137
SampleWorkshop Presentations

HANDOUTS:
a. U.S. Seismic Hazard Map (same as Overhead 3)
                               -

b. Historic Earthquakes in 36 States
c. M Scale (explanation, descriptions of effects of various MMvffs)
d. Group Exercise #1- Community Earthquake Risk
     Purpose and History -of Building Codes
e.
     Model Building Codes
f.
     Purpose of Seismic Code Provisions
g.
h.   Seismic Codes are Effective
     Seismic Codes are Inexpensive
i.
j.   Group Exercise #2 - Responding to Arguments Against Seismic Codes
   Arguments in Favor of Seismic Codes
k.
1. Enforcing the Seismic Code: A Critical Link
m. Five Elements of Effective Code Enforcement
     Group Exercise #3a - Action Plan for Adoption
n.
     Group Exercise #3b - Action Plan for Enforcement
o.
p. Adopting Seismic Codes
q. Steps for Enforcement of Seismic Codes

Suggested handouts or overheads not included in this appendix:
1. Maps and images of historic local earthquakes, and, if maps are available, anticipated earthquakes. A good
   source of information is USCS Professional Paper 1527.
2. Consider handing out photocopies of Appendix D.
3. Develop a short questionnaire to solicit participant feedback.
Three Aoin Areas Covered
1. Community risk for damage from earthquake
   activity

                                   how they help
  Purpose of building codes, and
  to protect the community from seismic risk

3. Importance of following through by enforcing
   the building code, and how this too can
   benefit the community

                                                   0o
SeismicHazard Map

                    Z3o
                    a
                    (I

                    t
                                                                                                                                                            Overhead 3

Known Historic (15 68-1989) Earthquakes in 47 States
                          Number of Quakes With Reported Maximum MMI of:
                                                                                                 VilI+
                                                                              VI]
                                                     VI
 State
                                                                                   7
 Alabama
 -A
  laska                                                                  .
                                                           .2..........13.
                                                                                   3
                                                   11
 Arizona
                                                    83
-Ark~ansa                                                                                                    U,
                                0.1t.. ... =....=
                                  .....
                                  ,        . .....
     .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

                                                                              131                    66
                                                 329
 California

                                                      2                            I
 Connecticut
 Delawr
                                                      2
 Florida                                                                                             -

                                                                                                     10
                                                                               13
                                                     30
 Hawaii

                                                     18                        12
 Illinois
                                                                               4
  nd-iMna f-E
       a --S In
              ,Z   a0i

                                                      4                          2
 Kansas
                                                                                                     =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                                                                     t;
                                                                                                     _
                                                                                                     f
                                                                                                     t
                                                                                                     =
                                                                                                     0,,.
                                                                                                     .,:......

                                                      I
 Louisiana
                                                      7                            2
 Maine
                                                                                                         3
                                                                                   7
                                                      8
 Massachusetts
    ic I                                                                                                 I                - --
                                                      3
  Minnesota
                                                      2--
  Mississpp
                                                                                                         3
                                                     14                            2
  Missouri
  iMontana                                           35                            4
         d
                                                                                   2
                                                      4
  Nebraska
                                                                                                         S
                                                                                        .... .
                                                     28.
  Nevada
                                                                                                         1
                                                      7                            2
  New Hampshire
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                   I
                                                      5
 New jer
 New Mexico                                                                        7
                                                     29
  New" ork                                           16'~~''                 ... 6                       2...
     ^_~~^^"'
                                                                                   2
  North Carolina,
                                     3
  Nrth Da                                             I
                                                      9                            5
  Ohio
                                ~                                                  2-
                                                      9
    Okhoma
                                                                                   I
                                                     10
  Oregon
                                                      71-
   ,ennsvai
                                               I-3
   Rhode Island
                                    Z'=== r-- -33-
                                       fii,,l
           r        3
.--S                                       T
                                                     17
     South Ca__roliAna
                                                      6
   South Dakota
                                                                                                                                      Source: U.S. Geological
                                                                                                                                      Survey, Professional
                                                31 -r -                            8
 Ua-h
                                                                                                                                      Paper 1527, 1993.
 Vermont                                              I
                                                                                                                                      Note:This list includes
                                                                                                         3
                                                                                   6
                                                     37
 Washington                                                                                                                           only earthquakes that
 West Viirg i ia                                                                                                                      affected human
                                                                                                                  r^r ..- .r
                                                                               -                                       . .r
                                                                                                                                      settlements.
 Wyoming                                                                           1
                                                      8
                                                                   0
  0

Seismic Design Concepts
                         I             Lateral forces
      -

                                       Earthquakes exert sideways forces on
                    I
  K                                    buildings. Seismic design strengthens
                                       buildings to withstand lateral forces.

                I
                                                 Meul /
                                                                   Ductility
                                                                   This property allows structures to bend
                                                                   before they break. Seismic design makes
                                                                   buildings ductile to avoid catastrophic
                                                                   collapse.
                                            PUCTLrr

                                    rift (Ab)
                                                          Drift
                        I*;
          ---

                                                          Structures can withstand sideways
                             F;~~~ Iq                     movement (drift), but their contents or
                                                          neighboring buildings can be damaged.
                                                                                                             0
                                                                                                             Cl1-
                M        - 0 -wNP
                          -          mwsd   b.

                                                          Seismic design limits drift.                       4'-
 M~odified Mercalli Intensity Scale
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is a qualitative scale that describes the effects
of earthquake shaking. Because shaking decreases with distance from the center of
an earthquake, the intensity also decreases with distance. Larger earthquakes have
higher shaking intensity near the source, and shake a larger area.
                                                                                                                                                                                       5
                                                                                                                                                                                   5
                                                                                                                                                                             70'
                                                                                                                                   BY75
                                                                                                                      UV,00
                                                               129-o            50
                                         1220
                             124Q

                                                                                                             -y-
                                                                                                4
                  48-v                                                                          4
                                                                              Jrmml4A

                                                                                                     SPOR"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

                                                                                                                                                                   t*-----
                                                     J.                                                        == =
         460/                     -any                            C\.=n-.s--=

                                                                                                              --\-
                                                                                                _._-_ -L_-
                                                                                                = .._ .
                                                                                                ogettn
                                                                                                _0
                                                                                                 .
                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                 ..
                                                                                                 _
                                                                                                2i

                                                                                                                              I
Northwest Washington earthquakeI Nov. 13, 1939.
                                                                                                    Charleston,South Carolina earthquake Sept 1, 1886,,
                                                                                                    Charlestone
             hingonicrl ISurvey-vProfessional Paier 1527. 1993)                                                                     .
NMrth U.st                                                                                                     South Carolinaearthquake, Sept. 1, 1886
                         A~~thurveva Gt-oloarient 152 7.
                                              Puber
                             ~mh e                                                                                                                                                          0~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                 11-41Z.
1.   .          -.-.     -   - - .- Z     'r,   --   -K ----     - --,   --     -- -    ,   I
iModified Mercalli Intensity Scale
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is a qualitative scale that describes
the effects of earthquake shaking.

                                                                                                                                 % Seismically Designed Buildings Damaged,
                                            E' "!"uX'':
                                            x p ec;"''?'"j
                                                    t ed::!'"''!::'!!'!!':
Size of Earthquake                                                                                                               According to Standardized Damage States
                                              M:M!!!<!
                                            ;!S;!<;S:i;
                                               t!; I;.';!!!-:gS'!k
                                                       !!
(Magnitude)                                                                                                                                                            E
                                                                                                        A                         B           C            D
                                       ;4 '4 '# '# "g
                                              :'S #": 'k'L'"" '#
                                                         "  ";  #'
                                                                Lei;"                     A

                                       i)||lfSil.<,Jig;ffetl}<f
                                                     t,.f:t<t.::;fi!,<!t1,;0."f
                                                                         t.'000
                                                                              :.,Fei0t'
                                                                                     ;A.'stiS
                                       (f:;S'(:\T
                                             ki 0:\4<4:ht;i: FiX 'i;t;;N, t; t;, tt4S,;
                                                      :: tiEts; i,:;;E
                                                       E                ;,:          A
                                   i'tiE'tia ;'t't' ,';;':fiti.<;;;';E'ttE;'; ' iL; ';;S Sk'iS
                                         ' i,'                       tSEL;ikE;0i;k;'
                                                                                  ., i;';i'
                  Hv f 1''tESAS'S;AQ'Si";X;"'S4Ft'ti;t''t;i;.E'S;t'''f'W'tA''''ti.t';.;g;.;4ti;'tE;.i;,.'                          ,, ,*
                                                                                                                                              M oderote    Extensive   (;omolete
  cau-o.o         /.J-o.UE:tittFitl;0;EEStdiS#ti;;ifX#4SSi44$fE;;EiStE;j404Ski;SEA;i4$XifEA
                                                                                   None silnt
                               1,!S!1!W!!1'!;"
                                      f!ist!0,"0d.e
                                             !!W:;d,:!E' 0!!!!;g;'!!! t!!t;.'!s
                                                  ','!!!t1'!4:'!;!!;!!!.!;!';;!4;;                                                     f-                                    S

                                       ;eX '      d 'q':     S 'S:     g4      t: i,,,:    H; e
                                       ;!; ;::;.;,;;.:;
                                         :;        ;;;;;:,;:;Z;;.:;; ;S; .; ;: "; "i' a:!
                                                              :;.i:: ', ;:5               7;':,
                                                                                   i
                                      Itl,.'t,00,
                                                ,';,,>i','t;;,
                                                           ,,e,,'.Xt';, tt ,t''t,'"''t',: ''-e
                                                                      ''i',t's'i'

Distance to Fault                     | t',S',",0t',,'t,''l.'3,',,,',,'t'd'S't,,,,y,'t,<t,,,t,3
                                      ',i;;,'';'; ;;,;5S';;gitiS,'";,'.,'l,,';,'.4l';,';   t'2,'...'' 3
                                       ti'.'.;,;,t'.
                                               t ,'.4,.:',
                                                         '2.t;',>.;,l.,02.,,",,
                                                                            'il.,,,';,',,,';':"l,"
                                                                                               t' ,,
                                                                                                   ,,,";13
                                      ,.'1,..Li;!!;.itf!;t
                                                       ,, t.,,1,;t;,l.<;,,!,>S;,je;j;,;j'fjjjCijj:.fjj,!jj,;<Djjj;,j;.
                                      tjjjjadjjjjijjjijjjsjjjjjjjjijjjjjjjjj,
                                                            jjjjjjj fj jjjtjjj-jjjjjj'jjiiiiiBiiisisai!
                                                                                                   j-,j j
                                                                                                      j
                                      li i ii.iiisSii
                                       i         iiiiiiiiSii'.i ff 'j-! ijj'Bjj;j"fSiZii,
                                                         iiii ji;' !jf i     jf's f
                                                                                jf    i jZif'3

