
TYPE OF USE: NO. OF STORIES:
TYPE OF SSRLSCTWE STSTM4:
BU'ILDING SIZE: IOCCUPXTLOAD:
Square Footage per floor:(USC-Table 33-A)
DATE OF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION:
OF ORIGINAL DESIGNER:
RESPONSE FOR SUBSEQUENT STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION:
Appendix A 
PALO ALTO ADDRESS: BUILDING (AI):
TYPE OF USE: S O. OF STORIES: 
BUILDING SIZE: 6475 OCCUPANT LOAD:
Square Footage per floor
Total: 7 
DATE OF ORIGINAL Construction DATE OF ROD/REPAIR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGNER
CONTRACTOR: 
RESPONSIBLE FOR NODIFICATION:
historic Building CATEGORY: Appendix A ATC-21 -1
STANFORD BUILDING INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Damage Estimation)
INSPECTORS NAME: DATE:
IDENTIFICATION OF STRUCTURE: LOCATION: ZONE: SPECIFIED INTENSITY (MI)
Adjacency Factor:
The structure endangers another structure: 
The structure is endangered by another structure:
The structure may be a support for another structure:
The structure may be supported by another structure: 
STRUCTURES USE: Residential Commercial Industrial Special Facility Lifelines not Importance Factor:
Impact of structures' use in the regions' economy is time event of an earthquake. DATA: .Year Structure Built j1qo-foe No. of Stories Floor a reaper story (Square Feet)
No. of Occupants: Day Night 0Potential no. of victims there a basement? There a SANITARY crawl space BUILDING REGULAR A Elevation Regularity 
CONFIGURATION: Plan Symmetry REGULAR y Offset center of rigidity Discontinuity SETBACKS GEOMETRY OF BUILDING (Attach sketches showing overall dimensions, layout, window spacing sand sizes): Elevation View
Plan View
Exterior Wall View Typical Shear Wall (core of corner)
NO. OF SEPARATION JOINTS:
In Elevation
In Plan of Superstructure evaluation Plan Symmetry-Elevation Regularity-Redundancy of Bracing Elements Transverse Direction good poor good poor good average Longitudinal Direction good era poor good poor good average Appendix A 
STANFORD SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS:
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 1 .1 STRUCTURAL REDUNDANCIES QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION:
QUALITY OF Frame Line no Plan no Good Avg. Poor Workmanship: Visual Observation Review of Documentation
Analytical Studies
Overload History Weakening Structural Resistance:
Due to Earthquake
Due to Fire
Due to Extreme Environmental Conditions
DESIGN: design regular or special? 
Proper consideration of soil condition? It designed for earthquake loading? Structural ductility? Does as-built structure conform to design? 
Original designed base shear (kips)? Computed existing base shear (kips)? n/a Ratio of existing to original? CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS:
Quality of materials used
Comparison with original material specs? =
Masonry or non-masonry? 
Reinforced or non-reinforced?
SUPERSTRUCTUR1POUNDATION:
Continuous concrete wall? Concrete columns with infill?
Large heavy pre-cast structural elements?
Others
Any signs of distress?
Type Is length adequate?
(Identify loose sands, sensitive clays, or highly cement sands e.144Possibility of landslide? no Possibility. of settlement? Possibility of sliding? ply Possibility of overturning? In Possibility of liquefaction? go
Possibility of uplift? No 82 Appendix A in 44
STANFORD PRIMARY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OR Elements:
Vertical load carrying elements? Lateral load carrying elements?
INTERIOR ENVELOPE VERTICAL Walls Doors
Others EXTERIOR ENVELOPE: VERTICAL Walls Doors/Windows EVALUATION: Ceilings.
Others INON-VERTICAL Roofs Slabs
Possibility of buckling of x-bracings? #excessive deflections of long span floors and roofs, etc.? flow Presence of cracks? Excessive compressed force (Possibility of crushing)? no Additional openings and/or penetrations? a Possibility of weak column strong beam?
Additional closures (partitions)? Shear wall type and thickness? suspended ceiling braced? No SECONDARY NON-STRUCTURALSYSTEM OR COMPONENTS:
ARCHITECTURAL:
INTERIOR ELEMENTS Lights.
Stairways Shaftway 
Ceilings PI Others 
EXTERIOR Elements Parapets 
Overhangs no Balconies Chimneys Railings A
Cladding Fire Escape Canopies Veneers Others
Possibility of collapse of infill materials Appendix A 83.
STANFORDSERVICE SYSTEMS:
ELEVATORS: Possibility of cage falling?
Adequacy of cage guides and motor mountings
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICALSPRINKLER 
FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM FUEL (NVC) service systems adequate?
Are service systems adequately mounted? 
Will they provide service after an earthquake? :
Possibility of failure in fuel system causing fire
Adequacy of fire control system? no .
Possibility of explosion? Possibility of release of toxic chemicals? connections: Adequacy of connections between primary structural elements to develop shear resistance? Adequacy of connections between secondary non-structural elements to develop shear resistance? Do Adequacy of connections between primary structural elements and secondary non-structural components to develop shear resistance? 
Adequacy of foundations connections?
84 Appendix A
CITY OF REDLANDSBUILDING DATA FORK-ADDRESS:
AREA: BUILDING:
OWNER Occupancy TYPE: AIVP 3TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VRIM .57T(number OF STORIES: 2BUILDINGHEIGHT: CONSTRUCTION:; PLANS AVAILABLE: 
SUMHARIZE FINDINGS AND RECOMMIENDATIONSHERE:
CITY OF REDLANDS FIELD DATA ROOF: MATERIAL: QUALITY 600 MORTAR THICKNESS HEIGHT 7-3 ,BRACED OR BOND BEAM
OTHER REINF: ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE: 
SIDE AND REAR WALLS: CORNICES: MATERIAL: PROJECTION:
OTHER OBSERVATIONS: ROOF TILE
COPING
TOWERS/CHIMNEYS SIGNS TANKS
ATTIC: HEIGHT: MATERIAL: ANCHORS/BOND BEANS:
INTERIOR:
FLOORS: INTERIOR WALLS: FRAMING: 
EXTERIOR:
ABUTTING BUILDINGS: STREET FRONT CONSTRUCTION: ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: 
LINTELS: THIN FACING OVER FRAMING:
SIGNS OR OTHER HAZARDS: OTHER OBSERVATIONS:
Appendix A
CITY OF REDLAND SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION Exterior Walls:
Roof: Floor(s): Interior Walls Frame Lintels Other: 
POSSIBLE HAZARDS Parapets Walls Gables Signs Roof Tile Coping Facing Towers Marquees Cornices Ornamentation Chimneys Tanks OTHER NOTES OR REMARKS:
Appendix A 
CITY OF REDLAND SKETCHES AND
Appendix A
CHARLESTON CRITICAL FACILITIES BUILDING STRUCTURE CLASSIFICATION FORM Name of building 
Address Census tract Primary function of building 
Year built Year remodeled or rehabilitated Plan sketch and dimensions:
Building length (parallel to street) feet Building depth (perpendicular to street) D feet Building height (ground level to roof) feet Building size (LSD) A sq ft Aspect ratio MAX (H/L, H/D) R 
Number of floors (ground floor and above) N
Number of basements B
1984 Replacement value
Amount of earthquake insurance
Underwriter's building classification 
SURVEY BUILDING CLASSIFICATION
Appendix A 
CHARLESTONSTRUCTURAL SYSTEMGENERAL Types C 3 (1) Mobile Home C 3 (1) Wood frame C 3 (2) All metal C 3 (3) Steel frame C 3 Simple C 3 Moment resisting C 3 One-way frame C 3 Two-way frame C 3 Ductile moment resisting-C One-way frame C 2 Two-way frame C 2 Poured-in-place concrete fire-proofing C I Shear walls C 3 (4) Concrete frame C 3 Precast elements C 3 Moment resisting C 2 One-way frame C 3 Two-way frame C 3 Ductile moment resisting C 2 One-way frame C 2 Two-way frame C 3 Shear walls I 3 (5) Mixed construction C 3 Unreinforced masonry C 2 Reinforced masonry C 3 Tilt-up E 3 (6) Special earthquake resistant(Requires written justification)
EMERGENCY SYSTEMS s C 2 Fire alarms C 2 Heat and/or smoke detectors C 3 Fire doors C 3 Self closing C 3 Automatic closing (Fusable link)
90 Appendix A
CHARLESTONEXTERIOR WALLS s Locations story Types 1 3 Bearing C 3 Non-bearing1 3 Curtain C 3 Panel E 3 In-filled Material: s 1 Adobe C 3 Wood C 3 Cripple studs C 3 Unbraced C 3 Braced C 3 Brick veneer I 2 Stucco C 3 Other Type: s
 C 3 Masonry e 3 Hollow C 3 Solid C 3 Unreinforced C 3 Reinforced 3 Brick C 3 Tile C 3 CMLU C 3 Concrete C 3 Class C 2 Steel panels C 2 Precast concrete panels C 2 Other Types 
Percent of exterior wall openings Thickness in Through-wall ties
INTERIOR WALLS s locations  story Sham r Walls s Type: C 3 None C 2 Isolated C 2 Core Material a C 3 Masonry C 3 Hollow Appendix A 91 North East South West ATC-21 -1
CHARLESTONE 3 Solid C 2 Unreinforced 1: Re1inforced t 3 Brick I 3 Tile C 2 CHU
 3 Concrete C 2 Other Types,
Thickness e in Partitions s Types IE Non-moveable23 Moveable Material a C 2 Wood studs C 2 Plaster C 2 Drywall C 3 Plywood panel C 3 Other T%
 C 2 studs E 3 Plaster C 2 Drywall C 3 Plywood panel C 2 Other T C 2 Plaster C 3 Masonry C 2 Brick K 2 Tile C 3 CMU C 3 Non-reinforced C 2 Reinforced Tops C 2 Below ceiling C 3 At ceiling e 2 At underside Anchorages CC Thickness floor/roof2 None2 Poor3 Good3 Excellent92 Appendix ACHARLESTONFLOOR FRAMIIN1sLocations story Type & C I Concrete slab on grade C 2 Joists C 3 Wood C 2 Steel@ 3 Concrete C 3 Not anchored C 3 Anchored C 3 Beam/girder C 3 Timber C 2 Steel C I Concrete C 3 Wood trussed joists C 2 Concrete slab C 2 Poured-in-place C 2 Precast C 2 Reinforced C 2 Prestressed C 2 Solid C 2 Hollow C 2 Ribbed C 3 Waffel,
 C 3 Flat slab C 3 Slab w/drops C 3 Slab w/capitals C 3 Slab w/drops and capitals C 3 'Precast elements Types Decks C 3[ 3C 3C 3C23 E 3 Wood Steel Concrete planks Light concrete deck slab (LEO3)
Heavy concrete deck slab (BTR 3 )
Other Types Diaphragms. I 3 No E 2 Poor C 3 Good1 3 Excellent Diaphragm shear transfer connections C 2 None C 2 Poor C 2 Good C 3 Excellent Appendix A 93
CHARLESTON ROOF Framing Surfaces C 3 Flat C 3 Sloped C 2 Curved Types C 2 Joists C 2 Wood C 3 Steel C 3 Concrete C 3 Not anchored C 3 Anchored C 3 Beam/girder 2 Timber C 3 Steel C 3 Concrete C 2 Wood trussed rafters C 3 Truss/purlin C 2 Timber C 2 Steel C 3 Concrete slab C 3 Poured-in-place C I Precast C 2 Reinforced C 2 Prestressed C 2 Solid C 2 Hollow C 2 Ribbed C 2 C 2 Flat slab C 2 Slab w/drops C 2 Slab w/capitals C 2 Slab w/drops and capitals C 2 Precast elements Types
Deck: C 2 Wood C 2 Steel C 2 Concrete planks C 2 Light concrete deck slab (LEG3H)
C 3 Heavy concrete deck slab (GTR 3")
C 2 Other Types 
Diaphragm: C 2 No C 3 Poor C 3 Good C 2 Excellent Diaphragm shear transfer connections C-2 None C 2 Poor C 2 Good C 2 Excellent 94 Appendix AA TC-211-1
CHARLESTON ORNAMENTATION:
Exteriors Interiors Inadequately anchored ornamentation and/or veneer above the first story
Stone coping on parapets, stone or precast ledges, or sculptured sills and keystones -
C 2 Suspended ceilings C 2 Tie wires C 3 Not looped C 2 Looped C 3 Lateral bracing E 3 None C 3 Wires E 2 Metal channelsC2 Suspended light fixtures C 2 Wire e 2 Chain C 2 Pendant (pipe / conduit)
C I Poorly anchored chandeliers and/or other ceiling appurtenances C 2 Drop-in fluorescent light fixtures C 3 Bracket-mounted television sets 
C 2 Floor coverings.
MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL Electrical Generation Heating Equipments Air Conditioning Equipments and Distribution Equipments Elevators:
Escalators Miscellaneous Equipments Anchorages (All equipment)
Appendix A 95.
CHARLESTONUNUSUAL CONDITIONS Previous ED damages Settlements (Differential settlement, cracking, bowing,
leaning of walls).
Shear walls (Symmetric or non-symmetric)
Lateral bracing: (Type) 
(Symmetric or non-symmetric)
Building shapes C I Rectangular 3 Triangular/ L-shape /T-shape/H-shape C I "Open front" (U-shape)
Columns (Continuous, non-continuous) 
Foundations Floors Swimming Pools Aspect ratios Others HAZARDOUS EXPOSURES:
Roof tanks:
Roof signs:
Parapet walls:
C 3 Above grade concrete piers or pedestals C 3 Unreinforced S 3 Reinforced C 3 Above grade masonry piers or pedestals C 3 Unreinforced C 3 Reinforced C 3 Tie downs C 3 Cross-bracing(Cracking or sagging) (On roofs R =Number:
Purposes Sizes Bracing/anchorages C I None 1 2 unreinforced masonry C 3 Reinforced masonry C 3 Other Type
96 Appendix A
CHARLESTON- C 3 Unbraced C 3 Braced Overhanging walls Chimneys Pounding Height above roofs Materials
Anchorage/bracing
Foundations Types C 3 Strip footings E 3 Isolated footings C 3 Mat foundation C 3 Piles C 3 Wood C 3 Steel C 2 Concrete C 3 Caissons C 3 Other Type:
SOIL TYPE/Conditions C 2 Rock or firm alluvium or well-engineered man-made fill C 2 Soft alluvium C 2 (natural or man-made) Remarks:Appendix A 97A TC-21 -I
CHARLESTON CRITICAL FACILITIES BUILDING STRUCTURE EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY RATING FORM BUILDING t -CLASS PML 
MODIFICATION FACTOR -Cl.0 + (SUM OF MODIFIERS)/1003.
BUILDING PML (CLASS PML) SC MODIFICATION FACTOR) .
MODIFIERS&
1. Occupancy type a.
(1) Office, Habitational, Hospital,
Laboratory, School C 3 t -5) Low damageability E 3 0) Average damageability E 3 C +5) High damageability (2) Mercantile, Restaurant, Church t 2 (-10)
.1 C -5)
 C 3 C 0)
(3) Manufacturing, Warehousing, Parking structure, Stadium C 3 (-15)
 C 2 (-10)
C 23 0)
2. Walls F .6 n; o: Q a .a 0-fa
A. Exterior walls (1)Concrete, poured or precast(2)Masonry, reinforced solid or hollow(3) Metal(4) Glass(5)Stucco on studs C 3 C -5)
r 2 ( 0)
 C 3 C +5)
(6) Masonry, unreinforced solid C 3 C 0)
 C 3 C +5)
 C 3 (+10)
(7) Masonry, unreinforced hollow C 2 C 0)
 C 2 (+10)
 C 2 (+20)
98 Appendix A
CHARLESTON B. Interior walls and partitions (1) Concrete, poured or, precast(2)Masonry, reinforced solid or hollow(3)Plaster or gypsumboard on metal or wood studs C 3 C -5)
 C 3 C 0)
 C 3 t +5)
(4) Masonry, unreinforced solid or hollow (5) Tile, hollow clay C 3 C 0)
 C 3 ( +5)
 C 3 (+10)
3. Diaphragms -a-A. Floors (1) Concrete, poured (2) Metal deck with concrete fill (3) Metal C 3 C-5)
 C 3 C 0)
 C 3 C +5)
(4)Concrete, precast (5) Woods maximum ratio LEG 2.1 w/ length LED 150'
 C 3 C 0)
 C 3 ( +5)
 C 3 (+10)
(6) Wood: maximum ratio GTR 2, 1 C 3 ( 0)
 C 3 (+10)
 C 3 (+20)
B. Roof (Null modifier when building GTR 5 stories)
(1) Concrete, poured (2) Metal deck with concrete fill(S) Metal C 3 ( -5)
 C 3 C 0)
 C 3 C +5)
(4) Concrete, precast (5) Wood or gypsum: maximum ratio C 3 C 0)
 C 3 ( S)
 C 3 (+10)
(6) Wood or gypsums maximum ratio C 3 C 0)
E 3 (+10)
 C 3 (+20)
LEG 2.1 w/ length LED 150'
, BTR 2.1C. Purlin anchors lacking (+10)
Appendix A 99:
CHARLESTON 4. Ornamentation O
A. Exterior 3 -5)
t 3 t 0)
E 3 ( +S +10)
B. Interior (includes ceilings and floor covers)
 C 3 C -5)
E 3 0)
E 3 +(5$+1O)
5. Mechanical and Electrical Systems 2 (-10, -5)
 C 3 0)
 C 3 +5,+10)
60 Unusual Conditions .Include previous earthquake damage and repairs6 3 (-10, -5)
 C 3 ( +5)
 C 2 (+10,,+25)
7. Hazardous exposures 
"Average" means "No exposure"
A. Roof tanks C 3 Null C (0)
 C 3 +25)
B. Roof signs and overhanging walls C 3 Null C 2 0)
t 3 C +5,4.10)
C. Pounding of adjacent buildings E 3 Null C 3 0)
 C 3 C +5)
S. Site dependent hazards e D D O * O a,
A. Foundation materials E 3 ( 0) Rock or firm alluvium or well-engineered man-made fill C 3 (+10) Soft alluvium E 3 (+25) Poor (natural or man-made)
SUM OF MODIFIERSs100 Appendix AI
ARMY EXISTING BUILDINGS G go. (current)
Number of Stories (Show vista)
structural System 9 of 
Ground Floors S40 


APPENDIX B
DETERMINATION OF SCORES This Appendix presents the derivation of the Basic Structural Hazard score and discusses modifications to account for building specific problems and to extend this score to areas outside of California. Sample calculations of probabilities of damage and resulting Basic Structural Hazard scores are included for several building types. A summary of Basic Structural Hazard scores for all structural types and for all regions is found in Table B1.
B.1 Determination of Structural Scores The Basic Structural Hazard (BSH) is defined for a type or class of building as the negative of the logarithm (base 10) of the probability of damage (D) exceeding 60 percent of building value for a specified NEHRP Effective Peak Acceleration (EPA) loading(reflecting seismic hazard) as:
BSH = -log10[Pr(D 60%)] (Bla)
The BSH is a generic score for a type or class of building, and is modified for a specific building by Performance Modification Factors(PMFs) specific to that building, to arrive at a Structural Score, S. That is,
BSH+PMFW=S (Blb)
where the Structural Score S = log10[Pr (D60%)] (Blc)
is the measure of the probability or likelihood of damage being greater than 60 percent of building value for the specific building.
Sixty percent damage was selected as the generally accepted threshold of major damage,
BASIC STRUCTURAL HAZARDAND MODIFIERS the point at about which many structures are demolished rather than repaired (i.e., structures damaged to 60 percent of their value are often a total loss"), and the approximate lower bound at which there begins to be a significant potential for building collapse (and hence a significant life safety threat). Value is used as defined inATC-13 (ATC, 1985), which may be taken to mean replacement value for the building.
The determination of the probability of damage exceeding 60 percent for a class of buildings or structures for a given ground motion defined in terms of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI), Peak Ground Acceleration(PGA) or Effective Peak Ground Acceleration is a difficult task for which insufficient data or methods presently exist. In order to fill this gap,
earthquake engineering expert opinion was elicited in a structured manner in the ATC-13project, as to the likelihood of various levels of damage given a specified level of ground motion(ATC, 1985).
The Basic Structural Hazard scores herein were developed from earthquake damage related information, using damage factors (DF) fromATC-13 (ATC, 1985), wherein damage factor is defined as the ratio of dollar loss to replacement value. It is assumed in ATC-13that, depending on the building class, both modem code and older non-code buildings maybe included, and that the damage data are applicable to buildings throughout the state of California. Inasmuch as ATC-13 was intended for large scale economic studies and not for studies of individual structures, damage factors apply to "average" buildings in each class.
ATC-13 damage factors were chosen as the Appendix B 103ATC-21 -1
Table B 1: Basic Structural Hazard Scores for all Building Classes and NEHRP Areas Building Identifier WOOD FRAMESTEEL MRFBRACED STEEL FRAMELIGHT METALSTEEL FRAME W/CONCRETE SWRC MRFRCSW NO MRFURM INFILLTILT-UPPC FRAMEREINFORCED MASONRYUNREINFORCED MASONRY low(1,2)
8.53.52.56.54.54.04.03.03.52.54.02.5Seismic Area(NEHRP MAP AREAS)
moderate(3,4)
6.04.03.06.04.03.03.52.03.52.03.52.0104 Appendix BWS1S2S3S4Cl1C2C3/S5PC 1PC2RMURMhigh(5,6,7)
4.54.53.05.53.52.03.01.52.01.53.01.0ATC-21-1
basis for the handbook scores because, at the present time, this is the most complete and systematically compiled source of earthquake damage related information available. Appendix G of ATC-13 contains summaries of experts opinions of DFs for 78 facility classes (designed in California) due to 6 different levels of input motion. Each ATC-13 expert was asked to provide a low, best and high estimate of the damage factor at Modified Mercalli Intensities VI through XII. The low and high estimates were defined to be the 90% probability bounds of the damage factor distribution. The best estimate was defined for the experts as the DF most likely to be observed for a given MMI and facility class (Appendix E and equation 7.10,
ATC-13). This relationship is illustrated in Figure B 1.
To incorporate the inherent variability in structural response due to earthquake input and variations in building design and construction,
the DF is treated as a random variable-that is,
it is recognized that there is uncertainty in the DF, for a given ground motion. This uncertainty is due to a number of factors including variation of structural properties within the category of structure under consideration and variation in ground motion. In ATC-13, DF uncertainty about the mean was examined and found to be acceptably modeled by a Beta distribution although differences between the Beta, lognormal and normal probabilities were very small (see for example ATC-13, Fig. 7.9). For convenience herein, the lognormal rather than Beta distribution was chosen to represent the DF. The lognormal distribution offers the advantage of easier calculation using well-known polynomial approximations. Ideally a truncated lognormal distribution should be used to account for the fact that the DF can be no larger than 100. In the worst case this would have only changed the resulting hazard score by 5%. It should be noted that the lognormal distribution was the ATC-21subcontractor's preference, and the Beta or other probability distributions could be used in developing structural scores.