                                                                                                        60-90%
                  50 Mi.                                                                                                           I 0-40%    1-5%                     0
                                                                                                                                                           <1%
   30 mi.                             !'S!!!!'!'!!t!'!!'!!-'!!!''sl!'S!;!!!!!!i!'!!!!!!<!i!!!f!!!!ffff!i
                                                                   !!f!!!!'!t!!
                                      lEil'i.l.'i'!''!'izii'!i.f.ryl ' il;,!,!ej',sijes',jj'silf
                                                                  'if!                     j'f tf,0tsi
                                      |jt           fsti$,i,,4' ief'0ilUll!iit<}i'
                                                                                 'il'iiii'li!'iii'iii-illi
                                      ftiBit''''f,'iitBf!'
                                                    l' 'El'}82i'0eiiglAisilliiilgiffi!'igl'lggi'iiff!llffi
                                                                                                jjfjfaig
                                      seZflit'lif Rff!zbf!>'!BSikiii,>;;;,>;
                                          l      !!flif!ff
                                                        it                 si zEiatt;iititif!itiji;
                                                                                           iSttiAil

                                       ;iiSle.Siit.i.iSlesiBil.illi:lilStjSjjaSjjjj,:j.jjjEjjjjjjjjjjjjj<,,jjjjjjSjjtj,3
                                       ijtajsjsa; jjjji:;,aj jaja; jg; !f>'!f js
                                             jsjsjnzsja      jajsjajjf
                                                                     j; ;'fatfj"0:;fajt:!!;jajsja'sjejs'fS

                  40 mi.                                                                                35-60%                                I0-30%                   <1%
    5 mi.
                                      'f!"!f!''!f!'!!!!!:!X!f;'!!;fi!fW!S,'6!'L!'.''!!!!!!!.-!!.!ff-ff!!!!!!!!!!!!!'iSf

                                                                                                                                  35-45%                   <5%
                                      zi.i'<<.isi.<,f<t.fisit.iE.Vil!g
                                                                 j;it'ltF'l>g','is<t<!>
                                                                                    'iz!l
                                       l'ffti!!0''!0if kliEieiio>!Xt!iseliI!llif
                                                                         'id,"iiz,

                                        gzllIiEfl S fB
                                              04ifB >!itf0"> ' 0 is'.s'ie iii'lliBl
                                                   i,     'i'i'i' ',ll    fi'
                                       ti.,itlit.,a,,f't' Qs,0*\,0ilxl,<><ii>ti tLi
                                                     ,j l>".'            aiJ,,it thilj> i<,iiti
                                      >dg! <ff,>i!!i!!!lt
                                          .t!<ffif          !,ff!!fujijjSli>ii><iiiiiii.i iiiJiiiSl
                                                                            ii>;i. iii    /ii.
                                      yT!f';,;!jf!b
                                       ;                       !!"!;"i;',!';f;:!!;; f!;;"f;';ffNff
                                                                               ;;f
                                                                                 'fiff f'f ffzff
                                                '!'ffti;!i'T;;!E'!!f:ff'
                                      Hlfffff!lf;'!isDif'ffS'fif',f'-f'ffff'fj'uel'fi'!flilsEif;IggisSiSf'<i!'iI!iiiAlfilkl
                                          f

    I mi.         30 mi.                                                                                                                                   3-10%
                                                                                                        25-40%                    25-40%
                                      'fffffafif!'dEff'!.f.lff'''fifE!lifffAf'!\l^,!!!!!!!ilfE!!fki!!ff!!!f!!!-!!!!!ff'ffl

                                                                                                                                              20-40%                   <2%
                                       j;!k: "jfif is ii:'ili.il t"Xi.. 'Vii" if'!! !'tiVE
                                           .jjj if if. lE      iSX         jf!'tf !iif f i ;';ii;i'l
                                      S
                                      2!t'!ji!'!i;!'!'t't'j'!!';:!'g;tX',fffjfrfif,.',ijfifejsSffgXj.iE',f'''fl
                                                    'ijf

                                      34sii' 4 fs Zisfs<!>Eiilf f<!!
                                               s ffi fi, f f          <t>>llff;S!lfEf
                                                                              Wf f:iilft
                                                                                gN;fi!
                                      ,fIftf f!
                                           fiti2f'Afii!D!Iifl thiflffiffRi'!f!f Af l!f Ifif IfI
                                                           itiffe f! !f ff if it if 'I!Ef
                                                                      f'ff,'lf I!f
                                                      lifI!ffIf
                                          i+0D' fa'Da
                                             $'-S"j julill'ill-
                                                jt's"'                  +
                                        s
                                      RfIlElFfifffE!!fiff)'ff'ZfieAffielZishlfI'!!if'!IiEfblsif;Il'iSiliSfffirilf'!lfRifitilDE

                                                                                                        5-25%
                                       S 5!!,!,fi
                                       j ,';'  0,'!!2tti""j-;s}!ijj;,j!'j .'ljijtjj'\
                                                                   j, jjj.       jjjstl6aj.l

                                                                                                                                                                       <5%
                                                                                                                                  5-25%                    I 0-30%
                    3 mi.                                                                                                                     40-70%
                                       ', !li ati;'di itiIi\Jexii''ftti
                                        ;!'iSj'.j!  gi"             i;',l0Btiiiti'i '; ikiS'l
                                                                           lilE !
                                       !!!.!!!!i!!!!'i!!iSi!!!!.!!!!!;!!!idi!.5ifgggUS;!!'IAs;!!!;i!!!S!;!!ii!Nf!!ii!;!;ii
                                                                                               !!:
                                      3,ti; fR i.B ........ j.>ig ....
                                           tegt,.Ij,. .E.,l jj jj ji,,.j.lj jjjjjtjjji,,, ...
                                                                                      jjSj,jjjjN
                                       ',';:;..,!!;.i'S. .;,:
                                              ,,      ,,'ij,:., '!.".:i';".3".."':.
                                                                              ':i":01l'S"""'t.":.!":E"is,

                                                                                                                                                                                   0
                                                                                                                                                                                   10
                                                                                                                                                                                   1-
                                                                                                                                                                                   M
Source: EERI Ad Hoc Committee                                                                                                                                                      2
MMI - VI
Effects
Felt by all people, indoors
and out
People move about
unsteadily
Some plaster cracks; fine
cracks appear in chimneys
Dishes, glassware, and
windows break
Books and pictures fall
Some furniture overturns
Objects fall from shelves

                              a
                              '-4
                              0.
MMI - VII
Effects
Most people are frightened,
general alarm
Many people find it difficult
to stand
Water is disturbed and
muddied
Some sand and gravel
streambanks cave in
        crack to great
Chimneys
extent; walls crack somewhat
Plaster and stucco fall in large
amounts
Loosenedbricks and tiles fall
Sidewalks crack
                                   a
                                   C-
                                   00
MM - ViIl
Effects
Alarm approaches panic
People driving vehicles
notice the disturbance
Trees shake strongly, and
branches break off
Sand and mud are ejected from
the ground in small amounts
Temporary and permanent
changes occur in springs and
wells
Chimneys, columns,
monumentsfall
Major structural damage can
occur
                                        a

                                        'lO

                                I   -
          Vil Damage
MMI   -

                       a
                       a
MM       Vill Damage
     -

                       0
                       0M
MM       Vill Damage
     -

                       a
                       0o

                       ID
                        -
                                                         ~,
                                  L-           -7

MMI- IX                            1i. d   =

                                                                to

Effects
                                           S-,'      %, '

                                                            ,
                                                    tI
                                                      .- '- +

People generally panic
Ground cracks conspicuously
Masonry structures knocked
out of plumb
Large parts of masonry
buildings collapse
Somebuildingsshift off of
foundations and frames crack
Reservoirs are seriously
damaged
Some underground pipes
break
Substantial buildings (and
elevated freeways such as this)                                      0
can collapse                                                         (A-
MMI - IX Damage

                      O~~~~~~~r
                  l   a
                      :i3-
MMI - IX Damage
                                     "M

                  /-*tT trA
                    4;i~
                                    = -]+el
                                    Ads~5
                                -

                                              as~~~~~~~~~~~~)
                          ,,:

                                W
                          I

                                                                0
                                                                Zr
                                                                M

                                                                0.I
Characteristicsof Dangerous Buildings
    Brick or stone buildings
*

    Older buildings (especially large, multistory
*
    older buildings)

    Buildings with irregularshapes
*

    Buildings that appearto be top-heavy or with
*
    open first floors (carports,all windows)

    {"Tilt-up"low-rise light industrialbuildings (one-
*
    story warehouse-like buildings common in
    industrialor office parks since the 1960s)4
                                                   S
                           S
    0
Identifying Critical Structures
Criticalstructures are ones that would ser ously
affect the community if they collapsed or were
severely damaged. Structures are deemed critical
if they :

    are needed immediately after an earthquake
*
    (fire and police stations)

    house needy populations (schools, hospitals,
*
    nursing homes)

* can have off-site effects (structures with
  flammable or toxic materials)
Purpose and History of Building Codes
Building Codes Protect Public Safety
* Regulate building construction and use
* Address structural integrity,fire resistance, safe exits, lighting,
  and ventilation.
  Regulate construction materials
@
* Classify structures by use

Building Codes Have a Long History in the U.S.
* Have existed in North America since the seventeenth century
* Comprehensive building regulations were introduced in the
  mid- I 800s
i The three model building codes used today were initiatedbetween
  1927 and 1950
* By 1960 more than 60% of American municipalities had adopted
  building codes
* By 1989 95% ofAmerican municipalitieshad adopted building codes
                                          0
    *                                                                  0