For specified building classes (as defined inATC-13) and for load levels ranging from MMIVI to XII, parameters of damage probability distributions were estimated from the "weighted statistics of the damage factor" given in Appendix G of ATC-13. Weights based on experience level and confidence of the experts were factored into the mean values of the low,
best and high estimates (ML, MB, MH) found in that Appendix. For the development of hazard scores, the mean low and mean high estimates of the DF were taken as the 90%
probability bounds on the damage factor distribution. The mean best estimate was interpreted as the median DF. Major damage was defined as a DF >60 (greater than 60percent damage).
For any log normally distributed random variable, X, a related random variable,
Y=ln (X), is normally distributed. The normal distribution is characterized by two parameters,
its mean and standard deviation. The mean value of the normal distribution, m, can be equated to the median value of the lognormal distribution,
xi, bym = In(xM)(B2)
(Ang and Tang, 1975). Thus if it is assumed that the DF is log normally distributed with the median = MB, the ln(DF) is normally distributed with mean m=ln(MB). The additional information needed to find the standard deviation, s, is provided by knowing that 90% of the probability distribution lies between ML and MH. Thus approximately 95%
of the distribution is below the MH damage factor. From tables of the cumulative standard normal distribution, F(x), where x is the standard normal variate defined by x=(y-m)Is, it can be seen that F(x=1.64)=0.95. Therefore(y-m) ls = 1.64, where in this case y=ln(MH).
The standard deviation may-then be calculated from s= (ln(MH)-m)/1.64. A similar calculation could be performed using the ML and the 5%
cutoff. An average of these two values results in the following equation:
Appendix B 105A TC-21-1
Given: MMI Facility Class o Low Best High DF '60%
DF Figure B I106 Appendix BP(DF)
A TC-21 -I
(13) and the constants area FORTRAN program was used to calculate the parameters m and s for variousATC-13 facility classes and all MMI levels.
To estimate probabilities of exceeding a60% DF for various NEHRP areas, MMI was converted to EPA according to:
PGA = io (1-1)/3 (34)
where PGA is in gals (cm/sec2), and EPA =.75 PGA (B5)
Equation B4 is a modification of the standard conversion given in Richter (1958) to arrive at PGA at the mid-point of the MMI value(rather than at the threshold, as given by Richter). Equation B5 is an approximate conversion (N. C. Donovan, personal communication). Only MMI VI to IX were considered, as this is the equivalent range of EPA under consideration in NEHRP Areas 1 to7.
It was found that large uncertainty in DF for MMI VI and sometimes VII could lead to inconsistencies in the calculated probabilities of damage. To smooth these inconsistencies,
log10(s) was regressed against log10(EPA). The standard deviations of the damage probability distributions for various EPA levels were calculated from the resulting regression.
Once the parameters of the normal distribution were found, the probability of the DF being greater than 60%, Q, was calculated from the following polynomial approximation of the normal distribution (NBS 55, 1964). For the derivation of structural hazard scores, the standard variate x = (ln(60>-m)Is:
1 2 3 4t 5Q(x) =Z(x)[blt+b2t +b3tib4t +b5t ] @B6)
where Z (x) = (27c)5*exp(-x2/2) and t = l/(l+px)
b=319381530b3 =1.781477937b5 = 1.330274429b2 = -.356563782b4 = -1.821255978p =2316419The resulting values of logl0(Q) (i.e.
logl0[Pr(D >= 60%)] ) corresponded to initial values of the Basic Structural Hazard score defined in Equation Bl. These Structural Hazard scores are presented in Table B2 under NEHRP Map Area 7. These scores for theATC-13 building classification were then used to determine the scores for the building classifications of ATC-14 (ATC, 1987), which are also employed here in ATC-21 (see left column,
Table B1). In many cases, the correspondence of ATC-13 and ATC-14 is one-to-one (e.g.,
light metal). In some cases, several building types of ATC-13 correspond to one in ATC-14,
and were therefore averaged to determine theATC-21 score. In a few instances, due to inconsistencies still remaining despite the smoothing discussed above, these initial Basic Structural Hazard scores were adjusted on the basis of judgment, by consensus of the Project Engineering Panel. In order to extend the Structural Hazard scores for buildings constructed according to California building practices (which was all that ATC-13considered) to other NEHRP Map Areas, two factors must be incorporated in the determination of the Structural Hazard score:
1. The seismic environment (i.e., lower EPA values) for NEHRP Map Areas 1through 6 must be considered.
2. Buildings constructed in places other than the high seismicity portions of California, which probably have not been designed for the same seismic loadings and with the same seismic detailing as in California, must be considered. This latter aspect is termed the "non-California building" factor.
Appendix B 107s = (In(MK)-Ln(ML))/3.28ATC-21-I
Table B2: Structural Hazard Score Values After Modification for Non-California Buildings (prior to rounding)
(Follows ATC-13 (ATC, 1985) building classifications)
EPA (g)
NEHRP Area.05051015203040 LOW MOD HIGH1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1,2 3,4 5,6,7WOOD FRAME -LR 8.3 8.3LIGHT METAL 6.6 6.6URM -LR 3.1 3.1URM -MR 2.5 2.5TILT UP 4.8 4.8BR STL FRAME -LR 3.2 3.2BR STL FRAME -MR 2.1 2.1BR STL FRAME -HR 2.3 2.3STL PERIM. MRF -LR 4.3 4.3STL PERIM. MRF -MR 3.7 3.7STL PERIM. MRF -HR 3.6 3.6STL DISTRIB MRF -LR 3.1 3.1STL DISTRIB MRF-MR 3.0 3.0STL DISTRIB MRF -HR 3.0 3.0RCSW NO MRF -LR 5.4 5.4RCSW NO MRF -MR 4.6 4.6RCSW NO MRF -HR 3.5 3.5URM INFILL -LR 2.8 2.8URM INFILL -MR 2.5 2.5URM INFILL -HR 2.3 2.3ND RC MRF -LR 4.2 4.2ND RC MRF -MR 3.9 3.9ND RC MRF -HR 3.4 3.4D RC MRF -LR 7.6 7.6D RC MRF -MR 5.0 5.0D RC MRF -HR 5.7 5.7PC FRAME -LR 3.0 3.0PC FRAME -MR 1.8 1.86.56.42.01.94.93.72.72.65.44.53.53.83.83.45.44.13.22.11.71.54.23.73.58.76.35.93.85.6 5.3 4.7 4.0 8.55.8 5.5 5.3 5.7 6.52.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 3.01.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.53.1 2.9 1.9 2.4 5.03.1 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.02.3 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.01.9 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.54.7 4.9 5.5 5.4 4.53.7 3.8 4.1 3.9 3.52.7 2.6 2.7 2.4 3.53.5 3.8 4.4 4.5 3.03.3 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.02.8 2.8 2.8 2.5 3.03.9 4.6 4.0 3.5 5.52.7 3.4 2.9 2.5 4.52.1 2.5 2.1 1.8 3.51.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 3.01.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.51.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.52.4 2.9 2.7 2.2 4.02.3 2.2 2.0 1.7 4.02.1 2.2 2.1 1.8 3.56.6 7.0 6.5 5.7 7.54.8 5.4 5.4 4.9 5.04.0 4.3 3.8 3.2 5.52.3 2.0 1.4 1.6 3.02.2 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.2PC FRAME-HR 1.6 1.6 2.3 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.0RM SW W/O MRF -LR 3.9 3.9 5.4 4.5 4.1 3.5 2.9RM SW W/O MRF -MR 3.4 3.4 4.3 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.2RM SW W/O MIRF-HR 2.7 2.7 3.4 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.7RM SW W/ MRF -LR 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.0 4.7 4.1 3.6RM SW W/ MRF -MR 5.7 5.7 7.6 5.8 5.1 3.9 3.1RM SW W/ MRF -HR 5.9 5.9 8.1 6.2 5.5 4.3 3.4LONG SPAN 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.22.01.54.03.52.54.05.56.04.06.0 4.56.0 5.52.0 1.51.5 1.03.5 2.03.5 3.02.5 3.02.5 2.05.0 5.54.0 4.03.0 2.53.5 4.53.5 4.03.0 2.54.5 4.03.5 2.52.5 2.01.5 1.01.5 1.01.0 1.03.0 2.52.5 2.02.5 2.07.5 6.05.5 5.04.5 3.52.5 1.52.0 1.52.0 1.04.5 3.03.5 2.53.0 2.05.0 4.06.0 3.56.5 4.03.5 3.5108 Appendix BATC-21-1
With regard to the first of these factors, to facilitate calculating the final Structural Hazard scores for the EPA loadings in NEHRP Areas 1through 6, log10[log10(Structural Hazard Score)]
was regressed against EPA and scores were calculated from the resulting regression. These values represent the values for a "California building" (i.e., designed and built according to standard California seismic practices) in a different NEHRP Map Area. The extension of the scoring system to structures outside of California (i.e., "non-California buildings") is discussed below.
B.2 Extension to Non-California Building Construction Due to the nature of data compiled in ATC13, the above Structural Hazard scores are appropriate for "average" buildings designed and built in California, subjected to seismic loadings appropriate for NEHRP Map Area 7.
In regions where building practices differ significantly from California (i.e., NEHRP Map Area 7) building practices, the Structural Hazard score should be modified. It would be expected that in regions where seismic loading does not control the design, this would lead to an increase in the value of the Structural Hazard score.
An example of this "non-California building" effect might be a reinforced masonry(RM) building in NEHRP Map Area 3, where local building codes typically may not have required any design for seismic loading until recently, if at all. This is not to say that buildings in NEHRP Map Area have no lateral load (and hence seismic) capacity. Design for wind loads would provide some lateral load capacity, although lack of special details might result in relatively little ductility. However,
interior masonry partitions (e.g., interior walls built of concrete masonry units, CMU) might typically be unreinforced, with ungrouted cells,
for example. Although the building structure could thus be fairly classified as RM, failure and probable collapse of most of the interior walls would be a major life-safety hazard, as well as resulting in major property damage.
Although the exterior walls are reinforced, they will likely lack details required in UBC Seismic Zones 3 and 4, and thus will likely have less ductility. Therefore, the Structural Hazard score in NEHRP Map Area 3 for this building type should be lower than it would be for a California" building, if the seismic loading were the same. Given that the seismic loading in NEHRP Map Area 3 is less than in most of California, the actual resulting score may be higher or lower, depending on the seismic capacity/demand ratio.
Some building types, on the other hand,
such as older unreinforced masonry (URM)
may be no different in California than in most other parts of the United States, so that the seismic capacity is the same in many NEHRP areas. Since the seismic loading is less for most non-California map areas (e.g., NEHRP Map Areas 1, 2, 3), the seismic capacity/demand ratio increases for these type of buildings for NEHRP Map Areas 1, 2, 3. Similarly, building types whose seismic capacity is the same will have higher Basic Structural Hazard scores in the lower seismicity NEHRP Map Areas.
Quantification of the change in Structural Hazard score due to variations in regional seismicity can be treated in a rather straightforward manner, as outlined above.
Changes in the Structural Hazard score due to variations in local design or building practices,
as discussed above, however, is difficult because seismic experience for these regions is less, and expert opinion data similar to ATC-13did not exist for non-California buildings. In the course of the development of the ATC-21Handbook therefore, expert opinion was sought in order to extend the ATC-13 information to non-California building construction.