Model Building Codes
Building Officials and Code Administrators International,Inc. (BOCA)
* Headquartersin Country Club Hills, Illinois
* Formed in 19 15
* Code is titled the "BOCA National Building Code" (BNBC)
* Code is revised every three years

InternationalConference of Building Officials (ICBO)
* Headquartersin Whittier, California
 Formed in 1922
 Code is titled the "Uniform Building Code" (UBC)
* Code is updated every three years

Southern Building Code Congress International,Inc (SB CCI)
o Headquartersin Birmingham, Alabama
* Founded in 1940
* Publishes the "Standard Building Code" (SBC)
* Code is updated every three years

Council of American Building Officials (CABO)
* Founded in 1972 by BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI
* Publishes the One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code
Purpose of Seismic Code Provisions
Structures built accordingto a seismic code should:

*   Resist minor earthquakes undamaged

    Resist moderate earthquakes without significant
a
    structuraldamage even though incurring
    nonstructuraldamage

*   Resist severe earthquakes without collapse,
    allowing safe evacuation of occupants

                                                      0o
                                                                      Overheod 2 1

 Seismic Building Code Timeline
1905 Model building law published     1976 UBC includes new seismic
     by NBFU                               provisions
1906 San Francisco earthquake kills   1978 ATC releases AT'C3-06 report
     3,000                            1979 BSSC formed
1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC),     1985 FEMA releases NEHIRP
     with seismic provisions, first        provisions for new buildings
     published by ICBO
                                      1989 Ninety-five percent of
1933 Long Beach earthquake kills
                                           American municipalities
     115                                   covered by state-wide codes
1935 Charles Richter devises          1989 Loma Prieta, California,
     magnitude scale for
                                           earthquake kills 63
     earthquakes
                                      1990 EO 12699 requires that all
1940 Standard Building Code (SBS)
                                           federal agencies incorporate
     published by SBCCI
                                           seismic resistant design in
1949 UBC contains first national           new buildings
     seismic hazard map               1992 All three model codes require
1950 Basic Building Code (now the          seismic designs consistent
     BOCA National Building Code)          with NEHRP provisions
     published by BOCA                1992 Northridge, California,
1960 Sixty-percent of American             earthquake kills 57
     municipalities had adopted one   1993 E012699 provisions took
     of the model codes                    effect
Early                                 1994 ICC formed
'70s Study of earthquake-resistant
                                      1994 EQ 12941 establishes seismic
      design provisions funlded by
                                           standards for federally owned
      NSF
                                           or leased buildings
1971 San Fernando earthquake
                                      2000 ICC codes to be finished
     kills 65
1972 CABO formed
1973 UBC revised because of San
     Fernando quake
Seismic Codes Are Effective
Ohbayashi Corporation'sStudy of Buildings Damaged in
the January 17, 199S, Earthquake in Kobe, Japan*

                        Green Tags         Yellow Tags         Red Tags
                  (little or no damage)   (some damage)   (extensive damage)

                           42%
Pre-1971 Buildings                            22%                 36%
(old seismic code)

                                                                  11%
                                               17%
                           72%
1972-1980
(transitional period)

Post-1981 Buildings        84%                 10%                 6%
(new seismic code)

*in this study, Ohbayashi Corporation reviewed buildings it had constructed to
the specifications of various seismic codes and assessed the extent of damage
resulting from the 1995 earthquake.
                                                     Overhead 23

Seismic Codes Are Inexpensive
    Increase in cost resulting
    from seismic design.

     Source: Building Seismic Safety Council, 1985
       0                                            0                                                                                                    0
Studies Indicate That the Benefits of
Seismic Codes Outweigh the Costs
Estimated costs and benefits of seismic                                        MP                  55
                                                            95D                                                                      755
                                                                                                                 5z,

building codes for Memphis, Tennessee,
assuming damage from magnitude 6 and
8 earthquakes in the southern New                                                                                                    Ott
Madrid fault zone: benefits exceed costs
                                                                                                                                                -I%
                                                                                                                                                  t
by a factor of 1.8 for the magnitude 6                                                                                                      I
                                                    4-'v

event and 10.3 for the magnitude 8 event.                  --------                                                        -------

The expected damage over forty years is
more than three times greaterthan the                      ->

costs of building to code.
Benefits are underestimated because they                                   Xi                               J
do not account for the benefits of                                                                                         C7W
                                                    3r      -                                                                                        o

reducing fatalities, injuries, fire potential,                        ..........
or economic losses.
                                                    30' -                                                                                        \   XLNTO

                                                                                                        InRnS{
                                                                                                         \XI
                                                                                       F   F   M
                                                                      v~~~~0U1

New Madrid earthquake, Dec. 16, 181 1. This was a                                  U
magnitude 8 event. (Map: U.S. Geological Survey,                                                        -

Professional Paper 1527, 1993)                      25-                                                     -          -             LET[
Arguments In Favor of selsmic Codes
    For elected officials:A damaging earthquake can
*
    occur during your term of office.
    xFor elected officials: Citizens support seismic codes.
*
    Codes will not hurt business.
*
    A seismic code will improve successful survival of
*
    the next earthquake.
    Everyone else is doing it.
*
    aIt's easy.
    It's good for the community.
*
    All communities need a seismic code regardless
*
    of risk.
                                                              NJ
Poor Code Enforcement Results in
Deficient Buildings
A substantial
portion of the            I
                                   .1.7I 4*N
                                      -
damage from
                                           -.,-3

                                    is"
                          X
Ea              A     I

Hurricane Andrew
in 1992 was from
lack of enforcement
of the South Florida
Building Code.
(Source: FEMA 1993)

In a 1993 study,
USC researchers
found that key
items to resist
seismic load are
frequently (13 to 72
percent of surveyed
units) missing or
flawed.                                            0
                                                   rb
                                                   0
                                                   0.
Five Elements of Effective Code
Enforcement:
1. Code provisions must be up to date

2. Builders must apply for permits

3. A qualified reviewer must review building plans

4. Construction should proceed accordingto
   approved plans

S. A qualified inspector must inspect the
  construction                                       0
                                                     i;.i
                                                     h.
Adopting Seismic Code Provisions
Step I: Determine the current building code
        requirement (if any) and develop a strategy
        for incorporatingor initiatingcurrent seismic
        provisions,
Step 2: Gather support for the proposed changes.
Step 3: Lobby the decision-making body with
        information explaining why the changes are
        needed and describing the kind of support
        you have gathered.
Step 4: Continue your involvement through the
        administrativeimplementation and
        enforcement stages once the seismic             0

        provisions are approved.                        (D

                                                        (a
                                                        ALi
                                                        0a
Establishingan Effective Building Code
Enforcement Program

Step Ia Adopt a model code.
Step 2: Establish fee structures for permits and plan
        review.
Step 3. Institute a systematic plan review system.
Step 4: Adopt an inspection schedule.
Step 5: Maintain a trained, qualified staff.
Step 6: Be persistent but patient.

                                                        0
                                                        (b

                                                        MT
                                                                                                                     FEMA
Seismic Code Workshop

Some Selected Notable Earthquakesfrom 36 States
This table lists selected notable historical earthquakes from across the United States. Only states with at least one
event of Modified Mercalli Intensity V[Il or greater are listed, and at least one such event is described for each state.
Only a few illustrative events are listed for highly seismic states, such as California and Alaska. Note that this list is
based on the location of the earthquake epicenter; many additional states have been affected by strong earthqu akes
in neighboring states.
         This information is summarized from U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, Seismnicity of the United
States, 1568-1989 (rev.), 1993. This publication is a particularly good source of information for historic seismicity in all
the states. It contains numerous maps of Modified Mercalli Intensities for historic earthquakes, including ones in
your state. This publication can be purchased from the USGS at (800) 435-7627, or it can be obtained from most
university or state geological survey libraries.

                         Maximum
                          MMI Magnitude Effects
State       Date

                                       ?         lDestroyed numerous chimneys near Birmingham.
AL      Oct. 18, 1916      VTIT
        July 10,1958                   8.3       5 deaths, massive rockslide and ensuing wrare, extensive damage to
AK                          XI
                                                 port facilities at Yakutat.
                                                 125 deaths (110 from tsunamni), $311 million in property loss. Heavy
                                       9.2
                            X
        March 28, 1964
                                                 damage from building collapses and landslides in Anchorage; tsunami
                                                 devastated many coastal areas.
                                       7.4       Centered in Northern Sonora, caused 51 deaths in,Mexico, and
AZ      May 3, 1887
                                                 widespread damage in southeast Arizona from intensities of VIIS, VII[,
                                                 and IX.
                                       7.7       Part of New-v Madrid earthquake sequence, centered in northeast
                           X1.I
AR      Dec. 16, 1811
                                                 Arkansas. Extensive ground deformation and landsliding throughout
                                                 sparsely-populated region. Chimneys toppled as far away as Cincin-
                                                 nati. Sequence includes the largest earthquakes knoivn in 48 states.
                                                 Walls and floors cracked and dishes broken in Little Rock.
                                       4.3
                           VI
        Jan. 1, 1969
                           XI          7.7       Earthquake and fires killed 3,000 people and caused $524 million in
CA      April 18, 1906
                                                 property damage in and near San Francisco. Buildings and chimneys
                                                 collapsed, pipelines broke, soft ground severely deformed. Fires
                                                 destroyed a large part of San Francisco.
                           VEll        6.2       115 people killed, $40 million in property damage. Severe property
         Mlarch 11, 1933
                                                 damage in Long Beach and Compton, particularly to masonry struc-
                                                 tures, especially those on soft ground.
                            XI         6.6       65 deaths, 2,000 injuries, and property damage of $505 million, mostly
        Feb. 9, 1971
                                                 in San Fernando Valley. Damage to hospitals, freeways, utilities, dams.
                                                 Older buildings and thousands of chimneys damaged. Fault rupture,
                                                 ground fracturing, and landsliding -caused extensive damage.
                                                 Coalinga earthquake caused $10 million in property damage and
                           N/El        6.2
        M ay 2, 1983
                                                 injured 94 people. 8-block downtown area almost completely de-
                                                 stroyed, primarily unreinforced brick buildi gs. Newver buildings
                                                 sustained only superficial damage. Also destroyed hundreds of single-
                                                 family homes and apartments.
                            DC         7.1       63 deaths, 3,757 injuries, and $6 billion in property damage. Damage
        Oct. 17, 1989
                                                 to freeways and to older buildings on soft soils in San Francisco and
                                                 Oakland. Severe damage in and near Santa Cruz, primarily to
                                                 unreinforced brick buildings. Engineered buildings, including those
                                                 near the epicenter, performed well.
                                                                                                                            of4)
                                                                                                             Handout B (/
Seismic Code Workshop                                                                                     FEMA