Information was sought in a structured manner from experienced engineers in NEHRP Areas 1to 6, asking them to compare the performance of specific building types in their regions to Appendix B 109ATC-21 -1
California-designed buildings of the same type.
After reviewing and comparing the responses, a composite of all responses for a region was sent to the experts, who were then asked, based on these composite results, for their final estimate of the seismic performance for each building type for their region.
Generally, for the same level of loading, the experts expected higher damage for buildings in their regions than for similar structures built in California, as might be expected. For a given NEHRP Map Area, although there was substantial scatter in these experts' responses,
in most cases the responses could be interpreted such that the non-California building DF could be considered to differ by a constant multiple from the corresponding "California building"
DF. That is, responses from all experts in each region were averaged and used to estimate the modification constant for each building type.
These modification constants (MC),
presented in Table B3, were used to change the value of the mean best estimate from ATC-13(MB) to a best estimate for each NEHRP Map Area (BENA) according to the following equation:
BENA = MC*MB(B7)
Keeping the standard deviation constant (as calculated in equation B3) and using the best estimate of the DF (BENA) from equation B7,
Structural Hazard scores were calculated for each region using the methodology described in Section B.1. These structural scores a represented in Table B2, for each NEHRP Map Area.
Because the derived scores were based on expert opinion, and involved several approximations as discussed above, it was felt that the precision inherent in the Structural Hazard scores only warranted expressing these values to the nearest 0.5 (i.e., all were rounded to the nearest one half:3 rounded to5, 1.2 to1.0 and so on). A comparison of scores for low-rise (1 to 3 stories) and medium rise (4 to 7stories) structures after rounding showed little or no difference for most building classes.
Therefore, these values (before rounding) were averaged for low-and medium-rise buildings.
This value, appropriate for low-and medium rise buildings, is designated as the Basic Structural Hazard score. For high-rise construction (8+ stories), this is modified by a high-rise Performance Modification Factor(PMF). This high-rise PMF is a function of building class and was calculated by subtracting the Basic Structural Hazard score for low-and mid-rise buildings from that determined for high-rise buildings.
Lastly, a comparison of scores for different NEHRP Map Areas revealed very little difference of Structural Hazard scores for certain levels of seismicity. The scoring process was therefore simplified by grouping high,
moderate, and low seismicity NEHRP areas together as follows:
Seismicity NEHRP Areas High 5, 6, 7Moderate 3, 4Low 1, 2B.3 Sample Calculation of Basic Structural Hazard Scores A sample calculation is presented here forATC-13 facility class 1 (wood frame), based on data taken from Appendix G in ATC-13 (ATC,
1985), shown in Table B4. Although ATC-13provided data for MMI VI to XII, the data for MMI greater than X do not correspond to the NEHRP Map effective peak accelerations.
Therefore they were not included in developing the scores for this Rapid Screening Procedure(RSP).
110 Appendix BATC-21-1
Table B3: ATC-21 Round 2 Damage Factor Modification Constants Structure Type Wood FrameSteel Moment Resisting Frame (Si)
Steel Frame with Steel Bracing orConcrete Shear WallsLight MetalSteel Frame or Concrete Frame withUnreinforced Masonry Infill WallsConcrete Moment Resisting FrameConcrete Shear WallTilt-up (PC 1)
Precast Concrete FramesReinforced Masonry (RM)
Unreinforced MasonryNEHRP Map Area1,2 3 41.01.91.3 1.3 1.21.2 1.4 1.31.9 1.21.1 1.11.22.21.72.02.92.91.15 61.01.01.4 1.1 1.11.3 1.3 1.21.2 1.31.3 1.51.3 1.51.2 1.51.1 1.81.1 1.31.2 1.01.31.21.11.31.21.11.01.21.01.01.41.31.01.0Appendix B 111 ATC-21-1
The mean and standard deviation of the Normal distribution are calculated from equations B2 and B3 with the results shown in Table B5.
A regression of log10(s) versus log10(EPA)
yields the following equation:
log10(s) = -0.409 -0.192*1oglo(EPA)
Using values of s obtained from the above equation and the polynomial approximation of the normal distribution given in Equation B6,
probabilities of exceeding 60 percent damage were calculated for EPA values of35 and lower. The resulting probabilities and hazard scores are shown in Table B6.
Finally Iogj0[1ogj0(BSH)1 was regressed against EPA resulting in the following equation:
1og10[logj0(BSH)] = -0.0101 -0.532*EPA Values of the Basic Structural Hazard score for California buildings calculated from the above equation for specified EPA are shown below:
EPA(g) BSH0.05 8.300.10 7.320.15 6.500.20 5.820.30 4.750.40 3.97BSH = 3.97 corresponding to an EPA of 0.4gis the score for NEHRP Map Area 7. To calculate BSH for other NEHRP Map Areas the same process must be used with the modified mean damage factor described in Section B.2.
For wood-frame structures the modification constants developed from the questionnaires are:
NEHRP Map Area 12 3 4 5 6ModificationConstant 1 1.3 1.2 1Using these constants, the modified median damage factors for NEHRP Map Area 3, for example, are (see Equation B7):
MMI VI IVU vm Ix Median DF 1.0 1.9 5.9 11.5Repeating the same procedure using the natural log of these median DF to calculate the mean of the normal distribution and the same standard deviations shown above, the Structural Hazard score is calculated for each NEHRP Map Area. The final values for the example given here (wood-frame buildings), before and after rounding to the nearest half, are shown in Table B7 for this example of wood buildings and in Table B2 for all building types.
Finally, because there appeared to be little variation between some NEHRP Map Areas,
these were grouped together into three areas,
with corresponding BSH values (see Table Bl).
For the example of wood-frame buildings,
resulting values are:
NEHRP Map Areas BSHLOW 1,2 8.5MODERATE 3, 4 6.0HIGH 5, 6, 7 4.5112 Appendix BATC-21-1
Table B4Damagye Factor (01nPGAMMI ' gXVIVIIIX0.050.100.22 0.47EPA Mean Low(g) (ML)
0.040.08V 0.160.350.20.71.84.5Table B5SEPA (S) In (ML In (MH (std. dev.) (mean=1nfMBj)
0.04 -1.609 0.956 0.782 -0.2230.08 -0.356 1.569 0.587 0.4050.16 0.588 2.398 0.552 1.5480.35 1.504 2.981 0.450 2.219Table B6EPA Pr(D 2 60) BSH0.04 2.69 X 109 8.570.08 3.80 X 10_6 8420.16 1.91 X 10 5 5.720.35 4.07 X 10 4.39Table B7NEHRP EPA (Final Values BSH1 0.05 8.3 8.52 0.05 8.3 8.53 0.10 6.45 6.504 0.15 5.6 5.55 0.20 5.26 5.56 0.30 4.75 5.07 0.40 3.97 4.0ATC-21-1 
Appendix B:11Mean Best(MB )
0.81.54.79.2Mean High(MH 2.64.811.019.7A TC-21 -1Appendix B113
The final resulting values of Basic Structural Hazard score presented in Table B1are intended for use nationwide. However,
local building officials may feel that building practice in their community differs significantly from the conditions typified by the Modification Constants (MCs) in Table B3. The computer source code and data employed for this study is therefore furnished (Figure B2) so that alternative MCs may be employed to generate BSH scores based on an alternative set of MCs.
An alternative computation might be conducted,
for example, if a community in NEHRP Map Area 5 (e.g., Memphis, TN) felt that the MCs for Map Area 4 were more appropriate.
Example resulting BSH scores would then be:
Wood 5.0Light Metal 5.5URM 1.5Tilt-up 2.5Note that if non-standard BSH scores are thus computed, PMFs should be reevaluated. Inmost cases, however, the BSH scores in Table B 1 should be appropriate.
The interpretation of these values is rather straightforward-a value of 8.5 in Low seismicity areas indicates that on average wood frame buildings, when subjected to EPA of0.05g, have a probability of sustaining major damage (i.e., damage greater than 60 percent of their replacement value) of 10-8.5. In High seismicity areas, where the EPA is 0.3g to 0.4g,
the probability of sustaining major damage is10-4.5.
Thus, BSH has a straight forward interpretation: if SH s.
probability of mayor damage is 1 in 10.
if BSH is 2, the probability of major damage is 1 in 100, if BSH is 3, the probability of major damage is 1 in1000, and so on.
It should be noted that BSH as defined and used here is similar to the structural reliability index, Beta (Hasofer and Lind, 1974), which can be thought of as the standard variate of the probability of failure (if the basic variables are normally distributed, which is often a good approximation). For values of BSH between about 0 and 5 (typically the range of interest herein), Beta and BSH are approximately equal.
Further, it should be noted that research into the Beta values inherent in present building codes(NBS 577, 1980) indicates that Beta (or BSH)
values of 3 for gravity loads and about 1.75 for earthquake loads are typical.
B.4 Performance Modification Factors There are a number of factors that can modify the seismic performance of a structure causing the performance of an individual building to differ from the average. These factors basically are related to significant deviations from the normal structural practice or conditions, or have to do with the effects of soil amplification on the expected ground motion.
Deviations from the normal structural practice or conditions, in the case of wood frame buildings for example, can include deterioration of the basic wood material, due to pests (e.g., termites) or rot, or basic structural layout, such as unbraced cripple walls or lack of bolting of the wood structure to the foundation.
The number and variety of such performance modification factors, for all types of buildings,
is very large, and many of these cannot be detected from the street on the basis of a rapid visual inspection. Because of this, based on querying of experts and checklists from ATC14, a limited number of the most significant factors were identified. Factors considered for this RSP were limited to those having an especially severe impact on seismic performance. Those that could not be readily observed from the street were eliminated. The performance modification factors were assigned values, based on judgment, such that when114 Appendix BA TC-21.-1
C THIS PROGRAM FINDS THE STRUCTURAL SCORES FOR THE ATC21 HANDBOOKC USING DATA FROM ATC13C A LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION FOR DAMAGE IS ASSUMEDC T. Anagnos and C. Scawthorn 1987,1988CC dimension x(10),y(l0),pea (7)
open(5,file=status='old')
open(6,file=output cuss, status='old')
data
write (6,200) (epa (i),i=l,7)
write(6,210) (i, i=1,7)
200 format('EPA',17x,7(f5.2),' LOW MOD HIGH M2H2')
210 format('NEHRP Area ',7(i5))
202 FORMAT
WRITE (6,202)
read(5,*) n type do 1 i=l, n type call dfread1 continue
subroutine df read dimension pga (7),s(7),p(7),st var (7),sigma(7),x(7),y(7)
DIMENSION d modify(7),d best(7),s final(7), bldg(l0)
real ln low(7),ln best(7),ln high(7),epa(l0)
read(5,100) (bldg(i),i=l,6)
100 format(6a4)
c READ MODIFICATION FACTORS FOR EACH NEHRP AREA read(5,*) (d modify(j),J-1,7)
C CONVERT MMI TO PGA do 2 i=1,7read(5,*) xmmi, dlow, d best(i),d highpga(i)=10**((c(xmmi+0.5)/3.)-0.5)/981.
lnlow(i)=alog(dlow)
lnhigh(i)=alog(dhigh)
2 continuedo 50 nehrp=1,7do 7 i=1,7temp=dbest(i)/dmodfy(nehrp)
if (temp.gt.100.) temp=100.
lnbest(i)=alog(temp)
x(i)=aloglO(pga(i))
7 continuedo 3 i=1,73 continue201 format(' ',4(flO.5,lx))
C COMPUTE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION do 4 i=1,7sigma(i)=(lnhigh(i)-lnlow(i))/3.28y(i)=aloglO(sigma(i))
4 continue Figure B21Appenzdix B 115ATC-21 -1
FORTRAN PROGRAM NEHRP.FORPAGE 2C REGRESS LOG(SIGMA) AGAINST LOG(PGA)
n=7call regres (x,y,n,a,b)
202 format(' a=',f8.3,'b= ',f8.3)
C COMPUTE PROBABILITIES OF EXCEEDANCE USING AN APPROXIMATIONC OF THE LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTIONC STVAR = STANDARD VARIATEcl=.31938153c2=-.356563782c3=1.781477937c4=-1.821255978c5=1.330274429do 5 i=1,7stvar(i)=(alog(60.)-lnbest(i))/l0**(a+b*x(i))
t=l./(l.+stvar(i)*0.2316419)
c Approximation is invalid for large negative standardc variates if(stvar(i).lt.-3.) p(i)=l.Oif (stvar(i).lt.-3.) goto 8ctot=cl*t+c2*t**2+c3*t**3+c4*t**4+c5*t**5p(i)=exp(-.5*stvar(i)**2)/sqrt(6.283185308)*ctotC ACCOUNT FOR ROUND OFF ERROR IN THE APPROXIMATION8 continueif(p(i).gt.l.O) p(i)=l.Oif(p(i).lt.0.0) p(i)=O.OC CALCULATE THE STRUCTURAL SCORE "S"8(i) =-l. *aloglO(p(i))
5 continueC FIND WHERE STRUCTURAL SCORE BECOMES NEGATIVEmarker=Odo 6 j=1,4temp=aloglO(s(j))
if(temp.le.0.0) marker=jif (temp.le.0.O) goto 10y(j)=aloglO(temp)
6 continue go to 1110 continue11 continues=4if(marker.ne.0) n=marker-1C REGRESS LOG(S) AGAINST PGA call regress(pga y, n, ascor, bscor)
call finscr(ascor,bscor,nehrp,score)
sfinal(nehrp)=score510 format(' a=',flO.3,'b= ',flO.3)
204 format(' x=',f8.5,'p=',f8.5,'s=',f8.5)
50 continuexl=.5*nint((sfinal(l)+sfinal(2))/(2*.5))
xm=.5*nint((sfinal(3)+sfinal(4)+sfinal(5))/(3*.5))
xh=.5*nint((sfinal(6)+sfinal(7))/(2*.5))
xm2=.5*nint((sfinal(3)+sfinal(4))/(2*.5))
xh2=.5*nint((sfinal(5)+sfinal(6)+sfinal(7))/(3*.5))
200 format(' ',10a4)
Figure B2I116 Appendix BA TC-21 -I
FORTRAN PROGRAM NEHRP.FORPAGE 3210 format(' ',5A4,7(f5.1),3x,3f5.1,3x,2f5.1)
write(6,210)
(bldg(i),i-1,5),(sfinal(i),i-1,7),xl,xm,xh,xm2,xh2returnendC
c SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE THE FINAL SCORE FOR EA NEHRP AREAC 
subroutine finscr (a,b,narea,score)
dimension epa(7),s(7)
data epa/.05,.05,.1,.15,.2,.3,.4/
do 1 i=1,7s(i)10**(10**(a+b*epa(i)*4/3))
1 continue score=s(narea)
200 format(' nehrp area',7(i5,lx))
210 format(' score ',7(f5.2,lx))
Return end c
C SUBROUTINE TO PERFORM LINEAR REGRESSION AND PROVIDE THEC RESULTING CONSTANTSC 
subroutine regress (x,y,n,a,b)
dimension x(10),y(10)
500 format(' x',10flO.6)
501 format(' y',lOflO.6)
sumx=0.0sumxy=0.0sumy=0.0sumx2=0.0do 1 i=l,nsumx=sumx+x(i)
sumx2-sumx2+x(i)**2sumy=sumy+y(i)
sumxy=sumxy+x(i)*y(i)
1 continueb=(sumxy-sumx*sumy/n)/(sumx2-sumx*sumx/n)
a=(sumy-b*sumx)/nreturnendFigure B2Appendix B 117ATC-21-1
36WOODFRAME-LR1 18887 1 16 0.20 0.80 2.607 0.70 1.50 4.808 1.80 4.70 11.009 4.50 9.20 19.7010 8.80 19.80 39.7011 14.40 24.40 47.3012 23.70 37.30 61.30LIGHT METAL.99987783 16 0.01 0.40 1.607 0.50 1.10 2.708 0.90 2.10 5.709 2.10 5.60 10.5010 6.00 12.90 23.5011 9.80 22.30 34.4012 17.60 31.30 44.00URN-LR.9982 1 1 1 16 0.90 3.10 7.507 3.30 10.10 26.408 8.90 22.50 48.509 22.10 41.60 74.9010 41.90 64.60 93.6011 57.20 78.30 97.30-1272.70 89.60 100.0URN-MR.9982 1 1 1 16 1.20 4.60 10.907 2.60 11.40 31.308 12.70 28.80 55.009 28.80 51.40 77.3010 45.80 71.70 94.8011 62.00 83.00 98.3012 74.90 91.10 100.0TILT UP.558568777 16 0.40 1.50 4.207 1.80 4.20 9.608 4.00 10.60 18.209 9.10 18.50 31.6010 15.20 28.70 49.2011 25.60 45.00 69.4012 35.60 62.50 80.20BRSTLFRAME-LR.53538579187 16 0.01 0.60 2.407 0.40 1.80 5.008 1.20 5.10 10.309 4.60 10.10 18.7010 7.90 15.80 27.4011 13.90 27.00 43.4012 19.60 38.80 53.90BRSTLFRAME-MR.53538579187 16 0.01 0.80 2.907 0.40 5.80 6.508 2.20 7.00 13.509 6.20 11.90 22.1010 10.50 20.40 32.8011 17.00 30.10 49.6012 23.00 41.80 62.40BR STLFRAME*HR.53538579187 16 0.01 0.90 4.907 0.70 5.40 10.208 3.90 10.20 21.809 10.00 17.70 26.1010 14.40 22.80 40.3011 20.60 37.80 61.2012 27.60 50.50 77.50STL PERIN. NRF -LR.558578 1 16 0.01 0.70 2.207 0.50 1.70 3.908 2.00 3.80 7.909 3.70 7.20 11.5010 6.90 13.90 20.9011 10.10 22.20 32.2012 16.80 31.40 44.10STLPERIM.MRF-MR.558578 1 16 0.01 0.70 2.507 0.70 2.10 5.108 1.60 4.40 9.809 4.30 8.90 15.8010 8.00 15.70 24.6011 12.00 28.20 40.3012 17.10 36.40 51.10STL PERIM. HRF -HR.558578 1 16 0.01 0.70 3.507 0.90 2.40 7.308 2.30 6.20 14.209 5.30 14.50 24.5010 9.60 19.80 31.5011 17.00 36.70 50.5012 23.40 44.50 59.10STL DISTRIB MRF-LR.558578 1 16 0.01 0.40 1.907 0.10 1.40 4.208 1.10 2.90 7.609 2.80 5.80 12.1010 4.70 10.80 20.1011 7.10 19.70 31.0012 18.60 32.50 44.10STL DISTRIB MRF-MR.558578 1 16 0.01 0.80 2.707 0.30 1.70 4.808 1.50 4.30 9.609 3.20 7.10 14.8010 5.50 12.60 19.3011 8.40 19.6033.7012 11.50 30.30 42.10STL DISTRIB MRF-HR.558578 I 16 0.01 0.50 2.707 0.40 2.40 6.508 1.70 4.90 12.709 3.30 9.60 18.6010 6.60 16.30 26.4011 8.40 24.20 41.4012 11.8032.30 50.20RCSUNOKRF-LR.668659197 16 0.10 0.50 1.907 0.80 2.80 6.308 2.60 6.60 12.509 5.60 13.00 22.0010 11.50 23.60 34.1011 20.20 35.50 51.2012 31.30 47.60 61.90RCSWNOMRF-MR.668659197 16 0.20 1.00 2.807 0.60 3.70 7.808 3.30 8.8016.109 8.00 17.50 29.5010 16.40 28.90 44.7011 22.60 39.50 57.9012 33.10 49.80 70.40RCSWNOMRF-HR.668659197 16 0.20 1.20 3.007 1.00 5.60 10.908 4.10 11.8021.409 10.50 24.8039.0010 26.10 37.70 57.7011 36.90 54.00 75.0012 48.30 67.10 88.20URN INFILL * LR.8383.827877856 0.20 1.70 6.807 1.70 5.80 18.908 3.60 14.10 36.609 11.60 28.50 58.4010 21.50 44.00 79.4011 32.60 60.20 95.4012 47.20 76.10 99.99URN INFILL -MR.838382787785 16 0.60 3.40 10.307 1.80 8.20 23.208 7.20 20.60 40.309 14.50 33.60 58.8010 25.60 47.30 80.4011 41.60 68.00 94.8012 60.30 80.70 99.20URNINFILL -HR.838382.787785 16 1.30 4.80 14.707 2.30 11.00 28.008 8.70 23.50 48.409 18.70 43.90 67.4010 33.60 56.20 89.8011 44.80 68.90 99.9912 60.40 76.90 99.99MDRC MRF-LR.45458658397 16 0.20 1.30 3.607 1.90 4.20 10.108 5.40 12.10 21.809 12.80 21.10 38.2010 17.50 31.80 50.8011 27.20 47.50 65.6012 42.40 62.00 81.40NDRCMRF-MR.45458658397 16 0.40 1.70 3.907 2.50 5.10 14.808 5.70 13.00 25.709 13.70 26.50 45.5010 21.40 35.70 58.0011 33.50 51.90 74.2012 47.80 67.40 92.60NDRCHRF-HR.45458658397 16 0.40 1.70 3.507 1.70 5.40 13.408 6.00 13.30 28.009 12.60 25.30 44.9010 23.70 40.50 65.2011 33.70 55.30 80.3012 54.00 75.8094.90D RCHRF-LR145458658397 16 0.20 0.40 1.507 0.70 1.70 4.708 2.10 4.10 10.409 4.00 9.20 16.9010 8.70 17.50 26.6011 15.30 25.90 36.3012 28.30 41.90 51.70D RC MRF-MR.45458658397 16 0.40 1.30 3.307 1.30 3.40 6.908 2.30 5.80 12.609 5.40 10.80 20.1010 8.60 16.90 26.3011 16.80 28.40 40.4012 24.10 37.10 51.50D RC NRF -HR.45458658397 16 0.50 1.80 3.907 1.50 3.20 7.808 3.10 6.90 17.509 6.10 13.70 24.7010 10.90 21.50 33.6011 14.80 31.80 47.2012 19.50 38.60 56.80PCFRAME-LR.3535957838 16 0.10 1.10 4.207 0.80 2.80 8.408 3.20 8.00 18.909 10.00 23.20 33.9010 18.90 37.60 56.9011 24.20 48.70 68.6012 32.10 60.00 83.90PCFRAME*-SR.353595783816001 1.10 4.907 1.10 3.40 10.108 3.30 8.40 21.609 10.50 27.20 34.5010 24.20 43.10 62.9011 29.30 53.70 78.3012 35.70 68.70 93.70PC FRAME-HR.3535957838 16001 1.10 5.007 1.00 4.10 9.808 3.30 10.10 24.609 11.90 29.60 39.7010 24.70 44.30 63.9011 29.90 54.60 79.6012 35.00 69.70 99.50RNSWW/OMRF -LR.35359859197 16 0.20 0.80 2.307 0.90 2.90 7.108 2.20 6.00 14.209 4.60 13.50 27.2010 11.90 23.20 40.5011 21.50 41.90 62.2012 31.80 52.30 72.90RNSWW/ONRF-MR.35359859197 16 0.20 1.20 3.207 1.50 3.50 8.908 2.90 9.90 20.209 6.60 17.90 32.7010 15.80 30.50 51.6011 26.90 46.10 73.6012 38.50 59.70 89.50RNSW W/O MRF-HR.35359859197 16 0.30 1.20 4.007 1.60 5.10 12.508 3.40 13.30 25.909 11.10 22.50 44.1010 19.20 36.80 65.4011 31.30 55.00 82.8012 44.00 70.50 97.20RNSUWI MRF-LR.35359859197 16 0.10 1.00 2.407 0.80 2.40 7.608 3.10 5.90 12.409 6.50 11.90 20.1010 10.70 18.40 33.4011 19.80 30.90 59.0012 29.40 51.30 79.20RNSWW/ MRF-MR.35359859197 16 0.60 1.40 2.907 1.60 3.50 8.008 3.70 8.8016.809 8.10 15.20 27.2010 13.00 23.70 45.0011 22.80 39.40 69.4012 37.00 57.80 87.50RNSWW/MRF -HR.35359.859197 16 0.80 1.60 3.207 1.20 2.90 7.108 3.10 7.10 14.809 6.8013.20 25.2010 11.20 24.30 47.4011 19.40 40.10 69.7012 36.00 66.50 89.90LONGSPAN1 19783 1 16 0.01 0.30 1.607 0.20 1.10 5.508 1.00 4.00 10.609 3.60 9.00 17.2010 7.60 16.10 33.0011 16.00 29.70 45.9012 27.50 45.70 62.50Cc-nl(a*1c(Dco4c')
added to the Basic Structural Hazard scores above, (or subtracted, depending on whether their effect was to decrease or increase the probability of major damage) the resulting modified score would approximate the probability of major damage given the presence of that factor.