Some Selected Notable Earthquakes from 36 States Continued
                        VII    5.3     Foundations, floors, and walls cracked, wiAndow s broke in northern
CO     Aug. 9,1967
                                       suburbs of Denver.
                        VAI    6.2
       Nov. 8, 1882                    Minor damage in Colorado and southern Wyoming. Electricity cut off
                                       in Denver; plaster fell from the ceiling of a building at the University of
                                       Colorado in Boulder.
                        V1I    ?       Stone walls shaken dow n, tops of chimneys fallen in Middlesex County,
CT     May 16, 1791
                                       northeast of New Haven. Felt in Boston and Newr York.
                               ?       Chimneys toppled and windows broken in -Wilmington area.
DE     Oct. 9, 1871     V11
                               7.4     Two deaths, property damage of $4.1 million on island of Hawaii.
HI     Nov. 29, 1975    VHI
                                       Slight to moderate structural damage to 100 buildings from ground-
                                       shaking. Widespread ground deformation, subsidence, and faulting.
                                       Tsunami caused considerable damage to coastal areas.
       March 28,1975 VIIT      6.1     Shifted houses from,foundations and toppled chimneys in sparsely-
ID
                                       populated Pocatello Valley Caused $1 million in damage.
                         IX    7.C     Two deaths and $12.5 million in damage in Challis-MacKay area.
       Oct. 28, 1983
                                       Numerous commercial buildings damaged, primarily those built of
                                       masonryr 90 percent of chimneys in Mackay;were damaged. Extensive
                                       damage to high school in Challis.
                        VII    5.3     Cracked foundations, dosvned chimneys, broken windom 's in southern
IL     No'5 1968
           9,
                                       Illinois. Most buildings with chimney damage were 30 to 50 years old.
                                       Felt in parts of 23 states.
IN     Sept. 27, 1909          5.1     Downed chimneys and cracked plaster in Terre Haute, Covington, and
                        Vii            Princeton.
       Jan. 8, 1906
KS                             4.9     Fallen chimneys and cracked plaster in and near Manhattan.
                        VII    5.0     Caused $1 million damage in Maysville to 37 commercial and 269
KY     July 27, 1980
                                       residential structures. Old multistory brick structures in the do wntown
                                       were affected the most. Fallen chimneys and cracked ground occurred.
                                       Felt in parts of 15 states.
                        V1I    5.1     Overthrew chimneys in Washington County Felt throughout New
ME     March 21, 1904
                                       England.
                        VII
MVLA   Nov. 18, 1755           ?       Up to 1,500 chimneys damaged in Boston, stone fences thrown down,
                                       ground cracking. Much of the damage in Boston wotas on filled land near
                                       wharfs. Generated a tsunami that affected the Wttest Indies. Earthquake
                        MAIR
                                       was centered off Cape Ann.
MI     July 27, 1905           4.5     Downed many chimneys and broke plate glass windows at Calumet,
                                       Houghton County.
                        E10    7.9     Part of New Madrid earthquake sequence. Destroyed town of New
MO     Feb. 7,1812
                                       Madrid. Many houses damaged in St. Louis. Ground wvarping, fissur-
                                       ing, landslides. Sequence includes the largest earthquakes lanolin in
                                       48 states.
                               6.7     Extensive damage to schools churches, private houses, and almost all
       Oct. 31, 1895    VII
                                       the buildings in the commercial section of Charleston. Extensiv e
                                       damage also to public buildings and brick walls in Cairo, Illinois.
                                       Felt in parts of 23 states.
                               6.6     Severe damage to chimneys and schools in Gallatin County. Almost
MT     June 28,1925
                                       all masonry buildings showed damage.
                        VIEI
                               6.2     This was the main shock in a series of at least three large earthquakes
       Oct. 18, 1935
                                       during October. These caused an estimated total of $4 million in prop-
                                       erty damage in Helena. Two people were killed and 300 buildings
                                       damaged. Damage was most severe to old brick houses. Downed
                                       chimneys and cracked plaster common. Severe damage to Helena
                                       High School (completed 2 months earlier) and other public buildings.

                                                                                                                 of 4)
                                                                                                  Handout 8 (2
                                                                                                        FEAIA
Seismic Code Workshop                                                                                   FEM
Seismic Code Workshop
Some Selected Notable Earthquakes from 36 States Continued
                          x             28 deaths, and $11 million in damage to highways and timber. Most
                                 7.3
      Aug. 18,1959
                                        disastrous effect was from a huge landslide in the Madison River
                                        Canyon.
                                        Damaged courthouse and school at Columbus, cracked walls. Felt in
                         vII     5.1
      Nov. 15, 1877
NE
                                        seven states.
                                        Major earthquake in an uninhabited region, as is true of most of
                                 7.2
                          X
      Dec. 21,1932
NV
                                        Nevada's major historical earthquakes. Chimaneys -andwalls fell in
                                        Mineral County. Large landslides occurred and boulders were shaken
                                        from cliffs.
                                        Two similarly-sized earthquakes damaged old houses and chimneys in
                                 5.5
       Dec. 20-24,1940 VII
NH
                                        Carroll County. Also cracked walls, broken pipes, and broken furniture.
                                        Minor damage in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont.
                                        Damage to chimneys and fallen plaster in Monmouth County.
                                 7
                         VII
      June 1, 1927
NJ
                                        Damage to chimneys, brick walls, and plaster, especially at schools in
                                 5.0
                         VII
      Jan. 23,1966
NM
                                        Dulce. Rock falls at Dulce Point.
                                        Severe property damage at Jamaica and Amityrille. Fallen chimneys
                                 5.5
                         VII
       Aug. 10,1884
NY
                                        and cracked walls throughout area.
                                        Caused $2 million in property damage at lM'assena, NY, and Cornwall,
                                 5.5
                         VIIII
       Sept. 5, 1944
                                        Ontario. At Massena, 90% of chimnreys were damaged, as were many
                                        house foundations, plumbing, and masonry. Chimneys were downed in
                                        several NY towns.
                                        Tops of chimneys and wvindows broken in Waynesville. Minor damage
                                 5.2
                         V1I
       Feb. 21,1916
NC
                                        in wider area of NC and TN.
                                        Damaged almost every chimney in Anna (Shelby 'County), severely
                                 5.4
                         VIII
       March 9,1937
OH
                                        cracked the schoolhouse, and damaged to ichurches. Felt in tall
                                        buildings in Chicago, MilWwaukee, and Toronto.
                                        Toppled chimneys and smokestacks, loosened bricks, and broken
                                 5.5
                         VT-
       April 9,1952
OK
                                        windows at El Reno, Oklahoma City, and Ponca City. Caused 15-meter-
                                        long crack in State Capitol building.
                                        Caused significant structural damage to many unreinforced brick
                                 5.6
                         VII
       March 25, 19993
OR
                                        buildings at Scotts hMils and Mollala. Estimated $2 million in uninsured
                                        losses, and S12 million damage to public facilities. Cracked State
                                        Capitol rotunda. (Source: EERI Newsletter, vol. 27, no. 5, 1993)
                                        Chimneys broken, houses shifted from foundations in Umatilla County.
                                 5.8
                         VII
       July 16, 1936
                                        Several houses severely damaged, school damaged. Caused $100,000
                                        damage. Many ground cracks formed.
                                        60 deaths, $5-6 million in damage. Most structures in Charleston were
                                 7.O.
                           X
       Aug. 31,1886
SC
                                        seriously damaged. Every brick and stone building was cracked. Large
                                        public buildings required extensive repair. 65% of brick buildings were
                                        damaged, compared to 7% of wooden buildings. Structural damage
                                        also in AL, OH, KY, VA, and WV Extensive cratering and fissuring,
                                        severely damaged railroad tracks. (Source: OWA LNuttli, G.A. Bollinger,
                                        R.B. Herrmann, The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina,Earthquake-A 1986
                                        Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 985, 1986)
                                         Overthrew chimneys, damaged plaster and stone wTalls in Union
                                 4.8
                         VII
       Jan. 1, 1913
                                         County. Cracked walls of jail and courthouse in,Union.
                                         Chimneys thrown down at Memphis, and chimneys damaged at New
                                 5.O
                          VII
       Aug. 17,1865
TIN
                                         Madrid, MO. Felt from St. Louis to Jackson, MS.
                                         All buildings except wvood-frame houses were damaged in Valeentine,
                                 5.8
                         VIE
       Aug. 16,1931
TX
                                         and all chimneys were toppled or damaged. Schoolhouse had to be
                                         rebuilt. Landslides occurred in a wvidespread area.