The final list of performance modification factors applicable to the rapid visual screening methodology is:
Poor condition: deterioration of structural materials Plan irregularities: buildings with reentrant corners and long narrow wings such as L, H, or E-shaped buildings Vertical irregularities: buildings with major cantilevers, major setbacks, or other structural features that would cause a significant change in stiffness in the upper stories of the building Soft story: structural features that would result in a major decrease in the lateral load resisting system's stiffness at one floor -typically at the ground floor due to large openings or tall stories for commercial purposes Pounding: inadequate seismic clearance between adjacent buildings -to be applied only when adjacent building floor heights differ so that building A's floors will impact building B's columns at locations away from B's floor levels and thus weaken the columns.
Large heavy cladding: precast concrete or stone panels that might be inadequately anchored to the outside of a building and thus cause a falling hazard (only applies to buildings designed prior to the adoption of the local ordinances requiring improved seismic anchorage).
Short columns: columns designed a shaving a full story height but which because of wall sections or deep spandrel beams between the columns have an effective height much less than the full story height. This causes brittle failure of the columns and potential collapse.
Torsion: corner or wedge buildings or any type of building in which the lateral load resisting system is highly nonsymmetrical or concentrated at some distance from the center of gravity of the building.
Soil profile: soil effects were treated by employing the UBC and NEHRP classification of "standard" soil profiles SLl, SL2 and SL3, where SLi is rock,
or stable soil deposits of sands, gravels or stiff clays less than 200 ft. in thickness; SL2 is deep cohesion less or stiff clay conditions exceeding 200 ft. in thickness; and SL3 is soft to medium stiff clays or sands, greater than 30 ft. in thickness. Present building code practice is to apply an increase in lateral load of20% for SL2 profiles and 50% for SL3profiles, over the basic design lateral load. This approach was used herein,
and these factors were applied to the EPA for each NEHRP Map Area to determine the impact on the Basic Structural Hazard score. It was determined that this impact could generally be accounted for by a PMF of 0.3 for SL2 profiles, and 0.6 forSL3 profiles. Further, to account for resonance type effects, based on judgment the 0.6 PMF for SL3 profiles was increased to 0.8 if the building in questions was 8 to 20 stories in height.
Benchmark Year: year in which modem seismic design revisions were enforced by the local jurisdiction. Buildings built after this year are assumed to be Appendix B 119ATC-21-1
seismically adequate unless exhibiting a major defect as discussed above.
Unbraced parapets, overhangs, chimneys and other non-structural falling hazards,
while potentially posing life safety problems, do not cause structural collapse and therefore have not been assigned performance modifiers.
Similarly, weak masonry foundations,
unbraced cripple walls and houses not bolted to their foundations will cause significant structural damage but will probably not lead to structural collapse.
Therefore the data collection form contains a section where this type of information may be noted, and the owner notified.
It was also determined that certain building types were not significantly affected by some of the factors. Therefore the modifiers do not apply to all building types. The actual values of the PMFs, specific to each NEHRP Map Area, maybe seen on the data collection forms, FiguresB3a,b,c.
120 Appendix BATC-21-1
(N.EHRP Map Areas 1.2 Low)
Rapid Visual Screening Of Seismically Hazardous Buildings..
Scale:
OCCIPANCY Residential Commercial Office Industrial Pub,. Assem.
School Govt. Bldg.
Emer. Serv.
Historic Bldg.
No. Persons0-1011-100100.
Non Structural Failing Hazard U
DATA CONFIDENCE*-Estknate4Subjectv.
No. Stories Year Built_
Inspector_ Date__
Total Floor Area (sq. ft)_
Building Name
Use(Fee-INSTANT PHOTOSTRUCTURAL SCORES AND C MODIFIERS TYPE W Si 82 83 84 Cl 02), (BR) WLd (RCSW) PW) (SW)MU W) rTU Basic Score 8.5 3.5 2.5 6.5 4.5, 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 4.0 2.5HighRbs. WA 0 WA -0.5 -0.5 -0. 5 -0. 5 WA -1.0 -1.5 -0.5PoorCondoni -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5Vert.irregiarty -0. 5 -0. 5 -0. 5 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -1.0softstory -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1. 0 -1.0 -1. 0 -2.0 -1. 0Toralon -1.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1. 0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -10 -1.0PlanIrsgiiaulty -1.0 -0. 5 -0. 5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0. 5 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0ploulfg WA -0.5 '-0.5 WA -0.5 -0. 5 WA N/A WA -0. 5 WA N/A Large Heavy Cladding WA -2.0 WA WA N/A -1.0 N/A N/A WA -1.0 W/A WA Short Columns WA W/A , WA WA W/A -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 W/A -1.0 WA WA Post +2.02.02.02.02.02.0 +2.0 N/A +2.02.02.0 N/A812 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -.0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3813 -0. 6 -0. 6 -0.6e -0. 6-0.6 -0.68 -0.6 -0. 6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6SL3&8 to 20storiea WA -0.8 -08 WA -0.8 -0. 8 -0.8 -0. 8 W/A -0.8 -0. 8 -0. 
am.01 YES B3aATC-21-1AppendixB 121ATC-21/.........i.IATC-21-1
ATC-2 1/ RP Map Areas 3.4. Moderate)
Rapid Visual Screwing o
Scale:
OCCUPANCY Residential Commercial Office Industrial Pub. Assem.
School Govt. Bldg.
Emer. Serv.
Historic Bldg.
No. Persons Non Structural 
Falling Hazard DATA CONFIDENCE
Do Not Know Address Other Identifiers
No. Stories Year Bit Inspector Date Total Floor Area (sq. ft)_
Building Name_
Use (pee-Off WM)
NSTANT PHOTOSTRUCTURAL SCORES AND MODIFIERSLLDIJQ TYPE W SI S2 S3 S4 C1 C2 03/S5 PCI P02 RM LUM_W_) OM L (RCSW)(M) (SW) NMNF)(TL Basic 6.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0HIMRls6 ANA-1.0 -0.5 N/A -1.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 NWA 0 -0.5 -0. 5 Poor Condition -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0. 5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5Vert.IrreguJarity -0.5 -0.5 -0. 5 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -1.0Sof Story -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -2.0 -1.0Torson -1.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0Pounft WA -0.5 -0.5 WA -0.5 -0.5 WA WA N/A -0. 5 NA WA -2.0 WA WA N/A -1.0 WA/ NWA N/A -1.0 NWA N/ =i W/A WA WA WA WA -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 NWA -1.0 WA Year o.2.0 *2.0 o2.02.0 +2.02.0 +2.0 N/A2.0 +2.02.0 WASL2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3SL3 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6SL3 &8 to 20 store WA -0.8 -0. 8 WA -0.8 -0. 8 -0.8 -0. 8 WA -0. 8 -0. 8 -0. 8FENALSCOFCONVIENTS Detailed Evaluation Required?
122 Appendix BATC-21 -1
(NEHRP Map Areas 5.6.7)
Rapid Visual Screening of OCCUPANCY Residential Commercial Office Assem.
School Govt. Bldg.
Emer. Serv.
Historic Bldg.
No. Persons0-1011-100100+
Non Structural Failing Hazard 
DATA CONFIDENCE* -Estimated Unreliable Data-Do Not Know 
No. Stories Total Floor Area (sq. ft Name__
Pee-off label INSTANT PHOTOSTRUCTURAL SCORES AND MODIFIERS TYPE W Si S2 S3 S4 C1 C2 03/S5 PC1 PC2 RM URM_W) 0R) (LM) (RC SW) (MW) (SW) MUNF) (TU)
Basic Score 4.5 4.5 3.0 5.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 3.0 1.0HihRim WA -2.0 -1.0 WA -1.0 -1. 0 -1.0 -0. 5 N/A -0.5 -1. 0 -0. 5 Poor Conklin -0.5 -0.5 -0. 5 -0.5 -0. 6 -0. 5 -0.5 -0. 6 -0. 6-0.5 -0.5 -0.5Vert. regularity -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.5 -0.6 -1.0 -0.5 -0.6 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5Soft Story -1.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 Torsion -1.0 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0Palnrregulaity -1.0 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0Pouznin WA -0.5 -0.5 WA -0.5 -0.5 WA WA WA -0.5 WA WA Large Heavy Claddig WA -2.0 WA WA WA -1.0 WA WA WA -1.0 WA WA Short Column WA WA WA WA WA -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 WA -1.0 WA WA Yew +2.0 +2.0 e2.0 +2.0 +2.02.0, +2.0 WA2.0 +2.0 +2.0 N/ASL2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3SL3 -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -0.e -. e -0.8 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6SL3 & 8 to 20 WA -0.8 -0. 8 WA -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 NA -0.8 -0.8 -0.8FNAL SCO?
COMMENTS Detailed Evaluation Required?
OWN 0F YES NO Figure BM Appendix B 123ATC-21/
ATC-21-I
REFERENCES Ang, A. H-S. and W.H Tang (1975). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design,
Wiley and Sons, New York.
ATC (1985). Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Applied Technology Council, ATC-13 Report, Redwood City CA.
ATC (1987). Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings. Applied Technology Council, ATC-14 Report, Redwood City, CA.
Hasofer, A.M., and N.C. Lind (1974). An Exact and In variant First Order Reliability Format,
Proc. A.S.C.E., J. Eng. Mech., pp 111-213.
NBS 55 (1964). Handbook of Mathematical Functions, National Bureau of Standards,
Applied Mathematics Series 55, Washington,
DC.
NBS 577 (1980). Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58, Bruce Ellingwood, T.V.
Galambos, J.G. MacGregor, C. Allin Cornell,
National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
DC.
Richter, Charles F. (1958). Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
124 Appendix BATC-21-1

APPENDIX C
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF A CUT-OFF SCORE
Because the final Structural Score S can be directly related to the probability of major damage, the field survey building S scores can be employed in an approximate cost-benefit analysis of costs of detailed review versus benefits of increased seismic safety, as a guide for selection of a cut-off S appropriate for a particular jurisdiction.
As a preliminary guide to an appropriate cut-off value of S, note that an S of 1 indicates a probability of major damage of 1 in 10, given the occurrence of ground motions equivalent to the Effective Peak Acceleration (EPA) for the particular NEHRP Map Area. S =2 corresponds to a probability of 1 in 100, S =3 is 1 in 1000, and so on.
As a simple example, take a jurisdiction with a population of 10,000 and a corresponding building inventory of 3,000wood frame houses and 100 tilt-up, 100 LRURM, and 10 mid-rise steel-framed buildings.
Assume the jurisdiction is in NEHRP Map Area6, and the Basic Structural Hazard scores of Appendix B, High seismic area, apply. Assume for the example that no penalties apply (in actuality, the penalties of course would discriminate the good structures from the bad).
The building inventories, probabilities of major damage and corresponding mean number of buildings sustaining major damage are shown in Table C1.
Table Cl Prob. Expected No. Bldgs.
M= I No. Bldgs. i Major Damage With Major Damage Wood 3,000 4.5 1/31,600 Approx. 0Tilt-up 100 2.0 1/100 Approx. 1URM 100 1.0 1/10 Approx. 10Br. Steel Fr. 100 3.0 1/1000 Approx. 0Given these results, this example jurisdiction might decide that a cut-off S of between 1 and 2 is appropriate. A jurisdiction ten times larger (i.e., 100,000 population, everything else in proportion) in the same Map Area might decide that the potential life loss in a steel-framed mid-rise (1,000 mid-rise buildings instead of 10) warrants the cut-off S being between 2 and 3. Different cut-off S values for different building or occupancy types might be warranted.
Ideally, each community should engage in some consideration of the costs and benefits of seismic safety, and decide what S is an appropriate "cut-off' for their situation. Because this is not always possible, the observation that research has indicated (NBS, 1980; see references in Appendix B) that:
"In selecting the target reliability it was decided, after carefully examining the resulting reliability indices for the many design situations, that 1 = 3 is a Appendix C 125ATC-21 -1
representative average value for many frequently used structural elements when they are subjected to gravity loading, while 13= 2.5 and p = 1.75 are representative values for loads which include wind and earthquake, respectively".
(where 13,the structural reliability index, as used in the National Bureau of Standards study, is approximately equivalent to S as used herein) is provided.
That is, present design practice is such that an S of about 3 is appropriate for day-to-day loadings, and a value of about 2 or somewhat less is appropriate for infrequent but possible earthquake loadings.
It is possible that communities may decide to assign a higher cut-off score for more important structures such as hospitals, fire and police stations and other buildings housing emergency services. However, social function has not been discussed in the development of the scoring system for this RSP. This will be addressed in a future FEMA publication tentatively entitled "Handbook for Establishing Priorities for Seismic Retrofit of Buildings."
Until and unless a community considers the cost-benefit aspects of seismic safety for itself, a preliminary value to use in an RSP, would bean S of about 2.0.126 Appendix CATC-21-1
APPENDIX DATC-21 PROJECT PARTICIPANTSATC MANAGEMENT Mr. Christopher Rojahn (PI)
Applied Technology Council 3 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 275 Redwood City, CA 94065FEMAMr. Ugo Morelli (Project Officer)
Federal Emergency Management Agency500 "C" Street, S.W., Room 625Washington, DC 20472Mr. Chris D. Poland (Co-PI)
Degenkolb Associates 350 Sansome Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 SUBCONTRACTOR- Dr. Charles Scawthorni Consultant to Dames & Moore EQE Engineering, Inc., 595 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105 PROJECT ENGINEERING PANEL Mr. Christopher Arnold Dr. Lawrence D. Reaveley Building Systems Development Inc. Reaveley Engineers & Associates3130 La Selva, Suite 308 1515 South 1100 East San Mateo, CA 94403 Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Mr. Maurice R. Harlan Ms. Claire B. Rubin Lindbergh & Associates Natural Disaster Resource Referral Service 7515 Northside Drive, Suite 204 1751 B. South Hayes Charleston, SC 29418 Arlington, VA 22202 Mr. Fred Herman Dr. Howard Simpson City of Palo Alto Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
250 Hamilton Avenue 297 Broadway Palo Alto, CA 94303 Arlington, MA 02174 Mr. William T. Holmes Mr. Ted Winstead Rutherford and Chekene Allen and Hoshall 487 Bryant Street 2430 Poplar Avenue San Francisco, CA 94107 Memphis, TN 38112 Dr. H. S. Lew (FEMA Technical Monitor) Mr. Domenic A. Zigant National Bureau of Standards Naval Facilities Engineering Command Center for Building Technology, Bldg. 226 P.O. Box 727 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 San Bruno, CA 94066 Mr. Bruce C. OlsenConsultingEngineer1411 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1420Seattle, WA 98101 Appendix D ;127A:
ATC-21-1

TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT
Dr. Joann T. Dennett I IRDD Consultants 1206 Crestmoor Drive Boulder, CO 80303CONSULTANT TO SUBCONTRACTOR Prof. Thalia Anagnos Dept. of Civil Engineering San Jose State University San Jose, California 95192ATC-21 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMI7TEEDr. John L. AhoCH2M Hill Denali Towers2550 Denali Street, 8th Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99503Mr. Brent Ballif Engineering P.O. Box 4052Pocatello, ID 83205Mr. Richard V. Bettinger1370 Orange Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070Dr. Patricia A. Bolton Battelle Seattle Research Center4000 NE 41st Street Seattle, WA 98105Mr. Don Campi Rutherford & Chekene487 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94017Ms. Laurie Friedman Federal Emergency Management Agency Presidio of San Francisco, Building 105San Francisco, CA 94129Mr. Terry Hughes Deputy Administrator/Building Official Memphis and Shelby County Office of Construction Code Enforcement160 North Mid America Mall Memphis, TN 38103-1874Mr. Donald K. Jephcott Consulting Structural Engineer126 East Yale Loop Irvine, CA 92714Mr. Bill R. Manning Southern Building Code Congress900 Montclair Road Birmingham, AL 35213Mr. Guy Nordenson Consultant to Ove Arup & Partners, Intl.
116 East 27th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016Dr. Richard A. Parmalee Alfred Benesch & Co. 233 N. Michigan Chicago, lL 60601 Mr. Earl Schwartz Deputy Superintendent of Building Dept. of Building and Safety111 E. First Street, Room 700City Hall South Los Angeles, CA 90012128 Appendix D'ATC-21-1
Mr. William Sommers V Mr. Dot Y. Yee Dept. of Public Works City and County of San Francisco City of Cambridge Bureau of Building Inspection147 Hampshire 450 McAllister Street Cambridge, MA 02139 San Francisco, CA 94102Mr. Delbert Ward Consulting Architect1356 Harvard Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84015Appendix D 1292 
ATC-21-1


APPENDIX EATC PROJECT AND REPORT INFORMATION One of the primary purposes of Applied Technology Council is to develop resource documents that translate and summarize research information into forms useful to practicing engineers. This includes the development of guidelines and manuals, as well as the development of research recommendations for specific areas determined by the profession. ATC is not a code development organization, although several of the ATC project reports serve as resource documents for the development of codes, standards and specifications.
A brief description of several major completed and ongoing projects is given in the following section. Funding for projects is obtained from government agencies and tax-deductible contributions from the private sector.
ATC-1: This project resulted in five papers which were published as part, of Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, Building Science Series 46, proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Bureau of Standards(NBS). Available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151, as NTIS report No. COM-73-50188.
ATC-2: The report, An Evaluation of a Response Spectrum Approach to Seismic Design of Buildings, was funded by NSF and NBS and was conducted as part of the Cooperative Federal Program in Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation. Available through the ATC office. (270 pages)
Abstract: This study evaluated the applicability and cost of the response spectrum approach to seismic analysis and design that was proposed by various segments of the engineering profession.
Specific building designs, design procedures and parameter values were evaluated for future application. Eleven existing buildings of varying dimensions were redesigned according to the procedures.
ATC-3: The report, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings (ATC-3-06), was funded by NSF and NBS. The second printing of this report, which included proposed amendments, is available through the ATC office. (505 pages plus proposed amendments)
Abstract: The tentative provisions in this document represent the result of a concerted effort by a multidisciplinary team of 85 nationally recognized experts in earthquake engineering. The project involved representation from all sections of the United States and had wide review by affected building industry and regulatory groups. The provisions embodied several new concepts that were significant departures from existing seismic design provisions. The second printing of this document contains proposed amendments prepared by a joint committee of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)
and the NBS; the proposed amendments were published separately by BSSC and NBS in 1982.
ATC-3-2: The project, Comparative Test Designs of Buildings Using ATC-3-06Tentative Provisions, was funded by NSF. The project consisted of a study to develop and plan a program for making comparative test designs of the ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions. The project report was written to be used by the Building Seismic Safety Council in its refinement of the ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions.
Appendix E 131A TC-21 -I
ATC-3-4: The report, Redesign of Three Multistory Buildings: A Comparison UsingATC-3-06 and 1982 Uniform Building Code Design Provisions, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC office (1 12 pages)
Abstract: This report evaluates the cost and technical impact of using the 1978 ATC-306 report, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, as amended by a joint committee of the Building Seismic Safety Council and the National Bureau of Standards in 1982.
The evaluations are based on studies of three existing California buildings redesigned in accordance with the ATC-306 Tentative Provisions and the 1982Uniform Building Code. Included in the report are recommendations to code implementing bodies.
ATC-3-5:This project, Assistance for First Phase of ATC-3-06 Trail Design Program Being Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council, was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council and provided the services of the ATC Senior Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the BSSC in the conduct of the first phase of its Trial Design Program. The first phase provided for trial designs conducted for buildings in Los Angeles, Seattle, Phoenix, and Memphis.
ATC-3-6: This project, Assistance for Second Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council, was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council and provided the services of the ATC Senior Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the BSSC in the conduct of the second phase of its Trial Design Program.
The second phase provided for trial designs conducted for buildings in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Charleston, and Fort Worth.
ATC-4: The report, A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction of Single Family Dwellings, was published under a contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Available through HUD. 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC20410, as Report No. HUD-PDR-248-1. (576pages)
Abstract: This report presents the results of an in-depth effort to develop design and construction details for single-family residences that minimize the potential economic loss and life-loss risk associated with earthquakes. The report: (1) discusses the ways structures behave when subjected to seismic forces, (2) sets forth suggested design criteria for conventional layouts of dwellings constructed with conventional materials, (3) presents construction details that do not require the designer to perform analytical calculations, (4) suggests procedures for efficient plan-checking, and (5) presents recommendations including details and schedules for use in the field by construction personnel and building inspectors.
ATC-4-1: The report, The Home Builders Guide for Earthquake Design (June 1980), was published under a contract with HUD. Available through the ATC office. (57 pages)
Abstract: This report is a 57-page abridged version of the ATC-4 report. The concise, easily understood text of the Guide is supplemented with illustrations and 46construction details. The details are provided to ensure that houses contain structural features which are properly positioned, dimensioned and constructed to resist earthquake forces. A brief description is included on how earthquake forces impact on houses and some precautionary constraints are given with respect to site selection and architectural designs.
ATC-5: The report, Guidelines for Seismic132 Appendix EATC-21-1
Design and Construction of Single-Story Masonry Dwellings in Seismic Zone 2, was developed under a contract with HUD.
Available through the ATC office.