                                                                                                 Handout 8 (3 of 41
                                                                                                            FEMA
    Seismic 'Code Workshop

    Some Selected Notable Earthquakesfrom 36 States Continued
                                          hin a sparsely-settled area in Box Elder County but two people were
S                                   6.5
           March 12, 1934 VIlI
    UT
                                          killed. Downed chimneys and cracked wTalls in brick buildings. Large
                                          rockslides and fissures.
                                          Severely damaged many unreinforced brick buildings in Cache
                                    5.8
                             VII
           Aug. 30, 1962
                                          Valley. 75% of chimneys collapsed in Richmond, walls of many
                                          houses were badly damaged, and several houses were unsafe for
                                          occupancy. Property damage of $1 million. Landslides also occurred.
                                          Damaged chimneys and brick houses in Giles County especially at
                                    5.6
           Mhay 31, 1897
    VA
                                          Pearisburg. Large area felt Intensity VII1, including Lynchburg, VTA,
                                           Bluefield, AWV, and Bristol, TN. Felt from Georgia to Pennsylvania.
                                           8 people killed, $25 million in property damage in Puget Sound area.
                                    6.7
           April 13,1949     VITI
    WA
                                           Almost all large buildings wvere damaged in Olympia, including eight
                                           on the Capitol grounds. Several structures condemned, including
                                           three schoolis, a church, and a library. At Seattle, houses on filled
                                           ground were demolished, many old brick buildings were damaged
                                           and chimneys toppled.
                                           7 people killed, $12.5 million in property damage. In West Seattle,
                                    6.7
           April 29, 1965
                                           two schools wvere severely damaged and chimneys were damaged
                                           extensively. Unreinforced brick buildings were damaged most
                             VI11
                                           severely, and wood-frame buildings performed very well.
                                           Caused rockfallis, landslides, and cracks in a parking lot at
                                    6.4
           June 30, 1975
    WY
                                           YellowAstone Park. Many park roads were closed. Ti o new geysers
                                           formed.
                                           This very powerful earthquake was centered about 40 miles south of
                                    8.1
                               ?
    Guam August 8,1993
                                           Agana. Generated no tsunamis, no deaths, and comparatively little
                                            damage to Guam's code-designed structures. The most significant
                                            damage occurred to some of the tall hotels, possibly due to construc-
                                           tion quality problems. Significant ground failure problems occurred
                                            in waterfront areas. (Source: EERI Newsletter, vol. 27, No. 10, October
                                            1993)

                                                                                                                     f 4)
                                                                                                      Handout B (4
Seismic Code Workshop                                                                                        FEW

Effects of the most common damaging MMl intensity values

 AM~l                                                      MMI
 Level   Effects                                           Level   Effects
  V      Felt by most people, indoors and out              VIII    Ground becomes wAet to some extent, even on
                                                                   steep slopes
         Buildings tremble
                                                                   Chimneys, columns, monuments fall
         Dishes and glassware break
                                                                   Damage slight in structures built to with-
         Small or unstable objects overturn and may fall
                                                                   stand earthquakes
         Doors and shutters open or close abruptly
                                                                   Damage considerable in ordinary substantial
         Small objects and furnishings move slightly               buildings
         Liquids in open containers may spill slightly
                                                            IX     People generally panic
                                                                   Ground cracks conspicuously
  VI     Felt by all people, indoors and out
                                                                   Masonry structures knocked out of plumb
         People move about unsteadily
                                                                   Large parts of masonry buildings collapse
         Some plaster cracks; fine cracks appear in
         chimneys                                                  Some buildings shift off of foundations
         Dishes, glassware, and windows break                      Reservoirs are seriously damaged
         Books and picture fall                                    Some underground pipes break
         Some furniture overturns                                  Damage considerable in structures built to
                                                                   withstand earthquakes
                                                                   Damage great in substantial buildings
 VII     Most people are frightened
         Many people find it difficult to stand
                                                            X      Ground cracks as large as several inches
         VWater is disturbed and muddied
                                                                   Numerous landslides on riverbanks and
         Some sand and gravel streambanks cave in
                                                                   steep slopes
         Chimneys crack to great extent; vwalls cradk
                                                                   Most masonry and frame structures are
         somewhat
                                                                   destroyed
         Plaster and stucco fall in large amounts
                                                                   Buried pipelines are torn apart or crushed
         Loosened bricks and tiles fall
                                                                   Wavy folds open in concrete pavements and
         Damage negligible in buildings of seismic                 asphalt surfaces
         design .and construction
         Damage considerable in poorly built buildings

 VIII    People are alarmed
         People driving vehicles notice the disturbance
         Trees shake strongly, and branches break off
         Sand and mud are ejected from the around in
         small amounts
         Temporary and permanent changes occur in
         springs and wells
                                                                                                         Handout C
                                                                                                     FEMN
    Seismic Code Workshop

    Group Exercise #1: Community Risk at MMI
*

        SAFETY RATING SCALE
      Don't Know Unsafe    Very Safe                               Built to Current       Built to Current
                                                   Safety Rating
         ?                         5
                 1     2 3  4                                      Building Code Specs?   Seismic Code Specs?
                                                                   Yiln?                  y/n'?

    City Hall Building:

    Fire Station(s):

    School(s):

    Hospital(s):

    Recent large building(s):

    Other major cormunity building(s):

    W-here would you like most to be during an earthquake?

    Where would you like least to be during an earthquake?

                                                                                                    Handout D
    Seismic Code Workshop                                                             FEM1A

    Purpose and History of Building Codes
*

                                                Comprehensive building regula-
    Building codes regulate building
                                             tions were introduced in the mid-
    construction and use in order to
                                             1800s. Building regulations were of
    protect the safety of occupants.
                                             two types: housing codes and
    Codes address structural integrity
                                             building codes. Housing codes were
    fire resistance, safe exits, lighting,
    and ventilation. Codes also regulate     intended to reduce the ill effects of
                                             residential overcrowding, and their
    construction materials.
                                             introduction paralleled Europe's
       Building codes d.assify structures
                                             housing and sanitation reform. New
    by use and apply different standards
                                             York City in the late 1850s adopted a
    to each classification. For -example,
                                             citywide housing code in order to
    office buildings and residential
                                             provide air and light into dwellings
    multi-unit buildings are in separate
                                             and reduce the risk of fatal hazards.
    categories with different perfor-
                                             Chicago followed by passing its
    mance (such as strength and stabil-
                                             initial tenement housing ordinance
    ity) requirements.
                                             in 1874. Building codes were later
                                             enacted to comprehensively specify
       The validity of building codes is
                                             construction methods and materials.
    based on state police powers, which
    allow regulation of activities and
                                                In 1905 the National Board of Fire
    property to preserve or promote the
                                             Underwriters published a model
    public health, safety, and general
                                             building law aimed at reducing fire
    welfare. Zoning ordinances and
                                             risks. The three model building
    environmental protection regula-
                                             codes used today were initiated
    tions are also founded in police
                                             between 1927 and 1940. The use of
    powers.
                                             codes spread with the growth of
                                             new building across the country
    Building Codes Have a Long               particularly after World Wadr II. By
    History in the U.S.                      1960 more than 60 percent of Ameri-
    Building codes to reduce the loss of     can municipalities had adopted
                                             building codes.
    life, limb, and property have existed
    in North America since the seven-
    teenth century The -earliestbuilding
    regulations addressed problems
    resulting from dense urban con-
    struction, such as rapid spread of
    fire. New York City, then called New
    Amsterdam, first regulated chim-
    neys and roofing material in 1648.
    These regulations were aimed at
    controlling the destructive force of
    fire in urban areas, as evidenced by
    London's 1666 fire, New York's 1835
    and 1845 fires, and the great Chicago
    fire of 1871.

                                                                                     Handout E
Seismic Code Workshop                                                                                              FEW

 Model Building Codes

A model building code is a document       public to propose code amendments
                                          and hear testimony in meetings
containing standardized building
                                          organized by the organization, so
requirements applicable throughout
the United States. Model building         members and nonmembers are equal          Building Officials and Code
                                          participants. Active members of each
codes are performance standards                                                     Administrators International,
                                          organization vote on revisions after
specifying the required performance                                                 Inc. (BOCA). BOCA, headquar-
                                          final testimony is heard during their
of all structures. They are published                                               tered in Country Club Hills,
by private organizations, whose           annual meeting. The content of the        Illinois, was formed in 1915. Its
voting members are government             codes has become more similar over        first code, the Basic Building Code
                                          time, although they still address
jurisdictions. The United States has                                                nowv titled the BOCA ational
three prominent model building code       regional conditions and practices.        Buildbig Code (BNBC), was
                                          The newest versions reflect a com-
organizations: the International                                                    published in 1950 in an attempt to
Conference of Building Officials          mon code format so that similar           standardize existing codes. The
(ICBO), Which publishes the Uniform       topics can be found in consistently       BNBC is revised every three
                                          numbered chapters among the codes.
Building Code (LIC); the Building                                                   years, most recently in 1996, with
                                                                                    a new edition due out in 1999.
Officials and Code Administrators
                                              Although the code organizations
International, Inc. (BOCA), which
                                          have widespread membership, each          International Conference of
publishes the BOCA NVatlsoal Building
                                                                                    Building Officials (ICBO). ICBO
                                          organization's model building code
Code (BN\TBC); and the Southern                                                     weas formed in 1922 to integrate
                                          is predominantly adopted in one
Building Code Congress Interna-                                                     various design requirements into
                                          portion of the United States. The
tional, Inc. (SBCCI7, which publishes                                               one code. ICBO published its first
                                          BINBC is predominantly adopted in
the Standard Building Code (SBC).                                                   model code, the Uiniforn Building
                                          the northeast and north central
Each organization also publishes                                                    Code UBC), in 1927 from its
                                          states, the SBC predominates in the
companion documents covering                                                        headquarters in 'Whittier, Califor-
                                          southern states east of the M/4issis-
mechanical work, plumbing, fire                                                     nia. ICBO up dates the UBC every
                                          sippi, and the UJBC is predominant in
protection, electrical w rork, energv,                                              three years. The latest edition was
                                          the western states, including Guam.
accessibility, and life safety codes.                                               published in 1994.
                                             In addition, BOCA, ICBO, and
   In addition to writing and up dat-                                               Southern Building Code Con-
                                          SBCCI have moved forward on the
ing the codes, the organizations offer                                              gress International, Inc. (SBCCI).
                                          development of a single model code,
a variety of support services, includ-                                              The third model building code
                                          the International Building Code. On
ing such technical services as training                                             organization, the SECCI was
                                          December 9, 1994, the International
seminars, code interpretation,                                                      founded in 1940. Located in
                                          Code Council (ICC) was formed to
technical and administrative publica-                                               Birmingham, Alabama, it pub-
                                          develop a single set of comprehen-
tions, customized consulting, videos,                                               lishes the Standard Buildhing Code
                                          sive and coordinated national codes.
and softwiare. Each organization                                                    (SBC). The SBC is updated every
                                          The advantages of a single code are
                                                                                    three years, most recently in 1994.
offers certification programs to allow
                                          numerous. Code enforcement
skilled inspectors and plan review ers
                                          officials, architects, engineers,         Council of American Building
to be recognized for their levels of                                                Officials (CABO). CABO was
                                          designers, and contractors can have
knowledge and experience. For                                                       founded in 1972 by BOCA, ICBO,
                                          consistent requirements that can be
example, BOCA offers certification                                                  and SBCCI. The One- and Tim-
                                          used across the country and around
by examination in tw-enty-twTo                                                      Family Dwvellbing Code applies to
                                          the world. Manufacturers can put
categories and ICBO in nineteen                                                     the construction, prefabrication,
                                          their efforts into innovative products,
categories. SBCCI offers four levels of                                             alteration, repair, use, occupancy7
                                          instead of designing for all three
certification in various categories to                                              and maintenance of detached one-
                                          regional codes. To date, the ICC has
encourage professional growth                                                       or tw,,o-family dwellings and one-
                                          produced codes that address plumb-
through progressive levels of certifi-                                              family town houses not more than
                                          ing and private sewage disposal. The
cation.                                                                             three stories in height
                                          goal is for the complete family of
                                          international codes to be developed
   The model building codes are
                                          by the year 2000.
revised periodically by a democratic
process. Each organization allowLNs the
                                                                                                                  Handout F
Seismic Code Workshop,                                                               FEMA

Purpose of Seismic Code Provisions

                                         Valley in January 1994, and build-
Seismic Codes Are Designed to
                                         ings performed generally as ex-
Help Buildings Resist Earth-quake
                                         pected.
Shaking
It is important to understand that
                                         Seismic Codes Reflect Social
seismic codes result in earthquake-
                                         Judgments RegardingAcceptable
resistantbuildings rather than
                                         Risk and Cost
earthquake-proof buildings. Their
purpose is to protect life safety by     Seismic design standards reflect
preventing building collapse and         society's balancing of the risks
allowing for safe evacuation. The        versus the costs of designing to
contents and interiors of buildings,     withstand that risk. They do this in
even those of well-designed build-       twNTo ways: by designing for (a) an
ings, may receive extensive damage,      appropriate-sized e-vent and (b) an
and entire functions of a building       appropriate performance goal.
may cease. And structural damage         Society cannot justify the expense of
may occur from major earthquake           designing for large but highly
ground-shaking. According to the         improbable events. So we select a
Structural Engineers Association of       ground motion event-called the
California, structures built according   design event-that although large
to a seismic code should:                and rare has a reasonable chance (10
                                         percent) of being exceeded during a
* resist minor earthquakes
                                         building's lifetime (50 years). The
   undamaged,
                                         probability selected reflects society's
* resist moderate earthquakes            attitude toward risk. This is similar
  without significant structural         to the philosophy long used for
  damage even though incurring           flood protection: Society is willing to
  nonstructural damage, and              absorb the cost of designing for a
                                         100-year flood, but with the excep-
* resist severe earthquakes without
                                         tion of critical facilities it would not
  collapse.
                                         make economic sense to design for
Occasionally even a code-designed        the 5OC-year or 1,000-year flood.
building may collapse due to unique
                                            The goal of seismic codes is to
site conditions or other factors. A
                                         ensure that buildings will not
report completed by the Earthquake
                                         collapse, thereby killing those
Engineering Research Institute
                                         inside, if shaken by the design event.
(EERI) just prior to the Northridge,
                                         Seismic codes are for "life safety"
California, earthquake summarized
                                         and are not aimed at completely
expected earthquake damage to
                                         preventing damage to existing
buildings designed according to the
                                         buildings. Additionally, it is impor-
1991 UBC. It stated, for example,
                                         tant to realize that there is a 10
that shaking of Intensity NMII could
                                         percent chance of an earthquake
cause moderate damage (easily
                                         occurring that exceeds the design
repairable) to 10 to 30 percent of
                                         event.
code-designed buildings, and
extensive damage Gongg-termn
closure, difficult to repair) to Uto 5
percent of code-designed buildings.
This was the intensity lev,el experi-
enced by much of the San Femando

                                                                                    Handout G
                                                                                                                       FEMA
                                                                                                                       FEMSA,
    Seismnic Code Workshop
    Seismic Code

    Seismic Codes Are Effective
*

                                                                                         construct houses providing for life
                                               buildings are not designed for
    Seismic CodesAre Effective
                                                                                         safety in earthquakes at a very
                                               seismic shaking. A Magnitude 5.6
    Experience with recent earthquakes                                                   reasonable added cost-less than 1
                                               earthquake in 1993 at Scotts hMills,
    in the United States and throughout                                                  percent of the purchase price of a
                                               Oregon, caused significant structural
    the world shows that seismic codes                                                   new home in most instances."
                                               damage to a number of unreinforced
    work. Cities with seismic codes            masonry (brick) buildings in the
    suffer much less damage than those                                                   All Three Mode) Codes Contain
                                               area. A high school building was
    without such codes.                        significantly damaged and vacated,        Seismic Requirements
                                               16 residences and 54 businesses           Appropriate to the Community's
       The Loma Prieta earthquake
                                               sustained major damage, and the
    clearly illustrates the effectiveness of                                             Level of Risk
                                               Oregon State Capitol, in Salem,
    seismic codes. Occurring on October                                                  Each model code contains a seismic
                                               suffered cracking in the rotunda. The
    17,1989, this earthquake measured                                                    hazard map, based on current
                                               estimated damage cost to public
    7.1 on the Richter scale and was the                                                 scientific knowledge. Its risk phi-
                                               facilities alone was nearly $13
    strongest in the United States since                                                 losophy is accepted by a broad
                                               million. This earthquake confirmed
    the 1964 Alaskan earthquake. It                                                      consensus of scientists and design
                                               the susceptibility of unreinforced
    shook the San Francisco Bay Area                                                     and construction professionals. Its
                                               buildings to severe damage, even in
    and killed sixty-three people.                                                       use in seismic design was deter-
                                               a minor earthquake.
    Although the ground-shaking was                                                      mined by a nationwide consensus
    intense vithin the metropolitan                                                      process conducted by the Building
    area, few buildings collapsed. Most        Seismic Codes Are Inexpensive             Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), an
    of the damage occurred to                                                            organization of more than fifty
                                               Seismic codes add relatively little to
    unreinforced masonry buildings                                                       construction, professional, and trade
                                               the costs of a structure. To assess the
    built before the adoption of seismic                                                 organizations.
                                               costs of the INational Earthquake
    codes. Nearly all major reinforced         Hazard Reduction Program (OVEHRP)            Portions of thirty-nine states are
    concrete structures built after World      Seismfic Provisions,the BSSC in 1985      considered to have some degree of
    War 11 survived without collapse.          contracted seventeen design firms
                                                                                         earthquake hazard. So-me counties
    Even at the quake's epicenter new          from nine U.S. cities to perform two
                                                                                         need to design for high levels of
    buildings and buildings located on         designs for each of several typical       earthquake ground-shaking,
    firm ground suffered little damage.        building types, first using the           Whereas others should design for
    Informed observers attribute the           existing local code and then using
                                                                                         relatively less. Conversely, some
    success to the required UBC seismic        the seismic provisions. They found        areas, even those with seismic codes,
    codes. This example illustrates that       the average increase in total costs to    do not need seismic design at all
    code requirements reduced the              be 0.7 percent for low-rise residential   because the risks are so low.
    damage and loss of life during this        buildings, 3.3 percent for high-rise
    moderate earthquake.                                                                    Since 1992 all three model codes
                                               residential buildings, 1.3 percent for
                                                                                         require seismic design standards
                                               office buildings, 0.5 percent for
      A Kyoto University study of the
                                                                                         consistent with the IVERP Prov-
                                               industrial buildings, and 1.7 percent
    1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan,
                                                                                         sions. ICBO has long been a leader in
                                               for commercial buildings. Cities
    Richter magnitude 6.9, found that
                                                                                         seismic code development BOCA
                                               with previous seismic design
    damage to reinforced concrete
                                                                                         incorporated the 1988 NEHRP
                                               provisions in their codes averaged
    buildinrgs closely paralleled im-
                                                                                         Previsionsinto the 1992 BOCA
                                                much smaller cost increases (0.9
    provements to seismic provisions in
                                                                                         Supplement; and SBCCI for the first
    the Japanese building code. More           percent) than did cities wvith no
                                                                                         time incorporated seismic design
                                                seismic codes at all.
    than 55 percent of pre-1970 build-
                                                                                         provisions in the 1992 amendments
    ings (old version of code) were               A 1992 study by the National
                                                                                         to the SBC. Thus, all communities
    severely damaged, compared with            Association of Home Builders              that adopt the most recent editions
    no post-1980 buildings (newest             (NAUB) for the Insurance Research
                                                                                         of these codes have the most
    version of code). Results for steel        Council examined the incremental          advanced seismic codes available.
    buildings were comparable.                 costs of building single-family
                                               residences to 1991 NEHRP Provi-
      Even smaller earthquakes can
                                               sions. They found that "builders can
    cause extensive damage where
                                                                                                                       Handout H
                                                                                         FEMA
                                                                                         FENVI
    Seismicc Code Workshop
                  Worksh~op
    iSeismil

    Seismic Codes Are Inexpensive
*

                                              Studies Indicate That the Benefits
    Seismic codes add relatively little to
                                              Outweigh the Costs
    the costs of a structure. To assess the
    costs of the Nationial Earthquak-e        A few studies have attempted to
                                (NEHRP)
    HazardReduction Program?                  look at the costs and benefits of
             Provisions,the BSSC in 1985
    Seismnic                                  seismic design provisions. The
    contracted seventeen design firmns        studies generally indicate that the
    from nine U.S. cities to perform two
                                              costs of seismic-resistant construc-
    designs for each of several typical
                                              tion are justified.
    building types, first using the
                                                A 1992 study, Physical Damage and
    existing local code and then using
                                              Humian Loss: The Economfic lImpact of
    the seismic provisions. They found
                                              EarthquakeMitigation A'easures,
    the average increase in total costs to
                                              funded by the National Committee
    be 0.7 percent for low-rise residen-
                                              on Property Insurance (nowse IBHS),
    tial buildings, 3.3 percent for high-
                                              analyzed the estimated costs and
    rise residential buildings, 1.3 percent
                                              benefits of seismic building codes
    for office buildings, 0.5 percent for
                                              for Memphis, Tennessee, assuming
    industrial buildings, and 1.7 percent
                                              damage from magnitude 6 and 8
    for commercial buildings. Cities
                                              earthquakes in the southern New
    with previous seismic design
                                              Madrid fault zone. It found that
    provisions in their codes averaged
                                              benefits exceed costs by a factor of
    much smaller cost increases (0.9
                                              1.8 for the magnitude 6 event and
    percent) than did cities with no
                                              10.3 for the magnitude 8 event.
    seismic codes at all.-
                                              Moreover, the b enefit-cost ratio
       A 1992 study by the National           avreraged over a forty-year time
    Association of Home Builders
                                              horizon, accounting for the expected
    (NAHB) for the Insurance Research         probability of earthquakes in that
    Council examined the incremental          time period, was estimated at 3.3.
    costs of building single-family           Thus, the expected damage over
    residences to 1991 N\/EHRP Provi-
                                              forty years is more than three times
    sions. They found that "builders can
                                              greater than the costs of building to
    construct houses providing for life
                                              code. Furthermore, the benefits are
    safety in earthquakes at a very
                                              underestimated because they do not
    reasonable added cost-less than 1         account for the benefits of reducing
    percent of the purchase price of a
                                              fatalities, injuries, fire potential, or
    new home in most instances."              economic losses. This recent study
                                              provides valuable analytic support
        Costs of seismic design can vary.
                                              to the claim that seismic building
    It is easier to provide seismic design
                                              codes are cost-effective, even in the
    for simple-shaped structures, with
                                              central United States.
    basic geometric shapes such as a
    square, and cheaper to do it if
    seismic considerations are inte-
    grated into the earliest stages of
    building design. In certain situa-
    tions, the costs for the structure are
    relatively small in proportion to the
    total project costs. This occurs if the
    project has expensive contents or
    high land values. If this is the case,
    the cost of seismic-resistant design
                                                                                         Handout I
Seismic Code Workshop                                   FEMIA