Abstract: The report offers a concise methodology for the earthquake design and construction of single-story masonry dwellings in Seismic Zone 2 of the United States, as defined by the 1973 Uniform Building Code. The guidelines are based in part on shaking table tests of masonry construction conducted at the University of California at Berkeley Earthquake Engineering Research Center. The report is written in simple language and includes basic house plans, wall evaluations, detail drawings, and material specifications.
ATC-6: The report, Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges, was published under a contract with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Available through the ATC office. (210 pages)
Abstract: The Guidelines are the recommendations of a team of sixteen nationally recognized experts that included consulting engineers, academics, state and federal agency representatives from throughout the United States. The Guidelines embody several new concepts that are significant departures from existing design provisions. An extensive commentary and an example demonstrating the use of the Guidelines are included.
A draft of the Guidelines was used to seismically redesign 21 bridges and a summary of the redesigns is also included.
ATC-6-1: The report, Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC office. (625 pages)
Abstract: The report includes 23 state-of the-art and state-of-practice papers on earthquake resistance of highway bridges.
Seven of the twenty-three papers were authored by participants from Japan, New Zealand and Portugal. The Proceedings also contain recommendations for future research that were developed by the 45workshop participants.
ATC-6-2: The report, Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines for Highway Bridges, was published under a contract with FHWA.
Available through the ATC office. (220 pages)
Abstract: The Guidelines are the recommendations of a team of thirteen nationally recognized experts that included consulting engineers, academics, state highway engineers, and federal agency representatives. The Guidelines, applicable for use in all parts of the U.S., include a preliminary screening procedure, methods for evaluating an existing bridge in detail, and potential retrofitting measures for the most common seismic deficiencies. Also included are special design requirements for various retrofitting measures.
ATC-7: The report, Guidelines for the Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was published under a grant from NSF. Available though the ATC office. (190 pages)
Abstract: Guidelines are presented for designing roof and floor systems so these can function as horizontal diaphragms in a lateral force resisting system. Analytical procedures, connection details and design examples are included in the Guidelines.
ATC-7-1: The report, Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC office. (302pages)
Abstract: The report includes seven papers on state-of-the practice and two papers on recent research. Also included are Appendix E 133ATC-21-I
recommendations for future research that were developed by the 35 participants.
ATC-8: This project, Workshop on the Design of Prefabricated Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Loads, was funded by NSF. Project report available through the ATC office. (400pages)
Abstract: The report includes eighteen state of-the-art papers and six summary papers.
Also included are recommendations for future research that were developed by the 43 workshop participants.
ATC-9: The report, An Evaluation of the Imperial County Services Building Earthquake Response and Associated Damage, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC Office. (231 pages)
Abstract: The report presents the results of an in-depth evaluation of the Imperial County Services Building, a 6-storyreinforced concrete frame and shear wall building severely damaged by the October15, 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. The report contains a review and evaluation of earthquake damage to the building; a review and evaluation of the seismic design; a comparison of the requirements of various building codes as they relate to the building; and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to future building code provisions and future research needs.
ATC-10: This report, An Investigation of the Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Performance, was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey. Available through the ATC office. (114 pages)
Abstract: The report contains an in-depth analytical evaluation of the ultimate or limit capacity of selected representative building framing types, a discussion of the factors affecting the seismic performance of buildings, and a summary and comparison of seismic design and seismic risk parameters currently in widespread use.
ATC-10-1: This report, Critical Aspects of Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Damage Potential, was co-funded by the USGS and the NSF. Available through the ATC office.
(259 pages)
Abstract: This document contains 19 state of-the-art papers on ground motion, structural response, and structural design issues presented by prominent engineers and earth scientists in an ATC seminar. The main theme of the papers is to identify the critical aspects of ground motion and building performance that should be considered in building design but currently are not. The report also contains conclusions and recommendations of working groups convened after the Seminar.
ATC-1l: The report, Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame Joints: Implications of Recent Research for Design Engineers, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
(184 pages)
Abstract: This document presents the results of an in-depth review and synthesis of research reports pertaining to cyclic loading of reinforced concrete shear walls and cyclic loading of joints in reinforced concrete frames. More than 125 research reports published since 1971 are reviewed and evaluated in this report, which was prepared via a consensus process that involved numerous experienced design professionals from throughout the U.S.
The report contains reviews of current and past design practices, summaries of research developments, and in-depth discussions of design implications of recent research results.
134 Appendix EATC-21 -1
ATC-12: This report, Comparison of United States and New Zealand Seismic Design Practices for Highway Bridges, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC office (270 pages).
Abstract: The report contains summaries of all aspects and innovative design procedures used in New Zealand as well as comparisons of United States and New Zealand design practice. Also included are research recommendations developed at a3-day workshop in New Zealand attended by 16 U.S. and 35 New Zealand bridge-design engineers and researchers.
ATC-12-1: This report, Proceedings of Second Joint U.S.-New Zealand Workshop on Seismic Resistance of Highway Bridges, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC office (272 pages).
Abstract: This report contains written versions of the papers presented at this1985 Workshop as well as a list and prioritization of workshop recommendations. Included are summaries of research projects currently being conducted in both countries as well as state-of-the-practice papers on various aspects of design practice. Topics discussed include bridge design philosophy and loadings, design of columns, footings, piles, abutments and retaining structures, geotechnical aspects of foundation design, seismic analysis techniques, seismic retrofitting, case studies using base isolation, strong-motion data acquisition and interpretation, and testing of bridge components and bridge systems.
ATC-13: The report, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, was developed under a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Available through the ATC office (492 pages).
Abstract: This report presents expert opinion earthquake damage and loss estimates for existing industrial, commercial, residential, utility and transportation facilities in California.
Included are damage probability matrices for 78 classes of structures and estimates of time required to restore damaged facilities to pre-earthquake usability. The report also describes the inventory information essential for estimating economic losses and the methodology used to develop the required data.
ATC-14: The report, Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings, was developed under a grant from the National Science Foundation. Available through the ATC office (370 pages).
Abstract: This report, written for practicing structural engineers, describes a methodology for performing preliminary and detailed building seismic evaluations.
The report contains a state-of-practice review; seismic loading criteria; data collection procedures; a detailed description of the building classification system;
preliminary and detailed analysis procedures; and example case studies, including non-structural considerations.
ATC-15: This report, Comparison of Seismic Design Practices in the United States and Japan, was published under a grant from NSF.
Available through the ATC office (317 pages).
Abstract: The report contains detailed technical papers describing current design practices in the United States and Japan as well as recommendations emanating from a joint U.S.-Japan workshop held in Hawaii in March, 1984. Included are detailed descriptions of new seismic design methods for buildings in Japan and case studies of the design of specific buildings (in both countries). The report also contains an overview of the history and objectives of the Japan Structural Consultants Association.
Appendix E 135ATsC-21-1
ATC-15-1: The report, Proceedings of Second U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Seismic Design and Construction Practices, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through ATC office (412 pages).
Abstract: This report contains 23 technical papers presented at this San Francisco workshop in August of 1986 by practitioners and researchers from the U.S. and Japan. Included are state-of-the-practice papers and case studies of actual building designs and information on regulatory, contractual, and licensing issues.
ATC-16: This project, Development of a 5Year Plan for Reducing the Earthquake Hazards Posed by Existing Nonfederal Buildings, was funded by FEMA and was conducted by a joint venture of ATC, the Building Seismic Safety Council and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. The project involved a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona, .where approximately 50 earthquake specialists met to identify the major tasks and goals for a 5-yearplan for reducing the earthquake hazards posed by existing nonfederal buildings nationwide.
The plan was developed on the basis of nine issue papers presented at the workshop and workshop working group discussions. The Workshop Proceedings and Five-Year Plan are available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 "C" Street, S. W., Washington, D.C. 20472.
ATC-17: This report, Proceedings of a Seminar and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation, was published under a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC office (478 pages).
Abstract: The report contains 42 papers describing the state-of-the-art and state-of the-practice in base-isolation and passive energy-dissipation technology. Included are papers describing case studies in the United States, applications and developments worldwide, recent innovations in technology development, and structural and ground motion design issues. Also included is a proposed 5-year research agenda that addresses the following specific issues: (1) strong ground motion; 
(2) design criteria;
(3) materials, quality control, and long-term reliability; 
(4) life cycle cost methodology;
and 
(5) system response..
136 Appendix EAITC-21--1
ATC BOARD DIRECTORS (1973-1988)
Milton A. Abel James C. 'Anderson Albert J.; Blaylock Robert K. Burkett Anil Chopra Richard Christophers or Lee H. Cliff John M. Coil Eugene E. Cole Edward F. Diekmann Burke A. Draheimr John E.: Droeger Sigmund A. Freeman Barry J. Goodno X Mark R. Gonnan Gerald H. Haines William J. Hall Gary C. Hart Lyman Henry Ernest C. Hillman, Jr.
Ephraim G. Hirsch William T. Holmes*;
Warner Howe Paul C. Jennings Carl B. Johnson Stephen E. Johnston*
Joseph Kallaby*
T. Robert Kealey*
H. S. (Pete) Kellam Helmut Krawinkler James S. Lai Gerald D. LehmarR. Bruce LindermanL. W. LuWalter B. LumMelvyn H. MarkJohn A. MartinJohn F. Meehan*
(1979-85)
:(1978-81)
(1976-77)
(1984-88)
(1973-74)
(1976-80)(1973)
(1986-87)
(1985-86).
(1978-81)
(1973-74)
(1973) (1986-89) .(1986-89)
(1984-87)
(1981-82, 1984-85)
(1985-86)
-(1975-78):
(1973).. 
(1973-74):
(1983-84)
(1983-87) ::
(1977-80)
(1973-75)
(1974-76)
(1973-75,1979-80)
(1973-75)
(1984-88)
(1975-76)
(1979-82)
(1982-85)
(1973-74)
(1983-86)
(1987-90)
(1975-78)
(1979-82)
(1978-82)
(1973-78)
David L. Messinger Stephen McReavy William W. Moone*
Gary Morrison Robert Morrison Joseph P. Nicoletti*
Bruce C. Olsen*
Gerard C. Pardoen Norman D. Perkins Sherril Pitkin Edward V. Podlack Chris D. Poland Egor P. Popov Robert F. Preece Lawrence D. Reaveley Philip J. Richter*
John M. Roberts Arthur E. Ross Walter D. Saunders*
Lawrence G. Selna Samuel Schultz*
Daniel Shapiro*
Howard Simpson*
Donald R. Strand James L. Stratta Edward J. Teal W. Martin Tellegen James L. Tipton Ivan Viest Alit S. Virdee*
J. John Walsh James A. Willis*
Thomas D. Wosser Loring A. Wyllie, Jr.
Edwin G. Zacher Theodore C. Zsutty (1980-83)
(1973)
(1973-76)
(1973)
(1981-84)
(1975-79)
(1978-82)
(1987-90)
(1973-76)
(1984-87)
(1973)
(1984-87)
(1976-79)
(1987-90)
(1985-88)
(1986-89)
(1973)
(1985-88)
(1974-79)
(1981-84)
(1980-84)
(1977-81)
:(1980-84)
(1982-83)
(1975-79)
(1976-79)
(1973)
(1973)
(1975-77)
(1977-80,1981-85)
(1987-90)
(1980-81,1982-86)
(1974-77)
(1987-88)
(1981-84)
(1982-85)
ATC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS (1973-1988)
Ronald L. Mayes Christopher Rojahn (1979-81)
(1981-1988)
Roland L. Sharpe Appendix E137t U. S.GOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE:1998-616-914/90489ATC-21-1(1973-79)
*President