Group Exercise #2:
Responding to Arguments Against Seismic Codes

1.   list the local arguments against seismic codes:

2.   How might you respond?

3.   Who is likely to oppose having seismic codes?

4.   Who is likely to support having seismic codes?

                                                       Handoutj
    Seismic Code Workshop                                                                                            FENLA

    Arguments in Favor of Seismic Codes
*

    For elected officials: A damaging          In a 1994 telephone survey of         things: (a) a community -willnot be
    earthquake can occur during your        residents in six hurricane-prone         at an economic disadvantage for
    term of office. The levels of ground-   areas, 91 percent of respondents         attracting new business and (b) if
    shaking represented on the code's       indicated that builders should be        other communities adopt seismic
    seismic hazard map have a 0.8           required to follow new, stricter         provisions, those that do not have
    percent chance of occurring in any      building codes even though it might      this safeguard in place invite
    four-year period at each point on the   add 5 percent to the cost of a home.     liability
    map (such as the community in
                                               Codes will not hurt business.            It's easy. It doesn't take much to
    question),-and about a 2 percent
                                            Building codes have not hurt the         start. Call up a code organization,
    chance of occurring in any eight-
                                            economies of the forty-one states        buy the code, develop a fee structure
    year period. But these are the design
                                            that have them, nor have they hurt       (to pay for administration, and
    eveents. What about a lesser earth-
                                            the 95 percent of all U.S. cities and    contract with the county or another
    quake? An earthquake half as big as
                                            towns that have codes. Seismic           nearby agency for initial staffing.
    the design event could cause severe
                                            design adds only approximately 1 to
    damage to many structures not                                                        It's good for the community.
                                            1.5 percent to the cost of a building,
    meeting the code and little damage                                               AWVith a seismic code, residents will
                                            according to a 1985 Building Seismic
    to structures built according to                                                 know that the community is on its
                                            Safety Council (BSSC) study.
    seismic code. Such an event has                                                  ivray to seismic safety. The code will
    about a 4 percent chance of occur-         Is there a chance that local          reduce long-tern liability costs. A
    ring in any four-year period and        buildings will be shaken by an           good -codemay ultimately improve
    about an 8 percent chance in an         earthquake at some point? An             the community's insurance rating. A
    eight-year period.                      earthquake can devastate the small       seismic code is not an admission of
                                            businesses in a comnuunity. Foliow-      community veakness, but rather a
       For elected officials: Citizens
                                            ing the 1994 Northridge, California      sign of community strength. It says
     support seismic codes. Studies in
                                            earthquake, thousands of small           that the community values safety
     California and the central United
                                            businesses had to relocate or. tempo-    takes itself seriously, and wants to
    States have shown that most citizens
                                            rarily shut dowvn. Such interruptions    survive natural disaster. All commu-
    support seismic building codes, and
                                            can be fatal to small businesses.        nities need a seismic code regardless
    that elected officials underestimate
                                            Simply the loss of business activity     of hazard. Seismic codes supplied by
    this support. For example, in 1984
                                            can affect neighboring businesses        the building code organizations
    Arizona State University surveyed
                                            that are fortunate to survive the        account for the unique level of
    residents and officials in the high
                                            earthquake ground-shaking.               hazard in each community. If a
    seismic risk area surrounding the
                                                                                     community's hazard is low , the code
    New Mfadrid fault zone. The survey         A seismic code will improve
                                                                                     will reflect that. The seismic hazard
    found that 62 percent of residents      successful survival of the next
                                                                                     zone map is based on the latest
    believed that seismic building codes    earthquake. People will live and
                                                                                     national scientific evaluation of
    for new structures are "very impor-     work in these buildings. Codes
                                                                                     earthquake risk, representing the
    tant,' and most supported codes         work. Look at the evidence of
                                                                                     consensus of a number of scientific
    even if substantial costs would be      relatively low loss of life in the
                                                                                     and professional organizations. The
    involved. In contrast support by        earthquakes in California in 1989
                                                                                     code requirements for each commu-
    community leaders was much lower        and 1994. Either a community is
                                                                                     nity reflect that estimate of hazard.
    at 37 percent. Furthermore, other       designed to survive the next earth-
    studies have shown that community       quake, or it is not.
    leaders greatly underestimate the
                                               Everyone else is doing it. The
    public's concerns about earth-
                                            federal government has set an
    quakes, mistakenly believing public
                                            example with Executive Order
    concern to be less than their owvn.
                                            12699. Seismic codes are becoming
                                            more prevalent at all levels of
                                            governrment, w'hich means two

                                                                                                                   Handorat K
                                                                                                                             FEWL
    Seismic Code Workshop

    Enforcing the Seismic Code:A Critical Link
*

                                                                                            not enforcing their own code
                                                   Poor Code Enforcement Results
                                                                                            standards for wind resistance.
                                                   in Deficient Buildings
                                                   Recent studies following Hurricanes         Following Hurricane Andrew,
                                                                                            reports by a Dade County grand
                                                   Hugo and Andrew have shown
                                                                                            jury and by the Federal Insurance
                                                   weaknesses in code enforcement. In
                                                   1991 State Farm Insurance Company        Administration concluded that a
                                                                                            substantial portion of the storm's
                                                   contracted with SBCCI to evaluate
                                                                                            damage was attributable to lack of
                                                   code compliance in twelve ran-
                                                                                            enforcement of the South Florida
                                                   domly selected coastal communities.
                                                                                            Building Code. According to the
                                                   They found that inspectors and
                                                                                            Insurance Services Office, Inc., at
                                                   reviewers had little Or no training in
                                                                                            least one-fourth of the record $15.5
                                                   wind-resistant construction and that
                                                                                            billion in insured losses caused by
                                                   there was a general lack of enforce-
                                                                                            Andrew were because of construc-
                                                   ment of adequate connections of
                                                                                            tion that failed to meet Dade
                                                   windovs, doors, and mechanical
                                                                                            County's code. Thus, even in
                                                   equipment to the building frame.
                                                   About half of the communities were       communities with adequate codes,
                                                                                            significant damage can be attributed
                                                                                            to poor compliance and enforce-
                            --           t-.I.34
         -                        4
               4   .3
                                                                                            ment.
     Insurers and lenders have begun to realize that adoption and enforcement                  In a 1993 study, G.G. Schierle -of
     of building codes in general, and seismic codes in particular, are in their            the University of Southern Califor-
     long-term interest. Accordingly, in 1995 the Insurance Services Office,                nia found significant problems in
     Commercial Risk Services (ISO/CRS) began to phase in a new Building                    quality control of seismic-resistant
     Code-Effectiveness Grading Schedule. By the end of the decade, this                    construction in California. By means
     schedule will rate the code-enforcement capabilities of every municipality             of a survey of design professionals
     in the United States.                                                                  and site inspection of 143 projects,
                                                                                            the researchers found that key items
        The insurance industry is developing this new grading schedule to
                                                                                            to resist seismic load are frequently
     reward communities for promoting property and life safety protection
                                                                                            (13 to 72 percent of surveyed units)
     through the use and enforcement of modem codes. The system will be used
                                                                                            missing or flawed. Reasons indlude
     by property insurers to set differential rates among communities based on
                                                                                            "inadequate communication, little or
     code-enforcement practices. Property owners in communities with good
     code enforcement will pay lower insurance premiums-and owners in                       no construction observation by
     communities ivith poor enforcement will pay more.                                      design professionals, ignorance,
                                                                                            greed, shortsighted false economy,
        The grading schedule measures resources and support available to
                                                                                            and lack of scrutiny by building
     building code enforcement efforts. It assesses each municipality's support
                                                                                            inspectors."
     for code enforcement, plan reviewv, and field inspection. The grading
     process includes interviews with municipal officials, examination of                      Clearly, much effort needs to be
     documents, review of training requirements and work schedules, staffing                spent on improving code enforce-
     levels, and certification of staff members.                                            ment. The weaknesses become
                                                                                            apparent only at the moment when
        The new system is comparable to the fire protection grading system and
                                                                                            resistance is most needed-when
     the community rating system for flood insurance already used by ISO/'CRS.
                                                                                            the disaster strikes.
     These two systems use a rating scale of one to ten, with one representing the
     best protection and ten indicating no protection.
        For more information, contact the coordinating body, the Insurance
     Institute for Property Loss Reduction.

                                                                                                                             Handout L
Seism~ic Code Workshop                                                                                           FEMA1

Five Elements of Effective Code Enforcement

Code enforcement and administra-                                                  the engineers and architects to
                                        Element 3: Have a Qualified
tion consist of five sequential         Reviewer Review Plans                     oversee key aspects of the construc-
elements.                                                                         tion in order to help verify compli-
                                        Plan review is one of the two points
                                                                                  ance with the plans. To some extent,
                                        at which the local government can
Element 1: Keep the Code                                                          all government inspection systems
                                        affect the details of building con-
Provisions UP To Date                                                             depend on this obligation by the
                                        struction. At a minimum, plan
                                                                                  owner, which is inherent in the
Simply adopting a code is not           review verifies that the design
                                                                                  issuance of a permit.
enough. A code is an active docu-       complies with the building code.
ment, evolving to reflect new           This is the most cost-effective
                                                                                  Element S: Have a Qualified
knowledge and new standards of          moment to catch mistakes, before
                                                                                  Inspector Inspect the
practice. Once a jurisdiction makes a   any money is spent on construction.
                                                                                  Construction
commitmnent to use a building code,     Some jurisdictions may also review
it must be prepared to update its       structural calculations.                  Inspection is the second point at
local code on a regular basis.                                                    which the local government can
                                           Plan reviewers must be fully
                                                                                  affect the details of building con-
                                        knoxwledgeable about code require-
Element 2: Ensure That Builders                                                   struction. Inspection verifies
                                        ments. Some jurisdictions use
Apply for Permits                                                                 whether construction is proceeding
                                        licensed architects and engineers
                                                                                  according to the approved plans and
Obviously, if builders try to avoid     who can go beyond code compli-
                                                                                  the conditions of the permit. Irnspec-
the code-application process, then      ance reviewvr and verify calculations
                                                                                  tion is typically required at several
the code cannot do its job. A juris-    and overall building safety. The
                                                                                  key stages in the construction
diction must have inspectors out in     building department can approve,
                                                                                  process. The inspector has a power-
the field who know the community.       require revisions, or reject the plans.
                                                                                  ful enforcement tool called a stop
The inspector needs to be alert to      Construction cannot begin until the
                                                                                  work order. A stop work order is
new construction in his Or her          building department confirms that
                                                                                  issued to the construction firm if the
jurisdiction and must be aware of       the plans conform to the building
                                                                                  inspector finds a code violation that
current active permits.                 code.
                                                                                  must be corrected before any further
   In addition, the building depart-       Construction of buildings larger       construction is performed. At final
ment must cultivate and maintain        than one- or two-family dwellings         inspection, the building can be
cordial relations with the building     usually requires architectural and        approved for occupancy.
and design community. This can be       engineering designs. State statutes
                                                                                     Depending on the jurisdiction,
done by arranging informal meet-        require that the licensed professional
                                                                                  inspectors may be municipal
ings, sending written materials to      engineer and/or architect place his
                                                                                  employees or contracted trades-
local organizations, speaking to        or her seal and signature on the
                                                                                  people. in either case, building
                                        designs. The seal and signature
community groups, and maintaining
                                                                                  inspectors must be whell qualified.
memberships in appropriate trade        signify that the design is at the
                                                                                  They must know hol rto read
and professional organizations.         accepted professional standard,
                                                                                  building plans and must be familiar
                                        which is typically the most recent
                                                                                  ea.th the code. More importantly,
                                        version of a model building code or
                                                                                  they must be familiar with building
                                        technical document.
                                                                                  practices so they can recognize
                                                                                  potential problems. Model code
                                        Element 4. Ensure That                    organizations offer certification
                                        Construction Proceeds According           programs to recognize the capabili-
                                        to Approved Plans                         ties of inspectors.
                                        An owner receives a building permit
                                        to construct according to the ap-
                                        proved plans, and it is the legal
                                        responsibility of the owner to do so.
                                        The owner may hire inspectors or
                                                                                                               Handout M
                                                                                                          FEMA
Seismic Code Workshop

Group Exercise #3a:
Action Plan to Adopt a Building Code

Develop a ten-point action plan that will result in a building code (with current seismic provisions!).
for this community:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

ifJ.

                                                                                                          Handout N
                                                                                                    FEW
Seismic Code Workshop

Group Exercise #3b:
Action Plan to Improve Code Enforcement

Develop a ten-point action plan that will result in improved code enforcement for thiS coMmunity:

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

                                                                                                    Handout 0
                                                                                   FEMA
Seismic Code Workshop

Steps TowardAdopting Seismic Code Provisions

                                            Step 3: Lobby the Decision-
Step 1: Determine Code Practices
                                            Making Body
and Options
                                            a Explain why the changes are
    To whatever extent the state
e
                                               needed and describe the kind of
    regulates construction, satisfy
                                               support you have gathered.
    yourself that enforcement is
    adequate.                                Gain the support of the
 If the state mandates local adop-           govemor's office.
  tion of a specified code, ensure          * Consider educational programs
  that the community has com-                   or incentive programs that will
  plied.                                        appeal to governmental officials
 If the state does not currently
                                            * Consider ways of subsidizing the
  regulate, or if it allowvs for stricter       cost of joining a model building
  local regulations, gather informa-            code organization
  tion on local code practices and
                                             Monitor the process from
  explore options at the local level.
                                              beginning to end
 Options may include developing
  an original code, modifying an
                                            Step 4:Assist Throughout the
  existing code, or adopting a
                                            Adoption, Implenmentation, and
  model building code.
                                            Enforcement Stages
    If a jurisdiction lacks an adequate     E Provide information about
    code, work to initiate a building          seismic hazards in the area, the
    code.                                      function and effectiveness of
                                               seismic codes, elements of code
* Model codes are usually the best
                                               enforcement, and services pro-
  option, because of the technical
                                               vided by the model code organi-
  support provided by the code
                                               zations
  organization.
                                                Keep informed of implementation
                                            a
Step 2: Gather Support                          milestones
    W ork with state officials
    V                                           Meet periodically with the
                                            e
                                                building official(s)
    *Work with the professional
    associations of engineers and           * Verify that adequate procedures
    architects                                have been introduced for plan
* Contact ciric groups and service              reviewxT, inspection, and staff
  clubs, relevant businesses and                training
  construction organizations,                   Inform the building officials of
                                            
  chambers of commerce, economic                any problems
  development associations, and so
  forth
* Cultivate the media to help
  educate the general public

                                                                                   Handout P
                                                                                                                    FEA'A
                                                                                                                    FEMA
    Seismic Code Workshop
    Seismic Code

    Steps for Enforcement of Seismic Codes
*

                                                                                      electrical and mechanical work and
                                              out may prefer to use the fee struc-
     This section outlines the six steps
                                                                                      plumbing.
                                              tures suggested by the code organi-
    toward establishing an effective
                                              zations.
    building code program.                                                               Typically, the builder or owner
                                                                                      will call for inspection when each
                                                 Plan review fees typically are
    Step. I:Adopt a Model Code                                                        specified milestone is reached. In
                                              based on estimated construction
                                              value, which depends on building        addition, inspectors occasionally.
    The first step in establishing a
                                                                                      make unannounced inspections'
                                              floor area, type of construction, and
    program is to review^% and adopt a
                                                                                      based on their judgment of the work
                                              proposed use. For example, under
    model building code and join the
                                                                                      progress and the quality of the
                                              the BOCA NBC, the suggested
    appropriate code Organization.
                                              building plan review fee for $1         contractor.
    Numerous publications and tele-
                                              million construction value is $1,250.
    phone-assistance services will then
                                                                                      Step 5: Maintain a Trained,
                                              Review for mechanical work,
    be available to help the new pro-
                                              plumbing, energy conservation, or       Qualified Staff
    gram get started. The information
                                              electrical work is an additional 25
    provided includes organization                                                    Ideally some staff members would
                                              percent each (i.e., each of these
    charts, descriptions of staff duties,                                             be licensed engineers and architects,
                                              additional reviews, if required,
    fee structures, suggested proce-                                                  but most departments are too small
                                              costs $312).
    dures, and so on. Ne; members                                                     to justify this cost. At a minimum,
    may wevant to take seminars in plan                                               reviewers and inspectors must have
                                              Step 3: Institute a Systematic
    review and inspection before                                                      experience in construction, be able
    officially initiating the code.           Plan Review System                      to read plans, and be familiar with
                                                                                      the code. Each of the model building
                                              Plans usuallyamust be circulated to
       NewN, members can request the
                                                                                      code organizations offers certifica-
                                              several additional departments for
    model code staff to visit and assist in
                                              revie'w, such as the planning, public   tion in a number of categories for
    establishing their program. If
                                                                                      inspectors and plan reviewers. More
                                               works, and fire departments. It is
    extensive help is required, the code
                                                                                      and more building departments are
                                              best to have one department desig-
    organization may be hired to
                                                                                      requiring or rewarding certification
                                              nated as the lead and to require
    provide the needed assistance. It is
                                                                                      in order to recognize staff quality
                                              multiple plan copies from the
    easy to get started, because the code
                                              applicant so as to facilitate multi-    levels.
    organizations are set up to effec-
                                              department reviews.
    tively and efficiently provide all the
                                                                                      Step 6.: Be Persistent But Patient
    support you need.                            Applicants should be kept well
                                                                                      You need to realize that a new code
                                              informed right from the start.
    Step 2: Establish Fee Structures                                                  will not be implemented in one day.
                                              Handouts and checklists are very
    for Permits and Plan Review                                                       Adequate enforcement takes many
                                              important so that they know what
                                                                                      years of -experience and learning
                                              materials to submit and how the
    Building departments collect fees to
                                                                                      from mistakes. Procedures evolve
                                              plan will be judged.
    pay for the costs of review, inspec-
                                                                                      over time. Building officials, plan
    tion, and associated administrative
                                                                                      reviewers, and inspectors must
                                              Step 4:Adopt an Inspection
    services. The community sets the fee
                                                                                      receive technical training and
    structure based on its needs. Some        Schedule
                                                                                      continuing education, which cannot
    communities require the building          Each code has a recommended
                                                                                      be done overnight. Yet the effort is
    department to be completely self-
                                              inspection schedule based on            worth it, as seismic codes afford
    supporting; others use the fees to        construction milestones. For ex-
                                                                                      comrmunities a high degree of
    offset only a portion of their true       ample, the BOCA NBC suggests the
                                                                                      improved building safety.
    costs. Communities with significant       following inspections for residential
    experience in code administration
                                              buildings: footing forms and
    can set fees based on previous
                                              trenches, basement and foundation
    budgets. Communities just starting
                                              wall forms, footing drains and damp
                                              proofing, framing, wallboard, and
                                              final. Similar schedules exist for
                                                                                                                   Hondout Q